decisions made enbanc

8/12/2019 Decisions made enbanc

1/64

EN BANC

G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995

IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, petitioner,vs.

COMMISSION ON ELEC IONS !"# CIRILO RO$ MON E%O,respondents.

&A'UNAN, J.:

A constitutional provision should be construed as to give it effectiveoperation and suppress the mischief at which it is aimed. 1 The 19 !Constitution mandates that an aspirant for election to the "ouse of#epresentatives be $a registered voter in the district in which he shall beelected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one %earimmediatel% preceding the election.$ ( The mischief which this provision reproduced verbatim from the 19!& Constitution see's to prevent is thepossibilit% of a $stranger or newcomer unac(uainted with the conditions andneeds of a communit% and not identified with the latter, from an electiveoffice to serve that communit%.$ )

)etitioner *melda #omualde+ -arcos filed her Certificate of Candidac% forthe position of #epresentative of the irst /istrict of 0e%te with the )rovincialElection upervisor on -arch , 1992, providing the following information initem no. 3 *

#E */ENCE *N T"E C4N T*T5ENC6 7"E#E * EE8T4 BE E0ECTE/ *--E/*ATE06 )#ECE/*N T"E

E0ECT*4N3 :::::::::: 6ears and seven -onths.

4n -arch ;&, 1992, private respondent Cirilo #o% -onte


2/64

private respondent=s )etition for /is(ualification in )A 92 9 meritoriousG; stri'ing off petitioner=s Corrected Amended Certificate of Candidac% of-arch &1, 1992G and & canceling her original Certificate of Candidac%. 1* /ealing with two primar% issues, namel%, the validit% of amending theoriginal Certificate of Candidac% after the lapse of the deadline for filingcertificates of candidac%, and petitioner=s compliance with the one %earresidenc% re(uirement, the econd /ivision held3

#espondent raised the affirmative defense in her Answer

that the printed word $ even$ @months was a result of an$honest misinterpretation or honest mista'e$ on her partand, therefore, an amendment should subse(uentl% beallowed. he averred that she thought that what wasas'ed was her $actual and ph%sical$ presence in Tolosaand not residence of origin or domicile in the irst0egislative /istrict, to which she could have responded$since childhood.$ *n an accompan%ing affidavit, shestated that her domicile is Tacloban Cit%, a component ofthe irst /istrict, to which she alwa%s intended to returnwhenever absent and which she has never abandoned.

urthermore, in her memorandum, she tried to discreditpetitioner=s theor% of dis(ualification b% alleging that shehas been a resident of the irst 0egislative /istrict of 0e%tesince childhood, although she onl% became a resident ofthe -unicipalit% of Tolosa for seven months. he assertsthat she has alwa%s been a resident of Tacloban Cit%, acomponent of the irst /istrict, before coming to the-unicipalit% of Tolosa.

Along this point, it is interesting to note that prior to herregistration in Tolosa, respondent announced that shewould be registering in Tacloban Cit% so that she can be acandidate for the /istrict. "owever, this intention wasrebuffed when petitioner wrote the Election 4fficer ofTacloban not to allow respondent since she is a residentof Tolosa and not Tacloban. he never disputed this claimand instead implicitl% acceded to it b% registering inTolosa.

This incident belies respondent=s claim of $honestmisinterpretation or honest mista'e.$ Besides, theCertificate of Candidac% onl% as's for #E */ENCE. inceon the basis of her Answer, she was (uite aware of$residence of origin$ which she interprets to be TaclobanCit%, it is curious wh% she did not cite Tacloban Cit% in herCertificate of Candidac%. "er eFplanation that she thoughtwhat was as'ed was her actual and ph%sical presence inTolosa is not eas% to believe because there is none in the(uestion that insinuates about Tolosa. *n fact, item no. inthe Certificate of Candidac% spea's clearl% of $#esidenc%in the CONSTITUENCY where * see' to be elected

immediatel% preceding the election.$ Thus, the eFplanationof respondent fails to be persuasive.

rom the foregoing, respondent=s defense of an honestmista'e or misinterpretation, therefore, is devoid of merit.

To further buttress respondent=s contention that anamendment ma% be made, she cited the case of Alialy v . COMELEC @; C#A 92! . The reliance of respondent onthe case of Alial% is misplaced. The case onl% applies tothe $inconse(uential deviations which cannot affect theresult of the election, or deviations from provisionsintended primaril% to secure timel% and orderl% conduct ofelections.$ The upreme Court in that case considered theamendment onl% as a matter of form. But in the instantcase, the amendment cannot be considered as a matter ofform or an inconse(uential deviation. The change in thenumber of %ears of residence in the place whererespondent see's to be elected is a substantial matterwhich determines her (ualification as a candidac%,speciall% those intended to suppress, accurate materialrepresentation in the original certificate which adversel%

affects the filer. To admit the amended certificate is tocondone the evils brought b% the shifting minds ofmanipulating candidate, of the detriment of the integrit% ofthe election.

-oreover, to allow respondent to change the seven @!month period of her residenc% in order to prolong it b%claiming it was $since childhood$ is to allow anuntruthfulness to be committed before this Commission.The arithmetical accurac% of the ! months residenc% therespondent indicated in her certificate of candidac% can begleaned from her entr% in her >oter=s #egistration #ecordaccomplished on Hanuar% ; , 1992 which reflects that she

is a resident of Brg%. 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te for I months atthe time of the said registration @AnneF A, )etition . aidaccurac% is further buttressed b% her letter to the electionofficer of an Huan, -etro -anila, dated August ;?, 199?,re(uesting for the cancellation of her registration in the)ermanent 0ist of >oters thereat so that she can be reregistered or transferred to Brg%. 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te. Thedates of these three @& different documents show therespondent=s consistent conviction that she hastransferred her residence to 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te from-etro -anila onl% for such limited period of time, startingin the last wee' of August 199? which on -arch , 1992will onl% sum up to ! months. The Commission, therefore,cannot be persuaded to believe in the respondent=scontention that it was an error.


3/64

FFF FFF FFF

Based on these reasons the Amended CorrectedCertificate of Candidac% cannot be admitted b% thisCommission.

FFF FFF FFF

Anent the second issue, and based on the foregoingdiscussion, it is clear that respondent has not compliedwith the one %ear residenc% re(uirement of theConstitution.

*n election cases, the term $residence$ has alwa%s beenconsidered as s%non%mous with $domicile$ which importsnot onl% the intention to reside in a fiFed place but alsopersonal presence in that place, coupled with conductindicative of such intention. /omicile denotes a fiFedpermanent residence to which when absent for businessor pleasure, or for li'e reasons, one intends to return.@)erfecto a%pon vs. Eliseo Juirino, 9I )hil ;9?G

#omualde+ vs. #TC Tacloban, ;;I C#A ? . *nrespondent=s case, when she returned to the )hilippines in1991, the residence she chose was not Tacloban but anHuan, -etro -anila. Thus, her animus revertendi ispointed to -etro -anila and not Tacloban.

This /ivision is aware that her claim that she has been aresident of the irst /istrict since childhood is nothingmore than to give her a color of (ualification where she isotherwise constitutionall% dis(ualified. *t cannot holdground in the face of the facts admitted b% the respondentin her affidavit. EFcept for the time that she studied andwor'ed for some %ears after graduation in Tacloban Cit%,she continuousl% lived in -anila. *n 1929, after herhusband was elected enator, she lived and resided in

an Huan, -etro -anila where she was a registered voter.*n 19I2, she lived in an -iguel, -anila where she wasagain a registered voter. *n 19! , she served as memberof the Batasang )ambansa as the representative of theCit% of -anila and later on served as the overnor of-etro -anila. he could not have served these positions ifshe had not been a resident of the Cit% of -anila.

urthermore, when she filed her certificate of candidac%for the office of the )resident in 199;, she claimed to be aresident of an Huan, -etro -anila. As a matter of fact on

August ;?, 199?, respondent wrote a letter with theelection officer of an Huan, -etro -anila re(uesting forthe cancellation of her registration in the permanent list ofvoters that she ma% be re registered or transferred to

Baranga% 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te. These facts manifest thatshe could not have been a resident of Tacloban Cit% sincechildhood up to the time she filed her certificate ofcandidac% because she became a resident of man%places, including -etro -anila. This debun's her claimthat prior to her r esidence in Tolosa, 0e%te, she was aresident of the irst 0egislative /istrict of 0e%te sincechildhood.

*n this case, respondent=s conduct reveals her lac' ofintention to ma'e Tacloban her domicile. he registeredas a voter in different places and on several occasionsdeclared that she was a resident of -anila. Although shespent her school da%s in Tacloban, she is considered tohave abandoned such place when she chose to sta% andreside in other different places. *n the case of Romualdezvs . RTC @;;I C#A ? the Court eFplained how oneac(uires a new domicile b% choice. There must concur3 @1residence or bodil% presence in the new localit%G @;intention to remain thereG and @& intention to abandon theold domicile. *n other words there must basicall% beanimus manendi with animus non revertendi . 7henrespondent chose to sta% in *locos and later on in -anila,coupled with her intention to sta% there b% registering as avoter there and eFpressl% declaring that she is a residentof that place, she is deemed to have abandoned TaclobanCit%, where she spent her childhood and school da%s, asher place of domicile.

)ure intention to reside in that place is not sufficient, theremust li'ewise be conduct indicative of such intention.#espondent=s statements to the effect that she has alwa%sintended to return to Tacloban, without the accompan%ingconduct to prove that intention, is not conclusive of herchoice of residence. #espondent has not presented an%evidence to show that her conduct, one %ear prior t heelection, showed intention to reside in Tacloban. 7orse,what was evident was that prior to her residence inTolosa, she had been a resident of -anila.

*t is evident from these circumstances that she was not aresident of the irst /istrict of 0e%te $since childhood.$

To further support the assertion that she could have notbeen a resident of the irst /istrict of 0e%te for more thanone %ear, petitioner correctl% pointed out that on Hanuar%; , 1992 respondent registered as a voter at precinct No.1 A of 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te. *n doing so, she placed in her

>oter #egistration #ecord that she resided in themunicipalit% of Tolosa for a period of siF months. This ma%


4/64

be inconse(uential as argued b% the respondent since itrefers onl% to her residence in Tolosa, 0e%te. But herfailure to prove that she was a resident of the irst /istrictof 0e%te prior to her residence in Tolosa leaves nothingbut a convincing proof that she had been a resident of thedistrict for siF months onl%. 15

*n a #esolution promulgated a da% before the -a% , 1992 elections, theC4-E0EC en ban denied petitioner=s -otion for #econsideration 16 of the

April ;?, 1992 #esolution declaring her not (ualified to run for the position of-ember of the "ouse of #epresentatives for the irst 0egislative /istrict of0e%te. 17 The #esolution tersel% stated3

After deliberating on the -otion for #econsideration, theCommission #E 40>E/ to /EN6 it, no new substantialmatters having been raised therein to warrant reeFamination of the resolution granting the petition fordis(ualification. 18

4n -a% 11, 1992, the C4-E0EC issued a #esolution allowing petitioner=sproclamation should the results of the canvass show that she obtained thehighest number of votes in the congressional elections in the irst /istrict of0e%te. 4n the same da%, however, the C4-E0EC reversed itself and issueda second #esolution directing that the proclamation of petitioner besuspended in the event that she obtains the highest number of votes. 19

*n a upplemental )etition dated ;2 -a% 1992, petitioner averred that shewas the overwhelming winner of the elections for the congressional seat inthe irst /istrict of 0e%te held -a% , 1992 based on the canvass completedb% the )rovincial Board of Canvassers on -a% 1?, 1992. )etitioner allegedthat the canvass showed that she obtained a total of ! ,?!1 votes comparedto the &I, && votes received b% #espondent -onte


5/64

There is a difference between domicile and residence.$#esidence$ is used to indicate a place of abode, whetherpermanent or temporar%G $domicile$ denotes a fiFedpermanent residence to which, when absent, one has theintention of returning. A man ma% have a residence in oneplace and a domicile in another. #esidence is notdomicile, but domicile is residence coupled with theintention to remain for an unlimited time. A man can havebut one domicile for the same purpose at an% time, but he

ma% have numerous places of residence. "is place ofresidence is generall% his place of domicile, but it is not b%an% means necessaril% so since no length of residencewithout intention of remaining will constitute domicile.

or political purposes the concepts of residence and domicile are dictated b%the peculiar criteria of political laws. As these concepts have evolved in ourelection law, what has clearl% and une(uivocall% emerged is the fact thatresidence for election purposes is used s%non%mousl% with domicile.

*n Nuval vs . (uray , (* the Court held that $the term residence. . . iss%non%mous with domicile which imports not onl% intention to reside in afiFed place, but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct

indicative of such intention.$(5

Larena vs . Teves(6

reiterated the samedoctrine in a case involving the (ualifications of the respondent therein to thepost of -unicipal )resident of /umaguete, Negros 4riental. )ay'on vs .*uirino , (7 held that the absence from residence to pursue studies or practicea profession or registration as a voter other than in the place where one iselected does not constitute loss of residence. (8 o settled is the concept @ofdomicile in our election law that in these and other election law cases, thisCourt has stated that the mere absence of an individual from his permanentresidence without the intention to abandon it does not result in a loss orchange of domicile.

The deliberations of the 19 ! Constitution on the residence (ualification forcertain elective positions have placed be%ond doubt the principle that when

the Constitution spea's of $residence$ in election law, it actuall% means onl%$domicile$ to wit3

-r. Nolledo3 7ith respect to ection 2, * remember that inthe 19!1 Constitutional Convention, there was an attemptto re(uire residence in the place not less than one %earimmediatel% preceding the da% of the elections. o m%(uestion is3 7hat is the Committee=s concept of residenceof a candidate for the legislatureK *s it actual residence oris it the concept of domicile or constructive residenceK

-r. /avide3 -adame )resident, insofar as the regularmembers of the National Assembl% are concerned, the

proposed section merel% provides, among others, $and aresident thereof$, that is, in the district for a period of not

less than one %ear preceding the da% of the election. Thiswas in effect lifted from the 19!& Constitution, theinterpretation given to it was domicile. (9

FFF FFF FFF

-rs. #osario Braid3 The neFt (uestion is on ection !,page ;. * thin' Commissioner Nolledo has raised the samepoint that $resident$ has been interpreted at times as amatter of intention rather than actual residence.

-r. /e los #e%es3 /omicile.

-s. #osario Braid3 6es, o, would the gentleman considerat the proper time to go bac' to actual residence ratherthan mere intention to resideK

-r. /e los #e%es3 But we might encounter some difficult%especiall% considering that a provision in the Constitutionin the Article on uffrage sa%s that ilipinos living abroadma% vote as enacted b% law. o, we have to stic' to the

original concept that it should be b% domicile and notph%sical residence. )+

*n Co vs . Ele toral Tribunal o! the +ouse o! Re'resentatives , )1 this Courtconcluded that the framers of the 19 ! Constitution obviousl% adhered to thedefinition given to the term residence in election law, regarding it as havingthe same meaning as domicile. )(

*n the light of the principles *, ec. I ofthe 19 ! ConstitutionK 4f what significance is the (uestioned entr% inpetitioner=s Certificate of Candidac% stating her residence in the irst0egislative /istrict of 0e%te as seven @! monthsK

*t is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidac% whichought to be decisive in determining whether or not and individual hassatisfied the constitution=s residenc% (ualification re(uirement. The saidstatement becomes material onl% when there is or appears to be a deliberateattempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a f act which would otherwise render acandidate ineligible. *t would be plainl% ridiculous for a candidate todeliberatel% and 'nowingl% ma'e a statement in a certificate of candidac%which would lead to his or her dis(ualification.

*t stands to reason therefore, that petitioner merel% committed an honestmista'e in


6/64

0e%te instead of her period of residence in the irst district, which was $sincechildhood$ in the space provided. These circumstances and events areampl% detailed in the C4-E0EC=s econd /ivision=s (uestioned resolution,albeit with a different interpretation. or instance, when herein petitionerannounced that she would be registering in Tacloban Cit% to ma'e hereligible to run in the irst /istrict, private respondent -onte


7/64

attachment to the place of one=s birth must be overcomeb% positive proof of abandonment for another.

rom the foregoing, it can be concluded that in its above cited statementssupporting its proposition that petitioner was ineligible to run for the positionof #epresentative of the irst /istrict of 0e%te, the C4-E0EC was obviousl%referring to petitioner=s various places of @actual residence, not her domicile.*n doing so, it not onl% ignored settled


8/64

*n this connection, it cannot be correctl% argued that petitioner lost herdomicile of origin b% operation of law as a result of her marriage to the late)resident erdinand E. -arcos in 192;. or there is a clearl% establisheddistinction between the Civil Code concepts of $domicile$ and $residence.$ )9 The presumption that the wife automaticall% gains the husband=s domicile b%operation of law upon marriage cannot be inferred from the use of the term$residence$ in Article 11 of the Civil Code because the Civil Code is onearea where the two concepts are well delineated. /r. Arturo Tolentino,writing on this specific area eFplains3

*n the Civil Code, there is an obvious difference betweendomicile and residence. Both terms impl% relationsbetween a person and a placeG but in residence, therelation is one of fact while in domicile it is legal or


9/64

residence is also established in some other place. *1

*n fact, even the matter of a common residence between the husband andthe wife during the marriage is not an iron clad principleG *n cases appl%ingthe Civil Code on the (uestion of a common matrimonial residence, our


10/64

4n the other hand, the common law concept of $matrimonial domicile$appears to have been incorporated, as a result of our


11/64

-a% , 1992 elections, suffice it to sa% that "#ET=s


12/64

domicile of a wife from what it was prior to their marriage. Thedomiciliar% decision made b% the husband in the eFercise of theright conferred b% Article 11 of the Civil Code binds the wife. An%and all acts of a wife during her coverture contrar% to the domiciliar%choice of the husband cannot change in an% wa% the domicilelegall% fiFed b% the husband. These acts are void not onl% becausethe wife lac's the capacit% to choose her domicile but also becausethe% are contrar% to law and public polic%.

*n the case at bench, it is not disputed that former )resident -arcoseFercised his right to fiF the famil% domicile and established it in Batac,*locos Norte, where he was then the congressman. At that 'arti ular 'oint o!time and throu&hout their married li!e. 'etitioner lost her domi ile inTa loban. Leyte . ince petitioner=s Batac domicile has been fiFed b%operation of law, it was not affected in 1929 when her husband was electedas enator, when the% lived in an Huan, #i+al and where she registered asa voter. *t was not also affected in 19I2 when her husband was elected)resident, when the% lived in -alacaMang )alace, and when she registeredas a voter in an -iguel, -anila. Nor was it affected when she served as amember of the ,atasan& "ambansa , -inister of "uman ettlements and

overnor of -etro -anila during the incumbenc% of her husband as)resident of the nation. 5nder Article 11 of the Civil Code, it was onl% herhusband who could change the f amil% domicile in Batac and the evidenceshows he did not effect an% such change. To a large degree, this follows thecommon law that $a woman on her marriage loses her own domicile and b%operation of law, ac(uires that of her husband, no matter 0here the 0i!ea tually lives or 0hat she believes or intends .$ 7

ourth. The more difficult tas' is how to interpret the effect of the death oneptember ; , 19 9 of former )resident -arcos on petitioner=s Batac

domicile. The issue is of !irst im'ression in our


13/64

within the so called fourth civil degree. he ma% noteFercise her profession or occupation or engage inbusiness if her husband ob< re'ealed Arti le ;;? o! the Civil Code . Commenting onthe dut% of the husband and wife to live together, former -adamHustice Alice empio /i% of the Court of Appeals specified theinstances when a 0i!e may no0 re!use to live 0ith her husband ,thus3 (8

@; The wife has the dut% to live with her husband, but shema% refuse to do so in certain cases li'e3

@a *f the place chosen b% the husbandas famil% residence is dangerous to her0ifeG

@b *f the husband sub


14/64

@e 7here the husband spent his time ingambling, giving no mone% to his famil%for food and necessities, and at thesame time insulting his wife and la%inghands on her. @)anuncio v. ula, CA, &?4 1;9 G

@f *f the husband has no fiFed residenceand lives a vagabond life as a tramp @1

-anresa &;9 G

@g *f the husband is carr%ing on ashameful business at home @ ahn v./arb%, & 0a. Ann. ! .

The ines a'able on lusion is that our )amily Code has om'letelyeman i'ated the 0i!e !rom the ontrol o! the husband , thusabandoning the parties= theoretic identit% of interest. No less thanthe late revered -r. Hustice H.B.0. #e%es who chaired the CivilCode #evision Committee of the 5) 0aw Center gave this insightfulview in one of his rare lectures after retirement3 (9

FFF FFF FFF

The amil% Code is primaril% intended to reform the famil%law so as to emancipate the wife from the eFclusivecontrol of the husband and to place her at parit% with himinsofar as the famil% is concerned. The 0i!e and thehusband are no0 'la ed on e$ual standin& by the Code .The% are now


15/64

& . 5pon m% return to the countr%, * wanted to immediatel%live and reside in Tacloban Cit% or in 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te,even if m% residences there were not livable as the% hadbeen destro%ed and cannibali+ed. The )C , however,did not permit and allow me.

&9. As a conse(uence, * had to live at various times in the7estin )hilippine )la+a in )asa% Cit%, a friend=s apartmenton A%ala Avenue, a house in outh orbes )ar' which m%

daughter rented, and )acific )la+a, all in -a'ati.

? . After the 199; )residential Elections, * lived andresided in the residence of m% brother in an Hose,Tacloban Cit%, and pursued m% negotiations with )C torecover m% se(uestered residences in Tacloban Cit% andBaranga% 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te.

? .1 *n preparation for m% observanceof All aints= /a% and All ouls= /a% that%ear, * renovated m% parents= burialgrounds and entombed their boneswhich had been eFcalvated, unearthed

and scattered.

?1. 4n November ;9, 199&, * formall% wrote )CChairman -agtanggol unigundo for permissions to

. . . rehabilitate . . . @o ur ancestral housein Tacloban and farmhouse in 4lot,0e%te . . . to ma'e them livable for usthe -arcos famil% to have a home in ourown motherland.

FFF FFF FFF

?;. *t was onl% on I Hune 199?, however, when )CChairman unigundo, in his letter to Col. imeon 8empis,Hr., )C #egion #epresentative, allowed me to repairand renovate m% 0e%te residences. * (uote part of hisletter3

/ear Col. 8empis,

5pon representation b% -rs. *melda #.-arcos to this Commission, that sheintends to visit our se(uesteredproperties in 0e%te, please allow heraccess thereto. he ma% also causerepairs and renovation of the

se(uestered properties, in which event,it shall be understood that herunderta'ing said repairs is notauthori+ation for her to ta'e over saidproperties, and that all eFpenses shallbe for her account and notreimbursable. )lease eFtend thenecessar% courtes% to her.

FFF FFF FFF

?&. * was not permitted, however, to live and sta% in theto. NiMo hrine residence in Tacloban Cit% where *

wanted to sta% and reside, after repairs and renovationswere completed. *n August 199?, * transferred from anHose, Tacloban Cit%, to m% residence in Baranga% 4lot,Tolosa, 0e%te, when )C permitted me to sta% and livethere.

It is then lear that in ;


16/64

Candidac%, )) petitioner wrote $since childhood$ after *tem No. . Theamendment of a certificate of candidac% to correct a bona !ide mista'e hasbeen allowed b% this Court as a matter of course and as a matter of right. Aswe held in Alialy v . COMELEC , )* viz .3

FFF FFF FFF

The absence of the signature of the ecretar% of the localchapter N.) in the original certificate of candidac%presented before the deadline eptember 11, 1929, didnot render the certificate invalid. The amendment o! the

erti!i ate. althou&h at a date a!ter the deadline. butbe!ore the ele tion. 0as substantial om'lian e 0ith thela0. and the de!e t 0as ured .

*t goes without sa%ing that petitioner=s erroneous Certificate ofCandidac% filed on -arch , 1992 cannot be used as evidenceagainst her. )rivate respondent=s petition for the dis(ualification ofpetitioner rested alone on these two @; brittle pieces ofdocumentar% evidence petitioner=s >oter=s #egistration #ecordand her original Certificate of Candidac%. #anged against theevidence of the petitioner showing her ceaseless contacts with

Tacloban, private respondent=s two @; pieces of evidence are tooinsufficient to dis(ualif% petitioner, more so, to den% her the right torepresent the people of the irst /istrict of 0e%te who haveoverwhelmingl% voted for her.

ifth. ection 1 , Article * C of the Constitution mandates that $ bona !idecandidates for an% public office shall be free from an% form of harassmentand discrimination.$ )5 A detached reading of the records of the case atbench will show that all forms of legal and eFtra legal obstacles have beenthrown against petitioner to prevent her from running as the people=srepresentative in the irst /istrict of 0e%te. *n petitioner=s Answer to thepetition to dis(ualif% her, she averred3 )6

FFF FFF FFF

1 . )etitioner=s @herein private respondent -onte


17/64

a voter in Tolosa so that she will be forced to run as#epresentative not in the irst but in the econd /istrict.

*t did not happen. 4n -arch 1I, 1992, the "onorableupreme Court unanimousl% promulgated a $ 1e ision ,$

penned b% Associate Hustice #e%nato . )uno, thedispositive portion of which reads3

*N >*E7 7"E#E4 , ection 1 of#esolution No. ;!&I insofar as ittransferred the municipalit% of Capoocanof the econd /istrict and themunicipalit% of )alompon of the ourth/istrict to the Third /istrict of theprovince of 0e%te, is annulled and setaside. 7e also den% the )etition pra%ingfor the transfer of the municipalit% ofTolosa from the irst /istrict to the

econd /istrict of the province of 0e%te.No costs.

)etitioner=s @-onte


18/64

residence or bodil% presence in the new localit%, @b intention to remain thereor animus manendi , and @c an intention to abandon the old domicile oranimus non revertendi @#omualde+ v. #TC, Br. !, Tacloban Cit%, ;;I C#A? , ?12 . A third classification is domicile b% operation of law whichattributes to a person a domicile independent of his own intention or actualresidence, ordinaril% resulting from legal domestic relations, as that of thewife arising from marriage, or the relation of a parent and a child @; C.H. .! .

*n election law, when our Constitution spea's of residence for electionpurposes it means domicile @Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the "ouse of#epresentatives, 199 C#A I9;, !1&G Nuval v. ura%, 2; )hil. I?2, I21 . Tom% mind, public respondent Commission on Elections misapplied thisconcept, of domicile which led to petitioner=s dis(ualification b% ruling thatpetitioner failed to compl% with the constitutionall% mandated one %earresidence re(uirement. Apparentl%, public respondent Commission deemedas conclusive petitioner=s sta% and registration as voter in man% places asconduct disclosing her intent to abandon her established domicile of origin inTacloban, 0e%te. *n several decisions, though, the Court has laid down therule that registration of a voter in a place other than his place of origin is notsufficient to constitute abandonment or loss of such residence @ a%pon v.Juirino, 9I )hil. ;9?, & . #espondent Commission offered no cogentreason to depart from this rule eFcept to surmise petitioner=s intent ofabandoning her domicile of origin.

*t has been suggested that petitioner=s domicile of origin was supplanted b%a new domicile due to her marriage, a domicile b% operation of law. Theproposition is that upon the death of her husband in 19 9 she retains herhusband=s domicile, i .e ., Batac, *locos Norte, until she ma'es an actualchange thereof. * find this proposition (uite untenable.

Tacloban, 0e%te, is petitioner=s domicile of origin which was involuntaril%supplanted with another, i .e ., Batac, *locos Norte, upon her marriage in 192?with then Congressman -arcos. B% legal fiction she followed the domicile ofher husband. *n m% view, the r eason for the law is for the spouses to full%and effectivel% perform their marital duties and obligations to one another. 1 The (uestion of domicile, however, is not affected b% the f act that it was thelegal or moral dut% of the individual to reside in a given place @; C.H. .11 . Thus, while the wife retains her marital domicile so long as themarriage subsists, she automaticall% loses it upon the latter=s termination, forthe reason behind the law then ceases. 4therwise, petitioner, after hermarriage was ended b% the death of her husband, would be placed in a (uiteabsurd and unfair situation of having been freed from all wifel% obligations%et made to hold on to one which no longer serves an% meaningful purpose.

*t is m% view therefore that petitioner reverted to her original domicile ofTacloban, 0e%te upon her husband=s death without even signif%ing herintention to that effect. *t is for the private respondent to prove, not forpetitioner to disprove, that petitioner has effectivel% abandoned Tacloban,0e%te for Batac, *locos Norte or for some other place s. The clear rule is that

it is the part% @herein private respondent claiming that a person hasabandoned or lost his residence of origin who must show and provepreponderantl% such abandonment or loss @ a%pon v. Juirino, su'ra at ;9 G; C.H. . 1I , because the presumption is strongl% in favor of an originalor former domicile, as against an ac(uired one @; C.H. . 1I . )rivaterespondent unfortunatel% failed to discharge this burden as the record isdevoid of convincing proof that petitioner has ac(uired whether voluntaril% orinvoluntaril%, a new domicile to replace her domicile of origin.

The records, on the contrar%, clearl% show that petitioner has complied withthe constitutional one %ear residence re(uirement. After her eFile abroad,she returned to the )hilippines in 1991 to reside in 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te, butthe )residential Commission on ood overnment which se(uestered herresidential house and other properties forbade her necessitating hertransient sta% in various places in -anila @Affidavit p.I, attached as AnneF *of the )etition . *n 199;, she ran for the position of president writing in hercertificate of candidac% her residence as an Huan, -etro -anila. After herloss therein, she went bac' to Tacloban Cit%, ac(uired her residencecertificate ( and resided with her brother in an Hose. he resided in anHose, Tacloban Cit% until August of 199? when she was allowed b% the)C to move and reside in her se(uestered residential house in 4lot,Tolosa, 0e%te @AnneF *, p. I . ) *t was in the same month of August when sheapplied for the cancellation of her previous registration in an Huan, -etro-anila in order to register anew as voter of 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te, which shedid on Hanuar% ; , 1992. rom this se(uence of events, * find it (uiteimproper to use as the rec'oning period of the one %ear residencere(uirement the date when she applied for the cancellation of her previousregistration in an Huan, -etro -anila. The fact which private respondentnever bothered to disprove is that petitioner transferred her residence afterthe 199; presidential election from an Huan, -etro -anila to an Hose,Tacloban Cit%, and resided therein until August of 199?. he latertransferred to 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te @AnneF *, p. ! . *t appearing that bothTacloban Cit% and Tolosa, 0e%te are within the irst Congressional /istrict of0e%te, it indubitabl% stands that she had more than a %ear of residence in theconstituenc% she sought to be elected. )etitioner, therefore, hassatisfactoril% complied with the one %ear (ualification re(uired b% the 19 !

Constitution.

* vote to grant the petition.

ROMERO, J., separate opinion3

)etitioner has appealed to this Court for relief after the C4-E0EC ruled thatshe was dis(ualified from running for #epresentative of her /istrict and that,in the event that she should, nevertheless, muster a ma


19/64

Certificate of Candidac% b% a vote of ; 1 on April ;?, 1992G then the denialb% the C4-E0EC en ban of her -otion for #econsideration on -a% !,1992, a da% before the electionG then because she persisted in running, itsdecision on-a% 11, 1992 or three da%s after the election, allowing her proclamation inthe event that the r esults of the canvass should show that she obtained thehighest number of votes @obviousl% noting that petitioner had wonoverwhelmingl% over her opponent , but almost simultaneousl% reversingitself b% directing that even if she wins, her proclamation should nonethelessbe suspended.

Crucial to the resolution of the dis(ualification issue presented b% the case atbench is the interpretation to be given to the one %ear residenc% re(uirementimposed b% the Constitution on aspirants for a Congressional seat. 1

Bearing in mind that the term $resident$ has been held to be s%non%mouswith $domicile$ for election purposes, it is important to determine whetherpetitioner=s domicile was in the irst /istrict of 0e%te and if so, whether shehad resided there for at least a period of one %ear. 5ndisputed is herdomicile of origin, Tacloban, where her parents lived at the time of her birth./epending on what theor% one adopts, the same ma% have been changedwhen she married erdinand E. -arcos, then domiciled in Batac, b%

operation of law. Assuming it did, his death certainl% released her from theobligation to live with him at the residence fiFed b% him during his lifetime.7hat ma% confuse the la%man at this point is the fact that the term $domicile$ma% refer to $domicile of origin,$ $domicile of choice,$ or $domicile b%operation of law,$ which sub


20/64

e(ualit% between and among nations and individuals found hospitablelodgment in the 5nited Nations Charter of which the )hilippines was one ofthe original signatories. B% then, the panish $con(uistadores$ had beenoverthrown b% the American forces at the turn of the centur%. The bedroc' ofthe 5.N. Charter was firml% anchored on this credo3 $to reaffirm faith in thefundamental human rights, in the dignit% and worth of the human person, inthe e$ual ri&hts o! men and 0omen .$ @Emphasis supplied

*t too' over thirt% %ears before these egalitarian doctrines bore fruit,

owing largel% to the burgeoning of the feminist movement. 7hatma% be regarded as the international bill of rights for women wasimplanted in the Convention on the Elimination of All orms of/iscrimination Against 7omen @CE/A7 adopted b% the 5.N.

eneral Assembl% which entered into force as an internationaltreat% on eptember &, 19 1. *n ratif%ing the instrument, the)hilippines bound itself to implement its liberating spirit and letter,for its Constitution, no less, declared that $The )hilippines. . .adopts the generall% accepted principles of international law as partof the law of the land and adheres to the polic% of peace, e(ualit%,


21/64

/I UG, J., separate opinion3

The case at bench deals with eFplicit Constitutional mandates.

The Constitution is not a pliable instrument. *t is a bedroc' in our legals%stem that sets up ideals and directions and render stead% our strideshence. *t onl% loo's bac' so as to ensure that mista'es in the past are notrepeated. A compliant transience of a constitution belittles its basic functionand wea'ens its goals. A constitution ma% well become outdated b% therealities of time. 7hen it does, it must be changed but while it remains, weowe it respect and allegiance. Anarch%, open or subtle, has never been, normust it ever be, the answer to perceived transitor% needs, let alone societalattitudes, or the Constitution might lose its ver% essence.

Constitutional provisions must be ta'en to be mandator% in character unless,either b% eFpress statement or b% necessar% implication, a different intentionis manifest @see -arcelino vs. Cru+, 1;1 C#A 21 .

The two provisions initiall% brought to focus are ection I and ection 1! of Article >* of the fundamental law. These provisions read3

ec. I. No person shall be a -ember of the "ouse of#epresentatives unless he is a natural born citi+en of the)hilippines and, on the da% of the election, is at leasttwent% five %ears of age, able to read and write, and,eFcept the part% list representatives, a registered voter inthe district in which he shall be elected, and a residentthereof for a period of not less than one %ear immediatel%preceding the da% of the election.

ec. 1!. The enate and the "ouse of #epresentativesshall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be thesole


22/64

that the protestee must have theretofore been dul% proclaimed and hassince become a $member$ of the enate or the "ouse of #epresentatives.The (uestion can be as'ed on whether or not the proclamation of acandidate is itug and -endo+a @Hustices Cru+ and Bellosillo were on official leave . oreas% reference, let me (uote from the first Labo decision3

inall%, there is the (uestion of whether or not the privaterespondent, who filed the $uo 0arranto petition, canreplace the petitioner as ma%or. "e cannot. The simplereason is that as he obtained onl% the second highestnumber of votes in the election, he was obviousl% not thechoice of the people of Baguio Cit%.

The latest ruling of the Court on this issue is antos v.Commission on Elections, @1&! C#A !? decided in19 2. *n that case, the candidate who placed second wasproclaimed elected after the votes for his winning rival,who was dis(ualified as a turncoat and considered a noncandidate, were all disregard as stra%. *n effect, thesecond placer won b% default. That decision wassupported b% eight members of the Court then, @Cuevas,% ., 'onente , with -a'asiar, Concepcion, Hr., Escolin,#elova, /e la uente, Alampa% and A(uino, %% .,concurring. with three dissenting @Teehan'ee, Acting C .% .,


23/64

Abad antos and -elencio "errera, %% . and another tworeserving their vote. @)lana and utierre+, Hr., %% . 4newas on official leave. @ ernando, C .% .

#e eFamining that decision, the Court finds, and so holds,that it should be reversed in f avor of the earlier case of(eronimo v . Ramos , @1&I C#A ?&2 which representsthe more logical and democratic rule. That case, whichreiterated the doctrine first announced in 191; in To'a io

v . "aredes , @;& )hil. ;& was supported b% ten membersof the Court, @ utierre+, Hr., 'onente , with Teehan'ee, Abad antos, -elencio "errera, )lana, Escolin, #elova,/e la uente, Cuevas and Alampa%, %% ., concurringwithout an% dissent, although one reserved his vote,@-a'asiar, % . another too' no part, @A(uino, % . and twoothers were on leave. @ ernando, C .% . and Concepcion,Hr., % . There the Court held3

. . . it would be eFtremel% repugnant tothe basic concept of the constitutionall%guaranteed right to suffrage if acandidate who has not ac(uired thema


24/64

unless he has been given plenar% pardon or grantedamnest%.

The dis(ualifications to be a candidate herein providedshall be deemed removed upon the declaration b%competent authorit% that said insanit% or incompetencehad been removed or after the eFpiration of a period offive %ears from his service of sentence, unless within thesame period he again becomes dis(ualified. @Emphasis

added

I . 1is$uali!i ations . An% candidate who, in anaction or protest in which he is a part% is declared b% finaldecision of a competent court guilt% of, or found b% theCommission of having @a given mone% or other materialconsideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters orpublic officials performing electoral functionsG @bcommitted acts of terrorism to enhance his candidac%G @cspent in his election campaign an amount in eFcess of thatallowed b% this CodeG @d solicited, received or made an%contribution prohibited under ections 9, 92, 9I, 9! and1 ?G or @e violated an% of ections , &, 2, I and;I1, paragraphs d, e, ', v, and cc, sub paragraph I, shallbe dis(ualified !rom ontinuin& as a andidate , or if he hasbeen elected, from holding the office. An% person who is apermanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign countr%shall not be (ualified to run for an% elective office underthis Code, unless said person has waived his status aspermanent resident or immigrant of a foreign countr% inaccordance with the residence re(uirement provided for inthe election laws. @Emphasis added

! . "etition to deny due ourse to or an el aerti!i ate o! andida y . A verified petition see'ing to den% due

course or to cancel a certificate of candidac% ma% be filedb% an% person e5 lusively on the &round that any materialre'resentation ontained therein as re$uired underSe tion @B hereo! is !alse . The petition ma% be filed at an%time not later than twent% five da%s from the time of thefiling of the certificate of candidac% and shall be decided,after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen da%sbefore the election. @Emphasis added

the Electoral #eforms 0aw of 19 ! @#.A. No. II?I 3

I. E!!e t o! 1is$uali!i ation Case . An% candidatewho has been declared b% final


25/64

#ecord and Certificate of Candidac%, sheD is dis(ualified from running forthe position of #epresentative, considering that on election da%, -a% ,1992, sheD would have resided less than ten @1 months in the districtwhere she is see'ing to be elected.$ or its part, the C4-E0EC=s econd/ivision, in its resolution of April ;?, 1992, cancelled her certificate ofcandidac% and corrected certificate of candidac% on the basis of its findingthat petitioner is $not (ualified to run for the position of -ember of the "ouseof #epresentatives for the irst 0egislative /istrict of 0e%te$ and not becauseof an% finding that she had made false representations as to material mattersin her certificate of candidac%.

-onte


26/64

specified in 1; and I of the 4mnibus Election Code and in ? ofthe 0ocal overnment Code and are for the purpose of barring an individualfrom be omin& a andidate or !rom ontinuin& as a andidate for publicoffice. *n a word, t heir purpose is to eliminate a andidate !rom the ra eeither from the start or during its progress. $*neligibilit%,$ on the other hand,refers to the lac' of the (ualifications prescribed in the Constitution or thestatutes for holding 'ubli o!!i e and the purpose of the proceedings fordeclaration of ineligibilit% is to remove the in umbent !rom o!!i e .

Conse(uentl%, that an individual possesses the (ualifications for a publicoffice does not impl% that he is not dis(ualified from becoming a candidate orcontinuing as a candidate for a public office and vice versa. 7e have thissort of dichotom% in our Naturali+ation 0aw. @C.A. No. ?!& That an alien hasthe (ualifications prescribed in ; of the law does not impl% that he doesnot suffer from an% of dis(ualifications provided in ?.

*ndeed, provisions for dis(ualifications on the ground that the candidate isguilt% of prohibited election practices or offenses, li'e other pre proclamationremedies, are aimed at the detestable practice of $grabbing the proclamationand prolonging the election protest,$ 8 through the use of $manufactured$election returns or resort to other tric'er% for the purpose of altering theresults of the election. This rationale does not appl% to cases for determininga candidate=s (ualifications for office before the election. To the contrar%, it isthe candidate against whom a proceeding for dis(ualification is brought whocould be preice overnor,members of the angguniang )anlalawigan, etc. such petition must be filedeither with the C4-E0EC, the #egional Trial Courts, or -unicipal TrialCourts, as provided in Art. * , C, ;@; of the Constitution. *n the case ofthe )resident and >ice )resident, the petition must be filed with the)residential Electoral Tribunal @Art. >**, ?, last paragraph , and in the caseof the enators, with the enate Electoral Tribunal, and in the case ofCongressmen, with the "ouse of #epresentatives Electoral Tribunal. @Art.>*, 1! There is greater reason for not allowing before the election thefiling of dis(ualification proceedings based on alleged ineligibilit% in the caseof candidates for )resident, >ice )resident, enators and members of the"ouse of #epresentatives, because of the same polic% prohibiting the filingof pre proclamation cases against such candidates.

or these reasons, * am of the opinion that the C4-E0EC had no *, section I

*t has been argued that for purposes of our election laws, the term residen ehas been understood as s%non%mous with domi ile . This argument has beenvalidated b% no less than the Court in numerous cases 1 where significantl%the !a tual ir umstan es clearl% and convincingl% proved that a persondoes not effectivel% lose his domicile of origin if the intention to reside thereinis manifest with his 'ersonal 'resen e in the place, ou'led 0ith ondu tindi ative o! su h intention .

7ith this basic thesis in mind, it would not be difficult to conceive of differentmodalities within which the phrase $a resident thereof @meaning, thelegislative district for a period of not less than one %ear$ would fit.

The first instance is where a person=s residence and domicile coincide inwhich case a person onl% has to prove that he has been domiciled in apermanent location for not less than a %ear before the election.

A second situation is where a person maintains a residence apart from hisdomicile in which case he would have the luFur% of district shopping,


27/64


28/64

)ost 4ffice Addressfor election purposes3Brg%. 4lot, Tolosa,0e%te

9. #E */ENCE *NT"EC4N T*T5ENC67"E#E*N * EE8 T4BE E0ECTE/*--E/*ATE06)#ECE/*NE0ECT*4N3

:::::::: 6earsSeven -onths

1 . * A- N4T A)E#-ANENT#E */ENT 4 , 4#*--* #ANT T4, A

4#E* NC45NT#6.

T"AT * A- E0* *B0E for said officeG That * will supportand defend the Constitution of the #epublic of the)hilippines and will maintain true faith and allegiancetheretoG That * will obe% the laws, legal orders and decreespromulgated b% the dul% constituted authoritiesG That theobligation imposed b% m% oath is assumed voluntaril%,without mental reservation or purpose of evasionG andThat the facts stated herein are true to the best of m%'nowledge.

@ gd. *melda#omualde+

-arcos@ ignature ofCandidate

)etitioner=s aforestated certificate of candidac% filed on -arch 1992contains the decisive component or seed of her dis(ualification. *t iscontained in her answer under oath of $ seven months $ to the (uer% of$residence in the constituenc% wherein * see' to be elected immediatel%preceding the election.$

*t follows from all the above that the Comelec committed no grave abuse ofdiscretion in holding that petitioner is dis(ualified from the position ofrepresentative for the 1st congressional district of 0e%te in the elections of

-a% 1992, for failure to meet the $not less than one %ear residence in the

constituenc% @1st district, 0e%te immediatel% preceding the da% of election@ -a% 1992 .$

"aving arrived at petitioner=s dis(ualification to be a representative of thefirst district of 0e%te, the neFt important issue to resolve is whether or not theComelec can order the Board of Canvassers to determine and 'ro laim the0inner out of the remainin& $uali!ied candidates for representative in saiddistrict.

* am not unaware of the pronouncement made b% this Court in the case ofLabo vs . Comele , .#. I2I?, August 1, 19 9, 1!I C#A 1 which gavethe rationale as laid down in the earl% 191; case of To'a io vs . "aredes , ;&)hil. ;& that3

. . . . ound polic% dictates that public elective offices arefilled b% those who have received the highest number ofvotes cast in the election for that office, and it is afundamental idea in all republican forms of governmentthat no one can be declared elected and no measure canbe declared carried unless he or it receives a ma


29/64

thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of suchcandidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.

There is no need to indulge in legal hermeneutics to sense the plain andunambiguous meaning of the provision (uoted above. As the law nowstands, the legislative polic% does not limit its concern with the effect of afinal


30/64

stated that she was a registered voter in )recinct No. 12! A, Brg%. -a%tunas, an Huan, -etro -anila and that sheintended to register in Brg%. 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te.

9. 4n Hanuar% ; , 1992, petitioner registered as a voter at)recinct No. 1 A of 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te, for whichpurpose she filed with the therein Board of Election*nspectors a voter=s registration record form alleging thatshe had resided in that municipalit% for siF months.

1 . 4n -arch , 1992, petitioner filed her certificate ofcandidac% for the position of #epresentative of the irst/istrict of 0e%te wherein she alleged that she had been aresident for $ Seven -onths$ of the constituenc% where shesought to be elected.

11. 4n -arch ;9, 1992, she filed an $Amended CorrectedCertificate of Candidac%$ wherein her answer in t heoriginal certificate of candidac% to item $ . #E */ENCE *NT"E C4N T*T5ENC6 7"E#E * EE8, T4 BEE0ECTE/ *--E/*ATE06 )#ECE/*N T"EE0ECT*4N3$ was changed or replaced with a new entr%

reading $ *NCE C"*0/"44/.$

The sole issue for resolution is whether, for purposes of her candidac%,petitioner had complied with the residenc% re(uirement of one %ear asmandated b% no less than ection I, Article >* of the 19 ! Constitution.

* do not intend to impose upon the time of m% colleagues with a dissertationon the difference between residence and domicile. 7e have had enough ofthat and * understand that for purposes of political law and, for that matter ofinternational law, residence is understood to be s%non%mous with domicile.That is so understood in our


31/64

)resident erdinand E. -arcos in 192; @ si , 192? . B%operation of law @ domi ilium ne esarium , her legaldomicile at the time of her marriage became Batac, *locosNorte althou&h there 0ere no indi ations o! an intentionon her 'art to abandon her domi ile o! ori&in . Because ofher husband=s subse(uent death and through theoperation of the provisions of the New amil% Codealread% in force at the time, however, her le&al domi ileautomati ally reverted to her domi ile o! ori&in . . . .@Emphasis supplied .

irstl%, * am pu++led wh% although it is conceded that petitioner had ac(uireda domi ilium ne esarium in Batac, *locos Norte, the ma


32/64

in her amended corrected certificate of candidac%, and in holding her to heradmission in the original certificate that she had actuall% resided in thatconstituenc% for onl% seven months prior to the election. Theseconsiderations render it unnecessar% to further pass upon the proceduralissues raised b% petitioner.

4N T"E 4#E 4*N )#E-* E , * vote to /* -* the petition for lac' ofmerit.

DA/IDE, %R., J., dissenting3

* respectfull% dissent from the opinion of the ma


33/64

disagreement the court shall decide. The said article uses the term $famil%domicile,$ and not famil% residence, as $the spouses ma% have multipleresidences, and the wife ma% elect to remain in one of such residences,which ma% destro% the dut% of the spouses to live together and itscorresponding benefits$ @A0*C*A >. E-)*4 /*6, "andboo' on the amil%Code of the )hilippines, 19 D, 1 ; .

The theor% of automatic restoration of a woman=s domicile of origin upon thedeath of her husband, which the ma


34/64

marriage to the then Congressman -arcos, the petitioner could not den% thelegal conse(uence thereof on the change of her domicile to that of herhusband. The ma* of theConstitution. ( 7e cannot dis(ualif% her and treat her unali'e, for theConstitution guarantees e(ual protection of the law. * proceed from thefollowing factual and legal propositions3

irst. There is no (uestion that petitioner=s original domicile is in Tacloban,0e%te. "er parents were domiciled in Tacloban. Their ancestral house is inTacloban. The% have vast real estate in the place. )etitioner went to schooland thereafter wor'ed there. * consider Tacloban as her initial domicile, bothher domicile of origin and her domicile of choice. "er domicile of origin as itwas the domicile of her parents when she was a minorG and her domicile ofchoice, as she continued living there even after reaching the age of ma


35/64

ourth. The more difficult tas' is how to interpret the effect of the death oneptember ; , 19 9 of former )resident -arcos on petitioner=s Batac

domicile. The issue is of !irst im'ression in our


36/64

7ith respect to propert% relations, the husband isautomaticall% the administrator of the conillanueva, 2? )hil. 9; G

@e 7here the husband spent his time ingambling, giving no mone% to his famil%for food and necessities, and at thesame time insulting his wife and la%inghands on her. @)anuncio v. ula, CA, &?4 1;9 G

@f *f the husband has no fiFed residenceand lives a vagabond life as a tramp @1-anresa &;9 G

@g *f the husband is carr%ing on ashameful business at home @ ahn v./arb%, & 0a. Ann. ! .

The ines a'able on lusion is that our )amily Code has om'letelyeman i'ated the 0i!e !rom the ontrol o! the husband , thusabandoning the parties= theoretic identit% of interest. No less thanthe late revered -r. Hustice H.B.0. #e%es who chaired the CivilCode #evision Committee of the 5) 0aw Center gave this insightfulview in one of his rare lectures after retirement3 (9

FFF FFF FFF


37/64

The amil% Code is primaril% intended to reform the famil%law so as to emancipate the wife from the eFclusivecontrol of the husband and to place her at parit% with himinsofar as the famil% is concerned. The 0i!e and thehusband are no0 'la ed on e$ual standin& by the Code .The% are now


38/64

?1. 4n November ;9, 199&, * formall% wrote )CChairman -agtanggol unigundo for permissions to

. . . rehabilitate . . . @o ur ancestral housein Tacloban and farmhouse in 4lot,0e%te . . . to ma'e them livable for usthe -arcos famil% to have a home in ourown motherland.

FFF FFF FFF

?;. *t was onl% on I Hune 199?, however, when )CChairman unigundo, in his letter to Col. imeon 8empis,Hr., )C #egion #epresentative, allowed me to repairand renovate m% 0e%te residences. * (uote part of hisletter3

/ear Col. 8empis,

5pon representation b% -rs. *melda #.-arcos to this Commission, that sheintends to visit our se(uesteredproperties in 0e%te, please allow heraccess thereto. he ma% also causerepairs and renovation of these(uestered properties, in which event,it shall be understood that herunderta'ing said repairs is notauthori+ation for her to ta'e over saidproperties, and that all eFpenses shallbe for her account and notreimbursable. )lease eFtend thenecessar% courtes% to her.

FFF FFF FFF

?&. * was not permitted, however, to live and sta% in theto. NiMo hrine residence in Tacloban Cit% where *

wanted to sta% and reside, after repairs and renovationswere completed. *n August 199?, * transferred from anHose, Tacloban Cit%, to m% residence in Baranga% 4lot,Tolosa, 0e%te, when )C permitted me to sta% and livethere.

It is then lear that in ;


39/64

represent the people of the irst /istrict of 0e%te who haveoverwhelmingl% voted for her.

ifth. ection 1 , Article * C of the Constitution mandates that $ bona !idecandidates for an% public office shall be free from an% form of harassmentand discrimination.$ )5 A detached reading of the records of the case atbench will show that all forms of legal and eFtra legal obstacles have beenthrown against petitioner to prevent her from running as the people=srepresentative in the irst /istrict of 0e%te. *n petitioner=s Answer to thepetition to dis(ualif% her, she averred3 )6

FFF FFF FFF

1 . )etitioner=s @herein private respondent -onte


40/64

Tacloban Cit%, her domicile. *n an% case, both TaclobanCit% and Tolosa are in the irst 0egislative /istrict.

All these attempts to misuse our laws and legal processes areforms of ran' harassments and invidious discriminations againstpetitioner to den% her e(ual access to a public office. 7e cannotcommit an% hermeneutic violence to t he Constitution b% torturingthe meaning of e(ualit%, the end result of which will allow theharassment and discrimination of petitioner who has lived acontroversial life, a past of alternating light and shadow. There isbut one Constitution for all ilipinos. )etitioner cannot be ad


41/64

*t has been suggested that petitioner=s domicile of origin was supplanted b%a new domicile due to her marriage, a domicile b% operation of law. Theproposition is that upon the death of her husband in 19 9 she retains herhusband=s domicile, i .e ., Batac, *locos Norte, until she ma'es an actualchange thereof. * find this proposition (uite untenable.

Tacloban, 0e%te, is petitioner=s domicile of origin which was involuntaril%supplanted with another, i .e ., Batac, *locos Norte, upon her marriage in 192?with then Congressman -arcos. B% legal fiction she followed the domicile ofher husband. *n m% view, the r eason for the law is for the spouses to full%and effectivel% perform their marital duties and obligations to one another. 1 The (uestion of domicile, however, is not affected b% the f act that it was thelegal or moral dut% of the individual to reside in a given place @; C.H. .11 . Thus, while the wife retains her marital domicile so long as themarriage subsists, she automaticall% loses it upon the latter=s termination, forthe reason behind the law then ceases. 4therwise, petitioner, after hermarriage was ended b% the death of her husband, would be placed in a (uiteabsurd and unfair situation of having been freed from all wifel% obligations%et made to hold on to one which no longer serves an% meaningful purpose.

*t is m% view therefore that petitioner reverted to her original domicile ofTacloban, 0e%te upon her husband=s death without even signif%ing herintention to that effect. *t is for the private respondent to prove, not forpetitioner to disprove, that petitioner has effectivel% abandoned Tacloban,0e%te for Batac, *locos Norte or for some other place s. The clear rule is thatit is the part% @herein private respondent claiming that a person hasabandoned or lost his residence of origin who must show and provepreponderantl% such abandonment or loss @ a%pon v. Juirino, su'ra at ;9 G; C.H. . 1I , because the presumption is strongl% in favor of an originalor former domicile, as against an ac(uired one @; C.H. . 1I . )rivaterespondent unfortunatel% failed to discharge this burden as the record isdevoid of convincing proof that petitioner has ac(uired whether voluntaril% orinvoluntaril%, a new domicile to replace her domicile of origin.

The records, on the contrar%, clearl% show that petitioner has complied withthe constitutional one %ear residence re(uirement. After her eFile abroad,she returned to the )hilippines in 1991 to reside in 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te, butthe )residential Commission on ood overnment which se(uestered herresidential house and other properties forbade her necessitating hertransient sta% in various places in -anila @Affidavit p.I, attached as AnneF *of the )etition . *n 199;, she ran for the position of president writing in hercertificate of candidac% her residence as an Huan, -etro -anila. After herloss therein, she went bac' to Tacloban Cit%, ac(uired her residencecertificate ( and resided with her brother in an Hose. he resided in anHose, Tacloban Cit% until August of 199? when she was allowed b% the)C to move and reside in her se(uestered residential house in 4lot,Tolosa, 0e%te @AnneF *, p. I . ) *t was in the same month of August when sheapplied for the cancellation of her previous registration in an Huan, -etro-anila in order to register anew as voter of 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te, which she

did on Hanuar% ; , 1992. rom this se(uence of events, * find it (uiteimproper to use as the rec'oning period of the one %ear residence

re(uirement the date when she applied for the cancellation of her previousregistration in an Huan, -etro -anila. The fact which private respondentnever bothered to disprove is that petitioner transferred her residence afterthe 199; presidential election from an Huan, -etro -anila to an Hose,Tacloban Cit%, and resided therein until August of 199?. he latertransferred to 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te @AnneF *, p. ! . *t appearing that bothTacloban Cit% and Tolosa, 0e%te are within the irst Congressional /istrict of0e%te, it indubitabl% stands that she had more than a %ear of residence in theconstituenc% she sought to be elected. )etitioner, therefore, hassatisfactoril% complied with the one %ear (ualification re(uired b% the 19 !

Constitution.

* vote to grant the petition.

ROMERO, J., separate opinion3

)etitioner has appealed to this Court for relief after the C4-E0EC ruled thatshe was dis(ualified from running for #epresentative of her /istrict and that,in the event that she should, nevertheless, muster a ma


42/64

operation of law,$ which sub


43/64

Code, 15 both of which were speedil% approved b% the f irst lad% )resident ofthe countr%, Cora+on C. A(uino. Notable for its emphasis on the humanrights of all individuals and its bias for e(ualit% between the seFes are t hefollowing provisions3 $The tate values the dignit% of ever% human personand guarantees full respect for human rights$ 16 and $The tate recogni+esthe role of women in nation building, and shall ensure the fundamentale(ualit% before the law of women and men.$ 17

A ma


44/64


45/64

ec. I. E!!e t o! 1is$uali!i ation Case . An% candidatewho has been declared b% final


46/64

ound polic% dictates that public electiveoffices are filled b% those who havereceived the highest number of votescast in the election for that office, and itis a fundamental idea in all republicanforms of government that no one can bedeclared elected and no measure canbe declared carried unless he or itreceives a ma


47/64

! . "etition to deny due ourse to or an el aerti!i ate o! andida y . A verified petition see'ing to den% due

course or to cancel a certificate of candidac% ma% be filedb% an% person e5 lusively on the &round that any materialre'resentation ontained therein as re$uired underSe tion @B hereo! is !alse . The petition ma% be filed at an%time not later than twent% five da%s from the time of thefiling of the certificate of candidac% and shall be decided,after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen da%s

before the election. @Emphasis added

the Electoral #eforms 0aw of 19 ! @#.A. No. II?I 3

I. E!!e t o! 1is$uali!i ation Case . An% candidatewho has been declared b% final


48/64

irst is the fact that unless a candidate wins and is proclaimed elected, thereis no necessit% for determining his eligibilit% for the office. *n contrast,whether an individual should be dis(ualified as a candidate for actsconstituting election offenses @e.g., vote bu%ing, over spending, commissionof prohibited acts is a pre


49/64

Courts, as provided in Art. * , C, ;@; of the Constitution. *n the case ofthe )resident and >ice )resident, the petition must be filed with the)residential Electoral Tribunal @Art. >**, ?, last paragraph , and in the caseof the enators, with the enate Electoral Tribunal, and in the case ofCongressmen, with the "ouse of #epresentatives Electoral Tribunal. @Art.>*, 1! There is greater reason for not allowing before the election thefiling of dis(ualification proceedings based on alleged ineligibilit% in the caseof candidates for )resident, >ice )resident, enators and members of the"ouse of #epresentatives, because of the same polic% prohibiting the filingof pre proclamation cases against such candidates.

or these reasons, * am of the opinion that the C4-E0EC had no *, section I

*t has been argued that for purposes of our election laws, the term residen ehas been understood as s%non%mous with domi ile . This argument has been

validated b% no less than the Court in numerous cases 1 where significantl%the !a tual ir umstan es clearl% and convincingl% proved that a persondoes not effectivel% lose his domicile of origin if the intention to reside thereinis manifest with his 'ersonal 'resen e in the place, ou'led 0ith ondu tindi ative o! su h intention .

7ith this basic thesis in mind, it would not be difficult to conceive of differentmodalities within which the phrase $a resident thereof @meaning, thelegislative district for a period of not less than one %ear$ would fit.

The first instance is where a person=s residence and domicile coincide inwhich case a person onl% has to prove that he has been domiciled in apermanent location for not less than a %ear before the election.

A second situation is where a person maintains a residence apart from hisdomicile in which case he would have the luFur% of district shopping,provided of course, he satisfies the one %ear residence period in the districtas the minimum period for eligibilit% to the position of congressionalrepresentative for the district.

*n either case, one would not be constitutionall% dis(ualified for abandoninghis residence in order to return to his domicile of origin, or better still,

domicile of choiceG neither would one be dis(ualified for abandoningaltogether his domicile in favor of his residence in the district where hedesires to be a candidate.

The most eFtreme circumstance would be a situation wherein a personmaintains several residences in different districts. ince his domicile of origincontinues as an option as long as there is no effective abandonment@animus non revertendi , he can practicall% choose the district mostadvantageous for him.

All these theoretical scenarios, however, are tempered b% the unambiguouslimitation that !or a 'eriod o! not less than one year immediately 're edin&the day o! the ele tion , he must be a resident in the district where hedesires to be elected.

To m% mind, the one %ear residence period is crucial regardless of whetheror not the term $residence$ is to be s%non%mous with $domicile.$ *n otherwords, the candidate=s intent and actual presence in one district must in all situations satisf% the length of time prescribed b% the fundamental law. Andthis, because of a definite Constitutional purpose. "e must be familiar withthe environment and problems of a district he intends to represent inCongress and the one %ear residence in said district would be the minimumperiod to ac(uire such f amiliarit%, if not versatilit%.

*n the case of petitioner *melda #. -arcos, the operative facts are distinctl%set out in the now assailed decision of the Comelec ;nd /ivision dated ;?

April 1992 @as affirmed b% the Comelec en ban


50/64

*n or about 19& when respondent was a little over %earsold, she established her domicile in Tacloban, 0e%te@Tacloban Cit% . he studied in the "ol% *nfant Academ% inTacloban from 19& to 19? when she graduated fromhigh school. he pursued her college studies in t. )aul=sCollege, now /ivine 7ord 5niversit% of Tacloban, whereshe earned her degree in Education. Thereafter, shetaught in the 0e%te Chinese "igh chool, still in TaclobanCit%. *n 192; she went to -anila to wor' with her cousin,the late pea'er /aniel L. #omualde+ in his office in the

"ouse of #epresentatives. *n 192?, she married eFpresident erdinand -arcos when he was still acongressman of *locos Norte. he lived with him in Batac,*locos Norte and registered there as a voter. 7hen herhusband was elected enator of the #epublic in 1929, sheand her husband lived together in an Huan, #i+al whereshe registered as a voter. *n 19I2 when her husband waselected )resident of the #epublic of the )hilippines, shelived with him in -alacanang )alace and registered as avoter in an -iguel, -anila.

/uring the -arcos presidenc%, respondent served as a-ember of the Batasang )ambansa, -inister of "uman

ettlements and overnor of -etro -anila. he claimedthat in ebruar% 19 I, she and her famil% were abductedand 'idnapped to "onolulu, "awaii. *n November 1991,she came home to -anila. *n 199; respondent ran forelection as )resident of the )hilippines and filed herCertificate of Candidac% wherein she indicated that she isa resident and registered voter of an Huan, -etro -anila.4n August ;?, 199?, respondent filed a letter with theelection officer of an Huan, -etro -anila, re(uesting forcancellation of her registration in the )ermanent 0ist of>oters in )recinct No. 12! of an Huan, -etro -anila, inorder that she ma% be re registered or transferred to Brg%.4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te. @AnneF ; B, Answer . 4n August &1,199?, respondent filed her worn Application forCancellation of >oter=s )revious #egistration @AnneF ; C,

Answer stating that she is a dul% registered voter in 12! A, Brg%. -a%tunas, an Huan, -etro that she intends toregister at Brg%. 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te.

4n Hanuar% ; , 1992 respondent registered as a voter at)recinct No. 1 A of 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te. he filed with theBoard of Election *nspectors CE orm No. 1, >oter#egistration #ecord No. 9? &&?9!!;, wherein she allegedthat she has resided in the municipalit% of Tolosa for aperiod of I months @AnneF A, )etition .

4n -arch , 1992, respondent filed with the 4ffice of the)rovincial Election upervisor, 0e%te, a Certificate of

Candidac% for the position of #epresentative of the irst/istrict of 0e%te wherein she also alleged that she hasbeen a resident in the constituenc% where she see's to beelected for a period of ! months. The pertinent entriestherein are as follows3

!. )#4 E *4N 4#4CC5)AT*4N3"ouse wife Teacher

ocial 7or'er

. #E */ENCE@complete address 3Brg%. 4lot, Tolosa,0e%te

)ost 4ffice Addressfor election purposes3Brg%. 4lot, Tolosa,0e%te

9. #E */ENCE *N

T"EC4N T*T5ENC67"E#E*N * EE8 T4BE E0ECTE/*--E/*ATE06)#ECE/*NE0ECT*4N3

:::::::: 6earsSeven -onths

1 . * A- N4T A)E#-ANENT#E */ENT 4 , 4#

*--* #ANT T4, A4#E* NC45NT#6.

T"AT * A- E0* *B0E for said officeG That * will supportand defend the Constitution of the #epublic of the)hilippines and will maintain true faith and allegiancetheretoG That * will obe% the laws, legal orders and decreespromulgated b% the dul% constituted authoritiesG That theobligation imposed b% m% oath is assumed voluntaril%,without mental reservation or purpose of evasionG andThat the facts stated herein are true to the best of m%'nowledge.


51/64

@ gd. *melda#omualde+

-arcos@ ignature ofCandidate

)etitioner=s aforestated certificate of candidac% filed on -arch 1992contains the decisive component or seed of her dis(ualification. *t iscontained in her answer under oath of $ seven months $ to the (uer% of$residence in the constituenc% wherein * see' to be elected immediatel%preceding the election.$

*t follows from all the above that the Comelec committed no grave abuse ofdiscretion in holding that petitioner is dis(ualified from the position ofrepresentative for the 1st congressional district of 0e%te in the elections of -a% 1992, for failure to meet the $not less than one %ear residence in theconstituenc% @1st district, 0e%te immediatel% preceding the da% of election @-a% 1992 .$

"aving arrived at petitioner=s dis(ualification to be a representative of thefirst district of 0e%te, the neFt important issue to resolve is whether or not theComelec can order the Board of Canvassers to determine and 'ro laim the0inner out of the remainin& $uali!ied candidates for representative in saiddistrict.

* am not unaware of the pronouncement made b% this Court in the case ofLabo vs . Comele , .#. I2I?, August 1, 19 9, 1!I C#A 1 which gavethe rationale as laid down in the earl% 191; case of To'a io vs . "aredes , ;&)hil. ;& that3

. . . . ound polic% dictates that public elective offices arefilled b% those who have received the highest number ofvotes cast in the election for that office, and it is afundamental idea in all republican forms of governmentthat no one can be declared elected and no measure can

be declared carried unless he or it receives a ma


52/64

ACC4#/*N 06, * vote to /* -* the petition and to order the )rovincialBoard of Canvassers of 0e%te to proclaim the candidate receiving thehighest number of votes, from among the (ualified candidates, as the dul%elected representative of the 1st district of 0e%te.

+ermosisima. %r- %-. dissent-

REGALADO, J., dissenting3

7hile * agree with same of the factual bases of the ma* of the 19 ! Constitution.

* do not intend to impose upon the time of m% colleagues with a dissertationon the difference between residence and domicile. 7e have had enough ofthat and * understand that for purposes of political law and, for that matter ofinternational law, residence is understood to be s%non%mous with domicile.That is so understood in our


53/64

commercial and procedural laws whenever an issue thereon is relevant orcontrolling.

Conse(uentl%, since in the present case the (uestion of petitioner=sresidence is integrated in and inseparable from her domicile, * amaddressing the issue from the standpoint of the concept of the latter term,specificall% its permutations into the domicile of origin, domicile of choice anddomicile b% operation of law, as understood in American law from which forthis case we have ta'en our


54/64

his original domicile unless, b% subse(uent acts legall% indicative thereof, heevinces his intent and desire to establish the same as his new domicile,which is precisel% what petitioner belatedl% and, evidentl%


55/64

lac' of residence in the irst Congressional /istrict of 0e%te. *t has notmisapplied, miscomprehended, or misunderstood facts or circumstances ofsubstance pertinent to the issue of her residence.

The ma


56/64

Brg%. 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te, the place of herD birth and permanent residence$@photocop% of EFhibit $B,$ attached as AnneF $;$ of private respondent-onteoter=s Affidavit sworn to on 12-arch 199; @photocop% of EFhibit $C,$ attached as AnneF $&,$ Id . , her >oter#egistration #ecord sworn to on ; Hanuar% 1992 @photocop% of EFhibit $E,$attached as AnneF $2,$ Id . , and her Certificate of Candidac% sworn to on -arch 1992 @photocop% of EFhibit $A,$ attached as AnneF $1,$ Id . , shesolemnl% declared that she was born in -anila.

The petitioner is even uncertain as to her domicile of origin. *s it TaclobanCit% or Tolosa, 0e%teK *n the aff idavit attached to her Answer to the petitionfor dis(ualification @AnneF $*$ of )etition , she declared under oath that her$domicile or residence is Tacloban Cit%.$ *f she did intend to return to suchdomicile or residence of origin wh% did she inform the Election 4fficer of anHuan that she would transfer to 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te, and indicate in her>oter=s #egistration #ecord and in her certificate of candidac% that herresidence is 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%teK 7hile this uncertaint% is not importantinsofar as residence in t he congressional district is concerned, itnevertheless proves that fort% one %ears had alread% lapsed since she hadlost or abandoned her domicile of origin b% virtue of marriage and that suchlength of time diminished her power of recollection or blurred her memor%.

* find to be misplaced the reliance b% the ma


57/64

? Rollo , p. 11?, AnneF $/$.

2 Rollo , p. 11 , AnneF $/$.

I Rollo , p. 11&.

! Rollo , p. 111.

Rollo , p. 112, AnneF $E$.

9 igned b% >irgilo . 4ledan, )rovincial Electionupervisor *>, 0e%teG Rollo ,

p. 11I, AnneF $ $.

1 Rollo , p. 11!, AnneF $ $. )etitioner eFplainedthe circumstances surrounding the filling up ofthe original certificate thus3

1. 4n -arch , 1992, * filed m% certificate ofcandidac% for -ember of the "ouse of#epresentatives @Congresswoman of the irst

0egislative /istrict of the province of 0e%te, whichwas drafted b% -r. ilomeno A. Leta.

;. * learned latel% that Congressman Cirilo-onte


58/64

;1. As a dutiful wife who loved him deepl%, * livedwith him in Batac, *locos Norte and registered asa voter there.

;;. *n 19I2, m% husband was elected )residentof the #epublic of the )hilippines. Together, welived in -alacaMang )alace and * registered as avoter in an -iguel, -anila.

;&. -% registration as voter in Batac, *locosNorteG an Huan, #i+al @now an Huan, -etro-anila G and an -iguel, -anila, was forconvenience because * had to live with m%husband to serve him when he wascongressman, enator and )resident of the#epublic of the )hilippines. /uring those %earshowever, * never intended nor desired toabandon m% domicile or residence of origin inTacloban Cit%, which * established since * was achild.

FFF FFF FFF

&&. Throughout the -arcos )residenc%, * spentmost of m% birthda% anniversaries and attendedthe to. Nini iesta in Tacloban Cit%. * regularl%visited m% domicile or residence of origin in 0e%teand even held important functions andentertained guests and foreign dignitaries there.

&?. After )resident erdinand E. -arcos and *,together with our children and innocentgrandchildren were abducted and 'idnapped to"onolulu, "awaii, in ebruar%, 19 I, m% 0e%teproperties were se(uestered b% the )C , andwere destro%ed and cannibali+ed.

FFF FFF FFF

& . 5pon m% return to the countr%, * wanted toimmediatel% live and reside in Tacloban Cit% or in4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te even if m% residences therewere not livable as the% had been destro%ed andcannibali+ed. The )C , however, did notpermit and allow me.

FFF FFF FFF

? . After the 199; )residential Elections, * livedand resided in the residence of m% brother in anHose, Tacloban Cit%, and pursued m%negotiations with )C to recover m%se(uestered residences in Tacloban Cit% andBaranga% 4lot, Tolosa, 0e%te.

1; Rollo , p. 1;;.

1& Commissioners -anolo B. orospe andTeresita /% 0iaco lores formed the ma


59/64

;; 5%tengsu v. #epublic, 92 )hil. 9 @192? .

;& Id .

;? 2; )hil. I?2 @19; .

;2 Citin& )eople v. Bender 1?? N.6. ., 1?2.

;I I1 )hil. &I @19&? .

;! 9I )hil. ;9? @192? .

; Id , see also 5


60/64

?I Hustice Alicia empio /i% recogni+es thesame Civil Code distinction. "owever, ta'inganother approach, she writes3

@I The above Article @Article I9, C uses theterm $famil% domicile$ instead of f amil% residencebecause the spouses ma% have multipleresidences, and the wife ma% elect to remain inone of such residences, which ma% destro% thedut% of the spouses to live together and its

corresponding benefits. E-)*4 /*6,"AN/B448 4N T"E A-*06 C4/E 4 T"E)"*0*))*NE , 1 ; @19 .

?! Rollo , pp. 1&; 1&&.

? The provision reads3 ection ! . "etition todeny due ourse or to an el a erti!i ate o!

andida y . A verified petition see'ing to den%due course or to cancel a certificate of candidac%ma% be filed b% an% person eFclusivel% on theground that an% material representationcontained therein as re(uired under

ection !? hereof is false. The petition ma% befiled at an% time not later than twent% five da%sfrom the time of filing of the certificate ofcandidac% and shall be decided after due noticeand hearing, not later than fifteen da%s before theelection.

?9 -arcelino vs. Cru+, 1;1 C#A 21 @19 & .

2 American Tupe ounders Co. v. Hustice=sCourt, 1&& Cal. 19, I2 )ac. !?;G "eillen v.)hillipps, Cal. 22!, ;I )ac. &IIG /ra'e v.Bagle%, I9 -o. App. &9G tate v. /avis, 19? -o.2 2.

21 Su'ra , note &9, itin& "uffines v. old 12?Tenn. 2 &, 2 G ; .7. &2&, &2?.

2; ec. I. E!!e t o! 1is$uali!i ation Case . An%candidate who has been declared b% final


61/64

2 Id ., at pp. 1I 1!.

I Id ., at p. ; , itin&1 -anresa ;;&.

! ;2 A- H5# ;nd . ? , p. &!.

; CH on /omicile, . 1;, ;!G ;2 A- H5# ;ndon /omicile . I;, ?I.

9 ; CH , . 1;, p. ;?.

1 #estatement of the 0aw, ;d, Conflict of 0aws;d., . ;1, p. ?.

11 Ibid .

1; & 5. . ??;G ;1 0aw Ed. ??;G .C. 1I 7all1& .

1& Su'ra .

1? Su'ra .

12 *n re reen=s Estate, 191 N.6. . !2!, 11!-isc. , 1I2 N.6. . 1 I&, 99 -isc. 2 ;.

1I Clar' et al. v. Ba'er et al., 19I E !2 , 1 Ia I2.

1! 0efcourt, 7omen and The 0aw, 199 ed.

1 ? ? 5 !1.

19 ; CH . 1;, p. ;2 itin& hute v. argent,&I A ; ;, I! N.". & 2.

; O' it ., p. ?.

;1 7omen=s tatus in )hilippine ociet%, 5) 0awCenter, 19!9, pp. ? I.

;; *n submitting the draft of the amil% Code to)resident Cora+on A(uino, the Civil Code#evision Committee stated3

Close to fort% %ears of eFperience under the CivilCode adopted in 19?9 and changes anddevelopments in all aspects of ilipino 0ife sincethen have revealed the unsuitabilit% of certainprovisions of that Code, implanted from foreignsources, to )hilippine cultureG the unfairness,un


62/64

; ,)hilippines, pp. 9 99.

;9 As cited in /i%, "andboo' on the amil% Codeof the )hilippines, pp. 1 ? 1 2.

& ection 1, Article *** of the Constitutionprovides3 $No person shall be deprived of life,libert%, or propert% without due process of law,nor shall an% person be denied the e(ualprotection of the laws.$

&1 EFhibit $E$Gsee also EFhibit $B$ in )A No.92 1.

&; EFhibit $A$ in )A No. 92 9.

&& EFhibit $;$ in )A No. 92 9.

&? ; C#A 92!, 9I @19I1 G See Canceran v.C4-E0EC, 1 ! )hil. I ! @19I G abaldon v.C4-E0EC, 99 )hil. 9 @192I .

&2 ection ;I, Article ** of the Constitution alsoprovides3 $The tate shall guarantee e(ualaccess to opportunities for public service . . . .$

&I AnneF $ ,$ )etition.

&! )etition, AnneF $B 1$ pp. I !.

& !& )hil. ?2&, ?29 @1921 .

#ANC* C4, % ., concurring3

1 See Articles I !& of E.4. ; 9, as amended,otherwise 'nown as The amil% Code of the)hilippines.

; #esidence Certificate No. 12;;I1 I0, datedNov. 2, 199;.

& )C Chairman unigundo=s letter addressedto Col. 8empis.

#4-E#4, % ., separate opinion3

, , $ p-ember of the "ouse of #epresentatives unlesshe is a natural born citi+en of the )hilippines and,on the da% of the election, is at least twent% five%ears of age, able to read and write, and, eFceptthe part% list representatives, a registered voter inthe district in which he shall be elected, and aresident thereo! !or a 'eriod not less than oneyear immediately 're edin& the day o! theele tion .

; Art. 11 3 $The husband shall fiF the residence

decisions made enbanc

Documents