JOSE B. AZNAR (AS PROVINCIAL CHAIRMAN OF PDP LABAN IN CEBU), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND EMILIO MARIO RENNER OSMENA, RESPONDENTS.

Aznar versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Jose B. Aznar, in his capacity as Provincial Chairman of PDP Laban in Cebu, against the Commission on Elections and Emilio Mario Renner Osmena. Aznar asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Resolution of the Commission on Elections which dismissed his petition to disqualify Osmena as a candidate for Provincial Governor of Cebu. The case matters because it fixes the two windows in the Omnibus Election Code for questioning a candidate's qualifications, and because it states the rule that loss of Philippine citizenship is never presumed and must be proved by substantial and convincing evidence.

Procedural History

On January 22, 1988, the Cebu PDP Laban Provincial Council, represented by Aznar, filed with the Commission on Elections a petition for the disqualification of Osmena on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen. The Commission, through its First Division, heard the case. On March 3, 1988, the Commission directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winning candidates, and Osmena, having obtained the highest number of votes, was proclaimed Provincial Governor of Cebu. On June 11, 1988, the Commission's First Division dismissed the petition for disqualification, holding that it was not timely filed and that there was insufficient proof that Osmena is not a Filipino citizen. Aznar then brought this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On November 19, 1987, Emilio Osmena filed his certificate of candidacy with the Commission on Elections for the position of Provincial Governor of Cebu Province in the local elections scheduled for January 19, 1988.

On January 22, 1988, the Cebu PDP Laban Provincial Council, through its incumbent Provincial Chairman Jose Aznar, filed a petition for Osmena's disqualification, alleging that he is not a Filipino citizen but a citizen of the United States of America. On January 27, 1988, Aznar filed a Formal Manifestation submitting a Certificate issued by the then Immigration and Deportation Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago certifying that Osmena is an American and holds an Alien Certificate of Registration and an Immigrant Certificate of Residence issued in Manila in March 1958. Before the Commission, Aznar presented an Application for Alien Registration signed by Osmena dated November 21, 1979, an Alien Certificate of Registration dated November 21, 1979, a Permit to Re-enter the Philippines dated November 21, 1979, and an Immigration Certificate of Clearance dated January 3, 1980.

Osmena maintained that he is a Filipino citizen. He alleged that he is the legitimate child of Dr. Emilia D. Osmena, a Filipino and son of the late President Sergio Osmena, Senior; that he holds a valid and subsisting Philippine passport issued on March 25, 1987; that he has continuously resided in the Philippines since birth; and that he has been a registered voter since 1965. After the Commission directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winning candidates, Osmena was proclaimed Provincial Governor of Cebu on March 3, 1988. The Commission then dismissed the disqualification petition on June 11, 1988.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for disqualification was filed on time under the Omnibus Election Code.
• Whether or not the petition may be treated as a petition for quo warranto.
• Whether or not Osmena has lost his Philippine citizenship and is therefore disqualified from holding the office of Provincial Governor.

Applicable Provisions

Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Section 78. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy. --- A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after the notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

This provision fixes the period for questioning a candidate's qualifications before the election, and the petition here was filed beyond that period.

Section 253 of the same Code provides:

Section 253. Petition for quo warranto. --- Any voter contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election.

This provision is the remedy after the election, and it cannot be invoked before the candidate has been proclaimed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was filed out of time. Osmena filed his certificate of candidacy on November 19, 1987, while Aznar filed the petition for disqualification on January 22, 1988. Since the petition was filed beyond the twenty-five day period required in Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, it was clearly filed out of time.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition could not be treated as a petition for quo warranto under Section 253 of the same Code, because it was unquestionably premature. Osmena was proclaimed Provincial Governor of Cebu only on March 3, 1988.

On the third issue, the Court nevertheless ruled directly on the merits, as a matter of public interest, to ascertain Osmena's citizenship and qualification to hold the office to which he had been proclaimed elected. The Court held that Aznar's contention was not supported by substantial and convincing evidence. Aznar failed to present direct proof that Osmena had lost his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided under Commonwealth Act Number 63, among them naturalization in a foreign country, express renunciation of citizenship, and subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. Aznar merely relied on the alien certificate of registration and the permit to re-enter, and assumed that because Osmena was an American, he must have taken the oath of allegiance required by the United States naturalization laws. The Court stressed that Philippine courts are only allowed to determine who are Filipino citizens and who are not, and that whether a person is considered an American under the laws of the United States does not concern us here. By virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father, the presumption that Osmena is a Filipino remains, and it was incumbent upon Aznar to prove that Osmena had lost his Philippine citizenship. The Court distinguished the Frivaldo and Labo cases, where the candidates had been naturalized abroad and had admitted their alienage, from this case, where Osmena vehemently denies having taken the oath of allegiance of the United States, holds a valid and subsisting Philippine passport, and has continuously participated in the electoral process since 1963. The Court also rejected the argument that the alien certificates amounted to express renunciation, calling it a case of non sequitur, meaning it does not follow, and reasoning that a person may hold two citizenships, so a certificate that he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino. The Court added that the constitutional statement on dual allegiance has no retroactive effect, and that the law it contemplates has not yet been enacted.

Doctrine

A candidate's qualifications may be questioned before the election only through a verified petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, filed not later than twenty-five days from the filing of the certificate of candidacy. After the election, the remedy is a sworn petition for quo warranto under Section 253, filed within ten days after proclamation. The loss of Philippine citizenship is never presumed; it must be proved by substantial and convincing evidence of one of the modes under Commonwealth Act Number 63, and the renunciation required to lose citizenship must be express. Philippine courts determine only who are Filipino citizens, not who are aliens under foreign law.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed and the Resolution of the Commission on Elections was affirmed, so Osmena prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line that loss of Philippine citizenship cannot be presumed and must be proved by substantial and convincing evidence. Examiners use this case to test the twenty-five day period under Section 78, the ten day period for quo warranto under Section 253, and the difference between this case and Frivaldo and Labo on dual citizenship.