TECSON V.

COMELEC
1
G.R. NO. 161434, 3 MARCH 2004
FACTS: The case at bar is a consolidated case fled by
petitioners questioning the certifcate of candidacy of
herein private respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe also
known as Fernando Poe, r! The latter fled
his certifcate of candidacy for the position of
President of the Philippines under the Koalisyon ng
"agkakaisang Pilipino #K"P$ party! %e represented
hi&self in said certifcate as a natural'born citi(en
of the Philippines, which reason that petitioners fled a
petition before the )o&elec to disqualify private
respondent Fernando Poe, r! and to deny due course
or to cancel his certifcate of candidacy on the ground
that the latter &ade a &aterial &isrepresentation in
his certifcate of candidacy by clai&ing to be a
natural'born Filipino when in truth his parents were
foreigners and he is an illegiti&ate child! The )o&elec
dis&issed the petition! %ence, this appeal!
ISSUE: *hether or not FP is a natural'born citi(en of
the Philippines!
HELD: +efore discussing on the issue at hand it is
worth stressing that since private respondent
Fernando Poe, r! was born on August ,-, ./0/, the
applicable law then controlling was the ./01
constitution! The issue on private respondent2s
citi(enship is so essential in view of the constitutional
provision that, 3"o person &ay be elected President
unless he is a natural'born citi(en of the Philippines, a
registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty
years of age on the day of the election, and a resident
of the Philippines for at least ten years i&&ediately
preceding such election!4 "atural'born citi(ens are
those who are citi(ens of the Philippines fro& birth
without having to perfor& any act to acquire or
perfect their Philippine citi(enship! +ased on the
evidence presented which the 5upre&e consider as
viable is the fact that the death certifcate of 6oren(o
Poe, father of Allan Poe, who in turn was the father of
private respondent Fernando Poe, r! indicates that he
died on 5epte&ber .., ./17 at the age of 87 years, in
5an )arlos, Pangasinan! 9vidently, in such death
certifcate, the residence of 6oren(o Poe was stated to
be 5an )arlos, Pangansinan! :n the absence of any
evidence to the contrary, it should be sound to
conclude, or at least to presu&e, that the place of
residence of a person at the ti&e of his death was
also his residence before death! )onsidering that the
allegations of petitioners are not substantiated with
proof and since 6oren(o Poe &ay have been benefted
fro& the 3en &asse Filipini(ation4 that the Philippine
+ill had e;ected in ./-,, there is no doubt that Allan
Poe father of private respondent Fernando Poe, r! was
a Filipino citi(en! And, since the latter is governed by
.
Diges available at !":##"!i$i""i%e&
$'(.)$*gs"*.+*,#200-#03#,'.i'&/e'%ee&
+&e+s*%&e&'$&0s.!,$ 1$'s '++esse2
Se"e,)e. 16, 20103.
the provisions of the ./01 )onstitution which
constitution considers as citi(ens of the Philippines
those whose fathers are citi(ens of the Philippines,
Fernando Poe, r! was in fact a natural'born citi(en of
the Philippines regardless of whether or not he is
legiti&ate or illegiti&ate!
MO4 4A LIM 4AO V. CIR
2
G.R. NO. L&212-5, 4 OCTO6ER 1571
FACTS: <n 8 February ./=., 6au >uen >eung applied
for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a non'
i&&igrant! :n the interrogation &ade in connection
with her application for a te&porary visitor?s visa to
enter the Philippines, she stated that she was a
)hinese residing at Kowloon, %ongkong, and that she
desired to take a pleasure trip to the Philippines to
visit her greatgranduncle 6au )hing Ping for a period
of one &onth! 5he was per&itted to co&e into the
Philippines on .0 @arch ./=., and was per&itted to
stay for a period of one &onth which would eApire on
.0 April ./=.! <n the date of her arrival, Asher >,
)heng fled a bond in the a&ount of P.,---!-- to
undertake, a&ong others, that said 6au >uen >eung
would actually depart fro& the Philippines on or
before the eApiration of her authori(ed period of stay
in this country or within the period as in his discretion
the )o&&issioner of :&&igration or his authori(ed
representative &ight properly allow! After repeated
eAtensions, 6au >uen >eung was allowed to stay in the
Philippines up to .0 February ./=,! <n ,1 anuary
./=,, she contracted &arriage with @oy >a 6i& >ao
alias 9dilberto Aguinaldo 6i& an alleged Filipino
citi(en! +ecause of the conte&plated action of the
)o&&issioner of :&&igration to confscate her bond
and order her arrest and i&&ediate deportation, after
the eApiration of her authori(ed stay, she brought an
action for inBunction with preli&inary inBunction! At the
hearing which took place one and a half years after
her arrival, it was ad&itted that 6au >uen >eung could
not write either 9nglish or Tagalog! 9Acept for a few
words, she could not speak either 9nglish or Tagalog!
5he could not na&e any Filipino neighbor, with a
Filipino na&e eAcept one, Rosa! 5he did not know the
na&es of her brothers'in'law, or sisters'in'law! The
)ourt of First :nstance of @anila #)ivil )ase 7/C-1$
denied the prayer for preli&inary inBunction! @oya 6i&
>ao and 6au >uen >eung appealed!
ISSUE: *hether 6au >uen >eung ipso facto beca&e a
Filipino citi(en upon her &arriage to a Filipino citi(en!
HELD: Dnder 5ection .1 of )o&&onwealth Act 7C0,
an alien wo&an &arrying a Filipino, native born or
naturali(ed, beco&es ipso facto a Filipina provided
she is not disqualifed to be a citi(en of the Philippines
under 5ection 7 of the sa&e law! 6ikewise, an alien
,
Diges available at
!":##)e.%eg8e..e.*.+*,#%*2e#115 1$'s
'++esse2 Se"e,)e. 16, 20103.
9OLITICAL LA: REVIE: ; ATT4. <AC= <IMENE> ; MAR= <OREL O. CALIDA
wo&an &arried to an alien who is subsequently
naturali(ed here follows the Philippine citi(enship of
her husband the &o&ent he takes his oath as Filipino
citi(en, provided that she does not su;er fro& any of
the disqualifcations under said 5ection 7! *hether
the alien wo&an requires to undergo the
naturali(ation proceedings, 5ection .1 is a parallel
provision to 5ection .=! Thus, if the widow of an
applicant for naturali(ation as Filipino, who dies
during the proceedings, is not required to go through
a naturali(ation proceedings, in order to be
considered as a Filipino citi(en hereof, it should follow
that the wife of a living Filipino cannot be denied the
sa&e privilege! This is plain co&&on sense and there
is absolutely no evidence that the 6egislature
intended to treat the& di;erently! As the laws of our
country, both substantive and procedural, stand
today, there is no such procedure #a substitute for
naturali(ation proceeding to enable the alien wife of a
Philippine citi(en to have the &atter of her own
citi(enship settled and established so that she &ay
not have to be called upon to prove it everyti&e she
has to perfor& an act or enter into a transaction or
business or eAercise a right reserved only to Filipinos$,
but such is no proof that the citi(enship is not vested
as of the date of &arriage or the husband?s
acquisition of citi(enship, as the case &ay be, for the
truth is that the situation obtains even as to native'
born Filipinos! 9veryti&e the citi(enship of a person is
&aterial or indispensible in a Budicial or ad&inistrative
case, *hatever the corresponding court or
ad&inistrative authority decides therein as to such
citi(enship is generally not considered as res
adBudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and
again as the occasion &ay de&and! 6au >uen >eung,
was declared to have beco&e a Filipino citi(en fro&
and by virtue of her &arriage to @oy >a 6i& >ao al as
9dilberto Aguinaldo 6i&, a Filipino citi(en of ,1
anuary ./=,!
CO V. HRET
3
G.R. NOS. 52151&52, 30 <UL4 1551
FACTS: The %R9T declared that respondent ose <ng,
r! is a natural born Filipino citi(en and a resident
of6aoang, "orthern 5a&ar for voting purposes! The
congressional election for the second district of
"orthern5a&ar was held! A&ong the candidates who
vied for the position of representative in the second
legislativedistrict are the petitioners, 5iAto +alinquit
and Antonio )o and the private respondent, ose <ng,
r! Respondent<ng was proclai&ed the duly elected
representative of the second district of "orthern
5a&ar! The petitioners fled election protests on the
grounds that ose <ng, r! is not a natural born citi(en
of the Philippines and not a resident of the second
district of "orthern 5a&ar!
0
Diges available at
!":##(((.s+.i)2.+*,#2*+#1505---6#CO&
0s&HRET&C'se&Diges 1$'s '++esse2
Se"e,)e. 16, 20103.
ISSUE: *hether or not ose <ng is a citi(en of the
Philippines!
HELD: :n the year .8/1, the private respondent2s
grandfather, <ng Te, arrived in the Philippines fro&
)hina and established his residence in the
&unicipality of 6aoang, 5a&ar! The father of the
private respondent, ose <ng )huan was born in
)hina in ./-1 but was brought by <ng Te to 5a&ar in
the year ./.1, he fled with the court an application
for naturali(ation and was declared a Filipino citi(en!
:n ./87, the private respondent &arried a Filipina
na&ed Eesiree 6i&!For the elections of ./87 and
./8=, ose <ng, r! registered hi&self as a voter of
6aoang, 5a&ar, and voted there during those
elections! Dnder the ./C0 )onstitution, those born of
Filipino fathers and those born of Filipino &others with
an alien father were placed on equal footing! They
were both considered as natural born citi(ens!
+esides, private respondent did &ore than &erely
eAercise his right of su;rage! %e has established his
life here in the Philippines! <n the issue of residence,
it is not required that a person should have a house in
order to establish his residence and do&icile! :t is
enough that he should live in the &unicipality or in a
rented house or in that of a friend or relative! To
require hi& to own property in order to be eligible to
run for )ongress would be tanta&ount to a property
qualifcation! The )onstitution only requires that the
candidate &eet the age, citi(enship, voting and
residence require&ents!
IN RE CHING
4
6AR MATTER NO. 514, 1 OCTO6ER 1555
FACTS: Petition for Ad&ission to the Phil +ar
' April ./=7F Gicente )hing born as the legiti&ate son
of sps Tat )hing, )hinese citi(en, and Prescila Eulay,
Filipina, in 6a Dnion! 5ince birth, )hing has resided in
the Phils
' Euring this ti&e, the governing charter is the
./01)onstitution!Father2s citi(enship is followed, with
a right to elect citi(enship upon reaching the age of
&aBority
' uly .//8F )hing, after graduating fro& 5t! 6ouis
Dniversity in +aguio )ity, fled an application to take
the2/8 +ar 9Aa&inations!
' 5ept .//8F )ourt allowed )hing to take the eAa&s
provided he &ust sub&it proof of his Phil citi(enship
' "ov .//8F )hing sub&itted certifcation that he is
)PA, Goter )ert fro& )<@969), and )ert as a &e&ber
of the 5angguniang +ayan of Tubao, 6a Dnion also
fro& )<@969)!
' April .///F results of +ar 9Aa&s were released and
)hing passed! %e was further required to sub&it &ore
proof of citi(enship!
7
Diges available at
!":##(((.s+.i)2.+*,#2*+#30517044#A201
0&C*%si8i*%'$&L'(&I&Diges 1$'s
'++esse2 Se"e,)e. 16, 20103.
9OLITICAL LA: REVIE: ; ATT4. <AC= <IMENE> ; MAR= <OREL O. CALIDA
' uly .///F )hing fled @anifestation wH AIdavit of
9lection of Phil )iti(enship and his <ath of Allegiance!
' <5J co&&ented that )hing being the 3legiti&ate
child of a )hinese father and a Filipino &other and
born under the ./01 )onsti was a )hinese citi(en and
continued to be so, unless upon reaching the age of
&aBority he elected Phil citi(enship! :f )hing for&ally
elects Phil citi(enship, it would already be beyond the
reasonable ti&e allowed by present Burisprudence!
' Two conditions of an e;ective election of Phil!
)iti(enship #fro& <5J$F
.
st
K the &other of the person &aking the election
&ust be a phil citi(en
,
nd
K election &ust be &ade upon reaching the age of
&aBority #wHc &eans a reasonable ti&e interpreted by
the 5< as 0 years fro& the Gelayo caseL in )uenco,
noted that this pd not inMeAible, however, held in the
sa&e case that C years not reasonable ti&e$
' )hing to support his cause invokes these special
circu&stancesF continuous and uninterrupted stay in
the Philippines, being a )P, a registered voter, and
elected public oIcial!
ISSUE: *<" )hing has elected Phil citi(enship wHin a
reasonable ti&e and if so *<" his citi(enship has
retroacted to the ti&e he took the bar!
*<" )hing2s special circu&stances entitle hi& to
citi(enship!
HELD: "o! )hing2s election was clearly beyond, by any
reasonable yardstick, the allowable period within
which to eAercise the privilege! +eing born in April
./=1, he was already 01 years old when he co&plied
with the require&ents of )A "o! =,1 in une .///! %e
was already &ore than .7 years over the age of
&aBority!
Although the court is sy&pathetic of his plight,
controlling statutes and Burisprudence co&pel the
court in its decision! Also, )hing has o;ered no reason
why he delayed his election of Phil! )iti(enship, the
latter not being a tedious and painstaking process!
Philippine citi(enship can never be treated like a
co&&odity that can be clai&ed when needed and
suppressed when convenient! :t should be availed of
with fervor, enthusias& and pro&ptitude!
"o! The above&entioned special circu&stances
cannot vest in hi& Philippine citi(enship as the law
specifcally lays down the require&ents for acquisition
of Philippine citi(enship by election!
6ENGSON V. HRET
?
G.R. NO. 142-40, 7 MA4 2001
1
Diges available at !":##s+i.e&
$i+e.)$*gs"*.+*,#2005#11#)e%g@*%&iii&0s&
!.e.!,$ 1$'s '++esse2 Se"e,)e. 16,
20103.
FACTS: Respondent )ru( was a natural'born citi(en of
the Philippines! %e was born in 5an )le&ente, Tarlac,
on April ,C, ./=-, of Filipino parents! The funda&ental
law then applicable was the ./01 )onstitution!
<n "ov! 1, ./81, however, respondent )ru( enlisted
in the D5 @arine )orps and, without the consent of
the Republic of the Philippines, took an oath of
allegiance to the D5! As a consequence, he lost his
Filipino citi(enship for under sec! .#7$ of )A "o! =0, a
Filipino citi(en &ay lose his citi(enship by, a&ong
others, 3rendering service to or accepting co&&ission
in the ar&ed forces of a foreign country!4 Then on
une 1, .//-, he was naturali(ed as a D5 citi(en, in
connection with his service in the D5 @arine )orps!
<n @arch .C, .//7, respondent )ru( reacquired his
Philippine citi(enship through repatriation under RA
,=0-! %e ran against petitioner +engson ::: for the
oIce of Representative of the 5econd Eistrict of
Pangasinan in the @ay .., .//8 elections and was
elected for said oIce! +engson ::: then fled a case for
Nuo *arranto Ad )autela& with %R9T, clai&ing that
respondent )ru( was not qualifed to beco&e a
&e&ber of the %ouse since he was not a natural'born
citi(en! %R9T dis&issed the petition!
ISSUE: *hether or not respondent )ru(, a natural'
born Filipino who beca&e an A&erican citi(en, can
still be considered a natural'born Filipino upon his
reacquisition of Philippine citi(enship
HELD: There are two ways of acquiring citi(enshipF #.$
by birth, and #,$ by naturali(ation! These ways of
acquiring citi(enship correspond to the two kinds of
citi(ensF the natural'born citi(en, and the naturali(ed
citi(en! A person who at the ti&e of his birth is a
citi(en of a particular country, is a natural'born citi(en
thereof!
As defned in the sa&e )onstitution, natural'born
citi(ens Oare those citi(ens of the Philippines fro&
birth without having to perfor& any act to acquire or
perfect his Philippine citi(enship!O
<n the other hand, naturali(ed citi(ens are those who
have beco&e Filipino citi(ens through naturali(ation,
generally under )o&&onwealth Act "o! 7C0,
otherwise known as the Revised "aturali(ation 6aw,
which repealed the for&er "aturali(ation 6aw #Act "o!
,/,C$, and by Republic Act "o! 10-! To be naturali(ed,
an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the
qualifcations and none of the disqualifcations
provided by law to beco&e a Filipino citi(en! The
decision granting Philippine citi(enship beco&es
eAecutory only after two #,$ years fro& its
pro&ulgation when the court is satisfed that during
the intervening period, the applicant has #.$ not left
the PhilippinesL #,$ has dedicated hi&self to a lawful
calling or professionL #0$ has not been convicted of
any o;ense or violation of Jovern&ent pro&ulgated
rulesL or #7$ co&&itted any act preBudicial to the
9OLITICAL LA: REVIE: ; ATT4. <AC= <IMENE> ; MAR= <OREL O. CALIDA
interest of the nation or contrary to any Jovern&ent
announced policies!
@odes of Reacquisition of Philippine )iti(enship
Filipino citi(ens who have lost their citi(enship &ay
however reacquire the sa&e in the &anner provided
by law! )o&&onwealth Act! "o! =0 #)!A! "o! =0$,
enu&erates the three &odes by which Philippine
citi(enship &ay be reacquired by a for&er citi(enF #.$
by naturali(ation, #,$ by repatriation, and #0$ by direct
act of )ongress!
"aturali(ation is a &ode for both acquisition and
reacquisition of Philippine citi(enship! As a &ode of
initially acquiring Philippine citi(enship, naturali(ation
is governed by )o&&onwealth Act "o! 7C0, as
a&ended! <n the other hand, naturali(ation as a
&ode for reacquiring Philippine citi(enship is
governed by )o&&onwealth Act "o! =0! Dnder this
law, a for&er Filipino citi(en who wishes to reacquire
Philippine citi(enship &ust possess certain
qualifcations and none of the disqualifcations
&entioned in 5ection 7 of )!A! 7C0!
Repatriation, on the other hand, &ay be had under
various statutes by those who lost their citi(enship
due toF #.$ desertion of the ar&ed forcesL #,$ service
in the ar&ed forces of the allied forces in *orld *ar ::L
#0$ service in the Ar&ed Forces of the Dnited 5tates at
any other ti&eL #7$ &arriage of a Filipino wo&an to an
alienL and #1$ political and econo&ic necessity!
As distinguished fro& the lengthy process of
naturali(ation, repatriation si&ply consists of the
taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and registering said oath in the 6ocal )ivil
Registry of the place where the person concerned
resides or last resided!
Repatriation Results in Recovery of <riginal
"ationality
@oreover, repatriation results in the recovery of the
original nationality! This &eans that a naturali(ed
Filipino who lost his citi(enship will be restored to his
prior status as a naturali(ed Filipino citi(en! <n the
other hand, if he was originally a natural'born citi(en
before he lost his Philippine citi(enship, he will be
restored to his for&er status as a natural'born Filipino!
:n respondent )ru(?s case, he lost his Filipino
citi(enship when he rendered service in the Ar&ed
Forces of the Dnited 5tates! %owever, he
subsequently reacquired Philippine citi(enship under
R!A! "o! ,=0-
%aving thus taken the required oath of allegiance to
the Republic and having registered the sa&e in the
)ivil Registry of @agantare&, Pangasinan in
accordance with the aforecited provision, respondent
)ru( is dee&ed to have recovered his original status
as a natural'born citi(en, a status which he acquired
at birth as the son of a Filipino father! :t bears
stressing that the act of repatriation allows hi& to
recover, or return to, his original status before he lost
his Philippine citi(enship!
*hat is a "atural'+orn )iti(en
Petitioner?s contention that respondent )ru( is no
longer a natural'born citi(en since he had to perfor&
an act to regain his citi(enship is untenable! As
correctly eAplained by the %R9T in its decision, the
ter& Onatural'born citi(enO was frst defned in Article
:::, 5ection 7 of the ./C0 )onstitution as followsF
5ec! 7! A natural'born citi(en is one who is a citi(en of
the Philippines fro& birth without having to perfor&
any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citi(enship!
Two requisites &ust concur for a person to be
considered as suchF #.$ a person &ust be a Filipino
citi(en fro& birth and #,$ he does not have to perfor&
any act to obtain or perfect his Philippine citi(enship!
Dnder the ./C0 )onstitution defnition, there were
two categories of Filipino citi(ens which were not
considered natural'bornF #.$ those who were
naturali(ed and #,$ those born before anuary .C,
./C0, of Filipino &others who, upon reaching the age
of &aBority, elected Philippine citi(enship! Those
Onaturali(ed citi(ensO were not considered natural'
born obviously because they were not Filipinos at
birth and had to perfor& an act to acquire Philippine
citi(enship! Those born of Filipino &others before the
e;ectivity of the ./C0 )onstitution were likewise not
considered natural'born because they also had to
perfor& an act to perfect their Philippine citi(enship!
The present )onstitution, however, now considers
those born of Filipino &others before the e;ectivity of
the ./C0 )onstitution and who elected Philippine
citi(enship upon reaching the &aBority age as natural'
born! After defning who are natural'born citi(ens,
5ection , of Article :G adds a sentenceF OThose who
elect Philippine citi(enship in accordance with
paragraph #0$, 5ection . hereof shall be dee&ed
natural'born citi(ens!O )onsequently, only naturali(ed
Filipinos are considered not natural'born citi(ens! :t is
apparent fro& the enu&eration of who are citi(ens
under the present )onstitution that there are only two
classes of citi(ensF #.$ those who are natural'born and
#,$ those who are naturali(ed in accordance with law!
A citi(en who is not a naturali(ed Filipino, i!e!, did not
have to undergo the process of naturali(ation to
obtain Philippine citi(enship, necessarily is a natural'
born Filipino! "oteworthy is the absence in said
enu&eration of a separate category for persons who,
after losing Philippine citi(enship, subsequently
reacquire it! The reason therefor is clearF as to such
persons, they would either be natural'born or
naturali(ed depending on the reasons for the loss of
their citi(enship and the &ode prescribed by the
applicable law for the reacquisition thereof! As
9OLITICAL LA: REVIE: ; ATT4. <AC= <IMENE> ; MAR= <OREL O. CALIDA
respondent )ru( was not required by law to go
through naturali(ation proceedings in order to
reacquire his citi(enship, he is perforce a natural'born
Filipino! As such, he possessed all the necessary
qualifcations to be elected as &e&ber of the %ouse
of Representatives!
MERCADO V. MAN>ANO
6
G.R. NO. 142-40, 7 MA4 2001
FACTS: 9rnesto @ercado and 9duardo @an(ano are
candidates for the position of Gice'@ayor of @akati
)ity in the @ay, .//8 elections! Private respondent
was the winner of the said election but the
procla&ation was suspended due to the petition of
9rnesto @a&aril regarding the citi(enship of private
respondent! @a&aril alleged that the private
respondent is not a citi(en of the Philippines but of
the Dnited 5tates! )<@969) granted the petition and
disqualifed the private respondent for being a dual
citi(en, pursuant to the 6ocal Jovern&ent code that
provides that persons who possess dual citi(enship
are disqualifed fro& running any public position!
Private respondent fled a &otion for reconsideration
which re&ained pending until after election! Petitioner
sought to intervene in the case for disqualifcation!
)<@969) reversed the decision and declared private
respondent qualifed to run for the position! Pursuant
to the ruling of the )<@969), the board of canvassers
proclai&ed private respondent as vice &ayor! This
petition sought the reversal of the resolution of the
)<@969) and to declare the private respondent
disqualifed to hold the oIce of the vice &ayor of
@akati!
ISSUE: *<" @an(ano is qualifed to hold oIce as
Gice'@ayor!
HELD: Eual citi(enship is di;erent fro& dual
allegiance! The for&er arises when, as a result of the
concurrent application of the di;erent laws of two or
&ore states, a person is si&ultaneously considered a
national by the said states! For instance, such a
situation &ay arise when a person whose parents are
citi(ens of a state which adheres to the principle of
Bus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the
doctrine of Bus soli! Private respondent is considered
as a dual citi(en because he is born of Filipino parents
but was born in 5an Francisco, D5A! 5uch a person,
ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part,
is concurrently considered a citi(en of both states!
)onsidering the citi(enship clause #Art! :G$ of our
)onstitution, it is possible for the following classes of
citi(ens of the Philippines to posses dual citi(enshipF
#.$ Those born of Filipino fathers andHor &others in
foreign countries which follow the principle of Bus soliL
#,$ Those born in the Philippines of Filipino &others
=
Diges available at
!":##+*Ae.ee.)$*gs"*.+*,#2005#02#,e.
+'2*&0s&,'%@'%*&307&s+.'&630&g.&%*.!,$
1$'s '++esse2 Se"e,)e. 16, 20103.
and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers2
country such children are citi(ens of that countryL #0$
Those who &arry aliens if by the laws of the latter2s
country the for&er are considered citi(ens, unless by
their act or o&ission they are dee&ed to have
renounced Philippine citi(enship! Eual allegiance, on
the other hand, refers to the situation in which a
person si&ultaneously owes, by so&e positive act,
loyalty to two or &ore states! *hile dual citi(enship is
involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an
individual2s volition!
+y fling a certifcate of candidacy when he ran for his
present post, private respondent elected Philippine
citi(enship and in e;ect renounced his A&erican
citi(enship! The fling of such certifcate of candidacy
suIced to renounce his A&erican citi(enship,
e;ectively re&oving any disqualifcation he &ight
have as a dual citi(en!
+y declaring in his certifcate of candidacy that he is a
Filipino citi(enL that he is not a per&anent resident or
i&&igrant of another countryL that he will defend and
support the )onstitution of the Philippines and bear
true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so
without &ental reservation, private respondent has,
as far as the laws of this country are concerned,
e;ectively repudiated his A&erican citi(enship and
anything which he &ay have said before as a dual
citi(en! <n the other hand, private respondent2s oath
of allegiance to the Philippine, when considered with
the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood,
received his education, practiced his profession as an
artist, and taken part in past elections in this country,
leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine
citi(enship!
MA=ALINTAL V. COMELEC
7
G.R. NO. 142-40, 7 MA4 2001
FACTS:
This is a case fled by petitioner Atty! Ro&ulo
@acalintal, as taApayer, against )<@969), 9Aec 5ec
Alberto Ro&ulo and %on! 9&ilia +oncodin, 5ec of Eept
of +udget and @g&t! Petitioner, also a &e&ber of the
Phil +ar, seeks a declaration that certain provisions of
RA "o /.8/ su;er fro& constitutional infr&ity! 5uch
Act appropriates funds under its 5ec ,/ to carry out
the provisions and as taApayer, petitioner @acalintal
also seeks to restrain oIcials fro& wasting public
funds through the enforce&ent of an unconstitutional
statute, wHc results to a &isapplication of funds!
P RA N* 51-5, &ore co&&only known as The
<verseas Absentee Goting Act of ,--0, was enacted
in lieu of 5ec ,, Art G of the )onsti! :t provides
)ongress the syste& in wHc absentee voting should
be done by qualifed Filipinos abroad!
C
Diges available at
!":##(((.s+.i)2.+*,#2*+#4664366#Cii@e%
s!i"&D8'$S8A.'ge9.i%+i"$es&9*$i+ies&II 1$'s
'++esse2 Se"e,)e. 16, 20103.
9OLITICAL LA: REVIE: ; ATT4. <AC= <IMENE> ; MAR= <OREL O. CALIDA
P Absentee voting' a relatively new concept,
co&pletely separable and distinct fro& the regular
syste& of voting! :t is an eAception to the custo&ary
and usual &anner of voting! 5uch right of absentee
and disabled voters to cast their ballots at an election
is purely statutory! :t is devised to acco&&odate
those engaged in &ilitary or civil life whose duties
&ake it i&practicable for the& to attend their polling
places on the day of election!
P <verseas Absentee Goter' a citi(en of the Phils, at
least .8 yrs of age, who is qualifed to register and
vote under RA "o /.8/, not otherwise disqualifed by
law, who is abroad on the day of the elections!
P Absentee' not a resident! A person cannot be
si&ultaneously a resident and an absentee under
nor&al conditions! %owever, an absentee re&ains
attached to his residence in the Phils as residence is
considered synony&ous to do&icile!
P Residence' a te&poraryHper&anent place of abodeL
not a do&icile! :t i&plies factual relationship of an
individual to a certain place! :t is the physical
presence of a person in a given area, co&&unity or
country!
P Eo&icile' a fAed per&anent residence to wHc, when
absent, one has the intention of returning!
P Ei;erence between residence Q do&icile' A person
can only have a single do&icile but he &ay have
nu&erous places of residence! The essential
distinction is the intent to return or the intent to leave
when the purpose for wHc the resident has taken up
his abode ends!
ISSUE:
*<" 5ec 1 of RA "o /.8/ allowing i&&igrants or
per&anent residents to register as voters is violative
of the residency require&ent in 5ec . Art G of )onstiR
*<" 5ec .8!1 of RA wHc e&powers )<@969) to
proclai& all the winning candidates violates 5ec 7 Art
G: of )onsti, wHc states that the)ongres s proclai& the
winning candidates for Pres Q GPR
*<" )ongress, via the )<), can eAercise certain
powers over the )<@969), wHo violating the latter2s
independence under 5ec . Art :S'A of the )onstiR
HELD: Petition partly granted! The ; portions #7$ of RA
"o /.8/ are declared G<:E for being unconstitutionalF
#a$ The phrase in the .st sentence of .st par of 5ec
.C!., to witF subBect to the approval of the oint
)ongressional <versight )o&&itteeL
#b$ The portion of the last par of 5ec .C!., to witF only
upon review and approval of the )<)L
#c$ The ,nd sentence of par . of 5ec ./, to witF The
:RR shall be sub&itted to the )<) created by virtue
of this Act for prior approvalL and
#d$ The ,nd sentence in par , of 5ec ,1, to witF :t shall
review, revise, a&end and approve the :RR
pro&ulgated by the )o&&ission!
