Digest: LABO v. COMELEC. G.R. No. 86564 . August 1, 1989
FACTS: Ramon Labo asked the Court to restrain the Commission on Elections from looking into the question of his citizenship as a qualification for his office as Mayor of Baguio City. The allegation that he is a foreigner, he says, is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the public respondent has jurisdiction to conduct any inquiry into this matter, considering that the petition for quo warranto against him was not filed on time.
Issue: Whether or not Ramon Labo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of his election on 18 January 1988, as mayor of Baguio City.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the petitioner is not now, nor was he on the day of the
local elections on January 18, 1988, a citizen of the Philippines. In fact, he
was not even a qualified voter under the Constitution itself because of his
alienage. He was therefore ineligible as a candidate for mayor of Baguio City,
under Section 42 of the Local Government Code providing in material part as
follows:
Sec.
42. Qualifications. — An elective local official must be a citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty-three years of age on election day, a qualified
voter registered as such in the barangay, municipality, city or province where
he proposes to be elected, a resident therein for at least one year at the time
of the filing of his certificate of candidacy, and able to read and write
English, Filipino, or any other local language or dialect.
The
petitioner argues that his alleged lack of citizenship is a "futile
technicality" that should not frustrate the will of the electorate of
Baguio City, who elected him by a "resonant and thunderous majority."
To be accurate, it was not as loud as all that, for his lead over the
second-placer was only about 2,100 votes. In any event, the people of that
locality could not have, even unanimously, changed the requirements of the Local
Government Code and the Constitution. The electorate had no power to permit a
foreigner owing his total allegiance to the Queen of Australia, or at least a
stateless individual owing no allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, to
preside over them as mayor of their city. Only citizens of the Philippines have
that privilege over their countrymen.
It
remains to stress that the citizen of the Philippines must take pride in his
status as such and cherish this priceless gift that, out of more than a hundred
other nationalities, God has seen fit to grant him. Having been so endowed, he
must not lightly yield this precious advantage, rejecting it for another land
that may offer him material and other attractions that he may not find in his
own country. To be sure, he has the right to renounce the Philippines if he
sees fit and transfer his allegiance to a state with more allurements for him. But
having done so, he cannot expect to be welcomed back with open arms once his
taste for his adopted country turns sour or he is himself disowned by it as an
undesirable alien.
Philippine
citizenship is not a cheap commodity
that can be easily recovered after its renunciation.
It
may be restored only after the returning renegade makes a formal act of
re-dedication to the country he has abjured and he solemnly affirms once again
his total and exclusive loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines. This may
not be accomplished by election to public office.
The
Court held that petitioner Ramon J.
Labo, Jr. is not a citizen of the Philippines and therefore disqualified
from continuing to serve as Mayor of Baguio City. He is ordered to vacate his
office and surrender the same to
the Vice-Mayor of Baguio City, once this decision becomes final and executory. The temporary
restraining order dated January 31, 1989, is lifted.
0 Comments