Labo, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

Facts:

The petitioner, Ramon L. Labo, Jr., was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio City following the January 1988 local elections. The private respondent, Luis L. Lardizabal, filed a petition for quo warranto on January 26, 1988, challenging petitioner’s qualifications on the ground of alleged foreign citizenship; petitioner sought relief from this Court to restrain the COMELEC from inquiring into his citizenship, arguing the quo warranto petition was not filed timely because the filing fee was paid only on February 10, 1988.

At the COMELEC level the private respondent’s petition was initially treated as a pre-proclamation petition and docketed as SPC Case No. 88-288 without collection of a filing fee; on February 8, 1988, COMELEC recharacterized it as a quo warranto and re-docketed it as EPC Case No. 88-19, and notice was served on February 10, 1988 when the filing fee was paid. The petitioner contended that payment of the P300 filing fee was an indispensable requirement under COMELEC procedural rules and that the fee was paid beyond the ten-day period mandated by Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code.

COMELEC rules and resolutions governing fees (Res. No. 1450 of 1980; Res. No. 1996 of 1988; Rule 36, Sec. 5) and their respective dates of effectivity and publication were disputed. The private respondent argued the petition’s filing period was suspended under Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code while the matter was treated as a pre-proclamation controversy and also that the fee regulations relied upon were not yet effective when the petition was filed.

Beyond the filing-fee dispute, two administrative determinations on petitioner’s citizenship existed: a 1982 COMELEC decision finding him a Philippine citizen, and a September 13, 1988 decision by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) declaring him not a citizen based on an Australian Consul’s statement that petitioner was naturalized in Australia in 1976 and took an oath/affirmation of allegiance. The record showed petitioner had obtained an Australian passport, registered as an alien upon return in 1980, made sworn statements identifying himself as Australian, and that CID later denied his request to cancel his alien registration. Petitioner did not show any formal reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under CA No. 63 as amended by PD No. 725.

Petitioner sought injunctive relief from the Supreme Court to prevent COMELEC from proceeding; a temporary restraining order dated January 31, 1989, was in place. The Court resolved both the procedural question of timeliness and proceeded to decide the substantive citiz...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Was the quo warranto petition filed timely so that COMELEC had jurisdiction to inquire into petitioner’s citizenship?
• Was petitioner a citizen of the Philippines on election day and therefore qualified to be mayor?
• If petitioner is disqualified, can the private respondent (second-placer) be decl...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)