ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No.

203766 April 2, 2013 Facts:

This case resolves the 54 Consolidated petitions for certiorari and petitions for certiorari and prohibitions filed by 52 party-list groups and organizations assailing the Resolutions issued by the COMELEC disqualifying them from participating in the May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their petitions for registration under the party-list system, or cancellation of their registration and accreditation as party-list organizations

Issue: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioners from participating in the May 2013 party-list elections Issue: Whether the criteria for participating in the party-list system laid down in Ang Bagong Bayani and Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency v. Commission on Elections (BANAT) should be applied by the COMELEC in the May 2013 party-list elections.

Held: No to both issues The Party-List System o The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list system of representation. o The party-list system is intended to democratize political power by giving political parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance to win seats in the House of Representatives. o The voter elects two representatives in the House of Representatives: one for his or her legislative district, and another for his or her party-list group or organization of choice. Constitutional Provisions on the Party List System: o Section 5, Article VI: The party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, 1/2 of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector. o Sections 7 and 8, Article IX-C: No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid XPN: Those registered under the party-list system as provided in the Constitution Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not be represented in the voters registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law. The party-list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation Monsod, main sponsor of the system o A sectoral representation in the Assembly would mean that certain sectors would have reserved seats; that they will choose among themselves who would sit in those reserved seats. Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the partylist system to include not only sectoral parties but also non-sectoral parties. Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution: The party-list system is composed of three different groups: o national parties or organizations; o regional parties or organizations; and o sectoral parties or organizations R.A. No. 7941 defines a "party" as "either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties." o A "political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government." Case Digest in Election Law Rivad, Sherine L., 2011 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law

A "sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector." o R.A. No. 7941 provides different definitions for a political and a sectoral party. Obviously, they are separate and distinct from each other. R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or organizations to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors. o To require all national and regional parties under the partylist system to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the partylist system. o Under the party-list system, an ideology-based or causeoriented political party is clearly different from a sectoral party. Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941 provides another compelling reason for holding that the law does not require national or regional parties, as well as certain sectoral parties in Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941, to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented." o Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes; It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal; It is a foreign party or organization; It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes; It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections; It declares untruthful statements in its petition; It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. o None of the 8 grounds to refuse or cancel registration refers to non-representation of the "marginalized and underrepresented. How then should we harmonize the broad policy declaration in Section 2 of R.A. No. 7941 with its specific implementing provisions, bearing in mind the applicable provisions of the 1987 Constitution on the matter? o The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" should refer only to the sectors in Section 5 that are, by their nature, economically "marginalized and underrepresented." o These sectors are: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other similar sectors. For these sectors, a majority of the members of the sectoral party must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented." The nominees of the sectoral party either must belong to the sector, or must have a track record of advocacy for the sector represented. The recognition that national and regional parties, as well as sectoral parties of professionals, the elderly, women and the youth, need not be "marginalized and underrepresented" will allow small ideology-based and cause-oriented parties who lack "well-defined political constituencies" a chance to win seats in the House of Representatives. Ang Bagong Bayani expressly declared, in its second guideline for the accreditation of parties under the party-list system, that "while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors xxx to be elected to the House of Representatives. o However, the requirement in Ang Bagong Bayani, in its second guideline, that "the political party xxx must represent the marginalized and underrepresented," automatically disqualified major political parties from participating in the party-list system

Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. o A party-list nominee must be a bona fide member of the party or organization which he or she seeks to represent. In the case of sectoral parties, to be a bona fide party-list nominee one must either belong to the sector represented, or have a track record of advocacy for such sector. In disqualifying petitioners, the COMELEC used the criteria prescribed in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT. Ang Bagong Bayani laid down the guidelines for qualifying those who desire to participate in the party-list system: o The political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. o While even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives." o The religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system o A party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for disqualification (aforecited) o Tthe party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government o The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows: "SEC 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. - No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1)year immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election. In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term." o Not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees o The nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. o Exclusion of Major political parties from participating in party-list elections The minority expressed that "[e]xcluding the major political parties in party-list elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. However, it would not be in accord with the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 to apply the criteria in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT in determining who are qualified to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. For this purpose, the rule is suspended that a party may appeal to this Court from decisions or orders of the COMELEC only if the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. All present petitions be remanded to COMELEC. In determining who may participate in the coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-list elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the following parameters: o Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations. o National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need: to organize along sectoral lines and

to represent any "marginalized and underrepresented" sector. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be: "marginalized and underrepresented", which includes: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers lacking in "well-defined political constituencies, which includes: professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth. It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector

A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies" must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of these sectoral parties or organizations either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors.

The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations. o National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified Provided -> least one nominee who remains qualified. This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, apply its provisions faithfully, and desist from engaging in socio-economic or political experimentations contrary to what the Constitution has ordained. Judicial power does not include the power to re-write the Constitution. Thus, the present petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC not because the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioners, but because petitioners may now possibly qualify to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the new parameters prescribed by this Court.

Case Digest in Election Law Rivad, Sherine L., 2011 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law

No.

G.R. No.

Group

Grounds for Denial

No. G.R. No.

Group

Grounds for Denial Retained registration and accreditation as a political party, but denied participation in the May 2013 party-list elections - Failure to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector; - The Bicol region already has representatives in Congress; and - The nominees are not marginalized and underrepresented.

