You are on page 1of 8

Dimaporo v.

Mitra
FACTS:
Dimaporo was elected as a representative for the second legislative district of Lanao del Sur during the 1987 congressional elections.
Dimaporo filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of governor of AR. Secretary and Spea!er of the "ouse e#cluded the name of
Dimaporo from the Roll of em$ers of "R %nder Art &' of Sec (7 of the )mni$us *lection +ode. Dimaporo lost the election wrote a letter intending to
resume performing his duties and functions as an elected mem$er of the +ongress. %nfortunately, he was not a$le to regain his seat in the +ongress.
Dimaporo contended that he did not lose his seat as a +ongressman $ecause Art. &' Sec. (7 of -. 881 is not operative in the present
constitution, and therefore not applica$le to the mem$ers of +ongress.
/rounds may $e termed to $e shortened0
1. "olding any officer or employment in the government or ant su$division, agency, or instrumentality thereof.
1. *#pulsion as a disciplinary action for a disorderly $ehavior
2. Dis3ualification as determined $y a resolution of the electoral tri$unal in an election contest
4. 5oluntary renunciation of office
ISSUE: 678 Dimaporo can still $e considered as a mem$er of +ongress even after he has filed for another government position
HELD: 8o.
&n the constitution there is a new chapter on the accounta$ility of pu$lic officers. &n the 1929 +onstitution, it was provided that pu$lic office is
a pu$lic trust. .u$lic officers should serve with the highest degree of responsi$ility and integrity.
&f you allow a -atasan or a governor or a mayor who has mandated to serve for ( years to file for an office other than the one he was elected
to, then that clearly shows that he did not intend to serve the mandate of the people which was placed upon him and therefore he should $e considered
ipso facto resigned.
:he filling of a certificate shall $e considered as an overt act or a$andoning or relin3uishing his mandate to the people and he should
therefore resign if he want to see! another position which he feels he could $e of $etter service.
Farinas, et al. v. Executive Secretar ! in view with Section 26(1), Article VI
/.R. 8o. 147287, Decem$er 1;, 1;;2
FACTS:
:he petition $efore the court see!s to declare Section 14 of RA no. 9;;( <:he =air *lection Act> unconstitutional as it e#pressly repeals Section (7 of
-atas .am$ansa -lg. 881 <:he )mni$us *lection +ode ? <not ver$atim> any elective official running for office e#cept for pres or vp shall $e considered
resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy>.
%nconstitutional for violating section 1(, article ( of the constitution for re3uiring every law to have only one su$@ect which should $e e#pressed in its title.
Section 14 of RA no. 9;;( primarily deals with the lifting of the $an on the use of media as election propaganda and the elimination of unfair election
practices. 6hile Section (7 deals with any elective official running for office e#cept for pres or vp shall $e considered resigned from his office upon the
filing of his certificate of candidacy.
:he repeal of Section (7 of the )mni$us *lection +ode is thus not em$raced in the title, nor germane to the su$@ect matter of RA no. 9;;(.
Other facts though not essential for Sec. 26, Art. IV of the constitution:
RA no. 9;;( violates the e3ual protection clause $ecause it repeals only section (7 and not section (( which states that appointive official shall $e
considered resigned from his office upon filing of +o+. :hus RA no. 9;;( discriminates appointive officials $ecause elective officials can still hold office
while campaigning with RA no. 9;;(As repeal.
RA no. 9;;( in its entirety is null and void $ecause irregularities attended to its enactment into lawB Section 1( states0 CDtEhis Act shall ta!e effect upon its
approvalF is a violation of the due process clause.
Sec. (7 is a good lawB hence, it should not have $een repealed.
ISSUE ? in view with Section 26(1), Article VI0
6)8 sec. 14 of RA 8o. 9;;( is a riderG
"ULI#$:
#%& Sec 1(<1>, Article &5 provides0
C*very $ill passed $y the +ongress shall em$race only one su$@ect which shall $e e#pressed in the title thereof.F
Constitutional rovisions relating to the su!"ect #atter an$ titles of statutes shoul$ not !e so narrowl% construe$ as to crile or i#e$e the ower of
legislation. It is sufficient if the title !e co#rehensive enough reasona!l% to inclu$e the general o!"ect which a statute see&s to effect, without
e'ressing each an$ ever% en$ an$ #eans necessar% or convenient for the acco#lishing of that o!"ect.
:he title of RA no. 9;;( reads0 CAn Act to *nhance the "olding of =ree, )rderly, "onest, .eaceful and +redi$le elections through =air *lection
.ractices.F
Section 1 provides the principles and o$@ectives thereof0 (he State shall, $uring the election erio$, suervise or regulate the en"o%#ent or utili)ation of
all franchises or er#its for the oeration of #e$ia of co##unication or infor#ation to guarantee or ensure e*ual oortunit% for u!lic service, inclu$ing
access to #e$ia ti#e an$ sace, an$ the e*uita!le right to rel%, for u!lic infor#ation ca#aigns an$ for a#ong can$i$ates an$ assure free, or$erl%,
honest, eaceful an$ cre$i!le elections.
(he State shall ensure that !ona fi$e can$i$ates for an% u!lic office shall !e free fro# an% for# of harass#ent an$ $iscri#ination.
:he +ourt is convinced that the title and o$@ectives of RA no. 9;;( are comprehensive enough to include the repeal of Sec. (7 within its contemplation.
RA no. 9;;( does not violate the Cone su$@ectHone titleF rule. An act having a single general su$@ect , indicated in the title, may contain any num$er of
provisions as long as they are not inconsistent or foreign to the general su$@ect, and may $e considered furtherance of such su$@ect $y providing for the
method and means of carrying out the general su$@ect.
Quinto V. COMELEC 2010
COMELEC issued a resolution declaring appointive ofcials who fled their certifcate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their
positions.
FACTS: Petitioners Eleazar P. uinto and !erino ". #olentino$ %r. fled a petition for certiorari and prohi&ition against the COMELEC for
issuing a resolution declaring appointive ofcials who fled their certifcate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions. 'n
this defense$ the COMELEC avers that it only copied the provision from (ec. )* of +.". ,*-,.
ISSUE: .hether or not the said COMELEC resolution was valid.
HELD: 'n a )/01 vote$ the (upreme Court reversed its 2ecision rendered in the case of uinto vs. Comelec last 2ecem&er 3//, and
declared that appointed ofcials$ including mem&ers of the 4udiciary and the Comelec itself$ who have fled their certifcate of
candidacy for the May )/ elections are already deemed resigned. 'n the +esolution dated 33 5e&ruary 3/)/$ the Court said that its
2ecem&er 3//, 2ecision failed to consider the threat to government 6posed &y the partisan potential of a large and growing
&ureaucracy7 the danger of systematic a&use perpetuated &y a 8powerful political machine9 that has amassed 8the scattered powers
of government wor:ers9 so as to give itself and its incum&ent wor:ers an 8un&rea:a&le grasp on the reins of power.; #he Court added
that 6in the case at &ar$ the pro&a&le harm to society in permitting incum&ent appointive ofcials to remain in ofce$ even as they
actively pursue elective posts$ far outweighs the less li:ely evil of having argua&ly protected candidacies &loc:ed &y the possi&le
inhi&itory e<ect of a potentially overly &road
=ere$ it strongly upholds the constitutionality of the resolution saying that it does not violate the e>ual protection clause. 't is settled
that the e>ual protection clause does not demand a&solute e>uality? it merely re>uires that all persons shall &e treated ali:e$ under
li:e circumstances and conditions &oth as to privileges conferred and lia&ilities enforced. #he test used is reasona&leness which
re>uires that7
). #he classifcation rests on su&stantial distinctions?
3. 't is germane to the purposes of the law?
*. 't is not limited to e@isting conditions only? and
A. 't applies e>ually to all mem&ers of the same class.
'n the case under consideration$ there is a su&stantial distinction &etween pu&lic and elective ofcials which has &een rendered moot
and academic &y the ruling made in the case of 5arinas$ etl. al. vs. E@ecutive (ecretary$ et. al.
(ection A BaC of COMELEC +esolution Do. E-FE is constitutional.
Pundaodaya v. COMELEC
!.+. Do. )F,*)*$ (eptem&er )F$ 3//,
Gnares0(antiago$ %.$ En Hanc
FACTS: Petitioner was Ma:il Pundaodaya$ hus&and of %udith Pundaodaya who lost the 3//F mayoral elections at Iinoguitan$ Misamis
Oriental. Pu&lic respondent COMELEC En Hanc declared "rsenio Do&le the Iinoguitan Mayor in the 3//F elections. Petitioner claimed
that private respondent is resident of Cagayan de Oro City BC2OC where he maintains a &usiness and that COMELEC acted with grave
a&use discretion when B)C it declared private respondent >ualifed B3C it failed to annul Do&le9s election proclamation? and B*C it
refused to proclaim %udith Pundaodaya as the winner.Private respondent Do&le said that in ),,3$ he married the daughter of the
Mayor of Iinoguitan where he also voted in the ),,E$ 3//)$ and 3//A elections. Hut private respondent did not a&andon original
domicile Blegal residenceC in
C2O as proven &y7
BaC Harangay +esidence Certifcation BC2OC
B&C "fdavit of Don0residence BIinoguitan$ Misamis OrientalC
BcC Photos$ receipts showing that Do&le and wife maintained residence$ &usiness in C2O
BdC #a@ declarations of real properties in C2O under Do&le9s name
BeC =ousehold +ecord of Harangay 'nha&itants of Iinoguitan Mayor Bfather of wifeC
(ec. *,$ Local !ov9t Code B+" F)-/C provides that an elective local ofcial must &e a resident in the &arangay$ municipality$ city$ or
province where he intends to serve for at least one B)C year immediately preceding the election.+esidence is defned as the place
where one ha&itually resides and to which$
when he is a&sent$ he has the intention of returning. 't is a >uestion of intention and circumstances.
+ules on 4udging circumstances7
0that a man must have residenceJdomicile somewhere
0when once esta&lished it remains until a new one is ac>uired
0a man can have &ut one residenceJdomicile at a time
ISSUE7 .OD private respondent is >ualifed to run for the mayoralty position
HELD: Petition !+"D#E2. Proclaimed Kice0Mayor ordered to succeed as Mayor.Do&le failed to comply with the residence
re>uirement. Presentation of voter registration records$ a marriage certifcate$ water &ills and a deed of sale covering property in the
place where he sought to &e elected was insufcient.Do&le9s alleged change of domicile was only for the purpose of >ualifying as
mayoral candidate in 3//F.
$.". #o. '()**) %cto+er '), ,**-
#%"LAI#IE MITMU$ LIM.%#A, .etitioner,
vs.
C%MMISSI%# %# ELECTI%#S an/ MALI0 1.%..21 T. ALI#$A#, Respondents.
#ACHU"A, J.:
-efore this +ourt is a .etition for +ertiorari under Rule (9, in relation to Rule (4, assailing the Resolution
1
dated 8ovem$er 12, 1;;7 of the Second
Division of the +ommission on *lections <+omelec> and the Resolution
1
of the +omelec *n -anc dated Ianuary 14, 1;;9 in S.A 8o. ;7H(11.
:he factual and procedural antecedents are as follows0
.rior to the ay 14, 1;;7 elections, petitioner 8orlainie itmug Lim$ona and her hus$and, ohammad J*#chanJ Lim$ona, each filed a +ertificate of
+andidacy for ayor of .antar, Lanao del 8orte. )n April 1, 1;;7, private respondent ali! J-o$$yJ Alingan filed a dis3ualification case against
ohammad $efore the .rovincial *lection Supervisor of Lanao del 8orte. )n April 11, 1;;7, Alingan also filed a petition for dis3ualification against
petitioner.
2
-oth dis3ualification cases were premised on the ground that petitioner and her hus$and lac!ed the oneHyear residency re3uirement and
$oth were not registered voters of .antar.
4
)n April 17, 1;;7, petitioner e#ecuted an Affidavit of 6ithdrawal of her certificate of candidacy,
9
which was su$se3uently approved $y the
+omelec.
(
.etitioner also filed a otion to Dismiss the dis3ualification case against her for $eing moot and academic.
7
)n election day, ay 14, 1;;7, the +omelec resolved to postpone the elections in .antar $ecause there was no final list of voters yet. A special election
was scheduled for Iuly 12, 1;;7.
8
)n ay 14, 1;;7, the +omelec =irst Division promulgated a Resolution dis3ualifying ohammad as candidate for mayor for failure to comply with the
oneHyear residency re3uirement.
9
.etitioner then filed her +ertificate of +andidacy as su$stitute candidate on Iuly 11, 1;;7. )n Iuly 12, 1;;7, Alingan
filed a petition for dis3ualification against petitioner for, among others, lac!ing the oneHyear residency re3uirement <S.A 8o. ;7H(11>.
1;
&n a Resolution in S.A 8o. ;7H(11
11
dated 8ovem$er 12, 1;;7, the +omelec Second Division ruled that petitioner was dis3ualified from running for
ayor of .antar. :he +omelec held that petitioner only $ecame a resident of .antar in 8ovem$er 1;;(. &t e#plained that petitionerAs domicile of origin
was aguing, Lanao del 8orte, her $irthplace. 6hen she got married, she $ecame a resident of -arangay Rapasun, arawi +ity, where her hus$and
was -arangay +hairman until 8ovem$er 1;;(. -arangay Rapasun, the +omelec said, was petitionerAs domicile $y operation of law under the =amily
+ode. :he +omelec found that the evidence petitioner adduced to prove that she has a$andoned her domicile of origin or her domicile in arawi +ity
two years prior to the elections consisted mainly of selfHserving affidavits and were not corro$orated $y independent and competent evidence. :he
+omelec also too! note of its resolution in another case where it was found that petitioner was not even a registered voter in .antar. .etitioner filed a
otion for Reconsideration.
11
:he +omelec resolved the motion in an *n -anc Resolution dated Ianuary 14, 1;;9,
12
affirming the Second DivisionAs Resolution dis3ualifying petitioner.
:he +omelec said that the issue of whether petitioner has complied with the oneHyear residency rule has $een decided $y the Supreme +ourt in
8orlainie itmug Lim$ona v. +ommission on *lections and ali! J-o$$yJ :. Alingan promulgated on Iune 19, 1;;8. :he +omelec noted that, in said
case, the Supreme +ourt upheld the +omelec =irst DivisionAs Decision in S.A 8o. ;7H(11 dis3ualifying petitioner from running for mayor of .antar for
failure to comply with the residency re3uirement.
.etitioner is now $efore this +ourt assailing the +omelecAs 8ovem$er 12, 1;;7 and Ianuary 14, 1;;9 Resolutions. She posits that the +omelec erred in
dis3ualifying her for failure to comply with the oneHyear residency re3uirement. She alleges that in a dis3ualification case against her hus$and filed $y
8asser acauyag, another mayoralty candidate, the +omelec considered her hus$and as a resident of .antar and 3ualified to run for any elective office
there. .etitioner avers that since her hus$and was 3ualified to run in .antar, she is li!ewise 3ualified to run.
14
1avvhi1
.etitioner also stresses that she was actually residing and was physically present in that municipality for almost two years prior to the ay 1;;7
elections. During the time she had $een residing in .antar, she associated and mingled with residents there, giving her ample time to !now the needs,
difficulties, aspirations, and economic potential of the municipality. :his, she said, is proof of her intention to esta$lish permanent residency there and her
intent to a$andon her domicile in arawi +ity.
She ne#t argues that, even as her hus$and was .unong -arangay of Rapasun, arawi +ity, he never a$andoned .antar as his hometown and domicile
of origin. She avers that the performance of her hus$andAs duty in Rapasun did not prevent the latter from having his domicile elsewhere. "ence, it was
incorrect for the +omelec to have concluded that her hus$and changed his domicile only on 8ovem$er 11, 1;;(.
19
At the very least, petitioner says, the
+omelecAs conflicting resolutions on the issue of her hus$andAs residence should create a dou$t that should $e resolved in her and her hus$andAs
favor.
1(
She further contends that to dis3ualify her would disenfranchise the voters of .antar, the overwhelming ma@ority of whom elected her as mayor during
the Iuly 12, 1;;7 special elections.
17
:he +omelec, through the )ffice of the Solicitor /eneral <)S/>, filed its +omment, insisting that the +omelec correctly dis3ualified petitioner from
running as mayor for lac! of the oneHyear residency re3uirement.
18
:he )S/ argues that there is no evidence that petitioner has a$andoned her
domicile of origin or her domicile in arawi +ity.
19
oreover, the )S/ said that this +ourt has ruled on the issue of petitionerAs residency in 8orlainie
itmug Lim$ona v. +ommission on *lections and ali! J-o$$yJ :. Alingan.
1;
Lastly, the )S/ contends that the +omelecAs ruling in 8asser A. acauyag
v. ohammad Lim$ona is not $inding on petitioner $ecause she was not a party to the case.
11
6e dismiss the .etition.
:he issue of petitionerAs dis3ualification for failure to comply with the oneHyear residency re3uirement has $een resolved $y this +ourt in 8orlainie
itmug Lim$ona v. +ommission on *lections and ali! J-o$$yJ :. Alingan.
11
:his case stemmed from the first dis3ualification case filed $y herein
respondent against petitioner, doc!eted as S.A 8o. ;7H(11. Although the petitioner had withdrawn the +ertificate of +andidacy su$@ect of the
dis3ualification case, the +omelec resolved the petition and found that petitioner failed to comply with the oneHyear residency re3uirement, and was,
therefore, dis3ualified from running as mayor of .antar.
A unanimous +ourt upheld the findings of the +omelec, to wit0
6"*R*=)R*, the petition for certiorari is D&S&SS*D. :he Septem$er 4, 1;;7 Resolution of the +ommission on *lections in S.A +ase 8o. ;7H(11
dis3ualifying petitioner 8orlainie itmug Lim$ona from running for office of the ayor of .antar, Lanao del 8orte, and the Ianuary 9, 1;;8 Resolution
denying the motion for reconsideration, are A==&R*D. &n view of the permanent vacancy in the )ffice of the ayor, the proclaimed 5iceHayor shall
S%++**D as ayor. :he temporary restraining order issued on Ianuary 19, 1;;8 is ordered L&=:*D.
S) )RD*R*D.
12
:he +ourt found that petitioner failed to satisfy the oneHyear residency re3uirement. &t held0
:he +omelec correctly found that petitioner failed to satisfy the oneHyear residency re3uirement. :he term JresidenceJ as used in the election law is
synonymous with Jdomicile,J which imports not only intention to reside in a fi#ed place $ut also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention. :he manifest intent of the law in fi#ing a residence 3ualification is to e#clude a stranger or newcomer, unac3uainted with the
conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that community.
=or purposes of election law, the 3uestion of residence is mainly one of intention. :here is no hard and fast rule $y which to determine where a person
actually resides. :hree rules are, however, well esta$lished0 first, that a man must have a residence or domicile somewhereB second, that where once
esta$lished it remains until a new one is ac3uiredB and third, a man can have $ut one domicile at a time.
&n order to ac3uire a domicile $y choice, there must concur <1> residence or $odily presence in the new locality, <1> an intention to remain there, and <2>
an intention to a$andon the old domicile. A personAs JdomicileJ once esta$lished is considered to continue and will not $e deemed lost until a new one is
esta$lished.
:o successfully effect a change of domicile one must demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of domicileB a $ona fide intention of
a$andoning the former place of residence and esta$lishing a new one, and definite acts which correspond with the purpose. &n other words, there must
$asically $e animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. :he purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must $e for an indefinite period
of timeB the change of residence must $e voluntaryB and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must $e actual.
.etitionerAs claim that she has $een physically present and actually residing in .antar for almost 1; months prior to the elections, is selfHserving and
unsu$stantiated. As correctly o$served $y the +omelec0
&n the present case, the evidence adduced $y respondent, which consists merely of selfHserving affidavits cannot persuade %s that she has a$andoned
her domicile of origin or her domicile in arawi +ity. &t is alleged that respondent Jhas $een staying, sleeping and doing $usiness in her house for more
than 1; monthsJ in Lower Kalanganan and yet, there is no independent and competent evidence that would corro$orate such statement.
=urther, 6e find no other act that would indicate respondentAs intention to stay in .antar for an indefinite period of time. :he filing of her +ertificate of
+andidacy in .antar, standing alone, is not sufficient to hold that she has chosen .antar as her new residence. 6e also ta!e notice of the fact that in
S.A 8o. ;7H(11, this +ommission has even found that she is not a registered voter in the said municipality warranting her dis3ualification as a
candidate.
6e note the findings of the +omelec that petitionerAs domicile of origin is aguing, Lanao del 8orte, which is also her place of $irthB and that her
domicile $y operation of law <$y virtue of marriage> is Rapasun, arawi +ity. :he +omelec found that ohammad, petitionerAs hus$and, effected the
change of his domicile in favor of .antar, Lanao del 8orte only on 8ovem$er 11, 1;;(. Since it is presumed that the hus$and and wife live together in
one legal residence, then it follows that petitioner effected the change of her domicile also on 8ovem$er 11, 1;;(. Articles (8 and (9 of the =amily +ode
provide0
Art. (8. :he hus$and and wife are o$liged to live together, o$serve mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.
Art. (9. :he hus$and and wife shall fi# the family domicile. &n case of disagreement, the court shall decide. :he court may e#empt one spouse from living
with the other if the latter should live a$road or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the e#emption. "owever, such e#emption shall not apply
if the same is not compati$le with the solidarity of the family. <*mphasis ours>
+onsidering that petitioner failed to show that she maintained a separate residence from her hus$and, and as there is no evidence to prove otherwise,
reliance on these provisions of the =amily +ode is proper and is in consonance with human e#perience.
:hus, for failure to comply with the residency re3uirement, petitioner is dis3ualified to run for the office of mayor of .antar, Lanao del 8orte. # # #.
14
.etitionerAs otion for Reconsideration of the a$oveH3uoted Decision was denied with finality on arch 2, 1;;9.
19
.etitioner filed another otion for
Reconsideration,
1(
which the +ourt treated as a Second otion for Reconsideration and, conse3uently, denied in a Resolution dated Iune 1, 1;;9.
17
)f
late, petitioner has filed a JanifestationJ that raises yet again the issues already resolved in the petition and which the +ourt has, accordingly, merely
noted without action.
18
:hus, our ruling therein has now attained finality.
+onse3uently, the issue of petitionerAs compliance with the oneHyear residency re3uirement is now settled. 6e are $ound $y this +ourtAs ruling in the
earlier Lim$ona case where the issue was s3uarely raised and categorically resolved. 6e cannot now rule anew on the merits of this case, especially
since the present .etition merely restates issues already passed upon $y the +omelec and affirmed $y this +ourt.
6"*R*=)R*, the foregoing premises considered, the .etition is D&S&SS*D and the Resolution dated 8ovem$er 12, 1;;7 of the Second Division of
the +ommission on *lections and the Resolution of the +ommission on *lections *n -anc dated Ianuary 14, 1;;9 in S.A 8o. ;7H(11 are A==&R*D.
S) )RD*R*D.
A#T%#I% EDUA"D% .. #ACHU"A
Associate Iustice
3ilan/o vs. H"ET, $.". #o '-,'45 6 '-,'4-, Au7ust ,8, ,*''
Facts: )n April 11, 1;;9 and ay 17, 1;;9, petitioner 5ilandoB and Iacinto .aras, filed separate petitions for Luo 6arranto against Lim!aichong $efore
the "R*:. .etitioners asserted that Lim!aichong was a +hinese citiMen and ineligi$le for the office she was elected and proclaimed. :hey alleged that
she was $orn to a father <Iulio Sy>, whose naturaliMation had not attained finality, and to a mother who ac3uired the +hinese citiMenship of Iulio Sy from
the time of her marriage to the latter. Also, they contend that Lim!aichong cannot derive .hilippine citiMenship from her mother given that at the time of
her $irth, her mother is not already a =ilipino citiMen as a result of her marriage to her father.
Issue: -y o$taining an A+R did Lim!aichongAs mother repudiate her =ilipino citiMenshipG Did it result in an ac3uisition of an alien citiMenshipG &s
Lim!aichong a naturalH$orn =ilipino citiMenG
"ulin7: An application for an alien certificate of registration <A+R> is not an indu$ita$le proof of forfeiture of .hilippine citiMenship. &t $ears no indication
of $asis for foreign citiMenship, nor proof of change to foreign citiMenship.
