Coquilla v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Teodulo M. Coquilla, born in Oras, Eastern Samar, became a U.S. citizen in 1965 after joining the U.S. Navy. He visited the Philippines intermittently and, after retiring in 1985, continued to reside in the U.S. On October 15, 1998, he returned to the Philippines, obtained a residence certificate, but continued making trips to the U.S. On November 10, 2000, he took his oath as a Philippine citizen after repatriation under R.A. No. 8171. He registered as a voter on November 21, 2000, and filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Oras on February 27, 2001, stating he had been a resident for two years. Procedural History: Respondent Neil M. Alvarez sought the cancellation of Coquilla's certificate of candidacy, alleging material misrepresentation regarding his residency. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division ordered the cancellation on July 19, 2001. The COMELEC en banc denied Coquilla's motion for reconsideration on January 30, 2002. The Petition: Coquilla filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC resolutions.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the COMELEC retained jurisdiction to decide the case despite petitioner's proclamation. Whether petitioner met the one-year residency requirement for elective office.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The resolution of the COMELEC Second Division and the order of the COMELEC en banc are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Court held that petitioner's motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc was not pro forma. The COMELEC's finding that it was a mere 'rehash' was erroneous because a motion for reconsideration can and should discuss issues already passed upon to convince the court of its error. Therefore, the filing of the motion suspended the running of the period to file the petition for certiorari, making the petition timely filed. On the COMELEC's jurisdiction: The Court affirmed that the COMELEC retains jurisdiction to hear and decide cases for cancellation of certificates of candidacy even after the elections and proclamation of a winning candidate. R.A. No. 6646 mandates that proceedings for disqualification or cancellation of certificates of candidacy, initiated before an election, should continue even after the election and proclamation, unless the proclamation was suspended by the COMELEC due to strong evidence of guilt. On the residency requirement: The Court found that petitioner did not meet the one-year residency requirement. Petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras when he became a U.S. citizen in 1965. Until he reacquired Philippine citizenship on November 10, 2000, he was an alien without the right to legal residence in the Philippines. His visits as a 'balikbayan' under R.A. No. 6768, which granted visa-free entry for one year, did not waive his alien and non-resident status. Therefore, his residency as a Philippine citizen only began on November 10, 2000, which was less than one year before the May 14, 2001 elections. His voter registration did not preclude a challenge to his residency, and election laws should not be interpreted liberally to the point of disregarding mandatory qualifications.
Main Doctrine
A naturalized U.S. citizen who reacquires Philippine citizenship through repatriation cannot add his period of residency as an alien to meet the one-year residency requirement for elective office if such residency was not established with the intent to remain permanently in the Philippines. His status as a 'balikbayan' visitor does not waive his alien and non-resident status until he reacquires Philippine citizenship.