Coquilla v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 151914
July 31, 2002
Facts:
· February 17, 1938
o Teodoro Coquilla was born of Filipino parents in Oras, Eastern Samar
· 1965
o Coquilla joined the US Army and was naturalized as a US citizen
o He remained in America but visited the Philippines thrice from 1970 to 1973.
· October 15, 1998
o Coquilla came to the PH and took out a residence certificate.
· November 7, 2000
o Coquilla’s application for repatriation under RA 8171 was approved.
· November 10, 2000
o Coquilla took his oath as a Filipino citizen
· November 21, 2000
o Coquilla registered as a voter in Oras, Eastern Samar.
· January 12, 2001
o His application was approved by the Election Registration Board
· February 27, 2001
o Coquilla filed a certificate of candidacy, stating that he had been a resident of the Philippines for two years.
· Neil Alvarez, Coquilla’s rival, sought the cancellation of the latter’s certificate
o Contention: Coquilla had only resided for about six months since November 10, 2000 when he took his oath.
· COMELEC was not able to render judgment before the May 14, 2001 elections, wherein Coquilla won.
· July 19, 2001
o COMELEC granted Alvarez’s petition
o COMELEC’s ruling: Coquilla’s regular trips to the PH cannot be considered as a waiver of his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of USA prior to November 10, 2000. The one-year residency requirement contemplates actual residence of the citizen in the constituency where he seeks to be elected.
Issues:
1. Did COMELEC lose the authority to act on the petition of Alvarez since it did not give a ruling before the elections?
2. Was Coquilla a resident of Oras, Samar at least one year before the elections?
3. Coquilla contended that he was only compelled to adopt US citizenship. Is this tenable?
4. Was Coquilla’s registration as voter of Samar in January 2001 conclusive of his residency as candidate?
Ruling:
1. No. According to Section 6 of RA 6646, the candidates who are not disqualified by final judgment may be voted on, but the COMELEC may suspend the proclamation when the ground for disqualification is strong.
2. No. RA 7160, Section 39(a) provides that the candidate must be a resident for at least one year immediately preceding the day of the election. The term “residence” is to be understood NOT as “dwelling” or “habitation” but as domicile or legal residence.
· Domicile – 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 (animus manendi)
· Domicile of origin – domicile acquired at birth
Coquilla lost his domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a US citizen. Until November 10, 2000, Coquilla was an alien without any right to reside in the PH. Residence is a requirement in becoming a US citizen according to Title 8, Section 1427 of the US Code. The naturalization in a foreign country results in an abandonment of domicile in the Philippines.
3. No. Coquilla was repatriated under RA 8171, which provides repatriation for natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity. He was not repatriated based on RA 2630, which applies to repatriation of those who lost PH citizenship by accepting commission in the Armed Forces of the United States.
He had the following options for waiving his status as non-resident, but he did not avail of them:
1. Obtaining an immigrant visa under Section 13 of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1948
· This waives his status as a non-resident
2. Acquire PH citizenship by naturalization under CA 473
3. Repatriation OR by an act of Congress
· Availed when one is a former PH national
· He waives not only his status as an alien but also his status as a non-resident alien
4. No. According to Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code, a voter must have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the city or municipality wherein he proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the elections. It was held in Nuval v. Guray that registration as a voter does not bar the filing of a subsequent case questioning a candidate’s lack of residency.
Thus, the statement in Coquilla’s COC that he had been a resident of the Philippines is not true. COMELEC is justified in ordering the cancellation of the COC as per Section 74 and 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
It's a Ping Thing 