ELECTION CASES SET TWO (2) | 2-SANCHEZ ROMAN

G.R. No. 112889 April 18, 1995

BIENVENIDO O. MARQUEZ, JR vs. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS and EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ
FACTS:
Bienvenido Marquez, a defeated candidate
in the Province of Quezon filed a petition for
certiorari praying for the reversal of the COMELEC
Resolution which dismissed his petition for quo
warranto against Eduardo Rodriguez, for being
allegedly a fugitive from justice.
It is averred that at the time Rodriguez filed
his certificate of candidacy, a criminal charge
against him for ten (10) counts of insurance fraud
or grand theft of personal property was still
pending before the Municipal Court of Los Angeles
Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, State of
California, U.S.A. A warrant issued by said court for
his arrest, it is claimed, has yet to be served on
Rodriguez on account of his alleged flight from
that country.
Petitioners subsequent recourse in Court
(in G.R. No. 105310) from the COMELECs May 8,
1992 resolution was dismissed without prejudice,
however, to the filing in due time of a possible
post-election quo warranto proceeding against
private respondent. The Court, in its resolution of
02 June 1992, held that the matter elevated to this
Court was a pre-proclamation controversy. Since
the private respondent had already been
proclaimed as the duly elected Governor of the
Province of Quezon, the petition below for
disqualification has ceased to be a preproclamation controversy.
In Casimiro vs.Commission on Elections
and Antonio vs. Commission on Elections, this court
held that a pre-proclamation controversy is no
longer viable at this point of time and should be
dismissed. The proper remedy of the petitioner is

to pursue the disqualification suit in a separate

proceeding.
Before the 11th May 1992 elections,
petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC for
cancellation of respondents CoC on account of the
candidates disqualification under Sec. 40 (e) of the
LGC.
Private respondent was proclaimed
Governor-elect of Quezon on 29 May 1992.
Forthwith, petitioner instituted quo warranto
proceedings (EPC 92-28) against private
respondent before the COMELEC.
ISSUE:
Whether private respondent who, at the time of
the filing of his certificate of candidacy (and to
date), is said to be facing a criminal charge before a
foreign court and evading a warrant for his arrest
comes within the term fugitive from justice
contemplated by Section 40(e) of the LGC and is,
therefore, disqualified from being a candidate for,
and thereby ineligible from holding on to, an
elective local office.
HELD:
Section 40(e) of the LGC (RA 7160) provide
that a Fugitive from justice in criminal cases here
and abroad are disqualified from running for any
elective local position.
It has been held that construction placed
upon law by the officials in charge of its
enforcement deserves great and considerable
weight
(Atlas
Consolidated
Mining
and
Development Corp. vs. CA, 182 SCRA 166,181).
However, when there clearly is no obscurity and
ambiguity in an enabling law, it must merely be
made to apply as it is so written. An administrative
rule or regulation can neither expand nor constrict
the law but must remain congruent to it.

Page 1

ELECTION CASES SET TWO (2) | 2-SANCHEZ ROMAN

The confinement of the term fugitive from

justice in Article 73 of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the LGC of 1991 to refer only to a
person who has been convicted by final
judgment is an inordinate and undue
circumscription of the law.
Unfortunately, the COMELEC did not make
any definite finding on whether or not private
respondent is in fact a fugitive from justice as
such term must be interpreted and applied in the
light of the Courts opinion. The omission is
understandable since the COMELEC out rightly
dismissed the petition for quo warranto on the
basis instead of Rule 73 of the Rules and
Regulations promulgated by the Oversight
Committee. The Court, not being a trier of facts, is
thus constrained to remand the case to the
COMELEC for a determination of this unresolved
factual matter.
G.R. No. 135083

persons with dual citizenship are disqualified from

running for any elective position.
Manzano was born in San Francisco,
California, USA and acquired US citizenship by
operation of the US Constitution and laws under
the principle of jus soli. However, he was also a
natural born Filipino citizen as both his parents
were Filipinos at the time of his birth. Judging from
the foregoing facts, it would appear that
respondent is both a Filipino and a US citizen a
dual citizen.
The Second Division then disqualified
Manzano as candidate for Vice Mayor of Makati
City.
Upon a motion for reconsideration, the
COMELEC en banc reversed the ruling of its Second
Division and declared private respondent qualified
to run for vice mayor of the City of Makati in the
May 11, 1998 elections.

May 26, 1999

ERNESTO S. MERCADO vs. EDUARDO BARRIOS

MANZANO and the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
FACTS:
Petitioner Ernesto S. Mercado and private
respondent Eduardo B. Manzano were candidates
for vice mayor of the City of Makati in the May 11,
1998 elections where Manzano won.

When he was still six (6) years old, his

parents brought him to the Philippines using an
American passport as travel document. His parents
also registered him as an alien with the Philippine
Bureau of Immigration. He was issued an alien
certificate of registration. This, however, did not
result in the loss of his Philippine citizenship, as he
did not renounce Philippine citizenship and did not
take an oath of allegiance to the United States.

The proclamation of Manzano was

suspended in view of a pending petition for
disqualification filed by a certain Ernesto Mamaril
who alleged that he was not a citizen of the
Philippines but of the United States.

It is an undisputed fact that when

respondent attained the age of majority, he
registered himself as a voter, and voted in the
elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998, which effectively
renounced his US citizenship under American law.
Under Philippine law, he no longer had U.S.
citizenship.

In its resolution, dated May 7, 1998, the

Second Division of the COMELEC granted the
petition of Mamaril and ordered the cancellation of
the certificate of candidacy of private respondent
on the ground that he is a dual citizen and, under
Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code,

Pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC

en banc, the board of canvassers, on the evening of
August 31, 1998, proclaimed private respondent as
vice mayor of the City of Makati.
Page 2

ELECTION CASES SET TWO (2) | 2-SANCHEZ ROMAN

understood as referring to dual allegiance.

Consequently, mere dual citizenship does not fall
under this disqualification. Unlike those with dual
ISSUE:

allegiance, who must be subject to strict process

Whether or not Manzano is disqualified

from the position for which he filed his CoC and is
thus disqualified from holding the office for which
he has been elected.

with respect to the termination of their status, for

candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if,
upon the filing of their CoC, they elect Philippine
citizenship to terminate their status as persons
with dual citizenship considering that their

HELD:

condition is the unavoidable consequence of

Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance.

conflicting laws of different states.

The former arises when, as a result of the

concurrent application of the different laws of 2 or
more states, a person is simultaneously considered
a national by the said states.
Considering the citizenship clause (Art.IV) of
our Constitution, it is possible for the following
classes of citizens to possess dual citizenship: (1)
Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in
foreign countries which follow the principle of jus
soli; (2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino
mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their
fathers country such children are citizens of the
latters country; (3) Those who marry aliens if by
the laws of the latters country, the former are
considered citizens, unless by their act or omission
they are deemed to have renounced Philippine
citizenship. Dual allegiance, on the other hand,
refers to the situation in which a person
simultaneously owes loyalty to two or more states.
While

dual

citizenship

is

involuntary,

dual

allegiance is the result of an individuals volition.

The phrase dual citizenship in RA
7160, Sec.40 (d) and in RA 7854, Sec.20 must be
Page 3