Lopez vs. COMELEC

A dual citizen who re-acquired Filipino citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 cannot run for any elective public position in the Philippines unless he or she personally executes a sworn renunciation of all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. The filing of a certificate of candidacy alone does not constitute an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship for those who re-acquired Filipino citizenship under the statute.

Petitioner Eusebio Eugenio K. Lopez was a natural-born Filipino who had deliberately sought and acquired American citizenship, thereby renouncing his Philippine citizenship. He subsequently re-acquired Filipino citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, by taking an oath of allegiance before the Vice Consul of the Philippine Consulate General's Office in Los Angeles, California. He then returned to the Philippines and resided in Barangay Bagacay, San Dionisio, Iloilo City. Respondent Tessie P. Villanueva was a voter or resident of the same barangay who sought petitioner's disqualification. The dispute arose in the context of the synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections held on October 29, 2007, and turned on the interaction between R.A. No. 9225 and the constitutional and statutory qualifications for elective local office.

Petitioner Eusebio Eugenio K. Lopez was a natural-born Filipino citizen who, at some point, deliberately sought and acquired American citizenship, thereby renouncing his Philippine citizenship. He later re-acquired Filipino citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 by taking an oath of allegiance before the Vice Consul of the Philippine Consulate General's Office in Los Angeles, California. After re-acquiring his Filipino citizenship, he returned to the Philippines and took up residence in Barangay Bagacay, San Dionisio, Iloilo City.

On October 29, 2007, the synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections were held, and petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Chairman of Barangay Bagacay. He did not, however, execute any separate affidavit or sworn statement renouncing his American citizenship. Four days before the elections, on October 25, 2007, respondent Tessie P. Villanueva filed a petition before the Provincial Election Supervisor of Iloilo, praying for petitioner's disqualification on the ground that he remained an American citizen and was therefore ineligible to run for public office. In his Answer, petitioner argued that he was a dual citizen—Filipino and American—by virtue of R.A. No. 9225, and that having returned to the Philippines and resided in Barangay Bagacay, he possessed all the qualifications to run for Barangay Chairman.

After the votes were canvassed, petitioner emerged as the winner. On February 6, 2008, the COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution granting the petition for disqualification, finding that petitioner had not made a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship as required by Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225. The COMELEC observed that while petitioner had regained Filipino citizenship by taking his oath of allegiance before the Vice Consul, that act alone was insufficient to qualify him to run for public office; the law mandated a separate personal and sworn renunciation of all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to file the present petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC.

• Renunciation by Filing of COC: Petitioner argued, relying on Valles vs. Commission on Elections, that his filing of a certificate of candidacy operated as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship, thus qualifying him to run for elective office.
• Dual Citizenship Status: Petitioner maintained that he is a dual citizen—Filipino and American—by virtue of R.A. No. 9225, and that having returned to the Philippines and resided in Barangay Bagacay, he possessed all the qualifications to run for Barangay Chairman.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner imputed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC for disqualifying him from running and assuming the office of Barangay Chairman.

• Renunciation Requirement: Whether the filing of a certificate of candidacy alone constitutes an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship for a dual citizen who re-acquired Filipino citizenship under R.A. No. 9225.
• Applicability of Valles: Whether the ruling in Valles vs. Commission on Elections applies to a candidate who was born Filipino, naturalized as an American, and later re-acquired Filipino citizenship under R.A. No. 9225.
• Effect of Electoral Victory: Whether winning the election cures the defect of a disqualified candidate's candidacy.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner.

• Renunciation Requirement: No. R.A. No. 9225, Section 5(2) expressly requires a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy; the mere filing of a COC does not satisfy this requirement.
• Applicability of Valles: No. Valles involved a dual citizen by birth on foreign soil (jus soli), not one who deliberately naturalized abroad and later re-acquired Filipino citizenship; moreover, the 2000 ruling in Valles has been superseded by the enactment of R.A. No. 9225 in 2003.
• Effect of Electoral Victory: No. Garnering the most number of votes does not validate the election of a disqualified candidate, because the application of constitutional and statutory provisions on disqualification is not a matter of popularity.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The COMELEC committed no grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner, having correctly applied the positive mandate of Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225.

• Renunciation Requirement: Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 explicitly provides that those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall, 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. Petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under this law, yet failed to produce any affidavit or sworn statement renouncing his American citizenship. The COMELEC observed that while petitioner took an oath of allegiance before the Vice Consul to regain Filipino citizenship, that act alone did not constitute the separate and specific renunciation of foreign citizenship required by the statute. For the renunciation to be valid, it must be contained in an affidavit duly executed before an officer of law authorized to administer an oath, with the affiant stating in clear and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship. Absent such proof, petitioner could not be allowed to run for Barangay Chairman.

• Applicability of Valles: The operative facts in Valles were substantially different. In Valles, the candidate Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was a dual citizen by accident of birth on foreign soil—born of Filipino parents in Australia, a jus soli country—and thus acquired Australian citizenship by operation of Australian law while being considered a Filipino citizen under Philippine law. She did not perform any act to swear allegiance to a country other than the Philippines. In contrast, petitioner was born a Filipino but deliberately sought American citizenship and renounced his Filipino citizenship, later becoming a dual citizen only by re-acquiring Filipino citizenship under R.A. No. 9225. More importantly, the Court's 2000 ruling in Valles has been superseded by the enactment of R.A. No. 9225 in 2003, which expressly provides the conditions before those who re-acquired Filipino citizenship may run for public office.

• Effect of Electoral Victory: While petitioner won the elections, took his oath, and began discharging the functions of Barangay Chairman, his victory could not cure the defect of his candidacy. Citing Reyes vs. Commission on Elections, the Court reaffirmed that garnering the most number of votes does not validate the election of a disqualified candidate, because the application of constitutional and statutory provisions on disqualification is not a matter of popularity.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The COMELEC correctly applied the positive mandate of Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225. Petitioner's failure to prove that he had abandoned his allegiance to the United States, through the execution of a sworn renunciation affidavit, rendered him disqualified from running for an elective position in the Philippines. The COMELEC's findings and disposition were in accordance with law, and no grave abuse of discretion was shown.

• Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship Under R.A. No. 9225 — A dual citizen who re-acquired Filipino citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 must, 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 renunciation must be contained in an affidavit duly executed before an officer of law, with the affiant stating in clear and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship. The mere filing of a certificate of candidacy does not constitute such renunciation. The oath of allegiance taken to re-acquire Filipino citizenship is likewise insufficient; a separate and specific renunciation of foreign citizenship is required.

• Distinction Between Dual Citizens by Birth and by Re-acquisition — A dual citizen by accident of birth on foreign soil (jus soli), who did not perform any act to swear allegiance to another country, stands on a different footing from a natural-born Filipino who deliberately naturalized abroad and later re-acquired Filipino citizenship under R.A. No. 9225. The former may rely on the filing of a COC as renunciation (per Valles), but the latter must comply with the express statutory requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation.

• Votes Do Not Cure Disqualification — Garnering the most number of votes does not validate the election of a disqualified candidate, as the application of constitutional and statutory provisions on disqualification is not a matter of popularity.

• "A Filipino-American or any dual citizen cannot run for any elective public position in the Philippines unless he or she personally swears to a renunciation of all foreign citizenship at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy." — This is the opening statement of the resolution, articulating the core legal rule that governs the case.

• "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." — This is the verbatim text of Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 as quoted by the Court, constituting the controlling statutory provision on which the disqualification was based.

• "Garnering the most number of votes does not validate the election of a disqualified candidate because the application of the constitutional and statutory provisions on disqualification is not a matter of popularity." — This passage states the doctrine that electoral victory cannot cure a candidacy's statutory defect, frequently cited in subsequent election disqualification cases.

• Valles vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000, 337 SCRA 543 — Distinguished and effectively superseded. In Valles, the candidate was a dual citizen by birth on foreign soil (Australia, jus soli) and had not sworn allegiance to another country. The Court held that the 2000 ruling has been superseded by the enactment of R.A. No. 9225 in 2003, which now expressly requires a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship for those seeking elective office.

• Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999, 307 SCRA 630 — Cited as supporting reference for the Valles ruling regarding dual citizenship by birth.

• Reyes vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 52699, May 15, 1980, 97 SCRA 500 — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that garnering the most number of votes does not validate the election of a disqualified candidate.

• Section 5(2), Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) — Requires those seeking elective public office in the Philippines to meet the qualifications under the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy, to 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: petitioner's failure to execute the required sworn renunciation of his American citizenship rendered him disqualified from running for Barangay Chairman.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, and Associate Justices 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, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Arturo D. Brion. No separate concurring opinions were noted.