Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 135083 May 26, 1999
ERNESTO S. MERCADO, petitioner,
vs.
EDUARDO BARRIOS MANZANO an !"# COMMISSION ON E$ECTIONS, respondents.

MENDOZA, J.:
Petitioner Ernesto S. Mercado and private respondent Eduardo B. Manzano were candidates for vice a!or of the
Cit! of Ma"ati in the Ma! ##, #$$% elections. &he other one was 'abriel (. )aza ***. &he results of the election
were as follows+
Eduardo B. Manzano #,-,%.-
Ernesto S. Mercado #,,,%$/
'abriel (. )aza *** ./,01.
1
&he proclaation of private respondent was suspended in view of a pendin2 petition for dis3uali4cation 4led b! a
certain Ernesto Maaril who alle2ed that private respondent was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the
5nited States.
*n its resolution, dated Ma! 1, #$$%,
2
the Second )ivision of the C6ME7EC 2ranted the petition of Maaril and
ordered the cancellation of the certi4cate of candidac! of private respondent on the 2round that he is a dual
citizen and, under 8/,9d: of the 7ocal 'overnent Code, persons with dual citizenship are dis3uali4ed fro
runnin2 for an! elective position. &he C6ME7EC;s Second )ivision said+
<hat is presented before the Coission is a petition for dis3uali4cation of Eduardo
Barrios Manzano as candidate for the o=ice of (ice>Ma!or of Ma"ati Cit! in the Ma! ##,
#$$% elections. &he petition is based on the 2round that the respondent is an Aerican
citizen based on the record of the Bureau of *i2ration and isrepresented hiself as a
natural>born ?ilipino citizen.
*n his answer to the petition 4led on April 01, #$$%, the respondent aditted that he is
re2istered as a forei2ner with the Bureau of *i2ration under Alien Certi4cate of
Re2istration No. B>-#@-0 and alle2ed that he is a ?ilipino citizen because he was born in
#$.. of a ?ilipino father and a ?ilipino other. Ae was born in the 5nited States, San
?rancisco, California, Septeber #/, #$.., and is considered in Aerican citizen under
5S 7aws. But notwithstandin2 his re2istration as an Aerican citizen, he did not lose his
?ilipino citizenship.
Bud2in2 fro the fore2oin2 facts, it would appear that respondent Manzano is born a
?ilipino and a 5S citizen. *n other words, he holds dual citizenship.
&he 3uestion presented is whether under our laws, he is dis3uali4ed fro the position for
which he 4led his certi4cate of candidac!. *s he eli2ible for the o=ice he see"s to be
electedC
5nder Section /,9d: of the 7ocal 'overnent Code, those holdin2 dual citizenship are
dis3uali4ed fro runnin2 for an! elective local position.
<AERE?6RE, the Coission hereb! declares the respondent Eduardo Barrios Manzano
)*SD5A7*?*E) as candidate for (ice>Ma!or of Ma"ati Cit!.
6n Ma! %, #$$%, private respondent 4led a otion for reconsideration.
3
&he otion reained pendin2 even until
after the election held on Ma! ##, #$$%.
Page 1 of 9
Accordin2l!, pursuant to 6nibus Resolution No. -,//, dated Ma! #,, #$$%, of the C6ME7EC, the board of
canvassers tabulated the votes cast for vice a!or of Ma"ati Cit! but suspended the proclaation of the winner.
6n Ma! #$, #$$%, petitioner sou2ht to intervene in the case for dis3uali4cation.
%
Petitioner;s otion was opposed
b! private respondent.
&he otion was not resolved. *nstead, on Au2ust -#, #$$%, the C6ME7EC en banc rendered its resolution. (otin2
/ to #, with one coissioner abstainin2, the C6ME7EC en banc reversed the rulin2 of its Second )ivision and
declared private respondent 3uali4ed to run for vice a!or of the Cit! of Ma"ati in the Ma! ##, #$$% elections.
5

&he pertinent portions of the resolution of the C6ME7EC en banc read+
As aforesaid, respondent Eduardo Barrios Manzano was born in San ?rancisco, California,
5.S.A. Ae ac3uired 5S citizenship b! operation of the 5nited States Constitution and laws
under the principle of jus soli.
Ae was also a natural born ?ilipino citizen b! operation of the #$-. Philippine
Constitution, as his father and other were ?ilipinos at the tie of his birth. At the a2e of
siE 9@:, his parents brou2ht hi to the Philippines usin2 an Aerican passport as travel
docuent. Ais parents also re2istered hi as an alien with the Philippine Bureau of
*i2ration. Ae was issued an alien certi4cate of re2istration. &his, however, did not
result in the loss of his Philippine citizenship, as he did not renounce Philippine
citizenship and did not ta"e an oath of alle2iance to the 5nited States.
