ELECTION LAW:
return MUST be rejected
CHAPTER 1:
1. GARCHITORENA v. CRESCINI
- Election for governor -> Pet, R, and two
others candidates for the office of gov ->
returns: Garchitorena rcvd 2k plus votes,
Crescini rcvd 3k plus votes -> provincial
board of inspectors made a proclamation
that Crescini had been elected gov and
issued to him a certificate to that effect
- Garchitorena presented a protest against
the election alleging that many frauds and
irregularities had been committed in various
municipalities of said province -> alleged
that he rcvd a majority of all legal votes cast
- Trial was had -> judge declared that
Garchitorena has, in fact, rcvd majority of
the legal votes cast and ordered the
provincial board of inspectors to correct its
report -> a new trial was ordered, for certain
reasons -> different judge reached exactly
the conclusion which the 1st judge reached ->
issued the same order to the provincial
board of inspectors, requiring them to
correct their report or canvas in accordance
with the decision
- R appealed to SC: the carefully prepared
opinions of both judges present such a
complete analysis of the proof that they are
deemed of sufficient value and importance
- Because of the frauds, the entire votes of
the municipalities were annulled -> both
judges arrived at the same conclusion that
said frauds and irregularities were such as
to absolutely defeat the honest expression of
the desires of the voters
- The presumption is that an election is
honestly conducted, and the burden of proof
to show it otherwise is on the party assailing
the return -> but when the return is clearly
shown to be willfully, and corruptly false,
the whole of it becomes worthless as proof
- When the election has been conducted so
irregularly and fraudulently that the true
result cannot be ascertained, the whole
- The rule is so well established that
authorities need no longer be cited in its
support, that whenever the irregularities
and frauds are sufficient to defeat the will of
the people of the particular municipality or
precinct, the ENTIRE vote should be
rejected, and those who are guilty of such
frauds and irregularities should be punished
to the very limit of the law
- The record of the frauds and irregularities
committed in the municipalities in which
both judges annulled the entire vote, not
only shows that legal voters were prevented
from voting, but in some instances, legal
ballots were tampered with and destroyed
after they have been cast, to such an extent
that no confidence can be placed in return
- The statement of fact made by both judges
relating to the frauds and irregularities are
fully sustained by the evidence adduced
during the trial of the cause
- When two able, impartial, independent
and conscientious judges each examine in
detail the proof adduced in the trial of the
cause and in an extended and carefully
prepared opinion, each reach the same
conclusion, there is little left to be added
- SC fully persuaded that the conclusions
reached by the court a quo is fully
supported thereby -> While perhaps some
errors were committed in rejecting some of
the votes, the same, even though they were
counted, would not be sufficient to change
the general result
- In democracies, the people, combined,
represent the sovereign power of the State ->
their sovereign authority is exercised
through the ballot, of the qualified voters, in
duly appointed elections held from time to
time, by means of which they choose their
officials for definite and fixed periods, and
to whom they entrust, for the time being, as
their representatives, the exercise of the
powers of the government
2. GMA NETWORK v. COMELEC

- The 5 petitions put in issue the alleged
unconstitutionality of Sec 9(a) of COMELEC
Resol. No. 9615 limiting the broadcast and
radio advertisements of candidates and
political parties for national election
positions to an aggregate total of 120
minutes and 180 minutes, respectively
- Pet contend that the restrictive regulation
on allowable broadcast time violates
freedom of the press, impairs the people’s
right to suffrage as well as their right to
information relative to the exercise of the
right to choose who to elect during the
elections
- Heart of the controversy: the proper
interpretation of the limitation on the
number of minutes that candidates may use
for the television and radio advertisements,
as provided in Sec 6 of the Fair Election Act
- 2007 and 2010 elections: regarding airtime
limitations, a candidate was entitled to the
number of minutes “per station” -> 2013
elections: changed the interpretation of said
candidates’ and political parties’ airtime
limitation for political campaigns or
advertisements from a “per station” basis to
a “total aggregate” basis
- Pet posit that Sec 9(a) of assailed resolution
provides for a very restrictive aggregate
airtime limit and a vague meaning for a
proper computation of “aggregate total”
airtime, and violates the equal protection
guarantee -> said provision is a cruel and
oppressive regulation as it imposes an
unreasonable and almost impossible burden
on broadcast mass media or monitoring a
candidate’s or political party’s aggregate
airtime, otherwise, it may incur
administrative and criminal liability
- SC: COMELEC Resol. No. 9615 introduced
a radical departure from the previous
COMELEC resolutions relative to the
airtime limitations on political
advertisements -> consists in computing the
airtime on an aggregate basis involving ALL
the media of broadcast communications
compared to the past where it was done on a
per station basis -> it becomes immediately
obvious that there was effected a DRASTIC
REDUCTION of the allowable minutes
within which candidates and political
parties would be able to campaign through
the air
- SC holds that it is NOT within the power
of the COMELEC to do such act
- The COMELEC did not have any other
basis for coming up with a new manner of
determining allowable time limits except its
own idea as to what should be the max
number of minutes based on its exercise of
DISCRETION as to how to level the playing
field -> COMELEC is duty bound to come
up with REASONABLE basis for changing
the interpretation and implementation of the
airtime limits
- COMELEC is the office constitutionally
and statutorily authorized to enforce
election laws but it CANNOT exercise its
powers without limitations or reasonable
basis -> cannot simply adopt measures or
regulations just because it feels that it is the
right thing to do -> it does have discretion
but it is something that must be exercised
within the bound and intent of the law ->
COMELEC is NOT free to simply change the
rules especially if it has consistently
interpreted a legal provision in a particular
manner in the past -> If ever it has to change
the rules, the same must be properly
explained with sufficient basis
- The reason of COMELEC for changing the
rules does not provide for a good basis and
those affected by such rules must be given a
better explanation why the previous rules
are no longer good enough
- Sec 9(a) also goes against the constitutional
guaranty of freedom of expression, of
speech, and of the press -> the guaranty of
freedom to speak is useless without the
ability to communicate and disseminate
what is said -> where there is a need to reach
a large audience, the need to access the
means and media for such dissemination
becomes critical -> Sec 9(a), with its adoption
of the aggregate-based airtime limits
unreasonably restricts the guaranteed
freedom of speech and of the press
- The assailed rule on "aggregate-based"
airtime limits is unreasonable and arbitrary
as it unduly restricts and constrains the
ability of candidates and political parties to
reach out and communicate with the people
-> reason for imposing the "aggregate-
based" airtime limits - leveling the playing
field - does not constitute a compelling state
interest which would justify such a
substantial restriction on the freedom of
candidates and political parties to
communicate their ideas, philosophies,
platforms and programs of government
- Section 9 (a) is violative of the people's
right to suffrage -> Fundamental to the idea
of a democratic and republican state is the
right of the people to determine their own
destiny through the choice of leaders they
may have in government. Thus, the
primordial importance of suffrage and the
concomitant right of the people to be
adequately informed for the intelligent
exercise of such birthright.
