EN BANC

[G.R. No. 85642, February 12, 1990]

EMILI C. MACIA!, II, "E#I#INER, $!. %N. CMMI!!IN N ELEC#IN! AN&
%ERMINI G. #E$E!, RE!"N&EN#!.
& E C I ! I N
"ARA!, '.(
Questioned in this petition for certiorari are the orders of the respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), dated September 12, 19 and October 2!, 19 den"in# petitioner$s (then protestee)
motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration, respecti%el"& 'etitioner contends that respondent
COMELEC, throu#h its (irst )i%ision, acted *ithout or in e+cess of ,urisdiction, or *ith #ra%e
abuse of discretion amountin# to lac- of ,urisdiction, in issuin# said .uestioned orders&
'etitioner Emilio Macias // and pri%ate respondent 0erminio 1& 2e%es both ran for the position of
1o%ernor of 3e#ros Oriental durin# the elections held on 4anuar" 1, 19& 'etitioner *as
proclaimed 1o%ernor b" the 'ro%incial 5oard of Can%assers& 2he proclamation *as actuall" held,
as found b" respondent COMELEC, on 4anuar" 26, 19 (p& 2, rollo), althou#h the 7Certificate of
Can%ass and 'roclamation7 e%idencin# said proclamation *as dated 4anuar" 28, 19& (9nne+ 75:
11,7 p& ;<, Rollo)
On 4anuar" 28, 19, or the da" before the proclamation, pri%ate respondent filed a 7're:
'roclamation 'rotest 9ppeal7 *ith the COMELEC, doc-eted as S'C Case 3o& :212& On 4anuar"
2!, 19, or the da" after the proclamation, pri%ate respondent also filed *ith respondent
Commission a 7'etition to Set 9side, Suspend the Effects of or 9nnul the 'roclamation of =the
'etitioner> as 1o%ernor of 3e#ros Oriental&7 2he COMELEC dismissed the pri%ate respondent$s
aforesaid protest and petition on 4anuar" ;<, 19 and denied his Motion for ?econsideration on
9pril 2!, 19&
On (ebruar" 8, 19, the pri%ate respondent filed a post:election protest *ith the COMELEC,
doc-eted as Election 'rotest Case 3o& :18, and paid the doc-et fee of '2<<&<<, as char#ed b" the
Electoral 9d,udication 5oard& On (ebruar" 12, 19, the pri%ate respondent filed an 79mended
'etition:'rotest&7 2he petitioner filed his Motion to )ismiss to the Ori#inal 'etition and 9mended
'etition on (ebruar" 2;, 19 and March ;, 19, respecti%el"& 2hereafter, the parties filed their
respecti%e memoranda& On September 12, 19, the COMELEC issued an Order den"in# the
petitioner$s motion to dismiss& 2he COMELEC also denied the petitioner$s motion for
reconsideration on October 2!, 19&
0ence, this 'etition&
/n a resolution dated (ebruar" 2, 199, the petition *as #i%en due course and the parties *ere
re.uired to file simultaneousl" their respecti%e memoranda&
'etitioner raises the follo*in# issues@
7(1) Ahether or not the election protest *as seasonabl" filedB and

7(2) Ahether or not the failure of herein pri%ate respondent to alle#e in his ori#inal petition that it
*as bein# filed 7b" a candidate *ho has dul" filed his certificate of candidac"7 and to pa"
the correct filin# fee of ';<<&<< at the time of the filin# of the ori#inal petition are
,urisdictional defects *hich depri%ed the COMELEC of ,urisdiction o%er his election
protest&7 (p& 1;1, Rollo)
'etitioner submits that the COMELEC should not ha%e ta-en co#niCance of the pri%ate respondent$s
election protest since the same *as filed on (ebruar" 8, 19 or ele%en (11) da"s after the
petitioner$s proclamation on 4anuar" 28, 19& 'etitioner anchors his first ar#ument on the
follo*in#@
(a) the date t"pe*ritten in the 7Certificate of Can%ass and 'roclamation7 *hich is the best
e%idence is 4anuar" 28, 19B and

(b) that under Sec& 26< of 5' 1, the Omnibus Election Code of the 'hilippines, a s*orn
petition contestin# the election of an" re#ional, pro%incial or cit" official, shall be filed
within ten (10) days after the proclamation of the results of the election& (italics ours)
'etitioner$s submission holds no *ater& 9s found b" respondent COMELEC, the date of
proclamation *as 4anuar" 26, 19& Dndeniabl", this issue is factual, and as Ae ha%e held time and
a#ain, 7*here the issues raised are factual, the same is not re%ie*able b" the Supreme Court on
certiorari (Cuerdo v. Commission on Audit, 1!! SC?9 !6E)& 9nd therefore, the election protest
filed on (ebruar" 8, 19, *hich is the tenth (1<th) da" from the date of proclamation, 4anuar" 26,
19, *as *ell F *ithin the prescribed period& 9ssumin# ho*e%er that the date of proclamation
*as 4anuar" 28, 19, the filin# of the protest on (ebruar" 8, 19 *as still *ithin the period since
pri%ate respondent filed a 7're:'roclamation 'rotest 9ppeal7 on 4anuar" 28, 19 effecti%el"
suspendin# the runnin# of the period for filin# an election protest as pro%ided for in Section 28,
9rticle GG of 5' 1@
7Sec& 28& Effect of filing petition to annul or to suspend the proclamation& F 2he filin#
*ith the Commission of a petition to annul or to suspend the proclamation of an"
candidate shall suspend the runnin# of the period *ithin *hich to file an election protest
or quo warranto proceedin#s&7
9nent the second issue, petitioner ar#ues that because pri%ate respondent failed to alle#e in his
ori#inal petition that he 7dul" filed a certificate of candidac",7 respondent COMELEC did not
ac.uire ,urisdiction o%er the election protest&
'etitioner$s ar#ument is untenable& 9s correctl" held b" the COMELEC in the assailed )ecision@
72he Commission, (irst )i%ision, notes that the abo%e:mentioned le#al pro%ision does
not re.uire that a protest must state that it is bein# filed 7b" a candidate *ho has dul"
filed his certificate of candidac"&7 Sec& 26< of the Omnibus Election Code onl" pro%ides
that a protest must be filed b" a candidate *ho 7has dul" filed his certificate of
candidac" and has been %oted for the same office7, *ithout re.uirin# in said section that
this matter must be specificall" alle#ed in the protest& 2he Commission ho*e%er notes
that the ori#inal petition andHor protest filed b" petitioner on (ebruar" 8, 19,
pertinentl" alle#es that the petitioner *as a candidate for the position of 1o%ernor in the
'ro%ince of 3e#ros Oriental and *as %oted upon b" the electorate durin# the election
held on 4anuar" 1, 19& 2he Commission rules that this alle#ation substantiall"
complies *ith the re.uirement of Sec& 26< of the Omnibus Election Code& 5e that as it
ma", the defect if an" in the preliminar" alle#ations of the ori#inal protest pertinent to
the re.uirements of Section 26< of the Omnibus Election Code *as cured *hen
protestant filed his amended protest on e!ruary 1"# 1$%%, before an ans*er could be
filed b" an" protestee& 'rotestee$s ans*er *as filed onl" on e!ruary "&# 1$%%, as
disclosed b" the records of this Commission& (pp& ;:8, OrderB pp& 8:6, Rollo)
'etitioner also contends that because pri%ate respondent onl" paid '2<< instead of ';<< as re.uired
under COMELEC ?esolution 3o& 199!, the Commission should ha%e dismissed the protest& 2he
COMELEC countered that the 7blame ho*e%er, should not be laid on the protestant for failure to
pa" in full the ';<<&<< doc-et fee on (ebruar" 8, 19, *hen the protest *as filed considerin# that
the doc-et cler- of the Electoral Contest 9d,udication )epartment char#ed the said amount *hich
protestant dul" paid& /n,ustice *ill result if the instant protest is dismissed for failure of the
protestant to pa" the full amount of ';<<&<< doc-et fee on (ebruar" 8, 19, *hen he filed the
ori#inal protest considerin# that it *as not protestant$s fault that there *as underpa"ment of the
doc-et fee&7 (p& 8, Rollo) Ae a#ree *ith the contention of the respondent COMELEC&
"REMI!E! CN!I&ERE&, the instant petition is hereb" '()*())E' for lac- of merit and the
2emporar" ?estrainin# Order issued on )ecember 2E, 19 is +(,E'&
! R&ERE&.
ernan# C.-.# .arvasa# *elencio/0errera# 1utierre2# -r.# Cru2# eliciano# 1ancayco# 3adilla#
4idin# )armiento# Cortes# 1ri5o/Aquino# *edialdea, and Regalado# --&, concur&

G.R. No. L-114783 December 8, 1994
ROBERT V. TOBIAS, RAMON M. GUMAN, TERR! T. LIM, GREGORIO D. GABRIEL,
"#$ ROBERTO R. TOBIAS, %R. petitioners,
vs.
&ON. 'IT! MA!OR BEN%AMIN S. ABALOS, 'IT! TREASURER (ILLIAM
MAR'ELINO, "#$ T&E SANGGUNIANG )ANLUNGSOD, "** o+ ,-e '.,/ o+
M"#$"*0/o#1, Me,ro M"#.*", respondents.
Estrella, Bautista & Associates for petitioners.

BIDIN, J.:
Invoking their rights as taxpayers and as residents of Mandaluyong, herein petitioners
assail the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 767, other!ise kno!n as "An Act
#onverting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a $ighly %rbani&ed #ity to be kno!n as
the #ity of Mandaluyong."
'rior to the enact(ent of the assailed statute, the (unicipalities of Mandaluyong and )an
*uan belonged to only one legislative district. $on. Ronaldo +a(ora, the incu(bent
congressional representative of this legislative district, sponsored the bill !hich eventually
beca(e R.A. No. 767. 'resident Ra(os signed R.A. No. 767 into la! on ,ebruary -,
.--/.
'ursuant to the 0ocal 1overn(ent #ode of .--., a plebiscite !as held on April .2, .--/.
3he people of Mandaluyong !ere asked !hether they approved of the conversion of the
Municipality of Mandaluyong into a highly urbani&ed city as provided under R.A. No. 767.
3he turnout at the plebiscite !as only ././.4 of the voting population. Nevertheless,
.5,66. voted "yes" !hereas 7,-.. voted "no." 7y virtue of these results, R.A. No. 767
!as dee(ed ratified and in effect.
'etitioners no! co(e before this #ourt, contending that R.A. No. 767, specifically Article
8III, )ection /- thereof, is unconstitutional for being violative of three specific provisions of
the #onstitution.
Article 8III, )ection /- of R.A. No. 767 provides9
As a highly:urbani&ed city, the #ity of Mandaluyong shall have its o!n legislative district !ith the first
representative to be elected in the next national elections after the passage of this Act. 3he re(ainder of the
for(er legislative district of )an *uan;Mandaluyong shall beco(e the ne! legislative district of )an *uan !ith
its first representative to be elected at the sa(e election.
'etitioner<s first ob=ection to the afore>uoted provision of R.A. No. 767 is that it
contravenes the "one sub=ect:one bill" rule, as enunciated in Article 8I, )ection 66?.@ of the
#onstitution, to !it9
)ec. 66?.@. Avery bill passed by the #ongress shall e(brace only one sub=ect !hich shall be expressed in
the title thereof.
'etitioners allege that the inclusion of the assailed )ection /- in the sub=ect la! resulted in
the latter e(bracing t!o principal sub=ects, na(ely9 ?.@ the conversion of Mandaluyong
into a highly urbani&ed cityB and ?6@ the division of the congressional district of )an
*uan;Mandaluyong into t!o separate districts.
'etitioners contend that the second aforestated sub=ect is not ger(ane to the sub=ect
(atter of R.A. No. 767 since the said la! treats of the conversion of Mandaluyong into a
highly urbani&ed city, as expressed in the title of the la!. 3herefore, since )ection /- treats
of a sub=ect distinct fro( that stated in the title of the la!, the "one sub=ect:one bill" rule
has not been co(plied !ith.
'etitioners< second and third ob=ections involve Article 8I, )ections ?.@ and ?/@ of the
#onstitution, !hich provide, to !it9
)ec. ?.@. 3he $ouse of Representatives shall be co(posed of not (ore than t!o hundred and fifty
(e(bers, unless other!ise fixed by la!, !ho shall be elected fro( legislative districts apportioned a(ong
the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance !ith the nu(ber of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a unifor( and progressive ratio, and those !ho, as provided by la!, shall be
elected through a party list syste( of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organi&ations.
)ec. ?/@. Cithin three years follo!ing the return of every census, the #ongress shall (ake a
reapportion(ent of legislative districts based on the standard provided in this section.
'etitioners argue that the division of )an *uan and Mandaluyong into separate
congressional districts under )ection /- of the assailed la! has resulted in an increase in
the co(position of the $ouse of Representatives beyond that provided in Article 8I, )ec.
?.@ of the #onstitution. ,urther(ore, petitioners contend that said division !as not (ade
pursuant to any census sho!ing that the sub=ect (unicipalities have attained the (ini(u(
population re>uire(ents. And finally, petitioners assert that )ection /- has the effect of
pree(pting the right of #ongress to reapportion legislative districts pursuant to )ec. ?/@
as aforecited.
3he contentions are devoid of (erit.
Anent the first issue, !e agree !ith the observation of the )olicitor 1eneral that the
statutory conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbani&ed city !ith a population of not
less than t!o hundred fifty thousand indubitably ordains co(pliance !ith the "one city:one
representative" proviso in the #onstitution9
. . . Aach city !ith a population of at least t!o hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least
one representative" ?Article 8I, )ection ?D@, #onstitution@.
$ence, it is in co(pliance !ith the aforestated constitutional (andate that the creation of a
separate congressional district for the #ity of Mandaluyong is decreed under Article 8III,
)ection /- of R.A. No. 767.
#ontrary to petitioners< assertion, the creation of a separate congressional district for
Mandaluyong is not a sub=ect separate and distinct fro( the sub=ect of its conversion into a
highly urbani&ed city but is a natural and logical conse>uence of its conversion into a
highly urbani&ed city. 8erily, the title of R.A. No. 767, "An Act #onverting the Municipality
of Mandaluyong Into a $ighly %rbani&ed #ity of Mandaluyong" necessarily includes and
conte(plates the sub=ect treated under )ection /- regarding the creation of a separate
congressional district for Mandaluyong.
Moreover, a liberal construction of the "one title:one sub=ect" rule has been invariably
adopted by this court so as not to cripple or i(pede legislation. 3hus, in Sumulong v.
Comelec ?7D 'hil. 655 E.-/.F@, !e ruled that the constitutional re>uire(ent as no!
expressed in Article 8I, )ection 66?.@ "should be given a practical rather than a technical
construction. It should be sufficient co(pliance !ith such re>uire(ent if the title expresses
the general sub=ect and all the provisions are ger(ane to that general sub=ect."
3he liberal construction of the "one title:one sub=ect" rule had been further elucidated in
Lidasan v. Comelec ?6. )#RA /-6 E.-67F@, to !it9
Gf course, the #onstitution does not re>uire #ongress to e(ploy in the title of an enact(ent, language of
such precision as to (irror, fully index or catalogue all the contents and the (inute details therein. It suffices
if the title should serve the purpose of the constitutional de(and that it infor( the legislators, the persons
interested in the sub=ect of the bill and the public, of the nature, scope and consequences of the proposed
la! and its operation" ?e(phasis supplied@.
'roceeding no! to the other constitutional issues raised by petitioners to the effect that
there is no (ention in the assailed la! of any census to sho! that Mandaluyong and )an
*uan had each attained the (ini(u( re>uire(ent of 62,222 inhabitants to =ustify their
separation into t!o legislative districts, the sa(e does not suffice to strike do!n the validity
of R.A. No. 767. 3he said Act en=oys the presu(ption of having passed through the
regular congressional processes, including due consideration by the (e(bers of
#ongress of the (ini(u( re>uire(ents for the establish(ent of separate legislative
districts. At any rate, it is not re>uired that all la!s e(anating fro( the legislature (ust
contain all relevant data considered by #ongress in the enact(ent of said la!s.
As to the contention that the assailed la! violates the present li(it on the nu(ber of
representatives as set forth in the #onstitution, a reading of the applicable provision,
Article 8I, )ection ?.@, as afore>uoted, sho!s that the present li(it of 62 (e(bers is not
absolute. 3he #onstitution clearly provides that the $ouse of Representatives shall be
co(posed of not (ore than 62 (e(bers, "unless other!ise provided by la!." 3he
inescapable i(port of the latter clause is that the present co(position of #ongress (ay be
increased, if #ongress itself so (andates through a legislative enact(ent. 3herefore, the
increase in congressional representation (andated by R.A. No. 767 is not
unconstitutional.
3hus, in the absence of proof that Mandaluyong and )an *uan do not >ualify to have
separate legislative districts, the assailed )ection /- of R.A.
No. 767 (ust be allo!ed to stand.
As to the contention that )ection /- of R.A. No. 767 in effect pree(pts the right of
#ongress to reapportion legislative districts, the said argu(ent borders on the absurd
since petitioners overlook the glaring fact that it !as #ongress itself !hich drafted,
deliberated upon and enacted the assailed la!, including )ection /- thereof. #ongress
cannot possibly pree(pt itself on a right !hich pertains to itself.
Aside fro( the constitutional ob=ections to R.A. No. 767, petitioners present further
argu(ents against the validity thereof.
'etitioners contend that the people of )an *uan should have been (ade to participate in
the plebiscite on R.A. No. 767 as the sa(e involved a change in their legislative district.
3he contention is bereft of (erit since the principal sub=ect involved in the plebiscite !as
the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbani&ed city. 3he (atter of separate district
representation !as only ancillary thereto. 3hus, the inhabitants of )an *uan !ere properly
excluded fro( the said plebiscite as they had nothing to do !ith the change of status of
neighboring Mandaluyong.
)i(ilarly, petitioners< additional argu(ent that the sub=ect la! has resulted in
"gerry(andering," !hich is the practice of creating legislative districts to favor a particular
candidate or party, is not !orthy of credence. As correctly observed by the )olicitor
1eneral, it should be noted that Rep. Ronaldo +a(ora, the author of the assailed la!, is
the incu(bent representative of the for(er )an *uan;Mandaluyong district, having
consistently !on in both localities. 7y dividing )an *uan;Mandaluyong, Rep. +a(ora<s
constituency has in fact been di(inished, !hich develop(ent could hardly be considered
as favorable to hi(.
C$ARA,GRA, the petition is hereby HI)MI))AH for lack of (erit.
)G GRHARAH.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, egalado, !avide, Jr., omero, Bellosillo, "elo, #uiason, Puno,
$itug, %apunan and "endo&a, JJ., concur.
'eliciano, J., is on leave.
G.R. No. 119972 Se3,ember 18, 1994
IMELDA ROMUALDE-MAR'OS, petitioner,
vs.
'OMMISSION ON ELE'TIONS "#$ 'IRILO RO! MONTE%O, respondents.

5A)UNAN, J.:
A constitutional provision should be construed as to give it effective operation and
suppress the (ischief at !hich it is ai(ed.
1
3he .-57 #onstitution (andates that an
aspirant for election to the $ouse of Representatives be "a registered voter in the district in
!hich he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year
i((ediately preceding the election."
6
3he (ischief !hich this provision I reproduced
verbati( fro( the .-7D #onstitution I seeks to prevent is the possibility of a "stranger or
ne!co(er unac>uainted !ith the conditions and needs of a co((unity and not identified
!ith the latter, fro( an elective office to serve that co((unity."
3
'etitioner I(elda Ro(ualde&:Marcos filed her #ertificate of #andidacy for the position of
Representative of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte !ith the 'rovincial Alection )upervisor on
March 5, .--, providing the follo!ing infor(ation in ite( no. 59
4
RA)IHAN#A IN 3$A #GN)3I3%AN#J C$ARA I )AAK 3G 7A A0A#3AH IMMAHIA3A0J 'RA#AHIN1
3$A A0A#3IGN9 LLLLLLLLLL Jears and seven Months.
Gn March 6D, .--, private respondent #irilo Roy Monte=o, the incu(bent Representative
of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte and a candidate for the sa(e position, filed a "'etition for
#ancellation and His>ualification"
4
!ith the #o((ission on Alections alleging that
petitioner did not (eet the constitutional re>uire(ent for residency. In his petit ion, private
respondent contended that Mrs. Marcos lacked the #onstitution<s one year residency
re>uire(ent for candidates for the $ouse of Representatives on the evidence of
declarations (ade by her in 8oter Registration Record -/:No. DD/-776
2
and in her
#ertificate of #andidacy. $e prayed that "an order be issued declaring ?petitioner@
dis>ualified and canceling the certificate of candidacy."
7
Gn March 6-, .--, petitioner filed an A(ended;#orrected #ertificate of #andidacy,
changing the entry "seven" (onths to "since childhood" in ite( no. 5 of the a(ended
certificate.
8
Gn the sa(e day, the 'rovincial Alection )upervisor of 0eyte infor(ed
petitioner that9
E3Fhis office cannot receive or accept the afore(entioned #ertificate of #andidacy on the ground that it is
filed out of ti(e, the deadline for the filing of the sa(e having already lapsed on March 62, .--. 3he
#orrected;A(ended #ertificate of #andidacy should have been filed on or before the March 62, .--
deadline.
9
#onse>uently, petitioner filed the A(ended;#orrected #ertificate of #andidacy !ith the
#GMA0A#<s $ead Gffice in Intra(uros, Manila on
March D., .--. $er Ans!er to private respondent<s petition in )'A No. -:22- !as
like!ise filed !ith the head office on the sa(e day. In said Ans!er, petitioner averred that
the entry of the !ord "seven" in her original #ertificate of #andidacy !as the result of an
"honest (isinterpretation"
17
!hich she sought to rectify by adding the !ords "since
childhood" in her A(ended;#orrected #ertificate of #andidacy and that "she has al!ays
(aintained 3acloban #ity as her do(icile or residence.
11
I(pugning respondent<s (otive
in filing the petition seeking her dis>ualification, she noted that9
Chen respondent ?petitioner herein@ announced that she !as intending to register as a voter in 3acloban #ity
and run for #ongress in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte, petitioner i((ediately opposed her intended registration
by !riting a letter stating that "she is not a resident of said city but of 7arangay Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte. After
respondent had registered as a voter in 3olosa follo!ing co(pletion of her six (onth actual residence
therein, petitioner filed a petition !ith the #GMA0A# to transfer the to!n of 3olosa fro( the ,irst Histrict to
the )econd Histrict and pursued such a (ove up to the )upre(e #ourt, his purpose being to re(ove
respondent as petitioner<s opponent in the congressional election in the ,irst Histrict. $e also filed a bill,
along !ith other 0eyte #ongress(en, seeking the creation of another legislative district to re(ove the to!n
of 3olosa out of the ,irst Histrict, to achieve his purpose. $o!ever, such bill did not pass the )enate. $aving
failed on such (oves, petitioner no! filed the instant petition for the sa(e ob=ective, as it is obvious that he is
afraid to sub(it along !ith respondent for the =udg(ent and verdict of the electorate of the ,irst Histrict of
0eyte in an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and clean elections on May 5, .--.
16
Gn April 6/, .--, the )econd Hivision of the #o((ission on Alections ?#GMA0A#@, by a
vote of 6 to .,
13
ca(e up !ith a Resolution .@ finding private respondent<s 'etition for
His>ualification in )'A -:22- (eritoriousB 6@ striking off petitioner<s #orrected;A(ended
#ertificate of #andidacy of March D., .--B and D@ canceling her original #ertificate of
#andidacy.
14
Healing !ith t!o pri(ary issues, na(ely, the validity of a(ending the
original #ertificate of #andidacy after the lapse of the deadline for filing certificates of
candidacy, and petitioner<s co(pliance !ith the one year residency re>uire(ent, the
)econd Hivision held9
Respondent raised the affir(ative defense in her Ans!er that the printed !ord ")even" ?(onths@ !as a result
of an "honest (isinterpretation or honest (istake" on her part and, therefore, an a(end(ent should
subse>uently be allo!ed. )he averred that she thought that !hat !as asked !as her "actual and physical"
presence in 3olosa and not residence of origin or do(icile in the ,irst 0egislative Histrict, to !hich she could
have responded "since childhood." In an acco(panying affidavit, she stated that her do(icile is 3acloban
#ity, a co(ponent of the ,irst Histrict, to !hich she al!ays intended to return !henever absent and !hich
she has never abandoned. ,urther(ore, in her (e(orandu(, she tried to discredit petitioner<s theory of
dis>ualification by alleging that she has been a resident of the ,irst 0egislative Histrict of 0eyte since
childhood, although she only beca(e a resident of the Municipality of 3olosa for seven (onths. )he asserts
that she has al!ays been a resident of 3acloban #ity, a co(ponent of the ,irst Histrict, before co(ing to the
Municipality of 3olosa.
Along this point, it is interesting to note that prior to her registration in 3olosa, respondent announced that
she !ould be registering in 3acloban #ity so that she can be a candidate for the Histrict. $o!ever, this
intention !as rebuffed !hen petitioner !rote the Alection Gfficer of 3acloban not to allo! respondent since
she is a resident of 3olosa and not 3acloban. )he never disputed this clai( and instead i(plicitly acceded to
it by registering in 3olosa.
3his incident belies respondent<s clai( of "honest (isinterpretation or honest (istake." 7esides, the
#ertificate of #andidacy only asks for RA)IHAN#A. )ince on the basis of her Ans!er, she !as >uite a!are
of "residence of origin" !hich she interprets to be 3acloban #ity, it is curious !hy she did not cite 3acloban
#ity in her #ertificate of #andidacy. $er explanation that she thought !hat !as asked !as her actual and
physical presence in 3olosa is not easy to believe because there is none in the >uestion that insinuates
about 3olosa. In fact, ite( no. 5 in the #ertificate of #andidacy speaks clearly of "Residency in t(e
C)NS*+*,ENC- !here I seek to be elected i((ediately preceding the election." 3hus, the explanation of
respondent fails to be persuasive.
,ro( the foregoing, respondent<s defense of an honest (istake or (isinterpretation, therefore, is devoid of
(erit.
3o further buttress respondent<s contention that an a(end(ent (ay be (ade, she cited the case of Alial. v.
C)"ELEC ?6 )#RA -7@. 3he reliance of respondent on the case of Alialy is (isplaced. 3he case only
applies to the "inconse>uential deviations !hich cannot affect the result of the election, or deviations fro(
provisions intended pri(arily to secure ti(ely and orderly conduct of elections." 3he )upre(e #ourt in that
case considered the a(end(ent only as a (atter of for(. 7ut in the instant case, the a(end(ent cannot be
considered as a (atter of for( or an inconse>uential deviation. 3he change in the nu(ber of years of
residence in the place !here respondent seeks to be elected is a substantial (atter !hich deter(ines her
>ualification as a candidacy, specially those intended to suppress, accurate (aterial representation i n the
original certificate !hich adversely affects the filer. 3o ad(it the a(ended certificate is to condone the evils
brought by the shifting (inds of (anipulating candidate, of the detri(ent of the integrity of the election.
Moreover, to allo! respondent to change the seven ?7@ (onth period of her residency in order to prolong it by
clai(ing it !as "since childhood" is to allo! an untruthfulness to be co((itted before this #o((ission. 3he
arith(etical accuracy of the 7 (onths residency the respondent indicated in her certificate of candidacy can
be gleaned fro( her entry in her 8oter<s Registration Record acco(plished on *anuary 65, .-- !hich
reflects that she is a resident of 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte for 6 (onths at the ti(e of the said registration
?Annex A, 'etition@. )aid accuracy is further buttressed by her letter to the election officer of )an *uan, Metro
Manila, dated August 6/, .--/, re>uesting for the cancellation of her registration in the 'er(anent 0ist of
8oters thereat so that she can be re:registered or transferred to 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte. 3he dates of these
three ?D@ different docu(ents sho! the respondent<s consistent conviction that she has transferred her
residence to Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte fro( Metro Manila only for such li(ited period of ti(e, starting in the last
!eek of August .--/ !hich on March 5, .-- !ill only su( up to 7 (onths. 3he #o((ission, therefore,
cannot be persuaded to believe in the respondent<s contention that it !as an error.
xxx xxx xxx
7ased on these reasons the A(ended;#orrected #ertificate of #andidacy cannot be ad(itted by this
#o((ission.
xxx xxx xxx
Anent the second issue, and based on the foregoing discussion, it is clear that respondent has not co(plied
!ith the one year residency re>uire(ent of the #onstitution.
In election cases, the ter( "residence" has al!ays been considered as synony(ous !ith "do(icile" !hich
i(ports not only the intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in:that place, coupled !ith
conduct indicative of such intention. Ho(icile denotes a fixed per(anent residence to !hich !hen absent for
business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. ?'erfecto ,aypon vs. Aliseo Muirino, -6 'hil
6-/B Ro(ualde& vs. R3#:3acloban, 666 )#RA /25@. In respondent<s case, !hen she returned to the
'hilippines in .--., the residence she chose !as not 3acloban but )an *uan, Metro Manila. 3hus, her
animus revertendi is pointed to Metro Manila and not 3acloban.
3his Hivision is a!are that her clai( that she has been a resident of the ,irst Histrict since childhood is
nothing (ore than to give her a color of >ualification !here she is other!ise constitutionally dis>ualified. It
cannot hold ground in the face of the facts ad(itted by the respondent in her affidavit. Axcept for the ti(e
that she studied and !orked for so(e years after graduation in 3acloban #ity, she continuously lived in
Manila. In .--, after her husband !as elected )enator, she lived and resided in )an *uan, Metro Manila
!here she !as a registered voter. In .-6, she lived in )an Miguel, Manila !here she !as again a registered
voter. In .-75, she served as (e(ber of the 7atasang 'a(bansa as the representative of the #ity of Manila
and later on served as the 1overnor of Metro Manila. )he could not have served these positions if she had
not been a resident of the #ity of Manila. ,urther(ore, !hen she filed her certificate of candidacy for the
office of the 'resident in .--6, she clai(ed to be a resident of )an *uan, Metro Manila. As a (atter of fact
on August 6/, .--/, respondent !rote a letter !ith the election officer of )an *uan, Metro Manila re>uesting
for the cancellation of her registration in the per(anent list of voters that she (ay be re:registered or
transferred to 7arangay Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte. 3hese facts (anifest that she could not have been a resident of
3acloban #ity since childhood up to the ti(e she filed her certificate of candidacy because she beca(e a
resident of (any places, including Metro Manila. 3his debunks her clai( that prior to her residence in 3olosa,
0eyte, she !as a resident of the ,irst 0egislative Histrict of 0eyte since childhood.
In this case, respondent<s conduct reveals her lack of intention to (ake 3acloban her do(icile. )he
registered as a voter in different places and on several occasions declared that she !as a resident of Manila.
Although she spent her school days in 3acloban, she is considered to have abandoned such place !hen she
chose to stay and reside in other different places. In the case of omualde& vs. *C ?666 )#RA /25@ the
#ourt explained ho! one ac>uires a ne! do(icile by choice. 3here (ust concur9 ?.@ residence or bodily
presence in the ne! localityB ?6@ intention to re(ain thereB and ?D@ intention to abandon the old do(icile. In
other !ords there (ust basically be animus manendi !ith animus non revertendi. Chen respondent chose to
stay in Ilocos and later on in Manila, coupled !ith her intention to stay there by registering as a voter there
and expressly declaring that she is a resident of that place, she is dee(ed to have abandoned 3acloban #ity,
!here she spent her childhood and school days, as her place of do(icile.
'ure intention to reside in that place is not sufficient, there (ust like!ise be conduct indicative of such
intention. Respondent<s state(ents to the effect that she has al!ays intended to return to 3acloban, !ithout
the acco(panying conduct to prove that intention, is not conclusive of her choice of residence. Respondent
has not presented any evidence to sho! that her conduct, one year prior the election, sho!ed intention to
reside in 3acloban. Corse, !hat !as evident !as that prior to her residence in 3olosa, she had been a
resident of Manila.
It is evident fro( these circu(stances that she !as not a resident of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte "since
childhood."
3o further support the assertion that she could have not been a resident of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte for (ore
than one year, petitioner correctly pointed out that on *anuary 65, .-- respondent registered as a voter at
precinct No. .5:A of Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte. In doing so, she placed in her 8oter Registration Record that she
resided in the (unicipality of 3olosa for a period of six (onths. 3his (ay be inconse>uential as argued by
the respondent since it refers only to her residence in 3olosa, 0eyte. 7ut her failure to prove that she !as a
resident of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte prior to her residence in 3olosa leaves nothing but a convincing proof
that she had been a resident of the district for six (onths only.
14
In a Resolution pro(ulgated a day before the May 5, .-- elections, the #GMA0A# en
/anc denied petitioner<s Motion for Reconsideration
12
of the April 6/, .-- Resolution
declaring her not >ualified to run for the position of Me(ber of the $ouse of
Representatives for the ,irst 0egislative Histrict of 0eyte.
17
3he Resolution tersely stated9
After deliberating on the Motion for Reconsideration, the #o((ission RA)G08AH to HANJ it, no ne!
substantial (atters having been raised therein to !arrant re:exa(ination of the resolution granting the
petition for dis>ualification.
18
Gn May .., .--, the #GMA0A# issued a Resolution allo!ing petitioner<s procla(ation
should the results of the canvass sho! that she obtained the highest nu(ber of votes in
the congressional elections in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte. Gn the sa(e day, ho!ever, the
#GMA0A# reversed itself and issued a second Resolution directing that the procla(ation
of petitioner be suspended in the event that she obtains the highest nu(ber of votes.
19
In a )upple(ental 'etition dated 6 May .--, petitioner averred that she !as the
over!hel(ing !inner of the elections for the congressional seat in the ,irst Histrict of
0eyte held May 5, .-- based on the canvass co(pleted by the 'rovincial 7oard of
#anvassers on May ./, .--. 'etitioner alleged that the canvass sho!ed that she
obtained a total of 72,/7. votes co(pared to the D6,5DD votes received by Respondent
Monte=o. A copy of said #ertificate of #anvass !as annexed to the )upple(ental 'etition.
Gn account of the Resolutions dis>ualifying petitioner fro( running for the congressional
seat of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte and the public respondent<s Resolution suspending her
procla(ation, petitioner co(es to this court for relief.
'etitioner raises several issues in her Griginal and )upple(ental 'etitions. 3he principal
issues (ay be classified into t!o general areas9
+. *(e issue of Petitioner0s qualifications
Chether or not petitioner !as a resident, for election purposes, of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte for a period of
one year at the ti(e of the May -, .-- elections.
++. *(e Jurisdictional +ssue
a@ 'rior to the elections
Chether or not the #GMA0A# properly exercised its =urisdiction in dis>ualifying petitioner outside the period
(andated by the G(nibus Alection #ode for dis>ualification cases under Article 75 of the said #ode.
b@ After the Alections
Chether or not the $ouse of Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal assu(ed exclusive =urisdiction over the
>uestion of petitioner<s >ualifications after the May 5, .-- elections.
+. Petitioner0s qualification
A perusal of the Resolution of the #GMA0A#<s )econd Hivision reveals a startling
confusion in the application of settled concepts of "Ho(icile" and "Residence" in election
la!. Chile the #GMA0A# see(s to be in agree(ent !ith the general proposition that for
the purposes of election la!, residence is synony(ous !ith do(icile, the Resolution
reveals a tendency to substitute or (istake the concept of do(icile for actual residence, a
conception not intended for the purpose of deter(ining a candidate<s >ualifications for
election to the $ouse of Representatives as re>uired by the .-57 #onstitution. As it !ere,
residence, for the purpose of (eeting the >ualification for an elective position, has a
settled (eaning in our =urisdiction.
Article 2 of the #ivil #ode decrees that "EfFor the exercise of civil rights and the fulfill(ent
of civil obligations, the do(icile of natural persons is their place of habitual residence." In
)ng vs. epu/lic
67
this court took the concept of do(icile to (ean an individual<s
"per(anent ho(e", "a place to !hich, !henever absent for business or for pleasure, one
intends to return, and depends on facts and circu(stances in the sense that they disclose
intent."
61
7ased on the foregoing, do(icile includes the t!in ele(ents of "the fact of
residing or physical presence in a fixed place" and animus manendi, or the intention of
returning there per(anently.
Residence, in its ordinary conception, i(plies the factual relationship of an individual to a
certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given area, co((unity or
country. 3he essential distinction bet!een residence and do(icile in la! is that residence
involves the intent to leave !hen the purpose for !hich the resident has taken up his
abode ends. Gne (ay seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health. If
a person<s intent be to re(ain, it beco(es his do(icileB if his intent is to leave as soon as
his purpose is established it is residence.
66
It is thus, >uite perfectly nor(al for an
individual to have different residences in various places. $o!ever, a person can only have
a single do(icile, unless, for various reasons, he successfully abandons his do(icile in
favor of another do(icile of choice. In ,.tengsu vs. epu/lic,
63
!e laid this distinction
>uite clearly9
3here is a difference bet!een do(icile and residence. "Residence" is used to indicate a place of abode,
!hether per(anent or te(poraryB "do(icile" denotes a fixed per(anent residence to !hich, !hen absent,
one has the intention of returning. A (an (ay have a residence in one place and a do(icile in another.
Residence is not do(icile, but do(icile is residence coupled !ith the intention to re(ain for an unli(ited
ti(e. A (an can have but one do(icile for the sa(e purpose at any ti(e, but he (ay have nu(erous places
of residence. $is place of residence is generally his place of do(icile, but it is not by any (eans necessarily
so since no length of residence !ithout intention of re(aining !ill constitute do(icile.
,or political purposes the concepts of residence and do(icile are dictated by the peculiar
criteria of political la!s. As these concepts have evolved in our election la!, !hat has
clearly and une>uivocally e(erged is the fact that residence for election purposes is used
synony(ously !ith do(icile.
In Nuval vs. 1ura.,
64
the #ourt held that "the ter( residence. . . is synony(ous !ith
do(icile !hich i(ports not only intention to reside in a fixed place, but also personal
presence in that place, coupled !ith conduct indicative of such intention."
64
Larena vs.
*eves
62
reiterated the sa(e doctrine in a case involving the >ualifications of the
respondent therein to the post of Municipal 'resident of Hu(aguete, Negros Griental.
'a.pon vs. #uirino,
67
held that the absence fro( residence to pursue studies or practice
a profession or registration as a voter other than in the place !here one is elected does
not constitute loss of residence.
68
)o settled is the concept ?of do(icile@ in our election
la! that in these and other election la! cases, this #ourt has stated that the (ere absence
of an individual fro( his per(anent residence !ithout the intention to abandon it does not
result in a loss or change of do(icile.
3he deliberations of the .-57 #onstitution on the residence >ualification for certain elective
positions have placed beyond doubt the principle that !hen the #onstitution speaks of
"residence" in election la!, it actually (eans only "do(icile" to !it9
Mr. Nolledo9 Cith respect to )ection , I re(e(ber that in the .-7. #onstitutional #onvention, there !as an
atte(pt to re>uire residence in the place not less than one year i((ediately preceding the day of the
elections. )o (y >uestion is9 Chat is the #o((ittee<s concept of residence of a candidate for the
legislatureN Is it actual residence or is it the concept of do(icile or constructive residenceN
Mr. Havide9 Mada(e 'resident, insofar as the regular (e(bers of the National Asse(bly are concerned, the
proposed section (erely provides, a(ong others, "and a resident thereof", that is, in the district for a period
of not less than one year preceding the day of the election. 3his !as in effect lifted fro( the .-7D
#onstitution, the interpretation given to it !as do(icile.
69
xxx xxx xxx
Mrs. Rosario 7raid9 3he next >uestion is on )ection 7, page 6. I think #o((issioner Nolledo has raised the
sa(e point that "resident" has been interpreted at ti(es as a (atter of intention rather than actual residence.
Mr. He los Reyes9 Ho(icile.
Ms. Rosario 7raid9 Jes, )o, !ould the gentle(an consider at the proper ti(e to go back to actual residence
rather than (ere intention to resideN
Mr. He los Reyes9 7ut !e (ight encounter so(e difficulty especially considering that a provision in the
#onstitution in the Article on )uffrage says that ,ilipinos living abroad (ay vote as enacted by la!. )o, !e
have to stick to the original concept that it should be by do(icile and not physical residence.
37
In Co vs. Electoral *ri/unal of t(e 2ouse of epresentatives,
31
this #ourt concluded that
the fra(ers of the .-57 #onstitution obviously adhered to the definition given to the ter(
residence in election la!, regarding it as having the sa(e (eaning as do(icile.
36
In the light of the principles =ust discussed, has petitioner I(elda Ro(ualde& Marcos
satisfied the residency re>uire(ent (andated by Article 8I, )ec. 6 of the .-57
#onstitutionN Gf !hat significance is the >uestioned entry in petitioner<s #ertificate of
#andidacy stating her residence in the ,irst 0egislative Histrict of 0eyte as seven ?7@
(onthsN
It is the fact of residence, not a state(ent in a certificate of candidacy !hich ought to be
decisive in deter(ining !hether or not and individual has satisfied the constitution<s
residency >ualification re>uire(ent. 3he said state(ent beco(es (aterial only !hen there
is or appears to be a deliberate atte(pt to (islead, (isinfor(, or hide a fact !hich !ould
other!ise render a candidate ineligible. It !ould be plainly ridiculous for a candidate to
deliberately and kno!ingly (ake a state(ent in a certificate of candidacy !hich !ould
lead to his or her dis>ualification.
It stands to reason therefore, that petitioner (erely co((itted an honest (istake in =otting
the !ord "seven" in the space provided for the residency >ualification re>uire(ent. 3he
circu(stances leading to her filing the >uestioned entry obviously resulted in the
subse>uent confusion !hich pro(pted petitioner to !rite do!n the period of her actual
stay in 3olosa, 0eyte instead of her period of residence in the ,irst district, !hich !as
"since childhood" in the space provided. 3hese circu(stances and events are a(ply
detailed in the #GMA0A#<s )econd Hivision<s >uestioned resolution, albeit !ith a different
interpretation. ,or instance, !hen herein petitioner announced that she !ould be
registering in 3acloban #ity to (ake her eligible to run in the ,irst Histrict, private
respondent Monte=o opposed the sa(e, clai(ing that petitioner !as a resident of 3olosa,
not 3acloban #ity. 'etitioner then registered in her place of actual residence in the ,irst
Histrict, !hich is 3olosa, 0eyte, a fact !hich she subse>uently noted do!n in her
#ertificate of #andidacy. A close look at said certificate !ould reveal the possible source of
the confusion9 the entry for residence ?Ite( No. 7@ is follo!ed i((ediately by the entry for
residence in the constituency !here a candidate seeks election thus9
7. RA)IHAN#A ?co(plete Address@9 Brg.. )lot, *olosa, Le.te
'G)3 G,,I#A AHHRA)) ,GR A0A#3IGN '%R'G)A)9 Brg.. )lot, *olosa, Le.te
5. RA)IHAN#A IN 3$A #GN)3I3%AN#J C$ARA I )AAK 3G
7A A0A#3AH IMMAHIA3A0J 'RA#AHIN1 3$A A0A#3IGN9LLLLLLLLL Jears and Seven Months.
$aving been forced by private respondent to register in her place of actual residence in
0eyte instead of petitioner<s clai(ed do(icile, it appears that petitioner had =otted do!n
her period of stay in her legal residence or do(icile. 3he =uxtaposition of entries in Ite( 7
and Ite( 5 I the first re>uiring actual residence and the second re>uiring do(icile I
coupled !ith the circu(stances surrounding petitioner<s registration as a voter in 3olosa
obviously led to her !riting do!n an unintended entry for !hich she could be dis>ualified.
3his honest (istake should not, ho!ever, be allo!ed to negate the fact of residence in the
,irst Histrict if such fact !ere established by (eans (ore convincing than a (ere entry on
a piece of paper.
Ce no! proceed to the (atter of petitioner<s do(icile.
In support of its asseveration that petitioner<s do(icile could not possibly be in the ,irst
Histrict of 0eyte, the )econd Hivision of the #GMA0A#, in its assailed Resolution of April
6/,.-- (aintains that "except for the ti(e !hen ?petitioner@ studied and !orked for so(e
years after graduation in 3acloban #ity, she continuously lived in Manila." 3he Resolution
additionally cites certain facts as indicative of the fact that petitioner<s do(icile ought to be
any place !here she lived in the last fe! decades except 3acloban, 0eyte. ,irst, according
to the Resolution, petitioner, in .--, resided in )an *uan, Metro Manila !here she !as
also registered voter. 3hen, in .-6, follo!ing the election of her husband to the 'hilippine
presidency, she lived in )an Miguel, Manila !here she as a voter. In .-75 and thereafter,
she served as a (e(ber of the 7atasang 'a(bansa and 1overnor of Metro Manila. ")he
could not, have served these positions if she had not been a resident of Metro Manila," the
#GMA0A# stressed. $ere is !here the confusion lies.
Ce have stated, (any ti(es in the past, that an individual does not lose his do(icile even
if he has lived and (aintained residences in different places. Residence, it bears
repeating, i(plies a factual relationship to a given place for various purposes. 3he
absence fro( legal residence or do(icile to pursue a profession, to study or to do other
things of a te(porary or se(i:per(anent nature does not constitute loss of residence.
3hus, the assertion by the #GMA0A# that "she could not have been a resident of
3acloban #ity since childhood up to the ti(e she filed her certificate of candidacy because
she beca(e a resident of (any places" flies in the face of settled =urisprudence in !hich
this #ourt carefully (ade distinctions bet!een ?actual@ residence and do(icile for election
la! purposes. In Larena vs. *eves,
33
supra, !e stressed9
E3Fhis court is of the opinion and so holds that a person !ho has his o!n house !herein he lives !ith his
fa(ily in a (unicipality !ithout having ever had the intention of abandoning it, and !ithout having lived either
alone or !ith his fa(ily in another (unicipality, has his residence in the for(er (unicipality, not!ithstanding
his having registered as an elector in the other (unicipality in >uestion and having been a candidate for
various insular and provincial positions, stating every ti(e that he is a resident of the latter (unicipality.
More significantly, in 'a.pon vs. #uirino,
34
Ce explained that9
A citi&en (ay leave the place of his birth to look for "greener pastures," as the saying goes, to i(prove his
lot, and that, of course includes study in other places, practice of his avocation, or engaging in business.
Chen an election is to be held, the citi&en !ho left his birthplace to i(prove his lot (ay desire to return to his
native to!n to cast his ballot but for professional or business reasons, or for any other reason, he (ay not
absent hi(self fro( his professional or business activitiesB so there he registers hi(self as voter as he has
the >ualifications to be one and is not !illing to give up or lose the opportunity to choose the officials !ho are
to run the govern(ent especially in national elections. Hespite such registration, the animus revertendi to his
ho(e, to his do(icile or residence of origin has not forsaken hi(. 3his (ay be the explanation !hy the
registration of a voter in a place other than his residence of origin has not been dee(ed sufficient to
constitute abandon(ent or loss of such residence. It finds =ustification in the natural desire and longing of
every person to return to his place of birth. 3his strong feeling of attach(ent to the pl ace of one<s birth (ust
be overco(e by positive proof of abandon(ent for another.
,ro( the foregoing, it can be concluded that in its above:cited state(ents supporting its
proposition that petitioner !as ineligible to run for the position of Representative of the
,irst Histrict of 0eyte, the #GMA0A# !as obviously referring to petitioner<s various places
of ?actual@ residence, not her do(icile. In doing so, it not only ignored settled =urisprudence
on residence in election la! and the deliberations of the constitutional co((ission but also
the provisions of the G(nibus Alection #ode ?7.'. 55.@.
34
Chat is undeniable, ho!ever, are the follo!ing set of facts !hich establish the fact of
petitioner<s do(icile, !hich !e lift verbati( fro( the #GMA0A#<s )econd Hivision<s
assailed Resolution9
32
In or about .-D5 !hen respondent !as a little over 5 years old, she established her do(icile in 3acloban,
0eyte ?3acloban #ity@. )he studied in the $oly Infant Acade(y in 3acloban fro( .-D5 to .-/- !hen she
graduated fro( high school. )he pursued her college studies in )t. 'aul<s #ollege, no! Hivine Cord
%niversity in 3acloban, !here she earned her degree in Aducation. 3hereafter, she taught in the 0eyte
#hinese )chool, still in 3acloban #ity. In .-6 she !ent to Manila to !ork !ith her cousin, the late speaker
Haniel +. Ro(ualde& in his office in the $ouse of Representatives. In .-/, she (arried ex:'resident
,erdinand A. Marcos !hen he !as still a congress(an of Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. Chen
her husband !as elected )enator of the Republic in .--, she and her husband lived together in )an *uan,
Ri&al !here she registered as a voter. In .-6, !hen her husband !as elected 'resident of the Republic of
the 'hilippines, she lived !ith hi( in Malacanang 'alace and registered as a voter in )an Miguel, Manila.
EIFn ,ebruary .-56 ?she clai(ed that@ she and her fa(ily !ere abducted and kidnapped to $onolulu, $a!aii.
In Nove(ber .--., she ca(e ho(e to Manila. In .--6, respondent ran for election as 'resident of the
'hilippines and filed her #ertificate of #andidacy !herein she indicated that she is a resident and registered
voter of )an *uan, Metro Manila.
Applying the principles discussed to the facts found by #GMA0A#, !hat is inescapable is
that petitioner held various residences for different purposes during the last four decades.
None of these purposes une>uivocally point to an intention to abandon her do(icile of
origin in 3acloban, 0eyte. Moreover, !hile petitioner !as born in Manila, as a (inor she
naturally follo!ed the do(icile of her parents. )he gre! up in 3acloban, reached her
adulthood there and eventually established residence in different parts of the country for
various reasons. Aven during her husband<s presidency, at the height of the Marcos
Regi(e<s po!ers, petitioner kept her close ties to her do(icile of origin by establishing
residences in 3acloban, celebrating her birthdays and other i(portant personal (ilestones
in her ho(e province, instituting !ell:publici&ed pro=ects for the benefit of her province and
ho(eto!n, and establishing a political po!er base !here her siblings and close relatives
held positions of po!er either through the ballot or by appoint(ent, al!ays !ith either her
influence or consent. 3hese !ell:publici&ed ties to her do(icile of origin are part of the
history and lore of the >uarter century of Marcos po!er in our country. Aither they !ere
entirely ignored in the #GMA0A#<) Resolutions, or the (a=ority of the #GMA0A# did not
kno! !hat the rest of the country al!ays kne!9 the fact of petitioner<s do(icile in
3acloban, 0eyte.
'rivate respondent in his #o((ent, contends that 3acloban !as not petitioner<s do(icile
of origin because she did not live there until she !as eight years old. $e avers that after
leaving the place in .-6, she "abandoned her residency ?sic@ therein for (any years and .
. . ?could not@ re:establish her do(icile in said place by (erely expressing her intention to
live there again." Ce do not agree.
,irst, (inor follo!s the do(icile of his parents. As do(icile, once ac>uired is retained until
a ne! one is gained, it follo!s that in spite of the fact of petitioner<s being born in Manila,
3acloban, 0eyte !as her do(icile of origin by operation of la!. 3his do(icile !as not
established only !hen her father brought his fa(ily back to 0eyte contrary to private
respondent<s aver(ents.
)econd, do(icile of origin is not easily lost. 3o successfully effect a change of do(icile,
one (ust de(onstrate9
37
.. An actual re(oval or an actual change of do(icileB
6. A /ona fide intention of abandoning the for(er place of residence and establishing a ne! oneB and
D. Acts !hich correspond !ith the purpose.
In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these criteria, the residence of origin
should be dee(ed to continue. Gnly !ith evidence sho!ing concurrence of all three
re>uire(ents can the presu(ption of continuity or residence be rebutted, for a change of
residence re>uires an actual and deliberate abandon(ent, and one cannot have t!o legal
residences at the sa(e ti(e.
38
In the case at bench, the evidence adduced by private
respondent plainly lacks the degree of persuasiveness re>uired to convince this court that
an abandon(ent of do(icile of origin in favor of a do(icile of choice indeed occurred. 3o
effect an abandon(ent re>uires the voluntary act of relin>uishing petitioner<s for(er
do(icile !ith an intent to supplant the for(er do(icile !ith one of her o!n choosing
?domicilium voluntarium@.
In this connection, it cannot be correctly argued that petitioner lost her do(icile of origin by
operation of la! as a result of her (arriage to the late 'resident ,erdinand A. Marcos in
.-6. ,or there is a clearly established distinction bet!een the #ivil #ode concepts of
"do(icile" and "residence."
39
3he presu(ption that the !ife auto(atically gains the
husband<s do(icile by operation of la! upon (arriage cannot be inferred fro( the use of
the ter( "residence" in Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode because the #ivil #ode is one area
!here the t!o concepts are !ell delineated. Hr. Arturo 3olentino, !riting on this specific
area explains9
In the #ivil #ode, there is an obvious difference bet!een do(icile and residence. 7oth ter(s i(ply relations
bet!een a person and a placeB but in residence, the relation is one of fact !hile in do(icile it is legal or
=uridical, independent of the necessity of physical presence.
47
Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode provides9
Art. ..2. I 3he husband shall fix the residence of the fa(ily. 7ut the court (ay exe(pt the !ife fro( living
!ith the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic.
A survey of =urisprudence relating to Article ..2 or to the concepts of do(icile or residence
as they affect the fe(ale spouse upon (arriage yields nothing !hich !ould suggest that
the fe(ale spouse auto(atically loses her do(icile of origin in favor of the husband<s
choice of residence upon (arriage.
Article ..2 is a virtual restate(ent of Article 5 of the )panish #ivil #ode of .55- !hich
states9
0a (u=er esta obligada a seguir a su (arido donde >uiera >ue fi= e su residencia. 0os 3ribunales, sin
e(bargo, podran con =usta causa exi(irla de esta obligacion cuando el (arido transende su residencia a
ultra(ar o< a pais extran=ero.
Note the use of the phrase "donde quiera su fi3e de residencia" in the afore>uoted article,
!hich (eans !herever ?the husband@ 4is(es to esta/lis( residence. 3his part of the article
clearly conte(plates only actual residence because it refers to a positive act of fixing a
fa(ily ho(e or residence. Moreover, this interpretation is further strengthened by the
phrase "cuando el marido translade su residencia" in the sa(e provision !hich (eans,
"!hen the husband s(all transfer his residence," referring to another positive act of
relocating the fa(ily to another ho(e or place of actual residence. 3he article obviously
cannot be understood to refer to do(icile !hich is a fixed,
fairly:per(anent concept !hen it plainly connotes the possibility of transferring fro( one
place to another not only once, but as often as the husband (ay dee( fit to (ove his
fa(ily, a circu(stance (ore consistent !ith the concept of actual residence.
3he right of the husband to fix the actual residence is in har(ony !ith the intention of the
la! to strengthen and unify the fa(ily, recogni&ing the fact that the husband and the !ife
bring into the (arriage different do(iciles ?of origin@. 3his difference could, for the sake of
fa(ily unity, be reconciled only by allo!ing the husband to fix a single place of actual
residence.
8ery significantly, Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode is found under 3itle 8 under the heading9
RI1$3) ANH G70I1A3IGN) 7A3CAAN $%)7ANH ANH CI,A. I((ediately preceding
Article ..2 is Article .2- !hich obliges the husband and !ife to live together, thus9
Art. .2-. I 3he husband and !ife are obligated to live together, observe (utual respect and fidelity and
render (utual help and support.
3he duty to live together can only be fulfilled if the husband and !ife are physically
together. 3his takes into account the situations !here the couple has (any residences ?as
in the case of the petitioner@. If the husband has to stay in or transfer to any one of their
residences, the !ife should necessarily be !ith hi( in order that they (ay "live together."
$ence, it is illogical to conclude that Art. ..2 refers to "do(icile" and not to "residence."
Gther!ise, !e shall be faced !ith a situation !here the !ife is left in the do(icile !hile the
husband, for professional or other reasons, stays in one of their ?various@ residences. As
Hr. 3olentino further explains9
Residence and Ho(icile I Chether the !ord "residence" as used !ith reference to particular (atters is
synony(ous !ith "do(icile" is a >uestion of so(e difficulty, and the ulti(ate decision (ust be (ade fro( a
consideration of the purpose and intent !ith !hich the !ord is used. )o(eti(es they are used
synony(ously, at other ti(es they are distinguished fro( one another.
xxx xxx xxx
Residence in the civil la! is a (aterial fact, referring to the physical presence of a person in a place. A
person can have t!o or (ore residences, such as a country residence and a city residence. Residence is
ac>uired by living in placeB on the other hand, do(icile can exist !ithout actually living in the place. 3he
i(portant thing for do(icile is that, once residence has been established in one place, there be an intention
to stay there per(anently, even if residence is also established in so(e other
place.
41
In fact, even the (atter of a co((on residence bet!een the husband and the !ife during
the (arriage is not an iron:clad principleB In cases applying the #ivil #ode on the >uestion
of a co((on (atri(onial residence, our =urisprudence has recogni&ed certain situations
46
!here the spouses could not be co(pelled to live !ith each other such that the !ife is
either allo!ed to (aintain a residence different fro( that of her husband or, for obviously
practical reasons, revert to her original do(icile ?apart fro( being allo!ed to opt for a ne!
one@. In !e la $ina vs. $illareal
43
this #ourt held that "EaF (arried !o(an (ay ac>uire a
residence or do(icile separate fro( that of her husband during the existence of the
(arriage !here the husband has given cause for divorce."
44
Note that the #ourt allo!ed
the !ife either to obtain ne! residence or to choose a ne! do(icile in such an event. In
instances !here the !ife actually opts, .under the #ivil #ode, to live separately fro( her
husband either by taking ne! residence or reverting to her do(icile of origin, the #ourt has
held that the !ife could not be co(pelled to live !ith her husband on pain of conte(pt. In
Arro.o vs. $asques de Arro.o
44
the #ourt held that9
%pon exa(ination of the authorities, !e are convinced that it is not !ithin the province of the courts of this
country to atte(pt to co(pel one of the spouses to cohabit !ith, and render con= ugal rights to, the other. Gf
course !here the property rights of one of the pair are invaded, an action for restitution of such rights can be
(aintained. 7ut !e are disinclined to sanction the doctrine that an order, enforcible ?sic@ by process of
conte(pt, (ay be entered to co(pel the restitution of the purely personal right of consortiu(. At best such
an order can be effective for no other purpose than to co(pel the spouses to live under the sa(e roofB and
he experience of those countries !here the courts of =ustice have assu(ed to co(pel the cohabitation of
(arried people sho!s that the policy of the practice is extre(ely >uestionable. 3hus in Angland, for(erly the
Acclesiastical #ourt entertained suits for the restitution of con=ugal rights at the instance of either husband or
!ifeB and if the facts !ere found to !arrant it, that court !ould (ake a (andatory decree, enforceable by
process of conte(pt in case of disobedience, re>uiring the delin>uent party to live !ith the other and render
con=ugal rights. Jet this practice !as so(eti(es critici&ed even by the =udges !ho felt bound to enforce such
orders, and in 5eldon v. 5eldon ?- '.H. 6@, decided in .55D, )ir *a(es $annen, 'resident in the 'robate,
Hivorce and Ad(iralty Hivision of the $igh #ourt of *ustice, expressed his regret that the Anglish la! on the
sub=ect !as not the sa(e as that !hich prevailed in )cotland, !here a decree of adherence, e>uivalent to
the decree for the restitution of con=ugal rights in Angland, could be obtained by the in=ured spouse, but could
not be enforced by i(prison(ent. Accordingly, in obedience to the gro!ing senti(ent against the practice,
the Matri(onial #auses Act ?.55/@ abolished the re(edy of i(prison(entB though a decree for the restitution
of con=ugal rights can still be procured, and in case of disobedience (ay serve in appropriate cases as the
basis of an order for the periodical pay(ent of a stipend in the character of ali(ony.
In the volu(inous =urisprudence of the %nited )tates, only one court, so far as !e can discover, has ever
atte(pted to (ake a pree(ptory order re>uiring one of the spouses to live !ith the otherB and that !as in a
case !here a !ife !as ordered to follo! and live !ith her husband, !ho had changed his do(icile to the #ity
of Ne! Grleans. 3he decision referred to ?7ahn v. Harby, D6 0a. Ann., 72@ !as based on a provision of the
#ivil #ode of 0ouisiana si(ilar to article 6 of the )panish #ivil #ode. It !as decided (any years ago, and
the doctrine evidently has not been fruitful even in the )tate of 0ouisiana. In other states of the A(erican
%nion the idea of enforcing cohabitation by process of conte(pt is re=ected. ?6. #yc., ../5@.
In a decision of *anuary 6, .-2-, the )upre(e #ourt of )pain appears to have affir(ed an order of the
Audiencia 3erritorial de 8alladolid re>uiring a !ife to return to the (arital do(icile, and in the alternative,
upon her failure to do so, to (ake a particular disposition of certain (oney and effects then in her
possession and to deliver to her husband, as ad(inistrator of the ganancial property, all inco(e, rents, and
interest !hich (ight accrue to her fro( the property !hich she had brought to the (arriage. ?..D *ur. #iv.,
pp. ., ..@ 7ut it does not appear that this order for the return of the !ife to the (arital do(icile !as
sanctioned by any other penalty than the conse>uences that !ould be visited upon her in respect to the use
and control of her propertyB and it does not appear that her disobedience to that order !ould necessarily
have been follo!ed by i(prison(ent for conte(pt.
'arenthetically !hen 'etitioner !as (arried to then #ongress(an Marcos, in .-/,
petitioner !as obliged I by virtue of Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode I to follo! her
husband<s actual place of residence fixed by hi(. 3he proble( here is that at that ti(e, Mr.
Marcos had several places of residence, a(ong !hich !ere )an *uan, Ri&al and 7atac,
Ilocos Norte. 3here is no sho!ing !hich of these places Mr. Marcos did fix as his fa(ily<s
residence. 7ut assu(ing that Mr. Marcos had fixed any of these places as the con=ugal
residence, !hat petitioner gained upon (arriage !as actual residence. )he did not lose
her do(icile of origin.
Gn the other hand, the co((on la! concept of "(atri(onial do(icile" appears to have
been incorporated, as a result of our =urisprudential experiences after the drafting of the
#ivil #ode of .-2, into the Ne! ,a(ily #ode. 3o underscore the difference bet!een the
intentions of the #ivil #ode and the ,a(ily #ode drafters, the ter( residence has been
supplanted by the ter( do(icile in an entirely ne! provision ?Art. 6-@ distinctly different in
(eaning and spirit fro( that found in Article ..2. 3he provision recogni&es revolutionary
changes in the concept of !o(en<s rights in the intervening years by (aking the choice of
do(icile a product of (utual agree(ent bet!een the spouses.
42
Cithout as (uch belaboring the point, the ter( residence (ay (ean one thing in civil la!
?or under the #ivil #ode@ and >uite another thing in political la!. Chat stands clear is that
insofar as the #ivil #ode is concerned:affecting the rights and obligations of husband and
!ife I the ter( residence should only be interpreted to (ean "actual residence." 3he
inescapable conclusion derived fro( this una(biguous civil la! delineation therefore, is
that !hen petitioner (arried the for(er 'resident in .-/, she kept her do(icile of origin
and (erely gained a ne! ho(e, not a domicilium necessarium.
Aven assu(ing for the sake of argu(ent that petitioner gained a ne! "do(icile" after her
(arriage and only ac>uired a right to choose a ne! one after her husband died,
petitioner<s acts follo!ing her return to the country clearly indicate that she not only
i(pliedly but expressly chose her do(icile of origin ?assu(ing this !as lost by operation of
la!@ as her do(icile. 3his "choice" !as une>uivocally expressed in her letters to the
#hair(an of the '#11 !hen petitioner sought the '#11<s per(ission to "rehabilitate
?our@ ancestral house in 3acloban and ,ar( in Glot, 0eyte. . . to (ake the( livable for the
Marcos fa(ily to have a ho(e in our ho(eland."
47
,urther(ore, petitioner obtained her
residence certificate in .--6 in 3acloban, 0eyte, !hile living in her brother<s house, an act
!hich supports the do(iciliary intention clearly (anifested in her letters to the '#11
#hair(an. )he could not have gone straight to her ho(e in )an *uan, as it !as in a state
of disrepair, having been previously looted by vandals. $er "ho(es" and "residences"
follo!ing her arrival in various parts of Metro Manila (erely >ualified as te(porary or
"actual residences," not do(icile. Moreover, and proceeding fro( our discussion pointing
out specific situations !here the fe(ale spouse either reverts to her do(icile of origin or
chooses a ne! one during the subsistence of the (arriage, it !ould be highly illogical for
us to assu(e that she cannot regain her original do(icile upon the death of her husband
absent a positive act of selecting a ne! one !here situations exist !ithin the subsistence
of the (arriage itself !here the !ife gains a do(icile different fro( her husband.
In the light of all the principles relating to residence and do(icile enunciated by this court
up to this point, !e are persuaded that the facts established by the parties !eigh heavily in
favor of a conclusion supporting petitioner<s clai( of legal residence or do(icile in the ,irst
Histrict of 0eyte.
II. *(e 3urisdictional issue
'etitioner alleges that the =urisdiction of the #GMA0A# had already lapsed considering
that the assailed resolutions !ere rendered on April 6/, .--, fourteen ?./@ days before
the election in violation of )ection 75 of the G(nibus Alection #ode.
48
Moreover,
petitioner contends that it is the $ouse of Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal and not the
#GMA0A# !hich has =urisdiction over the election of (e(bers of the $ouse of
Representatives in accordance !ith Article 8I )ec. .7 of the #onstitution. 3his is
untenable.
It is a settled doctrine that a statute re>uiring rendition of =udg(ent !ithin a specified ti(e
is generally construed to be (erely directory,
49
"so that non:co(pliance !ith the( does
not invalidate the =udg(ent on the theory that if the statute had intended such result it
!ould have clearly indicated it."
47
3he difference bet!een a (andatory and a directory
provision is often (ade on grounds of necessity. Adopting the sa(e vie! held by several
A(erican authorities, this court in "arcelino vs. Cru& held that9
41
3he difference bet!een a (andatory and directory provision is often deter(ined on grounds of expediency,
the reason being that less in=ury results to the general public by disregarding than enforcing the letter of the
la!.
In *rapp v. "c Cormic6, a case calling for the interpretation of a statute containing a li(itation of thirty ?D2@
days !ithin !hich a decree (ay be entered !ithout the consent of counsel, it !as held that "the statutory
provisions !hich (ay be thus departed fro( !ith i(punity, !ithout affecting the validity of statutory
proceedings, are usually those !hich relate to the (ode or ti(e of doing that !hich is essential to effect the
ai( and purpose of the 0egislature or so(e incident of the essential act." 3hus, in said case, the statute
under exa(ination !as construed (erely to be directory.
3he (ischief in petitioner<s contending that the #GMA0A# should have abstained fro(
rendering a decision after the period stated in the G(nibus Alection #ode because it
lacked =urisdiction, lies in the fact that our courts and other >uasi:=udicial bodies !ould then
refuse to render =udg(ents (erely on the ground of having failed to reach a decision
!ithin a given or prescribed period.
In any event, !ith the enact(ent of )ections 6 and 7 of R.A. 66/6 in relation to )ection 75
of 7.'. 55.,
46
it is evident that the respondent #o((ission does not lose =urisdiction to
hear and decide a pending dis>ualification case under )ection 75 of 7.'. 55. even after
the elections.
As to the $ouse of Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal<s supposed assu(ption of
=urisdiction over the issue of petitioner<s >ualifications after the May 5, .-- elections,
suffice it to say that $RA3<s =urisdiction as the sole =udge of all contests relating to the
elections, returns and >ualifications of (e(bers of #ongress begins only after a candidate
has beco(e a (e(ber of the $ouse of Representatives.
43
'etitioner not being a (e(ber
of the $ouse of Representatives, it is obvious that the $RA3 at this point has no
=urisdiction over the >uestion.
It !ould be an abdication of (any of the ideals enshrined in the .-57 #onstitution for us to
either to ignore or deliberately (ake distinctions in la! solely on the basis of the
personality of a petitioner in a case. Gbviously a distinction !as (ade on such a ground
here. )urely, (any established principles of la!, even of election la!s !ere flouted for the
sake perpetuating po!er during the pre:AH)A regi(e. Ce renege on these sacred ideals,
including the (eaning and spirit of AH)A ourselves bending established principles of
principles of la! to deny an individual !hat he or she =ustly deserves in la!. Moreover, in
doing so, !e conde(n ourselves to repeat the (istakes of the past.
C$ARA,GRA, having deter(ined that petitioner possesses the necessary residence
>ualifications to run for a seat in the $ouse of Representatives in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte,
the #GMA0A#<s >uestioned Resolutions dated April 6/, May 7, May .., and May 6, .--
are hereby )A3 A)IHA. Respondent #GMA0A# is hereby directed to order the 'rovincial
7oard of #anvassers to proclai( petitioner as the duly elected Representative of the ,irst
Histrict of 0eyte.
)G GRHARAH.
'eliciano, J., is on leave.



Se3"r",e O3.#.o#8

)UNO, J., concurring9
It !as Aristotle !ho taught (ankind that things that are alike should be treated alike, !hile
things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unalikeness.
1
0ike
other candidates, petitioner has clearly (et the residence re>uire(ent provided by )ection
6, Article 8I of the #onstitution.
6
Ce cannot dis>ualify her and treat her unalike, for the
#onstitution guarantees e>ual protection of the la!. I proceed fro( the follo!ing factual
and legal propositions9
,irst. 3here is no >uestion that petitioner<s original do(icile is in 3acloban, 0eyte. $er
parents !ere do(iciled in 3acloban. 3heir ancestral house is in 3acloban. 3hey have vast
real estate in the place. 'etitioner !ent to school and thereafter !orked there. I consider
3acloban as her initial do(icile, both her do(icile of origin and her do(icile of choice. $er
do(icile of origin as it !as the do(icile of her parents !hen she !as a (inorB and her
do(icile of choice, as she continued living there even after reaching the age of (a=ority.
)econd. 3here is also no >uestion that in May, .-/, petitioner (arried the late 'resident
,erdinand A. Marcos. 7y contracting (arriage, her do(icile beca(e sub=ect to change by
la!, and the right to change it !as given by Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode provides9
Art. ..2. *(e (us/and s(all fi7 t(e residence of t(e famil.. 7ut the court (ay exe(pt the !ife fro( living !ith
the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic.
3
?A(phasis supplied@
In !e la $i8a v. $illareal and 1eopano,
4
this #ourt explained !hy the do(icile of the !ife
ought to follo! that of the husband. Ce held9 "3he reason is founded upon the t(eoretic
identit. of person and interest bet!een the husband and the !ife, and the presu(ption
that, fro( the nature of the relation, the ho(e of one is the ho(e of the other. It is intended
to pro(ote, strengthen, and secure their interests in this relation, as it ordinarily exists,
!here union and har(ony prevail."
4
In accord !ith this ob=ective, Article .2- of the #ivil
#ode also obligated the husband and !ife "to live together."
3hird. 3he difficult issues start as !e deter(ine !hether petitioner<s marriage to for(er
'resident Marcos ipso facto resulted in the loss of her 3acloban do(icile. I respectfully
sub(it that her (arriage /. itself alone did not cause her to lose her 3acloban do(icile.
Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode (erely gave the husband the right to fix the do(icile of the
fa(ily. In the exercise of the right, the husband (ay e7plicitl. choose the prior do(icile of
his !ife, in !hich case, the !ife<s do(icile re(ains unchanged. 3he husband can also
implicitl. ac>uiesce to his !ife<s prior do(icile even if it is different. )o !e held in de la
$i8a,
2
. . . . Chen (arried !o(en as !ell as children sub=ect to parental authority live, 4it( t(e acquiescence of
t(eir (us/ands or fathers, in a place distinct fro( !here the latter live, they have their o!n independent
domicile. . . .
It is not, therefore, the (ere fact of (arriage but the deliberate choice of a different
do(icile by the husband that !ill change the do(icile of a !ife fro( !hat it !as prior to
their (arriage. 3he do(iciliary decision (ade by the husband in the exercise of the right
conferred by Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode binds the !ife. Any and all acts of a !ife during
her coverture contrary to the do(iciliary choice of the husband cannot change in any !ay
the do(icile legally fixed by the husband. 3hese acts are void not only because the !ife
lacks the capacity to choose her do(icile but also because they are contrary to la! and
public policy.
In the case at bench, it is not disputed that for(er 'resident Marcos exercised his right to
fix the fa(ily do(icile and established it in 7atac, Ilocos Norte, !here he !as then the
congress(an. At t(at particular point of time and t(roug(out t(eir married life, petitioner
lost (er domicile in *aclo/an, Le.te. )ince petitioner<s 7atac do(icile has been fixed by
operation of la!, it !as not affected in .-- !hen her husband !as elected as )enator,
!hen they lived in )an *uan, Ri&al and !here she registered as a voter. It !as not also
affected in .-6 !hen her husband !as elected 'resident, !hen they lived in MalacaOang
'alace, and !hen she registered as a voter in )an Miguel, Manila. Nor !as it affected
!hen she served as a (e(ber of the Batasang Pam/ansa, Minister of $u(an
)ettle(ents and 1overnor of Metro Manila during the incu(bency of her husband as
'resident of the nation. %nder Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode, it !as only her husband !ho
could change the fa(ily do(icile in 7atac and the evidence sho!s he did not effect any
such change. 3o a large degree, this follo!s the co((on la! that "a !o(an on her
(arriage loses her o!n do(icile and by operation of la!, ac>uires that of her husband, no
matter 4(ere t(e 4ife actuall. lives or 4(at s(e /elieves or intends."
7
,ourth. 3he (ore difficult task is ho! to interpret the effect of the deat( on )epte(ber 65,
.-5- of for(er 'resident Marcos on petitioner<s 7atac do(icile. 3he issue is of first
impression in our =urisdiction and t!o ?6@ schools of thought contend for acceptance. Gne
is espoused by our distinguished colleague, Mr. *ustice Havide, *r., heavily relying on
A(erican authorities.
8
$e echoes the theory t(at after t(e (us/and0s deat(, t(e 4ife
retains t(e last domicile of (er (us/and until s(e ma6es an actual c(ange.
I do not subscribe to this sub(ission. 3he A(erican case la! that the !ife still retains her
dead husband<s do(icile is based on ancient common la4 4(ic( 4e can no longer appl.
in t(e P(ilippine setting toda.. 3he co((on la! identified the do(icile of a !ife as that of
the husband and denied to her the po!er of ac>uiring a do(icile of her o!n separate and
apart fro( hi(.
9
0egal scholars agree that t!o ?6@ reasons support this co((on la!
doctrine. 3he first reason as pinpointed by the legendary 7lackstone is derived fro( the
vie! that "the very being or legal existence of the !o(an is suspended during
the (arriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband."
17
3he
second reason lies in "the desirability of having the interests of each (e(ber of the fa(ily
unit governed by the sa(e la!."
11
3he presumption that the !ife retains the do(icile of
her deceased husband is an e7tension of this co((on la! concept. *(e concept and its
e7tension (ave provided some of t(e most iniquitous 3urisprudence against 4omen. It !as
under co((on la! that the .57D A(erican case of Brad4ell v. +llinois
16
!as decided
!here !o(en !ere denied the right to practice la!. It !as unblushingly ruled that "the
natural and proper ti(idity and delicacy !hich belongs to the fe(ale sex evidently unfits it
for (any of the occupations of civil life . . . 3his is the la! of the #reator." Indeed, the
rulings relied upon by Mr. *ustice Havide in #*)
13
and AM *%R 6d
14
are A(erican state
court decisions handed do!n bet!een the years .-.7
14
and .-D5,
12
or /efore t(e time
4(en 4omen 4ere accorded equalit. of rig(ts 4it( men. %ndeniably, the !o(en<s
liberation (ove(ent resulted in far:ranging state legislations in the %nited )tates to
eli(inate gender ine>uality.
17
)tarting in the decade of the seventies, the courts like!ise
liberali&ed their rulings as they started invalidating la!s infected !ith gender:bias. It !as in
.-7. !hen the %) )upre(e #ourt in eed v. eed,
18
struck a big blo! for !o(en
e>uality !hen it declared as unconstitutional an Idaho la! that re>uired probate courts to
choose (ale fa(ily (e(bers over fe(ales as estate ad(inistrators. It held that (ere
ad(inistrative inconvenience cannot =ustify a sex:based distinction. *(ese significant
c(anges /ot( in la4 and in case la4 on t(e status of 4omen virtuall. o/literated t(e
iniquitous common la4 surrendering t(e rig(ts of married 4omen to t(eir (us/ands /ased
on t(e du/ious t(eor. of t(e parties0 t(eoretic oneness. 3he Corpus Juris Secundum
editors did not (iss the relevance of this revolution on !o(en<s right as they observed9
"$o!ever, it has been declared that under modern statutes changing the status of (arried
!o(en and departing fro( the co((on la! theory of (arriage, t(ere is no reason 4(. a
4ife ma. not acquire a separate domicile for ever. purpose 6no4n to t(e la4."
19
In
publishing in .-6- the estatement of t(e La4, Second 9Conflict of La4s :d;, the
reputable A(erican 0a! Institute also categorically stated that the vie! of 7lackstone ". . .
is no longer (eld. As t(e result of statutes and court decisions, a 4ife no4 possesses
practicall. t(e same rig(ts and po4ers as (er unmarried sister."
67
In the case at bench, !e have to decide !hether !e should continue clinging to the
anac(ronistic common la4 that de(eans !o(en, especially (arried !o(en. I sub(it that
the #ourt has no choice except to break a!ay fro( this co((on la! rule, the root of the
(any degradations of ,ilipino !o(en. 7efore .-55, our la!s particularly the #ivil #ode,
!ere full of gender discri(inations against !o(en. Gur estee(ed colleague, Mada(
*ustice ,lerida Ruth Ro(ero, cited a fe! of the( as follo!s9
61
xxx xxx xxx
Legal !isa/ilities Suffered /. 5ives
Not generally kno!n is the fact that under the #ivil #ode, !ives suffer under certain restrictions or
disabilities. ,or instance, the !ife cannot accept gifts fro( others, regardless of the sex of the giver or the
value of the gift, other than fro( her very close relatives, !ithout her husband<s consent. )he (ay accept
only fro(, say, her parents, parents:in:la!, brothers, sisters and the relatives !ithin the so:called fourth civil
degree. )he (ay not exercise her profession or occupation or engage in business if her husband ob=ects on
serious grounds or if his inco(e is sufficient to support their fa(ily in accordance !ith their social standing.
As to !hat constitutes "serious grounds" for ob=ecting, this is !ithin the discretion of the husband.
xxx xxx xxx
7ecause of the present ine>uitable situation, the a(end(ents to the #ivil 0a! being proposed by the
%niversity of the 'hilippines 0a! #enter !ould allo! absolute divorce !hich severes the (atri(onial ties,
such that the divorced spouses are free to get (arried a year after the divorce is decreed by the courts.
$o!ever, in order to place the husband and !ife on an e>ual footing insofar as the bases for divorce are
concerned, the follo!ing are specified as the grounds for absolute divorce9 ?.@ adultery or having a para(our
co((itted by the respondent in any of the !ays specified in the Revised 'enal #ode or ?6@ an atte(pt by the
respondent against the life of the petitioner !hich a(ounts to atte(pted parricide under the Revised 'enal
#odeB ?D@ abandon(ent of the petitioner by the respondent !ithout =ust cause for a period of three
consecutive yearsB or ?/@ habitual (altreat(ent.
Cith respect to property relations, the husband is auto(atically the ad(inistrator of the con=ugal property
o!ned in co((on by the (arried couple even if the !ife (ay be the (ore astute or enterprising partner. 3he
la! does not leave it to the spouses to decide !ho shall act as such ad(inistrator. #onse>uently, the
husband is authori&ed to engage in acts and enter into transactions beneficial to the con=ugal partnership.
3he !ife, ho!ever, cannot si(ilarly bind the partnership !ithout the husband<s consent.
And !hile both exercise =oint parental authority over their children, it is the father !ho( the la! designates
as the legal ad(inistrator of the property pertaining to the une(ancipated child.
3aking the lead in Asia, our govern(ent exerted efforts, principally through legislations, to
eli(inate ine>uality bet!een (en and !o(en in our land. *(e 4aters(ed came on August
<, =>?? 4(en our 'amil. Code too6 effect 4(ic(, among ot(ers, terminated t(e unequal
treatment of (us/and and 4ife as to t(eir rig(ts and responsi/ilities.
66
3he ,a(ily #ode attained this elusive ob=ective by giving ne! rights to (arried !o(en
and by abolishing sex:based privileges of husbands. A(ong others, (arried !o(en are
no! given the =oint right to ad(inister the fa(ily property, !hether in the absolute
co((unity syste( or in the syste( of con=ugal partnershipB
63
=oint parental authority over
their (inor children, both over their persons as !ell as their propertiesB
64
=oint
responsibility for the support of the fa(ilyB
64
the right to =ointly (anage the householdB
62
and, the right to ob=ect to their husband<s exercise of profession, occupation, business or
activity.
67
)f particular relevance to t(e case at /enc( is Article @> of t(e 'amil. Code
4(ic( too6 a4a. t(e e7clusive rig(t of t(e (us/and to fi7 t(e famil. domicile and gave it
3ointl. to t(e (us/and and t(e 4ife, t(us9
Art. 6-. *(e (us/and and 4ife s(all fi7 t(e famil. domicile. In case of disagree(ent, the court shall decide.
3he court (ay exe(pt one spouse fro( living !ith the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other
valid and co(pelling reasons for the exe(ption. $o!ever, such exe(ption shall not apply if the sa(e is not
co(patible !ith the solidarity of the fa(ily. ?A(phasis supplied@
Article @> repealed Article ==A of t(e Civil Code. #o((enting on the duty of the husband
and !ife to live together, for(er Mada( *ustice Alice )e(pio:Hiy of the #ourt of Appeals
specified the instances !hen a 4ife ma. no4 refuse to live 4it( (er (us/and, thus9
68
?6@ 3he !ife has the duty to live !ith her husband, but she (ay refuse to do so in certain cases like9
?a@ If the place chosen by the husband as fa(ily residence is dangerous to her 0ifeB
?b@ If the husband sub=ects her to (altreat(ent or abusive conduct or insults, (aking co((on life
i(possibleB
?c@ If the husband co(pels her to live !ith his parents, but she cannot get along !ith her (other:in:la! and
they have constant >uarrels ?Hel Rosario v. Hel Rosario, #A, /6 G1 6.66@B
?d@ Chere the husband has continuously carried illicit relations for .2 years !ith different !o(en and treated
his !ife roughly and !ithout consideration. ?Hadivas v. 8illanueva, / 'hil. -6@B
?e@ Chere the husband spent his ti(e in ga(bling, giving no (oney to his fa(ily for food and necessities,
and at the sa(e ti(e insulting his !ife and laying hands on her. ?'anuncio v. )ula, #A, D/ G1 .6-@B
?f@ If the husband has no fixed residence and lives a vagabond life as a tra(p ?. Manresa D6-@B
?g@ If the husband is carrying on a sha(eful business at ho(e ?1ahn v. Harby, D5 0a. Ann. 72@.
*(e inescapa/le conclusion is t(at our 'amil. Code (as completel. emancipated t(e 4ife
from t(e control of t(e (us/and, thus abandoning the parties< theoretic identity of interest.
No less than the late revered Mr. *ustice *.7.0. Reyes !ho chaired the #ivil #ode Revision
#o((ittee of the %' 0a! #enter gave this insightful vie! in one of his rare lectures after
retire(ent9
69
xxx xxx xxx
3he ,a(ily #ode is pri(arily intended to refor( the fa(ily la! so as to e(ancipate the !ife fro( the
exclusive control of the husband and to place her at parity !ith hi( insofar as the fa(ily is concerned. *(e
4ife and t(e (us/and are no4 placed on equal standing /. t(e Code. 3hey are no! =oint ad(inistrators of
the fa(ily properties and exercise =oint authority over the persons and properties of their children. 3his
(eans a dual authority in the fa(ily. *(e (us/and 4ill no longer prevail over t(e 4ife but she has to agree on
all (atters concerning the fa(ily. ?A(phasis supplied@
In light of the ,a(ily #ode !hich abrogated the ine>uality bet!een husband and !ife as
started and perpetuated by the co((on la!, t(ere is no reason in espousing t(e
anomalous rule t(at t(e 4ife still retains t(e domicile of (er dead (us/and. Article ..2 of
the #ivil #ode !hich provides the statutory support for this stance has been repealed by
Article 6- of the ,a(ily #ode. 7y its repeal, it beco(es a dead:letter la!, and !e are not
free to resurrect it by giving it further effect in any !ay or (anner such as by ruling that the
petitioner is still bound by the do(iciliary deter(ination of her dead husband.
Aside fro( reckoning !ith the ,a(ily #ode, !e have to consider our #onstitution and its
fir( guarantees of due process and e>ual protection of
la!.
37
+t can (ardl. /e dou/ted t(at t(e common la4 imposition on a married 4oman of
(er dead (us/and0s domicile even /e.ond (is grave is patentl. discriminator. to 4omen. It
is a gender:based discri(ination and is not rationally related to the ob=ective of pro(oting
fa(ily solidarity. It cannot survive a constitutional challenge. Indeed, co(pared !ith our
previous funda(ental la!s, t(e =>?B Constitution is more concerned 4it( equalit.
/et4een se7es as it e7plicitl. commands t(at t(e State ". . . s(all ensure fundamental
equalit. /efore t(e la4 of 4omen and men." 3o be exact, section ./, Article II provides9
"3he )tate recogni&es the role of !o(en in nation building, and shall ensure funda(ental
e>uality before the la! of !o(en and (en. Ce shall be transgressing the sense and
essence of this constitutional (andate if !e insist on giving our !o(en the cave(an<s
treat(ent.
'rescinding fro( these pre(ises, I respectfully sub(it that t(e /etter stance is to rule t(at
petitioner reacquired (er *aclo/an domicile upon t(e deat( of (er (us/and in =>?>. 3his is
the necessary conse>uence of the vie! that petitioner<s 7atac dictated do(icile did not
continue after her husband<s deathB other!ise, she !ould have no do(icile and that !ill
violate the universal rule that no person can be !ithout a do(icile at any point of ti(e. 3his
stance also restores the right of petitioner to choose her do(icile before it !as taken a!ay
by Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode, a right no! recogni&ed by the ,a(ily #ode and protected
by the #onstitution. 0ike!ise, I cannot see the fairness of the co((on la! re>uiring
petitioner to choose again her 3acloban do(icile before she could be released fro( her
7atac do(icile. )he lost her 3acloban do(icile not through her act but through the act of
her deceased husband !hen he fixed their do(icile in 7atac. $er husband is dead and he
cannot rule her beyond the grave. 3he la! disabling her to choose her o!n do(icile has
been repealed. #onsidering all these, co((on la! should not put the burden on petitioner
to prove she has abandoned her dead husband<s do(icile. 3here is neither rhy(e nor
reason for this gender:based burden.
But even assuming arguendo t(at t(ere is need for convincing proof t(at petitioner c(ose
to reacquire (er *aclo/an domicile, still, t(e records reveal ample evidence to t(is effect .
In her affidavit sub(itted to the respondent #GMA0A#, petitioner averred9
xxx xxx xxx
D6. In Nove(ber, .--., I ca(e ho(e to our beloved country, after several re>uests for (y return !ere
denied by 'resident #ora&on #. A>uino, and after I filed suits for our 1overn(ent to issue (e (y passport.
D7. 7ut I ca(e ho(e !ithout the (ortal re(ains of (y beloved husband, 'resident ,erdinand A. Marcos,
!hich the 1overn(ent considered a threat to the national security and !elfare.
D5. %pon (y return to the country, I !anted to i((ediately live and reside in 3acloban #ity or in Glot, 3olosa,
0eyte, even if (y residences there !ere not livable as they had been destroyed and cannibali&ed. 3he
'#11, ho!ever, did not per(it and allo! (e.
D-. As a conse>uence, I had to live at various ti(es in the Cestin 'hilippine 'la&a in 'asay #ity, a friend<s
apart(ent on Ayala Avenue, a house in )outh ,orbes 'ark !hich (y daughter rented, and 'acific 'la&a, all
in Makati.
/2. After the .--6 'residential Alections, I lived and resided in the residence of (y brother in )an *ose,
3acloban #ity, and pursued (y negotiations !ith '#11 to recover (y se>uestered residences in 3acloban
#ity and 7arangay Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte.
/2.. In preparation for (y observance of All )aints< Hay and All )ouls< Hay that year, I renovated (y parents<
burial grounds and ento(bed their bones !hich had been excalvated, unearthed and scattered.
/.. Gn Nove(ber 6-, .--D, I for(ally !rote '#11 #hair(an Magtanggol 1unigundo for per(issions to I
. . . rehabilitate . . . ?o@ur ancestral house in 3acloban and far(house in Glot, 0eyte . . . to (ake the( livable
for us the Marcos fa(ily to have a ho(e in our o!n (otherland.
xxx xxx xxx
/6. It !as only on 26 *une .--/, ho!ever, !hen '#11 #hair(an 1unigundo, in his letter to #ol. )i(eon
Ke(pis, *r., '#11 Region 5 Representative, allo!ed (e to repair and renovate (y 0eyte residences. I
>uote part of his letter9
Hear #ol. Ke(pis,
%pon representation by Mrs. I(elda R. Marcos to this #o((ission, that she intends to visit our se>uestered
properties in 0eyte, please allo! her access thereto. )he (ay also cause repairs and renovation of the
se>uestered properties, in !hich event, it shall be understood that her undertaking said repairs is not
authori&ation for her to take over said properties, and that all expenses shall be for her account and not
rei(bursable. 'lease extend the necessary courtesy to her.
xxx xxx xxx
/D. I !as not per(itted, ho!ever, to live and stay in the )to. NiOo )hrine residence in 3acloban #ity !here I
!anted to stay and reside, after repairs and renovations !ere co(pleted. In August .--/, I transferred fro(
)an *ose, 3acloban #ity, to (y residence in 7arangay Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, !hen '#11 per(itted (e to stay
and live there.
+t is t(en clear t(at in =>>: petitioner reesta/lis(ed (er domicile in t(e 'irst !istrict of
Le.te. It is not disputed that in .--6, she first lived at the house of her brother in )an *ose,
3acloban #ity and later, in August .--/, she transferred her residence in 7arangay Gl ot,
3olosa, 0eyte. 7oth 3acloban #ity and the (unicipality of Glot are !ithin the ,irst Histrict of
0eyte. )ince petitioner reestablished her old do(icile in .--6 in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte,
she (ore than co(plied !ith the constitutional re>uire(ent of residence
". . . for a period of not less than one year i((ediately preceding the day of the election,"
i.e., the May 5, .-- elections.
*(e evidence presented /. t(e private respondent to negate t(e *aclo/an domicile of
petitioner is nil. $e presented petitioner<s 8oter<s Registration Record filed !ith the 7oard
of Alection Inspectors of 'recinct .2:A of 7arangay Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte !herein she stated
that her period of residence in said barangay !as six ?6@ (onths as of the date of her filing
of said 8oter<s Registration Record on *anuary 65, .--.
31
3his state(ent in petitioner<s
8oter<s Registration Record is a nonCpre3udicial admission. 3he #onstitution re>uires at
least one ?.@ year residence in the district in !hich the candidate shall be elected. In the
case at bench, the reference is the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte. 'etitioner<s state(ent proved
that she resided in Glot six ?6@ (onths before *anuary 65, .-- /ut did not disprove that
she has also resided in 3acloban #ity starting .--6. As aforestated, Glot and 3acloban #ity
are both !ithin the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte, hence, her six ?6@ (onths residence in Glot
should be counted not against, but in her favor. 'rivate respondent also presented
petitioner<s #ertificate of #andidacy filed on March 5, .--
36
!here she placed seven ?7@
(onths after Ite( No. 5 !hich called for infor(ation regarding "residence in the
constituency !here I seek to be elected i((ediately preceding the election." Again, this
original certificate of candidacy has no evidentiary val ue because an March ., .-- it !as
corrected by petitioner. In her A(ended;#orrected #ertificate of #andidacy,
33
petitioner
!rote "since childhood" after Ite( No. 5. 3he a(end(ent of a certificate of candidacy to
correct a /ona fide (istake has been allo!ed by this #ourt as a (atter of course and as a
(atter of right. As !e held in Alial. v. C)"ELEC,
34
vi&.9
xxx xxx xxx
3he absence of the signature of the )ecretary of the local chapter N.' in the original certificate of candidacy
presented before the deadline )epte(ber .., .--, did not render the certificate invalid. *(e amendment of
t(e certificate, alt(oug( at a date after t(e deadline, /ut /efore t(e election, 4as su/stantial compliance 4it(
t(e la4, and t(e defect 4as cured.
It goes !ithout saying that petitioner<s erroneous #ertificate of #andidacy filed on March 5,
.-- cannot be used as evidence against her. 'rivate respondent<s petition for the
dis>ualification of petitioner rested alone on these t!o ?6@ brittle pieces of docu(entary
evidence I petitioner<s 8oter<s Registration Record and her original #ertificate of
#andidacy. Ranged against the evidence of the petitioner sho!ing her ceaseless contacts
!ith 3acloban, private respondent<s t!o ?6@ pieces of evidence are too insufficient to
dis>ualify petitioner, (ore so, to deny her the right to represent the people of the ,irst
Histrict of 0eyte !ho have over!hel(ingly voted for her.
,ifth. )ection .2, Article IP:# of the #onstitution (andates that "/ona fide candidates for
any public office shall be free fro( any for( of harass(ent and discri(ination."
34
A
detached reading of the records of the case at bench !ill sho! that all for(s of legal and
extra:legal obstacles have been thro!n against petitioner to prevent her fro( running as
the people<s representative in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte. In petitioner<s Ans!er to the
petition to dis>ualify her, she averred9
32
xxx xxx xxx
.2. 'etitioner<s ?herein private respondent Monte=o@ (otive in filing the instant petition is devious. Chen
respondent ?petitioner herein@ announced that she !as intending to register as a voter in 3acloban #ity and
run for #ongress in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte, petitioner ?Monte=o@ i((ediately opposed her intended
registration by !riting a letter stating that "she is not a resident of said city but of 7arangay Glot, 3olosa,
0eyte." ?Annex "6" of respondent<s affidavit, Annex "6"@. After respondent ?petitioner herein@ had registered as
a voter in 3olosa follo!ing co(pletion of her six:(onth actual residence therein, petitioner ?Monte=o@ filed a
petition !ith the #GMA0A# to transfer the to!n of 3olosa fro( the ,irst Histrict to the )econd Histrict and
pursued such (ove up to the )upre(e #ourt in 1.R. No. ..5726, his purpose being to re(ove respondent
?petitioner herein@ as petitioner<s ?Monte=o<s@ opponent in the congressional election in the ,irst Histrict. $e
also filed a bill, along !ith other 0eyte #ongress(en, seeking to create another legislative district, to re(ove
the to!n of 3olosa out of the ,irst Histrict and to (ake it a part of the ne! district, to achieve his purpose.
$o!ever, such bill did not pass the )enate. $aving, failed on such (oves, petitioner no! filed the instant
petition, for the sa(e ob=ective, as it is obvious that he is afraid to sub(it hi(self along !ith respondent
?petitioner herein@ for the =udg(ent and verdict of the electorate of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte in an honest,
orderly, peaceful, free and clean elections on May 5, .--.
3hese allegations !hich private respondent did not challenge !ere not lost
to the perceptive eye of #o((issioner Maa(bong !ho in his Hissenting Gpinion,
37
held9
xxx xxx xxx
'rior to the registration date I *anuary 65, .-- the petitioner ?herein private respondent Monte=o@ !rote the
Alection Gfficer of 3acloban #ity not to allo! respondent ?petitioner herein@ to register thereat since she is a
resident of 3olosa and not 3acloban #ity. 3he purpose of this (ove of the petitioner ?Monte=o@ is not lost to
?sic@ the #o((ission. In %NH No. -:22. ?+n t(e matter of t(e Legislative !istricts of t(e Provinces of Le.te,
+loilo, and Sout( Cota/ato, )ut of 5(ic( t(e Ne4 Provinces of Biliran, 1uimaras and Saranggani 5ere
espectivel. Created@, . . . $on. #irilo Roy 1. Monte=o, Representative, ,irst Histrict of 0eyte, !anted the
Municipality of 3olosa, in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte, transferred to the )econd Histrict of 0eyte. 3he $on.
)ergio A.,. Apostol, Representative of the )econd Histrict of 0eyte, opposed the (ove of the petitioner
?Monte=o@. %nder #o(elec Resolution No. 67D6 ?Hece(ber 6-, .--/@, the #o((ission on Alections refused
to (ake the proposed transfer. 'etitioner ?Monte=o@ filed ""otion for econsideration of esolution
No. :B<@" !hich the #o((ission denied in a Resolution pro(ulgated on ,ebruary ., .--. 'etitioner
?Monte=o@ filed a petition for certiorari before the $onorable )upre(e #ourt ?#irilo Roy 1. Monte=o vs.
#o((ission on Alections, 1.R. No. ..5726@ >uestioning the resolution of the #o((ission. 7elieving that he
could get a favorable ruling fro( the )upre(e #ourt, petitioner ?Monte=o@ tried to (ake sure that the
respondent ?petitioner herein@ !ill register as a voter in 3olosa so that she !ill be forced to run as
Representative not in the ,irst but in the )econd Histrict.
It did not happen. Gn March .6, .--, the $onorable )upre(e #ourt unani(ously pro(ulgated a "!ecision,"
penned by Associate *ustice Reynato ). 'uno, the dispositive portion of !hich reads9
IN 8IAC C$ARAG,, )ection . of Resolution No. 67D6 insofar as it transferred the (unicipality of #apoocan
of the )econd Histrict and the (unicipality of 'alo(pon of the ,ourth Histrict to the 3hird Histrict of the
province of 0eyte, is annulled and set aside. Ce also deny the 'etition praying for the transfer of the
(unicipality of 3olosa fro( the ,irst Histrict to the )econd Histrict of the province of 0eyte. No costs.
'etitioner<s ?Monte=o<s@ plan did not !ork. 7ut the respondent ?petitioner herein@ !as constrained to register
in the Municipality of 3olosa !here her house is instead of 3acloban #ity, her do(icile. In any case, both
3acloban #ity and 3olosa are in the ,irst 0egislative Histrict.
All these atte(pts to (isuse our la!s and legal processes are for(s of rank harass(ents
and invidious discri(inations against petitioner to deny her e>ual access to a public office.
Ce cannot co((it any her(eneutic violence to the #onstitution by torturing the (eaning
of e>uality, the end result of !hich !ill allo! the harass(ent and discri(ination of
petitioner !ho has lived a controversial life, a past of alternating light and shado!. 3here is
but one #onstitution for all ,ilipinos. 'etitioner cannot be ad=udged by a "different"
#onstitution, and the !orst !ay to interpret the #onstitution is to in=ect in its interpretation,
bile and bitterness.
)ixth. In 1allego v. $era,
38
!e explained that the reason for this residence re>uire(ent is
"to exclude a stranger or ne!co(er, unac>uainted, !ith the conditions and needs of a
co((unity and not identified !ith the latter, fro( an elective office to serve that co((unity
. . . ." 'etitioner<s lifeti(e contacts !ith the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte cannot be contested.
Nobody can clai( that she is not ac>uainted !ith its proble(s because she is a stranger
to the place. None can argue she cannot satisfy the intent of the #onstitution.
)eventh. In resolving election cases, a do(inant consideration is the need to effectuate
the !ill of the electorate. 3he election results sho! that petitioner received )eventy
3housand ,our $undred )eventy:one ?72,/7.@ votes, !hile private respondent got only
3hirty:)ix 3housand Aight $undred 3hirty:3hree ?D6,5DD@ votes. 'etitioner is clearly the
over!hel(ing choice of the electorate of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte and this is not a sleight
of statistics. Ce cannot frustrate this sovereign !ill on highly arguable technical
considerations. In case of doubt, !e should lean to!ards a rule that !ill give life to the
people<s political =udg(ent.
A final point. 3he case at bench provides the #ourt !ith the rare opportunity to rectify the
ine>uality of status bet!een !o(en and (en by re=ecting the ini>uitous co((on la!
precedents on the do(icile of (arried !o(en and by redefining do(icile in accord !ith
our o!n culture, la!, and #onstitution. 3o rule that a (arried !o(an is eternally tethered
to the do(icile dictated by her dead husband is to preserve the anachronistic and
ano(alous balance of advantage of a husband over his !ife. Ce should not allo! the
dead to govern the living even if the glories of yesteryears seduce us to shout long live the
deadQ 3he ,a(ily #ode buried this gender:based discri(ination against (arried !o(en
and !e should not excavate !hat has been ento(bed. More i(portantly, the #onstitution
forbids it.
I vote to grant the petition.
Bellosillo and "elo, JJ., concur.
9RAN'IS'O, J., concurring9
I concur !ith Mr. *ustice Kapunan<s ponencia finding petitioner >ualified for the position of
Representative of the ,irst #ongressional Histrict of 0eyte. I !ish, ho!ever, to express a
fe! co((ents on the issue of petitioner<s do(icile.
Ho(icile has been defined as that place in !hich a person<s habitation is fixed, !ithout any
present intention of re(oving therefro(, and that place is properly the do(icile of a person
in !hich he has voluntarily fixed his abode, or habitation, not for a (ere special or
te(porary purpose, but !ith a present intention of (aking it his per(anent ho(e ?65
#.*.). R.@. It denotes a fixed per(anent residence to !hich !hen absent for business, or
pleasure, or for like reasons one intends to return, and depends on facts and
circu(stances, in the sense that they disclose intent. ?Gng $uan 3in v. Republic, .- )#RA
-66, -6-@
Ho(icile is classified into do(icile of origin and do(icile of choice. 3he la! attributes to
every individual a do(icile of origin, !hich is the do(icile of his parents, or of the head of
his fa(ily, or of the person on !ho( he is legally dependent at the ti(e of his birth. Chile
the do(icile of origin is generally the place !here one is born or reared, it (aybe
else!here ?65 #.*.). R@. Ho(icile of choice, on the other hand, is the place !hich the
person has elected and chosen for hi(self to displace his previous do(icileB it has for its
true basis or foundation the intention of the person ?65 #.*.). R6@. In order to hold that a
person has abandoned his do(icile and ac>uired a ne! one called do(icile of choice, the
follo!ing re>uisites (ust concur, na(ely, ?a@ residence or bodily presence in the ne!
locality, ?b@ intention to re(ain there or animus manendi, and ?c@ an intention to abandon
the old do(icile or animus non revertendi ?Ro(ualde& v. R3#, 7r. 7, 3acloban #ity, 666
)#RA /25, /.@. A third classification is do(icile by operation of la! !hich attributes to a
person a do(icile independent of his o!n intention or actual residence, ordinarily resulting
fro( legal do(estic relations, as that of the !ife arising fro( (arriage, or the relation of a
parent and a child ?65 #.*.). R7@.
In election la!, !hen our #onstitution speaks of residence for election purposes it (eans
do(icile ?#o v. Alectoral 3ribunal of the $ouse of Representatives, .-- )#RA 6-6, 7.DB
Nuval v. 1uray, 6 'hil. 6/, 6.@. 3o (y (ind, public respondent #o((ission on
Alections (isapplied this concept, of do(icile !hich led to petitioner<s dis>ualification by
ruling that petitioner failed to co(ply !ith the constitutionally (andated one:year residence
re>uire(ent. Apparently, public respondent #o((ission dee(ed as conclusive petitioner<s
stay and registration as voter in (any places as conduct disclosing her intent to abandon
her established do(icile of origin in 3acloban, 0eyte. In several decisions, though, the
#ourt has laid do!n the rule that registration of a voter in a place other than his place of
origin is not sufficient to constitute abandon(ent or loss of such residence ?,aypon v.
Muirino, -6 'hil. 6-/, D22@. Respondent #o((ission offered no cogent reason to depart
fro( this rule except to sur(ise petitioner<s intent of abandoning her do(icile of origin.
It has been suggested that petitioner<s do(icile of origin !as supplanted by a ne! do(icile
due to her (arriage, a do(icile by operation of la!. 3he proposition is that upon the death
of her husband in .-5- she retains her husband<s do(icile, i.e., 7atac, Ilocos Norte, until
she (akes an actual change thereof. I find this proposition >uite untenable.
3acloban, 0eyte, is petitioner<s do(icile of origin !hich !as involuntarily supplanted !ith
another, i.e., 7atac, Ilocos Norte, upon her (arriage in .-/ !ith then #ongress(an
Marcos. 7y legal fiction she follo!ed the do(icile of her husband. In (y vie!, the reason
for the la! is for the spouses to fully and effectively perfor( their (arital duties and
obligations to one another.
1
3he >uestion of do(icile, ho!ever, is not affected by the fact
that it !as the legal or (oral duty of the individual to reside in a given place ?65 #.*.).
R..@. 3hus, !hile the !ife retains her (arital do(icile so long as the (arriage subsists,
she auto(atically loses it upon the latter<s ter(ination, for the reason behind the la! then
ceases. Gther!ise, petitioner, after her (arriage !as ended by the death of her husband,
!ould be placed in a >uite absurd and unfair situation of having been freed fro( all !ifely
obligations yet (ade to hold on to one !hich no longer serves any (eaningful purpose.
It is (y vie! therefore that petitioner reverted to her original do(icile of 3acloban, 0eyte
upon her husband<s death !ithout even signifying her intention to that effect. It is for the
private respondent to prove, not for petitioner to disprove, that petitioner has effectively
abandoned 3acloban, 0eyte for 7atac, Ilocos Norte or for so(e other place;s. 3he clear
rule is that it is the party ?herein private respondent@ clai(ing that a person has abandoned
or lost his residence of origin !ho (ust sho! and prove preponderantly such
abandon(ent or loss ?,aypon v. Muirino, supra at 6-5B 65 #.*.). R.6@, because the
presu(ption is strongly in favor of an original or for(er do(icile, as against an ac>uired
one ?65 #.*.). R.6@. 'rivate respondent unfortunately failed to discharge this burden as
the record is devoid of convincing proof that petitioner has ac>uired !hether voluntarily or
involuntarily, a ne! do(icile to replace her do(icile of origin.
3he records, on the contrary, clearly sho! that petitioner has co(plied !ith the
constitutional one:year residence re>uire(ent. After her exile abroad, she returned to the
'hilippines in .--. to reside in Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, but the 'residential #o((ission on
1ood 1overn(ent !hich se>uestered her residential house and other properties forbade
her necessitating her transient stay in various places in Manila ?Affidavit p.6, attached as
Annex I of the 'etition@. In .--6, she ran for the position of president !riting in her
certificate of candidacy her residence as )an *uan, Metro Manila. After her loss therein,
she !ent back to 3acloban #ity, ac>uired her residence certificate
6
and resided !ith her
brother in )an *ose. )he resided in )an *ose, 3acloban #ity until August of .--/ !hen
she !as allo!ed by the '#11 to (ove and reside in her se>uestered residential house in
Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte ?Annex I, p. 6@.
3
It !as in the sa(e (onth of August !hen she applied
for the cancellation of her previous registration in )an *uan, Metro Manila in order to
register ane! as voter of Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, !hich she did on *anuary 65, .--. ,ro(
this se>uence of events, I find it >uite i(proper to use as the reckoning period of the one:
year residence re>uire(ent the date !hen she applied for the cancellation of her previous
registration in )an *uan, Metro Manila. 3he fact !hich private respondent never bothered
to disprove is that petitioner transferred her residence after the .--6 presidential election
fro( )an *uan, Metro Manila to )an *ose, 3acloban #ity, and resided therein until August
of .--/. )he later transferred to Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte ?Annex I, p. 7@. It appearing that both
3acloban #ity and 3olosa, 0eyte are !ithin the ,irst #ongressional Histrict of 0eyte, it
indubitably stands that she had (ore than a year of residence in the constituency she
sought to be elected. 'etitioner, therefore, has satisfactorily co(plied !ith the one:year
>ualification re>uired by the .-57 #onstitution.
I vote to grant the petition.
ROMERO, J., separate opinion9
'etitioner has appealed to this #ourt for relief after the #GMA0A# ruled that she !as
dis>ualified fro( running for Representative of her Histrict and that, in the event that she
should, nevertheless, (uster a (a=ority vote, her procla(ation should be suspended. Not
by a straightfor!ard ruling did the #GMA0A# pronounce its decision as has been its
unvarying practice in the past, but by a startling succession of "reverse so(ersaults."
Indicative of its shifting stance visCaCvis petitioner<s certificate of candidacy !ere first, the
action of its )econd Hivision dis>ualifying her and canceling her original #ertificate of
#andidacy by a vote of 6:. on April 6/, .--B then the denial by the #GMA0A# en /anc of
her Motion for Reconsideration on May 7, .--, a day before the electionB then because
she persisted in running, its decision on
May .., .-- or three days after the election, allo!ing her procla(ation in the event that
the results of the canvass should sho! that she obtained the highest nu(ber of votes
?obviously noting that petitioner had !on over!hel(ingly over her opponent@, but al(ost
si(ultaneously reversing itself by directing that even if she !ins, her procla(ation should
nonetheless be suspended.
#rucial to the resolution of the dis>ualification issue presented by the case at bench is the
interpretation to be given to the one:year residency re>uire(ent i(posed by the
#onstitution on aspirants for a #ongressional seat.
1
7earing in (ind that the ter( "resident" has been held to be synony(ous !ith "do(icile"
for election purposes, it is i(portant to deter(ine !hether petitioner<s do(i cile !as in the
,irst Histrict of 0eyte and if so, !hether she had resided there for at least a period of one
year. %ndisputed is her do(icile of origin, 3acloban, !here her parents lived at the ti(e of
her birth. Hepending on !hat theory one adopts, the sa(e (ay have been changed !hen
she (arried ,erdinand A. Marcos, then do(iciled in 7atac, by operation of la!. Assu(ing
it did, his death certainly released her fro( the obligation to live !ith hi( at the residence
fixed by hi( during his lifeti(e. Chat (ay confuse the lay(an at this point is the fact that
the ter( "do(icile" (ay refer to "do(icile of origin," "do(icile of choice," or "do(icile by
operation of la!," !hich sub=ect !e shall not belabor since it has been a(ply discussed by
the ponente and in the other separate opinions.
In any case, !hat assu(es relevance is the divergence of legal opinion as to the effect of
the husband<s death on the do(icile of the !ido!. )o(e scholars opine that the !ido!<s
do(icile re(ains unchangedB that the deceased husband<s !ishes perforce still bind the
!ife he has left behind. 1iven this interpretation, the !ido! cannot possibly go far enough
to sever the do(iciliary tie i(posed by her husband.
It is bad enough to interpret the la! as e(po!ering the husband unilaterall y to fix the
residence or do(icile of the fa(ily, as laid do!n in the #ivil #ode,
6
but to continue giving
obeisance to his !ishes even after the rationale underlying the (utual duty of the spouses
to live together has ceased, is to close one<s eyes to the stark realities of the present.
At the other extre(e is the position that the !ido! auto(atically reverts to her do(icile of
origin upon the de(ise of her husband. Hoes the la! so abhor a vacuu( that the !ido!
has to be endo!ed so(eho! !ith a do(icileN 3o ans!er this >uestion !hich is far fro(
rhetorical, one !ill have to keep in (ind the basic principles of do(icile. Averyone (ust
have a do(icile. 3hen one (ust have only a single do(icile for the sa(e purpose at any
given ti(e. Gnce established, a do(icile re(ains until a ne! one is ac>uired, for no
person lives !ho has no do(icile, as defined by the la! be is sub=ect to.
At this =uncture, !e are confronted !ith an unexplored legal terrain in this =urisdiction,
rendered (ore (urky by the conflicting opinions of foreign legal authorities. 3his being the
state of things, it is i(perative as it is opportune to illu(ine the darkness !ith the beacon
light of truth, as dictated by experience and the necessity of according petitioner her right
to choose her do(icile in keeping !ith the enlightened global trend to recogni&e and
protect the hu(an rights of !o(en, no less than (en.
Ad(ittedly, the notion of placing !o(en at par !ith (en, insofar as civil, political and
social rights are concerned, is a relatively recent pheno(enon that took seed only in the
(iddle of this century. It is a historical fact that for over three centuries, the 'hilippines had
been coloni&ed by )pain, a conservative, #atholic country !hich transplanted to our
shores the Gld Corld cultures, (ores and attitudes and values. 3hrough the i(position on
our govern(ent of the )panish #ivil #ode in .55-, the people, both (en and !o(en, had
no choice but to accept such concepts as the husband<s being the head of the fa(ily and
the !ife<s subordination to his authority. In such role, his !as the right to (ake vital
decisions for the fa(ily. Many instances co(e to (ind, fore(ost being !hat is related to
the issue before us, na(ely, that "the husband shall fix the residence of the fa(ily."
3
7ecause he is (ade responsible for the support of the !ife and the rest of the fa(ily,
4
he
is also e(po!ered to be the ad(inistrator of the con=ugal property, !ith a fe! exceptions
4
and (ay, therefore, dispose of the con=ugal partnership property for the purposes specified
under the la!B
2
!hereas, as a general rule, the !ife cannot bind the con=ugal partnership
!ithout the husband<s consent.
7
As regards the property pertaining to the children under
parental authority, the father is the legal ad(inistrator and only in his absence (ay the
(other assu(e his po!ers.
8
He(eaning to the !ife<s dignity are certain strictures on her
personal freedo(s, practically relegating her to the position of (inors and disabled
persons. 3o illustrate a fe!9 3he !ife cannot, !ithout the husband<s consent, ac>uire any
gratuitous title, except fro( her ascendants, descendants, parents:in:la!, and collateral
relatives !ithin the fourth degree.
9
Cith respect to her e(ploy(ent, the husband !ields a
veto po!er in the case the !ife exercises her profession or occupation or engages in
business, provided his inco(e is sufficient for the fa(ily, according to its social standing
and his opposition is founded on serious and valid grounds.
17
Most offensive, if not
repulsive, to the liberal:(inded is the effective prohibition upon a !ido! to get (arried till
after three hundred days follo!ing the death of her husband, unless in the (eanti(e, she
has given birth to a child.
11
3he (other !ho contracts a subse>uent (arriage loses the
parental authority over her children, unless the deceased husband, father of the latter, has
expressly provided in his !ill that his !ido! (ight (arry again, and has ordered that in
such case she should keep and exercise parental authority over their children.
16
Again,
an instance of a husband<s overarching influence fro( beyond the grave.
All these indignities and disabilities suffered by ,ilipino !ives for hundreds of years evoked
no protest fro( the( until the concept of hu(an rights and e>uality bet!een and a(ong
nations and individuals found hospitable lodg(ent in the %nited Nations #harter of !hich
the 'hilippines !as one of the original signatories. 7y then, the )panish "con>uistadores"
had been overthro!n by the A(erican forces at the turn of the century. 3he bedrock of the
%.N. #harter !as fir(ly anchored on this credo9 "to reaffir( faith in the funda(ental
hu(an rights, in the dignity and !orth of the hu(an person, in t(e equal rig(ts of men and
4omen." ?A(phasis supplied@
It took over thirty years before these egalitarian doctrines bore fruit, o!ing largely to the
burgeoning of the fe(inist (ove(ent. Chat (ay be regarded as the international bill of
rights for !o(en !as i(planted in the #onvention on the Ali(ination of All ,or(s of
Hiscri(ination Against Co(en ?#AHAC@ adopted by the %.N. 1eneral Asse(bly !hich
entered into force as an international treaty on )epte(ber D, .-5.. In ratifying the
instru(ent, the 'hilippines bound itself to i(ple(ent its liberating spirit and letter, for its
#onstitution, no less, declared that "3he 'hilippines. . . adopts the generally accepted
principles of international la! as part of the la! of the land and adheres to the policy of
peace, e>uality, =ustice, freedo(, cooperation, and a(ity !ith all nations."
13
Gne such
principle e(bodied in the #AHAC is granting to (en and !o(en "the sa(e rights !ith
regard to the la! relating to the (ove(ent of persons and the freedom to c(oose t(eir
residence and domicile."
14
?A(phasis supplied@.
#AHAC<s pro:!o(en orientation !hich !as not lost on ,ilipino !o(en !as reflected in
the .-57 #onstitution of the 'hilippines and later, in the ,a(ily #ode,
14
both of !hich
!ere speedily approved by the first lady 'resident of the country, #ora&on #. A>uino.
Notable for its e(phasis on the hu(an rights of all individuals and its bias for e>uality
bet!een the sexes are the follo!ing provisions9 "3he )tate values the dignity of every
hu(an person and guarantees full respect for hu(an rights"
12
and "3he )tate recogni&es
the role of !o(en in nation:building, and shall ensure the funda(ental e>uality before the
la! of !o(en and (en."
17
A (a=or acco(plish(ent of !o(en in their >uest for e>uality !ith (en and the eli(ination
of discri(inatory provisions of la! !as the deletion in the ,a(ily #ode of al(ost all of the
unreasonable strictures on !ives and the grant to the( of personal rights e>ual to that of
their husbands. )pecifically, the husband and !ife are no! given t(e rig(t 3ointl. to fi7 t(e
famil. domicileB
18
conco(itant to the spouses< being =ointly responsible for the support of
the fa(ily is the right and duty of both spouses to (anage the householdB
19
the
ad(inistration and the en=oy(ent of the co((unity property shall belong to both spouses
=ointlyB
67
the father and (other shall no! =ointly exercise legal guardianship over the
property of their une(ancipated co((on child
61
and several others.
A!are of the hiatus and continuing gaps in the la!, insofar as !o(en<s rights are
concerned, #ongress passed a la! popularly kno!n as "Co(en in Hevelop(ent and
Nation 7uilding Act"
66
A(ong the rights given to (arried !o(en evidencing their capacity
to act in contracts e>ual to that of (en are9
?.@ Co(en shall have the capacity to borro! and obtain loans and execute security and
credit arrange(ents under the sa(e conditions as (enB
?6@ Co(en shall have e>ual access to all govern(ent and private sector progra(s
granting agricultural credit, loans and non (aterial resources and shall en=oy e>ual
treat(ent in agrarian refor( and land resettle(ent progra(sB
?D@ Co(en shall have e>ual rights to act as incorporators and enter into insurance
contractsB and
?/@ Married !o(en shall have rights e>ual to those of (arried (en in applying for
passports, secure visas and other travel docu(ents, !ithout need to secure the consent of
their spouses.
As the !orld dra!s the curtain on the ,ourth Corld #onference of Co(en in 7ei=ing, let
this #ourt no! be the first to respond to its clarion call that "Co(en<s Rights are $u(an
Rights" and that "All obstacles to !o(en<s full participation in decision:(aking at all levels,
including the fa(ily" should be re(oved. $aving been herself a Me(ber of the 'hilippine
Helegation to the International Co(en<s Jear #onference in Mexico in .-7, this !riter is
only too keenly a!are of the unre(itting struggle being !aged by !o(en the !orld over,
,ilipino !o(en not excluded, to be accepted as e>uals of (en and to tear do!n the !alls
of discri(ination that hold the( back fro( their proper places under the sun.
In light of the inexorable s!eep of events, local and global, legislative, executive and
=udicial, according (ore rights to !o(en hitherto denied the( and eli(inating !hatever
pockets of discri(ination still exist in their civil, political and social life, can it still be
insisted that !ido!s are not at liberty to choose their do(icile upon the death of their
husbands but (ust retain the sa(e, regardlessN
I sub(it that a !ido!, like the petitioner and others si(ilarly situated, can no longer be
bound by the do(icile of the departed husband, if at all she !as before. Neither does she
auto(atically revert to her do(icile of origin, but exercising free !ill, she (ay opt to
reestablish her do(icile of origin. In returning to 3acloban and subse>uently, to 7arangay
Glot, 3olosa, both of !hich are located in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte, petitioner a(ply
de(onstrated by overt acts, her election of a do(icile of choice, in this case, a reversion to
her do(icile of origin. Added together, the ti(e !hen she set up her do(icile in the t!o
places sufficed to (eet the one:year re>uire(ent to run as Representative of the ,irst
Histrict of 0eyte.
In vie! of the foregoing expatiation, I vote to 1RAN3 the petition.
VITUG, J., separate opinion9
3he case at bench deals !ith explicit #onstitutional (andates.
3he #onstitution is not a pliable instru(ent. It is a bedrock in our legal syste( that sets up
ideals and directions and render steady our strides hence. It only looks back so as to
ensure that (istakes in the past are not repeated. A co(pliant transience of a constitution
belittles its basic function and !eakens its goals. A constitution (ay !ell beco(e outdated
by the realities of ti(e. Chen it does, it (ust be changed but !hile it re(ains, !e o!e it
respect and allegiance. Anarchy, open or subtle, has never been, nor (ust it ever be, the
ans!er to perceived transitory needs, let alone societal attitudes, or the #onstitution (ight
lose its very essence.
#onstitutional provisions (ust be taken to be (andatory in character unless, either by
express state(ent or by necessary i(plication, a different intention is (anifest ?see
Marcelino vs. #ru&, .6. )#RA .@.
3he t!o provisions initially brought to focus are )ection 6 and )ection .7 of Article 8I of
the funda(ental la!. 3hese provisions read9
)ec. 6. No person shall be a Me(ber of the $ouse of Representatives unless he is a natural:born citi&en of
the 'hilippines and, on the day of the election, is at least t!enty:five years of age, able to read and !rite,
and, except the party:list representatives, a registered voter in the district in !hich he shall be elected, and a
resident thereof for a period of not less than one year i((ediately preceding the day of the election.
)ec. .7. 3he )enate and the $ouse of Representatives shall each have an Alectoral 3ribunal !hich shall be
the sole =udge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and >ualifications of their respective Me(bers.
Aach Alectoral 3ribunal shall be co(posed of nine Me(bers, three of !ho( shall be *ustices of the
)upre(e #ourt to be designated by the #hief *ustice, and the re(aining six shall be Me(bers of the )enate
or the $ouse of Representatives, as the case (ay be, !ho shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation fro( the political parties and the parties or organi&ations registered under the party:list
syste( represented therein. 3he senior *ustice in the Alectoral 3ribunal shall be its #hair(an.
3he #o((ission on Alection ?the "#GMA0A#"@ is constitutionally bound to enforce and
ad(inister "all la!s and regulations relative to the conduct of election . . ." ?Art. IP, #, )ec.
6, #onstitution@ that, there being nothing said to the contrary, should include its authority to
pass upon the >ualification and dis>ualification prescribed by la! of candidates to an
elective office. Indeed, pre:procla(ation controversies are expressly placed under the
#GMA0A#<s =urisdiction to hear and resolve ?Art. IP, #, )ec. D, #onstitution@.
3he (atter before us specifically calls for the observance of the constitutional one:year
residency re>uire(ent. 3he issue ?!hether or not there is here such co(pliance@, to (y
(ind, is basically a >uestion of fact or at least inextricably linked to such deter(ination.
3he findings and =udg(ent of the #GMA0A#, in accordance !ith the long established rule
and sub=ect only to a nu(ber of exceptions under the basic heading of "grave abuse of
discretion," are not revie!able by this #ourt.
I do not find (uch need to do a co(plex exercise on !hat see(s to (e to be a plain
(atter. 1enerally, the ter( "residence" has a broader connotation that (ay (ean
permanent ?do(icile@, official ?place !here one<s official duties (ay re>uire hi( to stay@ or
temporar. ?the place !here he so=ourns during a considerable length of ti(e@. ,or civil la!
purposes, i.e., as regards the exercise of civil rights and the fulfill(ent of civil obligations,
the do(icile of a natural person is the place of his (a/itual residence ?see Article 2, #ivil
#ode@. In election cases, the controlling rule is that heretofore announced by this #ourt in
omualde& vs. egional *rial Court, 7ranch 7, 3acloban #ity ?666 )#RA /25, /2-@B thus9
In election cases, the #ourt treats do(icile and residence as synony(ous ter(s, thus9 "?t@he ter(
"residence" as used in the election la! is synony(ous !ith "do(icile," !hich i(ports not only an intention to
reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled !ith conduct indicative of such
intention." "Ho(icile" denotes a fixed per(anent residence to !hich !hen absent for business or pleasure,
or for like reasons, one intends to return. . . . . Residence thus ac>uired, ho!ever, (ay be lost by adopting
another choice of do(icile. In order, in turn, to ac>uire a ne! do(icile by choice, there (ust concur ?.@
residence or bodily presence in the ne! locality, ?6@ an intention to re(ain there, and ?D@ an intention to
abandon the old do(icile. In other !ords, there (ust basically be animus manendi coupled !ith animus non
revertendi. 3he purpose to re(ain in or at the do(icile of choice (ust be for an indefinite period of ti(eB the
change of residence (ust be voluntaryB and the residence at the place chosen for the ne! do(icile (ust be
actual.
%sing the above tests, I a( not convinced that !e can charge the #GMA0A# !ith having
co((itted grave abuse of discretion in its assailed resolution.
3he #GMA0A#<s =urisdiction, in the case of congressional elections, ends !hen the
=urisdiction of the Alectoral 3ribunal concerned begins. It signifies that the protestee (ust
have theretofore been duly proclai(ed and has since beco(e a "(e(ber" of the )enate
or the $ouse of Representatives. 3he >uestion can be asked on !hether or not the
procla(ation of a candidate is =ust a (inisterial function of the #o((ission on Alections
dictated solely on the nu(ber of votes cast in an election exercise. I believe, it is not. A
(inisterial duty is an obligation the perfor(ance of !hich, being ade>uately defined, does
not allo! the use of further =udg(ent or discretion. 3he #GMA0A#, in its particular case, is
tasked !ith the full responsibility of ascertaining all the facts and conditions such as (ay
be re>uired by la! before a procla(ation is properly done.
3he #ourt, on its part, should, in (y vie! at least, refrain fro( any undue encroach(ent
on the ulti(ate exercise of authority by the Alectoral 3ribunals on (atters !hich, by no
less than a constitutional fiat, are explicitly !ithin their exclusive do(ain. 3he nagging
>uestion, if it !ere other!ise, !ould be the effect of the #ourt<s pere(ptory
pronounce(ent on the ability of the Alectoral 3ribunal to later co(e up !ith its o!n
=udg(ent in a contest "relating to the election, returns and >ualification" of its (e(bers.
'rescinding fro( all the foregoing, I should like to next touch base on the applicability to
this case of )ection 6 of Republic Act No. 66/6, in relation to )ection 76 of Batas
Pam/ansa Blg. 55., each providing thusly9
RA'%70I# A#3 NG. 66/6
xxx xxx xxx
)ec. 6. Effect of !isqualification Case. I Any candidate !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be
dis>ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final =udg(ent before an election to be dis>ualified and he is voted for and
receives the !inning nu(ber of votes in such election, the #ourt or #o((ission shall continue !ith the trial
and hearing of the action, in>uiry or protest and, upon (otion of the co(plainant or any intervenor, (ay
during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the procla(ation of such candidate !henever the
evidence of his guilt is strong.
7A3A) 'AM7AN)A 701. 55.
xxx xxx xxx
)ec. 76. Effects of disqualification cases and priorit.. I 3he #o((ission and the courts shall give priority to
cases of dis>ualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not
later than seven days before the election in !hich the dis>ualification is sought.
Any candidate !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be dis>ualified shall not be voted for, and the
votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. Nevertheless, if for any reason, a candidate is not declared by final,
=udg(ent before an election to be dis>ualified, and he is voted for and receives the !inning nu(ber of votes
in such election, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his procla(ation
and assu(ption to office.
I reali&e that in considering the significance of the la!, it (ay be preferable to look for not
so (uch the specific instances they ostensibly !ould cover as the principle they clearly
convey. 3hus, I !ill not scoff at the argu(ent that it should be sound to say that votes cast
in favor of the dis>ualified candidate, !henever ulti(ately declared as such, should not be
counted in his or her favor and (ust accordingly be considered to be stray votes. 3he
argu(ent, nevertheless, is far out!eighed by the rationale of the no! prevailing doctrine
first enunciated in the case of *opacio vs. Paredes ?6D 'hil. 6D5 E.-.6F@ !hich, although
later abandoned in *ic&on vs. Comelec ?.2D )#RA 657 E.-5.F@, and Santos vs.
C)"ELEC ?.D7 )#RA 7/2 E.-5F@, !as restored, along !ith the interi( case of 1eronimo
vs. amos ?.D6 )#RA /D E.-5F@, by the La/o ?.76 )#RA . ?.-5-F@, A/ella ?62. )#RA
6D E.--.F@, La/o ?6.. )#RA 6-7 E.--6F@ and, (ost recently, Benito ?6D )#RA /D6
E.--/F@ rulings. Benito vs. Comelec !as a unani(ous decision penned by *ustice Kapunan
and concurred in by #hief *ustice Narvasa, *ustices ,eliciano, 'adilla, 7idin, Regalado,
Havide, Ro(ero, Melo, Muiason, 'uno, 8itug and Mendo&a ?*ustices #ru& and 7ellosillo
!ere on official leave@. ,or easy reference, let (e >uote fro( the first La/o decision9
,inally, there is the >uestion of !hether or not the private respondent, !ho filed the quo 4arranto petition,
can replace the petitioner as (ayor. $e cannot. 3he si(ple reason is that as he obtained only the second
highest nu(ber of votes in the election, he !as obviously not the choice of the people of 7aguio #ity.
3he latest ruling of the #ourt on this issue is )antos v. #o((ission on Alections, ?.D7 )#RA 7/2@ decided in
.-5. In that case, the candidate !ho placed second !as proclai(ed elected after the votes for his !inning
rival, !ho !as dis>ualified as a turncoat and considered a non:candidate, !ere all disregard as stray. In
effect, the second placer !on by default. 3hat decision !as supported by eight (e(bers of the #ourt then,
?#uevas, J., ponente, !ith Makasiar, #oncepcion, *r., Ascolin, Relova, He la ,uente, Ala(pay and A>uino,
JJ., concurring.@ !ith three dissenting ?3eehankee, Acting C.J., Abad )antos and Melencio:$errera, JJ.@ and
another t!o reserving their vote. ?'lana and 1utierre&, *r., JJ.@ Gne !as on official leave. ?,ernando, C.J.@
Re:exa(ining that decision, the #ourt finds, and so holds, that it should be reversed in favor of the earlier
case of 1eronimo v. amos, ?.D6 )#RA /D@ !hich represents the (ore logical and de(ocratic rule. 3hat
case, !hich reiterated the doctrine first announced in .-.6 in *opacio v. Paredes, ?6D 'hil. 6D5@ !as
supported by ten (e(bers of the #ourt, ?1utierre&, *r., ponente, !ith 3eehankee, Abad )antos, Melencio:
$errera, 'lana, Ascolin, Relova, He la ,uente, #uevas and Ala(pay, JJ., concurring@ !ithout any dissent,
although one reserved his vote, ?Makasiar, J.@ another took no part, ?A>uino, J.@ and t!o others !ere on
leave. ?,ernando, C.J. and #oncepcion, *r., J.@ 3here the #ourt held9
. . . it !ould be extre(ely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if
a candidate !ho has not ac>uired the (a=ority or plurality of votes is proclai(ed a !inner and i(posed as
the representative of a constituency, the (a=ority of !hich have positively declared through their ballots that
they do not choose hi(.
)ound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those !ho have received the highest nu(ber of
votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a funda(ental idea in all republican for(s of govern(ent
that no one can be declared elected and no (easure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a
(a=ority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. ?62 #orpus *uris 6nd, ) 6/D, p. 676.@
3he fact that the candidate !ho obtained the highest nu(ber of votes is later declared to be dis>ualified or
not eligible for the office to !hich he !as elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate !ho obtained the
second highest nu(ber of votes to be declared the !inner of the elective office. 3he votes cast for a dead,
dis>ualified, or non:eligible person (ay not be valid to vote the !inner into office or (aintain hi( there.
$o!ever, in the absence of a statute !hich clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the
(atter, if the votes !ere cast in the sincere belief that the candidate !as alive, >ualified, or eligible, they
should not be treated as stray, void or (eaningless. ?at pp. 62:6.@
#onsidering all the foregoing, I a( constrained to vote for the dis(issal of the petition.
MENDOA, J., separate opinion9
In (y vie! the issue in this case is !hether the #o((ission on Alections has the po!er to
dis>ualify candidates on the ground that they lack eligibility for the office to !hich they
seek to be elected. I think that it has none and that the >ualifications of candidates (ay be
>uestioned only in the event they are elected, by filing a petition for quo 4arranto or an
election protest in the appropriate foru(, not necessarily in the #GMA0A# but, as in this
case, in the $ouse of Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal. 3hat the parties in this case took
part in the proceedings in the #GMA0A# is of no (o(ent. )uch proceedings !ere
unauthori&ed and !ere not rendered valid by their agree(ent to sub(it their dispute to
that body.
3he various election la!s !ill be searched in vain for authori&ed proceedings for
deter(ining a candidate<s >ualifications for an office before his election. 3here are none in
the G(nibus Alection #ode ?7.'. 7lg. 55.@, in the Alectoral Refor(s 0a! of .-57 ?R.A.
No. 66/6@, or in the la! providing for synchroni&ed elections ?R.A. No. 7.66@. 3here are, in
other !ords, no provisions for pre:procla(ation contests but only election protests or quo
4arranto proceedings against !inning candidates.
3o be sure, there are provisions deno(inated for "dis>ualification," but they are not
concerned !ith a declaration of the ineligibility of a candidate. 3hese provisions are
concerned !ith the incapacity ?due to insanity, inco(petence or conviction of an offense@
of a person either to /e a candidate or to continue as a candidate for public office. 3here is
also a provision for the denial or cancellation of certificates of candidacy, but it applies only
to cases involving false representations as to certain (atters re>uired by la! to be stated
in the certificates.
3hese provisions are found in the follo!ing parts of the G(nibus Alection #ode9
R .6. !isqualifications. I Any person !ho has been declared by co(petent authority insane or inco(petent,
or has been sentenced by final =udg(ent for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for !hich
he has been sentenced to a penalty of (ore than eighteen (onths or for a cri(e involving (oral turpitude,
shall be dis>ualified to /e a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or
granted a(nesty.
3he dis>ualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be dee(ed re(oved upon the declaration by
co(petent authority that said insanity or inco(petence had been re(oved or after the expiration of a period
of five years fro( his service of sentence, unless !ithin the sa(e period he again beco(es dis>ualified.
?A(phasis added@
R 65. !isqualifications. I Any candidate !ho, in an action or protest in !hich he is a party is declared by
final decision of a co(petent court guilty of, or found by the #o((ission of having ?a@ given (oney or other
(aterial consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials perfor(ing electoral
functionsB ?b@ co((itted acts of terroris( to enhance his candidacyB ?c@ spent in his election ca(paign an
a(ount in excess of that allo!ed by this #odeB ?d@ solicited, received or (ade any contribution prohibited
under )ections 5-, -, -6, -7 and .2/B or ?e@ violated any of )ections 52, 5D, 5, 56 and 66., paragraphs d,
e, k, v, and cc, sub:paragraph 6, shall be dis>ualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been
elected, fro( holding the office. Any person !ho is a per(anent resident of or an i((igrant to a foreign
country shall not be >ualified to run for any elective office under this #ode, unless said person has !aived
his status as per(anent resident or i((igrant of a foreign country in accordance !ith the residence
re>uire(ent provided for in the election la!s. ?A(phasis added@
R 75. Petition to den. due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidac.. I A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy (ay be
filed by any person e7clusivel. on t(e ground t(at an. material representation contained t(erein as required
under Section BD (ereof is false. 3he petition (ay be filed at any ti(e not later than t!enty:five days fro( the
ti(e of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later
than fifteen days before the election. ?A(phasis added@
the Alectoral Refor(s 0a! of .-57 ?R.A. No. 66/6@9
R 6. Effect of !isqualification Case. I Any candidate !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be
dis>ualified s(all not /e voted for, and the votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. +f for an. reason a
candidate is not declared /. final 3udgment /efore an election to /e disqualified and (e is voted for and
receives t(e 4inning num/er of votes in suc( election, the #ourt or #o((ission shall continue !ith the trial
and hearing of the action, in>uiry or protest andB upon (otion for the co(plainant or any intervenor, (ay
during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the procla(ation of such candidate 4(enever t(e
evidence of (is guilt is strong. ?A(phasis added@.
R 7. Petition to !en. !ue Course to or Cancel a Certificate of Candidac.. I 3he procedure hereinabove
provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in
)ection 75 of 7atas 'a(bansa 7lg. 55..
and the 0ocal 1overn(ent #ode of .--. ?R.A. No. 7.62@9
R /2. !isqualifications. I 3he follo!ing persons are dis>ualified fro( running for any elective local position9
?a@ 3hose sentenced by final =udg(ent for an offense involving (oral turpitude or for an offense punishable
by one ?.@ year or (ore of i(prison(ent, !ithin t!o ?6@ years after serving sentenceB
?b@ 3hose re(oved fro( office as a result of on ad(inistrative caseB
?c@ 3hose convicted by final =udg(ent for violating the oath of allegiance to the RepublicB
?d@ 3hose !ith dual citi&enshipB
?e@ ,ugitive fro( =ustice in cri(inal or nonpolitical cases here or abroadB
?f@ 'er(anent residents in a foreign country or those !ho have ac>uired the right to reside abroad and
continue to avail of the sa(e right after the effectivity of this #odeB and
?g@ 3he insane or feeble:(inded.
3he petition filed by private respondent #irilo Roy Monte=o in the #GMA0A#, !hile entitled
",or #ancellation and His>ualification," contained no allegation that private respondent
I(elda Ro(ualde&:Marcos (ade (aterial representations in her certificate of candidacy
!hich !ere false, it sought her dis>ualification on the ground that "on the basis of her
8oter Registration Record and #ertificate of #andidacy, EsheF is dis>ualified fro( running
for the position of Representative, considering that on election day, May 5, .--, EsheF
!ould have resided less than ten ?.2@ (onths in the district !here she is seeking to be
elected." ,or its part, the #GMA0A#<s )econd Hivision, in its resolution of April 6/, .--,
cancelled her certificate of candidacy and corrected certificate of candidacy on the basis of
its finding that petitioner is "not >ualified to run for the position of Me(ber of the $ouse of
Representatives for the ,irst 0egislative Histrict of 0eyte" and not because of any finding
that she had (ade false representations as to (aterial (atters in her certificate of
candidacy.
Monte=o<s petition before the #GMA0A# !as therefore not a petition for cancellation of
certificate of candidacy under R 75 of the G(nibus Alection #ode, but essentially a petition
to declare private respondent ineligible. It is i(portant to note this, because, as !ill
presently be explained, proceedings under R 75 have for their purpose to dis>ualify a
person fro( being a candidate, !hereas quo 4arranto proceedings have for their purpose
to dis>ualify a person fro( holding pu/lic office. *urisdiction over quo 4arranto
proceedings involving (e(bers of the $ouse of Representatives is vested in the Alectoral
3ribunal of that body.
Indeed, in the only cases in !hich this #ourt dealt !ith petitions for the cancellation of
certificates of candidacy, the allegations !ere that the respondent candidates had (ade
false representations in their certificates of candidacy !ith regard to their citi&ens(ip,
1
age,
6
or residence.
3
7ut in the generality of cases in !hich this #ourt passed upon the
>ualifications of respondents for office, this #ourt did so in the context of election protests
4
or quo 4arranto proceedings
4
filed after t(e proclamation of t(e respondents or
protestees as 4inners.
3hree reasons (ay be cited to explain the absence of an authori&ed proceeding for
deter(ining /efore election the >ualifications of a candidate.
,irst is the fact that unless a candidate !ins and is proclai(ed elected, there is no
necessity for deter(ining his eligibility for the office. In contrast, !hether an individual
should be dis>ualified as a candidate for acts constituting election offenses ?e.g., vote
buying, over spending, co((ission of prohibited acts@ is a pre=udicial >uestion !hich
should be deter(ined lest he !ins because of the very acts for !hich his dis>ualification is
being sought. 3hat is !hy it is provided that if the grounds for dis>ualification are
established, a candidate !ill not be voted forB if he has been voted for, the votes in his
favor !ill not be countedB and if for so(e reason he has been voted for and he has !on,
either he !ill not be proclai(ed or his procla(ation !ill be set aside.
2
)econd is the fact that the deter(ination of a candidate<s eligibility, e.g., his citi&enship or,
as in this case, his do(icile, (ay take a long ti(e to (ake, extending beyond the
beginning of the ter( of the office. 3his is a(ply de(onstrated in the co(panion case
?1.R. No. .6266, Agapito A. A>uino v. #GMA0A#@ !here the deter(ination of A>uino<s
residence !as still pending in the #GMA0A# even after the elections of May 5, .--. 3his
is contrary to the su((ary character of proceedings relating to certificates of candidacy.
3hat is !hy the la! (akes the receipt of certificates of candidacy a (inisterial duty of the
#GMA0A# and its officers.
7
3he la! is satisfied if candidates state in their certificates of
candidacy that they are eligible for the position !hich they seek to fill, leaving the
deter(ination of their >ualifications to be (ade after the election and only in the event they
are elected. Gnly in cases involving charges of false representations (ade in certificates
of candidacy is the #GMA0A# given =urisdiction.
3hird is the policy underlying the prohibition against pre:procla(ation cases in elections for
'resident, 8ice 'resident, )enators and (e(bers of the $ouse of Representatives. ?R.A.
No. 7.66, R .@ 3he purpose is to preserve the prerogatives of the $ouse of
Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal and the other 3ribunals as "sole =udges" under the
#onstitution of the election, returns and qualifications of (e(bers of #ongress or of the
'resident and 8ice 'resident, as the case (ay be.
7y providing in R 6D for the re(edy of quo 4arranto for deter(ining an elected official<s
>ualifications after the results of elections are proclai(ed, !hile being conspicuously silent
about a pre:procla(ation re(edy based on the sa(e ground, the G(nibus Alection #ode,
or GA#, by its silence underscores the policy of not authori&ing any in>uiry into the
>ualifications of candidates unless they have been elected.
Apparently reali&ing the lack of an authori&ed proceeding for declaring the ineligibility of
candidates, the #GMA0A# a(ended its rules on ,ebruary ., .--D so as to provide in
Rule 6, R . the follo!ing9
1rounds for disqualification. I Any candidate !ho does not possess all the >ualifications of a candidate as
provided for by the #onstitution or by existing la! or !ho co((its any act declared by la! to be grounds for
dis>ualification (ay be dis>ualified fro( continuing as a candidate.
3he lack of provision for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, ho!ever, cannot be
supplied by a (ere rule. )uch an act is e>uivalent to the creation of a cause of action
!hich is a substantive (atter !hich the #GMA0A#, in the exercise of its rule(aking po!er
under Art. IP, A, R 6 of the #onstitution, cannot do. It is note!orthy that the #onstitution
!ithholds fro( the #GMA0A# even the po!er to decide cases involving the right to vote,
!hich essentially involves an in>uiry into qualifications based on age, residence and
citi&ens(ip of voters. ?Art. IP, #, R 6?D@@
3he assi(ilation in Rule 6 of the #GMA0A# rules of grounds for ineligibility into grounds
for dis>ualification is contrary to the evident intention of the la!. ,or not only in their
grounds but also in their conse>uences are proceedings for "dis>ualification" different fro(
those for a declaration of "ineligibility." "His>ualification" proceedings, as already stated,
are based on grounds specified in RR .6 and 65 of the G(nibus Alection #ode and in R /2
of the 0ocal 1overn(ent #ode and are for the purpose of barring an individual fro(
/ecoming a candidate or from continuing as a candidate for public office. In a !ord, their
purpose is to eliminate a candidate from t(e race either fro( the start or during its
progress. "Ineligibility," on the other hand, refers to the lack of the >ualifications prescribed
in the #onstitution or the statutes for holding pu/lic office and the purpose of the
proceedings for declaration of ineligibility is to remove t(e incum/ent from office.
#onse>uently, that an individual possesses the >ualifications for a public office does not
i(ply that he is not dis>ualified fro( beco(ing a candidate or continuing as a candidate
for a public office and vice versa. Ce have this sort of dichoto(y in our Naturali&ation 0a!.
?#.A. No. /7D@ 3hat an alien has the >ualifications prescribed in R 6 of the la! does not
i(ply that he does not suffer fro( any of dis>ualifications provided in R /.
Indeed, provisions for dis>ualifications on the ground that the candidate is guilty of
prohibited election practices or offenses, like other pre:procla(ation re(edies, are ai(ed
at the detestable practice of "grabbing the procla(ation and prolonging the election
protest,"
8
through the use of "(anufactured" election returns or resort to other trickery for
the purpose of altering the results of the election. 3his rationale does not apply to cases for
deter(ining a candidate<s >ualifications for office before the election. 3o the contrary, it is
the candidate against !ho( a proceeding for dis>ualification is brought !ho could be
pre=udiced because he could be prevented fro( assu(ing office even though in end he
prevails.
3o su((ari&e, the declaration of ineligibility of a candidate (ay only be sought in an
election protest or action for quo 4arranto filed pursuant to R 6D of the G(nibus Alection
#ode !ithin .2 days after his procla(ation. Cith respect to elective local officials ?e.g.,
1overnor, 8ice 1overnor, (e(bers of the )angguniang 'anlala!igan, etc.@ such petition
(ust be filed either !ith the #GMA0A#, the Regional 3rial #ourts, or Municipal 3rial
#ourts, as provided in Art. IP, #, R 6?6@ of the #onstitution. In the case of the 'resident
and 8ice 'resident, the petition (ust be filed !ith the 'residential Alectoral 3ribunal ?Art.
8II, R /, last paragraph@, and in the case of the )enators, !ith the )enate Alectoral
3ribunal, and in the case of #ongress(en, !ith the $ouse of Representatives Alectoral
3ribunal. ?Art. 8I, R .7@ 3here is greater reason for not allo!ing before the election the
filing of dis>ualification proceedings based on alleged ineligibility in the case of candidates
for 'resident, 8ice 'resident, )enators and (e(bers of the $ouse of Representatives,
because of the sa(e policy prohibiting the filing of pre:procla(ation cases against such
candidates.
,or these reasons, I a( of the opinion that the #GMA0A# had no =urisdiction over )'A
No. -:22-B that its proceedings in that case, including its >uestioned orders, are voidB and
that the eligibility of petitioner I(elda Ro(ualde&:Marcos for the office of Representative of
the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte (ay only be in>uired into by the $RA3.
Accordingly, I vote to grant the petition and to annul the proceedings of the #o((ission on
Alections in )'A No. -:22-, including its >uestioned orders doted April 6/, .--, May 7,
.--, May .., .-- and May 6, .--, declaring petitioner I(elda Ro(ualde&:Marcos
ineligible and ordering her procla(ation as Representative of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte
suspended. 3o the extent that Rule 6 of the #GMA0A# Rules of 'rocedure authori&es
proceedings for the dis>ualification of candidates on the ground of ineligibility for the office,
it should considered void.
3he provincial board of canvassers should no! proceed !ith the procla(ation of
petitioner.
Narvasa, C.J., concurs.
)ADILLA, J., dissenting9
I regret that I cannot =oin the (a=ority opinion as expressed in the !ell:!ritten ponencia of
Mr. *ustice Kapunan.
As in any controversy arising out of a #onstitutional provision, the in>uiry (ust begin and
end !ith the provision itself. 3he controversy should not be blurred by !hat, to (e, are
acade(ic dis>uisitions. In this particular controversy, the #onstitutional provision on point
states that I "no person shall be a (e(ber of the $ouse of Representatives unless he is
a natural:born citi&en of the 'hilippines, and on the day of the election, is at least t!enty:
five ?6@ years of age, able to read and !rite, and except the party list representatives, a
registered voter in the district in !hich he shall be elected, and a resident t(ereof for a
period of not less t(an one .ear immediatel. preceding t(e da. of t(e electi on." ?Article 8I,
section 6@
It has been argued that for purposes of our election la!s, the ter( residence has been
understood as synony(ous !ith domicile. 3his argu(ent has been validated by no less
than the #ourt in nu(erous cases
1
!here significantly the factual circumstances clearly
and convincingly proved that a person does not effectively lose his do(icile of origin if the
intention to reside therein is (anifest !ith his personal presence in the place, coupled 4it(
conduct indicative of suc( intention.
Cith this basic thesis in (ind, it !ould not be difficult to conceive of different (odalities
!ithin !hich the phrase "a resident thereof ?(eaning, the legislative district@ for a period of
not less than one year" !ould fit.
3he first instance is !here a person<s residence and do(icile coincide in !hich case a
person only has to prove that he has been do(iciled in a per(anent location for not less
than a year before the election.
A second situation is !here a person (aintains a residence apart fro( his do(icile in
!hich case he !ould have the luxury of district shopping, provided of course, he satisfies
the one:year residence period in the district as the (ini(u( period for eligibility to the
position of congressional representative for the district.
In either case, one !ould not be constitutionally dis>ualified for abandoning his residence
in order to return to his do(icile of origin, or better still, do(icile of choiceB neither !ould
one be dis>ualified for abandoning altogether his do(icile in favor of his residence in the
district !here he desires to be a candidate.
3he (ost extre(e circu(stance !ould be a situation !herein a person (aintains several
residences in different districts. )ince his do(icile of origin continues as an option as long
as there is no effective abandon(ent ?animus non revertendi@, he can practically choose
the district (ost advantageous for hi(.
All these theoretical scenarios, ho!ever, are te(pered by the una(biguous li(itation that
Efor a period of not less t(an one .ear immediatel. preceding t(e da. of t(e electionE, he
(ust be a resident in the district !here he desires to be elected.
3o (y (ind, the one year residence period is crucial regardless of !hether or not the ter(
"residence" is to be synony(ous !ith "do(icile." In other !ords, the candidate<s intent and
actual presence in one district (ust in all situations satisfy the length of ti(e prescribed by
the funda(ental la!. And this, because of a definite #onstitutional purpose. $e (ust be
fa(iliar !ith the environ(ent and proble(s of a district he intends to represent in
#ongress and the one:year residence in said district !ould be the (ini(u( period to
ac>uire such fa(iliarity, if not versatility.
In the case of petitioner I(elda R. Marcos, the operative facts are distinctly set out in the
no! assailed decision of the #o(elec 6nd Hivision dated 6/ April .-- ?as affir(ed by the
#o(elec en /anc@ I
In or about .-D5 !hen respondent !as a little over 5 years old, she established her do(icile in 3acloban,
0eyte ?3acloban #ity@. )he studied in the $oly Infant Acade(y in 3acloban fro( .-D5 to .-/5 !hen she
graduated fro( high school. )he pursued her college studies in )t. 'aul<s #ollege, no! Hivine Cord
%niversity of 3acloban, !here she earned her degree in Aducation. 3hereafter, she taught in the 0eyte
#hinese $igh )chool, still in 3acloban #ity. In .-6 she !ent to Manila to !ork !ith her cousin, the late
)peaker Haniel +. Ro(ualde& in his office in the $ouse of Representatives. In .-/, she (arried ex:
president ,erdinand Marcos !hen he !as still a congress(an of Ilocos Norte. )he lived !ith hi( in 7atac,
Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. Chen her husband !as elected )enator of the Republic in
.--, she and her husband lived together in )an *uan, Ri&al !here she registered as a voter. In .-6 !hen
her husband !as elected 'resident of the Republic of the 'hilippines, she lived !ith hi( in Malacanang
'alace and registered as a voter in )an Miguel, Manila.
Huring the Marcos presidency, respondent served as a Me(ber of the 7atasang 'a(bansa, Minister of
$u(an )ettle(ents and 1overnor of Metro Manila. )he clai(ed that in ,ebruary .-56, she and her fa(ily
!ere abducted and kidnapped to $onolulu, $a!aii. In Nove(ber .--., she ca(e ho(e to Manila. In .--6
respondent ran for election as 'resident of the 'hilippines and filed her #ertificate of #andidacy !herein she
indicated that she is a resident and registered voter of )an *uan, Metro Manila. Gn August 6/, .--/,
respondent filed a letter !ith the election officer of )an *uan, Metro Manila, re>uesting for cancellation of her
registration in the 'er(anent 0ist of 8oters in 'recinct No. .7 of )an *uan, Metro Manila, in order that she
(ay be re:registered or transferred to 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte. ?Annex 6:7, Ans!er@. Gn August D., .--/,
respondent filed her )!orn Application for #ancellation of 8oter<s 'revious Registration ?Annex 6:#, Ans!er@
stating that she is a duly registered voter in .7:A, 7rgy. Maytunas, )an *uan, Metro that she intends to
register at 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte.
Gn *anuary 65, .-- respondent registered as a voter at 'recinct No. .5:A of Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte. )he filed
!ith the 7oard of Alection Inspectors #A ,or( No. ., 8oter Registration Record No. -/:DD/-776, !herein
she alleged that she has resided in the (unicipality of 3olosa for a period of 6 (onths ?Annex A, 'etition@.
Gn March 5, .--, respondent filed !ith the Gffice of the 'rovincial Alection )upervisor, 0eyte, a #ertificate
of #andidacy for the position of Representative of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte !herein she also alleged that she
has been a resident in the constituency !here she seeks to be elected for a period of 7 (onths. 3he
pertinent entries therein are as follo!s9
7. 'RG,A))IGN GR G##%'A3IGN9 $ouse:!ife; 3eacher; )ocial Corker
5. RA)IHAN#A ?co(plete address@9 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte
'ost Gffice Address for election purposes9 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte
-. RA)IHAN#A IN 3$A #GN)3I3%AN#J C$ARAIN I )AAK 3G 7A A0A#3AH IMMAHIA3A0J
'RA#AHIN1 A0A#3IGN9 LLLLLLLL Jears Seven Months
.2. I AM NG3 A 'ARMANAN3 RA)IHAN3 G,, GR IMMI1RAN3 3G, A ,GRAI1N #G%N3RJ.
3$A3 I AM A0I1I70A for said officeB 3hat I !ill support and defend the #onstitution of the Republic of the
'hilippines and !ill (aintain true faith and allegiance theretoB 3hat I !ill obey the la!s, legal orders and
decrees pro(ulgated by the duly:constituted authoritiesB 3hat the obligation i(posed by (y oath is assu(ed
voluntarily, !ithout (ental reservation or purpose of evasionB and 3hat the facts stated herein are true to the
best of (y kno!ledge.
?)gd.@ I(elda Ro(ualde&:Marcos
?)ignature of #andidate@
6
'etitioner<s aforestated certificate of candidacy filed on 5 March .-- contains the decisive
co(ponent or seed of her dis>ualification. It is contained in her ans!er under oath of
"seven mont(s" to the >uery of "residence in the constituency !herein I seek to be elected
i((ediately preceding the election."
It follo!s fro( all the above that the #o(elec co((itted no grave abuse of discretion in
holding that petitioner is dis>ualified fro( the position of representative for the .st
congressional district of 0eyte in the elections of
5 May .--, for failure to (eet the "not less than one:year residence in the constituency
?.st district, 0eyte@ i((ediately preceding the day of election
?5 May .--@."
$aving arrived at petitioner<s dis>ualification to be a representative of the first district of
0eyte, the next i(portant issue to resolve is !hether or not the #o(elec can order the
7oard of #anvassers to determine and proclaim t(e 4inner out of the remaining qualified
candidates for representative in said district.
I a( not una!are of the pronounce(ent (ade by this #ourt in the case of La/o vs.
Comelec, 1.R. 566/, August ., .-5-, .76 )#RA . !hich gave the rationale as laid do!n
in the early .-.6 case of *opacio vs. Paredes, 6D 'hil. 6D5 that9
. . . . )ound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those !ho have received the highest
nu(ber of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a funda(ental idea in all republican for(s of
govern(ent that no one can be declared elected and no (easure can be declared carried unless he or it
receives a (a=ority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. ?62 #orpus *uris 6nd, ) 6/D, p. 676@
3he fact that the candidate !ho obtained the highest nu(ber of votes is later declared to be dis>ualified or
not eligible for the office to !hich he !as elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate !ho obtained the
second highest nu(ber of votes to be declared the !inner of the elective office. 3he votes cast for a dead,
dis>ualified, or non:eligible person (ay not be valid to vote the !inner into office or (aintain hi( there.
$o!ever, in t(e a/sence of a statute !hich clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the
(atter, if the votes !ere cast in the sincere belief that the candidate !as alive, >ualified, or eligible, they
should not be treated as stray, void or (eaningless.
%nder )ec. 6 RA 66/6, ?An Act Introducing Additional Refor(s in the Alectoral )yste( and
for other purposes@ ?5/ G.1. -2, 66 ,ebruary .-55@ it is provided that9
. . . I Any candidate !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be dis>ualified shall not be voted for, and
the votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final =udg(ent
before an election to be dis>ualified and he is voted for and receives the !inning nu(ber of votes in such
election, the #ourt or #o((ission shall continue !ith the trial and hearing of the action, in>uiry or protest
and, upon (otion of the co(plainant or any intervenor, (ay, during the pendency thereof order the
suspension of the procla(ation of such candidate !henever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
3here is no need to indulge in legal her(eneutics to sense the plain and una(biguous
(eaning of the provision >uoted above. As the la! no! stands, the legislative policy does
not li(it its concern !ith the effect of a final =udge(ent of dis>ualification only /efore the
election, but even during or after the election. 3he la! is clear that in all situations, the
votes cast for a dis>ualified candidate )$A00 NG3 7A #G%N3AH. 3he la! has also
validated the =urisdiction of the #ourt or #o((ission on Alection to continue hearing the
petition for dis>ualification in case a candidate is voted for and receives the highest
nu(ber of votes, if for an. reason, (e is not declared /. final 3udgment /efore an election
to /e disqualified.
)ince the present case is an after election scenario, the po!er to suspend procla(ation
?!hen evidence of his guilt is strong@ is also explicit under the la!. Chat happens then
!hen after the elections are over, one is declared dis>ualifiedN 3hen, votes cast for hi(
"shall not be counted" and in legal conte(plation, he no longer received the highest
nu(ber of votes.
It stands to reason that )ection 6 of RA 66/6 does not (ake the second placer the !inner
si(ply because a "!inning candidate is dis>ualified," but that the la! considers hi( as the
candidate !ho had obtained the highest nu(ber of votes as a result of the votes cast for
the dis>ualified candidate not being counted or considered.
As this la! clearly reflects the legislative policy on the (atter, then there is no reason !hy
this #ourt should not re:exa(ine and conse>uently abandon the doctrine in the *un 0abo
case. It has been stated that "the >ualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be
erased by the electorate alone. 3he !ill of the people as expressed through the ballot
cannot cure the vice of ineligibility" (ost especially !hen it is (andated by no less than
the #onstitution.
A##GRHIN10J, I vote to HI)MI)) the petition and to order the 'rovincial 7oard of
#anvassers of 0eyte to proclai( the candidate receiving the highest nu(ber of votes, fro(
a(ong the >ualified candidates, as the duly elected representative of the .st district of
0eyte.
2ermosisima, Jr. J., dissent.
REGALADO, J., dissenting9
Chile I agree !ith sa(e of the factual bases of the (a=ority opinion, I cannot arrive
con=ointly at the sa(e conclusion dra!n therefro( $ence, this dissent !hich assuredly is
not for(ulated "on the basis of the personality of a petitioner in a case."
I go along !ith the (a=ority in their narration of antecedent facts, insofar as the sa(e are
pertinent to this case, and !hich I have si(plified as follo!s9
.. 'etitioner, although born in Manila, resided during her childhood in the present 3acloban #ity, she being a
legiti(ate daughter of parents !ho appear to have taken up per(anent residence therein. )he also !ent to
school there and, for a ti(e, taught in one of the schools in that city.
6. Chen she (arried then Rep. ,erdinand A. Marcos !ho !as then do(iciled in 7atac, Ilocos Norte, by
operation of la! she ac>uired a ne! do(icile in that place in .-/.
D. In the successive years and during the events that happened thereafter, her husband having been elected
as a )enator and then as 'resident, she lived !ith hi( and their fa(ily in )an *uan, Ri&al and then in
Malacanang 'alace in )an Miguel, Manila.
/. Gver those years, she registered as a voter and actually voted in 7atac, Ilocos Norte, then in )an *uan,
Ri&al, and also in )an Miguel, Manila, all these (erely in the exercise of the right of suffrage.
. It does not appear that her husband, even after he had assu(ed those lofty positions successively, ever
abandoned his do(icile of origin in 7atac, Ilocos Norte !here he (aintained his residence and invariably
voted in all elections.
6. After the ouster of her husband fro( the presidency in .-56 and the so=ourn of the Marcos fa(ily in
$onolulu, $a!aii, %.).A., she eventually returned to the 'hilippines in .--. and resided in different places
!hich she clai(ed to have been (erely te(porary residences.
7. In .--6, petitioner ran for election as 'resident of the 'hilippines and in her certificate of candidacy she
indicated that she !as then a registered voter and resident of )an *uan, Metro Manila.
5. Gn August 6/, .--/, she filed a letter for the cancellation of her registration in the 'er(anent 0ist of
8oters in 'recinct No. .7 of )an *uan, Metro Manila in order that she (ay "be re:registered or transferred
to 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte." Gn August D., .--/, she follo!ed this up !ith her )!orn Application for
#ancellation of 8oter<s 'revious Registration !herein she stated that she !as a registered voter in 'recinct
No. .7:A, 7rgy. Maytunas, )an *uan, Metro Manila and that she intended to register in 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa,
0eyte.
-. Gn *anuary 65, .--, petitioner registered as a voter at 'recinct No. .5:A of Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, for !hich
purpose she filed !ith the therein 7oard of Alection Inspectors a voter<s registration record for( alleging that
she had resided in that (unicipality for six (onths.
.2. Gn March 5, .--, petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the
,irst Histrict of 0eyte !herein she alleged that she had been a resident for "Seven Months" of the
constituency !here she sought to be elected.
... Gn March 6-, .--, she filed an "A(ended;#orrected #ertificate of #andidacy" !herein her ans!er in
the original certificate of candidacy to ite( "5. RA)IHAN#A IN 3$A #GN)3I3%AN#J C$ARA I )AAK, 3G
7A A0A#3AH IMMAHIA3A0J 'RA#AHIN1 3$A A0A#3IGN9" !as changed or replaced !ith a ne! entry
reading ")IN#A #$I0H$GGH."
3he sole issue for resolution is !hether, for purposes of her candidacy, petitioner had
co(plied !ith the residency re>uire(ent of one year as (andated by no less than )ection
6, Article 8I of the .-57 #onstitution.
I do not intend to i(pose upon the ti(e of (y colleagues !ith a dissertation on the
difference bet!een residence and do(icile. Ce have had enough of that and I understand
that for purposes of political la! and, for that (atter of international la!, residence is
understood to be synony(ous !ith do(icile. 3hat is so understood in our =urisprudence
and in A(erican 0a!, in contradistinction to the concept of residence for purposes of civil,
co((ercial and procedural la!s !henever an issue thereon is relevant or controlling.
#onse>uently, since in the present case the >uestion of petitioner<s residence is integrated
in and inseparable fro( her do(icile, I a( addressing the issue fro( the standpoint of the
concept of the latter ter(, specifically its per(utations into the do(icile of origin, do(icile
of choice and do(icile by operation of la!, as understood in A(erican la! fro( !hich for
this case !e have taken our =urisprudential bearings.
My readings infor( (e that the do(icile of the parents at the ti(e of birth, or !hat is
ter(ed the "do(icile of origin," constitutes the do(icile of an infant until abandoned, or
until the ac>uisition of a ne! do(icile in a different place.
1
In the instant case, !e (ay
grant that petitioner<s do(icile of origin,
6
at least as of .-D5, !as !hat is no! 3acloban
#ity.
No!, as I have observed earlier, do(icile is said to be of three kinds, that is, do(icile by
birth, do(icile by choice, and do(icile by operation of la!. 3he first is the co((on case of
the place of birth or domicilium originis, the second is that !hich is voluntarily ac>uired by
a party or domicilium propio motuB the last !hich is conse>uential, as that of a !ife arising
fro( (arriage,
3
is so(eti(es called domicilium necesarium. 3here is no debate that the
do(icile of origin can be lost or replaced by a do(icile of choice or a do(icile by operation
of la! subse>uently ac>uired by the party.
Chen petitioner contracted (arriage in .-/ !ith then Rep. Marcos, by operation of la!,
not only international or A(erican but of our o!n enact(ent,
4
she ac>uired her husband<s
do(icile of origin in 7atac, Ilocos Norte and correspondingly lost her o!n do(icile of origin
in 3acloban #ity.
$er subse>uent changes of residence I to )an *uan, Ri&al, then to )an Miguel, Manila,
thereafter to $onolulu, $a!aii, and back to no! )an *uan, Metro Manila I do not appear
to have resulted in her thereby ac>uiring ne! do(iciles of choice. In fact, it appears that
her having resided in those places !as by reason of the fortunes or (isfortunes of her
husband and his peregrinations in the assu(ption of ne! official positions or the loss of
the(. $er residence in $onolulu and, of course, those after her return to the 'hilippines
!ere, as she clai(ed, against her !ill or only for transient purposes !hich could not have
invested the( !ith the status of do(iciles of choice.
4
After petitioner<s return to the 'hilippines in .--. and up to the present i(broglio over her
re>uisite residency in 3acloban #ity or Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, there is no sho!ing that she
ever atte(pted to ac>uire any other do(icile of choice !hich could have resulted in the
abandon(ent of her legal do(icile in 7atac, Ilocos Norte. Gn that score, !e note the
(a=ority<s o!n sub(ission
2
that, to successfully effect a change of do(icile, one (ust
de(onstrate ?a@ an actual re(oval or an actual change of do(icile, ?b@ a /ona fide
intention of abandoning the for(er place of residence and establishing a ne! one, and ?c@
acts !hich correspond !ith the purpose.
Ce conse>uently have to also note that these re>uire(ents for the ac>uisition of a
do(icile of choice apply !hether !hat is sought to be changed or substituted is a do(icile
of origin ?domicilium originis@ or a do(icile by operation of la! ?domicilium necesarium@.
)ince petitioner had lost her domicilium originis !hich had been replaced by her
domicilium necesarium, it is therefore her continuing do(icile in 7atac, Ilocos Norte !hich,
if at all, can be the ob=ect of legal change under the contingencies of the case at bar.
3o get out of this >uandary, the (a=ority decision echoes the dissenting opinion of
#o((issioner Regalado A. Maa(bong in )'A -:22- of the #o((ission on Alections,
7
and advances this novel proposition.
It (ay be said that petitioner lost her do(icile of origin by operation of la! as a result of her (arriage to the
late 'resident ,erdinand A. Marcos in .-6 ?sic, .-/@. 7y operation of la! ?domicilium necesarium@, her
legal do(icile at the ti(e of her (arriage beca(e 7atac, Ilocos Norte alt(oug( t(ere 4ere no indications of
an intention on (er part to a/andon (er domicile of origin. 7ecause of her husband<s subse>uent death and
through the operation of the provisions of the Ne! ,a(ily #ode already in force at the ti(e, ho!ever, (er
legal domicile automaticall. reverted to (er domicile of origin. . . . ?A(phasis supplied@.
,irstly, I a( pu&&led !hy although it is conceded that petitioner had ac>uired a domicilium
necesarium in 7atac, Ilocos Norte, the (a=ority insists on (aking a >ualification that she
did not intend to a/andon her do(icile of origin. I find this be!ildering since, in this
situation, it is the la! that declares !here petitioner<s do(icile is at any given ti(e, and not
her self:serving or putative intent to hold on to her for(er do(icile. Gther!ise, contrary to
their o!n ad(ission that one cannot have (ore than one do(icile at a ti(e,
8
the (a=ority
!ould be suggesting that petitioner retained 3acloban #ity as ?for lack of a ter( in la!
since it does not exist therein@ the e>uivalent of !hat is fancied as a reserved, dor(ant,
potential, or residual do(icile.
)econdly, do(icile once lost in accordance !ith la! can only be recovered like!ise in
accordance !ith la!. $o!ever, !e are here being titillated !ith the possibility of an
auto(atic reversion to or reac>uisition of a do(icile of origin after the ter(ination of the
cause for its loss by operation of la!. 3he (a=ority agrees that since petitioner lost her
do(icile of origin by her (arriage, the ter(ination of the (arriage also ter(inates that
effect thereof. I a( i(pressed by the ingeniousness of this theory !hich proves that,
indeed, necessity is the (other of inventions. Regretfully, I find so(e difficulty in accepting
either the logic or the validity of this argu(ent.
If a party loses his do(icile of origin by obtaining a ne! do(icile of choice, he thereby
voluntaril. a/andons the for(er in favor of the latter. If, thereafter, he abandons that
chosen do(icile, he does not per se recover his original do(icile unless, by subse>uent
acts legally indicative thereof, he evinces his intent and desire to establish the sa(e as his
ne! do(icile, !hich is precisely !hat petitioner belatedly and, evidently =ust for purposes
of her candidacy, unsuccessfully tried to do.
Gne<s subse>uent abandon(ent of his do(icile of choice cannot auto(atically restore his
do(icile of origin, not only because there is no legal authority therefor but because it
!ould be absurd 'ursued to its logical conse>uence, that theory of ipso 3ure reversion
!ould rule out the fact that said party could already very !ell have obtained another
do(icile, either of choice or by operation of la!, other than his do(icile of origin.
)ignificantly and obviously for this reason, the ,a(ily #ode, !hich the (a=ority
inexplicably invokes, advisedly does not regulate this contingency since it !ould i(pinge
on one<s freedo( of choice.
No!, in the instant case, petitioner not only voluntaril. a/andoned her do(icile of choice
?unless !e assu(e that she entered into the (arital state against her !ill@ but, on top of
that, such abandon(ent !as further affir(ed through her ac>uisition of a ne! do(icile by
operation of la4. In fact, this is even a case of both voluntar. and legal abandon(ent of a
do(icile of origin. Cith (uch (ore reason, therefore, should !e re=ect the proposition that
!ith the ter(ination of her (arriage in .-5-, petitioner had supposedly per se and ipso
facto reac>uired her do(icile of origin !hich she lost in .-/. Gther!ise, this !ould be
tanta(ount to saying that during the period of (arital coverture, she !as si(ultaneously in
possession and en=oy(ent of a do(icile of origin !hich !as only in a state of suspended
ani(ation.
3hus, the A(erican rule is like!ise to the effect that !hile after the husband<s death the
!ife has the right to elect her o!n do(icile,
9
she nevertheless retains the last do(icile of
her deceased husband until she (akes an actual change.
17
In the absence of affir(ative
evidence, to the contrary, the presu(ption is that a !ife<s do(icile or legal residence
follo!s that of her husband and !ill continue after his death.
11
I cannot appreciate the pre(ises advanced in support of the (a=ority<s theory based on
Articles 65 and 6- of the ,a(ily #ode. All that is of any relevance therein is that under this
ne! code, the right and po!er to fix the fa(ily do(icile is no! shared by the spouses. I
cannot perceive ho! that =oint right, !hich in the first place !as never exercised by the
spouses, could affect the do(icile fixed by the la! for petitioner in .-/ and, for her
husband, long prior thereto. It is true that a !ife no! has the coordinate po!er to
deter(ine the con3ugal or famil. do(icile, but that has no bearing on this case. Cith the
death of her husband, and each of her children having gotten (arried and established
their o!n respective do(iciles, the exercise of that =oint po!er !as and is no longer called
for or (aterial in the present factual setting of this controversy. Instead, !hat is of concern
in petitioner<s case !as the (atter of her having ac>uired or not her o!n do(icile of
choice.
I agree !ith the (a=ority<s discourse on the virtues of the gro!ing and expanded
participation of !o(en in the affairs of the nation, !ith e>ual rights and recognition by
#onstitution and statutory confer(ent. $o!ever, I have searched in vain for a specific la!
or =udicial pronounce(ent !hich either expressly or by necessary i(plication supports the
(a=ority<s desired theory of auto(atic reac>uisition of or reversion to the domicilium
originis of petitioner. Hefinitely, as bet!een the settled and desira/le legal nor(s that
should govern this issue, there is a !orld of differenceB and, un>uestionably, this should be
resolved by legislative articulation but not by the elo>uence of the !ell:turned phrase.
In su(, petitioner having lost 3acloban #ity as her do(icile of origin since .-/ and not
having auto(atically reac>uired any do(icile therein, she cannot legally clai( that her
residency in the political constituency of !hich it is a part continued since her birth up to
the present. Respondent co((ission !as, therefore, correct in re=ecting her pretension to
that effect in her a(ended;corrected certificate of candidacy, and in holding her to her
ad(ission in the original certificate that she had actually resided in that constituency for
only seven (onths prior to the election. 3hese considerations render it unnecessary to
further pass upon the procedural issues raised by petitioner.
GN 3$A ,GRA1GIN1 'RAMI)A), I vote to HI)MI)) the petition for lack of (erit.
DAVIDE, %R., J., dissenting9
I respectfully dissent fro( the opinion of the (a=ority !ritten by Mr. *ustice )antiago M.
Kapunan, (ore particularly on the issue of the petitioner<s >ualification.
%nder )ection 7, )ubdivision A, Article IP of the #onstitution, decisions, orders, or rulings
of the #GMA0A# (ay be brought to this #ourt only by the special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 6 of the Rules of #ourt ?Aratuc vs. #GMA0A#, 55 )#RA 6. E.-7-F B Hario
vs. Mison, .76 )#RA 5/ E.-5-F@.
Accordingly, a !rit of certiorari (ay be granted only if the #GMA0A# has acted !ithout or
in excess of =urisdiction or !ith grave abuse of discretion ?)ection ., Rule 6, Rules of
#ourt@. )ince the #GMA0A# has, undoubtedly, =urisdiction over the private respondent<s
petition, the only issue left is !hether it acted !ith grave abuse of discretion in
dis>ualifying the petitioner.
My careful and (eticulous perusal of the challenged resolution of 6/ April .-- of the
#GMA0A# )econd Hivision and the En Banc resolution of 7 May .-- discloses total
absence of abuse of discretion, (uch less grave abuse thereof. 3he resolution of the
)econd Hivision dispassionately and ob=ectively discussed in (inute details the facts
!hich established beyond cavil that herein petitioner !as dis>ualified as a candidate on
the ground of lack of residence in the ,irst #ongressional Histrict of 0eyte. It has not
(isapplied, (isco(prehended, or (isunderstood facts or circu(stances of substance
pertinent to the issue of her residence.
3he (a=ority opinion, ho!ever, overturned the #GMA0A#<s findings of fact for lack of proof
that the petitioner has abandoned 3olosa as her do(icile of origin, !hich is allegedly !ithin
the ,irst #ongressional Histrict of 0eyte.
I respectfully sub(it that the petitioner herself has provided the #GMA0A#, either by
ad(ission or by docu(entary evidence, over!hel(ing proof of the loss or abandon(ent of
her do(icile of origin, !hich is 3acloban #ity and not 3olosa, 0eyte. Assu(ing that she
decided to live again in her do(icile of origin, that beca(e her second do(icile of choice,
!here her stay, unfortunately, !as for only seven (onths before the day of the election.
)he !as then dis>ualified to be a candidate for the position of Representative of the ,irst
#ongressional Histrict of 0eyte. A holding to the contrary !ould be arbitrary.
It (ay indeed be conceded that the petitioner<s do(icile of choice !as either 3acloban #ity
or 3olosa, 0eyte. Nevertheless, she lost it /. operation of la4 sometime in "a. =>FD upon
(er marriage to the then #ongress(an ?later, 'resident@ ,erdinand A. Marcos. A do(icile
by operation of la! is that do(icile !hich the la! attributes to a person, independently of
his o!n intention or actual residence, as results fro( legal do(estic relations as that of the
!ife arising fro( (arriage ?65 #.*.). Ho(icile R 7, ..@. %nder the governing la! then,
Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode, her ne! do(icile or her do(icile of choice !as the do(icile
of her husband, !hich !as 7atac, Ilocos Norte. )aid Article reads as follo!s9
Art. ..2. 3he husband shall fix the residence of the fa(ily. 7ut the court (ay exe(pt the !ife fro( living !ith
the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic.
#o((enting thereon, civilist Arturo M. 3olentino states9
Although the duty of the spouses to live together is (utual, the husband has a predo(inant right because he
is e(po!ered by la! to fix the fa(ily residence. 3his right even predo(inates over so(e rights recogni&ed
by la! in the !ife. ,or instance, under article ..7 the !ife (ay engage in business or practice a profession
or occupation. 7ut because of the po!er of the husband to fix the famil. domicile he (ay fix it at such a
place as !ould (ake it i(possible for the !ife to continue in business or in her profession. ,or =ustifiable
reasons, ho!ever, the !ife (ay be exe(pted fro( living in the residence chosen by the husband. 3he
husband cannot validly allege desertion by the !ife !ho refuses to follo! hi( to a ne! place of residence,
!hen it appears that they have lived for years in a suitable ho(e belonging to the !ife, and that his choice of
a different ho(e is not (ade in good faith. ?#o((entaries and *urisprudence on the #ivil #ode of the
'hilippines, vol. ., .-5 ed., DD-@.
%nder co((on la!, a !o(an upon her (arriage loses her o!n do(icile and, by operation
of la!, ac>uires that of her husband, no (atter !here the !ife actually lives or !hat she
believes or intends. $er do(icile is fixed in the sense that it is declared to be the sa(e as
his, and sub=ect to certain li(itations, he can change her do(icile by changing his o!n ?6
A( *ur 6d Ho(icile R /5, D7@.
It (ust, ho!ever, be pointed out that under Article 6- of the ,a(ily #ode, the fixing of the
fa(ily do(icile is no longer the sole prerogative of the husband, but is no! a =oint decision
of the spouses, and in case of disagree(ent the court shall decide. 3he said article uses
the ter( "fa(ily do(icile," and not fa(ily residence, as "the spouses (ay have (ultiple
residences, and the !ife (ay elect to re(ain in one of such residences, !hich (ay
destroy the duty of the spouses to live together and its corresponding benefits" ?A0I#IA 8.
)AM'IG:HIJ, $andbook on the ,a(ily #ode of the 'hilippines, E.-55F, .26@.
3he theory of auto(atic restoration of a !o(an<s do(icile of origin upon the death of her
husband, !hich the (a=ority opinion adopts to overco(e the legal effect of the petitioner<s
(arriage on her do(icile, is unsupported by la! and by =urisprudence. 3he settled doctrine
is that after the husband<s death the !ife has a right to elect her o!n do(icile, but she
retains the last do(icile of her husband until she (akes an actual change ?65 #.*.).
Ho(icile R .6, 67@. Gr, on the death of the husband, the po!er of the !ife to ac>uire her
o!n do(icile is revived, but until she exercises the po!er her do(icile re(ains that of the
husband at the ti(e of his death ?6 A( *ur 6d Ho(icile R 66, /@. Note that !hat is
revived is not her do(icile of origin but (er po4er to acquire (er o4n domicile.
#learly, even after the death of her husband, the petitioner<s do(icile !as that of her
husband at the ti(e of his death I !hich !as 7atac, Ilocos Norte, since their residences
in )an *uan, Metro Manila, and )an Miguel, Manila, !ere their residences for convenience
to enable her husband to effectively perfor( his official duties. 3heir residence in )an *uan
!as a con=ugal ho(e, and it !as there to !hich she returned in .--. !hen she !as
already a !ido!. In her s!orn certificate of candidacy for the Gffice of the 'resident in the
synchroni&ed elections of May .--6, she indicated therein that she !as a resident of )an
*uan, Metro Manila. )he also voted in the said elections in that place.
Gn the basis of her evidence, it !as only on :D August =>>D !hen she exercised her right
as a !ido! to ac>uire her o!n do(icile in 3olosa, 0eyte, through her s!orn state(ent
re>uesting the Alection Gfficer of )an *uan, Metro Manila, to cancel her registration in the
per(anent list of voters in 'recinct .7 thereat and praying that she be "re:registered or
transferred to 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, the place of EherF birth and per(anent residence"
?photocopy of Axhibit "7," attached as Annex "6" of private respondent Monte=o<s
#o((ent@. Notably, she contradicted this s!orn state(ent regarding her place of birth
!hen, in her 8oter<s Affidavit s!orn to on . March .--6 ?photocopy of Axhibit "#,"
attached as Annex "D," +d.@, her 8oter Registration Record s!orn to on 65 *anuary .--
?photocopy of Axhibit "A," attached as Annex "," +d.@, and her #ertificate of #andidacy
s!orn to on 5 March .-- ?photocopy of Axhibit "A," attached as Annex ".," +d.@, she
sole(nly declared that she !as born in Manila.
3he petitioner is even uncertain as to her do(icile of origin. Is it 3acloban #ity or 3olosa,
0eyteN In the affidavit attached to her Ans!er to the petition for dis>ualification ?Annex "I"
of 'etition@, she declared under oath that her "do(icile or residence is 3acloban #ity." If
she did intend to return to such do(icile or residence of origin !hy did she infor( the
Alection Gfficer of )an *uan that she !ould transfer to Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, and indicate in
her 8oter<s Registration Record and in her certificate of candidacy that her residence is
Glot, 3olosa, 0eyteN Chile this uncertainty is not i(portant insofar as residence in the
congressional district is concerned, it nevertheless proves that forty:one years had already
lapsed since she had lost or abandoned her do(icile of origin by virtue of (arriage and
that such length of ti(e di(inished her po!er of recollection or blurred her (e(ory.
I find to be (isplaced the reliance by the (a=ority opinion on 'a.pon vs. #uirino ?-6 'hil.
6-/ E.-/F@, and the subse>uent cases !hich established the principle that absence fro(
original residence or do(icile of origin to pursue studies, practice one<s profession, or
engage in business in other states does not constitute loss of such residence or do(icile.
)o is the reliance on )ection ..7 of the G(nibus Alection #ode !hich provides that
transfer of residence to any other place by reason of one<s "occupationB professionB
e(ploy(ent in private and public serviceB educational activitiesB !ork in (ilitary or naval
reservationsB service in the ar(y, navy or air force, the constabulary or national police
forceB or confine(ent or detention in govern(ent institutions in accordance !ith la!" is not
dee(ed as loss of original residence. 3hose cases and legal provision do not include
(arriage of a !o(an. 3he reason for the exclusion is, of course, Article ..2 of the #ivil
#ode. If it !ere the intention of this #ourt or of the legislature to consider the (arriage of a
!o(an as a circu(stance !hich !ould not operate as an abandon(ent of do(icile ?of
origin or of choice@, then such cases and legal provision should have expressly (entioned
the sa(e.
3his #ourt should not accept as gospel truth the self:serving clai( of the petitioner in her
affidavit ?Annex "A" of her Ans!er in #GMA0A# )'A No. -:22-B Annex "I" of 'etition@
that her "do(icile or residence of origin is 3acloban #ity," and that she "never intended to
abandon this do(icile or residence of origin to !hich EsheF al!ays intended to return
!henever absent." )uch a clai( of intention cannot prevail over the effect of Article ..2 of
the #ivil #ode. 7esides, the facts and circu(stances or the vicissitudes of the petitioner<s
life after her (arriage in .-/ conclusively establish that she had indeed abandoned her
do(icile of origin and had ac>uired a ne! one animo et facto ?KG))%3$ KAN3 KANNAN,
A 3reatise on Residence and Ho(icile, E.-D/F, 6./, D66@.
Neither should this #ourt place co(plete trust on the petitioner<s clai( that she "(erely
co((itted an honest (istake" in !riting do!n the !ord "seven" in the space provided for
the residency >ualification re>uire(ent in the certificate of candidacy. )uch a clai( is self:
serving and, in the light of the foregoing dis>uisitions, !ould be all sound and fury
signifying nothing. 3o (e, she did not co((it any (istake, honest or other!iseB !hat she
stated !as the truth.
3he (a=ority opinion also disregards a basic rule in evidence that he !ho asserts a fact or
the affir(ative of an issue has the burden of proving it ?I(perial 8ictory )hipping Agency
vs. N0R#, 622 )#RA .75 E.--.FB '.3. #erna #orp. vs. #ourt of Appeals, 66. )#RA .-
E.--DF@. $aving ad(itted (arriage to the then #ongress(an Marcos, the petitioner could
not deny the legal conse>uence thereof on the change of her do(icile to that of her
husband. 3he (a=ority opinion rules or at least concludes that "EbFy operation of la!
?domicilium necesarium@, her legal do(icile at the ti(e of her (arriage auto(atically
beca(e 7atac, Ilocos Norte." 3hat conclusion is consistent !ith Article ..2 of the #ivil
#ode. )ince she is presu(ed to retain her deceased husband<s do(icile until she
exercises her revived po!er to ac>uire her o!n do(icile, the burden is upon her to prove
that she has exercised her right to ac>uire her o!n do(icile. )he (iserably failed to
discharge that burden.
I vote to deny the petition.
Se3"r",e O3.#.o#8
)UNO, J., concurring9
It !as Aristotle !ho taught (ankind that things that are alike should be treated alike, !hile
things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unalikeness.
1
0ike
other candidates, petitioner has clearly (et the residence re>uire(ent provided by )ection
6, Article 8I of the #onstitution.
6
Ce cannot dis>ualify her and treat her unalike, for the
#onstitution guarantees e>ual protection of the la!. I proceed fro( the follo!ing factual
and legal propositions9
,irst. 3here is no >uestion that petitioner<s original do(icile is in 3acloban, 0eyte. $er
parents !ere do(iciled in 3acloban. 3heir ancestral house is in 3acloban. 3hey have vast
real estate in the place. 'etitioner !ent to school and thereafter !orked there. I consider
3acloban as her initial do(icile, both her do(icile of origin and her do(icile of choice. $er
do(icile of origin as it !as the do(icile of her parents !hen she !as a (inorB and her
do(icile of choice, as she continued living there even after reaching the age of (a=ority.
)econd. 3here is also no >uestion that in May, .-/, petitioner (arried the late 'resident
,erdinand A. Marcos. 7y contracting (arriage, her do(icile beca(e sub=ect to change by
la!, and the right to change it !as given by Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode provides9
Art. ..2. *(e (us/and s(all fi7 t(e residence of t(e famil.. 7ut the court (ay exe(pt the !ife fro( living !ith
the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic.
3
?A(phasis supplied@
In !e la $i8a v. $illareal and 1eopano,
4
this #ourt explained !hy the do(icile of the !ife
ought to follo! that of the husband. Ce held9 "3he reason is founded upon the t(eoretic
identit. of person and interest bet!een the husband and the !ife, and the presu(ption
that, fro( the nature of the relation, the ho(e of one is the ho(e of the other. It is intended
to pro(ote, strengthen, and secure their interests in this relation, as it ordinarily exists,
!here union and har(ony prevail."
4
In accord !ith this ob=ective, Article .2- of the #ivil
#ode also obligated the husband and !ife "to live together."
3hird. 3he difficult issues start as !e deter(ine !hether petitioner<s marriage to for(er
'resident Marcos ipso facto resulted in the loss of her 3acloban do(icile. I respectfully
sub(it that her (arriage /. itself alone did not cause her to lose her 3acloban do(icile.
Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode (erely gave the husband the right to fix the do(icile of the
fa(ily. In the exercise of the right, the husband (ay e7plicitl. choose the prior do(icile of
his !ife, in !hich case, the !ife<s do(icile re(ains unchanged. 3he husband can also
implicitl. ac>uiesce to his !ife<s prior do(icile even if it is different. )o !e held in de la
$i8a,
2
. . . . Chen (arried !o(en as !ell as children sub=ect to parental authority live, 4it( t(e acquiescence of
t(eir (us/ands or fathers, in a place distinct fro( !here the latter live, they have their o!n independent
domicile. . . .
It is not, therefore, the (ere fact of (arriage but the deliberate choice of a different
do(icile by the husband that !ill change the do(icile of a !ife fro( !hat it !as prior to
their (arriage. 3he do(iciliary decision (ade by the husband in the exercise of the right
conferred by Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode binds the !ife. Any and all acts of a !ife during
her coverture contrary to the do(iciliary choice of the husband cannot change in any !ay
the do(icile legally fixed by the husband. 3hese acts are void not only because the !ife
lacks the capacity to choose her do(icile but also because they are contrary to la! and
public policy.
In the case at bench, it is not disputed that for(er 'resident Marcos exercised his right to
fix the fa(ily do(icile and established it in 7atac, Ilocos Norte, !here he !as then the
congress(an. At t(at particular point of time and t(roug(out t(eir married life, petitioner
lost (er domicile in *aclo/an, Le.te. )ince petitioner<s 7atac do(icile has been fixed by
operation of la!, it !as not affected in .-- !hen her husband !as elected as )enator,
!hen they lived in )an *uan, Ri&al and !here she registered as a voter. It !as not also
affected in .-6 !hen her husband !as elected 'resident, !hen they lived in MalacaOang
'alace, and !hen she registered as a voter in )an Miguel, Manila. Nor !as it affected
!hen she served as a (e(ber of the Batasang Pam/ansa, Minister of $u(an
)ettle(ents and 1overnor of Metro Manila during the incu(bency of her husband as
'resident of the nation. %nder Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode, it !as only her husband !ho
could change the fa(ily do(icile in 7atac and the evidence sho!s he did not effect any
such change. 3o a large degree, this follo!s the co((on la! that "a !o(an on her
(arriage loses her o!n do(icile and by operation of la!, ac>uires that of her husband, no
matter 4(ere t(e 4ife actuall. lives or 4(at s(e /elieves or intends."
7
,ourth. 3he (ore difficult task is ho! to interpret the effect of the deat( on )epte(ber 65,
.-5- of for(er 'resident Marcos on petitioner<s 7atac do(icile. 3he issue is of first
impression in our =urisdiction and t!o ?6@ schools of thought contend for acceptance. Gne
is espoused by our distinguished colleague, Mr. *ustice Havide, *r., heavily relying on
A(erican authorities.
8
$e echoes the theory t(at after t(e (us/and0s deat(, t(e 4ife
retains t(e last domicile of (er (us/and until s(e ma6es an actual c(ange.
I do not subscribe to this sub(ission. 3he A(erican case la! that the !ife still retains her
dead husband<s do(icile is based on ancient common la4 4(ic( 4e can no longer appl.
in t(e P(ilippine setting toda.. 3he co((on la! identified the do(icile of a !ife as that of
the husband and denied to her the po!er of ac>uiring a do(icile of her o!n separate and
apart fro( hi(.
9
0egal scholars agree that t!o ?6@ reasons support this co((on la!
doctrine. 3he first reason as pinpointed by the legendary 7lackstone is derived fro( the
vie! that "the very being or legal existence of the !o(an is suspended during
the (arriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband."
17
3he
second reason lies in "the desirability of having the interests of each (e(ber of the fa(ily
unit governed by the sa(e la!."
11
3he presumption that the !ife retains the do(icile of
her deceased husband is an e7tension of this co((on la! concept. *(e concept and its
e7tension (ave provided some of t(e most iniquitous 3urisprudence against 4omen. It !as
under co((on la! that the .57D A(erican case of Brad4ell v. +llinois
16
!as decided
!here !o(en !ere denied the right to practice la!. It !as unblushingly ruled that "the
natural and proper ti(idity and delicacy !hich belongs to the fe(ale sex evidently unfits it
for (any of the occupations of civil life . . . 3his is the la! of the #reator." Indeed, the
rulings relied upon by Mr. *ustice Havide in #*)
13
and AM *%R 6d
14
are A(erican state
court decisions handed do!n bet!een the years .-.7
14
and .-D5,
12
or /efore t(e time
4(en 4omen 4ere accorded equalit. of rig(ts 4it( men. %ndeniably, the !o(en<s
liberation (ove(ent resulted in far:ranging state legislations in the %nited )tates to
eli(inate gender ine>uality.
17
)tarting in the decade of the seventies, the courts like!ise
liberali&ed their rulings as they started invalidating la!s infected !ith gender:bias. It !as in
.-7. !hen the %) )upre(e #ourt in eed v. eed,
18
struck a big blo! for !o(en
e>uality !hen it declared as unconstitutional an Idaho la! that re>uired probate courts to
choose (ale fa(ily (e(bers over fe(ales as estate ad(inistrators. It held that (ere
ad(inistrative inconvenience cannot =ustify a sex:based distinction. *(ese significant
c(anges /ot( in la4 and in case la4 on t(e status of 4omen virtuall. o/literated t(e
iniquitous common la4 surrendering t(e rig(ts of married 4omen to t(eir (us/ands /ased
on t(e du/ious t(eor. of t(e parties0 t(eoretic oneness. 3he Corpus Juris Secundum
editors did not (iss the relevance of this revolution on !o(en<s right as they observed9
"$o!ever, it has been declared that under modern statutes changing the status of (arried
!o(en and departing fro( the co((on la! theory of (arriage, t(ere is no reason 4(. a
4ife ma. not acquire a separate domicile for ever. purpose 6no4n to t(e la4."
19
In
publishing in .-6- the estatement of t(e La4, Second 9Conflict of La4s :d;, the
reputable A(erican 0a! Institute also categorically stated that the vie! of 7lackstone ". . .
is no longer (eld. As t(e result of statutes and court decisions, a 4ife no4 possesses
practicall. t(e same rig(ts and po4ers as (er unmarried sister."
67
In the case at bench, !e have to decide !hether !e should continue clinging to the
anac(ronistic common la4 that de(eans !o(en, especially (arried !o(en. I sub(it that
the #ourt has no choice except to break a!ay fro( this co((on la! rule, the root of the
(any degradations of ,ilipino !o(en. 7efore .-55, our la!s particularly the #ivil #ode,
!ere full of gender discri(inations against !o(en. Gur estee(ed colleague, Mada(
*ustice ,lerida Ruth Ro(ero, cited a fe! of the( as follo!s9
61
xxx xxx xxx
Legal !isa/ilities Suffered /. 5ives
Not generally kno!n is the fact that under the #ivil #ode, !ives suffer under certain restrictions or
disabilities. ,or instance, the !ife cannot accept gifts fro( others, regardless of the sex of the giver or the
value of the gift, other than fro( her very close relatives, !ithout her husband<s consent. )he (ay accept
only fro(, say, her parents, parents:in:la!, brothers, sisters and the relatives !ithin the so:called fourth civil
degree. )he (ay not exercise her profession or occupation or engage in business if her husband ob=ects on
serious grounds or if his inco(e is sufficient to support their fa(ily in accordance !ith their social standing.
As to !hat constitutes "serious grounds" for ob=ecting, this is !ithin the discretion of the husband.
xxx xxx xxx
7ecause of the present ine>uitable situation, the a(end(ents to the #ivil 0a! being proposed by the
%niversity of the 'hilippines 0a! #enter !ould allo! absolute divorce !hich severes the (atri(onial ties,
such that the divorced spouses are free to get (arried a year after the divorce is decreed by the courts.
$o!ever, in order to place the husband and !ife on an e>ual footing insofar as the bases for divorce are
concerned, the follo!ing are specified as the grounds for absolute divorce9 ?.@ adultery or having a para(our
co((itted by the respondent in any of the !ays specified in the Revised 'enal #ode or ?6@ an atte(pt by the
respondent against the life of the petitioner !hich a(ounts to atte(pted parricide under the Revised 'enal
#odeB ?D@ abandon(ent of the petitioner by the respondent !ithout =ust cause for a period of three
consecutive yearsB or ?/@ habitual (altreat(ent.
Cith respect to property relations, the husband is auto(atically the ad(inistrator of the con=ugal property
o!ned in co((on by the (arried couple even if the !ife (ay be the (ore astute or enterprising partner. 3he
la! does not leave it to the spouses to decide !ho shall act as such ad(inistrator. #onse>uently, the
husband is authori&ed to engage in acts and enter into transactions beneficial to the con=ugal partnership.
3he !ife, ho!ever, cannot si(ilarly bind the partnership !ithout the husband<s consent.
And !hile both exercise =oint parental authority over their children, it is the father !ho( the la! designates
as the legal ad(inistrator of the property pertaining to the une(ancipated child.
3aking the lead in Asia, our govern(ent exerted efforts, principally through legislations, to
eli(inate ine>uality bet!een (en and !o(en in our land. *(e 4aters(ed came on August
<, =>?? 4(en our 'amil. Code too6 effect 4(ic(, among ot(ers, terminated t(e unequal
treatment of (us/and and 4ife as to t(eir rig(ts and responsi/ilities.
66
3he ,a(ily #ode attained this elusive ob=ective by giving ne! rights to (arried !o(en
and by abolishing sex:based privileges of husbands. A(ong others, (arried !o(en are
no! given the =oint right to ad(inister the fa(ily property, !hether in the absolute
co((unity syste( or in the syste( of con=ugal partnershipB
63
=oint parental authority over
their (inor children, both over their persons as !ell as their propertiesB
64
=oint
responsibility for the support of the fa(ilyB
64
the right to =ointly (anage the householdB
62
and, the right to ob=ect to their husband<s exercise of profession, occupation, business or
activity.
67
)f particular relevance to t(e case at /enc( is Article @> of t(e 'amil. Code
4(ic( too6 a4a. t(e e7clusive rig(t of t(e (us/and to fi7 t(e famil. domicile and gave it
3ointl. to t(e (us/and and t(e 4ife, t(us9
Art. 6-. *(e (us/and and 4ife s(all fi7 t(e famil. domicile. In case of disagree(ent, the court shall decide.
3he court (ay exe(pt one spouse fro( living !ith the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other
valid and co(pelling reasons for the exe(ption. $o!ever, such exe(ption shall not apply if the sa(e is not
co(patible !ith the solidarity of the fa(ily. ?A(phasis supplied@
Article @> repealed Article ==A of t(e Civil Code. #o((enting on the duty of the husband
and !ife to live together, for(er Mada( *ustice Alice )e(pio:Hiy of the #ourt of Appeals
specified the instances !hen a 4ife ma. no4 refuse to live 4it( (er (us/and, thus9
68
?6@ 3he !ife has the duty to live !ith her husband, but she (ay refuse to do so in certain cases like9
?a@ If the place chosen by the husband as fa(ily residence is dangerous to her 0ifeB
?b@ If the husband sub=ects her to (altreat(ent or abusive conduct or insults, (aking co((on life
i(possibleB
?c@ If the husband co(pels her to live !ith his parents, but she cannot get along !ith her (other:in:la! and
they have constant >uarrels ?Hel Rosario v. Hel Rosario, #A, /6 G1 6.66@B
?d@ Chere the husband has continuously carried illicit relations for .2 years !ith different !o(en and treated
his !ife roughly and !ithout consideration. ?Hadivas v. 8illanueva, / 'hil. -6@B
?e@ Chere the husband spent his ti(e in ga(bling, giving no (oney to his fa(ily for food and necessities,
and at the sa(e ti(e insulting his !ife and laying hands on her. ?'anuncio v. )ula, #A, D/ G1 .6-@B
?f@ If the husband has no fixed residence and lives a vagabond life as a tra(p ?. Manresa D6-@B
?g@ If the husband is carrying on a sha(eful business at ho(e ?1ahn v. Harby, D5 0a. Ann. 72@.
*(e inescapa/le conclusion is t(at our 'amil. Code (as completel. emancipated t(e 4ife
from t(e control of t(e (us/and, thus abandoning the parties< theoretic identity of interest.
No less than the late revered Mr. *ustice *.7.0. Reyes !ho chaired the #ivil #ode Revision
#o((ittee of the %' 0a! #enter gave this insightful vie! in one of his rare lectures after
retire(ent9
69
xxx xxx xxx
3he ,a(ily #ode is pri(arily intended to refor( the fa(ily la! so as to e(ancipate the !ife fro( the
exclusive control of the husband and to place her at parity !ith hi( insofar as the fa(ily is concerned. *(e
4ife and t(e (us/and are no4 placed on equal standing /. t(e Code. 3hey are no! =oint ad(inistrators of
the fa(ily properties and exercise =oint authority over the persons and properties of their children. 3his
(eans a dual authority in the fa(ily. *(e (us/and 4ill no longer prevail over t(e 4ife but she has to agree on
all (atters concerning the fa(ily. ?A(phasis supplied@
In light of the ,a(ily #ode !hich abrogated the ine>uality bet!een husband and !ife as
started and perpetuated by the co((on la!, t(ere is no reason in espousing t(e
anomalous rule t(at t(e 4ife still retains t(e domicile of (er dead (us/and. Article ..2 of
the #ivil #ode !hich provides the statutory support for this stance has been repealed by
Article 6- of the ,a(ily #ode. 7y its repeal, it beco(es a dead:letter la!, and !e are not
free to resurrect it by giving it further effect in any !ay or (anner such as by ruling that the
petitioner is still bound by the do(iciliary deter(ination of her dead husband.
Aside fro( reckoning !ith the ,a(ily #ode, !e have to consider our #onstitution and its
fir( guarantees of due process and e>ual protection of
la!.
37
+t can (ardl. /e dou/ted t(at t(e common la4 imposition on a married 4oman of
(er dead (us/and0s domicile even /e.ond (is grave is patentl. discriminator. to 4omen. It
is a gender:based discri(ination and is not rationally related to the ob=ective of pro(oting
fa(ily solidarity. It cannot survive a constitutional challenge. Indeed, co(pared !ith our
previous funda(ental la!s, t(e =>?B Constitution is more concerned 4it( equalit.
/et4een se7es as it e7plicitl. commands t(at t(e State ". . . s(all ensure fundamental
equalit. /efore t(e la4 of 4omen and men." 3o be exact, section ./, Article II provides9
"3he )tate recogni&es the role of !o(en in nation building, and shall ensure funda(ental
e>uality before the la! of !o(en and (en. Ce shall be transgressing the sense and
essence of this constitutional (andate if !e insist on giving our !o(en the cave(an<s
treat(ent.
'rescinding fro( these pre(ises, I respectfully sub(it that t(e /etter stance is to rule t(at
petitioner reacquired (er *aclo/an domicile upon t(e deat( of (er (us/and in =>?>. 3his is
the necessary conse>uence of the vie! that petitioner<s 7atac dictated do(icile did not
continue after her husband<s deathB other!ise, she !ould have no do(icile and that !ill
violate the universal rule that no person can be !ithout a do(icile at any point of ti(e. 3his
stance also restores the right of petitioner to choose her do(icile before it !as taken a!ay
by Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode, a right no! recogni&ed by the ,a(ily #ode and protected
by the #onstitution. 0ike!ise, I cannot see the fairness of the co((on la! re>uiring
petitioner to choose again her 3acloban do(icile before she could be released fro( her
7atac do(icile. )he lost her 3acloban do(icile not through her act but through the act of
her deceased husband !hen he fixed their do(icile in 7atac. $er husband is dead and he
cannot rule her beyond the grave. 3he la! disabling her to choose her o!n do(icile has
been repealed. #onsidering all these, co((on la! should not put the burden on petitioner
to prove she has abandoned her dead husband<s do(icile. 3here is neither rhy(e nor
reason for this gender:based burden.
But even assuming arguendo t(at t(ere is need for convincing proof t(at petitioner c(ose
to reacquire (er *aclo/an domicile, still, t(e records reveal ample evidence to t(is effect.
In her affidavit sub(itted to the respondent #GMA0A#, petitioner averred9
xxx xxx xxx
D6. In Nove(ber, .--., I ca(e ho(e to our beloved country, after several re>uests for (y return !ere
denied by 'resident #ora&on #. A>uino, and after I filed suits for our 1overn(ent to issue (e (y passport.
D7. 7ut I ca(e ho(e !ithout the (ortal re(ains of (y beloved husband, 'resident ,erdinand A. Marcos,
!hich the 1overn(ent considered a threat to the national security and !elfare.
D5. %pon (y return to the country, I !anted to i((ediately live and reside in 3acloban #ity or in Glot, 3olosa,
0eyte, even if (y residences there !ere not livable as they had been destroyed and cannibali&ed. 3he
'#11, ho!ever, did not per(it and allo! (e.
D-. As a conse>uence, I had to live at various ti(es in the Cestin 'hilippine 'la&a in 'asay #ity, a friend<s
apart(ent on Ayala Avenue, a house in )outh ,orbes 'ark !hich (y daughter rented, and 'acific 'la&a, all
in Makati.
/2. After the .--6 'residential Alections, I lived and resided in the residence of (y brother in )an *ose,
3acloban #ity, and pursued (y negotiations !ith '#11 to recover (y se>uestered residences in 3acloban
#ity and 7arangay Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte.
/2.. In preparation for (y observance of All )aints< Hay and All )ouls< Hay that year, I renovated (y parents<
burial grounds and ento(bed their bones !hich had been excalvated, unearthed and scattered.
/.. Gn Nove(ber 6-, .--D, I for(ally !rote '#11 #hair(an Magtanggol 1unigundo for per(issions to I
. . . rehabilitate . . . ?o@ur ancestral house in 3acloban and far(house in Glot, 0eyte . . . to (ake the( livable
for us the Marcos fa(ily to have a ho(e in our o!n (otherland.
xxx xxx xxx
/6. It !as only on 26 *une .--/, ho!ever, !hen '#11 #hair(an 1unigundo, in his letter to #ol. )i(eon
Ke(pis, *r., '#11 Region 5 Representative, allo!ed (e to repair and renovate (y 0eyte residences. I
>uote part of his letter9
Hear #ol. Ke(pis,
%pon representation by Mrs. I(elda R. Marcos to this #o((ission, that she intends to visit our se>uestered
properties in 0eyte, please allo! her access thereto. )he (ay also cause repairs and renovation of the
se>uestered properties, in !hich event, it shall be understood that her undertaking said repairs is not
authori&ation for her to take over said properties, and that all expenses shall be for her account and not
rei(bursable. 'lease extend the necessary courtesy to her.
xxx xxx xxx
/D. I !as not per(itted, ho!ever, to live and stay in the )to. NiOo )hrine residence in 3acloban #ity !here I
!anted to stay and reside, after repairs and renovations !ere co(pleted. In August .--/, I transferred fro(
)an *ose, 3acloban #ity, to (y residence in 7arangay Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, !hen '#11 per(itted (e to stay
and live there.
+t is t(en clear t(at in =>>: petitioner reesta/lis(ed (er domicile in t(e 'irst !istrict of
Le.te. It is not disputed that in .--6, she first lived at the house of her brother in )an *ose,
3acloban #ity and later, in August .--/, she transferred her residence in 7arangay Glot,
3olosa, 0eyte. 7oth 3acloban #ity and the (unicipality of Glot are !ithin the ,irst Histrict of
0eyte. )ince petitioner reestablished her old do(icile in .--6 in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte,
she (ore than co(plied !ith the constitutional re>uire(ent of residence
". . . for a period of not less than one year i((ediately preceding the day of the election,"
i.e., the May 5, .-- elections.
*(e evidence presented /. t(e private respondent to negate t(e *aclo/an domicile of
petitioner is nil. $e presented petitioner<s 8oter<s Registration Record filed !ith the 7oard
of Alection Inspectors of 'recinct .2:A of 7arangay Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte !herein she stated
that her period of residence in said barangay !as six ?6@ (onths as of the date of her filing
of said 8oter<s Registration Record on *anuary 65, .--.
31
3his state(ent in petitioner<s
8oter<s Registration Record is a nonCpre3udicial admission. 3he #onstitution re>uires at
least one ?.@ year residence in the district in !hich the candidate shall be elected. In the
case at bench, the reference is the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte. 'etitioner<s state(ent proved
that she resided in Glot six ?6@ (onths before *anuary 65, .-- /ut did not disprove that
she has also resided in 3acloban #ity starting .--6. As aforestated, Glot and 3acloban #ity
are both !ithin the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte, hence, her six ?6@ (onths residence in Glot
should be counted not against, but in her favor. 'rivate respondent also presented
petitioner<s #ertificate of #andidacy filed on March 5, .--
36
!here she placed seven ?7@
(onths after Ite( No. 5 !hich called for infor(ation regarding "residence in the
constituency !here I seek to be elected i((ediately preceding the election." Again, this
original certificate of candidacy has no evidentiary value because an March ., .-- it !as
corrected by petitioner. In her A(ended;#orrected #ertificate of #andidacy,
33
petitioner
!rote "since childhood" after Ite( No. 5. 3he a(end(ent of a certificate of candidacy to
correct a /ona fide (istake has been allo!ed by this #ourt as a (atter of course and as a
(atter of right. As !e held in Alial. v. C)"ELEC,
34
vi&.9
xxx xxx xxx
3he absence of the signature of the )ecretary of the local chapter N.' in the original certificate of candidacy
presented before the deadline )epte(ber .., .--, did not render the certificate invalid. *(e amendment of
t(e certificate, alt(oug( at a date after t(e deadline, /ut /efore t(e election, 4as su/stantial compliance 4it(
t(e la4, and t(e defect 4as cured.
It goes !ithout saying that petitioner<s erroneous #ertificate of #andidacy filed on March 5,
.-- cannot be used as evidence against her. 'rivate respondent<s petition for the
dis>ualification of petitioner rested alone on these t!o ?6@ brittle pieces of docu(entary
evidence I petitioner<s 8oter<s Registration Record and her original #ertificate of
#andidacy. Ranged against the evidence of the petitioner sho!ing her ceaseless contacts
!ith 3acloban, private respondent<s t!o ?6@ pieces of evidence are too insufficient to
dis>ualify petitioner, (ore so, to deny her the right to represent the people of the ,irst
Histrict of 0eyte !ho have over!hel(ingly voted for her.
,ifth. )ection .2, Article IP:# of the #onstitution (andates that "/ona fide candidates for
any public office shall be free fro( any for( of harass(ent and discri(ination."
34
A
detached reading of the records of the case at bench !ill sho! that all for(s of legal and
extra:legal obstacles have been thro!n against petitioner to prevent her fro( running as
the people<s representative in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte. In petitioner<s Ans!er to the
petition to dis>ualify her, she averred9
32
xxx xxx xxx
.2. 'etitioner<s ?herein private respondent Monte=o@ (otive in filing the instant petition is devious. Chen
respondent ?petitioner herein@ announced that she !as intending to register as a voter in 3acloban #ity and
run for #ongress in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte, petitioner ?Monte=o@ i((ediately opposed her intended
registration by !riting a letter stating that "she is not a resident of said city but of 7arangay Glot, 3olosa,
0eyte." ?Annex "6" of respondent<s affidavit, Annex "6"@. After respondent ?petitioner herein@ had registered as
a voter in 3olosa follo!ing co(pletion of her six:(onth actual residence therein, petitioner ?Monte=o@ filed a
petition !ith the #GMA0A# to transfer the to!n of 3olosa fro( the ,irst Histrict to the )econd Histrict and
pursued such (ove up to the )upre(e #ourt in 1.R. No. ..5726, his purpose being to re(ove respondent
?petitioner herein@ as petitioner<s ?Monte=o<s@ opponent in the congressional election in the ,irst Histrict. $e
also filed a bill, along !ith other 0eyte #ongress(en, seeking to create another legislative district, to re(ove
the to!n of 3olosa out of the ,irst Histrict and to (ake it a part of the ne! district, to achieve his purpose.
$o!ever, such bill did not pass the )enate. $aving, failed on such (oves, petitioner no! filed the instant
petition, for the sa(e ob=ective, as it is obvious that he is afraid to sub(it hi(self along !ith respondent
?petitioner herein@ for the =udg(ent and verdict of the electorate of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte in an honest,
orderly, peaceful, free and clean elections on May 5, .--.
3hese allegations !hich private respondent did not challenge !ere not lost
to the perceptive eye of #o((issioner Maa(bong !ho in his Hissenting Gpinion,
37
held9
xxx xxx xxx
'rior to the registration date I *anuary 65, .-- the petitioner ?herein private respondent Monte=o@ !rote the
Alection Gfficer of 3acloban #ity not to allo! respondent ?petitioner herein@ to register thereat si nce she is a
resident of 3olosa and not 3acloban #ity. 3he purpose of this (ove of the petitioner ?Monte=o@ is not lost to
?sic@ the #o((ission. In %NH No. -:22. ?+n t(e matter of t(e Legislative !istricts of t(e Provinces of Le.te,
+loilo, and Sout( Cota/ato, )ut of 5(ic( t(e Ne4 Provinces of Biliran, 1uimaras and Saranggani 5ere
espectivel. Created@, . . . $on. #irilo Roy 1. Monte=o, Representative, ,irst Histrict of 0eyte, !anted the
Municipality of 3olosa, in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte, transferred to the )econd Histrict of 0eyte. 3he $on.
)ergio A.,. Apostol, Representative of the )econd Histrict of 0eyte, opposed the (ove of the petitioner
?Monte=o@. %nder #o(elec Resolution No. 67D6 ?Hece(ber 6-, .--/@, the #o((ission on Alections refused
to (ake the proposed transfer. 'etitioner ?Monte=o@ filed ""otion for econsideration of esolution
No. :B<@" !hich the #o((ission denied in a Resolution pro(ulgated on ,ebruary ., .--. 'etitioner
?Monte=o@ filed a petition for certiorari before the $onorable )upre(e #ourt ?#irilo Roy 1. Monte=o vs.
#o((ission on Alections, 1.R. No. ..5726@ >uestioning the resolution of the #o((ission. 7elieving that he
could get a favorable ruling fro( the )upre(e #ourt, petitioner ?Monte=o@ tried to (ake sure that the
respondent ?petitioner herein@ !ill register as a voter in 3olosa so that she !ill be forced to run as
Representative not in the ,irst but in the )econd Histrict.
It did not happen. Gn March .6, .--, the $onorable )upre(e #ourt unani(ously pro(ulgated a "!ecision,"
penned by Associate *ustice Reynato ). 'uno, the dispositive portion of !hich reads9
IN 8IAC C$ARAG,, )ection . of Resolution No. 67D6 insofar as it transferred the (unicipality of #apoocan
of the )econd Histrict and the (unicipality of 'alo(pon of the ,ourth Histrict to the 3hird Histrict of the
province of 0eyte, is annulled and set aside. Ce also deny the 'etition praying for the transfer of the
(unicipality of 3olosa fro( the ,irst Histrict to the )econd Histrict of the province of 0eyte. No costs.
'etitioner<s ?Monte=o<s@ plan did not !ork. 7ut the respondent ?petitioner herein@ !as constrained to register
in the Municipality of 3olosa !here her house is instead of 3acloban #ity, her do(icile. In any case, both
3acloban #ity and 3olosa are in the ,irst 0egislative Histrict.
All these atte(pts to (isuse our la!s and legal processes are for(s of rank harass(ents
and invidious discri(inations against petitioner to deny her e>ual access to a public office.
Ce cannot co((it any her(eneutic violence to the #onstitution by torturing the (eaning
of e>uality, the end result of !hich !ill allo! the harass(ent and discri(ination of
petitioner !ho has lived a controversial life, a past of alternating light and shado!. 3here is
but one #onstitution for all ,ilipinos. 'etitioner cannot be ad=udged by a "different"
#onstitution, and the !orst !ay to interpret the #onstitution is to in=ect in its interpretation,
bile and bitterness.
)ixth. In 1allego v. $era,
38
!e explained that the reason for this residence re>uire(ent is
"to exclude a stranger or ne!co(er, unac>uainted, !ith the conditions and needs of a
co((unity and not identified !ith the latter, fro( an elective office to serve that co((unity
. . . ." 'etitioner<s lifeti(e contacts !ith the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte cannot be contested.
Nobody can clai( that she is not ac>uainted !ith its proble(s because she is a stranger
to the place. None can argue she cannot satisfy the intent of the #onstitution.
)eventh. In resolving election cases, a do(inant consideration is the need to effectuate
the !ill of the electorate. 3he election results sho! that petitioner received )eventy
3housand ,our $undred )eventy:one ?72,/7.@ votes, !hile private respondent got only
3hirty:)ix 3housand Aight $undred 3hirty:3hree ?D6,5DD@ votes. 'etitioner is clearly the
over!hel(ing choice of the electorate of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte and this is not a sleight
of statistics. Ce cannot frustrate this sovereign !ill on highly arguable technical
considerations. In case of doubt, !e should lean to!ards a rule that !ill give life to the
people<s political =udg(ent.
A final point. 3he case at bench provides the #ourt !ith the rare opportunity to rectify the
ine>uality of status bet!een !o(en and (en by re=ecting the ini>uitous co((on la!
precedents on the do(icile of (arried !o(en and by redefining do(icile in accord !ith
our o!n culture, la!, and #onstitution. 3o rule that a (arried !o(an is eternally tethered
to the do(icile dictated by her dead husband is to preserve the anachronistic and
ano(alous balance of advantage of a husband over his !ife. Ce should not allo! the
dead to govern the living even if the glories of yesteryears seduce us to shout long live the
deadQ 3he ,a(ily #ode buried this gender:based discri(ination against (arried !o(en
and !e should not excavate !hat has been ento(bed. More i(portantly, the #onstitution
forbids it.
I vote to grant the petition.
Bellosillo and "elo, JJ., concur.
9RAN'IS'O, J., concurring9
I concur !ith Mr. *ustice Kapunan<s ponencia finding petitioner >ualified for the position of
Representative of the ,irst #ongressional Histrict of 0eyte. I !ish, ho!ever, to express a
fe! co((ents on the issue of petitioner<s do(icile.
Ho(icile has been defined as that place in !hich a person<s habitation is fixed, !ithout any
present intention of re(oving therefro(, and that place is properly the do(icile of a person
in !hich he has voluntarily fixed his abode, or habitation, not for a (ere special or
te(porary purpose, but !ith a present intention of (aking it his per(anent ho(e ?65
#.*.). R.@. It denotes a fixed per(anent residence to !hich !hen absent for business, or
pleasure, or for like reasons one intends to return, and depends on facts and
circu(stances, in the sense that they disclose intent. ?Gng $uan 3in v. Republic, .- )#RA
-66, -6-@
Ho(icile is classified into do(icile of origin and do(icile of choice. 3he la! attributes to
every individual a do(icile of origin, !hich is the do(icile of his parents, or of the head of
his fa(ily, or of the person on !ho( he is legally dependent at the ti(e of his birth. Chile
the do(icile of origin is generally the place !here one is born or reared, it (aybe
else!here ?65 #.*.). R@. Ho(icile of choice, on the other hand, is the place !hich the
person has elected and chosen for hi(self to displace his previous do(icileB it has for its
true basis or foundation the intention of the person ?65 #.*.). R6@. In order to hold that a
person has abandoned his do(icile and ac>uired a ne! one called do(icile of choice, the
follo!ing re>uisites (ust concur, na(ely, ?a@ residence or bodily presence in the ne!
locality, ?b@ intention to re(ain there or animus manendi, and ?c@ an intention to abandon
the old do(icile or animus non revertendi ?Ro(ualde& v. R3#, 7r. 7, 3acloban #ity, 666
)#RA /25, /.@. A third classification is do(icile by operation of la! !hich attributes to a
person a do(icile independent of his o!n intention or actual residence, ordinarily resulting
fro( legal do(estic relations, as that of the !ife arising fro( (arriage, or the relation of a
parent and a child ?65 #.*.). R7@.
In election la!, !hen our #onstitution speaks of residence for election purposes it (eans
do(icile ?#o v. Alectoral 3ribunal of the $ouse of Representatives, .-- )#RA 6-6, 7.DB
Nuval v. 1uray, 6 'hil. 6/, 6.@. 3o (y (ind, public respondent #o((ission on
Alections (isapplied this concept, of do(icile !hich led to petitioner<s dis>ualification by
ruling that petitioner failed to co(ply !ith the constitutionally (andated one:year residence
re>uire(ent. Apparently, public respondent #o((ission dee(ed as conclusive petitioner<s
stay and registration as voter in (any places as conduct disclosing her intent to abandon
her established do(icile of origin in 3acloban, 0eyte. In several decisions, though, the
#ourt has laid do!n the rule that registration of a voter in a place other than his place of
origin is not sufficient to constitute abandon(ent or loss of such residence ?,aypon v.
Muirino, -6 'hil. 6-/, D22@. Respondent #o((ission offered no cogent reason to depart
fro( this rule except to sur(ise petitioner<s intent of abandoning her do(icile of origin.
It has been suggested that petitioner<s do(icile of origin !as supplanted by a ne! do(icile
due to her (arriage, a do(icile by operation of la!. 3he proposition is that upon the death
of her husband in .-5- she retains her husband<s do(icile, i.e., 7atac, Ilocos Norte, until
she (akes an actual change thereof. I find this proposition >uite untenable.
3acloban, 0eyte, is petitioner<s do(icile of origin !hich !as involuntarily supplanted !ith
another, i.e., 7atac, Ilocos Norte, upon her (arriage in .-/ !ith then #ongress(an
Marcos. 7y legal fiction she follo!ed the do(icile of her husband. In (y vie!, the reason
for the la! is for the spouses to fully and effectively perfor( their (arital duties and
obligations to one another.
1
3he >uestion of do(icile, ho!ever, is not affected by the fact
that it !as the legal or (oral duty of the individual to reside in a given place ?65 #.*.).
R..@. 3hus, !hile the !ife retains her (arital do(icile so long as the (arriage subsists,
she auto(atically loses it upon the latter<s ter(ination, for the reason behind the la! then
ceases. Gther!ise, petitioner, after her (arriage !as ended by the death of her husband,
!ould be placed in a >uite absurd and unfair situation of having been freed fro( all !ifely
obligations yet (ade to hold on to one !hich no longer serves any (eaningful purpose.
It is (y vie! therefore that petitioner reverted to her original do(icile of 3acloban, 0eyte
upon her husband<s death !ithout even signifying her intention to that effect. It is for the
private respondent to prove, not for petitioner to disprove, that petitioner has effectively
abandoned 3acloban, 0eyte for 7atac, Ilocos Norte or for so(e other place;s. 3he clear
rule is that it is the party ?herein private respondent@ clai(ing that a person has abandoned
or lost his residence of origin !ho (ust sho! and prove preponderantly such
abandon(ent or loss ?,aypon v. Muirino, supra at 6-5B 65 #.*.). R.6@, because the
presu(ption is strongly in favor of an original or for(er do(icile, as against an ac>uired
one ?65 #.*.). R.6@. 'rivate respondent unfortunately failed to discharge this burden as
the record is devoid of convincing proof that petitioner has ac>uired !hether voluntarily or
involuntarily, a ne! do(icile to replace her do(icile of origin.
3he records, on the contrary, clearly sho! that petitioner has co(plied !ith the
constitutional one:year residence re>uire(ent. After her exile abroad, she returned to the
'hilippines in .--. to reside in Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, but the 'residential #o((ission on
1ood 1overn(ent !hich se>uestered her residential house and other properties forbade
her necessitating her transient stay in various places in Manila ?Affidavit p.6, attached as
Annex I of the 'etition@. In .--6, she ran for the position of president !riting in her
certificate of candidacy her residence as )an *uan, Metro Manila. After her loss therein,
she !ent back to 3acloban #ity, ac>uired her residence certificate
6
and resided !ith her
brother in )an *ose. )he resided in )an *ose, 3acloban #ity until August of .--/ !hen
she !as allo!ed by the '#11 to (ove and reside in her se>uestered residential house in
Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte ?Annex I, p. 6@.
3
It !as in the sa(e (onth of August !hen she applied
for the cancellation of her previous registration in )an *uan, Metro Manila in order to
register ane! as voter of Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, !hich she did on *anuary 65, .--. ,ro(
this se>uence of events, I find it >uite i(proper to use as the reckoning period of the one:
year residence re>uire(ent the date !hen she applied for the cancellation of her previous
registration in )an *uan, Metro Manila. 3he fact !hich private respondent never bothered
to disprove is that petitioner transferred her residence after the .--6 presidential election
fro( )an *uan, Metro Manila to )an *ose, 3acloban #ity, and resided therein until August
of .--/. )he later transferred to Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte ?Annex I, p. 7@. It appearing that both
3acloban #ity and 3olosa, 0eyte are !ithin the ,irst #ongressional Histrict of 0eyte, it
indubitably stands that she had (ore than a year of residence in the constituency she
sought to be elected. 'etitioner, therefore, has satisfactorily co(plied !ith the one:year
>ualification re>uired by the .-57 #onstitution.
I vote to grant the petition.
ROMERO, J., separate opinion9
'etitioner has appealed to this #ourt for relief after the #GMA0A# ruled that she !as
dis>ualified fro( running for Representative of her Histrict and that, in the event that she
should, nevertheless, (uster a (a=ority vote, her procla(ation should be suspended. Not
by a straightfor!ard ruling did the #GMA0A# pronounce its decision as has been its
unvarying practice in the past, but by a startling succession of "reverse so(ersaults."
Indicative of its shifting stance visCaCvis petitioner<s certificate of candidacy !ere first, the
action of its )econd Hivision dis>ualifying her and canceling her original #ertificate of
#andidacy by a vote of 6:. on April 6/, .--B then the denial by the #GMA0A# en /anc of
her Motion for Reconsideration on May 7, .--, a day before the electionB then because
she persisted in running, its decision on
May .., .-- or three days after the election, allo!ing her procla(ation in the event that
the results of the canvass should sho! that she obtained the highest nu(ber of votes
?obviously noting that petitioner had !on over!hel(ingly over her opponent@, but al(ost
si(ultaneously reversing itself by directing that even if she !ins, her procla(ation should
nonetheless be suspended.
#rucial to the resolution of the dis>ualification issue presented by the case at bench is the
interpretation to be given to the one:year residency re>uire(ent i(posed by the
#onstitution on aspirants for a #ongressional seat.
1
7earing in (ind that the ter( "resident" has been held to be synony(ous !ith "do(icile"
for election purposes, it is i(portant to deter(ine !hether petitioner<s do(icile !as in the
,irst Histrict of 0eyte and if so, !hether she had resided there for at least a period of one
year. %ndisputed is her do(icile of origin, 3acloban, !here her parents lived at the ti(e of
her birth. Hepending on !hat theory one adopts, the sa(e (ay have been changed !hen
she (arried ,erdinand A. Marcos, then do(iciled in 7atac, by operation of la!. Assu(ing
it did, his death certainly released her fro( the obligation to live !ith hi( at the residence
fixed by hi( during his lifeti(e. Chat (ay confuse the lay(an at this point is the fact that
the ter( "do(icile" (ay refer to "do(icile of origin," "do(icile of choice," or "do(icile by
operation of la!," !hich sub=ect !e shall not belabor since it has been a(ply discussed by
the ponente and in the other separate opinions.
In any case, !hat assu(es relevance is the divergence of legal opinion as to the effect of
the husband<s death on the do(icile of the !ido!. )o(e scholars opine that the !ido!<s
do(icile re(ains unchangedB that the deceased husband<s !ishes perforce still bind the
!ife he has left behind. 1iven this interpretation, the !ido! cannot possibly go far enough
to sever the do(iciliary tie i(posed by her husband.
It is bad enough to interpret the la! as e(po!ering the husband unilaterally to fix the
residence or do(icile of the fa(ily, as laid do!n in the #ivil #ode,
6
but to continue giving
obeisance to his !ishes even after the rationale underlying the (utual duty of the spouses
to live together has ceased, is to close one<s eyes to the stark realities of the present.
At the other extre(e is the position that the !ido! auto(atically reverts to her do(icile of
origin upon the de(ise of her husband. Hoes the la! so abhor a vacuu( that the !ido!
has to be endo!ed so(eho! !ith a do(icileN 3o ans!er this >uestion !hich is far fro(
rhetorical, one !ill have to keep in (ind the basic principles of do(icile. Averyone (ust
have a do(icile. 3hen one (ust have only a single do(icile for the sa(e purpose at any
given ti(e. Gnce established, a do(icile re(ains until a ne! one is ac>uired, for no
person lives !ho has no do(icile, as defined by the la! be is sub=ect to.
At this =uncture, !e are confronted !ith an unexplored legal terrain in this =urisdiction,
rendered (ore (urky by the conflicting opinions of foreign legal authorities. 3his being the
state of things, it is i(perative as it is opportune to illu(ine the darkness !ith the beacon
light of truth, as dictated by experience and the necessity of according petitioner her right
to choose her do(icile in keeping !ith the enlightened global trend to recogni&e and
protect the hu(an rights of !o(en, no less than (en.
Ad(ittedly, the notion of placing !o(en at par !ith (en, insofar as civil, political and
social rights are concerned, is a relatively recent pheno(enon that took seed only in the
(iddle of this century. It is a historical fact that for over three centuries, the 'hilippines had
been coloni&ed by )pain, a conservative, #atholic country !hich transplanted to our
shores the Gld Corld cultures, (ores and attitudes and values. 3hrough the i(position on
our govern(ent of the )panish #ivil #ode in .55-, the people, both (en and !o(en, had
no choice but to accept such concepts as the husband<s being the head of the fa(ily and
the !ife<s subordination to his authority. In such role, his !as the right to (ake vital
decisions for the fa(ily. Many instances co(e to (ind, fore(ost being !hat is related to
the issue before us, na(ely, that "the husband shall fix the residence of the fa(ily."
3
7ecause he is (ade responsible for the support of the !ife and the rest of the fa(ily,
4
he
is also e(po!ered to be the ad(inistrator of the con=ugal property, !ith a fe! exceptions
4
and (ay, therefore, dispose of the con=ugal partnership property for the purposes specified
under the la!B
2
!hereas, as a general rule, the !ife cannot bind the con=ugal partnership
!ithout the husband<s consent.
7
As regards the property pertaining to the children under
parental authority, the father is the legal ad(inistrator and only in his absence (ay the
(other assu(e his po!ers.
8
He(eaning to the !ife<s dignity are certain strictures on her
personal freedo(s, practically relegating her to the position of (inors and disabled
persons. 3o illustrate a fe!9 3he !ife cannot, !ithout the husband<s consent, ac>uire any
gratuitous title, except fro( her ascendants, descendants, parents:in:la!, and collateral
relatives !ithin the fourth degree.
9
Cith respect to her e(ploy(ent, the husband !ields a
veto po!er in the case the !ife exercises her profession or occupation or engages in
business, provided his inco(e is sufficient for the fa(ily, according to its social standing
and his opposition is founded on serious and valid grounds.
17
Most offensive, if not
repulsive, to the liberal:(inded is the effective prohibition upon a !ido! to get (arried till
after three hundred days follo!ing the death of her husband, unless in the (eanti(e, she
has given birth to a child.
11
3he (other !ho contracts a subse>uent (arriage loses the
parental authority over her children, unless the deceased husband, father of the latter, has
expressly provided in his !ill that his !ido! (ight (arry again, and has ordered that in
such case she should keep and exercise parental authority over their children.
16
Again,
an instance of a husband<s overarching influence fro( beyond the grave.
All these indignities and disabilities suffered by ,ilipino !ives for hundreds of years evoked
no protest fro( the( until the concept of hu(an rights and e>uality bet!een and a(ong
nations and individuals found hospitable lodg(ent in the %nited Nations #harter of !hich
the 'hilippines !as one of the original signatories. 7y then, the )panish "con>uistadores"
had been overthro!n by the A(erican forces at the turn of the century. 3he bedrock of the
%.N. #harter !as fir(ly anchored on this credo9 "to reaffir( faith in the funda(ental
hu(an rights, in the dignity and !orth of the hu(an person, in t(e equal rig(ts of men and
4omen." ?A(phasis supplied@
It took over thirty years before these egalitarian doctrines bore fruit, o!ing largely to the
burgeoning of the fe(inist (ove(ent. Chat (ay be regarded as the international bill of
rights for !o(en !as i(planted in the #onvention on the Ali(ination of All ,or(s of
Hiscri(ination Against Co(en ?#AHAC@ adopted by the %.N. 1eneral Asse(bly !hich
entered into force as an international treaty on )epte(ber D, .-5.. In ratifying the
instru(ent, the 'hilippines bound itself to i(ple(ent its liberating spirit and letter, for its
#onstitution, no less, declared that "3he 'hilippines. . . adopts the generally accepted
principles of international la! as part of the la! of the land and adheres to the policy of
peace, e>uality, =ustice, freedo(, cooperation, and a(ity !ith all nations."
13
Gne such
principle e(bodied in the #AHAC is granting to (en and !o(en "the sa(e rights !ith
regard to the la! relating to the (ove(ent of persons and the freedom to c(oose t(eir
residence and domicile."
14
?A(phasis supplied@.
#AHAC<s pro:!o(en orientation !hich !as not lost on ,ilipino !o(en !as reflected in
the .-57 #onstitution of the 'hilippines and later, in the ,a(ily #ode,
14
both of !hich
!ere speedily approved by the first lady 'resident of the country, #ora&on #. A>uino.
Notable for its e(phasis on the hu(an rights of all individuals and its bias for e>uality
bet!een the sexes are the follo!ing provisions9 "3he )tate values the dignity of every
hu(an person and guarantees full respect for hu(an rights"
12
and "3he )tate recogni&es
the role of !o(en in nation:building, and shall ensure the funda(ental e>uality before the
la! of !o(en and (en."
17
A (a=or acco(plish(ent of !o(en in their >uest for e>uality !ith (en and the eli(ination
of discri(inatory provisions of la! !as the deletion in the ,a(ily #ode of al(ost all of the
unreasonable strictures on !ives and the grant to the( of personal rights e>ual to that of
their husbands. )pecifically, the husband and !ife are no! given t(e rig(t 3ointl. to fi7 t(e
famil. domicileB
18
conco(itant to the spouses< being =ointly responsible for the support of
the fa(ily is the right and duty of both spouses to (anage the householdB
19
the
ad(inistration and the en=oy(ent of the co((unity property shall belong to both spouses
=ointlyB
67
the father and (other shall no! =ointly exercise legal guardianship over the
property of their une(ancipated co((on child
61
and several others.
A!are of the hiatus and continuing gaps in the la!, insofar as !o(en<s rights are
concerned, #ongress passed a la! popularly kno!n as "Co(en in Hevelop(ent and
Nation 7uilding Act"
66
A(ong the rights given to (arried !o(en evidencing their capacity
to act in contracts e>ual to that of (en are9
?.@ Co(en shall have the capacity to borro! and obtain loans and execute security and
credit arrange(ents under the sa(e conditions as (enB
?6@ Co(en shall have e>ual access to all govern(ent and private sector progra(s
granting agricultural credit, loans and non (aterial resources and shall en=oy e>ual
treat(ent in agrarian refor( and land resettle(ent progra(sB
?D@ Co(en shall have e>ual rights to act as incorporators and enter into insurance
contractsB and
?/@ Married !o(en shall have rights e>ual to those of (arried (en in applying for
passports, secure visas and other travel docu(ents, !ithout need to secure the consent of
their spouses.
As the !orld dra!s the curtain on the ,ourth Corld #onference of Co(en in 7ei=ing, let
this #ourt no! be the first to respond to its clarion call that "Co(en<s Rights are $u(an
Rights" and that "All obstacles to !o(en<s full participation in decision:(aking at all levels,
including the fa(ily" should be re(oved. $aving been herself a Me(ber of the 'hilippine
Helegation to the International Co(en<s Jear #onference in Mexico in .-7, this !riter is
only too keenly a!are of the unre(itting struggle being !aged by !o(en the !orld over,
,ilipino !o(en not excluded, to be accepted as e>uals of (en and to tear do!n the !alls
of discri(ination that hold the( back fro( their proper places under the sun.
In light of the inexorable s!eep of events, local and global, legislative, executive and
=udicial, according (ore rights to !o(en hitherto denied the( and eli(inating !hatever
pockets of discri(ination still exist in their civil, political and social life, can it still be
insisted that !ido!s are not at liberty to choose their do(icile upon the death of their
husbands but (ust retain the sa(e, regardlessN
I sub(it that a !ido!, like the petitioner and others si(ilarly situated, can no longer be
bound by the do(icile of the departed husband, if at all she !as before. Neither does she
auto(atically revert to her do(icile of origin, but exercising free !ill, she (ay opt to
reestablish her do(icile of origin. In returning to 3acloban and subse>uently, to 7arangay
Glot, 3olosa, both of !hich are located in the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte, petitioner a(ply
de(onstrated by overt acts, her election of a do(icile of choice, in this case, a reversion to
her do(icile of origin. Added together, the ti(e !hen she set up her do(icile in the t!o
places sufficed to (eet the one:year re>uire(ent to run as Representative of the ,irst
Histrict of 0eyte.
In vie! of the foregoing expatiation, I vote to 1RAN3 the petition.
VITUG, J., separate opinion9
3he case at bench deals !ith explicit #onstitutional (andates.
3he #onstitution is not a pliable instru(ent. It is a bedrock in our legal syste( that sets up
ideals and directions and render steady our strides hence. It only looks back so as to
ensure that (istakes in the past are not repeated. A co(pliant transience of a constitution
belittles its basic function and !eakens its goals. A constitution (ay !ell beco(e outdated
by the realities of ti(e. Chen it does, it (ust be changed but !hile it re(ains, !e o!e it
respect and allegiance. Anarchy, open or subtle, has never been, nor (ust it ever be, the
ans!er to perceived transitory needs, let alone societal attitudes, or the #onstitution (ight
lose its very essence.
#onstitutional provisions (ust be taken to be (andatory in character unless, either by
express state(ent or by necessary i(plication, a different intention is (anifest ?see
Marcelino vs. #ru&, .6. )#RA .@.
3he t!o provisions initially brought to focus are )ection 6 and )ection .7 of Article 8I of
the funda(ental la!. 3hese provisions read9
)ec. 6. No person shall be a Me(ber of the $ouse of Representatives unless he is a natural:born citi&en of
the 'hilippines and, on the day of the election, is at least t!enty:five years of age, able to read and !rite,
and, except the party:list representatives, a registered voter in the district in !hich he shall be elected, and a
resident thereof for a period of not less than one year i((ediately preceding the day of the election.
)ec. .7. 3he )enate and the $ouse of Representatives shall each have an Alectoral 3ribunal !hich shall be
the sole =udge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and >ualifications of their respective Me(bers.
Aach Alectoral 3ribunal shall be co(posed of nine Me(bers, three of !ho( shall be *ustices of the
)upre(e #ourt to be designated by the #hief *ustice, and the re(aining six shall be Me(bers of the )enate
or the $ouse of Representatives, as the case (ay be, !ho shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation fro( the political parties and the parties or organi&ations registered under the party:list
syste( represented therein. 3he senior *ustice in the Alectoral 3ribunal shall be its #hair(an.
3he #o((ission on Alection ?the "#GMA0A#"@ is constitutionally bound to enforce and
ad(inister "all la!s and regulations relative to the conduct of election . . ." ?Art. IP, #, )ec.
6, #onstitution@ that, there being nothing said to the contrary, should include its authority to
pass upon the >ualification and dis>ualification prescribed by la! of candidates to an
elective office. Indeed, pre:procla(ation controversies are expressly placed under the
#GMA0A#<s =urisdiction to hear and resolve ?Art. IP, #, )ec. D, #onstitution@.
3he (atter before us specifically calls for the observance of the constitutional one:year
residency re>uire(ent. 3he issue ?!hether or not there is here such co(pliance@, to (y
(ind, is basically a >uestion of fact or at least inextricably linked to such deter(ination.
3he findings and =udg(ent of the #GMA0A#, in accordance !ith the long established rule
and sub=ect only to a nu(ber of exceptions under the basic heading of "grave abuse of
discretion," are not revie!able by this #ourt.
I do not find (uch need to do a co(plex exercise on !hat see(s to (e to be a plain
(atter. 1enerally, the ter( "residence" has a broader connotation that (ay (ean
permanent ?do(icile@, official ?place !here one<s official duties (ay re>uire hi( to stay@ or
temporar. ?the place !here he so=ourns during a considerable length of ti(e@. ,or civil la!
purposes, i.e., as regards the exercise of civil rights and the fulfill(ent of civil obligations,
the do(icile of a natural person is the place of his (a/itual residence ?see Article 2, #ivil
#ode@. In election cases, the controlling rule is that heretofore announced by this #ourt in
omualde& vs. egional *rial Court, 7ranch 7, 3acloban #ity ?666 )#RA /25, /2-@B thus9
