MATEO CAASI, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND MERITO C. MIGUEL, RESPONDENTS.

These two cases were consolidated because they have the same
objective:  the disqualification under
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the private respondent, Merito Miguel, for the position of municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan, to which he
was elected in the local elections of January 18, 1988, on the ground that he
is a green card holder, hence:  a
permanent resident of the United States of America, not of Bolinao.

G.R. No. 84508 is a petition for review on certiorari of
the decision dated January 13, 1988 of the COMELEC First Division, dismissing
the three (3) petitions of Anecito Cascante (SPC No. 87-551), Cederico
Catabay (SPC No. 87-595) and Josefino
C. Celeste (SPC No. 87-604), for the disqualification of Merito
C. Miguel, filed prior to the local elections on January 18, 1988.

G.R. No. 88831, Mateo Caasi vs. Court
of Appeals, et al., is a petition for review of the decision dated June 21,
1989, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 14531 dismissing the petition
for quo warranto filed by Mateo Caasi, a rival candidate for the position of municipal
mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan,
also to disqualify Merito Miguel on account of his
being a green card holder.

In his answer to both petitions, Miguel admitted that he holds a
green card issued to him by the US Immigration Service, but he denied that he
is a permanent resident of the United States. 
He allegedly obtained the green card for convenience in order that he
may freely enter the United States for his periodic medical examination and to
visit his children there.  He alleged
that he is a permanent resident of Bolinao, Pangasinan, that
he voted in all previous elections, including the plebiscite on February 2,
1987 for the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, and the congressional
elections on May 18, 1987.

After hearing the consolidated
petitions before it, the COMELEC, with the exception of Commissioner Anacleto Badoy, Jr., dismissed
the petitions on the ground that:

“The possession of a green card by the respondent (Miguel)
does not sufficiently establish that he has abandoned his residence in the
Philippines.  On the
contrary, inspite (sic) of his green card.  Respondent has sufficiently indicated his
intention to continuously reside in Bolinao as shown
by his having voted in successive elections in said municipality.  As the respondent meets the basic
requirements of citizenship and residence for candidates to elective local
officials (sic) as provided for in Section 42 of the Local Government Code,
there is no legal obstacle to his candidacy for mayor of Bolinao,
Pangasinan.” (p. 12, Rollo, G.R. No. 84508.)

In his dissenting opinion, Commissioner Badoy,
Jr. opined that:

“A green card holder being a permanent resident of or an
immigrant of a foreign country and respondent having admitted that he is a
green card holder, it is incumbent upon him, under Section 68 of the Omnibus
Election Code, to prove that he was ‘has waived his status as a permanent
resident or immigrant’ to be qualified to run for elected office.  This respondent has not done.” (p. 13, Rollo, G.R. No. 84508.)

In G.R. No. 88831, “Mateo Caasi,
petitioner vs. Court of Appeals and Merito Miguel,
respondents,” the petitioner prays for a review of the decision dated June
21, 1989 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 14531 “Merito C. Miguel, petitioner vs. Hon. Artemio
R. Corpus, etc., respondents,” reversing the decision of the Regional
Trial Court which denied Miguel’s motion to dismiss the petition for quo
warranto filed by Caasi.  The Court of Appeals ordered the regional
trial court to dismiss and desist from further proceeding in the quo warranto case. 
The Court of Appeals held:

“x x x it
is pointless for the Regional Trial Court to hear the case questioning the
qualification of the petitioner as resident of the Philippines, after the
COMELEC has ruled that the petitioner meets the very basic requirements of
citizenship and residence for candidates to elective local officials (sic) and
that there is no legal obstacles (sic) for the candidacy of the petitioner,
considering that decisions of the Regional Trial Courts on quo warranto cases under the Election Code are appealable to the COMELEC.” (p. 22, Rollo, G.R. No. 88831.)

These two cases pose the twin issues of:  (1) whether or not a green card is proof that
the holder is a permanent resident of the United
States, and (2) whether respondent Miguel
had waived his status as a permanent resident of or immigrant to the U.S.A.
prior to the local elections on January
18, 1988.

Section 18, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“Sec. 18. 
Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution
allegiance at all times, and any public officer or employee who seeks to change
his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during
his tenure shall be dealt with by law.”

In the same vein, but not quite, Section 68 of the Omnibus
Election Code of the Philippines
(B.P. Blg. 881) provides:

“SEC. 68.  Disqualifications.  x x
x.  Any
person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country
shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless
said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a
foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in
the election laws.  (Sec.
25, 1971, EC).”

In view of current rumor that a good number of elective and
appointive public officials in the present administration of President Corazon
C. Aquino are holders of green cards in foreign
countries, their effect on the holders’ right to hold elective public office in
the Philippines
is a question that excites much interest in the outcome of this case.

In the case of Merito Miguel, the Court
deems it significant that in the “Application for Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration” (Optional Form No. 230, Department of State) which
Miguel filled up in his own handwriting and submitted to the US Embassy in
Manila before his departure for the United States in 1984, Miguel’s answer to
Question No. 21 therein regarding his “Length of intended stay (if permanently,
so state).” Miguel’s answer was:  “Permanently.”

On its face, the green card that was subsequently issued by the
United States Department of Justice and Immigration and Registration Service to
the respondent Merito C. Miguel identifies him in
clear bold letters as a RESIDENT ALIEN. 
On the back of the card, the upper portion the following information is
printed:

“Alien Registration Receipt Card.

“Person identified by
this card is entitled to reside permanently and work in
the United States.”
(Annex A, pp. 189-190, Rollo of
G.R. No. 84508.)

Despite his vigorous disclaimer, Miguel’s immigration to the United
States in 1984 constituted an abandonment of
his domicile and residence in the Philippines.  For he did not go to the United
States merely to visit his children or his
doctor there:  he entered the United
States with the intention to live there
permanently as evidenced by his application for an immigrant’s (not a visitor’s
or tourist’s) visa. 
Based on that application of his, he was issued by the U.S. Government
the requisite green card or authority to reside there permanently.

“Immigration is the removing into one place from another:  the act of immigrating; the entering into a
country with the intention of residing in it.

“An immigrant is a person who removes into a
country for the purpose of permanent residence.  As shown infra 84, however, statutes
sometimes give a broader meaning to the term ‘immigrant.’” (3 CJS 674.)

As a resident alien in the U.S.,
Miguel owes temporary and local allegiance to the U.S.,
the country in which he resides (3 CJS 527). 
This is in return for the protection given to him during the period of
his residence therein.

“Aliens residing in the United States,
while they are permitted to remain, are in general entitled to the protection
of the laws with regard to their rights of person and property and to their
civil and criminal responsibility.

“In general, aliens residing in the United
States, while they are permitted to remain,
are entitled to the safeguards of the constitution with regard to their rights
of person and property and to their civil and criminal responsibility.  Thus resident alien friends are entitled to
the benefit of the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
constitution that no state shall deprive ‘any person’ of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, or deny to ‘any person’ the equal
protection of the law, and the protection of this amendment extends to the
right to earn a livelihood by following the ordinary occupations of life.  So an alien is entitled to the protection of
the provision of the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” (3
CJS 529-530.)

Section 18, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution which provides
that “any public officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship
or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall
be dealt with by law” is not applicable to Merito
Miguel for he acquired the status of an immigrant of the United States before
he was elected to public office, not “during his tenure” as mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan.

The law applicable to him is Section 68 of the Omnibus Election
Code (B.P. Blg. 881), which provides:

“xxx                    xxx                   xxx

“Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to
a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under
this Code unless such person has waived his status as permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws.”

Did Miguel, by returning to the Philippines
in November 1987 and presenting himself as a candidate for mayor of Bolinao in the January
18, 1988 local elections, waive his status as a permanent resident
or immigrant of the United States?

To be “qualified to run for elective office” in the Philippines,
the law requires that the candidate who is a green card holder must have
“waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign
country.” Therefore, his act of filing a certificate of candidacy for
elective office in the Philippines, did not of itself constitute a waiver of his status as a
permanent resident or immigrant of the United
States. 
The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some act or acts
independent of and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in
this country.  Without such prior waiver,
he was “disqualified to run for any elective office” (Sec. 68,
Omnibus Election Code).

Respondent Merito Miguel admits that he
holds a green card, which proves that he is a permanent resident or immigrant
of the United States,
but the records of this case are starkly bare of proof that he had waived his
status as such before he ran for election as municipal mayor of Bolinao on January
18, 1988.  We, therefore,
hold that he was disqualified to become a candidate for that office.

The reason for Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code is not
hard to find.  Residence in the
municipality where he intends to run for elective office for at least one (1)
year at the time of filing his certificate of candidacy,
is one of the qualifications that a candidate for elective public office must
possess (Sec. 42, Chap. 1, Title 2, Local Government Code).  Miguel did not possess that qualification
because he was a permanent resident of the United
States and he resided in Bolinao
for a period of only three (3) months (not one year) after his return to the Philippines
in November 1987 and before he ran for mayor of that municipality on January 18, 1988.

In banning from elective public office Philippine citizens who
are permanent residents or immigrants of a foreign country, the Omnibus
Election Code has laid down a clear policy of excluding from the right to hold
elective public office those Philippine citizens who possess dual loyalties and
allegiance.  The law has reserved that
privilege for its citizens who have cast their lot with our country “without
mental reservations or purpose of evasion.” The assumption is that those
who are resident aliens of a foreign country are incapable of such entire
devotion to the interest and welfare of their homeland for with one eye on
their public duties here, they must keep another eye on their duties under the
laws of the foreign country of their choice in order to preserve their status
as permanent residents thereof.

Miguel insists that even though he applied for immigration and
permanent residence in the United States, he never really intended to live
there permanently, for all that he wanted was a green card to enable him to
come and go to the U.S. with ease.  In
other words, he would have this Court believe that he applied for immigration
to the U.S.
under false pretenses; that all this time he only had one foot in the United
States but kept his other foot in the Philippines.  Even if that were true, this Court will not
allow itself to be a party to his duplicity by permitting him to benefit from
it, and giving him the best of both worlds so to speak.

Miguel’s application for immigrant status and permanent residence
in the U.S. and
his possession of a green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof
that he is a permanent resident of the U.S.
despite his occasional visits to the Philippines.  The waiver of such immigrant status should be
as indubitable as his application for it. 
Absent clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that status
or that he surrendered his green card to the appropriate U.S.
authorities before he ran for mayor of Bolinao in the
local elections on January 18, 1988,
our conclusion is that he was disqualified to run for said public office,
hence, his election thereto was null and void.

WHEREFORE, the
appealed orders of the COMELEC and the Court of Appeals in SPC Nos. 87-551,
87-595 and 87-604, and CA-G.R. SP No.
14531 respectively, are hereby set aside. 
The election of respondent Merito C. Miguel as
municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan
is hereby annulled.  Costs
against the said respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.