G.R. No. 248985 , October 5, 2021
PHILIP HERNANDEZ PICCIO, PETITIONER, VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND ROSANNA VERGARA VERGARA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Private respondent Rosanna Vergara is a natural-born Filipino citizen. She became a naturalized American citizen in 1998. In November 2006, she filed a Petition for the Issuance of an Identification Certificate to reacquire her Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (RA 9225). She took an Oath of Allegiance on November 28, 2006. The Bureau of Immigration (BI) granted her petition and issued Identification Certificate No. 06-12955 on November 30, 2006. She executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship on September 4, 2015. She filed her Certificate of Candidacy for Representative of the Third District of Nueva Ecija on October 15, 2015. Petitioner Philip Hernandez Piccio filed a Petition to Deny Due Course and/or Cancel her Certificate of Candidacy before the COMELEC, which was dismissed. Vergara won the election and assumed office. Piccio then filed a Petition for Quo Warranto before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). During the proceedings, Piccio obtained letters from then BI Commissioner Ronaldo Geron stating that based on BI records, no petition from Vergara was received or processed and no record of her Identification Certificate existed. Vergara subsequently obtained a certification from new BI Commissioner Jaime Morente confirming that her petition had been duly received, processed, and approved, and that her Identification Certificate was validly issued. The HRET dismissed the quo warranto petition and declared Vergara not disqualified. Piccio filed the instant Petition for Certiorari assailing the HRET Decision and Resolution.

ISSUE

The core issue presented in the dissenting opinion is whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the quo warranto petition and declaring that Vergara had validly reacquired her Philippine citizenship under RA 9225, despite the conflicting certifications from the Bureau of Immigration regarding the existence of her petition and identification certificate.

RULING

The dissenting opinion argues that the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion. It contends that the conflicting certifications from the BI created serious doubt regarding Vergara’s compliance with RA 9225. The initial certifications from Commissioner Geron, which were official documents issued by the BI’s custodian of records, categorically stated that no petition from Vergara was received or processed and that no record of her Identification Certificate existed. These certifications, according to the dissent, should be accorded greater weight than the subsequent certification from Commissioner Morente, which was based on a memorandum from a subordinate and did not directly refute the earlier findings of missing records. The dissent emphasizes that the burden of proof was on Vergara to establish her qualifications, and the doubt cast upon the authenticity and due execution of her RA 9225 documents by the official BI records was not sufficiently overcome. Therefore, the HRET’s dismissal of the quo warranto petition, despite this unresolved doubt concerning a fundamental qualification of citizenship, constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to grave abuse of discretion.