You are on page 1of 5

REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, Petitioner, v.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND JOSEPH SOCORRO B. TAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 207264, June 2, 20!"
#$%&'(
The petitioners assail through a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction resolution of the Commission on
Election ordering the cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner for the
position of the Representatie of the lone district of !arindu"ue.
On Octo#er $%. &'%&, (oseph )ocorro Tan filed with the Comelec an *mended Petition to
+eny +ue Course or to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Regina Ongsia,o Reyes,
the petitioner, on the ground that it contained material representations.On !arch &-,
&'%$, the CO!E.EC cancelled the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner. )he filed an
!R on *pril /, &'%$. On !ay %0, &'%$, CO!E.EC en #anc denied her !R.
1oweer, on !ay %/, &'%$, she was proclaimed winner of the !ay %$, &'%$ Elections.
On (une 2, &'%$, CO!E.EC declared the !ay %0, &'%$ Resolution final and E3ecutory.
On the same day, petitioner too, her oath of office #efore 4eliciano 5elmonte, the
)pea,er of the 1ouse of Representaties. )he has yet to assume office at that time, as her
term officially starts at noon of (une $', &'%$.*ccording to petitioner, the CO!E.EC
was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly proclaimed
&'
#ecause pursuant to
)ection %-, *rticle 6I of the %7/- Constitution, the 1RET has the e3clusie jurisdiction
to #e the 8sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and "ualifications9 of
the !em#ers of the 1ouse of Representaties.
I''ue(
:hether or not CO!E.EC has jurisdiction oer the petitioner who is proclaimed as
winner and who has already ta,en her oath of office for the position of mem#er of the
1ouse of Representatie of !arindu"ue.
He)*(
;es, CO!E.EC retains jurisdiction #ecause the jurisdiction of the 1RET #egins only
after the candidate is considered a !em#er of the 1ouse of Representaties, as stated in
)ection %-, *rticle 6I of the %7/- Constitution. 4or one to #e considered a !em#er of
the 1ouse of Representaties, there must #e a concurrence of these re"uisites< =%> alid
proclamation? =&> proper oath, and =$> assumption of office.
Thus the petitioner cannot #e considered a mem#er of the 1R yet as she has not assumed
office yet. *lso, the &
nd
re"uirement was not alidly complied with as a alid oath must
#e made =%> #efore the )pea,er of the 1ouse of Representaties, and =&> in open session.
1ere, although she made the oath #efore )pea,er 5elmonte, there is no indication that it
was made during plenary or in open session and, thus, it remains unclear whether the
re"uired oath of office was indeed complied.
4urthermore, +e&,&,on -o. %e.&,o.$., /,)) +.o'+e. on)0 ,- 1.$2e $3u'e o- *,'%.e&,on ,'
$))e1e* $n* +.o2e* &o e4,'&. #o. $n $%& &o 3e '&.u%5 *o/n $' 6$2,n1 3een *one /,&6
1.$2e $3u'e o- *,'%.e&,on, &6e $3u'e o- *,'%.e&,on 7u'& 3e +$&en& $n* 1.o''.
1ere, this Court finds that petitioner failed to ade"uately and su#stantially show that
grae a#use of discretion e3ists.
HERMILINA N. ABAIN8A,
Petitioner, @ ersus @
ERNESTO ARELLANO $n* COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondents.
G.R. No. !9!644
#$%&'(
On )eptem#er $, &''-, CO!E.EC annulled the proclamation of 1ermiliana *#ainAa as
councilor of the the !unicipality of (oellar, *l#ay due to erroneous tally of otes. The
tally showed that %%0 otes were in faour of Ernesto *rellano #ut only indicated %0
otes in words and figures in the election return. *fter counterchec,ing the copy of the
said return, mem#ers of the 5oard of Elections admitted the clerical error of otes. The,
!R was also denied. 1ence, this petition for certiorari.
I''ue'(
=%> :hether the CO!E.EC has original jurisdiction oer the petition for
correction of manifest error? and
=&> :hether the CO!E.EC erred in granting the petition for correction of
manifest error which was in the nature of a pre@proclamation controersy despite the
proclamation and oath #y petitioner as elected councillor.