*t is an undisputed fact that when respondent attained the a2e of aForit!, he re2istered
hiself as a voter, and voted in the elections of #$$0, #$$. and #$$%, which e=ectivel!
renounced his 5S citizenship under Aerican law. 5nder Philippine law, he no lon2er had
5.S. citizenship.
At the tie of the Ma! ##, #$$% elections, the resolution of the Second )ivision, adopted
on Ma! 1, #$$%, was not !et 4nal. Respondent Manzano obtained the hi2hest nuber of
votes aon2 the candidates for vice>a!or of Ma"ati Cit!, 2arnerin2 one hundred three
thousand ei2ht hundred 4ft! three 9#,-,%.-: votes over his closest rival, Ernesto S.
Mercado, who obtained one hundred thousand ei2ht hundred ninet! four 9#,,,%$/: votes,
or a ar2in of two thousand nine hundred 4ft! nine 90,$.$: votes. 'abriel )aza ***
obtained third place with 4ft! four thousand two hundred sevent! 4ve 9./,01.: votes. *n
appl!in2 election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of the popular choice than be
ebroiled in copleE le2al issues involvin2 private international law which a! well be
settled before the hi2hest court 9Cf. ?rivaldo vs. Coission on Elections, 0.1 SCRA
101:.
<AERE?6RE, the Coission en banc hereb! RE(ERSES the resolution of the Second
)ivision, adopted on Ma! 1, #$$%, orderin2 the cancellation of the respondent;s certi4cate
of candidac!.
<e declare respondent Eduardo 7uis Barrios Manzano to be D5A7*?*E) as a candidate
for the position of vice>a!or of Ma"ati Cit! in the Ma! ##, #$$%, elections.
ACC6R)*N'7G, the Coission directs the Ma"ati Cit! Board of Canvassers, upon
proper notice to the parties, to reconvene and proclai the respondent Eduardo 7uis
Barrios Manzano as the winnin2 candidate for vice>a!or of Ma"ati Cit!.
Pursuant to the resolution of the C6ME7EC en banc, the board of canvassers, on the evenin2 of Au2ust -#, #$$%,
proclaied private respondent as vice a!or of the Cit! of Ma"ati.
&his is a petition for certiorari see"in2 to set aside the aforesaid resolution of the C6ME7EC en banc and to
declare private respondent dis3uali4ed to hold the o=ice of vice a!or of Ma"ati Cit!. Petitioner contends that H
I&Jhe C6ME7EC en banc ERRE) in holdin2 that+
A. 5nder Philippine law, Manzano was no lon2er a 5.S. citizen when he+
#. Ae renounced his 5.S. citizenship when he attained the a2e of aForit!
when he was alread! -1 !ears oldK and,
0. Ae renounced his 5.S. citizenship when he 9erel!: re2istered hiself
as a voter and voted in the elections of #$$0, #$$. and #$$%.
Page 2 of 9
B. Manzano is 3uali4ed to run for and or hold the elective o=ice of (ice>Ma!or of the Cit!
of Ma"atiK
C. At the tie of the Ma! ##, #$$% elections, the resolution of the Second )ivision
adopted on 1 Ma! #$$% was not !et 4nal so that, e=ectivel!, petitioner a! not be
declared the winner even assuin2 that Manzano is dis3uali4ed to run for and hold the
elective o=ice of (ice>Ma!or of the Cit! of Ma"ati.
<e 4rst consider the threshold procedural issue raised b! private respondent Manzano H whether petitioner
Mercado his personalit! to brin2 this suit considerin2 that he was not an ori2inal part! in the case for
dis3uali4cation 4led b! Ernesto Maaril nor was petitioner;s otion for leave to intervene 2ranted.
*. PE&*&*6NER;S R*'A& &6 BR*N' &A*S S5*&
Private respondent cites the followin2 provisions of Rule % of the Rules of Procedure of the C6ME7EC in support
of his clai that petitioner has no ri2ht to intervene and, therefore, cannot brin2 this suit to set aside the rulin2
den!in2 his otion for intervention+
Sec. #. <hen proper and when a! be peritted to intervene. H An! person allowed to
initiate an action or proceedin2 a!, before or durin2 the trial of an action or proceedin2,
be peritted b! the Coission, in its discretion to intervene in such action or
proceedin2, if he has le2al interest in the atter in liti2ation, or in the success of either of
the parties, or an interest a2ainst both, or when he is so situated as to be adversel!
a=ected b! such action or proceedin2.
