188

1
CO v. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and ONG
G.R. No. 92191-92 (199 SCRA 692)
July 30, 1991
Art. IV, Sec. 1. Citizenship; Paragraph 3; election of citizenship positive acts

FACTS:
Respondent Ongs grandfather, Ong Te, moved to the Philippines from China in 1895.
He established his residence in Laoang, Northern Samar. The father of respondent, Jose Ong
Chuan, was born in China but was brought to the Philippines by Ong Te in 1915. Jose Ong
Chuan spent his childhood in Samar and married a natural born Filipina, Agripina Lao, in
1932. The couple bore eight children, one of whom is respondent Ong.
The father of respondent, unsure of his legal status, applied for naturalization in 1954. In
1955, the CFI of Samar declared Jose Ong Chuan a Filipino and in 1957, allowed him to take
his Oath of Allegiance. At that time, respondent was 9 years old.
Respondent grew up in their house in Laoang, Northern Samar. Their house got burned
down twice and they always rebuilt a new on in its place despite the catastrophes. He went to
Manila to pursue higher education and passed the CPA Board Examinations.
In 1971, respondents full brother, Emil Ong, status as a natural born citizen was
challenged in the Constitutional Convention. Emil was declared a natural born Filipino.
In 1984, respondent registered himself as a voter of Laoang, Northern Samar. In 1987,
petitioners Co and Balinquit, together with respondent Ong, all vied for the position of
representative in the second legislative district of Northern Samar. Ong was proclaimed the duly
elected representative. Petitioners filed an election protest claiming that Ong was not a natural
born citizen of the Philippines and that he was not a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar.
The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) declared that respondent Ong
was a natural born citizen and a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar for voting purposes. The
HRET ruled as follows:
when protestee was only nine years of age, his father, Jose Ong Chuan became a
naturalized Filipino. Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Act squarely applies its benefit to
him for he was then a minor residing in this country. Concededly, it was the law itself that had
already elected Philippine citizenship for protestee by declaring him as such. (emphasis supplied)
Petitioners are herein questioning said decision by the HRET.

ISSUE:
Whether the HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling in favor of respondent Ong

HELD:
No.
The Court interprets Section 1, Paragraph 3 above as applying not only to those who
elect Philippine citizenship after February 2, 1987 but also to those who, having been born of
Filipino mothers, elected citizenship before that date.
The Court found that this should be made to apply retroactively and to make the
provision prospective from February 3, 1987 would be a narrow interpretation and would result
in an inequitable situation.
A Constitutional provision should be construed so as to give it effective operatio n and
suppress the mischief at which it is aimed, hence, it is the spirit of the provision which should

Prepared by: Krisppina Krissanta A. Caraan 1

prevail over the letter thereof.
Also, the Court held that the exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in
election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship. Ong, as the
Court ruled, did more than merely exercise his right of suffrage. He clearly established his life
here in the Philippines.
For those already Filipinos when the time to elect came up, there are acts of deliberate
choice which cannot be less binding. Entering a profession open only to Filipinos, serving in
public office where citizenship is a qualification, voting during election time, running for public
office, and other categorical acts of similar nature are themselves formal manifestatio ns of
choice for these persons. (emphasis supplied)

Other than the positive acts of establishing his life in the country (exercising right to
suffrage, having profession, etc.), the Court also found that respondent traces his natural born
citizenship from his mother.
The citizenship of the father is relevant only to determine whether or not the respondent
chose to be a Filipino when he came of age. At that time and up to the present, both mother
and father were Filipinos. Respondent Ong could not have elected any other citizenship unless
he first formally renounced Philippine citizenship in favor of a foreign nationality. Unlike other
persons faced with a problem of election, there was no foreign nationality of his father which he
could possibly have chosen. (emphasis supplied)

Petitions dismissed. Decision of HRET affirmed.

