[G.R. No. 161434.

March 3, 2004]
MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON and FEI! ". #ESI#ERIO,
JR., petitioners, vs. Th$ COMMISSION ON EECTIONS, RONA#
AAN %E& 'OE (a.).a. FERNAN#O 'OE, JR.* and +ICTORINO
!. FORNIER,respondents.
[G.R. No. 161634. March 3, 2004]
,OIO ANTONIO +EE,, petitioner, vs. RONA# AAN %EE&
'OE, a.k.a. FERNAN#O 'OE, JR.,respondent.
[G. R. No. 161-24. March 3, 2004]
+ICTORINO !. FORNIER, petitioner, vs. .ON. COMMISSION ON
EECTIONS and RONA# AAN %EE& 'OE, ASO %NO/N
AS FERNAN#O 'OE JR., respondents.
# E C I S I O N
+IT0G, J.1
C2324$n5h26 25 a 3r$a57r$d r28h3 con9$rr$d on 3ho5$ :ho; 3h$ 53a3$
<$=2$>$5 ar$ d$5$r>2n8 o9 3h$ 6r2>2=$8$. I3 25 a ?6r$c2o75 h$r23a8$, a5 :$==
a5 an 2n$532;a<=$ ac@725232on,A
[1]
3ha3 canno3 <$ 3a)$n =28h3=B <B anBon$ C
$23h$r <B 3ho5$ :ho $nDoB 23 or <B 3ho5$ :ho d25673$ 23.
Before the Court are three consolidated cases, all of which raise a single
question of profound importance to the nation. The issue of citizenship is
brought up to challenge the qualifications of a presidential candidate to hold
the highest office of the land. Our people are waiting for the udgment of the
Court with bated breath. !s "ernando #oe, $r., the hero of sil%er screen, and
now one of the main contenders for the presidenc&, a natural'born "ilipino or
is he not(
The moment of introspection ta)es us face to face with *panish and
+merican colonial roots and reminds us of the rich heritage of ci%il law and
common law traditions, the fusion resulting in a h&brid of laws and
urisprudence that could be no less than distinctl& "ilipino.
An3$c$d$n3 Ca5$ S$332n85
On ,1 -ecember .//,, respondent 0onald +llan 1ell& #oe, also )nown
as "ernando #oe, $r. 2hereinafter 3"#$34, filed his certificate of candidac& for
the position of #resident of the 0epublic of the #hilippines under the
1oalis&on ng 5ag)a)aisang #ilipino 215#4 #art&, in the forthcoming national
elections. !n his certificate of candidac&, "#$, representing himself to be a
natural'born citizen of the #hilippines, stated his name to be 3"ernando $r.,3
or 30onald +llan3 #oe, his date of birth to be ./ +ugust 16,6 and his place of
birth to be 7anila.
8ictorino 9. "ornier, petitioner in :.0. 5o. 1;1<.=, entitled 38ictorino 9.
"ornier, #etitioner, %ersus >on. Commission on ?lections and 0onald +llan
1elle& #oe, also )nown as "ernando #oe, $r., 0espondents,3 initiated, on /6
$anuar& .//=, a petition doc)eted *#+ 5o. /='//, before the Commission on
?lections 23CO7?@?C34 to disqualif& "#$ and to den& due course or to cancel
his certificate of candidac& upon the thesis that "#$ made a material
misrepresentation in his certificate of candidac& b& claiming to be a natural'
born "ilipino citizen when in truth, according to "ornier, his parents were
foreignersA his mother, Bessie 1elle& #oe, was an +merican, and his father,
+llan #oe, was a *panish national, being the son of @orenzo #ou, a *panish
subect. :ranting, petitioner asse%erated, that +llan ". #oe was a "ilipino
citizen, he could not ha%e transmitted his "ilipino citizenship to "#$, the latter
being an illegitimate child of an alien mother. #etitioner based the allegation
of the illegitimate birth of respondent on two assertions ' first, +llan ". #oe
contracted a prior marriage to a certain #aulita :omez before his marriage to
Bessie 1elle& and, second, e%en if no such prior marriage had eBisted, +llan
". #oe, married Bessie 1ell& onl& a &ear after the birth of respondent.
!n the hearing before the Third -i%ision of the CO7?@?C on 16 $anuar&
.//=, petitioner, in support of his claim, presented se%eral documentar&
eBhibits ' 14 a cop& of the certificate of birth of "#$, .4 a certified photocop& of
an affida%it eBecuted in *panish b& #aulita #oe & :omez attesting to her
ha%ing filed a case for bigam& and concubinage against the father of
respondent, +llan ". #oe, after disco%ering his bigamous relationship with
Bessie 1elle&, ,4 an ?nglish translation of the affida%it aforesaid, =4 a certified
photocop& of the certificate of birth of +llan ". #oe, C4 a certification issued b&
the -irector of the 0ecords 7anagement and +rchi%es Office, attesting to the
fact that there was no record in the 5ational +rchi%es that a @orenzo #oe or
@orenzo #ou resided or entered the #hilippines before 16/D, and ;4 a
certification from the Officer'!n'Charge of the +rchi%es -i%ision of the 5ational
+rchi%es to the effect that no a%ailable information could be found in the files
of the 5ational +rchi%es regarding the birth of +llan ". #oe.
On his part, respondent, presented twent&'two documentar& pieces of
e%idence, the more significant ones being ' a4 a certification issued b& ?strella
7. -omingo of the +rchi%es -i%ision of the 5ational +rchi%es that there
appeared to be no a%ailable information regarding the birth of +llan ". #oe in
the registr& of births for *an Carlos, #angasinan, b4 a certification issued b&
the Officer'!n'Charge of the +rchi%es -i%ision of the 5ational +rchi%es that no
a%ailable information about the marriage of +llan ". #oe and #aulita :omez
could be found, c4 a certificate of birth of 0onald +llan #oe, d4 Original
Certificate of Title 5o. #'..=D of the 0egistr& of -eeds for the #ro%ince of
#angasinan, in the name of @orenzo #ou, e4 copies of TaB -eclaration 5o.
./<==, 5o. ./;=,, 5o. .,=DD and 5o. .,=D< in the name of @orenzo #ou, f4
a cop& of the certificate of death of @orenzo #ou, g4 a cop& of the purported
marriage contract between "ernando #ou and Bessie 1elle&, and h4 a
certification issued b& the Cit& Ci%il 0egistrar of *an Carlos Cit&, #angasinan,
stating that the records of birth in the said office during the period of from
16// until 7a& 16=; were totall& destro&ed during Eorld Ear !!.
On ., $anuar& .//=, the CO7?@?C dismissed *#+ 5o. /='//, for lac)
of merit. Three da&s later, or on .; $anuar& .//=, "ornier filed his motion for
reconsideration. The motion was denied on /; "ebruar& .//= b& the
CO7?@?C en banc. On 1/ "ebruar& .//=, petitioner assailed the decision of
the CO7?@?C before this Court conformabl& with 0ule ;=, in relation to 0ule
;C, of the 0e%ised 0ules of Ci%il #rocedure. The petition, doc)eted :. 0. 5o.
1;1<.=, li)ewise pra&ed for a temporar& restraining order, a writ of
preliminar& inunction or an& other resolution that would sta& the finalit& andFor
eBecution of the CO7?@?C resolutions.
The other petitions, later consolidated with :. 0. 5o. 1;1<.=, would
include :. 0. 5o. 1;1=,=, entitled 37aria $eanette C. Tecson, and "eliB B.
-esiderio, $r., %s. The Commission on ?lections, 0onald +llan 1elle& #oe
2a.k.a. G"ernando #oe, $r.H4, and 8ictorino 9. "ornier,3 and the other, doc)eted
:. 0. 5o. 1;1;,=, entitled 3Ioilo +ntonio :. 8elez, %s. 0onald +llan 1elle&
#oe, a.k.a. "ernando #oe, $r.,3 both challenging the urisdiction of the
CO7?@?C and asserting that, under +rticle 8!!, *ection =, paragraph D, of
the 16<D Constitution, onl& the *upreme Court had original and eBclusi%e
urisdiction to resol%e the basic issue on the case.
J7r25d2c32on o9 3h$ Co7r3
In G. R. No. 161-24
!n see)ing the disqualification of the candidac& of "#$ and to ha%e the
CO7?@?C den& due course to or cancel "#$Hs certificate of candidac& for
alleged misrepresentation of a material fact 2i.e., that "#$ was a natural'born
citizen4 before the CO7?@?C, petitioner "ornier in%o)ed *ection D< of the
Omnibus ?lection Code J
Section 78. Petition to deny due course to or 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 7 hereof is false! "
in consonance with the general powers of CO7?@?C eBpressed in *ection
C. of the Omnibus ?lection Code '
Section #$. %o&ers and functions of the 'ommission on (lections. )n addition to
the po&ers and functions conferred upon it by the 'onstitution* the 'ommission shall
have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all la&s relative to the
conduct of elections for the purpose of ensuring free* orderly and honest elections! -
and in relation to +rticle ;6 of the Omnibus ?lection Code which would
authorize 3an& interested part&3 to file a %erified petition to den& or cancel the
certificate of candidac& of an& nuisance candidate.
-ecisions of the CO7?@?C on disqualification cases ma& be re%iewed b&
the *upreme Court per 0ule ;=
[.]
in an action for certiorari under 0ule ;C
[,]
of
the 0e%ised 0ules of Ci%il #rocedure. *ection D, +rticle !9, of the 16<D
Constitution also reads J
+(ach 'ommission shall decide by a ma,ority vote of all its -embers any case or
matter brought before it &ithin sixty days from the date of its submission for decision
or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon
the filing of the last pleading* brief* or memorandum* required by the rules of the
'ommission or by the 'ommission itself. .nless other&ise provided by this
'onstitution or by la&* any decision* order* or ruling of each 'ommission may be
brought to the Supreme 'ourt on certiorari by the aggrieved party &ithin thirty days
from receipt of a copy thereof.+
+dditionall&, *ection 1, +rticle 8!!!, of the same Constitution pro%ides that
udicial power is %ested in one *upreme Court and in such lower courts as
ma& be established b& law which power Kincludes the dut& of the courts of
ustice to settle actual contro%ersies in%ol%ing rights which are legall&
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a gra%e abuse of discretion amounting to lac) or eBcess of urisdiction
on the part of an& branch or instrumentalit& of the :o%ernment.L
!t is sufficientl& clear that the petition brought up in :. 0. 5o. 1;1<.= was
aptl& ele%ated to, and could well be ta)en cognizance of b&, this Court. +
contrar& %iew could be a gross denial to our people of their fundamental right
to be full& informed, and to ma)e a proper choice, on who could or should be
elected to occup& the highest go%ernment post in the land.
In G. R. No. 161434 and G. R. No. 161634
#etitioners Tecson, et al., in :. 0. 5o. 1;1=,=, and 8elez, in :. 0. 5o.
1;1;,=, in%o)e the pro%isions of +rticle 8!!, *ection =, paragraph D, of the
16<D Constitution in assailing the urisdiction of the CO7?@?C when it too)
cognizance of *#+ 5o. /='//, and in urging the *upreme Court to instead
ta)e on the petitions the& directl& instituted before it. The Constitutional
pro%ision cited readsM
+/he Supreme 'ourt* sitting en banc* shall be the sole ,udge of all contests relating to
the election* returns* and qualifications of the %resident or 0ice-%resident* and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.+
The pro%ision is an inno%ation of the 16<D Constitution. The omission in the
16,C and the 16D, Constitution to designate an& tribunal to be the sole udge
of presidential and %ice'presidential contests, has constrained this Court to
declare, in @opez vs. Roxas,
[=]
as Knot 2being4 usticiableL contro%ersies or
disputes in%ol%ing contests on the elections, returns and qualifications of the
#resident or 8ice'#resident. The constitutional lapse prompted Congress, on
.1 $une 16CD, to enact 0epublic +ct 5o. 1D6,, "An Act Constituting an
Independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal to Tr, !ear and "ecide Protests
Contesting t#e Election of t#e President$Elect and t#e %ice$President$Elect of
t#e P#ilippines and Providing for t#e &anner of !earing t#e 'a(e." 0epublic
+ct 1D6, designated the Chief $ustice and the +ssociate $ustices of the
*upreme Court to be the members of the tribunal. +lthough the subsequent
adoption of the parliamentar& form of go%ernment under the 16D, Constitution
might ha%e implicitl& affected 0epublic +ct 5o. 1D6,, the statutor& set'up,
nonetheless, would now be deemed re%i%ed under the present *ection =,
paragraph D, of the 16<D Constitution.
Ordinar& usage would characterize a 3contest3 in reference to a post'
election scenario. ?lection contests consist of either an election protest or
a )uo *arranto which, although two distinct remedies, would ha%e one
obecti%e in %iew, i.e., to dislodge the winning candidate from office. + perusal
of the phraseolog& in 0ule 1., 0ule 1,, and 0ule 1= of the "Rules of t#e
Presidential Electoral Tribunal,3 promulgated b& the *upreme Court en
banc on 1< +pril 166., would support this premise '
1ule 2$. Jurisdiction. - /he /ribunal shall be the sole ,udge of all contests relating to
the election* returns* and qualifications of the %resident or 0ice-%resident of
the %hilippines.
1ule 23. How Initiated. - An election contest is initiated by the filing of an election
protest or a petition for quo &arranto against the %resident or 0ice-%resident. An
election protest shall not include a petition for quo warranto. A petition for quo
warranto shall not include an election protest.
1ule 2. Election Protest. - 4nly the registered candidate for %resident or for 0ice-
%resident of the %hilippines &ho received the second or third highest number of votes
may contest the election of the %resident or the 0ice-%resident* as the case may be* by
filing a verified petition &ith the 'lerk of the %residential (lectoral /ribunal &ithin
thirty 5367 days after the proclamation of the &inner.!
The rules categoricall& spea) of the urisdiction of the tribunal o%er
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the 3#resident3
or 38ice'#resident3, of the #hilippines, and not of 3candidates3 for #resident or
8ice'#resident. + )uo *arranto proceeding is generall& defined as being an
action against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfull& holds or
eBercises a public office.
[C]
!n such conteBt, the election contest can onl&
contemplate a post'election scenario. !n 0ule 1=, onl& a registered candidate
who would ha%e recei%ed either the second or third highest number of %otes
could file an election protest. This rule again presupposes a post'
election scenario.
!t is fair to conclude that the urisdiction of the *upreme Court, defined b&
*ection =, paragraph D, of the 16<D Constitution, would not include cases
directl& brought before it, questioning the qualifications of a candidate for the
presidenc& or %ice'presidenc& before the elections are held.
+ccordingl&, :. 0. 5o. 1;1=,=, entitled 37aria $eanette C. Tecson, et al.,
%s. Commission on ?lections et al.,3 and :. 0. 5o. 1;1;,=, entitled 3Ioilo
+ntonio 8elez %s. 0onald +llan 1elle& #oe a.k.a. "ernando #oe, $r.3 would
ha%e to be dismissed for want of urisdiction.
Th$ C2324$n5h26 I557$
5ow, to the basic issueA it should be helpful to first gi%e a brief historical
bac)ground on the concept of citizenship.
#erhaps, the earliest understanding of citizenship was that gi%en b&
+ristotle, who, sometime in ,<= to ,.. B.C., described the 3citizen3 to refer to
a man who shared in the administration of ustice and in the holding of an
office.
[;]
+ristotle saw its significance if onl& to determine the constituenc& of
the 3*tate,3 which he described as being composed of such persons who
would be adequate in number to achie%e a self'sufficient eBistence.
[D]
The
concept grew to include one who would both go%ern and be go%erned, for
which qualifications li)e autonom&, udgment and lo&alt& could be
eBpected. Citizenship was seen to deal with rights and entitlements, on the
one hand, and with concomitant obligations, on the other.
[<]
!n its ideal setting,
a citizen was acti%e in public life and fundamentall& willing to submit his
pri%ate interests to the general interest of societ&.
The concept of citizenship had undergone changes o%er the centuries. !n
the 1<th centur&, the concept was limited, b& and large, to civil citizens#ip,
which established the rights necessar& for indi%idual freedom, such as rights
to propert&, personal libert& and ustice.
[6]
!ts meaning eBpanded during the
16th centur& to include political citizens#ip, which encompassed the right to
participate in the eBercise of political power.
[1/]
The ./th centur& saw the neBt
stage of the de%elopment of social citizens#ip, which laid emphasis on the
right of the citizen to economic well'being and social securit&.
[11]
The idea of
citizenship has gained eBpression in the modern welfare state as it so
de%eloped in Eestern ?urope. +n ongoing and final stage of de%elopment, in
)eeping with the rapidl& shrin)ing global %illage, might well be
the internationalization of citizens#ip.
[1.]
Th$ oca= S$332n8 C 9ro; S6an25h
T2;$5 3o 3h$ 'r$5$n3
There was no such term as 3#hilippine citizens3 during the *panish
regime but 3subects of *pain3 or 3*panish subects.3
[1,]
!n church records, the
nati%es were called +indios+, denoting a low regard for the inhabitants of the
archipelago. *panish laws on citizenship became highl& codified during the
16th centur& but their sheer number made it difficult to point to one
comprehensi%e law. 5ot all of these citizenship laws of *pain howe%er, were
made to appl& to the #hilippine !slands eBcept for those eBplicitl& eBtended b&
0o&al -ecrees.
[1=]
*panish laws on citizenship were traced bac) to the ,ovisi(a
Recopilacion, promulgated in *pain on 1; $ul& 1</C but as to whether the law
was eBtended to the #hilippines remained to be the subect of differing %iews
among eBpertsA
[1C]
howe%er, three ro&al decrees were undisputabl& made
applicable to *paniards in the #hilippines ' the -rder de la Regencia of 1=
+ugust 1<=1,
[1;]
the Roal "ecree of ., +ugust 1<;< specificall& defining the
political status of children born in the #hilippine !slands,
[1D]
and finall&, the .e
Extran/era de 0ltra(ar of /= $ul& 1<D/, which was eBpressl& made applicable
to the #hilippines b& the 0o&al -ecree of 1, $ul& 1<D/.
[1<]
The *panish Constitution of 1<D; was ne%er eBtended to the #hilippine
!slands because of the eBpress mandate of its +rticle <6, according to which
the pro%isions of the 0ltra(ar among which this countr& was included, would
be go%erned b& special laws.
[16]
!t was onl& the Ci%il Code of *pain, made effecti%e in this urisdiction on
1< -ecember 1<<6, which came out with the first categorical enumeration of
who were *panish citizens. '
5a7 %ersons born in Spanish territory*
5b7 'hildren of a Spanish father or mother* even if they &ere born outside
of Spain*
5c7 8oreigners &ho have obtained naturali9ation papers*
5d7 /hose &ho* &ithout such papers* may have become domiciled
inhabitants of any to&n of the -onarchy.!
[./]
The &ear 1<6< was another turning point in #hilippine histor&. +lread& in
the state of decline as a superpower, *pain was forced to so cede her sole
colon& in the ?ast to an upcoming world power, the Nnited *tates. +n
accepted principle of international law dictated that a change in so%ereignt&,
while resulting in an abrogation of all political laws then in force, would ha%e
no effect on ci%il laws, which would remain %irtuall& intact.
The Treat& of #aris was entered into on 1/ -ecember 1<6< between
*pain and the Nnited *tates.
[.1]
Nnder +rticle !9 of the treat&, the ci%il rights
and political status of the nati%e inhabitants of the territories ceded to the
Nnited *tates would be determined b& its Congress '
+Spanish sub,ects* natives of the %eninsula* residing in the territory over &hich Spain
by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty may remain in such
territory or may remove therefrom* retaining in either event all their rights of
property* including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds: and
they shall also have the right to carry on their industry* commerce* and professions*
being sub,ect in respect thereof to such la&s as are applicable to foreigners. )n case
they remain in the territory they may preserve their allegiance to the 'ro&n of Spain
by making* before a court of record* &ithin a year from the date of the exchange of
ratifications of this treaty* a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance:
in default of &hich declaration they shall be held to have renounced it and to have
adopted the nationality of the territory in &hich they reside.
/hus "
+/he civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby
ceded to the .nited States shall be determined by the 'ongress.+
[..]
Npon the ratification of the treat&, and pending legislation b& the Nnited *tates
Congress on the subect, the nati%e inhabitants of the #hilippines ceased to
be *panish subects. +lthough the& did not become +merican citizens, the&,
howe%er, also ceased to be 3aliens3 under +merican laws and were thus
issued passports describing them to be citizens of the #hilippines entitled to
the protection of the Nnited *tates.
The term 3citizens of the #hilippine !slands3 appeared for the first time in
the #hilippine Bill of 16/., also commonl& referred to as the #hilippine
Organic +ct of 16/., the first comprehensi%e legislation of the Congress of
the Nnited *tates on the #hilippines '
+.... that all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein, who
were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of pril, 1!"1, and then resided in said
Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be dee#ed and held to be
citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the .nited
States* except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the 'ro&n of
Spain in accordance &ith the provisions of the treaty of peace bet&een the .nited
States and Spain* signed at %aris* ;ecember tenth eighteen hundred and ninety
eight.+
[.,]
Nnder the organic act, a Kcitizen of the #hilippinesL was one who was an
inhabitant of the #hilippines, and a *panish subect on the 11
th
da& of +pril
1<66. The term KinhabitantL was ta)en to include 14 a nati%e'born inhabitant,
.4 an inhabitant who was a nati%e of #eninsular *pain, and ,4 an inhabitant
who obtained *panish papers on or before 11 +pril 1<66.
[.=]
Contro%ers& arose on to the status of children born in the #hilippines from
11 +pril 1<66 to /1 $ul& 16/., during which period no citizenship law was
eBtant in the #hilippines. Eeight was gi%en to the %iew, articulated in
urisprudential writing at the time, that the common law principle of/us soli,
otherwise also )nown as the principle of territorialit&, operati%e in the Nnited
*tates and ?ngland, go%erned those born in the #hilippine +rchipelago within
that period.
[.C]
7ore about this later.
