EN BANC |u.R. No. 86S64. August 1, 1989.j !"#$%'('")$*+!(, "#$%$%&'#(, !"# ,-./$##0110$%$%.'./,0$%12/$#.'./3.%)"%/"%4'501 '"!406")"', (#)"&'*#'$). +)$#,%$& -. .#'*&/0 foi petitionei. 1%,,#(0 anu 23%'$0'0 foi piivate iesponuent. 17''")51 1. SPECIALCIvILACTI0N;Q00WARRANT0;PETITI0NFILEBTINELY.TheCouithasconsiueieutheaigumentsofthe paitiesanuholusthatthepetitionfoi 43& 50((0'$& wasfileuontime.Weagieewiththeiesponuentsthatthefeewaspaiu uuiingtheten-uaypeiiouasextenueubythepenuencyofthepetitionwhenitwastieateubytheC0NELECasapie-pioclamationpioceeuingwhichuiunotiequiiethepaymentofafilingfee.Atthat,weieachthisconclusiononlyonthe assumptionthattheiequiiementfoithepaymentofthefeesin 43& 50((0'$& pioceeuingswasalieauyeffective.Theieisno iecoiu that Res. No. 14Su was even publisheu; anu as foi Res. No. 1996, this took effect only on Naich S, 1988, seven uays aftei itspublicationintheFebiuaiy2S,1988issuesoftheNanilaChionicleanuthePhilippineBailyInquiiei,oi 06$#( thepetition was fileu. 2. IB.;IB.;PAYNENT0FFILINuFEESNECESSARYF0RC0NFERNENT0F}0RISBICTI0N;C00RTNAYALL0WPAYNENT WITBIN A REAS0NABLE TINE. It is tiue that in the Nanchestei Case, we iequiieu the timely payment of the filing fee as a pieconuitionfoithetimelinessofthefilingofthecaseitself.In SunInsuiance0ffice,Ltu.v.Asuncion,howevei,thisCouit, takingintoaccountthespecialciicumstancesofthatcase,ieiteiateutheiulethatthetiialcouitacquiiesjuiisuictionoveia caseonlyuponthepaymentofthepiesciibeufilingfee.Bowevei,thiscouitmayallowthepaymentofthesaiufeewithina ieasonable time. In the event of non-compliance theiewith, the case shall be uismisseu. The same iuea is expiesseu in Rule 42, Section 18, of the C0NELEC Rules of Pioceuuie auopteu on }une 2u, 1988. S. CIvILPR0CEB0RE;ACTI0N;RES0L0TI0N0NTBENERITSINSTEAB0FRENANBINuTBECASET0TBETRIALC00RT F0RF0RTBERPR0CEEBINuS;ASBENANBEBBYTBEBICTATES0F}0STICE.Remanuofthecasetotheloweicouitfoi fuitheiieceptionofeviuenceisnotnecessaiywheiethecouitisinapositiontoiesolvetheuisputebaseuontheiecoius befoieit.0nmanyoccasions,theCouit,inthepublicinteiestanutheexpeuitiousauministiationofjustice,hasiesolveu actionsonthemeiitsinsteauofiemanuingthemtothetiialcouitfoifuitheipioceeuings,suchaswheietheenusofjustice woulu not be subseiveu by the iemanu of the case oi when public inteiest uemanus an eaily uisposition of the case oi wheie the tiial couit hau alieauy ieceiveu all the eviuence of the paities. 4. IB.;IB.;B0CTRINE0F 1+789:;= N0TAPPLICABLET0Q0ESTI0NS0FCITIZENSBIP;BEFENSET0BESEAS0NABLY INv0KEB. Theie is also the claim that the uecision can no longei be ieveiseu because of the uoctiine of (#) ?3*%@0$0, but this toomustbeuismisseu.Thisuoctiineuoesnotapplytoquestionsofcitizenship,astheCouithasiuleuinseveialcases. Noieovei, it uoes not appeai that it was piopeily anu seasonably pleaueu, in a motion to uismiss oi in the answei, having been invokeuonlywhenthepetitioneifileuhisieplytothepiivateiesponuent'scomment.Besiues,oneoftheiequisitesof(#) ?3*%@0$0, to wit, iuentity of paities, is not piesent in this case. S. P0LITICALLAW;NAT0RALIZATI0N;ACQ0ISITI0N0FCITIZENSBIPBYNAT0RALIZATI0N.Thepetitionei'scontention thathismaiiiagetoanAustialiannationalin1976uiunotautomaticallyuivesthimofPhilippinecitizenshipisiiielevant. TheieisnoclaimoifinuingthatheautomaticallyceaseutobeaFilipinobecauseofthatmaiiiage.Bebecameacitizenof Austialiabecausehewasnatuializeuassuchthioughafoimalanupositivepiocess,simplifieuinhiscasebecausehewas maiiieutoanAustialiancitizen.Asaconuitionfoisuchnatuialization,hefoimallytookthe0athofAllegianceanuoimaue the Affiimation of Allegiance. 6. IB.;CITIZENSBIP;N0BES0FL0SINuPBILIPPINECITIZENSBIP. CANo.6S enumeiatesthemouesbywhichPhilippine citizenship may be lost. Among these aie: (1) natuialization in a foieign countiy; (2) expiess ienunciation of citizenship; anu (S)subsciibingtoanoathofallegiancetosuppoittheConstitution oilawsofafoieigncountiy,allofwhichaieapplicableto the petitionei. It is also woith mentioning in this connection that unuei Aiticle Iv, Section S, of the piesent Constitution, "Bual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national inteiest anu shall be uealt with by law." 7. IB.; IB.; ANN0LNENT 0F NARRIAuE T0 A F0REIuNER N0T AN A0T0NATIC REST0RATI0N 0F PBILIPPINE CITIZENSBIP. Even if it be assumeu that, as the petitionei asseits, his natuialization in Austialia was annulleu aftei it was founu that his maiiiagetotheAustialiancitizenwasbigamous,thatciicumstancealoneuiunotautomaticallyiestoiehisPhilippine citizenship.BisuivestituieofAustialiancitizenshipuoesnotconceinusheie.Thatisamatteibetweenhimanuhisauopteu countiy.WhatwemustconsiueiisthefactthathevoluntaiilyanufieelyiejecteuPhilippinecitizenshipanuwillinglyanu knowinglyembiaceuthecitizenshipofafoieigncountiy.Thepossibilitythathemayhavebeensubsequentlyiejecteuby Austialia, as he claims, uoes not mean that he has been automatically ieinstateu as a citizen of the Philippines. 8. IB.;IB.;NEANS0FREACQ0IRINuPBILIPPINECITIZENSBIP.0nuei CANo.6S asamenueuby PBNo.72S,Philippine citizenship may be ieacquiieu by uiiect act of Congiess, by natuialization, oi by iepatiiation. It uoes not appeai in the iecoiu, noi uoes the petitionei claim, that he has ieacquiieu Philippine citizenship by any of these methous. 9. IB.;IB.;LACK0FPBILIPPINECITIZENSBIP0NTBEBAY0FL0CALELECTI0NS;uR00NBF0RBISQ0ALIFICATI0NASA CANBIBATEF0RNAY0R.Thepetitioneiisnotnow,noiwasheontheuayofthelocalelectionson}anuaiy18,1988,a citizen of the Philippines. In fact, he was not even a qualifieu votei unuei the Constitution itself because of his alienage. Be was theiefoie ineligible as a canuiuate foi mayoi of Baguio City unuei Section 42 of the Local uoveinment Coue. 1u. IB.; ELECTI0N; Q0ALIFICATI0NS 0F CANBIBATE F0R P0BLIC 0FFICE, C0NTENBINu REQ0IRENENTS. The piobability thatmanyofthosewhovoteufoithepetitioneimayhaveuonesointhebeliefthathewasqualifieuonlystiengthensthe conclusion that the iesults of the election cannot nullify the qualifications foi the office now helu by him. These qualifications aiecontinuingiequiiements;onceanyofthemislostuuiingincumbency,titletotheofficeitselfisueemeufoifeiteu.Inthe case at bai, the citizenship anu voting iequiiements weie not subsequently lost but weie not possesseu at all in the fiist place on the uay of the election. The petitionei was uisqualifieu fiom iunning as mayoi anu, although electeu, is not now qualifieu to seive as such. 11. IB.;ELECTI0N;CANBIBATE0BTAININuTBESEC0NBBIuBESTN0NBER0Fv0TES;N0TQ0ALIFIEBT0REPLACETBE BISQ0ALIFIEBCANBIBATE;7=A>B7 R0LINuREvERSEB.Finally,theieisthequestionofwhetheioinotthepiivate iesponuent, who fileu the 43& 50((0'$& petition, can ieplace the petitionei as mayoi. Be cannot. The simple ieason is that as he obtaineu only the seconu highest numbei of votes in the election, he was obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio City. Re-examining Santos v. Commission on Election, 1S7 SCRA 74u the Couit finus, anu so holus, that it shoulu be ieveiseu in favoi of the eailiei case of ueionimo v. Ramos, which iepiesents the moie logical anu uemociatic iule. Theie the Couit helu it woulu be extiemely iepugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaianteeu iight to suffiage if a canuiuate who has not acquiieu the majoiity oi pluiality of votes is pioclaimeu a winnei anu imposeu as the iepiesentative of a constituency, the majoiity of which have positively ueclaieu thiough theii ballots that they uo not choose him. 4 . / 0 1 0 $ % /!56, 8 p: The petitionei asks this Couit to iestiain the Commission on Elections fiom looking into the question of his citizenship as a qualification foi his office as Nayoi of Baguio City. The allegation that he is a foieignei, he says, is not the issue. The issue is whethei oi not the public iesponuent has juiisuiction to conuuct any inquiiy into this mattei, consiueiing that the petition foi 43& 50((0'$& against him was not fileu on time. cuphil It is notewoithy that this aigument is baseu on the allegeu taiuiness not of the petition itself but of the payment of the filing fee, which the petitionei contenus was an inuispensable iequiiement. The fee is, cuiiously enough, all of PSuu.uu only. This biings to minu the populai veise that foi want of a hoise the kinguom was lost. Still, if it is shown that the petition was inueeu fileu beyonu the ieglementaiy' peiiou, theie is no question that this petition must be gianteu anu the challenge abateu. The petitionei's position is simple. Be was pioclaimeu mayoi-elect of Baguio City on }anuaiy 2u, 1988. The petition foi 43& 50((0'$& was fileu by the piivate iesponuent on }anuaiy 26,1988, but no filing fee was paiu on that uate. This fee was finally paiu on Febiuaiy 1u, 1988, oi twenty-one uays aftei his pioclamation. As the petition by itself alone was ineffectual without the filing fee, it shoulu be ueemeu fileu only when the fee was paiu. This was uone beyonu the ieglementaiy peiiou pioviueu foi unuei Section 2SS of the 0mnibus Election Coue ieauing as follows: SEC.2SS. -#$%$%&'6&(43&50((0'$&.AnyvoteicontestingtheelectionofaNembeioftheBatasang Pambansa,iegional,piovincial,oicityofficeionthegiounuofineligibilityoiofuisloyaltytotheRepublic of the Philippines shall files swoin petition foi 43& 50((0'$& with the Commission within ten uays aftei the pioclamation of the iesult of the election.

The petitionei auus that the payment of the filing fee is iequiieu unuei Rule S6, Section S, of the Pioceuuial Rules of the C0NELEC pioviuing that Sec.S. Nopetitionfoi 43&50((0'$& shallbegivenuuecouisewithoutthepaymentofafilingfeeinthe amount of Thiee Bunuieu Pesos (PSuu.uu) anu the legal ieseaich fee as iequiieu by law. anu stiesses that theie is abunuant juiispiuuence holuing that the payment of the filing fee is essential to the timeliness of the filing of the petition itself. Be cites many iulings of the Couit to this effect, specifically Nanchestei v. Couit of Appeals. 8 Foi his pait, the piivate iesponuent uenies that the filing fee was paiu out of time. In fact, he says, it was fileu 0C#0* of time. Bis point is that when he fileu his "Petition foi Quo Waiianto with Piayei foi Immeuiate Annulment of Pioclamation anu Restiaining 0iuei oi Injunction" on }anuaiy 26, 1988, the C0NELEC tieateu it as a pie-pioclamation contioveisy anu uocketeu it as SPC Case No. 88-288. No uocket fee was collecteu although it was offeieu. It was only on Febiuaiy 8, 1988, that the C0NELEC ueciueu to tieat his petition as solely foi 43& 50((0'$& anu ie-uocketeu it as EPC Case No. 88-19, seiving him notice on Febiuaiy 1u, 1988. Be immeuiately paiu the filing fee on that uate. The piivate iesponuent aigues fuithei that uuiing the peiiou when the C0NELEC iegaiueu his petition as a pie-pioclamation contioveisy, the time foi filing an election piotest oi 43& 50((0'$& pioceeuing was ueemeu suspenueu unuei Section 248 of the 0mnibus Election Coue. 9 At any iate, he says, Rule S6, Section S, of the C0NELEC Rules of Pioceuuie citeu by the petitionei, became effective only on Novembei 1S, 1988, seven uays aftei publication of the saiu Rules in the 0fficial uazette puisuant to Section 4, Rule 44 theieof. : These iules coulu not ietioact to }anuaiy 26,1988, when he fileu his petition with the C0NELEC. In his Reply, the petitionei aigues that even if the 0mnibus Election Coue uiu not iequiie it, the payment of filing fees was still necessaiy unuei Res. No. 1996 anu, befoie that, Res. No. 14Su of the iesponuent C0NELEC, piomulgateu on }anuaiy 12, 1988, anu Febiuaiy 26, 198u, iespectively. To this, the piivate iesponuent counteis that the lattei iesolution was intenueu foi the local elections helu on }anuaiy Su, 198u, anu uiu not apply to the 1988 local elections, which weie supposeu to be goveineu by the fiist-mentioneu iesolution. Bowevei, Res. No. 1996 took effect only on Naich S, 1988, following the lapse of seven uays altei its publication as iequiieu by RA No. 6646, otheiwise known as the Electoial Refoim Law of 1987, which became effective on }anuaiy S,1988. Its Section Su pioviues in pait: Sec.Su. +66#@$%D%$E&61#F3,0$%&')0'*B(*#()&6$C# to the piivate iesponuent's comment. Besiues, one of the iequisites of (#) ?3*%@0$0, to wit, iuentity of paities, is not piesent in this case. The petitionei's contention that his maiiiage to an Austialian national in 1976 uiu not automatically uivest him of Philippine citizenship is iiielevant. Theie is no claim oi finuing that he automatically ceaseu to be a Filipino because of that maiiiage. Be became a citizen of Austialia because he was natuializeu as such thiough a foimal anu positive piocess, simplifieu in his case because he was maiiieu to an Austialian citizen. As a conuition foi such natuialization, he foimally took the 0ath of Allegiance anuoi maue the Affiimation of Allegiance, both quoteu above. Renouncing all othei allegiance, he swoie "to be faithful anu beai tiue allegiance to Bei Najesty Elizabeth the Seconu, Queen of Austialia. . . . , anu to fulfill his uuties as an Austialian citizen."cull The petitionei now claims that his natuialization in Austialia maue him at woist only a uual national anu uiu not uivest him of his Philippine citizenship. Such a specious aigument cannot stanu against the cleai piovisions of CA No. 6S, which enumeiates the moues by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Among these aie: (1) natuialization in a foieign countiy; (2) expiess ienunciation of citizenship; anu (S) subsciibing to an oath of allegiance to suppoit the Constitution oi laws of a foieign countiy, all of which aie applicable to the petitionei. It is also woith mentioning in this connection that unuei Aiticle Iv, Section S, of the piesent Constitution, "Bual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national inteiest anu shall be uealt with by law."

