4/20/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers who, upon reaching the age of majority, elected Philippine citizenship.[14] The present Constitution, however, has expanded the scope of natural-born citizens to include "[t]hose who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof," meaning those covered under class (2) above. Consequently, only naturalized Filipino citizens are not considered natural-born citizens. Premising therefrom, respondent — being clearly and concededly not naturalized — is, therefore, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.[15] With respect to repatriates, since the Constitution does not classify them separately, they naturally reacquire their original classification before the loss of their Philippine citizenship. In the case of Congressman Teodoro C. Cruz, upon his repatriation in 1994, he reacquired his lost citizenship. In other words, he regained his original status as a natural-born Filipino citizen, nothing less. 3. No Grave Abuse of Discretion on the Part of HRET Third, the HRET did not abuse, much less gravely abused, its discretion in holding that Respondent Cruz is a natural-born Filipino citizen who is qualified to be a member of Congress. I stress that the Court, in this certiorari proceeding before us, is limited to determining whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its assailed Decision. The Court has no power to reverse or modify HRET's rulings, simply because it differs in its perception of controversies. It cannot substitute its discretion for that of HRET, an independent, constitutional body with its own specific mandate. The Constitution explicitly states that the respective Electoral Tribunals of the two chambers of Congress "shall be the sole judges of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members."[16] In several cases,[17] this Court has held that the power and the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals are original and exclusive, as if they remained in the legislature, a coequal branch of government. Their judgments are beyond judicial interference, unless rendered without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[18] In the elegant words of Mr. Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr.:[19] "The Court does not venture into the perilous area of trying to correct perceived errors of independent branches of the Government. It comes in only when it has to vindicate a denial of due process or correct an abuse of discretion so grave or glaring that no less than the Constitution calls for remedial action." True, there is no settled judicial doctrine on the exact effect of repatriation. But, as earlier explained, the legal and common definition of repatriation is the reacquisition of the former citizenship. How then can the HRET be rebuked with grave abuse of discretion? At best, I can concede that the legal definition is not judicially settled or is even doubtful. But an interpretation made in good faith and grounded on reason one way or the other cannot be the source of grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58613 12/25