ANTONIO Y. CO, Petitioner, vs. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOSE ONG, JR., respondents; G.R. No. 92191-92 July 30, 1991

Topic: People/Citizenship

GIST: Balanquit and Co lost to herein petitioner in the election for 2nd District representative for Samar. They questioned his citizenship since his father was not a natural-born citizen. Jose Ong Jr. predicated his citizenship on his natural-born Filipina mother's citizenship which is conferred under Article IV, Section 1, paragraph 3. 

Also, Ong need not actually elect his Filipino citizenship since not only was he born of a natural-born Filipina mother, his father was also declared a naturalized Filipino citizen in 1957, when he was only 9 y/o.

Plus he won with a margin of 7,000 votes even when Balanquit and Co's votes were combined.

animus revertendi - with the intention to return

FACTS:

1. Antonio Y. Co filed a petition for certiorari on the Supreme Court against the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) in its decision that the private respondent, Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural-born Filipino citizen and a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar. 

2. Respondent Ong was proclaimed duly elected representative of the second district of Northern Samar, against petitioners Sixto Balinguit and Antonio Co. by  a margin of 7,000 even when votes of his contenders combined.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion; and

2. Whether Jose Ong, Jr. is a Filipino Citizen.

Petitioner’s Claims/Arguments: 

1. Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines; and

2. Jose Ong, Jr. is not a resident of the second district of Northern Samar. 

Petitioner’s argue that the respondent’s father was not, validly, a naturalized citizen because of his premature taking of the oath of citizenship

“In our jurisdiction, an attack on a person’s citizenship may only be done through a direct action for its nullity (Queto v. Catolico, 31 SCRA 52).” The court explained that Jose Ong Chuan has already been laid to rest and inquiring about his citizenship would run against the principle of due process. 

RULING:

1. NO. HRET acting within its jurisdiction did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The questioned decision of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal is affirmed.

Court held that the HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion because:

The respondent traces natural born citizenship through his mother, not through the citizenship of his father. The citizenship of the father is relevant only to determine whether or not the respondent “chose” to be a Filipino when he came of age. Both mother and father were Fillipinos. 

Constitutional Convention, Batasang Pambansa, and respondent HRET ruled in favor of Filipino citizenship. Thus, there would be no basis to call the HRET decision so arbitrary and whimsical as to amount to grave abuse of discretion.

2. YES. He is a natural-born Filipino citizen.

TIMELINE:

1895: his grandfather arrived in the Philippines, obtained a certificate of residence in Samar. He was a Spanish subject under Section 4, Article 17 of the Civil Code of Spain: Those without such papers, who may have acquired domicile in any town in the Monarchy. Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902, inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April 1899 and then residing in said islands and their children born subsequent thereto were conferred the status of a Filipino citizen.

1915: His grandfather brought his father to PH.

1932: His father and natural-born Filipino mother Agripina Lao got married.

1948:Jose Ong was born.

1955: CFI Samar declared his father Jose Ong Chan a Filipino citizen.

1957: CFI Samar declared it final and executory. Jose Ong Chan may and already too his oath of allegiance and a certificate of naturalization was issued to him.

1971: 1971 Constitutional Convention declared Emil Ong as a natural-born Filipino when his citizenship was challenged when he was elected as a delegate to the said Constitutional Convention. His citizenship was derived from his mother's citizenship. The Convention removed the unequal treatment on the basis of the mother’s citizenship.

 

Article IV, Section 1: Natural-born Filipino citizens:

3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;

This applies not only to those who elect Philippine citizenship after February 2, 1987 but also to those who, having been born of Filipino mothers, elected citizenship before that date to correct an unfair position which discriminates against Filipino women. 

Jose Ong Jr. need not elect Philippine citizenship since he was already deemed as a natural-born citizen when he was just 9 years old.

The provision in Paragraph 3 was intended to correct an unfair position which discriminated against Filipino women. In the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, viz:

Mr. Rodrigo: The purpose of that provision is to remedy an inequitable situation. Between 1935 and 1973 when we were under the 1935 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers but alien mothers were natural-born Filipinos. However, those born of Filipino mothers but alien fathers would have to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and if they do elect, they become Filipino citizens but not natural-born Filipino citizens. (Records of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 1, p. 356)

Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers and those born of Filipino mothers with an alien father were placed on equal footing. They were both considered as natural-born citizens.

Not only was the respondent’s mother a natural-born citizenship but his father had been naturalized when the respondent was only nine. The respondent could not have divined when he came of age that in 1973 and 1987, the Constitutions would be amended to require him to have filed a sworn statement in 1969 electing citizenship, despite of his already having been a citizen since 1957.

The Court also held that jurisprudence defines “election” as both a formal and informal process. Citing the case of Florencio Mallare (59 SCRA 45 [1974]), the Court held that the exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine Citizenship. In exact pronouncement:

Esteban’s exercise of the right of suffrage when he came of age constitutes a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.