The Supreme Court has declared Susan Areno Yap-Sulit the duly elected and proclaimed mayor of Tarlac City, making permanent its earlier order restoring her to office following her disqualification by the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

In a full court decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr. and made public on 31 July, the Court made permanent the status quo ante order (SQAO) it issued in November 2025, allowing Yap-Sulit to reassume the mayoralty.

Yap-Sulit won the 12 May 2025 elections and was proclaimed mayor by the Comelec.

However, the Comelec en banc reversed on 22 October 2025 a ruling by its Second Division that had dismissed the disqualification case against her.

Yap-Sulit elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Comelec erred in disqualifying her and seeking the issuance of an SQAO to preserve the status quo pending the resolution of her petition. The Court granted her request, allowing her to return to office.

The disqualification complaint was filed by Amado S. De Leon and Jay-Ar Capulong Navarro, who alleged that Yap-Sulit failed to meet the one-year residency requirement for candidates seeking the Tarlac City mayoralty.

In granting her petition, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence did not establish her alleged ineligibility and stressed the importance of respecting the electorate's choice.

"The Court 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," the decision stated.

The Court also noted that Yap-Sulit had previously served as governor of Tarlac and held public 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 show that she is neither a stranger nor a newcomer who is unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community," the Court said.

It added that her election did not defeat the purpose of the residency requirement.

The Court further emphasized that while the will of the electorate is not absolute, it should prevail unless a winning candidate's ineligibility is "patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles."

"To do the opposite, that is, 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," the decision read.