A. Via the COMELEC En Bancs automatic review of the COMELEC Divisions resolutions approving registration of groups/organizations Resolution dated 23 November 20128 - The "artists" sector is not considered marginalized and underrepresented; 1 204379 Alagad ng Sining (ASIN) - Failure to prove trackrecord; and - Failure of the nominees toqualify under RA 7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani. Omnibus Resolution dated 27 November 20129 Manila Teachers Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (Manila Teachers) Association ofLocal AthleticsEntrepreneursand Hobbyists,Inc. (ALA-EH) - A non-stock savings and loan association cannot be considered marginalized and underrepresented; and - The first and second nominees are not teachers by profession. - Failure to show that its members belong to the marginalized; and - Failure of the nominees to qualify.

Resolution dated 10 October 201224

203818-19

AKO Bicol Political Party (AKB)

Omnibus Resolution dated 11 October 201225 Cancelled registration and accreditation 2 203766 Atong Paglaum,Inc. (Atong Paglaum) - The nominees do not belong to the sectors which the partyrepresents; and - The party failed to file its Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2010 Elections. Cancelled registration and accreditation 3 203981 Association for - Failure to comply, and for violation of election laws; Righteousness Advocacy on - The nominees do not represent the sectors which the party Leadership (ARAL) represents; and - There is doubt that the party is organized for religious purposes. Cancelled registration and accreditation 4 204002 Alliance for Rural Concerns(ARC) - Failure of the nominees to qualify; and - Failure of the party to prove that majority of its members belong to the sectors it seeksto represent. Cancelled registration and accreditation - The sectors of drugcounsellors and lecturers,veterans and the youth, arenot marginalized and underrepresented; - Failure to establish trackrecord; and - Failure of the nominees toqualify as representatives ofthe youth and young urbanprofessionals. Omnibus Resolution dated 16 October 201226 Cancelled registration 1-Bro PhilippineGuardiansBrother - Failure to define the sectorit seeks to represent; and - The nominees do not belongto a marginalized hood,Inc. (1BRO-PGBI) andunderrepresented sector. Cancelled registration 1 - The party is a militaryfraternity; GuardiansNationalistPhilip - The sector of communityvolunteer workers is toobroad to allow for pines, meaningfulrepresentation; and Inc.(1GANAP/GUARDIANS) - The nominees do not appearto belong to the sector ofcommunity volunteerworkers. Cancelled registration BlessedFederation - Three of the sevennominees do not belong tothe sector of farmers ofFarmers andFishermenInternational andfishermen, the sector soughtto be represented; and - None of the nominees areregistered voters of RegionXI, the region ,Inc. (ABLESSEDParty-List) sought to berepresented. Cancelled registration - The sector of rural energyconsumers is not marginalized and underrepresented; 1stConsumersAlliance forRural Energy,Inc. (1-CARE) - The partys track record isrelated to electriccooperatives and not ruralenergy consumers; and - The nominees do not belong to the sector of rural energyconsumers. Cancelled registration and accreditation Association - Failure to represent amarginalized andunderrepresented sector; ofPhilippineElectricCoopera and tives(APEC) - The nominees do not belongto the sector that the partyclaims to represent. Cancelled registration and accreditation 11 204174 - The incumbentrepresentative in Congressfailed to author or Aangat TayoParty-List Party( sponsorbills that are beneficial to thesectors that the AT ) partyrepresents (women, elderly,youth, urban poor); and - The nominees do not belong to the marginalized sectorsthat the party seeks torepresent. Cancelled registration and accreditation

204455

204426

Resolution dated 27 November 201210 - Failure of the nominees to qualify: although registering as a regional political party, two of the nominees are not residents of the region; and four of the five nominees do not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented.

204435

1 Alliance Advocating Autonomy Party (1AAAP)

Resolution dated 27 November 201211 5 204367 Akbay Kalusugan (AKIN), Inc. - Failure of the group to showthat its nominees belong tothe urban poor sector. - Failure to represent a marginalized sector of society, despite the formation of a sectoral wing for the benefit of farmers of Region 8; 6 204370 Ako An Bisaya (AAB) - Constituency has district representatives; - Lack of track record in representing peasants and farmers; and - Nominees are neither farmers nor peasants. Resolution dated 4 December 201213 - Failure to show that the party represents a marginalized and underrepresented sector, as the Province of Iloilo has district representatives; - Untruthful statements in the memorandum; and - Withdrawal of three of its five nominees. Resolution dated 4 December 201214 - Failure to establish that the group can represent 14 sectors; - The sectors of homeownersassociations, Alliance of Organizations, entrepreneurs and cooperatives are not marginalized Networks and Associations of the and underrepresented; and Philippines,Inc. (ALONA) - The nominees do not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented.
8 20426 6 204100 UnitedMovementAgainst DrugsFoundation(UNIMAD)

Resolution dated 29 November 201212

204318

204122

204436

Abyan IlonggoParty (AI)

204485

Resolution dated 16 October 201227

B. Via the COMELEC En Bancs review on motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC Divisions resolutions denying registration of groups and organizations Resolution dated 7 November 201215 - Failure to prove trackrecord as an organization; 9 204139 Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) - Failure to show that the group actually represents the marginalized and underrepresented; and - Failure to establish that the group can represent all sectors it seeks to represent.
9 203960

Resolution dated 16 October 201228

10

203922

Resolution dated 7 November 201216 - The group reflects an advocacy for the environment, and is not representative of the marginalized and underrepresented; - There is no proof that majority of its members belong to Kalikasan Party-List(KALIKASAN) the marginalized and underrepresented; - The group represents sectors with conflicting interests; and - The nominees do not belong to the sector which the group claims to represent. Association of Guard, Utility Helper, Aider, Rider, Driver/Domestic Helper, Janitor, Agent and Nanny of thePhilippines, Inc.(GUARDJAN) - Failure to prove membership base and track record; - Failure to present activities that sufficiently benefited its intended constituency; and - The nominees do not belong to any of the sectors which the group seeks to represent. - Failure to show that the group represents a marginalized and underrepresented sector, as Region 12 has district representatives; and - Failure to show a track record of undertaking programs for the welfare of the sector the group seeks to represent.
13 204240 12 203976