- Republicanism, in so far as it implies the
adoption of a representative type of
government, necessarily points to the
enfranchised citizen as a particle of popular
sovereignty and as the ultimate source of the
established authority -> He has a voice in his
Government and whenever possible it is the
solemn duty of the judiciary, when called
upon to act in justifiable cases, to give it
efficacy and not to stifle or frustrate it ->
This, fundamentally, is the reason for the
rule that ballots should be read and
appreciated, if not with utmost, with
reasonable, liberality
- Candidates and political parties need
adequate breathing space - including the
means to disseminate their ideas -> could
not be reasonably addressed by the very
restrictive manner by which the respondent
implemented the time limits in regard to
political advertisements in the broadcast
media
3. MAQUERA v. BORRA
- RA 4421 requires all candidates for
national, provincial, city and municipal
offices to post a surety bond equivalent to
the 1-year salary or emoluments of the
position to which he is a candidate -> bond
shall be forfeited in favor of the national,
provincial, city or municipal government if
the candidate, EXCEPT when declared
winner, FAILS to obtain at least 10% of the
votes cast for the office to which he has filed
his certificate of candidacy, there being not
more than 4 candidates for the same office
- COMELEC had decided to require all
candidates for Pres, VP, Senator, and
Member of HOR to file a surety bond (in
compliance to RA 4421)
- Because of these, every candidate has to
pay the premium charged by bonding
companies, and, to offer either his own
properties worth at least the amount of the
surety bond or properties of the same worth,
belonging to other persons willing to
accommodate him, by way of counter-bond
in favor of bonding companies
- Effect of RA 4421 is therefore, to prevent or
disqualify for provincial, city or municipal
elective officers, persons who, although
possessing the qualifications prescribed by
law, cannot pay the premium and/or do not
have the property essential for the counter-
bond
- RA 4421 also has the effect of imposing
property qualifications in order that a
person could run for public office and that
the people could validly vote for him ->
property qualifications are INCONSISTENT
with the nature and essence of the
Republican system and the principle of
social justice underlying -> republican
system is premised upon the tenet that
sovereignty resides in the people and all
govt authority emanates from them and this
implies the right to vote and to be voted for
shall NOT be dependent upon the wealth of
the individual -> social justice: no person
shall, by reason of poverty, be denied the
chance to be elected to public office
=> RA 4421 is unconstitutional and hence,
null and void
CHAPTER 2:
Qualifications for Suffrage:
4. MACALINTAL v. COMELEC
- Macalintal, member of the Phil Bar, seeks a
declaration that provisions of RA 9189
(Overseas Absentee Voting Act) suffer from
constitutional infirmity
- One of the issues pet raised is the question
if Sec 5(d) of RA 9189 allowing the
registration of voters who are immigrants or
permanent residents in other countries by
their mere act of executing an affidavit
expressing their intention to return to the
Phils, violates the residency requirement in
Sec 1 of Art V of the Consti?
- Sec 5 of RA 9189 provides the
disqualifications under RA 9189 -> Sec 5(d):
“An immigrant or a permanent resident
who is recognized as such in the host
country, unless he/she executes, upon
registration, an affidavit prepared for the
purpose by the Commission declaring that
he/she shall resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Philippines not
later than three (3) years from approval of
his/her registration under this Act. Such
affidavit shall also state that he/she has not
applied for citizenship in another country.
Failure to return shall be cause for the
removal of the name of the immigrant or
permanent resident from the National
Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her
permanent disqualification to vote in
absentia.”
- Pet claims that Sec 5(d) is unconstitutional
because it violates Sec 1 of Art V of the
Constitution, which requires that the voter
MUST be a resident in the Phils for at least 1
year and in the place where he proposes to
vote for at least 6 months immediately
preceding an election -> Pet argues that Sec
1 of Art V DOES NOT allow provisional
registration or a promise by a voter to
perform a condition to be qualified to vote
in a political exercise -> legislature should
not be allowed to circumvent the
requirement of the Consti on the right of
suffrage by providing a condition which in
effect amends or alters the aforesaid
residence requirement to qualify a Fil
abroad to vote -> right of suffrage should
not be granted to anyone who, on the date of
the election, does not possess the
qualifications provided for by Sec 1, Art V
- The seed of the present controversy is the
interpretation that is given to the phrase
“qualified citizens of the Phils. abroad
as it appears in RA 9189 -> Generally, all
laws are presumed to be constitutional and
the presumption of constitutionality of a law
must be overcome convincingly for the
courts to decide that said law is
unconstitutional
- As the essence of RA 9189 is to
enfranchising overseas qualified Filipinos, a
holistic view of he pertinent provisions of
BOTH the Consti and RA 9189 must be done
-> RA 9189 was enacted in obeisance to the
mandate of the first par. of Sec 2, Art V that
Congress shall provide a system for voting
by qualified Filipinos abroad -> must be
stressed that Sec 2 does not provide for the
parameters of the exercise of legislative
authority in enacting said law -> Hence, in
the absence of restrictions, Congress
presumed to have duly exercised its
functions as defined in Art VI
- Ordinarily, an absentee is not a resident
and vice versa; a person cannot be both at
the same time -> HOWEVER, under our
election laws and the countless
pronouncements of the SC pertaining to
elections, an absentee remains ATTACHED
to his residence in the Phils as residence is
considered SYNONYMOUS with
DOMICILE
- Residence, in its ordinary conception,
implies the factual relationship of an
individual to a certain place. It is the
physical presence of a person in a given
area, community or country. -> essential
distinction between residence and domicile
in law is that residence involves the intent to
leave when the purpose for which the
resident has taken up his abode ends -> If a
person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his
domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as
his purpose is established it is residence -> If
a person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his
domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as
his purpose is established it is residence ->
However, a person can only have a single
domicile, unless, for various reasons, he
successfully abandons his domicile in favor
of another domicile of choice => For political
purposes the concepts of residence and
domicile are dictated by the peculiar criteria
of political laws. As these concepts have
evolved in our election law, what has clearly
and unequivocally emerged is the fact that
residence for election purposes is used
synonymously with domicile.
