Roldan, Mitch L.

JD – 1
Llb111 – Constitutional Law 1 – 7003

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: Residence Requirement (Concept of Domicile vs Residence)
Title: AQUINO vs COMELEC
Citation: GR NO. 120265

Facts:
Agapito A. Aquino filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
representative if the New Second legislative district of Makati City.

On April 24,1995, a duly registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, chairman of
the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to
disqualify Aquino on the ground of lacked of the residence qualification as a
candidate for congressman which, under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987
constitution, should be a period not less than one (1) year immediately preceding
the May 8,1995 elections.

On April 25,1995 a day after said petition for disqualification was filed, petitioner
filed another COC amending the certificate dated March 20 1995. This time, the
petitioner stated in his certificate that he had resided in the constituency where
he sought to be elected for one (1) year and thirteen (13) days.

Issue/s:
1. Whether the petitioner lacked the residence qualification as a candidate
for congressman as mandated by Sec. 6, Art. VI of the constitution.
Ruling/s:
Yes, COMELEC's finding of non-compliance with the residency requirement of 1
year against the petitioner is valid.
Petitioner in his Certificate of Candidacy, indicated not only that he was a
resident of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 but that he was a resident of
the same for 52 years immediately preceding that election. His certificate
indicated that he was also a registered voter of the same district. His birth
certificate places Concepcion, Tarlac as the birthplace of both of his parents
Benigno and Aurora. Thus, what stands consistently clear and unassailable is
that this domicile of origin was Concepcion, Tarlac.
The intention not to establish a permanent home in Makati City is evident in his
leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one. While a lease contract maybe
indicative of respondent's intention to reside in Makati City it does not engender
the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of one's original domicile
especially since, by its terms, it is only for a period of two (2) years, and
respondent Aquino himself testified that his intention was really for only one (l)
year because he has other "residences" in Manila or Quezon City.
While property ownership is not and should never be an indicia of the right to
vote or to be voted upon, the fact that petitioner himself claims that he has other
residences in Metro Manila coupled with the short length of time he claims to be
a resident of the condominium unit in Makati indicate that the sole purpose of
transferring his physical residence is not to acquirer's new residence or domicile
but only to qualify as a candidate for Representative of the 2nd District of Makati
City.