Consti 1 Friday

Download as doc, pdf, or txt
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 14

Dimaporo v.

Mitra
FACTS:
Dimaporo was elected as a representative for the second legislative district of Lanao del Sur during the 1987 congressional elections.
Dimaporo filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of governor of AR. Secretary and Spea!er of the "ouse e#cluded the name of
Dimaporo from the Roll of em$ers of "R %nder Art &' of Sec (7 of the )mni$us *lection +ode. Dimaporo lost the election wrote a letter intending to
resume performing his duties and functions as an elected mem$er of the +ongress. %nfortunately, he was not a$le to regain his seat in the +ongress.
Dimaporo contended that he did not lose his seat as a +ongressman $ecause Art. &' Sec. (7 of -. 881 is not operative in the present
constitution, and therefore not applica$le to the mem$ers of +ongress.
/rounds may $e termed to $e shortened0
1. "olding any officer or employment in the government or ant su$division, agency, or instrumentality thereof.
1. *#pulsion as a disciplinary action for a disorderly $ehavior
2. Dis3ualification as determined $y a resolution of the electoral tri$unal in an election contest
4. 5oluntary renunciation of office
ISSUE: 678 Dimaporo can still $e considered as a mem$er of +ongress even after he has filed for another government position
HELD: 8o.
&n the constitution there is a new chapter on the accounta$ility of pu$lic officers. &n the 1929 +onstitution, it was provided that pu$lic office is
a pu$lic trust. .u$lic officers should serve with the highest degree of responsi$ility and integrity.
&f you allow a -atasan or a governor or a mayor who has mandated to serve for ( years to file for an office other than the one he was elected
to, then that clearly shows that he did not intend to serve the mandate of the people which was placed upon him and therefore he should $e considered
ipso facto resigned.
:he filling of a certificate shall $e considered as an overt act or a$andoning or relin3uishing his mandate to the people and he should
therefore resign if he want to see! another position which he feels he could $e of $etter service.
Farinas, et al. v. Executive Secretar ! in view with Section 26(1), Article VI
/.R. 8o. 147287, Decem$er 1;, 1;;2
FACTS:
:he petition $efore the court see!s to declare Section 14 of RA no. 9;;( <:he =air *lection Act> unconstitutional as it e#pressly repeals Section (7 of
-atas .am$ansa -lg. 881 <:he )mni$us *lection +ode ? <not ver$atim> any elective official running for office e#cept for pres or vp shall $e considered
resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy>.
%nconstitutional for violating section 1(, article ( of the constitution for re3uiring every law to have only one su$@ect which should $e e#pressed in its title.
Section 14 of RA no. 9;;( primarily deals with the lifting of the $an on the use of media as election propaganda and the elimination of unfair election
practices. 6hile Section (7 deals with any elective official running for office e#cept for pres or vp shall $e considered resigned from his office upon the
filing of his certificate of candidacy.
:he repeal of Section (7 of the )mni$us *lection +ode is thus not em$raced in the title, nor germane to the su$@ect matter of RA no. 9;;(.
Other facts though not essential for Sec. 26, Art. IV of the constitution:
RA no. 9;;( violates the e3ual protection clause $ecause it repeals only section (7 and not section (( which states that appointive official shall $e
considered resigned from his office upon filing of +o+. :hus RA no. 9;;( discriminates appointive officials $ecause elective officials can still hold office
while campaigning with RA no. 9;;(As repeal.
RA no. 9;;( in its entirety is null and void $ecause irregularities attended to its enactment into lawB Section 1( states0 CDtEhis Act shall ta!e effect upon its
approvalF is a violation of the due process clause.
Sec. (7 is a good lawB hence, it should not have $een repealed.
ISSUE ? in view with Section 26(1), Article VI0
6)8 sec. 14 of RA 8o. 9;;( is a riderG
"ULI#$:
#%& Sec 1(<1>, Article &5 provides0
C*very $ill passed $y the +ongress shall em$race only one su$@ect which shall $e e#pressed in the title thereof.F
Constitutional rovisions relating to the su!"ect #atter an$ titles of statutes shoul$ not !e so narrowl% construe$ as to crile or i#e$e the ower of
legislation. It is sufficient if the title !e co#rehensive enough reasona!l% to inclu$e the general o!"ect which a statute see&s to effect, without
e'ressing each an$ ever% en$ an$ #eans necessar% or convenient for the acco#lishing of that o!"ect.
:he title of RA no. 9;;( reads0 CAn Act to *nhance the "olding of =ree, )rderly, "onest, .eaceful and +redi$le elections through =air *lection
.ractices.F
Section 1 provides the principles and o$@ectives thereof0 (he State shall, $uring the election erio$, suervise or regulate the en"o%#ent or utili)ation of
all franchises or er#its for the oeration of #e$ia of co##unication or infor#ation to guarantee or ensure e*ual oortunit% for u!lic service, inclu$ing
access to #e$ia ti#e an$ sace, an$ the e*uita!le right to rel%, for u!lic infor#ation ca#aigns an$ for a#ong can$i$ates an$ assure free, or$erl%,
honest, eaceful an$ cre$i!le elections.
(he State shall ensure that !ona fi$e can$i$ates for an% u!lic office shall !e free fro# an% for# of harass#ent an$ $iscri#ination.
:he +ourt is convinced that the title and o$@ectives of RA no. 9;;( are comprehensive enough to include the repeal of Sec. (7 within its contemplation.
RA no. 9;;( does not violate the Cone su$@ectHone titleF rule. An act having a single general su$@ect , indicated in the title, may contain any num$er of
provisions as long as they are not inconsistent or foreign to the general su$@ect, and may $e considered furtherance of such su$@ect $y providing for the
method and means of carrying out the general su$@ect.
Quinto V. COMELEC 2010
COMELEC issued a resolution declaring appointive ofcials who fled their certifcate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their
positions.
FACTS: Petitioners Eleazar P. uinto and !erino ". #olentino$ %r. fled a petition for certiorari and prohi&ition against the COMELEC for
issuing a resolution declaring appointive ofcials who fled their certifcate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions. 'n
this defense$ the COMELEC avers that it only copied the provision from (ec. )* of +.". ,*-,.
ISSUE: .hether or not the said COMELEC resolution was valid.
