Bagumbayan-VNP vs COMELEC capability of providing a VVPAT.

 The COMELEC’s act of not enabling this

feature runs contrary to why the law requires this feature in the first
Facts: place.  ##

Bagumbayan-VNP and former Senator Gordon filed before the SC a

petition for mandamus to compel COMELEC to implement the Voter
The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc ordered the Commission on Elections
Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) which is a security feature provided
(Comelec) on Tuesday to enable the vote verification feature of the vote
under RA 8346, as amended by RA 9369, to ensure the sanctity of the
counting machines (VCMs) to be used in the May 9, 2016 elections.
ballot.  The VVPAT functionality is in the form of a printed receipt and a
However, receipts to be printed are not allowed to be taken out of voting
touch screen reflecting the votes in the vote-counting machine.  For the
precincts.
2016 elections, the COMELEC opted to use vote-counting machines
instead of PCOS.  The vote-counting machines are capable of providing In a press conference, SC Public Information Office (PIO) Chief and
the VVPAT functionality, and for that the COMELEC is now being Spokesman Atty. Theodore O. Te said:
petitioned to have the vote-counting machines issue receipts once the
person has voted.  The COMELEC, however, refused to enable this feature “In the matter of G.R. No. 222731 (Bagumbayan-VNP Movement Inc. and
for reasons that the receipts might be used by candidates in vote-buying Richard J. Gordon v. Comelec), the Court, voting 14-0, rendered the
and that it might increase the voting time in election precincts. following Judgment:

Issue:  W/N the COMELEC must activate the VVPAT feature of the vote- “WHEREFORE, the Petition for Mandamus is GRANTED. The Commission
counting machines on Elections is ORDERED to enable the vote verification feature of the
vote counting machines, which prints the voter’s choices without
Held: prejudice to the issuance of guidelines to regulate the release and
disposal of the issued receipts to ensure a clean, honest, and orderly
Yes.  The minimum functional capabilities enumerated under Section 6 of
elections such as, but not limited to, ensuring that after voter verification,
Republic Act 8436, as amended, are mandatory.
receipts should be deposited in a separate ballot box and not taken out of
The law is clear that a “voter  verified  paper  audit  trail”  requires  the the precinct.
following: (a) individual voters can verify whether the machines have
“SO ORDERED.”
been able to count their votes; and (b) that the verification at minimum
should be paper based.  Under the Constitution, the COMELEC is The decision was written by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
empowered to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of election, and one of the laws that it must implement is RA
8346 which requires the automated election system to have the
Gordon earlier asked the SC to compel the Comelec to activate the Voter validation.” “Voters who fail to submit for validation on or before the last
Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) feature of the automated election day of filing of application for registration for purposes of the May 2016
system to be used in the May 9 elections. elections shall be deactivated x  x x.”

Gordon, who was the principal author of Republic Act No. 9369, or the                 COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9721 as amended by
Automated Elections System Law, and the Bagumbayan-VNP Movement Resolutions No. 9863 and 10013. Among others, the said Resolution
Inc. filed a 24-page petition for mandamus. provides that: “the registration records of voters without biometrics data
who failed to submit for validation on or before the last day of filing of
They filed the petition after the Comelec announced that the seven
applications for registration for the purpose of the May 9, 2016 National
members of the Comelec En Banc unanimously decided against using the
and Local Elections shall be deactivated.
VVPAT because it could be used as a tool for vote-buying and would also
extend the voting period by seven hours.                 Herein petitioners filed the instant petition with application for
temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary mandatory
In the petition, Gordon argued that the Congress has the constitutional
injunction (WPI) assailing the constitutionality of the biometrics validation
duty to protect the sanctity of the ballot which is why he ensured that the
requirement imposed under RA 10367, as well as COMELEC Resolution
safeguards aimed to do this were injected in R.A. 9369.
Nos. 9721, 9863, and 10013, all related thereto.
The VVPAT system allows voters to verify if their ballots were cast
ISSUES:
correctly through the issuance of a receipt, showing the names of
candidates that they voted for. 1. Whether or not the statutory requirement of biometrics
validation is an unconstitutional requirement of literacy and
property.

Kabataan Party List v. COMELEC 2. Whether or not biometrics validation passes the strict scrutiny
test.
FACTS:
3. Whether or not Resolution No. 9863 which fixed the deadline for
                RA 10367 mandates the COMELEC to implement a mandatory validation on October 31, 2015 violates Section 8 of RA 8189.
biometrics registration system for new voters in order to establish a
clean, complete, permanent, and updated list of voters through the HELD:
adoption of biometric technology. FIRST ISSUE: No.
                RA 10367 likewise directs that “registered voters whose                 The Court held that biometrics validation is not a “qualification”
biometrics have not been captured shall submit themselves for to the exercise of the right of suffrage, but a mere aspect of the
registration procedure, of which the State has the right to reasonably of having flying voters, as well as dead and multiple registrants. The
regulate. foregoing consideration is unquestionably a compelling state interest.

                The Court reiterated their ruling in several cases that registration Biometrics validation is the least restrictive means for achieving the
regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage. It is not a qualification for above-said interest
such right. The process of registration is a procedural limitation on the
                Section 6 of Resolution No. 9721 sets the procedure for
right to vote.
biometrics validation, whereby the registered voter is only required to: (a)
                Thus, although one is deemed to be a “qualified elector,” he personally appear before the Office of the Election Officer; (b) present a
must nonetheless still comply with the registration procedure in order to competent evidence of identity; and (c) have his photo, signature, and
vote. fingerprints recorded.

                Thus, unless it is shown that a registration requirement rises to                 Moreover, RA 10367 and Resolution No. 9721 did not mandate
the level of a literacy, property or other substantive requirement as registered voters to submit themselves to validation every time there is
contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution -that is, one which an election. In fact, it only required the voter to undergo the validation
propagates a socio-economic standard which is bereft of any rational process one (1) time, which shall remain effective in succeeding elections,
basis to a person’s ability to intelligently cast his vote and to further the provided that he remains an active voter.
public good -the same cannot be struck down as unconstitutional, as in
                Lastly, the failure to validate did not preclude deactivated voters
this case.
from exercising their right to vote in the succeeding elections. To rectify
SECOND ISSUE: Yes. such status, they could still apply for reactivation.

                In applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of THIRD ISSUE: No.
compelling, rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the
                Section 8 of RA 8189 provides that:
absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest, and the
burden befalls upon the State to prove the same. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. – x x x No registration shall,
however, be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty
Presence of compelling state interest
(120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special
                Respondents have shown that the biometrics validation election.
requirement under RA 10367 advances a compelling state interest. It was
                The Court held that the 120-and 90-day periods stated therein
precisely designed to facilitate the conduct of orderly, honest, and
refer to the prohibitive period beyond which voter registration may no
credible elections by containing -if not eliminating, the perennial problem
longer be conducted. The subject provision does not mandate COMELEC
to conduct voter registration up to such time; rather, it only provides a writing the name of said candidate was to vote him for one of the offices
period which may not be reduced, but may be extended depending on specified on the ballot. Neither can there be any reasonable doubt that
the administrative necessities and other exigencies. the office for which the voter intended to vote said candidate was that of
provincial governor (1) because that was the office for which he was a
registered candidate, (2) because the space on which his name was
VILLAVERT vs Fornier written was such that the vote could not have been intended for a
member of the provincial board or for any other office specified farther
Facts: This is an election contest involving the office of provincial down in the ballot, and (3) because no other name was written on the
governor of Antique, the contending parties being the registered dotted line immediately following the words “Provincial Governor.” If the
candidates for said office in the election held on November 11, 1947. The intention of the voter can be ascertained in an indubitable manner, as in
provincial board of canvassers declared Alberto A. Villavert elected with a this case, it should be given effect not frustrated.
majority of 60 votes. Tobias Fornier protested, and the trial court found
that he had obtained a majority of 36 votes over Villavert and
consequently declared him elected. Villavert appealed to the Court of Brillantes vs. Jose De Venecia
Appeals and the latter also found that Tobias Fornier had won the
election with a majority of 28 votes.  Facts:

