Fernandez v HRET
His period of residence that is 1 yr and 2
FACTS:
1. Fernandez (petitioner) filed for a COC as the Rep of 1st
district of Laguna
2. Indicatded his complete eddress in his COC (Sta. Rosa,
Laguna)
3. Vicente filed a petition to Deny Due Course and/or
Cancel COC and petition for Disqualification before the
Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor of Laguna
a. Ground: petitioner misrepresented in his COC
his place of residence
b. Ground: petitioner indicate in past elections
that he resides in Pagsanjan
(4th district)
c. Ground: petitioner maintained another house
in Cabuyao
4. COMELEC dismissed petition for lack of merit
5. Petitioner was proclaimed as the duly elected Rep of
1st district of Laguna
6. Vicente filed a petition for quo warranto before the
HRET
a. Praying: petitioner be declared ineligible to be a
member of the house of reps representing the
1st district
b. Praying: petitioner’s election and proclamation
be annulled and declared null and void.
c. Ground: lack of required 1-year residency
d. Ground: petitioner falsely declared under oath:
i. That he lives in sta. rosa
ii.
months
iii. That he is eligible to be a Rep of the 1st
district of Laguna
7. HRET declared Fernandez ineligible and was ordered to
vacate his office
ISSUE:
W/N petitioner sufficiently complied with the 1-year residency
requirement to be a Member of the House of Reps?
HELD:
Yes. Petitioner has demonstrated that he has substantial ties
to Sta. Rosa and the First District of Laguna.
1. Petitioner has business interests in Sta. Rosa
(restaurants and residential property for lease)
2. Has 2 children studying in Sta. Rosa even before 2006
3. Serves as a Board Member and Vice Gov for Province
of Laguna
These circumstances provided petitioner to have reasons to
frequently visit the area and eventually take up residence in
the 1st district. With this, he had acquired knowledge of the
need and aspirations of the residents of the 1st district who
were among his constituents.
Cannot be a stranger to the community.
Tagolino v HRET and Torres-Gomez
FACTS:
1. Gomez filed his COC as a Rep of 4th Legislative District
of Leyte under LP
2. Juntilla, his opponent, filed a Verified Petition
a. Gomez was actually a resident of San Juan,
Manila
b. Misrepresented in his COC that he resided tin
Ormoc
c. Failed to meet 1 year residency requirement
d. Praying: declare Gomez disqualified/ineligible
to run
e. Praying: COC be denied due course and /or
cancelled
3. Gomez was disqualified by the COMELEC First Division
4. Gomez filed for a motion for reconsideration but
denied by COMELEC En Banc
5. Torres-Gomez filed her COC together with a Certificate
of Nomination and Acceptance from LP
a. Official substitute candidate of her husband
6. COMELEC En Banc allowed Torres-Gomez to be the
substitute
7. Juntilla filed an Extremely Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration with regard to the decision of En Banc
8. Since Gomez won the elections, Torres-Gomez, being
the substitute, was proclaimed the duly elected Rep of
4th district of leyte
9. Tagolino filed a petition for quo warranto before HRET
to oust Torres-Gomez
a. Failed to comply 1 yr residency
b. Did not validly substitute Gonez as his COC was
void ab initio
c. Did not comply with notarial requirements
10. HRET dismissed the petition
ISSUE:
W/N HRET gravely abused its discretion that Gomez was
validly substituted by Torres-Gomez as candidate for Leyte
Rep in view of Torres-Gomez’ failure to meet 1 year residency
requirement?
HELD:
Yes. Gomez’ failure to comply with the 1 year residency
requirement is a ground for denial of due course to and/or
cancellation of COC and not for disqualification. If Gomez is
disqualified, he can be substituted. But since his COC was
cancelled, he cannot be substituted. Hence, Torres-Gomez’
substitution is not, in the first place, valid.
The decision of COMELEC First Division that disallowed
substitution and decided for the cancellation of Gomez COC
was overlooked by the En Banc because it approved Torres-
Gomez substitution. HRET committed a grave abuse of
discretion when it approved the instant petition.
