4/20/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
foreign country; And provided, finally, That any Filipino citizen who is
rendering service to, or is commissioned in, the armed forces of a foreign
country under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b),
shall not be permitted to participate nor vote in any election of the Republic
of the Philippines during the period of his service to, or commission in, the
armed forces of said country. Upon his discharge from the service of the said
foreign country, he shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment of
his civil and political rights as a Filipino citizen x x x.
Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss of Philippine citizenship was erased by
his naturalization as a U.S. citizen on June 5, 1990, in connection with his service in the
U.S. Marine Corps.
On March 17, 1994, respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through
repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630.[3] He ran for and was elected as the
Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections. He
won by a convincing margin of 26,671 votes over petitioner Antonio Bengson III, who
was then running for reelection.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with respondent
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) claiming that respondent Cruz was
not qualified to become a member of the House of Representatives since he is not a
natural-born citizen as required under Article VI, Section 6 of the Constitution.[4]
On March 2, 2000, the HRET rendered its decision[5] dismissing the petition for quo
warranto and declaring respondent Cruz the duly elected Representative of the Second
District of Pangasinan in the May 1998 elections. The HRET likewise denied petitioner's
motion for reconsideration of the decision in its resolution dated April 27, 2000.[6]
Petitioner thus filed the present petition for certiorari assailing the HRET's decision on
the following grounds:
1. The HRET committed serious errors and grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to excess of jurisdiction, when it ruled that private respondent is
a natural-born citizen of the Philippines despite the fact that he had ceased
being such in view of the loss and renunciation of such citizenship on his
part.
2. The HRET committed serious errors and grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to excess of jurisdiction, when it considered private respondent
as a citizen of the Philippines despite the fact that he did not validly acquire
his Philippine citizenship.
3. Assuming that private respondent's acquisition of Philippine citizenship
was invalid, the HRET committed serious errors and grave abuse of
discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction, when it dismissed the
petition despite the fact that such reacquisition could not legally and
constitutionally restore his natural-born status.[7]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58613
2/25