EEE EEE EEE
Sec. -. )iscretion of Coission. H *n allowin2 or disallowin2 a otion for intervention,
the Coission or the )ivision, in the eEercise of its discretion, shall consider whether or
not the intervention will undul! dela! or preFudice the adFudication of the ri2hts of the
ori2inal parties and whether or not the intervenor;s ri2hts a! be full! protected in a
separate action or proceedin2.
Private respondent ar2ues that petitioner has neither le2al interest in the atter in liti2ation nor
an interest to protect because he is La defeated candidate for the vice>a!oralt! post of Ma"ati
Cit! IwhoJ cannot be proclaied as the (ice>Ma!or of Ma"ati Cit! if the private respondent be
ultiatel! dis3uali4ed b! 4nal and eEecutor! Fud2ent.L
&he Maw in this ar2uent is it assues that, at the tie petitioner sou2ht to intervene in the proceedin2s before
the C6ME7EC, there had alread! been a proclaation of the results of the election for the vice a!oralt! contest
for Ma"ati Cit!, on the basis of which petitioner cae out onl! second to private respondent. &he fact, however, is
that there had been no proclaation at that tie. Certainl!, petitioner had, and still has, an interest in oustin2
private respondent fro the race at the tie he sou2ht to intervene. &he rule in Labo v. COMELEC,
6
reiterated in
several cases,
&
onl! applies to cases in which the election of the respondent is contested, and the 3uestion is
whether one who placed second to the dis3uali4ed candidate a! be declared the winner. *n the present case, at
the tie petitioner 4led a LMotion for 7eave to ?ile *nterventionL on Ma! 0,, #$$%, there had been no
proclaation of the winner, and petitioner;s purpose was precisel! to have private respondent dis3uali4ed Lfro
runnin2 for IanJ elective local positionL under 8/,9d: of R.A. No. 1#@,. *f Ernesto Maaril 9who ori2inall!
instituted the dis3uali4cation proceedin2s:, a re2istered voter of Ma"ati Cit!, was copetent to brin2 the action,
so was petitioner since the latter was a rival candidate for vice a!or of Ma"ati Cit!.
Nor is petitioner;s interest in the atter in liti2ation an! less because he 4led a otion for intervention onl! on
Ma! 0,, #$$%, after private respondent had been shown to have 2arnered the hi2hest nuber of votes aon2 the
candidates for vice a!or. &hat petitioner had a ri2ht to intervene at that sta2e of the proceedin2s for the
dis3uali4cation a2ainst private respondent is clear fro 8@ of R.A. No. @@/@, otherwise "nown as the Electoral
Refor 7aw of #$%1, which provides+
An! candidate who his been declared b! 4nal Fud2ent to be dis3uali4ed shall not be
voted for, and the votes cast for hi shall not be counted. *f for an! reason a candidate is
not declared b! 4nal Fud2ent before an election to be dis3uali4ed and he is voted for
and receives the winnin2 nuber of votes in such election, the Court or Coission shall
continue with the trial and hearin2 of action, in3uir!, or protest and, upon otion of the
coplainant or an! intervenor, a! durin2 the pendenc! thereof order the suspension of
the proclaation of such candidate whenever the evidence of 2uilt is stron2.
5nder this provision, intervention a! be allowed in proceedin2s for dis3uali4cation even after election if there
has !et been no 4nal Fud2ent rendered.
Page 3 of 9
&he failure of the C6ME7EC en banc to resolve petitioner;s otion for intervention was tantaount to a denial of
the otion, Fustif!in2 petitioner in 4lin2 the instant petition for certiorari. As the C6ME7EC en banc instead
decided the erits of the case, the present petition properl! deals not onl! with the denial of petitioner;s otion
for intervention but also with the substantive issues respectin2 private respondent;s alle2ed dis3uali4cation on
the 2round of dual citizenship.
&his brin2s us to the neEt 3uestion, nael!, whether private respondent Manzano possesses dual citizenship and,
if so, whether he is dis3uali4ed fro bein2 a candidate for vice a!or of Ma"ati Cit!.
**. )5A7 C*&*NENSA*P AS A 'R65N) ?6R )*SD5A7*?*CA&*6N
&he dis3uali4cation of private respondent Manzano is bein2 sou2ht under 8/, of the 7ocal 'overnent Code of
#$$# 9R.A. No. 1#@,:, which declares as Ldis3uali4ed fro runnin2 for an! elective local position+ . . . 9d: &hose
with dual citizenship.L &his provision is incorporated in the Charter of the Cit! of Ma"ati.
8
*nvo"in2 the aEi dura lex sed lex, petitioner, as well as the Solicitor 'eneral, who sides with hi in this case,
contends that throu2h 8/,9d: of the 7ocal 'overnent Code, Con2ress has LcoandIedJ in eEplicit ters the
ineli2ibilit! of persons possessin2 dual alle2iance to hold local elective o=ice.L
&o be2in with, dual citizenship is di=erent fro dual alle2iance. &he forer arises when, as a result of the
concurrent application of the di=erent laws of two or ore states, a person is siultaneousl! considered a
national b! the said states.
9
?or instance, such a situation a! 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 an! voluntar! act on his part, is concurrentl! considered a citizen of both
states. Considerin2 the citizenship clause 9Art. *(: of our Constitution, it is possible for the followin2 classes of
citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship+
9#: &hose born of ?ilipino fathers andOor others in forei2n countries which follow the
principle of jus soliK
90: &hose born in the Philippines of ?ilipino others and alien fathers if b! the laws of
their father;s; countr! such children are citizens of that countr!K
9-: &hose who arr! aliens if b! the laws of the latter;s countr! the forer are considered
citizens, unless b! their act or oission the! are deeed to have renounced Philippine
citizenship.
&here a! be other situations in which a citizen of the Philippines a!, without perforin2 an! act, be also a
citizen of another stateK but the above cases are clearl! possible 2iven the constitutional provisions on
citizenship.
)ual alle2iance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person siultaneousl! owes, b! soe
positive act, lo!alt! to two or ore states. <hile dual citizenship is involuntar!, dual alle2iance is the result of an
individual;s volition.
<ith respect to dual alle2iance, Article *(, 8. of the Constitution provides+ L)ual alle2iance of citizens is iniical
to the national interest and shall be dealt with b! law.L &his provision was included in the #$%1 Constitution at
the instance of Coissioner Blas ?. 6ple who eEplained its necessit! as follows+
10
. . . * want to draw attention to the fact that dual alle2iance is not dual citizenship. * have
circulated a eorandu to the Bernas Coittee accordin2 to which a dual alle2iance
H and * reiterate a dual alle2iance H is lar2er and ore threatenin2 than that of ere
double citizenship which is seldo intentional and, perhaps, never insidious. &hat is often
a function of the accident of iEed arria2es or of birth on forei2n soil. And so, * do not
3uestion double citizenship at all.
<hat we would li"e the Coittee to consider is to ta"e constitutional co2nizance of the
proble of dual alle2iance. ?or eEaple, we all "now what happens in the triennial
elections of the ?ederation of ?ilipino>Chinese Chabers of Coerce which consists of
about @,, chapters all over the countr!. &here is a Pe"in2 tic"et, as well as a &aipei tic"et.
Not widel! "nown is the fact chat the ?ilipino>Chinese counit! is represented in the
7e2islative Guan of the Republic of China in &aiwan. And until recentl!, sponsor i2ht
recall, in Mainland China in the People;s Republic of China, the! have the Associated
7e2islative Council for overseas Chinese wherein all of Southeast Asia includin2 soe
European and 7atin countries were represented, which was dissolved after several !ears
because of diploatic friction. At that tie, the ?ilipino>Chinese were also represented in
that 6verseas Council.
Page 4 of 9
<hen * spea" of double alle2iance, therefore, * spea" of this unsettled "ind of alle2iance
of ?ilipinos, of citizens who are alread! ?ilipinos but who, b! their acts, a! be said to be
bound b! a second alle2iance, either to Pe"in2 or &aiwan. * also too" close note of the
concern eEpressed b! soe Coissioners !esterda!, includin2 Coissioner (illacorta,
who were concerned about the lac" of 2uarantees of thorou2h assiilation, and especiall!
Coissioner Concepcion who has alwa!s been worried about inorit! clais on our
natural resources.
)ull alle2iance can actuall! siphon scarce national capital to &aiwan, Sin2apore, China or
Mala!sia, and this is alread! happenin2. Soe of the 2reat coercial places in
downtown &aipei are ?ilipino>owned, owned b! ?ilipino>Chinese H it is of coon
"nowled2e in Manila. *t can ean a tra2ic capital outMow when we have to endure a
capital faine which also eans econoic sta2nation, worsenin2 uneplo!ent and
social unrest.
And so, this is eEactl! what we as" H that the Coittee "indl! consider incorporatin2 a
new section, probabl! Section ., in the article on Citizenship which will read as follows+
)5A7 A77E'*ANCE *S *N*M*CA7 &6 C*&*NENSA*P AN) SAA77 BE )EA7& <*&A
ACC6R)*N' &6 7A<.