Reyes v COMELEC & Tan
FACTS:
1. Petitioner filed her COC for the position of Rep of
Marinduque
2. Tan filed a petition for the cancellation of Reyes’ coc
a. reason: misrepresentations regarding her
marital status, residency, date pf birth, and
citizenship
b. reason: Reyes is an American Citizen
 3. COMELEC First Div issued a resolution cancelling the
coc
a. Ground: not a citizen of the Philippines
b. Failure to comply with the requirements of RA
9225
4. Petitioner filed a motion for recon
5. Denied by COMELEC En Banc for lack of merit
6. Petitioner won the seat.
7. On the day she took her oath of office, COMELEC en
banc issued a certificate of finality declaring the
reolution with regard to the cancellation of her COC
final and executory
ISSUE:
W/N COMELEC erred in its ruling that the petitioner is
ineligible to run for office?
HELD:
No. There is no showing that petitioner complied with the
requirements in order to reacquire Filipino Citizenship and be
eligible for public office. There was no showing that petitioner
took an oath of allegiance to the repub of the phils before the
consul general of the phils in the United States. There was also
no proof that she made a personal and sworn renunciation of
her American citizenship before any authorized public officer.
Since there is no reacquisition of Filipino citizenship that took
place, it means that the petitioner did not abandon her
domicile of choice in the US. By claiming that she had been a
Public Administrator in Marinduque is not conclusive evidence
that she abandoned her domicile in the US.
Hence, no grave abuse of discretion.
REQUIREMENTS FOR A CANDIDATE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
HOUSE:
1. Proper oath must be before a speaker
2. Valid proclamation
3.
SECTION 11 – Privilege from arrest
People v Jalosjos
FACTS:
1. Jalosjos is a member of the Congress
2. He is now confined at the national penitentiary while
his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and
acts of lasciviousness on 6 counts is pending appeal
3. Jalosjos filed a motion
a. Praying: he be allowed to fully discharge the
duties of a Congressman including attendance
at legislative sessions and committee meetings
b. Argument: “mandate of sovereign will”
c. Argument: sovereign electorate chose him as
their representative
ISSUE:
Shall Jalosjos be allowed to fully discharge his duties as a
Congressman?
HELD:
No. The functions and duties of the office do not make the
one holding the office different from the class of prisoners.
The performance of legitimate and essential duties by public
officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in
prison.
NOTE: Allowing him to attend congressional sessions and
committee meetings will virtually make him a free man with
all the privileges appurtenant to his position
Trillanes v Pimentel
FACTS:
1. Trillanes was charged, along with his comrades, with
coup d’etat.
2. 4 years later, petitioner, who has remained in
detention, won a seat on the Senate with a 6-year
term.
3. Petitioner filed with the RTC an “Omnibus Motion for
Leave of Court to be Allowed to Attend Senate
Sessions and Related Requests”
4. Trial court denied all the requests in the Omnibus
Motion
ISSUE:
W/N membership in Congress exempt an accused from
statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons
in general?
HELD:
No. It is impractical to draw a line between convicted
prisoners and pre-trial detainees for the purpose of
maintaining jail security. When a person indicted for an
offense is arrested, he is placed in actual restraint of liberty in
jail. He must be detained during the pendency of the case
against him. Allowing the petitioner to attend congressional
sessions for 5 days or more makes him a free man.
NOTE: Doctrine of condonation was invoked by Trillanes. But
it cannot be invoked in a criminal case only on administrative
cases.
SECTION 11 – Parliamentary Freedom of Speech and Debate
Jimenez v Cabangbang
FACTS:
1. Plaintiffs charged respondent for a civil action
2. Respondent published libelous letter against the
plaintiffs
3. During the publication of such, respondent was a
member of the House of Reps
4. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the case because
it was a privileged communication
5. CFI granted the motion
ISSUE:
W/N publication in question is a privileged communication?
HELD:
No. For it to be considered as a privileged communication it
must be performed within his official duty. The publication
involved in this case does not belong to such category. It was
an open letter to the President when Congress presumably
was not in session, and defendant caused said letter to be
published in several newspapers of general circulation.
Causing the communication to be published, he was not
performing his official duty in the Congress.

Pobre v Defensor-Santiago
FACTS:
1. Santiago expressed her despise in her privilege speech
towards CJ Panganiban and other members of the
court
2. Pobre believed that it was a total disrespect towards
the CJ and other members of the Court
3. Believed that it constituted direct contempt of court
4. Petitioner asks the Court that disbarment proceedings
or other disciplinary actions be taken against
respondent
5. Respondent commented that It was covered by the
parliamentary immunity.
6. Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint
ISSUE:
W/N the privilege speech done by the respondent is covered
by the parliamentary immunity?
HELD:
Yes. Courts do not interfere with how the Congress perform
their functions. The statement uttered by the member of the
Congress does not destroy the parliamentary privilege
pursuant to Article 6, Sec 11. The disciplinary authority of the
assembly and the electorate, and not the courts, can properly
discourage or correct such abuses committed in the name of
such immunity.
ARTICLE 6, SEC 13 (Forfeiture of seat)
Liban v Gordon
Facts:
1. Gordon was an incumbent senator when he was
elected as a chairman of Philippine National Red Cross
2. Petitioners filed with the Court a petition to Declare
Gordon as having Forfeited His Seat in the Senate
a. By accepting the chairmanship of the PNRC
Board of Governors, respondent has ceased to
be a member of the Senate
b. Pursuant to Art 6, Sec 13
3. Respondent answered argued that among other:
a. PNRC is not a government-owned or controlled
corporation
b. Art 6 sec 13 cannot be applied in this case since
volunteer service to PNRC is neither an office or
an employment
Issue:
W/N PNRC is a government-owned or controlled corporation?
Held:
No. Under the PNRC Charter, only 6 out of 30 members were
appointed by the President, while the other 24 members were
not. The 24 members left who were not appointed by the
President were chosen or elected by the private sector
members of the PNRC. The President does not appoint the
Chairman of PNRC because its Chairman is elected by the
PNRC Board in which the majority is composed of those who
were coming from private sectors or are private individuals. If
an office is not legally under the control of the President, then
such office is not under the Executive Department. Hence,
PNRC is a private organization performing public functions.
Thus, Gordon is not holding a government employment or No. After the contested election of directors, after the filing of
office other than being a Senator. the suit, and 1 day before the hearing, Fernandez acquired a
mere 200-peso worth of stock in IPI. He signified his intention
Article 6, Section 14 (cannot appear as counsel) to be a counsel for the Acero group. However, the petitioners
Puyat v De Guzman questioned his validity as counsel. Hence, he moved to
FACTS: intervene on the case instead. He claimed that since he
1. An election was held for the Directors of the Int’s Pipe purchased shares from IPI, he has legal interest in the said
Industries Corp. case.
2. One group involved in the election, the Acero group,
instituted at the Securities and Exchange Commission It was therefore held that this is an indirect appearance as
(SEC) quo warranto proceedings, questioning the said counsel and a circumvention of the said provision in the
election. Constitution. The intervention enables him to appear actively
3. Justice Fernandez, who was a member of the Interim in the proceedings in some other capacity.
Batasang Pambansa, was the counsel of the Acero
group in the said case.
4. Puyat group objected the appearance of Justice
Fernandez pursuant to Sec 11, Art. VIII of 1973
Constitution (now Sec 14, Art 6)
5. It was stated that Fernandez purchased shares of IPI
upon request of Acero group
6. Following the notarization of the said purchase, he
filed a motion for intervention in the SEC case as the
owner of some of the IPI shares.
a. Reason: legal interest in the litigation
7. SEC granted leave to intervene

ISSUE:
W/N Fernandez may intervene in the SEC case?

HELD: