EN BANC dismissed all the other petitions, including

Biraogo’s petition, and reversed the Joint

G.R. Nos. 178831-32 July 30, 2009 Resolution of the Commission on Election’s
(COMELEC) Second Division dated May 17, 2007
JOCELYN SY LIMKAICHONG, Petitioner, in SPA Nos. 07-247 and 07-248 disqualifying
vs. Limkaichong from running as a congressional
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NAPOLEON N. candidate in the First District of Negros Oriental
CAMERO and RENALD F. due to lack of citizenship requirement.
VILLANDO, Respondents.
Biraogo prefaced his motion by stating that
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x justice and constitutionalism must remain
entrenched in Philippine case law. To achieve
G.R. No. 179120 July 30, 2009 this end, he maintained that the Court should
reconsider its April 1, 2009 Decision. He also
LOUIS C. BIRAOGO, Petitioner, prayed for an oral argument, which he posited,
vs. would help the Court in the just and proper
HON. PROSPERO NOGRALES, Speaker of the disposition of the pending incident.
House of Representatives of the Congress of
the Philippines, and JOCELYN SY After an assiduous review of the motion for
LIMKAICHONG, Respondents. reconsideration, we resolve that the same
should be denied for lack of merit.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Most of the arguments advanced by Biraogo are
G.R. Nos. 179132-33 July 30, 2009 a mere rehash of his previous arguments, which
we have all considered and found without merit
OLIVIA P. PARAS, Petitioner, in the Decision dated April 1, 2009. Nonetheless,
vs. in order to lay to rest once and for all Biraogo's
HON. PROSPERO NOGRALES, in his capacity as misgivings, we shall discuss only the relevant
Speaker of the House of Representatives; HON. issues and revalidate our Decision by ruling on
ROBERTO NAZARENO, in his capacity as his motion as follows:
Secretary General of the House of
Representatives; HON. RHODORA SEVILLA, in The core issue in the consolidated petitions is
her capacity as Deputy Secretary General for the qualification of Limkaichong to run for, be
Finance of the House of Representatives; THE elected to, and assume and discharge, the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOCELYN SY position of Representative for the First District
LIMKAICHONG, Respondents. of Negros Oriental. The contention of the parties
who sought her disqualification is that she is not
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x a natural-born citizen, hence, she lacks the
citizenship requirement in Section 6,1 Article VI
G.R. Nos. 179240-41 July 30, 2009 of the 1987 Constitution. In the election that
ensued, she was voted for by the constituents of
RENALD F. VILLANDO, Petitioner, Negros Oriental and garnered the highest votes.
vs. She was eventually proclaimed as the winner
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOCELYN SY and has since performed her duties and
LIMKAICHONG, Respondents. responsibilities as Member of the House of
Representatives.
RESOLUTION
Indeed, the citizenship requirement was
PERALTA, J.: enshrined in our Constitution in order to ensure
that our people and country do not end up
The instant motion with prayer for oral being governed by aliens.2 With this principle in
argument filed by Louis C. Biraogo, petitioner in mind, we have said in Aquino v. COMELEC3 that
G.R. No. 179120, seeks a reconsideration of the if one of the essential qualifications for running
Court’s April 1, 2009 Decision, which granted for membership in the House of Representatives
Jocelyn D. Sy Limkaichong’s petition is lacking, then not even the will of a majority or
forcertiorari in G.R. Nos. 178831-32. The Court
Page 1 of 5
plurality of the voters would substitute for a 4. If it is shown that the minor children
requirement mandated by the fundamental law of the person naturalized failed to
itself. Hence assuming, time constraints graduate from a public or private high
notwithstanding, and after proper proceedings school recognized by the Office of
before the proper tribunal be had, that Private Education [now Bureau of Private
Limkaichong would prove to be an alien, the Schools] of the Philippines, where
court of justice would tilt against her favor and Philippine history, government or civics
would not sanction such an imperfection in her are taught as part of the school
qualification to hold office. But, first things first. curriculum, through the fault of their
parents either by neglecting to support
The proponents against Limkaichong's them or by transferring them to another
qualification stated that she is not a natural- school or schools. A certified copy of the
born citizen because her parents were Chinese decree canceling the naturalization
citizens at the time of her birth. They went on to certificate shall be forwarded by the
claim that the proceedings for the naturalization Clerk of Court of the Department of
of Julio Ong Sy, her father, never attained Interior [now Office of the President] and
finality due to procedural and substantial the Bureau of Justice [now Office of the
defects. Solicitor General];

