Reyes v. Comelec, GR No.

207264, June 25, 2013

Facts:
This is an election case. Respondent Joseph Socorro Tan, a registered voter and resident
of the Municipality of Torrijos, Marinduque, filed before the COMELEC an Amended Petition
to Deny Due Course or to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of petitioner on the ground
that it contained material misrepresentations, specifically when she stated that she is a Filipino
citizen when, in fact, an American citizen.
Petitioner argued that the allegation that she is a permanent resident and/or a citizen of
the United States of America is not supported by evidence.
During the course of the proceedings, respondent filed a "Manifestation with Motion to
Admit Newly Discovered Evidence consisting of:
(1) a copy of an article published on the internet on 8 January 2013 entitled "Seeking and
Finding the Truth about Regina O. Reyes" with an Affidavit of Identification and
Authenticity of Document executed by its author Eliseo J. Obligacion, which provides a
database record of the Bureau of Immigration indicating that petitioner is an American
citizen and a holder of a U.S. passport;
(2) a Certification of Travel Records of petitioner, issued by Simeon Sanchez, Acting
Chief, Verification and Certification Unit of the Bureau of Immigration which indicates
that petitioner used a U.S. Passport in her various travels abroad.
The COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution 12 cancelling petitioner’s COC. It found that
petitioner is not a citizen of the Philippines because she failed (1) to take an oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines; and (2) to make a personal and sworn renunciation of her
American citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. It also found
that she did not have the one-year residency requirement under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.
A motion for reconsideration was filed claiming that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen
and that she has not lost such status by simply obtaining and using an American passport. The
aforementioned twin requirement will not apply to her considering that her marriage to a US
citizen, she became a dual citizen, but still attached an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign
Citizenship sworn to before a Notary Public on 24 September 2012. As to the 1 year residency
requirement, she maintained that as a naturalized citizen, she did not lost her domicile, which is
in Boac, Marinduque.
The MR was denied by the COMELEC en banc. After the lapse of 21 days from said
order, Comelec en banc issued a Certificate of Finality rendering the COC of petitioner
cancelled. At the same time, petitioner took her oath of office but is yet to assume office.
Thereafter, petitioner filed this present petition for certiorari (with Prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order), raising the following issues:
Issue: 1. Whether or not the COMELEC validly assumed jurisdiction over this case?
2. Whether or not Comelec erred in taking cognizance of the newly discovered
evidence submitted by private respondent Tan?
3. Whether or not Comelec erred in declaring that petitioner is not a Filipino citizen and
did not meet the residency requirement under the Constitution?
Held:
1. Yes, Comelec validly assumed jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the COMELEC's
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends when
the winning satisfy the following requirements:  (1) a valid proclamation, (2) a proper oath, and
(3) assumption of office. Here, petitioner failed to satisfy all the requirements primarily because
she has yet assumed office when the assailed decision was promulgated on June 5, 2013.
Secondly, she was also not able to comply with the second requirement since the Oath of Office
she took on the same date was not the oath of office contemplated under the Internal Rules of the
House of Representatives, that it should be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and (2) in open session. 
2. No, Comelec did not err in admitting the new-discovered evidence submitted by
respondent tan. The Court ruled that the COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the
technical rules of procedure in the presentation of evidence. Under Section 2 of Rule I, the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure "shall be liberally construed in order x xx to achieve just,
expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding
brought before the Commission." In view of the fact that the proceedings in a petition to
deny due course or to cancel certificate of candidacy are summary in nature, then the
"newly discovered evidence" was properly admitted by respondent COMELEC.
3. Yes, Comelec is correct in declaring petitioner a non-Filipino Citizen. The Court ruled
that petitioner’s failure to remove the doubt of her citizenship, after respondent Tan was able to
present substantive proof owing to the newly-discovered evidence, is detrimental to her cause.
Here, Aside from the bare allegation that she is a natural-born citizen, however, petitioner
submitted no proof to support such contention. Neither did she submit any proof as to the
inapplicability of R.A. No. 9225 to her.
***Notably, in her Motion for Reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc,
petitioner admitted that she is a holder of a US passport, but she averred that she is only a dual
Filipino-American citizen, thus the requirements of R.A. No. 9225 do not apply to her. 33 Still,
attached to the said motion is an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship dated 24
September 2012.34 Petitioner explains that she attached said Affidavit "if only to show her desire
and zeal to serve the people and to comply with rules, even as a superfluity." 35 We cannot,
however, subscribe to petitioner’s explanation. If petitioner executed said Affidavit "if only to
comply with the rules," then it is an admission that R.A. No. 9225 applies to her. Petitioner
cannot claim that she executed it to address the observations by the COMELEC as the assailed
Resolutions were promulgated only in 2013, while the Affidavit was executed in September
2012.
***Moreover, in the present petition, petitioner added a footnote to her oath of office as
Provincial Administrator, to this effect: "This does not mean that Petitioner did not, prior to her
taking her oath of office as Provincial Administrator, take her oath of allegiance for purposes of
reacquisition of natural-born Filipino status, which she reserves to present in the proper
proceeding.

As to the issue of residency, proceeding from the finding that petitioner has lost her
natural-born status, the court quoted with approval the ruling of the COMELEC First Division
that petitioner cannot be considered a resident of Marinduque:

"Thus, a Filipino citizen who becomes naturalized elsewhere effectively abandons his domicile
of origin. Upon re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225, he must still show
that he chose to establish his domicile in the Philippines through positive acts, and the period of
his residency shall be counted from the time he made it his domicile of choice.

In this case, there is no showing whatsoever that petitioner had already re-acquired her Filipino
citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 so as to conclude that she has regained her domicile in the
Philippines. There being no proof that petitioner had renounced her American citizenship, it
follows that she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA.

The only proof presented by petitioner to show that she has met the one-year residency
requirement of the law and never abandoned her domicile of origin in Boac, Marinduque is her
claim that she served as Provincial Administrator of the province from January 18, 2011 to July
13, 2011. But such fact alone is not sufficient to prove her one-year residency. For, petitioner has
never regained her domicile in Marinduque as she remains to be an American citizen. No amount
of her stay in the said locality can substitute the fact that she has not abandoned her domicile of
choice in the USA."