Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Main Issue #4 – W/N Abella, obtaining the 2nd highest number of votes next to
Larrazabal, should be proclaimed to have won the election NO
Abella states that the COMELEC wrongfully relied on the Labo and Frivaldo
cases because those cases were Quo Warranto cases while the instant case
Frivaldo vs. COMELEC the US District Court – California, duly authenticated by the Vice Consul of the PH in
Cruz San Francisco.
Frivaldo was proclaimed the governor-elect of the province of Sorsogon on
January 22, 1988. That Frivaldo became a US citizen isn’t denied by him. While the Court does not doubt
The League of Municipalities, represented by its president Estuye, also suing that Frivaldo was one of the enemies of the Marcos dictatorship, it cannot agree that
in his personal capacity, filed with the COMELEC a petition for the as a consequence of being an enemy, Frivaldo was coerced into embracing American
annulment of the election of Frivaldo as well as the proclamation, on the Citizenship.
ground that he was not a Filipino Citizen but was naturalized in the US in Plenty of Filipinos at the time were similarly situated as Frivaldo, some of
1983. them subject to even greater risk than he. These people did not find it
DEFENSES - Frivaldo admits to having been naturalized but raised the necessary to abandon their status as Filipinos, compared to Frivaldo who
defense that he had to be naturalized to protect himself from president took the oath that “I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
Marcos allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, etc.
o That he returned to PH immediately after EDSA to help the
restoration of democracy Nottebohm case is irrelevant as that case delat with a conflict between the
o Should be dismissed since it was, in reality, a quo warranto nationality laws of two states, decided by a third state. In this case, the sole question
proceeding which must be filed within 10 days from proclamation is w/n under Philippine law, Frivaldo is a citizen.
o The league was an improper party since it wasn’t a voter.
Against a motion filed by Frivaldo for preliminary hearing, COMELEC instead No repatriation – actively participating in the congressional elections did not
set a date for the hearing and trial on the merits. It was elevated to the SC repatriate him. That he automatically forfeited his US citizenship under US laws does
through a certiorari case. The SC issued a TRO and asked COMELEC to not change what the law of the Philippines on that matter. He became a stateless
comment as well as PR individual.
o The League of Municipalities reiterated their assertion that Frivaldo
was a naturalized American who did not have Philippine Citizenship Non-org of the Special Committee does not excuse him – otherwise it would allow
at the time of his election, he was therefore not qualified to run for all Filipinos who have renounced the Philippines to claim back their citizenship
and be elected. without formal adoption and reaffirmance of their allegiance.
Frivaldo’s arguments If he really wanted to become a Filipino again, he needs to acquire such
Frivaldo argues that he did not lose his Filipino citizenship because his status through an act of congress, naturalization, or repatriation. None of
application for naturalization in the US was not impressed with which he did.
voluntariness, citing the Nottebohm Case.
He says he could not have repatriated himself because the Special Argument on COMELEC’s tardiness is not well-taken – qualifications for public office
Committee on Naturalization had yet to be organized prior to the election are continuing requirements and must be possessed not only at the election but
His active participation in the 1987 Congressional Elections had divested him during the entire tenure.
of American Citizenship under US law. If any qualification is lost during the term, his title may be seasonable
Prescription of DQ case under the OEC challenged
SC: Why this question is relevant The fact that he received the highest number of votes also doesn’t really matter – the
Constitution says that all public officials and employees owe the State and electorate cannot amend the qualifications prescribed by law
the Constitution “allegiance at all times (XI-9)
LGC requires candidates to be registered voters and citizens of the PH Like a jealous and possessive mother. Once rejected, it’s not quick to welcome back
OEC requires qualified voters to be citizens with eager arms its prodigal if repentant children
Frivaldo’s COC states that Frivaldo is a natural-born Filipino. However, evidence Gutierrez Concurring – exception dapat tong case sa 10-day rule for Quo Warranto.
shows that he was naturalized as a US citizen in 1983, proven by a certification from Pag age, residence, or any other grounds, dapat 10-days after proclamation STRICT
Labo vs. COMELEC (1989) of the Philippines. This was penned by COMELEC chair Chigas. It found Labo to be a
Cruz Filipino citizen because the evidence that he married an Australian woman, obtained
Preliminary matters – Labo wishes that the court prevent COMELEC from an Ausstralian passport, and registered with the CID as an alien was mere conjecture
looking into his qualifications (as to citizenship) for mayor of baguio city on
the ground that the filing fees of 300 pesos for the QW case was not filed on The second decision was unanimously rendered by Chairman Miriam DS and 2
time. “Kingdom was lost for want of a horse” commissioners of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. This time, there
Labo was proclaimed the mayor-elect of Baguio City on January 20, 1988. was documentary evidence in the form of an Official Statement of the Australian
The petition was filed on January 26, 1988, but the filing fees were paid only Governement (1984) through its PH consul that Labo was still an Australian Citizen
on February 10 (21 days later) by reason of his naturalization in 1976.
o OEC - Labo argues that since the petition is considered unfiled
without payment of the filing fee, it should be deemed to have The 1982 COMELEC decision (1st admin decision) took the fact that he doesn’t deny
been filed late. (OEC 253 – 10 days from proclamation of the result) obtaining a passport, registering as an alien, and applying for an Immigrant Certificate
o COMELEC Rules – Labo also argues that under the Procedural Rules of Residence as Mistakes. SC disagrees – Petitioner is “not an unlettered person”
of COMELEC, no petition for QW shall be given due course til an
amount of 300 pesos is paid. Labo: I didn’t automatically become Australian when I married an Australian
Luis Lardizabal (PR) denies that the filing fees were paid out of time. In fact, SC: it doesn’t matter because the allegation was that he became an Australian by
he says, it was filed Ahead of the time. being naturalized through a formal and positive process. He even swore to be faithful
o Apparently, when Lardizabal filed his complaint on January 26, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second.
