JALOSJOS vs. COMELEC and ERASMO

G.R. No. 191970; April 24, 2012

Ponente:  Abad

Doctrine: Proof required to establish domicile of a reinstated Filipino citizen running for governor of a province

FACTS:

Petitioner Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City.  He migrated to Australia when he was eight years old and acquired Australian citizenship.  In 2008, he returned to the Philippines and lived in Zamboanga, he took an oath of allegiance to the Philippines and was issued a certificate of reacquisition of citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration and he renounced his Australian citizenship. 

Jalosjos applied for registration as a voter in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, but Private Respondent Erasmo, the barangay captain, opposed the registration.  COMELEC approved the application and included Jalosjos in the voter's list.  This decision was affirmed at the MCTC and at the RTC.

Jalosjos then filed a certificate of candidacy (COC) for Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay for the 2010 elections.  Erasmo filed a petition to cancel the COC on the ground of failure to comply with the one year residency requirement of the Local Government Code (LGC).

COMELEC held that Jalosjos failed to present ample proof of a bona fide intention to establish a domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. It held that when he first moved back to the Philippines, he was merely a guest or transient at his brother's house in Ipil, and for this reason, he cannot claim Ipil as his domicile.  Meanwhile, Jalosjos won the elections.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC is correct in holding that petitioner did not present ample proof of a bona fide intention to establish domicile at Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.

HELD:

NO.  The COMELEC is incorrect.  Jalosjos has successfully proven by his acts of renouncing his Australian citizenship and by living in Ipil, that he has changed his domicile to Zamboanga Sibugay.

The LGC requires that a gubernatorial candidate be a resident of the province for at least one year before the elections.  For the purposes of election laws, the requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile:  i.e. he must have an intention to reside in a particulaar place, but must also have personal presence coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.

The question of residence is a question of intention.  To determine compliance with the residency/domicile requirement, jurisprudence has laid down the following guidelines:

   (a)               every person has a domicile or residence somewhere;

(b)               where once established, that domicile remains until he acquires a new one; and

(c)               a person can have but one domicile at a time.

The facts show that Jalosjos' domicile of origin was Quezon city.  When he acquired Australian citizenship, Australia became his domicile by operation of law and by choice.  On the other hand, when he came to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his brother in Zamboanga Sibugay, it is evident that Jalosjos did so with intent to change his domicile for good. He left Australia, gave up his Australian citizenship, and renounced his allegiance to that country and reacquired his old citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Philippines.  By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to live in Australia, clearly proving that he gave up his domicile there. And he has since lived nowhere else except in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.

To hold that Jalosjos has not established a new domicile in Zamboanga Sibugay despite the loss of his domicile of origin (Quezon City) and his domicile of choice and by operation of law (Australia) would violate the settled maxim that a man must have a domicile or residence somewhere.

Neither can COMELEC conclude that Jalosjos did not come to settle his domicile in Ipil since he has merely been staying at his brother's house.  A candidate is not required to have a house in order to establish his residence or domicile in that place.  It is enough that he should live there even if it be in a rented house or in the house of a friend or relative.  To insist that the candidate own the house where he lives would make property a qualification for public office.  What matters is that Jalosjos has proved two things: actual physical presence in Ipil and an intention of making it his domicile.

As evidence, Jalosjos presented his next-door neighbors who testified that he was physically present in Ipil, he presented correspondence with political leaders and local and national party mates, furthermore, he is a registered voter by final judgement of the RTC.  The court also noted that Jalosjos has since acquired a lot in Ipil and a fish pond in San Isidro, Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay.  This, without a doubt is sufficient to establish his intent to set his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.

DISPOSITIVE

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE the Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division dated February 11, 2010 and the Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc dated May 4, 2010 that disqualified petitioner Rommel Jalosjos from seeking election as Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay.

CRITICS OUT TO ERODE PNOY’S ENDORSEMENT POWER

A PREPOSTEROUS ALLEGATION

It is nearly 2016 and in spite of the popularity of movements like One More Term for PNOY, the rule of the second Aquino Presidency will inevitably end. Because of this, many frustrated PNoy supporters are just calling for an end to the criticisms and calls for resignation and to just “wait” for the President’s term to come to an end.

This President is not known for savviness and indeed he may be considered Genre Blind the way he behaves so predictably - refusing to take responsibility for anything and continually blaming past administrations for his shortcomings, at the same time invoking the saintliness of his past and his cause.

According to a March 24, report of the Philippine Star, the President claims that the reason why he is still being criticized is because his enemies want to diminish his endorsement capability. (Read the full report: Noy: Critics out to erode my endorsement power)

“Aquino said a lot has changed since he took over, and he could not help but ask why he remains a target of criticisms when he is not a candidate in 2016”

According to the President:

“The answer to that is simple: If I am able to do good and maybe our critics acknowledge this, naturally, if we endorse (a candidate), it will have importance”

Well thanks for the lesson Capt. Obvious. I’d say that PNoy is only trying to distract us from the real issue of his performance.

Why the President’s Endorsement is Irrelevant

The big problem is that candidates shouldn't be about one person's “brand” - that he shouldn’t be voted for simply on the recommendation of a celebrity or a public figure - they aren’t a product that someone has tried and will recommend.

We must not forget that a prospective candidate has their own brains, their own mouths. A person should be elected on his own merits, rather than because he/she was endorsed or by what the party he's running under stands for. This fact seems to have escaped our President and the entire electorate for that matter.

This is an obsession stemming from the fact that we are such a star-struck and ignorant people. We are too obsessed with celebrity endorsements that we fail to see how irrelevant this is to the actual issue of a sitting President’s performane.

Kuya Noynoy

To think that criticisms levelled against one is intended to prevent deserving people from getting elected is simply preposterous. It shows the mental state of the person elevated to the highest position in the land.

Rather than be concerned about his “endorsement ability”, the President should be concerned with his own credibility and leadership ability. Will the President continue on with his “lame duck” track or will he try to maximize his last year in office?

Endorsements are Important in a Party System Stupid!

Let me point out that the President was referring to a personal endorsement of a candidate. He is worried about tainting the next Liberal Party candidate and ruining his chances to win the 2016 elections. This was pretty much what happened to Gilbert Teodoro, whose endorsement by the reviled outgoing President Arroyo was widely regarded as the “kiss of death” for an otherwise qualified candidate.

Gilbert Teodoro: regarded as qualified, yet tainted

(source: www.wn.com)

Nevertheless, this should serve as a warning that endorsements should not matter at all. In a progressive society, we should look at the candidate’s (or his party’s) platform and track record. Endorsements should merely be regarded as a side-show.

Clearly, the President seems to be clutching at straws with this one.

FEDERICO vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 199612, JANUARY 22, 2013

DOCTRINE: Under Sec. 15 of RA 9369 which governs the conduct of automated elections, the Comelec is empowered by law to prescribe such rules so as to make efficacious and successful the conduct of the first national automated election: “the Comelec, which has the constitutional mandate to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,”

In resolving that the deadline for all substitutions must be made on or before Dec. 15, 2009 pursuant to Comelec Resolution No. 8678, COMELEC did not abuse its discretion.

FACTS: Edna Sanchez and private respondent Maligaya were candidates for the position of municipal mayor of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, in the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections. Maligaya was the Liberal Party’s official mayoralty candidate.

On April 27, 2010, Armando Sanchez, husband of Edna and the gubernatorial candidate for the province of Batangas, died. On April 29, 2010, Edna withdrew her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position of mayor. She then filed a new COC and the corresponding Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance (CONA) for the position of governor as substitute candidate for her deceased husband.

Subsequently, petitioner Renato M. Federico (Federico) filed his COC and CONA as official candidate of the Nationalista Party and as substitute candidate for mayor, in lieu of Edna.

Private Respondent sought to declare petitioner ineligible because his COC was allegedly filed after the deadline had lapsed pursuant to Comelec Resolution No. 8678.

However, the COMELEC en banc resolved to give due course to the candidacy of Edna and Petitioner.

However, by the time of the elections, because the ballots had already been printed, the name of Edna was still on the ballots for the position of Mayor of Sto. Tomas against Private Respondent. In fact, Edna garnered the most votes for that election, beating Private Respodent for the position of mayor. Eventually the board ofcanvassers credited the votes of Edna to Petitioner (who was the replacement of Edna).

Private Respondent filed this petition to annul the proclamation of Petitioner Federico.

The COMELEC en banc eventually annulled the proclamation of Petitioner and proclaimed Private Respondent Maligaya as mayor (Maligaya na sya). The COMELEC declared that Petitioner's substitution of Edna was void because if was filed after the period for filing of COCs had lapsed.

Petitioner filed a petitin for certiorari with the Supreme Court. He claimed that Comelec Resolution No. 8678, which fixed a period for the filing of COCs and CONAs cannot prevail over the Omnibus Election code, specifically Sec. 77 which provides that a party's replacement candidate of one who withdraws, dies or is disqualified may be filed no later than mid-day of the elections.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it annulled Federico’s proclamation as the winning candidate on the ground that his substitution as mayoralty candidate was void.

HELD: No, the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion. The Comelec is empowered by law to prescribe such rules so as to make efficacious and successful the conduct of the first national automated election. RA 9369 which governs the conduct of automated elections specifically allows COMELEC to set deadlines for the filing of certificates of candidacy etc.

Under Sec. 15, “the Comelec, which has the constitutional mandate to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,”

In resolving that the deadline for all substitutions must be made on or before Dec. 15, 2009 pursuant to Comelec Resolution No. 8678, COMELEC did not abuse its discretion.

Thus, the substitution of Petitioner was made out of time and was thus void.

Wherefore, Maligaya pa rin si Maligaya.