4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The People of Kauswagan have spoken and any doubt should be resolved in favor of their verdict. Separately from the issue of Arnado’s isolated act of using his US passport, we cannot ignore the fact in a community as small as Kauswagan where the two mayoralty candidates garnered a total of 11,309 votes, Balua’s claim of Arnado’s foreign citizenship and even the latter’s residency status could not be avoided but be live election issues. The people of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, therefore, made their own ruling when they elected Arnado as their mayor despite the “foreigner” label sought to be pinned on him. At this point, even this Court should heed this verdict by resolving all doubts regarding Arnado’s eligibility in his favor. This approach, incidentally, is not a novel one[38] as in Sinaca v. Mula,[39] the Court has already ruled: [When] 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 or of anyone else, that must prevail. This, in essence, is the democracy we continue to hold sacred. No Basis to Rule that the Comelec Committed Grave Abuse of Discretion. As my last point, the Comelec en banc considered and accepted as its factual finding that Arnado’s explanation on the use of his US passport was sufficient justification to conclude that he did not abandon his Oath of Renunciation. This finding is undeniably based on evidence on record as the above citations show. In a Rule 64 petition, whether this conclusion is correct or incorrect is not material for as long as it is made on the basis of evidence on record, and was made within the contemplation of the applicable law.[40] In other words, the Comelec en banc properly exercised its discretion in acting on the matter; thus, even if it had erred in its conclusions, any error in reading the evidence and in applying the law was not sufficiently grave to affect the exercise of its jurisdiction.[41] From these perspectives, this Court has no recourse but to dismiss the present petition for failure to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec. In these lights, I vote for the dismissal of the petition. [1] An Act Making The Citizenship Of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending For the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63, As Amended And For Other Purposes. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55820 45/49