Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 641 views

    Co V HRET GR 92191 9207.20.91 Natural Born Citizens Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    FEBIE ANN BAGWEL
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the election of Jose Ong Jr. to the House of Representatives. The Tribunal had ruled against Ong on the grounds that he was not a natural born citizen and not a resident of the district. However, the Supreme Court found that: [1] Ong was a natural born Filipino citizen as his father had gained naturalization when Ong was 9; and [2] Ong maintained residence in the district despite pursuing education and work elsewhere, as one does not lose residence due to temporary absence. Therefore, the Court overturned the Tribunal's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Co V HRET GR 92191 9207.20.91 Natural Born Citizens Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    FEBIE ANN BAGWEL
    641 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the election of Jose Ong Jr. to the House of Representatives. The Tribunal had ruled against Ong on the grounds that he was not a natural born citizen and not a resident of the district. However, the Supreme Court found that: [1] Ong was a natural born Filipino citizen as his father had gained naturalization when Ong was 9; and [2] Ong maintained residence in the district despite pursuing education and work elsewhere, as one does not lose residence due to temporary absence. Therefore, the Court overturned the Tribunal's decision.

    Original Description:

    Topic on implied election

    Original Title

    Co v HRET GR 92191 9207.20.91 Natural Born Citizens Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the election of Jose Ong Jr. to the House of Representatives. The Tribunal had ruled against Ong on the grounds that he was not a natural born citizen and not a resident of the district. However, the Supreme Court found that: [1] Ong was a natural born Filipino citizen as his father had gained naturalization when Ong was 9; and [2] Ong maintained residence in the district despite pursuing education and work elsewhere, as one does not lose residence due to temporary absence. Therefore, the Court overturned the Tribunal's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    641 views2 pages

    Co V HRET GR 92191 9207.20.91 Natural Born Citizens Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    FEBIE ANN BAGWEL
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the election of Jose Ong Jr. to the House of Representatives. The Tribunal had ruled against Ong on the grounds that he was not a natural born citizen and not a resident of the district. However, the Supreme Court found that: [1] Ong was a natural born Filipino citizen as his father had gained naturalization when Ong was 9; and [2] Ong maintained residence in the district despite pursuing education and work elsewhere, as one does not lose residence due to temporary absence. Therefore, the Court overturned the Tribunal's decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Co. V.

    HRET
    GR Nos 92191-92
    July 30,1991

    Facts:

    Mr. Ong was born in an outlying rural town of Samar from a Filipina mother and a Chinese father. His
    father applied for naturalization when he was 9 years old.

    He took his secondary and college education in Manila, graduated and passed the CPA board
    Examinations and worked in a government agency, also in Manila.

    He has participated in political exercises as a Filipino and has always considered himself a Filipino
    citizen. There is nothing in the records to show that he does not embrace Philippine customs and
    values, nothing to indicate any tinge of alien-ness no acts to show that this country is not his natural
    homeland.

    On May 11, 1987, he joined the congressional election for the second district of Northern Samar, and
    he was overwhelmingly voted by the people.

    The other 2 candidates of the election filed election protests against the Mr. Ong premised on the
    following grounds:

    1) Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines; and

    2) Jose Ong, Jr. is not a resident of the second district of Northern Samar.

    The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) in its decision dated November 6, 1989,
    found for the private respondent.

    Hence, this petition for certiorari.

    Issue:

    1. Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the contests relating to the election,
    returns, and qualifications of their respective members.
    2. Whether or not Mr. Ong is a natural born Filipino citizen.
    3. Whether or not Mr. Ong is a resident of the second district of Northern Samar.

    Ruling:

    1. The SC has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the case.

    General rule: The Constitution explicitly provides that the House of Representatives Electoral
    Tribunal (HRET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) shall be the sole judges of all
    contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members.
    (See Article VI, Section 17, Constitution)

    The authority conferred upon the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete. The use of the
    word sole emphasizes the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of these Tribunals.

    Exception: The Courts may inquire into acts of Electoral Tribunal under its corrective power.

    The Court is to merely check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone
    beyond the Constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view. The
    test- is there a manifest grave abuse of discretion?
    In the case at bar, the Court finds no improvident use of power, no denial of due process on
    the part of the HRET which will necessitate the exercise of the power of judicial review by the
    Supreme Court.

    2. Mr. Ong is a natural born Filipino citizen.

    The pertinent portions of the Constitution found in Article IV read:

    SECTION 1, the following are citizens of the Philippines:

    1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the Constitution;

    2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;

    3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship
    upon reaching the age of majority; and

    4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

    SECTION 2, Natural-born Citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
    without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship. Those who elect
    Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed natural-born
    citizens.

    Mr. Ong traces his natural born citizenship thru his mother, of which he is expected to chose
    his citizenship as provided above when he comes of age. In his case, however, his father has
    been naturalized when he was nine years old, therefore, making Mr Ong naturalized-Filipino
    citizen at the age of 9. There is no need anymore for him to chose his citizenship when he
    comes of age as there is no foreign nationality of his father which he could possibly chose.

    3. Mr. Ong is a resident of the second district of Northern Samar.

    The term "residence" has been understood as synonymous with domicile not only under the
    previous Constitutions but also under the 1987 Constitution.

    The term "domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business
    or pleasure, one intends to return. (Ong Huan Tin v. Republic, 19 SCRA 966 [1967]) The
    absence of a person from said permanent residence, no matter how long, notwithstanding, it
    continues to be the domicile of that person. In other words, domicile is characterized
    by animus revertendi (Ujano v. Republic, 17 SCRA 147 [1966])

    In this case, The domicile of origin of the private respondent, which was the domicile of his
    parents, is has always been at Laoang, Samar. Mr. Ong may not have a property on the place
    as he is only living with his parents but to establish a residence or domicile does not require
    a person to own a house. It is enough that he lives in the municipality.It has also been settled
    that his absence from residence to pursue studies and practice his profession did not, as well
    constitute his loss of residence.

    You might also like