 |
| 2009 photo of volunteers from Marinduque's barangays engaged in sandbagging of Mogpog river bank to prevent further flooding in the area due to heavily silted riverbed from the toxic mine tailings of Marcopper. The province of Marinduque never benefitted from a USD 12-million escrow fund set up by Placer Dome in 2001 for environmental rehabilitation. Photo: Mindanao Examiner |
Eight months before elections 2013, having known how local elections in Marinduque are really being carried out, and that's after many long years of observation, I stated that the 2013 Marinduque polls would morph into another carnival or moro-moro. I had almost naively hoped that mainstream media as a last resort would keep watch this time here - to witness how 'all the circus carnival elements just loom before your eyes without any effort, leaving you gasping for breath in their magnitude and insanity'.
But who might care for island-provinces described as politically "nondescript" anyway? It's just a 4th class province, the poorest in the region with only six municipal-ities therein, nothing significant. So, to no one's surprise, no mainstream media covered the Marinduque elections. But that would probably involve some kind of wherewithal to realize, in the first place.
So on with the show. The rest is history as I foreshadowed, some kind of corrupted, twisted history that continues to be carried out until today, with either darkened or unwitting backing even of mainstream media as we know it.
But it is no secret to anyone how guns, goons and gold decide the outcome of local elections. Even the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), in apparent exasperation found itself lashing out on the state of Philippine politics today, thus:
"The culture of greed for money and power caters to the selfish interests of individuals, families and economic and political groups” and this is evident "where political dynasties are nurtured and people vote with little consideration for the impact on the country of their votes".
More often than not, the poorest provinces serve as the perfect arena for this kind of deplorable circus. But with Marinduque elections however, there is an add-on diabolical element. Foreign mining giants have been involved in the picture for years.
Does that come as a surprise? Citing Philippine Studies Vol. 54 No. 1 p. 18-19 (Ateneo de Manila University):
"Marinduque politics was typical of smaller Philippine provinces until the late 1990s: dominated by a few wealthy families, who were both large landowners and closely tied to whatever foreign investors operated within the province...
"Sensing their increasing unpopularity, Marcopper/Placer Dome had allocated their resources carefully during the 1998 election. The campaign for governor by the sitting congresswoman, Carmencita Reyes-a scion of the family that in the 1950s was the largest owner of rice lands in the Philippines - was beneficiary of a large company grant for electric power development. Her well-funded campaign was successful. The alliance with the mining company, still hopeful of reopening, seemed to consolidate her family's political control... There seemed to be recognition of mutual benefit between the Reyes family and Marcopper/Placer Dome..."
Is the highly-skilled, unseen hand of such mining giants non-existent now in the current situation just because the mining company has remained closed since 1996, after that sorrowful mining disaster that drew local and international media mileage at that time, and for sometime since then?
Not quite, as we will see. We who are accustomed to the fact that where there's money, there is also greed and it's a lot easier for the greedy and for some to unthinkingly toe the line...
But first, there's this thing that has been repeated many times over in the mainstream media on the ongoing Marinduque circus. You read that Regina O. Reyes' certificate of candidacy was annulled by Comelec "on the basis of a blog entry that she is an American". Now, is that statement true and must be believed? Like Reyes during the legal proceedings, was never given the opportunity to be heard as alleged? Like she never executed answers and made statements under oath?
The relevant Comelec en Banc and Supreme Court en Banc resolutions are definitive sources and, since these resolutions strangely never hit mainstream, must be read, and told (and repeated again and again in the same way that mainstream media does it, with the valuable help of readers, of course).
Excerpts from the Supreme Court en Banc Resolution on G.R. 207264:
"In her Answer, petitioner (Reyes), 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. 7 Consequently, petitioner argues that as she is not duty-bound to live with Congressman Mandanas, then his residence cannot be attributed to her.8 As to her date of birth, the Certificate of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office shows that it was on 3 July 1964.9 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.
"During the course of the proceedings, on 8 February 2013, respondent filed a “Manifestation with Motion to Admit Newly Discovered Evidence and Amended List of Exhibits”11 consisting of, among others: (1) a copy of an article published on the internet on 8 January 2013 entitled “Seeking and Finding the Truth about Regina O. Reyes” with an Affidavit of Identification and Authenticity of Document executed by its author Eliseo J. Obligacion, which provides a database record of the Bureau of Immigration indicating that petitioner is an American citizen and a holder of a U.S. passport; (2) a Certification of Travel Records of petitioner, issued by Simeon Sanchez, Acting Chief, Verification and Certification Unit of the Bureau of Immigration which indicates that petitioner used a U.S. Passport in her various travels abroad. xxx
"The COMELEC First Division found that, contrary to the declarations that she made in her COC, petitioner is not a citizen of the Philippines because of her failure to comply with the requirements of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, namely: (1) to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; and (2) to make a personal and sworn renunciation of her American citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. In addition, the COMELEC First Division ruled that she did not have the one-year residency requirement under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, she is ineligible to run for the position of Representative for the lone district of Marinduque.
"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." xxx
"As to the issue of whether petitioner failed to prove her Filipino citizenship, as well as her one-year residency in Marinduque, suffice it to say that the COMELEC committed no grave abuse of discretion in finding her ineligible for the position of Member of the House of Representatives.
"Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it took cognizance of “newly-discovered evidence” without the same having been testified on and offered and admitted in evidence. She assails the admission of the blog article of Eli Obligacion as hearsay and the photocopy of the Certification from the Bureau of Immigration. She likewise contends that there was a violation of her right to due process of law because she was not given the opportunity to question and present controverting evidence.
"Her contentions are incorrect.
"It must be emphasized that the COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure in the presentation of evidence. Under Section 2 of Rule I, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure “shall be liberally construed in order xxx to achieve just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission.” In view of the fact that the proceedings in a petition to deny due course or to cancel certificate of candidacy are summary in nature, then the “newly discovered evidence” was properly admitted by respondent COMELEC.
"Furthermore, there was no denial of due process in the case at bar as petitioner was given every opportunity to argue her case before the COMELEC. From 10 October 2012 when Tan’s petition was filed up to 27 March 2013 when the First Division rendered its resolution, petitioner had a period of five (5) months to adduce evidence. Unfortunately, she did not avail herself of the opportunity given her.
"Also, in administrative proceedings, procedural due process only requires that the party be given the opportunity or right to be heard. As held in the case of Sahali v. COMELEC:31
"The petitioners should be reminded that due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or right to be heard. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps many times more creditably and predictable than oral argument, through pleadings. In administrative proceedings moreover, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied; administrative process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. Indeed, deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration. (Emphasis supplied)"
"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.”32 (Emphasis supplied.)"
"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 re-acquired 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. 33 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.”35 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.
"Moreover, in the present petition, petitioner added a footnote to her oath of office as Provincial Administrator, to this effect: “This does not mean that Petitioner did not, prior to her taking her oath of office as Provincial Administrator, take her oath of allegiance for purposes of re-acquisition of natural-born Filipino status, which she reserves to present in the proper proceeding. The reference to the taking of oath of office is in order to make reference to what is already part of the records and evidence in the present case and to avoid injecting into the records evidence on matters of fact that was not previously passed upon by Respondent COMELEC.”36 This statement raises a lot of questions – Did petitioner execute an oath of allegiance for re-acquisition of natural-born Filipino status? If she did, why did she not present it at the earliest opportunity before the COMELEC? And is this an admission that she has indeed lost her natural-born Filipino status?
"To cover-up her apparent lack of an oath of allegiance as required by R.A. No. 9225, petitioner contends that, since she took her oath of allegiance in connection with her appointment as Provincial Administrator of Marinduque, she is deemed to have reacquired her status as a natural-born Filipino citizen.
"This contention is misplaced. For one, this issue is being presented for the first time before this Court, as it was never raised before the COMELEC. For another, said oath of allegiance cannot be considered compliance with Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9225 as certain requirements have to be met as prescribed by Memorandum Circular No. AFF-04-01, otherwise known as the Rules Governing Philippine Citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 and Memorandum Circular No. AFF-05-002 (Revised Rules) and Administrative Order No. 91, Series of 2004 issued by the Bureau of
Immigration. Thus, petitioner’s oath of office as Provincial Administrator cannot be considered as the oath of allegiance in compliance with R.A. No. 9225. xxx"
"As to the issue of residency, proceeding from the finding that petitioner has lost her natural-born status, we quote with approval the ruling of the COMELEC First Division that petitioner cannot be considered a resident of Marinduque:
“Thus, a Filipino citizen who becomes naturalized elsewhere effectively abandons his domicile of origin. Upon re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225, he must still show that he chose to establish his domicile in the Philippines through positive acts, and the period of his residency shall be counted from the time he made it his domicile of choice.
"In this case, there is no showing whatsoever that [petitioner] had already re-acquired her Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 so as to conclude that she has regained her domicile in the Philippines. There being no proof that [petitioner] had renounced her American citizenship, it follows that she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA.
"The only proof presented by [petitioner] to show that she has met the one-year residency requirement of the law and never abandoned her domicile of origin in Boac, Marinduque is her claim that she served as Provincial Administrator of the province from January 18, 2011 to July 13, 2011. But such fact alone is not sufficient to prove her one-year residency. For, [petitioner] has never regained her domicile in Marinduque as she remains to be an American citizen. No amount of her stay in the said locality can substitute the fact that she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA.”37 (Emphasis supplied.) " xxx
Read full text of Supreme Court en Banc Resolution HERE
(continued)
Also read:
High Court vs House of Representatives: Dangerous impasse leading to anarchy
