Primary Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed HRET’s decision, declaring Jose Ong, Jr. a natural-born Filipino citizen and resident of Laoang, Northern Samar, dismissing the petitions for lack of grave abuse of discretion by HRET.

Background

Jose Ong, Jr. won the 1987 congressional election for Northern Samar’s second district. Petitioners Co and Balanquit filed protests with HRET, contesting Ong’s citizenship and residency. HRET ruled in Ong’s favor, prompting petitioners to seek certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

• 1. Jose Ong, Jr. was born in 1948 to Agripina Lao (natural-born Filipina) and Jose Ong Chuan (Chinese citizen who naturalized in 1957).
• 2. Ong’s grandfather, Ong Te, arrived in the Philippines in 1895, established residency, and was deemed a Spanish subject under the Philippine Bill of 1902.
• 3. Ong grew up in Laoang, Samar, studied in Manila, and registered as a voter in Laoang. His family rebuilt homes there after fires in 1961 and 1975.
• 4. Ong’s brother, Emil Ong, was declared a natural-born citizen by the 1971 Constitutional Convention.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Citizenship: Ong’s father’s naturalization was invalid due to premature oath-taking; Ong did not formally elect Philippine citizenship under Commonwealth Act 625.
• 2. Residency: Ong abandoned Laoang by living in Manila for work and education, lacking physical presence in the district.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Citizenship: Ong derived citizenship from his naturalized father and natural-born mother. His acts (voting, public service) constituted implied election of citizenship.
• 2. Residency: Domicile remained Laoang despite temporary stays in Manila; ownership of property is not required for residency.

Issues

• 1. Whether the Supreme Court could review HRET’s decision.
• 2. Whether Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural-born Filipino citizen.
• 3. Whether Ong met the residency requirement.

Ruling

• 1. Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can only review HRET decisions for grave abuse of discretion, which was absent here.
• 2. Citizenship: Ong is natural-born. His mother’s citizenship and his father’s naturalization (despite procedural flaws) conferred citizenship at birth. Informal acts (voting, public service) sufficed as election under In Re Mallare.
• 3. Residency: Domicile (Laoang) was retained despite Manila stays; physical absence does not negate residency intent.

Doctrines

• 1. Exclusive Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunals: HRET is the sole judge of congressional qualifications (Art. VI, Sec. 17).
• 2. Informal Election of Citizenship: Acts like voting and public service suffice under In Re Mallare.
• 3. Domicile = Residency: Constitutional intent equates residency with domicile, not physical presence.

Key Excerpts

• 1. “The term ‘residence’ has been understood as synonymous with domicile.”
• 2. “Election of citizenship may be expressed informally through deliberate acts manifesting Filipino identity.”

Precedents Cited

• 1. Lazatin v. HRET: Affirmed HRET’s exclusive jurisdiction.
• 2. In Re Florencio Mallare: Held voting constitutes election of citizenship.
• 3. Morrero v. Bocar: Limited judicial review of electoral tribunal decisions.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Art. VI, Sec. 17: HRET’s exclusive jurisdiction over congressional qualifications.
• 2. Art. IV, Secs. 1-2: Natural-born citizenship definitions and election requirements.