G.R. No. 207105 - ARSENIO A. AGUSTIN, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SALVADOR S. PILLOS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration of Petitioner Stewart D. De La Cruz in SPA No. 13-024 (DC) is denied for lack of merit. On the other hand, the Motion for Reconsideration of Petitioner Salvador S. Pillos in SPA No. 13-023 (DC) is granted; consequently, the Certificate of Candidacy of Respondent Arsenio A. Agustin is hereby CANCELLED and DENIED DUE COURSE. SO ORDERED . [2] Antecedents In 1997, the petitioner was naturalized as a citizen of the United States of America (USA). [3] On October 5, 2012, [4] he filed his certificate of candidacy (CoC) for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte to be contested in the May 13, 2013 local elections. [5] As the official candidate of the Nacionalista Party, [6] he declared in his CoC that he was eligible for the office he was seeking to be elected to; that he was a natural born Filipino citizen; and that he had been a resident of the Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte for 25 years. [7] On October 10, 2012, respondent Salvador S. Pillos, a rival mayoralty candidate, filed in the COMELEC a Petition To Deny Due Course and/or to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Arsenio A. Agustin, docketed as SPA No. 13-023 (DC), [8] alleging that the petitioner had made a material misrepresentation in his CoC by stating that he had been a resident of the Municipality of Marcos for 25 years despite having registered as a voter therein only on May 31, 2012. The petition stated the sole ground thuswise: THE DECLARATION UNDER OATH MADE BY THE RESPONDENT THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE OR SEEK TO BE ELECTED TO (sic) CONSTITUTES MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER (sic) HE HAS NOT RESIDED AS REQUIRED BY LAW FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR IN THE LOCALITY HE SEEKS TO BE ELECTED. [9] and prayed, viz .: WHEREFORE , it is respectfully prayed before this Honorable Commission, to issue an order to immediately deny due course and or to cancel the certificate of candidacy of respondent Arsenio A. Agustin. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed of (sic). [10] In his answer, the petitioner countered that the one-year requirement referred to residency, not to voter registration; that residency was not dependent on citizenship, such that his travel to Hawaii for business purposes did not violate the residency requirement pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence; and that as regards citizenship, he attached a copy of his Affidavit of Renunciation of U.S./American Citizenship executed on October 2, 2012. [11] On January 28, 2013, the COMELEC Second Division issued its omnibus resolution, [12] pertinently holding: As can be clearly gathered from the Velasco case, a candidate's status as a registered voter is a material fact which falls under the same classification as one's citizenship or residence. While they are under the same classification as referring to a candidate's qualification for elective office, the requirements are different. The requirement that