 |
| Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno and Lady of Justice |
There, she stated among others that:
"The proclamation of a non-candidate cannot take away the power vested in the COMELEC to enforce and execute its decisions. It is a power that enjoys precedence over that emanating from any other authority, except the Supreme Court, and that which is issued in habeas corpus proceedings as provided in Sec. 52(f) of the Omnibus Election Code."
Excerpts:
(page 4)
"There was no grave abuse of discretion when, based on the records,
the COMELEC cancelled the Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner after
finding that she had committed false material misrepresentation with respect
to her citizenship and residency. It thereafter declared that she should have
complied with the requirements of renouncing her foreign citizenship and
taking the oath of allegiance under R. A. 9225 before she could qualify to
run for any elective office.
It bears stressing that when the petition to deny due course or to cancel her Certificate of Candidacy was filed alleging that she possessed American citizenship, petitioner denied the allegation, claiming that no evidence whatsoever was presented to support the claim. When herein private respondent filed her Manifestation with Motion to Admit Newly Discovered Evidence and Amended List of Exhibits, petitioner did not object to the documentary evidence offered to support the allegation that the latter possessed American citizenship.
In her Motion for Reconsideration of the COMELEC First Division Resolution dated 27 March 2013, petitioner, without providing any basis, claimed that she had not lost her Filipino citizenship. Yet, she attached an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship. She claimed that even if it was a superfluity, she was attaching her duly accomplished personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships in compliance with the requirements under R.A. 9225, "if only to show [her] desire and zeal to serve the people and comply with rules."
In her original Petition before this Court, petitioner contends that "even granting for the sake of argument but without conceding that the 'newly discovered evidence' of Respondent Tan were admissible, it merely established the fact that Petitioner is an American citizen which does not translate to her not being a Filipino." Yet, in her present Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner begs the indulgence of this Court for the belated submission of her Identification Certificate recognizing her as a citizen of the Philippines pursuant to the provisions and implementing regulations of R .A. 9225.
(page 5)
This submission of the Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship and the Identification Certificate issued by the Bureau of Immigration confirms the acquisition of foreign citizenship by petitioner and the applicability of R.A. 9225 to her. Thus, the COMELEC was correct in ruling that she was no longer a Filipino citizen when she filed her Certificate of Candidacy and that without complying with the requirements of R.A. 9225, she was not qualified to run for public office. Since these two documents were not submitted to the COMELEC, there can be no grave abuse of discretion either on the part of the COMELEC First Division when it cancelled her Certificate of Candidacy, or on the part of the COMELEC En Banc when it affirmed the cancellation.
Petitioner also imputes grave abuse to the COMELEC for enforcing and applying R.A. 9225 to her, claiming that by doing so, the Commission added a requirement to the qualifications set to become a member of the House of Representatives as set by the Constitution. Petitioner must be reminded that it was the legislature that added the requirement of renunciation of foreign citizenship by those who have lost their citizenship and who seek elective office. COMELEC has the constitutional duty to enforce this law."
(page 7)
It must also be pointed out that even the PBOC already knew of the cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner when it proclaimed her. The COMELEC En Bane Resolution dated 9 July 2013 and submitted to this Court through the Manifestation of private respondent, quoted the averments in the Verified Petition of petitioner therein as follows:
xxx While the proceedings of the PBOC is suspended or in
recess, the process server of this Honorable Commission,
who identified himself as PEDRO P. STA. ROSA II ("Sta.
Rosa," for brevity), arrived at the session hall of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Marinduque where the
provincial canvassing is being held.
xxx The process server, Sta. Rosa, was in possession of
certified true copies of the Resolution promulgated by the
Commission on Elections En Bane on 14 May 2013 in SPA
No. 13-053 (DC) entitled "Joseph Socorro B. Tan vs. Atty.
Regina Ongsiako Reyes" and an Order dated 15 May 2013
to deliver the same to the Provincial Election Supervisor of
Marinduque. The said Order was signed by no less than the
Chairman of the Commission on Elections, the Honorable
Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr.
xxx Process Server Pedro Sta. Rosa II immediately
approached Atty. Edwin Villa, the Provincial Election
Supervisor (PES) of Marinduque, upon his arrival to serve
a copy of the aforementioned Resolution dated 14 May
20 ~ 3 in SPA No. 13-05 3 (DC). Despite his proper
identification that he is a process server from the
COMELEC Main Office, the PES totally ignored Process
Server Pedro Sta. Rosa II.
(page 8)
xxx Interestingly, the PES likewise refused to receive the
copy of the Commission on Elections En Bane Resolution
dated 14 May 2013 in SPA No. 13-053 (DC) despite
several attempts to do so.
xxx Instead, the PES immediately declared the resumption
of the proceedings of the PBOC and instructed the Board
Secretary to immediately read its Order proclaiming Regina
Ongsiako Reyes as winner for the position of Congressman
for the Lone District of Marinduque.
This narration of the events shows that the proclamation was in contravention of a COMELEC En Bane Resolution cancelling the candidate's Certificate of Candidacy.
The PBOC, a subordinate body under the direct control and supervision of the COMELEC cannot simply disregard a COMELEC En Banc Resolution brought before its attention and hastily proceed with the proclamation by reasoning that it has not officially received the resolution or order. ·
(page 10)
The proclamation of a non-candidate cannot take away the power vested in the COMELEC to enforce and execute its decisions. It is a power that enjoys precedence over that emanating from any other authority, except the Supreme Court, and that which is issued in habeas corpus proceedings as provided in Sec. 52(f) of the Omnibus Election Code. (25 see footnote)
On a final note, I respectfully take exception to my distinguished colleague's statement that the novel argument from no less than the Chief Justice regarding petitioner Reyes' bad faith was ( o )ut of the blue and without any previous circulated written opinion considering that, from the very beginning of the deliberations of this case I, together with another colleague, had already clearly expressed my opinion that bad faith should never be rewarded. Furthermore, the argument of bad faith is neither novel nor out of the blue, as it had been repeatedly raised in several deliberations on this matter. The bad faith element was further confirmed by the records through the antecedents cited in the Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc dated 09 July 2013.
Be that as it may, it is unseemly to question the participation in the deliberations by a member of this Court for lack of a previously circulated written opinion. Indeed, given the nature of our collegial discussions on the matters presented to us, every member of the Court has the right to participate in the deliberations En Banc with· or without having previously circulated his or her opinion on the cases before us."
(page 11)
I reiterate my view that the COMELEC Decision dated 14 May 2013 has already become final, and that the HRET has no jurisdiction over this electoral case.
For the foregoing reasons, I vote to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration.
Read full text of Sereno's Separate Concurring Opinion here.
(Footnote 25 on page 10): Sec. 52. Powers and functions of the Commission on Elections. - In addition to the powers and functions conferred upon it by the Constitution, the Commission shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest elections, and shall:
xxxx
(f) Enforce and execute its decisions, directives, orders and instructions which shall have precedence over those emanating from any other authority, except the Supreme Court and those issued in habeas corpus proceedings.)
Also read:
Without a single vote as basis, Marinduque candidates including a disqualified candidate proclaimed in another moro-moro
Regina O. Reyes: Study in contradictory claims?
