MELANIO D. SAMPAYAN, Petitioner et al vs. RAUL A.

DAZA et al Respondent
G.R No. 103903. September 11. 1992
Sampayan v. Daza, 213 SCRA 807
FACTS:
On February 18, 1992, Petitioners filed the instant petition for prohibition seeking to disqualify respondent,
Raul Daza, then incumbent congressman of, from continuing to exercise the functions of his office on the
ground that the latter is a greencard holder and a lawful permanent resident of the United States of America.
Moreover, petitioners alleged that Mr. Daza has not by any act or declaration renounced his status as
permanent resident. Petitioners manifested on April 2, 1992, they filed a petition before the COMELEC to
disqualify respondent Daza from running in the recent May 11, 1992 elections on the basis of violating the
Omnibus Election Code: Section 68 and the 1987 Constitution: Section 18, Article XI.
On April 10, 1992 respondent Congressman Daza filed his comment denying the fact that he is a permanent
resident of the United States as evidenced by a letter order of the US Immigration and Naturalization
Service, Los Angeles, U.S.A, he had long waived his status when he returned to the Philippines on August
12, 1985.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Raul Daza should be disqualified as a member of the House of Representatives
for violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.
RULING:
The Supreme Court vote to dismiss the instant case, first (1.) the case is moot and academic for it is
evident from the manifestation filed by petitioners dated April 6, 1992, that they seek to unseat the
respondent from his position as Congressman for the duration of his term of office commencing June
30, 1987 and ending June 30, 1992. Secondly (2.) Jurisdiction of this case rightfully pertains to the
House Electoral Tribunal. Under Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, it is the House
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election returns and
qualification of its members. Third, (3.) a writ of prohibition can no longer be issued against respondent
since his term has already expired. And lastly, fourth (4.) as a de facto public officer, respondent cannot
be made to reimburse funds disbursed during his term of office.

The petitioners appropriate remedy should have been to file a petition to cancel respondent Dazas
certificate of candidacy before the election or a quo warranto case with the House of Electoral Tribunal
within ten days after Dazas proclamation.
Sec. 18, Omnibus Election Code: Sections 80 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. Section 80 states
that it shall be unlawful for any person x x x to engage in an election campaign or partisan political
activity except during the campaign period: x x x. Section 68 states that violators of Section 80 shall be
disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office.
Article XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Section 18: Public Officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all times, and
any public officer or employees who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of
another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law.