Altarejos v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Ciceron P. Altarejos was a candidate for mayor of San Jacinto, Masbate, in the May 10, 2004 elections. Private respondents Jose Almiñe Altiche and Vernon Versoza filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify Altarejos, alleging he was not a Filipino citizen and had misrepresented his residency status in his certificate of candidacy. They presented evidence, including a Bureau of Immigration letter, indicating Altarejos held a permanent U.S. resident visa and had obtained U.S. residency certificates. 2. Procedural History: The COMELEC, First Division, adopted the recommendation of its hearing officer to disqualify Altarejos, finding that his U.S. Alien Certificate of Registration and Immigration Certificate of Residence, along with a Bureau of Immigration letter, established his U.S. citizenship. The COMELEC ruled that his subsequent petition for repatriation under Republic Act No. 8171 was insufficient because he failed to prove he completed the required oath of allegiance and registration with the civil registry and Bureau of Immigration. Altarejos' motion for reconsideration, which included new evidence of his completed repatriation steps, was denied by the COMELEC en banc for being filed too late and for lack of merit, affirming the disqualification and cancellation of his certificate of candidacy. 3. The Petition: Altarejos filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the COMELEC resolutions. He argued that his repatriation was retroactively effective from the date of his application, citing Frivaldo v. Comelec, and that he was qualified to run for office. He also contended that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion. The Office of the Solicitor General moved for dismissal, arguing the case was moot because Altarejos was not prevented from running and his opponent was already proclaimed winner. The Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition, holding that while the COMELEC's affirmation of the disqualification was based on the evidence presented before it, the petitioner failed to prove compliance with repatriation requirements at the time of filing his candidacy, and the new evidence was submitted out of time.
Issue(s)
Whether the registration of petitioner's repatriation with the proper civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration is a prerequisite in effecting repatriation under Republic Act No. 8171. Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in affirming the Resolution of the COMELEC, First Division. Whether the citizenship qualification for an elective office applies at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy or at the time of proclamation and start of the term.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc dated May 7, 2004, affirming the Resolution of its First Division dated March 22, 2004, are AFFIRMED. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the prerequisite of registration for repatriation: The Court held that Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8171 clearly states that repatriation is effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines AND registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of Immigration. Therefore, in addition to the oath, registration with the civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration are prerequisites for effective repatriation. The Court noted that petitioner registered his Certificate of Repatriation with the Civil Registry of Makati City on February 18, 2004, and with the Bureau of Immigration on March 1, 2004, which were after he filed his certificate of candidacy but before the elections. On the COMELEC en banc's affirmation of the First Division's Resolution: The Court found that the COMELEC en banc could not be faulted for affirming the First Division's decision because the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence of compliance with repatriation requirements before the COMELEC. The necessary documents were only submitted with the motion for reconsideration, which the COMELEC en banc correctly ruled could not consider new evidence. The evidence presented before the COMELEC was insufficient to overcome the evidence presented by the private respondents. On the timing of citizenship qualification: Citing Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, the Court reiterated that the citizenship qualification for an elective office applies to the time of proclamation of the elected official and the start of their term. The Court also affirmed that repatriation, under laws like Republic Act No. 8171, can retroact to the date of the filing of the application, as such laws are often considered curative and retroactive in nature to benefit former Filipinos. Therefore, even if the registration was completed after filing the certificate of candidacy, if the repatriation retroacted to a date prior to the proclamation and start of the term, the candidate would be qualified.
Main Doctrine
The registration of the Certificate of Repatriation with the proper civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration, in addition to the taking of the Oath of Allegiance, is a prerequisite for the effective repatriation of a citizen under Republic Act No. 8171. However, the qualification of citizenship for an elective office applies to the time of proclamation of the elected official and the start of their term, and repatriation may retroact to the date of application.