The Commission on Elections has denied for lack of merit the disqualification petition filed against Vice Governor Peter C. Cua by close rival Dr. Patrick Alain T. Azanza.
In the April 14, 2025 resolution issued by the COMELEC First Division composed of Presiding Commissioner Aimee V. Ferolino, Commissioner Ernesto Ferdinand P. Maceda Jr. and Commissioner Maria Norina S. Tangaro-Casingal, it said that upon careful examination of the allegations and evidence presented, the Commission finds that the petition is “utterly bereft of merit and must be denied.”
It may be recalled that on Jan. 6, 2025, Azanza filed the petition seeking the disqualification of Cua on the ground that he is not a citizen of the Philippines but is allegedly a Chinese citizen.
The former university president cited as evidence Cua’s Certificate of Live Birth, which indicated that his parents, Fernando S. Cua and Asuncion Cua, are both Chinese citizens.
He claimed that Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis, whereby a child’s nationality or citizenship is derived from that of his parents, regardless of the place of their birth.
In its ruling, the COMELEC First Division said that the petition should be dismissed outright for being the wrong remedy.
“Petitioner’s resort to a petition for disqualification is incorrect,” the resolution pointed out. “The grounds he raised are more proper for a petition for denial of due course to or cancellation of a candidate’s certificate of candidacy.”
It cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Salcedo vs. Commission on Elections where it laid down available remedies for questioning the qualifications of a candidate: before election, to file a petition to deny due course or to cancel a CoC; and, after election, a petition for quo warranto contesting the election of any official on the ground or ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.
On the other hand, the COMELEC stated, a petition for disqualification covers a situation where a candidte is otherwise qualified and eligible, but because of the presence of certain disqualifications provided by law, is barred from running for elective office under grounds specified in Section 12 and Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 40 of the Local Government Code.
Referring to previous SC decisions, the First Division said that said provisions are not concerned with a declaration of the ineligibility of a candidate but rather with incapacity due to insanity, incompetence or conviction of an offense of a person.
With regards to Azanza’s allegation that Cua made a material misrepresentation in his CoC when he stated therein that he is a Filipino citizen when he is actually a Chinese citizen, the Commission said non-compliance with the citizenship requirement is not a ground for the disqualification of a candidate.
“False declaration as to this qualification is a ground to cancel the candidate’s CoC, but not for disqualification,” it said, describing the petition as an “outright transgression” of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Likewise, it noted that the Azanza petition was filed beyond the reglementary period set in Section 12 of COMELEC Resolution No. 11046, which states that a petition to deny due course or cancel a CoC must be filed within 25 days from the time of filing of the CoC.
The petition dated Dec. 26, 2024 was filed by Azanza through his counsel on Jan. 6, 2025, more than 60 days after the lapse of the required period.
As per Official Receipt No. 17513018, the petitioner paid the filing fee only on Jan. 7, 2025, or 66 days after the lapse of the reglementary period for payment of filing fee, the COMELEC added.
More importantly, the resolution disagreed with Azanza’s questioning Cua’s citizenship by attacking the citizenship of his parents.
“..(A)ny attack on the citizenship of Respondent’s parents is beyond the scope of the present proceedings,” it stressed, pointing out that a “collateral attack” on citizenship is not permissible as ruled by the High Court.
Information filed before COMELEC show that Azanza’s arguments were based on the following grounds: that Cua’s naturalization papers is a belated enforcement that fails to comply with law, that these documents were bogus and that his father’s name was not in the list of those naturalized under Presidential Decree No. 836.
Such allegations are all questions properly raised in a direct action for nullity of Respondent’s naturalization, and not in the present petition for disqualification, the COMELEC ruled, adding that the Division cannot delve into the legality of the Respondent’s Certificate of Naturalization, as this would be an impermissible collateral attack against the latter’s citizenship.
In discussing the substantive issues of the case, the First Division said the petitioner failed to prove that Cua is not a Filipino citizen, having derived Philippine citizenship through the process of derivative naturalization.
It described Cua’s Certificate of Naturalization as substantial evidence of his status as a naturalized Filipino citizen, as the public document enjoys the presumption of regularity and constitutes prima facie evidence of his status as a Filipino citizen.