Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Jose L. Atienza, Jr. and others vs.

Comelec, 2010
Drilon, president of the Liberal Party, announced
his partys withdrawal of support for the
administration of Arroyo. On March 2, 2006
Atienza hosted a party conference to supposedly
discuss local autonomy and party matters but, when
convened, the assembly proceeded to declare all
positions in the LP's ruling body vacant and elected
new officers, with Atienza as LP president. Drilon
immediately filed a petition with the COMELEC to
nullify the elections. He claimed that it was illegal
since the party's electing bodies, the National
Executive Council (NECO) and the National
Political Council (NAPOLCO), were not properly
convened. Drilon also claimed that under the
amended LP Constitution, party officers were
elected to a fixed three-year term that was yet to end
on November 30, 2007.
Atienza claimed that the majority of the LPs NECO
and NAPOLCO attended the March 2, 2006
assembly. The election of new officers on that
occasion could be likened to people power,
wherein the LP majority removed Drilon as
president by direct action. Atienza also said that the
amendments to the original LP Constitution giving
LP officers a fixed three-year term, had not been
properly ratified. Consequently, the term of Drilon
and the other officers already ended on July 24,
2006.
Comelec annulled the March 2, 2006 elections and
ordered the holding of a new election under
COMELEC supervision. The election of Atienza
and the others with him was invalid since the
electing assembly did not convene in accordance
with LP Constitution. But, since the amendments to
the LP Constitution had not been properly ratified,
Drilon's term may be deemed to have ended. Thus,
he held the position of LP president in a holdover
capacity until new officers were elected.
Subsequently, LP held a NECO meeting to elect
new party leaders before respondent Drilon's term
expired. Fifty-nine NECO members out of the 87
who were supposedly qualified to vote attended.
That meeting installed respondent Manuel A. Roxas
II (Roxas) as the new LP president.

Eventually, LP deemed petitioners Atienza,


Zaldivar-Perez, and Cast-Abayon resigned for
holding the illegal election of LP officers on March
2, 2006. This was pursuant to NAPOLCO
resolution that NECO subsequently ratified.
Meanwhile, certain NECO members, like
petitioners Defensor, Valencia, and Suarez, forfeited
their party membership when they ran under other
political parties during the May 2007 elections.
They were dropped from the roster of LP members.
Atienza and others assailed the resolution before
Comelec, but Comelec denied their petition.
Comelec observed that this was a membership issue
that related to disciplinary action within the political
party. It was an internal party matter that was
beyond its jurisdiction to resolve.
Question
Did the NECO members validly elect Roxas?
Answer
Yes. The list of NECO members used by Drilon and
Atienza in their arguments before Comelec, based
on the names of the members appearing in the
partys 60th Anniversary Souvernir Program, cannot
be the basis now.
The list of NECO members appearing in the partys
60th Anniversary Souvenir Program was drawn
before the May 2007 elections. After the 2007
elections, changes in the NECO membership had to
be redrawn to comply with what the amended LP
Constitution required. Drilon adopted the souvenir
program as common exhibit in the earlier cases only
to prove that the NECO, which supposedly elected
Atienza as new LP president on March 2, 2006, had
been improperly convened. It cannot be regarded as
an immutable list, given the nature and character of
the NECO membership.
Question
Can the Comelec intervene in the election of LPs
president Roxas?
Answer
Yes. The COMELECs jurisdiction over intra-party
leadership disputes has already been settled by the
Court. In Kalaw v. Commission on Elections, the

COMELECs powers and functions under Section


2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, include the
ascertainment of the identity of the political
party and its legitimate officers responsible for
its acts. The COMELEC's power to register
political parties necessarily involved the
determination of the persons who must act on its
behalf. Thus, the COMELEC may resolve an intraparty leadership dispute, in a proper case brought
before it, as an incident of its power to register
political parties.
The validity of Roxas election as LP president is a
leadership issue that the COMELEC had to settle.
Under the amended LP Constitution, the LP
president is the issuing authority for certificates of
nomination of party candidates for all national
elective positions. It is also the LP president who
can authorize other LP officers to issue certificates
of nomination for candidates to local elective posts.
In simple terms, it is the LP president who certifies
the official standard bearer of the party.
Question
Should the Comelec intervene in LPs disciplinary
action of Atienza and others?
Answer
No. The key issue in this case is not the validity of
the expulsion of Atienza and others. from the party,
but the legitimacy of the NECO assembly that
elected Roxas as LP president. Given the
COMELEC's finding as upheld by this Court that
the membership of the NECO in question complied
with the LP Constitution, the resolution of the issue
of whether or not the party validly expelled
petitioners cannot affect the election of officers
that the NECO held.
Atienza claimed that the majority of LP members
belong to their faction, but they did not specify who
these members were and how their numbers could
possibly affect the composition of the NECO and
the outcome of its election of party leaders. Atienza,
et al. has not bothered to assail the individual
qualifications of the NECO members who voted for
Roxas. Nor did Atienza, et al. present proof that the
NECO had no quorum when it then assembled. In

other words, the claims of Atienza, et al. were


totally unsupported by evidence.
Consequently, Atienza, et al. cannot claim that their
expulsion from the party impacts on the party
leadership issue or on the election of respondent
Roxas as president so that it was indispensable for
the COMELEC to adjudicate such claim. Under the
circumstances, the validity or invalidity of Atienza,
et al.'s expulsion was purely a membership issue
that had to be settled within the party. It is an
internal party matter over which the
COMELEC has no jurisdiction.

