You are on page 1of 3

Co v.

HRET

Summary: The petitioners come to this Court asking for the setting aside and reversal of a decision of the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). The HRET declared that respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born Filipino
citizen and a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar for voting purposes.

Facts:
In the May 11, 1987 congressional elections, Ong overwhelmingly beat Balinquit and Co for the representative
position in the 2nd district of Samar
Balinquit and Co filed election protests saying Ong is not a naturan born citizen of the Philippines and that he is
not a resident of the 2nd district of Samar
The HRET decided in favor of Ong

Issue: whether or not, in making that determination, the HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Held: NO
On the issue of JD
Court had no JD in questioning the decision of the HRET since according to the consti (Art. 6 Sec. 17 of the
1987 consti) the HRET and the SET shall be the sole (to mean exclusive) judges of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members
o The power granted to the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete and excludes the exercise of
any authority on the part of this Court that would in any wise restrict it or curtail it or even affect the
same.
When may the court inquire into the acts of the electoral tribunals under our constitutional grants of power?
--> In the exercise of the courts so-called extraordinary JD: upon a clear showing of such rbitrary and
improvident use by the Tribunal of its power as constitutes a denial of due process of law, or upon a
demonstration of a very clear unmitigated ERROR, manifestly constituting such GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
that there has to be a remedy for such abuse.
In Morrero v. Bocar: It comes in only when it has to vindicate a denial of due process or correct an abuse of
discretion so grave or glaring that no less than the Constitution calls for remedial action.
SC merely checks if any gov branch or agency has gone beyond its powers In the absence of a showing that
the HRET has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is no occasion for
the Court to exercise its corrective power;
There is a fear that the HRET may be biased because of partisan politics BUT this should not be depended
upon by judicial intervention when deciding if it has abused its power
In the case court finds no improvident use of power nor denial of process by HRET that would necessitate
the SC to use the power of Judicial review
On the issue of citizenship
The case narrated how Ongs grandfather (Ong Te) arrived in Laoang and basically set up his life there
business, residence, etc.. He was even able to obtain a certificate of residence from the then Spanish colonial
admin
Ongs father (Jose Ong Chuan) was born in China in 1905 and was brought to the Philippines on 1915 he
basically grew up as a Filipino. He learned Filipino values and practices, he was baptized into Christianity, and
even married a natural born Filipina, Lao
Since he was unsure of his legal status and in an unequivocal affirmation of where he cast his life and family,
filed with the Court of First Instance of Samar an application for naturalization on February 15, 1954 the
courts declared him a Filipino citizen on April 28, 1955 took his oath of allegiance a certificate of
naturalization was issued to him
o At the time of the oath, Ong was 9 years old
The home of the family in Laoang was gutted with fire twice, and they put up houses again twice
He lived in Manila for a while for his studies, and then for his work (in CB as an examiner)
o He frequently went home to Laoang tho
When his brother was elected as a delegate of the 1971 Con-Con, his status as a natural born was challenged
o So they removed the unequal treatment given to derived citizenship on the basis of the mothers
citizenship formally and solemnly declared Emil Ong, respondents full brother, as a natural born
Filipino.
Court on Art. 4 Sec. 1.3:
o as applying not only to those who elect Philippine citizenship after February 2, 1987 but also to those
who, having been born of Filipino mothers, elected citizenship before that date
o intended to correct an unfair position which discriminates against Filipino women and to treat equally
all those born before the 1973 Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship either before or
