**Facts:**
1. **Early Life and Allegiance:**
– **October 26, 1973:** Rommel Jalosjos born in Quezon City.
– **1981:** Migrated to Australia at age eight, acquiring Australian citizenship.
– **November 22, 2008:** Returned to Philippines, lived with brother in Barangay Veteran’s Village, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
– **November 26, 2008:** Took oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, reacquired Philippine citizenship.
– **September 1, 2009:** Renounced Australian citizenship.
2. **Property Acquisition and Voter Registration:**
– Acquired residential property and a fishpond in Zamboanga Sibugay.
– Applied for voter registration in Municipality of Ipil, opposed by Barangay Captain Dan Erasmo, Sr.
– **Election Registration Board:** Approved application, including Jalosjos in the voters list.
– **First MCTC:** Denied Erasmo’s petition for exclusion.
– **RTC:** Affirmed MCTC decision; decision became final.
3. **Candidacy and Disqualification Proceedings:**
– **November 28, 2009:** Filed Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay for 2010 elections.
– **Erasmo’s Petition:** Deny due course or cancel COC citing non-compliance with R.A. 9225 and one-year residency requirement.
– **COMELEC Second Division:** Ruled Jalosjos failed to prove residency.
– **COMELEC En Banc:** Affirmed Second Division, labeling Jalosjos as a transient visitor in his brother’s house.
– **Supreme Court:** Issued a status quo ante order on May 7, 2010.
4. **Election Outcome:**
– Jalosjos won the 2010 gubernatorial election for Zamboanga Sibugay.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Jalosjos failed to present ample proof of a bona fide intention to establish his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Domicile Requirement Evaluation:**
– **Local Government Code:** Requires a provincial governor candidate to be a resident of the province for at least one year before the election.
– **Jurisprudence on Residence:** “Residence” under election laws equate to “domicile” which includes both intent to reside and physical presence.
2. **Assessing Jalosjos’ Domicile:**
– **Quezon City Domicile of Origin:** Changed when Jalosjos migrated to Australia.
– **Australian Domicile:** Legally and intentionally terminated by returning to Philippines, renouncing Australian citizenship, and reacquiring Philippine citizenship (Certificate by Bureau of Immigration).
3. **COMELEC’s Conclusion:**
– **Erroneous and Hasty:** In concluding the lack of a bona fide intention to establish his domicile.
– **Physical Presence:** Jalosjos’ sustained presence in his brother’s house in Zamboanga Sibugay meets jurisprudential standards.
– **Property and Activities:** Acquisition of property, voter registration, and political correspondence evidence intention and establishment of domicile.
4. **Significance of Winning Election:**
– **People’s Will:** Court respects the outcome favoring Jalosjos’ election, reflecting local electorate decision.
– **Resolution of Doubts**: Decided in favor of Jalosjos to honor the electoral mandate.
**Doctrine:**
– **Residence as Domicile:** Under Philippine election law, “residence” is synonymous with “domicile.” A holistic assessment involves more than mere physical presence; it requires intention to reside and personal presence validated through sociopolitical integration.
– **Ownership of Property:** Not a mandatory criterion for domicile; residence can be in a rented or a relative’s house.
– **Grave Abuse of Discretion:** Open for judicial review when administrative bodies like COMELEC misapprehend evidence or consider irrelevant factors detrimental to lawful verdicts.
**Class Notes:**
– **Key Legal Elements:**
1. **Domicile Concepts:**
– Domicile of Origin
– Domicile of Choice
– Domicile by Operation of Law
2. **Statutory Provision:** Republic Act 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act, Local Government Code – Section 39 on residency requirement.
3. **Jurisprudence References:**
– **Grave Abuse of Discretion:** Grounds for intervention by the Supreme Court.
– **Residence vs. Domicile:** Case distinctions and applications.
– **Simplified Essentials:**
– **Domicile Change:** Demonstrated by physical presence + intention.
– **Review Powers:** Supreme Court corrects erroneous administrative rulings.
– **Property Irrelevant:** For domicile establishment in election eligibility.
**Historical Background:**
– **Reacquisition of Citizenship Post-2003:** Precedents set post-R.A. 9225 enabling reacquisition of citizenship for Filipinos who acquired foreign citizenship. This legal context influences how domiciliary changes post-citizenship reacquisition are handled.
– **Electoral Patterns Post-EDSA:** Enhanced judicial focus on protecting electoral integrity and upholding voters’ will amidst evolving residency and citizenship laws reflecting Philippine diaspora dynamics.
Leave a Reply