Mercado v. Manzano case digest

Election Laws MERCADO V. MANZANO 307 SCRA 630 (1999) G.R. No. 135083 Facts: •

Edu Manzano, Ernesto Mercado and Gabriel Daza were candidates for Vice Mayor of Makati City during the May 11, 1998 elections.

•

A certain Ernesto Mamaril filed a petition for disqualification on Manzano contending that Manzano is an American citizen thus suspending the proclamation of the private respondent.

•

COMELEC's Second Division granted the petition cancelling the certificate of candidacy of Manzano on May 7, 1998 on the grounds that dual citizens are disqualified under Sec 40 of the Local Goverment Code from running any elective position.

•

Manzado filed a motion for reconsideration on May 8, 1998 and the motion remained pending even after the election.

•

The petitioner, Mercado sought to intervene in the case for disqualification which was opposed by the private respondent.

•

On August 19, 1998, the COMELEC en banc rendered its resolution reversing the decision of the COMELEC's Second Division, declaring that private respondent Manzano is qualified to run for Vice mayor of Makati.

•

Pursuant to the resolution rendered by the COMELEC enbanc, on August 31, 1998, the board of canvassers proclaimed private respondent as the Vice Mayor of the city of Makati.

•

Thus, this petition for Certiorari praying to set aside the resolution of the COMELEC en banc and to declare private respondent Manzano, disqualified to hold the office Vice Mayor of Makati.

Issues: 1. WON, petitioner Mercado has personality to bring this suit considering that he was not an original party in the case for disqualification filed by Ernesto Mamaril. 2. WON dual citizenship a ground for disqualification? 3. WON there was a valid election of citizenship?

Reasons:

1. Yes, petitioner Mercado, has the right to bring suit. At the time Mercado filed a "Motion for Leave to File Intervention" on May 20, 1998, there had been no proclamation of the winner, and petitioner's purpose was precisely to have private respondent disqualified "from running for [an] elective local

position" under §40(d) of R.A. No. 7160. If Ernesto Mamaril (who originally instituted the disqualification proceedings), a registered voter of Makati City, was competent to bring the action, so was Mercado since the he was a rival candidate for vice mayor of Makati City. Mercado had a right to intervene at that stage of the proceedings for the disqualification against private respondent is clear from §6 of R.A. No. 6646 or the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 which provides that intervention may be allowed in proceedings for disqualification even after election if there has been no final judgment rendered. Failure of COMELEC en banc to resolve petitioner’s motion for intervention was tantamount to denial of the motion, justifying this petition for certiorari.

2. NO. Invoking the maxim dura lex sed lex, petitioner contends that through Sec. 40(d) of the Local Government Code (which declares as “disqualified from running for elective local position… Those with dual-citizenship”), Congress has “command[ed] in explicit terms the ineligibility of persons possessing dual allegiance to hold elective office.” Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. Dual citizenship is involuntary; it arises out of circumstances of birth or marriage, where a person is recognized to be a national by two or more states. Dual allegiance is a result of a person’s volition; it is a situation wherein a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. Dual citizenship is an issue because a person who has this raises a question of which state’s law must apply to him/her, therefore posting a threat to a country’s sovereignty. Hence, “dual citizenship” in the aforementioned disqualification clause must mean “dual allegiance”. Therefore, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. 3. Yes, there was a valid election of citizenship. It should suffice that upon filing of certificates for candidacy, such persons with dual citizenship have elected their Philippine citizenship to terminate their dual citizenship. In private respondent’s certificate of candidacy, he made these statements under oath on March 27, 1998: “I am a Filipino citizen…Natural-born”. “I am not a permanent resident of, or immigrant to, a foreign country.” “I am eligible for the office I seek to be elected. I will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto…”The filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual-citizen.

Ruling: Petition is DISMISSED.

Reported by: BERNARDES, JEAN MARIE A.