Adonai Jireh Dionne A.
Balite
College of Law 1
Subject: Constitutional Law 1
Topic: Legislative Branch
Title: AQUINO vs. COMELEC
Citation: G.R. No. 120265. September 18, 1995
Facts:
Herein Petitioner Agapito “Butz” A. Aquino on 20 March 1995 filed his Certificate of
Candidacy for the position of Representative for the new Second Legislative District of
Makati City. In his certificate of candidacy, Aquino stated that he was a resident of 284
Amapola Cor. Adalla Sts., Palm Village, Makati for ten months, said address is within the
second legislative district.
Move Makati, a registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of LAKAS-
NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Aquino on
the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for
congressman which under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, should be for a
period not less than one year preceding the (May 8, 1995) day of the election.
Faced with a petition for disqualification, Aquino amended the entry on his residency in
his certificate of candidacy to one year and 13 days. The Commission on Elections
(Comelec) passed a resolution which dismissed the petition on May 6 and allowed
Aquino to run in the election of 8 May. Aquino won against Augusto Syjuco with with
38,547 votes and 35,910 votes, respectively.
Move Makati filed a motion of reconsideration with the Comelec, to which, on May 15,
the latter acted with an order suspending the proclamation of Aquino until the
Commission resolved the issue.
On 2 June, the Commission on Elections found Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the
elective office for lack of constitutional qualification of residence.
Hence, this petition of certiorari assailing the May 15 and June 2 orders. Salient features
of his petition include the following:
1. That the Comelec has no jurisdiction to determine and adjudge the
disqualification issue involving congressional candidates after the 8 May 1995
Elections because such determination is being reserved and lodged exclusively
with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET);
2. The Comelec’s finding of non-compliance with the residency requirement of one
year against the petitioner is contrary to evidence and to applicable laws and
jurisprudence; and
3. The Comelec committed serious error amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
ordered the Board of Canvassers to “determine and proclaim the winner out of the
remaining qualified candidates” after the erroneous disqualification of the
petitioner in that such directive is in total disregard of the well-settled doctrine
that a second place candidate cannot be proclaimed as substitute winner.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the Comelec has jurisdiction to determine adjudge the disqualification
issue involving congressional candidates after the 8 May 1995 Elections;
2. Whether or not “residency” in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes
“domicile” to warrant the disqualification of Aquino from the position in the electoral
district; and
3. Whether or not Comelec committed serious error amounting to lack of jurisdiction
when it ordered the Board of Canvassers to “determine and proclaim the winner out
of the remaining qualified candidates” after the erroneous disqualification of the
petitioner.
Ruling:
1. YES. The Comelec indeed had jurisdiction in the said disqualification case because
he was not yet proclaimed as the winner by the Comelec and took his oath as a
member of the House of Representatives. In fine, he was not yet technically or
officially a member of the House of Representatives and therefore was not yet under
the jurisdiction of the HRET. The HRET clearly assumes jurisdiction over all
contests relative to the election, returns and qualifications of candidates for either the
Senate or the House only when the latter become members of either the Senate or the
House of Representatives. A candidate who has not been proclaimed and who has not
taken his oath of office cannot be said to be a member of the House of
Representatives subject to Section. 17 of the Constitution.
2. YES. The Court agreed with COMELEC's contention that in order that petitioner
could qualify as a candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati City,
the latter "must prove that he has established not just residence but domicile of
choice”. The Constitution requires that a person seeking election to the House of
Representatives should be a resident of the district in which he seeks election for a
period of not less than one (l) year prior to the elections. The framers of the
Constitution adhered to the earlier definition given to the word "residence" which
regarded it as having the same meaning as domicile. Clearly, the place "where a party
actually or constructively has his permanent home," 21 where he, no matter where he
may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his
domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the
purposes of election law. As found by the COMELEC en banc petitioner in his
Certificate of Candidacy for the May 11, 1992 elections, indicated not only 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. At the time, his certificate
indicated that he was also a registered voter of the same district. His birth certificate
places Concepcion, Tarlac as the birthplace of both of his parents Benigno and
Aurora. Thus, from data furnished by petitioner himself to the COMELEC at various
times during his political career, what stands consistently clear and unassailable is
that this domicile of origin of record up to the time of filing of his most recent
certificate of candidacy for the 1995 elections was Concepcion, Tarlac.
3. YES. The Court held that the Comelec indeed erred in issuing it Order instructing the
Board of Canvassers of Makati City to proclaim as winner the candidate receiving the
next higher number of votes. According to the Court, to contend that Syjuco should
be proclaimed because he was the "first" among the qualified candidates in the May
8, 1995 elections is to misconstrue the nature of the democratic electoral process and
the sociological and psychological underpinnings behind voters' preferences. Had
petitioner been disqualified before the elections, the choice, moreover, would have
been different. The votes for Aquino given the acrimony which attended the
campaign, would not have automatically gone to second placer Syjuco. The nature of
the playing field would have substantially changed. To simplistically assume that the
second placer would have received the other votes would be to substitute our
judgment for the mind of the voter. The second placer is just that, a second placer. He
lost the elections. He was repudiated by either a majority or plurality of voters. He
could not be considered the first among qualified candidates because in a field which
excludes the disqualified candidate, the conditions would have substantially changed.
The petition was dismissed and at the same time the Court ordered to restrain
respondent Comelec from proclaiming the candidate garnering the next highest
number of votes in the congressional elections for the Second District of Makati City.
