!

as an e,ercise of itsgo$ern%ental functions fro% TORIO VS FONTANILLA FACTS: On October 21, 1958, the Municipal Council of Malasiqui, Pangasinan, passed Resolution No 159 !hereb"#it resol$ed to %anage the 1959 Malasiqui to!n fiesta celebration on &anuar" 21, 22, and 2', 1959 # Resolution No 182 !as also passed creating the #1959 Malasiqui ()o!n *iesta +,ecuti$e Co%%ittee# !hich in turn organi-ed a sub. co%%ittee on entertain%ent and stage, !ith &ose Macaraeg as Chair%an )he #-ar-uela# entitled #Midas+,tra$agan-a# !as donated b" an association of Malasiqui e%plo"ees of the Manila Railroad Co%pan" in Caloocan,Ri-al )he troupe arri$ed in the e$ening of &anuar" 22 for the perfor%ance and one of the %e%bers of the group !as/icente *ontanilla )he progra% started at about 10115 o(cloc2 that e$ening !ith so%e speeches, and %an" persons!ent up the stage )he #-ar-uela# then began but before the dra%atic part of the pla" !as reached, the stagecollapsed and /icente *ontanilla !ho !as at the rear of the stage !as pinned underneath *ontanilia !as ta2en totile 3an Carlos 4eneral 5ospital !here he died in the afternoon of the follo!ing da" )he heirs of /icente *ontanilia filed a co%plaint !ith the Court of *irst 6nstance of Manila on 3epte%ber 11,1959 to reco$er da%ages Na%ed part".defendants !ere the Municipalit" of Malasiqui, the Municipal Council of Malasiqui and all the indi$idual %e%bers of the Municipal Council in 1959 7ns!ering the co%plaint defendant %unicipalit" in$o2ed inter alia the principal defense that as a legall" it and dul"organi-ed public corporation perfor%s !hich no liabilit" can arise to ans!er for the negligence of an" of its agents )he defendant councilors in turn %aintained that the" %erel" acted as agents of the %unicipalit" in carr"ingout the %unicipal ordinance pro$iding for the %anage%ent of the to!n fiesta celebration and as such the" areli2e!ise not liable for da%ages as the underta2ing !as not one for profit8 further%ore, the" had e,ercised due careand diligence in i%ple%enting the %unicipal ordinance 7fter trial, the Presiding &udge, 5on narro!ed defendantse,ercised arri$ed at the due 4regorio ) diligence that (% 9antin the the issue to !hether or not the

construction of the stage *ro% his findings he conclusion the+,ecuti$e Co%%ittee appointed b" the %unicipal council had e,ercised due diligence and care li2e a good father of the fa%il" in selecting a co%petent %an to construct a stage strong enough for the occasion and that if it collapsedthat !as due to forces be"ond the control of the co%%ittee the !as on entertain%ent, *ontanilla )he consequentl", co%plaint defendants accordingl"

!erenot liable for da%ages for the death of /icente dis%issed in a decisiondated &ul" 10, 19:2 )he *ontanillas appealed to the Court of 7ppeals 6n a decision Pro%ulgated on October '1,19:8, the Court of 7ppeals through its *ourth ;i$ision co%posed at the ti%e of &ustices 3al$ador / +sguerra, Nicasio7 <atco and +ulogio 3 3errano re$ersed the trial court(s decision and ordered all the defendants.appellees b" !a" of to pa" =ointl" and and actual se$erall" the heirs of /icente *ontanilla the su%s of P12,000 00 costs %oral da%ages1P1200 00 its attorne"(s fees8 and the

so$ereign functions and the holding of a to!n fiesta

ISSUE: >hether or not the celebration of a to!n fiesta authori-ed b" a %unicipal council under 3ec 2282 of theMunicipal 9a! !as a proprietar" function of the %unicipalit" HELD: <+3 RATIONALE: ?nder Philippine la!s %unicipalities are political bodies corporate and as such are endo!ed !ith thefaculties of %unicipal corporations to be e,ercised b" and through their respecti$e %unicipal go$ern%ents inconfor%it" !ith la!, and in their proper corporate na%e, the" %a" inter alia sue and be sued, and contract and becontracted !ith )he po!ers of a %unicipalit" are t!o fold in character public, go$ern%ental or political on the one hand, andcorporate, pri$ate, or proprietar" on the other 4o$ern%ental po!ers are those e,ercised b" the corporation inad%inistering the po!ers of the state and pro%oting the public !elfare and the" include the legislati$e, =udicialpublic, and political Municipal po!ers on the other hand are e,ercised for the special benefit and ad$antage of theco%%unit" and include those !hich are %inisterial pri$ate and corporate )his distinction of po!ers beco%es i%portant for purposes of deter%ining the liabilit" of the %unicipalit" forthe acts of its agents !hich result in an in=ur" to third persons 6f the in=ur" is caused in the course of the perfor%ance of a go$ern%ental function or dut" no reco$er", as arule, can be had fro% the %unicipalit" unless there is an e,isting statute on the %atter, nor fro% its officers, solong as the" perfor%ed their duties honestl" and in good faith or that the" did not act !antonl" and %aliciousl" >ith respect to proprietar" functions, the settled rule is that a

%unicipal corporation can be held liable tothird persons e, contract or e, delicto Municipal corporations are sub=ect to be sued upon contracts and in tort )he rule of la! is a general one, that the superior or e%plo"er %ust ans!er ci$ill" for the negligenceor !ant of s2ill of its agent or ser$ant in the course or fine of his e%plo"%ent, b" !hich another, !hois free fro% contributor" fault, is in=ured Municipal corporations under the conditions herein stated,fall !ithin the operation of this rule of la!, and are liable, e,ist accordingl", to ci$il actions for da%ages!hen the requisite ele%ents of liabilit" co. @;illon on Municipal Corporations, 5th ed 3ec 1:10,1:AB, cited in Mendo-a $ de 9eon, supra 51AC )he court held that the to!n fiesta in 1959 b" the %unicipalit" of Malsiqui Pangasinan !as an e,ercise of apri$ate or proprietar" function of the %unicipalit" 3ection 2282 of the Chatter on Municipal 9a! of the Re$ised 7d%inistrati$e Code pro$ides13ection 2282 Celebration of fiesta D fiesta %a" be held in each %unicipalit" not oftener than oncea "ear upon a date fi,ed b" the %unicipal council 7 fiesta s not be held upon an" other date thanthat la!full" fi,ed therefor, e,cept !hen, for !eight" reasons, such as t"phoons, foundations,earthqua2es, epide%ics, or other public ties, the fiesta cannot be hold in the date fi,ed in !hich caseit %a" be held at a later date in the sa%e "ear, b" resolution of the council )his pro$ision si%pl" gi$es authorit" to the %unicipalit" to accelebrate a "earl" fiesta but it does not i%pose upon ita dut" to obser$e one 5olding a fiesta e$en if the purpose is to co%%e%orate a religious or historical e$ent of theto!n is in essence an act for the special benefit of the co%%unit" and not for the general !elfare of the publicperfor%ed in

pursuance of a polic" of the state )he %ere fact that the celebration, as clai%ed !as not to secureprofit or gain but %erel" to pro$ide entertain%ent to the to!n inhabitants is not a conclusi$e test *or instance, the%aintenance of par2s is not a source of inco%e for the nonetheless it is pri$ate underta2ing as distinguished fro%the %aintenance of public schools, =ails, and the li2e !hich are for public ser$ice 6t follo!s that under the doctrine of respondent superior, petitioner. %unicipalit" is to be held liable forda%ages for the death of /icente *ontanilia if that !as at. attributable to the negligence of the %unicipalit"(sofficers, e%plo"ees, or agents 7rt 21B:, Ci$il Code1 >hoe$er b" act or o%ission causes da%age to another, there being fault ornegligence, is obliged to pa" for the da%age done 7rt 2180, Ci$il Code1 )he obligation i%posed b" article 21B: is de%andable not onl" for one(s o!nacts or o%ission, but also for those of persons for !ho% one is responsible )he holding of the to!n fiesta !as an e,ercise of a propriet" function 6t is an act for the special benefit of the co%%unit" and not for the general !elfare of the public perfor%ed in pursuance of a polic" of the state 5ence,the %unicipalit" is liable for da%ages 5o!e$er, the councilors should be absol$ed fro% liabilit" )he liabilit" of public officers for da%ages under article 2B of the Ci$il Code applies to nonfeasance and not to negligence or%isfeasance )he councilors are si%ilar to the board of directors of a corporation, since the celebration of the to!nfiesta is not go$ern%ental function 7s such, the" are not liable for da%ages for negligence of the agents ande%plo"ees of the %unicipalit" unless there is a sho!ing of bad faith or gross negligence on their part Conce.cion2 ).: Facts1 On &anuar" 2B, 1958, )eotico !as at the corner of the Old 9uneta and P Eurgos 7$enue, Manila, !ithin a #loading and unloading# -one, !aiting for a =eepne" 7s he stepped do!n fro% the curb to board the =eepne" he hailed, and too2 a fe! steps, he fell inside an unco$ered and unlighted catch basin or %anhole on P Eurgos 7$enue ;ue to the fall, )eotico suffered in=uries )eotico filed !ith the C*6 Mla co%plaint against the Cit" !hich dis%issed the sa%e On appeal, C7 sentenced the Cit" of Manila to pa" da%ages Iss*e: >ON the Cit" of Manila ha$e control or super$ision o$er P Eurgos 7$e %a2ing it responsible for the da%ages suffered b" )eotico R*lin3: ;ecision affir%ed 6n its ans!er to the co%plaint, the Cit", alleged that #the streets afore%entioned !ere and ha$e been constantl" 2ept in good conditionFand %anholes thereof co$ered b" the defendant Cit" and the officers concernedF# )hus, the Cit" had, in effect, ad%itted that P Eurgos 7$enue !as and is under its control and super$ision ?nder 7rticle 2189 CC, it is not necessar" for the liabilit" therein established to attach that the defecti$e roads or streets belong to the pro$ince, cit" or %unicipalit" fro% !hich responsibilit" is .R. No. L#$%&'$. $( )an*a!y +(,-. A..eal /y ce!tio!a!i f!o0 a "ecision of t1e CA City of Manila vs. Teotico City of Manila vs. ena!o N. Teotico an" CA

e,acted >hat said article requires is that the pro$ince, cit" or %unicipalit" ha$e either #control or super$ision# o$er said street or road +$en if P Eurgos 7$enue !ere, therefore, a national high!a", this circu%stance !ould not necessaril" detract fro% the Cit"(s #control or super$ision #

Hualified Political 7genc"K 7s the President cannot be e,pected to e,ercise his control po!ers all at the sa%e ti%e and in person, he !ill ha$e to delegate so%e of the% to his Cabinet %e%bers ?nder this doctrine, !hich recogni-es the

establish%ent of a single e,ecuti$e, Iall e,ecuti$e and ad%inistrati$e organi-ations are ad=uncts of the +,ecuti$e ;epart%ent, the heads of the $arious e,ecuti$e depart%ents are assistants and agents of the Chief +,ecuti$e, and, e,cept in cases !here the Chief +,ecuti$e is required b" the Constitution or la! to act in person on the e,igencies of the situation de%and that he act personall", the %ultifarious e,ecuti$e and ad%inistrati$e functions of the Chief +,ecuti$e are perfor%ed b" and through the e,ecuti$e depart%ents, and the acts of the 3ecretaries of such depart%ents, perfor%ed and pro%ulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disappro$ed or reprobated b" the Chief +,ecuti$e presu%pti$el" the acts of the Chief +,ecuti$e K )hus, and in short, Ithe PresidentLs po!er of control is directl" e,ercised b" hi% o$er the %e%bers of the Cabinet !ho, in turn, and b" his authorit", control the bureaus and other offices under their respecti$e depart%ent K 7dditionall", the circu%stance that the N7PO9COM and the PNP are placed under the reorgani-ed ;694 is %erel" an ad%inistrati$e realign%ent that !ould bolster a s"ste% of coordination and cooperation a%ong the citi-enr", local e,ecuti$es and the integrated la! enforce%ent agencies and public safet" agencies created under the assailed 7ct, the funding of the PNP being in large part subsidi-ed b" the national go$ern%ent =urisdictions in the e,ecuti$e

Antonio Ca!.io vs E4ec*tive Sec!eta!y Political 9a! G Control Po!er G ;octrine of Hualified Political 7genc" 6n 1990, R7 :9B5 )5+ entitled 7 I7N 7C)

+3)7E96356N4 PO96C+

P5696PP6N+

N7)6ON79

?N;+R

R+OR47N6J+;

;+P7R)M+N) O* )5+ 6N)+R6OR 7N; 9OC79 4O/+RNM+N), 7N; *OR O)5+R P?RPO3+3K !as passed Carpio, as a %e%ber of the bar and a defender of the Constitution, assailed the constitutionalit" of the said la! for he figured that it onl" interferes !ith the control po!er of the president 5e ad$ances the $ie! that R7 :9B5 !ea2ened the National Police Co%%ission b" li%iting its po!er Ito ad%inistrati$e controlK o$er the PNP thus, IcontrolK re%ained !ith the ;epart%ent 3ecretar" under !ho% both the NPC and the PNP !ere placed ISSUE1 >hether or not the president abdicated its control po!er o$er the PNP and NPC b" $irtue of R7 :9B5 HELD1 )he President has control of all e,ecuti$e depart%ents, bureaus, and offices )his presidential po!er of control o$er the e,ecuti$e branch of go$ern%ent e,tends o$er all e,ecuti$e officers fro% Cabinet 3ecretar" to the lo!liest cler2 +quall" !ell accepted, as a corollar" rule to the control po!ers of the President, is the I;octrine of

constitutional require%ent for residenc" Ro0*al"e5#Ma!cos vs COMELEC TITLE: Ro0*al"e5#Ma!cos vs. COMELEC CITATION: $6- SCRA %&& FACTS: 6%elda, a little o$er 8 "ears old, in or about 19'8, established her do%icile in )acloban, 9e"te !here she studied and graduated high school in the 5ol" 6nfant 7cade%" fro% 19'8 to 19A9 3he then pursued her college degree, education, in 3t PaulLs College no! ;i$ine >ord ?ni$ersit" also in )acloban 3ubsequentl", she taught in 9e"te 3he !ent to Chinese 3chool still in )acloban

)he

petitioner, in an honest %isrepresentation, !rote se$en %onths under residenc", !hich she sought to rectif" b" adding the !ords #since childhood# in her 7%endedMCorrected Certificate of Candidac" filed on March 29, 1995 and that #she has al!a"s %aintained )acloban Cit" as her do%icile or residence 3he arri$ed at the se$en %onths residenc" due to the fact that she beca%e a resident of the Municipalit" of )olosa in said %onths ISSUE: >hether petitioner has satisfied the 1"ear residenc" require%ent to be eligible in running as representati$e of the *irst ;istrict of 9e"te HELD: Residence is used s"non"%ousl" !ith do%icile for election purposes )he court are in fa$or of a conclusion supporting petitonerLs clai% of legal residence or do%icile in the *irst ;istrict of 9e"te despite her o!n declaration of B %onths residenc" in the district for the follo!ing reasons1 1 7 %inor follo!s do%icile of her parents

%anila during 1952 to !or2 !ith her cousin, the late spea2er ;aniel Ro%ualde- in his office in the 5ouse of Representati$es 6n 195A, she %arried late President *erdinand Marcos !hen he !as still a Congress%an of 6locos Norte and !as registered there as a $oter >hen Pres Marcos !as elected 6n as 3enator in 1959, the" li$ed together in 3an &uan, Ri-al !here she registered as a $oter 19:5, !hen Marcos !on presidenc", the" li$ed in Malacanang Palace and registered as a $oter in 3an Miguel Manila during 19B8 6%elda Ro%ualde-.Marcos !as running for the position of Representati$e of the *irst ;istrict of 9e"te for the 1995 +lections Cirilo Ro" Monte=o, the incu%bent Representati$e of the *irst ;istrict of 9e"te and also a candidate for the sa%e position, filed alleging a IPetition that for Cancellation did not %eet and the ;isqualification# !ith the Co%%ission on +lections petitioner 3he ser$ed as %e%ber of the Eatasang Pa%bansa and 4o$ernor of Metro Manila

)acloban beca%e 6%eldaLs do%icile of origin b" operation of la! !hen her father brought the% to 9e"te8 2 ;o%icile of origin is onl" lost !hen there is

actual re%o$al or change of do%icile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the for%er residence and establishing a ne! one, and acts !hich correspond !ith the purpose 6n the absence and concurrence of all these, do%icile of origin should be dee%ed to continue ' 7 !ife does not auto%aticall" gain the

husbandLs do%icile because the ter% IresidenceK in Ci$il 9a! does not %ean the sa%e thing in Political

9a!

>hen 6%elda %arried late President Marcos a ne! ho%e and not do%iciliu%

candidac", 7quino stated that he !as aresident of the afore%entioned district for 10 %onths *aced !ith a petition for disqualification, he a%ended theentr" on his residenc" in his certificate of candidac" to 1 "ear and 1' da"s )he Co%%ission on +lectionsdis%issed the petition on : Ma" and allo!ed 7quino to run in the election of 8 Ma" 7quino !on 7cting on a%otion for reconsideration of the abo$e dis%issal, the Co%%ission on +lection later issued an order suspendingthe procla%ation of 7quino until the Co%%ission resol$ed the issue On 2 &une, the Co%%ission on +lectionsfound 7quino ineligible and disqualified for the electi$e office for lac2 of constitutional qualification of residence Iss*e: >hether Iresidenc"K in the certificate of candidac" actuall" connotes Ido%icileK to !arrant thedisqualification of 7quino fro% the position in the electoral district Hel": )he place I!here a part" actuall" or constructi$el" has his per%anent ho%e,K !here he, no %atter!here he %a" be found at an" gi$en ti%e, e$entuall" intends to return and re%ain, i e , his do%icile, is that to!hich the Constitution refers !hen it spea2s of residence for the purposes of

in 195A, she 2ept her do%icile of origin and %erel" gained necessariu% A 7ssu%ing that 6%elda gained a ne! do%icile

after her %arriage and acquired right to choose a ne! one onl" after the death of Pres Marcos, her actions upon returning to the countr" clearl" indicated that she chose )acloban, her do%icile of origin, as her do%icile of choice )o add, petitioner e$en obtained her residence certificate in 1992 in )acloban, 9e"te !hile li$ing in her brotherLs house, an act, !hich supports the do%iciliar" intention clearl" %anifested 3he e$en 2ept close ties b" establishing residences in )acloban, celebrating her birthda"s and other i%portant %ilestones >5+R+*OR+, ha$ing deter%ined that petitioner possesses the necessar" residence qualifications to run for a seat in the 5ouse of Representati$es in the *irst ;istrict of 9e"te, the COM+9+C(s questioned Resolutions dated 7pril 2A, Ma" B, Ma" 11, and Ma" 25, 1995 are hereb" 3+) 736;+ Respondent COM+9+C is hereb" directed to order the Pro$incial Eoard of Can$assers to proclai% petitioner as the dul" elected Representati$e of the *irst ;istrict of 9e"te

A7UINO vs. COMELEC 8$6- SCRA 6&&9 Facts: On 20 March 1995, 7gapito 7 7quino filed his Certificate of Candidac" for the position of Representati$efor the ne! 3econd 9egislati$e ;istrict of Ma2ati Cit" 6n his certificate of

election la! )he purpose is toe,clude strangers or ne!co%ers unfa%iliar !ith the conditions and needs of the co%%unit" fro% ta2ingad$antage of fa$orable circu%stances e,isting in that co%%unit" for electoral gain 7quinoLs certificate of candidac" in a pre$ious @1992C election indicates that he !as a resident and a registered $oter of 3an &ose,Concepcion, )arlac for %ore than 52 "ears prior to that election 7quinoLs connection to the

3econd ;istrict of Ma2ati Cit" is an alleged lease agree%ent of a condo%iniu% unit in the area )he intention not to establish aper%anent ho%e in Ma2ati Cit" is e$ident in his leasing a condo%iniu% unit instead of bu"ing one )he shortlength of ti%e he clai%s to be a resident of Ma2ati @and the fact of his stated do%icile in )arlac and his clai%s of other residences in Metro ManilaC indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his ph"sical residence is not toacquire a ne!, residence or do%icile but onl" to qualif" as a candidate for Representati$e of the 3econd ;istrictof Ma2ati Cit" 7quino !as thus rightfull" +lections FRIVALDO VS. COMELEC :+;6 SCRA $6'< NO. -;+(%< $% )UN +(-(= 9abels1 Case ;igests, Political 9a! Facts: Petitioner &uan 4 *ri$aldo !as proclai%ed go$ernor.elect of the pro$ince of 3orsogon on &anuar" 22, 1988, and assu%ed office in due ti%e On October 2B, 1988, the 9eague of Municipalities, 3orsogon Chapter, represented b" its President, +stu"e, !ho !as also suing in his personal capacit", filed !ith the COM+9+C a petition for the annul%ent of *ri$aldo8 election and procla%ation on the ground that he !as not a *ilipino citi-en, ha$ing been naturali-ed in the ?nited 3tates on &anuar" 20, 198' 6n his ans!er dated Ma" 22, 1988, *ri$aldo ad%itted that he !as naturali-ed in the ?nited 3tates as alleged but pleaded the special and affir%ati$e defenses that he had sought 7%erican citi-enship onl" to protect hi%self against President Marcos 5is naturali-ation, he said, !as #%erel" forced upon hi%self as a %eans of sur$i$al against the unrelenting persecution b" the Martial 9a! ;ictator(s agents abroad # 5e added that he .R. disqualified b" the Co%%ission on

had returned to the Philippines after the +;37 re$olution to help in the restoration of de%ocrac" 6n their Co%%ent, 7%erican the pri$ate and respondents had not reiterated their assertion that *ri$aldo !as a naturali-ed citi-en reacquired Philippine citi-enship on the da" of the election on &anuar" 18, 1988 5e !as therefore not qualified to run for and be elected go$ernor )he" also argued that their petition in the Co%%ission on +lections !as not reall" for quo !arranto under 3ection 25' of the O%nibus +lection Code )he ulti%ate purpose !as to pre$ent *ri$aldo fro% continuing as go$ernor, his candidac" and election being null and $oid ab initio because of his alienage 3pea2ing for the public respondent, the 3olicitor 4eneral supported the contention that *ri$aldo !as not a citi-en of the Philippines and had not repatriated hi%self after his naturali-ation as an 7%erican citi-en 7s an alien, he !as disqualified fro% public office in the Philippines 5is election did not cure this defect because the electorate of 3orsogon could not a%end the Constitution, the 9ocal 4o$ern%ent Code, and the O%nibus +lection Code 5e also =oined in the pri$ate respondent(s argu%ent that 3ection 25' of the O%nibus +lection Code !as not applicable because !hat the 9eague and +stu"e !ere see2ing !as not onl" the annul%ent of the procla%ation and election of *ri$aldo 5e agreed that the" !ere also as2ing for the ter%ination of *ri$aldo(s incu%benc" as go$ernor of 3orsogon on the ground that he !as not a *ilipino Iss*e: >hether or Not petitioner &uan 4 *ri$aldo !as a citi-en of the Philippines at the ti%e of his election on &anuar" 18, 1988, as pro$incial go$ernor of 3orsogon

Hel": )he reason for this inquir" is the pro$ision in 7rticle N6, 3ection 9, of the Constitution that all public officials and e%plo"ees o!e the 3tate and the Constitution #allegiance at all ti%es# and the specific require%ent in 3ection A2 of the 9ocal 4o$ern%ent Code that a candidate for local electi$e office %ust be inter alia a citi-en of the Philippines and a qualified $oter of the constituenc" !here he is running 3ection 11B of the O%nibus +lection Code pro$ides that a qualified $oter %ust be, a%ong other qualifications, a citi-en of the Philippines, this being an indispensable require%ent for suffrage under 7rticle /, 3ection 1, of the Constitution 6n the certificate of candidac" he filed on No$e%ber 19, 198B, *ri$aldo described hi%self as a #natural. born# citi-en of the Philippines, o%itting %ention of an" subsequent loss of such status )he e$idence sho!s, ho!e$er, that he !as naturali-ed as a citi-en of the ?nited 3tates in 198' per the follo!ing certification fro% the ?nited 3tates ;istrict Court, Northern ;istrict of California, as dul" authenticated b" /ice Consul 7%ado P Corte- of the Philippine Consulate 4eneral in 3an *rancisco, California, ? 3 7 )he Court sees no reason not to belie$e that the petitioner !as one of the ene%ies of the Marcos dictatorship +$en so, it cannot agree that as a consequence e%bracing thereof he !as coerced 5is into feeble 7%erican citi-enship

fact that he !as elected b" the people of 3orsogon does not e,cuse this patent $iolation of the salutar" rule li%iting public office and e%plo"%ent onl" to the citi-ens of this countr" )he qualifications prescribed for electi$e office cannot be erased b" the electorate alone )he !ill of the people as e,pressed through the ballot cannot cure the $ice of ineligibilit", especiall" if the" %ista2enl" belie$ed, as in this case, that the candidate !as qualified Ob$iousl", this rule requires strict application !hen the deficienc" is lac2 of citi-enship 6f a person see2s to ser$e in the Republic of the Philippines, he %ust o!e his total lo"alt" to this countr" onl", ab=uring and renouncing all fealt" and fidelit" to an" other state 6t is true as the petitioner points out that the status of the natural.born citi-en is fa$ored b" the Constitution and our la!s, !hich is all the %ore reason !h" it should be treasured li2e a pearl of great price Eut once it is surrendered and renounced, the gift is gone and cannot be lightl" restored )his countr" of ours, for all its difficulties and li%itations, is li2e a =ealous and possessi$e %other Once re=ected, it is not quic2 to !elco%e bac2 !ith eager ar%s its prodigal if repentant children )he returning renegade %ust sho!, b" an e,press and unequi$ocal act, the rene!al of his lo"alt" and lo$e Petition ;is%issed Petitioner &?7N 4 *R6/79;O is hereb" declared not a citi-en of the Philippines and therefore disqualified fro% ser$ing as 4o$ernor of the Pro$ince of 3orsogon 7ccordingl", he is ordered to $acate his office and surrender the sa%e to the dul" elected /ice.4o$ernor of the said pro$ince once this decision beco%es final and e,ecutor"

suggestion that his naturali-ation !as not the result of his o!n free and $oluntar" choice is totall" unacceptable and %ust be re=ected outright )his Court !ill not per%it the ano%al" of a person sitting as pro$incial go$ernor in this countr" !hile o!ing e,clusi$e allegiance to another countr" )he

FACTS: Respondent !as born in 7ustralia Valles vs. Co0elec Facts: Petitioner questions the qualification of pri$ate respondent Rosalind<basco 9ope- to run for go$ernor of ;a$ao Oriental on citi-enship grounds Respondent !as born in 19'A in 7ustralia to a *ilipino father and an 7ustralian %other 6n 1998, she applied for an 7lien Certificate of Registration @7CRC and 6%%igrant Certificate of Residence @6CRC and !as issued an 7ustralian passport Iss*e: >ON respondent is a *ilipino8 and if she is, >ON she renounced her citi-enship b" appl"ing for 7CR and 6CR and being issued an 7ustralian passport R*lin3: Respondent is a *ilipino 6n 19'A, the controlling la!s of the Philippines !ere the Philippine Eill of &ul" 1, 1902 and the Philippine 7utono%" 7ct of 7ugust 29, 191: @&ones 9a!C ?nder both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines !ho !ere 3panish sub=ects on 7pril 11, 1899 and resided therein, including their children, are considered Philippine citi-ens RespondentLs father !as therefore a *ilipino, and consequentl", her Respondent did not lose her citi-enship Ma!>*e5 vs. Co0elec Facts: Marque-, a candidate for an electi$e position in Hue-on Pro$ince during the 1998 elections, filed a petition pra"ing for the cancellation of the certificate of candidac" of Rodrigue- on the ground of disqualification under section A0 of the 9ocal 4o$ern%ent Code @3ection A0 ;isqualification )he follo!ing persons are disqualified fro% running for an" local electi$e positionF @eC *ugiti$e fro% =ustice in cri%inal or non.political cases here or abroad C Rodrigue- is allegedl" cri%inall" charged !ith insurance fraud in the ?nited 3tates and that his arrest is "et to be ser$ed because of his flight fro% the countr" )he COM+9+C dis%issed Marque-Ls Petition Rodrigue- !as proclai%ed the 4o$ernor.elect of Hue-on to a *ilipino father and an 7ustralian %other 7ustralia follo!s =us soli 3he ran for go$ernor citi-enship HELD: ;ual citi-enship as a disqualification refers to citi-ens !ith dual allegiance )he fact that she has dual citi-enship does not auto%aticall" disqualif" her fro% running for public office *iling a certificate of candidac" suffices to renounce foreign citi-enship because in the certificate, the candidate declares hi%self to be a *ilipino citi-en and that he !ill support the Philippine Constitution foreign citi-enship 3uch declaration Opponent filed petition to

disqualif" her on the ground of dual

operates as an effecti$e renunciation of

Renunciation of citi-enship %ust be e,press 7ppl"ing for 7CR, 6CR, and 7ustralian passport are not enough to renounce citi-enship %erel" sa%e I;ual citi-enshipK in the 94C, 3ec A0, %eans Idual allegianceK acts of assertion of her )he" are 7ustralian

citi-enship before she effecti$el" renounced the

Iss*es: >ON Rodrigue-, at the ti%e of filing his certificate of candidac", is said to be a fugiti$e fro% =ustice as pro$ided for in section A0 of the 9ocal 4o$ern%ent Code Hel": I*ugiti$e fro% =usticeK does not %ean a person con$icted b" final =udg%ent 6t includes those !ho after being charged flee to a$oid prosecution )he COM+9+C is directed to proceed and settle the case in confor%it" of the gi$en clarification !ith the ter% Ifugiti$e fro% =usticeK *acts1 ; !on in the 3O elections P filed an election protest before the M)C ; assailed the =urisdiction of the M)C o$er the case 6ssue1 >hether the M)C has =urisdiction 5eld1 <es 7n" contest relating to the

Facts: 6n the Ma" 1995 elections for go$ernor, Marquequestioned Rodrigue-Ls candidac" $ia apetition for disqualification before the COM+9+C, based on the allegation that Rodrigue- is a#fugiti$e fro% =ustice# for lea$ing the ?3 !here a charge against hi% for fraudulent insuranceclai%s, grand theft and atte%pted grand theft of personal propert" !as pending Marque-clai%s that Rodrigue- should be disqualified or held ineligible under 3ection A0@eC of the 9ocal4o$ern%ent Code COM+9+C then pro%ulgated a Consolidated Resolution for +PC No 92.28 @quo !arrantocase filed b" Marque- in 1992 electionsC and 3P7 No 95.089 @present disqualification caseC,!here it found Rodrigue- a fugiti$e fro% =ustice in line !ith the M7RH?+J ;ecisionLs @1995Cdefinition of #fugiti$e fro% =ustice K >ith Rodrigue-Ls !al2.out during the hearing of the case,COM+9+C considered hi% as ha$ing !ai$ed his right to dispro$e the authenticit" of Marque-(docu%entar" e$idence Ne$ertheless,

election of 3O %e%bers @including the Chair%anC G !hether pertaining to their eligibilit" or the %anner of their election G is cogni-able b" the M)Cs, MC)Cs and Me)Cs Eefore procla%ation, cases concerning eligibilit" of 3O officers and %e%bers are cogni-able b" the +lection Officer as pro$ided in 3ec : of COM+9+C Resolution No 282A !arranto cases 7fter election and b" M)Cs, procla%ation, the sa%e cases beco%e quo cogni-able MC)Cs and Me)Cs case digests, case digests of supre%e court decisions, case digests Philippines, %obile phone deals, laptop co%puters, gadgets, free legal opinion, online =obs, best la! fir%s in Mindanao, Re%edial 9a!

Rodrigue- e%erged as the $ictorious candidate in the Ma" 8, 1995 electionfor the position of go$ernor 5o!e$er, COM+9+C also %ade a report entitled #+/6;+NC+ O* )5+P7R)6+3 !herein and the COMM6336ON(3 +/79?7)6ON#

COM+9+C, after calibrating the parties(e$idence, declared that Rodrigue- is NO) a #fugiti$e fro% =ustice# as defined in the %ain opinionof the M7RH?+J ;ecision, thus %a2ing a 180.degree turnaround fro% its finding in theConsolidated Resolution COM+9+C opined that intent to e$ade is a %aterial ele%ent of theM7RH?+J ;ecision definition 3uch intent to e$ade is absent in Rodrigue-( case becausee$idence has established that Rodrigue- arri$ed in the Philippines @&une 25,

Ro"!i3*e5 v. COMELEC

1985C long beforethe cri%inal charge !as instituted in the 9os 7ngeles Court @No$e%ber 12, 1985C Iss*e: 6s Rodrigue- a fugiti$e fro% =ustice as defined b" the Court in the M7RH?+J ;ecisionP Hel": No 7 fugiti$e fro% =ustice is defined as Inot onl" those !ho flee after con$iction to a$oidpunish%ent but li2e!ise !ho, after being charged, flee to a$oid prosecution K )his indicates thatthe intent to e$ade is the co%pelling factor that %a2es a person lea$e a particular =urisdiction,and there can onl" be intent to e$ade prosecution or punish%ent !hen the fleeing person 2no!sof an alread" instituted indict%ent, or of a pro%ulgated =udg%ent of con$iction 6ntent to e$adeon the part of a candidate %ust therefore be established b" proof that there has alread" been acon$iction or at least, a charge has alread" been filed, at the ti%e of flight )his cannot be applied in the case of Rodrigue- Rodrigue- arri$ed in the Philippines on &une 25,1985, fi$e %onths before the filing of the felon" co%plaint in the 9os 7ngeles Court on No$e%ber12, 1985 and of the issuance of the arrest !arrant b" that sa%e foreign court 6t !as clearl"i%possible for Rodrigue- to ha$e 2no!n about such felon" co%plaint and arrest !arrant at theti%e he left the ?3, as there !as in fact no co%plaint and arrest !arrant D %uch less con$ictionD to spea2 of "et at such ti%e )he Court also agrees !ith cop" the of an COM+9+C that1.)he report $olu%inous in$estigation

%atter ho! e,tensi$e orprolonged, are shrouded !ith ut%ost secrec" to afford la! enforcers the ad$antage of surpriseand effect the arrest of those !ho !ould be charged . )he circu%stantial fact that it !as 1B da"s after Rodrigue-( departure that charges against hi%!ere filed cannot o$erturn the presu%ption of good faith in his fa$or )he e$idence presentedb" Rodrigue- e$en pro$es that his co%pulsion to return to the Philippines !as due to his desireto =oin and participate $igorousl" in the political ca%paigns against for%er President *erdinand + Marcos 7nd being a figure in the e$ents leading to the +;37 Re$olution, Rodriguebeganser$ing his ho%e pro$ince as O6C.Eoard Me%ber of the 3angguniang Panlala!igan ng Hue-on in198:, 4o$ernor in 1988, re.elected 4o$ernor in 1992 and the disputed re.election in 1995 . >hen, in good faith, a person lea$es the territor" of a state not his o!n, ho%e!ard bound, andlearns subsequentl" of charges filed against hi% !hile in the relati$e peace and ser$ice of hiso!n countr", the fact that he does not sub=ect hi%self to the =urisdiction of the for%er state doesnot qualif" hi% outright as a fugiti$e fro% =ustice Eesides, there is no la! requiring petitioner totra$el to the ?nited 3tates and sub=ect hi%self to the %onetar" burden and tedious process of defending hi%self before the countr"(s courts ;uring that ti%e, Rodrigue!as also in publicser$ice 5e could not ha$e gone bac2 to the ?nited 3tates in the %iddle of his ter% nor could heha$e tra$eled inter%ittentl" thereto !ithout =eopardi-ing the interest of the public he ser$es

presented b" Marque- in order to establish thefact that it !as i%possible for petitioner not to ha$e 2no!n of said in$estigation due to its%agnitude is %isleading because in$estigations of this nature, no