Aquino v. COMELEC

AGAPITO AQUINO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTION (D)
G.R. No. 120265 September 18, 1995

FACTS:

• Petitioner Agapito A. Aquino filed his Certificate of Candidacy(CoC) for the position of Representative for the new 2nd Legislative District of Makati City providing the following information; Residence in Constituency: ___ years & 10 months.
• Move Makati, a duly registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Agapito A. Aquino on the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman which should be for a period not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the elections
• Petitioner filed another CoC amending the certificate. Petitioner stated in Item 8 of his certificate that he had resided in the constituency for l year and 13 days. 
• Petitioner filed his Answer praying for the dismissal of the disqualification case. On the same day, a hearing was conducted by the COMELEC wherein petitioner presented in evidence, his Affidavit, lease contract between petitioner and Leonor Feliciano.
• 2nd Division of COMELEC promulgated a Resolution which DISMISS the: petition for Disqualification against respondent Agapito Aquino and declares him ELIGIBLE to run for the Office of Representative in the 2nd District of Makati City.
• Elections were held. In Makati City where 3 candidates vied for the congressional seat in the 2nd District, petitioner 38,547 votes as against another candidate, Agusto Syjuco, who obtained 35,910 votes.
• Private respondents Move Makati and Bedon filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proclamation of petitioner. Thereafter, they filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the COMELEC's 2nd Division resolution dated May 6, 1995 and a 2nd Urgent Motion to Suspend Proclamation of petitioner.
• COMELEC issued an Order suspending petitioner's proclamation.
• Petitioner filed a "Motion to File Supplemental Memorandum and Motion to Resolve Urgent Motion to Resolve Motion to Lift Suspension of Proclamation" wherein he manifested his intention to raise, among others, the issue of whether or not the determination of the qualifications of petitioner after the elections is lodged exclusively in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal pursuant to Sec 17, Art VI of the 1987 Constitution.
• COMELEC issued a Resolution reversing the resolution of the 2nd Division dated May 6, 1995. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of the 2nd Division, promulgated on May 6, 1995, is GRANTED. Respondent Agapito A. Aquino is declared ineligible and thus disqualified as a candidate for the Office of Representative of the 2nd District of Makati City in the elections, for lack of the constitutional qualification of residence.

ISSUE:

• Whether or not COMELEC's finding of non-compliance with the residency requirement of 1 year against the petitioner is valid.

HELD:

• Yes, COMELEC's finding of non-compliance with the residency requirement of 1 year against the petitioner is valid.
• Petitioner in his Certificate of Candidacy, indicated not only that he was a resident of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 but that he was a resident of the same for 52 years immediately preceding that election. His certificate indicated that he was also a registered voter of the same district. His birth certificate places Concepcion, Tarlac as the birthplace of both of his parents Benigno and Aurora. Thus, what stands consistently clear and unassailable is that this domicile of origin was Concepcion, Tarlac.
• The intention not to establish a permanent home in Makati City is evident in his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one. While a lease contract maybe indicative of respondent's intention to reside in Makati City it does not engender the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of one's original domicile especially since, by its terms, it is only for a period of two (2) years, and respondent Aquino himself testified that his intention was really for only one (l) year because he has other "residences" in Manila or Quezon City.
• While property ownership is not and should never be an indicia of the right to vote or to be voted upon, the fact that petitioner himself claims that he has other residences in Metro Manila coupled with the short length of time he claims to be a resident of the condominium unit in Makati indicate that the sole purpose of transferring his physical residence is not to acquire's new residence or domicile but only to qualify as a candidate for Representative of the 2nd District of Makati City.
• Finally, petitioner's submission that it would be legally impossible to impose the one year residency requirement in a newly created political district is specious and lacks basis in logic. A new political district is not created out of thin air. It is carved out from part of a real and existing geographic area, in this case the old Municipality of Makati.

Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC

IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTION (G)
G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995

FACTS:

• Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy(CoC) for the position of Representative of the 1st District of Leyte, providing the following information; Residence in Constituency: ___ years & 7 months. 
• Cirilo Roy Montejo filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification with the COMELEC alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. 
• Petitioner filed an Amended CoC, changing the entry "7 months" to "since childhood". On the same day, the Provincial Election Supervisor informed the petitioner that: This office cannot accept the aforementioned CoC on the ground that it is filed out of time. 
• Petitioner filed the Amended CoC with the COMELEC's Head Office in Manila. Petitioner averred that the entry of the word "7" in her original Certificate of Candidacy was the result of an "honest misinterpretation" which she sought to rectify by adding the words "since childhood" in her Amended CoC and that she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence. 
• 2nd Division of COMELEC, by a vote of 2 to 1, came up with a Resolution, 
• Finding private respondent's Petition for Disqualification meritorious; 
• Striking off petitioner's Corrected CoC; and 
• Cancelling her original CoC. 
• COMELEC en banc denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration declaring her not qualified to run for the position of Member of the House of Representatives. 
• COMELEC issued a Resolution allowing petitioner's proclamation should the results of the canvass show that she obtained the highest number of votes in the congressional elections. On the same day, however, COMELEC reversed itself and issued a 2nd Resolution directing that the proclamation of petitioner be suspended in the event that she obtains the highest number of votes. 
• Petitioner averred that she was the winner of the elections held May 8, 1995. Petitioner alleged that the canvass showed that she obtained a total of 70,471 votes compared to the 36,833 votes received by Respondent Montejo. 

ISSUE:

• Whether or not petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the 1st District of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of the May 9, 1995 elections. 

HELD:

• Yes, petitioner was a resident of the 1st District of Leyte. 
• There is a difference between domicile and residence. "Residence" is used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary; "domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another. Residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one domicile for the same purpose at any time, but he may have numerous places of residence. 
• Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate: 
• An actual removal or an actual change of domicile; 
• A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and 
• Acts which correspond with the purpose. 
• Even assuming that petitioner gained a new "domicile" after her marriage and only acquired a right to choose a new one after her husband died, petitioner's acts following her return to the country clearly indicate that she not only impliedly but expressly chose her domicile of origin as her domicile. This "choice" was unequivocally expressed in her letters to the Chairman of the PCGG when petitioner sought the PCGG's permission to "rehabilitate (our) ancestral house in Tacloban and Farm in Olot, Leyte. . . to make them livable for the Marcos family to have a home in our homeland."