martinez

Co vs. Electoral Tribunal

G.R. Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991

Facts:

On May 11, 1987, the congressional election of Northern Samar was held.Among the candidate is herein respondent Jose Ong, Jr. Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district of Northern Samar. Petitioners questioned the citizenship of respondent Ong since Ong’s father was only a naturalized Filipino citizen and questioned Ong’s residence qualificationsince Ong does not own any property in Samar.

ISSUE/s:

1.)    Whether the decision of HRET is appealable;

2.)    Whether respondent is a citizen of the Philippines; and

3.)    WhetherOng is a resident of Samar.

RULING:

1.)    Yes. The Constitution explicitly provides that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) shall be the sole judges of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. In the case at bar, the Court finds no improvident use of power, no denial of due process on the part of the HRET which will necessitate the exercise of the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court.

2.)    Yes. On April 28, 1955, Jose OngChuan, respondent’s father, an immigrant from China was declared a Filipino citizen by the CFI of Samar. At the time Jose OngChuan took his oath, the private respondent then is a minor of nine years, was finishing his elementary education in the province of Samar. Hence, there is no ground to deny the Filipino citizenship of respondent Ong. Respondent Ong was also born of a natural-born Filipino mother, thus the issue of citizenship is immaterial.

3.)    Yes. The framers of the Constitution adhered to the earlier definition given to the word residence which regarded it as having the same meaning as domicile. The domicile of origin of the private respondent, which was the domicile of his parents, is fixed at Laoang, Samar.  Contrary to the petitioners' imputation, Jose Ong, Jr. never abandoned said domicile; it remained fixed therein even up to the present. Hence, the residency of respondent Ong has sufficiently proved.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED.

Cabiling vs. Hernandez

G.R. No. 183133, July 26, 2010

FACTS:

The petitioners herein were born of a naturalized Filipino father and a natural-born Filipino mother. They were all raised, have resided and lived their whole lives in this country. During their age of minority, they secured from the Bureau of Immigration their Alien Certificates of Registration (ACRs).Immediately upon reaching the age of twenty-one, they claimed Philippine citizenship. Having taken their oath of allegiance as Philippine citizens, petitioners, however, failed to have the necessary documents registered in the civil registry as required under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625.

ISSUE:

Whether late registration of the acquired Filipino citizenship in the Civil Registry encumbers persons to become naturalized citizens of the Philippines.

RULING:

No. Petitioners complied with the first and second requirements upon reaching the age of majority.  It was only the registration of the documents of election with the civil registry that was belatedly done. The SC ruled that under the facts peculiar to the petitioners, the right to elect Philippine citizenship has not been lost and they should be allowed to complete the statutory requirements for such election.The actual exercise of Philippine citizenship, for over half a century by the herein petitioners, is actual notice to the Philippine public which is equivalent to formal registration of the election of Philippine citizenship.

WHEREFORE, the Decision Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE.

Republic vs. Sagun

G.R. No. 187567, February 15, 2012

FACTS:

Respondent is the legitimate child of father, aChinese national, and mother, a Filipino citizen.  She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio Cityand did not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.   At the age of 33, she executed an Oath of Allegianceto the Republic of the Philippines. The document was notarized but was not recorded and registered with the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City. In 2005, she applied for a Philippine passport but was denied due to the citizenship of her father and there being no annotation on her birth certificate that she has elected Philippine citizenship.  Consequently, she sought a judicial declaration of her election of Philippine citizenship and prayed that the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City be ordered to annotate the same on her birth certificate.

ISSUE/s:

1.)    Whether respondent’s petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship is authorized by the Rules of Court and jurisprudence; and

2.)    Whether the respondent has effectively elected Philippine citizenship in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

RULING:

1.)    Yes. But it should be stressed that there is no specific statutory or procedural rule which authorizes the direct filing of a petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before the courts. Respondent cannot now be allowed to seek the intervention of the court to confer upon her Philippine citizenship when clearly she has failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship.

2.)    No. Based on the foregoing circumstances, respondent clearly failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a valid and effective election of Philippine citizenship. Respondent cannot assert that the exercise of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitutes a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship since the law specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of citizenship by election.All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippinecitizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry.  Having failed to comply with the foregoing requirements, respondent’s petition before the trial court must be denied.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The Decision of the Regional Trial Court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for judicial declaration of election of Philippine citizenship filed by respondent Nora Fe Sagun is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.


SO ORDERED.