Issue: Whether or not the 40 ballots were properly rejected by the Court Comelec issued resolutions adopting an Automated Elections System
of Appeals on the ground that Villavert’s name was written not on the including the assailed resolution, Resolution 6712, which provides for the
dotted line following the words “Provincial Governor” but on the double electronic transmission of  advanced result of “unofficial” count.
line immediately above said words and below the instructions to the Petitioners claimed that the resolution would allow the preemption and
voter.  usurpation of the exclusive power of Congress to canvass the votes for
President and Vice-President and would likewise encroach upon the
Held: The 40 ballots were valid. The provision of section 135 of the
authority of NAMFREL, as the citizens’ accredited arm, to conduct the
Revised Election Code that the voter shall fill his ballot by writing in the
"unofficial" quick count as provided under pertinent election
proper space for each office the name of the person for whom he desires
laws. Comelec contended that the resolution was promulgated in the
to vote, does not necessarily invalidate votes cast for a candidate for
exercise of its executive and administrative power "to ensure free,
provincial governor whose name is written not on the dotted line
orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections” Comelec added that the
following the words “Provincial Governor” but on the double line
issue is beyond judicial determination.
immediately above said words and below the instructions to the voter.
The purpose of said provision is to identify the office for which each
candidate is voted. It cannot be doubted that the intention of the voter in
Issue:

Whether or not Comelec's promulgation of  Resolution 6712 was justified. BANAT v COMELEC
Ruling: Facts:
The Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of
excess of jurisdiction in issuing Resolution 6712. The issue squarely fell Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution, docketed as NBC
within the ambit of the expanded jurisdiction of the court. No. 07-041 (PL) before the NBC. BANAT filed its petition because "the
Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution, further bolstered by RA 8436, Chairman and the Members of the COMELEC have recently been quoted
vest upon Congress the sole and exclusive authority to officially canvass in the national papers that the COMELEC is duty bound to and shall
the votes for the elections of President and Vice-President. Section 27 of implement the Veterans ruling, that is, would apply the Panganiban
Rep. Act No. 7166, as amended by Rep. Act No. 8173, and reiterated in formula in allocating party-list seats."
Section 18 of Rep. Act No. 8436, solely authorize NAMFREL, the duly-      BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the ruling
accredited citizen’s arm to conduct the “unofficial counting of votes for in NBC Resolution No. 07-88. BANAT did not file a motion for
the national or local elections. The quick count under the guise of an reconsideration of NBC Resolution No. 07-88.
“unofficial” tabulation would not only be preemptive of the authority of
congress and NAMFREL, but would also be lacking constitutional and/or      On 9 July 2007, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the
statutory basis. Moreover, the assailed COMELEC resolution likewise COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to use the Veterans
contravened the constitutional provision that "no money shall be paid out formula as stated in its NBC Resolution No. 07-60 because the Veterans
of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law." It formula is violative of the Constitution and of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A.
being “unofficial”, any disbursement of public fund would be contrary to No. 7941). On the same day, the COMELEC denied reconsideration during
the provisions of the Constitution and Rep. Act No. 9206, which is the the proceedings of the NBC.
2003 General Appropriations Act.  Issue:
The Omnibus Election Code in providing the powers and functions of the  Considering the allegations in the petitions and the comments of the
Commission subjects the same to certain conditions with respect to the parties in these cases, we defined the following issues in our advisory for
adoption of the latest technological and electronic devices, to wit: the oral arguments set on 22 April 2008:
(1)consideration of the area and available funds (2) notification to all
political parties and candidates. The aforementioned conditions were      1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives in
found to have not been substantially met. Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely a ceiling?
     2. Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional? No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent
threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum
     3. Is the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of RA 7941
number of available party list seats when the number of available party
to qualify for one seat constitutional?
list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent
     4. How shall the party-list representative seats be allocated? threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the
attainment of the permissive ceiling.
     5. Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties from
participating in the party-list elections? If not, can the major political      In declaring the two percent threshold unconstitutional, we do not
parties be barred from participating in the party-list elections? limit our allocation of additional seats to the two-percenters. The
percentage of votes garnered by each party-list candidate is arrived at by
dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the
Held: total number of votes cast for party-list candidates. There are two steps
in the second round of seat allocation. First, the percentage is multiplied
 WHEREFORE we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the by the remaining available seats, 38, which is the difference between the
Resolution of the COMELEC dated 3 August 2007 in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) 55 maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System and the 17
as well as the Resolution dated 9 July 2007 in NBC No. 07-60. We declare guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer of the product
unconstitutional the two percent threshold in the distribution of of the percentage and of the remaining available seats corresponds to a
additional party-list seats. party’s share in the remaining available seats. Second, we assign one
party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats
are completely distributed. We distributed all of the remaining 38 seats in
Ratio: Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 mandates the filling-up the second round of seat allocation. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap
of the entire 20% allocation of party-list representatives found in the to determine the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is
Constitution. However, we cannot allow the continued existence of a entitled.
provision in the law which will systematically prevent the constitutionally
allocated 20% party-list representatives from being filled. The three-seat      Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political
cap, as a limitation to the number of seats that a qualified party-list parties from participating in the party-list system. On the contrary, the
organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory device that prevents framers of the Constitution clearly intended the major political parties to
any party from dominating the party-list elections. participate in party-list elections through their sectoral wings. In fact, the
members of the Constitutional Commission voted down, 19-22, any
     We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the permanent sectoral seats, and in the alternative the reservation of the
continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of party-list system to the sectoral groups. In defining a "party" that
the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. participates in party-list elections as either "a political party or a sectoral
party," R.A. No. 7941 also clearly intended that major political parties will each, a feat that would have entitled them to seat their members as
participate in the party-list elections. Excluding the major political parties party-list representatives. In contrast, only about 4% of the total number
in party-list elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of of the remaining parties, or only 8 out of the 155 parties garnered more
the Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. This Court cannot than 2%.
engage in socio-political engineering and judicially legislate the exclusion
     In sum, the evils that faced our marginalized and underrepresented
of major political parties from the party-list elections in patent violation
people at the time of the framing of the 1987 Constitution still haunt
of the Constitution and the law.
them today. It is through the party-list system that the Constitution
In view of the inclusion of major political parties (according to Puno, J.) sought to address this systemic dilemma. In ratifying the Constitution, our
people recognized how the interests of our poor and powerless sectoral
     The Court today effectively reversed the ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani v.
groups can be frustrated by the traditional political parties who have the
COMELEC with regard to the computation of seat allotments and the
machinery and chicanery to dominate our political institutions. If we
participation of major political parties in the party-list system. I vote for
allow major political parties to participate in the party-list system
the formula propounded by the majority as it benefits the party-list
electoral process, we will surely suffocate the voice of the marginalized,
system but I regret that my interpretation of Article VI, Section 5 of the
frustrate their sovereignty and betray the democratic spirit of the
Constitution with respect to the participation of the major political parties
Constitution. That opinion will serve as the graveyard of the party-list
in the election of party-list representatives is not in direct congruence
system.
with theirs, hence
     IN VIEW WHEREOF, I dissent on the ruling allowing the entry of major
     There is no gainsaying the fact that the party-list parties are no match
political parties into the party-list system.
to our traditional political parties in the political arena. This is borne out
in the party-list elections held in 2001 where major political parties were  
initially allowed to campaign and be voted for. The results confirmed the
In view of 2% being unconstitutional (according to Nachura, J.)
fear expressed by some commissioners in the Constitutional Commission
that major political parties would figure in the disproportionate      However, I wish to add a few words to support the proposition that the
distribution of votes: of the 162 parties which participated, the seven inflexible 2% threshold vote required for entitlement by a party-list group
major political parties made it to the top 50. These seven parties garnered to a seat in the House of Representatives in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941
an accumulated 9.54% of the total number of votes counted, yielding an is unconstitutional. This minimum vote requirement ─ fixed at 2% of the
average of 1.36% each, while the remaining 155 parties (including those total number of votes cast for the party list system ─ presents an
whose qualifications were contested) only obtained 90.45% or an average unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5 (2), Article
of 0.58% each. Of these seven, three parties or 42.8% of the total number VI, of the Philippine Constitution. As such, it effectively defeats the
of the major parties garnered more than 2% of the total number of votes declared constitutional policy, as well as the legislative objective
expressed in the enabling law, to allow the people’s broadest 6. if no threshold is imposed, this will actually proliferate political party
representation in Congress,the raison d’etre for the adoption of the groups and those who have not really been given by the people sufficient
party-list system. basis for them to represent their constituents and, in turn, they will be
able to get to the Parliament through the backdoor under the name of
     Today, a little over eight (8) years after this Court’s decision in Veterans
the party-list system; and
Federation Party, we see that in the 14th Congress, 55 seats are allocated
to party-list representatives, using the Veterans formula. But that figure 7. to ensure that only those with a more or less substantial following can
(of 55) can never be realized, because the 2% threshold vote requirement be represented.9
makes it mathematically impossible to have more than 50 seats. After all,
     However, with the burgeoning of the population, the steady increase
the total number of votes cast for the party-list system can never exceed
in the party-list seat allotment as it keeps pace with the creation of
100%.
additional legislative districts, and the foreseeable growth of party-list
    Lest I be misunderstood, I do not advocate doing away completely with groups, the fixed 2% vote requirement is no longer viable. It does not
a threshold vote requirement. The need for such a minimum vote adequately respond to the inevitable changes that come with time; and it
requirement was explained in careful and elaborate detail by Chief Justice is, in fact, inconsistent with the Constitution, because it prevents the
Puno in his separate concurring opinion in Veterans Federation Party. I fundamental law from ever being fully operative.
fully agree with him that a minimum vote requirement is needed --
It is correct to say, and I completely agree with Veterans Federation
1. to avoid a situation where the candidate will just use the party-list Party, that Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, is not mandatory,
system as a fallback position; that it merely provides a ceiling for the number of party-list seats in
Congress. But when the enabling law, R.A. 7941, enacted by Congress for
2. to discourage nuisance candidates or parties, who are not ready and
the precise purpose of implementing the constitutional provision,
whose chances are very low, from participating in the elections;
contains a condition that places the constitutional ceiling completely
3. to avoid the reserve seat system by opening up the system; beyond reach, totally impossible of realization, then we must strike down
the offending condition as an affront to the fundamental law. This is not
4. to encourage the marginalized sectors to organize, work hard, and earn simply an inquiry into the wisdom of the legislative measure; rather it
their seats within the system; involves the duty of this Court to ensure that constitutional provisions
5. to enable sectoral representatives to rise to the same majesty as that remain effective at all times. No rule of statutory construction can save a
of the elected representatives in the legislative body, rather than owing particular legislative enactment that renders a constitutional provision
to some degree their seats in the legislative body either to an outright inoperative and ineffectual.
constitutional gift or to an appointment by the President of the
Philippines;
 passport. In 1991, Poe married Teodoro Llamanzares and flew to the US
right after the wedding.

She then gave birth to her eldest child in the US. In 2001, Poe became a
Poe-Llamanzares vs COMELEC naturalized American

FACTS: Citizen and she obtained a US Passport that same year.

Grace Poe (Poe) was found abandoned in a church in Jaro Iloilo sometime In April 2004, Poe came back to the Philippines in order to support her
1968. Parental care was father’s candidacy. It was

passed to the relatives of Edgardo Militar, the person who found the at this time that she gave birth to her youngest daughter. She then
child. The relatives then returned to the US in July 2004

reported and registered the child as a founding with the Civil Registrar of with her two daughters. Poe returned in December 2004 after learning of
Iloilo. The child was then her father’s

named Mary Grace Militar. The child was subsequently adopted by deteriorating condition. The latter died and Poe stayed until February
Fernando Poe, Jr and Susan 2005 to take care of the

Roces sometime in 1974. Necessary annotations were placed in the funeral arrangements.
child’s foundling certificate Poe stated that she wanted to be with her grieving mother hence, she
but it was only in 2005 that Susan Roces discovered that their lawyer and her husband decided
failed to secure a new to move and reside permanently in the Philippines sometime first quarter
Certificate of Live Birth indicating Poe’s new name as well as the name of of 2005. They prepared
the adoptive parents. for resettlement including notification of their children’s schools,
Roces then submitted an affidavit and in 2006, a Certificate of Live Birth in coordination with property
the name of Mary Grace movers and inquiry with Philippine authorities as to how they can bring
Poe was released by the Civil Registry of Iloilo. their pet dog. According

At the age of 18, Poe was registered as a voter of San Juan. In 1988, she to Poe, as early as 2004, she already quit her job in the US.
was issued a Philippine
Poe came home on May 24, 2005 and immediately secured a TIN while she executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the US before a
her husband stayed in the notary public in Pasig

US. She and her family stayed with her mother until she and husband was City on October 20, 2010. The following day, she submitted the Affidavit
able to purchase a to the Bureau of

condominium in San Juan sometime February 2006. On February 14, Immigration and took her oath as MTRCB Chairperson. According to Poe,
2006, Poe returned to the she stopped using her

US to dispose the other family belongings. She travelled back in March American passport from then on.
2006. In early 2006, Poe
On July 12, 2011, Poe executed an Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of
and husband acquired a property in Corinthian Hills in Quezon City where Nationality of the US
they built their family
before the Vice Consul of the US Embassy in Manila. On December 9,
home. 2011, the US Vice Consul

On July 7, 2006, Poe took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the US effective October 21,
Philippines pursuant to R.A. 2010.

9225. On July 10, 2006, she filed a sworn petition to reacquire Philippine On October 2, 2012, Poe filed with COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy
citizenship together with for Senator stating that

petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her three children. The she was a resident of the Philippines for a period of 6 years and 6 months
Bureau of Immigration before May 13, 2013.

acted in favor of the petition on July 18, 2006. She and her children were She was then proclaimed a Senator on May 16, 2013.
then considered dual
On October 15, 2015, Poe filed her COC for the Presidency for the May
citizens. Poe then registered as voter in August 2006 and secured a 2016 elections. She
Philippine passport thereafter.
declared that she is a natural born and her residence in the Philippine up
On October 6, 2010, she was appointed as Chairperson of the MTRCB. to the day before election
Before assuming her post,
would be 10 years and 11 months counted from May 24, 2005.
Several petitions were filed against Poe alleging that (1) she committed 3. International conventions are not self-executory hence, local
material legislations are necessary to

misrepresentation in her COC when she stated that she is a resident of give effect to obligations assumed by the Philippines.
the Philippines for at least
4. There is no standard practice that automatically confers natural born
10 years 11 months up to the day before May 9, 2016 Elections, (2) she is status to foundlings.
not natural born

