The Concept of Residence in Election Law

A candidate is required by law to be a registered voter in the place where he seeks an elective position, and a resident of said place for a fixed period – say, one year. The mischief which this legal provision seeks to prevent is the possibility of a "stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that community."

However, did you notice that some candidates who are actually living in Metro Manila and whose stays in Catanduanes are limited to short visits during fiesta or other social occasions, are suddenly running for elective offices here? How come?

*****

The answer lies in how our Election Laws interpret the meaning of "residence". And to understand the concept of residence in Election Law, one must first understand the difference between "residence" and "domicile",

*****

Domicile refers to an individual's "permanent home", "a place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return". Residence is the physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country. The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health. If a person's intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. It is thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual to have different residences in various places.

*****

The absence from residence to pursue studies or practice a profession or registration as a voter other than in the place where one is elected does not constitute loss of residence. Our courts have repeatedly held that the mere absence of an individual from his permanent residence without the intention to abandon it does not result in a loss or change of domicile.

*****

It is thus the settled rule in our country that "residence", as understood in Election Law, is really "domicile". It is an individual's permanent home, a place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return. So, a person who was born in Catanduanes, but who is actually residing in Metro Manila where he has his business or or where he exercises his profession, does not necessarily lose his residence in Catanduanes, and is qualified to run for an elective position here.

*****

But how about the child of a native Catandunganon now living in Metro Manila who was born in the City, and who was raised there from minority up to and beyond adulthood? Although this child has also often visited Catanduanes during fiestas and other family occasions, how can it ever be said that he has the intention of returning to his permanent home in Catanduanes when he has never really lived here?

*****

This question was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. Commission On Elections, et al., G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995. While Imelda’s parents may be said to have their permanent domicile in Leyte, it was pointed out that Imelda was not even born there but in Manila. And except for short stays in Tacloban during her younger years, she actually lived in various other places. She registered as a voter in San Juan, Rizal, and later in San Miguel, Manila when her husband was already president. It was after her husband’s death upon her return to the Philippines when she ran for Representative of the First District of Leyte that her residence therein was questioned.

*****

In ruling in favor of Imelda, the Supreme Court said that while she was born in Manila, as a minor she naturally followed the domicile of her parents. Her intention to return to that place was shown by the fact that during her husband's presidency, at the height of the Marcos Regime's powers, Imelda kept her close ties to her domicile of origin by establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other important personal milestones in her home province, instituting well-publicized projects for the benefit of her province and hometown, and establishing a political power base where her siblings and close relatives held positions of power either through the ballot or by appointment, always with either her influence or consent. These were enough to convince the Supreme Court that, although not born there, and despite having registered as a voter in different other places, Imelda’s residence for purposes of the Election Law was Tacloban, Leyte.

Posted in: Legal Law