Mercado vs. Manzano

Dual citizenship is not synonymous with dual allegiance; mere dual citizenship does not disqualify a candidate from running for elective local office under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. A candidate with dual citizenship may validly run for office by electing Philippine citizenship upon filing his certificate of candidacy, which effectively renounces his foreign citizenship and terminates his dual citizenship status.

The dispute arose from the May 11, 1998 local elections for the position of Vice Mayor of Makati City, where the citizenship status of the leading candidate, Eduardo Manzano, was challenged. Manzano was born in the United States to Filipino parents, raising questions regarding his eligibility under the dual citizenship disqualification provision of the Local Government Code and the constitutional provision on dual allegiance.

• Eduardo Barrios Manzano was born on September 14, 1955, in San Francisco, California, USA, to parents who were both citizens of the Philippines.
• By operation of United States law (jus soli), he acquired American citizenship at birth.
• By operation of the 1935 Philippine Constitution (jus sanguinis), he acquired Philippine citizenship at birth by virtue of his Filipino parents.
• At the age of six, he was brought to the Philippines using an American passport and was registered as an alien with the Philippine Bureau of Immigration, where he was issued Alien Certificate of Registration No. B-31632.
• Upon reaching the age of majority, he registered as a voter in the Philippines and voted in the elections of 1992, 1995, and 1998.
• On March 27, 1998, he filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of Vice Mayor of Makati City, stating under oath that he was a natural-born Filipino citizen, that he was not a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country, and that he would support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines.
• In the May 11, 1998 elections, Manzano received 103,853 votes, petitioner Mercado received 100,894 votes, and Gabriel V. Daza III received 54,275 votes.
• The proclamation of the winner was suspended pending the resolution of the disqualification case filed by Mamaril.

• The COMELEC en banc erred in holding that Manzano was no longer a US citizen when he merely registered as a voter and voted in the 1992, 1995, and 1998 elections, arguing that these acts are insufficient to constitute effective renunciation of American citizenship.
• Renunciation of US citizenship, if any, was made when Manzano was already 37 years old and therefore ineffective, as it should have been made upon reaching the age of majority.
• Manzano is disqualified from running for and holding the office of Vice Mayor under §40(d) of the Local Government Code because he possesses dual citizenship.
• Even assuming Manzano is disqualified, Mercado cannot be declared the winner because at the time of the May 11, 1998 elections, the resolution of the Second Division disqualifying Manzano was not yet final and executory.

• Mercado has no legal personality to bring the suit because he was not an original party in the disqualification case filed by Mamaril, and his motion for leave to intervene was not granted by the COMELEC.
• Manzano is a natural-born Filipino citizen by virtue of his Filipino parents under the principle of jus sanguinis, and his registration as an alien did not result in the loss of his Philippine citizenship because he did not renounce it nor take an oath of allegiance to the United States.
• He effectively renounced his US citizenship under American law by registering as a voter and voting in Philippine elections in 1992, 1995, and 1998.
• By filing his certificate of candidacy with an oath of allegiance to the Philippines, he elected Philippine citizenship and effectively renounced his American citizenship, thereby terminating his dual citizenship status.

• Procedural:
  • Whether petitioner Mercado has legal standing to file the petition for certiorari despite not being granted formal leave to intervene in the COMELEC proceedings.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the possession of dual citizenship disqualifies a candidate from running for elective local office under §40(d) of the Local Government Code.
  • Whether dual citizenship is synonymous with dual allegiance under Article IV, §5 of the 1987 Constitution.
  • Whether Manzano effectively renounced his US citizenship by voting in Philippine elections and/or by filing his certificate of candidacy.

• Procedural:
  • The Court held that Mercado has legal standing to file the petition. At the time he sought to intervene, no proclamation of the winner had yet been made, and he had a substantial legal interest in the outcome as a rival candidate for the same position. The failure of the COMELEC en banc to resolve his motion for intervention was tantamount to a denial, justifying the filing of the certiorari petition under §6 of R.A. No. 6646.
• Substantive:
  • The Court distinguished between dual citizenship and dual allegiance. Dual citizenship arises involuntarily from the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states (e.g., jus soli and jus sanguinis), while dual allegiance results from voluntary acts and is inimical to national interest under Article IV, §5 of the Constitution.
  • §40(d) of the Local Government Code must be understood as referring to dual allegiance, not mere dual citizenship.
  • Persons with mere dual citizenship are not disqualified; they may elect Philippine citizenship upon filing their certificate of candidacy, which effectively terminates their status as dual citizens and forswears allegiance to the other country.
  • By filing his certificate of candidacy containing an oath of allegiance to the Philippines and a declaration that he is not a permanent resident of a foreign country, Manzano effectively renounced his American citizenship and elected Philippine citizenship.
  • There is no legal requirement that the election of citizenship must be made upon reaching the age of majority; it may be done at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy.
  • The use of an American passport and prior registration as an alien are acts before the renunciation and do not negate the effect of his subsequent election of Philippine citizenship.

• Dual Citizenship vs. Dual Allegiance — Dual citizenship is the result of the concurrent application of different laws of two or more states, making a person a national of said states simultaneously without any voluntary act, while dual allegiance refers to the situation where a person simultaneously owes loyalty to two or more states by some positive act. The Constitution and the Local Government Code prohibit dual allegiance, not dual citizenship.
• Election of Citizenship by Filing Certificate of Candidacy — A person with dual citizenship may elect Philippine citizenship by filing a certificate of candidacy containing an oath of allegiance to the Philippines, which effectively renounces foreign citizenship and terminates dual citizenship status.
• Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli — The Philippines adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood), while other states like the United States follow jus soli (citizenship by birth on soil), which can result in dual citizenship for persons born abroad to Filipino parents.
• Standing of Rival Candidates — A rival candidate has legal interest to intervene in disqualification proceedings before the proclamation of the winner, and the failure of the electoral tribunal to resolve a motion for intervention is tantamount to denial, giving rise to a cause of action for certiorari.

• "Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states."
• "While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual's volition."
• "Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification."
• "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."
• "The filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen."

• Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections — Cited for the principle that filing a certificate of candidacy with an oath of allegiance constitutes renunciation of foreign citizenship, and that a candidate may be stateless in the interim between renunciation of foreign citizenship and repatriation.
• Labo v. Commission on Elections — Cited by respondent but distinguished by the Court; the rule that a second-placer cannot be proclaimed applies only when there has been a proclamation, which was absent here when petitioner sought to intervene.
• Aznar v. Commission on Elections — Applied to hold that possession of a foreign certificate or passport does not mean loss of Philippine citizenship when there is no express or implied renunciation.
• Afroyim v. Rusk — Referenced regarding the US Supreme Court ruling that §349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (providing for loss of nationality by voting in foreign elections) is unconstitutional.
• Parado v. Republic — Cited for the principle that renunciation of foreign allegiance is determined by Philippine courts according to Philippine law, not foreign law.
• Yu v. Defensor-Santiago — Cited for the sanction of denaturalization for those who betray their oath of allegiance after naturalization.

• Section 40(d) of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) — Provides that persons with dual citizenship are disqualified from running for elective local positions, interpreted by the Court as referring to dual allegiance.
• Article IV, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution — States that dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
• Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1987) — Allows intervention in disqualification proceedings even after election if no final judgment has been rendered.
• Section 349 of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act — Cited regarding loss of nationality by voting in foreign elections, though noted as declared unconstitutional in Afroyim v. Rusk.
• Rule 8 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Cited regarding the requirements for intervention.