Caasi vs. Court of Appeals

11/9/2016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 191
VOL. 191, NOVEMBER 8, 1990
229
Caasi vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 88831. November 8, 1990.
MATEO CAASI, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF

APPEALS and MERITO C. MIGUEL, respondents.
*
G.R. No. 84508. November 8, 1990.
ANECITO CASCANTE, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION

ON ELECTIONS and MERITO C. MIGUEL, respondents.
Election Law; Omnibus Election Code; Miguels immigration
to the United States in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his
domicile and residence in the Philippines.Despite his vigorous
disclaimer, Miguels immigration to the United States in 1984
constituted an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the
Philippines. For he did not go to the United States merely to visit
his children or his doctor there; he entered the United States with
the intention to live there permanently as evidenced by his
application for an immigrants (not a visitors or tourists) visa.
Based on that application of his, he was issued by the U.S.
Government the requisite green card or authority to reside there
permanently.
Same; Same; Same; Section 18, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution is not applicable to Merito Miguel for he acquired the
status of an immigrant of the United States before he was elected
to public office.Section 18, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution
which provides that any public officer or employee who seeks to
change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of
another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law is
not applicable to Merito Miguel for he acquired the status of an
immigrant of the United States before he was elected to public
office, not during his tenure as mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan.
Same; Same; Same; His act of filing a certificate of candidacy
for elective office in the Philippines did not of itself constitute a
waiver of his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the
United States; Waiver should be manifested by some act or acts
independent of and done prior to the filing his candidacy for
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001584854502f0c13b561003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/10
11/9/2016
elective office in this country.To be qualified to run for elective

office in the Philippines, the law requires that the candidate who
is a green card holder must
_______________
*
EN BANC.
230
230
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

have waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of

a foreign country. Therefore, his act of filing a certificate of
candidacy for elective office in the Philippines, did not of itself
constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent resident or
immigrant of the United States. The waiver of his green card
should be manifested by some act or acts independent of and done
prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country.
Without such prior waiver, he was disqualified to run for any
elective office.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Records of this case are starkly
bare of proof that he had waived his status as such before he ran
for election as Municipal Mayor of Bolinao on January 18, 1988.
Respondent Merito Miguel admits that he holds a green card,
which proves that he is a permanent resident or immigrant of the
United States, but the records of this case are starkly bare of
proof that he had waived his status as such before he ran for
election as municipal mayor of Bolinao on January 18, 1988. We,
therefore, hold that he was disqualified to become a candidate for
that office.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Absent clear evidence that
he made an irrevocable waiver of that status, the conclusion is that
he was disqualified to run for said public office hence his election
thereto was null and void.Miguels application for immigrant
status and permanent residence in the U.S. and his possession of
a green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he
is a permanent resident of the U.S. despite his occasional visits to
the Philippines. The waiver of such immigrant status should be as
indubitable as his application for it. Absent clear evidence that he
made an irrevocable waiver of that status or that he surrendered
his green card to the appropriate U.S. authorities before he ran
for mayor of Bolinao in the local elections on January 18, 1988,
2/10
11/9/2016
our conclusion is that he was disqualified to run for said public

office, hence, his election thereto was null and void.
G.R. No. 88831:

PETITION for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
G.R. No. 84508:
PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the
Commission on Election.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ireneo B. Orlino for petitioner in G.R. Nos. 88831 &
84508.
231
231
Montemayor & Montemayor Law Office for private

respondent.
GRIOAQUINO, J.:
These two cases were consolidated because they have the
same objective; the disqualification under Section 68 of the
Omnibus Election Code of the private respondent, Merito
Miguel, for the position of municipal mayor of Bolinao,
Pangasinan, to which he was elected in the local elections
of January 18, 1988, on the ground that he is a green card
holder, hence, a permanent resident of the United States of
America, not of Bolinao.
G.R. No. 84508 is a petition for review on certiorari of
the decision dated January 13, 1988 of the COMELEC
First Division, dismissing the three (3) petitions of Anecito
Cascante (SPC No. 87551), Cederico Catabay (SPC No. 87
595) and Josefino C. Celeste (SPC No. 87604), for the
disqualification of Merito C. Miguel, filed prior to the local
elections on January 18, 1988.
G.R. No. 88831, Mateo Caasi vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,
is a petition for review of the decision dated June 21, 1989,
of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 14531
dismissing the petition for quo warranto filed by Mateo
Caasi, a rival candidate for the position of municipal mayor
3/10
11/9/2016
of Bolinao, Pangasinan, also to disqualify Merito Miguel on

account of his being a green card holder.
In his answer to both petitions, Miguel admitted that he
holds a green card issued to him by the US Immigration
Service, but he denied that he is a permanent resident of
the United States. He allegedly obtained the green card for
convenience in order that he may freely enter the United
States for his periodic medical examination and to visit his
children there. He alleged that he is a permanent resident
of Bolinao, Pangasinan that he voted in all previous
elections, including the plebiscite on February 2, 1987 for
the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, and the
congressional elections on May 18, 1987.
After hearing the consolidated petitions before it, the
COMELEC, with the exception of Commissioner Anacleto
Badoy, Jr., dismissed the petitions on the ground that:
232
232

The possession of a green card by the respondent (Miguel) does

not sufficiently establish that he has abandoned his residence in
the Philippines. On the contrary, inspite (sic) of his green card,
Respondent has sufficiently indicated his intention to
continuously reside in Bolinao as shown by his having voted in
successive elections in said municipality. As the respondent meets
the basic requirements of citizenship and residence for candidates
to elective local officials (sic) as provided for in Section 42 of the
Local Government Code, there is no legal obstacle to his
candidacy for mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan. (p. 12, Rollo, G.R.
No. 84508).
In his dissenting opinion, Commissioner Badoy, Jr. opined

that:
A green card holder being a permanent resident of or an
immigrant of a foreign country and respondent having admitted
that he is a green card holder, it is incumbent upon him, under
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, to prove that he has
waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant to be
qualified to run for elected office. This respondent has not done.
(p. 13, Rollo, G.R. No. 84508.)
In G.R. No. 88831, Mateo Caasi, petitioner vs. Court of

Appeals and Merito Miguel, respondents, the petitioner
prays for a review of the decision dated June 21, 1989 of
the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 14531 Merito C.
4/10
11/9/2016
Miguel, petitioner vs. Hon. Artemio R. Corpus, etc.,

respondents, reversing the decision of the Regional Trial
Court which denied Miguels motion to dismiss the petition
for quo warranto filed by Caasi. The Court of Appeals
ordered the regional trial court to dismiss and desist from
further proceeding in the quo warranto case. The Court of
Appeals held:
x x x it is pointless for the Regional Trial Court to hear the case
questioning the qualification of the petitioner as resident of the
Philippines, after the COMELEC has ruled that the petitioner
meets the very basic requirements of citizenship and residence for
candidates to elective local officials (sic) and that there is no legal
obstacles (sic) for the candidacy of the petitioner, considering that
decisions of the Regional Trial Courts on quo warranto cases
under the Election Code are appealable to the COMELEC. (p. 22,
Rollo, G.R. No. 88831.)
These two cases pose the twin issues of: (1) whether or not
a
233
233
green card is proof that the holder is a permanent resident

of the United States, and (2) whether respondent Miguel
had waived his status as a permanent resident of or
immigrant to the U.S.A. prior to the local elections on
January 18, 1988.
Section 18, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Sec. 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this
Constitution allegiance at all times, and any public officer or
employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the
status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall
be dealt with by law.
In the same vein, but not quite, Section 68 of the Omnibus

Election Code of the Philippines (B.P. Blg. 881) provides:
SEC. 68. Disqualifications x x x. Any person who is a permanent
resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be
qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said
person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant
of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws. (Sec. 25, 1971, EC).
5/10
11/9/2016
In view of current rumor that a good number of elective

and appointive public officials in the present
administration of President Corazon C. Aquino are holders
of green cards in foreign countries, their effect on the
holders right to hold elective public office in the
Philippines is a question that excites much interest in the
outcome of this case.
In the case of Merito Miguel, the Court deems it
significant that in the Application for Immigrant Visa and
Alien Registration (Optional Form No. 230, Department of
State) which Miguel filled up in his own handwriting and
submitted to the US Embassy in Manila before his
departure for the United States in 1984, Miguels answer to
Question No. 21 therein regarding his Length of intended
stay (if permanently, so state), Miguels answer was,
Permanently.
On its face, the green card that was subsequently issued
by the United States Department of Justice and
Immigration and Registration Service to the respondent
Merito C. Miguel identifies him in clear bold letters as a
RESIDENT ALIEN. On the back of the card, the upper
portion, the following information is
234
234

printed:
Alien Registration Receipt Card.
Person identified by this card is entitled to reside permanently
and work in the United States. (Annex A pp. 189190, Rollo of
G.R. No. 84508.)
Despite his vigorous disclaimer, Miguels immigration to

the United States in 1984 constituted an abandonment of
his domicile and residence in the Philippines. For he did
not go to the United States merely to visit his children or
his doctor there; he entered the United States with the
intention to live there permanently as evidenced by his
application for an immigrants (not a visitors or tourists)
visa. Based on that application of his, he was issued by the
U.S. Government the requisite green card or authority to
reside there permanently.
Immigration is the removing into one place from another; the act
of immigrating; the entering into a country with the intention of
6/10
11/9/2016
residing in it.
An immigrant is a person who removes into a country for the
purpose of permanent residence. As shown infra 84, however,
statutes sometimes give a broader meaning to the term
immigrant. (3 CJS 674.)
As a resident alien in the U.S., Miguel owes temporary and

local allegiance to the U.S., the country in which he resides
(3 CJS 527). This is in return for the protection given to
him during the period of his residence therein.
Aliens residing in the United States, while they are permitted to
remain, are in general entitled to the protection of the laws with
regard to their rights of person and property and to their civil and
criminal responsibility.
In general, aliens residing in the United States, while they are
permitted to remain, are entitled to the safeguards of the
constitution with regard to their rights of person and property
and to their civil and criminal responsibility. Thus resident alien
friends are entitled to the benefit of the provision of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution that no state
shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, or deny to any person the equal
235
235
protection of the law, and the protection of this amendment

extends to the right to earn a livelihood by following the ordinary
occupations of life. So an alien is entitled to the protection of the
provision of the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution that
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. (3 CJS 529530.)
Section 18, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution which

provides that any public officer or employee who seeks to
change his citizenship or acquire the status of an
immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be
dealt with by law is not applicable to Merito Miguel for he
acquired the status of an immigrant of the United States
before he was elected to public office, not during his
tenure as mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan.
The law applicable to him is Section 68 of the Omnibus
Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), which provides:
x x x x x x x x x
7/10
11/9/2016
Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to

a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective
office under this Code, unless such person has waived his status
as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in
accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the
election laws.
Did Miguel, by returning to the Philippines in November

1987 and presenting himself as a candidate for mayor of
Bolinao in the January 18, 1988 local elections, waive his
status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the United
States?
To be qualified to run for elective office in the
Philippines, the law requires that the candidate who is a
green card holder must have waived his status as a
permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country.
Therefore, his act of filing a certificate of candidacy for
elective office in the Philippines, did not of itself constitute
a waiver of his status as a permanent resident or
immigrant of the United States. The waiver of his green
card should be manifested by some act or acts independent
of and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in
this country. Without such prior waiver, he was
disqualified to run for any elective office (Sec. 68,
Omnibus Election Code).
Respondent Merito Miguel admits that he holds a green
card, which proves that he is a permanent resident or
immigrant of
236
236

the United States, but the records of this case are starkly
bare of proof that he had waived his status as such before
he ran for election as municipal mayor of Bolinao on
January 18, 1988. We, therefore, hold that he was
disqualified to become a candidate for that office.
The reason for Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code
is not hard to find. Residence in the municipality where he
intends to run for elective office for at least one (1) year at
the time of filing his certificate of candidacy, is one of the
qualifications that a candidate for elective public office
must possess (Sec. 42, Chap. 1, Title 2, Local Government
Code). Miguel did not possess that qualification because he
was a permanent resident of the United States and he
resided in Bolinao for a period of only three (3) months (not
8/10
11/9/2016
one year) after his return to the Philippines in November

1987 and before he ran for mayor of that municipality on
January 18, 1988.
In banning from elective public office Philippine citizens
who are permanent residents or immigrants of a foreign
country, the Omnibus Election Code has laid down a clear
policy of excluding from the right to hold elective public
office those Philippine citizens who possess dual loyalties
and allegiance. The law has reserved that privilege for its
citizens who have cast their lot with our country without
mental reservations or purpose of evasion. The
assumption is that those who are resident aliens of a
foreign country are incapable of such entire devotion to the
interest and welfare of their homeland for with one eye on
their public duties here, they must keep another eye on
their duties under the laws of the foreign country of their
choice in order to preserve their status as permanent
residents thereof.
Miguel insists that even though he applied for
immigration and permanent residence in the United
States, he never really intended to live there permanently,
for all that he wanted was a green card to enable him to
come and go to the U.S. with ease. In other words, he would
have this Court believe that he applied for immigration to
the U.S. under false pretenses; that all this time he only
had one foot in the United States but kept his other foot in
the Philippines. Even if that were true, this Court will not
allow itself to be a party to his duplicity by permitting him
to benefit from it, and giving him the best of
237
237
both worlds so to speak.

Miguels application for immigrant status and
permanent residence in the U.S. and his possession of a
green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof
that he is a permanent resident of the U.S. despite his
occasional visits to the Philippines. The waiver of such
immigrant status should be as indubitable as his
application for it. Absent clear evidence that he made an
irrevocable waiver of that status or that he surrendered his
green card to the appropriate U.S. authorities before he ran
for mayor of Bolinao in the local elections on January 18,
1988, our conclusion is that he was disqualified to run for
9/10
11/9/2016
said public office, hence, his election thereto was null and
void.
WHEREFORE, the appealed orders of the COMELEC
and the Court of Appeals in SPC Nos. 87551, 87595 and
87604, and CAG.R. SP No. 14531 respectively, are hereby
set aside. The election of respondent Merito C. Miguel as
municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan is hereby
annulled. Costs against the said respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan (C.J.), Narvasa, MelencioHerrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin,
Sarmiento, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Feliciano, J., On leave.
Orders set aside.
o0o
238
Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
10/10

Caasi vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caasi vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caasi vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/9/2016

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 191

VOL. 191, NOVEMBER 8, 1990