Few days from now, we will be having a new mayor replacing the current who has been in office for 21 years. The candidates are diverse, each sector is represented. The leading candidate is the former Chief of Staff of Pres. Obama which started the campaign with a controversy regarding his residency. One requirement to run for mayor is that one must reside in the city within a year prior to filing of candidacy. Rahm Emmanuel worked in Washington as Chief of Staff for two years and his house was leased to someone. His opponents brought the case to the lower court citing that Rahm can't run for mayor because of the residency issue and it was granted 2-1 decision. Rahm brought the case to State Supreme Court and unanimously granted his right to run for mayor citing that Rahm has the 'intent' to live in the city because his personal belongings are still in his house that being leased for a certain period of time. Furthermore, the Supreme Court says that only the people/voters who should decide if Rahm is not qualified to be a mayor which will based on the result of the election. I remember an instance like this in m country where a famous actor named Richard Gomez ran for Congress and was questioned about his residency because he's running on the hometown of his wife. In short, he lost his case because residency is defined as the physical presence. So, Richard was disqualified but he refiled and make his wife replaced him. In the Philippines, length of residency matters because as what the locals say, a candidate can't represent the needs of their constituents if he/she is not residing with them. For me, regardless of he's famous or not, Richard should be allowed to run as what the Supreme Court here said, 'it should be the people/voters who should decide. Well, to each is own.