Doctrine:
The right of suffrage is not petitioner,
absolute and is subject to
substantive and procedural
requirements.
Voter registration is a necessary
precondition to the right to vote
and is regulated by law to
ensure orderly elections.
Section 8 of R.A. 8189 prohibits
voter registration within 120
days before a regular election.
The doctrine of impossibility
precludes the enforcement of
actions that cannot be legally or
practically executed.
Mandamus lies only to compel
the performance of ministerial
duties, not discretionary ones.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court
upheld the COMELEC's denial of
the request for additional voter
registration, citing legal constraints
and operational difficulties. The
court declined to issue a writ of
mandamus to compel the
COMELEC, noting legislative efforts
to address the issue.
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
CIRILO ROY MONTEJO, respondents.
Facts:
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, wife of
former President Ferdinand
Marcos, sought to run for the
position of Representative of
Leyte's First District in the
upcoming elections.
Despite being born in Manila,
Imelda spent part of her childhood
in Tacloban City, Leyte, attending
school there and residing with her
family.
Upon her marriage to Ferdinand
Marcos in 1954, Imelda acquired a
new domicile by operation of law,
namely, Batac, Ilocos Norte, where
her husband was domiciled.
Over the years, Imelda lived with
her husband in various locations,
including San Juan, Rizal, and
Malacañang Palace in Manila,
while he served in different public
offices.
Following the ouster of Ferdinand
Marcos from the presidency in
1986, Imelda and her family went
into exile in Honolulu, Hawaii,
before returning to the Philippines
in 1991.
In preparation for her candidacy in
Leyte's First District, Imelda took
steps to establish residency in
Tolosa, Leyte, including registering
as a voter and filing her Certificate
of Candidacy (COC) indicating
residency in the district.
 The COMELEC reviewed the evidence
Imelda initially stated in her
presented by Imelda, including her voter
COC that she had been a
registration and COC amendments, but
resident of Leyte's First District
found the explanations provided
for "seven months" preceding
insufficient to establish genuine
the elections.
residency in Leyte's First District for the
Later, Imelda amended her COC
required period of at least one year.
to indicate residency in Leyte's
The COMELEC also considered the
First District "SINCE
legal presumption of Imelda's domicile
CHILDHOOD," raising questions
in Batac, Ilocos Norte, by operation of
about the consistency and
law, given her marriage to Ferdinand
credibility of her residency
Marcos.
claims.
Despite Imelda's assertions of genuine
Timeline of Residency
intent to establish residency in Leyte's
Assertions:
First District, the COMELEC concluded
August 1994: Imelda Marcos
that she had failed to discharge the
requested the cancellation of her
burden of proof required to overcome
voter registration in San Juan,
the doubts raised by inconsistencies in
Metro Manila, with the intention
her statements and the legal
of transferring it to Leyte.
presumption of her domicile.
January 28, 1995: She
As a result, the COMELEC disqualified
registered as a voter in Tolosa,
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos from running
Leyte, claiming to have resided
for the position of Representative of
there for six months.
Leyte's First District, citing residency
March 8, 1995: Imelda Marcos
issues and the failure to meet eligibility
filed her certificate of candidacy
requirements.
for the position of
Additional basis:
Representative of Leyte's First
- Under Article 110 of the Civil Code, it was
District, stating that she had
only her husband who could change the
been a resident for seven
family domicile in Batac and the evidence
months.
shows he did not effect any such change.
Amended Certificate of
To a large degree, this follows the common
Candidacy: Later, she filed an
law that "a woman on her marriage loses
amended certificate of
her own domicile and by operation of law,
candidacy, changing her
acquires that of her husband, no matter
residency claim to "since
where the wife actually lives or what she
childhood."
believes or intends."
The Commission on Elections
- Her explanation that she thought what was
(COMELEC) initiated
asked was her actual and physical
proceedings to determine the
presence in Tolosa is not easy to believe
validity of Imelda's candidacy
because there is none in the question that
and residency claims.
insinuates about Tolosa.
OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE
12. Disqualifications. — Any person who
has been declared by competent
authority insane or incompetent, or has
been sentenced by final judgment for
subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for
any offense for which he has been
sentenced to a penalty of more than
eighteen months or for a crime involving
moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to
be a candidate and to hold any office,
unless he has been given plenary pardon
or granted amnesty.
The disqualifications to be a candidate
herein provided shall be deemed
removed upon the declaration by
competent authority that said insanity or
incompetence had been removed or after
the expiration of a period of five years
from his service of sentence, unless
within the same period he again
becomes disqualified. (Emphasis added)
68. Disqualifications. — Any candidate who,
in an action or protest in which he is a party
is declared by final decision of a competent
court guilty of, or found by the Commission
of having (a) given money or other material
consideration to influence, induce or corrupt
the voters or public officials performing
electoral functions; (b) committed acts of
terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent
in his election campaign an amount in
excess of that allowed by this Code; (d)
solicited, received or made any contribution
prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and
104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83,
85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and
cc, sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified
from continuing as a candidate, or if he has
been elected, from holding the office.
Any person who is a permanent resident
of or an immigrant to a foreign country
shall not be qualified to run for any
elective office under this Code, unless
said person has waived his status as
permanent resident or immigrant of a
foreign country in accordance with the
residence requirement provided for in the
election laws. (Emphasis added)
§ 78. Petition to deny due course to or
cancel a certificate of
candidacy. — A verified petition seeking
to deny due course or to cancel a
certificate of candidacy may be filed by
any person exclusively on the ground
that any material representation
contained therein as required under
Section 74 hereof is false. The petition
may be filed at any time not later than
twenty-five days from the time of the
filing of the certificate of candidacy and
shall be decided, after due notice and
hearing, not later than fifteen days before
the election. (Emphasis added)
Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (R.A.
No. 6646):
§ 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. —
Any candidate who has been declared by
final judgment to be disqualified shall not
be voted for, and the votes cast for him
shall not be counted. If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final
judgment before an election to be
disqualified and he is voted for and
receives the winning number of votes in
such election, the Court or Commission
shall continue with the trial and hearing
of the action, inquiry or protest and; upon
motion for the complainant or any
intervenor,
may during the pendency thereofPROCEDURAL RULINGS:
order the suspension of the
proclamation of such candidate
whenever the evidence of his guilt is
strong. (Emphasis added).
§ 7. Petition to Deny Due Course to
or Cancel a Certificate
Candidacy. — The procedure
hereinabove provided shall apply to
petitions to deny due course to or
cancel a certificate of candidacy as
provided in Section 78 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881.
Local Government Code of 1991
(R.A. No. 7160):
§ 40. Disqualifications. — The
following persons are disqualified
from running for any elective local
position:
(a) Those sentenced by final
judgment for an offense involving
moral turpitude or for an offense
punishable by one (1) year or more
of imprisonment, within two (2)
years after serving sentence;
(b) Those removed from office as a
result of on administrative case;
(c) Those convicted by final
judgment for violating the oath of
allegiance to the Republic;
(d) Those with dual citizenship;
(e) Fugitive from justice in criminal
or nonpolitical cases here or
abroad;
(f) Permanent residents in a foreign
country or those who have acquired
the right to reside abroad and
continue to avail of the same right
after the effectivity of this Code; and of petitioner be suspended in the event that
(g) The insane or feeble-minded.
On April 24, 1995, the Second Division of
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC),
by a vote of 2 to 1, 13 came up with a
Resolution 1) finding private respondent's
Petition for Disqualification in SPA 95-009
of meritorious; 2) striking off petitioner's
Corrected/Amended Certificate of
Candidacy of March 31, 1995; and 3)
canceling her original Certificate of
Candidacy. 14 Dealing with two primary
issues, namely, the validity of amending the
original Certificate of Candidacy after the
lapse of the deadline for filing certificates of
candidacy, and the petitioner's compliance
with the one-year residency requirement,
In a Resolution promulgated a day before
the May 8, 1995 elections, the COMELEC
en banc denied petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration 16 of the April 24, 1995
Resolution declaring her not qualified to run
for the position of Member of the House of
Representatives for the First Legislative
District of Leyte. 17 The Resolution tersely
stated:
After deliberating on the Motion for
Reconsideration, the Commission
RESOLVED to DENY it, no new substantial
matters having been raised therein to
warrant re-examination of the resolution
granting the petition for disqualification. 18
On May 11, 1995, the COMELEC issued a
Resolution allowing petitioner's
proclamation should the results of the
canvass show that she obtained the highest
number of votes in the congressional
elections in the First District of Leyte. On
the same day, however, the COMELEC
reversed itself and issued a second
Resolution directing that the proclamation
she obtains the highest number of votes. 19
Ruling of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court, upon reviewing
the case, upheld the decision of the
Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) regarding Imelda
Romualdez-Marcos's residency
claims. The Court agreed with the
COMELEC's findings that Marcos
failed to meet the residency
requirement for candidacy in Leyte's
First District. The ruling was based on
inconsistencies in Marcos's claims
and the failure to establish bona fide
residency in Leyte for the required
period.
Additionally, the Court addressed the
legal distinction between domicile and
residency, emphasizing that mere
physical presence or intent to run for
office does not automatically
establish residency. The Court's
decision affirmed the importance of
adhering to the legal requirements for
candidacy and maintaining the
integrity of the electoral process.
1. Constitutionality of Residency
Requirements: The Court
reaffirmed the constitutionality of
residency requirements for
elective office, emphasizing that
such requirements are essential
to ensure that candidates have
genuine ties to the communities
they seek to represent. This
principle is enshrined in Article VI,
Section 6 of the 1987
Constitution,
which mandates that candidates for the
House of Representatives must be
residents of their respective districts for
at least one year preceding the
election.
2. Interpretation of Residency: The
Court interpreted the term "residence"
in its legal context, distinguishing it from
mere physical presence. It emphasized
that residency entails not only living in a
particular place but also establishing a
fixed and permanent abode with the
intent to remain there indefinitely. This
interpretation aligns with established
jurisprudence and legal principles
governing domicile and residency.
3. Burden of Proof: The Court reiterated
the principle that the burden of proof
rests on the candidate to demonstrate
compliance with residency
requirements. Candidates must provide
clear and convincing evidence of their
residency, including documentary proof
and credible testimony, to satisfy the
legal standard imposed by electoral
laws and regulations.
4. Discretion of Electoral Tribunals:
While acknowledging the jurisdiction of
electoral tribunals, such as the
COMELEC, to adjudicate residency
disputes, the Court emphasized the
need for these tribunals to exercise
their discretion judiciously and
impartially. Electoral tribunals must
carefully evaluate the evidence
presented and apply legal principles
consistently to uphold the integrity of
the electoral process.
PRINCIPLES: 5. Legal Basis: The COMELEC's rulings
1. Legal Presumption: There is a are grounded in relevant provisions of
legal presumption regarding a the Omnibus Election Code and
candidate's domicile, especially in established legal principles governing
cases where there is a change in residency, domicile, and candidacy
residency due to marriage or qualifications. Precedents and
other circumstances. This jurisprudence from similar cases may
presumption places the burden of also inform the COMELEC's decision-
proof on the candidate to making process.
establish a change in domicile.
2. Burden of Proof: The burden of
proof lies with the candidate to
demonstrate compliance with
residency and candidacy
requirements. This includes
providing evidence of genuine
intent to establish residency in the
electoral district for the required
period.
3. Consistency and Credibility: The
COMELEC evaluates the
consistency and credibility of the
candidate's statements and
evidence regarding residency and
other candidacy qualifications.
Discrepancies or inconsistencies
may raise doubts about the
candidate's eligibility.
4. Evaluation of Evidence: The
COMELEC carefully examines all
evidence presented by the
candidate, including voter
registration records, certificates of
candidacy, and explanations for
any discrepancies. It assesses
the sufficiency and reliability of
the evidence in determining
compliance with legal
requirements.