ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No.
203766 April 2, 2013 Facts:
This case resolves the 54 Consolidated petitions for certiorari and petitions for certiorari and prohibitions filed by 52 party-list groups and organizations assailing the Resolutions issued by the COMELEC disqualifying them from participating in the May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their petitions for registration under the party-list system, or cancellation of their registration and accreditation as party-list organizations
Issue: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the May 2013 party-list elections Issue: Whether the criteria for participating in the party-list system laid down in Ang Bagong Bayani and Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency v. Commission on Elections (BANAT) should be applied by the COMELEC in the May 2013 party-list elections.
Held: No to both issues The Party-List System o The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list system of representation. o The party-list system is intended to democratize political power by giving political parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance to win seats in the House of Representatives. o The voter elects two representatives in the House of Representatives: one for his or her legislative district, and another for his or her party-list group or organization of choice. Constitutional Provisions on the Party List System: o Section 5, Article VI: The party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, 1/2 of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector. o Sections 7 and 8, Article IX-C: No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid XPN: Those registered under the party-list system as provided in the Constitution Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not be represented in the voters’ registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law. The party-list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation – Monsod, main sponsor of the system o A sectoral representation in the Assembly would mean that certain sectors would have reserved seats; that they will choose among themselves who would sit in those reserved seats. Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the partylist system to include not only sectoral parties but also non-sectoral parties. Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution: The party-list system is composed of three different groups: o national parties or organizations; o regional parties or organizations; and o sectoral parties or organizations R.A. No. 7941 defines a "party" as "either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties." o A "political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government." Case Digest in Election Law Rivad, Sherine L., 2011 – 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law
A "sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector." o R.A. No. 7941 provides different definitions for a political and a sectoral party. Obviously, they are separate and distinct from each other. R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or organizations to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors. o To require all national and regional parties under the partylist system to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the partylist system. o Under the party-list system, an ideology-based or causeoriented political party is clearly different from a sectoral party. Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 provides another compelling reason for holding that the law does not require national or regional parties, as well as certain sectoral parties in Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941, to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented." o Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes; It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal; It is a foreign party or organization; It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes; It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections; It declares untruthful statements in its petition; It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. o None of the 8 grounds to refuse or cancel registration refers to non-representation of the "marginalized and underrepresented. How then should we harmonize the broad policy declaration in Section 2 of R.A. No. 7941 with its specific implementing provisions, bearing in mind the applicable provisions of the 1987 Constitution on the matter? o The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" should refer only to the sectors in Section 5 that are, by their nature, economically "marginalized and underrepresented." o These sectors are: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other similar sectors. For these sectors, a majority of the members of the sectoral party must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented." The nominees of the sectoral party either must belong to the sector, or must have a track record of advocacy for the sector represented. The recognition that national and regional parties, as well as sectoral parties of professionals, the elderly, women and the youth, need not be "marginalized and underrepresented" will allow small ideology-based and cause-oriented parties who lack "well-defined political constituencies" a chance to win seats in the House of Representatives. Ang Bagong Bayani expressly declared, in its second guideline for the accreditation of parties under the party-list system, that "while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling ‘Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors xxx to be elected to the House of Representatives.’ o However, the requirement in Ang Bagong Bayani, in its second guideline, that "the political party xxx must represent the marginalized and underrepresented," automatically disqualified major political parties from participating in the party-list system
For this purpose. organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by.No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. o National. Arellano University School of Law
. it would not be in accord with the 1987 Constitution and R. to be a bona fide party-list nominee one must either belong to the sector represented. they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives. Ang Bagong Bayani laid down the guidelines for qualifying those who desire to participate in the party-list system: o The political party. 2011 – 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014. the COMELEC used the criteria prescribed in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT. and R. or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. the present petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC not because the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioners." o Not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors. In determining who may participate in the coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-list elections. the rule is suspended that a party may appeal to this Court from decisions or orders of the COMELEC only if the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. veterans. the government o The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law. peasant. and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election. o While even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system. whether major or not. Thus. o A party-list nominee must be a bona fide member of the party or organization which he or she seeks to represent. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party. a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1)year immediately preceding the day of the election. a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. In the case of sectoral parties. (2) regional parties or organizations. No.
The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations. In disqualifying petitioners. 7941 to apply the criteria in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT in determining who are qualified to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows: "SEC 9. sector. which enumerates the grounds for disqualification (aforecited) o Tthe party or organization must not be an adjunct of. indigenous cultural communities. or have a track record of advocacy for such sector. No. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be: "marginalized and underrepresented". that fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. its nominees must likewise do so. women. so also must its nominees o The nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. the intent of the Constitutional Commission. This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. However. urban poor. he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. o National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need: to organize along sectoral lines and
to represent any "marginalized and underrepresented" sector. A political party. o Exclusion of Major political parties from participating in party-list elections The minority expressed that "[e]xcluding the major political parties in party-list elections is manifestly against the Constitution. Judicial power does not include the power to re-write the Constitution. a registered voter. The nominees of these sectoral parties or organizations either must belong to their respective sectors. and (3) sectoral parties or organizations. fisherfolk. In case of a nominee of the youth sector. handicapped.
Case Digest in Election Law Rivad.A. which includes: labor. and overseas workers lacking in "well-defined political constituencies”. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies" must belong to the sector they represent. 7941. but because petitioners may now possibly qualify to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the new parameters prescribed by this Court. apply its provisions faithfully. and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified Provided -> least one nominee who remains qualified. and the youth. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term. the elderly. It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector
A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent. and desist from engaging in socio-economic or political experimentations contrary to what the Constitution has ordained. able to read and write.. . which includes: professionals." o The religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system o A party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941. regional. and is linked to a political party through a coalition.A. the COMELEC shall adhere to the following parameters: o Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or organizations. Sherine L. All present petitions be remanded to COMELEC.
None of the nominees areregistered voters of RegionXI. and .Three of the sevennominees do not belong tothe sector of farmers ofFarmers andFishermenInternational andfishermen.The interests of the peasantand urban poor sectors thatthe party represents differ. Association of Guard. . No.
Resolution dated 14 November 201217
Resolution dated 5 December 201218
Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy (PPP)
Case Digest in Election Law Rivad.Failure to show a track record of undertaking programs for the welfare of the sector the group seeks to represent. Omnibus Resolution dated 27 November 20129 Manila Teachers Savings and Loan Association. and .The sector of rural energyconsumers is not marginalized and underrepresented. Cancelled registration and accreditation 4 204002 Alliance for Rural Concerns(ARC) . Rider.
A.Inc. and . .
Grounds for Denial
No. .Failure to establish trackrecord. . Cancelled registration . Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 201231 Cancelled registration . Inc.No.The first and second nominees are not teachers by profession. . . the region .The party’s track record isrelated to electriccooperatives and not ruralenergy consumers.The party failed to file its Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2010 Elections. as Region 12 has district representatives. 9 204139 Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) .Constituency has district representatives. Cancelled registration and accreditation . elderly.(1GANAP/GUARDIANS) . two of the nominees are not residents of the region. arenot marginalized and underrepresented.Failure of the nominees toqualify as representatives ofthe youth and young urbanprofessionals. G. (ALONA) . Omnibus Resolution dated 16 October 201226 Cancelled registration 1-Bro PhilippineGuardiansBrother . . Janitor.The nominees do not belong to the sectors that the partyseeks to andAgrarianReconstruction.The Bicol region already has representatives in Congress. . and . No. Alliance of Organizations. and .The sector of communityvolunteer workers is toobroad to allow for pines.Failure to show that five ofits nine nominees work onuplifting the lives of themembers of the sector. and . and is not representative of the marginalized and underrepresented.Failure to prove membership base and track record. . and .A non-stock savings and loan association cannot be considered marginalized and underrepresented.R. and .The party is a militaryfraternity. urban poor).Untruthful statements in the memorandum.The sectors of drugcounsellors and lecturers. Driver/Domestic Helper.The nominees do not belong to any of the sectors which the group seeks to represent. 6 204370 Ako An Bisaya (AAB) . . (1-CARE) . (Manila Teachers) Association ofLocal AthleticsEntrepreneursand Hobbyists.Failure to show that the group actually represents the marginalized and underrepresented.Failure of the group to showthat its nominees belong tothe urban poor sector. ofPhilippineElectricCoopera and tives(APEC) .The party ceased to exist formore than a year immediatelyafter Agri-Agra naReporma Para the May 2010 elections. Cancelled registration and accreditation
Resolution dated 27 November 201210 . Via the COMELEC En Banc’s automatic review of the COMELEC Division’s resolutions approving registration of groups/organizations Resolution dated 23 November 20128 . Inc. (Atong Paglaum) . 1 204379 Alagad ng Sining (ASIN) .The nominees do not belong to the sector of peasants andfarmers saMagsasaka ngPilipinasMovement(AGRI) that the party seeks torepresent. and .Inc.Failure to prove trackrecord.The incumbentrepresentative in Congressfailed to author or Aangat TayoParty-List Party( sponsorbills that are beneficial to thesectors that the AT ) partyrepresents (women.Nominees are neither farmers nor peasants. and .Failure to show thatmajority of its members aremarginalized and underrepresented.The nominees do not appearto belong to the sector ofcommunity volunteerworkers. .
8 20426 6 204100 UnitedMovementAgainst DrugsFoundation(UNIMAD)
Resolution dated 29 November 201212
Abyan IlonggoParty (AI)
Resolution dated 16 October 201227
B. . and Inc.Failure of the nominees to qualify. (ABLESSEDParty-List) sought to berepresented.and .and . but denied participation in the May 2013 party-list elections . represent. Agent and Nanny of thePhilippines.veterans and the youth. Utility Helper. 1stConsumersAlliance forRural Energy.Failure to represent a marginalized sector of society.Inc.The sectors of homeowners’associations. and . Resolution dated 4 December 201214 .
Resolution dated 16 October 201228
Resolution dated 7 November 201216 .Failure to show that the group represents a marginalized and underrepresented sector. Cancelled registration AksyonMagsasaka-Partido Tinig ngMasa (AKMA-PTM) . and .The "artists" sector is not considered marginalized and underrepresented.The nominees are not marginalized and underrepresented. Cancelled registration and accreditation 11 204174 . (ARARO) .youth. . despite the formation of a sectoral wing for the benefit of farmers of Region 8.
Grounds for Denial Retained registration and accreditation as a political party.The nominees do not belong to the sector of rural energyconsumers.Failure to establish that the group can represent 14 sectors. Inc.Failure to prove trackrecord as an organization. Aider.The nominees do not belongto a marginalized hood. as the Province of Iloilo has district representatives.The nominees do not belong to the sectors which the partyrepresents.(GUARDJAN) . and four of the five nominees do not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented.Withdrawal of three of its five nominees. and .Failure of the nominees toqualify under RA 7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani.The nominees do not belong to the marginalized sectorsthat the party seeks torepresent.Failure to show that three ofthe nominees are bona fideparty members. .Failure of the nominees to qualify. and .Failure to show that its members belong to the marginalized.Failure to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector. entrepreneurs and cooperatives are not marginalized Networks and Associations of the and underrepresented. Resolution dated 4 December 201213 .Lack of track record in representing peasants and farmers. meaningfulrepresentation.Only four nominees weresubmitted to the COMELEC.Failure to present activities that sufficiently benefited its intended constituency. .Failure to comply.Failure to prove that four ofits nine nominees actuallybelong to the farmers sector. Cancelled registration BlessedFederation .Failure to define the sectorit seeks to represent.Failure to show that the party represents a marginalized and underrepresented sector.There is doubt that the party is organized for religious purposes. Alliance forRural .There is no proof that majority of its members belong to Kalikasan Party-List(KALIKASAN) the marginalized and underrepresented..The group represents sectors with conflicting interests.Failure of the party to prove that majority of its members belong to the sectors it seeksto represent. and .The nominees do not represent the sectors which the party Leadership (ARAL) represents.Failure of the nominees to qualify: although registering as a regional political party.Inc. Inc.Failure to establish that the group can represent all sectors it seeks to represent. Cancelled registration 1 . and . Sherine L.Lack of a Board resolutionto participate in the party-listelections. and Philippines. (ALA-EH) . and .
