Batch 9 case Digest.docx

7/25/2019 Batch 9 case Digest.docx

1/22

Citation: G.R. No. 161434 March 3, 2004Title : TECSON and FE!" #. $ES!$ER!O, %R. &'.COMEEC, F(%

Fact':

Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner initiated a petition before the COMELEC to

disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to cancel his certicate of candidacyupon the thesis that FPJ !ade a !aterial !isrepresentation in his certicateof candidacy by clai!in" to be a natural#born Filipino citi$en %hen in truth,accordin" to Fornier, his parents %ere forei"ners& his !other, 'essie (elleyPoe, %as an )!erican, and his father, )llan Poe, %as a *panish national,bein" the son of Loren$o Pou, a *panish sub+ect. rantin", petitionerasse-erated, that )llan F. Poe %as a Filipino citi$en, he could not ha-etrans!itted his Filipino citi$enship to FPJ, the latter bein" an ille"iti!ate childof an alien !other. Petitioner based the alle"ation of the ille"iti!ate birth ofrespondent on t%o assertions # rst, )llan F. Poe contracted a prior !arria"eto a certain Paulita o!e$ before his !arria"e to 'essie (elley and, second,

e-en if no such prior !arria"e had eisted, )llan F. Poe, !arried 'essie (ellyonly a year after the birth of respondent.

Petitioners also questioned the jurisdiction of the COMELEC intaking cognizance of and deciding the citizenship issue aectingFernando Poe Jr. he! asserted that under "ection #$%&' (rticle )** ofthe +,-% Constituition' onl! the "upree Court had original ande/clusi0e jurisdiction to resol0e the 1asic issue of the case.Petitioners /ecson, et al., in . 0. 1o. 232454, and Vele$, in . 0. 1o. 232354,

in-o6e the pro-isions of )rticle V77, *ection 4, para"raph 8, of the 29:8

Constitution in assailin" the +urisdiction of the COMELEC %hen it too6

co"ni$ance of *P) 1o. ;4#;;5 and in ur"in" the *upre!e Court to insteadta6e on the petitions they directly instituted before it. /he Constitutional

pro-ision cited reads and the 2985 Constitution to desi"nate any tribunal to be the sole

+ud"e of presidential and -ice#presidential contests, has constrained this

Court to declare, in Lope$ -s. 0oas,4 as =not ?bein"@ +usticiable=

contro-ersies or disputes in-ol-in" contests on the elections, returns and

qualications of the President or Vice#President. /he constitutional lapse

pro!pted Con"ress, on A2 June 29>8, to enact 0epublic )ct 1o. 2895, =)n


2/22

)ct Constitutin" an 7ndependent Presidential Electoral /ribunal to /ry, Bear

and ecide Protests Contestin" the Election of the President#Elect and the

Vice#President#Elect of the Philippines and Pro-idin" for the Manner of

Bearin" the *a!e.= 0epublic )ct 2895 desi"nated the Chief Justice and the

)ssociate Justices of the *upre!e Court to be the !e!bers of the tribunal.

)lthou"h the subsequent adoption of the parlia!entary for! of "o-ern!ent

under the 2985 Constitution !i"ht ha-e i!plicitly aDected 0epublic )ct 1o.

2895, the statutory set#up, nonetheless, %ould no% be dee!ed re-i-ed

under the present *ection 4, para"raph 8, of the 29:8 Constitution.

Ordinary usa"e %ould characteri$e a =contest= in reference to a post#election

scenario. Election contests consist of either an election protest or a quo

%arranto %hich, althou"h t%o distinct re!edies, %ould ha-e one ob+ecti-e in

-ie%, i.e., to dislod"e the %innin" candidate fro! oce. ) perusal of the

phraseolo"y in 0ule 2A, 0ule 25, and 0ule 24 of the =0ules of the PresidentialElectoral /ribunal,= pro!ul"ated by the *upre!e Court en banc on 2: )pril

299A, %ould support this pre!ise #

=0ule 2A. Jurisdiction. # /he /ribunal shall be the sole +ud"e of all

contests relatin" to the election, returns, and qualications of the

President or Vice#President of the Philippines.

=0ule 25. How Initiated.# )n election contest is initiated by the lin" of

an election protest or a petition for quo %arranto a"ainst the President

or Vice#President. )n election protest shall not include a petition forquo %arranto. ) petition for quo %arranto shall not include an election

protest.

=0ule 24. Election Protest.# Only the re"istered candidate for President

or for Vice#President of the Philippines %ho recei-ed the second or third

hi"hest nu!ber of -otes !ay contest the election of the President or

the Vice#President, as the case !ay be, by lin" a -eried petition %ith

the Cler6 of the Presidential Electoral /ribunal %ithin thirty ?5;@ days

after the procla!ation of the %inner.=

/he rules cate"orically spea6 of the +urisdiction of the tribunal o-er contests

relatin" to the election, returns and qualications of the =President= or =Vice#

President=, of the Philippines, and not of =candidates= for President or Vice#

President. ) quo %arranto proceedin" is "enerally dened as bein" an action

a"ainst a person %ho usurps, intrudes into, or unla%fully holds or eercises a

public oce.> 7n such contet, the election contest can only conte!plate a


3/22

post#election scenario. 7n 0ule 24, only a re"istered candidate %ho %ould

ha-e recei-ed either the second or third hi"hest nu!ber of -otes could le

an election protest. /his rule a"ain presupposes a post#election scenario.

7t is fair to conclude that the +urisdiction of the *upre!e Court, dened by

*ection 4, para"raph 8, of the 29:8 Constitution, %ould not include cases

directly brou"ht before it, questionin" the qualications of a candidate for

the presidency or -ice#presidency before the elections are held.

)ccordin"ly, . 0. 1o. 232454, entitled =Maria Jeanette C. /ecson, et al., -s.

Co!!ission on Elections et al.,= and . 0. 1o. 232354, entitled =oilo

)ntonio Vele$ -s. 0onald )llan (elley Poe a.6.a. Fernando Poe, Jr.= %ould ha-e

to be dis!issed for %ant of +urisdiction.

Issue:

2@ Ghether or not FPJ is a natural born Filipino citi$enH

A@ Ghether or not the *upre!e Court ha-e +urisdiction o-er the qualications

of presidential candidatesH

Ruling:

2. 7t is necessary to ta6e on the !atter of %hether or not respondent FPJ

is a natural#born citi$en, %hich, in turn, depended on %hether or not

the father of respondent, )llan F. Poe, %ould ha-e hi!self been a

Filipino citi$en and, in the ar!ati-e, %hether or not the alle"edille"iti!acy of respondent pre-ents hi! fro! ta6in" after the Filipino

citi$enship of his putati-e father. )ny conclusion on the Filipino

citi$enship of Loren$o Pou could only be dra%n fro! the presu!ption

that ha-in" died in 29>4 at :4 years old, Loren$o %ould ha-e been

born so!eti!e in the year 2:8;, %hen the Philippines %as under

*panish rule, and that *an Carlos, Pan"asinan, his place of residence

upon his death in 29>4, in the absence of any other e-idence, could

ha-e %ell been his place of residence before death, such that Loren$o

Pou %ould ha-e beneted fro! the =en !asse Filipini$ation= that the

Philippine 'ill had eDected in 29;A. /hat citi$enship ?of Loren$o Pou@, ifacquired, %ould thereby etend to his son, )llan F. Poe, father of

respondent FPJ. /he 295> Constitution, durin" %hich re"i!e

respondent FPJ has seen rst li"ht, confers citi$enship to all persons

%hose fathers are Filipino citi$ens re"ardless of %hether such children

are le"iti!ate or ille"iti!ate. 'ut %hile the totality of the e-idence !ay

not establish conclusi-ely that respondent FPJ is a natural#born citi$en


4/22

of the Philippines, the e-idence on hand still %ould preponderate in his

fa-or enou"h to hold that he cannot be held "uilty of ha-in" !ade a

!aterial !isrepresentation in his certicate of candidacy in -iolation of

*ection 8:, in relation to *ection 84, of the O!nibus Election Code.

A. 1o. )n ea!ination of the phraseolo"y in 0ule 2A, 25, and 0ule 24 ofthe =0ules of the Presidential Electoral /ribunal,= pro!ul"ated by the

*upre!e Court on )pril 299A cate"orically spea6 of the +urisdiction of

the tribunal o-er contests relatin" to the election, returns and

qualications of the =President= or =Vice#President=, of the Philippines,

and not of =candidates= for President or Vice#President. ) quo %arranto

proceedin" is "enerally dened as bein" an action a"ainst a person

%ho usurps, intrudes into, or unla%fully holds or eercises a public

oce. 7n such contet, the election contest can only conte!plate a

post#election scenario. 7n 0ule 24, only a re"istered candidate %ho%ould ha-e recei-ed either the second or third hi"hest nu!ber of

-otes could le an election protest. /his rule a"ain presupposes a post#

election scenario. 7t is fair to conclude that the +urisdiction of the

*upre!e Court, dened by *ection 4, para"raph 8, of the 29:8

Constitution, %ould not include cases directly brou"ht before it,

questionin" the qualications of a candidate for the presidency or -ice#

presidency before the elections are held.

Title : Yao vs. Commissioner of ImmigrationCitation : G.R. No. L-21289 Oto!er "# 19$1

%ats:

On : February 2932, Lau Iuen Ieun" applied for a passport -isa

to enter the Philippines as a non#i!!i"rant. 7n the interro"ation

!ade in connection %ith her application for a te!porary -isitors -isa to

enter the Philippines, she stated that she %as a Chinese residin"

at (o%loon, Bon"6on", and that she desired to ta6e a pleasure trip to

the Philippines to -isit her "reat "randuncle Lau Chin" Pin" for a

period of one !onth. *he %as per!itted to co!e into the Philippines

on 25 March 2932, and %as per!itted to stay for a period of one

!onth %hich %ould epire on 25 )pril 2932. On the date of her arri-al, )sher

I, Chen" led a bond in the a!ount of P2,;;;.;; to underta6e, a!on"

others, that said Lau Iuen Ieun" %ould actually depart fro! the Philippines

on or before the epiration of her authori$ed period of stay in this

country or %ithin the period as in his discretion the Co!!issioner of


5/22

7!!i"ration or his authori$ed representati-e !i"ht properly allo%. )fter

repeated etensions, Lau Iuen Ieun" %as allo%ed to stay in the

Philippines up to 25 February 293A. On A> January 293A, she

contracted !arria"e %ith Moy Ia Li! Iao alias Edilberto )"uinaldo Li! an

alle"ed Filipino citi$en. 'ecause of the conte!plated action of the

Co!!issioner of 7!!i"ration to conscate her bond and order her

arrest and i!!ediate deportation, after the epiration of her authori$ed stay,

she brou"ht an action for in+unction %ith preli!inary in+unction. )t the

hearin" %hich too6 place one and a half years after her arri-al, it %as

ad!itted that Lau Iuen Ieun" could not %rite either En"lish or

/a"alo". Ecept for a fe% %ords, she could not spea6 either En"lish or

/a"alo". *he could not na!e any Filipino nei"hbour, %ith a Filipino

na!e ecept one, 0osa. *he did not 6no% the na!es of her brothers#in#la%,

or sisters#in#la%. /he Court of First 7nstance of Manila ?Ci-il Case 498;>@

denied the prayer for preli!inary in+unction. Moya Li! Iao and Lau IuenIeun" appealed.

Issue:

Ghether Lau Iuen Ieun" ipso facto beca!e a Filipino citi$en upon her

!arria"e to a Filipino citi$en.

Ruling:

Knder *ection 2> of Co!!on%ealth )ct 485, an alien %o!an !arryin" a

Filipino, nati-e born or naturali$ed, beco!es ipso facto a Filipina pro-ided

she is not disqualied to be a citi$en of the Philippines under *ection 4 of thesa!e la%. Li6e%ise, an alien %o!an !arried to an alien %ho is subsequently

naturali$ed here follo%s the Philippine citi$enship of her husband the

!o!ent he ta6es his oath as Filipino citi$en, pro-ided that she does not

suDer fro! any of the disqualications under said *ection 4. Ghether the

alien %o!an requires to under"o the naturali$ation proceedin"s, *ection 2>

is a parallel pro-ision to *ection 23. /hus, if the %ido% of an applicant for

naturali$ation as Filipino, %ho dies durin" the proceedin"s, is not required to

"o throu"h a naturali$ation proceedin"s, in order to be considered as a

Filipino citi$en hereof, it should follo% that the %ife of a li-in" Filipino cannot

be denied the sa!e pri-ile"e.

/his is plain co!!on sense and there is absolutely no e-idence that the

Le"islature intended to treat the! diDerently. )s the la%s of our country,

both substanti-e and procedural, stand today, there is no such procedure ?a

substitute for naturali$ation proceedin" to enable the alien %ife of a


6/22

Philippine citi$en to ha-e the !atter of her o%n citi$enship settled and

established so that she !ay not ha-e to be called upon to pro-e it e-eryti!e

she has to perfor! an act or enter into a transaction or business or eercise

a ri"ht reser-ed only to Filipinos@, but such is no proof that the citi$enship is

not -ested as of the date of !arria"e or the husbands acquisition of

citi$enship, as the case !ay be, for the truth is that the situation obtains

e-en as to nati-e#born Filipinos. E-eryti!e the citi$enship of a person is

!aterial or indispensible in a +udicial or ad!inistrati-e case. Ghate-er the

correspondin" court or ad!inistrati-e authority decides therein as to such

citi$enship is "enerally not considered as res ad+udicata, hence it has to be

threshed out a"ain and a"ain as the occasion !ay de!and. Lau Iuen Ieun",

%as declared to ha-e beco!e a Filipino citi$en fro! and by -irtue of her

!arria"e to Moy Ia Li! Iao al as Edilberto )"uinaldo Li!, a Filipino citi$en of

A> January 293A.

Title : IN R&: %LOR&NCIO '(LL(R&

Citation : (.'. No. )** +e,tem!er 12# 19$"

%ats:

On co!plaint of then )ctin" 7!!i"ration Co!!issioner, Martiniano P. Vi-o,

this Court ordered the in-esti"ation of the !atter of citi$enship of Florencio

Mallare, %ho %as ad!itted to the Philippine 'ar on March >, 293A, for the

purpose of deter!inin" %hether his na!e should be stric6en fro! the roll of

persons authori$ed to practice la% in the Philippines.

)fter an in-esti"ation conducted by this Courts Le"al Ocer 7n-esti"ator, a

decision %as rendered by this Court on )pril A9, 293:, holdin" that by

preponderance of e-idence, it appeared that respondent Mallares father,

Esteban Mallare, %as a Chinese up to his death& and his !other ad!ittedly

bein" a Chinese, respondent is li6e%ise a Chinese national. Consequently

respondent Florencio Mallare %as declared ecluded fro! the practice of la%&

his ad!ission to the bar %as re-o6ed, and he %as ordered to return to this

Court, the la%yers diplo!a pre-iously issued to hi!.

0espondent !o-ed for reconsideration of the decision, %hich %as denied by

the Court in its resolution of January 2;, 2939. On February 4, 2939,

respondent petitioned the Court for the reopenin" of the case and for ne%

trial on the "round, inter alia, of ne%ly disco-ered e-idence, the introduction

of %hich could alter the decision pre-iously pro!ul"ated. /he e-idence

proposed to be presented consisted of ?2@ an entry in the re"istry of baptis!


7/22

of the 7!!aculate Concepcion Church at Macalelon, ue$on, purportin" to

sho% that Estaben Mallare ?respondents father@ is the natural son of )na

Mallare, a Filipino& and ?A@ testi!onies of certain persons %ho had a 6no%n

Esteban Mallare and his !other durin" their lifeti!e

)ccordin"ly, the parties sub!itted their respecti-e additional e-idences

before the Courts in-esti"ator.

0espondents petition to set aside the decision of this Court of )pril A9, 293:,

as %ell as the resolution of January 2;, 2939, is pre!ised upon three basic

ar"u!ents, to %it< ?a@ 0espondents father, Esteban Mallare, bein" the

natural son of )na Mallare, a Filipino, %as a Filipino citi$en& ?b@ Esteben

Mallare, the son of a Filipino !other, by his o%n o-ert acts, had chosen

Philippine citi$enship& and ?c@ respondent, a le"iti!ate son of Esteban

Mallare, is a Filipino citi$en.

/he deter!inati-e issue in this contro-ersy, therefore, re-ol-es around the

citi$enship of respondents father, Esteban Mallare, for if Esteban %ere a

Filipino as respondent clai!s, the latter aio!atically %ould also be a Filipino

and the ob+ection a"ainst his inclusion in the 0oll of )ttorneys in the

Philippines %ould lose le"al basis.

)fter a painsta6in" study of the ori"inal and additional e-idences herein

presented, the Court nds sucient "rounds to %arrant a denite settin"

aside of Our decision of )pril A9, 293:, and a deniti-e declaration thatrespondent Florencio Mallare is a Filipino citi$en and therefore %ith

qualication and ri"ht to continue the practice of la% in the Philippines

0ulin":, respecti-ely. ?)nne ='#2=@.

4@ urin" the hearin" at the COMELEC Pri-ate respondent, !aintained that he isa Filipino citi$en, alle"in"< that he is the le"iti!ate child of r. E!ilio .Os!eNa, a Filipino and son of the late President *er"io Os!eNa, *r.& that he is


9/22

a holder of a -alid and subsistin" Philippine Passport 1o. ;:>>2;5 issued onMarch A>, 29:8& that he has been continuously residin" in the Philippinessince birth and has not "one out of the country for !ore than si !onths& andthat he has been a re"istered -oter in the Philippines since 29 3>.

>@ /hereafter, on June 22, 29::, COMELEC ?First i-ision@ dis!issed the petitionfor disqualication for not ha-in" been ti!ely led and for lac6 of sucientproof that pri-ate respondent is not a Filipino citi$en. Bence, the petition forCertiorari

Issue:

Ghether or not a person is considered an )!erican under the la%s of the

Knited *tates does not concern Ks here.

Ruling:'y -irtue of his bein" the son of a Filipino father, the presu!ption that

pri-ate respondent is a Filipino re!ains. 7t %as incu!bent upon the petitioner

to pro-e that pri-ate respondent had lost his Philippine citi$enship. )s earlier

stated, ho%e-er, the petitioner failed to positi-ely establish this fact.

7n declarin" both Fri-aldo and Labo not citi$ens of the Philippines, therefore,

disqualied fro! ser-in" as o-ernor of the Pro-ince of *orso"on and Mayor

of 'a"uio City, respecti-ely, the Court considered the fact that by their o%n

ad!issions, they are indubitably aliens, no lon"er o%in" any alle"iance to

the 0epublic of the Philippines since they ha-e s%orn their total alle"iance to

a forei"n state.

7n the instant case, pri-ate respondent -ehe!ently denies ha-in" ta6en the

oath of alle"iance of the Knited *tates ?p. :2, 0ollo@. Be is a holder of a -alid

and subsistin" Philippine passport and has continuously participated in the

electoral process in this country since 2935 up to the present, both as a

-oter and as a candidate ?pp. 2;8#2;:, 0ollo@. /hus, pri-ate respondent

re!ains a Filipino and the loss of his Philippine citi$enship cannot be

presu!ed.

7n the learned dissent of Mr. Justice /eodoro Padilla, he stresses the fact that

because Os!eNa obtained Certicates of )lien 0e"istration as an )!ericanciti$en, the rst in 29>: %hen he %as A4 years old and the second in 2989,

he, Os!eNa should be re"arded as ha-in" epressly renounced Philippine

citi$enship. /o Our !ind, this is a case of non sequitur?7t does not follo%@.

Considerin" the fact that ad!ittedly Os!eNa %as both a Filipino and an

)!erican, the !ere fact that he has a Certicate statin" he is an )!erican

does not !ean that he is not still a Filipino. /hus, by %ay of analo"y, if a


10/22

person %ho has t%o brothers na!ed Jose and Mario states or certies that he

has a brother na!ed Jose, this does not !ean that he does not ha-e a

brother na!ed Mario& or if a person is enrolled as student si!ultaneously in

t%o uni-ersities, na!ely Kni-ersity X and Kni-ersity I, presents a

Certication that he is a student of Kni-ersity X, this does not necessarily

!ean that he is not still a student of Kni-ersity I. 7n the case of Os!eNa, the

Certication that he is an )!erican does not !ean that he is not still a

Filipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities or citi$enships. 7ndeed, there

is no epress renunciation here of Philippine citi$enship& truth to tell, there is

e-en no i!plied renunciation of said citi$enship. Ghen Ge consider that the

renunciation needed to lose Philippine citi$enship !ust be =epress=, it

stands to reason that there can be no such loss of Philippine citi$enship

when there is no renunciation either "'express" or "implied".

Parenthetically, the state!ent in the 29:8 Constitution that =dual alle"iance

of citi$ens is ini!ical to the national interest and shall be dealt %ith byla%=?)rt. 7V, *ec. >@ has no retroacti-e eDect. )nd %hile it is true that e-en

before the 29:8 Constitution, Our country had already fro%ned upon the

concept of dual citi$enship or alle"iance, the fact is it actually eisted. 'e it

noted further that under the aforecited pro-iso, the eDect of such dual

citi$enship or alle"iance shall be dealt %ith by a future la%. *aid la% has not

yet been enacted.

GBE0EFO0E, the petition for certiorari is hereby 7*M7**E and the

0esolution of the COMELEC is hereby )FF70ME.

Title : engson vs. Cru/

%(CT+< /he citi$enship of respondent Cru$ is at issue in this case, in -ie% of

the constitutional require!ent that no person shall be a Me!ber of the

Bouse of 0epresentati-es unless he is a natural#born citi$en.

Cru$ %as a natural#born citi$en of the Philippines. Be %as born in /arlac in

293; of Filipino parents. 7n 29:>, ho%e-er, Cru$ enlisted in the K* Marine

Corps and %ithout the consent of the 0epublic of the Philippines, too6 an

oath of alle"iance to the K*). )s a Consequence, he lost his Filipino

citi$enship for under C) 1o. 35 Q?)n )ct Pro-idin" for the Gays in Ghich

Philippine Citi$enship May 'e Lost or 0eacquired ?2953@R section 2?4@, a

Filipino citi$en !ay lose his citi$enship by, a!on" other, renderin" ser-ice

to or acceptin" co!!ission in the ar!ed forces of a forei"n country.


11/22

Ghate-er doubt that re!ained re"ardin" his loss of Philippine citi$enship

%as erased by his naturali$ation as a K.*. citi$en in 299;, in connection %ith

his ser-ice in the K.*. Marine Corps.

7n 2994, Cru$ reacquired his Philippine citi$enship throu"h repatriation under

0) A35; Q?)n )ct Pro-idin" for 0eacquisition of Philippine Citi$enship by

Persons Gho Lost *uch Citi$enship by 0enderin" *er-ice /o, or )cceptin"

Co!!ission 7n, the )r!ed Forces of the Knited *tates ?293;@R. Be ran for

and %as elected as the 0epresentati-e of the And istrict of Pan"asinan in

the 299: elections. Be %on o-er petitioner 'en"son %ho %as then runnin"

for reelection.

*ubsequently, petitioner led a case for uo Garranto )d Cautela! %ith

respondent B0E/ clai!in" that Cru$ %as not qualied to beco!e a !e!ber

of the BO0 since he is not a natural#born citi$en as required under )rticle V7,section 3 of the Constitution.

B0E/ rendered its decision dis!issin" the petition for quo %arranto and

declarin" Cru$ the duly elected 0epresentati-e in the said election.

I++&< GO1 Cru$, a natural#born Filipino %ho beca!e an )!erican citi$en,

can still be considered a natural#born Filipino upon his reacquisition of

Philippine citi$enship.

3&L< petition dis!issed

Y&+

Filipino citi$ens %ho ha-e lost their citi$enship !ay ho%e-er reacquire the

sa!e in the !anner pro-ided by la%. C.). 1o. 35 enu!erates the 5 !odes by

%hich Philippine citi$enship !ay be reacquired by a for!er citi$en. political econo!ic necessity

0epatriation results in the reco-ery of the ori"inal nationality /his !eans that

a naturali$ed Filipino %ho lost his citi$enship %ill be restored to his prior

status as a naturali$ed Filipino citi$en. On the other hand, if he %as ori"inally

a natural#born citi$en before he lost his Philippine citi$enship, he %ill be

restored to his for!er status as a natural#born Filipino.

0.). 1o. A35; pro-ides5 of the O!nibus Election Code %as not applicable because %hat theLea"ue and Estuye %ere see6in" %as not only the annul!ent of the procla!ationand election of Fri-aldo. Be a"reed that they %ere also as6in" for the ter!ination ofFri-aldos incu!bency as "o-ernor of *orso"on on the "round that he %as not aFilipino.

Issue:Ghether or 1ot petitioner Juan . Fri-aldo %as a citi$en of the Philippines at theti!e of his election on January 2:, 29::, as pro-incial "o-ernor of *orso"on.

3el:/he reason for this inquiry is the pro-ision in )rticle X7, *ection 9, of the Constitutionthat all public ocials and e!ployees o%e the *tate and the Constitution=alle"iance at all ti!es= and the specic require!ent in *ection 4A of the Localo-ern!ent Code that a candidate for local electi-e oce !ust be inter alia aciti$en of the Philippines and a qualied -oter of the constituency %here he isrunnin". *ection 228 of the O!nibus Election Code pro-ides that a qualied -oter!ust be, a!on" other qualications, a citi$en of the Philippines, this bein" anindispensable require!ent for suDra"e under )rticle V, *ection 2, of theConstitution. 7n the certicate of candidacy he led on 1o-e!ber 29, 29:8, Fri-aldodescribed hi!self as a =natural#born= citi$en of the Philippines, o!ittin" !ention ofany subsequent loss of such status. /he e-idence sho%s, ho%e-er, that he %asnaturali$ed as a citi$en of the Knited *tates in 29:5 per the follo%in" certicationfro! the Knited *tates istrict Court, 1orthern istrict of California, as dulyauthenticated by Vice Consul )!ado P. Corte$ of the Philippine Consulate eneral in*an Francisco, California, K.*.). /he Court sees no reason not to belie-e that thepetitioner %as one of the ene!ies of the Marcos dictatorship. E-en so, it cannota"ree that as a consequence thereof he %as coerced into e!bracin" )!ericanciti$enship.


14/22

Bis feeble su""estion that his naturali$ation %as not the result of his o%n free and-oluntary choice is totally unacceptable and !ust be re+ected outri"ht. /his Court%ill not per!it the ano!aly of a person sittin" as pro-incial "o-ernor in this country%hile o%in" eclusi-e alle"iance to another country. /he fact that he %as elected bythe people of *orso"on does not ecuse this patent -iolation of the salutary ruleli!itin" public oce and e!ploy!ent only to the citi$ens of this country. /he

qualications prescribed for electi-e oce cannot be erased by the electoratealone. /he %ill of the people as epressed throu"h the ballot cannot cure the -ice ofineli"ibility, especially if they !ista6enly belie-ed, as in this case, that thecandidate %as qualied. Ob-iously, this rule requires strict application %hen thedeciency is lac6 of citi$enship. 7f a person see6s to ser-e in the 0epublic of thePhilippines, he !ust o%e his total loyalty to this country only, ab+urin" andrenouncin" all fealty and delity to any other state.

7t is true as the petitioner points out that the status of the natural#born citi$en isfa-ored by the Constitution and our la%s, %hich is all the !ore reason %hy it shouldbe treasured li6e a pearl of "reat price. 'ut once it is surrendered and renounced,the "ift is "one and cannot be li"htly restored. /his country of ours, for all its

diculties and li!itations, is li6e a +ealous and possessi-e !other. Once re+ected, itis not quic6 to %elco!e bac6 %ith ea"er ar!s its prodi"al if repentant children. /hereturnin" rene"ade !ust sho%, by an epress and unequi-ocal act, the rene%al ofhis loyalty and lo-e. Petition is!issed. Petitioner JK)1 . F07V)LO is herebydeclared not a citi$en of the Philippines and therefore disqualied fro! ser-in" aso-ernor of the Pro-ince of *orso"on. )ccordin"ly, he is ordered to -acate his oceand surrender the sa!e to the duly elected Vice#o-ernor of the said pro-ince oncethis decision beco!es nal and eecutory.

Title : Co vs. 3R&T

Fact':

/he B0E/ declared that respondent Jose On", Jr. is a natural born Filipinociti$en and a resident of Laoan", 1orthern *a!ar for -otin" purposes. /hecon"ressional election for the second district of 1orthern*a!ar %as held.)!on" the candidates %ho -ied for the position of representati-e in thesecond le"islati-edistrict are the petitioners, *ito 'alinquit and )ntonio Coand the pri-ate respondent, Jose On", Jr. 0espondentOn" %as proclai!ed theduly elected representati-e of the second district of 1orthern *a!ar. /hepetitioners led election protests on the "rounds that Jose On", Jr. is not anatural born citi$en of thePhilippines and not a resident of the second districtof 1orthern *a!ar.

Issue: Ghether or not Jose On", Jr. is a citi$en of the Philippines.

3el:Ies. 7n the year 2:9>, the pri-ate respondents "randfather, On" /e, arri-edin the Philippines fro!China and established his residence in the !unicipalityof Laoan", *a!ar. /he father of the pri-ate respondent, Jose On" Chuan %asborn in China in 29;> but %as brou"ht by On" /e to *a!ar in the year 292>,


15/22

he led %iththe court an application for naturali$ation and %as declared aFilipino citi$en.7n 29:4, the pri-ate respondent !arried a Filipina na!edesiree Li!. For the elections of 29:4 and29:3, Jose On", Jr. re"isteredhi!self as a -oter of Laoan", *a!ar, and -oted there durin" thoseelections.Knder the 2985 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers and

those born of Filipino !others %ith analien father %ere placed on equalfootin". /hey %ere both considered as natural born citi$ens. 'esides,pri-aterespondent did !ore than !erely eercise his ri"ht of suDra"e. Behas established his life here in thePhilippines.On the issue of residence, it isnot required that a person should ha-e a house in order to establishhisresidence and do!icile. 7t is enou"h that he should li-e in the !unicipalityor in a rented house or in that of afriend or relati-e. /o require hi! to o%nproperty in order to be eli"ible to run for Con"ress %ould be tanta!ountto aproperty qualication. /he Constitution only requires that the candidate !eetthe a"e, citi$enship, -otin"and residence require!ents.

Title : T)#)S) *S C)

Nat+re o the Ca'e: The instant petition for review1[2] under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

contests the denial ! the Court of "ppeals #C"$ of the Petition for Habeas Corpus interposed !

petitioner %oevanie "rellano Taasa fro& the 'rder of (u&&ar! )eportation issued ! the *ureau of

+&&i,ration and )eportation #*+)$ for his return to the -nited (tates.Fact':

%oevanie "rellano Taasa was a naturalorn citi/en of the Philippines.

+n 190 when petitioner was seven !ears old #&inor$ his father Rodolfo Taasa eca&e a

naturali/ed citi/en2of the -nited (tates.

*! derivative petitioner also ac3uired "&erican citi/enship.

'n "u,ust 1995 Petitioner arrived in the Philippines and was ad&itted as a ali6a!an for

one !ear.

"fter that petitioner was arrested and detained ! a,ent 8ilson (oluren of the *+) on a! 2

1990 pursuant to *+) ission 'rder :o. ;+


16/22

2. That in a letter dated 10 "pril 1990 @onorale Aevin @erert Consul Beneral

of -.(. =&ass! infor&ed the *ureau that respondents Passport had een revo6ed

! the -.(. )epart&ent of (tate?. @ence Taasa is now an undocu&ented and undesirale alien and &a! e

su&&aril! deported pursuant to ;aw and +ntelli,ence +nstructions :o. 5 issued !

then Co&&issioner iria& )efensor (antia,o to effect his deportation.

'n a! 29 1990 *+) ordered petitioners deportation to his countr! of ori,in the -nited (tates.

-( Consul filed a re3uest with the *ureau to apprehend and deport the

Taasa on the ,round that a standin, warrant for several federal char,es has een

issued a,ainst hi& and that the Taasas passport has een revo6ed.

(chone&ann vs. Co&&issioner (antia,o (c ruled that if a forei,n

e&ass! cancels the passport of an alien or does not reissue a valid

passport to hi& the alien loses the privile,e to re&ain in the countr!.

Durther under 'ffice e&orandu& 'rder :o. 4 issued on 21 "u,ust

199 su&&ar! deportation proceedin,s lie where the passport of the alien

has eEpired. Thus it is apparent that respondent has lost his privile,e to re&ain in the

countr!.

Petitioner filed efore the C" a Petition for Habeas Corpuswith Preli&inar! +nFunction

andGor Te&porar! Restrainin, 'rder

Taasa alle,ed that he was not afforded due process? that no warrant of arrest for

deportation &a! e issued ! i&&i,ration authorities efore a final order of

deportation is &ade? that no notice of the cancellation of his passport was &ade !

the -.(. =&ass!? that he i' entitled to ad-i''ion or to a chane o hi'

i--iration 'tat+' a' a non/+ota i--irant eca+'e he i' -arried to a Filiino

citien a' ro&ided in Section 13, ararah a5 o the (hiliine !--iration

)ct o 140? and that he 7a' a nat+ral/orn citien o the (hiliine' rior to hi'

deri&ati&e nat+raliation 7hen he 7a' 'e&en 8ear' old d+e to the nat+raliation

o hi' ather Rodolfo Taasa in 190.

"t the ti&e Taasa filed said petition he was alread! 5 !ears old.

'n a! H 1990 the C" ordered the respondent *ureau to produce the person of the petitioner

on %une 1990 and show the cause of petitioners detention and restrained the *ureau fro&

su&&aril! deportin, hi&.

'n %une 1990 the *+) presented Taasa efore the C"


17/22

'n %une 0 1990 the C" ,ranted oth parties ten #1H$ da!s within which to file their &e&oranda

after which the case would e considered su&itted for decision. eanwhile the Co&&issioner

of +&&i,ration ,ranted the petitioners te&porar! release on ail on a PhP 2HHHH.HH cash ond.

'n %une 1 1990 petitioner filed a (upple&ental Petition alle,in, that he had ac+ired Filiino

citien'hi 8 reatriation in accordance 7ith R) 911, and that eca+'e he i' no7 a

Filiino citien, he cannot e deorted or detained 8 the re'ondent #+rea+.

'n "u,ust 7 1990 )ecision deniedTaasas petition on the ,round that he had not leall8 and

'+cce''+ll8 ac+ired;;8 reatriation;;hi' Filiino citien'hi a' ro&ided in R) 911 .

The court said that althou,h he eca&e an "&erican citi/en ! derivative naturali/ation when his

father was naturali/ed in 190 there i' no e&idence to 'ho7 that he lo't hi' (hiliine

citien'hi +f there is no valid repatriation then he can e su&&aril! deported for his ein, an undocu&ented

alien.Ratio>

R" 171 "n "ct Providin, for the Repatriation of Dilipino 8o&en 8ho @ave

;ost Their Philippine Citi/enship ! arria,e to "liens and of :atural*orn

Dilipinos was enacted on 'ctoer 2 1995.

+t provides for the repatriation of onl! two classes of persons>

#1$ Filiino 7o-en 7ho ha&e lo't their (hiliine citien'hi 8 -arriae to alien' and

#2$ nat+ral/orn Filiino' 7ho ha&e lo't their (hiliine citien'hi includin, their &inor

children on account of political or econo&ic necessit! &a! reac3uire Philippine citi/enship

throu,h repatriation in the &anner provided in (ection 4 of Co&&onwealth "ct :o. 0 asa&ended> Provided That the applicant is not a>

#1$ Person opposed to or,ani/ed ,overn&ent or affiliated with an! association or ,roup of

persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposin, or,ani/ed ,overn&ent?

#2$ Person deendin, or teachin, the necessit! or propriet! of violence personal assault or

association for the predo&inance of their ideas?


18/22

#$Person convicted of cri&es involvin, &oral turpitude? or

#4$Person sufferin, fro& &ental alienation or incurale conta,ious diseases.

Taasa does not 3ualif! as a naturalorn Dilipino who had lost his Philippine citi/enship !

reason of political or econo&ic necessit! under R" 17.

(er'on' +aliied or reatriation +nder R) 911

Petitioner theori/es that he could e repatriated under R" 171 ecause he i' a child o a

nat+ral/orn Filiino, and that he lo't hi' (hiliine citien'hi 8 deri&ati&e nat+raliation

7hen he 7a' 'till a -inor.

Petitioner overloo6s the fact that the privile,e of repatriation under R" 171 is availale onlyto

naturalorn Dilipinos who lost their citi/enship on account of political or econo&ic necessit!

and to the minorchildren of said naturalorn Dilipinos. This &eans that if a arent 7ho had reno+nced hi' (hiliine citien'hi d+e to olitical

or econo-ic rea'on' later decide' to reatriate +nder R) 911, hi' reatriation 7ill al'o

eneit hi' -inor children accordin to the la7 . This includes a situation where a for&er

Dilipino suse3uentl! had children while he was a naturali/ed citi/en of a forei,n countr!. The

repatriation of the for&er Dilipino will allow hi& to recover his naturalorn citi/enship and

auto&aticall! vest Philippine citi/enship on his children ofjus sanguinisor lood relationship. To clai& the enefit of R" 171 however the children &ust e of -inora,e at the ti-e the

etition or reatriationis filed ! the parent.

>here to ile a etition or reatriation +r'+ant to R) 911

@e has to file his petition for repatriation with the (pecial Co&&ittee on :aturali/ation #(C:$

which was desi,nated to process petitions for repatriation pursuant to "d&inistrative 'rder :o.

25 #".'. :o. 25$

"pplicants for repatriation are re3uired to su&it docu&ents in support of their petition such as

their irth certificate and other evidence provin, their clai& to Dilipino citi/enship.These

re3uire&ents were i&posed to enale the (C: to verif! the 3ualifications of the applicant

particularl! in li,ht of the reasons for the renunciation of Philippine citi/enship.

8hat petitioner si&pl! did was that he too6 his oath of alle,iance to the Repulic of the

Philippines? then eEecuted an affidavit of repatriation which he re,istered to,ether with the

certificate of live irth with the 'ffice of the ;ocal Civil Re,istrar of anila. The said office

suse3uentl! issued hi& a certificate of such re,istration.

"t that ti&e the (C: was alread! in place and operational ! virtue of the %une 1995

e&orandu& issued ! President Didel


19/22

"lthou,h ".'. :o. 25 desi,natin, the (C: to process petitions filed pursuant to R" 171 was

issued onl! on "u,ust 22 1990 it is &erel! a confir&ator! issuance accordin, to the Court in

Angat v. Republic. Thus petitioner should have instead filed a petition for repatriation efore the

(C:.

Re+ire-ent' or reatriation +nder R) 911

(C: re3uires a petitioner for repatriation to set forth the reasonGs wh! petitioner lost hisGher

Dilipino citi/enship whether ! &arria,e in case of Dilipino wo&an or whether ! political or

econo&ic necessit! in case of a naturalorn Dilipino citi/en who lost hisGher Dilipino citi/enship.

+n case of the latter such political or econo&ic necessit! should e specified.

P.). 725 and the sponsorship speech on @ouse *ill :o. 124 it is incontrovertile that the intent

of our le,islators in craftin, (ection 1 of R" 171 as it is precisel! worded out is to e?cl+de

tho'e Filiino' 7ho ha&e aandoned their co+ntr8 or rea'on' other than olitical or

econo-ic nece''it8.

Petitioner contends it is not necessar! to prove his political or econo&ic reasons since the act of

renouncin, alle,iance to ones native countr! constitutes a necessar! and unavoidale shiftin,

of his political alle,iance and his fathers loss of Philippine citi/enship throu,h naturali/ation

cannot therefore e said to e for an! reason other than political or econo&ic necessit!.

8hile it is true that renunciation of alle,iance to ones native countr! is necessaril! a political act

it does not follow that the act is inevital! politicall! or econo&icall! &otivated as alle,ed !

petitioner.

Thus assu&in, petitioner Taasa is 3ualified under R" 171 it is incu&ent upon hi& to proveto the satisfaction of the (C: that the reason for his loss of citi/enship was the decision of his

parents to forfeit their Philippine citi/enship for political or econo&ic eEi,encies. @e failed to

underta6e this crucial step and thus the sou,ht relief is unsuccessful.

+n the case at ar there is no dispute that etitioner 7a' a Filiino at irth.

+n 190 while he was still a &inor his father was naturali/ed as an "&erican citi/en? and !

derivative naturali/ation petitioner ac3uired -.(. citi/enship.

Reasons wh! the petitioner cannot reac3uire Philippine citi/enship.

1.(etitioner 7a' no loner a -inor at the ti-e o hi'


20/22

Citi/enship Retention and Reac3uisition "ct of 2HH #Repulic "ct :o. 9225$ ! si&pl! ta6in, an oath of

alle,iance to the Repulic of the Philippines.

=ven if we concede that petitioner Taasa can avail of the enefit of R" 171 still he failed to

follow the procedure for reac3uisition of Philippine citi/enship. @e has to file his petition for

repatriation with the (pecial Co&&ittee on :aturali/ation #(C:$ which was desi,nated to process

petitions for repatriation.

Therefore petitioner Taasa whose passport was cancelled after his ad&ission into the countr!

eca&e an undocu&ented alien who can e su&&aril! deported. @is suse3uent repatriation

cannot ar such deportation especiall! considerin, that he has no le,al and valid reac3uisition of

Philippine citi/enship.

$OCTR!NE:Repatriation is not a &atter of ri,ht ut it is a privile,e ,ranted ! the (tate. This is &andated !

the 197 Constitution under (ection "rticle +@EREFORE this petition for review is $!SM!SSE$ and the "u,ust 7 1990 )ecision of the Court of"ppeals is )FF!RME$. :o costs to the petitioner.

Title: MERC)$O *S M)NA)NO

Fact': Petitioner =rnesto ercado and Private respondent =duardo an/ano are candidates for the

position of


21/22

to run for the position. Pursuant to the rulin, of the C'=;=C the oard of canvassers proclai&ed

private respondent as vice &a!or. This petition sou,ht the reversal of the resolution of the C'=;=C and

to declare the private respondent dis3ualified to hold the office of the vice &a!or of a6ati.

!''+e: 8hether or :ot private respondent is 3ualified to hold office as


22/22

Petitioner 1estor Jacot assails the 0esolution of COMELEC disqualifyin" hi!fro! runnin" for the position of Vice#Mayor of Catar!an, Ca!i"uin, in the 24May A;;8 1ational and Local Elections, on the "round that he failed to !a6ea personal renounce!ent of K* citi$enship. Be %as a natural born citi$en ofthe Philippines, %ho beca!e a naturali$ed citi$en of the K* on 25 ece!ber

29:9. Be sou"ht to reacquire his Philippine citi$enship under 0epublic )ct 1o.9AA>.

I++&:id 1estor Jacot eDecti-ely renounce his K* citi$enship so as toqualify hi! to run as a -ice#!ayorH

3&L: 1o. 7t bears to e!phasi$e that the oath of alle"iance is a "eneralrequire!ent for all those %ho %ish to run as candidates in Philippineelections& %hile the renunciation of forei"n citi$enship is an additionalrequisite only for those %ho ha-e retained or reacquired Philippineciti$enship under 0epublic )ct 1o. 9AA> and %ho see6 electi-e public posts,

considerin" their special circu!stance of ha-in" !ore than one citi$enship

Batch 9 case Digest.docx

Documents

Transcript of Batch 9 case Digest.docx