FACTS:
The petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing the Resolutions issued by the COMELEC which ordered the cancellation of her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of Marinduque. The respondent filed a petition seeking the denial or cancellation of petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy on the grounds of material misrepresentations. Evidence was submitted indicating petitioner's American citizenship. The COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution cancelling petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy, ruling that she is not a Filipino citizen and did not meet the residency requirement. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the COMELEC En Banc. Petitioner was proclaimed winner in the elections but the COMELEC issued a Certificate of Finality declaring its Resolution as final and executory.
In the second set of facts, the petitioner took her oath of office as a Member of the House of Representatives but had not yet assumed office as her term officially starts on June 30, 2013. The petitioner raised several issues in her petition, including the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, alleged grave abuse of discretion, and additional qualifications imposed by the COMELEC in enforcing Republic Act No. 9225. The court acknowledged the issues raised but emphasized that the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) over the petitioner's qualifications and the assailed COMELEC resolutions commences only after proclamation, oath, and assumption of office.
ISSUES:
-
Whether the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) or the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has jurisdiction over the case.
-
Whether the petitioner has complied with the requirements for assuming office as a Member of the House of Representatives.
-
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding the petitioner ineligible for the position.
-
Whether the COMELEC violated the petitioner's right to due process.
-
Whether the "newly discovered evidence" was properly admitted by the COMELEC.
-
Whether there was a denial of due process in the case.
-
Whether the petitioner is ineligible to run for office on the ground of citizenship.
-
Did the petitioner execute an oath of allegiance for re-acquisition of natural-born Filipino status?
-
Is the petitioner's oath of office as Provincial Administrator considered compliance with Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9225?
-
Is the petitioner considered a resident of Marinduque?
-
Is the act of the COMELEC in enforcing the provisions of R.A. No. 9225 unconstitutional?
-
Whether or not the petitioner, who lost her Philippine citizenship upon naturalizing as a Canadian citizen, automatically regained her status as a natural-born Filipino citizen by virtue of Republic Act No. 9225.
-
Whether or not the petitioner can participate as a voter in the 2013 national and local elections.
RULING:
-
The COMELEC retains jurisdiction over the case because the petitioner has not yet assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives.
-
The petitioner has not complied with the requirements for assuming office, as she has not taken the required oath of office before the Speaker of the House in open session.
-
The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding the petitioner ineligible for the position.
-
The COMELEC did not violate the petitioner's right to due process.
-
The "newly discovered evidence" was properly admitted by the COMELEC. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure should be liberally construed to achieve just, expeditious, and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission. Since the proceedings in a petition to deny due course or to cancel certificate of candidacy are summary in nature, the admission of the evidence was justified.
-
There was no denial of due process in the case. Petitioner was given every opportunity to argue her case before the COMELEC. The petitioner had a period of five months to present evidence but did not take advantage of that opportunity. In administrative proceedings, procedural due process only requires that the party be given the opportunity or right to be heard.
-
The petitioner is ineligible to run for office on the ground of citizenship. The evidence presented shows that the petitioner is a holder of an American passport and has not complied with the requirements set by law to reacquire Filipino citizenship. The burden was on the petitioner to prove her natural-born Filipino citizenship, but she failed to do so. Unless and until she can establish that she had availed of the privileges of RA 9225 by becoming a dual Filipino-American citizen and made a valid sworn renunciation of her American citizenship, she remains to be an American citizen and is ineligible to run for and hold any elective public office in the Philippines.
-
The petitioner failed to present an oath of allegiance for re-acquisition of natural-born Filipino status.
-
The petitioner's oath of office as Provincial Administrator cannot be considered compliance with Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9225.
-
The petitioner cannot be considered a resident of Marinduque.
-
The act of the COMELEC in enforcing the provisions of R.A. No. 9225 is not unconstitutional.
-
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and dismissed the petition. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in determining that the petitioner did not automatically reacquire her status as a natural-born Filipino citizen under Republic Act No. 9225. Therefore, the petitioner was not allowed to participate as a voter in the 2013 national and local elections.
PRINCIPLES:
-
Once a candidate is proclaimed, the jurisdiction over contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications transfers from COMELEC to HRET. However, this only applies if the candidate has already assumed office.
-
The term of office of a Member of the House of Representatives begins only at noon on the thirtieth day of June following their election. Until that time, the COMELEC retains jurisdiction.
-
The oath of office for Members of the House of Representatives must be taken before the Speaker in open session to confer membership.
-
The decisions of the COMELEC in pre-proclamation cases become final and executory after five days from their promulgation, unless restrained by the Supreme Court.
-
The COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure in the presentation of evidence.
-
The COMELEC Rules of Procedure should be liberally construed to achieve just, expeditious, and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission.
-
In administrative proceedings, procedural due process only requires that the party be given the opportunity or right to be heard.
-
The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove eligibility for public office.
-
Failure to comply with the requirements of the law to reacquire Filipino citizenship makes a person ineligible to run for and hold any elective public office in the Philippines.
-
The COMELEC has discretion in the evaluation and admission of evidence in summary cases, especially in determining the cancellation of a Certificate of Candidacy (COC).
-
Grave abuse of discretion requires the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power or the evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law.
-
The COMELEC did not impose additional qualifications but merely applied the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution and R.A. No. 9225.
-
The Supreme Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the COMELEC unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
-
The provisions of Republic Act No. 9225 must be strictly construed as they pertain to the acquisition or reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
-
The reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 does not automatically confer natural-born status to former Filipino citizens.