Talaroc - Limbona

7/25/2019 Talaroc - Limbona

1/86

G.R. No. L-5397 September 26, 1952

LAURETO A. TALAROC,petitioner-appellee,vs.ALEJANDRO D. U,respondent-appellant.

Claro M. Recto for appellant.Justiniano R. Borja for appellee.

TUASON, J.:

The election of Alejandro D. Uy to the office of municipal mayor of Manticao, Misamis Oriental, onNovember !, "#, brou$ht the instant action of %uo &arranto in the 'ourt of (irst )nstance of thatprovince. The petitioner &as *aureto A. Talaroc, one of the defeated candidates for the same office,and the $rounds of the petition &ere that the respondent is a 'hinese national and thereforeineli$ible. The court belo& found the petition &ell-founded and declared the position in %uestionvacant.

The personal circumstances of the respondent as found by the court are not in dispute. They are asfollo&s+

stan establecidas por las pruebas, y admitidas por las partes, %ue Alejandro D. Uy nacio ennero , ", en el municipio de )li$an, provincia de *anao /0hibito A1, de padre 'hino,Uy 2ian$co, y de madre (ilipina, Ursula Diabo, cuando convivian estos como marido ymujer, pero despues contrajeron matrimonio eclestiastico el Marso !, "3, en dicho pueblo/e0hibito "1. Tuvieron siete hijos, siendo el recurrido Alejandro D. Uy el #. hijo. Uy 2ian$conativo de 'huitao, Amoy, 'hina, nunca se ausento desde %ue lle$o hacia "! o "#, en(ilipinas hasta su fallecimiento el (ebrero 4, "l4, en )li$an, *anao, donde estuvoresidiendo continuamente. Ursula Diabo sin contraer nuevo matrimonio, murio conposterioridad, el A$osto ", "3", en el municipio de Manticao, Misamis Oriental /0hibito

!1. Aparece tambien %ue el recurrido Alejandro D. Uy nunca fue a 'hina y ha votado en lasanteriores elecciones verificades en el pais, y ha desempenado empleos como )nspector del56ureau of 2lant )ndustry5 en "3! /0h. 31, en los a7os "!#, "38 y "34, maestro bajo el6ureau of 2ublic 9chools, en Manticao District /0hs. # y #-a1: filin$ cler; en la TesoreriaMunicipal de )nitao, en "!# al "3# /0h. 31: y actin$ Municipal Treasurer de *a$ait, en"3 a "3! /0h. 81: ademas de haber servido al aponesa, en esta provincia deMisamis Oriental.

These facts also appear uncontroverted in evidence+ One of the respondent?s brothers, 2edro D. Uy,before the &ar and up to this time has been occupyin$ the position of income ta0 e0aminer of the6ureau of )nternal =evenue. @is other brother, >ose D. Uy, is a practicin$ certified public accountant,and before the &ar &as the accountant of the National Abaca and (iber 'orporation p4! /NA('O1.

@is other brother, Dr. ictorio D. Uy, is a practisin$ physician, and before the &ar, &as charityphysician in )nitao and later a physician in the provincial hospital. Durin$ the &ar, Dr. Uy &as acaptain in the 2hilippine Army. @is youn$er brother &as a lieutenant in the


2/86

The respondent?s contentions, &hich the court belo& rejected, &ere that his father &as a subject of9pain on April , "" by virtue of Article 4 of the 'ivil 'ode: that his mother ipso factoreac%uiredher (ilipino citiBenship upon the death of her husband on (ebruary 4, "4, and the child follo&edher citiBenship: and that the respondent is a citiBen of the 2hilippines by the mere fact of his birththerein. @is honor the >ud$e noted that, &hile under the =oa doctrine /=oa vs. )nsular 'ollector of'ustoms, ! 2hil., !#1, Alejandro D. Uy &ould be a (ilipino citiBen re$ardless of the nationality of

his parents, yet, he said this doctrine &as abandoned in Tan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor, /4" 2hil.,3".1, Swee Sang vs. The Commonwealth of the hilippines, /4" 2hil., 3"1, decided &ith TanChong vs. Secretary of Labor an! "illahermosa vs. The Commissioner of #mmigration, < 2hil., #3.

)t may be recalled that in the case of Roa vs. #nsular Collector of Customs$ supra, the petitioner &asborn in la&ful &edloc; in the 2hilippines on >uly 8, "", his father bein$ a native of 'hina and hismother a (ilipina. @is father &as domiciled in this country up to the year "# &hen he &ent to'hina and never returned, dyin$ there about "ustice *aurel said in Ramon Torres$ et al. vs. Tan Chin, 8" 2hil.,#", 5the bench and the bar &ere familiar. The members of the 'onstitutional 'onvention &ere alsoa&are of this rule and in abro$atin$ the doctrine laid do&n in the =oa case, by ma;in$ thejussanguinisthe predominatin$ principle in the determination of 2hilippine citiBenship, they did notintend to e0clude those &ho, in the situation of Tran%uilino =oa, &ere citiBens of the 2hilippines by

judicial declaration at the time of the adoption of the 'onstitution.5 5This,5 the 'ourt &ent on to say,


3/86

5is apparent from the follo&in$ e0cerpt of the proceedin$s of the 'onstitutional 'onvention &henArticle ) of the 'onstitution &as discussed+

Dele$ate Arue$o. E Mr. 2resident, may ) just have one %uestionF May ) as; Mr. =o0as if,under this proposition that you have, all children born in the 2hilippines before the adoptionof the 'onstitution &as includedF

Dele$ate =o0as. E No, sir+ that is to say, if they are citiBens in accordance &ith the presentla&, they &ill be citiBens.

Dele$ate Arue$o. E 6ut as ) have said they are citiBens by judicial decisions.

Dele$ate =o0as. E )f they are citiBens no& by judicial decisions they &ill be citiBens.

Dele$ate Arue$o. E ) should li;e to ma;e it clear that &e are votin$ on the proposition sothat it &ill include all those born in the 2hilippines, re$ardless of their parenta$e, because )have heard some objections here to the incorporation in totoof the doctrine ofjus soli. Thereare many &ho do not &ant to include as citiBens, children of 'hinese parents but they are

included in the proposition &e are votin$ upon . . .

) should li;e to find out from the $entleman from 'apiB if that proposition &ould ma;e (ilipinocitiBens of children of 'hinese parents born last year or this year.

Dele$ate =o0as. E No, because by the la&s of the 2hilippine )slands, they are not (ilipinocitiBens no&. /=ecord of the 2roceedin$s of the 'onstitutional 'onvention, 9ession ofNovember 8, "!3.1

Unli;e the Tan 'hon$ case, the herein appellant Uy had attained the a$e of majority &hen the'onstitution &ent into effect, and had been allo&ed to e0ercise the ri$ht of suffra$e, to hold publicoffice, and to ta;e the oath of alle$iance to the 'ommon&ealth Covernment or =epublic of the

2hilippines.

The Tan 'hon$ decision itself ma;es this e0press reservation+ 5Needless to say, this decision is notintended or desi$ned to deprive, as it can not divest, of their (ilipino citiBenship, those &ho havebeen declared to be (ilipino citiBens, or upon &hom such citiBenship had been conferred by thecourts because of the doctrine or principle ofres a!ju!icata.5 'ertainly, it &ould neither be fair nor$ood policy to hold the respondent an alien after he had e0ercised the privile$es of citiBenship andthe Covernment had confirmed his 2hilippine citiBenship on the faith of le$al principle that had theforce of la&. On several occasions the 9ecretary of >ustice had declared as (ilipino citiBens personssimilarly circumstanced as the herein respondent. /Opinion 3


4/86

2hilippine citiBenship by (ilipino &omen in such cases. )t is to be noted that &hen 'ommon&ealthAct No. 8! &as passed Ursula Diabo had been a &ido& for " years and Alejandro D. Uy had beenof a$e ! years, and that the ne& la& carries the provision $ivin$ it retroactive effect.

This conclusions ma;e superfluous consideration of the rest of the several assi$nments of error bythe appellant upon &hich &e refrain to e0press on opinion.

The decision of the lo&er court is reversed and the respondent and appellant declared a (ilipinocitiBen and eli$ible to the office of the municipal mayor. The petitioner and appellee &ill pay the costsof both instances.%&wph'l.n(t


5/86

G.R. No. 135!"3 #$% 26, 1999

ERNESTO S. #ERCADO, petitioner,vs.EDUARDO &ARR'OS #AN(ANO $)* t+e CO##'SS'ON ON ELECT'ONS, respondents.

#ENDO(A, J.:

2etitioner rnesto 9. Mercado and private respondent duardo 6. ManBano &ere candidates forvice mayor of the 'ity of Ma;ati in the May , "" elections. The other one &as Cabriel . DaBa))). The results of the election &ere as follo&s+

duardo 6. ManBano

rnesto 9. Mercado


6/86

Under 9ection 3


7/86

@=(O=, the 'ommission en banc hereby ==99 the resolution of the9econd Division, adopted on May 4, "", orderin$ the cancellation of therespondent?s certificate of candidacy.

e declare respondent duardo *uis 6arrios ManBano to be HUA*)()D as acandidate for the position of vice-mayor of Ma;ati 'ity in the May , "", elections.

A''O=D)NC*I, the 'ommission directs the Ma;ati 'ity 6oard of 'anvassers, uponproper notice to the parties, to reconvene and proclaim the respondent duardo *uis6arrios ManBano as the &innin$ candidate for vice-mayor of Ma;ati 'ity.

2ursuant to the resolution of the 'OM*' en banc, the board of canvassers, on the evenin$ ofAu$ust !, "", proclaimed private respondent as vice mayor of the 'ity of Ma;ati.

This is a petition for certiorarisee;in$ to set aside the aforesaid resolution of the 'OM*' enbanc and to declare private respondent dis%ualified to hold the office of vice mayor of Ma;ati 'ity.2etitioner contends that E

JTKhe 'OM*' en banc==D in holdin$ that+

A. Under 2hilippine la&, ManBano &as no lon$er a U.9. citiBen &hen he+

. @e renounced his U.9. citiBenship &hen he attained the a$e ofmajority &hen he &as already !4 years old: and,

. @e renounced his U.9. citiBenship &hen he /merely1 re$isteredhimself as a voter and voted in the elections of "", ""# and "".

6. ManBano is %ualified to run for and or hold the elective office of ice-Mayor of the'ity of Ma;ati:

'. At the time of the May , "" elections, the resolution of the 9econd Divisionadopted on 4 May "" &as not yet final so that, effectively, petitioner may not bedeclared the &inner even assumin$ that ManBano is dis%ualified to run for and holdthe elective office of ice-Mayor of the 'ity of Ma;ati.

e first consider the threshold procedural issue raised by private respondent ManBano E &hetherpetitioner Mercado his personality to brin$ this suit considerin$ that he &as not an ori$inal party inthe case for dis%ualification filed by rnesto Mamaril nor &as petitioner?s motion for leave tointervene $ranted.

). 2T)T)ON=?9 =)C@T TO 6=)NC T@)9 9U)T

2rivate respondent cites the follo&in$ provisions of =ule of the =ules of 2rocedure of the'OM*' in support of his claim that petitioner has no ri$ht to intervene and, therefore, cannotbrin$ this suit to set aside the rulin$ denyin$ his motion for intervention+

9ec. . hen proper and &hen may be permitted to intervene. E Any personallo&ed to initiate an action or proceedin$ may, before or durin$ the trial of an actionor proceedin$, be permitted by the 'ommission, in its discretion to intervene in suchaction or proceedin$, if he has le$al interest in the matter in liti$ation, or in the


8/86

success of either of the parties, or an interest a$ainst both, or &hen he is so situatedas to be adversely affected by such action or proceedin$.

000 000 000

9ec. !. Discretion of 'ommission. E )n allo&in$ or disallo&in$ a motion for

intervention, the 'ommission or the Division, in the e0ercise of its discretion, shallconsider &hether or not the intervention &ill unduly delay or prejudice theadjudication of the ri$hts of the ori$inal parties and &hether or not the intervenor?sri$hts may be fully protected in a separate action or proceedin$.

2rivate respondent ar$ues that petitioner has neither le$al interest in the matter in liti$ationnor an interest to protect because he is 5a defeated candidate for the vice-mayoralty post ofMa;ati 'ity J&hoK cannot be proclaimed as the ice-Mayor of Ma;ati 'ity if the privaterespondent be ultimately dis%ualified by final and e0ecutory jud$ment.5

The fla& in this ar$ument is it assumes that, at the time petitioner sou$ht to intervene in theproceedin$s before the 'OM*', there had already been a proclamation of the results of the

election for the vice mayoralty contest for Ma;ati 'ity, on the basis of &hich petitioner came out onlysecond to private respondent. The fact, ho&ever, is that there had been no proclamation at that time.'ertainly, petitioner had, and still has, an interest in oustin$ private respondent from the race at the

time he sou$ht to intervene. The rule in Labo v. C)M*L*C,6reiterated in several cases,7only appliesto cases in &hich the election of the respondent is contested, and the %uestion is &hether one &ho placedsecond to the dis%ualified candidate may be declared the &inner. )n the present case, at the timepetitioner filed a 5Motion for *eave to (ile )ntervention5 on May


9/86

only &ith the denial of petitioner?s motion for intervention but also &ith the substantive issuesrespectin$ private respondent?s alle$ed dis%ualification on the $round of dual citiBenship.

This brin$s us to the ne0t %uestion, namely, &hether private respondent ManBano possesses dualcitiBenship and, if so, &hether he is dis%ualified from bein$ a candidate for vice mayor of Ma;ati 'ity.

)). DUA* ')T)LN9@)2 A9 A C=OUND (O= D)9HUA*)()'AT)ON

The dis%ualification of private respondent ManBano is bein$ sou$ht under G3< of the *ocalCovernment 'ode of "" /=.A. No. 48


10/86

. . . ) &ant to dra& attention to the fact that dual alle$iance is not dual citiBenship. )have circulated a memorandum to the 6ernas 'ommittee accordin$ to &hich a dualalle$iance E and ) reiterate a dual alle$iance E is lar$er and more threatenin$ thanthat of mere double citiBenship &hich is seldom intentional and, perhaps, neverinsidious. That is often a function of the accident of mi0ed marria$es or of birth onforei$n soil. And so, ) do not %uestion double citiBenship at all.

hat &e &ould li;e the 'ommittee to consider is to ta;e constitutional co$niBance ofthe problem of dual alle$iance. (or e0ample, &e all ;no& &hat happens in thetriennial elections of the (ederation of (ilipino-'hinese 'hambers of 'ommerce&hich consists of about 8


11/86

=epublic of 'hina &as made in "4#, a $ood number of these naturaliBed (ilipinosstill routinely $o to Taipei every October oa%uin C. 6ernas, one of the most perceptive members of the 'onstitutional'ommission, pointed out+ 5JDKual citiBenship is just a reality imposed on us because &e have nocontrol of the la&s on citiBenship of other countries. e reco$niBe a child of a (ilipino mother. 6ut&hether she is considered a citiBen of another country is somethin$ completely beyond ourcontrol.5 12

6y electin$ 2hilippine citiBenship, such candidates at the same time fors&ear alle$iance to the othercountry of &hich they are also citiBens and thereby terminate their status as dual citiBens. )t may bethat, from the point of vie& of the forei$n state and of its la&s, such an individual has not effectively

renounced his forei$n citiBenship. That is of no moment as the follo&in$ discussion on G3


12/86

9NATO= 2)MNT*. ell, the very fact that he is runnin$ for public office &ould, ineffect, be an election for him of his desire to be considered as a (ilipino citiBen.

9NATO= N=)*. 6ut, precisely, Mr. 2resident, the 'onstitution does not re%uirean election. Under the 'onstitution, a person &hose mother is a citiBen of the2hilippines is, at birth, a citiBen &ithout any overt act to claim the citiBenship.

9NATO= 2)MNT*. Ies. hat &e are sayin$, Mr. 2resident, is+ Under theCentleman?s e0ample, if he does not renounce his other citiBenship, then he isopenin$ himself to %uestion. 9o, if he is really interested to run, the first thin$ heshould do is to say in the 'ertificate of 'andidacy that+ 5) am a (ilipino citiBen, and )have only one citiBenship.5

9NATO= N=)*. 6ut &e are tal;in$ from the vie&point of 2hilippine la&, Mr.2resident. @e &ill al&ays have one citiBenship, and that is the citiBenship investedupon him or her in the 'onstitution of the =epublic.

9NATO= 2)MNT*. That is true, Mr. 2resident. 6ut if he e0ercises acts that &ill

prove that he also ac;no&led$es other citiBenships, then he &ill probably fall underthis dis%ualification.

This is similar to the re%uirement that an applicant for naturaliBation must renounce 5all alle$iance

and fidelity to any forei$n prince, potentate, state, or soverei$nty5 1of &hich at the time he is a subjector citiBen before he can be issued a certificate of naturaliBation as a citiBen of the 2hilippines. )nara!ov.Republic,15it &as held+

JKhen a person applyin$ for citiBenship by naturaliBation ta;es an oath that herenounce, his loyalty to any other country or $overnment and solemnly declares thathe o&es his alle$iance to the =epublic of the 2hilippines, the condition imposed byla& is satisfied and compiled &ith. The determination &hether such renunciation is

valid or fully complies &ith the provisions of our NaturaliBation *a& lies &ithin theprovince and is an e0clusive prero$ative of our courts. The latter should apply thela& duly enacted by the le$islative department of the =epublic. No forei$n la& may orshould interfere &ith its operation and application. )f the re%uirement of the 'hinese*a& of Nationality &ere to be read into our NaturaliBation *a&, &e &ould be applyin$not &hat our le$islative department has deemed it &ise to re%uire, but &hat a forei$n$overnment has thou$ht or intended to e0act. That, of course, is absurd. )t must beresisted by all means and at all cost. )t &ould be a braBen encroachment upon thesoverei$n &ill and po&er of the people of this =epublic.

))). 2T)T)ON=?9 *'T)ON O( 2@)*)22)N ')T)LN9@)2

The record sho&s that private respondent &as born in 9an (rancisco, 'alifornia on 9eptember 3,"##, of (ilipino parents. 9ince the 2hilippines adheres to the principle ofjus sanguinis, &hile theUnited 9tates follo&s the doctrine ofjus soli, the parties a$ree that, at birth at least, he &as anational both of the 2hilippines and of the United 9tates. @o&ever, the 'OM*' en banc held that,by participatin$ in 2hilippine elections in "", ""#, and "", private respondent 5effectivelyrenounced his U.9. citiBenship under American la&,5 so that no& he is solely a 2hilippine national.

2etitioner challen$es this rulin$. @e ar$ues that merely ta;in$ part in 2hilippine elections is notsufficient evidence of renunciation and that, in any event, as the alle$ed renunciation &as made


13/86

&hen private respondent &as already !4 years old, it &as ineffective as it should have been made&hen he reached the a$e of majority.

)n holdin$ that by votin$ in 2hilippine elections private respondent renounced his AmericancitiBenship, the 'OM*' must have in mind G!3" of the )mmi$ration and Nationality Act of theUnited 9tates, &hich provided that 5A person &ho is a national of the United 9tates, &hether by birth

or naturaliBation, shall lose his nationality by+ . . . /e1 otin$ in a political election in a forei$n state orparticipatin$ in an election or plebiscite to determine the soverei$nty over forei$n territory.5 To be

sure this provision &as declared unconstitutional by the U.9. 9upreme 'ourt in,froyim v.Rus-16asbeyond the po&er $iven to the U.9. 'on$ress to re$ulate forei$n relations. @o&ever, by filin$ a certificateof candidacy &hen he ran for his present post, private respondent elected 2hilippine citiBenship and ineffect renounced his American citiBenship. 2rivate respondent?s certificate of candidacy, filed on March4, "", contained the follo&in$ statements made under oath+

8. ) AM A ()*)2)NO ')T)LN /9TAT )( 5NATU=A*-6O=N5 O=5NATU=A*)LD51 NATU=A*-6O=N

000 000 000

anuary


14/86

6y the la&s of the United 9tates, petitioner (rivaldo lost his AmericancitiBenship &hen he too; his oath of alle$iance to the 2hilippineCovernment &hen he ran for Covernor in ", in "", and in ""#.very certificate of candidacy contains an oath of alle$iance to the2hilippine Covernment.

These factual findin$s that (rivaldo has lost his forei$n nationality lon$ before theelections of ""# have not been effectively rebutted by *ee. (urthermore, it is basicthat such findin$s of the 'ommission are conclusive upon this 'ourt, absent anysho&in$ of capriciousness or arbitrariness or abuse.

There is, therefore, no merit in petitioner?s contention that the oath of alle$iance contained in privaterespondent?s certificate of candidacy is insufficient to constitute renunciation that, to be effective,such renunciation should have been made upon private respondent reachin$ the a$e of majoritysince no la& re%uires the election of 2hilippine citiBenship to be made upon majority a$e.

(inally, much is made of the fact that private respondent admitted that he is re$istered as anAmerican citiBen in the 6ureau of )mmi$ration and Deportation and that he holds an American

passport &hich he used in his last travel to the United 9tates on April , ""4. There is no merit inthis. Until the filin$ of his certificate of candidacy on March , "", he had dual citiBenship. Theacts attributed to him can be considered simply as the assertion of his American nationality beforethe termination of his American citiBenship. hat this 'ourt said in,/nar

v.C)M*L*C 1"appliesmutatis mun!atisto private respondent in the case at bar+

. . . 'onsiderin$ the fact that admittedly Osme7a &as both a (ilipino and anAmerican, the mere fact that he has a 'ertificate starin$ he is an American does notmean that he is not still a (ilipino. . . . JTKhe 'ertification that he is an American doesnot mean that he is not still a (ilipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities orcitiBenships. )ndeed, there is no e0press renunciation here of 2hilippine citiBenship:truth to tell, there is even no implied renunciation of said citiBenship. hen econsider that the renunciation needed to lose 2hilippine citiBenship must be5e0press,5 it stands to reason that there can be no such loss of 2hilippine citiBenship&hen there is no renunciation, either 5e0press5 or 5implied.5

To recapitulate, by declarin$ in his certificate of candidacy that he is a (ilipino citiBen: that he is not apermanent resident or immi$rant of another country: that he &ill defend and support the 'onstitutionof the 2hilippines and bear true faith and alle$iance thereto and that he does so &ithout mentalreservation, private respondent has, as far as the la&s of this country are concerned, effectivelyrepudiated his American citiBenship and anythin$ &hich he may have said before as a dual citiBen.

On the other hand, private respondent?s oath of alle$iance to the 2hilippines, &hen considered &iththe fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his education, practiced his professionas an artist, and ta;en part in past elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his election of

2hilippine citiBenship.

@is declarations &ill be ta;en upon the faith that he &ill fulfill his underta;in$ made under oath.9hould he betray that trust, there are enou$h sanctions for declarin$ the loss of his 2hilippine

citiBenship throu$h e0patriation in appropriate proceedin$s. )n 0u v.1efensor2Santiago, 19&esustained the denial of entry into the country of petitioner on the $round that, after ta;in$ his oath as anaturaliBed citiBen, he applied for the rene&al of his 2ortu$uese passport and declared in commercialdocuments e0ecuted abroad that he &as a 2ortu$uese national. A similar sanction can be ta;en a$ainst


15/86

any one &ho, in electin$ 2hilippine citiBenship, renounces his forei$n nationality, but subse%uently doessome act constitutin$ renunciation of his 2hilippine citiBenship.

@=(O=, the petition for certiorariis D)9M)99D for lac; of merit. %&wphi%.n(t

9O O=D=D.


16/86

G.R. No. 92191-92 J/% 3!, 1991

ANTON'O . CO, petitioner,vs.ELECTORAL TR'&UNAL O0 TE OUSE O0 RERESENTAT'ES AND JOSE ONG,JR., respondents.

G.R. No. 922!2-!3 J/% 3!, 1991

S'4TO T. &ALANU'T, JR., petitioner,vs.ELECTORAL TR'&UNAL O0 TE OUSE O0 RERESENTAT'ES AND JOSE ONG,JR., respondents.

3echanova 4 ,ssociates for petitioner Co.

Brillantes$ 5achura$ 5avarro an! ,rcilla Law )ffices for respon!ent )ng$ Jr.

GUT'ERRE(, JR., J.:p

The petitioners come to this 'ourt as;in$ for the settin$ aside and reversal of a decision of the@ouse of =epresentatives lectoral Tribunal /@=T1.

The @=T declared that respondent >ose On$, >r. is a natural born (ilipino citiBen and a resident of*aoan$, Northern 9amar for votin$ purposes. The sole issue before us is &hether or not, in ma;in$that determination, the @=T acted &ith $rave abuse of discretion.

On May , "4, the con$ressional election for the second district of Northern 9amar &as held.

Amon$ the candidates &ho vied for the position of representative in the second le$islative district ofNorthern 9amar are the petitioners, 9i0to 6alin%uit and Antonio 'o and the private respondent, >oseOn$, >r.

=espondent On$ &as proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district of Northern9amar.

The petitioners filed election protests a$ainst the private respondent premised on the follo&in$$rounds+

1 >ose On$, >r. is not a natural born citiBen of the 2hilippines: and

1 >ose On$, >r. is not a resident of the second district of Northern 9amar.

The @=T in its decision dated November 8, "", found for the private respondent.

A motion for reconsideration &as filed by the petitioners on November , "". This &as, ho&ever,denied by the @=T in its resolution dated (ebruary , "".


17/86

@ence, these petitions for certiorari.

e treat the comments as ans&ers and decide the issues raised in the petitions.

)5 T3* #SS6* ) J6R#S1#CT#)5

The first %uestion &hich arises refers to our jurisdiction.

The 'onstitution e0plicitly provides that the @ouse of =epresentatives lectoral Tribunal /@=T1 andthe 9enate lectoral Tribunal /9T1 shall be the sole ju!gesof all contests relatin$ to the election,returns, and 7ualificationsof their respective members. /SeeArticle ), 9ection 4, 'onstitution1

The authority conferred upon the lectoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete. The use of the&ord soleemphasiBes the e0clusivity of the jurisdiction of these Tribunals.

The 9upreme 'ourt in the case of La/atin v.3R*T/8 9'=A !" J"K1 stated that under the"4 'onstitution, the jurisdiction of the lectoral Tribunal is ori$inal and e0clusive, vi/+

The use of the &ord 5sole5 emphasiBes the e0clusive character of the jurisdictionconferred /An$ara v. lectoral 'ommission, supraat p. 81. The e0ercise of po&erby the lectoral 'ommission under the "!# 'onstitution has been described as5intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had ori$inally remained in thele$islature.5 /i!., at p. 4#1 arlier this $rant of po&er to the le$islature &ascharacteriBed by >ustice Malcolm as 5full, clear and complete: /eloso v. 6oard of'anvassers of *eyte and 9amar, !" 2hil. 8 J""K1 Under the amended "!#'onstitution, the po&er &as un%ualifiedly reposed upon the lectoral Tribunal and itremained as full, clear and complete as that previously $ranted the *e$islature andthe lectoral 'ommission, /*achica v. Iap, # 9'=A 3< J"8K1 The same may besaid &ith re$ard to the jurisdiction of the lectoral Tribunal under the "4'onstitution. /p. 3hen may the 'ourt in%uire into acts of the lectoral Tribunals under our constitutional $rants ofpo&erF

)n the later case of Robles v.3R*T/ 9'=A 4< J""


18/86

)n the leadin$ case of Morrero v.Bocar/88 2hil. 3" J"!K1 the 'ourt ruled that the po&er of thelectoral 'ommission 5is beyond judicial interference e0cept, in any event, upon a clear sho&in$ ofsuch arbitrary and improvident use of po&er as &ill constitute a denial of due process.5 The 'ourtdoes not venture into the perilous area of tryin$ to correct perceived errors of independent branchesof the Covernment, )t comes in only &hen it has to vindicate a denial of due process or correct anabuse of discretion so $rave or $larin$ that no less than the 'onstitution calls for remedial action.

The 9upreme 'ourt under the "4 'onstitution, has been $iven an e0panded jurisdiction, so tospea;, to revie& the decisions of the other branches and a$encies of the $overnment to determine&hether or not they have acted &ithin the bounds of the 'onstitution. /SeeArticle ))), 9ection ,'onstitution1

Iet, in the e0ercise thereof, the 'ourt is to merely chec; &hether or not the $overnmental branch ora$ency has $one beyond the 'onstitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a differentvie&. )n the absence of a sho&in$ that the @=T has committed $rave abuse of discretionamountin$ to lac; of jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the 'ourt to e0ercise its corrective po&er: it&ill not decide a matter &hich by its nature is for the @=T alone to decide. /SeeMarcos v.Man$lapus, 44 9'=A 88 J""K1 )t has no po&er to loo; into &hat it thin;s is apparent error.

As constitutional creations invested &ith necessary po&er, the lectoral Tribunals, althou$h notpo&ers in the tripartite scheme of the $overnment, are, in the e0ercise of their functions independentor$ans E independent of 'on$ress and the 9upreme 'ourt. The po&er $ranted to @=T by the'onstitution is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained ori$inally in thele$islature. /An$ara v. lectoral 'ommission, 8! 2hil. !" J"!8K1

)n passin$ upon petitions, the 'ourt &ith its traditional and careful re$ard for the balance of po&ers,must permit this e0clusive privile$e of the Tribunals to remain &here the 9overei$n authority hasplace it. /Seeeloso v. 6oards of 'anvassers of *eyte and 9amar, !" 2hil. 8 J""K1

)t has been ar$ued that under Article ), 9ection 4 of the present 'onstitution, the situation maye0ist as it e0ists today &here there is an unhealthy one-sided political composition of the t&olectoral Tribunals. There is nothin$ in the 'onstitution, ho&ever, that ma;es the @=T because ofits composition any less independent from the 'ourt or its constitutional functions any less e0clusive.The de$ree of judicial intervention should not be made to depend on ho& many le$islative membersof the @=T belon$ to this party or that party. The test remains the same-manifest $rave abuse ofdiscretion.

)n the case at bar, the 'ourt finds no improvident use of po&er, no denial of due process on the partof the @=T &hich &ill necessitate the e0ercise of the po&er of judicial revie& by the 9upreme'ourt.