Poe-Llamanzares v. Comelec, 2016


Poe was found abandoned as a newborn infant in
the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo. She was adopted
by Fernando Poe and Susan Roces. She eventually
went abroad to study. She came back to the
Philippines, and married her husband. Then they
went back to the Philippines. She became a U.S.
citizen. But, because of her FPJs death, she came
home to the Philippines on 24 May 2005. She ran
for senator in the 2013 elections and won with the
highest number of votes. Now, she wanted to run
for the presidency. But a number of individuals
questioned her eligibility.
Question
Did Poe satisfy the 10-year residency requirement?
Answer
Yes. There are 3 requisites to acquire a new
domicile: 1. Residence or bodily presence in a new
locality; 2. an intention to remain there; and 3. an
intention to abandon the old domicile. To
successfully effect a change of domicile, one must
demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change
of domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the
former place of residence and establishing a new
one and definite acts which correspond with the
purpose. In other words, there must basically be
animus manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the
domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period
of time; the change of residence must be voluntary;

and the residence at the place chosen for the new


domicile must be actual.

Reyes v. Comelec do not apply here. They all lacked


the bulk of evidence that Poe was able to present.

Poe offered voluminous evidence showing her


satisfaction of the requisites:

Question

She arrived here on 24 May 2005.


Every time she travelled abroad she would always
return to the Philippines.
She e-mailed, starting in March 2005 to September
2006, a freight company to arrange for the shipment
of their household items weighing about 28,000
pounds to the Philippines.
She e-mailed the Philippine Bureau of Animal
Industry inquiring how to ship their dog to the
Philippines.
She had school records of her children showing
enrollment in Philippine schools starting June 2005
and for succeeding years.
She had tax identification card issued on July 2005;
titles for condominium and parking slot issued in
February 2006 and their corresponding tax
declarations issued in April 2006; receipts dated 23
February 2005 from the Salvation Army in the U.S.
acknowledging donation of items from petitioner's
family; March 2006 e-mail to the U.S. Postal
Service confirming request for change of address;
final statement from the First American Title
Insurance Company showing sale of their U.S.
home on 27 April 2006; 12 July 2011 filled-up
questionnaire submitted to the U.S. Embassy where
petitioner indicated that she had been a Philippine
resident since May 2005; affidavit from Jesusa
Sonora Poe (attesting to the return of petitioner on
24 May 2005 and that she and her family stayed
with affiant until the condominium was purchased);
and Affidavit from petitioner's husband (confirming
that the spouses jointly decided to relocate to the
Philippines in 2005 and that he stayed behind in the
U.S. only to finish some work and to sell the family
home). The foregoing evidence were undisputed
and the facts were even listed by the
COMELEC.
Note: Rulings in the cases of Coquilla v. Comelec,
Japzon v. Comelec, Caballero v. Comelec, and

Did she commit material fraud when she stated in


her Senatorial COC that she was a resident since
2006, but changed it to 2005 in her Presidential
COC?
Answer
No. She only misunderstood the query in the COC.
Comelec even acknowledged the vagueness of the
question when it changed the query.
It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a
certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive
in determining whether or not an individual has
satisfied the constitutions residency qualification
requirement.
She also did not manifest any intention to deceive
because her mistake was never concealed. A petition
for quo warranto was filed against her when she had
been a senator. She admitted to the SET that she
made a mistake, and her admission became matter
of public record.
Question
Does the fact that she did not yet acquire her
Filipino citizenship or that she only had a
balikbayan visa in 2005 prevent her from counting
her residency from 2005?
In other words, can domicile be established only
from Poes repatriation under 9225?
Answer
No. It does not take away the fact that in reality, Poe
had returned from the U.S. and was here to stay
permanently, on 24 May 2005.
In addition, balikbayans are not ordinary transients.
A closer look at R.A. No. 6768 as amended,
otherwise known as the An Act Instituting a
Balikbayan Program, shows that there is no
overriding intent to treat balikbayans as
temporary visitors who must leave after one
year. Included in the law is a former Filipino who
has been naturalized abroad and comes or returns

to the Philippines. The law institutes a balikbayan


program providing the opportunity to avail of the
necessary training to enable the balikbayan to
become economically self-reliant members of

society upon their return to the country in line with


the government's "reintegration program.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen