Republic of the Philippines

Commission on Election
Tacloban City Leyte, Region 8

Y, Election case: 123

Complainant,
-versus-
X,
Respondent,

MEMORANDUM

Respondent, by counsel unto this Honorable Office hereby files

her position paper and avers the following:

THE PARTIES
1. Complainant was one of the candidates for representative of 1 st
District of Leyte during 2004 elections and a resident of
Baranggay 84 San Jose Tacloban City.
2. Respondent was also one of the candidates and was elected for
representative of 1st District of Leyte during 2004 elections and
is a resident of Baranggay 13 Tacloban City.
3. All parties have the capacity to sue and be sued.

THE RELEVANT AND MATERIAL FACTS

4. X was born in 1960 to a Chinese migrant and a Filipina mother.

5. When X was nine years old, his father became a naturalized
Filipino Citizen.
6. X lived in the Philippines and was elected as a representative to
the lower house in the 2004 elections.
7. A day after X has been proclaimed, Y, his opponent, sought for
his disqualification before the COMELEC on the ground that X is
not a natural-born Filipino.

ISSUES
1.Whether or not X is a natural-born Filipino?
2.Whether or not X is disqualified to his position as a representative
in the lower house?
 DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS

1.Whether or not X is a natural-born Filipino?

X is a natural-born Filipino.
Article IV Section 1 of 1987 Constitution, the following are the
citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;
and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Natural born citizens are those who are citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or
perfect their citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed natural-born
citizens.

Section 15 of Revised Naturalization Act. Effect of the

naturalization on wife and children.Any woman who is now or may
hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might
herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the
Philippines.

Minor children of persons naturalized under this law who have been
born in the Philippines shall be considered citizens thereof.

A foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of

the naturalization of the parent, shall automatically become a
Philippine citizen, and a foreign-born minor child, who is not in the
Philippines at the time the parent is naturalized, shall be deemed a
Philippine citizen only during his minority, unless he begins to reside
permanently in the Philippines when still a minor, in which case, he
will continue to be a Philippine citizen even after becoming of age.

Section 15 of Revised Naturalization Act squarely applies its

benefit to him for he was then a minor residing in this country.
Concededly, it was the law itself that had already elected Philippine
citizenship for protestee by declaring him as such.

In Antonio Co v HRET, Courts interpret sec.1 paragraph 3

above as applying not only to those who elect Philippine citizenship
after February 2, 1987 but also those who, having been born of
Filipino mothers, elected citizenship before that date. It was intended
to correct an unfair position which discriminates against Filipino
women, as stated by Fr. Bernas in the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission that it would apply to anybody who
elected Philippine citizenship by virtue of the provision of the 1935
Constitution whether the election was done before or after January
17, 1973. The foregoing significantly reveals the intent of the
framers. To make the provisions prospective from Feb.3, 1987. It
must also be retroactive.
There is no dispute that the respondent mother was a natural
born Filipino at the time of her marriage. The issue is whether or not
respondent elected or chose to be a Filipino citizen.
Election becomes material because section 2 of Article IV of the
Constitution accords natural born status to children born of Filipino
mothers before January 17, 1973, if they elect citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority.
To expect the respondent to have formally or in writing elected
citizenship when he came of age is to ask for the unnatural and
unnecessary. The reason is obvious. He was already a citizen. Not
only was his mother was a natural born citizen but his father had
been naturalized when the respondent was only nine years old.
We also have jurisprudence that defines election as both a
formal and an informal process.
In the case of In RE: Florencio Mallare (59 SCRA
45[1974]), the court held that the exercise of the right of suffrage
and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of
election of Philippine citizenship. The private respondent did more
than merely exercise his right of suffrage. He has established his life
here in the Philippines.
For those in the peculiar situation of the respondent who cannot be
expected to have elected citizenship as they were already citizens,
Mallare rule should apply.
Again, in Antonio Co v HRET, the case of Jose Ong Jr. the court
held that the filling of sworn statement or formal declaration is a
requirement for those who still have to elect citizenship. For those
already Filipinos when the time to elect came up, there are acts of
deliberate choice which cannot be less binding. Entering a profession
open only to Filipinos, serving in the public where citizenship is a
qualification, voting during election time, running for public office,
and other categorical acts of similar nature are themselves formal
manifestations of choice for these persons.
 An election of Philippine citizenship presupposes that the
person electing is an alien or his status is doubtful because he is a
national of two countries. There is no doubt in this case that
respondent X being a Filipino when he turned twenty-one.
Any election of Philippine citizenship on the part of respondent
would not only have been superfluous but it would also have resulted
in an absurdity. When protestee was only nine years of age, his
father became a naturalized Filipino
Moreover, the respondent traces his natural born citizenship
through his mother, not through the citizenship of his father. The
citizenship of the father is relevant only to determine whether or not
the respondent chose to be a Filipino when he came of age. At that
time and up to the present, both mother and father were Filipinos.
Respondent X could not have elected any other citizenship unless he
first formally renounced Philippine citizenship in favour of a foreign
nationality. Unlike other persons faced with a problem of election,
there was no foreign nationality of his father which he could possibly
have chosen.
From the foregoing facts, laws and jurisprudence, it is undoubtedly
that X is a natural born Filipino citizen.

2. Whether or not X is disqualified to his position as a representative

in the lower house?
X is not disqualified to his position as a representative in the lower
house.
Article IV Section 1 of 1987 Constitution, the following are the
citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;
and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
X possesses all the necessary qualifications like age, voting, residence
requirements and particularly regarding his citizenship.
 PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is highly prayed that this Honorable Office
dismiss this case for lack of merit all other just remedies proper
under the circumstances are also prayed for.
Respectfully submitted. Tacloban City.

ATTY.____________________________
Counsel for the Respondent
Tacloban City
PTR NO. 12345/07/21/03 Tacloban City
IBP OR# 12345/07/21/03 Tacloban City
Attys. Roll NO. ______01/02/03
MCLE COMPLIANCE No. 1112221/12/11/03

VERIFICATION

I, ATTY._______________________, of legal age, and a

resident of _________________, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law hereby state that:

1. By way of a Special Power of Attorney, I have been duly

authorized by the accused-appellants to, among other acts,
prepare, sign and submit this Memorandum;

2. I caused the preparation of this same pleading in coordination,

consultation, and conformity with the accused-appellants, the
real party in interest; and

3. I and the accused-appellants have read the contents thereof

and the facts stated therein are true and correct, of our
personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of authentic
documents and records in my possession.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature,

this _______ day of ________, 2014 in Tacloban City, Philippines.

_____________________
Affiant
Competent Proof of Identity: IBP ID NO: ___________
 SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this ______
day of _______ 2014, in Tacloban City, Republic of the Philippines.

Doc No.
Page No.
Book No. III
Series of 2012

Copy Furnished

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village
Makati City, Philippines
Mail Registry Receipt No.: ______________ Dated:
_______________

EXPLANATION ON THE MODE OF SERVICE

Service of a copy of this pleading upon adverse counsel was done by

registered mail was made for reason of lack of personnel to effect
personal service and the distance between law offices of both
counsels.

ATTY. _________________________