Case Summary (G.R. No. 148948)
Petitioner’s Claim
Petitioner challenged Cruz’s qualification for the House of Representatives by filing a quo warranto ad cautelam before the HRET, asserting that Cruz was not a natural‑born citizen as required by the Constitution because he had lost and later reacquired Philippine citizenship (thus, he argues, he cannot be treated as “natural‑born”).
Respondent’s Position and Relevant Facts
Cruz was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27, 1960, to Filipino parents (natural‑born at birth). He enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps on November 5, 1985, and took an oath of allegiance to the United States. He was naturalized as a U.S. citizen on June 5, 1990. On March 17, 1994, Cruz reacquired Philippine citizenship by repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630. He ran in the May 11, 1998 elections and was declared the winning Representative for the Second District of Pangasinan.
Key Dates
Birth: April 27, 1960; U.S. enlistment: November 5, 1985; U.S. naturalization: June 5, 1990; Repatriation: March 17, 1994; Election: May 11, 1998; HRET decision dismissing quo warranto: March 2, 2000; Supreme Court decision: May 7, 2001.
Applicable Law and Definitions
Constitutional requirement for Members of the House: must be natural‑born citizens (text and requirement derived from the 1987 Constitution, Article VI eligibility clauses). Definition of “natural‑born” under Article IV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution: “those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.” Commonwealth Act No. 63 (1936) enumerates modes of losing and reacquiring citizenship. Republic Act No. 2630 (1960) provides for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by persons who lost it through service in the U.S. Armed Forces by taking an oath of allegiance and registering it; the oath must renounce other citizenship.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed quo warranto with the HRET challenging Cruz’s natural‑born status. The HRET dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion by the HRET in declaring Cruz a natural‑born citizen and thus qualified to be a member of Congress.
Issue Presented to the Court
Whether a person who was natural‑born at birth, lost Philippine citizenship by becoming a U.S. citizen as a consequence of service in the U.S. Armed Forces, and later reacquired Philippine citizenship by repatriation under RA 2630 can be considered a natural‑born Filipino for purposes of constitutional eligibility to be a Member of the House of Representatives.
Majority Reasoning — Citizenship Categories and Reacquisition
The Court, applying the 1987 Constitution, emphasized the conceptual distinction between natural‑born and naturalized citizens. The Constitution’s enumeration of citizens (Article IV, Section 1) and the definition of natural‑born (Article IV, Section 2) produce two principal classes: natural‑born (citizens from birth without needing to perform an act to acquire or perfect citizenship) and naturalized (those who acquire citizenship through the naturalization process). The Court examined statutory modes for reacquisition of citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63 and specific repatriation statutes such as RA 2630, observing that repatriation is a distinct statutory mechanism that restores a former citizen’s original status.
Majority Reasoning — Effect of Repatriation
The Court concluded that repatriation under RA 2630 effects a recovery of the original nationality and restores the person’s prior classification (natural‑born or naturalized) as it existed before loss of citizenship. Because Cruz was originally a natural‑born Filipino (son of a Filipino father) and his reacquisition of citizenship was effected by repatriation rather than by naturalization proceedings, the Court held that he was restored to his status as a natural‑born Filipino.
Majority Reasoning — Standard of Review and HRET’s Role
The Court underscored the constitutional role of the HRET as the “sole judge” of contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications of House Members. The Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over HRET decisions is narrow and limited to inquiries into grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Absent such grave abuse, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the HRET. The majority found no grave abuse of discretion in the HRET’s determination and therefore dismissed the petition.
Concurring Opinion — Restoration, Policy Considerations, and Deference
Justice Panganiban’s concurrence reinforced the majority view that repatriation restores the original status and reiterated that repatriation is recovery, not the grant of a new citizenship. The concurrence emphasized deference to the HRET, invoked
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 148948)
Parties and Nature of the Case
- Petitioner: Antonio Bengson III, former incumbent candidate for Representative, Second District of Pangasinan, challenger in an election contest.
- Private Respondent: Teodoro C. Cruz, declared winner and proclaimed Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections.
- Public Respondent: House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), respondent in the certiorari petition, and the tribunal that rendered the challenged quo warranto decision.
- Relief sought: Petition for certiorari assailing HRET decision dismissing Bengson’s quo warranto ad cautelam petition and upholding Cruz’s qualification as a natural-born Filipino and duly elected Representative.
- Core constitutional requirement at issue: Article VI, Section 6 (cited in the decision as Article IV, Section 6 in a footnote) — a Member of the House of Representatives must be a natural-born citizen.
Factual Background
- Birth and parentage:
- Teodoro C. Cruz was born April 27, 1960, in San Clemente, Tarlac, to Filipino parents; he was a natural-born Filipino at birth under the 1935 Constitution’s rules applicable at his birth.
- Service in the United States Armed Forces:
- Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps on November 5, 1985, and rendered service until his honorable discharge on October 27, 1993.
- Naturalization as U.S. citizen:
- While serving with the U.S. Marine Corps, Cruz was naturalized as a U.S. citizen on June 5, 1990 (Certificate of Naturalization issued by the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California).
- Loss of Philippine citizenship:
- Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, Section 1(4), rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country and taking the incidental oath of allegiance causes loss of Philippine citizenship; Cruz’s service and naturalization in the U.S. resulted in loss of Filipino citizenship.
- Reacquisition of Philippine citizenship:
- On March 17, 1994, Cruz reacquired Philippine citizenship by repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630: he took an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registered it with the Local Civil Registry of Mangatarem (the oath contained a renunciation of any other citizenship).
- Subsequent administrative acts: Bureau of Immigration and Deportation cancelled his Alien Certificate of Registration and Immigration Certificate of Residence, issued an Identification Certificate; U.S. Embassy issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality on January 18, 1995.
- Electoral history:
- Cruz ran for and won mayor of Mangatarem (1995 elections) declaring himself as a naturalized Filipino at that time.
- Cruz ran for Representative, Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections, declared himself a natural-born Filipino in his certificate of candidacy, and was proclaimed the winner with 80,119 votes — a margin of 26,671 votes over Antonio Bengson III (Cruz 80,119; Bengson 53,448; other candidates combined 11,941 + 622 + 171 = 12,734).
- Procedural action before HRET:
- On September 14, 1998, Bengson filed a quo warranto ad cautelam petition with the HRET challenging Cruz’s qualification as a natural-born citizen.
- HRET decision (March 2, 2000): dismissed the quo warranto petition and declared Cruz duly elected Representative; HRET denied Bengson’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated April 27, 2000.
- Procedural action before the Supreme Court:
- Bengson filed a petition for certiorari questioning the HRET’s ruling on grounds of grave abuse of discretion, excess or lack of jurisdiction, and legal errors regarding the natural-born status of Cruz and validity/effect of his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
Issues Presented
- Primary legal issue:
- Whether Teodoro C. Cruz, originally a natural-born Filipino who later became a U.S. citizen and subsequently reacquired Philippine citizenship by repatriation, can be considered a natural-born Filipino at the time of his candidacy and election to the House of Representatives.
- Ancillary issues framed by the petition for certiorari:
- Whether HRET committed serious errors and grave abuse of discretion in ruling Cruz a natural-born citizen despite his prior loss and renunciation of Philippine citizenship.
- Whether Cruz validly reacquired Philippine citizenship and, if such reacquisition were invalid, whether reacquisition could legally and constitutionally restore his natural-born status.
- Standard of review:
- Whether the HRET’s determination involved grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the only ground for Supreme Court review of HRET decisions.
Relevant Constitutional Provisions and Statutory Law Cited
- 1987 Constitution:
- Article IV, Section 1 — enumerates who are citizens of the Philippines (1) those citizens at adoption of Constitution; (2) those whose fathers or mothers are citizens; (3) those born before Jan. 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers who elect Philippine citizenship on reaching majority; (4) those naturalized in accordance with law.
- Article IV, Section 2 — defines natural-born citizens: “those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.”
- Article VI, Section 17 — each chamber’s Electoral Tribunal shall be the sole judge of contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members.
- Qualification clause for members of the House (cited in opinion): “No person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines…”
- Commonwealth Act No. 63 (1936) — “How citizenship may be lost”:
- Section 1(4): a Filipino may lose citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country; taking an oath of allegiance incident thereto divests citizenship unless consent of the Republic or certain conditions exist.
- Section 2: modes for reacquisition include naturalization, repatriation, or direct act of Congress.
- Republic Act No. 2630 (1960) — Reacquisition by person who lost Philippine citizenship by rendering service to or accepting commission in the U.S. Armed Forces:
- Section 1: such person may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic and registering it with the Local Civil Registry; oath shall contain renunciation of any other citizenship.
- Commonwealth Act No. 473 (Revised Naturalization Law) and R.A. No. 530 — applicable to naturalization (qualifications, disqualifications, and executory period for foreign nationals becoming Filipino citizens).
Majority Holding (Ponencia by Justice Kapunan)
- Disposition:
- The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The HRET decision dismissing the quo warranto and declaring Teodoro C. Cruz the duly elected Representative stands.
- Core holdings and legal conclusions:
- Cruz was a natural-born Filipino at birth by virtue of being born in the Philippines to Filipino parents under the then-applicable law (1935 Constitution).
- Cruz lost his Philippine citizenship when he rendered service to and accepted commission in the U.S. armed forces and took