after the effectivity of that Constitution.
o (as seen in the deliberations of the 1986 Con-Comm) so it is curative in nature!
o Intent of the framers: To make the provision prospective from February 3, 1987 is to give a narrow
interpretation resulting in an inequitable situation. It must also be retroactive.
o in construing the law, the Courts are not always to be hedged in by the literal meaning of its language.
The spirit and intendment thereof, must prevail over the letter, especially where adherence to the
latter would result in absurdity and injustice.
o As said in JM Tuason: Our Constitution, any constitution is not to be construed narrowly or
pedantically, for the prescriptions therein contained, to paraphrase Justice Holmes, are not
mathematical formulas having their essence in their form but are organic living institutions, the
significance of which is vital not formal.
ThereisnodisputethattherespondentsmotherwasanaturalbornFilipinaatthetimeofhermarriage.Crucial
tothiscaseistheissueofwhetherornottherespondentelectedorchosetobeaFilipinocitizen
MaterialsinceelectionwouldgiveOngnaturalbornstatusunderthe1987consti
Tohaveexpectedhimtoelectcitizenshipwhenhecametoagewouldhavebeenunnaturalandunnecessary
sincehewasalreadyacitizen!!
o Motherisnaturalbornandhisdadisanaturalizedcit
o Also,hecouldnthavedivinedthatwhenhecameofagetheconstiwillbeamendedon1973and1986
andwouldrequirehimtohavefiledaswornstatementin1969electingcitizenship
o Thruhisacts,heisdeemedtohaveelectedcitizenship(ifhewererequiredtodoso) suffrage,
establishinglifeinPhilippines
ElectionofcitizenshippresupposesthepersonisanalienorwhosestatusisdoubtfulbutOngscasehasno
doubt
o ByvirtueofSec.15oftheRevisedNaturalizationactandhisfatherbeingnaturalized itsbenefitto
himappliessincehewasaminorthen
Petitionersthenattackcitizenshipofthefatherthroughacollateralapproachsayingheprematurelytookhis
oathofcitizenshipnotallowedandsinceheisdead,hecantbestrippedofhisnationalityanymore
SameissuewasdealtwithwhenhisbrotherEmilwaselectedtotheConCon
o They confirmed that their grandfather is a Filipino citizen based on the Philippine Bill of 1902!
(subjectsonthe11thdayofApril1989residinginislandsandchildren)
o Thedocumentaryevidence,minutesoftheConCon,thepetitionersallegeOngfailedtopresentwere
lostandthiswastestifiedbymembersoftheconcon
Ontheissueofresidence
ConCondelibsrevealthatresidencevisvisthequalificationsofacandidateforcongresscontinuestoremain
thesameasthatofdomicile(animusrevertendi)
o Inongscase,hehadeveryintentionofresidinginLaoangpermanently,eventhoughhehasno
propertytheretohisnameandevenifhestayedinmanilatostudyandwork
Dissent,Padilla
CourthasJD
o dutyboundtodeterminewhetherornot,inanactualcontroversy,therehasbeenagraveabuseof
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictiononthepartofanybranchorinstrumentalityof
theGovernment
o Thepresentcontroversy,however,involvesnolessthanadeterminationofwhetherthequalifications
formembershipintheHouseofRepresentatives,asprescribedbytheConstitution,havebeenmet
iftheHRETerredintheirdecision,thenanalienwouldbeseatedasacongressman
ForPadillaNOTanaturalborncitizen
o Under1935consti:onlythosewhosefatherswerecitizensofthePhilippineswereconsideredFilipino
citizens.ThosewhosemotherswerecitizensofthePhilippineshadtoelectPhilippinecitizenshipupon
reachingtheageofmajority,inordertobeconsideredFilipinocitizen
o HeisaChineseCitizen!! byvirtueoftheChinesecitizenshipofhisfatheratthetimeofhisbirth,
althoughfrombirth,privaterespondenthadtherighttoelectPhilippinecitizenship,thecitizenshipof
hismother,butonlyuponhisreachingtheageofmajority.
HRETsaidthatonlyadirectproceedingfornullityofnaturalizationasaFilipinocitizenispermissible,and,
therefore,acollateralattackonOngChuansnaturalizationisbarredinanelectoralcontestwhichdoesnoteven
involvehim(OngChuan).
o Ajudgmentinanaturalizationproceedingisnot,however,affordedthecharacterofimpregnability
undertheprincipleofresjudicata
o Section18ofCA473providesthatacertificateofnaturalizationmaybecancelleduponmotionmade
intheproperproceedingbytheSolicitorGeneralorhisrepresentative,orbytheproperprovincial
fiscalnaturalizationisaprivilege!!
o IfOngChuansFilcitisvoidfrombeginning,thenthenthereisnothingfromwhichOngcanderive
hisownclaimedFilipinocitizenship
Whatifheacquiredcitizenshipthruismother stillneededtobeelected electionmustbeexpress,not
impliedOngdidnotexpresslyelectcitizenshipuponreachingtheageofmajorityin1969

You might also like