COMELEC treated it as a pre-proclamation controversy and
docketed it as SPC Case. No docket fees were paid although they Labo: dual national at worst, still ilipino
were offered! SC: specious argument under CA 63 which enumerates how to lose Philippine
Lardizabal argues na at that time, suspended yung running Citizenship including (1) Naturalization, (2) Express Renunciation of Citizenship, (3)
nung QW period under OEC-248 oath of allegiance to support the Consti or laws of a foreign country
At anyrate, the COMELEC Rules of Proc became effective All apply to Labo.
only on November 15, 1988, months after this issue (300 IV-5 Dual Allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall
pesos issue) be dealt with by law.
o It was only on Feb 8 when COMELEC decided to treat the petition
as one for Quo Warranto, redocketed it – Lardizabal only paid the Labo: marriage was annulled because it was bigamous
filing fee on that date. SC: That circumstance does not automatically restore his citizenship. The divestiture
Issue #1 – W/N late? NO – on time! of his Australian Citizenship does not concern us here. What matters is he lost his
Assuming that Res. 1450 was published (old one requiring payment), and Philippine citizenship freely and voluntarily.
Res 1996 took effect only on March 3, 1988 (new one for 300), on time pa Under CA 63, again, one re-gains one’s citizenship through direct act of
rin because the 10-day period to pay the fee was extended by the treatment congress, naturalization, or repatriation, none of which Labo did!
of the petition as a pre-proclamation proceeding w/c doesn’t require it. No showing of compliance with PD 725 on repatriation – apply and if
At any rate, the fee was paid. Any delay was not imputable to petitioner’s approved, take oath of allegiance to the RP
fault or neglect. As per Sun Insurance Office vs. Asuncion – court may allow
payment within a reasonable time. Hence Labo was not a citizen on the day of elections. He was not even a qualified
voter because he was an alien. Hence, he cannot be mayor of Baguio City. LGC – 42
SC decided to also answer the question on w/n Labo is a citizen based on the need requires citizenship
for an early resolution of this case, justified by – annex
On: the electorate
Issue #2 – W/N Citizen of PH? NO! Labo: thunderous majority, mere technicality vs. will of the people
There are two administrative decisions from which this controversy stems from. The
first is a decision by the COMELEC (May 1982) wherein it found Labo to be a citizen
SC: not that thunderous (2100 votes lang over next), besides, the people of
the locality could not have, even unanimously, changed the LGC
requirements and the Constitutional requirements na bawal alien
A lot of the voters probably thought na he was qualified to hold the office
he now holds.
The requirements are continuing ones – once any of them are lost during
the incumbency, title to the office is forfeited.
Issue #3 – W/N Lardizabal, as recipient of the 2nd highest number votes, is entitled to
the office? NO
He obtained only the second highest number of votes in the election.
Hence, he’s not chosen one.
Reversed the doctrine in Santos vs. COMELEC, go back to the rule in
Geronimo vs. Ramos (concepts in previous case) ‘
Annex – Why inanswer ang citizenship issue despite lack of contest by the parties
Most important question clearly and urgently affecting public interest
The facts and the legal propositions involved will not change, nor should the
ultimate judgment. Considerable time has already elapsed and, to serve the
ends of justice, it is time that the controversy is finally laid to rest
ñèt Sound practice seeks to accommodate the theory which avoids waste of
time, effort and expense, both to the parties and the government, not to
speak of delay in the disposal of the case
Gutierrez Concurring
Found SC’s discussion on citizenship troubling because there was yet to be
a COMELEC decision, order, or ruling to justify certiorari.
Particularly distressing since Labo had done a good job in the beautification
of Baguio City
Labo vs. COMELEC & Ortega (1992) another order directing the election registrar to personally serve the
Bidin summons. Hence, the delay in the resolution of the case can only be
(1992 this time, same Baguio City Mayor Office) Roberto Ortega filed his COC attributed to Labo and no one else.
for the same office (Mayor of the City of Baguio). Shortly after Labo filed his o When Labo finally filed his answer, he did not profer any evidence
own COC, Ortega filed disqualification proceedings before the COMELEC on to show existing facts and supervening events to justify moving
the ground that Labo made a false representation when he stated therein away from the earlier Labo decision.
that he (Labo) is Natural-Born Citizen of the PH Up to this point, walang evidence. Instead, Labo relies on Vance vs. Terrazas.
o Summons answer. Failed to answer. Motion to declare Labo in But this case was already deliberated upon in the earlier Labo case, so
Default… there’s no need to re-examine the same.
On May 4, the disqualification case was set for reception of evidence. At the Since no evidence, COMELEC can’t be held for GAOD in cancelling the COC
said hearing, Ortega presented the earlier SC decision declaring Labo to not and declaring that he isn’t a citizen.
be a PH citizen
May 9 COMELEC issued the assailed resolution – Labo’s COC is DENIED due #2 – OEC 72 is not a “legislatively mandated special repatriation proceeding”
course and ordered cancelled. First of all this was already repealed by Section 6 of RA 6646 talking about
May 9 parin, Labo filed a motion to stay implementation until he raised the the effects of a disqualification case If for any reason a candidate is not
matter before the SC declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is
May 10, COMELEC issued an order stating that the May 9 decision voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the
disqualifying him shall become final and executory only after 5 days from Court or the Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the
promulgation, as such, Labo may still be voted upon as a candidate on May action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any
11, 1992, subject to the final outcome of the case if elevated to the SC intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the
May 13, COMELEC issued an order suspending the proclamation of labo in proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong
the event he wins the elections for mayor of Baguio City So no doubt na COMELEC has that authority
May 15
o Labo filed a Petition for Review with the SC #3 – The application for reacquisition of PH Citizenship filed with the OSG pursuant
o Ortega filed an Urgent Motion for the Implementation of the May to PD 725 and LOI 270 has no effect
9 resolution Denied because of the appeal to the SC. Because application palang. Despite favorable recommendation by the OSG,
o Ortega then filed a petition for mandamus praying for the the Special Committee on Naturalization had yet acted upon said
implementation of the May 9 resolution (June 1) application.
Mere application.
Arguments
Labo argues that he was denied a trial on the merits as well as the lack of MANDAMUS CASE BY ORTEGA
opportunity to be heard in the earlier Labo case. Also, he says he can prove Ortega argues two things
his citizenship. Since the SC did not issue a TRO against the implementation of the COMELEC
o CID made no categorical finding as to his specific intent in resolution on May 9, it’s already final and executory
renouncing citizenship Since Labo is disqualified, Ortega, obtaining the 2nd highest number of votes,
o COMELEC erred in not allowing him to present a full-dress should be proclaimed the winner.
presentation of his case (1-day hearing, 2-day notice, no hearing
actually conducted) #1 - SC agrees with the first argument – the resolution is already final and executory
after the lapse of 5 days pursuant to OEC – 78 w/c makes it so unless the SC stays it.
