Labo, Jr. v.

Commission on Elections

Facts:

In 1988, Ramon Labo, Jr. was elected as mayor of Baguio City. His rival, Luis Lardizabal filed a petition for
quo warranto against Labo as Lardizabal asserts that Labo is an Australian citizen hence disqualified; that
he was naturalized as an Australian after he married an Australian. Labo avers that his marriage with an
Australian did not make him an Australian; that at best he has dual citizenship, Australian and Filipino;
that even if he indeed became an Australian when he married an Australian citizen, such citizenship was
lost when his marriage with the Australian was later declared void for being bigamous. Labo further
asserts that even if he‘s considered as an Australian, his lack of citizenship is just a mere technicality
which should not frustrate the will of the electorate of Baguio who voted for him by a vast majority.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Labo can retain his public office.

2. Whether or not Lardizabal, who obtained the second highest vote in the mayoralty race, can replace
Labo in the event Labo is disqualified.

Held:

1. No. Labo did not question the authenticity of evidence presented against him. He was naturalized as
an Australian in 1976. It was not his marriage to an Australian that made him an Australian. It was his act
of subsequently swearing by taking an oath of allegiance to the government of Australia. He did not
dispute that he needed an Australian passport to return to the Philippines in 1980; and that he was listed
as an immigrant here. It cannot be said also that he is a dual citizen. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical
to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. He lost his Filipino citizenship when he swore
allegiance to Australia. He cannot also claim that when he lost his Australian citizenship, he became
solely a Filipino. To restore his Filipino citizenship, he must be naturalized or repatriated or be declared
as a Filipino through an act of Congress – none of this happened.

2. Lardizabal on the other hand cannot assert, through the quo warranto proceeding, that he should be
declared the mayor by reason of Labo‘s disqualification because Lardizabal obtained the second highest
number of vote. It would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed
right to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a
winner and imposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of which have positively
declared through their ballots that they do not choose him. Sound policy dictates that public elective
offices are filled by those who have received the highest number of votes cast in the election for that
office, and it is a fundamental idea in all republican forms of government that no one can be declared
elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the
legal votes cast in the election.