Reyes v. COMELEC GR No.
207264  On June 5, 2013, petitioner was proclaimed winner of the May 2013
PROMULGATED: June 25, 2013
PONENTE: Perez, J.
PETITIONER: Regina Ongsiako Reyes
RESPONDENT: COMELEC, Joseph Socorro Tan
RELATED PROVISION/S:
Sec. 6 Art. VI 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, and, except the party-list representatives, a
registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a
period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.
RA 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003
Reyes was adjudged to be disqualified because of citizenship and residency
issues. She is a subsisting American citizen and did not complete the one year
residency requirement.
FACTS:
 Joseph Socorro Tan filed before the COMELEC an Amended Petition
for to Deny Due Course or to Cancel the COC of Regina Reyes due to
misrepresentation: that she is single when married to Congressman
Herminaldo Mandanas of Batangas; that she is a resident of
Marinduque; that her date of birth is on July 3, 1964; that she is not a
permanent citizen of another country; and that she is a Filipino
citizen.
 Tan filed a Manifestation to Admit Newly Discovered Evidence and
Amended List of Exhibits including a copy of an article published
online entitled “Seeking and Finding the Truth about Regina Reyes”
by its author Eliseo Obligacion. The article provided a database record
of the Bureau of Immigration indicating that Reyes is an American
citizen and holder of a US passport and used the same for her travels.
 COMELEC First Division found that the petitioner is not a citizen of
Philippines for failure to comply with requirements of RA 9225 which
is to (1) take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
and (2) make a personal and sworn renunciation of her foreign
citizenship. It wa also found that she did not meet the one-year
residency requirement.
elections. And took oath before Feliciano Belmonte Jr . Reyes is to
assume office on noon of June 30, 2013. On the same day,
COMELEC En Banc issued a Certificate of Finality on the findings of
COMELEC First Division considering that no action to restrain was
made.
KIND OF CASE/PETITION:
Petition for certiorari with prayer of TRO and/or preliminary injunction
and/or status quo ante order
ISSUES/ HELD/RATIO:
1. W/N COMELEC had jurisdiction
YES
PETITIONER: COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was
proclaimed. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) is the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualification of its
members.
RESPONDENT: --
COURT: COMELEC retains jurisdiction unless petition is duly filed with
HRET or when the candidate is considered a member of the House. In this
case, petitioner is not yet a member for failing. The elements are: (1) valid
proclamation; (2) proper oath; and (3) assumption of office. Elements 2 and 3
are missing. Oath taken before Belmonte fails because it was not done before
the Speaker in an open session.
2. W/N petitioner is ineligible due to failure to comply with citizenship and
residency requirements
YES
PETITIONER: Reyes’ marriage to an American citizen only resulted into
dual citizenship and did not lose her domicile of origin. RA 9225 does not
apply to her.
RESPONDENT: --
COURT: COMELEC First Division is correct in applying RA 9225. There is
no showing that petitioner complied with the requirements. In the allegation
that she is a natural born citizen, she submits no proof. Petitioner even
executed an affidavit to renounce her foreign citizenship in September 2012.
To the SC, this is an admission that RA 9225 applies.
RULING:
Petition is DISMISSED. COMELEC En Banc AFFIRMED.

SEPARATE OPINIONS:

DISSENTING
1. Brion, J.
 The case is not unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings.
COMELEC Chairman Brillantes agrees that the online article
showing the database of Bureau of Immigration is not substantial
evidence because it was merely a photocopy and not even a certified
true copy. Burden of proof rests with Tan.
 Both sides should have been considered before rushing into making
the decision. The proceedings was very prompt.
 The Court should have at least undertaken a full-blown proceeding
rather than simply declare the immediate and outright dismissal of the
petition. Summary proceeding does not apply in this case.

BUZZ WORDS/ TAGS:

Citizenship and residency requirement for House of Representative
candidates