In our Decision, We held that: 5. If it is shown that the naturalized

citizen has allowed himself to be used as
However, in assailing the citizenship of the a dummy in violation of the
father, the proper proceeding should be in constitutional or legal provisions
accordance with Section 18 of Commonwealth requiring Philippine citizenship as a
Act No. 473 which provides that: requisite for the exercise, use or
enjoyment of a right, franchise or
Sec. 18. Cancellation of Naturalization privilege. (Emphasis supplied)
Certificate Issued. - Upon motion made in the
proper proceedings by the Solicitor General or As early as the case of Queto v. Catolico, where
his representative, or by the proper provincial the Court of First Instance judge motu
fiscal, the competent judge may cancel the propio and not in the proper denaturalization
naturalization certificate issued and its proceedings called to court various grantees of
registration in the Civil Register: certificates of naturalization (who had already
taken their oaths of allegiance) and cancelled
1. If it is shown that said naturalization their certificates of naturalization due to
certificate was obtained fraudulently or procedural infirmities, the Court held that:
illegally;
x x x It may be true that, as alleged by said
2. If the person naturalized shall, within respondents, that the proceedings for
five years next following the issuance of naturalization were tainted with certain
said naturalization certificate, return to infirmities, fatal or otherwise, but that is beside
his native country or to some foreign the point in this case. The jurisdiction of the
country and establish his permanent court to inquire into and rule upon such
residence there: Provided, That the fact infirmities must be properly invoked in
of the person naturalized remaining accordance with the procedure laid down by
more than one year in his native country law. Such procedure is the cancellation of the
or the country of his former nationality, naturalization certificate. [Section 1(5),
or two years in any other foreign Commonwealth Act No. 63], in the manner fixed
country, shall be considered asprima in Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473,
facie evidence of his intention of taking hereinbefore quoted, namely, "upon motion
up his permanent residence in the same: made in the proper proceedings by the Solicitor
General or his representatives, or by the proper
3. If the petition was made on an invalid provincial fiscal." In other words, the initiative
declaration of intention; must come from these officers, presumably

