G.R. No. 92191-92; G.R. Nos. 92202-03 – 276 Phil. 758 – 199 SCRA 692 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – Citizens – Citizenship – Election of Filipino Citizenship; Doctrine of Implied Election
In 1987, Jose Ong, Jr. overwhelmingly won as the Congressman of Northern Samar. Thereafter, his rivals, Antonio Co and Sixto Balanquit, Jr. filed a quo warranto case against Ong before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal on the ground that Ong is not a natural-born Filipino. It was alleged that Ong failed to elect Filipino citizenship after reaching the age of majority.
Under the 1935 Constitution, which was in effect when Ong was born, he follows the citizenship of his father who was Chinese. However, it also provided that since his mother is a Filipino, he may elect Filipino citizenship in writing and under oath upon reaching the age of majority (AOM then was 21). Ong turned 21 in 1969 but he did not make such an election.
The HRET ruled in favor of Ong.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ong should be disqualified.
HELD: No. Records show that Ong’s father was born in China in 1905. In 1915, Ong’s father was brought to Northern Samar and has lived there ever since. Ong’s father married a Filipina in 1932. In 1948, Ong was born. In 1954, Ong’s father filed a petition for naturalization. The trial court granted his petition in 1955. Ong was 9 years old at the time. Ong was born and raised in Northern Samar. Ong finished college and was able to pass the CPA board exam. Thereafter, he worked for the Central Bank of the Philippines. In 1984, he married a Filipina. In the same year and in the subsequent years, he registered as a voter and has exercised his right to vote.
There was no need for Ong to elect Filipino citizenship. His mother was a Filipino and his father already acquired Filipino citizenship in 1955. The grant of citizenship to Ong’s father in 1955 benefited Ong in accordance with the Revised Naturalization Act (derivative citizenship).
Further, the oath requirement was satisfied by Ong’s acts as a citizen: Entering a profession open only to Filipinos, serving in public office where citizenship is a qualification, voting during election time, running for public office, and other categorical acts of similar nature are themselves formal manifestations of choice to be a Filipino (Doctrine of Implied Election / Mallare Doctrine).
Justice Padilla dissenting:
Act of electing citizenship must be done expressly not impliedly. Such express election is not supplanted by Ong’s acts of voting or working as a licensed professional nor may it be deemed that the Revised Naturalization Act elected Filipino citizenship for him when his father was granted naturalization in 1955.
Compare this with the case of In Re: Vicente Ching
