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

FACTS

In November 2006, respondent Rosanna Vergara, a naturalized U.S. citizen, applied to reacquire her Filipino citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (RA 9225) with the Bureau of Immigration (BI). The BI favorably acted on her application, issuing a Memorandum dated November 28, 2006, and an Order dated November 30, 2006. She took her Oath of Allegiance and was issued Identification Certificate No. 06-12955 on November 30, 2006. Nine years later, in 2015, she filed her certificate of candidacy for Representative of Nueva Ecija and submitted an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship. Petitioner Philip Hernandez Piccio subsequently initiated multiple complaints challenging her reacquisition of citizenship. These complaints were consistently dismissed by various bodies: the COMELEC First Division (June 7, 2016), the BI (October 7, 2016), and the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila (June 16, 2017, and November 7, 2017), all affirming her valid reacquisition. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) also ruled in her favor.

ISSUE

The core issue addressed in the Concurring Opinion is whether the presumption of regularity in the issuance of respondent’s Identification Certificate and related documents can be overcome, and whether the burden of proof lies with the respondent to show strict compliance with RA 9225 procedures, given allegations regarding the authenticity of her Oath of Allegiance and the status of the documents as public records.

RULING

The Concurring Opinion upholds the validity of respondent’s reacquisition of citizenship and affirms the HRET’s ruling. It refutes the dissenting opinion’s arguments point by point:
1. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the BI and other agencies is not overcome by a mere suggestion of deviation. The correct standard to rebut this presumption is clear and convincing evidence, which the petitioner failed to present.
2. The burden of proof does not remain with the person claiming the privilege of reacquired citizenship after an identification certificate, the final proof under RA 9225, has been duly issued by the competent authority (the BI).
3. The authenticity of the Oath of Allegiance is not rendered seriously doubtful by the Clerk of Court’s inability to issue a certified copy due to a missing notarial book. The BI, as the official custodian for RA 9225 proceedings, possessed a copy, and the absence of a record in a separate repository does not disprove the document’s existence or execution.
4. A visual comparison of signatures by the Court, without expert analysis, is insufficient to establish forgery. Forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.
5. The BI Memorandum, Order, Oath, and Identification Certificate are public documents. The respondent was not required to prove their existence and due execution in the manner specified by Rules 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence because their authenticity was not properly challenged in a manner that placed them in issue before the HRET.
6. The fact that the BI files contain photocopies of the documents does not lead to the conclusion that no originals exist. The BI’s possession of copies, coupled with the presumption of regularity, supports the validity of the process.
The Concurring Opinion emphasizes that administrative agencies like the BI enjoy a strong presumption of regularity and wide latitude in their quasi-judicial functions. The consistent affirmations of respondent’s citizenship by the BI, COMELEC, and the City Prosecutor, achieved after evaluating the very documents now questioned, bolster this presumption and the finality of the BI’s order granting her petition.