IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, SANTIAGO YAP ALIAS YAP YU HAI, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal by the Republic of the Philippines
from a decision granting the petition of appellee
Santiago Yap for natural­ization in a decision rendered by the lower court on March 1, 1963.   The appeal possesses merit.

In its brief as appellant, six errors were assigned as com­mitted
by the lower court, the first of which consisted in its failure to hold that
petitioner Santiago Yap “has not conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner in relation to the community in which he is living.”  Such a failing was manifested by petitioner’s
participating or taking part in the national elections held in 1961 as well as
the barrio elections in 1962.  There was
testimony from a witness, Victor Rodriguez, to the effect that petitioner
“violated the election law prohibiting aliens from electioneering or
helping a candidate.”^[1]
The witness, who was then a municipal secretary, asserted that petitioner
“campaigned for Veloso because we were together,
he drove a truck, he hauled people to attend the meeting and he even
distributed drinks, offered them to the people who attended the rally * *
*.”^[2]
Petitioner and the witness had the same candidate.^[3]
Moreover, according to the same witness, who ran for barrio lieutenant in
January of 1962, petitioner “strongly opposed [his] candidacy and he even
supported Billy White.”^[4]

It is true that the above testimony was sought to be refuted by
pe­titioner’s witness, one Primo L. Ocampo, who
testified that while petitioner was present at such an occasion in the 1961
elections, “he was not distributing drinks and he was not the one who
drove the truck.”^[5]
When asked whether petitioner “had been helping actively, financially or
materially any candidate in connection with any election” all that the
witness could answer was “I have not known him to be doing so.”^[6]
When questioned as to whether petitioner did help the opponent of the witness
Rodriguez when he ran for barrio lieutenant, the answer of the rebuttal witness
was:  “I do not think that is the
case because White happens to be my first cousin and he has means of his own,
he can foot his own expenses, * * *.”^[7]
It is evident that the above answer far from constituting categorical denials
were at the most half­hearted, timid attempts at minimizing what was testified
to as a clear participation in both national and barrio elections.

It is likewise noteworthy that petitioner when called as a
rebuttal witness, far from refuting in a detailed and convincing manner the
above accusation, contented himself in saying that it was not true that he
helped actively in the elections of 1961 and it was not true either that he
drove a truck and distributed drinks on the occasion mentioned. There was not
even a denial as to his alleged participation in the barrio elections of 1962.  What is even more revealing is that the
six-page brief of petitioner as appellee is bereft of
any effort to disprove such an accusation of participation in the two
elections.

On the authority of Benluy v. Republic
of the Philippines,^[8]
the lower court must be reversed and this petition denied.

The facts of that case were as follows:  “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 was very congenial and friendly, said that Benluy even took part in two electoral campaigns in Bulacan, not only persuading some voters connected with is
business but also contributing to the campaign fund of the Liberal
Party.”  Under the circumstances,
the evidence of such political activities, being presented by his own witness,
this Court, according to Justice Montemayor, who
penned the opinion, was “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 not prosecuted for such violation of the Election Code.  Moreover, at the time of the decision, the
offense had already prescribed.  Such an
attitude, however, did not prevail for the law is clear.”

A foreigner is prohibited from aiding any candidate directly or indirectly
or taking part in or influencing in any manner any election.  The violation of the above provision is
considered a serious election offense.^[9]
As was aptly stated by this Court: 
“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 of deportation.  It might be 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.”

There must be a reiteration of the above ruling; the conclusion
reached merits full and unconditional approval. 
The political right of suffrage, so wisely reserved to Filipinos, is of
such transcendental importance that its exercise by a foreigner is to be
condemned.  The deplorable practice of a
non-citizen, whether by himself or in association with others, to exert
pressure or influence on voters, di­rect or indirect, should not be
countenanced.  This Court would be
failing in its duty if it does not express its displeasure at such alien
interference in the most categorical language. Petitioner having been shown to
have engaged not once but twice in such a prohibited activity, rightly made a
criminal offense under the Revised Election Code, cannot be said to have
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner.

The other objections to his application for citizenship need not
be considered for by such a shortcoming, fatal in its consequences, his
petition ought to have been denied.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed and the
petition of Santiago Yap, alias Yap Yu Hai, is
denied.  With costs against petitioner.

Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

^[1]
T. S. N., Session of Oct. 17, 1962,
p. 54.

^[2] Id.,
pp. 54-55.

^[3] Id.,
p. 55.

^[4] Id.,
p. 56.  Presumably Billy White was the
opposing candidate for barrio lieutenant.

^[5]
T.S.N., Session of January 26, 1963,
p. 141.

^[6] Id.,
pp. 141-142.

^[7] Id.,
p. 142.

^[8]
94 Phil. 110 (1953).

^[9]
Sections 56 and 183, Revised Election Code.