Cardino v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Agapito J. Cardino and Rosalina G. Jalosjos both ran for Mayor of Dapitan City in the May 13, 2013 Elections. Jalosjos was proclaimed the winner. Cardino filed a petition for quo warranto before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), alleging Jalosjos was ineligible because she was a naturalized United States citizen who had not properly renounced her foreign citizenship before filing her Certificate of Candidacy (COC). Cardino contended that Jalosjos' Affidavit of Renunciation of her American citizenship, dated July 16, 2012, was falsified as she was physically in the USA on that date, making her ineligible to run for public office under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. 2. Procedural History: Cardino's petition for quo warranto was dismissed by the COMELEC Second Division, which found that the date on Jalosjos' Affidavit of Renunciation was a clerical error and that she had indeed personally appeared before Judge Veronica C. De Guzman-Laput on July 19, 2012, to renounce her American citizenship. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this dismissal. Cardino then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC's resolutions. The Supreme Court noted that the term of office in question had expired but proceeded to resolve the case due to the recurring nature of citizenship issues in elections. 3. The Petition: Cardino filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in upholding Jalosjos' eligibility. He insisted that Jalosjos' Affidavit of Renunciation was void ab initio due to the impossibility of her personal appearance on July 16, 2012, and that she therefore failed to comply with the requirement under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 to personally renounce foreign citizenship before filing her COC. Cardino also argued that the testimony of Judge De Guzman-Laput was biased due to a pending administrative case he had filed against her. Jalosjos maintained that the date was a clerical error and that she did appear on July 19, 2012, to renounce her citizenship. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the COMELEC's findings, finding no grave abuse of discretion and noting that a prior administrative case against Judge De Guzman-Laput also concluded the date was an honest mistake.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for quo warranto filed by petitioner Cardino; and whether private respondent Jalosjos validly renounced her foreign citizenship in compliance with Republic Act No. 9225 prior to filing her Certificate of Candidacy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and affirmed the resolutions of the COMELEC. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The term of the contested office had already expired, rendering the issue moot and academic; however, the Court resolved the case on its merits due to the potential for recurrence of the issue of citizenship litigation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's dismissal of the petition for quo warranto and the validity of Jalosjos' renunciation of foreign citizenship: The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The core issue was the validity of Jalosjos' Affidavit of Renunciation of her American citizenship. While the affidavit bore the date July 16, 2012, Cardino presented evidence suggesting it was physically impossible for Jalosjos to have executed it on that date, as she arrived in the Philippines on July 17, 2012, and was in the USA on July 15, 2012. Jalosjos, however, claimed that the date was a clerical error and that she personally appeared before Judge Veronica C. De Guzman-Laput on July 19, 2012, to execute and swear to the affidavit. The COMELEC Second Division and En Banc gave credence to the testimony of Judge De Guzman-Laput, who administered the oath, stating that Jalosjos personally appeared before her on July 19, 2012. The Court found no reason to disturb these factual findings of the COMELEC, which are supported by substantial evidence. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and that the findings of administrative bodies like the COMELEC, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally final and non-reviewable, especially in election matters where the COMELEC is presumed to be most competent. The Court noted that its own resolution in the administrative case filed by Cardino against Judge De Guzman-Laput also concluded that the date in the affidavit was the result of an honest mistake and not falsification. Therefore, the Court concluded that Jalosjos' Affidavit of Renunciation was not falsified but contained a clerical error. By executing the affidavit on July 19, 2012, she complied with Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225, which requires a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before a public officer authorized to administer an oath at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. This compliance allowed her to divest herself of her American citizenship and become eligible to run for the mayorship of Dapitan City.
Main Doctrine
A clerical error in the date of an Affidavit of Renunciation of foreign citizenship does not invalidate the renunciation itself, provided that the actual date of execution complies with the requirements of Republic Act No. 9225 and the affiant personally appeared before a public officer authorized to administer oaths.