SC grants petition for Negros Oriental lawmaker’s arguments

The Supreme Court has granted the petition of Negros Oriental Rep. Jocelyn Limkaichong to hear in oral arguments, the case which attacked her citizenship and qualification as member of the House of Representatives.

In a resolution, the Court has set the oral arguments on Aug. 12. During the oral arguments, Limkaichong, through her lawyer, is expected to present evidence countering the allegation that she is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, and as such, should be disqualified as a member of the House, representing the First District of Negros Oriental.

Under the Constitution, only natural-born citizens are qualified to run for a seat at the House of Representatives.

During the oral arguments, Limkaichong, through her lawyers, will also clear issues surrounding the conflicting decisions of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on her proclamation and disqualification on the ground that she is allegedly not a natural-born Filipino citizen.

Earlier, Limkaichong’s lawyer, Pete Quirino-Quadra filed a six-page motion with the Court and stressed that the conduct of the oral argument is necessary in order to clarify issues involving questions on jurisdiction and constitutionality that had been raised.

“We respectfully pray that the cases be set for oral argument on the jurisdictional and constitutional questions that we have raised,” Limkaichong said in her motion.

Limkaichong, who ran and won under the banner of the administration Lakas-CMD Party, won by a majority of 7,746 votes over her next rival Olivia Paras, and less than 40,00 votes over the third placer, former Rep. Jerome Paras. Olivia is the wife of former Rep. Jacinto “Jing” Paras, while Jerome is a brother of Jacinto.

In particular, Limkaichong is challenging as unconstitutional the argument of her rivals that the June 29, 2007 Comelec resolution affirming the May 17, 2007 resolution of the Comelec’s Second Division disqualifying her is already final and executory as she did not file a petition for certiorari within five days from the promulgation of the June 29, 2007 resolution.

But Limkaichong contends that under Section 7, Article 9 of the Constitution and Section 2, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, “Any decision, order, or ruling of its Commissions may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.”

In this case, Limkaichong received the Comelec Resolution June 29, 2007 on July 3, 2007. The petition for certiorari was filed before the SC on Aug. 1, 2007 within the required period of 30 days.

Limkaichong argued in her motion that since the petition was filed within the 30-day period, the Supreme Court should rule on the jurisdictional issues that she had raised.