Tan, Stephanie C.

Room 406 GAYO VS VERCELES G.R. No. 150477, Febr ar! "#,"005

FACTS$ 1997 Verceles migrated to USA with family but she retained her ili!ino citi"enshi! 199# returned to the $hili!!ines for good 199% registered herself as a &oter of 'a Union and filed her income ta( returns )etween 199#*1997+ would tra&el to USA to &isit her children 1997 effecti&ely abandoned her status as lawful resident of USA for the ,ay 199- elections .anuary 199- surrendered her alien registration ,ay 199- elections was elected mayor /001 ran for re*election and won %SS&E 10 123 Vercenes was able to meet residency re4uirement for munici!al mayor in the ,ay /001 elections /0 123 '56 im!liedly re!ealed Sec 6- of the 276 by the fact that '56 does not !ro&ide wai&er for status as !ermanent residents abroad which is !ro&ided under Sec 6- of 276 R&L%NG 1. YES0 * Sec0 #9 of the '56 of 1991 re4uire residence for at least one 819 year immediately !receding the day of the election for local electi&e officials ' Abandoned status as !ermanent resident of USA: surrender of green card: decision to relocate to the $hili!!ines: elected mayor in 199-0 ;hus+ animus manendi 8intent to remain9 in the $hili!!ines and animus non re&ertendi 8without intent to return9 in USA !rior /001 elections were established0 ". NO. ' Sec 408f9 '56 1((1< =>is4ualified< $ermanent residents in a foreign country or those who ha&e ac4uired the right to reside abroad (((? * Sec 6% 8e9 276+ )$ --1 81(#59 !ro&ides for an e(ce!tion of the dis4ualification =((( unless said !erson has wai&ed his status as a !ermanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country @n accordance with the residence re4uirement !ro&ided for in the election laws? * )oth !ro&isions are in !ari materia A they relate to the same subBect matter an thus should be construed together and each legislati&e intent is to be inter!reted * 276 is a catch!hrase or a conditional cause on how a !ermanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country could fall outside the co&erage of !rohibition * 'egislature found the inclusion of how to fall outside the !rohibition in 276 is unnecessary+ hence the deletion0 * ;hus the absence of that conditional clause in Sec0 408f9 of the '56 1991 may be su!!lied by Sec0 6- 8e9 of the 276