Case Digest (G.R. No. 191938)
Facts:
Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra v. Commission on Elections, Antonio V. Gonzales, and Orlando R. Balbon, Jr., G.R. No. 191938, July 02, 2010, Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra, then incumbent Representative of Palawan’s Second District, filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Governor of Palawan declaring residency in Sitio Maligaya, Barangay Isaub, Municipality of Aborlan. Respondents Antonio V. Gonzales and Orlando R. Balbon, Jr. moved to deny due course or cancel Mitra’s COC on the ground that he remained a resident of Puerto Princesa City and thus was ineligible to run for provincial office after Puerto Princesa’s reclassification as a highly urbanized city.
Chronology of material events: Mitra had long been domiciled in Puerto Princesa City and served three consecutive terms as Representative. Puerto Princesa became a highly urbanized city on March 26, 2007, depriving its residents of the right to vote for provincial officials. Mitra applied to transfer his voter registration to Aborlan on March 20, 2009, purchased land in Aborlan (Deed of Sale dated June 5, 2009), leased and claimed to occupy the residential portion of Maligaya Feedmill beginning in early 2008, and filed his COC for governor on November 28, 2009.
At the COMELEC First Division, after reviewing affidavits, lease and sale documents, community tax certificates, photographs, and numerous conflicting sworn statements from Aborlan residents and feedmill employees, the Commission found Mitra had not abandoned his domicile of origin and that the claimed Maligaya dwelling appeared “unlived in”; it granted the petition and cancelled Mitra’s COC (Resolution dated February 10, 2010). The COMELEC en banc, in a divided 4–2 vote, denied Mitra’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed the First Division (Resolution dated May 4, 2010); Commissioners Sarmiento and Tagle dissented.
Mitra filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. He also sought injunctive relief; the Court issued a status ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was certiorari under Rule 64/Rule 65 properly invoked so that the Court may review whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction?
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in cancelling Mitra’s COC for lack of residency in Aborlan?
- Did Mitra deliberately make a material misrepresentation in his COC regarding his residence such that Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code authoriz...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)