IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF LEONCIO HO BENLUY. LEONCIO HO BENLUY, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

The
appellant Leoncio Ho Benluy, a Chinese citizen, filed an application
for naturalization in 1951. There was no opposition to the application
on the part of the Government. At the hearing the applicant presented
evidence in support of his application, including two character
witnesses, one of them Atty. Marcial M. Anastacio, a resident of
Obando, Bulacan. With one exception Benluy proved that he possessed all
the qualifications for Philippine citizenship and none of the
disqualifications, and the trial court so found. The exception is that
Atty. Anastacio, one of his witnesses, in his endeavor, even enthusiasm
to prove that the applicant had identified himself with the Filipinos,
helped them when asked and was very congenial and friendly, said that
Benluy even took part in two electoral campaigns in Bulacan, not only
persuading some voters connected with his business but also
contributing to the campaign fund of the Liberal Party. Said the trial
court on this point:

“To prove that the applicant
is a strong believer in our constitution and in what is called ‘free
enterprise’, this witness emphasized this affirmation by stating that
the applicant even went to the extent of taking active part during the
elections, so much so that he (applicant) gave financial contribution
to be spent in the election campaign to this witness who, during the
elections of 1947 and 1949, was the Campaign Manager of the Liberal
Party in the municipality of Obando, Bulacan; that the applicant, aside
from giving financial help during the said elections of 1947 and 1949
which amounted to P200 and P500 on two occasions, went with the witness
to Obando to talk personally with his sub-agents in said municipality,
and due to this intervention of the applicant said sub-agents supported
the party of Mr. Anastacio.”

This evidence about
the part played by the applicant in the past elections alerted the
representatives of the Solicitor General and after the trial he filed a
strong written opposition to the granting of the application, resulting
in the trial court denying the application for naturalization. Benluy
is now appealing from that decision.

Considering the
circumstances under which the evidence of applicant’s political
activities was presented, namely, that it did not come from the
opposition or any other party but himself and through his own witness,
we were at the beginning inclined not to attach much importance to that
phase of his residence in the Philippines and association with the
Filipinos. He was never prosecuted for that violation of Election Code
and even if the Government were now inclined to prosecute him, the
offense has already prescribed. Furthermore, as already stated, in all
other respects the applicant has established his qualifications and the
absence of any disqualifications. However, the law is clear. Section 56
of the Revised Election Code reads—

“SEC. 56. Active intervention of foreigners.—No foreigner shall aid any candidate, directly or indirectly, or take part in or to influence in any manner any election.”

Under
section 183 of the same Code, the violation is considered a serious
election offense and under section 185 it is penalized with
imprisonment of not less than one year and one day but not more than
five years and in case of a foreigner, shall in addition be sentenced
to deportation for not less than five years but not more than ten
years, to be enforced after the prison term has been served. These
provisions of the Revised Election Code may not be taken lightly, much
less ignored. They were intended to discourage foreigners from taking
active part in or otherwise interfering with our elections, under
penalty not only of imprisonment but also deportation. It might well be
that as already stated, the evidence about this violation of the
election law was given by his own witness who in all likelihood gave it
in good faith and in all friendship to the applicant to bolster the
latter’s application for naturalization, without realizing that by said
declaration he was forever closing the door to Benluy’s ever becoming a
Filipino citizen. But the law must be applied and enforced. It is
merely a piece of bad luck for him. From the standpoint of the
Government however, it was fortunate that said evidence was brought up,
thereby preventing the granting of Philippine citizenship to a
foreigner who tho even in his ignorance of the law and at the instance
of his Filipino friends, violated one of the important provisions of
our election law. The decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with
costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.