Regina O. Reyes Claims
“I’m married, I’m not
married”
Well, well, well Regina O. Reyes has repeatedly claimed being
the wife of a Cong. Mandanas even after having made her own statement under oath before the Comelec that there is “no existing valid marriage” between Mandanas
and herself. In her Answer before the Comelec dated Nov. 9, 2012, to the Tan petition
to deny due course or to cancel certificate of candidacy, Reyes stated:
“…Respondent does not
want to flaunt the truth, but considering the circumstances obtaining, she
feels it necessary to disclose that in truth and in fact, there is no existing
valid marriage between Cong. Mandanas and respondent...” (page 3 of Reyes’ Answer to Tan v. Reyes (SPA
No. 13-053 DC)
“…Respondent was constrained to state in her
Certificate of Candidacy the truth that in so far as her civil status is
concerned, she is single and not married.” (page 4).
Then you wonder what any legal basis existed at the time
when she officially used the name “Regina Victoria O. Reyes-Mandanas” and assumed public office under that name as Provincial Administrator on January 18, 2011, an undeniable fact that she would later use as evidence before the court to
prove ‘oath of allegiance’ to the Republic.
‘Different dates of
birth don’t matter’.
On the intriguing puzzle of different dates of birth such as
July 3, 1958, July 3, 1959, July 8, 1959, July 3, 1960 and July 3, 1964
appearing on certain records presented by Tan, Reyes stated in her Memorandum
before Comelec dated December 28, 2012, thus:
“Suffice it to say,
that should it be necessary, she will move for the appropriate correction of
any error in her records of birth.” (page 17).
On the other hand, Mandanas, in a privilege speech before
Congress, came to her defense and on the matter of different dates of birth called
it mere ‘vanity’, nothing to be concerned about. No one cried ‘falsification of public documents’.
U.S. Citizenship and
Residence
Reyes to Comelec: ‘Am Filipino’;
‘Am U.S. Citizen’ ‘Am Dual Citizen’; ‘Requirements of RA 9225 are not applicable
to me’;
Reyes to Media: ‘I have
proof of compliance with RA 9225 pala.’
But look closely on the matter concerning these issues. On November 9, 2012 she stated under oath before Comelec:
“Respondent proudly
stresses the truth that she is a Filipino having been born of Filipino parents.
This fact cannot be challenged by a simple declaration that respondent is an
American citizen.” (page 18 of Reyes’ Answer to Tan v. Reyes (SPA No.
13-053 DC).
February 7, 2013 – Tan submitted, among others, (1) a copy
of an article published on the Internet authenticated
by the author; (2) an original copy of a Certification of Travel Records of
Reyes, issued by Simeon Sanchez, Acting Chief, Verification and Certification
Unit of the Bureau of Immigration indicating that Reyes used a U.S. Passport in her various
travels abroad until June 2012 (or just four
months before filing her COC in October 2012).
Reyes did not object to the documentary evidence submitted
by Tan; neither was any evidence presented to controvert Tan’s allegations on
her citizenship, said the lawyers.
March 27, 2013 – Comelec
First Division issued a Resolution cancelling Reyes’ COC. It stated among others
that:
“… It is evident that
for respondent to reaquire 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 proceedings, 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 so, leading to the conclusion inevitable that respondent falsely
misrepresented in her COC that she is a natural-born 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.”
In addition, Comelec ruled that Reyes did not have the one
year residency requirement under the Constitution, because pursuant to the
ruling on Japson v. Comelec, there
being no proof that Reyes had renounced her American citizenship, it follows
that she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the United States, said
Comelec.
April 8, 2013 – Reyes
filed her Motion for Reconsideration stating under oath:
“28. What can only be surmised from the discussion is the Honorable
Commission’s appreciation of the fact that respondent was married to an
American citizen named Saturnino S. Ador Dionisio. Given this fact and in reference
to Article IV of our Constitution and the pertinent U.S. citizenship laws,
respondent acquired dual citizenship by virtue of her marriage to an American
citizen.
xxx
“31. As sufficiently
discussed in the previous paragraphs,
respondent being a dual citizen, did not lose her status as a natural-born
Filipino citizen. Not having lost her
Filipino citizenship, there is no need to fulfill the twin requirements under
R.A. 9225.
xxx
“34. “All told, when
respondent filed her certificate of candidacy and swore to the oath of
allegiance contained therein, she effectively elected Philippine citizenship,
which equates to a renunciation of her allegiance to USA. Therefore,
it is no longer necessary for respondent to make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before any public officer
authorized to administer an oath.”
xxx
“37. The Honorable
Commission stated that the issue in the case at bar is whether respondent had
regained her domicile of origin in the Municipality of Boac, Marinduque after
she lost the same when she was naturalized American citizen. However, as established from the discussion above,
respondent never became a naturalized citizen…”
Thus, by asserting
that she is a dual citizen, one could see that Reyes admitted that she is a
U.S. citizen; by asserting that it is not necessary for her to reacquire or
retain her Filipino citizenship, Reyes admitted that she did not comply with
the requirements of RA 9225; by asserting that her status as a natural-born
Filipino citizen is not removed by simply obtaining and using a U.S. passport,
she also admitted that she was using an American passport in her travels.
It may be pointed out
that it's also untrue that Comelec based its decisions on the blog itself, but that the
Comelec Resolution was based on the original certification (not a photocopy as
stated elsewhere), of the Bureau of Immigration. The conclusion that she is an
American citizen is based on Reyes’ own admissions.
May 14, 2013 – Comelec En Banc issued a Resolution affirming
the First Division Resolution cancelling Reyes’ COC. This means that the Tan petition
to deny due process (SPA 13-053) is no longer pending and had in fact been
decided on the merits by the Comelec En Banc. On June 5, 2013, the Comelec En Banc issued a
Certificate of Finality implementing the Tan Ruling.
June 10, 2013 - Reyes
filed before the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari assailing the Tan
Ruling denying Reyes’ MR and the corresponding June 5 Certificate of Finality.
June 25, 2013 – Supreme Court En Banc upheld through a
Resolution the cancellation of Reyes’ COC. The Court also ruled, among others,
that the Comelec retains jurisdiction to review the acts of the PBOC (see ‘Shotgun Proclamation’).
 |
| Reyes on media offensive |
July 11, 2013 – Reyes goes on media offensive by holding a
press conference brandishing a copy of Identification Certificate issued by the
Bureau of Immigration purportedly showing that she complied with RA 9225 and a
Philippine Passport. She claimed that the Comelec refused to receive these
documents and that Comelec based its ruling solely on a blog article.
July 15, 2013 – Reyes filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Supreme Court ruling in Reyes v. Comelec, and through Manifestation
attached the “forgotten” documents she presented to the media. She stated that
BI records to validate the documents are missing.
Reyes later withdrew her Motion for
Reconsideration, apparently relying on the House of Representatives Election Tribunal (HRET) ruled by her Liberal Party whose jurisdiction on the case has been put under question by both Comelec and the Supreme Court. It has already been firmly established before the start of the term on June 30, 2013 and before Congress opened its session on July 22, 2013 that:
Reyes is a U.S. citizen; Reyes' COC is void from the beginning'; Reyes is a non-candidate in the May 2013 elections; All votes cast in favor of Reyes are considered stray; and
Lord Allan Velasco is the sole and only eligible candidate, hence the rightful winner as already proclaimed by Comelec.
But there must really be something about schemes to deliberately delay resolution of one's citizenship, grab a patently illegal and hasty proclamation, be instantly 'recognized', feed the media with half truths and half lies, and prolong the protest. Something intrinsically evil.
The straight path to righteousness, Tuwid na Daan, must, however, be relied upon to live on on this one.
