co vs hret.docx

7/23/2019 co vs hret.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/co-vs-hretdocx 1/50

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. Nos. 92191-92 July 30, 1991

ANTONIO Y. CO, petitioner,vs.ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL O T!E !OUSE O REPRESENTATI"ES AN# JOSE ONG,JR., respondents.

G.R. Nos. 92202-03 July 30, 1991

SI$TO T. BALAN%UIT, JR., petitioner,vs.ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL O T!E !OUSE O REPRESENTATI"ES AN# JOSE ONG,JR., respondents.

Hechanova & Associates for petitioner Co.

Brillantes, Nachura, Navarro and Arcilla Law Offices for respondent Ong, Jr.

GUTIERRE&, JR., J.: p

The petitioners come to this Court askin for the settin aside and reversal of a decision of the!ouse of Representatives Electoral Tribunal "!RET#.

The !RET declared that respondent $ose %n, $r. is a natural born &ilipino citi'en and a resident of(aoan, Northern )amar for votin purposes. The sole issue before us is *hether or not, in makinthat determination, the !RET acted *ith rave abuse of discretion.

%n Ma+ , -/, the conressional election for the second district of Northern )amar *as held.

Amon the candidates *ho vied for the position of representative in the second leislative district ofNorthern )amar are the petitioners, )i0to Balin1uit and Antonio Co and the private respondent, $ose%n, $r.

Respondent %n *as proclaimed the dul+ elected representative of the second district of Northern)amar.

The petitioners filed election protests aainst the private respondent premised on the follo*inrounds2



# $ose %n, $r. is not a natural born citi'en of the Philippines3 and

4# $ose %n, $r. is not a resident of the second district of Northern )amar.

The !RET in its decision dated November 5, --, found for the private respondent.

A motion for reconsideration *as filed b+ the petitioners on November 4, --. This *as, ho*ever,denied b+ the !RET in its resolution dated &ebruar+ 44, --.

!ence, these petitions for certiorari .

6e treat the comments as ans*ers and decide the issues raised in the petitions.

ON TH !""# O$ J#%!"!CT!ON

The first 1uestion *hich arises refers to our 7urisdiction.

The Constitution e0plicitl+ provides that the !ouse of Representatives Electoral Tribunal "!RET# andthe )enate Electoral Tribunal ")ET# shall be the sole 'udges of all contests relatin to the election,returns, and (ualificationsof their respective members. ""ee Article 89, )ection /, Constitution#

The authorit+ conferred upon the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete. The use of the*ord soleemphasi'es the e0clusivit+ of the 7urisdiction of these Tribunals.

The )upreme Court in the case of La)atin v . H%T "5 )CRA :- ;-<# stated that under the-/ Constitution, the 7urisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal is oriinal and e0clusive, vi) 2

The use of the *ord =sole= emphasi'es the e0clusive character of the 7urisdictionconferred "Anara v. Electoral Commission, supra at p. 54#. The e0ercise of po*erb+ the Electoral Commission under the -:> Constitution has been described as=intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had oriinall+ remained in theleislature.= "id ., at p. /># Earlier this rant of po*er to the leislature *ascharacteri'ed b+ $ustice Malcolm as =full, clear and complete3 "8eloso v. Board ofCanvassers of (e+te and )amar, :- Phil. 5 ;--<# ?nder the amended -:>Constitution, the po*er *as un1ualifiedl+ reposed upon the Electoral Tribunal and itremained as full, clear and complete as that previousl+ ranted the (eislature andthe Electoral Commission, "(achica v. @ap, 4> )CRA ;-5<# The same ma+ besaid *ith reard to the 7urisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal under the -/Constitution. "p. #

The Court continued further, =. . . so lon as the Constitution rants the !RET the po*er to be thesole 7ude of all contests relatin to election, returns and 1ualifications of members of the !ouse of

Representatives, an+ final action taken b+ the !RET on a matter *ithin its 7urisdiction shall, as arule, not be revie*ed b+ this Court . . . the po*er ranted to the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear andcomplete and e0cludes the e0ercise of an+ authorit+ on the part of this Court that *ould in an+ *iserestrict it or curtail it or even affect the same.= "pp. :#

6hen ma+ the Court in1uire into acts of the Electoral Tribunals under our constitutional rants ofpo*erD



9n the later case of %o*les v . H%T " )CRA / ;--<# the )upreme Court stated that the 7udments of the Tribunal are be+ond 7udicial interference save onl+ =in the e0ercise of this Courtssocalled e0traordinar+ 7urisdiction, . . . upon a determination that the Tribunals decision orresolution *as rendered *ithout or in e0cess of its 7urisdiction, or *ith rave abuse of discretion orparaphrasin Morrero, upon a clear sho*in of such arbitrar+ and improvident use b+ the Tribunal of its po*er as constitutes a denial of due process of la*, or upon a demonstration of a ver+ clear

unmitiated ERR%R, manifestl+ constitutin such FRA8E AB?)E %& G9)CRET9%N that there hasto be a remed+ for such abuse.= "at pp. />/5#

9n the leadin case of +orrero v . Bocar "55 Phil. 4- ;-:<# the Court ruled that the po*er of theElectoral Commission =is be+ond 7udicial interference e0cept, in an+ event, upon a clear sho*in ofsuch arbitrar+ and improvident use of po*er as *ill constitute a denial of due process.= The Courtdoes not venture into the perilous area of tr+in to correct perceived errors of independent branchesof the Fovernment, 9t comes in onl+ *hen it has to vindicate a denial of due process or correct anabuse of discretion so rave or larin that no less than the Constitution calls for remedial action.

The )upreme Court under the -/ Constitution, has been iven an e0panded 7urisdiction, so tospeak, to revie* the decisions of the other branches and aencies of the overnment to determine

*hether or not the+ have acted *ithin the bounds of the Constitution. ""ee Article 8999, )ection ,Constitution#

@et, in the e0ercise thereof, the Court is to merel+ check *hether or not the overnmental branch oraenc+ has one be+ond the Constitutional limits of its 7urisdiction, not that it erred or has a differentvie*. 9n the absence of a sho*in that the !RET has committed rave abuse of discretionamountin to lack of 7urisdiction, there is no occasion for the Court to e0ercise its corrective po*er3 it*ill not decide a matter *hich b+ its nature is for the !RET alone to decide. ""ee Marcos v.Manlapus, // )CRA 55 ;--<# 9t has no po*er to look into *hat it thinks is apparent error.

As constitutional creations invested *ith necessar+ po*er, the Electoral Tribunals, althouh notpo*ers in the tripartite scheme of the overnment, are, in the e0ercise of their functions independentorans H independent of Conress and the )upreme Court. The po*er ranted to !RET b+ the

Constitution is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained oriinall+ in theleislature. "Anara v. Electoral Commission, 5: Phil. :- ;-:5<#

9n passin upon petitions, the Court *ith its traditional and careful reard for the balance of po*ers,must permit this e0clusive privilee of the Tribunals to remain *here the )overein authorit+ hasplace it. ""ee 8eloso v. Boards of Canvassers of (e+te and )amar, :- Phil. 5 ;--<#

9t has been arued that under Article 89, )ection / of the present Constitution, the situation ma+e0ist as it e0ists toda+ *here there is an unhealth+ onesided political composition of the t*oElectoral Tribunals. There is nothin in the Constitution, ho*ever, that makes the !RET because ofits composition an+ less independent from the Court or its constitutional functions an+ less e0clusive.The deree of 7udicial intervention should not be made to depend on ho* man+ leislative members

of the !RET belon to this part+ or that part+. The test remains the samemanifest rave abuse ofdiscretion.

9n the case at bar, the Court finds no improvident use of po*er, no denial of due process on the partof the !RET *hich *ill necessitate the e0ercise of the po*er of 7udicial revie* b+ the )upremeCourt.

ON TH !""# O$ C!T!N"H!-



The records sho* that in the +ear ->, the private respondents randfather, %n Te, arrived in thePhilippines from China. %n Te established his residence in the municipalit+ of (aoan, )amar onland *hich he bouht from the fruits of hard *ork.

As a resident of (aoan, %n Te *as able to obtain a certificate of residence from the then )panishcolonial administration.

The father of the private respondent, $ose %n Chuan *as born in China in ->. !e *as brouhtb+ %n Te to )amar in the +ear ->.

$ose %n Chuan spent his childhood in the province of )amar. 9n (aoan, he *as able to establishan endurin relationship *ith his neihbors, resultin in his eas+ assimilation into the communit+.

As $ose %n Chuan re* older in the rural and seaside communit+ of (aoan, he absorbed &ilipinocultural values and practices. !e *as bapti'ed into Christianit+. As the +ears passed, $ose %nChuan met a natural born&ilipino, Aripina (ao. The t*o fell in love and, thereafter, ot married in-:4 accordin to Catholic faith and practice.

The couple bore eiht children, one of *hom is the private respondent *ho *as born in -.

The private respondents father never emirated from this countr+. !e decided to put up a hard*arestore and shared and survived the vicissitudes of life in )amar.

The business prospered. E0pansion became inevitable. As a result, a branch *as setup in Binondo,Manila. 9n the meantime, the father of the private respondent, unsure of his leal status and in anune1uivocal affirmation of *here he cast his life and famil+, filed *ith the Court of &irst 9nstance of)amar an application for naturali'ation on &ebruar+ >, ->.

%n April 4, ->>, the C&9 of )amar, after trial, declared $ose %n Chuan a &ilipino citi'en.

%n Ma+ >, ->/, the Court of &irst 9nstance of )amar issued an order declarin the decision of April4, ->> as final and e0ecutor+ and that $ose %n Chuan ma+ alread+ take his %ath of Alleiance.

Pursuant to said order, $ose %n Chuan took his %ath of Alleiance3 correspondinl+, a certificate ofnaturali'ation *as issued to him.

At the time $ose %n Chuan took his oath, the private respondent then a minor of nine +ears *asfinishin his elementar+ education in the province of )amar. There is nothin in the records todifferentiate him from other &ilipinos insofar as the customs and practices of the local populace *ereconcerned.

&ortunes chaned. The house of the famil+ of the private respondent in (aoan, )amar *as burned

to the round.

?ndaunted b+ the catastrophe, the private respondents famil+ constructed another one in place oftheir ruined house. Aain, there is no sho*in other than that (aoan *as their abode and home.

After completin his elementar+ education, the private respondent, in search for better education,*ent to Manila in order to ac1uire his secondar+ and collee education.



9n the meantime, another misfortune *as suffered b+ the famil+ in -/> *hen a fire utted theirsecond house in (aoan, )amar. The respondents famil+ constructed still another house, this time a5door apartment buildin, t*o doors of *hich *ere reserved for the famil+.

The private respondent raduated from collee, and thereafter took and passed the CPA BoardE0aminations.

)ince emplo+ment opportunities *ere better in Manila, the respondent looked for *ork here. !efound a 7ob in the Central Bank of the Philippines as an e0aminer. (ater, ho*ever, he *orked in thehard*are business of his famil+ in Manila. 9n -/, his elder brother, Emil, *as elected as a deleateto the -/ Constitutional Convention. !is status as a natural born citi'en *as challened.Parentheticall+, the Convention *hich in draftin the Constitution removed the une1ual treatmentiven to derived citi'enship on the basis of the mothers citi'enship formall+ and solemnl+ declaredEmil %n, respondents full brother, as a natural *orn $ilipino. The Constitutional Convention had tobe a*are of the meanin of natural born citi'enship since it *as precisel+ amendin the article onthis sub7ect.

The private respondent fre1uentl+ *ent home to (aoan, )amar, *here he re* up and spent his

childhood da+s.

9n -, the private respondent married a &ilipina named Gesiree (im.

&or the elections of - and -5, $ose %n, $r. reistered himself as a voter of (aoan, )amar,and correspondinl+, voted there durin those elections.

The private respondent after bein enaed for several +ears in the manaement of their famil+business decided to be of reater service to his province and ran for public office. !ence, *hen theopportunit+ came in -/, he ran in the elections for representative in the second district of Northern)amar.

Mr. %n *as over*helminl+ voted b+ the people of Northern )amar as their representative inConress. Even if the total votes of the t*o petitioners are combined, %n *ould still lead the t*o b+more than /, votes.

The pertinent portions of the Constitution found in Article 98 read2

)ECT9%N , the follo*in are citi'ens of the Philippines2

. Those *ho are citi'ens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of theConstitution3

4. Those *hose fathers or mothers are citi'ens of the Philippines3

:. Those born before $anuar+ /, -/:, of &ilipino mothers, *ho elect Philippineciti'enship upon reachin the ae of ma7orit+3 and

. Those *ho are naturali'ed in accordance *ith la*.

)ECT9%N 4, Naturalborn Citi'ens are those *ho are citi'ens of the Philippines frombirth *ithout havin to perform an+ act to ac1uire or perfect their citi'enship. Those



*ho elect Philippine citi'enship in accordance *ith pararaph : hereof shall bedeemed naturalborn citi'ens.

The Court interprets )ection , Pararaph : above as appl+in not onl+ to those *ho elect Philippineciti'enship after &ebruar+ 4, -/ but also to those *ho, havin been born of &ilipino mothers,elected citi'enship before that date.

The provision in Pararaph : *as intended to correct an unfair position *hich discriminates aainst&ilipino *omen. There is no ambiuit+ in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, vi) 2

Mr. A'cuna2 6ith respect to the provision of section , *ould this refer onl+ to those *ho elect Philippine citi'enship after the effectivit+ ofthe -/: Constitution or *ould it also cover those *ho elected itunder the -/: ConstitutionD

&r. Bernas2 !t would appl to an*od who elected -hilippineciti)enship * virtue of the provision of the /012 Constitution whetherthe election was done *efore or after Januar /3, /031. "Records of

the Constitutional Commission, 8ol. , p. 443 Emphasis supplied#

000 000 000

Mr. Trenas2 The Committee on Citi'enship, Bill of Rihts, PoliticalRihts and %bliations and !uman Rihts has more or less decidedto e0tend the interpretation of *ho is a naturalborn citi'en asprovided in section of the -/: Constitution b+ addin that persons*ho have elected Philippine Citi'enship under the -:> Constitutionshall be naturalbornD Am 9 riht Mr. Presidin %fficerD

&r. Bernas2 +es.

000 000 000

Mr. Nolledo2 And 9 remember ver+ *ell that in the Reverend &atherBernas *ell *ritten book, he said that the decision *as desinedmerel+ to accommodate former deleate Ernesto An and that thedefinition on naturalborn has no retroactive effect. No* it seems thatthe Reverend &ather Bernas is oin aainst this intention b+supportin the amendmentD

&r. Bernas2 As the Commissioner can see, there has been anevolution in m+ thinkin. "Records of the Constitutional Commission,

8ol. , p. -#

000 000 000

Mr. Rodrio2 But this provision becomes ver+ important because hiselection of Philippine citi'enship makes him not onl+ a &ilipino citi'enbut a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en entitlin him to run for Conress. . .



&r. Bernas2 Correct. 6e are 1uite a*are of that and for that reason*e *ill leave it to the bod+ to approve that provision of section .

Mr. Rodrio2 9 think there is a ood basis for the provision because itstrikes me as unfair that the &ilipino citi'en *ho *as born a da+before $anuar+ /, -/: cannot be a &ilipino citi'en or a naturalborn

citi'en. "Records of the Constitutional Commission, 8ol. , p. 4:#

000 000 000

Mr. Rodrio2 The purpose of that provision is to remed+ anine1uitable situation. Bet*een -:> and -/: *hen *e *ere underthe -:> Constitution, those born of &ilipino fathers but alien mothers*ere naturalborn &ilipinos. !o*ever, those born of &ilipino mothersbut alien fathers *ould have to elect Philippine citi'enship uponreachin the ae of ma7orit+3 and if the+ do elect, the+ become&ilipino citi'ens but not naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens. "Records of theConstitutional Commission, 8ol. , p. :>5#

The foreoin sinificantl+ reveals the intent of the framers. To make the provision prospective from&ebruar+ :, -/ is to ive a narro* interpretation resultin in an ine1uitable situation. 9t must alsobe retroactive.

9t should be noted that in construin the la*, the Courts are not al*a+s to be heded in b+ the literalmeanin of its lanuae. The spirit and intendment thereof, must prevail over the letter, especiall+*here adherence to the latter *ould result in absurdit+ and in7ustice. "Casela v. Court of Appeals, :>)CRA 4/- ;-/<#

A Constitutional provision should be construed so as to ive it effective operation and suppress themischief at *hich it is aimed, hence, it is the spirit of the provision *hich should prevail over the letter

thereof. "$arrolt v. Mabberl+, : ?.). >#

9n the *ords of the Court in the case of J .+ . Tuason v . LTA ": )CRA : ;-/<2

To that primordial intent, all else is subordinated. %ur Constitution, an+ constitution isnot to be construed narro*l+ or pedanticall+ for the prescriptions therein contained,to paraphrase $ustice !olmes, are not mathematical formulas havin their essencein their form but are oranic livin institutions, the sinificance of *hich is vital notformal. . . . "p. 4/#

The provision in 1uestion *as enacted to correct the anomalous situation *here one born of a&ilipino father and an alien mother *as automaticall+ ranted the status of a naturalborn citi'en*hile one born of a &ilipino mother and an alien father *ould still have to elect Philippine citi'enship.9f one so elected, he *as not, under earlier la*s, conferred the status of a naturalborn.

?nder the -/: Constitution, those born of &ilipino fathers and those born of &ilipino mothers *ith analien father *ere placed on e1ual footin. The+ *ere both considered as naturalborn citi'ens.

!ence, the besto*ment of the status of =naturalborn= cannot be made to depend on the fleetinaccident of time or result in t*o kinds of citi'ens made up of essentiall+ the same similarl+ situatedmembers.



9t is for this reason that the amendments *ere enacted, that is, in order to remed+ this accidentalanomal+, and, therefore, treat e1uall+ all those born before the -/: Constitution and *ho electedPhilippine citi'enship either before or after the effectivit+ of that Constitution.

The Constitutional provision in 1uestion is, therefore curative in nature. The enactment *as meant tocorrect the ine1uitable and absurd situation *hich then prevailed, and thus, render those acts valid

*hich *ould have been nil at the time had it not been for the curative provisions. ""ee GevelopmentBank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, -5 )CRA :4 ;-<#

There is no dispute that the respondents mother *as a natural born &ilipina at the time of hermarriae. Crucial to this case is the issue of *hether or not the respondent elected or chose to be a&ilipino citi'en.

Election becomes material because )ection 4 of Article 98 of the Constitution accords natural bornstatus to children born of &ilipino mothers before $anuar+ /, -/:, if the+ elect citi'enship uponreachin the ae of ma7orit+.

To e0pect the respondent to have formall+ or in *ritin elected citi'enship *hen he came of ae is to

ask for the unnatural and unnecessar+. The reason is obvious. !e *as alread+ a citi'en. Not onl+*as his mother a natural born citi'en but his father had been naturali'ed *hen the respondent *asonl+ nine "-# +ears old. !e could not have divined *hen he came of ae that in -/: and -/ theConstitution *ould be amended to re1uire him to have filed a s*orn statement in -5- electinciti'enship inspite of his alread+ havin been a citi'en since ->/. 9n -5-, election throuh a s*ornstatement *ould have been an unusual and unnecessar+ procedure for one *ho had been a citi'ensince he *as nine +ears old.

6e have 7urisprudence that defines =election= as both a formal and an informal process.

9n the case of !n %e2 $lorencio +allare ">- )CRA > ;-/<#, the Court held that the e0ercise of theriht of suffrae and the participation in election e0ercises constitute a positive act of election of

Philippine citi'enship. 9n the e0act pronouncement of the Court, *e held2

ste*an4s e5ercise of the right of suffrage when he ca6e of age, constitutes a positive act of election of -hilippine citi)enship "p. >43 emphasis supplied#

The private respondent did more than merel+ e0ercise his riht of suffrae. !e has established hislife here in the Philippines.

&or those in the peculiar situation of the respondent *ho cannot be e0pected to have electedciti'enship as the+ *ere alread+ citi'ens, *e appl+ the !n %e +allare rule.

The respondent *as born in an outl+in rural to*n of )amar *here there are no alien enclaves and

no racial distinctions. The respondent has lived the life of a &ilipino since birth. !is father applied fornaturali'ation *hen the child *as still a small bo+. !e is a Roman Catholic. !e has *orked for asensitive overnment aenc+. !is profession re1uires citi'enship for takin the e0aminations andettin a license. !e has participated in political e0ercises as a &ilipino and has al*a+s consideredhimself a &ilipino citi'en. There is nothin in the records to sho* that he does not embracePhilippine customs and values, nothin to indicate an+ tine of alienness no acts to sho* that thiscountr+ is not his natural homeland. The mass of voters of Northern )amar are frill+ a*are of Mr.%ns parentae. The+ should kno* him better than an+ member of this Court *ill ever kno* him.



The+ voted b+ over*helmin numbers to have him represent them in Conress. Because of his actssince childhood, the+ have considered him as a &ilipino.

The filin of s*orn statement or formal declaration is a re1uirement for those *ho still have to electciti'enship. $or those alread $ilipinos *hen the time to elect came up, there are acts of deliberatechoice *hich cannot be less bindin. Enterin a profession open onl+ to &ilipinos, servin in public

office *here citi'enship is a 1ualification, votin durin election time, runnin for public office, andother cateorical acts of similar nature are themselves formal manifestations of choice for thesepersons.

An election of Philippine citi'enship presupposes that the person electin is an alien. %r his status isdoubtful because he is a national of t*o countries. There is no doubt in this case about Mr. %nsbein a &ilipino *hen he turned t*ent+one "4#.

6e repeat that an+ election of Philippine citi'enship on the part of the private respondent *ould notonl+ have been superfluous but it *ould also have resulted in an absurdit+. !o* can a &ilipino citi'enelect Philippine citi'enshipD

The respondent !RET has an interestin vie* as to ho* Mr. %n elected citi'enship. 9t observedthat =*hen protestee *as onl+ nine +ears of ae, his father, $ose %n Chuan became a naturali'ed&ilipino. )ection > of the Revised Naturali'ation Act s1uarel+ applies its benefit to him for he *asthen a minor residin in this countr+. Concededl+, it was the law itself that had alread elected-hilippine citi)enship for protestee * declaring hi6 as such.= "Emphasis supplied#

The petitioners arue that the respondents father *as not, validl+, a naturali'ed citi'en because ofhis premature takin of the oath of citi'enship.

The Court cannot o into the collateral procedure of strippin Mr. %ns father of his citi'enship afterhis death and at this ver+ late date 7ust so *e can o after the son.

The petitioners 1uestion the citi'enship of the father throuh a collateral approach. This can not bedone. 9n our 7urisdiction, an attack on a persons citi'enship ma+ onl+ be done throuh a direct actionfor its nullit+. ""ee Iueto v. Catolico, : )CRA >4 ;-/<#

To ask the Court to declare the rant of Philippine citi'enship to $ose %n Chuan as null and void*ould run aainst the principle of due process. $ose %n Chuan has alread+ been laid to rest. !o*can he be iven a fair opportunit+ to defend himself. A dead man cannot speak. To 1uote the *ordsof the !RET =%n Chuans lips have lon been muted to perpetuit+ b+ his demise and obviousl+ hecould not use be+ond *here his mortal remains no* lie to defend himself *ere this matter to bemade a central issue in this case.=

The issue before us is not the nullification of the rant of citi'enship to $ose %n Chuan. %urfunction is to determine *hether or not the !RET committed abuse of authorit+ in the e0ercise of itspo*ers. Moreover, the respondent traces his natural born citi'enship throuh his 6other , not throuhthe citi'enship of his father. The citi'enship of the father is relevant onl+ to determine *hether or notthe respondent =chose= to be a &ilipino *hen he came of ae. At that time and up to the present,both mother and father *ere &ilipinos. Respondent %n could not have elected an otherciti)enship unless he first formall+ renounced Philippine citi'enship in favor of a forein nationalit+.?nlike other persons faced *ith a problem of election, there *as no forein nationalit+ of his father*hich he could possibl+ have chosen.



There is another reason *h+ *e cannot declare the !RET as havin committed manifest raveabuse of discretion. The same issue of naturalborn citi'enship has alread+ been decided b+ theConstitutional Convention of -/ and b+ the Batasan Pambansa convened b+ authorit+ of theConstitution drafted b+ that Convention. Emil %n, full blood brother of the respondent, *as declaredand accepted as a natural born citi'en b+ both bodies.

Assumin that our opinion is different from that of the Constitutional Convention, the BatasanPambansa, and the respondent !RET, such a difference could onl+ be characteri'ed as error . There*ould be no basis to call the !RET decision so arbitrar+ and *himsical as to amount to grave a*useof discretion.

6hat *as the basis for the Constitutional Conventions declarin Emil %n a natural born citi'enD

?nder the Philippine Bill of -4, inhabitants of the Philippines *ho *ere )panish sub7ects on theth da+ of April -- and then residin in said islands and their children born subse1uent thereto*ere conferred the status of a &ilipino citi'en.

6as the randfather of the private respondent a )panish sub7ectD

Article / of the Civil Code of )pain enumerates those *ho *ere considered )panish )ub7ects, vi) 2

ART9C(E /. The follo*in are )paniards2

. Persons born in )panish territor+.

4. Children born of a )panish father or mother, even thouh the+ *ere born out of)pain.

:. &oreiners *ho ma+ have obtained naturali'ation papers.

. Those without such papers, who 6a have ac(uired do6icile in an town in the+onarch . "Emphasis supplied#

The domicile of a natural person is the place of his habitual residence. This domicile, onceestablished is considered to continue and *ill not be deemed lost until a ne* one is established."Article >, NCC3 Article , Civil Code of )pain3 Juelli v. Republic, : Phil. /5 ;--<#

As earlier stated, %n Te became a permanent resident of (aoan, )amar around ->.Correspondinl+, a certificate of residence *as then issued to him b+ virtue of his bein a resident of (aoan, )amar. "Report of the Committee on Election Protests and Credentials of the -/Constitutional Convention, )eptember /, -/4, p. :#

The domicile that %n Te established in -> continued until April , --3 it even *ent be+ond theturn of the -th centur+. 9t is also in this place *ere %n Te setup his business and ac1uired his realpropert+.

As concluded b+ the Constitutional Convention, %n Te falls *ithin the meanin of subpararaph of Article / of the Civil Code of )pain.

Althouh %n Te made brief visits to China, he, nevertheless, al*a+s returned to the Philippines.The fact that he died in China, durin one of his visits in said countr+, *as of no moment. This *ill



not chane the fact that he alread+ had his domicile fi0ed in the Philippines and pursuant to the CivilCode of )pain, he had become a )panish sub7ect.

9f %n Te became a )panish sub7ect b+ virtue of havin established his domicile in a to*n under theMonarch+ of )pain, necessaril+, %n Te *as also an inhabitant of the Philippines for an inhabitanthas been defined as one *ho has actual fi0ed residence in a place3 one *ho has a domicile in a

place. "Bouviers (a* Gictionar+, 8ol. 99# A priori , there can be no other loical conclusion but toeduce that %n Te 1ualified as a &ilipino citi'en under the provisions of section of the PhilippineBill of -4.

The !RET itself found this fact of absolute verit+ in concludin that the private respondent *as anaturalborn &ilipino.

The petitioners sole round in disputin this fact is that document presented to prove it *ere not incompliance *ith the best the evidence rule. The petitioners allee that the private respondent failedto present the oriinal of the documentar+ evidence, testimonial evidence and of the transcript of theproceedins of the bod+ *hich the aforesaid resolution of the -/ Constitutional Convention *aspredicated.

%n the contrar+, the documents presented b+ the private respondent fall under the e0ceptions to thebest evidence rule.

9t *as established in the proceedins before the !RET that the oriinals of the Committee ReportNo. 4, the minutes of the plenar+ session of -/ Constitutional Convention held on November 4,-/4 cannot be found.

This *as affirmed b+ Att+. Ricafrente, Assistant )ecretar+ of the -/ Constitutional Convention3 b+ Att+. Nolledo, Geleate to the -/ Constitutional Convention3 and b+ Att+. Antonio )antos, Chief(ibrarian of the ?.P (a* Center, in their respective testimonies iven before the !RET to the effectthat there is no overnmental aenc+ *hich is the official custodian of the records of the -/

Constitutional Convention. "T)N, Gecember 4, -, pp. ::3 T)N, $anuar+ /, --, pp. ::>3T)N, &ebruar+ , --, p. 3 T)N, &ebruar+ 5, --, pp. 44-#

The e0ecution of the oriinals *as established b+ Att+. Ricafrente, *ho as the Assistant )ecretar+ ofthe -/ Constitutional Convention *as the proper part+ to testif+ to such e0ecution. "T)N,Gecember 4, --, pp. 4#

The inabilit+ to produce the oriinals before the !RET *as also testified to as aforestated b+ Att+.Ricafrente, Att+. Nolledo, and Att+. )antos. 9n provin the inabilit+ to produce, the la* does notre1uire the deree of proof to be of sufficient certaint+3 it is enouh that it be sho*n that after a bonafide dilient search, the same cannot be found. "see Fovernment of P.9. v. Martine', Phil. /;-<#

)ince the e0ecution of the document and the inabilit+ to produce *ere ade1uatel+ established, thecontents of the 1uestioned documents can be proven b+ a cop+ thereof or b+ the recollection of*itnesses.

Moreover, to erase all doubts as to the authenticit+ of the documentar+ evidence cited in theCommittee Report, the former member of the -/ Constitutional Convention, Att+. Nolledo, *henhe *as presented as a *itness in the hearin of the protest aainst the private respondent,



cateoricall+ stated that he sa* the disputed documents presented durin the hearin of the electionprotest aainst the brother of the private respondent. "T)N, &ebruar+ , --, pp. -#

9n his concurrin opinion, Mr. $ustice )armiento, a vicepresident of the Constitutional Convention,states that he *as presidin officer of the plenar+ session *hich deliberated on the report on theelection protest aainst Geleate Emil %n. !e cites a lon list of names of deleates present.

Amon them are Mr. Chief $ustice &ernan, and Mr. $ustice Gavide, $r. The petitioners could havepresented an+ one of the lon list of deleates to refute Mr. %ns havin been declared a naturalborn citi'en. The+ did not do so. Nor did the+ demur to the contents of the documents presented b+the private respondent. The+ merel+ relied on the procedural ob7ections respectin the admissibilit+of the evidence presented.

The Constitutional Convention *as the sole 'udge of the 1ualifications of Emil %n to be a memberof that bod+. The !RET b+ e0plicit mandate of the Constitution, is the sole 'udge of the 1ualificationsof $ose %n, $r. to be a member of Conress. Both bodies deliberated at lenth on the controversiesover *hich the+ *ere sole 'udges. Gecisions *ere arrived at onl+ after a full presentation of allrelevant factors *hich the parties *ished to present. Even assumin that *e disaree *ith theirconclusions, *e cannot declare their acts as committed *ith rave abuse of discretion. 6e have to

keep clear the line bet*een error and grave a*use.

ON TH !""# O$ %"!NC

The petitioners 1uestion the residence 1ualification of respondent %n.

The petitioners lose siht of the meanin of =residence= under the Constitution. The term =residence=has been understood as s+non+mous *ith do6icile not onl+ under the previous Constitutions butalso under the -/ Constitution.

The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveal that the meanin of residence vis7a7vis the 1ualifications of a candidate for Conress continues to remain the same as that of domicile,

to *it2

Mr. Nolledo2 6ith respect to )ection >, 9 remember that in the -/Constitutional Convention, there *as an attempt to re1uire residencein the place not less than one +ear immediatel+ precedin the da+ ofthe elections. )o m+ 1uestion is2 6hat is the Committees concept ofresidence of a candidate for the leislatureD 9s it actual residence oris it the concept of domicile or constructive residenceD

Mr. Gavide2 Madame President, in so far as the reular members ofthe National Assembl+ are concerned, the proposed section merel+provides, amon others, and a resident thereof, that is, in the district,for a period of not less than one +ear precedin the da+ of the

election. This *as in effect lifted from the -/: Constitution, theinterpretation iven to it *as domicile. "Records of the -/Constitutional Convention, 8ol. , $ul+ 44, -5. p. /#

000 000 000

Mrs. Rosario Braid2 The ne0t 1uestion is on )ection /, pae 4. 9 thinkCommissioner Nolledo has raised the same point that =resident= has



been interpreted at times as a matter of intention rather than actualresidence.

Mr. Ge los Re+es2 Gomicile.

Ms. Rosario Braid2 @es, )o, *ould the entlemen consider at the

proper time to o back to actual residence rather than mere intentionto resideD

Mr. Ge los Re+es2 But *e miht encounter some difficult+ especiall+considerin that a provision in the Constitution in the Article on)uffrae sa+s that &ilipinos livin abroad ma+ vote as enacted b+ la*.)o, *e have to stick to the oriinal concept that it should be b+domicile and not ph+sical and actual residence. "Records of the -/Constitutional Commission, 8ol. , $ul+ 44, -5, p. #

The framers of the Constitution adhered to the earlier definition iven to the *ord =residence= *hichrearded it as havin the same meanin as domicile.

The term =domicile= denotes a fi0ed permanent residence to *hich *hen absent for business orpleasure, one intends to return. "%n !uan Tin v. Republic, - )CRA -55 ;-5/<# The absence of aperson from said permanent residence, no matter ho* lon, not*ithstandin, it continues to be thedomicile of that person. 9n other *ords, domicile is characteri'ed b+ ani6us revertendi "?7ano v.Republic, / )CRA / ;-55<#

The domicile of oriin of the private respondent, *hich *as the domicile of his parents, is fi0ed at(aoan, )amar. Contrar+ to the petitioners imputation, $ose %n, $r. never abandoned saiddomicile3 it remained fi0ed therein even up to the present.

The private respondent, in the proceedins before the !RET sufficientl+ established that after the

fire that utted their house in -5, another one *as constructed.

(ike*ise, after the second fire *hich aain destro+ed their house in -/>, a si0teendoor apartment*as built b+ their famil+, t*o doors of *hich *ere reserved as their famil+ residence. "T)N, $ose%n, $r., November ,-, p. #

The petitioners alleation that since the private respondent o*ns no propert+ in (aoan, )amar, hecannot, therefore, be a resident of said place is misplaced.

The properties o*ned b+ the %n &amil+ are in the name of the private respondents parents. ?ponthe demise of his parents, necessaril+, the private respondent, pursuant to the la*s of succession,became the coo*ner thereof "as a co heir#, not*ithstandin the fact that these *ere still in the

names of his parents.

Even assumin that the private respondent does not o*n an+ propert+ in )amar, the )upreme Courtin the case of e los %ees v . "olidu6 "5 Phil. -: ;-:><# held that it is not re1uired that a personshould have a house in order to establish his residence and domicile. !t is enough that he should livein the 6unicipalit or in a rented house or in that of a friend or relative. "Emphasis supplied#

To re1uire the private respondent to o*n propert+ in order to be eliible to run for Conress *ould betantamount to a propert+ 1ualification. The Constitution onl+ re1uires that the candidate meet the



ae, citi'enship, votin and residence re1uirements. No*here is it re1uired b+ the Constitution thatthe candidate should also o*n propert+ in order to be 1ualified to run. "see Ma1uera v. Borra, 44Phil. 4 ;-5><#

9t has also been settled that absence from residence to pursue studies or practice a profession orreistration as a voter other than in the place *here one is elected, does not constitute loss of

residence. "&a+pon v. Iuirino, -5 Phil. 4- ;-><#

As previousl+ stated, the private respondent sta+ed in Manila for the purpose of finishin his studiesand later to practice his profession, There *as no intention to abandon the residence in (aoan,)amar. %n the contrar+, the periodical 7ourne+s made to his home province reveal that he al*a+shad the ani6us revertendi .

The Philippines is made up not onl+ of a sinle race3 it has, rather, underone an interracialevolution. Throuhout our histor+, there has been a continuin influ0 of Mala+s, Chinese, Americans,$apanese, )paniards and other nationalities. This racial diversit+ ives strenth to our countr+.

Man+ reat &ilipinos have not been *holeblooded nationals, if there is such a person, for there is

none. To mention a fe*, the reat $ose Ri'al *as part Chinese, the late Chief $ustice ClaudioTeehankee *as part Chinese, and of course our o*n President, Cora'on A1uino is also partChinese. 8eril+, some &ilipinos of *hom *e are proud *ere ethnicall+ more Chinese than the privaterespondent.

%ur citi'ens no doubt constitute the countr+s reatest *ealth. Citi'enship is a special privilee *hichone must forever cherish.

!o*ever, in order to trul+ revere this treasure of citi'enship, *e do not, on the basis of too harsh aninterpretation, have to unreasonabl+ den+ it to those *ho 1ualif+ to share in its richness.

?nder the overl+ strict 7urisprudence surroundin our anti1uated naturali'ation la*s onl+ the ver+

affluent backed b+ influential patrons, *ho *ere *illin to suffer the indinities of a lenth+,sometimes humiliatin, and often corrupt process of clearances b+ minor bureaucrats and *hosela*+ers kne* ho* to overcome so man+ technical traps of the 7udicial process *ere able to ac1uireciti'enship. 9t is time for the naturali'ation la* to be revised to enable a more positive, affirmative,and meaninful e0amination of an applicants suitabilit+ to be a &ilipino. A more humane, moreindubitable and less technical approach to citi'enship problems is essential.

6!ERE&%RE, the petitions are hereb+ G9)M9))EG. The 1uestioned decision of the !ouse ofRepresentatives Electoral Tribunal is A&&9RMEG. Respondent $ose %n, $r. is declared a naturalborn citi'en of the Philippines and a resident of (aoan, Northern )amar.

)% %RGEREG.

Bidin, 8ri9o7A(uino, +edialdea and avide, Jr., JJ., concur.

$ernan, C.J., +elencio7Herrera, Cru), $eliciano and 8ancaco, JJ., too: no part.



S'()*)+' O(os

PA#ILLA, J., dissentin2

9 dissent.

These separate petitions for certiorari and 6anda6us seek to annul the decision of respondent!ouse of Representatives Electoral Tribunal "hereinafter referred to as the tribunal# dated 5November -- *hich declared private respondent $ose (. %n, a naturalborn citi'en of thePhilippines and a leal resident of (aoan, Northern )amar, and the resolution of the tribunal dated44 &ebruar+ -- den+in petitioners motions for reconsideration.

9n F.R. Nos. -4--4, petitioner Co also pra+s that the Court declare private respondent %n not1ualified to be a Member of the !ouse of Representatives and to declare him "petitioner Co# *hoalleedl+ obtained the hihest number of votes amon the (ualified candidates, the dul+ electedrepresentative of the second leislative district of Northern )amar. 9n F.R. Nos. -444:, petitioner

Balan1uit pra+s that the Court declare private respondent %n and Co "petitioner in F.R. Nos.-4--4# not 1ualified for membership in the !ouse of Representatives and to proclaim him"Balanuit# as the dul+ elected representative of said district.

Petitioners Antonio @. Co, )i0to T. Balan1uit, $r. and private respondent $ose %n Chuan, $r. *ereamon the candidates for the position of Representative or Conressman for the second district ofNorthern )amar durin the Ma+ -/ conressional elections. Private respondent *asproclaimed dul+elected on Ma+ -/ *ith a pluralit+ of some si0teen thousand "5,# votesover petitioner Co *ho obtained the ne0t hihest number of votes.

Petitioners Co and Balan1uit then filed separate election protests aainst private respondent *ith thetribunal, docketed as !RET Cases Nos. : and > respectivel+. Both protests raised almost the

same issues and *ere thus considered and decided 7ointl+ b+ the tribunal.

The issues raised before the tribunal *ere the follo*in2

. 6hether or not protestee "meanin, %n# is a naturalborn citi'en of thePhilippines in contemplation of )ection 5, Article 89 of the -/ Constitution inrelation to )ections 4 and ":#, Article 98 thereof3 and

4. 6hether or not protestee *as a resident of (aoan, Northern )amar, incontemplation of )ection 5, Article 89 of the same Constitution, for a period of notless than one +ear immediatel+ precedin the conressional elections of Ma+ -/.

The respondent tribunal in its decision dated 5 November -- held that respondent $ose (. %n isa naturalborn citi'en of the Philippines and *as a leal resident of (aoan, Northern )amar for there1uired period prior to the Ma+ -/ conressional elections. !e *as, therefore, declared 1ualifiedto continue in office as Member of the !ouse of Representatives, Conress of the Philippines,representin the second leislative district of Northern )amar.

The factual antecedents taken from the consolidated proceedins in the tribunal are the follo*in2



. The Protestee "%n# *as born on $une -, - to the leal spouses %n Chuanalso kno*n as $ose %n Chuan and Arifina E. (ao. !is place of birth is (aoan*hich is no* one of the municipalities comprisin the province of Northern )amar"Republic Act No. 5:4 approved on Auust 4, -/ and the %rdinance appendedto the -/ Constitution#.

4. %n the other hand, $ose %n Chuan *as born in China and arrived in Manila onGecember 5, ->. "E0hibit ''# )ubse1uentl+ thereafter, he took up residence in(aoan, )amar.

:. %n &ebruar+ , -:4, he married Arifina E. (ao. Their *eddin *as celebratedaccordin to the rites and practices of the Roman Catholic Church in the Municipalit+of (aoan "E0h. E#.

. At the time of her marriae to $ose %n Chuan, Arifina E. (ao *as a naturalborn&ilipino citi'en, both her parents at the time of her birth bein &ilipino citi'ens."E0hibits E K 9#

>. %n &ebruar+ >, ->, $ose %n Chuan, desirin to ac1uire Philippine citi'enship,filed his petition for naturali'ation *ith the Court of &irst 9nstance of )amar, pursuantto Common*ealth Act No. /:, other*ise kno*n as the Revised Naturali'ation (a*.

5. %n April 4, ->>, the Court of &irst 9nstance of )amar rendered a decisionapprovin the application of $ose %n Chuan for naturali'ation and declarin saidpetitioner a &ilipino citi'en =*ith all the rihts and privilees and duties, liabilities andobliations inherent to &ilipino citi'ens. "E0h. E#

/. %n Ma+ >, ->/, the same Court issued an order2

"# declarin the decision of this Court of April 4, ->> final and

e0ecutor+3

"4# directin the clerk of court to issue the correspondin Certificate of Naturali'ation in favor of the applicant %n Chuan *ho prefers totake his oath and reister his name as $ose %n Chuan. Petitionerma+ take his oath as &ilipino citi'en under Ms ne* christian name,$ose %n Chuan. "E0h. &#

. %n the same da+, $ose %n Chuan havin taken the correspondin oath ofalleiance to the Constitution and the Fovernment of the Philippines as prescribedb+ )ection 4 of Common*ealth Act No. /:, *as issued the correspondinCertificate of Naturali'ation. "E0h. F#

-. %n November , -/, Emil (. %n, a fullbrother of the protestee and a son bornon $ul+ 4>, -:/ at (aoan, )amar to the spouses $ose %n Chuan and Arifina E.(ao, *as elected deleate from Northern )amar to the -/ ConstitutionalConvention.

. B+ protestees o*n testimon+, it *as established that he had attended radeschool in (aoan. Thereafter, he *ent to Manila *here he finished his secondar+ as*ell as his collee education. 6hile later emplo+ed in Manila, protestee ho*ever



*ent home to (aoan *henever he had the opportunit+ to do so, *hich invariabl+*ould be as fre1uent as t*ice to four times a +ear.

. Protestee also sho*ed that bein a native and leal resident of (aoan, hereistered as a voter therein and correspondinl+ voted in said municipalit+ in the- and -5 elections.

4. Aain in Gecember -5, durin the eneral reistration of all voters in the countr+,Protestee rereistered as a voter in Precinct No. of Barana+ Tumauintin in (aoan.9n his voters affidavit, Protestee indicated that he is a resident of (aoan since birth."E0h. /# 1

Petitioners motions for reconsideration of the tribunals decision havin been denied, petitioners filedthe present petitions.

9n their comments, the respondents first raise the issue of the Courts 7urisdiction to revie* thedecision of the !ouse Electoral Tribunal, considerin the constitutional provision vestin upon saidtribunal the po*er and authorit+ to act as the sole 'udge of all contests relatin to the 1ualifications of

the Members of the !ouse of Representatives.2

%n the 1uestion of this Courts 7urisdiction over the present controvers+, 9 believe that, contrar+ to therespondents contentions, the Court has the 7urisdiction and competence to revie* the 1uestioneddecision of the tribunal and to decide the present controvers+.

Article 8999, )ection 9 of the -/ Constitution provides that2

$udicial po*er includes the dut+ of the courts of 7ustice to settle actual controversiesinvolvin rihts *hich are leall+ demandable and enforceable, and to determine*hether or not there has been a rave abuse of discretion amountin to lack ore0cess of 7urisdiction on the part of an+ branch or instrumentalit+ of the Fovernment.

The Constitution, it is true, constitutes the tribunal as the sole 'udge of all contests relatin to theelection, returns, and 1ualifications of Members of the !ouse of Representatives. But as earl+ as-:, it *as held in +orrero vs.Bocar , 3 construin )ection , Article 89 of the -:> Constitution*hich provided that =. . . The Electoral Commission shall be the sole 7ude of all contests relatin tothe election, returns and 1ualifications of the Members of the National Assembl+,= that2

The 7udment rendered b+ the "electoral# commission in the e0ercise of such anackno*leded po*er is be+ond 7udicial interference, e0cept, in an+ event, =upon aclear sho*in of such arbitrar+ and improvident use of the po*er as *ill constitute adenial of due process of la*.= "Barr+ vs. ?) e0 rel. Cunninham, 4/- ?) >-/3 /:(a*. ed., 5/3 Anara vs. Electoral Commission, :> %ff. Fa'., 4:.#

And then under the afore1uoted provisions of Article 8999, )ection of the -/ Constitution, thisCourt is dut+bound to determine *hether or not, in an actual controvers+, there has been a raveabuse of discretion amountin to lack or e0cess of 7urisdiction on the part of an+ branch orinstrumentalit+ of the Fovernment.

The present controvers+, it *ill be observed, involves more than perceived irreularities in theconduct of a conressional election or a disputed appreciation of ballots, in *hich cases, it ma+ becontended *ith reat leal force and persuasion that the decision of the electoral tribunal should befinal and conclusive, for it is, b+ constitutional directive, made the sole 7ude of contests relatin to



such matters. The present controvers+, ho*ever, involves no less than a determination of *hetherthe 1ualifications for membership in the !ouse of Representatives, as prescri*ed * theConstitution, have been met. 9ndeed, this Court *ould be unforivabl+ remiss in the performance ofits duties, as mandated b+ the Constitution, *ere it to allo* a person, not a naturalborn &ilipinociti'en, to continue to sit as a Member of the !ouse of Representatives, solel+ because the !ouseElectoral Tribunal has declared him to be so. 9n such a case, the tribunal *ould have acted *ith

rave abuse of discretion amountin to lack or e0cess of 7urisdiction as to re1uire the e0ercise b+this Court of its po*er of 7udicial revie*.

Besides, the citi'enship and residence 1ualifications of private respondent for the office of Memberof the !ouse of Representatives, are here controverted b+ petitioners *ho, at the same time, claimthat the+ are entitled to the office illeall+ held b+ private respondent. &rom this additional direction,*here one asserts an earnestl+ perceived riht that in turn is viorousl+ resisted b+ another, there isclearl+ a 7usticiable controvers+ proper for this Court to consider and decide.

Nor can it be said that the Court, in revie*in the decision of the tribunal, asserts supremac+ over itin contravention of the timehonored principle of constitutional separation of po*ers. The Court inthis instance simpl+ performs a function entrusted and assined to it b+ the Constitution of

interpretin, in a 7usticiable controvers+, the pertinent provisions of the Constitution *ith finalit+.

9t is the role of the $udiciar+ to refine and, *hen necessar+, correct constitutional "andLorstatutor+# interpretation, in the conte0t of the interactions of the three branches of theovernment, almost al*a+s in situations *here some aenc+ of the )tate has enaed inaction that stems ultimatel+ from some leitimate area of overnmental po*er "the)upreme Court in Modern Role, C.B. )evisher, ->, p. :5#. /

Moreover, it is decidedl+ a matter of reat public interest and concern to determine *hether or notprivate respondent is 1ualified to hold so important and hih a public office *hich is specificall+reserved b+ the Constitution onl+ to naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens.

After a careful consideration of the issues and the evidence, it is m+ considered opinion that the

respondent tribunal committed rave abuse of discretion amountin to lack or e0cess of 7urisdictionin renderin its 1uestioned decision and resolution, for reasons to be presentl+ stated.

The Constitution re1uires that a Member of the !ouse of Representatives must be a naturalbornciti'en of the Philippines and, on the da+ of the election, is at least t*ent+five "4># +ears of ae, ableto read and *rite, and, e0cept the part+list representatives, a reistered voter in the district in *hichhe shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one "# +ear immediatel+precedin the da+ of the election.

Article 98, )ection 4 of the -/ Constitution defines naturalborn "&ilipino# citi'ens as2

Naturalborn citi'ens are those *ho are citi'ens of the Philippines from birth *ithout

havin to perform an+ act to ac1uire or perfect their Philippine citi'enship. Those *hoelect Philippine citi'enship in accordance *ith pararaph ":#, )ection 9 hereof shallbe deemed naturalborn citi'en,

Article 98, )ection , pararaph ":# of the -/ Constitution provides that2

)ection . The follo*in are citi'ens of the Philippines2

000 000 000



":# Those born before $anuar+ /, -/:, of &ilipino mothers, *ho elect Philippineciti'enship upon reachin the ae of ma7orit+.

The Court in this case is faced *ith the dut+ of interpretin the above1uoted constitutionalprovisions. The first sentence of )ection 4 of Article 98 states the basic definition of a naturalborn&ilipino citi'en. Goes private respondent fall *ithin said definitionD

To the respondent tribunal,

Protestee ma+ even be declared a naturalborn citi'en of the Philippines under the firstsentence of )ec. 4 of Article 98 of the -/ Constitution because he did not have =toperform an+ act to ac1uire or perfect his Philippine citi'enship.= 9t bears to repeat that on> Ma+ ->/, *hile still a minor of - +ears he alread+ became a &ilipino citi'en b+declaration of la*. )ince his mother *as a naturalborn citi'en at the time of hermarriae, protestee had an inchoate riht to Philippine citi'enship at the moment of hisbirth and, conse1uentl+ the declaration b+ virtue of )ec. > of CA /: that he *as a&ilipino citi'en retroacted to the moment of his birth *ithout his havin to perform an+ actto ac1uire or perfect such Philippine citi'enship.

9 reret that 9 am neither convinced nor persuaded b+ such kaleidoscopic ratiocination. The recordssho* that private respondent *as born on - $une - to the spouses $ose %n Chuan, a Chineseciti'en, and Arifina E. (ao, a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en, in (aoan, Northern )amar. 9n other*ords, at *irth, private respondent *as a Chinese citi'en "not a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en# becausehis father *as then a Chinese citi'en "not a naturali'ed &ilipino citi'en#. ?nder the -:> Constitution*hich *as enforced at the time of private respondents birth on - $une -, onl+ those *hosefathers *ere citi'ens of the Philippines *ere considered &ilipino citi'ens. Those *hose mothers *ereciti'ens of the Philippines had to elect Philippine citi'enship upon reachin the ae of ma7orit+, inorder to be considered &ilipino citi'ens.

&ollo*in the basic definition in the -/ Constitution of a naturalborn citi'en, in relation to the -:>Constitution, private respondent is not a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en, having *een *orn a Chinese

citi)en b+ virtue of the Chinese citi'enship of his father at the time of his birth, althouh from birth,private respondent had the riht to elect Philippine citi'enship, the citi'enship of his mother, but onl+upon his reachin the ae of ma7orit+.

6hile under )ection > of the Revised Naturali'ation (a* "C.A. /:# minor children of a naturali'edciti'en "father#, *ho *ere born in the Philippines prior to the naturali'ation of theparent auto6aticall *eco6e $ilipino citi)ens, this does not alter the fact that private respondent*as not born to a &ilipino father, and the operation of )ection > of CA /: did not confer upon himthe status of a natural7*orn citi'en merel+ because he did not have to perform an+ act to ac1uire orperfect his status as a $ilipino citi)en.

But even assumin arguendo that private respondent could be considered a naturalborn citi'en b+

virtue of the operation of CA /:, petitioners ho*ever contend that the naturali'ation of privaterespondents father *as invalid and void from the beinnin, and, therefore, private respondent isnot even a &ilipino citi'en.

Respondent tribunal in its 1uestioned decision ruled that onl+ a direct proceedin for nullit+ ofnaturali'ation as a &ilipino citi'en is permissible, and, therefore, a collateral attack on %n Chuansnaturali'ation is barred in an electoral contest *hich does not even involve him "%n Chuan#.



Private respondent, for his part, avers in his Comment that the challene aainst %n Chuansnaturali'ation must emanate from the Fovernment and must be made in a properLappropriate anddirect proceedin for denaturali'ation directed aainst the proper part+, *ho in such case is %nChuan, and also durin his lifetime.

A 7udment in a naturali'ation proceedin is not, ho*ever, afforded the character of imprenabilit+

under the principle of res 'udicata. 9 )ection of CA /: provides that a certificate of naturali'ationma+ be cancelled upon motion made in the proper proceedin b+ the )olicitor Feneral or hisrepresentative, or b+ the proper provincial fiscal.

9n %epu*lic vs. 8o Bon Lee, 10 this Court held that2

An alien friend is offered under certain conditions the privilee of citi'enship. !e ma+accept the offer and become a citi'en upon compliance *ith the prescribedconditions, but not other*ise. !is claim is of favor, not of riht. !e can onl+ become aciti'en upon and after a strict compliance *ith the acts of Conress. An applicant forthis hih privilee is bound, therefore, to conform to the terms upon *hich alone theriht he seeks can be conferred. 9t is his province, and he is bound, to see that the

7urisdictional facts upon *hich the rant is predicated actuall+ e0ist and if the+ do nothe takes nothin b+ this paper rant.

000 000 000

Conress havin limited this privilee to a specified class of persons, no otherperson is entitled to such privilee, nor to a certificate purportin to rant it, and an+such certificate issued to a person not so entitled to receive it must be treated as amere nullit+, *hich confers no leal rihts as aainst the overnment, from *hich ithas been obtained *ithout *arrant of la*.

=Naturali'ation is not a riht, but a privilee of the most discriminatin as *ell as delicate and

e0actin nature, affectin public interest of the hihest order, and *hich ma+ be en7o+ed onl+ underthe precise conditions prescribed b+ la* therefor.= 11

Considerin the leal implications of the alleation made b+ the petitioners that the naturali'ation ofprivate respondents father %n Chuan, is a nullit+, the Court should make a rulin on the validit+ ofsaid naturali'ation proceedins. This course of action becomes all the more inevitable and 7ustifiedin the present case *here, to repeat for stress, it is claimed that a foreiner is holdin a publicoffice. 12

9t cannot be overlooked, in this connection, that the citi'enship of private respondent is derived fromhis father. 9f his fathers &ilipino citi'enship is void from the beinnin, then there is nothin from*hich private respondent can derive his o*n claimed &ilipino citi'enship. &or a sprin cannot risehiher than its source. And to allo* private respondent to avail of the privilees of &ilipino citi'enship

b+ virtue of a void naturali'ation of his father, *ould constitute or at least sanction a continuinoffense aainst the Constitution.

The records sho* that private respondents father, $ose %n Chuan, took the oath of alleiance tothe Constitution and the Philippine Fovernment, as prescribed b+ )ection 4 of CA /: on the sameda+ "> Ma+ ->/# that the C&9 issued its order directin the clerk of court to issue thecorrespondin Certificate of Naturali'ation and for the applicant to take the oath of alleiance.



