Valles vs. COMELEC

The Court held that a person born to a Filipino parent is a natural-born Filipino citizen under the principle of jus sanguinis, and the possession of a foreign passport or an Alien Certificate of Registration does not constitute express renunciation of Philippine citizenship; furthermore, the filing of a certificate of candidacy constitutes an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship, thereby removing the disqualification for persons with dual citizenship under the Local Government Code.

Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born in Australia in 1934 to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. She relocated to the Philippines in 1949, married a Filipino citizen in 1952, and continuously participated in the electoral process as a voter and candidate. She was elected governor of Davao Oriental in 1992 and 1995, with her citizenship challenged and upheld by the COMELEC in both instances.

• Birth and Lineage: Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934, in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western Australia, to Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen born in Daet, Camarines Norte in 1879, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian.
• Residence and Marriage: Lopez left Australia in 1949 and settled in the Philippines. On June 27, 1952, she married Leopoldo Lopez, a Filipino citizen, in Manila.
• Electoral Participation and Prior Challenges: Lopez served as Provincial Board Member of Davao Oriental and was elected governor in 1992. Her citizenship was challenged in 1992 (EPC No. 92-54) and 1995 (SPA No. 95-066); the COMELEC ruled in her favor both times, finding no express renunciation of Philippine citizenship.
• The 1998 Challenge: In the May 1998 elections, Lopez ran for re-election as governor. Petitioner Cirilo Valles filed SPA No. 98-336 seeking her disqualification, citing her Australian passport (issued March 3, 1988) and Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR No. 404695, issued September 19, 1988) as proof of renunciation of Philippine citizenship.
• Renunciation of Australian Citizenship: On January 15, 1992, Lopez executed a Declaration of Renunciation of Australian Citizenship, registered in Australia on May 12, 1992. Her Australian passport was cancelled on February 11, 1992, as certified by the Australian Embassy in Manila.

• Petitioner maintained that Lopez was an Australian citizen because she registered as an Australian national with the Bureau of Immigration, applied for an Immigrant Certificate of Residence, and was issued an Australian passport.
• Petitioner argued that Lopez's declaration under oath in her ACR application that she was an Australian citizen constituted an express renunciation of her Philippine citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63.
• Petitioner contended that Lopez's subsequent renunciation of Australian citizenship did not automatically restore her Philippine citizenship; she must comply with the mandatory requirements for repatriation under Republic Act 8171. Consequently, she became a stateless person disqualified from running for public office.
• Petitioner asserted that even assuming Lopez had dual citizenship, she is disqualified from running for governor under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), which disqualifies persons with dual citizenship.
• Petitioner insisted that the principle of res judicata does not apply to citizenship cases, citing Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration, allowing the issue to be relitigated.

• Respondent COMELEC ruled that Lopez is a Filipino citizen by virtue of the principle of jus sanguinis, her father being a Filipino citizen.
• Respondent COMELEC found that Lopez became a Filipino citizen ipso jure under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 473 upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen.
• Respondent COMELEC held that Lopez effectively renounced her Australian citizenship on January 15, 1992, resulting in the cancellation of her Australian passport.
• Respondent COMELEC invoked its prior rulings in EPC No. 92-54 and SPA No. 95-066, which declared Lopez a Filipino citizen qualified to run for office.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the principle of res judicata applies to prior COMELEC rulings on a candidate's citizenship.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether private respondent, born in Australia to a Filipino father, is a Philippine citizen.
  • Whether applying for an Alien Certificate of Registration and possessing a foreign passport constitute express renunciation of Philippine citizenship.
  • Whether a person with dual citizenship is disqualified from running for local elective office under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code.

• Procedural: The Court acknowledged the general rule that res judicata does not apply to citizenship cases, citing Moy Ya Lim Yao. However, the Court recognized the exception established in Burca vs. Republic, where res judicata may apply if the Solicitor General participated and the finding on citizenship was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Although the Court found sufficient basis to rely on prior COMELEC rulings due to the absence of new evidence, it opted to resolve the substantive issues on the merits.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that Lopez is a Filipino citizen. Under the principle of jus sanguinis, which prevailed under the Philippine Bill of 1902, the Jones Law, and the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions, a child follows the nationality of the parents regardless of place of birth. Because Lopez's father was a Filipino citizen, she is a Filipino citizen from birth. Her birth in Australia merely resulted in dual citizenship if Australia followed the principle of jus soli.
  • The Court held that applying for an ACR and holding an Australian passport do not constitute express renunciation of Philippine citizenship. Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, renunciation must be express. Citing Aznar and Mercado, the Court ruled that these acts are mere assertions of foreign nationality before its effective renunciation, not a repudiation of Philippine citizenship.
  • The Court ruled that persons with mere dual citizenship are not disqualified from running for local elective office. The phrase "dual citizenship" in Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code must be understood as referring to "dual allegiance," which is inimical to the national interest. Because dual citizenship can arise involuntarily from conflicting laws, it does not fall under the disqualification. Furthermore, the filing of a certificate of candidacy, which includes an oath to support and defend the Philippine Constitution, operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship, thereby removing the disqualification.

• Jus Sanguinis — Citizenship is acquired by blood relationship to a citizen parent, regardless of the place of birth. The Court applied this principle to establish that Lopez was a Filipino citizen from birth because her father was a Filipino citizen under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law.
• Express Renunciation of Citizenship — Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, renunciation of Philippine citizenship must be express, equivocal, and deliberate. The Court held that applying for an ACR and holding a foreign passport are not tantamount to express renunciation; they are merely assertions of foreign nationality.
• Dual Citizenship vs. Dual Allegiance — Dual citizenship is the involuntary result of the conflicting laws of different countries, whereas dual allegiance refers to the voluntary retention of foreign allegiance. The disqualification under the Local Government Code refers to dual allegiance. The Court applied this doctrine to rule that Lopez's involuntary dual citizenship did not disqualify her, especially since her filing of a certificate of candidacy constituted an effective renunciation of her foreign citizenship.

• "In order that citizenship may be lost by renunciation, such renunciation must be express."
• "xxx the phrase ‘dual citizenship’ in R.A. No. 7160, xxx 40 (d) and in R.A. No. 7854, xxx 20 must be understood as referring to ‘dual allegiance’. Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification."
• "The filing of a certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification as a dual citizen."

• Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 141 SCRA 292 — Cited by petitioner for the rule that res judicata generally does not apply to citizenship cases. The Court acknowledged this general rule but noted it did not foreclose reliance on prior official findings.
• Burca vs. Republic, 51 SCRA 248 — Established the exception to the general rule that res judicata does not apply to citizenship cases, requiring that the Solicitor General participated and the Supreme Court affirmed the finding on citizenship. The Court applied this to note that reliance on prior COMELEC rulings was permissible.
• Aznar vs. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703 — Held that holding an alien certificate and applying for an ACR do not constitute renunciation of Philippine citizenship. The Court followed this precedent to rule that Lopez's ACR and Australian passport did not amount to express renunciation.
• Mercado vs. Manzano and COMELEC, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999 — Held that possessing a foreign passport and ACR are mere assertions of foreign nationality; clarified that "dual citizenship" in the Local Government Code means "dual allegiance"; and held that filing a certificate of candidacy effectively renounces foreign citizenship. The Court followed this controlling precedent.

• Philippine Bill of 1902, Sec. 4 — Defined Philippine citizens as inhabitants who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, and their children. Applied to establish the Filipino citizenship of Lopez's father.
• Jones Law (Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916), Sec. 2 — Similarly defined Philippine citizens. Applied to establish the Filipino citizenship of Lopez's father.
• 1935 Constitution, Article IV — Established jus sanguinis as the basis for Philippine citizenship. Applied to confirm Lopez's citizenship by blood relationship.
• 1973 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 1 — Retained the principle of jus sanguinis.
• 1987 Constitution, Article IV, Sec. 1 — Retained the principle of jus sanguinis.
• Commonwealth Act No. 63, Sec. 1 — Enumerates the modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Applied to determine that Lopez's acts did not constitute express renunciation.
• Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), Sec. 40(d) — Disqualifies persons with dual citizenship from running for elective local positions. Interpreted by the Court to refer to dual allegiance rather than mere dual citizenship.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr.