Aquino vs COMELEC G.R. No. 120265 September 18, 1995
Aquino vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 120265 September 18, 1995
Constitutional
Law | Legislative Department | Domicile
FACTS:
Petitioner Aquino was a resident of Concepcion, Tarlac for over
50 years. He, in fact, indicated in his Certificate of Candidacy for the 1992
congressional elections that he was a resident of thereof for 52 years
immediately preceding that election. His birth certificate also places
Concepcion, Tarlac as the birthplace of both his parents.
For the 1995 elections, Aquino ran for the Congress representing
the new 2nd district of Makati City. He stated in his Certificate of Candidacy
that he has resided “in the constituency where” he sought “to be elected” for
only “10 months.” He in fact has just transferred to a leased condominium in
Makati from his residence in Tarlac. Private respondents filed a petition to
disqualify him on the ground that he lacked the residence qualification as a
candidate for congressman mandated in Art VI, Sec 6 of the Constitution. The
following day, Aquino amended his Certificate of Candidacy, indicating he has
been a resident in said place for 1 year and 13 days. Meanwhile, elections were
held and he garnered the highest number of votes. However, COMELEC, acting on
the private respondents’ petition, suspended his proclamation permanently.
Hence this instant petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Did Aquino
satisfy the constitutional residence requirement in the 2nd district of Makati
City as mandated by Art VI, Sec 6?
RULING:
No. The essence
of representation is to place through the assent of voters those most cognizant
and sensitive to the needs of a particular district. Clearly, Aquino’s domicile
of origin was Concepcion, Tarlac, and the same is not easily lost. That coupled
with the fact that Aquino himself claims to have other residences in Metro Mla.
and that he claims to be resident of the condominium unit in Makati for only a
short length of time “indicate that” his “sole purpose in transferring his
physical residence” is not to acquire a new residence of domicile “but only to
qualify as a candidate for Representative of the 2nd district of Makati City.”
The absence of clear and positive proof showing a successful abandonment of
domicile under the conditions stated above, the lack of identification—
sentimental, actual or otherwise—with the area, and the suspicious
circumstances under which the lease agreement [of the condominium unit in
Makati (instead of buying one)] was effected all belie his claim of residency
for the period required by the Constitution.
The sanctity of the
people’s will must be observed at all times if our nascent democracy is to be
preserved. In any challenge having the effect of reversing a democratic choice,
expressed through the ballot, this Court should be ever so vigilant in finding
solutions which would give effect to the will of the majority, for sound public
policy dictates that all elective offices are filled by those who have received
the highest number of votes cast in an election. When a challenge to a winning
candidate’s qualifications however becomes inevitable, the ineligibility ought
to be so noxious to the Constitution that giving effect to the apparent will of
the people w
Comments
Post a Comment