This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2008-12-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| This petition for certiorari - filed by Nardo M. Velasco (Velasco) under Rule 64, in relation with Rule 65, of the Revised Rules of Court - seeks to set aside and annul [1] the Resolution dated July 6, 2007 of the Second Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and [2] the Resolution dated October 15, 2007 of the COMELEC e n banc, in SPA Case No. 07-148 entitled Mozart P. Panlaqui v. Nardo M. Velasco. The assailed resolutions denied due course to the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) Velasco had filed for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of Sasmuan, Pampanga. | |||||
|
2008-04-18 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We are not convinced. Ugdoracion's assertions miss the mark completely. The dust had long settled over the implications of a "green card" holder status on an elective official's qualification for public office. We ruled in Caasi v. Court of Appeals[10] that a Filipino citizen's acquisition of a permanent resident status abroad constitutes an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. In short, the "green card" status in the USA is a renunciation of one's status as a resident of the Philippines.[11] | |||||
|
2006-08-04 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| ... violates Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution which requires that the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place where he proposes to vote for at least six months immediately preceding an election. [The challenger] cites ... Caasi vs. Court of Appeals [9] to support his claim [where] the Court held that a "green card" holder immigrant to the [US] is deemed to have abandoned his domicile and residence in the Philippines. | |||||
|
2003-07-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| months immediately preceding an election. Petitioner cites the ruling of the Court in Caasi vs. Court of Appeals[12] to support his claim. In that case, the Court held that a "green card" holder immigrant to the United States is deemed to have abandoned his domicile and residence in the Philippines. Petitioner further argues that Section 1, Article V of the Constitution does not allow provisional registration or a promise by a voter to perform a condition to be qualified to vote in a political exercise;[13] that the legislature should not be allowed | |||||
|
2003-07-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, dims in light of the importance of the constitutional issues raised by the petitioner. In Tañada vs. Angara,[7] the Court held: In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not | |||||
|
2003-07-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| abroad. Thus, strong reasons of public policy demand that the Court resolves the instant petition[10] and determine whether Congress has acted within the limits of the Constitution or if it had gravely abused the discretion entrusted to it.[11] The petitioner raises three principal questions: | |||||