396

Lagasca v. De Vera Lagasca v. De Vera RULING: YES. A party may have but small following, but if it has RULING: NO. Those who join or become members of
Section 60.1. Definitions the legal standing of a "party" under section 76 of the Election associations, such as political parties or any other lawful groups
Code, it may properly claim representation on the boards of or organization, necessarily enjoy certain befits and privileges
FACTS: Reverend Melchor Dilizo Lagasca, petitioner, signed election inspectors as against a political group. The basis of which are incident to, or are consequences of, such membership.
himself as President of the Goodwill Party, asking that the latter majority and minority representation on the boards of election “The official candidates of an organized political party may be
be recognized as a duly organized political party, that its party inspectors is, under section 70 of the Election Code, the number distinguished from an independent candidate. The former are
ticket be printed on the official and that it be granted the right to of votes received at the next preceding election, to be determined bound by the party’s rules. They owe loyalty to the party, its
propose election inspectors Respondents answered alleging that in the manner therein prescribed. tenets, its policies, its platforms and programs of government. To
petitioner did not have a permanent address whatsoever; that the the electorate, they represent the party, its principles, ideals and
so-called Goodwill Party is neither organized nor is it composed objectives. This is not true of an independent candidate. If the
of a group of persons pursuing the same political ideals in a 398 electoral law has bias in favor of political parties, it is because
government, it having no other members than petitioner himself Lagasca v. De Vera, 79 Phil. 376 (1947) political parties constitute a basic element of the democratic
that petitioner has not presented any other proof of membership Section 60.2.—Size institutional apparatus. Government derives its strength from the
or organizations aside from his gratuitous and unsubstantiated support, active or passive, of a coalition of elements of society. In
claim. FACTS: Reverend Melchor Dilizo Lagasca, herein petitioner, modern times the political party has become the instrument for
signed himself as President of the Goodwill Party, asking that the the organization of societies. This is predicated on the doctrine
ISSUE: W/N the Goodwill Party is a political party under the latter be recognized as a duly organized political party, that its that government exists with the consent of the governed. Political
purview of the Election Code party ticket be printed on the official ballots for national officers parties perform an essential function in the management of
alleging that the Goodwill Party is entitled to have its candidates' succession to power, as well as in the process of obtaining
RULING: No. a political party is "an organized group of persons names printed in the official ballots and alleging that it has now popular consent to the course of public policy.
pursuing the same political ideals in a government. Petitioner's 453,989 voters as against 396,224 voters in 1946;
claim of a membership of 453,989 individuals is not enough. It is ISSUE: W/N the Goodwill Party is a political party under the What it proscribes is a classification which is arbitrary and
necessary that there should be "an organized group." There is purview of the Election Code unreasonable. It is not violated by a reasonable classification
absolutely no evidence on record as to the existence of an RULING: NO. Petitioner's claim of a membership of 453,989 based upon substantial distinctions, where the classification is
organized group of persons that composed the so-called individuals is not enough. It is necessary that there should be "an germane to the purpose of the law and applies equally to all
Goodwill Party. A constitution, by-laws, rules, or some kind of organized group." There is absolutely no evidence on record as those belonging to the same class.
charter is needed so as to give existence to the organization. to the existence of an organized group of persons that composed
Some kind of agreement, written or unwritten, must exist on how the so-called Goodwill Party.
the group is to function, to be presided over, and how it is to 399 401 Chua
express its collective will. Sumulong v. Comelec, 70 Phil. 703 (1940) ART. 8. SEC. 60.5. PARTY LIST SYSTEM
Ang Bagong Bayani vs. COMELEC
Case No. 397 Section 60.3.—Purpose
Sumulong vs. Commission on Election et al. MP: under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution,
70 Phil., 703 Same as in case 397. Different MP. political parties may be registered under the party-list system.The
four unique parameters of the Philippine Party-list system are:
FACTS: Juan Sumulong, Esq., as president of "Pagkakaisa ng MP: The purpose of the law recognizing the legal personality of First, 20% allocation- the combined number of all party-list
Bayan" (Popular Front Party), asked the COMELEC to declare political aggroupments for election purposes is to foster and congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total representatives
that the Pagkakaisa ng Bayan party has the right to nominate the encourage the formulation of political parties inspired by high of the HoR. Second, the 2% threshold – only those garnering a
third election inspector and his substitute in all the localities political ideas in government minimum of 2% votes are qualified. Third, the 3-seat limit – each
where he obtained the second place in number of votes in the qualifying party is entitled to a “qualifying” seat and 2 “additional”
last general elections, as well as in those locations where 400 seats. Fourth, proportional representation – additional seats are
Pagkakaisa ng Bayan is the only existing national political Peralta v. Comelec, 82 computed ‘in proportion to their total number of votes’
minority. Frente Popular, another political party, opposed to SCRA 30 (1978)
Sumulong’s request by contending that Popular Front Party party, FACTS: The case emanates from the question of the legality of FACTS: Akbayan filed before the Comelec a Petition praying that
by the nature of their organization, recognize no individual P.D. 1296, otherwise known as the 1973 Election Code which "the names of [some of herein respondents] be deleted from the
leadership or responsibility in the control and direction of their enables a voter to only write the name of the political party and it 'Certified List of Political Parties Participating in the Party List
affairs or aims, such power being vested always upon an would automatically put a vote on all the members of such System for the May 14, 2001…" It also asked, that the votes cast
executive committee composed of duly appointed representatives political party. They contend that this system is a violation of the for the said respondents not be counted or canvassed, and that
from the different political units and entities under the equal protection clause of the constitution because it deprives the latter's nominees not be proclaimed. Bayan Muna and Bayan
confederation or front. The COMELEC denied its request. independent candidates of the same benefit. Muna-Youth also filed a Petition for Cancellation of Registration
Reconsideration was also denied. and Nomination against some of herein respondents.
ISSUE: Whether or not Pd 1296 is violates the equal protection
ISSUE: Should Sumulong’s request be granted? clause under the Constitution.
Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna filed a separate Petitions constitute an unlawful intrusion into his privacy which he is
before SC assailing Comelec Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, entitled to enjoy.
which directed respondents to comment on the Petition within a
non-extendible period of five days from notice. ISSUE: Whether Ayer may exercise such right. 404 Chua
ART VIII, Sec. 60.5 – Party List System
In its Resolution the Court ordered the consolidation of the two RULING: Yes. The production and filming by petitioners of the Rodriguez v COMELEC
Petitions before it; directed respondents named in the second projected motion picture "The Four Day Revolution" does not, in MP: Well settled is the doctrine that election contests involve
Petition to file their respective Comments; and called the parties the circumstances of this case, constitute an unlawful intrusion public interest, SC frowns upon any interpretation of the law or
to an Oral Argument. It added that the Comelec may proceed upon private respondent's "right of privacy." rules that would hinder in any way the free and intelligent casting
with the counting and canvassing of votes cast for the party-list of votes in an election. Laws governing election contests must be
elections, but barred the proclamation of any winner therein, until Private respondent is a "public figure" because of his participation liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the
further orders of the Court. In this case, Bayan Muna objects to as a principal actor in the culminating events of the change of choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical
the participation of "major political parties." government in February 1986. The right of privacy of a "public objections.
figure" is necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary citizen.
ISSUE: Whether the major political parties may join. Private respondent has not retired into the seclusion of simple FACTS: Petitioner Jose Rodriguez and private respondent
private citizenship. he continues to be a "public figure." Nieves V. Guiang were the two candidates for the office of
RULING: Yes. Private respondents cannot be disqualified from municipal mayor of Bugallon, Pangasinan in the January 30,
the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are 403 Chua 1980 local elections. On the basis of the 135-vote majority,
political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides ART. 8. SEC. 60.5. PARTY LIST SYSTEM MBOC proclaimed Rodriguez the Mayor. Guiang filed an appeal
that members of the House of Representatives may "be elected Gardiner vs. Romulo with the CFI which declared him as the rightful winner.
through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and MP: The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law on rules Rodriguez after filing a notice of appeal with the
sectoral parties or organizations." that would hinder the free and intelligent casting of votes in an COMELEC asked for several extensions to file his appeal brief.
election. This led to the dismissal of the case by the latter on the ground
402 Chua Section 12 of Resolution No. 1456 provides as one of the
ART. 8. SEC. 60.5. PARTY LIST SYSTEM FACTS: This case is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of grounds for the dismissal of an appeal the failure of the appellant
Ayer Productions vs. Capulong First Instance in an election protest for the office of provincial to file copies of his brief within the time provided by COMELEC
governor of the Province of Tarlac, where the entire election in rules.
MP: The COMELEC’s reasoning that a party-list election is not Camiling was annulled. It was found by this Court that frauds and
an election of personalities is valid to a point. It cannot be taken, irregularities occur in the conduct of the election in this ISSUE: WON the dismissal by the COMELEC was proper.
however, to justify its non-assailed non-disclosure stance which municipality. The protestant in this case accuse appellee
comes with a weighty presumption of invalidity, impinging, as it Governor Romulo of orchestrating acts of fraud against the RULING: NO. SC ruled that the resolution cited by COMELEC is
does, on a fundamental right to information. former’s supporters. Such acts include irregularities in the not a hard and fast rule admitting of no exceptions. We support
selection of polling stations and the construction of the voting the concern of the Commission on Elections that election
FACTS: Petitioner McElroy and Ayer Productions, envisioned the booths, the disappearance of blank ballots after delivery thereof controversies be speedily settled. However, this concern for the
historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. The proposed to the municipal treasurer, and the subsequent markings of the expeditious disposition of election controversies does not free the
motion picture entitled "The Four Day Revolution" was endorsed remainder by the various election boards accent marks made COMELEC from compliance with established principles of
by the MTRCB as and other government agencies consulted. over the “O” in “Official Ballot”, frauds practiced by the inspectors fairness and justice and the adjudication of cases not on
Ramos also signified his approval of the intended film production. in the preparation of the ballots of illiterate voters, other technicality but on their substantive merits, principles which this
irregularities and frauds in connection with the preparation and Court has consistently observed and which all appellate tribunals
Enrile declared that he will not approve the use, appropriation, counting of the ballots and intimidation and threats employed by are required to follow.
reproduction and/or exhibition of his name, or picture, or that of Romulo and his partisans on the day of the election.
any member of his family in any cinema or television production, 405 Chua
film or other medium for advertising or commercial exploitation. ISSUE: Whether the law may be liberally construed to disregard ART VIII, Sec. 60.5 – Party List System
petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of Enrile was the will of the people. BANTAY REPUBLIC ACT OR BA-RA 7941 v COMELEC
deleted from the movie script, and petitioners proceeded to film MP: The Comelec’s reasoning that a party-list election is not an
the projected motion picture. However, a complaint was filed by RULING: No. "If the law itself declares a specified irregularity to election of personalities is valid to a point. It cannot be taken,
Enrile invoking his right to privacy. be fatal, the courts will follow that command irrespective of their however, to justify its assailed non-disclosure stance which
views of the importance of the requirement. In the absence of comes, as it were, with a weighty presumption of invalidity,
Petitioners' claim that in producing and "The Four Day such declaration, the judiciary endeavor, as best they may to impinging, as it does, on a fundamental right to information.
Revolution," they are exercising their freedom of speech and of discern whether the deviation from the prescribed forms of law It has been repeatedly said in various contexts that the people
expression protected under our Constitution. Private respondent, had, or had not, so vital an influence on the proceedings as have the right to elect their representatives on the basis of an
upon the other hand, asserts a right of privacy and claims that the probably prevented a free and full expression of the popular will. informed judgment. Hence the need for voters to be informed
production and filming of the projected mini-series would If it had, the irregularity is held to vitiate the entire return; about matters that have a bearing on their choice. The ideal
otherwise, it is considered immaterial."
cannot be achieved in a system of blind voting, as veritably
advocated in the assailed resolution of the Comelec.

