TAGBILARAN CITY. - A nephew of an elected municipal councilor tried to have her aunt disqualified and got away with it on a strength of a resolution from the Commission on Elections. In a 10-page resolution, the Commission on Elections, First Division, dismissed for lack of merit a petition to disqualify Estrella Ancog-Anub, a candidate for Sangguniang Bayan member in the May 13, 2013 elections in the town of Bilar. Three Comelec commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle, Christian Robert S. Lim and Al A. Parreno, unanimously agreed, with none having a dissenting opinion, that the petition filed by a certain Henry Ancog Uy, even if brushing technicalities aside, has no supporting evidence whatsoever to support his allegations that the respondent (his aunt) is a permanent resident and citizen of the United States. The respondent who was elected number four councilor in Bilar last May 13 elections was represented in the disqualification case by lawyer Lord Marapao IV.

The election commissioners noted that petitioner’s allegations were based on his claim of “personal knowledge” as respondent’s nephew, with nary a document to support his allegation; while on the other hand respondent presented photocopies of her Certificate of Live Birth, Certificate of Baptism, Marriage Certificate and Philippine Passport to rebut petitioner’s allegation. Petitioner Uy alleged that he has personal knowledge that his aunt Estrella Ancog-Anub is a permanent resident of 1934 Brahms Court, San Jose, CA 951122 Est since 1992-2005 and has become a US citizen. That she returned in the Philippines sometime in 2005 but concealed her status when she ran for elections, being a US citizen, a permanent citizen thereat and now a dual citizen when she filed again her candidacy for the May 13, 2013 elections. Uy cited Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides some grounds for disqualification of any candidate for public office, which among others states: “any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided in the election laws.”

In the Certificate of Candidacy of Anub, it also allegedly, has no attachment of any waiver of her foreign citizenship hence she is disqualified to run for the election. Also cited by petitioner were the entries of Anub’s COC regarding period of residency, wherein she’s only having 8 years and 8 months being a resident of the Philippines, while she’s now 73 years old, hence it strengthened the allegations that she is a permanent resident of a foreign country. Respondent Anub in her Verified Answer pointed out petitioner’s bare and unsubstantiated allegations; saying the petition has failed to prove that respondent has lost her Philippine citizenship. Cited also was the case of Aznar vs. Comelec and Emilio Mario Renner Osmena (G.R. No. 83829 May 25, 1990), wherein it was held that; “By virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father, the presumption that private respondent is a Filipino remains. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that private respondent had lost his Philippine citizenship. As earlier stated, however, the petitioner failed to positively establish this fact.” Respondent Anub is a holder of a Philippine Passport and has participated and already won in the May 10, 2010 elections.

Another decision, applicable to the case, in Sinaca vs. Mula (G.R. No. 135691, Sep. 27, 1999) said: ‘where a candidate has received popular mandate overwhelmingly and clearly expressed, all possible doubts should be resolved in favor of the candidate’s eligibility for to rule otherwise is to defeat the will of the people. Above and beyond all, the determination of the true will of the electorate should be paramount. It is their voice, not ours of anyone else that must prevail. This, in essence, is the democracy we continue to hold sacred.” Based on the arguments presented by respondent and aggravated by some alleged procedural lapses of petitioner wherein he failed to appear or his authorized counsel in the initial Comelec conference that could have rendered the petition for dismissal, the Comelec First Division ruling thus said: “The petition must fail.”