G.R. No. 151944; January 20, 2004
ENGR. ERNESTO T. MATUGAS, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ROBERT LYNDON S. BARBERS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ernesto T. Matugas, a candidate for Governor of Surigao del Norte, filed a Petition to Disqualify his rival, private respondent Robert Lyndon S. Barbers, before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The petition alleged that Barbers was not a Filipino citizen and was therefore ineligible for the elective local office. As evidence, Matugas submitted a letter-request from a Bureau of Immigration agent with a handwritten notation from a certain George Clarke stating Barbers was naturalized as an American citizen in 1991. He also presented a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) certification of Barbers’ travel records, which listed his nationality inconsistently as both “Filipino” and “American” on different entries. Barbers won the election and was proclaimed Governor.
The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the disqualification petition, finding the evidence insufficient. It accorded little probative value to the Clarke notation and held the BID certification, by itself, did not prove Barbers had renounced his Philippine allegiance. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this resolution. Matugas then filed the instant petition for certiorari, arguing the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition to disqualify Robert Lyndon S. Barbers for alleged lack of Philippine citizenship?

RULING

No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC’s finding that petitioner Matugas failed to discharge his burden of proof. The core legal principle is that the burden lies on the party alleging a fact, and in administrative cases like this, the required quantum is substantial evidence. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to substantiate the claim of foreign citizenship.
The Court meticulously analyzed the submitted documents. The notation by George Clarke was correctly considered lacking in probative value. A record of foreign naturalization is a public document. Under the Rules of Court, such a document must be evidenced by its official publication or a copy duly attested by the legal custodian, accompanied by a proper certificate if the record is kept abroad. The informal notation on a letter-inquiry met none of these authentication requirements and was therefore inadmissible as evidence of the fact of naturalization. The BID travel certification, while indicating “American” nationality in some entries, was contradictory and not corroborated by independent evidence. It did not conclusively prove Barbers lost his Philippine citizenship, as the act of using a foreign passport alone does not constitute an express renunciation of Philippine allegiance. Consequently, the COMELEC’s conclusion that the evidence was inadequate was a proper exercise of its discretion and not tainted by grave abuse.