HELD: 'n a )/01 vote$ the (upreme Court reversed its 2ecision rendered in the case of uinto vs. Comelec last 2ecem&er 3//, and
declared that appointed ofcials$ including mem&ers of the 4udiciary and the Comelec itself$ who have fled their certifcate of
candidacy for the May )/ elections are already deemed resigned. 'n the +esolution dated 33 5e&ruary 3/)/$ the Court said that its
2ecem&er 3//, 2ecision failed to consider the threat to government 6posed &y the partisan potential of a large and growing
&ureaucracy7 the danger of systematic a&use perpetuated &y a 8powerful political machine9 that has amassed 8the scattered powers
of government wor:ers9 so as to give itself and its incum&ent wor:ers an 8un&rea:a&le grasp on the reins of power.; #he Court added
that 6in the case at &ar$ the pro&a&le harm to society in permitting incum&ent appointive ofcials to remain in ofce$ even as they
actively pursue elective posts$ far outweighs the less li:ely evil of having argua&ly protected candidacies &loc:ed &y the possi&le
inhi&itory e<ect of a potentially overly &road
=ere$ it strongly upholds the constitutionality of the resolution saying that it does not violate the e>ual protection clause. 't is settled
that the e>ual protection clause does not demand a&solute e>uality? it merely re>uires that all persons shall &e treated ali:e$ under
li:e circumstances and conditions &oth as to privileges conferred and lia&ilities enforced. #he test used is reasona&leness which
re>uires that7
). #he classifcation rests on su&stantial distinctions?
3. 't is germane to the purposes of the law?
*. 't is not limited to e@isting conditions only? and
A. 't applies e>ually to all mem&ers of the same class.
'n the case under consideration$ there is a su&stantial distinction &etween pu&lic and elective ofcials which has &een rendered moot
and academic &y the ruling made in the case of 5arinas$ etl. al. vs. E@ecutive (ecretary$ et. al.
(ection A BaC of COMELEC +esolution Do. E-FE is constitutional.
Pundaodaya v. COMELEC
!.+. Do. )F,*)*$ (eptem&er )F$ 3//,
Gnares0(antiago$ %.$ En Hanc
FACTS: Petitioner was Ma:il Pundaodaya$ hus&and of %udith Pundaodaya who lost the 3//F mayoral elections at Iinoguitan$ Misamis
Oriental. Pu&lic respondent COMELEC En Hanc declared "rsenio Do&le the Iinoguitan Mayor in the 3//F elections. Petitioner claimed
that private respondent is resident of Cagayan de Oro City BC2OC where he maintains a &usiness and that COMELEC acted with grave
a&use discretion when B)C it declared private respondent >ualifed B3C it failed to annul Do&le9s election proclamation? and B*C it
refused to proclaim %udith Pundaodaya as the winner.Private respondent Do&le said that in ),,3$ he married the daughter of the
Mayor of Iinoguitan where he also voted in the ),,E$ 3//)$ and 3//A elections. Hut private respondent did not a&andon original
domicile Blegal residenceC in
C2O as proven &y7
BaC Harangay +esidence Certifcation BC2OC
B&C "fdavit of Don0residence BIinoguitan$ Misamis OrientalC
BcC Photos$ receipts showing that Do&le and wife maintained residence$ &usiness in C2O
BdC #a@ declarations of real properties in C2O under Do&le9s name
BeC =ousehold +ecord of Harangay 'nha&itants of Iinoguitan Mayor Bfather of wifeC
(ec. *,$ Local !ov9t Code B+" F)-/C provides that an elective local ofcial must &e a resident in the &arangay$ municipality$ city$ or
province where he intends to serve for at least one B)C year immediately preceding the election.+esidence is defned as the place
where one ha&itually resides and to which$
when he is a&sent$ he has the intention of returning. 't is a >uestion of intention and circumstances.
+ules on 4udging circumstances7
0that a man must have residenceJdomicile somewhere
0when once esta&lished it remains until a new one is ac>uired
0a man can have &ut one residenceJdomicile at a time
ISSUE7 .OD private respondent is >ualifed to run for the mayoralty position
HELD: Petition !+"D#E2. Proclaimed Kice0Mayor ordered to succeed as Mayor.Do&le failed to comply with the residence
re>uirement. Presentation of voter registration records$ a marriage certifcate$ water &ills and a deed of sale covering property in the
place where he sought to &e elected was insufcient.Do&le9s alleged change of domicile was only for the purpose of >ualifying as
mayoral candidate in 3//F.
$.". #o. '()**) %cto+er '), ,**-
#%"LAI#IE MITMU$ LIM.%#A, .etitioner,
vs.
C%MMISSI%# %# ELECTI%#S an/ MALI0 1.%..21 T. ALI#$A#, Respondents.
#ACHU"A, J.:
-efore this +ourt is a .etition for +ertiorari under Rule (9, in relation to Rule (4, assailing the Resolution
1
dated 8ovem$er 12, 1;;7 of the Second
Division of the +ommission on *lections <+omelec> and the Resolution
1
of the +omelec *n -anc dated Ianuary 14, 1;;9 in S.A 8o. ;7H(11.
:he factual and procedural antecedents are as follows0
.rior to the ay 14, 1;;7 elections, petitioner 8orlainie itmug Lim$ona and her hus$and, ohammad J*#chanJ Lim$ona, each filed a +ertificate of
+andidacy for ayor of .antar, Lanao del 8orte. )n April 1, 1;;7, private respondent ali! J-o$$yJ Alingan filed a dis3ualification case against
ohammad $efore the .rovincial *lection Supervisor of Lanao del 8orte. )n April 11, 1;;7, Alingan also filed a petition for dis3ualification against
petitioner.
2
-oth dis3ualification cases were premised on the ground that petitioner and her hus$and lac!ed the oneHyear residency re3uirement and
$oth were not registered voters of .antar.
4
)n April 17, 1;;7, petitioner e#ecuted an Affidavit of 6ithdrawal of her certificate of candidacy,
9
which was su$se3uently approved $y the
+omelec.
(
.etitioner also filed a otion to Dismiss the dis3ualification case against her for $eing moot and academic.
7
)n election day, ay 14, 1;;7, the +omelec resolved to postpone the elections in .antar $ecause there was no final list of voters yet. A special election
was scheduled for Iuly 12, 1;;7.
8
)n ay 14, 1;;7, the +omelec =irst Division promulgated a Resolution dis3ualifying ohammad as candidate for mayor for failure to comply with the
oneHyear residency re3uirement.
9
.etitioner then filed her +ertificate of +andidacy as su$stitute candidate on Iuly 11, 1;;7. )n Iuly 12, 1;;7, Alingan
filed a petition for dis3ualification against petitioner for, among others, lac!ing the oneHyear residency re3uirement <S.A 8o. ;7H(11>.
1;
&n a Resolution in S.A 8o. ;7H(11
11
dated 8ovem$er 12, 1;;7, the +omelec Second Division ruled that petitioner was dis3ualified from running for
ayor of .antar. :he +omelec held that petitioner only $ecame a resident of .antar in 8ovem$er 1;;(. &t e#plained that petitionerAs domicile of origin
was aguing, Lanao del 8orte, her $irthplace. 6hen she got married, she $ecame a resident of -arangay Rapasun, arawi +ity, where her hus$and
was -arangay +hairman until 8ovem$er 1;;(. -arangay Rapasun, the +omelec said, was petitionerAs domicile $y operation of law under the =amily
+ode. :he +omelec found that the evidence petitioner adduced to prove that she has a$andoned her domicile of origin or her domicile in arawi +ity
two years prior to the elections consisted mainly of selfHserving affidavits and were not corro$orated $y independent and competent evidence. :he
+omelec also too! note of its resolution in another case where it was found that petitioner was not even a registered voter in .antar. .etitioner filed a
otion for Reconsideration.
11
:he +omelec resolved the motion in an *n -anc Resolution dated Ianuary 14, 1;;9,
12
affirming the Second DivisionAs Resolution dis3ualifying petitioner.
:he +omelec said that the issue of whether petitioner has complied with the oneHyear residency rule has $een decided $y the Supreme +ourt in
8orlainie itmug Lim$ona v. +ommission on *lections and ali! J-o$$yJ :. Alingan promulgated on Iune 19, 1;;8. :he +omelec noted that, in said
case, the Supreme +ourt upheld the +omelec =irst DivisionAs Decision in S.A 8o. ;7H(11 dis3ualifying petitioner from running for mayor of .antar for
failure to comply with the residency re3uirement.
.etitioner is now $efore this +ourt assailing the +omelecAs 8ovem$er 12, 1;;7 and Ianuary 14, 1;;9 Resolutions. She posits that the +omelec erred in
dis3ualifying her for failure to comply with the oneHyear residency re3uirement. She alleges that in a dis3ualification case against her hus$and filed $y
8asser acauyag, another mayoralty candidate, the +omelec considered her hus$and as a resident of .antar and 3ualified to run for any elective office
there. .etitioner avers that since her hus$and was 3ualified to run in .antar, she is li!ewise 3ualified to run.
14
1avvhi1
.etitioner also stresses that she was actually residing and was physically present in that municipality for almost two years prior to the ay 1;;7
elections. During the time she had $een residing in .antar, she associated and mingled with residents there, giving her ample time to !now the needs,
difficulties, aspirations, and economic potential of the municipality. :his, she said, is proof of her intention to esta$lish permanent residency there and her
intent to a$andon her domicile in arawi +ity.
She ne#t argues that, even as her hus$and was .unong -arangay of Rapasun, arawi +ity, he never a$andoned .antar as his hometown and domicile
of origin. She avers that the performance of her hus$andAs duty in Rapasun did not prevent the latter from having his domicile elsewhere. "ence, it was
incorrect for the +omelec to have concluded that her hus$and changed his domicile only on 8ovem$er 11, 1;;(.
19
At the very least, petitioner says, the
+omelecAs conflicting resolutions on the issue of her hus$andAs residence should create a dou$t that should $e resolved in her and her hus$andAs
favor.
1(
She further contends that to dis3ualify her would disenfranchise the voters of .antar, the overwhelming ma@ority of whom elected her as mayor during
the Iuly 12, 1;;7 special elections.
17
:he +omelec, through the )ffice of the Solicitor /eneral <)S/>, filed its +omment, insisting that the +omelec correctly dis3ualified petitioner from
running as mayor for lac! of the oneHyear residency re3uirement.
18
:he )S/ argues that there is no evidence that petitioner has a$andoned her
domicile of origin or her domicile in arawi +ity.
19
oreover, the )S/ said that this +ourt has ruled on the issue of petitionerAs residency in 8orlainie
itmug Lim$ona v. +ommission on *lections and ali! J-o$$yJ :. Alingan.
1;
Lastly, the )S/ contends that the +omelecAs ruling in 8asser A. acauyag
v. ohammad Lim$ona is not $inding on petitioner $ecause she was not a party to the case.
11
6e dismiss the .etition.
:he issue of petitionerAs dis3ualification for failure to comply with the oneHyear residency re3uirement has $een resolved $y this +ourt in 8orlainie
itmug Lim$ona v. +ommission on *lections and ali! J-o$$yJ :. Alingan.
11
:his case stemmed from the first dis3ualification case filed $y herein
respondent against petitioner, doc!eted as S.A 8o. ;7H(11. Although the petitioner had withdrawn the +ertificate of +andidacy su$@ect of the
dis3ualification case, the +omelec resolved the petition and found that petitioner failed to comply with the oneHyear residency re3uirement, and was,
therefore, dis3ualified from running as mayor of .antar.
A unanimous +ourt upheld the findings of the +omelec, to wit0
6"*R*=)R*, the petition for certiorari is D&S&SS*D. :he Septem$er 4, 1;;7 Resolution of the +ommission on *lections in S.A +ase 8o. ;7H(11
dis3ualifying petitioner 8orlainie itmug Lim$ona from running for office of the ayor of .antar, Lanao del 8orte, and the Ianuary 9, 1;;8 Resolution
denying the motion for reconsideration, are A==&R*D. &n view of the permanent vacancy in the )ffice of the ayor, the proclaimed 5iceHayor shall
S%++**D as ayor. :he temporary restraining order issued on Ianuary 19, 1;;8 is ordered L&=:*D.
S) )RD*R*D.
12
:he +ourt found that petitioner failed to satisfy the oneHyear residency re3uirement. &t held0
:he +omelec correctly found that petitioner failed to satisfy the oneHyear residency re3uirement. :he term JresidenceJ as used in the election law is
synonymous with Jdomicile,J which imports not only intention to reside in a fi#ed place $ut also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention. :he manifest intent of the law in fi#ing a residence 3ualification is to e#clude a stranger or newcomer, unac3uainted with the
conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that community.
=or purposes of election law, the 3uestion of residence is mainly one of intention. :here is no hard and fast rule $y which to determine where a person
actually resides. :hree rules are, however, well esta$lished0 first, that a man must have a residence or domicile somewhereB second, that where once
esta$lished it remains until a new one is ac3uiredB and third, a man can have $ut one domicile at a time.
&n order to ac3uire a domicile $y choice, there must concur <1> residence or $odily presence in the new locality, <1> an intention to remain there, and <2>
an intention to a$andon the old domicile. A personAs JdomicileJ once esta$lished is considered to continue and will not $e deemed lost until a new one is
esta$lished.
:o successfully effect a change of domicile one must demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of domicileB a $ona fide intention of
a$andoning the former place of residence and esta$lishing a new one, and definite acts which correspond with the purpose. &n other words, there must
$asically $e animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. :he purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must $e for an indefinite period
of timeB the change of residence must $e voluntaryB and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must $e actual.
.etitionerAs claim that she has $een physically present and actually residing in .antar for almost 1; months prior to the elections, is selfHserving and
unsu$stantiated. As correctly o$served $y the +omelec0
&n the present case, the evidence adduced $y respondent, which consists merely of selfHserving affidavits cannot persuade %s that she has a$andoned
her domicile of origin or her domicile in arawi +ity. &t is alleged that respondent Jhas $een staying, sleeping and doing $usiness in her house for more
than 1; monthsJ in Lower Kalanganan and yet, there is no independent and competent evidence that would corro$orate such statement.
=urther, 6e find no other act that would indicate respondentAs intention to stay in .antar for an indefinite period of time. :he filing of her +ertificate of
+andidacy in .antar, standing alone, is not sufficient to hold that she has chosen .antar as her new residence. 6e also ta!e notice of the fact that in
S.A 8o. ;7H(11, this +ommission has even found that she is not a registered voter in the said municipality warranting her dis3ualification as a
candidate.
6e note the findings of the +omelec that petitionerAs domicile of origin is aguing, Lanao del 8orte, which is also her place of $irthB and that her
domicile $y operation of law <$y virtue of marriage> is Rapasun, arawi +ity. :he +omelec found that ohammad, petitionerAs hus$and, effected the
change of his domicile in favor of .antar, Lanao del 8orte only on 8ovem$er 11, 1;;(. Since it is presumed that the hus$and and wife live together in
one legal residence, then it follows that petitioner effected the change of her domicile also on 8ovem$er 11, 1;;(. Articles (8 and (9 of the =amily +ode
provide0
Art. (8. :he hus$and and wife are o$liged to live together, o$serve mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.
Art. (9. :he hus$and and wife shall fi# the family domicile. &n case of disagreement, the court shall decide. :he court may e#empt one spouse from living
with the other if the latter should live a$road or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the e#emption. "owever, such e#emption shall not apply
if the same is not compati$le with the solidarity of the family. <*mphasis ours>
+onsidering that petitioner failed to show that she maintained a separate residence from her hus$and, and as there is no evidence to prove otherwise,
reliance on these provisions of the =amily +ode is proper and is in consonance with human e#perience.
:hus, for failure to comply with the residency re3uirement, petitioner is dis3ualified to run for the office of mayor of .antar, Lanao del 8orte. # # #.
14
.etitionerAs otion for Reconsideration of the a$oveH3uoted Decision was denied with finality on arch 2, 1;;9.
19
.etitioner filed another otion for
Reconsideration,
1(
which the +ourt treated as a Second otion for Reconsideration and, conse3uently, denied in a Resolution dated Iune 1, 1;;9.
17
)f
late, petitioner has filed a JanifestationJ that raises yet again the issues already resolved in the petition and which the +ourt has, accordingly, merely
noted without action.
18
:hus, our ruling therein has now attained finality.
+onse3uently, the issue of petitionerAs compliance with the oneHyear residency re3uirement is now settled. 6e are $ound $y this +ourtAs ruling in the
earlier Lim$ona case where the issue was s3uarely raised and categorically resolved. 6e cannot now rule anew on the merits of this case, especially
since the present .etition merely restates issues already passed upon $y the +omelec and affirmed $y this +ourt.
6"*R*=)R*, the foregoing premises considered, the .etition is D&S&SS*D and the Resolution dated 8ovem$er 12, 1;;7 of the Second Division of
the +ommission on *lections and the Resolution of the +ommission on *lections *n -anc dated Ianuary 14, 1;;9 in S.A 8o. ;7H(11 are A==&R*D.
S) )RD*R*D.
A#T%#I% EDUA"D% .. #ACHU"A
Associate Iustice
3ilan/o vs. H"ET, $.". #o '-,'45 6 '-,'4-, Au7ust ,8, ,*''
Facts: )n April 11, 1;;9 and ay 17, 1;;9, petitioner 5ilandoB and Iacinto .aras, filed separate petitions for Luo 6arranto against Lim!aichong $efore
the "R*:. .etitioners asserted that Lim!aichong was a +hinese citiMen and ineligi$le for the office she was elected and proclaimed. :hey alleged that
she was $orn to a father <Iulio Sy>, whose naturaliMation had not attained finality, and to a mother who ac3uired the +hinese citiMenship of Iulio Sy from
the time of her marriage to the latter. Also, they contend that Lim!aichong cannot derive .hilippine citiMenship from her mother given that at the time of
her $irth, her mother is not already a =ilipino citiMen as a result of her marriage to her father.
Issue: -y o$taining an A+R did Lim!aichongAs mother repudiate her =ilipino citiMenshipG Did it result in an ac3uisition of an alien citiMenshipG &s
Lim!aichong a naturalH$orn =ilipino citiMenG
"ulin7: An application for an alien certificate of registration <A+R> is not an indu$ita$le proof of forfeiture of .hilippine citiMenship. &t $ears no indication
of $asis for foreign citiMenship, nor proof of change to foreign citiMenship.
%nli!e $irth certificates registered pursuant to Act 2792 <:he +ivil Register Law>, and much less li!e other pu$lic records referred to under Section 12,
Rule 121, an alien certificate of registration is not a pu$lic document that would $e prima facie evidence of the truth of facts contained therein. )n its
face, it only certifies that the applicant had su$mitted himself or herself to registration. :herefore, there is no presumption of alienage of the declarant.
:hus, o$taining an A+R $y Lim!aichongAs mother was not tantamount to a repudiation of her original citiMenship. 8either did it result in an ac3uisition of
alien citiMenship. &n a string of decisions, this +ourt has consistently held that an application for, and the holding of, an alien certificate of registration is
not an act constituting renunciation of .hilippine citiMenship. =or renunciation to effectively result in the loss of citiMenship, the same must $e e#press.
Such e#press renunciation is lac!ing in this case.
Accordingly, Lim!aichongAs mother, $eing a =ilipino citiMen, can transmit her citiMenship to her daughter.
itra v. +omelec
+ertificate of candidacyB residency re3uirement.
0 T9e %mni+us Election Co/e provi/es t9at a certi:icate o: can/i/ac ma +e /enie/ /ue course or cancelle/ i: t9ere is an :alse
representation o: a material :act.
0 :he critical material facts are those that refer to a candidateAs 3ualifications for elective office, such as his or her citiMenship and residence.
0 T9e :alse representation must +e a /eli+erate attempt to mislea/, misin:orm, or 9i/e a :act t9at ;oul/ ot9er;ise ren/er a can/i/ate
ineli7i+le.
0 $iven t9e purpose o: t9e re<uirement, it must +e ma/e ;it9 t9e intention to /eceive t9e electorate as to t9e ;oul/=+e can/i/ate>s
<uali:ications :or pu+lic o::ice.
0 :hus, the misrepresentation cannot $e the result of a mere innocuous mista!e, and cannot e#ist in a situation where the intent to deceive is
patently a$sent, or where no deception on the electorate results.
0 :he foregoing are the legal standards $y which the +)*L*+ must act on a petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of
candidacy.
0 :hus, in considering the residency of a candidate as stated in the certificate of candidacy, the +)*L*+ must determine whether or not the
candidate deli$erately attempted to mislead, misinform or hide a fact a$out his or her residency that would otherwise render him or her
ineligi$le for the position sought.
0
T9e C%MELEC 7ravel a+use/ its /iscretion in t9is case ;9en, in consi/erin7 t9e resi/enc issue, it +ase/ its /ecision solel on
ver personal an/ su+?ective assessment stan/ar/s, suc9 as t9e nature or /esi7n an/ :urnis9in7s o: t9e /;ellin7 place in relation
to t9e stature o: t9e can/i/ate. Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. 19193, J!l" #, #$1$.
