Jacot vs. Dal

A personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional requisite distinct from the oath of allegiance under Republic Act No. 9225 and the oath in the Certificate of Candidacy for dual citizens seeking elective public office.

Nestor A. Jacot, a natural-born Filipino, became a naturalized United States citizen in 1989. He reacquired Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance before the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles on June 19, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9225. On March 26, 2007, he filed a Certificate of Candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin, without executing a separate renunciation of his US citizenship.

• Reacquisition of Citizenship: Petitioner was naturalized as a US citizen on December 13, 1989. On June 19, 2006, he took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the Los Angeles Philippine Consulate General (PCG) under Republic Act No. 9225. The Bureau of Immigration issued him an Identification Certificate on September 27, 2006.
• Candidacy and Disqualification Challenge: On March 26, 2007, petitioner filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin. On May 2, 2007, respondent Rogen T. Dal filed a Petition for Disqualification, alleging failure to comply with Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225.
• Defense in the COMELEC: Petitioner maintained that his Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines and the oath in his Certificate of Candidacy effectively renounced his US citizenship.
• Election Results and Subsequent Renunciation: The elections proceeded, and petitioner garnered the highest number of votes. After the COMELEC Second Division disqualified him, petitioner executed an "Oath of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States" on June 27, 2007, attaching it to his Motion for Reconsideration. The COMELEC En Banc refused to consider this document as it was executed after the filing of the Certificate of Candidacy.
• New Evidence on Appeal: In the Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, petitioner presented for the first time an "Affidavit of Renunciation" dated February 7, 2007, claiming his former counsel was grossly negligent in advising against its submission to the COMELEC.

• Substantial Compliance: Petitioner argued that the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines taken under Republic Act No. 9225, coupled with the oath of allegiance in the Certificate of Candidacy, substantially complied with the renunciation requirement under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225.
• Gross Negligence of Counsel: Petitioner maintained that his former counsel was grossly negligent in failing to present the Affidavit of Renunciation dated February 7, 2007, during the COMELEC proceedings, justifying the relaxation of the rule that clients are bound by their counsel's mistakes.
• Will of the Electorate: Petitioner contended that upholding the disqualification would frustrate the will of the people of Catarman, Camiguin, who voted for him.

• Distinct Requirements: Respondent countered that the oath of allegiance under Republic Act No. 9225 and the Certificate of Candidacy are distinct from the personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship mandated by Section 5(2) of the same law.
• Inadmissibility of Belated Evidence: Respondent argued that the Affidavit of Renunciation presented for the first time on appeal is inadmissible, as issues and evidence not raised below cannot be entertained by a reviewing court, and petitioner is bound by his counsel's conduct.

• Compliance with RA 9225: Whether the oath of allegiance under Republic Act No. 9225 and the oath in the Certificate of Candidacy constitute substantial compliance with the requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225.
• Admissibility of New Evidence: Whether an affidavit of renunciation presented for the first time before the Supreme Court can be admitted, based on the alleged gross negligence of former counsel.
• Will of the Electorate: Whether a candidate's acquisition of the highest number of votes cures the vice of ineligibility arising from failure to comply with citizenship requirements.

• Compliance with RA 9225: The oath of allegiance under Republic Act No. 9225 and the oath in the Certificate of Candidacy do not constitute the personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship required by Section 5(2) of the same Act. The legislative intent, as shown in the Bicameral Conference Committee discussions, is that the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an undertaking separate from the oath of allegiance. To qualify as a candidate in Philippine elections, a person must possess only Philippine citizenship.
• Admissibility of New Evidence: The Affidavit of Renunciation dated February 7, 2007, was correctly excluded. Points of law and evidence not brought to the attention of the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The client is bound by the mistakes of counsel; the failure to introduce evidence does not constitute gross negligence where counsel actively defended the suit and the case was lost due to a mistaken legal position rather than a technicality.
• Will of the Electorate: The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility. Constitutional and statutory provisions on disqualification must be strictly applied, and a candidate seeking to serve the Republic must owe loyalty solely to the Philippines.

• Distinction Between Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance — Dual citizenship is involuntary, arising from the concurrent application of the different laws of two states. Dual allegiance is voluntary, arising when a person simultaneously owes loyalty to two or more states through a positive act, such as naturalization. Republic Act No. 9225 specifically addresses dual allegiance, requiring those who voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship to explicitly renounce it if they seek elective office.
• Binding Effect of Counsel's Mistakes — A client is bound by the conduct, negligence, and mistakes of counsel in handling a case. The exceptions—where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process or results in outright deprivation of property through a technicality—do not apply where counsel actively defended the client and the adverse result stemmed from an untenable legal theory rather than counsel's neglect.
• Sovereignty of the Law Over Popular Vote — The will of the electorate cannot validate the election of a disqualified candidate. Qualification rules on citizenship must be strictly applied, and popularity does not override constitutional and statutory disqualifications.

• "To qualify as a candidate in Philippine elections, Filipinos must only have one citizenship, namely, Philippine citizenship."
• "The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed that the candidate was qualified. The rules on citizenship qualifications of a candidate must be strictly applied. If a person seeks to serve the Republic of the Philippines, he must owe his loyalty to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state."

• Lopez v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 182701 — Followed. Shared the same factual milieu where a naturalized US citizen who reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 was disqualified for failing to renounce foreign citizenship despite garnering the highest votes.
• Mercado v. Manzano, 367 Phil. 132 (1999) — Distinguished. Governed by the Local Government Code rather than Republic Act No. 9225; involved involuntary dual citizenship (jus soli) rather than dual allegiance arising from naturalization.
• Valles v. Commission on Elections, 392 Phil. 327 (2000) — Distinguished. The candidate therein had actually executed a Declaration of Renunciation of Australian citizenship prior to filing her Certificate of Candidacy, and the case involved involuntary dual citizenship.
• De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, 326 Phil. 184 (1996) — Distinguished. Gross negligence of counsel was found because the lawyer's wrongful insistence on filing a demurrer totally deprived the client of the chance to present evidence, unlike here where counsel actively litigated.

• Section 3, Republic Act No. 9225 — Prescribes the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines required for natural-born citizens who lost their Philippine citizenship through naturalization to a foreign country to reacquire or retain their Philippine citizenship. Applied to show that this oath swears allegiance to the Philippines but contains no renunciation of foreign citizenship.
• Section 5(2), Republic Act No. 9225 — Requires those seeking elective public office who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under the Act to make 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. Applied as the controlling provision that petitioner failed to comply with.
• Section 40(d), Local Government Code — Disqualifies those with dual citizenship from running for any elective local position. Discussed to distinguish the ruling in Mercado, which interpreted this provision.
• Article IV, Section 5, 1987 Constitution — Declares that dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. Cited to underline the constitutional policy against dual allegiance.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the special civil action of certiorari, the remedy availed of by petitioner.
• Section 34, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Mandates that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. Applied suppletorily to exclude the affidavit presented for the first time on appeal.

Reynato S. Puno (C.J.), Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Ruben T. Reyes, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion.