Nicolas-Lewis vs Comelec

NICOLAS-LEWIS vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 162759, August 4, 2006

Facts:

Petitioners are successful applicants for recognition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re‑Acquisition Act of 2003. Long before the May 2004 national and local elections, petitioners sought registration and certification as "overseas absentee voter" only to be advised by the Philippine Embassy in the United States that, per a COMELEC letter to the Department of Foreign Affairs dated September 23, 2003, they have yet no right to vote in such elections owing to their lack of the one-year residence requirement prescribed by the Constitution.

Faced with the prospect of not being able to vote in the May 2004 elections owing to the COMELEC's refusal to include them in the National Registry of Absentee Voters, petitioner Nicolas-Lewis et al., filed on April 1, 2004 a petition for certiorari and mandamus, praying that they and others who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under No. 9225, be allowed to avail themselves of the mechanism provided under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189) and that the COMELEC accordingly be ordered to allow them to vote and register as absentee voters under the aegis of R.A. 9189.

On April 30, 2004 (a little over a week before Election Day), COMELEC filed a Comment praying for the denial of the petition. Consequently, petitioners were not able to register let alone vote in said elections.

On May 20, 2004, the OSG filed a Manifestation (in Lieu of Comment) stating that “all qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual citizens who care to exercise the right of suffrage, may do so,” observing, however, that the conclusion of the 2004 elections had rendered the petition moot and academic.

Issues: 

1. Must the Supreme Court still resolve said petition considering that under the circumstances the same has already been rendered moot and academic?

2. WON dual citizens may exercise their right to suffrage as absentee voters even short of the 1-yr residency requirement.

Held: 

1. Yes. The holding of the 2004 elections had indeed rendered the petition moot and academic, but only insofar as petitioners’ participation in such political exercise is concerned. The broader and transcendental issue tendered in the petition is the propriety of allowing dual citizens to participate and vote as absentee voter in future elections, which however, remains unresolved.

2. Yes. We start off with Sections 1 and 2 of Article V of the Constitution, respectively reading as follows:

SEC 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election. xxx.

SEC 2. The Congress shall provide … a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.

  

In a nutshell, the aforequoted Section 1 prescribes residency requirement as a general eligibility factor for the right to vote. On the other hand, Section 2 authorizes Congress to devise a system wherein an absentee may vote, implying that a non‑resident may, as an exception to the residency prescription in the preceding section, be allowed to vote.

In response to its above mandate, Congress enacted R.A. 9189 - the OAVL - identifying in its Section 4 who can vote under it and in the following section who cannot.

Soon after Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189 passed the test of constitutionality, Congress enacted R.A. 9225 the relevant portion of which reads:

SEC. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. – Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:

(1)  Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as “The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003” and other existing laws; xxx

There is no provision in the dual citizenship law - R.A. 9225 - requiring "duals" to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote.  On the contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that “duals” are most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under R.A. 9189. It cannot be overemphasized that R.A. 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote.

Considering the unison intent of the Constitution and R.A. 9189 and the expansion of the scope of that law with the passage of R.A. 9225, the irresistible conclusion is that "duals" may now exercise the right of suffrage thru the absentee voting scheme and as overseas absentee voters. R.A. 9189 defines the terms adverted to in the following wise:

            

“Absentee Voting” refers to the process by which qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad exercise their right to vote;

“Overseas Absentee Voter” refers to a citizen of the Philippines who is qualified to register and vote under this Act, not otherwise disqualified by law, who is abroad on the day of elections;

 While  perhaps  not  determinative  of  the  issue  tendered  herein, we note  that the expanded thrust of R.A. 9189 extends also to what might be tag as the next generation of "duals". This may be deduced from the inclusion of the provision on derivative citizenship in R.A. 9225 which reads:

SEC. 4. Derivative Citizenship. – The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines.

It  is  very  likely  that   a   considerable   number  of  those  unmarried  children  below  eighteen  (18)  years  of  age  had  never  set foot in the Philippines.  Now then, if the next generation of "duals" may nonetheless avail themselves the right to enjoy full civil and political rights under Section 5 of the Act, then there is neither no rhyme nor reason why the petitioners and other present day "duals," provided they meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution in relation to R.A. 9189, be denied the right of suffrage as an overseas absentee voter. Congress could not have plausibly intended such absurd situation.

read more...

AASJS vs Datumanong

AASJS vs DATUMANONG

G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007

Facts:

Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition to prevent Justice Secretary Datumanong from implementing R. A. 9225 entitled "An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63, As Amended, and for Other Purposes." which was signed into law by President Gloria M. Arroyo on August 29, 2003. Petitioner argued that R.A. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Sec. 5, Article VI of the Constitution which states that “dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to national interest and shall be dealt with by law.”

Petitioner contends that RA 9225 cheapens Philippine citizenship. He avers that Sections 2 and 3 thereof, together, allow dual allegiance and not dual citizenship. Petitioner maintains that Section 2 allows all Filipinos, either natural-born or naturalized, who become foreign citizens, to retain their Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship. Section 3 permits dual allegiance because said law allows natural-born citizens of the Philippines to regain their Philippine citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance without forfeiting their foreign allegiance.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) claims that Section 2 merely declares as a state policy that "Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship." The OSG further claims that the oath in Section 3 does not allow dual allegiance since the oath taken by the former Filipino citizen is an effective renunciation and repudiation of his foreign citizenship. The fact that the applicant taking the oath recognizes and accepts the supreme authority of the Philippines is an unmistakable and categorical affirmation of his undivided loyalty to the Republic.

Issues:

1. Whether R.A. 9225 is unconstitutional

2. Whether the court jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual allegiance

Held:

1. No. It is clear that the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 is to do away with the provision in Commonwealth Act No. 635 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries. What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of Rep. Act No. 9225.

2. Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters of what really constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is done, it would be premature for the judicial department, including this Court, to rule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance.

Moreover, in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, we said that the courts must assume that the legislature is ever conscious of the borders and edges of its plenary powers, and passed laws with full knowledge of the facts and for the purpose of promoting what is right and advancing the welfare of the majority. Hence, in determining whether the acts of the legislature are in tune with the fundamental law, we must proceed with judicial restraint and act with caution and forbearance. The doctrine of separation of powers demands no less. We cannot arrogate the duty of setting the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance when the Constitution itself has clearly delegated the duty of determining what acts constitute dual allegiance for study and legislation by Congress.

read more...

Dual Citizenship FAQ

What is Republic Act No. 9225?

RA 9225, otherwise known as the “Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003” took effect on September 17, 2003. It is an act declaring that former natural-born Filipino citizens who acquired foreign citizenship through naturalization shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship.

What is the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225?

The intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 is to do away with the provision in Commonwealth Act No. 63 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries. What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country.  On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship.  Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country.  What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of Rep. Act No. 9225. (AASJS v. Datumanong, 11 May 2007)

Who is a natural-born Filipino citizens?

Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.

Those born before 17 January 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority shall likewise be deemed natural-born citizens.

Who may reacquire Philippine citizenship?

Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country (Section 3, RA 9225)

How is citizenship reacquired?

They are deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:

“I ___________________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”

The Oath of Allegiance is the final act that confers Philippine citizenship.

Who may retain their Philippine citizenship?

Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of RA 9225, become citizens of a foreign country

How is citizenship retained?

They shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath of allegiance to the Republic.

Can the conferment of Philippine citizenship be revoked?

Philippine citizenship retained or re-acquired under RA 9225 may be revoked by competent authority upon a substantive finding of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the applicant.

Can my foreign spouse also become a Filipino citizen under RA 9225?

No, the law does not apply to the foreign spouse. He/she has the following option if he/she wishes to reside permanently in the Philippines: (a) apply for naturalization; (b) apply for a permanent resident visa.

Whom among my dependents can apply for dual citizenship?

According to Section 4 of RA 9225 (Derivative Citizenship), the unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines.

What is the procedure for derivative acquisition of Philippine citizenship?

The Petition of the principal shall include that of the dependent. A form for the dependent shall also be accomplished. He shall submit a copy of his dependent's Birth Certificate and Foreign passport.

I acquired my foreign citizenship through marriage, can I apply for dual citizenship under RA 9225?

Yes, the law applies to former Filipino citizens who acquire their foreign citizenship by marriage.

After I have re-acquired Philippine citizenship, can I apply for a Philippine passport?

Yes, and so can the minor children who are deemed to have acquired Philippine citizenship under RA 9225.

What rights and privileges will dual citizens enjoy?

Those who retain or reacquire their Philippine Citizenship under RA 9225 shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:

(1) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as “The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003” and other existing laws;

(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath;

(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath;

(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice. (Section 5, RA 9225)

Those who reacquire citizenship under RA 9225 but cannot vote or be elected or appointed to public office

The right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who:

(a)   are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or

(b) are in the active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens. (Section 5, RA 9225)

Dual citizens may vote in Philippine elections without actually residing and physically staying in the Philippines

There is no provision in the dual citizenship law - R.A. 9225 - requiring "duals" to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote.  On the contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that “duals” are most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under R.A. 9189. It cannot be overemphasized that R.A. 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote. (see Nicolas-Lewis v. Comelec, 04 August 2006)

"Duals" may now exercise the right of suffrage thru the absentee voting scheme and as overseas absentee voters. (see Nicolas-Lewis v. Comelec, 04 August 2006)

What are the additional requirements to run for public office for those who reacquire citizenship under RA 9225?

Breaking down the afore-quoted provision, for a natural born Filipino, who reacquired or retained his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, to run for public office, he must:

1.  meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws; and

2.  make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before any public officer authorized 

A candidate’s oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and his Certificate of Candidacy do not substantially comply with the requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship.  The law categorically requires persons seeking elective public office, who either retained their Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before a public officer authorized to administer an oath simultaneous with or before the filing of the certificate of candidacy.

Hence, Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos, who have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of candidacy,to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections. (see De Guzman v. Comelec, 19 June 2009; Jacot v. Dal, G.R. No. 179848, November 29, 2008)

Can I now acquire land and other properties or engage in business?

Yes. As provided for under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, a Filipino citizen is entitled to purchase land and other properties and engage in business. There is no limit in terms of area or size of land or real property he/she could acquire/purchase under his/her name.

Can I now reside in the Philippines without having to apply for entry visa?

Former natural born Filipinos who have re-acquired Philippine citizenship may now reside in the Philippines continuously without having to apply for entry visa.

As a dual citizen, how long can I stay in the Philippines?

Having reacquired your citizenship, you can stay in the Philippines for as long as you want without having to pay any immigration fees. You can even choose to retire or permanently settle back in the Philippines. As a Filipino citizen, you are subject to duties and other obligations imposed on other ordinary Filipinos, such as paying the necessary community tax residence and other tax liabilities in accordance with the tax laws of the Philippines.

Will I now be required to pay income tax and other taxes? Am I exempt from paying the travel tax?

In accordance with existing laws, income earned in the Philippines is subject to the payment of tax. Filipinos who re-acquire citizenship and opt to reside and work in the Philippines will pay the income tax due at the end of each fiscal year. They are also subject to other obligations and liabilities, such as the community tax and residence tax.

Countries routinely forge bilateral agreements in order that their respective citizens who earn income overseas do not pay income tax twice.

Filipinos who have re-acquired citizenship, as long as they reside permanently overseas, also enjoy the travel tax exemption extended to Filipino citizens permanently residing in other countries, the OFWs and their dependents.

As a dual citizen, am I allowed to practice my profession in the Philippines (e.g. doctor)?

Yes, provided that those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.

How do I prove that I am a natural-born Filipino?

A former citizen of the Philippines shall enjoy the presumption that he/she is a natural-born Filipino, provided, that proof of Philippine citizenship is submitted. Any one of the following may be submitted:

1. NSO-copy of Birth Certificate;
2. Old Philippine Passport;
3. Voter's Affidavit or voter's identification card;
4. Marriage Contract indicating the Philippine citizenship of the applicant;
5. Such other documents that would show that the applicant is a former citizen of the Philippines as may be acceptable to the evaluating officer.

What is the procedure in applying and what documents are required in order to apply?

If in the Philippines, applicant shall present a copy of his/her Birth Certificate issued or duly-authenticated by the National Statistics Office (NSO) in Manila or if not available, any one of the following:

1.  NSO-copy of Birth Certificate;

2.  Old Philippine Passport;

3.  Voter's Affidavit or voter's identification card;
4.  Marriage Contact indicating the Philippine citizenship of the applicants; or
5. Such other documents that would show that the applicant is a former citizen of the Philippines as may be acceptable to the evaluating officer.

Applicant accomplishes form entitled “Petition for Dual Citizenship and Issuance of Identification Certificate (IC) pursuant to RA 9225” and attaches three (3) 2”x2” photographs with blue background; He shall then take the Oath of Allegiance before the authorized officer of the Bureau. If the applicant is incapacitated to take the Oath before such Officer, he shall submit a written justification as to why such Oath was taken before another Administering Officers; and

If all the documentary requirements are complete, he shall then pay the corresponding fees as follows:

Principal applicant	- Php 2, 500 plus Php 500 express lane
Dependent	- Php 1, 250 plus Php 500 express lane

The application shall then be assigned to an evaluating officer. If approved, an identification Certificate shall be issued.

If abroad, an applicant may submit petition to the Philippine Consulate / Embassy together with the photos, birth certificate and a valid ID.

(Note: applicants who are married and who wish to use their married names must submit a copy of their marriage certificate).

Applicant is given the original copy of his notarized oath of allegiance together with an Order of Approval issued by the Philippine Consulate General. He shall likewise be issued an identification Certificate.

What is the implementing agency of RA 9225?

Administrative Order No. 91, Section 1 designates the Bureau of Immigration (BI), in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the Civil Registrar-General of the National Statistics Office (NSO), as the implementing agency of RA 9225

Where do I apply for re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship if I am in the Philippines?

If in the Philippines, an application shall be filed at the Bureau of Immigration.

Where do I apply for re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship if I am overseas?

A former natural-born citizen who is abroad but is a BI-registered alien shall file a petition under oath to the nearest Philippine Embassy or Consulate for evaluation. Thereafter, the Embassy or Consulate shall forward the entire records to the Commissioner of Immigration for the cancellation of the ACR and issuance of an IC under RA 9225.

A former natural-born citizen who is abroad and is not a BI-registered alien shall file a petition under oath to the nearest Philippine Embassy or Consulate for the issuance of an IC under RA 9225.

read more...

Mercado vs Manzano

MERCADO vs. MANZANO

G.R. No. 135083.  May 26, 1999

FACTS:

Ernesto Mamaril filed a disqualification case against vice-mayoralty candidate Manzano on the ground that he is not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States. In its resolution, the second division of the COMELEC granted the petition of Mamaril and ordered the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of Manzano on the ground that he is a dual citizen and, under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code and the Makati charter, persons with dual citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective position. The Commission found out that Manzano was born in 1955, of a Filipino father and a Filipino mother, in San Francisco, California, in the United States. Hence, he is an American citizen, following the jus soli rule, and at the same time, a Filipino citizen for being born of Filipino parents.

Manzano filed a motion for reconsideration. Pending such motion, the 1998 elections was held and Manzano garnered the highest number of votes for vice-mayor in the city of Makati. His proclamation was suspended, pending resolution of the case. Petitioner Mercado, who garnered the second highest number of votes to Manzano, intervened in the disqualification case. Without resolving Manzano's motion, the COMELEC en banc reversed the ruling of the COMELEC second division and declared Manzano qualified to run for vice-mayor. Hence, Mercado filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the resolution of the COMELEC en banc.

ISSUES/HELD:

1. Whether the petitioner has personality to bring this suit considering that he was not the original party in the disqualification case.

Yes. Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, otherwise known as the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 provides: 

Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted.  If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong.  

Under this provision, intervention may be allowed in proceedings for disqualification even after election if there has yet been no final judgment rendered.



2. Whether or not dual citizenship is a ground for disqualification.

No. To begin with, dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance.  The former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli.  Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states.  Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship:

(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli;

(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers’ country such children are citizens of that country;

(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.

There may be other situations in which a citizen of the Philippines may, without performing any act, be also a citizen of another state; but the above cases are clearly possible given the constitutional provisions on citizenship.

Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states.  While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition.

In including §5 in Article IV on citizenship, the concern of the Constitutional Commission was not with dual citizens per se but with naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization.  Hence, the phrase “dual citizenship” in R.A. No. 7160, §40(d) and in R.A. No. 7854, §20 must be understood as referring to “dual allegiance.”  Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification.  Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject to strict process with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states.


3. Whether or not Manzano is disqualified to run

No. By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post, private respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced his American citizenship. The filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen.

By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen. On the other hand, private respondent’s oath of allegiance to the Philippine, when considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship.

NOTA BENE: Under RA 9225 (effective August 29, 2003), the mere filing of a certificate of candidacy is no longer deemed an express renunciation of foreign citizenship in order to run for public office. The candidate for public office with dual citizenship must (1) take an oath of allegiance and (2) execute a renunciation of foreign citizenship.

read more...