Even if it be assumeu that, as the petitionei asseits, his natuialization in Austialia was annulleu aftei it was founu that his maiiiage to the Austialian citizen was bigamous, that ciicumstance alone uiu not automatically iestoie his Philippine citizenship. Bis uivestituie of Austialian citizenship uoes not concein us heie. That is a mattei between him anu his auopteu countiy. What we must consiuei is the fact that he voluntaiily anu fieely iejecteu Philippine citizenship anu willingly anu knowingly embiaceu the citizenship of a foieign countiy. The possibility that he may have been subsequently iejecteu by Austialia, as he claims, uoes not mean that he has been automatically ieinstateu as a citizen of the Philippines. 0nuei CA No. 6S as amenueu by PB No. 72S, Philippine citizenship may be ieacquiieu by uiiect act of Congiess, by natuialization, oi by iepatiiation. It uoes not appeai in the iecoiu, noi uoes the petitionei claim, that he has ieacquiieu Philippine citizenship by any of these methous. Be uoes not point to any juuicial ueciee of natuialization as to any statute uiiectly confeiiing Philippine citizenship upon him. Neithei has he shown that he has complieu withPB No. 72S, pioviuing that: ...(2)natuial-boinFilipinoswhohavelosttheiiPhilippinecitizenshipmayieacquiiePhilippine citizenshipthioughiepatiiationbyapplyingwiththeSpecialCommitteeonNatuializationcieateuby Lettei of Instiuction No. 27u, anu, %6 $C#%( 0"",%@0$%&') 0(# 0""(&D#*P taking the necessaiy oath of allegiance totheRepublicofthePhilippines,afteiwhichtheyshallbeueemeutohaveieacquiieuPhilippine citizenship.TheCommissiononImmigiationanuBepoitationshalltheieuponcanceltheiiceitificateof iegistiation. (Emphasis supplieu.) That is why the Commission on Immigiation anu Bepoitation iejecteu his application foi the cancellation of his alien ceitificate of iegistiation. Anu that is also the ieason we must ueny his piesent claim foi iecognition as a citizen of the Philippines. The petitionei is not now, noi was he on the uay of the local elections on }anuaiy 18, 1988, a citizen of the Philippines. In fact, he was not even a qualifieu votei unuei the Constitution itself because of his alienage. 98 Be was theiefoie ineligible as a canuiuate foi mayoi of Baguio City unuei Section 42 of the Local uoveinment Coue pioviuing in mateiial pait as follows: Sec.42. 230,%6%@0$%&').(1)AnelectivelocalofficialmustbeacitizenofthePhilippines,atleasttwenty-thiee yeais of age on election uay, a qualifieu votei iegisteieu as such in the baiangay, municipality, city oi piovince wheie he pioposes to be electeu, a iesiuent theiein foi at least one yeai at the time of the filing of hisceitificateofcanuiuacy,anuabletoieauanuwiiteEnglish,Pilipino,oianyotheilocallanguageoi uialect. The petitionei aigues that his allegeu lack of citizenship is a "futile technicality" that shoulu not fiustiate the will of the electoiate of Baguio City who electeu him by a "iesonant anu thunueious majoiity." To be accuiate, it was not as louu as all that, foi his leau ovei the seconu-placei was only about 2,1uu votes. In any event, the people of that locality coulu not have, even unanimously, changeu the iequiiements of the Local uoveinment Coue anu theConstitution. The electoiate hau no powei to peimit a foieignei owing his total allegiance to the Queen of Austialia, oi at least a stateless inuiviuual owing no allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, to piesiue ovei them as mayoi of theii city. 0nly citizens of the Philippines have that piivilege ovei theii countiymen. The piobability that many of those who voteu foi the petitionei may have uone so in the belief that he was qualifieu only stiengthens the conclusion that the iesults of the election cannot nullify the qualifications foi the office now helu by him. These qualifications aie continuing iequiiements; once any of them is lost uuiing incumbency, title to the office itself is ueemeu foifeiteu. In the case at bai, the citizenship anu voting iequiiements weie not subsequently lost but weie not possesseu at all in the fiist place on the uay of the election. The petitionei was uisqualifieu fiom iunning as mayoi anu, although electeu, is not now qualifieu to seive as such. LLpi Finally, theie is the question of whethei oi not the piivate iesponuent, who fileu the 43& 50((0'$& petition, can ieplace the petitionei as mayoi. Be cannot. The simple ieason is that as he obtaineu only the seconu highest numbei of votes in the election, he was obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio City. The latest iuling of the Couit on this issue is Santos v. Commission on Elections, 99 ueciueu in 198S. In that case, the canuiuate who placeu seconu was pioclaimeu electeu aftei the votes foi his winning iival, who was uisqualifieu as a tuincoat anu consiueieu a non-canuiuate, weie all uisiegaiueu as stiay. In effect, the seconu placei won by uefault. That uecision was suppoiteu by eight membeis of the Couit then, 9: with thiee uissenting 9A anu anothei two ieseiving theii vote.9; 0ne was on official leave. 9? Re-examining that uecision, the Couit finus, anu so holus, that it shoulu be ieveiseu in favoi of the eailiei case of ueionimo v. Ramos, 9< which iepiesents the moie logical anu uemociatic iule. That case, which ieiteiateu the uoctiine fiist announceu in 1912 in Topacio vs. Paieues, 9@ was suppoiteu by ten membeis of the Couit, 9= without any uissent, although one ieseiveu his vote, :> anothei took no pait, :8 anu two otheis weie an leave. :9 Theie the Couit helu: "...itwoulubeextiemelyiepugnanttothebasicconceptoftheconstitutionallyguaianteeuiightto suffiageifacanuiuatewhohasnotacquiieuthemajoiityoipluialityofvotesispioclaimeuawinneianu imposeuastheiepiesentativeofaconstituency,themajoiityofwhichhavepositivelyueclaieuthiough theii ballots that they uo not choose him. Sounu policy uictates that public elective offices aie filleu by those who have ieceiveu the highest numbei ofvotescastintheelectionfoithatoffice,anuitisafunuamentaliueainalliepublicanfoimsof goveinmentthatnoonecanbeueclaieuelecteuanunomeasuiecanbeueclaieucaiiieuunlessheoiit ieceives a majoiity oi pluiality of the legal votes cast in the election. (2u Coipus }uiis 2nu, S 24S, p. 676.) The fact that the canuiuate who obtaineu the highest numbei of votes is latei ueclaieu to be uisqualifieu oi noteligiblefoitheofficetowhichhewaselecteuuoesnotnecessaiilyentitlethecanuiuatewhoobtaineu theseconuhighestnumbeiofvotestobeueclaieuthewinneioftheelectiveoffice.Thevotescastfoia ueau,uisqualifieu,oinon-eligiblepeisonmaynotbevaliutovotethewinneiintoofficeoimaintainhim theie.Bowevei,intheabsenceofastatutewhichcleailyasseitsacontiaiypoliticalanulegislativepolicy on the mattei, if the votes weie cast in the sinceie belief that the canuiuate was alive, qualifieu, oi eligible, they shoulu not be tieateu as stiay, voiu oi meaningless. It iemains to stiess that the citizen of the Philippines must take piiue in his status as such anu cheiish this piiceless gift that, out of moie than a hunuieu othei nationalities, uou has seen fit to giant him. Baving been so enuoweu, he must not lightly yielu this piecious auvantage, iejecting it foi anothei lanu that may offei him mateiial anu othei attiactions that he may not finu in his own countiy. To be suie, he has the iight to ienounce the Philippines if he sees fit anu tiansfei his allegiance to a state with moie alluiements foi him. :: But having uone so, he cannot expect to be welcomeu back with open aims once his taste foi his auopteu countiy tuins soui oi he is himself uisowneu by it as an unuesiiable alien. Philippine citizenship is not a cheap commouity that can be easily iecoveieu aftei its ienunciation. It may be iestoieu only aftei the ietuining ienegaue makes a foimal act of ie-ueuication to the countiy he has abjuieu anu he solemnly affiims once again his total anu exclusive loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines. This may not be accomplisheu by election to public office. WBEREF0RE, petitionei Ramon }. Labo, }i. is heieby ueclaieu N0T a citizen of the Philippines anu theiefoie BISQ0ALIFIEB fiom continuing to seive as Nayoi of Baguio City. Be is oiueieu to vACATE his office anu suiienuei the same to the vice-Nayoi of Baguio City once this uecision becomes final anu executoiy. The tempoiaiy iestiaining oiuei uateu }anuaiy S1, 1989, is LIFTEB. Q#('0'P < . 8 .P A0(D0)0P .#,#'@%&RS#((#(0P -0(0)P Q#,%@%0'&P T0'@0E@&P -0*%,,0P U%*%'P 70(G%#'$&P C#EG0EH#"#(6#@$,EC&'#)$P"#(6#@$,E @&G"#$#'$0'*5%$C%'$#F(%$EW>C#EF#$D&$#*%'$&&66%@#0$$C#0F#&6IZP5C%@C%)$C#0F#5#"(&D%*#6&( C%(*P 5# 0(# )0E%'F $C0$ HE "3$$%'F "#&",# $& "0)$3(#P 5# 0(# @(#0$%'F 0 (#)#(D# &6 )$0$#)G#'P H3$ $C# 63$3(# "0($%@%"0$%&' &6 $C#)# )$0$#)G#' %) ,%G%$#*W >C#%( )O%,,) G0E &',E H# %' )&G# 0(#0)P H3$ 5# 0(# )0E%'F $C0$ $C#E 0(# F&%'F $& H# H0((#* 6(&G (3''%'F 6&( $C# )0G# "&)%$%&'. NauamPiesiuent,theabilityanucapacityofastatesmanuepenuaswellontheuay-to-uayhoningofhis skillsanucompetence,inintellectualcombat,inconceinanucontactwiththepeople,anuheieweaie saying that he is going to be baiieu fiom the same kinu of public seivice. ; *& '&$ $C%'O %$ %) %' &3( ",0@# $&*0E $& G0O# )3@C 0 D#(E %G"&($0'$ 0'* G&G#'$&3) *#@%)%&' 5%$C (#)"#@$ $& G0'E&6&3(@&3'$(EG#'%'$C#63$3(#5C&G0EC0D#0,&$G&(#E#0()0C#0*&6$C#G%'$C#)#(D%@#&6$C#%( @&3'$(EW ;6 5# 0F(## $C0$ 5# 5%,, G0O# )3(# $C0$ $C#)# "#&",# *& '&$ )#$ 3" )$(3@$3(#) $C0$ 5%,, "#("#$30$# $C#GP $C#' ,#$ 3) F%D# $C#G $C%) (#)$ "#(%&* &6 $C(## E#0() &( 5C0$#D#( %$ %). Naybe uuiing that time, we woulu even agiee thattheiifatheisoimotheisoiielativesoftheseconuuegieeshoulunotiun.Butletusnotbaithemfoi life aftei seiving the public foi a numbei of yeais. xxx xxx xxx NR.0PLE....ThepiincipleinvolveuisieallywhetheithisCommissionshallimposeatempoiaiyoia peipetualuisqualificationonthosewhohaveseiveutheiiteimsinaccoiuancewiththelimitson consecutiveseiviceasueciueubytheConstitutionalCommission. ;5&3,*H#D#(E50(E0H&3$$C# C#