Facts:
Gaudencio M. Cordora filed a complaint affidavit before the COMELEC Law Department accusing Gustavo S. Tambunting of violating Section 74 in relation to Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code. Cordora alleged that Tambunting made false claims about his citizenship and residency status in his certificates of candidacy. Cordora referenced a certification from the Bureau of Immigration stating that Tambunting had declared himself an American citizen during travels in 2000 and 2001, suggesting Tambunting lost his Filipino citizenship through naturalization as an American.
Cordora claimed that Tambunting’s declaration in his certificate of candidacy that he was a natural-born Filipino and met residency requirements was false. Tambunting countered by providing his birth certificate showing he was born to a Filipino mother and an American father, asserting he retained his Filipino citizenship at birth and did not undergo naturalization. Tambunting also referenced taking an oath of allegiance under Republic Act No. 9225, demonstrating his commitment to the Philippines.
The COMELEC Law Department dismissed Cordora’s complaint, citing lack of sufficient evidence, and this decision was upheld by COMELEC En Banc. Cordora’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was similarly dismissed.
Issues:
1. Whether there was grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC in finding no probable cause to prosecute Tambunting for an election offense.
2. Whether Tambunting’s status as a dual citizen and his previous declarations of American citizenship disqualified him from running for public office due to false statements in his certificates of candidacy.
3. Whether Tambunting met the residency requirement for the office he sought.
Court’s Decision:
1. **Grave Abuse of Discretion:**
– The Supreme Court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC in determining that there was insufficient and unconvincing evidence to establish probable cause. Probable cause is determined by facts and circumstances leading a reasonably prudent person to believe an offense has been committed. The court agreed COMELEC followed due process and conducted a fair evaluation of evidence.
2. **False Statements and Dual Citizenship:**
– The Court established that dual citizenship by birth, which is involuntary, does not disqualify a candidate from running for public office. Tambunting was considered a dual citizen by birth due to his Filipino mother and American father. As such, no naturalization process was involved. The Supreme Court affirmed that merely possessing an American passport or traveling as an American citizen did not negate his Filipino citizenship.
3. **Residency Requirement:**
– The Court clarified that the residency requirement for candidacy does not correlate strictly with citizenship status. Tambunting demonstrated that despite possessing dual citizenship, he had resided in the Philippines with the intent to remain. Evidence of his long-term residence and public service was deemed sufficient.
Doctrine:
1. Dual citizenship by birth does not constitute dual allegiance, nor does it disqualify a person from running for public office.
2. The presence of dual citizenship should be resolved in favor of upholding candidacy if the person elects Philippine citizenship when filing their certificate of candidacy.
3. Residency requirements for public office candidacy are based on factual residence and intention to remain, independent of citizenship status.
Class Notes:
– **Election Laws:**
– **Section 74, Omnibus Election Code:** Requires accurate and truthful statements in the certificate of candidacy regarding personal and eligibility details.
– **Section 262, Omnibus Election Code:** Violation of election code provisions constitutes an election offense.
– **Republic Act No. 9225:** Allows natural-born Filipinos who acquired foreign citizenship to retain their Filipino citizenship, provided an oath of allegiance is taken.
– **Key Concepts:**
– **Probable Cause:** Facts leading a prudent person to believe an offense has occurred, requiring the presentation of concrete evidence.
– **Dual Citizenship vs. Dual Allegiance:** Dual citizenship by birth is involuntary and acceptable for candidates, while dual allegiance (resulting from naturalization) is not.
Historical Background:
The case reflects a significant post-enactment of Republic Act No. 9225, addressing dual citizenship and election law nuances. The clarification and reaffirmation of dual citizenship rights and requirements for public office align with broader constitutional principles ensuring inclusive and fair participation of qualified citizens in political processes. This case underscores the evolving jurisprudence surrounding electoral qualifications and the legal interpretation of dual citizenship in the Philippines.
Leave a Reply