election law case digest.docx

7/22/2019 Election Law Case Digest.docx

1/9

Case Digest in Election Law

Rivad, Sherine L., 2011 0007

1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law

1

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 203766 April 2, 2013

Facts:

This case resolves the 54 Consolidated petitions for certiorari andpetitions for certiorari and prohibitions filed by 52 party-list groups and

organizations assailing the Resolutions issued by the COMELEC

disqualifying them from participating in the May 2013 party-list

elections, either by denial of their petitions for registration under the

party-list system, or cancellation of their registration and accreditation

as party-list organizations

Issue: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to

lack or excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners from participating in theMay 2013 party-list elections

Issue: Whether the criteria for participating in the party-list system laid down in

Ang Bagong Bayani and Barangay Association for National Advancement and

Transparency v. Commission on Elections (BANAT) should be applied by the

COMELEC in the May 2013 party-list elections.

Held: No to both issues

The Party-List Systemo The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list

system of representation.

o The party-list system is intended to democratize politicalpower by giving political parties that cannot win in legislative

district elections a chance to win seats in the House ofRepresentatives.

o The voter elects two representatives in the House ofRepresentatives: one for his or her legislative district, and

another for his or her party-list group or organization of

choice.

Constitutional Provisions on the Party List System:o Section 5, Article VI: The party-list representatives shall

constitute 20% of the total number of representatives

including those under the party list. For three consecutive

terms after the ratification of this Constitution, 1/2 of the

seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as

provided by law, by selection or election from the labor,

peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,

women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided

by law, except the religious sector.o Sections 7 and 8, Article IX-C:

No votes cast in favor of a political party,organization, or coalition shall be valid

XPN: Those registered under theparty-list system as provided in the

Constitution

Political parties, or organizations or coalitionsregistered under the party-list system, shall not

be represented in the voters registration boards,

boards of election inspectors, boards of

canvassers, or other similar bodies.

However, they shall be entitled toappoint poll watchers in accordance

with law.

The party-list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoralrepresentation Monsod, main sponsor of the systemo A sectoral representation in the Assembly would mean that

certain sectors would have reserved seats; that they will

choose among themselves who would sit in those reserved

seats.

Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the party-list system to include not only sectoral parties but also non-sectoral

parties.

Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution: The party-list system iscomposed of three different groups:

o national parties or organizations;o regional parties or organizations; ando sectoral parties or organizations

R.A. No. 7941 defines a "party" as "either a political party or a sectoralparty or a coalition of parties."

o A "political party refers to an organized group of citizensadvocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies

for the general conduct of government."

o A "sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizensbelonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5

hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special

interest and concerns of their sector."

o R.A. No. 7941 provides different definitions for a politicaland a sectoral party. Obviously, they are separate and

distinct from each other.

R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties ororganizations to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented"

sectors.

o To require all national and regional parties under the party-list system to represent the "marginalized and

underrepresented" is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat,

ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system.

o Under the party-list system, an ideology-based or cause-oriented political party is clearly different from a sectoral

party.

Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 provides another compelling reason forholding that the law does not require national or regional parties, as

well as certain sectoral parties in Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941, to

represent the "marginalized and underrepresented."

o Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization

or association organized for religious purposes;

It advocates violence or unlawful means to seekits goal;

It is a foreign party or organization; It is receiving support from any foreign

government, foreign political party, foundation,

organization, whether directly or through any of

its officers or members or indirectly through third

parties for partisan election purposes;

It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules orregulations relating to elections;

It declares untruthful statements in its petition; It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding

elections or fails to obtain at least two per

centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list

system in the two (2) preceding elections for the

constituency in which it has registered.

o None of the 8 grounds to refuse or cancel registration refersto non-representation of the "marginalized andunderrepresented.

How then should we harmonize the broad policy declaration in Section2 of R.A. No. 7941 with its specific implementing provisions, bearing in

mind the applicable provisions of the 1987 Constitution on the matter?

o The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" shouldrefer only to the sectors in Section 5 that are, by their

nature, economically "marginalized and underrepresented."

o These sectors are: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans,

overseas workers, and other similar sectors.

For these sectors, a majority of the members ofthe sectoral party must belong to the

"marginalized and underrepresented." The

nominees of the sectoral party either must

belong to the sector, or must have a track recordof advocacy for the sector represented.

The recognition that national and regional parties, as well as sectoralparties of professionals, the elderly, women and the youth, need not be

"marginalized and underrepresented" will allow small ideology-based

and cause-oriented parties who lack "well-defined political

constituencies" a chance to win seats in the House of Representatives.

Ang Bagong Bayani expressly declared, in its second guideline for theaccreditation of parties under the party-list system, that "while even

major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the

Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply

with the declared statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens

belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors xxx to be

elected to the House of Representatives.

o However, the requirement in Ang Bagong Bayani, in itssecond guideline, that "the political party xxx must represent

the marginalized and underrepresented," automatically

disqualified major political parties from participating in the

party-list system


2/9




2

Qualifications of Party-List Nominees.o A party-list nominee must be a bona fide member of the

party or organization which he or she seeks to represent.

In the case of sectoral parties, to be a bona fideparty-list nominee one must either belong to the

sector represented, or have a track record of

advocacy for such sector.

In disqualifying petitioners, the COMELEC used the criteria prescribed inAng Bagong Bayani and BANAT. Ang Bagong Bayani laid down the

guidelines for qualifying those who desire to participate in the party-list

system:

o The political party, sector, organization or coalition mustrepresent the marginalized and underrepresented groups

identified in Section 5 of RA 7941.o While even major political parties are expressly allowed by

RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list

system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy

of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and

underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of

Representatives."

o The religious sector may not be represented in the party-listsystem

o A party or an organization must not be disqualified underSection 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for

disqualification (aforecited)

o Tthe party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or aproject organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the

government

o The party must not only comply with the requirements ofthe law; its nominees must likewise do so. Section 9 of RA

7941 reads as follows:

"SEC 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. - No person

shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a

natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a

resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one

(1)year immediately preceding the day of the election, able

to read and write, a bona fide member of the party or

organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety

(90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least

twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.

In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be

twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of ageon the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative

who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be

allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his

term."

o Not only the candidate party or organization must representmarginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its

nominees

o The nominee must likewise be able to contribute to theformulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that

will benefit the nation as a whole.

o Exclusion of Major political parties from participating inparty-list elections

The minority expressed that "[e]xcluding themajor political parties in party-list elections is

manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of

the Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No.

7941.

However, it would not be in accord with the 1987 Constitution and R.A.No. 7941 to apply the criteria in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT in

determining who are qualified to participate in the coming 13 May 2013

party-list elections. For this purpose, the rule is suspended that a party

may appeal to this Court from decisions or orders of the COMELEC only

if the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.

All present petitions be remanded to COMELEC. In determining whomay participate in the coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-list

elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the following parameters:

o Three different groups may participate in the party-listsystem: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional

parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or

organizations.

o National parties or organizations and regional parties ororganizations do not need:

to organize along sectoral lines and

to represent any "marginalized andunderrepresented" sector.

o Political parties can participate in party-list electionsprovided they register under the party-list system and do

not field candidates in legislative district elections.

A political party, whether major or not, thatfields candidates in legislative district elections

can participate in party-list elections only through

its sectoral wing that can separately register

under the party-list system.

The sectoral wing is by itself an independentsectoral party, and is linked to a political party

through a coalition.

o Sectoral parties or organizations may either be: "marginalized and underrepresented", which

includes:

labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers

lacking in "well-defined political constituencies,which includes:

professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.

It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the

special interest and concerns of their sector

o A majority of the members of sectoral parties ororganizations that represent the "marginalized and

underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and

underrepresented" sector they represent.

A majority of the members of sectoral parties or

organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies"

must belong to the sector they represent.

The nominees of these sectoral parties or organizationseither must belong to

their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their

respective sectors.

The nominees of national and regional parties or

organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or

organizations.

o National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shallnot be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified

Provided -> least one nominee who remainsqualified.

This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, apply its provisionsfaithfully, and desist from engaging in socio-economic or political

experimentations contrary to what the Constitution has ordained.Judicial power does not include the power to re-write the Constitution.

Thus, the present petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC notbecause the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in

disqualifying petitioners, but because petitioners may now possibly

qualify to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections

under the new parameters prescribed by this Court.


3/9




3

No. G.R. No. Group Grounds for Denial

- The "artists" sector is not considered ma rginalized and

underrepresented;

- Failure to prove trackrecord; and

- Failure of the nominees toqualify under RA 7941 and Ang

Bagong Bayani.

- A non-stock savings and l oan associa tion cannot be

considered marginalized and underrepresented; and

- The first and second nominees are not teachers by

profession.

- Failure to show that its members belong to the

marginalized; and

- Failure of the nominees to qualify.

4 2044351 Alliance Advocating Autonomy

Party (1AAAP)

- Failure of the nominees to qualify: although registering

as a regional political party, two of the nominees are not

residents of the region; and four of the five nominees do

not belong to the marginalized a nd underrepresented.

5 2 04 36 7 Akba y K al us uga n (AKI N), Inc .- Failure of the group to showthat its nominees belong

tothe urban poor sector.

- Failure to represent a marginalized sector of society,

despite the formation of a sectoral wing for the benefit of

farmers of Region 8;

- Constituency has district representatives;

- Lack of track record in representing peasants and

farmers; and- Nominees are neither farmers nor peasants.

- Failure to show that the party represents a marginalized

and underrepresented sector, as the Province of Iloilo

has district representatives;

- Untruthful statements in the memorandum; and

- Withdrawal of three of its five nominees.

- Failure to establish that the group can represent 14

sectors; - The sectors of homeownersassociations,

entrepreneurs and cooperatives are not marginalized

and underrepresented; and

- The nominees do not belong to the marginalized and

underrepresented.

- Failure to prove trackrecord as an organization;

- Failure to show that the group actually represe nts the

marginalized and underrepresented; and

- Failure to establish that the group can represent all

sectors it seeks to represent.

- The group reflects an a dvocacy for the environment, and

is not representative of the marginalized and

underrepresented;

- There is no proof that majority of its members belong to

the marginalized and underrepresented;

- The group represents sectors with conflicting interests;

and

- The nominees do not belong to the sector which the

group claims to represent.

- Failure to prove membership base and tra ck record;

- Failure to present activities that sufficiently benefited

its intended constituency; and

- The nominees do not belong to any of the sectors which

the group seeks to represent.

- Failure to show that the group represents a marginalized

and underrepresented sector, as Region 12 has district

representatives; and

- Failure to s how a track record of undertaking programs

for the welfare of the sector the group seeks to represent.

Kalikasan Party-List(KALIKASAN)

Association of Guard, Utility

Helper, Aider, Rider,

Driver/Domestic Helper, Janitor,

Agent and Nanny of

thePhilippines, Inc.(GUARDJAN)

Pilipinas Para sa Pi noy (PPP)

A. Via the COMELEC En Bancs automatic review of the COMELEC

Divisions resolutions approving registration of groups/organizations

Resolution dated 23 November 20128

1 204379

Omnibus Resolution dated 27 November 20129

Association ofLocalAthleticsEntrepreneursand

Hobbyists,Inc. (ALA-EH)

Ako An Bisaya (AAB)

2 204455

3 204426




6 204370

204139

Resolution dated 4 December 201213

7 204436


8 204485

Abyan IlonggoParty (AI)

Alliance of Organizations,

Networks and Associa tions of the

Philippines,Inc. (ALONA)

Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM)


12 204490

Alagad ng Sini ng (ASIN)

Manila Teachers Savings and

Loan Association, Inc. (Manila

Teachers)


10 204402


11 204394

B. Via the COMELEC En Bancs review on motion for reconsideration

of the COMELEC Divisions resolutions denying re gistration of groups

and organizations


9


Retained registration and accreditation as a political party, but

denied participation in the May 2013 party-list elections

- Failure to represent any marginalized and underrepresented

sector;

- The Bicol region already has representatives in Congress; and

- The nominees are not marginalized and underrepresented.

Cancelled registration and accreditation

- The nominees do not belong to the sectors which the

partyrepresents; and

- The party failed to file its Statement of Contributions and

Expenditures for the 20 10 Elections.


- Failure to comply, and for violation of election laws;

- The nominees do not represent the sectors which the pa rty

represents; and

- There is doubt that the party is organized for religious purposes.


- Failure of the nominees to qualify; and

- Failure of the party to prove that majority of its members belong to

the sectors it seeksto represent.


- The sectors of drugcounsellors and lecturers,veterans and the

youth, arenot marginalized and underrepresented;

- Failure to establish trackrecord; and

- Failure of the nominees toqualify as representatives ofthe youth

and young urbanprofessionals.

Cancelled registration

- Failure to define the sectorit seeks to represent; and

- The nominees do not belongto a marginalized

andunderrepresented sector.


- The party is a militaryfraternity;

- The sector of communityvolunteer workers is toobroad to allow for

meaningfulrepresentation; a nd

- The nominees do not appea rto belong to the sector ofcommunity

volunteerworkers.


- Three of the sevennominees do not bel ong tothe sector of farmers

andfishermen, the sector soughtto be represented; and

- None of the nominees areregistered voters of RegionXI, the region

sought to berepresented.


- The sector of rural energyconsumers is not marginalized and

underrepresented;

- The partys track record isrelated to electriccooperatives and not

ruralenergy consumers; and

- The nominees do not belong to the sector of rural

energyconsumers.


- Failure to represent amarginalized andunderrepresented sector;

and

- The nominees do not belongto the se ctor that the partyclaims to

represent.


- The incumbentrepresentative i n Congressfailed to author or

sponsorbills that are beneficial to thesectors that the

partyrepresents (women, elderly,youth, urban poor); and

- The nominees do not belong to the marginalized sectorsthat the

party seeks torepresent.


- The interests of the peasantand urban poor sectors thatthe party

represents differ;

- The nominees do not belong to the sectors that the partyseeks to

represent;

- Failure to show that three ofthe nominees a re bona fideparty

members; and

- Lack of a Board resolutionto participate in the party-listelections.


- The party ceased to exist formore than a year immediatelyafter

the May 2010 elections;

- The nominees do not belong to the sector of peasants a ndfarmers

that the party seeks torepresent;

- Only four nominees weresubmitted to the COMELEC;and

- Failure to show mea ningfulactivities for its constituency.


- Failure to show thatmajority of its members aremarginalized and

underrepresented;- Failure to prove that four ofits nine nominees actuallybelong to the

farmers sector;and

- Failure to show tha t five ofits nine nominees work onuplifting the

lives of themembers of the se ctor.

3 203981

4 204002

5 204318

Resolution dated 10 October 201224

1 203818-19

Omnibus Resolution dated 11 October 201225

2 203766

AKO Bicol Political Party

(AKB)

Atong Paglaum,Inc. (Atong

Paglaum)

Association for

Righteousness Advocacy on

Leadership (ARAL)

UnitedMovementAgainst

DrugsFoundation(UNIMAD)

Alliance for Rural

Concerns(ARC)


9 203960


10 203922


6 204100

7 204122

8 20426

1

GuardiansNationalistPhilip

pines,

Inc.(1GANAP/GUARDIANS)

BlessedFederation

ofFarmers

andFishermenInternational

,Inc. (ABLESSEDParty-List)

1stConsumersAlliance

forRural Energy,Inc. (1-CARE)

1-Bro

PhilippineGuardiansBrother

hood,Inc. (1BRO-PGBI)

Association

ofPhilippineElectricCoopera

tives(APEC)


13 204240

14 203936


11 204174


12 203976

Aangat TayoParty-List Party(

AT )

Alliance forRural

andAgrarianReconstruction,

Inc. (ARARO)

Agri-Agra naReporma Para

saMagsasaka

ngPilipinasMovement(AGRI)

AksyonMagsasaka-Partido

Tinig ngMasa (AKMA-PTM)


4/9




4



- The Manifestation of Intentand Certificate of Nominationwere not

signed by ana ppropriate officer of theparty;

- Failure to show track recordfor the farmers and peasantssector;

and

- Failure to show thatnominees actua lly belong tothe sector, or that

they haveundertaken meaningfulactivities for the sector.


- Failure to show thatnominees actua lly belong tothe sector, or that

they haveundertaken meaningfulactivities for the sector.


- Failure to show thatmajority of its members aremarginalized and

underrepresented; and

- Failure to prove that two ofits nominees actual ly belong to the

marginalized and underrepresented.


- Change of sector (fromurban poor youth to urbanpoor)

necessitates a newapplication;

- Failure to show track recordfor the marginalized and

underrepresented;

- Failure to prove thatmaj ority of its members andofficers are from

the urbanpoor sector; and

- The nominees are notmembers of the urban poorsector.


- The party represents driversand operators, who may

haveconflicting interests; and

- Nominees are eitheroperators or former operators.


- Failure to prove thatna Walang Sala,Inc. (KAKUSA)majority of its

officers andmembers belong to themarginalized and

underrepresented;

- The incumbentrepresentative in Congressfailed to author or

sponsorbills that are beneficial to thesector that the

partyrepresents (personsimprisoned without proof ofguilt beyondreasonabledoubt);



- The nominees did notappear to be marginalized and

underrepresented.


- Failure to attend thesummary hearing;



- The nominees did notappear to be marginalized and

underrepresented.


- Failure to represent anidentifiable marginalized and

underrepresented sector;

- Only three nominees weresubmitted to the COMELEC;

- The nominees do notbelong to the marginalizedand


- Failure to submit itsStatement of Contributionand Expenditures for

the2007 Elections.


- The party is an advocacygroup and does not representthe

marginalized and underrepresented;

- Failure to comply with thetrack record requirement; and

- The nominees are not marginalized citizens.


- The nominees do notbelong to the sector that theparty seeks to

represent(urban poor and peasants ofthe National Capita l Region);

- Only two of its nomineesreside in the National Capital Region; and

- Failure to comply with thetrack record requirement.


- Failure to establish that itsnominees a re members of

theindigenous people in theMindanao and Cordillerassector that

the party seeks torepresent;

- Only two of the partysnominees reside in theMindanao a nd

Cordilleras;and

- Three of the nominees donot appea r to belong to themarginalized.


- The sector it represents is a specifically defined groupwhich may

not be allowedregistration under the party-list system; and

- Failure to establish that thenominees actua lly belong tothe

sector.


- The nominees aredisqualified fromrepresenting the sectors

thatthe party represents;

- Failure to comply with thetrack record requirement; and- There is

doubt as to whethermajority of its members aremarginalized andunderrepresented.

15 2 04 12 6

Kaagapay

ngNagkakaisangAgilangPilip

inongMagsasaka(KAP)

19 2 04 15 3

20 2 03 95 8


21 2 04 42 8

16 2 04 36 4

17 2 04 14 1

18 2 04 40 8

Adhikain atKilusan

ngOrdinaryongTao Para

saLupa,

The TrueMarcos Loyalist(for

God,Country

andPeople)Association

ofthe Philippines,Inc.

(BANTAY)

PilipinoAssociation

forCountry UrbanPoor

YouthAdvancementand

Welfare( PA C YAW )

Pasang

MasdaNationwideParty

(PASANGMASDA)

Kapatiran ngmga

Nakulongna Walang

Sala,Inc. (KAKUSA)

Ang GalingPinoy (AG)

24 2 04 23 6

25 2 04 34 1


26 2 04 35 8


22 2 04 09 4

Omnibus Resolution dated 7 November 201234

23 2 04 23 9

Alliance forNationalism

andDemocracy(ANAD)

Green Force forthe

EnvironmentSons

andDaughters ofMother

Earth(GREENFORCE)

Firm 24-KAssociation,

Inc.(FIRM 24-K)

Action Leagueof

IndigenousMasses (ALIM)

Alliance ofAdvocates

inMiningAdvancementfor

NationalProgress(AAMA)


27 2 04 35 9

SocialMovement forActive

ReformandTransparency(SM

ART)



- Defective registration and a ccreditation dating back to2010;

- Failure to represent anysector; and

- Failure to establish that thenominees are employed in the

construction industry, thesector it claims to represent.


- Failure to prove a trackrecord of trying to uplift themarginalized

and underrepresented sector ofprofessionals; a nd

- One nominee was declaredunqualified to represent thesector of

professionals.

Cancelled registration and accreditation- Failure to establish a trackrecord of enhancing the livesof the

marginalized and underrepresented farmerswhich it claims to

represent;and

- More than a majority of thepartys nominees do notbelong to the

farmers sector.


- Failure to prove that its fivenominees are members of

theindigenous people sector;

- Failure to prove that its fivenominees activelyparticipated in

theundertakings of the party; and

- Failure to prove that its five nominees a re bona fidemembers.


- The party is affiliated withprivate and governmentagencies and is

not marginalized;

- The party is assisted by thegovernment in variousprojects; and

- The nominees are notmembers of the marginalizedsector ofcoconut farmers andproducers.


- Failure to establish a trackrecord of continuouslyrepresenting the

peasantfarmers sector;

- Failure to show that itsmembers actually belong tothe peasant

farmers sector;and

- Failure to show that itsnominees are marginalizedand

underrepresented, haveactively participated inprograms for

theadvancement of farmers, andadhere to its advocacies .

Cancelled registration and accreditation - Failure to show that

theparty is actually able torepresent a ll of the sectors itclaims to

represent;

- Failure to show a completetrack record of its activities since its

registration; and

- The nominees are not partof any of the sectors whichthe party

seeks to represent.


- The party receivesas sistance from thegovernment through

theDepartment of Agriculture;and

- Failure to prove that thegroup is marginalized and

underrepresented.


- Failure to establish that theagriculture and cooperativesectors

are marginalized and underrepresented; and

- The partys nomineesneither appear to belong tothe sectors they

seek torepresent, nor to haveactively participated in

theundertakings of the party.


- Declaration of untruthfulstatements;

- Failure to exist for at leastone year; and

- None of its nomineesbelong to the labor,fisherfolk, and urbanpoorindigenous culturalcommunities sectors which itseeks to

represent.

Cancelled accreditation

- The party represents driversand operators, who may

haveconflicting interests; and

- The partys nominees do notbelong to any marginalizedand

underrepresented sector.

204421, Cancelled registration

204425- The party violated electionlaws because its nomineeshad a term-

sharingagreement.


29 204323


30 204321


28 204238Alliance ofBicolnon

Party(ABP)

Bayani PartyList (BAYANI)

Ang AgrikulturaNatin

Isulong(AANI)


33 204220


34 204158


31 204125


32 204216

Agapay

ngIndigenousPeoples

RightsAlliance, Inc.(A-IPRA)

PhilippineCoconutProducer

sFederation, Inc.(COCOFED)

Abang LingkodParty-

List(ABANGLINGKOD)

ActionBrotherhood for

ActiveDreamers,

Inc.(ABROAD)


39


37 204486


38 204410


35 204374


36 204356

Binhi-Partido ngmga

MagsasakaPara sa

mgaMagsasaka(BINHI)

Butil FarmersParty (BUTIL)

1stKabalikat

ngBayanGinhawangSangkat

auhan(1stKABAGIS)

1-UnitedTransportKoalisyon

(1-UTAK)

Coalition ofSenior Citizensin

thePhilippines,

Inc.(SENIORCITIZENS)


5/9




5

ROMEO G. JALOSJOS vs. COMELEC, MARIA ISABELLE G. CLIMACO-SALAZAR, ROEL B.

NATIVIDAD, ARTURO N. ONRUBIA, AHMAD NARZAD K. SAMPANG, JOSE L.

LOBREGAT, ADELANTE ZAMBOANGA PARTY, AND ELBERT C. ATILANO

G.R. No. 205033 June 18, 2013

Facts:

Herein petitioner was convicted by final judgment of 2 counts ofstatutory rape and 6 counts of acts of lasciviousness. Consequently, he

was sentenced to suffer the principal penalties of reclusion perpetua

and reclusion temporal for each count, respectively, which carried the

accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification pursuant to

Article 41 of the RPC.

Then President Arroyo issued an order commuting his prison term to 16years, 3 months and 3 days.

After serving the same, he was issued a Certificate of Discharge FromPrison on March 18, 2009.

Pending resolution of his petition for Inclusion in the Permanent List ofVoters before the MTC, petitioner filed a CoC on October 2012, seekingto run as mayor for Zamboanga City in the upcoming local elections on

May 2013, wherein he stated that he is eligible for the said office and

that he is a registered voter of Barangay Tetuan, Zamboanga City

Subsequently, his petition was denied for inclusion was denied onaccount of his perpetual absolute disqualification which in effect,

deprived him of the right to vote in any election. This was affirmed by

the RTC.

Different petitions were then filed before the COMELEC, praying for thedenial of petitioners CoC. Pending resolution by the divisions,

COMELEC en banc issued a motu proprio Resolution resolving to cancel

petitioners CoC due to his perpetual absolute disqualification as well ashis failure to comply with the voter registration requirement, hence,

this petition.

Issue: Whether petitioner is qualified to run in the said elective position

Held: No

Petitioner claims that the COMELEC En Banc usurped the COMELECDivisions jurisdiction by cancelling motu proprio petitioners CoC

through Resolution contrary to Section 3, Article IX-C of the

Constitution, provision requiring a motion for reconsideration before

the COMELEC En Banc may take action -> no merit

o Such provision is confined only to cases where the COMELECexercises its quasi-judicial power.

o It finds no application in matters concerning the COMELECsexercise of administrative functions

What is then the nature of the power exercised by the COMELEC EnBanc when it promulgated the subject Resolution? A: Administrative

o Jurisprudence: Even without a petition under either Section12 or Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, or under

Section 40 of the Local Government Code, the COMELEC is

under a legal duty to cancel the certificate of candidacy of

anyone suffering from the accessory penalty of perpetual

special disqualification to run for public office by virtue of a

final judgment of conviction. The final judgment of

conviction is notice to the COMELEC of the disqualification of

the convict from running for public office. The law itself bars

the convict from running for public office, and the

disqualification is part of the final judgment of conviction.

To allow the COMELEC to wait for a person to file a petitionto cancel the certificate of candidacy of one suffering from

perpetual special disqualification will result in the anomaly

that these cases so grotesquely exemplify. The COMELEC will

be grossly remiss in its constitutional duty to "enforce and

administer all laws" relating to the conduct of elections if it

does not motu proprio bar from running for public office

those suffering from perpetual special disqualification by

virtue of a final judgment.

In Aratea v. COMELEC (Aratea), the Court similarly

pronounced that the disqualification of a convict to run for

public office, as affirmed by final judgment of a competent

court, is part of the enforcement and administration of all

laws relating to the conduct of elections.

oApplying these principles to the case at bar, it is clear thatthe COMELEC En Banc did not exercise its quasi-judicial

functions when it issued the Resolution as it did not assume

jurisdiction over any pending petition or resolve any election

case before it or any of its divisions. Rather, it merely

performed its duty to enforce and administer election laws

in cancelling petitioners CoC on the basis of his perpetual

absolute disqualification, the fact of which had already been

established by his final conviction.

o Lest it be misunderstood, while the denial of due course toand/or cancellation of ones CoC generally necessitates the

exercise of the COMELECs quasi-judicial functions

commenced through a petition based on either Sections

1220 or 7821 of the OEC, or Section 4022 of the LGC, when

the grounds therefor are rendered conclusive on account of

final and executory judgments as when a candidates

disqualification to run for public office is based on a final

conviction such exercise falls within the COMELECsadministrative functions, as in this case.

It is petitioners submission that Article 30 of the RPC was partiallyamended by Section 40(a) of the LGC and thus, claims that his perpetual

absolute disqualification had already been removed. -> No merit

o Well-established is the rule that every new statute should beconstrued in connection with those already existing in

relation to the same subject matter and all should be made

to harmonize and stand together, if they can be done by any

fair and reasonable interpretation.

Section 40(a) of the LGC provides that thosesentenced by final judgment for an offense

involving moral turpitude or for an offense

punishable by 1 year or more of imprisonment,

within 2 years after serving sentence

While Art. 30 of the RPC provides for the effectsof the penalties of perpetual or temporary

absolute disqualification:

The deprivation of the public officesand employments which the offender

may have held, even if conferred by

popular election.

The deprivation of the right to vote inany election for any popular office or

to be elected to such office.

The disqualification for the offices orpublic employments and for the

exercise of any of the rights

mentioned.

In case of temporary disqualification,such disqualification as is comprised inparagraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall

last during the term of the sentence.

The loss of all rights to retirement payor other pension for any office

formerly held.

o In particular, while Section 40(a) of the LGC allows a priorconvict to run for local elective office after the lapse of two

(2) years from the time he serves his sentence, the said

provision should not be deemed to cover cases wherein the

law imposes a penalty, either as principal or accessory,

which has the effect of disqualifying the convict to run for

elective office.

o Accordingly, Section 40(a) of the LGC should be consideredas a law of general application and therefore, must yield to

the more definitive RPC provisions in line with the principleof lex specialis derogat generali general legislation must

give way to special legislation on the same subject, and

generally is so interpreted as to embrace only cases in which

the special provisions are not applicable.

o The accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualificationtakes effect immediately once the judgment of conviction

becomes final. The effectivity of this accessory penalty does

not depend on the duration of the principal penalty, or on

whether the convict serves his jail sentence or not. The last

sentence of Article 32 states that "the offender shall not be

permitted to hold any public office during the period of his

[perpetual special] disqualification." Once the judgment of

conviction becomes final, it is immediately executory. Any

public office that the convict may be holding at the time of

his conviction becomes vacant upon finality of the judgment,

and the convict becomes ineligible to run for any elective

public office perpetually.


6/9




6

CASAN MACODE MAQUILING vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO

y CAGOCO, LINOG G. BALUA

G.R. No. 195649 April 16, 2013

Facts:

This is a petition assailing the resolution issued by COMELEC, findingthat herein respondent Arnado is solely a Filipino citizen qualified to run

for public office despite his continued use of a U.S. passport.

Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. However, as aconsequence of his subsequent naturalization as a citizen of the USA,

he lost his Filipino citizenship.

July 2008: Arnado applied for repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.) No.9225 before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Franciso,

USA and took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

On the same day an Order of Approval of his Citizenship Retention and

Re-acquisition was issued in his favor.

April 2009: Subsequently, Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance tothe Republic and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign

citizenship

November 2009: Arnado filed his CoC for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanaodel Norte

Consequently, herein respondent Balua iled a petition to disqualifyArnado and/or to cancel his CoC, contending that the latter s not a

resident of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and that he is a foreigner,

attaching thereto a certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration

indicating the nationality of Arnado as "USA-American."

To further bolster his claim of Arnados US citizenship, Balua presentedin his Memorandum a computer-generated travel record ndicating that

Arnado has been using his US Passport in entering and departing thePhilippines

Failure of Arnado to answer the petition, Balua moved to declare him indefault and to present evidence ex-parte, which was remain unacted,

having been overtaken by the 2010 elections where Arnado garnered

the highest number of votes and was subsequently proclaimed as the

winning candidate for Mayor

Only after proclamation that Arnado filed his verified answer. COMELEC 1st Division: Granted petition for disqualification

Arnados continued use of his US passport is a strong indication that

Arnado had no real intention to renounce his US citizenship and that he

only executed an Affidavit of Renunciation to enable him to run for

office. We cannot turn a blind eye to the glaring inconsistency between

Arnados unexplained use of a US passport six times and his claim that

he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship and renounced his UScitizenship. As noted by the Supreme Court in the Yu case, "a passport is

defined as an official document of identity and nationality issued to a

person intending to travel or sojourn in foreign countries." Surely, one

who truly divested himself of US citizenship would not continue to avail

of privileges reserved solely for US nationals.

Arenado filed for a Motion for Reconsideration Subsequently, Petitioner Maquiling, another candidate for mayor of

Kauswagan, and who garnered the second highest number of votes in

the 2010 elections, intervened in the case

o Maquiling argued that while the First Division correctlydisqualified Arnado, the order of succession under Section

44 of the Local Government Code is not applicable in this

case.

o He claimed that the cancellation of Arnados candidacy andthe nullification of his proclamation, Maquiling, as thelegitimate candidate who obtained the highest number of

lawful votes, should be proclaimed as the winner.

COMELEC en banc: Granted Arnados MR.By renouncing his US citizenship as imposed by R.A. No. 9225, the

respondent embraced his Philippine citizenship as though he never

became a citizen of another country. The use of a US passport does

not operate to revert back his status as a dual citizen prior to his

renunciation as there is no law saying such. More succinctly, the use of

a US passport does not operate to "un-renounce" what he has earlier

on renounced.

Dissenting opinion of Commissioner Sarmiento: Arnados continued use

of his US passport and enjoyment of all the privileges of a US citizen

despite his previous renunciation of the afore-mentioned citizenship

runs contrary to his declaration that he chose to retain only hisPhilippine citizenship. Respondents submission with the twin

requirements was obviously only for the purpose of complying with the

requirements for running for the mayoralty post

Qualifications for elective office, such as citizenship, are continuing

requirements; once any of them is lost during his incumbency, title to

the office itself is deemed forfeited. If a candidate is not a citizen at the

time he ran for office or if he lost his citizenship after his election to

office, he is disqualified to serve as such. Neither does the fact that

respondent obtained the plurality of votes for the mayoralty post cure

the latters failure to comply with the qualification requirements

regarding his citizenship.

Hence, this petitionIssue: Whether the use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship

affects ones qualifications to run for public office

Held: Yes Rommel Arnado took all the necessary steps to qualify to run for a

public office. He took the Oath of Allegiance and renounced his foreign

citizenship. There is no question that after performing these twin

requirements required under Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 or the

Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, he became

eligible to run for public office.

By renouncing his foreign citizenship, he was deemed to be solely aFilipino citizen, regardless of the effect of such renunciation under the

laws of the foreign country.

However, this legal presumption does not operate permanently and isopen to attack when, after renouncing the foreign citizenship, the

citizen performs positive acts showing his continued possession of a

foreign citizenship.

Arnado himself subjected the issue of his citizenship to attack when,after renouncing his foreign citizenship, he continued to use his USpassport to travel in and out of the country before filing his certificate

of candidacy

By using his foreign passport, Arnado positively and voluntarilyrepresented himself as an American, in effect declaring before

immigration authorities of both countries that he is an American citizen,

with all attendant rights and privileges granted by the USA

The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that cansimply be professed at any time, only to be violated the next day. It

requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign

citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and political rights granted

by the foreign country which granted the citizenship.

Issue: Whether he rule on succession in the Local Government Code is applicable

to this case

Held: Petitioners right to intervene: Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, otherwise

known as the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, which provides: Any

candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified

shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If

for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an

election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning

number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall

continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest

and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the

pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such

candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong. Under this

provision, intervention may be allowed in proceedings for

disqualification even after election if there has yet been no final

judgment rendered.


7/9




7

REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES vs. COMELEC and JOSEPH SOCORRO B. TAN

G.R. No. 207264 June 25, 2013

Facts:

Respondent Tan , a registered voter and resident of the Municipality ofTorrijos, Marinduque, filed before the COMELEC a petition to cancel

petitioners CoC as Representative of the lone district of Marinduque on

the ground that it contained material misrepresentations, specifically:

o that she is a resident of Brgy. Lupac, Boac, Marinduquewhen she is a resident of Bauan, Batangas which is the

residence of her husband, and at the same time, when she

is also a resident of Brgy. Milagrosa, Quezon City as admitted

in the Directory of Congressional Spouses of the House of

Representatives;o that she is not a permanent resident of another country

when she is a permanent resident or an immigrant of the

USA;

o that she is a Filipino citizen when she is, in fact, an Americancitizen

COMELECs Ruling:o Not a citizen of the country because of her failure to comply

with the requirements of RA 9225, i.e.

to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic ofthe Philippines; and

to make a personal and sworn renunciation of herAmerican citizenship before any public officer

authorized to administer an oath

o Non-compliance oneyear residency requirement underSection 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, claiming that:o She is a natural-born Filipino citizen and that she has not lost

such status by simply obtaining and using an American

passport

o Petitioner surmised that the COMELEC First Division reliedon the fact of her marriage to an American citizen in

concluding that she is a naturalized American citizen.

Petitioner averred, however, that such marriage only

resulted into dual citizenship, thus there is no need for her

to fulfill the twin requirements

o As to her alleged lack of the one-year residency requirementprescribed by the Constitution, she averred that, as she

never became a naturalized citizen, she never lost her

domicile of origin, which is Boac, Marinduque

The motion for reconsideration was denied. On June 5, 2013 petitioner was proclaimed winner of the May 2013

elections. She also took her oath of office, however, as yet to assume

office, the term of which officially starts at noon of 30 June 2013

However, the COMELEC en banc issued a Certificate of finality of itsresolution, considering that more than 21 days have elapsed from the

date of promulgation with no order issued by the Court restraining its

execution, hence, this petition

Issue: Whether Respondent Comelec is without jurisdiction over Petitioner who is

a duly proclaimed winner and who has already taken her oath of office for the

position of Member of the House of Representatives for the lone congressional

district of Marinduque.

Held: No

Petitioners contention: COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction whenshe was duly proclaimed because pursuant to Section 17, Article VI ofthe 1987 Constitution, the HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the

"sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and

qualifications" of the Members of the House of Representatives.

HRET does not acquire jurisdiction over the issue of petitionersqualifications, as well as over the assailed COMELEC Resolutions

o XPN: A petition is duly filed with said tribunal. The jurisdiction of the HRET begins only after the candidate is

considered a Member of the House of Representatives

Q: When is a candidate considered a Member of the House of Representatives?

To be considered a Member of the House of Representatives, theremust be a concurrence of the following requisites: (1) a valid

proclamation, (2) a proper oath, and (3) assumption of office.

In petitioners attempt to comply with the second requirement,petitioner attached a purported Oath Of Office taken before Hon.

Feliciano Belmonte Jr. on 5 June 2013. However, this is not the oath of

office which confers membership to the House of Representatives.

Before there is a valid or official taking of the oath it must be made (1)before the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and (2) in open

session. (Section 6, Rule II (Membership) of the Rules of the House of

Representatives)

o Here, although she made the oath before Speaker Belmonte,there is no indication that it was made during plenary or in

open session and, thus, it remains unclear whether the

required oath of office was indeed complied with.

Before proclamation of the petitioner, the COMELEC En Banc hadalready finally disposed of the issue of petitioners lack of Filipino

citizenship and residency via its Resolution

o Upon issuance of the same, there was, before the COMELEC,no longer any pending case on petitioners qualifications to

run for the position of Member of the House ofRepresentative.

o The Board of Canvasser which proclaimed petitioner cannotby such act be allowed to render nugatory a decision of the

COMELEC En Banc which affirmed a decision of the

COMELEC First Division.

The assailed resolution of the COMELEC en banc became final andexecutory

o Petitioner should have filed a petition to appeal before thecourt within the 5-day period

Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it took

cognizance of "newly-discovered evidence" without the same having been testified

on and offered and admitted in evidence. She assails the admission of the blog

article of Eli Obligacion as hearsay and the photocopy of the Certification from the

Bureau of Immigration. She likewise contends that there was a violation of herright to due process of law because she was not given the opportunity to question

and present controverting evidence.

COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules ofprocedure in the presentation of evidence.

o Under Section 2 of Rule I, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure"shall be liberally construed in order x xx to achieve just,

expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition

of every action and proceeding brought before the

Commission."

No denial of due process in the case at bar as petitioner was given everyopportunity to argue her case before the COMELEC

Issue: Whether Respondent Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared that Petitioner is not a

Filipino citizen and did not meet the residency requirement for the position ofMember of the House of Representatives

Issue: Whether Respondent Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when, by enforcing the

provisions of Republic Act No. 9225, it imposed additional qualifications to the

qualifications of a Member of the House of Representatives as enumerated in

Section 6 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.

Held: No for both issues

Respondent Tan was able to established the fact that respondent is aholder of an American passport which she continues to use until June

30, 2012. Her status thereof is a balik-bayan

The burden now shifts to petitioner to present substantial evidence toprove otherwise. This, the petitioner utterly failed to do, leading to the

conclusion inevitable that she falsely misrepresented in her COC thatshe is a natural-born Filipino citizen.

o Unless and until she can establish that she had availed of theprivileges of RA 9225 by becoming a dual Filipino-American

citizen, and thereafter, made a valid sworn renunciation of

her American citizenship, she remains to be an American

citizen and is, therefore, ineligible to run for and hold any

elective public office in the Philippines."

Notably, in her Motion for Reconsideration before the COMELEC EnBanc, petitioner admitted that she is a holder of a US passport, but she

averred that she is only a dual Filipino-American citizen, thus the

requirements of R.A. No. 9225 do not apply to her.

o However, she attached to the said motion an Affidavit ofRenunciation of Foreign Citizenship, explaining that she

attached said Affidavit "if only to show her desire and zeal to

serve the people and to comply with rules, even as asuperfluity."


8/9




8

o If petitioner executed said Affidavit "if only to comply withthe rules," then it is an admission that R.A. No. 9225 applies

to her.

To cover-up her apparent lack of an oath of allegiance as required byR.A. No. 9225, petitioner contends that, since she took her oath of

allegiance in connection with her appointment as Provincial

Administrator of Marinduque, she is deemed to have reacquired her

status as a natural-born Filipino citizen.

o This is not in compliance with RA 9225 These circumstances, taken together, show that a doubt was clearly

cast on petitioners citizenship. Petitioner, however, failed to clear such

doubt.

As to the issue of residency:o A Filipino citizen who becomes naturalized elsewhere

effectively abandons his domicile of origin. Upon re-

acquisition of Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225, he

must still show that he chose to establish his domicile in the

Philippines through positive acts, and the period of his

residency shall be counted from the time he made it his

domicile of choice.

o In this case, there is no showing whatsoever that petitionerhad already re-acquired her Filipino citizenship pursuant to

RA 9225 so as to conclude that she has regained her

domicile in the Philippines. There being no proof that

petitioner had renounced her American citizenship, it

follows that she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in

the USA.

o Proof presented by Petitioner: Her claim that she served asProvincial Administrator of the province from January 18,2011 to July 13, 2011

Not sufficient For, petitioner has never regained her domicile in

Marinduque as she remains to be an American

citizen. No amount of her stay in the said locality

can substitute the fact that she has not

abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA.

All in all, considering that the petition for denial and cancellation of theCOC is summary in nature, the COMELEC is given much discretion in the

evaluation and admission of evidence pursuant to its principal objective

of determining of whether or not the COC should be cancelled.

Anent the proposition of petitioner that the act of the COMELEC inenforcing the provisions of R.A. No. 9225, insofar as it adds to the

qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives other than

those enumerated in the Constitution, is unconstitutionalo The COMELEC did not impose additional qualifications on

candidates for the House of Representatives who have

acquired foreign citizenship.

o It merely applied the qualifications prescribed by Section 6,Article VI of the 1987 Constitution that the candidate must

be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and must have

one-year residency prior to the date of elections.

SVETLANA P. JALOSJOS vs. COMELEC, EDWIN ELIM TUMPAG and RODOLFO Y.

ESTRELLADA

G.R. No. 193314 February 26, 2013

Facts:

Petitioner filed her CoC or mayor of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental forthe 10 May 2010 elections. She indicated therein her place of birth and

residence as Barangay Tugas, Municipality of Baliangao, Misamis

Occidental

Private respondents filed a petition to deny or cancel petitioners CoC ,in which they argued that she had falsely represented her place of birth

and residence, because she was in fact born in San Juan, Metro Manila,

and had not totally abandoned her previous domicile, Dapitan City.

Evidence presented by herein private respondents:o Certification from the Assessors Office of Baliangao that

there was no tax declaration covering any real property in

the name of petitioner located at any place in the

municipality

o Certification from the Civil Registrar of Baliangao thatpetitioner had no record of birth in the civil registry of the

municipality;

o Joint Affidavit of three residents of Baliangaoo Affidavit of Patricio D. Andilab (Andilab), official of Purok 5,

Brgy. Tugas, Baliangao.

Petitioners contentions:o She had established her residence in the said barangay since

December 2008 when she purchased two parcels of land

there, and that she had been staying in the house of a

certain Mrs. Lourdes Yap (Yap) while the former wasoverseeing the construction of her house.

o Error in her place of birth was committed by her secretary The Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel the Certificate of

Candidacy remained pending as of the day of the elections, in which

petitioner garnered the highest number of votes.

Consequently, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed her as theduly elected municipal mayor

COMELEC division granted the disqualification of herein petitioner.COMELEC en banc denied petitioners motion for reconsideration

COMELEC Ruling:o Based on the evidence presented, petitioner never acquired

a new domicile in Baliangao, because she failed to prove her

bodily presence at that place, her intention to remain there,

and her intention never to return to her domicile of origin.

o the Extrajudicial Partition with Simultaneous Sale was notsufficient proof that petitioner had purchased two parcels of

land, because she was never a party to the agreement, and it

was quite unusual that she never acquired a deed of sale or

title to protect her interests;

o the application of petitioner for voter registration onlyproved that she had met the minimum six-month residency

requirement and nothing more; and

o the affiants of the Sworn Statements were all partial,because they either worked for her or were members of

organizations that received financial assistance from her

Hence, this petitionIssue: Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to

promulgate its 04 June 2010 and 19 August 2010 Resolutions in accordance with its

own Rules of Procedure

Held: No

Petitioners contention: She was not served an advance notice thatthese Resolutions were going to be promulgated, hence, her right to

due process was violated

Promulgation is the process by which a decision is published, officiallyannounced, made known to the public or delivered to the clerk of court

for filing, coupled with notice to the parties or their counsel. It is the

delivery of a court decision to the clerk of court for filing and

publication. It is the filing of the signed decision with the clerk of court.

The additional requirement imposed by the COMELEC rules of notice in

advance of promulgation is not part of the process of promulgation.

What was wanting and what the petitioner apparently objected to wasnot the promulgation of the decision but the failure of the trial court to

serve notice in advance of the promulgation of its decision as requiredby the COMELEC rules. The failure to serve such notice in advance of

the promulgation may be considered a procedural lapse on the part of

the trial court which did not prejudice the rights of the parties and did


9/9




9

not vitiate the validity of the decision of the trial court nor [sic] of the

promulgation of said decision.

In the present case, we read from the COMELEC Order that theexigencies attendant to the holding of the countrys first automated

national elections had necessitated that the COMELEC suspend the rule

on notice prior to promulgation, and that it instead direct the delivery

of all resolutions to the Clerk of the Commission for immediate

promulgation.

o The COMELECs Order did not affect the right of the partiesto due process. They were still furnished a copy of the

COMELEC Decision and were able to reckon the period for

perfecting an appeal. In fact, petitioner was able to timely

lodge a Petition with this Court.

Issue: Whether petitioner complied with the one-year residency requirement for

local elective officials

Held: No

When it comes to the qualifications for running for public office,residence is synonymous with domicile

The term residence as so used, is synonymous with domicile whichimports not only intention to reside in a fixed place, but also personal

presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such

intention.

Requisites for a person to acquire a new domicile by choice:o Residence or bodily presence in the new localityo Intention to remain thereo An intention to abandon the old domicile

In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these criteria, theresidence of origin should be deemed to continue. Only with evidence

showing concurrence of all three requirements can the presumption of

continuity or residence be rebutted, for a change of residence requires

an actual and deliberate abandonment, and one cannot have two legal

residences at the same time.

Moreover, even if these requisites are established by clear and positiveproof, the date of acquisition of the domicile of choice, or the critical

date, must also be established to be within at least one year prior to the

elections using the same standard of evidence.

To use ownership of property in the district as the determinativeindicium of permanence of domicile or residence implies that the

landed can establish compliance with the residency requirement. This

Court would be, in effect, imposing a property requirement to the right

to hold public office, which property requirement would be

unconstitutional. The approval of the application for registration of petitioner as a voter

only shows, at most, that she had met the minimum residency

requirement as a voter. This minimum requirement is different from

that for acquiring a new domicile of choice for the purpose of running

for public office.

election law case digest.docx

Documents