Resolution dated 23 October 201229

10

204402

Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 201230 - The interests of the peasantand urban poor sectors thatthe party represents differ; Alliance forRural - The nominees do not belong to the sectors that the partyseeks to andAgrarianReconstruction, represent; Inc. (ARARO) - Failure to show that three ofthe nominees are bona fideparty members; and - Lack of a Board resolutionto participate in the party-listelections. Omnibus Resolution dated 24 October 201231 Cancelled registration - The party ceased to exist formore than a year immediatelyafter Agri-Agra naReporma Para the May 2010 elections; - The nominees do not belong to the sector of peasants andfarmers saMagsasaka ngPilipinasMovement(AGRI) that the party seeks torepresent; - Only four nominees weresubmitted to the COMELEC;and - Failure to show meaningfulactivities for its constituency. Cancelled registration AksyonMagsasaka-Partido Tinig ngMasa (AKMA-PTM) - Failure to show thatmajority of its members aremarginalized and underrepresented; - Failure to prove that four ofits nine nominees actuallybelong to the farmers sector;and - Failure to show that five ofits nine nominees work onuplifting the lives of themembers of the sector.

Resolution dated 14 November 201217

11

204394

Resolution dated 5 December 201218

12

204490

Pilipinas Para sa Pinoy (PPP)

14

203936

Case Digest in Election Law Rivad, Sherine L., 2011 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law

No. G.R. No.

Group

Grounds for Denial Cancelled registration

No. G.R. No.

Group

Grounds for Denial

Resolution dated 7 November 201237 Cancelled registration and accreditation 28 204238 Alliance ofBicolnon Party(ABP) - Defective registration and accreditation dating back to2010; - Failure to represent anysector; and - Failure to establish that thenominees are employed in the construction industry, thesector it claims to represent. Resolution dated 7 November 201238 Cancelled registration and accreditation 29 204323 Bayani PartyList (BAYANI) - Failure to prove a trackrecord of trying to uplift themarginalized and underrepresented sector ofprofessionals; and - One nominee was declaredunqualified to represent thesector of professionals. Cancelled registration and accreditation 30 204321 Ang AgrikulturaNatin Isulong(AANI) - Failure to establish a trackrecord of enhancing the livesof the marginalized and underrepresented farmerswhich it claims to represent;and - More than a majority of thepartys nominees do notbelong to the farmers sector. Cancelled registration and accreditation Agapay ngIndigenousPeoples RightsAlliance, Inc.(A-IPRA) - Failure to prove that its fivenominees are members of theindigenous people sector; - Failure to prove that its fivenominees activelyparticipated in theundertakings of the party; and - Failure to prove that its five nominees are bona fidemembers. Resolution dated 7 November 201241 Cancelled registration and accreditation - The party is affiliated withprivate and governmentagencies and is PhilippineCoconutProducer not marginalized; sFederation, Inc.(COCOFED) - The party is assisted by thegovernment in variousprojects; and - The nominees are notmembers of the marginalizedsector of coconut farmers andproducers. Resolution dated 7 November 201242 Cancelled registration - Failure to establish a trackrecord of continuouslyrepresenting the peasantfarmers sector; - Failure to show that itsmembers actually belong tothe peasant farmers sector;and - Failure to show that itsnominees are marginalizedand underrepresented, haveactively participated inprograms for theadvancement of farmers, andadhere to its advocacies. Cancelled registration and accreditation - Failure to show that theparty is actually able torepresent all of the sectors itclaims to represent; - Failure to show a completetrack record of its activitiessince its registration; and - The nominees are not partof any of the sectors whichthe party seeks to represent. Cancelled registration and accreditation 35 204374 Binhi-Partido ngmga MagsasakaPara sa mgaMagsasaka(BINHI) - The party receivesassistance from thegovernment through theDepartment of Agriculture;and - Failure to prove that thegroup is marginalized and underrepresented. Cancelled registration and accreditation 36 204356 Butil FarmersParty (BUTIL) - Failure to establish that theagriculture and cooperativesectors are marginalized and underrepresented; and - The partys nomineesneither appear to belong tothe sectors they seek torepresent, nor to haveactively participated in theundertakings of the party. Cancelled registration and accreditation - Declaration of untruthfulstatements; 1stKabalikat ngBayanGinhawangSangkat - Failure to exist for at leastone year; and auhan(1stKABAGIS) - None of its nomineesbelong to the labor,fisherfolk, and urban poorindigenous culturalcommunities sectors which itseeks to represent. Cancelled accreditation 38 204410 1-UnitedTransportKoalisyon - The party represents driversand operators, who may haveconflicting interests; and (1-UTAK) - The partys nominees do notbelong to any marginalizedand underrepresented sector. Coalition ofSenior Citizensin Cancelled registration thePhilippines, - The party violated electionlaws because its nomineeshad a termInc.(SENIORCITIZENS) sharingagreement.

