The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. It ruled that while the petitioner complied with RA 9225 in reacquiring Philippine citizenship, his naturalization in Canada resulted in the abandonment of his Philippine domicile of origin. Further, he failed to prove that after reacquiring Philippine citizenship, he reestablished his residence in Uyugan, Batanes for at least one year prior to the election as required by law. The COMELEC's cancellation of the petitioner's certificate of candidacy for his false claim of residency was therefore proper.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. It ruled that while the petitioner complied with RA 9225 in reacquiring Philippine citizenship, his naturalization in Canada resulted in the abandonment of his Philippine domicile of origin. Further, he failed to prove that after reacquiring Philippine citizenship, he reestablished his residence in Uyugan, Batanes for at least one year prior to the election as required by law. The COMELEC's cancellation of the petitioner's certificate of candidacy for his false claim of residency was therefore proper.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. It ruled that while the petitioner complied with RA 9225 in reacquiring Philippine citizenship, his naturalization in Canada resulted in the abandonment of his Philippine domicile of origin. Further, he failed to prove that after reacquiring Philippine citizenship, he reestablished his residence in Uyugan, Batanes for at least one year prior to the election as required by law. The COMELEC's cancellation of the petitioner's certificate of candidacy for his false claim of residency was therefore proper.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. It ruled that while the petitioner complied with RA 9225 in reacquiring Philippine citizenship, his naturalization in Canada resulted in the abandonment of his Philippine domicile of origin. Further, he failed to prove that after reacquiring Philippine citizenship, he reestablished his residence in Uyugan, Batanes for at least one year prior to the election as required by law. The COMELEC's cancellation of the petitioner's certificate of candidacy for his false claim of residency was therefore proper.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
G.R. No.
209835, September 22, 2015
ROGELIO BATIN CABALLERO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JONATHAN ENRIQUE V. NANUD, JR.
FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud, Jr. were both candidates for the mayoralty position of the Municipality of Uyugan, Province of Batanes. Private respondent filed a Petition to deny due course to or cancellation of petitioner's certificate of candidacy alleging that the latter made a false representation when he declared in his COC that he was eligible to run for Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes despite being a Canadian citizen and a nonresident thereof.
Petitioner argued that prior to the filing of his COC on October 3, 2012, he took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the Philippine Consul General in Toronto, Canada and became a dual Filipino and Canadian citizen pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 9225. Thereafter, he renounced his Canadian citizenship and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation before a Notary Public in Batanes to conform with Section 5(2) of RA No. 9225. He claimed that he did not lose his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes despite becoming a Canadian citizen as he merely left Uyugan temporarily to pursue a brighter future and that he went back to Uyugan during his vacation.
The COMELEC First Division found that petitioner made a material misrepresentation in his COC when he declared that he is a resident of Barangay Imnajbu, Uyugan, Batanes within one year prior to the election. Hence, his COC was cancelled. It found that while petitioner complied with the requirements of RA No. 9225, however, he failed to comply with the other requirements provided thereunder such as the one year residency requirement provided for under Section 39 of the Local Government Code. Petitioner's naturalization as a Canadian citizen resulted in the abandonment of his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes; thus, having abandoned his domicile of origin, it is incumbent upon him to prove that he was able to reestablish his domicile in Uyugan for him to be eligible to run for elective office in said locality which he failed to do.
Elections were subsequently held and petitioner won.
In the meantime, private respondent prayed for the cancellation of petitioner's COC as well as for the issuance of writ of execution of the COMELEC’s Resolution regarding the findings of misrepresentation in petitioner’s COC. Hence, this petition for certiorari by petitioner.
ISSUE: WHETHER THE COMELEC EN BANC GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER ABANDONED HIS PHILIPPINE DOMICILE WHEN HE WORKED IN SEVERAL FOREIGN COUNTRIES FOR "GREENER PASTURE” RULING: NO. RA No. 9225, which is known as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 does not provide for residency requirement for the reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the concerned natural-born Filipino. RA No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of residence. However, when a natural- born Filipino with dual citizenship seeks for an elective public office, residency in the Philippines becomes material. The law provides that those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. Further, the Local Government Code requires that the candidate must be a resident of the place where he seeks to be elected at least one year immediately preceding the election day.
The term "residence" is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to
"dwelling" or "habitation," but rather to "domicile" or legal residence, that is, "the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi)." Petitioner was a natural born Filipino who was born and raised in Uyugan, Batanes. Thus, it could be said that he had his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes. However, he later worked in Canada and became a Canadian citizen. In Coquilla v. COMELEC we ruled that naturalization in a foreign country may result in an abandonment of domicile in the Philippines. This holds true in petitioner's case as permanent resident status in Canada is required for the acquisition of Canadian citizenship. Hence, petitioner had effectively abandoned his domicile in the Philippines and transferred his domicile of choice in Canada. His frequent visits to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacation from work in Canada cannot be considered as waiver of such abandonment.
Moreover, petitioner's retention of his Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 did not automatically make him regain his residence in Uyugan, Batanes. He must still prove that after becoming a Philippine citizen on September 13, 2012, he had reestablished Uyugan, Batanes as his new domicile of choice which is reckoned from the time he made it as such.
The COMELEC found that petitioner failed to present competent evidence to prove that he was able to reestablish his residence in Uyugan within a period of one year immediately preceding the May 13, 2013 elections. It found that it was only after reacquiring his Filipino citizenship by virtue of RA No. 9225 that petitioner can rightfully claim that he re-established his domicile in Uyugan, Batanes, if such was accompanied by physical presence thereat, coupled with an actual intent to reestablish his domicile there. However, the period from September 13, 2012 to May 12, 2013 was even less than the one year residency required by law. CERTIORARI DISMISSED.
