Case Digest (G.R. No. 209286)
Facts:
Lina Dela Pena Jalover, Georgie A. Huiso and Velvet Barquin Zamora, petitioners, v. John Henry R. Osmena and Commission on Elections (COMELEC), G.R. No. 209286, September 23, 2014, the Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court.On October 3, 2012, John Henry R. Osmena filed a Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for mayor of Toledo City, Cebu, stating under oath that he had been a resident of Toledo City for fifteen years prior to the May 2013 elections. Thereafter the petitioners filed before the COMELEC SPA No. 13-079: a Petition to Deny Due Course and to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy, alleging material misrepresentation in Osmena’s COC and noncompliance with the one-year residency requirement of Section 39 of the Local Government Code.
The petitioners offered evidence they argued showed lack of residence: an assessor’s certification that Osmena did not own Toledo real property, a tax declaration showing the Ibo property was owned by Osmena’s son, photographs depicting a dilapidated dwelling in Barangay Ibo, a business-permit certification, and affidavits (including the barangay captain) asserting Osmena was not a Toledo resident and was seen there only in September 2012. Osmena countered that he bought land in Ibo in 1995, built houses there between 1998–2002, became a permanent resident in 2004, transferred voter registration in 2006, leased properties for headquarters, purchased an additional five-hectare parcel in 2011, and submitted certifications, tax declarations, deeds, construction and utility evidence, and affidavits attesting to his residence and local ties.
The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition, finding no material misrepresentation and that Osmena complied with residency requirements, citing Velasco v. COMELEC. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC En Banc, which reiterated that ownership of a house is not required to establish residence and that living in a rented or borrowed dwelling suffices. Osmena was proclaimed winner in the May 2013 mayoralty contest before the en banc decision.
The petitioners sought certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, alleging COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying their...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the petition to cancel Osmena’s COC?
- Did Osmena make a material misrepresentation in his COC concerning his residency?
- Did Osmena meet the one-year residency qualification under Section 39, Local Government Code?
- Did the COMELEC show partiality by admitting Osmena’s bel...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)