The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC's cancellation of Jose Ugdoracion Jr.'s certificate of candidacy for mayor due to material misrepresentation. Ugdoracion stated in his COC that he was a resident of Albuquerque, Bohol for 41 years and not a permanent resident of a foreign country. However, he became a lawful permanent resident of the US in 2001. The Court found this to constitute abandonment of his Philippine domicile of origin. While Ugdoracion argued his status was involuntary, the Court stated permanent residency must be accepted, and he could have only one domicile at a time. The purported waiver of his permanent residency status was also insufficient.
Anhing v. Viet Phu - Order denying defendant's motion for attorney's feesRobert Scott Lawrence
Order denying defendant Viet Phu's post-trial motion for attorneys fees, noting that under the Lanham Act a prevailing defendant is only entitled to fees in exceptional cases.
A City of Chicago Department of Forestry worker was awarded cervical and knee replacement surgery as well as medical and ttd benefits. Attorney Scott Goldstein of Ankin Law Office also ensured that the City of Chicago pay penalties for the way they handled the respondent's case.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
SharonsDefaultJudgmentvsCitySt.Paul,MN 5 jul07ratasslegal 22Sharon Anderson
Sharon Anderson aka Peterson Scarrella decades fighting City St. Paul,MN Filing for Office to Make Government Accountable current on the MN Ballot Republican 4 MN Attorney General http://sharon4mnag.blogspot.com Civil Rights Activist Forensic Files also at http://sharon4anderson.org
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Michael Baird from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi ...mh37o
The judgement was passed in favour of Plaintiffs Kyko Global Inc. Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi Info Solutions Ltd
Anhing v. Viet Phu - Order denying defendant's motion for attorney's feesRobert Scott Lawrence
Order denying defendant Viet Phu's post-trial motion for attorneys fees, noting that under the Lanham Act a prevailing defendant is only entitled to fees in exceptional cases.
A City of Chicago Department of Forestry worker was awarded cervical and knee replacement surgery as well as medical and ttd benefits. Attorney Scott Goldstein of Ankin Law Office also ensured that the City of Chicago pay penalties for the way they handled the respondent's case.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
SharonsDefaultJudgmentvsCitySt.Paul,MN 5 jul07ratasslegal 22Sharon Anderson
Sharon Anderson aka Peterson Scarrella decades fighting City St. Paul,MN Filing for Office to Make Government Accountable current on the MN Ballot Republican 4 MN Attorney General http://sharon4mnag.blogspot.com Civil Rights Activist Forensic Files also at http://sharon4anderson.org
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Michael Baird from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi ...mh37o
The judgement was passed in favour of Plaintiffs Kyko Global Inc. Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi Info Solutions Ltd
Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj 17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...Seth Row
US District Court, District of Oregon, order holding that insurer did not "rely" on insured's alleged misrepresentation by incurring expenses to investigate insured's loss
030716 OBJECTION TO 022516 FINAL DECREE (Townsend Matter)VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 (LIMITATIONS On EXCLUSIVE Rights - FAIR USE)
This is the Court pleading filed on 03/07/16, in the United States Bankruptcy Court – Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson). This document has been filed and Court pleading DRAFTED to EXPOSE and SHARE information with the Public/World of HOW the DESPOTISM Zionist/White Supremacist Government Regime of the United States of America has gone about INFILTRATING the BRANCHES of Government (FEDERAL & STATE – Executive, Legislative and Judicial) for purposes of PROMOTING their RACIST/TERRORIST Attacks on Blacks/African-Americans/People-of-Color.
Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj 17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...Seth Row
US District Court, District of Oregon, order holding that insurer did not "rely" on insured's alleged misrepresentation by incurring expenses to investigate insured's loss
030716 OBJECTION TO 022516 FINAL DECREE (Townsend Matter)VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 (LIMITATIONS On EXCLUSIVE Rights - FAIR USE)
This is the Court pleading filed on 03/07/16, in the United States Bankruptcy Court – Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson). This document has been filed and Court pleading DRAFTED to EXPOSE and SHARE information with the Public/World of HOW the DESPOTISM Zionist/White Supremacist Government Regime of the United States of America has gone about INFILTRATING the BRANCHES of Government (FEDERAL & STATE – Executive, Legislative and Judicial) for purposes of PROMOTING their RACIST/TERRORIST Attacks on Blacks/African-Americans/People-of-Color.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
061716 - OJECTION(s) To 060716 ORDER & PUBLIC NOTIFICATION (Townsend)VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 (LIMITATIONS On EXCLUSIVE Rights - FAIR USE) - For Educational and Information Purposes!
SPREAD THE WORD - - HELP SUPPORT THE COLLAPSE OF THE UNITED STATES' DESPOTISM TERRORIST GOVERNMENT REGIME!
OBJECTION TO 06/07/16 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE. . .(DOCKET NO. 78); TIMELY NOTIFICATION TO BANKRUPTCY COURT ADVISING 06/07/16 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE. . . – DOCKET NO. 78 – IS A NONAPPEALABLE ORDER; TIMELY NOTIFICATION OF UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION VIOLATIONS; TIMELY NOTIFICATION OF INFRINGEMENT UPON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; REQUEST TO BE ADVISED OF CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS; REITERATION OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE EDWARD ELLINGTON; AND NOTIFICATION TO THE PUBLIC AND WORLD/FOREIGN LEADERS
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
Thinking of getting a dog? Be aware that breeds like Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds can be loyal and dangerous. Proper training and socialization are crucial to preventing aggressive behaviors. Ensure safety by understanding their needs and always supervising interactions. Stay safe, and enjoy your furry friends!
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP ModuleCeline George
In Odoo, the chatter is like a chat tool that helps you work together on records. You can leave notes and track things, making it easier to talk with your team and partners. Inside chatter, all communication history, activity, and changes will be displayed.
Normal Labour/ Stages of Labour/ Mechanism of LabourWasim Ak
Normal labor is also termed spontaneous labor, defined as the natural physiological process through which the fetus, placenta, and membranes are expelled from the uterus through the birth canal at term (37 to 42 weeks
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
TESDA TM1 REVIEWER FOR NATIONAL ASSESSMENT WRITTEN AND ORAL QUESTIONS WITH A...
123553000 ugdoracion-v-comelec
1. Page 1 of 18
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Online Tutoring
https://www.homeworkping.com/
click here for freelancing tutoring sites
EN BANC
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
2. Page 2 of 18
MAYOR JOSE UGDORACION, JR.,
Petitioner,
- versus -
G.R. No. 179851
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA,*
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
REYES,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and
BRION, JJ.
Promulgated:
April 18, 2008
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
3. Page 3 of 18
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
EPHRAIM M. TUNGOL,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
4. Page 4 of 18
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
At bar is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 64 of the
Rules of Court filed by petitioner Jose Ugdoracion, Jr., pursuant to Article IX-A,
Section 7 of the Constitution, challenging the May 8, 2007 and September 28,
2007 Resolutions[1]
of the public respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) First Division and En Banc, respectively.
The facts:
Ugdoracion and private respondent, Ephraim Tungol, were rival
mayoralty candidates in the Municipality of Albuquerque, Province of Bohol in
the May 14, 2007 elections. Both filed their respective Certificates of Candidacy
(COC).
On April 11, 2007, Tungol filed a Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel
the Certificate of Candidacy of Jose Ugdoracion, Jr., contending that
Ugdoracion’s declaration of eligibility for Mayor constituted material
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
5. Page 5 of 18
misrepresentation because Ugdoracion is actually a “green card” holder or a
permanent resident of the United States of America (USA). Specifically,
Ugdoracion stated in his COC that he had resided
in Albuquerque, Bohol, Philippines for forty-one years before May 14, 2007 and
he is not a permanent resident or an immigrant to a foreign country.
It appears that Ugdoracion became a permanent resident of
the USA on September 26, 2001. Accordingly, the United States Immigration
and Naturalization Services[2]
(USINS) issued him Alien Number 047-894-254.[3]
For his part, Ugdoracion argued that, in our jurisdiction, domicile is
equivalent to residence, and he retained his domicile of origin
(Albuquerque, Bohol) notwithstanding his ostensible acquisition of permanent
residency in the USA. Ugdoracion then pointed to the following documents as
proof of his substantial compliance with the residency requirement: (1) a
residence certificate dated May 5, 2006; (2) an application for a new voter’s
registration dated October 12, 2006; and (3) a photocopy of Abandonment of
Lawful Permanent Resident Status dated October 18, 2006.
On May 8, 2007, the COMELEC First Division promulgated one of the
herein questioned resolutions canceling Ugdoracion’s COC and removing his
name from the certified list of candidates for the position of Mayor of
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
6. Page 6 of 18
Albuquerque, Bohol. Posthaste, on May 11, 2007, Ugdoracion filed a motion for
reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution arguing in the main that his status
as a “green card” holder was not of his own making but a mere offshoot of a
petition filed by his sister. He admitted his intermittent travels to theUSA, but
only to visit his siblings, and short working stint thereat to cover his subsistence
for the duration of his stay.
In yet another setback, the COMELEC En Banc issued the other
questioned resolution denying Ugdoracion’s motion for reconsideration and
affirming the First Division’s finding of material misrepresentation in
Ugdoracion’s COC.
Hence, this petition imputing grave abuse of discretion to the
COMELEC. Subsequently, Tungol and the COMELEC filed their respective
Comments[4]
on the petition. On March 7, 2008, Ugdoracion filed an Extremely
Urgent Motion to Reiterate Issuance of an Injunctive Writ.[5]
On March 11,
2008, we issued a Status Quo Order. The next day,March 12, 2008, Ugdoracion
filed a Consolidated Reply to respondents’ Comments.
Ugdoracion’s argument focuses on his supposed involuntary
acquisition of a permanent resident status in the USA which, as he insists, did
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
7. Page 7 of 18
not result in the loss of his domicile of origin. He bolsters this contention with
the following facts:
1. He was born in Albuquerque, Bohol, on October 15,
1940 and as such, is a natural-born Filipino citizen;
2. He was baptized in the Catholic Church of Sta. Monica
Paris in Albuquerque, Bohol on February 2, 1941;
3. He was raised in said municipality;
4. He grew up in said municipality;
5. He raised his own family and established a family
home thereat;
6. He served his community for twelve (12) years and had
been the former Mayor for three (3) terms;
7. From 1986 to 1988, he was appointed as Officer-in-
Charge;
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
8. Page 8 of 18
8. He ran for the same position in 1988 and won;
9. He continued his public service as Mayor until his last
term in the year 1998;
10. After his term as Mayor, he served his people again as
Councilor;
11. He built his house at the very place where his ancestral
home was situated;
12. He still acquired several real properties at the same
place;
13. He never lost contact with the people of his town; and
14. He secured a residence certificate on May 5, 2006 at Western
Poblacion, Albuquerque, Bohol and faithfully paid real
property taxes.[6]
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
9. Page 9 of 18
The sole issue for our resolution is whether the COMELEC committed
grave abuse of discretion in canceling Ugdoracion’s COC for material
misrepresentation. Essentially, the issue hinges on whether the representations
contained in Ugdoracion’s COC, specifically, that he complied with the
residency requirement and that he does not have “green card” holder status,
are false.
We find no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s cancellation of
Ugdoracion’s COC for material misrepresentation. Accordingly, the petition
must fail.
Section 74, in relation to Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, in
unmistakable terms, requires that the facts stated in the COC must be true, and
any false representation therein of a material fact shall be a ground for
cancellation thereof, thus:
SEC. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. — The
certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is
announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and
that he is eligible for said office; if for Member of the
Batasang Pambansa, the province, including its component
cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector which he
seeks to represent; the political party to which he belongs;
civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post office address
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
10. Page 10 of 18
for all election purposes; his profession or occupation; that he
will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines
and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he
will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by
the duly constituted authorities; that he is not a permanent
resident or immigrant to a foreign country; that the
obligation assumed by his oath is assumed voluntarily,
without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that
the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true to
the best of his knowledge.
x x x x
SEC. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a
certificate of candidacy. – A verified petition seeking to deny
due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed
by any person exclusively on the ground that any material
representation contained therein as required under Section
74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not
later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice
and hearing not later than fifteen days before the election.
The false representation contemplated by Section 78 of the Code
pertains to material fact, and is not simply an innocuous mistake. A material
fact refers to a candidate’s qualification for elective office such as one’s
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
11. Page 11 of 18
citizenship and residence.[7]
Our holding in Salcedo II v. COMELEC[8]
reiterated
in Lluz v. COMELEC[9]
is instructive, thus:
In case there is a material misrepresentation in the
certificate of candidacy, the Comelec is authorized to deny
due course to or cancel such certificate upon the filing of a
petition by any person pursuant to Section 78. x x x
x x x x
As stated in the law, in order to justify the cancellation
of the certificate of candidacy under Section 78, it is essential
that the false representation mentioned therein pertain[s] to
a material matter for the sanction imposed by this provision
would affect the substantive rights of a candidate— the right
to run for the elective post for which he filed the certificate of
candidacy. Although the law does not specify what would be
considered as a “material representation,” the court has
interpreted this phrase in a line of decisions applying Section
78 of [B.P. 881].
x x x x
Therefore, it may be concluded that the material
misrepresentation contemplated by Section 78 of the Code
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
12. Page 12 of 18
refer[s] to qualifications for elective office. This conclusion is
strengthened by the fact that the consequences imposed
upon a candidate guilty of having made a false representation
in [the] certificate of candidacy are grave—to prevent the
candidate from running or, if elected, from serving, or to
prosecute him for violation of the election laws. It could not
have been the intention of the law to deprive a person of
such a basic and substantive political right to be voted for a
public office upon just any innocuous mistake.
x x x x
Aside from the requirement of materiality, a 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.” In other words, it
must be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as
to one’s qualifications for public office.
Viewed in this light, the question posed by Ugdoracion is hardly a novel one.
Ugdoracion urges us, however, that he did not lose his domicile of
origin because his acquisition of a “green card” was brought about merely by
his sister’s petition. He maintains that, except for this unfortunate detail, all
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
13. Page 13 of 18
other facts demonstrate his retention of residence in Albuquerque, Bohol.
Believing in the truth of these circumstances, he simply echoed in his COC a
truthful statement that he is a resident of Albuquerque, Bohol, and, therefore,
eligible and qualified to run for Mayor thereof.
We are not convinced. Ugdoracion’s assertions miss the mark
completely. The dust had long settled over the implications of a “green card”
holder status on an elective official’s qualification for public office. We ruled
in Caasi v. Court of Appeals[10]
that a Filipino citizen’s acquisition of a
permanent resident status abroad constitutes an abandonment of his domicile
and residence in the Philippines. In short, the “green card” status in the USA is
a renunciation of one’s status as a resident of the Philippines.[11]
We agree with Ugdoracion that residence, in contemplation of election
laws, is synonymous to domicile. Domicile is the place where one actually or
constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be
found at any given time, eventually intends to return (animus revertendi) and
remain (animus manendi).[12]
It consists not only in the intention to reside in a
fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention.[13]
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
14. Page 14 of 18
Domicile is classified into (1) domicile of origin, which is acquired by every
person at birth; (2) domicile of choice, which is acquired upon abandonment of
the domicile of origin; and (3) domicile by operation of law, which the law
attributes to a person independently of his residence or intention.
In a controversy such as the one at bench, given the parties’ naturally
conflicting perspectives on domicile, we are guided by three basic rules,
namely: (1) a man must have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2) domicile,
once established, remains until a new one is validly acquired; and (3) a man can
have but one residence or domicile at any given time.[14]
The general rule is that the domicile of origin is not easily lost; it is lost
only when there is an actual removal or change of domicile, a bona fide
intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one, and
acts which correspond with such purpose.[15]
In the instant case, however,
Ugdoracion’s acquisition of a lawful permanent resident status in the United
States amounted to an abandonment and renunciation of his status as a
resident of the Philippines; it constituted a change from his domicile of origin,
which was Albuquerque, Bohol, to a new domicile of choice, which is the USA.
The contention that Ugdoracion’s USA resident status was acquired
involuntarily, as it was simply the result of his sister’s beneficence, does not
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
15. Page 15 of 18
persuade. Although immigration to the USA through a petition filed by a family
member (sponsor) is allowed by USA immigration laws,[16]
the petitioned party
is very much free to accept or reject the grant of resident status. Permanent
residency in the USA is not conferred upon the unwilling; unlike citizenship, it is
not bestowed by operation of law.[17]
And to reiterate, a person can have only
one residence or domicile at any given time.
Moreover, Ugdoracion’s contention is decimated by Section 68[18]
of the
Omnibus Election Code and Section 40(f)[19]
of the Local Government Code,
which disqualifies a permanent resident of, or an immigrant to, a foreign
country, unless said person waives his status. Corollary thereto, we are in
complete accord with the COMELEC’s ruling on the validity and effect of the
waiver of permanent resident status supposedly executed by Ugdoracion, to
wit:
Following the Caasi case, in order to reacquire residency
in the Philippines, there must be a waiver of status as a
greencard holder as manifested by some acts or acts
independent of and prior to the filing of the certificate of
candidacy. In the case at bar, [Ugdoracion] presented a
photocopy of a document entitled Abandonment of Lawful
Permanent Resident Status dated October 18, 2006. A close
scrutiny of this document however discloses that it is a mere
application for abandonment of his status as lawful
permanent resident of the USA. It does not bear any note of
approval by the concernedUS official. Thus, [w]e cannot
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
16. Page 16 of 18
consider the same as sufficient waiver of [Ugdoracion’s]
status of permanent residency in the USA. Besides, it is a
mere photocopy, unauthenticated and uncertified by the
legal custodian of such document.
Assuming arguendo that said application was duly
approved, [Ugdoracion] is still disqualified for he failed to
meet the one-year residency requirement. [Ugdoracion] has
applied for abandonment of residence only on 18 October
2006 or for just about seven (7) months prior to the May 14,
2007 elections, which clearly fall short of the required period.
The Permanent Resident Card or the so-called
“greencard” issued by the US government to respondent
does not merely signify transitory stay in the USA for purpose
of work, pleasure, business or study but to live there
permanently. This is the reason why the law considers
immigrants to have lost their residency in the Philippines.[20]
Concededly, a candidate’s disqualification to run for public office does
not necessarily constitute material misrepresentation which is the sole ground
for denying due course to, and for the cancellation of, a COC. Further, as
already discussed, the candidate’s misrepresentation in his COC must not only
refer to a material fact (eligibility and qualifications for elective office), but
should evince a deliberate intent to mislead, misinform or hide a fact which
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
17. Page 17 of 18
would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. It must be made with an
intention to deceive the electorate as to one’s qualifications to run for public
office.[21]
Ugdoracion claims that he did not misrepresent his eligibility for the
public office of Mayor. He categorically declares that he merely stated in his
COC that he is a resident of the Philippines and in possession of all the
qualifications and suffers from none of the disqualifications prescribed by law.
Unfortunately for Ugdoracion, Section 74 specifically requires a statement in
the COC that the candidate is “not a permanent resident or an immigrant to a
foreign country.” Ugdoracion’s cause is further lost because of the explicit
pronouncement in his COC that he had resided in Albuquerque, Bohol,
Philippines before the May 14, 2007 elections for forty-one (41) years.
[22]
Ineluctably, even if Ugdoracion might have been of the mistaken belief that
he remained a resident of the Philippines, he hid the fact of his immigration to
the USA and his status as a “green card” holder.
Finally, we are not unmindful of the fact that Ugdoracion appears to
have won the election as Mayor of Albuquerque, Bohol. Sadly, winning the
election does not substitute for the specific requirements of law on a person’s
eligibility for public office which he lacked, and does not cure his material
misrepresentation which is a valid ground for the cancellation of his COC.
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi
18. Page 18 of 18
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The
COMELEC Resolutions dated May 8, 2007 and September 28,
2007 are AFFIRMED. TheSTATUS QUO Order issued on March 11, 2008 is
hereby LIFTED.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
Lynnedelacruz
CIVLAWREV1
Atty. Legaspi