You are on page 1of 4

AQUINO vs. COMELEC (248 SCRA 400) Facts: On 20 March 1995, Agapito A.

Aquino filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the p osition of Representative for the new Second Legislative District of Makati City . In his certificate of candidacy, Aquino stated that he was a resident of the a forementioned district for 10 months. Faced with a petition for disqualification , he amended the entry on his residency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 yea r and 13 days. The Commission on Elections dismissed the petition on 6 May and a llowed Aquino to run in the election of 8 May. Aquino won. Acting on a motion fo r reconsideration of the above dismissal, the Commission on Election later issue d an order suspending the proclamation of Aquino until the Commission resolved t he issue. On 2 June, the Commission on Elections found Aquino ineligible and dis qualified for the elective office for lack of constitutional qualification of re sidence. Issue: Whether residency in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes domicile to warr ant the disqualification of Aquino from the position in the electoral district. Held: The place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to ret urn and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers whe n it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law. The purpose is to exc lude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the comm unity from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that communit y for electoral gain. Aquinos certificate of candidacy in a previous (1992) elect ion indicates that he was a resident and a registered voter of San Jose, Concepc ion, Tarlac for more than 52 years prior to that election. Aquinos connection to the Second District of Makati City is an alleged lease agreement of a condominiu m unit in the area. The intention not to establish a permanent home in Makati Ci ty is evident in his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one. The short length of time he claims to be a resident of Makati (and the fact of his stated domicile in Tarlac and his claims of other residences in Metro Manila) indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his physical residence is not to acquire a new, residence or domicile but only to qualify as a candidate for Representati ve of the Second District of Makati City. Aquino was thus rightfully disqualifie d by the Commission on Elections.

Vinzons-Chato v. Comelec Facts: Unico has already been proclaimed and taken his oath of office as a Member of th e HOR, hence, Comelec ruled that it had already lost jurisdiction over petitione r Chatos election protest against Unico regarding canvassing of returns and alleg ed invalidity of Unicos proclamation. He then filed a special civil action for ce rtiorari in the SC. Issue: WON the court should take cognizance of Chatos election protest. If not, to who i s this issue best addressed to? WON his civil action for certiorari will prosper . Held: The court should not take cognizance of Chatos election protest for it would amou nt to usurpation of the constitutionally mandated functions of the HRET. Civil a ction for certiorari will not prosper. Ratio: - In an electoral contest where the validity of the proclamation of a win ning candidate who has taken his oath of office and assumed his post as Congress man is raised, that issue is best addressed to the HRET.

Reason: It avoids duplicity of proceedings and a clash of jurisdiction between constitu tional bodies with due regard to the peoples mandate. -Special civil action for certiorari shall prosper if the following requisites c oncur: oTribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or inexcess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of jurisdiction a mounting to lack of jurisdiction oThere is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary cou rse of law to annul or modify the proceeding. -In this case, COMELEC did not commit rave abuse of discretion when it issued a resolution holding that it had lost jurisdiction upon Unicos proclamation. It dem onstrated fealty to the constitutional fiat regarding HRET.

Guerrero vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 137004, July 26, 2000 Facts: Guillermo Ruiz sought to disqualify respondent Farinas as a candidate for the po sition of Congressman in the First District of Ilocos Norte. Ruiz alleged that F arinas had been campaigning as a candidate for Congressman in the May 11, 1998 p olls, despite his failure to file a certificate of candidacy for said office. On May 8, 1998, Farinas filed his certificate of candidacy substituting candidate Chevylle Farinas who withdrew on April 3, 1998. On May 10, 1998, the COMELEC dis missed the petition of Ruiz for lack of merit. After the election, Farinas was duly proclaimed winner. Thereafter, Ruiz filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that Farinas could not validly substitut e for Chevylle Farinas, since the latter was not the official candidate of LAMMP , but was an independent candidate. Another person cannot substitute for an inde pendent candidate. Ruiz claimed that Farinas certificate of candidacy was fatally defective. On June 3, 1988, Farinas took his oath of office as a member of the House of Representatives. The COMELEC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdictio n. Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC has committed grave abuse of discretion in holding th at the determination of the validity of the certificate of candidacy of responde nt Farinas is already within the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Represen tatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). Held: There is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC when it held th at its jurisdiction over the case had ceased with the assumption of office of re spondent Farinas as Representative for the first district of Ilocos Norte. While COMELEC is vested with the power to declare valid or invalid a certificate of c andidacy, its refusal to exercise that power following the proclamation and assu mption of the position by Farinas is a recognition of the jurisdictional boundar ies separating the COMELEC and the HRET. Under Art. VI, Sec. 17 of the Constitut ion, the HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the House of Representati ves. Thus, once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and ass umed office as a member of the House of Representatives, COMELECs jurisdiction ov er election contests relating to his election, returns and qualifications ends, and the HRETs own jurisdiction begins. Thus, the COMELECs decision to discontinue exercising jurisdiction over the case is justifiable, in deference to the HRETs o wn jurisdiction and functions. Angara v. ELECOM Facts: Petitioner Jose Angara was proclaimed winner and took his oath of office as memb

er of the National Assembly of the Commonwealth Government. On December 3, 1935, the National Assembly passed a resolution confirming the election of those who have not been subject of an election protest prior to the adoption of the said r esolution. On December 8, 1935, however, private respondent Pedro Ynsua filed an election p rotest against the petitioner before the Electoral Commission of the National As sembly. The following day, December 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission adopted it s own resolution providing that it will not consider any election protest that w as not submitted on or before December 9, 1935. Citing among others the earlier resolution of the National Assembly, the petitio ner sought the dismissal of respondents protest. The Electoral Commission however denied his motion. Issue: Did the Electoral Commission act without or in excess of its jurisdiction in tak ing cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the petitioner notwi thstanding the previous confirmation of such election by resolution of the Natio nal Assembly? Held: [The Court DENIED the petition.] NO, the Electoral Commission did not act without or in excess of its jurisdictio n in taking cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the petition er notwithstanding the previous confirmation of such election by resolution of t he National Assembly. The Electoral Commission acted within the legitimate exercise of its constitutio nal prerogative in assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by the respo ndent Ynsua against the election of the petitioner Angara, and that the earlier resolution of the National Assembly cannot in any manner toll the time for filin g election protests against members of the National Assembly, nor prevent the fi ling of a protest within such time as the rules of the Electoral Commission migh t prescribe. The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, i s intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature. The express lodging of that power in the Electoral Commission i s an implied denial of the exercise of that power by the National Assembly. xxx. [T]he creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative in character to limit the time with which protests entrusted t o its cognizance should be filed. [W]here a general power is conferred or duty e njoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the per formance of the other is also conferred. In the absence of any further constitut ional provision relating to the procedure to be followed in filing protests befo re the Electoral Commission, therefore, the incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for the proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge all cont ests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the Nati onal Assembly, must be deemed by necessary implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission.