View full case

MARCITA MAMBA PEREZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

FACTS:

This case involves a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dismissing petitioner's petition for the disqualification of private respondent as a candidate for Representative of the Third District of Cagayan in the May 11, 1998 elections. The petitioner alleged that the private respondent failed to meet the residency requirement for candidates.

The private respondent filed his certificate of candidacy on March 26, 1998, while the petitioner filed a petition for disqualification on March 30, 1998. The petitioner presented evidence showing that the private respondent was not a resident of the Third District of Cagayan for at least one year before the elections, as required by the Constitution. The private respondent claimed that he changed his residence to Tuguegarao in order to hide his mistress and presented evidence to support his claim.

The First Division of the COMELEC dismissed the petition for disqualification on May 10, 1998. The private respondent was elected as Representative of the Third District of Cagayan on May 11, 1998, and was proclaimed elected on May 16, 1998. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the COMELEC en banc on June 11, 1998.

The petitioner argues that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding the private respondent qualified to run as representative. The petitioner contends that the transfer of residence to the place where the private respondent is keeping his mistress cannot amount to a change of domicile. The petitioner also argues that the private respondent's certificates of candidacy and voter registration records indicate that he is a resident of Gattaran, which is in the First District of Cagayan.

The private respondent argues that the COMELEC lost jurisdiction to pass upon his qualifications for office after his proclamation and assumption of office. The petitioner argues that the COMELEC retained jurisdiction because the petition for disqualification was filed before the elections.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's motion for reconsideration after the proclamation of private respondent.

  2. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition for disqualification against private respondent given that he was already a member of the House of Representatives.

  3. Whether private respondent is eligible for the office of Representative of the Third District of Cagayan.

  4. Whether or not private respondent can be considered a resident of the Third District of Cagayan.

  5. Whether or not the fact that private respondent registered as a voter in Gattaran, Cagayan, and declared himself as a resident of Gattaran in his certificates of candidacy for governor affects his residency in the Third District.

RULING:

  1. The COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's motion for reconsideration because the proclamation of private respondent barred further consideration of petitioner's action.

  2. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the petition for disqualification against private respondent as the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has exclusive original jurisdiction over the matter.

  3. Private respondent is eligible for the office of Representative of the Third District of Cagayan.

  4. Yes. There is substantial evidence supporting the finding that private respondent had been a resident of the Third District of Cagayan for more than seven (7) years. His claim that he had been a resident of Tuguegarao since July 1990 is credible considering that he was governor from 1988 to 1998 and, therefore, it would be convenient for him to maintain his residence in Tuguegarao, which is the capital of the province of Cagayan.

  5. No. The fact that a person is registered as a voter in one district is not proof that he is not domiciled in another district. Furthermore, what is required for the election of governor is residency in the province, not in any district or municipality, one year before the election. The statement in a certificate of candidacy is material only when there is a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the declaration of ineligibility of a member of the House of Representatives.

  • The residency requirement for the office of Representative aims to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the community from taking advantage of favorable circumstances for electoral gain.

  • Registration as a voter in one district does not prove that a person is not domiciled in another district.

  • Residency requirement for the election of governor is residency in the province, not in any district or municipality, one year before the election.

  • The fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy, should be decisive in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the residency qualification requirement.