Tecson vs. COMELEC , GR 16134 , March 3, 2004

FACTS:

Petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the COMELEC in taking cognizance of and deciding the citizenship issue affecting Fernando Poe Jr. They asserted that under Section 4(7) , Article VII of the 1987 Constituition, only the Supreme Court had original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the basic issue of the case.

ISSUE:

As the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) , does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over the qualifications of presidential candidates?

RULING:

No. An examination of the phraseology in Rule 12, 13, and Rule 14 of the "Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal," promulgated by the Supreme Court on April 1992 categorically speak of the jurisdiction of the tribunal over contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the "President" or "Vice-President", of the Philippines, and not of "candidates" for President or Vice-President. A quo warranto proceeding is generally defined as being an action against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office. In such context, the election contest can only contemplate a post-election scenario. In Rule 14, only a registered candidate who would have received either the second or third highest number of votes could file an election protest. This rule again presupposes a post-election scenario.It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, defined by Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, would not include cases directly brought before it, questioning the qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency before the elections are held.

Valles v. COMELEC

Facts:

Petitioner questions the qualification of private respondent RosalindYbasco Lopez to run for governor of Davao Oriental on citizenship grounds. Respondent was born in 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. In 1998, she applied for an Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR) and was issued an Australian passport.

Issue:

WON respondent is a Filipino; and if she is, WON she renounced her citizenship by applying for ACR and ICR and being issued an Australian passport.

Ruling:

Respondent is a Filipino. In 1934, the controlling laws of the Philippines were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916 (Jones Law). Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein, including their children, are considered Philippine citizens. Respondent's father was therefore a Filipino, and consequently, her.Respondent did not lose her citizenship. Renunciation of citizenship must be express. Applying for ACR, ICR, and Australian passport are not enough to renounce citizenship. They are merely acts of assertion of her Australian citizenship before she effectively renounced the same."Dual citizenship" in the LGC, Sec 40, means "dual allegiance"

G.R. No. L-24252           January 30, 1967

IN RE petition to declare ZITA NGO to possess all qualifications and none of the disqualifications for naturalization under Commonwealth Act 473 for the purpose of cancelling her alien registry with the BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION. ZITA NGO BURCA, petitioner and appellee, vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.

SANCHEZ, J.:

On petition to declare Zita Ngo — also known as Zita Ngo Burca — "as possessing all qualifications and none of the qualifications for naturalization under Commonwealth Act 473 for the purpose of cancelling her Alien Registry with the Bureau of Immigration".1 She avers that she is of legal age, married to Florencio Burca, a Filipino citizen, and a resident of Real St., Ormoc City; that before her marriage, she was a Chinese citizen, subject of Nationalist China, with ACR No. A-148054; that she was born on March 30, 1933 in Gigaquit, Surigao, and holder of Native Born Certificate of Residence No. 46333. After making a number of other allegations and setting forth certain denials, she manifests that "she has all the qualifications required under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications required under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473" aforesaid.

Notice of hearing was sent to the Solicitor General and duly published.

The Solicitor General opposed and moved to dismiss the petition on two main grounds, viz: (1) that "there is no proceeding established by law, or the rules for the judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual"; and (2) that as an application for Philippine citizenship, "the petition is fatally defective for failure to contain or mention the essential allegations required under Section 7 of the Naturalization Law", such as, among others, petitioner's former places of residence, and the absence of the affidavits of at least two supporting witnesses.

Trial was held on December 18, 1964. Sole witness was petitioner. With the documentary evidence admitted, the case was submitted for decision.

The judgment appealed from, dated December 18, 1964, reads:

WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered dismissing the opposition, and declaring that ZITA NGO BURCA petitioner, has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a Filipino Citizen and that she being married to a Filipino Citizen, is hereby declared a citizen of the Philippines, after taking the necessary oath of allegiance, as soon as this decision becomes final and executory.

The controlling facts are not controverted. Petitioner Zita Ngo was born in Gigaquit, Surigao (now Surigao del Norte), on March 30, 1933. Her father was Ngo Tay Suy and her mother was Dee See alias Lee Co, now both deceased and citizens of Nationalist Republic of China. She holds Native Born Certificate of Residence 46333 and Alien Certificate of Registration A-148054. She married Florencio Burca a native-born Filipino, on May 14, 1961.

1. By constitutional and legal precepts, an alien woman who marries a Filipino citizen, does not — by the mere fact of marriage - automatically become a Filipino citizen.

Thus, by Article IV of the Constitution, citizenship is limited to:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.

(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.

(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.

(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.

(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

And, on the specific legal status of an alien woman married to a citizen of the Philippines, Congress — in paragraph 1, Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law legislated the following:

Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.

Jurisprudence has since stabilized the import of the constitutional and statutory precepts just quoted with a uniform pronouncement that an alien wife of a Filipino citizen may not acquire the status of a citizen of the Philippines unless there is proof that she herself may be lawfully naturalized.2 Which means that, in line with the national policy of selective admission to Philippine citizenship, the wife must possess the qualifications under Section 2, and must not be laboring under any of the disqualifications enumerated in Section 4, of the Revised Naturalization Law.3

This Court, in Ly Giok Ha, et al. vs. Galang, et al., L-21332, March 18,1966, explains the reasons for the rule in this wise:

Reflection will reveal why this must be so. The qualifications prescribed under section 2 of the Naturalization Act, and the disqualifications enumerated in its section 4, are not mutually exclusive; and if all that were to be required is that the wife of a Filipino be not disqualified under section 4, the result might well be that citizenship would be conferred upon persons in violation of the policy of the statute. For example, section 4 disqualifies only —

(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;

(d) Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude', so that a blackmailer, or a maintainer of gambling or bawdy houses, not previously convicted by a competent court, would not be thereby disqualified; still, it is certain that the law did not intend such a person to be admitted as a citizen in view of the requirement of section 2 that an applicant for citizenship 'must be of good moral character'.

Similarly the citizen's wife might be a convinced believer in racial supremacy, in government by certain selected classes, in the right to vote exclusively by certain "herrenvolk", and thus disbelieve in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; yet she would not be disqualified under section 4, as long as she is not "opposed to organized government", nor affiliated to groups "upholding or teaching doctrines opposing all organized governments", nor "defending or teaching the necessity or of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of their ideas'. Et sic de caeteris".

Indeed, the political privilege of citizenship should not to any alien woman on the sole basis of her marriage to a Filipino — "irrespective of moral character, ideological beliefs, and identification with Filipino ideals, customs and traditions".4

The rule heretofore adverted to is to be observed whether the husband be a natural born Filipino,5 a naturalized Filipino,6 or a Filipino by election.

2. We next go to the mechanics of implementation of the constitutional and legal provisions, as applied to an alien woman married to a Filipino. We part from the premise that such an alien woman does not, by the fact of marriage, acquire Philippine citizenship. The statute heretofore quoted (Sec. 15, Revised Naturalization Law), we repeat, recites that she "shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines" if she "might herself be lawfully naturalized".

How then shall she be "deemed" a citizen of the Philippines? An examination of the Revised Naturalization Law is quite revealing. For instance, minor children of persons naturalized under the law who were born in the Philippines "shall be considered citizens thereof". Similarly, a foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the parents, "shall automatically become a Filipino citizen".7 No conditions are exacted; citizenship of said minor children is conferred by the law itself, without further proceedings and as a matter of course. An alien wife of a Filipino does not fit into either of the categories just mentioned. Legal action has to be taken to make her a citizen.

There is no law or rule which authorizes a declaration of Filipino citizenship.8 Citizenship is not an appropriate subject for declaratory judgment proceedings.9 And in one case, we held that citizenship of an alien woman married to a Filipino must be determined in an "appropriate proceeding". 10

Speculations arise as to the import of the term "appropriate proceeding". The record of this case disclose that, in some quarters, opinion is advanced that the determination of whether an alien woman married to a Filipino shall be deemed a Filipino citizen, may be made by the Commissioner of Immigration. 11 Conceivably, absence of clear legal direction on the matter could have given rise to divergence of views. We should aim at drying up sources of doubt. Parties interested should not be enmeshed in jurisdictional entanglements. Public policy and sound practice, therefore, suggest that a clear-cut ruling be made on this subject.

If an alien woman married to a Filipino does not become ipso facto a citizen, then she must have to file a "petition for citizenship" in order that she may

acquire the status of a Filipino citizen. Authority for this view is Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law in which the plain language is: "Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship,shall file with the competent court" a petition for the purpose. And this, because such alien woman is not a citizen, and she desires to acquire it. The proper forum, Section 8 of the same law points out, is the Court of First Instance of the province where the petitioner has resided "at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition".

It is quite plain that the determination of whether said alien wife should be given the status of a citizen should fall within the area allocated to competent courts. That this is so, is exemplified by the fact that this Court has taken jurisdiction in one such case originating from the court of first instance, where an alien woman had directly sought naturalization in her favor. 12

And, as nothing in the Revised Naturalization Law empowers any other office, agency, board or official, to determine such question, we are persuaded to say that resolution thereof rests exclusively with the competent courts.

We accordingly rule that: (1) An alien woman married to a Filipino who desires to be a citizen of this country must apply therefor by filing a petition for citizenship reciting that she possesses all the qualifications set forth in Section 2, and none of the disqualifications under Section 4, both of the Revised Naturalization Law; (2) Said petition must be filed in the Court of First Instance where petitioner has resided at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition; and (3) Any action by any other office, agency, board or official, administrative or otherwise — other than the judgment of a competent court of justice — certifying or declaring that an alien wife of the Filipino citizen is also a Filipino citizen, is hereby declared null and void.

3. We treat the present petition as one for naturalization. Or, in the words of law, a "petition for citizenship". This is as it should be. Because a reading of the petition will reveal at once that efforts were made to set forth therein, and to prove afterwards, compliance with Sections 2 and 4 of the Revised Naturalization Law. The trial court itself apparently considered the petition as one for naturalization, and, in fact, declared petition "a citizen of the Philippines".

We go to the merits of the petition.

We note that the petition avers that petitioner was born in Gigaquit, Surigao that her former residence was Surigao, Surigao, and that presently she is residing at Regal St., Ormoc City. In court, however, she testified that she alsoresided in Junquera St., Cebu, where she took up a course in home economics, for one

year. Section 7 of the Naturalization Law requires that a petition for naturalization should state petitioner's "present and former places of residence". Residence encompasses all places where petitioner actually and physically resided. 13 Cebu, where she studied for one year, perforce comes within the term residence. The reason for exacting recital in the petition of present and former places of residence is that "information regarding petitioner and objection to his application are apt to be provided by people in his actual, physical surrounding". 14 And the State is deprived of full opportunity to make inquiries as to petitioner's fitness to become a citizen, if all the places of residence do not appear in the petition. So it is, that failure to allege a former place of residence is fatal. 15

Viewed from another direction, we find one other flaw in petitioner's petition. Said petition is not supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, "stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act". Petitioner likewise failed to "set forth the names and post-office addresses of such witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing of the case". 16

The necessity for the affidavit of two witnesses cannot be overlooked. It is important to know who those witnesses are. The State should not be denied the opportunity to check on their background to ascertain whether they are of good standing in the community, whose word may be taken on its face value, and who could serve as "good warranty of the worthiness of the petitioner". These witnesses should indeed prove in court that they are reliable insurers of the character of petitioner. Short of this, the petition must fail. 17

Here, the case was submitted solely on the testimony of the petitioner. No other witnesses were presented. This does not meet with the legal requirement.

Upon the view we take of his case, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the petition dismissed, without costs. So ordered

.

BENGZON VS. HRET [357 SCRA 545; G. R. No. 142840; 7 May 2001]

Facts: 

Respondent Teodoro Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27, 1960, of Filipino parents. The fundamental law then applicable was the 1935 Constitution. On November 5, 1985, however, respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the United States. As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for

under Commonwealth Act No. 63, section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by, among other, "rendering service to or accepting commission in

Issue:

 Whether or Not respondent Cruz is a natural born citizen of the Philippines in view of the constitutional requirement that "no person shall be a Member of the House of Representative unless he is a natural-born citizen.”

Held: Respondent is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization, repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippine and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.

BAR MATER No. 914 October 1, 1999

RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR,vs.VICENTE D. CHING, applicant.

R E S O L U T I O N 

KAPUNAN, J.:Can a legitimate child born under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien father validly elect Philippine citizenship fourteen (14) years after he has reached the age of majority? This is the question sought to be resolved in the present case involving the application for admission to the Philippine Bar of Vicente D. Ching.The facts of this case are as follows:Vicente D. Ching, the legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ching, a Chinese citizen, and Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino, was born in Francia West, Tubao, La Union on 11 April 1964. Since his birth, Ching has resided in the Philippines.On 17 July 1998, Ching, after having completed a Bachelor of Laws course at the St. Louis University in Baguio City, filed an application to take the 1998 Bar Examinations. In a Resolution of this Court, dated 1 September 1998, he was allowed to take the Bar Examinations, subject to the condition that he must submit to the Court proof of his Philippine citizenship.In compliance with the above resolution, Ching submitted on 18 November 1998, the following documents:

1. Certification, dated 9 June 1986, issued by the Board of Accountancy of the Professional Regulations Commission showing that Ching is a certified public accountant;2. Voter Certification, dated 14 June 1997, issued by Elizabeth B. Cerezo, Election Officer of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in Tubao La Union showing that Ching is a registered voter of the said place; and3. Certification, dated 12 October 1998, also issued by Elizabeth B. Cerezo, showing that Ching was elected as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao, La Union during the 12 May 1992 synchronized elections.

On 5 April 1999, the results of the 1998 Bar Examinations were released and Ching was one of the successful Bar examinees. The oath-taking of the successful Bar examinees was scheduled on 5 May 1999. However, because of the questionable status of Ching's

citizenship, he was not allowed to take his oath. Pursuant to the resolution of this Court, dated 20 April 1999, he was required to submit further proof of his citizenship. In the same resolution, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was required to file a comment on Ching's petition for admission to the bar and on the documents evidencing his Philippine citizenship.The OSG filed its comment on 8 July 1999, stating that Ching, being the "legitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother born under the 1935 Constitution was a Chinese citizen and continued to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine citizenship" 1 in strict compliance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 625 entitled "An Act Providing for the Manner in which the Option to Elect Philippine Citizenship shall be Declared by a Person Whose Mother is a Filipino Citizen." The OSG adds that "(w)hat he acquired at best was only an inchoate Philippine citizenship which he could perfect by election upon reaching the age of majority." 2 In this regard, the OSG clarifies that "two (2) conditions must concur in order that the election of Philippine citizenship may be effective, namely: (a) the mother of the person making the election must be a citizen of the Philippines; and (b) said election must be made upon reaching the age of majority." 3 The OSG then explains the meaning of the phrase "upon reaching the age of majority:"

The clause "upon reaching the age of majority" has been construed to mean a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority which had been interpreted by the Secretary of Justice to be three (3) years (VELAYO, supra at p. 51 citing Op., Sec. of Justice No. 70, s. 1940, Feb. 27, 1940). Said period may be extended under certain circumstances, as when a (sic) person concerned has always considered himself a Filipino (ibid., citing Op. Nos. 355 and 422, s. 1955; 3, 12, 46, 86 and 97, s. 1953). But in Cuenco, it was held that an election done after over seven (7) years was not made within a reasonable time.

In conclusion, the OSG points out that Ching has not formally elected Philippine citizenship and, if ever he does, it would already be beyond the "reasonable time" allowed by present jurisprudence. However, due to the peculiar circumstances surrounding Ching's case, the OSG recommends the relaxation of the standing rule on the construction of the phrase "reasonable period" and the allowance of Ching to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with C.A. No. 625 prior to taking his oath as a member of the Philippine Bar.On 27 July 1999, Ching filed a Manifestation, attaching therewith his Affidavit of Election of Philippine Citizenship and his Oath of Allegiance,

both dated 15 July 1999. In his Manifestation, Ching states:1. I have always considered myself as a Filipino;2. I was registered as a Filipino and consistently declared myself as one in my school records and other official documents;3. I am practicing a profession (Certified Public Accountant) reserved for Filipino citizens;4. I participated in electoral process[es] since the time I was eligible to vote;5. I had served the people of Tubao, La Union as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan from 1992 to 1995;6. I elected Philippine citizenship on July 15, 1999 in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 625;7. My election was expressed in a statement signed and sworn to by me before a notary public;8. I accompanied my election of Philippine citizenship with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines;9. I filed my election of Philippine citizenship and my oath of allegiance to (sic) the Civil Registrar of Tubao La Union, and10. I paid the amount of TEN PESOS (Ps. 10.00) as filing fees.

Since Ching has already elected Philippine citizenship on 15 July 1999, the question raised is whether he has elected Philippine citizenship within a "reasonable time." In the affirmative, whether his citizenship by election retroacted to the time he took the bar examination.When Ching was born in 1964, the governing charter was the 1935 Constitution. Under Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship. 4 This right to elect Philippine citizenship was recognized in the 1973 Constitution when it provided that "(t)hose who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five" are citizens of the Philippines. 5 Likewise, this recognition by the 1973 Constitution was carried over to the 1987 Constitution which states that "(t)hose born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority" are Philippine citizens. 6 It should be noted, however, that the 1973 and 1987 Constitutional provisions on the election of Philippine citizenship should not be understood as having a curative effect on any irregularity in the acquisition of citizenship for those covered by the 1935 Constitution. 7 If the citizenship of a person was subject to challenge under the old

charter, it remains subject to challenge under the new charter even if the judicial challenge had not been commenced before the effectivity of the new Constitution. 8

C.A. No. 625 which was enacted pursuant to Section 1(3), Article IV of the 1935 Constitution, prescribes the procedure that should be followed in order to make a valid election of Philippine citizenship. Under Section 1 thereof, legitimate children born of Filipino mothers may elect Philippine citizenship by expressing such intention "in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines."However, the 1935 Constitution and C.A. No. 625 did not prescribe a time period within which the election of Philippine citizenship should be made. The 1935 Charter only provides that the election should be made "upon reaching the age of majority." The age of majority then commenced upon reaching twenty-one (21) years. 9 In the opinions of the Secretary of Justice on cases involving the validity of election of Philippine citizenship, this dilemma was resolved by basing the time period on the decisions of this Court prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. In these decisions, the proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the pronouncements of the Department of State of the United States Government to the effect that the election should be made within a "reasonable time" after attaining the age of majority. 10 The phrase "reasonable time" has been interpreted to mean that the election should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age ofmajority. 11 However, we held in Cuenco vs. Secretary of Justice, 12 that the three (3) year period is not an inflexible rule. We said:

It is true that this clause has been construed to mean a reasonable period after reaching the age of majority, and that the Secretary of Justice has ruled that three (3) years is the reasonable time to elect Philippine citizenship under the constitutional provision adverted to above, which period may be extended under certain circumstances, as when the person concerned has always considered himself a Filipino. 13

However, we cautioned in Cuenco that the extension of the option to elect Philippine citizenship is not indefinite:

Regardless of the foregoing, petitioner was born on February 16, 1923. He became of age on February 16, 1944. His election of citizenship was made on May 15, 1951, when he was over twenty-eight (28)

years of age, or over seven (7) years after he had reached the age of majority. It is clear that said election has not been made "upon reaching the age of majority." 14

In the present case, Ching, having been born on 11 April 1964, was already thirty-five (35) years old when he complied with the requirements of C.A. No. 625 on 15 June 1999, or over fourteen (14) years after he had reached the age of majority. Based on the interpretation of the phrase "upon reaching the age of majority," Ching's election was clearly beyond, by any reasonable yardstick, the allowable period within which to exercise the privilege. It should be stated, in this connection, that the special circumstances invoked by Ching, i.e., his continuous and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines and his being a certified public accountant, a registered voter and a former elected public official, cannot vest in him Philippine citizenship as the law specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of Philippine citizenship by election.Definitely, the so-called special circumstances cannot constitute what Ching erroneously labels as informal election of citizenship. Ching cannot find a refuge in the case of In re: Florencio Mallare, 15 the pertinent portion of which reads:

And even assuming arguendo that Ana Mallare were (sic) legally married to an alien, Esteban's exercise of the right of suffrage when he came of age, constitutes a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship. It has been established that Esteban Mallare was a registered voter as of April 14, 1928, and that as early as 1925 (when he was about 22 years old), Esteban was already participating in the elections and campaigning for certain candidate[s]. These acts are sufficient to show his preference for Philippine citizenship. 16

Ching's reliance on Mallare is misplaced. The facts and circumstances obtaining therein are very different from those in the present case, thus, negating its applicability. First, Esteban Mallare was born before the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution and the enactment of C.A. No. 625. Hence, the requirements and procedures prescribed under the 1935 Constitution and C.A. No. 625 for electing Philippine citizenship would not be applicable to him. Second, the ruling in Mallare was an obiter since, as correctly pointed out by the OSG, it was not necessary for Esteban Mallare to elect Philippine citizenship because he was already a Filipino, he being a natural child of a Filipino mother. In this regard, the Court stated:

Esteban Mallare, natural child of Ana Mallare, a Filipina, is therefore himself a Filipino, and no other

act would be necessary to confer on him all the rights and privileges attached to Philippine citizenship (U.S. vs. Ong Tianse, 29 Phil. 332; Santos Co vs. Government of the Philippine Islands, 42 Phil. 543, Serra vs. Republic, L-4223, May 12, 1952, Sy Quimsuan vs. Republic, L-4693, Feb. 16, 1953; Pitallano vs. Republic, L-5111, June 28, 1954). Neither could any act be taken on the erroneous belief that he is a non-filipino divest him of the citizenship privileges to which he is rightfully entitled. 17

The ruling in Mallare was reiterated and further elaborated in Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, 18where we held:

We have jurisprudence that defines "election" as both a formal and an informal process.In the case of In re: Florencio Mallare (59 SCRA 45 [1974]), the Court held that the exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship. In the exact pronouncement of the Court, we held:

Esteban's exercise of the right of suffrage when he came of age constitutes a positive act of Philippine citizenship. (p. 52: emphasis supplied)

The private respondent did more than merely exercise his right of suffrage. He has established his life here in the Philippines.

For those in the peculiar situation of the respondent who cannot be excepted to have elected Philippine citizenship as they were already citizens, we apply the In Re Mallare rule.xxx xxx xxxThe filing of sworn statement or formal declaration is a requirement for those who still have to elect citizenship. For those already Filipinos when the time to elect came up, there are acts of deliberate choice which cannot be less binding. Entering a profession open only to Filipinos, serving in public office where citizenship is a qualification, voting during election time, running for public office, and other categorical acts of similar nature are themselves formal manifestations for these persons.An election of Philippine citizenship presupposes that

the person electing is an alien. Or his status is doubtful because he is a national of two countries. There is no doubt in this case about Mr. Ong's being a Filipino when he turned twenty-one (21).We repeat that any election of Philippine citizenship on the part of the private respondent would not only have been superfluous but it would also have resulted in an absurdity. How can a Filipino citizen elect Philippine citizenship? 19

The Court, like the OSG, is sympathetic with the plight of Ching. However, even if we consider the special circumstances in the life of Ching like his having lived in the Philippines all his life and his consistent belief that he is a Filipino, controlling statutes and jurisprudence constrain us to disagree with the recommendation of the OSG. Consequently, we hold that Ching failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship. The span of fourteen (14) years that lapsed from the time he reached the age of majority until he finally expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the requirement of electing "upon reaching the age of majority." Moreover, Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his election of Philippine citizenship. The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Ching's unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election cannot be simply glossed over.Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a commodity that can be claimed when needed and suppressed when convenient. 20 One who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has only an inchoate right to such citizenship. As such, he should avail of the right with fervor, enthusiasm and promptitude. Sadly, in this case, Ching slept on his opportunity to elect Philippine citizenship and, as a result. this golden privilege slipped away from his grasp.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolves to DENY Vicente D. Ching's application for admission to the Philippine Bar.

Djumantan vs. Domingo

Facts: 

Bernard Banez, the husband of Marina Cabael, went to Indonesia as a contract worker.

On April 3, 1974, he embraced and was converted to Islam. On May 17, 1974, he married petitioner in accordance with Islamic rites. He returned to the Philippines in January 1979. On January 13, 1979, petitioner and her two children with Banez, arrived in Manila as the "guests" of Banez. The latter made it appear that he was just a friend of the family of petitioner and was merely repaying the hospitability extended to him during his stay in Indonesia. When petitioner and her two children arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport on January 13, 1979, Banez, together with Marina Cabael, met them.As "guests," petitioner and her two children lived in the house of Banez. Petitioner and her children were admitted to the Philippines as temporary visitors under Section 9(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940. 

In 1981, Marina Cabael discovered the true relationship of her husband and petitioner. On March 25, 1982, the immigration status of petitioner was changed from temporary visitor to that of permanent resident under Section 13(a) of the same law. On April 14, 1982, petitioner was issued an alien certificate of registration. 

Not accepting the set-back, Banez' eldest son, Leonardo, filed a letter complaint with the Ombudsman, who subsequently referred the letter to the CID. On the basis of the said letter, petitioner was detained at the CID detention cell. 

The CID issued an order revoking the status of permanent resident given to petitioner, the Board found the 2nd marriage irregular and not in accordance with the laws of the Phils. There was thus no basis for giving her the status of permanent residence, since she was an Indonesian citizen and her marriage with a Filipino Citizen was not valid.

Thus this petition for certiorari

Issue: 

whether or not the courts may review deportation proceedings

Held :

Yes. Section 1 of Article 8 says Judicial Power includes 1) settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable 2) determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

We need not resolve the validity of petitioner's marriage to Banez, if under the law the CID can validly deport petitioner as an "undesirable alien" regardless of her marriage to a Filipino citizen. Generally, the right of the President to expel or deport aliens whose presence is deemed inimical to the public interest is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entry into the country. 

However, under clause 1 of Section 37(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940 an "alien who enters the Philippines after the effective date of this Act by means of false and misleading statements or without inspection and admission by the immigration authorities at a designated port of entry or at any place other than at a designated port of entry" is subject to deportation.

The deportation of an alien under said clause of Section 37(a) has a prescriptive period and "shall not be effected ... unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made within five years after the cause for deportation arises". Tolling the prescriptive period from November 19, 1980, when Leonardo C. Banez informed the CID of the illegal entry of petitioner into the country, more than five years had elapsed before the issuance of the order of her deportation on September 27, 1990.

Mercado vs Manzano [307 SCRA 630]

Facts:

Under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code, those holding dual citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective local position.Petitioner Ernesto S. Mercado and private respondent Eduardo B.

Manzano were candidates for vice mayor of the City of Makati.The proclamation of private respondent was suspended in view of a pending petition for disqualification. The Second Division of the COMELEC issued a resolution, dated May 7, 1998, granting the petition and ordered the cancellation of the COC of private respondent on the ground that he is a dual citizen.Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion remained pending even until after the election held on May 11, 1998.Pursuant to Omnibus Resolution No. 3044, of the COMELEC, the board of canvassers tabulated the votes cast for vice mayor of Makati City but suspended the proclamation of the winner.Subsequently, petitioner sought to intervene in the case for disqualification. Private respondent opposed contending that at the time of the Elections, the resolution of the Second Division adopted on 7 May 1998 was not yet final so that, effectively, petitioner may not be declared the winner even assuming that Manzano is disqualified to run for and hold the elective office of Vice-Mayor of the City of Makati.

Issue:

WON petitioner who intervened prior proclamation will hold the elective office of the Vice-Mayor when respondent is disqualified.

Held:

Yes. Private respondent argues that petitioner has neither legal interest in the matter in litigation nor an interest to protect because he is “a defeated candidate for the vice-mayoralty post of Makati City who cannot be proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of Makati City even if the private respondent be ultimately disqualified by final and executory judgment.”The flaw in this argument is it assumes that, at the time petitioner sought to intervene in the proceedings before the COMELEC, there had already been a proclamation of the results of the election for the vice mayoralty contest for Makati City, on the basis of which petitioner came out only second to private respondent.  The fact, however, is that there had been no proclamation at that time.  Certainly, petitioner had, and still has, an interest in ousting private respondent from the race at the time he sought to intervene.  The rule in Labo v. COMELEC, reiterated in several cases, only applies to cases in which the election of the respondent is contested, and the question is whether one who placed second to the disqualified candidate may be declared the winner.  In the present case, at the time petitioner filed a “Motion for Leave to File Intervention” on May 20, 1998, there had been no proclamation of the

winner, and petitioner’s purpose was precisely to have private respondent disqualified “from running for an elective local position” under par 40(d) of R.A. No. 7160

LABO VS COMELEC176 SCRA 1 – Law on Public Officers – Election Laws – Citizenship of a Public Officer – Dual Citizenship – Labo Doctrine 

FACTS

In 1988, Ramon Labo, Jr. was elected as mayor of Baguio City. His rival, Luis Lardizabal filed a petition for quo warranto against Labo as

Lardizabal asserts that Labo is an Australian citizen hence disqualified; that he was naturalized as an Australian after he married an Australian.  Labo avers that his marriage with an Australian did not make him an Australian; that at best he has dual citizenship, Australian and Filipino; that even if he indeed became an Australian when he married an Australian citizen, such citizenship was lost when his marriage with the Australian was later declared void for being bigamous. Labo further asserts that even if he’s considered as an Australian, his lack of citizenship is just a mere technicality which should not frustrate the will of the electorate of Baguio who voted for him by a vast majority.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Labo can retain his public office.2. Whether or not Lardizabal, who obtained the second highest vote in the mayoralty race, can replace Labo in the event Labo is disqualified.

HELD:

1. No. Labo did not question the authenticity of evidence presented against him. He was naturalized as an Australian in 1976. It was not his marriage to an Australian that made him an Australian. It was his act of subsequently swearing by taking an oath of allegiance to the government of Australia. He did not dispute that he needed an Australian passport to return to the Philippines in 1980; and that he was listed as an immigrant here. It cannot be said also that he is a dual citizen. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. He lost his Filipino citizenship when he swore allegiance to Australia. He cannot also claim that when he lost his Australian citizenship, he became solely a Filipino. To restore his

Filipino citizenship, he must be naturalized or repatriated or be declared as a Filipino through an act of Congress – none of this happened.Labo, being a foreigner, cannot serve public office. His claim that his lack of citizenship should not overcome the will of the electorate is not tenable. The people of Baguio could not have, even unanimously, changed the requirements of the Local Government Code and the Constitution simply by electing a foreigner (curiously, would Baguio have voted for Labo had they known he is Australian). The electorate had no power to permit a foreigner owing his total allegiance to the Queen of Australia, or at least a stateless individual owing no allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, to preside over them as mayor of their city. Only citizens of the Philippines have that privilege over their countrymen.

2. Lardizabal on the other hand cannot assert, through the quo warranto proceeding, that he should be declared the mayor by reason of Labo’s disqualification because Lardizabal obtained the second highest number of vote. It would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if acandidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of which have positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose him. Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who have received the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a fundamental idea in all republican forms of government that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election.