Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra Vs COMELEC
Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra Vs COMELEC
Mitra
versus
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
FACTS:
When his COC for the position of Governor of Palawan was declared cancelled,
Mitra was the incumbent Representative of the Second District of Palawan. This
district then included, among other territories, the Municipality of Aborlan and
Puerto Princesa City. He was elected Representative as a domiciliary of Puerto
Princesa City, and represented the legislative district for three (3) terms
immediately before the elections of 2010.
On March 26, 2007 (or before the end of Mitra’s second term as
Representative), Puerto Princesa City was reclassified as a "highly urbanized
city" and thus ceased to be a component city of the Province of Palawan. The
direct legal consequence of this new status was the ineligibility of Puerto
Princesa City residents from voting for candidates for elective provincial
officials.
On March 20, 2009, with the intention of running for the position of Governor,
Mitra applied for the transfer of his Voter’s Registration Record from Precinct
No. 03720 of Brgy. Sta. Monica, Puerto Princesa City, to Sitio Maligaya,Brgy.
Isaub, Municipality of Aborlan, Province of Palawan. He subsequently filed his
COC for the position of Governor of Palawan as a resident of Aborlan. Soon
thereafter, respondents Antonio V. Gonzales and Orlando R. Balbon, Jr. (the
respondents) filed a petition to deny due course or to cancel Mitra’s COC.
ISSUE:
HELD:
YES. Mitra is qualified to rum for the position as Governor of Palawan. The
Supreme Court ruled that Mitra did not misrepresent himself and that he met the
residency requirement as mandated by the Constitution.
The election of Abraham Kahlil Mitra as governor of Palawan in the May 10,
2010 elections was upheld in a vote of 11-3. The respondents were not able to
present a convincing case sufficient to overcome Mitra’s evidence of effective
transfer to and residence in Aborlan and the validity of his representation on this
point in his COC. Likewise, the "COMELEC could not present any legally
acceptable basis to conclude that Mitra’s statement in his COC regarding his
residence was a misrepresentation."