Valle v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Cirilo R. Valles filed a petition for disqualification against private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, who was running for governor of Davao Oriental in the May 1998 elections. Lopez was born in Australia in 1934 to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. She came to the Philippines in 1949, married a Filipino citizen in 1952, and has since participated in electoral processes, serving as Provincial Board Member and Governor. Her Filipino citizenship was previously questioned in 1992 (EPC No. 92-54) and 1995 (SPA No. 95-066), with both petitions being dismissed by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Procedural History: The COMELEC's First Division dismissed Valles' petition on July 17, 1998, finding no new evidence to disturb previous rulings. The COMELEC en banc denied Valles' motion for reconsideration on January 15, 1999. The Petition: Valles assailed the COMELEC resolutions, arguing that Lopez is an Australian citizen and had renounced her Filipino citizenship by registering as an alien and obtaining an Australian passport. He contended that even if she had dual citizenship, she was disqualified under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code, and that prior COMELEC rulings on her citizenship were not res judicata.
Issue(s)
Whether private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is a Filipino citizen. Whether private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez renounced her Filipino citizenship. Whether private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is disqualified from running for governor due to dual citizenship. Whether the COMELEC erred in applying the principle of res judicata. Whether private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez needed to undergo repatriation.
Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious. The COMELEC Resolutions dated July 17, 1998, and January 15, 1999, are affirmed. Private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is qualified to run for governor of Davao Oriental.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is a Filipino citizen: The Court affirmed that Lopez is a Filipino citizen by virtue of jus sanguinis. Her father, Telesforo Ybasco, was a Filipino citizen, and under the Philippine Bill of 1902, the Jones Law, and subsequent Constitutions (1935, 1973, and 1987), children born to Filipino fathers are considered Filipino citizens. The fact that she was born in Australia does not divest her of her Filipino citizenship; at most, it could result in dual citizenship if Australia follows jus soli. On whether private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez renounced her Filipino citizenship: The Court held that Lopez did not renounce her Filipino citizenship. While she registered as an alien and held an Australian passport, these acts, as established in Aznar vs. COMELEC and Mercado vs. Manzano, do not constitute an express renunciation of citizenship. Renunciation must be express and deliberate. Her subsequent renunciation of Australian citizenship on January 15, 1992, and the cancellation of her Australian passport, further support her claim to Filipino citizenship, not its loss. On whether private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is disqualified from running for governor due to dual citizenship: The Court clarified that Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code, which disqualifies those with "dual citizenship," refers to "dual allegiance." Citing Mercado vs. Manzano, the Court held that mere dual citizenship does not disqualify a candidate. It is dual allegiance that is inimical to national interest. For candidates with dual citizenship, filing a certificate of candidacy, which includes an oath of allegiance to the Philippines, is sufficient to renounce foreign citizenship and terminate dual allegiance. On whether the COMELEC erred in applying the principle of res judicata: While generally res judicata does not apply to citizenship cases, the Court noted an exception established in Burca vs. Republic, requiring the Solicitor General's active participation and affirmation by the Supreme Court. However, even without strict res judicata, the Court found sufficient basis to rely on prior COMELEC rulings in EPC No. 92-54 and SPA No. 95-066, as the petitioner presented substantially the same evidence. The Court also considered the merits of the case, finding Lopez to be a qualified Filipino citizen. On the repatriation issue: The petitioner's argument that Lopez needed to undergo repatriation was dismissed because she did not lose her Filipino citizenship in the first place. Her birth in Australia and her temporary assertion of Australian citizenship did not constitute loss of Philippine citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63. Therefore, no repatriation was necessary.
Main Doctrine
A person with dual citizenship is not automatically disqualified from running for public office under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991, as the disqualification pertains to dual allegiance. Filing a certificate of candidacy, which includes an oath to support the Philippine Constitution and maintain true faith and allegiance, effectively renounces foreign citizenship.