FACTS: Petitioners Bantay Republic Act (BA-RA 7941) and the

Urban Poor for Legal Reforms (UP-LR, for short) assail the
various Comelec resolutions accrediting private respondents
Biyaheng Pinoy et al., to participate in the forthcoming party-list
elections on May 14, 2007 without simultaneously determining
whether or not their respective nominees possess the requisite
qualifications defined in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, or the
"Party-List System Act" and belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sector each seeks to represent. Both petitions
commonly seek to compel the Comelec to disclose or publish the
names of the nominees of the various party-list groups named in
the petitions.
While the Comelec did not explicitly say so, it based its refusal to
disclose the names of the nominees of subject party-list groups
on Section 7 of R.A. 7941. This provision, while commanding the
publication and the posting in polling places of a certified list of
party-list system participating groups, nonetheless tells the
Comelec not to show or include the names of the party-list
nominees in said certified list.
ISSUE: WON Comelec is mandated by the Constitution to
disclose to the public the names of said nominees.
RULING: YES. The right to information is a public right where the
real parties in interest are the public, or the citizens to be precise.
Assayed against the non-disclosure stance of the Comelec and
the given rationale therefor is the right to information enshrined in
the self-executory Section 7, Article III and Section 28 of Article II
of the Constitution.
 406 GENON National Welf are Services, Inc., the Goodwill Party being the 409 GENON
ROSALES vs. COMELEC political department. He could not produce any evidence to Cadangayen vs. COMELEC
show that the Goodwill Party is composed of or supported
MAINPOINT: Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion by a more or less known group of people pursuing the same MAINPOINT: We note that in the registration of a party,
in refusing the legitimate demands of the petitioners for a political ideals. Mr. Lagasca limited himself to presenting to this organization, or coalition under R.A. No. 7941, the COMELEC
list of the nominees of the party-list groups subject of their Commission unsigned mimeograph copies of the "creed and may require the submission of any relevant information; and
respective petitions, mandamus, therefore, lies. (Right to platform" of the Goodwill Party without stating how, when and by it may refuse, after due notice and hearing, the registration
information) whom said "creed and platform" was adopted and ratified. of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or
coalition based on any of the grounds enumerated in
FACTS: In the first petition, petitioners assail the Comelec ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed GADALEJ for non- Section 6 thereof, among which is that the organization has
resolutions accrediting private respondents Biyaheng Pinoy et al., recognition. declared untruthful statements in its petition.
to participate in the forthcoming party-list elections without
simultaneously determining whether or not their respective RULING: NO. At the hearing of this case, members of this FACTS: COMELEC issued an order requiring Civil Servants to
nominees possess the requisite qualifications defined in R.A. No. Court had suggested the need that petitioner should offer file a memorandum thatwould prove its presence or existence
7941, or the "Party-List System Act" and belong to the evidence to substantiate his allegation as to the existence of nationwide, track record, financial capability to wage a nationwide
marginalized and underrepresented sector each seeks to. In the the Goodwill Party, but petitioner chose not to offer any campaign, platform of government, officers and membership, and
second petition (G.R. No. 177314), petitioners Loreta Ann P. evidence at all. When there is a controversy on a fact, the compliance with the provisions of the Party-List System Act and
Rosales, Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan controversy can only be decided with the evidence in view. Who the eight-point guideline laid down by this Court in Ang Bagong
Foundation impugn Comelec Resolution. alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Mere allegation is Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections.
not an evidence. COMELEC then denied the petition. Civil Servants moved for
ISSUE: WON the Court cancel Can the Court cancel the reconsideration arguing in the main that the law does not
accreditation accorded by the Comelec to the respondent party- 408 GENON require a sectoral organization to have a nationwide
list groups named in their petition on the ground that these Peralta vs. COMELEC presence or existence for it to be registered under the party-
groups and their respective nominees do not appear to be list system. It posited that the COMELEC Second Division, in
qualified. MAINPOINT: Registration is a means by which the imposing such an additional requirement committed GADALEJ.
government is enabled to supervise and regulate the
RULING: NO. The exercise would require the Court to make a activities of various elements participating in an election. ISSUE: WON the COMELEC committed GADALEJ.
factual determination, a matter which is outside the office of Accreditation is the means by which the registration
judicial review by way of special civil action for certiorari. In requirement is made effective by conferring benefits to RULING: NO. The COMELEC, after evaluating the documents
certiorari proceedings, the Court is not called upon to decide registered political parties. submitted by petitioner, denied the latter’s plea for registration as
factual issues and the case must be decided on the undisputed a sectoral party, not on the basis of its failure to prove its
facts on record. Also, the petitioners’s posture that the FACTS: Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) and the Lakas ng nationwide presence, but for its failure to show that it represents
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted Bayan (LABAN) contended that they should be allowed to be and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
the assailed accreditations without simultaneously determining registered and accredited as political parties under Section 8 Further, the COMELEC found that petitioner made an
the qualifications of their nominees is without basis, Nowhere in of Article XII-C of the Constitution, so that their respective untruthful statement in the pleadings and documents it
R .A. No. 7941 is there a requirement that the qualification of candidates for membership in the interim Batasang submitted.
a party-list nominee be determined simultaneously with the Pambansa may be voted for as a group under the 1978 Elec-
accreditation of an organization to grant the desired plea of tion Code. 410 GENON
petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR for cancellation of Lagasca vs. DeVera (same with case 407)
accreditation on the grounds thus advanced in their petition. ISSUE: WON the KBL and Laban may be registered and
(Pero committed GADALEJ for refusal to publish the list) accredited. MAINPOINT: A political party is must be an organized group.
In order that a group of persons be organized, it is
407 GENON RULING: NO. from the wording of Section 8, it is obvious that necessary that all of them be joined in a corporate body,
Lagasca vs. DeVera said section is incapable of application during the first election articulate, with the attributes of a social personality. A
because it states that no political party shall be entitled to constitution, by-laws, rules, or some kind of charter is
MAINPOINT: A political party is "an organized group of persons accreditation unless in the immediately preceding election, it needed so as to give existence to the organization. Some
pursuing the same political ideals in a government." obtained at atleast the third highest number of votes cast in the kind of agreement, written or unwritten, must exist on how
constituency to which it seeks accreditation. That there cannot the group is to function, to be presided over, and how it is to
FACTS: Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC abused its be any accreditation during the first election under the 1973 express its collective will.
discretion in not recognizing the Goodwill Party as a political Constitution is evident from the sponsorship speech of the
party. Mr. Lagasca, it is made to appear that the Goodwill Party proponent of this constitutional provision. FACTS: Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC abused its
is formerly the National Welfare Services Party. However when discretion in not recognizing the Goodwill Party as a political
asked about the nature of the Goodwill Party, he stated that the party. Mr. Lagasca, it is made to appear that the Goodwill Party
Goodwill Party is only one of the twelve departments of the is formerly the National Welfare Services Party. However when
asked about the nature of the Goodwill Party, he stated that the courts, it has to be incorporated under the corporation law, amongst members of a political party should not be allowed to
Goodwill Party is only one of the twelve departments of the because “only natural or juridical persons may be parties in a civil create a mockery thereof. The admonition against mocking the
National Welf are Services, Inc., the Goodwill Party being the action: under the Rules of court rule 3 sec. 1. However, the electoral process not only applies to political parties but with
political department. He could not produce any evidence to show technical defect may be cured by allowing the substitution of the greater force to the COMELEC.
that the Goodwill Party is composed of or supported by a more or real party in interest for the petitioner. FACTS: Reyes filed with the Comelec a petition to cancel the
less known group of people pursuing the same political ideals. certificate of candidacy of Recabo, alleging that Recabo is a
Mr. Lagasca limited himself to presenting to this Commission 412. HALID substitute candidate of his mother. Reyes submits that since the
unsigned mimeograph copies of the "creed and platform" of the TANKIKO V. CEZAR, G.R. NO. 131277, 362 PHIL. 184 (1999) certificate of nomination and acceptance in favor of Candelaria is
Goodwill Party without stating how, when and by whom said SECTION 61.6.—RECOGNITION OF POLITICAL PARTIES not signed by Robert Barbers, there is no valid nomination by
"creed and platform" was adopted and ratified. LAKAS. And should be deemed an independent candidate only.
MAIN POINT: The COMELEC misapplied equity in this case. Therefore, she cannot be validly substituted because “no
ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed GADALEJ for non- "[f]or all its conceded merits, equity is available only in the substitution shall be allowed for an independent candidate.”
recognition. absence of law and not as its replacement. Equity is described as Comelec cancelled the certificate of candidacy of Recabo. The
justice which legality, which simply means that it cannot supplant Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
RULING: NO. At the hearing of this case, members of this Court although it may, as often happens, supplement the law." To ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s certificate of nomination by
had suggested the need that petitioner should offer evidence to grant respondent standing in the present case is to go against the LAKAS NUCD-UMDP is valid?
substantiate his allegation as to the existence of the Goodwill express language of the law. Equity cannot give them this RULING: NO. The certificate of nomination by registered political
Party, but petitioner chose not to offer any evidence at all. When privilege. Equity can only supplement the law, not supplant it. parties of their official candidates shall be filed with the
there is a controversy on a fact, the controversy can only be FACTS: Respondents are the actual occupants and residents of certificates of candidacy not later than the last day for filing of
decided with the evidence in view. Who alleges a fact has the a parcel of land who introduced improvements and are sales certificates of candidacy as specified in Section 4 hereof, duly
burden of proving it. Mere allegation is not an evidence. patent applicants of the said lot. They were religiously paying signed and attested under oath by the party president, chairman,
taxes on the property. They filed an action for reconveyance and secretary-general or any other party officer duly authorized in
damages against the petitioners. Apparently, an original writing to do so.”
411. HALID certificate of title (OCT) was issued to the petitioners after The certificate of nomination of the petitioner as well as his
Nacionalista Party v. Bautista, 85 Phil. 101 (1949) acquiring said lot from the heirs of the lot’s alleged former owner mother did not comply with the requirements of being official
Section 61.5.—Necessity of incorporation Patricio Salcedo who acquires his title to the lot by virtue of a candidates of LAKAS Party. The certificate of nomination was
decree of registration upon the decision of the cadastral court. invalid because it was signed only by one authorized party officer
Respondents assail the validity of the title of Salcedo by citing the as compared to Reyes’ which was signed by the National
MAIN POINT: Petitioner may be organized and registered as a Consing decision of the court that involves the neighboring lot Chairman and Secretary General, respectively, of said political
political party with the commission on elections for the purpose of 3715 with the following observation: (1) there is no showing that party.
the election code, but for the purpose of bringing an action in the a decision has been made on the Cadastral proceedings cited by Assuming all three candidates were fielded-in by the same
courts, it has to be incorporated under the corporation law, the petitioners with no records thereof in the Land Registration political party, at the time petitioner Recabo, Jr. filed his
because “only natural or juridical persons may be parties in a civil Commission and (2) they found a decision that renders Lot 3715 certificate of candidacy there was no voider to fill in as
action: under the Rules of court rule 3 sec. 1. However, the and Lot 3714 public lands. respondent Reyes, Jr. had already filed his certificate of
technical defect may be cured by allowing the substitution of the candidacy as official candidate of LAKAS NUCD-UMDP. Verily,
real party in interest for the petitioner. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are the proper parties to there was no more vacancy to be substituted for. Disunity and
initiate the present suit? discord amongst members of a political party should not be
FACTS: Nacionalista Party filed a special civil action for RULING: Indeed, "[f]or all its conceded merits, equity is available allowed to create a mockery of our electoral process, which
prohibition against Vicente de Vera, COMELEC Chiarman to only in the absence of law and not as its replacement. Equity is envisions one candidate from a political party for each position.
enjoin him from sitting or taking part in the deliberations of said described as justice which legality, which simply means that it
Commission in connection with the on two grounds: (1) that he is cannot supplant although it may, as often happens, supplement
the father of Teodoro de Vera one of the candidates of the Liberal the law." To grant respondent standing in the present case is to
Party for the position of senator in the last elections and he is go against the express language of the law. Equity cannot give 414. HALID
disqualified from acting on all matters connected with said them this privilege. Equity can only supplement the law, not Sotto v. Comelec, 76 Phil. 516 (1946)
elections; and (2) that his appointment as Chairman of the supplant it. Section 61.6.—Recognition of political parties
Commission on Elections is a violation of the Constitution and, (eto lang nahanap ko)
therefore, it is void MAIN POINT: The comelec has lost sight of the unique political
413. HALID situation of the Philippines where, the administration party has
ISSUE: WN the Nacionalista Party can filed a special civil action RECABO JR. V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 134293, JUNE always been unnecessarily and dangerously too big and the
for prohibition against Vicente de Vera, COMELEC Chairman 21, 1999 opposition party too small to be an effective check on the
SECTION 61.6.—RECOGNITION OF POLITICAL PARTIES administration. The purpose according dominant status and
RULING: NO. Petitioner may be organized and registered as a representation to a minority party is precisely to serve as an
political party with the commission on elections for the purpose of MAIN POINT: our electoral process envisions one candidate from effective check on the majority. The comelec performed a
the election code, but for the purpose of bringing an action in the a political party for each position and disunity and discord disservice to the opposition and, ultimately, to the voting public,
as its resolution facilitated, rather than forestalled, the division of Section 61.6.—Recognition of political parties
minority party. FACTS: Petitioners challenge Omnibus Resolution No 3785
FACTS: a petition filed by Vicente Sotto for review of the decision MAIN POINT: The purpose according dominant status and issued by COMELEC that approved the participation of 154
of the Commission on Elections which declared the respondent representation to a minority party is precisely to serve as an organizations and parties in the 2001 party-list elections.
Emilio M. Javier as the true and legitimate President of the effective check on the majority. The comelec performed a Petitioners contend that the party-list system was intended to
Popular Front (Sumulong) Party. The petitioner Vicente Sotto disservice to the opposition and, ultimately, to the voting public, benefit the marginalized and underrepresented. The inclusion of
contends in his petition that he is the President of said Party, and as its resolution facilitated, rather than forestalled, the division of the political parties is objectionable. Solicitor General argued that
prays that said decision be reviewed and reversed and that minority party. RA 7941 allows political parties to participate as this is open to all
petitioner be declared the legitimate President of the Party. FACTS: The General Counsel of the Laban ng Demokratikong registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organization.
ISSUE: WN that the COMELEC is correct in declaring the Pilipino (LDP), a registered political party, informed the
respondent Emilio M. Javier as the true and legitimate President COMELEC by way of Manifestation that only the Party Chairman, ISSUE: WON political parties may participate in the party-list
of the Popular Front (Sumulong) Party Senator Edgardo J. Angara, or his authorized representative may elections.
RULING: yes. because respondent Javier's letter in which he endorse the certificate of candidacy of the party’s official
tendered his resignation as acting President of the Party, was not candidates. The same Manifestation stated that Sen. Angara had RULING: Yes. Pursuant to RA 7941, respondents may not be
a real resignation. placed the LDP Secretary General, Representative Agapito A. disqualified from participating on the ground that they are political
The most that can be inferred from the facts of the present case Aquino, on “indefinite forced leave.” In the meantime, parties. The Court, therefore, deems it proper to remand the case
is that there has been a tentative secession of those members of Ambassador Enrique A. Zaldivar was designated Acting to the Comelec for the latter to determine, after summary
the Directorate from the Popular Front Party and according to Secretary General. However, Rep. Aquino filed his Comment, evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations
section 72 of the Election Code "no inspector shall be granted to contending that the Party Chairman does not have the authority allowed to participate in the party-list elections comply with the
any branch or faction which has seceded from its respective party to impose disciplinary sanctions on the Secretary General. As the requirements of the law.
...." Manifestation filed by the LDP General Counsel has no basis, In this light, the Court finds it appropriate to lay down the
Besides, assuming, arguendo, that the Sumulong was split into Rep. Aquino asked the COMELEC to disregard the same. following guidelines, culled from the law and the Constitution, to
two groups or factions of national character, the provision of ISSUE: Whether or not the ascertainment of the identity of the assist the Comelec in its work. First, the political party, sector,
section 8 of the Commonwealth Act No. 725, to the effect that political party and its officers is within the COMELEC’s jurisdiction organization or coalition must represent the marginalized
"should the majority party be divided into two factions of national RULING: The COMELEC correctly stated that “the ascertainment and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA
character with candidates for President, Vice-President and of the identity of [a] political party and its legitimate officers” is a 7941. Second, while even major political parties are
Senators, each faction shall have one inspector and his matter that is well within its authority. The source of this authority expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to
substitute, etc." cannot be invoked by analogy. it is to be is no other than the fundamental law itself, which vests upon the participate in the party-list system, they must comply with
presumed that it was not the intention of Congress to authorize a COMELEC the power and function to enforce and administer all the declared statutory policy enabling Filipino citizens
division or distribution of election inspectors in case of a split of laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. In the belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to
any one of the minority parties, which are entitled to at most one exercise of such power and in the discharge of such function, the be elected to the House of Representatives. Third, the
inspector. Section 8 of Act No. 725 provides that the inspector Commission is endowed with ample “wherewithal” and religious sector may not be represented in the party-list
shall be recommended by the political party. In the present case, “considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will system. Fourth, a party or an organization must not be
section XI of the Rules and Regulations of the Popular Front ensure the accomplishment of the great objectives for which it disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941. Fifth, the party or
Party provides that the President is the supreme representative was created to promote free, orderly and honest elections.” organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project
of the Party, and acts as chairman of the Directorate. Although However, by giving both wings representatives in the election organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the
the Directorate votes for or selects the representatives, the committees, the COMELEC has eroded the significance of government. Sixth, the party must not only comply with t)ie
President, as chairman of the Directorate and the supreme political parties and effectively divided the opposition. The requirements of the law. Its nominees must likewise do so.
representative of the Party, is the one who shall appoint the purpose of according dominant status and representation to a Seventh, not only candidate party or organization must
representative selected or approved by the Directorate. The minority party is precisely to serve as an effective check on the represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors. So
Commission on Elections in stating that the President has the majority. The COMELEC performed a disservice to the also must its nominees. Eighth, while lacking a well-defined
right to appoint "por medio de su Directorio," does not mean to opposition and, ultimately, to the voting public, as its Resolution political constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to
say that the President is the only one who selects and appoints facilitated, rather than forestalled, the division of the minority contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
them, and that the only function of the Directorate is to transmit party. The assailed COMELEC Resolution does not advance, legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
the selection and appointment made by the President to the but subverts, this philosophy behind political parties.
proper authorities. It means to say that the President has the 418
right, with the express or implied approval of the Directorate, to Romualdez-Marcos vs. Commission on Elections
appoint such representatives. That such is the meaning of that G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995
part of the decision complained of, is confirmed by the petitioner Sec. 63.4 Illustrative case: Fernando Poe Jr.
himself,. 416 & 417 (CONSOLIDATED)
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Commission on FACTS: Cirilo Roy Montejo, filed a petition for cancellation and
415. HALID Elections disqualification with the COMELEC alleging that Imelda-
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino v. Comelec, G.R. No. G.R. No. 147589, G.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001 Romualdez Marcos did not meet the constitutional
161265, February 26, 2004 Sec 62.6 Guidelines for screening party-list participants requirement for residency. Thereafter, Marcos filed a
corrected certificate of candidacy changing the entry without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
“seven” months to “since childhood”. The COMELEC en banc RULING: In ascertaining, in G.R. No. 161824, whether grave Philippine citizenship." Herein, the date, month and year of
denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration declaring her not abuse of discretion has been committed by the COMELEC, it is birth of FPJ appeared to be 20 August 1939 during the
qualified to run for the position of the member of the House of necessary to take on the matter of whether or not respondent regime of the 1935 Constitution. Through its history, four
Representatives for the First District of Leyte. In a supplemental FPJ is a natural-born citizen, which, in turn, depended on modes of acquiring citizenship - naturalization, jus soli, res
petition, Marcos averred that she was the overwhelming winner whether or not the father of respondent, Allan F. Poe, would have judicata and jus sanguinis – had been in vogue. Only two,
of the election. himself been a Filipino citizen and, in the affirmative, whether or i.e., jus soli and jus sanguinis, could qualify a person to
not the alleged illegitimacy of respondent prevents him from being a “natural-born” citizen of the Philippines.
ISSUE: WON petitioner was a resident of the First District of taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. Any
Leyte to satisfy one year residency requirement to be eligible in conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou (FPJ’s 422.LAKBAO
running as representative. Grandather) could only be drawn from the presumption that Bengzon III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
having died in 1954 at 84 years old, Lorenzo would have been G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001
RULING: Yes. The court is in favor of a conclusion supporting born sometime in the year 1870, when the Philippines was under Section 63.7.—Citizenship of repatriated citizen
petitioner’s claim of legal residence or domicile in the First District Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of
of Leyte. A perusal of the Resolution of the COMELEC’S Second residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other MAIN POINT: Upon repatriation, a former natural-born
Division reveals a startling confusion in the application of settled evidence, could have well been his place of residence before Filipino citizen is deemed to have recovered his original
concepts of “Domicile” and “Residence” in election law. While the death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en status as a natural-born citizen.
COMELEC seems to be in agreement with the general masse Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902.
proposition that for the purposes of election law, residence is That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would thereby FACTS: The citizenship of Teodoro Cruz, a member of the HOR,
synonymous with domicile, the Resolution reveals a tendency to extend to his son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent FPJ. is being questioned on the ground that he is not a natural-born
substitute or mistake the concept of domicile for actual residence, The 1935 Constitution, during which regime respondent FPJ citizen of the Philippines. Cruz was born in the Philippines in
a conception not intended for the purpose of determining a has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose 1960, the time when the acquisition of citizenship rule was
candidate’s qualifications for election to the House of fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such still jus soli. However, he enlisted to the US Marine Corps
Representatives as required by the 1987 Constitution. As it were, children are legitimate or illegitimate. and he was naturalized as US citizen in connection
residence, for the purpose of meeting the qualification for an 421.LAKBAO therewith. He reacquired Philippine citizenship through
elective position, has a settled meaning in our jurisdiction. Fornier v. Poe, G.R. No. 161824, March 3, 2004 repatriation under RA 2630 and ran for and was elected as a
The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law Section 63.4 Illustrative case representative. When his nationality was questioned by
is that residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for petitioner, the HRET decided that Cruz was a natural born citizen
which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One may seek a FACTS: Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, of the Philippines.
place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health. If a Jr. (FPJ), filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of
person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent President of the Republic of the Philippines under the Koalisyon ISSUE: W/N Cruz is a natural born citizen of the Philippines.
is to leave as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party, in the 2004 national
elections. In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing RULING: YES. Natural-born citizens "are those citizens of the
419 & 420 (CONSOLIDATED) himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire
Tecson vs. Commission on Elections name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of or perfect his Philippine citezenship." On the other hand,
G.R. No. 161434, G.R. No. 161634, G.R. No. 161824 March 3, birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens
2004 Fornier, initiated, on 9 January 2004, a petition (before the through naturalization, generally under Commonwealth Act No.
Sec. 63.4 Illustrative case: Fernando Poe Jr. Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify FPJ and to 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which
deny due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by
FACTS: Respondent Fernando Poe Jr. filed his certificate of thesis that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his Republic Act No. 530.11 To be naturalized, an applicant has to
candidacy (COC) for president stating that he is a natural born certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino prove that he possesses all the qualifications12 and none of the
citizen of the Philippines. Petitioner Victorino fornier in GR citizen when in truth, according to Fornier, his parents were disqualification.
161824 initiated a petition before COMELEC, SPA No. 04-003, to foreigners; his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and
disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or cancel his COC by his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of 423.LAKBAO
claiming to be a natural born Filipino citizen when in truth his Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject. Granting, Fornier asseverated, Coquilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002
parents were foreigners. Granting that the father of FPJ is a that Allan F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he could not have Section 63.7.—Citizenship of repatriated citizen
Filipino citizen, he could not transmitted his Filipino citizenship to transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ, the latter being an
FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate child of an alien mother. The illegitimate child of an alien mother. MAIN POINT: Upon repatriation, a former natural-born Filipino
COMELEC’s 3rd division dismissed the SPA No. 04-003 for lack citizen is deemed to have recovered his original status as a
of merit, the COMELEC en banc denied Fornier’s MR. the ISSUE: W/N FPJ was a natural born citizen, so as to be allowed natural-born citizen.
petitioner assailed the decision of the COMELEC before SC. to run for the offcie of the President of the Philippines.
FACTS: Coquilla was born on 1938 of Filipino parents in
ISSUE: WON the COMELEC committed GAD and whether FPJ RULING: Yes. The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to Oras, Eastern Samar. He grew up and resided there until
is a natural born citizen. include "those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth 1965, when he was subsequently naturalized as a U.S.
citizen after joining the US Navy. In 1998, he came to the Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged Filipino ISSUE: W/N the petitioner as a native born Nationalist Chinese
Philippines and took out a residence certificate, although he citizen. Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner Citizen becomes Filipino citizen.
continued making several trips to the United States. Coquilla of Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest and
eventually applied for repatriation under R.A. No. 8171 which was immediate deportation, after the expiration of her authorized stay, RULING: No. Supreme Court rejected Zita Ngo Burca’s claim of
approved. On November 10, 2000, he took his oath as a citizen she brought an action for injunction with preliminary injunction. At status as a Filipino citizen by marriage. An alien woman married
of the Philippines. On November 21, 2000, he applied for the hearing which took place one and a half years after her to a Filipino who desires to be a citizen of this country must apply
registration as a voter of Butunga, Oras, Eastern Samar which arrival, it was admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung could not write there for by filing a petition for citizenship reciting that she
was approved in 2001. On February 27, 2001, he filed his either English or Tagalog. Except for a few words, she could possesses all the qualifications set forth in Section 2, and none of
certificate of candidacy stating that he had been a resident of not speak either English or Tagalog. She could not name any the disqualifications under Section 4, both of the Revised
Oras, Eastern Samar for 2 years. Incumbent mayor Alvarez, who Filipino neighbor, with a Filipino name except one, Rosa. Naturalization Law; Said petition must be filled in the Court of
was running for re-election sought to cancel Coquilla’s certificate She did not know the names of her brothers-in-law, or First Instance where petitioner has resided at least one year
of candidacy on the ground that his statement as to the two- year sisters-in-law. The Court of First Instance of Manila denied immediately preceding the filling of the petition; and Any action
residency in Oras was a material misrepresentation as he only the prayer for preliminary injunction. Moya Lim Yao and Lau by any other office, agency, board or official, administrative
resided therein for 6 months after his oath as a citizen. Yuen Yeung appealed. or otherwise — other than the judgment of a competent
court of justice — certifying or declaring that an alien wife of
Before the COMELEC could render a decision, elections ISSUE: W/N Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a Filipino the Filipino citizen is also a Filipino citizen, is hereby
commenced and Coquilla was proclaimed the winner. On July 19, citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen. declared null and void.
2001, COMELEC granted Alvarez’ petition and ordered the
cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of candidacy. RULING: Yes. Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, 426. Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999
an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or Section 63.8.—Citizenship issue as res judicata
ISSUE: W/N Coquilla had been a resident of Oras, Eastern naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is
Samar at least on year before the elections held on May 14, 2001 not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under FACTS: The proclamation of private respondent was
as what he represented in his COC. Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to suspended in view of a pending petition for disqualification,
an alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows the alleging that private respondent was not a citizen of the
RULING: No. The statement in petitioner’s certificate of Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his Philippines but of the US. The 2nd Division of the COMELEC
candidacy that he had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from granted the petition and ordered the cancellation of the COC of
for “two years” at the time he filed such certificate is not true. The any of the disqualifications under said Section 4. Lau Yuen private respondent on the ground that he is a dual citizen and,
question is whether the COMELEC was justified in ordering the Yeung, was declared to have become a Filipino citizen from and under §40(d) of the Local Government Code, persons with dual
cancellation of his certificate of candidacy for this reason. by virtue of her marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao al as Edilberto citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective
Petitioner made a false representation of a material fact in his Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino citizen of 25 January 1962. position. COMELEC en banc reversed the ruling: In applying
certificate of candidacy, thus rendering such certificate liable to election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of the popular
cancellation. In the case at bar, what is involved is a false 425.LAKBAO choice than be embroiled in complex legal issues involving
statement concerning a candidate’s qualification for an Burca v. Republic, 51 SCRA 248 private international law which may well be settled before the
office for which he filed the certificate of candidacy. This is Section 63.8.—Citizenship issue as res judicata highest court.
a misrepresentation of a material fact justifying the
cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of candidacy. The MAIN POINT: In order that the doctrine of res judicata may ISSUE: Whether private respondent Manzano is disqualified from
cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of candidacy in this be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be being a candidate. –NO.
case is thus fully justified. present: 1) a person’s citizenship be raised as a material
issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2) the RULING: Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance.
424.LAKBAO SolGen or his authorized representative took active part in The former arises when, as a result of the concurrent
Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA the resolution thereof; and 3) the finding on citizenship is application of the different laws of two or more states, a
292 affirmed by the SC. person is simultaneously considered a national by the said
Section 63.8.—Citizenship issue as res judicata states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person
FACTS: A petition to declare ZITA NGO to possess all whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the
MAIN POINT: Every time the citizenship of a person is qualifications and none of the disqualifications for naturalization principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the
material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, under Commonwealth Act 473 for the purpose of cancelling her doctrine of  jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any
whatever the corresponding court or administrative alien registry with the BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION. She voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of
authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally transferred to Surigao, Surigao until her marriage to Florencio both states. Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the
not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be Burca anative born Filipino Citizen. Petitioner studied at Surigao, situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some
threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. Surigao from first grade to fourth year where she graduated. positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship
Thereafter she took home economics special course at the is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual's
FACTS: Lau Yuen Yeung, a Chinese residing at Kowloon, University of San Carlos, Cebu City. volition.
Hongkong, was permitted to come into the Philippines for a
period of one month and she contracted marriage with Moy
§5 in Article IV on citizenship, the concern was not with dual of such intention. Domicile is classified into (1) domicile of ISSUE: Did Imelda meet the constitutionally mandated 1-year
citizens  per se but with naturalized citizens who maintain their origin, which is acquired by every person at birth; (2) residency requirement? – YES
allegiance to their countries of origin even after their domicile of choice, which is acquired upon abandonment of
naturalization. Hence, the phrase "dual citizenship" must be the domicile of origin; and (3) domicile by operation of law, RULING: Residence, for the purpose of meeting the qualification
understood as referring to "dual allegiance. Consequently, which the law attributes to a person independently of his for an elective position, has a settled meaning in our jurisdiction.
persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this residence or intention. When the Constitution speaks of “residence” in election law, it
disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must, In a controversy such as the one at bench, given the parties' actually means only “domicile”. Civil Code decrees that “for the
therefore, be subject to strict process with respect to the naturally conflicting perspectives on domicile, we are guided exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the
termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it by three basic rules, namely: (1) a man must have a domicile of natural persons is their place of habitual residence.”
should suffice if, upon the filing of their COC, they elect Philippine residence or domicile somewhere; (2) domicile, once Domicile means an individual’s “permanent home,” “a place to
citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual established, remains until a new one is validly acquired; and which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends
citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable (3) a man can have but one residence or domicile at any to return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense
consequence of conflicting laws of different states. This is similar given time. that they disclose intent.” Based on the foregoing, domicile
to the requirement that an applicant for naturalization must includes the twin elements of “the fact of residing or physical
renounce "all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, The general rule is that the domicile of origin is not easily lost; it presence in a fixed place” and animus manendi, or the intention
potentate, state, or sovereignty" of which at the time he is a is lost only when there is an actual removal or change of of returning there permanently. The term residence is
subject or citizen before he can be issued a certificate of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former synonymous with domicile which imports not only intention to
naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines. HERE, by filing a residence and establishing a new one, and acts which reside in a fixed place, but also personal presence in that place,
COC when he ran for his present post, private respondent correspond with such purpose. Here, however, Ugdoracion's coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.”
elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced his acquisition of a lawful permanent resident status in the US
American citizenship. Filing of such COC sufficed to amounted to an abandonment and renunciation of his status Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual
renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any as a resident of the Philippines; it constituted a change from relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical
disqualification he might have as a dual citizen his domicile of origin, which was Albuquerque, Bohol, to a presence of a person in a given area, community or country. The
new domicile of choice, which is the USA. It has long been essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that
settled that Filipino citizen's acquisition of a permanent resident residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which
427. Ugdoracion v. Comelec, G.R. No. 179851, April 18, 2008 status abroad constitutes an abandonment of his domicile and the resident has taken up his abode ends. One may seek a place
Section 64.4.—Residence residence in the Philippines. In short, the "green card" status in for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health. If a person’s
the USA is a renunciation of one's status as a resident of the intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to
FACTS: Tungol filed a Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel Philippines. leave as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. It is
the COC of Ugdoracion, contending that Ugdoracion's thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual to have different
declaration of eligibility for Mayor constituted material 428. Marcos v. Comelec, 248 SCRA 300 (1995) p. 144 par. 1 residences in various places. However, a person can only have a
misrepresentation because Ugdoracion is actually a "green single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he successfully
card" holder or a permanent resident of the USA. Section 64.4.—Residence abandons his domicile in favor of another domicile of choice.
Specifically, Ugdoracion stated in his COC that he had Residence is used to indicate a place of abode, whether
resided in Albuquerque, Bohol, Philippines for forty-one FACTS: Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her COC for permanent or temporary; ‘domicile’ denotes a fixed permanent
years and he is not a permanent resident or an immigrant to the position of Representative of the 1st District of Leyte. residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of
a foreign country. Ugdoracion argued that, in our providing the following information: Residence in the returning. A man may have a residence in one place and a
jurisdiction, domicile is equivalent to residence, and he constituency: 7 months. Respondent filed a “Petition for domicile in another. Residence is not domicile, but domicile is
retained his domicile of origin (Albuquerque, Bohol) Cancellation and Disqualification” alleging that Imelda residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited
notwithstanding his ostensible acquisition of permanent lacked the constitutional requirement for residency; that time. 
residency in the USA; that he did not lose his domicile of origin based on the evidence of declarations made by Imelda in her
because his acquisition of a "green card" was brought about Voter Registration record and in her COC, she failed to meet HERE, Imelda may hold various residences for different
merely by his sister's petition the 1-year residency requirement. Imelda later filed an purposes in a span of four decades. However, none of these
Amended/Corrected COC, changing the entry to “since purposes point to an intention to abandon her domicile of
ISSUE: Whether Ugdoracion complied with the residency childhood” in the provision for residency information, claiming that origin in Tacloban. Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To
requirement –NO. she had always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or successfully effect a change of domicile, one must
residence and that she thought that what she was asked was demonstrate: 1. An actual removal or an actual change of
RULING: Residence, in contemplation of election laws, is her “actual and physical” presence in Tolosa, Leyte, not domicile; 2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former
synonymous to domicile. Domicile is the place where one actually resident of origin or domicile. Respondent argued that after place of residence and establishing a new one; and 3. Acts
or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter leaving the place in 1952, Imelda abandoned her residency in which correspond with the purpose. In the absence of clear
where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to Tacloban for many years and could not re-establis her domicile in and positive proof based on these criteria, the residence of
return (animus revertendi) and remain (animus manendi). It said place by merely expressing her intention to live there again. origin should be deemed to continue. 
consists not only in the intention to reside in a fixed place but also
personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative
429. Domino v. Comelec, 310 SCRA 546 (1999) p. 144 par. 2 of individual from his permanent residence, no matter how year residence requirement and likewise ordered the cancellation
Section 64.4.—Residence long, without the intention to abandon it does not result in of his certificate of candidacy.
loss or change of domicile
FACTS: Petitioner Domino filed his COC for the position of ISSUE: W/N petitioner has resided in the subject congressional
Representaive of the lone legislative district of Sarangani, district for at least 1 year immediately preceding the May 11,
indicating that he resided in Sarangani for 1 year and 2 months 430. Domino v. Comelec, 310 SCRA 546 (1999) p. 144 par. 3 1998 elections.
immediately preceding the election. Respondents filed petition Section 64.4.—Residence
to deny due course to or cancel the said COC, claiming that --- (SAME WITH CASE# 429) --- RULING: NO. Domino’s lack of intention to abandon his
Domino is not a resident, much less a registered voter of residence in Quezon City is further strengthened by his act of
Sarangani. As a defense, Domino argues that he has 431 – LIM registering as voter in one of the precincts in Quezon City does
complied with the 1-year residency requirement, that he Marcos v. Comelec, 248 SCRA 300 (1995) p. 144 par. 4 not adequately support a change of domicile. (MP in Book)
abandoned his residence in QC and established a domicile Section 64.4.—Residence Domicile is a question of intention and circumstances. In the
in Sarangani and even provided as proof his lease contract consideration of circumstances, three rules must be borne
with Nora Dacaldal as lessor. COMELEC disqualified Domino, in mind, namely: (1) that a man must have a residence or
and hence a case was filed in court FACTS: Imelda Marcos ran for the position of Representative of domicile somewhere; (2) when once established it remains
first District of Leyte. Her candidacy was question by incumbent until a new one is acquired; and (3) a man can have but one
ISSUE: Whether Domino meet the requirement for residence set representative-Montejo, because here certificate of candidacy residence or domicile at a time.
by law? – NO states that she was only a resident of Leyte for 7 months. There
is a 1 year requirement of residency for a person to run for 433 – LIM
RULING: Records show that petitioner’s domicile of origin was congress. SC ruled that in election law, Residence is equal to Marcos v. Comelec, 248 SCRA 300 (1995) p. 144 par. 4
Candon, Ilocos Sur and he acquired a new domicile of choice at Domicile. Imelda had Leyte as her Domicile since childhood, Section 64.4.—Residence
Quezon City. A person’s “domicile” once established is therefore she is qualified to run
considered to continue and will not be deemed lost until a new FACTS: Imelda Marcos ran for the position of Representative of
one is established. To successfully effect a change of domicile ISSUE: W/N Imelda can run for Representative of first District of
Leyte first District of Leyte. Her candidacy was question by incumbent
one must demonstrate: 1.) an actual removal or an actual change representative-Montejo, because here certificate of candidacy
of domicile; 2.) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former states that she was only a resident of Leyte for 7 months. There
place of residence; and 3.) establishing a new one and definite RULING: YES. (MP In book) to effect abandonment of
domicile requires the voluntary act of relinquishing former is a 1 year requirement of residency for a person to run for
acts which correspond with the purpose. In other words, there congress. SC ruled that in election law, Residence is equal to
must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non domicile with an intent to supplant the former domicile with
one of her own choosing (domicilium voluntarium). An Domicile. Imelda had Leyte as her Domicile since childhood,
revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice therefore she is qualified to run
must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and
must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the maintained residence in different places. The absence from
legal residence or domicile to pursue a profession, to study ISSUE: W/N Imelda can run for Representative of first District of
new domicile must be actual. Leyte
or do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature,
HERE, it is the contention of petitioner that his actual physical is not sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of
residence. RULING: YES. (MP In book) The term “residence” may mean
presence Sarangani since December 1996 was sufficiently one thing under the civil code and another thing in political
established by the lease of a house and lot located and by the law. What Mrs.Marcos gained upon marriage was actual
affidavits and certifications under oath of the residents of that 432 – LIM
Domino v. Comelec, 310 SCRA 546 (1999 p. 145 residence, but she did not lose her domicile of origin. She
place that they have seen petitioner and his family residing in kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home.
their locality. While this may be so, actual and physical is not in Section 64.4.—Residence
Not a domicolium necessarium.
itself sufficient to show that from said date he had transferred his
residence in that place. To establish a new domicile of choice, FACTS: March 25 1998, DOMINO filed his certificate of 434 – LIM
personal presence in the place must be coupled with conduct candidacy for the position of Representative of the Lone Perez v. Comelec, 317 SCRA 641 (1999)
indicative of that intention. While “residence” simply requires Legislative District of the Province of Sarangani indicating in his Section 64.4.—Residence
bodily presence in a given place, “domicile” requires not only certificate that he had resided in the constituency where he seeks
such bodily presence in that place but also a declared and to be elected for 1 year and 2 months immediately preceding the
probable intent to make it one’s fixed and permanent place of election. Private respondents filed with the COMELEC a FACTS: Aguinaldo filed his certificate of candidacy for
abode, one’s home.2 Intention to acquire a domicile without actual Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of Representative of the Third District of Cagayan in the May 11,
residence in the locality does not result in acquisition of domicile, Candidacy, alleging that DOMINO, is not a resident, much 1998 elections. Petitioner, as a voter and citizen, filed in the
nor does the fact of physical presence without intention. The less a registered voter, of the province of Sarangani . COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of Aguinaldo as
lease contract does not adequately support a change of DOMINO presented to the COMELEC evidence of his transfer of a candidate on the ground that he had not been a resident of
domicile as it may be indicative of intention to reside but it residence from QC to Sarangani. COMELEC 2nd Division the district for at least 1 year immediately before the day of
