Co v. Electoral Tribunal
| G.R. No. 92191-92, 92202-03 | July 30, 1991 | Ponente: Gutierrez, Jr.
| Article 5 – Section 1 |
Petitioners: ANTONIO Y. CO,
SIXTO T. BALANQUIT, JR
Respondents: ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES and JOSE ONG, JR.,
Recit Ready Summary:
Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the 2nd district of Northern Samar.
Petitioners then filed an election protest against him alleging that he was not a natural-born citizen of the PH.
HRET ruled in favor of Ong, hence, these petitions for certiorari. Issue before the Court is W/N, HRET
committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Ong as natural born citizen of the PH.
SC held that HRET did not commit GAD. Under the Naturalization Law, respondent Ong became a Filipino
citizen through his father, Jose Ong Chuan, who was naturalized when the former was only 9 years old.
Moreover, respondent in this case, traces his natural born citizenship through his mother, and not through his
father. Since there is no dispute that his mom is a natural born Filipina, the only question to be resolved is if
he elected or chose to be a Filipino citizen in accordance with Sec. 1, Par. 3 of Art. 4 of the Constitution.
SC
ruled however, that there is no need for respondent to elect Philippine citizenship as he was already a Filipino
since 1957. To expect him to have formally or in writing elect his citizenship when he came of age is to ask
for the unnatural and unnecessary.
FACTS: Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district of Northern
Samar.
- Petitioners filed election protests against the private respondent on the grounds of:
- Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines
- He is not a resident of the 2nd district of Northern Samar
- HRET ruled in favor of private respondent and declared him as a natural born Filipino citizen and a
resident of Laoang, Northern Samar for voting purposes.
- Hence, this petitions for certiorari.
ISSUES: Whether or not HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring respondent as natural born
citizen of the Philippines?
NO
HELD:
1. Under the Naturalization Law, respondent Ong, became a Filipino citizen through his father.
- Respondent Ong’s father, Jose Ong Chuan is a naturalized citizen.
- His father filed an application with the CFI of Samar for naturalization, took his Oath of
Allegiance and a certificate of naturalization was issued to him.
- HRET said the Naturalization Act applies its benefit to respondent Ong for he was then a minor
residing in the PH. Concededly, it was the law itself that had already elected Philippine
citizenship to protestee by declaring him as such.
Ø Petitioners argue that respondent’s father was not validly naturalized because of his premature
taking of the oath of citizenship.
- SC held that petitioners cannot question citizenship of the father through a collateral approach.
Ø Moreover, respondent traces his natural born citizenship through his mother, not through
the citizenship of his father.
Ø Citizenship of father is relevant only to determine w/n respondent chose to be a Filipino when he
came of age.
2. Respondent Ong did not have to elect Philippine citizenship when he came of age.
- SC interprets Sec. 1 Par. 3 of Art. IV of the Constitution, as applying not only to those who elect
Philippine citizenship after February 2, 1987 but also to those who, having been born of
Filipino mothers, elected citizenship before that date.
- Said provision can be applied retroactively. ConCom deliberations show that it was enacted to
correct the anomalous situation where one born of a Filipino father and an alien mother was
automatically granted the status of a natural-born citizen, while one born of a Filipino mother and
an alien father would still have to elect PH citizenship.
- Under 1973 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers and those born of Filipino mothers with
an alien father were placed on equal footing. Bother considered as natural-born citizens.
- Respondent’s mother was a natural born Filipina.
- Sec. 2 of Art. 4 accords natural-born status to children born of Filipino mothers before January
17, 1973, if they elect citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
- No need to elect PH citizenship when he came of age as he was already a Filipino citizen. It
would be unnatural and unnecessary for him to do so. Not only was his mother a natural
born citizen but his father had been naturalized when the respondent was only 9 yrs old. He
was already a Filipino citizen since 1957.
3. Jurisprudence defines “election” as both a formal and an informal process.
- In Re: Florencio Mallare, 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 case at bar, respondent did more than merely exercise his right of suffrage. He has established
his life in the PH.
- Filing of sworn statement or formal declaration is a requirement for those who still have to elect
citizenship. Entering a profession open only to Filipinos, serving in public office where citizenship is
a qualification, and other acts of similar nature are themselves formal manifestations of choice of
these persons.
4. Even if SC’s opinion is different from that of the Constitutional Convention, the Batasang Pambansa, and
the respondent HRET, such a difference could only be characterized as error. No basis to call the HRET
decision so arbitrary and whimsical as to amount to grave abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED. The questioned decision of the house of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal is AFFIRMED. Respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is declared a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines and a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar.
SEPARATE OPINIONS: Padilla, J., dissenting
Following the basic definition in the 1987 Constitution of a natural-born citizen, in relation to the 1935
Constitution, private respondent is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, having been born a Chinese citizen by
virtue of the Chinese citizenship of his father at the time of his birth, although from birth, private respondent
had the right to elect Philippine citizenship, the citizenship of his mother, but only upon his reaching the age
of majority.
Comments
Post a Comment