REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH SOCORRO B.

TAN
G.R. No. 207264 - October 22, 2013 - Perez, J.

FACTS:

1. 31 October 2012 – respondent Tan filed an Amended Petition to Deny Due Course or to
Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of petitioner Reyes on grounds that it contained
material representation, specifically:

● that she is single when she is married to Congressman Herminaldo I. Mandanas of

Batangas;

● that she is a resident of Brgy. Lupac, Boac, Marinduque when she is a resident of
Bauan, Batangas which is the residence of her husband, and at the same time, when
she is also a resident of 135 J.P. Rizal, Brgy. Milagrosa, Quezon City as admitted in
the Directory of Congressional Spouses of the House of Representatives;

● that her date of birth is 3 July 1964 when other documents show that her birthdate
is either 8 July 1959 or 3 July 1960;

● that she is not a permanent resident of another country when she is a permanent
resident or an immigrant of the United States of America; and

● that she is a Filipino citizen when she is, in fact, an American citizen.

2. Petitioner filed her Answer, countering respondent’s allegations:

● Her marriage to Congressman Herminaldo I. Mandanas was void ab initio because it

was only solemnized through a religious rite, not complying with formal
requirements prescribed by the Family Code. Petitioner argues that since she’s not
duty-bound through marriage to live with Congressman Mandanas, his residence
can’t be attributed to her.

● Her NSO Certificate of Live Birth shows that her birth date as 3 July 1964.

● Petitioner notes that the allegation that she is a permanent residence/citizen of the
USA is unsupported by evidence.

3. 8 February 2013 – respondent filed a “Manifestation with Motion to Admit Newly

Discovered Evidence and Amended List of Exhibits” consisting of, among others:

● a copy of an article published on the internet on 8 January 2013 entitled “Seeking

and Finding the Truth about Regina O. Reyes” with an Affidavit of Identification and
Authenticity of Document executed by its author Eliseo J. Obligacion, which provides
 a database record of the Bureau of Immigration indicating that petitioner is an
American citizen and a holder of a U.S. passport;

● a Certification of Travel Records of petitioner, issued by Simeon Sanchez, Acting

Chief, Verification and Certification Unit of the Bureau of Immigration which
indicates that petitioner used a U.S. Passport in her various travels abroad.

4. 27 March 2013 – COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution cancelling Reyes’ COC upon
her failure to comply with RA No. 9225’s (“Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of
2003”) requirements (oath of allegiance and sworn renunciation of her American
citizenship) and with the one-year residency requirement under Sec. 6, Art VI of the 1987
Constitution.

5. 8 April 2013 – Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration claiming that she’s a natural-
born Filipino citizen and that she hasn’t lost such status by obtaining and using an American
passport; neither did she become a naturalized American citizen upon her marriage to an
American citizen. Petitioner averred that such a marriage only resulted in a dual citizenship,
thus there was no need for her to fulfill RA 9225’s requirements. (although she had attached
a an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship sworn to before a Notary Public on 24
September 2012.)

6. an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship sworn to before a Notary Public on 24

September 2012. [Reyes vs. Commission on Elections, 699 SCRA 522(2013)]

7. 14 May 2013 – COMELEC En Banc promulgated a Resolution denying petitioner’s Motion

for Reconsideration.

8. 18 may 2013 – Petitioner was proclaimed winner of the 13 May 2013 elections.

9. 5 June 2013 – COMELEC En Banc issued a Ceritifcate of Finality declaring the 14 May 2013
Resolution final and executor, since 14 days had elapsed from the date of promulgation with
no order issued by the Supreme Court restraining its execution.

Petitioner took her oath of office before House Speaker Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr, set to
assume office at 30 June 2013.

ISSUE(s):

1. W/N Respondent Comelec is without jurisdiction over Petitioner who is a duly

proclaimed winner and who has already taken her oath of office for the position of Member
of the House of Representatives for the lone congressional district of Marinduque.

2. W/N Respondent Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction when it took cognizance of Respondent Tan’s alleged “newly-
discovered evidence” without the same having been testified on and offered and admitted
in evidence which became the basis for its Resolution of the case without giving the
petitioner the opportunity to question and present controverting evidence, in violation of
Petitioner’s right to due process of law.

3. W/N Respondent Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction when it declared that Petitioner is not a Filipino citizen and did not
meet the residency requirement for the position of Member of the House of
Representatives.

4.W/N Respondent Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when, by enforcing the provisions of Republic Act
No. 9225, it imposed additional qualifications to the qualifications of a Member of the
House of Representatives as enumerated in Section 6 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
of the Philippines.

HOLDING:

1. YES. COMELEC retains jurisdiction over the case bc of the following reasons:

a. HRET doesn’t acquire jurisdiction over the issue of petitioner’ qualifications/ assailed
COMELEC Resolutions bc petitioner wasn’t able to file, well, a petition with said tribunal.

b. HRET’s jurisdiction only begins after the candidate is considered a Member of the House
of Representatives. The SC cites Sec 17, Art VI of the 1987 Constitution as well as the ruling
in the case of Marcos vs. COMELEC.

2. NO. The COMELEC still retains jurisdiction over a candidate bc citing past jurisdiction
(Vinzons-Chato vs. COMELEC; Limkaichong vs. COMELEC), the HRET only assumes
jurisdiction over winning candidates that have had:

(1) a valid proclamation,

(2) a proper oath, and
(3) assumption of office.

Since petitioner’s term only starts at 30 June 2013, only then does the HRET assume
jurisdiction over her case. The oath she took before Speaker Belmonte doesn’t count since
it’s not the oath of office that confers membership to the House of Representatives.
According to Section 6, Rule II of the Rules of the House of Representatives, before there is a
valid or official taking of the oath it must be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and (2) in open session. Although petitioner made the oath before Speaker
Belmonte, there is no indication that it was made during plenary or in open session and,
thus, it remains unclear whether the required oath of office was indeed complied with.

COMELEC issued its Resolution denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration regarding
the cancellation of her COC on May 14, 2013 – four days before she was proclaimed the
winning candidate. Also, Section 3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides
that any decisions regarding the disqualification of candidates/ cancellation of COCs/
suspension of elections shall become final and executory after five days from their
promulgation, unless restrained by the SC. Petitioner should have filed a petition with the SC
on or before 10 June 2013, but since she didn’t, respondent COMELEC rightly issued a
Certificate of Finality.

3. NO, COMELEC did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in finding her ineligible for
Membership of the House of Representatives in regards to her citizenship/residency.

Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it took cognizance
of “newly-discovered evidence” (Eli Obligacion’s blog article; the Certification from the
Bureau of Immigration) without the same having been testified on and offered and
admitted in evidence. She likewise contends that there was a violation of her right to due
process of law because she was not given the opportunity to question and present
controverting evidence.

Her contentions are incorrect because COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the
technical rules of procedure in the presentation of evidence. (Se 2, Rule 1, COMELEC Rules
of Procedure) the proceedings in a petition to deny due course or to cancel certificate of
candidacy are summary in nature, then the “newly discovered evidence” was properly
admitted by respondent COMELEC.

There was also no denial of due process since she was given every opportunity to argue her
case before the COMELEC. Petitoner did not avail herself of the five-month period between
Tan’s filing of his petition and the COMELEC First Division’s Resolution. Also in
administrative proceedings, as held in Sahali vs. COMELEC, procedural due process only
requires that the party be given the opportunity or right to be heard.

As to the issues regarding Petitioner’s citizenship, there is no showing that she complied
with RA 9225’s requirements (oath and sworn renunciation), therefore COMELEC had the
right to cancel her COC. She claimed RA 9225 doesn’t apply to her since she’s only a dual
citizen, but the Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship she submitted cannot be
used to address the COMELEC’s observations since she submitted it on September 2012,
before Tan filed his petition.

To cover-up her apparent lack of an oath of allegiance as required by R.A. No. 9225,
petitioner contends that, since she took her oath of allegiance in connection with her
appointment as Provincial Administrator of Marinduque, she is deemed to have reacquired
her status as a natural-born Filipino citizen. This holds no water since she didn’t comply with
the requirements prescribed by memoranda pertaining to Sec 3 of RA No. 9225.

Petitioner also failed to establish her residency in Marinduque since she failed to establish
re-acquisition of her Filipino citizenship/ unable to establish her domicile of choice through
positive acts (her serving as Provincial Administrator from January to July 2013 doesn’t
count).
4. NO. Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion by imposing additional
requirements for Membership to the House of Representatives since it merely applied the
requirements enumerated in Sec. 6, Art IV of the Constitution.

Ruling: Petition DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DISMISSED,
finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections. The 14 May
2013 Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc affirming the 27 March 2013 Resolution of the
COMELEC First Division is upheld.

DISSENT:

Briones:

- No basis exists to dismiss the petition

Section 6 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court merely requires that the petition be sufficient in
form and substance to justify an order from the Court to act on the petition and to require the
respondents to file their comments. The same rule also provides that the Court may dismiss
the petition outright (as the majority did in the present case) if it was filed manifestly for
delay or if the questions raised are too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings. In the
present case, the petition is indisputably sufficient in form and substance. Thus, the question
before the Court is whether the issues raised by Reyes were too unsubstantial to warrant
further proceedings.
The issues raised cannot be unsubstantial as they involve crucial issues of jurisdiction and
due process. The Court cannot simply go through the motions of evaluation and then simply
strike out the petitioner’s positions. The Court’s role as adjudicator and the demands of basic
fairness require that we should fully hear the parties and rule based on our appreciation of the
merits of their positions in light of what the law and established jurisprudence require.

- HRET has jurisdiction, not COMELEC

Basically, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction ends when the HRET’s jurisdiction begins. The law
is clear on this. The proclamation of the winning candidate is the operative fact that triggers
the jurisdiction of the HRET. The proclamation of a winning candidate divests the
COMELEC of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation
and the party questioning the qualifications of the winning candidate should now present his
or her case in a proper proceeding (i.e. quo warranto) before the HRET who, by constitutional
mandate, has the sole jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving the election, returns and
qualification of members of the House of Representatives. As far as the HRET is concerned,
the proclamation of the winner in the congressional elections serves as the reckoning point as
well as the trigger that brings any contests relating to his or her election, return and
qualifications within its sole and exclusive jurisdiction.

- Grave Abuse of Discretion by COMELEC

It is basic in the law of evidence that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.
Reyes’ view is not without its merits and should not simply be dismissively set aside. First,
Tan submitted an article published online, an online blog about Reyes, stating that the author
had obtained records stating that Reyes is an American citizen; that she is the holder of a US
passport and that she has been using the same since 2005, but he only presented this and no
other evidence to show for it. Second, Tan also submitted a photocopy of a “certification”
showing travel records of Reyes, and that she is a holder of US Passport No. 306278853.
Again, this is not sufficient proof yet the SC accepted it all the same.

Through these, Tan miserably failed to submit relevant evidence showing that Reyes had
been a naturalized American citizen. COMELEC violated Reyes’ rights.