G.R. No. 120265 September 18, 1995: Title: Aquino vs. Comelec

Title: AQUINO VS.
COMELEC
G.R. No. 120265
September 18, 1995
Facts:
Herein Petitioner Agapito “Butz” A. Aquino on 20 March 1995 filed his Certificate of
Candidacy for the position of Representative for the new Second Legislative District of Makati
City. In his certificate of candidacy, Aquino stated that he was a resident of 284 Amapola Cor.
Adalla Sts., Palm Village, Makati for ten months, said address is within the second legislative
district.
Move Makati, a registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD-
UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Aquino on the ground that
the latter lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman which under Section
6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, should be for a period not less than one year preceding the
(May 8, 1995) day of the election.
Faced with a petition for disqualification, Aquino amended the entry on his residency in
his certificate of candidacy to one year and 13 days. The Commission on Elections (Comelec)
passed a resolution which dismissed the petition on May 6 and allowed Aquino to run in the
election of 8 May. Aquino won against Augusto Syjuco with with 38,547 votes and 35,910 votes,
respectively.
Move Makati filed a motion of reconsideration with the Comelec, to which, on May 15, the
latter acted with an order suspending the proclamation of Aquino until the Commission resolved
the issue.
On 2 June, the Commission on Elections found Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the
elective office for lack of constitutional qualification of residence.
Hence, this petition of certiorari assailing the May 15 and June 2 orders. Salient features
of his petition include the following:
1. That the Comelec has no jurisdiction to determine and adjudge the disqualification issue
involving congressional candidates after the 8 May 1995 Elections because such
determination is being reserved and lodged exclusively with the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET);
2. The Comelec’s finding of non-compliance with the residency requirement of one year
against the petitioner is contrary to evidence and to applicable laws and jurisprudence;
and
3. The Comelec committed serious error amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it ordered the
Board of Canvassers to “determine and proclaim the winner out of the remaining qualified
candidates” after the erroneous disqualification of the petitioner in that such directive is in
total disregard of the well-settled doctrine that a second place candidate cannot be
proclaimed as substitute winner.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the Comelec has jurisdiction to determine adjudge the disqualification
issue involving congressional candidates after the 8 May 1995 Elections;
2. Whether or not “residency” in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes “domicile” to
warrant the disqualification of Aquino from the position in the electoral district; and
3. Whether or not Comelec committed serious error amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
ordered the Board of Canvassers to “determine and proclaim the winner out of the
remaining qualified candidates” after the erroneous disqualification of the petitioner.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that:
1. The Comelec indeed had jurisdiction in the said disqualification case because he was not
yet proclaimed as the winner by the Comelec and took his oath as a member of the House
of Representatives. In fine, he was not yet technically or officially a member of the House
of Representatives and therefore was not yet under the jurisdiction of the HRET. The
HRET clearly assumes jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns and
qualifications of candidates for either the Senate or the House only when the latter
become members of either the Senate or the House of Representatives. A candidate who
has not been proclaimed and who has not taken his oath of office cannot be said to be a
member of the House of Representatives subject to Section. 17 of the Constitution.
2. Further, the Court agreed with COMELEC's contention that in order that petitioner could
qualify as a candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati City, the latter
"must prove that he has established not just residence but domicile of choice”. The
Constitution requires that a person seeking election to the House of Representatives
should be a resident of the district in which he seeks election for a period of not less than
one (l) year prior to the elections. The framers of the Constitution adhered to the earlier
definition given to the word "residence" which regarded it as having the same meaning
as domicile. Clearly, the place "where a party actually or constructively has his permanent
home," 21 where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually
intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when
it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law. As found by the COMELEC en
banc petitioner in his Certificate of Candidacy for the May 11, 1992 elections, indicated
not only that he was a resident of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 but that he was
a resident of the same for 52 years immediately preceding that election. At the time, his
certificate indicated that he was also a registered voter of the same district. His birth
certificate places Concepcion, Tarlac as the birthplace of both of his parents Benigno and
Aurora. Thus, from data furnished by petitioner himself to the COMELEC at various times
during his political career, what stands consistently clear and unassailable is that
this domicile of origin of record up to the time of filing of his most recent certificate of
candidacy for the 1995 elections was Concepcion, Tarlac.
3. Lastly, the Court held that the Comelec indeed erred in issuing it Order instructing the
Board of Canvassers of Makati City to proclaim as winner the candidate receiving the next
higher number of votes. According to the Court, to contend that Syjuco should be
proclaimed because he was the "first" among the qualified candidates in the May 8, 1995
elections is to misconstrue the nature of the democratic electoral process and the
sociological and psychological underpinnings behind voters' preferences. Had petitioner
been disqualified before the elections, the choice, moreover, would have been different.
The votes for Aquino given the acrimony which attended the campaign, would not have
automatically gone to second placer Syjuco. The nature of the playing field would have
substantially changed. To simplistically assume that the second placer would have
received the other votes would be to substitute our judgment for the mind of the voter. The
second placer is just that, a second placer. He lost the elections. He was repudiated by
either a majority or plurality of voters. He could not be considered the first among qualified
candidates because in a field which excludes the disqualified candidate, the conditions
would have substantially changed.
The petition was dismissed and at the same time the Court ordered to restrain respondent
Comelec from proclaiming the candidate garnering the next highest number of votes in the
congressional elections for the Second District of Makati City.

G.R. No. 120265 September 18, 1995: Title: Aquino vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 120265 September 18, 1995: Title: Aquino vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title: AQUINO VS.

You might also like