ARTICLE VI, SECTION 6 OF THE CONSTITUTION: RESPONDENT: VICENTE petitioned for the cancellation of his COC and his

RESPONDENT: VICENTE petitioned for the cancellation of his COC and his disqualification because FERNANDEZ
misrepresented his residence for
No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless
1) Fernandez declared PAGSANJAN, LAGUNA (4th district) as his address in past elections,
1. He is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, 2) Maintained another house in CABUYAO, LAGUNA,
2. On the day of the election, is at least 25 years of age, 3) According to witnesses they rarely see Fernandez in his leased premises.
3. Able to read and write, and, PETITIONER: Fernandez, on the other hand, contested that he had been a resident of STA. ROSA and made it his DOMICILE
OF CHOICE even before February 2006:
4. Except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and
1) He owned a property in Bel-Air Subdv, Sta. Rosa which he rented out;
5. A resident thereof for a period of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of the election.’ 2) He and his wife put up and resto-bar (RAFTERS);
1. PEREZ V. COMELEC – registration in another district 3) He sent his children to schools in Sta. Rosa as early as 2002;
4) He had a house built in VILLA DE TOLEDO, and moved in with his family in April 2007.
RUDOLFO AGUINALDO filed his COC of the 3RD DISTRICT OF CAGAYAN in the May 11, 1998 elections. Later, PEREZ
filed a complaint for his DISQUALIFICATION AS CANDIDATE on the ground he had did not satisfy the 1 YEAR DISTRICT COMELEC dismissed the case. Fernandez won and was proclaimed REP of 1 st District Laguna. Thereafter, HRET ruled him
RESIDENCY constitutional requirement immediately before the elections. ineligible finding that there was no intention to make Sta. Rosa permanent residence since he did not abandon his domicile of
origin.
PETITIONER: In support, PEREZ alleged that:
ISSUE: W/N He complied with the 1 yr residency requirement?
1) In AGUINALDO’s previous COCs for Governor of Cagayan up until 1997, his stated residence is Gattaran, and
2) His voter’s registration from GATTARAN (1st District) to TUGUEGARAO (3rd District) was only approved on 1. YES. The Court found that HRET’s interpretation of the 1 yr residency requirement is overly restrictive and unwarranted
January 7, 1998. under the facts of the case because the evidence which Fernandez showed merely proved that Fernandez’s domicile of origin
was Pagsanjan Laguna, and remained such until 2005.
RESPONDENT: On the contrary, AGUINALDO claimed that he had been a resident of Tuguegarao since 1990 or at least 1 yr
before the May 11, 1998 elections showing the following: 3. Thus, the Court found that there was sufficient proof that Fernandez changed his residence.

1) His rent of an Apartment to hide his mistress; 4. Although the latest acquired abode is not necessarily the domicile of choice, there is nothing in the Constitution or the
2) His marriage license/ certificate; election laws which requires A CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE TO SELL A PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED HOME TO BUY
3) His daughter’s birth certificate A NEW ONE TO QUALIFY FOR A CONGRESSIONAL SEAT and that he OWNS A PROPERTY IN DISTRICT HE
4) Various letters. WISHES TO RUN, BUT ONLY THAT HE RESIDES IN THAT DISTRICT FOR AT LEAST A YEAR PRIOR ELECTION.

Later, COMELEC declared AGUINALDO qualified to run as REP for the 3 rd DISTRICT OF CAGAYAN and he won the 6. There are real and substantial reasons for petitioner to establish Sta. Rosa as his domicile of choice and abandon his domicile
elections. of origin:

ISSUE: W/N Aguinaldo satisfied the 1 yr district residency requirement?
1. YES. The court ruled that a person is a registered as a voter in one district is not proof that he is not domiciled in another
district.
2. ALSO, in ROMUALDEZ, the court ruled that it is the FACT OF RESIDENCE, not COC, which determines whether or not
an individual has satisfied the constitution’s residency requirement.
3. AGUINALDO declared in his COC that he was ACTUALLY A RESIDENT OF THE 3 rd DISTRICT not just 1 year, but
MORE THAN 7 YEARS since 1990. His claim is credible considering that he was GOVERNOR from 1988 to 1998. HENCE,
it would be convenient for him to maintain his residence in TUGUEGARAO, Capital of CAGAYAN.
2. FERNANDEZ V. HRET – established domicile
DANILO FERNANDEZ, whose domicile of origin is Pagsanjan 4 th district of Laguna, filed for candidacy as REP OF FIRST
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT OF LAGUNA in the 2007 ELECTIONS. In his COC, he indicated that his address of RESIDENCE
was STA. ROSA LAGUNA (1yr and 2 months) (1st district).
1) He has business in Sta. Rosa since 2003
2) Children attended schools there since 2005
3) Although ownership is not considered, he purchased residential properties there before the elections
4) He rented a townhouse because they were still building their house in Villa De Toledo.
7. Fernandez had adequately shown that his transfer of residence to Sta. Rosa was bona fide and not for mere compliance of the
residency requirement and had established substantial ties to the First District of Laguna
ROMUALDEZ – for election laws, Residence means domicile to which there is (1) bodily presence in a new locality, (2) intent
to remain there for indefinite period, (3) an actual intention to abandon the old domicile.
Hence, Court reversed HRET’s decision.
3. TAGOLINO V. HERET/LUCY TORRES- 1 year requirement
RICHARD GOMEZ filed his COC for REP of the 4 th DISTRICT OF LEYTE. Subsequently, his opponent filed a petitioned for
his disqualification for he is actually a resident of SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA and NOT ORMOC CITY. Hence, he failed
to meet the 1 yr residency requirement. COMELEC disqualified GOMEZ.
Later, LUCY GOMEZ, filed her COC as substitute for her husband Gomez for the same post which COMELEC approved
because COMELEC’s previous resolution did not cancel Gomez’s COC but only disqualified him. During elections, GOMEZ’s
name was still on the ballots and his votes were credited in favor of LUCY GOMEZ. As a result, she was proclaimed REP of 4 th
District of Leyte.
PETITIONER: TAGOLINO petitioned to oust GOMEZ, claiming that:
 1) She failed to comply with 1 yr residency requirement (vote registration from BULACAN to LEYTE only applied o Hence, the court found that HRET wantonly disregarded the law by adopting COMELEC’s resolution. Petition is granted and
July 23, 2009); HRET decision reversed.
2) Did not validly substitute GOMEZ as is COC was void ab initio
FARINAS CASE – Farinas campaigned despite failure to file COC. He substituted, won and was proclaimed Congressman. (not
RESPONDENT: Gomez, on the other hand, claimed that: applicable)
1) Her substitution was valid,
2) Despite her marriage to Richard and exercise of profession in MM, she maintained residency in ORMOC CITY which
was where she was born and raised
HRET Declared her qualified because Richard was only disqualified and his COC was not canceled. Also, she continued to
retain her domicile in ORMOC CITY, given that her absence was only temporary.
ISSUE: W/N there was valid substitution in view of Gomez failure to meet 1 yr residency requirement?
NO. COMELEC held that under the Omnibus Election Code, failing to meet the 1 yr residency requirement is a GROUND FOR
DENIAL OR CANCELLATION OF COC, NOT DISQULIFICATION. As such, there was no legal basis to support finding of
disqualification.
Given Gomez’s non-compliance with the requirement, he is deemed to have not been a candidate at all, because a cancelled
COC is considered void ab initio. Consequently, without a valid COC, no valid substitution had taken place.
NO. There is no showing that REYES complied with RA 9225. She alleges that she has never lost her Natural-born
Filipino status and only became a dual citizen. The court still finds her citizenship doubtful.
4. ONGSIAKO REYES V. COMELEC – 1 year residency
Proceeding from issue that she lost her natural-born Filipino Status, the Court holds that she cannot be considered a
REGINA REYES, a holder of US passport and a Blikbayan, filed here COC for REP OF MARINDUQUE. Joseph Tan,
resident of Marinduque because a Filipno citizen who becomes NATURALIZED elsewhere, EFFECTIVELY
petitioned to DENY OR CANCEL her COC for it misrepresented that:
ABANDOS HIS/HER DOMICILE OF ORIGIN. Upon reacquisition pursuant to RA 9225, he must still show that he
1) She is a resident of MARINDUQUE, when she is a resident of BATANGAS (residence of her husband); chose to establish his domicile in the PH.
2) She is a Philippine resident when she is a permanent resident of USA;
The ONLY poof Reyes showed that she never abandoned her domicile of origin is that she served as PROVINCIAL
3) When she is a Filipino, when in fact, she’s American
ADMINISTRATOR of the province. However, it was not sufficient to prove her 1 yr residency because she remains to be
COMELEC found that Reyes is NOT A CITIZEN OF THE PH BECAUSE (1) SHE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH RA an American Citizan and has NOT ABANDONED HER DOMICILE OF CHOICE IN USA.
9225, and (2) she did not satisfy the 1 yr residency requirement. Thus, she was declared ineligible to run for rep of
HENCE, Petition was dismissed.
Marinduque.
REYES contends that:
1) Her marriage to an American citizen on made her a dual citizen;
2) And that she never became a naturalized citizen since she never lost her domicile of origin.
Later, REYES was proclaimed WINNER and TOOK HER OATH before Speaker Belmonte, on the same day
COMELEC made the CANCELLATION OF HER COC executory.
ISSUE: W/N the 1 year residency requirement has been complied with?

SECTION 9 In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special election may be called to fill
such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected
shall serve only for the unexpired term.
5. LUCERO V COMELEC - 1 year requirement – requisites of special elections
The Provincial Board of Canvassers of NORTHERN SAMAR credited JOSE ONG a lead 204 votes against WILMAR
LUCERO for the Rep of 2nd district of northern samar. However, such tally did not include the results of:
1) Precinct No. 7 – where election returns were not canvassed because they were ILLEGIBEL;
2) Precinct No. 13 – ballot boxes were snatched, and no election was held;
3) Precinct No. 16 – all copies of election returns were missing.
LUCERO: asked COMELEC to suspend Ong’s proclamation, ORDER a SPECIAL ELECTION in Precinct 13, RECOUNT
VOTES in Precinct 16 and 7. Pursuant to such, COMELEC directed the PBC to desist from reconvening. Also, pursuant to
Lucero’s Motion, COEMELC ordered that ballots in Precinct 16 (43 for LUCERo, 2 for Ong) be RECOUNTED. However, the
COURT, discarded the recounted ballots.
In a resolution, COMELEC resolved that the recount of Precinct 7 be conditioned upon the election of Precinct 13
ISSUE: W/N COMELEC can call for a SPECIAL ELECTION?
YES. There are 2 REQUISITES for the holding of special elections
1) There is a FAILURE of election
2) Such failure would AFFECT THE RESULTS of the election.