Caballero v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rogelio Batin Caballero and private respondent Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud, Jr. were candidates for the mayoralty position of Uyugan, Batanes in the May 13, 2013 elections. Private respondent filed a petition to deny due course to or cancel petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy (COC), alleging that petitioner falsely represented his eligibility to run for Mayor. The basis for this claim was that petitioner was a Canadian citizen and a non-resident of Uyugan, Batanes. Procedural History: The COMELEC First Division, on May 3, 2013, resolved to cancel petitioner's COC, finding that he made a material misrepresentation regarding his residency. The COMELEC First Division noted that while petitioner complied with Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003) by taking an Oath of Allegiance and renouncing his Canadian citizenship, he failed to meet the one-year residency requirement under Section 39 of the Local Government Code. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC En Banc on November 6, 2013. Consequently, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to set aside the COMELEC's resolutions, arguing that the COMELEC gravely erred in disregarding procedural rules regarding service of petitions and in finding that he abandoned his Philippine domicile. He contends that his reacquisition of Filipino citizenship and his nine-month stay in Uyugan prior to the election constitute substantial compliance with the residency law. The petition raises the issue of whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in canceling his COC despite his claims of compliance with citizenship and residency requirements, and procedural rules.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC gravely erred in disregarding procedural rules regarding the service of the petition. Whether the COMELEC gravely erred in finding that the petitioner abandoned his Philippine domicile. Whether the petitioner's reacquisition of Filipino citizenship and subsequent stay constituted substantial compliance with the residency requirement for elective office.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated May 3, 2013 of the COMELEC First Division and the Resolution dated November 6, 2013 of the COMELEC En Banc are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of service: The Court held that while the private respondent failed to strictly comply with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure regarding service, the COMELEC may suspend its own rules in the interest of justice and speedy disposition. The Court reiterated that election contests are imbued with public interest, justifying liberal construction of procedural rules. Since the petitioner was given a copy of the petition during the conference and was afforded the opportunity to present his defenses, he was not deprived of due process. The COMELEC's suspension of its rules was therefore justified. On the abandonment of domicile: The Court found that petitioner's naturalization as a Canadian citizen resulted in the abandonment of his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes. While RA No. 9225 allows for the retention or reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, it treats citizenship independently of residence. The Court cited Coquilla v. COMELEC stating that naturalization in a foreign country may result in abandonment of domicile. Petitioner's frequent visits during vacations did not constitute a reestablishment of domicile. On substantial compliance with residency: The Court clarified that reacquiring Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 does not automatically reestablish domicile in the Philippines. The candidate must prove that they reestablished their domicile of choice in the Philippines after reacquiring citizenship, with physical presence and an actual intent to remain. In this case, the period from petitioner's reacquisition of citizenship (September 13, 2012) to the election (May 13, 2013) was less than the one-year residency requirement mandated by Section 39 of the Local Government Code. His nine months of stay was insufficient to meet the legal residency requirement, and thus, he made a material misrepresentation in his COC.
Main Doctrine
A candidate seeking an elective office who is a natural-born Filipino citizen who reacquired or retained Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 must still comply with the residency requirement under Section 39 of the Local Government Code, as the reacquisition of citizenship does not automatically reestablish domicile. The candidate must prove reestablishment of domicile in the Philippines for the required period.