CHAPTER V: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

1. La Union Labor Union v. Philippin Toba!!o: Wage Administration

Service (WAS) will only acquire jurisdiction if the parties submit the case before it
via a written agreement and if controversies involves only simple wage claims!
"arties agreed to have non#wage claims of laborers presented to a labor office ($%&)
for adjudication but it is not very clear as to the intent of the parties to submit the
wage claims to WAS! 'he court ruled that the function of the WAS was limited to
conciliation of dispute involving claims for wages( and if the parties are willing to
submit their case for arbitration( they have to e)ecute a written agreement to that
effect! 'he *ind of agreement entered into by the parties is insufficient to confer
jurisdiction to WAS! %ts decision is nullified!
". Ro#a$ v. Sa%o!: +overning law e)pired a&'r $ommissioner of
$ustoms acquired jurisdiction over the case! ,urisdiction duly acquired is not
affected by e)piration of the governing law! %t is a settled rule that a court(
judicial-administrative( that has acquired jurisdiction over a case( retains it even after
the e)piration of the law governing the case! 'he case at bar is concerned with the
e)piration of a law( and not with the abrogation of law!
(. )li!iano v. Dir!'or o& Pa'n'$: .irector of patents is as*ed by
intervenor to rule on the terms and stipulations of an e)ecutory contract whereby
intervenor is to act as selling agent for the investors of the patent! /otion of
intervenor is denied on the ground that .irector of "atents lac*s the jurisdiction to
decide on the case! 'he case involves contractual obligations( therefore jurisdiction
pertains with the regular courts (determination if there0s meeting of the minds( etc!)
*. Villa v. La+aro: $ommission conducted an inquiry in the most
informal manner by means only of communications requiring submission of certain
documents! %magine1 commissioner sent a mere letter requesting petitioner to give
location clearance to the 2S& $ommission for the construction of a funeral parlor!
'hen 2S&$ imposed fine against petitioner for allegedly not complying with said
request (when in fact she did)! %t was only in this juncture that petitioner learnt of a
complaint was lodged against her when all she thought was that the request letter
was mere routine! "etitioner was absolutely denied due process1 'here is failure on
the part of the Admin agency to afford petitioner the ff: a) right to notice (actual or
constructive)3 b) reasonable opportunity to defend rights and present
witness-evidence3 c) 'ribunal4honest and impartial3 and d) .ecision of tribunal
supported substantial evidence presented at the hearing or ascertained in the records
or disclosed to the parties affected! Administrative proceeding against petitioner
ine)cusable or indefensible since the petitioner was not informed of the complaint
which initiated the case! She was a victim of gross ignorance or negligence and
abuse of power!
,! Na'ional Union o& Prin'in- .or/r$ v. A$ia Prin'in-: &esult of
investigation conducted by $ourt of %ndustrial &elations0 prosecutor showed
employer guilty of unfair labor practice! 2owever( $%& still rendered a decision not
favorable to the union member after it adduced evidence from both parties! 5nion
member contend that the findings of the prosecutor must bind the $%& and therefore(
they should win! $ourt ruled that the investigation conducted by the prosecutor is e)
parte( thus( respondent employer was not given the opportunity to be present and
ta*e part in said investigation! 'he investigation by the prosecutor is necessary in
order to avoid frivolous and unfounded charges against employers! 6astly( the law
requires unfair 6abor practice cases to be heard by $%& only after investigation!
0. 1a2'i$'a v. .CC: Wor*men0s $ompensation $ommission (W$$)
dismissed claim for compensation without passing upon the issue of denial of due
process squarely presented before it! $laimant always fails to attend the hearing
because of lac* of notice or receipt of notice after scheduled date! .ismissal of
claim was grave abuse of discretion on the part of W$$ according to the $ourt!
$laimant deprived of its day in court because W$$ did not afford a reasonable
notice of hearing to each party interested!
3. Danan v. A$pillra: $ertificate of public convenience was cancelled
solely on the basis of the report of an engineer of the "ublic Service $ommission!
"etitioner formerly has permit to operate ice plant! Another company wants to put
up same business! A hearing was conducted who among the two companies will
operate plant! "etitioner failed to appear due to accident! 'hen cancellation of
petitioner0s certificate of public convenience was right away granted! 'his is a
violation of petitioner0s right to due process because they were not able to have their
day in court and opportunity to e)plain their side! S$ also threatens public officials
to observe fundamental procedural requirements( or else they can be liable for their
negligence!
4. Manila El!. Co v. M5ina: /eralco applied for an increase in energy
rates and got a favorable decision! 7ut "ublic Service $ommission ("S$) suspended
without a hearing( the effectivity of its decision increasing rates to be charged! 'here
was a violation of right to notice and hearing! 'he "S$ did not give /eralco the
opportunity to oppose the suspension of the decision under which( /eralco acquired
valuable rights! "lus( the law confers no discretion on the "S$ to suspend its
decision!
6. Manila El!. Co v. PSC: "S$ denied request for a hearing on rates set
by the $ommission based on report of the +eneral Auditing 8ffice! 'he practice of
"S$ breaches guarantees of due process when it did not (9) first reset the cases for
hearing! (:) by not giving meralco the right to cross#e)amine +A80s employees! (;)
give meralco opportunity to adduce evidence! <otice and opportunity to be heard
guaranteed by due process!
9
ADMINISTRATIVE LA.7 LA. ON PU1LIC O))ICERS7 ELECTION LA.: CASE DOCTRINES
)INALS7 PART II
DANIEL G. GUINIGUNDO7 II8A7 ATT9. ERENETA
ADMINISTRATIVE LA.
1:. Co;;i$$ionr o& I;;i-ra'ion v. )rnan5+: <ew 7oard of
$ommissioners reversed( without notice and hearing( decision of old 7oard
affirming the ruling of the 7oard of Special %nquiry that respondents were =ilipino
$iti>ens! 'here was a violation on respondent0s right to due process! 'he right of
respondent had already been passed by a board of equally and duly constituted
$ommissioners! 'he review( in affecting the rights of the respondent( must be made
under compliance with the due process requirement!
11. Ma!5a v. ER1: ?nergy &egulatory 7oard rela)ed procedure by
having all the evidence#in#chief of all the applicants for oil price increase on record
just before their witnesses are crossed#e)amined! .oes the rela)ed procedure deny
petitioner due process@ <o! ?&7 is not bound by strict rules of procedure! 7ut some
dissenters in the decision addressed the need of a 7ona =ide and full#dress hearings
necessary for any increase! 'he oppositor to any price increase must be given the
right to cross#e)amine the witness of the adverse parties!
1". S2n'a% v. Popl: "etitioner was charged with seduction and left the
country! 2owever( his passport was cancelled by the secretary of foreign affairs
without notice and hearing! 'he cancellation is not whimsical and capricious since
there is a clear reason for doing so! 2earing is not always necessary or required!
When discretion is e)ercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact(
such as the filing of a serious criminal charge against the passport holder( hearing
may be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the cancellation of his
passport3 there is no violation of due process! 7ut if hearing is mandatory or always
required( then a writ of preliminary injunction issued e) parte would be violative of
the said clause!
1(. 1i$$!hop v. Galan-: "etitoner( an American citi>en( staying in the
"hilippines for an allotted ; years( and subsequently applying for an e)tension( was
suspected of having evaded payment of his income ta) and for running what appeard
to be a gambling house! 2is e)tension of stay was denied by the 7oard with no
grant of reinvestigation! $ourt ruled that $mmissoners are not required by law to
conduct formal hearings on all applications for e)tension of stay of aliens as such is
purely discretionary on the part of immigration authorities and that right to notice
and hearing are not always essential to due process of law!
1*. A;ri!an Toba!!o Co. v. Dir!'or o& Pa'n'$: .irector of "atents delegated
the hearing of petitioner0s cases to hearing officers! 6aw confers upon the director to
obtain assistance of technical( scientific or other qualified officers or employees of
other departmentA 'he .ir of "atents validly delegated its hearing function!
Administrative fle)ibility is necessary for the prompt and e)peditious discharge of
his duties! =urthermore( subdelegation of power is justified by sound principles of
organi>ation! 'his principle refers to allow top officers to concentrate on matters
bearing more significance in the accomplishment of its function and delegating
matters which would otherwise consume his time!
1,. San'o$ v. Nobl: %n a reinvestigation to dismiss the decision of the
$'A upholding the assessment and demand made by the $%& on petitioner( the 7%&
could not produce the former0s boo*s( thus rendering it impossible for petitioner to
prove the errors allegedly committed by the 7%& agent! 'he hearing was proceeded
without the boo*s! .ue to such loss of primary evidence and inferentially admitting
that ta)payer0s petitions were not groundless by granting his requests for
reinvestigation( petitioner was allowed to be given the last opportunity to prove even
with secondary evidence his contention that the assessment against him was
incorrect!
10. E$'a' o& )lorn!io P. 12an v. Pa;pan-a 12$ an5 Co. an5 La
Mallor!a: 8bservation and inspection of Admin agency officers is justified to be
the basis for a decision! 'hus( it is possible that even if parties present their
evidence( admin agency may disregard it and use only its own findings!
13. Philippin Movi Pi!'2r$ .or/r<$ A$$o! v. PPI: ocular inspection
made was held to be insufficient3 allegations cannot be established by a mere
inspection of a place! %n this case( as well as in the ?state case( %n these two cases(
the determining factor in the applicability of an agency0s finding is if the findings of
the agency is supported by substantial evidence and provided it has the power to do
so
14. Halili v. )lor$: 2alili filed opposition on application of respondent to
operate an auto#truc* service( claiming that that he had already been rendering
transportation service along the same route( presenting testimonial evidence that
proved that passenger buses were overcrowded and overflowing and not sufficient in
number to the discomfort of passengers! 'he $ourt ruled that the "S$ decision in
granting such application to =lores was not contrary to law or rendered without
jurisdiction3 ac*nowledged that it could not substitute own findings for those of the
$ommission as it was reasonably supported by evidence!
16. U% v. .CC: W$$ reversed decision of the hearing officer awarding a
claim for death compensation on the ground that there was no employer#employee
relationship! 'he $ourt ruled on the records and substantial evidence( showing that
5y was indeed an employee( wor*ing as early as 9BCD!
":. In5ia$ v. Phil Iron Min$7 In!. : 'he $%&0s decision did not contain
any facts but merely affirmed the decision of its e)amining officers! 'his *ind of
decision is allowed because it is purposeless to repeat the e)aminer0s findings to
which it agrees! 7ut( in case the decision did not affirm the findings of its e)aminers(
then( $%& must cite the facts and law which will support their decision!
"1. Gra!illa v. CIR: $ourt of %ndustrial &elation dismissed the complaint
of employee but failed to render a decision regarding monetary claims! 'his is a
violation of due process of law! 'he issues raised by a party should not be ignored or
left undecided!
"". Srrano v. PSC: Serrano filed an application requesting authority to
operate a ta)icab automobile service in /anila! 2is application was dismissed for
lac* of interest or failure to prosecute or denied for failure to qualify! 'he $ourt
ruled that the "S$ committed an error in summarily denying Serrano0s application
without setting forth the facts on which the decision was based3 Although the "S$ is
administrative in nature( it does not mean that such fact would justify the summary
disposition of petitioner0s application!
"(. Hir$ v. S!r'ar% o& P2bli! .or/$ an5 Co;;2ni!a'ion$: A
number of residents filed complaints with the Secretary of "W$ denouncing the
:
heirs for alleged encroachments into the 'ulao river! 'he Secretary then proceeded
to order the removal of such encroachments complained of within ; days! 'he heirs
sought annulment due to lac* of jurisdiction and issuance of a writ of prohibition
claiming to have title! 'he court ruled that the secretary did not rule on the removal
of the encroachments and at the same time rule on the validity of petitioner0s title!
'his is because the fact#finding power of the Secretary is incidental to his duty and
authority to clear all navigable streams of unauthori>ed constructions and that uch
authority prevails over petitioner0s title!
"*. .i-all v. Sh2$'r: $ollector of $ustoms imposed a fine in the belief
that he had such authority because the law failed to provide the machinery for
the enforcement of its penal provisions! 'he $ollector cannot impose any fine
since the power is not e)pressly given by the statute! 'he imposition made is
penal in nature!
",. Civil Arona2'i!$ 1oar5 v. PAL: $A7 imposed a fine against "A6
for ma*ing an unauthori>ed flagstop to pic* up passengers! 'he fine was held
administrative in nature as provided in $A70s charter! 2ence( the imposition is
allowed although the determination of the e)act amount to be imposed was not
contained in the charter!
"0. 9ao Gi' v. Gral5+: Eao +it( an alien( was prosecuted without the
intervention of the $ommissioner of %mmigration( as he was acting suspiciously and
was found in his possession a $hinese jueteng list( by =iscal for non#e)hibition of
his alien certificate of registration! 'he $ourt ruled that such =iscal has no authority
to initiate the prosecution and ta*e cogni>ance of the case( as the $ommissioner was
given the option by law to subject erring alien to administrative fine or to endorse
his prosecution! 'hus( the =iscal may not initiate the prosecution until and unless the
$ommissioner has election and decided upon his choice!
"3. Apla-a v. Di+on: 2 filed a claim for compensation with the .86 for
injury sustained under the employ of Apelaga! 'he award was declared final and
e)ecutory by the W$$ under Section F9 of the W$$ Act as amended by Sec! 9G of
&A F99B! 'he $ourt ruled that the power of W$$ to enforce its awards is
transferred to it from the courts of justice( thus having such authority to do so!
"4. Po'n' v. Sa2lo- Tran$i'7 In!. : "otente ( a former bus inspector of a
public utility operator( see*s( without an ordinary action( issuance by a court of a
writ of e)ecution of a decision rendered by the Wage Administration Service
against his employer! 'he $ourt ruled that such may not be e)ecuted by a court of
justice without an ordinary action for recovery of a sum of money as it is required by
law!
CHAPTER VI: =UDICIAL REVIE. O)7 OR RELIE) AGAINST7
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
1. SMC v. S!r'ar% o& Labor: 'he Secretary of 6abor affirmed <6&$ decision on
reinstatement of a dismissed employee with E raising a jurisidictional question on
W8< the S$ has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the <6&$! $ourt ruled that
that the S$ does not have jurisdiction3 it may only declare an action or resolution of
an administrative authority illegal if it violates or fails to comply with some
mandatory provisions of the law or because it is corrupt( arbitrary or capricious!
". 1oar5 o& M5i!al E52!a'ion v. Al&on$o: 'he Secretary of ?ducation ordered the
closure of a medical college on the ground of failing to meet minimum standards!
6ower court issued an injunction based on its own findings! Such issuance is not
proper! <o court has competence to substitute its own opinion for that of the .?$S
Secretary on matters falling under the latter0s prerogative!
(. Gor5on b. Vri5iano II: =ood and .rug Admin lifted the closure order to a
drugstore after the penalties imposed have been discharged! $ity mayor wants the
=.A to review its decision in allowing the drugstore to operate again! 'he $ourt
ruled that the /ayor cannot( in the e)ercise of his own power( prevent the operation
of drugstores previously permitted by S?$! =.A is vested by law w- all drug
inspection functions! 'hough establishments still has to comply with local
regulations to be granted a permit( the previous issuance of the permit (by the mayor
himself) shows compliance with local regulations! 8nly a violation of such will
authori>e the mayor to revo*e the permit!
*. Ma!ailin- v. An5ra5a: A .epartment Secretary is an alter#ego of the "resident!
'he decision made by the former is( for all intents and purposes( a decision of the
latter! /oreover( the parties already acquired vested rights from a decision that has
become final!
,. Na'ion M2l'i8Srvi! Labor Union v. A-!aoili: 'he Secretary of 6abor
rendered a decision on a labor dispute! 'he ,udge however entertained such suit
where the decision had already attained status of finality! 'he S$ ruled that such is
<8' proper and that the ,udge has committed +A.Hproper appeal is to the
"resident!
0. PAL v. Civil Arona2'i!$ 1oar5: $ivil Aeronautics 7oard 8rder granting
provisional authority to an air line operator! S$ reviewed on a special civil action for
certiorari! Such is valid as $ertiorari is an available remedy against administrative
agencies
3. >2in'o$ v. Na'ional S'25 )ar;: <ational Stud =arm cancelled a certificate of
registration on a horse without due process! &elief was sought in the lower courts!
Such action is not proper3 petitioner failed to e)haust administrative remedies!
"roper remedy was to as* the 7oard of 'rustees of <ational Stud =arm regarding the
cancellation! =rom there appeal may be ta*en to the +ames and Amusement 7oard
or to the 8ffice of the "resident!
4. In52$'rial En'rpri$$7 In!. v. CA: 'here was a rescission of a memorandum of
agreement between coal mine operators where relief was sought in the '$! Such is
not proper as "rimary jurisdiction lies with the 7ureau of ?nergy .evelopment as
provided by statuteHsince matter involves coal#operations or coal#development!
6. S!r'ar% o& A-ri!2l'2r an5 Na'ional r$o2r!$ v. C)I ?25-: 'ime during
which the motion for reconsideration was pending /5S' 7? .?.5$'?. from the
;I day period for ta*ing the decision to court!
