You are on page 1of 5

Election Law Case Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal

Article V – Suffrage

Title Facts Issue/s Ruling Doctrine/s

Macalintal v. COMELEC Romulo Macalintal assails the W/N Section 5 of RA 9189 violates NO. Contrary to petitioner’s claim Section 1, Article V of the
GR No. 157013 constitutionality of RA 9189, entitled the residency requirement in Section that Section 5 circumvents the Constitution specifically provides
10 July 2003 “The Overseas Absentee Voting Act 1 of Article V of the Constitution. Constitution, Congress enacted the that suffrage may be exercised by (1)
Austria-Martinez, J. of 2003.” law prescribing a system of overseas all citizens of the Philippines; (2) not
absentee voting in compliance with otherwise disqualified by law; (3) at
The provision assailed is Section 5, the constitutional mandate. Such least eighteen years of age; and (4)
which allows the registration of mandate expressly requires that who are residents in the Philippines
voters who are immigrants or Congress provide a system of for at least one year and in the place
permanent residents in other absentee voting that necessarily where they propose to vote for at
countries by their mere act of presupposes that the “qualified least six months immediately
executing an affidavit expressing citizen of the Philippines abroad” is preceding the election.
their intention to return to the not physically present in the country.
Philippines. The qualified Filipino abroad who The right of absentee and disabled
executed his affidavit is deemed to voters to cast their ballots at an
have retained his domicile in the election is purely statutory; absentee
Philippines. He is presumed to not voting was unknown to, and not
have lost his domicile by his physical recognized at, the common law.
absence from this country. As to the
eventuality that the Filipino abroad Statutes on absentee voting are
would renege on his undertaking to regarded as conferring a privilege
return to the Philippines, the penalty and not a right, or an absolute right.
of perpetual disenfranchisement
provided for by Section 5(d) would Domicile includes the twin elements
suffice to serve as deterrence to non- of “the fact of residing or physical
compliance with his/her undertaking presence in a fixed place” and
under the affidavit. animus manendi, or the intention of
returning there permanently.
What does “qualified citizens of the It means Filipinos who are not Residence, in its ordinary conception,
Philippines abroad” as it appears in disqualified under Section 5 of the implies the factual relationship of an
RA 9189 mean? said law. individual to a certain place. It is the
physical presence of a person in a
Obiter: given area, community, or country.
Contrary to the claim of the
petitioner, the execution of the The essential distinction between
affidavit itself is not the enabling or residence and domicile in law is that
enfranchising act. It is not only proof residence involves the intent to leave
of the intention of the immigrant or when the purpose for which the
permanent resident to go back and resident has taken up his abode ends.
resume residency in the Philippines, If a person’s intent be to remain, it
but more significantly, it serves as an becomes his domicile; if his intent is
explicit expression that he had not in to leave as soon as his purpose is
fact abandoned his domicile of established it is residence.
origin. The affidavit is required of
immigrants and permanent residents A person can only have a single
abroad because by their status in domicile, unless, for various reasons,
their host countries, they are he successfully abandons his
presumed to have relinquished their domicile in favor of another domicile

Election Law Case Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal

intent to return to this country; thus, of choice.

without the affidavit, the
presumption of abandonment of Ordinarily, an absentee is not a
Philippine domicile shall remain. resident and vice versa; a person
cannot be at the same time, both a
The strategic location of Section 2 resident and an absentee. However,
indicates that the Constitutional under our election laws and the
Commission provided for an countless pronouncements of the
exception to the actual residency Court pertaining to elections, an
requirement of Section 1 with respect absentee remains attached to his
to qualified Filipinos abroad. residence in the Philippines as
residence is considered synonymous
with domicile.
Akbayan-Youth v. COMELEC Petitioners, representing the youth W/N RA 8189 is unconstitutional NO. The right of suffrage is not at all In a representative democracy such
GR Nos. 147066 & 147179 sector, seek to direct the COMELEC insofar as it effectively causes the absolute. The exercise of the right is as ours, the right of suffrage,
26 March 2001 to conduct a special registration disenfranchisement of those who subject to existing substantive and although accorded a prime niche in
Buena, J. before the 14 May 2001 General were not able to register. procedural requirements embodied in the hierarchy of rights embodied in
Elections of new voters ages 18 to our Constitution, statute books, and the fundamental law, ought to be
21. According to them, around 4M other repositories of law. As to the exercised within the proper bounds
youth failed to register on or before substantive aspect, Section 1 of and framework of the Constitution
the 27 December 2000 deadline set Article V of the Constitution and must properly yield to pertinent
by COMELEC under RA 8189, or provides for it. As to the procedural laws skillfully enacted by the
the “Voters’ Registration Act of limitation, the right of a citizen to Legislature.
1996.” vote is necessarily conditioned upon
certain procedural requirements he The act of registration is an
Sen. Raul Roco had previously must undergo: among others, the indispensable precondition to the
requested the COMELEC to hold a process of registration. Proceeding right of suffrage. Registration cannot
2-day special registration for the from the significance of registration and should not be denigrated to the
youth, which the COMELEC as a necessary requisite to the right to lowly stature of a mere statutory
declined for lack of time to vote, the State undoubtedly, in the requirement.
accomplish all pre-election activities. exercise of its inherent police power,
Aggrived by the denial, the may then enact laws to safeguard and
petitioners came to Court to compel regulate the act of voters’ registration
COMELEC to let them register and for the ultimate purpose of
to invalidate RA 8189. conducting honest, orderly, and
peaceful election.

Article VI – Legislative Department

Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her W/N Marcos can be considered as a YES. It stands to reason that Marcos In election cases, the term
GR No. 119976 Certificate of Candidacy for the resident, for election purposes, of the merely committed an honest mistake “residence” has always been
18 September 1995 position of Representative of the First District of Leyte for a period of in jotting the word “seven” in the considered as synonymous with
Kapunan, J. First District of Leyte. In her one year at the time of the elections. space provided for the residency “domicile” which imports not only
residence information, she wrote qualification requirement. The the intention to reside in a fixed place
down “seven months.” juxtaposition of entries in Item 7 and but also personal presence in that
Item 8—the first requiring actual place, coupled with conduct
When Cirilo Montejo, the incumbent residence and the second requiring indicative of such intention. Domicile
representative, challenged her domicile—coupled with the denotes a fixed permanent residence

Election Law Case Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal

candidacy for not being able to meet circumstances surrounding Marcos’ to which when absent for business or
the one-year residency requirement, registration as a voter in Tolosa pleasure, or for like reasons, one
Marcos filed an Amended/Corrected obviously led her to writing down an intends to return.
Certificate of Candidacy, changing unintended entry for which she could
the entry “seven months” to “since be disqualified. This honest mistake How one acquires a new domicile by
childhood.” COMELEC did not should not, however, be allowed to choice: There must concur (1)
accept the Amended Certificate, negate the fact of residence in the residence or bodily presence in the
which prompted her to file a case First District if such fact were new locality; (2) intention to remain
with COMELEC. established by means more there; and (3) intention to abandon
convincing than a mere entry on a the old domicile.
COMELEC then passed a Resolution piece of paper. Although Marcos
denying Marcos’ petition, stating that held various residences for different Domicile includes the twin elements
the facts point to Marcos not being purposes during the last four decades, of “the fact of residing or physical
able to satisfy the residency none of these purposes unequivocally presence in a fixed place” and
requirement. COMELEC stated that point to an intention to abandon her animus manendi, or the intention of
when Marcos chose to stay in Ilocos domicile of origin in Tacloban, returning there permanently.
and later on in Metro Manila, Leyte. When she married former
coupled with her intention to stay President Marcos, she kept her Residence, in its ordinary conception,
there by registering as a voter there domicile of origin and merely gained implies the factual relationship of an
and expressly declaring that she is a a new home, not a domicilium individual to a certain place. It is the
resident of that place, she is deemed necessarium. Her well-publicized ties physical presence of a person in a
to have abandoned Tacloban City, to her domicile of origin are part of given area, community, or country.
where she spent her childhood and the history and lore of the quarter The essential distinction between
school days, as her place of domicile. century of Marcos power in our residence and domicile in law is that
Marcos’ MR was also denied. On the country. Either they were entirely residence involves the intent to leave
day before the elections, the ignored by the COMELEC’s when the purpose for which the
COMELEC issued a Resolution Resolutions, or the majority of the resident has taken up his abode ends.
declaring her not qualified to run for COMELEC did not know what the
the position of Member of the House rest of the country always knew: the If a person’s intent be to remain, it
of Representatives. Several days fact of Marcos’ domicile in becomes his domicile; if his intent is
after, it issued another Resolution Tacloban, Leyte. to leave as soon as his purpose is
allowing Marcos’ proclamation established it is residence.
should the results of the canvas show W/N the COMELEC properly YES. A statute requiring rendition of
that she obtained the highest number exercised its jurisdiction in judgment within a specified time is It is the fact of residence, not a
of votes in the constituency. On the disqualifying Marcos outside the generally construed to be merely statement in a certificate of
same day, the COMELEC reversed period mandated by the Omnibus directory. In any event, with the candidacy which ought to be decisive
its own Resolution. Election Code for disqualification enactment of Sections 6 and 7 of RA in determining whether or not an
cases under Article 78 of the said 6646 in relation to Section 78 of BP individual has satisfied the
Code. 881, it is evident that COMELEC constitution’s residency qualification
does not lose jurisdiction to hear and requirement.
decide a pending disqualification
case even after the elections. An individual does not lose his
domicile even if he has lived and
W/N the House of Representatives NO. HRET’s jurisdiction as the sole maintained residences in different
Electoral Tribunal assumed exclusive judge of all contests relating to the places.
jurisdiction over the question of elections, returns, and qualifications
Marcos’ qualifications after the of members of Congress begins only (1) A minor always follows the
elections. after a candidate has become a domicile of his parents. Domicile,
member of the House of once acquired, is retained until a new
Representatives. one is gained. (2) Domicile of origin

Election Law Case Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal

is not easily lost. To successfully

effect a change of domicile, one must
demonstrate: (a) an actual removal or
Question: So for the purposes of an actual change of domicile; (b) a
voting, residence = residence and bona fide intention of abandoning the
not domicile? But for the purposes of former place of residence and
running for a seat in government, establishing a new one; and (c) acts
residence = domicile? E pano yung which correspond with the purpose.
gubernatorial seat ni Imelda before? In the absence of clear and positive
proof based on these criteria, the
residence of origin should be deemed
to continue. (3) One cannot have two
legal residences at the same time. To
effect an abandonment requires the
voluntary act of relinquishing a
person’s former domicile with an
intent to supplant the former domicile
with one of his own choosing
(domicilium voluntarium).
Aquino v. COMELEC On 20 March 1995, Agapito Aquino W/N the COMELEC has jurisdiction YES. The electoral tribunal assumes Obtaining the highest number of
GR No. 120265 filed his Certificate of Candidacy for to determine and adjudge the jurisdiction over all contests relative votes in an election does not
18 September 1995 the position of Representative for the disqualification issue involving to the election, returns, and automatically vest the position in the
Kapunan, J. new Second Legislative District of Congressional candidates after the qualifications of candidates for either winning candidate.
Makati City. In item number 8, he elections. the Senate or the House only when
listed that he had lived in Makati for the latter become members of either The place “where a party actually or
10 months immediately preceding the the Senate or the House of constructively has his permanent
election. Representatives. A candidate who home,” where he, no matter where he
has not been proclaimed and who has may be found at any given time,
Move Makati, a political party, and not taken his oath of office cannot be eventually intends to return and
Mateo Bedon of the LAKAS-NUCD- said to be a member of the House of remain, is that to which the
UMDP of Makati filed a petition to Representatives. Moreover, Section 6 Constitution refers when it speaks of
disqualify Aquino on the ground that of RA 6646 vests the COMELEC residence for the purposes of election
he lacked the residence qualification with the power to hear and decide law.
as a candidate for Congressman questions relating to qualifications of
which, under Section 6, Article VI of candidates even after the elections. Domicile of origin is not easily lost.
the 1987 Constitution, should be for To successfully effect a change of
a period not less than 1 year W/N Aquino is qualified as a NO. In order that one could qualify domicile, one must prove an actual
immediately preceding the 8 May candidate. as a candidate for Representative, he removal or an actual change of
1995 elections. The day after the must prove that he has established domicile; a bona fide intention of
petition was filed, Aquino amended not just residence but domicile of abandoning the former place of
his certificate of candidacy, stating choice. From data furnished by residence and establishing a new one
that he had resided in the Aquino himself to the COMELEC at and definite acts which correspond
constituency where he sought to be various times during his political with the purpose. In the absence of
elected for 1 year and 13 months. career, what stands consistently clear clear and positive proof, the domicile
and unassailable is that his domicile of origin should be deemed to
The COMELEC, after due hearing, of origin of record up to the time of continue.
dismissed the petition against Aquino filing of his most recent certificate of
and ruled him eligible to run for candidacy for the 1995 elections was Whether or not the candidate whom
public office. On 7 May 1995, Move Concepcion, Tarlac. His alleged the majority voted for can or cannot
Makati and Bedon filed an MR. The connection with the Second District be installed, under no circumstances

Election Law Case Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal

following day, the elections were of Makati is an alleged lease can a minority or defeated candidate
held with Aquino garnering the agreement of condominium unit in be deemed elected to the office.
highest number of votes. Move the area, which does not engender the
Makati and Bedon then moved to kind of permanency required to
suspend the proclamation of Aquino, prove abandonment of one’s original
which the COMELEC acceded to. domicile. The facts indicate that the
On 2 June 1995, the COMELEC sole purpose of Aquino in
declared Aquino ineligible and transferring his physical residence is
disqualified to run for public office, not to acquire new residence or
for lack of the constitutional domicile but only to qualify as a
qualification of residence. candidate for Representative of the
Second District of Makati City.

W/N the second-placer in the NO. The ineligibility of a candidate

elections should be declared as the receiving majority votes does not
substitute winner in case the first- entitle the eligible candidate
placer is deemed ineligible. receiving the next highest number of
votes to be declared elected. A
minority or defeated candidate
cannot be deemed elected to the