CO V HRET one of whom is respondent Ong, who was born in 1948.
July 30, 1991 | Gutierrez, Jr, J. | Art VI, Sec 6-Citizenship 5.) The family never emigrated from the Philippines. They set up a hardware
PETITIONER: Antonio Y. Co (GR Nos. 92191-92)
RESPONDENTS: HRET and Jose Ong, Jr.
PETITIONER: Sixto Balanquit, Jr. (GR Nos. 92202-03)
RESPONDENTS: HRET and Jose Ong, Jr.
SUMMARY: Among the candidates who vied for the position of representative
in the 2nd legislative district of Northern Samar were Sixto Balanquit, Antonio Co
and Jose Ong, Jr. On May 11, 1987, Ong was proclaimed the duly elected
respresentative of the 2nd district of Northern Samar. Petitioners asked the SC for
the reversal of the HRET’s decision, declaring Jose Ong, Jr as a natural born
Filipino, and a resident of Laoang, Nothern Samar. The issue before the SC is
W/N the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion is making the aforesaid
determination. SC ruled that based on the given facts, Ong is both a natural born
citizen of the Philippines and a resident of the 2nd District of Northern Samar.
SC AFFIRMED the decision of HRET and DENIED the petition of Balanquit and
Co.
DOCTRINE: Ong is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines in contemplation of
Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution in relation to Sections 2 and 1(3),
Article IV
FACTS:
1.) Among the candidates who vied for the position of representative in the 2 nd
legislative district of Northern Samar were Sixto Balanquit, Antonio Co and
Jose Ong, Jr.
2.) On May 11, 1987, Ong was proclaimed the duly elected respresentative of
the 2nd district of Northern Samar.
3.) Petitioners asked the SC for the reversal of the HRET’s decision, declaring
Jose Ong, Jr as a natural born Filipino, and a resident of Laoang, Nothern
Samar.
Historical Facts:
1.) In 1895, respondent’s grandfather, Ong Te, arrived in the Philippines from
China and established his residence in the municipality of Laoang, Samar.
2.) As a resident of Laoang, Ong Te was able to obtain a certificate of residence
from the then Spanish colonial administration.
3.) Jose Ong Chuan, respondent’s father was born in China but brought to Samar
in 1915, where he spent his childhood and established enduring relations with
neighbors.
4.) Jose Ong Chuan married a Filipina, Agripina Lao and bore eight children,
store in Samar and soon after built a branch in Binondo Manila.
6.) In 1954, Ong’s father, unsure of his citizenship filed with the CFI Samar and
application for naturalization. After trial, Jose Ong Chuan was a declared a
naturalized Filipino citizen. He took his Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines.
7.) The Ong family lived in Laoang, Samar. Their house in Samar was ruined by
fire twice, yet they still chose to rebuild a house each time.
8.) Respondent Ong went to Manila to obtained his secondary and tertiary
education in Manila. He passed the CPA Board Examinations and worked as
an examiner in the Central Bank of the Ph.
9.) In 1971, his full brother Emil was elected as a delegate to the 1971
Constitutional Convention. There Emil was declared a natural born Filipino.
10.) 1984, Ong married a Filipina, Desiree Lim.
11.) 1984 and 1986, Jose Ong Jr. registered himself as a voter of Laoang, Samar,
and correspondingly, voted there during those elections.
12.) When the opportunity came in 1987, he ran in the elections for representative
in the second district of Northern Samar.
ISSUE/s:
1. W/N the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this case –YES
2. W/N the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that:
a. Jose Ong Jr. is a natural born Filipino -NO
b. Jose Ong Jr. is a resident of the 2nd District of Northern Samar -NO
RULING: SC affirmed HRET’s decision. SC DENIED petitions.
RATIO:
ISSUE # 1 SC’s Jurisdiction
1.) Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case. 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 (Art VI, Sec 17 PGC). However, judgments of the Tribunal are
beyond judicial interference save only "in the exercise of this Court's so-
called extraordinary jurisdiction, . . . “upon a manifestation of such arbitrary
and improvident use by the Tribunal of its power as constitutes a denial
of due process of law, or upon a demonstration of a sign of GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION.
2.) The SC has expanded jurisdiction to review the decisions of the other
branches and agencies of the government to determine whether or not they
have acted within the bounds of the Constitution (Art VIII, Sec 1, PGC).
Page | 1
ISSUE #2 Respondent Ong’s Citizenship
1.) 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.
2.) 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.
Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers and those born
of Filipino mothers with an alien father were placed on equal footing. They
were both considered as natural-born citizens.
There is no dispute that the respondent's mother was a natural born Filipina
at the time of her marriage. Crucial to this case is the issue of whether or not
the respondent elected or chose to be a Filipino citizen.
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.
Ong’s mother is a natural born Filipino a his father acquired
naturalization when respondent was 9 years old, 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.
The respondent has lived the life of a Filipino since birth. His father applied
for naturalization when the child was still a small boy. He is a Roman
Catholic. He has worked for a sensitive government agency. His profession
requires citizenship for taking the examinations and getting a license. He
has participated in political exercises as a Filipino and has always
considered himself a Filipino citizen. There is nothing in the records to
show that he does not embrace Philippine customs and values, nothing to
indicate any tinge of alien-ness no acts to show that this country is not his
natural homeland. Because of his acts since childhood, they have
considered him as a Filipino.
3.) Petitioners question the citizenship of the father through a collateral
approach. This can not be done. SC: an attack on a person's citizenship may
only be done through a direct action for its nullity
4.) Petitioners: Documents presented were not in compliance with the best
evidence rule. Ong failed to present the original of the documentary
evidence, testimonial evidence and of the transcript of the proceedings of
the body which the aforesaid resolution of the 1971 Constitutional
Convention was predicated.
SC: On the contrary, the documents presented by the private respondent fall
under the exceptions to the best evidence rule.
ISSUE # 3 Respondent Ong’s Citizenship
1.) The term "domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when
absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return.
2.) 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.
3.) Ong sufficiently established that their house was gutted by fire but they built
a house each time.
4.) Petitioners: Ong owns no property in Laoang, Samar, he cannot, therefore, be
a resident of said place
SC: The properties owned by the Ong Family are in the name of the private
respondent's parents. Upon the demise of his parents, necessarily, the private
respondent, pursuant to the laws of succession, became the co-owner thereof
(as a co- heir), notwithstanding the fact that these were still in the names of
his parents.
The Constitution only requires that the candidate meet the age, citizenship,
voting and residence requirements. Nowhere is it required by the Constitution
that the candidate should also own property in order to be qualified to run.
Page | 2
SEPARATE OPINION that he was fully eligible and qualified for the office because he is a natural-
PADILLA, J., DISSENTING born Filipino citizen.
1.) Padilla agrees that the SC has jurisdiction over the case.

