Case: Regina Ongsiako Reyes v.

Commission on Elections
1. What is the Fundamental Power of State involved?
· The fundamental power of the State involved is police power because the case is
about the valid exercise of the power of the government to implement requirements
for foreigners to acquire citizenship in the country.

2. What was the Law/ Measure / Act Being Questioned?

 The act being measured is the declaration of Ongsiako as the Representative of
Marinduque despite not completely satisfying the requirements of reacquisition of
Filipino citizenship as provided in R.A. 9925.
 Section 17, Art. 6 of the 1987 Constitution which states that the House of
Representative Electoral Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election returns and qualifications of the
members of the House of Representatives.
 R.A. 9925 which implements the requisites before former Filipino can reacquire
Filipino citizenship. The law requires that the person must 1) take the oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the consul-general of the
Philippine Consulate in the USA, and 2) make a personal and sworn renunciation
of his/her American citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer
an oath.
3. What was the law seeking to achieve / address?
· R.A. 9925 is a naturalization law and is strictly construed against the person
applying for the naturalization. Being a citizen of a particular state is a privilege and
not a right, thus the person who wishes to reacquire his/her citizenship must satisfy
all the requirements provided in the R.A. 9925.
4. Did the petitioner comply with the requisites of judicial review?
· Yes, the petitioner complied with the requisites of judicial review. There is an actual
controversy which is the validity of COMELEC’s decision in cancelling the
petitioner’s certificate of candidacy despite being proclaimed and taking oath in the
House of Representatives. The case is ripe for adjudication because the petitioner
has exhausted all the administrative remedies when it filed a motion for
reconsideration but was dismissed by COMELEC and since it is assumed that
COMELEC has committed gave abuse of discretion. The petitioner also has legal
standing with her position in the House of Representatives being at stake in the
issue. The issue is also the addressed at earlies time possible because it was raised
the moment COMELEC en banc issued a certificate of finality declaring its first
resolution about cancelling petitioner’s COC final and executory. The lis mota being
the cancellation of her COC due to unsatisfied requirements of R.A. 9925.
5. How did the court rule?
 The Court ruled that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it
cancelled the COC of petitioner. Being a member of the House of Representative
requires, among others, that the representative is a natural Filipino. In the case,
 there was no showing that petitioner complied with the requirements of R.A. 9925
for she has not abandoned her domicile of choice in the US. Also, her service as
Provincial Administrator of the province of Marinduque from January 18, 2011 is
not sufficient to prove her one-year residency for she has never recognized her
domicile in Marinduque as she remains to be an American citizen. Further,
COMELEC has jurisdiction because Reyes is not a member of the House yet. To
be member of the House, the representative should have been proclaimed, taken
her oath, and assumed office. In this case, although Reyes has indeed been
proclaimed and had taken her oath, she has not yet assumed office. The
Constitution provides that the assumption of office is at noon on the thirtieth day
of June next following their election. Reyes has not assumed office yet, hence
COMELEC still has jurisdiction.
6. On which modality of constitutional argumentation did the Justices rely?

· The justices employed textual argument because it strictly construed the requisites
of naturalization in determining the validity of the petitioner’s citizenship. It also
employed structural because it recognized the power of COMELEC, an
administrative agency vested by the government to settle actual controversies
relating to elections.