Altarejos vs. COMELEC

Repatriation under Republic Act No. 8171 is effected only upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration, and such repatriation retroacts to the date of filing the application for repatriation, thereby qualifying the repatriated citizen for elective office as of the time of proclamation and start of term; however, the COMELEC does not commit grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying a candidate who fails to submit proof of completed repatriation during the proceedings, even if such proof is subsequently secured.

Petitioner Ciceron P. Altarejos was a candidate for mayor of San Jacinto, Masbate in the May 10, 2004 national and local elections. He had previously been naturalized as a citizen of the United States and thereafter sought to reacquire Philippine citizenship through repatriation under Republic Act No. 8171, which provides for the repatriation of natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity. Section 2 of RA 8171 requires that repatriation be effected by taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic and registration in the proper civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration. The Local Government Code of 1991 (Sections 39 and 40) requires that an elective local official be a Filipino citizen and disqualifies permanent residents of a foreign country from running for any elective position.

Petitioner Ciceron P. Altarejos filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor of San Jacinto, Masbate for the May 10, 2004 elections. On January 15, 2004, private respondents Jose Almiñe and Vernon Versoza, registered voters of San Jacinto, filed a petition with the COMELEC to disqualify petitioner and deny due course to his certificate of candidacy, alleging that he was not a Filipino citizen and had falsely represented that he was not a permanent resident of or immigrant to a foreign country. They cited a letter from the Bureau of Immigration dated June 25, 2001, stating that petitioner held a permanent U.S. resident visa, an Alien Certificate of Registration No. E139507 issued on November 3, 1997, and an Immigration Certificate of Residence No. 320846 likewise issued on November 3, 1997.

On January 26, 2004, petitioner filed his Answer, asserting that he had already been issued a Certificate of Repatriation by the Special Committee on Naturalization on December 17, 1997, after filing a petition for repatriation pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171. He claimed his Filipino citizenship had been restored and that he was qualified to run. During the hearing, the parties were required to submit memoranda within three days; private respondents filed theirs, but petitioner did not file within the required period, though he subsequently filed a Reply Memorandum. The only evidence petitioner submitted before the COMELEC First Division was his Certificate of Repatriation dated December 17, 1997.

The hearing officer, Regional Election Director Zacarias C. Zaragoza, Jr., recommended disqualification, finding that petitioner had not proven compliance with Section 2 of RA 8171, which requires not only the oath of allegiance but also registration in the proper civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration. The COMELEC First Division adopted this recommendation in its Resolution of March 22, 2004, cancelling petitioner's certificate of candidacy and ordering his name deleted from the certified list of candidates.

On March 25, 2004, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and attached five documents: his Oath of Allegiance dated December 17, 1997; Bureau of Immigration Identification Certificate No. 116543 issued on March 1, 2004; a certification from the Makati City Civil Registry that his Certificate of Repatriation and Oath of Allegiance were registered on February 18, 2004; and two letters dated December 17, 1997 from the Special Committee on Naturalization transmitting his documents to the Bureau of Immigration and the Local Registrar of San Jacinto, Masbate. The COMELEC en banc denied the motion on May 7, 2004, holding that these documents were new evidence that could no longer be considered on motion for reconsideration, and that even if admitted, they showed petitioner had completed repatriation only on February 18, 2004 (civil registry) and March 1, 2004 (Bureau of Immigration)—after he had filed his certificate of candidacy.

On May 10, 2004, election day itself, petitioner filed the present petition. The Office of the Solicitor General, in its Comment, informed the Court that petitioner's name had been retained on the list of candidates and that his opponent, Dr. Emilio Aris V. Espinosa, had already been proclaimed duly elected mayor, rendering the petition moot and academic. Petitioner opposed dismissal, arguing that the COMELEC resolutions adversely affected his candidacy by causing his supporters to doubt whether his votes would be counted, and that the resolutions cast doubt on his Philippine citizenship. He contended that any delay in registration was attributable to the inaction of the receiving offices, and that subsequent registration before the elections cured any defect, his repatriation retroacting to the date of his application as held in Frivaldo vs. COMELEC.

• Citizenship and Repatriation: Petitioner maintained that he had already reacquired Filipino citizenship when he took his Oath of Allegiance on December 17, 1997, and that any delay in the registration of his Certificate of Repatriation with the Bureau of Immigration and the proper civil registry was attributable to the inaction of those offices, not to his own fault.
• Retroactivity of Repatriation: Petitioner argued that the subsequent registration of his Certificate of Repatriation with the Bureau of Immigration and the Civil Registry of Makati City prior to the May 10, 2004 elections cured any defect in the reacquisition of his Filipino citizenship, because his repatriation retroacted to the date of his application for repatriation, as held in Frivaldo vs. COMELEC.
• Adverse Effect of COMELEC Resolutions: Petitioner asserted that the COMELEC resolutions disqualifying him adversely affected his candidacy, since his supporters were made to believe that his votes would not be counted, and that the resolutions cast doubt on his Philippine citizenship.

• Mootness: The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the COMELEC, contended that the petition had been rendered moot and academic by the supervening events that petitioner's name was retained on the list of candidates and that his opponent had already been proclaimed duly elected mayor.
• Insufficiency of Evidence: The COMELEC en banc argued that the evidence petitioner submitted before the First Division—only his Certificate of Repatriation—was insufficient to overcome private respondents' evidence, which included the Bureau of Immigration letter confirming petitioner's permanent resident visa status and a certification that his name could not be found in the records of repatriation.
• Inadmissibility of New Evidence on Reconsideration: The COMELEC maintained that the documents petitioner attached to his motion for reconsideration constituted new evidence that could no longer be considered at that stage of the proceedings, as the Comelec Rules of Procedure limit the evidence on motion for reconsideration to that already part of the records.

• Prerequisites for Repatriation: Whether the registration of petitioner's repatriation with the proper civil registry and with the Bureau of Immigration is a prerequisite in effecting repatriation under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8171.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in affirming the Resolution of the COMELEC First Division.

• Prerequisites for Repatriation: Yes. Registration in the proper civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration, in addition to taking the oath of allegiance, is a prerequisite for effecting repatriation under Section 2 of RA 8171. However, repatriation retroacts to the date of filing the application, rendering petitioner qualified to run for mayor as of the time of proclamation and start of term.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The COMELEC en banc did not gravely abuse its discretion, petitioner having failed to submit the documents proving compliance with repatriation requirements during the proceedings before the First Division, presenting them only on motion for reconsideration when they could no longer be considered.

• Prerequisites for Repatriation: Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8171 provides that "repatriation shall be effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of Immigration." The statutory language is clear that both the oath of allegiance and the two registrations are necessary components; neither alone suffices. Petitioner took his oath on December 17, 1997, but registered with the Civil Registry of Makati City only on February 18, 2004, and with the Bureau of Immigration only on March 1, 2004. He thus completed all requirements only after filing his certificate of candidacy but before the elections. The Court applied the doctrine from Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, which held that the citizenship qualification for elective office applies at the time of proclamation and the start of the term, not at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. The Court further held that repatriation retroacts to the date of filing the application, because RA 8171, like the curative statute Presidential Decree No. 725 construed in Frivaldo, is intended to benefit former Filipinos by enabling them to enjoy the constitutionally guaranteed right of citizenship, and retroactivity prevents prejudice to applicants caused by delays outside their control. Accordingly, petitioner's repatriation retroacted to 1997, the date of his application, and he was qualified to run in the May 10, 2004 elections. The Court noted that the COMELEC itself appeared to have recognized this, as it did not implement the disqualification resolutions.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The COMELEC en banc could not be faulted for affirming the First Division's resolution, because petitioner had failed to present the documents proving compliance with repatriation requirements during the hearing. The only evidence petitioner submitted was his Certificate of Repatriation, which was insufficient to overcome private respondents' evidence, including the Bureau of Immigration letter confirming his permanent resident visa and a certification that his name could not be found in the records of repatriation. The documents showing registration with the civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration were submitted only on motion for reconsideration, when the COMELEC en banc could no longer consider them as they were not part of the records of the case. The Comelec Rules of Procedure (Rule 19, Section 1) limit evidence on motion for reconsideration to that already submitted during the hearing and attached to the parties' memoranda. The Court emphasized that it is incumbent upon repatriated citizens seeking elective office to be ready with sufficient evidence of their repatriation in case their citizenship is questioned, to prevent a repetition of this situation.

• Retroactivity of Repatriation — Repatriation under Republic Act No. 8171 retroacts to the date of filing the application for repatriation. The rationale, adopted from Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, is that the legislative intent to benefit former Filipinos by enabling them to exercise the constitutionally guaranteed right of citizenship should be given the fullest effect; retroactivity prevents prejudice to applicants who may be stateless or otherwise disadvantaged by bureaucratic delays outside their control. RA 8171 impliedly repealed Presidential Decree No. 725, covering the same subject matter, and the retroactivity ruling subsists for the same reasons.

• Timing of Citizenship Qualification for Elective Office — The citizenship qualification for an elective local official under Section 39 of the Local Government Code applies at the time of proclamation of the elected official and at the start of the term, not at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. Unlike the residence and age requirements, which the Code ties to specific temporal benchmarks, the law does not specify any particular date when the candidate must possess citizenship. The purpose of the citizenship requirement—to ensure that no alien governs the people—is satisfied if the candidate is a citizen at the time of proclamation and assumption of office.

• Completeness of Repatriation Requirements — Under Section 2 of RA 8171, repatriation is effected by three conjunctive requirements: (1) taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; (2) registration in the proper civil registry; and (3) registration in the Bureau of Immigration. All three must be complied with; compliance with only one or two does not perfect repatriation.

• "The law is clear that repatriation is effected 'by taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of Immigration.' Hence, in addition to taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, the registration of the Certificate of Repatriation in the proper civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration is a prerequisite in effecting the repatriation of a citizen." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the first issue, establishing that all three requirements under Section 2 of RA 8171 are conjunctive and indispensable.

• "Accordingly, petitioner's repatriation retroacted to the date he filed his application in 1997. Petitioner was, therefore, qualified to run for a mayoralty position in the government in the May 10, 2004 elections." — This is the operative conclusion applying the retroactivity doctrine to the petitioner's situation, resolving the substantive qualification question despite the mootness of the petition.

• "It is, therefore, incumbent upon candidates for an elective office, who are repatriated citizens, to be ready with sufficient evidence of their repatriation in case their Filipino citizenship is questioned to prevent a repetition of this case." — This passage articulates the practical directive flowing from the ruling, cautioning repatriated candidates to proactively secure and present documentary proof of completed repatriation during proceedings.

• Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, 257 SCRA 727 (1996) — Controlling precedent on two points: (1) the citizenship qualification for elective office applies at the time of proclamation and start of term, and (2) repatriation retroacts to the date of filing the application. The Court applied both holdings directly to petitioner's case, finding that RA 8171, which impliedly repealed P.D. 725 (the statute construed in Frivaldo), operates on the same rationale justifying retroactivity.

• Cheng vs. Republic, L-16999, June 22, 1965 — Cited by the hearing officer for the rule that in case of doubt concerning the grant of citizenship, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the State and against the applicant. This principle underpinned the COMELEC's initial disqualification.

• Ycain vs. Caneja, 18 Phil. 778 — Cited by the COMELEC en banc for the proposition that false representation in a certificate of candidacy regarding a qualification constitutes material misrepresentation warranting cancellation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.

• Vasquez vs. Giap and Li Seng Giap & Sons — Cited in the Frivaldo passage quoted by the Court, supporting the liberal interpretation of the citizenship requirement consistent with its purpose of preventing alien governance.

• Section 2, Republic Act No. 8171 — Provides that repatriation shall be effected by taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of Immigration, with the Bureau thereafter cancelling the alien certificate of registration and issuing an identification certificate as Filipino citizen. The Court construed this provision as requiring all three acts conjunctively and held that repatriation thereunder retroacts to the date of application.

• Sections 39 and 40, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Section 39 requires that an elective local official be a citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident for at least one year immediately preceding the election, and able to read and write Filipino or any local language or dialect. Section 40 disqualifies persons with dual citizenship and permanent residents in a foreign country. These provisions were the basis for the disqualification petition against petitioner.

• Section 78, Omnibus Election Code — Authorizes cancellation of a certificate of candidacy on the ground of material misrepresentation. The COMELEC invoked this provision to cancel petitioner's certificate, finding that his representation of Filipino citizenship was false at the time of filing.

• Rule 19, Section 1, Comelec Rules of Procedure — Provides that insufficiency of evidence to justify the decision is a ground for motion for reconsideration, but limits the evidence considered to that submitted during the hearing and attached to the parties' memoranda. The COMELEC en banc relied on this rule to refuse consideration of petitioner's newly submitted documents.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concur. Quisumbing, J., concurred in the result. Puno and Tinga, JJ., were on official leave. Corona, J., was on leave.