*n another session of the Coission, 6ple spo"e on the proble of these citizens with dual alle2iance, thus+
11
. . . A si2ni4cant nuber of Coissioners eEpressed their concern about dual citizenship
in the sense that it iplies a double alle2iance under a double soverei2nt! which soe of
us who spo"e then in a freewheelin2 debate thou2ht would be repu2nant to the
soverei2nt! which pervades the Constitution and to citizenship itself which iplies a
uni3ueness and which elsewhere in the Constitution is de4ned in ters of ri2hts and
obli2ations eEclusive to that citizenship includin2, of course, the obli2ation to rise to the
defense of the State when it is threatened, and bac" of this, Coissioner Bernas, is, of
course, the concern for national securit!. *n the course of those debates, * thin" soe
noted the fact that as a result of the wave of naturalizations since the decision to establish
diploatic relations with the People;s Republic of China was ade in #$1., a 2ood
nuber of these naturalized ?ilipinos still routinel! 2o to &aipei ever! 6ctober #,K and it
is asserted that soe of the do renew their oath of alle2iance to a forei2n 2overnent
a!be Fust to enter into the spirit of the occasion when the anniversar! of the Sun Gat>Sen
Republic is coeorated. And so, * have detected a 2enuine and deep concern about
double citizenship, with its attendant ris" of double alle2iance which is repu2nant to our
soverei2nt! and national securit!. * appreciate what the Coittee said that this could be
left to the deterination of a future le2islature. But considerin2 the scale of the proble,
the real ipact on the securit! of this countr!, arisin2 fro, let us sa!, potentiall! 2reat
nubers of double citizens professin2 double alle2iance, will the Coittee entertain a
proposed aendent at the proper tie that will prohibit, in e=ect, or re2ulate double
citizenshipC
Clearl!, in includin2 8. in Article *( on citizenship, the concern of the Constitutional Coission was not with
dual citizens per se but with naturalized citizens who aintain their alle2iance to their countries of ori2in even
after their naturalization. Aence, the phrase Ldual citizenshipL in R.A. No. 1#@,, 8/,9d: and in R.A. No. 1%./, 80,
ust be understood as referrin2 to Ldual alle2iance.L Conse3uentl!, persons with ere dual citizenship do not fall
under this dis3uali4cation. 5nli"e those with dual alle2iance, who ust, therefore, be subFect to strict process
with respect to the terination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should su=ice if, upon the
4lin2 of their certi4cates of candidac!, the! elect Philippine citizenship to terinate their status as persons with
dual citizenship considerin2 that their condition is the unavoidable conse3uence of conMictin2 laws of di=erent
states. As Boa3uin '. Bernas, one of the ost perceptive ebers of the Constitutional Coission, pointed out+
LI)Jual citizenship is Fust a realit! iposed on us because we have no control of the laws on citizenship of other
countries. <e reco2nize a child of a ?ilipino other. But whether she is considered a citizen of another countr! is
soethin2 copletel! be!ond our control.L
12
B! electin2 Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the sae tie forswear alle2iance to the other countr! of
which the! are also citizens and thereb! terinate their status as dual citizens. *t a! be that, fro the point of
view of the forei2n state and of its laws, such an individual has not e=ectivel! renounced his forei2n citizenship.
&hat is of no oent as the followin2 discussion on 8/,9d: between Senators Enrile and Pientel clearl! shows+
13
SENA&6R ENR*7E. Mr. President, * would li"e to as" clari4cation of line /#, pa2e #1+
LAn! person with dual citizenshipL is dis3uali4ed to run for an! elective local position.
5nder the present Constitution, Mr. President, soeone whose other is a citizen of the
Philippines but his father is a forei2ner is a natural>born citizen of the Republic. &here is
no re3uireent that such a natural born citizen, upon reachin2 the a2e of aForit!, ust
elect or 2ive up Philippine citizenship.
Page 5 of 9
6n the assuption that this person would carr! two passports, one belon2in2 to the
countr! of his or her father and one belon2in2 to the Republic of the Philippines, a!
such a situation dis3ualif! the person to run for a local 2overnent positionC
SENA&6R P*MEN&E7. &o ! ind, Mr. President, it onl! eans that at the oent when
he would want to run for public o=ice, he has to repudiate one of his citizenships.
SENA&6R ENR*7E. Suppose he carries onl! a Philippine passport but the countr! of
ori2in or the countr! of the father clais that person, nevertheless, as a citizenC No one
can renounce. &here are such countries in the world.
SENA&6R P*MEN&E7. <ell, the ver! fact that he is runnin2 for public o=ice would, in
e=ect, be an election for hi of his desire to be considered as a ?ilipino citizen.
SENA&6R ENR*7E. But, precisel!, Mr. President, the Constitution does not re3uire an
election. 5nder the Constitution, a person whose other is a citizen of the Philippines is,
at birth, a citizen without an! overt act to clai the citizenship.
SENA&6R P*MEN&E7. Ges. <hat we are sa!in2, Mr. President, is+ 5nder the 'entlean;s
eEaple, if he does not renounce his other citizenship, then he is openin2 hiself to
3uestion. So, if he is reall! interested to run, the 4rst thin2 he should do is to sa! in the
Certi4cate of Candidac! that+ L* a a ?ilipino citizen, and * have onl! one citizenship.L
SENA&6R ENR*7E. But we are tal"in2 fro the viewpoint of Philippine law, Mr. President.
Ae will alwa!s have one citizenship, and that is the citizenship invested upon hi or her
in the Constitution of the Republic.
SENA&6R P*MEN&E7. &hat is true, Mr. President. But if he eEercises acts that will prove
that he also ac"nowled2es other citizenships, then he will probabl! fall under this
dis3uali4cation.
&his is siilar to the re3uireent that an applicant for naturalization ust renounce Lall alle2iance and 4delit! to
an! forei2n prince, potentate, state, or soverei2nt!L
1%
of which at the tie he is a subFect or citizen before he can
be issued a certi4cate of naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines. *n Parado v. Republic,
15
it was held+
I<Jhen a person appl!in2 for citizenship b! naturalization ta"es an oath that he renounce,
his lo!alt! to an! other countr! or 2overnent and solenl! declares that he owes his
alle2iance to the Republic of the Philippines, the condition iposed b! law is satis4ed and
copiled with. &he deterination whether such renunciation is valid or full! coplies
with the provisions of our Naturalization 7aw lies within the province and is an eEclusive
prero2ative of our courts. &he latter should appl! the law dul! enacted b! the le2islative
departent of the Republic. No forei2n law a! or should interfere with its operation and
application. *f the re3uireent of the Chinese 7aw of Nationalit! were to be read into our
Naturalization 7aw, we would be appl!in2 not what our le2islative departent has
deeed it wise to re3uire, but what a forei2n 2overnent has thou2ht or intended to
eEact. &hat, of course, is absurd. *t ust be resisted b! all eans and at all cost. *t would
be a brazen encroachent upon the soverei2n will and power of the people of this
Republic.
***. PE&*&*6NER;S E7EC&*6N 6? PA*7*PP*NE C*&*NENSA*P
&he record shows that private respondent was born in San ?rancisco, California on Septeber /, #$.., of ?ilipino
parents. Since the Philippines adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis, while the 5nited States follows the
doctrine of jus soli, the parties a2ree that, at birth at least, he was a national both of the Philippines and of the
5nited States. Aowever, the C6ME7EC en banc held that, b! participatin2 in Philippine elections in #$$0, #$$.,
and #$$%, private respondent Le=ectivel! renounced his 5.S. citizenship under Aerican law,L so that now he is
solel! a Philippine national.
Petitioner challen2es this rulin2. Ae ar2ues that erel! ta"in2 part in Philippine elections is not su=icient
evidence of renunciation and that, in an! event, as the alle2ed renunciation was ade when private respondent
was alread! -1 !ears old, it was ine=ective as it should have been ade when he reached the a2e of aForit!.
*n holdin2 that b! votin2 in Philippine elections private respondent renounced his Aerican citizenship, the
C6ME7EC ust have in ind 8-/$ of the *i2ration and Nationalit! Act of the 5nited States, which provided
that LA person who is a national of the 5nited States, whether b! birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationalit!
b!+ . . . 9e: (otin2 in a political election in a forei2n state or participatin2 in an election or plebiscite to deterine
the soverei2nt! over forei2n territor!.L &o be sure this provision was declared unconstitutional b! the 5.S.
Supree Court in Afroyim v. Rus
16
as be!ond the power 2iven to the 5.S. Con2ress to re2ulate forei2n
Page 6 of 9
relations. Aowever, b! 4lin2 a certi4cate of candidac! when he ran for his present post, private respondent
elected Philippine citizenship and in e=ect renounced his Aerican citizenship. Private respondent;s certi4cate of
candidac!, 4led on March 01, #$$%, contained the followin2 stateents ade under oath+
@. * AM A ?*7*P*N6 C*&*NEN 9S&A&E *? LNA&5RA7>B6RNL 6R
LNA&5RA7*NE)L: NA&5RA7>B6RN
EEE EEE EEE
#,. * AM A RE'*S&ERE) (6&ER 6? PREC*NC& N6. 1/1>A, BARAN'AG SAN 76RENN6,
C*&GOM5N*C*PA7*&G 6? MAPA&*, PR6(*NCE 6? NCR.
##. * AM N6& A PERMANEN& RES*)EN& 6?, 6R *MM*'RAN& &6, A ?6RE*'N
C65N&RG.
#0. * AM E7*'*B7E ?6R &AE 6??*CE * SEEP &6 BE E7EC&E). * <*77 S5PP6R& AN)
)E?EN) &AE C6NS&*&5&*6N 6? &AE PA*7*PP*NES AN) <*77 MA*N&A*N &R5E
?A*&A AN) A77E'*ANCE &AERE&6K &AA& * <*77 6BEG &AE 7A<S, 7E'A7 6R)ERS
AN) )ECREES PR6M57'A&E) BG &AE )57G C6NS&*&5&E) A5&A6R*&*ES 6? &AE
REP5B7*C 6? &AE PA*7*PP*NESK AN) &AA& * *MP6SE &A*S 6B7*'A&*6N 5P6N
MGSE7? (675N&AR*7G, <*&A65& MEN&A7 RESER(A&*6N 6R P5RP6SE 6? E(AS*6N.
* AEREBG CER&*?G &AA& &AE ?AC&S S&A&E) AERE*N ARE &R5E AN) C6RREC& 6?
MG 6<N PERS6NA7 PN6<7E)'E.
&he 4lin2 of such certi4cate of candidac! su=iced to renounce his Aerican citizenship, e=ectivel! reovin2 an!
dis3uali4cation he i2ht have as a dual citizen. &hus, in !rivaldo v. COMELEC it was held+
1&
*t is not disputed that on Banuar! 0,, #$%- ?rivaldo becae an Aerican. <ould the
retroactivit! of his repatriation not e=ectivel! 2ive hi dual citizenship, which under Sec.
/, of the 7ocal 'overnent Code would dis3ualif! hi Lfro runnin2 for an! elective
local positionCL <e answer this 3uestion in the ne2ative, as there is co2ent reason to hold
that ?rivaldo was reall! S&A&E7ESS at the tie he too" said oath of alle2iance and even
before that, when he ran for 2overnor in #$%%. *n his Coent, ?rivaldo wrote that he
Lhad lon2 renounced and had lon2 abandoned his Aerican citizenship H lon2 before Ma!
%, #$$.. At best, ?rivaldo was stateless in the interi H when he abandoned and
renounced his 5S citizenship but before he was repatriated to his ?ilipino citizenship.L
6n this point, we 3uote fro the assailed Resolution dated )eceber #$, #$$.+
B! the laws of the 5nited States, petitioner ?rivaldo lost his Aerican
citizenship when he too" his oath of alle2iance to the Philippine
'overnent when he ran for 'overnor in #$%%, in #$$0, and in #$$..
Ever! certi4cate of candidac! contains an oath of alle2iance to the
Philippine 'overnent.
&hese factual 4ndin2s that ?rivaldo has lost his forei2n nationalit! lon2 before the
elections of #$$. have not been e=ectivel! rebutted b! 7ee. ?urtherore, it is basic that
such 4ndin2s of the Coission are conclusive upon this Court, absent an! showin2 of
capriciousness or arbitrariness or abuse.
&here is, therefore, no erit in petitioner;s contention that the oath of alle2iance contained in private
respondent;s certi4cate of candidac! is insu=icient to constitute renunciation that, to be e=ective, such
renunciation should have been ade upon private respondent reachin2 the a2e of aForit! since no law re3uires
the election of Philippine citizenship to be ade upon aForit! a2e.
?inall!, uch is ade of the fact that private respondent aditted that he is re2istered as an Aerican citizen in
the Bureau of *i2ration and )eportation and that he holds an Aerican passport which he used in his last
travel to the 5nited States on April 00, #$$1. &here is no erit in this. 5ntil the 4lin2 of his certi4cate of
candidac! on March 0#, #$$%, he had dual citizenship. &he acts attributed to hi can be considered sipl! as the
assertion of his Aerican nationalit! before the terination of his Aerican citizenship. <hat this Court said in
A"nar v. COMELEC
18
applies mutatis mundatis to private respondent in the case at bar+
. . . Considerin2 the fact that adittedl! 6seQa was both a ?ilipino and an Aerican, the
ere fact that he has a Certi4cate starin2 he is an Aerican does not ean that he is not
still a ?ilipino. . . . I&Jhe Certi4cation that he is an Aerican does not ean that he is not
still a ?ilipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities or citizenships. *ndeed, there is no
eEpress renunciation here of Philippine citizenshipK truth to tell, there is even no iplied
renunciation of said citizenship. <hen <e consider that the renunciation needed to lose
Page 7 of 9
Philippine citizenship ust be LeEpress,L it stands to reason that there can be no such loss
of Philippine citizenship when there is no renunciation, either LeEpressL or Liplied.L
&o recapitulate, b! declarin2 in his certi4cate of candidac! that he is a ?ilipino citizenK that he is not a peranent
resident or ii2rant of another countr!K that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and
bear true faith and alle2iance thereto and that he does so without ental reservation, private respondent has, as
far as the laws of this countr! are concerned, e=ectivel! repudiated his Aerican citizenship and an!thin2 which
he a! have said before as a dual citizen.
6n the other hand, private respondent;s oath of alle2iance to the Philippines, when considered with the fact that
he has spent his !outh and adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as an artist, and ta"en part
in past elections in this countr!, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship.
Ais declarations will be ta"en upon the faith that he will ful4ll his underta"in2 ade under oath. Should he
betra! that trust, there are enou2h sanctions for declarin2 the loss of his Philippine citizenship throu2h
eEpatriation in appropriate proceedin2s. *n #u v. $efensor%&antiago,
19
we sustained the denial of entr! into the
countr! of petitioner on the 2round that, after ta"in2 his oath as a naturalized citizen, he applied for the renewal
of his Portu2uese passport and declared in coercial docuents eEecuted abroad that he was a Portu2uese
national. A siilar sanction can be ta"en a2ainst an! one who, in electin2 Philippine citizenship, renounces his
forei2n nationalit!, but subse3uentl! does soe act constitutin2 renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.
<AERE?6RE, the petition for certiorari is )*SM*SSE) for lac" of erit.'()p*i'.n+t
S6 6R)ERE).
$avide, -r., C.-., Romero, .ellosillo, Melo, Puno, /itug, 0apunan, 1uisumbing, .uena, 2on"aga%Reyes and #nares%
&antiago, --., concur.
Panganiban and Purisima, --., are on leave.
Pardo, -., too no part.
'oo!no!#(
# Petition, Rollo, p. ..
0 Per Coissioner Aado M. Calderon and concurred in b! Coissioners Bulio ?.
)esaito and Bapal M. 'uiani.
- 3d., AnneE E, Rollo, pp. .,>@-.
/ Rollo, pp. 1%>%-.
. Per Chairan Bernardo P. Pardo and concurred in b! Coissioners Manolo B.
'orospe, &eresita )!>7iaco ?lores, Bapal M. 'uiani, and 7uzviinda '. &ancan2co.
Coissioner Bulio ?. )esaito dissented.
@ #1@ SCRA # 9#$%$:.
1 Abella v. C6ME7EC, 0,# SCRA 0.- 9#$$#:K Benito v. C6ME7EC, 0-. SCRA /-@ 9#$$#:K
A3uino v. C6ME7EC, 0/% SCRA /,, 9#$$.:K ?rivaldo v. C6ME7EC, 0.1 SCRA 101 9#$$@:.
% R.A. No. 1%./, the Charter of the Cit! of Ma"ati, provides+ LSEC. 0, H &he followin2 are
dis3uali4ed fro runnin2 for an! elective position in the cit!+ . . . 9d: &hose with dual
citizenship.L
$ B6(*&6 R. SA76N'A, PR*(A&E *N&ERNA&*6NA7 7A< #@@ 9#$$.:.
#, 3d., at -@# 9Session of Bul! %, #$%@:.
## 3d., at 0-->0-/ 9Session of Bune 0., #$%@:.
#0 # REC6R) 6? &AE C6NS&*&5&*6NA7 C6MM*SS*6N 0,- 9Session of Bune 0-, #$%@:.
#- &ranscript, pp. .>@, Session of Nov. 01, #$$,.
Page 8 of 9
#/ C.A. No. /1-, 8#0.
#. %@ Phil. -#,, -/- 9#$.,:.
#@ -%1 5.S. #% 7. Ed. 0d 1.1 9#$@1:, overrulin2 Perez v. Brownell, -.@ 5.S. 0 7. Ed. 0d
@,- 9#$.%:.
#1 0.1 SCRA 101, 1.$>1@, 9#$$@:.
#% #%. SCRA 1,-, 1## 9#$$,:. &ee also Pawa"ita v. 5nited States, -/- 5.S. 1#1, $@ 7. Ed.
#0/$ 9#$.0:.
#$ #@$ SCRA -@/ 9#$%$:.
Page 9 of 9