De Guzman vs. COMELEC

A natural-born Filipino who re-acquires Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 must, in addition to taking the oath of allegiance, execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy in order to qualify for elective public office; the oath of allegiance and the certificate of candidacy do not satisfy this requirement.

Roseller De Guzman and Angelina DG. Dela Cruz were rival candidates for Vice-Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 Synchronized National and Local Elections. De Guzman was a natural-born Filipino who had lost Philippine citizenship upon naturalization as an American citizen. On January 25, 2006, he applied for dual citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003, and took his oath of allegiance to the Republic on September 6, 2006 before the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles, California. The statutory framework governing re-acquisition of citizenship and eligibility for elective office under R.A. No. 9225, particularly the distinction between the oath of allegiance under Section 3 and the renunciation of foreign citizenship under Section 5(2), is central to the dispute.

Roseller De Guzman and Angelina DG. Dela Cruz were candidates for Vice-Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 Synchronized National and Local Elections. De Guzman was a natural-born Filipino citizen who had lost his Philippine citizenship upon naturalization as a citizen of the United States. On January 25, 2006, he applied for dual citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, and upon approval of his application, took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on September 6, 2006 before Mary Jo Bernardo Aragon, Deputy Consul General at the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles, California. He contended that, having re-acquired Philippine citizenship, he was entitled to full civil and political rights and was qualified to run for vice-mayor.

On April 3, 2007, Dela Cruz filed a petition for disqualification against De Guzman before the COMELEC, docketed as SPA No. 07-211, alleging that he was not a citizen of the Philippines but an immigrant and resident of the United States. In his answer, De Guzman admitted that he was a naturalized American but asserted that he had re-acquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 and was therefore qualified to seek elective office. The COMELEC First Division rendered its resolution on June 15, 2007, granting the petition and disqualifying De Guzman on the ground that, while he had validly re-acquired Filipino citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance, he had not executed the personal and sworn renunciation of his American citizenship required by Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 for those seeking elective public office.

During the May 14, 2007 elections, Dela Cruz won as vice-mayor. De Guzman filed an election protest before Branch 31 of the Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, docketed as Election Protest No. 07-01, alleging irregularities and massive cheating. Meanwhile, De Guzman filed a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC First Division resolution, but the COMELEC En Banc dismissed it on October 9, 2007 as moot, citing Dela Cruz's electoral victory. Thereafter, on November 26, 2007, the trial court rendered a decision in the election protest declaring De Guzman the winner with a plurality of 776 votes over Dela Cruz. De Guzman then filed the instant petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing both the COMELEC First Division's disqualification resolution and the COMELEC En Banc's dismissal of his motion for reconsideration.

• Renunciation via Certificate of Candidacy: Petitioner invoked the rulings in Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections and Mercado vs. Manzano, arguing that the filing of a certificate of candidacy by a person with dual citizenship, containing an oath of allegiance, constituted a renunciation of foreign citizenship and thus qualified him to run for public office.
• Mootness Prematurely Declared: Petitioner claimed that the COMELEC En Banc prematurely dismissed his motion for reconsideration on the ground of mootness, because at that time a pending election protest was still unresolved and was later decided in his favor, rendering the citizenship issue live and consequential.

• R.A. No. 9225 Supersedes Prior Jurisprudence: Private respondent argued that the passage of R.A. No. 9225 effectively abandoned the Court's rulings in Frivaldo and Mercado, as the current law expressly requires a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship for those seeking elective office.
• Disqualification Under the Local Government Code: Private respondent contended that petitioner, having failed to renounce his American citizenship, remained a dual citizen and was therefore disqualified from running for an elective local position under Section 40(d) of R.A. No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991.

• Mootness: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner's motion for reconsideration on the ground that the issue of his disqualification had been rendered moot by his electoral loss.
• Qualification for Elective Office: Whether petitioner is disqualified from running for Vice-Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections for having failed to renounce his American citizenship in accordance with Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225.

• Mootness: Yes. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the motion for reconsideration as moot, because the pendency of the election protest and the subsequent trial court ruling declaring petitioner the winner rendered the citizenship issue relevant and capable of affecting the election's outcome.
• Qualification for Elective Office: Yes, petitioner is disqualified. Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 requires a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship separate from the oath of allegiance and the certificate of candidacy; petitioner's failure to execute such renunciation rendered him ineligible to seek elective office.

• Mootness: An issue becomes moot when it ceases to present a justifiable controversy such that a determination would be without practical use or value. The pendency of petitioner's election protest assailing the election results did not render moot his motion for reconsideration challenging his disqualification. The issue of citizenship remained relevant because it could significantly affect the outcome of the election protest, Philippine citizenship being an indispensable requirement for holding elective office. The Regional Trial Court subsequently ruled in petitioner's favor and declared him the winner, making a definitive ruling on his citizenship clearly necessary. The COMELEC therefore gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the motion for reconsideration solely on the ground that petitioner had lost to private respondent.

• Qualification for Elective Office: R.A. No. 9225 was enacted to allow re-acquisition and retention of Philippine citizenship by natural-born citizens who lost it through foreign naturalization, or who become foreign citizens after the law's effectivity. Petitioner fell under the first category and unquestionably re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance on September 6, 2006. However, Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 imposes an additional requirement on those seeking elective public office: they must meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for the office and, at the time of filing 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. The Court relied on Japzon vs. COMELEC, which held that Section 5(2) requires the twin requirements of swearing to an oath of allegiance and executing a renunciation of foreign citizenship, and on Jacot vs. Dal and COMELEC, which ruled that the oath of allegiance and certificate of candidacy do not substantially comply with the renunciation requirement. The legislative history, as reflected in the Bicameral Conference Committee discussions, confirmed that the oath of allegiance is distinct from the renunciation of foreign citizenship and that the legislators intended that those running for elective office possess only Philippine citizenship. The rulings in Frivaldo and Mercado were found inapplicable because R.A. No. 9225 provides for additional requirements not present under the legal regime governing those earlier cases. The oath of allegiance contained in the certificate of candidacy is a general requirement for all candidates, while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional requisite specific to those who retained or re-acquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225. Petitioner's oath of allegiance and certificate of candidacy did not comply with Section 5(2), and his failure to renounce his American citizenship disqualified him from running for vice-mayor.

• Twin Requirements for Dual Citizens Seeking Elective Office — Under Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225, a natural-born Filipino who re-acquires or retains Philippine citizenship must satisfy two distinct requirements to qualify as a candidate in Philippine elections: (1) take the oath of allegiance to the Republic under Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225, and (2) execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath, prior to or simultaneous with the filing of the certificate of candidacy. The oath of allegiance and the certificate of candidacy do not substitute for the renunciation requirement, as they serve different purposes—the former is a general requirement for all candidates, while the latter is an additional requisite specific to dual citizens under R.A. No. 9225.

• Mootness in Election Disqualification Cases — An issue becomes moot when it ceases to present a justifiable controversy so that a determination thereof would be without practical use and value. The pendency of an election protest does not render moot a motion for reconsideration assailing a disqualification, where the resolution of the citizenship issue could significantly affect the outcome of the protest and the candidate's eligibility to hold office.

• "Contrary to petitioner's claims, the filing of a certificate of candidacy does not ipso facto amount to a renunciation of his foreign citizenship under R.A. No. 9225. Our rulings in the cases of Frivaldo and Mercado are not applicable to the instant case because R.A. No. 9225 provides for more requirements." — This passage articulates the central ratio decidendi: R.A. No. 9225 introduced a statutory renunciation requirement that supersedes the earlier jurisprudential rule that filing a certificate of candidacy suffices as renunciation of foreign citizenship.

• "To qualify as a candidate in Philippine elections, Filipinos must only have one citizenship, namely, Philippine citizenship." — This statement encapsulates the legislative intent behind Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225, as derived from the Bicameral Conference Committee deliberations, and is frequently cited in subsequent election law jurisprudence.

• "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." — Quoted from Jacot vs. Dal and COMELEC, this formulation defines the precise scope and timing of the renunciation requirement under Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225.

• Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 120295 and 123755, June 28, 1996, 257 SCRA 727 — Previously held that the filing of a certificate of candidacy by a dual citizen, containing an oath of allegiance, constituted a renunciation of foreign citizenship. Distinguished and held inapplicable in this case because R.A. No. 9225 subsequently imposed additional statutory requirements not present under the legal regime governing that earlier ruling.

• Mercado vs. Manzano, 367 Phil. 132 (1999) — Held that filing a certificate of candidacy constituted a renunciation of foreign citizenship. Distinguished and held inapplicable for the same reason as Frivaldo—R.A. No. 9225 provides for more requirements.

• Japzon vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180088, January 19, 2009 — Followed. Held that Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 requires the twin requirements of swearing to an oath of allegiance and executing a renunciation of foreign citizenship for dual citizens seeking elective office.

• Jacot vs. Dal and COMELEC, G.R. No. 179848, November 29, 2008 — Followed. Held that a candidate's oath of allegiance and certificate of candidacy do not substantially comply with the requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship under Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225.

• Labo, Jr. vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 105111 and 105384, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 297 — Cited for the proposition that Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding elective office, as mandated by law: "An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines."

• Olanolan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 165491, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 807 — Cited for the definition of mootness: an issue becomes moot when it ceases to present a justifiable controversy so that a determination thereof would be without practical use and value.

• Section 3, R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003) — Provides that natural-born citizens who lost Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic. Applied to confirm that petitioner validly re-acquired Philippine citizenship on September 6, 2006.

• Section 5(2), R.A. No. 9225 — Requires those seeking elective public office who retained or re-acquired Philippine citizenship under the Act to meet the qualifications for holding such office and, at the time of filing 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. Applied as the controlling provision disqualifying petitioner for failure to renounce his American citizenship.

• Section 40(d), R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Disqualifies persons with dual citizenship from running for any elective local position. Invoked by private respondent as an additional ground for disqualification, the Court's ruling on Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 having effectively subsumed this provision's application.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, and Associate Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Antonio T. Carpio, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, and Lucas P. Bersamin. All concurred in full; no separate concurring opinions were written.