!n ., 7arch 161., the Congress of the Nnited *tates made the following
amendment to the #hilippine Bill of 16/. '
+%rovided* /hat the %hilippine <egislature is hereby authori9ed to provide by la& for
the acquisition of %hilippine citi9enship by those natives of the %hilippine )slands
&ho do not come &ithin the foregoing provisions* the natives of other insular
possession of the .nited States* and such other persons residing in the %hilippine
)slands &ho &ould become citi9ens of the .nited States* under the la&s of the .nited
States* if residing therein.+
[.;]
Eith the adoption of the #hilippine Bill of 16/., the concept of 3#hilippine
citizens3 had for the first time cr&stallized. The word 3"ilipino3 was used b&
Eilliam >. Taft, the first Ci%il :o%ernor :eneral in the #hilippines when he
initiall& made mention of it in his slogan, 3The #hilippines for the "ilipinos.3 !n
161;, the #hilippine +utonom& +ct, also )nown as the $ones @aw restated
%irtuall& the pro%isions of the #hilippine Bill of 16/., as so amended b& the
+ct of Congress in 161. '
/hat all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the
eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said
Islands, and their children born subsequently thereto, shall be deemed and held to
be citizens of the Philippine Islands* except such as shall have elected to preserve
their allegiance to the 'ro&n of Spain in accordance &ith the provisions of the treaty
of peace bet&een the .nited States and Spain* signed at %aris ;ecember tenth*
eighteen hundred and ninety-eight and except such others as have since become
citi9ens of some other country: %rovided* /hat the %hilippine <egislature* herein
provided for* is hereby authori9ed to provide for the acquisition of %hilippine
citi9enship by those natives of the %hilippine )slands &ho do not come &ithin the
foregoing provisions* the natives of the insular possessions of the .nited States* and
such other persons residing in the %hilippine )slands &ho are citi9ens of the .nited
States* or &ho could become citi9ens of the .nited States under the la&s of the
.nited States* if residing therein.+
Nnder the $ones @aw, a nati%e'born inhabitant of the #hilippines was
deemed to be a citizen of the #hilippines as of 11 +pril 1<66 if he was 14 a
subect of *pain on 11 +pril 1<66, .4 residing in the #hilippines on said date,
and, ,4 since that date, not a citizen of some other countr&.
Ehile there was, at one brief time, di%ergent %iews on whether or not /us
soli was a mode of acquiring citizenship, the 16,C Constitution brought to an
end to an& such lin) with common law, b& adopting, once and for all, /us
sanguinis or blood relationship as being the basis of "ilipino citizenship '
Section 2* Article )))* 2=3# 'onstitution. /he follo&ing are citi9ens of the
%hilippines -
527 /hose &ho are citi9ens of the %hilippine )slands at the time of the adoption of
this 'onstitution
5$7 /hose born in the %hilippines )slands of foreign parents &ho* before the
adoption of this 'onstitution* had been elected to public office in the %hilippine
)slands.
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
57 /hose &hose mothers are citi9ens of the %hilippines and upon reaching the age
of ma,ority* elect %hilippine citi9enship.
5#7 /hose &ho are naturali9ed in accordance &ith la&.!
*ubsection 2=4, +rticle !!!, of the 16,C Constitution, ta)en together with
eBisting ci%il law pro%isions at the time, which pro%ided that women would
automaticall& lose their "ilipino citizenship and acquire that of their foreign
husbands, resulted in discriminator& situations that effecti%el& incapacitated
the women from transmitting their "ilipino citizenship to their legitimate
children and required illegitimate children of "ilipino mothers to still elect
"ilipino citizenship upon reaching the age of maorit&. *ee)ing to correct this
anomal&, as well as full& cognizant of the newl& found status of "ilipino
women as equals to men, the framers of the 16D, Constitution crafted the
pro%isions of the new Constitution on citizenship to reflect such concerns '
Section 2* Article )))* 2=73 'onstitution - /he follo&ing are citi9ens of the
%hilippines>
527 /hose &ho are citi9ens of the %hilippines at the time of the adoption of this
'onstitution.
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
537 /hose &ho elect %hilippine citi9enship pursuant to the provisions of the
'onstitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
57 /hose &ho are naturali9ed in accordance &ith la&.!
"or good measure, *ection . of the same article also further pro%ided that
J
+A female citi9en of the %hilippines &ho marries an alien retains her %hilippine
citi9enship* unless by her act or omission she is deemed* under the la& to have
renounced her citi9enship.+
The 16<D Constitution generall& adopted the pro%isions of the 16D,
Constitution, eBcept for subsection 2,4 thereof that aimed to correct the
irregular situation generated b& the questionable proviso in the 16,C
Constitution.
*ection !, +rticle !8, 16<D Constitution now pro%idesM
/he follo&ing are citi9ens of the %hilippines>
527 /hose &ho are citi9ens of the %hilippines at the time of the adoption of this
'onstitution.
5$7 Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
537 Those born before January 17 1!73 of "ilipino mothers who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reachin# the a#e of ma$ority% an&
57 /hose &ho are naturali9ed in accordance &ith la&.!
Th$ Ca5$ O9 F'J
*ection ., +rticle 8!!, of the 16<D Constitution eBpressesM
+?o person may be elected %resident unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines* a registered voter* able to read and &rite* at least forty years of age on
the day of the election* and a resident of the %hilippines for at least ten years
immediately preceding such election.+
The term 3natural'born citizens,3 is defined to include 3those who are
citizens of the #hilippines from birth without ha%ing to perform an& act to
acquire or perfect their #hilippine citizenship.3
[.D]
The date, month and &ear of birth of "#$ appeared to be ./ +ugust 16,6
during the regime of the 16,C Constitution. Through its histor&, four modes of
acquiring citizenship ' naturalization, /us soli, res /udicata and /us
sanguinis
[.<]
J had been in %ogue. Onl& two, i.e., /us soli and/us sanguinis,
could qualif& a person to being a Knatural'bornL citizen of the #hilippines. $us
soli, per Roa vs. Collector of Custo(s
[.6]
2161.4, did not last long. Eith the
adoption of the 16,C Constitution and the re%ersal of Roa in Tan C#ong vs.
'ecretar of .abor
[,/]
216=D4, /us sanguinis or blood relationship would now
become the primar& basis of citizenship b& birth.
-ocumentar& e%idence adduced b& petitioner would tend to indicate that
the earliest established direct ascendant of "#$ was his paternal grandfather
@orenzo #ou, married to 7arta 0e&es, the father of +llan ". #oe. Ehile the
record of birth of @orenzo #ou had not been presented in e%idence, his death
certificate, howe%er, identified him to be a "ilipino, a resident of *an Carlos,
#angasinan, and <= &ears old at the time of his death on 11 *eptember
16C=. The certificate of birth of the father of "#$, +llan ". #oe, showed that
he was born on 1D 7a& 161C to an ?spaOol father, @orenzo #ou, and a
mestiza ?spaOol mother, 7arta 0e&es. !ntroduced b& petitioner was an
KuncertifiedL cop& of a supposed certificate of the alleged marriage of +llan ".
#oe and #aulita :omez on /C $ul& 16,;. The marriage certificate of +llan ".
#oe and Bessie 1elle& reflected the date of their marriage to be on 1;
*eptember 16=/. !n the same certificate, +llan ". #oe was stated to be
twent&'fi%e &ears old, unmarried, and a "ilipino citizen, and Bessie 1elle& to
be twent&'two &ears old, unmarried, and an +merican citizen. The birth
certificate of "#$, would disclose that he was born on ./ +ugust 16,6 to +llan
". #oe, a "ilipino, twent&'four &ears old, married to Bessie 1ell&, an +merican
citizen, twent&'one &ears old and married.
Considering the reser%ations made b& the parties on the %eracit& of some
of the entries on the birth certificate of respondent and the marriage certificate
of his parents, the onl& conclusions that could be drawn with some degree of
certaint& from the documents would be that '
2. /he parents of 8%@ &ere Allan 8. %oe and Aessie Belley:
$. 8%@ &as born to them on $6 August 2=3=:
3. Allan 8. %oe and Aessie Belley &ere married to each other on 2C
September* 2=6:
. /he father of Allan 8. %oe &as <oren9o %oe: and
#. At the time of his death on 22 September 2=#* <oren9o %oe &as 8
years old.
Eould the abo%e facts be sufficient or insufficient to establish the fact that
"#$ is a natural'born "ilipino citizen( The marriage certificate of +llan ". #oe
and Bessie 1elle&, the birth certificate of "#$, and the death certificate of
@orenzo #ou are documents of public record in the custod& of a public
officer. The documents ha%e been submitted in e%idence b& both contending
parties during the proceedings before the CO7?@?C.
The birth certificate of "#$ was mar)ed ?Bhibit 3+3 for petitioner and
?Bhibit 3,3 for respondent. The marriage certificate of +llan ". #oe to Bessie
1elle& was submitted as ?Bhibit 3.13 for respondent. The death certificate of
@orenzo #ou was submitted b& respondent as his ?Bhibit 3C.3 Ehile the last
two documents were submitted in e%idence for respondent, the admissibilit&
thereof, particularl& in reference to the facts which the& purported to
show, i.e., the marriage certificate in relation to the date of marriage of +llan ".
#oe to Bessie 1elle& and the death certificate relati%e to the death of @orenzo
#ou on 11 *eptember 16C= in *an Carlos, #angasinan, were all admitted b&
petitioner, who had utilized those material statements in his argument. +ll
three documents were certified true copies of the originals.
Section 3* 1ule 236* 1ules of 'ourt states that -
4riginal document must be produced: exceptions. - Dhen the sub,ect of inquiry is
the contents of a document* no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
document itself* except in the follo&ing cases>
x x x x x x x x x
5d7 Dhen the original is a public record in the custody of a public office or is
recorded in a public office.!
Being public documents, the death certificate of @orenzo #ou, the marriage
certificate of +llan ". #oe and Bessie 1ell&, and the birth certificate of
"#$, constitute pri(a facie proof of their contents. *ection ==, 0ule 1,/, of
the 0ules of Court pro%idesM
$Entries in official records. (ntries in official records made in the performance of his
duty by a public officer of the %hilippines* or by a person in the performance of a duty
specially en,oined by la&* are pri#a facie evidence of the facts therein stated.!
The trustworthiness of public documents and the %alue gi%en to the
entries made therein could be grounded on 14 the sense of official dut& in the
preparation of the statement made, .4 the penalt& which is usuall& affiBed to a
breach of that dut&, ,4 the routine and disinterested origin of most such
statements, and =4 the publicit& of record which ma)es more li)el& the prior
eBposure of such errors as might ha%e occurred.
[,1]
The death certificate of @orenzo #ou would indicate that he died on 11
*eptember 16C=, at the age of <= &ears, in *an Carlos, #angasinan. !t could
thus be assumed that @orenzo #ou was born sometime in the &ear 1<D/
when the #hilippines was still a colon& of *pain. #etitioner would argue that
@orenzo #ou was not in the #hilippines during the crucial period of from 1<6<
to 16/. considering that there was no eBisting record about such fact in the
0ecords 7anagement and +rchi%es Office. #etitioner, howe%er, li)ewise
failed to show that @orenzo #ou was at an& other place during the same
period. !n his death certificate, the residence of @orenzo #ou was stated to
be *an Carlos, #angasinan. !n the absence of an& e%idence to the contrar&,
it should be sound to conclude, or at least to presume, that the place of
residence of a person at the time of his death was also his residence before
death. !t would be eBtremel& doubtful if the 0ecords 7anagement and
+rchi%es Office would ha%e had complete records of all residents of the
#hilippines from 1<6< to 16/..
'roo9 o9 'a3$rn23B and F2=2a32on
0nd$r C2>2= a:.
#etitioner submits, in an& case, that in establishing filiation 2relationship or
ci%il status of the child to the father [or mother]4 or paternit& 2relationship or
ci%il status of the father to the child4 of an illegitimate child, "#$ e%identl&
being an illegitimate son according to petitioner, the mandator& rules under
ci%il law must be used.
Nnder the Ci%il Code of *pain, which was in force in the #hilippines from
/< -ecember 1<<6 up until the da& prior to ,/ +ugust 16C/ when the Ci%il
Code of the #hilippines too) effect, ac)nowledgment was required to
establish filiation or paternit&. +c)nowledgment was either udicial
2compulsor&4 or %oluntar&. $udicial or compulsor& ac)nowledgment was
possible onl& if done during the lifetime of the putati%e parentA %oluntar&
ac)nowledgment could onl& be had in a record of birth, a will, or a public
document.
[,.]
Complementar& to the new code was +ct 5o. ,DC, or the Ci%il
0egistr& @aw eBpressing in *ection C thereof, that '
)n case of an illegitimate child* the birth certificate shall be signed and sworn to
jointly by the parents of the infant or only by the mother if the father refuses. )n the
latter case* it shall not be permissible to state or reveal in the document the name of
the father &ho refuses to ackno&ledge the child* or to give therein any information by
&hich such father could be identified.!
!n order that the birth certificate could then be utilized to pro%e %oluntar&
ac)nowledgment of filiation or paternit&, the certificate was required to be
signed or sworn to b& the father. The failure of such requirement rendered
the same useless as being an authoritati%e document of recognition.
[,,]
!n &endoza vs. &ella,
[,=]
the Court ruled '
+Since 1odolfo &as born in 2=3#* after the registry la& &as enacted* the question
here really is &hether or not his birth certificate 5(xhibit 27* &hich is merely a
certified copy of the registry record* may be relied upon as sufficient proof of his
having been voluntarily recogni9ed. ?o such reliance* in our ,udgment* may be
placed upon it. Dhile it contains the names of both parents* there is no sho&ing that
they signed the original* let alone s&ore to its contents as required in Section # of Act
?o. 37#3. 8or all that might have happened* it &as not even they or either of them
&ho furnished the data to be entered in the civil register. %etitioners say that in any
event the birth certificate is in the nature of a public document &herein voluntary
recognition of a natural child may also be made* according to the same Article 232.
/rue enough* but in such a case* there must be a clear statement in the document that
the parent recogni9es the child as his or her o&n.+
!n the birth certificate of respondent "#$, presented b& both parties,
nowhere in the document was the signature of +llan ". #oe found. There
being no will apparentl& eBecuted, or at least shown to ha%e been eBecuted,
b& decedent +llan ". #oe, the onl& other proof of %oluntar& recognition
remained to be 3some other public document.3 !n Pare/a vs. Pare/a,
[,C]
this
Court defined what could constitute such a document as proof of %oluntar&
ac)nowledgmentM
+.nder the Spanish 'ivil 'ode there are t&o classes of public documents*
those eecuted by private individuals which must be authenticated by notaries* and
those issued by competent public officials by reason of their office. /he public
document pointed out in Article 232 as one of the means by &hich recognition may
be made belongs to the first class.+
@et us lea%e it at that for the moment.
The 16C/ Ci%il Code categorized the ac)nowledgment or recognition of
illegitimate children into %oluntar&, legal or compulsor&. 8oluntar& recognition
was required to be eBpressedl& made in a record of birth, a will, a statement
before a court of record or in an& authentic writing. @egal ac)nowledgment
too) place in fa%or of full blood brothers and sisters of an illegitimate child
who was recognized or udiciall& declared as natural. Compulsor&
ac)nowledgment could be demanded generall& in cases when the child had
in his fa%or an& e%idence to pro%e filiation. Nnli)e an action to claim legitimac&
which would last during the lifetime of the child, and might pass eBceptionall&
to the heirs of the child, an action to claim ac)nowledgment, howe%er, could
onl& be brought during the lifetime of the presumed parent.
A(icus Curiae 0uben ". Balane defined, during the oral argument,
3authentic writing,3 so as to be an authentic writing for purposes of %oluntar&
recognition, simpl& as being a genuine or indubitable writing of the
father. The term would include a public instrument 2one dul& ac)nowledged
before a notar& public or other competent official4 or a pri%ate writing admitted
b& the father to be his.
The "amil& Code has further liberalized the rulesA +rticle 1D., +rticle 1D,,
and +rticle 1DC pro%ideM
Art. 27$. /he filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the
follo&ing>
527 /he record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final ,udgment: or
5$7 An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
hand&ritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
)n the absence of the foregoing evidence* the legitimate filiation shall be proved by>
527 /he open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child: or
5$7 Any other means allo&ed by the 1ules of 'ourt and special la&s.
Art. 273. /he action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his
or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during
minority or in a state of insanity. )n these cases* the heirs shall have a period of five
years &ithin &hich to institute the action.
/he action already commenced by the child shall survive not&ithstanding the death
of either or both of the parties.
x x x x x x x x x.
Art. 27#. )llegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same
&ay and on the same* evidence as legitimate children.
/he action must be brought &ithin the same period specified in Article 273* except
&hen the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 27$* in &hich case the
action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.!
The pro%isions of the "amil& Code are retroacti%el& appliedA +rticle .C; of
the code readsM
+Art. $#C. /his 'ode shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not pre,udice
or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance &ith the 'ivil 'ode or other la&s.!
Thus, in 8da. de *&'Puia %s. Court of +ppeals,
[,;]
the Court has ruledM
+De hold that &hether @ose &as a voluntarily recogni9ed natural child should be
decided under Article $78 of the 'ivil 'ode of the %hilippines. Article $$C6 of that
'ode provides that Ethe voluntary recognition of a natural child shall take place
according to this 'ode* even if the child &as born before the effectivity of this body
of la&sE or before August 36* 2=#6. Fence* Article $78 may be given retroactive
effect.+
!t should be apparent that the growing trend to liberalize the
ac)nowledgment or recognition of illegitimate children is an attempt to brea)
awa& from the traditional idea of )eeping well apart legitimate and non'
legitimate relationships within the famil& in fa%or of the greater interest and
welfare of the child. The pro%isions are intended to merel& go%ern the pri%ate
and personal affairs of the famil&. There is little, if an&, to indicate that the
legitimate or illegitimate ci%il status of the indi%idual would also affect his
political rights or, in general, his relationship to the *tate. Ehile, indeed,
pro%isions on 3citizenship3 could be found in the Ci%il Code, such pro%isions
must be ta)en in the conteBt of pri%ate relations, the domain of ci%il lawA
particularl& '
+'ivil <a& is that branch of la& &hich has for its double purpose the organi9ation of
the family and the regulation of property. )t has thus GbeenH defined as the mass of
precepts &hich determine and regulate the relations of assistance* authority and
obedience among members of a family* and those &hich exist among members of a
society for the protection of private interests.+
[,D]
!n 1a2ez de 3arnuevo vs. 4uster,
[,<]
the Court has heldM
+)n accordance &ith Article = of the 'ivil 'ode of Spain* x x x the la&s relating to
family rights and duties* or to the status* condition and legal capacity of persons*
govern Spaniards although they reside in a foreign country: that* in consequence* Eall
questions of a civil nature* such as those dealing &ith the validity or nullity of the
matrimonial bond* the domicile of the husband and &ife* their support* as bet&een
them* the separation of their properties* the rules governing property* marital
authority* division of con,ugal property* the classification of their property* legal
causes for divorce* the extent of the latter* the authority to decree it* and* in general*
the civil effects of marriage and divorce upon the persons and properties of the
spouses* are questions that are governed exclusively by the national la& of the
husband and &ife.+
The rele%ance of 3citizenship3 or 3nationalit&3 to Ci%il @aw is best
eBemplified in +rticle 1C of the Ci%il Code, stating that '
+<a&s relating to family rights and duties* or to the status* condition and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines* even though living
abroad+ -
that eBplains the need to incorporate in the code a reiteration of the
Constitutional pro%isions on citizenship. *imilarl&, citizenship is significant in
ci%il relationships found in different parts of the Ci%il Code,
[,6]
such as on
successional rights and famil& relations.
[=/]
!n adoption, for instance, an
adopted child would be considered the child of his adopti%e parents and
accorded the same rights as their legitimate child but such legal fiction
eBtended onl& to define his rights under ci%il law
[=1]
and not his political status.
Ci%il law pro%isions point to an ob%ious bias against illegitimac&. This
discriminator& attitude ma& be traced to the *panish famil& and propert& laws,
which, while defining proprietar& and successional rights of members of the
famil&, pro%ided distinctions in the rights of legitimate and illegitimate
children. !n the monarchial set'up of old *pain, the distribution and
inheritance of titles and wealth were strictl& according to bloodlines and the
concern to )eep these bloodlines uncontaminated b& foreign blood was
paramount.
These distinctions between legitimac& and illegitimac& were codified in
the *panish Ci%il Code, and the in%idious discrimination sur%i%ed when the
*panish Ci%il Code became the primar& source of our own Ci%il Code. *uch
distinction, howe%er, remains and should remain onl& in the sphere of ci%il law
and not undul& impede or impinge on the domain of political law.
The proof of filiation or paternit& for purposes of determining his
citizenship status should thus be deemed independent from and not
ineBtricabl& tied up with that prescribed for ci%il law purposes. The Ci%il Code
or "amil& Code pro%isions on proof of filiation or paternit&, although good law,
do not ha%e preclusi%e effects on matters alien to personal and famil&
relations. The ordinar& rules on e%idence could well and should go%ern. "or
instance, the matter about pedigree is not necessaril& precluded from being
applicable b& the Ci%il Code or "amil& Code pro%isions.
*ection ,6, 0ule 1,/, of the 0ules of Court pro%ides '
$ct or %eclaration about pedigree. /he act or declaration of a person deceased* or
unable to testify* in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or
marriage* may be received in evidence &here it occurred before the controversy* and
the relationship bet&een the t&o persons is sho&n by evidence other than such act or
declaration. /he &ord IpedigreeJ includes relationship* family genealogy* birth*
marriage* death* the dates &hen and the places &here these facts occurred* and the
names of the relatives. )t embraces also facts of family history intimately connected
&ith pedigree.!
"or the abo%e rule to appl&, it would be necessar& that 2a4 the declarant is
alread& dead or unable to testif&, 2b4 the pedigree of a person must be at
issue, 2c4 the declarant must be a relati%e of the person whose pedigree is in
question, 2d4 declaration must be made before the contro%ers& has occurred,
and 2e4 the relationship between the declarant and the person whose
pedigree is in question must be shown b& e%idence other than such act or
declaration.
Thus, the dul& notarized declaration made b& 0ub& 1elle& 7angahas,
sister of Bessie 1elle& #oe submitted as ?Bhibit ./ before the CO7?@?C,
might be accepted to pro%e the acts of +llan ". #oe, recognizing his own
paternal relationship with "#$, i.e, li%ing together with Bessie 1elle& and his
children 2including respondent "#$4 in one house, and as one famil& '
+)* 1uby Belley -angahas* of legal age and sound mind* presently residing in
Stockton* 'alifornia* ..S.A.* after being s&orn in accordance &ith la& do hereby
declare that>
2. ) am the sister of the late Aessie Belley %oe.
$. Aessie Belley %oe &as the &ife of 8ernando %oe* Sr.
3. 8ernando and Aessie %oe had a son by the name of 1onald Allan %oe*
more popularly kno&n in the %hilippines as I8ernando %oe* @r.*J or
I8%@J.
. 1onald Allan %oe I8%@J &as born on August $6* 2=3= at St. <ukeEs
Fospital* -agdalena Street* -anila.
x x x x x x x x x
7. 8ernando %oe Sr.* and my sister Aessie* met and became engaged
&hile they &ere students at the .niversity of the %hilippines in 2=3C. )
&as also introduced to 8ernando %oe* Sr.* by my sister that same year.
8. 8ernando %oe* Sr.* and my sister Aessie had their first child in 2=38.
=. 8ernando %oe* Sr.* my sister Aessie and their first three children*
(li9abeth* 1onald* Allan and 8ernando ))* and myself lived together
&ith our mother at our familyEs house on ;akota St. 5no& @orge
Aocobo St.7* -alate until the liberation of -anila in 2=#* except for
some months bet&een 2=3-2=.
26. 8ernando %oe* Sr.* and my sister* Aessie* &ere blessed &ith four 57
more children after 1onald Allan %oe.
x x x x x x x x x
28. ) am executing this ;eclaration to attest to the fact that my nephe&*
1onald Allan %oe is a natural born 8ilipino* and that he is the
legitimate child of 8ernando %oe* Sr.
;one in 'ity of Stockton* 'alifornia* ..S.A.* this 2$th day of @anuary
$66.
1uby Belley -angahas
;eclarant
#NA T$532n8
!n case proof of filiation or paternit& would be unli)el& to satisfactoril&
establish or would be difficult to obtain, -5+ testing, which eBamines genetic
codes obtained from bod& cells of the illegitimate child and an& ph&sical
residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to. + positi%e match would
clear up filiation or paternit&. !n Ti/ing vs. Court of Appeals,
[=.]
this Court has
ac)nowledged the strong weight of -5+ testing '
+%arentage &ill still be resolved using conventional methods unless &e adopt the
modern and scientific &ays available. 8ortunately* &e have no& the facility and
expertise in using ;?A test for identification and parentage testing. /he .niversity
of the %hilippines ?atural Science 1esearch )nstitute 5.%-?S1)7 ;?A Analysis
<aboratory has no& the capability to conduct ;?A typing using short tandem repeat
5S/17 analysis. /he analysis is based on the fact that the ;?A of a childKperson has
t&o 5$7 copies* one copy from the mother and the other from the father. /he ;?A
from the mother* the alleged father and the child are analy9ed to establish
parentage. 4f course* being a novel scientific technique* the use of ;?A test as
evidence is still open to challenge. (ventually* as the appropriate case comes* courts
should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of ;?A evidence. 8or it &as said* that
courts should apply the results of science &hen competently obtained in aid of
situations presented* since to re,ect said result is to deny progress.+
'$3232on$rE5 Ar87;$n3 For
J7r256r7d$n32a= Conc=752>$n$55
#etitioner would ha%e it that e%en if +llan ". #oe were a "ilipino citizen, he
could not ha%e transmitted his citizenship to respondent "#$, the latter being
an illegitimate child. +ccording to petitioner, prior to his marriage to Bessie
1elle&, +llan ". #oe, on $ul& C, 16,;, contracted marriage with a certain
#aulita :omez, ma)ing his subsequent marriage to Bessie 1elle& bigamous
and respondent "#$ an illegitimate child. The %eracit& of the supposed
certificate of marriage between +llan ". #oe and #aulita :omez could be
most doubtful at best. But the documentar& e%idence introduced b& no less
than respondent himself, consisting of a birth certificate of respondent and a
marriage certificate of his parents showed that "#$ was born on ./ +ugust
16,6 to a "ilipino father and an +merican mother who were married to each
other a &ear later, or on 1; *eptember 16=/. Birth to unmarried parents
would ma)e "#$ an illegitimate child. #etitioner contended that as an
illegitimate child, "#$ so followed the citizenship of his mother, Bessie 1elle&,
an +merican citizen, basing his stand on the ruling of this Court in &orano vs.
%ivo,
[=,]
citing C#iongbian vs. de .eon
[==]
and 'erra vs. Republic.
[=C]
On the abo%e score, the disquisition made b& a(icus curiae $oaquin :.
Bernas, *$, is most con%incingA he states '
+De must analy9e these cases and ask &hat the lis #ota &as in each of them. )f the
pronouncement of the 'ourt on jus sanguinis &as on the lis #ota* the pronouncement
&ould be a decision constituting doctrine under the rule of stare decisis. Aut if the
pronouncement &as irrelevant to the lis #ota* the pronouncement &ould not be a
decision but a mere obiter dictu# &hich did not establish doctrine. ) therefore invite
the 'ourt to look closely into these cases.
8irst* &orano 's. (i'o. /he case &as not about an illegitimate child of a 8ilipino
father. )t &as about a stepson of a 8ilipino* a stepson &ho &as the child of a 'hinese
mother and a 'hinese father. /he issue &as &hether the stepson follo&ed the
naturali9ation of the stepfather. ?othing about jus sanguinis there. /he stepson did
not have the blood of the naturali9ed stepfather.
Second* )hiongbian 's. de *eon. /his case &as not about the illegitimate son of a
8ilipino father. )t &as about a legitimate son of a father &ho had become 8ilipino by
election to public office before the 2=3# 'onstitution pursuant to Article )0* Section
25$7 of the 2=3# 'onstitution. ?o one &as illegitimate here.
/hird* Serra 's. +epublic. /he case &as not about the illegitimate son of a 8ilipino
father. Serra &as an illegitimate child of a 'hinese father and a 8ilipino mother. /he
issue &as &hether one &ho &as already a 8ilipino because of his mother &ho still
needed to be naturali9ed. /here is nothing there about invidious jus sanguinis.
8inally* Paa 's. )han.
[=;]
/his is a more complicated case. /he case &as about the
citi9enship of Luintin 'han &ho &as the son of <eoncio 'han. Luintin 'han
claimed that his father* <eoncio* &as the illegitimate son of a 'hinese father and a
8ilipino mother. Luintin therefore argued that he got his citi9enship from <eoncio*
his father. Aut the Supreme 'ourt said that there &as no valid proof that <eoncio &as
in fact the son of a 8ilipina mother. /he 'ourt therefore concluded that <eoncio &as
not 8ilipino. )f <eoncio &as not 8ilipino* neither &as his son Luintin. Luintin
therefore &as not only not a natural-born 8ilipino but &as not even a 8ilipino.
/he 'ourt should have stopped there. Aut instead it follo&ed &ith an obiter
dictu#. /he 'ourt said obiter that even if <eoncio* LuintinEs father* &ere 8ilipino*
Luintin &ould not be 8ilipino because Luintin &as illegitimate. /his statement about
Luintin* based on a contrary to fact assumption* &as absolutely unnecessary for the
case. x x x )t &as obiter dictu#* pure and simple* simply repeating the obiter dictum
in &orano 's. (i'o.
x x x x x x x x x
+Aside from the fact that such a pronouncement &ould have no textual foundation in
the 'onstitution* it &ould also violate the equal protection clause of the 'onstitution
not once but t&ice. 8irst* it &ould make an illegitimate distinction bet&een a
legitimate child and an illegitimate child* and second* it &ould make an illegitimate
distinction bet&een the illegitimate child of a 8ilipino father and the illegitimate child
of a 8ilipino mother.
/he doctrine on constitutionally allo&able distinctions &as established long ago by
%eople vs. 'ayat.
[=D]
) &ould grant that the distinction bet&een legitimate children and
illegitimate children rests on real differences. x x x Aut real differences alone do not
,ustify invidious distinction. 1eal differences may ,ustify distinction for one purpose
but not for another purpose.
x x x Dhat is the relevance of legitimacy or illegitimacy to elective public
serviceM Dhat possible state interest can there be for disqualifying an illegitimate
child from becoming a public officer. )t &as not the fault of the child that his parents
had illicit liaison. Dhy deprive the child of the fullness of political rights for no fault
of his o&nM /o disqualify an illegitimate child from holding an important public
office is to punish him for the indiscretion of his parents. /here is neither ,ustice nor
rationality in that. And if there is neither ,ustice nor rationality in the distinction* then
the distinction transgresses the equal protection clause and must be reprobated.!
The other a(ici curiae, 7r. $ustice 8icente 7endoza 2a former member of
this Court4, #rofessor 0uben Balane and -ean 7artin 7agallona, at bottom,
ha%e eBpressed similar %iews. The thesis of petitioner, unfortunatel& hinging
solel& on pure obiter dicta, should indeed fail.
Ehere urisprudence regarded an illegitimate child as ta)ing after the
citizenship of its mother, it did so for the benefit the child. !t was to ensure a
"ilipino nationalit& for the illegitimate child of an alien father in line with the
assumption that the mother had custod&, would eBercise parental authorit&
and had the dut& to support her illegitimate child. !t was to help the child, not
to preudice or discriminate against him.
The fact of the matter J perhaps the most significant consideration J is
that the 16,C Constitution, the fundamental law pre%ailing on the da&, month
and &ear of birth of respondent "#$, can ne%er be more eBplicit than it
is. #ro%iding neither conditions nor distinctions, the Constitution states that
among the citizens of the #hilippines are Kthose whose fathers are citizens of
the #hilippines.L There utterl& is no cogent ustification to prescribe conditions
or distinctions where there clearl& are none pro%ided.
In S7; F
214 The Court, in the eBercise of its power of udicial re%iew,
possesses urisdiction o%er the petition in :. 0. 5o. 1;1<.=, filed under 0ule
;=, in relation to 0ule ;C, of the 0e%ised 0ules of Ci%il #rocedure. :.0. 5o.
1;1<.= assails the resolution of the CO7?@?C for alleged gra%e abuse of
discretion in dismissing, for lac) of merit, the petition in *#+ 5o. /='//, which
has pra&ed for the disqualification of respondent "#$ from running for the
position of #resident in the 1/
th
7a& .//= national elections on the contention
that "#$ has committed material representation in his certificate of candidac&
b& representing himself to be a natural'born citizen of the #hilippines.
2.4 The Court must dismiss, for lac) of urisdiction and prematurit&,
the petitions in :. 0. 5o. 1;1=,= and 5o. 1;1;,= both ha%ing been directl&
ele%ated to this Court in the latterHs capacit& as the onl& tribunal to resol%e a
presidential and %ice'presidential election contest under the
Constitution. ?%identl&, the primar& urisdiction of the Court can directl& be
in%o)ed onl& after, not before, the elections are held.
2,4 !n ascertaining, in :.0. 5o. 1;1<.=, whether gra%e abuse of
discretion has been committed b& the CO7?@?C, it is necessar& to ta)e on
the matter of whether or not respondent "#$ is a natural'born citizen, which,
in turn, depended on whether or not the father of respondent, +llan ". #oe,
would ha%e himself been a "ilipino citizen and, in the affirmati%e, whether or
not the alleged illegitimac& of respondent pre%ents him from ta)ing after the
"ilipino citizenship of his putati%e father. +n& conclusion on the "ilipino
citizenship of @orenzo #ou could onl& be drawn from the presumption that
ha%ing died in 16C= at <= &ears old, @orenzo would ha%e been born sometime
in the &ear 1<D/, when the #hilippines was under *panish rule, and that *an
Carlos, #angasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 16C=, in the
absence of an& other e%idence, could ha%e well been his place of residence
before death, such that @orenzo #ou would ha%e benefited from the Ken
(asse "ilipinizationL that the #hilippine Bill had effected in 16/.. That
citizenship 2of @orenzo #ou4, if acquired, would thereb& eBtend to his son,
+llan ". #oe, father of respondent "#$. The 16,C Constitution, during which
regime respondent "#$ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons
whose fathers are "ilipino citizens regardless of whether such children are
legitimate or illegitimate.
2=4 But while the totalit& of the e%idence ma& not establish
conclusi%el& that respondent "#$ is a natural'born citizen of the #hilippines,
the e%idence on hand still would preponderate in his fa%or enough to hold that
he cannot be held guilt& of ha%ing made a material misrepresentation in his
certificate of candidac& in %iolation of *ection D<, in relation to *ection D=, of
the Omnibus ?lection Code. #etitioner has utterl& failed to substantiate his
case before the Court, notwithstanding the ample opportunit& gi%en to the
parties to present their position and e%idence, and to pro%e whether or not
there has been material misrepresentation, which, as so ruled in Ro(ualdez$
&arcos vs. C-&E.EC,
[=<]
must not onl& be material, but also deliberate and
willful.
/.EREFORE, the Court 0?*O@8?* to -!*7!** J
1. :. 0. 5o. 1;1=,=, entitled 37aria $eanette C. Tecson and "eliB B.
-esiderio, $r., #etitioners, versus Commission on ?lections, 0onald +llan
1elle& #oe 2a.k.a. 3"ernando #oe, $r.,4 and 8ictorino 9. "ornier,
0espondents,3 and :. 0. 5o. 1;1;,=, entitled 3Ioilo +ntonio 8elez,
#etitioner, versus 0onald +llan 1elle& #oe, a.k.a. "ernando #oe, $r.,
0espondent,3 for want of urisdiction.
.. :. 0. 5o. 1;1<.=, entitled K8ictorino 9. "ornier, #etitioner, versus >on.
Commission on ?lections and 0onald +llan 1elle& #oe, also )nown as
"ernando #oe, $r.,L for failure to show gra%e abuse of discretion on the part of
respondent Commission on ?lections in dismissing the petition in *#+ 5o.
/='//,.
5o Costs.
SO OR#ERE#.
FACTS: Petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the COMELEC in taking
cognizance of and deciding the citizenship issue affecting Fernando Poe r! The" asserted
that under Section #$%& ' Artic(e )** of the +,-% Constituition' on(" the Supre.e Court
had origina( and e/c(usi0e jurisdiction to reso(0e the 1asic issue of the case!
*SS2E: As the Presidentia( E(ectora( Tri1una( $PET& ' does the Supre.e Court ha0e
jurisdiction o0er the qua(ifications of presidentia( candidates3
42L*56: 5o! An e/a.ination of the phraseo(og" in 4u(e +7' +8' and 4u(e +# of the 94u(es
of the Presidentia( E(ectora( Tri1una('9 pro.u(gated 1" the Supre.e Court on Apri( +,,7
categorica((" speak of the jurisdiction of the tri1una( o0er contests re(ating to the
e(ection' returns and qua(ifications of the 9President9 or 9)ice:President9' of the
Phi(ippines' and not of 9candidates9 for President or )ice:President! A quo ;arranto
proceeding is genera((" defined as 1eing an action against a person ;ho usurps' intrudes
into' or un(a;fu((" ho(ds or e/ercises a pu1(ic office! *n such conte/t' the e(ection contest
can on(" conte.p(ate a post:e(ection scenario! *n 4u(e +#' on(" a registered candidate
;ho ;ou(d ha0e recei0ed either the second or third highest nu.1er of 0otes cou(d fi(e an
e(ection protest! This ru(e again presupposes a post:e(ection scenario!
*t is fair to conc(ude that the jurisdiction of the Supre.e Court' defined 1" Section #'
paragraph %' of the +,-% Constitution' ;ou(d not inc(ude cases direct(" 1rought 1efore it'
questioning the qua(ifications of a candidate for the presidenc" or 0ice:presidenc" 1efore
the e(ections are he(d!
a