Jalosjos vs.

Commission on Elections It is inevitable under these guidelines and the precedents applying them that
670 SCRA 572, April 24, 2012 Jalosjos has met the residency requirement for provincial governor of
Zamboanga Sibugay.
FACTS
It is clear from the facts that Quezon City was Jalosjos’ domicile of origin, the
place of his birth and he effectively changed his domicile from Quezon City to
Petitioner Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City on October 26, 1973. He
Australia when he migrated there wherein he acquired Australian citizenship.
migrated to Australia in 1981 when he was eight years old and there acquired
Australia became his domicile by operation of law and by choice. When he
Australian citizenship. On November 22, 2008, at age 35, he decided to return
came to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his brother in
to the Philippines and lived with his brother, Romeo, Jr., in Barangay
Zamboanga Sibugay, it is evident that Jalosjos did so with intent to change his
Veteran’s Village, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. Four days upon his return, he
domicile for good. He left Australia, gave up his Australian citizenship, and
took an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in his
renounced his allegiance to that country. In addition, he reacquired his old
being issued a Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the
citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
Bureau of Immigration. On September 1, 2009 he renounced his Australian
resulting in his being issued a Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship, executing a sworn renunciation of the same2 in compliance with
Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration. By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his
Republic Act (R.A.) 9225.
legal right to live in Australia, clearly proving that he gave up his domicile
there. And he has since lived nowhere else except in Ipil, Zamboanga
From the time of his return, Jalosjos acquired a residential property in the Sibugay.
same village where he lived and a fishpond in San Isidro, Naga, Zamboanga
Sibugay. He applied for registration as a voter in the Municipality of Ipil but
The Court has repeatedly held that a candidate is not required to have a house
respondent Dan Erasmo, Sr., the Barangay Captain of Barangay Veteran’s
in a community to establish his residence or domicile in a particular place.
Village, opposed the same. Acting on the application, the Election
Jalosjos has proved two things: actual physical presence in Ipil and an
Registration Board approved it and included Jalosjos’ name in the
intention of making it his domicile. Jalosjos presented the affidavits of next-
Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC’s) voters list for Precinct 0051F of
door neighbors, attesting to his physical presence at his residence in Ipil.
Barangay Veterans Village, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.4
Moreover, Jalosjos is a registered voter of Ipil by final judgment of the
Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga Sibugay.1âwphi1
Undaunted, Erasmo filed before the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court
(MCTC) of Ipil-Tungawan-R.T. Lim in Ipil a petition for the exclusion of
The evidence Jalosjos presented is sufficient to establish Ipil, Zamboanga
Jalosjos’ name from the official voters list. After hearing, the MCTC rendered
Sibugay, as his domicile. The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in
a decision, denying the petition.5 On appeal,6 the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
holding otherwise.
affirmed the MCTC decision. The RTC decision became final and executory.

Jalosjos won and was proclaimed winner in the 2010 gubernatorial race for
On November 28, 2009 Jalosjos filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for
Zamboanga Sibugay. The Court will respect the decision of the people of that
Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay Province for the May 10, 2010 elections.
province and resolve all doubts regarding his qualification in his favor to
Erasmo promptly filed a petition to deny due course or to cancel Jalosjos’
breathe life to their manifest will.
COC7 on the ground that the latter 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. The Court GRANTS the petition.

After hearing, the Second Division of the COMELEC ruled that, while
Jalosjos had regained Philippine citizenship by complying with the
requirements of R.A. 9225, he failed to prove the residency requirement for a
gubernatorial candidate. He failed to present ample proof of a bona fide
intention to establish his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. On motion for
reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Second Division’s
decision, ruling that Jalosjos had been a mere guest or transient visitor in his
brother’s house and, for this reason, he cannot claim Ipil as his domicile.

Acting on Jalosjos’ prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order,

the Court resolved on May 7, 2010 to issue a status quo ante order, enjoining
the COMELEC from enforcing its February 11, 2010 decision pending further
orders. Meanwhile, Jolosjos won the election and was proclaimed winner of
the 2010 gubernatorial race in the Province of Zamboanga Sibugay.8

Issue

Whether COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack

or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that Jalosjos failed to present ample proof of
a bona fide intention to establish his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.

Ruling

The Local Government Code requires a candidate seeking the position of

provincial governor to be a resident of the province for at least one year before
the election.9 For purposes of the election laws, the requirement of residence is
synonymous with domicile,10 meaning that a person must not only intend to
reside in a particular place but must also have personal presence in such place
coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.11

Jurisprudence has laid down the following guidelines: (a) every person has a
domicile or residence somewhere; (b) where once established, that domicile
remains until he acquires a new one; and (c) a person can have but one
domicile at a time.13