APPEAL OF COMELEC BY LABO Final na by May 14. The fact that Labo was elected by a majority of the electorate is
#1 – DUE PROCESS NOT DENIED no moment.
Summons was issued as early as late march followed by a letter on April 1.
When Ortega filed a motion to hold Labo in default, the COMELEC issued
#2 – But again, the DQ of Labo does not necessarily entitle Ortega, receipient of the
2nd highest number of votes, proclamation as the Mayor of Baguio City
The fact remains that the sovereign did not choose him. Labo was
overwhelmingly voted by the electorate for the office of mayor in the belief
that he was then qualified to serve the people of Baguio City.
Repudiated by the electorate. A minor or defeated candidate cannot be
deemed elected to the office.
Some obiter na different scenario if the electorate knew about the
disqualification bec in that case, the electorate would have waived the
validity and efficacy of their votes by notoriously misapplying their
franchise or throwing away their votes. (??????) and by throwing / waiving
their votes, the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher number of
votes may be deemed elected
VICEMAYOR
As a consequence of petitioners' ineligibility, a permanent vacancy in the contested
office has occurred. This should now be filled by the vice-mayor, in accordance with
Sec. 44 of the Local Government Code, to wit:
Annex
Section 72 – Old effects of DQ cases - 2 Sec. 72. Effects of disqualification cases
and priority. — The Commission and the courts shall give priority to cases of
disqualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall
be rendered not later than seven days before the election in which the
disqualification is sought.
Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not
be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. Nevertheless, if for any
reason, a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be
disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such
election, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his
proclamation and assumption to office.
Frivaldo vs. COMELEC & Lee (1996) COMELEC 1st Division Frivaldo
Panganiban COMELEC en banc Frivaldo
The ultimate question in this case is who is the rightful governor of the Province of SC issued a TRO (1st Case)
Sorsogon
Frivaldo – obtained highest number of votes in 3 successive elections but As for the second case, the facts are the same. Frivaldo in this case is assailing the
who was twice declared by the SC to be disqualified as he was an alien, who following resolutions on the ground that they violate the OEC – 78
now claims to have reassumed his Philippine citizenship through Reso (2nd Div) DQing Frivaldo on the ground of lack of citizenship
repatriation requirement
Lee – second placer in the Canvass but who claims that the votes cast in Resos of En Banc
favor of Frivaldo should be considered Void, that those who voted for OEC 78 "Section 78. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate
Frivaldo this time should be considered as having thrown away their votes, of candidacy. A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a
and thus it’s him who had secured the most number of valid votes certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground
Deri – incumbent VG obviously not directed to the position of governor but that any material representation contained therein as required under
who, according to prevailing jurisprudence, should take over the said post Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later
pursuant to jurisprudence na VG if may permanent vacancy ehem previous than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of
case. candidacy and shall be decided, after notice and hearing, not later than
Spoiler alert it’s Frivaldo fifteen days before the election."
Frivaldo filed a COC for the position of Governor of Sorsogon in the 1995 o Basically, COMELEC has no JD because these were rendered later
elections. 3 Days later, Lee filed a petition @ COMELEC praying that Frivaldo than 15 days before the election. Frivaldo claims this is a
be disqualified from seeking or holding any public office or position by jurisdictional defect rendering the resos void.
reason of not yet being a citizen of the PH.
o COMELEC granted the petition and declared Frivaldo disqualified. #1 – On Repatriation
o MORE unacted upon so his candidacy continued (cause I guess The LGC requires that elective local officials be citizens of the PH. Under
filing a MORE stayed the decision) and his name could still be voted Philippine law, citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress,
for on the day of the elections. naturalization, or repatriation. In a previous case, Frivaldo told the SC that
o COMELEC en banc affirmed the division resolution disqualifying he tried to resume his citizenship by direct act of Congress, but that the bill
Frivaldo from running for office. disallowing him to do so “failed to materialize, notwithstanding the
Provincial Board of Canvassers completed the canvass of the election endorsement of several members of the HOR” due to “maneuvers of
returns. Frivaldo won with a 20k lead. political rivals”
Lee filed the aforementioned petition o Apart from the direct act of Congress, his attempt at naturalization
COMELEC en banc promulgated a resolution ordering the Provincial Board was rejected by the court because of jurisdictional, substantial and
of Canvassers to reconvene to declare Raul Lee as the winning governatorial procedural defects.
candidate. Lee was proclaime the winner. Three times already, Frivaldo obtained a landslide amount of votes over Lee
Frivaldo filed a new petition with the COMELEC after the proclamation of the winner (27,000 in 1988; 57,000 in 1992, and 20,000 in 1995). Twice he was DQ-ed
Petition for the Annulment of the June 30, 1995 proclamation of Lee duly- but not he comes to us boasting his repatriation under PD 725, with no less
elected governor than the Solicitor general himself, who was the prime opposing counsel in
Frivaldo argues that on June 30, 1995, 2 in the afternoon, he took his oath the previous cases he lost. Na 2:00PM vs. 8:30 PM PB-COM meeting to
of allegiance as a citizen of the PH after his petition for repatriation under proclaim Lee.
PD 725 filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization had been
granted. First
As such, when such order was released and received by Frivaldo, there was Lee: PD 725 had been effectively repealed when Pres. Aquino forbade the grant of
no more legal impediment to the proclamation of Frivaldo as governor! citizenship by PD or executive issuances
SC: not at all. Repeals are express or implied. Not express. Implied repeals not favored
unless clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist.
Just bec. may legislative powers si Cory nun doesn’t make it a legislative Issue #2 – Is Lack of Citizenship a continuing DQ?
enactment. Not every pronouncement of the Chief Executive under the Lee: the May 1 resolution affirmed by the en banc became final and executory 5 days
Transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution can nor should be regarded later on May 17. Hence there was already a final and executory judgment
as an exercise of her law-making powers under the Transitory Provisions. disqualifying Frivaldo. Lee also cited past SC cases of Frivaldo
What Cory did was leave it in the hands of the legislature. If she intended to SC disagrees: Indeed, decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship
repeal the same, she would’ve clearly said so! cannot govern a person's future status with finality. This is because a person may
subsequently reacquire, or for that matter lose, his citizenship under any of the
Second modes recognized by law for the purpose.
Lee: Serious Congenital Irregularities flawed the repatriation proceedings – approved
in just one day. Sudden reconstitution of the Special Committee on Naturalization
intended solely for the interest of the respondent. Issue #3 – Was Lee’s proclamation valid? NO
SC: presumption of regulariry. Just because the proceedings were speedy doesn’t SC: Fact remains na Lee was not the choice of the sovereign will. A second placer is a
mean they were tainted. PD 725 not difficult to comply with nor are they tedious and second placer. Furthermore, the “waiver/throwing-exception” in Labo does not apply
cumbersome especially considering na Frivaldo was a former NBC. in this case because there’s no evidence that the electorate of Sorsogon was fully
OSG also recommended the naturalization of 10 other ppl soooo. aware in fact and in law that Frivaldo was ineligible.
To remove all doubts, we hold na the repatriation of Frivaldo RETRO ACTED to the
date he filed his application all the way back in 1994! While the General Rule is that
laws are not retroactive, in this case, PD 725 is curative and remedial in nature
New right; new remedy – Filipinas who lost citizenship by marriage and who
cannot avail of existing repatriation laws til the husband dies.
Mercado vs. Manzano Issue #1 – Right to Bring Suit – meron
Mendoza In the present case, at the time petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Intervention
Mercado and Manzano were candidates for the Vice Mayorality of the City on May 20, 1998, there had been no proclamation of the winner, and petitioners
of Makati in the 1998 elections. The other candidate was Daza. purpose was precisely to have private respondent disqualified from running for [an]
o Manzano won with 103k votes. Mercado at a close 2nd with 100k elective local position under 40(d) of R.A. No. 7160. If Ernesto Mamaril (who originally
votes, and Daza with 54k votes. instituted the disqualification proceedings), a registered voter of Makati City, was
The proclamation of Manzano was suspended in light of a pending Petition competent to bring the action, so was petitioner since the latter was a rival candidate
for DQ filed by Mamaril who alleged that Manzano was not a citizen of the for vice mayor of Makati City
Philippines but of the US.
COMELEC – D granted the petition for DQ of Mamaril and ordered the Issue #2 – is Dual Citizenship a ground for DQ?
cancellation of the COC of the respondent on the ground that he is a dual DQ is being sought under LGC-40 (d) “those with dual citizenship”
citizen and, under 40(d) of the LGC, persons with dual citizenship are Dual Citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former is a result of
disqualified from running for any elective position. concurring application of different laws of two or more states (sanguinis and
o COMELEC says that Manzano admits to being registered as a soli). In the Philippines, Dual Citizenship is possible when
foreighner with the Bureau of Immigration but alleged that he is a o Fil parents born in a jus soli country
Filipino Citizen with both parents being Filipino. Manzano says he o Born in PH, of Fil mother and alien dad if by the laws of the alien’s
was born in the US and was thus considered an American Citizen country the anak is a citizen there
under US law. o Those who marry aliens if by the law of the alien’s country the
o COMELEC says that under the LGC, dual citizens are disqualified, former are considered citizens.
hence, Manzano’s COC was denied! Dual Allegiance, on the other hand, is a situation where a person
Manzano filed a MORE which remained unresolved even after the elections simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states.
were held. While DC is involuntary, DA is the result of an individual’s volition.
The Board of Canvassers tabulated the votes cast for Vice Mayor of Makati o Supported by the use of allegiance in the Consti and as Blas Ople
City, but suspended the proclamation of the winner. explains it - a dual allegiance - is larger and more threatening than
The MORE still being unresolved, Petitioner Mercado filed a Motion to that of mere double citizenship which is seldom intentional and,
Intervene but it was denied. The COMELEC en banc rendered its resolution perhaps, never insidious. That is often a function of the accident of
– reversing the division decision, thus, Manzano is qualified to run for Vice mixed marriages or of birth on foreign soil. And so, I do not
Mayor of the City of Makati in the 1998 elections. question double citizenship at all.
o Born in the US and was brought by his parents into the PH o DA can siphon national capital to nearby countries – some of the
registered with the Bureau of Immigration and with an American great commercial places in Taipei are Filipino owned. Capital
passport outflow!
o But this doesn’t change the fact that he was a citizen of the PH o DA became a larger problem when RP decided to re-establish
when he was born, and that the acts of his parents did not diplomatic relations with the PRC after which many Chinese-
renounce his PH citizenship Filipinos would go to Taipei and, perhaps merely as a festivity,
o In fact it’s undisputed that upon reaching the age of majority he renew their oath to a foreign government
registered himself as a voter and voted in the 1992, 1995, and 1998 Clearly therefore, in including IV-5’s citizenship requirement, the concern of
elections. This effectively renounces his US citizenship. Under PH the Con Comm was not with DCs per se but with naturalized citizens who
law, this means di na siya US Citizen. maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after
Pursuant to the Resolution of the COMELEC en banc, the Board of naturalization as Pinoys. DC AS USED IN THE LGC MUST BE UNDERSTOOD
Canvassers proclaimed Edu Manzano as the Vice-Mayor of the City of AS REFERRING TO DA!
Makati. o DC – for DCs, it should suffice if upon filing their COC, they elect
Certiorari to SC by Mercado Philippine Citizenship to terminate their status as persons with DC
since their DC status is an unavoidable consequence of Conflict of
Laws
o When a DC elects Philippine Citizenship, they swear allegiance to
the PH and terminate allegiance to the foreign country, thus
terminating their DC status.
Note na it doesn’t matter if the foreign country doesn’t
consider them as having lost citizenship when they
renounced their allegiance to them.
As per the LGC discussion between Sens. Pimentel and
Enrile, we are taking all this from a PH law viewpoint –
When a DC renounces all allegiance and fidelity to a foreign state, it’s similar
to that in the naturalization process - The determination whether such
renunciation is valid or fully complies with the provisions of our
Naturalization Law lies within the province and is an exclusive prerogative
of our courts. The latter should apply the law duly enacted by the legislative
department of the Republic. No foreign law may or should interfere with its
operation and application.
o i.e. may pake lang tayo sa law natin
On the other hand, private respondents oath of allegiance to the Philippines, when
considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his
education, practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in this
country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship.
Coquilla vs. COMELEC Issue #2 – W/N Coquilla had been a resident for at leasy 1 year before the elections
Mendoza were held on May 14, 2001 as he represented in his COC. He had not.
Coquilla was born of Filipino Parents in Eastern Samar. He grew up in Samar 39(a) of the LGC requires that an elective local official be a resident for at
til 1965 (27 y.o.) when he joined the US Navy, and was subsequently least 1 year immediately preceding the day of the election. The SC says that
naturalized as a US Citizen. He visited the PH only thrice and after his this should be interpretd not as a dwelling or habitation but rather a
retirement he stayed at the US. domicile or legal residence (permanent home, no matter where he may be
In 1998 Coquilla went back to the PH and took out a residence certificate found, wherein he intends to return and remain)
although made several trips to the US, the last of which took place on July In the case at bar, Coquilla lost his residence-at-birth by becoming aa US
6, 2000 and lasted until August 5, 2000 (1 month) Citizen. From then on, when he reacquired Philippine Citizenship in 2000, he
o Goods Repatriated - Subsequently, Coquilla applied for had been alien without a right to reside in the PH save as our immigration
repatriation under RA 8171, through the special committee on laws may have allowed him to stay as a visitor or as a resident alien.
naturalization. His application was approved on November 7, 2000, o Proof: US law requires residence therein to be naturalized. Hence,
and on November 10 he took his oath as a citizen of the PH since he was naturalized, we can conclude that he changed
Right after his repatriation, Coquilla applied for registration as a voter in residences.
Samar. This application was approved by the Election Registrar Board. Coquilla was only able to re-establish his Philippine residence in November
After registering as a voter, Coquilla filed his COC stating therein that he had of 2000, less than a year prior to the election and proclamation. The status
been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for at least 2 years. of an alien and of a non-resident can be waived separately
Incumbent mayor alvarez running for a re-election sought the cancellation of o NR – obtaining an immigrant VISA
Coquilla’s COC, on the ground that Coquilla had made material misrepresentations in o Alienness – naturalization, repatriation, act of Congress
his COC because he only actually resided there for around 6 months since November o In this case, in 1998, Coquilla entered the Philippines through RA
10, which was when he took the oath as a citizen. 6768 which was the Balikbayan program, allowing former Filipino
COMELEC left it undecided. Coquilla received the highest number of votes citizens who have been naturalized elsewhere to visit the country
(379 lamang lang). visa-free for a period of 1 year. Hence he only became a resident
The M-BOC proclaimed Coquilla as Mayor of Oras talaga when he already re-acquired his citizenship in November
However, a month later, COMELEC-D granted Alvarez’s petition. COMELEC ordered 2000.
the cancellation of Petitioner’s candidacy on the basis of: That he was a Registered voter is not conclusive. Nuval vs. Guray –
Frequent/regular trips to the US cannot be considered as a waiver of his registration as a voter does not bar the filing of a subsequent case
status as a permanent resident or immigrant to the US as would qualify him questioning a candidate’s lack of residency
to be within the residency requirement under LGC-39(a) DP not denied. Formal hearing not a requisite sa COMELEC
The 1 year requirement requires 1 year of actual residence where he seeks
to be elected. Disqualification – SC says that the COMELEC was justified in ordering the cancellation
of his COC for making a false representation of a material fact in the COC.
Issue #1 – W/N out of time? No. OEC 78 - Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.
Rule 19 Section 2 of the COMELEC rules of proc provide for a 5-day period A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of
to file a MORE. If it’s not pro-forma, suspended. candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any
In this case hindi naman pro-forma.the 16 page motion suffers from none of material representation contained therein as required under Section 74
the defects of a pro-forma MoRe hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-
o 2nd More five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall
o Doesn’t specify findings and conclusions contrary to law or not be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before
supported by the evidence the election.
o Failed to substantiate the alleged errors
Limbona vs COMEELC & Alingan Hence when Norlainie filed her COC, it produced legal effects and the withdrawal of
Nachura the same did not render nugatory the legal proceedings it had set in motion. Besides,
Petitioner Norlainie Limbona and her husband Mohammad Limbona each her filing a second COC in substitution of her husband puts her qualifications in issue.
filed a COC for Mayor of Pantar, Lanao del Norte. Mark Bobby Alingan filed
a disqualification case against the husband Mohammad before the That she was allowed to run as a substitute candidate does not mean na COMELEC
Provincial Election Supervisor (ProvES). Mark Bobby Alingan also filed a DQ can no longer decide on her qualifications to run. The bases for giving due course to
case against Norlainie Limbona. a certificate of candidacy are totally different from those of enunciating that the
o Both the DQ cases were premised on the lack of the 1-year candidate is not disqualified.
residency requirement and that neither of them were registered Also, Under the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (RA 6646) the COMELEC is
voters of Pantar. authorized to try and decide petitions for DQ even after elections. “If for any
Petitioner filed an Affidavit of withdrawal of her COC. After its approval, reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to
petitioner moved to have the case for her DQ dismissed. be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes
Come election day, there was no final list of candidates yet and so COMELEC in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and
resolved to move the election day. A special election was scheduled on July hearing of the action, inquiry or protest”
23 (from May 14)
COMELEC issued a resolution disqualifying Mohammad. At any rate, Norlainie did not meet the 1 year residence requirement. Residence as
o Norlainie then filed her COC this time as substitute for her husband used in the election law is synonymous with domicile which includes not only the
o Alingan then filed a DQ case against Norlainie on the same ground intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled
– lack of the 1 year residence required under the law. with conduct indicative of such intention.
