RA.   9225- Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003

all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act

Retention of Philippine Citizenship. — natural-born Filipino citizens who lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic

Derivative Citizenship. — the unmarried child (legitimate, illegitimate or adopted & below eighteen (18) years of age) of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines

Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities of those who retain or re-acquire their Phil. citizenship — subject to the ff. conditions:

(1) Right of suffrage- a. requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, b. Republic Act No. 9189 or "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act

of 2003" and c. other existing laws;

(2) Election to public office- a. Qualifications for holding such public office as required by the

Constitution and existing laws and; b. make a Personal and Sworn Renunciation of any and all

Foreign Citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy

(3) Appointment to any public office- a. Subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic

of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office: 

Provided- they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath;

(4) Practice of profession - apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice

(5) Those who cannot exercise the right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines:

a. candidates for/are occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized citizens

b. in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens

B.P. 881- OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sec. 77. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another. — If an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause:

1. After the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy-

only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate

substitute candidate may file his certificate of candidacy not later than mid-day of the day of the election.

2. Between the day before the election and mid-day of election day-

certificate may be filed with any board of election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate, or

in the case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.

Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. — A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy

may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false

may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election

GEN. RULE:LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODESEC. 40. Disqualifications. - The ff. persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:

(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence; (b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;(d) Those with dual citizenship;(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad;(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and (g) The insane or feeble-minded.

R.A.6770 "The Ombudsman Act of 1989" Sec. 14. No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an

investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law.

Sec 21. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions,

instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.

Sec 24. Preventives Suspension. — The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and

(a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.

The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six (6) months, without pay… Section 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. — (1) All provisionary

orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory… In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

EXCEPTION: Lingating v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 153475, [November 13, 2002]

FACTSPetitioner Lingating filed a petition for the disqualification of respondent Sulong

as candidate for mayor in the 2001 elections pursuant to Sec. 40 (b) of RA No. 7160 (Local Government Code), which disqualifies from running for any elective local position "those removed from office as a result of an administrative case." Sulong had previously won as mayor in 1988, reelected in 1992 and 1995. Allegedly, while in office in 1991, he was found guilty of various offenses by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and was ordered removed from office. Consequently, the vice-mayor took oath as mayor. Petitioner claimed that this decision had become final and executory while respondent denied the same averring that after receiving a copy of the decision on February 17, 1992, he filed a motion for reconsideration and/or notice of appeal thereof on February 18, 1992; that on February 27, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan required Jim Lingating, the complainant in AC No. 12-91, to comment on respondent Sulong's motion for reconsideration and/or notice of appeal; that the said complainant had not yet complied therewith and his (respondent Sulong's) motion had consequently remained pending. Respondent Sulong denied he had been removed from office by virtue of the decision in AC No. 12-91. The case was submitted for resolution, however, because COMELEC was unable to render judgment before elections, respondent was re-elected in 2001.

ISSUEWhether or not there could be disqualification from running for any elective

local position of those removed from office due to an administrative case without final decision by the court?

HELD

It appears that the 1992 decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, finding respondent Sulong guilty of dishonesty, falsification and malversation of public funds, has not until now become final. The records show that upon receipt of a copy of the judgment of the Sanggunian, respondent Sulong filed a "motion for reconsideration and/or notice of appeal." Thereafter, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, required Jim Lingating (complainant) to comment but has failed to do so nor has the Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolved respondent's motion. The filing of his motion for reconsideration prevented the decision of Sangguniang Panlalawigan from becoming final. While R.A. No. 7160 on disciplinary actions is silent on the filing of a motion for reconsideration, the same cannot be interpreted as a prohibition against the filing of a motion for reconsideration. Neither can the succession of the then vice-mayor of Lapuyan, Vicente Imbing, and the highest ranking municipal councilor of Lapuyan, Romeo Tan, to the offices of mayor and vice-mayor, respectively, be considered proof that the decision in AC No. 12-91 had become final because it appears to have been made pursuant to §68 of the Local Government Code, which makes decisions in administrative cases immediately executory. |||