8ature0 :he respondent +ommission on *lections <+)*L*+> canceled the certificate of candidacy <+)+> of petitioner A$raham Kahlil -. itra for
allegedly misrepresenting that he is a resident of the unicipality of A$orlan, .rovince of .alawan where he ran for the position of /overnor. itra came
to this +ourt to see! the reversal of the cancellation.
=acts0
0 6hen his +)+ for the position of /overnor of .alawan was declared cancelled, itra was the incum$ent Representative of the Second
District of .alawan.
0 :his district then included, among other territories, the unicipality of A$orlan and .uerto .rincesa +ity.
0 "e was elected Representative as a domiciliary of .uerto .rincesa +ity, and represented the legislative district for three <2> terms immediately
$efore the elections of 1;1;.
0 )n arch 1(, 1;;7 <or $efore the end of itraAs second term as Representative>, .uerto .rincesa +ity was reclassified as a Jhighly ur$aniMed
cityJ and thus ceased to $e a component city of the .rovince of .alawan.
0 :he direct legal conse3uence of this new status was the ineligi$ility of .uerto .rincesa +ity residents from voting for candidates for elective
provincial officials.
0 )n arch 1;, 1;;9, with the intention of running for the position of /overnor, itra applied for the transfer of his 5oterAs Registration Record
from .recinct 8o. ;271; of -rgy. Sta. onica, .uerto .rincesa +ity, to Sitio aligaya,-rgy. &sau$, unicipality of A$orlan, .rovince of
.alawan. "e su$se3uently filed his +)+ for the position of /overnor of .alawan as a resident of A$orlan.
0 Soon thereafter, respondents Antonio 5. /onMales and )rlando R. -al$on, Ir. <the respondents> filed a petition to deny due course or to
cancel itraAs +)+.
&ssue06hether or not itra is 3ualified to run for /overnor of .alawan.
"eld0N*S. itra is 3ualified to rum for the position as /overnor of .alawan. :he Supreme +ourt ruled that itra did not misrepresent himself and that he
met the residency re3uirement as mandated $y the +onstitution.
RA:&)0
0 :he election of A$raham Kahlil itra as governor of .alawan in the ay 1;, 1;1; elections was upheld in a vote of 11H2.
0 :he respondents were not a$le to present a convincing case sufficient to overcome itraAs evidence of effective transfer to and residence in
A$orlan and the validity of his representation on this point in his +)+.
0 Li!ewise, the J+)*L*+ could not present any legally accepta$le $asis to conclude that itraAs statement in his +)+ regarding his
residence was a misrepresentation.J
0 itraAs domicile of origin is undisputedly .uerto .rincesa +ity. =or him to 3ualify as /overnor ? in light of the relatively recent change of status
of .uerto .rincesa +ity from a component city to a highly ur$aniMed city whose residents can no longer vote for provincial officials ? he had to
a$andon his domicile of origin and ac3uire a new one within the local government unit where he intended to runB this would $e his domicile of
choice. :o ac3uire a domicile of choice, @urisprudence, which the +)*L*+ correctly invo!ed, re3uires the following0
<1> residence or $odily presence in a new localityB <1> an intention to remain thereB and <2> an intention to a$andon the old domicile.
0 itra, presented sworn statements of various persons <including the seller of the land he purchased, the lessor of the aligaya =eedmill, and
the .unong -arangay of the site of his residence> attesting to his physical residence in A$orlanB photographs of the residential portion of
aligaya =eedmill where he resides, and of his e#perimental pineapple plantation, farm, farmhouse and coc! farmB the lease contract over the
aligaya =eedmillB and the deed of sale of the lot where he has started constructing his house. "e clarified, too, that he does not claim
residence in A$orlan at the house then under constructionB his actual residence is the meMManine portion of the aligaya =eedmill $uilding.
0 itra has $een proclaimed winner in the electoral contest and has therefore the mandate of the electorate to serve
8):*S0
0 :he minimum re3uirement under our +onstitutionand election laws for the candidatesA residency in the political unit they see! to represent has
never $een intended to $e an empty formalistic conditionB it carries with it a very specific purpose0 to prevent JstrangerDsE or newcomerDsE
unac3uainted with the conditions and needs of a communityJ from see!ing elective offices in that community.
0 :he purpose of the residency re3uirement is J$est met $y individuals who have either had actual residence in the area for a given period or who
have $een domiciled in the same area either $y origin or $y choice.J
0 Read and understood in this manner, residency can readily $e appreciated as a re3uirement that goes into the heart of our democratic systemB it
directly supports the purpose of representation ? electing those who can $est serve the community $ecause of their !nowledge and sensitivity to its
needs. &t li!ewise adds meaning and su$stance to the votersA freedom of choice in the electoral e#ercise that characteriMes every democracy.
0 To ac<uire a ne; /omicile ! a /omicile + c9oice ! t9e :ollo;in7 must concur: @'A resi/ence or +o/il presence in a ne; localitB @,A an
intention to remain t9ereB an/ @8A an intention to a+an/on t9e ol/ /omicile. In ot9er ;or/s, t9ere must +e an animus non reverten/i ;it9
respect to t9e ol/ /omicile, an/ an animus manen/i at t9e /omicile o: c9oice. T9e intent to remain in or at t9e /omicile o: c9oice must +e
:or an in/e:inite perio/ o: time an/ t9e acts o: t9e person must +e consistent ;it9 t9is intent.
"rticle K'7 #he Legislative 2epartment$ (ection 17 Composition of the =ouse of +epresentatives? "pportionment and +epresentation7
5ollowing the return of every census$ Congress shall ma:e a reapportionmentC
!a"a#uyo v COMELEC
2ate of Promulgation7 2ecem&er E$ 3//E
Ponente7Hrion
Motion7 Certiorari$ Prohi&ition and Mandamus with a prayer for issuance of #+O and writ of preliminary in4unction
Fa$t
On Octo&er )/$ 3//-$ Cagayan de Oro9s then Congressman Constantino !. %araula fled and sponsored =ouse Hill Do. 1E1,7 "n "ct
Providing for the "pportionment of the Lone Legislative 2istrict of the City of Cagayan 2e Oro or +" Do. ,*F). 't increased Cagayan
de Oro9s legislative district from one to two. 5or the election of May 3//F$ C2O9s voters would &e classifed as &elonging to either the
frst or the second district$ depending on their place of residence. On March )*$ 3//F$ COMELEC promulgated a resolution
implementing the said act. Haga&uyo fled a petition at the (upreme Court as:ing for the nullifcation of +" ,*F) and +esolution Do.
FE*F on constitutional grounds. Petitioner argued that COMELEC cannot implement a law without the commencement of a ple&iscite
which is indispensa&le for the division and conversion of a local govt. unit.
Iu%:
.hether or not the law$ of which pertains to the legislative apportionment of a city$ involve the division andconversion of a local
government unit$ necessitating a ple&iscite
&u'in": Petition is 2'(M'((E2.
#he Court upheld respondent9s arguments saying that such law only increased the representation of C2O in the =ouse of
+epresentatives and (angguniang Panglungsod. Creation$ division$ merger$ a&olition$ and alteration of &oundaries under "rt. L (ec.