In election cases, the #ourt treats do(icile and residence as synony(ous ter(s, thus9 "?t@he ter(
"residence" as used in the election la! is synony(ous !ith "do(icile," !hich i(ports not only an intention to
reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled !ith conduct indicative of such
intention." "Ho(icile" denotes a fixed per(anent residence to !hich !hen absent for business or pleasure,
or for like reasons, one intends to return. . . . . Residence thus ac>uired, ho!ever, (ay be lost by adopting
another choice of do(icile. In order, in turn, to ac>uire a ne! do(icile by choice, there (ust concur ?.@
residence or bodily presence in the ne! locality, ?6@ an intention to re(ain there, and ?D@ an intention to
abandon the old do(icile. In other !ords, there (ust basically be animus manendi coupled !ith animus non
revertendi. 3he purpose to re(ain in or at the do(icile of choice (ust be for an indefinite period of ti(eB the
change of residence (ust be voluntaryB and the residence at the place chosen for the ne! do(icile (ust be
actual.
%sing the above tests, I a( not convinced that !e can charge the #GMA0A# !ith having
co((itted grave abuse of discretion in its assailed resolution.
3he #GMA0A#<s =urisdiction, in the case of congressional elections, ends !hen the
=urisdiction of the Alectoral 3ribunal concerned begins. It signifies that the protestee (ust
have theretofore been duly proclai(ed and has since beco(e a "(e(ber" of the )enate
or the $ouse of Representatives. 3he >uestion can be asked on !hether or not the
procla(ation of a candidate is =ust a (inisterial function of the #o((ission on Alections
dictated solely on the nu(ber of votes cast in an election exercise. I believe, it is not. A
(inisterial duty is an obligation the perfor(ance of !hich, being ade>uately defined, does
not allo! the use of further =udg(ent or discretion. 3he #GMA0A#, in its particular case, is
tasked !ith the full responsibility of ascertaining all the facts and conditions such as (ay
be re>uired by la! before a procla(ation is properly done.
3he #ourt, on its part, should, in (y vie! at least, refrain fro( any undue encroach(ent
on the ulti(ate exercise of authority by the Alectoral 3ribunals on (atters !hich, by no
less than a constitutional fiat, are explicitly !ithin their exclusive do(ain. 3he nagging
>uestion, if it !ere other!ise, !ould be the effect of the #ourt<s pere(ptory
pronounce(ent on the ability of the Alectoral 3ribunal to later co(e up !ith its o!n
=udg(ent in a contest "relating to the election, returns and >ualification" of its (e(bers.
'rescinding fro( all the foregoing, I should like to next touch base on the applicability to
this case of )ection 6 of Republic Act No. 66/6, in relation to )ection 76 of Batas
Pam/ansa Blg. 55., each providing thusly9
RA'%70I# A#3 NG. 66/6
xxx xxx xxx
)ec. 6. Effect of !isqualification Case. I Any candidate !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be
dis>ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final =udg(ent before an election to be dis>ualified and he is voted for and
receives the !inning nu(ber of votes in such election, the #ourt or #o((ission shall continue !ith the trial
and hearing of the action, in>uiry or protest and, upon (otion of the co(plainant or any intervenor, (ay
during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the procla(ation of such candidate !henever the
evidence of his guilt is strong.
7A3A) 'AM7AN)A 701. 55.
xxx xxx xxx
)ec. 76. Effects of disqualification cases and priorit.. I 3he #o((ission and the courts shall give priority to
cases of dis>ualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not
later than seven days before the election in !hich the dis>ualification is sought.
Any candidate !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be dis>ualified shall not be voted for, and the
votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. Nevertheless, if for any reason, a candidate is not declared by final,
=udg(ent before an election to be dis>ualified, and he is voted for and receives the !inning nu(ber of votes
in such election, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his procla(ation
and assu(ption to office.
I reali&e that in considering the significance of the la!, it (ay be preferable to look for not
so (uch the specific instances they ostensibly !ould cover as the principle they clearly
convey. 3hus, I !ill not scoff at the argu(ent that it should be sound to say that votes cast
in favor of the dis>ualified candidate, !henever ulti(ately declared as such, should not be
counted in his or her favor and (ust accordingly be considered to be stray votes. 3he
argu(ent, nevertheless, is far out!eighed by the rationale of the no! prevailing doctrine
first enunciated in the case of *opacio vs. Paredes ?6D 'hil. 6D5 E.-.6F@ !hich, although
later abandoned in *ic&on vs. Comelec ?.2D )#RA 657 E.-5.F@, and Santos vs.
C)"ELEC ?.D7 )#RA 7/2 E.-5F@, !as restored, along !ith the interi( case of 1eronimo
vs. amos ?.D6 )#RA /D E.-5F@, by the La/o ?.76 )#RA . ?.-5-F@, A/ella ?62. )#RA
6D E.--.F@, La/o ?6.. )#RA 6-7 E.--6F@ and, (ost recently, Benito ?6D )#RA /D6
E.--/F@ rulings. Benito vs. Comelec !as a unani(ous decision penned by *ustice Kapunan
and concurred in by #hief *ustice Narvasa, *ustices ,eliciano, 'adilla, 7idin, Regalado,
Havide, Ro(ero, Melo, Muiason, 'uno, 8itug and Mendo&a ?*ustices #ru& and 7ellosillo
!ere on official leave@. ,or easy reference, let (e >uote fro( the first La/o decision9
,inally, there is the >uestion of !hether or not the private respondent, !ho filed the quo 4arranto petition,
can replace the petitioner as (ayor. $e cannot. 3he si(ple reason is that as he obtained only the second
highest nu(ber of votes in the election, he !as obviously not the choice of the people of 7aguio #ity.
3he latest ruling of the #ourt on this issue is )antos v. #o((ission on Alections, ?.D7 )#RA 7/2@ decided in
.-5. In that case, the candidate !ho placed second !as proclai(ed elected after the votes for his !inning
rival, !ho !as dis>ualified as a turncoat and considered a non:candidate, !ere all disregard as stray. In
effect, the second placer !on by default. 3hat decision !as supported by eight (e(bers of the #ourt then,
?#uevas, J., ponente, !ith Makasiar, #oncepcion, *r., Ascolin, Relova, He la ,uente, Ala(pay and A>uino,
JJ., concurring.@ !ith three dissenting ?3eehankee, Acting C.J., Abad )antos and Melencio:$errera, JJ.@ and
another t!o reserving their vote. ?'lana and 1utierre&, *r., JJ.@ Gne !as on official leave. ?,ernando, C.J.@
Re:exa(ining that decision, the #ourt finds, and so holds, that it should be reversed in favor of the earlier
case of 1eronimo v. amos, ?.D6 )#RA /D@ !hich represents the (ore logical and de(ocratic rule. 3hat
case, !hich reiterated the doctrine first announced in .-.6 in *opacio v. Paredes, ?6D 'hil. 6D5@ !as
supported by ten (e(bers of the #ourt, ?1utierre&, *r., ponente, !ith 3eehankee, Abad )antos, Melencio:
$errera, 'lana, Ascolin, Relova, He la ,uente, #uevas and Ala(pay, JJ., concurring@ !ithout any dissent,
although one reserved his vote, ?Makasiar, J.@ another took no part, ?A>uino, J.@ and t!o others !ere on
leave. ?,ernando, C.J. and #oncepcion, *r., J.@ 3here the #ourt held9
. . . it !ould be extre(ely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if
a candidate !ho has not ac>uired the (a=ority or plurality of votes is proclai(ed a !inner and i(posed as
the representative of a constituency, the (a=ority of !hich have positively declared through their ballots that
they do not choose hi(.
)ound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those !ho have received the highest nu(ber of
votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a funda(ental idea in all republican for(s of govern(ent
that no one can be declared elected and no (easure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a
(a=ority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. ?62 #orpus *uris 6nd, ) 6/D, p. 676.@
3he fact that the candidate !ho obtained the highest nu(ber of votes is later declared to be dis>ualified or
not eligible for the office to !hich he !as elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate !ho obtained the
second highest nu(ber of votes to be declared the !inner of the elective office. 3he votes cast for a dead,
dis>ualified, or non:eligible person (ay not be valid to vote the !inner into office or (aintain hi( there.
$o!ever, in the absence of a statute !hich clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the
(atter, if the votes !ere cast in the sincere belief that the candidate !as alive, >ualified, or eligible, they
should not be treated as stray, void or (eaningless. ?at pp. 62:6.@
#onsidering all the foregoing, I a( constrained to vote for the dis(issal of the petition.
MENDOA, J., separate opinion9
In (y vie! the issue in this case is !hether the #o((ission on Alections has the po!er to
dis>ualify candidates on the ground that they lack eligibility for the office to !hich they
seek to be elected. I think that it has none and that the >ualifications of candidates (ay be
>uestioned only in the event they are elected, by filing a petition for quo 4arranto or an
election protest in the appropriate foru(, not necessarily in the #GMA0A# but, as in this
case, in the $ouse of Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal. 3hat the parties in this case took
part in the proceedings in the #GMA0A# is of no (o(ent. )uch proceedings !ere
unauthori&ed and !ere not rendered valid by their agree(ent to sub(it their dispute to
that body.
3he various election la!s !ill be searched in vain for authori&ed proceedings for
deter(ining a candidate<s >ualifications for an office before his election. 3here are none in
the G(nibus Alection #ode ?7.'. 7lg. 55.@, in the Alectoral Refor(s 0a! of .-57 ?R.A.
No. 66/6@, or in the la! providing for synchroni&ed elections ?R.A. No. 7.66@. 3here are, in
other !ords, no provisions for pre:procla(ation contests but only election protests or quo
4arranto proceedings against !inning candidates.
3o be sure, there are provisions deno(inated for "dis>ualification," but they are not
concerned !ith a declaration of the ineligibility of a candidate. 3hese provisions are
concerned !ith the incapacity ?due to insanity, inco(petence or conviction of an offense@
of a person either to /e a candidate or to continue as a candidate for public office. 3here is
also a provision for the denial or cancellation of certificates of candidacy, but it applies only
to cases involving false representations as to certain (atters re>uired by la! to be stated
in the certificates.
3hese provisions are found in the follo!ing parts of the G(nibus Alection #ode9
R .6. !isqualifications. I Any person !ho has been declared by co(petent authority insane or inco(petent,
or has been sentenced by final =udg(ent for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for !hich
he has been sentenced to a penalty of (ore than eighteen (onths or for a cri(e involving (oral turpitude,
shall be dis>ualified to /e a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or
granted a(nesty.
3he dis>ualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be dee(ed re(oved upon the declaration by
co(petent authority that said insanity or inco(petence had been re(oved or after the expiration of a period
of five years fro( his service of sentence, unless !ithin the sa(e period he again beco(es dis>ualified.
?A(phasis added@
R 65. !isqualifications. I Any candidate !ho, in an action or protest in !hich he is a party is declared by
final decision of a co(petent court guilty of, or found by the #o((ission of having ?a@ given (oney or other
(aterial consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials perfor(ing electoral
functionsB ?b@ co((itted acts of terroris( to enhance his candidacyB ?c@ spent in his election ca(paign an
a(ount in excess of that allo!ed by this #odeB ?d@ solicited, received or (ade any contribution prohibited
under )ections 5-, -, -6, -7 and .2/B or ?e@ violated any of )ections 52, 5D, 5, 56 and 66., paragraphs d,
e, k, v, and cc, sub:paragraph 6, shall be dis>ualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been
elected, fro( holding the office. Any person !ho is a per(anent resident of or an i((igrant to a foreign
country shall not be >ualified to run for any elective office under this #ode, unless said person has !aived
his status as per(anent resident or i((igrant of a foreign country in accordance !ith the residence
re>uire(ent provided for in the election la!s. ?A(phasis added@
R 75. Petition to den. due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidac.. I A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy (ay be
filed by any person e7clusivel. on t(e ground t(at an. material representation contained t(erein as required
under Section BD (ereof is false. 3he petition (ay be filed at any ti(e not later than t!enty:five days fro( the
ti(e of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later
than fifteen days before the election. ?A(phasis added@
the Alectoral Refor(s 0a! of .-57 ?R.A. No. 66/6@9
R 6. Effect of !isqualification Case. I Any candidate !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be
dis>ualified s(all not /e voted for, and the votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. +f for an. reason a
candidate is not declared /. final 3udgment /efore an election to /e disqualified and (e is voted for and
receives t(e 4inning num/er of votes in suc( election, the #ourt or #o((ission shall continue !ith the trial
and hearing of the action, in>uiry or protest andB upon (otion for the co(plainant or any intervenor, (ay
during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the procla(ation of such candidate 4(enever t(e
evidence of (is guilt is strong. ?A(phasis added@.
R 7. Petition to !en. !ue Course to or Cancel a Certificate of Candidac.. I 3he procedure hereinabove
provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in
)ection 75 of 7atas 'a(bansa 7lg. 55..
and the 0ocal 1overn(ent #ode of .--. ?R.A. No. 7.62@9
R /2. !isqualifications. I 3he follo!ing persons are dis>ualified fro( running for any elective local position9
?a@ 3hose sentenced by final =udg(ent for an offense involving (oral turpitude or for an offense punishable
by one ?.@ year or (ore of i(prison(ent, !ithin t!o ?6@ years after serving sentenceB
?b@ 3hose re(oved fro( office as a result of on ad(inistrative caseB
?c@ 3hose convicted by final =udg(ent for violating the oath of allegiance to the RepublicB
?d@ 3hose !ith dual citi&enshipB
?e@ ,ugitive fro( =ustice in cri(inal or nonpolitical cases here or abroadB
?f@ 'er(anent residents in a foreign country or those !ho have ac>uired the right to reside abroad and
continue to avail of the sa(e right after the effectivity of this #odeB and
?g@ 3he insane or feeble:(inded.
3he petition filed by private respondent #irilo Roy Monte=o in the #GMA0A#, !hile entitled
",or #ancellation and His>ualification," contained no allegation that private respondent
I(elda Ro(ualde&:Marcos (ade (aterial representations in her certificate of candidacy
!hich !ere false, it sought her dis>ualification on the ground that "on the basis of her
8oter Registration Record and #ertificate of #andidacy, EsheF is dis>ualified fro( running
for the position of Representative, considering that on election day, May 5, .--, EsheF
!ould have resided less than ten ?.2@ (onths in the district !here she is seeking to be
elected." ,or its part, the #GMA0A#<s )econd Hivision, in its resolution of April 6/, .--,
cancelled her certificate of candidacy and corrected certificate of candidacy on the basis of
its finding that petitioner is "not >ualified to run for the position of Me(ber of the $ouse of
Representatives for the ,irst 0egislative Histrict of 0eyte" and not because of any finding
that she had (ade false representations as to (aterial (atters in her certificate of
candidacy.
Monte=o<s petition before the #GMA0A# !as therefore not a petition for cancellation of
certificate of candidacy under R 75 of the G(nibus Alection #ode, but essentially a petition
to declare private respondent ineligible. It is i(portant to note this, because, as !ill
presently be explained, proceedings under R 75 have for their purpose to dis>ualify a
person fro( being a candidate, !hereas quo 4arranto proceedings have for their purpose
to dis>ualify a person fro( holding pu/lic office. *urisdiction over quo 4arranto
proceedings involving (e(bers of the $ouse of Representatives is vested in the Alectoral
3ribunal of that body.
Indeed, in the only cases in !hich this #ourt dealt !ith petitions for the cancellation of
certificates of candidacy, the allegations !ere that the respondent candidates had (ade
false representations in their certificates of candidacy !ith regard to their citi&ens(ip,
1
age,
6
or residence.
3
7ut in the generality of cases in !hich this #ourt passed upon the
>ualifications of respondents for office, this #ourt did so in the context of election protests
4
or quo 4arranto proceedings
4
filed after t(e proclamation of t(e respondents or
protestees as 4inners.
3hree reasons (ay be cited to explain the absence of an authori&ed proceeding for
deter(ining /efore election the >ualifications of a candidate.
,irst is the fact that unless a candidate !ins and is proclai(ed elected, there is no
necessity for deter(ining his eligibility for the office. In contrast, !hether an individual
should be dis>ualified as a candidate for acts constituting election offenses ?e.g., vote
buying, over spending, co((ission of prohibited acts@ is a pre=udicial >uestion !hich
should be deter(ined lest he !ins because of the very acts for !hich his dis>ualification is
being sought. 3hat is !hy it is provided that if the grounds for dis>ualification are
established, a candidate !ill not be voted forB if he has been voted for, the votes in his
favor !ill not be countedB and if for so(e reason he has been voted for and he has !on,
either he !ill not be proclai(ed or his procla(ation !ill be set aside.
2
)econd is the fact that the deter(ination of a candidate<s eligibility, e.g., his citi&enship or,
as in this case, his do(icile, (ay take a long ti(e to (ake, extending beyond the
beginning of the ter( of the office. 3his is a(ply de(onstrated in the co(panion case
?1.R. No. .6266, Agapito A. A>uino v. #GMA0A#@ !here the deter(ination of A>uino<s
residence !as still pending in the #GMA0A# even after the elections of May 5, .--. 3his
is contrary to the su((ary character of proceedings relating to certificates of candidacy.
3hat is !hy the la! (akes the receipt of certificates of candidacy a (inisterial duty of the
#GMA0A# and its officers.
7
3he la! is satisfied if candidates state in their certificates of
candidacy that they are eligible for the position !hich they seek to fill, leaving the
deter(ination of their >ualifications to be (ade after the election and only in the event they
are elected. Gnly in cases involving charges of false representations (ade in certificates
of candidacy is the #GMA0A# given =urisdiction.
3hird is the policy underlying the prohibition against pre:procla(ation cases in elections for
'resident, 8ice 'resident, )enators and (e(bers of the $ouse of Representatives. ?R.A.
No. 7.66, R .@ 3he purpose is to preserve the prerogatives of the $ouse of
Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal and the other 3ribunals as "sole =udges" under the
#onstitution of the election, returns and qualifications of (e(bers of #ongress or of the
'resident and 8ice 'resident, as the case (ay be.
7y providing in R 6D for the re(edy of quo 4arranto for deter(ining an elected official<s
>ualifications after the results of elections are proclai(ed, !hile being conspicuously silent
about a pre:procla(ation re(edy based on the sa(e ground, the G(nibus Alection #ode,
or GA#, by its silence underscores the policy of not authori&ing any in>uiry into the
>ualifications of candidates unless they have been elected.
Apparently reali&ing the lack of an authori&ed proceeding for declaring the ineligibility of
candidates, the #GMA0A# a(ended its rules on ,ebruary ., .--D so as to provide in
Rule 6, R . the follo!ing9
1rounds for disqualification. I Any candidate !ho does not possess all the >ualifications of a candidate as
provided for by the #onstitution or by existing la! or !ho co((its any act declared by la! to be grounds for
dis>ualification (ay be dis>ualified fro( continuing as a candidate.
3he lack of provision for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, ho!ever, cannot be
supplied by a (ere rule. )uch an act is e>uivalent to the creation of a cause of action
!hich is a substantive (atter !hich the #GMA0A#, in the exercise of its rule(aking po!er
under Art. IP, A, R 6 of the #onstitution, cannot do. It is note!orthy that the #onstitution
!ithholds fro( the #GMA0A# even the po!er to decide cases involving the right to vote,
!hich essentially involves an in>uiry into qualifications based on age, residence and
citi&ens(ip of voters. ?Art. IP, #, R 6?D@@
3he assi(ilation in Rule 6 of the #GMA0A# rules of grounds for ineligibility into grounds
for dis>ualification is contrary to the evident intention of the la!. ,or not only in their
grounds but also in their conse>uences are proceedings for "dis>ualification" different fro(
those for a declaration of "ineligibility." "His>ualification" proceedings, as already stated,
are based on grounds specified in RR .6 and 65 of the G(nibus Alection #ode and in R /2
of the 0ocal 1overn(ent #ode and are for the purpose of barring an individual fro(
/ecoming a candidate or from continuing as a candidate for public office. In a !ord, their
purpose is to eliminate a candidate from t(e race either fro( the start or during its
progress. "Ineligibility," on the other hand, refers to the lack of the >ualifications prescribed
in the #onstitution or the statutes for holding pu/lic office and the purpose of the
proceedings for declaration of ineligibility is to remove t(e incum/ent from office.
#onse>uently, that an individual possesses the >ualifications for a public office does not
i(ply that he is not dis>ualified fro( beco(ing a candidate or continuing as a candidate
for a public office and vice versa. Ce have this sort of dichoto(y in our Naturali&ation 0a!.
?#.A. No. /7D@ 3hat an alien has the >ualifications prescribed in R 6 of the la! does not
i(ply that he does not suffer fro( any of dis>ualifications provided in R /.
Indeed, provisions for dis>ualifications on the ground that the candidate is guilty of
prohibited election practices or offenses, like other pre:procla(ation re(edies, are ai(ed
at the detestable practice of "grabbing the procla(ation and prolonging the election
protest,"
8
through the use of "(anufactured" election returns or resort to other trickery for
the purpose of altering the results of the election. 3his rationale does not apply to cases f or
deter(ining a candidate<s >ualifications for office before the election. 3o the contrary, it is
the candidate against !ho( a proceeding for dis>ualification is brought !ho could be
pre=udiced because he could be prevented fro( assu(ing office even though in end he
prevails.
3o su((ari&e, the declaration of ineligibility of a candidate (ay only be sought in an
election protest or action for quo 4arranto filed pursuant to R 6D of the G(nibus Alection
#ode !ithin .2 days after his procla(ation. Cith respect to elective local officials ?e.g.,
1overnor, 8ice 1overnor, (e(bers of the )angguniang 'anlala!igan, etc.@ such petition
(ust be filed either !ith the #GMA0A#, the Regional 3rial #ourts, or Municipal 3rial
#ourts, as provided in Art. IP, #, R 6?6@ of the #onstitution. In the case of the 'resident
and 8ice 'resident, the petition (ust be filed !ith the 'residential Alectoral 3ribunal ?Art.
8II, R /, last paragraph@, and in the case of the )enators, !ith the )enate Alectoral
3ribunal, and in the case of #ongress(en, !ith the $ouse of Representatives Alectoral
3ribunal. ?Art. 8I, R .7@ 3here is greater reason for not allo!ing before the election the
filing of dis>ualification proceedings based on alleged ineligibility in the case of candidates
for 'resident, 8ice 'resident, )enators and (e(bers of the $ouse of Representatives,
because of the sa(e policy prohibiting the filing of pre:procla(ation cases against such
candidates.
,or these reasons, I a( of the opinion that the #GMA0A# had no =urisdiction over )'A
No. -:22-B that its proceedings in that case, including its >uestioned orders, are voidB and
that the eligibility of petitioner I(elda Ro(ualde&:Marcos for the office of Representative of
the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte (ay only be in>uired into by the $RA3.
Accordingly, I vote to grant the petition and to annul the proceedings of the #o((ission on
Alections in )'A No. -:22-, including its >uestioned orders doted April 6/, .--, May 7,
.--, May .., .-- and May 6, .--, declaring petitioner I(elda Ro(ualde&:Marcos
ineligible and ordering her procla(ation as Representative of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte
suspended. 3o the extent that Rule 6 of the #GMA0A# Rules of 'rocedure authori&es
proceedings for the dis>ualification of candidates on the ground of ineligibility for the office,
it should considered void.
3he provincial board of canvassers should no! proceed !ith the procla(ation of
petitioner.
Narvasa, C.J., concurs.
)ADILLA, J., dissenting9
I regret that I cannot =oin the (a=ority opinion as expressed in the !ell:!ritten ponencia of
Mr. *ustice Kapunan.
As in any controversy arising out of a #onstitutional provision, the in>uiry (ust begin and
end !ith the provision itself. 3he controversy should not be blurred by !hat, to (e, are
acade(ic dis>uisitions. In this particular controversy, the #onstitutional provision on point
states that I "no person shall be a (e(ber of the $ouse of Representatives unless he is
a natural:born citi&en of the 'hilippines, and on the day of the election, is at least t!enty:
five ?6@ years of age, able to read and !rite, and except the party list representatives, a
registered voter in the district in !hich he shall be elected, and a resident t(ereof for a
period of not less t(an one .ear immediatel. preceding t(e da. of t(e electi on." ?Article 8I,
section 6@
It has been argued that for purposes of our election la!s, the ter( residence has been
understood as synony(ous !ith domicile. 3his argu(ent has been validated by no less
than the #ourt in nu(erous cases
1
!here significantly the factual circumstances clearly
and convincingly proved that a person does not effectively lose his do(icile of origin if the
intention to reside therein is (anifest !ith his personal presence in the place, coupled 4it(
conduct indicative of suc( intention.
Cith this basic thesis in (ind, it !ould not be difficult to conceive of different (odalities
!ithin !hich the phrase "a resident thereof ?(eaning, the legislative district@ for a period of
not less than one year" !ould fit.
3he first instance is !here a person<s residence and do(icile coincide in !hich case a
person only has to prove that he has been do(iciled in a per(anent location for not less
than a year before the election.
A second situation is !here a person (aintains a residence apart fro( his do(icile in
!hich case he !ould have the luxury of district shopping, provided of course, he satisfies
the one:year residence period in the district as the (ini(u( period for eligibility to the
position of congressional representative for the district.
In either case, one !ould not be constitutionally dis>ualified for abandoning his residence
in order to return to his do(icile of origin, or better still, do(icile of choiceB neither !ould
one be dis>ualified for abandoning altogether his do(icile in favor of his residence in the
district !here he desires to be a candidate.
3he (ost extre(e circu(stance !ould be a situation !herein a person (aintains several
residences in different districts. )ince his do(icile of origin continues as an option as long
as there is no effective abandon(ent ?animus non revertendi@, he can practically choose
the district (ost advantageous for hi(.
All these theoretical scenarios, ho!ever, are te(pered by the una(biguous li(itation that
Efor a period of not less t(an one .ear immediatel. preceding t(e da. of t(e electionE, he
(ust be a resident in the district !here he desires to be elected.
3o (y (ind, the one year residence period is crucial regardless of !hether or not the ter(
"residence" is to be synony(ous !ith "do(icile." In other !ords, the candidate<s intent and
actual presence in one district (ust in all situations satisfy the length of ti(e prescribed by
the funda(ental la!. And this, because of a definite #onstitutional purpose. $e (ust be
fa(iliar !ith the environ(ent and proble(s of a district he intends to represent in
#ongress and the one:year residence in said district !ould be the (ini(u( period to
ac>uire such fa(iliarity, if not versatility.
In the case of petitioner I(elda R. Marcos, the operative facts are distinctly set out in the
no! assailed decision of the #o(elec 6nd Hivision dated 6/ April .-- ?as affir(ed by the
#o(elec en /anc@ I
In or about .-D5 !hen respondent !as a little over 5 years old, she established her do(icile in 3acloban,
0eyte ?3acloban #ity@. )he studied in the $oly Infant Acade(y in 3acloban fro( .-D5 to .-/5 !hen she
graduated fro( high school. )he pursued her college studies in )t. 'aul<s #ollege, no! Hivine Cord
%niversity of 3acloban, !here she earned her degree in Aducation. 3hereafter, she taught in the 0eyte
#hinese $igh )chool, still in 3acloban #ity. In .-6 she !ent to Manila to !ork !ith her cousin, the late
)peaker Haniel +. Ro(ualde& in his office in the $ouse of Representatives. In .-/, she (arried ex:
president ,erdinand Marcos !hen he !as still a congress(an of Ilocos Norte. )he lived !ith hi( in 7atac,
Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter. Chen her husband !as elected )enator of the Republic in
.--, she and her husband lived together in )an *uan, Ri&al !here she registered as a voter. In .-6 !hen
her husband !as elected 'resident of the Republic of the 'hilippines, she lived !ith hi( in Malacanang
'alace and registered as a voter in )an Miguel, Manila.
Huring the Marcos presidency, respondent served as a Me(ber of the 7atasang 'a(bansa, Minister of
$u(an )ettle(ents and 1overnor of Metro Manila. )he clai(ed that in ,ebruary .-56, she and her fa(ily
!ere abducted and kidnapped to $onolulu, $a!aii. In Nove(ber .--., she ca(e ho(e to Manila. In .--6
respondent ran for election as 'resident of the 'hilippines and filed her #ertificate of #andidacy !herein she
indicated that she is a resident and registered voter of )an *uan, Metro Manila. Gn August 6/, .--/,
respondent filed a letter !ith the election officer of )an *uan, Metro Manila, re>uesting for cancellation of her
registration in the 'er(anent 0ist of 8oters in 'recinct No. .7 of )an *uan, Metro Manila, in order that she
(ay be re:registered or transferred to 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte. ?Annex 6:7, Ans!er@. Gn August D., .--/,
respondent filed her )!orn Application for #ancellation of 8oter<s 'revious Registration ?Annex 6:#, Ans!er@
stating that she is a duly registered voter in .7:A, 7rgy. Maytunas, )an *uan, Metro that she intends to
register at 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte.
Gn *anuary 65, .-- respondent registered as a voter at 'recinct No. .5:A of Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte. )he filed
!ith the 7oard of Alection Inspectors #A ,or( No. ., 8oter Registration Record No. -/:DD/-776, !herein
she alleged that she has resided in the (unicipality of 3olosa for a period of 6 (onths ?Annex A, 'etition@.
Gn March 5, .--, respondent filed !ith the Gffice of the 'rovincial Alection )upervisor, 0eyte, a #ertificate
of #andidacy for the position of Representative of the ,irst Histrict of 0eyte !herein she also alleged that she
has been a resident in the constituency !here she seeks to be elected for a period of 7 (onths. 3he
pertinent entries therein are as follo!s9
7. 'RG,A))IGN GR G##%'A3IGN9 $ouse:!ife; 3eacher; )ocial Corker
5. RA)IHAN#A ?co(plete address@9 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte
'ost Gffice Address for election purposes9 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte
-. RA)IHAN#A IN 3$A #GN)3I3%AN#J C$ARAIN I )AAK 3G 7A A0A#3AH IMMAHIA3A0J
'RA#AHIN1 A0A#3IGN9 LLLLLLLL Jears Seven Months
.2. I AM NG3 A 'ARMANAN3 RA)IHAN3 G,, GR IMMI1RAN3 3G, A ,GRAI1N #G%N3RJ.
3$A3 I AM A0I1I70A for said officeB 3hat I !ill support and defend the #onstitution of the Republic of the
'hilippines and !ill (aintain true faith and allegiance theretoB 3hat I !ill obey the la!s, legal orders and
decrees pro(ulgated by the duly:constituted authoritiesB 3hat the obligation i(posed by (y oath is assu(ed
voluntarily, !ithout (ental reservation or purpose of evasionB and 3hat the facts stated herein are true to the
best of (y kno!ledge.
?)gd.@ I(elda Ro(ualde&:Marcos
?)ignature of #andidate@
6
'etitioner<s aforestated certificate of candidacy filed on 5 March .-- contains the decisive
co(ponent or seed of her dis>ualification. It is contained in her ans!er under oath of
"seven mont(s" to the >uery of "residence in the constituency !herein I seek to be elected
i((ediately preceding the election."
It follo!s fro( all the above that the #o(elec co((itted no grave abuse of discretion in
holding that petitioner is dis>ualified fro( the position of representative for the .st
congressional district of 0eyte in the elections of 5 May .--, for failure to (eet the "not
less than one:year residence in the constituency ?.st district, 0eyte@ i((ediately preceding
the day of election ?5 May .--@."
$aving arrived at petitioner<s dis>ualification to be a representative of the first district of
0eyte, the next i(portant issue to resolve is !hether or not the #o(elec can order the
7oard of #anvassers to determine and proclaim t(e 4inner out of the remaining qualified
candidates for representative in said district.
I a( not una!are of the pronounce(ent (ade by this #ourt in the case of La/o vs.
Comelec, 1.R. 566/, August ., .-5-, .76 )#RA . !hich gave the rationale as laid do!n
in the early .-.6 case of *opacio vs. Paredes, 6D 'hil. 6D5 that9
. . . . )ound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those !ho have received the highest
nu(ber of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a funda(ental idea in all republican for(s of
govern(ent that no one can be declared elected and no (easure can be declared carried unless he or it
receives a (a=ority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. ?62 #orpus *uris 6nd, ) 6/D, p. 676@
3he fact that the candidate !ho obtained the highest nu(ber of votes is later declared to be dis>ualified or
not eligible for the office to !hich he !as elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate !ho obtained the
second highest nu(ber of votes to be declared the !inner of the elective office. 3he votes cast for a dead,
dis>ualified, or non:eligible person (ay not be valid to vote the !inner into office or (aintain hi( there.
$o!ever, in t(e a/sence of a statute !hich clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the
(atter, if the votes !ere cast in the sincere belief that the candidate !as alive, >ualified, or eligible, they
should not be treated as stray, void or (eaningless.
%nder )ec. 6 RA 66/6, ?An Act Introducing Additional Refor(s in the Alectoral )yste( and
for other purposes@ ?5/ G.1. -2, 66 ,ebruary .-55@ it is provided that9
. . . I Any candidate !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be dis>ualified shall not be voted for, and
the votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final =udg(ent
before an election to be dis>ualified and he is voted for and receives the !inning nu(ber of votes in such
election, the #ourt or #o((ission shall continue !ith the trial and hearing of the action, in>uiry or protest
and, upon (otion of the co(plainant or any intervenor, (ay, during the pendency thereof order the
suspension of the procla(ation of such candidate !henever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
3here is no need to indulge in legal her(eneutics to sense the plain and una(biguous
(eaning of the provision >uoted above. As the la! no! stands, the legislative policy does
not li(it its concern !ith the effect of a final =udge(ent of dis>ualification only /efore the
election, but even during or after the election. 3he la! is clear that in all situations, the
votes cast for a dis>ualified candidate )$A00 NG3 7A #G%N3AH. 3he la! has also
validated the =urisdiction of the #ourt or #o((ission on Alection to continue hearing the
petition for dis>ualification in case a candidate is voted for and receives the highest
nu(ber of votes, if for an. reason, (e is not declared /. final 3udgment /efore an election
to /e disqualified.
)ince the present case is an after election scenario, the po!er to suspend procla(ation
?!hen evidence of his guilt is strong@ is also explicit under the la!. Chat happens then
!hen after the elections are over, one is declared dis>ualifiedN 3hen, votes cast for hi(
"shall not be counted" and in legal conte(plation, he no longer received the highest
nu(ber of votes.
It stands to reason that )ection 6 of RA 66/6 does not (ake the second placer the !inner
si(ply because a "!inning candidate is dis>ualified," but that the la! considers hi( as the
candidate !ho had obtained the highest nu(ber of votes as a result of the votes cast for
the dis>ualified candidate not being counted or considered.
As this la! clearly reflects the legislative policy on the (atter, then there is no reason !hy
this #ourt should not re:exa(ine and conse>uently abandon the doctrine in the *un 0abo
case. It has been stated that "the >ualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be
erased by the electorate alone. 3he !ill of the people as expressed through the ballot
cannot cure the vice of ineligibility" (ost especially !hen it is (andated by no less than
the #onstitution.
A##GRHIN10J, I vote to HI)MI)) the petition and to order the 'rovincial 7oard of
#anvassers of 0eyte to proclai( the candidate receiving the highest nu(ber of votes, fro(
a(ong the >ualified candidates, as the duly elected representative of the .st district of
0eyte.
2ermosisima, Jr. J., dissent.
REGALADO, J., dissenting9
Chile I agree !ith sa(e of the factual bases of the (a=ority opinion, I cannot arrive
con=ointly at the sa(e conclusion dra!n therefro( $ence, this dissent !hich assuredly is
not for(ulated "on the basis of the personality of a petitioner in a case."
I go along !ith the (a=ority in their narration of antecedent facts, insofar as the sa(e are
pertinent to this case, and !hich I have si(plified as follo!s9
.. 'etitioner, although born in Manila, resided during her childhood in the present 3acloban #ity, she being a
legiti(ate daughter of parents !ho appear to have taken up per(anent residence therein. )he also !ent to
school there and, for a ti(e, taught in one of the schools in that city.
6. Chen she (arried then Rep. ,erdinand A. Marcos !ho !as then do(iciled in 7atac, Ilocos Norte, by
operation of la! she ac>uired a ne! do(icile in that place in .-/.
D. In the successive years and during the events that happened thereafter, her husband having been elected
as a )enator and then as 'resident, she lived !ith hi( and their fa(ily in )an *uan, Ri&al and then in
Malacanang 'alace in )an Miguel, Manila.
/. Gver those years, she registered as a voter and actually voted in 7atac, Ilocos Norte, then in )an *uan,
Ri&al, and also in )an Miguel, Manila, all these (erely in the exercise of the right of suffrage.
. It does not appear that her husband, even after he had assu(ed those lofty positions successively, ever
abandoned his do(icile of origin in 7atac, Ilocos Norte !here he (aintained his residence and invariably
voted in all elections.
6. After the ouster of her husband fro( the presidency in .-56 and the so=ourn of the Marcos fa(ily in
$onolulu, $a!aii, %.).A., she eventually returned to the 'hilippines in .--. and resided in different places
!hich she clai(ed to have been (erely te(porary residences.
7. In .--6, petitioner ran for election as 'resident of the 'hilippines and in her certificate of candidacy she
indicated that she !as then a registered voter and resident of )an *uan, Metro Manila.
5. Gn August 6/, .--/, she filed a letter for the cancellation of her registration in the 'er(anent 0ist of
8oters in 'recinct No. .7 of )an *uan, Metro Manila in order that she (ay "be re:registered or transferred
to 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte." Gn August D., .--/, she follo!ed this up !ith her )!orn Application for
#ancellation of 8oter<s 'revious Registration !herein she stated that she !as a registered voter in 'recinct
No. .7:A, 7rgy. Maytunas, )an *uan, Metro Manila and that she intended to register in 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa,
0eyte.
-. Gn *anuary 65, .--, petitioner registered as a voter at 'recinct No. .5:A of Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, for !hich
purpose she filed !ith the therein 7oard of Alection Inspectors a voter<s registration record for( alleging that
she had resided in that (unicipality for six (onths.
.2. Gn March 5, .--, petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the
,irst Histrict of 0eyte !herein she alleged that she had been a resident for "Seven Months" of the
constituency !here she sought to be elected.
... Gn March 6-, .--, she filed an "A(ended;#orrected #ertificate of #andidacy" !herein her ans!er in
the original certificate of candidacy to ite( "5. RA)IHAN#A IN 3$A #GN)3I3%AN#J C$ARA I )AAK, 3G
7A A0A#3AH IMMAHIA3A0J 'RA#AHIN1 3$A A0A#3IGN9" !as changed or replaced !ith a ne! entry
reading ")IN#A #$I0H$GGH."
3he sole issue for resolution is !hether, for purposes of her candidacy, petitioner had
co(plied !ith the residency re>uire(ent of one year as (andated by no less than )ection
6, Article 8I of the .-57 #onstitution.
I do not intend to i(pose upon the ti(e of (y colleagues !ith a dissertation on the
difference bet!een residence and do(icile. Ce have had enough of that and I understand
that for purposes of political la! and, for that (atter of international la!, residence is
understood to be synony(ous !ith do(icile. 3hat is so understood in our =urisprudence
and in A(erican 0a!, in contradistinction to the concept of residence for purposes of civil,
co((ercial and procedural la!s !henever an issue thereon is relevant or controlling.
#onse>uently, since in the present case the >uestion of petitioner<s residence is integrated
in and inseparable fro( her do(icile, I a( addressing the issue fro( the standpoint of the
concept of the latter ter(, specifically its per(utations into the do(icile of origin, do(icile
of choice and do(icile by operation of la!, as understood in A(erican la! fro( !hich for
this case !e have taken our =urisprudential bearings.
My readings infor( (e that the do(icile of the parents at the ti(e of birth, or !hat is
ter(ed the "do(icile of origin," constitutes the do(icile of an infant until abandoned, or
until the ac>uisition of a ne! do(icile in a different place.
1
In the instant case, !e (ay
grant that petitioner<s do(icile of origin,
6
at least as of .-D5, !as !hat is no! 3acloban
#ity.
No!, as I have observed earlier, do(icile is said to be of three kinds, that is, do(icile by
birth, do(icile by choice, and do(icile by operation of la!. 3he first is the co((on case of
the place of birth or domicilium originis, the second is that !hich is voluntarily ac>uired by
a party or domicilium propio motuB the last !hich is conse>uential, as that of a !ife arising
fro( (arriage,
3
is so(eti(es called domicilium necesarium. 3here is no debate that the
do(icile of origin can be lost or replaced by a do(icile of choice or a do(icile by operation
of la! subse>uently ac>uired by the party.
Chen petitioner contracted (arriage in .-/ !ith then Rep. Marcos, by operation of la!,
not only international or A(erican but of our o!n enact(ent,
4
she ac>uired her husband<s
do(icile of origin in 7atac, Ilocos Norte and correspondingly lost her o!n do(icile of origin
in 3acloban #ity.
$er subse>uent changes of residence I to )an *uan, Ri&al, then to )an Miguel, Manila,
thereafter to $onolulu, $a!aii, and back to no! )an *uan, Metro Manila I do not appear
to have resulted in her thereby ac>uiring ne! do(iciles of choice. In fact, it appears that
her having resided in those places !as by reason of the fortunes or (isfortunes of her
husband and his peregrinations in the assu(ption of ne! official positions or the loss of
the(. $er residence in $onolulu and, of course, those after her return to the 'hilippines
!ere, as she clai(ed, against her !ill or only for transient purposes !hich could not have
invested the( !ith the status of do(iciles of choice.
4
After petitioner<s return to the 'hilippines in .--. and up to the present i(broglio over her
re>uisite residency in 3acloban #ity or Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, there is no sho!ing that she
ever atte(pted to ac>uire any other do(icile of choice !hich could have resulted in the
abandon(ent of her legal do(icile in 7atac, Ilocos Norte. Gn that score, !e note the
(a=ority<s o!n sub(ission
2
that, to successfully effect a change of do(icile, one (ust
de(onstrate ?a@ an actual re(oval or an actual change of do(icile, ?b@ a /ona fide
intention of abandoning the for(er place of residence and establishing a ne! one, and ?c@
acts !hich correspond !ith the purpose.
Ce conse>uently have to also note that these re>uire(ents for the ac>uisition of a
do(icile of choice apply !hether !hat is sought to be changed or substituted is a do(icile
of origin ?domicilium originis@ or a do(icile by operation of la! ?domicilium necesarium@.
)ince petitioner had lost her domicilium originis !hich had been replaced by her
domicilium necesarium, it is therefore her continuing do(icile in 7atac, Ilocos Norte !hich,
if at all, can be the ob=ect of legal change under the contingencies of the case at bar.
3o get out of this >uandary, the (a=ority decision echoes the dissenting opinion of
#o((issioner Regalado A. Maa(bong in )'A -:22- of the #o((ission on Alections,
7
and advances this novel proposition.
It (ay be said that petitioner lost her do(icile of origin by operation of la! as a result of her (arriage to the
late 'resident ,erdinand A. Marcos in .-6 ?sic, .-/@. 7y operation of la! ?domicilium necesarium@, her
legal do(icile at the ti(e of her (arriage beca(e 7atac, Ilocos Norte alt(oug( t(ere 4ere no indications of
an intention on (er part to a/andon (er domicile of origin. 7ecause of her husband<s subse>uent death and
through the operation of the provisions of the Ne! ,a(ily #ode already in force at the ti(e, ho!ever, (er
legal domicile automaticall. reverted to (er domicile of origin. . . . ?A(phasis supplied@.
,irstly, I a( pu&&led !hy although it is conceded that petitioner had ac>uired a domicilium
necesarium in 7atac, Ilocos Norte, the (a=ority insists on (aking a >ualification that she
did not intend to a/andon her do(icile of origin. I find this be!ildering since, in this
situation, it is the la! that declares !here petitioner<s do(icile is at any given ti(e, and not
her self:serving or putative intent to hold on to her for(er do(icile. Gther!ise, contrary to
their o!n ad(ission that one cannot have (ore than one do(icile at a ti(e,
8
the (a=ority
!ould be suggesting that petitioner retained 3acloban #ity as ?for lack of a ter( in la!
since it does not exist therein@ the e>uivalent of !hat is fancied as a reserved, dor(ant,
potential, or residual do(icile.
)econdly, do(icile once lost in accordance !ith la! can only be recovered like!ise in
accordance !ith la!. $o!ever, !e are here being titillated !ith the possibility of an
auto(atic reversion to or reac>uisition of a do(icile of origin after the ter(ination of the
cause for its loss by operation of la!. 3he (a=ority agrees that since petitioner lost her
do(icile of origin by her (arriage, the ter(ination of the (arriage also ter(inates that
effect thereof. I a( i(pressed by the ingeniousness of this theory !hich proves that,
indeed, necessity is the (other of inventions. Regretfully, I find so(e difficulty in accepting
either the logic or the validity of this argu(ent.
If a party loses his do(icile of origin by obtaining a ne! do(icile of choice, he thereby
voluntaril. a/andons the for(er in favor of the latter. If, thereafter, he abandons that
chosen do(icile, he does not per se recover his original do(icile unless, by subse>uent
acts legally indicative thereof, he evinces his intent and desire to establish the sa(e as his
ne! do(icile, !hich is precisely !hat petitioner belatedly and, evidently =ust for purposes
of her candidacy, unsuccessfully tried to do.
Gne<s subse>uent abandon(ent of his do(icile of choice cannot auto(atically restore his
do(icile of origin, not only because there is no legal authority therefor but because it
!ould be absurd 'ursued to its logical conse>uence, that theory of ipso 3ure reversion
!ould rule out the fact that said party could already very !ell have obtained another
do(icile, either of choice or by operation of la!, other than his do(i cile of origin.
)ignificantly and obviously for this reason, the ,a(ily #ode, !hich the (a=ority
inexplicably invokes, advisedly does not regulate this contingency since it !ould i(pinge
on one<s freedo( of choice.
No!, in the instant case, petitioner not only voluntaril. a/andoned her do(icile of choice
?unless !e assu(e that she entered into the (arital state against her !ill@ but, on top of
that, such abandon(ent !as further affir(ed through her ac>uisition of a ne! do(icile by
operation of la4. In fact, this is even a case of both voluntar. and legal abandon(ent of a
do(icile of origin. Cith (uch (ore reason, therefore, should !e re=ect the proposition that
!ith the ter(ination of her (arriage in .-5-, petitioner had supposedly per se and ipso
facto reac>uired her do(icile of origin !hich she lost in .-/. Gther!ise, this !ould be
tanta(ount to saying that during the period of (arital coverture, she !as si(ultaneously in
possession and en=oy(ent of a do(icile of origin !hich !as only in a state of suspended
ani(ation.
3hus, the A(erican rule is like!ise to the effect that !hile after the husband<s death the
!ife has the right to elect her o!n do(icile,
9
she nevertheless retains the last do(icile of
her deceased husband until she (akes an actual change.
17
In the absence of affir(ative
evidence, to the contrary, the presu(ption is that a !ife<s do(icile or legal residence
follo!s that of her husband and !ill continue after his death.
11
I cannot appreciate the pre(ises advanced in support of the (a=ority<s theory based on
Articles 65 and 6- of the ,a(ily #ode. All that is of any relevance therein is that under this
ne! code, the right and po!er to fix the fa(ily do(icile is no! shared by the spouses. I
cannot perceive ho! that =oint right, !hich in the first place !as never exercised by the
spouses, could affect the do(icile fixed by the la! for petitioner in .-/ and, for her
husband, long prior thereto. It is true that a !ife no! has the coordinate po!er to
deter(ine the con3ugal or famil. do(icile, but that has no bearing on this case. Cith the
death of her husband, and each of her children having gotten (arried and established
their o!n respective do(iciles, the exercise of that =oint po!er !as and is no longer called
for or (aterial in the present factual setting of this controversy. Instead, !hat is of concern
in petitioner<s case !as the (atter of her having ac>uired or not her o!n do(icile of
choice.
I agree !ith the (a=ority<s discourse on the virtues of the gro!ing and expanded
participation of !o(en in the affairs of the nation, !ith e>ual rights and recognition by
#onstitution and statutory confer(ent. $o!ever, I have searched in vain for a specific la!
or =udicial pronounce(ent !hich either expressly or by necessary i(plication supports the
(a=ority<s desired theory of auto(atic reac>uisition of or reversion to the domicilium
originis of petitioner. Hefinitely, as bet!een the settled and desira/le legal nor(s that
should govern this issue, there is a !orld of differenceB and, un>uestionably, this should be
resolved by legislative articulation but not by the elo>uence of the !ell:turned phrase.
In su(, petitioner having lost 3acloban #ity as her do(icile of origin since .-/ and not
having auto(atically reac>uired any do(icile therein, she cannot legally clai( that her
residency in the political constituency of !hich it is a part continued since her birth up to
the present. Respondent co((ission !as, therefore, correct in re=ecting her pretension to
that effect in her a(ended;corrected certificate of candidacy, and in holding her to her
ad(ission in the original certificate that she had actually resided in that constituency for
only seven (onths prior to the election. 3hese considerations render it unnecessary to
further pass upon the procedural issues raised by petitioner.
GN 3$A ,GRA1GIN1 'RAMI)A), I vote to HI)MI)) the petition for lack of (erit.
DAVIDE, %R., J., dissenting9
I respectfully dissent fro( the opinion of the (a=ority !ritten by Mr. *ustice )antiago M.
Kapunan, (ore particularly on the issue of the petitioner<s >ualification.
%nder )ection 7, )ubdivision A, Article IP of the #onstitution, decisions, orders, or rulings
of the #GMA0A# (ay be brought to this #ourt only by the special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 6 of the Rules of #ourt ?Aratuc vs. #GMA0A#, 55 )#RA 6. E.-7-FB Hario
vs. Mison, .76 )#RA 5/ E.-5-F@.
Accordingly, a !rit of certiorari (ay be granted only if the #GMA0A# has acted !ithout or
in excess of =urisdiction or !ith grave abuse of discretion ?)ection ., Rule 6, Rules of
#ourt@. )ince the #GMA0A# has, undoubtedly, =urisdiction over the private respondent<s
petition, the only issue left is !hether it acted !ith grave abuse of discretion in
dis>ualifying the petitioner.
My careful and (eticulous perusal of the challenged resolution of 6/ April .-- of the
#GMA0A# )econd Hivision and the En Banc resolution of 7 May .-- discloses total
absence of abuse of discretion, (uch less grave abuse thereof. 3he resolution of the
)econd Hivision dispassionately and ob=ectively discussed in (inute details the facts
!hich established beyond cavil that herein petitioner !as dis>ualified as a candidate on
the ground of lack of residence in the ,irst #ongressional Histrict of 0eyte. It has not
(isapplied, (isco(prehended, or (isunderstood facts or circu(stances of substance
pertinent to the issue of her residence.
3he (a=ority opinion, ho!ever, overturned the #GMA0A#<s findings of fact for lack of proof
that the petitioner has abandoned 3olosa as her do(icile of origin, !hich is allegedly !ithin
the ,irst #ongressional Histrict of 0eyte.
I respectfully sub(it that the petitioner herself has provided the #GMA0A#, either by
ad(ission or by docu(entary evidence, over!hel(ing proof of the loss or abandon(ent of
her do(icile of origin, !hich is 3acloban #ity and not 3olosa, 0eyte. Assu(ing that she
decided to live again in her do(icile of origin, that beca(e her second do(icile of choice,
!here her stay, unfortunately, !as for only seven (onths before the day of the election.
)he !as then dis>ualified to be a candidate for the position of Representative of the ,irst
#ongressional Histrict of 0eyte. A holding to the contrary !ould be arbitrary.
It (ay indeed be conceded that the petitioner<s do(icile of choice !as either 3acloban #ity
or 3olosa, 0eyte. Nevertheless, she lost it /. operation of la4 sometime in "a. =>FD upon
(er marriage to the then #ongress(an ?later, 'resident@ ,erdinand A. Marcos. A do(icile
by operation of la! is that do(icile !hich the la! attributes to a person, independent ly of
his o!n intention or actual residence, as results fro( legal do(estic relations as that of the
!ife arising fro( (arriage ?65 #.*.). Ho(icile R 7, ..@. %nder the governing la! then,
Article ..2 of the #ivil #ode, her ne! do(icile or her do(icile of choice !as the do(icile
of her husband, !hich !as 7atac, Ilocos Norte. )aid Article reads as follo!s9
Art. ..2. 3he husband shall fix the residence of the fa(ily. 7ut the court (ay exe(pt the !ife fro( living !ith
the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic.
#o((enting thereon, civilist Arturo M. 3olentino states9
Although the duty of the spouses to live together is (utual, the husband has a predo(inant right because he
is e(po!ered by la! to fix the fa(ily residence. 3his right even predo(inates over so(e rights recogni&ed
by la! in the !ife. ,or instance, under article ..7 the !ife (ay engage in business or practice a profession
or occupation. 7ut because of the po!er of the husband to fix the famil. domicile he (ay fix it at such a
place as !ould (ake it i(possible for the !ife to continue in business or in her profession. ,or =ustifiable
reasons, ho!ever, the !ife (ay be exe(pted fro( living in the residence chosen by the husband. 3he
husband cannot validly allege desertion by the !ife !ho refuses to follo! hi( to a ne! place of residence,
!hen it appears that they have lived for years in a suitable ho(e belonging to the !ife, and that his choice of
a different ho(e is not (ade in good faith. ?#o((entaries and *urisprudence on the #ivil #ode of the
'hilippines, vol. ., .-5 ed., DD-@.
%nder co((on la!, a !o(an upon her (arriage loses her o!n do(icile and, by operation
of la!, ac>uires that of her husband, no (atter !here the !ife actually lives or !hat she
believes or intends. $er do(icile is fixed in the sense that it is declared to be the sa(e as
his, and sub=ect to certain li(itations, he can change her do(icile by changing his o!n ?6
A( *ur 6d Ho(icile R /5, D7@.
It (ust, ho!ever, be pointed out that under Article 6- of the ,a(ily #ode, the fixing of the
fa(ily do(icile is no longer the sole prerogative of the husband, but is no! a =oint decision
of the spouses, and in case of disagree(ent the court shall decide. 3he said article uses
the ter( "fa(ily do(icile," and not fa(ily residence, as "the spouses (ay have (ultiple
residences, and the !ife (ay elect to re(ain in one of such residences, !hich (ay
destroy the duty of the spouses to live together and its corresponding benefits" ?A0I#IA 8.
)AM'IG:HIJ, $andbook on the ,a(ily #ode of the 'hilippines, E.-55F, .26@.
3he theory of auto(atic restoration of a !o(an<s do(icile of origin upon the death of her
husband, !hich the (a=ority opinion adopts to overco(e the legal effect of the petitioner<s
(arriage on her do(icile, is unsupported by la! and by =urisprudence. 3he settled doctrine
is that after the husband<s death the !ife has a right to elect her o!n do(icile, but she
retains the last do(icile of her husband until she (akes an actual change ?65 #.*.).
Ho(icile R .6, 67@. Gr, on the death of the husband, the po!er of the !ife to ac>uire her
o!n do(icile is revived, but until she exercises the po!er her do(icile re(ains that of the
husband at the ti(e of his death ?6 A( *ur 6d Ho(icile R 66, /@. Note that !hat is
revived is not her do(icile of origin but (er po4er to acquire (er o4n domicile.
#learly, even after the death of her husband, the petitioner<s do(icile !as that of her
husband at the ti(e of his death I !hich !as 7atac, Ilocos Norte, since their residences
in )an *uan, Metro Manila, and )an Miguel, Manila, !ere their residences for convenience
to enable her husband to effectively perfor( his official duties. 3heir residence in )an *uan
!as a con=ugal ho(e, and it !as there to !hich she returned in .--. !hen she !as
already a !ido!. In her s!orn certificate of candidacy for the Gffice of the 'resident in the
synchroni&ed elections of May .--6, she indicated therein that she !as a resident of )an
*uan, Metro Manila. )he also voted in the said elections in that place.
Gn the basis of her evidence, it !as only on :D August =>>D !hen she exercised her right
as a !ido! to ac>uire her o!n do(icile in 3olosa, 0eyte, through her s!orn state(ent
re>uesting the Alection Gfficer of )an *uan, Metro Manila, to cancel her registration in the
per(anent list of voters in 'recinct .7 thereat and praying that she be "re:registered or
transferred to 7rgy. Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, the place of EherF birth and per(anent residence"
?photocopy of Axhibit "7," attached as Annex "6" of private respondent Monte=o<s
#o((ent@. Notably, she contradicted this s!orn state(ent regarding her place of birth
!hen, in her 8oter<s Affidavit s!orn to on . March .--6 ?photocopy of Axhibit "#,"
attached as Annex "D," +d.@, her 8oter Registration Record s!orn to on 65 *anuary .--
?photocopy of Axhibit "A," attached as Annex "," +d.@, and her #ertificate of #andidacy
s!orn to on 5 March .-- ?photocopy of Axhibit "A," attached as Annex ".," +d.@, she
sole(nly declared that she !as born in Manila.
3he petitioner is even uncertain as to her do(icile of origin. Is it 3acloban #ity or 3olosa,
0eyteN In the affidavit attached to her Ans!er to the petition for dis>ualification ?Annex "I"
of 'etition@, she declared under oath that her "do(icile or residence is 3acloban #ity." If
she did intend to return to such do(icile or residence of origin !hy did she infor( the
Alection Gfficer of )an *uan that she !ould transfer to Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte, and indicate in
her 8oter<s Registration Record and in her certificate of candidacy that her residence is
Glot, 3olosa, 0eyteN Chile this uncertainty is not i(portant insofar as residence in the
congressional district is concerned, it nevertheless proves that forty:one years had already
lapsed since she had lost or abandoned her do(icile of origin by virtue of (arriage and
that such length of ti(e di(inished her po!er of recollection or blurred her (e(ory.
I find to be (isplaced the reliance by the (a=ority opinion on 'a.pon vs. #uirino ?-6 'hil.
6-/ E.-/F@, and the subse>uent cases !hich established the principle that absence fro(
original residence or do(icile of origin to pursue studies, practice one<s profession, or
engage in business in other states does not constitute loss of such residence or do(icile.
)o is the reliance on )ection ..7 of the G(nibus Alection #ode !hich provides that
transfer of residence to any other place by reason of one<s "occupationB professionB
e(ploy(ent in private and public serviceB educational activitiesB !ork in (ilitary or naval
reservationsB service in the ar(y, navy or air force, the constabulary or national police
forceB or confine(ent or detention in govern(ent institutions in accordance !ith la!" is not
dee(ed as loss of original residence. 3hose cases and legal provision do not include
(arriage of a !o(an. 3he reason for the exclusion is, of course, Article ..2 of the #ivil
#ode. If it !ere the intention of this #ourt or of the legislature to consider the (arriage of a
!o(an as a circu(stance !hich !ould not operate as an abandon(ent of do(icile ?of
origin or of choice@, then such cases and legal provision should have expressly (entioned
the sa(e.
3his #ourt should not accept as gospel truth the self:serving clai( of the petitioner in her
affidavit ?Annex "A" of her Ans!er in #GMA0A# )'A No. -:22-B Annex "I" of 'etition@
that her "do(icile or residence of origin is 3acloban #ity," and that she "never intended to
abandon this do(icile or residence of origin to !hich EsheF al!ays intended to return
!henever absent." )uch a clai( of intention cannot prevail over the effect of Article ..2 of
the #ivil #ode. 7esides, the facts and circu(stances or the vicissitudes of the petitioner<s
life after her (arriage in .-/ conclusively establish that she had indeed abandoned her
do(icile of origin and had ac>uired a ne! one animo et facto ?KG))%3$ KAN3 KANNAN,
A 3reatise on Residence and Ho(icile, E.-D/F, 6./, D66@.
Neither should this #ourt place co(plete trust on the petitioner<s clai( that she "(erely
co((itted an honest (istake" in !riting do!n the !ord "seven" in the space provided for
the residency >ualification re>uire(ent in the certificate of candidacy. )uch a clai( is self:
serving and, in the light of the foregoing dis>uisitions, !ould be all sound and fury
signifying nothing. 3o (e, she did not co((it any (istake, honest or other!iseB !hat she
stated !as the truth.
3he (a=ority opinion also disregards a basic rule in evidence that he !ho asserts a fact or
the affir(ative of an issue has the burden of proving it ?I(perial 8ictory )hipping Agency
vs. N0R#, 622 )#RA .75 E.--.FB '.3. #erna #orp. vs. #ourt of Appeals, 66. )#RA .-
E.--DF@. $aving ad(itted (arriage to the then #ongress(an Marcos, the petitioner could
not deny the legal conse>uence thereof on the change of her do(icile to that of her
husband. 3he (a=ority opinion rules or at least concludes that "EbFy operation of la!
?domicilium necesarium@, her legal do(icile at the ti(e of her (arriage auto(atically
beca(e 7atac, Ilocos Norte." 3hat conclusion is consistent !ith Article ..2 of the #ivil
#ode. )ince she is presu(ed to retain her deceased husband<s do(icile until she
exercises her revived po!er to ac>uire her o!n do(icile, the burden is upon her to prove
that she has exercised her right to ac>uire her o!n do(icile. )he (iserably failed to
discharge that burden.
I vote to deny the petition.
9oo,#o,e8
. *arrolt v. Mabberly, .2D %.). 52 ?.55.@.
6 #GN)3, art. 8I, states9
)ec. 6. No person shall be a (e(ber of the $ouse of Representatives unless he is a natural:born citi&en of
the 'hilippines and, on the day of the election, is at least t!enty:five years of age, able to read and !rite, and
except the party:list representatives, a registered voter in the district in !hich he shall be elected, and a
resident thereof for a period of not less than one year i((ediately preceding the day of the election.
See, *arrolt v. Mabberly, supra, note ..
D 1allego vs. 8era, 7D 'hil. /D ?.-/.@.
/ ollo, p. ../, Annex "H".
ollo, p. ..2, Annex "H".
6 ollo, p. ..D.
7 ollo, p. ....
5 ollo, p. .., Annex "A".
- )igned by 8irgilo ). Gledan, 'rovincial Alection )upervisor I8, 0eyteB ollo,
p. ..6, Annex ",".
.2 ollo, p. ..7, Annex "1". 'etitioner explained the circu(stances surrounding the filling up of the original
certificate thus9
.. Gn March 5, .--, I filed (y certificate of candidacy for Me(ber of the $ouse of Representatives
?#ongress!o(an@ of the ,irst 0egislative Histrict of the province of 0eyte, !hich !as drafted by Mr. ,ilo(eno
A. +eta.
6. I learned lately that #ongress(an #irilo Monte=o !ants to dis>ualify (e as I allegedly lack residence in the
constituency because of the entry of the !ord ")A8AN" in Ite( No. 5 of (y certificate of candidacy.
D. I read (y certificate of candidacy before signing it and thought of the !ord "RA)IHAN#A" to (ean actual
or physical residence, and the !ord ")A8AN" (erely reflected (y actual and physical residence in 7arangay
Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte.
D... 3he !ord ")A8AN" !as placed on (y certificate of candidacy to indicate that at lease one ?.@ (onth
had passed fro( (y registration as voter of 3olosa, 0eyte, on *anuary 65, .--, !hen I !rote "26" (onths
under "'ARIGH G, RA)IHAN#A" as (y actual or physical residence in the to!n.
/. I thought then that the sense in Ite( No. .2 of (y certificate of candidacy stating "3$A3 I AM eligible for
said Gffice" !as sufficient to affir( that I possess all the >ualifications, including (y residence, for Me(ber of
the $ouse of Representatives for !hich I a( aspiring in the May 5, .-- elections.
. 3he fact, ho!ever, is that (y do(icile or residence of origin is 3acloban #ity, a co(ponent city of the ,irst
0egislative Histrict of 0eyte I never intended to abandon this do(icile or residence of origin to !hich I al!ays
intended to return !henever absentB indeed in .--6, I returned to 3acloban #ity to live and stay there. Gn
Nove(ber , .--6B I bought (y Residence #ertificate No. .666.560 there, !hich is (ade an integral part
hereof as Annex "I" ?Annex "6" hereof@.
.. +d., at p. .62. See also, ollo, p. .D2:.DD, Annex "I", petitioner<s Affidavit explaining her residence9
.D. I established (y do(icile, ho!ever in 3acloban, 0eyte ?3acloban #ity in .-D5, !hen !as little over eight
?5@ years old. )hortly after (y (other died on April 7, .-D5, (y !ido!ed father, 8icente Grestes Ro(ualde&,
brought (e and (y brothers. . .and (y sisters to 3acloban, 0eyte ?no! 3acloban #ity@ his ho(eto!n.
xxx xxx xxx
.5. I have al!ays considered 3acloban #ity as (y per(anent residence or residence of origin have not
abandoned and have never intended to abandon (y per(anent residence or residence of origin there. 3o it I
al!ays intend to return !henever absent.
.-. In .-6, I !ent to Manila to !ork !ith (y cousin, the late speaker
Haniel +. Ro(ualde& in his office in the $ouse of Representatives.
62. In May, .-/, I (arried 'resident ,erdinand A. Marcos !hen he !as still the congress(an of Ilocos,
Norte.
6.. As a dutiful !ife !ho loved hi( deeply, I lived !ith hi( in 7atac, Ilocos Norte and registered as a voter
there.
66. In .-6, (y husband !as elected 'resident of the Republic of the 'hilippines. 3ogether, !e lived in
MalacaOang 'alace and I registered as a voter in )an Miguel, Manila.
6D. My registration as voter in 7atac, Ilocos NorteB )an *uan, Ri&al ?no! )an *uan, Metro Manila@B and )an
Miguel, Manila, !as for convenience because I had to live !ith (y husband to serve hi( !hen he !as
congress(an, )enator and 'resident of the Republic of the 'hilippines. Huring those years ho!ever, I never
intended nor desired to abandon (y do(icile or residence of origin in 3acloban #ity, !hich I established
since I !as a child.
xxx xxx xxx
DD. 3hroughout the Marcos 'residency, I spent (ost of (y birthday anniversaries and attended the )to. Nini
,iesta in 3acloban #ity. I regularly visited (y do(icile or residence of origin in 0eyte and even held i(portant
functions and entertained guests and foreign dignitaries there.
D/. After 'resident ,erdinand A. Marcos and I, together !ith our children and innocent grandchildren !ere
abducted and kidnapped to $onolulu, $a!aii, in ,ebruary, .-56, (y 0eyte properties !ere se>uestered by
the '#11, and !ere destroyed and cannibali&ed.
xxx xxx xxx
D5. %pon (y return to the country, I !anted to i((ediately live and reside in 3acloban #ity or in Glot, 3olosa,
0eyte even if (y residences there !ere not livable as they had been destroyed and cannibali&ed. 3he
'#11, ho!ever, did not per(it and allo! (e.
xxx xxx xxx
/2. After the .--6 'residential Alections, I lived and resided in the residence of (y brother in )an *ose,
3acloban #ity, and pursued (y negotiations !ith '#11 to recover (y se>uestered residences in 3acloban
#ity and 7arangay Glot, 3olosa, 0eyte.
.6 ollo, p. .66.
.D #o((issioners Manolo 7. 1orospe and 3eresita Hy:0iaco ,lores for(ed the (a=ority opinion.
#o((issioner Re(edies A. )ala&ar:,ernando dissented.
./ ollo, p. 6/.
. ollo, p. 7:6/.
.6 'etitioner filed a "Motion to Recall Resolution 'ro(ulgated on April 6/, .-- and to His(iss the 'etition
7ecause of 0apse of *urisdictionB Alternatively, Motion for Reconsideration." 3he #o((ission<s May 7, .--
Resolution treated the sa(e si(ply as a Motion for Reconsideration.
.7 #o((issioners Regalado A. Maa(bong, Re(edios A. )ala&ar:,ernando and *ulio ,. Hesa(ito
dissented. All filed separate dissenting opinions. In dis>ualifying petitioner, the (a=ority held9
As it stands no!, only the #ertificate of #andidacy respondent filed on March 5, .--, stands, and on the
basis of the entries therein, she is dis>ualified to run for failure to (eet the constitutional re>uire(ent of one
?.@ year of residence in the place !here she !anted to be elected.
.5 ollo, p. 75, Annex "7".
.- ollo, Annex "H".
62 .- )#RA -66 ?.-67@. See also, #orre v. #orre, .22 'hil. 66. ?.-6@.
6. +d. at -6-.
66 %ytengsu v. Republic, - 'hil. 5-2 ?.-/@.
6D +d.
6/ 6 'hil. 6/ ?.-65@.
6 Citing 'eople v. 7ender .// N.J.)., ./.
66 6. 'hil. D6 ?.-D/@.
67 -6 'hil. 6-/ ?.-/@.
65 +d, see also %=ano v. Republic, .7 )#RA ./7 ?.-66@B Nuval v. 1uray, supra
note 66.
6- II RA#GRH G, 3$A .-57 #GN)3I3%3IGNA0 #GN8AN3IGN, ..2 ?*uly 66, .-56@.
D2 +d.
D. .-- )#RA 6-6 ?.--.@.
D6 +d, at 7./.
DD 6. 'hil. D6 ?.-D/@.
D/ -6 'hil. 6-/, 6--:D22 ?.-/@.
D 7.'. 55., sec. ..7 states9
xxx xxx xxx
Any person !ho transfers residence to another city, (unicipality or country solely by reason of his
occupationB professionB e(ploy(ent in private or public serviceB educational activitiesB !ork in (ilitary or
naval reservationsB service in the ar(y, navy or air forceB the constabulary or national police forceB or
confine(ent or detention in govern(ent institutions in accordance !ith la! shall not be dee(ed to have lost
his original residence.
D6 ollo, p. D5.
D7 .5 A( *ur 6.-:662.
D5 62 A( *ur 7..
D- 3G0AN3ING . #GMMAN3ARIA) S *%RI)'R%HAN#A GN 3$A #I8I0 #GHA, 662 ?.-57@.
/2 +d.
/. 3G0AN3ING, . #GMMAN3ARIA) ANH *%RI)'R%HAN#A GN #I8I0 #GHA, 662 ?.-57@.
/6 %nder (odern la!s, it is clear that (any exceptions to the rule that the do(icile of the !ife is deter(ined
by that of her husband (ust obtain. Accordingly, the !ife (ay ac>uire another and separate do(icile fro(
that of her husband !here the theoretical unity of the husband and !ife is dissolved, as it is by the institution
of divorce proceedingsB or !here the husband has given cause for divorceB or !here there is a separation of
the parties by agree(ent, or a per(anent separation due to desertion of the !ife by the husband or
attributable to cruel treat(ent on the part of the husbandB or !here there has been a forfeiture by the !ife of
the benefit of the husband<s do(icile. - R.#.0., /, cited in He 0a 8ina, supra. +f t(e la4 allo4s t(e 4ife to
automaticall. revert to (er original domicile or acquire a ne4 domicile under t(ese situations, all t(e more
s(ould it sanction a reversion G or t(e acquisition of a ne4 domicile /. t(e 4ife G upon t(e deat( of (er
(us/and.
/D /. 'hi. .D ?.-62@.
// 3he rule that the !ife auto(atically ac>uires or follo!s her husband<s do(icile is not an absolute one. A
specific situation recogni&ed in )panish =urisprudence involves the one in !hich husband ac>uiesces ?.
Manresa 66D@ or gives his tacit consent ?)caevola, #ivil #odeB D/.@
/ /6 'hil. / ?.-6.@.
/6 *ustice Alicia )e(pio:Hiy recogni&es the sa(e #ivil #ode distinction. $o!ever, taking another approach,
she !rites9
?6@ 3he above Article ?Article 6-, ,#@ uses the ter( "fa(ily do(icile" instead of fa(ily residence because the
spouses (ay have (ultiple residences, and the !ife (ay elect to re(ain in one of such residences, !hich
(ay destroy the duty of the spouses to live together and its corresponding benefits. )AM'IG:HIJ,
$ANH7GGK GN 3$A ,AMI0J #GHA G, 3$A '$I0I''INA), .26 ?.-55@.
/7 ollo, pp. .D6:.DD.
/5 3he provision reads9 )ection 75. Petition to den. due course or to cancel a certificate of candidac.. I A
verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy (ay be filed by any person
exclusively on the ground that any (aterial representation contained therein as re>uired under
)ection 7/ hereof is false. 3he petition (ay be filed at any ti(e not later than t!enty:five days fro( the ti(e
of filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen
days before the election.
/- Marcelino vs. #ru&, .6. )#RA . ?.-5D@.
2 A(erican 3upe ,ounders #o. v. *ustice<s #ourt, .DD #al. 5.-, 6 'ac. 7/6B $eillen v. 'hillipps, 55 #al.
7, 66 'ac. D66B Hrake v. 7agley, 6- Mo. App. D-B )tate v. Havis, .-/ Mo. 5.
. Supra, note D-, citing $uffines v. 1old ./ 3enn. 5D, 55B 655 ).C. DD, D/.
6 )ec. 6. Effect of !isqualification Case. I Any candidate !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be
dis>ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final =udg(ent before an election to be dis>ualified and he is voted for and
receives the !inning nu(ber of votes in such election, the #ourt or #o((ission shall continue !ith the trial
and hearing of the action, in>uiry or protest and, upon (otion of the co(plainant or any intervenor, (ay
during the thereof order the suspension of the procla(ation of such candidate !henever the evidence of his
guilt is strong.
)ec. 7 Petition to !en. !ue Course or to Cancel a Certificate Candidac..
3he procedure hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidacy as provided in )ection 75 of 7atas 'a(bansa 7lg. 55..
D #GN)3., art. 8I, sec. .. states9
3he )enate and the $ouse of Representatives shall have an Alectoral 3ribunal !hich shall be the sole =udge
of all >uestions relating to the election, returns, and >ualifications of their respective Me(bers. . . .
'%NG, J., concurring9
. Aristotle, Athica Nicho(achea, bk., v. D, ..D. ?a@ ?C. Ross translation, .-6 ed@.
6 It provides9 "No person shall be a (e(ber of the $ouse of Representatives unless he is a natural born
citi&en of the 'hilippines and on the day of the election, is at least t!enty:five years of age, able to read and
!rite, and except the party list representatives, a registered voter in the district in !hich he shall be elected,
and a resident t(ereof for a period of not less t(an one .ear immediatel. preceding t(e da. of t(e election."
?A(phasis supplied@
D 3here are t!o ?6@ other instances !hen a (arried !o(an (ay have a do(icile different fro( the husband9
?.@ if they are legally separated pursuant to par. ., Art. .26 of the #ivil #ode, and ?6@ if the husband forcibly
e=ects the !ife fro( the con=ugal ho(e to have illicit relations !ith another. ?He la 8iOa v. 8illareal and
1eopano, /. 'hil. .D E.-62F@.
/ )p cit.
+d., at pp. .6:.7.
6 +d., at p. 62, citing . Manresa 66D.
7 6 AM *%R 6nd ). /5, p. D7.
5 65 #*) on Ho(icile, ). .6, 67B 6 AM *%R 6nd on Ho(icile ). 66, /6.
- 65 #*), ). .6, p. 6/.
.2 Restate(ent of the 0a!, 6d, #onflict of 0a!s 6d., ). 6., p. 5/.
.. +/id.
.6 5D %.). //6B 6. 0a! Ad. //6B ).#. .6 Call .D2.
.D Supra.
./ Supra.
. In re 1reen<s Astate, .-. N.J.). 77, ..7 Misc. 522, .6 N.J.). .26D, -- Misc. 56.
.6 #lark et al. v. 7aker et al., .-6 )A 72, .56 1a 6.
.7 0efcourt, Co(en and 3he 0a!, .--2 ed.
.5 /2/ %) 7..
.- 65 #*) ). .6, p. 6 citing )hute v. )argent, D6 A 656, 67 N.$. D2.
62 )p cit., p. 5/.
6. Co(en<s )tatus in 'hilippine )ociety, %' 0a! #enter, .-7-, pp. /:6.
66 In sub(itting the draft of the ,a(ily #ode to 'resident #ora&on A>uino, the #ivil #ode Revision
#o((ittee stated9
#lose to forty years of experience under the #ivil #ode adopted in .-/- and changes and develop(ents in
all aspects of ,ilipino 0ife since then have revealed the unsuitability of certain provisions of that #ode,
i(planted fro( foreign sources, to 'hilippine cultureB the unfairness, un=ustness, and gaps or inade>uacies
of othersB and the need to attune the( to conte(porary develop(ents and trends.
In particular I to cite only a fe! instances I ?.@ the property regi(e of con=ugal partnership of gains is not
in accord !ith ,ilipino custo(, especially in the rural areas, !hich is (ore congenial to absolute co((unity
of propertyB ?6@ there have considerably been (ore grounds for annul(ent of (arriage by the #hurch than
those provided by the #ode, thus giving rise to the absurd situation of several (arriages already annulled
under #anon 0a! but still considered subsisting under the #ivil 0a! and (aking it necessary to (ake the
grounds for annul(ent under both la!s to coincideB ?D@ unequal treatment of (us/and and 4ife as to rig(ts
and responsi/ilities, 4(ic( necessitates a response to t(e longCstanding clamor for equalit. /et4een men
and 4omen no4 mandated as a polic. to /e implemented under t(e Ne4 ConstitutionB ?/@ the inade>uacy of
the safeguards for strengthening (arriage and the fa(ily as basic social institutions recogni&ed as such by
the Ne! #onstitutionB ?@ recent develop(ents have sho!n the absurdity of li(iting the grounds for legal
separation to the anti>uated t!o grounds provided under the #ivil #odeB ?6@ the need for additional
safeguards to protect our children in the (atter of adoption by foreignersB and ?7@ to bring our la! on
paternity and filiation in step !ith or abreast of the latest scientific discoveries." ?A(phasis supplied@
6D Article -6, ,a(ily #ode.
6/ Article 66, ,a(ily #ode.
6 Article 72, ,a(ily #ode.
66 Article 7., ,a(ily #ode.
67 Article 7D, ,a(ily #ode.
65 )p cit., $andbook on the ,a(ily #ode of the 'hilippines, pp. -5:--.
6- As cited in Hiy, $andbook on the ,a(ily #ode of the 'hilippines, pp. .5/:.5.
D2 )ection ., Article III of the #onstitution provides9 "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
!ithout due process of la!, nor shall any person be denied the e>ual protection of the la!s."
D. Axhibit "A"B see also Axhibit "7" in )'A No. -:22..
D6 Axhibit "A" in )'A No. -:22-.
DD Axhibit "6" in )'A No. -:22-.
D/ 6 )#RA -7, -62 ?.-6.@B See #anceran v. #GMA0A#, .27 'hil. 627 ?.-62@B 1abaldon v. #GMA0A#, --
'hil. 5-5 ?.-6@.
D )ection 66, Article II of the #onstitution also provides9 "3he )tate shall guarantee e>ual access to
opportunities for public service . . . ."
D6 Annex "1," 'etition.
D7 'etition, Annex "7:." pp. 6:7.
D5 7D 'hil. /D, /- ?.-.@.
,RAN#I)#G, J., concurring9
. See Articles 65:7D of A.G. 62-, as a(ended, other!ise kno!n as 3he ,a(ily #ode of the 'hilippines.
6 Residence #ertificate No. .666.560, dated Nov. , .--6.
D '#11 #hair(an 1unigundo<s letter addressed to #ol. Ke(pis.
RGMARG, J., separate opinion9
. Art. 8I, )ec. 6, #onst.9 "No person shall be a Me(ber of the $ouse of Representatives unless he is a
natural:born citi&en of the 'hilippines and, on the day of the election, is at least t!enty:five years of age, able
to read and !rite, and, except the party:list representatives, a registered voter in the district in !hich he shall
be elected, and a resident t(ereof for a period not less t(an one .ear immediatel. preceding t(e da. of t(e
election.E
6 Art. ..29 "3he husband shall fix the residence of the fa(ily. 7ut the court (ay exe(pt the !ife fro( living
!ith the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic.
D Art. ..2, #ivil #ode.
/ Art. ..., #ivil #ode.
Art. ..6, #ivil #ode.
6 Art. .7., #ivil #ode.
7 Art. .76, #ivil #ode.
5 Art. D62, #ivil #ode.
- Art. ../, #ivil #ode.
.2 Art. ..7, #ivil #ode.
.. Art. 5/, #ivil #ode.
.6 Art. D65, #ivil #ode.
.D Art. II, )ec. 6, #onst.
./ 'art I8, Art. ., 'aragraph /, #AHAC.
. Axecutive Grder No. 62-, *uly 6, .-57, as a(ended by Axecutive Grder No. 667, *uly .7,.-57, !hich
took effect on August D, .-55.
.6 Art. II )ec. .., #onst.
.7 Art. II, )ec. ./, #onst.
.5 Art. 6-, ,a(ily #ode.
.- Art. 7., ,a(ily #ode.
62 Art. -6, ,a(ily #ode.
6. Art. 66, ,a(ily #ode.
66 Republic Act No. 7.-6 approved ,ebruary .6, .--6.
6D +/id., )ec. .
MANHG+A, J., separate opinion9
. 0abo, *r. v. #GMA0A#, 6.. )#RA 6-7 ?.--6@ ?for (ayor@.
6 0oong v. #GMA0A#, 6.6 )#RA 762 ?.--6@ ?for regional vice governor@.
D Abella v. 0arra&abal, .52 )#RA 2- ?.-5-@B Abella v. #GMA0A#, 62. )#RA 6D ?.--.@ ?for provincial
governor@.
/ #o. v. $RA3, .-- )#RA 6-6 ?.--.@ ?election protest against a #ongress(an@.
,aypon v. Muirino, -6 'hil. 6-/ ?.-/@ ?quo 4arranto against a governor@B 1allego v. 8erra, 7D 'hil. /D
?.-/.@ ?quo 4arranto against a (ayor@B 0arena v. 3eves, 6. 'hil. D6 ?.-D/@ ?quo 4arranto against a
provincial board (e(ber@B 3anseco v. Arteche, 7 'hil. 667 ?.-D6@ ?quo 4arranto against a governor@9 Jra v.
AbaOo, 6 'hil. D52 ?.-65@ ?quo 4arranto against a (unicipal president@B 8ivero v. Murillo, 6 'hil. 6-/
?.-6-@ ?quo 4arranto against a (unicipal president@. Cf. A&nar v. #GMA0A#, .5 )#RA 72D ?.--2@ ?quo
4arranto although pre(aturely filed, against a governor:elect@.
6 R.A. No. 66/6, R 6B 0abo, *r. v. #GMA0A#, supra note ..
7 GA#, R 76.
5 0agu(bay v. #GMA0A#, .6 )#RA .7 ?.-66@.
'AHI00A, J., dissenting9
. Nuval vs. 1uray, 1.R. No. D26/., Hece(ber 6-, .-65B 0arena vs. 3eves, 1.R.
No. /6/D-, Hece(ber .2, .-D/B 1allego vs. 8erra, 1.R. No. /56/., Nove(ber 6/, .-/.B He los Reyes vs.
)olidu(, 1.R. No. /67-5. August D., .-DB but see Ro(ualde& vs. R3#, 7r. 7 3acloban #ity, !here a
sudden departure fro( the country !as not dee(ed "voluntary" so as to constitute abandon(ent of do(icile
both in fact and in la!.
6 Annex "A" 'etition, pp. 6:/.
RA1A0AHG, J., dissenting9
. )truble vs. )truble, 3ex. #iv. App., .77 ).C. 6d, 67-, 65D.
6 3his is also referred to as natural do(icile or do(icile by birth ?*ohnson vs. 3!enty:Gne 7ales, .D ,ed.
#as. 56D@.
D )tory, #onflict of 0a!s, )ec. /6B Railroad #o. vs. Ki(brough, .. Ky .6, 7/ ).C. 66-B and *ohnson vs.
$arvey, 66. Ky. 66, 55 ).C. 6d /6, /6, /7, as cited in 7lack<s 0a! Hictionary, /th ed.
/ Article ..2, #ivil #ode.
3o!son vs. 3o!son, .66 8a. 6/2, .26 ).A. /5, 6B ,isher vs. *ordan, #.#.A. 3ex., ..6 ,. 6d. .5D, .56B
Minick vs. Minick, ... ,la. /6-, ./- )o. /5D, /55B $art&ler vs. Radeka, 66 Mich. /., 6. N.C. /.
6 Citing .5 A(. *ur. 6.-:662.
7 Monte=o vs. Marcos, En Banc, May .2, .--.
5 Citing 62 A(. *ur. 7..
- #heely vs. #layton, H.#., ..2 %.). 72., 0. Ad. 6-5.
.2 In re 1ates< Astate, .-. N.J.). 77, ..7 Misc. 522 I In re 1reen<s Astate, .6/ N.J.). .26D, -- Misc.
56, affir(ed .6 N.J.). .255, .7- App. Hiv. 5-2, as reported in
E3 593C
G.R. No. 1))59) 'u*y 16, 2008
BAI !AN&RA !. A. !EMA, 'etitioner,
%s&
CMMI!!IN N ELEC#IN! a+, &I&AGEN ". &ILANGALEN, ?espondents&
+ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :+
G.R. No. 1)8628
"ERFEC# F. MAR-.E/, 'etitioner,
%s&
CMMI!!IN N ELEC#IN!, ?espondent&
) E C / S / O 3
CAR"I, J.:
#0e Ca1e
2hese consolidated petitions
1
see- to annul ?esolution 3o& E9<2, dated 1< Ma" 2<<E, of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) treatin# Cotabato Cit" as part of the le#islati%e district of
the 'ro%ince of Shariff Iabunsuan&
2
2he (acts
2he Ordinance appended to the 19E Constitution apportioned t*o le#islati%e districts for the
'ro%ince of Ma#uindanao& 2he first le#islati%e district consists of Cotabato Cit" and ei#ht
municipalities&
;
Ma#uindanao forms part of the 9utonomous ?e#ion in Muslim Mindanao
(9?MM), created under its Or#anic 9ct, ?epublic 9ct 3o& !E;8 (?9 !E;8), as amended b"
?epublic 9ct 3o& 9<68 (?9 9<68)&
8
9lthou#h under the Ordinance, Cotabato Cit" forms part of
Ma#uindanaoJs first le#islati%e district, it is not part of the 9?MM but of ?e#ion G//, ha%in# %oted
a#ainst its inclusion in the 9?MM in the plebiscite held in 3o%ember 199&
On 2 9u#ust 2<<!, the 9?MMJs le#islature, the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl", e+ercisin# its po*er
to create pro%inces under Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68,
6
enacted Muslim Mindanao
9utonom" 9ct 3o& 2<1 (MM9 9ct 2<1) creatin# the 'ro%ince of Shariff Iabunsuan composed of
the ei#ht municipalities in the first district of Ma#uindanao& MM9 9ct 2<1 pro%ides@
Section 1& 2he Municipalities of 5arira, 5uldon, )atu Odin Sinsuat, Iabuntalan, Matano#, 'aran#,
Sultan Iudarat, Sultan Mastura, and Dpi are hereb" separated from the 'ro%ince of Ma#uindanao
and constituted into a distinct and independent pro%ince, *hich is hereb" created, to be -no*n as
the 'ro%ince of Shariff Iabunsuan&
+ + + +
Sec& 6& 2he corporate e+istence of this pro%ince shall commence upon the appointment b" the
?e#ional 1o%ernor or election of the #o%ernor and ma,orit" of the re#ular members of the
San##unian# 'anlala*i#an&
2he incumbent electi%e pro%incial officials of the 'ro%ince of Ma#uindanao shall continue to ser%e
their une+pired terms in the pro%ince that the" *ill choose or *here the" are residents@ 'ro%ided,
that *here an electi%e position in both pro%inces becomes %acant as a conse.uence of the creation
of the 'ro%ince of Shariff Iabunsuan, all incumbent electi%e pro%incial officials shall ha%e
preference for appointment to a hi#her electi%e %acant position and for the time bein# be appointed
b" the ?e#ional 1o%ernor, and shall hold office until their successors shall ha%e been elected and
.ualified in the ne+t local electionsB 'ro%ided, further, that the" shall continue to recei%e the salaries
the" are recei%in# at the time of the appro%al of this 9ct until the ne* read,ustment of salaries in
accordance *ith la*& 'ro%ided, furthermore, that there shall be no diminution in the number of the
members of the San##unian# 'anlala*i#an of the mother pro%ince&
E+cept as ma" be pro%ided b" national la*, the e+istin# le#islati%e district, *hich includes Cotabato
as a part thereof, shall remain&
Later, three ne* municipalities
!
*ere car%ed out of the ori#inal nine municipalities constitutin#
Shariff Iabunsuan, brin#in# its total number of municipalities to 11& 2hus, *hat *as left of
Ma#uindanao *ere the municipalities constitutin# its second le#islati%e district& Cotabato Cit",
althou#h part of Ma#uindanaoJs first le#islati%e district, is not part of the 'ro%ince of Ma#uindanao&
2he %oters of Ma#uindanao ratified Shariff IabunsuanJs creation in a plebiscite held on 29 October
2<<!&
On ! (ebruar" 2<<E, the San##unian# 'anlun#sod of Cotabato Cit" passed ?esolution 3o& ;999
re.uestin# the COMELEC to 7clarif" the status of Cotabato Cit" in %ie* of the con%ersion of the
(irst )istrict of Ma#uindanao into a re#ular pro%ince7 under MM9 9ct 2<1&
/n ans*er to Cotabato Cit"Js .uer", the COMELEC issued ?esolution 3o& <E:<8<E on ! March
2<<E 7maintainin# the status .uo *ith Cotabato Cit" as part of Shariff Iabunsuan in the (irst
Le#islati%e )istrict of Ma#uindanao&7 ?esolution 3o& <E:<8<E, *hich adopted the recommendation
of the COMELECJs La* )epartment under a Memorandum dated 2E (ebruar" 2<<E,
E
pro%ides in
pertinent parts@
Considerin# the fore#oin#, the Commission ?ESOLKE), as it hereb" resol%es, to adopt the
recommendation of the La* )epartment that 2e+,3+4 50e e+a657e+5 o8 50e a22ro2r3a5e *a9 by
Co+4re11, to maintain the status .uo *ith Cotabato Cit" as part of Shariff Iabunsuan in the (irst
Le#islati%e )istrict of Ma#uindanao& (Emphasis supplied)
0o*e%er, in preparation for the 18 Ma" 2<<E elections, the COMELEC promul#ated on 29 March
2<<E ?esolution 3o& E86 statin# that Ma#uindanaoJs first le#islati%e district is composed onl" of
Cotabato Cit" because of the enactment of MM9 9ct 2<1&

On 1< Ma" 2<<E, the COMELEC issued ?esolution 3o& E9<2, sub,ect of these petitions, amendin#
?esolution 3o& <E:<8<E b" renamin# the le#islati%e district in .uestion as 7Shariff Iabunsuan
'ro%ince *ith Cotabato Cit" (formerl" (irst )istrict of Ma#uindanao *ith Cotabato
Cit")&7
9
1avvphi1
/n 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E, Sema, *ho *as a candidate in the 18 Ma" 2<<E elections for ?epresentati%e of
7Shariff Iabunsuan *ith Cotabato Cit",7 pra"ed for the nullification of COMELEC ?esolution 3o&
E9<2 and the e+clusion from can%assin# of the %otes cast in Cotabato Cit" for that office& Sema
contended that Shariff Iabunsuan is entitled to one representati%e in Con#ress under Section 6 (;),
9rticle K/ of the Constitution
1<
and Section ; of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution&
11
2hus, Sema asserted that the COMELEC acted *ithout or in e+cess of its ,urisdiction in issuin#
?esolution 3o& E9<2 *hich maintained the status .uo in Ma#uindanaoJs first le#islati%e district
despite the COMELECJs earlier directi%e in ?esolution 3o& E86 desi#natin# Cotabato Cit" as the
lone component of Ma#uindanaoJs reapportioned first le#islati%e district&
12
Sema further claimed
that in issuin# ?esolution 3o& E9<2, the COMELEC usurped Con#ressJ po*er to create or
reapportion le#islati%e districts&
/n its Comment, the COMELEC, throu#h the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral (OS1), chose not to
reach the merits of the case and merel" contended that (1) Sema *ron#l" a%ailed of the *rit of
certiorari to nullif" COMELEC ?esolution 3o& E9<2 because the COMELEC issued the same in the
e+ercise of its administrati%e, not .uasi:,udicial, po*er and (2) SemaJs pra"er for the *rit of
prohibition in 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E became moot *ith the proclamation of respondent )ida#en '&
)ilan#alen (respondent )ilan#alen) on 1 4une 2<<E as representati%e of the le#islati%e district of
Shariff Iabunsuan 'ro%ince *ith Cotabato Cit"&
/n his Comment, respondent )ilan#alen countered that Sema is estopped from .uestionin#
COMELEC ?esolution 3o& E9<2 because in her certificate of candidac" filed on 29 March 2<<E,
Sema indicated that she *as see-in# election as representati%e of 7Shariff Iabunsuan includin#
Cotabato Cit"&7 ?espondent )ilan#alen added that COMELEC ?esolution 3o& E9<2 is
constitutional because it did not apportion a le#islati%e district for Shariff Iabunsuan or reapportion
the le#islati%e districts in Ma#uindanao but merel" renamed Ma#uindanaoJs first le#islati%e district&
?espondent )ilan#alen further claimed that the COMELEC could not reapportion Ma#uindanaoJs
first le#islati%e district to ma-e Cotabato Cit" its sole component unit as the po*er to reapportion
le#islati%e districts lies e+clusi%el" *ith Con#ress, not to mention that Cotabato Cit" does not meet
the minimum population re.uirement under Section 6 (;), 9rticle K/ of the Constitution for the
creation of a le#islati%e district *ithin a cit"&
1;
Sema filed a Consolidated ?epl" contro%ertin# the matters raised in respondentsJ Comments and
reiteratin# her claim that the COMELEC acted ultra vires in issuin# ?esolution 3o& E9<2&
/n the ?esolution of 8 September 2<<E, the Court re.uired the parties in 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E to
comment on the issue of *hether a pro%ince created b" the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" under
Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68 is entitled to one representati%e in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es
*ithout need of a national la* creatin# a le#islati%e district for such ne* pro%ince& 2he parties
submitted their compliance as follo*s@
(1) Sema ans*ered the issue in the affirmati%e on the follo*in# #rounds@ (a) the Court in elwa v.
)alas
18
stated that 7*hen a pro%ince is created b" statute, the correspondin# representati%e district
comes into e+istence neither b" authorit" of that statute F *hich cannot pro%ide other*ise F nor
b" apportionment, but b" operation of the Constitution, *ithout a reapportionment7B (b) Section 8!2
of ?epublic 9ct 3o& E1!< (?9 E1!<) 7affirms7 the apportionment of a le#islati%e district incident to
the creation of a pro%inceB and (c) Section 6 (;), 9rticle K/ of the Constitution and Section ; of the
Ordinance appended to the Constitution mandate the apportionment of a le#islati%e district in ne*l"
created pro%inces&
(2) 2he COMELEC, a#ain represented b" the OS1, apparentl" abandoned its earlier stance on the
propriet" of issuin# ?esolution 3os& <E:<8<E and E9<2 and ,oined causes *ith Sema, contendin#
that Section 6 (;), 9rticle K/ of the Constitution is 7self:e+ecutin#&7 2hus, e%er" ne* pro%ince
created b" the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" is ipso facto entitled to one representati%e in the 0ouse
of ?epresentati%es e%en in the absence of a national la*B and
(;) ?espondent )ilan#alen ans*ered the issue in the ne#ati%e on the follo*in# #rounds@ (a) the
7pro%ince7 contemplated in Section 6 (;), 9rticle K/ of the Constitution is one that is created b" an
act of Con#ress ta-in# into account the pro%isions in ?9 E1!< on the creation of pro%incesB (b)
Section ;, 9rticle /K of ?9 9<68 *ithheld from the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" the po*er to enact
measures relatin# to national elections, *hich encompasses the apportionment of le#islati%e districts
for members of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%esB (c) reco#niCin# a le#islati%e district in e%er" pro%ince
the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" creates *ill lead to the disproportionate representation of the
9?MM in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es as the ?e#ional 9ssembl" can create pro%inces *ithout
re#ard to the re.uirements in Section 8!1 of ?9 E1!<B and (d) Cotabato Cit", *hich has a
population of less than 26<,<<<, is not entitled to a representati%e in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es&
On 2E 3o%ember 2<<E, the Court heard the parties in 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E in oral ar#uments on the
follo*in# issues@ (1) *hether Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68, dele#atin# to the 9?MM ?e#ional
9ssembl" the po*er to create pro%inces, is constitutionalB and (2) if in the affirmati%e, *hether a
pro%ince created under Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68 is entitled to one representati%e in the
0ouse of ?epresentati%es *ithout need of a national la* creatin# a le#islati%e district for such ne*
pro%ince&
16
/n compliance *ith the ?esolution dated 2E 3o%ember 2<<E, the parties in 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E filed
their respecti%e Memoranda on the issues raised in the oral ar#uments&
1!
On the .uestion of the
constitutionalit" of Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68, the parties in 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E adopted the
follo*in# positions@
(1) Sema contended that Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68 is constitutional (a) as a %alid dele#ation
b" Con#ress to the 9?MM of the po*er to create pro%inces under Section 2< (9), 9rticle G of the
Constitution #rantin# to the autonomous re#ions, throu#h their or#anic acts, le#islati%e po*ers o%er
7other matters as ma" be authoriCed b" la* for the promotion of the #eneral *elfare of the people
of the re#ion7 and (b) as an amendment to Section ! of ?9 E1!<&
1E
0o*e%er, Sema concedes that,
if ta-en literall", the #rant in Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68 to the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl"
of the po*er to 7prescribe standards lo*er than those mandated7 in ?9 E1!< in the creation of
pro%inces contra%enes Section 1<, 9rticle G of the Constitution&
1
2hus, Sema proposed that
Section 19 7should be construed as prohibitin# the ?e#ional 9ssembl" from prescribin# standards +
+ + that do not compl" *ith the minimum criteria7 under ?9 E1!<&
19
(2) ?espondent )ilan#alen contended that Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68 is unconstitutional on
the follo*in# #rounds@ (a) the po*er to create pro%inces *as not amon# those #ranted to the
autonomous re#ions under Section 2<, 9rticle G of the Constitution and (b) the #rant under Section
19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68 to the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" of the po*er to prescribe standards
lo*er than those mandated in Section 8!1 of ?9 E1!< on the creation of pro%inces contra%enes
Section 1<, 9rticle G of the Constitution and the E.ual 'rotection ClauseB and
(;) 2he COMELEC, throu#h the OS1, ,oined causes *ith respondent )ilan#alen (thus effecti%el"
abandonin# the position the COMELEC adopted in its Compliance *ith the ?esolution of 8
September 2<<E) and contended that Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68 is unconstitutional because
(a) it contra%enes Section 1< and Section !,
2<
9rticle G of the Constitution and (b) the po*er to
create pro%inces *as *ithheld from the autonomous re#ions under Section 2<, 9rticle G of the
Constitution&
On the .uestion of *hether a pro%ince created under Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68 is entitled to
one representati%e in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es *ithout need of a national la* creatin# a
le#islati%e district for such ne* pro%ince, Sema and respondent )ilan#alen reiterated in their
Memoranda the positions the" adopted in their Compliance *ith the ?esolution of 8 September
2<<E& 2he COMELEC deemed it unnecessar" to submit its position on this issue considerin# its
stance that Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68 is unconstitutional&
2he pendenc" of the petition in 1&?& 3o& 1E!2 *as disclosed durin# the oral ar#uments on 2E
3o%ember 2<<E& 2hus, in the ?esolution of 19 (ebruar" 2<<, the Court ordered 1&?& 3o& 1E!2
consolidated *ith 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E& 2he petition in 1&?& 3o& 1E!2 echoed Sema$s contention that
the COMELEC acted ultra %ires in issuin# ?esolution 3o& E9<2 depri%in# the %oters of Cotabato
Cit" of a representati%e in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es& /n its Comment to the petition in 1&?& 3o&
1E!2, the COMELEC, throu#h the OS1, maintained the %alidit" of COMELEC ?esolution 3o&
E9<2 as a temporar" measure pendin# the enactment b" Con#ress of the 7appropriate la*&7
#0e I11ue1
2he petitions raise the follo*in# issues@
/& /n 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E@
(9) 'reliminaril" L
(1) *hether the *rits of Certiorari, 'rohibition, and Mandamus are proper to test the
constitutionalit" of COMELEC ?esolution 3o& E9<2B and
(2) *hether the proclamation of respondent )ilan#alen as representati%e of Shariff Iabunsuan
'ro%ince *ith Cotabato Cit" mooted the petition in 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E&
(5) On the merits L
(1) *hether Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68, dele#atin# to the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" the
po*er to create pro%inces, cities, municipalities and baran#a"s, is constitutionalB and
(2) if in the affirmati%e, *hether a pro%ince created b" the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" under MM9
9ct 2<1 pursuant to Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68 is entitled to one representati%e in the 0ouse
of ?epresentati%es *ithout need of a national la* creatin# a le#islati%e district for such pro%ince&
//& /n 1&? 3o& 1EE69E and 1&? 3o& 1E!2, *hether COMELEC ?esolution 3o& E9<2 is %alid for
maintainin# the status .uo in the first le#islati%e district of Ma#uindanao (as 7Shariff Iabunsuan
'ro%ince *ith Cotabato Cit" =formerl" (irst )istrict of Ma#uindanao *ith Cotabato Cit">7), despite
the creation of the 'ro%ince of Shariff Iabunsuan out of such district (e+cludin# Cotabato Cit")&
#0e Ru*3+4 o8 50e Cour5
2he petitions ha%e no merit& Ae rule that (1) Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68 is unconstitutional
insofar as it #rants to the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" the po*er to create pro%inces and citiesB (2)
MM9 9ct 2<1 creatin# the 'ro%ince of Shariff Iabunsuan is %oidB and (;) COMELEC ?esolution
3o& E9<2 is %alid&
On the Preliminary Matters
The Writ of Prohibition is Appropriate
to Test the Constitutionality of
Election Laws !ules an" !e#ulations
2he purpose of the *rit of Certiorari is to correct #ra%e abuse of discretion b" 7an" tribunal, board,
or officer e+ercisin# ,udicial or .uasi:,udicial functions&7
21
On the other hand, the *rit of
Mandamus *ill issue to compel a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person to perform an act
7*hich the la* specificall" en,oins as a dut"&7
22
2rue, the COMELEC did not issue ?esolution 3o&
E9<2 in the e+ercise of its ,udicial or .uasi:,udicial functions&
2;
3or is there a la* *hich
specificall" en,oins the COMELEC to e+clude from can%assin# the %otes cast in Cotabato Cit" for
representati%e of 7Shariff Iabunsuan 'ro%ince *ith Cotabato Cit"&7 2hese, ho*e%er, do not ,ustif"
the outri#ht dismissal of the petition in 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E because Sema also pra"ed for the issuance
of the *rit of 'rohibition and *e ha%e lon# reco#niCed this *rit as proper for testin# the
constitutionalit" of election la*s, rules, and re#ulations&
28
!espon"ent $ilan#alen%s Proclamation
$oes &ot Moot the Petition
2here is also no merit in the claim that respondent )ilan#alenJs proclamation as *inner in the 18
Ma" 2<<E elections for representati%e of 7Shariff Iabunsuan 'ro%ince *ith Cotabato Cit"7 mooted
this petition& 2his case does not concern respondent )ilan#alenJs election& ?ather, it in%ol%es an
in.uir" into the %alidit" of COMELEC ?esolution 3o& E9<2, as *ell as the constitutionalit" of
MM9 9ct 2<1 and Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68& 9dmittedl", the outcome of this petition, one
*a" or another, determines *hether the %otes cast in Cotabato Cit" for representati%e of the district
of 7Shariff Iabunsuan 'ro%ince *ith Cotabato Cit"7 *ill be included in the can%assin# of ballots&
0o*e%er, this incidental conse.uence is no reason for us not to proceed *ith the resolution of the
no%el issues raised here& 2he CourtJs rulin# in these petitions affects not onl" the recentl" concluded
elections but also all the other succeedin# elections for the office in .uestion, as *ell as the po*er
of the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" to create in the future additional pro%inces&
On the Main /ssues
Ahether the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl"
Can Create the 'ro%ince of Shariff Iabunsuan
2he creation of local #o%ernment units is #o%erned b" Section 1<, 9rticle G of the Constitution,
*hich pro%ides@
Sec& 1<& 3o pro%ince, cit", municipalit", or baran#a" ma" be created, di%ided, mer#ed, abolished or
its boundar" substantiall" altered e+cept in accordance *ith the criteria established in the local
#o%ernment code and sub,ect to appro%al b" a ma,orit" of the %otes cast in a plebiscite in the
political units directl" affected&
2hus, the creation of an" of the four local #o%ernment units L pro%ince, cit", municipalit" or
baran#a" L must compl" *ith three conditions& (irst, the creation of a local #o%ernment unit must
follo* the criteria fi+ed in the Local 1o%ernment Code& Second, such creation must not conflict
*ith an" pro%ision of the Constitution& 2hird, there must be a plebiscite in the political units
affected&
2here is neither an e+press prohibition nor an e+press #rant of authorit" in the Constitution for
Con#ress to dele#ate to re#ional or local le#islati%e bodies the po*er to create local #o%ernment
units& 0o*e%er, under its plenar" le#islati%e po*ers, Con#ress can dele#ate to local le#islati%e
bodies the po*er to create local #o%ernment units, sub,ect to reasonable standards and pro%ided no
conflict arises *ith an" pro%ision of the Constitution& /n fact, Con#ress has dele#ated to pro%incial
boards, and cit" and municipal councils, the po*er to create baran#a"s *ithin their ,urisdiction,
26
sub,ect to compliance *ith the criteria established in the Local 1o%ernment Code, and the plebiscite
re.uirement in Section 1<, 9rticle G of the Constitution& 0o*e%er, under the Local 1o%ernment
Code, 7onl" + + + an 9ct of Con#ress7 can create pro%inces, cities or municipalities&
2!
1avvphi1
Dnder Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68, Con#ress dele#ated to the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" the
po*er to create pro%inces, cities, municipalities and baran#a"s *ithin the 9?MM& Con#ress made
the dele#ation under its plenar" le#islati%e po*ers because the po*er to create local #o%ernment
units is not one of the e+press le#islati%e po*ers #ranted b" the Constitution to re#ional le#islati%e
bodies&
2E
/n the present case, the .uestion arises *hether the dele#ation to the 9?MM ?e#ional
9ssembl" of the po*er to create pro%inces, cities, municipalities and baran#a"s conflicts *ith an"
pro%ision of the Constitution&
2here is no pro%ision in the Constitution that conflicts *ith the dele#ation to re#ional le#islati%e
bodies of the po*er to create municipalities and baran#a"s, pro%ided Section 1<, 9rticle G of the
Constitution is follo*ed& 0o*e%er, the creation of pro%inces and cities is another matter& Section 6
(;), 9rticle K/ of the Constitution pro%ides, 7Each cit" *ith a population of at least t*o hundred
fift" thousand, or each pro%ince, shall ha%e at least one representati%e7 in the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es& Similarl", Section ; of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution pro%ides, 79n"
pro%ince that ma" hereafter be created, or an" cit" *hose population ma" hereafter increase to more
than t*o hundred fift" thousand shall be entitled in the immediatel" follo*in# election to at least
one Member + + +&7
Clearl", a pro%ince cannot be created *ithout a le#islati%e district because it *ill %iolate Section 6
(;), 9rticle K/ of the Constitution as *ell as Section ; of the Ordinance appended to the
Constitution& (or the same reason, a cit" *ith a population of 26<,<<< or more cannot also be
created *ithout a le#islati%e district& 2hus, the po*er to create a pro%ince, or a cit" *ith a
population of 26<,<<< or more, re.uires also the po*er to create a le#islati%e district& E%en the
creation of a cit" *ith a population of less than 26<,<<< in%ol%es the po*er to create a le#islati%e
district because once the cit"Js population reaches 26<,<<<, the cit" automaticall" becomes entitled
to one representati%e under Section 6 (;), 9rticle K/ of the Constitution and Section ; of the
Ordinance appended to the Constitution& 2hus, the po*er to create a pro%ince or cit" inherentl"
in%ol%es the po*er to create a le#islati%e district&
(or Con#ress to dele#ate %alidl" the po*er to create a pro%ince or cit", it must also %alidl" dele#ate
at the same time the po*er to create a le#islati%e district& 2he threshold issue then is, can Con#ress
%alidl" dele#ate to the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" the po*er to create le#islati%e districts for the
0ouse of ?epresentati%esM 2he ans*er is in the ne#ati%e&
Le#islati'e $istricts are Create" or !eapportione"
Only by an Act of Con#ress
Dnder the present Constitution, as *ell as in past
2
Constitutions, the po*er to increase the
allo*able membership in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es, and to reapportion le#islati%e districts, is
%ested e+clusi%el" in Con#ress& Section 6, 9rticle K/ of the Constitution pro%ides@
SEC2/O3 6& (1) 2he 0ouse of ?epresentati%es shall be composed o8 +o5 7ore 50a+ 59o 0u+,re,
a+, 8385y 7e7ber1, u+*e11 o50er931e 83:e, by *a9, *ho shall be elected from le#islati%e districts
apportioned amon# the pro%inces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance *ith the
number of their respecti%e inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and pro#ressi%e ratio, and
those *ho, as pro%ided b" la*, shall be elected throu#h a part":list s"stem of re#istered national,
re#ional, and sectoral parties or or#aniCations&
+ + + +
(;) Each le#islati%e district shall comprise, as far as practicable, conti#uous, compact, and ad,acent
territor"& Each cit" *ith a population of at least t*o hundred fift" thousand, or each pro%ince, shall
ha%e at least one representati%e&
(8) Aithin three "ears follo*in# the return of e%er" census, 50e Co+4re11 shall ma-e a
reapportionment of le#islati%e districts based on the standards pro%ided in this section& (Emphasis
supplied)
Section 6 (1), 9rticle K/ of the Constitution %ests in Con#ress the po*er to increase, throu#h a la*,
the allo*able membership in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es& Section 6 (8) empo*ers Con#ress to
reapportion le#islati%e districts& 2he po*er to reapportion le#islati%e districts necessaril" includes
the po*er to create le#islati%e districts out of e+istin# ones& Con#ress e+ercises these po*ers
throu#h a la* that Con#ress itself enacts, and not throu#h a la* that re#ional or local le#islati%e
bodies enact& 2he allo*able membership of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es can be increased, and ne*
le#islati%e districts of Con#ress can be created, onl" throu#h a national la* passed b" Con#ress& /n
*onte6o v. C7*E+EC,
29
*e held that the 7po*er of redistrictin# + + + is traditionall" re#arded as
part of the po*er (of Con#ress) to ma-e la*s,7 and thus is %ested e+clusi%el" in Con#ress&
2his te+tual commitment to Con#ress of the e+clusi%e po*er to create or reapportion le#islati%e
districts is lo#ical& Con#ress is a national le#islature and an" increase in its allo*able membership
or in its incumbent membership throu#h the creation of le#islati%e districts must be embodied in a
national la*& Onl" Con#ress can enact such a la*& /t *ould be anomalous for re#ional or local
le#islati%e bodies to create or reapportion le#islati%e districts for a national le#islature li-e
Con#ress& 9n inferior le#islati%e bod", created b" a superior le#islati%e bod", cannot chan#e the
membership of the superior le#islati%e bod"&
2he creation of the 9?MM, and the #rant of le#islati%e po*ers to its ?e#ional 9ssembl" under its
or#anic act, did not di%est Con#ress of its e+clusi%e authorit" to create le#islati%e districts& 2his is
clear from the Constitution and the 9?MM Or#anic 9ct, as amended& 2hus, Section 2<, 9rticle G of
the Constitution pro%ides@
SEC2/O3 2<& Aithin its territorial ,urisdiction and sub,ect to the pro%isions of this Constitution and
national la*s, the or#anic act of autonomous re#ions shall pro%ide for le#islati%e po*ers o%er@
(1) 9dministrati%e or#aniCationB
(2) Creation of sources of re%enuesB
(;) 9ncestral domain and natural resourcesB
(8) 'ersonal, famil", and propert" relationsB
(6) ?e#ional urban and rural plannin# de%elopmentB
(!) Economic, social, and tourism de%elopmentB
(E) Educational policiesB
() 'reser%ation and de%elopment of the cultural herita#eB and
(9) Such other matters as ma" be authoriCed b" la* for the promotion of the #eneral *elfare of the
people of the re#ion&
No503+4 3+ !e653o+ 20, Ar536*e ; o8 50e Co+1535u53o+ au50or3<e1 au5o+o7ou1 re43o+1, e:2re11*y
or 372*3e,*y, 5o 6rea5e or rea22or53o+ *e431*a53=e ,315r3651 8or Co+4re11.
On the other hand, Section ;, 9rticle /K of ?9 9<68 amendin# the 9?MM Or#anic 9ct, pro%ides,
7#0e Re43o+a* A11e7b*y 7ay e:er631e *e431*a53=e 2o9er + + + e:6e25 o+ 50e 8o**o93+4 7a55er1(
+ + + >?@ Na53o+a* e*e653o+1& + + +&7 Since the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" has no le#islati%e po*er
to enact la*s relatin# to national elections, it cannot create a le#islati%e district *hose
representati%e is elected in national elections& Ahene%er Con#ress enacts a la* creatin# a le#islati%e
district, the first representati%e is al*a"s elected in the 7ne+t national elections7 from the effecti%it"
of the la*&
;<
/ndeed, the office of a le#islati%e district representati%e to Con#ress is a +a53o+a* o8836e, and its
occupant, a Member of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es, is a +a53o+a* o88363a*&
;1
/t *ould be
incon#ruous for a re#ional le#islati%e bod" li-e the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" to create a national
office *hen its le#islati%e po*ers e+tend onl" to its re#ional territor"& 2he office of a district
representati%e is maintained b" national funds and the salar" of its occupant is paid out of national
funds& /t is a self:e%ident inherent limitation on the le#islati%e po*ers of e%er" local or re#ional
le#islati%e bod" that it can onl" create local or re#ional offices, respecti%el", and it can ne%er create
a national office&
2o allo* the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" to create a national office is to allo* its le#islati%e po*ers
to operate outside the 9?MMJs territorial ,urisdiction& 2his %iolates Section 2<, 9rticle G of the
Constitution *hich e+pressl" limits the co%era#e of the ?e#ional 9ssembl"Js le#islati%e po*ers
7=*>ithin its territorial ,urisdiction + + +&7
2he 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" itself, in creatin# Shariff Iabunsuan, reco#niCed the e+clusi%e
nature of Con#ressJ po*er to create or reapportion le#islati%e districts b" abstainin# from creatin# a
le#islati%e district for Shariff Iabunsuan& Section 6 of MM9 9ct 2<1 pro%ides that@
E+cept as ma" be pro%ided b" national la*, the e+istin# le#islati%e district, *hich includes Cotabato
Cit" as a part thereof, shall remain& (Emphasis supplied)
0o*e%er, a pro%ince cannot le#all" be created *ithout a le#islati%e district because the Constitution
mandates that 7each pro%ince shall ha%e at least one representati%e&7 2hus, the creation of the
'ro%ince of Shariff Iabunsuan *ithout a le#islati%e district is unconstitutional&
Sema, petitioner in 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E, contends that Section 6 (;), 9rticle K/ of the Constitution,
*hich pro%ides@
Each le#islati%e district shall comprise, as far as practicable, conti#uous, compact, and ad,acent
territor"& Each cit" *ith a population of at least t*o hundred fift" thousand, or each pro%ince, shall
ha%e at least one representati%e& (Emphasis supplied)
and Section ; of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution, *hich states@
A+y 2ro=3+6e 50a5 7ay 0erea85er be 6rea5e,, or an" cit" *hose population ma" hereafter increase
to more than t*o hundred fift" thousand 10a** be e+535*e, 3+ 50e 377e,3a5e*y 8o**o93+4 e*e653o+ 5o
a5 *ea15 o+e Me7ber or 1u60 +u7ber o8 Me7ber1 a1 35 7ay be e+535*e, 5o o+ 50e ba131 o8 50e
+u7ber o8 351 3+0ab35a+51 a+, a66or,3+4 5o 50e 15a+,ar,1 1e5 8or50 3+ 2ara4ra20 >A@, !e653o+ 5
o8 Ar536*e $I o8 50e Co+1535u53o+& 2he number of Members apportioned to the pro%ince out of
*hich such ne* pro%ince *as created or *here the cit", *hose population has so increased, is
#eo#raphicall" located shall be correspondin#l" ad,usted b" the Commission on Elections but such
ad,ustment shall not be made *ithin one hundred and t*ent" da"s before the election& (Emphasis
supplied)
ser%e as bases for the conclusion that the 'ro%ince of Shariff Iabunsuan, created on 29 October
2<<!, is automaticall" entitled to one member in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es in the 18 Ma" 2<<E
elections& 9s further support for her stance, petitioner in%o-es the statement in elwa that 7*hen a
pro%ince is created b" statute, the correspondin# representati%e district comes into e+istence neither
b" authorit" of that statute F *hich cannot pro%ide other*ise F nor b" apportionment, but b"
operation of the Constitution, *ithout a reapportionment&7
2he contention has no merit&
irst& 2he issue in elwa# amon# others, *as *hether ?epublic 9ct 3o& 8!96 (?9 8!96), creatin#
the pro%inces of 5en#uet, Mountain 'ro%ince, /fu#ao, and Ialin#a:9pa"ao and pro%idin# for
con#ressional representation in the old and ne* pro%inces, *as unconstitutional for 7creati=n#>
con#ressional districts *ithout the apportionment pro%ided in the Constitution&7 2he Court
ans*ered in the ne#ati%e, thus@
2he Constitution ordains@
72he 0ouse of ?epresentati%es shall be composed of not more than one hundred and t*ent"
Members *ho shall be apportioned amon# the se%eral pro%inces as nearl" as ma" be accordin# to
the number of their respecti%e inhabitants, but each pro%ince shall ha%e at least one Member& 2he
Con#ress shall b" la* ma-e an apportionment *ithin three "ears after the return of e%er"
enumeration, and not other*ise& Dntil such apportionment shall ha%e been made, the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es shall ha%e the same number of Members as that fi+ed b" la* for the 3ational
9ssembl", *ho shall be elected b" the .ualified electors from the present 9ssembl" districts& Each
representati%e district shall comprise as far as practicable, conti#uous and compact territor"&7
"ur1ua+5 5o 5031 !e653o+, a re2re1e+5a53=e ,315r365 7ay 6o7e 3+5o e:315e+6e( >a@ 3+,3re65*y,
50rou40 50e 6rea53o+ o8 a 2ro=3+6e B 8or Cea60 2ro=3+6e 10a** 0a=e a5 *ea15 o+e 7e7berC 3+
50e %ou1e o8 Re2re1e+5a53=e1D or >b@ by ,3re65 6rea53o+ o8 1e=era* re2re1e+5a53=e ,315r3651
93503+ a 2ro=3+6e. 2he re.uirements concernin# the apportionment of representati%e districts and
the territor" thereof refer onl" to the second method of creation of representati%e districts, and do
not appl" to those incidental to the creation of pro%inces, under the first method& 2his is deducible,
not onl" from the #eneral tenor of the pro%ision abo%e .uoted, but, also, from the fact that the
apportionment therein alluded to refers to that *hich is made b" an 9ct of Con#ress& /ndeed, *hen a
pro%ince is created b" statute, the correspondin# representati%e district, comes into e+istence neither
b" authorit" of that statute F *hich cannot pro%ide other*ise F nor b" apportionment, but b"
operation of the Constitution, *ithout a reapportionment&
2here is no constitutional limitation as to the time *hen, territor" of, or other conditions under
*hich a pro%ince ma" be created, e+cept, perhaps, if the conse.uence thereof *ere to e+ceed the
ma+imum of 12< representati%e districts prescribed in the Constitution, *hich is not the effect of
the le#islation under consideration& 9s a matter of fact, pro%inces ha%e been created or subdi%ided
into other pro%inces, *ith the conse.uent creation of additional representati%e districts, *ithout
compl"in# *ith the aforementioned re.uirements&
;2
(Emphasis supplied)
2hus, the Court sustained the constitutionalit" of ?9 8!96 because (1) it %alidl" created le#islati%e
districts 7indirectl"7 50rou40 a 12e63a* *a9 e+a65e, by Co+4re11 creatin# a pro%ince and (2) the
creation of the le#islati%e districts *ill not result in breachin# the ma+imum number of le#islati%e
districts pro%ided under the 19;6 Constitution& elwa does not appl" to the present case because in
elwa the ne* pro%inces *ere created b" a +a53o+a* *a9 e+a65e, by Co+4re11 351e*8& 0ere, the
ne* pro%ince *as created merel" b" a re43o+a* *a9 e+a65e, by 50e ARMM Re43o+a* A11e7b*y&
Ahat (el*a teaches is that the creation of a le#islati%e district b" Con#ress does not emanate alone
from Con#ressJ po*er to reapportion le#islati%e districts, but also from Con#ressJ po*er to create
pro%inces *hich cannot be created *ithout a le#islati%e district& 2hus, *hen a pro%ince is created, a
le#islati%e district is created b" operation of the Constitution because the Constitution pro%ides that
7each pro%ince shall ha%e at least one representati%e7 in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es& 2his does not
detract from the constitutional principle that the po*er to create le#islati%e districts belon#s
e+clusi%el" to Con#ress& /t merel" pre%ents an" other le#islati%e bod", e+cept Con#ress, from
creatin# pro%inces because for a le#islati%e bod" to create a pro%ince such le#islati%e bod" must
ha%e the po*er to create le#islati%e districts& /n short, onl" an act of Con#ress can tri##er the
creation of a le#islati%e district b" operation of the Constitution& 2hus, onl" Con#ress has the po*er
to create, or tri##er the creation of, a le#islati%e district&
Moreo%er, if as Sema claims MM9 9ct 2<1 apportioned a le#islati%e district to Shariff Iabunsuan
upon its creation, this *ill lea%e Cotabato Cit" as the lone component of the first le#islati%e district
of Ma#uindanao& 0o*e%er, Cotabato Cit" cannot constitute a le#islati%e district b" itself because as
of the census ta-en in 2<<<, it had a population of onl" 1!;,89& 2o constitute Cotabato Cit" alone
as the sur%i%in# first le#islati%e district of Ma#uindanao *ill %iolate Section 6 (;), 9rticle K/ of the
Constitution *hich re.uires that 7=E>ach cit" *ith a population of at least t*o hundred fift"
thousand + + +, shall ha%e at least one representati%e&7
Second& SemaJs theor" also undermines the composition and independence of the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es& Dnder Section 19,
;;
9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68, the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" can
create pro%inces and cities *ithin the 9?MM *ith or *ithout re#ard to the criteria fi+ed in Section
8!1 of ?9 E1!<, namel"@ minimum annual income of '2<,<<<,<<<, and minimum conti#uous
territor" of 2,<<< s.uare -ilometers or minimum population of 26<,<<<&
;8
2he follo*in# scenarios
thus become distinct possibilities@
(1) 9n inferior le#islati%e bod" li-e the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" can create 1<< or more
pro%inces and thus increase the membership of a superior le#islati%e bod", the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es, be"ond the ma+imum limit of 26< fi+ed in the Constitution (unless a national la*
pro%ides other*ise)B
(2) 2he proportional representation in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es based on one representati%e for
at least e%er" 26<,<<< residents *ill be ne#ated because the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" need not
compl" *ith the re.uirement in Section 8!1(a)(ii) of ?9 E1!< that e%er" pro%ince created must
ha%e a population of at least 26<,<<<B and
(;) ?epresentati%es from the 9?MM pro%inces can become the ma,orit" in the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es throu#h the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl"Js continuous creation of pro%inces or cities
*ithin the 9?MM&
2he follo*in# e+chan#e durin# the oral ar#uments of the petition in 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E hi#hli#hts the
absurdit" of SemaJs position that the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" can create pro%inces@
4ustice Carpio@
So, "ou mean to sa" =a> Local 1o%ernment can create le#islati%e district=s> and pac- Con#ress *ith
their o*n representati%es =M>
9tt"& Kistan //@
;6
Nes, Nour 0onor, because the Constitution allo*s that&
4ustice Carpio@
So, =the> ?e#ional 9ssembl" of =the> 9?MM can create and create + + + pro%inces + + + and,
therefore, the" can ha%e thirt":fi%e (;6) ne* representati%es in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es
*ithout Con#ress a#reein# to it, is that *hat "ou are sa"in#M 2hat can be done, under "our theor"=M>
9tt"& Kistan //@
Nes, Nour 0onor, under the correct factual circumstances&
4ustice Carpio@
Dnder "our theor", the 9?MM le#islature can create thirt":fi%e (;6) ne* pro%inces, there ma" be +
+ + =onl"> one hundred thousand (1<<,<<<) =population>, + + +, and the" *ill each ha%e one
representati%e + + + to Con#ress *ithout an" national la*, is that *hat "ou are sa"in#M
9tt"& Kistan //@
Aithout la* passed b" Con#ress, "es, Nour 0onor, that is *hat *e are sa"in#&
+ + + +
4ustice Carpio@
So, the" can also create one thousand (1<<<) ne* pro%inces, sen=d> one thousand (1<<<)
representati%es to the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es *ithout a national la*=,> that is le#all" possible,
correctM
9tt"& Kistan //@
Nes, Nour 0onor&
;!
(Emphasis supplied)
3either the framers of the 19E Constitution in adoptin# the pro%isions in 9rticle G on re#ional
autonom",
;E
nor Con#ress in enactin# ?9 9<68, en%isioned or intended these disastrous
conse.uences that certainl" *ould *rec- the tri:branch s"stem of #o%ernment under our
Constitution& Clearl", the po*er to create or reapportion le#islati%e districts cannot be dele#ated b"
Con#ress but must be e+ercised b" Con#ress itself& E%en the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" reco#niCes
this&
2he Constitution empo*ered Con#ress to create or reapportion le#islati%e districts, not the re#ional
assemblies& Section ; of the Ordinance to the Constitution *hich states, 7=9>n" pro%ince that ma"
hereafter be created + + + shall be entitled in the immediatel" follo*in# election to at least one
Member,7 refers to a pro%ince created b" Con#ress itself throu#h a national la*& 2he reason is that
the creation of a pro%ince increases the actual membership of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es, an
increase that onl" Con#ress can decide& /ncidentall", in the present 18th Con#ress, there are 219
;
district representati%es out of the ma+imum 26< seats in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es& Since part":
list members shall constitute 2< percent of total membership of the 0ouse, there should at least be
6< part":list seats a%ailable in e%er" election in case 6< part":list candidates are proclaimed
*inners& 2his lea%es onl" 2<< seats for district representati%es, much less than the 219 incumbent
district representati%es& 2hus, there is a need no* for Con#ress to increase b" la* the allo*able
membership of the 0ouse, e%en before Con#ress can create ne* pro%inces&
/t is a+iomatic that or#anic acts of autonomous re#ions cannot pre%ail o%er the Constitution& Section
2<, 9rticle G of the Constitution e+pressl" pro%ides that the le#islati%e po*ers of re#ional
assemblies are limited C[9]3503+ 351 5err35or3a* Eur31,3653o+ a+, 1ubEe65 5o 50e 2ro=313o+1 o8 50e
Co+1535u53o+ a+, +a53o+a* *a91, + + +&7 2he 'reamble of the 9?MM Or#anic 9ct (?9 9<68) itself
states that the 9?MM 1o%ernment is established 7*ithin the frame*or- of the Constitution&7 2his
follo*s Section 16, 9rticle G of the Constitution *hich mandates that the 9?MM 710a** be 6rea5e,
+ + + 93503+ 50e 8ra7e9or? o8 5031 Co+1535u53o+ a+, 50e +a53o+a* 1o=ere34+5y a1 9e** a1
5err35or3a* 3+5e4r35y o8 50e Re2ub*36 o8 50e "03*3223+e1&7
2he present case in%ol%es the creation of a local #o%ernment unit that necessaril" in%ol%es also the
creation of a le#islati%e district& 2he Court *ill not pass upon the constitutionalit" of the creation of
municipalities and baran#a"s that does not compl" *ith the criteria established in Section 8!1 of
?9 E1!<, as mandated in Section 1<, 9rticle G of the Constitution, because the creation of such
municipalities and baran#a"s does not in%ol%e the creation of le#islati%e districts& Ae lea%e the
resolution of this issue to an appropriate case&
/n summar", *e rule that Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?9 9<68, insofar as it #rants to the 9?MM
?e#ional 9ssembl" the po*er to create pro%inces and cities, is %oid for bein# contrar" to Section 6
of 9rticle K/ and Section 2< of 9rticle G of the Constitution, as *ell as Section ; of the Ordinance
appended to the Constitution& Onl" Con#ress can create pro%inces and cities because the creation of
pro%inces and cities necessaril" includes the creation of le#islati%e districts, a po*er onl" Con#ress
can e+ercise under Section 6, 9rticle K/ of the Constitution and Section ; of the Ordinance
appended to the Constitution& 2he 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" cannot create a pro%ince *ithout a
le#islati%e district because the Constitution mandates that e%er" pro%ince shall ha%e a le#islati%e
district& Moreo%er, the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl" cannot enact a la* creatin# a national office li-e
the office of a district representati%e of Con#ress because the le#islati%e po*ers of the 9?MM
?e#ional 9ssembl" operate onl" *ithin its territorial ,urisdiction as pro%ided in Section 2<, 9rticle
G of the Constitution& 2hus, *e rule that MM9 9ct 2<1, enacted b" the 9?MM ?e#ional 9ssembl"
and creatin# the 'ro%ince of Shariff Iabunsuan, is %oid&
!esolution &o. ()*+ Complies with the Constitution
Conse.uentl", *e hold that COMELEC ?esolution 3o& E9<2, preser%in# the #eo#raphic and
le#islati%e district of the (irst )istrict of Ma#uindanao *ith Cotabato Cit", is %alid as it merel"
complies *ith Section 6 of 9rticle K/ and Section 2< of 9rticle G of the Constitution, as *ell as
Section 1 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution&
F%EREFRE, *e declare Section 19, 9rticle K/ of ?epublic 9ct 3o& 9<68
D3CO3S2/2D2/O39L insofar as it #rants to the ?e#ional 9ssembl" of the 9utonomous ?e#ion
in Muslim Mindanao the po*er to create pro%inces and cities& 2hus, *e declare $I& Muslim
Mindanao 9utonom" 9ct 3o& 2<1 creatin# the 'ro%ince of Shariff Iabunsuan& Conse.uentl", *e
rule that COMELEC ?esolution 3o& E9<2 is K9L/)&
Let a cop" of this rulin# be ser%ed on the 'resident of the Senate and the Spea-er of the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es&
! R&ERE&.
AN#NI #. CAR"I
9ssociate 4ustice
AE CO3CD?@
REGNA# !. ".N
Chief 4ustice
LENAR& A. -.I!.MBING
9ssociate 4ustice
CN!.EL GNARE!H!AN#IAG
9ssociate 4ustice
MA. ALICIA A.!#RIAH
MAR#INE/
9ssociate 4ustice
RENA# C. CRNA
9ssociate 4ustice
CNC%I#A CAR"I MRALE!
9ssociate 4ustice
A&LF !. A/C.NA
9ssociate 4ustice
&AN#E . #INGA
9ssociate 4ustice
MINI#A $. C%ICHNA/ARI
9ssociate 4ustice
"RE!BI#ER '. $ELA!C, 'R.
9ssociate 4ustice
AN#NI E&.AR& B. NAC%.RA
9ssociate 4ustice
R.BEN #. REGE!
9ssociate 4ustice
#ERE!I#A '. LENAR&H&E
CA!#R
9ssociate 4ustice
AR#.R &. BRIN
9ssociate 4ustice
C E ? 2 / ( / C 9 2 / O 3
'ursuant to Section 1;, 9rticle K/// of the Constitution, / certif" that the conclusions in the abo%e
)ecision had been reached in consultation before the case *as assi#ned to the *riter of the opinion
of the Court&
REGNA# !. ".N
Chief 4ustice
Foo5+o5e1
1
/n 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E, for the *rits of certiorari, prohibition and mandamusB in 1&?& 3o& 1E!2,
for 7declarator" relief7 and for the *rits of prohibition and mandamus&
2
2he petitioner in 1&?& 3o& 1EE69E, 5ai Sandra S& 9& Sema (Sema), further see-s to compel the
COMELEC to e+clude from the can%assin# the %otes cast in Cotabato Cit" for representati%e of the
le#islati%e district in .uestion in the 18 Ma" 2<<E elections& On the other hand, the petitioner in
1&?& 3o& 1E!2, 'erfecto Mar.ueC, pra"s that the Court orde
on 1;, 9rticle K/// of the Constitution, / certif" that the conclusions in the abo%e
)ecision had been reached in consultation before the case *as assi#ned to the *riter
of the opinion of the Court&
RE".BLIC AC# No. )941
AN AC# "R$I&ING FR #%E ELEC#IN F "AR#GHLI!# RE"RE!EN#A#I$E!
#%R.G% #%E "AR#GHLI!# !G!#EM, AN& A""R"RIA#ING F.N&! #%EREFR
!e653o+ 1. ,itle. 2his 9ct shall be -no*n as the 7'art":List S"stem 9ct&7
!e653o+ 2. 'eclaration of part y. 2he State shall promote proportional representation in the election
of representati%es to the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es throu#h a part":list s"stem of re#istered national,
re#ional and sectoral parties or or#aniCations or coalitions thereof, *hich *ill enable (ilipino
citiCens belon#in# to mar#inaliCed and under:represented sectors, or#aniCations and parties, and
*ho lac- *ell:defined political constituencies but *ho could contribute to the formulation and
enactment of appropriate le#islation that *ill benefit the nation as a *hole, to become members of
the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es& 2o*ards this end, the State shall de%elop and #uarantee a full, free
and open part" s"stem in order to attain the broadcast possible representation of part", sectoral or
#roup interests in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es b" enhancin# their chances to compete for and *in
seats in the le#islature, and shall pro%ide the simplest scheme possible&
!e653o+ A. 'efinition of ,erms. (a) 2he part":list s"stem is a mechanism of proportional
representation in the election of representati%es to the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es from national,
re#ional and sectoral parties or or#aniCations or coalitions thereof re#istered *ith the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC)& Component parties or or#aniCations of a coalition ma" participate
independentl" pro%ided the coalition of *hich the" form part does not participate in the part":list
s"stem&
(b) 9 part" means either a political part" or a sectoral part" or a coalition of parties&
(c) 9 political part" refers to an or#aniCed #roup of citiCens ad%ocatin# an ideolo#" or platform,
principles and policies for the #eneral conduct of #o%ernment and *hich, as the most immediate
means of securin# their adoption, re#ularl" nominates and supports certain of its leaders and
members as candidates for public office&
/t is a national part" *hen its constituenc" is spread o%er the #eo#raphical territor" of at least a
ma,orit" of the re#ions& /t is a re#ional part" *hen its constituenc" is spread o%er the #eo#raphical
territor" of at least a ma,orit" of the cities and pro%inces comprisin# the re#ion&
(d) 9 sectoral part" refers to an or#aniCed #roup of citiCens belon#in# to an" of the sectors
enumerated in Section 6 hereof *hose principal ad%ocac" pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector,
(e) 9 sectoral or#aniCation refers to a #roup of citiCens or a coalition of #roups of citiCens *ho share
similar ph"sical attributes or characteristics, emplo"ment, interests or concerns&
(f) 9 coalition refers to an a##rupation of dul" re#istered national, re#ional, sectoral parties or
or#aniCations for political andHor election purposes&
!e653o+ 4. *anifestation to 3articipate in the 3arty/+ist )ystem. 9n" part", or#aniCation, or
coalition alread" re#istered *ith the Commission need not re#ister ane*& 0o*e%er, such part",
or#aniCation, or coalition shall file *ith the Commission, not later than ninet" (9<) da"s before the
election, a manifestation of its desire to participate in the part":list s"stem&
!e653o+ 5. Registration. 9n" or#aniCed #roup of persons ma" re#ister as a part", or#aniCation or
coalition for purposes of the part":list s"stem b" filin# *ith the COMELEC not later than ninet"
(9<) da"s before the election a petition %erified b" its president or secretar" statin# its desire to
participate in the part":list s"stem as a national, re#ional or sectoral part" or or#aniCation or a
coalition of such parties or or#aniCations, attachin# thereto its constitution, b":la*s, platform or
pro#ram of #o%ernment, list of officers, coalition a#reement and other rele%ant information as the
COMELEC ma" re.uire@ 'ro%ided, 2hat the sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfol-, urban
poor, indi#enous cultural communities, elderl", handicapped, *omen, "outh, %eterans, o%erseas
*or-ers, and professionals&
2he COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least t*o (2) national ne*spapers of #eneral
circulation&
2he COMELEC shall, after due notice and hearin#, resol%e the petition *ithin fifteen (16) da"s
from the date it *as submitted for decision but in no case not later than si+t" (!<) da"s before
election&
!e653o+ 6. Refusal and8or Cancellation of Registration. 2he COMELEC ma", motu propio or upon
%erified complaint of an" interested part", refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearin#, the
re#istration of an" national, re#ional or sectoral part", or#aniCation or coalition on an" of the
follo*in# #rounds@
(1) /t is a reli#ious sect or denomination, or#aniCation or association, or#aniCed for reli#ious
purposesB
(2) /t ad%ocates %iolence or unla*ful means to see- its #oalB
(;) /t is a forei#n part" or or#aniCationB
(8) /t is recei%in# support from an" forei#n #o%ernment, forei#n political part", foundation,
or#aniCation, *hether directl" or throu#h an" of its officers or members or indirectl" throu#h third
parties for partisan election purposesB
(6) /t %iolates or fails to compl" *ith la*s, rules or re#ulations relatin# to electionsB
(!) /t declares untruthful statements in its petitionB
(E) /t has ceased to e+ist for at least one (1) "earB or
() /t fails to participate in the last t*o (2) precedin# elections or fails to obtain at least t*o per
centum (2O) of the %otes cast under the part":list s"stem in the t*o (2) precedin# elections for the
constituenc" in *hich it has re#istered&
!e653o+ ). Certified +ist of Registered 3arties. 2he COMELEC shall, not later than si+t" (!<) da"s
before election, prepare a certified list of national, re#ional, or sectoral parties, or#aniCations or
coalitions *hich ha%e applied or *ho ha%e manifested their desire to participate under the part":list
s"stem and distribute copies thereof to all precincts for postin# in the pollin# places on election da"&
2he names of the part ":list nominees shall not be sho*n on the certified list&
!e653o+ 8. .omination of 3arty/+ist Representatives. Each re#istered part", or#aniCation or
coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than fort":fi%e (86) da"s before the election a list
of names, not less than fi%e (6), from *hich part":list representati%es shall be chosen in case it
obtains the re.uired number of %otes&
9 person ma" be nominated in one (1) list onl"& Onl" persons *ho ha%e #i%en their consent in
*ritin# ma" be named in the list& 2he list shall not include an" candidate for an" electi%e office or a
person *ho has lost his bid for an electi%e office in the immediatel" precedin# election& 3o chan#e
of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allo*ed after the same shall ha%e been
submitted to the COMELEC e+cept in cases *here the nominee dies, or *ithdra*s in *ritin# his
nomination, becomes incapacitated in *hich case the name of the substitute nominee shall be
placed last in the list& /ncumbent sectoral representati%es in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es *ho are
nominated in the part":list s"stem shall not be considered resi#ned&
!e653o+ 9. 9ualifications of 3arty/+ist .ominees. 3o person shall be nominated as part":list
representati%e unless he is a natural:born citiCen of the 'hilippines, a re#istered %oter, a resident of
the 'hilippines for a period of not less than one (1)"ear immediatel" precedin# the da" of the
election, able to read and *rite, a bona fide member of the part" or or#aniCation *hich he see-s to
represent for at least ninet" (9<) da"s precedin# the da" of the election, and is at least t*ent":fi%e
(26) "ears of a#e on the da" of the election&
/n case of a nominee of the "outh sector, he must at least be t*ent":fi%e (26) but not more than
thirt" (;<) "ears of a#e on the da" of the election& 9n" "outh sectoral representati%e *ho attains the
a#e of thirt" (;<) durin# his term shall be allo*ed to continue in office until the e+piration of his
term&
!e653o+ 10. *anner of :oting. E%er" %oter shall be entitled to t*o (2) %otes@ the first is a %ote for
candidate for member of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es in his le#islati%e district, and the second, a
%ote for the part", or#aniCations, or coalition he *ants represented in the house of ?epresentati%es@
'ro%ided, 2hat a %ote cast for a part", sectoral or#aniCation, or coalition not entitled to be %oted for
shall not be counted@ 'ro%ided, finall", 2hat the first election under the part":list s"stem shall be
held in Ma" 199&
2he COMELEC shall underta-e the necessar" information campai#n for purposes of educatin# the
electorate on the matter of the part":list s"stem&
!e653o+ 11. .um!er of 3arty/+ist Representatives. 2he part":list representati%es shall constitute
t*ent" per centum (2<O) of the total number of the members of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es
includin# those under the part":list&
(or purposes of the Ma" 199 elections, the first fi%e (6) ma,or political parties on the basis of part"
representation in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es at the start of the 2enth Con#ress of the 'hilippines
shall not be entitled to participate in the part":list s"stem&
/n determinin# the allocation of seats for the second %ote, the follo*in# procedure shall be
obser%ed@
(a) 2he parties, or#aniCations, and coalitions shall be ran-ed from the hi#hest to the lo*est based on
the number of %otes the" #arnered durin# the elections&
(b) 2he parties, or#aniCations, and coalitions recei%in# at least t*o percent (2O) of the total %otes
cast for the part":list s"stem shall be entitled to one seat each@ 'ro%ided, 2hat those #arnerin# more
than t*o percent (2O) of the %otes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
number of %otes @ 'ro%ided, finall", 2hat each part", or#aniCation, or coalition shall be entitled to
not more than three (;) seats&
!e653o+ 12. 3rocedure in Allocating )eats for 3arty/+ist Representatives. 2he COMELEC shall
tall" all the %otes for the parties, or#aniCations, or coalitions on a nation*ide basis, ran- them
accordin# to the number of %otes recei%ed and allocate part":list representati%es proportionatel"
accordin# to the percenta#e of %otes obtained b" each part", or#aniCation, or coalition as a#ainst the
total nation*ide %otes cast for the part":list s"stem&
!e653o+ 1A. 0ow 3arty/+ist Representatives are Chosen. 'art":list representati%es shall be
proclaimed b" the COMELEC based on the list of names submitted b" the respecti%e parties,
or#aniCations, or coalitions to the COMELEC accordin# to their ran-in# in said list&
!e653o+ 14. ,erm of 7ffice. 'art":list representati%es shall be elected for a term of three (;) "ears
*hich shall be#in, unless other*ise pro%ided b" la*, at noon on the thirtieth da" of 4une ne+t
follo*in# their election& 3o part":list representati%es shall ser%e for more than three (;) consecuti%e
terms& Koluntar" renunciation of the office for an" len#th of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuit" his ser%ice for the full term for *hich he *as elected&
!e653o+ 15. Change of Affiliation; Effect. 9n" elected part":list representati%e *ho chan#es his
political part" or sectoral affiliation durin# his term of office shall forfeit his seat@ 'ro%ided, 2hat if
he chan#es his political part" or sectoral affiliation *ithin si+ (!) months before an election, he shall
not be eli#ible for nomination as part":list representati%e under his ne* part" or or#aniCation&
!e653o+ 16. :acancy. /n case of %acanc" in the seats reser%ed for part":list representati%es, the
%acanc" shall be automaticall" filled b" the ne+t representati%e from the list of nominees in the
order submitted to the COMELEC b" the same part", or#aniCation, or coalition, *ho shall ser%e for
the une+pired term& /f the list is e+hausted, the part", or#aniCation coalition concerned shall submit
additional nominees&
!e653o+ 1). Rights of 3arty/+ist Representatives. 'art":List ?epresentati%es shall be entitled to the
same salaries and emoluments as re#ular members of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es&
!e653o+ 18. Rules and Regulations. 2he COMELEC shall promul#ate the necessar" rules and
re#ulations as ma" be necessar" to carr" out the purposes of this 9ct&
!e653o+ 19. Appropriations. 2he amount necessar" for the implementation of this 9ct shall be
pro%ided in the re#ular appropriations for the Commission on Elections startin# fiscal "ear 199!
under the 1eneral 9ppropriations 9ct&
Startin# 1996, the COMELEC is hereb" authoriCed to utiliCe sa%in#s and other a%ailable funds for
purposes of its information campai#n on the part":list s"stem&
!e653o+ 20. )epara!ility Clause. /f an" part of this 9ct is held in%alid or unconstitutional, the other
parts or pro%isions thereof shall remain %alid and effecti%e&
!e653o+ 21. Repealing Clause. 9ll la*s, decrees, e+ecuti%e orders, rules and re#ulations, or parts
thereof, inconsistent *ith the pro%isions of this 9ct are hereb" repealed&
!e653o+ 22. Effectivity. 2his 9ct shall ta-e effect fifteen (16) da"s after its publication in a
ne*spaper of #eneral circulation&
9ppro%ed, March ;, 1996&
2he La*E3 593C

G.R. No. 167624 Se3,ember 18, 1994
AGA)ITO A. A:UINO, petitioner,
vs.
'OMMISSION ON ELE'TIONS, MOVE MA5ATI, MATEO BEDON "#$ %UANITO
I'ARO, respondents.

5A)UNAN, J.:
3he sanctity of the people<s !ill (ust be observed at all ti(es if our nascent de(ocracy is
to be preserved. In any challenge having the effect of reversing a de(ocratic choice,
expressed through the ballot, this #ourt should be ever so vigilant in finding solutions
!hich !ould give effect to the !ill of the (a=ority, for sound public policy dictates that all
elective offices are filled by those !ho have received the highest nu(ber of votes cast in
an election. Chen a challenge to a !inning candidate<s >ualifications ho!ever beco(es
inevitable, the ineligibility ought to be so noxious to the #onstitution that giving effect to the
apparent !ill of the people !ould ulti(ately do har( to our de(ocratic institutions.
Gn March 62, .--, petitioner Agapito A. A>uino filed his #ertificate of #andidacy for the
position of Representative for the ne! )econd 0egislative Histrict of Makati #ity. A(ong
others, A>uino provided the follo!ing infor(ation in his certificate of candidacy, vi&9.
?7@ RA)IHAN#A ?#o(plete Address@9 65/ AMA'G0A #GR. AHA00A )3)., 'A0M 8I00A1A, MAKA3I.
xxx xxx xxx
?5@ RA)IHAN#A IN 3$A #GN)3I3%AN#J C$ARA I )AAK 3G 7A A0A#3AH IMMAHIA3A0J 'RA#AHIN1
3$A A0A#3IGN9 LLLLLL Jears and =A Months.
xxx xxx xxx
3$A3 I AM A0I1I70A for said GfficeB 3hat I !ill support and defend the #onstitution of the Republic of the
'hilippines and !ill (aintain true faith and allegiance theretoB 3hat I !ill obey the la!, rules and decrees
pro(ulgated by the duly constituted authoritiesB 3hat the obligation i(posed to such is assu(ed voluntarily,
!ithout (ental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that the facts therein are true to the best of (y
kno!ledge.
1
Gn April 6/, .--, Move Makati, a duly registered political party, and Mateo 7edon,
#hair(an of the 0AKA):N%#H:%MH' of 7arangay #e(bo, Makati #ity, filed a petition to
dis>ualify Agapito A. A>uino
6
on the ground that the latter lacked the residence
>ualification as a candidate for congress(an !hich, under )ection 6, Art. 8I of the .-57
the #onstitution, should be for a period not less than one ?.@ year i((ediately preceding
the May 5, .-- elections. 3he petition !as docketed as )'A No. -:..D and !as
assigned to the )econd Hivision of the #o((ission on Alections ?#GMA0A#@.
Gn April 6, .--, a day after said petition for dis>ualification !as filed, petitioner filed
another certificate of candidacy a(ending the certificate dated March 62, .--. 3his ti(e,
petitioner stated in Ite( 5 of his certificate that he had resided in the constituency !here
he sought to be elected for one ?l@ year and thirteen ?.D@ days.
3
Gn May 6, .--, petitioner filed his Ans!er dated April 6-, .-- praying for the dis(issal
of the dis>ualification case.
4
Gn the sa(e day, May 6, .--, a hearing !as conducted by the #GMA0A# !herein
petitioner testified and presented in evidence, a(ong others, his Affidavit dated May 6,
.--,
4
lease contract bet!een petitioner and 0eonor ,eliciano dated April ., .--/,
2
Affidavit of 0eonor ,eliciano dated April 65,.--
7
and Affidavit of Haniel 1ala(ay dated
April 65, .--.
8
After hearing of the petition for dis>ualification, the )econd Hivision of the #GMA0A#
pro(ulgated a Resolution dated May 6, .--, the decretal portion of !hich reads9
C$ARA,GRA, in vie! of the foregoing, this #o((ission ?)econd Hivision@ RA)G08A) to HI)MI)) the
instant9 petition for His>ualification against respondent A1A'I3G AM%ING and declares hi( A0I1I70A to
run for the Gffice of Representative in the )econd 0egislative Histrict of Makati #ity.
)G GRHARAH.
9
Gn May 7, .--, Move Makati and Mateo 7edon filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
May 6, .-- resolution !ith the #GMA0A# en /anc.
Mean!hile, on May 5, .--, elections !ere held. In Makati #ity !here three ?D@ candidates
vied for the congressional seat in the )econd Histrict, petitioner garnered thirty eight
thousand five hundred forty seven ?D5,/7@ votes as against another candidate, Agusto
)y=uco, !ho obtained thirty five thousand nine hundred ten ?D,-.2@ votes.
17
Gn May .2, .--, private respondents Move Makati and 7edon filed an %rgent Motion Ad
Cautelum to )uspend 'rocla(ation of petitioner. 3hereafter, they filed an G(nibus Motion
for Reconsideration of the #GMA0A#<s )econd Hivision resolution dated May 6, .-- and
a 6nd %rgent Motion Ad Cautelum to )uspend 'rocla(ation of petitioner.
Gn May ., .--, #GMA0A# en /anc issued an Grder suspending petitioner<s
procla(ation. 3he dispositive portion of the order reads9
C$ARA,GRA, pursuant to the provisions of )ection 6 of Republic Act No. 66/6, the 7oard of #anvassers of
the #ity of Makati is hereby directed to co(plete the canvassing of election returns of the )econd Histrict of
Makati, but to suspend the procla(ation of respondent Agapito A. A>uino should he obtain the !inning
nu(ber of votes for the position of Representative of the )econd Histrict of the #ity of Makati, until the
(otion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners on May 7, .--, shall have been resolved by the
#o((ission.
3he Axecutive Hirector, this #o((ission, is directed to cause the i((ediate i(ple(entation of this Grder.
3he #lerk of #ourt of the #o((ission is like!ise directed to infor( the parties by the fastest (eans available
of this Grder, and to calendar the hearing of the Motion for Reconsideration on May .7, .--, at .2922 in the
(orning, 'I## 'ress #enter, 'asay #ity.
)G GRHARAH.
11
Gn May .6, .--, petitioner filed his #o((ent;Gpposition !ith urgent (otion to lift order
of suspension of procla(ation.
Gn *une ., .--, petitioner filed a "Motion to ,ile )upple(ental Me(orandu( and Motion
to Resolve %rgent Motion to Resolve Motion to 0ift )uspension of 'rocla(ation" !herein
he (anifested his intention to raise, a(ong others, the issue of !hether of not the
deter(ination of the >ualifications of petitioner after the elections is lodged exclusively in
the $ouse of Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal pursuant to )ection .7, Article 8I of the
.-57 #onstitution.
Resolving petitioner<s (otion to lift suspension of his procla(ation, the #GMA0A# en
/anc issued an Grder on *une 6, .--, the decretal portion thereof residing9
'ursuant to the said provisions and considering the attendant circu(stances of the case, the #o((ission
RA)G08AH to proceed !ith the pro(ulgation but to suspend its rules, to accept the filing of the aforesaid
(otion, and to allo4 t(e parties to /e (eard t(ereon /ecause t(e issue of 3urisdiction no4 /efore t(e
Commission (as to /e studied 4it( more reflection and 3udiciousness.
16
Gn the sa(e day, *une 6, .--, the #GMA0A# en /anc issued a Resolution reversing the
resolution of the )econd Hivision dated May 6, .--. 3he fallo reads as follo!s9
C$ARA,GRA, in vie! of the foregoing, petitioners< Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of the
)econd Hivision, pro(ulgated on May 6, .--, is 1RAN3AH. Respondent Agapito A. A>uino is declared
ineligible and thus dis>ualified as a candidate for the Gffice of Representative of the )econd 0egislative
Histrict of Makati #ity in the May 5, .-- elections, for lack of the constitutional >ualification of residence.
#onse>uently, the order of suspension of procla(ation of the respondent should he obtain the !inning
nu(ber of votes, issued by this #o((ission on May ., .-- is no! (ade per(anent.
%pon the finality of this Resolution, the 7oard of #anvassers of the #ity of Makati shall i((ediately
reconvene and, on the basis of the co(pleted canvass of election returns, deter(ine the !inner out of the
re(aining >ualified candidates, !ho shall be i((ediately be proclai(ed.
)G GRHARAH.
13
$ence, the instant 'etition for Certiorari
14
assailing the orders dated May ., .-- and
*une 6, .--, as !ell as the resolution dated *une 6, .-- issued by the #GMA0A# en
/anc. 'etitioner<s raises the follo!ing errors for consideration, to !it9
A
3$A #GMA0A# $A) NG *%RI)HI#3IGN 3G HA3ARMINA ANH AH*%H1A 3$A HI)M%A0I,I#A3IGN
I))%A IN8G08IN1 #GN1RA))IGNA0 #ANHIHA3A) A,3AR 3$A MAJ 5, .-- A0A#3IGN), )%#$
HA3ARMINA3IGN 7AIN1 RA)AR8AH 3G ANH 0GH1A AP#0%)I8A0J CI3$ 3$A $G%)A G,
RA'RA)AN3A3I8A A0A#3GRA0 3RI7%NA0
7
A))%MIN1 A1,EN!) 3$A3 3$A #GMA0A# $A) *%RI)HI#3IGN, )AIH *%RI)HI#3IGN #AA)AH IN
3$A IN)3AN3 #A)A A,3AR 3$A A0A#3IGN), ANH 3$A RAMAHJ;IA) A8AI0A70A 3G 3$A AH8AR)A
'AR3IA) 0IA;) IN ANG3$AR ,GR%M C$I#$, I3 I) )%7MI33AH, I) 3$A $RA3 #GN)I)3AN3 CI3$
)A#3IGN .7, AR3I#0A 8I G, 3$A .-57 #GN)3I3%3IGN
#
3$A #GMA0A# #GMMI33AH 1RA8A A7%)A G, HI)#RA3IGN C$AN I3 'RG#AAHAH 3G
'RGM%01A3A I3) M%A)3IGNAH HA#I)IGN ?ANNAP "#", 'A3I3IGN@ HA)'I3A I3 GCN RA#G1NI3IGN
3$A3 A 3$RA)$G0H I))%A G, *%RI)HI#3IGN $A) 3G 7A *%HI#IG%)0J RA8IACAH A1AIN,
A))%MIN1 A1,EN!) 3$A3 3$A #GMA0A# $A) *%RI)HI#3IGN, 3$A #GMA0A# #GMMI33AH
1RA8A A7%)A G, HI)#RA3IGN, ANH )ARIG%) ARRGR IN HIRA#3IN1 CI3$G%3 NG3I#A 3$A
)%)'AN)IGN G, 3$A 'RG#0AMA3IGN G, 3$A 'A3I3IGNAR A) 3$A CINNIN1 #GN1RA))IGNA0
#ANHIHA3A ANH HA)'I3A 3$A MINI)3ARIA0 NA3%RA G, )%#$ H%3J 3G 'RG#0AIM ?'ANHIN1 3$A
,INA0I3J G, 3$A HI)M%A0I,I#A3IGN #A)A A1AIN)3 3$A 'A3I3IGNAR@ I, GN0J NG3 3G 3$CAR3
3$A 'AG'0A<) CI00.
H
3$A #GMA0A#<) ,INHIN1 G, NGN:#GM'0IAN#A CI3$ 3$A RA)IHAN#J RAM%IRAMAN3 G, GNA
JAAR A1AIN)3 3$A 'A3I3IGNAR I) #GN3RARJ 3G A8IHAN#A ANH 3G A''0I#A70A 0AC) ANH
*%RI)'R%HAN#A.
A
IN ANJ #A)A, 3$A #GMA0A# #RI3I#A00J ARRAH IN ,AI0IN1 3G A''RA#IA3A 3$A 0A1A0
IM'G))I7I0I3J G, AN,GR#IN1 3$A GNA JAAR RA)IHAN#J RAM%IRAMAN3 G, #GN1RA))IGNA0
#ANHIHA3A) IN NAC0J #RAA3AH 'G0I3I#A0 HI)3RI#3) C$I#$ CARA GN0J API)3IN1 ,GR 0A))
3$AN A JAAR A3 3$A 3IMA G, 3$A A0A#3IGN ANH 7ARA0J ,G%R MGN3$) IN 3$A #A)A G,
'A3I3IGNAR<) HI)3RI#3 IN MAKA3I G, #GN1RA))IGNA0.
,
3$A #GMA0A# #GMMI33AH )ARIG%) ARRGR AMG%N3IN1 3G 0A#K G, *%RI)HI#3IGN C$AN I3
GRHARAH 3$A 7GARH G, #AN8A))AR) 3G "HA3ARMINA ANH 'RG#0AIM 3$A CINNAR G%3 G,
3$A RAMAININ1 M%A0I,IAH #ANHIHA3A)" A,3AR 3$A ARRGNAG%) HI)M%A0I,I#A3IGN G, JG%R
'A3I3IGNAR IN 3$A3 )%#$ HIRA#3I8A I) IN 3G3A0 HI)RA1ARH G, 3$A CA00 )A330AH HG#3RINA
3$A3 A )A#GNH '0A#A #ANHIHA3A GR 'AR)GN C$G CA) RA'%HIA3AH 7J 3$A A0A#3GRA3A I)
A 0G)AR ANH #ANNG3 7A 'RG#0AIMAH A) )%7)3I3%3A
CINNAR.
14
I
In his first three assign(ents of error, petitioner vigorously contends that after the May 5,
.-- elections, the #GMA0A# lost its =urisdiction over the >uestion of petitioner<s
>ualifications to run for (e(ber of the $ouse of Representatives. $e clai(s that
=urisdiction over the petition for dis>ualification is exclusively lodged !ith the $ouse of
Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal ?$RA3@. 1iven the yet unresolved >uestion of
=urisdiction, petitioner avers that the #GMA0A# co((itted serious error and grave abuse
of discretion in directing the suspension of his procla(ation as the !inning candidate in
the )econd #ongressional Histrict of Makati #ity. Ce disagree.
'etitioner conveniently confuses the distinction bet!een an unproclai(ed candidate to the
$ouse of Representatives and a (e(ber of the sa(e. Gbtaining the highest nu(ber of
votes in an election does not auto(atically vest the position in the !inning candidate.
)ection .7 of Article 8I of the .-57 #onstitution reads9
3he )enate and the $ouse of Representatives shall have an Alectoral 3ribunal !hich shall be the sole =udge
of all contests relating to the election, returns and >ualifications of their respective Me(bers.
%nder the above:stated provision, the electoral tribunal clearly assu(es =urisdiction over
all contests relative to the election, returns and >ualifications of candidates for either the
)enate or the $ouse only !hen the latter beco(e mem/ers of either the )enate or the
$ouse of Representatives. A candidate !ho has not been proclai(ed
12
and !ho has not
taken his oath of office cannot be said to be a (e(ber of the $ouse of Representatives
sub=ect to )ection. .7 of the #onstitution. Chile the procla(ation of a !inning candidate in
an election is (inisterial, 7.'. 55. in con=unction !ith )ec 6 of R.A. 66/6 allo!s
suspension of procla(ation under circu(stances (entioned therein. 3hus, petitioner< s
contention that "after the conduct of the election and ?petitioner@ has been established the
!inner of the electoral exercise fro( the (o(ent of election, the #GMA0A# is
auto(atically divested of authority to pass upon the >uestion of >ualification" finds no
basis, because even after the elections the #GMA0A# is e(po!ered by )ection 6 ?in
relation to )ection 7@ of R.A. 66/6 to continue to hear and decide >uestions relating to
>ualifications of candidates )ection 6 states9
)ec. 6. Effect of !isqualification Case. I Any candidate, !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be
dis>ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final =udg(ent before an election to be dis>ualified and he is voted for and
receives the !inning nu(ber of votes in such election, the #ourt or #o((ission shall continue !ith the trial
and hearing of the action, in>uiry or protest and, upon (otion of the co(plainant or any intervenor, (ay
during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the procla(ation of such candidate !henever the
evidence of guilt is strong.
%nder the above:>uoted provision, not only is a dis>ualification case against a candidate
allo!ed to continue after the election ?and does not oust the #GMA0A# of its =urisdiction@,
but his obtaining the highest nu(ber of votes !ill not result in the suspension or
ter(ination of the proceedings against hi( !hen the evidence of guilt is strong. Chile the
phrase "!hen the evidence of guilt is strong" see(s to suggest that the provisions of
)ection 6 ought to be applicable only to dis>ualification cases under )ection 65 of the
G(nibus Alection #ode, )ection 7 of R.A. 66/6 allo!s the application of the provisions of
)ection 6 to cases involving dis>ualification based on ineligibility under )ection 75 of 7.'.
55.. )ection 7 states9
)ec. 7. Petition to !en. !ue Course or to Cancel a Certificate of Candidac.. I 3he procedure hereinabove
provided shall apply to petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy based on )ec. 75 of
Batas Pam/ansa 55..
II
Ce agree !ith #GMA0A#<s contention that in order that petitioner could >ualify as a
candidate for Representative of the )econd Histrict of Makati #ity the latter "(ust prove
that he has established not =ust residence but domicile of choice.
17
3he #onstitution re>uires that a person seeking election to the $ouse of Representatives
should be a resident of the district in !hich he seeks election for a period of not less than
one ?l@ year prior to the elections.
18
Residence, for election la! purposes, has a settled
(eaning in our =urisdiction.
In Co v. Electoral *ri/unal of t(e 2ouse of epresentatives
19
this #ourt held that the ter(
"residence" has al!ays been understood as synony(ous !ith "domicile" not only under
the previous #onstitutions but also under the .-57 #onstitution. 3he #ourt there held9
67
3he deliberations of the #onstitutional #o((ission reveal that the (eaning of residence visCaCvis the
>ualifications of a candidate for #ongress continues to re(ain the sa(e as that of domicile, to !it9
Mr. Nolledo9 Cith respect to )ection , I re(e(ber that in the .-7. #onstitutional #onvention, there !as an
atte(pt to re>uire residence in the place not less than one year i((ediately preceding the day of elections.
)o (y >uestion is9 Chat is the #o((ittee<s concept of do(icile or constructive residenceN
Mr. Havide9 Mada(e 'resident, insofar as the regular (e(bers of the National Asse(bly are concerned, the
proposed section (erely provides, a(ong others, and a resident thereof<, that is, in the district, for a period
of not less than one year preceding the day of the election. 3his !as in effect lifted fro( the .-7D
#onstitution, t(e interpretation given to it 4as domicile ?e(phasis ours@ Records of the .-57 #onstitutional
#onvention, 8ol. II, *uly 66, .-56, p. 57@.
xxx xxx xxx
Mrs. Rosario 7raid9 3he next >uestion is on section 7, page 6. I think #o((issioner Nolledo has raised the
sa(e point that "resident" has been interpreted at ti(es as a (atter of intention rather than actual residence.
Mr. He 0os Reyes9 !omicile.
Ms. Rosario 7raid9 Jes, )o, 4ould t(e gentlemen consider at t(e proper time to go /ac6 to actual residence
rat(er t(an mere intention to resideH
Mr. He los Reyes9 7ut Ce (ight encounter so(e difficulty especially considering that the provision in the
#onstitution in the Article on )uffrage says that ,ilipinos living abroad (ay vote as enacted by la!. )o, 4e
(ave to stic6 to t(e original concept t(at it s(ould /e /. domicile and not p(.sical and actual residence.
?Records of the .-57 #onstitutional #o((ission, 8ol. II, *uly 66, .-56, p. ..2@.
3he fra(ers of the #onstitution adhered to the earlier definition given to the !ord "residence" !hich regarded
it as having the sa(e (eaning as domicile.
#learly, the place "!here a party actually or constructively has his per(anent ho(e,"
61
!here he, no (atter !here he (ay be found at any given ti(e, eventually intends to return
and re(ain, i.e., his do(icile, is that to !hich the #onstitution refers !hen it speaks of
residence for the purposes of election la!. 3he (anifest purpose of this deviation fro( the
usual conceptions of residency in la! as explained in 1allego vs. $era at
66
is "to exclude
strangers or ne!co(ers unfa(iliar !ith the conditions and needs of the co((unity" fro(
taking advantage of favorable circu(stances existing in that co((unity for electoral gain.
Chile there is nothing !rong !ith the practice of establishing residence in a given area for
(eeting election la! re>uire(ents, this nonetheless defeats the essence of
representation, !hich is to place through the assent of voters those (ost cogni&ant and
sensitive to the needs of a particular district, if a candidate falls short of the period of
residency (andated by la! for hi( to >ualify. 3hat purpose could be obviously best (et by
individuals !ho have either had actual residence in the area for a given period or !ho
have been do(iciled in the sa(e area either by origin or by choice. It !ould, therefore, be
i(perative for this #ourt to in>uire into the threshold >uestion as to !hether or not
petitioner actually !as a resident for a period of one year in the area no! enco(passed by
the )econd 0egislative Histrict of Makati at the ti(e of his election or !hether or not he
!as do(iciled in the sa(e.
As found by the #GMA0A# en /anc petitioner in his #ertificate of #andidacy for the May
.., .--6 elections, indicated not only that he !as a resident of )an *ose, #oncepcion,
3arlac in .--6 but that he !as a resident of the sa(e for 6 years i((ediately preceding
that election.
63
At the ti(e, his certificate indicated that he !as also a registered voter of
the sa(e district.
64
$is birth certificate places #oncepcion, 3arlac as the birthplace of both
of his parents 7enigno and Aurora.
64
3hus, fro( data furnished by petitioner hi(self to
the #GMA0A# at various ti(es during his political career, !hat stands consistently clear
and unassailable is that this domicile of origin of record up to the ti(e of filing of his (ost
recent certificate of candidacy for the .-- elections !as #oncepcion, 3arlac.
'etitioner<s alleged connection !ith the )econd Histrict of Makati #ity is an alleged lease
agree(ent of condo(iniu( unit in the area. As the #GMA0A#, in its disputed Resolution
noted9
3he intention not to establish a per(anent ho(e in Makati #ity is evident in his leasing a condo(iniu( unit
instead of buying one. Chile a lease contract (aybe indicative of respondent<s intention to reside in Makati
#ity it does not engender the kind of per(anency re>uired to prove abandon(ent of one<s original domicile
especially since, by its ter(s, it is only for a period of t!o ?6@ years, and respondent A>uino hi(self testified
that his intention !as really for only one ?l@ year because (e (as ot(er EresidencesE in "anila or #ue&on Cit..
62
Chile property o!nership is not and should never be an indicia of the right to vote or to be
voted upon, the fact that petitioner hi(self clai(s that he has other residences in Metro
Manila coupled !ith the short length of ti(e he clai(s to be a resident of the condo(iniu(
unit in Makati ?and the fact, of his stated do(icile in 3arlac@ "indicate that the sole purpose
of ?petitioner@ in transferring his physical residence"
67
is not to ac>uire<s ne! residence or
domicile "but only to >ualify as a candidate for Representative of the )econd Histrict of
Makati #ity."
68
3he absence of clear and positive proof sho!ing a successful
abandon(ent of domicile under the conditions stated above, the lack of identification I
senti(ental, actual or other!ise I !ith the area, and the suspicious circu(stances under
!hich the lease agree(ent !as effected all belie petitioner<s clai( of residency for the
period re>uired by the #onstitution, in the )econd Histrict of Makati. As the #GMA0A# en
/anc e(phatically pointed out9
E3Fhe lease agree(ent !as executed (ainly to support the one year residence re>uire(ent as a >ualification
for a candidate of Representative, by establishing a co((ence(ent date of his residence. If a perfectly valid
lease agree(ent cannot, by itself establishB a domicile of choice, this particular lease agree(ent cannot do
better.
69
Moreover, his assertion that he has transferred his domicile fro( 3arlac to Makati is a bare
assertion !hich is hardly supported by the facts in the case at bench. !omicile of origin is
not easily lost. 3o successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner (ust prove an actual
re(oval or an actual change of domicileB a /ona fide intention of abandoning the for(er
place of residence and establishing a ne! one and definite acts !hich correspond !ith the
purpose.
37
3hese re>uire(ents are hardly (et by the evidence adduced in support of
petitioner<s clai(s of a change of domicile fro( 3arlac to the )econd Histrict of Makati. In
the absence of clear and positive proof, the do(icile of origin be dee(ed to continue
re>uire(ents are hardly (et by the evidence adduced in support of petitioner<s clai(s of a
change of do(icile fro( 3arlac to the )econd Histrict of Makati. In the absence of clear
and positive proof, the domicile of origin should be dee(ed to continue.
,inally, petitioner<s sub(ission that it !ould be legally i(possible to i(pose the one year
residency re>uire(ent in a ne!ly created political district is specious and lacks basis in
logic. A ne! political district is not created out of thin air. It is carved out fro( part of a real
and existing geographic area, in this case the old Municipality of Makati. 3hat people
actually lived or !ere do(iciled in the area enco(passed by the ne! )econd Histrict
cannot be denied. Modern:day carpetbaggers cannot be allo!ed take advantage of the
creation of ne! political districts by suddenly transplanting the(selves in such ne!
districts, pre=udicing their genuine residents in the process of taking advantage of existing
conditions in these areas. It !ill be noted, as #GMA0A# did in its assailed resolution, that
petitioner !as dis>ualified fro( running in the )enate because of the constitutional t!o:
ter( li(it, and had to shop around for a place !here he could run for public office. Nothing
!rong !ith that, but he (ust first prove !ith reasonable certainty that he has effected a
change of residence for election la! purposes for the period re>uired by la!. 3his he has
not effectively done.
III
3he next issue here is !hether or not the #GMA0A# erred in issuing it Grder instructing
the 7oard of #anvassers of Makati #ity to proclai( as !inner the candidate receiving the
next higher nu(ber of votes. 3he ans!er (ust be in the negative.
3o contend that )y=uco should be proclai(ed because he !as the "first" a(ong the
>ualified candidates in the May 5, .-- elections is to (isconstrue the nature of the
de(ocratic electoral process and the sociological and psychological underpinnings behind
voters< preferences. 3he result suggested by private respondent !ould lead not only to our
reversing the doctrines fir(ly entrenched in the t!o cases of La/o vs. Comelec
31
but also
to a (assive disenfranchise(ent of the thousands of voters !ho cast their vote in favor of
a candidate they believed could be validly voted for during the elections. $ad petitioner
been dis>ualified before the elections, the choice, (oreover, !ould have been different.
3he votes for A>uino given the acri(ony !hich attended the ca(paign, !ould not have
auto(atically gone to second placer )y=uco. 3he nature of the playing field !ould have
substantially changed. 3o si(plistically assu(e that the second placer !ould have
received the other votes !ould be to substitute our =udg(ent for the (ind of the voter. 3he
second placer is =ust that, a second placer. $e lost the elections. $e !as repudiated by
either a (a=ority or plurality of voters. $e could not be considered the first a(ong >ualified
candidates because in a field !hich excludes the dis>ualified candidate, the conditions
!ould have substantially changed. Ce are not prepared to extrapolate the results under
such circu(stances.
In these cases, the pendulu( of =udicial opinion in our country has s!ung fro( one end to
the other. In the early case of *opacio v. Paredes.
36
!e declared as valid, votes cast in
favor of a dis>ualified, ineligilble or dead candidate provided the people !ho voted for such
candidate believed in good faith that at the ti(e of the elections said candidate !as either
>ualified, eligible or alive. 3he votes cast in favor of a dis>ualified, ineligible or dead
candidate !ho obtained the next higher nu(ber of votes cannot be proclai(ed as !inner.
According to this #ourt in the said case, "there is not, strictly speaking, a contest, that
!reath of victory cannot be transferred fro( an ineligible candidate to any other candidate
!hen the sole >uestion is the eligibility of the one receiving the plurality of the legally cast
ballots."
3hen in *icson v. Comelec,
33
this #ourt held that votes cast in favor of a non:candidate in
vie! of his unla!ful change of party affiliation ?!hich !as then a ground for
dis>ualification@ cannot be considered in the canvassing of election returns and the votes
fall into the category of invalid and nonexistent votes because a dis>ualified candidate is
no candidate at all and is not a candidate in the eyes of the la!. As a result, this #ourt
upheld the procla(ation of the only candidate left in the disputed position.
In 1eronimo v. amos
34
!e reiterated our ruling in *opacio v. Paredes that the candidate
!ho lost in an election cannot be proclai(ed the !inner in the event the candidate !ho ran
for the portion is ineligible. Ce held in 1eronimo9
EIFt !ould be extre(ely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a
candidate !ho has not ac>uired the (a=ority or plurality of votes is proclai(ed a !inner and i(posed as the
representative of a constituency, the (a=ority of !hich have positively declared through their ballots that they
do not choose hi(.
)ound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those !ho have received the highest nu(ber of
votes cast in the election for that office, and it is funda(ental idea in all republican for(s of govern(ent that
no one can be declared elected and no (easure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a (a=ority
or plurality of the legal votes cast in the elections. ?62 #orpus *uris 6nd, ) 6/D, p. 676.@
$o!ever, in Santos v. Comelec
34
!e (ade a turnabout fro( our previous ruling in
1eronimo v. amos and pronounced that "votes cast for a dis>ualified candidate fall !ithin
the category of invalid or non:existent votes because a dis>ualified candidate is no
candidate at all in the eyes of the la!," reverting to our earlier ruling in *icson v. Comelec.
In the (ore recent cases of La/o, Jr. v. Comelec
32
A/ella v. ComelecB
37
and Benito v.
Comelec,
38
this #ourt reiterated and upheld the ruling in *opacio v. Paredes and
1eronimo v. amos to the effect that the ineligibility of a candidate receiving the next
higher nu(ber of votes to be declared elected, and that a (inority or defeated candidate
cannot be declared elected to the office. In these cases, !e put e(phasis on our
pronounce(ent in 1eronimo v. amos that9
3he fact that a candidate !ho obtained the highest nu(ber of votes is later declared to be dis>ualified or not
eligible for the office to !hich he !as elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate !ho obtained the
second highest nu(ber of votes to be declared the !inner of the elective office. 3he votes cast for a dead,
dis>ualified, or non:eligible person (ay be valid to vote the !inner into office or (aintain hi( there. $o!ever,
in the absence of a statute !hich clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the (atter, if the
votes !ere cast in sincere belief that candidate !as alive, >ualified, or eligibleB they should not be treated as
stray, void or (eaningless.
)ynthesi&ing these rulings !e declared in the latest case of La/o, Jr. v. C)"ELEC that9
39
Chile Grtega (ay have garnered the second highest nu(ber of votes for the office of city (ayor, the fact
re(ains that he !as not the choice of the sovereign !ill. 'etitioner 0abo !as over!hel(ingly voted by the
electorate for the office of (ayor in the belief that he !as then >ualified to serve the people of 7aguio #ity
and his subse>uent dis>ualification does not (ake respondent Grtega the (ayor:elect. 3his is the i(port of
the recent case of A/ella v. Comelec ?62. )#RA 6D E.--.F@, !herein !e held that9
5(ile it is true t(at SPC No. ??CFD@ 4as originall. a petition to den. due course to t(e certificate of
candidac. of Larra&a/al and 4as filed /efore Larra&a/al could /e proclaimed t(e fact remains t(at t(e local
elections of ,eb. ., .-55 in the province of 0eyte proceeded 4it( Larra&a/al considered as a /ona fide
candidate. *(e voters of t(e province voted for (er in t(e sincere /elief t(at s(e 4as a qualified candidate for
t(e position of governor. 2er votes 4as counted and s(e o/tained t(e (ig(est num/er of votes. 3he net
effect is that petitioner lost in the election. $e !as repudiated by the electorate. . . Chat (atters is that in t(e
event a candidate for an elected position 4(o is voted for and 4(o o/tains t(e (ig(est num/er of votes is
disqualified for not possessing t(e eligi/ilit., requirements at t(e time of t(e election as provided /. la4, t(e
candidate 4(o o/tains t(e second (ig(est num/er of votes for t(e same position cannot assume t(e
vacated position. ?A(phasis supplied@.
Gur ruling in A/ella applies s>uarely to the case at bar and !e see no co(pelling reason to depart
therefro(. 0ike Abella, petitioner Grtega lost in the election. $e !as repudiated by the electorate. $e !as
obviously not the choice of the people of 7aguio #ity.
3hus, !hile respondent Grtega ?1.R. No. .2...@ originally filed a dis>ualification case !ith the #o(elec
?docketed as )'A:-6:26-@ seeking to deny due course to petitioner<s ?0abo<s@ candidacy, the sa(e did not
deter the people of 7aguio #ity fro( voting for petitioner 0abo, !ho, by then, !as allo!ed by the respondent
#o(elec to be voted upon, the resolution for his dis>ualification having yet to attain the degree of finality
?)ec. 75, G(nibus Alection #ode@.
And in the earlier case of La/o v. Comelec. ?supra@, Ce held9
,inally, there is the >uestion of !hether or not the private respondent, !ho filed the quo 4arranto petition,
can replace the petitioner as (ayor. $e cannot. 3he si(ple reason is that as he obtained only the second
highest nu(ber of votes in the election, he !as obviously not the choice of the people of 7aguio #ity.
3he latest ruling of the #ourt in this issue is Santos v. Commission on Election, ?.D7 )#RA 7/2@ decided in
.-5. In that case, the candidate !ho placed second !as proclai(ed elected after the votes for his !inning
rival, !ho !as dis>ualified as a turncoat and considered a non:candidate, !ere all disregarded as stray. In
effect, the second placer !on by default. 3hat decision !as supported by eight (e(bers of the #ourt then
?#uevas J., ponente, !ith Makasiar, #oncepcion, *r., Ascolin, Relova, He la ,uente, Ala(pay, and A>uino,
JJ., concurring@ !ith three dissenting ?3eehankee, acting C.J., Abad )antos and Melencio:$errera@ and
another t!o reserving their votes ?'lana and 1utierre&, *r.@. Gne !as on official leave ?,ernando, C.J.@
Re:exa(ining that decision, the #ourt finds, and so holds, that it should be reversed in favor of the earlier
case of 1eronimo v. Santos ?.D6 )#RA /D@, !hich represents the (ore logical and de(ocratic rule. 3hat
case, !hich reiterated the doctrine first announced in .-.6 in *opacio vs. Paredes ?6D 'hil. 6D5@ !as
supported by ten (e(bers of the #ourt. . . .
3he rule, therefore, is9 the ineligibility of a candidate receiving (a=ority votes does not entitle the eligible
candidate receiving the next highest nu(ber of votes to be declared elected. A (inority or defeated
candidate cannot be dee(ed elected to the office.
Indeed, this has been the rule in the %nited )tates since .5/- ?)tate ex rel. Hunning v. 1iles, 6 A(. Hec.
./-@.
It is therefore incorrect to argue that since a candidate has been dis>ualified, the votes intended for the
dis>ualified candidate should, in effect, be considered null and void. 3his !ould a(ount to disenfranchising
the electorate in !ho(, sovereignty resides. At the risk of being repetitious, the people of 7aguio #ity opted
to elect petitioner 0abo /ona fide !ithout any intention to (issapply their franchise, and in the honest belief
that 0abo !as then >ualified to be the person to !ho( they !ould entrust the exercise of the po!ers of the
govern(ent. %nfortunately, petitioner 0abo turned out to be dis>ualified and cannot assu(e the office.
Chether or not the candidate !ho( the (a=ority voted for can or cannot be installed, under no
circu(stances can a (inority or defeated candidate be dee(ed elected to the office. )urely, the .6,626
votes cast for petitioner Grtega is not a larger nu(ber than the 67,/7. votes cast for petitioner 0abo ?as
certified by the Alection Registrar of 7aguio #ityB rollo, p. .2-B 1.R. No. .2...@.
3his, it bears repeating, expresses the (ore logical and de(ocratic vie!. Ce cannot, in
another shift of the pendulu(, subscribe to the contention that the runner:up in an election
in !hich the !inner has been dis>ualified is actually the !inner a(ong the re(aining
>ualified candidates because this clearly represents a (inority vie! supported only by a
scattered nu(ber of obscure A(erican state and Anglish court decisions.
47
3hese
decisions neglect the possibility that the runner:up, though obviously >ualified, could
receive votes so (easly and insignificant in nu(ber that the votes they receive !ould be
tanta(ount to re=ection. 3heoretically, the "second placer" could receive =ust one vote. In
such a case, it is absurd to proclai( the totally repudiated candidate as the voters<
"choice." Moreover, even in instances !here the votes received by the second placer (ay
not be considered nu(erically insignificant, voters preferences are nonetheless so volatile
and unpredictable that the result a(ong >ualified candidates, should the e>uation change
because of the dis>ualification of an ineligible candidate, !ould not be self:evident.
Absence of the apparent though ineligible !inner a(ong the choices could lead to a
shifting of votes to candidates other than the second placer. 7y any (athe(atical
for(ulation, the runner:up in an election cannot be construed to have obtained a (a=ority
or plurality of votes cast !here an "ineligible" candidate has garnered either a (a=ority or
plurality of the votes.
In fine, !e are left !ith no choice but to affir( the #GMA0A#<s conclusion declaring herein
petitioner ineligible for the elective position of Representative of Makati #ity<s )econd
Histrict on the basis of respondent co((ission<s finding that petitioner lacks the one year
residence in the district (andated by the .-57 #onstitution. A de(ocratic govern(ent is
necessarily a govern(ent of la!s. In a republican govern(ent those la!s are the(selves
ordained by the people. 3hrough their representatives, they dictate the >ualifications
necessary for service in govern(ent positions. And as petitioner clearly lacks one of the
essential >ualifications for running for (e(bership in the $ouse of Representatives, not
even the !ill of a (a=ority or plurality of the voters of the )econd Histrict of Makati #ity
!ould substitute for a re>uire(ent (andated by the funda(ental la! itself.
C$ARA,GRA, pre(ises considered, the instant petition is hereby HI)MI))AH. Gur Grder
restraining respondent #GMA0A# fro( proclai(ing the candidate garnering the next
highest nu(ber of votes in the congressional elections for the )econd Histrict of Makati
#ity is (ade 'ARMANAN3.
)G GRHARAH.
egalado, "elo, Puno and 2ermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
'eliciano, J., is on leave.



Se3"r",e O3.#.o#8

)ADILLA, J., concurring9
I agree !ith the conclusion reached by the (a=ority that petitioner A>uino has not sho!n
by clear and convincing evidence that he had established his residence in the second
district of Makati #ity for a period of not less than one ?.@ year prior to the 5 May .--
elections. $o!ever, I do not fully subscribe to its proposition that petitioner<s residence ?in
Makati@ should be his "do(icile of choice".
Article 8I, )ection 6 of the #onstitution provides that9
No person shall be a (e(ber of the $ouse of Representatives unless he is a natural:born citi&en of the
'hilippines and on the day of the election, is at least t!enty:five years of age, able to read and !rite, and,
except the party list representatives, a registered voter in the district in !hich he shall be elected, and a
resident t(ereof for a period of not less t(an one .ear immediatel. preceding t(e da. of t(e election.
?e(phasis supplied@.
In 1.R. No. ..--76, "arcos vs. Comelec, I have (aintained that the phrase "a resident
thereof for a period of not less than one year" (eans actual and p(.sical presence in the
legislative district of the congressional candidate, and that said period of one year (ust be
satisfied regardless of !hether or not a person<s residence or do(icile coincides.
3o (y (ind, petitioner should be declared dis>ualified to run as representative in the 6nd
district of Makati #ity in the 5 May .-- elections not because he failed to prove his
residence therein as his do(icile of choice, but because he failed altogether to prove that
he had actuall. and p(.sicall. resided t(erein for a period of not less than one ?.@ year
i((ediately preceding the 5 May .-- elections.
Note!orthy is the established fact before the #o(elec that petitioner ad(its having
(aintained ot(er residences in Metro Manila apart fro( his leased condo(iniu( unit in
Makati<s 6nd district.
1
3his clear ad(ission (ade by petitioner against his interest
!eakens his argu(ent that "!here a party decides to transfer his legal residence so he
can >ualify for public office, he is free to do so." ?see p. 62, 'etition@.
'etitioner evidently !ants to i(press the #ourt that his other residences in Metro Manila
could never have beco(e his do(icile of choice because it never entered his (ind and
suddenly, see(ingly not contented !ith these other residences, he rents a condo(iniu(
unit in Makati, and calls it his do(icile of choice I all these !ithout adding clear and
convincing evidence that he did actuall. live and reside in Makati for at least one year prior
to 5 May .-- I and that (e no longer lived and resided in (is ot(er residences during
said one .ear period.
It follo!s, like!ise, that the lease contract relied upon by petitioner, standing alone,
established only the alleged date ?April 6, .--/@ of its due execution. )tated other!ise,
the lease contract tells us that petitioner had been leasing a condo(iniu( unit in Makati
#ity for (ore than a year prior to 5 May .--, but it does not prove that petitioner actually
and physically resided therein for the sa(e period, in the light of his ad(ission that he
(aintained other residences in Metro Manila.
In light of petitioner<s dis>ualification, the corrollary issue to be resolved is !hether or not
=urisdiction continued to be vested in the #o(elec to order the Makati 7oard of
#anvassers" to deter(ine and proclai( the !inner out of the re(aining >ualified
candidates" after petitioner had been declared post 5 May .-- as dis>ualified.
I agree !ith the proposition advanced by the )olicitor 1eneral that sec. 6 of R.A. 66/6
clearly provides that votes cast for a dis>ualified candidate s(all not /e counted, thus9
)ec. 6. Effect of !isqualification Case. I Any candidate !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be
dis>ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final =udg(ent before an election to be dis>ualified and he is voted for and
receives the !inning nu(ber of votes in such election, the #ourt or #o((ission shall continue !ith the trial
and hearing of the action, in>uiry or protest and, upon (otion of the co(plainant or any intervenor, (ay
during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the procla(ation of such candidate !henever the
evidence of his guilt is strong.
3here can be no dispute that if a final =udg(ent is rendered /efore the election, declaring a
particular candidate as dis>ualified, such dis>ualified candidate shall not be voted for and
votes cast for hi( shall not be counted, thus posing no proble( in proclai(ing the
candidate !ho receives the highest nu(ber of votes a(ong the >ualified candidates.
7ut !hat about after the electionN )ec. 6 appears categorical enough in stating9 "if any
reason" no final =udg(ent of dis>ualification is rendered before the elections, and the
candidate facing dis>ualification is voted for and receives the !inning nu(ber of votes, the
#o(elec or the #ourt is not ousted of its =urisdiction to hear and try the case up to final
=udg(ent, hence, the po!er to even suspend the procla(ation of the erst!hile !inning
candidate !hen evidence of his guilt is strong.
It thus appears clear that the la! does not dichoto(i&e the effect of a final =udg(ent of
dis>ualification in ter(s of ti(e considerations. 3here is only one natural and logical effect9
the dis>ualified candidate shall not be voted and, if voted, the votes cast for hi( shall not
be counted. ,/i le7 non distinguit nec nos distinguere de/emus ?!here the la! does not
distinguish, !e should not distinguish.@
At this point, !hat I said in Marcos, supra, follo!s9
Chat happens then !hen after the elections are over, one is declared dis>ualifiedN 3hen, votes cast for hi(
"shall not be counted" and in legal conte(plation, he no longer received the highest nu(ber of votes.
It stands to reason that )ection 6 of RA 66/6 does not (ake the second placer the !inner si(ply because a
"!inning candidate is dis>ualified," but that the la! considers hi( as the candidate !ho had obtained the
highest nu(ber of votes as a result of the votes cast for the dis>ualified candidate not being counted or
considered.
As this la! clearly reflects the legislative policy on the (atter, then there is no reason !hy this #ourt should
not re:exa(ine and conse>uently abandon the doctrine in the *un 0abo case. It has been stated that "the
>ualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone. 3he !ill of the people
as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility" (ost especially !hen it is (andated by
no less than the #onstitution.
3herefore the candidate !ho received the highest nu(ber of votes from among t(e
qualified candidates, should be proclai(ed
A##GRHIN10J, I vote to HI)MI)) the petition.

9RAN'IS'O, J., concurring and dissenting9
I concur !ith the !ell !ritten ponencia of (y (ost estee(ed colleague, Mr. *ustice
Kapunan. I !ish, ho!ever, to express (y vie!s on so(e issues raised by the petitioner,
vi&., ?.@ =urisdiction over the dis>ualification suit, ?6@ domicile, ?D@ theory of legal
i(possibility, and ?/@ "second placer rule".
'etitioner e(phatically (aintains that only the $ouse of Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal
?$RA3@ can declare his dis>ualification, especially after the elections. 3o bolster this stand,
the cases of Co v. 2E*, .-- )#RA 6-6 ?.--.@B o/les v. 2E*, .5. )#RA 752 ?.--2@B
La&atin v. 2E*, .65 )#RA D-. ?.-55@B and Lac(ica v. -ap, 6 )#RA ./2 ?.-65@, have
been cited as supporting authorities. 3o (y (ind, this position is untenable. )ection .7 of
Article 8I of the .-57 #onstitution is clear and una(biguous that $RA3 =urisdiction applies
only to the mem/ers of the $ouse of Representatives. 3he operative acts necessary for an
electoral candidate<s rightful assu(ption of the office for !hich he ran are his procla(ation
and his taking an oath of office. 'etitioner cannot in any!ay be considered as a (e(ber of
the $ouse of Representatives for the purpose of divesting the #o((ission on Alections of
=urisdiction to declare his dis>ualification and invoking instead $RA3<s =urisdiction, it
indubitably appearing that he has yet to be proclai(ed, (uch less has he taken an oath of
office. #learly, petitioner<s reliance on the aforecited cases !hich !hen perused involved
#ongressional (e(bers, is totally (isplaced, if not !holly inapplicable. 3hat the
=urisdiction conferred upon $RA3 extends only to #ongressional (e(bers is further
established by =udicial notice of $RA3 Rules of procedure,
1
and $RA3 decisions
6
consistently holding that the procla(ation the essential re>uisite vesting =urisdiction on the
$RA3.
Moreover, a perusal of the records sho!s that the >uestion on #GMA0A#<s =urisdiction is
no! barred by estoppel. It is to be noted that in his May 6, .-- Ans!er, as !ell as in his
Me(orandu( and )upple(ental Me(orandu( filed before the #GMA0A#<s )econd
Hivision, petitioner never assailed #GMA0A#<s lacks of =urisdiction to rule on his
>ualification. Gn the contrary, he asked that the dis>ualification suit against hi( be
dis(issed on the follo!ing grounds9 that it !as filed outside the regle(entary periodB that
the one year residence re>uire(ent of the .-57 #onstitution is inapplicable due to the
recent conversion of the (unicipality of Makati into a city under R.A. No. 75/B that he
co((itted a si(ple inadvertence in filing up his certificate of candidacyB that the proper
procedure to attack his >ualification is by a quo 4arranto proceedingB that he had actually
and physically resided in Makati for (ore than a yearB and for lack of (erit, the case
should be outrightly dis(issed. In a hearing conducted by the #GMA0A# on May 6, .--,
petitioner even sub(itted his evidence ?e.g. affidavits, a(ended certificate of candidacy,
copy of the lease contract@ to prove that he is >ualified for the position. )ubse>uently, on
May .6, .--, in response to the #GMA0A# En Banc0s May ., .-- Grder suspending
the procla(ation of the !inner, petitioner filed his #o((ent;Gpposition !ith %rgent Motion
3o 0ift Grder of )uspension of 'rocla(ation asking for the lifting of the #GMA0A#<s order
of suspension. Gn May .-, .--, petitioner again filed a Me(orandu( and averred that
the recent conversion of Makati into a city (ade the one:year residence re>uire(ent
inapplicableB that he resided in Makati for (ore than a yearB that quo 4arranto is the right
re(edy to >uestion his >ualification. In passing, petitioner also alleged that the issue on
his >ualification should be "properl." ventilated in a full:dress hearing before the $RA3,
albeit praying for the dis(issal of the (otion for reconsideration for utter lack of (erit ?and
not for lack of =urisdiction@, and for lifting the suspension of his procla(ation. It !as only on
*une 2., .--, in his Motion to ,ile )upple(ental Me(orandu( and %rgent Motion to
Resolve Motion to 0ift )uspension of 'rocla(ation, !hen the petitioner raised
#GMA0A#<s alleged lack of =urisdiction to resolve the >uestion on his >ualification. #learly
then, petitioner has actively participated in the proceedings both before the #GMA0A#<s
)econd Hivision and the #GMA0A# En Banc asking therein affir(ative reliefs. 3he settled
rule is that a party !ho ob=ects to the =urisdiction of the court and alleges at the sa(e ti(e
any non:=urisdictional ground for dis(issing the action is dee(ed to have sub(itted
hi(self to the =urisdiction of the court.
3
Chere a party voluntary sub(its to the =urisdiction
of the court and thereafter loses on the (erits, he (ay not thereafter be heard to say that
the court had no =urisdiction.
4
In Jimene& v. "acaraig,
4
the #ourt, citing Crisostomo v.
Court of Appeals, D6 )#RA /, 62 ?.-72@, elaborated on the rationale for this doctrine in
this !ise9
3he petitioners, to borro! the language of Mr. *ustice 7autista Angelo ?'eople vs. Archilla, 1.R. No. 0:
.6D6, ,ebruary 65, .-6., . )#RA 6--, 722:72.@, cannot adopt a posture of double:dealing !ithout running
afoul of the doctrine of estoppel. 3he principle of estoppel is in the interest of a sound ad(inistration of the
la!s. It should deter those !ho are disposed to trifle !ith the courts by taking inconsistent positions contrary
to the ele(entary principles of right dealing and good faith ?'eople v. Acierto, -6 'hil. D/, /., E.-DF@.
2
It is not right for a party !ho has affir(ed and invoked the =urisdiction of a court in a
particular (atter to secure an affir(ative relief to after!ards deny that sa(e =urisdiction to
escape an adverse decision.
7
'erforce, petitioner<s asseveration that the #GMA0A# has
no =urisdiction to rule on his >ualification (ust fail.
'etitioner insists that do(icile is a (atter of personal intention. 3hus, petition asserts that
if he decides to transfer his legal residence so he can >ualify for public office then he is
entirely free to do so. 3hus argu(ent to hold !ater, (ust be supported by a clear and
convincing proofs that petitioner has effectively abandoned his for(er do(icile and that his
intention is not doubtful. Indeed, do(icile once established is considered to continue and
!ill not be dee(ed lost until a ne! one is established ?#o v. Alectoral 3ribunal $ouse of
Representatives, .-- )#RA 6-6, 7.. E.--.F@. 'etitioner fro( childhood until his last
election as senator has consistently (aintained #oncepcion, 3arlac, as his do(icile. $e
(oved to A(apola )treet, 'al( 8illage, Makati, and thereafter clai(ed the sa(e to be his
ne! do(icile. 3his clai(, ho!ever, is dis(ally unsupported by the records. 3he lease
contract entered into by petitioner for a period of t!o years on the third floor condo(iniu(
unit in 'al( 8illage, Makati, in (y vie!, does not prove his intent to abandon his do(icile
of origin. 3he intention to establish do(icile (ust be an intention to re(ain indefinitely or
per(anently in the ne! place.
8
3his ele(ent is lacking in this instance. Corse, public
respondent #o((ission even found that "respondent Aquino (imself testified t(at (is
intention 4as reall. for onl. one 9=; .ear /ecause (e (as ot(er 0residences0 in "anila or in
#ue&on Cit. ?EcitingF 3)N, May 6, .--,
p. -6@".
9
Noting that petitioner is already barred fro( running for senator due to the
constitutional consecutive t!o:ter( li(it, his search for a place !here he could further and
continue his political career and sudden transfer thereto (ake his intent suspect. 3he best
test of intention to establish legal residence
co(es fro( one<s acts and not by (ere declarations alone.
17
3o ac>uire, or effect a
change of do(icile, the intention (ust be /onafide and une>uivocal ?65 #.*.). R..@.
'etitioner, in (y vie!, (iserably failed to sho! a /onafide and une>uivocal intention to
effect the change of his do(icile.
3he theory of legal i(possibility is advanced to =ustify non:co(pliance !ith the
constitutional >ualification on residency. 'etitioner explains his theory in this !ise9
. . . 3$A #GMA0A# #RI3I#A00J ARRAH IN ,AI0IN1 3G A''RA#IA3A 3$A 0A1A0 IM'G))I7I0I3J G,
AN,GR#IN1 3$A GNA JAAR RA)IHAN#J RAM%IRAMAN3 G, #GN1RA))IGNA0 #ANHIHA3A) IN
NAC0J #RAA3AH 'G0I3I#A0 HI)3RI#3) C$I#$ CARA GN0J API)3IN1 ,GR 0A)) 3$AN A JAAR A3
3$A 3IMA G, 3$A A0A#3IGN ANH 7ARA0J ,G%R MGN3$) IN 3$A #A)A G, 'A3I3IGNAR<)
HI)3RI#3 IN MAKA3I.
11
Apparently, this theory is an offshoot of Republic Act. No. 75/, an act converting the
(unicipality of Makati into a highly urbani&ed city. 3his la! enacted on *anuary 6, .--,
established a second #ongressional district in Makati in !hich petitioner ran as a
#ongressional candidate. )ince the second district, according to petitioner, is barely four
?/@ (onths old then the one ?.@ year residence >ualification provided by the #onstitution is
inapplicable. 'etitioner<s acts, ho!ever, as borne by the records, belie his o!n theory.
Griginally, he placed in his certificate of candidacy an entry of ten ?.2@ (onths residence in
Makati. 'etitioner then had it a(ended to one ?.@ year and thirteen ?.D@ days to correct
!hat clai(s as a (ere inadvertent (istake. I doubt the sincerity of this representation. If
petitioner is indeed persuaded by his o!n theory, the ten (onths residence he initially
!rote !ould have (ore than sufficiently >ualified hi( to run in the barely four:(onth old
Makati district. 3he a(end(ent only reveals the true intent of petitioner to co(ply !ith one
year constitutional re>uire(ent for residence, adding an extra thirteen ?.D@ days full
(easure. 'etitioner apparently !anted to argue one !ay ?theory of legal i(possibility@, but
at the sa(e ti(e played it safe in the other ?the constitutional one year residence
re>uire(ent@. And that is not all. If !e !ere to adhere to petitioner<s theory of legal
i(possibility, then residents in that district shorn of the constitutional six (onths residence
re>uire(ent for prospective voters ?Article 8, )ection . of the .-57 #onstitution@ !ould
have certainly >ualified to vote. 3hat !ould have legiti(i&ed the entry and electoral
exercise of flying voters I one of the historic ne(eses of a clean and honest election.
,urther(ore, to subscribe to petitioner<s contention that the constitutional >ualification of
candidates should be brushed aside in vie! of the enact(ent of R.A. No. 75/ !ill
indubitably violate the (anner and procedure for the a(end(ent or revision of the
constitution outlined under Article P8III of the .-57 #onstitution. A legislative enact(ent, it
has to be e(phasi&ed, cannot render nugatory the constitution. 3he constitution is
superior to a statute. It is the funda(ental and organic la! of the land to !hich every
statute (ust confor( and har(oni&e.
,inally, it has been contended that a second place candidate cannot be proclai(ed a
substitute !inner. I find the proposition >uite unacceptable. A di s>ualified "candidate" is not
a candidate and the votes !hich (ay have been cast in his favor are nothing but stray
votes of no legal conse>uence. A dis>ualified person like the petitioner receives no vote or
&ero vote. In short,
no:candidate:no vote. 'etitioner had therefore no right, in fact and in la!, to clai( first
place for he has nothing to base his right. 3he legislative intent is clear as provided by R.A.
66/6, )ection 6, in that votes cast for a dis>ualified candidate s(all not /e counted as they
are considered stra. ?)ection 6.., Rule 6/, G(nibus Alection #ode@. It is only fro( the
ranks of >ualified candidates can one be chosen as first placer and not fro( !ithout.
Necessarily, petitioner, a dis>ualified candidate, cannot be a first placer as he clai(s
hi(self to be. 3o count the votes for a dis>ualified candidate !ould, in (y vie!,
disenfranchise voters !ho voted for a >ualified candidate. 0egiti(ate votes cast for a
>ualified candidate should not be penali&ed alongside a dis>ualified candidate. Cith this in
(ind, the other >ualified candidate !ho garnered the highest nu(ber of votes should be
proclai(ed the duly elected representative of the district. I feel that the La/o doctrine
ought to be abandoned.
I therefore vote to deny the petition and to lift the te(porary restraining order issued by the
#ourt dated *une 6, .--.

DAVIDE, %R., J., dissenting9
In sustaining the #GMA0A#<s acts of suspending the procla(ation of petitioner Agapito A.
A>uino and of proceeding to hear the dis>ualification case against hi(, the (a=ority
opinion relies on )ection 6 of R.A. No. 66/6 !hich it clai(s to be applicable by virtue of
)ection 7 thereof to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy
under )ection 75 of the G(nibus Alection #ode ?7.'. 7lg. 55.@.
I disagree.
In the first place, the petition to dis>ualify the petitioner in )'A No. -:..D is not a petition
to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under )ection 75, !hich reads9
)ec. 75. Petition to den. due course to or cancel a certificate of candidac.. I A verified petition seeking to
deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy (ay be filed by any person e7clusivel. on t(e ground
t(at an. material representation contained t(erein as required under Section BD (ereof is false. 3he petition
(ay be filed at any ti(e not later than t!enty:five days fro( the ti(e of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.
?e(phasis supplied@
No!here in the petition in )'A No. -:..D is it alleged by the private respondents that a
(aterial representation contained in the petitioner<s certificate of candidacy is false. Chat
is being attacked therein is the petitioner<s lack of the one:year residence >ualification in
the ne! )econd 0egislative Histrict of Makati #ity !here he sought to he elected for the
office of #ongress(an.
3he rule governing dis>ualification cases on the ground of ineligibility, !hich is also
invoked by the private respondents, is Rule 6 of the #GMA0A# Rules of 'rocedure, as
a(ended on . ,ebruary .--D. 3he a(end(ent allo!s the, filing of a petition to dis>ualify
a candidate on the ground that he does not possess all the >ualifications provided for by
the #onstitution or by existing la!s. In its original for(, the rule only applied to petitions for
dis>ualification based on the co((ission of any act declared by la! to be a ground for
dis>ualification. 3he rule as thus a(ended no! reads as follo!s9
Rule 6 I His>ualification of #andidates
)ec. .. 1rounds for !isqualification. I Any candidate 4(o does not possess all t(e qualifications of a
candidate as provided for /. t(e Constitution or /. e7isting la4 or !ho co((its any act declared by la! to
be grounds for dis>ualification (ay be dis>ualified fro( continuing as a candidate.
)ec. 6. 5(o "a. 'ile Petition for !isqualification. I Any citi&en of voting age, or duly registered political
party, organi&ation or coalition of political parties (ay file !ith the 0a! Hepart(ent of the #o((ission a
petition to dis>ualify a candidate on grounds provided by la!.
)ec. D. Period to 'ile Petition. I 3he petition shall be filed any day after the last day for filing of certificates
of candidacy but not later than the date of procla(ation.
)ec. /. Summar. Proceeding. I 3he petition shall be heard su((arily after due notice.
)ec. . Effect of Petition if ,nresolved Before Completion of Canvass. I If the petition, for reasons beyond
the control of the #o((ission, cannot be decided before the co(pletion of the canvass, the votes cast for
the respondent (ay be included in the counting and in the canvassingB ho!ever, if the evidence of guilt is
strong, his procla(ation shall be suspended not!ithstanding the fact that he received the !inning nu(ber of
votes in such election.
3he underscored portion is the a(end(ent to Rule 6, !hich the #GMA0A# (ust have
dee(ed necessary to fill up a procedural (iatus in cases of dis>ualifications based on
other grounds in the light of this #ourt<s interpretation in Loong vs. Commission on
Elections ?6.6 )#RA 762 E.--6F@ that Rule 6 refers only to dis>ualifications under
)ections .6 and 65 of the G(nibus Alection #ode. 3his #ourt explicitly stated therein as
follo!s9
Ce do not agree !ith private respondent %tutalu(<s contention that the petition for dis>ualification, as in the
case at bar, (ay be filed at any ti(e after the last day for filing a certificate of candidacy but not later than the
date of procla(ation, applying )ection D, Rule 6 of the #o(elec Rules of 'rocedure.
Rule 6 of the #o(elec Rules of 'rocedure refers to His>ualification of #andidatesB and )ection . of said
rule provides that any candidate !ho co((its any act declared by la! to be a ground for dis>ualification
(aybe dis>ualified fro( continuing as a candidate. 3he grounds for dis>ualification as expressed in )ections
.6 and 65 of the #ode, are the follo!ing9
)ec. .6. !isqualification. I Any person !ho has been declared by co(petent authority insane or
inco(petent, or has been sentenced by final =udg(ent for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any
offense for !hich he has been sentenced to a penalty of (ore than eighteen (onths or for a cri(e involving
(oral turpitude, shall be dis>ualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given
plenary pardon or granted a(nesty.
)ec. 6D !isqua+ifications. I Any candidate !ho, in an action or protest in !hich he is a party is declared by
final decision of / co(petent court guilty of, or found by the #o((ission of having ?a@ given (oney or other
(aterial consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials perfor(ing electoral
functionsB ?b@ co((itted acts of terroris( to enhance his candidacyB ?c@ spent in his election ca(paign an
a(ount in excess of that allo!ed by this #odeB ?d@ solicited, received or (ade any contribution prohibited
under )ections 5-, -, -6, -7 and .2/B or ?e@ violated any of )ections 52, 5D, 5, 56 and 66., paragraphs d,
e, k, v, and cc, sub:paragraph 6, shall be dis>ualified fro( continuing as a candidate, or if he has been
elected, fro( holding the office. Any person !ho is a per(anent resident of or an i((igrant to a foreign
country shall not be >ualified to run for any elective office under this #ode, unless said person has !aived
his status as per(anent resident or i((igrant of a foreign country in accordance !ith the residence
re>uire(ent provided for in the election la!s.
3he petition filed by private respondent %tutalu( !ith the respondent #o(elec to dis>ualify petitioner 0oong
on the ground that the latter (ade a false representation in his certificate of candidacy as to his age, clearly
does not fall under the grounds of dis>ualification as provided for in Rule 6 but is expressly covered by Rule
6D of the #o(elec Rules of 'rocedure governing petitions to cancel certificate of candidacy. Moreover,
)ection D, Rule 6 !hich allo!s the filing of the petition at any ti(e after the last day for the filing of
certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of procla(ation, is (erely a procedural rule issued by
respondent #o((ission !hich, although a constitutional body, has no legislative po!ers. 3hus, it can not
supersede )ection 75 of the G(nibus Alection #ode !hich is a legislative enact(ent.
)econd, even if !e assu(e for the sake of argu(ent that the petition in )'A No. -:..D
fall under )ection 75 of the G(nibus Alection #ode, still )ection 6 of R.A. No. 66/6 cannot
be applied by virtue of )ection 7 thereof. )ections 6 and 7 reads9
)ec. 6. Effect of !isqualification Case. I Any candidate !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be
dis>ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final =udg(ent before an election to be dis>ualified and he is voted for and
receives the !inning nu(ber of votes in such election, the #ourt or #o((ission shall continue !ith the trial
and hearing of the action, in>uiry or protest and, upon (otion of the co(plainant or any intervenor, (ay
during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the procla(ation of such candidate !henever the
evidence of his guilt is strong.
)ec. 7. Petition to !en. !ue Course to or Cancel a Certificate of Candidac.. I 3he procedure hereinabove
provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in
)ection 75 of Batas Pam/ansa 7lg. 55..
3he "procedure hereinabove provided" (entioned in )ection 7 cannot be construed to
refer to )ection 6 !hich does not provide for a procedure /ut for t(e E''EC*S of
disqualification cases. It can only refer to the procedure provided in )ection of the said
Act on nuisance candidates !hich reads as follo!s9
)ec. . Procedure in Cases of Nuisance Candidates. I A verified petition to declare a duly registered
candidate as a nuisance candidate under )ection 6- .f 7atas 'a(bansa 7lg. 55. shall be filed personally or
through duly authori&ed representative !ith the #o((ission by any registered candidate for the sa(e office
!ithin five ?@ days fro( the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy. ,iling by (ail shall not be
allo!ed.
?b@ Cithin three ?D@ days fro( the filing of the petition, the #o((ission shall issue su((ons to the
respondent candidate together !ith a copy of the petition and its enclosures, if any.
?c@ 3he respondent shall be given three ?D@ days fro( receipt of the su((ons !ithin !hich to file his verified
ans!er ?not a (otion to dis(iss@ to the petition, serving copy thereof upon the petitioner. 1rounds for a
(otion to dis(iss (ay be raised as affir(ative defenses.
?d@ 3he #o((ission (ay designate any of its officials !ho are la!yers to hear the case and receive
evidence. 3he proceeding shall be su((ary in nature. In lieu of oral testi(onies, the parties (ay be re>uired
to sub(it position papers together !ith affidavits or counter:affidavits and other docu(entary evidence. 3he
hearing officer shall i((ediately sub(it to the #o((ission his findings, reports, and reco((endations
!ithin five ?@ days fro( the co(pletion of such sub(ission of evidence. 3he #o((ission shall render its
decision !ithin five ?@ days fro( receipt thereof.
?e@ 3he decision, order, or ruling of the #o((ission shall, after five ?@ days fro( receipt of a copy thereof by
the parties, be final and executory unless stayed by the )upre(e #ourt.
?f@ 3he #o((ission shall !ithin t!enty:four hours, through the fastest available (eans, disse(inate its
decision or the decision of the )upre(e #ourt or the city or (unicipal election registrars, boards of election
inspectors, and the general public in the political subdivision concerned.
and !hich is the onl. procedure that precedes )ection 7 of the said Act. $eretofore, no la!
provided for the procedure to govern cases under )ection 75. Applying to such cases,
through )ection 7 of R.A. No. 66/6, the procedure applicable to cases of nuisance
candidates is prudent and !ise, for both cases necessarily re>uire that they be decided
before the day of the electionB hence, only su((ary proceedings thereon can ade>uately
respond to the urgency of the (atter.
3hird, )ection 6 (erely supple(ents )ection 76 of the G(nibus Alection #ode providing
as follo!s9
)ec. 76. Effects of disqualification cases and priorit.. I 3he #o((ission and the courts shall give priority to
cases of dis>ualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not
later than seven days before the election in !hich the dis>ualification is sought.
Any candidate !ho has been declared by final =udg(ent to be dis>ualified shall not be voted for, and the
votes cast for hi( shall not be counted. Nevertheless, if for any reason, a candidate is not declared by final
=udg(ent before an election to be dis>ualified and he is voted for and receives the !inning nu(ber of votes
in such election, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his procla(ation
and assu(ption to office.
by granting the #GMA0A# or the #ourt the authority to continue hearing the case and to
suspend the procla(ation if the evidence of guilt is strong. As observed by this #ourt in its
(a=ority "the phrase <!hen the evidence of guilt is strong< see(s to suggest that the
provisions of )ection 6 ought to be applicable only to dis>ualification cases under )ection
65 of the G(nibus Alection #ode."
,ourth, the a(ended Rule 6 of the #GMA0A# Rules of 'rocedure, !hich is the only rule
governing petitions filed before election or procla(ation for the dis>ualification of a
candidate on the ground that he lacks the >ualifications provided for by the #onstitution or
by la!, does not, as can be gathered fro( )ection thereof, authori&e the #GMA0A# to
continue hearing the case after the election.
,ifth, even assu(ing that the second sentence of )ection 6 of R.A. to No. 66/6 is
applicable to dis>ualification cases based on the ground of lack of >ualification, it cannot
be applied to a case does not involve elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and
!here suspension of procla(ation is not !arranted because of the absence of strong
evidence of guilt or ineligibility. In such a case the candidate sought to be dis>ualified but
!ho obtains the highest nu(ber of votes has to be proclai(ed. Gnce he is proclai(ed, the
#GMA0A# cannot continue !ith the case, and the re(edy of the opponent is to contest
the !inning candidate<s eligibility !ithin ten days fro( procla(ation in a quo 4arranto
proceeding !hich is !ithin the =urisdiction of the (etropolitan or (unicipal trial courts, in
the case of barangay officialsB the regional trial courts, in case of (unicipal officials
?)ection 6?6@, Article IP:#, #onstitutionB )ection 6D, paragraph 6, 7.'. 7lg. 55.@B the
$ouse of Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal, in the case of #ongress(enB the )enate
Alectoral 3ribunal, in the case of )enators ?)ection .7, Article 8I, #onstitution@B and the
)upre(e #ourt en /anc, in the case of the 'resident or 8ice:'resident ?)ection /, Article
8II, #onstitution@.
If !hat is involved is an elective regional, provincial, or city official, and the case cannot be
decided before the election, the #GMA0A# can, even after the procla(ation of the
candidate sought to be dis>ualified, proceed !ith the case by treating it as a petition for
quo 4arranto, since such a case properly pertains to the exclusive =urisdiction of the
#GMA0A# ?)ection 6?6@, Article IP:#, #onstitutionB )ection 6D, 7.'. 7lg. 55.@.
7ut even granting for the sake of argu(ent that )ections 6 and 7 of R.A. No. 66/6, in
relation to )ection 75 of the G(nibus Alection #ode and the a(ended Rule 6 of the
#GMA0A# Rules of 'rocedure, are applicable, the order of suspension of the petitioner<s
procla(ation issued on . May .-- is null and void for having been issued !ith grave
abuse of discretion. Chat !as before the #GMA0A# en /anc at that stage !as the
decision of the )econd Hivision of 6 May .-- dismissing t(e petition to disqualif. the
petitioner and declaring (im qualified for the position. 3hat decision is a direct and positive
re=ection of any clai( that the evidence of the petitioner<s guilt is strong. Note that it !as
only on 6 *une .--, !hen the #GMA0A# en /anc reversed the decision of the )econd
Hivision, that it !as found that the evidence of the petitioner<s ineligibility is strong. It !ould
have been other!ise if the )econd Hivision had dis>ualified the petitioner.
7esides, at the ti(e the >uestioned order !as issued, there !as no hearing yet on the
private respondents< (otions for the suspension of the petitioner<s procla(ation. In fact, in
that order the #GMA0A# en /anc ad(itted that the said (otions could not be resolved
!ithout hearing, thus9
'ending the resolution of the petitioners< Motion for Reconsideration filed on May 7, .--B %rgent Motion Ad
Cautelam to )uspend 'rocla(ation of Respondent ?May .2, .--@ filed on May .2, .--B and GMNI7%)
MG3IGN ?,or Reconsideration of the $onorable #o((ission<s E)econd HivisionF Resolution dated May 6,
.--, and 6nd %rgent Motion Ad Cautelam to )uspend 'rocla(ation of Respondent A>uino, !hich cannot
be resolved !ithout hearing, !ithout violating the right of the respondent to due process. . . .
,or being void fro( the beginningB it is as if the order of . May .-- had not existed and
could not, therefore, be (ade per(anent by the #GMA0A# en /anc through its resolution
of 6 *une .-- !hose dispositive portion reads in part9 EcFonse>uently, the order of
suspension of the respondent should he obtain the !inning nu(ber of votes, issued by this
#o((ission on . May .-- is no! (ade per(anent."
Absent a valid finding before the election or after the canvass of election returns that the
evidence of the petitioner<s guilt or ineligibility is strong, the #GMA0A# should not have
suspended the procla(ation of the petitioner. After the co(pletion of the canvass the
petitioner should have been proclai(ed.
3his case then (ust be distinguished fro( that of +melda omualde&C"arcos vs.
Commission on Elections, 1.R. No. ..--76, !here the #GMA0A# en /anc affir(ed
before the elections, or on 7 May .--, the )econd Hivision<s resolution of 6/ April .--
dis>ualifying Mrs. Marcos.
Accordingly, the order of . May .-- and the resolution of 6 *une .-- of the #GMA0A#
en /anc (ust be annulled and set aside, and the #GMA0A#, through its #ity 7oard of
#anvassers of Makati, (ust be ordered to i((ediately proclai( the petitioner, !ithout
pre=udice to the right of his opponents to file a petition for quo 4arranto !ith the $ouse of
Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal, !hich is the sole =udge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and >ualifications of the Me(bers of the $ouse of Representatives
?)ection .7, Article 8I, #onstitution@.
In vie! of the foregoing, a dis>uisition on the (erits of the ground for the petitioner<s
dis>ualification !ill no longer be proper.
I vote to 1RAN3 the instant petition, to ANN%0 and )A3 A)IHA the challenged order and
resolution of the #o((ission on Alections en /anc, and to HIRA#3 the 7oard of
#anvassers of Makati #ity to reconvene and proclai( the petitioner as the !inning
candidate, !ithout pre=udice on the part of any aggrieved party to file the appropriate
action in the $ouse of Representatives Alectoral 3ribunal.
omero and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

E3 593C
G.R. No. 14)589 'u+e 26, 2001
ANG BAGNG BAGANIHFF LABR "AR#G (under the acron"m O(A), represented herein
b" its secretar":#eneral, M%AMMA& MAR FA'AR&, petitioner,
%s&
ANG BAGNG BAGANIHFF LABR "AR#G GI GI "%ILI""INE!D #%E #R.E
MARC! LGALI!# A!!CIA#IN F #%E "%ILI""INE!D "%ILI""INE LCAL
A.#NMGD CI#I/EN! M$EMEN# FR '.!#ICE, ECNMG, EN$IRNMEN#
AN& "EACED C%AMBER F REAL E!#A#E B.IL&ER! A!!CIA#IND !"R#! J
%EAL#% A&$ANCEMEN# F.N&A#IN, INC.D ANG LAKA! NG $ER!EA!
CN#RAC# FRKER! >CF@D BAGNG BAGANI RGANI/A#IN a+, o50er1 u+,er
Cr4a+3<a53o+1LCoa*353o+1C o8 7+3bu1 Re1o*u53o+ No. A)85D "AR#I& NG MA!ANG
"ILI"IND LAKA! N.C&H.M&"D NA#INALI!# "E"LEM! CALI#IND LABAN NG
&EMKRA#IKNG "ILI"IND AK!GN &EMKRA#IKD "&"HLABAND LIBERAL
"AR#GD NACINALI!#A "AR#GD ANG B.%AG %AGAANG G.MABNGD a+, o50er1
u+,er C"o*3536a* "ar53e1C o8 7+3bu1 Re1o*u53o+ No. A)85. respondents&
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::+
G.R. No. 14)61A 'u+e 26, 2001
BAGAN M.NA, petitioner,
%s&
CMMI!!IN N ELEC#IN!D NA#INALI!# "E"LEM! CALI#IN >N"C@D
LABAN NG &EMKRA#IKNG "ILI"IN >L&"@D "AR#I& NG MA!ANG "ILI"IN
>"M"@D LAKA!HN.C&H.M&"D LIBERAL "AR#GD MAMAMAGANG AGAF !A &RGAD
CREBAD NA#INAL FE&ERA#IN F !.GARCANE "LAN#ER!D 'EE"D a+, BAGNG
BAGANI RGANI/A#IN, respondents&
"ANGANIBAN, J.:
2he part":list s"stem is a social ,ustice tool desi#ned not onl" to #i%e more la* to the #reat masses
of our people *ho ha%e less in life, but also to enable them to become %eritable la*ma-ers
themsel%es, empo*ered to participate directl" in the enactment of la*s desi#ned to benefit them& /t
intends to ma-e the mar#inaliCed and the underrepresented not merel" passi%e recipients of the
State$s bene%olence, but acti%e participants in the mainstream of representati%e democrac"& 2hus,
allo*in# all indi%iduals and #roups, includin# those *hich no* dominate district elections, to ha%e
the same opportunit" to participate in part":list elections *ould desecrate this loft" ob,ecti%e and
mon#reliCe the social ,ustice mechanism into an atrocious %eneer for traditional politics&
2he Case
5efore us are t*o 'etitions under ?ule !6 of the ?ules of Court, challen#in# Omnibus ?esolution
3o& ;E6
1
issued b" the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on March 2!, 2<<1& 2his ?esolution
appro%ed the participation of 168 or#aniCations and parties, includin# those herein impleaded, in the
2<<1 part":list elections& 'etitioners see- the dis.ualification of pri%ate respondents, ar#uin# mainl"
that the part":list s"stem *as intended to benefit the mar#inaliCed and underrepresentedB not the
mainstream political parties, the non:mar#inaliCed or o%errepresented&
2he (actual 9ntecedents
Aith the onset of the 2<<1 elections, the Comelec recei%ed se%eral 'etitions for re#istration filed b"
sectoral parties, or#aniCations and political parties& 9ccordin# to the Comelec, 7=%>erifications *ere
made as to the status and capacit" of these parties and or#aniCations and hearin#s *ere scheduled
da" and ni#ht until the last part" *=as> heard& Aith the number of these petitions and the obser%ance
of the le#al and procedural re.uirements, re%ie* of these petitions as *ell as deliberations ta-es a
lon#er process in order to arri%e at a decision and as a result the t*o (2) di%isions promul#ated a
separate Omnibus ?esolution and indi%idual resolution on political parties& 2hese numerous
petitions and processes obser%ed in the disposition of these petition=s> hinder the earl" release of the
Omnibus ?esolutions of the )i%isions *hich *ere promul#ated onl" on 1< (ebruar" 2<<1&7
2
2hereafter, before the (ebruar" 12, 2<<1 deadline prescribed under Comelec ?esolution 3o& ;82!
dated )ecember 22, 2<<<, the re#istered parties and or#aniCations filed their respecti%e
Manifestations, statin# their intention to participate in the part":list elections& Other sectoral and
political parties and or#aniCations *hose re#istrations *ere denied also filed Motions for
?econsideration, to#ether *ith Manifestations of their intent to participate in the part":list elections&
Still other re#istered parties filed their Manifestations be"ond the deadline&
2he Comelec #a%e due course or appro%ed the Manifestations (or accreditations) of 168 parties and
or#aniCations, but denied those of se%eral others in its assailed March 2!, 2<<1 Omnibus ?esolution
3o& ;E6, *hich *e .uote@
7Ae carefull" deliberated the fore#oin# matters, ha%in# in mind that this s"stem of proportional
representation scheme *ill encoura#e multi:partisan =sic> and enhance the inabilit" of small, ne* or
sectoral parties or or#aniCation to directl" participate in this electoral *indo*&
7/t *ill be noted that as defined, the $part":list s"stem$ is a $mechanism of proportional
representation$ in the election of representati%es to the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es from national,
re#ional, and sectoral parties or or#aniCations or coalitions thereof re#istered *ith the Commission
on Elections&
70o*e%er, in the course of our re%ie* of the matters at bar, *e must reco#niCe the fact that there is
a need to -eep the number of sectoral parties, or#aniCations and coalitions, do*n to a mana#eable
le%el, -eepin# onl" those *ho substantiall" compl" *ith the rules and re#ulations and more
importantl" the sufficienc" of the Manifestations or e%idence on the Motions for ?econsiderations
or Oppositions&7
;
On 9pril 1<, 2<<1, 9-ba"an CitiCens 9ction 'art" filed before the Comelec a 'etition pra"in# that
7the names of =some of herein respondents> be deleted from the $Certified List of 'olitical
'artiesHSectoral 'artiesHOr#aniCationsHCoalitions 'articipatin# in the 'art" List S"stem for the Ma"
18, 2<<1 Elections$ and that said certified list be accordin#l" amended&7 /t also as-ed, as an
alternati%e, that the %otes cast for the said respondents not be counted or can%assed, and that the
latter$s nominees not be proclaimed&
8
On 9pril 11, 2<<1, 5a"an Muna and 5a"an Muna:Nouth also
filed a 'etition for Cancellation of ?e#istration and 3omination a#ainst some of herein respondents&
6
On 9pril 1, 2<<1, the Comelec re.uired the respondents in the t*o dis.ualification cases to file
Comments *ithin three da"s from notice& /t also set the date for hearin# on 9pril 2!, 2<<1,
!
but
subse.uentl" reset it to Ma" ;, 2<<1&
E
)urin# the hearin#, ho*e%er, Commissioner ?alph C&
Lantion merel" directed the parties to submit their respecti%e memoranda&

Mean*hile, dissatisfied *ith the pace of the Comelec, 9n# 5a#on# 5a"ani:O(A Labor 'art" filed
a 'etition
9
before this Court on 9pril 1!, 2<<1& 2his 'etition, doc-eted as 1? 3o& 18E69, assailed
Comelec Omnibus ?esolution 3o& ;E6& /n its ?esolution dated 9pril 1E, 2<<1,
1<
the Court
directed respondents to comment on the 'etition *ithin a non:e+tendible period of fi%e da"s from
notice&
11
On 9pril 1E, 2<<1, 'etitioner 5a"an Muna also filed before this Court a 'etition,
12
doc-eted as
1? 3o& 18E!1;, also challen#in# Comelec Omnibus ?esolution 3o& ;E6& /n its ?esolution dated
Ma" 9, 2<<1,
1;
the Court ordered the consolidation of the t*o 'etitions before itB directed
respondents named in the second 'etition to file their respecti%e Comments on or before noon of
Ma" 16, 2<<1B and called the parties to an Oral 9r#ument on Ma" 1E, 2<<1& /t added that the
Comelec ma" proceed *ith the countin# and can%assin# of %otes cast for the part":list elections, but
barred the proclamation of an" *inner therein, until further orders of the Court&
2hereafter, Comments
18
on the second 'etition *ere recei%ed b" the Court and, on Ma" 1E, 2<<1,
the Oral 9r#ument *as conducted as scheduled& /n an Order #i%en in open court, the parties *ere
directed to submit their respecti%e Memoranda simultaneousl" *ithin a non:e+tendible period of
fi%e da"s&
16
/ssues@
)urin# the hearin# on Ma" 1E, 2<<1, the Court directed the parties to address the follo*in# issues@
71& Ahether or not recourse under ?ule !6 is proper under the premises& More specificall", is there
no other plain, speed" or ade.uate remed" in the ordinar" course of la*M
72& Ahether or not political parties ma" participate in the part":list elections&
7;& Ahether or not the part":list s"stem is e+clusi%e to $mar#inaliCed and underrepresented$ sectors
and or#aniCations&
78& Ahether or not the Comelec committed #ra%e abuse of discretion in promul#atin# Omnibus
?esolution 3o& ;E6&7
1!
2he Court$s ?ulin#
2he 'etitions are partl" meritorious& 2hese cases should be remanded to the Comelec *hich *ill
determine, after summar" e%identiar" hearin#s, *hether the 168 parties and or#aniCations
enumerated in the assailed Omnibus ?esolution satisf" the re.uirements of the Constitution and ?9
E981, as specified in this )ecision&
irst (ssue<
?ecourse Dnder ?ule !6
?espondents contend that the recourse of both petitioners under ?ule !6 is improper because there
are other plain, speed" and ade.uate remedies in the ordinar" course of la*&
1E
2he Office of the
Solicitor 1eneral ar#ues that petitioners should ha%e filed before the Comelec a petition either for
dis.ualification or for cancellation of re#istration, pursuant to Sections 19, 2<, 21 and 22 of
Comelec ?esolution 3o& ;;<E:9
1
dated 3o%ember 9, 2<<<&
19
Ae disa#ree& 9t bottom, petitioners attac- the %alidit" of Comelec Omnibus ?esolution ;E6 for
ha%in# been issued *ith #ra%e abuse of discretion, insofar as it allo*ed respondents to participate in
the part":list elections of 2<<1& /ndeed, under both the Constitution
2<
and the ?ules of Court, such
challen#e ma" be brou#ht before this Court in a %erified petition for certiorari under ?ule !6&
Moreo%er, the assailed Omnibus ?esolution *as promul#ated b" ?espondent Commission en bancB
hence, no motion for reconsideration *as possible, it bein# a prohibited pleadin# under Section 1
(d), ?ule 1; of the Comelec ?ules of 'rocedure&
21
2he Court also notes that 'etitioner 5a"an Muna had filed before the Comelec a 'etition for
Cancellation of ?e#istration and 3omination a#ainst some of herein respondents&
22
2he Comelec,
ho*e%er, did not act on that 'etition& /n %ie* of the pendenc" of the elections, 'etitioner 5a"an
Muna sou#ht succor from this Court, for there *as no other ade.uate recourse at the time&
Subse.uent e%ents ha%e pro%en the ur#enc" of petitioner$s actionB to this date, the Comelec has not
"et formall" resol%ed the 'etition before it& 5ut a resolution ma" ,ust be a formalit" because the
Comelec, throu#h the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral, has made its position on the matter .uite
clear&
/n an" e%ent, this case presents an e+ception to the rule that certiorari shall lie onl" in the absence of
an" other plain, speed" and ade.uate remed"&
2;
/t has been held that certiorari is a%ailable,
not*ithstandin# the presence of other remedies, 7*here the issue raised is one purel" of la*, *here
public interest is in%ol%ed, and in case of ur#enc"&7
28
/ndeed, the instant case is indubitabl"
imbued *ith public interest and *ith e+treme ur#enc", for it potentiall" in%ol%es the composition of
2< percent of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es&
Moreo%er, this case raises transcendental constitutional issues on the part":list s"stem, *hich this
Court must ur#entl" resol%e, consistent *ith its dut" to 7formulate #uidin# and controllin#
constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules&7
26
(inall", procedural re.uirements 7ma" be #lossed o%er to pre%ent a miscarria#e of ,ustice, *hen the
issue in%ol%es the principle of social ,ustice + + + *hen the decision sou#ht to be set aside is a
nullit", or *hen the need for relief is e+tremel" ur#ent and certiorari is the onl" ade.uate and
speed" remed" a%ailable&7
2!
)econd (ssue<
'articipation of 'olitical 'arties
/n its 'etition, 9n# 5a#on# 5a"ani:O(A Labor 'art" contends that 7the inclusion of political
parties in the part":list s"stem is the most ob,ectionable portion of the .uestioned ?esolution&7
2E
(or its part, 'etitioner 5a"an Muna ob,ects to the participation of 7ma,or political parties&7
2
On
the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral, li-e the impleaded political parties, submits that
the Constitution and ?9 3o& E981 allo* political parties to participate in the part":list elections& /t
ar#ues that the part":list s"stem is, in fact, open to all 7re#istered national, re#ional and sectoral
parties or or#aniCations&7
29
Ae no* rule on this issue& Dnder the Constitution and ?9 E981, pri%ate respondents cannot be
dis.ualified from the part":list elections, merel" on the #round that the" are political parties&
Section 6, 9rticle K/ of the Constitution pro%ides that members of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es
ma" 7be elected throu#h a part":list s"stem of re#istered national, re#ional, and sectoral parties or
or#aniCations&7
(urthermore, under Sections E and , 9rticle /G (C) of the Constitution, political parties ma" be
re#istered under the part":list s"stem&
7Sec& E& 3o %otes cast in fa%or of a political part", or#aniCation, or coalition shall be %alid, e+cept
for those re#istered under the part":list s"stem as pro%ided in this Constitution&
7Sec& & 'olitical parties, or or#aniCations or coalitions re#istered under the part":list s"stem, shall
not be represented in the %oters$ re#istration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of
can%assers, or other similar bodies& 0o*e%er, the" shall be entitled to appoint poll *atchers in
accordance *ith la*&7
;<
)urin# the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, Comm& Christian S& Monsod pointed
out that the participants in the part":list s"stem ma" 7be a re#ional part", a sectoral part", a national
part", D3/)O,
;1
Ma#sasa-a, or a re#ional part" in Mindanao&7
;2
2his *as also clear from the
follo*in# e+chan#e bet*een Comms& 4aime 2adeo and 5las Ople@
;;
7M?& 29)EO& 3anini*ala ba -a"o na an# part" list a" p*eden# pa#hati:hatian n# D3/)O, ')':
Laban, '3', Liberal at 3acionalistaM
M?& O'LE& Maaari "an sapa#-at bu-as an# part" list s"stem sa lahat n# m#a partido&7
/ndeed, Commissioner Monsod stated that the purpose of the part":list pro%ision *as to open up the
s"stem, in order to #i%e a chance to parties that consistentl" place third or fourth in con#ressional
district elections to *in a seat in Con#ress&
;8
0e e+plained@ 72he purpose of this is to open the
s"stem& /n the past elections, *e found out that there *ere certain #roups or parties that, if *e count
their %otes nation*ide, ha%e about 1,<<<,<<< or 1,6<<,<<< %otes& 5ut the" *ere al*a"s third or
fourth place in each of the districts& So, the" ha%e no %oice in the 9ssembl"& 5ut this *a", the"
*ould ha%e fi%e or si+ representati%es in the 9ssembl" e%en if the" *ould not *in indi%iduall" in
le#islati%e districts& So, that is essentiall" the mechanics, the purpose and ob,ecti%es of the part":list
s"stem&7
(or its part, Section 2 of ?9 E981 also pro%ides for 7a part":list s"stem of re#istered national,
re#ional and sectoral parties or or#aniCations or coalitions thereof, + + +&7 Section ; e+pressl" states
that a 7part"7 is 7either a political part" or a sectoral part" or a coalition of parties&7 More to the
point, the la* defines 7political part"7 as 7an or#aniCed #roup of citiCens ad%ocatin# an ideolo#" or
platform, principles and policies for the #eneral conduct of #o%ernment and *hich, as the most
immediate means of securin# their adoption, re#ularl" nominates and supports certain of its leaders
and members as candidates for public office&7
(urthermore, Section 11 of ?9 E981 lea%es no doubt as to the participation of political parties in the
part":list s"stem& Ae .uote the pertinent pro%ision belo*@
7+ + +
7(or purposes of the Ma" 199 elections, the first fi%e (6) ma,or political parties on the basis of
part" representation in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es at the start of the 2enth Con#ress of the
'hilippines shall not be entitled to participate in the part":list s"stem&
+ + +7
/ndubitabl", therefore, political parties L e%en the ma,or ones :: ma" participate in the part":list
elections&
,hird (ssue<
Mar#inaliCed and Dnderrepresented
2hat political parties ma" participate in the part":list elections does not mean, ho*e%er, that an"
political part" :: or an" or#aniCation or #roup for that matter :: ma" do so& 2he re.uisite character of
these parties or or#aniCations must be consistent *ith the purpose of the part":list s"stem, as laid
do*n in the Constitution and ?9 E981& Section 6, 9rticle K/ of the Constitution, pro%ides as
follo*s@
7(1) 2he 0ouse of ?epresentati%es shall be composed of not more than t*o hundred and fift"
members, unless other*ise fi+ed b" la*, *ho shall be elected from le#islati%e districts apportioned
amon# the pro%inces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance *ith the number of
their respecti%e inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and pro#ressi%e ratio, and those *ho, as
pro%ided b" la*, shall be elected throu#h a part":list s"stem of re#istered national, re#ional, and
sectoral parties or or#aniCations&
(2) 2he part":list representati%es shall constitute t*ent" per centum of the total number of
representati%es includin# those under the part" list& (or three consecuti%e terms after the ratification
of this Constitution, one:half of the seats allocated to part":list representati%es shall be filled, as
pro%ided b" la*, b" selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indi#enous cultural
communities, *omen, "outh, and such other sectors as ma" be pro%ided b" la*, e+cept the reli#ious
sector&7 (Emphasis supplied&)
3ot*ithstandin# the sparse lan#ua#e of the pro%ision, a distin#uished member of the Constitutional
Commission declared that the purpose of the part":list pro%ision *as to #i%e 7#enuine po*er to our
people7 in Con#ress& 0ence, *hen the pro%ision *as discussed, he e+ultantl" announced@ 7On this
first da" of 9u#ust 19!, *e shall, hopefull", usher in a ne* chapter to our national histor", b"
#i%in# #enuine po*er to our people in the le#islature&7
;6
2he fore#oin# pro%ision on the part":list s"stem is not self:e+ecutor"& /t is, in fact, interspersed *ith
phrases li-e 7in accordance *ith la*7 or 7as ma" be pro%ided b" la*7B it *as thus up to Con#ress to
sculpt in #ranite the loft" ob,ecti%e of the Constitution& 0ence, ?9 E981 *as enacted& /t laid out the
statutor" polic" in this *ise@
7SEC& 2& )eclaration of 'olic"& :: 2he State shall promote proportional representation in the
election of representati%es to the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es throu#h a part":list s"stem of re#istered
national, re#ional and sectoral parties or or#aniCations or coalitions thereof, *hich *ill enable
(ilipino citiCens belon#in# to mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors, or#aniCations and parties,
and *ho lac- *ell:defined political constituencies but *ho could contribute to the formulation and
enactment of appropriate le#islation that *ill benefit the nation as a *hole, to become members of
the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es& 2o*ards this end, the State shall de%elop and #uarantee a full, free
and open part" s"stem in order to attain the broadest possible representation of part", sectoral or
#roup interests in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es b" enhancin# their chances to compete for and *in
seats in the le#islature, and shall pro%ide the simplest scheme possible&7
2he Mar#inaliCed and Dnderrepresented to 5ecome La*ma-ers 2hemsel%es
2he fore#oin# pro%ision mandates a state polic" of promotin# proportional representation b" means
of the (ilipino:st"le part":list s"stem, *hich *ill 7enable7 the election to the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es of (ilipino citiCens,
1& *ho belon# to mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors, or#aniCations and partiesB and
2& *ho lac- *ell:defined constituenciesB but
;& *ho could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate le#islation that *ill benefit
the nation as a *hole&
2he -e" *ords in this polic" are 7proportional representation,7 7mar#inaliCed and
underrepresented,7 and 7lac-
of
*ell:defined constituencies&7
7'roportional representation7 here does not refer to the number of people in a particular district,
because the part":list election is national in scope& 3either does it allude to numerical stren#th in a
distressed or oppressed #roup& ?ather, it refers to the representation of the 7mar#inaliCed and
underrepresented7 as e+emplified b" the enumeration in Section 6 of the la*B namel", 7labor,
peasant, fisherfol-, urban poor, indi#enous cultural communities, elderl", handicapped, *omen,
"outh, %eterans, o%erseas *or-ers, and professionals&7
0o*e%er, it is not enou#h for the candidate to claim representation of the mar#inaliCed and
underrepresented, because representation is eas" to claim and to fei#n& 2he part":list or#aniCation or
part" must factuall" and trul" represent the mar#inaliCed and underrepresented constituencies
mentioned in Section 6&
;!
Concurrentl", the persons nominated b" the part":list candidate:
or#aniCation must be 7(ilipino citiCens belon#in# to mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors,
or#aniCations and parties&7
(inall", 7lac- of *ell:defined constituenc="> 7 refers to the absence of a traditionall" identifiable
electoral #roup, li-e %oters of a con#ressional district or territorial unit of #o%ernment& ?ather, it
points a#ain to those *ith disparate interests identified *ith the 7mar#inaliCed or underrepresented&7
/n the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that onl" those (ilipinos *ho are 7mar#inaliCed and
underrepresented7 become members of Con#ress under the part":list s"stem, (ilipino:st"le&
2he intent of the Constitution is clear@ to #i%e #enuine po*er to the people, not onl" b" #i%in# more
la* to those *ho ha%e less in life, but more so b" enablin# them to become %eritable la*ma-ers
themsel%es& Consistent *ith this intent, the polic" of the implementin# la*, *e repeat, is li-e*ise
clear@ 7to enable (ilipino citiCens belon#in# to mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors,
or#aniCations and parties, + + +, to become members of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es&7 Ahere the
lan#ua#e of the la* is clear, it must be applied accordin# to its e+press terms&
;E
2he mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors to be represented under the part":list s"stem are
enumerated in Section 6 of ?9 E981, *hich states@
7SEC& 6& ?e#istration& :: 9n" or#aniCed #roup of persons ma" re#ister as a part", or#aniCation or
coalition for purposes of the part":list s"stem b" filin# *ith the COMELEC not later than ninet"
(9<) da"s before the election a petition %erified b" its president or secretar" statin# its desire to
participate in the part":list s"stem as a national, re#ional or sectoral part" or or#aniCation or a
coalition of such parties or or#aniCations, attachin# thereto its constitution, b":la*s, platform or
pro#ram of #o%ernment, list of officers, coalition a#reement and other rele%ant information as the
COMELEC ma" re.uire@ 'ro%ided, that the sector shall include labor, peasant, fisherfol-, urban
poor, indi#enous cultural communities, elderl", handicapped, *omen, "outh, %eterans, o%erseas
*or-ers, and professionals&7
Ahile the enumeration of mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors is not e+clusi%e, it
demonstrates the clear intent of the la* that not all sectors can be represented under the part":list
s"stem& /t is a fundamental principle of statutor" construction that *ords emplo"ed in a statute are
interpreted in connection *ith, and their meanin# is ascertained b" reference to, the *ords and the
phrases *ith *hich the" are associated or related& 2hus, the meanin# of a term in a statute ma" be
limited, .ualified or specialiCed b" those in immediate association&
;
2he 'art":List S"stem )esecrated b" the OS1 Contentions
3ot*ithstandin# the unmista-able statutor" polic", the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral submits that
?9 3o& E981 7does not limit the participation in the part":list s"stem to the mar#inaliCed and
underrepresented sectors of societ"&7
;9
/n fact, it contends that an" part" or #roup that is not
dis.ualified under Section !
8<
of ?9 E981 ma" participate in the elections& 0ence, it admitted
durin# the Oral 9r#ument that e%en an or#aniCation representin# the super rich of (orbes 'ar- or
)asmariPas Killa#e could participate in the part":list elections&
81
2he declared polic" of ?9 E981 contra%enes the position of the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral
(OS1)& Ae stress that the part":list s"stem see-s to enable certain (ilipino citiCens L specificall"
those belon#in# to mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors, or#aniCations and parties L to be
elected to the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es& 2he assertion of the OS1 that the part":list s"stem is not
e+clusi%e to the mar#inaliCed and underrepresented disre#ards the clear statutor" polic"& /ts claim
that e%en the super:rich and o%errepresented can participate desecrates the spirit of the part":list
s"stem&
/ndeed, the la* crafted to address the peculiar disad%anta#es of 'a"atas ho%el d*ellers cannot be
appropriated b" the mansion o*ners of (orbes 'ar-& 2he interests of these t*o sectors are
manifestl" disparateB hence, the OS1$s position to treat them similarl" defies reason and common
sense& /n contrast, and *ith admirable candor, 9tt"& Lorna 'ata,o:Iapunan
82
admitted durin# the
Oral 9r#ument that a #roup of ban-ers, industrialists and su#ar planters could not ,oin the part":list
s"stem as representati%es of their respecti%e sectors&
8;
Ahile the business mo#uls and the me#a:rich are, numericall" spea-in#, a tin" minorit", the" are
neither mar#inaliCed nor underrepresented, for the star- realit" is that their economic clout
en#enders political po*er more a*esome than their numerical limitation& 2raditionall", political
po*er does not necessaril" emanate from the siCe of one$s constituenc"B indeed, it is li-el" to arise
more directl" from the number and amount of one$s ban- accounts&
/t is ironic, therefore, that the mar#inaliCed and underrepresented in our midst are the ma,orit" *ho
*allo* in po%ert", destitution and infirmit"& /t *as for them that the part":list s"stem *as enacted ::
to #i%e them not onl" #enuine hope, but #enuine po*erB to #i%e them the opportunit" to be elected
and to represent the specific concerns of their constituenciesB and simpl" to #i%e them a direct %oice
in Con#ress and in the lar#er affairs of the State& /n its noblest sense, the part":list s"stem trul"
empo*ers the masses and ushers a ne* hope for #enuine chan#e& Keril", it in%ites those
mar#inaliCed and underrepresented in the past L the farm hands, the fisher fol-, the urban poor, e%en
those in the under#round mo%ement L to come out and participate, as indeed man" of them came
out and participated durin# the last elections& 2he State cannot no* disappoint and frustrate them b"
disablin# and desecratin# this social ,ustice %ehicle&
5ecause the mar#inaliCed and underrepresented had not been able to *in in the con#ressional
district elections normall" dominated b" traditional politicians and %ested #roups, 2< percent of the
seats in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es *ere set aside for the part":list s"stem& /n ar#uin# that e%en
those sectors *ho normall" controlled < percent of the seats in the 0ouse could participate in the
part":list elections for the remainin# 2< percent, the OS1 and the Comelec disre#ard the
fundamental difference bet*een the con#ressional district elections and the part":list elections&
9s earlier noted, the purpose of the part":list pro%ision *as to open up the s"stem,
88
in order to
enhance the chance of sectoral #roups and or#aniCations to #ain representation in the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es throu#h the simplest scheme possible&
86
Lo#ic sho*s that the s"stem has been
opened to those *ho ha%e ne%er #otten a foothold *ithin it :: those *ho cannot other*ise *in in
re#ular elections and *ho therefore need the 7simplest scheme possible7 to do so& Con%ersel", it
*ould be illo#ical to open the s"stem to those *ho ha%e lon# been *ithin it :: those pri%ile#ed
sectors that ha%e lon# dominated the con#ressional district elections&
2he import of the open part":list s"stem ma" be more %i%idl" understood *hen compared to a
student dormitor" 7open house,7 *hich b" its nature allo*s outsiders to enter the facilities&
Ob%iousl", the 7open house7 is for the benefit of outsiders onl", not the dormers themsel%es *ho
can enter the dormitor" e%en *ithout such special pri%ile#e& /n the same %ein, the open part":list
s"stem is onl" for the 7outsiders7 *ho cannot #et elected throu#h re#ular elections other*iseB it is
not for the non:mar#inaliCed or o%errepresented *ho alread" fill the ran-s of Con#ress&
Keril", allo*in# the non:mar#inaliCed and o%errepresented to %ie for the remainin# seats under the
part":list s"stem *ould not onl" dilute, but also pre,udice the chance of the mar#inaliCed and
underrepresented, contrar" to the intention of the la* to enhance it& 2he part":list s"stem is a tool
for the benefit of the underpri%ile#edB the la* could not ha%e #i%en the same tool to others, to the
pre,udice of the intended beneficiaries&
2his Court, therefore, cannot allo* the part":list s"stem to be sullied and prostituted b" those *ho
are neither mar#inaliCed nor underrepresented& /t cannot let that flic-er of hope be snuffed out& 2he
clear state polic" must permeate e%er" discussion of the .ualification of political parties and other
or#aniCations under the part":list s"stem&
Re8u5a53o+ o8 50e !e2ara5e 23+3o+1
2he Separate Opinions of our distin#uished collea#ues, 4ustices 4ose C& Kitu# and Kicente K&
MendoCa, are anchored mainl" on the supposed intent of the framers of the Constitution as culled
from their deliberations&
2he fundamental principle in constitutional construction, ho*e%er, is that the primar" source from
*hich to ascertain constitutional intent or purpose is the lan#ua#e of the pro%ision itself& 2he
presumption is that the *ords in *hich the constitutional pro%isions are couched e+press the
ob,ecti%e sou#ht to be attained&
8!
/n other *ords, %erba le#is still pre%ails& Onl" *hen the meanin#
of the *ords used is unclear and e.ui%ocal should resort be made to e+traneous aids of construction
and interpretation, such as the proceedin#s of the Constitutional Commission or Con%ention, in
order to shed li#ht on and ascertain the true intent or purpose of the pro%ision bein# construed&
8E
/ndeed, as cited in the Separate Opinion of 4ustice MendoCa, this Court stated in Ci%il Liberties
Dnion %& E+ecuti%e Secretar"
8
that 7the debates and proceedin#s of the constitutional con%ention
=ma" be consulted> in order to arri%e at the reason and purpose of the resultin# Constitution + + +
onl" *hen other #uides fail as said proceedin#s are po*erless to %ar" the terms of the Constitution
*hen the meanin# is clear& )ebates in the constitutional con%ention $are of %alue as sho*in# the
%ie*s of the indi%idual members, and as indicatin# the reason for their %otes, but the" #i%e us no
li#ht as to the %ie*s of the lar#e ma,orit" *ho did not tal-, much less of the mass or our fello*
citiCens *hose %otes at the polls #a%e that instrument the force of fundamental la*& Ae thin- it safer
to construe the constitution from *hat appears upon its face&$ 2he proper interpretation therefore
depends more on ho* it *as understood b" the people adoptin# it than in the framers$
understandin# thereof&7
Section 6, 9rticle K/ of the Constitution, relati%e to the part":list s"stem, is couched in clear terms@
the mechanics of the s"stem shall be pro%ided b" la*& 'ursuant thereto, Con#ress enacted ?9 E981&
/n understandin# and implementin# part":list representation, *e should therefore loo- at the la*
first& Onl" *hen *e find its pro%isions ambi#uous should the use of e+traneous aids of construction
be resorted to&
5ut, as discussed earlier, the intent of the la* is ob%ious and clear from its plain *ords& Section 2
thereof une.ui%ocall" states that the part":list s"stem of electin# con#ressional representati%es *as
desi#ned to 7enable underrepresented sectors, or#aniCations and parties, and *ho lac- *ell:defined
political constituencies but *ho could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
le#islation that *ill benefit the nation as a *hole + + +&7 2he criteria for participation is *ell
defined& 2hus, there is no need for recourse to constitutional deliberations, not e%en to the
proceedin#s of Con#ress& /n an" e%ent, the framers$ deliberations merel" e+press their indi%idual
opinions and are, at best, onl" persuasi%e in construin# the meanin# and purpose of the constitution
or statute&
5e it remembered that the constitutionalit" or %alidit" of Sections 2 and 6 of ?9 E981 is not an
issue here& 0ence, the" remain parts of the la*, *hich must be applied plainl" and simpl"&
ourth (ssue<
1ra%e 9buse of )iscretion
(rom its assailed Omnibus ?esolution, it is manifest that the Comelec failed to appreciate full" the
clear polic" of the la* and the Constitution& On the contrar", it seems to ha%e i#nored the facet of
the part":list s"stem discussed abo%e& 2he OS1 as its counsel admitted before the Court that an"
#roup, e%en the non:mar#inaliCed and o%errepresented, could field candidates in the part":list
elections&
Ahen a lo*er court, or a .uasi:,udicial a#enc" li-e the Commission on Elections, %iolates or
i#nores the Constitution or the la*, its action can be struc- do*n b" this Court on the #round of
#ra%e abuse of discretion&
89
/ndeed, the function of all ,udicial and .uasi:,udicial instrumentalities
is to appl" the la* as the" find it, not to rein%ent or second:#uess it&
6<
/n its Memorandum, 'etitioner 5a"an Muna passionatel" pleads for the outri#ht dis.ualification of
the ma,or political parties L ?espondents La-as:3DC), L)', 3'C, L' and 'M' L on the #round
that under Comelec ?esolution 3o& 8<E;, the" ha%e been accredited as the fi%e (si+, includin# ')':
Laban) ma,or political parties in the Ma" 18, 2<<1 elections& /t ar#ues that because of this, the"
ha%e the 7ad%anta#e of #ettin# official Comelec Election ?eturns, Certificates of Can%ass, preferred
poll *atchers + + +&7 Ae note, ho*e%er, that this accreditation does not refer to the part":list
election, but, inter alia, to the election of district representati%es for the purpose of determinin#
*hich parties *ould be entitled to *atchers under Section 2! of ?epublic 9ct 3o& E1!!&
Ahat is needed under the present circumstances, ho*e%er, is a factual determination of *hether
respondents herein and, for that matter, all the 168 pre%iousl" appro%ed #roups, ha%e the necessar"
.ualifications to participate in the part":list elections, pursuant to the Constitution and the la*&
5a"an Muna also ur#es us to immediatel" rule out ?espondent Mamama"an 9"a* sa )ro#a
(M9)), because 7it is a #o%ernment entit" usin# #o%ernment resources and pri%ile#es&7 2his Court,
ho*e%er, is not a trier of facts&
61
/t is not e.uipped to recei%e e%idence and determine the truth of
such factual alle#ations&
5asic rudiments of due process re.uire that respondents should first be #i%en an opportunit" to
sho* that the" .ualif" under the #uidelines promul#ated in this )ecision, before the" can be
depri%ed of their ri#ht to participate in and be elected under the part":list s"stem&
1uidelines for Screenin# 'art":List 'articipants
2he Court, therefore, deems it proper to remand the case to the Comelec for the latter to determine,
after summar" e%identiar" hearin#s, *hether the 168 parties and or#aniCations allo*ed to
participate in the part":list elections compl" *ith the re.uirements of the la*& /n this li#ht, the Court
finds it appropriate to la" do*n the follo*in# #uidelines, culled from the la* and the Constitution,
to assist the Comelec in its *or-&
(irst, the political part", sector, or#aniCation or coalition must represent the mar#inaliCed and
underrepresented #roups identified in Section 6 of ?9 E981& /n other *ords, it must sho* :: throu#h
its constitution, articles of incorporation, b"la*s, histor", platform of #o%ernment and trac- record
:: that it represents and see-s to uplift mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors& Keril", ma,orit"
of its membership should belon# to the mar#inaliCed and underrepresented& 9nd it must
demonstrate that in a conflict of interests, it has chosen or is li-el" to choose the interest of such
sectors&
Second, *hile e%en ma,or political parties are e+pressl" allo*ed b" ?9 E981 and the Constitution
to participate in the part":list s"stem, the" must compl" *ith the declared statutor" polic" of
enablin# 7(ilipino citiCens belon#in# to mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors + + + to be
elected to the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es&7 /n other *ords, *hile the" are not dis.ualified merel" on
the #round that the" are political parties, the" must sho*, ho*e%er, that the" represent the interests
of the mar#inaliCed and underrepresented& 2he counsel of 9-s"on )emo-rati-o and other similarl"
situated political parties admitted as much durin# the Oral 9r#ument, as the follo*in# .uote sho*s@
74DS2/CE '93193/593@ / am not disputin# that in m" .uestion& 9ll / am sa"in# is, the political
part" must claim to represent the mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectorsM
922N& I9'D393@ Nes, Nour 0onor, the ans*er is "es&7
62
2hird, in %ie* of the ob,ections
6;
directed a#ainst the re#istration of 9n# 5uha" 0a"aan#
Numabon#, *hich is alle#edl" a reli#ious #roup, the Court notes the e+press constitutional
pro%ision that the reli#ious sector ma" not be represented in the part":list s"stem& 2he e+tent of the
constitutional proscription is demonstrated b" the follo*in# discussion durin# the deliberations of
the Constitutional Commission@
7M?& O'LE& + + +
/n the e%ent that a certain reli#ious sect *ith nation*ide and e%en international net*or-s of
members and supporters, in order to circum%ent this prohibition, decides to form its o*n political
part" in emulation of those parties / had mentioned earlier as deri%in# their inspiration and
philosophies from *ell:established reli#ious faiths, *ill that also not fall *ithin this prohibitionM
M?& MO3SO)& /f the e%idence sho*s that the intention is to #o around the prohibition, then
certainl" the Comelec can pierce throu#h the le#al fiction&7
68
2he follo*in# discussion is also pertinent@
7M?& K/LL9CO?29& Ahen the Commissioner proposed 7EGCE'2 ?EL/1/ODS 1?OD'S,7 he is
not, of course, prohibitin# priests, imams or pastors *ho ma" be elected b", sa", the indi#enous
communit" sector to represent their #roup&
?EK& ?/1OS& 3ot at all, but / am ob,ectin# to an"bod" *ho represents the /#lesia ni Iristo, the
Catholic Church, the 'rotestant Church et cetera&7
66
(urthermore, the Constitution pro%ides that 7reli#ious denominations and sects shall not be
re#istered&7
6!
2he prohibition *as e+plained b" a member
6E
of the Constitutional Commission in
this *ise@ 7=2> he prohibition is on an" reli#ious or#aniCation re#isterin# as a political part"& / do not
see an" prohibition here a#ainst a priest runnin# as a candidate& 2hat is not prohibited hereB it is the
re#istration of a reli#ious sect as a political part"&7
6
(ourth, a part" or an or#aniCation must not be dis.ualified under Section ! of ?9 E981, *hich
enumerates the #rounds for dis.ualification as follo*s@
7(1) /t is a reli#ious sect or denomination, or#aniCation or association or#aniCed for reli#ious
purposesB
(2) /t ad%ocates %iolence or unla*ful means to see- its #oalB
(;) /t is a forei#n part" or or#aniCationB
(8) /t is recei%in# support from an" forei#n #o%ernment, forei#n political part", foundation,
or#aniCation, *hether directl" or throu#h an" of its officers or members or indirectl" throu#h third
parties for partisan election purposesB
(6) /t %iolates or fails to compl" *ith la*s, rules or re#ulations relatin# to electionsB
(!) /t declares untruthful statements in its petitionB
(E) /t has ceased to e+ist for at least one (1) "earB or
() /t fails to participate in the last t*o (2) precedin# elections or fails to obtain at least t*o per
centum (2O) of the %otes cast under the part":list s"stem in the t*o (2) precedin# elections for the
constituenc" in *hich it has re#istered&7
69
3ote should be ta-en of para#raph 6, *hich dis.ualifies a part" or #roup for %iolation of or failure
to compl" *ith election la*s and re#ulations& 2hese la*s include Section 2 of ?9 E981, *hich
states that the part":list s"stem see-s to 7enable (ilipino citiCens belon#in# to mar#inaliCed and
underrepresented sectors, or#aniCations and parties + + + to become members of the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es&7 9 part" or an or#aniCation, therefore, that does not compl" *ith this polic" must
be dis.ualified&
(ifth, the part" or or#aniCation must not be an ad,unct of, or a pro,ect or#aniCed or an entit" funded
or assisted b", the #o%ernment& 5" the %er" nature of the part":list s"stem, the part" or or#aniCation
must be a #roup of citiCens, or#aniCed b" citiCens and operated b" citiCens& /t must be independent
of the #o%ernment& 2he participation of the #o%ernment or its officials in the affairs of a part":list
candidate is not onl" ille#al
!<
and unfair to other parties, but also deleterious to the ob,ecti%e of the
la*@ to enable citiCens belon#in# to mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors and or#aniCations to
be elected to the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es&
Si+th, the part" must not onl" compl" *ith the re.uirements of the la*B its nominees must li-e*ise
do so& Section 9 of ?9 E981 reads as follo*s@
7SEC& 9& Qualifications of 'art":List 3ominees& L 3o person shall be nominated as part":list
representati%e unless he is a natural:born citiCen of the 'hilippines, a re#istered %oter, a resident of
the 'hilippines for a period of not less than one (1) "ear immediatel" precedin# the da" of the
election, able to read and *rite, a bona fide member of the part" or or#aniCation *hich he see-s to
represent for at least ninet" (9<) da"s precedin# the da" of the election, and is at least t*ent":fi%e
(26) "ears of a#e on the da" of the election&
/n case of a nominee of the "outh sector, he must at least be t*ent":fi%e (26) but not more than
thirt" (;<) "ears of a#e on the da" of the election& 9n" "outh sectoral representati%e *ho attains the
a#e of thirt" (;<) durin# his term shall be allo*ed to continue in office until the e+piration of his
term&7
Se%enth, not onl" the candidate part" or or#aniCation must represent mar#inaliCed and
underrepresented sectorsB so also must its nominees& 2o repeat, under Section 2 of ?9 E981, the
nominees must be (ilipino citiCens 7*ho belon# to mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors,
or#aniCations and parties&7 Surel", the interests of the "outh cannot be full" represented b" a retireeB
neither can those of the urban poor or the *or-in# class, b" an industrialist& 2o allo* other*ise is to
betra" the State polic" to #i%e #enuine representation to the mar#inaliCed and underrepresented&
Ei#hth, as pre%iousl" discussed, *hile lac-in# a *ell:defined political constituenc", the nominee
must li-e*ise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate le#islation that
*ill benefit the nation as a *hole& Senator 4ose Lina e+plained durin# the bicameral committee
proceedin#s that 7the nominee of a part", national or re#ional, is not #oin# to represent a particular
district + + +&7
!1
E23*o4ue
2he linchpin of this case is the clear and plain polic" of the la*@ 7to enable (ilipino citiCens
belon#in# to mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors, or#aniCations and parties, and *ho lac-
*ell:defined political constituencies but *ho could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate le#islation that *ill benefit the nation as a *hole, to become members of the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es&7
Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social ,ustice principle that those *ho ha%e
less in life should ha%e more in la*& 2he part":list s"stem is one such tool intended to benefit those
*ho ha%e less in life& /t #i%es the #reat masses of our people #enuine hope and #enuine po*er& /t is
a messa#e to the destitute and the pre,udiced, and e%en to those in the under#round, that chan#e is
possible& /t is an in%itation for them to come out of their limbo and seiCe the opportunit"&
Clearl", therefore, the Court cannot accept the submissions of the Comelec and the other
respondents that the part":list s"stem is, *ithout an" .ualification, open to all& Such position does
not onl" *ea-en the electoral chances of the mar#inaliCed and underrepresentedB it also pre,udices
them& /t *ould #ut the substance of the part":list s"stem& /nstead of #eneratin# hope, it *ould create
a mira#e& /nstead of enablin# the mar#inaliCed, it *ould further *ea-en them and a##ra%ate their
mar#inaliCation&
/n effect, the Comelec *ould ha%e us belie%e that the part":list pro%isions of the Constitution and
?9 E981 are nothin# more than a pla" on dubious *ords, a moc-er" of noble intentions, and an
empt" offerin# on the altar of people empo*erment& Surel", this could not ha%e been the intention
of the framers of the Constitution and the ma-ers of ?9 E981&
A0E?E(O?E, this case is ?EM93)E) to the Comelec, *hich is hereb" )/?EC2E) to
immediatel" conduct summar" e%identiar" hearin#s on the .ualifications of the part":list
participants in the li#ht of the #uidelines enunciated in this )ecision& Considerin# the e+treme
ur#enc" of determinin# the *inners in the last part":list elections, the Comelec is directed to be#in
its hearin#s for the parties and or#aniCations that appear to ha%e #arnered such number of %otes as
to .ualif" for seats in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es& 2he Comelec is further )/?EC2E) to submit
to this Court its compliance report *ithin ;< da"s from notice hereof&1=wphi1.n>t
2he ?esolution of this Court dated Ma" 9, 2<<1, directin# the Comelec 7to refrain from proclaimin#
an" *inner7 durin# the last part":list election, shall remain in force until after the Comelec itself
*ill ha%e complied and reported its compliance *ith the fore#oin# disposition&
2his )ecision is immediatel" e+ecutor" upon the Commission on Elections$ receipt thereof& 3o
pronouncement as to costs&
SO O?)E?E)&
4ellosillo# *elo# 3uno# ?apunan# 3ardo# 4uena# and 1on2aga/Reyes# --.# concur&
'avide# -r.# C.-.# in the result&
:itug and *endo2a# --.# see dissentin# opinion&
9uisum!ing# 'e +eon# -r.# and )andoval/1utierre2# --.# ,oin the dissent of -. :icente *. *endo2a.
@nares/)antiago# -.# abroad on official business&
Foo5+o5e1
1
Si#ned b" Chairman 9lfredo L& 5enipa"o and Commissioners LuC%iminda 1& 2ancan#co, ?ufino
S& 5& 4a%ier, ?alph C& Lantion, Mehol I& Sadain, ?esurreccion Q& 5orra and (lorentino 9& 2uason
4r&
2
Omnibus ?esolution 3o& ;E6, p& 1;B Rollo (1? 3o& 18E69), p& 8<&
;
(!id&, pp& 21:22B Rollo, pp& 8:89&
8
Rollo (1? 3o& 18E69), pp& 2E2:2E;&
6
Rollo (1? 3o& 18E69), pp& 26<:2!;&
!
Rollo (1? 3o& 18E69), pp& 22:2;&
E
See Rollo (1? 3o& 18E!1;), p& 22;&

2S3 (1? 3o& 18E69 and 18E!1;), Ma" 1E, 2<<1, p& 89&
9
Rollo (1? 3o& 18E69), pp& 8:E;&
1<
Rollo (1? 3o& 18E69), p& E8&
11
Comments *ere filed b" M9), 5a#on# 5a"ani, 2he 2rue Marcos Lo"alists, the Comelec,
'artido n# Masan# 'ilipino, the Liberal 'art", the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral, C?E59, La-as:
3DC):DM)', the 'hilippine Local 9utonom" Mo%ement, 9-s"on )emo-rati-o, CitiCens$ )ru#
Aatch (oundation, 9n# 5uha" 0a"aan# Numabon#, 9n# La-as n# OCA, and Sports and 0ealth
(oundation&
12
Rollo (1? 3o& 18E!1;), pp& ;:86&
1;
Rollo (1? 3o& 18E!1;), p& 8!&
18
2hese *ere filed b" the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral, the Comelec, the 5a#on# 5a"ani
Or#aniCation, Mamama"an 9"a* sa )ro#a, and the 'hilippine
=1&?& 3o& 1;!E1& October !, 2<<<>
KE2E?93S (E)E?92/O3 '9?2N, 9LN93S931 59N93/093 31 M19 M91S9S9I9,
M9311919A931 5DI/) 92 M931/31/S)9, 9)0/I9/3 92 I/LDS93 31
O?)/39?NO31 29O '9?9 S9 LD'9, '95909N 92 I9D3L9?93, and LDQO3 (9?ME?S
'9?2N# petitioners# vs. COMM/SS/O3 O3 ELEC2/O3S, '91:9S9, SE3/O? C/2/QE3S,
9I9' 9ISNO3, '/392D5O, 3D'9, '?', 9M/3, '91:9S9, M909?L/I9, OCA:D3/(/L,
'CC/, 9MM9:I92/'D393, I9M'/L, 59329N:59N93, 9(A, 931 L9I9S OCA,
AOME3:'OAE?, /3C&, (E4O)9', CD', KE2E?93S C9?E, 8L, 9A92D, 'M', 92DC',
3CA', 9LD, 5/19S, CO'?9, 1?EE3, 939I59N93, 9?59, M/3(9, 9NOS, 9LL COO',
')':L9593, I92/'D393, O3EA9N '?/32, 995932E I9 '/L/'/39S :: 9ll 5ein# 'art":
List 'artiesHOr#aniCations :: and 0on& M93DEL 5& K/LL9?, 4?& in 0is Capacit" as Spea-er of
the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es, respondents.
=1&?& 3o& 1;!E!& October !, 2<<<>
9I59N93R (C/2/QE3S$ 9C2/O3 '9?2N), 9)0/I9/3 92 I/LDS93 31 O?)/39?NO31
29O '9?9 S9 LD'9, '95909N 92 I9D3L9?93 (9IO), and 9SSOC/92/O3 O(
'0/L/''/3E ELEC2?/C COO'E?92/KES (9'EC), petitioners# vs. COMM/SS/O3 O3
ELEC2/O3S (COMELEC), 0ODSE O( ?E'?ESE3292/KES represented b" Spea-er Manuel 5&
Killar, '91:9S9, SE3/O? C/2/QE3S, 9I9', 9ISNO3, '/392D5O, 3D'9, '?', 9M/3,
M909?L/I9, OCA, D3/(/L, 'CC/, 9MM9:I92/'D393, I9M'/L, 59329N:59N93,
9(A, 931 L9I9S OCA, AOME3'OAE? /3C&, (E4O)9', CD', KE2E?93S C9?E, (OD?
7L7, 9A92D, 'M', 92DC', 3CA', 9LD, 5/19S, CO'?9, 1?EE3, 939I:59N93, 9?59,
M/3(9, 9NOS, 9LL COO', ')':L9593, I92/'D393, O3EA9N '?/32, 995932E I9
'/L/'/39S, respondents.
=1&?& 3o& 1;!E96& October !, 2<<<>
9L919) ('9?2/)O 31 M9?9L/2931:LD31SO)), 392/O39L CO3(E)E?92/O3 O(
SM9LL COCO3D2 (9?ME?S$ O?193/Q92/O3S (3CS(CO), and LDQO3 (9?ME?S$
'9?2N (5D2/L), petitioners# vs. COMM/SS/O3 O3 ELEC2/O3S, SE3/O? C/2/QE3S, 9I9',
9ISNO3, '/392D5O, 3D'9, '?', 9M/3, '91:9S9, M909?L/I9, OCA, D3/(/L, 'CC/,
9MM9:I92/'D393, I9M'/L, 59329N:59N93, 9(A, 931 L9I9S OCA,
AOME3'OAE? /3C&, (E4O)9', CD', KE2E?93S C9?E, 8L, 9A92D, 'M', 92DC', 3CA',
9LD, 5/19S, CO'?9, 1?EE3, 939I:59N93, 9?59, M/3(9, 9NOS, 9LL COO', ')':
L9593, I92/'D393, O3EA9N '?/32, and 995932E I9 '/L/'/39S, respondents.
) E C / S / O 3
'93193/593, -&@S
3rologue
2o determine the *inners in a 'hilippine:st"le part":list election, the Constitution and ?epublic 9ct
(?9) 3o& E981 mandate at least four in%iolable parameters& 2hese are@
irst, 50e 59e+5y 2er6e+5 a**o6a53o+ : the combined number of all part":list con#ressmen shall not
e+ceed t*ent" percent of the total membership of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es, includin# those
elected under the part" list&
)econd# 50e 59o 2er6e+5 50re10o*, : onl" those parties #arnerin# a minimum of t*o percent of the
total %alid %otes cast for the part":list s"stem are T.ualifiedU to ha%e a seat in the 0ouse of
?epresentati%esB
,hird# 50e 50reeH1ea5 *3735 : each .ualified part", re#ardless of the number of %otes it actuall"
obtained, is entitled to a ma+imum of three seatsB that is, one T.ualif"in#U and t*o additional seats&
ourth# 2ro2or53o+a* re2re1e+5a53o+ : the additional seats *hich a .ualified part" is entitled to
shall be computed Tin proportion to their total number of %otes&U
5ecause the Comelec %iolated these le#al parameters, the assailed ?esolutions must be struc- do*n
for ha%in# been issued in #ra%e abuse of discretion& 2he poll bod" is mandated to enforce and
administer election:related la*s& /t has no po*er to contra%ene or amend them& 3either does it ha%e
authorit" to decide the *isdom, propriet" or rationalit" of the acts of Con#ress&
/ts bounden dut" is to craft rules, re#ulations, methods and formulas to implement election la*s ::
not to re,ect, i#nore, defeat, obstruct or circum%ent them&
/n fine, the constitutional introduction of the part":list s"stem : a normal feature of parliamentar"
democracies : into our presidential form of #o%ernment, modified b" uni.ue (ilipino statutor"
parameters, presents ne* paradi#ms and no%el .uestions, *hich demand inno%ati%e le#al solutions
con%ertible into mathematical formulations *hich are, in turn, anchored on time:tested
,urisprudence&
2he Case
5efore the Court are three consolidated 'etitions for Certiorari (*ith applications for the issuance
of a temporar" restrainin# order or *rit of preliminar" in,unction) under ?ule !6 of the ?ules of
Court, assailin# (1) the October 16, 199 ?esolution=1> of the Commission on Elections (Comelec),
Second )i%ision, in Election Matter 9:<!6B=2> and (2) the 4anuar" E, 1999 ?esolution=;> of the
Comelec en banc, affirmin# the said disposition& 2he assailed ?esolutions ordered the proclamation
of thirt":ei#ht (;) additional part":list representati%es 7to complete the full complement of 62 seats
in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es as pro%ided under Section 6, 9rticle K/ of the 19E Constitution
and ?&9& E981&U
2he (acts and the 9ntecedents
Our 19E Constitution introduced a no%el feature into our presidential s"stem of #o%ernment :: the
part":list method of representation& Dnder this s"stem, an" national, re#ional or sectoral part" or
or#aniCation re#istered *ith the Commission on Elections ma" participate in the election of part":
list representati%es *ho, upon their election and proclamation, shall sit in the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es as re#ular members&=8> /n effect, a %oter is #i%en t*o (2) %otes for the 0ouse :: one
for a district con#ressman and another for a part":list representati%e&=6>
Specificall", this s"stem of representation is mandated b" Section 6, 9rticle K/ of the Constitution,
*hich pro%ides@
TSec& 6& (1) 2he 0ouse of ?epresentati%es shall be composed of not more than t*o hundred and
fift" members, unless other*ise fi+ed b" la*, *ho shall be elected from le#islati%e districts
apportioned amon# the pro%inces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance *ith the
number of their respecti%e inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and pro#ressi%e ratio, and
those *ho, as pro%ided b" la*, shall be elected b" a part":list s"stem of re#istered national,
re#ional, and sectoral parties or or#aniCations&
(2) 2he part":list representati%es shall constitute t*ent" per centum of the total number of
representati%es includin# those under the part":list& (or three consecuti%e terms after the ratification
of this Constitution, one half of the seats allocated to part":list representati%es shall be filled, as
pro%ided b" la*, b" selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indi#enous cultural
communities, *omen, "outh, and such other sectors as ma" be pro%ided b" la*, e+cept the reli#ious
sector&U
Compl"in# *ith its constitutional dut" to provide !y law the Tselection or electionU of part":list
representati%es, Con#ress enacted ?9 E981 on March ;, 1996& Dnder this statuteJs polic"
declaration, the State shall 7promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to
the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es throu#h a part":list s"stem of re#istered national, re#ional and
sectoral parties or or#aniCations or coalitions thereof, *hich *ill enable (ilipino citiCens belon#in#
to mar#inaliCed and underrepresented sectors, or#aniCations and parties, and *ho lac- *ell:defined
political constituencies but *ho could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
le#islation that *ill benefit the nation as a *hole, to become members of the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es& 2o*ards this end, the State shall de%elop and #uarantee a full, free and open part"
s"stem in order to attain the broadest possible representation of part", sectoral or #roup interests in
the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es b" enhancin# their chances to compete for and *in seats in the
le#islature, and shall pro%ide the simplest scheme possible&U (italics ours&)
2he re.uirements for entitlement to a part":list seat in the 0ouse are prescribed b" this la* (?9
E981) in this *ise@
TSec& 11& .um!er of 3arty/+ist Representatives. // 2he part":list representati%es shall constitute
t*ent" per centum (2<O) of the total number of the members of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es
includin# those under the part":list&
(or purposes of the Ma" 199 elections, the first fi%e (6) ma,or political parties on the basis of part"
representation in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es at the start of the 2enth Con#ress of the 'hilippines
shall not be entitled to participate in the part":list s"stem&
/n determinin# the allocation of seats for the second %ote, the follo*in# procedure shall be
obser%ed@
(a) 2he parties, or#aniCations, and coalitions shall be ran-ed from the hi#hest to the lo*est based on
the number of %otes the" #arnered durin# the elections&
(b) 2he parties, or#aniCations, and coalitions recei%in# at least t*o percent (2O) of the total %otes
cast for the part":list s"stem shall be entitled to one seat eachB 'ro%ided, 2hat those #arnerin# more
than t*o percent (2O) of the %otes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
number of %otesB 'ro%ided, finall", 2hat each part", or#aniCation, or coalition shall be entitled to not
more than three (;) seats&
'ursuant to Section 1 of ?9 E981, the Comelec en banc promul#ated ?esolution 3o& 28E,
prescribin# the rules and re#ulations #o%ernin# the election of part":list representati%es throu#h the
part":list s"stem&
Election of the ourteen 3arty/+ist Representatives
On Ma" 11, 199, the first election for part":list representation *as held simultaneousl" *ith the
national elections& 9 total of one hundred t*ent":three (12;) parties, or#aniCations and coalitions
participated& On 4une 2!, 199, the Comelec en banc proclaimed thirteen (1;) part":list
representati%es from t*el%e (12) parties and or#aniCations, *hich had obtained at least t*o percent
of the total number of %otes cast for the part":list s"stem& 2*o of the proclaimed representati%es
belon#ed to 'etitioner 9'EC, *hich obtained 6&6 percent of the %otes& 2he proclaimed *inners and
the %otes cast in their fa%or *ere as follo*s@=!>
'art"HOr#aniCationH 3umber of 'ercenta#e of 3ominees
Coalition Kotes Obtained 2otal Kotes
1& 9'EC 6<;,8E 6&6O ?ene M& Silos
Mel%"n )& Eballe
2& 959 ;21,!8! ;&61O Leonardo Q& Montema"or
;& 9L919) ;12,6<< ;&81O )io#enes S& Osabel
8& KE2E?93S ;<8,<2 ;&;;O Eduardo '& 'ilapil
(E)E?92/O3
6& '?OM)/ 266,18 2&E9O 4o" 9&1& Noun#
!& 9IO 2;9,<82 2&!1O 9riel 9& Qarti#a
E& 3CSC(O 2;,;<; 2&!<O 1or#onio '& Dnde
& 9593SER '/39N 2;6,68 2&6EO 'atricia M& Sarenas
9& 9I59N93 2;2,;E! 2&68O Loreta 9nn '& ?osales
1<& 5D2/L 216,!8; 2&;!O 5en,amin 9& CruC
11& S93L9I9S 198,!1E 2&1;O ?enato 5& Ma#tubo
12& COO':392CCO 19,<2 2&<EO Cresente C& 'aeC
9fter passin# upon the results of the special elections held on 4ul" 8, 1, and 26, 199, the Comelec
en banc further determined that COCO(E) ('hilippine Coconut 'lantersJ (ederation, /nc&) *as
entitled to one part":list seat for ha%in# #arnered 1!,; %otes, *hich *ere e.ui%alent to 2&<8
percent of the total %otes cast for the part":list s"stem& 2hus, its first nominee, Emerito S& Calderon,
*as proclaimed on September , 199 as the 18th part":list representati%e&=E>
On 4ul" !, 199, '91:9S9 ('eopleJs 'ro#ressi%e 9lliance for 'eace and 1ood 1o%ernment
2o*ards 9lle%iation of 'o%ert" and Social 9d%ancement) filed *ith the Comelec a 7'etition to
'roclaim =the> (ull 3umber of 'art":List ?epresentati%es pro%ided b" the Constitution&7 /t alle#ed
that the fillin# up of the t*ent" percent membership of part":list representati%es in the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es, as pro%ided under the Constitution, *as mandator"& /t further claimed that the
literal application of the t*o percent %ote re.uirement and the three:seat limit under ?9 E981 *ould
defeat this constitutional pro%ision, for onl" 26 nominees *ould be declared *inners, short of the
62 part":list representati%es *ho should actuall" sit in the 0ouse&
2hereafter, nine other part":list or#aniCations=> filed their respecti%e Motions for /nter%ention,
see-in# the same relief as that sou#ht b" '91:9S9 on substantiall" the same #rounds& Li-e*ise,
'91:9S9Js 'etition *as ,oined b" other part":list or#aniCations in a Manifestation the" filed on
9u#ust 2, 199& 2hese or#aniCations *ere COCO(E), Senior CitiCens, 9I9', 9ISNO3,
'/392D5O, 3D'9, '?', 9M/3, 'CC/, 9MM9:I92/'D393, OCA:D3/(/L, I9M'/L,
M909?L/I9, 9(A, Aomen 'o*er, /nc&, 9n# La-as OCA, (E4O)9', CD', Keterans Care,
5anta" 5a"an, 8L, 9A92D, 'M', 92DC', 9LD and 5/19S&
On October 16, 199, the Comelec Second )i%ision promul#ated the present assailed ?esolution
#rantin# '91:9S9$s 'etition& /t also ordered the proclamation of herein ; respondents *ho, in
addition to the 18 alread" sittin#, *ould thus total 62 part":list representati%es& /t held that 7at all
times, the total number of con#ressional=9> seats must be filled up b" ei#ht" (<O) percent district
representati%es and t*ent" (2<O) percent part":list representati%es&7 /n allocatin# the 62 seats, it
disre#arded the t*o percent:%ote re.uirement prescribed under Section 11 (b) of ?9 E981& /nstead,
it identified three 7elements of the part":list s"stem,7 *hich should supposedl" determine 7ho* the
62 seats should be filled up&7 irst# 7the s"stem *as concei%ed to enable the mar#inaliCed sectors of
the 'hilippine societ" to be represented in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es&7 )econd, 7the s"stem
should represent the broadest sectors of the 'hilippine societ"&7 ,hird# 7it should encoura#e =the>
7u*53H2ar5y s"stem&U (5oldface in the ori#inal&) Considerin# these elements, but i#norin# the t*o
percent threshold re.uirement of ?9 E981, it concluded that 7the part":list #roups ran-ed 3os& 1 to
61 + + + should ha%e at least one representati%e&U /t thus disposed as follo*s@
7A0E?E(O?E, b" %irtue of the po*ers %ested in it b" the Constitution, the Omnibus Election
Code (5&'& 1), ?epublic 9ct 3o& E981 and other election la*s, the Commission (Second
)i%ision) hereb" resol%es to 1?932 the instant petition and motions for inter%ention, to include
those similarl" situated&
9CCO?)/31LN, the nominees from the part":list hereinbelo* enumerated based on the list of
names submitted b" their respecti%e parties, or#aniCations and coalitions are '?OCL9/ME) as
part":list representati%es, to *it@
1& SE3/O? C/2/QE3S
2& 9I9'
;& 9ISNO3
8& '/392D5O
6& 3D'9
!& '?'
E& 9M/3
& '91:9S9
9& M909?L/I9
1<& OCA:D3/(/L
11& (CL
12& 9MM9:I92/'D393
1;& I9M'/L
18& 59329N 59N93
16& 9(A
1!& 931 L9I9S OCA
1E& AOME3'OAE?, /3C&
1& (E4O)9'
19& CD'
2<& KE2E?93S C9?E
21& 8L
22& 9A92D
2;& 'M'
28& 92DC'
26& 3CA'
2!& 9LD
2E& 5/19S
2& CO'?9
29& 1?EE3
;<& 939I59N93
;1& 9?59
;2& M/3(9
;;& 9NOS
;8& 9LL COO'
;6& ')':L9593
;!& I92/'D393
;E& O3EA9N '?/32
;& 995932E I9 '/L/'/39S
to complete the full complement of 62 seats in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es as pro%ided in Section
6, 9rticle K/ of the 19E Constitution and ?&9& E981&U
2he fore#oin# disposition sums up a #larin# bit of inconsistenc" and flip:floppin#& /n its ?esolution
3o& 28E dated 4une 26, 199!, the Comelec en banc had unanimousl" promul#ated a set of T?ules
and ?e#ulations 1o%ernin# the Election of + + + 'art":List ?epresentati%es 2hrou#h the 'art":List
S"stem&U Dnder these ?ules and ?e#ulations, one additional seat shall be #i%en for e%er" t*o
percent of the %ote, a formula the Comelec illustrated in its 9nne+ T9&U /t apparentl" relied on this
method *hen it proclaimed the 18 incumbent part":list solons (t*o for 9'EC and one each for the
12 other .ualified parties)& 0o*e%er, for ine+plicable reasons, it abandoned said unanimous
?esolution and proclaimed, based on its three Telements,U the T1roup of ;U pri%ate respondents&
=1<>
2he t*el%e (12) parties and or#aniCations, *hich had earlier been proclaimed *inners on the basis
of ha%in# obtained at least t*o percent of the %otes cast for the part":list s"stem, ob,ected to the
proclamation of the ; parties and filed separate Motions for ?econsideration& 2he" contended that
(1) under Section 11 (b) of ?9 E981, onl" parties, or#aniCations or coalitions #arnerin# at least t*o
percent of the %otes for the part":list s"stem *ere entitled to seats in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%esB
and (2) additional seats, not e+ceedin# t*o for each, should be allocated to those *hich had
#arnered the t*o percent threshold in proportion to the number of %otes cast for the *innin# parties,
as pro%ided b" said Section 11&
Ruling of the Comelec En 4anc
3otin# that all the parties :: mo%ants and oppositors ali-e : had a#reed that the t*ent" percent
membership of part":list representati%es in the 0ouse 7should be filled up,U the Comelec en banc
resol%ed onl" the issue concernin# the apportionment or allocation of the remainin# seats& /n other
*ords, the issue *as@ Should the remainin# ; unfilled seats allocated to part":list solons be #i%en
(1) to the thirteen .ualified parties that had each #arnered at least t*o percent of the total %otes, or
(2) to the 1roup of ; : herein pri%ate respondents : e%en if the" had not passed the t*o percent
thresholdM
2he poll bod" held that to allocate the remainin# seats onl" to those *ho had hurdled the t*o
percent %ote re.uirement 7*ill mean the concentration of representation of part", sectoral or #roup
interests in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es to thirteen or#aniCations representin# t*o political parties,
three coalitions and four sectors@ urban poor, %eterans, *omen and peasantr" + + +& Such strict
application of the 2O $threshold$ does not ser%e the essence and ob,ect of the Constitution and the
le#islature :: to de%elop and #uarantee a full, free and open part" s"stem in order to attain the
broadest possible representation of part", sectoral or #roup interests in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es
+ + +&U 9dditionall", it 7*ill also pre%ent this Commission from compl"in# *ith the constitutional
and statutor" decrees for part":list representati%es to compose 2<O of the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es&U
2hus, in its ?esolution dated 4anuar" E, 1999, the Comelec en banc, b" a raCor:thin ma,orit" :: *ith
three commissioners concurrin#=11> and t*o members=12> dissentin# :: affirmed the ?esolution of
its Second )i%ision& /t, ho*e%er, held in abe"ance the proclamation of the 61
st
part" (995932E
I9 '/L/'/39S), 7pendin# the resolution of petitions for correction of manifest errors&U
Aithout e+pressl" declarin# as unconstitutional or %oid the t*o percent %ote re.uirement imposed
b" ?9 E981, the Commission blithel" re,ected and circum%ented its application, holdin# that there
*ere more important considerations than this statutor" threshold&
Conse.uentl", se%eral petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, *ith pra"ers for the
issuance of temporar" restrainin# orders or *rits of preliminar" in,unction, *ere filed before this
Court b" the parties and or#aniCations that had obtained at least t*o per cent of the total %otes cast
for the part":list s"stem&=1;> /n the suits, made respondents to#ether *ith the Comelec *ere the ;
parties, or#aniCations and coalitions that had been declared b" the poll bod" as li-e*ise entitled to
part":list seats in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es& Collecti%el", petitioners sou#ht the proclamation of
additional representati%es from each of their parties and or#aniCations, all of *hich had obtained at
least t*o percent of the total %otes cast for the part":list s"stem&
On 4anuar" 12, 1999, this Court issued a Status Quo Order directin# the Comelec Tto CE9SE and
)ES/S2 from constitutin# itself as a 3ational 5oard of Can%assers on 1; 4anuar" 1999 or on an"
other date and proclaimin# as *inners the nominees of the parties, or#aniCations and coalitions
enumerated in the dispositi%e portions of its 16 October 199 ?esolution or its E 4anuar" 1999
?esolution, until further orders from this Court&U
On 4ul" 1, 1999, oral ar#uments *ere heard from the parties& 9tt"& 4eremias D& Montema"or
appeared for petitioners in 1? 3o& 1;!E1B 9tt"& 1re#orio 9& 9ndolana, for petitioners in 1? 3o&
1;!E!B 9tt"& ?odante )& Marcoleta for petitioners in 1? 3o& 1;!E96B 9tt"s& ?icardo 5lancaflor
and 'ete Quirino Quadra, for all the pri%ate respondentsB 9tt"& 'orfirio K& Sison for /nter%enor
39CDS/'B and 9tt"& 4ose '& 5albuena for ?espondent Comelec& Dpon in%itation of the Court,
retired Comelec Commissioner ?e#alado E& Maambon# acted as amicus curiae. Solicitor 1eneral
?icardo '& 1al%eC appeared, not for an" part" but also as a friend of the Court&
2hereafter, the parties and the amici curiae *ere re.uired to submit their respecti%e Memoranda in
amplification of their %erbal ar#uments&=18>
2he /ssues
2he Court belie%es, and so holds, that the main .uestion of ho* to determine the *inners of the
sub,ect part":list election can be full" settled b" addressin# the follo*in# issues@
1& /s the t*ent" percent allocation for part":list representati%es mentioned in Section 6 (2), 9rticle
K/ of the Constitution, mandator" or is it merel" a ceilin#M /n other *ords, should the t*ent"
percent allocation for part":list solons be filled up completel" and all the timeM
2& 9re the t*o percent threshold re.uirement and the three:seat limit pro%ided in Section 11 (b) of
?9 E981 constitutionalM
;& /f the ans*er to /ssue 2 is in the affirmati%e, ho* should the additional seats of a .ualified part"
be determinedM
2he CourtJs ?ulin#
2he 'etitions are partl" meritorious& 2he Court a#rees *ith petitioners that the assailed ?esolutions
should be nullified, but disa#rees that the" should all be #ranted additional seats&
(irst /ssue@ Ahether the ,wenty 3ercent Constitutional Allocation (s *andatory
2he pertinent pro%ision=16> of the Constitution on the composition of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es
reads as follo*s@
TSec& 6& (1) 2he 0ouse of ?epresentati%es shall be composed of not more than t*o hundred and
fift" members, unless other*ise fi+ed b" la*, *ho shall be elected from le#islati%e districts
apportioned amon# the pro%inces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance *ith the
number of their respecti%e inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and pro#ressi%e ratio, and
those *ho, as pro%ided b" la*, shall be elected b" a part":list s"stem of re#istered national,
re#ional, and sectoral parties or or#aniCations&
(2) 2he part":list representati%es shall constitute t*ent" per centum of the total number of
representati%es includin# those under the part":list& (or three consecuti%e terms after the ratification
of this Constitution, one half of the seats allocated to part":list representati%es shall be filled, as
pro%ided b" la*, b" selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indi#enous cultural
communities, *omen, "outh, and such other sectors as ma" be pro%ided b" la*, e+cept the reli#ious
sector&U
'etermination of the ,otal .um!er of 3arty/+ist +awmaBers
Clearl", the Constitution ma-es the number of district representati%es the determinant in arri%in# at
the number of seats allocated for part":list la*ma-ers, *ho shall comprise 7t*ent" per centum of
the total number of representati%es includin# those under the part":list&7 Ae thus translate this le#al
pro%ision into a mathematical formula, as follo*s@
3o& of district representati%es
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: + &2< V 3o& of part":list
&< representati%es
2his formulation=1!> means that an" increase in the number of district representati%es, as ma" be
pro%ided b" la*, *ill necessaril" result in a correspondin# increase in the number of part":list seats&
2o illustrate, considerin# that there *ere 2< district representati%es to be elected durin# the 199
national elections, the number of part":list seats *ould be 62, computed as follo*s@
2<
:::::::: + &2< V 62
&<
2he fore#oin# computation of seat allocation is eas" enou#h to comprehend& 2he problematic
.uestion, ho*e%er, is this@ )oes the Constitution re.uire all such allocated seats to be filled up all
the time and under all circumstancesM Our short ans*er is T3o&U
,wenty 3ercent Allocation a *ere Ceiling
2he Constitution simpl" states that 7=t>he part":list representati%es shall constitute t*ent" per
centum of the total number of representati%es includin# those under the part":list&U
9ccordin# to petitioners, this percenta#e is a ceilin#B the mechanics b" *hich it is to be filled up has
been left to Con#ress& /n the e+ercise of its prero#ati%e, the le#islature enacted ?9 E981, b" *hich it
prescribed that a part", or#aniCation or coalition participatin# in the part":list election must obtain at
least t*o percent of the total %otes cast for the s"stem in order to .ualif" for a seat in the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es&
'etitioners further ar#ue that the constitutional pro%ision must be construed to#ether *ith this
le#islati%e re.uirement& /f there is no sufficient number of participatin# parties, or#aniCations or
coalitions *hich could hurdle the t*o percent %ote threshold and thereb" fill up the t*ent" percent
part":list allocation in the 0ouse, then naturall" such allocation cannot be filled up completel"& 2he
Comelec cannot be faulted for the 7incompleteness,7 for ultimatel" the %oters themsel%es are the
ones *ho, in the e+ercise of their ri#ht of suffra#e, determine *ho and ho* man" should represent
them&
On the other hand, 'ublic ?espondent Comelec, to#ether *ith the respondent parties, a%ers that the
t*ent" percent allocation for part":list la*ma-ers is mandator", and that the t*o percent %ote
re.uirement in ?9 E981 is unconstitutional, because its strict application *ould ma-e it
mathematicall" impossible to fill up the 0ouse part":list complement&
Ae rule that a simple readin# of Section 6, 9rticle K/ of the Constitution, easil" con%e"s the e.uall"
simple messa#e that Con#ress *as %ested *ith the broad po*er to define and prescribe the
mechanics of the part":list s"stem of representation& 2he Constitution e+plicitl" sets do*n onl" the
percenta#e of the total membership in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es reser%ed for part":list
representati%es&
/n the e+ercise of its constitutional prero#ati%e, Con#ress enacted ?9 E981& 9s said earlier,
Con#ress declared therein a polic" to promote 7proportional representation7 in the election of part":
list representati%es in order to enable (ilipinos belon#in# to the mar#inaliCed and underrepresented
sectors to contribute le#islation that *ould benefit them& /t ho*e%er deemed it necessar" to re.uire
parties, or#aniCations and coalitions participatin# in the s"stem to obtain at least t*o percent of the
total %otes cast for the part":list s"stem in order to be entitled to a part":list seat& 2hose #arnerin#
more than this percenta#e could ha%e 7additional seats in proportion to their total number of %otes&U
(urthermore, no *innin# part", or#aniCation or coalition can ha%e more than three seats in the
0ouse of ?epresentati%es& 2hus the rele%ant portion of Section 11(b) of the la* pro%ides@
T(b) 2he parties, or#aniCations, and coalitions recei%in# at least t*o percent (2O) of the total %otes
cast for the part":list s"stem shall be entitled to one seat eachB 'ro%ided, 2hat those #arnerin# more
than t*o percent (2O) of the %otes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
number of %otesB 'ro%ided, finall", 2hat each part", or#aniCation, or coalition shall be entitled to not
more than three (;) seats&U
Considerin# the fore#oin# statutor" re.uirements, it *ill be sho*n presentl" that Section 6 (2),
9rticle K/ of the Constitution is not mandator"& /t merel" pro%ides a ceilin# for part":list seats in
Con#ress&
On the contention that a strict application of the t*o percent threshold ma" result in a
Tmathematical impossibilit",U suffice it to sa" that the prero#ati%e to determine *hether to ad,ust or
chan#e this percenta#e re.uirement rests in Con#ress&=1E> Our tas- no*, as should ha%e been the
ComelecJs, is not to find fault in the *isdom of the la* throu#h hi#hl" unli-el" scenarios of clinical
e+tremes, but to craft an inno%ati%e mathematical formula that can, as far as practicable, implement
it *ithin the conte+t of the actual election process&
/ndeed, the function of the Supreme Court, as *ell as of all ,udicial and .uasi:,udicial a#encies, is to
appl" the la* as *e find it, not to rein%ent or second:#uess it& Dnless declared unconstitutional,
ineffecti%e, insufficient or other*ise %oid b" the proper tribunal, a statute remains a %alid command
of so%erei#nt" that must be respected and obe"ed at all times& 2his is the essence of the rule of la*&
Second /ssue@ ,he )tatutory Requirement and +imitation
,he ,wo 3ercent ,hreshold
/n imposin# a t*o percent threshold, Con#ress *anted to ensure that onl" those parties,
or#aniCations and coalitions ha%in# a sufficient number of constituents deser%in# of representation
are actuall" represented in Con#ress& 2his intent can be #leaned from the deliberations on the
proposed bill& Ae .uote belo* a pertinent portion of the Senate discussion@
TSE392O? 1O3Q9LES@ (or purposes of continuit", / *ould *ant to follo* up a point that *as
raised b", / thin-, Senator OsmePa *hen he said that a political part" must ha%e obtained at least a
minimum percenta#e to be pro%ided in this la* in order to .ualif" for a seat under the part":list
s"stem&
2he" do that in man" other countries& 9 part" must obtain at least 2 percent of the %otes cast, 6
percent or 1< percent of the %otes cast& Other*ise, as / ha%e said, this *ill actuall" proliferate
political part" #roups and those *ho ha%e not reall" been #i%en b" the people sufficient basis for
them to represent their constituents and, in turn, the" *ill be able to #et to the 'arliament throu#h
the bac-door under the name of the part":list s"stem, Mr& 'resident&7=1>
9 similar intent is clear from the statements of the bill sponsor in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es, as
the follo*in# sho*s@
TM?& ES'/3OS9& 2here is a mathematical formula *hich this computation is based at, arri%in# at a
fi%e percent ratio *hich *ould distribute e.uitabl" the number of seats amon# the different sectors&
2here is a mathematical formula *hich is, / thin-, patterned after that of the part" list of the other
parliaments or con#resses, more particularl" the 5undesta# of 1erman"&U=19>
Moreo%er, e%en the framers of our Constitution had in mind a minimum:%ote re.uirement, the
specification of *hich the" left to Con#ress to properl" determine& Constitutional Commissioner
Christian S& Monsod e+plained@
TM?& MO3SO)& + + + Ae are amenable to modifications in the minimum percenta#e of %otes& Our
proposal is that an"bod" *ho has t*o:and:a:half percent of the %otes #ets a seat& 2here are about 2<
million *ho cast their %otes in the last elections& 2*o:and:a:half percent *ould mean 6<<,<<<
%otes& 9n"bod" *ho has a constituenc" of 6<<,<<< %otes nation*ide deser%es a seat in the
9ssembl"& /f *e brin# that do*n to t*o percent, *e are tal-in# about 8<<,<<< %otes& 2he a%era#e
%ote per famil" is three& So, here *e are tal-in# about 1;8,<<< families& Ae belie%e that there are
man" sectors *ho *ill be able to #et seats in the 9ssembl" because man" of them ha%e
memberships of o%er 1<,<<<& /n effect, that is the operational implication of our proposal& Ahat *e
are tr"in# to a%oid is this selection of sectors, the reser%e seat s"stem& Ae belie%e that it is our ,ob to
open up the s"stem and that *e should not ha%e *ithin that s"stem a reser%e seat& Ae thin- that
people should or#aniCe, should *or- hard, and should earn their seats *ithin that s"stem&U=2<>
2he t*o percent threshold is consistent not onl" *ith the intent of the framers of the Constitution
and the la*, but *ith the %er" essence of 7representation&7 Dnder a republican or representati%e
state, all #o%ernment authorit" emanates from the people, but is e+ercised b" representati%es chosen
b" them&=21> 5ut to ha%e meanin#ful representation, the elected persons must ha%e the mandate of a
sufficient number of people& Other*ise, in a le#islature that features the part":list s"stem, the result
mi#ht be the proliferation of small #roups *hich are incapable of contributin# si#nificant
le#islation, and *hich mi#ht e%en pose a threat to the stabilit" of Con#ress& 2hus, e%en le#islati%e
districts are apportioned accordin# to 7the number of their respecti%e inhabitants, and on the basis
of a uniform and pro#ressi%e ratio7=2 2> to ensure meanin#ful local representation&
9ll in all, *e hold that the statutor" pro%ision on this t*o percent re.uirement is precise and
cr"stalline& Ahen the la* is clear, the function of courts is simple application, not interpretation or
circum%ention&=2;>
,he ,hree/)eat/3er/3arty +imit
9n important consideration in adoptin# the part":list s"stem is to promote and encoura#e a
multipart" s"stem of representation& 9#ain, *e .uote Commissioner Monsod@
TM?& MO3SO)& Madam 'resident, / ,ust *ant to sa" that *e su##ested or proposed the part" list
s"stem because *e *anted to open up the political s"stem to a pluralistic societ" throu#h a
multipart" s"stem& 5ut *e also *anted to a%oid the problems of mechanics and operation in the
implementation of a concept that has %er" serious shortcomin#s of classification and of double or
triple %otes& Ae are for openin# up the s"stem, and *e *ould li-e %er" much for the sectors to be
there& 2hat is *h" one of the *a"s to do that is to put a ceilin# on the number of representati%es
from an" sin#le part" that can sit *ithin the 6< allocated under the part" list s"stem& 2his *a", *e
*ill open it up and enable sectoral #roups, or ma"be re#ional #roups, to earn their seats amon# the
fift"& + + +&U=28>
Consistent *ith the Constitutional Commission$s pronouncements, Con#ress set the seat:limit to
three (;) for each .ualified part", or#aniCation or coalition& 7Qualified7 means ha%in# hurdled the
t*o percent %ote threshold& Such three:seat limit ensures the entr" of %arious interest:
representations into the le#islatureB thus, no sin#le #roup, no matter ho* lar#e its membership,
*ould dominate the part":list seats, if not the entire 0ouse&
Ae shall not belabor this point, because the %alidit" of the three:seat limit is not seriousl"
challen#ed in these consolidated cases&
2hird /ssue@ *ethod of Allocating Additional )eats
0a%in# determined that the t*ent" percent seat allocation is merel" a ceilin#, and ha%in# upheld the
constitutionalit" of the t*o percent %ote threshold and the three:seat limit imposed under ?9 E981,
*e no* proceed to the method of determinin# ho* man" part":list seats the .ualified parties,
or#aniCations and coalitions are entitled to& 2he %er" first step : there is no dispute on this : is to
ran- all the participatin# parties, or#aniCations and coalitions (hereafter collecti%el" referred to as
7parties7) accordin# to the %otes the" each obtained& 2he percenta#e of their respecti%e %otes as
a#ainst the total number of %otes cast for the part":list s"stem is then determined& 9ll those that
#arnered at least t*o percent of the total %otes cast ha%e an assured or #uaranteed seat in the 0ouse
of ?epresentati%es& 2hereafter, 7those #arnerin# more than t*o percent of the %otes shall be entitled
to additional seats in proportion to their total number of %otes&7 2he problem is ho* to distribute
additional seats 7proportionall",7 bearin# in mind the three:seat limit further imposed b" the la*&
7ne Additional )eat 3er ,wo 3ercent (ncrement
One proposed formula is to allocate one additional seat for e%er" additional proportion of the %otes
obtained e.ui%alent to the t*o percent %ote re.uirement for the first seat&=26> 2ranslated in fi#ures, a
part" that *ins at least si+ percent of the total %otes cast *ill be entitled to three seatsB another part"
that #ets four percent *ill be entitled to t*o seatsB and one that #ets t*o percent *ill be entitled to
one seat onl"& 2his proposal has the ad%anta#e of simplicit" and ease of comprehension& 'roblems
arise, ho*e%er, *hen the parties #et %er" lop:sided %otes :: for e+ample, *hen 'art" 9 recei%es 2<
percent of the total %otes castB 'art" 5, 1< percentB and 'art" C, ! percent& Dnder the method ,ust
described, 'art" 9 *ould be entitled to 1< seatsB 'art" 5, to 6 seats and 'art" C, to ; seats&
Considerin# the three:seat limit imposed b" la*, all the parties *ill each uniforml" ha%e three seats
onl"& Ae *ould then ha%e the spectacle of a part" #arnerin# t*o or more times the number of %otes
obtained b" another, "et #ettin# the same number of seats as the other one *ith the much lesser
%otes& /n effect, proportional representation *ill be contra%ened and the la* rendered nu#ator" b"
this su##ested solution& 0ence, the Court discarded it&
,he .iemeyer ormula
9nother su##estion that the Court considered *as the 3ieme"er formula, *hich *as de%eloped b" a
1erman mathematician and adopted b" 1erman" as its method of distributin# part":list seats in the
5undesta#& Dnder this formula, the number of additional seats to *hich a .ualified part" *ould be
entitled is determined b" multipl"in# the remainin# number of seats to be allocated b" the total
number of %otes obtained b" that part" and di%idin# the product b" the total number of %otes
#arnered b" all the .ualified parties& 2he inte#er portion of the resultin# product *ill be the number
of additional seats that the part" concerned is entitled to& 2hus@
3o& of remainin# seats
to be allocated 3o& of additional
::::::::::::::::::::::::::: + 3o& of %otes of V seats of part"
2otal no& of %otes of part" concerned concerned
.ualified parties (/nte#er&decimal)
2he ne+t step is to distribute the e+tra seats left amon# the .ualified parties in the descendin# order
of the decimal portions of the resultin# products& 5ased on the 199 election results, the distribution
of part":list seats under the 3ieme"er method *ould be as follo*s@
'art" 3umber of 1uaranteed 9dditional E+tra 2otal
Kotes Seats Seats Seats
1& 9'EC 6<;,8E 1 6&E; 1 E
2& 959 ;21,!8! 1 ;&!! 1 6
;& 9L919) ;12,6<< 1 ;&66 8
8& KE2E?93S ;<8,<2 1 ;&8E 8
(E)E?92/O3
6& '?OM)/ 266,18 1 2&9< 1 8
!& 9IO 2;9,<82 1 2&E2 1 8
E& 3CSC(O 2;,;<; 1 2&E1 1 8
& 9593SER '/39N 2;6,68 1 2&! 1 8
9& 9I59N93 2;2,;E! 1 2&!8 1 8
1<& 5D2/L 216,!8; 1 2&86 ;
11& S93L9I9S 198,!1E 1 2&21 ;
12& COO':392CCO 19,<2 1 2&1! ;
1;& COCO(E) 1!,; 1 2&12 ;
2otal ;,829,;; 1; ;2 E 62
0o*e%er, since Section 11 of ?9 E981 sets a limit of three (;) seats for each part", those obtainin#
more than the limit *ill ha%e to #i%e up their e+cess seats& Dnder our present set of facts, the
thirteen .ualified parties *ill each be entitled to three seats, resultin# in an o%erall total of ;9& 3ote
that li-e the pre%ious proposal, the 3ieme"er formula *ould %iolate the principle of 7proportional
representation,7 a basic tenet of our part":list s"stem&
2he 3ieme"er formula, *hile no doubt suitable for 1erman", finds no application in the 'hilippine
settin#, because of our three:seat limit and the non:mandator" character of the t*ent" percent
allocation& 2rue, both our Con#ress and the 5undesta# ha%e threshold re.uirements :: t*o percent
for us and fi%e for them& 2here are mar-ed differences bet*een the t*o models, ho*e%er& 9s abl"
pointed out b" pri%ate respondents,=2!> one half of the 1erman 'arliament is filled up b" part":list
members& More important, there are no seat limitations, because 1erman la* discoura#es the
proliferation of small parties& /n contrast, ?9 E981, as alread" mentioned, imposes a three:seat limit
to encoura#e the promotion of the multipart" s"stem& 2his ma,or statutor" difference ma-es the
3ieme"er formula completel" inapplicable to the 'hilippines&
4ust as one cannot #ro* Aashin#ton apples in the 'hilippines or 1uimaras man#oes in the 9rctic
because of fundamental en%ironmental differences, neither can the 3ieme"er formula be
transplanted in toto here because of essential %ariances bet*een the t*o part":list models&
,he +egal and +ogical ormula for the 3hilippines
/t is no* ob%ious that the 'hilippine st"le part":list s"stem is a uni.ue paradi#m *hich demands an
e.uall" uni.ue formula& /n craftin# a le#all" defensible and lo#ical solution to determine the
number of additional seats that a qualified part" is entitled to, *e need to re%ie* the parameters of
the (ilipino part":list s"stem&
9s earlier mentioned in the 'rolo#ue, the" are as follo*s@
irst, 50e 59e+5y 2er6e+5 a**o6a53o+ : the combined number of all part":list con#ressmen shall not
e+ceed t*ent" percent of the total membership of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es, includin# those
elected under the part" list&
)econd# 50e 59o 2er6e+5 50re10o*, : onl" those parties #arnerin# a minimum of t*o percent of the
total %alid %otes cast for the part":list s"stem are T.ualifiedU to ha%e a seat in the 0ouse of
?epresentati%esB
,hird# 50e 50reeH1ea5 *3735 : each .ualified part", re#ardless of the number of %otes it actuall"
obtained, is entitled to a ma+imum of three seatsB that is, one T.ualif"in#U and t*o additional seats&
ourth# 2ro2or53o+a* re2re1e+5a53o+ : the additional seats *hich a .ualified part" is entitled to
shall be computed Tin proportion to their total number of %otes&U
2he problem, as alread" stated, is to find a *a" to translate Tproportional representationU into a
mathematical formula that *ill not contra%ene, circum%ent or amend the abo%e:mentioned
parameters&
9fter careful deliberation, *e no* e+plain such formula, step b" step&
)tep 7ne. 2here is no dispute amon# the petitioners, the public and the pri%ate respondents, as *ell
as the members of this Court, that the initial step is to ran- all the participatin# parties,
or#aniCations and coalitions from the hi#hest to the lo*est based on the number of %otes the" each
recei%ed& 2hen the ratio for each part" is computed b" di%idin# its %otes b" the total %otes cast for
all the parties participatin# in the s"stem& 9ll parties *ith at least t*o percent of the total %otes are
#uaranteed one seat each& Onl" these parties shall be considered in the computation of additional
seats& 2he part" recei%in# the hi#hest number of %otes shall thenceforth be referred to as the TfirstU
part"&
)tep ,wo. 2he ne+t step is to determine the number of seats the first part" is entitled to, in order to
be able to compute that for the other parties& Since the distribution is based on proportional
representation, the number of seats to be allotted to the other parties cannot possibl" e+ceed that to
*hich the first part" is entitled b" %irtue of its obtainin# the most number of %otes&
(or e+ample, the first part" recei%ed 1,<<<,<<< %otes and is determined to be entitled to t*o
additional seats& 9nother .ualified part" *hich recei%ed 6<<,<<< %otes cannot be entitled to the
same number of seats, since it #arnered onl" fift" percent of the %otes *on b" the first part"&
)ependin# on the proportion of its %otes relati%e to that of the first part" *hose number of seats has
alread" been predetermined, the second part" should be #i%en less than that to *hich the first one is
entitled&
2he other .ualified parties *ill al*a"s be allotted less additional seats than the first part" for t*o
reasons@ (1) the ratio bet*een said parties and the first part" *ill al*a"s be less than 1@1, and (2) the
formula does not admit of mathematical roundin# off, because there is no such thin# as a fraction of
a seat& Keril", an arbitrar" roundin# off could result in a %iolation of the t*ent" percent allocation&
9n academic mathematical demonstration of such incipient %iolation is not necessar" because the
present set of facts, #i%en the number of .ualified parties and the %otin# percenta#es obtained, *ill
definitel" not end up in such constitutional contra%ention&
2he Court has pre%iousl" ruled in 1uingona -r. v. 1on2ales=2E>

that a fractional membership cannot
be con%erted into a *hole membership of one *hen it *ould, in effect, depri%e another part"$s
fractional membership& /t *ould be a %iolation of the constitutional mandate of proportional
representation& Ae said further that 7no part" can claim more than *hat it is entitled to + + +&U
/n an" case, the decision on *hether to round off the fractions is better left to the le#islature& Since
Con#ress did not pro%ide for it in the present la*, neither *ill this Court& 2he Supreme Court does
not ma-e the la*B it merel" applies it to a #i%en set of facts&
ormula for 'etermining Additional )eats for the irst 3arty
3o*, ho* do *e determine the number of seats the first party is entitled toM 2he onl" basis #i%en
b" the la* is that a part" recei%in# at least t*o percent of the total %otes shall be entitled to one seat&
'roportionall", if the first part" *ere to recei%e t*ice the number of %otes of the second part", it
should be entitled to t*ice the latter$s number of seats and so on& 2he formula, therefore, for
computin# the number of seats to *hich the first party is entitled is as follo*s@
3umber of %otes
of first part" 'roportion of %otes of
:::::::::::::::::::: V first part" relati%e to
2otal %otes for total %otes for part":list s"stem
part":list s"stem
/f the proportion of %otes recei%ed b" the first part" *ithout roundin# it off is e.ual to at least si+
percent of the total %alid %otes cast for all the part" list #roups, then the first part" shall be entitled
to t*o additional seats or a total of three seats o%erall& /f the proportion of %otes *ithout a roundin#
off is e.ual to or #reater than four percent, but less than si+ percent, then the first part" shall ha%e
one additional or a total of t*o seats& 9nd if the proportion is less than four percent, then the first
part" shall not be entitled to an" additional seat&
Ae adopted this si+ percent bench mar-, because the first part" is not al*a"s entitled to the
ma+imum number of additional seats& Li-e*ise, it *ould pre%ent the allotment of more than the
total number of a%ailable seats, such as in an e+treme case *herein 1 or more parties tie for the
hi#hest ran- and are thus entitled to three seats each& /n such scenario, the number of seats to *hich
all the parties are entitled ma" e+ceed the ma+imum number of part":list seats reser%ed in the
0ouse of ?epresentati%es&
9ppl"in# the abo%e formula, 9'EC, *hich recei%ed 6&6O of the total %otes cast, is entitled to one
additional seat or a total of t*o seats&
3ote that the abo%e formula *ill be applicable onl" in determinin# the number of additional seats
the first party is entitled to& /t cannot be used to determine the number of additional seats of the
other .ualified parties& 9s e+plained earlier, the use of the same formula for all *ould contra%ene
the proportional representation parameter& (or e+ample, a second part" obtains si+ percent of the
total number of %otes cast& 9ccordin# to the abo%e formula, the said part" *ould be entitled to t*o
additional seats or a total of three seats o%erall& 0o*e%er, if the first part" recei%ed a si#nificantl"
hi#her amount of %otes :: sa", t*ent" percent :: to #rant it the same number of seats as the second
part" *ould %iolate the statutor" mandate of proportional representation, since a part" #ettin# onl"
si+ percent of the %otes *ill ha%e an e.ual number of representati%es as the one obtainin# t*ent"
percent& 2he proper solution, therefore, is to #rant the first part" a total of three seatsB and the part"
recei%in# si+ percent, additional seats in proportion to those of the first part"&
ormula for Additional )eats of 7ther 9ualified 3arties
)tep ,hree 2he ne+t step is to sol%e for the number of additional seats that the other qualified
parties are entitled to, based on proportional representation& 2he formula is encompassed b" the
follo*in# comple+ fraction@
3o& of %otes of
concerned part"
::::::::::::::::::
2otal no& of %otes
9dditional seats for part":list s"stem 3o& of additional
for concerned V ::::::::::::::::::::::: + seats allocated to
part" 3o& of %otes of the first part"
first part"
::::::::::::::::::
2otal no& of %otes
for part" list s"stem
/n simplified form, it is *ritten as follo*s@
3o& of %otes of
9dditional seats concerned part" 3o& of additional
for concerned V :::::::::::::::::: + seats allocated to
part" 3o& of %otes of the first part"
first part"
2hus, in the case of 959, the additional number of seats it *ould be entitled to is computed as
follo*s@
3o& of %otes of
9dditional seats 959 3o& of additional
for concerned V :::::::::::::::::::: + seats allocated to
part" (959) 3o& of %otes of the first part"
first part" (9'EC)
Substitutin# actual %alues *ould result in the follo*in# e.uation@
9dditional seats ;21,!8!
for concerned V ::::::::::: + 1 V &!8 or < additional seat, since
part" (959) 6<;,8E roundin# off is not to be applied
9ppl"in# the abo%e formula, *e find the outcome of the 199 part":list election to be as follo*s@
Or#aniCation Kotes Oa#e of /nitial 3o& 9dditional 2otal
1arnered 2otal Kotes of Seats Seats
1& 9'EC 6<;,8E 6&6<O 1 1 2
2& 959 ;21,!8! ;&61O 1 ;21,!8! H 6<;,8E S 1 V <&!8 1
;& 9L919) ;12,6<< ;&81O 1 ;12,6<< H 6<;,8E S 1 V <&!2 1
8& KE2E?93S ;<8,<2 ;&;;O 1 ;<8,<2 H 6<;,8E S 1 V <&!1 1
(E)E?92/O3
6& '?OM)/ 266,18 2&E9O 1 266,18 H 6<;,8E S 1 V <&61 1
!& 9IO 2;9,<82 2&!1O 1 2;9,<82 H 6<;,8E S 1 V <&8E 1
E& 3CS(O 2;,;<; 2&!<O 1 2;,;<; H 6<;,8E S 1 V <&8E 1
& 9593SER 2;6,68 2&6EO 1 ;21,!8! H 6<;,8E S 1 V <&8E 1
'/39N
9& 9I59N93R 2;2,;E! 2&68O 1 2;2,;E! H 6<;,8E S 1 V <&8! 1
1<& 5D2/L 216,!8; 2&;!O 1 216,!8; H 6<;,8E S 1 V <&8; 1
11& S93L9I9S 198,!1E 2&1;O 1 198,!1E H 6<;,8E S 1 V <&;9 1
12& COO': 19,<2 2&<EO 1 19,<2 H 6<;,8E S 1 V <&; 1
392CCO
1;& COCO(E) 1!,; 2&<8O 1 1!,; H 6<;,8E S 1 V <&;E 1
/ncidentall", if the first part" is not entitled to an" additional seat, then the ratio of the number of
%otes for the other part" to that for the first one is multiplied b" Cero& 2he end result *ould be Cero
additional seat for each of the other .ualified parties as *ell&
2he abo%e formula does not #i%e an e+act mathematical representation of the number of additional
seats to be a*arded since, in order to be entitled to one additional seat, an e+act *hole number is
necessar"& /n fact, most of the actual mathematical proportions are not *hole numbers and are not
rounded off for the reasons e+plained earlier& 2o repeat, roundin# off ma" result in the a*ardin# of a
number of seats in e+cess of that pro%ided b" the la*& (urthermore, obtainin# absolute proportional
representation is restricted b" the three:seat:per:part" limit to a ma+imum of t*o additional slots&
9n increase in the ma+imum number of additional representati%es a part" ma" be entitled to *ould
result in a more accurate proportional representation& 5ut the la* itself has set the limit@ onl" t*o
additional seats& 0ence, *e need to *or- *ithin such e+tant parameter&
2he net result of the fore#oin# formula for determinin# additional seats happil" coincides *ith the
present number of incumbentsB namel", t*o for the first part" (9'EC) and one each for the t*el%e
other .ualified parties& 0ence, *e affirm the le#alit" of the incumbencies of their nominees, albeit
throu#h the use of a different formula and methodolo#"&
/n his )issent, 4ustice MendoCa criticiCes our methodolo#" for bein# too strict& Ae sa", ho*e%er,
that our formula merel" translated the 'hilippine le#al parameters into a mathematical e.uation, no
more no less& /f Con#ress in its *isdom decides to modif" ?9 E981 to ma-e it Tless strict,U then the
formula *ill also be modified to reflect the chan#es *illed b" the la*ma-ers&
Epilogue
/n sum, *e hold that the Comelec #ra%el" abused its discretion in rulin# that the thirt":ei#ht (;)
herein respondent parties, or#aniCations and coalitions are each entitled to a part":list seat, because
it #larin#l" %iolated t*o re.uirements of ?9 E981@ the t*o percent threshold and proportional
representation&
/n disre#ardin#, re,ectin# and circum%entin# these statutor" pro%isions, the Comelec effecti%el"
arro#ated unto itself *hat the Constitution e+pressl" and *holl" %ested in the le#islature@ the po*er
and the discretion to define the mechanics for the enforcement of the s"stem& 2he *isdom and the
propriet" of these impositions, absent an" clear trans#ression of the Constitution or #ra%e abuse of
discretion amountin# to lac- or e+cess of ,urisdiction, are be"ond ,udicial re%ie*&=2>
/ndeed, the Comelec and the other parties in these cases : both petitioners and respondents : ha%e
failed to demonstrate that our la*ma-ers gravely abused their discretion in prescribin# such
re.uirements& 5" grave a!use of discretion is meant such capricious or *himsical e+ercise of
,ud#ment e.ui%alent to lac- or e+cess of ,urisdiction&=29>
2he Comelec, *hich is tas-ed merel" to enforce and administer election:related la*s,=;<> cannot
simpl" disre#ard an act of Con#ress e+ercised *ithin the bounds of its authorit"& 9s a mere
implementin# bod", it cannot ,ud#e the *isdom, propriet" or rationalit" of such act& /ts recourse is
to draft an amendment to the la* and lobb" for its appro%al and enactment b" the le#islature&
(urthermore, a readin# of the entire Constitution re%eals no %iolation of an" of its pro%isions b" the
strict enforcement of ?9 E981& /t is basic that to stri-e do*n a la* or an" of its pro%isions as
unconstitutional, there must be a clear and une.ui%ocal sho*in# that *hat the Constitution
prohibits, the statute permits&=;1>
3either can *e #rant petitionersJ pra"er that the" each be #i%en additional seats (for a total of three
each), because #rantin# such plea *ould plainl" and simpl" %iolate the Tproportional
representationU mandated b" Section 11 (b) of ?9 E981&
2he lo* turnout of the part":list %otes durin# the 199 elections should not be interpreted as a total
failure of the la* in fulfillin# the ob,ect of this ne* s"stem of representation& /t should not be
deemed a conclusi%e indication that the re.uirements imposed b" ?9 E981 *holl" defeated the
implementation of the s"stem& 5e it remembered that the part":list s"stem, thou#h alread" popular
in parliamentar" democracies, is still .uite ne* in our presidential s"stem& Ae should allo* it some
time to ta-e root in the consciousness of our people and in the heart of our tripartite form of
republicanism& /ndeed, the Comelec and the defeated liti#ants should not despair&
Quite the contrar", the dismal result of the first election for part":list representati%es should ser%e as
a challen#e to our sectoral parties and or#aniCations& /t should stir them to be more acti%e and
%i#ilant in their campai#n for representation in the State$s la*ma-in# bod"& /t should also ser%e as a
clarion call for inno%ation and creati%it" in adoptin# this no%el s"stem of popular democrac"&
Aith ade.uate information dissemination to the public and more acti%e sectoral parties, *e are
confident our people *ill be more responsi%e to future part":list elections& 9rmed *ith patience,
perse%erance and perspicacit", our mar#inaliCed sectors, in time, *ill fulfill the (ilipino dream of
full representation in Con#ress under the ae#is of the part":list s"stem, 'hilippine st"le&
F%EREFRE, the 'etitions are hereb" partiall" 1RA.,E'. 2he assailed ?esolutions of the
Comelec are )E, A)('E and .C++((E'& 2he proclamations of the fourteen (18) sittin# part":list
representati%es : t*o for 9'EC and one each for the remainin# t*el%e (12) .ualified parties : are
A(R*E'& 3o pronouncement as to costs&
SO O?)E?E)&
)a%ide, 4r&, C&4&, 'urisima, 'ardo, 5uena, 1onCa#a:?e"es, Nnares:Santia#o, and )e Leon 4r&, 44&,
concur&
5ellosillo, Melo, and Kitu#, 44&, in the result&
'uno, 4&, see separate concurrin# opinion&
MendoCa, 4&, dissents&
Iapunan, and Quisumbin#, 44&, ,oin the opinion of 4& MendoCa&

Consolidated 2able
EN BANC


BARANGAG A!!CIA#IN FR G.R. No. 1)92)1
NA#INAL A&$ANCEMEN#
AN& #RAN!"ARENCG >BANA#@,
'etitioner,

: %ersus :

CMMI!!IN N ELEC#IN!
>13553+4 a1 50e Na53o+a* Boar, o8
Ca+=a11er1@,
?espondent&

AR#! B.!INE!! AN& !CIENCE
"RFE!!INAL!,
/nter%enor&

AANGA# #AG,
/nter%enor&

CALI#IN F A!!CIA#IN!
F !ENIR CI#I/EN! IN #%E
"%ILI""INE!, INC. >!ENIR
CI#I/EN!@,
/nter%enor&
+: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : +
BAGAN M.NA, A&$CACG FR G.R. No. 1)9295
#EAC%ER EM"FERMEN#
#%R.G% AC#IN, C"ERA#IN 'resent@
AN& %ARMNG #FAR&!
E&.CA#INAL REFRM!, INC., 'D3O, C.-.,
a+, ABN, QD/SDM5/31,
'etitioners, N39?ES:S932/91O,
C9?'/O,
9DS2?/9:M9?2/3EQ,
CO?O39,
: %ersus : C9?'/O MO?9LES,
2/319,
C0/CO:39Q9?/O,
KEL9SCO, 4?&,

39C0D?9,
LEO39?)O:)E C9S2?O,
5?/O3,
'E?9L29, and
5E?S9M/3, --.


CMMI!!IN N ELEC#IN!, 'romul#ated@
?espondent&
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

+ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : +


& E C I ! I N

CAR"I, J.(

#0e Ca1e

'etitioner in 1&?& 3o& 1E92E1 F 5aran#a" 9ssociation for 3ational
9d%ancement and 2ransparenc" (59392) F in a petition for certiorari and
mandamus,[1] assails the ?esolution[2] promul#ated on ; 9u#ust 2<<E b" the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in 35C 3o& <E:<81 ('L)& 2he COMELECJs
resolution in 35C 3o& <E:<81 ('L) appro%ed the recommendation of 9tt"& 9lioden
)& )alai#, 0ead of the 3ational 5oard of Can%assers (35C) Le#al 1roup, to den"
the petition of 59392 for bein# moot& 59392 filed before the COMELEC En
5anc, actin# as 35C, a 3etition to 3roclaim the ull .um!er of 3arty/+ist
Representatives 3rovided !y the Constitution&

2he follo*in# are inter%enors in 1&?& 3o& 1E92E1@ 9rts 5usiness and Science
'rofessionals (95S), 9an#at 2a"o (92), and Coalition of 9ssociations of Senior
CitiCens in the 'hilippines, /nc& (Senior CitiCens)&

'etitioners in 1&?& 3o& 1E9296 F 5a"an Muna, 9bono, and 9d%ocac" for
2eacher Empo*erment 2hrou#h 9ction, Cooperation and 0armon" 2o*ards
Educational ?eforms (9 2eacher) F in a petition for certiorari *ith mandamus and
prohibition,[3] assails 35C ?esolution 3o& <E:!<[4] promul#ated on 9 4ul" 2<<E&
35C 3o& <E:!< made a partial proclamation of parties, or#aniCations and coalitions
that obtained at least t*o percent of the total %otes cast under the 'art":List S"stem&
2he COMELEC announced that, upon completion of the can%ass of the part":list
results, it *ould determine the total number of seats of each *innin# part",
or#aniCation, or coalition in accordance *ith :eterans ederation 3arty v.
C7*E+EC[5] (:eterans).

Estrella )L Santos, in her capacit" as 'resident and (irst 3ominee of the
Keterans (reedom 'art", filed a motion to inter%ene in both 1&?& 3os& 1E92E1 and
1E9296&

#0e Fa651

2he 18 Ma" 2<<E elections included the elections for the part":list
representati%es& 2he COMELEC counted 16,96<,9<< %otes cast for 9; parties under
the 'art":List S"stem&[6]
On 2E 4une 2<<2, 59392 filed a 3etition to 3roclaim the ull .um!er of
3arty/+ist Representatives 3rovided !y the Constitution, doc-eted as 35C 3o& <E:
<81 ('L) before the 35C& 59392 filed its petition because T=t>he Chairman and
the Members of the =COMELEC> ha%e recentl" been .uoted in the national papers
that the =COMELEC> is dut" bound to and shall implement the :eterans rulin#, that
is, *ould appl" the 'an#aniban formula in allocatin# part":list seats&U[7] 2here *ere
no inter%enors in 59392Js petition before the 35C& 59392 filed a memorandum
on 19 4ul" 2<<E&

On 9 4ul" 2<<E, the COMELEC, sittin# as the 35C, promul#ated 35C
?esolution 3o& <E:!<& 35C ?esolution 3o& <E:!< proclaimed thirteen (1;) parties as
*inners in the part":list elections, namel"@ 5uha" 0a"aan Numabon# (5D09N),
5a"an Muna, CitiCensJ 5attle 9#ainst Corruption (C/59C), 1abrielaJs Aomen 'art"
(1abriela), 9ssociation of 'hilippine Electric Cooperati%es (9'EC), 9 2eacher,
9-ba"anR CitiCenJs 9ction 'art" (9I59N93), 9la#ad, LuCon (armers 'art"
(5D2/L), Cooperati%e:3atco 3et*or- 'art" (COO':392CCO), 9na- 'a*is,
9lliance of ?ural Concerns (9?C), and 9bono& Ae .uote 35C ?esolution 3o& <E:
!< in its entiret" belo*@

A0E?E9S, the Commission on Elections sittin# en !anc as 3ational 5oard of Can%assers,
thru its Sub:Committee for 'art":List, as of <; 4ul" 2<<E, had officiall" can%assed, in open and
public proceedin#s, a total of 8385ee+ 73**3o+ 59o 0u+,re, e3405y 50ree 50ou1a+, 13: 0u+,re,
8385yH+3+e >15,28A,659@ %otes under the 'art":List S"stem of ?epresentation, in connection *ith the
3ational and Local Elections conducted last 18 Ma" 2<<EB

A0E?E9S, the stud" conducted b" the Le#al and 2abulation 1roups of the 3ational 5oard
of Can%assers re%eals that the pro,ectedHma+imum total part":list %otes cannot #o an" hi#her than
13:5ee+ 73**3o+ 1e=e+ 0u+,re, 59e+5y 50ree 50ou1a+, o+e 0u+,re, 59e+5yHo+e >16,)2A,121@
%otes #i%en the follo*in# statistical data@

"roEe65e,LMa:37u7 "ar5yHL315 $o5e1 8or May 200) E*e653o+1

i& 2otal part":list %otes alread" can%assedHtabulated 16,2;,!69
ii& 2otal part":list %otes remainin# uncan%assedH
untabulated (i&e& can%ass deferred)

1,;;E,<;2
iii& Ma+imum part":list %otes (based on 1<<O
outcome) from areas not "et submitted for can%ass
(5o#o, CebuB 5ais Cit"B 'antar, Lanao del 3orteB and
'a#alun#an, Ma#uindanao)



1<2,8;<
Ma:37u7 #o5a* "ar5yHL315 $o5e1 16,)2A,121

A0E?E9S, Section 11 of ?epublic 9ct 3o& E981 ('art":List S"stem 9ct) pro%ides in part@

2he parties, or#aniCations, and coalitions recei%in# at least t*o
percent (2O) of the total %otes cast for the part":list s"stem shall be
entitled to one seat each@ pro%ided, that those #arnerin# more than t*o
percent (2O) of the %otes shall be entitled to additional seats in
proportion to their total number of %otes@ pro%ided, finall", that each
part", or#aniCation, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three
(;) seats&

A0E?E9S, for the 2<<E Elections, based on the abo%e pro,ected total of part":list %otes,
the presumpti%e t*o percent (2O) threshold can be pe##ed at 50ree 0u+,re, 503r5y 8our 50ou1a+,
8our 0u+,re, 13:5yH59o >AA4,462@ %otesB

A0E?E9S, the Supreme Court, in Citi2enDs 4attle Against Corruption (C(4AC) versus
C7*E+EC, reiterated its rulin# in :eterans ederation 3arty versus C7*E+EC adoptin# a
formula for the additional seats of each part", or#aniCation or coalition rece%in# more than the
re.uired t*o percent (2O) %otes, statin# that the same shall be determined onl" after all part":list
ballots ha%e been completel" can%assedB

A0E?E9S, the parties, or#aniCations, and coalitions that ha%e thus far #arnered at least
50ree 0u+,re, 503r5y 8our 50ou1a+, 8our 0u+,re, 13:5yH59o >AA4,462@ %otes are as follo*s@

RANK "AR#GLRGANI/A#INL
CALI#IN
$#E!
RECEI$E&
1 5D09N
1,1!;,21
2 59N93 MD39
9E2,E;<
; C/59C
E!<,2!<
8 195?/EL9
!1<,861
6 9'EC
6;,9E1
! 9 2E9C0E?
8E!,<;!
E 9I59N93
8E<,E2
9L919)
82;,<E!
9 5D2/L
8<6,<62
1< COO':392CO
;9<,<29
11 5929S
;!,;!1
12 939I '9A/S
;E!,<;!
1; 9?C
;;,198
18 95O3O
;;E,<8!

A0E?E9S, e+cept for 5a#on# 9l"ansan# 2a#apa#ta#u"od n# 9dhi-ain# Samba"anan
(5929S), a#ainst *hich an CR1E., 3E,(,(7. 7R CA.CE++A,(7.8RE*7:A+ 7
RE1(),RA,(7. A.' '()9CA+((CA,(7. 7 3AR,@/+(), .7*(.EE (Aith 3rayer for the
(ssuance of Restraining 7rder) has been filed before the Commission, doc-eted as S'C 3o& <E:26<,
all the parties, or#aniCations and coalitions included in the aforementioned list are therefore entitled
to at least one seat under the part":list s"stem of representation in the meantime&

3OA, 20E?E(O?E, b" %irtue of the po*ers %ested in it b" the Constitution, the Omnibus
Election Code, E+ecuti%e Order 3o& 188, ?epublic 9ct 3os& !!8!, E1!!, E981, and other election
la*s, the Commission on Elections, sittin# en !anc as the 3ational 5oard of Can%assers, hereb"
?ESOLKES to '9?2/9LLN '?OCL9/M, sub,ect to certain conditions set forth belo*, the
follo*in# parties, or#aniCations and coalitions participatin# under the 'art":List S"stem@

1 5uha" 0a"aan Numabon# 5D09N
2 5a"an Muna 59N93 MD39
; CitiCens 5attle 9#ainst Corruption C/59C
8 1abriela AomenJs 'art" 195?/EL9
6 9ssociation of 'hilippine Electric
Cooperati%es
9'EC
! 9d%ocac" for 2eacher Empo*erment
2hrou#h 9ction, Cooperation and 0armon"
2o*ards Educational ?eforms, /nc&
9 2E9C0E?
E 9-ba"anR CitiCenJs 9ction 'art" 9I59N93
9la#ad 9L919)
9 LuCon (armers 'art" 5D2/L
1< Cooperati%e:3atco 3et*or- 'art" COO':392CCO
11 9na- 'a*is 939I'9A/S
12 9lliance of ?ural Concerns 9?C
1; 9bono 95O3O

2his is *ithout pre,udice to the proclamation of other parties, or#aniCations, or coalitions
*hich ma" later on be established to ha%e obtained at least t*o percent (2O) of the total actual
%otes cast under the 'art":List S"stem&

2he total number of seats of each *innin# part", or#aniCation or coalition shall be
determined pursuant to :eterans ederation 3arty versus C7*E+EC formula upon completion of
the can%ass of the part":list results&

2he proclamation of 5a#on# 9l"ansan# 2a#apa#ta#u"od n# 9dhi-ain# Samba"anan
(5929S) is hereb" deferred until final resolution of S'C 3o& <E:26<, in order not to render the
proceedin#s therein moot and academic&

(inall", all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties, or#aniCations and coalitions
*ith pendin# disputes shall li-e*ise be held in abe"ance until final resolution of their respecti%e
cases&

Let the Cler- of the Commission implement this ?esolution, furnishin# a cop" thereof to the
Spea-er of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es of the 'hilippines&

SO O?)E?E)&[8] (Emphasis in the ori#inal)

15y*eNC5e:5H,e6ora53o+( +o+eDC
'ursuant to 35C ?esolution 3o& <E:!<, the COMELEC, actin# as 35C,
promul#ated 35C ?esolution 3o& <E:E2, *hich declared the additional seats
allocated to the appropriate parties& Ae .uote from the COMELECJs interpretation
of the :eterans formula as found in 35C ?esolution 3o& <E:E2@


A0E?E9S, on 4ul" 9, 2<<E, the Commission on Elections sittin# en !anc as the 3ational
5oard of Can%assers proclaimed thirteen (1;) .ualified parties, or#aniCation=s> and coalitions based
on the presumpti%e t*o percent (2O) threshold of ;;8,8!2 %otes from the pro,ected ma+imum total
number of part":list %otes of 1!,E2;,121, and *ere thus #i%en one (1) #uaranteed part":list seat
eachB

A0E?E9S, per ?eport of the 2abulation 1roup and Super%isor" Committee of the 3ational
5oard of Can%assers, the pro,ected ma+imum total part":list %otes, as of 4ul" 11, 2<<E, based on the
%otes actuall" can%assed, %otes can%assed but not included in ?eport 3o& 29, %otes recei%ed but
uncan%assed, and ma+imum %otes e+pected for 'antar, Lanao del 3orte, is 1!,2!1,;!9B and that the
pro,ected ma+imum total %otes for the thirteen (1;) .ualified parties, or#aniCations and coalition=s>
are as follo*s@

"ar5yHL315 "roEe65e, 5o5a* +u7ber o8 =o5e1
1 5D09N 1,1E,E8E
2 59N93 MD39 9EE,8E!
; C/59C E66,9!8
8 195?/EL9 !21,E1
6 9'EC !22,89
! 9 2E9C0E? 892,;!9
E 9I59N93 8!2,!E8
9L919) 82;,19<
9 5D2/L 8<9,29
1< COO':392CO 812,92<
11 939I'9A/S ;E<,1!6
12 9?C ;E6,8!
1; 95O3O ;8<,161

A0E?E9S, based on the abo%e ?eport, 4uhay 0ayaan @uma!ong (5uha") obtained the
hi#hest number of %otes amon# the thirteen (1;) .ualified parties, or#aniCations and coalitions,
ma-in# it the Tfirst part"U in accordance *ith :eterans ederation 3arty versus C7*E+EC,
reiterated in Citi2enDs 4attle Against Corruption (C(4AC) versus C7*E+ECB

A0E?E9S, .ualified parties, or#aniCations and coalitions participatin# under the part":list
s"stem of representation that ha%e obtained one #uaranteed (1) seat ma" be entitled to an additional
seat or seats based on the formula prescribed b" the Supreme Court in :eteransB

A0E?E9S, in determinin# the additional seats for the Tfirst part"U, the correct formula as
e+pressed in :eterans, is@

3umber of %otes of first part" 'roportion of %otes of first
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : V part" relati%e to total %otes for
2otal %otes for part":list s"stem part":list s"stem

*herein the proportion of %otes recei%ed b" the first part" (*ithout roundin# off) shall entitle it to
additional seats@

"ro2or53o+ o8 =o5e1 re6e3=e,
by 50e 83r15 2ar5y
A,,353o+a* 1ea51
E.ual to or at least !O 2*o (2) additional seats
E.ual to or #reater than 8O but less than !O One (1) additional seat
Less than 8O 3o additional seat

A0E?E9S, appl"in# the abo%e formula, 5uha" obtained the follo*in# percenta#e@

1,1E,E8E
: : : : : : : : V <&<E28 or E&2O
1!,2!1,;!9

*hich entitles it to t*o (2) additional seats&

A0E?E9S, in determinin# the additional seats for the other .ualified parties, or#aniCations
and coalitions, the correct formula as e+pressed in :eterans and reiterated in C(4AC is, as follo*s@

3o& of %otes of
concerned part" 3o& of additional
9dditional seats for V ::::::::::::::::::: + seats allocated to
a concerned part" 3o& of %otes of first part"
first part"

A0E?E9S, appl"in# the abo%e formula, the results are as follo*s@

"ar5y L315 "er6e+5a4e A,,353o+a* !ea5
59N93 MD39 1&!6 1
C/59C 1&2 1
195?/EL9 1&<6 1
9'EC 1&<6 1
9 2E9C0E? <&; <
9I59N93 <&E <
9L919) <&E1 <
5D2/L <&!9 <
COO':392CO <&!9 <
939I'9A/S <&!2 <
9?C <&!; <
95O3O <&6E <


3OA 20E?E(O?E, b" %irtue of the po*ers %ested in it b" the Constitution, Omnibus
Election Code, E+ecuti%e Order 3o& 188, ?epublic 9ct 3os& !!8!, E1!!, E981 and other elections
la*s, the Commission on Elections en !anc sittin# as the 3ational 5oard of Can%assers, hereb"
?ESOLKE), as it hereb" ?ESOLKES, to proclaim the follo*in# parties, or#aniCations or coalitions
as entitled to additional seats, to *it@


"ar5y L315 A,,353o+a* !ea51
5D09N 2
59N93 MD39 1
C/59C 1
195?/EL9 1
9'EC 1

2his is *ithout pre,udice to the proclamation of other parties, or#aniCations or coalitions
*hich ma" later on be established to ha%e obtained at least t*o per cent (2O) of the total %otes cast
under the part":list s"stem to entitle them to one (1) #uaranteed seat, or to the appropriate
percenta#e of %otes to entitle them to one (1) additional seat&

(inall", all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties, or#aniCations and coalitions
*ith pendin# disputes shall li-e*ise be held in abe"ance until final resolution of their respecti%e
cases&

Let the 3ational 5oard of Can%assers Secretariat implement this ?esolution, furnishin# a
cop" hereof to the Spea-er of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es of the 'hilippines&

SO O?)E?E)&[9]


9ctin# on 59392Js petition, the 35C promul#ated 35C ?esolution 3o& <E:
on ; 9u#ust 2<<E, *hich reads as follo*s@


2his pertains to the 'etition to 'roclaim the (ull 3umber of 'art":List ?epresentati%es
'ro%ided b" the Constitution filed b" the 5aran#a" 9ssociation for 3ational 9d%ancement and
2ransparenc" (59392)&

9ctin# on the fore#oin# 'etition of the 5aran#a" 9ssociation for 3ational 9d%ancement and
2ransparenc" (59392) part":list, 9tt"& 9lioden )& )alai#, 0ead, 3ational 5oard of Can%assers
Le#al 1roup submitted his commentsHobser%ations and recommendation thereon =35C <E:<81
('L)>, *hich reads@

CMMEN#! L B!ER$A#IN!(

'etitioner 5aran#a" 9ssociation for 3ational 9d%ancement and
2ransparenc" (59392), in its 'etition to 'roclaim the (ull 3umber
of 'art":List ?epresentati%es 'ro%ided b" the Constitution pra"ed for
the follo*in# reliefs, to *it@

1& 2hat the full number :: t*ent" percent (2<O) :: of 'art":List
representati%es as mandated b" Section 6, 9rticle K/ of the
Constitution shall be proclaimed&

2& 'ara#raph (b), Section 11 of ?9 E981 *hich prescribes the
2O threshold %otes, should be harmoniCed *ith Section 6, 9rticle K/
of the Constitution and *ith Section 12 of the same ?9 E981 in that it
should be applicable onl" to the first part":list representati%e seats to
be allotted on the basis of their initialHfirst ran-in#&

;& 2he ;:seat limit prescribed b" ?9 E981 shall be appliedB and

8& /nitiall", all part":list #roups shall be #i%en the number of
seats correspondin# to e%er" 2O of the %otes the" recei%ed and the
additional seats shall be allocated in accordance *ith Section 12 of
?9 E981, that is, in proportion to the percenta#e of %otes obtained b"
each part":list #roup in relation to the total nation*ide %otes cast in
the part":list election, after deductin# the correspondin# %otes of those
*hich *ere allotted seats under the 2O threshold rule& /n fine, the
formulaHprocedure prescribed in the T9LLOC92/O3 O( '9?2N:
L/S2 SE92S, 933EG T9U of COMELEC ?ESOLD2/O3 28E
dated 26 4une 199!, shall be used for =the> purpose of determinin#
ho* man" seats shall be proclaimed, *hich part":list #roups are
entitled to representati%e seats and ho* man" of their nominees shall
seat =sic>&

6& /n the alternati%e, to declare as unconstitutional Section 11 of
?epublic 9ct 3o& E981 and that the procedure in allocatin# seats for
part":list representati%e prescribed b" Section 12 of ?9 E981 shall be
follo*ed&

RECMMEN&A#IN@

,he petition of 4A.A, is now moot and academic&

,he Commission En 4anc in .4C Resolution .o. 0E/F0
promulgated -uly $# "00E re T/n the Matter of the Can%ass of Kotes
and 'artial 'roclamation of the 'arties, Or#aniCations and Coalitions
'articipatin# Dnder the 'art":List S"stem )urin# the Ma" 18, 2<<E
3ational and Local ElectionsU resolved among others that the total
num!er of seats of each winning party# organi2ation or coalition shall
!e determined pursuant to the Keterans (ederation 'art" versus
COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass of the party/list
results.G

A0E?E(O?E, premises considered, the 3ational 5oard of Can%assers ?ESOLKE), as it
hereb" ?ESOLKES, to appro%e and adopt the recommendation of 9tt"& 9lioden )& )alai#, 0ead,
35C Le#al 1roup, to )E3N the herein petition of 59392 for bein# moot and academic&

Let the Super%isor" Committee implement this resolution&

SO O?)E?E)&[10]


59392 filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailin# the rulin# in 35C
?esolution 3o& <E:& 59392 did not file a motion for reconsideration of 35C
?esolution 3o& <E:&

On 9 4ul" 2<<E, 5a"an Muna, 9bono, and 9 2eacher as-ed the COMELEC,
actin# as 35C, to reconsider its decision to use the :eterans formula as stated in its
35C ?esolution 3o& <E:!< because the :eterans formula is %iolati%e of the
Constitution and of ?epublic 9ct 3o& E981 (?&9& 3o& E981)& On the same da", the
COMELEC denied reconsideration durin# the proceedin#s of the 35C&[11]

9side from the thirteen part":list or#aniCations proclaimed on 9 4ul" 2<<E, the
COMELEC proclaimed three other part":list or#aniCations as .ualified parties
entitled to one #uaranteed seat under the 'art":List S"stem@ 9#ricultural Sector
9lliance of the 'hilippines, /nc& (919'),[12] 9na- Mindanao (9M/3),[13] and 9n
Aara"&[14] 'er the certification[15] b" COMELEC, the follo*in# part":list
or#aniCations ha%e been proclaimed as of 19 Ma" 2<<@

"ar5yHL315 No. o8 !ea5>1@
1&1 5uha" ;
1&2 5a"an Muna 2
1&; C/59C 2
1&8 1abriela 2
1&6 9'EC 2
1&! 9 2eacher 1
1&E 9-ba"an 1
1& 9la#ad 1
1&9 5util 1
1&1< Coop:3atco =sic> 1
1&11 9na- 'a*is 1
1&12 9?C 1
1&1; 9bono 1
1&18 919' 1
1&16 9M/3 1

2he proclamation of 5a#on# 9l"ansan# 2a#apa#ta#u"od n# 9dhi-ain# Samba"anan
(5929S), a#ainst *hich an Dr#ent 'etition for CancellationH?emo%al of ?e#istration
and )is.ualification of 'art":list 3ominee (*ith 'ra"er for the /ssuance of
?estrainin# Order) has been filed before the COMELEC, *as deferred pendin# final
resolution of S'C 3o& <E:26<&

I11ue1

59392 brou#ht the follo*in# issues before this Court@

1& /s the t*ent" percent allocation for part":list representati%es pro%ided in Section 6(2),
9rticle K/ of the Constitution mandator" or is it merel" a ceilin#M

2& /s the three:seat limit pro%ided in Section 11(b) of ?9 E981 constitutionalM

;& /s the t*o percent threshold and T.ualifierU %otes prescribed b" the same Section
11(b) of ?9 E981 constitutionalM

8& 0o* shall the part":list representati%es be allocatedM[16]


5a"an Muna, 9 2eacher, and 9bono, on the other hand, raised the follo*in#
issues in their petition@

/& ?espondent Commission on Elections, actin# as 3ational 5oard of Can%assers, committed
#ra%e abuse of discretion amountin# to lac- or e+cess of ,urisdiction *hen it promul#ated
35C ?esolution 3o& <E:!< to implement the (irst:'art" ?ule in the allocation of seats to
.ualified part":list or#aniCations as said rule@

9& Kiolates the constitutional principle of proportional representation&

5& Kiolates the pro%isions of ?9 E981 particularl"@

1& 2he 2:8:! (ormula used b" the (irst 'art" ?ule in
allocatin# additional seats for the T(irst 'art"U %iolates the principle of proportional
representation under ?9 E981&

2& 2he use of t*o formulas in the allocation of additional
seats, one for the T(irst 'art"U and another for the .ualif"in# parties, %iolates
Section 11(b) of ?9 E981&

;& 2he proportional relationships under the (irst 'art" ?ule are
different from those re.uired under ?9 E981B

C& Kiolates the T(our /n%iolable 'arametersU of the 'hilippine part":list s"stem
as pro%ided for under the same case of :eterans ederation 3arty# et al. v. C7*E+EC&

//& 'resumin# that the Commission on Elections did not commit #ra%e abuse of
discretion amountin# to lac- or e+cess of ,urisdiction *hen it implemented the (irst:'art" ?ule in
the allocation of seats to .ualified part":list or#aniCations, the same bein# merel" in
consonance *ith the rulin# in :eterans ederations 3arty# et al. v. C7*E+EC# the instant
'etition is a ,usticiable case as the issues in%ol%ed herein are constitutional in nature, in%ol%in#
the correct interpretation and implementation of ?9 E981, and are of transcendental
importance to our nation&[17]
15y*eNC5e:5H,e6ora53o+( +o+eDC
Considerin# the alle#ations in the petitions and the comments of the parties in
these cases, *e defined the follo*in# issues in our ad%isor" for the oral ar#uments set
on 22 9pril 2<<@

1& /s the t*ent" percent allocation for part":list representati%es in Section 6(2), 9rticle K/
of the Constitution mandator" or merel" a ceilin#M

2& /s the three:seat limit in Section 11(b) of ?9 E981 constitutionalM

;& /s the t*o percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of ?9 E981 to .ualif" for one
seat constitutionalM

8& 0o* shall the part":list representati%e seats be allocatedM

6& )oes the Constitution prohibit the ma,or political parties from participatin# in the
part":list electionsM /f not, can the ma,or political parties be barred from participatin# in the
part":list electionsM[18]


#0e Ru*3+4 o8 50e Cour5

2he petitions ha%e partial merit& Ae maintain that a 'hilippine:st"le part":list
election has at least four in%iolable parameters as clearl" stated in :eterans& (or eas"
reference, these are@

irst, the t*ent" percent allocation F the combined number of all part":list con#ressmen
shall not e+ceed t*ent" percent of the total membership of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es, includin#
those elected under the part" listB

)econd# the t*o percent threshold F onl" those parties #arnerin# a minimum of t*o percent
of the total %alid %otes cast for the part":list s"stem are T.ualifiedU to ha%e a seat in the 0ouse of
?epresentati%esB

,hird# the three:seat limit F each .ualified part", re#ardless of the number of %otes it
actuall" obtained, is entitled to a ma+imum of three seatsB that is, one T.ualif"in#U and t*o
additional seatsB

ourth, proportional representationF the additional seats *hich a .ualified part" is entitled
to shall be computed Tin proportion to their total number of %otes&U[19]


0o*e%er, because the formula in :eterans has fla*s in its mathematical interpretation
of the term Tproportional representation,U this Court is compelled to re%isit the
formula for the allocation of additional seats to part":list or#aniCations&

&umber of Party,List !epresentati'es:
The -ormula Man"ate" by the Constitution


Section 6, 9rticle K/ of the Constitution pro%ides@

Section 6& (1) 2he 0ouse of ?epresentati%es shall be composed of not more than t*o
hundred and fift" members, unless other*ise fi+ed b" la*, *ho shall be elected from le#islati%e
districts apportioned amon# the pro%inces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance
*ith the number of their respecti%e inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and pro#ressi%e ratio,
and those *ho, as pro%ided b" la*, shall be elected throu#h a part":list s"stem of re#istered
national, re#ional, and sectoral parties or or#aniCations&

(2) 2he part":list representati%es shall constitute t*ent" per centum of the total number of
representati%es includin# those under the part":list& (or three consecuti%e terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one:half of the seats allocated to part":list representati%es shall be
filled, as pro%ided b" la*, b" selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indi#enous
cultural communities, *omen, "outh, and such other sectors as ma" be pro%ided b" la*, e+cept the
reli#ious sector&


2he first para#raph of Section 11 of ?&9& 3o& E981 reads@

Section 11& .um!er of 3arty/+ist Representatives. F 2he part":list representati%es shall
constitute t*ent" per centum (2<O) of the total number of the members of the 0ouse of
?epresentati%es includin# those under the part":list&
+ + +


Section 6(1), 9rticle K/ of the Constitution states that the T0ouse of
?epresentati%es shall be composed of not more than t*o hundred and fift" members,
unless other*ise fi+ed b" la*&U 2he 0ouse of ?epresentati%es shall be composed of
district representati%es and part":list representati%es& 2he Constitution allo*s the
le#islature to modif" the number of the members of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es&

Section 6(2), 9rticle K/ of the Constitution, on the other hand, states the ratio of
part":list representati%es to the total number of representati%es& Ae compute the
number of seats a%ailable to part":list representati%es from the number of le#islati%e
districts& On this point, *e do not de%iate from the first formula in :eterans, thus@

3umber of seats a%ailable
to le#islati%e districts

+ &2< V
3umber of seats a%ailable to
part":list representati%es
&<



2his formula allo*s for the correspondin# increase in the number of seats a%ailable
for part":list representati%es *hene%er a le#islati%e district is created b" la*& Since
the 18
th
Con#ress of the 'hilippines has 22< district representati%es, there are 66
seats a%ailable to part":list representati%es&

22< + &2< V 66
&<


9fter prescribin# the ratio of the number of part":list representati%es to the total
number of representati%es, 50e Co+1535u53o+ *e85 50e 7a++er o8 a**o6a53+4 50e 1ea51
a=a3*ab*e 5o 2ar5yH*315 re2re1e+5a53=e1 5o 50e 931,o7 o8 50e *e431*a5ure.

Allocation of .eats for Party,List !epresentati'es:
The .tatutory Limits Presente" by the Two Percent Threshol"
an" the Three,.eat Cap


9ll parties a#ree on the formula to determine the ma+imum number of seats
reser%ed under the 'art":List S"stem, as *ell as on the formula to determine the
#uaranteed seats to part":list candidates #arnerin# at least t*o:percent of the total
part":list %otes& 0o*e%er, there are numerous interpretations of the pro%isions of
?&9& 3o& E981 on the allocation of Ta,,353o+a* 1ea51O under the 'art":List S"stem&
:eterans produced the (irst 'art" ?ule,[20] and 4ustice Kicente K& MendoCaJs dissent
in :eterans presented 1erman"Js 3ieme"er formula[21] as an alternati%e&

2he Constitution left to Con#ress the determination of the manner of allocatin#
the seats for part":list representati%es& Con#ress enacted ?&9& 3o& E981,
para#raphs (a) and (b) of Section 11 and Section 12 of *hich pro%ide@

Section 11& .um!er of 3arty/+ist Representatives. F + + +

/n determinin# the allocation of seats for the second %ote,[22] the follo*in# procedure shall
be obser%ed@

(a) 2he parties, or#aniCations, and coalitions shall be ran-ed from the hi#hest to the lo*est
based on the number of %otes the" #arnered durin# the elections&

(b) 2he parties, or#aniCations, and coalitions recei%in# at least t*o percent (2O) of the total
%otes cast for the part":list s"stem shall be entitled to one seat each@ "ro=3,e,, #0a5 50o1e
4ar+er3+4 7ore 50a+ 59o 2er6e+5 >2P@ o8 50e =o5e1 10a** be e+535*e, 5o a,,353o+a* 1ea51 3+
2ro2or53o+ 5o 50e3r 5o5a* +u7ber o8 =o5e1( 'ro%ided, finall", 2hat each part", or#aniCation, or
coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (;) seats&

Section 12& 3rocedure in Allocating )eats for 3arty/+ist Representatives& F 2he
COMELEC shall tall" all the %otes for the parties, or#aniCations, or coalitions on a nation*ide
basis, ran- them accordin# to the number of %otes recei%ed and allocate part":list representati%es
proportionatel" accordin# to the percenta#e of %otes obtained b" each part", or#aniCation, or
coalition as a#ainst the total nation*ide %otes cast for the part":list s"stem& (Emphasis supplied)


/n 1&?& 3o& 1E92E1, 59392 presents t*o interpretations throu#h three
formulas to allocate part":list representati%e seats&

2he first interpretation alle#edl" harmoniCes the pro%isions of Section 11(b) on
the 2O re.uirement *ith Section 12 of ?&9& 3o& E981& 59392 described this
procedure as follo*s@

(a) 2he part":list representati%es shall constitute t*ent" percent (2<O) of the total Members of
the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es includin# those from the part":list #roups as prescribed b" Section 6,
9rticle K/ of the Constitution, Section 11 (1
st
par&) of ?9 E981 and Comelec ?esolution 3o& 28E
dated 26 4une 199!& Since there are 22< )istrict ?epresentati%es in the 18
th
Con#ress, there shall
be 66 'art":List ?epresentati%es& 9ll seats shall ha%e to be proclaimed&

(b) 9ll part":list #roups shall initiall" be allotted one (1) seat for e%er" t*o per centum (2O) of
the total part":list %otes the" obtainedB pro%ided, that no part":list #roups shall ha%e more than three
(;) seats (Section 11, ?9 E981)&

(c) 2he remainin# seats shall, after deductin# the seats obtained b" the part":list #roups under
the immediatel" precedin# para#raph and after deductin# from their total the %otes correspondin# to
those seats, the remainin# seats shall be allotted proportionatel" to all the part":list #roups *hich
ha%e not secured the ma+imum three (;) seats under the 2O threshold rule, in accordance *ith
Section 12 of ?9 E981&[23]


(ort":four (88) part":list seats *ill be a*arded under 59392Js first interpretation&

2he second interpretation presented b" 59392 assumes that the 2O %ote
re.uirement is declared unconstitutional, and apportions the seats for part":list
representati%es b" follo*in# Section 12 of ?&9& 3o& E981& 59392 states that the
COMELEC@

(a) shall tall" all the %otes for the parties, or#aniCations, or coalitions on a nation*ide basisB
(b) ran- them accordin# to the number of %otes recei%edB and,
(c) allocate part":list representati%es proportionatel" accordin# to the percenta#e of %otes
obtained b" each part", or#aniCation or coalition as a#ainst the total nation*ide %otes cast for
the part":list s"stem&[24]

59392 used t*o formulas to obtain the same results@ one is based on the
proportional percenta#e of the %otes recei%ed b" each part" as a#ainst the total
nation*ide part":list %otes, and the other is Tb" ma-in# the %otes of a part":list *ith
a median percenta#e of %otes as the di%isor in computin# the allocation of seats&U[25]
2hirt":four (;8) part":list seats *ill be a*arded under 59392Js second
interpretation&

/n 1&?& 3o& 1E9296, 5a"an Muna, 9bono, and 9 2eacher criticiCe both the
COMELECJs ori#inal 2:8:! formula and the :eterans formula for s"stematicall"
pre%entin# all the part":list seats from bein# filled up& 2he" claim that both formulas
do not factor in the total number of seats alloted for the entire 'art":List S"stem&
5a"an Muna, 9bono, and 9 2eacher re,ect the three:seat cap, but accept the 2O
threshold& 9fter determinin# the .ualified parties, a second percenta#e is #enerated
b" di%idin# the %otes of a .ualified part" b" the total %otes of all .ualified parties
onl"& 2he number of seats allocated to a .ualified part" is computed b" multipl"in#
the total part":list seats a%ailable *ith the second percenta#e& 2here *ill be a first
round of seat allocation, limited to usin# the *hole inte#ers as the e.ui%alent of the
number of seats allocated to the concerned part":list& 9fter all the .ualified parties
are #i%en their seats, a second round of seat allocation is conducted& 2he fractions,
or remainders, from the *hole inte#ers are ran-ed from hi#hest to lo*est and the
remainin# seats on the basis of this ran-in# are allocated until all the seats are filled
up&[26]

Ae e+amine *hat ?&9& 3o& E981 prescribes to allocate seats for part":list
representati%es&

Section 11(a) of ?&9& 3o& E981 prescribes the ran-in# of the participatin#
parties from the hi#hest to the lo*est based on the number of %otes the" #arnered
durin# the elections&



2able 1& ?an-in# of the participatin# parties from the hi#hest to the lo*est based on the number of
%otes #arnered durin# the elections&[27]


Ra+? "ar5y
$o5e1
Gar+ere,
Ra+? "ar5y
$o5e1
Gar+ere,
1 5D09N 1,1!9,2;8 8 I9L90/ ,!
2 59N93
MD39
9E9,<;9 89 9'O/ E9,;!
; C/59C E66,!! 6< 5' E,681
8 195?/EL9 !21,1E1 61 90O359N93 E,828
6 9'EC !19,!6E 62 5/1I/S EE,;2E
! 9 2E9C0E? 89<,;E9 6; 'M9' E6,2<<
E 9I59N93 8!!,112 68 9I9'/3 E8,!!
9L919) 82;,189 66 '59 E1,688
9 COO':
392CCO
8<9,; 6! 1?ECO3 !2,22<
1< 5D2/L 8<9,1!< 6E 52M !<,99;
11 5929S ;6,1< 6 9 SM/LE 6,E1E
12 9?C ;E8,2 69 3EL((/ 6E,E2
1; 939I'9A/S ;E<,2!1 !< 9IS9 6E,<12
18 95O3O ;;9,99< !1 591O 66,8!
16 9M/3 ;;,16 !2 593)/L9 68,E61
1! 919' ;2,E28 !; 90O3 68,622
1E 93 A9?9N ;21,6<; !8 9S9093 MO 61,E22
1 N9C9' ;1<,9 !6 915/91R 6<,;E
19 ('4'M ;<<,92; !! S'/ 6<,8E
2< D3/:M9) 286,;2 !E 59093)/ 8!,!12
21 95S 2;6,<! ! 9)) 86,!28
22 I9IDS9 22,999 !9 9M931 8;,<!2
2; I9592993 22,!;E E< 959N '9?9I 82,22
28 959:9IO 21,1 E1 5959E I9 ;!,612
26 9L/( 21E,22 E2 S5 ;8,;6
2! SE3/O?
C/2/QE3S
21;,<6 E; 9S9' ;8,<9
2E 92 19E,E2 E8 'E' ;;,9;
2 K(' 19!,2!! E6 959
/LO311O
;;,9<;
29 939) 1,621 E! KE3)O?S ;;,!91
;< 59392 1EE,<2 EE 9)):2?/59L ;2,9!
;1 931
I9S93119
1E<,6;1 E 9LM939 ;2,266
;2 59329N 1!9,<1 E9 993192 I9
'/L/'/3O
29,1;<
;; 959I9)9 1!!,E8E < 99'S 2!,2E1
;8 1:D29I 1!8,9< 1 09'/ 26,E1
;6 2DC' 1!2,!8E 2 99A9S 22,98!
;! COCO(E) 166,92< ; SM 2<,E88
;E 9109M 18!,<;2 8 91 1!,91!
; 939I 181,1E 6 91/31 '/3ON 1!,E29
;9 9593SER
'/39N
1;<,;6! ! 9'O 1!,821
8< 'M 119,<68 E 5/N9N931
5DI/)
1!,281
81 9KE 11<,E!9 92S 18,1!1
82 SD9?9 11<,E;2 9 DM)4 9,886
8; 9SS9L9M 11<,88< 9< 5DILO)
(/L/'/39
,916
88 )/A9 1<E,<21 91 LN'9) ,8E1
86 93C 99,!;! 92 99:I9SOSNO ,8<!
8! S93L9I9S 9E,;E6 9; I9S9'/ !,221
8E 95C 9<,<6 ##AL 15,950,90
0


2he first clause of Section 11(b) of ?&9& 3o& E981 states that Tparties,
or#aniCations, and coalitions recei%in# at least t*o percent (2O) of the total %otes
cast for the part":list s"stem shall be entitled to one seat each&U 2his clause
#uarantees a seat to the t*o:percenters& /n 2able 2 belo*, *e use the first 2< part":
list candidates for illustration purposes& 2he percenta#e of %otes #arnered b" each
part" is arri%ed at b" di%idin# the number of %otes #arnered b" each part" b"
16,96<,9<<, the total number of %otes cast for all part":list candidates&

2able 2& 2he first 2< part":list candidates and their respecti%e percenta#e of %otes #arnered o%er
the total %otes for the part":list&[28]

Ra+? "ar5y
$o5e1
Gar+ere,
$o5e1 Gar+ere,
o=er #o5a* $o5e1
8or "ar5yHL315,
3+ P
Guara+5ee
, !ea5
1 5D09N 1,1!9,2;8 E&;;O 1
2 59N93 MD39 9E9,<;9 !&18O 1
; C/59C E66,!! 8&E8O 1
8 195?/EL9 !21,1E1 ;&9O 1
6 9'EC !19,!6E ;&O 1
! 9 2E9C0E? 89<,;E9 ;&<EO 1
E 9I59N93 8!!,112 2&92O 1
9L919) 82;,189 2&!6O 1
9 COO':392CCO 8<9,; 2&6EO 1
1< 5D2/L 8<9,1!< 2&6EO 1
11 5929S[29] ;6,1< 2&82O 1
12 9?C ;E8,2 2&;6O 1
1; 939I'9A/S ;E<,2!1 2&;2O 1
18 95O3O ;;9,99< 2&1;O 1
16 9M/3 ;;,16 2&12O 1
1! 919' ;2,E28 2&<!O 1
1E 93 A9?9N ;21,6<; 2&<2O 1
#o5a* 1)
1 N9C9' ;1<,9 1&96O <
19 ('4'M ;<<,92; 1&9O <
2< D3/:M9) 286,;2 1&68O <


(rom 2able 2 abo%e, *e see that onl" 1E part":list candidates recei%ed at least
2O from the total number of %otes cast for part":list candidates& 2he 1E .ualified
part":list candidates, or the t*o:percenters, are the part":list candidates that are
Tentitled to one seat each,U or the #uaranteed seat& /n this first round of seat
allocation, *e distributed 1E #uaranteed seats&
2he second clause of Section 11(b) of ?&9& 3o& E981 pro%ides that Tthose
#arnerin# more than t*o percent (2O) of the %otes shall be entitled to additional seats
3+ 2ro2or53o+ 5o 50e3r 5o5a* +u7ber o8 =o5e1&U 2his is *here petitionersJ and
inter%enorsJ problem *ith the formula in :eterans lies& :eterans interprets the clause
Tin proportion to their total number of %otesU to be 3+ 2ro2or53o+ 5o 50e =o5e1 o8 50e
83r15 2ar5y& 2his interpretation is contrar" to the e+press lan#ua#e of ?&9& 3o& E981&

Ae rule that, in computin# the allocation of a,,353o+a* 1ea51, the continued
operation of the t*o percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as
found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of ?&9& 3o& E981 is u+6o+1535u53o+a*&
2his Court finds that the t*o percent threshold ma-es it mathematicall" impossible to
achie%e the ma+imum number of a%ailable part" list seats *hen the number of
a%ailable part" list seats e+ceeds 6<& 2he continued operation of the t*o percent
threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the
permissi%e ceilin# that 2<O of the members of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es shall
consist of part":list representati%es&

2o illustrate@ 2here are 66 a%ailable part":list seats& Suppose there are 6<
million %otes cast for the 1<< participants in the part" list elections& 9 part" that has
t*o percent of the %otes cast, or one million %otes, #ets a #uaranteed seat& Let us
further assume that the first 6< parties all #et one million %otes& Onl" 6< parties #et a
seat despite the a%ailabilit" of 66 seats& 5ecause of the operation of the t*o percent
threshold, this situation *ill repeat itself e%en if *e increase the a%ailable part":list
seats to !< seats and e%en if *e increase the %otes cast to 1<< million& 2hus, e%en if
the ma+imum number of parties #et t*o percent of the %otes for e%er" part", it is
al*a"s impossible for the number of occupied part":list seats to e+ceed 6< seats as
lon# as the t*o percent threshold is present&

Ae therefore stri-e do*n the t*o percent threshold onl" in relation to the
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of
?&9& 3o& E981& 2he t*o percent threshold presents an un*arranted obstacle to the
full implementation of Section 6(2), 9rticle K/ of the Constitution and pre%ents the
attainment of Tthe broadest possible representation of part", sectoral or #roup
interests in the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es&U[30]

/n determinin# the allocation of seats for part":list representati%es under Section
11 of ?&9& 3o& E981, the follo*in# procedure shall be obser%ed@

1& 2he parties, or#aniCations, and coalitions shall be ran-ed from the
hi#hest to the lo*est based on the number of %otes the" #arnered durin# the elections&

2& 2he parties, or#aniCations, and coalitions recei%in# at least t*o percent
(2O) of the total %otes cast for the part":list s"stem shall be entitled to one
#uaranteed seat each&

;& 2hose #arnerin# sufficient number of %otes, accordin# to the ran-in# in
para#raph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of
%otes until all the additional seats are allocated&

8& Each part", or#aniCation, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than
three (;) seats&

/n computin# the additional seats, the #uaranteed seats shall no lon#er be
included because the" ha%e alread" been allocated, at one seat each, to e%er" t*o:
percenter& 2hus, the remainin# a%ailable seats for allocation as Tadditional seatsU
are the ma+imum seats reser%ed under the 'art" List S"stem less the #uaranteed
seats& (ractional seats are disre#arded in the absence of a pro%ision in ?&9& 3o& E981
allo*in# for a roundin# off of fractional seats&

/n declarin# the t*o percent threshold unconstitutional, *e do not limit our
allocation of additional seats in 2able ; belo* to the t*o:percenters& 2he percenta#e
of %otes #arnered b" each part":list candidate is arri%ed at b" di%idin# the number of
%otes #arnered b" each part" b" 16,96<,9<<, the total number of %otes cast for part":
list candidates& 2here are t*o steps in the second round of seat allocation& (irst, the
percenta#e is multiplied b" the remainin# a%ailable seats, ;, *hich is the difference
bet*een the 66 ma+imum seats reser%ed under the 'art":List S"stem and the 1E
#uaranteed seats of the t*o:percenters& 2he *hole inte#er of the product of the
percenta#e and of the remainin# a%ailable seats corresponds to a part"Js share in the
remainin# a%ailable seats& Second, *e assi#n one part":list seat to each of the parties
ne+t in ran- until all a%ailable seats are completel" distributed& Ae distributed all of
the remainin# ; seats in the second round of seat allocation& (inall", *e appl" the
three:seat cap to determine the number of seats each .ualified part":list candidate is
entitled& 2hus@







2able ;& )istribution of 9%ailable 'art":List Seats

Rank Party
Votes
Garnered
Votes
Garnered
over
Total
Votes for
Party
List, in %



(A)
Guaranteed
Seat





(First
Round)

(B)
Additional
Seats





(Second
Round)

(C)
(B) lus
(!), in
"#ole
inte$ers






(D)
Alyin$
t#e
t#ree
seat ca






(E)
1 BUHAY 1,169,234 7.33% 1 2.79 3 N.A.
2 BAYAN
MUNA
979,039 6.14% 1 2.33 3 N.A.
3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1 1.80 2 N.A.
4 GABRIELA 621,171 3.89% 1 1.48 2 N.A.
5 APEC 619,657 3.88% 1 1.48 2 N.A.
6 A Tea!e" 490,379 3.07% 1 1.17 2 N.A.
7 A#BAYAN 466,112 2.92% 1 1.11 2 N.A.
8 ALAGA$ 423,149 2.65% 1 1.01 2 N.A.
9%31& C''P(
NATCC'
409,883 2.57% 1 1 2 N.A.
10 BUTIL 409,160 2.57% 1 1 2 N.A.
11 BATA) 385,810 2.42% 1 1 2 N.A.
12 ARC 374,288 2.35% 1 1 2 N.A.
13 ANA#PA*I
)
370,261 2.32% 1 1 2 N.A.
14 AB'N' 339,990 2.13% 1 1 2 N.A.
15 AMIN 338,185 2.12% 1 1 2 N.A.
16 AGAP 328,724 2.06% 1 1 2 N.A.
17 AN *ARAY 321,503 2.02% 1 1 2 N.A.
18 YACAP 310,889 1.95% 0 1 1 N.A.
19 +P,PM 300,923 1.89% 0 1 1 N.A.
20 UNI(MA$ 245,382 1.54% 0 1 1 N.A.
21 AB) 235,086 1.47% 0 1 1 N.A.
22 #A#U)A 228,999 1.44% 0 1 1 N.A.
23 #ABATAAN 228,637 1.43% 0 1 1 N.A.
24 ABA(A#' 218,818 1.37% 0 1 1 N.A.
25 ALI+ 217,822 1.37% 0 1 1 N.A.
26 )ENI'R
CITI-EN)
213,058 1.34% 0 1 1 N.A.
27 AT 197,872 1.24% 0 1 1 N.A.
28 .+P 196,266 1.23% 0 1 1 N.A.
29 ANA$ 188,521 1.18% 0 1 1 N.A.
30 BANAT 177,028 1.11% 0 1 1 N.A.
31 ANG
#A)ANGGA
170,531 1.07% 0 1 1 N.A.
32 BANTAY 169,801 1.06% 0 1 1 N.A.
33 ABA#A$A 166,747 1.05% 0 1 1 N.A.
34 1(UTA# 164,980 1.03% 0 1 1 N.A.
35 TUCP 162,647 1.02% 0 1 1 N.A.
36 C'C'+E$ 155,920 0.98% 0 1 1 N.A.
Total %& ''


9ppl"in# the procedure of seat allocation as illustrated in 2able ; abo%e, there
are 66 part":list representati%es from the ;! *innin# part":list or#aniCations& 9ll 66
a%ailable part":list seats are filled& 2he additional seats allocated to the parties *ith
sufficient number of %otes for one *hole seat, in no case to e+ceed a total of three
seats for each part", are sho*n in column ())&

Participation of Ma/or Political Parties in Party,List Elections

2he Constitutional Commission adopted a multi:part" s"stem that a**o9e, a**
2o*3536a* 2ar53e1 5o 2ar53632a5e 3+ 50e 2ar5yH*315 e*e653o+1. 2he deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission clearl" bear this out, thus@

M?& MO3SO)& Madam 'resident, / ,ust *ant to sa" that *e su##ested or proposed the
part" list s"stem because *e *anted to open up the political s"stem to a pluralistic societ" throu#h a
multipart" s"stem& + + + Fe are 8or o2e+3+4 u2 50e 1y15e7, a+, 9e 9ou*, *3?e =ery 7u60 8or
50e 1e65or1 5o be 50ere. #0a5 31 90y o+e o8 50e 9ay1 5o ,o 50a5 31 5o 2u5 a 6e3*3+4 o+ 50e
+u7ber o8 re2re1e+5a53=e1 8ro7 a+y 13+4*e 2ar5y 50a5 6a+ 135 93503+ 50e 50 a**o6a5e, u+,er 50e
2ar5y *315 1y15e7& + + +&

+ + +

M?& MO3SO)& Madam 'resident, the candidac" for the 19 seats is not limited to political
parties& M" .uestion is this@ 9re *e #oin# to classif" for e+ample Christian )emocrats and Social
)emocrats as political partiesM Can the" run under the part" list concept or must the" be under the
district le#islation side of it onl"M

M?& K/LL9CO?29& /n repl" to that .uer", / thin- these parties that the Commissioner
mentioned can field candidates for the Senate as *ell as for the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es&
L3?e931e, 50ey 6a+ a*1o 83e*, 1e65ora* 6a+,3,a5e1 8or 50e 20 2er6e+5 or A0 2er6e+5, 90360e=er 31
a,o25e,, o8 50e 1ea51 50a5 9e are a**o6a53+4 u+,er 50e 2ar5y *315 1y15e7&

M?& MO3SO)& /n other *ords, the Christian )emocrats can field district candidates and
can also participate in the part" list s"stemM

M?& K/LL9CO?29& F0y +o5Q F0e+ 50ey 6o7e 5o 50e 2ar5y *315 1y15e7, 50ey 93** be
83e*,3+4 o+*y 1e65ora* 6a+,3,a5e1.

M?& MO3SO)& Ma" / be clarified on thatM Can D3/)O participate in the part" list
s"stemM

M?& K/LL9CO?29& Nes, *h" notM For a1 *o+4 a1 50ey 83e*, 6a+,3,a5e1 90o 6o7e 8ro7
50e ,388ere+5 7ar43+a*3<e, 1e65or1 50a5 9e 10a** ,e134+a5e 3+ 5031 Co+1535u53o+.

M?& MO3SO)& Suppose Senator 2aPada *ants to run under 59N93 #roup and sa"s that
he represents the farmers, *ould he .ualif"M

M?& K/LL9CO?29& 3o, Senator 2aPada *ould not .ualif"&

M?& MO3SO)& 5ut D3/)O can field candidates under the part" list s"stem and sa" 4uan
dela CruC is a farmer& Aho *ould pass on *hether he is a farmer or notM

M?& 29)EO& Ia" Commissioner Monsod, #usto -o laman# lina*in ito& "o*3536a* 2ar53e1,
2ar536u*ar*y 73+or35y 2o*3536a* 2ar53e1, are +o5 2ro03b35e, 5o 2ar53632a5e 3+ 50e 2ar5y *315
e*e653o+ 38 50ey 6a+ 2ro=e 50a5 50ey are a*1o or4a+3<e, a*o+4 1e65ora* *3+e1.

M?& MO3SO)& Ahat the Commissioner is sa"in# is that all political parties can participate
because it is precisel" the contention of political parties that the" represent the broad base of
citiCens and that all sectors are represented in them& Aould the Commissioner a#reeM

M?& 29)EO& 9n# punto laman# namin, pa# pina"a#an mo an# D3/)O na isan# political
part", it *ill dominate the part" list at ma*a*alan# sa"sa" din "un# sector& Lalamunin mismo n#
political parties an# part" list s"stem& 1usto -o laman# bi#"an n# diin an# Treser%e&U 0indi ito
reser%e seat sa mar#inaliCed sectors& Iun# titin#nan natin iton# 19 seats, reser%ed din ito sa
political parties&

M?& MO3SO)& 0indi po reser%ed i"on -asi an"bod" can run there& 5ut m" .uestion to
Commissioner Killacorta and probabl" also to Commissioner 2adeo is that under this s"stem, *ould
D3/)O be banned from runnin# under the part" list s"stemM

M?& K/LL9CO?29& 3o, as / said, .NI& 7ay 83e*, 1e65ora* 6a+,3,a5e1. + 50a5
6o+,353o+ a*o+e, .NI& 7ay be a**o9e, 5o re4315er 8or 50e 2ar5y *315 1y15e7.

M?& MO3SO)& Ma" / in.uire from Commissioner 2adeo if he shares that ans*erM

M?& 29)EO& 2he same&

M?& K/LL9CO?29& "u9e,e 2o a+4 .NI&, 2ero 1a 1e65ora* *3+e1.

+ + + +

M?& O'LE& + + + /n m" opinion, this *ill also create the stimulus for political parties and
mass or#aniCations to see- common #round& (or e+ample, *e ha%e the ')':Laban and the
D3/)O& / see no reason *h" the" should not be able to ma-e common #oals *ith mass
or#aniCations so that the %er" leadership of these parties can be transformed throu#h the
participation of mass or#aniCations& 9nd if this is true of the administration parties, this *ill be true
of others li-e the 'artido n# 5a"an *hich is no* bein# formed& 2here is no .uestion that the" *ill
be attracti%e to man" mass or#aniCations& /n the opposition parties to *hich *e belon#, there *ill
be a stimulus for us to contact mass or#aniCations so that *ith their participation, the policies of
such parties can be radicall" transformed because this amendment *ill create conditions that *ill
challen#e both the mass or#aniCations and the political parties to come to#ether& 9nd the part" list
s"stem is certainl" a%ailable, althou#h it is open to all the parties& /t is understood that the parties
*ill enter in the roll of the COMELEC the names of representati%es of mass or#aniCations affiliated
*ith them& So that *e ma", in time, de%elop this e+cellent s"stem that the" ha%e in Europe *here
labor or#aniCations and cooperati%es, for e+ample, distribute themsel%es either in the Social
)emocratic 'art" and the Christian )emocratic 'art" in 1erman", and their %er" presence there has
a transformin# effect upon the philosophies and the leadership of those parties&

/t is also a fact *ell -no*n to all that in the Dnited States, the 9(L:C/O al*a"s %ote *ith
the )emocratic 'art"& 5ut the businessmen, most of them, al*a"s %ote *ith the ?epublican 'art",
meanin# that there is no reason at all *h" political parties and mass or#aniCations should not
combine, reenforce, influence and interact *ith each other so that the %er" ob,ecti%es that *e set in
this Constitution for sectoral representation are achie%ed in a *ider, more lastin#, and more
institutionaliCed *a"& 2herefore, / support this =Monsod:Killacorta> amendment& /t installs sectoral
representation as a constitutional #ift, but at the same time, it challen#es the sector to rise to the
ma,est" of bein# elected representati%es later on throu#h a part" list s"stemB and e%en be"ond that,
to become actual political parties capable of contestin# political po*er in the *ider constitutional
arena for ma,or political parties&

+ + + [32] (Emphasis supplied)
?&9& 3o& E981 pro%ided the details for the concepts put for*ard b" the
Constitutional Commission& Section ; of ?&9& 3o& E981 reads@

'efinition of ,erms. (a) 2he part":list s"stem is a mechanism of proportional representation
in the election of representati%es to the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es from national, re#ional and
sectoral parties or or#aniCations or coalitions thereof re#istered *ith the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC)& Component parties or or#aniCations of a coalition ma" participate independentl"
pro%ided the coalition of *hich the" form part does not participate in the part":list s"stem&

(b) 9 part" means either a political part" or a sectoral part" or a coalition of parties&

(c) 9 political part" refers to an or#aniCed #roup of citiCens ad%ocatin# an ideolo#" or
platform, principles and policies for the #eneral conduct of #o%ernment and *hich, as the most
immediate means of securin# their adoption, re#ularl" nominates and supports certain of its leaders
and members as candidates for public office&

/t is a national part" *hen its constituenc" is spread o%er the #eo#raphical territor" of at
least a ma,orit" of the re#ions& /t is a re#ional part" *hen its constituenc" is spread o%er the
#eo#raphical territor" of at least a ma,orit" of the cities and pro%inces comprisin# the re#ion&

(d) 9 sectoral part" refers to an or#aniCed #roup of citiCens belon#in# to an" of the sectors
enumerated in Section 6 hereof *hose principal ad%ocac" pertains to the special interests and
concerns of their sector,

(e) 9 sectoral or#aniCation refers to a #roup of citiCens or a coalition of #roups of citiCens
*ho share similar ph"sical attributes or characteristics, emplo"ment, interests or concerns&

(f) 9 coalition refers to an a##rupation of dul" re#istered national, re#ional, sectoral parties
or or#aniCations for political andHor election purposes&

Con#ress, in enactin# ?&9& 3o& E981, put the three:seat cap to pre%ent an" part" from
dominatin# the part":list elections&

3either the Constitution nor ?&9& 3o& E981 prohibits ma,or political parties
from participatin# in the part":list s"stem& On the contrar", the framers of the
Constitution clearl" intended the ma,or political parties to participate in part":list
elections throu#h their sectoral *in#s& /n fact, the members of the Constitutional
Commission %oted do*n, 19:22, an" permanent sectoral seats, and in the alternati%e
the reser%ation of the part":list s"stem to the sectoral #roups&[33] /n definin# a
Tpart"U that participates in part":list elections as either Ta political part" or a sectoral
part",U ?&9& 3o& E981 also clearl" intended that ma,or political parties *ill
participate in the part":list elections& E+cludin# the ma,or political parties in part":
list elections is manifestl" a#ainst the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional
Commission, and ?&9& 3o& E981& 2his Court cannot en#a#e in socio:political
en#ineerin# and ,udiciall" le#islate the e+clusion of ma,or political parties from the
part":list elections in patent %iolation of the Constitution and the la*&

?ead to#ether, ?&9& 3o& E981 and the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission state that ma,or political parties are allo*ed to establish, or form
coalitions *ith, sectoral or#aniCations for electoral or political purposes& 2here
should not be a problem if, for e+ample, the Liberal 'art" participates in the part":list
election throu#h the Iabataan# Liberal n# 'ilipinas (I9L/'/), its sectoral "outh
*in#& 2he other ma,or political parties can thus or#aniCe, or affiliate *ith, their
chosen sector or sectors& 2o further illustrate, the 3acionalista 'art" can establish a
fisherfol- *in# to participate in the part":list election, and this fisherfol- *in# can
field its fisherfol- nominees& Iabali-at n# Mala"an# 'ilipino (I9M'/) can do the
same for the urban poor&

2he .ualifications of part":list nominees are prescribed in Section 9 of ?&9&
3o& E981@


9ualifications of 3arty/+ist .ominees. F 3o person shall be nominated as part":list
representati%e unless he is a natural born citiCen of the 'hilippines, a re#istered %oter, a resident of
the 'hilippines for a period of not less than one (1) "ear immediatel" precedin# the da" of the
elections, able to read and *rite, !ona fide member of the part" or or#aniCation *hich he see-s to
represent for at least ninet" (9<) da"s precedin# the da" of the election, and is at least t*ent":fi%e
(26) "ears of a#e on the da" of the election&

/n case of a nominee of the "outh sector, he must at least be t*ent":fi%e (26) but not more
than thirt" (;<) "ears of a#e on the da" of the election& 9n" "outh sectoral representati%e *ho
attains the a#e of thirt" (;<) durin# his term shall be allo*ed to continue until the e+piration
of his term&

Dnder Section 9 of ?&9& 3o& E981, it is not necessar" that the part":list or#aniCationJs
nominee T*allo* in po%ert", destitution and infirmit"U[34] as there is no financial
status re.uired in the la*& /t is enou#h that the nominee of the sectoral
part"Hor#aniCationHcoalition belon#s to the mar#inaliCed and underrepresented
sectors,[35] that is, if the nominee represents the fisherfol-, he or she must be a
fisherfol-, or if the nominee represents the senior citiCens, he or she must be a senior
citiCen&

3either the Constitution nor ?&9& 3o& E981 mandates the fillin#:up of the entire
2<O allocation of part":list representati%es found in the Constitution& 2he
Constitution, in para#raph 1, Section 6 of 9rticle K/, left the determination of the
number of the members of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es to Con#ress@ T2he 0ouse of
?epresentati%es shall be composed of not more than t*o hundred and fift" members,
unless other*ise fi+ed b" la*, + + +&U 2he 2<O allocation of part":list
representati%es is merel" a ceilin#B part":list representati%es cannot be more than
2<O of the members of the 0ouse of ?epresentati%es& 0o*e%er, *e cannot allo* the
continued e+istence of a pro%ision in the la* *hich *ill s"stematicall" pre%ent the
constitutionall" allocated 2<O part":list representati%es from bein# filled& 2he three:
seat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats that a .ualified part":list or#aniCation
ma" occup", remains a %alid statutor" de%ice that pre%ents an" part" from dominatin#
the part":list elections& Seats for part":list representati%es shall thus be allocated in
accordance *ith the procedure used in 2able ; abo%e&

0o*e%er, b" a %ote of :E, the Court decided to continue the rulin# in :eterans
disallo*in# ma,or political parties from participatin# in the part":list elections,
directl" or indirectl"& 2hose *ho %oted to continue disallo*in# ma,or political
parties from the part":list elections ,oined Chief 4ustice ?e"nato S& 'uno in his
separate opinion& On the formula to allocate part":list seats, the Court is unanimous
in concurrin# *ith this ponencia&

F%EREFRE, *e "AR#IALLG GRAN# the petition& Ae !E# A!I&E the
?esolution of the COMELEC dated ; 9u#ust 2<<E in 35C 3o& <E:<81 ('L) as *ell
as the ?esolution dated 9 4ul" 2<<E in 35C 3o& <E:!<& Ae declare unconstitutional
the t*o percent threshold in the distribution of additional part":list seats& 2he
allocation of additional seats under the 'art":List S"stem shall be in accordance *ith
the procedure used in 2able ; of this )ecision& Ma,or political parties are disallo*ed
from participatin# in part":list elections& 2his )ecision is immediatel" e+ecutor"&
3o pronouncement as to costs&

! R&ERE&&


AN#NI #. CAR"I
9ssociate 4ustice


&&&

FE CNC.R(


REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief 4ustice