Legally Yours,  Political Law

Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC

Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC

248 SCRA 300


Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte. Cirilo Roy Montejo, incumbent of and candidate for the same position, filed a petition for cancellation and disqualification with the COMELEC, alleging that Marcos did not meet the one-year residency requirement. Marcos then filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy claiming that her error in the first certificate was the result of an ―honest misrepresentation and that she has always ―maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence.


Whether or not petitioner has Imelda Romualdez Marcos satisfied the residency requirement mandated by Article VI, Sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution


Yes. It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy, which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the constitution‘s residency qualification requirement (as intended by the framer‘s of the constitution). When she got married to the late President, it cannot be argued that she lost her domicile of origin by operation of law stated in Article 110 of the CC3 and further contemplated in Article 1094 of the same code. It is the husband‘s right to transfer residences to wherever he might see fit to raise a family. Thus, the relocation does not mean or intend to lose the wife‘s domicile of origin.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: