The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that Susan Areno Yap-Sulit is the duly-elected and proclaimed mayor of Tarlac City in the 2025 elections.

In a full court decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr. and made public on Friday, July 31, the SC declared permanent its status quo ante order (SQAO) issued in November 2025 that restored Yap-Sulit as mayor.

Yap-Sulit won as mayor during the May 12, 2025 elections and was proclaimed by the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

Last Oct. 22, however, the Comelec as a full commission reversed its second division ruling that dismissed the disqualification case against Yap-Sulit.

She elevated the Comelec’s decision before the SC and pleaded for the issuance of a SQAO, the order that preserves the status quo prevailing before the controversy. Her plea was granted last November and thus, she re-assumed as mayor.

The disqualification case was filed by Amado S. De Leon and Jay-Ar Capulong Navarro who alleged that Yap-Sulit was not a resident of Tarlac City for at least one year prior to the elections.

In granting Yap-Sulit’s petition, the SC said the High Cour respects and upholds the will of the electorate, “not despite a candidate's ineligibility, but because, from the evidence presented, there is no such ineligibility.”

It said that Yap-Sulit served as governor of Tarlac and held office in Tarlac City for three consecutive terms.

“She is hardly a stranger to the locality. Even if the period of her residency in Tarlac City is disputed here, her political exposure to and experience in the city shows that she is neither a stranger nor a newcomer who is ‘unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community,’” the SC said.

It pointed out: “At the very least, her election as the city mayor does not defeat the very purpose for the residency requirement.”

It also said: “Relatedly, a final undisputed fact: petitioner was proclaimed mayor of Tarlac City. Case law recognizes that giving effect to the will of the electorate ensures the survival of our democracy, and that it is only when a winning candidate's ineligibility is so ‘patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles’ that the will of the electorate must give way and the candidate must be prevented from taking office.”

“To do the opposite, i.e., to uphold the will of the electorate despite the ineligibility, ‘would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and promote,’" it stressed.