Topic: House of Representatives Appointment and Reappointment

Aquino v. COMELEC
G.R. No.189793

Date of Promulgation: September 18, 1995
Ponente: Kapunan, J.
Petition: Special Civil Action. Certiorari
Petitioners: Agapito Aquino
Respondents: COMELEC, Move Makati, Mateo Bedon, and Juanito Icaro

Facts:
On 20 March 1995, Agapito A. Aquino, the petitioner, filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the
position of Representative for the new (remember: newly created) Second Legislative District of
Makati City. In his certificate of candidacy, Aquino stated that he was a resident of the
aforementioned district (284 Amapola Cor. Adalla Sts., Palm Village, Makati) for 10 months.
Move Makati, a registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP
of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Aquino on the ground that the latter
lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman which under Section 6, Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution, should be for a period not less than one year preceding the (May 8,
1995) day of the election.

Faced with a petition for disqualification, Aquino amended the entry on his residency in his
certificate of candidacy to 1 year and 13 days. The Commission on Elections passed a
resolution that dismissed the petition on May 6 and allowed Aquino to run in the election of 8
May. Aquino, with 38,547 votes, won against Augusto Syjuco with 35,910 votes.
Move Makati filed a motion of reconsideration with the Comelec, to which, on May 15, the latter
acted with an order suspending the proclamation of Aquino until the Commission resolved the
issue. On 2 June, the Commission on Elections found Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the
elective office for lack of constitutional qualification of residence.

Aquino then filed a Petition of Certiorari assailing the May 15 and June 2 orders.

Issues/Held:
WON residency in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes domicile to warrant the
disqualification of Aquino from the position in the electoral district. - YES

WON it is proven that Aquino has established domicile of choice and not just residence (not in
the sense of the COC)in the district he was running in. - NO

Ratio:
1.) The term residence has always been understood as synonymous with domicile not
only under the previous constitutions but also under the 1987 Constitution. The Court
cited the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission wherein this principle was
applied.

The framers intended the word residence to have the same meaning of domicile.
The place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he,
no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and
remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of
residence for the purposes of election law.

The purpose is to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and
needs of the community from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in
that community for electoral gain. While there is nothing wrong with the purpose of
establishing residence in a given area for meeting election law requirements, this defeats
the essence of representation, which is to place through assent of voters those most
cognizant and sensitive to the needs of a particular district, if a candidate falls short of
the period of residency mandated by law for him to qualify.

2.) Aquino has not established domicile of choice in the district he was running in.
The SC agreed with the Comelecs contention that Aquino should prove that he
established a domicile of choice and not just residence.

The Constitution requires a person running for a post in the HR one year of residency
prior to the elections in the district in which he seeks election to.

Aquinos certificate of candidacy in a previous (May 11, 1992) election indicates that
he was a resident and a registered voter of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac for more
than 52 years prior to that election. His birth certificate indicated that Conception as
his birthplace and his COC also showed him to be a registered voter of the same
district. Thus his domicile of origin (obviously, choice as well) up to the filing of his
COC was in Conception, Tarlac.

Aquinos connection to the new Second District of Makati City is an alleged lease
agreement of a condominium unit in the area. The intention not to establish a
permanent home in Makati City is evident in his leasing a condominium unit instead of
buying one. The short length of time he claims to be a resident of Makati (and the fact
of his stated domicile in Tarlac and his claims of other residences in Metro Manila)
indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his physical residence is not to acquire a
new, residence or domicile but only to qualify as a candidate for Representative of the
Second District of Makati City.

Aquinos assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Makati is a bare
assertion which is hardly supported by the facts in the case at bench. To successfully
effect a change of domicile, petitioner must prove an actual removal or an actual
change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence
and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose.

Aquino was thus rightfully disqualified by the Commission on Elections due to his lack
of one year residence in the district.

Decision:
Instant Petition dismissed.

Notes:
Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able
to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in
which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year
immediately preceding the day of the election.