Page 2 of 5
after previous investigation in each particular The Provincial Supervisor of the Commission on
case. (Emphasis supplied) Elections of Negros Oriental is hereby directed
to strike out the name JOCELYN SY-
Clearly, under law and jurisprudence, it is the LIMKAICHONG from the list of eligible
State, through its representatives designated by candidates for the said position, and the
statute, that may question the illegally or concerned Board of Canvassers is hereby
invalidly procured certificate of naturalization in directed to hold and/or suspend the
the appropriate denaturalization proceedings. It proclamation of JOCELYN SY-LIMKAICHONG as
is plainly not a matter that may be raised by winning candidate, if any, until this decision has
private persons in an election case involving the become final.
naturalized citizen’s descendant.
SO ORDERED.5
Accordingly, it is not enough that one's
qualification, or lack of it, to hold an office Biraogo maintained that the Motion for
requiring one to be a natural-born citizen, be Reconsideration filed by Limkaichong suspended
attacked and questioned before any tribunal or only the execution of the substantive relief or
government institution. Proper proceedings the first part of the above-quoted COMELEC
must be strictly followed by the proper officers Joint Resolution. However, it did not suspend
under the law. Hence, in seeking Limkaichong's the execution of the injunctive part and,
disqualification on account of her citizenship, accordingly, the Provincial Supervisor of the
the rudiments of fair play and due process must COMELEC should not have proceeded with
be observed, for in doing so, she is not only Limkaichong's proclamation as the winning
deprived of the right to hold office as a Member candidate in the elections.
of the House of Representative but her
constituents would also be deprived of a leader His argument has no leg to stand on. We cannot
in whom they have put their trust on through take a decision or resolution on a piece-meal
their votes. The obvious rationale behind the basis and apply only that part which is seemingly
foregoing ruling is that in voting for a candidate beneficial to one's cause and discard the
who has not been disqualified by final judgment prejudicial part which, obviously, would just be
during the election day, the people voted for a hindrance in advancing one's stance or
her bona fide, without any intention to misapply interests. Besides, the COMELEC Joint
their franchise, and in the honest belief that the Resolution which Biraogo dichotomized was
candidate was then qualified to be the person to effectively suspended when Limkaichong timely
whom they would entrust the exercise of the filed her Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to
powers of government.4lavvphil Section 13(c),6 Rule 18 and Section 2,7 Rule 19 of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Hence, it
These precepts, notwithstanding, Biraogo cannot as yet be implemented for not having
remained firm in his belief that this Court erred attained its finality.
in its Decision and that the COMELEC Joint
Resolution dated May 17, 2007 disqualifying Nevertheless, events have already transpired
Limkaichong should have been affirmed. He after the COMELEC has rendered its Joint
even went to a great extent of giving a Resolution. Limkaichong was proclaimed by the
dichotomy of the said Joint Resolution by stating Provincial Board of Canvassers, she had taken
that it was composed of two parts, the first part her oath of office, and she was allowed to
of which is the substantive part, and the second, officially assume the office on July 23, 2007.
pertains to the injunctive part. For this purpose, Accordingly, we ruled in our April 1, 2009
the dispositive portion of the said COMELEC Decision that the House of Representatives
Joint Resolution is reproduced below: Electoral Tribunal (HRET), and no longer the
COMELEC, should now assume jurisdiction over
WHEREFORE, the Petitions are GRANTED and the disqualification cases. Pertinently, we held:
Jocelyn D. Sy-Limkaichong is declared as
DISQUALIFIED from her candidacy for x x x The Court has invariably held that once a
Representative of the First District of Negros winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken
Oriental. his oath, andassumed office as a Member of the
House of Representatives, the COMELEC's

Page 3 of 5
jurisdiction over election contests relating to In the present case, it is not disputed that
his election, returns, and qualifications ends, respondent Unico has already been proclaimed
and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins.8 It and taken his oath of office as a Member of the
follows then that the proclamation of a winning House of Representatives (Thirteenth Congress);
candidate divests the COMELEC of its hence, the COMELEC correctly ruled that it had
jurisdiction over matters pending before it at already lost jurisdiction over petitioner Chato's
the time of the proclamation. The party petition. The issues raised by petitioner Chato
questioning his qualification should now present essentially relate to the canvassing of returns
his case in a proper proceeding before the HRET, and alleged invalidity of respondent Unico's
the constitutionally mandated tribunal to hear proclamation. These are matters that are best
and decide a case involving a Member of the addressed to the sound judgment and discretion
House of Representatives with respect to the of the HRET. Significantly, the allegation that
latter's election, returns and qualifications. The respondent Unico's proclamation is null and
use of the word "sole" in Section 17, Article VI of void does not divest the HRET of its jurisdiction:
the Constitution and in Section 250 9 of the OEC
underscores the exclusivity of the Electoral x x x [I]n an electoral contest where the validity
Tribunals' jurisdiction over election contests of the proclamation of a winning candidate who
relating to its members.10 has taken his oath of office and assumed his
post as congressman is raised, that issue is best
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 addressed to the HRET. The reason for this
Constitution provides: ruling is self-evident, for it avoids duplicity of
proceedings and a clash of jurisdiction between
Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of constitutional bodies, with due regard to the
Representatives shall each have an Electoral people's mandate.
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and Further, for the Court to take cognizance of
qualifications of their respective Members. petitioner Chato's election protest against
Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of respondent Unico would be to usurp the
nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices constitutionally mandated functions of the
of the Supreme Court to be designated by the HRET.
Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be
Members of the Senate or the House of In fine, any allegations as to the invalidity of the
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall proclamation will not prevent the HRET from
be chosen on the basis of proportional assuming jurisdiction over all matters essential
representation from the political parties and the to a member’s qualification to sit in the House
parties or organizations registered under the of Representatives.
party-list system represented therein. The
senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be The 1998 HRET Rules, as amended, provide for
its Chairman. the manner of filing either an election protest or
a petition for quo warranto against a Member of
xxxx the House of Representatives. In our Decision,
we ruled that the ten-day prescriptive period
Petitioners (in G.R. Nos. 179120, 179132-33, and under the 1998 HRET Rules does not apply to
179240-41) steadfastly maintained that disqualification based on citizenship, because
Limkaichong’s proclamation was tainted with qualifications for public office are continuing
irregularity, which will effectively prevent the requirements and must be possessed not only at
HRET from acquiring jurisdiction. the time of appointment or election or
assumption of office but during the officer's
The fact that the proclamation of the winning entire tenure. Once any of the required
candidate, as in this case, was alleged to have qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably
been tainted with irregularity does not divest challenged.13 Accordingly, the 1987 Constitution
the HRET of its jurisdiction. 11 The Court has shed requires that Members of the House of
light on this in the case of Vinzons-Chato,12 to Representatives must be natural-born citizens
the effect that: not only at the time of their election but during
their entire tenure. Being a continuing

Page 4 of 5
requirement, one who assails a member's a member to prepare the decision of the Court,
citizenship or lack of it may still question the but inno way is that decision binding unless
same at any time, the ten-day prescriptive and until signed and promulgated.
period notwithstanding.lavvphi1
We add that at any time before promulgation,
In fine, we hold that Biraogo had not the ponencia may be changed by
successfully convinced us to reconsider our the ponente. Indeed, if any member of the court
Decision and grant his motion for who may have already signed it so desires, he
reconsideration. may still withdraw his concurrence and register
a qualification or dissent as long as the decision
In a last-ditched attempt to muddle the issues, has not yet been promulgated. A promulgation
Biraogo observed that the Decision dated April signifies that on the date it was made the judge
1, 2009 is a complete turn-around from the or judges who signed the decision continued to
ruling embodied in the Decision written by support it.
Justice Ruben T. Reyes which, although
unpromulgated, was nonetheless signed by Thus, an unpromulgated decision is no decision
fourteen (14) Associate Justices and approved at all. At the very least, they are part of the
by the Court en banc on July 15, 2008. He confidential internal deliberations of the Court
decried the absence of an explanation in the which must not be released to the public. A
Decision dated April 1, 2009 for the said decision becomes binding only after it is validly
departure or turn-around. promulgated.15 Until such operative act occurs,
there is really no decision to speak of, even if
Such a position deserves scant consideration. some or all of the Justices have already affixed
their signatures thereto. During the intervening
The Court in Belac v. Commision on period from the time of signing until the
Elections,14 held that a decision must not only promulgation of the decision, any one who took
be signed by the Justices who took part in the part in the deliberation and had signed the
deliberation, but must also be promulgated to decision may, for a reason, validly withdraw
be considered a Decision, to wit: one's vote, thereby preserving one's freedom of
action.
[A] true decision of the Court is the
decision signed by the Justices and duly In sum, we hold that Biraogo’s Motion for
promulgated. Before that decision is so signed Reconsideration with Prayer for Oral Argument
and promulgated, there is no decision of the must be denied. This Court did not err in ruling
Court to speak of. The vote cast by a member of that the proper remedy of those who may assail
the Court after the deliberation is always Limkaichong's disqualification based on
understood to be subject to confirmation at the citizenship is to file before the HRET the proper
time he has to sign the decision that is to be petition at any time during her incumbency.
promulgated. The vote is of no value if it is not
thus confirmed by the Justice casting it. The WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration
purpose of this practice is apparent. Members with Prayer for Oral Argument filed by
of this Court, even after they have cast their petitioner Louis C. Biraogo in G.R. No. 179120 is
votes, wish to preserve their freedom of action DENIED with FINALITY.
till the last moment when they have to sign the
decision, so that they may take full advantage of SO ORDERED.
what they may believe to be the best fruit of
their most mature reflection and deliberation. In DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
consonance with this practice, before a decision Associate Justice
is signed and promulgated, all opinions and
conclusions stated during and after the
deliberation of the Court, remain in the breasts
of the Justices, binding upon no one, not even
upon the Justices themselves. Of course, they
may serve for determining what the opinion of
the majority provisionally is and for designating

Page 5 of 5