1:. Ara'2! v. Co;l!: "etitioners invo*e the S$ certiorari jurisdiction over the
$8/?6?$( not its appellate jurisdiction! Such action must not prosper as the
;
$8/?6?$0s actuations are final( e)ecutory and inappealable! While such
construction does not e)clude the general certiorari jurisdiction of the S$( it narrows
down the scope and e)tent of the inquiry the $ourt is to underta*e!
11. El/$ Cl2b v. Rovira: %n a special civil action of certiorari( the only question that
may be raied is W8< the respondent has acted without or in e)cess of jurisdiction
or with +A. and the S$ cannot correct errors of fact or law which the '$ may have
committed!
1". CIR v. E+nar: 'he S$ passed upon not only the legal issues but also the
findings of fact upon which the decision of the $'A is based! Such is not proper and
the S$ may <8' consider such questions of fact! When a case is ta*en up to $ourt
by petition to review( it could go over the evidence on record and pass upon the
questions of fact3 but that in cases of review upon petition for a writ of certiorari(
this $ourt could only pass upon issues involving questions of 6AW!
1(. 1lan!o v. 1ME: "etitioners too* e)aminations for a physician0s certificate and
passed the same! 'he findings of an investigator revealed that some answers on said
e)amination were lea*ed before such e)am dates! =ollowing the recommendation of
the 5ndersecretary( the Secretary of %nterior annulled the results of the e)am! %n an
issue to determine whether such is ministerial( it is <8'Hit is a discretionary duty
under the law!
1*. Poli!arpio v. PV1: $ourts cannot properly intervene until the petitioner should
have e)hausted her remedies!
1,. Ch2a Hion- v. Dpor'a'ion 1oar5: "etition as*s the S$ to prohibit the
.eportation 7oard from continuing deportation proceedings against petitioner who
claims to be a =ilipino $iti>en! 'he S$ ruled that such question of alienage and
citi>enship shall =%&S' be decided before engaging in a judicial proceeding
suspending the deportation proceedings in the meantime! 'hus( judicial
determination should be allowed in all cases!
10. Cabanro v. Torr$: 'he function of the writ of prohibition is to prevent the
doing of an act which is about to be done! %t is <8' intended to provide a remedy
for acts already accomplished!
13. L;i v. Valn!ia: While courts should e)ercise great care in granting
preliminary mandatory injunctions as the writ operates not merely to preserve status
quo between parties but to compel one of them to perform a positive act( in cases of
e)treme urgency( where petitioner0s right to the writ is clear( the courts should not
hesitate to grant such writ!
14. CIR v. R%$ an5 CA: "etitions for certiorari see*s to nullify resolutions of the
$'A restraining the $%& from collecting ta)es allegedly due from a ta)payer! 'he
S$ ruled that the $%& may be restrained from proceeding with the collection( levy(
distraint( and-or sale of any property of the ta)payer! 'he $'A is empowered by law
to grant injunction to restrain collection of %& ta)!
16. A+a?ar v. Ar5al$ an5 12ra2 o& Lan5$: $omplaint filed by petitioner prays
that the plaintiff be declared as a =ilipino citi>en and entitle to acquire lands of the
public domain! 'he S$ ruled that the appellant0s citi>enship $A<<8' be
determined in the the complaint for declaratory judgment-relief as such is not a
proper remedy for determination of citi>enship!
":. M?o&& v. Dir!'or o& Pri$on$: Aliens illegally staying in the "hilippines have
<8 right of asylum therein even if they are stateless! 2owever( the S$ ruled that
foreign nationals( not enemy( whom no charge has been made may not indefinitely
be *ept in detention! 'he protection against deprivation of liberty without due
process is not limited to "hilippine citi>ens but also to all residents( e)cept enemy
aliens( regardless of nationality!
"1. 12ra2 o& I;;i-ra'ion Co;;i$$ionr$ v. Do;in-o: 'he proper remedy to
test the legality of detention is habeas corpus and <8' an action for declaratory
judgment with incidental mandamus to release him!
"". I-na!io v. CA: .ecision of administrative officers may <8' be disturbed
e)cept when acted with +A.!
"(. Orlina v. Sin-$on En!arna!ion: .irector of 6ands rejected the sale application
for a tract of public land on his conclusion from the facts found that such applicant is
a $hinese citi>en! S$ ruled that the decisions of such .irector when approved by
Secretary generally conclusive! As a quasi#judicial officer( entitled to great respect
of the $ourts!