Norlainie, being allowed by the COMELEC to substitute her husband, won
the election, took her oath, and assumed office. For purposes of election law, residence is mainly one of intention. As such, we follow
However, the COMELEC – 2D ruled that Norlainie was disqualified because the rules on residence
Norlainie became a resident only on November 2006 (mid-2007 palang), Person must have a residence
plus the fact na she wasn’t a registered voter in the municipality and the Remains established til a new one is established
nullity of her COC for having been filed at a place other than the Office of One domicile at a time
the Election Officer
o Domcile of Origin – Maguing, Lanao Del Norte where she was born In order to acquire a domicile by choice (Animus manendi + animus non-revertendi)
o By reason of marriage, Norlainie became a resident of Brgy. Residence or bodily presence in a new locality
Rapasun, Marawi City, where Mohammad was a Brgy. Chairman Intention to remain therein
COMELEC cited the family code in concluding that Intention to abandon the old one.
Norlainie resided in Marawi City.
COMELEC en banc denied Norlainie’s Motion for Reconsideration Norlainie’s claim that she had been physically present in Pantar for almost 20 months
Norlainie filed this instant case is self-serving and unsubstantiated because walang independent and competent
evidence to corroborate her statement.
SC – We dismiss the petition
Furthermore, we presume that Husband and Wife live together. Since it had been
The withdrawal of a COC does not necessarily render such Certificate Void Ab Initio. concluded that Norlainie’s husband only changed residences in November 2006, we
Once filed, its legal effects remain even after the certificate is subsequently assume na the same is the case for Norlainie since H&W live together in one legal
withdrawn. OEC 73 - The filing or withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy shall not residence as per FC 68, 69.
affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities which a candidate may have
incurred. DQ to run for failure to comply with the residency requirement BUT doesn’t entitle
Malik’s proclamation who came in 2nd during the special election – Vice Mayor shall
become the mayor in case of permanent vacancy (including failure to qualify!)
Caasi vs. CA The act must be independent of and done prior to the filing of COC
Grino-Aquino otherwise, he is disqualified!
Consolidated cases for the DQ of pr Merito Miguel for the position of No proof of waiver DQ
Municipal Mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan to which he was elected in January
18, 1988. The case was based on the fact that he was a Green Card Holder The law has laid down the clear policy of excluding from the right to hold elective
thus a permanent resident of the US public office those citizens who possess dual loyalties and allegiances and it has
Merito admits to being a green card holder but denied permanent residency reserved the privilege for its citizens who have cast their lot with the PH without
in the US. He says that he obtained the green card for convenience in order mental reservations or purposes of evasion.
that he may freely enter the US for his periodic medical exams and to visit The assumption being, those residing elsewhere are incapable of such entire
his kids there. devotion to the interest and welfare of their homeland.
o Voted in all past elections including ratification of the 1987 Even if what Miguel says is true, that he never had the intention to stay in
Constitution the US permanently, the court will not allow it to become a party to this
COMELEC dismissed the petitions on the ground that the possession of a duplicity, giving him the “best of both worlds”
Green Card does not sufficiently establish abandonment of Philippine
residence. COMELEC gave weight to the fact that he still votes therein Miguel's application for immigrant status and permanent residence in the U.S. and
o One commissioner (Badoy Jr) dissented – his possession of a green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he is
a permanent resident of the U.S. despite his occasional visits to the Philippines. The
OEC – 68, Disqualifications - Any person who is a permanent resident of or an waiver of such immigrant status should be as indubitable as his application for it.
immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office
under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws.
NB: Follow 2-year prescriptive period. The LGC of 1991, being a later act (OEC was
1985), should be followed. The legis is presumed to know effects of passing LGC 1991.
Apart from being later in time, the LGC is also the more special law because
it applies only to local government positions and not any public office.
Annex
OEC – 12 Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or
incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection,
Lingating vs. COMELEC As opposed to the Reyes case where the admin case was brought and
Mendoza became final during the original term during which the misconduct
Petition to set aside the resolution of the COMELEC en banc reversing the happened.
COMELEC-D. The en banc dismissed the petition for the DQ of Sulong as
candidate of Mayor of Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur, in the May 14, 2001 But the Reyes case cannot be applied to this case because the Sangguniang
elections Panlalawigan decision is not yet final. After the MORE by Sulong was filed, Lingating
o The petition filed by Lingating was grounded on DQ LGC-40(b) had yet to comment nor has the SP resolved the MORE.
talking about removal from office as a result of an administrative
case. It appears that Sulong had previously won as mayor of Hence, there is no decision finding Sulong guilty to speak of. Neither can the
Lapuyan in 1988, in 1992, and again in 1995 he was elected. succession of the then vice-mayor of Lapuyan, Vicente Imbing, and the highest
o Lingating alleges that in 1991, during his first term as mayor of ranking municipal councilor of Lapuyan, Romeo Tan, to the offices of mayor and vice-
Lapuyan, Sulong was charged with various offenses and the mayor, respectively, be considered proof that the decision in AC No. 12-91 had
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Sur found him become final because it appears to have been made pursuant to 68 of the Local
guilty of the offenses charged and ordered his removal from Government Code, which makes decisions in administrative cases immediately
office. Consequently, yung Vice Mayor ang tumapos. executory.
Sulong denies the finality of the admin case. He says that
he filed a MORE for the same and Lingating was asked to
comment which he failed to do so, thus, pending pa rin!
Election was conducted and Sulong won by some 1200 votes over Lingating.
The Municipal BOC proclaimed Sulong as Mayor of Lapuyan, ZDS.
COMELEC-D declared Sulong disqualified, seeing as the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan resolution had attained finality
o MORE based on a certificate from the provincial secretary that the
decision in the admin case had not yet become final and executory
o Lingating opposed the MORE – Governor had already ordered
enforcement of his removal, Sulong even filed a usurpation of
office case vs. the vice-mayor!
COMELEC-EB reversed the division, holding that Sulong was qualified. “said
provision no longer applies if the candidate whose qualification is
questioned got re-elected to another term. In Aguinaldo vs. Santos, 212
SCRA 768, the Supreme Court ruled that re-election renders an
administrative case moot and academic.” AGUINALDO DOCTRINE
o Tantamount to a condonation of the SP decision finding him guilty
Lingating contends that Aguinaldo vs. Santos doesn’t apply. What instead applies is
the Sc ruling in Reyes vs. COMELEC wherein it was held that an elective local executive
official, removed before the expiration of his term, is DQ from being a candidate for
a local elective position under LGC-40(b)
In the reyes case, the rationale of Aguinaldo was explained to be that
removal does not extend beyond the term during which the alleged
misconduct was committed. Hence, a public official not removed before his
term of office expires, he can no longer be removed if he is thereafter re-
elected for another term.
Flores vs. Drilon (Exec Sec) President as head of the economic and planning agency; the Vice-President, who may
Bellosillo be appointed Member of the Cabinet; and, a member of Congress who may be
Mayor Gordon of Olongapo City was appointed as Chairman and Chief designated ex officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council.
Executive officer (CEO) of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). RA
7227, the Bases Conversion and Development Act is being challenged in this Gordon: SBMA posts are merely ex-officio for the position of Mayor of Olongapo City
case. SC: wrong premise. Congress did not make the SBMA post an ex-officio post or one
o RA 7227 states that the president shall appoint a professional automatically attached to the Office of the Mayor of Olongapo City without need of
manager as admin of the Subic Authority. Provided, that for the 1st appointment. The phrase “shall be appointed” unquestionably shows the intent to
year of its operations from the effectivity of this act, the mayor of make the subject positions appointive.
Olongapo City shall be appointed as the chairman and chief Senate Deliberations show na Senators were aware na baka ma-strike down
executive officer of the Subic Authority through IX-B-7 but they left the matter to the courts.
Petitioner taxpayers and employees of the US Facility in Zambales argue that Senate deliberations ignored the suggestion of Senator Saguisag to change
this section (13-d) violate the Constitutional Provision IX-B-7 that “no it so that the Mayor shall be the chairman in order to foreclose the IX-B-7
elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any issue.
capacity to any public office or position during his tenure”
o They also cited VII-16 which states that the president shall appoint Issue #2 – W/N it encroaches upon the president’s power to appoint?
from those allowed by law eh the OEC disallows it raw as an Appointment refers to the designation of a person by the person or persons
election offense (???) having authority therefor, to discharge the duties of some office or trust, or
Issue: W/N the last part of Section 13(d) of RA 7227 violates IX-B-7 the selection or designation of a person to fill in an office or function.
Concerning that appointment comes with the selection, it necessarily
IX-B-7 discussion comes with discretion.
This prohibition expresses the policy against the concerntration of power in Hence, when congress gives the power to appoint, it cannot, at the same
one person, so that the delivery of public services remain efficient, public time, limit the choice of the president to only one candidate.
office being a full-time job. o It’s a manifest abuse of congressional authority to prescribe
qualifications where only one person can qualify.
Issue #1 – W/N RA 7227 violates IX-B-7? YES
The law directs the president to appoint an elective official to another How 2 fix – resign from elective position. The ineligibility extends only for the tenure
governmental post. That Mayor Gordon’s expertise be proper for the of the official and not his term, such that resignation terminates the disqualification
position is of no moment.
It’s argued na the LGC allows the appointment of local elective officials to Effect – when Gordon was appointed, he did not automatically forfeit his elective
another post if allowed by law but pointless argument since Consti > statute position nor remove his ineligibility imposed by the Consti. Since an incumbent
elective official is not eligible to the appointive position, his appointment cannot be
In any case, the view that an elective official may be appointed to another post if valid in view of his disqualification
allowed by law or by the primary functions of his office, ignores the clear-cut As opposed to the rule for Congressmen under VI-13. The difference
difference in the wording of the two (2) paragraphs of Sec. 7, Art. between the two provisions is significant in the sense that incumbent
national legislators lose their elective posts only after they have been
IX-B, of the Constitution. While the second paragraph authorizes holding of multiple appointed to another government office, while other incumbent elective
offices by an appointive official when allowed by law or by the primary functions of officials must first resign their posts before they can be appointed, thus
his position, running the risk of losing the elective post as well as not being appointed to
the other post. It is therefore clear that ineligibility is not directly related
The first paragraph appears to be more stringent by not providing any exception to with forfeiture of office
the rule against appointment or designation of an elective official to the government
post, except as are particularly recognized in the Constitution itself, e.g., the
NB: his acts weren’t invalidated. He was deemed a de facto officer – one whose acts,
though not those of a lawful officer, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold
valid so far as they involve the interest of public and third persons.
Applying this to the instant case, Garvida was born on June 11, 1974. On March 16,
1996, the day she registered as voter for the May 6, 1996 elections, Garvida was
already 21 years and 9 months old. On the day of the election, Garvida was 21 years
and 11 months, and 5 days old. On the day she took office, she was merely 10 days
away from turning 22.
While she was qualified to be a member of the Katipunan ng Kabataan
(remember na walang “on the day of election”), she was definitely over the
limit for elective SK officials.
Extra: Garvida’s ineligibility does not automatically give Sales the right to be declared
the winner.
435 only applies when the elected member refuses, fails to qualify, is
convicted, resigns, dies, or is incapacitated.
o Age: eligibility / capability of being chosen. Inelegibility or the lack
of eligibility does not fall under 435
Extra: to avoid Hiatus, Court ordered that the vacancy be filled in by the SK member
chosen by the incumbent SK members of the barangay San Lorenzo
Risos-Vidal vs. COMELEC Pet also cites LGC-40 and OEC-12, that Plunder is both punishable by a year
Leonardo-De Castro and involves moral turpitude.
o OEC-12 exception doesn’t apply raw pag conditional pardon lang.
In September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted former President Estrada for RPC 36 – Pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public
the crime of plunder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua office, or the right of suffrage.
and the accessory penalties of civil interdiction during the period of sentence and RPC 41 – Reclusion P/T includes perpetual absolute disqualification w/c the
perpetual absolute disqualification. offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty
On October 25, 2007, however, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo extended
executive clemency, by way of pardon, to former President Estrada, explicitly stating HELD
that he is restored to his civil and political rights. Held:
Note that the whereas clauses included Estrada publicly committing to no
longer seek any elective position or office. Yes. Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that fully restored all his civil and
political rights, which naturally includes the right to seek public elective office, the
In 2009, Estrada filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of President. None of focal point of this controversy. The wording of the pardon extended to former
the 3 disqualification cases against him prospered. The COMELEC stated that the President Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and unqualified. It is likewise
pardon granted to him restored his right to vote and be voted for in public office. unfettered by Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code. The only reasonable,
However, he only placed second in the results. objective, and constitutional interpretation of the language of the pardon is that the
same in fact conforms to Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
In 2012, Estrada once more ventured into the political arena, and filed a Certificate
of Candidacy, this time vying for a local elective post, that of the Mayor of the City of It is insisted that, since a textual examination of the pardon given to and accepted by
Manila. former President Estrada does not actually specify which political right is restored, it
could be inferred that former President Arroyo did not deliberately intend to restore
Petitioner Risos-Vidal filed a Petition for Disqualification against Estrada before the former President Estrada’s rights of suffrage and to hold public office, orto otherwise
Comelec stating that Estrada is disqualified to run for public office because of his remit the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. Even if her intention was the
conviction for plunder sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua contrary, the same cannot be upheld based on the pardon’s text.
with perpetual absolute disqualification. Petitioner relied on Section 40 of the Local
Government Code (LGC), in relation to Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code I. The pardoning power of the President cannot be limited by legislative action.
(OEC), regarding DQ on the basis of committing crimes involving moral turpitude
The 1987 Constitution, specifically Section 19 of Article VII and Section 5 of Article IX-
The Comelec dismissed the petition for disqualification holding that President C, provides that the President of the Philippines possesses the power to grant
Estrada’s right to seek public office has been effectively restored by the pardon pardons, along with other acts of executive clemency, to wit:
vested upon him by former President Gloria M. Arroyo.
Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this
While appeal to the SC was pending, Estrada won the mayoralty race in May 13, 2013 Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and
elections. Alfredo Lim, who garnered the second highest votes, intervened and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
sought to disqualify Estrada for the same ground as the contention of Risos-Vidal and
praying that he be proclaimed as Mayor of Manila. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of
all the Members of the Congress.
Arguments
Petitioner argues that the pardon granted was conditional as evidence by xxxx
the fact that Estrada had to accept the third whereas clause referring to
non-seeking of public office.
Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of against the conclusion that former President Estrada’s rights to suffrage and to seek
election laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by the President without the public elective office have been restored.
favorable recommendation of the Commission.
This is especially true as the pardon itself does not explicitly impose a condition or
It is apparent from the foregoing constitutional provisions that the only instances in limitation, considering the unqualified use of the term "civil and political rights"as
which the President may not extend pardon remain to be in: (1) impeachment cases; being restored. Jurisprudence educates that a preamble is not an essential part of an
(2) cases that have not yet resulted in a final conviction; and (3) cases involving act as it is an introductory or preparatory clause that explains the reasons for the
violations of election laws, rules and regulations in which there was no favorable enactment, usually introduced by the word "whereas." Whereas clauses do not form
recommendation coming from the COMELEC. part of a statute because, strictly speaking, they are not part of the operative
language of the statute. In this case, the whereas clause at issue is not an integral
Therefore, it can be argued that any act of Congress by way of statute cannot operate part of the decree of the pardon, and therefore, does not by itself alone operate to
to delimit the pardoning power of the President. make the pardon conditional or to make its effectivity contingent upon the fulfilment
of the aforementioned commitment nor to limit the scope of the pardon.
II. The proper interpretation of Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
Besides, a preamble is really not an integral part of a law. It is merely an introduction
A close scrutiny of the text of the pardon extended to former President Estrada shows to show its intent or purposes. It cannot be the origin of rights and obligations. Where
that both the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties are the meaning of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the preamble can neither expand
included in the pardon. The sentence which states that “(h)e is hereby restored to his nor restrict its operation much less prevail over its text.
civil and political rights,” expressly remitted the accessory penalties that attached to
the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence, even if we apply Articles 36 and If former President Arroyo intended for the pardon to be conditional on Respondent’s
41 of the Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable from the text of the pardon that the promise never to seek a public office again, the former ought to have explicitly stated
accessory penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification were the same in the text of the pardon itself. Since former President Arroyo did not make
expressly remitted together with the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. this an integral part of the decree of pardon, the Commission is constrained to rule
that the 3rd preambular clause cannot be interpreted as a condition to the pardon
III. The disqualification of former President Estrada under Section 40 of the LGC in extended to former President Estrada.
relation to Section 12 of the OEC was removed by his acceptance of the absolute
pardon granted to him ANNEX
While it may be apparent that the proscription in Section 40(a) of the LGC is worded OEC – 12 Section 12. Disqualifications. - Any person who has been declared by
in absolute terms, Section 12 of the OEC provides a legal escape from the prohibition competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final
– a plenary pardon or amnesty. judgmentfor subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or for any offense for which he has
been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving
In other words, the latter provision allows any person who has been granted plenary moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any public office,
pardon or amnesty after conviction by final judgment of an offense involving moral unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty. (Emphases supplied.)
turpitude, inter alia, to run for and hold any public office, whether local or national
position. Um Leonen Dissent I guess
The Dissent of Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed with Risos-Vidal that there was
IV. The third preambular clause of the pardon did not operate to make the pardon no express remission and/or restoration of the rights of suffrage and/or to hold public
conditional. office in the pardon granted to former President Estrada, as required by Articles 36
and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
Contrary to Risos-Vidal’s declaration, the third preambular clause of the pardon, i.e.,
"[w]hereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any Justice Leonen posits in his Dissent that the aforementioned codal provisions must
elective position or office," neither makes the pardon conditional, nor militate be followed by the President, as they do not abridge or diminish the President's
power to extend clemency. He opines that they do not reduce the coverage of the
President's pardoning power. Particularly, he states:
Articles 36 and 41 refer only to requirements of convention or form. They only
provide a procedural prescription. They are not concerned with areas where or the
instances when the President may grant pardon; they are only concerned with how
he or she is to exercise such power so that no other governmental instrumentality
needs to intervene to give it full effect.
All that Articles 36 and 41 do is prescribe that, if the President wishes to include in
the pardon the restoration of the rights of suffrage and to hold public office, or the
remission of the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification, he or she
should do so expressly. Articles 36 and 41 only ask that the President state his or her
intentions clearly, directly, firmly, precisely, and unmistakably. To belabor the point,
the President retains the power to make such restoration or remission, subject to a
prescription on the manner by which he or she is to state it.