MERCADO VS. MANZANO [307 SCRA 630; G.R. NO.

135083; 26 MAY 1999]

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic
Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
Facts: Petitioner
Ernesto
Mercado
and
Private
respondent Eduardo Manzano are candidates for the
position of Vice-Mayor of Makati City in the May, 1998
elections. Private respondent was the winner of the
said election but the proclamation was suspended due
to the petition of Ernesto Mamaril regarding the
citizenship of private respondent. Mamaril alleged that
the private respondent is not a citizen of the
Philippines but of the United States. COMELEC granted
the petition and disqualified the private respondent for
being a dual citizen, pursuant to the Local Government
code that provides that persons who possess dual
citizenship are disqualified from running any public
position. Private respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration which remained pending until after
election. Petitioner sought to intervene in the case for
disqualification. COMELEC reversed the decision and
declared private respondent qualified to run for the
position. Pursuant to the ruling of the COMELEC, the
board of canvassers proclaimed private respondent as
vice mayor. This petition sought the reversal of the
resolution of the COMELEC and to declare the private
respondent disqualified to hold the office of the vice
mayor
of
Makati.

Issue: Whether or Not private

qualified to
hold office
as

respondent is
Vice-Mayor.

Held: 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. For instance, such a
situation may arise when a person whose parents are
citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus
sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine
of jus soli. Private respondent is considered as a dual
citizen because he is born of Filipino parents but was
born in San Francisco, USA. Such a person, ipso facto
and without any voluntary act on his part, is
concurrently considered a citizen of both states.
Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our
Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of
citizens of the Philippines to posses dual citizenship:
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in
foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli;
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers
and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers country
such children are citizens of that country; (3) Those
who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country
the former are considered citizens, unless by their act
or omission they are deemed to have renounced

Philippine citizenship. Dual allegiance, on the other

hand, refers to the situation in which a person
simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to
two or more states. While dual citizenship is
involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an
individuals
volition.
By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his
present post, private respondent elected Philippine
citizenship and in effect renounced his American
citizenship. The filing of such certificate of candidacy
sufficed
to
renounce
his American
citizenship,
effectively removing any disqualification he might have
as
a
dual
citizen.
By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a
Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or
immigrant of another country; that he will defend and
support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear
true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so
without mental reservation, private respondent has, as
far as the laws of this country are concerned,
effectively repudiated his American citizenshipand
anything which he may have said before as a dual
citizen. On the other hand, private respondents oath
of allegiance to the Philippine, when considered with
the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood,
received his education, practiced his profession as an
artist, and taken part in past elections in this country,
leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship.

G.R. NO. 180048 JUNE 19, 2009

DE GUZMAN VS COMELEC
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari with prayer for
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order
assails the June 15, 2007 Resolution of the First
Division of COMELEC, disqualifying ROSELLER DE
GUZMAN from running as vice-mayor in the May 14,
2007 elections.
Petitioner was a naturalized American. However, on
January 25, 2006, he applied for dual citizenship under
RA 9225. Upon approval of his application, he took his
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on
September 6, 2006. Having reacquired Philippine
citizenship, he is entitled to exercise full civil and
political rights. As such, qualified to run as vice-mayor
of Guimba, Nueva Ecija.
ISSUE: Whether or not 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 RA 9225.
HELD: We find that petitioner is disqualified from
running for public office in view of his failure to

renounce his American citizenship. RA 9225 was

enacted to allow reacquisition and retention of
Philippine citizenship for:
1. Natural born citizens who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country;
2. Natural born citizens of the Philippines who
after the effectivity of the law, becomes citizens
of a foreign country.
The law provides that they are not deemed to
have reacquired or retained their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance.
Petitioners oath of allegiance and certificate of
candidacy did not comply with section(5)2 of RA 9225
which further requires those seeking elective public
office in the Philippines to make a personal and sworn
renunciation of foreign citizenship. Petitioner failed to
renounce his American citizenship; as such, he is
disqualified from running for vice mayor.

BENGZON VS. HRET [357 SCRA 545; G. R. No.

142840; 7 May 2001]
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic
Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
Facts: Respondent Teodoro Cruz was a natural-born

citizen of the Philippines. He was born in San

Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27, 1960, of Filipino
parents. The fundamental law then applicable was the
1935 Constitution. On November 5, 1985, however,
respondent
Cruz
enlisted
in
the
United
States Marine Corps and without the consent of the
Republic of the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance
to the United States. As a Consequence, he lost his
Filipino citizenship for under Commonwealth Act No.
63, section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his
citizenship by, among other, "rendering service to or
accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign
country. He was naturalized in US in 1990. On March
17, 1994, respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine
citizenship through repatriation under Republic Act No.
2630. He ran for and was elected as the
Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in
the May 11, 1998 elections. He won over petitioner
Antonio Bengson III, who was then running for
reelection.
Issue: Whether
or
Not
respondent
Cruz
is
a natural born citizen of the Philippines in view of the
constitutional requirement that "no person shall be a
Member of the House of Representative unless he is
a natural-born
citizen.
Held: Respondent is a natural born citizen of the

Philippines.
As
distinguished
from
the
lengthy process of
naturalization, repatriationsimply
consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippine and registering said oath in
the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person
concerned resides or last resided. This means that a
naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be
restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino
citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally
a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine
citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as
anatural-born Filipino.