G.R. No. 191938 - Mitra vs. Commission on Elections

Article X, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 39(a) of the Local Government Code (1991) require candidates for local elective office to be residents of the political unit they seek to represent for at least one year preceding the election.
“Residence” is equated with domicile, carrying the purpose of ensuring that elective officials are familiar with their constituencies.

Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra was a three-term Representative of Palawan’s Second District, which included Puerto Princesa City and the Municipality of Aborlan.
On March 26, 2007, Puerto Princesa City was reclassified as a Highly Urbanized City, thus its residents could no longer vote for provincial officials.
On March 20, 2009, Mitra applied to transfer his voter registration from Puerto Princesa City to Brgy. Isaub, Aborlan, Palawan, and later filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Governor of Palawan, declaring residence in Aborlan.

Respondents Gonzales and Balbon filed a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code to deny due course to or cancel Mitra’s COC, alleging he remained a resident of Puerto Princesa City.
Respondents’ evidence included:

A deed of sale and a building-permit application listing Puerto Princesa City as Mitra’s residence;
A community tax certificate indicating Puerto Princesa City;
Affidavits and photographs showing Mitra’s house in Aborlan was incomplete;
Affidavits from Barangay officials and residents denying Mitra’s physical presence in Aborlan.

A lease contract over the residential portion of the Maligaya Feedmill in Isaub, Aborlan;
Affidavits from the lessor, barangay officials, and neighbors attesting to his residence in Aborlan;
Photographs of the feedmill’s residential quarters, his pineapple plantation, farmhouse, and cock farm;
A community tax certificate and a House of Representatives ID card listing Aborlan as his residence.

First Division (10 Feb 2010) granted the petition to cancel Mitra’s COC, finding Mitra’s “residence” was an unlived-in, hastily set-up room in an unsavory feedmill location, and found his domicile of origin not abandoned.
En banc (4 May 2010, 4–2) denied reconsideration, affirming that voter registration and intent alone do not suffice to establish physical presence and domicile change, and that summary proceedings were proper.
Commissioner Sarmiento dissented, finding cumulative acts (leasing, occupancy, farm projects, lot purchase, house construction) proved Mitra’s domicile in Aborlan since early 2008.

Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in canceling Mitra’s COC for alleged false material representation of residence.
Whether Mitra established domicile in Aborlan (animus manendi and animus non revertendi) and abandoned his Puerto Princesa City domicile of origin.
Whether the COMELEC summary proceedings and burden-of-proof allocation comported with due process and the Omnibus Election Code.