Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Asistio v. Aguirre (G.r. No. 191124 April 27, 2010)

    Uploaded by

    Jennylyn Favila Magdadaro
    The Supreme Court ruled that Luis Asistio's name should not be removed from the permanent list of voters in Caloocan City. [1] While Asistio may have indicated a non-existent address on election documents, this does not prove he abandoned his long-time domicile in Caloocan City, where he had lived for over 72 years and continuously voted and held public office. [2] Asistio demonstrated no actual removal, bona fide intent to abandon, or acts corresponding to abandoning his residence in Caloocan City. [3] Mere technicalities should not be used to deny citizens their fundamental right to vote.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Asistio v. Aguirre (G.r. No. 191124 April 27, 2010)

    Uploaded by

    Jennylyn Favila Magdadaro
    29 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Luis Asistio's name should not be removed from the permanent list of voters in Caloocan City. [1] While Asistio may have indicated a non-existent address on election documents, this does not prove he abandoned his long-time domicile in Caloocan City, where he had lived for over 72 years and continuously voted and held public office. [2] Asistio demonstrated no actual removal, bona fide intent to abandon, or acts corresponding to abandoning his residence in Caloocan City. [3] Mere technicalities should not be used to deny citizens their fundamental right to vote.

    Original Description:

    consti cases

    Original Title

    cases 4

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Luis Asistio's name should not be removed from the permanent list of voters in Caloocan City. [1] While Asistio may have indicated a non-existent address on election documents, this does not prove he abandoned his long-time domicile in Caloocan City, where he had lived for over 72 years and continuously voted and held public office. [2] Asistio demonstrated no actual removal, bona fide intent to abandon, or acts corresponding to abandoning his residence in Caloocan City. [3] Mere technicalities should not be used to deny citizens their fundamental right to vote.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views3 pages

    Asistio v. Aguirre (G.r. No. 191124 April 27, 2010)

    Uploaded by

    Jennylyn Favila Magdadaro
    The Supreme Court ruled that Luis Asistio's name should not be removed from the permanent list of voters in Caloocan City. [1] While Asistio may have indicated a non-existent address on election documents, this does not prove he abandoned his long-time domicile in Caloocan City, where he had lived for over 72 years and continuously voted and held public office. [2] Asistio demonstrated no actual removal, bona fide intent to abandon, or acts corresponding to abandoning his residence in Caloocan City. [3] Mere technicalities should not be used to deny citizens their fundamental right to vote.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    ASISTIO V. AGUIRRE (G.R. NO.

    191124; APRIL 27, 2010)

    FACTS: On January 26, 2010, private respondent Enrico R. Echiverri (Echiverri) filed against
    petitioner Luis A. Asistio (Asistio) a Petition for Exclusion of Voter from the Permanent List of Voters
    of Caloocan City (Petition for Exclusion) before the MeTC, Branch 52,Caloocan City presided over by
    public respondent Judge Arthur O. Malabaguio. Echiverri alleged that Asistio is not a resident of
    Caloocan City, specifically not of123 Interior P. Zamora St.,Barangay 15,Caloocan City, the address
    stated in his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Mayor in the 2010 Automated National and Local
    Elections. Echiverri, also a candidate for Mayor of Caloocan City, was the respondent in a Petition to
    Deny Due Course and/or Cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy filed by Asistio. According to
    Echiverri, when he was about to furnish Asistio a copy of his Answer to the latters petition, he found
    out that Asistios address is non-existent. To support this, Echiverri attached to his petition a
    Certification issued by the Tanggapan ng Punong Barangay of Barangay 15 Central, Zone 2, District II
    of Caloocan City. He mentioned that, upon verification of the 2009 Computerized Voters List (CVL)
    for Barangay 15, Asistios name appeared under voter number 8, with address at 109 Libis
    Gochuico,Barangay 15,Caloocan City. Judge Malabaguio rendered a decision removing the name of
    Asistio from the list of permanent voters of Caloocan City.

    Meanwhile, Echiverri filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Disqualification,which was docketed as
    SPA No. 10-013 (DC). The Petition was anchored on the grounds that Asistio is not a resident
    ofCaloocanCityand that he had been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
    Asistio, in his Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses (Com Memorandum),raised the same
    arguments with respect to his residency and also argued that the President of thePhilippines granted
    him an absolute pardon.

    ISSUE:

    Should Asistios name be removed from the permanent list of voters in Precinct 1811A of Caloocan
    City?

    HELD: The right to vote is a most precious political right, as well as a bounden duty of every citizen,
    enabling and requiring him to participate in the process of government to ensure that it can truly be
    said to derive its power solely from the consent of its constituents. Time and again, it has been said
    that every Filipinos right to vote shall be respected, upheld, and given full effect. A citizen cannot be
    disenfranchised for the flimsiest of reasons. Only on the most serious grounds, and upon clear and
    convincing proof, may a citizen be deemed to have forfeited this precious heritage of freedom. In
    this case, even if the appellate docket fees were not filed on time, this incident alone should not
    thwart the proper determination and resolution of the instant case on substantial grounds. Blind
    adherence to a technicality, with the inevitable result of frustrating and nullifying the
    constitutionally guaranteed right of suffrage, cannot be countenanced.

    The residency requirement of a voter is at least one (1) year residence in the Philippines and at least
    six (6) months in the place where the person proposes or intends to vote. Residence, as used in the
    law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, is doctrinally settled to mean
    domicile, importing not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that
    place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention inferable from a persons acts, activities, and
    utterances. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence where, when absent for business or
    pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. In the consideration of circumstances obtaining
    in each particular case, three rules must be borne in mind, namely: (1) that a person must have a
    residence or domicile somewhere; (2) once established, it remains until a new one is acquired; and
    (3) that a person can have but one residence or domicile at a time.

    Domicile is not easily lost. To successfully effect a transfer thereof, one must demonstrate: (1) an
    actual removal or change of domicile; (2) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of
    residence and establishing a new one; and (3) acts which correspond with that purpose. There must
    be animus manendi coupled with animo non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile
    of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and
    the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.

    Asistio has always been a resident of Caloocan City since his birth or for more than 72 years. His
    family is known to be among the prominent political families in Caloocan City. In fact, Asistio served
    in public office as Caloocan City Second District representative in the House of Representatives,
    having been elected as such in the 1992, 1995, 1998, and 2004 elections. In 2007, he also sought
    election as City Mayor. In all of these occasions, Asistio cast his vote in the same city. Taking these
    circumstances into consideration, gauged in the light of the doctrines above enunciated, it cannot be
    denied that Asistio has qualified, and continues to qualify, as a voter of Caloocan City. There is no
    showing that he has established domicile elsewhere, or that he had consciously and voluntarily
    abandoned his residence in Caloocan City. He should, therefore, remain in the list of permanent
    registered voters of Precinct No. 1811A,Barangay 15,Caloocan City.

    That Asistio allegedly indicated in his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor, both for the 2007 and 2010
    elections, a non-existent or false address, or that he could not be physically found in the address he
    indicated when he registered as a voter, should not operate to exclude him as a voter of Caloocan
    City. These purported misrepresentations in Asistios COC, if true, might serve as basis for an election
    offense under the Omnibus Election Code (OEC),or an action to deny due course to the COC.But they
    do not serve as proof that Asistio has abandoned his domicile in Caloocan City, or that he has
    established residence outside of Caloocan City.

    GRANTED.

    You might also like