EN BANC a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by stating that he

had been a resident of Oras for two years when in truth he had resided
G.R. No. 151914 - July 31, 2002 therein for only about six months since November 10, 2000, when he took
his oath as a citizen of the Philippines.
TEODULO M. COQUILLA, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS and MR. NEIL M. ALVAREZ, Respondents. The COMELEC was unable to render judgment on the case before the
elections on May 14, 2001. Meanwhile, petitioner was voted for and
received the highest number of votes (6,131) against private respondent's
MENDOZA, J.:
5,752 votes, or a margin of 379 votes. On May 17, 2001, petitioner was
proclaimed mayor of Oras by the Municipal Board of Canvassers.8 He
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the resolution, 1 dated July 19, subsequently took his oath of office.
2001, of the Second Division of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), ordering the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of
petitioner Teodulo M. Coquilla for the position of mayor of Oras, Eastern On July 19, 2001, the Second Division of the COMELEC granted private
respondent's petition and ordered the cancellation of petitioner's certificate
Samar in the May 14, 2001 elections and the order, dated January 30, 2002,
of candidacy on the basis of the following findings:
of the COMELEC en banc denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The facts are as follows: Respondent's frequent or regular trips to the Philippines and stay in Oras,
Eastern Samar after his retirement from the U.S. Navy in 1985 cannot be
considered as a waiver of his status as a permanent resident or immigrant . .
Petitioner Coquilla was born on February 17, 1938 of Filipino parents in . of the U.S.A. prior to November 10, 2000 as would qualify him to acquire
Oras, Eastern Samar. He grew up and resided there until 1965, when he the status of residency for purposes of compliance with the one-year
joined the United States Navy. He was subsequently naturalized as a U.S. residency requirement of Section 39(a) of the Local Government Code of
citizen.2 From 1970 to 1973, petitioner thrice visited the Philippines while 1991 in relation to Sections 65 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. The
on leave from the U.S. Navy.3 Otherwise, even after his retirement from the one (1) year residency requirement contemplates of the actual residence of a
U.S. Navy in 1985, he remained in the United States. Filipino citizen in the constituency where he seeks to be elected.

On October 15, 1998, petitioner came to the Philippines and took out a All things considered, the number of years he claimed to have resided or
residence certificate, although he continued making several trips to the stayed in Oras, Eastern Samar since 1985 as an American citizen and
United States, the last of which took place on July 6, 2000 and lasted until permanent resident of the U.S.A. before November 10, 2000 when he
August 5, 2000.4 Subsequently, petitioner applied for repatriation under reacquired his Philippine citizenship by [repatriation] cannot be added to his
R.A. No. 81715 to the Special Committee on Naturalization. His application actual residence thereat after November 10, 2000 until May 14, 2001 to
was approved on November 7, 2000, and, on November 10, 2000, he took cure his deficiency in days, months, and year to allow or render him eligible
his oath as a citizen of the Philippines. Petitioner was issued Certificate of to run for an elective office in the Philippines. Under such circumstances,
Repatriation No. 000737 on November 10, 2000 and Bureau of Immigration by whatever formula of computation used, respondent is short of the one-
Identification Certificate No. 115123 on November 13, 2000. year residence requirement before the May 14, 2001 elections. 9

On November 21, 2000, petitioner applied for registration as a voter of Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by
Butnga, Oras, Eastern Samar. His application was approved by the Election the COMELEC en banc on January 30, 2002. Hence this petition.
Registration Board on January 12, 2001.6 On February 27, 2001, he filed his
certificate of candidacy stating therein that he had been a resident of Oras,
I.
Eastern Samar for "two (2) years." 7

On March 5, 2001, respondent Neil M. Alvarez, who was the incumbent Two questions must first be resolved before considering the merits of this
mayor of Oras and who was running for reelection, sought the cancellation case: (a) whether the 30-day period for appealing the resolution of the
COMELEC was suspended by the filing of a motion for reconsideration by
of petitioner's certificate of candidacy on the ground that the latter had made
petitioner and (b) whether the COMELEC retained jurisdiction to decide It is contended, however, that petitioner's motion for reconsideration before
this case notwithstanding the proclamation of petitioner. the COMELEC en banc did not suspend the running of the period for filing
this petition because the motion was pro forma and, consequently, this
A. With respect to the first question, private respondent contends that petition should have been filed on or before August 27, 2001. It was
the petition in this case should be dismissed because it was filed late; that actually filed, however, only on February 11, 2002. Private respondent cites
the COMELEC en banc had denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration the finding of the COMELEC en banc that -
for being pro forma; and that, pursuant to Rule 19, 4 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, the said motion did not suspend the running of the 30- An incisive examination of the allegations in the Motion for
day period for filing this petition. He points out that petitioner received a Reconsideration shows that the same [are] a mere rehash of his averments
copy of the resolution, dated July 19, 2001, of the COMELEC's Second contained in his Verified Answer andMemorandum. Neither did respondent
Division on July 28, 2001, so that he had only until August 27, 2001 within raise new matters that would sufficiently warrant a reversal of the assailed
which to file this petition. Since the petition in this case was filed on resolution of the Second Division. This makes the said Motion pro forma.11
February 11, 2002, the same should be considered as having been filed late
and should be dismissed. We do not think this contention is correct. The motion for reconsideration
was not pro forma and its filing did suspend the period for filing the petition
Private respondent's contention has no merit. for certiorari in this case. The mere reiteration in a motion for
reconsideration of the issues raised by the parties and passed upon by the
Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides in pertinent parts: court does not make a motion pro forma; otherwise, the movant's remedy
would not be a reconsideration of the decision but a new trial or some other
remedy.12 But, as we have held in another case:13
Sec. 2. Period for Filing Motions for Reconsideration. - A motion to
reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a Division shall be filed
within five days from the promulgation thereof. Such motion, if not pro- Among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed, one is
forma, suspends the execution for implementation of the decision, precisely to convince the court that its ruling is erroneous and improper,
resolution, order, or ruling. contrary to the law or the evidence; and in doing so, the movant has to
dwell of necessity upon the issues passed upon by the court. If a motion for
reconsideration may not discuss these issues, the consequence would be that
Sec. 4. Effect of Motion for Reconsideration on Period to Appeal. - A
after a decision is rendered, the losing party would be confined to filing
motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling, when not pro-
forma, suspends the running of the period to elevate the matter to the only motions for reopening and new trial.
Supreme Court.
Indeed, in the cases where a motion for reconsideration was held to bepro
forma, the motion was so held because (1) it was a second motion for
The five-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration under Rule 19, 2
reconsideration,14 or (2) it did not comply with the rule that the motion must
should be counted from the receipt of the decision, resolution, order, or
ruling of the COMELEC Division.10 In this case, petitioner received a copy specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not
of the resolution of July 19, 2001 of the COMELEC's Second Division on supported by the evidence,15 or (3) it failed to substantiate the alleged
errors,15 or (4) it merely alleged that the decision in question was contrary to
July 28, 2001. Five days later, on August 2, 2001, he filed his motion for
law,17 or (5) the adverse party was not given notice thereof. 18 The 16-page
reconsideration. On February 6, 2002, he received a copy of the order, dated
motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner in the COMELEC en
January 30, 2002, of the COMELEC en banc denying his motion for
banc suffers from none of the foregoing defects, and it was error for the
reconsideration. Five days later, on February 11, 2002, he filed this petition
for certiorari. There is no question, therefore, that petitioner's motion for COMELEC en banc to rule that petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
reconsideration of the resolution of the COMELEC Second Division, as pro forma because the allegations raised therein are a mere "rehash" of his
earlier pleadings or did not raise "new matters." Hence, the filing of the
well as his petition for certiorari to set aside of the order of the
motion suspended the running of the 30-day period to file the petition in this
COMELEC en banc, was filed within the period provided for in Rule 19, 2
case, which, as earlier shown, was done within the reglementary period
of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and in Art. IX(A), 7 of the
provided by law.
Constitution.
B. As stated before, the COMELEC failed to resolve private respondent's On the merits, the question is whether petitioner had been a resident of
petition for cancellation of petitioner's certificate of candidacy before the Oras, Eastern Samar at least one (1) year before the elections held on May
elections on May 14, 2001. In the meantime, the votes were canvassed and 14, 2001 as he represented in his certificate of candidacy. We find that he
petitioner was proclaimed elected with a margin of 379 votes over private had not.
respondent. Did the COMELEC thereby lose authority to act on the petition
filed by private respondent? First, 39(a) of the Local Government Code (R.A No. 7160) provides:

R.A. No. 6646 provides: Qualifications. - (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the
Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or
SECTION 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who has been province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniangpanlalawigan,
declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the sangguniangpanlungsod, or sangguniangbayan, the district where he intends
votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately
declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or any
voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the other local language or dialect. (Emphasis added)
Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action,
inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, The term "residence" is to be understood not in its common acceptation as
may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation referring to "dwelling" or "habitation,"21 but rather to "domicile" or legal
of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. (Emphasis residence,22 that is, "the place where a party actually or constructively has
added) his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any
given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi)."23 A
SECTION 7. Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel a Certificate of domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the place
Candidacy. - The procedure hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to where the child's parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned
deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in by acquisition of new domicile (domicile of choice). 24
Section 78 of Batas PambansaBlg. 881.
In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras by becoming
The rule then is that candidates who are disqualified by final judgment a U.S. citizen after enlisting in the U.S. Navy in 1965. From then on and
before the election shall not be voted for and the votes cast for them shall until November 10, 2000, when he reacquired Philippine citizenship,
not be counted. But those against whom no final judgment of petitioner was an alien without any right to reside in the Philippines save as
disqualification had been rendered may be voted for and proclaimed, unless, our immigration laws may have allowed him to stay as a visitor or as a
on motion of the complainant, the COMELEC suspends their proclamation resident alien.
because the grounds for their disqualification or cancellation of their
certificates of candidacy are strong. Meanwhile, the proceedings for Indeed, residence in the United States is a requirement for naturalization as
disqualification of candidates or for the cancellation or denial of certificates a U.S. citizen. Title 8, 1427(a) of the United States Code provides:
of candidacy, which have been begun before the elections, should continue
even after such elections and proclamation of the winners. In Abella v.
Requirements of naturalization. - Residence
COMELEC19 and Salcedo II v. COMELEC,20 the candidates whose
certificates of candidacy were the subject of petitions for cancellation were
voted for and, having received the highest number of votes, were duly (a) No person, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, shall be
proclaimed winners. This Court, in the first case, affirmed and, in the naturalized unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of
second, reversed the decisions of the COMELEC rendered after the filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being
proclamation of candidates, not on the ground that the latter had been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at
divested of jurisdiction upon the candidates' proclamation but on the merits. least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of
filing his petition has been physically present therein for periods totaling at
least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the
II. district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the
application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the
United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to in his 1998-2008 U.S. passport. As for his entry on August 5, 2000, the
citizenship, and (3) during all the period referred to in this subsection has stamp bore the added inscription "good for one year stay." 31 Under 2 of
been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles R.A. No. 6768 (An Act Instituting a BalikbayanProgram), the
of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order term balikbayan includes a former Filipino citizen who had been
and happiness of the United States. (Emphasis added) naturalized in a foreign country and comes or returns to the Philippines and,
if so, he is entitled, among others, to a "visa-free entry to the Philippines for
In Caasi v. Court of Appeals,25 this Court ruled that immigration to the a period of one (1) year" (3(c)). It would appear then that when petitioner
United States by virtue of a "greencard," which entitles one to reside entered the country on the dates in question, he did so as a visa-
permanently in that country, constitutes abandonment of domicile in the free balikbayan visitor whose stay as such was valid for one year only.
Philippines. With more reason then does naturalization in a foreign country Hence, petitioner can only be held to have waived his status as an alien and
result in an abandonment of domicile in the Philippines. as a non-resident only on November 10, 2000 upon taking his oath as a
citizen of the Philippines under R.A. No. 8171. 32 He lacked the requisite
residency to qualify him for the mayorship of Oras, Eastern, Samar.
Nor can petitioner contend that he was "compelled to adopt American
citizenship" only by reason of his service in the U.S. armed forces.26 It is
noteworthy that petitioner was repatriated not under R.A. No. 2630, which Petitioner invokes the ruling in Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections33 in
applies to the repatriation of those who lost their Philippine citizenship by support of his contention that the residency requirement in 39(a) of the
accepting commission in the Armed Forces of the United States, but under Local Government Code includes the residency of one who is not a citizen
R.A. No. 8171, which, as earlier mentioned, provides for the repatriation of, of the Philippines. Residency, however, was not an issue in that case and
among others, natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account this Court did not make any ruling on the issue now at bar. The question
of political or economic necessity. In any event, the fact is that, by having in Frivaldo was whether petitioner, who took his oath of repatriation on the
been naturalized abroad, he lost his Philippine citizenship and with it his same day that his term as governor of Sorsogon began on June 30, 1995,
residence in the Philippines. Until his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship complied with the citizenship requirement under 39(a). It was held that he
on November 10, 2000, petitioner did not reacquire his legal residence in had, because citizenship may be possessed even on the day the candidate
this country. assumes office. But in the case of residency, as already noted, 39(a) of the
Local Government Code requires that the candidate must have been a
resident of the municipality "for at least one (1) year immediately preceding
Second, it is not true, as petitioner contends, that he reestablished residence
the day of the election."
in this country in 1998 when he came back to prepare for the mayoralty
elections of Oras by securing a Community Tax Certificate in that year and
by "constantly declaring" to his townmates of his intention to seek Nor can petitioner invoke this Court's ruling in Bengzon III v. House of
repatriation and run for mayor in the May 14, 2001 elections. 27The status of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.34 What the Court held in that case was
being an alien and a non-resident can be waived either separately, when one that, upon repatriation, a former natural-born Filipino is deemed to have
acquires the status of a resident alien before acquiring Philippine recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen.
citizenship, or at the same time when one acquires Philippine citizenship.
As an alien, an individual may obtain an immigrant visa under 13 28 of the Third, petitioner nonetheless says that his registration as a voter of Butnga,
Philippine Immigration Act of 1948 and an Immigrant Certificate of Oras, Eastern Samar in January 2001 is conclusive of his residency as a
Residence (ICR)29 and thus waive his status as a non-resident. On the other candidate because 117 of the Omnibus Election Code requires that a voter
hand, he may acquire Philippine citizenship by naturalization under C.A. must have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the city or
No. 473, as amended, or, if he is a former Philippine national, he may municipality wherein he proposes to vote for at least six months
reacquire Philippine citizenship by repatriation or by an act of immediately preceding the election. As held in Nuval v. Guray,35 however,
Congress,30 in which case he waives not only his status as an alien but also registration as a voter does not bar the filing of a subsequent case
his status as a non-resident alien. questioning a candidate's lack of residency.

In the case at bar, the only evidence of petitioner's status when he entered Petitioner's invocation of the liberal interpretation of election laws cannot
the country on October 15, 1998, December 20, 1998, October 16, 1999, avail him any. As held in Aquino v. Commission on Elections:36
and June 23, 2000 is the statement "Philippine Immigration [-] Balikbayan"
A democratic government is necessarily a government of laws. In a SEC. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.
republican government those laws are themselves ordained by the people. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of
Through their representatives, they dictate the qualifications necessary for candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any
service in government positions. And as petitioner clearly lacks one of the material representation contained therein as required under Section 74
essential qualifications for running for membership in the House of hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-
Representatives, not even the will of a majority or plurality of the voters of five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall
the Second District of Makati City would substitute for a requirement be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before
mandated by the fundamental law itself. the election.

Fourth, petitioner was not denied due process because the COMELEC Indeed, it has been held that a candidate's statement in her certificate of
failed to act on his motion to be allowed to present evidence. Under 5(d), in candidacy for the position of governor of Leyte that she was a resident of
relation to 7, of R.A. No. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1987), Kananga, Leyte when this was not so37 or that the candidate was a "natural-
proceedings for denial or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy are born" Filipino when in fact he had become an Australian
summary in nature. The holding of a formal hearing is thus not de rigeur. In citizen38 constitutes a ground for the cancellation of a certificate of
any event, petitioner cannot claim denial of the right to be heard since he candidacy. On the other hand, we held in Salcedo II v. COMELEC39 that a
filed a Verified Answer, a Memorandum and a Manifestation, all dated candidate who used her husband's family name even though their marriage
March 19, 2001, before the COMELEC in which he submitted documents was void was not guilty of misrepresentation concerning a material fact. In
relied by him in this petition, which, contrary to petitioner's claim, are the case at bar, what is involved is a false statement concerning a
complete and intact in the records. candidate's qualification for an office for which he filed the certificate of
candidacy. This is a misrepresentation of a material fact justifying the
III. cancellation of petitioner's certificate of candidacy. The cancellation of
petitioner's certificate of candidacy in this case is thus fully justified.
The statement in petitioner's certificate of candidacy that he had been a
resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for "two years" at the time he filed such WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the resolution of the
certificate is not true. The question is whether the COMELEC was justified Second Division of the Commission on Elections, dated July 19, 2001, and
in ordering the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy for this reason. the order, dated January 30, 2002 of the Commission on
We hold that it was. Petitioner made a false representation of a material fact Elections enbancare AFFIRMED.
in his certificate of candidacy, thus rendering such certificate liable to
cancellation. The Omnibus Election Code provides: SO ORDERED.

SEC. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. - The certificate of candidacy Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Panganiban,
shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-
stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for Member of the Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.
BatasangPambansa, the province, including its component cities, highly
urbanized city or district or sector which he seeks to represent; the political
party to which he belongs; civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post
office address for all election purposes; his profession or occupation; that he
will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will obey the laws, legal
orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities; that he
is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country; that the
obligation imposed by his oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the certificate
of candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge.