REYES

 V.  COMELEC  (MR)  

G.R.  No.  207264.  June  25,  2013.  
 
Petitioner:  Regina  Ongsiako  Reyes  
Respondent:  COMELEC  and  Joseph  Socorro  B.  Tan  
 
Perez,  J.  
 
Summary  
  Tan   petitioned   for   the   cancellation   of   Reyes’   COC   for   the   position   of   Rep   of   lone   district   of  
Marinduque   on   the   basis   of   non-­‐fulfillment   of   citizenship   and   residency   requirements.   Comelec   first  
division  ruled  to  cancel  and  this  was  affirmed  by  Comelec  en  banc  resolution  on  May  14.  4  days  later,  
Reyes  was  proclaimed  winner.  She  took  her  oath  of  office  on  Jun  5  but  she  was  to  assume  office  only  on  
June   30.   Meanwhile,   Comelec   issued   a   certificate   of   finality   of   its   May   14   resolution.   Reyes   contends  
that  HRET  has  jurisdiction  over  her,  being  a  member  of  the  House,  not  the  Comelec.  SC  said:  (1)  HRET  
only  acquires  jurisdiction  when  an  election  contest  has  been  filed  before  it  and  here,  there  was  none;  (2)  
one  only  becomes  a  “member  of  the  House”  coming  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  HRET  when  he/she  has  
been  proclaimed,  has  taken  oath  of  office  and  assumed  office.   Here,  Reyes  had  not  yet  assumed  office.  
Finally,  even  before  she  was  proclaimed  winner,  Comelec  en  banc  resolution  finally  cancelling  her  COC  
had  already  been  promulgated,  so  that  must  be  given  effect.    
 
Facts    
• Petition  for  certiorari  with  prayer  for  TRO/injunction  and/or  Status  quo  ante  order  assailing  the  
resolutions   of   COMELEC   ordering   the   cancellation   of   her   COC   for   the   position   of   rep   of   lone  
district  of  Marinduque  
• Socorro   Tan   (Tan)   filed   before   Comelec   petition   to   deny   COC   of   petitioner   on   the   ground   of  
material   representations   herein,   to   which   petitioner   Reyes   countered:   (bale   contention   à  
counter)  
1. She’s  not  single  but  married  to  Cong.  Mandanas  of  Batangas  à  there  was  no  valid  and  
binding  marriage  due  to  absence  of  some  formal  requirements,  making  it  void  ab  initio  
2. She’s  not  a  resident  of  Marinduque  but  of  Batangas  where  her  husband  also  lives;  and  
also   of   QC   à   she’s   not   duty-­‐bound   to   live   with   Cong.   Mandanas   and   his   residence  
cannot  be  attributed  to  her  
3. Her  date  of  birth  is  not  July  3,  1964  but  July  8  1959  or  July  3  1960  à  Certificate  of  live  
birth  from  NSO  says  July  3,  1964  
4. She’s  actually  a  permanent  resident  of  the  US  à  not  supported  by  evidence  
5. She’s  actually  an  American  citizen!  à  not  supported  by  evidence  
• During  the  course  of  the  proceedings,  Tan  filed  motion  to  admit  newly  discovered  evidence:  an  
article  published  online  written  by  Eliseo  Obligacion  providing  a  database  record  of  the  Bureau  
of   Immigration   indicating   that   petitioner   is   a   US   citizen   and   holder   of   a   US   passport;   travel  
records  indicating  that  she  used  a  US  passport  in  her  travels  abroad  
• Comelec  first  division   à  cancelled  COC:  Reyes  is  not  a  natural  born  citizen  for  failure  to  comply  
with  R.A.  9225  (Citizen  Retention  or  Reacquisition  Act  2003)  (1)  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  
the   Republic   of   the   Philippines;   and   (2)   to   make   a   personal   and   sworn   renunciation   of   her  
American  citizenship  before  any  public  officer  authorized  to  administer  an  oath.  She  also  did  not  
have  the  1  year  residency  requirement  
• In  her  MR  Reyes  said  that  her  marriage  to  a  US  citizen  (case  did  not  say  if  it  was  another  man  or  
it  was  the  Congressman)  only  resulted  to  dual  citizenship  and  so  she  doesn’t  fall  under  RA  9225.  
 Still,  she  attached  an  Affidavit  of  Renunciation  of  Foreign  Citizenship.  As  to  residency,  she  said  
she  never  lost  her  domicile  of  origin  which  is  Marinduque  
• Comelec  en  banc  à  denied  MR  thru  resolution  promulgated  on  MAY  14,  2013.    
• Reyes  was  declared  winner  of  the  elections  of  the  May  13  elections  on  MAY  18,2013.  Comelec  
en   banc   resolution   became   final   MAY   19,   2013   (5   days   after   promulgation   of   decision   unless  
stayed   by   order   from   SC).   On   JUNE   5   2013   Comelec   issued   a   certificate   of   finality   of   their  
decision  since  SC  never  issued  order  restraining  it,  which  is  also  the  day  Reyes  took  her  oath  of  
office  before  Speaker  Belmonte  
• Reyes  has  yet  to  assume  office  because  the  term  officially  starts  at  noon  of  JUNE  30  
 
Issue/s  
• Comelec   has   jurisdiction   over   Reyes   who   was   already   proclaimed   and   has   taken   her   oath   of  
office  (implying  that  it’s  already  HRET  that  has  jurisdiction)?  YES  
• Comelec  committed  GADALEJ  in  receiving  newly  discovered  evidence  (which  became  the  main  
basis   for   the   denial   of   her   COC)   without   giving   Reyes   an   opportunity   to   question   them   and  
present  controverting  evidence?  NO    
 
Ratio  
 
ON   COMELEC’S   JURISDICTION   (IMPORTANT   ISSUE   ACCORDING   TO   THE   SYLLABUS,   WHICH   DID   NOT  
ORIGINALLY   INDICATE   THAT   THIS   CASE   WOULD   BE   RECITED   UPON   BUT   WHICH   THE   DEAN   DECIDED   TO  
ADD  ON  THESIS  WEEK  ANYWAY…  Haha  I’m  okay  J )    
• SC  says  Reyes  is  being  confusing  by  going  to  this  court  to  assert  that  it  is  another  tribunal  (HRET)  
that  has  jurisdiction  over  her  in  a  clear  attempt  only  to  enjoin  the  Comelec  from  implementing  
its  final  and  executory  judgment  
• But  anyway,  Comelec  retains  jurisdiction  for  the  ff  reasons:  
o HRET  does  not  acquire  jurisdiction  over  the  issue  of  petitioner’s  qualifications,  as  well  as  
over   the   assailed   COMELEC   Resolutions,   unless   a   petition   is   duly   filed   with   said   tribunal.  
Petitioner  has  not  averred  that  she  has  filed  such  action.  
o Jurisdiction  of  the  HRET  begins  only  after  the  candidate  is  considered  a  Member  of  the  
House  of  Representatives,  (based  on  Sec.  17  and  also  Marcos  v.  Comelec)  
• So  when  is  a  candidate  considered  a  member  of  the  House?    
o The  has  invariably  held  that  once  a  winning  candidate  has  been  proclaimed,   taken   his  
oath,  and  assumed  office  as  a  Member  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  COMELEC’s  
jurisdiction   over   election   contests   relating   to   his   election,   returns,   and   qualifications  
ends,   and   the   HRET’s   own   jurisdiction   begins.   (Vinzons-­‐Chato   v.   COMELEC,22   citing  
Aggabao  v.  COMELEC23  and  Guerrero  v.  COMELEC;  Limkaichong  v.  COMELEC;  Gonzales  
v.  COMELEC)  
o So   it   is   clear   that   to   be   considered   a   Member   of   the   House   of   Representatives,   there  
must   be   a   concurrence   of   the   following   requisites:   (1)   a   valid   proclamation,   (2)   a   proper  
oath,  and  (3)  assumption  of  office.  
o SC   clarifies   something:   in   some   cases,   this   Court   has   made   the   pronouncement   that  
once  a  proclamation  has  been  made,  COMELEC’s  jurisdiction  is  already  lost  and,  thus,  its  
jurisdiction  over  contests  relating  to  elections,  returns,  and  qualifications  ends,  and  the  
HRET’s   own   jurisdiction   begins.   However,   it   must   be   noted   that   in   these   cases,   the  
doctrinal  pronouncement  was  made  in  the  context  of  a  proclaimed  candidate  who  had  
 not   only   taken   an   oath   of   office,   but   who   had   also   assumed   office.   (like   in   the   case   of  
Dimaporo  v.  COMELEC)  
o Here   tho,   he   petitioner   cannot   be   considered   a   Member   of   the   House   of  
Representatives  because,  primarily,  she  has  not  yet  assumed  office.  To  repeat  what  has  
earlier   been   said,   the   term   of   office   of   a   Member   of   the   House   of   Representatives  
begins  only  “at  noon  on  the  thirtieth  day  of  June  next  following  their  election.”28  Thus,  
until  such  time,  the  COMELEC  retains  jurisdiction.  
o In  an  attempt  to  comply  with  the  second  requirement,  petitioner  attached  a  purported  
Oath  Of  Office  taken  before  Hon.  Feliciano  Belmonte  Jr.  on  5  June  2013.  However,  this  is  
not  the  oath  of  office  which  confers  membership  to  the  House  of  Representatives.  
o Section  6,  Rule  II  (Membership)  of  the  Rules  of  the  House  of  Representatives  provides:  
o Section   6.   Oath   or   Affirmation   of   Members.—Members   shall   take   their   oath   or  
affirmation  either  collectively  or  individually  before  the  Speaker  in  open  session.  
• More  importantly,  even  before  the  proclamation  of  Reyes  on  May  18,  Comelec  en  banc  already  
finally  disposed  of  the  issue  of  her  lack  of  citizenship  in  its  May  14  resolution;  and  the  assailed  
Resolution   of   the   COMELEC   En   Banc   which   was   promulgated   on   14   May   2013,   became   final   and  
executory  on  19  May  2013  based  on  Section  3,  Rule  37  of  the  COMELEC  Rules  
• We   will   inexcusably   disregard   this   fact   if   we   accept   the   argument   of   the   petitioner   that   the  
COMELEC   was   ousted   of   jurisdiction   when   she   was   proclaimed,   which   was   four   days   after   the  
COMELEC  En  Banc  decision.  
 