)/ re>uires the commencement of a ple&iscite$ while legislative apportionment or reapportionment under "rt. K'$ (ec.1 need not.
#here was also no change in C2O9s territory$ population$ income and classfcation.
Legislative apportionment is defned &y Hlac:9s Law 2ictionary as the determination of the num&er of representatives which a (tate$
county or other su&division may send to a legislative &ody. 't is the allocation of seats in a legislative &ody in proportion to the
population? the drawing of voting district lines so as to e>ualize population and voting power among the districts. +eapportionment$
on the other hand$ is the realignment or change in legislative districts &rought a&out &y changes in population and mandated &y the
constitutional re>uirement of e>uality of representation. +" ,*F) does not have the e<ect of dividing the City of Cagayan de Oro into
two political and corporate units and territories. +ather than divide the city either territorially or as a corporate entity$ the e<ect is
merely to enhance voter representation &y giving each city voter more and greater say$ &oth in Congress and in the (angguniang
Panglunsod.
#he City$ for its part$ now has twice the num&er of congressmen spea:ing for it and voting in the halls of Congress. (ince the total
num&er of congressmen in the country has not increased to the point of dou&ling its num&ers$ the presence of two congressman
Binstead of oneC from the same city cannot &ut &e a >uantitative and proportional improvement in the representation of Cagayan de
Oro City in Congress.
A(uino III v. COMELEC) *.&. +o. 1,-.-/) A01i' .) 2010
Post under case digests$ Political Law at #uesday$ %anuary *)$ 3/)3 Posted &y (chizophrenic Mind
Fa$t: #he said case was fled &y the petitioners &y way of a Petition for Certiorari and Prohi&ition under +ule -1 of the +ules of Court.
't was addressed to nullify and declared as unconstitutional$ +.". ,F)- entitled 6"n "ct +eapportioning the Composition of the 5irst
B)stC and (econd Legislative 2istricts B3ndC in the province of Camarines (ur and #here&y Creating a Dew Legislative 2istrict from
such +eapportionment.;
(aid "ct originated from =ouse Hill Do. A3-A$ and it was enacted &y President Macapagal0"rroyo. E<ectuating the act$ it has divided
the e@isting four districts$ and apportioned districts shall form additional district where the new frst district shall &e composed of
)F-$*E* population count.
Petitioners contend that the reapportionment runs afoul of the e@plicit constitutional standard with a minimum population of 31/$///
for the creation of a legislative district under (ection 1 B*C$ "rticle K' of the ),EF Constitution. 't was emphasized as well &y the
petitioners that if population is less than that provided &y the Constitution$ it must &e stric:en0down for non0compliance with the
minimum population re>uirement$ unless otherwise f@ed &y law.
+espondents have argued that the petitioners are guilty of two fatal technical e<ects7 frst$ error in choosing to assail +.". ,F)- via
the +emedy of Certiorari and Prohi&ition under +ule -1 of the +ules of Court. "nd second$ petitioners have no locus standi to >uestion
the constitutionality of +.". ,F)-.
Iu%: .hether or not +epu&lic "ct Do. ,F)- is unconstitutional and therefore null and void$ or whether or not a population of
31/$/// is an indispensa&le constitutional re>uirement for the creation of a new legislative district in a province.
H%'d: 't was ruled that the said "ct is constitutional. #he plain and clear distinction &etween a city and a province was e@plained
under the second sentence of (ection 1 B*C of the Constitution. 't states that a province is entitled into a representative$ with nothing
was mentioned a&out a population. .hile in cities$ a minimum population of 31/$/// must frst &e satisfed. 'n 3//F$ Cam(ur had a
population of )$-,*$E3) ma:ing the province entitled to two additional districts from the present of four. Hased on the formulation of
Ordinance$ other than population$ the results of the apportionment were valid. "nd lastly$ other factors were mentioned during the
deli&erations of =ouse Hill Do. A3-A.
2UA+ITO MA&IA+O) 2&. %t a'.) 0%tition%1)
v.
THE COMMISSIO+ O+ ELECTIO+S) THE MU+ICIPALIT3 OF MA4ATI) HO+. 2E2OMA& !I+A3) THE MU+ICIPAL T&EASU&E&)
A+D SA+**U+IA+* !A3A+ OF MA4ATI) 1%0ond%nt.
FACTS:
" petition for prohi&ition and declaratory relief against +.". Do. FE1A$ M"n "ct Converting the Municipality of Ma:ati 'nto a =ighly
Nr&anized City to &e :nown as the City of Ma:ati$M

was fled &y petitioners %uanito Mariano$ %r.$ Ligaya (. Hautista$ #eresita #i&ay$
Camilo (antos$ 5ran:ie Cruz$ +icardo Pascual$ #eresita "&ang$ Kalentina Pitalvero$ +ufno Caldoza$ 5lorante "l&a$ and Perfecto "l&a. Of
the petitioners$ only Mariano$ %r.$ is a resident of Ma:ati. #he others are residents of '&ayo Nsusan$ #aguig$ Metro Manila. (uing as
ta@payers$ they assail as unconstitutional sections 3$ 1)$ and 13 of +.". Do. FE1A.
ISSUES :.hether sections 3$ 1) and 13 of +.". Do. FE1A are unconstitutional.
&ULI+*: #he court fnds no merit in the petition.
(ection 3 of +.". Do. FE1A clearly stated that the cityOs land area Mshall comprise the present territory of the municipality.M (ection 3
did not add$ su&tract$ divide$ or multiply the esta&lished land area of Ma:ati. =ence$ the territorial &ounds need not &e made in metes
and &ounds with technical description and does not violate sections F and A1/ of the Local !overnment Code. "lso$ at the time of the
consideration of +.". Do. FE1A$ the territorial dispute &etween the municipalities of Ma:ati and #aguig over 5ort Honifacio was under
court litigation. Out of a &ecoming sense of respect to co0e>ual department of government$ legislators felt that the dispute should &e
left to the courts to decide. #hey did not want to foreclose the dispute &y ma:ing a legislative fnding of fact which could decide the
issue.
#he contention on the constitutionality of section 1) of +.". Do. FE1A was not entertained &y the court since it did not comply the
re>uirements &efore a litigant can challenge the constitutionality of a law which are7 )C there must &e an actual case or controversy?
B3C the >uestion of constitutionality must &e raised &y the proper party? B*C the constitutional >uestion must &e raised at the earliest
possi&le opportunity? and BAC the decision on the constitutional >uestion must &e necessary to the determination of the case itself.
#he petition is premised on the occurrence of many contingent events which this Court has no 4urisdiction and nor are they proper
parties to raise this a&stract issue.
