Torres, Aivan Charles A.

August 30, 2018

2005-34301 Public Office

De Guzman vs. Commission on Elections

G.R. No. 180048, June 19, 2009
Ynares-Santiago, J.

Facts:
Roseller De Guzman and Angelina DG Dela Cruz were candidates for vice-mayor of
Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 midterm elections.

On April 3, 2007, Dela Cruz filed against De Guzman a petition for disqualification with
the COMELEC, alleging therein that De Guzman is not a citizen of the Philippines, but an
immigrant and resident of the United States of America.

In his answer, De Guzman admitted that he was a naturalized American but had applied
for dual citizenship under RA 9225 on January 25, 2006 and took his Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines on September 6, 2006 before a deputy consul general in Los
Angeles, California. He alleged that having reacquired his Philippine citizenship entitles him to
exercise his civil and political rights, thus qualifying him to run for vice-mayor.

Dela Cruz won as vice-mayor in the May 2007 elections. De Guzman filed an election
protest with the RTC alleging irregularities and massive cheating.

On June 15, 2007, COMELEC 1st Division rendered its decision disqualifying De
Guzman. The 1st Division ruled that De Guzman is a dual citizen and that he failed to renounce
his American citizenship before he ran for any elective post as provided in Sec. 5(2) of RA 9225.
The 1st Division stated that an oath of allegiance does not mean renunciation of citizenship.

De Guzman filed a motion for reconsideration but this was dismissed by COMELEC En
Banc for being moot and academic in view of Dela Cruz’ victory.

Thereafter, the RTC rendered a decision on the electoral protest of De Guzman and
declared the latter as the winner for the vice-mayoralty position.

De Guzman filed the instant petition for certiorari alleging that COMELEC acted with
grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying him from running for vice-mayor because of his failure
to renounce his American citizenship, and in dismissing his motion for reconsideration for being
moot.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing De
Guzman’s motion for reconsideration for being moot.
 De Guzman argued that COMELEC prematurely dismissed the motion for reconsideration
because at that time, there was a pending election protest which was later decided on his
favor.

Held:
The issue of De Guzman’s citizenship did not become moot; the resolution of the issue
remained relevant because it could significantly affect the outcome of the election protest. A
definitive ruling on the issue of De Guzman’s citizenship was clearly necessary. Therefore,
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing De Guzman’s motion for
reconsideration solely for being moot because he lost to Dela Cruz.

2. Whether or not De Guzman is disqualified from running for vice-mayor for his failure
to renounce his US citizenship.

 De Guzman argues that the filing by a person with dual citizenship of a certificate of
candidacy, containing an oath of allegiance, constituted as a renunciation of his foreign
citizenship as ruled in Frivaldo vs. COMELEC and Mercado vs. Manzano.
 Dela Cruz counters that the passage of RA 9225 effectively abandoned the Court’s rulings in
Frivaldo and Mercado, that the current law requires a personal and sworn renunciation of any
and all foreign citizenship; and that the failure of De Guzman to renounce his US citizenship
makes him a dual citizen that disqualifies him from running for an elective office as
prescribed in Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code.

Held:
R.A. No. 9225 provides that natural born citizens are deemed to have reacquired or
retained their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance. However, Sec. 5(2) of the
said law imposes an additional requirement on those who wish to seek elective public office and
that is to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any
public officer authorized to administer oath.

The filing of a certificate of candidacy does not ipso facto amount to renunciation of
foreign citizenship under RA 9225. The Frivaldo and Mercado rulings are not applicable in this
case because RA 9225 provides for more requirements. In Japzon v. COMELEC, the Court ruled
that RA 9225 requires the twin requirements of swearing to an Oath of Allegiance and executing
a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship. In Jacot v. Dal and COMELEC, the Court ruled that 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. This is made clear in the discussions of the Bicameral committee where it was
explained that an oath of allegiance is different from the renunciation of foreign citizenship. It
was clear that to qualify as a candidate in Philippine elections, Filipinos must have one
citizenship only, name, Philippine citizenship.

The Oath of Allegiance contained in the Certificate of Candidacy does not constitute the
personal and sworn renunciation sought under Sec. 5(2) of RA 9225. De Guzman failed to
renounce his US citizenship in accordance with the requirement in RA 9225. Thus, he is
disqualified from running for vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections.