DUAL ALLEGIANCE

MERCADO VS MANZANO

FACTS: Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo Manzano were both candidates for Vice-Mayor of
Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections.Based on the results of the election, Manzano garnered the
highest number of votes. However, his proclamation was suspended due to the pending petition for
disqualification filed by Ernesto Mercado on the ground that he was not a citizen of the Philippines but
of the United States. From the facts presented, it appears that Manzano is both a Filipino and a US
citizen.The Commission on Elections declared Manzano disqualified as candidate for said elective
position.However, in a subsequent resolution of the COMELEC en banc, the disqualification of the
respondent was reversed. Respondent was held to have renounced his US citizenship when he attained
the age of majority and registered himself as a voter in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998.Manzano
was eventually proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of Makati City on August 31, 1998.Thus the present
petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not a dual citizen is disqualified to hold public elective office in the Philippines.

RULING: NO. The court ruled that the phrase "dual citizenship" in R.A. 7160 Sec. 40 (d) and R.A. 7854 Sec.
20 must be understood as referring to dual allegiance. Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance.
The former arises when, as a result of the application of the different laws of two or more states, a person
is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. Dual allegiance on the other hand, refers to a
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 a result of an individual's volition. Article IV Sec. 5
of the Constitution provides "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law."

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.

By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same time forswear allegiance to the other
country of which they are also citizens and thereby terminate their status as dual citizens. It may be that,
from the point of view of the foreign state and of its laws, such an individual has not effectively renounced
his foreign citizenship. That is of no moment.

When a person applying for citizenship by naturalization takes an oath that he renounces his loyalty to
any other country or government and solemnly declares that he owes his allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, the condition imposed by law is satisfied and complied with. The determination whether such
renunciation is valid or fully complies with the provisions of our Naturalization Law lies within the province
and is an exclusive prerogative of our courts. The latter should apply the law duly enacted by the
legislative department of the Republic. No foreign law may or should interfere with its operation and
application.
The court ruled that the filing of certificate of candidacy of respondent 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 Philippines, 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.

His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will fulfill his undertaking made under oath. Should
he betray that trust, there are enough sanctions for declaring the loss of his Philippine citizenship through
expatriation in appropriate proceedings. In Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, the court sustained the denial of
entry into the country of petitioner on the ground that, after taking his oath as a naturalized citizen, he
applied for the renewal of his Portuguese passport and declared in commercial documents executed
abroad that he was a Portuguese national. A similar sanction can be taken against anyone who, in electing
Philippine citizenship, renounces his foreign nationality, but subsequently does some act constituting
renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.

The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

EXPATRIATION

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS V. GO, 25 SCRA 890

FACTS: Go Chiao Lin, a Chinese citizen, and Emilia Callano, a Filipino citizen, started living maritally in
Malitbog, Leyte, in 1934. They bore the following childred: Beato, Manuel, Gonzalo, and Julio. In 1946,
they went to Amoy, China, on vacation, but Go died there the same year. In 1961, the children applied
with the Philippine Consul General in Hongkong for entry into the Philippines as Filipino citizens. The
Consulate then received a cablegram from the Department of Foreign Affairs authorizing it to investigate
whether the petitioners for entry were the illegitimate children of Emilia Callano a Filipino citizen.
After investigation, the office issued a certificate of registration and identity to the effect that the
applicant had submitted sufficient evidence of their citizenship and identity and had been allowed to
register in the Consulate as Filipino citizens and to travel directly to the Philippines.
But Department of Foreign Affairs informed the Commissioner of Immigration that, on the basis of the
findings made by the National Bureau of Investigation, the signatures of former Secretary of Foreign
Affairs, Felixberto M. Serrano, on certain documents, authorizing the documentation of Beato Go Callano
and others, were not authentic. All this was done without previous notice served nor hearing granted to
said parties.Board of Immigration Commissioners, upon review, found that:
1.that, in view of the fact that the cable authorization referred to heretofore is a forgery, all the
proceedings had in connection therewith are void and, as a result, the private respondents must be
deported as aliens not properly documented;
2.that, granting that they were Filipino citizens when they left the Philippines in 1946, they lost that
citizenship, firstly, by staying in China for a period of 15 years, and secondly, because they were recognized
by their common-law father, they became citizens of the Republic of China in accordance with the Chinese
Nationality Law.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are admittedly Filipino citizens at birth and their status must be
governed by Philippine law wherever they may be.

HELD: YES. In conformity with Article 15 (formerly Article 9) of the Civil Code which provides as follows:
"Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, conditions and legal capacity of persons are
binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad." Under Article IV, Section 2, of the
Philippine Constitution, "Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law,"
which implies that the question of whether a Filipino has lost his Philippine citizenship shall be determined
by no other than the Philippine law.

Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended by Republic Act No. 106, provides that a Filipino
citizen may lose his citizenship
1.by naturalization in a foreign country;
2.express renunciation of citizenship;
3.subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country; rendering
service to, or
4.accepting a commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country;
5.cancellation of the certificate of naturalization; d
6.declaration by competent authority that he is a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war;
7.in the case of a woman by marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of laws in force in her husband's
country, she acquires his nationality.

Recognition of the petitioners by their alien father is not among the ground for losing Philippine citizenship
under Philippine law, and it cannot be said that the petitioners lost their former status by reason of such
recognition.

RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION ACT

FACTS: Petitioner Nestor A. Jacot assails the Resolution dated 28 September 2007 of the , affirming the
Resolution dated 12 June 2007 of the COMELEC Second Division, disqualifying him from running for the
position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin in the 14 May 2007 National and Local Elections, on the
ground that he failed to make a personal renouncement of his US citizenship.
Petitioner was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who became a naturalized citizen of the US on 13
December 1989. Petitioner sought to reacquire his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225,
otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act.
He filed a request for the administration of his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines with
the Philippine Consulate General (PCG) of Los Angeles, California. The Los Angeles PCG issued on 19 June
2006 an Order of Approval of petitioner’s request, and on the same day, petitioner took his Oath of
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before Vice Consul Edward C. Yulo. On 27 September 2006,
the Bureau of Immigration issued and Identification Certificate, recognizing petitioner as a citizen of the
Philippines.
Six months after, on 26 March 2007, petitioner filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the Position of Vice-
Mayor of the Municipality of Catarman, Camiguin.
In the meantime, the 14 May 2007 National and Local Elections were held. Petitioner garnered the highest
number of votes for the position of Vice Mayor.
On 12 June 2007, the COMELEC Second Division finally issued its Resolution11 disqualifying the petitioner
from running for the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin, for failure to make the requisite
renunciation of his US citizenship

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner has validly complied the citizenship requirement as required by law for persons
seeking public office.

HELD: NO. Contrary to the assertions made by petitioner, his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines made before the Los Angeles PCG and his Certificate of Candidacy do
not substantially comply with the requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign
citizenship, because these are distinct requirements to be complied with for different purposes.
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 requires that natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who are already
naturalized citizens of a foreign country, must take the following oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines to reacquire or retain their Philippine citizenship.
By the oath dictated in the afore-quoted provision, the Filipino swears allegiance to the Philippines, but
there is nothing therein on his 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.

SOBEJANO-CONDON VS COMELEC

FACTS: The petitioner is a natural-born Filipino citizen having been born of Filipino parents on August 8,
1944. On December 13, 1984, she became a naturalized Australian citizen owing to her marriage to a
certain Kevin Thomas Condon.
On December 2, 2005, she filed an application to re-acquire Philippine citizenship before the Philippine
Embassy in Canberra, Australia pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225 otherwise known as the "Citizenship
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003."5 The application was approved and the petitioner took her
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on December 5, 2005.
On September 18, 2006, the petitioner filed an unsworn Declaration of Renunciation of Australian
Citizenship before the Department of Immigration and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra, Australia, which in
turn issued the Order dated September 27, 2006 certifying that she has ceased to be an Australian citizen.
The petitioner ran for Mayor in her hometown of Caba, La Union in the 2007 elections. She lost in her bid.
She again sought elective office during the May 10, 2010 elections this time for the position of Vice-Mayor.
She obtained the highest numbers of votes and was proclaimed as the winning candidate. She took her
oath of office on May 13, 2010. Soon thereafter, private respondents Robelito V. Picar, Wilma P.
Pagaduan7 and Luis M. Bautista,8 (private respondents) all registered voters of Caba, La Union, filed
separate petitions for quo warranto questioning the petitioner’s eligibility before the RTC. The petitions
similarly sought the petitioner’s disqualification from holding her elective post on the ground that she is
a dual citizen and that she failed to execute a "personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath" as imposed by Section 5(2) of R.A.
No. 9225.The petitioner denied being a dual citizen and averred that since September 27, 2006, she
ceased to be an Australian citizen. She claimed that the Declaration of Renunciation of Australian
Citizenship she executed in Australia sufficiently complied with Section 5(2), R.A. No. 9225 and that her
act of running for public office is a clear abandonment of her Australian citizenship.The trial decision
ordered by the trial court declaring Condon disqualified and ineligible to hold office of vice mayor of Caba
La union and nullified her proclamation as the winning candidate. After that the decision was appealed to
the comelec, but the appeal was dismissed the second division and affirmed the decision of the trial court.
The petitioner contends that since she ceased to be an Australian citizen on September 27, 2006, she no
longer held dual citizenship and was only a Filipino citizen when she filed her certificate of candidacy as
early as the 2007 elections. Hence, the "personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship" imposed
by Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 to dual citizens seeking elective office does not apply to her.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is disqualified from running for elective office due to failure to renounce
her Australian Citizenship in accordance with Sec. 5 (2) of R.A 9225

HELD: YES, petitioner is disqualified. R.A. No. 9225 allows the retention and re-acquisition of Filipino
citizenship for natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship18 by taking an oath of
allegiance to the Republic. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act,
become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid
oath. The oath is an abbreviated repatriation process that restores one’s Filipino citizenship and all civil
and political rights and obligations concomitant therewith, subject to certain conditions imposed in
Section 5.Section 5, paragraph 2 provides:
(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualification 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.
On September 18, 2006, or a year before she initially sought elective public office, she filed a renunciation
of Australian citizenship in Canberra, Australia. Admittedly, however, the same was not under oath
contrary to the exact mandate of Section 5(2) that the renunciation of foreign citizenship must be sworn
before an officer authorized to administer oath.
The Supreme Court said that, the renunciation of her Australian citizenship was invalid due to it was not
oath before any public officer authorized to administer it rendering the act of Condon void.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Resolution dated
September 6, 2011 of the Commission on Elections en bane in EAC (AE).