ROGELIO BATIN CABALLERO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JONATHAN ENRIQUE V. NANUD, JR., RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Rogelio Batin Caballero, a natural-born Filipino, went abroad for work and established residence in Canada beginning 1989. He acquired Canadian citizenship by naturalization in 2007. On September 12, 2012, while still residing in Canada, he applied for and re-acquired his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act (RA) No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003). He subsequently filed a Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes for the May 13, 2013 elections, stating therein that he had been a resident of Uyugan for one year. Private respondent Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud, Jr. filed a petition to deny due course to or cancel Caballero’s CoC, alleging that Caballero made a material misrepresentation regarding his residency. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) cancelled Caballero’s CoC. Caballero filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The primary issue resolved in the Separate Concurring Opinion is whether Caballero complied with the one-year residency requirement under Section 39 of the Local Government Code for candidacy as Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes.
RULING
The Separate Concurring Opinion concurs with the ponencia’s dismissal of the petition, holding that the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion in cancelling Caballero’s CoC. The opinion provides the following detailed legal bases:
1. RA 9225 and Residency are Separate: RA 9225 governs the re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship and does not address residency. Citizenship and residency are distinct requirements for holding local elective office under Section 39 of the Local Government Code. Re-acquiring citizenship under RA 9225 does not automatically establish Philippine residency.
2. Loss and Acquisition of Domicile: Caballero’s domicile of origin was Uyugan, Batanes. To effect a change of domicile, one must establish: (a) residence or bodily presence in the new locality; (b) a bona fide intention to remain there (animus manendi); and (c) a bona fide intention to abandon the old domicile (animus non revertendi).
3. Effect of Canadian Naturalization: The requirement under Canadian law that an applicant for naturalization must be a permanent resident and intend to continue residing in Canada serves as a strong indicator of Caballero’s intent to establish a domicile of choice in Canada. This supports the conclusion that he abandoned his Philippine domicile of origin.
4. Failure to Re-establish Domicile in Uyugan: To transfer his domicile back to Uyugan, Caballero had to prove the fact of transfer and the re-establishment of a new domicile. His nine-month residency in Uyugan prior to the election did not constitute substantial compliance with the one-year residency requirement.
5. Material Misrepresentation: By stating in his CoC that he had completed the required one-year residency when he had not, Caballero committed a material misrepresentation justifying the cancellation of his CoC.
The opinion concludes that Caballero failed to comply with the one-year residency requirement, and the Comelec correctly cancelled his Certificate of Candidacy.
