Extracts from the Supreme Court En Banc Resolution promulgated
on June 25, 2013, on the Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction and/or Status Quo Amte Order
dated 7 June 2013 filed by Regina Ongsiako Reyes, assailing the Resolutions
dated 27 March 2013 and 14 May 2013 issued by public respondent Commission on
Elections (Comelec) in SPA No. 13-053. The assailed Resolutions ordered the
cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner for the position of
Representative of the lone district of Marinduque.:
Copy of the SC Resolution may be read in full by clicking
this LINK
“…In her Answer,
petitioner countered that, while she is publicly known to be the wife of
Congressman Herminaldo I. Mandanas (Congressman Mandanas), there is no valid
and binding marriage between them. According to petitioner, although her
marriage with Congressman Mandanas was solemnized in a religious rite, it did
not comply with certain formal requirements prescribed by the Family Code,
rendering it void ab initio. Consequently, petitioner argues that as she is not
duty-bound to live with Congressman Mandanas, then his residence cannot be
attributed to her. As to her date of
birth, the Certificate of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office
shows that it was on 3 July 1964. Lastly, petitioner notes that the allegation
that she is a permanent resident and/or a citizen of the United States of
America is not supported by evidence.” (page 2)
“…Not agreeing with the Resolution of the COMELEC First
Division, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration14 on 8 April 2013
claiming that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and that she has not lost
such status by simply obtaining and using an American passport. Additionally,
petitioner surmised that the COMELEC First Division relied on the fact of her marriage
to an American citizen in concluding that she is a naturalized American
citizen. Petitioner averred, however,
that such marriage only resulted into dual citizenship, thus there is no need
for her to fulfill the twin requirements under R.A. No. 9225. Still, petitioner
attached an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship sworn to before a
Notary Public on 24 September 2012. As to her alleged lack of the one-year
residency requirement prescribed by the Constitution, she averred that, as she
never became a naturalized citizen, she never lost her domicile of origin,
which is Boac, Marinduque.
“On 14 May 2013, the COMELEC En Banc, promulgated a Resolution denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. Four days
thereafter or on 18 May 2013, petitioner was proclaimed winner of the 13 May
2013 Elections.
"On 5 June 2013, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Certificate of Finality declaring the 14 May 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc final and
executory, considering that more than twenty-one (21) days have elapsed from
the date of promulgation with no order issued by this Court restraining its
execution.” (page 3-4)
“…More importantly, we cannot disregard a fact basic in this
controversy – that before the proclamation of petitioner on 18 May 2013, the
COMELEC En Banc had already finally disposed of the issue of petitioner’s lack
of Filipino citizenship and residency via its Resolution dated 14 May 2013. After
14 May 2013, there was, before the COMELEC, no longer any pending case on
petitioner’s qualifications to run for the position of Member of the House of
Representative. We will inexcusably disregard this fact if we accept the
argument of the petitioner that the COMELEC was ousted of jurisdiction when she
was proclaimed, which was four days after the COMELEC En Banc decision. The
Board of Canvasser which proclaimed petitioner cannot by such act be allowed to
render nugatory a decision of the COMELEC En Banc which affirmed a decision of
the COMELEC First Division. "(page 9)
“…Indeed, the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC First
Division which was promulgated on 27 March 2013, and the assailed Resolution of
the COMELEC En Banc which was promulgated on 14 May 2013, became final and
executory on 19 May 2013 based on Section 3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure which provides:
Section 3. Decisions Final after
five days. Decisions in preproclamation cases and petitions to deny due course
to or cancel certificates of candidacy, to declare nuisance candidate or to
disqualify a candidate, and to postpone or suspend elections shall become final
and executory after the lapse of five (5) days from their promulgation unless restrained
by the Supreme Court. (page 9)
“As to the ruling that petitioner is ineligible to run for
office on the ground of citizenship, the COMELEC First Division, discoursed as
follows:
“x x x for respondent to reacquire
her Filipino citizenship and become eligible for public office, the law
requires that she must have accomplished the following acts: (1) take the oath
of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the Consul-General of
the Philippine Consulate in the USA; and (2) make a personal and sworn renunciation
of her American citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer
an oath.
In the case at bar, there is no
showing that respondent complied with the aforesaid requirements. Early on in
the proceeding, respondent hammered on petitioner’s lack of proof regarding her
American citizenship, contending that it is petitioner’s burden to present a
case. She, however, specifically denied that she has become either a permanent resident
or naturalized citizen of the USA.
Due to petitioner’s submission of
newly-discovered evidence thru a Manifestation dated February 7, 2013, however,
establishing the fact that respondent is a holder of an American passport which
she continues to use until June 30, 2012, petitioner was able to substantiate
his allegations. The burden now shifts to respondent to present substantial
evidence to prove otherwise. This, the respondent utterly failed to do, leading
to the conclusion inevitable that respondent falsely misrepresented in her COC that
she is a natural-born Filipino citizen. Unless and until she can establish that
she had availed of the privileges of RA 9225 by becoming a dual
Filipino-American citizen, and thereafter, made a valid sworn renunciation of
her American citizenship, she remains to be an American citizen and is,
therefore, ineligible to run for and hold any elective public office in the
Philippines. (Emphasis supplied.)" (page 11)
“…Let us look into the events that led to this petition: In
moving for the cancellation of petitioner’s COC, respondent submitted records
of the Bureau of Immigration showing that petitioner is a holder of a US
passport, and that her status is that of a “balikbayan.” At this point, the
burden of proof shifted to petitioner, imposing upon her the duty to prove that
she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and has not lost the same, or that she
has reacquired such status in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 9225. Aside
from the bare allegation that she is a natural-born citizen, however, petitioner
submitted no proof to support such contention. Neither did she submit any proof
as to the inapplicability of R.A. No. 9225 to her.
“ Notably, in her
Motion for Reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc, petitioner admitted that
she is a holder of a US passport, but she averred that she is only a dual
Filipino-American citizen, thus the requirements of R.A. No. 9225 do not apply
to her. Still, attached to the said
motion is an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship dated 24 September
2012. Petitioner explains that she attached said Affidavit “if only to show her
desire and zeal to serve the people and to comply with rules, even as a
superfluity.” We cannot, however, subscribe to petitioner’s explanation. If
petitioner executed said Affidavit “if only to comply with the rules,” then it
is an admission that R.A. No. 9225 applies to her. Petitioner cannot claim that
she executed it to address the observations by the COMELEC as the assailed
Resolutions were promulgated only in 2013, while the Affidavit was executed in
September 2012.” (page 12)
“…The COMELEC did not impose additional qualifications on candidates
for the House of Representatives who have acquired foreign citizenship. It
merely applied the qualifications prescribed by Section 6, Article VI of the
1987 Constitution that the candidate must be a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines and must have one-year residency prior to the date of elections.
Such being the case, the COMELEC did not err when it inquired into the
compliance by petitioner of Sections 3 and 5 of R.A. No. 9225 to determine if
she reacquired her status as a natural-born Filipino citizen. It simply applied
the constitutional provision and nothing more.
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DISMISSED, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections. The 14 May 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc affirming the 27 March 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC First
Division is upheld." (page 15)
