[119976] [Romualdez-Marcos vs.

COMELEC]
Summarized by Claudine Jambora

Important People: Imelda Romualdez-Marcos (petitioner), Cirilo Roy Montejo

(respondent), COMELEC

FACTS: (In order of chronological events)

1. March 8, 1995 - Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
Representative of the First District of Leyte. She provided the following information on
No.8:
RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK TO BE ELECTED
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION: _____Years and seven Months
2. March 23, 1995 Montejo, the incumbent Rep. of the 1st District and a candidate for
the same position, filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification with COMELEC,
alleging that the petitioner did not meet the constitutional1 requirement for residency.
3. March 29, 1995 Marcos filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy,
changing seven months to since childhood. On the same day, the Provincial Election
Supervisor of Leyte informed her that they cannot accept it because it is filed out of time
and the deadline for filing has already lapsed.
4. March 31, 1995 - Marcos filed the Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy with
COMELEC head office. She also filed an answer to Montejos petition, saying that she
wrote seven because of honest misinterpretation 2 which she sought to rectify by
adding the words since childhood. She further added that she had always considered
Tacloban City as her domicile or residence.
5. April 24, 1995 The 2nd Division of COMELECs Resolution:
(a) Montejos Petition for Disqualification is meritorious,
(b) Struck off Marcos Corrected/Amended Certificate of Candidacy
(c) Canceled her original Certificate of Candidacy
nd
The 2 Division held that she could not have been a resident of Tacloban City because
she became a resident of many places.3
6. May 8, 1995 COMELEC Resolution denying petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration.
7. May 11, 1995 COMELEC Resolution allowing petitioners proclamation should the
results of the canvass show that she obtained the highest number of votes in the

1
Const, art VI, Sec. 6: No person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and except the party-list
representative, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one
year immediately preceding the day of the election.
2
Marcos said that she wrote seven to indicate that at least 1 month has passed from her voter registration of Tolosa, Leyte.
3
Marcos served as member of the Batasang Pambansa as the representative of the City of Manila. She also served as Governor of
Metro Manila. She could not have served these positions if she had not been a resident of the City of Manila.
congressional elections in the 1ST District of Leyte. On the same day, the COMELEC
reversed itself.
8. May 25, 1995 Petitioners Supplemental Petition averring that she was the
overwhelming winner of the elections.4

ISSUE(s):
1. The issue of Petitioners qualifications
W/N petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the 1 st District of
Leyte for a period of one year at the time of the May 9, 1995 elections.
2. The Jurisdictional Issue
(a) Prior to the elections
W/N COMELEC properly exercised its jurisdiction in disqualifying
petitioner outside the period mandated by the Omnibus Election Code for
disqualification cases under Article 78 of the said Code.
(b) After the Elections
W/N the HRET assumed exclusive jurisdiction over question of petitioners
qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections.

HOLDING:
1. Petitioners qualification
(a) While the COMELEC seems to be in agreement with the general proposition that
for the purposes of election law, residence is synonymous with domicile, the Resolution
reveals a tendency to substitute or mistake the concept of domicile for actual residence.
When the Constitution speaks of residence in election law, it actually means
only domicile and not physical residence.5
It would be plainly ridiculous for a candidate to deliberately and knowingly make
a statement in a certificate of candidacy which would lead to his or her disqualification.
The petitioner merely committed an honest mistake in jotting down the word seven in
the space provided for the residency qualification requirement.6
(b) On petitioners domicile
COMELECs Resolution cites certain facts as indicative of the fact that
petitioners domicile ought to be any place where she lived in the last few decades
except Tacloban.7

4
Marcos: 70,471 votes; Montejo: 36,833 votes
5
According to the deliberations of the 1987 Constitution, this is in consideration of a Constitutional provision in the Article on
Suffrage that says Filipinos living abroad may vote as enacted by law.
6A close look at said certificate would reveal the possible source of the confusion: the entry for residence
(No. 7) is followed immediately by the entry of residence in the constituency where a candidate seeks
election (No. 8).
7 She lived in San Juan, Metro Manila in 1959, then she lived in San Miguel, Manila in 1959. She had

been a registered voter in both places.

 An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained
residences in different places. Residence implies a factual relationship to a given place
for various purposes. The absence from legal residence or domicile to pursue a
profession, to study or to do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature does
not constitute loss of residence.
While petitioner was born in Manila, as a minor she naturally followed the
domicile of her parents. She grew up in Tacloban and reached adulthood there.
Petitioner kept her close ties to her domicile of choice by establishing residences in
Tacloban, celebrating birthdays and other important events there and instituting projects
for her home province.
Petitioner did not lose her domicile of origin upon her marriage for there is a
clearly established distinction between the Civil Code 8 concepts of domicile and
residence. What the petitioner gained upon marriage was actual residence.
2. The jurisdictional issue
Petitioner alleges that COMELEC jurisdiction had already lapsed because their
Resolution was rendered 14 days after the election.9 She also contends that it is the
HRET and not COMELEC which has jurisdiction over the election of members of the
HOR.10
It is a well-settled doctrine that a statute requiring rendition of judgment within a
specified time is generally construed to be merely directory, so that non-compliance with
them does not invalidate the judgment on the theory that if the statute had intended
such result it would have clearly indicated it. The difference between a mandatory and a
directory provision is often made on grounds of necessity.
COMELEC does not lose jurisdiction to hear and decide a pending
disqualification under Sec 78 of BP 881 even after the elections with the enactment of
Sec 6 and 7 of R.A. 664611.
On petitioners second contention, HRETs jurisdiction as the sole judge of all
contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of members of Congress

8 Article 110 of Civil Code: The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt
the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic.
9 Section 78, Omnibus Election Code: Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy.

A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any
person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under
Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than 25 days from the time of
filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided after due notice and hearing, not later than 15
days before the election.
10 Art VI, Sec. 17 of Constitution
11 Sec 6 Effect of Disqualification Case- Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be

disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and
receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the
trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor,
may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever
the evidence of his guilt is strong.
begins only after a candidate has become a member of HOR. Petitioner not being a
member of the HOR, it is obvious that HRET at this point has no jurisdiction over the
question.

DECISION
COMELECs questioned Resolutions SET ASIDE. COMELEC directed to
order the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected
Representative of the 1st District of Leyte.

Dissent:
1. Padilla, J.:The one year residence period is crucial regardless of whether or not the
term residence is synonymous with domicile. He must be familiar w/ the environment
and problems of a district he intends to represent in Congress and the one-year
residence in said district would be the minimum period to acquire such familiarity.
Additionally, the votes cast for a disqualified candidate shall not be counted, accdg to
law12.
2. Regalado, J.: When petitioner contracted marriage, she acquired her husbands
domicile of origin and lost her own domicile of origin. Additionally, she had not
automatically reacquired any domicile of origin. She cannot legally claim that her
residency in the political constituency.
3. Davide, Jr., J: Dissents on the issue of the petitioners qualification. Like Regalado,
he says that petitioner lost her domicile of origin upon her marriage. Petitioner herself
provided proof of the loss or abandonment of her domicile of origin. Her claim of honest
mistake in the COC is self-serving she did not commit any mistake, it was the truth.

12Sec 6 R.A. 6646 (An Act Introducing Additional Reforms in the Electoral System and for other
purposes)