REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v COMELEC and
JOSEPH SOCORRO B. TAN
G.R. No. 207264 || June 25, 2013 || PEREZ, J.
Case: Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for TRO
and/or Prelim. Injunction filed by petitioner Reyes,
assailing the Resolutions issued by respondent
COMELEC. The assailed Resolutions ordered the
cancellation of the CoC of petitioner for the position of
Representative of the lone district of Marinduque.
FACTS: On 31 October 2012, respondent Joseph
Socorro Tan, a registered voter and resident of the
Municipality of Torrijos, Marinduque, filed before the
COMELEC a Petition to Cancel the Certificate of
Candidacy (COC) of petitioner on the ground that it
contained material misrepresentations, specifically:
(1) that she is single when she is married to
Congressman Herminaldo I. Mandanas of
Batangas; (2) that she is a resident of Brgy. Lupac,
Boac, Marinduque when she is a resident of Bauan,
Batangas which is the residence of her husband, and
at the same time, when she is also a resident of 135
J.P. Rizal, Brgy. Milagrosa, Quezon City as admitted
in the Directory of Congressional Spouses of the
House of Representatives; (3) that her date of birth is
3 July 1964 when other documents show that her
birthdate is either 8 July 1959 or 3 July 1960; (4) that
she is not a permanent resident of another country
when she is a permanent resident or an immigrant of
the United States of America; and (5) that she is a
Filipino citizen when she is, in fact, an American
citizen.
Answer of Petitioner: While she is publicly known to
be the wife of Congressman Mandanas, there is no
valid and binding marriage between them. According
to petitioner, although her marriage with
Congressman Mandanas was solemnized in a
religious rite, it did not comply with certain formal
requirements prescribed by the Family Code,
rendering it void ab initio. Petitioner argues that as
she is not duty-bound to live with Congressman
Mandanas, then his residence cannot be attributed to
her. As to her date of birth, the Certificate of Live Birth
issued by the National Statistics Office shows that it
was on 3 July 1964. Lastly, petitioner notes that the
allegation that she is a permanent resident and/or a
citizen of the United States of America is not
supported by evidence.
COMELEC 1st Division: CoC of respondent REGINA
ONGSIAKO REYES is hereby CANCELLED.
The COMELEC First Division found that, contrary to
the declarations that she made in her COC, petitioner
is not a citizen of the Philippines because of her
failure to comply with the requirements of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and
Re-acquisition Act of 2003, namely: (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. In addition, the
COMELEC First Division ruled that she did not have
the one year residency requirement under Section 6,
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, she is
ineligible to run for the position of Representative for
the lone district of Marinduque.
Petitioner was proclaimed winner of the 13 May 2013
Elections.
COMELEC En Banc issued a Certificate of
Finality declaring the 14 May 2013 Resolution of the
COMELEC En Banc final and executory, considering
that more than twenty-one (21) days have elapsed
from the date of promulgation with no order issued by
this Court restraining its execution.
On same day, petitioner took her oath of office before
Feliciano R. Belmonte Jr., Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
Petitioner has yet to assume office, the term of which
officially starts at noon of 30 June 2013.
ISSUES:
1) W/N Comelec is without jurisdiction over
Petitioner who is a duly proclaimed winner
and who has already taken her oath of office
for the position of Member of the House of
Representatives for the lone congressional
district of Marinduque.
2) W/N Comelec committed GADALEJ when
it declared that Petitioner is not a Filipino
citizen and did not meet the residency
requirement for the position of Member of
the House of Representatives.
RULING: The petition must fail.
COMELEC retains jurisdiction for the following
reasons:
I. JURISDICTION OF COMELEC
First, the HRET does not acquire jurisdiction over the
issue of petitioner’s qualifications, as well as over the
assailed COMELEC Resolutions, unless a petition is
duly filed with said tribunal. Petitioner has not averred
that she has filed such action.
Second, the jurisdiction of the HRET begins only after
the candidate is considered a Member of the House
of Representatives.
When is a candidate considered a Member of the
House of Representatives?
In Vinzons-Chato v. COMELEC, citing Aggabao v.
COMELEC and Guerrero v. COMELEC, the Court
ruled that:
The Court has invariably held that once a winning
candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and
assumed office as a Member of the House of
Representatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over
election contests relating to his election, returns, and
qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction
begins.
From the foregoing, it is then clear that to be
considered a Member of the House of
Representatives, there must be a concurrence of the
following requisites: (1) a valid proclamation, (2) a
proper oath, and (3) assumption of office.
Here, the petitioner cannot be considered a Member
of the House of Representatives because, primarily,
she has not yet assumed office. To repeat what has
earlier been said, the term of office of a Member of
the House of Representatives begins only "at noon on
the thirtieth day of June next following their
election." Thus, until such time, the COMELEC retains
jurisdiction.
In her attempt to comply with the second requirement,
petitioner attached a purported Oath of Office taken
before Hon. Belmonte Jr. However, this is not the
oath of office which confers membership to the House
of Representatives.
Section 6, Rule II (Membership) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives provides: Section 6. Oath
or Affirmation of Members – Members shall take their
oath or affirmation either collectively or individually
before the Speaker in open session.
Consequently, before there is a valid or official taking
of the oath it must be made (1) before the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, and (2) in open
session. Here, although she made the oath before
Speaker Belmonte, there is no indication that it was
made during plenary or in open session and, thus, it
remains unclear whether the required oath of office
was indeed complied with.
II. CITIZENSHIP
In moving for the cancellation of petitioner’s COC,
respondent submitted records of the Bureau of
Immigration showing that petitioner is a holder of a
US passport, and that her status is that of a
"balikbayan." At this point, the burden of proof shifted
to petitioner, imposing upon her the duty to prove that
she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and has not lost
the same. 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.
To cover-up her apparent lack of an oath of allegiance
as required by R.A. No. 9225, petitioner contends
that, since she took her oath of allegiance in
connection with her appointment as Provincial
Administrator of Marinduque, she is deemed to have
reacquired her status as a natural-born Filipino
citizen.
This contention is misplaced. For one, this issue is
being presented for the first time before this Court, as
it was never raised before the COMELEC. For
another, said oath of allegiance cannot be considered
compliance with Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9225 as certain
requirements have to be met as prescribed by the
Rules Governing Philippine Citizenship under R.A.
No. 9225. Thus, petitioner’s oath of office as
Provincial Administrator cannot be considered as the
oath of allegiance in compliance with R.A. No. 9225.
As to the issue of residency, proceeding from the
finding that petitioner has lost her natural-born status,
we quote 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.1âwphi1
Petition is DISMISSED.