ANTONIO BENGSON III, petitioner, vs.

HOUSE the said foreign country, he shall be

OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL automatically entitled to the full
TRIBUNAL and TEODORO C. CRUZ, 3. Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss
respondents of Philippine citizenship was by his
naturalization as a U.S. citizen on June 5, 1990,
 The citizenship of respondent Teodoro C.
in connection with his service in the U.S. Marine
Cruz is at issue in this case, in view of the Corps.
constitutional requirement that "no person shall
4. On March 17, 1994, Cruz reacquired his loss of
be a Member of the House of Representatives Phil citizenship thru repatriation under Rep.
unless he is a natural-born citizen."
Act 2630 – ran and elected as the
FACTS Representative of the Second District of
Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections;
1. Respondent Cruz was a natural-born citizen of gathered 26,671 votes over petitioner Antonio
the Phil., was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, on Bengson III, who was then running for
Arpil 27, 1960, of Filipino parents. The reelection.
fundamental law then applicable was the 1935 5. Petitioner then filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad
Constitution. Cautelam with respondent House of
2. On Nov. 5, 1985 (until October 1993), Cruz Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
enlisted in the US Marine Corps, without the claiming that respondent Cruz was not qualified
consent of the Republic of the Phils, he took an to become a member of the House of Reps since
oath of allegiance to the US. He lost his Filipino he is not a natural-born citizen as required under
citizenship for under Commonwealth Act No. VI, Section 6 of the Constitution.
63, Section 1 (4) – a Filipino citizen may lose 6. On March 2, 2000, the HRET dismissed the
his citizenship by, among others, “rendering petition, for quo warranto, and declaring
service to or accepting commission in the armed respondent Cruz the duly elected Representative
forces of a foreign country, and taking of an oath of the 2nd District of Pangasinan in the May 1998
of allegiance incident thereto, with the consent of elections. Also, denied the petitioner’s motion
the Rep. of the Phils, shall not divest a Filipino of for reconsideration of the decision in its
the Phil. Citizenship if either of the ff resolution on April 27, 2000.
circumstances is present: 7. Petitioner thus filed the present petition for
(a) The Republic of the Philippines has a certiorari assailing the HRET’s decision on the
defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with following grounds:
said foreign country; or a. The HRET committed serious errors and
(b) The said foreign country maintains armed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to
forces on Philippine territory with the consent of excess of jurisdiction, when it ruled the PR is
the Republic of the Phils: Provided, that the a natural-bron citizen of the Phils despite the
Filipino citizen concerned, at the time of fact that he had ceased being such in view of
rendering said service, or acceptance of said the loss and renunciation of such citizenship
commission, and taking the oath of allegiance on his part.
incident thereto, states that he does so only in b. …… despite the fact that he did not validly
connection with his service to said foreign acquire his Phil citizenship
country; And provided, enjoyment of his civil c. ….. despite the fact that such reacquisition
and political rights as a Filipino citizen finally , could not legally and constitutionally
That any Filipino citizen who is rendering restore his natural-born status (assuming
service to, or is commissioned in, the armed the PR’s acquisition of Phil citizenship was
forces of a foreign country under any of the invalid)
circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) or Petitioner’s argument:
(b), shall not be permitted to participate nor 1. Respondent Cruz may no longer be considered a
vote in any election of the Republic of the natural-born Filipino since he lost his Phil
Philippines during the period of his service to, or citizenship when he swore allegiance to the US in
commission in, the armed forces of said 1995 and had to reacquire the same by
country. Upon his discharge from the service of repatriation.
2. He insisted that Article IV, section 2 of the that during the intervening period, the applicant
Constitution expressly states that natural-born has
citizens are those who are citizens from birth w/o a. Not left the Phils
to perform any act to acquire or perfect such b. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or
citizenship. profession
c. Has not been convicted of any offense or
Respondent’s argument violation of Government promulgated rules
1. Contends that he reacquired his status as a or
natural-born citizen when he was repatriated d. Committed any act prejudicial to the interest
since the phrase “from birth” in Article IV, of the nation or contrary to any government
Section 2 refers to the innate, inherent and announced policies.
inborn characteristics of being a natural-born 5. Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship
citizen. may however reacquire the same in the manner
provided by law. Commonwealth Act NO. 63
ISSUE enumerates the 3 modes of w/c Phil citizenship
Whether respondent Cruz, a natural-born may be reacquired by a former citizen:
Filipino who became an American citizen, naturalization, repatriation and direct act of
can still be considered a natural-born Congress
Filipino upon his reacquisition of Phil. 6. Naturalization is a mode for both acquisition
Citizenship. and reacquisition of Phil citizenship. As a mode
of initially acquiring citizenship, naturalization
RULING is governed by CA no 473. Naturalization as a
1. Petition is without merit. mode for reacquiring is govern by CA 63
2. Accdg. to the 1987 Constitution, the ff are the Repatriation may had under various statutes
considered Filipino citizens: by those who lost their citizenship due to:
a. Those who are citizens of the Phils at the time a. Desertion of the armed forces
of the adoption of this constitution b. Service in the armed forces of the allied
b. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens forces in the WW 2
of the Phils c. Service in the armed forces of the US at any
c. Those born before January 17, 1973 of the time
Filipino mothers, who elect Phil citizenship d. Marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien
upon reaching the age of majority and e. Political and economic necessity
d. Those who are naturalized in accordance
with law In Angara vs Republic, under RA no 965 and
3. 2 ways of acquiring citizenship 2630, the taking of an oath of allegiance to the
a. By birth Rep of the Phils and registering said oath in the
b. By naturalization LCR of the place where the person concerned
resides or last resided. Repatriation results in the
2 kinds of citizens recovery of the original nationality.
a. Natural-born citizens- citizens of the Phils 7. In Cruz’s case, he lost his Filipino citizenship
from birth without having to perform any act when he rendered service in the AF of the US.
to acquire or perfect his Phil citizenship However he subsequently reacquired Philippine
b. Naturalized citizens- those who have become citizenship under RA NO 2630, Section 1:
Filipino citizens thru naturalization, SECTION 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine
generally under Commonwealth Act no. 473 citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
(Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed commission in, the Armed Forces of the United
the former Naturalization Law Act No. 2927 States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of
the United States, acquired United States citizenship,
and by Republic Act no. 530.
may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an
4. To be a naturalized, applicant must possess all oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
the qualifications. The decision granting Phil and registering the same with Local Civil Registry in
citizenship becomes executory only after 2 years the place where he resides or last resided in the
from is promulgation when the court is satisfied
 Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall contain the assailed decision. There is no such showing
a renunciation of any other citizenship. of grave abuse of discretion in this case.
8. Having taken the required oath of allegiance and
having registered the same in the LCR of
Magantarem, Pangasinan, then respondent Cruz ERNESTO S. MERCADO, petitioner vs
is deemed to have recovered his original status as EDUARDO BARRIOS MANZAO and the
a natural-born citizen, a status which he COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents
acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father.
The act of repatriation allows him to recover, or FACTS
return to, his original status before he lost his 1. Petitioner Ernesto S. Mercado and private
Phil citizenship respondent Eduardo B. Manzano were
Art 3, sec 4 of the 1973 Constitution candidates for vie mayor of the City of Makati in
- A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the May 11, 1998 elections. The results of the
the Phil from birth w/o having to perform any act election were as follows: Manzano, 103,583;
to reacquire or perfect his Phil citizenship Mercado, 100,894; Daza III, 54,275.
Under 1973 Consti 2. Proclamation of respondent was suspended in
- 2 categories of Fil citizens – naturalized and those view of a pending petition for disqualification
born before Jan 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers who filed by a Certain Mamaril who alleged that
upon reaching the age of majority elected
private respondent was not a citizen of the Phils
citizenship.
but of the US
- Those "naturalized citizens" were not considered
3. On May 7, 1998, the Second Division of the
natural-born obviously because they were not
Filipinos at birth and had to perform an act to acquire Comelec granted the petition of Mamaril and
Philippine citizenship. Those born of Filipino ordered the cancellation of the certificate of
mothers before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution candidacy of Manzano on the ground that he is
were likewise not considered natural-born because an American citizen based on the record of the
they also had to perform an act to perfect their BOI and misrepresented himself as a natural-
Philippine citizenship. born citizen.
The present Constitution 4. On April 27, 1998, Manzano files an answer to
- now considers those born of Filipino mothers before the petition admitting that he is registered as a
the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution and who foreigner with the BOI under Alien Certificate of
elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the
Registration No. B-31632 and alleged that he is a
majority age as natural-born.
Filipino citizen because he was born in 1955 of a
9. As respondent Cruz was not required by law to
Filipino parents. He was born in the San
go through naturalization proceedings in order
Francisco, California, US on Sept. 14, 1955, and
to reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce a
is considered an American under US laws. But he
natural-born Filipino. As such, he possessed all
did not lose his Filipino citizenship.
the necessary qualifications to be elected as
5. Under section 40 of the Local Government Code,
member of the House of Representatives.
persons with the dual citizenship are disqualifies
10. A final point. The HRET has been empowered by
from running for any elective position.
the Constitution to be the "sole judge" of all
Therefore, the commission declared Manzano
contests relating to the election, returns, and
disqualified as candidate for Vice-Mayor of
qualifications of the members of the House. The
Makati City.
Court's jurisdiction over the HRET is merely to
6. On May 8, 1998, PR filed a motion for
check "whether or not there has been a grave
reconsideration which was remained pending
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
even until after the election held on May 11, 1998.
of jurisdiction" on the part of the latter. 30 In the
Pursuant to Omnibus Resolution No. 3044,
absence thereof, there is no occasion for the
dated May 10, 1998, of the Comelec, the board of
Court to exercise its corrective power and annul
canvassers tabulated the votes cast for vice
the decision of the HRET nor to substitute the
mayor of Makati but suspended the
Court's judgment for that of the latter for the
proclamation of the winner.
simple reason that it is not the office of a petition
for certiorari to inquire into the correctness of
7. On May 19, 1998, petitioner Mercado intervened candidate for the vice-mayoralty post of
the case for disqualification and was opposed by Makati City who cannot be proclaimed as the
PR Manzano. Vice-mayor of Makati even if Manzazno be
8. On August 31, 1998, the Comelec en banc ultimately disqualified by final and executory
reversed the ruling of the 2nd Division, with judgment”
voting 4 to 1, with one commissioner abstaining, ISSUE
and declared PR Manzano qualified to run for 1. Whether petitioner Mercado has
vice mayor of Makati in the May 1, 1998 personality to bring the suit considering
elections. Considering that Manzano was also a that he was not an original party in the
natural born Filipino citizen by operation of the case for disqualification filed by Ernesto
1935 Philippine Constitution, as his parents were Mamaril nor was petitioner’s motion for
Filipinos at the time of his birth. At the age of 6, leave to intervene granted.
his parents brought him to the Phils using an 2. Whether under our laws, Manzano is
American passport and registered him as an disqualified from the position for which
alien. However, this did not result in the loss of he filed his certificate of candidacy. Is he
his Phil citizenship. When Manzano attained the eligible for the office he seeks to be
age of majority, he registered himself as a voter elected?
and voted in the elections of 1992, 1995 and
1998, which effectively renounced his citizenship RULING
under American Law. Therefore, Comelec 1. For the first issue, at the time petitioner sought
proclaim the respondent Manzano as the to intervene in the proceedings before the
winning candidate for vice-mayor of Makati City. Comelec, there had already been a proclamation
9. On the evening of Aug. 31, 1998, the board of of the results of the election wherein petitioner
canvassers proclaimed Manzano as vice-mayor came out only second to the private respondent.
of Makati. However, the fact is that there had been no
Petitioner’s arhument proclamation at that time. Certainly, petitioner
Mercado, seeking to set aside the resolution and had and still has an interest in ousting PR from
declaration of Manzanoas vice-mayor, contends that the race at the time he sought to intervene.
the Comelec en banc erred n holding that According to Sec. 6 of RA No 6646, Electoral
a. Under Phil law, Manzano was no longer a US Reforms Law of 1987, which provides: Any
citizen when he renounced his US citizenship candidate who has been declared by final
when he attained the age of majority when he judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted
was already 37 y.o. ; and he renounced his US for, and the votes cast for him shall not be
citizenship when he registered himself as counted. If for any reason a candidate is not
avoter and voted in the elections of 1992, declared by final judgment before an election to
1995 and 1998. be disqualified and he is voted for and receives
b. Manzano is qualified to run for and or hold the winning number of votes in such election,
the elective office of vice-mayor the Court or Commission shall continue with the
c. During the May 11, 1998 elections, the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or
resolution of the 2nd Division adopted on protest and, upon motion of the complainant or
May 7, 1998 was not yet final so petitioner any intervenor may during the pendency
may not be declared winner even assuming thereof order the suspension of the
that Manzano is disqualified to hold office proclamation of such candidate whenever the
Private respondent’s argument evidence of guilt is strong.
1. Claims that petitioner has no righto 2. The failure of the Comelec en banc to resolve the
intervene and therefore cannot bring this petitioner’s motion for intervention was
suit to set aside the ruling denying his motion tantamount to a denial of the motion, hudtifying
for intervention cites Sec 1 and 3 of the Rules petitioner in filing the instant petition for
of Procedure of the Comelec certiorari.
2. Argues that petitioner has neither legal 3. For the second issue, the disqualification of
interest in the matter in litigation nor an private respondent Manzano is being sought
interest to protect because he is a “defeated under Section 40 of the Local Government Code
 of 1991 (RA NO 7160 which disqualifies the can be considered simply as the assertion of his
candidacy of a person who has a dual citizenship American nationality before the termination of
(this provision is incorporated in the Charter of his American citizenship.
Makati City). 6. Private respondent's oath of allegiance to the
4. Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. Philippines, when considered with the fact that
The former arises when as a result of the he has spent his youth and adulthood, received
concurrent application of the different laws of his education, practiced his profession as an
two or more states, a person is simultaneously artist, and taken part in past elections in this
considered a national by the said states. For country, leaves no doubt of his election of
instance such a situation may arise when a Philippine citizenship. His declarations will be
person whose parents are citizens of a state taken upon the faith that he will fulfill his
which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is undertaking made under oath. Should he betray
born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus that trust, there are enough sanctions for
soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any declaring the loss of his Philippine citizenship
voluntary act on his part, is concurrently through expatriation in appropriate
considered a citizen of both states proceedings.
7. The petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of
Article 4 of the Consti, it is possible for the ff
merit.
classes of citizens of the Phils to possess dual
citizenship: ANTONIO Y. CO, petitioners, vs ELECTORAL
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF
mothers in foreign countries which follow the REPRESENTATIVES and JOSE ONG, JR,
principle of jus soli; respondents. GR NOS. 92191-92. JULY 30, 1991
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino SIXTO T. BALANQUIT, petitioner, JR vs
mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF
fathers' country such children are citizens of that REPRESENTATIVES and JOSE ONG, JR,
country; repondents. GR Nos. 92202-03. JULY 30, 1991
(3) those who marry aliens if by the laws of the Hechanova & Associates for petitioner Co.
latter's country the former are considered Brillantes, Nachura, Navarro and Arcilla Law Offices
citizens, unless by their act or omission they are for respondent Ong, Jr.
deemed to have renounced Philippine FACTS
citizenship. 1. The petitioners come to this Court asking for
Dual allegiance on the other hand refers to the the setting aside and reversal of a decision of the
situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. (HRET)
While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance 2. HRET declared that respondent Jose Ong Jr.
is the result of an individual’s volition. Sec 5 of Art 4 is a natural born Filipino citizen and a resident of
provides : dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the Laong, Northern Samar for voting purposes.
national interest and shall be dealt with by law 3. On May 11, 1987, the congressional election
5. Clearly, the concern of the Constitutional for the 2nd District of Northern Samar was held.
Commission was not with dual citizens per se but
Among the candidates who vied for the position of
with naturalized citizens who maintain representative in the second legislative district of
allegiance to their countries of origin even after
Northern Samar are the petitioners, Sixto Balinquit
their naturalization. Finally, much is made of the and Antonio Co and the private respondent, Jose
fact that private respondent admitted that he is
Ong Jr.
registered as an American citizen in the Bureau 4. Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly
of Immigration and Deportation and that he elected representative in the second legislative
holds an American passport which he used in his district of Northern Samar.
last travel to the United States on April 22, 1997. 5. The petitioners filed election protests against
There is no merit in this. Until the filing of his the PR premised on the ff grounds:
certificate of candidacy on March 21, 1998, he a. Jose Ong Jr., is not a natural born citizen of
had dual citizenship. The acts attributed to him the Phils
b. Ong is not a resident of the 2nd district of an abuse of discretion so grave or glaring that no less
Northern Samar than the Constitution calls for remedial action.
6. On November 6, 1989, HRET found for the 5. Art. 8, Section 1, Constitution, the SC has
private respondent. been expanded jurisdiction, so to speak, to review
7. On Nov. 12, 1989, petitioners filed a motion the decisions of the other branches and agencies of
for reconsideration and was denied by the HRET in the government to determine whether or not they
its resolution dated on Feb. 22, 1989. have acted within the bounds of the Constitution. In
ISSUE the absence of a showing that the HRET has
The sole issue before us is whether or not, in making committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
that determination, the HRET acted with grave lack of jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the Court
abuse of discretion. to exercise its corrective power; it will not decide a
RULING matter which by its nature is for the HRET alone to
ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION decide.
1. The Constitution explicitly provides that the 6. The Electoral Tribunals, although not powers
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal in the
(HRET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) 7. tripartite scheme of the government, are, in
shall be the sole judges of all contests relating to the the exercise of their functions independent organs —
election, returns, and qualifications of their independent of Congress and the Supreme Court.
respective members. (See Article VI, Section 17, The power granted to HRET by the Constitution is
Constitution). The authority conferred upon the intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it
Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete. had remained originally in the legislature. (Angara v.
2. In the case of Lazatin vs HRET, it stated that Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 [1936]).
under the 1987 Constitution, the jurisdiction of the 8. In the case at bar, the Court finds no
Electoral Tribunal is original and exclusive. The use improvement use of power, no denial of due process
of the word sole emphasizes the exclusivity of the on the part of the HRET which will necessitate the
jurisdiction of these Tribunals. exercise of the power of judicial review by the
3. In the case of Robles vs HRET (181 SCRA Supreme Court.
780, 1990), the Supreme Court stated that the ON THE ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP
judgments of the Tribunal are beyond judicial 1. The records show that in the year 1895, the
interference save only "in the exercise of this Court's PR’s grandfather, Ong Te, arrived in the Phils from
so-called extraordinary jurisdiction, upon a China. Ong te established his residence in the
determination that the Tribunal's decision or municipality of Laoang, Samar on land which he
resolution was rendered without or in excess of its bought from the fruits of hardwork.
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion or 2. As a resident of Laoang, Ong Te was able to
paraphrasing Morrero, upon a clear showing of such obtain a certificate of residence from the then
arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its Spanish colonial administration. The father of the
power as constitutes a denial of due process of law, PR, Jose Ong Chuan was born in China in 1905. He
or upon a demonstration of a very clearunmitigated was brought by Ong Te to Samare in the year 1915.
ERROR, manifestly constituting such GRAVE 3. Jose Ong Chuan spent his childhood in the
ABUSE OF DISCRETION that there has to be a province of Samar. In Laoang, he was able to
remedy for such abuse.” establish an enduring relationship with his
4. In the leading case of Morrero vs Bocar (66 neighbors, resulting in his easy assimilation into the
Phil. 429, 1938), the Court ruled that the power of community. As Jose Ong Chuan grew older in the
the Electoral Commission "is beyond judicial rural and seaside community of Laoang, he absorbed
interference except, in any event, upon a clear Filipino cultural values and practices. He was
showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of baptized into Christianity. As the years passed, Jose
power as will constitute a denial of due process." The Ong Chuan met a natural born-Filipina, Agripina
Court does not venture into the perilous area of Lao. The two fell in love and, thereafter, got married
trying to correct perceived errors of independent in 1932 according to Catholic faith and practice. The
branches of the Government. It comes in only when couple bore eight children, one of whom is the
it has to vindicate a denial of due process or correct private respondent who was born in 1948. The
private respondent's father never emigrated from
this country. He decided to put up a hardware store fathers and those born of Filipino mothers with an
and shared and survived the vicissitudes of life in alien father were placed on equal footing. They were
Samar. The business prospered. Expansion became both considered as natural-born citizens.
inevitable. As a result, a branch was set-up in 9. Hence, the bestowment of the status of
Binondo, Manila. In the meantime, the father of the "natural-born" cannot be made to depend on the
private respondent, unsure of his legal status and in fleeting accident of time or result in two kinds of
an unequivocal affirmation of where he cast his life citizens made up of essentially the same similarly
and family, filed with the Court of First Instance of situated members. It is for this reason that the
Samar of application for naturalization on February amendments were enacted, that is, in order to
15, 1954. remedy this accidental anomaly, and, therefore,
4. On April 28, 1955, the CFI of Samar, after treat equally all those born before the 1973
trial, declared Josoe Ong Chuan a Filipino citizen. Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship
5. On May 15, 1957, the CFI of Samar issued an either before or after the effectivity of that
order declaring the decision of April 28, 1995 as final Constitution.
and executory and that Jose Ong Chuan may already 10. The Constitutional provision in question is,
take his Oath of Allegiance. Jose Ong Chuan took his therefore curative in nature. The enactment was
Oath of Allegiance, then a certificate of meant to correct the inequitable and absurd
naturalization was issued to him. situation which then prevailed, and thus, render
6. At the time when Jose Ong Chuan took his those acts valid which would have been nil at the
oath, PR then a minor of 9 years was finishing his time had it not been for the curative provisions. (See
elementary education in the province of Samar. Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of
There is nothing in the records to differentiate him Appeals, 96 SCRA 342 [1980]). There is no dispute
from other Filipinos insofar as the customs and that the respondent's mother was a natural born
practices of the local populace were concerned. Their Filipina at the time of her marriage. Crucial to this
house got burn for 2 times but they constructed case is the issue of whether or not the respondent
again their house in the same place. PR went to elected or choose to be a Filipino citizen.
Manila in order to acquire his secondary and college 11. To expect the respondent to have formally or
education and passed the CPA Board Examinations. in writing elected citizenship when he came of age is
The respondent continued to stay in Manila in order to ask for the unnatural and unnecessary. The reason
to work in the Central Bank of the Philippines as an is obvious. He was already a citizen. Not only was his
examiner. Later, he worked in the hardwate business mother a natural born citizen but his father had been
of his family in Manila. Om 1971, his elder brother, naturalized when the respondent was only nine (9)
Emil, was elected as a delegate to the 1971 ConCon. years old. He could not have divined when he came
His status as a natural born citizen was challenged. of age that in 1973 and 1987 the Constitution would
7. The PR frequently went home to Laoang, be amended to require him to have 􀁆led a sworn
Samar, where he grew up and spent his childhood statement in 1969 electing citizenship inspite of his
days. In 1984, he married a Filipina named Desiree already having been a citizen since 1957. In 1969,
Lim. For the 1984 and 1986 elections, Jose Ong JR. election through a sworn statement would have been
registered himself as a voter of Laoang, Samar, and an unusual and unnecessary procedure for one who
correspondingly, voted there during those elections. had been a citizen since he was nine years old.
After several years, he ran for public office in 1987 12. In the case of In Re: Florencio Mallare (59
elections as a representative in the 2nd district of SCRA 45 [1974]), the Court held that the exercise of
Northern Samar. PR gathered higher votes. the right of suffrage and the participation in election
8. The provision in question was enacted to exercises constitute a positive act of election of
correct the anomalous situation where one born of a Philippine citizenship. In the present case, the PR
Filipino father and an alien mother was did more than merely exercise his right of suffrage.
automatically granted the status of a natural-born He has established his life here in the Phils. The
citizen while one born of a Filipino mother and an respondent traces his natural born citizenship
alien father would still have to elect Philippine through his mother, not through the citizenship of
citizenship. If one so elected, he was not, under his father. The citizenship of the father is relevant
earlier laws, conferred the status of a natural-born. only to determine whether or not the respondent
Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Filipino "chose" to be a Filipino when he came of age. At that
time and up to the present, both mother and father were Ong Te setup his business and acquired his real
were Filipinos. Respondent Ong could not have property. As concluded by the Constitutional
elected any other citizenship unless he first formally Convention Ong Te falls within the meaning of sub-
renounced Philippine citizenship in favor of a paragraph 4 of Article 17 of the Civil Code of Spain.
foreign nationality. Unlike other persons faced with Although Ong Te made brief visits to China, he,
a problem of election, there was no foreign nevertheless, always returned to the Philippines.
nationality of his father which he could possibly have The fact that he died in China, during one of his visits
chosen. in said country, was of no moment. This will not
13. There is another reason why we cannot change the fact that he already had his domicile fixed
declare the HRET as having committed manifest in the Philippines and pursuant to the Civil Code of
grave abuse of discretion. The same issue of natural- Spain, he had become a Spanish subject.
born citizenship has already been decided by the 16. If Ong Te became a Spanish subject by virtue
Constitutional Convention of 1971 and by the of having established his domicile in a town under
Batasang Pambansa convened by authority of the the Monarchy of Spain, necessarily, Ong Te was also
Constitution drafted by that Convention. Emil Ong, an inhabitant of the Philippines for an inhabitant has
full blood brother of the respondent, was declared been de􀁆ned as one who has actual fixed residence
and accepted as a natural born citizen by both in a place; one who has a domicile in a place. A priori,
bodies. there can be no other logical conclusion but to educe
14. What was the basis for the Constitutional that Ong Te qualified as a Filipino citizen under the
Convention's declaring Emil Ong a natural born provisions of section 4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902.
citizen? Under the Philippine Bill of 1902, The HRET itself found this fact of absolute verity in
inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish concluding that the private respondent was a
subjects on the 11th day of April 1899 and then natural-born Filipino. The petitioners' sole ground
residing in said islands and their children born in disputing this fact is that the documents
subsequent thereto were conferred the status of a presented to prove it were not in compliance with the
Filipino citizen. best evidence rule. The petitioners allege that the
15. Was the grandfather of the private private respondent failed to present the original of
respondent a Spanish subject? Article 17 of the Civil the documentary evidence, testimonial evidence and
Code of Spain enumerates those who were of the transcript of the proceedings of the body
considered Spanish Subjects, viz: "ARTICLE 17. The which the aforesaid resolution of the 1971
following are Spaniards: 1. Persons born in Spanish Constitutional Convention was predicated.
territory. 2. Children born of a Spanish father or 17. On the contrary, the documents presented by
mother, even though they were born out of Spain. 3. the private respondent fall under the exceptions to
Foreigners who may have obtained naturalization the best evidence rule. It was established in the
papers. 4. Those without such papers, who may have proceedings before the HRET that the originals of
acquired domicile in any town in the Monarchy." the Committee Report No. 12, the minutes of the
The domicile of a natural person is the place of his plenary session of 1971 Constitutional Convention
habitual residence. This domicile, once established held on November 28, 1972 cannot be found. This
is considered to continue and will not be deemed lost was affirmed by Atty. Ricafrente, Assistant Secretary
until a new one is established. (Article 50, NCC; of the 1971 Constitutional Convention; by Atty
Article 40, Civil Code of Spain; Zuellig v. Republic, Nolledo, Delegate to the 1971 Constitutional
83 Phil. 768 [1949]) As earlier stated, Ong Te Convention; and by Atty. Antonio Santos, Chief
became a permanent resident of Laoang, Samar Librarian of the U.P. Law Center, in their respective
around 1895. Correspondingly, a certificate of testimonies given before the HRET to the effect that
residence was then issued to him by virtue of his there is no governmental agency which is the official
being a resident of Laoang, Samar. (Report of the custodian of the records of the 1971 Constitutional
Committee on Election Protests and Credentials of Convention.
the 1971 Constitutional Convention, September 18. The Constitutional Convention was the sole
7,1972, p. 3) judge of the qualifications of Emil Ong to be a
The domicile that Ong Te established m 1895 member of that body. The HRET, by explicit
continued until April 11, 1899; it even went beyond mandate of the Constitution, is the sole judge of the
the turn of the 19th century. It is also in this place qualifications of Jose Ong, Jr. to be a member of
Congress. Both bodies deliberated at length on the THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION,
controversies over which they were sole judges. respondent-appellee.
Decisions were arrived at only after a full FACTS
presentation of all relevant factors which the parties 1. In the instant case, petitioners seek the
wished to present. Even assuming that we disagree issuance of a writ of injunction against the
with their conclusions, we cannot declare their acts Commissioner of Immigration, 'restraining the
as committed with grave abuse of discretion. We latter and/or his authorized representative from
have to keep clear the line between error and grave ordering plaintiff Lau Yuen Yeung to leave the
abuse. Philippines and causing her arrest and deportation
ON THE ISSUE OF RESIDENCE and the confiscation of her bond, upon her failure to
1. The petitioners question the residence do so.
qualification of respondent Ong. The petitioners lose 2. On Feb 8, 1961, Lau Yuen Yeung applied for
sight of the meaning of "residence" under the a passport visa to enter the Phils as a non-
Constitution. The term "residence" has been immigrant. She stated in the interrogation that she
understood a synonymous with domicile not only was a Chinese residing at Kowloon, Hongkong, and
under the previous Constitutions but also under the that she desired to take a pleasure trip to the Phils to
1987 Constitution. visit her great (grand) uncle Lau Ping for a period of
2. The domicile of origin of the private 1 month which would expire on April 13, 1961.
respondent, which was the domicile of his parents, is 3. On the date of her arrival, Asher Y. Cheng
fixed at Laoang, Samar. Contrary to the petitioners' filed a bond in the amount of P1,000 to undertake,
imputation, Jose Ong, Jr. never abandoned said among others, that said Lau Yuen Yueng would
domicile; it remained fixed therein even up to the actually depart from the Phils on or before the
present. expiration of her authorized period of stay in this
3. Even assuming that the private respondent country or w/in the period as in his discretion the
does not own any property in Samar, the Supreme Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized
Court in the case of De los Reyes D. Solidum (61 Phil. representative might properly allow.
893 [1935]) held that it is not required that a person 4. Petitioner Lau Yeung was allowed to stay in
should have a house in order to establish his the Phils after repeated extensions up to Feb 13,
residence and domicile. It is enough that he should 1962.
live in the municipality or in a rented house or in that 5. On Jan 25, 1962, she contracted marriage
of a friend or relative. To require the private with Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim
respondent to own property in order to be eligible to an alleged Filipino citizen. Because of the
run for Congress would be tantamount to a property contemplated action of respondent to confiscate her
qualification. The Constitution only requires that the bond and order her arrest and immediate
candidate meet the age, citizenship, voting and deportation, after the expiration of her authorized
residence requirements. Nowhere is it required by stay, she brought this action for injunction with
the Constitution that the candidate should also own preliminary injunction. At the hearing which took
property in order to be quali􀁆ed to run. (see place one and a half years after her arrival, it was
Maquera v. Borra, 122 Phil. 412 [1965]). It has also admitted that petitioner Lau Yuen Yeung could not
been settled that absence from residence to pursue write either English or Tagalog. Except for a few
studies or practice a profession or registration as a words, she could not speak either English or
voter other than in the place where one is elected, Tagalog. She could not name any Filipino neighbor,
does not constitute loss of residence. with a Filipino name except one, Rosa. She did not
4. WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby know the names of her brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-
DISMISSED. The questioned decision of the house law.'
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal is AFFIRMED. 6. The Court is of the considered opinion, and
Respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is declared a natural-born so holds, that the instant petition for injunction
citizen of the Philippines and a resident of Laoang, cannot be sustained for the same reasons set forth in
Northern Samar. the Order of this Court, dated March 19, 1962, the
MOY YA LIM YAO alias EDILBERTO AGUINALDO pertinent portions of which read: 'First, Section 15 of
and LAU YUEN YEUNG, petitioners-appellants, vs the Revised Naturalization Law provides: "'Effect of
the naturalization on wife and children. — any
woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a undergo the naturalization proceedings, Section 15
citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be is a parallel provision to Section 16. Thus, if the
lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the widow of an applicant for naturalization as Filipino,
Philippines." Indeed, plaintiff Lau Yuen Yeung, who dies during the proceedings, is not required to
Chinese by birth, who might herself be lawfully go through a naturalization proceedings, in order to
naturalized as a Filipino citizen (not being be considered as a Filipino citizen hereof, it should
disqualified to become such by naturalization), is a follow that the wife of a living Filipino cannot be
Filipino citizen by virtue of her marriage on January denied the same privilege. This is plain common
25, 1962 to plaintiff MOY YA LIM YAO alias sense and there is absolutely no evidence that the
EDILBERTO AGUINALDO LIM, under the Legislature intended to treat them differently.
Naturalization Laws of the Philippines. 2. As the laws of our country, both substantive
7. Petitioner Lau Yuen Yeung while claiming and procedural, stand today, there is no such
not to be disqualified, does not and cannot allege procedure (a substitute for naturalization
that she possesses all the qualifications to be proceeding to enable the alien wife of a Philippine
naturalized, naturally because, having been citizen to have the matter of her own citizenship
admitted as a temporary visitor only on March 13, settled and established so that she may not have to
1961, it is obvious at once that she lacks at least, the be called upon to prove it everytime she has to
requisite length of residence in the Philippines. Lau perform an act or enter into a transaction or business
Yuen Yeung, a temporary Chinese woman visitor, or exercise a right reserved only to Filipinos), but
whose authorized stay in the Philippines, after such is no proof that the citizenship is not vested as
repeated extensions thereof, was to expire last of the date of marriage or the husband's acquisition
February 28, 1962, having married her co-plaintiff of citizenship, as the case may be, for the truth is that
only on January 25, 1962, or just a little over one the situation obtains even as to native-born
month before the expiry date of her stay, it is evident Filipinos. Everytime the citizenship of a person is
that said marriage was effected merely for material or indispensible in a judicial or
convenience to defeat or avoid her then impending administrative case.
compulsory departure, not to say deportation. This 3. But with the approval of Revised
cannot be permitted. The Solicitor General has well Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473) on
stated: "That petitioner Lau Yuen Yeung, having June 17, 1939, Congress has since discarded class or
been admitted as a temporary alien visitor on the racial consideration from the qualifications of
strength of a deliberate and voluntary applicants for naturalization (according to its
representation that she will enter and stay only for a proponent, the purpose in eliminating this
period of one month and thereby secured a visa, consideration was, first, to remove the features of the
cannot go back on her representation to stay existing naturalization act which discriminated in
permanently without first departing from the favor of the Caucasian} and against Asiatics who are
Philippines as she had promised. our neighbors, and are related to us by racial affinity
ISSUE and, second, to foster amity with all nations [Sinco,
Whether an alien female who marries a male citizen Phil. Political Law 502 — 11 ed.]), even as it retained
of the Philippines follows ipso facto his political in Section 15 the phrase in question.
status 4. In order for an alien woman marrying a
RULING Filipino to be vested with Filipino citizenship, it is
1. Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, not enough that she possesses the qualifications
an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or prescribed by Section 2 of the law and none of the
naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided disqualifications enumerated in its Section 4. Over
she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the and above all these, she has to pass thru the whole
Philippines under Section 4 of the same law. process of judicial naturalization, apparently from
Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is declaration of intention to oathtaking, before she can
subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine become a Filipina. In plain words, her marriage to a
citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his Filipino is absolutely of no consequence to her
oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not nationality vis-a-vis that of her Filipino husband;
suffer from any of the disqualifications under said she remains to be the national of the country to
Section 4. Whether the alien woman requires to which she owed allegiance before her marriage, and
if she desires to be of one nationality with her 1992, and directed the publication of the said
husband, she has to wait for the same time that any order and petition in the OG and a newspaper of
other applicant for naturalization needs to complete, general circulation, for 3 consecutive weeks, the
the required period of ten year residence, gain the last publication of which should be at least 6
knowledge of English or Spanish and one of the months before the said date of hearing. It also
principal local languages, make her children study in required the posting of a copy thereof and the
Filipino schools, acquire real property or engage in petition in a conspicuous place in the Office of
some lawful occupation of her own independently of the Clerk of Court of the RTC, Manila.
her husband, file her declaration of intention and 3. On Jan. 14, 1992, PR filed a “Motion to Set
after one year her application for naturalization, Hearing Ahead of Schedule”, where he
with the a􀁆davits of two credible witnesses of her manifested his intention to run for public office
good moral character and other qualifications, etc., in the May 1992 elections. And alleged that the
etc., until a decision is rendered in her favor, after deadline for filing of certificate of candidacy was
which, she has to undergo the two years of March 15, 1992, one day before the hearing and
probation, and only then, but not before she takes asked to reset the March 16 hearing on Jan 24.
her oath as citizen, will she begin to be considered 4. The motion was granted in an order dated Jan
and deemed to be a citizen of the Philippines. Briefly; 24, 1992, wherein the hearing of the petition was
she can become a Filipino citizen only by judicial moved to February 21, 1992. That said order was
declaration. not published nor a copy thereof posted.
5. Whatever the corresponding court or 5. On Feb 21, the hearing proceeded with the PR as
administrative authority decides therein as to such the sole witness. He submitted the following
citizenship is generally not considered as res documentary evidence;
adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and a. Affidavit of Publication of the Order dated
again as the occasion may demand. Lau Yuen Yeung, Oct 7, 1991 issued by the publisher of the
was declared to have become a Filipino citizen from Philippine Star
and by virtue of her marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao al b. Certificate of Publication of the order issued
as Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino citizen of 25 by the National Printing Office
January 1962. c. Notice of Hearing of Petition
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS HON. d. Photocopy of a Citation issued by the
ROSALIO G. DELA ROSA GR NO 104654. National Press Club with PR’s picture
JUNE 6, 1994 e. Certificate of Appreciation issued by the
Rotary Club of Davao
RAUL LEE VS COMELEC AND JUAN G. f. Photocopy of a Plaque of Appreciation issued
FRIVALDO GR NO 105715. JUNE 6, 1994 by the Republican College, QC
g. Photocopy of a Plaque of Appreciation issued
RAUL LEE VS COMELEC AND JUAN by the Davao-Bicol Association
FRIVALDO GR NO 105735. JUNE 6, 1994 h. Certification issued by the Records
The Solicitor General for petitioner in GR No 14654 Management and Archives Office that the
Yolando F. Lim counsel for private respondent record of birth of private respondent was not
on file
- A petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the i. Certificate of Naturalization issued by the
Revised Rules of Court in relation to RA No 5440 United States District Court
and Section 25 of the Interim Rules 6. On Feb 27, respondent Judge rendered the
I. assailed decision – granting the petition of JUAN
GR NO 104654 G. FRIVALO and was re-admitted as a citizen of
1. On September 20, 1991, petitioner filed a the Rep of the Phils by naturalization and vesting
petition for naturalization captioned” In the upon him the rights and privileges of a natural
Matter of Petition of Juan G. Frivaldo to be Re- born Filipino citizen.
admitted as a Citizen of the Philippinesunder 7. On the same day, PR was allowed to take his oath
Commonwealth Act No. 63” of allegiance before the respondent Judge
2. On October 7, 1991, in an order, respondent 8. On March 16, a “Motion for Leave of Court to
Judge set the petition for hearing on March 16, Intervene and to Admit Motion for
 Reconsideration” was filed by Quiterio H. 7. Petitioner prays for
Hermo alleging that the procedings were tainted a. The annulment of PR’s proclamation as
with jurisdictional defects, and prayed for a new Governor of the Province of Sorsogon
trial to conform with the requirements of the b. The deletion of Private respondent’s name
Naturalization Law. from the list of candidates for the position of
9. On March 19, 1992, the SolGen interposed a governor
timely appeal directly with the SC c. The proclamation of the governor-elect
based on the remaining votes, after the
GR NO 105715 exclusion of the votes for PR
1. Petitioner was the official candidate of the Laban d. The issuance of a temporary restraining
ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) for the order to enjoin PR from taking his oath and
position of the governor of the Province of assuming office
Sorsogon in the May 1992 elections. Private e. The issuance of a writ of mandamus to
respondent was the official candidate of the compel the Comelec to resolve the pending
Lakas-National Union of Christian Democrats disqualification case docketed as SPA Case
(Lakas-NUCD) for the same position. No. 92-016, against PR
2. Private respondent was proclaimed winner on
May 22, 1992. GR NO. 105375
3. On June 1, petitioner filed a petition with the 1. This a petition for mandamus under Rule 65 of
Comelec to annul the proclamation of PR as the Revised Rules of Court in relation to Section
Governor-elect of the Province of Sorsogon on 5(2) of the Art 8 of the Constitution, with prayer
the grounds that: for temporary restraining order (parties herein
a. That the proceedings and composition of the are identical with the parties in GR NO 105715
Provincial Board of Canvassers were not in 2. Petitioner for cancellation alleged that
accordance with law a. The PR is an American citizen and therefore
b. That private respondent is an alien, whose ineligible to run as candidate for the position
grant of Philippine citizenship is being of governor of the Province of Sorsogon
questioned by the state in GR No. 104654 b. That the trial court’s decision re-admitting
c. That private respondent is not a duly PR as a Filipino citizen was fraught with
registered voter. legal infirmities rendering it null and void
4. Petitioner further played that the votes cast in c. That assuming the decision to be valid, PR’s
favor of PR be considered as stray votes and that oath of allegiance, w/c was taken on the
he, on the basis of the remaining valid vote. Be same day the questioned decision was
proclaimed winner. promulgated, violated RA NO 530, which
5. On June 10, the Comelec issued the questioned provides for a 2-yeat waiting period before
en banc resolution which dismissed the petition the oath of allegiance can be taken by the
for having been filed out of time, citing Section applicant
19 of RA No 7166 which provides that the period d. That the hearing of the petition on Feb 27,
to appeal a ruling of the board of canvassers on 1992, was held less than 4 months from the
question affecting its composition or date of the last publication of the order and
proceedings was 3 days. petition
6. Petitioners argues that the Comelec acted with 3. PR denied the allegations therein and averred
grave abuse of discretion when it ignored the and averred:
fundamental issue of the PR’s disqualification in a. That Quiterio H. Hermo, not being a
the guise of technicality. He further claims that candidate for the same office for w/c PR was
the inclusion of PR’s name in the list of aspiring, had no standing to file the petition
registered voters in Sta. Magdalena, Sorsogon b. That the decision re-admitting him to Phil
was invalid because at the time he registered as a citizenship was presumed to be valid
voter in 1987, he was still an American citizen c. That no case had been filed to exclude his
and the grant of Filipino citizenship to PR is not name as a registered voter
yet conclusive because the case is still on appeal 4. Raul R. Lee intervened in the petition for
before us. cancellation of Pr’s certificate of candidacy
5. On May 13, 1992, said intervenor urged the Governor of the Province of Sorsogon for six
Comelec to decide the petition for cancellation, terms.
citing Sec 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, 5. The appeal of the Solicitor General in behalf of
which provides that all petitions on matters the Republic of the Philippines is meritorious.
involving the cancellation of a certificate of The naturalization proceedings in SP Proc. No.
candidacy must be decided “not later than 15 91-58645 was full of procedural flaws, rendering
days before election” the decision an anomaly.
6. The Comelec contends that the preparation for 6. PR, to reacquire Phil citizenship, is duty bound
the elections occupied much of its time, thus its to follow the procedure prescribed by the law on
failure to immediately resolve SPA Case No 92- Revised Naturalization Law. It is not for an
0166. It argues that under Section 5 of Rule 25 of applicant to decide for himself and to select the
the Comelec Rules of Procedure, it is excused requirements w/c he believes are inconvenient
from deciding a disqualification case within the or merely of nuisance value. The law does not
period provided by law for reasons beyond its distinguish between an applicant who was
control and it also assumed that the same action formerly a Filipino citizen and one who was
was subsequently abandoned by petitioner when never such a citizen.
he filed before it a petition for quo warranto. 7. The trial court never acquired jurisdiction to
II hear the petition for naturalization of private
GR NO 104564 respondent. The proceedings conducted, the
PR’s citizenship decision rendered and the oath of allegiance
1. PR alleges that the precarious political taken therein, are null and void for failure to
atmosphere in the country during the Martial comply with the publication and posting
Law compelled him to seek political asylum in requirements under the Revised Naturalization
the US and eventually to renounce his Phil Law.
citizenship. Under Sec 9 of said law, both the petition for
2. He claims that his petition for naturalization was naturalization and the order setting it for hearing
his only available remedy for his reacquisition of must be published once a week for 3 consecutive
the Phil citizenship. He tried to reacquire his Phil weeks in the OG and a newspaper of general
citizenship thru repatriation and direct act of circulation. Compliance therewith is
Congress but was later informed that jurisdictional.
repatriation proceedings were limited to army 8. The petition for naturalization lacks several
deserters or Filipino women who had lost their allegations required by Sections 2 and 6 of the
citizenship by reason of their marriage to Revised Naturalization Law, particularly: (1)
foreigners and his request to Congress failed to that the petitioner is of good moral character; (2)
materialize. He also claims that the re- that he resided continuously in the Philippines
scheduling of the hearing of the petition to an for at least ten years; (3) that he is able to speak
earlier date w/o publication, was made without and write English and any one of the principal
the objection from the OSG. dialects; (4) that he will reside continuously in
3. Accdg to the PR, there was substantial the Philippines from the date of the 􀁆ling of the
compliance with the law and that the public was petition until his admission to Philippine
well-informed of his petition for naturalization citizenship; and (5) that he has filed a declaration
due to the publicity given by the media. of intention or if he is excused from said filing,
4. Private respondent theorizes that the rationale of the justification therefor. Likewise the petition is
the law imposing the waiting period is to grant not supported by the affidavit of at least 2
the public an opportunity to investigate the credible persons who vouched for the good moral
background of the applicant and to oppose the of private respondent as required by Sec 7 of the
grant of Philippine citizenship if there is basis to Revised Naturalization Law and also the PR
do so. In his case, private respondent alleges that failed to attach a copy of his certificate of arrival
such requirement may be dispensed with, to the petition.
claiming that his life, both private and public, 9. Section 1 of R.A. No. 530 provides that no
was well-known. Private respondent cites his decision granting citizenship in naturalization
achievements as a freedom fighter and a former proceedings shall be executory until after two
 years from its promulgation in order to be able The petitions in G.R. No. 104654 and G.R. No.
to observe if: (1) the applicant has left the 105715 are both GRANTED while the petition in G.R.
country; (2) the applicant has dedicated himself No. 105735 is DISMISSED. Private respondent is
continously to a lawful calling or profession; (3) declared NOT a citizen of the Philippines and
the applicant has not been convicted of any therefore DISQUALIFIED from continuing to serve
offense or violation of government promulgated as GOVERNOR of the Province of Sorsogon. He is
rules; and (4) the applicant has committed any ordered to VACATE his office and to SURRENDER
act prejudicial to the interest of the country or the same to the Vice-Governor of the Province of
contrary to government announced policies. Sorsogon once this decision becomes final and
executory. No pronouncement as to costs.
GR NO 105715
1. We have to grant the petition in G.R. No. 105715
after treating it as a petition for certiorari instead
of a petition for mandamus. Said petition assails
the en banc resolution of the COMELEC,
dismissing SPC Case No. 92-273, which in turn
is a petition to annul private respondent's
proclamation on three grounds: 1) that the
proceedings and composition of the Provincial
Board of Canvassers were not in accordance with
law; 2) that private respondent is an alien, whose
grant of Filipino citizenship is being questioned
by the State in G.R. No. 104654; and 3) that
private respondent is not a duly registered voter.
The COMELEC dismissed the petition on the
grounds that it was filed outside the three-day
period for questioning the proceedings and
composition of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7166.
2. Petitioner's argument, that to unseat him will
frustrate the will of the electorate, is untenable.
Both the Local Government Code and the
Constitution require that only Filipino citizens
can run and be elected to public office. We can
only surmise that the electorate, at the time they
voted for private respondent, was of the
mistaken belief that he had legally reacquired
Filipino citizenship.
3. Petitioner in G.R. No. 105715, prays that the
votes cast in favor of private respondent be
considered stray and that he, being the candidate
obtaining the second highest number of votes, be
declared winner. In Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC , 176
SCRA 1 (1989), we ruled that where the
candidate who obtained the highest number of
votes is later declared to be disqualified to hold
the office to which he was elected, the candidate
who garnered the second highest number of
votes is not entitled to be declared winner.

GR NO 105735