The camp of former Governor Joseph C. Cua is expected to file a motion for reconsideration with the Commission on Elections on the decision of its First Division that belatedly disqualified him from being a candidate for municipal mayor in Virac.
Two of the division’s members – Commissioners Aimee V. Ferolino and Maria Norina S. Tangaro-Casingal – voted to grant the petition for disqualification filed by eventual winner Atty. Sinforoso M. Sarmiento, Jr., while the third member, Commissioner Ernesto Ferdinand P. Maceda Jr., dissented and voted to deny the petition for utter lack of merit.
The First Division’s adverse ruling comes almost three months after the very same division and the same commissioners unanimously voted to deny a disqualification petition filed by then gubernatorial candidate Patrick Alain T. Azanza against Vice Governor Peter C. Cua, the former governor’s brother.
Both the Sarmiento and Azanza petitions, filed through counsel Atty. Ramil Joselito B. Tamayo, essentially had the same allegations against the Cua brothers: that they are Chinese citizens as their father Fernando S. Cua and mother Asuncion Cua were both Chinese citizens.
The twin disqualification petitions, filed early this year, cited similar evidence: the birth certificate of both Joseph and Peter Cua that had been issued by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA).
The similarities, however, end with different rulings rendered by the same COMELEC division three months apart.
In the first resolution on SPA No. 25-003 (DC), rendered on April 14, 2025, Commissioners Ferolino, Maceda and Tangaro-Casingal found that the Azanza was “utterly bereft of merit and must be denied.”
Pointing out that the petition should be dismissed outright for being the wrong remedy and for being filed beyond the reglementary period, they stated that non-compliance with the citizenship requirement is not a ground for the disqualification of a candidate.
The First Division said the petitioner failed to prove that Peter C. Cua is not a Filipino citizen, having derived Philippine citizenship through the process of derivative naturalization, with the Certificate of Naturalization substantial evidence that enjoys the presumption of regularity and constitutes prima facie evidence of his status as a Filipino citizen.
In the resolution on SPA No. 25-040 (DC), promulgated on July 11, 2025, two of the three Commissioners discounted Joseph Cua’s naturalization and identification certificates “in the absence of further evidence that satisfactorily prove Respondent’s Filipino citizenship.”
It emphasized that he did not dispute the credibility of the facts stated in his PSA Birth Certificate, which petitioner Sarmiento claimed showed that Cua’s parents were Chinese citizens.
The petition had further averred that Cua did not register his naturalization with the local civil registrar and that he either did not intend to be divested of his Chinese citizenship or the documents proving his Filipino citizenship are bogus.
“Respondent’s refusal to rectify his official records, even after occupying the highest elective position in his province, is telling of a profound disconnect between the obligations of his citizenship, which includes indispensably, full allegiance to the Republic, and the public trust reposed in elective officials,” the majority ruling stressed.
It also noted that Cua admitted having been mayor of San Andres from 2001 to 2004, which meant he could not have been a resident of Virac for 61 years and six months as stated in his Certificate of Candidacy, “raising even more questions” as to his qualification to run for an elective local office.
“…Respondent’s refusal or neglect to record in the civil register a substantial matter that pertains to his qualification to hold public office merits his disqualification,” it concluded.
Commissioner Maceda, however, disagreed, saying in his dissenting opinion that there is nothing in the law that provides that the failure to register an individual’s naturalization operates to divest him of Philippine citizenship.
In voting to deny the petition for utter lack of merit, he said that the respondent’s Certificate of Naturalization constitutes prima facie evidence of his status as a Filipino citizen, enjoying the presumption of regularity and due issuance.
On the one-year discrepancy between Cua’s residency as stated in the CoC and his actual age at the time, Maceda said the evidence on record does not indicate that Cua acquired permanent residency in a foreign country and that the discrepancy may simply be an error in computation.
He likewise pointed out that the petition should fail just on the ground of its being an impermissible collateral attack on Cua’s citizenship, which is not the proper subject of the petition for disqualification.
“Petitioner erroneously filed a petition for disqualification,” the commissioner emphasized, “instead of a petition for denial of due course to or cancellation of a candidate’s CoC.
But 13 years ago, a petition for denial of due course to and cancellation of CoC had been filed before the COMELEC against then reelectionist governor Joseph Cua by his Chinese school classmate and gubernatorial rival, Larry S. Que.
Through lawyers of fellow candidate Araceli Bernardino-Wong, Que alleged that the governor falsely represented in his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) that he is a naturalized Filipino citizen when in fact he is a Chinese national, as borne out by his Birth Certificate issued by the National Statistics Office on Oct. 12, 2012.
Que prayed to the Commission that Cua be declared ineligible to run for governor and that his COC be denied and cancelled, as fraud also attended the naturalization of Cua’s father.
In denying the petition for lack of merit in April 2013, the COMELEC First Division stated, after a review of the entire records, respondent Cua had “abundantly shown” by his documentary exhibits that he is a naturalized Filipino citizen and is qualified to run for the elective post he is seeking.
It said the accusation of undue influence over the MCR is complete speculative and that the certification by the Bureau of Immigration that the respondent Joseph Chua Qua was naturalized as a Filipino citizen coupled with his Philippine passport and other documents enjoy the presumption of regularity.
Despite the dismissal by COMELEC of the disqualification case, then reelectionist Governor Cua lost to Wong due to the issue’s negative impact on his campaign.
In August 2014, the Commission en banc ruled with finality that there was enough evidence on record to support the claim of the former governor that he is a Filipino.
The seven commissioners headed by then Chairman Sixto Brillantes said the remedies of the petitioner in assailing the citizenship of the respondent, and how this came about, lie elsewhere and not through the petition.
“…(T)he Commission En Banc would be overstepping jurisdictional boundaries, not to mention exercising powers beyond those given to it by the Constitution and relevant statues, if it pursues to address each nd every matter raised by the petitioner…,” it pointed out.
Two years earlier, on Feb. 21, 2013, the Bureau of Immigration dismissed an immigration fraud and deportation case against Joseph Cua for “lack of jurisdiction” as the allegations were criminal in nature.
In dismissing claims of purported violations of the naturalization law, the BI stated that the Certificate of Naturalization issued to Cua remains valid unless declared invalid by competent authority.
It underscored that the complainants and the special prosecutor never challenged the authenticity of the Certificate of Naturalization and the identification certificate of Cua.
On the same year, the Regional Trial Court Branch 45 in Manila dismissed Civil Suit No. 13-129874 filed by a certain Abelardo Lucero, through lawyers identified with Wong, that sought the nullification of the naturalization papers of Fernando Cua, his wife Asuncion, and children Joseph, Peter, Lilibeth, Susan and Connie on allegations of fraud and irregularities.
Citing grounds of lack of jurisdiction, failure to state course of action and violation of the rules on forum shopping, it favored the respondents’ contention that the petition should have been filed before the Special Committee on Naturalization which has jurisdiction over the same.
The Court likewise opined that under Sec. 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, cancellation of naturalization certificate may be done by the Court only upon motion made in the proper proceedings by the Solicitor General or his representative, or by the proper provincial fiscal.
The dismissal also hinged on the fact the petitioner Lucero submitted false certification of non-forum shopping when he certified, under oath, that no action or proceeding involving the same issues raised by him in the RTC petition was pending in any other tribunal or agency.
Records cited by the Court showed that at the time, a case against one of the respondents, Joseph Cua, was then pending before the Bureau of Immigration.
“Petitioner Lucero could have easily learned this matter from his counsels as they are the same lawyers who represent the complainants in the BID case,” the 2013 decision stressed. “To the mind of this Court, the instant petition has no purpose but to harass or vex the respondents.”
Following the dismissal of the petition, Joseph Cua filed a disbarment complaints against the two lawyers involved in the two cases, with the SC junking the suit last year for failure to prove the allegations.