Reyes v. Comelec
Reyes v. Comelec
TAN
G.R. No. 207264 - October 22, 2013 - Perez, J.
FACTS:
1. 31 October 2012 – respondent Tan filed an Amended Petition to Deny Due Course or to
Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of petitioner Reyes on grounds that it contained
material representation, specifically:
● 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;
● 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;
● 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
● that she is a Filipino citizen when she is, in fact, an American citizen.
● Her NSO Certificate of Live Birth shows that her birth date as 3 July 1964.
● Petitioner notes that the allegation that she is a permanent residence/citizen of the
USA is unsupported by evidence.
4. 27 March 2013 – COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution cancelling Reyes’ COC upon
her failure to comply with RA No. 9225’s (“Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of
2003”) requirements (oath of allegiance and sworn renunciation of her American
citizenship) and with the one-year residency requirement under Sec. 6, Art VI of the 1987
Constitution.
5. 8 April 2013 – Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration claiming that she’s a natural-
born Filipino citizen and that she hasn’t lost such status by obtaining and using an American
passport; neither did she become a naturalized American citizen upon her marriage to an
American citizen. Petitioner averred that such a marriage only resulted in a dual citizenship,
thus there was no need for her to fulfill RA 9225’s requirements. (although she had attached
a an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship sworn to before a Notary Public on 24
September 2012.)
8. 18 may 2013 – Petitioner was proclaimed winner of the 13 May 2013 elections.
9. 5 June 2013 – COMELEC En Banc issued a Ceritifcate of Finality declaring the 14 May 2013
Resolution final and executor, since 14 days had elapsed from the date of promulgation with
no order issued by the Supreme Court restraining its execution.
Petitioner took her oath of office before House Speaker Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr, set to
assume office at 30 June 2013.
ISSUE(s):
HOLDING:
1. YES. COMELEC retains jurisdiction over the case bc of the following reasons:
a. HRET doesn’t acquire jurisdiction over the issue of petitioner’ qualifications/ assailed
COMELEC Resolutions bc petitioner wasn’t able to file, well, a petition with said tribunal.
b. HRET’s jurisdiction only begins after the candidate is considered a Member of the House
of Representatives. The SC cites Sec 17, Art VI of the 1987 Constitution as well as the ruling
in the case of Marcos vs. COMELEC.
2. NO. The COMELEC still retains jurisdiction over a candidate bc citing past jurisdiction
(Vinzons-Chato vs. COMELEC; Limkaichong vs. COMELEC), the HRET only assumes
jurisdiction over winning candidates that have had:
Since petitioner’s term only starts at 30 June 2013, only then does the HRET assume
jurisdiction over her case. The oath she took before Speaker Belmonte doesn’t count since
it’s not the oath of office that confers membership to the House of Representatives.
According to Section 6, Rule II of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 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. Although petitioner 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.
COMELEC issued its Resolution denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration regarding
the cancellation of her COC on May 14, 2013 – four days before she was proclaimed the
winning candidate. Also, Section 3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides
that any decisions regarding the disqualification of candidates/ cancellation of COCs/
suspension of elections shall become final and executory after five days from their
promulgation, unless restrained by the SC. Petitioner should have filed a petition with the SC
on or before 10 June 2013, but since she didn’t, respondent COMELEC rightly issued a
Certificate of Finality.
3. NO, COMELEC did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in finding her ineligible for
Membership of the House of Representatives in regards to her citizenship/residency.
Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it took cognizance
of “newly-discovered evidence” (Eli Obligacion’s blog article; the Certification from the
Bureau of Immigration) without the same having been testified on and offered and
admitted in evidence. She likewise contends that there was a violation of her right to due
process of law because she was not given the opportunity to question and present
controverting evidence.
Her contentions are incorrect because COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the
technical rules of procedure in the presentation of evidence. (Se 2, Rule 1, COMELEC Rules
of Procedure) 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.
There was also no denial of due process since she was given every opportunity to argue her
case before the COMELEC. Petitoner did not avail herself of the five-month period between
Tan’s filing of his petition and the COMELEC First Division’s Resolution. Also in
administrative proceedings, as held in Sahali vs. COMELEC, procedural due process only
requires that the party be given the opportunity or right to be heard.
As to the issues regarding Petitioner’s citizenship, there is no showing that she complied
with RA 9225’s requirements (oath and sworn renunciation), therefore COMELEC had the
right to cancel her COC. She claimed RA 9225 doesn’t apply to her since she’s only a dual
citizen, but the Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship she submitted cannot be
used to address the COMELEC’s observations since she submitted it on September 2012,
before Tan filed his petition.
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 holds no water since she didn’t comply with
the requirements prescribed by memoranda pertaining to Sec 3 of RA No. 9225.
Petitioner also failed to establish her residency in Marinduque since she failed to establish
re-acquisition of her Filipino citizenship/ unable to establish her domicile of choice through
positive acts (her serving as Provincial Administrator from January to July 2013 doesn’t
count).
4. NO. Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion by imposing additional
requirements for Membership to the House of Representatives since it merely applied the
requirements enumerated in Sec. 6, Art IV of the Constitution.
Ruling: Petition DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DISMISSED,
finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections. The 14 May
2013 Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc affirming the 27 March 2013 Resolution of the
COMELEC First Division is upheld.
DISSENT:
Briones:
Through these, Tan miserably failed to submit relevant evidence showing that Reyes had
been a naturalized American citizen. COMELEC violated Reyes’ rights.