Aznar v Commission on Elections [G.R. 83820 May 25, 1990]

Constitutional Law II - Citizenship

Facts:

Aznar, the Provincial Chairman of Cebu PDP-Laban, filed a petition to disqualify Emilio “Lito” Osmeña, respondent, when he filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Provincial Governor of Cebu Province on the ground that the latter is not a Filipino citizen but rather an American Citizen.

Aznar presented the following to show that Lito is an American citizen:

1.      Application for Alien Registration Form 2. Alien Certificate of Registration 3. Pernit to Re-enter the Philippines 4. Immigration Certificate of Clearance

On the other hand, Lito alleged that he is a Filipino citizen:

1.      He is the legitimate child of a Filipino 2. He is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport 3. His continuous residency in the Philippines since his birth 4. His being a registered voter in the Philippines

Contention arose in this case as to the citizenship of Lito and if he is qualified for the public position with regard to his citizenship

 

Issue:

Whether or not Respondent Emilio “Lito” Osmeña is a Filipino citizen thus meeting the citizenship requirement for public office

 

Ruling:

Yes.

The Court cited the ways, as provided under Commonwealth Act No. 63, that one loses his Filipino citizenship:

1.      by naturalization in a foreign country 2. by express renunciation of citizenship 3. by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country

 

As such, the evidence presented by Aznar is not direct proof that Respondent Lito lost his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided under C.A. 63. It is clear that Respondent Lito did not lose his Philippine citizenship by any of the three mentioned above or by any other mode of losing Philippine citizenship Also, Respondent Lito being the son of a Filipino father, he is presumed to be a Filipino as well. The burden of proving otherwise falls onto Petitioner Aznar. And, clearly, Aznar failed to defeat the presumption of Respondent Lito’s citizenship.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. v Military Shrine Services-Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Dept. of National Defense [G.R. 187587 June 5, 2013]

Constitutional Law II -  Right to Information Facts: President Carlos P. Garcia, through Proclamation No. 423, reserved parcels of land in Municipalities of Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Rizal, and Pasay for military reservation known as Fort Bonifacio. Later on, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 208 and 2476 (amending Proclamation No. 243) which provided for the exclusions of areas for military reservation such as Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan, and Signal Village. Moreover, President Marcos inserted “P.S. includes Western Bicutan” at the very end and did not include such portion in the publication of said amending Proclamation. Contention arose in this case as to the Petitioners herein case and the Western Bicutan Lot Owners Association, Inc (WBLOAI) stating that their lots, falling within Western Bicutan, is already excluded from the military reservation (and so it is no longer a public land) as per President Marcos’ Proclamations. They used the “P.S. includes Western Bic...
Read more

Pascual, Jr. v Board of Medical Examiners [L-25018 May 26, 1969]

Constitutional Law II - Self-Incrimination Clause Facts: Petitioner, Arsenio Pascual, Jr., was charged by Salvador Gatbonton and Enriqueta Gatbonton for alleged immorality or malpractice through an administrative case. In such administrative case, at the initial hearing the complainant’s (Gatbontons’) counsel announced to present Pascual, Jr, the one who was charged in the case, to be his first witness. Thereupon, Pascual, Jr objected invoking his constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself, or his right against self-incrimination. And so, the Board of Examiners, herein respondents, said that Pascual, Jr be once again called upon to testify at the next hearing unless he secure a restraining order from a competent authority Contention arose in this case as Petitioner Pascual, Jr alleges that he cannot be compelled to take the witness stand in an administrative case proceeding wherein he is the one charged in the case and that the Board of Examiners failed ...
Read more