- Aware of the domiciliary legal tie that links
an overseas Filipino to his residence in this
country, the framers of the Consti
considered the circumstances that impelled
them to require Congress to establish a
system for overseas absentee voting
- ConComm recognized the fact that while
millions of Filipinos reside abroad
principally for economic reasons, their
voices are marginal insofar as the choice of
this country’s leaders is concerned ->
ConComm realized that under the laws then
existing and considering the novelty of the
system of absentee voting in this juris,
vesting overseas Fils with the right to vote
would spawn constitutional problems
especially because the Consti itself provides
for the residency requirement of voters ->
THUS, Sec 2 Art V came into being to
remove any doubt as to the inapplicability
of the residency requirement in Sec 1
- Sec 2 Art V precisely avoids any problems
that could impede the implementation of its
pursuit to enfranchise the largest number of
qualified Fils who are not in the Phils that
the ConComm explicitly mandated
Congress to provide a system for overseas
absentee voting
- The qualifications of voters as stated in
Section 1 shall remain except for the
residency requirement -> This is in fact the
reason why the Constitutional Commission
opted for the term qualified Filipinos
abroad with respect to the system of absentee
voting that Congress should draw up. -> by
the use of the adjective qualified with respect
to Filipinos abroad, the assumption is that
they have the "qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to vote."
- It is clear that the members of the
ConComm intended to enfranchise as much
as possible all Filipino citizens abroad who
have not abandoned their domicile of
origin. -> Comm even intended to extend to
young Filipinos who reach voting age
abroad whose parents’ domicile of origin is
in the Philippines, and consider them
qualified as voters for the first time.
- It is in pursuance of that intention that the
Commission provided for Section 2
immediately after the residency requirement
of Section 1. -> the strategic location of
Section 2 indicates that the Constitutional
Commission provided for an exception to the
actual residency requirement of Section 1 with
respect to qualified Filipinos abroad. -> same
Commission has in effect declared that
qualified Filipinos who are not in the
Philippines may be allowed to vote even
though they do not satisfy the residency
requirement in Section 1, Article V of the
Constitution.
- Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 specifically
disqualifies an immigrant or permanent
resident who is "recognized as such in the
host country" because immigration or
permanent residence in another country
implies renunciation of one’s residence in
his country of origin. -> However, same
Section allows an immigrant and permanent
resident abroad to register as voter for as
long as he/she executes an affidavit to show
that he/she has not abandoned his domicile
in pursuance of the constitutional intent
expressed in Sections 1 and 2 of Article V
- the execution of the affidavit itself is not
the enabling or enfranchising act. -> The
affidavit required in Section 5(d) is not only
proof of the intention of the immigrant or
permanent resident to go back and resume
residency in the Philippines, but more
significantly, it serves as an explicit
expression that he had not in fact
abandoned his domicile of origin => THUS,
it is not correct to say that the execution of
the affidavit under Section 5(d) violates the
Constitution that proscribes "provisional
registration or a promise by a voter to
perform a condition to be qualified to vote
in a political exercise.
- the affidavit is required of immigrants and
permanent residents abroad because by
their status in their host countries, they are
presumed to have relinquished their intent
to return to this country; thus, without the
affidavit, the presumption of abandonment
of Philippine domicile shall remain.
- It must be emphasized that Section 5(d)
does not only require an affidavit or a
promise to "resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Philippines not
later than three years from approval of
his/her registration," the Filipinos abroad
must also declare that they have not applied
for citizenship in another country. Thus,
they must return to the Philippines;
otherwise, their failure to return "shall be
cause for the removal" of their names "from
the National Registry of Absentee Voters
and his/her permanent disqualification to
vote in absentia."
5. NICOLAS-LEWIS v. COMELEC
- petitioners are dual citizens (duals) and are
praying that they and others who retained
or reacquired Phil citizenship under RA
9225 be allowed to avail themselves of the
mechanism provided under RA 9189 and
that COMELEC be ordered to allow them to
vote and register as ABSENTEE VOTERS
under the aegis of RA 9189
- pet are successful applicants for
recognition of Phil citizenship under RA
9225 which accords to applicants the right of
suffrage, among others -> Long before the
2004 natl and local elections, pet sought
registration and certification as overseas
absentee voter only to be advised by the Phil
Embassy in the US that per COMELEC letter
to the DFA, they have yet no right to vote in
such elections bec of their lack of the 1-year
residence req under the Consti
- pet sent clarification letter to COMELEC in
light of the ruling in Macalintal v
COMELEC -> also filed this petition for
certiorari and mandamus
-> A week before the elections, COMELEC
prayed for the denial of the petition -> pet
were not able to register let alone vote in the
election
- ISSUE: WON pet and others who might
have meanwhile retained and/or reacquired
Phil citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 may
vote as absentee voter under RA 9189
- SC: YES. There is no provision in the dual
citizenship law (RA 9225) requiring duals to
actually establish residence and physically
stay in the Phils first before they can exercise
their right to vote -> RA 9225, in implicit
acknowledgement that duals are most likely
non-residents, grants under Sec 5(1) the
same right of suffrage as that granted an
absentee voter under RA 9189 -> It must be
emphasized that RA 9189 aims, in essence,
to enfranchise as much as possible all
overseas Filipinos who, save for the
residency req exacted of an ordinary voter
under ordinary conditions, are qualified to
vote
- Sec 5(1): “Those intending to exercise their
right of suffrage must meet the requirements
under Section 1, Article V of the
Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189,
otherwise known as "The Overseas Absentee
Voting Act of 2003" and other existing laws”
Registration of Voters:
6. YRA v. ABANO
- By virtue of the provisions of Sec 408 of the
Election Law, pet (VP elect) challenges the
right of R (Municipal President elect) to the
position to which he is elected on the
ground that R is ineligible -> TC Judge
decided in favor of R
- R is a native of Meycauayan -> at proper
age, he transferred to Manila to complete his
education -> temporarily residing in Manila:
R registered as a voter there -> after
qualifying as a member of the bar and after
the death of his father, R returned to
Meycauayan to live -> From May 10, 1927
until present, R has considered himself a
resident of Meycauayan -> 1928 elections
approaching: he made an application for the
cancellation of registration in Manila but
application was rejected by the city officials
for the reason that it was not deposited in
the mails -> Nevertheless, R presented
himself as a candidate for municipal
president of Meycauayan in the 1928
elections and was elected by popular vote to
that office
- The issue in the case centers on the alleged
non-eligibility of the R to hold a municipal
office bec he was not a “qualified voter in his
municipality” – not a qualified elector
therein -> R was registered as a voter in
Manila and not in Meycauayan when the
election was held -> Is this sufficient to
nullify his election?
- The Administrative Code in giving the
qualifications of elective municipal officers
also provides that an elective municipal
officer must, at the time of election, be a
qualified voter in his municipality and must
have been resident therein for at least one
year -> It would be an absurdity to hold one
a qualified elector who was not eligible to
vote in his municipality
- One of the qualifications required by law
of a person who announces his candidacy is
that he must be a DULY QUALIFIED
ELECTOR -> the term “qualified” when
applied to a voter does not necessarily mean
that a person must be a registered voter ->
To become a qualified candidate, a person
does not need to register as an elector -> It is
SUFFICIENT that he possesses ALL the
qualifications prescribed in Sec 431 of the
Election Law and none of the
disqualifications prescribed in Sec 432 -> The
fact that a candidate failed to register as an
elector in the municipality does not deprive
him of the right to become a candidate and
to be voted for
- The act of registering is only one step
towards voting, and it is not one of the
elements that makes the citizen a qualified
voter -> One may be a qualified voter
without exercising the right to vote ->
Registering does not confer the right; it is
but a condition precedent to the exercise of
the right
- The distinction is between a qualified
elector and the R is such, and a registered
qualified elector and the R is such although
not in his home municipality -> Registration
regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage
-> It is NOT a qualification for such right
- Should not be forgotten that the people of
Meycauayan have spoken and their choice
to be their local chief executive is the R ->
the will of the electorate should be respected
7. APORTADERA v. SOTTO
- Pet and R ran for the office of Vice Gov. of
the province of Davao -> board of
canvassers proclaimed R as the candidate
elected for said office
- Pet instituted quo warranto proceedings on
the ground that at the time of the election, R
was not a qualified voter of the Province of
Davao bec he was duly registered as a voter
in Manila -> R registered as a new voter in
Davao City without first securing the
transfer to Davao Province or City or the
cancellation of his registration as voter ->
belatedly filed application for cancellation
34 days BEYOND the period prescribed by
law and bec of this, the application should
be considered illegal and void
- In order to register as a new voter in
Davao, R subscribed to a voter’s affidavit
stating that he was not at present actually
registered in any other precinct -> felony
punishable under the RPC -> by committing
such crime, R disqualified himself as a voter
and hence, became ineligible to the office of
VG in Davao
- CFI: dismissed pet’s petition -> Pet
appealed with SC
- Sec 2071 RAC: “No person shall be eligible
to a provincial office unless at the time of the
election he is a qualified voter of the
province, has been a bona fide resident
therein for at least one year prior to the
election, and is not less than twenty-five
years of age.”
- ISSUE: WON R is a qualified voter of
Davao province
- The theory that registration as a voter is a
condition essential to be a qualified voter
has no merit and has already been rejected
in Yra v. Abaño, among others ->
Registration is essential to the exercise of the
right of suffrage, not to the possession
thereof -> only those who have such right
may be registered -> The right must be
possessed BEFORE the registration ->
Registration does not confer such right
- Sec 98 of the Revised Election Code states:
“Every citizen of the Philippines, whether
male or female twenty-one years or over,
able to read and write, who has been a
resident of the Philippines for one year and
of the Municipality in which he has
registered during the six months
immediately preceding, who is not
otherwise disqualified, may vote in the said
precinct at any election.” -> pet lays stress
upon the clause “in which he had
registered” to bolster up the claim that
registration is one of the qualifications to be
a voter
- HOWEVER, pet overlooks the fact that
registration in a given precinct is mentioned
in Sec 98 -> Sec 98 cannot be construed as
adding registration to the original
requirements of a qualified voter, otherwise,
it would conflict with Art V of the Consti
- it is unnecessary to pass upon the validity
of R’s registration in Davao, owing to his
failure to seasonably apply for the
cancellation of his registration in Manila ->
even if he had not been registered at all in
Davao, this could not decisively affect the
question whether of not he is a qualified
voter
8. Akbayan Youth v. COMELEC
- Pet seek to direct COMELEC to conduct a
special registration before the May 2001
general elections, of new voters ages 18-21 ->
accdg to pet, around 4M youth failed to
register on or before Dec 2000 deadline set
by COMELEC under RA 8189
- Request for additional registration of
voters was disapproved on the ground that
Sec 8 RA 8189 explicitly provides that no
registration shall be conducted during the
period starting 120 days before a regular
election and that the COMELEC has no
more time left to accomplish all pre-election
activities
- pet, et.al filed before SC the instant petition
for certiorari and mandamus which seeks to
set aside and nullify R’s resol and/or to
declare Sec 8 RA 8189 unconstitutional
insofar as said provision effectively causes
the disenfranchisement of petitioners and
others similarly situated -> pray for a writ of
mandamus directing R to conduct a special
registration of new voters and to admit for
registration petitioners and other similarly
situated young Fils to qualify them to vote
in the May 2001 General elections
- SC: The right of suffrage ardently invoked
by pets is not at all absolute -> the exercise
of the right of suffrage, as in the enjoyment
of all other rights, is subject to existing
substantive and procedural requirements
embodied in the Consti, statute books and
other repositories of law
- The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily
conditioned upon certain procedural
requirements he must undergo: among
others, the process of registration -> a citizen
in order to be qualified to exercise his right
to vote, in addition to the minimum
requirements set by the fundamental
charter, is obliged by law to register, at
present, under the provisions of RA 8189
- Registration is an INDISPENSABLE
precondition to the right of suffrage ->
registration is part and parcel of the right to
vote and an indispensable element in the
election process -> Thus, it CANNOT and
SHOULD NOT be denigrated to the lowly
stature of a mere statutory requirement
- The State, in the exercise of its inherent
police power, may enact laws to safeguard
and regulate the act of voter’s registration
for their ultimate purpose of conducting
honest, orderly and peaceful election
- SC: Sec 8 RA 8189 applies in the present
case, for the purpose of upholding the
COMELEC resol and denying the instant
petitions, considering that the aforesaid law
explicitly provides that no registration shall
be conducted during the period starting 120
days before a regular election
- it is specious for pet to argue that R may
validly and legally conduct a 2-day special
registration, through the expedient of the
letter of Sec 28 RA9436 -> Said provision
would come into play in cases where the
pre-election acts are susceptible of
performance within the available period
prior to election day -> Sec 28 is anchored on
the sound premise that these certain pre-
