MARCOS vs COMELEC

GR No. 119976 9/18/1995

FACTS:
On March 8, 1995 Imelda Romualdez Marcos filed her candidacy for
Representative of 1st District of Leyte. In her certificate of candidacy she wrote 7 months
as the period of her actual residency of the constituency which she seeks to be elected.
Her opponent, private respondent in this case, filed a petition to disqualify her on the
ground that she was not able to satisfy the at least 1 year residency requirement
immediately preceding before the day of election in the same year.
Marcos, filed an amended/corrected certificate of candidacy with the COMELEC
but it was denied because it had already lapsed the period in which it has to be filed. On
April 24, 1995 COMELEC issued a Resolution, disqualifying the petitioner to run as
Representative of 1st district of Leyte on the reason that she lacks 1 year residency as
provided in the Constitution. COMELEC asserted that even if the petitioner considered
Tacloban as her domicile, there is no showing of any intention on her part to live there
permanently considering that she has several residencies prior to running a position in
one of the districts of Leyte. Moreover, the COMELEC reserved the National Board of
Canvasser, not to proclaim Marcos in the event she won the election.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not petitioner is disqualified in running for Representative of 1 st
district of Leyte.
(2) Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction to hear and judge the
disqualification of herein petitioner.
HELD:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The residence which referred to by the
Constitution as one of the requirements in running for a position of a District
Representative is one that of having a characteristics of domicile. A domicile is a kind of
residence which one is absent for business or pleasure, has the intention of returning
back. In other words this is pertaining to a permanent residence. The court further
states that one may choose to have several residence because of some reasons like

business or engaging in a profession, but there is only one domicile in which that certain
person or individual has an attached relationship with the place or community. A
domicile ceases to be one if there is an intention to abandon it, but it is not conclusive
that when you have several residences you automatically disregard or abandon the
domicile.
In the instant case, the petitioner believes that Leyte is her domicile because it
is where she grew up, it is where most of her relatives live and she always comes back
during her lifetime. There was no concrete evidence contrary to the allegation of the
COMELEC, that would show that she abandoned it. Therefore the Supreme Court
convinced that the 7 months she wrote in her certificate of candidacy was an honest
mistake of fact. Based on the evidence, the petitioner was able to establish that 1 st
district of Leyte is her legal residence or Domicile. Hence she cannot be disqualified in
running the said position.
On the second issue of jurisdiction, the COMELEC has the authority to judge
the election, returns and disqualification of the petitioner, since the petition was filed
before the actual election has been made and it was pending even at the time of the
actual casting of vote. Even though Marcos garnered the highest vote, she is not
considered yet to be a member of the House of Representative until she took an oath.
HRET is a sole judge in matters of election, returns and disqualification of its members
as provided in Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution , the law contemplates
member to be one who has already taken an oath.