Note.

Dishonesty is defined as intentionally making a

false statement in any material fact or practicing or
attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing
his examination, registration, appointment. (Alabastro vs.
Moncada, Sr.,447SCRA42[2004])
o0o

G.R.No.179851.April18,2008.*
MAYOR JOSE UGDORACION, JR., petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EPHRAIM M.
TUNGOL,respondents.
Election Law; Omnibus Election Code; Certificates of
Candidacy; Misrepresentation; The code requires that the facts
stated in the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) must be true and any
false representation therein of a material fact shall be a ground for
cancellation thereof.Section 74, in relation to Section 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code, in unmistakable terms, requires that the
factsstatedintheCOCmustbetrue,andanyfalserepresentation
thereinofamaterialfactshallbeagroundforcancellationthereof.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The false representation
contemplated by Section 78 of the Code pertains to material fact,
and is not simply an innocuous mistake.Thefalserepresentation
contemplated by Section 78 of the Code pertains to material fact,
andisnotsimplyaninnocuousmistake.Amaterialfactreferstoa
candidates qualification for elective office such as ones citizenship
andresidence.OurholdinginSalcedo II v. COMELEC, 312 SCRA
447(1999),reiteratedinLluz v. COMELEC,523SCRA456(2007),
isinstructive,thus:Incasethereisamaterialmisrepresentationin
the certificate of candidacy, the Comelec is authorized to deny due
course to or cancel such certificate upon the filing of a petition by
anypersonpursuanttoSection78.xxxxxxxAsstatedinthe
_______________

*ENBANC.

232

232

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

law,inordertojustifythecancellationofthecertificateofcandidacy
under Section 78, it is essential that the false representation
mentioned therein pertain[s] to a material matter for the sanction
imposed by this provision would affect the substantive rights of a
candidatethe right to run for the elective post for which he filed
thecertificateofcandidacy.Althoughthelawdoesnotspecifywhat
would be considered as a material representation, the court has
interpretedthisphraseinalineofdecisionsapplyingSection78of
[B.P.881].
Same; Same; Same; Same; A Filipino citizens acquisition of a
permanent resident status abroad constitutes an abandonment of
his domicile and residence in the Philippines; The green card
status in the USA is a renunciation of ones status as a resident of
the Philippines.Ugdoracionsassertionsmissthemarkcompletely.
The dust had long settled over the implications of a green card
holder status on an elective officials qualification for public office.
WeruledinCaasi v. Court of Appeals,191SCRA229(1990),thata
Filipino citizens 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
renunciationofonesstatusasaresidentofthePhilippines.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Domicile; Residence in
contemplation of election laws is synonymous to domicile; Domicile
is classified into (1) domicile of origin, (2) domicile of choice, and
(3) domicile by operation of law.We agree with Ugdoracion that
residence, in contemplation of election laws, is synonymous to
domicile. Domicile is the place where one actually or constructively
has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be
found at any given time, eventually intends to return (animus
revertendi) and remain (animus manendi). It consists not only in
theintentiontoresideinafixedplacebutalsopersonalpresencein
that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.
Domicileisclassifiedinto(1)domicileoforigin,whichisacquiredby
everypersonatbirth;(2)domicileofchoice,whichisacquiredupon
abandonmentofthedomicileoforigin;and(3)domicilebyoperation

of law, which the law attributes to a person independently of his

residenceorintention.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Three Basic Rules Governing
Domicile.In a controversy such as the one at bench, given the
partiesnaturallyconflictingperspectivesondomicile,weareguided
233

VOL.552,APRIL18,2008

233

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

by three basic rules, namely: (1) a man must have a residence or
domicile somewhere; (2) domicile, once established, remains until a
new one is validly acquired; and (3) a man can have but one
residenceordomicileatanygiventime.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Domicile of origin is not easily
lost, it is lost only when there is an actual removal or change of
domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence
and establishing a new one and acts which correspond with such
purpose.Thegeneralruleisthatthedomicileoforiginisnoteasily
lost; it is lost only when there is an actual removal or change of
domicile,abona fide intention of abandoning the former residence
and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with such
purpose.Intheinstantcase,however,Ugdoracionsacquisitionofa
lawfulpermanentresidentstatusintheUnitedStatesamountedto
anabandonmentandrenunciationofhisstatusasaresidentofthe
Philippines; it constituted a change from his domicile of origin,
whichwasAlbuquerque,Bohol,toanewdomicileofchoice,whichis
theUSA.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The candidates misrepresentation in
his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) must not only refer to a material
fact (eligibility and qualifications for elective office) but should
evince a deliberate intent to mislead, misinform or hide a fact which
would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.A candidates
disqualification to run for public office does not necessarily
constitute material misrepresentation which is the sole ground for
denyingduecourseto,andforthecancellationof,aCOC.Further,
as already discussed, the candidates misrepresentation in his COC
must not only refer to a material fact (eligibility and qualifications
forelectiveoffice),butshouldevinceadeliberateintenttomislead,
misinformorhideafactwhichwouldotherwiserenderacandidate
ineligible. It must be made with an intention to deceive the
electorateastoonesqualificationstorunforpublicoffice.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Winning the election does not substitute
for the specific requirements of law on a persons eligibility for
public office which he lacked, and does not cure his material
misrepresentation which is a valid ground for the cancellation of
his Certificate of Candidacy (COC).We are not unmindful of the
factthatUgdoracionappearstohavewontheelectionasMayorof
Albuquerque,Bohol.Sadly,winningtheelectiondoesnotsubstitute
forthe
234

234

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

specificrequirementsoflawonapersonseligibilityforpublicoffice
which he lacked, and does not cure his material misrepresentation
whichisavalidgroundforthecancellationofhisCOC.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

CertiorariandProhibition.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
George Erwin M. Garcia forpetitioner.
Alberto Y. Bautista forprivaterespondent.
NACHURA,J.:
At bar is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under
Rule 64 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Jose
Ugdoracion, Jr., pursuant to Article IXA, Section 7 of the
Constitution, challenging the May 8, 2007 and September
28,2007Resolutions1ofthepublicrespondentCommission
on Elections (COMELEC) First Division and En Banc,
respectively.
Thefacts:
Ugdoracion and private respondent, Ephraim Tungol,
were rival mayoralty candidates in the Municipality of
Albuquerque, Province of Bohol in the May 14, 2007
elections. Both filed their respective Certificates of
Candidacy(COC).
On April 11, 2007, Tungol filed a Petition to Deny Due
Course or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Jose
Ugdoracion,Jr.,contendingthatUgdoracionsdeclarationof
eligibilityforMayorconstitutedmaterialmisrepresentation
because Ugdoracion is actually a green card holder or a
permanentresidentoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica(USA).

Specifically, Ugdoracion stated in his COC that he had

resided in Albuquerque, Bohol, Philippines for fortyone
years before May 14, 2007 and he is not a permanent
residentoranimmigranttoaforeigncountry.
_______________
1 Rollo,pp.4650;4245.
235

VOL.552,APRIL18,2008

235

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

ItappearsthatUgdoracionbecameapermanentresident
oftheUSAonSeptember26,2001.Accordingly,theUnited
States Immigration and Naturalization Services2 (USINS)
issuedhimAlienNumber047894254.3
Forhispart,Ugdoracionarguedthat,inourjurisdiction,
domicile is equivalent to residence, and he retained his
domicileoforigin(Albuquerque,Bohol)notwithstandinghis
ostensible acquisition of permanent residency in the USA.
Ugdoracion then pointed to the following documents as
proof of his substantial compliance with the residency
requirement: (1) a residence certificate dated May 5, 2006;
(2) an application for a new voters registration dated
October 12, 2006; and (3) a photocopy of Abandonment of
LawfulPermanentResidentStatusdatedOctober18,2006.
On May 8, 2007, the COMELEC First Division
promulgated one of the herein questioned resolutions
canceling Ugdoracions COC and removing his name from
the certified list of candidates for the position of Mayor of
Albuquerque, Bohol. Posthaste, on May 11, 2007,
Ugdoracion filed a motion for reconsideration of the
aforesaidresolutionarguinginthemainthathisstatusasa
greencardholderwasnotofhisownmakingbutamere
offshoot of a petition filed by his sister. He admitted his
intermittent travels to the USA, but only to visit his
siblings, and short working stint thereat to cover his
subsistenceforthedurationofhisstay.
Inyetanothersetback,theCOMELECEn Bancissued
the other questioned resolution denying Ugdoracions
motionforreconsiderationandaffirmingtheFirstDivisions
findingofmaterialmisrepresentationinUgdoracionsCOC.
Hence,thispetitionimputinggraveabuseofdiscretionto

theCOMELEC.Subsequently,TungolandtheCOMELEC
_______________
2NowcalledtheUSCitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS).
3 Rollo,p.73.
236

236

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

filedtheirrespectiveComments4onthepetition.OnMarch
7, 2008, Ugdoracion filed an Extremely Urgent Motion to
Reiterate Issuance of an Injunctive Writ.5 On March 11,
2008,weissuedaStatus QuoOrder.Thenextday,March
12, 2008, Ugdoracion filed a Consolidated Reply to
respondentsComments.
Ugdoracions argument focuses on his supposed
involuntary acquisition of a permanent resident status in
theUSAwhich,asheinsists,didnotresultinthelossofhis
domicile of origin. He bolsters this contention with the
followingfacts:
1.He was born in Albuquerque, Bohol, on October 15, 1940
andassuch,isanaturalbornFilipinocitizen;
2.HewasbaptizedintheCatholicChurchofSta.MonicaParis
inAlbuquerque,BoholonFebruary2,1941;
3.Hewasraisedinsaidmunicipality;
4.Hegrewupinsaidmunicipality;
5.He raised his own family and established a family home
thereat;
6.Heservedhiscommunityfortwelve(12)yearsandhadbeen
theformerMayorforthree(3)terms;
7.From1986to1988,hewasappointedasOfficerinCharge;
8.Heranforthesamepositionin1988andwon;
9.He continued his public service as Mayor until his last term
intheyear1998;
10.After his term as Mayor, he served his people again as
Councilor;
11.He built his house at the very place where his ancestral
homewassituated;
12.Hestillacquiredseveralrealpropertiesatthesameplace;
13.Heneverlostcontactwiththepeopleofhistown;and

_______________
4 Id.,atpp.6780;8298.
5 Id.,atpp.114121.
237

VOL.552,APRIL18,2008

237

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

14. He secured a residence certificate on May 5, 2006 at
Western Poblacion, Albuquerque, Bohol and faithfully paid real
propertytaxes.6

The sole issue for our resolution is whether the

COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
cancelingUgdoracionsCOCformaterialmisrepresentation.
Essentially, the issue hinges on whether the
representationscontainedinUgdoracionsCOC,specifically,
that he complied with the residency requirement and that
hedoesnothavegreencardholderstatus,arefalse.
WefindnograveabuseofdiscretionintheCOMELECs
cancellation of Ugdoracions COC for material
misrepresentation.Accordingly,thepetitionmustfail.
Section 74, in relation to Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code, in unmistakable terms, requires that the
facts stated in the COC must be true, and any false
representationthereinofamaterialfactshallbeaground
forcancellationthereof,thus:
SEC.74.Contents of certificate of candidacy.The
certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is
announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he
iseligibleforsaidoffice;ifforMemberoftheBatasangPambansa,
theprovince,includingitscomponentcities,highlyurbanizedcityor
district or sector which he seeks to represent; the political party to
which he belongs; civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post
officeaddressforallelectionpurposes;hisprofessionoroccupation;
thathewillsupportanddefendtheConstitutionofthePhilippines
and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will
obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly
constituted authorities; that he is not a permanent resident or
immigranttoaforeigncountry;thattheobligationassumedbyhis
oathisassumedvoluntarily,withoutmentalreservationorpurpose
of evasion; and that the facts stated in the certificate of
candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge.

_______________
6 Id.,atpp.3031.
238

238

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

xxxx
SEC.78.Petition to deny due course to or cancel a
certificate of candidacy.Averifiedpetitionseekingtodenydue
course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any
person exclusively on the ground that any material representation
containedthereinasrequiredunderSection74hereofisfalse.The
petition may be filed at any time not later than twentyfive days
fromthetimeofthefilingofthecertificateofcandidacyandshallbe
decided, after due notice and hearing not later than fifteen days
beforetheelection.

The false representation contemplated by Section 78 of

the Code pertains to material fact, and is not simply an
innocuous mistake. A material fact refers to a candidates
qualificationforelectiveofficesuchasonescitizenshipand
residence.7 Our holding in Salcedo II v. COMELEC8
reiteratedinLluz v. COMELEC9 isinstructive,thus:
Incasethereisamaterialmisrepresentationinthecertificateof
candidacy,theComelecisauthorizedtodenyduecoursetoorcancel
suchcertificateuponthefilingofapetitionbyanypersonpursuant
toSection78.xxx
xxxx
As stated in the law, in order to justify the cancellation of the
certificate of candidacy under Section 78, it is essential that the
false representation mentioned therein pertain[s] to a material
matter for the sanction imposed by this provision would affect the
substantive rights of a candidatethe right to run for the elective
postforwhichhefiledthecertificateofcandidacy.Althoughthelaw
does not specify what would be considered as a material
representation, the court has interpreted this phrase in a line of
decisionsapplyingSection78of[B.P.881].
xxxx
_______________
7SeeLluz v. Commission on Elections, G.R.No.172840,June7,2007,523
SCRA456;Salcedo II v. Commission on Elections,G.R.No.135886,August16,

1999,312SCRA447.
8 Supra.
9 Supra.
239

VOL.552,APRIL18,2008

239

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

Therefore, it may be concluded that the material
misrepresentationcontemplatedbySection78oftheCoderefer[s]to
qualifications for elective office. This conclusion is strengthened by
the fact that the consequences imposed upon a candidate guilty of
havingmadeafalserepresentationin[the]certificateofcandidacy
are graveto prevent the candidate from running or, if elected,
fromserving,ortoprosecutehimforviolationoftheelectionlaws.It
couldnothavebeentheintentionofthelawtodepriveapersonof
suchabasicandsubstantivepoliticalrighttobevotedforapublic
officeuponjustanyinnocuousmistake.
xxxx
Asidefromtherequirementofmateriality,afalserepresentation
under Section 78 must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead,
misinform,orhideafactwhichwouldotherwiserenderacandidate
ineligible. In other words, it must be made with an intention to
deceivetheelectorateastoonesqualificationsforpublicoffice.

Viewed in this light, the question posed by Ugdoracion is

hardlyanovelone.
Ugdoracion urges us, however, that he did not lose his
domicile of origin because his acquisition of a green card
was brought about merely by his sisters petition. He
maintainsthat,exceptforthisunfortunatedetail,allother
factsdemonstratehisretentionofresidenceinAlbuquerque,
Bohol. Believing in the truth of these circumstances, he
simplyechoedinhisCOCatruthfulstatementthatheisa
residentofAlbuquerque,Bohol,and,therefore,eligibleand
qualifiedtorunforMayorthereof.
We are not convinced. Ugdoracions assertions miss the
mark completely. The dust had long settled over the
implications of a green card holder status on an elective
officialsqualificationforpublicoffice.WeruledinCaasi v.
Court of Appeals10 that a Filipino citizens acquisition of a
permanent resident status abroad constitutes an
abandonment of his domicile and residence in the
Philippines.Inshort,thegreen

_______________
10G.R.Nos.88831and84508,November8,1990,191SCRA229.
240

240

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

cardstatusintheUSAisarenunciationofonesstatusasa
residentofthePhilippines.11
We agree with Ugdoracion that residence, in
contemplation of election laws, is synonymous to domicile.
Domicile is the place where one actually or constructively
has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he
may be found at any given time, eventually intends to
return(animus revertendi)andremain(animus manendi).12
Itconsistsnotonlyintheintentiontoresideinafixedplace
but also personal presence in that place, coupled with
conductindicativeofsuchintention.13
Domicileisclassifiedinto(1)domicileoforigin,whichis
acquired by every person at birth; (2) domicile of choice,
which is acquired upon abandonment of the domicile of
origin; and (3) domicile by operation of law, which the law
attributes to a person independently of his residence or
intention.
In a controversy such as the one at bench, given the
parties naturally conflicting perspectives on domicile, we
are guided by three basic rules, namely: (1) a man must
have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2) domicile, once
established, remains until a new one is validly acquired;
and(3)amancanhavebutoneresidenceordomicileatany
giventime.14
The general rule is that the domicile of origin is not
easilylost;itislostonlywhenthereisanactualremovalor
changeofdomicile,abona fideintentionofabandoningthe
former
_______________
11 Gayo v. Verceles, G.R. No. 150477, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA
504,515.
12 Coquilla v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 151914, July 31,
2002, 385 SCRA 607, citing Aquino v. Commission on Elections, 248
SCRA400(1995).

13 Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City, G.R. No. 104960,

September14,1993,226SCRA408,415,citingNuval v. Guray,52Phil.
645(1928).
14 Domino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 134015, July 19,
1999,310SCRA546,568.
241

VOL.552,APRIL18,2008

241

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

residence and establishing a new one, and acts which
correspond with such purpose.15 In the instant case,
however, Ugdoracions acquisition of a lawful permanent
resident status in the United States amounted to an
abandonmentandrenunciationofhisstatusasaresidentof
thePhilippines;itconstitutedachangefromhisdomicileof
origin,whichwasAlbuquerque,Bohol,toanewdomicileof
choice,whichistheUSA.
The contention that Ugdoracions USA resident status
wasacquiredinvoluntarily,asitwassimplytheresultofhis
sisters beneficence, does not persuade. Although
immigrationtotheUSAthroughapetitionfiledbyafamily
member (sponsor) is allowed by USA immigration laws,16
thepetitionedpartyisverymuchfreetoacceptorrejectthe
grantofresidentstatus.PermanentresidencyintheUSAis
not conferred upon the unwilling; unlike citizenship, it is
not bestowed by operation of law.17 And to reiterate, a
personcanhaveonlyoneresidenceordomicileatanygiven
time.
Moreover, Ugdoracions contention is decimated by
Section 6818 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section
40(f)19ofthe
_______________
15 RomualdezMarcos v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 119976,
September18,1995,248SCRA300.
16 See:http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb
95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=0775667706f7d010Vgn
VCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010Vgn
VCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD.
17 See Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999, 307
SCRA630.
18Section68readsinpart:Anypersonwhoisapermanentresident

oforanimmigranttoaforeigncountryshallnotbequalifiedtorunfor
any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his
status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in
accordancewiththeresidencerequirementprovidedforintheelection
laws.
19 Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have
acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same
rightaftertheeffectivityofthisCode.
242

242

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

Local Government Code, which disqualifies a permanent

resident of, or an immigrant to, a foreign country, unless
said person waives his status. Corollary thereto, we are in
completeaccordwiththeCOMELECsrulingonthevalidity
and effect of the waiver of permanent resident status
supposedlyexecutedbyUgdoracion,towit:
FollowingtheCaasicase,inordertoreacquireresidencyinthe
Philippines,theremustbeawaiverofstatusasagreencardholder
as manifested by some acts or acts independent of and prior to the
filingofthecertificateofcandidacy.Inthecaseatbar,[Ugdoracion]
presented a photocopy of a document entitled Abandonment of
Lawful Permanent Resident StatusdatedOctober18,2006.Aclose
scrutiny of this document however discloses that it is a mere
application for abandonment of his status as lawful permanent
resident of the USA. It does not bear any note of approval by the
concerned US official. Thus, [w]e cannot consider the same as
sufficientwaiverof[Ugdoracions]statusofpermanentresidencyin
the USA. Besides, it is a mere photocopy, unauthenticated and
uncertifiedbythelegalcustodianofsuchdocument.
Assuming arguendo that said application was duly approved,
[Ugdoracion] is still disqualified for he failed to meet the oneyear
residency requirement. [Ugdoracion] has applied for abandonment
of residence only on 18 October 2006 or for just about seven (7)
monthspriortotheMay14,2007elections,whichclearlyfallshort
oftherequiredperiod.
ThePermanent Resident Cardorthesocalledgreencardissued
by the US government to respondent does not merely signify
transitory stay in the USA for purpose of work, pleasure, business
or study but to live there permanently. This is the reason why the
law considers immigrants to have lost their residency in the

Philippines.20

Concededly, a candidates disqualification to run for

public office does not necessarily constitute material
misrepresentationwhichisthesolegroundfordenyingdue
course to, and for the cancellation of, a COC. Further, as
alreadydiscussed,
_______________
20 Rollo,p.44.
243

VOL.552,APRIL18,2008

243

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

thecandidatesmisrepresentationinhisCOCmustnotonly
refer to a material fact (eligibility and qualifications for
elective office), but should evince a deliberate intent to
mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise
render a candidate ineligible. It must be made with an
intentiontodeceivetheelectorateastoonesqualifications
torunforpublicoffice.21
Ugdoracion claims that he did not misrepresent his
eligibility for the public office of Mayor. He categorically
declares that he merely stated in his COC that he is a
resident of the Philippines and in possession of all the
qualificationsandsuffersfromnoneofthedisqualifications
prescribedbylaw.UnfortunatelyforUgdoracion,Section74
specifically requires a statement in the COC that the
candidateisnotapermanentresidentoranimmigranttoa
foreigncountry.Ugdoracionscauseisfurtherlostbecause
of the explicit pronouncement in his COC that he had
residedinAlbuquerque,Bohol,PhilippinesbeforetheMay
14, 2007 elections for fortyone (41) years.22 Ineluctably,
evenifUgdoracionmighthavebeenofthemistakenbelief
that he remained a resident of the Philippines, he hid the
fact of his immigration to the USA and his status as a
greencardholder.
Finally,wearenotunmindfulofthefactthatUgdoracion
appearstohavewontheelectionasMayorofAlbuquerque,
Bohol. Sadly, winning the election does not substitute for
thespecificrequirementsoflawonapersonseligibilityfor
publicofficewhichhelacked,anddoesnotcurehismaterial

misrepresentation which is a valid ground for the

cancellationofhisCOC.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
herebyDENIED.TheCOMELECResolutionsdatedMay8,
2007 and September 28, 2007 are AFFIRMED. The
STATUS QUO Order issued on March 11, 2008 is hereby
LIFTED.
_______________
21 Salcedo II v. Comelec,supranote7.
22 Rollo,p.83.

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.