Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROGELIO M. TORAYNO SR. v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 210164 2015-08-18	ROMMEL C. ARNADO v. COMELEC DEL CASTILLO, J.
26, 2013, Arnado filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Status Quo Ante Order or Temporary Restraining Order[14] in view of the issuance by the Comelec En Banc of a Writ of Execution to implement its December 9, 2013 Resolution.
	GR No. 193261 2012-04-24	MEYNARDO SABILI v. COMELEC SERENO, J.
The Constitution and the law requires residence as a qualification for seeking and holding elective public office, in order to give candidates the opportunity to be familiar with the needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and all matters vital to the welfare of their constituencies; likewise, it enables the electorate to evaluate the office seekers' qualifications and fitness for the job they aspire for xxx. [94]
	GR No. 193261 2012-04-24	MEYNARDO SABILI v. COMELEC SERENO, J.
In this regard, we reiterate our ruling in Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections[97] that "(t)o successfully challenge a winning candidate's qualifications, the petitioner must clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the people, would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and promote."
	GR No. 191938 2010-10-19	ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. MITRA v. COMELEC BRION, J.
5. The private respondents submit that the Court erred in relying on jurisprudence (Torayno, Sr. v. COMELEC[19] and Asistio v. Hon. Trinidad Pe-Aguirre[20]) not applicable to the present case. They additionally argue that our ruling in Velasco v. COMELEC[21] should be applied strictly to the present case.
	GR No. 187478 2009-12-21	REPRESENTATIVE DANILO RAMON S. FERNANDEZ v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Torayno,[43] the Court had the occasion to say that: The Constitution and the law requires residence as a qualification for seeking and holding elective public office, in order to give candidates the opportunity to be familiar with the needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and all matters vital to the welfare of their constituencies; likewise, it enables the electorate to evaluate the office seekers' qualifications and fitness for the job they aspire for. xxx xxx xxx
	GR No. 179313 2009-09-17	MAKIL U. PUNDAODAYA v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
From the foregoing, we find that Noble's alleged change of domicile was effected solely for the purpose of qualifying as a candidate in the 2007 elections. This we cannot allow. In Torayno, Sr. v. Commission on Elections, [36] we held that the one-year residency requirement is aimed at excluding outsiders "from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain." Establishing residence in a community merely to meet an election law requirement defeats the purpose of representation: to elect through the assent of voters those most cognizant and sensitive to the needs of the community.[37] Thus, we find Noble disqualified from running as municipal mayor of Kinoguitan, Misamis Oriental in the 2007 elections.