RAMON L. LABO, JR., petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) EN BANC AND LUIS L. LARDIZABAL, respondents;

TOPIC: CITIZENSHIP

RATIONALE: 

RES JUDICATA elements 

(1) the former judgment or order must be final;

(2) the judgment or order must be on the merits;

(3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;

(4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of action.

> Res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship. Besides, one of the requisites of res judicata, to wit, identity of parties, is not present in this case.

> The ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office.

> Only citizens of the Philippines have privilege over their countrymen.

> Philippine citizenship cannot be reacquired merely by his claimed rejection by Australia. 

---

CA No. 63 - modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost:

(1) naturalization in a foreign country;

(2) express renunciation of citizenship; and

(3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country

All of which are present in petitioner's case.

PD No. 725 (amended CA No. 63), Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by:

(1) direct act of Congress

(2) naturalization, or 

(3) repatriation.

He didn't perform any of these. Philippine citizenship cannot be reacquired merely by his claimed rejection by Australia. Thus, he is NOT a FILIPINO CITIZEN.

He only won be 2,100 votes.

The electorate had no power to permit a foreigner owing his total allegiance to the Queen of Australia, or at least a stateless individual owing no allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, to preside over them as mayor of their city. Only citizens of the Philippines have that privilege over their countrymen.

Petitioner Ramon J. Labo, Jr. is declared not a citizen of the Philippines and DISQUALIFIED from continuing to serve as Mayor of Baguio City.  He is ordered to VACATE his office and surrender the same to the Vice-Mayor of Baguio City.

FACTS:

1. The petitioner asked the Court to restrain the Commission on Elections from looking into the question of his citizenship as a qualification for his office as Mayor of Baguio City.

2. He became a citizen of Australia because he was naturalized as such through a formal and positive process, simplified in his case because he was married to an Australian citizen. As a condition for such naturalization, he formally took the Oath of Allegiance and/or made the Affirmation of Allegiance.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

I, A.B., renouncing all other allegiance, swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfill my duties as an Australian citizen.

AFFIRMATION OF ALLEGIANCE

I, A.B., renouncing all other allegiance, solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the Laws of Australia and fulfill my duties as an Australian citizen

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the public respondent has jurisdiction to conduct any inquiry to the matter considering that the petition for quo warranto was not filed on time.

2. Whether the petitioner is a Filipino citizen or not. (Not the original subject of the proceeding, but Court decided to address it.)

RULING:

1. The court held that the petition was filed on time.

He was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio City on January 20, 1988. The petition for quo warranto was filed by the private respondent on January 26, 1988, but no filing fee was paid on that date. The fee was finally paid on February 10, 1988 or twenty-one days after his proclamation. 

Petitioner invoked (a) Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code that states that a sworn petition for quo warranto shall be filed ten days after the proclamation of the result of the election and (b) Rule 36, Section 5, of the Procedural Rules of the Comelec that provides that no petition for quo warranto shall be given due course without the filing fee in the amount of P300.00.

Private respondent denied that the filing fee was paid out of time. COMELEC did not treat it as a petition for quo warranto but instead docketed it as a pre-proclamation controversy. 

Court held that the filing fee was paid and whatever delay there may have been is not imputable to the private respondent’s fault or neglect.

2. Petitioner Ramon J. Labo, Jr. is declared not a citizen of the Philippines and DISQUALIFIED from continuing to serve as Mayor of Baguio City.  He is ordered to VACATE his office and surrender the same to the Vice-Mayor of Baguio City.

There are two administrative decisions on the question of the petitioner’s citizenship. The first was rendered by COMELEC and found the petitioner to be a citizen of the Philippines. The second was rendered by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) and held that the petitioner was NOT a citizen of the Philippines. 

Before the COMELEC proceeding, there was no direct proof that the petitioner had been formally naturalized as a citizen of Australia. On the other hand, CID took into account the official statement of the Australian Government through its Consul in the Philippines, attesting that the petitioner was still an Australian citizen as of the date of proceeding by reason of his naturalization in 1976. The decision also noted the OATH OF ALLEGIANCE taken by every naturalized Australian. (“I, A.B., renouncing all other allegiance….”)

The petitioner does not question the authenticity of the above evidence. Neither does he deny that he obtained the Australian passport. 

There is also a claim that the decision can no longer be reversed because of the doctrine of res judicata, but this was also dismissed by the Court. The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to question of citizenship, as the Court has ruled in several cases. 

Petitioner claimed that his naturalization in Australia did not divest him of his Philippine citizenship. That is not true, because Commonwealth Act No. 63 enumerates the modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost: 1) naturalization in foreign country; 2) express renunciation of citizenship; and 3) subscription to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country, ALL of which are APPLICABLE to the petitioner. 

Petitioner asserts that his naturalization was ‘annulled’ after it was found that his marriage to the Australian was bigamous, the Court held that that circumstance alone DID NOT automatically RESTORE his Philippine citizenship. Stating:

“The possibility that he may have been subsequently rejected by Australia, as he claims, does not mean that he has been automatically reinstated as a citizen of the Philippines.”

Under CA No. 63 as amended by PD No. 725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. The petitioner did not acquire Philippine citizenship by any of these reasons. 

Therefore, the court held that: “The petitioner is not now, nor was he on the day of the local elections on January 18, 1988, a citizen of the Philippines. In fact, he was not even a qualified voter under the Constitution itself because of his alienage.” He was therefore ineligible as a candidate for mayor of Baguio City under Section 42 of the Local Government Code in which one of the requirements is that an elective local official MUST BE A CITIZEN of the Philippines.