This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-10-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| To buttress our finding that the COMELEC used personal and subjective assessment standards instead of the standards prescribed by law, we cited Coquilla v. COMELEC,[40] which characterized the term residence as referring to "domicile" or legal residence, that is "the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi). | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The term "residence" is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to "dwelling" or "habitation," but rather to "domicile" or legal residence, that is, "the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi)."[18] | |||||
|
2008-12-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, Velasco could not have registered as a regular voter because he did not possess the residency requirement of one-year stay in the Philippines and six-months stay in the municipality where he proposed to vote at the time of the election. The records show that he arrived in the Philippines only on September 14, 2006 and applied for registration on October 13 of that year[20] for the election to be held in May of the following year (2007). To hark back and compare his case to a similar case, Coquilla v. COMELEC,[21] Velasco, before acquiring his dual citizenship status, was an American citizen who had lost his residency and domiciliary status in the Philippines; whose sojourn in the Philippines was via a visitor's visa; and who never established permanent residence in the Philippines. Like Coquilla before him, Velasco could not have therefore validly registered as a regular voter eight months before the May 2007 local elections. | |||||