PURGE REBUFFED: Court rejects bid to delist Baronda, siblings from Jaro voter roll

ILOILO CITY – A city court has rejected a petition to remove Iloilo City Rep. Julienne Baronda and two of her siblings from the list of voters of Barangay Javellana, Jaro, ruling that the petitioner offered no proof that they had abandoned their home barangay for neighboring Barangay San Jose.

Judge Mia Laine C. Catalan-Dabao of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Branch 1 retained 17 of the 22 voters challenged in Election Case No. 09-26 and ordered the exclusion of five others who could not be located and did not appear in court.

The decision, dated Sept. 19, 2026, comes less than seven weeks before the Nov. 2, 2026 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE), which has been postponed recently.

Petitioner Shemar Hautea Arañador, a registered voter of Precinct No. 0413A in Barangay Javellana, filed the petition before the Office of the Clerk of Court of the MTCC on July 20, 2026, the deadline set by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for exclusion petitions.

The petition named 22 registered voters of the precinct as respondents, among them Julie Anne Michelle Linaogo Baronda, Julienne Linaogo Baronda, and Urminico Linaogo Baronda III, and impleaded the Election Registration Board (ERB) of Iloilo City.

The names of the 19 other respondents are redacted in the copy of the decision obtained by Daily Guardian.

The petition alleged that the respondents were “either fictitious or are still residing somewhere else or in the place where they were previously registered as voters or domiciled and not residents (of) Brgy. Javellana, Jaro, Iloilo City” on account of their physical absence and because nobody in the barangay could confirm their identity.

It further claimed that “the only reason of their registration as voters in said Barangay is to circumvent our election laws and give undue advantage to a particular candidate and party,” without naming the candidate or the party.

The petitioner also argued that the respondents failed to meet the six-month residence requirement under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8189, the Voter’s Registration Act of 1996.

Paragraph 10 of the petition stated that “the non-appearance of any respondent on the day set for hearing of this Petition will verily confirm the fact that he or she is fictitious.”

Petitioner’s witness backfired

The case against the Baronda siblings was undercut by documents signed by the petitioner’s own witness, former Punong Barangay Emmanuel Locsin Ogacion.

Ogacion and Sean Palmero Jabano testified for the petitioner that, as lifelong residents of Barangay Javellana, they knew every person in the barangay and could verify that the 22 respondents were either unknown to them or were not actual residents.

Both admitted, however, that they did not conduct a house-to-house inspection, and neither identified which of the respondents were actually unknown to them.

The court observed that “it appears that they filed this case to cause the ‘unknown’ respondents to make an appearance and prove their residency.”

The siblings then presented a Barangay Clearance dated Feb. 10, 2022, issued by Ogacion himself, certifying that Urminico Linaogo Baronda III is a resident of Barangay Javellana.

Julie Anne Michelle Baronda-Retodo submitted a Barangay Clearance dated Feb. 5, 2013, also issued by Ogacion, stating that she is a resident of the barangay.

A certification from Oscar T. Lim Jr., city director of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), showed that she served as a barangay kagawad of Javellana from June 1, 1997 to Aug. 14, 2002.

Rep. Baronda likewise produced a Barangay Certificate issued by Ogacion stating that she is a resident of Javellana, and a DILG certification that she served as the barangay’s Sangguniang Kabataan chairperson from July 1, 1996 to Aug. 14, 2002.

The court said that “based on the plethora of documents filed by the Baronda siblings, it appears that they have been residents and registered voters of Brgy. Javellana for several decades.”

The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sabili vs. COMELEC that “the law does not require a person to be in his home twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, to fulfill the residency requirement.”

Land title falls short

To show that the siblings lived in Barangay San Jose rather than Javellana, the petitioner submitted Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-73280 covering Lot No. 945-C-4-AA, registered under the names of spouses Dr. Urminico Baronda and Dr. Julie L. Baronda.

He also submitted a certification from the Office of the City Assessor stating that Lot No. 945-C is situated in Barangay San Jose, along with tax maps of Barangays San Jose, Javellana, and San Pedro.

During cross-examination on Sept. 7, 2026, Urminico Baronda III was shown the San Jose tax map and asked to locate his house, to which he replied, “Do you have a map?”

Asked to point to his property from the corner of E. Lopez and Javellana streets, he said, “Sorry I do not know how to read this. I’m looking for the road going inside.”

He later stated that he lives at 162-C Javellana Street and, when pressed on whether the property was in the area shown, answered, “It’s better we need to be precise because I don’t know.”

When counsel noted that the exhibit was a tax map, the witness replied, “So that’s why it’s different from the actual,” before conceding the property was “somewhere here, yeah.”

The petitioner’s counsel then manifested that the witness had identified the lot where he resides as located in Barangay San Jose.

The court ruled that none of the tax maps bore the signatures of the persons who prepared them.

Citing Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan, the court held that the city assessor’s certification “is not conclusive” because assessors are tasked with assessing taxes, not surveying land, and said the petitioner “should have submitted documents coming from the Land Management Bureau (LMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to establish the correct boundaries.”

The court also found that the Inspection Masterlist Reports for Javellana, San Jose, and San Pedro, which identified boarding houses and dormitories and their owners, did not establish which of the challenged voters lived in them.

Citing Bascon vs. Negre, the court reiterated that “property ownership is not among the qualifications for one to qualify as a voter in a city or municipality.”

Court rebukes ‘sweeping statements’

The court faulted the petitioner for failing to specify which of the 22 respondents were supposedly fictitious, which were residing elsewhere, and which were non-residents.

“The Court notes at the outset that the petitioner made sweeping statements and mere generalized allegations that it leaves the Court to venture into speculation as to which of the twenty-two (22) respondents are supposedly fictitious, which of them are still residing elsewhere, and which of them are actually non-residents, which the Court finds untenable,” the decision read.

