[05.A.05.04] Reyes vs. COMELEC [G.R. No.

207264 June 25, 2013]

Congress: Electoral Tribunal

Petitioner: Regina Ongsiako Reyes

Respondents: Commission on Elections, Joseph Socorro Tan
Ponente: Perez, J.
Legal Action: Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction and/or Status Quo Ante

FACTS:
 On 31 Oct 2012, private respondent, a voter and resident of Marinduque, filed a petition before
the COMELEC to cancel the certificate of candidacy, for the position of the Representative of
Marinduque, of the petitioner on the ground that the COC contained material misrepresentations
as to her residence, citizenship, etc.
 Petitioner, in her Answer, noted that the allegation that she is a permanent resident and/or a
citizen of USA is not supported by evidence.
 During the course of the proceedings, the respondent, on 8 Feb 2013, submitted as “newly
discovered evidence” a copy of an article published on the internet with a database record of the
Bureau of Immigration indicating that the petitioner is an American citizen and a holder of a U.S.
passport.
 On 27 March 2013, the COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution cancelling the petitioner’s
COC on the grounds that she is not a Filipino citizen and that she failed to comply with the one-
year residency requirement.
 Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied in a COMELEC en banc Resolution
promulgated on 14 May 2013.
 On 18 May 2013, petitioner was proclaimed winner of the elections.
 On 5 June 2013, COMELEC issued a Certificate of Finality declaring the 14 May Resolution final
and executory. On the same day, petitioner took her oath of office before the Speaker of the
House of Representatives.

Issues Holding Ratio

Whether Yes, (1) HRET does not acquire jurisdiction over the issue of petitioner’s
COMELEC had COMELEC qualifications, as well as over the assailed COMELEC Resolutions,
jurisdiction over has unless a petition is duly filed with said tribunal. Petitioner has not
the case jurisdiction averred that she has filed such action.1

(2) HRET jurisdiction begins only after the candidate is considered a

Member of the House of Representatives.2 To be considered a
Member of the HoR, there must be a concurrence of the following: a
valid proclamation; a proper oath; and assumption of office.3

Petitioner cannot be considered a Member of the HoR because: she

has not yet assumed office which would have started on 30 June4;
and the purported oath which was taken before the Speaker of HoR
is not the same as the oath which confers membership to the HoR5

1 Ponencia does not mention the legal basis.

2 Section 17 Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
3 Vinzons-Chato v COMELEC, Aggabao v COMELEC, Guerrero v COMELEC, Limkaichong v COMELEC,

Gonzalez v COMELEC
4 Pursuant to Section 7 Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
5 Section 6, Rule II (Membership) of the Rules of the HoR – “Members shall take their oath or affirmation either

collectively or individually before the Speaker in open session.”

 insofar as there was no indication that it was made during plenary or
in open session.

Whether NO (1) COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules
COMELEC of procedure in the presentation of evidence.6 In view of the fact
committed grave that the proceedings in a petition to deny due course or to cancel
abuse of discretion certificate of candidacy are summary in nature, then the “newly
in taking discovered evidence” was properly admitted by respondent
cognizance of the COMELEC.
“newly discovered
evidence” (2) There was no denial of due process since the petitioner was
given every opportunity to argue her case before the COMELEC.
Petitioner had a period of 5 months to adduce evidence from the
date of filing of the petition up to when the First Division rendered a
Resolution. Also, in administrative proceedings, procedural due
process only requires that the party be given the opportunity or right
to be heard.7

Whether NO After respondent has submitted valid evidence which showed that
COMELEC petitioner is a holder of a US passport, the burden of proving her
committed grave Filipino citizenship and residency has shifted to her. Petitioner
abuse of discretion however failed to clear the doubt on such questions.
in declaring that
she is not a Also, considering that the petition for denial and cancellation of the
Filipino citizen and COC is summary in nature, the COMELEC is given much discretion
did not meet the in the evaluation and admission of evidence pursuant to its principal
residency objective of determining of whether or not the COC should be
requirement cancelled.

Whether there is NO The COMELEC did not impose the additional qualifications on
an imposition of candidates for the HoR who have acquired foreign citizenship. It
RA 9225 as an merely applied the qualifications prescribed by Sec 6 Art VI
additional Constitution that the candidate must be natural-born citizen of the
qualification to the Philippines and must have one-year residency prior to the date of
qualifications of a elections. Such being the case, the COMELEC did not err when it
Member of the inquired into the compliance by petitioner of Sections 3 and 5 of RA
HoR as 9225 to determine if she reacquired her status as a natural-born
enumerated in Sec Filipino citizen.
6 Art VI of the
Constitution

DECISION: Finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC, the petition was
DISMISSED, and the COMELEC En Banc Resolution which affirmed the Resolution cancelling the
petitioner’s COC was UPHELD.

6 Under Section 2 of Rule I, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure “shall be liberally construed in order… to achieve
just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the
Commission.”
7 As held in Sahali v COMELEC