TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that Juan Domino was disqualified from running for Congress in Sarangani because he failed to meet the one-year residency requirement. The Court clarified that “residence” for election purposes means “domicile,” requiring not just physical presence but also an intention to permanently reside in the area. Even though Domino had a residence in Sarangani, his voter registration in Quezon City indicated he had not abandoned his previous domicile. This case underscores that establishing a new domicile requires both physical presence and a clear intent to make the new location one’s permanent home, a requirement strictly enforced for those seeking public office. The ruling emphasizes the importance of accurately representing residency in candidacy filings.

Domicile Dilemma: Can a Candidate’s Intentions Trump Voter Registration?

This case revolves around Juan Domino’s attempt to run for Congress in Sarangani, despite questions about whether he truly resided there long enough to qualify. The core legal question is whether Domino met the constitutional requirement that a member of the House of Representatives be a resident of the district they seek to represent for at least one year immediately before the election. This hinges on the definition of “residence” and whether Domino’s actions demonstrated a genuine intent to make Sarangani his permanent home.

Private respondents challenged Domino’s candidacy, arguing that his voter registration in Quezon City contradicted his claim of residing in Sarangani for over a year. They presented evidence such as Domino’s Voter’s Registration Record showing his address in Quezon City. Domino countered by presenting a lease agreement, property deed, and affidavits from Sarangani residents. A lower court even ruled that Domino was a resident of Sarangani, but the COMELEC ultimately disqualified him.

The Supreme Court addressed three key issues. First, it determined that the lower court’s decision on Domino’s residency in an exclusion proceeding was not binding on the COMELEC. The COMELEC has the authority to determine the residency of candidates. Second, the Court tackled the crucial question of whether Domino met the one-year residency requirement. Third, it examined whether COMELEC had jurisdiction over the disqualification petition. The Court referenced Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code, stating that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.

The Court emphasized that “residence,” in the context of election law, is synonymous with “domicile.” Domicile requires not only physical presence but also an intention to reside permanently in a fixed place. The Court noted that Domino’s domicile of origin was Candon, Ilocos Sur and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new domicile of choice at 24 Bonifacio St. Ayala Heights, Old Balara, Quezon City. To change one’s domicile, one must demonstrate actual removal, a bona fide intention to abandon the former place of residence, and definite acts that correspond with the purpose.

Even though Domino presented evidence of his presence in Sarangani, the Court found this insufficient. His voter registration in Quezon City, even if arguably erroneous, indicated a lack of intent to abandon his previous domicile. The Court reasoned that the lease contract did not establish the level of permanency required to prove abandonment of one’s original domicile. As such, Domino failed to meet the constitutional residency requirement.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It affirmed the COMELEC’s resolution disqualifying Domino. The Court also addressed the intervenor’s plea to be proclaimed the winner, rejecting the idea that the second-highest vote-getter should automatically be declared the winner when the top candidate is disqualified. The court has consistently held that it would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner. The Court stated that the votes cast in favor of DOMINO were presumed to have been cast in the sincere belief that he was a qualified candidate, without any intention to misapply their franchise.

FAQs

This case serves as a reminder that accurately representing residency in candidacy filings is crucial, and that establishing a new domicile requires more than just physical presence. It highlights the importance of understanding the legal definition of “residence” and the steps needed to demonstrate a clear intent to make a new location one’s permanent home, especially when seeking public office.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Juan Domino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999