G.R. No. 120265 - Aquino vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 120265)

Factual Background

Petitioner filed a Certificate of Candidacy on March 20, 1995 declaring residence at "284 Amapola cor. Adalla Sts., Palm Village, Makati" and indicating ten months and ten days residence in the constituency immediately preceding the election. On April 24, 1995, Move Makati and Mateo Bedon filed SPA No. 95-113 to disqualify petitioner for lack of the constitutionally required one-year residence in the new Second Legislative District of Makati. Petitioner amended his certificate on April 25, 1995 to state one year and thirteen days residence. Petitioner presented a lease contract dated April 1, 1994, affidavits, and testified before the COMELEC.

Proceedings Before the COMELEC Second Division

The COMELEC Second Division heard the petition on May 2, 1995. It received petitioner’s affidavits, the lease contract, and other documentary evidence. By Resolution dated May 6, 1995, the Second Division dismissed the disqualification petition and declared petitioner eligible to run for Representative of Makati City’s Second Legislative District.

COMELEC en banc Actions

Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration and urgent motions to suspend proclamation. After the May 8, 1995 elections in which petitioner obtained 38,547 votes against the nearest rival’s 35,910 votes, the COMELEC en banc on May 15, 1995 ordered the Board of Canvassers to complete canvassing but to suspend petitioner’s proclamation pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration. On June 2, 1995, the COMELEC en banc reversed the Second Division, declared petitioner ineligible for lack of the one-year residence qualification, and directed that upon finality the Board of Canvassers reconvene to determine and proclaim the winner among the remaining qualified candidates.

Petition for Certiorari and Issues Presented

Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari challenging the COMELEC en banc orders and resolution dated May 15 and June 2, 1995. He alleged, among others, that (1) the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to determine post-election disqualifications of congressional candidates because such jurisdiction rested exclusively with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) under Art. VI, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution; (2) alternatively, COMELEC’s jurisdiction had ceased after the elections and the proper remedy lay with HRET; (3) COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending proclamation and in directing proclamation of the next highest vote-getter; (4) COMELEC’s factual finding that petitioner lacked one-year residence was contrary to evidence; and (5) the one-year residence requirement was legally impossible to enforce in a newly created district.

Majority Holding on Jurisdiction and Proclamation Suspension

The Court held that Art. VI, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution vested exclusive HRET jurisdiction only when the contested candidate had become a member of the House of Representatives. The Court explained that proclamation and taking of oath were operative acts that made one a member; an unproclaimed candidate was not a member. The Court therefore sustained COMELEC’s power to hear and decide disqualification cases even after an election, relying on Section 6, R.A. No. 6646, which provided that when a candidate not finally disqualified before election nevertheless receives the winning number of votes the Court or Commission shall continue the trial and, upon motion, may order suspension of proclamation when the evidence of guilt is strong. The Court concluded that petitioner’s contention that COMELEC was automatically divested of jurisdiction after the elections lacked basis in law.

Majority Reasoning on Residence and Domicile

The Court applied the established rule that for election law purposes the term "residence" is synonymous with domicile. Citing Co v. HRET, the Court explained that domicile requires bodily presence coupled with an intention to remain and to abandon the prior domicile. The Court examined petitioner’s prior submissions to COMELEC and other indicia showing a domicile of origin in Concepcion, Tarlac, including past certificates of candidacy and birth records. The Court found that petitioner’s claim to domicile in Makati rested mainly on a two-year lease of a condominium unit and on his own testimony that the lease was intended chiefly to satisfy the one-year requirement and, in fact, was for only one year in his intention. The Court accepted COMELEC’s finding that the lease did not show the permanency required to abandon domicile of origin. The Court therefore affirmed COMELEC’s conclusion that petitioner failed to establish the constitutionally required one-year residence in the Second District.

Majority Rejection of Legal-Impossibility Argument

The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the one-year residence requirement could not be enforced in a newly created political district. The Court observed that a new district is carved from an existing geographic area whose inhabitants had domiciles prior to creation of the new district. The Court warned against permitting transient or opportunistic relocations that would defeat the purpose of the residence requirement to prevent "carpetbagging" and to ensure that representatives are familiar with their constituencies. The Court found no legal or logical basis to exempt newly created districts from the constitutional residence requirement.

Majority on the "Second-Placer" Rule and Effect on Proclamation

The Court reviewed the jurisprudential evolution on whether the candidate who received the next highest number of votes may be proclaimed when the top vote-getter is later disqualified. The Court reaffirmed the line of authority beginning with Topacio v. Paredes and culminating in Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC, Abella v. COMELEC, and Benito v. COMELEC, holding that where voters voted in good faith for a candidate they believed qualified, their votes should not be treated as stray or void and the second placer cannot be declared the winner by substitution. On that basis the Court held that COMELEC erred in directing the Board of Canvassers to determine and proclaim the winner out of the remaining qualified candidates. The Court therefore made permanent the Supreme Court’s prior order restraining COMELEC from proclaiming the candidate who garnered the next highest number of votes.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed. The Court affirmed COMELEC’s conclusion that petitioner lacked the one-year residence qualification and was therefore ineligible to run for Representative of Makati City’s Second District. Simultaneously, the Court permanently enjoined COMELEC from proclaiming the candidate who obtained the next highest number of votes as substitute winner.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

Justice Padilla concurred in the result but dissented from the majority’s treatment of "residence" as necessarily meaning "domicile of choice"; he maintained that actual and physical residence sufficed and urged that the candidate receiving the highest number of votes among qualified candidates should be proclaimed in accordance with R.A. No. 6646, Sec. 6. Justice Francisco concurred in the ponencia but added a separate discussion emphasizing estoppel, domicile, rejection of the legal-impossibility theory, and urging abandonment of the Labo doctrine so that votes for a disqualified candidate be disregarded and the runne

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 120265)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Agapito A. Aquino filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Supreme Court challenging orders and a resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc dated May 15 and June 2, 1995, and the Second Division resolution of May 6, 1995.
Move Makati and Mateo Bedon filed SPA No. 95-113 before the COMELEC Second Division seeking to disqualify petitioner for lack of the one-year residence required of congressional candidates.
The COMELEC Second Division initially dismissed the disqualification petition on May 6, 1995, and the COMELEC en banc thereafter suspended petitioner's proclamation on May 15, 1995, and reversed the Second Division and declared petitioner ineligible on June 2, 1995.
Petitioner sought injunctive relief and review in the Supreme Court by certiorari, and the Court issued an interim temporary restraining order on June 6, 1995.
The Supreme Court rendered judgment dismissing petitioner’s certiorari and made permanent the injunction restraining COMELEC from proclaiming the candidate with the next highest votes in the contested congressional election.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner filed his initial Certificate of Candidacy dated March 20, 1995, stating a Makati residence at 284 Amapola corner Adalla Sts., Palm Village, Makati, and left Item 8 (residence in constituency) blank.
On April 25, 1995, petitioner amended his certificate to state residence in the constituency for "one (1) year and thirteen (13) days."
Private respondents filed a petition on April 24, 1995, alleging that petitioner lacked the one-year residence required by Art. VI, Sec. 6, 1987 Constitution for congressional candidates.
The COMELEC Second Division admitted contrary evidence and on May 6, 1995 declared petitioner eligible to run for Representative.
Elections were held on May 8, 1995, in which petitioner received 38,547 votes and the next candidate, Agusto Syjuco, received 35,910 votes.
After post-election motions, the COMELEC en banc suspended proclamation on May 15, 1995, and on June 2, 1995 reversed the Second Division and declared petitioner ineligible for lack of the one-year residence.

Issues Presented

Whether the COMELEC retained jurisdiction after the May 8, 1995 elections to hear and decide a disqualification case against a candidate for the House of Representatives.
Whether petitioner possessed the constitutional one-year residence in the Second Legislative District of Makati City immediately preceding the election.
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending petitioner’s proclamation and in directing the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the next highest candidate if petitioner were finally disqualified.
Whether the one-year residence requirement is legally impossible to enforce in a newly created district existing for less than one year.

Contentions of Parties

Petitioner contended that jurisdiction over post-election qualification challenges to congressional members is exclusively lodged with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) under Art. VI, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution, and that COMELEC lost jurisdiction after the election.
Petitioner further argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse in suspending proclamation and that the one-year residence requirement should not be enforced where the district was newly created.
Private respondents contended that Section 6, R.A. No. 6646, and related provisions permitted the COMELEC to continue proceedings and to suspend proclamation when evidence of guilt or ineligibility is strong.
Private respondents asserted that petitioner failed to prove abandonment of his domicile of origin in Concepcion, Tarlac, and relied on a short-term lease to qualify as domiciled in Makati.

Statutory and Constitutional Framework

Art. VI, Sec. 6, 1987 Constitution prescribes that a House candidate must be a resident of the district for not less than one year immediately preceding the election.
Art. VI, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution vests the HRET with authority as the sole judge of contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of Members of the House only when they become members.
R.A. No. 6646, Sec. 6 addresses the effect of disqualification cases and empowers the Court or Commission to continue trial after the election and to suspend proclamation "whenever the evidence of guilt is strong."
B.P. Blg. 881