Reyes vs. COMELEC

The jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) over the election, returns, and qualifications of its members commences only upon the concurrence of three requisites: (1) a valid proclamation, (2) a proper oath of office taken before the Speaker in open session, and (3) assumption of office; until such time, the COMELEC retains jurisdiction over petitions to cancel certificates of candidacy. Furthermore, a natural-born Filipino citizen who becomes a naturalized citizen of another country must comply with the twin requirements of Republic Act No. 9225—taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and making a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship—to reacquire Filipino citizenship and be eligible to run for public office.

Respondent Joseph Socorro Tan, a registered voter of Marinduque, filed a petition before the COMELEC to deny due course or cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner Regina Ongsiako Reyes for the May 2013 elections, alleging material misrepresentations regarding her citizenship, residency, civil status, and date of birth. Tan subsequently submitted evidence purportedly showing that Reyes was an American citizen and holder of a United States passport, which she continued to use until June 2012.

• On October 31, 2012, respondent Joseph Socorro Tan filed an Amended Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of petitioner Regina Ongsiako Reyes for the position of Representative of the lone district of Marinduque in the May 2013 elections.
• Tan alleged that Reyes committed material misrepresentations in her COC by declaring that: (1) she is single when she is married to Congressman Herminaldo I. Mandanas of Batangas; (2) she is a resident of Brgy. Lupac, Boac, Marinduque when she is actually a resident of Bauan, Batangas or Quezon City; (3) her date of birth is July 3, 1964 when other documents show it is either July 8, 1959 or July 3, 1960; (4) she is not a permanent resident of another country when she is a permanent resident or immigrant of the United States; and (5) she is a Filipino citizen when she is in fact an American citizen.
• On February 8, 2013, Tan filed a Manifestation with Motion to Admit Newly Discovered Evidence consisting of a blog article by Eli J. Obligacion and a Certification of Travel Records from the Bureau of Immigration allegedly showing that Reyes is an American citizen and holder of US Passport No. 306278853 which she used until June 30, 2012.
• Reyes countered that her marriage to Congressman Mandanas was void ab initio for failure to comply with formal requirements of the Family Code, hence she is single and not bound to live with him. She claimed she is a natural-born Filipino citizen who acquired dual citizenship through marriage to an American citizen, and thus RA No. 9225 does not apply to her.
• On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC First Division cancelled Reyes' COC, finding she failed to comply with the twin requirements of RA No. 9225 (oath of allegiance and renunciation of American citizenship) and lacked the one-year residency requirement.
• On May 14, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc denied Reyes' Motion for Reconsideration.
• On May 18, 2013, the Marinduque Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed Reyes as the duly elected Representative.
• On June 5, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Certificate of Finality declaring its May 14, 2013 Resolution final and executory. On the same day, Reyes took her oath of office before Speaker Feliciano R. Belmonte Jr., although the term of office had not yet officially commenced.
• The term of office for Members of the House of Representatives officially begins at noon on June 30 next following their election.

• The COMELEC was ousted of jurisdiction when she was duly proclaimed winner and had taken her oath of office, as jurisdiction over election contests relating to qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives lies exclusively with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) under Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution.
• The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it took cognizance of Tan's "newly-discovered evidence" (the blog article and Bureau of Immigration certification) without the same having been testified on and formally offered and admitted in evidence, violating her right to due process.
• She is a natural-born Filipino citizen who merely acquired dual citizenship through marriage to an American citizen; she did not become a naturalized American citizen, hence the twin requirements of RA No. 9225 do not apply to her.
• She never lost her domicile of origin in Boac, Marinduque, having served as Provincial Administrator of the province from January 18, 2011 to July 13, 2011, thus satisfying the one-year residency requirement.
• The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by enforcing RA No. 9225, which imposes additional qualifications beyond those enumerated in Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution.

• The COMELEC retains jurisdiction over the petition to cancel the COC because the HRET acquires jurisdiction only after a candidate has been proclaimed, taken the oath, and assumed office; Reyes had not yet assumed office as the term had not commenced.
• The COMELEC is not bound by strict technical rules of evidence in the summary proceedings for cancellation of COC; the evidence was properly admitted and due process was observed as Reyes was given opportunity to be heard.
• Reyes is an American citizen based on her use of a US passport until June 2012; she failed to comply with the twin requirements of RA No. 9225 (oath of allegiance and personal sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship) to reacquire Filipino citizenship.
• Reyes abandoned her domicile of origin in Marinduque when she became a naturalized American citizen and failed to prove she re-established her domicile in the Philippines through positive acts; her service as Provincial Administrator is insufficient to prove one-year residency.
• RA No. 9225 does not impose additional qualifications but merely provides the mechanism for reacquiring Filipino citizenship, which is a constitutional requirement for Members of the House.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the COMELEC was ousted of jurisdiction over the petition to cancel Reyes' COC after she was proclaimed winner and took her oath of office, in favor of the HRET.
  • Whether the COMELEC violated Reyes' right to due process by admitting Tan's "newly-discovered evidence" without formal offer and testimony.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that Reyes is not a Filipino citizen for failure to comply with RA No. 9225.
  • Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Reyes did not meet the one-year residency requirement.
  • Whether RA No. 9225 imposes additional qualifications unconstitutional to the qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives under Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution.

• Procedural:
  • The COMELEC retains jurisdiction over petitions to cancel certificates of candidacy until the candidate has assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives. The HRET acquires jurisdiction only upon the concurrence of three requisites: (1) a valid proclamation, (2) a proper oath taken before the Speaker in open session, and (3) assumption of office. Since Reyes had not yet assumed office (the term begins June 30), and her oath taken on June 5 was not shown to be in open session, the COMELEC retained jurisdiction.
  • The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in admitting the "newly-discovered evidence" because proceedings for cancellation of COC are summary in nature, and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure are to be liberally construed to achieve just, expeditious, and inexpensive determination. Due process was satisfied as Reyes was given the opportunity to be heard through pleadings and arguments.
• Substantive:
  • The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding Reyes ineligible on grounds of citizenship. Once Tan submitted evidence showing Reyes held and used a US passport, the burden of proof shifted to Reyes to prove she is a natural-born Filipino or had reacquired citizenship under RA No. 9225. Reyes failed to submit proof of oath of allegiance required by RA No. 9225; her belated affidavit of renunciation executed in September 2012 was insufficient without the oath of allegiance.
  • The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding Reyes failed to meet the residency requirement. A Filipino who becomes naturalized elsewhere effectively abandons his domicile of origin. Upon re-acquisition of citizenship under RA No. 9225, he must show positive acts establishing domicile in the Philippines, and the residency period is counted from that time. Reyes failed to prove she re-acquired citizenship and abandoned her US domicile; her service as Provincial Administrator was insufficient to prove one-year residency.
  • RA No. 9225 does not impose additional qualifications but merely prescribes the requirements for reacquiring Filipino citizenship, which is a qualification already required by the Constitution.

• Jurisdiction of HRET vs. COMELEC — The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal becomes the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its members only after the concurrence of three requisites: valid proclamation, proper oath before the Speaker in open session, and assumption of office. Until then, the COMELEC retains jurisdiction over petitions to cancel certificates of candidacy.
• Twin Requirements of RA No. 9225 — Natural-born Filipino citizens who lost citizenship through naturalization must take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and make a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship to reacquire Filipino citizenship and be eligible to run for public office.
• Summary Nature of COC Cancellation Proceedings — The COMELEC is not strictly bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence in petitions to deny due course or cancel certificates of candidacy; the rules shall be liberally construed to achieve just, expeditious, and inexpensive disposition.
• Burden of Proof in Citizenship Cases — Once substantial evidence is presented showing a candidate holds foreign citizenship, the burden of proof shifts to the candidate to prove qualification or compliance with reacquisition requirements.

• "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."
• "For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross."
• "A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. 'Grave abuse of discretion,' under Rule 65, has a specific meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law."
• "Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or right to be heard. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps many times more creditably and predictable than oral argument, through pleadings."

• Marcos v. COMELEC — Cited for the principle that the HRET does not have jurisdiction over a candidate who is not a member of the House of Representatives.
• Vinzons-Chato v. COMELEC — Cited for the rule that COMELEC jurisdiction ends and HRET jurisdiction begins only after proclamation, oath, and assumption of office.
• Limkaichong v. COMELEC — Cited for the same jurisdictional rule regarding the transition from COMELEC to HRET.
• Dimaporo v. COMELEC — Cited to illustrate that HRET jurisdiction attaches only after assumption of office.
• Mastura v. COMELEC — Cited for the principle that factual findings of administrative bodies like COMELEC will not be disturbed except when unsupported by evidence.
• Beluso v. Commission on Elections — Cited for the definition of "grave abuse of discretion" in Rule 65.
• Sahali v. COMELEC — Cited for the principle that due process requires only an opportunity to be heard, not necessarily a hearing, and that administrative proceedings are not bound by strict judicial due process.
• Japzon v. Commission on Elections — Cited by COMELEC for the principle that a Filipino who becomes naturalized elsewhere abandons his domicile of origin.
• Cordora v. COMELEC — Cited in the dissent for the principle that RA No. 9225 twin requirements do not apply to those who did not become naturalized citizens of another country but merely possess dual citizenship by birth.
• Aznar v. COMELEC — Cited in the dissent for the principle that holding a foreign passport does not necessarily mean loss of Filipino citizenship.

• Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution — Grants the HRET exclusive jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives.
• Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution — Enumerates the qualifications for Members of the House of Representatives, including being a natural-born citizen and a resident of the district for not less than one year immediately preceding the day of election.
• Section 7, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution — Provides that Members of the House of Representatives shall serve for a term of three years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.
• Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) — Prescribes the requirements for reacquiring Filipino citizenship, including the oath of allegiance and renunciation of foreign citizenship for those seeking elective office.
• Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code — Governs petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy based on material misrepresentation.
• Section 6, Rule II of the Rules of the House of Representatives — Requires Members to take their oath or affirmation before the Speaker in open session.
• Section 3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides that decisions in petitions to cancel certificates of candidacy become final and executory after five days from promulgation unless restrained by the Supreme Court.

• Justice Arturo D. Brion (joined by Justices Carpio, Villarama, and Leonen) — Argued that the HRET acquires jurisdiction upon proclamation of the winning candidate, not assumption of office, and that the majority's ruling is a retrogressive jurisprudential development that emasculates the HRET. He contended that the evidence relied upon by the COMELEC (blog article and photocopied certification) was hearsay and insufficient to prove loss of Filipino citizenship, and that the petition should not have been dismissed outright without requiring respondents to comment.