%nli!e $irth certificates registered pursuant to Act 2792 <:he +ivil Register Law>, and much less li!e other pu$lic records referred to under Section 12,
Rule 121, an alien certificate of registration is not a pu$lic document that would $e prima facie evidence of the truth of facts contained therein. )n its
face, it only certifies that the applicant had su$mitted himself or herself to registration. :herefore, there is no presumption of alienage of the declarant.
:hus, o$taining an A+R $y Lim!aichongAs mother was not tantamount to a repudiation of her original citiMenship. 8either did it result in an ac3uisition of
alien citiMenship. &n a string of decisions, this +ourt has consistently held that an application for, and the holding of, an alien certificate of registration is
not an act constituting renunciation of .hilippine citiMenship. =or renunciation to effectively result in the loss of citiMenship, the same must $e e#press.
Such e#press renunciation is lac!ing in this case.
Accordingly, Lim!aichongAs mother, $eing a =ilipino citiMen, can transmit her citiMenship to her daughter.
itra v. +omelec
+ertificate of candidacyB residency re3uirement.
0 T9e %mni+us Election Co/e provi/es t9at a certi:icate o: can/i/ac ma +e /enie/ /ue course or cancelle/ i: t9ere is an :alse
representation o: a material :act.
0 :he critical material facts are those that refer to a candidateAs 3ualifications for elective office, such as his or her citiMenship and residence.
0 T9e :alse representation must +e a /eli+erate attempt to mislea/, misin:orm, or 9i/e a :act t9at ;oul/ ot9er;ise ren/er a can/i/ate
ineli7i+le.
0 $iven t9e purpose o: t9e re<uirement, it must +e ma/e ;it9 t9e intention to /eceive t9e electorate as to t9e ;oul/=+e can/i/ate>s
<uali:ications :or pu+lic o::ice.
0 :hus, the misrepresentation cannot $e the result of a mere innocuous mista!e, and cannot e#ist in a situation where the intent to deceive is
patently a$sent, or where no deception on the electorate results.
0 :he foregoing are the legal standards $y which the +)*L*+ must act on a petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of
candidacy.
0 :hus, in considering the residency of a candidate as stated in the certificate of candidacy, the +)*L*+ must determine whether or not the
candidate deli$erately attempted to mislead, misinform or hide a fact a$out his or her residency that would otherwise render him or her
ineligi$le for the position sought.
0
T9e C%MELEC 7ravel a+use/ its /iscretion in t9is case ;9en, in consi/erin7 t9e resi/enc issue, it +ase/ its /ecision solel on
ver personal an/ su+?ective assessment stan/ar/s, suc9 as t9e nature or /esi7n an/ :urnis9in7s o: t9e /;ellin7 place in relation
to t9e stature o: t9e can/i/ate. Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. 19193, J!l" #, #$1$.
8ature0 :he respondent +ommission on *lections <+)*L*+> canceled the certificate of candidacy <+)+> of petitioner A$raham Kahlil -. itra for
allegedly misrepresenting that he is a resident of the unicipality of A$orlan, .rovince of .alawan where he ran for the position of /overnor. itra came
to this +ourt to see! the reversal of the cancellation.
=acts0
0 6hen his +)+ for the position of /overnor of .alawan was declared cancelled, itra was the incum$ent Representative of the Second
District of .alawan.
0 :his district then included, among other territories, the unicipality of A$orlan and .uerto .rincesa +ity.
0 "e was elected Representative as a domiciliary of .uerto .rincesa +ity, and represented the legislative district for three <2> terms immediately
$efore the elections of 1;1;.
0 )n arch 1(, 1;;7 <or $efore the end of itraAs second term as Representative>, .uerto .rincesa +ity was reclassified as a Jhighly ur$aniMed
cityJ and thus ceased to $e a component city of the .rovince of .alawan.
0 :he direct legal conse3uence of this new status was the ineligi$ility of .uerto .rincesa +ity residents from voting for candidates for elective
provincial officials.
0 )n arch 1;, 1;;9, with the intention of running for the position of /overnor, itra applied for the transfer of his 5oterAs Registration Record
from .recinct 8o. ;271; of -rgy. Sta. onica, .uerto .rincesa +ity, to Sitio aligaya,-rgy. &sau$, unicipality of A$orlan, .rovince of
.alawan. "e su$se3uently filed his +)+ for the position of /overnor of .alawan as a resident of A$orlan.
0 Soon thereafter, respondents Antonio 5. /onMales and )rlando R. -al$on, Ir. <the respondents> filed a petition to deny due course or to
cancel itraAs +)+.
&ssue06hether or not itra is 3ualified to run for /overnor of .alawan.
"eld0N*S. itra is 3ualified to rum for the position as /overnor of .alawan. :he Supreme +ourt ruled that itra did not misrepresent himself and that he
met the residency re3uirement as mandated $y the +onstitution.
RA:&)0
0 :he election of A$raham Kahlil itra as governor of .alawan in the ay 1;, 1;1; elections was upheld in a vote of 11H2.
0 :he respondents were not a$le to present a convincing case sufficient to overcome itraAs evidence of effective transfer to and residence in
A$orlan and the validity of his representation on this point in his +)+.
0 Li!ewise, the J+)*L*+ could not present any legally accepta$le $asis to conclude that itraAs statement in his +)+ regarding his
residence was a misrepresentation.J
0 itraAs domicile of origin is undisputedly .uerto .rincesa +ity. =or him to 3ualify as /overnor ? in light of the relatively recent change of status
of .uerto .rincesa +ity from a component city to a highly ur$aniMed city whose residents can no longer vote for provincial officials ? he had to
a$andon his domicile of origin and ac3uire a new one within the local government unit where he intended to runB this would $e his domicile of
choice. :o ac3uire a domicile of choice, @urisprudence, which the +)*L*+ correctly invo!ed, re3uires the following0
<1> residence or $odily presence in a new localityB
<1> an intention to remain thereB and
<2> an intention to a$andon the old domicile.
0 itra, presented sworn statements of various persons <including the seller of the land he purchased, the lessor of the aligaya =eedmill, and
the .unong -arangay of the site of his residence> attesting to his physical residence in A$orlanB photographs of the residential portion of
aligaya =eedmill where he resides, and of his e#perimental pineapple plantation, farm, farmhouse and coc! farmB the lease contract over the
aligaya =eedmillB and the deed of sale of the lot where he has started constructing his house. "e clarified, too, that he does not claim
residence in A$orlan at the house then under constructionB his actual residence is the meMManine portion of the aligaya =eedmill $uilding.
0 itra has $een proclaimed winner in the electoral contest and has therefore the mandate of the electorate to serve
8):*S0
0 :he minimum re3uirement under our +onstitutionand election laws for the candidatesA residency in the political unit they see! to represent has
never $een intended to $e an empty formalistic conditionB it carries with it a very specific purpose0 to prevent JstrangerDsE or newcomerDsE
unac3uainted with the conditions and needs of a communityJ from see!ing elective offices in that community.
0 :he purpose of the residency re3uirement is J$est met $y individuals who have either had actual residence in the area for a given period or who
have $een domiciled in the same area either $y origin or $y choice.J
0 Read and understood in this manner, residency can readily $e appreciated as a re3uirement that goes into the heart of our democratic systemB it
directly supports the purpose of representation ? electing those who can $est serve the community $ecause of their !nowledge and sensitivity to its
needs. &t li!ewise adds meaning and su$stance to the votersA freedom of choice in the electoral e#ercise that characteriMes every democracy.
0 To ac<uire a ne; /omicile ! a /omicile + c9oice ! t9e :ollo;in7 must concur: @'A resi/ence or +o/il presence in a ne; localitB @,A an
intention to remain t9ereB an/ @8A an intention to a+an/on t9e ol/ /omicile. In ot9er ;or/s, t9ere must +e an animus non reverten/i ;it9
respect to t9e ol/ /omicile, an/ an animus manen/i at t9e /omicile o: c9oice. T9e intent to remain in or at t9e /omicile o: c9oice must +e
:or an in/e:inite perio/ o: time an/ t9e acts o: t9e person must +e consistent ;it9 t9is intent.