Cordora V COMELEC Feb 19, 2009
Cordora V COMELEC Feb 19, 2009
Cordora V COMELEC Feb 19, 2009
FACTS
In his complaint filed before the COMELEC Law Department, Tambunting maintained that he did not make any
Cordora asserted that Tambunting made false assertions in his misrepresentation in his certificates of candidacy and
Certificate of Candidacy in the following areas: presented the following proof and assertions:
Citizenship o Cordora presented a certification from the o Tambunting presented a copy of his birth certificate
I am a Natural Bureau of Immigration which stated that, which showed that he was born of a Filipino mother
Born/Filipino Citizen
in two instances, Tambunting claimed that and an American father. Tambunting further denied
he is an American: upon arrival in the that he was naturalized as an American citizen. The
Philippines on 16 December 2000 and certificate of citizenship conferred by the US govt after
upon departure from the Philippines on his father petitioned him through INS Form I-130
17 June 2001. (Petition for Relative) merely confirmed his citizenship
which he acquired at birth.
o He also took oath of allegiance on Nov. 18, 2003
pursuant to Republic Act No. 9225. [see below]
Residency o According to Cordora, the above travel o Tambunting has resided in the Philippines since birth,
No. of years of dates confirmed that Tambunting imbibed the Filipino culture, has spoken the Filipino
Residence before
acquired American citizenship through language, and has been educated in Filipino schools.
May 14, 2001.
36 in the Philippines naturalization in Honolulu, Hawaii on 2 Also, the residency requirement is not the same as
and December 2000, and that Tambunting citizenship.
25 in the consequently lost his o
Constituency where I
residency requirement upon said
seek to be elected
naturalization process.
Eligibility for o That Tambunting knowingly and o Given the aforementioned contentions, Tambunting is
Election wilfully affirmed and reiterated that he is eligible to seek election.
I am ELIGIBLE for indeed eligible for the office to which he
the office I seek to
seeks to be elected, when in truth and in
be elected.
fact, the contrary is indubitably
established by his own statements before
the Philippine Bureau of Immigration.
ISSUE
Whether or not there is probable cause to hold Tambunting for trial for having committed an election offense.
RATION DECIDENDI
There is no probable cause to hold Tambunting for trial for having committed an election offense.
The Court held that Cordora failed to establish that Tambunting indeed willfully made false entries in his certificates of
candidacy. On the contrary, Tambunting sufficiently proved his innocence of the charge filed against him. Tambunting is eligible
for the office which he sought to be elected and fulfilled the citizenship and residency requirements prescribed by the law.
o On citizenship
Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento observes that Tambunting possesses dual citizenship The process involved in
INS Form I-130 only served to confirm the American citizenship which Tambunting acquired at birth. Dual
citizenship did not disqualify him from running for public office.
Dual citizenship1 and dual allegiance are different. Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the concurrent
application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the
said states. Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes,
by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the
result of an individuals volition.
In the present case, Tambunting, a natural-born Filipino, did not subsequently become a naturalized citizen of
another country. Hence, the twin requirements in R.A. No. 9225 do not apply to him.
o On residency
For the purpose of election laws, residency includes the twin elements of the fact of residing in a fixed place
and the intention to return there permanently, and is not dependent upon citizenship.
o On eligibility
Cordora failed to establish that Tambunting indeed willfully made false entries in his certificates of candidacy.
On the contrary, Tambunting sufficiently proved his innocence of the charge filed against him. Tambunting is
eligible for the office which he sought to be elected and fulfilled the citizenship and residency requirements
prescribed by law.
RULING
The petition is DISMISSED. The Resolutions of the COMELEC en banc are AFFIRMED.