15

204126

16

204364

17

204141

- The Manifestation of Intentand Certificate of Nominationwere not Kaagapay signed by anappropriate officer of theparty; ngNagkakaisangAgilangPilip - Failure to show track recordfor the farmers and peasantssector; inongMagsasaka(KAP) and - Failure to show thatnominees actually belong tothe sector, or that they haveundertaken meaningfulactivities for the sector. Adhikain atKilusan Cancelled registration ngOrdinaryongTao Para - Failure to show thatnominees actually belong tothe sector, or that saLupa, they haveundertaken meaningfulactivities for the sector. Pabahay,Hanapbuhay The TrueMarcos Loyalist(for Cancelled registration God,Country - Failure to show thatmajority of its members aremarginalized and andPeople)Association underrepresented; and ofthe Philippines,Inc. - Failure to prove that two ofits nominees actually belong to the (BANTAY) marginalized and underrepresented. Cancelled registration PilipinoAssociation forCountry UrbanPoor YouthAdvancementand Welfare( PA C YAW ) - Change of sector (fromurban poor youth to urbanpoor) necessitates a newapplication; - Failure to show track recordfor the marginalized and underrepresented; - Failure to prove thatmajority of its members andofficers are from the urbanpoor sector; and - The nominees are notmembers of the urban poorsector. Pasang MasdaNationwideParty (PASANGMASDA) Cancelled registration - The party represents driversand operators, who may haveconflicting interests; and - Nominees are eitheroperators or former operators. Cancelled registration - Failure to prove thatna Walang Sala,Inc. (KAKUSA)majority of its officers andmembers belong to themarginalized and underrepresented; - The incumbentrepresentative in Congressfailed to author or sponsorbills that are beneficial to thesector that the partyrepresents (personsimprisoned without proof ofguilt beyond reasonabledoubt); - Failure to show track recordfor the marginalized and underrepresented; and - The nominees did notappear to be marginalized and underrepresented. Cancelled registration and accreditation - Failure to attend thesummary hearing; - Failure to show track recordfor the marginalized and underrepresented; and - The nominees did notappear to be marginalized and underrepresented. Cancelled registration and accreditation - Failure to represent anidentifiable marginalized and underrepresented sector;

Resolution dated 7 November 201239

18

204408

Resolution dated 7 November 201240

19

204153

31

204125

20

203958

Kapatiran ngmga Nakulongna Walang Sala,Inc. (KAKUSA)

32

204216

Resolution dated 30 October 201232

33 204220

Abang LingkodPartyList(ABANGLINGKOD)

21

204428

Ang GalingPinoy (AG)

Resolution dated 14 November 201243

Resolution dated 7 November 201233

34 204158 ActionBrotherhood for ActiveDreamers, Inc.(ABROAD)

22

204094

Alliance forNationalism andDemocracy(ANAD)

- Only three nominees weresubmitted to the COMELEC; - The nominees do notbelong to the marginalizedand underrepresented; and - Failure to submit itsStatement of Contributionand Expenditures for the2007 Elections. Cancelled registration and accreditation
Resolution dated 28 November 201244

Omnibus Resolution dated 7 November 201234 Green Force forthe EnvironmentSons andDaughters ofMother Earth(GREENFORCE) - The party is an advocacygroup and does not representthe marginalized and underrepresented; - Failure to comply with thetrack record requirement; and - The nominees are not marginalized citizens. Cancelled registration and accreditation - The nominees do notbelong to the sector that theparty seeks to represent(urban poor and peasants ofthe National Capital Region); - Only two of its nomineesreside in the National CapitalRegion; and - Failure to comply with thetrack record requirement. Cancelled registration and accreditation - Failure to establish that itsnominees are members of theindigenous people in theMindanao and Cordillerassector that the party seeks torepresent; - Only two of the partysnominees reside in theMindanao and Cordilleras;and - Three of the nominees donot appear to belong to themarginalized. Resolution dated 7 November 201235 Cancelled registration 26 204358 Alliance ofAdvocates inMiningAdvancementfor NationalProgress(AAMA) - The sector it represents is aspecifically defined groupwhich may not be allowedregistration under the party-list system; and - Failure to establish that thenominees actually belong tothe sector. Cancelled registration 27 204359 SocialMovement forActive - The nominees aredisqualified fromrepresenting the sectors ReformandTransparency(SM thatthe party represents; - Failure to comply with thetrack record requirement; and- There is ART) doubt as to whethermajority of its members aremarginalized and underrepresented.

Resolution dated 28 November 201245

23

204239

24

204236

Firm 24-KAssociation, Inc.(FIRM 24-K)

Resolution dated 3 December 201246

37

204486

25

204341

Action Leagueof IndigenousMasses (ALIM)

Resolution dated 4 December 201247

Resolution dated 4 December 201248 204421, 39 204425

Resolution dated 7 November 201236

Case Digest in Election Law Rivad, Sherine L., 2011 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law

ROMEO G. JALOSJOS vs. COMELEC, MARIA ISABELLE G. CLIMACO-SALAZAR, ROEL B. NATIVIDAD, ARTURO N. ONRUBIA, AHMAD NARZAD K. SAMPANG, JOSE L. LOBREGAT, ADELANTE ZAMBOANGA PARTY, AND ELBERT C. ATILANO G.R. No. 205033 June 18, 2013 Facts:

Herein petitioner was convicted by final judgment of 2 counts of statutory rape and 6 counts of acts of lasciviousness. Consequently, he was sentenced to suffer the principal penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal for each count, respectively, which carried the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification pursuant to Article 41 of the RPC. Then President Arroyo issued an order commuting his prison term to 16 years, 3 months and 3 days. After serving the same, he was issued a Certificate of Discharge From Prison on March 18, 2009. Pending resolution of his petition for Inclusion in the Permanent List of Voters before the MTC, petitioner filed a CoC on October 2012 , seeking to run as mayor for Zamboanga City in the upcoming local elections on May 2013, wherein he stated that he is eligible for the said office and that he is a registered voter of Barangay Tetuan, Zamboanga City Subsequently, his petition was denied for inclusion was denied on account of his perpetual absolute disqualification which in effect, deprived him of the right to vote in any election. This was affirmed by the RTC. Different petitions were then filed before the COMELEC, praying for the denial of petitioners CoC. Pending resolution by the divisions, COMELEC en banc issued a motu proprio Resolution resolving to cancel petitioners CoC due to his perpetual absolute disqualification as well as his failure to comply with the voter registration requirement, hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether petitioner is qualified to run in the said elective position Held: No Petitioner claims that the COMELEC En Banc usurped the COMELEC Divisions jurisdiction by cancelling motu proprio petitioners CoC through Resolution contrary to Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution, provision requiring a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc may take action -> no merit o Such provision is confined only to cases where the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial power. o It finds no application in matters concerning the COMELECs exercise of administrative functions What is then the nature of the power exercised by the COMELEC En Banc when it promulgated the subject Resolution? A: Administrative o Jurisprudence: Even without a petition under either Section 12 or Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, or under Section 40 of the Local Government Code, the COMELEC is under a legal duty to cancel the certificate of candidacy of anyone suffering from the accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification to run for public office by virtue of a final judgment of conviction. The final judgment of conviction is notice to the COMELEC of the disqualification of the convict from running for public office. The law itself bars the convict from running for public office, and the disqualification is part of the final judgment of conviction. To allow the COMELEC to wait for a person to file a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of one suffering from perpetual special disqualification will result in the anomaly that these cases so grotesquely exemplify. The COMELEC will be grossly remiss in its constitutional duty to "enforce and administer all laws" relating to the conduct of elections if it does not motu proprio bar from running for public office those suffering from perpetual special disqualification by virtue of a final judgment. In Aratea v. COMELEC (Aratea), the Court similarly pronounced that the disqualification of a convict to run for public office, as affirmed by final judgment of a competent court, is part of the enforcement and administration of all laws relating to the conduct of elections. Applying these principles to the case at bar, it is clear that the COMELEC En Banc did not exercise its quasi-judicial functions when it issued the Resolution as it did not assume jurisdiction over any pending petition or resolve any election

case before it or any of its divisions. Rather, it merely performed its duty to enforce and administer election laws in cancelling petitioners CoC on the basis of his perpetual absolute disqualification, the fact of which had already been established by his final conviction. o Lest it be misunderstood, while the denial of due course to and/or cancellation of ones CoC generally necessitates the exercise of the COMELECs quasi-judicial functions commenced through a petition based on either Sections 1220 or 7821 of the OEC, or Section 4022 of the LGC, when the grounds therefor are rendered conclusive on account of final and executory judgments as when a candidates disqualification to run for public office is based on a final conviction such exercise falls within the COMELECs administrative functions, as in this case. It is petitioners submission that Article 30 of the RPC was partially amended by Section 40(a) of the LGC and thus, claims that his perpetual absolute disqualification had already been removed. -> No merit o Well-established is the rule that every new statute should be construed in connection with those already existing in relation to the same subject matter and all should be made to harmonize and stand together, if they can be done by any fair and reasonable interpretation. Section 40(a) of the LGC provides that those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by 1 year or more of imprisonment, within 2 years after serving sentence While Art. 30 of the RPC provides for the effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification: The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender may have held, even if conferred by popular election. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular office or to be elected to such office. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned. In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article shall last during the term of the sentence. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held. o In particular, while Section 40(a) of the LGC allows a prior convict to run for local elective office after the lapse of two (2) years from the time he serves his sentence, the said provision should not be deemed to cover cases wherein the law imposes a penalty, either as principal or accessory, which has the effect of disqualifying the convict to run for elective office. o Accordingly, Section 40(a) of the LGC should be considered as a law of general application and therefore, must yield to the more definitive RPC provisions in line with the principle of lex specialis derogat generali general legislation must give way to special legislation on the same subject, and generally is so interpreted as to embrace only cases in which the special provisions are not applicable. o The accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification takes effect immediately once the judgment of conviction becomes final. The effectivity of this accessory penalty does not depend on the duration of the principal penalty, or on whether the convict serves his jail sentence or not. The last sentence of Article 32 states that "the offender shall not be permitted to hold any public office during the period of his [perpetual special] disqualification." Once the judgment of conviction becomes final, it is immediately executory. Any public office that the convict may be holding at the time of his conviction becomes vacant upon finality of the judgment, and the convict becomes ineligible to run for any elective public office perpetually.

Case Digest in Election Law Rivad, Sherine L., 2011 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law

CASAN MACODE MAQUILING vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO, LINOG G. BALUA G.R. No. 195649 April 16, 2013 Facts:

This is a petition assailing the resolution issued by COMELEC, finding that herein respondent Arnado is solely a Filipino citizen qualified to run for public office despite his continued use of a U.S. passport. Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. However, as a consequence of his subsequent naturalization as a citizen of the USA, he lost his Filipino citizenship. July 2008: Arnado applied for repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA and took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. On the same day an Order of Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition was issued in his favor. April 2009: Subsequently, Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship November 2009: Arnado filed his CoC for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte Consequently, herein respondent Balua iled a petition to disqualify Arnado and/or to cancel his CoC, contending that the latter s not a resident of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and that he is a foreigner, attaching thereto a certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration indicating the nationality of Arnado as "USA-American." To further bolster his claim of Arnados US citizenship, Balua presented in his Memorandum a computer-generated travel record ndicating that Arnado has been using his US Passport in entering and departing the Philippines Failure of Arnado to answer the petition, Balua moved to declare him in default and to present evidence ex-parte, which was remain unacted, having been overtaken by the 2010 elections where Arnado garnered the highest number of votes and was subsequently proclaimed as the winning candidate for Mayor Only after proclamation that Arnado filed his verified answer. COMELEC 1st Division: Granted petition for disqualification Arnados continued use of his US passport is a strong indication that Arnado had no real intention to renounce his US citizenship and that he only executed an Affidavit of Renunciation to enable him to run for office. We cannot turn a blind eye to the glaring inconsistency between Arnados unexplained use of a US passport six times and his claim that he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship and renounced his US citizenship. As noted by the Supreme Court in the Yu case, "a passport is defined as an official document of identity and nationality issued to a person intending to travel or sojourn in foreign countries." Surely, one who truly divested himself of US citizenship would not continue to avail of privileges reserved solely for US nationals. Arenado filed for a Motion for Reconsideration Subsequently, Petitioner Maquiling, another candidate for mayor of Kauswagan, and who garnered the second highest number of votes in the 2010 elections, intervened in the case o Maquiling argued that while the First Division correctly disqualified Arnado, the order of succession under Section 44 of the Local Government Code is not applicable in this case. o He claimed that the cancellation of Arnados candidacy and the nullification of his proclamation, Maquiling, as the legitimate candidate who obtained the highest number of lawful votes, should be proclaimed as the winner. COMELEC en banc: Granted Arnados MR. By renouncing his US citizenship as imposed by R.A. No. 9225, the respondent embraced his Philippine citizenship as though he never became a citizen of another country. The use of a US passport does not operate to revert back his status as a dual citizen prior to his renunciation as there is no law saying such. More succinctly, the use of a US passport does not operate to "un-renounce" what he has earlier on renounced. Dissenting opinion of Commissioner Sarmiento: Arnados continued use of his US passport and enjoyment of all the privileges of a US citizen despite his previous renunciation of the afore-mentioned citizenship runs contrary to his declaration that he chose to retain only his Philippine citizenship. Respondents submission with the twin requirements was obviously only for the purpose of complying with the requirements for running for the mayoralty post

Qualifications for elective office, such as citizenship, are continuing requirements; once any of them is lost during his incumbency, title to the office itself is deemed forfeited. If a candidate is not a citizen at the time he ran for office or if he lost his citizenship after his election to office, he is disqualified to serve as such. Neither does the fact that respondent obtained the plurality of votes for the mayoralty post cure the latters failure to comply with the qualification requirements regarding his citizenship. Hence, this petition

Issue: Whether the use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship affects ones qualifications to run for public office Held: Yes Rommel Arnado took all the necessary steps to qualify to run for a public office. He took the Oath of Allegiance and renounced his foreign citizenship. There is no question that after performing these twin requirements required under Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, he became eligible to run for public office. By renouncing his foreign citizenship, he was deemed to be solely a Filipino citizen, regardless of the effect of such renunciation under the laws of the foreign country. However, this legal presumption does not operate permanently and is open to attack when, after renouncing the foreign citizenship, the citizen performs positive acts showing his continued possession of a foreign citizenship. Arnado himself subjected the issue of his citizenship to attack when, after renouncing his foreign citizenship, he continued to use his US passport to travel in and out of the country before filing his certificate of candidacy By using his foreign passport, Arnado positively and voluntarily represented himself as an American, in effect declaring before immigration authorities of both countries that he is an American citizen, with all attendant rights and privileges granted by the USA The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply be professed at any time, only to be violated the next day. It requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and political rights granted by the foreign country which granted the citizenship. Issue: Whether he rule on succession in the Local Government Code is applicable to this case Held: Petitioners right to intervene: Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, otherwise known as the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, which provides: Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong. Under this provision, intervention may be allowed in proceedings for disqualification even after election if there has yet been no final judgment rendered.

Case Digest in Election Law Rivad, Sherine L., 2011 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law

REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES vs. COMELEC and JOSEPH SOCORRO B. TAN G.R. No. 207264 June 25, 2013 Facts:

Respondent Tan , a registered voter and resident of the Municipality of Torrijos, Marinduque, filed before the COMELEC a petition to cancel petitioners CoC as Representative of the lone district of Marinduque on the ground that it contained material misrepresentations, specifically: o that she is a resident of Brgy. Lupac, Boac, Marinduque when she is a resident of Bauan, Batangas which is the residence of her husband, and at the same time, when she is also a resident of Brgy. Milagrosa, Quezon City as admitted in the Directory of Congressional Spouses of the House of Representatives; o that she is not a permanent resident of another country when she is a permanent resident or an immigrant of the USA; o that she is a Filipino citizen when she is, in fact, an American citizen COMELECs Ruling: o Not a citizen of the country because of her failure to comply with the requirements of RA 9225, i.e. to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; and to make a personal and sworn renunciation of her American citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath o Non-compliance oneyear residency requirement under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, claiming that: o She is a natural-born Filipino citizen and that she has not lost such status by simply obtaining and using an American passport o Petitioner surmised that the COMELEC First Division relied on the fact of her marriage to an American citizen in concluding that she is a naturalized American citizen. Petitioner averred, however, that such marriage only resulted into dual citizenship, thus there is no need for her to fulfill the twin requirements o As to her alleged lack of the one-year residency requirement prescribed by the Constitution, she averred that, as she never became a naturalized citizen, she never lost her domicile of origin, which is Boac, Marinduque The motion for reconsideration was denied. On June 5, 2013 petitioner was proclaimed winner of the May 2013 elections. She also took her oath of office, however, as yet to assume office, the term of which officially starts at noon of 30 June 2013 However, the COMELEC en banc issued a Certificate of finality of its resolution, considering that more than 21 days have elapsed from the date of promulgation with no order issued by the Court restraining its execution, hence, this petition

Before there is a valid or official taking of the oath it must be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and (2) in open session. (Section 6, Rule II (Membership) of the Rules of the House of Representatives) o Here, although she made the oath before Speaker Belmonte, there is no indication that it was made during plenary or in open session and, thus, it remains unclear whether the required oath of office was indeed complied with. Before proclamation of the petitioner, the COMELEC En Banc had already finally disposed of the issue of petitioners lack of Filipino citizenship and residency via its Resolution o Upon issuance of the same, there was, before the COMELEC, no longer any pending case on petitioners qualifications to run for the position of Member of the House of Representative. o The Board of Canvasser which proclaimed petitioner cannot by such act be allowed to render nugatory a decision of the COMELEC En Banc which affirmed a decision of the COMELEC First Division. The assailed resolution of the COMELEC en banc became final and executory o Petitioner should have filed a petition to appeal before the court within the 5-day period

Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it took cognizance of "newly-discovered evidence" without the same having been testified on and offered and admitted in evidence. She assails the admission of the blog article of Eli Obligacion as hearsay and the photocopy of the Certification from the Bureau of Immigration. She likewise contends that there was a violation of her right to due process of law because she was not given the opportunity to question and present controverting evidence. COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure in the presentation of evidence. o Under Section 2 of Rule I, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure "shall be liberally construed in order x xx to achieve just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission." No denial of due process in the case at bar as petitioner was given every opportunity to argue her case before the COMELEC Issue: Whether Respondent Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared that Petitioner is not a Filipino citizen and did not meet the residency requirement for the position of Member of the House of Representatives Issue: Whether Respondent Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when, by enforcing the provisions of Republic Act No. 9225, it imposed additional qualifications to the qualifications of a Member of the House of Representatives as enumerated in Section 6 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Held: No for both issues Respondent Tan was able to established the fact that respondent is a holder of an American passport which she continues to use until June 30, 2012. Her status thereof is a balik-bayan The burden now shifts to petitioner to present substantial evidence to prove otherwise. This, the petitioner utterly failed to do, leading to the conclusion inevitable that she falsely misrepresented in her COC that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen. o Unless and until she can establish that she had availed of the privileges of RA 9225 by becoming a dual Filipino-American citizen, and thereafter, made a valid sworn renunciation of her American citizenship, she remains to be an American citizen and is, therefore, ineligible to run for and hold any elective public office in the Philippines." Notably, in her Motion for Reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc, petitioner admitted that she is a holder of a US passport, but she averred that she is only a dual Filipino-American citizen, thus the requirements of R.A. No. 9225 do not apply to her. o However, she attached to the said motion an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship, explaining that she attached said Affidavit "if only to show her desire and zeal to serve the people and to comply with rules, even as a superfluity."

Issue: Whether Respondent Comelec is without jurisdiction over Petitioner who is a duly proclaimed winner and who has already taken her oath of office for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the lone congressional district of Marinduque. Held: No Petitioners contention: COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly proclaimed because pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, the HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications" of the Members of the House of Representatives. HRET does not acquire jurisdiction over the issue of petitioners qualifications, as well as over the assailed COMELEC Resolutions o XPN: A petition is duly filed with said tribunal. The jurisdiction of the HRET begins only after the candidate is considered a Member of the House of Representatives Q: When is a candidate considered a Member of the House of Representatives? To be considered a Member of the House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of the following requisites: (1) a valid proclamation, (2) a proper oath, and (3) assumption of office. In petitioners attempt to comply with the second requirement, petitioner attached a purported Oath Of Office taken before Hon. Feliciano Belmonte Jr. on 5 June 2013. However, this is not the oath of office which confers membership to the House of Representatives. Case Digest in Election Law Rivad, Sherine L., 2011 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law

If petitioner executed said Affidavit "if only to comply with the rules," then it is an admission that R.A. No. 9225 applies to her. To cover-up her apparent lack of an oath of allegiance as required by R.A. No. 9225, petitioner contends that, since she took her oath of allegiance in connection with her appointment as Provincial Administrator of Marinduque, she is deemed to have reacquired her status as a natural-born Filipino citizen. o This is not in compliance with RA 9225 These circumstances, taken together, show that a doubt was clearly cast on petitioners citizenship. Petitioner, however, failed to clear such doubt. As to the issue of residency: o A Filipino citizen who becomes naturalized elsewhere effectively abandons his domicile of origin. Upon reacquisition of Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225, he must still show that he chose to establish his domicile in the Philippines through positive acts, and the period of his residency shall be counted from the time he made it his domicile of choice. o In this case, there is no showing whatsoever that petitioner had already re-acquired her Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 so as to conclude that she has regained her domicile in the Philippines. There being no proof that petitioner had renounced her American citizenship, it follows that she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA. o Proof presented by Petitioner: Her claim that she served as Provincial Administrator of the province from January 18, 2011 to July 13, 2011 Not sufficient For, petitioner has never regained her domicile in Marinduque as she remains to be an American citizen. No amount of her stay in the said locality can substitute the fact that she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA. All in all, considering that the petition for denial and cancellation of the COC is summary in nature, the COMELEC is given much discretion in the evaluation and admission of evidence pursuant to its principal objective of determining of whether or not the COC should be cancelled. Anent the proposition of petitioner that the act of the COMELEC in enforcing the provisions of R.A. No. 9225, insofar as it adds to the qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives other than those enumerated in the Constitution, is unconstitutional o The COMELEC did not impose additional qualifications on candidates for the House of Representatives who have acquired foreign citizenship. o It merely applied the qualifications prescribed by Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution that the candidate must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and must have one-year residency prior to the date of elections.

SVETLANA P. JALOSJOS vs. COMELEC, EDWIN ELIM TUMPAG and RODOLFO Y. ESTRELLADA G.R. No. 193314 February 26, 2013 Facts:

Petitioner filed her CoC or mayor of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental for the 10 May 2010 elections. She indicated therein her place of birth and residence as Barangay Tugas, Municipality of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental Private respondents filed a petition to deny or cancel petitioners CoC , in which they argued that she had falsely represented her place of birth and residence, because she was in fact born in San Juan, Metro Manila, and had not totally abandoned her previous domicile, Dapitan City. Evidence presented by herein private respondents: o Certification from the Assessors Office of Baliangao that there was no tax declaration covering any real property in the name of petitioner located at any place in the municipality o Certification from the Civil Registrar of Baliangao that petitioner had no record of birth in the civil registry of the municipality; o Joint Affidavit of three residents of Baliangao o Affidavit of Patricio D. Andilab (Andilab), official of Purok 5, Brgy. Tugas, Baliangao. Petitioners contentions: o She had established her residence in the said barangay since December 2008 when she purchased two parcels of land there, and that she had been staying in the house of a certain Mrs. Lourdes Yap (Yap) while the former was overseeing the construction of her house. o Error in her place of birth was committed by her secretary The Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy remained pending as of the day of the elections, in which petitioner garnered the highest number of votes. Consequently, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed her as the duly elected municipal mayor COMELEC division granted the disqualification of herein petitioner. COMELEC en banc denied petitioners motion for reconsideration COMELEC Ruling: o Based on the evidence presented, petitioner never acquired a new domicile in Baliangao, because she failed to prove her bodily presence at that place, her intention to remain there, and her intention never to return to her domicile of origin. o the Extrajudicial Partition with Simultaneous Sale was not sufficient proof that petitioner had purchased two parcels of land, because she was never a party to the agreement, and it was quite unusual that she never acquired a deed of sale or title to protect her interests; o the application of petitioner for voter registration only proved that she had met the minimum six-month residency requirement and nothing more; and o the affiants of the Sworn Statements were all partial, because they either worked for her or were members of organizations that received financial assistance from her Hence, this petition

Issue: Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to promulgate its 04 June 2010 and 19 August 2010 Resolutions in accordance with its own Rules of Procedure Held: No Petitioners contention: She was not served an advance notice that these Resolutions were going to be promulgated, hence, her right to due process was violated Promulgation is the process by which a decision is published, officially announced, made known to the public or delivered to the clerk of court for filing, coupled with notice to the parties or their counsel. It is the delivery of a court decision to the clerk of court for filing and publication. It is the filing of the signed decision with the clerk of court. The additional requirement imposed by the COMELEC rules of notice in advance of promulgation is not part of the process of promulgation. What was wanting and what the petitioner apparently objected to was not the promulgation of the decision but the failure of the trial court to serve notice in advance of the promulgation of its decision as required by the COMELEC rules. The failure to serve such notice in advance of the promulgation may be considered a procedural lapse on the part of the trial court which did not prejudice the rights of the parties and did Case Digest in Election Law Rivad, Sherine L., 2011 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law

not vitiate the validity of the decision of the trial court nor [sic] of the promulgation of said decision. In the present case, we read from the COMELEC Order that the exigencies attendant to the holding of the countrys first automated national elections had necessitated that the COMELEC suspend the rule on notice prior to promulgation, and that it instead direct the delivery of all resolutions to the Clerk of the Commission for immediate promulgation. o The COMELECs Order did not affect the right of the parties to due process. They were still furnished a copy of the COMELEC Decision and were able to reckon the period for perfecting an appeal. In fact, petitioner was able to timely lodge a Petition with this Court.

Issue: Whether petitioner complied with the one-year residency requirement for local elective officials Held: No When it comes to the qualifications for running for public office, residence is synonymous with domicile The term residence as so used, is synonymous with domicile which imports not only intention to reside in a fixed place, but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Requisites for a person to acquire a new domicile by choice: o Residence or bodily presence in the new locality o Intention to remain there o An intention to abandon the old domicile In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these criteria, the residence of origin should be deemed to continue. Only with evidence showing concurrence of all three requirements can the presumption of continuity or residence be rebutted, for a change of residence requires an actual and deliberate abandonment, and one cannot have two legal residences at the same time. Moreover, even if these requisites are established by clear and positive proof, the date of acquisition of the domicile of choice, or the critical date, must also be established to be within at least one year prior to the elections using the same standard of evidence. To use ownership of property in the district as the determinative indicium of permanence of domicile or residence implies that the landed can establish compliance with the residency requirement. This Court would be, in effect, imposing a property requirement to the right to hold public office, which property requirement would be unconstitutional. The approval of the application for registration of petitioner as a voter only shows, at most, that she had met the minimum residency requirement as a voter. This minimum requirement is different from that for acquiring a new domicile of choice for the purpose of running for public office.

Case Digest in Election Law Rivad, Sherine L., 2011 0007 1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law