G.The nominees do not belongto the sector that the partyclaims to represent.
13 204240 12 203976
Resolution dated 23 October 201229
Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 201230 . (1BRO-PGBI) andunderrepresented sector. and .
1 Alliance Advocating Autonomy Party (1AAAP)
Resolution dated 27 November 201211 5 204367 Akbay Kalusugan (AKIN). 2011 – 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014.Failure to show meaningfulactivities for its constituency.Inc.Failure to represent amarginalized andunderrepresented sector. Righteousness Advocacy on . Arellano University School of Law
.R. and for violation of election laws.The group reflects an advocacy for the environment.
Resolution dated 10 October 201224
AKO Bicol Political Party (AKB)
Omnibus Resolution dated 11 October 201225 Cancelled registration and accreditation 2 203766 Atong Paglaum.The nominees do not belong to the sector which the group claims to represent. Cancelled registration and accreditation Association . Cancelled registration and accreditation 3 203981 Association for .The nominees do not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. and . Via the COMELEC En Banc’s review on motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC Division’s resolutions denying registration of groups and organizations Resolution dated 7 November 201215 . the sector soughtto be represented.Inc. GuardiansNationalistPhilip .
Failure to establish a trackrecord of enhancing the livesof the marginalized and underrepresented farmerswhich it claims to represent. inongMagsasaka(KAP) and .fisherfolk. who may haveconflicting interests.There is ART) doubt as to whethermajority of its members aremarginalized and underrepresented. .Hanapbuhay The TrueMarcos Loyalist(for Cancelled registration God. or that saLupa. Inc.Failure to establish that thenominees actually belong tothe sector.The sector it represents is aspecifically defined groupwhich may not be allowedregistration under the party-list system. Cancelled registration and accreditation .and . and .and . andadhere to its advocacies.and . G.Change of sector (fromurban poor youth to urbanpoor) necessitates a newapplication. (KAKUSA)majority of its officers andmembers belong to themarginalized and underrepresented.(SENIORCITIZENS) sharingagreement. Resolution dated 7 November 201238 Cancelled registration and accreditation 29 204323 Bayani PartyList (BAYANI) .(A-IPRA) . or that they haveundertaken meaningfulactivities for the sector. Coalition ofSenior Citizensin Cancelled registration thePhilippines. and . Cancelled registration and accreditation
Resolution dated 28 November 201244
Omnibus Resolution dated 7 November 201234 Green Force forthe EnvironmentSons andDaughters ofMother Earth(GREENFORCE) .Inc. Inc.Nominees are eitheroperators or former operators. and .Failure to comply with thetrack record requirement.Failure to represent anidentifiable marginalized and underrepresented sector.Failure to show thatmajority of its members aremarginalized and andPeople)Association underrepresented. No. 1stKabalikat ngBayanGinhawangSangkat . and urban poorindigenous culturalcommunities sectors which itseeks to represent. .Failure to prove that its fivenominees are members of theindigenous people sector. nor to haveactively participated in theundertakings of the party.Country .The party’s nomineesneither appear to belong tothe sectors they seek torepresent.Failure to attend thesummary hearing. Cancelled registration and accreditation . Inc.The nominees do notbelong to the sector that theparty seeks to represent(urban poor and peasants ofthe National Capital Region). and auhan(1stKABAGIS) . Cancelled registration and accreditation . Resolution dated 7 November 201235 Cancelled registration 26 204358 Alliance ofAdvocates inMiningAdvancementfor NationalProgress(AAMA) .Failure to comply with thetrack record requirement.The party represents driversand operators.Failure to comply with thetrack record requirement.The party is assisted by thegovernment in variousprojects. and .Failure to prove a trackrecord of trying to uplift themarginalized and underrepresented sector ofprofessionals. .
Resolution dated 7 November 201239
Resolution dated 7 November 201240
Kapatiran ngmga Nakulongna Walang Sala.Three of the nominees donot appear to belong to themarginalized. Sherine L. Pabahay. .Only two of the party’snominees reside in theMindanao and Cordilleras.(FIRM 24-K)
Resolution dated 3 December 201246
Action Leagueof IndigenousMasses (ALIM)
Resolution dated 4 December 201247
Resolution dated 4 December 201248 204421.Failure to prove that two ofits nominees actually belong to the (BANTAY) marginalized and underrepresented.Failure to show track recordfor the marginalized and underrepresented. Resolution dated 7 November 201241 Cancelled registration and accreditation .R.The nominees did notappear to be marginalized and underrepresented. and .Failure to show track recordfor the farmers and peasantssector.The party’s nominees do notbelong to any marginalizedand underrepresented sector.Only two of its nomineesreside in the National CapitalRegion. thesector it claims to represent.