!o*ever, it is settled that an order rantin a petition to take the re1uisite oath of alleiance of one*ho has previousl+ obtained a decision favorable to his application for naturali'ation, is appeala*le.9t is, therefore, improper and illeal to authori'e the takin of said oath upon the issuance of saidorder and before the e0piration of the relementar+ period to perfect an+ appeal from said order. 13

9n Cua "un ;e vs. %epu*lic , 1/ this Court held that2

Administration of the oath of alleiance on the same da+ as issuance of orderrantin citi'enship is irreular and makes the proceedins so taken null and void."Republic vs. Fu+, > )CRA 4 ;-4<3 citing the case of %n )o vs. Republic ofthe Philippines, 4 Phil. :#.

9t *ould appear from the foreoin discussion that the naturali'ation of $ose %n Chuan "privaterespondents father# *as null and void. 9t follo*s that the private respondent did not ac1uire an+ lealrihts from the void naturali'ation of his father and thus he cannot himself be considered a &ilipinociti'en, more so, a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en.

But assumin that the C&9 order of > Ma+ ->/ directin the clerk of court to issue the certificate of

naturali'ation to %n Chuan and for the latter to take the oath of alleiance *as final and notappealable, the resultin naturali'ation of %n Chuan effected, as previousl+ stated, an automaticnaturali'ation of private respondent, then a minor, as a &ilipino citi'en on > Ma+ ->/, but not hisac1uisition or perfection of the status of a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en.

(et us no* look into the 1uestion of *hether or not private respondent ac1uired the status of anaturalborn &ilipino citi'en b+ reason of the undisputed fact that his mother *as a naturalborn&ilipino citi'en. This in turn leads us to an e0amination of the second sentence in Article 98, )ection 4of the -/ Constitution. 9t e0pands, in a manner of speakin, in relation to )ection , pararaph ":#of the same Article 98, the status of a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en to those *ho elect Philippineciti'enship upon reachin the ae of ma7orit+. The riht or privilee of election is available, ho*ever,onl+ to those born to &ilipino mothers under the -:> Constitution, and before the -/: Constitutiontook effect on / $anuar+ -/:.

The petitioners contend that the respondent tribunal acted in e0cess of its 7urisdiction or ravel+abused its discretion as to e0ceed its 7urisdiction in =distortin= the conferment b+ the -/Constitution of the status of =naturalborn= &ilipino citi'en on those *ho elect Philippine citi'enship Hall in its strained effort, accordin to petitioners, to support private respondents 1ualification to be aMember of the !ouse of Representatives. 1

Petitioners arue that the clear, unambiuous *ordin of section ":# of Article 98 of the -/Constitution contemplates that onl+ the leitimate children of &ilipino mothers *ith alien father, bornbefore / $anuar+ -/: and *ho *ould reach the ae of ma7orit+ "and thus elect Philippineciti'enship# after the effectivit+ of the -/ Constitution are entitled to the status of naturalborn&ilipino citi'en. 1

The respondent tribunal in resolvin the issue of the constitutional provisions interpretation, foundreason to refer to the interpellations made durin the -5 Constitutional Commission. 9t said2

That the benevolent provisions of )ections 4 and ":# of Article 98 of the -/Constitution *as "sic # intended b+ its "sic # framers to be endo*ed, *ithout distinction, toall &ilipinos b+ election pursuant to the -:> Constitution is more than persuasivel+established b+ the e0tensive interpellations and debate on the issue as borne b+ theofficial records of the -5 Constitutional Commission. 1



Althouh 9 find the distinction as to *hen election of Philippine citi'enship *as made irrelevant to thecase at bar, since private respondent, contrar+ to the conclusion of the respondent tribunal, did notelect Philippine citi'enship, as provided b+ la*, 9 still consider it necessar+ to settle the controvers+reardin the meanin of the constitutional provisions in 1uestion.

9 aree *ith respondent tribunal that the debates, interpellations petitions and opinions e0pressed in

the -5 Constitutional Commission ma+ be resorted to in ascertainin the meanin of some*hatelusive and even nebulous constitutional provisions. Thus H

The ascertainment of that intent is but in keepin *ith the fundamental principle ofconstitutional construction that the intent of the framers of the oranic la* and of thepeople adoptin it should be iven effect. The primar+ task in constitutional constructionis to ascertain and thereafter assure the reali'ation of the purpose of the framers and ofthe people in the adoption of the Constitution. 9t ma+ also be safel+ assumed that thepeople in ratif+in the constitution *ere uided mainl+ b+ the e0planation offered b+ theframers. 1

The deliberations of the -5 Constitutional Commission relevant to )ection 4, Article 98 in relationto )ection ":# of the same Article, appear to neate the contention of petitioners that onl+ thoseborn to &ilipino mothers before / $anuar+ -/: and *ho *ould elect Philippine citi'enship after theeffectivit+ of the -/ Constitution, are to be considered naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens.

Gurin the free*heelin discussions on citi'enship, Commissioner Treas specificall+ askedCommissioner Bernas reardin the provisions in 1uestion, thus2

MR. TRENA)2 The Committee on Citi'enship, Bill of Rihts, PoliticalRihts and %bliations and !uman Rihts has more or less decidedto e0tend the interpretation of *ho is a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en asprovided in )ection of the -/: Constitution, b+ addin thatpersons *ho have elected Philippine citi'enship under the -:>Constitution shall be considered naturalborn. Am 9 riht, Mr.

Presidin %fficerD

&R BERNA)2 @es.

MR. TRENA)2 And does the Commissioner think that tills addition to)ection of the -/: Constitution *ould be contrar+ to the spirit ofthat sectionD

&R BERNA)2 @es, *e are 1uite a*are that it is contrar+ to the letterreall+. But *hether it is contrar+ to the spirit is somethin that has beendebated before and is bein debated even no*. 6e *ill recall that durinthe -/ Constitutional Convention, the status of naturalborn citi'enship

of one of the deleates, Mr. An, *as challened precisel+ because he*as a citi'en b+ election. &inall+, the -/ Constitutional Conventionconsidered him a naturalborn citi'en, one of the re1uirements to be aMember of the -/ Constitutional Convention. The reason behind thatdecision *as that a person under his circumstances alread+ had theinchoate riht to be a citi'en b+ the fact that the mother *as a &ilipino.

And as a matter of fact, the -/ Constitutional Convention formali'edthat reconition b+ adoptin pararaph 4 of )ection of the -/Constitution. )o, the entire purpose of this proviso is simpl+ to perhapsremed+ *hatever in7ustice there ma+ be so that these people born before



$anuar+ /, -/: *ho are not naturali'ed and people *ho are notnatural born but *ho are in the same situation as *e are considerednaturalborn citi'ens. )o, the intention of the Committee in proposin thisis to e1uali'e their status. 19

6hen asked to clarif+ the provision on naturalborn citi'ens, Commissioner Bernas replied to

Commissioner A'cuna thus2

MR. AJC?NA2 6ith respect to the proviso in )ection , *ould thisrefer onl+ to those *ho elect Philippine citi'enship after the effectivit+of the -/: Constitution or *ould it also cover those *ho elected itunder the -:> ConstitutionD

&R BERNA)2 9t *ould appl+ to an+bod+ *ho elected Philippineciti'enship b+ virtue of the provision of the -:> Constitution, *hether theelection *as done before or after / $anuar+ -/:.20

And durin the period of amendments. Commissioner Rodrio e0plained the purpose of *hat no*appear as )ection 4 and )ection , pararaph ":# of Article 98 of the -/ Constitution, thus2

MR. R%GR9F%2 The purpose of that proviso is to remed+ anine1uitable situation. Bet*een -:> and -/:, *hen *e *ere underthe -:> Constitution, those born of &ilipino fathers but alien mothers*ere naturalborn &ilipinos. !o*ever, those born of &ilipino mothersbut alien fathers *ould have to elect Philippine citi'enship uponreachin the ae of ma7orit+3 and, if the+ do elect, the+ become&ilipino citi'ens, +et, but not naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens.

The -/: Constitution e1uali'ed the status of those born of &ilipino mothers andthose born of &ilipino fathers. )o that from $anuar+ /, -/: *hen the -/:Constitution took effect, those born of &ilipino mothers but of alien fathers are

naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens. Also, those *ho are born of &ilipino fathers and alienmothers are naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens.

9f the -/: Constitution e1uali'ed the status of a child born of a &ilipino mother andthat born of a &ilipino father, *h+ do *e not ive a chance to a child born before$anuar+ /, -/:, if and *hen he elects Philippine citi'enship, to be in the samestatus as one born of a &ilipino father H namel+, naturalborn citi'en.

Another thin 9 stated is e1uali'in the status of a father and a mother vis7a7vis the child.9 *ould like to state also that *e sho*ed e1uali'e the status of a child born of a &ilipinomother the da+ before $anuar+ /, -/: and a child born also of a &ilipino mother on$anuar+ / or 4 hours later. A child born of a &ilipino mother but an alien father one da+

before $anuar+ /, -/: is a &ilipino citi'en, if he elects Philippine citi'enship, but he isnot a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en. !o*ever, the other child *ho luckil+ *as born 4 hourslater H ma+be because of parto laborioso H is a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en. 21

9t *ould appear then that the intent of the framers of the -/ Constitution in definin a naturalborn&ilipino citi'en *as to e1uali'e the position of &ilipino fathers and &ilipino mothers as to their childrenbecomin naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens. 9n other *ords, after / $anuar+ -/:, effectivit+ date of the-/: Constitution, all those born of &ilipino fathers "*ith alien spouse# or &ilipino mothers "*ith alienspouse# are naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens. But those born to &ilipino mothers prior to /3 Januar



/031 must still elect Philippine citi'enship upon their reachin the ae of ma7orit+, in order to bedeemed naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens. The election, *hich is related to the attainment of the ae ofma7orit+, ma+ be made before or after / $anuar+ -/:. This interpretation appears to be inconsonance *ith the fundamental purpose of the Constitution *hich is to protect and enhance thepeoples individual interests, 22 and to foster e1ualit+ amon them.

)ince private respondent *as born on - $une - "or before / $anuar+ -/:# to a &ilipinomother "*ith an alien spouse# and should have elected Philippine citi'enship on - $une -5- "*henhe attained the ae of ma7orit+#, or soon thereafter, in order to have the status of a naturalborn&ilipino citi'en under the -/ Constitution, the vital 1uestion is2 did private respondent reall+ electPhilippine citi'enshipD As earlier stated, 9 believe that private respondent did not elect Philippineciti'enship, contrar+ to the rulin of the respondent tribunal.

The respondent tribunal, on this issue, ruled as follo*s2

6here a person born to a &ilipino mother and an alien father had e0ercised the riht ofsuffrae *hen he came of ae, the same constitutes a positive act of election ofPhilippine citi'enship. "&lorencio vs. Mallare# ;sic < The acts of the petitioner in reisterinas a voter, participatin in elections and campainin for certain candidates *ere held b+the )upreme Court as sufficient to sho* his preference for Philippine citi'enship.

Accordinl+, even *ithout compl+in *ith the formal re1uisites for election, the petitioners&ilipino citi'enship *as 7udiciall+ upheld. 23

9 find the above rulin of the respondent tribunal to be patentl+ erroneous and clearl+ untenable, asto amount to rave abuse of discretion. &or it is settled doctrine in this 7urisdiction that election ofPhilippine citi'enship must be made in accordance *ith Common*ealth Act 54>. )ections and4 2/ of the Act mandate that the option to elect Philippine citi'enship must be effected e0pressl+ notimpliedl+.

The respondent tribunal cites !n re< $lorencio +allare 2 *hich held that Esteban Mallares e0ercise of the riht of suffrae *hen he came of ae, constituted a positive act of election of Philippine

citi'enship.

+allare, cited b+ respondent tribunal as authorit+ for the doctrine of implied election of Philippineciti'enship, is not applicable to the case at bar. The respondent tribunal failed to consider thatEsteban Mallare reached the ae of ma7orit+ in /0=>, or seventeen "/# +ears before CA 54> *asapproved and, more importantl+, eleven "# +ears before the -:> Constitution "*hich ranted theriht of election# took effect.

To 1uote Mr. $ustice &ernande' in +allare2

9ndeed, it *ould be unfair to e0pect the presentation of a formal deed to that effectconsiderin that prior to the enactment of Common*ealth Act 54> on $une /, -, no

particular proceedin *as re1uired to e0ercise the option to elect Philippine citi'enship,ranted to the proper part+ b+ )ection , subsection , Article 98 of the -:> PhilippineConstitution. 2

Moreover, Esteban Mallare *as held to be a &ilipino citi'en because he *as an illegiti6ate?natural@ child of a &ilipino mother and thus follo*ed her citi'enship. 9 therefore aree *iththe petitioners submission that, inciting the +allare case, the respondent tribunal hadenaed in an o*iter dictu6.



The respondent tribunal also erred in rulin that b+ operation of CA /:, the Revised Naturali'ation(a*, providin for private respondents ac1uisition of &ilipino citi'enship b+ reason of thenaturali'ation of his father, the la* itself had alread+ elected Philippine citi'enship for him. &or,assumin arguendo that the naturali'ation of private respondents father *as valid, and that there*as no further need for private respondent to elect Philippine citi'enship "as he had automaticall+become a &ilipino citi'en# +et, this did not mean that the operation of the Revised Naturali'ation (a*

amounted to an election b+ him of Philippine citi'enship as contemplated b+ the Constitution.Besides, election of Philippine citi'enship derived from ones &ilipino mother, is made upon reachinthe ae of ma7orit+, not durin ones minorit+.

There is no doubt in m+ mind, therefore, that private respondent did not elect Philippine citi'enshipupon reachin the ae of ma7orit+ in -5- or *ithin a reasonable time thereafter as re1uired b+ CA54>. Conse1uentl+, he cannot be deemed a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en under )ections 4 and ":#,

Article 98 of the -/ Constitution.

Based on all the foreoin considerations and premises, 9 am constrained to state that privaterespondent is not a naturalborn citi'en of the Philippines in contemplation of )ection 5, Article 89 ofthe -/ Constitution in relation to )ections 4 and ":#, Article 98 thereof, and hence is dis1ualified

or ineliible to be a Member of the !ouse of Representatives.

At this point, 9 find it no loner necessar+ to rule on the issue of re1uired residence, inasmuch as theConstitution re1uires that a Member of the !ouse of Representatives must be both a naturalborn&ilipino citi'en and a resident for at least one "# +ear in the district in *hich he shall be elected.

The ne0t 1uestion that comes up is *hether or not either of the petitioners can replace privaterespondent as the Representative of the second leislative district of Northern )amar in the !ouseof Representatives.

9 aree *ith respondent tribunal that neither of the petitioners ma+ take the place of privaterespondent in the !ouse of Representatives representin the second district of Northern )amar. Therulin of this Court in %a6on L.La*o, Jr . vs. The Co66ission on lections ?CO+LC@ N BANCand Luis L. Lardi)a*al , 2 is controllin. There *e held that (uis (. (ardi'abal, *ho filed the (uowarranto petition, could not replace Ramon (. (abo, $r. as ma+or of Bauio Cit+ for the simplereason that as he obtained onl+ the second hihest number of votes in the election, he *asobviousl+ not the choice of the people of Bauio Cit+ for ma+or of that Cit+.

A petition allein that the candidateelect is not 1ualified for the office is, in effect, a (uowarranto proceedin even if it is labelled an election protest. 2 9t is a proceedin to unseat theineliible person from office but not necessaril+ to install the protestant in his place. 29

The eneral rule is that the fact that a pluralit+ or a ma7orit+ of the votes are cast for an ineliiblecandidate in an election does not entitle the candidate receivin the ne0t hihest number of votes tobe declared elected. 9n such a case, the electors have failed to make a choice and the election is a

nullit+. 30

)ound polic+ dictates that public elective offices are filled b+ those *ho have thehihest number of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a fundamentalidea in all republican forms of overnment that no one can be declared elected andno measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a ma7orit+ or pluralit+ ofthe leal votes cast in the election. "4 Corpus $uris 4nd, ) 4:, p. 5/5#.



As earl+ as -4, this Court has alread+ declared that the candidate *ho lost in anelection cannot be proclaimed the *inner in the event that the candidate *ho *on isfound ineliible for the office to *hich he *as elected. This *as the rulin in Topaciov. Paredes "4: Phil. 4:# H

Aain, the effect of a decision that a candidate is not entitled to the office

because of fraud or irreularities in the election is 1uite different from thatproduced b+ declarin a person ineliible to hold such an office. . . . 9f itbe found that the successful candidate "accordin to the board ofcanvassers# obtained a pluralit+ in an illeal manner, and that anothercandidate *as the real victor, the former must retire in favor of the latter.9n the other case, there is not, strictl+ speakin, a contest, as the *reathof victor+ cannot be transferred from an ineliible to an+ other candidate*hen the sole 1uestion is the eliibilit+ of the one receivin a pluralit+ ofthe leall+ cast ballots. . . . 31

The recognition of 6il L. Ong * the /03/ Constitutional Convention as a natural7*orn$ilipino citi)en, in relation to the present case.

Private respondent, as previousl+ stated, is a full brother of Emil (. %n, both of them havin thesame father and mother.

Private respondent, rel+in on a resolution of the -/ Constitutional Convention 32 to the effect thatEmil (. %n *as a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en, alleed before the !ouse Electoral Tribunal that, *analog , he is himself a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en. This submission, *hile initiall+ impressive, is, as*ill no* be sho*n, fla*ed and not supported b+ the evidence. Not even the ma7orit+ decision of theelectoral tribunal adopted the same as the basis of its decision in favor of private respondent. Thetribunal, in reference to this submission, said2

Be that as it ma+ and in the liht of the Tribunals disposition of protestees citi'enshipbased on an entirel+ different set of circumstances, apart from the indisputable fact that

the matters attempted to be brouht in issue in connection there*ith are too far removedin point of time and relevance from the decisive events relied upon b+ the Tribunal, *evie* these t*o issues as bein alread+ inconse1uential. 33

The electoral tribunal "ma7orit+# instead chose to predicate its decision on the alleedciti'enship b+ naturali'ation of private respondents father "%n Chuan# and on the alleedelection of Philippine citi'enship b+ private respondent.