.$ "o!5ec 1 of RA "o /.8/ enu&erates those who are
disqualifed voting under this Act! :t disqualifes an
i&&igrant or a per&anent resident who is recogni(ed
as such in the host country!%owever, an eAception is
provided i!e! unless heHshe eAecutes, upon
registration, an 'B2'0i prepared for the purpose by
the )o&&ission declaring that heHshe shall resu&e
actual physical per&anent residence in the Phils not
later than 0 yrs fro& approval of registration! 5uch
aIdavit shall also state that heHshe has not applied
for citi(enship in another country! Failure to return
shall be cause for the re&oval of the na&e of the
i&&igrant or per&anent resident fro& the "atl
Registry of Absentee Goters and hisHher per&anent
disqualifcation to vote in absentia!
Petitioner clai&s this is violative of the residency
require&ent in 5ec . Art G of the )onsti wHc requires
the voter &ust be a resident in the Phils for at least
one yr, and a resident in the place where he proposes
to vote for at least = &os i&&ediately preceding an
election! %e presents the ruling in )aasi v! )A wherein
)ourt held that a 3green card4 holder D5 i&&igrant is
dee&ed to have abandoned his do&icile and
residence in the Phils!
%owever, <5J held that ruling in said case does not
hold water at present, and that the )ourt &ay have to
discard that particular ruling! Panacea of the
controversyF AIdavit for wHo it, the presu&ption of
abandon&ent of Phil do&icile shall re&ain! The
qualifed Filipino abroad who eAecuted an aIdavit is
dee&ed to have retained his do&icile in the Phils and
presu&ed not to have lost his do&icile by his physical
absence fro& this country!5ec 1 of RA "o /.8/ does
not only require the pro&ise to resu&e actual
physical per&anent residence in the Phils not later
than 0 yrs after approval of registration but it
also requires the Filipino abroad, *<" he is a green
card holder, a te&porary visitor or even on business
trip, &ust declare that heHshe has not applied for
citi(enship in another country! Thus, heHshe &ust
return to the Phils otherwise consequences will be
&et accdg to RA "o /.8/!
Although there is a possibility that the Filipino will not
return after he has eAercised his right to vote, the
)ourt is not in a position to rule on the wisdo& of the
law or to repeal or &odify it if such law is found
i&practical! %owever, it can be said that the )ongress
itself was conscious of this probability and provided
for a deterrence wHc is that the Filipino who fails to
return as pro&ised stands to lose his right of su;rage!
Accordingly, the votes he cast shall not be invalidated
because he was qualifed to vote on the date of the
elections!
9Apressu& facit cessare tacitu&F where a law sets
down plainly its whole &eaning, the )ourt is
prevented fro& &aking it &ean what the )ourt
pleases! :n fne, considering that underlying intent of
the )onstitution, as is evident in its statutory
construction and intent of the fra&ers, wHc is to grant
Filipino i&&igrants and per&anent residents abroad
9OLITICAL LA: REVIE: ; ATT4. <AC= <IMENE> ; MAR= <OREL O. CALIDA
the unquestionable right to eAercise the right of
su;rage #5ec . Art G$, the )ourt fnds that 5ec 1 of RA
"o/.8/ is not constitutionally defective!
,$>es, )ongress should not have allowed )<@969) to
usurp a power that constitutionally belongs to it! The
canvassing of the votes and the procla&ation of the
winning candidates for President and GP for the entire
nation &ust re&ain in the hands of )ongress as its
duty and power under 5ec7 ART G:: of the )onsti!
)<@969) has the authority to proclai& the winning
candidates only for 5enators and Party'list Reps!
0$ "o, by vesting itself wH the powers to approve,
review, a&end and revise the :&ple&enting Rules Q
Regulations for RA "o /.8/, )ongress went beyond
the scope of its constitutional authority! )ongress
tra&pled upon the constitutional &andate of
independence of the )<@969)! Dnder such a
situation, the )ourt is left wH no option but to
withdraw fro& its usual reticence #silence$ in
declaring a provision of law unconstitutional!
Dnlike the frst , issues where it re&ained silent, this
is the sole issue reacted to by )<@969)!
9OLITICAL LA: REVIE: ; ATT4. <AC= <IMENE> ; MAR= <OREL O. CALIDA