G.R. No. 83820 May 25, 1990
JOSE B. AZNAR (as Provincial Chairman of PDP Laban in Cebu), petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EMILIO MARIO RENNER OSMEÑA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Emilio “Lito” Osmeña filed his certificate of candidacy for Governor of Cebu on November 19, 1987. On January 22, 1988, petitioner Jose B. Aznar, representing the Cebu PDP-Laban Provincial Council, filed a petition with the COMELEC seeking Osmeña’s disqualification on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen but a citizen of the United States. Petitioner submitted a certificate from the Immigration Commissioner and various immigration documents, including an Alien Certificate of Registration, to support the claim.
Private respondent maintained his Filipino citizenship, asserting he was the legitimate child of a Filipino father, held a valid Philippine passport, was a continuous resident and registered voter since 1965, and had not left the country for more than six months. The COMELEC First Division directed Osmeña’s proclamation as the winning candidate on March 3, 1988, and subsequently dismissed the disqualification petition on June 11, 1988, for being filed out of time and for lack of sufficient proof.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for disqualification against Emilio Osmeña.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COMELEC’s resolution. The legal logic proceeds on two grounds: timeliness and evidentiary merit. First, on procedural timeliness, the Omnibus Election Code provides specific periods for challenging a candidate’s qualifications. A petition to deny due course to a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 must be filed within 25 days from the filing of that certificate. Osmeña filed on November 19, 1987, making the deadline December 14, 1987. Aznar’s petition filed on January 22, 1988, was indisputably late. Furthermore, it could not be treated as a petition for quo warranto under Section 253, as such an action is only viable within ten days after a proclamation, and this petition was filed before Osmeña’s proclamation.
Second, on the substantive issue of citizenship, the Court found the petitioner’s evidence insufficient to prove that Osmeña had lost his Philippine citizenship. Loss of citizenship can only occur through modes prescribed by law, such as express renunciation, foreign naturalization, or subscribing to a foreign oath of allegiance. The immigration documents presented, while indicating alien registration, did not constitute direct and conclusive proof that Osmeña had voluntarily and effectively renounced his Filipino citizenship or had undergone a formal process of foreign naturalization. His possession of a Philippine passport and continuous residence were consistent with a claim of retained citizenship. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding the evidence inadequate to disqualify him.