Fernandez v HRET ii.

His period of residence that is 1 yr and 2

months
FACTS: iii. That he is eligible to be a Rep of the 1st
1. Fernandez (petitioner) filed for a COC as the Rep of 1st district of Laguna
district of Laguna 7. HRET declared Fernandez ineligible and was ordered to
2. Indicatded his complete eddress in his COC (Sta. Rosa, vacate his office
Laguna)
3. Vicente filed a petition to Deny Due Course and/or ISSUE:
Cancel COC and petition for Disqualification before the W/N petitioner sufficiently complied with the 1-year residency
Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor of Laguna requirement to be a Member of the House of Reps?
a. Ground: petitioner misrepresented in his COC
his place of residence HELD:
b. Ground: petitioner indicate in past elections Yes. Petitioner has demonstrated that he has substantial ties
that he resides in Pagsanjan to Sta. Rosa and the First District of Laguna.
(4th district) 1. Petitioner has business interests in Sta. Rosa
c. Ground: petitioner maintained another house (restaurants and residential property for lease)
in Cabuyao 2. Has 2 children studying in Sta. Rosa even before 2006
4. COMELEC dismissed petition for lack of merit 3. Serves as a Board Member and Vice Gov for Province
5. Petitioner was proclaimed as the duly elected Rep of of Laguna
1st district of Laguna These circumstances provided petitioner to have reasons to
6. Vicente filed a petition for quo warranto before the frequently visit the area and eventually take up residence in
HRET the 1st district. With this, he had acquired knowledge of the
a. Praying: petitioner be declared ineligible to be a need and aspirations of the residents of the 1st district who
member of the house of reps representing the were among his constituents.
1st district
b. Praying: petitioner’s election and proclamation Cannot be a stranger to the community.
be annulled and declared null and void.
c. Ground: lack of required 1-year residency Tagolino v HRET and Torres-Gomez
d. Ground: petitioner falsely declared under oath:
i. That he lives in sta. rosa FACTS:
1. Gomez filed his COC as a Rep of 4th Legislative District 10. HRET dismissed the petition
of Leyte under LP
2. Juntilla, his opponent, filed a Verified Petition ISSUE:
a. Gomez was actually a resident of San Juan, W/N HRET gravely abused its discretion that Gomez was
Manila validly substituted by Torres-Gomez as candidate for Leyte
b. Misrepresented in his COC that he resided tin Rep in view of Torres-Gomez’ failure to meet 1 year residency
Ormoc requirement?
c. Failed to meet 1 year residency requirement
d. Praying: declare Gomez disqualified/ineligible HELD:
to run Yes. Gomez’ failure to comply with the 1 year residency
e. Praying: COC be denied due course and /or requirement is a ground for denial of due course to and/or
cancelled cancellation of COC and not for disqualification. If Gomez is
3. Gomez was disqualified by the COMELEC First Division disqualified, he can be substituted. But since his COC was
4. Gomez filed for a motion for reconsideration but cancelled, he cannot be substituted. Hence, Torres-Gomez’
denied by COMELEC En Banc substitution is not, in the first place, valid.
5. Torres-Gomez filed her COC together with a Certificate
of Nomination and Acceptance from LP The decision of COMELEC First Division that disallowed
a. Official substitute candidate of her husband substitution and decided for the cancellation of Gomez COC
6. COMELEC En Banc allowed Torres-Gomez to be the was overlooked by the En Banc because it approved Torres-
substitute Gomez substitution. HRET committed a grave abuse of
7. Juntilla filed an Extremely Urgent Motion for discretion when it approved the instant petition.
Reconsideration with regard to the decision of En Banc
8. Since Gomez won the elections, Torres-Gomez, being Reyes v COMELEC & Tan
the substitute, was proclaimed the duly elected Rep of FACTS:
4th district of leyte 1. Petitioner filed her COC for the position of Rep of
9. Tagolino filed a petition for quo warranto before HRET Marinduque
to oust Torres-Gomez 2. Tan filed a petition for the cancellation of Reyes’ coc
a. Failed to comply 1 yr residency a. reason: misrepresentations regarding her
b. Did not validly substitute Gonez as his COC was marital status, residency, date pf birth, and
void ab initio citizenship
c. Did not comply with notarial requirements b. reason: Reyes is an American Citizen
 3. COMELEC First Div issued a resolution cancelling the REQUIREMENTS FOR A CANDIDATE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
coc HOUSE:
a. Ground: not a citizen of the Philippines 1. Proper oath must be before a speaker
b. Failure to comply with the requirements of RA 2. Valid proclamation
9225 3.
4. Petitioner filed a motion for recon
5. Denied by COMELEC En Banc for lack of merit SECTION 11 – Privilege from arrest
6. Petitioner won the seat.
7. On the day she took her oath of office, COMELEC en People v Jalosjos
banc issued a certificate of finality declaring the FACTS:
reolution with regard to the cancellation of her COC 1. Jalosjos is a member of the Congress
final and executory 2. He is now confined at the national penitentiary while
his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and
ISSUE: acts of lasciviousness on 6 counts is pending appeal
W/N COMELEC erred in its ruling that the petitioner is 3. Jalosjos filed a motion
ineligible to run for office? a. Praying: he be allowed to fully discharge the
duties of a Congressman including attendance
HELD: at legislative sessions and committee meetings
No. There is no showing that petitioner complied with the b. Argument: “mandate of sovereign will”
requirements in order to reacquire Filipino Citizenship and be c. Argument: sovereign electorate chose him as
eligible for public office. There was no showing that petitioner their representative
took an oath of allegiance to the repub of the phils before the
consul general of the phils in the United States. There was also ISSUE:
no proof that she made a personal and sworn renunciation of Shall Jalosjos be allowed to fully discharge his duties as a
her American citizenship before any authorized public officer. Congressman?
Since there is no reacquisition of Filipino citizenship that took
place, it means that the petitioner did not abandon her HELD:
domicile of choice in the US. By claiming that she had been a No. The functions and duties of the office do not make the
Public Administrator in Marinduque is not conclusive evidence one holding the office different from the class of prisoners.
that she abandoned her domicile in the US. The performance of legitimate and essential duties by public
Hence, no grave abuse of discretion.
officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in against him. Allowing the petitioner to attend congressional
prison. sessions for 5 days or more makes him a free man.

NOTE: Allowing him to attend congressional sessions and NOTE: Doctrine of condonation was invoked by Trillanes. But
committee meetings will virtually make him a free man with it cannot be invoked in a criminal case only on administrative
all the privileges appurtenant to his position cases.

Trillanes v Pimentel SECTION 11 – Parliamentary Freedom of Speech and Debate

FACTS: Jimenez v Cabangbang
1. Trillanes was charged, along with his comrades, with FACTS:
coup d’etat. 1. Plaintiffs charged respondent for a civil action
2. 4 years later, petitioner, who has remained in 2. Respondent published libelous letter against the
detention, won a seat on the Senate with a 6-year plaintiffs
term. 3. During the publication of such, respondent was a
3. Petitioner filed with the RTC an “Omnibus Motion for member of the House of Reps
Leave of Court to be Allowed to Attend Senate 4. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the case because
Sessions and Related Requests” it was a privileged communication
4. Trial court denied all the requests in the Omnibus 5. CFI granted the motion
Motion
ISSUE:
ISSUE: W/N publication in question is a privileged communication?
W/N membership in Congress exempt an accused from
statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons HELD:
in general? No. For it to be considered as a privileged communication it
must be performed within his official duty. The publication
HELD: involved in this case does not belong to such category. It was
No. It is impractical to draw a line between convicted an open letter to the President when Congress presumably
prisoners and pre-trial detainees for the purpose of was not in session, and defendant caused said letter to be
maintaining jail security. When a person indicted for an published in several newspapers of general circulation.
offense is arrested, he is placed in actual restraint of liberty in Causing the communication to be published, he was not
jail. He must be detained during the pendency of the case performing his official duty in the Congress.
 Facts:
Pobre v Defensor-Santiago 1. Gordon was an incumbent senator when he was
FACTS: elected as a chairman of Philippine National Red Cross
1. Santiago expressed her despise in her privilege speech 2. Petitioners filed with the Court a petition to Declare
towards CJ Panganiban and other members of the Gordon as having Forfeited His Seat in the Senate
court a. By accepting the chairmanship of the PNRC
2. Pobre believed that it was a total disrespect towards Board of Governors, respondent has ceased to
the CJ and other members of the Court be a member of the Senate
3. Believed that it constituted direct contempt of court b. Pursuant to Art 6, Sec 13
4. Petitioner asks the Court that disbarment proceedings 3. Respondent answered argued that among other:
or other disciplinary actions be taken against a. PNRC is not a government-owned or controlled
respondent corporation
5. Respondent commented that It was covered by the b. Art 6 sec 13 cannot be applied in this case since
parliamentary immunity. volunteer service to PNRC is neither an office or
6. Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint an employment
Issue:
ISSUE: W/N PNRC is a government-owned or controlled corporation?
W/N the privilege speech done by the respondent is covered
by the parliamentary immunity? Held:
No. Under the PNRC Charter, only 6 out of 30 members were
HELD: appointed by the President, while the other 24 members were
Yes. Courts do not interfere with how the Congress perform not. The 24 members left who were not appointed by the
their functions. The statement uttered by the member of the President were chosen or elected by the private sector
Congress does not destroy the parliamentary privilege members of the PNRC. The President does not appoint the
pursuant to Article 6, Sec 11. The disciplinary authority of the Chairman of PNRC because its Chairman is elected by the
assembly and the electorate, and not the courts, can properly PNRC Board in which the majority is composed of those who
discourage or correct such abuses committed in the name of were coming from private sectors or are private individuals. If
such immunity. an office is not legally under the control of the President, then
such office is not under the Executive Department. Hence,
ARTICLE 6, SEC 13 (Forfeiture of seat) PNRC is a private organization performing public functions.
Liban v Gordon
Thus, Gordon is not holding a government employment or No. After the contested election of directors, after the filing of
office other than being a Senator. the suit, and 1 day before the hearing, Fernandez acquired a
mere 200-peso worth of stock in IPI. He signified his intention
Article 6, Section 14 (cannot appear as counsel) to be a counsel for the Acero group. However, the petitioners
Puyat v De Guzman questioned his validity as counsel. Hence, he moved to
FACTS: intervene on the case instead. He claimed that since he
1. An election was held for the Directors of the Int’s Pipe purchased shares from IPI, he has legal interest in the said
Industries Corp. case.
2. One group involved in the election, the Acero group,
instituted at the Securities and Exchange Commission It was therefore held that this is an indirect appearance as
(SEC) quo warranto proceedings, questioning the said counsel and a circumvention of the said provision in the
election. Constitution. The intervention enables him to appear actively
3. Justice Fernandez, who was a member of the Interim in the proceedings in some other capacity.
Batasang Pambansa, was the counsel of the Acero
group in the said case.
4. Puyat group objected the appearance of Justice
Fernandez pursuant to Sec 11, Art. VIII of 1973
Constitution (now Sec 14, Art 6)
5. It was stated that Fernandez purchased shares of IPI
upon request of Acero group
6. Following the notarization of the said purchase, he
filed a motion for intervention in the SEC case as the
owner of some of the IPI shares.
a. Reason: legal interest in the litigation
7. SEC granted leave to intervene

ISSUE:
W/N Fernandez may intervene in the SEC case?

HELD: