1. AGAPITO A. AQUINO vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MOVE MAKATI, MATEO BEDON and JUANITO

Facts:

For the 1995 elections, Aquino ran for the Congress representing the new 2nd district of Makati City. He
stated in his Certificate of Candidacy that he has resided “in the constituency where” he sought “to be
elected” for only “10 months.” He in fact has just transferred to a leased condominium in Makati from his
residence in Tarlac. Private respondents filed a petition to disqualify him on the ground that he lacked
the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman mandated in Art VI, Sec 6 of the Constitution.
The following day, Aquino amended his Certificate of Candidacy, indicating he has been a resident in said
place for 1 year and 13 days. Meanwhile, elections were held and he garnered the highest number of
votes. However, COMELEC, acting on the private respondents’ petition, suspended his proclamation
permanently. Hence this instant petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Did Aquino satisfy the constitutional residence requirement in the 2nd district of Makati City as
mandated by Art VI, Sec 6?

Ruling:

No. The essence of representation is to place through the assent of voters those most cognizant and
sensitive to the needs of a particular district. Clearly, Aquino’s domicile of origin was Concepcion, Tarlac,
and the same is not easily lost. That coupled with the fact that Aquino himself claims to have other
residences in Metro Mla. and that he claims to be resident of the condominium unit in Makati for only a
short length of time “indicate that” his “sole purpose in transferring his physical residence” is not to
acquire a new residence of domicile “but only to qualify as a candidate for Representative of the 2nd
district of Makati City.” In the absence of clear and positive proof of successful abandonment of domicile,
it shall be deemed continued.

2. EFREN RACEL ARATEA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ESTELA D. ANTIPOLO, G.R. No. 195229,
October 9, 2012

Facts:

Romeo D. Lonzanida (Lonzanida) and Estela D. Antipolo (Antipolo) were candidates for Mayor of San
Antonio, Zambales in the May 2010 National and Local Elections. Dra. Rodolfo filed a petition to cancel
Lonzanida’s certificate of candidacy on the ground that he had served as mayor for four (4) consecutive
terms immediately prior to the term for the May 2010 elections. The COMELEC Second Division rendered
a resolution cancelling Lonzanida’s certificate of candidacy. Lonzanida’s motion for reconsideration
before the COMELEC En Banc remained pending during the May 2010 elections. Lonzanida and Efren
Racel Aratea (Aratea) were respectively proclaimed Mayor and Vice-Mayor.
However, DILG stated that Lonzanida was disqualified to hold office by reason of his criminal conviction.
As a consequence, his office was deemed permanently vacant, and thus, Aratea should assume the
Office of the Mayor in an acting capacity without prejudice to the COMELEC’s resolution of Lonzanida’s
motion for reconsideration. In another letter dated 6 August 2010, Aratea requested the DILG to allow
him to take the oath of office as Mayor. In his response, then Secretary Jesse M. Robredo allowed Aratea
to take an oath of office without prejudice however to the outcome of the cases pending before the
COMELEC.
Issue: Who is qualified to hold the office of the mayor, Estela Antipolo, “the alleged second placer” or
Efren Aratea, the winning Vice-Mayor.
Ruling:

Antipolo, the alleged "second placer," should be proclaimed Mayor because Lonzanida’s certificate of
candidacy was void ab initio. In short, Lonzanida was never a candidate at all. Whether his certificate of
candidacy is cancelled before or after the elections is immaterial because the cancellation on such
ground means he was never a candidate from the very beginning, his certificate of candidacy being void
ab initio.

Thus, Antipolo, the only qualified candidate, garnered the highest number of votes for the position of
Mayor. Sec. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. ‒ The certificate of candidacy shall state that the
person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said
office.

3. ROGELIO BATIN CABALLERO v. COMELEC and NANUD JR, GR No. 209835, 22 September 2015

Facts:

Rogelio Batin Caballero, a candidate for the mayoral position in Uyugan, Batanes, faced opposition from
Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud, Jr., who challenged Caballero’s eligibility based on citizenship and residency.
Nanud’s petition alleged that Caballero made false representations in his Certificate of Candidacy (COC)
by stating he was eligible to run, despite being a Canadian and a non-resident of Uyugan.

COMELEC issued a writ of execution pronouncing Nanud as the duly-elected Mayor after Caballero’s COC
was voided. Caballero petitioned to the Supreme Court seeking annulment of COMELEC decisions,
arguing procedural irregularities and incorrect findings on his residency status.

Issue:

Whether Caballero abandoned his Philippine domicile upon becoming a Canadian citizen and if so,
whether his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and nine-month stay in Uyugan sufficed for the one-
year residency requirement.

Ruling:

The court agreed with COMELEC that Caballero had abandoned his Philippine domicile by becoming a
Canadian citizen. His reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 did not automatically restore
his domicile in Uyugan. Since residency in Uyugan only counted from September 13, 2012, Caballero
could not meet the one-year residency requirement by the election day on May 13, 2013. Reacquisition
of Filipino Citizenship and Residency:** RA 9225 allows dual nationality but does not affect residency
unless sufficient proof of reestablished domicile is provided as required for local elective positions under
the Local Government Code.

4. RENATO M. FEDERICO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, COMELEC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR and

(same kay Aratea vs COMELEC na ang second highest votes ang elected as mayor di kay ang vice-mayor)
5. SVETLANA P. JALOSJOS vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, EDWIN ELIM TUMPAG and RODOLFO Y.
ESTRELLADA, G.R. No. 193314, February 26, 2013

Facts:

Svetlana P. Jalosjos filed her certificate of candidacy (COC) for mayor of the Municipality of Baliangao,
Misamis Occidental for the May 10, 2010 elections. Jalosjos claimed sufficient residency in Barangay
Tugas, Baliangao. Subsequently, Edwin Elim Tumpag and Rodolfo Y. Estrellada filed a petition questioning
her eligibility, asserting that she did not meet the one-year residency requirement.

In support of her residency claim, Jalosjos presented a joint affidavit from witnesses who affirmed her
residence since 2008. However, inconsistencies arose from the testimony, notably the claim that she was
living in a different house during the construction of her residence. This led to the COMELEC initially
favoring the petitioners and canceling Jalosjos’s COC.

Jalosjos contested this decision, arguing her temporary stay in another barangay within the same
municipality counted towards her residency. The COMELEC’s ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Can a temporary stay in another barangay be counted towards the residency requirement?

Ruling:
The Court ruled that Jalosjos’s temporary stay in another barangay within the same municipality cannot
be counted towards the residency requirement. Residency necessitates a permanent dwelling; Jalosjos’s
stay in an unrelated house showed no intention to establish permanent residence.

Consistent and uninterrupted residency in the elective locality is required to meet the one-year
residency condition. Candidate must prove consistent, actual, and physical residence in the locality for at
least one year prior to elections.

6. JOEL T. MATURAN vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ALLAN PATIÑO, G.R. No. 227155 March 28,
2017

FACTS: Petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Provincial Governor of Basilan to be
contested in the 2016 National and Local Elections. Allan Patiño, claiming to be a registered voter of
Basilan, filed a petition for the disqualification of the petitioner on the ground that based on the list
issued by the COMELEC Campaign Finance Officer the latter had failed to file his SOCE corresponding to
the 2010 and 2013 elections. Petitioner opposed arguing that the petition had been rendered moot on
account of his withdrawal from the mayoralty race during the 2013 elections; and that, consequently, he
could only be held accountable for the failure to file his SOCE corresponding to the 2010 elections when
he ran for Provincial Governor of Basilan, and for which he had already paid a fine of P15,000.00. The
COMELEC First Division found merit in the petition and declared the petitioner disqualified to hold public
office. The COMELEC En Banc denied his appeal.

ISSUE: WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition for disqualification for being moot and academic and declared
that petitioner is perpetually disqualified to hold public office and

RULING: NO. In imposing the penalty, the COMELEC clearly acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction in
view of the clear language of Sec. 14 of RA 7166. Based on Pilar vs. COMELEC, every candidate, including
one who meanwhile withdraws his candidacy, is required to file his SOCE by Sec. 14 of RA 7166.
Accordingly, the petitioner could not invoke good faith on the basis of his having withdrawn his
candidacy a day before the 2013 elections.

7. RODANTE D. MARCOLETA vs. RESURRECCION Z. BORRA AND ROMEO A. BRAWNER, A.C. No. 7732,
March 30, 2009

8. CASAN MACODE MAQUILING vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO,

Facts:
Rommel Arnado, a natural-born Filipino, lost his citizenship upon naturalization in the USA. He regained
Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 by taking the Oath of Allegiance and renouncing US citizenship before
running for mayor in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. Despite this, Arnado used his US passport multiple
times for international travel. Linog Balua, a mayoral candidate, challenged Arnado’s candidacy, asserting
Arnado’s disqualification due to foreign citizenship and residency issues. The COMELEC First Division
initially disqualified Arnado due to his use of a US passport, which they viewed as negating his
renunciation of US citizenship. Casan Macode Maquiling, another mayoral candidate who came in
second, also intervened, seeking to be declared the election’s winner. The COMELEC En Banc, however,
reversed the First Division’s decision, ruling that Arnado’s use of a US passport did not negate his
renunciation and remained qualified to run for public office.

Issue:

Whether the use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship amounts to undoing the
renunciation.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court annulled the COMELEC En Banc resolution and disqualified Arnado from running for
public office, citing his use of a US passport as an act that negated his Oath of Renunciation of foreign
citizenship. The Court considered Arnado’s use of his US passport as effective retention of his dual
citizenship status, disqualifying him under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. Consequently,
Casan Macode Maquiling, as the candidate with the highest number of votes among the qualified
candidates, was declared the duly elected Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte.

Dual citizenship acquired by birthright does not require an oath of renunciation to run for public office in
the Philippines. However, naturalized citizens who later reacquire Filipino citizenship must expressly
renounce their foreign citizenship to qualify.

The act of using a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship is considered a positive act of
representation as to one’s nationality and citizenship; it can impact the eligibility to run for public office.

9. MAYOR EMMANUEL L. MALIKSI vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HOMER T. SAQUILAVAN, G.R.
No. 203302, April 11, 2013
10. BENJAMIN T. LOONG vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NURSHUSSEIN UTUTALUM and ALIM BASHIR
EDRIS, G.R. No. 93986, December 22, 1992

Loong v. COMELEC G.R. No. 93986, December 22, 1992 Facts: Petitioner filed with COMELEC his
certificate of candidacy for the position of Vice-Governor of the Mindanao Autonomous Region. 16 days
after the election, respondent Ututalum filed before the COMELEC a petition seeking to disqualify
petitioner on the ground that the latter made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy as to
his age. Petitioner Loong sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the respondent
COMELEC has no jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss was denied by the COMELEC in a resolution which is
the subject of this petition. Petitioner Loong contends that petition to cancel his certificate of candidacy
was filed out of time because it was filed beyond the 25day period prescribed by Section 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code.

Issue: Whether or not cancellation of certificate of candidacy was filed within the period prescribed by
law.

Ruling: No. The petition filed by private respondent Ututalum clearly does not fall under the grounds of
disqualification as provided for in Rule 25 but is expressly covered by Rule 23 of the COMMELEC Rules of
Procedure governing petitions to cancel certificate of candidacy. Moreover, Section 3, Rule 25 which
allows the filing of the petition at any time after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy but
not later than the date of proclamation, is merely a procedural rule issued by respondent Commission
which, although a constitutional body, has no legislative powers. Thus, it cannot supersede Section 78 of
the Omnibus Election Code which is a legislative enactment.

11. DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS, JR. vs. COMELEC and AGAPITO J. CARDINO, G.R. No. 193237, October 9,
2012

Dominador G. Jalosjos, Jr. and Agapito J. Cardino were mayoral candidates for Dapitan City, Zamboanga
del Norte, in the May 2010 elections. Jalosjos sought his third term, while Cardino questioned Jalosjos’
eligibility based on a prior conviction for robbery, which Jalosjos did not serve due to granted probation.
Their legal battle traversed several phases:

*COMELEC First Division Ruling (May 10, 2010)**: Granted Cardino’s petition, finding Jalosjos’ COC
contained false material representation due to a prior robbery conviction. Jalosjos had claimed eligibility
based on probation that was later revoked but was falsely reflected as completed due to a fraudulently
issued certification.

3. **COMELEC En Banc Ruling (August 11, 2010)**: Upheld the First Division’s decision, reinforcing
Jalosjos’ ineligibility for not having served his sentence due to a criminal conviction involving moral
turpitude.

**Supreme Court Resolution on G.R. No. 193237 (February 22, 2011)**: Dismissed Jalosjos’ petition for
certiorari challenging the COMELEC’s rulings, affirming the cancellation of his COC.

5. **Subsequent Developments**: Jalosjos resigned as Mayor in April 2012, citing his candidacy for
Provincial Governor in May 2013, and merged his outstanding petition with Cardino’s continuing
challenge on the succession aspect decided by the COMELEC.

Issue:

Did the COMELEC err in canceling Jalosjos’ COC based on false material representation regarding his
eligibility? What is the legal effect of Jalosjos’ participation in the May 2010 elections despite the
cancellation of his COC?

Ruling:

**COC Cancellation**: The Court ruled that Jalosjos committed a false material representation in
declaring himself eligible for elective office in his COC. His ineligibility stemmed from his unserved
sentence following a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.
**Effect of Jalosjos’ Participation**: Jalosjos was never a legitimate candidate as he was ineligible from
the outset. Consequently, all votes for him were deemed stray, leaving Cardino as the remaining
qualified candidate with the highest number of votes.

12. SARIPODEN ARIMAN GURO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SOMERADO
MALOMALO GURO, G.R. No. 234345, June 22, 2021

In October 16, 2015, private respondent filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Municipal Mayor of
Lumbaca-Unayan, Lanao del Sur in connection with the then forthcoming May 2016 NLE, indicating
therein under oath that he is a registered voter of Barangay Poblacion Dilausan, Lumbaca-Unayan, Lanao
Del Sur and that he is eligible to run for the office he seeks to be elected to.2

Petitioner, who was the erstwhile municipal mayor of Lumbaca-Unayan, running for re-election,
challenged private respondent's candidacy via a Petition for Disqualification on April 29, 2016. He alleged
that based on the posted certified voters' list, private respondent is not a registered voter of the
municipality; hence, not qualified to be a candidate for the contested position

Aggrieved, petitioner comes before this Court, attributing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the COMELEC for having dismissed the petition on mere technical
grounds instead of deciding the case on the merits in view of the alleged grave violation of election laws
by private respondent.

It bears noting that private respondent filed his COC on October 16, 2015 while petitioner filed his
petition before the COMELEC on April 29, 2016, or after the lapse of a whopping one hundred ninety-six
(196) days.

On the ground that herein private respondent allegedly misrepresented himself as being a registered
voter, We see no reason to depart from settled jurisprudence and accordingly rule that the reglementary
period provided by law should likewise be strictly applied to such a disqualification.

13. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS MELITON C. GERONIMO vs. LT. FIDEL V.
RAMOS IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF THE CONSTABULARY AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R.
No. L-60504 May 14, 1985;

### Facts

- The case "In re Geronimo v. Ramos" involves the mayoral elections in Baras, Rizal, held on January 30,
1980.
- Meliton C. Geronimo was initially proclaimed the winner with 2,695 votes, defeating Bayani Ferrera,
who received 2,370 votes.

- On January 8, 1980, Julian Pendre filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to
disqualify Geronimo for political turncoatism.

- COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8305 on January 19, 1980, disqualifying Geronimo.

- Despite Geronimo's motion for reconsideration and a temporary restraining order from the Supreme
Court, the disqualification was upheld.

- On September 26, 1981, the Supreme Court affirmed COMELEC's decision, declaring Geronimo
disqualified.

- COMELEC issued Resolution No. 82-428 on February 15, 1982, declaring Geronimo's candidacy null and
void, proclaiming Ferrera as the duly elected mayor, and directing Geronimo to turn over the office to
Ferrera.

- Geronimo and his followers occupied the municipal hall, leading to a series of criminal charges against
them.

- Geronimo filed multiple petitions, including a habeas corpus petition, challenging his arrest and
detention, and seeking to annul COMELEC's resolutions and the criminal charges against him and his
followers.

### Issue

1. Was there a legal basis for Geronimo's arrest and detention under the COMELEC's contempt
resolution?

2. Did COMELEC exceed its power and jurisdiction in proclaiming Bayani A. Ferrera as the mayor of Baras,
Rizal, despite Ferrera not obtaining the plurality of votes?

3. Were the criminal charges filed against Geronimo and his followers excessive, vindictive, and
conducted without proper preliminary examination?

### Ruling

1. The Supreme Court granted the petition for habeas corpus, declaring the penalty for contempt fully
satisfied and restoring Geronimo to his liberty.

2. The Supreme Court set aside COMELEC's resolution proclaiming Ferrera as the mayor, ruling that the
vice-mayor should assume the office due to the permanent vacancy.
3. The Supreme Court recalled the warrants of arrest issued by the Municipal Trial Court of Teresa, Rizal,
and directed the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal to determine whether the preliminary examinations should be
continued.

### Ratio

1. The Court found that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding Geronimo in
contempt, as he was duly notified of the charges and given an opportunity to be heard. However, the
Court deemed the five-month imprisonment penalty harsh and ruled that the 13 days Geronimo spent in
detention sufficed.

2. The Court emphasized that the people's choice in elections is paramount. Proclaiming Ferrera, who
did not obtain the plurality of votes, as mayor was a grave error. The proper course was to declare a
permanent vacancy and allow the vice-mayor to assume the office, as per the Local Government Code.

3. The Court criticized the hasty and haphazard manner in which the preliminary examinations and
issuance of warrants of arrest were conducted. It underscored the importance of a thorough preliminary
investigation to protect the rights of the accused and ensure due process. The Court directed the
Provincial Fiscal to reassess the need for preliminary examinations and take appropriate action.

14. JUAN G. FRIVALDO vs. COMELEC and RAUL R. LEE, G.R. No. 120295 June 28, 1996

Facts: Juan G. Frivaldo, a candidate for Governor of Sorsogon in the May 8, 1995 elections, faced legal
challenges due to issues concerning his citizenship. Raul R. Lee, another candidate, filed a petition with
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify Frivaldo for not being a Philippine citizen, leading
to COMELEC’s disqualification of Frivaldo. Despite the disqualification and his pending motion for
reconsideration, Frivaldo’s candidacy continued, and he won the election. However, Lee was proclaimed
Governor on June 30, 1995, following a COMELEC directive. Frivaldo filed a petition on July 6, 1995,
seeking the annulment of Lee’s proclamation, alleging that he had re-acquired Filipino citizenship
through repatriation under P.D. 725 prior to the proclamation. The COMELEC’s First Division later
annulled Lee’s proclamation, stating that Frivaldo fulfilled the citizenship requirement by his repatriation
on June 30, 1995, thus was qualified to hold office. Lee’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the
COMELEC en banc, leading to the present petitions before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Does Frivaldo’s previously declared disqualification due to lack of citizenship constitute a continuing bar
to his eligibility?

Did the COMELEC have jurisdiction over Frivaldo’s petition despite not being a preproclamation case,
election protest, or quo warranto case?

Ruling:
2. **Continuing Bar Due to Previous Disqualification:** The Court rejected the idea that a previous
disqualification due to lack of Filipino citizenship constituted a perpetual bar to eligibility for public
office, especially considering that citizenship could be re-acquired.

This case established the principle that repatriation under P.D. 725 can have retroactive effect from the
date of the application, affording the applicant the opportunity to cure previous disqualifications due to
loss of citizenship. It also reiterates the authority and broad jurisdiction of the COMELEC over election-
related issues, including the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates, and underscores the
judiciary’s role in upholding the will of the electorate over technical legal objections.

* The eligibility to run for and hold public office is intimately linked to citizenship status. A candidate
must be a Filipino citizen, and if this requirement is lost, it can be re-acquired through repatriation, even
with retroactive effect.

15. ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ATTY. JOHNIELLE KEITH P. NIETO,
G.R. No. 230249, April 24, 2018;

### Facts: Atty. Pablo B. Francisco, a registered voter in Cainta, Rizal, filed a Petition for Disqualification
against Atty. Johnielle Keith P. Nieto, who was re-elected as mayor in 2016. Francisco alleged Nieto used
government resources for a road project during the election ban, violating the Omnibus Election Code
(OEC). Nieto countered the project underwent proper bidding and was excluded from the ban. The
COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition, relying on the principle that a candidate cannot be
disqualified without a prior judgment. Francisco’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the
COMELEC En Banc, prompting his petition to the Supreme Court.

### Issues: 1. Whether COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the disqualification
petition based on the absence of a prior judgment. 2. Whether substantial evidence existed to prove
Nieto violated the OEC.

### Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed Francisco’s petition, clarifying that a prior judgment
is not requisite for a disqualification petition under Section 68 of the OEC. However, the court agreed
with COMELEC that Francisco did not provide substantial evidence to prove Nieto’s alleged election
offense. The petition’s dismissal was based not on procedural grounds but on the lack of supportive
evidence for the allegations.

### Doctrine: The Supreme Court clarified that for a Petition for Disqualification under Section 68 of the

OEC, a prior judicial finding of guilt is not required. The COMELEC possesses the adjudicatory power to
decide on disqualification cases based on substantial evidence.

16. MAYOR BARBARA RUBY C. TALAGA vs. COMELEC and RODERICK A. ALCALA, G.R. No. 196804, October
9, 2012

17. SILVERIO R. TAGOLINO vs. HRET and LUCY MARIE TORRES-GOMEZ, G.R. No. 202202, March 19, 2013