ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 135097. April 13, 1999]

ALEXANDRA G. BENGSON vs. COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 13, 1999.

G.R. No. 135097 (Alexandra G. Bengzon vs. Commission on Elections and Teodoro "Teddy" Cruz.)

On March 27, 1998, private respondent Teodoro "Teddy" Cruz filed his certificate of candidacy for congressman for the second district of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections.

On March 30, 1998, petitioner Alexandra G. Bengson filed with the commission on Elections a petition to deny due course to private respondent's candidacy. Petitioner alleged that private respondent made a false representation as regards his citizenship. According to petitioner, private respondent is not a natural-born Filipino as required under the Constitution1 [Article VI, Section 6.] but was only a naturalized citizen, as private respondent declared in his certificate of candidacy for mayor of Mangatarem, Pangasinan.

Private respondent moved to dismiss the petition, denying petitioner's allegations. He claimed that his earlier admission of being a naturalized citizen was a mistake since he was actually a natural-born citizen. Moreover, he pointed out that he did make a false material representation since under Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code,2 [Sec. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. - The certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the province, including its component cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector which he seeks to represent; the political party to which he belongs; civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post office address for all election purposes; his profession or occupation; that he will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country; that the obligation imposed by his oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge.

Unless a candidate has officially changed his name through a court approved proceeding, a candidate shall use in a certificate of candidacy the name by which he has been baptized, or if he has not been baptized in any church or religion, the name registered in the office of the local civil registrar or any other name allowed under the provisions of existing law or, in the case of a Muslim, his Hadji name after performing the prescribed religious pilgrimage: Provided, That when there are two or more candidates for an office with the same name and surname, each candidate, upon being made aware of such fact, shall state his paternal and maternal surname, except the incumbent who may continue to use the name and surname stated in his certificate of candidacy when he was elected. He may also include one nickname or stage name by which he is generally or popularly known in the locality.

The person filing a certificate of candidacy shall also affix his latest photograph, passport size; a statement in duplicate containing his bio-data and program of government not exceeding one hundred words, if he so desires. (Sec. 20, 1978 EC)] citizenship is not specifically required to be stated in the certificate of candidacy.

Private respondent explained that he became a naturalized US Citizen on June 5, 1990 in connection with his being a member of the US Marine Corps. According to him, this did not divest him of his status as a natural-born citizen in view of the existence at the time of an RP-US "offensive or defensive" pact. Besides, he argued that he reacquired his citizenship under R.A. No. 26303 [An Act Providing for Reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by Persons Who lost Such citizenship by Taking Service to or Accepting Commission in the Armed Forces of an Allied Foreign Country by Taking an Oath of Allegiance Incident Thereto.] after he took his oath of allegiance to the Philippines on March 17, 1994 and registered the same with the Local Civil Registry of Mangatarem, Pangasinan.4 [Citing, Frivaldo vs. Lee, 257 SCRA 727 (1996).]

Private respondent also questioned the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over the case, claiming that only the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal (HRET) can take cognizance of the case.

The COMELEC granted the petition in a Resolution fated May 4, 1998 and declared private respondent as not qualified to run for congressman. Private respondent moved for a reconsideration of this resolution.

While private respondent's motion was pending, the COMELEC issued Omnibus Resolution No. 3044 which contained a list of candidates who were "disqualified for strong reasons" and stating that votes for such candidates should be counted but the proclamation should be suspended in case any of said candidates won.

As of May 14, 1998, private respondent was leading his closest rival in the May 11, 1998 elections by 26,769 votes.

On August 28, 1998, the COMELEC set aside its resolution of May 4, 1998 and ordered the proclamation of private respondent as duly-elected congressman of the second district of Pangasinan. This resolution is now the subject of the present petition.

Meanwhile, Antonio Bengson III, whom private respondent defeated, instituted quo warranto proceedings5 [In a petition ad cautelam.] against private respondent before the HRET.6 [Docketed as HRET Case No. 98-035 and filed on September 14, 1998.]

In view of this development, we are constrained to dismiss this petition.

For Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:

"Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an electoral Tribunal which shall be sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their respective Members. xxx" (Emphasis supplied)

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE