Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Reyes V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Katrina Anjela Caguiat
    6 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court dismissed Regina Reyes' petition challenging the COMELEC's cancellation of her certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC found Reyes was not qualified to run for representative of Marinduque because she had not properly reacquired Filipino citizenship or established a one-year residency after becoming a naturalized US citizen. While Reyes took an oath as a provincial administrator, the Court affirmed this did not satisfy the legal requirements to reacquire citizenship under the law or prove she abandoned her domicile in the US to establish residency in Marinduque.

    Original Description:

    CASE DIGEST

    Original Title

    REYES V COMELEC (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court dismissed Regina Reyes' petition challenging the COMELEC's cancellation of her certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC found Reyes was not qualified to run for representative of Marinduque because she had not properly reacquired Filipino citizenship or established a one-year residency after becoming a naturalized US citizen. While Reyes took an oath as a provincial administrator, the Court affirmed this did not satisfy the legal requirements to reacquire citizenship under the law or prove she abandoned her domicile in the US to establish residency in Marinduque.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    6 views2 pages

    Reyes V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Katrina Anjela Caguiat
    The Supreme Court dismissed Regina Reyes' petition challenging the COMELEC's cancellation of her certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC found Reyes was not qualified to run for representative of Marinduque because she had not properly reacquired Filipino citizenship or established a one-year residency after becoming a naturalized US citizen. While Reyes took an oath as a provincial administrator, the Court affirmed this did not satisfy the legal requirements to reacquire citizenship under the law or prove she abandoned her domicile in the US to establish residency in Marinduque.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Reyes v. COMELEC, GR No.

    207264, June 25, 2013 (one- year residency requirement)

    Petitioner: Regina Ongsiako Reyes

    Respondents: Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Joseph Socorro B. Tan

    Facts:

    Petitioner filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position of Representative of the lone
    district of Marinduque. Respondent, a registered voter and resident of the Municipality of
    Torrijos, Marinduque, filed before the COMELEC a petition for the cancellation of petitioner’s
    COC. On October 31, 2012, the respondent filed the amended petition on the ground that the
    petitioner’s COC contained material misrepresentations regarding the petitioner’s marital
    status, residency, date of birth and citizenship.

    Respondent alleged that the petitioner is an American citizen and filed in February 8, 2013 a
    manifestation with motion to admit newly discovered evidence and amended last exhibit. On
    March 27, 2013, the COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution cancelling the petitioner’s COC
    on the basis that petitioner is not a citizen of the Philippines because of her failure to comply
    with the requirements of Republic Act (RA) No. 9225.

    The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 8, 2013. But on May 14, 2013 the
    COMELEC en banc promulgated a Resolution denying the petitioner’s Motion for
    Reconsideration for lack of merit. On May 18, 2013, petitioner was proclaimed winner of the
    May 13, 2013 elections and on June 5, 2013 took her oath of office before the Speaker of House
    of Representatives. She has yet to assume office at noon of June 30, 2013.

    On June 5, 2013, the COMELEC en banc issued a Certificate of Finality declaring the May 14,
    2013 Resolution of the COMELEC en banc final and executory.

    Petitioner then filed before the court Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary
    Restraining Order and/or Status Quo Ante Order.

    Issues:

    1. Whether or not the COMELEC has the jurisdiction over the 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 Representative.

    2. Whether or not the COMELEC erred in its ruling that the petitioner is illegible to run for office
    Discussion:

    1. Pursuant to Section 17, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution, the House of Representative
    Electoral Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the sole judge of all contests relating to
    the election returns and qualification of the members of House of Representative.

    2. In R.A 9925, for a respondent to reacquire Filipino citizenship and become eligible for public
    office, the law requires that she must have accomplished the following:

    1) Take the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the consul-general of
    the Philippine Consulate in the USA, and

    2) Make a personal and sworn renunciation of her American citizenship before any public
    officer authorized to administer an oath.

    In the case at bar, there is no showing that petitioner complied with the requirements.
    Petitioner’s oath of office as Provincial Administrator cannot be considered as the oath of
    allegiance in compliance with RA 9225.

    As to the issue of residency, the court approved the ruling if the COMELEC that a Filipino citizen
    who becomes naturalized elsewhere effectively abandons his domicile of origin. Upon
    reacquisition of Filipino citizenship, 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 that the petitioner reacquired her Filipino citizenship pursuant
    to RA 9225 so as to conclude that the petitioner renounced her American citizenship, it follows
    that she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA. Petitioner claim that she served
    as Provincial Administrator of the province of Marinduque from January 18, 2011 to July 13,
    2011 is not sufficient to prove her one-year residency for she has never recognized 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.

    Held:

    The instant petition was DISMISSED, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
    COMELEC.

    You might also like