considering that Poe is a foundling. It was argued that international law

Petitioner Valdez alleged that Poe’s repatriation under R.A 9225 did not
does not confer natural
bestow upon her the
born status and Filipino citizenship to foundlings hence, she is not
status of a natural born citizen as those who repatriates only acquires
qualified to apply for
Philippine citizenship and
reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under R.A.9225 as she is not a natural
not their original status as natural born citizens.
citizen to begin with.
Poe countered these petitions by alleging that:
Assuming that Poe was a natural born citizen, she lost it when she
became a US Citizen. 1. The grounds invoked by the petitioners were not proper grounds for a
disqualification case
In addition, one of the petitioners, Francisco Tatad, theorized that:
as enumerated under Section 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.
1. Philippines adhere to the principle of jus sanguinis and hence persons
of unknown 2. What the petitioners filed focus on establishing her ineligibility, hence,
they fall within the
parentage, particularly foundlings, are not natural born Filipino citizens.
exclusive jurisdiction of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, not the
2. Using statutory construction, considering that foundlings were not
COMELEC.
expressly included in
3. The July 18, 2006 Order of the Bureau of Immigration declaring her as
the categories of citizens in the 1935 Constitution, the framers are said to
natural born, her
have the
appointment as MTRCB Chair and the issuance of the decree of adoption
intention to exclude them
reinforced her
position as a natural born citizen itself from going into the issue of qualifications of the candidate. It
cannot, in the same
4. As early as first quarter of 2005, she started to reestablish her domicile
in the Philippines cancellation case, decide the qualification or lack thereof of a candidate.
Not one of the
and that she can reestablish her domicile of choice even before she
renounced her enumerated powers of the COMELEC as stated in Article IX C, Sec. 2 of the
Constitution grants the
American citizenship.
commission the power to determine the qualifications of a candidate.
5. The period of residency as stated in her COC for senator was a mistake
Such powers are granted
in good faith.
to the Electoral Tribunal as stated in Article VI Section 17 and the
COMELEC ruled against the petitioner resolving that she is not a natural
Supreme Court under Article VII,
born citizen and that she
Section 4 of the Constitution.
failed to complete the 10 year residency requirement. Hence, the present
petition for certiorari Insofar as the qualification of a candidate is concerned, Rule 25 and Rule
23 of the COMELEC rules
before the Supreme Court.
do not allow, are not authorization and are not vestment of jurisdiction
for the COMELEC to
ISSUES AND RATIO:
determine the qualification of a candidate. The facts of qualification must
1) Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to disqualify POE first be established in a

The procedure and the conclusions from which the Resolutions of the prior proceeding before an authority vested with jurisdiction. Prior
COMELEC emanated are determination of qualification

tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. may be by statute, by an executive order or by a judgment of a
competent court or tribunal.
The issue before the COMELEC is whether the COC should be denied due
course ‘on the exclusive Lacking this prior determination, the certificate of candidacy cannot be
cancelled or denied due
ground’ that she made in the certificate a false material representation.
COMELEC should restrain
course on ground of false representations regarding a candidate’s 1975, the total number of foreigners born in the Philippines was 15,985.
qualifications except if there While the Filipinos born

exists self-evident facts of unquestioned or unquestionable veracity and in the country were more than 10 Million. On this basis, there is a 99%
judicial confessions. In chance that the child born

this light the COMELEC cannot cancel Poe’s certificate of candidacy in the Philippines would be a Filipino which in turn, would indicate more
lacking prior determination of than ample probability

her qualifications by a competent body. that Poe’s parents are Filipinos.

Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of Poe’s parents are the

fact that:
2) Whether it can be concluded that Poe’s parents are Filipinos.
1. She was abandoned in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo
Presumption regarding paternity is neither unknown nor unacceptable in
Philippine Law. There is 2. She has typical Filipino features

more than sufficient evidence that Poe has Filipino parents and is There are disputable presumptions that things have happened according
therefore a natural-born Filipino. to the ordinary course

Hence, the burden of proof was on private respondents to show that of nature. On this basis, it is safer to assume that Poe’s parents are
petitioner is not a Filipino Filipinos. To assume otherwise

citizen. is to accept the absurd.

Private respondents should show that Poe’s parents were aliens. Her
admission that she is a
3) Whether as a foundling, Poe is a natural born Citizen
foundling did not shift the burden to her because such status did not
Foundlings are as a class, natural born citizens. While the 1935
exclude the possibility that
Constitution is silent as to
her parents were Filipinos. In fact, there is a high probability that her
foundlings, there is no restrictive language that would exclude them
parents are Filipinos. The
either. Because of silence
Solicitor General offered official Statistics from the Philippine Statistics
office that from 1965 to
and ambiguity in the enumeration, there is a need to examine the intent Hence, the argument that as a foundling, Poe underwent a process in
of the framers. order to acquire or perfect

The amendment to the Constitution proposed by constitutionalist Rafols her Philippine citizenship, is untenable.
to include foundlings as
“Having to perform an act” means that the act must be personally done
natural born citizens was not carried out, not because there was any by the citizen. In this case,
objection to the notion that
the determination of foundling status was done by authorities, not by
persons of unknown parentage are not citizens, but only because their Poe. Second, the object of
number was not enough
the process is to determine the whereabouts of the parents, not the
to merit specific mention. There was no intent or language that would citizenship of the child and
permit discrimination
lastly, the process is not analogous to naturalization proceedings.
against foundlings. On the contrary, all three Constitutions guarantee the
Under international law, foundlings are citizens. Generally accepted
basic right to equal
principles of international law
protection of the laws. Likewise, domestic laws on adoption support the
which include international customs form part of the laws of the land.
principle that foundlings
The common thread of the
are Filipinos. These laws do not provide that adoption confers citizenship
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of
upon the adoptee,
the Child and the
rather, the adoptee must be Filipino in the first place to be adopted.
International Convent on Civil and Political Rights obligates the
Recent legislation all expressly
Philippines to grant nationality
refer to “Filipino children” and include foundlings as among Filipino
from birth and to ensure that no child is stateless. The principles stated in
children who may be adopted.
the:
The argument that the process to determine that the child is a foundling
1. Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relation to the Conflict of
leading to the issuance
Nationality laws (that a
of a foundling certificate are acts to acquire or perfect Philippine
foundling is presumed to have the nationality of the country of birth)
citizenship is without merit.
2. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (foundling is presumed international law to presume foundlings as having been born and a
born of citizens of national of the country in which

the country where he is found) it is found.

bind the Philippines although we are not signatory to these conventions. Hence, as a foundling, Poe is a natural born Filipino citizen.

Although we are not a signatory to the Hague Convention, we are a

signatory to the Universal
4) Whether Poe’s repatriation resulted to reacquisition of natural born
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which affirms Article 14 of the citizenship.
Hague Convention. Likewise,
The COMELEC arrogantly disregarded jurisprudence on the matter of
the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness affirms Article 15 of the repatriation which states
UDHR. By analogy,
that repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. A
although the Philippines has not signed the International Convention for natural born citizen before
the Protection of Persons
he lost his Philippine nationality will be restored to his former status as
from Enforced Disappearance, we (the Supreme Court) ruled that the natural born Filipino after
proscription against
repatriation (Benson v. HRET, Pareno v. Commission on Audit etc). In
enforced disappearance was nonetheless binding as a generally accepted passing R.A. 9225, Congress
principle of international
saw it fit to decree that natural born citizenship may be reacquired even if
law. it has been lost. It is

Poe’s evidence shows that at least 60 countries in Asia, North and South not for the COMELEC to disagree with the Congress’ determination.
America and Europe have
Neither is repatriation an act to ‘acquire or perfect’ one’s citizenship. In
passed legislation recognizing foundlings as its citizens. 166 out of 189 the case of Bengson, the
countries accept that
Court pointed out that there are only two types of citizens under the
foundlings are recognized as citizens. Hence, there is a generally accepted 1987 constitution: natural
principle of
born and naturalized. There is no third category for repatriated citizens.
The COMELEC cannot
reverse a judicial precedent. Hence, COMELEC’s decision is wrapped with well as with the pet Bureau; school records of her children showing
grave abuse of enrolment in the Philippine to

discretion. the Philippine schools starting on June 2005 etc.

COMELEC refused to consider the petitioner’s domicile has been timely

changed as of May 24,
5) Whether Poe is a resident of the Philippine for 10 years
2005 and maintained that although there is physical presence and animus
Poe alleged that her residency should be counted from May 24, 2005
manendi, there is no
when she returned for good
animus revertendi. Respondents contend that the stay of an alien former
from the US. There are three requisites to acquire a new domicile 1.
Filipino cannot be
Residence or bodily presence
counted until he/she obtains a permanent resident visa or reacquired
in a new locality 2. Intention to remain (animus manendi) and 3. Intention
Philippine citizenship since
to abandon the old
she is still an American until July 7, 2006 on the basis of previous cases
domicile (animus non-revertendi). The purpose to remain in or at the
ruled upon by the Supreme
domicile of choice must be
Court.
for an indefinite period of time, the change of residence must be
voluntary and the residence at SC held that the other cases previously decided by the court wherein
residence was counted only
the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.
from the acquisition of permanent residence were decided as such
Poe presented voluminous evidence showing that she and her family
because there is sparse
abandoned their US domicile
evidence on establishment of residence. These cases cannot be applied in
and relocated to the Philippines for good. These evidence include former
the present case. In the
US passport showing
case at bar, there is overwhelming evidence that leads to no to other
her arrival on May 24, 2005 and her return to the Philippines every time
conclusion that Poe decided
she travelled abroad,
to permanently abandon her US residence and reside in the Philippines as
email correspondences with freight company to arrange for the shipment
early as May 24, 2005.
of household items as
These evidences, coupled with her eventual application to reacquire We are not unaware that the term of office of the local officials elected in
Philippine citizenship is clear the May 2010 elections has already ended on June 30, 2010. Arnado,
therefore, has successfully finished his term of office. While the relief
that when she returned in May 2005, it was for good.
sought can no longer be granted, ruling on the motion for reconsideration
The stamp in her passport as a balikbayan does not make Poe an ordinary is important as it will either affirm the validity of Arnados election or
transient. affirm that Arnado never qualified to run for public office.

Poe was able to prove that her statement in her 2012 COC was only a Respondent failed to advance any argument to support his plea for the
mistake in good faith. Such reversal of this Courts Decision dated April 16, 2013. Instead, he
presented his accomplishments as the Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del
a mistake could be given in evidence against her but it was by no means Norte and reiterated that he has taken the Oath of Allegiance not only
conclusive considering twice but six times. It must be stressed, however, that the relevant
the overwhelming evidence submitted by Poe. Considering that the question is the efficacy of his renunciation of his foreign citizenship and
COMELEC failed to take into not the taking of the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
Neither do his accomplishments as mayor affect the question before this
consideration these overwhelming evidence, its decision is tainted with Court.
grave abuse of discretion.

The decision of the COMELEC is hereby annulled and set aside. Poe is thus
declared qualified to ISSUE: Whether or not a dual citizen can run for a local elective
position?
be a candidate for President in the National and Local Election on May 9,
2016.
HELD: Motion for Reconsideration denied.

REMEDIAL LAW: judicial notice of foreign laws

Macquiling v. COMELEC
Respondent cites Section 349 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act
FACTS: of the United States as having the effect of expatriation when he
This Resolution resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed by executed his Affidavit of Renunciation of American Citizenship on April 3,
respondent on May 10, 2013 and the Supplemental Motion for 2009 and thus claims that he was divested of his American citizenship. If
Reconsideration filed on May 20, 2013. indeed, respondent was divested of all the rights of an American citizen,
the fact that he was still able to use his US passport after executing his position, indicates a policy that anyone who seeks to run for public office
Affidavit of Renunciation repudiates this claim. must be solely and exclusively a Filipino citizen. To allow a former Filipino
who reacquires Philippine citizenship to continue using a foreign passport
The Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws,which must be
which indicates the recognition of a foreign state of the individual as its
presented as public documentsof a foreign country and must be
national even after the Filipino has renounced his foreign citizenship, is to
"evidenced by an official publication thereof."Mere reference to a foreign
allow a complete disregard of this policy.
law in a pleading does not suffice for it to be considered in deciding a
case. Further, we respectfully disagree that the majority decision rules on a
situation of doubt.
Respondent likewise contends that this Court failed to cite any law of the
United States "providing that a person who is divested of American POLITICAL LAW: dual citizens ineligible for local public office
citizenship thru an Affidavit of Renunciation will re-acquire such American
Indeed, there is no doubt that Section 40(d) of the Local Government
citizenship by using a US Passport issued prior to expatriation."
Code disqualifies those with dual citizenship from running for local
American law does not govern in this jurisdiction. Instead, Section 40(d) elective positions.
of the Local Government Code calls for application in the case before us,
There is likewise no doubt that the use of a passport is a positive
given the fact that at the time Arnado filed his certificate of candidacy, he
declaration that one is a citizen of the country which issued the passport,
was not only a Filipino citizen but, by his own declaration, also an
or that a passport proves that the country which issued it recognizes the
American citizen. It is the application of this law and not of any foreign
person named therein as its national.
law that serves as the basis for Arnados disqualification to run for any
local elective position. It is unquestioned that Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen, or that he
acquired American citizenship by naturalization. There is no doubt that he
With all due respect to the dissent, the declared policy of Republic Act
reacquired his Filipino citizenship by taking his Oath of Allegiance to the
No. (RA) 9225 is that "all Philippine citizens who become citizens of
Philippines and that he renounced his American citizenship. It is also
another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine
indubitable that after renouncing his American citizenship, Arnado used
citizenship under the conditions of this Act."This policy pertains to the
his U.S. passport at least six times.
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. Section 5(2)requires those who
have re-acquired Philippine citizenship and who seek elective public If there is any remaining doubt, it is regarding the efficacy of Arnados
office, to renounce any and all foreign citizenship. renunciation of his American citizenship when he subsequently used his
U.S. passport. The renunciation of foreign citizenship must be complete
This requirement of renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship, when
and unequivocal. The requirement that the renunciation must be made
read together with Section 40(d) of the Local Government Codewhich
through an oath emphasizes the solemn duty of the one making the oath
disqualifies those with dual citizenship from running for any elective local
of renunciation to remain true to what he has sworn to. Allowing the None of these dates coincide with the two other dates indicated in the
subsequent use of a foreign passport because it is convenient for the certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration showing that on 21
person to do so is rendering the oath a hollow act. It devalues the act of January 2010 and on 23 March 2010, Arnado arrived in the Philippines
taking of an oath, reducing it to a mere ceremonial formality. using his U.S. Passport No. 057782700 which also indicated therein that
his nationality is USA-American. Adding these two travel dates to the
The dissent states that the Court has effectively left Arnado "a man
travel record provided by the Bureau of Immigration showing that Arnado
without a country".On the contrary, this Court has, in fact, found Arnado
also presented his U.S. passport four times (upon departure on 14 April
to have more than one. Nowhere in the decision does it say that Arnado
2009, upon arrival on 25 June 2009, upon departure on 29 July 2009 and
is not a Filipino citizen. What the decision merely points out is that he also
upon arrival on 24 November 2009), these incidents sum up to six.
possessed another citizenship at the time he filed his certificate of
candidacy. The COMELEC En Banc concluded that "the use of the US passport was
because to his knowledge, his Philippine passport was not yet issued to
Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of administrative bodies will
him for his use."This conclusion, however, is not supported by the facts.
not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of grave abuse of
Arnado claims that his Philippine passport was issued on 18 June 2009.
discretion on the part of said agencies, or unless the aforementioned
The records show that he continued to use his U.S. passport even after he
findings are not supported by substantial evidence.They are accorded not
already received his Philippine passport. Arnados travel records show that
only great respect but even finality, and are binding upon this Court,
he presented his U.S. passport on 24 November 2009, on 21 January
unless it is shown that the administrative body had arbitrarily disregarded
2010, and on 23 March 2010. These facts were never refuted by Arnado.
or misapprehended evidence before it to such an extent as to compel a
contrary conclusion had such evidence been properly appreciated. Thus, the ruling of the COMELEC En Banc is based on a misapprehension
of the facts that the use of the U.S. passport was discontinued when
Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that COMELEC First Division found
Arnado obtained his Philippine passport. Arnados continued use of his
that Arnado used his U.S. Passport at least six times after he renounced
U.S. passport cannot be considered as isolated acts contrary to what the
his American citizenship. This was debunked by the COMELEC En Banc,
dissent wants us to believe.
which found that Arnado only used his U.S. passport four times, and
which agreed with Arnados claim that he only used his U.S. passport on It must be stressed that what is at stake here is the principle that only
those occasions because his Philippine passport was not yet issued. The those who are exclusively Filipinos are qualified to run for public office. If
COMELEC En Banc argued that Arnado was able to prove that he used his we allow dual citizens who wish to run for public office to renounce their
Philippine passport for his travels on the following dates: 12 January foreign citizenship and afterwards continue using their foreign passports,
2010, 31 January 2010, 31 March 2010, 16 April 2010, 20 May 2010, and 4 we are creating a special privilege for these dual citizens, thereby
June 2010. effectively junking the prohibition in Section 40(d) of the Local
Government Code.
 Affidavit of Renunciation. Thus, he was disqualified to run for public office
for failure to comply with the requirements of RA 9225. The COMELEC
Arnado vs COMELEC First Division accordingly nullified his proclamation and held that the rule
on succession should be followed.
Facts:
In the meantime, Maquiling, another mayoralty candidate who garnered
Petitioner Arnado is a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine
the second highest number of votes, intervened in the case. He argued
citizenship after he was naturalized as citizen of the USA.
that the COMELEC First Division erred in applying the rule on succession.
Subsequently, and in preparation for his plans to run for public office in
The COMELEC En Banc reversed the ruling of the COMELEC First Division.
the Philippines, Arnado applied for repatriation under RA 9225 before the
It held that Arnado's use of his US passport did not operate to revert his
Consul General of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA.
status to dual citizenship; that he continued to use his US passport
He took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on July because he did not yet know that he had been issued a Philippine
10, 2008 and, on even date, an Order of Approval of Citizenship Retention passport at the time of the relevant foreign trips; and that, after receiving
and Re acquisition was issued in his favor. On April 3, 2009, Arnado his Philippine passport, Arnado used the same for his subsequent trips.
executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship.
Maquiling then appealed to the SC. While Maquiling’s petition was
On November 30, 2009, Arnado filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for pending, the period for the filing of CoCs for local elective officials for the
the mayoralty post of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte for the May 10, 2010 May 13, 2013 elections officially began. On October 1, 2012, Petitioner
national and local elections. Arnado filed his CoC for the same position. Respondent Capitan also filed
his CoC for the mayoralty post of Kauswagan.
Balua, another mayoralty candidate filed a petition to disqualify
Petitioner Arnado and/or to cancel his CoC on the ground that Arnado Before the May 2013 elections, the SC ruled on the Maquiling petition. It
remained a US citizen because he continued to use his US passport for set aside the COMELEC en banc’s resolution and disqualified Petitioner
entry to and exit from the Philippines after executing aforesaid Affidavit Arnado from running for elective position, and declared Maquiling as the
of Renunciation. duly elected mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao Del Norte in the May 2010
elections and that the subsequent use of his US passport, Petitioner
While Balua's petition remained pending, the May 10, 2010 elections
Arnado effectively disavowed or recalled his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of
proceeded where Arnado garnered the highest number of votes and was
Renunciation. The issuance of the Maquiling Decision sets the stage for
proclaimed the winning candidate.
the present controversy.
On October 5, 2010, the COMELEC First Division issued held that Arnado's
continued use of his US passport effectively negated his April 3, 2009
Shortly after the Maquiling Decision, Petitioner Arnado executed an the same was deemed withdrawn or recalled when he subsequently
Affidavit Affirming Rommel C. Arnado's "Affidavit of Renunciation Dated traveled abroad using his US passport, as held in Maquiling case.
April 3, 2009.”
Issue: Whether Petitioner Arnado is qualified to run
Private Respondent Capitpan, Petitioner Arnado’s lone rival in the May
Held: No. The Petition is devoid of merit. COMELEC’s decision is affirmed.
2013 elections, filed a Petition seeking to disqualify him from running for
municipal mayor of Kauswagan and/or to cancel his CoC based on the Under Section 4(d) of the Local Government Code, a person with "dual
ruling of this Court in Maquiling. citizenship" is disqualified from running for any elective local position.
The phrase "dual citizenship" in said Section 4(d) must be understood as
Arguments:
referring to "dual allegiance.''
Petitioner: That the Maquiling case is not on all fours with the present
RA 9225 allowed natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost
controversy; that Capitan's Petition was filed beyond the 25-day
their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization abroad to
reglementary period reckoned from the filing of the CoC sought to be
reacquire Philippine citizenship and to enjoy full civil and political rights
cancelled; and, that the Comelec must uphold the sovereign will of the
upon compliance with the requirements of the law. They may now run for
people of Kauswagan who expressed, thru the ballots, their
public office in the Philippines provided that they:
overwhelming support for him as their mayor. Arnado prayed that the
Comelec Second Division's September 6, 2013 Resolution be reversed and (1) meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by
that he be declared as eligible to run for mayor of Kauswagan. Petitioner the Constitution and existing laws; and,
Arnado avers that his former counsel, revealed that he executed an
Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Allegiance on November 30, 2009. (2) make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
Hence, at the time he filed his CoC on October 1, 2012, he is a citizen of citizenships before any public officer authorized to administer an oath
the Philippines who does not owe allegiance to any other country and, prior to or at the time of filing of their CoC.
therefore, is qualified to run for mayor of Kauswagan in the May 13, 2013 In this case, Arnado failed to comply with the second requisite because,
elections. as held inMaquiling v. Commission on Elections, his April 3, 2009 Affidavit
Respondent COMELEC: It disqualified Petitioner Arnado from running in of Renunciation was deemed withdrawn when he used his US passport
the May 2013 elections. That at the time he filed his CoC on October 1, after executing said affidavit. Consequently, at the time he filed his CoC
2012, Arnado still failed to comply with the requirement of RA 9225 of on October 1, 2012 for purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections, Arnado
making a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign had yet to comply with said second requirement. The Comelec also noted
citizenship. While he executed the April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation, that while Arnado submitted an affidavit dated May 9, 2013, affirming his
April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation, the same would not suffice for
having been belatedly executed.
It is worth noting that the reason for Arnado's disqualification to run for when he was still a Congressman of Ilocos Norte and was registered there
public office during the 2010 elections — being a candidate without total as a voter.  When Pres. Marcos was elected as Senator in 1959, they lived
and undivided allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines - still subsisted together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter.  In 1965,
when he filed his CoC for the 2013 elections on October 1, 2012. The when Marcos won presidency, they lived in Malacanang Palace and
Comelec En Banc merely adhered to the ruling of this Court registered as a voter in San Miguel Manila.  She served as member of the
in Maquiling lest it would be committing grave abuse of discretion had it Batasang Pambansa and Governor of Metro Manila during 1978.
departed therefrom.
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos was running for the position of Representative
The use of a foreign passport amounts to repudiation or recantation of of the First District of Leyte for the 1995 Elections.  Cirilo Roy Montejo,
the oath of renunciation. Arnado's use of his US passport in 2009 the incumbent Representative of the First District of Leyte and also a
invalidated his oath of renunciation resulting in his disqualification to run candidate for the same position, filed a “Petition for Cancellation and
for mayor of Kauswagan in the 2010 elections. Since then and up to the Disqualification" with the Commission on Elections alleging that petitioner
time he filed his CoC for the 2013 elections, Arnado had not cured the did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency.  The
defect in his qualification. Maquiling, therefore, is binding on and petitioner, in an honest misrepresentation, wrote seven months under
applicable to this case. residency, which she sought to rectify by adding the words "since
childhood" in her Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy filed on
March 29, 1995 and that "she has always maintained Tacloban City as her
domicile or residence.  She arrived at the seven months residency due to
the fact that she became a resident of the Municipality of Tolosa in said
months.
Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC ISSUE: Whether petitioner has satisfied the 1year residency requirement
to be eligible in running as representative of the First District of Leyte.
FACTS:
HELD:
Imelda, a little over 8 years old, in or about 1938, established her domicile
in Tacloban, Leyte where she studied and graduated high school in the Residence is used synonymously with domicile for election purposes.  The
Holy Infant Academy from 1938 to 1949.  She then pursued her college court are in favor of a conclusion supporting petitoner’s claim of legal
degree, education, in St. Paul’s College now Divine Word University also residence or domicile in the First District of Leyte despite her own
in Tacloban.  Subsequently, she taught in Leyte Chinese School still in declaration of 7 months residency in the district for the following reasons:
Tacloban.  She went to manila during 1952 to work with her cousin, the
late speaker Daniel Romualdez in his office in the House of
Representatives.  In 1954, she married late President Ferdinand Marcos
1.  A minor follows domicile of her parents.  Tacloban became Imelda’s Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Representative of
domicile of origin by operation of law when her father brought them to the First District of Leyte.
Leyte; 