ON  THE  FINDINGS  OF  HER  INELIGIBILITY  FOR  THE  POSITION  (NON-­‐IMPT)  
• On   admitting   newly   discovered   evidence   without   confrontation   and   rebuttal—she   was   given  
every   opportunity   to   be   heard   during   the   5months   between   the   filing   of   the   petition   in   comelec  
first   division   to   the   rendering   of   its   resolution;   in   admin   proceedings   are   not   bound   by   technical  
rules  of  evidence  
• CITIZENSHIP  
o When   Tan   filed   the   petition   for   cancellation   of   COC   he   submitted   BI   records   showing  
that  Reyes  has  a  US  passport  and  that  her  status  is  that  of  a  balikbayan.  The  burden  of  
proof   then   shifted   to   her   to   prove   she’s   a   natural   born   citizen   or   that   she   reacquired  
citizenship   thru   RA   9225—she   submitted   no   proof   other   than   a   bare   allegation   of  
citizenship  
o She   says   she’s   a   dual   citizen   and   does   not   come   under   RA   9225   but   still   she   attached   an  
Affidavit   of   Renunciation   “if   only   to   show   her   desire   and   zeal   to   serve   the   people   and   to  
comply   with   rules,   even   as   a   superfluity”—in   doing   so   she   did   admit   that   RA   9225  
applies  to  her  
o The   footnote   to   her   oath   of   office   as   Provincial   Administrator   in   Marinduque   (she  
presented  this  oath  to  prove  her  residency  from  jan18-­‐july13,2011  when  she  served  in  
this   position)   said   that   even   prior   to   taking   oath   as   provincial   administrator,   she’s  
already  taken  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  reacquire  her  citizenship.  This  oath  was  attached  
only   to   the   present   petition.   Why   didn’t   she   include   this   in   evidence   at   the     earliest  
opportunity,   in   the   proceedings   before   the   comelec?   Was   this   also   then   an   admission  
that  she  indeed  lost  her  natural  born  citizenship?  
o And   the   oath   also   cannot   be   deemed   sufficient   compliance   as   it   did   not   comply   with  
Memo  Circular  AFF  04-­‐01  and  05-­‐002  and  Admin  Order  91  
• RESIDENCY  
o We  quote  the  ruling  of  the  Comelec  first  division:  Thus,  a  Filipino  citizen  who  becomes  
naturalized   elsewhere   effectively   abandons   his   domicile   of   origin.   Upon   re-­‐acquisition  
 of   Filipino   citizenship   pursuant   to   RA   9225,   he   must   still   show   that   he   chose   to  
establish   his   domicile   in   the   Philippines   through   positive   acts,   and   the   period   of   his  
residency   shall   be   counted   from   the   time   he   made   it   his   domicile   of   choice.   In   this  
case,   there   is   no   showing   whatsoever   that   [petitioner]   had   already   re-­‐acquired   her  
Filipino   citizenship   pursuant   to   RA   9225   so   as   to   conclude   that   she   has   regained   her  
domicile   in   the   Philippines.   There   being   no   proof   that   [petitioner]   had   renounced   her  
American  citizenship,  it  follows  that  she  has  not  abandoned  her  domicile  of  choice  in  the  
USA.   The   only   proof   presented   by   [petitioner]   to   show   that   she   has   met   the   one-­‐year  
residency  requirement  of  the  law  and  never  abandoned  her  domicile  of  origin  in  Boac,  
Marinduque   is   her   claim   that   she   served   as   Provincial   Administrator   of   the   province  
from  January  18,  2011  to  July  13,  2011.   But   such   fact   alone   is   not   sufficient   to   prove  
her   one-­‐year   residency.   For,   [petitioner]   has   never   regained   her   domicile   in  
Marinduque  as  she  remains  to  be  an  American  citizen.  No  amount  of  her  stay  in  the  
said   locality   can   substitute   the   fact   that   she   has   not   abandoned   her   domicile   of   choice  
in  the  USA  
• Comelec   is   given   much   discretion   in   the   evaluation   and   admission   of   evidence   pursuant   to   tis  
principal  objective  of  determining  w/n  a  COC  should  be  cancelled.  Mastura  v.  Comelec:  factual  
findings  of  administrative  bodies  will  not  be  disturbed  by  courts  of  justice  except  when  there  is  
absolutely  no  evidence  or  no  substantial  evidence  in  support  of  such  findings  should  be  applied  
with  greater  force  when  it  concerns  the  COMELEC,  as  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  intended  
to  place  the  COMELEC  —  created  and  explicitly  made  independent  by  the  Constitution  itself  —  
on  a  level  higher  than  statutory  administrative  organs.  
• Finally,   in   response   to   Reyes   contention   that   the   Comelec,   in   using   RA   9225,   added   to   the  
qualifications  in  the  Consti  for  HR  members:  
o The   COMELEC   did   not   impose   additional   qualifications   on   candidates   for   the   House   of  
Representatives   who   have   acquired   foreign   citizenship.   It   merely   applied   the  
qualifications   prescribed   by   Section   6,   Article   VI   of   the   1987   Constitution   that   the  
candidate   must   be   a   natural-­‐   born   citizen   of   the   Philippines   and   must   have   one-­‐year  
residency  prior  to  the  date  of  elections.  Such  being  the  case,  the  COMELEC  did  not  err  
when  it  inquired  into  the  compliance  by  petitioner  of  Sections  3  and  5  of  R.A.  No.  9225  
to   determine   if   she   reacquired   her   status   as   a   natural-­‐born   Filipino   citizen.   It   simply  
applied  the  constitutional  provision  and  nothing  more.