Grounds for Denial Cancelled registration
No. Adhikain atKilusan Cancelled registration ngOrdinaryongTao Para . . and .Failure to establish that thenominees are employed in the construction industry.Failure to represent anysector.Failure to establish that theagriculture and cooperativesectors are marginalized and underrepresented.
Resolution dated 28 November 201245
Firm 24-KAssociation.Failure to show track recordfor the marginalized and underrepresented. No. sFederation.The nominees are notmembers of the urban poorsector. (KAKUSA)
Resolution dated 30 October 201232
Ang GalingPinoy (AG)
Resolution dated 14 November 201243
Resolution dated 7 November 201233
34 204158 ActionBrotherhood for ActiveDreamers. who may haveconflicting interests. and . .Failure to prove that its fivenominees activelyparticipated in theundertakings of the party.None of its nomineesbelong to the labor. and .Failure to prove thatna Walang Sala.Inc. and .The nominees aredisqualified fromrepresenting the sectors ReformandTransparency(SM thatthe party represents..(COCOFED) . and . Cancelled registration and accreditation 30 204321 Ang AgrikulturaNatin Isulong(AANI) .
.Failure to establish that itsnominees are members of theindigenous people in theMindanao and Cordillerassector that the party seeks torepresent. and . . and .Inc.Failure to show a completetrack record of its activitiessince its registration.The nominees are not partof any of the sectors whichthe party seeks to represent.Failure to show thatnominees actually belong tothe sector.The party violated electionlaws because its nomineeshad a termInc. .Failure to show that itsmembers actually belong tothe peasant farmers sector.Failure to exist for at leastone year.No.Failure to show that itsnominees are marginalizedand underrepresented. . Cancelled registration and accreditation 35 204374 Binhi-Partido ngmga MagsasakaPara sa mgaMagsasaka(BINHI) . . and (1-UTAK) . Cancelled registration 27 204359 SocialMovement forActive .Only three nominees weresubmitted to the COMELEC. 39 204425
Resolution dated 7 November 201236
Case Digest in Election Law Rivad.The party receivesassistance from thegovernment through theDepartment of Agriculture.Failure to show thatnominees actually belong tothe sector.Failure to establish a trackrecord of continuouslyrepresenting the peasantfarmers sector.Failure to prove thatmajority of its members andofficers are from the urbanpoor sector. .The nominees are not marginalized citizens. and . G. and. . Cancelled registration and accreditation Agapay ngIndigenousPeoples RightsAlliance. .and . Inc.The Manifestation of Intentand Certificate of Nominationwere not Kaagapay signed by anappropriate officer of theparty.Defective registration and accreditation dating back to2010.Failure to prove that its five nominees are bona fidemembers.More than a majority of theparty’s nominees do notbelong to the farmers sector. . and ofthe Philippines. Arellano University School of Law
. .Failure to submit itsStatement of Contributionand Expenditures for the2007 Elections.The nominees do notbelong to the marginalizedand underrepresented.One nominee was declaredunqualified to represent thesector of professionals. Resolution dated 7 November 201242 Cancelled registration . 2011 – 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014.The party is an advocacygroup and does not representthe marginalized and underrepresented. they haveundertaken meaningfulactivities for the sector. and .Failure to prove that thegroup is marginalized and underrepresented. ngNagkakaisangAgilangPilip .The incumbentrepresentative in Congressfailed to author or sponsorbills that are beneficial to thesector that the partyrepresents (personsimprisoned without proof ofguilt beyond reasonabledoubt). haveactively participated inprograms for theadvancement of farmers. Cancelled registration and accreditation 36 204356 Butil FarmersParty (BUTIL) . Cancelled registration PilipinoAssociation forCountry – UrbanPoor YouthAdvancementand Welfare( PA C YAW ) . Cancelled accreditation 38 204410 1-UnitedTransportKoalisyon .Failure to show that theparty is actually able torepresent all of the sectors itclaims to represent. Pasang MasdaNationwideParty (PASANGMASDA) Cancelled registration .
Grounds for Denial
Resolution dated 7 November 201237 Cancelled registration and accreditation 28 204238 Alliance ofBicolnon Party(ABP) .(ABROAD)
Alliance forNationalism andDemocracy(ANAD)
.The nominees did notappear to be marginalized and underrepresented. Cancelled registration and accreditation .The party represents driversand operators. Cancelled registration and accreditation .R. . Cancelled registration .The party is affiliated withprivate and governmentagencies and is PhilippineCoconutProducer not marginalized.The nominees are notmembers of the marginalizedsector of coconut farmers andproducers. Cancelled registration and accreditation .Declaration of untruthfulstatements.Failure to show track recordfor the marginalized and underrepresented.