2.  Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual removal or change

of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence Aquino v COMELEC
and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with the purpose. 
Relevant Provisions:
In the absence and concurrence of all these, domicile of origin should be
deemed to continue.   Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
3.  A wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile because the No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he
term “residence” in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election,
Law.  When Imelda married late President Marcos in 1954, she kept her is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the
domicile of origin and merely gained a new home and not domicilium party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he
necessarium.   shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one
year immediately preceding the day of the election.
4.  Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her marriage and
acquired right to choose a new one only after the death of Pres. Marcos, Facts:
her actions upon returning to the country clearly indicated that she chose
Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice.  To add, On 20 March 1995, Agapito A. Aquino, the petitioner, filed his Certificate
petitioner even obtained her residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, of Candidacy for the position of Representative for the new (remember:
Leyte while living in her brother’s house, an act, which supports the newly created) Second Legislative District of Makati City. In his certificate
domiciliary intention clearly manifested.  She even kept close ties by of candidacy, Aquino stated that he was a resident of the aforementioned
establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other district (284 Amapola Cor. Adalla Sts., Palm Village, Makati) for 10
important milestones. months.

WHEREFORE, having determined that petitioner possesses the necessary Move Makati, a registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of
residence qualifications to run for a seat in the House of Representatives LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to
in the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC's questioned Resolutions dated disqualify Aquino on the ground that the latter lacked the residence
April 24, May 7, May 11, and May 25, 1995 are hereby SET ASIDE. qualification as a candidate for congressman which under Section 6,
Respondent COMELEC is hereby directed to order the Provincial Board of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, should be for a period not less than
one year preceding the (May 8, 1995) day of the election.
Faced with a petition for disqualification, Aquino amended the entry on I remember that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there was an
his residency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 year and 13 days. The attempt to require residence in the place not less than one year
Commission on Elections passed a resolution that dismissed the petition immediately preceding the day of elections.
on May 6 and allowed Aquino to run in the election of 8 May. Aquino,
…
with 38,547 votes, won against Augusto Syjuco with 35,910 votes.
What is the Committee’s concept of residence for the legislature? Is it
Move Makati filed a motion of reconsideration with the Comelec, to
actual residence or is it the concept of domicile or constructive
which, on May 15, the latter acted with an order suspending the
residence?
proclamation of Aquino until the Commission resolved the issue. On 2
June, the Commission on Elections found Aquino ineligible and Mr. Davide:
disqualified for the elective office for lack of constitutional qualification of
residence. This is in the district, for a period of not less than one year preceding the
day of election. This was in effect lifted from the 1973 constituition, the
Aquino then filed a Petition of Certiorari assailing the May 15 and June 2 interpretation given to it was domicile.
orders.
Mrs. Braid:
Issue:
On section 7, page2, Noledo has raised the same point that resident has
1. Whether “residency” in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes been interpreted at times as a matter of intention rather than actual
“domicile” to warrant the disqualification of Aquino from the position in residence.
the electoral district.
…
2. WON it is proven that Aquino has established domicile of choice and
not just residence (not in the sense of the COC)in the district he was Mr. De los Reyes
running in. So we have to stick to the original concept that it should be by domicile
Held: and not physical and actual residence.

1. Yes, The term “residence” has always been understood as synonymous Therefore, the framers intended the word “residence” to have the same
with “domicile” not only under the previous constitutions but also under meaning of domicile.
the 1987 Constitution. The Court cited the deliberations of the The place “where a party actually or constructively has his permanent
Constitutional Commission wherein this principle was applied. home,” where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time,
Mr. Nolledo: eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which
the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of Aquino’s connection to the new Second District of Makati City is an
election law. alleged lease agreement of a condominium unit in the area. The intention
not to establish a permanent home in Makati City is evident in his leasing
The purpose is to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the
a condominium unit instead of buying one. The short length of time he
conditions and needs of the community from taking advantage of
claims to be a resident of Makati (and the fact of his stated domicile in
favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain.
Tarlac and his claims of other residences in Metro Manila) indicate that
While there is nothing wrong with the purpose of establishing residence his sole purpose in transferring his physical residence is not to acquire a
in a given area for meeting election law requirements, this defeats the new, residence or domicile but only to qualify as a candidate for
essence of representation, which is to place through assent of voters Representative of the Second District of Makati City.
those most cognizant and sensitive to the needs of a particular district, if
Aquino’s assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to
a candidate falls short of the period of residency mandated by law for him
Makati is a bare assertion which is hardly supported by the facts in the
to qualify.
case at bench. To successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner must
Which brings us to the second issue. prove an actual removal or an actual change of domicile, a bona fide
intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a
2. No, Aquino has not established domicile of choice in the district he was new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose.
running in.
Aquino was thus rightfully disqualified by the Commission on Elections
The SC agreed with the Comelec’s contention that Aquino should prove due to his lack of one year residence in the district.
that he established a domicile of choice and not just residence.
Decision
The Constitution requires a person running for a post in the HR one year
of residency prior to the elections in the district in which he seeks Instant petition dismissed. Order restraining respondent Comelec from
election to . proclaiming the candidate garnering the next highest number of votes in
the congressional elections of Second district of Makati City made
Aquino’s certificate of candidacy in a previous (May 11, 1992) election permanent.
indicates that he was a resident and a registered voter of San Jose,
Concepcion, Tarlac for more than 52 years prior to that election. His birth Dicta:
certificate indicated that Conception as his birthplace and his COC also
I. Aquino’s petition of certiorari contents were:
showed him to be a registered voter of the same district. Thus his
domicile of origin (obviously, choice as well) up to the filing of his COC A. The Comelec’s lack of jurisdiction to determine the disqualification
was in Conception, Tarlac. issue involving congressional candidates after the May 8, 1995 elections,
such determination reserved with the house of representatives electional such new districts, prejudicing their genuine residents in the process of
tribunal taking advantage of existing conditions in these areas.