"*. Gon+al$ v. Vi!'or% Labor Union: $harge of unfair labor practice is based on
the bare testimony of complainants! 'he S$ ruled that it shall that is should go over
the record( and in order to determine substantiability of the evidence( consider it not
only for quantitative e but also its qualitative aspects!
",. E5@ar5$ v. M!Co%: A verdict or decision with absolutely nothing to support is
a nullity at least when directly attac*ed( and a body which affirms such a decision
does not e)ercise either a deliberative discretion or ability!
"0. La;bino v. 1an$: W$$ contends that in the circumstances( the death of a
street cleaner or sweeper was <8' caused by the nature of his wor*! 'he S$ ruled
that such conclusion by the $8/?6?$ is <8' tenableH as such conclusion is
unreasonably harsh for the deceased!
"3. H.E. Ha!o!/ Co. v. NLU: %f there is not evidence in support of the findings of
the $%&( then such action $A<<8' be denied!
"4.ER1 v. CA: 'he interpretation of an administrative government agency which is
tas*ed to implement a statute( is accorded +&?A' weight and respect!
"6. Ca$pra v. Sali$i: 'he "ublic Service $ommission en ban* has the authority to
review on evidence and record the factual findings and conclusion of the decision
rendered by a division!
(:. 1or?a v. Morno: Where substantial evidence rule applicable( courts are bound
to loo* no further!
F
LA. ON PU1LIC O))ICERS
LA. ON ELECTIONS
1. Vall$ v. COMELEC:
a. )ACTS: &osalind Ebasco 6ope> was born on 9B;F in Australia to a =ilipino
father and an Australian mother! At the age of 9J( she left Australia to settle in &"!
Since she got married in 9BJ:( she has been active in the electoral process! She ran
fwas elected governor of .avao 8riental where her citi>enship was questioned by
her then opponent 'aojo( ,r! but it was dismissed due to lac* of proof! %n /ay 9BBD(
she ran again for re#election where her citi>enship is once again being assailed( this
time by the present petitioner! 7ecause no new evidence was presented( the
$8/?6?$ dismissed the petition( as well as the /&( thus finding its way to the
S$! 'he $8/?6?$ ruled that respondent 6ope> is a =ilipino citi>en for several
reasons: 9!) 2er father is a =ilipino citi>en( and so she is a =ilipino by virtue of jus
sanguinis3 :!) She is married to a =ilipino citi>en( ma*ing her a =ilipino citi>en ipso
jure( according to $ommonwealth Act CG;3 ;!) She renounced her Australian
citi>enship on ,anuary 9J( 9BB: before the .epartment of %mmigration and ?thnic
Affairs of Australia and her Australian passport was cancelled3 F!) 'he
aforementioned $8/?6?$ resolutions resolved the issue of citi>enship! "etitioner
states on the other hand that private respondent still considers herself an Australian
national( owing to several documents issued in 9BDD( including an Australian
passport( an %mmigration $ertificate of &esidence and an Alien $ertificate of
&egistration! 2e also contends that the act of renouncing done by the petitioner in
9BB: does not automatically restore =ilipino citi>enship!
b. ISSUE: W8< $8/?6?$ erred in declaring 6ope> eligible to run for public
office!
!. HELDA RATIO: NOB
"hilippines adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis, whereby a person0s
citi>enship follows that of his parents0 regardless of the place of birth( as opposed to
the principle of jus soli, which does just that! &espondent 6ope> was born in 9B;F( a
year before the 9B;J $onstitution too* effect( so the law in effect at the time was the
"hilippine Autonomy Act of 9B9C( which among other laws defined what a citi>en
was!
- "hilippine 7ill of 9BI:: inhabitants of the "hilippine islands who
were Spanish citi>ens on April 99( 9DBB and continued to reside in
the "hilippines( and any of their children born subsequent thereto!
- ,ones 6aw: all inhabitants of the "hilippine islands who were
Spanish subjects on April 99( 9DBB and resided on the islands and
their children born subsequent thereto are deemed to be citi>ens of
the "hilippines
5nder both laws( 'elesforo Ebasco (father of respondent) was a =ilipino
citi>en( and pursuant to the laws covering her at the time of her birth( so is
respondent! "roving her citi>enship as =%6%"%<8( she is thus ?6%+%76? to run for
public office!
J