or on whether the convict serves his jail sentence or not. deprived him of the right to vote in any election. ONRUBIA. The last sentence of Article 32 states that "the offender shall not be permitted to hold any public office during the period of his [perpetual special] disqualification. and generally is so interpreted as to embrace only cases in which the special provisions are not applicable. is part of the enforcement and administration of all laws relating to the conduct of elections. while the denial of due course to and/or cancellation of one’s CoC generally necessitates the exercise of the COMELEC’s quasi-judicial functions commenced through a petition based on either Sections 1220 or 7821 of the OEC. it merely performed its duty to enforce and administer election laws in cancelling petitioner’s CoC on the basis of his perpetual absolute disqualification. Zamboanga City Subsequently. o Accordingly. JALOSJOS vs. The effectivity of this accessory penalty does not depend on the duration of the principal penalty. In case of temporary disqualification. COMELEC (Aratea). ROEL B. Section 40(a) of the LGC provides that those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by 1 year or more of imprisonment. o It finds no application in matters concerning the COMELEC’s exercise of administrative functions What is then the nature of the power exercised by the COMELEC En Banc when it promulgated the subject Resolution? A: Administrative o Jurisprudence: Even without a petition under either Section 12 or Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held. NATIVIDAD. as affirmed by final judgment of a competent court. Any public office that the convict may be holding at the time of his conviction becomes vacant upon finality of the judgment. The law itself bars the convict from running for public office. as in this case. 2013 Facts:
Herein petitioner was convicted by final judgment of 2 counts of statutory rape and 6 counts of acts of lasciviousness. it is clear that the COMELEC En Banc did not exercise its quasi-judicial functions when it issued the Resolution as it did not assume jurisdiction over any pending petition or resolve any election
case before it or any of its divisions. 205033 June 18. either as principal or accessory. In Aratea v. Pending resolution of his petition for Inclusion in the Permanent List of Voters before the MTC. After serving the same. AHMAD NARZAD K. even if conferred by popular election. o The accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification takes effect immediately once the judgment of conviction becomes final. which has the effect of disqualifying the convict to run for elective office. Then President Arroyo issued an order commuting his prison term to 16 years. ATILANO G. Rather. 2009. 30 of the RPC provides for the effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification: The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender may have held. or under Section 40 of the Local Government Code.R. he was sentenced to suffer the principal penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal for each count. Sherine L. seeking to run as mayor for Zamboanga City in the upcoming local elections on May 2013. the COMELEC is under a legal duty to cancel the certificate of candidacy of anyone suffering from the accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification to run for public office by virtue of a final judgment of conviction. LOBREGAT. ARTURO N. Consequently. SAMPANG. The COMELEC will be grossly remiss in its constitutional duty to "enforce and administer all laws" relating to the conduct of elections if it does not motu proprio bar from running for public office those suffering from perpetual special disqualification by virtue of a final judgment. To allow the COMELEC to wait for a person to file a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of one suffering from perpetual special disqualification will result in the anomaly that these cases so grotesquely exemplify. such disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall last during the term of the sentence. JOSE L. CLIMACO-SALAZAR. the said provision should not be deemed to cover cases wherein the law imposes a penalty. claims that his perpetual absolute disqualification had already been removed.ROMEO G. ADELANTE ZAMBOANGA PARTY. praying for the denial of petitioner’s CoC. while Section 40(a) of the LGC allows a prior convict to run for local elective office after the lapse of two (2) years from the time he serves his sentence. wherein he stated that he is eligible for the said office and that he is a registered voter of Barangay Tetuan. Applying these principles to the case at bar. Different petitions were then filed before the COMELEC.. must yield to the more definitive RPC provisions in line with the principle of lex specialis derogat generali – general legislation must give way to special legislation on the same subject. which carried the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification pursuant to Article 41 of the RPC. Article IX-C of the Constitution. COMELEC en banc issued a motu proprio Resolution resolving to cancel petitioner’s CoC due to his perpetual absolute disqualification as well as his failure to comply with the voter registration requirement. this petition. and the disqualification is part of the final judgment of conviction. Pending resolution by the divisions. the Court similarly pronounced that the disqualification of a convict to run for public office. MARIA ISABELLE G. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular office or to be elected to such office. COMELEC. Arellano University School of Law
. No. 2011 – 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014. it is immediately executory. and the convict becomes ineligible to run for any elective public office perpetually. his petition was denied for inclusion was denied on account of his perpetual absolute disqualification which in effect. or Section 4022 of the LGC. Section 40(a) of the LGC should be considered as a law of general application and therefore. AND ELBERT C. -> No merit o Well-established is the rule that every new statute should be construed in connection with those already existing in relation to the same subject matter and all should be made to harmonize and stand together.
Case Digest in Election Law Rivad. the fact of which had already been established by his final conviction. hence. It is petitioner’s submission that Article 30 of the RPC was partially amended by Section 40(a) of the LGC and thus. This was affirmed by the RTC. petitioner filed a CoC on October 2012 . respectively. o In particular. when the grounds therefor are rendered conclusive on account of final and executory judgments – as when a candidate’s disqualification to run for public office is based on a final conviction – such exercise falls within the COMELEC’s administrative functions. 3 months and 3 days. o Lest it be misunderstood. if they can be done by any fair and reasonable interpretation. he was issued a Certificate of Discharge From Prison on March 18. within 2 years after serving sentence While Art. The final judgment of conviction is notice to the COMELEC of the disqualification of the convict from running for public office." Once the judgment of conviction becomes final. provision requiring a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc may take action -> no merit o Such provision is confined only to cases where the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial power.
Issue: Whether petitioner is qualified to run in the said elective position Held: No Petitioner claims that the COMELEC En Banc usurped the COMELEC Divisions’ jurisdiction by cancelling motu proprio petitioner’s CoC through Resolution contrary to Section 3.
BALUA G. which was remain unacted. 6646. Lanao del Norte Consequently. or protest and.) No. regardless of the effect of such renunciation under the laws of the foreign country. However. July 2008: Arnado applied for repatriation under Republic Act (R. once any of them is lost during his incumbency. Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship November 2009: Arnado filed his CoC for Mayor of Kauswagan. No. Issue: Whether he rule on succession in the Local Government Code is applicable to this case Held: Petitioner’s right to intervene: Section 6 of R. which provides: Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for. 195649 April 16. this legal presumption does not operate permanently and is open to attack when. ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO. another candidate for mayor of Kauswagan. such as citizenship. intervention may be allowed in proceedings for disqualification even after election if there has yet been no final judgment rendered. having been overtaken by the 2010 elections where Arnado garnered the highest number of votes and was subsequently proclaimed as the winning candidate for Mayor Only after proclamation that Arnado filed his verified answer. passport. and who garnered the second highest number of votes in the 2010 elections. the use of a US passport does not operate to "un-renounce" what he has earlier on renounced. after renouncing the foreign citizenship. April 2009: Subsequently. Petitioner Maquiling. attaching thereto a certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration indicating the nationality of Arnado as "USA-American. No.A. LINOG G. More succinctly.." Surely. with all attendant rights and privileges granted by the USA The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply be professed at any time.
Case Digest in Election Law Rivad. he lost his Filipino citizenship. and the votes cast for him shall not be counted.CASAN MACODE MAQUILING vs. COMELEC en banc: Granted Arnado’s MR.A. Hence. Arellano University School of Law
. Arnado positively and voluntarily represented himself as an American. contending that the latter s not a resident of Kauswagan. By renouncing his US citizenship as imposed by R. He took the Oath of Allegiance and renounced his foreign citizenship.R. Lanao del Norte and that he is a foreigner. There is no question that after performing these twin requirements required under Section 5(2) of R. he continued to use his US passport to travel in and out of the country before filing his certificate of candidacy By using his foreign passport. the citizen performs positive acts showing his continued possession of a foreign citizenship. 2011 – 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014. Under this provision. he was deemed to be solely a Filipino citizen. 9225. By renouncing his foreign citizenship. he became eligible to run for public office. Neither does the fact that respondent obtained the plurality of votes for the mayoralty post cure the latter’s failure to comply with the qualification requirements regarding his citizenship." To further bolster his claim of Arnado’s US citizenship. should be proclaimed as the winner. Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. herein respondent Balua iled a petition to disqualify Arnado and/or to cancel his CoC. Sherine L. he is disqualified to serve as such. Arnado himself subjected the issue of his citizenship to attack when. as a consequence of his subsequent naturalization as a citizen of the USA. No. Maquiling. upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor.S. Respondent’s submission with the twin requirements was obviously only for the purpose of complying with the requirements for running for the mayoralty post
Qualifications for elective office. As noted by the Supreme Court in the Yu case. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003. otherwise known as the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987. Balua presented in his Memorandum a computer-generated travel record ndicating that Arnado has been using his US Passport in entering and departing the Philippines Failure of Arnado to answer the petition. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election. 9225 before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Franciso. If a candidate is not a citizen at the time he ran for office or if he lost his citizenship after his election to office. The use of a US passport … does not operate to revert back his status as a dual citizen prior to his renunciation as there is no law saying such. It requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and political rights granted by the foreign country which granted the citizenship. one who truly divested himself of US citizenship would not continue to avail of privileges reserved solely for US nationals. "a passport is defined as an official document of identity and nationality issued to a person intending to travel or sojourn in foreign countries. may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong. No. Arenado filed for a Motion for Reconsideration Subsequently. after renouncing his foreign citizenship. are continuing requirements. COMELEC 1st Division: Granted petition for disqualification Arnado’s continued use of his US passport is a strong indication that Arnado had no real intention to renounce his US citizenship and that he only executed an Affidavit of Renunciation to enable him to run for office. 2013 Facts:
This is a petition assailing the resolution issued by COMELEC. inquiry.A. as the legitimate candidate who obtained the highest number of lawful votes. the respondent embraced his Philippine citizenship as though he never became a citizen of another country. finding that herein respondent Arnado is solely a Filipino citizen qualified to run for public office despite his continued use of a U. Balua moved to declare him in default and to present evidence ex-parte. in effect declaring before immigration authorities of both countries that he is an American citizen. USA and took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.A. this petition
Issue: Whether the use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship affects one’s qualifications to run for public office Held: Yes Rommel Arnado took all the necessary steps to qualify to run for a public office. intervened in the case o Maquiling argued that while the First Division correctly disqualified Arnado. Dissenting opinion of Commissioner Sarmiento: Arnado’s continued use of his US passport and enjoyment of all the privileges of a US citizen despite his previous renunciation of the afore-mentioned citizenship runs contrary to his declaration that he chose to retain only his Philippine citizenship. the order of succession under Section 44 of the Local Government Code is not applicable in this case. o He claimed that the cancellation of Arnado’s candidacy and the nullification of his proclamation. title to the office itself is deemed forfeited. We cannot turn a blind eye to the glaring inconsistency between Arnado’s unexplained use of a US passport six times and his claim that he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship and renounced his US citizenship. However. only to be violated the next day. On the same day an Order of Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition was issued in his favor. the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action.
Her status thereof is a “balik-bayan” The burden now shifts to petitioner to present substantial evidence to prove otherwise. petitioner admitted that she is a holder of a US passport. the COMELEC Rules of Procedure "shall be liberally construed in order x xx to achieve just. thus." Notably. The assailed resolution of the COMELEC en banc became final and executory o Petitioner should have filed a petition to appeal before the court within the 5-day period
Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it took cognizance of "newly-discovered evidence" without the same having been testified on and offered and admitted in evidence. when she is also a resident of Brgy. a registered voter and resident of the Municipality of Torrijos. i. 207264 June 25." No denial of due process in the case at bar as petitioner was given every opportunity to argue her case before the COMELEC Issue: Whether Respondent Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared that Petitioner is not a Filipino citizen and did not meet the residency requirement for the position of Member of the House of Representatives Issue: Whether Respondent Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when. Sherine L. COMELEC and JOSEPH SOCORRO B. petitioner attached a purported Oath Of Office taken before Hon. (2) a proper oath. o Unless and until she can establish that she had availed of the privileges of RA 9225 by becoming a dual Filipino-American citizen. as yet to assume office. the HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election. o The Board of Canvasser which proclaimed petitioner cannot by such act be allowed to render nugatory a decision of the COMELEC En Banc which affirmed a decision of the COMELEC First Division. this petition
Before there is a valid or official taking of the oath it must be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of Representatives.A. there was. 2012. it remains unclear whether the required oath of office was indeed complied with. made a valid sworn renunciation of her American citizenship. it imposed additional qualifications to the qualifications of a Member of the House of Representatives as enumerated in Section 6 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Quezon City as admitted in the Directory of Congressional Spouses of the House of Representatives. No. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. there must be a concurrence of the following requisites: (1) a valid proclamation. returns and qualifications" of the Members of the House of Representatives. in fact. Rule II (Membership) of the Rules of the House of Representatives) o Here. no longer any pending case on petitioner’s qualifications to run for the position of Member of the House of Representative. before the COMELEC. Lupac. The jurisdiction of the HRET begins only after the candidate is considered a Member of the House of Representatives Q: When is a candidate considered a Member of the House of Representatives? To be considered a Member of the House of Representatives. However. claiming that: o She is a natural-born Filipino citizen and that she has not lost such status by simply obtaining and using an American passport o Petitioner surmised that the COMELEC First Division relied on the fact of her marriage to an American citizen in concluding that she is a naturalized American citizen. she remains to be an American citizen and is. the COMELEC En Banc had already finally disposed of the issue of petitioner’s lack of Filipino citizenship and residency via its Resolution o Upon issuance of the same. the COMELEC en banc issued a Certificate of finality of its resolution. that such marriage only resulted into dual citizenship.e. by enforcing the provisions of Republic Act No. there is no indication that it was made during plenary or in open session and. thus there is no need for her to fulfill the twin requirements o As to her alleged lack of the one-year residency requirement prescribed by the Constitution. ineligible to run for and hold any elective public office in the Philippines.REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES vs. This. 2011 – 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014. but she averred that she is only a dual Filipino-American citizen. 2013 Facts:
Respondent Tan ."
Issue: Whether Respondent Comelec is without jurisdiction over Petitioner who is a duly proclaimed winner and who has already taken her oath of office for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the lone congressional district of Marinduque. and at the same time. therefore. She also took her oath of office. and (2) in open session. Arellano University School of Law
. filed before the COMELEC a petition to cancel petitioner’s CoC as Representative of the lone district of Marinduque on the ground that it contained material misrepresentations. (Section 6. COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure in the presentation of evidence. Case Digest in Election Law Rivad. she averred that. o that she is a Filipino citizen when she is. o Under Section 2 of Rule I. and (3) assumption of office. In petitioner’s attempt to comply with the second requirement. however. thus the requirements of R. Marinduque when she is a resident of Bauan. which is Boac. and to make a personal and sworn renunciation of her American citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath o Non-compliance oneyear residency requirement under Section 6. HRET does not acquire jurisdiction over the issue of petitioner’s qualifications. Petitioner averred. On June 5. She likewise contends that there was a violation of her right to due process of law because she was not given the opportunity to question and present controverting evidence. as well as over the assailed COMELEC Resolutions o XPN: A petition is duly filed with said tribunal. expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission. No. Marinduque.R. hence. Boac. although she made the oath before Speaker Belmonte. the petitioner utterly failed to do. Held: No for both issues Respondent Tan was able to established the fact that respondent is a holder of an American passport which she continues to use until June 30. Before proclamation of the petitioner. to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. 9225 do not apply to her. Batangas which is the residence of her husband. even as a superfluity. however. explaining that she attached said Affidavit "if only to show her desire and zeal to serve the people and to comply with rules. she never lost her domicile of origin. TAN G. Feliciano Belmonte Jr. o that she is not a permanent resident of another country when she is a permanent resident or an immigrant of the USA. Held: No Petitioner’s contention: COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly proclaimed because pursuant to Section 17. considering that more than 21 days have elapsed from the date of promulgation with no order issued by the Court restraining its execution. on 5 June 2013. in her Motion for Reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc. as she never became a naturalized citizen. o However. the term of which officially starts at noon of 30 June 2013 However. an American citizen COMELEC’s Ruling: o Not a citizen of the country because of her failure to comply with the requirements of RA 9225. 2013 petitioner was proclaimed winner of the May 2013 elections. and thereafter. 9225. this is not the oath of office which confers membership to the House of Representatives. Marinduque The motion for reconsideration was denied. she attached to the said motion an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship. She assails the admission of the blog article of Eli Obligacion as hearsay and the photocopy of the Certification from the Bureau of Immigration. leading to the conclusion inevitable that she falsely misrepresented in her COC that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen. specifically: o that she is a resident of Brgy. Milagrosa..
and that she had been staying in the house of a certain Mrs. 2011 Not sufficient For. considering that the petition for denial and cancellation of the COC is summary in nature. hence. Upon reacquisition of Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225. COMELEC en banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration COMELEC Ruling: o Based on the evidence presented.A. o Joint Affidavit of three residents of Baliangao o Affidavit of Patricio D.
SVETLANA P. 193314 February 26. o the Extrajudicial Partition with Simultaneous Sale was not sufficient proof that petitioner had purchased two parcels of land. Baliangao. No. insofar as it adds to the qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives other than those enumerated in the Constitution. Metro Manila. the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed her as the duly elected municipal mayor COMELEC division granted the disqualification of herein petitioner. It is the filing of the signed decision with the clerk of court. show that a doubt was clearly cast on petitioner’s citizenship. No. petitioner has never regained her domicile in Marinduque as she remains to be an American citizen. because they either worked for her or were members of organizations that received financial assistance from her Hence. No. it follows that she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA. o It merely applied the qualifications prescribed by Section 6. o In this case. Dapitan City. official of Purok 5. and had not totally abandoned her previous domicile. Anent the proposition of petitioner that the act of the COMELEC in enforcing the provisions of R. 9225. her right to due process was violated Promulgation is the process by which a decision is published. What was wanting and what the petitioner apparently objected to was not the promulgation of the decision but the failure of the trial court to serve notice in advance of the promulgation of its decision as required by the COMELEC rules.. o Proof presented by Petitioner: Her claim that she served as Provincial Administrator of the province from January 18. made known to the public or delivered to the clerk of court for filing. It is the delivery of a court decision to the clerk of court for filing and publication. Evidence presented by herein private respondents: o Certification from the Assessor’s Office of Baliangao that there was no tax declaration covering any real property in the name of petitioner located at any place in the municipality o Certification from the Civil Registrar of Baliangao that petitioner had no record of birth in the civil registry of the municipality. and o the affiants of the Sworn Statements were all partial. her intention to remain there. this petition
Issue: Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to promulgate its 04 June 2010 and 19 August 2010 Resolutions in accordance with its own Rules of Procedure Held: No Petitioner’s contention: She was not served an advance notice that these Resolutions were going to be promulgated. Municipality of Baliangao. because she was never a party to the agreement. Tugas. The additional requirement imposed by the COMELEC rules of notice in advance of promulgation is not part of the process of promulgation. failed to clear such doubt. he must still show that he chose to establish his domicile in the Philippines through positive acts. Petitioner’s contentions: o She had established her residence in the said barangay since December 2008 when she purchased two parcels of land there. because she was in fact born in San Juan. she is deemed to have reacquired her status as a natural-born Filipino citizen. coupled with notice to the parties or their counsel. All in all. officially announced. there is no showing whatsoever that petitioner had already re-acquired her Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 so as to conclude that she has regained her domicile in the Philippines. and it was quite unusual that she never acquired a deed of sale or title to protect her interests. because she failed to prove her bodily presence at that place. in which they argued that she had falsely represented her place of birth and residence. ESTRELLADA G. To cover-up her apparent lack of an oath of allegiance as required by R.
If petitioner executed said Affidavit "if only to comply with the rules. She indicated therein her place of birth and residence as Barangay Tugas. and her intention never to return to her domicile of origin. Misamis Occidental Private respondents filed a petition to deny or cancel petitioner’s CoC . Misamis Occidental for the 10 May 2010 elections. o the application of petitioner for voter registration only proved that she had met the minimum six-month residency requirement and nothing more. Petitioner.A. 2011 to July 13. There being no proof that petitioner had renounced her American citizenship. Brgy. COMELEC. and the period of his residency shall be counted from the time he made it his domicile of choice. o This is not in compliance with RA 9225 These circumstances.A. 2013 Facts:
Petitioner filed her CoC or mayor of Baliangao." then it is an admission that R. 9225 applies to her. in which petitioner garnered the highest number of votes. however. o Error in her place of birth was committed by her secretary The Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy remained pending as of the day of the elections. Arellano University School of Law
. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution that the candidate must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and must have one-year residency prior to the date of elections. Consequently. Lourdes Yap (Yap) while the former was overseeing the construction of her house. The failure to serve such notice in advance of the promulgation may be considered a procedural lapse on the part of the trial court which did not prejudice the rights of the parties and did Case Digest in Election Law Rivad. As to the issue of residency: o A Filipino citizen who becomes naturalized elsewhere effectively abandons his domicile of origin. is unconstitutional o The COMELEC did not impose additional qualifications on candidates for the House of Representatives who have acquired foreign citizenship. petitioner never acquired a new domicile in Baliangao. 2011 – 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014. No. the COMELEC is given much discretion in the evaluation and admission of evidence pursuant to its principal objective of determining of whether or not the COC should be cancelled. EDWIN ELIM TUMPAG and RODOLFO Y. petitioner contends that. JALOSJOS vs.R. No amount of her stay in the said locality can substitute the fact that she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA. taken together. 9225. Sherine L. Andilab (Andilab). since she took her oath of allegiance in connection with her appointment as Provincial Administrator of Marinduque.
The approval of the application for registration of petitioner as a voter only shows. Requisites for a person to acquire a new domicile by choice: o Residence or bodily presence in the new locality o Intention to remain there o An intention to abandon the old domicile In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these criteria. petitioner was able to timely lodge a Petition with this Court. even if these requisites are established by clear and positive proof. which property requirement would be unconstitutional. in effect. for a change of residence requires an actual and deliberate abandonment. the date of acquisition of the domicile of choice.
Issue: Whether petitioner complied with the one-year residency requirement for local elective officials Held: No When it comes to the qualifications for running for public office. To use ownership of property in the district as the determinative indicium of permanence of domicile or residence implies that the landed can establish compliance with the residency requirement. and one cannot have two legal residences at the same time. 2011 – 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014. that she had met the minimum residency requirement as a voter. In the present case. This minimum requirement is different from that for acquiring a new domicile of choice for the purpose of running for public office. Moreover. Arellano University School of Law
. is synonymous with ‘domicile’ which imports not only intention to reside in a fixed place.. Sherine L. o The COMELEC’s Order did not affect the right of the parties to due process. and that it instead direct the delivery of all resolutions to the Clerk of the Commission for immediate promulgation. must also be established to be within at least one year prior to the elections using the same standard of evidence. They were still furnished a copy of the COMELEC Decision and were able to reckon the period for perfecting an appeal.
not vitiate the validity of the decision of the trial court nor [sic] of the promulgation of said decision. In fact.
Case Digest in Election Law Rivad. coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. imposing a property requirement to the right to hold public office. Only with evidence showing concurrence of all three requirements can the presumption of continuity or residence be rebutted. we read from the COMELEC Order that the exigencies attendant to the holding of the country’s first automated national elections had necessitated that the COMELEC suspend the rule on notice prior to promulgation. or the critical date. at most. the residence of origin should be deemed to continue. This Court would be. but also personal presence in that place. residence is synonymous with domicile The term ‘residence’ as so used.