Ututalum vs.

Comelec

(EN BANC, G.R. No. 84843-44 January 22, 1990)

Facts:

Nurhussein A. Ututalum and Arden S. Anni, were among the candidates in the 30 May 1987
Congressional elections for the Second District of Sulu. 30 May was the date reset by the
COMELEC from the 11 May 1987 elections. The election returns from Siasi showed that Ututalum
obtained 482 votes while Anni received 35,581 votes out of the 39,801 registered voters. On 4
June 1987, during the canvass of votes, Ututalum, without availing of verbal objections, filed
written objections to the returns from Siasi on the ground that they “appear to be tampered with
or falsified” owing to the “great excess of votes” appearing in said returns. The Provincial Board
of Canvassers of Sulu dismissed Ututalum’s objections for having filed out of time. On 11 June
l987, in Case SPC 87-180, the COMELEC resolved that there was no failure of elections in the 1st
and 2nd Districts of Sulu except in specified precincts in the 1st District. On 14 June 1987, the
Sulu Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed respondent Anni as the winner.

He subsequently took his oath of office and entered upon the discharge of its functions in July
1987. On the other hand, one Lupay Loong, a candidate for Governor of Sulu, filed a verified
Petition with the COMELEC to annul the List of Voters of Siasi, for purposes of the election of
local government officials. This Petition was opposed by Anni. Ututalum was not a party to this
proceeding. On 16 January 1988, the COMELEC issued, in said SPC 87-624, a Resolution annulling
the Siasi List of Voters “on the ground of massive irregularities committed in the preparation
thereof and being statistically improbable”, and ordering a new registration of voters for the local
elections of 15 February 1988. Said Resolution was affirmed by the Court in Anni vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 81398, 26 January 1988.

Issue:

Whether the annulment of the list of votes constitute a ground for a pre-proclamation contest.

Held:
Padded voter’s list, massive fraud and terrorism is clearly not among the issues that may be raised
in a pre-proclamation controversy. They are proper grounds for an election protest. The
subsequent annulment of the voting list in a separate proceeding initiated motu proprio by the
Commission and in which the protagonists here were not parties, cannot retroactively and
without due process result in nullifying accepted election returns in a previous election simply
because such returns came from municipalities where the precinct books of voters were ordered
annulled due to irregularities in their preparation.

Such irregularities as fraud, vote-buying and terrorism are proper grounds in an election contest
but may not as a rule be invoked to declare a failure of election and to disenfranchise the greater
number of the electorate through the misdeeds, precisely, of only a relative few. Otherwise,
elections will never be carried out with the resultant disenfranchisement of the innocent voters,
for the losers will always cry fraud and terrorism (GAD vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 78302, May 26,
1987, 150 SCRA 665).

Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC 248 SCRA 300

Facts:

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative
of Leyte First District. On March 23, 1995, private respondent Cirilio Montejo, also a candidate
for the same position, filed a petition for disqualification of the petitioner with COMELEC on the
ground that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. On March 29,
1995, petitioner filed an amended certificate of candidacy, changing the entry of seven months
to “since childhood” in item no. 8 in said certificate. However, the amended certificate was not
received since it was already past deadline. She claimed that she always maintained Tacloban
City as her domicile and residence. The Second Division of the COMELEC with a vote of 2 to 1
came up with a resolution finding private respondent’s petition for disqualification meritorious.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her
marriage to the late President Marcos.
Held:

For election purposes, residence is used synonymously with domicile. The Court upheld the
qualification of petitioner, despite her own declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she
had resided in the district for only 7 months, because of the following: (a) a minor follows the
domicile of her parents; Tacloban became petitioner’s domicile of origin by operation of law
when her father brought the family to Leyte; (b) domicile of origin is lost only when there is actual
removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and
establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with the purpose; in the absence of clear and
positive proof of the concurrence of all these, the domicile of origin should be deemed to
continue; (c) the wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile because the term
“residence” in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law; when petitioner married
President Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a
domicilium necessarium; (d) even assuming that she gained a new domicile after her marriage
and acquired the right to choose a new one only after her husband died, her acts following her
return to the country clearly indicate that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her
domicile of choice.

Rivera vs Comelec

FACTS:

The case is a resolution of two consolidated petitions – one filed by Attys. Venancio Q. Rivera III
and Atty. Normandick de Guzman against Marino “Boking Morales, and the other one filed by
Anthony D. Dee, the candidate who obtained the second highest vote after Morales.

In the May 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections, respondent Marino "Boking" Morales
ran as candidate for mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga for the term commencing July 1, 2004 to
June 30, 2007. Petitioners filed with the COMELEC a petition to cancel respondent Morales’
Certificate of Candidacy on the ground that he was elected and had served three previous
consecutive terms as mayor of Mabalacat. They alleged that his candidacy violated Section 8,
Article X of the Constitution and Section 43 (b) of RA 7160.
Respondent Morales admitted that he was elected mayor of Mabalacat for the term commencing
July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1998 (first term) and July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2004 (third term), but he
served the second term from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001 only as a "caretaker of the office" or
as a "de facto officer" since his proclamation as mayor was declared void by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC). He was also preventively suspended by the Ombudsman in an anti--graft case from
January to July 1999.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Morales violated the three-­­term limit rule when he ran for re-­election as mayor
in the 2004 elections.

HELD:

For the three-term limit for elective local government officials to apply, two conditions or
requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that the official concerned has been elected for three
consecutive terms in the same local government post, and (2) that he has fully served three
consecutive terms.

Respondent Morales was elected for the term July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001. He assumed the
position. He served as mayor until June 30, 2001. He was mayor for the entire period
notwithstanding the Decision of the RTC in the electoral protest case filed by petitioner Dee
ousting him (respondent) as mayor. Respondent Morales is now serving his fourth term. He has
been mayor of Mabalacat continuously without any break since July 1, 1995. In just over a month,
by June 30, 2007, he will have been mayor of Mabalacat for twelve (12) continuous years. His
assumption of office for the second term constituted “service for the full term” and should be
counted as a full term served in contemplation of the three--term limit prescribed by the
constitutional and statutory provisions barring local elective officials from being elected and
serving for more than three consecutive terms for the same position.
The framers of the Constitution, by including this exception, wanted to establish some safeguards
against the excessive accumulation of power as a result of consecutive terms. Therefore, having
found respondent Morales ineligible, his Certificate of Candidacy dated December 30, 2003
should be cancelled. Not being a candidate, the votes cast for him SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED
and must be considered stray votes. (Rivera vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 167591. May 9, 2007)