Republic of the Philippines 87-604), for the disqualification of Merito C.

Miguel filed prior to the

SUPREME COURT local elections on January 18, 1988.
Manila
G.R. No. 88831, Mateo Caasi vs. Court of Appeals, et al., is a
EN BANC petition for review of the decision dated June 21, 1989, of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 14531 dismissing the petition for quo
G.R. No. 88831 November 8, 1990 warranto filed by Mateo Caasi, a rival candidate for the position of
municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan, also to disqualify Merito
MATEO CAASI, petitioner, Miguel on account of his being a green card holder.
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MERITO C. In his answer to both petitions, Miguel admitted that he holds a
MIGUEL, respondents. green card issued to him by the US Immigration Service, but he
denied that he is a permanent resident of the United States. He
G.R. No. 84508 November 13, 1990 allegedly obtained the green card for convenience in order that he
may freely enter the United States for his periodic medical
ANECITO CASCANTE petitioner, examination and to visit his children there. He alleged that he is a
vs. permanent resident of Bolinao, Pangasinan, that he voted in all
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MERITO C. previous elections, including the plebiscite on February 2,1987 for
MIGUEL, respondents. the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, and the congressional
elections on May 18,1987.
Ireneo B. Orlino for petitioner in G.R. Nos. 88831 & 84508.
After hearing the consolidated petitions before it, the COMELEC
with the exception of Commissioner Anacleto Badoy, Jr., dismissed
Montemayor & Montemayor Law Office for private respondent.
the petitions on the ground that:

The possession of a green card by the respondent

(Miguel) does not sufficiently establish that he has
GRIO-AQUINO, J.: abandoned his residence in the Philippines. On the
contrary, inspite (sic) of his green card, Respondent
These two cases were consolidated because they have the same has sufficiently indicated his intention to
objective; the disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus continuously reside in Bolinao as shown by his having
Election Code of the private respondent, Merito Miguel for the voted in successive elections in said municipality. As
position of municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan, to which he the respondent meets the basic requirements of
was elected in the local elections of January 18, 1988, on the citizenship and residence for candidates to elective
ground that he is a green card holder, hence, a permanent resident local officials (sic) as provided for in Section 42 of the
of the United States of America, not of Bolinao. Local Government Code, there is no legal obstacle to
his candidacy for mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan. (p.
G.R. No. 84508 is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 12, Rollo, G.R. No. 84508).
dated January 13, 1988 of the COMELEC First Division, dismissing
the three (3) petitions of Anecito Cascante (SPC No. 87-551), In his dissenting opinion, Commissioner Badoy, Jr. opined that:
Cederico Catabay (SPC No. 87-595) and Josefino C. Celeste (SPC No.
1
 A green card holder being a permanent resident of or Sec. 18. Public officers and employees owe the State
an immigrant of a foreign country and respondent and this Constitution allegiance at all times, and any
having admitted that he is a green card holder, it is public officer or employee who seeks to change his
incumbent upon him, under Section 68 of the citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of
Omnibus Election Code, to prove that he "has waived another country during his tenure shall be dealt with
his status as a permanent resident or immigrant" to by law.
be qualified to run for elected office. This respondent
has not done. (p. 13, Rollo, G.R. No. 84508.) In the same vein, but not quite, Section 68 of the Omnibus Election
Code of the Philippines (B.P. Blg. 881) provides:
In G.R. No. 88831, "Mateo Caasi, petitioner vs. Court of Appeals and
Merito Miguel, respondents," the petitioner prays for a review of the SEC. 68. Disqualifications ... Any person who is a
decision dated June 21, 1989 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign
No. 14531 "Merito C. Miguel, petitioner vs. Hon. Artemio R. Corpus, country shall not be qualified to run for any elective
etc., respondents," reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court office under this Code, unless said person has waived
which denied Miguel's motion to dismiss the petition for quo his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a
warranto filed by Caasi. The Court of Appeals ordered the regional foreign country in accordance with the residence
trial court to dismiss and desist from further proceeding in the quo requirement provided for in the election laws. (Sec.
warranto case. The Court of Appeals held: 25, 1971, EC).

... it is pointless for the Regional Trial Court to hear In view of current rumor that a good number of elective and
the case questioning the qualification of the appointive public officials in the present administration of President
petitioner as resident of the Philippines, after the Corazon C. Aquino are holders of green cards in foreign countries,
COMELEC has ruled that the petitioner meets the their effect on the holders' right to hold elective public office in the
very basic requirements of citizenship and residence Philippines is a question that excites much interest in the outcome
for candidates to elective local officials (sic) and that of this case.
there is no legal obstacles (sic) for the candidacy of
the petitioner, considering that decisions of the In the case of Merito Miguel, the Court deems it significant that in
Regional Trial Courts on quo warranto cases under the "Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration"
the Election Code are appealable to the COMELEC. (Optional Form No. 230, Department of State) which Miguel filled up
(p. 22, Rollo, G.R. No. 88831.) in his own handwriting and submitted to the US Embassy in Manila
before his departure for the United States in 1984, Miguel's answer
These two cases pose the twin issues of: (1) whether or not a green to Question No. 21 therein regarding his "Length of intended stay (if
card is proof that the holder is a permanent resident of the United permanently, so state)," Miguel's answer was,"Permanently."
States, and (2) whether respondent Miguel had waived his status as
a permanent resident of or immigrant to the U.S.A. prior to the local On its face, the green card that was subsequently issued by the
elections on January 18, 1988. United States Department of Justice and Immigration and
Registration Service to the respondent Merito C. Miguel identifies
Section 18, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides: him in clear bold letters as a RESIDENT ALIEN. On the back of the
card, the upper portion, the following information is printed:

2
 Alien Registration Receipt Card. rights of person and property and to their civil and
criminal responsibility. Thus resident alien friends are
Person identified by this card is entitled to the benefit of the provision of the
entitled to reside permanently and Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution
work in the United States." (Annex A that no state shall deprive "any person" of life liberty,
pp. 189-190, Rollo of G.R. No. 84508.) or property without due process of law, or deny to
any person the equal protection of the law, and the
Despite his vigorous disclaimer, Miguel's immigration to the United protection of this amendment extends to the right to
States in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his domicile and earn a livelihood by following the ordinary
residence in the Philippines. For he did not go to the United States occupations of life. So an alien is entitled to the
merely to visit his children or his doctor there; he entered the protection of the provision of the Fifth Amendment to
limited States with the intention to have there permanently as the federal constitution that no person shall be
evidenced by his application for an immigrant's (not a visitor's or deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
tourist's) visa. Based on that application of his, he was issued by process of law. (3 CJS 529-530.)
the U.S. Government the requisite green card or authority to reside
there permanently. Section 18, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution which provides that
"any public officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship
Immigration is the removing into one place from or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his
another; the act of immigrating the entering into a tenure shall be dealt with by law" is not applicable to Merito Miguel
country with the intention of residing in it. for he acquired the status of an immigrant of the United
States before he was elected to public office, not "during his
An immigrant is a person who removes into a country tenure" as mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan.
for the purpose of permanent residence. As shown
infra 84, however, statutes sometimes give a broader The law applicable to him is Section 68 of the Omnibus Election
meaning to the term "immigrant." (3 CJS 674.) Code (B.P. Blg. 881), which provides:

As a resident alien in the U.S., Miguel owes temporary and local xxx xxx xxx
allegiance to the U.S., the country in which he resides (3 CJS 527).
This is in return for the protection given to him during the period of Any person who is a permanent resident of or an
his residence therein. immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified
to run for any elective office under this Code, unless
Aliens reading in the limited States, while they are such person has waived his status as permanent
permitted to remain, are in general entitled to the resident or immigrant of a foreign country in
protection of the laws with regard to their rights of accordance with the residence requirement provided
person and property and to their civil and criminal for in the election laws.'
responsibility.
Did Miguel, by returning to the Philippines in November 1987 and
In general, aliens residing in the United States, while presenting himself as a candidate for mayor of Bolinao in the
they are permitted to remain are entitled to the January 18,1988 local elections, waive his status as a permanent
safeguards of the constitution with regard to their resident or immigrant of the United States?

3
To be "qualified to run for elective office" in the Philippines, the law country are incapable of such entire devotion to the interest and
requires that the candidate who is a green card holder must have welfare of their homeland for with one eye on their public duties
"waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a here, they must keep another eye on their duties under the laws of
foreign country." Therefore, his act of filing a certificate of the foreign country of their choice in order to preserve their status
candidacy for elective office in the Philippines, did not of itself as permanent residents thereof.
constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent resident or
immigrant of the United States. The waiver of his green card should Miguel insists that even though he applied for immigration and
be manifested by some act or acts independent of and done prior permanent residence in the United States, he never really intended
to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country. Without to live there permanently, for all that he wanted was a green card
such prior waiver, he was "disqualified to run for any elective to enable him to come and go to the U.S. with ease. In other words,
office" (Sec. 68, Omnibus Election Code). he would have this Court believe that he applied for immigration to
the U.S. under false pretenses; that all this time he only had one
Respondent Merito Miguel admits that he holds a green card, which foot in the United States but kept his other foot in the Philippines.
proves that he is a permanent resident or immigrant it of the Even if that were true, this Court will not allow itself to be a party to
United States, but the records of this case are starkly bare of proof his duplicity by permitting him to benefit from it, and giving him the
that he had waived his status as such before he ran for election as best of both worlds so to speak.
municipal mayor of Bolinao on January 18, 1988. We, therefore,
hold that he was disqualified to become a candidate for that office. Miguel's application for immigrant status and permanent residence
in the U.S. and his possession of a green card attesting to such
The reason for Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code is not hard status are conclusive proof that he is a permanent resident of the
to find. Residence in the municipality where he intends to run for U.S. despite his occasional visits to the Philippines. The waiver of
elective office for at least one (1) year at the time of filing his such immigrant status should be as indubitable as his application
certificate of candidacy, is one of the qualifications that a candidate for it. Absent clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of
for elective public office must possess (Sec. 42, Chap. 1, Title 2, that status or that he surrendered his green card to the appropriate
Local Government Code). Miguel did not possess that qualification U.S. authorities before he ran for mayor of Bolinao in the local
because he was a permanent resident of the United States and he elections on January 18, 1988, our conclusion is that he was
resided in Bolinao for a period of only three (3) months (not one disqualified to run for said public office, hence, his election thereto
year) after his return to the Philippines in November 1987 and was null and void.
before he ran for mayor of that municipality on January 18, 1988.
WHEREFORE, the appealed orders of the COMELEC and the Court of
In banning from elective public office Philippine citizens who are Appeals in SPC Nos. 87-551, 87-595 and 87-604, and CA-G.R. SP
permanent residents or immigrants of a foreign country, the No. 14531 respectively, are hereby set aside. The election of
Omnibus Election Code has laid down a clear policy of excluding respondent Merito C. Miguel as municipal mayor of Bolinao,
from the right to hold elective public office those Philippine citizens Pangasinan is hereby annulled. Costs against the said respondent.
who possess dual loyalties and allegiance. The law has reserved
that privilege for its citizens who have cast their lot with our SO ORDERED.
country "without mental reservations or purpose of evasion." The
assumption is that those who are resident aliens of a foreign