LIMKAICHONG vs COMELEC
G.R.
Nos. 178831-32, July 30, 2009
Facts:
In its April 1, 2009
Decision in G.R. No. 179120, the Supreme Court reversed the Joint Resolution of
the COMELEC Second Division dated May 17, 2007 in SPA Nos. 07-247 and 07-248
disqualifying Limkaichong from running as a congressional candidate in the
First District of Negros Oriental due to lack of citizenship requirement. Biraogo
filed the instant motion for reconsideration with prayer for oral argument.
The core issue in the
consolidated petitions is the qualification of Limkaichong to run for, be
elected to, and assume and discharge, the position of Representative for the
First District of Negros Oriental. The contention of the parties who sought her
disqualification is that she is not a natural-born citizen, hence, she lacks
the citizenship requirement in Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
In the election that ensued, she was voted for by the constituents of Negros
Oriental and garnered the highest votes. She was eventually proclaimed as the
winner and has since performed her duties and responsibilities as Member of the
House of Representatives.
The proponents
against Limkaichong's qualification stated that she is not a natural-born
citizen because her parents were Chinese citizens at the time of her birth.
They went on to claim that the proceedings for the naturalization of Julio Ong
Sy, her father, never attained finality due to procedural and substantial
defects.
Issues:
1. Whether the
citizenship of Limkaichong's parents may be questioned in an election case
2. Who has
jurisdiction over the disqualification case
3. Whether the ten-day
prescriptive period under the 1998 HRET Rules apply to disqualification based
on citizenship
Held:
1. No. In assailing
the citizenship of the father, the proper proceeding should be in accordance
with Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 which provides that:
Sec.
18. Cancellation of Naturalization Certificate Issued. - Upon motion made in the proper proceedings
by the Solicitor General or his representative, or by the proper provincial
fiscal, the competent judge may cancel the naturalization certificate issued
and its registration in the Civil Register:
1. If it is shown
that said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally;
2. If the person
naturalized shall, within five years next following the issuance of said
naturalization certificate, return to his native country or to some foreign
country and establish his permanent residence there: Provided, That the fact of
the person naturalized remaining more than one year in his native country or
the country of his former nationality, or two years in any other foreign
country, shall be considered as prima facie evidence of his intention of taking
up his permanent residence in the same:
3. If the petition
was made on an invalid declaration of intention;
4. If it is shown
that the minor children of the person naturalized failed to graduate from a
public or private high school recognized by the Office of Private Education
[now Bureau of Private Schools] of the Philippines, where Philippine history,
government or civics are taught as part of the school curriculum, through the
fault of their parents either by neglecting to support them or by transferring
them to another school or schools. A certified copy of the decree canceling the
naturalization certificate shall be forwarded by the Clerk of Court of the
Department of Interior [now Office of the President] and the Bureau of Justice
[now Office of the Solicitor General];
5. If it is shown
that the naturalized citizen has allowed himself to be used as a dummy in
violation of the constitutional or legal provisions requiring Philippine
citizenship as a requisite for the exercise, use or enjoyment of a right,
franchise or privilege.
As early as the case
of Queto v. Catolico, the Court held that:
x x x It may be true
that, as alleged by said respondents, that the proceedings for naturalization
were tainted with certain infirmities, fatal or otherwise, but that is beside
the point in this case. The jurisdiction of the court to inquire into and rule upon
such infirmities must be properly invoked in accordance with the procedure laid
down by law. Such procedure is the cancellation of the naturalization
certificate. [Section 1(5), Commonwealth Act No. 63], in the manner fixed in
Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, hereinbefore quoted, namely, "upon
motion made in the proper proceedings by the Solicitor General or his
representatives, or by the proper provincial fiscal." In other words, the
initiative must come from these officers, presumably after previous
investigation in each particular case.
Clearly, under law
and jurisprudence, it is the State, through its representatives
designated by statute, that may question the illegally or invalidly procured
certificate of naturalization in the appropriate denaturalization proceedings.
It is plainly not a matter that may be raised by private persons in
an election case involving the naturalized citizen’s descendant.
Accordingly, it is
not enough that one's qualification, or lack of it, to hold an office requiring
one to be a natural-born citizen, be attacked and questioned before any
tribunal or government institution. Proper proceedings must be strictly
followed by the proper officers under the law. Hence, in seeking Limkaichong's
disqualification on account of her citizenship, the rudiments of fair play and
due process must be observed, for in doing so, she is not only deprived of the
right to hold office as a Member of the House of Representative but her
constituents would also be deprived of a leader in whom they have put their
trust on through their votes. The obvious rationale behind the foregoing ruling
is that in voting for a candidate who has not been disqualified by final
judgment during the election day, the people voted for her bona fide, without
any intention to misapply their franchise, and in the honest belief that the
candidate was then qualified to be the person to whom they would entrust the
exercise of the powers of government.
2. Limkaichong was proclaimed by the
Provincial Board of Canvassers, she had taken her oath of office, and she was
allowed to officially assume the office on July 23, 2007. Accordingly, the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), and no longer the COMELEC,
should now assume jurisdiction over the disqualification cases.
x x x The Court has
invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his
oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the
COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election,
returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins.
It follows then that the proclamation of a winning candidate divests the
COMELEC of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of the
proclamation. The party questioning his qualification should now present
his case in a proper proceeding before the HRET, the constitutionally mandated
tribunal to hear and decide a case involving a Member of the House of
Representatives with respect to the latter's election, returns and
qualifications. The use of the word "sole" in Section 17, Article VI
of the Constitution and in Section 2509 of the OEC underscores the exclusivity
of the Electoral Tribunals' jurisdiction over election contests relating to its
members.
The fact that the
proclamation of the winning candidate, as in this case, was alleged to have
been tainted with irregularity does not divest the HRET of its jurisdiction.
3. No. The 1998 HRET
Rules, as amended, provide for the manner of filing either an election protest
or a petition for quo warranto against a Member of the House of
Representatives. In our Decision, we ruled that the ten-day prescriptive
period under the 1998 HRET Rules does not apply to disqualification based on
citizenship, because qualifications for public office are continuing
requirements and must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or
election or assumption of office but during the officer's entire tenure.
Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably
challenged. Accordingly, the 1987 Constitution requires that Members of the
House of Representatives must be natural-born citizens not only at the time of
their election but during their entire tenure. Being a continuing
requirement, one who assails a member's citizenship or lack of it may still
question the same at any time, the ten-day prescriptive period
notwithstanding.
0
Comments