On the constitutionality of section 1) of +.". FE1A$ which declares the addition of another legislative district in Ma:ati$ the court refers
to the case of #o&ias vs. "&alos. 'n said case$ the court ruled that reapportionment of legislative districts may &e made through a
special law$ such as in the charter of a new city. #he Constitution clearly provides that Congress shall &e composed of not more than
two hundred ffty B31/C mem&ers$ unless otherwise fxed by law. "s thus worded$ the Constitution did not preclude Congress from
increasing its mem&ership &y passing a law$ other than a general reapportionment of the law. #his is its e@actly what was done &y
Congress in enacting +.". Do. FE1A and providing for an increase in Ma:atiOs legislative district. Moreover$ to hold that
reapportionment can only &e made through a general apportionment law$ with a review of all the legislative districts allotted to each
local government unit nationwide$ would create an ine>uita&le situation where a new city or province created &y Congress will &e
denied legislative representation for an indeterminate period of time. Even granting that the population of Ma:ati as of the ),,/
census stood at four hundred ffty thousand BA1/$///C$ its legislative district may still &e increased since it has met the minimum
population re>uirement of two hundred ffty thousand B31/$///C. #here is also no merit in the contention of the title of the &ill that it
should e@pressly state the addition of a legislative district. #he Constitution does not command that the title of a law should e@actly
mirror$ fully inde@$ or completely catalogue all its details so as not to impede legislation. =ence$ the court ruled that Mit should &e
sufcient compliance if the title e@presses the general su&4ect and all the provisions are germane to such general su&4ect.M
.=E+E5O+E$ the petitions are here&y 2'(M'((E2 for lac: of merit Do costs.
A(uino v. Co5%'%$
A"a0ito A. A(uino) 0%tition%1 v. Co55iion on E'%$tion) Mov% Ma6ati) Mat%o !%don) and 2uanito I$a1o) 1%0ond%nt
(ept$ )E$ ),,1
(pecial Civil "ction in the (upreme Court. Certiorari.
+elevant Provisions7
(ection -$ "rticle K' of the ),EF Constitution
Do person shall &e a Mem&er of the =ouse of +epresentatives unless he is a natural0&orn citizen of the Philippines and$ on the day of
the election$ is at least twenty0fve years of age$ a&le to read and write$ and$ e@cept the party0list representatives$ a registered voter
in the district in which he shall &e elected$ and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the
day of the election.
Fa$t:
On 3/ March ),,1$ "gapito ". ">uino$ the petitioner$ fled his Certifcate of Candidacy for the position of +epresentative for the new
Bremem&er7 newly createdC (econd Legislative 2istrict of Ma:ati City. 'n his certifcate of candidacy$ ">uino stated that he was a
resident of the aforementioned district B3EA "mapola Cor. "dalla (ts.$ Palm Killage$ Ma:atiC for )/ months.
Move Ma:ati$ a registered political party$ and Mateo Hedon$ Chairman of L"I"(0DNC20NM2P of Harangay Cem&o$ Ma:ati City$ fled a
petition to dis>ualify ">uino on the ground that the latter lac:ed the residence >ualifcation as a candidate for congressman which
under (ection -$ "rticle K' of the ),EF Constitution$ should &e for a period not less than one year preceding the BMay E$ ),,1C day of
the election.
5aced with a petition for dis>ualifcation$ ">uino amended the entry on his residency in his certifcate of candidacy to ) year and )*
days. #he Commission on Elections passed a resolution that dismissed the petition on May - and allowed ">uino to run in the election
of E May. ">uino$ with *E$1AF votes$ won against "ugusto (y4uco with *1$,)/ votes.
Move Ma:ati fled a motion of reconsideration with the Comelec$ to which$ on May )1$ the latter acted with an order suspending the
proclamation of ">uino until the Commission resolved the issue. On 3 %une$ the Commission on Elections found ">uino ineligi&le and
dis>ualifed for the elective ofce for lac: of constitutional >ualifcation of residence.
">uino then fled a Petition of Certiorari assailing the May )1 and %une 3 orders.
Iu%:
). .hether 6residency; in the certifcate of candidacy actually connotes 6domicile; to warrant the dis>ualifcation of ">uino from the
position in the electoral district.
3. .OD it is proven that ">uino has esta&lished domicile of choice and not 4ust residence Bnot in the sense of the COCCin the district
he was running in.
H%'d:
). Ges$ #he term 6residence; has always &een understood as synonymous with 6domicile; not only under the previous constitutions
&ut also under the ),EF Constitution. #he Court cited the deli&erations of the Constitutional Commission wherein this principle was
applied.
Mr. Dolledo7
' remem&er that in the ),F) Constitutional Convention$ there was an attempt to re>uire residence in the place not less than one year
immediately preceding the day of elections.
P
.hat is the Committee9s concept of residence for the legislatureQ 's it actual residence or is it the concept of domicile or constructive
residenceQ
Mr. 2avide7
#his is in the district$ for a period of not less than one year preceding the day of election. #his was in e<ect lifted from the ),F*
constituition$ the interpretation given to it was domicile.
Mrs. Hraid7
On section F$ page3$ Doledo has raised the same point that resident has &een interpreted at times as a matter of intention rather
than actual residence.
P
Mr. 2e los +eyes
(o we have to stic: to the original concept that it should &e &y domicile and not physical and actual residence.
#herefore$ the framers intended the word 6residence; to have the same meaning of domicile.
#he place 6where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home$; where he$ no matter where he may &e found at any
given time$ eventually intends to return and remain$ i.e.$ his domicile$ is that to which the Constitution refers when it spea:s of
residence for the purposes of election law.
#he purpose is to e@clude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the community from ta:ing advantage
of favora&le circumstances e@isting in that community for electoral gain.
.hile there is nothing wrong with the purpose of esta&lishing residence in a given area for meeting election law re>uirements$ this
defeats the essence of representation$ which is to place through assent of voters those most cognizant and sensitive to the needs of a
particular district$ if a candidate falls short of the period of residency mandated &y law for him to >ualify.
.hich &rings us to the second issue.
3. Do$ ">uino has not esta&lished domicile of choice in the district he was running in.
#he (C agreed with the Comelec9s contention that ">uino should prove that he esta&lished a domicile of choice and not 4ust
residence.
#he Constitution re>uires a person running for a post in the =+ one year of residency prior to the elections in the district in which he
see:s election to .
">uino9s certifcate of candidacy in a previous BMay ))$ ),,3C election indicates that he was a resident and a registered voter of (an
%ose$ Concepcion$ #arlac for more than 13 years prior to that election. =is &irth certifcate indicated that Conception as his &irthplace
and his COC also showed him to &e a registered voter of the same district. #hus his domicile of origin Bo&viously$ choice as wellC up to
the fling of his COC was in Conception$ #arlac.
">uino9s connection to the new (econd 2istrict of Ma:ati City is an alleged lease agreement of a condominium unit in the area. #he
intention not to esta&lish a permanent home in Ma:ati City is evident in his leasing a condominium unit instead of &uying one. #he
short length of time he claims to &e a resident of Ma:ati Band the fact of his stated domicile in #arlac and his claims of other
residences in Metro ManilaC indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his physical residence is not to ac>uire a new$ residence or
domicile &ut only to >ualify as a candidate for +epresentative of the (econd 2istrict of Ma:ati City.
">uino9s assertion that he has transferred his domicile from #arlac to Ma:ati is a &are assertion which is hardly supported &y the facts
in the case at &ench. #o successfully e<ect a change of domicile$ petitioner must prove an actual removal or an actual change of
domicile$ a &ona fde intention of a&andoning the former place of residence and esta&lishing a new one and defnite acts which
correspond with the purpose.
">uino was thus rightfully dis>ualifed &y the Commission on Elections due to his lac: of one year residence in the district.
2ecision
'nstant petition dismissed. Order restraining respondent Comelec from proclaiming the candidate garnering the ne@t highest num&er
of votes in the congressional elections of (econd district of Ma:ati City made permanent.
Di$ta:
'. ">uino9s petition of certiorari contents were7
". #he Comelec9s lac: of 4urisdiction to determine the dis>ualifcation issue involving congressional candidates after the May E$ ),,1
elections$ such determination reserved with the house of representatives electional tri&unal
H. Even if the Comelec has 4urisdiction$ the 4urisdiction ceased in the instant case after the elections and the remedy to the adverse
parties lies in another forum which is the =+ Electoral #ri&unal consistent with (ection )F$ "rticle K' of the ),EF Constitution.
C. #he COMELEC committed grave a&use of discretion when it proceeded to promulagate its >uestioned decision despite its own
recognition that a threshold issue of 4urisdiction has to &e 4udiciously reviewed again$ assuming arguendo that the Comelec has
4urisdiction
2. #he Comelec9s fnding of non0compliance with the residency re>uirement of one year against the petitioner is contrary to evidence
and to applica&le laws and 4urisprudence.
E. #he Comelec erred in failing to appreciate the legal impossi&ility of enforcing the one year residency re>uirement of Congressional
candidates in newly created political districts which were only e@isting for less than a year at the time of the election and &arely four
months in the case of petitioner9s district in Ma:ati.
5. #he Comelec committed serious error amounting to lac: of 4urisdiction when it ordered the &oard of canvassers to determine and
proclaim the winner out of the remaining >ualifed candidates after the erroneous dis>ualifcation of the petitioner in disregard of the
doctrine that a second place candidate or a person who was repudiated &y the electorate is a loser and cannot &e proclaimed as
su&stitute winner.
''. Modern day carpet&aggers can9t &e allowed to ta:e advantage of the creation of new political districts &y suddenly transplanting
themselves in such new districts$ pre4udicing their genuine residents in the process of ta:ing advantage of e@isting conditions in these
areas.
'''. according to COMELEC7 #he lease agreement was e@ecuted mainly to support the one year residence re>uirement as a
>ualifcation for a candidate of the =+$ &y esta&lishing a commencement date of his residence. 'f a oerfectly valid lease agreement
cannot$ &y itself esta&lish a domicile of choice$ this particular lease agreement cannot &e &etter.
V%t%1an F%d%1ation Pa1ty v. COMELEC 7*.&. +o. 1/8.,1. O$to#%1 8) 20009
V%t%1an F%d%1ation Pa1ty v. COMELEC
7*.&. +o. 1/8.,1. O$to#%1 8) 20009
Fa$t:
COMELEC proclaimed )A party0list representatives from )* parties which o&tained at least 3R of the total num&er of votes cast for
the party0list system as mem&ers of the =ouse of +epresentatives. Npon petition for respondents$ who were party0list organizations$ it
proclaimed *E additional party0list representatives although they o&tained less than 3R of the total num&er of votes cast for the
party0list system on the ground that under the Constitution$ it is mandatory that at least 3/R of the mem&ers of the =ouse of
+epresentatives come from the party0list representatives.
Iu%:
's the twenty percent allocation for party0list representatives mentioned in (ection 1 B3C$ "rticle K' of the Constitution$ mandatory or is
it merely a ceilingQ 'n other words$ should the twenty percent allocation for party0list solons &e flled up completely and all the timeQ
H%'d:
't is not mandatory. 't merely provides a ceiling for the party0list seats in the =ouse of +epresentatives. #he Constitution vested
Congress with the &road power to defne and prescri&e the mechanics of the party0list system of representatives. 'n the e@ercise of its
constitutional prerogative$ Congress deemed it necessary to re>uire parties participating in the system to o&tain at least 3R of the
total votes cast for the party list system to &e entitled to a party0list seat. Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties having a
sufcient num&er of constituents deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress.
FO&MULA FO&
determination of total num&er of party0list representatives S Tdistrict representativesJ.E/ @ .3/
additional representatives of frst party S T of votes of frst partyJ T of votes of party list system
additional seats for concerned party S T of votes of concerned partyJ T votes of frst party @ additional seats for concerned
party
Iu%:
"re the two percent threshold re>uirement and the three0seat limit provided in (ection )) B&C of +" F,A) constitutionalQ
H%'d:
Ges. 'n imposing a two percent threshold$ Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties$ organizations and coalitions having a
sufcient num&er of constituents deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress. #his intent can &e gleaned from
the deli&erations on the proposed &ill. #he two percent threshold is consistent not only with the intent of the framers of the
Constitution and the law$ &ut with the very essence of Mrepresentation.M Nnder a repu&lican or representative state$ all government
authority emanates from the people$ &ut is e@ercised &y representatives chosen &y them. Hut to have meaningful representation$ the
elected persons must have the mandate of a sufcient num&er of people. Otherwise$ in a legislature that features the party0list
system$ the result might &e the proliferation of small groups which are incapa&le of contri&uting signifcant legislation$ and which
might even pose a threat to the sta&ility of Congress. #hus$ even legislative districts are apportioned according to Mthe num&er of
their respective inha&itants$ and on the &asis of a uniform and progressive ratioM to ensure meaningful local representation.
Iu%:
=ow should the additional seats of a >ualifed party &e determinedQ
H%'d:
(tep One. #here is no dispute among the petitioners$ the pu&lic and the private respondents$ as well as the mem&ers of this Court
that the initial step is to ran: all the participating parties$ organizations and coalitions from the highest to the lowest &ased on the
num&er of votes they each received. #hen the ratio for each party is computed &y dividing its votes &y the total votes cast for all the
parties participating in the system. "ll parties with at least two percent of the total votes are guaranteed one seat each. Only these
parties shall &e considered in the computation of additional seats. #he party receiving the highest num&er of votes shall thenceforth
&e referred to as the 6frst; party.
(tep #wo. #he ne@t step is to determine the num&er of seats the frst party is entitled to$ in order to &e a&le to compute that for the
other parties. (ince the distri&ution is &ased on proportional representation$ the num&er of seats to &e allotted to the other parties
cannot possi&ly e@ceed that to which the frst party is entitled &y virtue of its o&taining the most num&er of votes.
(tep #hree #he ne@t step is to solve for the num&er of additional seats that the other >ualifed parties are entitled to$ &ased on
proportional representation.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy