Supreme Court allows Asistio mayoralty bid

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday allowed former Caloocan City congressman Luis “Baby” Asistio to run for mayor of the city, overturning a lower court ruling that barred him from running because he was not a resident of the city.

The High Court ruled that Asistio is a registered voter in the city and reversed decisions of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and Regional Trial Court (RTC) last February that excluded him from the list of voters upon petition of his rival, re-electionist Mayor Enrico Echiverri.

“Petitioner Luis Asistio remains a registered voter of Precinct No. 1811A, Barangay 15, Caloocan City,” the SC ruled in a 14-page decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura.

The case stemmed from a petition filed by Echiverri seeking Asistio’s exclusion from the permanent list of voters of Caloocan City before the MeTC, alleging that the latter is not a resident of Caloocan City, particularly not of 123 Interior P. Zamora street in Barangay 15, purportedly the address Asistio stated in his certificate of candidacy (COC).

The MeTC ruled in favor of Echiverri, and its ruling was upheld by Caloocan RTC presiding Judge Thelma Canlas-Pe last February because of Asistio’s failure to pay docket fees on time.

But the SC held that “Asistio has always been a resident of Caloocan City since his birth or for more than 72 years,” adding that the latter’s family is known to be among the prominent political families in Caloocan City.

The SC noted that Asistio was elected as District 2 congressman in the 1992, 1995, 1998, and 2004 elections.

“Taking these circumstances into consideration, Asistio has qualified, and continues to qualify, as a voter of Caloocan City. There is no showing that he has established domicile elsewhere, or that he had consciously and voluntarily abandoned his residence in Caloocan City,” the SC said.

The SC said that it is not enough basis to exclude him as a voter if he gave a false address or if he could not be physically found at the address he gave, though “these purported misrepresentations… might serve as basis for an election offense under the Omnibus Election Code, or an action to deny due course to the COC.”

The SC held that what is involved in this case is the “most precious political right to vote,” stressing that even if Asistio had not paid the appellate docket fees at the RTC on time, it should not thwart the resolution of the case on substantial grounds.