REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, Petitioner, v

REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES,Petitioner,v.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOSEPH SOCORRO B. TAN,Respondents.G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013

Facts: The petitioners assail through a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction resolution of the Commission on Election ordering the cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner for the position of the Representative of the lone district of Marinduque.

On October 31. 2012, Joseph Socorro Tan filed with the Comelec an Amended Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Regina Ongsiako Reyes, the petitioner, on the ground that it contained material representations.On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC cancelled the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner. She filed an MR on April 8, 2013. On May 14, 2013, COMELEC en banc denied her MR.

However, on May 18, 2013, she was proclaimed winner of the May 13, 2013 Elections. On June 5, 2013, COMELEC declared the May 14, 2013 Resolution final and Executory. On the same day, petitioner took her oath of office before Feliciano Belmonte, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has yet to assume office at that time, as her term officially starts at noon of June 30, 2013.According to petitioner, the COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly proclaimed20because pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, the HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the Members of the House of Representatives.

Issue:

Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petitioner who is proclaimed as winner and who has already taken her oath of office for the position of member of the House of Representative of Marinduque.

Held:

Yes, COMELEC retains jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the HRET begins only after the candidate is considered a Member of the House of Representatives, as stated in Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. For one to be considered a Member of the House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of these requisites: (1) valid proclamation; (2) proper oath, and (3) assumption of office.

Thus the petitioner cannot be considered a member of the HR yet as she has not assumed office yet. Also, the 2nd requirement was not validly complied with as a valid oath must be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and (2) in open session. Here, although she made the oath before Speaker Belmonte, there is no indication that it was made during plenary or in open session and, thus, it remains unclear whether the required oath of office was indeed complied.Furthermore, petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist.For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.Here, this Court finds that petitioner failed to adequately and substantially show that grave abuse of discretion exists.HERMILINA N. ABAINZA,Petitioner,- versus -ERNESTO ARELLANO and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,Respondents.

G.R. No. 181644

Facts:

On September 3, 2007, COMELEC annulled the proclamation of Hermiliana Abainza as councilor of the the Municipality of Jovellar, Albay due to erroneous tally of votes. The tally showed that 114 votes were in favour of Ernesto Arellano but only indicated 14 votes in words and figures in the election return. After counterchecking the copy of the said return, members of the Board of Elections admitted the clerical error of votes. The, MR was also denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Issues:

(1)Whether the COMELEC has original jurisdiction over the petition for correction of manifest error; and

(2)Whether the COMELEC erred in granting the petition for correction of manifest error which was in the nature of a pre-proclamation controversy despite the proclamation and oath by petitioner as elected councillor.

Held:

1) Yes, it has jurisdiction over correction of manifest error pursuant to Sec.5, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

Sec. 5.Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly With the Commission.- (a) The following pre-proclamation controversies may be filed directly with the Commission:2)When the issue involves the correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of the results during the canvassing as where(1) a copy of the election returns or certificate of canvass was tabulated more than once, (2) two or more copies of the election returns of one precinct, or two or more copies of certificate of canvass were tabulated separately,(3) there has been a mistake in the copying of the figures into the statement of votes or into the certificate of canvass,or (4) so-called returns from non-existent precincts were included in the canvass,and such errors could not have been discovered during the canvassing despite the exercise of due diligence and proclamation of the winning candidates had already been made.

A manifest error is one that is visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding; that which is open, palpable, incontrovertible, needing no evidence to make it more clear. As stated in the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC, the error in the entry in the election return is very evident to the eye, needing no evidence to make it clear.Petitioners proclamation, and eventual assumption of office, was predicated on a clerical and manifest error, not on the legitimate will of the electorate.

The petition was however dismissed because the petition raised purely technical objections and did not dispute the finding of the COMELEC on the error in the total number of votes reflected in the election return.

ROMMEL APOLINARIO JALOSJOS, vsTHE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONSand DAN ERASMO, SR.,Respondents.G.R. No. 191970 April 24, 2012

FACTS: Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City on October 26, 1973. He migrated to Australia in 1981 when he was eight years old and there acquired Australian citizenship. On November 22, 2008, at age 35, he decided to return to the Philippines and lived with his brother in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. Four days upon his return, he took an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, hence, he was issued a Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration. On September 1, 2009 he renounced his Australian citizenship, executing a sworn renunciation of the same in compliance with Republic Act (R.A.) 9225. From the time of his return, Jalosjos acquired a residential property in the same village where he lived and maintained a fish pond. He applied for registration as a voter in the Municipality of Ipil but respondent Erasmo, the Barangay Captain, opposed the said act. Election Registration Board approved it and included Jalosjos name in the COMELEC voters list. Erasmo filed before the MTC a petition for the exclusion of Jalosjos name from the official voters list. The MTC denied Erasmos petition. He appealed to RTC but RTC upheld the MTC decision. On November 28, 2009 Jalosjos filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay Province for the May 10, 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a petition to deny due course or to cancel Jalosjos COC on the ground that Jalosjos made material misrepresentation in the same since he failed to comply with (1) the requirements of R.A. 9225 and (2) the one-year residency requirement of the Local Government Code. COMELEC ruled against Jalosjos, because he failed to comply with the 1-year residency ruequirement. Subsequently, Jalosjos won the elections

ISSUE: Whether or not Jalosjos failed to comply with the 1-year residency requirement

HELD: Jalosjos complied with the 1-year requirement. It is true that his domicial was Quezon City, his domicile of origin, the place of his birth. However, his domicile was changed from Quezon City to Australia when he migrated there at the age of eight, acquired Australian citizenship, and lived in that country for 26 years. Australia became his domicile by operation of law and by choice. When he came to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his brother in Zamboanga Sibugay, it is evident that Jalosjos did so with intent to change his domicile for good. In addition, he reacquired his old citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in his being issued a Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration. By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to live in Australia, clearly proving that he gave up his domicile there.He has since lived nowhere else except in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.

As to the issue that he cannot claim Ipil as his domicile as he was living in his brothers house, the court said that a candidate need to have a house in a community to establish residence. It is sufficient that he rents a house or in the house of a friend or relative. Only 2 important things must be proved: actual physical presence and an intention of making it his domicile. Jaloslos was able to prove the two requirements. Hence, he is qualified. LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE,Petitioner,v.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MIGUEL R. VILLAFUERTE,Respondents.

G.R. No. 206698, February 25, 2014

FACTS:

Petitioner and respondent were both candidates for the Gubernatorial position of the Province of Camarines Sur in the May 13, 2013 local and national elections. On October 25, 2012, petitioner filed with the COMELEC a Verified Petition3to deny due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacy (COC) of respondent, alleging that respondent intentionally and materially misrepresented a false and deceptive name/nickname that would mislead the voters when he declared under oath in his COC that LRAY JR.MIGZ was his nickname or stagename and that the name he intended to appear on the official ballot was VILLAFUERTE, LRAY JR.MIGZ NP; that respondent deliberately omitted his first name MIGUEL and inserted, instead LRAY JR., which is the nickname of his father, the incumbent Governor of Camarines Sur, LRay Villafuerte, Jr.4respondent denied the commission of any material misrepresentation and asserted, among others, that he had been using the nickname LRAY JR. MIGZ and not only MIGZ; that the choice of name/word to appear on the ballot was solely his choice or preference; and that the presumption that the voters would be confused on the simple fact that his name would be placed first in the ballot was misplaced.

On January 15, 2013, the COMELECs First Division denied the petition for lack of merit. Laws and jurisprudence on the matter are clear that material misrepresentation in the COC pertains only to qualifications of a candidate, such as citizenship, residency, registration as a voter, age, etc. Nothing has been mentioned about a candidates name/nickname as a ground to deny due course or cancel his/her COC. COMELEC en banc affirmed the First Divisions decision. Hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not respondent committed a material misrepresentation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code so as to justify the cancellation of his COC.

Held:

NO. Material misrepresentation under the earlierquoted Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code refers to qualifications for elective office.It need not be emphasized that there is no showing that there was an intent to deceive the electorate as to private respondents identity, nor that by using his Filipino name the voting public was thereby deceived. Thus, the use of a name other than that stated in the certificate of birth is not a material misrepresentation. Clearly, from the foregoing, for the petition to deny due course or cancel the COC of one candidate to prosper, the candidate must have made a material misrepresentation involving his eligibility or qualification for the office to which he seeks election, such as the requisite residency, age, citizenship or any other legal qualification necessary to run for local elective office as provided in the Local Government Code.15Hence, petitioners allegation that respondents nickname LRAY JR. MIGZ written in his COC is a material misrepresentation is devoid of merit.Moreover, the false representation under Section 78 must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. As we said, respondents nickname is not considered a material fact, and there is no substantial evidence showing that in writing the nickname LRAY JR. MIGZ in his COC, respondent had the intention to deceive the voters as to his identity which has an effect on his eligibility or qualification for the office he seeks to assume.