does not engender the kind of permanency required to prove promulgated a resolution declaring DOMINO for lack of the one- the elections as required by Art. VI, §6 of the Constitution.
abandonment of one’s original domicile. The mere absence
Petitioner presented Aguinaldo’s certificates of candidacy for shown that his transfer of residence to Sta. Rosa was bona fide **In comparison with Marcos v. Comelec
governor of Cagayan in previous elections; and his voter and was not merely for complying with the residency requirement
registration record which it is stated that he is a resident of, under election laws. Petitioner presented evidence, such as MP: In Marcos vs Comelec, the SC, in overruling the Comelec’s
Municipality of Gattaran, which is outside the Third District of children going to school in Sta.Rosa. SC find nothing wrong if determination that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was not a “resident” of
Cagayan. Aguinaldo presented evidence of his stay in Cagayan petitioner sometimes transacted business or received visitors in Leyte, said that the “residence” may mean one thing in civil
First Division of the COMELEC, in a unanimous resolution, his Cabuyao house, instead of the alleged Sta. Rosa residence, law and quite another thing in political law. But in an earlier
dismissed the petition for disqualification, finding private as there is nothing in the residency requirement for case involving gubernatorial candidate in Leyte, the SC in
respondent Aguinaldo qualified to run as representative for the candidates that prohibits them from owning property and upholding the Comelec’s decision that such candidate
Third District of Cagayan. exercising their rights of ownership thereto in other places lacked the required residence, said that the Comelec’s
aside from the address they had indicated as their place of reliance on the provisions of the Family Code was proper
ISSUE: W/N Aguinaldo can run for the office of Representative of residence in their COC. (Book MP) and in consonance with human experience.”
the Third District of Cagayan. - YES
FACTS: The main issue in these consolidated petitions centers
RULING: YES. There is thus substantial evidence supporting the 436 MUSA on who is the rightful governor of the province of Leyte 1)
finding that private respondent had been a resident of the Third Marcos v. Comelec petitioner Adelina Larrazabal who obtained the highest number of
District of Cagayan and there is nothing in the record to detract 248 SCRA 300 (1995) votes in the local elections of February 1, 1988 and was
from the merit of this factual finding. The fact that a person is Section 64.5.—Comment proclaimed as the duly elected governor but who was later
registered as a voter in one district is not proof that he is not declared by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) "... to
domiciled in another district. (MP in Book) The registration of a FACTS: Imelda Marcos ran for the position of Representative of lack both residence and registration qualifications for the
voter in a place other than his residence of origin is not first District of Leyte. Her candidacy was question by incumbent position of Governor of Leyte as provided by Art. X, Section
sufficient to consider him to have abandoned or lost his representative-Montejo, because here certificate of candidacy 12, Philippine Constitution in relation to Title II, Chapter I,
residence. states that she was only a resident of Leyte for 7 months. There Sec. 42, B.P. Blg. 137 and Sec. 89, R.A. No. 179 and is hereby
Nor is it of much importance that in his certificates of candidacy is a 1 year requirement of residency for a person to run for disqualified as such Governor"; 2) petitioner Benjamin
for provincial governor in the elections of 1988, 1992, and 1995, congress. SC ruled that in election law, Residence is equal to Abella (G.R. No. 100710), who obtained the second highest
private respondent stated that he was a resident of Gattaran. Domicile. Imelda had Leyte as her Domicile since childhood, number of votes for the position of governor but was not
Under the law, what is required for the election of governor is therefore she is qualified to run. allowed by the COMELEC to be proclaimed as governor after
residency in the province, not in any district or municipality, one the disqualification of Larrazabal; or 3) Leopoldo E. Petilla,
year before the election. ISSUE: W/N petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the vice-governor of the province of. Leyte.
the First District of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of
435 – LIM the May 9, 1995 elections. ISSUE: W/N Larrazabal is disqualified.
Fernandez v. HRET, G.R. No. 187478, December 21, 2009
Section 64.4.—Residence RULING: YES. A perusal of the Resolution of the COMELEC's RULING: YES. As can be gleaned from the questioned decision,
Second Division reveals a startling confusion in the application of the COMELEC based its finding that the petitioner lacks the
FACTS: Petitioner filed for candidacy as Representative of the settled concepts of "Domicile" and "Residence" in election law. required residence on the evidence of record to the effect that
First Legislative District of the Province of Laguna in the May 14, While the COMELEC seems to be in agreement with the despite protestations to the contrary made by the petitioner, she
2007 elections. In his COC, he indicated his alleged Sta. Rosa general proposition that for the purposes of election law, has established her residence at Ormoc City from 1975 to the
residence.Private respondent Vicente filed a “Petition to Deny residence is synonymous with domicile, the Resolution present and not at Kananga, Leyte. Her attempt to purportedly
Due Course to and/or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and reveals a tendency to substitute or mistake the concept of change her residence one year before the election by
Petition for Disqualification but the COMELEC (First domicile for actual residence, a conception not intended for the registering at Kananga, Leyte to qualify her to ran for the
Division) dismissed said petition for lack of merit. Petitioner purpose of determining a candidate's qualifications for election to position of governor of the province of Leyte clearly shows
was proclaimed as the duly elected Representative of the First the House of Representatives as required by the 1987 that she considers herself already a resident of Ormoc City.
District of Laguna. private respondent filed a petition for quo Constitution. In the absence of any evidence to prove otherwise, the reliance
warranto before the HRET citing as main that petitioner lacked on the provisions of the Family Code was proper and in
the required one-year residency requirement provided under 437 MUSA consonance with human experience. The petitioner did not
Article VI, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution. Since the HRET Marcos v. Comelec present evidence to show that she and her husband maintain
ruled in favor of private respondent, petitioner ran to the Supreme 248 SCRA 300 (1995) separate residences, she at Kananga, Leyte and her husband at
Court for legal succor Section 64.6.—Observation Ormoc City.
.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner sufficiently complied with the 1 year **See note in next case
residency requirement to be a Member of the House of 438 MUSA 439 MUSA
Representatives, as provided in the 1987 Constitution. – YES Abella v. Comelec Domino v. Comelec
201 SCRA 253 (1991) 310 SCRA 546 (1999)
RULING: YES. In all, SC found that petitioner had adequately Section 64.6.—Observation Section 64.7.—Practice tip
 elections, he automatically forfeited American citizenship under
FACTS: Domino filed his certificate of candidacy for the position 441 the laws of the United States of America. The Court stated that
of Representative of the lone legislative district of the Province of Aquino vs. Comelec the alleged forfeiture was between him and the US. If he really
Sarangani indicating that he has resided in the constituency 248 SCRA 727 (1996) wanted to drop his American citizenship, he could do so in
where he seeks to be elected. Private respondents filed a petition Section 65.3.—Mandatory nature of requirements accordance with CA No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473 and PD
seeking to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Domino, alleging 725. Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of
that Domino, contrary to his declaration in the certificate of FACTS: Aquino filed a COC for Makati 2nd District’s Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation.
candidacy, is not a resident, much less a registered voter, of representative indicating therein that he has been a resident
the province of Sarangani where he seeks election. It is the of Makati for 10 months. Move Makati, a political party, filed a 443
contention of petitioner that his actual physical presence in disqualification case asserting that Aquino has not met the 1-year Frivaldo vs. Comelec
Alabel, Sarangani since December 1996 was sufficiently residency requirement for representatives. COMELEC found 174 SCRA 245 (1989)
established by the lease of a house and lot located therein. Aquino ineligible to run. Aquino files this petition arguing that he Section 65.4.—Continuing nature of requirements
has resided in Makati for at least one year as manifested by his
ISSUE: W/N petitioner has resided in Sarangani Province for at lease in a condominium. FACTS: Respondents filed with the COMELEC a petition for the
least 1 year immediately preceding the May 11, 1998 elections. annulment of petitioner’s election and proclamation on the ground
ISSUE: W/N Aquino met the 1-year residency requirement that he was a naturalized American citizen and had not
RULING: NO. As a general rule, the principal elements of reacquired Philippine citizenship on the day of the election.
domicile, physical presence in the locality involved and intention RULING: NO. The period of residence requirement is He was therefore not qualified to run for and be elected
to adopt it as a domicile, must concur in order to establish a new mandatory. Aquino’s stay in Makati does not qualify as domicile. governor.
domicile. No change of domicile will result if either of these In his COC, he indicated that he has been a resident of
elements is absent. Intention to acquire a domicile without actual Concepcion Tarlac for 52 years and a registered voter thereof. In Petitioner insisted that he was a citizen of the Philippines
residence in the locality does not result in acquisition of domicile, order for one to abandon domicile of origin, there must be an because his naturalization as an American citizen was not
nor does the fact of physical presence without intention. In actual removal or change of domicile, bona fide intention to “impressed with voluntariness.” His oath in his COC that he was
proving residence, counsel should consider that a lease abandon the domicile, and facts supporting the change. a natural-born citizen should be a sufficient act of repatriation.
contract may be indicative of a person’s intention to reside Although Aquino has a lease on a Makati condominium, the
in a particular locality but it does not endanger the kind of court ruled that this does not suffice because the lease is ISSUE: W/N petitioner was qualified to run for public office.
permanency required to prove abandonment of one’s temporary and does not demonstrate an intention to
original domicile, and that while voting is not conclusive of abandon domicile. RULING: NO. First, petitioner’s loss of his naturalized American
residence it does give rise to a strong presumption of citizenship did not and could not have the effect of automatic
residence. Further, Domino's lack of intention to abandon his 442 restoration of his Philippine citizenship. Second, the mere filing of
residence in Quezon City is further strengthened by his act of Frivaldo vs. Comelec COC wherein petitioner claimed that he is a natural born Filipino
registering as voter in one of the precincts in Quezon City. While 257 SCRA 727 (1996) citizen is not a sufficient act of repatriation. Third, qualifications
voting is not conclusive of residence, it does give rise to a strong Section 65.3.—Mandatory nature of requirements for public office are continuing requirements and must be
presumption of residence. possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or
FACTS: The League of Municipalities filed with the COMELEC a assumption of office but during the officer’s entire tenure.
petition for annulment of Frivaldo’s election and proclamation on Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may
440 MUSA the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having been be seasonably challenged.
Sanchez v. Del Rosario naturalized in the United States. Frivaldo admitted the allegation
1 SCRA 1102 (1961) but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that his
Section 65.3.—Mandatory nature of requirements naturalization was merely forced upon himself as a means of
survival against the unrelenting prosecution by the Martial Law
FACTS: This is a petition for quo warranto brought by Juan Dictator’s agent abroad. 444
Sanchez, a defeated candidate for the office of councilor in the Labo vs. Comelec
municipality of Bocaue, Bulacan, against Oscar del Rosario, a ISSUE: W/N Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time 176 SCRA 1 (1989)
winning candidate for the same position, the CFI of said province of his election. Section 65.4.—Continuing nature of requirements
rendered judgment unseating respondent from said elective
office on the ground of the latter's ineligibility as he was still RULING: NO. Citizenship qualification requires strict FACTS: Petitioner Labo was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio
22. Hence, this appeal. application. Section 117 of the OEC provides that a qualified City. Private respondent Lardizabal, the losing candidate, filed a
voter must be a citizen of the Philippines, this being an petition for quo warranto questioning petitioner’s citizenship. The
ISSUE: W/N the eligibility qualifications of candidates are indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V, Section 1, latter claims that petitioner is a naturalized Australian
mandatory. of the Constitution. citizen, having married an Australian citizen. Records also
showed petitioner’s oath and affirmation of allegiance to the
RULING: YES. Constitutional or statutory provisions He claims that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by virtue Queen of Australia. These were not denied; petitioner however
providing for the qualifications of candidates are mandatory. of valid repatriation and that by actively participating in the local claimed that his naturalization in Australia made him at worst
only a dual national and did not divest him of his Philippine qualification for the contested office. Philippine citizenship is an of Philippine citizenship, does NOT constitute the personal
citizenship and that his naturalization in Australia was indispensable requirement for holding an elective office. and sworn renunciation sought under Section 5(2) of RA
annulled after it was found that his marriage to the 446 9225. It bears to emphasize that the said oath of allegiance is a
Australian citizen was bigamous. De Guzman vs. COMELEC general requirement for all those who wish to run as candidates
Section 65.5 – Citizenship in Philippine elections; while the renunciation of foreign
ISSUE: W/N Ramon Labo was a citizen of the Philippines at the citizenship is an additional requisite only for those who have
time of his election FACTS: Dela Cruz filed a petition for disqualification to run for retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act
vice-mayor against De Guzman alleging that he is not a citizen No. 9225 and who seek elective public posts, considering their
RULING: NO. In any event, the people of that locality could not of the Philippines but an immigrant and resident of the USA. special circumstance of having more than one citizenship.
have, even unanimously, changed the requirements of the LGC De Guzman admitted he was a naturalized American but he
and the Constitution. applied for dual citizenship and took his oath of allegiance to 448
the Republic under RA 9225. He argued that, having re- Velasco vs. COMELEC
The probability that many of those who voted for the petitioner acquired Philippine citizenship, he is entitled to exercise full Section 65.5 – Citizenship
may have done so in the belief that he was qualified only civil and political rights and he is qualified to run as vice-
strengthens the conclusion that the results of the election cannot mayor. When De Guzman won, Dela Cruz filed an election FACTS: Velasco, a natural born Filipino, became a citizen of the
nullify the qualifications for the office now held by him. These protest. USA. He applied for dual citizenship under RA 9225 and took his
qualifications are continuing requirements; once any of oath of allegiance to the Republic. He applied for registration
them is lost during incumbency, title to the office itself is ISSUE: W/N De Guzman was disqualified. as a voter but this was denied on the ground of failure to
deemed forfeited. In the case at bar, the citizenship and voting comply with the residency requirement since (1) he had lost
requirements were not subsequently lost but were not possessed RULING: YES. De Guzman’s oath of allegiance and his domicile of origin when he became a US citizen; (2) he
at all in the first place on the day of the election. The petitioner certificate of candidacy did not comply with Section 5(2) of was only staying in the Philippines as a visitor or a resident
was disqualified from running as mayor and, although elected, is RA 9225 which further requires those seeking elective public alien; and (3) he had only reacquired his Philippine
not qualified to serve as such. office in the Philippines to make a personal and sworn residency when he reacquired his Filipino citizenship.
renunciation of foreign citizenship. He failed to renounce his
445 American citizenship. Hence, he is disqualified from running Pending appeal, he filed his COC for the position of mayor and
Ortega vs. Comelec for vice-mayor. executed an affidavit renouncing his American citizenship.
211 SCRA 297 (1992)
Section 65.5.—Citizenship (Section 5(2) of RA 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos, who ISSUE: W/N Velasco was disqualified.
have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who
FACTS: Petitioner Ortega filed a disqualification proceeding reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the RULING: YES. Velasco could not have registered as a
against Labo before the COMELEC on the ground that Labo oath of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and regular voter because he did not possess the residency
is not a Filipino citizen. Comelec denied Labo’s COC. (2) for those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, requirement of one-year stay in the Philippines and 6-
Accordingly, respondent Labo may still continue to be voted to additionally execute a personal and sworn renunciation of months stay in the municipality where he proposed to vote
upon as candidate for City Mayor of Baguio City subject to any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public at the time of the election. Before acquiring his dual citizenship
the final outcome of this case in the event the issue is officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of status, Velasco was an American citizen who had lost his
elevated to the Supreme Court either on appeal or certiorari. candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections.) residency and domiciliary status in the Philippines; whose sojourn
in the Philippines was via a visitor's visa; and who never
Comelec resolved, motu proprio to suspend the proclamation of 447 established permanent residence in the Philippines.
Labo in the event he wins in the elections for the City Mayor of Jacot vs. Dal and COMELEC
Baguio. Labo filed the instant petition for review with prayer, for Section 65.5 – Citizenship
the issuance of a TRO to set aside the resolution of respondent 449
Comelec; to render judgment declaring him as a Filipino citizen; FACTS: Jacot, a natural-born Filipino, became a naturalized Japzon vs. COMELEC
and to direct respondent Comelec to proceed with his citizen of the USA. He later reacquired his Philippine citizenship Section 65.5 – Citizenship
proclamation in the event he wins in the contested elections. under RA 9225 by taking his oath of allegiance to the Republic.
He ran for vice-mayor and won. However, the COMELEC FACTS: Japzon filed a petition to disqualify/cancel Ty’s COC on
ISSUE: W/N Labo may run for Mayor of Baguio City Second Division issued a resolution disqualifying him from the ground of material representation for falsely representing
running for vice-mayor for failure to renounce his US that he was a resident of a certain barangay for one year
RULING: NO. The resolution cancelling Labo's COC on the citizenship. before the elections, and was not a permanent resident or
ground that he is not a Filipino citizen having acquired finality immigrant of any foreign country. He further contended that
constrains us to rule against his proclamation as Mayor of Baguio ISSUE: W/N Jacot was disqualified. although Ty applied for reacquisition of his Philippine
City. To begin with, one of the qualifications of an elective official citizenship, he never actually resided in the said barangay
is that he must be a citizen of the Philippines. Undoubtedly, RULING: YES. The oath of allegiance contained in the for a period of 1 year immediately preceding the elections
petitioner Labo, not being a Filipino citizen, lacks the fundamental certificate of candidacy, which is substantially similar to the and he continued traveling to the USA. Moreover, he failed to
one contained in Section 3 of RA 9225 for the reacquisition renounce his US citizenship.
 Note: Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the concurrent FACTS: Petitioner was elected as mayor but was disqualified to
ISSUE: W/N Ty was disqualified. application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is served because he was naturalized as an australian citizen.
simultaneously considered a national by the said states. On the
RULING: NO. RA 9225 did not impose any residency other hand, dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a ISSUE: W/N petitioner is disqualified because he is a naturalized
requirement for the reacquisition or retention of Philippine person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two Australian citizen.
citizenship; nor does it mention any effect of reacquisition or or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual
retention of Philippine citizenship on the current residence allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition. RULING: Yes. Petitioner lost his citizenship. Under CA no.
of the natural-born Filipino. Citizenship and residence are 63, which enumerates the mode by which a Filipino
independently treated in RA 9225. Residency only becomes Citizenship may be lost, it includes Naturalization in a
relevant when the natural-born Filipino with dual citizenship 456 - SABTALUH foreign soil.
runs for public office. He must (1) meet the qualifications for Valles v. Comelec, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000
holding such public office as required by the Constitution FACTS: Petitioner was a dual citizen by accident because she
and existing laws; and (2) make a personal and sworn was born in a foreign soil that follows the principle of jus soli.
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before any 460-SABTALUH
public officer authorized to administer an oath. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is qualified to seek public Aznar v. Comelec, 185 SCRA 703 (1999)
elective office. FACTS:petioner contended that the mere fact of obtaining a
Here, Ty had personally executed a Renunciation of Foreign certificate of alien registration as an american citizen cannot be
Citizenship before a notary public. By the time he filed hi COC, RULING: Yes. She acquired foreign citizenship by operation disregarded as an express renunciation of his Philippine
he had already effectively renounced his American citizenship. of law, as such she did not need to perform any act to swear Citizenship.
Moreover, Ty had been a resident of his barangay 1 year prior to allegiance to a country aothe than the Philippines.
the elections. It is the fact of residence that is the decisive factor. ISSUE: Whether or not the lost of Philippine citizenship can be
Absence from residence to pursue studies or practice his 457 - SABTALUH presumed.
profession does not constitute loss of residence. Mercado v. Manzano
FACTS: Petitioner was disqualified to hold for public office RULING: No. The mere fact that he has a certificate stating
because he was an american citizen as well as a Filipino citizen. that he has a certificate stating that he is an american does
450 not mean that he is not still a filipino
Cordora vs. COMELEC ISSUE:Whether or not dual citizenship is a ground for
Section 65.5 – Citizenship disqualification to hold or run office in the local position. 461-462. Labo v. Comelec, 176 SCRA 1 (1989) p. 173
ARTICLE IX. ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES AND
FACTS: Cordora filed a complaint against Tambunting alleging RULING: No. Dual citizenship is different from dual CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
that he made a false assertion in his COC by claiming that he allegiance. It should suffice if, upon the filing of their Section 65.8.—Repatriation
lacked the required citizenship and residency requirements candidacy, they elect philipine citizenship to terminate their
as Tambunting was a naturalized American citizen. However, status as persons with dual citizenship. DOCTRINE: Under CA. No 63 as amended by PD no 725,
Tambunting denies being a naturalized American citizen and Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of
claims that he is a natural-born Filipino as he was born of a 458&459 Congress, by naturalization or by repatriation.
Filipino mother and an American father. He also claims that Lopez v. Comelec,
he took his oath of allegiance to the Republic. FACTS: Labo was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio City.
FACTS: Petitioner was born a filipino but he deliberately sought Private respondent filed a petition alleging that a foreigner is
ISSUE: W/N Tambunting was disqualified. american citizenship. He later on become a dual citizen by re- holding a public office. It was found in the 2nd decision by CID
acquiring filipino citizenship. that petitioner was still an Australian citizen as of that date
RULING: NO. Tambunting was a dual citizen and this did not by reason of his naturalization by marrying an Australian.
disqualify him from running for public office. RA 9225 is not ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is qualified to seek elective However, in light of this their marriage was declared void in
concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of public office. Australia that’s why Labo insists that he lost his Australian
naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their citizenship.
countries of origin even after their naturalization. RULING: No. For a citizen who re-acquires his citizenship
and who seeks elective public office should first make a ISSUE: W/N the mayoralty candidate is eligible to be elected.
Here, Tambunting did not subsequently become a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
naturalized citizen of another country but was a dual citizen citizenship before any public officer authorized top RULING: NO. The city mayoralty candidate who acquired
of the Philippines and of the USA. Hence, the twin administer an oath" petitioner failed to comply this foreign citizenship did not claim that he reacquired
requirements in RA 9225 of swearing to an oath of allegiance requirement. Philippine citizenship by any of these methods, hence he
and executing a renunciation of foreign citizenship do not was ineligible as a candidate.
apply to him. 459-A - SABTALUH Moreover, the annulment of a candidate’s Australian
Labo v. Comelec, 176 SCRA 1 (1989) citizenship as a result of the finding that his marriage to an
Australian was bigamous, did not automatically restore his
Philippines citizenship. His divestiture of Australian ISSUE: W/N petitioner’s proclamation was valid? the place where the child’s parents reside and continues until the
citizenship does not concern the Philippines. same is abandoned by acquisition of new domicile (domicile of
RULING: NO. A former Filipino who has acquired the choice).
citizenship of another country should first reacquire Filipino In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin in
463-465. Frivaldo v. Comelec, 174 SCRA 245 (1989) par. 2 citizenship in accordance with law before becoming a Oras by becoming a US citizen after enlisting in the US Navy.
ARTICLE IX. ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES AND candidate for a Philippine elective office. From then on, when he reacquired Philippine citizenship,
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY petitioner was an alien without any right to reside in the
Section 65.8.—Repatriation 467 – Tan Philippines save as our immigration laws may have allowed
Faypon vs. Quirino him to stay as a visitor or as a resident alien.
DOCTRINE: The reacquisition of Filipino citizenship by a person G.R. No. L-7068, December 22, 1954
who lost his natural-born Filipino citizenship by being naturalized 65.12: Residence 470 – Tan
in a foreign country, by filing a petition for reacquisition pursuant Pundaodaya vs. COMELEC
to the then applicable repatriation law retroacts to the date of the FACTS: A quo warranto petition was filed by Perfecto Faypon, as G.R. No. 179313, September 17, 2009
filing of the petition. a candidate, questioning Eliseo Quirino’s ineligibility for the office 65.12: Residence
of Provincial Governor of Ilocos Sur to which he was proclaimed. FACTS: Petitioner Makil Pundaodaya filed for disqualification of
FACTS: Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the province Petitioner assails respondent lacks the residency private respondent Arsenio Noble’s COC as mayor for not
of Sorsogon. The League of Municipalities filed a petition requirement. He was born at Ilocos Sur but has since moved meeting the residency requirement as he is actually residing
against Frivaldo on the ground that he was not a Filipino and worked to Quezon City and is a registered voter in in Cagayan de Oro and has a construction business there.
citizen, having been naturalized in the United States on Pasay City. Noble argues that he was a voter in Kinoguitan, Pangasinan
January 20, 1983. for the last 3 elections and campaigned for his father-in-law,
ISSUE: W/N the residency requirement was met? who was then mayor.
Frivaldo admitted that he was naturalized in the United States as
alleged but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he RULING: YES. There is no difference between bona fide ISSUE: W/N the residency requirement was met?
had sought American citizenship only to protect himself residency and residence in good faith. The residence
against President Marcos; he added that he had returned to requirement for elective provincial and municipal officials is RULING: NO. Noble has not abandoned his original domicile
the Philippines after the EDSA revolution to help in the the same; and the rule that a previous registration as voter of a as shown by the following: a) Certification of the Barangay
restoration of democracy and alleged that participating in municipal mayor-elect in a municipality other than the one in Kagawad of Barangay Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro; b) Affidavit
the elections automatically renounced his citizenship. which he is elected is no ground for disqualifying him because of of the Barangay Kagawad of Esperanza, Kinoguitan, Misamis
alleged loss or abandonment of his residence of origin in the Oriental attesting that Noble has not resided in Barangay
ISSUE: W/N Frivaldo is eligible to be elected. municipality where he is elected, applies with equal force to Esperanza in Kinoguitan; c) photos and official receipts
elective provincial officials. showing that Noble and his wife maintain their residence
RULING: NO. The court held that Frivaldo’s claim that by actively and businesses in Cagayan de Oro; d) tax declarations of
participating in the elections in this country, he automatically real properties in Cagayan de Oro City under the name of
forfeited American citizenship under the laws of the US, is of no 468-469 – Tan Noble; and e) the "Household Record of Barangay
concern to the Philippines. The alleged forfeiture is between Coquilla vs. COMELEC Inhabitants" of father-in-law which did not include Noble or
him and the US. Moreover, even if he did lose his naturalized G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002 his wife, which disproves Noble’s claim that he resides with
American citizenship, such forfeiture did not and could not 65.12: Residence his father-in-law. (Tipon MP)
have the effect of automatically restoring his citizenship in
the Philippines that he had earlier denounced. FACTS: Teodulo Coquilla is a natural-born Filipino who became A person’s registration as voter in one district is not proof that he
a naturalized US citizen and part of the US Navy. After is not domiciled in another district. The registration of a voter in a
retirement, he was granted repatriation and was proclaimed as place other than his residence of origin is not sufficient to
466 – Tan mayor of Oras, Eastern Samar. Previous mayor Neil Alvarez consider him to have abandoned or lost his residence.
Frivaldo vs. COMELEC argued that he only returned and resided for 6 months prior
G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989 to the election. 471 TORIBIO
65.10: Practice Tip Ugdoracion v COMELEC
ISSUE: W/N the residence requirement was met? GR 179851, April 18, 2008
FACTS: League of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter, filed with Article IX Sec 65.12 - Residence
the COMELEC a petition for annulment of Juan Frivaldo’s RULING: NO. The term "residence" is to be understood not in its
proclamation as governor-elect for being a naturalized US citizen common acceptation as referring to "dwelling" or "habitation", but
who did not reacquire Filipino citizenship during the 1988 rather to "domicile" or legal residence, that is, "the place where a MAIN POINT: Ominbus Code and Local Government Code RA
elections. Petitioner leaded the special and affirmative defenses party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where 7160 disqualifies a permanent resident, immigrant of a foreign
that he had sought American citizenship only to protect himself he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, country unless it is waived.
against President Marcos. eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi).” A
domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually
FACTS: Ugdoracion and private respondent Tungol, were rival there permanently. Caasi also failed to meet other Philippine citizenship by repatriation cannot be added to his
mayoralty candidates in the Municipality of Albuquerque, Constitutional requirements for elective officials which actual residence thereat after November 10, 2000 until May 14,
Province of Bohol in the May 2007 elections. On April 11, 2007, further warrants his dismissal from office as Mayor. Winning 2001 to cure his deficiency in days, months, and year to allow or
Tungol filed a Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel the the election does not substitute the requirements of the law. render him eligible to run for an elective office in the Philippines.
Certificate of Candidacy of Jose Ugdoracion, Jr., contending that Under such circumstances, by whatever formula of
Ugdoracion's declaration of eligibility for Mayor constituted 473 TORIBIO computation used, respondent is short of the one-year
material misrepresentation because Ugdoracion is actually a Coquilla v COMELEC residence requirement before the May 14, 2001 elections.
"green card" holder or a permanent resident of the United GR 151914, July 31, 2002
States of America (USA). Specifically, Ugdoracion stated in Article IX Sec 65.12 - Residence 474 TORIBIO
his COC that he had resided in Albuquerque, Bohol, Gallego v Vera
Philippines for forty-one years before May 14, 2007 and he is GR L-48641, November 24, 1941
not a permanent resident or an immigrant to a foreign MAIN POINT: The one (1) year residency requirement Article IX Sec 65.12 - Residence
country. It appears that Ugdoracion became a permanent contemplates of the actual residence of a Filipino citizen in the
resident of the USA on September 26, 2001. constituency where he seeks to be elected.
FACTS: Petitioner Coquilla was born in Oras, Eastern Samar. MAIN POINT: The term "residence" as used in the election
ISSUE: Whether or not Ugdoracion is eligible to run under the He grew up and resided there until 1965, when he joined the law is synonymous with "domicile" which imports not only
citizenship and residency requirement? United States Navy. He was subsequently naturalized as a intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
U.S. citizen. From 1970 to 1973, petitioner thrice visited the presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of
RULING: NO. The Permanent Resident Card or the so-called Philippines while on leave from the U.S. Navy. Otherwise, such intention.
"greencard" issued by the US government to respondent even after his retirement from the U.S. Navy in 1985, he
does not merely signify transitory stay in the USA for remained in the United States. FACTS: Pedro Gallego is a native of Abuyog, Leyte. After
purpose of work, pleasure, business or study but to live On October 15, 1998, petitioner came to the Philippines and took studying in the Catarman Agricultural School in the province of
there permanently. Also the fact that he is re-establishing his out a residence certificate, although he continued making several Samar, he was employed as a school teacher in the municipality
citizenship requires physical presence and not just mere trips to the United States, the last of which took place on July 6, of Catarman, Samar, as well as in the municipalities of Burawen,
intent to reside in the place of election. 2000 and lasted until August 5, 2000. Subsequently, petitioner Dulag, and Abuyog, province of Leyte and presented his
applied for repatriation under R.A. No. 8171 to the Special candidacy for municipal mayor of his home town, but was
472 TORIBIO Committee on Naturalization. His application was approved on defeated. After his defeat in that election, finding himself in debt
Caasi v Court of Appeals November 7, 2000, and, on November 10, 2000, he took his oath and unemployed, he went to Mindanao in search of a job. He first
GR 88831, November 8, 1990 as a citizen of the Philippines. Petitioner was issued Certificate of went to Oriental Misamis, but finding no work there he proceeded
Article IX Sec 65.12 - Residence Repatriation No. 000737 on November 10, 2000 and Bureau of to the sitio of Kaato-an, municipality of Malaybalay, Bukidnon,
Immigration Identification Certificate No. 115123 on November whereat he arrived on June 20, 1938, and immediately found
13, 2000. employment as nurseryman in the chichona plantation of the
MAIN POINT: A green card holder being a permanent resident of On November 21, 2000, petitioner applied for registration as a Bureau of Forestry. On July 30 of the same year he returned to
or an immigrant of a foreign country and respondent having voter of Butnga, Oras, Eastern Samar. His application was Abuyog because he had been offered an employment as teacher
admitted that he is a green card holder, it is incumbent upon him, approved by the Election Registration Board on January 12, in the public school of the barrio of Union, municipality of Sogod,
under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, to prove that he 2001. On February 27, 2001, he filed his certificate of candidacy Leyte; but as he did not accept the offer he returned to Kaato-an
"has waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant" to stating therein that he had been a resident of Oras, Eastern on August 23, 1938, and resumed his employment there as
be qualified to run for elected office.  Samar for "two (2) years." nurseryman of the Bureau of Forestry. He stayed in the
On March 5, 2001, respondent Neil M. Alvarez, who was the chinchona plantation until he resigned in September 1940. But
FACTS: This case is about the disqualification under Section 68 incumbent mayor of Oras and who was running for reelection, during the period of his stay, there, his wife and children
of the Omnibus Election Code of the private respondent, Merito sought the cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of candidacy on remained in Abuyog, and he visited them in the month of August
Miguel for the position of municipal mayor of Bolinao, the ground that the latter had made a material misrepresentation of the years 1938, and 1940. Altho the Government offered him a
Pangasinan, to which he was elected in the local elections of in his certificate of candidacy by stating that he had been a free house in the chinchona plantation, he never took his family
January 18, 1988, on the ground that he is a green card holder, resident of Oras for two years when in truth he had resided there. Neither did he avail himself of the offer of the Government
hence, a permanent resident of the United States of America, therein for only about six months since November 10, 2000, of a parcel of the hectares of land within the reservation of the
not of Bolinao. when he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines. chinchona plantation. He and his wife own real property in
Abuyog, part of which he acquired during his stay in Malaybalay.
ISSUE: Whether or not Caasi is eligible to run under the ISSUE: Whether or not Coquilla is eligible to run under the Nevertheless, On October 1, 1938 he registered himself as an
citizenship and residency requirement? residency requirement? elector in precinct No. 14 of Lantapan, municipality of
Malaybalay, Bukidnon, and voted there in the election for
RULING: NO. The Permanent Resident Card or the so-called RULING: NO. All things considered, the number of years he assemblymen held in December, 1938. The trial court noted that
"greencard" issued by the US government to respondent claimed to have resided or stayed in Oras, Eastern Samar since in his voter's affidavit (exhibit B) he did not fill the blank space
does not merely signify transitory stay in the USA for 1985 as an American citizen and permanent resident of the corresponding to the length of time he had resided in Malaybalay.
purpose of work, pleasure, business or study but to live U.S.A. before November 10, 2000 when he reacquired his On January 20, 1940, he obtained and paid for his residence
certificate from the municipal treasurer of Malaybalay, in RULING: YES. The departure to the United States was not of newspaper work in Manila, Iloilo and later on again in Manila.
which certificate it was stated that he had resided in said any intent to leave and abandon the residence nor Quirino was once a registered voter of Pasay City.
municipality for one year and a half. citizenship as Filipino but a action to avoid any political
repercussion. This circumstance is treated with due course ISSUE: Whether or not Quirino’s's registration as voter in Pasay
ISSUE: Whether or not Gallego is eligible to run under the by the Court. City constituted abandonment of his residence of origin.
residency requirement?
CASE No. 476 RULING: NO. Mere absence from one's residence of origin—
RULING: NO. The petitioner had lost his residence or ART. X: Sec. 65.12: Residence domicile—to pursue studies, engage in business, or practice
domicile in Abuyog. He did not reside in Malaybalay with the Alacantara et.al. vs. Secretary of Interior his vocation, is not sufficient to constitute abandonment or
intention of remaining there indefinitely and of not returning FACTS: Petitioners requested the respondent that electoral loss of such residence. The determination of a person's legal
to Abuyog. He is a native of Abuyog. Notwithstanding his precincts be placed in Culion Leper Colony in order that the residence or domicile largely depends upon intention which
periodic absences from there previous to 1937, when he was qualified voters therein could register. Respondent denied on may be inferred from his' acts, activities and utterances. A
employed as teacher in Samar, Agusan, and other the ground that petitioners have not been residents of previous registration as voter in a municipality other than
municipalities of Leyte, he always returned there.  Culion for six months next preceding the day of voting. that in which he is elected is not sufficient to constitute
abandonment or loss of his residence of origin.
475 TORIBIO ISSUE: W/N petitioners are qualified to vote in Culion Palawan?
Romualdez v RTC of Tacloban CASE NO. 479
GR 104960, September 14, 1993 RULING: YES.  Assuming that the petitioners intend to return to ART. IX. SEC. 65.12. RESIDENCE
Article IX Sec 65.12 - Residence their former homes if at some future time they are cured, this Abella vs. COMELEC, 201 SCRA 253, September 03, 1991
intention does not necessarily defeat their residence before they
actually do return if they have been residents "of the Philippine FACTS: Initially, dela Cruz (Abella was allowed to intervene) filed
MAIN POINT: The term "residence" as used in the election law is Islands for one year and of the municipality in which they offer to a petition with the COMELEC to disqualify Larrazabal from
synonymous with "domicile" which imports not only intention to vote for six months next preceding the day of voting. The well- running as governor of Leyte on the ground that she
reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, established rules are: (1), that a man must have a residence misrepresented her residence in her COC as Kananga, Leyte
coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. or domicile somewhere; (2) that where once established it when she was in fact a resident of Ormoc City. Larrazabal
remains until a new one is acquired; and (3) a man can have invoked the doctrine of animus revertendi, stating that her
FACTS: The petitioner is Philip Romualdez, a natural born citizen but one domicile at a time." subsequent physical transfer to Ormoc did not erase her
of the Philippines. Sometime in the early part of 1980, the Kananga residence.
petitioner, in consonance with his decision to establish his legal CASE No. 477
residence at Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte, caused the ART. X: Sec. 65.12: Residence ISSUE: Whether or not Larrazabal’s contention should be
construction of his residential house therein. He soon thereafter Romualdez vs. RTC of Tacloban, G.R. No. 104960 granted merit.
also served as Barangay Captain of the place. In the 1984 Same with CASE No. 475
Batasan Election and 1986 "snap" Presidential Election, RULING: NO. While it is true that mere absence from one's
Romualdez acted as the Campaign Manager of the Kilusang RULING: YES. In order, in turn, to acquire a new domicile by residence of origin—domicile—to pursue studies, engage in
Bagong Lipunan (KBL) in Leyte where he voted. choice, there must concur (1) residence or bodily presence business, or practice his vocation, is not sufficient to constitute
When the eventful days from the 21st to the 24th of February, in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) abandonment or loss of such residence, the same is not
1986, came or were about to come to a close, some relatives and an intention to abandon the old domicile.  In other words, applicable in this instant case. There is no evidence to prove
associates of the deposed President, fearing for their personal there must basically be animus manendi coupled that Larrazabal temporarily left her residence in Kananga to
safety, whether founded or not, "fled" the country. Petitioner with animus non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at pursue any calling, profession or business. What is clear is
Romualdez, for one, together with his immediate family, left the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of that she established her residence in Ormoc with her
the Philippines and sought "asylum" in the United States time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the husband and considers herself a resident therein. The
which the United States (U.S.) government granted. While residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be intention of animus revertendi not to abandon her residence
abroad, he took special studies on the development of actual. in Kananga therefor, is not present.
Leyte-Samar and international business finance.
He returned to the Philippines afraid of deportation to CASE NO. 478 CASE NO. 480
prosper and immediately went back to his residence in ART. IX. SEC. 65.12. RESIDENCE ART. IX. SEC. 65.12. RESIDENCE
Maibog Leyte and had himself registered as a voter. Private Faypon vs. Quirino, 96 Phil. 294, December 22, 1954 Larena vs. Teves, 61 Phil., 36, December 10, 1934
respondent Advinvula questioned such registration and and
running as barangay chairman. FACTS: Faypon file a petition for quo warranto against Quirino FACTS: Teves was declared the municipal president of
which alleged that he lacked the required residence for the office Dumaguete, Oriental Negros but such was declared null and void
ISSUE: Whether or not Romualdez is eligible to run under the of Provincial Governor of Ilocos Sur. Quirino was born in Ilocos due to questions on his residency. It was alleged that Teves
citizenship and residency requirement? Sur; came to Manila to pursue his studies; went to the United was born in Dumaguete but changed his legal residence
States for the same purpose; returned to the Philippines; lectured from Dumaguete to the municipality of Bacong, Oriental
in the University of the Philippines; and engaged in the Negros when he registered as an elector in the latter
municipality and ran for representative of the second district he was elected mayor of the latter municipality, words, there must basically be animus manendi
of Oriental Negros. and that, therefore, his election was void coupled with animus non revertendi. The purpose
to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be
ISSUE: Whether or not a previous registration as a voter in a ISSUE: Pedro Gallego had been a resident of for an indefinite period of time; the change of
different municipality had the effect of abandonment of residence. Abuyog for at least one year prior to December 10, residence must be voluntary; and the residence at
1940 (Election) the place chosen for the new domicile must be
RULING: NO. A previous registration as a voter of a actual. Sudden departure from the country to go
candidate in a municipality other than the one in which he is RULING: No. The term "residence" as used in the into self-exile until conditions favorable have been
elected does not disqualify him because of abandonment of election law is synonymous with "domicile," which established cannot be described as voluntary or as
his residence of origin in the municipality where he is imports not only intention to reside in a fixed place abandonment of residence in the context of
elected. Thus, a candidate did not lose his residence of origin in but also personal presence in that place, coupled domicile by choice.
the town where he was born, notwithstanding the fact that he with conduct indicative of such intention. 484 Chua
registered in the list of voters of another municipality and ran for “Domicile” denotes a fixed permanent residence to ART. IX. SEC 65.12. RESIDENCE
representative in the district where that municipality belonged, which when absent or business or pleasure, or for Tanseco v. Arteche | 57 Phil. 227
and later ran for office in the town where he was born. like reasons, one intends to return. he did not
reside in Malaybalay with the intention of FACTS: Tanseco, a voter, asserts that Governor
remaining there indefinitely. He is a native of Arteche did not reside in Samar during the year
Abuyog. Notwithstanding his periodic prior to the election, having been in fact during that
481 Chua absences His departure therefrom after his time a resident of the City of Manila, where he had
ART IX Section 65.12 defeat in that election was temporary and only his home. 
Faypon v quirino 96 phil 294 for the purpose of looking for employment The
FACTS: A petition for quo warranto was filed change of residence must be voluntary. When ISSUE: Whether Arteche is a resident of Manila.
against Quirino for ineligibility for office of the evidence of alleged lack of residence is
provincial governor of ilocos for failing to meet weak, the will of he voters should be respected RULING: Yes. The circumstance that the Arteche,
the residency requirement for at least one year 483 Chua after moving to Manila and fixing his residence in
in the municipality where the municipal officer ART IX Section 65.12 that place, may have had what is called a floating
is elected, as provided for in section 2174 of Romualdez v RTC Tacloban 226 SCRA 408 intention to return to Samar upon some indefinite
the Revised Administrative Code. FACTS: Philip Romualdez left PH and sought occasion, does not give him the right to claim
“asylum” in US. He attempted to return to PH but Samar as his residence. It was the fixing of his
ISSUE: WON Faypon is disqualified for office for flight was aborted. When he finally arrived in Ph home in Manila with the intention of remaining
failing to meet residency requirement without any travel documents, he registered there for an indefinite time and engaging in a
himself as new voter of Leyte. Advincula filed a profession which implies dedication to a life work
RULING: No. Mere absence from legal resince petition with MTC praying that Romualdez be that effectually severed his home ties and made a
or domicile to pursue a profession, to practice excluded from the list of alleging that Romualdez new residence in the place of his chosen abode.
a vocation, to engage in business, or to study was a resident of Massachusetts, U.S.A.; that he
is not sufficient to constitute abandonment The had just recently arrived in Ph and no one-year six- 485 Chua
residence requirement for elective provincial month residency requirement ART. IX. SEC 65.12. RESIDENCE
and municipal officials are the same and the Nuval v. Guray | 52 Phil. 645
rule that a previous registration as voter of a ISSUE: WON Romualdez is disqualified to be a
municipal mayor-elect in a municipality other than registered voter FACTS: Gregorio Nuval filed a petition against
the one in which he is elected is no ground for Norberto Guray asking for the exclusion of his
disqualifying him because of alleged loss or RULING: No. The term "residence" as used in the name from the election list, not being a qualified
abandonment of his residence of origin in the election law is synonymous with "domicile," which voter since he had not resided therein. Norberto
municipality where he is elected, applies with imports not only intention to reside in a fixed place Guray was elected to the Office of Municipal
equal force to elective provincial officials but also personal presence in that place, coupled President of Luna.
482 Chua with conduct indicative of such intention.
ART IX Section 65.12 “Domicile” denotes a fixed permanent residence to Gregorio Nuval filed an action of quo warranto
Galleo v Verra 73 phil. 453 which when absent or business or pleasure, or for asking that Guray be declared ineligible for the
FACTS: Pedro Gallego is a native of Abuyog, like reasons, one intends to return. Residence may office, for not having had a legal residence of one
Leyte and left to work in Mindanao. he registered be lost by adopting another choice of domisicle. I year previous to the election.
in Bukidnon, and voted there. Trial Court and CA order to acquire a new domicile there must be (1)
ruled that he acquired his residency in Bukidnon residence or bodily presence in the new locality, ISSUE: Whether the judgment rendered in the
and lost his domicile in Abuyog Leyte at the time (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an case of the petition for the exclusion of Guray's
intention to abandon the old domicile. In other name from the election list is res judicata, so as to
prevent the institution and prosecution of an action
in quo warranto. MAINPOINT: Petitioner’s invocation of the liberal
interpretation of election laws cannot avail him any. A
RULING: NO. Registration as a voter does not bar democratic government is necessarily a government of laws.
the filing of a subsequent case questioning a In a republican government those laws are themselves
candidate’s lack of residency. In said case of the ordained by the people. Through their representatives, they
petition for exclusion, the cause of action was that dictate the qualifications necessary for service in
Guray had not the six months' legal residence in government positions.
the municipality of Luna to be a qualified voter
thereof, while in the proceeding of quo 488 GENON
warranto, the cause of action is that Guray has not Gallego vs. Verra (repeated case)
the one year's legal residence required for
eligibility to the office of municipal president of MAINPOINT: Where the evidence of the alleged lack of
Luna. Neither does there exist identity of causes of residence is weak, the will of the voters should be respected.
action.
489 GENON
Saya-Ang vs. COMELEC

FACTS: Petitioners Saya-ang, Sr. and Lara, were candidates for

the Office of Barangay Captain of Barangays Congan and New
Aklan respectively. Thereafter, a letter-report was submitted by
Acting Election Officer Alim to the Law Department of the
Comelec which stated that petitioners are not residents of the
barangays they wish to be elected in. In turn, the Law
Department of the Comelec submitted its study to the
Comelec en banc recommending the denial of due course to the
certificates of candidacy of petitioners. On the day of the
elections, the Comelec, issued En Banc Resolution No. 5393,
which essentially denied due course to the certificates of
candidacy of petitioners. Despite the Resolution, petitioners
were still proclaimed as winners. COMELEC issued a directive
commanding petitioners to cease and desist from taking their
oath of office and from assuming the position to which they were
elected. He also directed the Barangay Board of Canvassers for
Barangays Congan and New Aklan to reconvene immediately
and proclaim the duly-elected candidates and to correct the
certificates of canvass and proclamation.

ISSUE: WON the candidates who have won the election should
be proclaimed as Barangay Captains despite the memorandum
issued to delete their names from list of candidates for being not
registered votes in the place where they are elected.

RULING: Yes. The Court notes that petitioners have already

been proclaimed as the winners in the elections. They have
486 GENON already taken their oaths of office and are, at present, serving
Coquilla vs. COMELEC (repeated case) their constituents in their respective barangays. In Lambonao v.
Tero, The Court held that defects in the certificates of
MAINPOINT: Registration as a voter does not bar the filing of candidacy should have been questioned on or before the
a subsequen case questioning a candidate’s lack of election and not after the will of the people has been
residency. expressed through the ballots. It was further held in the said
case that while provisions relating to certificates of
487 GENON candidacy are mandatory in terms, it is an established rule
Coquilla vs. COMELEC (repeated case)
of interpretation as regards election laws, that mandatory holding office in a province other than that in which he actually husband maintain separate residences, she at Kananga, Leyte
provisions requiring certain steps before elections will be lives. The question of domicile is admittedly a question largely of and her husband at Ormoc City. As for ANIMUS REVERTENDI:
construed as directory after the elections, to give effect to intention, but this intention must be sought in contemporaneous “Mere absence from one's residence or origin-domicile-to pursue
the will of the electorate. words and acts. The circumstance that the respondent, after studies, engage in business, or practice his avocation, is not
removing to Manila and fixing his residence in that place, may sufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence.' ...
have had what is called a floating intention to return to his former The determination of a person’s legal residence or domicile
490 GENON domicile upon some indefinite occasion, does not give him the largely depends upon intention which may be inferred from his
Saya-Ang vs. COMELEC (repeated case) right to claim such former domicile as his residence. (19 C. J., acts, activities and utterances. The party who claims that a
407.) It was the fixing of his home in Manila with the intention of person has abandoned or left his residence or origin must show
MAINPOINT: The decision in Saya-Ang vs. COMELEC appears remaining there for an indefinite time that severed the and prove pre-ponderantly such abandonment or loss.” The
contrary to cases holding that the requirements for election to respondent's domiciliary relation with his former home. The intention of animus revertendi not to abandon her residence in
office are mandatory. See. Sec. 65.3 and that they are respondent had, upon qualifying as a lawyer, returned to the Kananga, Leyte therefore, is nor present. As for being a
continuing. See Sec. 65.4. It also appears contrary to the general province of Samar and had established himself as a lawyer there, REGISTERED VOTER: The evidence shows that Larrazabal’s
rule that the election office does not cure the vice of illegality. See his right to the office to which he was elected would have been supposed cancellation of registration in Ormoc City and transfer
Sec. 65.17 and 72.2. This is another case where the SC is zig unquestionable. After a person has abandoned his residence in of registration in Kananga, Leyte, is not supported by the records.
zagging in its decisions, particulary in election cases. one municipality, it is necessary to reacquire residence in such She was not in the list of voters.
municipality by living there for the length of time prescribed by
law before he can be qualified to be a candidate for office. This 2. Larrazabal’s ALTERNATIVE POSITION is that her being a
requires, so this court held, personal presence in said registered voter in Ormoc City was no impediment to her
municipality. candidacy for the position of governor of the province of Leyte.
491. HALID Section 12, Article X of the Constitution is explicit in that aside
Tanseco v. Arteche, 57 Phil. 227 (1932) 492. HALID from highly-urbanized cities, component cities whose charters
Section 65.14.—Practice tip Abella v. Comelec, 201 SCRA 253 (1991) prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials are
Section 65.14.—Practice tip independent of the province. In the same provision, it provides for
Main point: Counsel should be aware that the determination of a othercomponent cities within a provincewhose charters donot
person’s legal residence or domicile largely depends upon Main point: Counsel should be aware that the determination of a provide a similar prohibition. Necessarily, component cities like
intention. Counsel must show such intention by the person’s person’s legal residence or domicile largely depends upon Ormoc City whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for
contemporaneous acts, activities and utterances. intention. Counsel must show such intention by the person’s provincial elective officials are treated like highly urbanized cities
contemporaneous acts, activities and utterances. which are outside the supervisory power of the province to which
FACTS: Antonino Tanseco, a voter registered in the list of voters FACTS: Silvestre de la Cruz filed a petition for disqualification they are geographically attached. This independence from the
of electoral precinct No. 4 of the Municipality of Catbalogan, in against Larrazabal for alleged false statements in COC regarding province carries with it the prohibition or mandate directed to their
the Province of Samar, for the purpose of having the respondent, her residence. TRO was issued by SC against Larrazabal from registered votersnot to vote and be voted for the provincial
Pedro R. Arteche, declared ineligible to the office of provincial being proclaimed governor in the event that she obtains the elective offices. The resolution in Peralta vs The Commission on
governor of Samar for lack of the necessary pre-election winning margin of votes. Abella filed objections to COMELEC Elections, et al.dated December 10, 1987 applies to this case.
residential qualification, and declaring him without right to take charging Larrazabal with falsification and misrepresentation in While the cited case involves Olongapo City which is classified as
possession of the office her residency. COMELEC lifted TRO upon motion of Larrazabal. a highly urbanized city, the same principle is
ISSUE: whether the respondent had requisite residential COMELEC, in the same decision disallowed Abella’s applicable.Moreover, Section 89 of Republic Act 179,
qualification at the time he was chosen provincial governor of proclamation as governor. Hence, the petitions. independent of the constitutional provision, prohibits registered
Samar in the election ISSUE: 1. W/N Larrazabal meets the residence requirement to voters of Ormoc City from voting and being voted for elective
RULING: In order to be eligible to a provincial office, the run for Governor of the Province of Leyte? offices in the province of Leyte. We agree with the COMELECen
candidate must have been a bona fide resident in the province for 2. W/N the prohibition against the 'cities registered voters' bancthat "the phrase 'shall not be qualified and entitled to vote in
at least one year prior to the election, it implies not only an electing the provincial officials necessarily mean, a prohibition of the election of the provincial governor and the members of the
intention to reside in the place but also personal presence. Bona the registered voters to be elected as provincial officials? provincial board of the Province of
fide residence under this statute means residence in fact coupled RULING: 1. NO, on the evidence of record to the effect that Leyte' connotes two prohibitions — one, from running for and the
with an intention to make the place a home. In the case before us despite protestations to the contrary made by the petitioner, she second, from voting for any provincial elective official.
the respondent, by fixing his residence in Manila and engaging in has established her residence at Ormoc City from 1975 to the
a profession which implies dedication to a life work, effectually present and not at Kananga, Leyte. Her attempt to purportedly
severed his home ties and made a new residence in the place of change her residence one year before the election by registering 493. Halid
his chosen abode. at Kananga, Leyte to qualify her toran for the position of governor Socrates v. Comelec, G.R. No. 154512, November 12, 2002 p.
Looking to the purpose and intent of the law in fixing this of the province of Leyte clearly shows that she considers herself 180
qualification, it is evident that the lawmaker intended that persons already a resident of Ormoc City. In the absence of any evidence Section 65.16.—Term limits
filling provincial offices should be acquainted with the conditions to prove otherwise, the reliance on the provisions of the Family
and needs of the province wherein official service is intended. Code was proper and in consonance with human experience. MAIN POINT: After three consecutive terms, an elective local
The purpose was to prevent a non-resident from seeking and The petitioner did not present evidence to show that she and her official cannot seek immediate re-election for a fourth term. The
prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the same the Constitution barred Hagedorn from seeking referred to the the third consecutive term. A recall election mid-way in the term
office following the end of the third consecutive term. Any regular elections in 2001. following the third consecutive term is a subsequent election but
subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer covered not an immediate re-election after the third term. Neither does the
by the prohibition for two reasons. First, a subsequent election Constitution prohibit one barred from seeking immediate re-
like a recall election is no longer an immediate reelection after election to run in any other subsequent election involving the
three consecutive terms. Second, the intervening period 494. HALID same term of office. What the Constitution prohibits is a
constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity of service. SOCRATES V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 154512, NOVEMBER 12, consecutive fourth term.
2002 P. 181 In the case of Hagedorn, his candidacy in the recall election is
FACTS: COMELEC gave due course to the Recall Resolution SECTION 65.16.—TERM LIMITS not an immediate re-election after his third consecutive term
against Mayor Socrates of Puerto Princesa, and scheduled the which ended on June 30, 2001. The immediate re-election that
recall election on September 7, 2002. Hagedorn filed his COC for MAIN POINT: Hagedorn is qualified to run in the recall election the Constitution barred Hagedorn from seeking referred to the
mayor in the recall election. Different petitioners filed their because: (1) he is not running for immediate re-election ff. his 2 regular elections in 2001.
petitions seeking the disqualification of Hagedorn to run for consecutive terms as mayor which ended on June 30, 2001; (2)
the recall election and the cancellation of his COC on the his continuity of service as mayor was involuntarily interrupted
ground that the latter is disqualified from running for a from June-Sept. 2002 during which time he was a private citizen;
fourth consecutive term, having been elected and having (3) Hagedorn’s recall term cannot be made to retroact to june 495. HALID
served as mayor of the city for (3) consecutive full terms 2001 to make fourth consecutive term because factually the Frivaldo v. Comelec, 174 SCRA 245 (1989)
immediately prior to the instant recall election for the same recall term is not a fourth consecutive term; and (4) term limits Section 65.17.—Effect of election of ineligible candidate
post. should be construed strictly to give the fullest possible effect to
the right of the electorate to choose their leaders. MAIN POINT: The qualifications prescribed for office cannot be
ISSUE: WON one who has been elected and served for 3 erased by the electorate alone. The will of the people expressed
consecutive full terms is qualified to run for mayor in the recall Facts: COMELEC gave due course to the Recall Resolution through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if
election against Mayor Socrates of Puerto Princesa, and scheduled the they mistakenly believed, that the candidate was qualified.
recall election on September 7, 2002. Hagedorn filed his COC for
RULING: YES. The term of office of elective local officials, mayor in the recall election. Different petitioners filed their FACTS: Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor of the
except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, petitions seeking the disqualification of Hagedorn to run for the province of Sorsogon and assumed office in due time. The
shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more recall election and the cancellation of his COC on the ground that League of Municipalities filed with the COMELEC a petition for
than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the the latter is disqualified from running for a fourth consecutive the annulment of Frivaldo on the ground that he was a
office for any length of time shall not be considered as an term, having been elected and having served as mayor of the city naturalized American citizen and had not reacquired Philippine
interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for three (3) consecutive full terms immediately prior to the instant citizenship on the day of the election on January 18, 1988
for which he was elected.” recall election for the same post.
Petitioner claimed his naturalization as an American citizen was
The prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the ISSUE: WON one who has been elected and served for 3 not “impressed with voluntariness.” His oath in his COC that he
same office following the end of the third consecutive term. Any consecutive full terms is qualified to run for mayor in the recall was a natural-born citizen should be a sufficient act of
subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer covered election. repatriation. Additionally, his active participation in the 1987
by the prohibition for two reasons. First, a subsequent election congressional elections had divested him of American citizenship
like a recall election is no longer an immediate re-election after RULING: YES. The term of office of elective local officials, except under the laws of the US, thus restoring his Philippine citizenship.
three consecutive terms. Second, the intervening period barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be
constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity of service. three years and no such official shall serve for more than three ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was qualified to run for public
What the Constitution prohibits is an immediate re-election for a consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any office.
fourth term following three consecutive terms. The Constitution, length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
however, does not prohibit a subsequent re-election for a fourth continuity of his service for the full term for which he was RULING: No. First, petitioner’s loss of his naturalized American
term as long as the re-election is not immediately after the end of elected.” citizenship did not and could not have the effect of automatic
the third consecutive term. A recall election mid-way in the term The prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the restoration of his Philippine citizenship.
following the third consecutive term is a subsequent election but same office following the end of the third consecutive term. Any
not an immediate re-election after the third term. Neither does the subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer covered Second, the mere filing of COC wherein petitioner claimed that
Constitution prohibit one barred from seeking immediate re- by the prohibition for two reasons. First, a subsequent election he is a natural born Filipino citizen, is not a sufficient act of
election to run in any other subsequent election involving the like a recall election is no longer an immediate re-election after repatriation.
same term of office. What the Constitution prohibits is a three consecutive terms. Second, the intervening period
consecutive fourth term. constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity of service. Third, qualifications for public office are continuing requirements
In the case of Hagedorn, his candidacy in the recall election is What the Constitution prohibits is an immediate re-election for a and must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or
not an immediate re-election after his third consecutive term fourth term following three consecutive terms. The Constitution, election or assumption of office but during the officer’s entire
which ended on June 30, 2001. The immediate re-election that however, does not prohibit a subsequent re-election for a fourth tenure. Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title
term as long as the re-election is not immediately after the end of may be seasonably challenged.
 those against whom no final judgment of disqualification had
The qualifications prescribed for office cannot be erased by the been rendered may be voted for and proclaimed, unless, on 500
electorate alone. The will of the people expressed through the motion of the complainant, the COMELEC suspends their Quinto vs. Commission on Elections
ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they proclamation because the grounds for their disqualification or G.R. No. 189698 December 1, 2009
mistakenly believed, that the candidate was qualified. cancellation of their certificates of candidacy are strong. 
Meanwhile, the proceedings for disqualification of candidates or FACTS: Pursuant to its constitutional mandate to enforce and
for the cancellation or denial of certificates of candidacy, which administer election laws, COMELEC issued Resolution. Alarmed
have been begun before the elections, should continue even after that they will be deemed ipso facto resigned from their offices the
496 such elections and proclamation of the winners. moment they file their CoCs, petitioners Quinto and Tolentino, Jr.,
Labo, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections who hold appointive positions in the government and who intend
G.R. No. 105111, G.R. No. 105384 July 3, 1992 498 to run in the coming elections, filed the instant petition for
Sec. 65.17. Effect of election of ineligible candidate Papandayan, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections prohibition and certiorari, seeking the declaration of the Section
G.R. No. 151891 November 18, 2002 4(a) of Resolution No. 8678 as null and void.
FACTS: Believing that he is a Filipino ctizen, Ramon Labo, Jr Sec. 65.17. Effect of election of ineligible candidate Sec 66 of OEM, 2nd proviso, 3rd par., Sec. 13 of RA 9369 -“any
filed his COC for mayor. Petitioner Roberto Ortega on other FACTS: A disqualification case was filed by Private respondent person holding a public appointive office or position x x x shall be
hand, also filed his COC for the same office. Petitioner filed a Balt, a candidate for mayor, against petitioner Papandayan also a considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office and must
disqualification proceeding against Labo before the COMELEC candidate for mayor. Comelec issued a resolution declaring vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her
on the ground that Labo is not a Filipino citizen. Respondent petitioner to be disqualified to run for mayor on the ground that he candidacy,”
Comelec issued the assailed resolution denying Labo’s COC. is not a resident of Tubaran and ordered his name to be stricken SECTION 4. Effects of Filing Certificates of Candidacy.—a)
Comelec resolved, motu proprio to suspend the proclamation of off the list of candidates. Petitioner received the highest votes but Any person holding a public appointive office or position including
Labo in the event he wins in the elections. the COMELEC annulled its proclamation. active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and
ISSUE: WON petitioner is disqualified to run for mayor. other officers and employees in government-owned or controlled
ISSUE: WON Labo is an ineligible candidate. RULING: No. SC reversed the COMELEC resolution and held corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his
that petitioner is not disqualified. Papadayan was duly proclaimed office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
RULING: Yes. Petitioner Labo’s status has not changed in the winner. The disqualification case having been decided by this ISSUE: WON the second provisio in the third paragraph of sec
case at bar. To reiterate, he (Labo) was disqualified as a Court in petitioner’s favor, the annulment of the herein challenged 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4
candidate for being an alien. The fact that an alien candidate was order suspending petitioner’s proclamation follows as a of the COMELEC Resolution 8679, violate the equal protection
elected by majority of the electorate is of no moment. His election necessary legal consequence. clause of the constitution.
does not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship, the 499 RULING: Yes. The SC declared these unconstitutional for
possession of which is an indispensable requirement for holding Saya-ang, Sr. vs. Commission on Elections violating the equal protection of the law clause of the
public office. G.R. No. 155087 November 28, 2003 Constitution. But 82 days later on, it reversed itself and held that
Sec. 65.17. Effect of election of ineligible candidate these provisos are not unconstitutionally overbroad.
497
Coquilla v. COMELEC FACTS: Petitioners Saya-ang, Sr. and Lara, were the winner for
GR No. 151914 Barangay Captain of Barangays Congan and New Aklan
Sec. 65.17. Effect of election of ineligible candidate respectively. COMELEC, issued 2 En Banc Resolution. First 501. LAKBAO
resolution is denying due course the certificates of candidacy of Dimaporo v. Mitra, 202 SCRA 779 (1991)
FACTS: Coquilla, a naturalized U.S. citizen, came to the petitioners for not being a residents of their barangays. Second Section 67.2.—Purpose
Philippines and applied for repatriation which was approved and Resolution is that the proclaimed Candidates Found to be
took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines. Petitioner applied for Ineligible for Being Not Registered Voters in the Place Where MAIN POINT: OEC Sec. 67 is consonant with the Constitutional
registration as a voter and filed his COC. Incumbent mayor They Were Elected and on the Failure/ Omission of the Board of edict that all public officials must serve the people with utmost
Alvarez sought to cancel Coquilla’s COC on the ground that his Canvassers to Include Certain Election Returns in the Canvass. loyalty and not trifle with the mandate which they have received
statement as to the two year residency in Oras,Samar was a Acting Election Officer Alim, invoking the 2 resolution directed the from their constituents.
material representation as he only resided therein for 6 Barangay Board of Canvassers to reconvene immediately and
months after his oath as a citizen. Before the COMELEC could proclaim the duly-elected candidates and to correct the FACTS: Petitioner incumbent Rep. Dimaporo of Lanao del Sur
render a decision, Coquillo was proclaimed the winner. certificates of canvass and proclamation. filed on Jan 15, 1990 for Certificate of Candidacy for the position
COMELEC granted Alvarez’ petition and ordered the cancellation ISSUE: WON the petitioners’ COC should be cancelled. of Regional Governor of the ARMM. Respondent Speaker Mitra
of petitioner’s certificate of candidacy. RULING: No. SC refused to cancel the COC of petitioners for and the Sec. of the House then excluded Dimaporo’s name from
ISSUE: WON COMELEC retained jurisdiction to decide this case Barangay captain based on lack of residence, holding that the its Roll of Members xxx, considering him permanently resigned
notwithstanding the proclamation of petitioner. petitioner have already been proclaimed as the winners in the from his office upon filing of his Certificate of Candidacy pursuant
elections, and they have already been proclaimed as the winners to the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) Art IX, Sec 67 which
RULING: Yes. The rule then is that candidates who are in the elections, and they have taken their oaths of office ans are, states “any elective official xxx running for any office other than
disqualified by final judgment before the election shall not be at present, serving their constituents in their respective the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity except for
voted for and the votes cast for them shall not be counted. But barangays..
the Pres. and VP shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his Section 67.4.—To whom applicable MAIN POINT: Since the mere act of filing the COC for another
office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Having lost in office produces automatically the permanent forfeiture of the
the election, Dimaporo expressed his intention “to resume MAIN POINT: (bold) elective position being held, it is not necessary that the other
performing” his “duties as elected Member of Congress” but he position be actually held. He could not resume his previous
failed his bid hence this petition. He argues that Sec 67, Art IX of FACTS: The protestant, Miriam Defensor-Santiago ran for position after he lost.
BP 881 is unconstitutional in that it provides for the shortening of presidency and lost in the May 1992 election. In her Motion on
a congressman’s term of office on a ground not provided for in the 16th day of August in the year 1995, reiterated in her FACTS: SAME CASE WITH 501.
the Constitution. comment of the 29th of August of the same year, protestant
Defensor-Santiago prayed that the revision in the remaining ISSUE: W/N
ISSUE: W/N Sec 67, Art IX of BP 881 shorten a term of a precincts of the pilot areas be dispensed with and the revision
congressman by means other than that provided in the process in the pilot areas be deemed computed. RULING:
Constitution?

RULING: No. Dimaporo seems to confuse “term” with “tenure” of ISSUE: W/N Sec 67 of OEC is applicable. 506. Dimaporo v. Mitra, 202 SCRA 779 (1991) par. 3
office. The term of office prescribed by the Constitution may not Section 67.5.—Automatic registration
be extended or shortened by the legislature, but the period during RULING: No. OEC Sec. 67 applies exclusively to an FACTS: Petitioner was elected Representative for the Second
which an officer actually holds the office (tenure), may be incumbent elective official who files a COC for any office Legislative District of Lanao del Sur. He took his oath of office
affected by circumstances xxx. Under the questioned provision, “other than the one he is holding in a permanent capacity.” It and thereafter performed the duties and enjoyed the rights and
when an elective official covered thereby files a certificate of does not apply to person who is not holding any elective privileges pertaining thereto. Petitioner filed with the COMELEC a
candidacy for another office, he is deemed to have voluntarily cut position, such as a person who ran for President and COC for the position of Regional Governor of the ARMM. Then
short his tenure not his term. The term remains xxx. Forfeiture is apparently lost, and filed a protest and while it was pending the Speaker and Secretary of the House of Representatives
automatic and permanently effective upon the filing of the filed a COC for Senator. excluded petitioner's name from the Roll of Members of the
certificate of candidacy for another office xxx. It is not necessary House of Representatives pursuant the Election Code. Having
that the other position be actually held. The ground for forfeiture 504.LAKBAO lost in the autonomous region elections, petitioner, expressed his
in Sec 13, Art VI of the Constitution is different from the forfeiture Monroy v. CA, 20 SCRA 620 (1967) intention to resume performing my duties and functions as
decreed in Sec 67, Art. IX of BP, Blg. 881, which is actually a Section 67.5.—Automatic registration elected Member of Congress. He, however, maintains that he did
mode of voluntary renunciation of office under Sec 7(2) of Art VI not lose his seat as congressman because B.P. Blg. 881 is not
of the Constitution. Petition dismissed. MAIN POINT: (bold) operative under the present Constitution, being contrary thereto,
and therefore not applicable to the present members of
502.LAKBAO FACTS: Monroy was the incumbent Mayor of Navotas, Rizal, Congress. Respondents assert that petitioner's filing of a COC is
Aguinaldo v. Comelec, 308 SCRA 770 (1999) when on September 15, 1961, his certificate of candidacy as an act of resignation which estops him from claiming otherwise.
Section 67.3.—Validity representative of the first district of Rizal in the forthcoming
elections was filed with the Commission on Elections. Three ISSUE: Whether Petitioner resigned from his post when he
MAIN POINT: (bold) days later, petitioner filed a letter withdrawing said certificate of filed a COC for another office. –YES.
candidacy. The Commission on Elections approved the RULING: Forfeiture is automatic and permanently effective upon
FACTS: Petitioners seek to prevent the COMELEC from withdrawal but on September 21, 1961, respondent del Rosario, the filing of the certificate of candidacy for another office. Only
enforcing during the 1998 elections Section 67 of the Omnibus then the vice-mayor of Navotas, took his oath of office as the moment and act of filing are considered. Once the certificate
Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) "in accordance with its own tenor or municipal mayor on the theory that petitioner had forfeited the is filed, the seat is forever forfeited and nothing save a new
as modified by paragraph 3 of Section 11 of Republic Act No. said office upon his filing of the certificate of candidacy in election or appointment can restore the ousted official. Since the
8436." Petitioners also argue that Section 67 effectively shortens question. mere act of filing the COC for another office produces
the terms of office of elected officials, in violation of Article X, automatically the permanent forfeiture of the elective
Section 8 of the Constitution. Petitioners lament that "no relevant ISSUE: W/N there is forfeiture of the said office upon his filing of position being held, it is not necessary that the other
discussions" 9 seem to have been made in relation to the "re- the certificate of candidacy in question. position be actually held. Accordingly, a congressman who
enactment" of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code into filed a certificate of candidacy for governor of the ARMM
Section 11 of R.A. No. 8436. RULING: Yes. The forfeiture is automatic and irrevocably ispo facto resigned from his position. He could not
effective upon the filing of the COC for another office. reassume his congressional position after he lost. The fact
ISSUE: W/N Sec. 67 is violative of the Constitution Nothing saves new election or appointment can restore the that the ground cited in OEC SEC 67 is not mentioned in the
ousted official. constitution itself as a mode of shortening the tenure of
RULING: No. OEC Sec. 67 is not violative of the Constitution office of members of Congress does not preclude its
as it does not unduly cut short the term of office of local 505.LAKBAO application to present members of Congress.  The ground for
officials. Dimaporo v. Mitra, 202 SCRA 779 (1991) par. 2 forfeiture in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution is
Section 67.5.—Automatic registration different from the forfeiture decreed in Section 67, Article IX of
503.LAKBAO B.P. Blg. 881, which is actually a mode of voluntary renunciation
Santiago v. Ramos, 253 SCRA 559 (1996) of office under Section 7, par. 2 of Article VI of the Constitution.
 the comelec. The petition alleged that the petitioner did not disqualification, it cannot be categorized as a “Section 68”
507. Monroy v. CA, 20 SCRA 620 (1967) possess the period of residency required for candidacy and that petition.
Section 67.6.—Withdrawal of candidacy he perjured himself in his CoC and in his application for transfer
FACTS: Petitioner Monroy was the incumbent Mayor of Navotas, of voting record. COMELEC 2nd Division disqualified Fermin for 510. Reyes v. Comelec, 254 SCRA 514 (1996)
Rizal, when on September 15, 1961, his certificate of candidacy not being a resident of Northern Kabuntalan. It ruled that, based Section 68.3.—Removed officials
as representative of the first district of Rizal in the forthcoming on his declaration that he is a resident of Barangay Payan as of
elections was filed with the Commission on Elections. Three days April 27, 2006 in his oath of office, Fermin could not have been a FACTS: Petitioner was the incumbent mayor. An administrative
later, or on September 18, 1961, petitioner filed a letter resident of Barangay Indatuan for at least one year. The complaint was filed against him with the Sangguniang
withdrawing said certificate of candidacy. COMELEC per COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Division’s ruling. Petitioner Panlalawigan, finding petitioner guilty of the charges and ordered
resolution, approved the withdrawal. But on September 21, 1961, contends that the Dilangalen petition is a petition to deny due his removal from office. An order for petitioner to vacate the
respondent, then the vice-mayor of Navotas, took his oath of course to or cancel a CoC under Section 78 of the Omnibus position of mayor and peacefully turn over the office to the
office as municipal mayor on the theory that petitioner had Election Code, which must be filed within 5 days from the last day incumbent vice mayor. Meanwhile, petitioner filed a CoC with
forfeited the said office upon his filing of the certificate of for the filing of CoC, which, in this case, is March 30, 2007, and COMELEC. Private respondent sought the disqualification of
candidacy in question. considering that the said petition was filed by Dilangalen only on petitioner as candidate for mayor, citing the Local Government
CFI ruled that petitioner ceased to be mayor of Navotas, Rizal, April, the same was filed out of time. The COMELEC should have Code (disqualified from running for any elective local position:
after his certificate of candidacy was filed and Vice-Mayor then dismissed outright.22 Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case.)
Rosario succeeded him as Mayor. CA affirmed Petitioner. COMELEC then disqualified him from running for public office
ISSUE: Whether the withdrawal of COC restores candidate to ISSUE: Whether or not the Dilangalen petition is one under and consequently, set aside his proclamation.
former position. –NO. Section 68 or Section 78 of the OEC. - Section 78.
ISSUE: whether petitioner is disqualified to run for reelection. –
RULING: Withdrawal of certificate of candidacy does not RULING: Section 78” petition ought not to be interchanged or YES.
restore candidate to former position. An elective provincial, confused with a “Section 68” petition. They are different
municipal or city official running for an office, other than the one remedies, based on different grounds, and resulting RULING: A public officer who was found guilty in an
which he is actually holding, is considered resigned from his in different eventualities. A petition for disqualification, on administrative case and ordered removed in a decision that
office from the moment of the filing of his COC. The forfeiture is the one hand, can be premised on Section 12 or 68 of the become final before the election is NOT qualified to run for
automatic and irrevocably effective upon the filing of the OEC, or Section 40 of the LGC. On the other hand, a petition reelection. The failure of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to
certificate of candidacy for another office. Only to deny due course to or cancel a CoC can only be grounded deliver a copy of its decision was due to the refusal of petitioner
the 'moment and act of filing are considered. Once the certificate on a statement of a material representation in the said and his counsel to receive the decision. If a judgment or decision
is filed, the position is forever forfeited and nothing, save a new certificate that is false. The petitions also have different is not delivered to a party for reasons attributable to him, service
election or appointment, can restore the ousted official. Once effects. While a person who is disqualified under Section 68 is deemed completed and the judgment or decision will be
filed, the permanent legal effects produced thereby remain even is merely prohibited to continue as a candidate, the person considered validly served. Further, when the elections were held
if the certificate itself be subsequently withdrawn. The forfeiture is whose certificate is cancelled or denied due course under on May 8, 1995, the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
not dependent upon future contingencies, unforeseen or Section 78 is not treated as a candidate at all, as if he/she had already become final and executory. He was thus validly
unforeseeable, since the vacating is expressly made as of the never filed a CoC. Thus, in Miranda v. Abaya,41 this Court removed from office and, pursuant to § 40(b) of the Local
moment of the filing of the certificate of candidacy. made the distinction that a candidate who is disqualified Government Code, he was disqualified from running for
under Section 68 can validly be substituted under Section 77 reelection.
of the OEC because he/she remains a candidate until
508. Monroy v. CA, 20 SCRA 620 (1967) disqualified; but a person whose CoC has been denied due
Section 67.8.—Caution course or cancelled under Section 78 cannot be substituted
MP: Where a mayor withdrew his certificate of candidacy for because he/she is never considered a candidate.
Congressman and then re-assumed the position of mayor, thus
preventing the vice-mayor from discharging the duties of the HERE, the ground raised in the petition is that Fermin allegedly 511 – LIM
position of mayor, the mayor should reimburse to the vice-mayor, lacked one of the qualifications (he had not established residence Aguinaldo v. Santos, 212 SCRA 768 (1992)
as the rightful occupant of the position of mayor, the salaries in the said locality for at least one year immediately preceding the Section 68.3.—Removed officials
which he had received. The ruling in Rodriguez vs, Tan. 91 Phil. election) Failure to meet the one-year residency requirement for
724, that no such reimbursement should be made, is not the public office is not a ground for the “disqualification” of a
applicable to the case at bar because the Tan case involved a candidate under Section 68. The provision only refers to the FACTS: (Aguinaldo Doctrine / Condonation) Aguinaldo was
proclaimed elective official who was later ousted. commission of prohibited acts and the possession of a the duly elected Governor of the province of Cagayan. After the
permanent resident status in a foreign country as grounds for December 1989 coup d’état was crushed, DILG Secretary Santos
509. Fermin v. Comelec, G.R. No. 179695, December 18, disqualification. Likewise, the other provisions of law referring to sent a telegram & letter to Governor Aguinaldo requiring him to
2009 “disqualification” do not include the lack of the one-year residency show cause why he should not be suspended or removed from
Section 68.2.1—Section 68 and Section 78 distinguished qualification as a ground therefor. Considering that the office for disloyalty to the Republic. Petitioner found guilty as
FACTS: Private respondent Dilangalen filed a Petition  for Dilangalen petition does not state any of these grounds for charged and ordering his removal from office. Aguinaldo
Disqualification [the Dilangalen petition] against Fermin before appealed. While the case was pending before the SC, Aguinaldo
filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Governor of 513 – LIM
Cagayan. Three petitions for disqualification were filed against Blanco v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180164, June 17, 2008 RULING: No. A fugitive from justice is defined as “not only those
him on the ground that he had been removed from office. As Section 68.3.1.—Disqualification who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise who,
Aguinaldo won by a landslide margin in the elections, the after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution.”. Rodriguez
resolution paved the way for his eventual proclamation as FACTS: Blanco was the mayor of Meycauayan in1992. In the arrived in the Philippines on June 25, 1985, five months before
Governor of Cagayan. 1995 elections Blaco won but was disqualified for vote-buying. the filing of the felony complaint in the Los Angeles Court on
Blanco ran for mayor in the next 3 elections but was disqualified November 12, 1985 and of the issuance of the arrest warrant by
ISSUE: W/N petitioner's re-election to the position of Governor of on the basis of his vote buying case as declared by the court.. that same foreign court. It was clearly impossible for Rodriguez to
Cagayan has rendered the administration case moot and Blanco ran again in the 2007 election and another petition for have known about such felony complaint and arrest warrant at
academic disqualification was raised based on his vote-buying case. the time he left the US, as there was in fact no complaint and
Petitioner contends that he was found only administratively liable arrest warrant — much less conviction — to speak of yet at such
RULING: YES. (MP in book) If before the petition questioning the for vote-buying in the 1995 elections and was disqualified under time. Not being a "fugitive from justice" under this definition,
validity of the administrative decision removing a public officer Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, and that he was not Rodriguez cannot be denied the Quezon Province gubernatorial
should be decided, the term of office during which the alleged disqualified under Sec. 261(a) and Sec. 264 of the Omnibus post.
misconduct was committed expired, and he is reelected, he can Election Code since no criminal action was filed against him. He
no longer be removed, because his reelection operates as a submits that his disqualification was limited only to the 1995 and 515 – LIM
condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of that it did not bar him from running for public office in the Caasi v. Comelec, 191 SCRA 229 (1990)
cutting off the right to remove him from it. succeeding elections. Section 68.5.—Permanent residents of foreign country

512 – LIM ISSUE: W/N Blanco can run for office FACTS: Caasi is seeking the disqualification of Miguel as a
Lingating v. Comelec, G.R. No. 153475, November 13, 2002 candidate for municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan on the
Section 68.3.—Removed officials RULING: YES. Blanco only disqualified for the 1995 elections. ground that Miguel is a green card holder, hence, a resident of
The records did not show that a criminal complaint was filed the US. Miguel admits possessing a green card but contends that
FACTS: During the first term of Mayor Sulong, the Sangguniang against petitioner for the election offense of vote-buying under he only uses it for convenience to freely enter the US for his
Panlalawigan of Zamboanga Del Sur found him guilty of the Sec. 261 (a) of the Omnibus Election Code. There was also no medical treatment and to visit his children. He also alleges that
charges and ordered his removal from office. Mayor Sulong filed evidence that the accessory penalty of disqualification to hold he voted in all previous elections, including the plebiscite for the
a motion for reconsideration and/or notice of appeal shortly public office under Sec. 264 of the same Code was imposed on 1987 ratification of the constitution.
thereafter. petitioner by the proper court as a consequence of conviction for
In the May 2001 Elections, Lingating and Sulong both ran for the an election offense. Therefore Blanco can run for office ISSUE: W/N Miguel can run for mayor
position of Mayor of Lapuyan. Lingating file a petition for subsequent to the 1995 elections.
disqualification of Sulong on the ground that the latter is RULING: NO. Miguel is disqualified to run for mayor. In his
disqualified from running for any elective local position having 514 – LIM application for immigrant visa and alien registration which he
been removed from office during his first term. Sulong denied that Rodriguez v. Comelec, 259 SCRA 296 (1996) filled up on his own handwriting and submitted to the US
the decision had ever become final and executory since up to the Section 68.4.—Fugitives embassy in Manila, he indicated that his length of intended stay
filing of the disqualification case. The case was submitted for was to be permanent. It identifies Miguel as a Resident Alien. His
resolution. The COMELEC, however, was unable to render immigration to the US in 1984 constituted abandonment of his
FACTS: In 1992, petitioner Rodriguez and respondent Marquez domicile and residence in the Philippines. To be qualified to run
judgment before the elections of May 14, 2001, where Sulong ran for Governor of Quezon Province. Rodriguez won. Marquez
was elected and proclaimed Mayor of Lapuyan. for elective office in the PH. The law requires that the candidate
challenged Rodriguez’ victory via a Quo Warranto on the ground who is a green card holder must have waived his status as a
that there is a charge pending against him at the Los Angeles permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country. Miguel only
ISSUE: W/N Sumulong is disqualified to run for local election and Municipal Court for fraudulent insurance claims, grand theft, etc.
hold office of Mayor of Lapuyan resided in Bolinao for 3 months after returning to the country
Thus, he is a fugitive from justice. COMELEC dismissed the which is a violation of the 1 year residency requirement.
case. In 1995, Rodriguez and Marquez again ran for Governor. 516 MUSA
RULING: NO The filing of motion for reconsideration by Sulong Marquez filed a Petition for Disqualification against Rodriquez on
prevented the decision of Sangguniang Panlalawigan from Macalintal v. Comelec
the same ground that he is a fugitive from justice. COMELEC G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003
becoming final. There is thus no decision finding Sulong guilty to then consolidated both cases and found Rodriguez guilty based
speak of. Considering the failure of the Sangguniang Section 68.6.—Comment
on the authenticated copy of the warrant of arrest at LA Court
Panlalawigan to resolve respondent’s motion, it is unfair to the and of the felony complaint. Rodriguez won again, and despite a
electorate to be told after they have voted for respondent Sulong FACTS: A petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by
Motion to suspend his proclamation, the Provincial Board of Macalintal, a member of the Philippine Bar, seeking a declaration
that after all he is disqualified, especially since, at the time of the Canvassers proclaimed him. COMELEC nullified the
elections on May 14, 2001, the decision of the Sangguniang that certain provisions of RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee
proclamation. Rodriguez filed a petition for certiorari. Voting Act of 2003) suffer from constitutional infirmity. He claimed
Panlalawigan had been rendered nearly ten years ago.
that he has actual and material legal interest in the subject matter
ISSUE: W/N Rodriguez is a fugitive from justice as defined by the of this case in seeing to it that public funds are properly and
Court in the MARQUEZ Decision lawfully used and appropriated, petitioner filed this petition as a
taxpayer and as lawyer. Petitioner questions the rightness of the RULING: YES. All candidates should be duly impleaded. There
mere act of execution of an affidavit to qualify the Filipinos RULING: YES. The COMELEC should hold a full-dress hearing must be compliance with the cardinal requirements of procedural
abroad who are immigrants or permanent residents, to vote. He of disqualification suit in accordance with the requirements of due due process, specifically on the right of petitioner to be heard on
focuses solely on Sec. 1, Art. V of the Constitution in ascribing process and give full opportunity to present all evidence relevant her petition for disqualification of respondent.
constitutional infirmity to Section 5(d) of RA 9189, totally ignoring to the issues, otherwise the case will be remanded. The Comelec
the provisions of Sec. 2 empowering Congress to provide a disqualified Gonzales without hearing his evidence. It denied his
system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. MR in a somewhat high-handed or cavalier manner. It did not
bother to resolve the factual issues raised in the affidavits
ISSUE: W/N Sec. 5(d) of RA 9189 violated the residency supporting his MR. 521
requirement in Sec. 1, Art. V of the Constitution. Gomez vs. Comelec
120 SCRA 621 (1983)
RULING: NO. Residence is synonymous with domicile, and that 519 MUSA Section 68.7.—Petition, notice, and hearing
an immigrant or permanent resident of another country may Farinas v. Comelec
register and vote in the Philippines as long as such person 106 SCRA 202 (1981) FACTS: Primitive Torrecampo, a registered voter of the
executes an affidavit to show that such person has not Section 68.7.—Petition, notice, and hearing municipality, filed a petition with the Comelec to disqualify Gomez
abandoned his domicile of origin. as a candidate on the ground of "turn-coatism.” Comelec issued
FACTS: Farinas filed his COC for the position of mayor. Lazo resolution disqualifying Gomez in the elections. Petitioner filed a
517 MUSA filed a petition to disqualify him. On the same day that Farinas MR of Comelec Resolution alleging that said Resolution was
Singco v. Comelec filed his verified answer, the COMELEC issued a resolution issued without notice and without affording him a chance to be
101 SCRA 42(1980) denying due course his candidacy for turncoatism and engaging heard; and that the finding of "turn-coatism" is groundless
Section 68.7.—Petition, notice, and hearing in partisan activities.
ISSUE: W/N the Comelec erred in issuing the resolution without
FACTS: Private respondent filed a petition to disqualify petitioner ISSUE: W/N Farinas was denied due process. proper notice and hearing
on ground of turncoatism, attaching thereto three Identical
affidavits and other documentary evidence to support his RULING: YES. The COMELEC should hold a full-dress hearing RULING: YES. A hearing means that a party should be given
allegations. Since the petition was not acted before the election of disqualification suit in accordance with the requirements of due a chance to adduce his evidence to support his side of the
day, Antonio Singco was voted for and elected Mayor of the process and give full opportunity to present all evidence relevant case and that evidence should be taken into account in the
Municipality. The Comelec issued Resolution No. 9310 declaring to the issues, otherwise the case will be remanded. adjudication of the case. It results that COMELEC Resolution
Antonio Singco a disqualified candidate. Petitioner seeks the which was issued without proper notice and hearing, is arbitrary
nullification of the challenged resolution on ground of denial of 520 MUSA and therefore, of no force and effect.
due process, alleging that said resolution was issued without Potencion v. Comelec
benefit of hearing and the same was not supported by substantial 99 SCRA 595 (1980)
evidence. Section 68.7.—Petition, notice, and hearing 522
Domingo vs. Comelec
ISSUE: W/N Singco was denied of due process. 313 SCRA 311 (1999)
FACTS: Petitioner Nena Potencion, a defeated independent Section 68.7.—Petition, notice, and hearing
RULING: YES. The COMELEC should hold a full-dress hearing candidate in the local elections for the office of provincial
of disqualification suit in accordance with the requirements of due governor of the province of Aurora, complains that respondent FACTS: After Abalos Jr. was proclaimed as Mayor, Domingo
process and give full opportunity to present all evidence relevant Comelec "slept" on the pre-election petitions filed by the filed the instant petition for disqualification, on the ground that,
to the issues, otherwise the case will be remanded. Nacionalista Party candidate for the same office, namely, Estrello during the campaign period, Abalos Jr. “prodded” his father, then
Ong and a registered voter Rodolfo Gonzales, seeking the incumbent Mandaluyong City Mayor give the substantial
518 MUSA disqualification of KBL candidate respondent Luis Etcubanez on allowance to public school teachers appointed as chairpersons
Gonzales v. Comelec the ground of political "turncoatism", thereby allowing him to and members of the Board of Election Inspector. Comelec
101 SCRA 752 continue with his candidacy. Petitioner further complains that she dismissed. Domingo argues that the dismissal of his petition was
Section 68.7.—Petition, notice, and hearing had filed with the Comelec a petition of protest to prevent the unfounded, considering that no hearing on the merits was
FACTS: Gonzales filed his COC as an official candidate for proclamation of respondent Etcubanez and for special elections conducted.
Mayor of Bicol Saro Party. Imperial, as KBL provincial chairman for the office of Aurora governor to be held anew but that it
filed with the Comelec a petition to disqualify Gonzales on the instead dismissed on the same date the Ong-Gonzales petitions ISSUE: W/N Domingo’s right to due process was violated
ground that he had changed his political party from KBL to Bicol for his disqualification and "hastily" ordered his proclamation.
Saro Party. The petition was set for hearing wherein only Imperial RULING: NO. Where opportunity to be heard is accorded,
presented evidence. The Comelec issued resolution disqualifying ISSUE: W/N the outright dismissal without impleading the either through oral arguments or pleadings, there is no
Gonzales. candidates is valid. denial of procedural due process. Deprivation of due
process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was
ISSUE: W/N the Comelec denied Gonzales of due process. given a chance to be heard in his MR.
 ample time and opportunity to receive evidence in this case and
RULING: NO. Accordingly, Comelec’s Resolution No. 9310 to deliberate thereon. The COMELEC was directed to hold
disqualifying petitioner produced no legal effect, petitioner's another hearing.
candidacy was, consequently, valid and subsisting when he was
523 voted for during the election, and his proclamation as the winner, 527
Potencion vs. Comelec having obtained the highest number of votes, was perfectly in Goboy vs. COMELEC
99 SCRA 595 (1980) p. 189 order and legal. The Comelec denied due process to a Section 68.7 – Petition, notice and hearing
Section 68.7.—Petition, notice, and hearing candidate sought to be disqualified where it disqualified the
candidate based merely on the pleadings and affidavits. FACTS: Goboy filed his COC for the position of mayor and won.
FACTS: Petitioner Nena Potencion, a defeated independent After being proclaimed, it appeared that the COMELEC had
candidate in the local elections for the office of provincial earlier cancelled his COC in view of the petition for disqualified
governor of the province of Aurora, complains that respondent for alleged turncoatism filed by Fernandez. The COMELEC
Comelec "slept" on the pre-election petitions filed by the ordered the MBC to reconvene and proclaim Fernandez as the
Nacionalista Party candidate for the same office, namely, Estrello 525 mayor. Goboy claimed that he was denied due process of law as
Ong and a registered voter Rodolfo Gonzales, seeking the Gonzales vs. Comelec he was not affored any formal hearing.
disqualification of KBL candidate respondent Luis Etcubanez on 101 SCRA 752 (1980) p. 189
the ground of political "turncoatism", thereby allowing him to Section 68.7.—Petition, notice, and hearing ISSUE: W/N Goboy was denied due process.
continue with his candidacy. Petitioner further complains that she
had filed with the Comelec a petition of protest to prevent the FACTS: Gonzales filed his COC as an official candidate for RULING: YES. The COMELEC denied Goboy due process when
proclamation of respondent Etcubanez and for special elections Mayor of Bicol Saro Party. Imperial, as KBL provincial chairman it disqualified him based merely on the pleadings, consisting of
for the office of Aurora governor to be held anew but that it filed with the Comelec a petition to disqualify Gonzales on the only the petition for disqualification and the answer thereto, and
instead dismissed on the same date the Ong-Gonzales petitions ground that he had changed his political party from KBL to Bicol without Fernandez therein having been accorded the right to be
for his disqualification and "hastily" ordered his proclamation. Saro Party. The petition was set for hearing wherein only Imperial fully heard in his defense. It is not enough that Goboy was given
presented evidence. The Comelec issued resolution disqualifying the opportunity to answer the petition for disqualification. There
ISSUE: W/N the outright dismissal of the petition by the Comelec Gonzales. must be an actual hearing of the case where his defense could
is valid be presented and assessed.
ISSUE: W/N he was denied due process
RULING: NO. The Comelec denied due process to a 528
candidate sought to be disqualified where it disqualified the RULING: YES. The Comelec disqualified Gonzales without Saya-Ang vs. COMELEC
candidate motu proprio without any hearing. There must be hearing his evidence. It denied his MR in a somewhat high- Section 68.7 – Petition, notice and hearing
compliance with the cardinal requirements of procedural due handed or cavalier manner. It did not bother to resolve the
process, specifically on the right of petitioner to be heard on her factual issues raised in the affidavits supporting his MR. FACTS: Saya-Ang and Lara filed their respective COCs for the
petition for disqualification of respondent. position of barangay captain in different barangays. However, the
COMELEC’s Law Department stated that they were not residents
526 of the barangays they wish to be elected in. The COMELEC
Farinas vs. COMELEC denied due course to their COCs. Despite the Resolution, they
524 Section 68.7 – Petition, notice and hearing were proclaimed as winners in their respective barangays. The
Singco vs. Comelec COMELEC ordered them to cease and desist from taking their
101 SCRA 42 (1980) p. 189 FACTS: Farinas filed his COC for the position of mayor. Lazo oath of office and from assuming the position to which they were
Section 68.7.—Petition, notice, and hearing filed a petition to disqualify him. On the same day that Farinas elected. Saya-Ang and Lara contends that they were denied due
filed his verified answer, the COMELEC issued a resolution process as they were never served a copy of the Resolution and
FACTS: Private respondent filed a petition to disqualify petitioner denying due course his candidacy for turncoatism and engaging were never given the chance to present their evidence.
on ground of turncoatism, attaching thereto three Identical in partisan activities.
affidavits and other documentary evidence to support his ISSUE: W/N Saya-Ang and Lara were denied due process.
allegations. Since the petition was not acted before the election ISSUE: W/N Farinas was denied due process.
day, Antonio Singco was voted for and elected Mayor of the RULING: YES. The COMELEC denied them due process as they
Municipality. The Comelec issued Resolution No. 9310 declaring RULING: YES. The COMELEC should hold a full-dress were not even informed of the administrative inquiry against
Antonio Singco a disqualified candidate. Petitioner seeks the hearing of a disqualification suit in accordance with the them, nor were they called upon to adduce their own evidence
nullification of the challenged resolution on ground of denial of requirements of due process, and give full opportunity to and to meet and refute the evidence against them.
due process, alleging that said resolution was issued without present all evidence relevant to the issues; otherwise the
benefit of hearing and the same was not supported by substantial case will be remanded. Here, the resolution was a “midnight 529
evidence. disqualification resolution.” The parties had no chance to file Ticzon vs. Dizon
memoranda. Due to the numerous pending disqualification cases Section 68.7 – Petition, notice and hearing
ISSUE: W/N the resolution issued by the Comelec is valid and the nearness of the election, the Comelec did not have
FACTS: Due to the change in party affiliation made by Dizon and (Binasa ko naman ang fulltx pero tungkol siya sa forum
Ticzon provoked the filing against them of the charge of For administrative bodies, due process can be complied with shopping)
turncoatism. Later on, Armedilla, a registered voter, filed a by observing the following:
petition to disqualify Dizon. However, the COMELEC dismissed (1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to FACTS: Petitioner contends that the case filed by private
the disqualification case. Armedilla contends that due process present one's cause and submit evidence in support respondent should be dismiss because it does not have the
was not observed in dismissal said case. thereof; certifcate for forum shopping.
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; ISSUING: Wether or not the case filed by the private respondent
ISSUE: W/N Armedilla was denied due process. (3) The decision must have something to support itself; should be dismiss for lack of certificate of forum shopping.
(4) The evidence must be substantial; RULING: NO. The rules of procedure is suppletory to the
RULING: NO. There is no denial of due process where the (5) The decision must be based on the evidence COMELEC rules.
parties agreed to submit the petition for disqualification for presented at the hearing; or at least contained in the The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the
resolution on the basis of the pleadings and affidavits and the record and disclosed to the parties affected; candidate proclaimed is the lawful choice of the people.
COMELEC decides the case without any hearing. Armedilla was (6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act
given a chance to controver Dizon’s defense that he was already on its own independent consideration of the law and 540-SABTALUH
a KBL partisan more than 6 months prior to the elections, but facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the Martinez v. HRET, G.R. No. 189034, January 11, 2010
Armedilla was not able to overthrow said defense. Hence, the views of a subordinate; and FACTS: The nuisance candidate was disqualified after election,
case was submitted for decision by the COMELEC on the basis (7) The Board or body should, in all controversial he has the same surname with the petitioner.
of pleadings. questions, render its decision in such manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know the various ISSUE: Whether or not votes cast with only the petitioners
Issue involved, and the reason for the decision surname which is the same with the nuisance candidate should
530 rendered. be tag as strays.
Ang Tibay vs. CIR
Section 68.8 – Recommendation 536 &537 - SABTALUH RULING: No. Final judgements declaring a nuisance candidate
Yason v. Comelec, 134 SCRA 371 (1985) should effectivelt cancel the certificate of candidacy filed by such
FACTS: Due to alleged shortage of leather, Toribio caused the candidate as of election. Hence, votes with "Martinez" should be
lay-off of a number of his employees in Ang Tibay (a leather FACTS: Private respondent filed petition for disqualification after counted in petitioners favor.
company which supplies the Philippine Army). However, the the election results were known. Petitioner was disqualified and
National Labor Union questioned the validity of said lay-off as it all votes in his favor was tag stray. 541. SALVADOR
contended that the employees who were laid off were members Bautista v. Comelec, G.R. No. 133840, November 13, 1998
of the NLU, while no members of the rival labor union of National ISSUE: Whether or not the disqualification case was filed on Section 69.2.—How votes cast for a nuisance candidate
Worker’s Brotherhood were laid off. NLU claims that NWB is a time. should be treated
company-dominated union and Toribio was merely busting NLU.
RULING: No. A petition to disqualify a candidate to validly cancel FACTS: Petitioner Cipriano “Efren” Bautista was a duly
The CIR ruled in favor of Toribio. Upon appeal to the SC, NLU any votes cast for him as "stray votes" if granted, should be filed registered candidate for the position of Mayor of Navotas, Metro
claimed its right to new trial on the ground of newly discovered before the day of the elections. This is mandatory. Manila. Aside from him, a certain Edwin “Efren” Bautista, also
evidence. Ang Tibay opposed this. filed a COC for the same position of Mayor. On a petition filed by
RULING 537: A party who files a petition beyond the deadline Cipriano the COMELEC declared Edwin a nuisance candidate
ISSUE: W/N the motion for new trial must be granted as there shoul consider asking for its validation on equitable grounds, but and ordered the cancellation of his COC. However, in line of the
was failure to grasp the fundamental issue. he must show that the petition is meritorious. MR filed by the latter the Election officer issued another directive
recalling his earlier directive for the inclusion of Edwin.
RULING: YES. The CIR is a special court whose functions are 538 - SABTALUH Thereafter, the Regional Director of NCR gave an instruction to
specifically stated in CA 103. It is more an administrative board Batul v. Bayron separately tally the votes for “E. Bautista, BAUTISTA, EFREN,
than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not FACTS: Petitioner contends that COMELEC committed Efren Bautista”. COMELEC Chairman affirmed the instructions as
intended to be a mere receptive organ of the government. Unlike GADALEJ when it did not rule the ballots which does not contain STRAY VOTES.
a court of justice which is essentially passive, acting only when its his name as fraudelent.
jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases that are presented ISSUE: W/N the votes cast for a nuisance candidate is to be
to it by the parties litigant, the function of the CIR, as will appear ISSUE: Whethe or not the COMELEC committed GADALEJ considered as stray votes.
from perusal of its organic law is more active, affirmative and
dynamic. RULING: No. The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain RULING: NO. The SC held that the votes separately tallied are
whether the candidate proclaimed is the lawful choice of the not really stray votes because the segregation of the votes was
The CIR may be said to be free from rigidity of certain procedural people. for the purpose of later counting it. COMELEC itself validated the
requirements it does not mean that it can entirely ignore or separate tallies since they were meant to be used in the
disregard fundamental and essential requirements of due 539 - SABTALUH canvassing later on the actual number of votes cast. These
process in trials and investigation of an administrative character. Barroso v. Ho. Ampig, Jr., 385 Phil. 237 (2000) separate tallies actually made the will of the electorate
determinable despite the apparent confusion caused by a Section 72.2.—Effect of election of disqualified candidate 1) petitioner Adelina Larrazabal who obtained the highest number
potential nuisance candidate. of votes in the local elections and was proclaimed as the duly
FACTS: Petitioner Agapito A. Aquino filed his COC for the elected governor but who was later declared by the COMELEC
542. Yason v. Comelec, 134 SCRA 371 (1985) position of Representative for the new Second Legislative District due to lack both residence and registration qualifications for the
Section 71.2.—Liberal view of Makati City; in his COC he provided that he has been a position of Governor of Leyte or
resident of Makati for 10 months. Thereafter, Move Makati, a duly 2) petitioner Benjamin Abella who obtained the second highest
registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of the number of votes for the position of governor but was not allowed
FACTS: Yason withdrew the COC he had earlier filed that LAKAS-NUCDUMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a by the COMELEC to be proclaimed as governor after the
afternoon, erased “Nationalista (NP)” from the space denoting petition to disqualify Agapito A. Aquino on the ground that the disqualification of Larrazabal; or
party affiliation, typed “Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL)” thereon, latter lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for 3) Leopoldo E. Petilla, the vice-governor of the province of Leyte.
and initialed the change. Suarez has submitted a copy of a letter congressman which, under Section 6, Art. VI of the 1987
he allegedly wrote to COMELEC protesting the turncoatism of Constitution, should be for a period not less than one (1) year ISSUE: W/N he is disqualified.
Yason and file a petition which he also introduced affidavits to immediately preceding the May 8, 1995 elections.
show that the local NP of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro campaigned RULING: NO. The candidates whose COC were the subject of
for Yason as its own candidate for mayor. COMELEC thereafter ISSUE: W/N he is entitled to be proclaimed as the winner. petitions for cancellation were voted for and, having received the
denied due course to his candidacy for Mayor of Roxas, Oriental highest number of votes, were duly proclaimed winners.
Mindoro for having changed his party affiliation. Hence, this RULING: NO. The fact that a candidate obtained the majority Moreover, the fact that the candidate who obtained the highest
petition. votes in a place where he lacks residence does not entitle number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible
him to be proclaimed. In order for a person to qualify as a for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle
ISSUE: W/N Yasos’s COC be denied on the ground of candidate for a district, he must prove that he has established not the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes
turncoatism. just residence but domicile of choice. to be declared the winner of the elective office.

RULING: NO. The SC held that even as there should be

compliance with the provision on turncoatism, an interpretation in 545-546; 549. Coquilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 151914, July 31,
particular cases which respects the free and untrammeled 2002
expression of the voter’s choice must be followed in its Section 72.2.—Effect of election of disqualified candidate
enforcement. The spirit behind the enactment of BP Blg 697 Sec
14, as an exception to the turncoatism provision of the 1973 FACTS: Alvarez, who was the incumbent mayor of Oras and who
Constitution, constrains the court to adopt a liberal view in was running for reelection, sought the cancellation of petitioner’s
applying the law to the facts of the case to insure that the will of certificate of candidacy on the ground that the latter had made a
the people expressed through their ballots shall be respected. material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by
stating that he had been a resident of Oras for two years when in
543. Sanchez v. Del Rosario, 1 SCRA 1102 (1981) truth he had resided therein for only about six months since
Section 72.2.—Effect of election of disqualified candidate November 10, 2000, when he took his oath as a citizen of the
Philippines. His COC was cancelled after the elections.
FACTS: Petition f or quo warranto brought by Juan Sanchez, a
defeated candidate for the office of councilor in the municipality of ISSUE: W/N he is disqualified.
Bocaue, Bulacan. CFI rendered judgment unseating respondent
from said elective office on the ground of the latter's ineligibility. RULING: NO. Although generally candidates who are disqualified
Hence, this appeal. Oscar del Rosario was, on the date of his by final judgement before the election shall not be voted for and
election, only 21 years, 3 months and 7 days old, having been the votes cast for them shall not be counted. But those against
born on 3 August 1938 --thus disqualified to run for an elective whom no final judgment of disqualification had been rendered
municipal office. may be voted for and proclaimed, unless, on motion of the
complainant, the COMELEC suspends their proclamation
ISSUE: W/N winning the election prevents him from because the grounds for their disqualification or cancellation of
disqualification. their certificates of candidacy are strong.

RULING: NO. The principle that the voice of the people is the
supreme law (vox populi suprema est lex) does not render 547. Abella v. Comelec, 201 SCRA 253 (1991)
eligible an ineligible candidate who has been elected and does Section 72.2.—Effect of election of disqualified candidate
not prevent his disqualification.

FACTS: The main issue in these consolidated petitions centers

544. Aquino v. Comelec, 248 SCRA 400 (1995) on who is the rightful governor of the province of Leyte:
 548. Salcedo v. Comelec, 312 SCRA 447 (1999) RULING: NO. What the law requires is that the RULING: NO. The ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority
Section 72.2.—Effect of election of disqualified candidate disqualification by final judgment takes place before the votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the highest
election. The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the number of votes to be declared elected. A minority or defeated
FACTS: Petitioner filed with the Comelec a petition seeking the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser because the law then candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office.
cancellation of private respondent’s certificate of candidacy on as now only authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the
the ground that she had made a false representation therein by person who obtained a plurality of votes and does not entitle a 555 – Tan
stating that her surname was “Salcedo.– Petitioner contended candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be Sunga vs. COMELEC
that private respondent had no right to use said surname declared elected. G.R. No. 125629, March 25, 1998
because she was not legally married to Neptali Salcedo. Sec. 72.2.1: Effect of Disqualification
552 – Tan FACTS: Private respondent Ferdinand Trinidad was disqualified
ISSUE: W/N Salcedo should be disqualified. Kare vs. COMELEC to run as mayor of Iguig, Province of Cagayan for vote buying,
G.R. No. 157526, April 28, 2004 using force and intimidation, and using government vehicles for
RULING: NO. The candidates whose COC were the subject of Sec. 72.2.1: Effect of Disqualification campaigning. Petitioner, as 2nd placer, argues that he should be
petitions for cancellations were voted for and, having received the FACTS: COMELEC ruled that Avelino Ceriola, as 2 nd placer, be declared as winner because he was the only candidate entitled to
highest number of votes were duly proclaimed winners. proclaimed as mayor of Malinao, Albay because of Salvador be proclaimed as the duly elected mayor.
Moreover, In upholding the validity of private respondent’s Moll’s disqualification as mayor for committing the crime of ISSUE: W/N petitioner can be proclaimed as mayor?
certificate of candidacy, we reiterate that “[t]he sanctity of the Usurpation of Authority (PC Penalty). Petitioner Emiliana Kare, as RULING: NO. The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from
people’s will must be observed at all times if our nascent vice-mayor, assails that she should have succeeded Moll. the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser because the law
democracy is to be preserved. ISSUE: W/N the 2nd placer can be proclaimed as mayor? then as now only authorizes a declaration of election in favor of
RULING: NO. When a mayoral candidate who gathered the the person who has obtained a plurality of votes and does not
highest number of votes is disqualified after the election is held, a entitle a candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to
permanent vacancy is created, and the vice mayor succeeds to be declared elected.
550. Labo, Jr. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 105111 and G.R. No. the position.
105384, July 3, 2002
Section 72.2.1.—Effect of disqualification 553 – Tan
Codilla, Sr. Vvs. De Venecia
G.R. No. 150605, December 10, 2002 556. TORIBIO
FACTS: Labo was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio City. Sec. 72.2.1: Effect of Disqualification NOLASCO v COMELEC
Private respondent filed a petition alleging that a foreigner is FACTS: COMELEC suspended petitioner’s proclamation as G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 July 21, 1997
holding a public office. It was found in the 2nd decision by CID congressman of the Leyte for vote buying and instead proclaimed Article IX Sec 72.2.1 – Effect of Disqualification
that petitioner was still an Australian citizen as of that date by respondent as winner. However, this was reversed by the
reason of his naturalization by marrying an Australian. However, COMELEC for violating due process. Respondent made public FACTS: Florentino P. Blanco and Eduado A. Alarilla both vied for
in light of this their marriage was declared void in Australia that’s defiance while petitioner filed a petition for mandamus. the mayoral position of Meycauayan, Bulacan during the election
why Labo insists that he lost his Australian citizenship. ISSUE: W/N petitioner can be proclaimed as congressman? held 8 May 1995. Blanco garnered the highest number of votes.
RULING: NO. It would be extremely repugnant to the basic Edgardo Nolasco was elected vice-mayor. On 9 May, Alarilla filed
ISSUE: W/N the doctrine on the rejection of the 2nd placer should concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a with the Comelec a petition to disqualify Blanco on grounds that
be applied. candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes the latter committed acts in violation of Section 68 of the
is proclaimed winner and imposed as representative of a Omnibus Election Code, for giving money to influence, induce or
RULING: YES. The SC held that the doctrine on the rejection of constituency, the majority of which have positively declared corrupt the voters or public officials performing election functions;
the 2nd placer was applied in this case because the judgement through their ballots that they do not choose him. To for committing acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; and for
declaring the candidate’s disqualification had not become final simplistically assume that the second placer would have spending in his election campaign an amount in excess of that
before the elections. received the other votes would be to substitute our allowed by the Election Code - P10 million against 97,000
judgment for the mind of the voters. registered voters. On 15 August, the Comelec disqualified Blanco
on the ground of vote-buying and ordered the Board of
554 – Tan Canvassers of Meycauayan, Bulacan to reconvene and to
551 – Tan Loreto vs. Brion determine the winner out of the remaining qualified candidates
Ocampo vs. HRET G.R. No. 130681, July 29, 1999 who shall be immediately proclaimed. Blanco moved for
G.R. No. 158466, June 15, 2004 Sec. 72.2.1: Effect of Disqualification reconsideration while Nolasco, as vice mayor, intervened in the
Sec. 72.2.1: Effect of Disqualification FACTS: Ian Veloso garnered the highest votes for president of proceedings. Nolasco urged that as vice-mayor he should be
FACTS: HRET ruled that private respondent Mark Crespo was the SK, Baybay, Leyte Chapter but was disqualified for declared mayor in the event Blanco was finally disqualified. Both
ineligible to run for congressman of Manila for lack of residence committing certain prohibited acts of campaigning. Jose Loreto, motions were denied. Hence, the petition for certiorari. 
of district. Petitioner Pablo Ocampo, as 2nd place, seeks to be as 2nd place, filed a petition for mandamus to be declared winner
proclaimed as congressman of the 6th district of Manila. and receive his wages.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner can be proclaimed as congressman? ISSUE: W/N petitioner can be proclaimed as SK president?
ISSUE: Whether or not the disqualification of the mayor-elect office and, pursuant to section 40 (b) of the Local Government
warrants the declaration of any of the remaining qualified mayoral Code, he was disqualified from running for re-election.
candidates, upon the canvassing of votes, as mayor.  560. TORIBIO
558. TORIBIO CAYAT v COMELEC
RULING: NO. In a mayoralty election, the candidate who ABELLA v COMELEC G.R. No. 163776, April 24, 2007
obtained the second highest number of votes cannot be G.R. No. 100710, September 3, 1991 Article IX Sec 72.2.1 – Effect of Disqualification
proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is disqualified. Article IX Sec 72.2.1 – Effect of Disqualification
Permanent vacancies (i.e. when an elective local official fills a
higher vacant office, refuses to assume office, fails to qualify, FACTS: Fr. Nardo Cayat and Thomas Palileng are the only
dies, is removed from office, voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise FACTS: Silvestre dela Cruz (Benjamin Abella was allowed to mayoralty candidates for the May 2004 elections in Buguias
permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office) intervene) filed a petition with the COMELEC to disqualify Benguet. Palileng filed a petition for cancellation of the COC of
in the Offices of the Governor, Vice Governor, Mayor, and Vice petitioner Larrazabal from running as governor of Leyte on the Cayat on the ground of misrepresentation. Palileng argues that
Mayor are governed by Section 44, Chapter 2 of the Local ground that she misrepresented her residence in her certificate of Cayat misrepresents himself when he declared in his COC that
Government Code of 1991 and Article 38 of the Rules and candidacy as Kananga, Leyte.  It was alleged that she was in fact he is eligible to run as mayor when in fact he is not because he is
Regulations implementing the Local Government Code of 1991. a resident of Ormoc City like her husband who was earlier serving probation after being convicted for the offense of acts of
Vice-Mayor Edgardo C. Nolasco was adjudged as Mayor of disqualified from running for the same office. lasciviousness.
Meycauayan, Bulacan in view of the disqualification of mayor-
elect Florentino P. Blanco. The COMELEC granted the petition. However, when the Comelec, granted the petition of Palileng and Cayat filed a
Commission granted the decision, Larrazabal was already motion for reconsideration. Such, MR was denied because Cayat
proclaimed the Governor, hence, when she was disqualified, failed to pay the filing fee and hence, it was declared final and
Abella, who gathered the second highest votes in the said area, executory. Despite this decision, Cayat was still proclaimed as
557. TORIBIO sought to take his oath as governor of Kananga, Leyte. the winner and Palileng filed a petition for annulment of
REYES v COMELEC proclamation. Comelec declared Palileng as the duly elected
G.R. No. 120905, March 7, 1996 The petitioner, however, avers that the COMELEC decision is mayor and Feliseo Bayacsan as the duly elected vice mayor.
Article IX Sec 72.2.1 – Effect of Disqualification erroneous when it relied on the provisions of the Family Code to Bayacsan argues that he should be declared as mayor because
rule that the petitioner lacks the required residence to qualify her of the doctrine of rejection of second placer.
to run for the position of governor of Leyte.
FACTS: Petitioner Renato U. Reyes was the incumbent mayor of ISSUE: Whether or not the rejection of second placer doctrine is
the municipality of Bongabong when an administrative complaint  She opines that under "the Election Law, the matter of applicable.
was filed against him with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan by Dr. determination of the RESIDENCE is more on the principle of
Ernesto Manalo. A temporary restraining order was issued by the INTENTION, the animus revertendi rather than anything else." RULING: NO. The doctrine cannot be applied in this case
trial court on February 7, 1995, upon request by the petitioner, In this regard she states that ... "her subsequent physical transfer because the disqualification of Cayat became final and executory
enjoining the Sangguniang Panlalawigan from proceeding with of residence to Ormoc City thereafter, did not necessarily erased before the elections and hence, there is only one candidate to
the case.  As a result, the decision of (sic) or removed her Kananga residence, for as long as she had speak of.
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan could not be served upon the ANIMUS REVERTENDI evidenced by her continuous and
Reyes.  After expiration of the temporary restraining order, an regular acts of returning there in the course of the years, although The law expressly declares that a candidate disqualified by final
attempt was made to serve the decision upon petitioner’s counsel she had physically resided at Ormoc City." judgment before an election cannot be voted for, and votes cast
in Manila but it was futile. Meanwhile, on March 20, 1995, for him shall not be counted. As such, Palileng is the only
petitioner filed a certificate of candidacy with the Office of the ISSUE: Whether or not the candidate who got the second highest candidate and the duly elected mayor.
Election Officer of the COMELEC in Bongabong. On March 24, vote may be proclaimed as governor when the candidate for such
1995, private respondent Rogelio de Castro, as registered voter position was disqualified. The doctrine will apply in Bayacsan’s favor, regardless of his
of Bongabong, sought the disqualification of petitioner as intervention in the present case, if two conditions concur: (1) the
candidate for mayor. RULING: NO. The fact that the candidate who obtained the decision on Cayat’s disqualification remained pending on election
highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or not day, 10 May 2004, resulting in the presence of two mayoralty
ISSUE: Whether or not Reyes is disqualified for the position he eligible for the office to which he was elected does not candidates for Buguias, Benguet in the elections; and (2) the
seeks to be elected. necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second decision on Cayat’s disqualification became final only after the
highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective elections.
RULING: YES. Although petitioner Reyes brought an action to office. The votes cast for a dead, disqualified, or non-eligible
question the decision in the administrative case, the temporary person may not be valid the vote the winner into office or
restraining order issued in the action he brought lapsed, with the maintain him there. However the absence of a statute which 561
result that the decision was served on petitioner and it thereafter clearly asserts a contrary politics and legislative policy on the Domino v. Comelec
became final on April 3, 1995, because petitioner failed to appeal matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere belief that the FACTS: DOMINO filed his certificate of candidacy for the position
to the Office of the President.  He was thus validly removed from candidate was alive, qualified, or eligible, they should not be of Representative of the Lone Legislative District of the Province
treated as stray, void or meaningless. of Sarangani indicating that he had resided in the constituency
where he seeks to be elected for one (1) year and two (2) months program after the latter had reared and fattened the cattle for Section 72.5.—Effect of proclamation
immediately preceding the election. private respondents filed with seven months. Sangguniang Panlalawigan found petitioner guilty Perez v. Comelec, 317 SCRA 641 (1999)
the COMELEC a Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel of the charges and ordered his removal from office. The
Certificate of Candidacy and  alleged that DOMINO, contrary to Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bongabong, apparently FACTS: private respondent filed his certificate of candidacy for
his declaration in the certificate of candidacy, is not a resident, unaware of the disqualification of Reyes by the COMELEC, Representative of the Third District of Cagayan in the May 11,
much less a registered voter, of the province of Sarangani where proclaimed him the duly-elected mayor. The COMELEC en 1998 elections. Petitioner, filed in the COMELEC a petition for the
he seeks election. Lucille L. Chiongbian-Solon, (hereafter banc declared him to have been validly disqualified as candidate disqualification of private respondent as a candidate on the
INTERVENOR), the candidate receiving the second highest and set aside his proclamation as municipal mayor of ground that he had not been a resident of the district for at least 1
number of votes, is asking the Court to uphold the disqualification Bongabong. it appears that petitioner Julius M. Garcia, who year. On the other hand, private respondent asks that the instant
of petitioner Juan Domino and to proclaim her as the duly elected obtained the second highest number of votes next to petitioner petition be dismissed. He argues that after his proclamation on
representative of Sarangani. Reyes in the same elections of May 8, 1995, intervened in the May 16, 1998 and his assumption of office on June 30, 1998, the
ISSUE: W/N the disqualification of the winner entitles the COMELEC (after the main decision disqualifying Renato Reyes COMELEC lost jurisdiction to pass upon his qualifications for the
candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be was promulgated), contending that because Reyes was office of Representative
declared elected disqualified, he was entitled to be proclaimed mayor of ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC en banc has jurisdiction
RULING: No. The effect of a decision declaring a person Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro. RULING: No, RA 6646 authorizes the continuation of
ineligible to hold an office is only that the election fails entirely, ISSUE: W/N the disqualification can be given retroactive proceedings for disqualification even after the elections if the
that the wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the application respondent has not been proclaimed. The Comelec en banc had
disqualified winner to the repudiated loser because the law then RULING: No.  The votes cast for Reyes are presumed to have no jurisdiction to entertain the motion for reconsideration of the
as now only authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the been cast in the belief that Reyes was qualified and for that denial of disqualification because the proclamation of the person
person who has obtained a plurality of votes and does not entitle reason cannot be treated as stray, void, or meaningless. The sought to be disqualifies barred further consideration thereof.
the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be subsequent finding that he is disqualified cannot retroact to the
declared elected. In such case, the electors have failed to make a date of the elections so as to invalidate the votes cast for him. 566. Yason v. Comelec, 134 SCRA 371 (1985)
choice and the election is a nullity. To allow the defeated and MP: In order that a petition to disqualify a candidate so as to
repudiated candidate to take over the elective position despite his 564 render any votes cast for him as stray votes if the the petition is
rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise the electorate Loreto v. Brion, 311 SCRA 694 (1999) granted, must be filed before the day of elections
without any fault on their part and to undermine the importance FACTS: Jose Loreto III ran for president of the Pambayang
and meaning of democracy and the people's right to elect officials Federasyon Ng Mga Sangguniang Kabataan. The other FACTS: Petitioner Yason filed his certificate of candidacy for
of their choice candidates were Paul Ian Veloso and Ruphil Bañoc. a pre- Mayor of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro. On the blank space in Item
562 election protest against Paul Ian Veloso was lodged for violation No. 4 indicating "Political Party/Group or Aggrupation," he stated
Geronimo v. Ramos of DILG Memorandum Circular No. 96-115. Paul Ian Veloso "Nationalists, (NP)." After, he asked for the certified of candidacy
FACTS: private respondent Julian Pendre filed a petition with the obtained the highest number of votes but his proclamation as he had filed that afternoon, and erased the words and letters,
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify petitioner winner was suspended as the evidence of his guilt in the pre- "Nationalista, (NP)." Over the erased items, he typed "Kilusang
Meliton C. Geronimo from running as a candidate for the election protest was strong. Jose Loreto, III garnered the second Bagong Lipunan (KBLs erased and "Kilusang Bagong Lipunan
mayorship of Baras, Rizal on the ground of political turncoatism highest number of votes.Petitioner Loreto took his oath of office (KBL)", initialed by Mr. Yason. Yason sent a telegram to
which COMELEC granted.  he filed with this Court a petition for but was unable to collect the salaries pertaining to the office on COMELEC, attention Law Department asking for authority to
certiorari to restrain the COMELEC from implementing its account of the absence of the required proclamation papers. change “KBL” to Nationalista Party. Yason won by 365 votes over
resolution. Geronimo obtained a margin of 325 votes when he Hence, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Suarez. Incidentally, only Yason and one councilor in his line-up
garnered 2,695 votes as against his opponent Bayani Ferrera's Board of Election Supervisors to proclaim him. Petitioner argues won. A day later, Suarez, losing candidate, filed with COMELEC
2,370 votes. that When Veloso was disqualified, it was as if he was no a petition for disqualification of Yason as candidate for mayor.
ISSUE: W.N there is a failure of elections candidate at all in the eyes of the law and the effects of the final Notice of the petition or a copy thereof was not furnished the
RULING: Yes. When the winner in an elective office is judgment of disqualification retroacts to the time the case was petitioner. Two days later, without the petitioner having been
disqualified, The result is a failure of elections for that particular filed. Public respondent counterargues that it is immaterial given an opportunity to controvert, comment upon, or answer the
office. The winning candidate is not qualified and cannot qualify whether the petition for disqualification against a candidate was petition, the COMELEC issued the questioned resolution which
for the office to which he was elected. A permanent vacancy is filed before the elections or after as the subsequent finding that a denied due course to the candidacy of Yason. Yason filed a
thus created. candidate is disqualified cannot retroact to the date of the motion for reconsideration followed by a motion to suspend
563 elections so as to invalidate the votes cast for him.  proclamation of the mayor of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro. The
Reyes v. Comelec ISSUE: W/N the findings can retroact as to invalidate the votes COMELEC ordered the citizens' election committee and the
FACTS: Petitioner Renato U. Reyes was the incumbent mayor of for him election registrar of Roxas to consider all votes cast for Yason as
the municipality of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro.  an RULING: No. the votes cast for a disqualified candidate are stray and to declare Lucio T. Suarez as duly elected mayor.
administrative complaint was filed against him with the presumed to have been cast in the belief that he was qualified
Sangguniang Panlalawigan by Dr. Ernesto Manalo. It was alleged and cannot be treated as stray, void or meaningless. The ISSUES: W/N the COMELEC, after the election and all the votes
that petitioner exacted and collected P50,000,00 from each subsequent finding that the is disqualified cannot retroact to the were properly canvassed (and winner proclaimed) has power or
market stall holder in the Bongabong Public Market and that he date of the elections as to invalidate the votes cast for him. jurisdiction to stray the votes casted for Yason.
took 27 heads of cattle from beneficiaries of a cattle dispersal 565
RULING: NO. In Luna v. Rodriguez (39 Phil. 208) decided on 10, 1980, by the party most interested, no less than the losing
November 29, 1918, this Court stressed the basic principle which candidate, Cesar Villones. Nine days after the election of Clemente, or on May 26, 1982,
has governed all elections in our country from the early years of Regatcho, the defeated candidate, filed with the municipal circuit
democratic government up to the present. This Court stated: ... 567-A. Gomez v. Comelec, 120 SCRA 621 (1983) court of Labrador-Sual a "petition contesting the election" of
The purpose of an election is to give the voters a direct MP: The issue of a candidate’s disqualification is best Clemente.
participation in the affairs of their government, either in resolved in the electoral protest after a proclamation has been ISSUE: whether a quo warranto proceeding against a barangay
determining who shall be their public officials or in deciding some made and an election protest for quo warranto. captain on the ground of illiteracy falls within the jurisdiction of the
question of public interest; and for this purpose, all of the legal Court of First Instance, now Regional Trial Court
voters should be permitted, unhampered and unmolested, to cast FACTS: petitioner Anacio C. Gomez and the private respondent RULING: No. The RTC correctly dismissed the quo warranto
their ballots. When that is done, and no frauds have been Generoso Trieste Sr., were the candidates for the position of action for lack of jurisdiction, since under Section 20 of the 1982
committed, the ballot should be counted and the election should Municipal Mayor of Numancia, Aklan. Gomez was the official Barangay Election Law, B.P. Blg. 222 quoted in the main opinion,
not be declared null. Innocent voters should not be deprived of candidate of the Nacionalista Party, while Trieste Sr. was the the municipal trial court or the municipal circuit trial court is
their participation in the affairs of their government for mere official candidate of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan. On January vested with exclusive original jurisdiction over all barangay
irregularities on the part of election officers for which they are in 18, 1980, one Primitive B. Torrecampo, a registered voter of the election protests, including quo warranto cases challenging the
no way responsible. A different rule would make the manner and municipality, filed a petition with the, Commission on Elections, barangay captain’s eligibility or ineligibility.
method of performing a public duty of greater importance than docketed therein as COMELEC Case No. PDC 131, to disqualify
the duty itself. Election cases involve not only the adjudication of Gomez as a candidate on the ground of "turn-coatism" in that "at
the private interests of rival candidates but also the paramount least within six months immediately preceding January 30, 1980, Section 72.7.—Right of second placer
need of dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds the real choice he was affiliated with the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) party 569. Reyes v. Comelec, 254 SCRA 514 (1996)
of the electorate with respect to who shall discharge the (as) the municipal chairman thereof"; and that the herein
prerogatives of the offices within their gift. They are imbued with petitioner's "change of party affiliation is violative of Section 10, MP: The rule that the candidate who obtains the second highest
public interest. Article XII (c) of the Constitution in relation to Section 4 of Batas number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in case the
Pambansa Bilang 52. winning candidate is disqualified is now settled.
567. Aguinaldo v. Comelec, 102 SCRA 1 (1981) petitioner filed his Answer to the petition for
MP:The Comelec may properly dismiss a petition for disqualification, claiming that he was a member of the FACTS: Aquiles Reyes and Adolfo Comia were candidates for
disqualification that is not filed before the deadline Nacionalista Party when he was elected Municipal Mayor of the position of member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Oriental
FACTS: After the canvassing of the election returns, it was Numancia, Aklan in 1971 and has remained a member of said Mindoro. Comia moved for the exclusion of certain election
shown that private respondent Tiamson had more than 117 votes party ever since; that he was designated municipal chairman of returns because votes cast for “Reyes” were counted in favor of
over the candidate Villones. he was proclaimed as Mayor by the the KBL without renouncing his party affiliation before the 1978 petitioner only, when there was also another candidate surnamed
Municipal Board of Canvassers and on March 3, 1980 assumed elections for the Interim Batasang Pambansa when the KBL was Reyes. Nonetheless, petitioner was proclaimed as winner. Comia
such position. 6 On March 10, 1980, as mentioned, Villones filed merely an umbrella organization and not a political party; and that then filed an election protest before the RTC, which annulled the
a quo warranto petition based on the above disqualification when he submitted the KBL Municipal Chapter Organization, proclamation of petitioner Aquiles. Thus, petitioner filed a notice
provision of the Constitution. This certiorari proceeding, as noted alluded to in Torrecampo's petition, he was under the belief that of appeal to the Comelec’s 1st Division, which was dismissed.
at the outset, was not filed until May 30, 1980, directed against the KBL was not a political party. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for Certiorari alleging that
an order of respondent Commission on Elections denying the ISSUE: Whether a pre-proclamation controversy should no Comelec committed GADALEJ in dismissing his appeal.
motion for reconsideration of a previous order of dismissal of a longer be viable
petition to disqualify private respondent Tiamson. RULING: It is now the prevailing doctrine that after an election ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of the present petition for
ISSUE: Whether the comelec may dismiss the petition for duly held and a proclamation thereafter made, a pre-proclamation certiorari, without petitioner first filing a motion for reconsideration
disqualification controversy should no longer be viable. As was pointed out in the before the COMELEC en banc, violates Art. IX, A, §7 of the
RULING: Yes, It is thus manifest why this certiorari proceeding Venezuela opinion: 'it would save the time and energy of the Constitution 1 because under this provision only decisions of the
must be dismissed. The ruling in Venezuela was applied in litigants as well as respondent Commission, and eventually this COMELEC en banc may be brought to the Supreme Court on
Villegas v. Commission on Elections, Potencion v. Conunission Court in review of its appellate jurisdiction, if the matter were Certiorari.
on Elections, Arcenas v. Commission on Elections, and Singco passed upon in an election protest or quo warranto petition in the
v. Conunission on Elections. A citation from Arcenas finds proper court or agency, the office involved being that of municipal RULING: YES. It is advisable for counsel to file a motion for
pertinence: "Nor does a decision of this character detract from mayor. reconsideration of a decision, order, or ruling of the Comelec
the binding force of the principle announced in Reyes v. sitting as a division with the Comelec en banc, before filing a
Comelec, that the provision on disqualification arising from a 568. Regotcho v. Cleto, 126 SCRA 342 (1983) petition for certiorari with the SC. A decision, order or ruling of the
change in a political party affiliation by a candidate within six MP: A petition for disqualification after the election is in effect a Comelec which may be brought to the SC on certiorari refers to
months is both 'innovative and mandatory. 'As should be clear, petition for quo warranto. that of the Comelec en banc. A decision, order, or ruling of a
the issue of disqualification has not been rendered moot and FACTS: In the election of May 17, 1982 held at Barangay division may not be brought to the SC on certiorari directly.
academic, only the remedy to be pursued is no longer the pre- Bolaoen, Sual, Pangasinan, Isabelo Clemente obtained ninety- 570. Domino v. Comelec, 319 SCRA 546 (1999)
proclamation controversy." So it must be in this case with a quo seven votes while Teofilo Regatcho obtained seventy votes for
warranto petition having already been filed as far back as March barangay captain. Clemente was proclaimed the winner and was FACTS: DOMINO filed his certificate of candidacy for the position
scheduled to take his oath of office on June 7, 1982. of Representative of the Lone Legislative District of the Province
of Sarangani indicating in item nine (9) of his certificate that he
had resided in the constituency where he seeks to be elected for
one (1) year and two (2) months immediately preceding the
election. Private respondents alleged that DOMINO, contrary to
his declaration in the certificate of candidacy, is not a resident,
much less a registered voter, of the province of Sarangani where
he seeks election.
the COMELEC 2nd Division promulgated a resolution
declaring DOMINO disqualified as candidate, the COMELEC
issued Supplemental Omnibus Resolution No. 3046, ordering
that the votes cast for DOMINO be counted but to suspend the
proclamation if winning, considering that the Resolution
disqualifying him as candidate had not yet become final and
executory.
ISSUE: After finding that DOMINO is disqualified as candidate for
the position of representative of the province of Sarangani, may
INTERVENOR, as the candidate who received the next highest
number of votes, be proclaimed as the winning candidate?
RULING AND MP: It is now settled doctrine that the
candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes
may not be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate
is disqualified. In every election, the people's choice is the
paramount consideration and their expressed will must, at all
times, be given effect. When the majority speaks and elects into
office a candidate by giving the highest number of votes cast in
the election for that office, no one can be declared elected in his
place.
 571 GENON RULING: NO. Fact that a candidate for mayor who receives the ISSUE: WON Paul Caneja certification of election is in
Domino vs. COMELEC (repeated case ) highest number of votes between two candidates was disqualified accordance with the provision of the law.
as a “turn-coat” does not necessarily entitle the recipient of the
FACTS: DOMINO is disqualified as candidate for the position second highest number of votes to be declared winner of an RULING: Yes, Article 38 of the Electoral Code Revised provides:
of representative of the province of Sarangani. elective office. "If, after the deadline for the filing of certificates of
INTERVENOR, as the candidate who received the next candidacy, dies or subject disqualified a candidate with
highest number of votes, contended that he can be COMELEC erred in proclaiming recipient of second highest certificate of candidacy duly filed, any person legally entitled
proclaimed as the winning candidate. number of votes for mayor as duly elected candidate for may file a certificate of candidacy for office to which the
mayor after the winner was disqualified. The vice-mayor candidate was deceased or disabled according to the latest
ISSUE: WON the contention is correct. must assume office. articles on or before noon on election day. " The certificate
of candidacy thus Caneja Paul has performed in accordance
RULING: NO. It is now settled doctrine that the candidate 574 GENON with this provision of the law, hence not disqualified.
who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be Reyes vs. COMELEC
proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is 576. HALID
disqualified. To simplistically assume that the second placer FACTS: Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bongabong, GADOR V. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 431 (1980)
would have received the other votes would be to substitute apparently unaware of the disqualification of Reyes by the SECTION 73. CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY SECTION 73.1.
our judgment for the mind of the voters. He could not be COMELEC, proclaimed him the duly-elected mayor. Petitioner —NECESSITY
considered the first among qualified candidates because in a Julius M. Garcia, who obtained the second highest number of
field which excludes the qualified candidate, the conditions votes next to petitioner Reyes in the same elections intervened in MAIN POINT: A certificate of candidacy must be filed within the
would have substantially changed. the COMELE (after the main decision disqualifying Renato Reyes period fixed by law. If it is beyond that period, it is void
was promulgated), contending that because Reyes was
572 GENON disqualified, he (Garcia) was entitled to be proclaimed mayor FACTS: The petition alleges that the petitioner is a candidate for
Loreto vs Brion of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro. the Office of Mayor of the City of Ozamiz as Independent this
coming January 30, 1980 local election. He filed his certificate of
FACTS: CA declared petitioner was not qualified to assume ISSUE: WON the contention is correct. candidacy with the Election Registrar of Ozamis City on January
the presidency of the Sangguniang Kabataan Chapter of 7, 1980 because of the news in the Bulletin Today. The said
Baybay, Leyte in lieu of a disqualified candidate since the RULING: NO. That the candidate who obtains the second news stated that the respondent COMELEC issued a resolution
petitioner is a mere second placer to the deposed winner. VP highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in for the extension of time for filing COC. However, the President
should assume. case the winning candidate is disqualified is now settled. denied said resolution. Therefore, respondent COMELEC
The doctrinal instability caused by see-sawing rulings has since informed the petitioner that his name might not be included in the
ISSUE: WON the CA is correct. been removed. In the latest ruling on the question, this Court list of candidates for mayor because of the said incident. Thus,
said: To simplistically assume that the second placer would have this petition.
RULING: YES. It is now settled doctrine that the candidate received the other votes would be to substitute our judgment for
who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be the mind of the voter. The second placer is just that, a second ISSUE: WON the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner which
proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is placer. He lost the elections. He was repudiated by either a was filed on January 7, 1980 is valid.
disqualified. To simplistically assume that the second placer majority or plurality of voters. He could not be considered the first
would have received the other votes would be to substitute among qualified candidates because in a field which excludes the RULING: NO. A certificate of candidacy filed beyond
our judgment for the mind of the voters. He could not be disqualified candidate, the conditions would have substantially reglementary period is void. Section 7, Batasang Pambansa
considered the first among qualified candidates because in a changed. We are not prepared to extrapolate the results under Bilang 52, provides that "The sworn certificate of candidacy shall
field which excludes the qualified candidate, the conditions the circumstances. be filed in triplicate not later than January 4, 1980." It is a fact
would have substantially changed. admitted by the petitioner that the President had not extended the
575 GENON period within which to file the certificate of candidacy. Having
. Ycain vs. Caneja been filed beyond January 4, 1980, the certificate of candidacy of
573 GENON the petitioner is void.
Geronimo vs. Ramos FACTS: BrigidoCaneja and Isaiah Ycain filed their COC for the
office of Mayor of the municipality of Naval, Leyte, within the
FACTS: Meliton C. Geronimo was disqualified from running period prescribed by law. Paul Caneja presented on November
as a candidate for the mayorship of Baras, Rizal on the 4 certificate of candidacy for the office of mayor, but the City
ground of political turncoatism however he already garnered Clerk refused it because it was submitted after the time fixed
the highest votes in the election. by law. Brigido Caneja had withdrawn his candidacy. Municipal 577. HALID
Canvassing Board elected mayor proclaimed Paul Caneja, with a MONSALE V. NICO, 83 PHIL. 758 (1949)
ISSUE: WON the mayoralty should be turned over to the majority of four votes over his opponent Ycain Isaias, and SECTION 73. CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY, SECTION 73.1.
candidate garnering thr second highest votes. January 3 next year, this presented his protest was dismissed —NECESSITY
after the corresponding view.
MAIN POINT: The only instance wherein the law permits the herein protestant not being a registered candidate, has no MAIN POINT: the will of the people cannot be frustrated by a
filing of a certificate of candidacy after the expiration of the time standing before the court. technicality consisting in that his certificate of candidacy had not
limit for filing it is when a candidate with a certificate of candidacy been properly sworn to. This legal provision here in question is
duly filed dies or becomes disqualified. 578. HALID mandatory and non-compliance therewith before the election
GUZMAN V. BOARD OF CANVASSERS, 48 PHIL. 211 (1925) would have been fatal to the recognition to the status of the
FACTS: The protestant withdrew his certificate of candidacy on SECTION 73. CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY, SECTION 73.1. candidate before the electorate but after the people expressed
October 10, 1947, but, on November 1, attempted to revive it by —NECESSITY their will, the result of the election cannot be defeated by the fact
withdrawing his withdrawal. The COMELEC, however, ruled on that the candidate had not sworn to his certificate of candidacy.
November 8 that the protestant could no longer be a candidate in MAIN POINT: the will of the people cannot be frustrated by a
spite of his desire to withdraw his withdrawal. A canvass of the technicality consisting in that his certificate of candidacy had not FACTS: Mendoza filed his sworn of certificate of candidacy as
election returns showed that. Nico received 2,291 votes; and the been properly sworn to. This legal provision here in question is independent for the office of vice-mayor of Dolores, Quezon.
protestant Monsale, none, evidently because the votes cast in his mandatory and non-compliance therewith before the election Later that day, he filed an unsworn letter in his own handwriting
favor had not been counted for the reason that he was not a would have been fatal to the recognition to the status of the withdrawing his certificate of candidacy for “Personal reasons
registered candidate. Consequently, Nico was proclaimed candidate before the electorate but after the people expressed and been accepted by the election registrar without objection.
elected. their will, the result of the election cannot be defeated by the fact Villanueva filed his sworn “Certificate of Candidacy in
that the candidate had not sworn to his certificate of candidacy. Substitution”. Petitioner won but the BOC disregarded all votes
ISSUE: whether a candidate who has withdrawn his certificate of cast in favour of Villanueva.
candidacy may revive it, either by withdrawing his letter of FACTS: It is alleged in the petition that the respondent provincial
withdrawal or by filing a new certificate of candidacy, after the board of canvassers met on June 22, 1925, for the purpose of ISSUE: WN the informal withdrawal of Mendoza invalidates the
deadline provided by law for the filing of such certificate. counting the votes cast in the election for provincial officers and election of Villanueava as vice mayor.
certifying the result of the count, and after gathering all the
RULING: In the present case the protestant withdrew his election returns, it found that the petitioner had obtained 7,662 RULING: NO. Mendoza's withdrawal of his certificate of
certificate of candidacy on October 10, 1947, and requested the votes and the respondent Lucero 8,771 votes. They provided that candidacy was not "under oath," should be rejected. The fact that
COMELEC that it "be considered as though it has never been the original of the certificate of candidacy of the respondent Mendoza's withdrawal was not sworn is but a technicality which
filed at all." There is no question as to the right of a candidate to Lucero as not duly sworn to, as required by law, while the should not be used to frustrate the people's will in favor of
withdraw or annul his own certificate of candidacy, there being no certificate of candidacy of the petitioner De Guzman, was petitioner as the substitute candidate. This legal provision is
legal prohibition against such withdrawal. Therefore, on October prepared and filed in accordance with the requirements of the mandatory and non-compliance therewith before the election
10, or thirty-one days before the election, the protestant ceased law. As provided in section 404 of the Election law, the would be fatal to the status of the candidate before the electorate,
to be a candidate by his own voluntary act, and as a matter of respondent provincial board of canvassers adjudicated the 8,771 but after the people have expressed their will, the result of the
fact the boards of election inspectors of the municipality of votes to the respondent, and afterwards, proclaimed and certified election cannot be defeated by the fact that the candidate has not
Miagao were duly notified of his withdrawal. His letter to the him as governor-elect of the Province of La Union sworn to his certificate or candidacy.
CCOMELEC dated November 6, 1947, which he subscribed and
swore to before a notary public on November 1, whereby he ISSUE: WN the respondent has filed a certificate of candidacy in Mendoza's withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy right on the
withdrew his withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy, can only accordance with the law and in case he has not, whether the writ very same day that he filed his certificate of candidacy on
be considered as a new certificate of candidacy which, having applied for should be issued January 4, 1980 which was the very last day for filing of
been filed only four days before the election, could not legally be certificates of candidacy shows that he was not serious about his
accepted under the law, which expressly provides that such RULING: The Supreme Court held that while Act No. 3030 in its certificate of candidacy. But this could not be done to would-be
certificate should be filed at least sixty days before the election. section 3, requires the candidate to file a certificate of candidacy bonafide candidates, like petitioner who had not filed his
The only instance wherein the law permits the filing of a duly verified, that is, sworn to, in order that he may be eligible, yet candidacy in deference to Mendoza's candidacy who was one of
certificate of candidacy after the expiration of the time limit for the lack of oath of the certificate of candidacy, while fatal to the his "co-planners" with "some concerned citizens ... (who) held
filing it is when a candidate with a certificate of candidacy duly recognition of the status of the candidate before election, is not a causes to put up a slate that will run against the erstwhile
filed dies or becomes disqualified. sufficient ground for annulling his election after the people has unopposed KBL slate."
manifested its will, the provincial secretary having certified that
The Commission on Elections was, therefore, right in holding as it 0aid candidate #as a legal candidate for the office Section 28 of the 1978 Election Code provides for such substitute
did that the protestant "can no longer be a candidate in spite of candidates in case of death, withdrawal or disqualification up to
his desire to withdraw his withdrawal," In the case of Clutario "by mid-day of the very day of the elections. For all intents and
his own voluntary act and deed petitioner has nullified his purposes, such withdrawal should therefore be considered as
certificate of candidacy and in the light of the election laws such having been made substantially and in truth after the last day,
certificate of candidacy has been definitely withdrawn, hence non 579. HALID even going by the literal reading of the provision by the Comelec.
existing. VILLANUEVA V. COMELEC, 140 SCRA 353 (1985)
SECTION 73. CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY, SECTION 73.1.
A candidate voted for who has not presented a certificate of —NECESSITY
candidacy has no right to contest the election. In other words, the 580. HALID
MONSALE V. NICO, 83 PHIL. 758 (1949) PAR. 4
 SECTION 73.2.—WITHDRAWAL OF CANDIDACY The only instance wherein the law permits the filing of a RULING: Yes. A candidate, who has withdrawn his COC, is
certificate of candidacy after the expiration of the time limit for disqualified to be elected for a position for which he has no COC
filing it is when a candidate with a certificate of candidacy duly in accordance with the law.
MAIN POINT: a candidate has the right to withdraw or annul his filed dies or becomes disqualified.
certificate of candidacy. There is no provision of law forbidding 581
the withdrawal of a candidacy at any time before election. Yason vs. Commission of Elections 583
GR. No. L-52713 January 31, 1985 Monsale vs Nico
FACTS: The protestant withdrew his certificate of candidacy on Sec. 73.2 Withdrawal of Candidacy 83 Phil 758 (1949)
October 10, 1947, but, on November 1, attempted to revive it by Sec. 73.2 Withdrawal of Candidacy
withdrawing his withdrawal. The COMELEC, however, ruled on FACTS: Petitioner Yason filed his certificate of candidacy for
November 8 that the protestant could no longer be a candidate in Mayor. Yason withdrew the certificate of candidacy he had earlier FACTS: Jose Monsale, prostant, withdrew his certificate of
spite of his desire to withdraw his withdrawal. A canvass of the filed that afternoon, erased "Nationalists (NP)" from the space candidacy on October 10, 1947, but on November 7, attempted
election returns showed that. Nico received 2,291 votes; and the denoting party affiliation, typed "Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL)" to revive it by withdrawing his withdrawal. The commission on
protestant Monsale, none, evidently because the votes cast in his thereon and initialed the change. And to remove any doubts Election, however, rules on November 8 thatthe protestant could
favor had not been counted for the reason that he was not a about his choice, he erased the word "Yes" from the query no longer be a candidate in spite of his desire to withdrawal. A
registered candidate. Consequently, Nico was proclaimed whether he was nominated by a political party and instead typed canvass of the election returns showed that the protestee Paulino
elected. "Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL)" followed by his initials. M. Nico received 2,291 votes; another candidate, Gregorio
Petitioner came to know from the Certified List of Candidates Fagutao126, votes; and the protestant Jose F. Monsale, none,
ISSUE: whether a candidate who has withdrawn his certificate of furnished by the COMELEC for posting in election booths and evidently because the vote cast in his favor had not been counted
candidacy may revive it, either by withdrawing his letter of guidance of citizens' election committees that COMELEC had for the reason that he was not a registered candidate.
withdrawal or by filing a new certificate of candidacy, after the listed him in the official line-up of NP candidates, he immediately Consequently, Nico was proclaimed elected.
deadline provided by law for the filing of such certificate disclaimed knowledge of his having been nominated by the NP
provincial chapter. Petitioner won, however, COMELEC filed for ISSUE: WON the CoC of petitioner may be revive.
RULING: The protestant withdrew his certificate of candidacy on his disqualification.
October 10, 1947, and requested the comelec that it "be ISSUE: WON Petitioner is disqualified for withdrawing the CoC RULING: No. Whereby a candidate withdraws his withdrawal of
considered as though it has never been filed at all." There is no filed. his CoC, can only be considered as a new certificate of
question as to the right of a candidate to withdraw or annul his RULING: No. There is no provision of law forbidding the candidacy which, having been filed only four days before the
own certificate of candidacy, there being no legal prohibition withdrawal of candidacy at any time before election. As a matter election, could not legally be accepted under the law, which
against such withdrawal. Therefore, on October 10, or thirty-one of fact, the law does not require that the withdrawal of a expressly provides that such certificate should be filed at sixty
days before the election, the protestant ceased to be a candidate certificate so as to validate a second filing of another certificate of days before the election.
by his own voluntary act, and as a matter of fact the boards of candidacy must be made on or before the deadline for filing
election inspectors of the municipality of Miagao were duly candidacies. (Montinola v. Commission on Elections, 98 Phil. 584 (Same case with 581)
notified of his withdrawal. His letter to the Commission on 220). By the same token, once entries in a certificate of
Elections dated November 6, 1947, which he subscribed and candidacy are corrected, it is the corrected version which is
swore to before a notary public on November 1, whereby he considered filed and not the earlier one.
withdrew his withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy, can only 582 585
be considered as a new certificate of candidacy which, having Ycain vs Caneja Monsale vs Nico
been filed only four days before the election, could not legally be 81 Phil 778 (1948) 83 Phil 758 (1949)
accepted under the law, which expressly provides that such Sec. 73.2 Withdrawal of Candidacy Sec. 73.3 Right of second placer
certificate should be filed at least sixty days before the election.
FACTS: Respondent Brigido Caneja and petitioner Isaiah Ycain
The evident purposes of the law in requiring the filing of filed their COC for the office of Mayor in Leyte. Respondent FACTS: Jose Monsale, prostant, withdrew his certificate of
certificates of candidacy and in fixing a time limit therefore are (a) presented his COC but the City Clerk refused it because it was candidacy on October 10, 1947, but on November 7, attempted
to enable the voters to know, at least sixty days before a regular submitted after the time fixed by law. Thereafter, the respondent to revive it by withdrawing his withdrawal. The commission on
election, the candidates among whom they are to make the sent a communication to the City Clerk giving account that had Election, however, rules on November 8 thatthe protestant could
choice, and (b) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the been sent to all Board Scrutiny of all election precincts of the no longer be a candidate in spite of his desire to withdrawal. A
tabulation of the votes cast; for if the law did not confine the municipality a notice that he had withdrawn his candidacy. canvass of the election returns showed that the protestee Paulino
choice or election by the voters to the duly registered candidates, However, the Municipal Canvassing Board elected mayor M. Nico received 2,291 votes; another candidate, Gregorio
there might be as many persons voted for as there were voters, proclaimed respondent Caneja, with a majority of 4 votes over his Fagutao126, votes; and the protestant Jose F. Monsale, none,
and votes might be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as opponent petitioner Ycain. evidently because the vote cast in his favor had not been counted
a mark to identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another ISSUE: WON respondent is disqualified to be elected for for the reason that he was not a registered candidate.
office in the same election. withdrawing his COC. Consequently, Nico was proclaimed elected.
ISSUE: WON the votes casted in favor of petitioner should be (P10,000.00) for failure to file his statement of contributions and FACTS: Guillermo Ruiz sought to disqualify respondent Farinas
considered stray votes. expenditures. as a candidate for the position of Congressman in the First
District of Ilocos Norte. Ruiz alleged that Farinas had been
RULING: Yes. Votes for a person who has no valid are certificate
ISSUE: W/N Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166 excludes candidates campaigning as a candidate for Congressman in the polls,
of candidacy are stray votes and the candidate who obtained the
next highest number of votes may be declared elected. who already withdrew their candidacy for election. despite his failure to file a certificate of candidacy for said office.
Farinas was duly proclaimed winner.
586. LAKBAO RULING: No. A candidate’s withdrawal of his candidacy does
Monsale v. Nico, 83 Phil. 758 (1949) not extinguish his liability for the administrative fine ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC has committed grave abuse of
Section 73.3.—Right of second placer pursuant to RA 7166, for failure to file his statement of discretion in holding that the determination of the validity of the
contributions and expenditures. certificate of candidacy of respondent Farinas is already within
MAIN POINT: Votes for person who has no valid COC are stray the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives
votes and the candidate who obtained the next highest number of 588.LAKBAO Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
votes may be declared elected. Miralles v. Gariando, 2 SCRA 63 (1961)
Section 73.5.—Practice tip RULING: No. There is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
FACTS: The protestant withdrew his certificate of candidacy but the COMELEC when it held that its jurisdiction over the case had
attempted to revive it by withdrawing his withdrawal. The MAIN POINT: (bold) ceased with the assumption of office of respondent Farinas as
commission on Election, however, rules that the protestant could Representative for the first district of Ilocos Norte.
no longer be a candidate in spite of his desire to withdrawal. A FACTS: Miralles, Et. Al. were candidates for the offices of mayor,
canvass of the election returns showed that the protestee Paulino vice- mayor, and councilors, respectively, of Alang-alang, Leyte.
M. Nico received 2,291 votes; another candidate, Gregorio Gariando, were also candidates for the same municipal offices in 590.LAKBAO
Fagutao126, votes; and the protestant Jose F. Monsale, none, the same elections who allegedly failed to file their certificates of Lambonao v. Tero, 15 SCRA 716 (1965)
evidently because the vote cast in his favor had not been counted candidacy as required by law. Miralles, Et. Al. filed with the CFI of Section 74.1.—Mandatory before election but directory
for the reason that he was not a registered candidate (no COC). Leyte praying that said board be ordered to proclaim petitioners afterward
Consequently, Nico was proclaimed elected. as the duly elected officials of said municipality being the only
unopposed candidates for the offices specified in their certificates MAIN POINT: (bold)
ISSUE: W/N a candidate who has withdrawn his certificate of of candidacy and that, pending action on the merits, a writ of
candidacy may revive it, either by withdrawing his letter of preliminary injunction be issued restraining the municipal board of FACTS: These are appeals in three petitions for quo warranto
withdrawal or by filling a new certificate of candidacy, after the canvassers from making the canvass of the election for said jointly heard in the Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte. Said
deadline provided by law for the filling of such certificate. offices as required by law. court, on respondents' motions, dismissed the petitions for lack of
cause of action. A single decision is herein rendered, the cases
RULING: No. The protestant ceased to be candidate by his own having been likewise jointly argued before us.
voluntary act. This clearly implies that a candidate voted for who ISSUE: W/N the remedy sought by petitioners were proper.
has not presented a certificate of candidacy has no right to ISSUE: W/N the provisions of the election law regarding COC are
contest the election. In other words, the herein protestant, not RULING: Yes. If the winning candidate was not eligible to be mandatory.
being a registered candidate, has no standing before the court. a candidate for the office because he failed to file properly
his COC as required by law, the remedy is to contest his RULING: The provisions of the election law regarding COC
election after he has been duly proclaimed. such as signing and swearing and the information required
587.LAKBAO to be stated therein are considered mandatory prior to the
Pilar v. Comelec, 245 SCRA 759 (1995) elections. Thereafter, they are regarded as merely directory.
Section 73.4.—Caution 589.LAKBAO The proclamation of the candidate may not be nullified on
Guerrero v. Comelec, G.R> No. 137004, July 26, 2000 such ground. The defects in the certificates of candidacy of
MAIN POINT: (bold) Section 73.5.—Practice tip respondents should have been questioned by petitioners on or
before the election and not after the will of the people has been
FACTS: Pilar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of MAIN POINT: The contestant should file an election protest expressed through the ballots.
member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of with HRET, since the candidate had been proclaimed and
Isabela but later withdrew his certificate of candidacy. COMELEC taken the oath of office.
imposed upon petitioner the fine of Ten Thousand Pesos
 rendered a decision denying Velasco's petition for inclusion as election registrar, asked for the certified of candidacy he had filed
voter; (3) Velasco does not possess the constitutional that afternoon, and erased NP. Over the erased items, he typed
requirement of legal residency to register as voter; and (4) KBL. The same thing was done for Item No. 5, “state if nominated
Velasco is not eligible to run for office since he is not a qualified by Political Party/Group or Aggrupation” where the word “Yes”
voter. Panlaqui asked for the annulment, revocation and was erased and KBL typed clearly as the answer. Allegedly
591. Sinaca v. Mula, 315 SCRA 266 (1999)
cancellation of Velasco's COC that allegedly contained obvious unknown to the petitioner, his name was included in the complete
Section 74.1.—Mandatory before election but directory
and gross material misrepresentation. Velasco garnered the most NP line-up of candidates for his municipality. Petitioner won.
afterward
number of votes for the position of Mayor. As the COMELEC Later, a petition for disqualification of Yason as candidate for
FACTS: EMMANUEL, an independent candidate, joined and
failed to resolve Panlaqui's petition prior to the election, Velasco mayor. 
became a member of the LAKAS party and was nominated as
was proclaimed Mayor and took his oath and assumed the
the substitute mayoralty candidate for the Municipality of
powers and functions. Later, Comelec cancelled Velasco's COC ISSUE: May petitioner Yason be denied the mayorship on the
Malimono, Surigao del Norte.  On the basis of said nomination,
and declaring his proclamation as null and void because it was ground of turncoatism? –No.
EMMANUEL filed his certificate of candidacy3 attached thereto is
found that he’s guilty of material misrepresentation.
his certificate of nomination as LAKAS mayoralty candidate
RULING: Yason’s final decision was clear and beyond doubt.
signed the party provincial chairman together with EMMANUEL’s
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC can cancel Velasco's COC. – Notwithstanding the unholy hour before midnight, Yason
written acceptance of the party’s nomination. MULA filed a
YES. withdrew the certificate of candidacy he had earlier filed that
petition for EMMANUEL’s disqualification, that the nomination of
afternoon, erased NP from the space denoting party affiliation,
EMMANUEL as substitute candidate is illegal because the
RULING: In the present case, Velasco is not only going around typed KBL thereon, and initialed the change. There is no
substitution bears only the approval of Provincial Chairman and
the law by his claim that he is registered voter when he is not, as provision of law forbidding the withdrawal of candidacy at any
without consultation and consent of the higher political hierarchy
has been determined by a court in a final judgment. Equally time before election. As a matter of fact, the law does not require
who has also a say on nomination of candidates within his
important is that he has made a material misrepresentation under that the withdrawal of a certificate so as to validate a second filing
jurisdiction.
oath in his COC regarding his qualification. For these violations, of another certificate of candidacy must be made on or before the
he must pay the ultimate price - the nullification of his election deadline for filing candidacies. A certificate of candidacy may
ISSUE: Whether EMMANUEL’s nomination as substitute
victory. He may also have to account in a criminal court for be corrected. Once entries in a certificate of candidacy are
candidate is valid.
making a false statement under oath, but this is a matter for the corrected, it is the corrected version which is considered
proper authorities to decide upon. filed and not the earlier one.
RULING: The validity of EMMANUEL’s nomination as substitute
candidate has been rendered moot and academic by his
We distinguish our ruling in this case from others that we 594. Alialy v. Comelec, 2 SCRA 957 (1961)
proclamation. The fact that the nomination of a substitute lacks
have made in the past by the clarification that COC Section 74.2.—Correction of certificate
the signature of one of the authorized signatory is but a
defects beyond matters of form and that involve material FACTS: A collective certificate of candidacy signed and sworn by
technicality which cannot be used to frustrate the will of the
misrepresentations cannot avail of the benefit of our ruling Chairman of the Local Chapter of the Nacionalista Party was
electorate. The provisions of the election law regarding
that COC mandatory requirements before elections are filed. COMELEC ruled the CoC was subscribed under oath only
certificates of candidacy, such as signing and swearing on
considered merely directory after the people shall have by the chairman and not by the secretary also of the party, and,
the same, as well as the information required to be stated
spoken. A mandatory and material election law requirement therefore, is not prepared in compliance with the law;
therein, are considered mandatory prior to the elections.
involves more than the will of the people in any given thus, resolved not to give due course to the said CoC in favor of
Thereafter, they are regarded as merely directory. The
locality. Where a material COC misrepresentation under its candidates. Petitioners presented a motion for
proclamation of the candidate as winner may not be nullified
oath is made, thereby violating both our election and reconsideration, stating that the omission of the signature called
on such ground. The defects in the certificate should have
criminal laws, we are faced as well with an assault on the will for, amounts merely to an inconsequential deviation, not sufficient
been questioned before election; they may not be
of the people of the Philippines as expressed in our laws. In to invalidate the CoC of petitioners, since the said omission
questioned after the election without invalidating the will of
a choice between provisions on material qualifications of cannot influence, by itself, the result of the election in the place.
the electorate, which should not be done. Thus, where a
elected officials, on the one hand, and the will of the
candidate has received popular mandate, overwhelmingly and
electorate in any given locality, on the other, we believe and ISSUE: Whether CoC is valid.
clearly expressed, all possible doubts should be resolved in favor
so hold that we cannot choose the electorate will. The RULING: The absence of the signature of the Secretary of the
of the candidate’s eligibility for to rule otherwise is to defeat the
balance must always tilt in favor of upholding and enforcing local chapter N.P. in the original certificate of candidacy,
will of the people.
the law. To rule otherwise is to slowly gnaw at the rule of presented before the deadline, September 11, 1959, did not
law. render the certificate invalid. The amendment of the certificate in
592. Velasco v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180051, December 24,
question, although made at a date after the deadline for filing the
2008
same, but before the election, is a substantial compliance with
Section 74.1.—Mandatory before election but directory
593. Yason v. Comelec, 134 SCRA 371 (1985) the law and cures the defect of said certificate.
afterward
Section 74.2.—Correction of certificate
FACTS: A Petition to Deny Due Course To and/or To Cancel
FACTS: Petitioner filed his CoC for Mayor. On the blank space
Velasco's COC was filed, claiming that: (1) contrary to Velasco's
indicating “Political Party/Group or Aggrupation,” he stated “NP.” 595. Velasco v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180051, December 24,
claim, he is not a registered voter of Precinct No. 103-A, as his
Shortly afterwards, he had a change of mind. A few minutes 2008
name is not included in the list of voters; (2) the RTC has
before midnight of the same day, he went back to the municipal
 Section 74.3.—Difference between voters’ legal purposes, but as a simple piece of paper that the candidate
inclusion/exclusion and COC denial/cancellation has in his pocket. For a certificate of candidacy to be considered ISSUE: W/N Petitioner can be substituted
proceedings as such, two acts are necessary: (1) its presentation, and (2) its
acceptance by the official authorized by law giving it the RULING: NO. (MP in book) , under the express provisions of
MP: In terms of purpose, voters’ inclusion/exclusion and corresponding course. Section 77 Only an official candidate of a registered or
COC denial/cancellation are different proceedings; one 597 – LIM accredited political party may be substituted. A person
refers to the application to be registered as a voter to be Miranda v. Abaya, 311 SCRA 617 (1999) without a valid certificate of candidacy cannot be considered a
eligible to vote, while the other refers to the application to be Section 77.2.—Who may be substituted candidate in much the same way as any person who has not filed
a candidate. Because of their differing purposes, they also any certificate of candidacy at all cannot, by any stretch of the
involve different issues and entail different reliefs, although FACTS: Jose Miranda, then incumbent mayor of Santiago City, imagination, be a candidate at all.
the facts on which they rest may have commonalities on Isabela, filed his COC for the same mayoralty post for the
which they may be said to converge or interface. One such synchronized May 11, 1998 elections. Abaya filed a Petition to 599 – LIM
commonality is the matter of residence. Section 9 of Deny Due Course to and/or Cancel COC and his petition was Sinaca v. Mula, 315 SCRA 226 (1999)
Republic Act 8189, otherwise known as the  Voters’ granted by the Comelec and disqualified Jose Miranda. On May Section 77.3.—Official candidates
Registration Act (VRA), requires that voters “shall have 6, 1998, way beyond the deadline for filing a certificate of
resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year, and in the candidacy, petitioner Joel G. Miranda filed his certificate of FACTS: In the May 1998 elections, Emmanuel Sinica was a
place wherein they propose to vote, at least six (6) months candidacy for the mayoralty post, supposedly as a substitute for substitute candidate for the mayoral post of the Matugas Wing
immediately preceding the election.” The OEC, on the other his father. Miranda garnered more votes than Abaya, who then after their original candidate, Teodoro Sinica, was disqualified for
hand, requires under its Section 74 that the would-be filed a Petition to Declare Null and Void Substitution. He prayed being convicted of bigamy. He was proclaimed winner after the
candidate state material facts such as, among others, his for nullification of petitioners certificate of candidacy for being canvassing. Emmanuel was an independent candidate for
residence. Under the combined application of Section 65 of void ab initio because the certificate of candidacy of Jose councilor prior to his nomination as substitute candidate in place
the OEC and Section 39 of the  Local Government Miranda, whom petitioner was supposed to substitute had of the withdrawing candidate who was a Lakas party member.
Code (LGC), a local official must—among others—have the already been cancelled and denied due course. Emmanuel joined Lakas after his nomination as substitute Mula
same residency requirement as required under the VRA. filed a disqualification case against Emmanuel before the
Another point of convergence is the candidate’s status as a ISSUE: W/N petitioner is qualified to substitute a candidate COMELEC. He alleged that said substitution was invalid because
registered voter; a candidate for a local government position whose COC was already cancelled Sinica was not member of the LAKAS party when he was
must be a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, nominated as a substitute. Comelec En Banc disqualified Him.
province, or city where he or she intends to run for office. RULING: NO. (MP in Book) There can be no valid substitution
where a candidate is excluded not only by disqualification but ISSUE: W/N the substitution of Emmanuel Sinica was against the
The remedies available in the two proceedings likewise also by denial and cancellation of his certificate of candidacy, in provisions of Sec 77 of the OEC
differ. Velasco’s remedy from the adverse decision in his the same way that a nuisance candidate whose certificate of
petition for inclusion as voter is as provided under Section candidacy is denied due course and/or cancelled may not be RULING: NO. Even the fact that EMMANUEL only became a
138 of the OEC quoted above. From the MTC, the recourse is substituted. member of the LAKAS party after the disqualification of
to the RTC whose decision is final and executory, correctible TEODORO, will not affect the validity of the substitution. Under
by the Court of Appeals only by a writ of  certiorari based on 598 – LIM Sec.77 of OEC, it is necessary, that the substitute candidate
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Miranda v. Abaya, 311 SCRA 617 (1999) must be of the same political party as the original candidate and
On the other hand, the approval of a certificate of candidacy Section 77.3.—Official candidates must be duly nominated as such by the political party. It is not
or its denial is a matter directly cognizable by the COMELEC, required that a substitute candidate must have been a member of
with the decision of its Division reviewable by the the party concerned for a certain period of time before he can be
COMELEC en banc, whose decision is in turn reviewable by FACTS: Jose Miranda, then incumbent mayor of Santiago City,
Isabela, filed his COC for the same mayoralty post for the nominated.
this Court under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court and Section 7,
of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. synchronized May 11, 1998 elections. Abaya filed a Petition to
Deny Due Course to and/or Cancel COC and his petition was 600 – LIM
granted by the Comelec and disqualified Jose Miranda. On May Rulloda v. Comelec, G.R. No. 154198, January 20, 2003
6, 1998, way beyond the deadline for filing a certificate of Section 77.4.—Barangay election candidates
candidacy, petitioner Joel G. Miranda filed his certificate of
596 – LIM candidacy for the mayoralty post, supposedly as a substitute for FACTS: Petitioner’s husband who was a candidate for
Ycain v. Caneja, 81 Phil. 778 (1948) his father. Miranda garnered more votes than Abaya, who then barangeay chairmain, died. She now prays to be allowed to
Section 76. Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging filed a Petition to Declare Null and Void Substitution. He prayed substitute her husband as the candidate for barangay chairman
receipt for nullification of petitioners certificate of candidacy for being evidenced by her letter to the Comelec seeking permission to do
void ab initio because the certificate of candidacy of Jose so. She won against her opponent. The loser now questions the
Miranda, whom petitioner was supposed to substitute had validity of petitioner’s proclamation because she did not file a
Guys Spanish a full text.  MP in Book: A rejected certificate of already been cancelled and denied due course. COC.
candidacy cannot be considered as a certificate of candidacy for
 G.R. No. 135886, August 16, 1999 and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in
ISSUE: W/N Rulloda can substitute her deceased husband in the Section 78.1.1.—Petition, notice and hearing such election, the Court or the Comelec shall continue with the
barangay chairman election trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon
FACTS: Salcedo II filed a petition to cancel Salcedo’s COC on motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the
RULING: YES. The absence of a specific provision governing the ground that she had made a false representation by stating pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of
substitution of candidates in barangay elections cannot be that here surname was “Salcedo.” Beyond the prescribed period such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. The
inferred as a prohibition against said substitution. Such a provided in Setion 78. Salcedo II contended that Salcedo had no fifteen-day period in section 78 for deciding the petition is merely
restrictive construction cannot be read into the law where the right to use said surname because she was not legally married to directory.
same is not written. Indeed, there is more reason to allow the Neptali Salcedo by virtue of Neptali’s first marriage with another
substitution of candidates where no political parties are involved woman. Thus, their subsequent marriage was null and void. He
than when political considerations or party affiliations reign, a fact contends that the use of the surname “Salcedo” constitutes 605 MUSA
that must have been subsumed by law. material misrepresentation and is a ground for the cancellation of Salcedo II v. Comelec
COC. G.R. No. 135886, August 16, 1999
Section 78.2.—Material representation
601 MUSA ISSUE: W/N the 15-day period is mandartory.
Rulloda v. Comelec FACTS: Salcedo II filed a petition to cancel Salcedo’s COC on
G.R. No. 154198, January 20, 2003 RULING: NO. In construing section 78 of the Omnibus Election the ground that she had made a false representation by stating
Section 77.5.—How substitution made Code which provides that petitions seeking to deny due course to that here surname was “Salcedo.” Beyond the prescribed period
or cancel a certificate of candidacy on the ground that any provided in Setion 78. Salcedo II contended that Salcedo had no
FACTS: Rulloda run as barangay chairman. Before the election material misrepresentation should be resolved after due notice right to use said surname because she was not legally married to
he died. His wife seeks to substitute his late husband. and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election Neptali Salcedo by virtue of Neptali’s first marriage with another
together with the Electoral Forms Law of 1987, the SC held that woman. Thus, their subsequent marriage was null and void. He
ISSUE: W/N substitution is allowed. the 15-day period in Sec 78 is merely directory. contends that the use of the surname “Salcedo” constitutes
material misrepresentation and is a ground for the cancellation of
RULING: YES. A letter to the Comelec by the wife of a candidate COC.
for barangay chairman seeking permission to run as a candidate 604 MUSA
in lieu of her husband who died before the elections is sufficient. Quizon v. Comelec ISSUE: W/N there was material misrepresentation.
G.R. No. 177927, February 15, 2008
602 MUSA Section 78.1.1.—Petition, notice and hearing RULING: NO. The false representation must pertain to a material
Villanueva v. Comelec matter. although the law does not specify what would be
140 SCRA 353 (1985) FACTS: This is a petition for mandamus with prayer for considered as a material representation, the court interpreted this
Section 77.6.—Time for substitution preliminary injunction seeks to compel the Commission on phrase in a line of decisions.
Elections (COMELEC) Second Division to resolve the petition 606
FACTS: Mendoza, on the last day for filling, filed his sworn and supplemental petition for disqualification and cancellation of Maruhom vs. Comelec
certificate of candidacy for Vice Mayor of Dolores Quezon for the certificate of candidacy filed by Florante S. Quizon against GR. No. 179430, July 27, 2009
1980 elections. On the same day, Mendoza filed an unsworn but Roberto V. Puno on the ground of misrepresentation decided Section 78.2.—Material representation
handwritten letter withdrawing his candidacy. Immediately after only after Puno has been elected.
Mendoza’s withdrawal, Villanueva filed his own sworn Certificate FACTS: Petitioner Maruhom and private respondent Abinal were
of candidacy in substitution of Mendoza’s. Villanueva won. The ISSUE: W/N the voted shall be casted in favor of Puno. mayoralty candidates in the Municipality of Marantao, Lanao del
COMELEC, however, disregarded the votes cast in favour of Sur, for the national and local elections. Abinal filed before the
Villanueva and declared the other candidate as the sole winner. RULING: NO. Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code provides COMELEC a Petition for Disqualification and to Deny Due
that petitions to deny due course or cancel a certificate of Course to or Cancel the COC of Maruhom, alleging that
candidacy should be resolved, after due notice and hearing, not Maruhom was a double registrant, being a registered voter in
ISSUE: W/N the withdrawal was valid it being not sworn. later than fifteen days before the election. In construing this Precinct No. 0208A, Barangay Panggao Saduc, Marawi City and
provision together with Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 or The Precinct No. 0040A, Barangay Kialdan Proper, Marantao. There
RULING: YES. Where a candidate’s withdraw was filed on the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, this Court declared in Salcedo II being double registration, Maruhom’s subsequent registration in
last hour of the last day for regular filing of candidacies, such v. COMELEC13 that the fifteen-day period in Section 78 is Marantao was null and void ab initio. And, not being a registered
withdrawal should be considered as having been made merely directory. Thus: voter in Marantao, Maruhom was disqualified from running for
substantially and in truth after the last day, even going by the municipal mayor of said municipality.
literal reading of the provision of the code. If the petition is filed within the statutory period and the candidate
is subsequently declared by final judgment to be disqualified ISSUE: W/N Maruhom is a double registrant
before the election, he shall not be voted for, and the votes cast
603 MUSA for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not RULING: YES. Maruhom’s voter registration constitutes a
Salcedo II v. Comelec declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified material fact because it affects her eligibility to be elected as
municipal mayor of Marantao. Section 39(a) of RA No. 7160, he filed his certificate of candidacy. His opponent sought the
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of ISSUE: W/N misrepresentation of residence will render cancellation of petitioner’s COC on the ground that the latter had
1991, requires that an elective local official must be, among cancellation of her COC made a material misrepresentation in his COC by stating that he
other things, a registered voter in the had been a resident of Oras for two years when in truth he had
barangay, municipality, city or province where he intends to RULING: YES. A candidate’s statement in her COC for the resided therein for only about six months, when he took his oath
be elected. position of governor of Leyte that she was a resident of as a citizen of the Philippines.
Kananga, Leyte when this was not so constitutes a ground
for her cancellation of a certificate of candidacy. ISSUE: W/N Coquilla can be considered to have resided in Oras,
607 Eastern Samar for more than 1 year.
Domino vs. Comelec
310 SCRA 546 (1999) RULING: NO. Petitioner’s statement in his COC is not true.
Section 78.2.—Material representation This is a misrepresentation of a material fact justifying the
cancellation of petitioner’s COC. The term “residence” is to be
FACTS: Petitioner Domino filed his COC for the position of 609 understood not in its common acceptation as referring to
Representative of the Lone Legislative District of the Province of Abella vs. Comelec “dwelling” or “habitation,” but rather to “domicile” or legal
Sarangani indicating in that he had resided in the constituency 201 SCRA 253 (1991) residence, that is, “the place where a party actually or
where he seeks to be elected for 1 year and 2 months Section 78.2.—Material representation constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter
immediately preceding the election. Private respondents filed with where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to
the Comelec a Petition to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy against FACTS: Silvestre de la Cruz, a registered voter of Tacloban City, return and remain.”
Domino, alleging that Domino is neither a resident nor a filed a petition to disqualify Adelina Larrazabal for alleged false
registered voter of the province of Sarangani. COMELEC 2nd statements in her COC regarding her residence. Adeline 610
Division promulgated a resolution declaring Domino disqualified Larrazabal, a resident of Ormoc City, attempted to change her Coquilla vs. COMELEC
and likewise ordered the cancellation of his certificate of residence one year before the election by registering at Kananga, Section 78.2 – Material representation
candidacy. Leyte to qualify her to run for the position of Governor of the
Province of Leyte. Because of this, as she was not a registered FACTS: Coquilla’s COC was challenged on the ground that he
ISSUE: W/N the Comelec has jurisdiction to deny or cancel the voter in Kananga, Leyte, the Comelec disqualified her. made a material misrepresentation therein by stating that he had
COC of the petitioner been a resident of Oras for 2 years when in truth he had resided
ISSUE: W/N Larrazabal is qualified to run for the position therein for only about 6 months from the time he took his oath as
RULING: YES. The Comelec has jurisdiction as provided in a citizen of the Philippines when he applied for repatriation.
OEC, Section 78 over a petition to deny due course to or to RULING: NO. A candidate’s statement in her COC for the
cancel certificate of candidacy and to determine whether a position of governor of Leyte that she was a resident of ISSUE: W/N there was material misrepresentation.
false representation as to material facts was made in the Kananga, Leyte when this was not so constitutes a ground
COC, that will include, among others, the residence of the for her cancellation of a certificate of candidacy. RULING: YES. What is involved is a false statement
candidate. concerning a candidate’s qualification for an office for which
he filed the COC. He stated in his COC that he had been a
resident of said municipality for 2 years at the time he filed
such certificate, which was not true. This is a
misrepresentation of a material fact justifying the
cancellation of Coquilla’s COC.