He)*(
%> ;es, it has jurisdiction oer correction of manifest error pursuant to
)ec.2, Rule &- of the CO!E.EC Rules of Procedure.
)ec. 2. Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly With the
Commission. @ =a> The following pre@proclamation controersies may #e filed
directly with the Commission<
&> :hen the issue inoles the correction of manifest errors in the
ta#ulation or tallying of the results during the canassing as where =%> a
copy of the election returns or certificate of canass was ta#ulated more
than once, =&> two or more copies of the election returns of one precinct,
or two or more copies of certificate of canass were ta#ulated
separately, =$> there has #een a mista,e in the copying of the figures into
the statement of otes or into the certificate of canass, or =0> so@called
returns from non@e3istent precincts were included in the canass, and such
errors could not hae #een discoered during the canassing despite the
e3ercise of due diligence and proclamation of the winning candidates had
already #een made.
* 8manifest error9 is one that is isi#le to the eye or o#ious to the understanding? that
which is open, palpa#le, incontroerti#le, needing no eidence to ma,e it more clear. *s
stated in the assailed Resolution of the CO!E.EC, the error in the entry in the election
return is ery eident to the eye, needing no eidence to ma,e it clear. PetitionerBs
proclamation, and eentual assumption of office, was predicated on a clerical and
8manifest9 error, not on the legitimate will of the electorate.
The petition was howeer dismissed #ecause the petition raised purely technical
o#jections and did not dispute the finding of the CO!E.EC on the error in the total
num#er of otes reflected in the election return.
ROMMEL APOLINARIO JALOSJOS, 2'
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
and +*C ER*)!O, )R., Respondents.
D.R. Co. %7%7-' *pril &0, &'%&

#ACTS(
Rommel (alosjos was #orn in EueAon City on Octo#er &F, %7-$. 1e migrated to *ustralia
in %7/% when he was eight years old and there ac"uired *ustralian citiAenship. On
Coem#er &&, &''/, at age $2, he decided to return to the Philippines and lied with his
#rother in Ipil, Gam#oanga )i#ugay. 4our days upon his return, he too, an oath of
allegiance to the Repu#lic of the Philippines, hence, he was issued a Certificate of
Reac"uisition of Philippine CitiAenship #y the 5ureau of Immigration. On )eptem#er %,
&''7 he renounced his *ustralian citiAenship, e3ecuting a sworn renunciation of the same
in compliance with Repu#lic *ct =R.*.> 7&&2. 4rom the time of his return, (alosjos
ac"uired a residential property in the same illage where he lied and maintained a fish
pond.
1e applied for registration as a oter in the !unicipality of Ipil #ut respondent Erasmo,
the 5arangay Captain, opposed the said act. Election Registration 5oard approed it and
included (alosjosB name in the CO!E.EC oters list. Erasmo filed #efore the !TC a
petition for the e3clusion of (alosjosB name from the official oters list. The !TC denied
ErasmoBs petition. 1e appealed to RTC #ut RTC upheld the !TC decision. On Coem#er
&/, &''7 (alosjos filed his Certificate of Candidacy =COC> for Doernor of Gam#oanga
)i#ugay Proince for the !ay %', &'%' elections. Erasmo filed a petition to deny due
course or to cancel (alosjosB COC on the ground that (alosjos made material
misrepresentation in the same since he failed to comply with =%> the re"uirements of R.*.
7&&2 and =&> the one@year residency re"uirement of the .ocal Doernment Code.
CO!E.EC ruled against (alosjos, #ecause he failed to comply with the %@year residency
rue"uirement. )u#se"uently, (alosjos won the elections
ISS:E( :hether or not (alosjos failed to comply with the %@year residency re"uirement
HELD(
(alosjos complied with the %@year re"uirement. It is true that his domicial was EueAon
City, his domicile of origin, the place of his #irth. 1oweer, his domicile was changed
from EueAon City to *ustralia when he migrated there at the age of eight, ac"uired
*ustralian citiAenship, and lied in that country for &F years. *ustralia #ecame his
domicile #y operation of law and #y choice.
:hen he came to the Philippines in Coem#er &''/ to lie with his #rother in
Gam#oanga )i#ugay, it is eident that (alosjos did so with intent to change his domicile
for good. In addition, he reac"uired his old citiAenship #y ta,ing an oath of allegiance to
the Repu#lic of the Philippines, resulting in his #eing issued a Certificate of
Reac"uisition of Philippine CitiAenship #y the 5ureau of Immigration. 5y his acts,
(alosjos forfeited his legal right to lie in *ustralia, clearly proing that he gae up his
domicile there.1e has since lied nowhere else e3cept in Ipil, Gam#oanga )i#ugay.
*s to the issue that he cannot claim Ipil as his domicile as he was liing in his #rotherBs
house, the court said that a candidate need to hae a house in a community to esta#lish
residence. It is sufficient that he rents a house or in the house of a friend or relatie.
Only & important things must #e proed< actual physical presence and an intention of
ma,ing it his domicile. (aloslos was a#le to proe the two re"uirements. 1ence, he is
"ualified.
L:IS R. ;ILLA#:ERTE , Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND
MIG:EL R. ;ILLA#:ERTE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 2066<9, #e3.u$.0 2, 20!4
#ACTS(
Petitioner and respondent were #oth candidates for the Du#ernatorial position of the
Proince of Camarines )ur in the !ay %$, &'%$ local and national elections. On Octo#er
&2, &'%&, petitioner filed with the CO!E.EC a 6erified Petition
$
to deny due course to
or cancel the certificate of candidacy =COC> of respondent, alleging that respondent
intentionally and materially misrepresented a false and deceptie name/nic,name that
would mislead the oters when he declared under oath in his COC that 8.HR*; (R.H
!IDG9 was his nic,name or stagename and that the name he intended to appear on the
official #allot was 6I..*4IERTE, .HR*; (R.H!IDG CP? that respondent deli#erately
omitted his first name 8!IDIE.9 and inserted, instead 8.R*; (R.,9 which is the
nic,name of his father, the incum#ent Doernor of Camarines )ur, 8.Ray 6illafuerte,
(r.9
0
respondent denied the commission of any material misrepresentation and asserted,
among others, that he had #een using the nic,name 8.R*; (R. !IDG9 and not only
8!IDG9? that the choice of name/word to appear on the #allot was solely his choice or
preference? and that the presumption that the oters would #e confused on the simple fact
that his name would #e placed first in the #allot was misplaced.
On (anuary %2, &'%$, the CO!E.ECBs 4irst +iision denied the petition for lac, of
merit. .aws and jurisprudence on the matter are clear that material misrepresentation in
the COC pertains only to "ualifications of a candidate, such as citiAenship, residency,
registration as a oter, age, etc. Cothing has #een mentioned a#out a candidateBs
name/nic,name as a ground to deny due course or cancel his/her COC. CO!E.EC en
#anc affirmed the 4irst +iisionBs decision. 1ence this petition.
Issue< :hether or not respondent committed a material misrepresentation under )ection
-/ of the Omni#us Election Code so as to justify the cancellation of his COC.
1eld<
CO. 8!aterial misrepresentation9 under the earlierH"uoted )ection -/ of the Omni#us
Election Code refers to 8"ualifications for electie office.9 It need not #e emphasiAed that
there is no showing that there was an intent to deceie the electorate as to priate
respondentBs identity, nor that #y using his 4ilipino name the oting pu#lic was there#y
deceied. Thus, the use of a name other than that stated in the certificate of #irth is not a
material misrepresentation. Clearly, from the foregoing, for the petition to deny due
course or cancel the COC of one candidate to prosper, the candidate must hae made a
material misrepresentation inoling his eligi#ility or "ualification for the office to which
he see,s election, such as the re"uisite residency, age, citiAenship or any other legal
"ualification necessary to run for local electie office as proided in the .ocal
Doernment Code.
%2
1ence, petitionerBs allegation that respondentBs nic,name 8.R*;
(R. !IDG9 written in his COC is a material misrepresentation is deoid of merit.
!oreoer, the false representation under )ection -/ must consist of a deli#erate attempt
to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligi#le.
*s we said, respondentBs nic,name is not considered a material fact, and there is no
su#stantial eidence showing that in writing the nic,name 8.R*; (R. !IDG9 in his
COC, respondent had the intention to deceie the oters as to his identity which has an
effect on his eligi#ility or "ualification for the office he see,s to assume.