UP Law F2021 036 Caasi v.

CA and Miguel
PubOff Requirements for Public Office: Disqualifications 1990 Griño-Aquino, J.

SUMMARY
Merito Miguel ran and won as Mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan, but cases were filed against him on the ground
that, as a green card holder, he was a permanent resident of the US, and was thus disqualified under Section
68 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). The COMELEC and the CA (in a separate case) dismissed the
petitions against Miguel. However, the SC set aside the COMELEC and CA decisions, and ruled that Miguel’s
possession of a green card is conclusive proof of his status as permanent resident of the US; and that he did
not waive such status prior to his filing for candidacy. Thus, under Section 68 of the OEC, Miguel is
disqualified to run for elective public office, and his election thereto is null and void.

FACTS1
 Merito Miguel (“Miguel”) ran and won as Mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan in the January 18, 1988
elections. Two separate petitions were filed against Miguel, however:
(1) Petition for Disqualification [“DQP”] filed before the elections by Cascante, Catabay, and
Celeste, with the COMELEC; and,
(2) Quo Warranto Petition [“QWP”] filed after the elections by Caasi with the RTC.
 Under both petitions, petitioners averred that Miguel should be disqualified or removed from office
on the ground that he is a green card holder, and thus, a permanent resident of USA, not of Bolinao.
In support of this, petitioners relied on Section 68 of BP 881 or the Omnibus Election Code (OEC):
"SEC. 68. Disqualifications… 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 his answer to both petitions, Miguel admitted that he holds a green card, but denied being a
permanent resident of USA. He claimed that he obtained a green card so that he can freely travel to
the US to visit his children and for periodic medical examinations. He asserted that he is a permanent
resident of Bolinao, as shown by his voting in all previous elections, including the plebiscite for the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution and the May 18, 1987 congressional elections.
 [DQP] COMELEC: The COMELEC2 ruled in Miguel’s favor and dismissed the DQP. It ruled that
possession of a green card does not sufficiently establish that he has abandoned his residence in the
Philippines; on the contrary, his having voted in successive elections showed his intent to continue
residing in Bolinao.
 [QWP] RTC: With respect to the QWP, the RTC dismissed Miguel’s Motion to Dismiss.
 [QWP] CA: The CA reversed the RTC’s dismissal of the QWP. The CA held that, since the COMELEC
already ruled that Miguel meets the requirements for citizenship and residence, the RTC should
desist from further hearing the QWP, especially in light of the fact that decisions of the RTC on QWPs
under the OEC are appealable to the COMELEC.3
 Thus, petitioners for both the DQP and QWP filed Petitions for Review on Certiorari before the SC.

RATIO
W/N a green card is proof that the holder is a permanent resident of or immigrant to the US—YES

The SC defined the term “immigrant” as “a person who removes into a country for the purpose of
permanent residence.”

First, the SC noted that in Miguel’s “Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration,” which he filled
out in his own handwriting before his departure for the US in 1984, Miguel’s answer to “Length of

1
Please note that I underlined each of the characters’ names at the first instance that each appeared in the facts; dates, periods, and
article numbers (along with some emphasized facts) are in bold letters; and documents are in italics.
2
However, one commissioner (Commissioner Badoy, Jr.) dissented and stated that a green card holder is a permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign country. Miguel having admitted possession of a green card, it was incumbent upon him to prove that he had
waived his status in order to be qualified to run for elective office; since Miguel failed to do so, he must be disqualified.
3
Digester’s Note: So in a way, the CA is kinda applying the principle of res judicata.
Intended Stay (if permanently, so state)” was “Permanently.”

Also, on the green card issued, Miguel is clearly identified as a “Resident Alien.” At the back of the card, it
says that Miguel is entitled to “reside permanently and work” in the US.

∴ Thus, his application and the subsequent grant to him of an immigrant’s visa are conclusive proof
that he is a permanent resident of the US. He entered the US with the intention of living there
permanently and abandoned his domicile and residence in the Philippines.

[RELEVANT] W/N Miguel had waived his status as a permanent resident of or immigrant to the US,
prior to the elections on January 18, 1988—NO

The applicable law to Miguel is not Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers), Section 18 of the
1987 Constitution4, but Section 68 of the OEC (see Facts). Article XI, Section 18 is inapplicable because
Miguel acquired the status of immigrant before he was elected and not “during his tenure” as Mayor.

In light of Section 68 of the OEC, Miguel would be qualified to run for elective office, even though he was a
permanent resident/immigrant of another country, if he had waived his status as such before filing for
candidacy.

But there was no such evidence of his waiver of his status. His act of filing a certificate of candidacy for
Mayor did not constitute a waiver of his status—the waiver of his green card should be manifested by
some act independent of and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office. The waiver of such
immigrant status “should be as indubitable as his application for it.” Without such prior waiver, he is
disqualified to run for any elective office. (Another reason for his disqualification is that he resided in
Bolinao for only 3 months prior to the elections, when the requirement is at least 1 year.)

∴ Not having waived his permanent resident status of the US, Miguel is, therefore, disqualified to
run for Mayor of Bolinao; hence, his election thereto was null and void.

(As a last-ditch attempt, Miguel insisted that his sole reason in applying for a green card was merely for
ease of travel to and from the US. The SC had this to say: “In other words, he would have this Court believe
that he applied for immigration to the US 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.”)

DISCUSSION ON THE RATIONALE BEHIND SECTION 68 OF THE OEC

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.

FALLO || 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.

4
SECTION 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.