[statcon] labo vs comelec by cruz

7/25/2019 [Statcon] Labo vs COMELEC by Cruz

1/7

G.R. No. 86564 August 1, 1989 LABO vs COMELEC

CRUZ,J.:

The petitioner asks this Court to restrain the Commission on Elections from looking into the

question of his citizenship as a qualication for his oce as Mayor of Baguio City. The

allegation that he is a foreigner, he says, is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the

pulic respon!ent has "uris!iction to con!uct any inquiry into this matter, consi!ering that

the petition for quo warranto against him was not le! on time.

#t is noteworthy that this argument is ase! on the allege! tar!iness not of the petition

itself ut of the payment of the ling fee, which the petitioner conten!s was an

in!ispensale requirement. The fee is, curiously enough, all of $%&&.&& only. This rings to

min! the popular 'erse that for want of a horse the king!om was lost. (till, if it is shown

that the petition was in!ee! le! eyon! the reglementary perio!, there is no question

that this petition must e grante! an! the challenge aate!.

The petitioner)s position is simple. *e was proclaime! mayor+elect of Baguio City, on

anuary -&, /00. The petition for quo warranto was le! y the pri'ate respon!ent on

anuary -1, /00, ut no ling fee was pai! on that !ate. This fee was nally pai! on

2eruary &, /00, or twenty+one !ays after his proclamation. 3s the petition y itself

alone was ine4ectual without the ling fee, it shoul! e !eeme! le! only when the fee

was pai!. This was !one eyon! the reglementary perio! pro'i!e! for un!er (ection -5% of

the 6mnius Election Co!e rea!ing as follows7

(EC. -5%. $etition for quo warranto. 3ny 'oter contesting the election of a Memer

of the Batasang $amansa, regional, pro'incial, or city ocer on the groun! of

ineligiility or of !isloyalty to the 8epulic of the $hilippines shall le a sworn petition

for quo warranto with the Commission within ten !ays after the proclamation of the

result of the election.

The petitioner a!!s that the payment of the ling fee is require! un!er 8ule %1, (ection 5,

of the $roce!ural 8ules of the C6ME9EC pro'i!ing that :

(ec. 5. ;o petition for quo warranto shall e gi'en !ue course without the payment of

a ling fee in the amount of Three *un!re! $esos


2/7

The petitioner forgets a!"ada v. uvera4

when he argues that the resolutions ecame

e4ecti'e ?imme!iately upon appro'al? simply ecause it was so pro'i!e! therein. Ae hel!

in that case that pulication was still necessary un!er the !ue process clause !espite such

e4ecti'ity clause.

#n any e'ent, what is important is that the ling fee was pai!, an! whate'er !elay there

may ha'e een is not imputale to the pri'ate respon!ent)s fault or neglect. #t is true that

in the Manchester Case, we require! the timely payment of the ling fee as a precon!ition

for the timeliness of the ling of the case itself. #n #un $nsurance O%ce& 'td. v.

Asuncion, 5howe'er this Court, taking into account the special circumstances of that case,

!eclare!7

This Court reiterates the rule that the trial court acquires "uris!iction o'er a case only

upon the payment of the prescrie! ling fee. *owe'er, the court may allow the

payment of the sai! fee within a reasonale time. #n the e'ent of non+compliance

therewith, the case shall e !ismisse!.

The same i!ea is epresse! in 8ule -, (ection 0, of the C6ME9EC 8ules of $roce!ure

a!opte! on une -&, /00, thus7

(ec. 0. (on)payment of prescri*ed fees. : #f the fees ao'e prescrie! are not pai!,

theCommission may refuse to ta+e action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss

the action or the proceeding.


3/7

imenez, % $hil. D=. #n this case, the !ictates of "ustice !o !eman! that this

Court act, an! act with nality. 7

8eman! of the case to the lower court for further reception of e'i!ence is

not necessary where the court is in a position to resol'e the !ispute ase!

on the recor!s efore it. 6n many occasions, the Court, in the pulic

interest an! the epe!itious a!ministration of "ustice, has resol'e! actions

on the merits instea! of reman!ing them to the trial court for further

procee!ings, such as where the en!s of "ustice woul! not e suser'e! ythe reman! of the case or when pulic interest !eman!s an early

!isposition of the case or where the trial court ha! alrea!y recei'e! all the

e'i!ence of the parties. 8

This course of action ecomes all the more "ustie! in the present case where, to repeat

for stress, it is claime! that a foreigner is hol!ing a pulic oce.

Ae also note in his 8eply, the petitioner says7

#n a!opting pri'ate respon!ent)s comment, respon!ent C6ME9EC implicitly

a!opte! as ?its own? pri'ate respon!ent)s repeate! assertion that

petitioner is no longer a 2ilipino citizen. #n so !oing, has not respon!ent

C6ME9EC e4ecti'ely !isqualie! itself, y reason of pre"u!gment, fromresol'ing the petition for quo warranto le! y pri'ate respon!ent still

pen!ing efore itJ 9

This is still another reason why the Court has seen t to rule !irectly on the merits of this

case.

oing o'er the recor!, we n! that there are two a!ministrati'e !ecisions on the question

of the petitioner)s citizenship. The rst was ren!ere! y the Commission on Elections on

May -, /0-, an! foun! the petitioner to e a citizen of the $hilippines. 10The secon! was

ren!ere! y the Commission on #mmigration an! Geportation on (eptemer %, /00, an!

hel! that the petitioner was not a citizen of the $hilippines. 11

The rst !ecision was penne! y then C6ME9EC Chigas, Hicente (antiago, r., withCommissioners $aalate (a'ellano an! 6pinion concurring in full an! Commissioner

Bacungan concurring in the !ismissal of the petition ?without pre"u!ice to the issue of the

respon!ent)s citizenship eing raise! anew in a proper case.? Commissioner (aga!raca

reser'e! his 'ote, while Commissioner 2elipe was for !eferring !ecision until

representations shall ha'e een ma!e with the 3ustralian Emassy for ocial 'erication

of the petitioner)s allege! naturalization as an 3ustralian.

The secon! !ecision was unanimously ren!ere! y Chairman Miriam Gefensor+(antia

an! Commissioners 3lano an! eral!ez of the Commission on #mmigration an!

Geportation. #t is important to oser'e that in the procee!ing efore the C6ME9EC, th

was no !irect proof that the herein petitioner ha! een formally naturalize! as a citiz

3ustralia. This con"ecture, which was e'entually re"ecte!, was merely inferre! from t

that he ha! marrie! an 3ustralian citizen, otaine! an 3ustralian passport, an! regist

as an alien with the C#G upon his return to this country in /0&.

6n the other han!, the !ecision of the C#G took into account the ocial statement of

3ustralian o'ernment !ate! 3ugust -, /0, through its Consul in the $hilippines,

the petitioner was still an 3ustralian citizen as of that !ate y reason of his naturalizain /D1. That statement

12is repro!uce! in full as follows7

#, 83*3M C69#; AE(T, Consul of 3ustralia in the $hilippines, y 'irtue of a certica

appointment signe! an! seale! y the 3ustralian Minister of (tate for 2oreign 34airs

6ctoer /0%, an! recognize! as such y 9etter of $atent signe! an! seale! y the

$hilippines 3cting Minister of 2oreign 34airs on -% ;o'emer /0%, !o herey pro'i!

following statement in response to the supoena Testican!um !ate! / 3pril /0 in

regar! to the $etition for !isqualication against 83M6; 93B6, 8. K 96L3;6


4/7

E= (houl! he return to 3ustralia, 93B6 may face court action in respect of

(ection 5& of 3ustralian Citizenship 3ct /0 which relates to the gi'ing of

false or mislea!ing information of a material nature in respect of an

application for 3ustralian citizenship. #f such a prosecution was successful,

he coul! e !epri'e! of 3ustralian citizenship un!er (ection - of the 3ct.

2= There are two further ways in which 93B6 coul! !i'est himself of

3ustralian citizenship7


5/7

was properly an! seasonaly plea!e!, in a motion to !ismiss or in the answer, ha'ing een

in'oke! only when the petitioner le! his reply 20to the pri'ate respon!ent)s comment.

Besi!es, one of the requisites of res 9udicata, to wit, i!entity of parties, is not present in

this case.

The petitioner)s contention that his marriage to an 3ustralian national in /D1 !i! not

automatically !i'est him of $hilippine citizenship is irrele'ant. There is no claim or n!ing

that he automatically cease! to e a 2ilipino ecause of that marriage. *e ecame a

citizen of 3ustralia ecause he was naturalize! as such through a formal an! positi'e

process, simplie! in his case ecause he was marrie! to an 3ustralian citizen. 3s a

con!ition for such naturalization, he formally took the 6ath of 3llegiance an!or ma!e the3rmation of 3llegiance, oth quote! ao'e. 8enouncing all other allegiance, he swore ?to

e faithful an! ear true allegiance to *er Ma"esty Elizaeth the (econ!, @ueen of

3ustralia ...? an! to fulll his !uties ?as an 3ustralian citizen.?

The petitioner now claims that his naturalization in 3ustralia ma!e him at worst only a !ual

national an! !i! not !i'est him of his $hilippine citizenship. (uch a specious argument

cannot stan! against the clear pro'isions of C3 ;o. 1%, which enumerates the mo!es y

which $hilippine citizenship may e lost. 3mong these are7


6/7

2inally, there is the question of whether or not the pri'ate respon!ent, who le! the quo

warranto petition, can replace the petitioner as mayor. *e cannot. The simple reason is

that as he otaine! only the secon! highest numer of 'otes in the election, he was

o'iously not the choice of the people of Baguio city.

... it woul! e etremely repugnant to the asic concept of the

constitutionally guarantee! right to su4rage if a can!i!ate who has not

acquire! the ma"ority or plurality of 'otes is proclaime! a winner an!

impose! as the representati'e of a constituency, the ma"ority of which

ha'e positi'ely !eclare! through their allots that they !o not choose him.

(oun! policy !ictates that pulic electi'e oces are lle! y those who

ha'e recei'e! the highest numer of 'otes cast in the election for that

oce, an! it is a fun!amental #!ea in all repulican forms of go'ernment

that no one can e !eclare! electe! an! no measure can e !eclare!

carrie! unless he or it recei'es a ma"ority or plurality of the legal 'otes cast

in the election.


7/7

8e+eamining that !ecision, the Court n!s, an! so hol!s, that it shoul! e re'erse! in

fa'or of the earlier case of@eronimo v. Ramos& 27Ahich represents the more logical an!

!emocratic rule. That case, which reiterate! the !octrine rst announce! in /-

in opacio vs. ?aredes28was supporte! y ten memers of the Court 29without any

!issent, although one reser'e! his 'ote, 30another took no part 31an! two others were on

lea'e. 32There the Court hel!7

The latest ruling of the Court on this issue is #antos v. Commission on Elections 22!e

in /05. #n that case, the can!i!ate who place! secon! was proclaime! electe! after

'otes for his winning ri'al, who was !isqualie! as a turncoat an! consi!ere! a non+

can!i!ate, were all !isregar!e! as stray. #n e4ect, the secon! placer won y !efault.

!ecision was supporte! y eight memers of the Court then 23with three !issenting

another two reser'ing their 'ote.256ne was on ocial lea'e. 26

[statcon] labo vs comelec by cruz

Documents