Aquino v COMELEC (1995)

Aquino vs. Comelec

Agapito A. Aquino, petitioner vs. Commission on Election, Move
Makati, Mateo Bedon, and Juanito Icaro, respondents
Sept, 18, 1995
Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
Relevant Provisions:
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.
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.
Issue:
1. Whether residency in the certificate of candidacy actually
connotes domicile to warrant the disqualification of Aquino from the
position in the electoral district.
2. 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.
Held:
1. Yes, 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.
Mr. Nolledo:
I remember that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there was an
attempt to require residence in the place not less than one year
immediately preceding the day of elections.

What is the Committees concept of residence for the legislature? Is it

actual residence or is it the concept of domicile or constructive
residence?
Mr. Davide:
This is in the district, for a period of not less than one year preceding
the day of election. This was in effect lifted from the 1973
constituition, the interpretation given to it was domicile.
Mrs. Braid:
On section 7, page2, Noledo has raised the same point that resident
has been interpreted at times as a matter of intention rather than
actual residence.

Mr. De los Reyes

So we have to stick to the original concept that it should be by
domicile and not physical and actual residence.
Therefore, 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.
Which brings us to the second issue.
2. No, 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. Order restraining respondent Comelec from
proclaiming the candidate garnering the next highest number of votes
in the congressional elections of Second district of Makati City made
permanent.
Dicta:
I. Aquinos petition of certiorari contents were:
A. The Comelecs lack of jurisdiction to determine the disqualification
issue involving congressional candidates after the May 8, 1995
elections, such determination reserved with the house of
representatives electional tribunal
B. Even if the Comelec has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction ceased in the
instant case after the elections and the remedy to the adverse parties
lies in another forum which is the HR Electoral Tribunal consistent with
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
C. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it
proceeded to promulagate its questioned decision despite its own
recognition that a threshold issue of jurisdiction has to be judiciously
reviewed again, assuming arguendo that the Comelec has jurisdiction
D. The Comelecs finding of non-compliance with the residency
requirement of one year against the petitioner is contrary to evidence
and to applicable laws and jurisprudence.
E. The Comelec erred in failing to appreciate the legal impossibility of
enforcing the one year residency requirement of Congressional
candidates in newly created political districts which were only existing
for less than a year at the time of the election and barely four months
in the case of petitioners district in Makati.
F. The Comelec committed serious error amounting to lack of
jurisdiction when it ordered the board of canvassers to determine and
proclaim the winner out of the remaining qualified candidates after
the erroneous disqualification of the petitioner in disregard of the
doctrine that a second place candidate or a person who was
repudiated by the electorate is a loser and cannot be proclaimed as

substitute winner.
II. Modern day carpetbaggers cant be allowed to take advantage of
the creation of new political districts by suddenly transplanting
themselves in such new districts, prejudicing their genuine residents
in the process of taking advantage of existing conditions in these
areas.
III. according to COMELEC: The lease agreement was executed mainly
to support the one year residence requirement as a qualification for a
candidate of the HR, by establishing a commencement date of his
residence. If a oerfectly valid lease agreement cannot, by itself
establish a domicile of choice, this particular lease agreement cannot
be better.