Renz Paula E.

Rollorata
De Guzman v COMELEC Case Digest

2009-44756
August 26, 2016

De Guzman v COMELEC
June 19, 2009 | J. Ynares-Santiago
Petitioner: Roseller De Guzman
Respondents: COMELEC, Angelina DG Dela Cruz
SUMMARY: P and R are candidates for Vice-Mayor. R filed a disqualification case against P on the ground
that P is a US citizen. R won in the elections. Subsequently, COMELEC ruled that P is disqualified to run as
Vice-Mayor. P filed MR but was dismissed because of mootness as R already won the elections. P filed an
election protest following the victory of R. SC said that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when
it dismissed the MR by P and that P is disqualified to run as Vice-Mayor in view of the fact that P was not
able to comply with the second requirement under RA 9225 which is to make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship.
FACTS:
1. De Guzman and Dela Cruz were candidates for vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the
2007 elections. Dela Cruz filed against De Guzman a petition for disqualification (ground: De Guzman
is not a citizen of the Philippines, but of the USA).
2.

De Guzman admitted that he was a naturalized American. However, on Jan. 25, 2006, he applied for
dual citizenship under RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act). Upon approval of his
application, he took his oath of allegiance to the RP on Sept. 6, 2006. He argued that, having reacquired PH citizenship, he is entitled to exercise full civil and political rights. As such, he is qualified to
run as vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija.

3.

During the 2007 elections, Dela Cruz. De Guzman filed an election protest on grounds of irregularities
and massive cheating.

4.

Meanwhile, in the earlier disqualification case, the COMELEC First Division rendered a resolution
disqualifying De Guzman. De Guzman filed an MR but it was dismissed for having been rendered moot
in view of Dela Cruzs victory.

5.

TC: In the election protest filed by De Guzman, De Guzman is declared as the winner for the VM
position.

6.

De Guzman filed the instant petition for certiorari, alleging that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
discretion in disqualifying him from running as Vice-Mayor because of his failure to renounce his
American citizenship, and in dismissing the MR for being moot. De Guzman invokes the Frivaldo and
Mercado cases (that the filing by a person with dual citizenship of a COC, containing an oath of
allegiance, constituted as a renunciation of his foreign citizenship). COMELEC En Banc prematurely
dismissed the MR because at that time, there was a pending election protest which was later decided in
his favor.

7.

Meanwhile, Dela Cruz claims that the passage of RA 9225 effectively abandoned the Courts rulings
in Frivaldo and Mercado; and that De Guzman having failed to renounce his American citizenship,
remains a dual citizen and is therefore disqualified from running for an elective public position under
Sec. 40 (d) LGC.

ISSUES:
1. WON the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing De Guzmans MR for being moot
YES
2. WON De Guzman is disqualified from running for vice-mayor for having failed to renounce his
American citizenship in accordance with RA 9225 YES
HELD: Petition dismissed.

RATIO:
1) An issue becomes moot when it ceases to present a justifiable controversy so that a determination thereof
would be without practical use and value. In this case, the pendency of De Guzmans election protest
assailing the results of the election did not render moot the MR which he filed assailing his
disqualification. The resolution of the issue remained relevant because it could significantly affect the
outcome of the election protest.
Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding an elective office. As mandated by
law: An elective local official must be a citizen of the PH. It bears stressing that the RTC later ruled in favor
of De Guzman in the election protest and declared him the winner. In view thereof, a definitive ruling on the
issue of De Guzmans citizenship was clearly necessary.
Hence, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing De Guzmans MR solely on
the ground that the same was rendered moot because he lost to Dela Cruz.

2) De Guzman is disqualified from running for public office in view of his failure to renounce his American
citizenship.
RA 9225 was enacted to allow re-acquisition and retention of PH citizenship for: 1) natural-born
citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign
country; and 2) natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of the law, become citizens of
a foreign country. The law provides that they are deemed to have re-acquired or retained their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance.
De Guzman falls under the 1st category, being a natural-born citizen who lost his PH citizenship upon
his naturalization as US citizen. In the instant case, there is no question that De Guzman re-acquired his PH
citizenship after taking the oath of allegiance on Sept. 6, 2006. However, it must be emphasized that RA
9225 imposes an addtl reqt1 on those who wish to seek elective public office.
Contrary to De Guzmans claims, the filing of COC does not ipso facto amount to a renunciation of his
foreign citizenship under the law. The rulings in the cases of Frivaldo and Mercado are not applicable to the
instant case because RA 9225 provides for more requirements.

Section 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:x x x x
(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.

Japzon v. COMELEC: Section 5(2) of RA 9225 requires the twin requirements of swearing to an Oath
of Allegiance and executing a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship; Jacot v. Dal and COMELEC: a
candidates oath of allegiance to the RPand his COC do not substantially comply with the reqt of a personal
and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship.
In the instant case, petitioners Oath of Allegiance and COC did not comply with Sec. 5(2) of R.A. No.
9225 which further requires those seeking elective public office in the PH to make a personal and sworn
renunciation of foreign citizenship. De Guzman failed to renounce his American citizenship; as such, he is
disqualified from running for vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections.