COMMENTARY: Who is a resident of the Philippines?

At different times in the past, the issue has been raised against one or the other candidate that he or she does not fulfill the residency requirement of the Constitution.
 
The Supreme Court has resolved the meaning of "resident" for purposes of complying with the constitutional requirement.  A resident is a domiciliary; and therefore, for purposes of complying with the requirements of the Constitution, one must be domiciled in the Philippines for the period that the constitution requires.
 
Domicile has a fixed meaning: habitual residence coupled with the intention to remain -- what is technically called animus manendi.  In Conflict of Laws, also known as Private International Law, domicile requires physical presence and the intention to remain (for good).
 
If I pack all my bags, sell all I have in the Philippines, announce to all and sundry my intention to relocate to the to the icy heart of Greenland, and there, spend the rest of my days, but die before I board the plane on the first leg of my journey away from the civilized world, I shall die as a domiciliary of the Philippines because the requirement of physical presence in the wastelands of Greenland has not been fulfilled.
 
By contrast, even if one is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, Muntinlupa does not become one's domicile because one always hopes for executive clemency, and maintains the intention to return to his home.
 
So, is absence consistent with domicile? Yes, as long as there is the animus revertendi.  When one leaves his domicile with the intention to return, no matter how long the absence, domicile will not be lost.
 
So, when the Constitution requires "residence of at least one year," then what is required is physical presence for at least one year with intention to remain in the Philippines, or in that congressional district or locality, for one year. 
 
Intentions are tricky business, but there are verifiable facts consistent with an intention to remain, as well as facts evincing a lack of such an intention.  When all that one has in a congressional district is a resthouse which one only occasionally visits, while family, business interests and other concerns are elsewhere, it will take a very credulous judge to find that the place of the resthouse is one's domicile!
 
When Butz Aquino ran as Representative of the newly created City of Makati, he was rebuffed by the Supreme Court that remained unconvinced that the condo unit he had purchased in Makati satisfied the residence requirement.  On the other hand, ruling on the very same day, the Supreme Court found that Mrs. Imelda Marcos, no matter her long absence from Leyte, remained domiciled there because there were several manifestations of her intention to return there!