ADMIN Cases Feb 20

7/24/2019 ADMIN Cases Feb 20

1/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 1

G.R. No. 162759 August 4, 2006

LOIDA NICOLAS-LEWIS, GREGORIO B. MACABENA, ALE!ANDRO A.ESCLAMADO, ARMANDO B. "EREDIA, RE#BEN S. SEG#RIAN, ERICLAC"ICA $#RBE%RE, ERESIA A. CR#&, !OSE$INA O'ENADISER"O$, MERCEDES (. O'ENA, CORNELIO R. NAI(IDAD,

E(EL%N D. NAI(IDAD, Petitioners,vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECIONS, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

GARCIA,J.:

In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, petitioners, referring to

themselves as "duals" or dual citiens, pra! that the! and others ho

retained or reac#uired Philippine citienship under Repu$lic %ct &R.%.' No.

())*, the Citienship Retention and Re+%c#uisition %ct of )-, $e alloedto avail themselves of the mechanism provided under the Overseas %$sentee

oting %ct of )- /&R.%. (/0(' and that the Commission on Elections

&CO1E2EC' accordingl! $e ordered to allo them to vote and register as

a$sentee voters under the aegis of R.%. (/0(.

3he facts4

Petitioners are successful applicants for recognition of Philippine citienship

under R.%. ())* hich accords to such applicants the right of suffrage,

among others. 2ong $efore the 1a! )5 national and local elections,

petitioners sought registration and certification as "overseas a$sentee voter"

onl! to $e advised $! the Philippine Em$ass! in the 6nited States that, per a

CO1E2EC letter to the Department of 7oreign %ffairs dated Septem$er )-,

)- ), the! have !et no right to vote in such elections oing to their lac8 of

the one+!ear residence re#uirement prescri$ed $! the Constitution. 3he

same letter, hoever, urged the different Philippine posts a$road not to

discontinue their campaign for voter9s registration, as the residence

restriction adverted to ould conte:tuall! affect merel! certain individuals

ho ould li8el! $e eligi$le to vote in future elections.

Prodded for clarification $! petitioner 2oida Nicolas+2eis in the light of the

ruling in 1acalintal vs. CO1E2EC -on the residenc! re#uirement, the

CO1E2EC rote in response4

%lthough R.%. ())* en;o!s the presumption of constitutionalit! ence, as 7ilipinos ho have merel! re+

ac#uired their citienship on /0 Septem$er )- at the earliest, and as la

and ;urisprudence no stand, the! are considered regular voters ho have

to meet the re#uirements of residenc!, among others under Section /,

%rticle * of the Constitution. 5

7aced ith the prospect of not $eing a$le to vote in the 1a! )5 elections

oing to the CO1E2EC=s refusal to include them in the National Registr! of

%$sentee oters, petitioner Nicolas+2eis et al., *filed on %pril /, )5 this

petition for certiorari and mandamus.

% little over a ee8 $efore the 1a! /, )5 elections, or on %pril -, )5,

the CO1E2EC filed a Comment, ?therein pra!ing for the denial of the

petition. %s ma! $e e:pected, petitioners ere not a$le to register let alone

vote in said elections.

On 1a! ), )5, the Office of the Solicitor @eneral &OS@' filed a

1anifestation &in 2ieu of Comment', therein stating that "all #ualified

overseas 7ilipinos, including dual citiens ho care to e:ercise the right of

suffrage, ma! do so" , o$serving, hoever, that the conclusion of the )5

elections had rendered the petition moot and academic. A

3he holding of the )5 elections had, as the OS@ pointed out, indeed

rendered the petition moot and academic, $ut insofar onl! as petitioners9

participation in such political e:ercise is concerned. 3he $roader and

transcendental issue tendered or su$sumed in the petition, i.e., the propriet!

of alloing "duals" to participate and vote as a$sentee voter in future

elections, hoever, remains unresolved.

O$serving the petitioners9 and the CO1E2EC9s respective formulations of the

issues, the same ma! $e reduced into the #uestion of hether or not

petitioners and others ho might have meanhile retained andBor
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt1


2/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 2

reac#uired Philippine citienship pursuant to R.%. ())* ma! vote as

a$sentee voter under R.%. (/0(.

3he Court resolves the poser in the affirmative, and there$! accords merit to

the petition.

In esse, this case is all a$out suffrage. % #uic8 loo8 at the governingprovisions on the right of suffrage is, therefore, indicated.

e start off ith Sections / and ) of %rticle of the Constitution,

respectivel! reading as follos4

SEC3ION /. Suffrage ma! $e e:ercised $! all citiens of the Philippines not

otherise dis#ualified $! la, ho are at least eighteen !ears of age, and

ho shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one !ear and in the

place herein the! propose to vote for at least si: months immediatel!

preceding the election. :::.

SEC ). 3he Congress shall provide < a s!stem for a$sentee voting $!

#ualified 7ilipinos a$road.

In a nutshell, the afore#uoted Section / prescri$es residenc! re#uirement as

a general eligi$ilit! factor for the right to vote. On the other hand, Section )

authories Congress to devise a s!stem herein an a$sentee ma! vote,

impl!ing that a non+resident ma!, as an e:ception to the residenc!

prescription in the preceding section, $e alloed to vote.

In response to its a$ove mandate, Congress enacted R.%. (/0( + the

O%2 0+ identif!ing in its Section 5 ho can vote under it and in the

folloing section ho cannot, as follos4

Section 5. Coverage. %ll citiens of the Philippines a$road, ho are not

otherise dis#ualified $! la, at least eighteen &/0' !ears of age on the da!

of elections, ma! vote for president, vice+president, senators and part!+list

representatives.

Section *. Dis#ualifications. 3he folloing shall $e dis#ualified from voting

under this %ct4

&a' 3hose ho have lost their 7ilipino citienship in accordance ith

Philippine las

&$' 3hose ho have e:pressl! renounced their Philippine citienship and ho

have pledged allegiance to a foreign countr!

&c' 3hose ho have < F$eenG convicted in a final ;udgment $! a court ortri$unal of an offense punisha$le $! imprisonment of not less than one &/'

!ear, including those ho have < $een found guilt! of Dislo!alt! as defined

under %rticle /-A of the Revised Penal Code, oever, Section *&d' of the enumeration respecting

7ilipino immigrants and permanent residents in another countr! opens an

e:ception and #ualifies the dis#ualification rule. Section *&d' ould,

hoever, face a constitutional challenge on the ground that, as narrated in1acalintal, it +

< violates Section /, %rticle of the /(0A Constitution hich re#uires that

the voter must $e a resident in the Philippines for at least one !ear and in

the place here he proposes to vote for at least si: months immediatel!

preceding an election. F3he challengerG cites < Caasi vs. Court of

%ppeals (to support his claim FhereG the Court held that a "green card"

holder immigrant to the F6SG is deemed to have a$andoned his domicile and

residence in the Philippines.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162759_2006.html#fnt9


3/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 3

F3he challengerG further argues that Section /, %rticle of the Constitution

does not allo provisional registration or a promise $! a voter to perform a

condition to $e #ualified to vote in a political e:ercise that the legislature

should not $e alloed to circumvent the re#uirement of the Constitution on

the right of suffrage $! providing a condition thereon hich in effect amends

or alters the aforesaid residence re#uirement to #ualif! a 7ilipino a$road to

vote. >e claims that the right of suffrage should not $e granted to an!oneho, on the date of the election, does not possess the #ualifications provided

for $! Section /, %rticle of the Constitution. /&ords in $rac8et added.'

%s ma! $e recalled, the Court upheld the constitutionalit! of Section *&d' of

R.%. (/0( mainl! on the strength of the folloing premises4

%s finall! approved into la, Section *&d' of R.%. No. (/0( specificall!

dis#ualifies an immigrant or permanent resident ho is "recognied as such

in the host countr!" $ecause immigration or permanent residence in another

countr! implies renunciation of one=s residence in his countr! of origin.

>oever, same Section allos an immigrant and permanent resident a$roadto register as voter for as long as heBshe e:ecutes an affidavit to sho that

heBshe has not a$andoned his domicile in pursuance of the constitutional

intent e:pressed in Sections / and ) of %rticle that "all citiens of the

Philippines not otherise dis#ualified $! la" must $e entitled to e:ercise the

right of suffrage and, that Congress must esta$lish a s!stem for a$sentee

voting for otherise, if actual, ph!sical residence in the Philippines is

re#uired, there is no sense for the framers of the Constitution to mandate

Congress to esta$lish a s!stem for a$sentee voting.

Contrar! to the claim of Fthe challengerG, the e:ecution of the affidavit itself

is not the ena$ling or enfranchising act. 3he affidavit re#uired in Section*&d' is not onl! proof of the intention of the immigrant or permanent

resident to go $ac8 and resume residenc! in the Philippines, $ut more

significantl!, it serves as an e:plicit e:pression that he had not in fact

a$andoned his domicile of origin. 3hus, it is not correct to sa! that the

e:ecution of the affidavit under Section *&d' violates the Constitution that

proscri$es "provisional registration or a promise $! a voter to perform a

condition to $e #ualified to vote in a political e:ercise." //

Soon after Section *&d' of R.%. (/0( passed the test of constitutionalit!,

Congress enacted R.%. ())* the relevant portion of hich reads4

SEC. ). Declaration of Polic!. It is here$! declared the polic! of the State

that all Philippine citiens ho $ecome citiens of another countr! shall $e

deemed not to have lost their Philippine citienship under the conditions of

this %ct.

SEC. -. Retention of Philippine Citienship. %n! provision of la to the

contrar! notithstanding, natural+$orn citiens of the Philippines ho havelost their Philippine citienship $! reason of their naturaliation as citiens of

a foreign countr! are here$! deemed to have re+ac#uired Philippine

citienship upon ta8ing the folloing oath of allegiance to the Repu$lic4

::: ::: :::

Natural+$orn citiens of the Philippines ho, after the effectivit! of this %ct,

$ecome citiens of a foreign countr! shall retain their Philippine citienship

upon ta8ing the aforesaid oath.

SEC. 5. Derivative Citienship. 3he unmarried child, hether legitimate,illegitimate or adopted, $elo eighteen &/0' !ears of age, of those ho re+

ac#uire Philippine citienship upon effectivit! of this %ct shall $e deemed

citiens of the Philippines.

SEC. *. Civil and Political Rights and 2ia$ilities. 3hose ho retain or re+

ac#uire Philippine citienship under this %ct shall en;o! full civil and political

rights and $e su$;ect to all attendant lia$ilities and responsi$ilities under

e:isting las of the Philippines and the folloing conditions4

&/' 3hose intending to e:ercise their right of suffrage must meet the

re#uirements under Section /, %rticle of the Constitution, Repu$lic %ct No.

(/0(, otherise 8non as "3he Overseas %$sentee oting %ct of )-" and

other e:isting las

&)' 3hose see8ing elective pu$lic office in the Philippines shall meet the

#ualifications for holding such pu$lic office as re#uired $! the Constitution

and e:isting las and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidac!,

ma8e a personal and sorn renunciation of an! and all foreign citienship


4/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 4

&*' 3hat right to vote or $e elected or appointed to an! pu$lic office in the

Philippines cannot $e e:ercised $!, or e:tended to, those ho4

&a' are candidates for or are occup!ing an! pu$lic office in the countr! of

hich the! are naturalied citiens andBor

&$' are in active service as commissioned or non+commissioned officers inthe armed forces of the countr! hich the! are naturalied citiens.

%fter hat appears to $e a successful application for recognition of Philippine

citienship under R.%. (/0(, petitioners no invo8e their right to en;o! ouse of Representatives &$'

the Chairman of the >ouse9s Energ! Committee and, &c' a mem$er of 8e!

committees in the >ouse, namel!4 Natural Resources, %#uaculture, 7isheries

Resources, Ethics and Privileges, Mustice, National Defense and Securit!,

Pu$lic or8s and >igha!s, 3ransportation and a!s and 1eans./*

In his %nser, %rro!o counter+argued that the CO1E2EC had no ;urisdictionover issues involving the #ualifications of part!+list nominees Section ( of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt15


10/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 10

R% A(5/ merel! re#uires that the part!+list nominee must $e a $ona fide

mem$er of the part! or organiation hich he see8s to represent at least

ninet! &(' da!s preceding the da! of the election./?

hen the CO1E2EC pu$lished on 1arch )?, )/ its initial "2ist of Political

PartiesBSectoral OrganiationsBCoalitions Participating in the 1a! /, )/

elections ith their respective Nominees," %rro!o as listed as %@PP9s firstnominee.

On 1arch -, )/, the petitioner a!an 1una Part!+2ist, represented $!

Neri Colmenares, filed ith the CO1E2EC another petition for dis#ualification

against %rro!o./AIt alleged that %rro!o is not #ualified to $e a part!+list

nominee $ecause he &a' does not represent or $elong to the marginalied

and underrepresented sector &$' has not $een a $ona fide mem$er of %@PP

ninet! &(' da!s prior to the 1a! /, )/ elections &c' is a mem$er of the

>ouse of Representatives and that &d' %@PP is not a legitimate and #ualified

part!+list group and has no authorit! to nominate him. /0

In his %nser, %rro!o reiterated that the CO1E2EC does not have ;urisdiction

over cases involving the #ualifications of part!+list nominees. >e stated as

ell that he is a $ona fide mem$er of %@PP at least ninet! &(' da!s prior to

the elections./(

1eanhile, on %pril ?, )/, petitioners alden 7. ello and 2oretta %nn P.

Rosales &mandamus petitioners' rote the CO1E2EC 2a Department a

letter re#uesting for a cop! of the documentar! evidence su$mitted $! %@PP,

in compliance ith Section ? of Resolution No. 00A. On the same da!, the

CO1E2EC 2a Department replied that as of that date, the %@PP had not !et

su$mitted an! documentar! evidence re#uired $! Resolution No. 00A.)

3hrough a letter dated %pril A, )/, the mandamus petitioners re#uested

the CO1E2EC and its 2a Department to act, consistentl! ith Section / of

Resolution No. 00A, and declare the dis#ualification of the nominees of

%@PP for their failure to compl! ith the re#uirements of Section ? of

Resolution No. 00A.)/3he! also rote the CO1E2EC on %pril ), )/,

reiterating their letter+re#uest dated %pril A, )/. 3he CO1E2EC failed to

respond to $oth letters.))

3he CO1E2EC Second Division Ruling

In its 1a! A, )/ Moint Resolution, the CO1E2EC Second Division dismissed

the petitions for dis#ualification against %rro!o.)-It noted that Section ( of

R% A(5/ merel! re#uires the nominee to $e "a $ona fide mem$er Fof the

part! or organiation hich he see8s to represent forG at least ninet! &('

da!s preceding the da! of the elections.")5It found that %rro!o &a' $ecame a

mem$er of the part! on Novem$er ), )( &$' activel! participated in the

underta8ings of %@PP and adhered to its advocacies and, &c' activel!supported and advanced the pro;ects and programs of the %@PP $! regularl!

attending its meetings, livelihood and s8ills program, and farmers9 da!

activities.)*

3he CO1E2EC en banc Ruling

3he CO1E2EC en $anc refused to reconsider the Second Division9s ruling in

its Mul! /(, )/ consolidated resolution.)?It held, among others, that a

7ilipino citien, in order to #ualif! as a part!+list nominee, onl! needs to $e a

$ona fide mem$er of the part! or organiation hich he see8s to represent,

for at least ninet! &(' da!s preceding the da! of the election, and mustli8eise $e at least tent!+five &)*' !ears of age on the da! of the

election.)A3he CO1E2EC en $anc also held that Section ? of Resolution No.

00A is ultra vires, since the re#uirement that a nominee $elong to the

marginalied and underrepresented sector he see8s to represent is not found

in R% A(5/.)03hus, it concluded that %rro!o possessed all the re#uirements

mandated $! Section ( of R% A(5/.)(

On 1a! A, )/, the mandamus petitioners filed ith this Court their Petition

for 1andamus and Prohi$ition ith %pplication for 3emporar! Restraining

Order andBor Preliminar! In;unction,-doc8eted as @.R. No. /(/((0.-/3he!

sought to compel the CO1E2EC to dis#ualif! motu proprio the %@PPnominees for their failure to compl! ith Section ? of Resolution No. 00A,

and to en;oin the CO1E2EC from giving due course to the %@PP9s

participation in the 1a! /, )/ elections.

On Mul! )- and )(, )/, the certiorari petitioners elevated their case to this

Court viato &)' separate petitions for certiorari,-)doc8eted as @.R. Nos.

/()A?(--and /()0-),-5to annul the CO1E2EC Second Division9s 1a! A,

)/ ;oint resolution and the CO1E2EC en $anc9s Mul! /(, )/ consolidated

resolution that dismissed their petitions for dis#ualification against %rro!o as

%@PP9s nominee.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt34


11/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 11

In the interim, %@PP o$tained in the 1a! /, )/ elections the re#uired

percentage of votes sufficient to secure a single seat. 3his entitled %rro!o, as

%@PP9s first nominee, to sit in the >ouse of Representatives. -*

On Mul! )/, )/, the CO1E2EC, sitting as the National oard of Canvassers,

proclaimed %rro!o as %@PP9s dul!+elected part!+list representative in the

>ouse of Representatives.-?

On the same da!, %rro!o too8 his oath of office,as %@PP9s Representative,-A$efore Court of %ppeals Presiding Mustice %ndres

. Re!es. >is name as, thereafter, entered in the Roll of 1em$ers of the

>ouse of Representatives.-0

On Mul! )0 and )(, )/, to &)' separate petitions for #uo arranto-(ere

filed ith the >ouse of Representatives Electoral 3ri$unal &>RE3' #uestioning

%rro!o9s eligi$ilit! as %@PP9s representative in the >ouse of Representatives.

On Septem$er A, )/, the >RE3 too8 cogniance of the petitions $! issuing

a Summons directing %rro!o to file his %nser to the to petitions.5

3he Petitions

3he mandamus petitioners in @.R. No. /(/((0 argue that the CO1E2EC

committed grave a$use of discretion &a' in failing to order the motu proprio

dis#ualification of %@PP despite its failure to compl! ith the mandator!

re#uirements under Section ? of Resolution No. 00A and, &$' in giving due

course to the participation of %@PP and its nominees in the 1a! /, )/

elections.

On the other hand, the certiorari petitioners in @.R. Nos. /()A?( and

/()0-) contend in common that the CO1E2EC en $anc gravel! a$used its

discretion in failing to dis#ualif! %rro!o as %@PP9s nominee since4 &/' hedoes not $elong to the marginalied and underrepresented sector he claims

to represent &)' he is not a $ona fide %@PP mem$er for at least ninet! &('

da!s preceding the 1a! /, )/ elections &-' in light of these preceding

reasons, he ould not $e a$le to contri$ute to the formulation and

enactment of appropriate legislations for the sector he see8s to represent

and &5' his nomination and acceptance of nomination as %@PP9s nominee

violate %@PP9s continuing underta8ing upon hich its petition for registration

and accreditation as $ased and granted.

In @.R. No. /()0-), the petitioner a!an 1una Part!+2ist also pra!s that the

Court4 &a' direct the CO1E2EC en $anc to revie all i ts decisions in cases for

dis#ualification of nominees and cancellation of registration of part!+list

groups filed in the 1a! /, )/ elections, as ell as those hich have not

$een resolved, in line ith the eight+point guidelines set forth in %ng agong

a!ani5/and &$' order Commissioners Nicodemo 3. 7errer, 2ucenito N.

3agle, %rmando C. elasco and Elias R. usoph to e:plain h! the! should

not $e cited in contempt for their open defiance of the Court9s Decisions in

%ng agong a!ani

5)

and aranga! %ssociation for National %dvancementand 3ransparenc! v. CO1E2EC.5-

3he Case for the Respondents

In @.R. Nos. /()A?( and /()0-), %rro!o counter+argues that the petitions

should $e dismissed outright $ecause upon his proclamation, oath and

assumption to office as a dul! elected mem$er of the >ouse of

Representatives, the ;urisdiction over issues relating to his #ualifications no

lies ith the >RE3 as the sole ;udge of all contests relating to the election,

returns, and #ualifications of mem$ers of the >ouse of Representatives.

Similarl!, the CO1E2EC, through the Office of the Solicitor @eneral &OS@',

pra!s for the dismissal of the petitions in @.R. Nos. /()A?( and /()0-) for

lac8 of ;urisdiction in vie of %rro!o9s proclamation and assumption to office

as a 1em$er of the >ouse of Representatives.

Despite notice, the OS@ failed to comment on the @.R. No. /(/((0 petition.

e deemed the case read! for resolution on the $asis of the parties9

su$missions.

Issues

3he core issues $oil don to &/' hether mandamus lies to compel the

CO1E2EC to dis#ualif! %@PP9s nominees motu proprio or to cancel %@PP9s

registration &)' hether the CO1E2EC can $e en;oined from giving due

course to %@PP9s participation in the 1a! /, )/ elections, the canvassing

of %@PP9s votes, and proclaiming it a inner and &-' hether the >RE3 has

;urisdiction over the #uestion of %rro!o9s #ualifications as %@PP9s nominee

after his proclamation and assumption to office as a mem$er of the >ouse of

Representatives.

Our Ruling
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt43


12/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 12

e dismiss the petitions.

7or a rit of mandamus to issue &in @.R. No. /(/((0', the mandamus

petitioners must compl! ith Section - of Rule ?* of the Rules of Court,

hich provides4

SEC. -. Petition for mandamus. K hen an! tri$unal, corporation, $oard,officer or person unlafull! neglects the performance of an act hich the la

specificall! en;oins as a dut! resulting from an office, trust, or station, or

unlafull! e:cludes another from the use and en;o!ment of a right or office

to hich such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speed! and

ade#uate remed! in the ordinar! course of la, the person aggrieved

there$! ma! file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts ith

certaint! and pra!ing that ;udgment $e rendered commanding the

respondent, immediatel! or at some other time to $e specified $! the court,

to do the act re#uired to $e done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and

to pa! the damages sustained $! the petitioner $! reason of the rongful

acts of the respondent.

In the present case, the mandamus petitioners failed to compl! ith the

condition that there $e "no other plain, speed! and ade#uate remed! in the

ordinar! course of la."

6nder Section ), in relation ith Section 5, of CO1E2EC Resolution No. 00A

uoted $elo', an! interested part! ma! file ith the CO1E2EC a petition

for dis#ualification against a part!+list nominee4

Section ).@rounds for Dis#ualification. %n! nominee &a' ho does not

possess all the #ualifications of a nominee as provided for $! theConstitution, e:isting las or &$' ho commits an! act declared $! la to $e

grounds for dis#ualification ma! $e dis#ualified from continuing as a

nominee.

Section 5.hen to file Petition. 3he petition under item &a' of Section )shall $e filed five &*' da!s after the last da! for filing of the list of nominees,

hile under item &$' thereof shall $e filed an! da! not later than the date of

proclamation.

7urthermore, under Section ? of R% A(5/, an! interested part! ma! file a

verified complaint for cancellation of registration of a part!+list organiation4

SEC. ?.Refusal andBor Cancellation of Registration. 3he CO1E2EC ma!motu proprio or upon verified complaint of an! interested part!, remove or

cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of an! national,

regional or sectoral part!, organiation or coalition on an! of the folloing

grounds4

&/' It is a religious sect or denomination, organiation or associationorganied for religious purposes

&)' It advocates violence or unlaful means to see8 its goal

&-' It is a foreign part! or organiation

&5' It is receiving support from an! foreign government, foreign

political part!, foundation, organiation, hether directl! or through

an! of its officers or mem$ers or indirectl! through third parties for

partisan election purposes

&*' It violates or fails to compl! ith las, rules or regulations

relating to elections

&?' It declares untruthful statements in its petition

&A' It has ceased to e:ist for at least one &/' !ear or

&0' It fails to participate in the last to &)' preceding elections or

fails to o$tain at least to per centum &)L' of the votes cast under

the part!+list s!stem in the to &)' preceding elections for the

constituenc! in hich it has registered.

3hese provisions effectivel! provide the "plain, speed! and ade#uate

remed!" that the mandamus petitioners should have ta8en. Specificall!, the!

should have filed the proper petition for dis#ualification, pursuant to Section

)&$' of Resolution No. 00A, an! da! not later than the date of

proclamation.

%s to the remed! of filing a complaint for cancellation of registration, e

note that neither Section ? of R% A(5/ nor Section 0, Rule -) of the

CO1E2EC Rules of Procedure specifies the period ithin hich a complaint

for cancellation of registration should $e filed. hether or not the mandamus


13/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 13

petitioners can still file a petition for cancellation of %@PP9s registration at

this point in time, hoever, is a #uestion e are not prepared to rule upon

in fact, e need not resolve this #uestion since it is not raised here and has

not $een argued $! the parties.

e note that in lieu of filing the a$ove formal petition that Resolution No.

00A and R% A(5/ provide, the mandamus petitioners opted to confinethemselves to riting letters to as8 the CO1E2EC to act in accordance ith

Section / of Resolution No. 00A. hile these moves are technicall!

o$;ections to %rro!o and to the %@PP9s registration, the! cannot in an! a!

$e considered formal petitions for dis#ualification, unli8e the present petition

hich is a formal petition &hose clear intent is similarl! to dis#ualif!

%rro!o'. 6nfortunatel! for the mandamuspetitioners, a petition for

mandamus is not the correct remed! under the circumstances as the

immediatel! applica$le remed! is a petition for dis#ualification or for

cancellation filed ith the CO1E2EC, as pointed out a$ove.

In filing the present petition, the mandamuspetitioners also violated the ruleon the e:haustion of administrative remedies. 3he rule on e:haustion of

administrative remedies provides that a part! must e:haust all

administrative remedies to give the administrative agenc! an opportunit! to

decide and thus prevent unnecessar! and premature resort to the

courts.55hile this is not an ironclad rule as it admits of e:ceptions,5*the

mandamus petitioners failed to sho that an! of the e:ceptions appl!. 3he

filing of a petition for mandamus ith this Court, therefore, as premature.

It $ears stressing that mandamus, as an e:traordinar! remed!, ma! $e used

onl! in cases of e:treme necessit! here the ordinar! forms of procedure

are poerless to afford relief.5?

3hus, e find the mandamus aspect of @.R. No. /(/((0 improperl! filed

under the standards of Section -, Rule ?* of the Rules of Court.

Even the su$stantive merits of the mandamus petition in @.R. No. /(/((0,

i.e., its patent intent to dis#ualif! %rro!o, fail to persuade for the reasons

more full! discussed $elo, in relation ith the certiorari petitions in @.R.

Nos. /()A?( and /()0-).

%s to the prohi$ition aspect of @.R. No. /(/((0 i.e., to prevent the

CO1E2EC from canvassing %@PP9s votes, and from proclaiming it a inner

e find that this has $een mooted $! the supervening participation, electionand proclamation of %@PP after it secured the re#uired percentage of votes

in the 1a! /, )/ elections. 3he prohi$ition issue has $een rendered moot

since there is nothing no to prohi$it in light of the supervening events. %

moot case is one that ceases to present a ;usticia$le controvers! $! virtue of

supervening events, so that a declaration thereon &in this case, the

prevention of the specified acts' can no longer $e done. 6nder the

circumstances, e have to recognie the futilit! of the petition and to

dismiss it on the ground of mootness since e cannot provide themandamus petitioners an! su$stantial relief.5A

e move on to the principal issue raised $! the certiorari petitions in @.R.

Nos. /()A?( and /()0-) hether ;urisdiction over %rro!o9s #ualifications

as %@PP nominee should no properl! $e ith the >RE3 since %rro!o has

$een proclaimed and has assumed office as 1em$er of the >ouse of

Representatives.&avvphi&

3his issue is far from novel and is an issue previousl! ruled upon $! this

Court. 3he consistent ;udicial holding is that the >RE3 has ;urisdiction to

pass upon the #ualifications of part!+list nominees after their proclamationand assumption of office the! are, for all intents and purposes, "elected

mem$ers" of the >ouse of Representatives although the entit! directl! voted

upon as their part!. In %$a!on v. >ouse of Representatives Electoral

3ri$unal,50the Court said4

ut, although it is the part!+list organiation that is voted for in the

elections, it is not the organiation that sits as and $ecomes a mem$er of

the >ouse of Representatives. Section *, %rticle I of the Constitution,

identifies ho the "mem$ers" of that >ouse are4

S. 5. ;1


14/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 14

*)t:o*), +g:o*), )* sto+) )+t:s o+ o+g)*:)t:o*s." 3his meansthat, from the Constitution9s point of vie, it is the part!+list representatives

ho are "elected" into office, not their parties or organiations. 3hese

representatives are elected, hoever, through that peculiar part!+list s!stem

that the Constitution authoried and that Congress $! la esta$lished here

the voters cast their votes for the organiations or parties to hich such

part!+list representatives $elong.

Once elected, $oth the district representatives and the part!+list

representatives are treated in l i8e manner. 3he! have the same deli$erative

rights, salaries, and emoluments. 3he! can participate in the ma8ing of las

that ill directl! $enefit their legislative districts or sectors. 3he! are also

su$;ect to the same term limitation of three !ears for a ma:imum of three

consecutive terms.

It ma! not $e amiss to point out that the Part!+2ist S!stem %ct itself

recognies part!+list nominees as "mem$ers of the >ouse of

Representatives," thus4

S. 2. D)+)t:o* o8 'o:. = St)t s=) +oot +oo+t:o*)++s*t)t:o* :* t= t:o* o8 ++s*t)t:>s to t= "ous o8R+s*t)t:>s t=+oug= ) )+t-:st sst o8 +g:st+ *)t:o*),+g:o*) )* sto+) )+t:s o+ o+g)*:)t:o*s o+ o):t:o*s t=+o8,?=:= ?: *)3 $:::*o :t:*s 3o*g:*g to t= )+g:*): )*u*+++s*t sto+s, o+g)*:)t:o*s )* )+t:s, )* ?=o )?-8:* o:t:) o*st:tu*:s 3ut ?=o ou o*t+:3ut to t=8o+u)t:o* )* *)t*t o8 )+o+:)t g:s)t:o* t=)t ?:3*8:t t= *)t:o* )s ) ?=o, to 3o 3+s o8 t= "ous o8

R+s*t)t:>s. o?)+s t=:s *, t= St)t s=) >o )*gu)+)*t ) 8u, 8+ )* o* )+t sst :* o++ to )tt):* t=3+o)st oss:3 ++s*t)t:o* o8 )+t, sto+) o+ g+ou:*t+sts :* t= "ous o8 R+s*t)t:>s 3 *=)*:*g t=:+ =)*sto ot 8o+ )* ?:* s)ts :* t= g:s)tu+, )* s=) +o>: t=s:st s= oss:3. &6nderscoring supplied'

%s this Court also held in 'antay Republic Act or 'A!RA ()*& v. %ommission

on +lections, a part!+list representative is in ever! sense "an elected

mem$er of the >ouse of Representatives." %lthough the vote cast in a part!+

list election is a vote for a part!, such vote, in the end, ould $e a vote for

its nominees, ho, in appropriate cases, ould eventuall! sit in the >ouse ofRepresentatives.

3he Court also held in the same case that4

In the cases $efore the Court, those ho challenged the #ualifications of

petitioners %$a!on and Palparan claim that the to do not $elong to the

marginalied and underrepresented sectors that the! ought to represent.

3he Part!+2ist S!stem %ct provides that a nominee must $e a "bona

fidemem$er of the part! or organiation hich he see8s to represent."

It is for the >RE3 to interpret the meaning of this particular #ualification of a

nominee the need for him or her to $e a bona fidemem$er or a

representative of his part!+list organiationKin the conte:t of the facts that

characterie petitioners %$a!on and Palparan9s relation toAangat

,ayoand 'antay, respectivel!, and the marginalied and underrepresented

interests that the! presuma$l! em$od!.

: : : :

hat is inevita$le is that Section /A, %rticle I of the Constitution providesthat the >RE3 shall $e the sole ;udge of all contests relating to, among other

things, the #ualifications of the mem$ers of the >ouse of Representatives.

Since, as pointed out a$ove, part!+list nominees are "t 3+s" ofthe >ouse of Representatives no less than the district representatives are,

the >RE3 has ;urisdiction to hear and pass upon their #ualifications. !

analog! ith the cases of district representatives, once the part! or

organiation of the part!+list nominee has $een proclaimed and the nominee

has ta8en his oath and assumed office as mem$er of the >ouse of

Representatives, the CO1E2EC9s ;urisdiction over election contests relating

to his #ualifications ends and the >RE39s on ;urisdiction $egins.

Similarl! applica$le is our ruling in Pere v. Commission on Elections5(here

e ac8noledged that the Court does not have ;urisdiction to pass upon the

eligi$ilit! of the private respondent ho as alread! a mem$er of the >ouse

of Representatives. e said4

%s alread! stated, the petition for dis#ualification against private respondent

as decided $! the 7irst Division of the CO1E2EC on 1a! /, /((0. 3he

folloing da!, 1a! //, /((0, the elections ere held. Notithstanding the

fact that private respondent had alread! $een proclaimed on 1a! /?, /((0

and had ta8en his oath of office on 1a! /A, /((0, petitioner still filed a

motion for reconsideration on 1a! )), /((0, hich the CO1E2EC en
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt49


15/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 15

bancdenied on Mune //, /((0. Clearl!, this could not $e done. Sec. ? of R.%.

No. ??5? authories the continuation of proceedings for dis#ualification even

after the elections if the respondent has not $een proclaimed. 3he

CO1E2EC en banchad no ;urisdiction to entertain the motion $ecause the

proclamation of private respondent $arred further consideration of

petitioner9s action. In the same vein, considering that at the time of the filing

of this petition on Mune /?, /((0, private respondent as alread! a mem$er

of the >ouse of Representatives, this Court has no ;urisdiction over the

same. Pursuant to %rt. I, /A of the Constitution, the >ouse of

Representatives Electoral 3ri$unal has the e:clusive original ;urisdiction over

the petition for the declaration of private respondent9s ineligi$ilit!. %s this

Court held in Lazatin v. -ouse of Representatives +lectoral ,ribunal4

3he use of the ord "sole" emphasies the e:clusive character of the

;urisdiction conferred. 3he e:ercise of the poer $! the Electoral

Commission under the /(-* Constitution has $een descri$ed as "intended to

$e as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originall! in the

legislature." Earlier, this grant of poer to the legislature as characteried$! Mustice 1alcolm "as full, clear and complete." 6nder the amended /(-*

Constitution, the poer as un#ualifiedl! reposed upon the Electoral 3ri$unal

and it remained as full, clear and complete as that previousl! granted the

legislature and the Electoral Commission. 3he same ma! $e said ith regard

to the ;urisdiction of the Electoral 3ri$unals under the /(0A Constitution. *

In the present case, it is not disputed that %rro!o, %@PP9s first nominee, has

alread! $een proclaimed and ta8en his oath of office as a 1em$er of the

>ouse of Representatives. e ta8e ;udicial notice, too, of the filing of to &)'

petitions for #uo arranto against %rro!o, no pending $efore the >RE3.

3hus, folloing the lead of %$a!on and Pere, e hold that the Court has no;urisdiction over the present petitions and that the >RE3 no has the

e:clusive original ;urisdiction to hear and rule upon %rro!o9s #ualifications as

a 1em$er of the >ouse of Representatives.

In light of these conclusions, e see no need to further discuss the other

issues raised in the certiorari petitions.

>ERE7ORE, e RESO2E to DIS1ISS the petition in @.R. No. /(/((0 for

prematurit! and mootness. 3he petitions in @.R. Nos. /()A?( and /()0-)

are li8eise DIS1ISSED for lac8 of ;urisdiction. No pronouncement as to

costs.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_191998_2010.html#fnt50


16/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 16

G.R. No. 150/ M) 26, 1999

ERNESO S. MERCADO, petitioner,vs.

ED#ARDO BARRIOS MAN&ANO )* t= COMMISSION ONELECIONS, respondents.

MENDO&A,J.:

Petitioner Ernesto S. 1ercado and private respondent Eduardo . 1anano

ere candidates for vice ma!or of the Cit! of 1a8ati in the 1a! //, /((0

elections. 3he other one as @a$riel . Daa III. 3he results of the election

ere as follos4

Eduardo . 1anano /-,0*-

Ernesto S. 1ercado /,0(5

@a$riel . Daa III *5,)A*1

3he proclamation of private respondent as suspended in vie of a pending

petition for dis#ualification filed $! a certain Ernesto 1amaril ho alleged

that private respondent as not a citien of the Philippines $ut of the 6nited

States.

In its resolution, dated 1a! A, /((0,2the Second Division of the CO1E2ECgranted the petition of 1amaril and ordered the cancellation of the certificate

of candidac! of private respondent on the ground that he is a dual citien

and, under 5&d' of the 2ocal @overnment Code, persons ith dual

citienship are dis#ualified from running for an! elective position. 3he

CO1E2EC=s Second Division said4

hat is presented $efore the Commission is a petition for

dis#ualification of Eduardo arrios 1anano as candidate for

the office of ice+1a!or of 1a8ati Cit! in the 1a! //, /((0

elections. 3he petition is $ased on the ground that the


17/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 17

respondent is an %merican citien $ased on the record of the

ureau of Immigration and misrepresented himself as a

natural+$orn 7ilipino citien.

In his anser to the petition filed on %pril )A, /((0, the

respondent admitted that he is registered as a foreigner ith

the ureau of Immigration under %lien Certificate ofRegistration No. +-/?-) and alleged that he is a 7ilipino

citien $ecause he as $orn in /(** of a 7ilipino father and a

7ilipino mother. >e as $orn in the 6nited States, San

7rancisco, California, Septem$er /5, /(**, and is considered

in %merican citien under 6S 2as. ut notithstanding his

registration as an %merican citien, he did not lose his

7ilipino citienship.

Mudging from the foregoing facts, it ould appear that

respondent 1anano is $orn a 7ilipino and a 6S citien. In

other ords, he holds dual citienship.

3he #uestion presented is hether under our las, he is

dis#ualified from the position for hich he filed his certificate

of candidac!. Is he eligi$le for the office he see8s to $e

electedJ

6nder Section 5&d' of the 2ocal @overnment Code, those

holding dual citienship are dis#ualified from running for an!

elective local position.

>ERE7ORE, the Commission here$! declares therespondent Eduardo arrios 1anano DISQ6%2I7IED as

candidate for ice+1a!or of 1a8ati Cit!.

On 1a! 0, /((0, private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. 3hemotion remained pending even until after the election held on 1a! //, /((0.

%ccordingl!, pursuant to Omni$us Resolution No. -55, dated 1a! /, /((0,

of the CO1E2EC, the $oard of canvassers ta$ulated the votes cast for vice

ma!or of 1a8ati Cit! $ut suspended the proclamation of the inner.

On 1a! /(, /((0, petitioner sought to intervene in the case for

dis#ualification.4Petitioner=s motion as opposed $! private respondent.

3he motion as not resolved. Instead, on %ugust -/, /((0, the CO1E2EC en

bancrendered its resolution. oting 5 to /, ith one commissioner

a$staining, the CO1E2EC en banc reversed the ruling of its Second Division

and declared private respondent #ualified to run for vice ma!or of the Cit! of1a8ati in the 1a! //, /((0 elections.53he pertinent portions of the

resolution of the CO1E2EC en banc read4

%s aforesaid, respondent Eduardo arrios 1anano as $orn

in San 7rancisco, California, 6.S.%. >e ac#uired 6S

citienship $! operation of the 6nited States Constitution and

las under the principle ofus soli.

>e as also a natural $orn 7ilipino citien $! operation of the

/(-* Philippine Constitution, as his father and mother ere

7ilipinos at the time of his $irth. %t the age of si: &?', hisparents $rought him to the Philippines using an %merican

passport as travel document. >is parents also registered him

as an alien ith the Philippine ureau of Immigration. >e

as issued an alien certificate of registration. 3his, hoever,

did not result in the loss of his Philippine citienship, as he

did not renounce Philippine citienship and did not ta8e an

oath of allegiance to the 6nited States.

It is an undisputed fact that hen respondent attained the

age of ma;orit!, he registered himself as a voter, and voted

in the elections of /((), /((* and /((0, hich effectivel!renounced his 6S citienship under %merican la. 6nder

Philippine la, he no longer had 6.S. citienship.

%t the time of the 1a! //, /((0 elections, the resolution of

the Second Division, adopted on 1a! A, /((0, as not !et

final. Respondent 1anano o$tained the highest num$er of

votes among the candidates for vice+ma!or of 1a8ati Cit!,

garnering one hundred three thousand eight hundred fift!

three &/-,0*-' votes over his closest rival, Ernesto S.

1ercado, ho o$tained one hundred thousand eight hundred

ninet! four &/,0(5' votes, or a margin of to thousandnine hundred fift! nine &),(*(' votes. @a$riel Daa III


18/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 18

o$tained third place ith fift! four thousand to hundred

sevent! five &*5,)A*' votes. In appl!ing election las, it

ould $e far $etter to err in favor of the popular choice than

$e em$roiled in comple: legal issues involving private

international la hich ma! ell $e settled $efore the

highest court &%f.7rivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, )*A

SCR% A)A'.

>ERE7ORE, the Commission en banc here$! REERSES the

resolution of the Second Division, adopted on 1a! A, /((0,

ordering the cancellation of the respondent=s certificate of

candidac!.

e declare respondent Eduardo 2uis arrios 1anano to $e

Q6%2I7IED as a candidate for the position of vice+ma!or of

1a8ati Cit! in the 1a! //, /((0, elections.

%CCORDIN@2, the Commission directs the 1a8ati Cit! oardof Canvassers, upon proper notice to the parties, to

reconvene and proclaim the respondent Eduardo 2uis arrios

1anano as the inning candidate for vice+ma!or of 1a8ati

Cit!.

Pursuant to the resolution of the CO1E2EC en banc, the $oard of canvassers,

on the evening of %ugust -/, /((0, proclaimed private respondent as vice

ma!or of the Cit! of 1a8ati.

3his is a petition for certiorarisee8ing to set aside the aforesaid resolution of

the CO1E2EC en banc and to declare private respondent dis#ualified to holdthe office of vice ma!or of 1a8ati Cit!. Petitioner contends that K

F3Ghe CO1E2EC en bancERRED in holding that4

%. 6nder Philippine la, 1anano as no longer a 6.S.

citien hen he4

/. >e renounced his 6.S. citienship hen he

attained the age of ma;orit! hen he as

alread! -A !ears old and,

). >e renounced his 6.S. citienship hen he

&merel!' registered himself as a voter and

voted in the elections of /((), /((* and

/((0.

. 1anano is #ualified to run for and or hold the elective

office of ice+1a!or of the Cit! of 1a8ati

C. %t the time of the 1a! //, /((0 elections, the resolution

of the Second Division adopted on A 1a! /((0 as not !et

final so that, effectivel!, petitioner ma! not $e declared the

inner even assuming that 1anano is dis#ualified to run for

and hold the elective office of ice+1a!or of the Cit! of

1a8ati.

e first consider the threshold procedural issue raised $! private respondent

1anano K hether petitioner 1ercado his personalit! to $ring this suit

considering that he as not an original part! in the case for dis#ualificationfiled $! Ernesto 1amaril nor as petitioner=s motion for leave to intervene

granted.

I. PE3I3IONER=S RI@>3 3O RIN@ 3>IS S6I3

Private respondent cites the folloing provisions of Rule 0 of the Rules of

Procedure of the CO1E2EC in support of his claim that petitioner has no right

to intervene and, therefore, cannot $ring this suit to set aside the ruling

den!ing his motion for intervention4

Sec. /. hen proper and hen ma! $e permitted tointervene. K %n! person alloed to initiate an action or

proceeding ma!, $efore or during the trial of an action or

proceeding, $e permitted $! the Commission, in its

discretion to intervene in such action or proceeding, if he has

legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of

either of the parties, or an interest against $oth, or hen he

is so situated as to $e adversel! affected $! such action or

proceeding.

::: ::: :::


19/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 19

Sec. -. Discretion of Commission. K In alloing or

disalloing a motion for intervention, the Commission or the

Division, in the e:ercise of its discretion, shall consider

hether or not the intervention ill undul! dela! or pre;udice

the ad;udication of the rights of the original parties and

hether or not the intervenor=s rights ma! $e full! protected

in a separate action or proceeding.

Private respondent argues that petitioner has neither legal interest in

the matter in litigation nor an interest to protect $ecause he is "a

defeated candidate for the vice+ma!oralt! post of 1a8ati Cit! FhoG

cannot $e proclaimed as the ice+1a!or of 1a8ati Cit! if the private

respondent $e ultimatel! dis#ualified $! final and e:ecutor!

;udgment."

3he fla in this argument is it assumes that, at the time petitioner sought to

intervene in the proceedings $efore the CO1E2EC, there had alread! $een a

proclamation of the results of the election for the vice ma!oralt! contest for1a8ati Cit!, on the $asis of hich petitioner came out onl! second to private

respondent. 3he fact, hoever, is that there had $een no proclamation at

that time. Certainl!, petitioner had, and still has, an interest in ousting

private respondent from the race at the time he sought to intervene. 3he

rule in Labo v. %/0+L+%,6reiterated in several cases,7onl! applies to casesin hich the election of the respondent is contested, and the #uestion is

hether one ho placed second to the dis#ualified candidate ma! $e

declared the inner. In the present case, at the time petitioner filed a

"1otion for 2eave to 7ile Intervention" on 1a! ), /((0, there had $een no

proclamation of the inner, and petitioner=s purpose as precisel! to have

private respondent dis#ualified "from running for FanG elective local position"

under 5&d' of R.%. No. A/?. If Ernesto 1amaril &ho originall! instituted

the dis#ualification proceedings', a registered voter of 1a8ati Cit!, as

competent to $ring the action, so as petitioner since the latter as a rival

candidate for vice ma!or of 1a8ati Cit!.

Nor is petitioner=s interest in the matter in litigation an! less $ecause he filed

a motion for intervention onl! on 1a! ), /((0, after private respondent

had $een shon to have garnered the highest num$er of votes among the

candidates for vice ma!or. 3hat petitioner had a right to intervene at that

stage of the proceedings for the dis#ualification against private respondent is

clear from ? of R.%. No. ??5?, otherise 8non as the Electoral Reform2a of /(0A, hich provides4

%n! candidate ho his $een declared $! final ;udgment to $e

dis#ualified shall not $e voted for, and the votes cast for him

shall not $e counted. If for an! reason a candidate is not

declared $! final ;udgment $efore an election to $e

dis#ualified and he is voted for and receives the inning

num$er of votes in such election, the Court or Commission

shall continue ith the trial and hearing of action, in#uir!, or

protest and, upon motion of the complainant or

an! intervenor, ma! during the pendenc! thereof order the

suspension of the proclamation of such candidate henever

the evidence of guilt is strong.

6nder this provision, intervention ma! $e alloed in proceedings for

dis#ualification even after election if there has !et $een no final ;udgment

rendered.

3he failure of the CO1E2EC en banc to resolve petitioner=s motion for

intervention as tantamount to a denial of the motion, ;ustif!ing petitionerin filing the instant petition for certiorari. %s the CO1E2EC en banc instead

decided the merits of the case, the present petition properl! deals not onl!

ith the denial of petitioner=s motion for intervention $ut also ith the

su$stantive issues respecting private respondent=s alleged dis#ualification on

the ground of dual citienship.

3his $rings us to the ne:t #uestion, namel!, hether private respondent

1anano possesses dual citienship and, if so, hether he is dis#ualified

from $eing a candidate for vice ma!or of 1a8ati Cit!.

II. D6%2 CI3IENS>IP %S % @RO6ND 7OR DISQ6%2I7IC%3ION

3he dis#ualification of private respondent 1anano is $eing sought under

5 of the 2ocal @overnment Code of /((/ &R.%. No. A/?', hich declares

as "dis#ualified from running for an! elective local position4 . . . &d' 3hose

ith dual citienship." 3his provision is incorporated in the Charter of the

Cit! of 1a8ati. /

Invo8ing the ma:im dura lex sed lex, petitioner, as ell as the Solicitor

@eneral, ho sides ith him in this case, contends that through 5&d' of

the 2ocal @overnment Code, Congress has "commandFedG in e:plicit terms


20/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 20

the ineligi$ilit! of persons possessing dual allegiance to hold local elective

office."

3o $egin ith, dual citienship is different from dual allegiance. 3he former

arises hen, as a result of the concurrent application of the different las of

to or more states, a person is simultaneousl! considered a national $! the

said states.

9

7or instance, such a situation ma! arise hen a person hoseparents are citiens of a state hich adheres to the principle ofussanguinisis $orn in a state hich follos the doctrine ofus soli. Such a

person,ipso factoand ithout an! voluntar! act on his part, is concurrentl!

considered a citien of $oth states. Considering the citienship clause &%rt.

I' of our Constitution, it is possi$le for the folloing classes of citiens of

the Philippines to possess dual citienship4

&/' 3hose $orn of 7ilipino fathers andBor mothers in foreign

countries hich follo the principle ofus soli

&)' 3hose $orn in the Philippines of 7ilipino mothers andalien fathers if $! the las of their father=s= countr! such

children are citiens of that countr!

&-' 3hose ho marr! aliens if $! the las of the latter=s

countr! the former are considered citiens, unless $! their

act or omission the! are deemed to have renounced

Philippine citienship.

3here ma! $e other situations in hich a citien of the Philippines ma!,

ithout performing an! act, $e also a citien of another state $ut the a$ove

cases are clearl! possi$le given the constitutional provisions on citienship.

Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in hich a person

simultaneousl! oes, $! some positive act, lo!alt! to to or more states.

hile dual citienship is involuntar!, dual allegiance is the result of an

individual=s volition.

ith respect to dual allegiance, %rticle I, * of the Constitution provides4

"Dual allegiance of citiens is inimical to the national interest and shall $e

dealt ith $! la." 3his provision as included in the /(0A Constitution at

the instance of Commissioner las 7. Ople ho e:plained its necessit! as

follos4 10

. . . I ant to dra attention to the fact that dual allegiance

is not dual citienship. I have circulated a memorandum to

the ernas Committee according to hich a dual allegiance

K and I reiterate a dual allegiance K is larger and more

threatening than that of mere dou$le citienship hich is

seldom intentional and, perhaps, never insidious. 3hat is

often a function of the accident of mi:ed marriages or of

$irth on foreign soil. %nd so, I do not #uestion dou$le

citienship at all.

hat e ould li8e the Committee to consider is to ta8e

constitutional cogniance of the pro$lem of dual allegiance.

7or e:ample, e all 8no hat happens in the triennial

elections of the 7ederation of 7ilipino+Chinese Cham$ers of

Commerce hich consists of a$out ? chapters all over the

countr!. 3here is a Pe8ing tic8et, as ell as a 3aipei tic8et.

Not idel! 8non is the fact chat the 7ilipino+Chinese

communit! is represented in the 2egislative uan of the

Repu$lic of China in 3aian. %nd until recentl!, sponsor

might recall, in 1ainland China in the People=s Repu$lic of

China, the! have the %ssociated 2egislative Council for

overseas Chinese herein all of Southeast %sia including

some European and 2atin countries ere represented, hich

as dissolved after several !ears $ecause of diplomatic

friction. %t that time, the 7ilipino+Chinese ere also

represented in that Overseas Council.

hen I spea8 of dou$le allegiance, therefore, I spea8 of this

unsettled 8ind of allegiance of 7ilipinos, of citiens ho are

alread! 7ilipinos $ut ho, $! their acts, ma! $e said to $e

$ound $! a second allegiance, either to Pe8ing or 3aian. I

also too8 close note of the concern e:pressed $! some

Commissioners !esterda!, including Commissioner illacorta,

ho ere concerned a$out the lac8 of guarantees of

thorough assimilation, and especiall! Commissioner

Concepcion ho has ala!s $een orried a$out minorit!

claims on our natural resources.

Dull allegiance can actuall! siphon scarce national capital to

3aian, Singapore, China or 1ala!sia, and this is alread!happening. Some of the great commercial places in


21/28


22/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 22

On the assumption that this person ould carr! to

passports, one $elonging to the countr! of his or her father

and one $elonging to the Repu$lic of the Philippines, ma!

such a situation dis#ualif! the person to run for a local

government positionJ

SEN%3OR PI1EN3E2. 3o m! mind, 1r. President, it onl!

means that at the moment hen he ould ant to run for

pu$lic office, he has to repudiate one of his citienships.

SEN%3OR ENRI2E. Suppose he carries onl! a Philippine

passport $ut the countr! of origin or the countr! of the

father claims that person, nevertheless, as a citienJ No one

can renounce. 3here are such countries in the orld.

SEN%3OR PI1EN3E2. ell, the ver! fact that he is running

for pu$lic office ould, in effect, $e an election for him of his

desire to $e considered as a 7ilipino citien.

SEN%3OR ENRI2E. ut, precisel!, 1r. President, the

Constitution does not re#uire an election. 6nder the

Constitution, a person hose mother is a citien of the

Philippines is, at $irth, a citien ithout an! overt act to

claim the citienship.

SEN%3OR PI1EN3E2. es. hat e are sa!ing, 1r. President,

is4 6nder the @entleman=s e:ample, if he does not renounce

his other citienship, then he is opening himself to #uestion.

So, if he is reall! interested to run, the first thing he shoulddo is to sa! in the Certificate of Candidac! that4 "I am a

7ilipino citien, and I have onl! one citienship."

SEN%3OR ENRI2E. ut e are tal8ing from the viepoint of

Philippine la, 1r. President. >e ill ala!s have one

citienship, and that is the citienship invested upon him or

her in the Constitution of the Repu$lic.

SEN%3OR PI1EN3E2. 3hat is true, 1r. President. ut if he

e:ercises acts that ill prove that he also ac8noledges

other citienships, then he ill pro$a$l! fall under this

dis#ualification.

3his is similar to the re#uirement that an applicant for naturaliation must

renounce "all allegiance and fidelit! to an! foreign prince, potentate, state,

or sovereignt!" 14of hich at the time he is a su$;ect or citien $efore hecan $e issued a certificate of naturaliation as a citien of the Philippines.

In Parado v.Republic, 15it as held4

FGhen a person appl!ing for citienship $! naturaliation

ta8es an oath that he renounce, his lo!alt! to an! other

countr! or government and solemnl! declares that he oes

his allegiance to the Repu$lic of the Philippines, the condition

imposed $! la is satisfied and compiled ith. 3he

determination hether such renunciation is valid or full!

complies ith the provisions of our Naturaliation 2a liesithin the province and is an e:clusive prerogative of our

courts. 3he latter should appl! the la dul! enacted $! the

legislative department of the Repu$lic. No foreign la ma! or

should interfere ith its operation and application. If the

re#uirement of the Chinese 2a of Nationalit! ere to $e

read into our Naturaliation 2a, e ould $e appl!ing not

hat our legislative department has deemed it ise to

re#uire, $ut hat a foreign government has thought or

intended to e:act. 3hat, of course, is a$surd. It must $e

resisted $! all means and at all cost. It ould $e a $raen

encroachment upon the sovereign ill and poer of the

people of this Repu$lic.

III. PE3I3IONER=S E2EC3ION O7 P>I2IPPINE CI3IENS>IP

3he record shos that private respondent as $orn in San 7rancisco,

California on Septem$er 5, /(**, of 7ilipino parents. Since the Philippines

adheres to the principle ofus sanguinis, hile the 6nited States follos the

doctrine ofus soli, the parties agree that, at $irth at least, he as a national

$oth of the Philippines and of the 6nited States. >oever, the CO1E2EC en

banc held that, $! participating in Philippine elections in /((), /((*, and

/((0, private respondent "effectivel! renounced his 6.S. citienship under%merican la," so that no he is solel! a Philippine national.


23/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 23

Petitioner challenges this ruling. >e argues that merel! ta8ing part in

Philippine elections is not sufficient evidence of renunciation and that, in an!

event, as the alleged renunciation as made hen private respondent as

alread! -A !ears old, it as ineffective as it should have $een made hen he

reached the age of ma;orit!.

In holding that $! voting in Philippine elections private respondent

renounced his %merican citienship, the CO1E2EC must have in mind -5(

of the Immigration and Nationalit! %ct of the 6nited States, hich provided

that "% person ho is a national of the 6nited States, hether $! $irth or

naturaliation, shall lose his nationalit! $!4 . . . &e' oting in a political

election in a foreign state or participating in an election or ple$iscite to

determine the sovereignt! over foreign territor!." 3o $e sure this provision

as declared unconstitutional $! the 6.S. Supreme Court inAfroyim

v.Rusk16as $e!ond the poer given to the 6.S. Congress to regulateforeign relations. >oever, $! filing a certificate of candidac! hen he ran

for his present post, private respondent elected Philippine citienship and in

effect renounced his %merican citienship. Private respondent=s certificate of

candidac!, filed on 1arch )A, /((0, contained the folloing statements

made under oath4

?. I %1 % 7I2IPINO CI3IEN &S3%3E I7

"N%36R%2+ORN" OR "N%36R%2IED"'

N%36R%2+ORN

::: ::: :::

/. I %1 % RE@IS3ERED O3ER O7 PRECINC3 NO. A5A+%,

%R%N@% S%N 2ORENO, CI3B16NICIP%2I3 O7 1%%3I,PROINCE O7 NCR.

//. I %1 NO3 % PER1%NEN3 RESIDEN3 O7, OR I11I@R%N3

3O, % 7OREI@N CO6N3R.

/). I %1 E2I@I2E 7OR 3>E O77ICE I SEE 3O E E2EC3ED.

I I22 S6PPOR3 %ND DE7END 3>E CONS3I363ION O7 3>E

P>I2IPPINES %ND I22 1%IN3%IN 3R6E 7%I3> %ND

%22E@I%NCE 3>ERE3O 3>%3 I I22 OE 3>E 2%S,

2E@%2 ORDERS %ND DECREES PRO162@%3ED 3>E D62

CONS3I363ED %63>ORI3IES O7 3>E REP62IC O7 3>E

P>I2IPPINES %ND 3>%3 I I1POSE 3>IS O2I@%3ION 6PON

1SE27 O26N3%RI2, I3>O63 1EN3%2 RESER%3ION OR

P6RPOSE O7 E%SION. I >ERE CER3I7 3>%3 3>E 7%C3S

S3%3ED >EREIN %RE 3R6E %ND CORREC3 O7 1 ON

PERSON%2 NO2ED@E.

3he filing of such certificate of candidac! sufficed to renounce his %merican

citienship, effectivel! removing an! dis#ualification he might have as a dual

citien. 3hus, in 1rivaldo v.%/0+L+%it as held4 17

It is not disputed that on Manuar! ), /(0- 7rivaldo $ecame

an %merican. ould the retroactivit! of his repatriation not

effectivel! give him dual citienship, hich under Sec. 5 of

the 2ocal @overnment Code ould dis#ualif! him "from

running for an! elective local positionJ" e anser this

#uestion in the negative, as there is cogent reason to hold

that 7rivaldo as reall! S3%3E2ESS at the time he too8 said

oath of allegiance and even $efore that, hen he ran forgovernor in /(00. In his Comment, 7rivaldo rote that he

"had long renounced and had long a$andoned his %merican

citienship K long $efore 1a! 0, /((*. %t $est, 7rivaldo as

stateless in the interim K hen he a$andoned and

renounced his 6S citienship $ut $efore he as repatriated

to his 7ilipino citienship."

On this point, e #uote from the assailed Resolution dated

Decem$er /(, /((*4

! the las of the 6nited States, petitioner7rivaldo lost his %merican citienship hen

he too8 his oath of allegiance to the

Philippine @overnment hen he ran for

@overnor in /(00, in /((), and in /((*.

Ever! certificate of candidac! contains an

oath of allegiance to the Philippine

@overnment.

3hese factual findings that 7rivaldo has lost his foreign

nationalit! long $efore the elections of /((* have not $een

effectivel! re$utted $! 2ee. 7urthermore, it is $asic that suchfindings of the Commission are conclusive upon this Court,


24/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 24

a$sent an! shoing of capriciousness or ar$itrariness or

a$use.

3here is, therefore, no merit in petitioner=s contention that the oath of

allegiance contained in private respondent=s certificate of candidac! is

insufficient to constitute renunciation that, to $e effective, such renunciation

should have $een made upon private respondent reaching the age of

ma;orit! since no la re#uires the election of Philippine citienship to $e

made upon ma;orit! age.

7inall!, much is made of the fact that private respondent admitted that he is

registered as an %merican citien in the ureau of Immigration and

Deportation and that he holds an %merican passport hich he used in his

last travel to the 6nited States on %pril )), /((A. 3here is no merit in this.

6ntil the filing of his certificate of candidac! on 1arch )/, /((0, he had dual

citienship. 3he acts attri$uted to him can $e considered simpl! as the

assertion of his %merican nationalit! $efore the termination of his %merican

citienship. hat this Court said inAznar v.%/0+L+% 1/applies mutatismundatisto private respondent in the case at $ar4

. . . Considering the fact that admittedl! Osmea as $oth a

7ilipino and an %merican, the mere fact that he has a

Certificate staring he is an %merican does not mean that he

is not still a 7ilipino. . . . F3Ghe Certification that he is an

%merican does not mean that he is not still a 7ilipino,

possessed as he is, of $oth nationalities or citienships.

Indeed, there is no e:press renunciation here of Philippine

citienship truth to tell, there is even no implied

renunciation of said citienship. hen e consider that therenunciation needed to lose Philippine citienship must $e

"e:press," it stands to reason that there can $e no such loss

of Philippine citienship hen there is no renunciation, either

"e:press" or "implied."

3o recapitulate, $! declaring in his certificate of candidac! that he is a

7ilipino citien that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another

countr! that he ill defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines

and $ear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so ithout

mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the las of this countr!

are concerned, effectivel! repudiated his %merican citienship and an!thinghich he ma! have said $efore as a dual citien.

On the other hand, private respondent=s oath of allegiance to the Philippines,

hen considered ith the fact that he has spent his !outh and adulthood,

received his education, practiced his profession as an artist, and ta8en part

in past elections in this countr!, leaves no dou$t of his election of Philippine

citienship.

>is declarations ill $e ta8en upon the faith that he ill fulfill his underta8ing

made under oath. Should he $etra! that trust, there are enough sanctions

for declaring the loss of his Philippine citienship through e:patriation in

appropriate proceedings. In 2u v.3efensor!4antiago, 19e sustained thedenial of entr! into the countr! of petitioner on the ground that, after ta8ing

his oath as a naturalied citien, he applied for the reneal of his Portuguese

passport and declared in commercial documents e:ecuted a$road that he

as a Portuguese national. % similar sanction can $e ta8en against an! one

ho, in electing Philippine citienship, renounces his foreign nationalit!, $ut

su$se#uentl! does some act constituting renunciation of his Philippine

citienship.

>ERE7ORE, the petition for certiorariis DIS1ISSED for lac8 of

merit.&phi&.n6t

SO ORDERED.


25/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 25

G.R. No. 16220 A+: 14, 2004

ALA-ASOSAS%ON 'ARA SA A#NLARAN NG LI'#NAN AAD"IAIN 'ARA SA AO, INC., petitioner,vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECIONS ;COMELEC


26/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 26

fundamental change in its purposes as an organiation, nature of its

mem$ership and focus of its programs./

3he Comelec denied the motion in its #uestioned Resolution dated 7e$ruar!

/-, )5, on three grounds, namel!4 the petition as filed $e!ond the

deadline set $! the Comelec in Resolution No. ?-) for registration of part!+

list organiations the petition as not one for re+#ualification as %8lat as

never a registered part!+list organiation having failed to meet the eight+

point guidelines set $! the Court in the 'agong 'ayanicase and that its

decision not to e:tend the deadline for registration of part!+list organiations

is valid, the Comelec $eing in the $est position to ma8e such a

determination.//

In the instant Petition, %8lat asserts that under Section * of R.%. A(5/,

petitions for registration as a part!+list organiation ma! $e filed not later

than ninet! &(' da!s $efore the elections. It therefore had until 7e$ruar!

/, )5, the ninetieth &(th' da! $efore the elections on 1a! /, )5,

ithin hich to file its petition. >ence, its petition, hich as filed on

Novem$er ), )-, as filed ithin the alloed period. Section * of

Resolution No. ?-)/)hich re#uires the filing of such petitions not later

than Septem$er -, )-, is null and void as it amends R.%. A(5/.

It further maintains that it has complied ith the eight+point guidelines set

in the 'agong 'ayanicase. %llegedl!, %8lat has a total mem$ership of over

5, persons ho $elong to the marginalied and underrepresented

groups. It has esta$lished information and coordination centers throughout

the countr! for the $enefit and in representation of indigenous cultural

communities, farm and factor! or8ers including fisherfol8 and the !outh.

%8lat also asserts that it is different from %sosas!on Para sa aunlaran ngIndustria ng %8lat &%..2.%.3.' hich as previousl! de+registered $! the

Comelec. ecause of all these, %8lat contends that the Comelec gravel!

a$used its discretion hen it denied its petition for re+#ualification.

3he Office of the Solicitor @eneral &OS@' filed a %omment dated 1arch )?,

)5, stating that the Comelec did not commit grave a$use of discretion in

issuing the assailed Resolutions. %ccording to the OS@, Resolution No. ?-)

is not in conflict ith and is, in fact, germane to the purpose of R.%. A(5/. It

as ithin the scope of the authorit! granted to the Comelec that it issued

Resolution No. ?-) setting the deadline for filing petitions for registration

under the part!+list s!stem on Septem$er -, )-. In line ith the purposeof R.%. A(5/ to ena$le marginalied sectors to activel! participate in

legislation, the Comelec must $e given sufficient time to evaluate all

petitions for registration, at the same time alloing oppositions to $e f iled to

the end that onl! those trul! #ualified ma! $e accredited under the part!+list

s!stem. esides, Repu$lic %ct No. 05-?/-allos the Comelec to change the

periods and dates prescri$ed $! la for certain pre+election acts to ensure

their accomplishment.

3he OS@ further maintains that the petition for re+#ualification failed to

compl! ith the provisions of Resolution No. ?-). %ccording to the OS@,

the petition as not properl! verified there $eing no shoing that 1r.

Dominador uhain, the signator! of the verification and certification of non+

forum shopping, as dul! authoried $! %8lat to verif! or cause the

preparation and filing of the petition on its $ehalf. 1oreover, %8lat as

registered ith the Securities and E:change Commission onl! on Octo$er ),

)-, a month $efore it filed its petition for re+#ualification. >ence, it has

not e:isted for a period of at least one &/' !ear prior to the filing of the

petition as re#uired $! Section ? of Resolution No. ?-). 3he OS@ also

points out that %8lat failed to support its petition ith the documents

re#uired under Section A of Resolution No. ?-), namel!4 a list of its officers

and mem$ers particularl! shoing that the ma;orit! of its mem$ership

$elongs to the marginalied and underrepresented sectors it see8s to

represent, and a trac8 record or summar! shoing that it represents and

see8s to uplift the marginalied and underrepresented sectors of societ!.

1oreover, the OS@ notes that the incorporators and directors of %8lat are

invaria$l! 8non as pillars of the $oo8 pu$lishing industr! or authors.

>ence, even as re+organied, %8lat remains to $e an association of authors,

$oo8 pu$lishers, and pu$lishing companies, rather than the organiation of

indigenous cultural communities, farm and factor! or8ers, fisherfol8 and

!outh it claims to $e.

7or its part, the Comelec filed a %omment dated 1arch )(, )5, stating

that the period of ninet! &(' da!s prescri$ed in R.%. A(5/ refers to the

prohi$itive period $e!ond hich petitions for registration ma! no longer $e

filed. 7urthermore, the documents su$mitted $! %8lat do not prove that its

mem$ers $elong to the marginalied and underrepresented sectors of

societ!.

%8lat9s contention that Resolution No. ?-) is null and void as it amends and

amplifies R.%. A(5/ deserves scant consideration. R.%. A(5/ provides4


27/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 27

Sec. *. Rg:st+)t:o*.K%n! organied group of persons ma! registeras a part!, organiation or coalition for purposes of the part!+list

s!stem $! filing ith the CO1E2EC not later than ninety 7)89 days

before the electiona petition verified $! its president or secretar!

stating its desire to participate in the part!+list s!stem as a national,

regional or sectoral part! or organiation or a coalition of such

parties or organiations, attaching thereto its constitution, $!+las,

platform or program of government, list of officers, coalition

agreement and other relevant information as the CO1E2EC ma!

re#uire4 Provided, 3hat the sectors shall include la$or, peasant,

fisherfol8, ur$an poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderl!,

handicapped, omen, !outh, veterans, overseas or8ers, and

professionals


28/28

ADMIN | FEB 20, 2016 28

%CCORDIN@2, the Petition is DIS1ISSED.

SO ORDERED

Date post:	23-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	alyssa-clarizze-malaluan
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

ADMIN Cases Feb 20

Documents