DIGEST/ ALBERTINE DIN/ Tecson & Desiderio v COMELEC, 2004

Tecson & Desiderio v COMELEC

GR. 161434, March 3, 2004, J. Vitug

 

Facts:

            In 2003, Ronald Allan Kelly Poe (a.k.a. FBJ) filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of President. FPJ was born on August 20, 1939. Petitioners question his nationality on the following grounds:

-       FPJ’s parents were foreigners:

o   Besie Kelley was an American

o   Allan Poe was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish national.

-       Arguendo Allan was a Filipino, he could not transmit this citizenship because FPJ was allegedly an illegitimate child of an alien mother, since Allan allegedly had a prior marriage to Paulita Gomez

Respondent presented a certification by the Officer-in-charge of the archives division of the national archives that no available info could be found about the marriage of Allan and Paulita.

 

Issue: W/N FPJ is a natural-born Filipino.

 

Held: FPJ is a natural-born Filipino. 

 

           FPJ was born on 20 August 1939 during the regime of the 1935 Constitution. The 1935 Constitution adopted jus sanguinis (blood relationship) as basis of Filipino citizenship, that is, “those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines” are considered Filipinos. As such, whether FPJ is a natural-born citizen depended on whether or not his father, Allan was a Filipino.

            FPJ’s father is Allan, and his paternal grandfather is Lorenzo Pou. 

Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old, Lorenzo would have been born sometime in the year 1870, when the Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the "en masse Filipinization" that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The 1935 Constitution, during which regime respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.

 

 

Doctrine:

 

-       Citizenship is a treasured right conferred on those whom the state believes are deserving of the privilege. It is a "precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition," that cannot be taken lightly by anyone - either by those who enjoy it or by those who dispute it.

-       Four modes of acquiring citizenship: naturalization, jus soli, jus sanguinis and res judicata

-       Two modes of acquiring citizenship which could qualify as “natural-born citizen”: jus soli and jus sanguinis. But jus soli did not last long, thus, jus sanguinis is the primary basis of citizenship by birth

-       "natural-born citizens": includes "those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship."

-       Jurisdiction of the SC to review decisions of the COMELEC on disqualification cases:

o   Rule 642 in an action for certiorari under Rule 653 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. 

o   Section 7, Article IX, of the 1987 Constitution:

§  “…any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof."

o   Section 1, Article VIII, of the 1987 Constitution:

§   judicial power is vested to the SC

·      includes the duty of the courts…to 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.

o   Par. 7, Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution:

§  SC, en banc, “shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose."

HISTORY

-       Concept of citizenship

o   Civil citizenship (18^th c.)

o   Political citizenship (19^th c.)

o   Social citizenship 

-       No “Philippine citizens” during the Spanish regime. Only “Spanish subjects”

-       Royal Decrees that applied to Spaniards in the PH:

o   Order de la Regencia (08.14.1841)

o   RD of 08.23.1868 (re political status of children born in PH islands)

o   Ley Extranjera de Ultramar (07.04.1870)

-       1889 Civil Code of Spain: enumerated the Spanish citizens

o   Persons born in Spanish territory

o   Children of Spanish father OR mother born outside Spain

o   Foreigners who naturalized

o   Event without naturalization papers become domiciled inhabitants of any town of the Monarchy

-       1898 Treaty of Paris:

o   Political status of native inhabitants to be determined by US Congress

o   Upon the ratification of the treaty, and pending legislation, the native inhabitants of the Philippines ceased to be Spanish subjects. Although they did not become American citizens, they, however, also ceased to be "aliens" under American laws and were thus issued passports describing them to be citizens of the Philippines entitled to the protection of the United States.

-       Philippine Bill of 1902 (a.k.a. Philippine Organic Act): first use of the term “citizens of the Philippine Islands”

o   one who was an inhabitant of the Philippines, and a Spanish subject on the 11th day of April 1899. 

o   The term "inhabitant" was taken to include 

§  1) a native-born inhabitant

§  2) an inhabitant who was a native of Peninsular Spain, and 

§  3) an inhabitant who obtained Spanish papers on or before April 11, 1899

o   For children born between April 1899 and July 1902 (passage of the PH Bill), the principle of jus soli (territoriality) applied

-       1916 PH Autonomy Act (or Jones Law)

o   a native-born inhabitant of the Philippines was deemed to be a citizen of the Philippines as of 11 April 1899 if he was 1) a subject of Spain on 11 April 1899, 2) residing in the Philippines on said date, and, 3) since that date, not a citizen of some other country.

-       1935 Constitution:      

o   Adopted jus sanguinis (blood relationship) as basis of Filipino citizenship

o   “Those whose fathers are citizens of the PH”

-       Law at that time: 

o   women were incapacitated from transmitting their Filipino citizenship to their legitimate children 

o   illegitimate children of Filipino mothers were required to still elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

-       1973 Constitution:

o   PH citizens include “those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the PH

DIGEST/ ALBERTINE DIN Caballero v COMELEC & Nanud/ 2015

 

Caballero v COMELEC & Nanud

G.R. No. 209835, September 22, 2015

 

Facts:

            Caballero and Nanud were mayoral candidates in the 2013 elections. Nanud filed for cancellation of Caballero’s certificate of candidacy alleging that Caballero is a Canadian citizen and a nonresident of Batanes.

            On May 3, the COMELEC cancelled Caballero’s COC, but on May 13, Caballero won the 2013 elections. On December 12, COMELEC issued a writ of execution and Nanud took oath of office.

            Caballero argued that prior to the filing of his COC in October 2012, he took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the Philippine Consul General in Canada on September 13, 2012 and became a dual Filipino and Canadian citizen pursuant to RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003).

            Thereafter, he renounced his Canadian citizenship and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation before a Notary Public in Batanes on October 1, 2012 to conform with Section 5(2) of RA 9225. 

            Caballero also argued that he did not lose his domicile of origin in Batanes as he merely left Uyugan temporarily to pursue a brighter future for him and his family; and that he went back to Uyugan during his vacation while working abroad. 

 

Issue: W/N Caballero was a resident of Uyugan at least one year before the elections. 

 

Held: Caballero failed to comply with the one-year residency requirement as provided in Section 39 of RA 7160 or LGC.

            

            RA 9255 treats citizenship independently of residence. It declares that natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country, can re-acquire or retain his Philippine citizenship under the conditions

            RA 9225 does not provide for residency requirement for the reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the concerned natural-born Filipino. 

            Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, both Philippine and foreign citizenships, he may establish residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign country of which he is also a citizen.

            However, when a natural-born Filipino with dual citizenship seeks for an elective public office, residency in the Philippines becomes material. 

            Caballero’s naturalization in a foreign country may resulted in an abandonment of domicile in the Philippines as permanent resident status in Canada is required for the acquisition of Canadian citizenship.  Moreover, Caballero’s reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 had no automatic impact or effect on his residence/domicile.

 

Doctrine:

            “Residence” required in LGC refers to “domicile” or legal residence, that is, the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi).

A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the place where the child's parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of a new domicile (domicile of choice). It consists not only in the intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.