Reyes V COMELEC (2013)

Ongsiako Reyes v. COMELEC 9225.
9225. As to the issue of residency, the court approved the ruling if the COMELEC that a Filipino
Composition of Congress, Qualifications of Members, and Term of Office| July 25, 2013| citizen who becomes naturalized elsewhere effectively abandons his domicile of origin. Upon
PEREZ, J. reacquisition of Filipino citizenship, he must still show that he chose to establish his domicile in
the Philippines through positive acts, and the period of his residency shall be counted from the
time he made it his domicile of choice. In this case, there is no showing that the petitioner
reacquired her Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 so as to conclude that the petitioner
FACTS:
renounced her American citizenship, it follows that she has not abandoned her domicile of
- Petitioner filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position of Representative choice in the USA. Petitioner claim that she served as Provincial Administrator of the province
of the lone district of Marinduque. Respondent, a registered voter and resident of the of Marinduque from January 18, 2011 to July 13, 2011 is not sufficient to prove her one-year
Municipality of Torrijos, Marinduque, filed before the COMELEC a petition for the cancellation residency for she has never recognized her domicile in Marinduque as she remains to be an
of petitioner’s COC. On October 31, 2012, the respondent filed the amended petition on the American citizen. No amount of her stay in the said locality can substitute the fact that she has
ground that the petitioner’s COC contained material misrepresentations regarding the not abandoned her domicile of choice in the USA.
petitioner’s marital status, residency, date of birth and citizenship. Respondent alleged that the
petitioner is an American citizen and filed in February 8, 2013 a manifestation with motion to
admit newly discovered evidence and amended last exhibit.
- On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution cancelling the
petitioner’s COC on the basis that petitioner is not a citizen of the Philippines because of her
failure to comply with the requirements of Republic Act (RA) No. 9225.
- The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 8, 2013. But on May 14,
2013 the COMELEC en banc promulgated a Resolution denying the petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration for lack of merit.
- On May 18, 2013, petitioner was proclaimed winner of the May 13, 2013 elections
and on June 5, 2013 took her oath of office before the Speaker of House of Representatives. She
has yet to assume office at noon of June 30, 2013.
- On June 5, 2013, the COMELEC en banc issued a Certificate of Finality declaring the
May 14, 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC en banc final and executory.
- Petitioner then filed before the court Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Status Quo Ante Order.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. Whether or not the COMELEC has the jurisdiction over the petitioner who is a duly
proclaimed winner and who has already taken her oath of office for the position of member of
the House of Representative.
2. Whether or not the COMELEC erred in its ruling that the petitioner is illegible to run for
office.
Held/Ratio Decidendi:
1. No. Pursuant to Section 17, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution, the House of Representative
Electoral Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election returns and qualification of the members of House of Representative.
2. No. In R.A 9925, for a respondent to reacquire Filipino citizenship and become eligible for
public office, the law requires that she must have accomplished the following 1) take the oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the consul-general of the Philippine
Consulate in the USA, and 2) make a personal and sworn renunciation of her American
citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. In the case at bar, there is
no showing that petitioner complied with the requirements. Petitioner’s oath of office as
Provincial Administrator cannot be considered as the oath of allegiance in compliance with RA

Reyes V COMELEC (2013)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reyes V COMELEC (2013)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Reyes V COMELEC (2013)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ongsiako Reyes v. COMELEC 9225.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.