DIGEST/ Banas, Mary Rovytte/ Jose Aznar VS. COMELEC and Emilio Mario Renner Osmena G.R. No. 83820 May 25, 1990

Facts: 

Respondent filed for a certificate of candidacy for election in 1988 but this was questioned by the petitioner that the private respondent is allegedly not a Filipino citizen and filed it in the COMELEC. To support the petitioner's claim, he submitted a Certificate that the respondent is an American, Application for Alien Registration Form No. 1, Alien Certificate Registration, and Immigrants Certificate of Residence of the respondent.

Respondent then alleged that he had maintained being a Filipino, that his ancestors are all Filipinos and he was a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport, continuously residing in the Philippines since birth, he has not gone out of the country for more than six months, and that he has been a registered voter since 1965. 

COMELEC dismisses the case for lack of proof to the allegations. 

Issue: 

WON private respondent is a Filipino citizen, thus, qualified to hold public office? 

Ruling: 

Yes. There are two instances where a petition questioning the qualifications of a registered candidate to run for the office for which his certificate of candidacy was filed can be raised under the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), to wit:

“(1) Before election, pursuant to Section 78 thereof which provides that:

‘Section 78.  Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy.  --- A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under section 74 hereof is false.  The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after the notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

and

"(2) After election, pursuant to Section 253 thereof, viz:

‘Sec. 253.  Petition for quo warranto.  --- Any voter contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial or city officer on the ground of inelligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election."

Of the above instances none of these was complied by the petitioner, the petition for disqualification was filed beyond the twenty-five-day period as required, clearly the said petition was filed cut of time. Also, the petition cannot be treated as a petition for quo warranto under Sec 253 of the same Code as it is unquestionably premature, considering that the private respondent was proclaimed Provincial Governor of Cebu only on March 3, 1988.

Moreover, under C.A. No. 63, this had provided three modes thru which an individual loses his Filipino citizenship:

1. Naturalization in a foreign country;

2. Express renunciation of citizenship; and

3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. 

In this case, the private respondent vehemently denies having taken the oath of allegiance of the United States.  He is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine passport and has continuously participated in the electoral process in this country since 1963 up to the present, both as a voter and as a candidate. While petitioner had failed to present direct proof that the private respondent had lost his Filipino citizenship by the above modes. Therefore, the private respondent remains a Filipino and the loss of his Philippine citizenship cannot be presumed.