REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, Petitioner, v.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND
JOSEPH
SOCORRO
B.
TAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
Facts:
The petitioners assail through a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction resolution of the Commission on
Election ordering the cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner for the
position of the Representative of the lone district of Marinduque.
On October 31. 2012, Joseph Socorro Tan filed with the Comelec an Amended Petition to
Deny Due Course or to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Regina Ongsiako Reyes,
the petitioner, on the ground that it contained material representations.On March 27,
2013, the COMELEC cancelled the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner. She filed an
MR on April 8, 2013. On May 14, 2013, COMELEC en banc denied her MR.
However, on May 18, 2013, she was proclaimed winner of the May 13, 2013 Elections.
On June 5, 2013, COMELEC declared the May 14, 2013 Resolution final and Executory.
On the same day, petitioner took her oath of office before Feliciano Belmonte, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has yet to assume office at that time, as her
term officially starts at noon of June 30, 2013.According to petitioner, the COMELEC
was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly proclaimed 20 because pursuant to
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, the HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction
to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of
the
Members
of
the
House
of
Representatives.
Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petitioner who is proclaimed as
winner and who has already taken her oath of office for the position of member of the
House of Representative of Marinduque.
Held:
Yes, COMELEC retains jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the HRET begins only
after the candidate is considered a Member of the House of Representatives, as stated in
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. For one to be considered a Member of
the House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of these requisites: (1) valid
proclamation; (2) proper oath, and (3) assumption of office.
Thus the petitioner cannot be considered a member of the HR yet as she has not assumed
office yet. Also, the 2nd requirement was not validly complied with as a valid oath must
be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and (2) in open session.
Here, although she made the oath before Speaker Belmonte, there is no indication that it
was made during plenary or in open session and, thus, it remains unclear whether the
required oath of office was indeed complied.
Furthermore, petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is
alleged and proved to exist. For an act to be struck down as having been done with
grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.
Here, this Court finds that petitioner failed to adequately and substantially show that
grave abuse of discretion exists.
HERMILINA N. ABAINZA,
Petitioner, - versus -

ERNESTO ARELLANO and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

Respondents.
G.R. No. 181644
Facts:
On September 3, 2007, COMELEC annulled the proclamation of Hermiliana Abainza as
councilor of the the Municipality of Jovellar, Albay due to erroneous tally of votes. The
tally showed that 114 votes were in favour of Ernesto Arellano but only indicated 14
votes in words and figures in the election return. After counterchecking the copy of the
said return, members of the Board of Elections admitted the clerical error of votes. The,
MR was also denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
Issues:
(1) Whether the COMELEC has original jurisdiction over the petition for
correction of manifest error; and
(2) Whether the COMELEC erred in granting the petition for correction of
manifest error which was in the nature of a pre-proclamation controversy despite the
proclamation and oath by petitioner as elected councillor.
Held:
1) Yes, it has jurisdiction over correction of manifest error pursuant to
Sec.5, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Sec. 5. Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly With the
Commission. - (a) The following pre-proclamation controversies may be filed
directly with the Commission:
2) When the issue involves the correction of manifest errors in the
tabulation or tallying of the results during the canvassing as where (1) a
copy of the election returns or certificate of canvass was tabulated more
than once, (2) two or more copies of the election returns of one precinct,
or two or more copies of certificate of canvass were tabulated
separately, (3) there has been a mistake in the copying of the figures into
the statement of votes or into the certificate of canvass, or (4) so-called
returns from non-existent precincts were included in the canvass, and such
errors could not have been discovered during the canvassing despite the
exercise of due diligence and proclamation of the winning candidates had
already been made.
A manifest error is one that is visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding; that
which is open, palpable, incontrovertible, needing no evidence to make it more clear. As
stated in the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC, the error in the entry in the election
return is very evident to the eye, needing no evidence to make it clear. Petitioners
proclamation, and eventual assumption of office, was predicated on a clerical and
manifest error, not on the legitimate will of the electorate.
The petition was however dismissed because the petition raised purely technical
objections and did not dispute the finding of the COMELEC on the error in the total
number of votes reflected in the election return.

ROMMEL APOLINARIO JALOSJOS, vs

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
and DAN ERASMO, SR., Respondents.
G.R. No. 191970
April 24, 2012
FACTS:
Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City on October 26, 1973. He migrated to Australia
in 1981 when he was eight years old and there acquired Australian citizenship. On
November 22, 2008, at age 35, he decided to return to the Philippines and lived with his
brother in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. Four days upon his return, he took an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, hence, he was issued a Certificate of
Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration. On September 1,
2009 he renounced his Australian citizenship, executing a sworn renunciation of the same
in compliance with Republic Act (R.A.) 9225. From the time of his return, Jalosjos
acquired a residential property in the same village where he lived and maintained a fish
pond.
He applied for registration as a voter in the Municipality of Ipil but respondent Erasmo,
the Barangay Captain, opposed the said act. Election Registration Board approved it and
included Jalosjos name in the COMELEC voters list. Erasmo filed before the MTC a
petition for the exclusion of Jalosjos name from the official voters list. The MTC denied
Erasmos petition. He appealed to RTC but RTC upheld the MTC decision. On November
28, 2009 Jalosjos filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Governor of Zamboanga
Sibugay Province for the May 10, 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a petition to deny due
course or to cancel Jalosjos COC on the ground that Jalosjos made material
misrepresentation in the same since he failed to comply with (1) the requirements of R.A.
9225 and (2) the one-year residency requirement of the Local Government Code.
COMELEC ruled against Jalosjos, because he failed to comply with the 1-year residency
ruequirement. Subsequently, Jalosjos won the elections
ISSUE: Whether or not Jalosjos failed to comply with the 1-year residency requirement
HELD:
Jalosjos complied with the 1-year requirement. It is true that his domicial was Quezon
City, his domicile of origin, the place of his birth. However, his domicile was changed
from Quezon City to Australia when he migrated there at the age of eight, acquired
Australian citizenship, and lived in that country for 26 years. Australia became his
domicile by operation of law and by choice.
When he came to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his brother in
Zamboanga Sibugay, it is evident that Jalosjos did so with intent to change his domicile
for good. In addition, he reacquired his old citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in his being issued a Certificate of
Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration. By his acts,
Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to live in Australia, clearly proving that he gave up his
domicile there.He has since lived nowhere else except in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
As to the issue that he cannot claim Ipil as his domicile as he was living in his brothers
house, the court said that a candidate need to have a house in a community to establish
residence. It is sufficient that he rents a house or in the house of a friend or relative.
Only 2 important things must be proved: actual physical presence and an intention of
making it his domicile. Jaloslos was able to prove the two requirements. Hence, he is
qualified.

LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE , Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND

MIGUEL R. VILLAFUERTE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 206698, February 25, 2014
FACTS:
Petitioner and respondent were both candidates for the Gubernatorial position of the
Province of Camarines Sur in the May 13, 2013 local and national elections. On October
25, 2012, petitioner filed with the COMELEC a Verified Petition 3 to deny due course to
or cancel the certificate of candidacy (COC) of respondent, alleging that respondent
intentionally and materially misrepresented a false and deceptive name/nickname that
would mislead the voters when he declared under oath in his COC that LRAY JR.
MIGZ was his nickname or stagename and that the name he intended to appear on the
official ballot was VILLAFUERTE, LRAY JR.MIGZ NP; that respondent deliberately
omitted his first name MIGUEL and inserted, instead LRAY JR., which is the
nickname of his father, the incumbent Governor of Camarines Sur, LRay Villafuerte,
Jr. 4 respondent denied the commission of any material misrepresentation and asserted,
among others, that he had been using the nickname LRAY JR. MIGZ and not only
MIGZ; that the choice of name/word to appear on the ballot was solely his choice or
preference; and that the presumption that the voters would be confused on the simple fact
that his name would be placed first in the ballot was misplaced.
On January 15, 2013, the COMELECs First Division denied the petition for lack of
merit. Laws and jurisprudence on the matter are clear that material misrepresentation in
the COC pertains only to qualifications of a candidate, such as citizenship, residency,
registration as a voter, age, etc. Nothing has been mentioned about a candidates
name/nickname as a ground to deny due course or cancel his/her COC. COMELEC en
banc affirmed the First Divisions decision. Hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not respondent committed a material misrepresentation under Section

78 of the Omnibus Election Code so as to justify the cancellation of his COC.
Held:
NO. Material misrepresentation under the earlierquoted Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code refers to qualifications for elective office. It need not be emphasized that
there is no showing that there was an intent to deceive the electorate as to private
respondents identity, nor that by using his Filipino name the voting public was thereby
deceived. Thus, the use of a name other than that stated in the certificate of birth is not a
material misrepresentation. Clearly, from the foregoing, for the petition to deny due
course or cancel the COC of one candidate to prosper, the candidate must have made a
material misrepresentation involving his eligibility or qualification for the office to which
he seeks election, such as the requisite residency, age, citizenship or any other legal
qualification necessary to run for local elective office as provided in the Local
Government Code.15 Hence, petitioners allegation that respondents nickname LRAY
JR. MIGZ written in his COC is a material misrepresentation is devoid of merit.
Moreover, the false representation under Section 78 must consist of a deliberate attempt
to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.
As we said, respondents nickname is not considered a material fact, and there is no
substantial evidence showing that in writing the nickname LRAY JR. MIGZ in his
COC, respondent had the intention to deceive the voters as to his identity which has an
effect on his eligibility or qualification for the office he seeks to assume.