611
610 Labo vs. COMELEC
608 Coquilla vs. Comelec Section 78.2 – Material representation
Abella vs. Larrazabal GR. No. 151914, July 31, 2002
180 SCRA 509 (1989) Section 78.2.—Material representation FACTS: Ortega filed a disqualification proceeding against Labo
Section 78.2.—Material representation seeking to cancel his COC on the ground that he made a false
FACTS: Petitioner Coquilla was born with Filipino parents in representation when he stated therein that he is a “natural-born”
FACTS: The private respondent is the wife of Emeterio Oras, Eastern Samar. He grew up and resided there until 1965, citizen of the Philippines when he was actually an Australian
Larrazabal, the original candidate of the Lakas ng Bansa-PDP- when he joined the United States Navy. He was subsequently citizen upon marrying his Australian wife.
Laban who was disqualified by the Comelec for lack of naturalized as a US citizen. Petitioner came to the Philippines
residence. She filed her own COC in substitution of her husband. and took out a residence certificate, although he continued ISSUE: W/N there was material misrepresentation.
Silvestre de la Cruz, a registered voter of Tacloban City, filed a making several trips to the United States. Subsequently,
petition to disqualify her for alleged false statements in her COC petitioner applied for repatriation and was approved. Thereafter, RULING: YES. Undoubtedly, Labo, not being a Filipino citizen,
regarding her residence. lacks the fundamental qualification for the contested office.
Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding 622 - SABTALUH
an elective office. A candidate’s statement in his COC that he FACTS: Justimbaste filed a petition to disqualify Balderian as a Saya-Ang v. Comelec, G.R. NO. 155087,
was a natural-born Filipino when in fact he had become an candidate for mayor for falsification and misrepresentation in his November 28, 2003
Australian citizen constitutes a ground for the cancellation COC when he stated therein that he is a Filipino citizen and that FACTS: Petitioner was not given a copy of of
of his COC. his name is Rustico Balderian, instead of Chu Teck Siao. COMELEC’s resolution denying due course to his
candidcay as barangay captain.
612 ISSUE: W/N there was material misrepresentation.
Salcedo II vs. COMELEC ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s right to due
Section 78.2 – Material representation RULING: NO. Material misrepresentation as a ground to deny process was violated
due course or cancel a COC refers to qualifications for RULING: Yes. Under the rules petition for
FACTS: Salcedo II filed a petition to cancel Salcedo’s COC on elective office. At all events, the use of a name other than that cancellation of certificated of candidcay should be
the ground that she had made a false representation by stating stated in the certificate of birth is not a material summarily heard after due notice, in the instant case
that here surname was “Salcedo.” Salcedo II contended that misrepresentation. Here, there was no showing that there was peetitioner was not even given a copy and were
Salcedo had no right to use said surname because she was not intent to deceive the electorate as to Balderian’s identity, nor that never served of the COMELEC's resolution denying
legally married to Neptali Salcedo by virtue of Neptali’s first by using his Filipino name the voting public was thereby due course to their certifcate of candidacy.
marriage with another woman. Thus, their subsequent marriage deceived.
was null and void. He contends that the use of the surname 623 - SABTALUH
“Salcedo” constitutes material misrepresentation and is a ground 615 Salcedo v. Comelec, 392 SCRA 447 (1999)
for the cancellation of COC. Lluz vs. COMELEC Practice tip
Section 78.3 – Meaning of “material representation” FACTS: Petitioner filed a petition to deny due course
ISSUE: W/N there was material misrepresentation. to the COC of the private respondent beyond the 25
FACTS: Vicencio filed his COC for punong barangay in which he day period.
RULING: NO. A candidate who used her husband’s family stated therein his profession or occupation as a CPA. Lluz ISSUE:Whether or not the petition was filed on
name even though their marriage was void was not guilty of charged Vicenco with violation Section 74 of BP 881 for failure to time.
misrepresentation concerning a material fact. The use of a disclose his true occupation as he misrepresented himself as a RULING: No. If a petition to deny due course to a
name other than that stated in the certificate of birth is not a CPA. Vicencio argued that he could not be held liable for an candidacy for material misreprentation is not filed
material representation. election offense because his alleged misrepresentation of within the 25 day period after the filing of certificate
profession was not material to his eligibility as a candidate. of candidacy, counsel should consider filing a
613 petition for quo warranto after the election.
Luna vs. COMELEC ISSUE: W/N there was material misrepresentation.
Section 78.2 – Material representation .
RULING: NO. Material misrepresentation as a ground to deny
FACTS: Hans Roger withdrew his COC and as a substitute due course or cancel a COC refers to qualifications for
candidate, Luna filed her COC. The opposing candidate filed a elective office. A profession or occupation is not a
disqualification petition against her on the ground that there could qualification for the position of punong barangay. Thus,
be no valid substitution by Luna since Hans Roger was merely 20 misrepresentation of such does not constitute material
years old on the day of the election and thus, under age. The misrepresentation.
COMELEC ruled in favor of the disqualification.

ISSUE: W/N there was material misrepresentation. 621 - SABTALUH

Coquilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 15191, July 31,
RULING: NO. The COMELEC acted with grave abuse of 2002
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring FACTS: Petitioner whose certificate of candidacy for
that Hans Roger, being under age, could not be considered to mayor was cancelled by the Comelec for lack of
have filed a valid certificate of candidacy and, thus, could not be residency alleged that his right to due process was
validly substituted by Luna. The COMELEC may not, by itself, viollated because comlec failed to act on his motion
without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a to present evidence.
certificate of candidacy filed in due form. The question of ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner’s right to due
eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate for non-age is beyond processs was violated.
the usual and proper cognizance of the COMELEC. RULING: No. Petitioner was not denied due process
because he has filed his verified answer, a
614 memorandum and a manifestation before the
Justimbaste vs. COMELEC COMELEC.
Section 78.3 – Meaning of “material representation”