Page 1 of 5
Republic of the Philippines Commission on Elections, Regional Election Office Cebu City, Philippines
Tiopilo Sagrado
Petitioner -versus-
Civil Case No: 4567 For: Petition for Disqualification
Christopher Uy
Defendant x--------------------------------------------------x
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM
Defendant, before the Honorable Commission on Elections, by and thru a counsel, hereby present and respectfully submits this memorandum, to wit:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case is filed by Petitioner against Defendant for his disqualification of office as a representative of the City of Cebu, on the ground that said Defendant is not a natural – born Filipino therefore violating the Omnibus Election Code and as also in Article 4. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and is not qualified for running an elective office in view of Article 6. Section 6 of the same Constitution.
CASE FACTS For the Honorable Commission on Elections be guided in the proper disposition and the denial of due course in the above entitled case, hereunder contains the relevant facts of the case, to wit: 1. Both parties are legally capable to sue and be sued and may be served with summons and other legal processes. 2. Before Petitioner run as a representative of the City, he was then a Mayor of the City of Mandaue, Cebu from 2001-2004 and a Natural – born citizen of the Philippines. 3. Defendant was then born in 1960 by a Chinese Migrant and a Filipina Mother and upon reaching the age of nine, his father became naturalized Filipino
Page 2 of 5
Citizen. When he reached the age of majority, he elects Philippine citizenship and became a Natural – born citizen of the country. 4. During the 2004 elections, Defendant ran as a representative of the City of Cebu of which his opponent was said Petitioner. 5. Petitioner and Defendant filed before the Comelec their own Certificate of Candidacy containing all the necessary facts and information as to which it is important in determining whether they are really qualified for running to said elective office. 6. Defendant alleged in his certificate of candidacy that he is capable to run as a representative of the City of Cebu and have not violated errors regarding his application. He also further contends that he is a natural – born citizen of the Philippines for he was born before January 17, 1973 and his mother was a Filipino Citizen and upon reaching the age of majority he elects Philippine Citizenship, pursuant to the 1987 Constitutional mandate. He then did not violated the omnibus election code and is qualified to the qualifications set forth in Article 6 Section 6 of the same constitution. Therefore he is qualified to run to an elective office in the government.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE/S 1. Whether or not defendant is a natural – born citizen of the Philippines in the basis laid down by the 1987 Constitution. 2. Whether or not he violated the omnibus election code and is not qualified to run in an elective office pursuant to Article 6 Section 6 of the same Constitution.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS Under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, particularly on Article 4 Section 1 paragraph 3; “The following 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.”
1
It is clearly stated in the constitution that defendant was born before January 17, 1973 and his mother was a Filipino Citizen and at the age of majority 1
Cruz, Isagani A. “Constitutional Law” Central Book Supply, INC.,927 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City Philippines, 2007.,p. 403
Page 3 of 5
he elected Philippine Citizenship . Petitioner’s contention herein is considered void since the defendant is considered a natural – born citizen of the Philippines and can run for an elective office since he is considered as a citizen of the Philippines and possesses all the qualifications provided for by the constitution or by any existing law. It is also clearly cited in Section 2 of Article 4 of the constitution that; “Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens .”
2
In the Omnibus Election Code particularly on Article IX Section 64 on the eligibility of candidates running for a particular elective office it is stated that “A sectoral representative shall be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, able to read and write, a resident of the Philippines, able to read and write, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election, a bona fide member of the sector he seeks to represent, and in the case of a representative of the agricultural or industrial labor sector, shall be a registered voter, and on the day of the election is at least twenty-five years of age. The youth sectoral representative should at least be eighteen and not be more than twenty-five years of age on the day of the election: Provided, however, That any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of twenty-five years during his term shall be entitled to continue in office until the expiration of his term.”3 It is therefore evident that in Article 4 Section 1 paragraph 3 in connection to the mandate stated by the omnibus election code to those candidates running as representatives of a certain district, city, or province who are fit to this office should and must be a natural-born Filipino Citizen. Herein defendant visibly attains all the necessary requisites in the particular field of office and is worthy to be of such since he is aptly fitted and without any legal impediments as to such field of office.
Under Article 6 section 6 of the constitution, it is thoroughly discussed of the necessary conditions needed if a person runs as a representative in the lower house of the Legislative department; “No person shall be a member of the house of representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter in the district in which he hall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.”4
2
Ibid. http://www.chanrobles.com/electioncodeofthephilippines.htm#.U2veHeEr0Vc 4 Cruz, Isagani A. “Constitutional Law” Central Book Supply, INC.,927 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City Philippines, 2007.,p. 405 3
Page 4 of 5
Considering it all at once, defendant possesses all this laid down laws of the constitution and in the omnibus election code. He then cannot be disqualified and in the petition for disqualification of a candidate pursuant to Section 68 of the omnibus election code “a petition for disqualification of a candidate and the verified petition to disqualify for lack of qualifications or possessing some grounds for disqualification may be filed on the day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation.”5
Petitioner’s petition for disqualification against defendant is evidently void for he filed it after the day when the defendant was proclaimed as the representative of the City. It must be that a disqualification case must be filed on the day after the last day of the filing of the candidacy of both candidates and since herein petitioner failed to filed it on the day after defendant was proclaimed, it is then thus void.
PRAYER Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed for to this honorable commission on elections that judgment be rendered setting aside the petition filed by the petitioner against the defendant for lack of merit. Defendant also prays for such other reliefs and remedies as may be just and equitable in the premises.
[Explanation: A copy of this memorandum has been served on the adverse party by registered mail in view of the distance and the absence of a messenger who could make a personal service.] Tacloban City for Cebu City, June 20, 2004.
Atty. Gab San Miguel Counsel for Defendant rd
3 Floor Olympus Building, Zamora St. Cebu City Atty. Roll No. 45678 IBP No. 234567 12-27-99 PTR No. 891023 10-20-99 MCLE Compliance No. III – 345 Email:
[email protected] 5
http://www.comelec.gov.ph/uploads/Elections/SpecialElections/com_res_9191.pdf
Page 5 of 5
Copy furnished:
Atty. Serento Bistado Counsel for Plaintiff 321 Justice Avenue Tacloban City