MAQUILING v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 195469
April 16, 2013
Article IV: Section 1Loss of Citizenship

FACTS:
Respondent Rommel Arando is a natural born Filipino citizen but was naturalized as a
citizen of the Unites States. Respondent then applied for repatriation under R.A. 9225 before the
Consulate General of the Philippines in San Francisco, USA at July 10, 2008. The same day an
Order of Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition and subsequently renounced
his foreign citizenship. The next year, Respondent filed his certificate of Candidacy for Mayor
of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. Another mayoralty candidate, Linog C. Balua, filed a petition to
disqualify Arnado or cancel his CoC. He supports his petition by contending his residency of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and that he is a foreigner, attaching thereto a certification issued by
the Bureau of Immigrationindicating his nationality as USA-American. They also presented
a computer generated travel record indicating that he has been using his US Passport. Armando
failed to answer petition but still garnered the highest number of votes and subsequently
proclaimed as the winning candidate for Mayor. After his proclamation, Arando filed his answer
1
presenting numerous pieces of evidence . Comelec first division dismissed Baluas petition
regarding his residency and citizenship since he did not present any evidence to support his
contention. But the court disagreed with Arnados claim that he is a Filipino citizen because of
his continued use of his US passport. Armando filed a motion of reconsideration that was
intervened by petitioner Maquiliing, another mayoralty candidate that garnered the second
highest votes. He argued that while the COMELEC first division correctly disqualified Arnado,
the order of succession under Section 44 of the Local Government Code is not applicable in this
case. Consequently, he claims that the cancellation of Arnados CoC and nullification of
proclamation makes him, Maquiling, the legitimate candidate who obtaine d the highest number
of votes as the winner. The COMELEC en banc granted Arandos Motion for Reconsideration,
hence, petitioner Maquiling filed this petition to assail this decision.

ISSUE:
Whether the COMELEC erred in declaring Arnado qualified to run for public office
despite his continued use of the US passport.

11. Affidavit of Renunciation and Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines dated 03 April 2009; 2. Joint-Affidavit dated 31 May
2010 of Engr. Virgil

Seno, Virginia Branzuela, Leoncio Daligdig, and Jessy Corpin, all neighbors of Arnado, attesting that Arnado is a long-time resident of
Kauswagan and that he has been conspicuously and continuously residing in his familys ancestral house in Kauswagan;

3. Certification from the Punong Barangay of Poblacion, Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte dated 03 June 2010 stating that Arnado is a bona
fide resident of his barangay and that Arnado went to the United States in 1985 to work and returned to the Philippines in 2009;

4. Certification dated 31 May 2010 from the Municipal Local Government Operations Office of Kaus wagan stating that Dr. Maximo P.
Arnado, Sr. served as Mayor of Kauswagan, from January 1964 to June 1974 and from 15 February 1979 to 15 April 1986; and

5. Voter Certification issued by the Election Officer of Kauswagan certifying that Arnado has been a registered voter of Kauswagan since 03
April 2009

Prepared by: FAJARDO, Reniel Kian 1

HELD:
Yes, the court erred in their judgment. It is of no question that Arnado took all the
necessary steps to qualify to run for a public office. He took the (1) Oath of allegiance and (2 )
Renounced his foreign citizenship and that by doing these acts respondent performed the
requirement needed for his to become eligible to run under Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 of the
Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003; He took the Oath of Allegiance twice
when (1) he applied for repatriation before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San
Francisco (2) By taking the Oath to the Republic, Arnado re-acquired his Philippine citizenship.
He became a dual citizensince he also possesses an American citizenship. After which,
renounced his American citizenship by executing an Affidavit of Renunciation thus making him
eligible to run for public office. His renunciation made him solely a Filipino citizen, regardless
of renunciation under the laws of the foreign country. But it does not end here, the citizen
performs positive acts showing continued possession of a foreign citizenship. Between April 3,
2009 9date of renunciation) and November 3, 2009 (date he filed his CoC), he used his forei gn
passport four times that run counter to the affidavit of renunciation he had earlier executed. His
using of his foreign passport positively and voluntarily represented himself as an American to the
immigration authorities. The renunciation of citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply be
professes at any time; it requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of foreign citizenship.
Even if the use of foreign passport is not the acts enumerated in Commonwealth Act No. 63
constituting renunciation and loss of Philippine citizenship, it nevertheless an act, which
repudiates the very oath of renunciation, required for a former Filipino citizen. When he used his
passport, he recanted his Oath of Renunciation.
The COMELEC en banc is correct in ruling that such act of using a foreign passport does
not divest Arando of his Filipino citizenship but reverted him back to his dual citizenship status.
It took place the instant Arnado represented himself as an American citizen by using his passport
and imposed on him a disqualification to run for an elective local position. By the time he filed
his certificate of candidacy, Arnado was a dual citizen and was qualified to vote but not qualified
to run under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. The citizenship requirement for
elective public office is a continuing one.
Petition is DENIED