Antonio Bengson III vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Teodoro Cruz G.R. No. 142840 May 7, 2001

FACTS: Respondent Teodoro Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27, 1960, of Filipino parents. The fundamental law then applicable was the 1935 Constitution. On November 5, 1985, however, respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the United States. As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for under Commonwealth Act No. 63, section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by, among other, "rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country.” He was naturalized in US in 1990. On March 17, 1994, respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630. He ran for and was elected as the Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections. He won over petitioner Antonio Bengson III, who was then running for reelection.

ISSUE: (1) W/N respondent Cruz is a natural born citizen of the Philippines in view of the constitutional requirement that "no person shall be a Member of the House of Representative unless he is a natural-born citizen.” (2) W/N HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the petition “despite the fact that such reacquisition could not legally and constitutionally restore his natural-born status.”

HELD:

(1) NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. Respondent is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization, repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippine and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. If he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.

(2) NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  The HRET has been empowered by the Constitution to be the "sole judge" of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the House. The Court's jurisdiction over the HRET is merely to check "whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" on the part of the latter. In the absence thereof, there is no occasion for the Court to exercise its corrective power and annul the decision of the HRET nor to substitute the Court's judgement for that of the latter for the simple reason that it is not the office of a petition for certiorari to inquire into the correctness of the assailed decision.

  

Lynette Garvida vs. Florencio Sales Jr., G.R. No. 124893 April 18, 1997

FACTS: On March 16, 1996, in preparation of the May 1996 SK election, petitioner Lynette G. Garvida applied for registration as member and voter of the Katipunan ng Kabataan of Barangay San Lorenzo, Bangui, Ilocos Norte. The Board of Election Tellers denied the application on the ground that Garvida is already 21 years and 10 months old, which exceeded the age limit for KK as laid down in Section 3 [b] of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824.

She appealed before the MCTC of Bangui-Pagudpud-Adams-Damalneg, Ilocos Norte, which granted her appeal and ordered her qualification and registration as member and voter of KK. 

On April 23, 1996, Garvida filed her COC for SK Chairman but was disapproved by the election officer due to her age. Petitioner, however, appealed before the COMELEC Regional Director who set aside the order of the EO and allowed petitioner to run. 

On April 29, 1996, Florencio G. Sales Jr., petitioner’s rival candidate for SK Chairman, sent a 2-copy petition for the disqualification of Garvida on the ground of false representation of age, via facsimile and a registered mail, before the COMELEC-Manila.

On May 2, 1996, the EO Rios issued a memorandum to petitioner informing her of the disqualification and gave her 24 hours to explain why her COC should be approved.  On the same day, the COMELEC en banc issued an order directing the BET and BoC of Brgy. San Lorenzo to suspend Garvida’s proclamation if ever she won the election, as a response to the petition for disqualification filed by Salas.

On May 6, 1996 SK election, Garvida won by 78 against Salas’ 76 votes.  In accordance with the order of COMELEC en banc, the BET did not proclaim petitioner as the winner.  Hence this petition for certiorari.

In June 2, BET proclaimed Garvida as the winner without prejudice to any further action by the Commission on Elections or any other interested party.  She eventually won as Auditor of the Pambansang Pederasyon ng SK.

ISSUE: (1) W/N the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction in denying and cancelling petitioner’s CoC on the ground of overage. (2) W/N the COMELEC en banc erred in acting on a petition filed through fax.

RULING:

(1) Yes. The Rules of Procedure of the Omnibus Election Code, specifically R23 requires that a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy for an elective office may be filed with the Law Department of the COMELEC on the ground that the candidate has made a false material representation in his certificate. The petition may be heard and evidence received by any official designated by the COMELEC after which the case shall be decided by the COMELEC itself. S3 of the same Rule further provides that “the Commission shall sit in two (2) Divisions to hear and decide protests or petitions in ordinary actions, special actions, special cases, provisional remedies, contempt and special proceedings except in accreditation of citizens' arms of the Commission.” In the instant case, the COMELEC en banc did not refer the case to any of its Divisions upon receipt of the petition. It therefore acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained the petition and issued the order of May 2, 1996.

(2) Every pleading before the COMELEC must be printed, mimeographed or typewritten in legal size bond paper and filed in at least ten (10) legible copies. Pleadings must be filed directly with the proper Clerk of Court of the COMELEC personally, or, by registered mail. Filing a pleading by facsimile transmission is not sanctioned by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, much less by the Rules of Court. A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without the original, there is no way of determining on its face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally signed by the party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading. The uncertainty of the authenticity of a facsimile pleading should have restrained the COMELEC en banc from acting on the petition and issuing the questioned order. The COMELEC en banc should have waited until it received the petition filed by registered mail.

AGE QUALIFICATION ISSUE:

The age requirement for the Katipunan ng Kabataan membership is fifteen (15) but not more than twenty-one (21) years of age (S424, LGC) while an elective official must be at least fifteen (15) years but not more than twenty-one (21) years of age on the day of his election (S428, LGC).  The provision that an elective official of the SK should not be more than 21 years of age on the day of his election is very clear. The Local Government Code speaks of years, not months nor days. When the law speaks of years, it is understood that years are of 365 days each. The law does not state that the candidate be less than 22 years on election day. Petitioner must be a qualified voter prior to her eligibility as a candidate for the election.  At the time of the filing of her candidacy, petitioner is already more that the maximum age limit of 21 years old, and just less than 10 days before she turns 22, at the time of her proclamation. 

EFFECT OF WINNING THE ELECTION.

The fact that the candidate was elected will not make the age requirement directory, nor will it validate his election. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility.

ISSUE OF SUCCESSION.

The ineligibility of Garvida does not entitle Salas, the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes in the May 6, 1996 elections, to be declared elected.  A defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office.  Neither the Court can order that petitioner should be succeeded by the Sangguniang Kabataan member who obtained the next highest number of votes in the May 6, 1996 elections pursuant to Section 435 of the LGC as it only applies when a Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman "refuses to assume office, fails to qualify, is convicted of a felony, voluntarily resigns, dies, is permanently incapacitated, is removed from office, or has been absent without leave for more than three (3) consecutive months." In this case, petitioner was INELIGIBLE to assume position.  Hence, the Court ordered her to vacate the SK Chairman position and be replaced by the SK member elected among themselves by simple majority.