)5 T3* #SS6* ) C#T#8*5S3#

The records sho& that in the year "#, the private respondent?s $randfather, On$ Te, arrived in the2hilippines from 'hina. On$ Te established his residence in the municipality of *aoan$, 9amar onland &hich he bou$ht from the fruits of hard .

As a resident of *aoan$, On$ Te &as able to obtain a certificate of residence from the then 9panishcolonial administration.


19/86

The father of the private respondent, >ose On$ 'huan &as born in 'hina in "ose On$ 'huan may already ta;e his Oath of Alle$iance.

2ursuant to said order, >ose On$ 'huan too; his Oath of Alle$iance: correspondin$ly, a certificate ofnaturaliBation &as issued to him.

At the time >ose On$ 'huan too; his oath, the private respondent then a minor of nine years &as

finishin$ his elementary education in the province of 9amar. There is nothin$ in the records todifferentiate him from other (ilipinos insofar as the customs and practices of the local populace &ereconcerned.

(ortunes chan$ed. The house of the family of the private respondent in *aoan$, 9amar &as burnedto the $round.

Undaunted by the catastrophe, the private respondent?s family constructed another one in place oftheir ruined house. A$ain, there is no sho&in$ other than that *aoan$ &as their abode and home.

After completin$ his elementary education, the private respondent, in search for better education,&ent to Manila in order to ac%uire his secondary and colle$e education.

)n the meantime, another misfortune &as suffered by the family in "4# &hen a fire $utted theirsecond house in *aoan$, 9amar. The respondent?s family constructed still another house, this time a8-door apartment buildin$, t&o doors of &hich &ere reserved for the family.

The private respondent $raduated from colle$e, and thereafter too; and passed the '2A 6oard0aminations.


20/86

9ince employment opportunities &ere better in Manila, the respondent loo;ed for here. @efound a job in the 'entral 6an; of the 2hilippines as an e0aminer. *ater, ho&ever, he ed in thehard&are business of his family in Manila. )n "4, his elder brother, mil, &as elected as a dele$ateto the "4 'onstitutional 'onvention. @is status as a natural born citiBen &as challen$ed.2arenthetically, the 'onvention &hich in draftin$ the 'onstitution removed the une%ual treatment$iven to derived citiBenship on the basis of the mother?s citiBenship formally and solemnly declared

mil On$, respondent?s full brother, as a natural born ilipino. The 'onstitutional 'onvention had tobe a&are of the meanin$ of natural born citiBenship since it &as precisely amendin$ the article onthis subject.

The private respondent fre%uently &ent home to *aoan$, 9amar, &here he $re& up and spent hischildhood days.

)n "3, the private respondent married a (ilipina named Desiree *im.

(or the elections of "3 and "8, >ose On$, >r. re$istered himself as a voter of *aoan$, 9amar,and correspondin$ly, voted there durin$ those elections.

The private respondent after bein$ en$a$ed for several years in the mana$ement of their familybusiness decided to be of $reater service to his province and ran for public office. @ence, &hen theopportunity came in "4, he ran in the elections for representative in the second district of Northern9amar.

Mr. On$ &as over&helmin$ly voted by the people of Northern 9amar as their representative in'on$ress. ven if the total votes of the t&o petitioners are combined, On$ &ould still lead the t&o bymore than 4,


21/86

The provision in 2ara$raph ! &as intended to correct an unfair position &hich discriminates a$ainst(ilipino &omen. There is no ambi$uity in the deliberations of the 'onstitutional 'ommission, vi/+

Mr. ABcuna+ ith respect to the provision of section 3, &ould this referonly to those &ho elect 2hilippine citiBenship after the effectivity ofthe "4! 'onstitution or &ould it also cover those &ho elected it

under the "4! 'onstitutionF

(r. 6ernas+ #t woul! apply to anybo!y who electe! hilippineciti/enship by virtue of the provision of the %9:; Constitution whetherthe election was !one before or after January %


22/86

000 000 000

Mr. =odri$o+ The purpose of that provision is to remedy anine%uitable situation. 6et&een "!# and "4! &hen &e &ere underthe "!# 'onstitution, those born of (ilipino fathers but alien mothers&ere natural-born (ilipinos. @o&ever, those born of (ilipino mothers

but alien fathers &ould have to elect 2hilippine citiBenship uponreachin$ the a$e of majority: and if they do elect, they become(ilipino citiBens but not natural-born (ilipino citiBens. /=ecords of the'onstitutional 'ommission, ol. , p. !#81

The fore$oin$ si$nificantly reveals the intent of the framers. To ma;e the provision prospective from(ebruary !, "4 is to $ive a narro& interpretation resultin$ in an ine%uitable situation. )t must alsobe retroactive.

)t should be noted that in construin$ the la&, the 'ourts are not al&ays to be hed$ed in by the literalmeanin$ of its lan$ua$e. The spirit and intendment thereof, must prevail over the letter, especially&here adherence to the latter &ould result in absurdity and injustice. /'asela v. 'ourt of Appeals, !#

9'=A 4" J"4ustice @olmes, are not mathematical formulas havin$ their essencein their form but are or$anic livin$ institutions, the si$nificance of &hich is vital not

formal. . . . /p. 341

The provision in %uestion &as enacted to correct the anomalous situation &here one born of a(ilipino father and an alien mother &as automatically $ranted the status of a natural-born citiBen&hile one born of a (ilipino mother and an alien father &ould still have to elect 2hilippine citiBenship.)f one so elected, he &as not, under earlier la&s, conferred the status of a natural-born.

Under the "4! 'onstitution, those born of (ilipino fathers and those born of (ilipino mothers &ith analien father &ere placed on e%ual footin$. They &ere both considered as natural-born citiBens.

@ence, the besto&ment of the status of 5natural-born5 cannot be made to depend on the fleetin$accident of time or result in t&o ;inds of citiBens made up of essentially the same similarly situatedmembers.

)t is for this reason that the amendments &ere enacted, that is, in order to remedy this accidentalanomaly, and, therefore, treat e%ually all those born before the "4! 'onstitution and &ho elected2hilippine citiBenship either before or after the effectivity of that 'onstitution.

The 'onstitutional provision in %uestion is, therefore curative in nature. The enactment &as meant tocorrect the ine%uitable and absurd situation &hich then prevailed, and thus, render those acts valid


23/86

&hich &ould have been nil at the time had it not been for the curative provisions. /SeeDevelopment6an; of the 2hilippines v. 'ourt of Appeals, "8 9'=A !3 J"anuary 4, "4!, if they electcitiBenship uponreachin$ the a$e of majority.

To e0pect the respondent to have formally or in &ritin$ elected citiBenship &hen he came of a$e is toas; for the unnatural and unnecessary. The reason is obvious. @e &as already a citiBen. Not only&as his mother a natural born citiBen but his father had been naturaliBed &hen the respondent &asonly nine /"1 years old. @e could not have divined &hen he came of a$e that in "4! and "4 the'onstitution &ould be amended to re%uire him to have filed a s&orn statement in "8" electin$citiBenship inspite of his already havin$ been a citiBen since "#4. )n "8", election throu$h a s&ornstatement &ould have been an unusual and unnecessary procedure for one &ho had been a citiBen

since he &as nine years old.

e have jurisprudence that defines 5election5 as both a formal and an informal process.

)n the case of #n Re+ lorencio Mallare/#" 9'=A 3# J"43K1, the 'ourt held that the e0ercise of theri$ht of suffra$e and the participation in election e0ercises constitute a positive act of election of2hilippine citiBenship. )n the e0act pronouncement of the 'ourt, &e held+

*steban=s e+ercise of the right of suffrage when he came of age$ constitutes apositive act of election of hilippine citi/enship/p. #: emphasis supplied1

The private respondent did more than merely e0ercise his ri$ht of suffra$e. @e has established his

life here in the 2hilippines.

(or those in the peculiar situation of the respondent &ho cannot be e0pected to have electedcitiBenship as they &ere already citiBens, &e apply the #n Re Mallarerule.

The respondent &as born in an outlyin$ rural to&n of 9amar &here there are no alien enclaves andno racial distinctions. The respondent has lived the life of a (ilipino since birth. @is father applied fornaturaliBation &hen the child &as still a small boy. @e is a =oman 'atholic. @e has ed for asensitive $overnment a$ency. @is profession re%uires citiBenship for ta;in$ the e0aminations and$ettin$ a license. @e has participated in political e0ercises as a (ilipino and has al&ays consideredhimself a (ilipino citiBen. There is nothin$ in the records to sho& that he does not embrace2hilippine customs and values, nothin$ to indicate any tin$e of alien-ness no acts to sho& that thiscountry is not his natural homeland. The mass of voters of Northern 9amar are frilly a&are of Mr.On$?s parenta$e. They should ;no& him better than any member of this 'ourt &ill ever ;no& him.They voted by over&helmin$ numbers to have him represent them in 'on$ress. 6ecause of his actssince childhood, they have considered him as a (ilipino.

The filin$ of s&orn statement or formal declaration is a re%uirement for those &ho still have to electcitiBenship.or those alrea!y ilipinos&hen the time to elect came up, there are acts of deliberatechoice &hich cannot be less bindin$. nterin$ a profession open only to (ilipinos, servin$ in publicoffice &here citiBenship is a %ualification, votin$ durin$ election time, runnin$ for public office, and


24/86

other cate$orical acts of similar nature are themselves formal manifestations of choice for thesepersons.

An election of 2hilippine citiBenship presupposes that the person electin$ is an alien. Or his status isdoubtful because he is a national of t&o countries. There is no doubt in this case about Mr. On$?sbein$ a (ilipino &hen he turned t&enty-one /1.

e repeat that any election of 2hilippine citiBenship on the part of the private respondent &ould notonly have been superfluous but it &ould also have resulted in an absurdity. @o& can a (ilipino citiBenelect 2hilippine citiBenshipF

The respondent @=T has an interestin$ vie& as to ho& Mr. On$ elected citiBenship. )t observedthat 5&hen protestee &as only nine years of a$e, his father, >ose On$ 'huan became a naturaliBed(ilipino. 9ection # of the =evised NaturaliBation Act s%uarely applies its benefit to him for he &asthen a minor residin$ in this country. 'oncededly, it was the law itself that ha! alrea!y electe!hilippine citi/enship for protestee by !eclaring him as such.5 /mphasis supplied1

The petitioners ar$ue that the respondent?s father &as not, validly, a naturaliBed citiBen because of

his premature ta;in$ of the oath of citiBenship.

The 'ourt cannot $o into the collateral procedure of strippin$ Mr. On$?s father of his citiBenship afterhis death and at this very late date just so &e can $o after the son.

The petitioners %uestion the citiBenship of the father throu$h a collateral approach. This can not bedone. )n our jurisdiction, an attac; on a person?s citiBenship may only be done throu$h a direct actionfor its nullity. /SeeHueto v. 'atolico, ! 9'=A # J"4ose On$ 'huan has already been laid to rest. @o&can he be $iven a fair opportunity to defend himself. A dead man cannot spea;. To %uote the &ords

of the @=T 5On$ 'huan?s lips have lon$ been muted to perpetuity by his demise and obviously hecould not use beyond &here his mortal remains no& lie to defend himself &ere this matter to bemade a central issue in this case.5

The issue before us is not the nullification of the $rant of citiBenship to >ose On$ 'huan. Ourfunction is to determine &hether or not the @=T committed abuse of authority in the e0ercise of itspo&ers. Moreover, the respondent traces his natural born citiBenship throu$h his mother, not throu$hthe citiBenship of his father. The citiBenship of the father is relevant only to determine &hether or notthe respondent 5chose5 to be a (ilipino &hen he came of a$e. At that time and up to the present,both mother and father &ere (ilipinos. =espondent On$ coul! not have electe! any otherciti/enshipunless he first formally renounced 2hilippine citiBenship in favor of a forei$n nationality.Unli;e other persons faced &ith a problem of election, there &as no forei$n nationality of his father&hich he could possibly have chosen.

There is another reason &hy &e cannot declare the @=T as havin$ committed manifest $raveabuse of discretion. The same issue of natural-born citiBenship has already been decided by the'onstitutional 'onvention of "4 and by the 6atasan$ 2ambansa convened by authority of the'onstitution drafted by that 'onvention. mil On$, full blood brother of the respondent, &as declaredand accepted as a natural born citiBen by both bodies.


25/86

Assumin$ that our opinion is different from that of the 'onstitutional 'onvention, the 6atasan$2ambansa, and the respondent @=T, such a difference could only be characteriBed as error. There&ould be no basis to call the @=T decision so arbitrary and &himsical as to amount to grave abuseof !iscretion.

hat &as the basis for the 'onstitutional 'onvention?s declarin$ mil On$ a natural born citiBenF

Under the 2hilippine 6ill of "


26/86

place. /6ouvier?s *a& Dictionary, ol. ))1 Apriori, there can be no other lo$ical conclusion but toeduce that On$ Te %ualified as a (ilipino citiBen under the provisions of section 3 of the 2hilippine6ill of "ustice (ernan, and Mr. >ustice Davide, >r. The petitioners could have


27/86

presented any one of the lon$ list of dele$ates to refute Mr. On$?s havin$ been declared a natural-born citiBen. They did not do so. Nor did they demur to the contents of the documents presented bythe private respondent. They merely relied on the procedural objections respectin$ the admissibilityof the evidence presented.

The 'onstitutional 'onvention &as the sole ju!geof the %ualifications of mil On$ to be a member

of that body. The @=T by e0plicit mandate of the 'onstitution, is the sole ju!geof the %ualificationsof >ose On$, >r. to be a member of 'on$ress. 6oth bodies deliberated at len$th on the controversiesover &hich they &ere sole ju!ges. Decisions &ere arrived at only after a full presentation of allrelevant factors &hich the parties &ished to present. ven assumin$ that &e disa$ree &ith theirconclusions, &e cannot declare their acts as committed &ith $rave abuse of discretion. e have to;eep clear the line bet&een errorand grave abuse.

)5 T3* #SS6* ) R*S#1*5C*

The petitioners %uestion the residence %ualification of respondent On$.

The petitioners lose si$ht of the meanin$ of 5residence5 under the 'onstitution. The term 5residence5

has been understood as synonymous &ith !omicilenot only under the previous 'onstitutions butalso under the "4 'onstitution.

The deliberations of the 'onstitutional 'ommission reveal that the meanin$ of residence vis2a2visthe %ualifications of a candidate for 'on$ress continues to remain the same as that of domicile,to &it+

Mr. Nolledo+ ith respect to 9ection #, ) remember that in the "4'onstitutional 'onvention, there &as an attempt to re%uire residencein the place not less than one year immediately precedin$ the day ofthe elections. 9o my %uestion is+ hat is the 'ommittee?s concept ofresidence of a candidate for the le$islatureF )s it actual residence or

is it the concept of domicile or constructive residenceF

Mr. Davide+ Madame 2resident, in so far as the re$ular members ofthe National Assembly are concerned, the proposed section merelyprovides, amon$ others, and a resident thereof, that is, in the district,for a period of not less than one year precedin$ the day of theelection. This &as in effect lifted from the "4! 'onstitution, theinterpretation $iven to it &as domicile. /=ecords of the "4'onstitutional 'onvention, ol. , >uly , "8. p. 41

000 000 000

Mrs. =osario 6raid+ The ne0t %uestion is on 9ection 4, pa$e . ) thin;'ommissioner Nolledo has raised the same point that 5resident5 hasbeen interpreted at times as a matter of intention rather than actualresidence.

Mr. De los =eyes+ Domicile.


28/86

Ms. =osario 6raid+ Ies, 9o, &ould the $entlemen consider at theproper time to $o bac; to actual residence rather than mere intentionto resideF

Mr. De los =eyes+ 6ut &e mi$ht encounter some difficulty especiallyconsiderin$ that a provision in the 'onstitution in the Article on

9uffra$e says that (ilipinos livin$ abroad may vote as enacted by la&.9o, &e have to stic; to the ori$inal concept that it should be bydomicile and not physical and actual residence. /=ecords of the "4'onstitutional 'ommission, ol. , >uly , "8, p. ose On$, >r. never abandoned saiddomicile: it remained fi0ed therein even up to the present.

The private respondent, in the proceedin$s before the @=T sufficiently established that after thefire that $utted their house in "8, another one &as constructed.

*i;e&ise, after the second fire &hich a$ain destroyed their house in "4#, a si0teen-door apartment&as built by their family, t&o doors of &hich &ere reserved as their family residence. /T9N, >oseOn$, >r., November ,", p. 1

The petitioners? alle$ation that since the private respondent o&ns no property in *aoan$, 9amar, hecannot, therefore, be a resident of said place is misplaced.

The properties o&ned by the On$ (amily are in the name of the private respondent?s parents. Uponthe demise of his parents, necessarily, the private respondent, pursuant to the la&s of succession,became the co-o&ner thereof /as a co- heir1, not&ithstandin$ the fact that these &ere still in thenames of his parents.

ven assumin$ that the private respondent does not o&n any property in 9amar, the 9upreme 'ourtin the case of 1e los Reyes v.Soli!um/8 2hil. "! J"!#K1 held that it is not re%uired that a personshould have a house in order to establish his residence and domicile. #t is enough that he shoul! livein the municipality or in a rente! house or in that of a frien! or relative. /mphasis supplied1

To re%uire the private respondent to o&n property in order to be eli$ible to run for 'on$ress &ould betantamount to a property %ualification. The 'onstitution only re%uires that the candidate meet thea$e, citiBenship, votin$ and residence re%uirements. No&here is it re%uired by the 'onstitution thatthe candidate should also o&n property in order to be %ualified to run. /seeMa%uera v. 6orra, 2hil. 3 J"8#K1


29/86

)t has also been settled that absence from residence to pursue studies or practice a profession orre$istration as a voter other than in the place &here one is elected, does not constitute loss ofresidence. /(aypon v. Huirino, "8 2hil. "3 J"#3K1

As previously stated, the private respondent stayed in Manila for the purpose of finishin$ his studiesand later to practice his profession, There &as no intention to abandon the residence in *aoan$,

9amar. On the contrary, the periodical journeys made to his home province reveal that he al&ayshad the animusreverten!i.

The 2hilippines is made up not only of a sin$le race: it has, rather, under$one an interracialevolution. Throu$hout our history, there has been a continuin$ influ0 of Malays, 'hinese, Americans,>apanese, 9paniards and other nationalities. This racial diversity $ives stren$th to our country.

Many $reat (ilipinos have not been &hole-blooded nationals, if there is such a person, for there isnone. To mention a fe&, the $reat >ose =iBal &as part 'hinese, the late 'hief >ustice 'laudioTeehan;ee &as part 'hinese, and of course our o&n 2resident, 'oraBon A%uino is also part'hinese. erily, some (ilipinos of &hom &e are proud &ere ethnically more 'hinese than the privaterespondent.

Our citiBens no doubt constitute the country?s $reatest &ealth. 'itiBenship is a special privile$e &hichone must forever cherish.

@o&ever, in order to truly revere this treasure of citiBenship, &e do not, on the basis of too harsh aninterpretation, have to unreasonably deny it to those &ho %ualify to share in its richness.

Under the overly strict jurisprudence surroundin$ our anti%uated naturaliBation la&s only the veryaffluent bac;ed by influential patrons, &ho &ere &illin$ to suffer the indi$nities of a len$thy,sometimes humiliatin$, and often corrupt process of clearances by minor bureaucrats and &hosela&yers ;ne& ho& to overcome so many technical traps of the judicial process &ere able to ac%uirecitiBenship. )t is time for the naturaliBation la& to be revised to enable a more positive, affirmative,

and meanin$ful e0amination of an applicant?s suitability to be a (ilipino. A more humane, moreindubitable and less technical approach to citiBenship problems is essential.

@=(O=, the petitions are hereby D)9M)99D. The %uestioned decision of the @ouse of=epresentatives lectoral Tribunal is A(()=MD. =espondent >ose On$, >r. is declared a natural-born citiBen of the 2hilippines and a resident of *aoan$, Northern 9amar.

9O O=D=D.


30/86

G.R. No. 12!295 J)e 2", 1996

JUAN G. 0R'ALDO, petitioner,vs.CO##'SS'ON ON ELECT'ONS, $)* RAUL R. LEE, respondents.

G.R. No. 123755 J)e 2", 1996

RAUL R. LEE, petitioner,vs.CO##'SS'ON ON ELECT'ONS $)* JUAN G. 0R'ALDO, respondents.

ANGAN'&AN, J.:p

The ultimate %uestion posed before this 'ourt in these t&in cases is+ ho should be declared theri$htful $overnor of 9orso$on -

/i1 >uan C. (rivaldo, &ho un%uestionably obtained the hi$hest number of votes in three successiveelections but &ho &as t&ice declared by this 'ourt to be dis%ualified to hold such office due to hisalien citiBenship, and &ho no& claims to have re-assumed his lost 2hilippine citiBenship thrurepatriation:

/ii1 =aul =. *ee, &ho &as the second placer in the canvass, but &ho claims that the votes cast infavor of (rivaldo should be considered void: that the electorate should be deemed to haveintentionally thro&n a&ay their ballots: and that legally, he secured the most number of vali!votes:or

/iii1 The incumbent ice-Covernor, Oscar C. Deri, &ho obviously &as not voted directly to the

position of $overnor, but &ho accordin$ to prevailin$ jurisprudence should ta;e over the said postinasmuch as, by the ineli$ibility of (rivaldo, a 5permanent vacancy in the contested office hasoccurred5F

)n rulin$ for (rivaldo, the 'ourt lays do&n ne& doctrines on repatriation, clarifiesreiteratesamplifiese0istin$ jurisprudence on citiBenship and elections, and upholds the superiority of substantial justiceover pure le$alisms.

>.R. 5o. %?:


31/86

(rivaldo 5be dis%ualified from see;in$ or holdin$ any public office or position by reason of not yet bein$ acitiBen of the 2hilippines5, and that his 'ertificate of 'andidacy be canceled. On May , ""#, the 9econdDivision of the 'omelec promul$ated a =esolution5$rantin$ the petition &ith the follo&in$ disposition6+

@=(O=, this Division resolves to C=ANT the petition and declares thatrespondent is D)9HUA*)()D to run for the Office of Covernor of 9orso$on on the

$round that he is NOT a citiBen of the 2hilippines. Accordin$ly, respondent?scertificate of candidacy is canceled.

The Motion for =econsideration filed by (rivaldo remained unacted upon until after the May , ""#elections. 9o, his candidacy continued and he &as voted for durin$ the elections held on said date.

On May , ""#, the 'omelec en banc7affirmed the aforementioned =esolution of the 9econdDivision.

The 2rovincial 6oard of 'anvassers completed the canvass of the election returns and a 'ertificateof otes"dated May 4, ""# &as issued sho&in$ the follo&in$ votes obtained by the candidates for theposition of Covernor of 9orso$on+

Antonio @. scudero, >r. #,uan C. (rivaldo 4!,33une !une !une !


32/86

2=M)99 'ON9)D=D, the 'ommission /(irst Division1, therefore =9O*9to C=ANT the 2etition.

'onsistent &ith the decisions of the 9upreme 'ourt, the proclamation of =aul =. *eeas Covernor of 9orso$on is hereby ordered annulled, bein$ contrary to la&, he nothavin$ $arnered the hi$hest number of votes to &arrant his proclamation.

Upon the finality of the annulment of the proclamation of =aul =. *ee, the 2rovincial6oard of 'anvassers is directed to immediately reconvene and, on the basis of thecompleted canvass, proclaim petitioner >uan C. (rivaldo as the duly electedCovernor of 9orso$on havin$ $arnered the hi$hest number of votes, and he havin$reac%uired his (ilipino citiBenship by repatriation on >une !.R.5o. %?:


33/86

. =esolution16of the 9econd Division, promul$ated on May , ""#, dis%ualifyin$(rivaldo from runnin$ for $overnor of 9orso$on in the May , ""# elections 5on the$round that he is not a citiBen of the 2hilippines5:

. =esolution17of the 'omelecen banc, promul$ated on May , ""#: and

!. =esolution1"of the 'omelecen banc, promul$ated also on May , ""# suspendin$the proclamation of, amon$ others, (rivaldo.

The acts an! the #ssue

The facts of this case are essentially the same as those in C.=. No. !4##. @o&ever, (rivaldoassails the above-mentioned resolutions on a different $round+ that under 9ection 4 of the Omnibuslection 'ode, &hich is reproduced hereinunder+

9ec. 4. etition to !eny !ue course or to cancel a certificate of can!i!acy. -- Averified petition see;in$ to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacymay be filed by any person e0clusively on the $round that any material

representation contained therein as re%uired under 9ection 43 hereof is false. Thepetition may be filed at any time not later than t&enty-five days from the time of thefilin$ of the certificate of candidacy and shall be !eci!e!, after notice andhearin$, not later than fifteen !ays before the election. /mphasis supplied.1

the 'omelec had no jurisdiction to issue said =esolutions because they &ere not rendered5&ithin the period allo&ed by la&5 i.e., 5not later than fifteen days before the election.5

Other&ise stated, (rivaldo contends that the failure of the 'omelec to act on the petition fordis%ualification &ithin the period of fifteen days prior to the election as provided by la& is a

jurisdictional defect &hich renders the said =esolutions null and void.

6y =esolution on March , ""8, the 'ourt consolidated C.=. Nos.


34/86

3. as the proclamation of *ee, a runner-up in the election, valid and le$al in li$ht of e0istin$jurisprudenceF

#. Did the respondent 'ommission on lections e0ceed its jurisdiction in promul$atin$ the assailed=esolutions, all of &hich prevented (rivaldo from assumin$ the $overnorship of 9orso$on,considerin$ that they &ere not rendered &ithin the period referred to in 9ection 4 of the Omnibus

lection 'ode, vi/., 5not later than fifteen days before the elections5F

The irst #ssue+rival!o=s Repatriation

The validity and effectivity of (rivaldo?s repatriation is the lis mota, the threshold le$al issue in thiscase. All the other matters raised are secondary to this.

The *ocal Covernment 'ode of ""19e0pressly re%uires 2hilippine citiBenship as a %ualification forelective local officials, includin$ that of provincial $overnor, thus+

9ec. !". ualifications. -- /a1 An elective local official must be a citiBen of the2hilippines: a re$istered voter in the baran$ay, municipality, city, or province or, in the

case of a member of the san$$unian$ panlala&i$an, san$$unian$ panlun$sod, orsan$$unian$ bayan, the district &here he intends to be elected: a resident therein forat least one /1 year immediately precedin$ the day of the election: and able to readand &rite (ilipino or any other local lan$ua$e or dialect.

/b1 'andidates for the position of $overnor, vice $overnor or memberof the san$$unian$ panlala&i$an, or mayor, vice mayor or member ofthe san$$unian$ panlun$sod of hi$hly urbaniBed cities must be atleast t&enty-three /!1 years of a$e on election day.

000 000 000

)nasmuch as (rivaldo had been declared by this 'ourt2!as a non-citiBen, it is therefore incumbentupon him to sho& that he has reac%uired citiBenship: in fine, that he possesses the %ualificationsprescribed under the said statute /=.A. 48


35/86

provisions of said Decree at +une !une !une ", ""#, he filled up and re-submitted the


36/86

(O=M that the 'ommittee re%uired. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that there &as5indecent haste5 in the processin$ of his application.

Anent *ee?s char$e that the 5sudden reconstitution of the 9pecial 'ommittee on NaturaliBation &as

intended solely for the personal interest of respondent,527the 9olicitor Ceneral e0plained durin$ theoral ar$ument on March ", ""8 that such alle$ation is simply baseless as there &ere many others &ho

applied and &ere considered for repatriation, a list of &hom &as submitted by him to this 'ourt, throu$h aManifestation2"filed on April !, ""8.

On the basis of the parties? submissions, &e are convinced that the presumption of re$ularity in theperformance of official duty and the presumption of le$ality in the repatriation of (rivaldo have notbeen successfully rebutted by *ee. The mere fact that the proceedin$s &ere speeded up is by itselfnot a $round to conclude that such proceedin$s &ere necessarily tainted. After all, the re%uirementsof repatriation under 2.D. No. 4# are not difficult to comply &ith, nor are they tedious andcumbersome. )n fact, 2.D.

4#29itself re%uires very little of an applicant, and even the rules and re$ulations to implement the saiddecree &ere left to the 9pecial 'ommittee to promul$ate. This is not unusual since, unli;e in

naturaliBation &here an alien covets afirst2timeentry into 2hilippine political life, in repatriation the

applicant is a former natural-born (ilipino &ho is merely see;in$ to reac%uire his previous citiBenship. )nthe case of (rivaldo, he &as undoubtedly a natural-born citiBen &ho openly and faithfully served hiscountry and his province prior to his naturaliBation in the United 9tates -- a naturaliBation he insists &asmade necessary only to escape the iron clutches of a dictatorship he abhorred and could not inconscience embrace -- and &ho, after the fall of the dictator and the re-establishment of democraticspace, &asted no time in returnin$ to his country of birth to offer once more his talent and services to hispeople.

9o too, the fact that ten other persons, as certified to by the 9olicitor Ceneral, &ere $rantedrepatriation ar$ues convincin$ly and conclusively a$ainst the e0istence of favoritism vehementlyposited by =aul *ee. At any rate, any contest on the le$ality of (rivaldo?s repatriation should havebeen pursued before the 'ommittee itself, and, failin$ there, in the Office of the 2resident, pursuantto the doctrine of e0haustion of administrative remedies.

Thir!, *ee further contends that assumin$ the assailed repatriation to be valid, nevertheless it couldonly be effective as at +une !


37/86

able to read and &rite (ilipino or any other local lan$ua$e or dialect.

)n addition, 5candidates for the position of $overnor . . . must be at least t&enty-three /!1 years of a$e on election day.

(rom the above, it &ill be noted that the la& does not specify any particular date or time &hen the

candidate must possess citiBenship, unli;e that for residence /&hich must consist of at least oneyear=s resi!ency imme!iately prece!ingthe day of election1 and a$e /at least t&enty three years ofa$e on election !ay1.

2hilippine citiBenship is an indispensable re%uirement for holdin$ an elective public office,31and thepurpose of the citiBenship %ualification is none other than to ensure that no alien,i.e., no person o&in$alle$iance to another nation, shall $overn our people and our country or a unit of territory thereof. No&, an

official be$ins to $overn or to dischar$e his functions only upon his proclamationan!on the day the la&mandates his term of office to be$in. 9ince (rivaldo re-assumed his citiBenship on >une !iap an! Li Seng >iap 4 Sons,33if the purpose of the citiBenship re%uirement is toensure that our people and country do not end up bein$ $overned by aliens,i.e., persons o&in$ alle$iance

to another nation, that aim or purpose &ouldnot be thwarte! but instea! achieve!by construin$ thecitiBenship %ualification as applyin$ to the time of proclamation of the elected official and at the start of his

term.

6ut perhaps the more difficult objection &as the one raised durin$ the oral ar$ument 3to the effectthat the citiBenship %ualification should be possessed at the time the candidate /or for that matter theelected official1 re$istered as a voter. After all, 9ection !", apart from re%uirin$ the official to be a citiBen,

also specifies as another item of %ualification, that he be a 5re$istered voter5. And, under the la&35a5voter5 must be a citiBen of the 2hilippines. 9o therefore, (rivaldo could not have been a voter -- much

less avali!lyre$istered one -- if he &as not a citiBen at the time of such re$istration.

The ans&er to this problem a$ain lies in discernin$ the purpose of the re%uirement. )f the la&intended theciti/enship%ualification to be possessed prior to election consistent &ith the re%uirementof bein$ a re$istered voter, then it &ould not have made citiBenship a 92A=AT %ualification. The

la& abhors a redundancy. )t therefore stands to reason that the la& intended ')T)LN9@)2 to be a%ualification distinct from bein$ a OT=, even if bein$ a voter presumes bein$ a citiBen first. )t alsostands to reason that the voter re%uirement &as included as another %ualification /aside from5citiBenship51, not to reiterate the need for nationality but to re%uire that the official be re$istered as avoter )N T@ A=A O= T==)TO=I he see;s to $overn, i.e., the la& states+ 5a re$istered voter inthe baran$ay, municipality, city, or province . . . &here he intends to be elected.5 )t should beemphasiBed that the *ocal Covernment 'ode re%uires an elective official to be a registere! voter. )tdoes not re%uire him to vote actually. @ence, re$istration -- not the actual votin$ -- is the core of this


38/86

5%ualification5. )n other &ords, the la&?s purpose in this second re%uirement is to ensure that theprospective official is actually re$istered in the area he see;s to $overn -- an! not anywhere else.

6efore this 'ourt, (rivaldo has repeatedly emphasiBed -- and *ee has not disputed -- that he 5&asand is a re$istered voter of 9orso$on, and his re$istration as a voter has been sustained as valid by

judicial declaration . . . )n fact, he cast his vote in his precinct on May , ""#.536

9o too, durin$ the oral ar$ument, his counsel steadfastly maintained that 5Mr. (rivaldo has al&aysbeen a re$istered voter of 9orso$on. @e has voted in "4, ", "", then he voted a$ain in""#. )n fact, his eli$ibility as a voter &as %uestioned, but the court dismissed /sic1 his eli$ibility as avoter and he &as allo&ed to vote as in fact, he voted in all the previous elections includin$ on May ,""#.537

)t is thus clear that (rivaldo is a registere! voter in the province&here he intended to be elected.

There is yet another reason &hy the prime issue of citi/enshipshould be rec;oned from the date ofproclamation, not necessarily the date of election or date of filin$ of the certificate of candidacy.

9ection #! of the Omnibus lection 'ode 3"$ives any voter, presumably includin$ the defeatedcandidate, the opportunity to %uestion the *)C)6)*)TI /or the disloyalty1 of a candidate. This is the onlyprovision of the 'ode that authoriBes a remedy on ho& to contest before the 'omelec an incumbent?sineli$ibility arisin$ from failure to meet the %ualifications enumerated under 9ec. !" of the *ocal

Covernment 'ode. 9uch remedy ofuo arrantocan be availed of 5&ithin ten days after proclamation5of the &innin$ candidate. @ence, it isonly at such timethat the issue of ineli$ibility may be ta;enco$niBance of by the 'ommission. And since, at the very moment of *ee?s proclamation /+!< p.m., >une!uan C. (rivaldo &as already and indubitably a citiBen, havin$ ta;en his oath of alle$ianceearlier in the afternoon of the same day, then he should have been the candidate proclaimed as heun%uestionably $arnered the hi$hest number of votes in the immediately precedin$ elections and suchoath had already cured his previous 5judicially-declared5 aliena$e. @ence, at such time, he &as no lon$erineli$ible.

6ut to remove all doubts on this important issue, &e also hold that the repatriation of (rivaldo=T=OA'TD to the date of the filin$ of his application on Au$ust 4, ""3.

)t is true that under the 'ivil 'ode of the 2hilippines, 395/l1a&s shall have no retroactive effect, unlessthe contrary is provided.5 6ut there are settled e0ceptions!to this $eneral rule, such as &hen the statuteis 'U=AT) or =MD)A* in nature or &hen it '=AT9 N =)C@T9.

Accordin$ to Tolentino,1curative statutes are those &hich underta;e to cure errors and irre$ularities,thereby validatin$ judicial or administrative proceedin$s, acts of public officers, or private deeds and

contractswhich otherwise woul! not pro!uce their inten!e! conse7uences by reason of some statutory!isability or failure to comply with some technical re7uirement. They operate on conditions already

e0istin$, and are necessarily retroactive in operation. A$palo,2on the other hand, says that curative

statutes are5healin$ acts . . . curin$ defects and addin$ to the means of enforcin$ e0istin$ obli$ations . . . /and1 areintended to supply defects, abrid$e superfluities in e0istin$ la&s, and curb certain evils. . . . 6y their verynature, curative statutes are retroactive . . . /and1 reach bac; to past events to correct errors orirre$ularities and to render valid and effective attempted acts &hich &ould be other&ise ineffective for thepurpose the parties intended.5

On the other hand, remedial or procedural la&s, i.e., those statutes relatin$ to remedies or modes ofprocedure, &hich do not create ne& or ta;e a&ay vested ri$hts, but only operate in furtherance of


39/86

the remedy or confirmation of such ri$hts, ordinarily do not come &ithin the le$al meanin$ of aretrospective la&, nor &ithin the $eneral rule a$ainst the retrospective operation of statutes. 3

A readin$ of 2.D. 4# immediately sho&s that it creates a ne& ri$ht, and also provides for a ne&remedy, thereby fillin$ certain voids in our la&s. Thus, in its preamble, 2.D. 4# e0pressly reco$niBesthe pli$ht of 5many (ilipino &omen /&ho1 had lost their 2hilippine citiBenship by marria$e to aliens5

and &ho could not, under the e0istin$ la& /'.A. No. 8!, as amended1 avail of repatriation until 5afterthe death of their husbands or the termination of their marital status5 and &ho could neither bebenefitted by the "4! 'onstitution?s ne& provision allo&in$ 5a (ilipino &oman &ho marries an aliento retain her 2hilippine citiBenship . . .5 because 5such provision of the ne& 'onstitution does notapply to (ilipino &omen &ho had married aliens before said constitution too; effect.5 Thus, 2.D. 4#$ranted a new rightto these &omen -- the ri$ht to re-ac%uire (ilipino citiBenship even durin$ theirmarital coverture, &hich ri$ht did not e0ist prior to 2.D. 4#. On the other hand, said statute alsoprovided a new reme!yand a new rightin favor of other 5natural born (ilipinos &ho /had1 lost their2hilippine citiBenship but no& desire to re-ac%uire 2hilippine citiBenship5, because prior to thepromul$ation of 2.D. 4# such former (ilipinos &ould have had to under$o the tedious andcumbersome process of naturaliBation, but &ith the advent of 2.D. 4# they could no& re-ac%uiretheir 2hilippine citiBenship under the simplified procedure of repatriation.

The 9olicitor Ceneralar$ues+

6y their very nature, curative statutes are retroactive, /D62 vs. 'A, "8 9'=A !31,since they are intended to supply defects, abrid$e superfluities in e0istin$ la&s /Del'astillo vs. 9ecurities and 0chan$e 'ommission, "8 2hil. "1 and curb certainevils /9antos vs. Duata, 3 9'=A


40/86

At this point, a valid %uestion may be raised+ @o& can the retroactivity of 2.D. 4# benefit (rivaldoconsiderin$ that said la& &as enacted on >une #, "4#, &hile (rivaldo lost his (ilipino citiBenshipmuch later, on >anuary


41/86

)t is not disputed that on >anuary


42/86

)ndeed, decisions declarin$ the ac%uisition or denial of citiBenship cannot $overn a person?s futurestatus &ith finality. This is because a person may subse%uently reac%uire, or for that matter lose, hiscitiBenship under any of the modes reco$niBed by la& for the purpose. @ence, in Lee

vs. Commissioner of #mmigration,56&e held+

verytime the citiBenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or

administrative case, &hatever the correspondin$ court or administrative authoritydecides therein as to such citiBenship is $enerally not considered res ju!icata, henceit has to be threshed out a$ain and a$ain, as the occasion demands.

The Thir! #ssue+Comelec=s Juris!iction)ver The etition in SC 5o.9;2:%uly 8, ""# -- 5beyond the #-day re$lementary period.5 @ence, accordin$ to

him, (rivaldo?s 5recourse &as to file either an election protest or a 7uo warrantoaction.5

This ar$ument is not meritorious. The 'onstitution 57has $iven the 'omelec ample po&er to 5e0ercisee0clusive ori$inal jurisdiction over all contests relatin$ to the elections, returns and %ualifications of allelective . . . provincial . . . officials.5 )nstead of d&ellin$ at len$th on the various petitions that 'omelec, inthe e0ercise of its constitutional prero$atives, may entertain, suffice it to say that this 'ourt has invariablyreco$niBed the 'ommission?s authority to hear and decide petitions for annulment of proclamations -- of

&hich 92' No. "#-!4 obviously is one. 5"Thus, inMentang vs.C)M*L*C,59&e ruled+

The petitioner ar$ues that after proclamation and assumption of office, a pre-proclamation controversy is no lon$er viable. )ndeed, &e are a&are of cases holdin$that pre-proclamation controversies may no lon$er be entertained by the 'OM*'

after the &innin$ candidate has been proclaimed. /citing Callardo vs. =imando, 49'=A 38!: 9alvacion vs. 'OM*', 4< 9'=A #!: 'asimiro vs. 'OM*', 49'=A 38.1 This rule, ho&ever, is premised on an assumption that the proclamationis no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate?s assumption of office cannotdeprive the 'OM*' of the po&er to ma;e such declaration of nullity./citingA$uam vs. 'OM*', ! 9'=A !: A$bayani vs. 'OM*', 8 9'=A33.1

The 'ourt ho&ever cautioned that such po&er to annul a proclamation must 5be done &ithin ten /


43/86

)n spite of this, *ee anchors his claim to the $overnorship on the pronouncement of this 'ourt in the

aforesaid *abo62case, as follo&s+

The rule &ould have been different if the electorate fully a&are in fact and in la& of acandidate?s dis%ualification so as to brin$ such a&areness &ithin the realm ofnotoriety, &ould nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineli$ible candidate. )n

such case, the electorate may be said to have &aived the validity and efficacy of theirvotes by notoriously misapplyin$ their franchise or thro&in$ a&ay their votes, in&hich case, the eli$ible candidate obtainin$ the ne0t hi$her number of votes may bedeemed elected.

6ut such holdin$ is %ualified by the ne0t para$raph, thus+

6ut this is not the situation obtainin$ in the instant dispute. )t has not been sho&n,and none &as alle$ed, that petitioner *abo &as notoriously ;no&n as an ineli$iblecandidate, much less the electorate as havin$ ;no&n of such fact. On the contrary,petitioner *abo &as even allo&ed by no less than the 'omelec itself in its resolutiondated May


44/86

9ec. 4. etition to !eny !ue course or to cancel a certificate of can!i!acy. -- Averified petition see;in$ to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacymay be filed by any person e0clusively on the $round that any materialrepresentation contained therein as re%uired under 9ection 43 hereof is false. Thepetition may be filed at any time not later than t&enty-five days from the time of thefilin$ of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided after notice and hearin$, not

later than fifteen !ays before the election. /mphasis supplied.1

This claim is no& moot and academic inasmuch as these resolutions are deemed superseded by thesubse%uent ones issued by the 'ommission /(irst Division1 on December ", ""#, affirmed en

banc63on (ebruary !, ""8: &hich both upheld his election. At any rate, it is obvious that 9ection 4 ismerely directory as 9ection 8 of =.A. No. 8838 authoriBes the 'ommission to try and decide petitions fordis%ualifications even after the elections, thus+

9ec. 8. *ffect of 1is7ualification Case. -- Any candidate &ho has been declared byfinal jud$ment to be dis%ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for himshall not be counted. #f for any reason a can!i!ate is not !eclare! by final ju!gmentbefore an election to be !is7ualifie! an! he is vote! for an! receives the winning

number of votes in such election$ the Court or Commission shall continue with thetrial an! hearing of the action$ in7uiry or protest an! upon motion of the complainantor any intervenor$ may !uring the pen!ency thereof or!er the suspension of the

proclamation of such can!i!ate whenever the evi!ence of his guilt is strong./emphasis supplied1

Refutation ofMr.Justice 1avi!e=s 1issent

)n his dissentin$ opinion, the esteemed Mr. >ustice @ilario C. Davide, >r. ar$ues that 2residentA%uino?s memorandum dated March 4, "4 should be vie&ed as a suspension /not a repeal, asur$ed by *ee1 of 2.D. 4#. 6ut &hether it decrees a suspension or a repeal is a purely academicdistinction because the said issuance is not a statute that can amend or abro$ate an e0istin$ la&.

The e0istence and subsistence of 2.D. 4# &ere reco$niBed in the first (rivaldo case: 6vi/., 5/u1nder'A No. 8! as amended by 'A No. 34! and.1.5o.


45/86

teaches that a petition to deny due course under 9ection 4 must be file! &ithin the ?;2!ay periodprescribed therein. The present case ho&ever deals &ith the period durin$ &hich the 'omelecmay !eci!esuch petition. And &e hold that it may be decided even after thefifteen !ay periodmentioned in 9ection 4. @ere, &e rule that a decisionpromulgate!by the 'omelec even after theelections is valid but Loongheld that a petitionfile!beyond the #-day period is out of time. There isno inconsistency nor conflict.

Mr. >ustice Davide also disa$rees &ith the 'ourt?s holdin$ that, $iven the uni%ue factualcircumstances of (rivaldo, repatriation may be $iven retroactive effect. @e ar$ues that suchretroactivity 5dilutes5 our holdin$ in the first (rivaldo case. 6ut the first /and even the second(rivaldo1 decision did not directly involve repatriation as a mode of ac%uirin$ citiBenship. )f &e mayrepeat, there is no %uestion that (rivaldo &as not a (ilipino for purposes of determinin$ his%ualifications in the " and "" elections. That is settled. 6ut his supervenin$ repatriation haschan$ed his political status -- not in " or "", but only in the ""# elections.

Our learned collea$ue also disputes our holdin$ that (rivaldo &as stateless prior to his repatriation,sayin$ that 5informal renunciation or abandonment is not a $round to lose American citiBenship5.9ince our courts are char$ed only &ith the duty of determinin$ &ho are 2hilippine nationals, &e

cannot rule on the le$al %uestion of &ho are or &ho are not Americans. )t is basic in international la&that a 9tate determines ON*I those &ho are its o&n citiBens -- not &ho are the citiBens of other

countries.65The issue here is+ the 'omelec made a findin$ of fact that (rivaldo &as stateless and suchfindin$ has not been sho&n by *ee to be arbitrary or &himsical. Thus, follo&in$ settled case la&, suchfindin$ is bindin$ and final.

The dissentin$ opinion also submits that *ee &ho lost by chasmic mar$ins to (rivaldo in all threeprevious elections, should be declared &inner because 5(rivaldo?s ineli$ibility for bein$ an American&as publicly ;no&n5. (irst, there is absolutely no empirical evidence for such 5public5 ;no&led$e.9econd, even if there is, such ;no&led$e can be truepost factoonly of the last t&o previouselections. Third, even the 'omelec and no& this 'ourt &ereare still deliberatin$ on his nationalitybefore, durin$ and after the ""# elections. @o& then can there be such 5public5 ;no&led$eF

Mr. >ustice Davide submits that 9ection !" of the *ocal Covernment 'ode refers to the %ualificationsof electivelocal officials, i.e., candidates, and not electe!officials, and that the citiBenship%ualification Junder par. /a1 of that sectionK must be possessed by candidates, not merely at thecommencement of the term, but by election day at the latest. e see it differently. 9ection !", par./a1 thereof spea;s of 5elective local official5 &hile par. /b1 to /f1 refer to 5candidates5. )f the%ualifications under par. /a1 &ere intended to apply to 5candidates5 and not elected officials, thele$islature &ould have said so, instead of differentiatin$ par. /a1 from the rest of the para$raphs.9econdly, if 'on$ress had meant that the citiBenship %ualification should be possessed at electionday or prior thereto, it &ould have specifically stated such detail, the same &ay it did in pars. /b1 to /f1far other %ualifications of candidates for $overnor, mayor, etc.

Mr. >ustice Davide also %uestions the $ivin$ of retroactive effect to (rivaldo?s repatriation on the

$round, amon$ others, that the la& specifically provides that it is only after ta;in$ the oath ofalle$iance that applicants shall be deemed to have reac%uired 2hilippine citiBenship. e do not%uestion &hat the provision states. e hold ho&ever that the provision should be understoodthus+ that after ta-ing the oath of allegiance the applicant is !eeme! to have reac7uire! hilippineciti/enship$ which reac7uisition Eor repatriationF is !eeme! for all purposes an! intents to haveretroacte! to the !ate of his application therefor.

)n any event, our 5so too5 ar$ument re$ardin$ the literal meanin$ of the &ord 5elective5 in referenceto 9ection !" of the *ocal Authority 'ode, as &ell as re$ardin$ Mr. >ustice Davide?s thesis that the


46/86

very &ordin$s of 2.D. 4# su$$est non-retroactivity, &ere already ta;en up rather e0tensively earlierin this Decision.

Mr. >ustice Davide caps his paper &ith a clarion call+ 5This 'ourt must be the first to uphold the =uleof *a&.5 e a$ree -- &e must all follo& the rule of la&. 6ut that is NOT the issue here. The issueis how should the lawbe interpreted and applied in this case so it can be follo&ed, so it can ruleP

At balance, the %uestion really boils do&n to a choice of philosophy and perception of ho& tointerpret and apply la&s relatin$ to elections+ literal or liberal: the letter or the spirit, the na;edprovision or its ultimate purpose: le$al syllo$ism or substantial justice: in isolation or in the conte0t ofsocial conditions: harshly a$ainst or $ently in favor of the voters? obvious choice. )n applyin$ electionla&s, it &ould be far better to err in favor of popular soverei$nty than to be ri$ht in comple0 but littleunderstood le$alisms. )ndeed, to inflict a thrice rejected candidate upon the electorate of 9orso$on&ould constitute unmiti$ated judicial tyranny and an unacceptable assault upon this 'ourt?sconscience.

* # L ) > 6 *

)n sum, &e rule that the citiBenship re%uirement in the *ocal Covernment 'ode is to be possessedby an elective official at the latest as of the time he is proclaimed an!at the start of the term of officeto &hich he has been elected. e further hold 2.D. No. 4# to be in full force and effect up to thepresent, not havin$ been suspended or repealed e0pressly nor impliedly at any time, and (rivaldo?srepatriation by virtue thereof to have been properly $ranted and thus valid and effective. Moreover,by reason of the remedial or curative nature of the la& $rantin$ him a ne& ri$ht to resume hispolitical status and the le$islative intent behind it, as &ell as his uni%ue situation of havin$ beenforced to $ive up his citiBenship and political aspiration as his means of escapin$ a re$ime heabhorred, his repatriation is to be $iven retroactive effect as of the date of his application therefor,durin$ the pendency of &hich he &as stateless, he havin$ $iven up his U.9. nationality. Thus, incontemplation of la&, he possessed the vital re%uirement of (ilipino citiBenship as of the start of theterm of office of $overnor, and should have been proclaimed instead of *ee. (urthermore, since hisreac%uisition of citiBenship retroacted to Au$ust 4, ""3, his re$istration as a voter of 9orso$on is

deemed to have been validated as of said date as &ell. The fore$oin$, of course, are preciselyconsistent &ith our holdin$ that lac; of the citiBenship re%uirement is not a contin

Documents

Talaroc - Limbona