Labo, Jr. vs.

COMELEC
(Aug. 1, 1989)
Ponente: Cruz, J.

FACTS:
 Ramon Labo, Jr. married an Australian citizen in the Philippines. He was granted Australian
citizenship in 1976. In 1980, the marriage was declared void for being bigamous.
 Labo returned to the Philippines in 1980, using an Australian passport, and obtained an Alien
Certificate of Registration (ACR). He later applied for a change in status from immigrant to
returning Filipino citizen. However, the Commission on Immigration and Deportation denied his
application for the cancellation of his ACR since he has not applied for reacquisition of his
Filipino citizenship.
 According to the records of the Australian Embassy (as certified by the Australian Consul),
Labo was still an Australian citizen as of April 12, 1984. Although no direct evidence was
presented to prove that he took an oath of allegiance as a naturalized Australian citizen, the
laws of Australia at the time required any person over the age of 16 years who is granted
Australian citizenship to take an oath of allegiance. The wording/text of this oath includes a
renunciation of all other allegiance.
 Labo ran and won as Mayor of Baguio City in the local elections held on January 18, 1988. The
second-placer, Luis Lardizabal, filed a petition for quo warranto, alleging that Labo is
disqualified from holding public office on the grounds of alienage, and asking that the latter's
proclamation as Mayor be annulled.

ISSUES:
*The original issue raised before the Supreme Court concerned only the COMELEC's jurisdiction over
Lardizabal's petition. Labo contended that the petition for quo warranto was not filed on time, hence
the COMELEC lacks the jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry regarding his citizenship. However, the SC
decided to rule on the merits of the case, given that the issue is also of considerable importance (a
foreign citizen holding public office in the Philippines), and in the interest of the speedy administration
of justice.

1. Does the COMELEC have the jurisdiction to inquire into Labo's citizenship?
2. Is Ramon Labo, Jr. a Filipino citizen?
3. Is he qualified to hold public office in the Philippines?
4. If Labo is not eligible to serve as Mayor, can Lardizabal, as the runner-up in the elections, replace
him?

HELD/RATIO:
1. Yes. Contrary to Labo's claim, the petition for quo warranto was filed on time. Lardizabal did not
immediately pay the filing fee because the COMELEC had at first considered the petition as a pre-
proclamation proceeding, which does not require the payment of such a fee. When the COMELEC
reclassified the petition, Lardizabal immediately paid the filing fee -- thus, he still complied with the
prescribed 10-day period. Furthermore, the Court held that such technicalities should not hinder
judicial decisions on significant issues, such as the one being decided in this case.

2. Labo is not a Filipino citizen. He had lost his Philippine citizenship by all 3 modes specified in the
Constitution: (1) naturalization in a foreign country, (2) express renunciation of citizenship, and (3)
subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. He has not
reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of the 3 methods prescribed in the Constitution: (1) direct act
of Congress, (2) naturalization, and (3) repatriation.
- Contrary to Labo's claim, his naturalization in Australia did not confer him with dual citizenship. The
Constitution explicitly states that dual citizenship is inimical to national interest.
- The contention that his marriage to an Australian national did not automatically divest him of Filipino
citizenship is irrelevant. There was no claim that Labo had automatically ceased to be a Filipino
because of that marriage. Also, his Filipino citizenship has not been automatically restored upon the
annulment of his Australian citizenship, when his marriage was declared void on the grounds of
bigamy.
- The Commission on Immigration and Deportation held in in 1988 that Labo was not a Filipino citizen.
The earlier contrary decision by the COMELEC in 1982 is totally baseless, and is even alleged to have
been politically motivated. The latter can be reversed because the doctrine of res judicata does not
apply to questions of citizenship.

3. Labo is not eligible to hold public office in the Philippines. He was not even a qualified voter when
he was elected.

4. Despite getting the second highest number of votes, Lardizabal cannot assume the position of
Mayor because he has not been duly elected by the people of Baguio City. Labo's disqualification
alone does not entitle him to take office. Instead, the elected Vice Mayor shall replace Labo.

*Separate concurring opinion (Gutierrez Jr., J.):

Although no decision has been rendered by the COMELEC and elevated to the SC for review, it is
undeniable that a foreigner cannot be allowed to hold public office in the Philippines. It is regrettable,
however, that Labo should be disqualified on the basis of his citizenship because he has already
achieved a lot while serving as Mayor during the pendency of the case.