Political Law 1 Case Digest Article 6- Legislative Department Macias vs. Comelec (1) Facts: Petitioners are three members of the HOR from Negros Oriental, Misamis Oriental and Bulacan, and the provincial Governor of Negros Oriental. They are requesting that the respondent officials be prevented to implement RA 3040, an act that apportions representative districts in the country. They alleged that their respective provinces were discriminated because they were given less representation. Furthermore, they allege that RA 3040 is unconstitutional and void because: It was passed without printed final copies which must be furnished to the members of the HOR at least 3 calendar days prior to passage. It was approved more than 3 years after the return of the last census of the population. It apportioned districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several provinces. Respondents Comelec and Vicente Gella (National Treasurer) contend that they were merely complying with their duties under the statute which they presume and allege to be constitutional and petitioners have no personality to bring such action. Issues: Whether or not the petitioners have the personality to bring such action; Whether or not the act conformed to the printed form and 3 day requirement; Whether or not the act of apportionment is within the 3 year requirement; Whether or not the apportionment of members of the HOR is valid. Ruling: The petitioners as voters and as congressmen and governor of the aggrieved provinces have the personality to sue. The passage of the act did not conform to the printed-form and the 3 day requirement, and that there is no certificate of urgency from the President was received by the HO. The requirement that the apportionment must be done within 3 year following the last census is complied with. The apportionment of members of the HOR is not valid because it is not based on the number of inhabitants a province has. Some provinces were given more representation despite the inferior in number of inhabitants. The Court held that RA 3040 infringed the provisions of the Constitution and is therefore void. Tobias vs. Abalos (2) Facts: Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged only to one district. RA 7675 was enacted which in effect converted the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city and divided the legislative district of Mandaluyong and San Juan into 2 separate districts. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the RA contending it is contrary Art. 6 Section 5(1 and 4), Section 26(1 and 2) of the constitution. Issues: a. b. c. Is the RA contrary to Art 6 Sec. 5(1)? Is it contrary to Sec. 5(4) of the same? Is it contrary to Sec. 26(1)?
d. Ruling: a. b.
Is it contrary to Sec 26(2)?
No. Petitioners contended that the RA resulted in an increase in the composition of the HOR beyond what is provided. Same article provides that the number of HOR may be increased through legislative enactment. No. Petitioners contended that the RA preempts the right of congress to reapportion legislative districts. Congress drafted deliberated and enacted the assailed law. Congress cannot possibly preempt itself on a right which pertains to itself. No. Petitioners contended that it did not embrace one subject in enacting the said RA. The creation of a separate district of Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from its conversion into a highly urbanized city. It is only a logical consequence thereof. No. Petitioners contended that there is no mention in the RA about reaching the 250k census requirement for the separation. The RA enjoys the presumption of having passed through regular congressional processes.
Marcos vs. COMELEC(3) Facts: Imelda Marcos, whose alleged legal residence is in Tacloban, ran for congress representing the 1st district of Leyte. Her adversary, Montejo, sought to disqualify her on the ground that she did not satisfy the 1 year residency requirement that is provided for in Article 6 Sec. 6 of the constitution as she in fact wrote in her COC that she resided in the place where she sought to be re- elected for only 7 months but she later claimed that its a honest mistake. and assesrted that it is her domicile since childhood. COMELEC ruled in favor of Montejo. It conteded that Imeldas domicile is in San Juan, Malacanang, San Miguel, Manila. Issue: Is Tacloban, Leyte the domicile of Imelda Marcos? Ruling: Yes. It is a settled rule that when the constitution speaks of residence, it only means domicile. It was held that Tacloban is the domicile of Imelda by operation of law for a minor follows the domicile of her parents. COMELEC mentioned of the actual residence and not the legal residence. She has always chosen to return in her domicile of origin which is in Tacloban, Leyte even at the height of the Marcos regime . Coquilla vs. Comelec(4) Facts: Teodulo Coquilla was born on February 17, 1938 of Filipino parents in Oras, Eastern Samar, where he grew up and resided until 1965, when he joined the United States Navy. He was naturalized as a U.S. citizen and resided there. In October 15, 1998, he came to the Philippines and took a residence certificate. He applied for repatriation under R.A. No. 8171 and was approved on November 7, 2000. On November 10, 2000, he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines. On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a voter in Oras, Eastern Samar. His application was approved on January 2001. On February 2001 he filed his COC for the position of mayor of Oras, Eastern Samar. In his COC he stated that he had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for 2 years. Incumbent mayor Neil M. Alvarez, who was running for re-election, sought the cancellation of Coquillas certificate of candidacy on the ground that he had made material misrepresentation in it by stating he had been a resident of Oras for 2 years when the truth is that he had resided therein for only 6 months since November 10, 2000, when he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines. The COMELEC was unable to render judgment on the case immediately. Coquilla won the elections, was proclaimed mayor of Oras and
subsequently took office. On July 2001, COMELEC granted the petition of Alvarez and ordered for the cancellation of Coquillas certificate of candidacy due to his deficiency of days as a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar. Issue: Whether or not Teodulo Coquilla has been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for at least 1 year before the elections as required by the Local Government Code. Held: The SC held that Teodulo Coquilla had not been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for at least 1 year before the elections. The term residence is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to dwelling or habitation, but rather to domicile or legal residence, that is, the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain. A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the place where the childs parents reside and continues until abandoned by acquisition of a new domicile. Coquilla lost his domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a U.S. Citizen. From then on and until he reacquired his Philippine citizenship, he was an alien without any right to reside in the Philippines save as our immigration laws may have allowed him to stay as a visitor or as a resident alien. Ruling: The petition is dismissed and the resolution of the Second Division of COMELEC to cancel certificate is affirmed. Principles: The term residence is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to dwelling or habitation, but rather to domicile or legal residence, that is, the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain. Naturalization in a foreign country results in the abandonment of domicile in the Philippines.
Veterans Federation Party vs. Comelec (5) PL system was devised to replace the reserve seat system; representation by election; PL representatives, by being voted, can rise up to the same dignity as those elected by the people Sec 5(2) of Art VI: PL representatives to constitute 20% of total number of representatives Requisites laid down by LG code: (a) 20% allocation; (b) 2% threshold (meaningful representation; prevent proliferation of small parties); (c) 3-seat maximum (to ensure entry of various parties; no single-group dominance); (d) proportional representation (additional seat in proportion to number of votes). Facts: In May 1998, the first PL election was held simultaneously with the general elections. In June the Comelec en banc proclaimed 12 parties. In July PL PAG-ASA filed a petition to proclaim the full number of PL representatives as provided in the constitution, i.e. 20%, which they allege as mandatory. Issues: WON 20% is a mere ceiling, not mandatory; WON Comelec gravely abused its discretion in issuing resolution proclaiming as winners several PL groups who lacked the 2% vote requirement, only to fill up the allocated PL seats Held: Yes, a ceiling; Yes, said resolution nullified Panganibans Formula (b): may be replaced by the legislature via a statute a. No. of district representatives x 0.20 = No. of party list .80 representatives
b. No. of votes of concerned party x No. of additional seats = Additional No. votes for first party allocated to first party seats
Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec(6) Facts: The Comelec approved the Manifestations of 154 parties and organizations in its Ominubus Resolution. It included mainstream political parties as well as major organizations. Petitioner Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party, among with several others, seek the disqualification of mainstream poli