University of the Philippines College of Law

PubOff - H

Case Name Ramon LABO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and Roberto Ortega

Topic Eligibility and Qualifications

Case No. | Date G.R. No. 105111| July 3, 1992 and G.R. No. 105384 | July 3, 1992

Ponente Bidin, J

Case Summary

Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. In

RELEVANT FACTS
 Labo and Ortega were candidates for mayor in Baguio City in the 1992 elections.
o Ortega filed a disqualification proceeding against Labo in COMELEC.
o Ortega alleges that Labo made material misrepresentation when he stated that he was a natural-born Filipino
citizen. (Labo took an oath of allegiance to Australia. This oathtaking was based on his marriage to an Australian
citizen. However, the marriage and bigamous and void because the wife already had an existing valid marriage.)
 Summons for a disqualification case was issued by COMELEC. A telegram dated April 1 was sent requiring Labo to file
his answer within 3 non-extendible days. Labo did not respond.
o COMELEC issued another order directing the Election Registrar of Baguio City to deliver the summons.
 On May 4, 1992 the disqualification case was set for reception of evidence.
o Ortega presented the decision in Labo v. COMELEC declaring Labo not a Philippine citizen.
o Labo did not present any evidence but submitted his Answer claiming Filipino citizenship a day later.
 On May 9, 1992, COMELEC issued a resolution denying Labo’s COC and cancelling it. COMELEC then directed the
City Election Registrar to delete Labo’s name from the list of candidates.
o However, as per COMELEC’s Rules of Procedure, the decision was to become final and executory only five days
later, or after the May 11 elections.
o The COMELEC stated that Labo could still be voted upon in the elections.
 Labo filed a motion to stay implementation of said resolution until after he shall have raised the matter before the SC.
 On May 11, 1992 Labo received a higher number of votes (27,471 to 12,602)
o On May 13 COMELEC resolved to suspend the proclamation of Labo in the event that he wins in the elections.
 On May 15, Labo filed an instant petition for review.
o Ortega also filed an urgent motion for the implantation of COMELEC’s May 9 Resolution. COMELEC denied
this in view of the pending case before the SC.
o Ortega then filed a petition for mandamus, praying for the implantation of the May 9 Resolution.
 Labo’s arguments:
1. He was denied due process. There was a lack of trial on the merits and there was a lack of opportunity to be heard in
Labo v. COMELEC. He faults the Comelec for holding an abbreviated proceedings.
o Labo argues that he can proved his citizenship. (He filed before the SolGen an application to reacquire citizenship)
2. His disqualification was not yet final. He sttes that Sec.72 of the Omnibus Election Code “operates as a legislatively
mandated special repatriation proceeding” and that it allows his proclamation as the winning candidate since the
resolution disqualifying him was not yet final at the election was held.
o Sec.72. Effects of disqualification cases and priority. The Commission and the courts shall give priority to cases
of disqualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later
than seven days before the election in which the disqualification is sought.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
PubOff - H

3. He has reaquired Filipino citizenship. by citing his application for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship filed before
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) pursuant to PD 725 and Letter of Instruction No. 270.
o PD 725 authorizes the Special Committee on Naturalization (created under LOI 270) to accept and process
petitions for repatriation, as follows: “(1) Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to
aliens; and (2) natural born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship may reacquire Philippine
citizenship through repatriation by applying with the Special Committee on Naturalization created by Letter of
Instruction No. 270, and, if their applications are approved, taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines, after which they shall be deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship. The Commission
on Immigration shall thereupon cancel certificate of registration.
4. Labo cited Vance. Terrazas, a SCOTUS case wherein it was held that in proving expatriation, an expatriating act and
an intent to relinquish citizenship must be proved by a preponderance of evidence. No finding was made either by the
Commission on Immigration or the COMELEC as regards his specific intent to renounce his Philippine citizenship.
 Ortega’s arguments:
1. The SC did not issue a temporary restraining order as regards to the May 9, 1992 resolution of Comelec cancelling
Labo’s certificate of candidacy, so the resolution has already become final and executory.
2. As a result of such finality, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes should be declared Mayor.
 Court: To date, despite favorable recommendation by the SolGen, the Special Committee on Naturalization had yet acted
upon said application for repatriation. Indeed, such fact is even admitted petitioner. In the absence of any official action
or approval by the proper authorities, a mere application for repratriation, does not, and cannot, amount to an automatic
reacquisition of the applicant's Philippine citizenship.

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio

Whether or not Labo was NO. Records disclose that summons were issued by COMELEC as early as March 27, 1992 followed
denied due process. by a telegram on April 1, 1992. But petitioner chose to ignore the same. Over-extending Labo the
benefit of due process, COMELEC issued another order dated April 24, 1992, this time directing the
Acting City Election Registrar of Baguio to personally serve the summons. The alleged delay in the
resolution of SPA No. 92-029 can only be attributed to petitioner Labo and no one else.
 Up to this moment, Labo still failed to submit a scintilla of proof to shore his claim before
this Court that he has indeed reacquired his Philippine citizenship. On this score alone, We
find no grave abuse of discretion committed by COMELEC in cancelling his CoC pursuant
to the 1989 ruling.
 If only to refresh the mind of Labo, as well as that of his counsel, records disclose (SEE
Facts for dates) that summons were issued by COMELEC, followed by a telegram, which
Labo chose to ignore. Ortega filed a motion to declare him in default, yet, over-extending
Labo the benefit of due process, COMELEC issued another order directing the Acting City
Election Registrar of Baguio to personally serve the summons. The alleged delay in the
resolution of the proceeding can only be attributed to Labo and no one else

Whether or not Sec. 72 of NO. This has been repealed by RA 6646 Sec. 6.
the Omnibus Election  Sec.6. Effect of Disqualification Case.— Any candidate who has been declared by final
Code allows Labo to be judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be
proclaimed. counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election
to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such
election, the Court or the Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action,
inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the
pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of his guilt is strong.”
 A perusal of the above provision would readily disclose that the Comelec can legally
suspend the proclamation of petitioner Labo, his reception of the winning number of votes
 University of the Philippines College of Law
PubOff - H

notwithstanding, especially so where, as in this case Labo failed to present any evidence
before the Comelec to support his claim of reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.

Whether or not Labo is NO. Labo is not a Filipino. To reiterate, Labo has not adduced a scintilla of proof of his reaquisition
qualified to run for mayor of Filipino citizenship.
of Baguio City.  Labo has already pleaded Vance in his MR for 1989 Labo v. COMELEC. Having been
previously passed upon, the Court sees no pressing need to re-examine the same. There is
Whether or not Labo is a thus no GAOD committed by COMELEC in cancelling his certificate of candidacy and
Filipino citizen. declaring that he is not a Filipino citizen.
 Reiterating ruling in 1989 Labo v. COMELEC - Under CA No. 63, as amended by P.D. No.
725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a direct act of Congress, by naturalization,
or by repatriation. It does not appear in the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that he has
reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of these methods. He does not point to any judicial
decree of naturalization or to any statute directly conferring Philippine citizenship upon him.
 The Comelec can legally suspend the proclamation of Labo, his reception of the winning
number of votes notwithstanding, especially so where Labo failed to present any evidence
before the COMELEC to support his claim of reacquisition of Philippine citizenship
 Despite favorable recommendation by the SolGen, the Special Committee on Naturalization
had yet acted upon said application for repatriation. Indeed, such fact is even admitted
petitioner. In the absence of any official action or approval by the proper authorities, a mere
application for repratriation, does not, and cannot, amount to an automatic reacquisition of
the applicant's Philippine citizenship.

Whether or not Ortega be NO. As per the Local Government Code, the vice mayor, not the losing candidate, fills the vacancy.
proclaimed the mayor of While Ortega may have garnered the second highest number of votes for the office of city mayor, the
Baguio City. fact remains that he was not the choice of the sovereign will. Petitioner Labo was overwhelmingly
voted by the electorate for the office of mayor in the belief that he was then qualified to serve the
people of Baguio City and his subsequent disqualification does not make respondent Ortega the
mayor-elect.
 The general rule is that the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not
entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared
elected.

Labo was overwhelmingly voted by the electorate for the office of mayor in the belief that he was
then qualified to serve the people of Baguio City and his subsequent disqualification does not make
respondent Ortega the mayor-elect.
 In Abella v. Comelec: In the event the winner of an election is disqualified for ineligibility
at the time of the election, the second placer cannot assume the vacant position.
 The vote that went to a disqualified candidate cannot be considered null and void. This
would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides.

RULING
WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DISMISSED for lack of merit. Petitioners both being ineligible for the Office of the City
Mayor of Baguio City and in view of the vacancy created in said office, the vice-mayor elect of said city in the May 11, 1992
elections is hereby declared Mayor of Baguio City after proclamation by the City Board of Canvassers. No costs.
SO ORDERED.