election acts are till capable of being
reasonably performed vis-à-vis the
remaining period before the date of election
and the conduct of other related pre-election
activities required under the law -> The
stand-by power of R under Sec 28
presupposes the possibility of its being
exercised or availed of, and not otherwise
CHAPTER 3:
Petition for Inclusion
9. VELASCO v. COMELEC
- Velasco born in San Antonio, Pampanga ->
years after getting married, he moved and
worked in the US where he subsequently
became a citizen
- 2006: applied for dual citizenship under
RA 9225 -> application approved and took
his oath of allegiance to the RP -> returned
to the Phils and has not left since, except for
a 3-day HK trip
- Applied for registration as a voter in
Pampanga -> Election Registration Board
denied his application -> filed a petition for
the inclusion of his name in the list of voters
with the MTC -> MTC: granted petition and
reversed ERB decision and ordered
Velasco’s name in the List of Voters
- RTC reversed and set aside, on appeal, the
MTC decision -> Velasco lost his domicile of
origin when he became a US citizen -> under
Phil Immigration laws, he could only stay in
the Phils as a visitor or as a resident alien ->
Velasco only regained or reacquired his Phil
residency on July 2006 when he reacquired
his Fil citizenship -> naturalization in a
foreign country result sin the abandonment
of domicile in the Phils -> Velasco failed to
comply with the residency req under the
Consti, making him ineligible to vote
- Velasco appealed RTC decision to CA ->
2007: filed COC for the position of Mayor of
Sasmuan -> COC contains the required info
that he is a registered voter of Sasmuan,
Pampanga -> also executed an affidavit
renouncing, abandoning, and relinquishing
his American citizenship
- PR who also filed his COC for the position
of Mayor of Sasmuan, filed a petition to
deny due course to and/or to cancel
Velasco’s COC -> claimed that pet is not a
registered voter as his name is not included
in the list of voters
- Velasco won the elections and since
COMELEC failed to resolve PR’s petition
prior to election, pet was proclaimed Mayor
- A month after taking his oath, COMELEC
issued a resolution cancelling pet’s COC and
declaring his proclamation as Mayor null
and void -> decision of the RTC in the voters
inclusion/exclusion proceedings is final and
executor -> filed present petition with SC
- SC: Inclusion/exclusion proceedings
essentially involve the simple issue of
whether a petitioner shall be included in or
excluded from the list of voters based on the
qualifications required by law and the facts
presented to show possession of these
qualifications
- Velasco’s remedy from the adverse
decision in his petition for inclusion as voter
is provided under Sec 138 of the OEC ->
From the MTC, the recourse is to the RTC
whose decision is final and executor,
correctible by the CA only by a writ of
certiorari based on grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction
- The ERB denied pet’s registration as a
voter, which denial the RTC subsequently
supported -> this denial by RTC is, by law,
final and executor -> since pet’s knowledge
of the RTC decision at the time he filed his
COC is not disputed, the COMELEC
concluded that he committed a material
misrepresentation when he stated under
oath in his COC that he is a registered voter
of Sasmuan
Petition for Exclusion
10. ASISTIO v. AGUIRRE
- PR Echiverri filed against pet a petition for
exclusion of voter from the permanent list of
voters of Caloocan City -> alleged that pet is
not a resident of Caloocan city, specifically
in the address stated in his COC for Mayor
- MeTC: directed the ERB to remove the
name of pet from the list of permanent
voters of Caloocan city
- pet appealed to RTC -> PR Echiverri filed a
motion to dismiss appeal arguing that the
RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
appeal on the ground of failure to file the
required appeal fees -> Judge Aguirre issued
an order granting PR’s motion on the
ground of non-payment of docket fees
essential for the RTC to acquire juris over
the appeal -> pet filed present petition with
SC
- SC: the right to vote is a most precious
political right, as well as a bounden duty of
every citizen -> a citizen cannot be
disenfranchised for the flimsiest of reasons
-> only on the most serious grounds, and
upon clear and convincing proof, may a
citizen be deemed to have forfeited this
precious heritage of freedom
- Even if it is assumed that the appellate
docket fees were not filed on time, this
incident alone should not thwart the proper
determination and resolution of the instant
case on substantial grounds
- The primordial issue in this case is whether
pet should be excluded from the permanent
list of voters of Caloocan city for failure to
comply with the residency required by law
-> the residency requirement of a voter is at
least one (1) year residence in the
Philippines and at least six (6) months in the
place where the person proposes or intends
to vote -> "Residence," as used in the law
prescribing the qualifications for suffrage
and for elective office, is doctrinally settled
to mean "domicile," importing not only an
intention to reside in a fixed place but also
personal presence in that place, coupled
with conduct indicative of such intention
inferable from a person’s acts, activities, and
utterances
- Domicile is not easily lost -> he purpose to
remain in or at the domicile of choice must
be for an indefinite period of time; the
change of residence must be voluntary; and
the residence at the place chosen for the new
domicile must be actual
- pet has always been a resident of Caloocan
city since his birth -> his family is known to
be among the prominent political families in
the city and pet served in public office as a
representative in the HOR and also sought
election as city mayor in 2007 -> in all of
these occasions, pet cast his vote in the same
city -> it cannot be denied that pet has
qualified, and continues to qualify, as a
voter of Caloocan -> there is no showing that
he has established domicile elsewhere, or
that he had consciously and voluntarily
abandoned his residence in Caloocan -> he
should, therefore, remain in the list of
permanent registered voters of Precinct
1811A
Annulment of Book of Voters
11. UTUTALUM v. COMELEC
- pet prays for the reversal on the ground of
GAD of the resol of COMELEC which declined
to reject the election returns from all the
precincts of the Municipality of Siasi, Sulu
Congressional elections and to annul PR’s
proclamation
- pet and PR were among the candidates in the
1987 Congressional elections -> election returns
from Siasi showed that pet obtained only 482
votes while PR rcvd 35,581 votes out of the
39,801 registered voters -> if the returns of Siasi
were excluded, pet would have led 5,301 votes
- during the canvass of votes, pet without
availing of verbal objections, filed written
objections to the returns from Siasi on the ground
that they appear to be tampered with or falsified
-> claimed that there should have been only
12,600 registered voters and not 36,663 who cast
their votes
- board of canvassers of sulu dismissed pet’s
objections bec they had been filed out of time or
only after the certificate of canvass had already
been canvasses by the Board and bec the grounds
for the objection were not one of those
enumerated in Sec 243 of the Election Code ->
pet filed an appeal to COMELEC seeking a
declaration of failure of elections in the
municipality of Siasi and other mentioned
municipalities -> that COMELEC annul the
elections in Siasi and conduct another election
thereat -> and order board of canvassers to desist
from proclaiming any candidate pending a final
determination of the petition
- COMELEC: there was no failure of elections in
the 1st and 2nd districts of Sulu -> PR was
proclaimed as the winner
- pet filed a second petition with COMELEC
praying for the annulment of PR’s proclamation
and for his own proclamation as Congressman
for the 2nd district of Sulu -> while petitions were
pending, a candidate for gov of sulu filed a
verified petition with COMELEC to annul the
list of voters of siasi for purposes of the election
of local govt officials -> pet opposed by PR
- COMELEC issued resol annulling the Siasi list
of voters on the ground of massive irregularities
committed in the preparation thereof and being
statistically improbable and ordering a new
registration of voters for the local elections ->
resol was affirmed by SC in another case Anni v
COMELEC -> a new registry list was
subsequently prepared yielding only 12,555
names
- pet filed a supplemental pleading with
COMELEC entreating that such annulment be
considered and applied by the Comm in
resolving his 2 petitions against PR ->
COMELEC denied pet’s 2 petitions for lack of
merit, with advise that he may file an election
contest before the proper forum
- pet file present petition with SC assailing resol
-> contends that the issue he raised before the
COMELEC actually referred to “obviously
manufactured returns”, a proper subject matter
for a pre-proclamation controversy and,
therefore, cognizable by the COMELEC
- election returns from Siasi should be excluded
from the canvass of the results since its original
list of voters had already been finally annulled
and that there is no need to re-litigation in an
election protest
- SC: it cannot justifiably be contended that the
Siasi returns were obviously manufactured and a
legitimiate issue in a pre-proclamation
controversy -> the siasi returns DO NOT show
prima facie that on the basis of the old List of
Voters, there is actually a great excess of votes
over what could have been legally cast
considering that only 36k persons actually voted
out of the 39k voters -> the case relied on by pet
dealt with the “manufacture” of returns by those
charged with their preparation as shown prima
facie on the questioned returns themselves -> the
present case deals with the preparation of the
registry list of voters, a matter that is not
reflected on the face of said returns
- the annulment of the list of voters shall not
constitute a ground for pre-proclamation contest
- pet insists that the new registry list should be
considered and applied by the COMELEC as the
legal basis in determining the number of votes
which could be legally cast in Siasi -> to allow
the COMELEC to do so retroactively would be
to empower it to annul a previous election
because of the subsequent annulment of a
questioned registry in a proceeding where pet
himself was NOT a party -> CANNOT be done
- the subsequent annulment of the voting list in a
separate proceeding cannot retroactively and
without due process result in nullifying accepted
election returns in a previous election simply
because such returns came from municipalities
where the precinct books of voters were ordered
annulled due to irregularities in their preparation
- also, the preparation of a voter’s list is not a
proceeding before the bard of canvassers -> a
pre-proclamation controversy is limited to
challenges directed against the board of
canvassers, not the board of election inspectors
and such challenges should relate to specified
election returns against which pet should have
made specific verbal objections
CHAPTER 4:
Citizenship Requirement:
12. LABO v. COMELEC
- pet asks SC to restrain COMELEC from
looking into the question of his citizenship
as a qualification for his office as Mayor of
Baguio -> it has been alleged that he is a
foreigner but pet says that this is not the
issue -> claims that the issue is WON
COMELEC has juris to conduct any inquiry
into this matter, considering that the petition
for quo warranto against him was not filed
on time
- pet was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio
-> petition for quo warranto was filed by PR
but no filing fee was paid -> fee got paid 21
days after pet’s proclamation -> therefore
was filed beyond the reglementary period ->
pet stresses that the payment of the filing fee
is essential to the timeliness of the filing of
the petition itself
- PR argues that filing fee was paid ahead of
time -> when he filed petition for quo
warranto, COMELEC treated it as a pre-
proclamation controversy -> no docket fee
was collected although it was offered -> was
only almost a month later that COMELEC
decided to treat his petition as solely for quo
warranto -> he immediately paid the filing
fee on that date
- SC: held that the petition for quo warranto
was filed on tim -> fee was paid during the
10-day period as extended by the pendency
of the petition when it was treated by the
COMELEC as a pre-proclamation
proceeding which did not require the
payment of a filing fee
- as pet’s citizenship is the subject of the
proceeding and considering the necessity for
an early resol of that more important
question clearly and urgently affecting the
public interest, SC addresses it now in the
present action
- pet’s contention that his marriage to an
Australian national did not automatically
divest him of Phil citizenship is irrelevant ->
he became a citizen of Australia because he
was naturalized as such through a formal
and positive process -> as a condition for
such naturalization, he formally took the
Oath of Allegiance and/or made the
affirmation of allegiance -> RENOUNCING
all other allegiance, he sore to be faithful
and bear true allegiance to her majesty
Elizabeth II and to fulfill his duties as an
Australian citizen
- pet claims that his naturalization in Aus
made him only a dual national and did not
divest him of his Phil citizenship -> CA 63
enumerates the modes by which Phil
citizenship may be lost, among these are (1)
naturalization in a foreign country; (2)
express renunciation of citizenship; and (3)
subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
support the Constitution or laws of a foreign
country, all of which are applicable to the
petitioner
- pet voluntarily and freely rejected Phil
citizenship and willingly and knowingly
embraced the citizenship of a foreign
country -> the possibility that he may have
been subsequently rejected by Aus, as he
claims, does not mean that he has been
automatically reinstated as a citizen of the
Phils
- The pet is not now, nor was he on the day
of the local elections a citizen of the Phils ->
he was not even a qualified voter under the
Consti itself because of his alienage -> he
was therefore ineligible as a candidate for
mayor of Baguio under Sec 42 of LGC “an
elective official must be a citizen of the
Phils…”
- Only citizens of the Phils have the privilege
of presiding over their countrymen -> these
qualifications are CONTINUING
requirements; once any of them is lost
during incumbency, title to the office itself is
deemed forfeited -> in the present case, the
citizenship and voting reqs were not
subsequently lost but were NOT possessed
at all in the first place on the day of the
election -> pet was disqualified from
running as mayor and, although elected, is
not now qualified to serve as such
13. FRIVALDO v. COMELEC
- pet obtained the highest number of votes
in 3 successive elections but was twice
declared by SC to be disqualified to hold
such office due to his alien citizenship and
who now claims to have re-assumed his lost
Phil citizenship through repatriation
- Frivaldo filed COC for the office of Gov of
Sorsogon -> Lee, another candidate, filed a
petition with COMELEC praying that
Frivaldo be disqualified from seeking or
holding any public office or position by
reason of not yet being a citizen of the Phils
and that his COC be canceled -> COMELEC
declared Frivaldo disqualified to run for the
office of Gov
- Frivaldo filed MR but remained unacted
upon until after 1995 elections so his
candidacy continued and he was voted
during the elections -> then COMELEC en
banc affirmed resol
- Lee was proclaimed as gov of sorsogon ->
pet filed with COMELEC a new petition
praying for the annulment of Lee’s June 30,
1995 proclamation and for his own
proclamation -> alleged that at 2PM on said
date, he took his oath of allegiance as a
citizen of the Phils after his petition for
registration under PD 725 had been granted
-> there was no more legal impediment to
the proclamation of pet as gov
- COMELEC issued a resol holding that Lee,
not having garnered the highest number of
votes was not legally entitled to be
proclaimed as duly-elected gov and that pet
having garnered the highest number of
votes and having reacquired his Fil
citizenship by repatriation under the
provisions of PD 725 is qualified to hold the
office of gov of Sorsogon
- the validity and effectivity of pet’s
repatriation is the threshold legal issue in
this case -> LGC expressly requires Phil
citizenship as a qualification for elective
local officials -> inasmuch as pet had been
declared by this Court as a non-citizen, it is
therefore incumbent upon him to show that
he has reacquired citizenship; that he
possesses the qualifications prescribed
under RA 7160
- citizenship may be reacquired by direct act
of Congress, by naturalization, or by
repatriation -> pet told SC that he tried to
resume his citizenship by direct act of
congress but that the bill allowing him to do
so failed to materialize, notwithstanding the
endorsement of several members of the
HOR -> his attempt at naturalization was
rejected by this Court bec of jurisdictional,
substantial and procedural defects
- despite his lack of Phil citizenship, he was
overwhelmingly elected gov by the
electorate -> twice he was judicially declared
a non-fil and thus twice disqualified from
holding and discharging his popular
mandate -> now on his 3rd time, he now
boosts of having successfully passed
through the 3rd and last mode of reacquiring
citizenship: by repatriation -> insists that he
should have been proclaimed as the duly-
elected gov since he already re-acquired his
citizenship
- SC: it will be noted that the law DOES
NOT specify any particular date or time
when the candidate must possess
citizenship, unlike that for residence and age
-> Phil citizenship is an indispensable req for
the holding an elective public office in order
to ensure that no alien shall govern our
people and our country or a unit of territory
thereof -> an official begins to govern or
discharge his fxns ONLY upon his
proclamation and on the day the law
mandates his term of office to begin -> since
pet re-assumed his citizenship on June 30,
the very day the term of office of gov began,
he was therefore already qualified to be
proclaimed to hold such office and to
discharge the fxns and responsibilities
thereof as of said date -> he was ALREADY
qualified to govern his native sorsogon
- even from a literal construction, it should
be noted that Sec 39 LGC speaks of
qualifications of ELECTIVE officials, NOT of
candidates -> thus, such qualifications,
unless otherwise expressly conditioned as in
the case of age and residence, should thus be
possessed when the elective/elected official
BEGINS to govern (at the time he is
proclaimed AND at the start of his term
- with respect to the issue that a candidate
should also be a registered voter and that
pet could not have been a voter, much less a
validly registered one if he was not a citizen
at the time of such registration -> SC: if the
law intended the citizenship qualification to
be possessed prior to election consistent
with the requirement of being a registered
voter, then it would no have made
citizenship a separate qualification -> the
law intended citizenship to be a
qualification distinct from being a voter,
even if being a voter presumes being a
citizen first -> LGC requires an elective
official to be a registered voter. It does not
require him to vote actually -> registration --
not the actual voting -- is the core of this
"qualification". In other words, the law's
purpose in this second requirement is to
ensure that the prospective official is
actually registered in the area he seeks to
govern -- and not anywhere else
- pet repeatedly emphasized and lee has not
disputed that he “was and is a voter of
Sorsogon, and his registration as a voter has
been sustained as valid by judicial
declaration
Residence Requirement:
14. ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. COMELEC
- pet filed her COC for the position of Rep of
the 1st district of Leyte in 1995 providing that
her residence in the place was 7 months
- incumbent rep and also candidate for the
same position filed a petition for
cancellation and disqualification with the
COMELEC charging pet as she did not
comply with the consti req for residency as
she lacked the consti’s 1-year residency req
for candidates for the HOR
- amended corrected COC: pet changed 7
months to since childhood under residency
-> COMELEC issued resol allowing pet’s
proclamation showing that she obtained the
highest number of votes in the congressional
elections in the 1st district of Leyte ->
COMELEC reversed itself and issued a 2 nd
resol directing that the proclamation of pet
be suspended in the event that she obtains
the highest number of votes
- pet claimed that she was the
overwhelming winner of the elections based
on the canvass completed by the provincial
board of canvassers
- ISSUE: WON pet was a resident of the 1 st
district of Leyte to satisfy the 1-year
residency req to be eligible in running as rep
- SC: YES -> SC in favor of a conclusion
supporting pet’s claim of legal residence or
domicile
- COMELEC resol reveals a startling
confusion in the application of settled
concepts of domicile and residence in
election law -> for the purpose of elec law,
residence is synonymous with domicile and
resol reveals a tendency to substitute or
mistake the concept of domicile for the
actual residence, a conception not intended
for the purpose of determining a candidate’s
qualifications for election to the HOR as req
by the consti
- Art 50 CC provides that for the exercise of
civil rights and the fulfillment of covil
obligations, the domicile of natural persons
is their place of habitual residence ->
domicile means an individual’s permanent
home, a place to which, whenever absent for
business or for pleasure, one intends to
return
- Residence, in its ordinary conception,
implies the factual relationship of an
individual to a certain place. It is the
physical presence of a person in a given
area, community or country -> The essential
distinction between residence and domicile
in law is that residence involves the intent to
leave when the purpose for which the
resident has taken up his abode ends -> If a
person's intent be to remain, it becomes his
domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as
his purpose is established it is residence =>
quite perfectly normal for an individual to
have different residences in various places.
However, a person can only have a single
domicile, unless, for various reasons, he
successfully abandons his domicile in favor
of another domicile of choice
- It is the fact of residence, not a statement in
a certificate of candidacy which ought to be
decisive in determining whether or not and
individual has satisfied the constitution's
residency qualification requirement ->
statement in the COC becomes material only
when there is or appears to be a deliberate
attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact
which would otherwise render a candidate
ineligible
- petitioner merely committed an honest
mistake in jotting the word "seven" in the
space provided for the residency
qualification requirement -> circumstances
leading to her filing the questioned entry
obviously resulted in the subsequent
confusion which prompted petitioner to
write down the period of her actual stay in
Tolosa, Leyte instead of her period of
residence in the First district, which was
"since childhood" 
- while petitioner was born in Manila, as a
minor she naturally followed the domicile of
her parents -> grew up in Tacloban, reached
her adulthood there and eventually
established residence in different parts of
the country for various reasons
- As a minor at the time, pet followed the
domicile of her parents -> as domicile, once
acquired is retained until a new one is
gained, it follows that in spite of the fact of
petitioner's being born in Manila, Tacloban,
Leyte was her domicile of origin by
operation of law
- Even assuming for the sake of argument
that petitioner gained a new "domicile" after
her marriage and only acquired a right to
choose a new one after her husband died,
petitioner's acts following her return to the
country clearly indicate that she not only
impliedly but expressly chose her domicile
of origin (assuming this was lost by
operation of law) as her domicile -> This
"choice" was unequivocally expressed in her
letters to the Chairman of the PCGG when
petitioner sought the PCGG's permission to
"rehabilitate (our) ancestral house in
Tacloban and Farm in Olot, Leyte ->
petitioner obtained her residence certificate
in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte, while living in
her brother's house, an act which supports
the domiciliary intention clearly manifested
in her letters to the PCGG Chairman -> Her
"homes" and "residences" following her
arrival in various parts of Metro Manila
merely qualified as temporary or "actual
residences," not domicile
15. AQUINO v. COMELEC
- pet filed COC for rep of Makati -> Move
Makati (political party) and other R filed a
petition with COMELEC to disqualify pet on
the ground that the latter lacked the
residence qualification as a candidate for
congressman (residency req of not less than
1 year preceding elections)
- a day after petition for disqualification
filed, pet filed another COC amending the
previous COC -> pet stated in item 8 that he
had resided in the constituency where he
sought to be elected for 1 year and 13 days
-> pet also prayed for the dismissal of the
disqualification case
- COMELEC: declared pet eligible to run for
the office of rep and dismissed the petition
for disqualification
- Rs filed MR -> elections were held ->
petitioner won -> Rs filed urgent motion to
suspend pet’s proclamation -> COMELEC
suspended proclamation until the MR filed
by R have been resolved by commission
- COMELEC issued resol declaring pet
ineligible and thus disqualified as a
candidate for the office of rep elections for
lack of the consti qualification of residence
- SC: agrees with COMELEC that in order
that pet could qualify as a candidate for rep,
the latter must prove that he has established
not just residence but domicile of choice ->
consti requires that a person seeking election
to the HOR should be a resident of the
district in which he seeks election for a
period of not less than 1 year prior to the
elections -> “residence” has always been
understood as synonymous with “domicile”
- the place where a party actually or
constructively has his permanent home
where he, no matter where he may be found
at any given time, eventua;;y intends to
return and remain (his domiciale) is that to
which the consti refers when it speaks of
residence for the purpose of election law
- pet in his COC for the 1992 elections
indicated not onlt that he was a resident of
San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 but that
he was a resident of the same for 52 years
immediately preceding that election -> it is
consistently clear and unassailable that pet’s
domicile of origin or record up to the time of
filing of his most recent COC for the 1995
elections was Concepcion, Tarlac -> pet’s
alleged connection with the 2nd district of
Makati is an alleged lease agreement of a
condo unit in the area -> COMELEC
resolved saying that the intention NOT to
establish a permanent home in Makati is
evident in his leasing a condo unit instead of
buying one -> while a lease contract may be
indicative of his intention to reside in
Makati, it does not engender the kind of
permanency required to prove
abandonment of one’s original domicile
- the fact that pet himself claims that he has
other residences in MM coupled with the
short length of time he claims to be a
resident of the condo unit in Makati indicate
that the sole purpose in transferring his
physical residence is not to acquire new
residence or domicile but ONLY to qualify
as a candidate for rep
- his assertion that he has transferred
his domicile  from Tarlac to Makati is a bare
assertion which is hardly supported by the
facts in the case at bench. Domicile  of origin
is not easily lost. To successfully effect a
change of domicile, petitioner must prove an
actual removal or an actual change
of domicile; a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place of residence
and establishing a new one and definite acts
which correspond with the purpose -> in the
absence of clear and positive proof, the
domicile of origin should be deemed to
continue
16. MITRA v. COMELEC
- COMELEC canceled COC of pet for
allegedly misrepresenting that he is a
resident of the Municipality of Aborlan,
Palawan where he ran for the position of qualification, the elected official MUST remain a
Gov resident there for the rest of his term
- pet’s domicile of origin is undisputedly PP ->
- when pet’s COC for gov of Palawan was
for him to qualify as gov in Aborlan, he had to
declared cancelled, pet was the incumbent abandon his domicile of origin and acquire a new
rep of the 2nd district of Palawan -> the one within the local govt unit where he intended
district included the municipality of to run -> this would be his domicile of choice
Aborlan and Puerto Princesa -> he was
elected as rep as a domiciliary of Puerto
Princesa
- before the end of his 2 nd term as rep, PP was
reclassified as a HUC and thus ceased to be a
component of the province of Palawan -> direct
legal consequence of this new status was the
ineligibility of PP residents from voting for
candidates for elective provincial officials
- with the intention of applying for gov, pet
applied for the transfer of his voter’s registration
record to the municipality of Aborlan -> then
filed his COC for the position of gov as a
resident of Aborlan -> Rs filed a petition to deny
due course or to cancel pet’s COC -> argued that
pet remains a resident of PP who has not yet
established residence in Aborlan and is therefore
not qualified to run for gov -> pet insisted that he
has successfully abandoned PP as his domicile of
origin and has established a new domicile in
Aborlan since 2008
- COMELEC 1st division cancelled pet’s COC ->
COMELEC denied pet’s MR
- SC: pet did not commit any deliberate material
misrepresentation in his COC -> COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion in its appreciation
of the evidence, leading it to conclude that pet is
not a resident of Aborlan -> COMELEC failed to
critically consider whether pet deliberately
attempted to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact
that would otherwise render him ineligible for
the position of gov -> there is clearly no basis for
the conclusion that pet deliberately attempted to
mislead the Palawan electorate
- pet never hid his intention to transfer his
residence from PP to Aborlan to comply with the
residence req of a candidate for an elective
provincial office -> RA 7160 (LGC) does not
abhor this intended transfer of residence -> Sec
39 merely requires an elective local official to be
a resident of the local govt unit where he intends
to run for at least 1 year immediately preceding
the day of the election -> the law itself
recognizes implicitly that there can be change of
domicile or residence, but imposes only the
condition that residence at the new place should
at least be for a year -> as a continuing req or