Emil (. %n, *as elected deleate to the -/ Constitutional Convention. Electoral protests,numbers EP/ and EP, *ere filed b+ (eonardo G. Falin and Fualberto G. (uto aainst Emil (.%n, contestin his citi'enship 1ualification. The Committee on Election Protests Credentials of the-/ Contitution Convention heard the protests and submitted to the Convention a report dated )eptember -/4, the dispositive portion of *hich stated2

9t appearin that protestees randfather *as himself a &ilipino citi'en under theprovisions of the Philippine Bill of -4 and the Treat+ of Paris of Gecember , -,thus conferrin upon protestees o*n father, %n Chuan, Philippine citi'enship at birth,the conclusion is inescapable that protestee himself is a naturalborn citi'en, and istherefore 1ualified to hold the office of deleate to the Constitutional Convention. 3/



%n 4 November -/4, durin a plenar+ session of the -/ Constitutional Convention, the electionprotests filed aainst Emil (. %n *ere dismissed, follo*in the report of the Committee on ElectionProtests and Credentials. 3

9t is evident, up to this point, that the action of the -/ Constitutional Convention in the case of Emil(. %n is, to sa+ the least, inconclusive to the case at bar, because H

a# the -/ Constitutional Convention decision in the Emil (. %n case involved the-:>Constitution3 the present case, on the other hand involves the-/ Constitution2

b# the -:> Constitution contained no specific definition of a =naturalborn citi'en= ofthe Philippines3 the -/ Constitution contains a precise and specific definition of a=naturalborn citi'en= of the Philippines in )ec. 4, Art. 98 thereof and privaterespondent does not 1ualif+ under such definition in the -/ Constitution3

c# the decision of the -/ Constitutional Convention in the case of Emil (. %n *asa decision of a political *od, not a court of law . And, even if *e have to take such a

decision as a decision of a(uasi7'udicial bod+ "i.e., a political bod+ e0ercisin 1uasi 7udicial functions#, said decision in the Emil (. %n case can not have the cateor+ or character of res 'udicata in the present 7udicial controvers+, because bet*een the t*o"4# cases, there is no identit+ of parties "one involves Emil (. %n, *hile the otherinvolves private respondent# and, more importantl+, there is no identit+ of causes ofaction because the first involves the -:> Constitution *hile the second involves the-/ Constitution.

But even la+in aside the foreoin reasons based on procedural rules and loic,the evidence submitted before the electoral tribunal and, therefore, also before this Court, does notsupport the alleations made b+ Emil (. %n before the -/ Constitutional Convention andinferentiall+ adopted b+ private respondent in the present controvers+. This leads us to an interestinin1uir+ and findin.

The -/ Constitutional Convention in holdin that Emil (. %n *as a =naturalborn citi'en= of thePhilippines under the -:> Constitution laid stress on the =fact= H and this appears crucial andcentral to its decision H that Emil (. %ns randfather, Ong Te became a &ilipino citi'en under thePhilippine Bill of -4 and, therefore, his descendants like Emil (. %n "and therefore, also privaterespondent# became naturalborn &ilipinos. The -/ Constitutional Convention said2

%n Te Emil %ns randfather, *as a )panish sub7ect residin in the Philippines on April, -- and *as therefore one of the man+ *ho became ipso facto citi'ens of thePhilippines under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of -4. )aid la* e0pressl+declared that all inhabitants of the Philippine 9slands *ho continued to reside therein and*ho *ere )panish sub7ects on April , -- as *ell as their children born subse1uent

thereto, =shall be deemed and held to be citi'ens of the Philippine 9slands.= ")ection ,Philippine Bill of-4#. 3

The =test= then, follo*in the premises of the -/ Constitutional Convention, is *hether or not %nTe private respondents and Emil (. %ns randfather *as =an inhabitant of the Philippines *hocontinued to reside therein and *as a )panish sub7ect on April , --.= 9f he met thesere1uirements of the Philippine Bill of -4, then, %n Te *as a &ilipino citi'en3 other*ise, he *as nota &ilipino citi'en.



Petitioners "protestants# submitted and offered in evidence before the !ouse Electoral Tribunale0hibits 6, , @, J ,AA, BB, CC, GG and EE *hich are copies of entries in the =Reistro de Chinos=from +ears -5 to -/ *hich sho* that %n Te *as not listed as an inhabitant of )amar *here heis claimed to have been a resident. Petitioners "protestants# also submitted and offered in evidencebefore the !ouse Electoral Tribunal e0hibit 8, a certification of the Chief of the Archives Givision,Records and Manaement and Archives %ffice, statin that the name of %n Te does not appear in

the =Reistro Central de Chinos= for the province of )amar for ->. These e0hibits prove or at least,as petitioners validl+ arue, tend to prove that %n Te *as N%T a resident of )amar close to April-- and, therefore, could not continue residin in )amar, Philippines after April --, contrar+ toprivate respondents pretense. 9n the face of these proofs or evidence, private respondent &A9(EGT% PRE)ENT AN@ REB?TTA( %R C%?NTER8A9(9NF E89GENCE, e0cept the decision of the-/ Constitutional Convention in the case of Emil (. %n, previousl+ discussed.

9t is not surprisin then that, as previousl+ noted, the ma7orit+ decision of the !ouse ElectoralTribunal skirted an+ reliance on the alleed ipso facto &ilipino citi'enship of %n Te under thePhilippine Bill of -4. 9t is e1uall+ not surprisin that %n Chuan, the son of %n Te and father orprivate respondent, did not even attempt to claim &ilipino citi'enship b+ reason of %n Tes alleed&ilipino citi'enship under the Philippine Bill of -4 but instead applied for Philippine citi'enshipthrouh naturali'ation.

Nor can it be contended b+ the private respondent that the !ouse Electoral Tribunal should noloner have revie*ed the factual 1uestion or issue of %n Tes citi'enship in the liht of theresolution of the -/ Constitutional Convention findin him "%n Te to have become a &ilipinociti'en under the Philippine Bill of -4. The tribunal had to look into the 1uestion because thefindin that %n Te had become a &ilipino citi'en under the Philippine Bill of -4 *as the centralcore of said -/ resolution but as held in Lee vs. Co66issioners of!66igration2 3

. . . Ever+time the citi'enship of a person is material or indispensable in a 7udicial oradministrative case, *hatever the correspondin Court or administrative authorit+decides therein as to such citi'enship is enerall+ not considered as res ad'udicata,

hence it has to be threshed out aain and aain as the occasion ma+ demand.

6hich finall+ brins us to the resolution of this Court in 6il L. Ong vs. CO+LC, et al ., F.R. No.5/4, Ma+ -. 9n connection *ith said resolution, it is contended b+ private respondent that theresolution of the -/ Constitutional Convention in the Emil (. %n case *as elevated to this Courton a 1uestion involvin Emil (. %ns dis1ualification to run for membership in the BatasanPambansa and that, accordin to private respondent, this Court allo*ed the use of the CommitteeReport to the -/ Constitutional Convention.

To full+ appreciate the implications of such contention, it *ould help to look into the circumstances of the case brouht before this Court in relation to the Courts action or disposition. Emil (. %n andEdilberto Gel 8alle *ere both candidates for the Batasan Pambansa in the Ma+ - election.

8alle filed a petition for dis1ualification *ith the Commission on Election on 4- March - docketedas )PC No. 5- contendin that %n is not a naturalborn citi'en. %n filed a motion to dismissthe petition on the round that the 7udment of the -/ Constitutional Convention on his status as anaturalborn citi'en of the Philippines bars the petitioner from raisin the 9dentical issue before theC%ME(EC. "F.R. No. 5/4, %ollo, p. -# The motion *as denied b+ the C%ME(EC, thus,promptin Emil (. %n to file *ith this Court a petition for certiorari , prohibition and 6anda6us *ithpreliminar+ in7unction aainst the C%ME(EC, docketed as F.R. No. 5/4.



9n a resolution dated Ma+ -, this Court resolved to issue a *rit of preliminar+ in7unctionen7oinin respondent C%ME(EC from holdin an+ further hearin on the dis1ualification caseentitled =dil*erto el alle vs. 6il Ong ")PC No. 5-# e0cept to dismiss the same. "F.R. Nos.-444:, %ollo, p. ::>#

This Court, in e0plainin its action, held that2

Actin on the pra+er of the petitioner for the issuance of a 6rit of Preliminar+9n7unction, and considerin that at the hearin this mornin, it *as brouht out thatthe -/ Constitutional Convention, at its session of November 4, -/4, afterconsiderin the Report of its Committee on Election Protests and Credentials, foundthat the protest 1uestionin the citi'enship of the protestee "the petitioner herein#*as roundless and dismissed Election Protests Nos. EP / and EP filed aainstsaid petitioner "p. 4:/, %ollo#, the authenticit+ of the Minutes of said session as *ellas of the said Committees Report havin been dul+ admitted in evidence *ithoutob7ection and bears out, for now , *ithout need for a full hearin, that petitioner is anaturalborn citi'en, the Court Resolved to 9))?E, effective immediatel+, a 6rit ofPreliminar+ 9n7unction en7oinin respondent C%ME(EC from holdin an+ further

hearin on the dis1ualification case entitled dil*erto el alle vs. 6il Ong ")PCNo. 5-# scheduled at :2 oclock this afternoon, or an+ other da+, e0cept todismiss the same.This is without pre'udice to an appropriate action that privaterespondent 6a wish to ta:e after the elections. "emphasis supplied#

9t is thus clear that the resolution of this Court in F.R. No. 5/4 *as rendered *ithout the benefit ofa hearin on the merits either b+ the Court or b+ the C%ME(EC and merel+ on the basis of aCommittees Report to the -/ Constitutional Convention, and that this Court "and this is 1uitesinificant# did not foreclose an+ appropriate action that Gel 8alle "therein petitioner# ma+ *ish totake after the elections.

9t is thus abundantl+ clear also that to this Court, the resolution of the -/ ConstitutionalConvention reconi'in Emil (. %n as a naturalborn citi'en under the -:> Constitution did not

foreclose a future or further proceedin in reard to the same 1uestion and that, conse1uentl+, thereis no vested right of Emil (. %n to such reconition. !o* much more *hen the Constitution involvedis not the -:> Constitution but the -/ Constitution *hose provisions *ere never considered in allsuch proceedins because the -/ Constitution *as still ine0istent.

A final *ord. 9t is rerettable that one "as private respondent# *ho un1uestionabl+ obtained thehihest number of votes for the elective position of Representative "Conressman# to the !ouse ofRepresentatives for the second district of Northern )amar, *ould have had to cease in office b+virtue of this Courts decision, if the full 6e6*ership of the Court had participated in this case, *iththe result that the leislative district *ould cease to have, in the interim, a representative in the!ouse of Representatives. But the fundamental consideration in cases of this nature is theConstitution and onl+ the Constitution. 9t has to be assumed, therefore, that *hen the electorate in

the second leislative district of Northern )amar cast the ma7orit+ of their votes for privaterespondent, the assu6ed and *elieved that he was full eligi*le and (ualified for the office *ecausehe is a natural7*orn $ilipino citi)en. That erroneous assumption and belief can not prevail over, butmust +ield to the ma7est+ of the Constitution.

This is a sad da+ for the Constitution. As 9 see it, the Constitution mandates that members of the!ouse of Representatives should be natural7*orn citi'ens of the Philippines=. The votin ma7orit+ ofthe present Court sa+s, =&ilipino citi'ens *ill do.= This is bad enouh. 6hat is *orse is, the samevotin ma7orit+, in effect, sa+s, =even aliens *ill do as *ell.=



6!ERE&%RE, m+ vote is clear2 to declare private respondent $ose (. %n Chua, $r., as he clearl+is, N%T a naturalborn citi'en of the Philippines and therefore N%T I?A(9&9EG to be a Member ofthe !ouse of Representatives, Conress of the Philippines.

Narvasa, J., -aras, J. and %egalado, J., dissenting.

SARMIENTO, J., concurrin2

9 concur *ith the ma7orit+.

"#

9 *ish to point out first that the 1uestion of citi'enship is a 1uestion of fact, and as a rule, the)upreme Court leaves facts to the tribunal that determined them. 9 am 1uite areed that the ElectoralTribunal of the !ouse of Representatives, as the =sole 7ude= of all contests relatin to themembership in the !ouse, as follo*s2

)ec. /. The )enate and the !ouse of Representatives shall each have an Electoral

Tribunal *hich shall be the sole 7ude of all contests relatin to the election, returns, and1ualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed ofnine Members, three of *hom shall be $ustices of the )upreme Court to be desinatedb+ the Chief $ustice, and the remainin si0 shall be Members of the )enate or the !ouseof Representatives, as the case ma+ be, *ho shall be chosen on the basis of proportionalrepresentation from the political parties and the parties or orani'ations reistered underthe part+list s+stem represented therein. The senior $ustice in the Electoral Tribunal shallbe its Chairman. 1

is the best 7ude of facts and this Court can not substitute its 7udment because it thinks itkno*s better.

9n the case of Aratuc v . Co66ission on lections, 2 it *as held that this Court can not revie* theerrors of the Commission on Elections "then the =sole 7ude= of all election contests# H in the senseof revie*in facts and unearthin mistakes H and that this Courts 7urisdiction is to see simpl+*hether or not it is uilt+ of a rave abuse of discretion. 9t is true that the ne* Constitution hasconferred e0panded po*ers on the Court, 3 but as the Charter states, our authorit+ is =to determine*hether or not there has been a rave abuse of discretion amountin to lack or e0cess of 7urisdictionon the part of an+ branch or instrumentalit+ of the Fovernment.= / 9t is not to revie* facts.

=Frave abuse of discretion= has been defined as *himsical e0ercise of po*er amountin to e0cessof 7urisdiction, or other*ise, to denial of due process of la*.

9 find none of that here.

As the ma7orit+ indicates, $ose %ns citi'enship is a matter of opinion *ith *hich men ma+ differ, butcertainl+, it is 1uite another thin to sa+ that the respondent Tribunal has ravel+ abused itsdiscretion because the ma7orit+ has beed to differ. 9t does not form part of the dut+ of the Court toremed+ all imained *rons committed b+ the Fovernment.

The respondent Tribunal has spoken. Accordin to the Tribunal, $ose %n is a &ilipino citi'en andconse1uentl+, is possessed of the 1ualifications to be a member of the !ouse. As the sole 7ude,precisel+, of this 1uestion, the Court can not be more popish than the pope.



"4#

9 can not sa+, in the second place, that the Gecision in 1uestion stands e0actl+ on indefensiblerounds. 9t is to be noted that $ose %n had relied on the Report dated )eptember , -/4 of the-/ Constitutional Convention Committee on Election Protests and Credentials, in *hich theCommittees upheld the citi'enship, and sustained the 1ualification to sit as Geleate, of Emil %n,

$ose %ns full blood brother. Accordin to the Report, %n Te the %ns randfather, *as alread+ a&ilipino citi'en havin complied *ith the re1uirements on &ilipini'ation b+ e0istin la*s for *hich hissuccessors need not have elected &ilipino citi'enship. 9 1uote2

000 000 000

There is merit in protestees claim. There can hardl+ be an+ doubt that %n Teprotesteess randfather, *as a )panish sub7ect residin in the Philippines on April ,--, and *as therefore one of the man+ *ho became ipso facto citi'ens of thePhilippines under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of -4. )aid la* e0pressl+declared that all inhabitants of the Philippine 9slands *ho continued to reside therein and*ho *ere )panish sub7ects on April , --, as *ell as their children born subse1uentthereto, =shall be deemed and held to be citi'ens of the Philippine 9slands= ")ec. ,Philippine Bill of -4#. E0cepted from the operation of this rule *ere )panish sub7ects*ho shall have elected to preserve their alleiance to the Cro*n of )pain in accordance*ith the Treat+ of Paris of Gecember , -. But under the Treat+ of Paris, onl+)panish sub7ects *ho *ere natives of Peninsular )pain had the privilee of preservintheir )panish nationalit+.

000 000 000

000 000 000

As earlier noted, protestees randfather established residence in the Philippines in ->,as sho*n b+ the%egistro Central de Chinos. !e *as also issued a certificate of

reistration. !e established a business here, and later ac1uired real propert+. Althouhhe *ent back to China for brief visits, he invariabl+ came back. !e even brouht hiseldest son, %n Chuan, to live in the Philippines *hen the latter *as onl+ +ears old.

And %n Chuan *as admitted into the countr+ because, as dul+ noted on his landincertificate, his father, %n Te had been dul+ enrolled under CR 5-:5/>> H i .e., as apermanent resident. 9ndeed, even *hen %n Te *ent back to China in the -4s foranother visit, he left his son, %n Chuan, *ho *as then still a minor, in the Philippines Hobviousl+ because he had lon considered the Philippines his home. The domicile heestablished in -> is presumed to have continued up to, and be+ond, April , --, for,as alread+ adverted to, a domicile once ac1uired is not lost until a ne* one is ained. Theonl+ conclusion then can thus be dra*n is that %n Te *as dul+ domiciled in thePhilippines as of April , --, *ithin the meanin of par. , Art. /, of the Civil Code of- H and *as, conse1uentl+, a )panish sub7ect, he 1ualified as a &ilipino citi'en under the provisions of )ection of the Philippine Bill of -4.

9t is true that %n Chuan, the %n brothers father, subse1uentl+ souht naturali'ation in the beliefthat he *as, all alon, a Chinese citi'en, but as the Report held2

Protestants, ho*ever, make capital of the fact that both %n Te and his son, %n Chuan"protestees father#, appear to have been reistered as Chinese citi'ens even lon afterthe turn of the centur+. 6orse, %n Chuan himself believed the *as alien, to the e0tent of havin to seek admission as a Pilipino citi'en throuh naturali'ation proceedins. The



point, to our mind, is neither crucial nor substantial. %ns status as a citi'en is a matterof la*, rather than of personal belief. 9t is *hat the la* provides, and not *hat one thinkshis status to be, *hich determines *hether one is a citi'en of a particular state or not.Mere mistake or misapprehension as to ones citi'enship, it has been held, is not asufficient cause or reason for forfeiture of Philippine citi'enship3 it does not evenconstitute estoppel "Palanca vs. Republic, Phil. >/, >#. Too, estoppel applies onl+to 1uestions of fact and not of la* "Tanada v. Cuenco, (>4, &eb. 4, ->/#. 9

9t is to be noted that the Report *as unanimousl+ approved b+ the Committee, and on November 4,-/4, approved *ithout an+ ob7ection b+ the Convention in plenar+ session. 10

9 am not, of course, to be mistaken as actin as mouthpiece of Emil %n, but in all candor, 9 speakfrom e0perience, because *hen the Convention approved the Report in 1uestion, 9 *as one of itsvicepresidents and the presidin officer.

9t is to be noted finall+, that the matter *as elevated to this Court "on a 1uestion involvin Emil %ns1ualification to sit as member of the defunct Batasan Pambansa# 11 in *hich this Court allo*ed theuse of the Committee Report.

&aced *ith such positive acts of the Fovernment, 9 submit that the 1uestion of the %ns citi'enshipis a settled matter. (et it rest.

9t is true that Electoral Protest Nos. EP/ and EP of the Convention as *ell as F.R. No. 5/4of this Court, involved Emil %n and not his brother3 9 submit, ho*ever, that *hat is sauce for theoose is sauce for the ander.

9 also submit that the fundamental 1uestion is *hether or not *e *ill overturn the unanimous rulinof 45/ deleates, indeed, also of this Court.

S'()*)+' O(os

PA#ILLA, J., dissentin2

9 dissent.

These separate petitions for certiorari and 6anda6us seek to annul the decision of respondent!ouse of Representatives Electoral Tribunal "hereinafter referred to as the tribunal# dated 5November -- *hich declared private respondent $ose (. %n, a naturalborn citi'en of thePhilippines and a leal resident of (aoan, Northern )amar, and the resolution of the tribunal dated44 &ebruar+ -- den+in petitioners motions for reconsideration.

9n F.R. Nos. -4--4, petitioner Co also pra+s that the Court declare private respondent %n not1ualified to be a Member of the !ouse of Representatives and to declare him "petitioner Co# *hoalleedl+ obtained the hihest number of votes amon the (ualified candidates, the dul+ electedrepresentative of the second leislative district of Northern )amar. 9n F.R. Nos. -444:, petitionerBalan1uit pra+s that the Court declare private respondent %n and Co "petitioner in F.R. Nos.-4--4# not 1ualified for membership in the !ouse of Representatives and to proclaim him"Balanuit# as the dul+ elected representative of said district.



Petitioners Antonio @. Co, )i0to T. Balan1uit, $r. and private respondent $ose %n Chuan, $r. *ereamon the candidates for the position of Representative or Conressman for the second district ofNorthern )amar durin the Ma+ -/ conressional elections. Private respondent *asproclaimed dul+elected on Ma+ -/ *ith a pluralit+ of some si0teen thousand "5,# votesover petitioner Co *ho obtained the ne0t hihest number of votes.

Petitioners Co and Balan1uit then filed separate election protests aainst private respondent *ith thetribunal, docketed as !RET Cases Nos. : and > respectivel+. Both protests raised almost thesame issues and *ere thus considered and decided 7ointl+ b+ the tribunal.

The issues raised before the tribunal *ere the follo*in2

. 6hether or not protestee "meanin, %n# is a naturalborn citi'en of thePhilippines in contemplation of )ection 5, Article 89 of the -/ Constitution inrelation to )ections 4 and ":#, Article 98 thereof3 and

4. 6hether or not protestee *as a resident of (aoan, Northern )amar, incontemplation of )ection 5, Article 89 of the same Constitution, for a period of not

less than one +ear immediatel+ precedin the conressional elections of Ma+ -/.

The respondent tribunal in its decision dated 5 November -- held that respondent $ose (. %n isa naturalborn citi'en of the Philippines and *as a leal resident of (aoan, Northern )amar for there1uired period prior to the Ma+ -/ conressional elections. !e *as, therefore, declared 1ualifiedto continue in office as Member of the !ouse of Representatives, Conress of the Philippines,representin the second leislative district of Northern )amar.

The factual antecedents taken from the consolidated proceedins in the tribunal are the follo*in2

. The Protestee "%n# *as born on $une -, - to the leal spouses %n Chuanalso kno*n as $ose %n Chuan and Arifina E. (ao. !is place of birth is (aoan

*hich is no* one of the municipalities comprisin the province of Northern )amar"Republic Act No. 5:4 approved on Auust 4, -/ and the %rdinance appendedto the -/ Constitution#.

4. %n the other hand, $ose %n Chuan *as born in China and arrived in Manila onGecember 5, ->. "E0hibit ''# )ubse1uentl+ thereafter, he took up residence in(aoan, )amar.

:. %n &ebruar+ , -:4, he married Arifina E. (ao. Their *eddin *as celebratedaccordin to the rites and practices of the Roman Catholic Church in the Municipalit+of (aoan "E0h. E#.

. At the time of her marriae to $ose %n Chuan, Arifina E. (ao *as a naturalborn&ilipino citi'en, both her parents at the time of her birth bein &ilipino citi'ens."E0hibits E K 9#

>. %n &ebruar+ >, ->, $ose %n Chuan, desirin to ac1uire Philippine citi'enship,filed his petition for naturali'ation *ith the Court of &irst 9nstance of )amar, pursuantto Common*ealth Act No. /:, other*ise kno*n as the Revised Naturali'ation (a*.



5. %n April 4, ->>, the Court of &irst 9nstance of )amar rendered a decisionapprovin the application of $ose %n Chuan for naturali'ation and declarin saidpetitioner a &ilipino citi'en =*ith all the rihts and privilees and duties, liabilities andobliations inherent to &ilipino citi'ens. "E0h. E#

/. %n Ma+ >, ->/, the same Court issued an order2

"# declarin the decision of this Court of April 4, ->> final ande0ecutor+3

"4# directin the clerk of court to issue the correspondin Certificate of Naturali'ation in favor of the applicant %n Chuan *ho prefers totake his oath and reister his name as $ose %n Chuan. Petitionerma+ take his oath as &ilipino citi'en under Ms ne* christian name,$ose %n Chuan. "E0h. &#

. %n the same da+, $ose %n Chuan havin taken the correspondin oath ofalleiance to the Constitution and the Fovernment of the Philippines as prescribed

b+ )ection 4 of Common*ealth Act No. /:, *as issued the correspondinCertificate of Naturali'ation. "E0h. F#

-. %n November , -/, Emil (. %n, a fullbrother of the protestee and a son bornon $ul+ 4>, -:/ at (aoan, )amar to the spouses $ose %n Chuan and Arifina E.(ao, *as elected deleate from Northern )amar to the -/ ConstitutionalConvention.

. B+ protestees o*n testimon+, it *as established that he had attended radeschool in (aoan. Thereafter, he *ent to Manila *here he finished his secondar+ as*ell as his collee education. 6hile later emplo+ed in Manila, protestee ho*ever*ent home to (aoan *henever he had the opportunit+ to do so, *hich invariabl+

*ould be as fre1uent as t*ice to four times a +ear.

. Protestee also sho*ed that bein a native and leal resident of (aoan, hereistered as a voter therein and correspondinl+ voted in said municipalit+ in the- and -5 elections.

4. Aain in Gecember -5, durin the eneral reistration of all voters in the countr+,Protestee rereistered as a voter in Precinct No. of Barana+ Tumauintin in (aoan.9n his voters affidavit, Protestee indicated that he is a resident of (aoan since birth."E0h. /# 1

Petitioners motions for reconsideration of the tribunals decision havin been denied, petitioners filedthe present petitions.

9n their comments, the respondents first raise the issue of the Courts 7urisdiction to revie* thedecision of the !ouse Electoral Tribunal, considerin the constitutional provision vestin upon saidtribunal the po*er and authorit+ to act as the sole 'udge of all contests relatin to the 1ualifications of the Members of the !ouse of Representatives. 2

%n the 1uestion of this Courts 7urisdiction over the present controvers+, 9 believe that, contrar+ to therespondents contentions, the Court has the 7urisdiction and competence to revie* the 1uestioneddecision of the tribunal and to decide the present controvers+.



Article 8999, )ection 9 of the -/ Constitution provides that2

$udicial po*er includes the dut+ of the courts of 7ustice to settle actual controversiesinvolvin rihts *hich are leall+ demandable and enforceable, and to determine*hether or not there has been a rave abuse of discretion amountin to lack ore0cess of 7urisdiction on the part of an+ branch or instrumentalit+ of the Fovernment.

The Constitution, it is true, constitutes the tribunal as the sole 'udge of all contests relatin to theelection, returns, and 1ualifications of Members of the !ouse of Representatives. But as earl+ as-:, it *as held in +orrero vs.Bocar , 3 construin )ection , Article 89 of the -:> Constitution*hich provided that =. . . The Electoral Commission shall be the sole 7ude of all contests relatin tothe election, returns and 1ualifications of the Members of the National Assembl+,= that2

The 7udment rendered b+ the "electoral# commission in the e0ercise of such anackno*leded po*er is be+ond 7udicial interference, e0cept, in an+ event, =upon aclear sho*in of such arbitrar+ and improvident use of the po*er as *ill constitute adenial of due process of la*.= "Barr+ vs. ?) e0 rel. Cunninham, 4/- ?) >-/3 /:(a*. ed., 5/3 Anara vs. Electoral Commission, :> %ff. Fa'., 4:.#

And then under the afore1uoted provisions of Article 8999, )ection of the -/ Constitution, thisCourt is dut+bound to determine *hether or not, in an actual controvers+, there has been a raveabuse of discretion amountin to lack or e0cess of 7urisdiction on the part of an+ branch orinstrumentalit+ of the Fovernment.

The present controvers+, it *ill be observed, involves more than perceived irreularities in theconduct of a conressional election or a disputed appreciation of ballots, in *hich cases, it ma+ becontended *ith reat leal force and persuasion that the decision of the electoral tribunal should befinal and conclusive, for it is, b+ constitutional directive, made the sole 7ude of contests relatin tosuch matters. The present controvers+, ho*ever, involves no less than a determination of *hetherthe 1ualifications for membership in the !ouse of Representatives, as prescri*ed * theConstitution, have been met. 9ndeed, this Court *ould be unforivabl+ remiss in the performance ofits duties, as mandated b+ the Constitution, *ere it to allo* a person, not a naturalborn &ilipinociti'en, to continue to sit as a Member of the !ouse of Representatives, solel+ because the !ouseElectoral Tribunal has declared him to be so. 9n such a case, the tribunal *ould have acted *ithrave abuse of discretion amountin to lack or e0cess of 7urisdiction as to re1uire the e0ercise b+this Court of its po*er of 7udicial revie*.

Besides, the citi'enship and residence 1ualifications of private respondent for the office of Memberof the !ouse of Representatives, are here controverted b+ petitioners *ho, at the same time, claimthat the+ are entitled to the office illeall+ held b+ private respondent. &rom this additional direction,*here one asserts an earnestl+ perceived riht that in turn is viorousl+ resisted b+ another, there isclearl+ a 7usticiable controvers+ proper for this Court to consider and decide.

Nor can it be said that the Court, in revie*in the decision of the tribunal, asserts supremac+ over itin contravention of the timehonored principle of constitutional separation of po*ers. The Court inthis instance simpl+ performs a function entrusted and assined to it b+ the Constitution ofinterpretin, in a 7usticiable controvers+, the pertinent provisions of the Constitution *ith finalit+.

9t is the role of the $udiciar+ to refine and, *hen necessar+, correct constitutional "andLorstatutor+# interpretation, in the conte0t of the interactions of the three branches of theovernment, almost al*a+s in situations *here some aenc+ of the )tate has enaed in



action that stems ultimatel+ from some leitimate area of overnmental po*er "the)upreme Court in Modern Role, C.B. )evisher, ->, p. :5#. /

Moreover, it is decidedl+ a matter of reat public interest and concern to determine *hether or notprivate respondent is 1ualified to hold so important and hih a public office *hich is specificall+reserved b+ the Constitution onl+ to naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens.

After a careful consideration of the issues and the evidence, it is m+ considered opinion that therespondent tribunal committed rave abuse of discretion amountin to lack or e0cess of 7urisdictionin renderin its 1uestioned decision and resolution, for reasons to be presentl+ stated.

The Constitution re1uires that a Member of the !ouse of Representatives must be a naturalbornciti'en of the Philippines and, on the da+ of the election, is at least t*ent+five "4># +ears of ae, ableto read and *rite, and, e0cept the part+list representatives, a reistered voter in the district in *hichhe shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one "# +ear immediatel+precedin the da+ of the election.

Article 98, )ection 4 of the -/ Constitution defines naturalborn "&ilipino# citi'ens as2

Naturalborn citi'ens are those *ho are citi'ens of the Philippines from birth *ithouthavin to perform an+ act to ac1uire or perfect their Philippine citi'enship. Those *hoelect Philippine citi'enship in accordance *ith pararaph ":#, )ection 9 hereof shallbe deemed naturalborn citi'en,

Article 98, )ection , pararaph ":# of the -/ Constitution provides that2

)ection . The follo*in are citi'ens of the Philippines2

000 000 000

":# Those born before $anuar+ /, -/:, of &ilipino mothers, *ho elect Philippineciti'enship upon reachin the ae of ma7orit+.

The Court in this case is faced *ith the dut+ of interpretin the above1uoted constitutionalprovisions. The first sentence of )ection 4 of Article 98 states the basic definition of a naturalborn&ilipino citi'en. Goes private respondent fall *ithin said definitionD

To the respondent tribunal,

Protestee ma+ even be declared a naturalborn citi'en of the Philippines under the firstsentence of )ec. 4 of Article 98 of the -/ Constitution because he did not have =toperform an+ act to ac1uire or perfect his Philippine citi'enship.= 9t bears to repeat that on

> Ma+ ->/, *hile still a minor of - +ears he alread+ became a &ilipino citi'en b+declaration of la*. )ince his mother *as a naturalborn citi'en at the time of hermarriae, protestee had an inchoate riht to Philippine citi'enship at the moment of hisbirth and, conse1uentl+ the declaration b+ virtue of )ec. > of CA /: that he *as a&ilipino citi'en retroacted to the moment of his birth *ithout his havin to perform an+ actto ac1uire or perfect such Philippine citi'enship.

9 reret that 9 am neither convinced nor persuaded b+ such kaleidoscopic ratiocination. The recordssho* that private respondent *as born on - $une - to the spouses $ose %n Chuan, a Chineseciti'en, and Arifina E. (ao, a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en, in (aoan, Northern )amar. 9n other



*ords, at *irth, private respondent *as a Chinese citi'en "not a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en# becausehis father *as then a Chinese citi'en "not a naturali'ed &ilipino citi'en#. ?nder the -:> Constitution*hich *as enforced at the time of private respondents birth on - $une -, onl+ those *hosefathers *ere citi'ens of the Philippines *ere considered &ilipino citi'ens. Those *hose mothers *ereciti'ens of the Philippines had to elect Philippine citi'enship upon reachin the ae of ma7orit+, inorder to be considered &ilipino citi'ens.

&ollo*in the basic definition in the -/ Constitution of a naturalborn citi'en, in relation to the -:>Constitution, private respondent is not a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en, having *een *orn a Chineseciti)en b+ virtue of the Chinese citi'enship of his father at the time of his birth, althouh from birth,private respondent had the riht to elect Philippine citi'enship, the citi'enship of his mother, but onl+upon his reachin the ae of ma7orit+.

6hile under )ection > of the Revised Naturali'ation (a* "C.A. /:# minor children of a naturali'edciti'en "father#, *ho *ere born in the Philippines prior to the naturali'ation of theparent auto6aticall *eco6e $ilipino citi)ens, this does not alter the fact that private respondent*as not born to a &ilipino father, and the operation of )ection > of CA /: did not confer upon himthe status of a natural7*orn citi'en merel+ because he did not have to perform an+ act to ac1uire or

perfect his status as a $ilipino citi)en.

But even assumin arguendo that private respondent could be considered a naturalborn citi'en b+virtue of the operation of CA /:, petitioners ho*ever contend that the naturali'ation of privaterespondents father *as invalid and void from the beinnin, and, therefore, private respondent isnot even a &ilipino citi'en.

Respondent tribunal in its 1uestioned decision ruled that onl+ a direct proceedin for nullit+ ofnaturali'ation as a &ilipino citi'en is permissible, and, therefore, a collateral attack on %n Chuansnaturali'ation is barred in an electoral contest *hich does not even involve him "%n Chuan#.

Private respondent, for his part, avers in his Comment that the challene aainst %n Chuansnaturali'ation must emanate from the Fovernment and must be made in a properLappropriate anddirect proceedin for denaturali'ation directed aainst the proper part+, *ho in such case is %nChuan, and also durin his lifetime.

A 7udment in a naturali'ation proceedin is not, ho*ever, afforded the character of imprenabilit+under the principle of res 'udicata. 9 )ection of CA /: provides that a certificate of naturali'ationma+ be cancelled upon motion made in the proper proceedin b+ the )olicitor Feneral or hisrepresentative, or b+ the proper provincial fiscal.

9n %epu*lic vs. 8o Bon Lee, 10 this Court held that2

An alien friend is offered under certain conditions the privilee of citi'enship. !e ma+accept the offer and become a citi'en upon compliance *ith the prescribed

conditions, but not other*ise. !is claim is of favor, not of riht. !e can onl+ become aciti'en upon and after a strict compliance *ith the acts of Conress. An applicant forthis hih privilee is bound, therefore, to conform to the terms upon *hich alone theriht he seeks can be conferred. 9t is his province, and he is bound, to see that the

7urisdictional facts upon *hich the rant is predicated actuall+ e0ist and if the+ do nothe takes nothin b+ this paper rant.

000 000 000



Conress havin limited this privilee to a specified class of persons, no otherperson is entitled to such privilee, nor to a certificate purportin to rant it, and an+such certificate issued to a person not so entitled to receive it must be treated as amere nullit+, *hich confers no leal rihts as aainst the overnment, from *hich ithas been obtained *ithout *arrant of la*.

=Naturali'ation is not a riht, but a privilee of the most discriminatin as *ell as delicate ande0actin nature, affectin public interest of the hihest order, and *hich ma+ be en7o+ed onl+ underthe precise conditions prescribed b+ la* therefor.= 11

Considerin the leal implications of the alleation made b+ the petitioners that the naturali'ation ofprivate respondents father %n Chuan, is a nullit+, the Court should make a rulin on the validit+ ofsaid naturali'ation proceedins. This course of action becomes all the more inevitable and 7ustifiedin the present case *here, to repeat for stress, it is claimed that a foreiner is holdin a publicoffice. 12

9t cannot be overlooked, in this connection, that the citi'enship of private respondent is derived fromhis father. 9f his fathers &ilipino citi'enship is void from the beinnin, then there is nothin from

*hich private respondent can derive his o*n claimed &ilipino citi'enship. &or a sprin cannot risehiher than its source. And to allo* private respondent to avail of the privilees of &ilipino citi'enshipb+ virtue of a void naturali'ation of his father, *ould constitute or at least sanction a continuinoffense aainst the Constitution.

The records sho* that private respondents father, $ose %n Chuan, took the oath of alleiance tothe Constitution and the Philippine Fovernment, as prescribed b+ )ection 4 of CA /: on the sameda+ "> Ma+ ->/# that the C&9 issued its order directin the clerk of court to issue thecorrespondin Certificate of Naturali'ation and for the applicant to take the oath of alleiance.

