AZNAR vs COMELEC

JOSE B. AZNAR (as Provincial Chairman of PDP Laban in Cebu), petitioner

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EMILIO MARIO RENNER OSMEÑA,respondents

G.R. No. 83820. May 25, 1990. EN BANC

FACTS:

On November 19, 1987, private respondent Emilio "Lito" Osmeña filed his certificate of candidacy with the COMELEC for the position of Provincial Governor of Cebu Province in the January 18, 1988 local elections. On January 22, 1988, the Cebu PDP-Laban Provincial Council (Cebu-PDP Laban, for short), as represented by petitioner Jose B. Aznar in his capacity as its incumbent Provincial Chairman, filed with the COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of Osmeña  on the ground that he is allegedly not a Filipino citizen, being a citizen of the United States of America.

On January 28, 1988, the COMELEC en banc resolved to order the Board to continue canvassing but to suspend the proclamation. At the hearing before the COMELEC, Aznar presented the following exhibits tending to show that Osmena is an American citizen: Application for Alien Registration of the Bureau of Immigration dated November 21, 1979; Alien Certificate of Registration dated November 21, 1979; Permit to Re-enter the Philippines dated November 21, 1979; Immigration Certificate of Clearance dated January 3, 1980.  Osmeña on the other hand, maintained that he is a Filipino citizen, alleging: that he is the legitimate child of Dr. Emilio D. Osmeña, a Filipino and son of the late President Sergio Osmeña, Sr.; that he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport issued on March 25, 1987; that he has been continuously residing in the Philippines since birth and has not gone out of the country for more than six months; and that he has been a registered voter in the Philippines since 1965.

On March 3, 1988, COMELEC directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winning candidates. Having obtained the highest number of votes, Osmena was proclaimed the Provincial Governor of Cebu. On June 11, 1988, COMELEC dismissed the petition for disqualification for not having been timely filed and for lack of sufficient proof that Osmena is not a Filipino citizen.

ISSUES:

1. WON petition for disqualification was timely filed.

2. WON Osmena is a Filipino citizen.

RULING:

1. NO.

There are two instances where a petition questioning the qualifications of a registered candidate to run for the office for which his certificate of candidacy was filed can be raised under the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), to wit:

"(1) Before election, pursuant to Section 78 thereof which provides that:

'Section 78. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy. — A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after the notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

and

"(2) After election, pursuant to Section 253 thereof, viz:

'Sec. 253. Petition for quo warranto. — Any voter contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground of inelligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election."

The records show that Osmena filed his certificate of candidacy on November 19, 1987 and that Aznar filed his petition for disqualification on January 22, 1988. Since the petition for disqualification was filed beyond the twenty five-day period required in Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, it is clear that said petition was filed out of time.

The petition for the disqualification of Osmena cannot also be treated as a petition for quo warranto under Section 253 of the same Code as it is unquestionably premature, considering that Osmena was proclaimed Provincial Governor of Cebu only on March 3, 1988.

2. YES.

In the proceedings before the COMELEC, Aznar failed to present direct proof that Osmena had lost his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided for under C.A. No. 63. Among others, these are: (1) by naturalization in a foreign country; (2) by express renunciation of citizenship; and (3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. From the evidence, Osmeña did not lose his Philippine citizenship by any of the three mentioned hereinabove or by any other mode of losing Philippine citizenship.

In concluding that Osmena had been naturalized as a citizen of the USA, Aznar merely relied on the fact that Osmena was issued alien certificate of registration and was given clearance and permit to re-enter the Philippines by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. Aznar assumed that because of the foregoing, Osmena is an American and "being an American", Osmena "must have taken and sworn to the Oath of Allegiance required by the U.S. Naturalization Laws.

Philippine courts are only allowed to determine who are Filipino citizens and who are not. Whether or not a person is considered an American under the laws of the United States does not concern Us here.

By virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father, the presumption that Osmena is a Filipino remains. It was incumbent upon Aznar to prove that Osmena had lost his Philippine citizenship however, he failed to positively establish this fact.

Osmena vehemently denies having taken the oath of allegiance of the US. He is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine passport and has continuously participated in the electoral process in this country since 1963 up to the present, both as a voter and as a candidate. Thus, Osmena remains a Filipino and the loss of his Philippine citizenship cannot be presumed.