2.) However, he believes that respondent tribunal committed grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its
questioned decision and resolution.

3.) The records show that private respondent was born on 19 June 1948 to the
spouses Jose Ong Chuan, a Chinese citizen, and Agrifina E. Lao, a natural-
born Filipino citizen, in Laoang, Northern Samar. In other words, at birth,
private respondent was a Chinese citizen (not a natural-born Filipino
citizen) because his father was then a Chinese citizen (not a naturalized
Filipino citizen)

While under Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law (C.A. 473)

minor children of a naturalized citizen (father), who were born in the
Philippines prior to the naturalization of the parent automatically become
Filipino citizens, this does not alter the fact that private respondent was not
born to a Filipino father. Thus petitioners contend that the naturalization of
private respondent's father was invalid and void from the beginning, and,
therefore, private respondent is not even a Filipino citizen.

4.) A child born of a Filipino mother but an alien father one day before
January 17, 1973 is a Filipino citizen, if he elects Philippine citizenship, but
he is not a natural-born Filipino citizen.

“Since private respondent was born on 19 June 1948 (or before 17 January
1973) to a Filipino mother (with an alien spouse) and should have elected
Philippine citizenship on 19 June 1969 (when he attained the age of
majority), or soon thereafter, in order to have the status of a natural-born
Filipino citizen under the 1987 Constitution, the vital question is: did
private respondent really elect Philippine citizenship? As earlier stated, I
believe that private respondent did not elect Philippine citizenship,
contrary to the ruling of the respondent tribunal.”

5.) The fundamental consideration in cases of this nature is the Constitution

and only the Constitution. It has to be assumed, therefore, that when the
electorate in the second legislative district of Northern Samar cast the
majority of their votes for private respondent, they assumed and believed

Page | 3