B. Even if the Comelec has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction ceased in the III. according to COMELEC: The lease agreement was executed mainly to
instant case after the elections and the remedy to the adverse parties lies support the one-year residence requirement as a qualification for a
in another forum which is the HR Electoral Tribunal consistent with candidate of the HR, by establishing a commencement date of his
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. residence. If a perfectly valid lease agreement cannot, by itself establish a
domicile of choice, this particular lease agreement cannot be better.
C. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it proceeded
to promulagate its questioned decision despite its own recognition that a
threshold issue of jurisdiction has to be judiciously reviewed again,
assuming arguendo that the Comelec has jurisdiction ABELLA VS COMELEC
D. The Comelec’s finding of non-compliance with the residency Section 12, Article X of the Constitution is explicit aside from highly-
requirement of one year against the petitioner is contrary to evidence urbanized cities, component cities whose charters prohibit their voters
and to applicable laws and jurisprudence. from voting for provincial elective officials are independent of the
province. In the same provision, it provides for other component cities of
E. The Comelec erred in failing to appreciate the legal impossibility of the province whose charters do not provide a similar prohibition.
enforcing the one year residency requirement of Congressional
candidates in newly created political districts which were only existing for Thus, in the case of Abella vs COMELEC,  involving Ormoc City, the
less than a year at the time of the election and barely four months in the Supreme Court ruled that component cities like Ormoc City whose
case of petitioner’s district in Makati. charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials
are treated like highly urbanized cities which are outside the supervisory
F. The Comelec committed serious error amounting to lack of jurisdiction power of the province to which they are geographically attached.
when it ordered the board of canvassers to determine and proclaim the
winner out of the remaining qualified candidates after the erroneous This independence from the province carries with it the prohibition or
disqualification of the petitioner in disregard of the doctrine that a second mandate directed to their registered voters not to vote and be voted for
place candidate or a person who was repudiated by the electorate is a the provincial elective offices.
loser and cannot be proclaimed as substitute winner. SC: Favored COMELEC, which stated that the phrase “shall not be
II. Modern day carpetbaggers can’t be allowed to take advantage of the qualified and entitled to vote in the election of the provincial governor
creation of new political districts by suddenly transplanting themselves in and the members of the provincial board of the Province of Leyte
connotes 2 prohibitions. One, from running for, and the second, for voting
for any provincial elective official.
FACTS:  Position of petitioners against L: respondent is neither a resident
nor a registered voter of Kananga, Leyte as she claimed, but a
Petition for certiorari challenging the resolutions of respondent
resident of Ormoc City, a component city but independent of the
COMELEC.
province.
 Silvestre de la Cruz filed a petition for disqualification against
 L: she is a resident of Kananga, Leyte. She had intent to return
Larrazabal for alleged false statements in COC regarding her
(animus revertendi) to Kananga even if she physically transferred
residence.
to Ormoc.
 TRO was issued by SC against Larrazabal from being proclaimed
 SC: There is no evidence to prove that the petitioner temporarily
governor in the event that she obtains the winning margin of
left her residence in Kananga, Leyte to pursue any calling,
votes. (Since COMELEC was not yet fully constituted that time)
profession or business. COMELEC relied on provisions of the
 Abella filed objections to COMELEC charging Larrazabal with Family Code.
falsification and misrepresentation in her residency.
ISSUE:
 COMELEC lifted TRO upon motion of Larrazabal.
Who is the rightful governor of the province of Leyte?
 Feb 14, 1991, Comelec 2nd Division, disqualified L. (Held:
 1. Petitioner Adelina Larrazabal who obtained the highest number
Affirmed)
of votes (declared winner but subsequently disqualified by
 July 18, 1991, Comelec en banc denied L’s petition declaring COMELEC)
decision void. – STILL DISQUALIFIED. (Held: Affirmed)
 2. Petitioner Benjamin Abella (2nd highest but not proclaimed as
 COMELEC, in the same decision disallowed Abella’s proclamation gov after disqualification of Larrazabal)
as governor.
 3. Leopoldo E. Petilla, Vice Gov of Leyte.
 Hence, the petitions.
HELD:
 August 1, 1991 On petition by Larrazabal for the issuance of TRO
 Article X of the Constitution is explicit that aside from highly-
to COMELEC, SC: CEASE AND DESIST from enforcing decision.
urbanized cities, component cities whose charters prohibit their
(Held: Lifted, disqualification enforced)
voters from voting for provincial elective officials are independent
 Vice Gov took oath as governor thru COMELEC resolution, Court of the province.
further resolved that Petilla (Vice Gov) should DESIST from
assuming position.
  connotes 2 prohibitions. One, from running for, and the second, Registration Record and his address indicated as 24 Bonifacio St., Ayala
for voting for any provincial elective official. Hts., Old Balara, Quezon City.

 Resolution of COMELEC AFFIRMED. TRO issued against it was Issue:

lifted. Costs against petitioners.
Whether or not petitioner has resided in Sarangani Province for at least 1
 With regard to Abella, Larrazabal was voted for, and election year immediately preceding the May 11, 1998 elections
proceeded. Net effect was that Abella lost, and repudiated by the
Held:
electorate.
The term “residence,” as used in the law prescribing the qualifications for
 In the Firvaldo (governorship of Sorsogon) and Labo(mayor in
suffrage and for elective office, means the same thing as “domicile,”
Baguio) cases, this is exactly the reason why the candidates
which imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also
obtaining second highest number of votes were not allowed to
personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
assume the positions.
intention. “Domicile” denotes a fixed permanent residence to which,
whenever absent for business, pleasure, or some other reasons, one
intends to return.
Domino vs. COMELEC
Records show that petitioner’s domicile of origin was Candon, Ilocos Sur
Facts: and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new domicile of choice in
Quezon City, as shown by his certificate of candidacy for the position of
Petitioner Domino filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of
representative of the Third District of Quezon City in the May 1995
Representative of the lone legislative district of the Province of Sarangani
election. Petitioner is now claiming that he had effectively abandoned his
indicating that he has resided in the constituency where he seeks to be
residence in Quezon City and has established a new domicile of choice in
elected for 1 year and 2 months. Private respondents filed a petition
the Province of Sarangani.
seeking to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Domino, alleging that
Domino, contrary to his declaration in the certificate of candidacy, is not a A person’s domicile, once established, is considered to continue and will
resident, much less a registered voter, of the province of Sarangani where not be deemed lost until a new one is established. To successfully effect a
he seeks election. Thereafter, the COMELEC promulgated a resolution change of domicile, one must demonstrate an actual removal or an actual
declaring Domino disqualified as candidate for the position of change of domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place
representative of the lone district of Sarangani in the May 11, 1998 polls of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which
for lack of the one-year residency requirement and likewise ordered the correspond with the purpose.
cancellation of his certificate of candidacy based on his own Voter’s
The contract of lease of a house and lot entered into sometime in January
1997 does not adequately support a change of domicile. The lease
contract may be indicative of Domino’s intention to reside in Sarangani,
but it does not engender the kind of permanency required to prove
abandonment of one’s original domicile. The mere absence of individual
from his permanent residence, no matter how long, without the intention
to abandon it does not result in loss or change of domicile. Thus, the date
of the contract of lease of a house and lot in Sarangani cannot be used, in
the absence of other circumstances, as the reckoning period of the one-
year residence requirement. Further, Domino’s lack of intention to
abandon his residence in Quezon City is strengthened by his act of
registering as voter in Quezon City. While voting is not conclusive of
residence, it does give rise to a strong presumption of residence
especially in this case where Domino registered in his former barangay.