Jalosjos v. COMELEC Case Digest [G.R. No.

191970 April 24, 2012] from Quezon City to Australia when he migrated there at the age of
FACTS: eight, acquired Australian citizenship, and lived in that country for 26
years. Australia became his domicile by operation of law and by
Petitioner Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City. He Migrated to choice.
Australia and acquired Australian citizenship. On November 22,
2008, at age 35, he returned to the Philippines and lived with his When he came to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his
brother in Barangay Veterans Village, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. brother in Zamboanga Sibugay, it is evident that Jalosjos did so with
Upon his return, he took an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the intent to change his domicile for good. He left Australia, gave up his
Philippines and was issued a Certificate of Reacquisition of Australian citizenship, and renounced his allegiance to that country.
Philippine Citizenship. He then renounced his Australian citizenship In addition, he reacquired his old citizenship by taking an oath of
in September 2009. allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in his being
issued a Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the
He acquired residential property where he lived and applied for Bureau of Immigration. By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to
registration as voter in the Municipality of Ipil. His application was live in Australia, clearly proving that he gave up his domicile there.
opposed by the Barangay Captain of Veterans Village, Dan Erasmo, And he has since lived nowhere else except in Ipil, Zamboanga
sr. but was eventually granted by the ERB. Sibugay.

A petition for the exclusion of Jalosjos' name in the voter's list was To hold that Jalosjos has not establish a new domicile in Zamboanga
then filed by Erasmo before the MCTC. Said petition was denied. It Sibugay despite the loss of his domicile of origin (Quezon City) and
was then appealed to the RTC who also affirmed the lower court's his domicile of choice and by operation of law (Australia) would
decision. violate the settled maxim that a man must have a domicile or
residence somewhere.
On November 8, 2009, Jalosjos filed a Certificate of Candidacy for
Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay Province. Erasmo filed a petition to The COMELEC concluded that Jalosjos has not come to settle his
deny or cancel said COC on the ground of failure to comply with R.A. domicile in Ipil since he has merely been staying at his brothers
9225 and the one year residency requirement of the local house. But this circumstance alone cannot support such conclusion.
government code. Indeed, the Court has repeatedly held that a candidate is not
required to have a house in a community to establish his residence
COMELEC ruled that Jalosjos failed to comply with the residency or domicile in a particular place. It is sufficient that he should live
requirement of a gubernatorial candidate and failed to show ample there even if it be in a rented house or in the house of a friend or
proof of a bona fide intention to establish his domicile in Ipil. relative. To insist that the candidate own the house where he lives
COMELEC en banc affirmed the decision. would make property a qualification for public office. What matters is
that Jalosjos has proved two things: actual physical presence in Ipil
ISSUE: and an intention of making it his domicile.

Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion Further, it is not disputed that Jalosjos bought a residential lot in the
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that Jalosjos same village where he lived and a fish pond in San Isidro, Naga,
failed to present ample proof of a bona fide intention to establish his Zamboanga Sibugay. He showed correspondences with political
domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. leaders, including local and national party-mates, from where he
lived. Moreover, Jalosjos is a registered voter of Ipil by final judgment
RULING: of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga Sibugay.

The Local Government Code requires a candidate seeking the While the Court ordinarily respects the factual findings of
position of provincial governor to be a resident of the province for at administrative bodies like the COMELEC, this does not prevent it
least one year before the election. For purposes of the election laws, from exercising its review powers to correct palpable misappreciation
the requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile, meaning of evidence or wrong or irrelevant considerations. The evidence
that a person must not only intend to reside in a particular place but Jalosjos presented is sufficient to establish Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay,
must also have personal presence in such place coupled with as his domicile. The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in
conduct indicative of such intention. holding otherwise.

The question of residence is a question of intention. Jurisprudence Jalosjos won and was proclaimed winner in the 2010 gubernatorial
has laid down the following guidelines: (a) every person has a race for Zamboanga Sibugay. The Court will respect the decision of
domicile or residence somewhere; (b) where once established, that the people of that province and resolve all doubts regarding his
domicile remains until he acquires a new one; and (c) a person can qualification in his favor to breathe life to their manifest will.
have but one domicile at a time.
Court GRANTED the petition and SET ASIDE the Resolution of the
It is inevitable under these guidelines and the precedents applying COMELEC.
them that Jalosjos has met the residency requirement for provincial
governor of Zamboanga Sibugay.

Quezon City was Jalosjos domicile of origin, the place of his birth. It
may be taken for granted that he effectively changed his domicile Magno v Comelec
 Facts: Carlos Montes filed a petition for the disqualification of Nestor
Magno as mayoralty candidate of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija during the 2. The offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by
May 14, 2001 elections on the ground that the latter was previously himself or through another;
convicted by the Sandiganbayan of four counts of direct bribery.
3. Such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the
COMELEC granted the petition and declared Magno disqualified public officer with a view to committing some crime, or in
from running for the position of mayor since direct bribery is a crime consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a
involving moral turpitude, citing Section 12 of the Omnibus Election crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something
Code which provides as follows: which it is his official duty to do; and

Sec. 12. Disqualifications. Any person who has been declared 4. The act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is
by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been connected with the performance of his official duties.
sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection,
rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to Moral turpitude can be inferred from the third element. The fact that
a penalty of more than eighteen (18) months, or for a crime the offender agrees to accept a promise or gift and deliberately
involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate commits an unjust act or refrains from performing an official duty in
and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary exchange for some favors, denotes a malicious intent on the part of
pardon, or granted amnesty. the offender to renege on the duties which he owes his fellowmen
and society in general.
According to the COMELEC, inasmuch as Magno completed the
service of his sentence on March 5, 1998 when was discharged from Also, the fact that the offender takes advantage of his office and
probation, his five-year disqualification will end only on March 5, position is a betrayal of the trust reposed on him by the public. It is a
2003. COMELEC denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, this conduct clearly contrary to the accepted rules of right and duty,
petition. justice, honesty and good morals. In all respects, direct bribery is a
crime involving moral turpitude.
Magno argued that direct bribery is not a crime involving moral
turpitude. Likewise, he claims that Section 40 of RA 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991, is the law applicable Issue: What law should apply in the case?
to the case, not the Omnibus Election Code as claimed by the
COMELEC. Said provision reads: Held: The Local Government Code.

Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are The Omnibus Election Code was enacted in 1985 while the Local
disqualified from running for any elective local position: Government Code became a law in 1992. It is basic in statutory
construction that in case of irreconcilable conflict between two laws,
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving the later enactment must prevail, being the more recent expression
moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or of legislative will. Legis posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. In
more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving enacting the later law, the legislature is presumed to have knowledge
sentence. of the older law and intended to change it.
xxx
Furthermore, the repealing clause of Section 534 of the Local
Magno insists that he had already served his sentence as of March Government Code states that: (f) All general and special laws, acts,
5, 1998 when he was discharged from probation. Such being the city charters, decrees, executive orders, proclamations and
case, the two-year disqualification period imposed by Section 40 of administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which are
the Local Government Code expired on March 5, 2000. Thus, he inconsistent with any provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or
was qualified to run in the 2001 elections. modified accordingly. In accordance therewith, Section 40 of the LGC
is deemed to have repealed Section 12 of the OEC.

Issue: Whether or not direct bribery is a crime involving moral Furthermore, Article 7 of the Civil Code provides that laws are
turpitude repealed only by subsequent ones, and not the other way around.
When a subsequent law entirely encompasses the subject matter of
Held: Moral turpitude is defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or the former enactment, the latter is deemed repealed. The intent of
depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to the legislature to reduce the disqualification period of candidates for
society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of local positions from five to two years is evident. The cardinal rule in
right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to the interpretation of all laws is to ascertain and give effect to the
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. intent of the law. The reduction of the disqualification period from five
to two years is the manifest intent.
However, not every criminal act involves moral turpitude. It frequently
depends on the circumstances surrounding the violation of the law. In Therefore, although his crime of direct bribery involved moral
this case, by applying for probation, Magno in effect admitted all the turpitude, petitioner nonetheless could not be disqualified from
elements of the crime of direct bribery: running in the 2001 elections. Article 12 of the Omnibus Election
Code (BP 881) must yield to Article 40 of the Local Government
1. The offender is a public officer;
Code (RA 7160). Petitioners disqualification ceased as of March
2000. (G.R. No. 147904, October 4, 2002) No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is
merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. It neither
bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an
Case Digest: Pamatong vs. Comelec enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the
provision which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of
Prefatory Statement: the sort.

Last December 1 was the deadline for the filing of Certificate of The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the
Candidacies (COCs) for the 2010 Elections. In the end, a total of 99 Constitution, entitled "Declaration of Principles and State Policies."
filed their COCs for President. Among the lesser known The provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-
presidentiables include someone called "Manok" (because executing, and there is no plausible reason for according a different
apparently he can mimic a cock's crow), a six-star general, and a treatment to the "equal access" provision. Like the rest of the policies
future "emperor of the world." Considering that we would be having enumerated in Article II, the provision does not contain any judicially
automated elections next year and the list of all candidates are to be enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for
written in the ballots while voters are supposed to shade the circles legislative or executive action. The disregard of the provision does
corresponding to their choices, would all 99 candidates be included? not give rise to any cause of action before the courts.
No. Aside from disqualification petitions filed against the aspirants,
the Comelec can also motu propio deny due course to the COCs. Obviously, the provision is not intended to compel the State to enact
Aside from the qualifications set forth under the Constitution, a positive measures that would accommodate as many people as
candidate should also have the capacity and resources to launch a possible into public office. Moreover, the provision as written leaves
national campaign. much to be desired if it is to be regarded as the source of positive
rights. It is difficult to interpret the clause as operative in the absence
Under the Constitution (Article II, Section 26), "the State shall of legislation since its effective means and reach are not properly
guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service xxx." defined. Broadly written, the myriad of claims that can be subsumed
Would the Comelec's act of disqualifying the so-called "nuisance" under this rubric appear to be entirely open-ended. Words and
candidates violate this constitutional provision? phrases such as "equal access," "opportunities," and "public service"
are susceptible to countless interpretations owing to their inherent
impreciseness. Certainly, it was not the intention of the framers to
inflict on the people an operative but amorphous foundation from
CASE DIGEST which innately unenforceable rights may be sourced.

Rev. Ely Velez Pamatong Vs. Commission on Elections The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be
G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004 subjected to limitations. Some valid limitations specifically on the
privilege to seek elective office are found in the provisions of the
FACTS: Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates. As long as the
limitations apply to everybody equally without discrimination,
Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for however, the equal access clause is not violated. Equality is not
President. Respondent COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 others sacrificed as long as the burdens engendered by the limitations are
as nuisance candidates who could not wage a nationwide campaign meant to be borne by any one who is minded to file a certificate of
and/or are not nominated by a political party or are not supported by candidacy. In the case at bar, there is no showing that any person is
a registered political party with a national constituency. exempt from the limitations or the burdens which they create.

Pamatong filed a Petition For Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and
Court claiming that the COMELEC violated his right to "equal access the disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide
to opportunities for public service" under Section 26, Article II of the intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State has a
1987 Constitution, by limiting the number of qualified candidates only compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are rational,
to those who can afford to wage a nationwide campaign and/or are objective, and orderly. Towards this end, the State takes into account
nominated by political parties. The COMELEC supposedly erred in the practical considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the
disqualifying him since he is the most qualified among all the greater the number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for
presidential candidates, i.e., he possesses all the constitutional and logistical confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of time
legal qualifications for the office of the president, he is capable of and resources in preparation for the election. The organization of an
waging a national campaign since he has numerous national election with bona fide candidates standing is onerous enough. To
organizations under his leadership, he also has the capacity to wage add into the mix candidates with no serious intentions or capabilities
an international campaign since he has practiced law in other to run a viable campaign would actually impair the electoral process.
countries, and he has a platform of government. This is not to mention the candidacies which are palpably ridiculous
so as to constitute a one-note joke. The poll body would be bogged
ISSUE: by irrelevant minutiae covering every step of the electoral process,
most probably posed at the instance of these nuisance candidates. It
Is there a constitutional right to run for or hold public office? would be a senseless sacrifice on the part of the State.

RULING: The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not

is both legal and factual. The basis of the factual determination is not election registrar in case of highly urbanized cities, or an
before this Court. Thus, the remand of this case for the reception of officer designated by the Commission having jurisdiction
further evidence is in order. The SC remanded to the COMELEC for over the province, city or representative district who shall
the reception of further evidence, to determine the question on send copies thereof to all polling places in the province, city
whether petitioner Elly Velez Lao Pamatong is a nuisance candidate or district;
as contemplated in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.
(b) For provincial offices, with the provincial election
supervisor of the province concerned who shall send
Obiter Dictum: One of Pamatong's contentions was that he was an copies thereof to all polling places in the province;
international lawyer and is thus more qualified compared to the likes
of Erap, who was only a high school dropout. Under the Constitution
(c) For city and municipal offices, with the city or municipal
(Article VII, Section 2), the only requirements are the following: (1)
election registrar who shall send copies thereof to all
natural-born citizen of the Philippines; (2) registered voter; (3) able to
polling places in the city or municipality; and
read and write; (4) at least forty years of age on the day of the
election; and (5) resident of the Philippines for at least ten years
immediately preceding such election. (d) For punong barangay or kagawad ng sangguniang
barangay, the certificates of candidacy shall be filed in
At any rate, Pamatong was eventually declared a nuisance candidate accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of Article VI of
and was disqualified. this Code.

The duly authorized receiving officer shall immediately send the

LUNA VS COMELEC FACTS: Joy Chrisma Luna filed her certificate original copy of all certificates of candidacy received by him to the
of Candidacy as a substitute candidate for Hans Roger for the 2004 Commission.
elections a vice mayor of Lagayan Abra. However, Tomas Layao
together with several others filed a disqualification petition against Section 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or
her since she was a registered voter of Bangued and not Lagayan protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a
Abra. Furthermore there can be no valid substitution since Hans competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a)
Roger the candidate sought to be substituted was only 20 years old given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or
on the day of the election. COMELEC ruled in favor of the corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b)
disqualification case. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether the committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code;
there was no valid substitution by Luna for Hans Roger. Held: There (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under
was a valid substitution . The COMELEC may not, by itself, without Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80,
the proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a certificate of 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6,
candidacy filed in due form. In Sanchez v. Del Rosario, the Court shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been
ruled that the question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate for elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent
non-age is beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified
COMELEC. to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has
waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign
country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in
Section 75. Filing and distribution of certificate of candidacy. - The
certificate of candidacy shall be filed on any day from the the election laws.
commencement of the election period but not later than the day
before the beginning of the campaign period: Provided, That in cases
of postponement or failure of election under Sections 5 and 6 hereof,
no additional certificate of candidacy shall be accepted except in
cases of substitution of candidates as provided under Section 77
hereof.

The certificates of candidacy for President and Vice-President of the

Philippines shall be filed in ten legible copies with the Commission
which shall order the printing of copies thereof for distribution to all
polling places. The certificates of candidacy for the other offices shall
be filed in duplicate with the offices herein below mentioned, together
with a number of clearly legible copies equal to twice the number of
polling places in the province, city, district, municipality or barangay,
as the case may be:

(a) For representative in the Batasang Pambansa, with the

Commission, the provincial election supervisor, city