Ormoc City , Philippines – An eight-page petition for disqualification against congressional candidate Richard Gomez was filed at the Commission on Election in Manila on Dec. 5 by a former barangay chairman of this city.
The petitioner, Buenaventura Juntilla, of Barangay Libertad, Ormoc City, in his petition said that Gomez who was married to an Ormocana, Lucy Torres, lacks the one year residence qualification for the position to run as representative of the fourth district of Leyte because he is not a bona fide resident of the city, which is part of the said district, but of Quezon City. Juntilla said that per the certificate of candidacy of Gomez, he stated that he is a resident of 910 Carlota Hills, Ormoc City and his birthplace was in Manila and was born on April 7, 1966.
Juntilla said that the declaration of Gomez in his COC is a blatant misrepresentation of mandatory matters required in Sec. 74 of the Omnibus Election Code particularly of his residence qualification. Truth to tell Juntilla pointed out, Gomez is a bona fide resident of Colgate St., East Greenhills, San Juan City and has not resided in any fixed place in Ormoc City.
Juntilla said that the one year residence requirement is aimed to prevent a stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community, and excluding outsiders from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain. He added that establishing residence in a community merely to meet election law requirement defeats the purpose of representation, which is, to elect through the assent of voters, those most cognizant and sensitive to the needs of the community.
Juntilla also said this purpose is best met by individuals who have either had the actual residence in the area for a period, or who have been domiciled in the same area either by origin or by choice. (Tarayo vs. Comelec, 337 SCRA 574 2000).
Juntilla’s complaints stated that the word “residence” for the purpose of meeting the qualification for an elective position, means “domicile” or the individual’s permanent home, a place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that the disclose intent includes the twin elements of the fact of the residing or physical presence in a fixed place, or the intention of returning there permanently. (Romualdez-Marcos vs. Comelec, 248, SCRA).
Residence requirement
He said that in showing compliance with the residence requirement, both intent and actual presence in the place where the candidate intends to run must satisfy the length of time presented by the Constitution and the law. (Domingo vs Comelec, 310 SCRA 546, 1999).
He cited the Perez vs Comelec 317, SCRA 546 1999, the Supreme Court held: “The place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, intends to return i.e., his domicile is the purpose of election law. The fact that a person is a registered voter in one district is not proof that he is not domiciled in another district. It is the fact of residence, not a statement in the certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the constitution residence.”
As illustrated, Juntilla said that Gomez never had the residence qualifications prescribed by existing laws and his stated false residence at any given time at 910 Carlota Hills, Can-adieng, Ormoc City. Juntilla said Gomez made false material misrepresentations when he declared in his COC that he is a resident of 910 Carlota Hills, Can-adieng, Ormoc City when in fact he is not. He said that not being a resident if the address indicated under oath in his COC or anywhere within the fourth district of Leyte, Gomez therefore made utterly false material misinterpretations as contemplated in Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code when he declared in his COC that he is a resident of the legislative district where he seeks to be elected.