MANILA – THE Supreme Court denied a petition filed by the daughter of convicted child rapist Romeo Jalosjos after the Commission on Elections (Comelec) ruled with finality her ouster as mayor of Baliangao town in Misamis Occidental province.
In a full court decision written by Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, the High Court denied the petition for review filed by Svetlana Jalosjos assailing the June 4, 2010 and August 19, 2010 resolutions of the Comelec granting the petitions filed by private respondents Edwin Tupag and Rodolfo Estrellada to deny due course to or cancel her certificate of candidacy.
Voting 15-0, the court also lifted the status quo ante order it issued in favor of Jalosjos in 2010.
“[W]e find that petitioner failed to establish by clear and positive proof that she had resided in Baliangao, Misamis Occidental, one year prior to the May 10, 2010 elections,” the ruling said.
Jalosjos had filed on November 20, 2009 her certificate of candidacy for mayor of Baliangao for the May 2010 elections, indicating her place of birth and residence as Barangay Tugas, Baliangao.
Tugas and Estrellada that she had falsely represented her place of birth and residence because she was in fact born in San Juan, Metro Manila and had not totally abandoned her domicile in Dapitan City.
They presented documentary evidence to show, among other facts, that there was no tax declaration covering any real property in the name of Svetlana within the municipality of Baliangao and that there was no record of birth in the civil registry of Baliangao.
Svetlana countered that she had established her residence in the barangay since December 2008, when she had purchased two parcels of land there and that she had been staying in the house of a certain Mrs. Yap.
She contended that the error in her place of birth was committed by her secretary and that an error in the declaration of the place of birth in a candidacy certificate is not a material misrepresentation that would lead to disqualification because it is not one of the qualifications provided by law. She presented documentary evidence, including affidavits of witnesses, to sustain her claims.
The petition against her remained pending as of the day of the elections. In the meantime, Svetlana garnered the highest number of votes and was proclaimed the duly elected municipal mayor.
On June 4, 2010, the poll body’s Second Division rendered a resolution disqualifying Svetlana from running for the position of mayor. Her motion for reconsideration on August 19, 2010 was denied and the commission affirmed the division’s resolution.
On September 7, 2010, the court issued a stay order, which required the parties to observe the status quo prevailing before the issuance of
the assailed Comelec resolution.
In its new decision, the court held that “[p]etitioner’s uncontroverted domicile of origin is Dapitan City. The question is whether she was able to establish, through clear and positive proof, that she had acquired a domicile of choice in Baliangao, Misamis Occidental, prior to the May 2010 elections.
“When it comes to the qualifications for running for public office, residence is synonymous with domicile . . . which imports not only intention to reside in a fixed place, but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention,” the court said.
“There are three requisites for a person to acquire a new domicile by choice. First, residence or bodily presence in the new locality. Second, an intention to remain there. Third, an intention to abandon the old domicile.
“These circumstances must be established by clear and positive proof . . . [and] even if these requisites are established by clear and positive proof, the date of acquisition of the domicile of choice, or the critical date, must also be established to be within at least one year prior to the elections using the same standard of evidence.”
The court said that where were inconsistencies in the affidavits of the (witnesses presented by petitioner Svetlana), among others.
“These discrepancies bolster the statement of Barangay Tugas officials that petitioner was not and never had been a resident of their barangay,” the court said.
“At most, the witnesses only show that petitioner was building and developing a beach resort and a house in Barangay Tugas, and that she only stayed in Barangay Punta Miray whenever she wanted to oversee the construction of the resort and the house.” (Jomar Canlas)
Link: http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/regions/42470-court-throws-out-jalosjos-daughter-from-top-town-post
20