Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
Philip Piccio vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
G.R. No. 248985 (05 October 2021)
The case is a Petition for Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court filed by petitioner Philip Piccio, a registered voter of the Third (3rd) Legislative District of Nueva Ecija. In the 2016 Elections, Rosana Vergara won as Congresswoman of the said district. Petitioner Piccio filed a Quo Warranto case before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (“HRET”). The HRET shortly after the 2019 Elections, after Vergara has been re-elected as Congresswoman, dismissed Piccio’s Quo Warranto and his subsequent motion for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the HRET and held that Vergara was able to comply with the re-acquisition of her citizenship. Vergara is a natural-born citizen who lost his citizenship when she acquired and was naturalized as a citizen of the United States of America. The Supreme Court held that for a natural-born Filipino citizen, who has lost his or her Filipino citizenship by reason of naturalization abroad, may qualify to run for public office in the Philippines, must: 1) re-acquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; and 2) make a personal and sworn renunciation of his foreign citizenship.
The crux of the controversy is the first requisite. The Supreme Court sustained the findings of the HRET that Vergara had duly filed a petition for the re-acquisition of her Filipino citizenship pursuant to R.A. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 and sufficiently complied with the requirements of the law. The Court noted that this resulted in the granting of such petition by the Bureau of Immigration and the corresponding issuance in her favor of an Identification Certificate. In short, the HRET found that Vergara had duly re-acquired her Philippine citizenship by observing the requirements of the law, foremost of which is the taking of the Oath of Allegiance.
The Supreme Court sustained the HRET in dismissing the case and not subscribing to the argument of petitioner Piccio that the requirements of Vergara under R.A. 9225 are forged because Vergara supposedly failed to produce the original for comparison. The Court held:
“Moreover, forgery, as a rule, cannot be presumed and the burden rests upon the claimant thereof to prove the same by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is claimed to have been forged. In Republic v. Harp, the Court ruled that a finding of forgery must be based on an examination of the original document and cannot be supported by an examination of a mere photocopy thereof, thus:
x x x x x x x x x
Hence, Piccio is burdened to prove that Atty. Cinco’s signature on the Oath of Allegiance of Vergara was forged and is patently dissimilar to his specimen signatures as a notary public. This may only be demonstrated by a presentation to the Court of competent documents that can enable it to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Unlike a recital or reproduction of a document in a certified true copy of an assailed decision of a lower court or tribunal, which suffices to prove the existence and contents of such document a reproduction in a photocopy of a self-serving pleading simply cannot suffice.”
The Supreme Court also sustained HRET’s disregard of the Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila that Vergara’s Oath of Allegiance cannot be issued since the notarial book of the Notary Public who notarized the said Oath of Allegiance was not submitted. The Court held that the Certification does not prove that such document, i.e., Oath of Allegiance, does not exist.
The Supreme Court held that a defect in the notarization of a document or the failure of the notary public to comply with his or her duty to submit his or her notarial reports does not, as it cannot, render such document void. A different interpretation would be unjust to the parties relying upon them in good faith, and who cannot be expected to ensure that the notary public observes his or her administrative duties.