G.R. No.
119976 September 18, 1995
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, petitioner
vs.
Commission on Elections and Cirilo Roy Montejo, respondents
FACTS:
On March 8, 1995, Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC)
as Representative of the First District of Leyte with the Provincial Election Supervisor, where
she includes the seven months residency information in item No. 8. On March 23, 1995,
incumbent Representative of said district and a candidate for the same position, Cirilo Montejo
filed a petition for Cancellation and Disqualification with the COMELEC on the ground of
constitutional requirement for residency of one year. The petitioner then filed an
Amended/Corrected COC, changing the entry “seven” months to “since childhood” in item No. 8
on March 29, 1995 which was declined due to the lapsed in deadline for filing, March 20, 1995.
The petitioner therefore filed the Amended/Corrected COC with the COMELEC’s Head Office
in Intramuros, Manila on March 31, 1995 as well as her answer to the respondents petition where
she argued that entry of the word “seven” was an honest misinterpretation and that she has
always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence. On April 24, 1995, the Second
Division of the COMELEC, finds the petition of the respondent meritorious dealing with two
primary issues: the validity of amending the original Certificate of Candidacy after the lapse of
the deadline for filing certificates of candidacy, and petitioner’s compliance with the one-year
residency requirement.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner’s COC be cancelled and be disqualified. (NO)
HELD:
The court stated that under Article 50 of the Civil Code, for the exercise of civil rights
and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of natural persons is their place of habitual
residence. In Ong vs. Republic the SC took the concept of domicile to mean an individual’s
permanent home, a place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to
return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent. The
deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the residence qualification for certain elective positions
have placed beyond doubt the principle that when the Constitution speaks of “residence” in
election law, it actually means only “domicile”. The court stand with the petitioner that the seven
months provided is an honest mistake. In fact, when the petitioner announced that she would be
registering in Tacloban City to run in the First District, private respondent opposed the same,
claiming that petitioner was a resident of Tolosa, not Tacloban City.
In line with the petitioner’s allegation on the jurisdiction of the COMELEC had already
lapsed considering that the assailed resolutions were rendered fourteen days before the election
which is in violation of Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, and that it is the HRET which
has jurisdiction over the election of members of the House of Representatives in accordance with
Article VI, Sec. 17 of the Constitution. The court ruled that, it is a settled doctrine that a statute
requiring rendition of judgment within a specified time is generally construed to be merely
directory, thus that non-compliance with them does not invalidate the judgment. In any event,
with the enactment of Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. 6646 in relation to Section 78 of B.P. 881, it is
evident that the respondent Commission does not lose jurisdiction to hear and decide a pending
disqualification case under Section 78 of B.P. 881 even after the elections.
DISPOSITION:
Having determined that petitioner possesses the necessary residence qualifications to run
for a seat in the House of Representatives in the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC’s
questioned Resolutions are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent COMELEC is hereby directed to
order the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected
Representative of the First District of Leyte.