!o*ever, it is settled that an order rantin a petition to take the re1uisite oath of alleiance of one*ho has previousl+ obtained a decision favorable to his application for naturali'ation, is appeala*le.9t is, therefore, improper and illeal to authori'e the takin of said oath upon the issuance of saidorder and before the e0piration of the relementar+ period to perfect an+ appeal from said order. 13

9n Cua "un ;e vs. %epu*lic , 1/ this Court held that2

Administration of the oath of alleiance on the same da+ as issuance of orderrantin citi'enship is irreular and makes the proceedins so taken null and void."Republic vs. Fu+, > )CRA 4 ;-4<3 citing the case of %n )o vs. Republic ofthe Philippines, 4 Phil. :#.

9t *ould appear from the foreoin discussion that the naturali'ation of $ose %n Chuan "privaterespondents father# *as null and void. 9t follo*s that the private respondent did not ac1uire an+ lealrihts from the void naturali'ation of his father and thus he cannot himself be considered a &ilipino

citi'en, more so, a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en.

But assumin that the C&9 order of > Ma+ ->/ directin the clerk of court to issue the certificate ofnaturali'ation to %n Chuan and for the latter to take the oath of alleiance *as final and notappealable, the resultin naturali'ation of %n Chuan effected, as previousl+ stated, an automaticnaturali'ation of private respondent, then a minor, as a &ilipino citi'en on > Ma+ ->/, but not hisac1uisition or perfection of the status of a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en.



(et us no* look into the 1uestion of *hether or not private respondent ac1uired the status of anaturalborn &ilipino citi'en b+ reason of the undisputed fact that his mother *as a naturalborn&ilipino citi'en. This in turn leads us to an e0amination of the second sentence in Article 98, )ection 4of the -/ Constitution. 9t e0pands, in a manner of speakin, in relation to )ection , pararaph ":#of the same Article 98, the status of a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en to those *ho elect Philippineciti'enship upon reachin the ae of ma7orit+. The riht or privilee of election is available, ho*ever,

onl+ to those born to &ilipino mothers under the -:> Constitution, and before the -/: Constitutiontook effect on / $anuar+ -/:.

The petitioners contend that the respondent tribunal acted in e0cess of its 7urisdiction or ravel+abused its discretion as to e0ceed its 7urisdiction in =distortin= the conferment b+ the -/Constitution of the status of =naturalborn= &ilipino citi'en on those *ho elect Philippine citi'enship Hall in its strained effort, accordin to petitioners, to support private respondents 1ualification to be aMember of the !ouse of Representatives. 1

Petitioners arue that the clear, unambiuous *ordin of section ":# of Article 98 of the -/Constitution contemplates that onl+ the leitimate children of &ilipino mothers *ith alien father, bornbefore / $anuar+ -/: and *ho *ould reach the ae of ma7orit+ "and thus elect Philippine

citi'enship# after the effectivit+ of the -/ Constitution are entitled to the status of naturalborn&ilipino citi'en. 1

The respondent tribunal in resolvin the issue of the constitutional provisions interpretation, foundreason to refer to the interpellations made durin the -5 Constitutional Commission. 9t said2

That the benevolent provisions of )ections 4 and ":# of Article 98 of the -/Constitution *as "sic # intended b+ its "sic # framers to be endo*ed, *ithout distinction, toall &ilipinos b+ election pursuant to the -:> Constitution is more than persuasivel+established b+ the e0tensive interpellations and debate on the issue as borne b+ theofficial records of the -5 Constitutional Commission. 1

Althouh 9 find the distinction as to *hen election of Philippine citi'enship *as made irrelevant to the

case at bar, since private respondent, contrar+ to the conclusion of the respondent tribunal, did notelect Philippine citi'enship, as provided b+ la*, 9 still consider it necessar+ to settle the controvers+reardin the meanin of the constitutional provisions in 1uestion.

9 aree *ith respondent tribunal that the debates, interpellations petitions and opinions e0pressed inthe -5 Constitutional Commission ma+ be resorted to in ascertainin the meanin of some*hatelusive and even nebulous constitutional provisions. Thus H

The ascertainment of that intent is but in keepin *ith the fundamental principle ofconstitutional construction that the intent of the framers of the oranic la* and of thepeople adoptin it should be iven effect. The primar+ task in constitutional constructionis to ascertain and thereafter assure the reali'ation of the purpose of the framers and of

the people in the adoption of the Constitution. 9t ma+ also be safel+ assumed that thepeople in ratif+in the constitution *ere uided mainl+ b+ the e0planation offered b+ theframers. 1

The deliberations of the -5 Constitutional Commission relevant to )ection 4, Article 98 in relationto )ection ":# of the same Article, appear to neate the contention of petitioners that onl+ thoseborn to &ilipino mothers before / $anuar+ -/: and *ho *ould elect Philippine citi'enship after theeffectivit+ of the -/ Constitution, are to be considered naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens.



Gurin the free*heelin discussions on citi'enship, Commissioner Treas specificall+ askedCommissioner Bernas reardin the provisions in 1uestion, thus2

MR. TRENA)2 The Committee on Citi'enship, Bill of Rihts, PoliticalRihts and %bliations and !uman Rihts has more or less decidedto e0tend the interpretation of *ho is a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en as

provided in )ection of the -/: Constitution, b+ addin thatpersons *ho have elected Philippine citi'enship under the -:>Constitution shall be considered naturalborn. Am 9 riht, Mr.Presidin %fficerD

&R BERNA)2 @es.

MR. TRENA)2 And does the Commissioner think that tills addition to)ection of the -/: Constitution *ould be contrar+ to the spirit ofthat sectionD

&R BERNA)2 @es, *e are 1uite a*are that it is contrar+ to the letter

reall+. But *hether it is contrar+ to the spirit is somethin that has beendebated before and is bein debated even no*. 6e *ill recall that durinthe -/ Constitutional Convention, the status of naturalborn citi'enshipof one of the deleates, Mr. An, *as challened precisel+ because he*as a citi'en b+ election. &inall+, the -/ Constitutional Conventionconsidered him a naturalborn citi'en, one of the re1uirements to be aMember of the -/ Constitutional Convention. The reason behind thatdecision *as that a person under his circumstances alread+ had theinchoate riht to be a citi'en b+ the fact that the mother *as a &ilipino.

And as a matter of fact, the -/ Constitutional Convention formali'edthat reconition b+ adoptin pararaph 4 of )ection of the -/Constitution. )o, the entire purpose of this proviso is simpl+ to perhapsremed+ *hatever in7ustice there ma+ be so that these people born before$anuar+ /, -/: *ho are not naturali'ed and people *ho are notnatural born but *ho are in the same situation as *e are considerednaturalborn citi'ens. )o, the intention of the Committee in proposin thisis to e1uali'e their status. 19

6hen asked to clarif+ the provision on naturalborn citi'ens, Commissioner Bernas replied toCommissioner A'cuna thus2

MR. AJC?NA2 6ith respect to the proviso in )ection , *ould thisrefer onl+ to those *ho elect Philippine citi'enship after the effectivit+of the -/: Constitution or *ould it also cover those *ho elected itunder the -:> ConstitutionD

&R BERNA)2 9t *ould appl+ to an+bod+ *ho elected Philippineciti'enship b+ virtue of the provision of the -:> Constitution, *hether theelection *as done before or after / $anuar+ -/:.20

And durin the period of amendments. Commissioner Rodrio e0plained the purpose of *hat no*appear as )ection 4 and )ection , pararaph ":# of Article 98 of the -/ Constitution, thus2

MR. R%GR9F%2 The purpose of that proviso is to remed+ anine1uitable situation. Bet*een -:> and -/:, *hen *e *ere under



the -:> Constitution, those born of &ilipino fathers but alien mothers*ere naturalborn &ilipinos. !o*ever, those born of &ilipino mothersbut alien fathers *ould have to elect Philippine citi'enship uponreachin the ae of ma7orit+3 and, if the+ do elect, the+ become&ilipino citi'ens, +et, but not naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens.

The -/: Constitution e1uali'ed the status of those born of &ilipino mothers andthose born of &ilipino fathers. )o that from $anuar+ /, -/: *hen the -/:Constitution took effect, those born of &ilipino mothers but of alien fathers arenaturalborn &ilipino citi'ens. Also, those *ho are born of &ilipino fathers and alienmothers are naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens.

9f the -/: Constitution e1uali'ed the status of a child born of a &ilipino mother andthat born of a &ilipino father, *h+ do *e not ive a chance to a child born before$anuar+ /, -/:, if and *hen he elects Philippine citi'enship, to be in the samestatus as one born of a &ilipino father H namel+, naturalborn citi'en.

Another thin 9 stated is e1uali'in the status of a father and a mother vis7a7vis the child.

9 *ould like to state also that *e sho*ed e1uali'e the status of a child born of a &ilipinomother the da+ before $anuar+ /, -/: and a child born also of a &ilipino mother on$anuar+ / or 4 hours later. A child born of a &ilipino mother but an alien father one da+before $anuar+ /, -/: is a &ilipino citi'en, if he elects Philippine citi'enship, but he isnot a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en. !o*ever, the other child *ho luckil+ *as born 4 hourslater H ma+be because of parto laborioso H is a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en. 21

9t *ould appear then that the intent of the framers of the -/ Constitution in definin a naturalborn&ilipino citi'en *as to e1uali'e the position of &ilipino fathers and &ilipino mothers as to their childrenbecomin naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens. 9n other *ords, after / $anuar+ -/:, effectivit+ date of the-/: Constitution, all those born of &ilipino fathers "*ith alien spouse# or &ilipino mothers "*ith alienspouse# are naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens. But those born to &ilipino mothers prior to /3 Januar/031 must still elect Philippine citi'enship upon their reachin the ae of ma7orit+, in order to be

deemed naturalborn &ilipino citi'ens. The election, *hich is related to the attainment of the ae ofma7orit+, ma+ be made before or after / $anuar+ -/:. This interpretation appears to be inconsonance *ith the fundamental purpose of the Constitution *hich is to protect and enhance thepeoples individual interests, 22 and to foster e1ualit+ amon them.

)ince private respondent *as born on - $une - "or before / $anuar+ -/:# to a &ilipinomother "*ith an alien spouse# and should have elected Philippine citi'enship on - $une -5- "*henhe attained the ae of ma7orit+#, or soon thereafter, in order to have the status of a naturalborn&ilipino citi'en under the -/ Constitution, the vital 1uestion is2 did private respondent reall+ electPhilippine citi'enshipD As earlier stated, 9 believe that private respondent did not elect Philippineciti'enship, contrar+ to the rulin of the respondent tribunal.

The respondent tribunal, on this issue, ruled as follo*s2

6here a person born to a &ilipino mother and an alien father had e0ercised the riht ofsuffrae *hen he came of ae, the same constitutes a positive act of election ofPhilippine citi'enship. "&lorencio vs. Mallare# ;sic < The acts of the petitioner in reisterinas a voter, participatin in elections and campainin for certain candidates *ere held b+the )upreme Court as sufficient to sho* his preference for Philippine citi'enship.

Accordinl+, even *ithout compl+in *ith the formal re1uisites for election, the petitioners&ilipino citi'enship *as 7udiciall+ upheld. 23



9 find the above rulin of the respondent tribunal to be patentl+ erroneous and clearl+ untenable, asto amount to rave abuse of discretion. &or it is settled doctrine in this 7urisdiction that election ofPhilippine citi'enship must be made in accordance *ith Common*ealth Act 54>. )ections and4 2/ of the Act mandate that the option to elect Philippine citi'enship must be effected e0pressl+ notimpliedl+.

The respondent tribunal cites !n re2 $lorencio +allare 2 *hich held that Esteban Mallares e0ercise of the riht of suffrae *hen he came of ae, constituted a positive act of election of Philippineciti'enship.

+allare, cited b+ respondent tribunal as authorit+ for the doctrine of implied election of Philippineciti'enship, is not applicable to the case at bar. The respondent tribunal failed to consider thatEsteban Mallare reached the ae of ma7orit+ in /0=>, or seventeen "/# +ears before CA 54> *asapproved and, more importantl+, eleven "# +ears before the -:> Constitution "*hich ranted theriht of election# took effect.

To 1uote Mr. $ustice &ernande' in +allare2

9ndeed, it *ould be unfair to e0pect the presentation of a formal deed to that effectconsiderin that prior to the enactment of Common*ealth Act 54> on $une /, -, noparticular proceedin *as re1uired to e0ercise the option to elect Philippine citi'enship,ranted to the proper part+ b+ )ection , subsection , Article 98 of the -:> PhilippineConstitution. 2

Moreover, Esteban Mallare *as held to be a &ilipino citi'en because he *as an illegiti6ate?natural@ child of a &ilipino mother and thus follo*ed her citi'enship. 9 therefore aree *iththe petitioners submission that, inciting the +allare case, the respondent tribunal hadenaed in an o*iter dictu6.

The respondent tribunal also erred in rulin that b+ operation of CA /:, the Revised Naturali'ation(a*, providin for private respondents ac1uisition of &ilipino citi'enship b+ reason of the

naturali'ation of his father, the la* itself had alread+ elected Philippine citi'enship for him. &or,assumin arguendo that the naturali'ation of private respondents father *as valid, and that there*as no further need for private respondent to elect Philippine citi'enship "as he had automaticall+become a &ilipino citi'en# +et, this did not mean that the operation of the Revised Naturali'ation (a*amounted to an election b+ him of Philippine citi'enship as contemplated b+ the Constitution.Besides, election of Philippine citi'enship derived from ones &ilipino mother, is made upon reachinthe ae of ma7orit+, not durin ones minorit+.

There is no doubt in m+ mind, therefore, that private respondent did not elect Philippine citi'enshipupon reachin the ae of ma7orit+ in -5- or *ithin a reasonable time thereafter as re1uired b+ CA54>. Conse1uentl+, he cannot be deemed a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en under )ections 4 and ":#,

Article 98 of the -/ Constitution.

Based on all the foreoin considerations and premises, 9 am constrained to state that privaterespondent is not a naturalborn citi'en of the Philippines in contemplation of )ection 5, Article 89 ofthe -/ Constitution in relation to )ections 4 and ":#, Article 98 thereof, and hence is dis1ualifiedor ineliible to be a Member of the !ouse of Representatives.

At this point, 9 find it no loner necessar+ to rule on the issue of re1uired residence, inasmuch as theConstitution re1uires that a Member of the !ouse of Representatives must be both a naturalborn&ilipino citi'en and a resident for at least one "# +ear in the district in *hich he shall be elected.



The ne0t 1uestion that comes up is *hether or not either of the petitioners can replace privaterespondent as the Representative of the second leislative district of Northern )amar in the !ouseof Representatives.

9 aree *ith respondent tribunal that neither of the petitioners ma+ take the place of privaterespondent in the !ouse of Representatives representin the second district of Northern )amar. The

rulin of this Court in %a6on L.La*o, Jr . vs. The Co66ission on lections ?CO+LC@ N BANCand Luis L. Lardi)a*al , 2 is controllin. There *e held that (uis (. (ardi'abal, *ho filed the (uowarranto petition, could not replace Ramon (. (abo, $r. as ma+or of Bauio Cit+ for the simplereason that as he obtained onl+ the second hihest number of votes in the election, he *asobviousl+ not the choice of the people of Bauio Cit+ for ma+or of that Cit+.

A petition allein that the candidateelect is not 1ualified for the office is, in effect, a (uowarranto proceedin even if it is labelled an election protest. 2 9t is a proceedin to unseat theineliible person from office but not necessaril+ to install the protestant in his place. 29

The eneral rule is that the fact that a pluralit+ or a ma7orit+ of the votes are cast for an ineliiblecandidate in an election does not entitle the candidate receivin the ne0t hihest number of votes to

be declared elected. 9n such a case, the electors have failed to make a choice and the election is anullit+. 30

)ound polic+ dictates that public elective offices are filled b+ those *ho have thehihest number of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a fundamentalidea in all republican forms of overnment that no one can be declared elected andno measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a ma7orit+ or pluralit+ ofthe leal votes cast in the election. "4 Corpus $uris 4nd, ) 4:, p. 5/5#.

As earl+ as -4, this Court has alread+ declared that the candidate *ho lost in anelection cannot be proclaimed the *inner in the event that the candidate *ho *on isfound ineliible for the office to *hich he *as elected. This *as the rulin in Topaciov. Paredes "4: Phil. 4:# H

Aain, the effect of a decision that a candidate is not entitled to the officebecause of fraud or irreularities in the election is 1uite different from thatproduced b+ declarin a person ineliible to hold such an office. . . . 9f itbe found that the successful candidate "accordin to the board ofcanvassers# obtained a pluralit+ in an illeal manner, and that anothercandidate *as the real victor, the former must retire in favor of the latter.9n the other case, there is not, strictl+ speakin, a contest, as the *reathof victor+ cannot be transferred from an ineliible to an+ other candidate*hen the sole 1uestion is the eliibilit+ of the one receivin a pluralit+ ofthe leall+ cast ballots. . . . 31

The recognition of 6il L. Ong * the /03/ Constitutional Convention as a natural7*orn$ilipino citi)en, in relation to the present case.

Private respondent, as previousl+ stated, is a full brother of Emil (. %n, both of them havin thesame father and mother.

Private respondent, rel+in on a resolution of the -/ Constitutional Convention 32 to the effect thatEmil (. %n *as a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en, alleed before the !ouse Electoral Tribunal that, *analog , he is himself a naturalborn &ilipino citi'en. This submission, *hile initiall+ impressive, is, as



*ill no* be sho*n, fla*ed and not supported b+ the evidence. Not even the ma7orit+ decision of theelectoral tribunal adopted the same as the basis of its decision in favor of private respondent. Thetribunal, in reference to this submission, said2

Be that as it ma+ and in the liht of the Tribunals disposition of protestees citi'enshipbased on an entirel+ different set of circumstances, apart from the indisputable fact that

the matters attempted to be brouht in issue in connection there*ith are too far removedin point of time and relevance from the decisive events relied upon b+ the Tribunal, *evie* these t*o issues as bein alread+ inconse1uential. 33

The electoral tribunal "ma7orit+# instead chose to predicate its decision on the alleedciti'enship b+ naturali'ation of private respondents father "%n Chuan# and on the alleedelection of Philippine citi'enship b+ private respondent.

Emil (. %n, *as elected deleate to the -/ Constitutional Convention. Electoral protests,numbers EP/ and EP, *ere filed b+ (eonardo G. Falin and Fualberto G. (uto aainst Emil (.%n, contestin his citi'enship 1ualification. The Committee on Election Protests Credentials of the-/ Contitution Convention heard the protests and submitted to the Convention a report dated )eptember -/4, the dispositive portion of *hich stated2

9t appearin that protestees randfather *as himself a &ilipino citi'en under theprovisions of the Philippine Bill of -4 and the Treat+ of Paris of Gecember , -,thus conferrin upon protestees o*n father, %n Chuan, Philippine citi'enship at birth,the conclusion is inescapable that protestee himself is a naturalborn citi'en, and istherefore 1ualified to hold the office of deleate to the Constitutional Convention. 3/

%n 4 November -/4, durin a plenar+ session of the -/ Constitutional Convention, the electionprotests filed aainst Emil (. %n *ere dismissed, follo*in the report of the Committee on ElectionProtests and Credentials. 3

9t is evident, up to this point, that the action of the -/ Constitutional Convention in the case of Emil

(. %n is, to sa+ the least, inconclusive to the case at bar, because H

a# the -/ Constitutional Convention decision in the Emil (. %n case involved the-:>Constitution3 the present case, on the other hand involves the-/ Constitution2

b# the -:> Constitution contained no specific definition of a =naturalborn citi'en= ofthe Philippines3 the -/ Constitution contains a precise and specific definition of a=naturalborn citi'en= of the Philippines in )ec. 4, Art. 98 thereof and privaterespondent does not 1ualif+ under such definition in the -/ Constitution3

c# the decision of the -/ Constitutional Convention in the case of Emil (. %n *as

a decision of a political *od, not a court of law . And, even if *e have to take such adecision as a decision of a(uasi7'udicial bod+ "i.e., a political bod+ e0ercisin 1uasi

7udicial functions#, said decision in the Emil (. %n case can not have the cateor+ or character of res 'udicata in the present 7udicial controvers+, because bet*een the t*o"4# cases, there is no identit+ of parties "one involves Emil (. %n, *hile the otherinvolves private respondent# and, more importantl+, there is no identit+ of causes ofaction because the first involves the -:> Constitution *hile the second involves the-/ Constitution.



But even la+in aside the foreoin reasons based on procedural rules and loic,the evidence submitted before the electoral tribunal and, therefore, also before this Court, does notsupport the alleations made b+ Emil (. %n before the -/ Constitutional Convention andinferentiall+ adopted b+ private respondent in the present controvers+. This leads us to an interestinin1uir+ and findin.

The -/ Constitutional Convention in holdin that Emil (. %n *as a =naturalborn citi'en= of thePhilippines under the -:> Constitution laid stress on the =fact= H and this appears crucial andcentral to its decision H that Emil (. %ns randfather, Ong Te became a &ilipino citi'en under thePhilippine Bill of -4 and, therefore, his descendants like Emil (. %n "and therefore, also privaterespondent# became naturalborn &ilipinos. The -/ Constitutional Convention said2

%n Te Emil %ns randfather, *as a )panish sub7ect residin in the Philippines on April, -- and *as therefore one of the man+ *ho became ipso facto citi'ens of thePhilippines under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of -4. )aid la* e0pressl+declared that all inhabitants of the Philippine 9slands *ho continued to reside therein and*ho *ere )panish sub7ects on April , -- as *ell as their children born subse1uentthereto, =shall be deemed and held to be citi'ens of the Philippine 9slands.= ")ection ,Philippine Bill of

-4#. 3

The =test= then, follo*in the premises of the -/ Constitutional Convention, is *hether or not %nTe private respondents and Emil (. %ns randfather *as =an inhabitant of the Philippines *hocontinued to reside therein and *as a )panish sub7ect on April , --.= 9f he met thesere1uirements of the Philippine Bill of -4, then, %n Te *as a &ilipino citi'en3 other*ise, he *as nota &ilipino citi'en.

Petitioners "protestants# submitted and offered in evidence before the !ouse Electoral Tribunale0hibits 6, , @, J ,AA, BB, CC, GG and EE *hich are copies of entries in the =Reistro de Chinos=from +ears -5 to -/ *hich sho* that %n Te *as not listed as an inhabitant of )amar *here heis claimed to have been a resident. Petitioners "protestants# also submitted and offered in evidence

before the !ouse Electoral Tribunal e0hibit 8, a certification of the Chief of the Archives Givision,Records and Manaement and Archives %ffice, statin that the name of %n Te does not appear inthe =Reistro Central de Chinos= for the province of )amar for ->. These e0hibits prove or at least,as petitioners validl+ arue, tend to prove that %n Te *as N%T a resident of )amar close to April-- and, therefore, could not continue residin in )amar, Philippines after April --, contrar+ toprivate respondents pretense. 9n the face of these proofs or evidence, private respondent &A9(EGT% PRE)ENT AN@ REB?TTA( %R C%?NTER8A9(9NF E89GENCE, e0cept the decision of the-/ Constitutional Convention in the case of Emil (. %n, previousl+ discussed.

9t is not surprisin then that, as previousl+ noted, the ma7orit+ decision of the !ouse ElectoralTribunal skirted an+ reliance on the alleed ipso facto &ilipino citi'enship of %n Te under thePhilippine Bill of -4. 9t is e1uall+ not surprisin that %n Chuan, the son of %n Te and father orprivate respondent, did not even attempt to claim &ilipino citi'enship b+ reason of %n Tes alleed&ilipino citi'enship under the Philippine Bill of -4 but instead applied for Philippine citi'enshipthrouh naturali'ation.

Nor can it be contended b+ the private respondent that the !ouse Electoral Tribunal should noloner have revie*ed the factual 1uestion or issue of %n Tes citi'enship in the liht of theresolution of the -/ Constitutional Convention findin him "%n Te to have become a &ilipinociti'en under the Philippine Bill of -4. The tribunal had to look into the 1uestion because thefindin that %n Te had become a &ilipino citi'en under the Philippine Bill of -4 *as the central



core of said -/ resolution but as held in Lee vs. Co66issioners of!66igration2 3

. . . Ever+time the citi'enship of a person is material or indispensable in a 7udicial oradministrative case, *hatever the correspondin Court or administrative authorit+decides therein as to such citi'enship is enerall+ not considered as res ad'udicata,

hence it has to be threshed out aain and aain as the occasion ma+ demand.

6hich finall+ brins us to the resolution of this Court in 6il L. Ong vs. CO+LC, et al ., F.R. No.5/4, Ma+ -. 9n connection *ith said resolution, it is contended b+ private respondent that theresolution of the -/ Constitutional Convention in the Emil (. %n case *as elevated to this Courton a 1uestion involvin Emil (. %ns dis1ualification to run for membership in the BatasanPambansa and that, accordin to private respondent, this Court allo*ed the use of the CommitteeReport to the -/ Constitutional Convention.

To full+ appreciate the implications of such contention, it *ould help to look into the circumstances of the case brouht before this Court in relation to the Courts action or disposition. Emil (. %n andEdilberto Gel 8alle *ere both candidates for the Batasan Pambansa in the Ma+ - election.

8alle filed a petition for dis1ualification *ith the Commission on Election on 4- March - docketedas )PC No. 5- contendin that %n is not a naturalborn citi'en. %n filed a motion to dismissthe petition on the round that the 7udment of the -/ Constitutional Convention on his status as anaturalborn citi'en of the Philippines bars the petitioner from raisin the 9dentical issue before theC%ME(EC. "F.R. No. 5/4, %ollo, p. -# The motion *as denied b+ the C%ME(EC, thus,promptin Emil (. %n to file *ith this Court a petition for certiorari , prohibition and 6anda6us *ithpreliminar+ in7unction aainst the C%ME(EC, docketed as F.R. No. 5/4.

9n a resolution dated Ma+ -, this Court resolved to issue a *rit of preliminar+ in7unctionen7oinin respondent C%ME(EC from holdin an+ further hearin on the dis1ualification caseentitled =dil*erto el alle vs. 6il Ong ")PC No. 5-# e0cept to dismiss the same. "F.R. Nos.-444:, %ollo, p. ::>#

This Court, in e0plainin its action, held that2

Actin on the pra+er of the petitioner for the issuance of a 6rit of Preliminar+9n7unction, and considerin that at the hearin this mornin, it *as brouht out thatthe -/ Constitutional Convention, at its session of November 4, -/4, afterconsiderin the Report of its Committee on Election Protests and Credentials, foundthat the protest 1uestionin the citi'enship of the protestee "the petitioner herein#*as roundless and dismissed Election Protests Nos. EP / and EP filed aainstsaid petitioner "p. 4:/, %ollo#, the authenticit+ of the Minutes of said session as *ellas of the said Committees Report havin been dul+ admitted in evidence *ithoutob7ection and bears out, for now , *ithout need for a full hearin, that petitioner is anaturalborn citi'en, the Court Resolved to 9))?E, effective immediatel+, a 6rit of

Preliminar+ 9n7unction en7oinin respondent C%ME(EC from holdin an+ furtherhearin on the dis1ualification case entitled dil*erto el alle vs. 6il Ong ")PCNo. 5-# scheduled at :2 oclock this afternoon, or an+ other da+, e0cept todismiss the same.This is without pre'udice to an appropriate action that privaterespondent 6a wish to ta:e after the elections. "emphasis supplied#

9t is thus clear that the resolution of this Court in F.R. No. 5/4 *as rendered *ithout the benefit ofa hearin on the merits either b+ the Court or b+ the C%ME(EC and merel+ on the basis of aCommittees Report to the -/ Constitutional Convention, and that this Court "and this is 1uite



sinificant# did not foreclose an+ appropriate action that Gel 8alle "therein petitioner# ma+ *ish totake after the elections.

9t is thus abundantl+ clear also that to this Court, the resolution of the -/ ConstitutionalConvention reconi'in Emil (. %n as a naturalborn citi'en under the -:> Constitution did notforeclose a future or further proceedin in reard to the same 1uestion and that, conse1uentl+, there

is no vested right of Emil (. %n to such reconition. !o* much more *hen the Constitution involvedis not the -:> Constitution but the -/ Constitution *hose provisions *ere never considered in allsuch proceedins because the -/ Constitution *as still ine0istent.

A final *ord. 9t is rerettable that one "as private respondent# *ho un1uestionabl+ obtained thehihest number of votes for the elective position of Representative "Conressman# to the !ouse ofRepresentatives for the second district of Northern )amar, *ould have had to cease in office b+virtue of this Courts decision, if the full 6e6*ership of the Court had participated in this case, *iththe result that the leislative district *ould cease to have, in the interim, a representative in the!ouse of Representatives. But the fundamental consideration in cases of this nature is theConstitution and onl+ the Constitution. 9t has to be assumed, therefore, that *hen the electorate inthe second leislative district of Northern )amar cast the ma7orit+ of their votes for private

respondent, the assu6ed and *elieved that he was full eligi*le and (ualified for the office *ecausehe is a natural7*orn $ilipino citi)en. That erroneous assumption and belief can not prevail over, butmust +ield to the ma7est+ of the Constitution.

This is a sad da+ for the Constitution. As 9 see it, the Constitution mandates that members of the!ouse of Representatives should be natural7*orn citi'ens of the Philippines=. The votin ma7orit+ ofthe present Court sa+s, =&ilipino citi'ens *ill do.= This is bad enouh. 6hat is *orse is, the samevotin ma7orit+, in effect, sa+s, =even aliens *ill do as *ell.=

6!ERE&%RE, m+ vote is clear2 to declare private respondent $ose (. %n Chua, $r., as he clearl+is, N%T a naturalborn citi'en of the Philippines and therefore N%T I?A(9&9EG to be a Member ofthe !ouse of Representatives, Conress of the Philippines.

Narvasa, J., -aras, J. and %egalado, J., dissenting.

SARMIENTO, J., concurrin2

9 concur *ith the ma7orit+.

"#

9 *ish to point out first that the 1uestion of citi'enship is a 1uestion of fact, and as a rule, the)upreme Court leaves facts to the tribunal that determined them. 9 am 1uite areed that the ElectoralTribunal of the !ouse of Representatives, as the =sole 7ude= of all contests relatin to themembership in the !ouse, as follo*s2

)ec. /. The )enate and the !ouse of Representatives shall each have an ElectoralTribunal *hich shall be the sole 7ude of all contests relatin to the election, returns, and1ualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed ofnine Members, three of *hom shall be $ustices of the )upreme Court to be desinatedb+ the Chief $ustice, and the remainin si0 shall be Members of the )enate or the !ouseof Representatives, as the case ma+ be, *ho shall be chosen on the basis of proportionalrepresentation from the political parties and the parties or orani'ations reistered under



the part+list s+stem represented therein. The senior $ustice in the Electoral Tribunal shallbe its Chairman. 1

is the best 7ude of facts and this Court can not substitute its 7udment because it thinks itkno*s better.

9n the case of Aratuc v . Co66ission on lections, 2 it *as held that this Court can not revie* theerrors of the Commission on Elections "then the =sole 7ude= of all election contests# H in the senseof revie*in facts and unearthin mistakes H and that this Courts 7urisdiction is to see simpl+*hether or not it is uilt+ of a rave abuse of discretion. 9t is true that the ne* Constitution hasconferred e0panded po*ers on the Court, 3 but as the Charter states, our authorit+ is =to determine*hether or not there has been a rave abuse of discretion amountin to lack or e0cess of 7urisdictionon the part of an+ branch or instrumentalit+ of the Fovernment.= / 9t is not to revie* facts.

=Frave abuse of discretion= has been defined as *himsical e0ercise of po*er amountin to e0cessof 7urisdiction, or other*ise, to denial of due process of la*.

9 find none of that here.

As the ma7orit+ indicates, $ose %ns citi'enship is a matter of opinion *ith *hich men ma+ differ, butcertainl+, it is 1uite another thin to sa+ that the respondent Tribunal has ravel+ abused itsdiscretion because the ma7orit+ has beed to differ. 9t does not form part of the dut+ of the Court toremed+ all imained *rons committed b+ the Fovernment.

The respondent Tribunal has spoken. Accordin to the Tribunal, $ose %n is a &ilipino citi'en andconse1uentl+, is possessed of the 1ualifications to be a member of the !ouse. As the sole 7ude,precisel+, of this 1uestion, the Court can not be more popish than the pope.

"4#

9 can not sa+, in the second place, that the Gecision in 1uestion stands e0actl+ on indefensiblerounds. 9t is to be noted that $ose %n had relied on the Report dated )eptember , -/4 of the-/ Constitutional Convention Committee on Election Protests and Credentials, in *hich theCommittees upheld the citi'enship, and sustained the 1ualification to sit as Geleate, of Emil %n,$ose %ns full blood brother. Accordin to the Report, %n Te the %ns randfather, *as alread+ a&ilipino citi'en havin complied *ith the re1uirements on &ilipini'ation b+ e0istin la*s for *hich hissuccessors need not have elected &ilipino citi'enship. 9 1uote2

000 000 000

There is merit in protestees claim. There can hardl+ be an+ doubt that %n Teprotesteess randfather, *as a )panish sub7ect residin in the Philippines on April ,--, and *as therefore one of the man+ *ho became ipso facto citi'ens of the

Philippines under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of -4. )aid la* e0pressl+declared that all inhabitants of the Philippine 9slands *ho continued to reside therein and*ho *ere )panish sub7ects on April , --, as *ell as their children born subse1uentthereto, =shall be deemed and held to be citi'ens of the Philippine 9slands= ")ec. ,Philippine Bill of -4#. E0cepted from the operation of this rule *ere )panish sub7ects*ho shall have elected to preserve their alleiance to the Cro*n of )pain in accordance*ith the Treat+ of Paris of Gecember , -. But under the Treat+ of Paris, onl+)panish sub7ects *ho *ere natives of Peninsular )pain had the privilee of preservintheir )panish nationalit+.



000 000 000

000 000 000

As earlier noted, protestees randfather established residence in the Philippines in ->,as sho*n b+ the%egistro Central de Chinos. !e *as also issued a certificate of

reistration. !e established a business here, and later ac1uired real propert+. Althouhhe *ent back to China for brief visits, he invariabl+ came back. !e even brouht hiseldest son, %n Chuan, to live in the Philippines *hen the latter *as onl+ +ears old.

And %n Chuan *as admitted into the countr+ because, as dul+ noted on his landincertificate, his father, %n Te had been dul+ enrolled under CR 5-:5/>> H i .e., as apermanent resident. 9ndeed, even *hen %n Te *ent back to China in the -4s foranother visit, he left his son, %n Chuan, *ho *as then still a minor, in the Philippines Hobviousl+ because he had lon considered the Philippines his home. The domicile heestablished in -> is presumed to have continued up to, and be+ond, April , --, for,as alread+ adverted to, a domicile once ac1uired is not lost until a ne* one is ained. Theonl+ conclusion then can thus be dra*n is that %n Te *as dul+ domiciled in thePhilippines as of April , --, *ithin the meanin of par. , Art. /, of the Civil Code of- H and *as, conse1uentl+, a )panish sub7ect, he 1ualified as a &ilipino citi'en under

the provisions of )ection of the Philippine Bill of -4.

9t is true that %n Chuan, the %n brothers father, subse1uentl+ souht naturali'ation in the beliefthat he *as, all alon, a Chinese citi'en, but as the Report held2

Protestants, ho*ever, make capital of the fact that both %n Te and his son, %n Chuan"protestees father#, appear to have been reistered as Chinese citi'ens even lon afterthe turn of the centur+. 6orse, %n Chuan himself believed the *as alien, to the e0tent of havin to seek admission as a Pilipino citi'en throuh naturali'ation proceedins. Thepoint, to our mind, is neither crucial nor substantial. %ns status as a citi'en is a matterof la*, rather than of personal belief. 9t is *hat the la* provides, and not *hat one thinkshis status to be, *hich determines *hether one is a citi'en of a particular state or not.Mere mistake or misapprehension as to ones citi'enship, it has been held, is not a

sufficient cause or reason for forfeiture of Philippine citi'enship3 it does not evenconstitute estoppel "Palanca vs. Republic, Phil. >/, >#. Too, estoppel applies onl+to 1uestions of fact and not of la* "Tanada v. Cuenco, (>4, &eb. 4, ->/#. 9

9t is to be noted that the Report *as unanimousl+ approved b+ the Committee, and on November 4,-/4, approved *ithout an+ ob7ection b+ the Convention in plenar+ session. 10

9 am not, of course, to be mistaken as actin as mouthpiece of Emil %n, but in all candor, 9 speakfrom e0perience, because *hen the Convention approved the Report in 1uestion, 9 *as one of itsvicepresidents and the presidin officer.

9t is to be noted finall+, that the matter *as elevated to this Court "on a 1uestion involvin Emil %ns

1ualification to sit as member of the defunct Batasan Pambansa#11

in *hich this Court allo*ed theuse of the Committee Report.

&aced *ith such positive acts of the Fovernment, 9 submit that the 1uestion of the %ns citi'enshipis a settled matter. (et it rest.

9t is true that Electoral Protest Nos. EP/ and EP of the Convention as *ell as F.R. No. 5/4of this Court, involved Emil %n and not his brother3 9 submit, ho*ever, that *hat is sauce for theoose is sauce for the ander.



9 also submit that the fundamental 1uestion is *hether or not *e *ill overturn the unanimous rulinof 45/ deleates, indeed, also of this Court.

oo+o+'s

co vs hret.docx

Documents