CICERON P. ALTAREJOS vs. COMELEC, JOSE
ALMIE and VERNON VERSOZA
(G.R. No. 163256. November 10, 2004)
AZCUNA, J.:
Philippine citizenship is an
indispensable requirement for holding an elective public office, and the
purpose of the citizenship qualification is none other than to ensure that no
alien, i.e., no person owing allegiance to another nation, shall govern our
people and our country or a unit of territory thereof.
Private respondents Jose Almie Altiche and Vernon Versoza
filed to the COMELEC a petition to disqualify and to deny due course or cancel
the certificate of candidacy of petitioner on the ground that he is not a
Filipino citizen and that he made a false representation in his certificate of
candidacy that he was not a permanent resident of or immigrant to a foreign
country.
Petitioner
object that he did not
commit false representation in his application for candidacy as mayor because
he was already issued a Certificate of Repatriation by the Special Committee on
Naturalization, after he filed a petition for repatriation pursuant to Republic
Act No. 8171.
On the date of the hearing, the parties were required to
submit their Memoranda within three days. Private respondents filed their
Memorandum, while petitioner did not file one within the required period.
Petitioner, however, filed a Reply Memorandum subsequently.
Atty. Zaragoza,
Jr hearing officer of this case recommended that petitioner Altarejos be
disqualified from being a candidate for the position of mayor.
Petitioner points out that he took his Oath of Allegiance
to the Republic of the Philippines on December 17, 1997. In view thereof, he
ran and was even elected as Mayor of San Jacinto, Masbate during the 1998
elections. He argues that if there was delay in the registration of his
Certificate of Repatriation with the Bureau of Immigration and with the proper
civil registry, the same was brought about by the inaction on the part of said
offices since the records of the Special Committee on Naturalization show that
his Certificate of Repatriation and Oath of Allegiance have long been
transmitted to said offices.
ISSUE: When does the citizenship qualification of a
candidate for an elective office apply?
RULING:
In Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, the Court ruled that
the citizenship qualification must be construed as applying to the time of
proclamation of the elected official and at the start of his term. The Court,
through Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, discussed, thus:
Under Sec. 39 of the Local Government Code, (a)n elective local
official must be:
* a citizen of the Philippines;
* a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or
province x x x where he intends to be elected;
* a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the election;
* able to read and write Filipino or any other local
language or dialect.
* In addition, candidates for the position of governor x x x
must be at least twenty-three (23) years of age on election day.
From the above, it will be noted that the law does not
specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess
citizenship, unlike that for residence (which must consist of at least one
year’s residency immediately preceding the day of election) and age (at least
twenty-three years of age on election day).
Moreover, in
the case of Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, the Court ruled that the
repatriation of Frivaldo RETROACTED to the date of the filing of his
application. In said case, the repatriation of Frivaldo was by virtue of
Presidential Decree No. 725, which took effect on June 5, 1975. The Court
therein declared that Presidential Decree No. 725 was a curative statute, which
is retroactive in nature. The retroactivity of Frivaldos repatriation to the
date of filing of his application was justified by the Court, thus:
x x x
The reason for
this is simply that if, as in this case, it was the intent of the legislative
authority that the law should apply to past events i.e., situations and
transactions existing even before the law came into being in order to benefit
the greatest number of former Filipinos possible thereby enabling them to enjoy
and exercise the constitutionally guaranteed right of citizenship, and such
legislative intention is to be given the fullest effect and expression, then
there is all the more reason to have the law apply in a retroactive or
retrospective manner to situations, events and transactions subsequent to the
passage of such law. That is, the repatriation granted to Frivaldo x x x can
and should be made to take effect as of date of his application. As earlier
mentioned, there is nothing in the law that would bar this or would show a
contrary intention on the part of the legislative authority; and there is no
showing that damage or prejudice to anyone, or anything unjust or injurious
would result from giving retroactivity to his repatriation. Neither has Lee
shown that there will result the impairment of any contractual obligation,
disturbance of any vested right or breach of some constitutional guaranty.
Petitioner’s
repatriation retroacted to the date he filed his application in 1997.
Petitioner was, therefore, qualified to run for a mayoralty position in the
government in the May 10, 2004 elections.
