By Bohol Chronicle
The first division of the Commission on Elections denied the instant petition calling for the disqualification case filed against broadcaster Jeremias Pabe on question of residency.
In a four-page resolution penned by Commissioner Armando Velasco, as concurred by Presiding Commissioner Rene Sarmiento and Commisioner Christian Robert Lim, Comelec noted that Pabe even garnered one of the highest votes for barangay kagawad during the Barangay and SK elections on October 25, 2010.
Paraphrasing the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Mitra vs. Comelec and others, Velasco pointed out that it cannot be denied that "the people of Cogon district, Tagbilaran City have spoken in an election where [Pabe's] residency qualification has been squarely raised, and their voice has erased any doubt about their verdict Pabe's qualifications".
In his resolution dated November 11, 2011, Velasco also concluded that the petitioners-Noel Gonzales, Wilfredo Raya, Dionisio Balatero and Erwin Lomotos-failed to substantiate the merits of their petition to disqualify Pabe on the ground of non-residency.
Velasco said it was not enough for them to merely present Pabe's joint complaint-affidavit which indicated he is a resident of Dao District, affidavits of their witnesses and a certification that he is a homeowner of Capitol Valley phase II, Dao District.
"More than these are required to conclude that [Pabe] is not a resident of [Cogon District]," according to the Comelec commissioner.
Prior to the elections, the petitioners sought for the cancellation of Pabe's candidacy, alleging that the latter made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy.
This is based on a copy of the joint complaint-affidavit that Pabe executed against Mayor Dan Lim and some employees of Bohol Light Company, Inc. before the Ombudsman wherein Pabe declared that he was a resident of Capitol Valley Subdivision Phase II in Dao District.
With this, the petitioners assumed that Pabe could not be a resident of Cogon District where he sought to be elected for a period of one year.
However, Pabe denied having made a material misrepresentation in his COC since he has been a resident of 33 Graham Avenue , Cogon District since 1983 until the present where he has served as barangay kagawad for 13 years.
Pabe further explained that his residence in Dao District as stated in the joint complaint-affidavit was just temporary in nature being the administrator of his daughter's house in Capitol Valley Subdivision Phase II while his daughter is abroad.
Pabe filed the complaint against the mayor and company before the Ombudsman following the disconnection of power supply in his daughter's house.
He pointed out that he only sporadically stays in his daughter's house and has no intention of residing there permanently, because he always return to his residence in Cogon District.
On October 29 last year, the parties involved reiterated their arguments in their respective position paper.
Then his summary report, Atty. Ariel Selma--election officer III of Comelec-Tagbilaran City-recommended that the case be decided based on the merits of the pieces of evidence presented by the parties involved.
On this, the first division of Comelec in Intramuros, Manila found no merit in the instant petition.
Velasco explained that Pabe's temporary stay in his daughter's house in Dao District as an administrator and occupant of the said house does not in any way constitute loss of residence in Cogon District.
"In fact, his acts of his registration as a voter in Cogon District, Tagbilaran City, his election and service as barangay kagawad of said barangay for 13 years and his casting of his vote therein on the May 10 national and local election, all the more confirmed his intention and choice to reside in Cogon District," according to Velasco.
The commissioner also pointed out that the actual, physical and personal presence of a candidate in a barangay is substantial enough to show his intention to fulfil the duties of a barangay kagawad and for the voters to evaluate his qualifications for barangay kagawad.
Velasco also cited the Supreme Court ruling on the case of Romualdez-Marcos vs. Comelec where it was explained that the term "residence" for purposes of meeting the qualification for an election position is synonymous with domicile.
"Domicile as defined includes the twin element of the fact of residing or physical presence in a fiexed place and animus mandendi or intention of returning there permanently," Velasco explained.
He said the one year period is crucial regardless of whether or not the term "residence" is to be synonymous with "domicile".
"The candidate's intent and actual presence in one barangay must in all situations satisfy the length of time prescribed by the fundamental law. He must be familiar with the environment and problems of the municipality he intends to represent and the one-year residence in the said municipality would be the minimum period to acquire such familiarity, if not versatility," according to Velasco.
It is also important to note that an individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained residences in different places.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=44641.0
