You are on page 1of 7

Co v.

Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representative
ANTONIO Y. CO, petitioner, vs. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND JOSE ONG, JR., respondents.
En Banc
Doctrine: citizenship
Date: July 30, 1991
Ponente: Justice Gutierrez Jr.

Facts:
 The petitioners come to this Court asking for the setting aside and reversal of a decision of the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
 The HRET declared that respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born Filipino citizen and a resident
of Laoang, Northern Samar for voting purposes.
 On May 11, 1987, the congressional election for the second district of Northern Samar was held.
 Among the candidates who vied for the position of representative in the second legislative district
of Northern Samar are the petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co and the private respondent, Jose
Ong, Jr.
 Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district of
Northern Samar.
 The petitioners filed election protests against the private respondent premised on the following
grounds:
 1)Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines; and
 2)Jose Ong, Jr. is not a resident of the second district of Northern Samar.
 The HRET in its decision dated November 6, 1989, found for the private respondent.
 A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners on November 12, 1989. This was,
however, denied by the HRET in its resolution dated February 22, 1989.
 Hence, these petitions for certiorari.

Issue:
 WON Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born citizen of the Philippines.

Held: Yes. Petitions are dismissed.

Ratio:
 The records show that in the year 1895, Ong Te (Jose Ong's grandfather), arrived in the
Philippines from China. Ong Te established his residence in the municipality of Laoang, Samar on land
which he bought from the fruits of hard work.
 As a resident of Laoang, Ong Te was able to obtain a certificate of residence from the
then Spanish colonial administration.
 The father of the private respondent, Jose Ong Chuan was born in China in 1905. He
was brought by Ong Te to Samar in the year 1915. Jose Ong Chuan spent his childhood in the province
of Samar.
 As Jose Ong Chuan grew older in the rural and seaside community of Laoang, he
absorbed Filipino cultural values and practices. He was baptized into Christianity. As the years passed,
Jose Ong Chuan met a natural born-Filipino, Agripina Lao. The two fell in love and, thereafter, got
married in 1932 according to Catholic faith and practice.
 The couple bore eight children, one of whom is the Jose Ong who was born in 1948.
 Jose Ong Chuan never emigrated from this country. He decided to put up a hardware
store and shared and survived the vicissitudes of life in Samar.
 The business prospered. Expansion became inevitable. As a result, a branch was set-up
in Binondo, Manila. In the meantime, Jose Ong Chuan, unsure of his legal status and in an unequivocal
affirmation of where he cast his life and family, filed with the Court of First Instance of Samar an
application for naturalization on February 15, 1954.
 On April 28, 1955, the CFI of Samar, after trial, declared Jose Ong Chuan a Filipino
citizen. On May 15, 1957, the Court of First Instance of Samar issued an order declaring the decision of
April 28, 1955 as final and executory and that Jose Ong Chuan may already take his Oath of Allegiance.
 Pursuant to said order, Jose Ong Chuan took his Oath of Allegiance; correspondingly, a
certificate of naturalization was issued to him. During this time, Jose Ong (private respondent) was 9
years old, finishing his elementary education in the province of Samar.
There is nothing in the records to differentiate him from other Filipinos insofar as the customs and
practices of the local populace were concerned.
 After completing his elementary education, the private respondent, in search for better
education, went to Manila in order to acquire his secondary and college education.
 Jose Ong graduated from college, and thereafter took and passed the CPA Board
Examinations. Since employment opportunities were better in Manila, the respondent looked for work
here. He found a job in the Central Bank of the Philippines as an examiner. Later, however, he worked in
the hardware business of his family in Manila.
 In 1971, his elder brother, Emil, was elected as a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional
Convention. His status as a natural born citizen was challenged. Parenthetically, the Convention which in
drafting the Constitution removed the unequal treatment given to derived citizenship on the basis of the
mother's citizenship formally and solemnly declared Emil Ong, respondent's full brother, as a natural born
Filipino. The Constitutional Convention had to be aware of the meaning of natural born citizenship since it
was precisely amending the article on this subject.
 The pertinent portions of the Constitution found in Article IV read:

 SECTION 1, the following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
 SECTION 2, Natural-born Citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

 The Court interprets Section 1, Paragraph 3 above 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. The provision in question 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 Philippine citizenship. If one so elected, he was not, under earlier laws, conferred the status of a
natural-born
 Election becomes material because Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution accords
natural born status to children born of Filipino mothers before January 17, 1973, if they elect citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority.
 To expect the respondent to have formally or in writing elected citizenship when
he came of age is to ask for the unnatural and unnecessary. He was already a citizen. Not only was his
mother a natural born citizen but his father had been naturalized when the respondent was only nine (9)
years old.
 He could not have divined when he came of age that in 1973 and 1987 the
Constitution would be amended to require him to have filed a sworn statement in 1969 electing citizenship
inspite of his already having been a citizen since 1957.
 In 1969, election through a sworn statement would have been an unusual and
unnecessary procedure for one who had been a citizen since he was nine years old
 In Re: Florencio Mallare: 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
 The private respondent did more than merely exercise his right of suffrage. He has
established his life here in the Philippines.
 Petitioners alleged that Jose Ong Chuan was not validly a naturalized citizen because of his
premature taking of the oath of citizenship.
 SC: The Court cannot go into the collateral procedure of stripping respondent’s father of
his citizenship after his death. An attack on a person’s citizenship may only be done through a direct
action for its nullity, therefore, to ask the Court to declare the grant of Philippine citizenship to
respondent’s father as null and void would run against the principle of due process because he has
already been laid to rest

Djumantan vs. Domingo
Post under case digests, Political Law at Tuesday, February 21, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind
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.
CITIZENSHIP
"No person shall be a Member of the House of Representative unless he is a natural-born
citizen."
ANTONIO BENGSON III, petitioner,
vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and TEODORO C. CRUZ,
respondents.
FACTS: Respondent Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in San
Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27, 1960, of Filipino parents. On November 5, 1985, respondent
Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and took an oath of allegiance to the United
States. As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship.
On March 17, 1994, respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through
repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630. He was elected as the Representative of the
Second District of Pangasinan. He won over petitioner Antonio Bengson III, who was then
running for reelection.
Petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET) claiming that respondent Cruz was not qualified to become a
member of the House of Representatives since he is not a natural-born citizen as required
under Article VI, section 6 of the Constitution.
On March 2, 2000, the HRET rendered its decision dismissing the petition for quo warranto
and declaring Cruz the duly elected Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan.
The HRET likewise denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE : Whether or not respondent Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an American
citizen, can still be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship.
RULING: The petition is without merit.
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire the same in the
manner provided by law. Commonwealth Act. No. (C.A. No. 63), enumerates the three
modes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a former citizen: (1) by
naturalization, (2) by repatriation, and (3) by direct act of Congress.
Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those who lost their citizenship due to:
(1) desertion of the armed forces; services in the armed forces of the allied forces in World
War II; (3) service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other time, (4)
marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and (5) political economic necessity.
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized
Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino
citizen. 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.
In respondent Cruz's case, he lost his Filipino citizenship when he rendered service in the
Armed Forces of the United States. However, he subsequently reacquired Philippine
citizenship under R.A. No. 2630.
Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the
same in the Civil Registry respondent Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status
as a natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father. It
bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his original
status before he lost his Philippine citizenship.