The court said the quantum of proof in election cases is substantial evidence, and that “the burden is on the petitioner to establish through substantial evidence that each of the twenty-two (22) respondents is not qualified to vote in Precinct No. 0413A.”

It added that “the petitioner seeks to shift the burden of proof to the respondents to prove that they complied with the residency requirements to be a qualified voter of the said barangay, which the Court finds erroneous.”

Citing Mercado vs. Dysangco, the court noted that trial judges are advised to exercise caution in granting petitions for inclusion of voters, and said the same caution applies to petitions for exclusion.

Five voters deemed ‘fictitious’

Only five of the 22 challenged voters personally appeared at the Sept. 4, 2026 hearing.

Rep. Baronda was absent but was represented by her lawyer, who submitted a Special Power of Attorney authorizing him to act on her behalf.

Under Section 32(f) of RA 8189, a challenged voter’s non-appearance on the day set for hearing is prima facie evidence that the voter is fictitious.

A Joint Report filed by the court sheriff and process server showed that 17 of the 22 respondents were served copies of the petition and notice of hearing, either personally or through substituted service, while five could not be served because their whereabouts could not be found.

A certification from Punong Barangay Julie L. Baronda confirmed that the sheriff attempted to serve the notice on the five but could not locate them.

The court ruled that the five respondents who neither appeared nor could be located “are deemed prima facie fictitious and should be excluded from the list of voters of Precinct No. 0413A of Brgy. Javellana, Jaro, Iloilo City.”

The names of the five excluded voters are redacted in the copy of the decision.

Barangay Certifications issued by Punong Barangay Baronda, attached to the Joint Report, confirmed that 14 of the respondents are residents of Javellana.

Citing Bascon vs. Negre and Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the court held that a certification of actual residency issued by a punong barangay is entitled to probative value as an entry in official records.

“Thus, with regard to the fourteen (14) respondents mentioned above, and considering the Certifications issued by Hon. Julie L. Baronda, the Court resolves in their favor,” the decision read.

Atty. Pinky Jevini Tentativa, representing the ERB, submitted in open court the Voter’s Certification of all 22 respondents.

Case dismissed, revived on appeal

The petition was raffled to Branch 1 on July 27, 2026.

In an Order dated July 29, 2026, the court dismissed the petition for failure to show proof of service of the petition and notice of hearing to the challenged voters.

The petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and Memorandum, both dated Aug. 4, 2026, on Aug. 5, 2026, paying an appeal fee of PHP 1,510.00 under Official Receipt No. JEPS-2026-000198329.

The court gave due course to the appeal on Aug. 6, and the records were forwarded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on Aug. 7, where the case was docketed as Election Case No. 2026-20.

Presiding Judge Meliza Joan P. Berano-Robite of RTC Branch 29 issued a decision dated Aug. 18, 2026, setting aside the dismissal and directing a summary hearing upon the petitioner’s full compliance with jurisdictional requirements.

The records were remanded to the MTCC on Aug. 24, 2026.

Citing the lack of an available courtroom, the court set the hearing for Sept. 4, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. at MTCC Branch 5 in the Annex Building of the Chief Justice Ramon Q. Avanceña Hall of Justice on Bonifacio Drive.

The petitioner was directed to serve the notice and petition on the ERB and the challenged voters within three days through personal service, substituted service, registered mail, or, if impracticable, posting at the Iloilo City Hall bulletin board and two other conspicuous places.

Barangay Kagawad Jessie J. Eslabon submitted an Affidavit of Publication, together with letter requests for posting addressed to the manager of Jaro Market and to Mayor Raisa S. Treñas-Chu.

At the Sept. 4 hearing, Atty. Doni June Almio and Atty. Maricel Cueva appeared for the respondents, and the petitioner’s three witnesses testified before the court admitted Exhibits “A” to “M.”

The respondents presented five witnesses on Sept. 7, 2026 at MTCC Branch 9, including Urminico Baronda III and Julie Anne Michelle Baronda-Retodo, and the court admitted Exhibit “1” to Exhibit “5” series.

The names of three of the five respondent witnesses are redacted in the copy of the decision.

Both parties submitted position papers on Sept. 9, 2026, within the 48-hour period granted upon their motion.

Under the law cited by the court, a municipal judge is mandated to decide an exclusion petition within 10 days from its filing.

Legal framework

The court anchored its ruling on Article V, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, Section 117 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code, Section 9 of RA 8189, and Section 13 of COMELEC Resolution No. 11177 promulgated on Oct. 15, 2025, which set the qualifications for the Nov. 2, 2026 BSKE.

For barangay elections, a voter must be at least 18 years old on election day, a resident of the Philippines for at least one year, and a resident of the place where he or she proposes to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election.

Citing Limbona vs. COMELEC and Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC, the court said residence for election purposes is synonymous with domicile, which once established “will not be deemed lost until a new one is established.”

The court also cited Macalintal vs. COMELEC and Kabataan Party-List vs. COMELEC on the nature of the right to vote.

“As a final note, the right of suffrage is a basic fundamental, primordial, and constitutional right,” the decision stated.

The court ordered the ERB to remove the registration records of the five excluded voters from the book of voters, enter the decision of exclusion, and place the records in the inactive file pursuant to Section 66(2) of COMELEC Resolution No. 11177 and Section 35(2) of RA 8189.

It directed that copies of the decision be furnished to the ERB, the counsels of both parties, and the excluded voters at their last known addresses, and that the decision be posted at the Iloilo City Hall and in two other conspicuous places in the city.

Exclusion petitions under RA 8189 may be filed by any registered voter, the ERB, or a candidate’s representative, and decisions of the MTCC are appealable to the RTC within five days.