Jacot v. Dal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nestor A. Jacot, a natural-born Filipino citizen who became a naturalized US citizen in 1989, reacquired his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 by taking an Oath of Allegiance before the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles, California, on June 19, 2006. Subsequently, on March 26, 2007, he filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin. Respondent Rogen T. Dal filed a petition to disqualify Jacot for failing to renounce his US citizenship as required by Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225. Procedural History: The COMELEC Second Division disqualified Jacot, holding that the Oath of Allegiance and the Certificate of Candidacy did not constitute the required renunciation of foreign citizenship. The COMELEC en banc affirmed this ruling. Before the Supreme Court, Jacot presented for the first time an "Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States and Any and All Foreign Citizenship" dated February 7, 2007. The Petition: Petitioner assails the COMELEC resolutions, arguing that his Oath of Allegiance and the oath in his Certificate of Candidacy were sufficient renunciation, and that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion. He also presented an earlier affidavit of renunciation dated February 7, 2007, for the first time on appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the public respondent exercised grave abuse of discretion in holding that the petitioner failed to comply with Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225. Whether the public respondent exercised grave abuse of discretion in holding that the petitioner failed to comply with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure regarding motion fees. Whether upholding the COMELEC's decision would result in the frustration of the will of the people of Catarman, Camiguin.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the COMELEC en banc, dismissing the petition. Petitioner Nestor A. Jacot is disqualified from running for the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin in the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections, and if proclaimed, cannot assume the office.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to comply with R.A. 9225: The Court held that petitioner Jacot was indeed disqualified for failing to make a personal and sworn renunciation of his US citizenship as required by Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225. The Court clarified that the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, taken under Section 3 of R.A. 9225, and the oath contained in the Certificate of Candidacy are distinct requirements from the personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship mandated for those seeking elective public office. The Oath of Allegiance under Section 3 is for reacquiring or retaining Philippine citizenship, while the oath in the Certificate of Candidacy is a general requirement for all candidates. Section 5(2) specifically requires an additional, explicit renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship for dual citizens seeking elective posts. The Court distinguished the present case from Valles v. COMELEC and Mercado v. Manzano. It explained that those cases were decided before the enactment of R.A. 9225 and dealt with disqualification under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code (dual citizenship). The present case is governed by the more explicit provisions of R.A. 9225, which specifically requires a sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship for those reacquiring or retaining Philippine citizenship and seeking elective office. The Court found Lopez v. Commission on Elections to be a more fitting precedent, which similarly disqualified a candidate under R.A. 9225 for failing to renounce foreign citizenship. The Court ruled that the "Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States and Any and All Foreign Citizenship" dated February 7, 2007, could not be considered. It was presented for the first time on appeal, constituting a change in theory and a late submission of evidence, which is generally not allowed. The Court emphasized that evidence must be formally offered before the COMELEC to afford the opposing party an opportunity to controvert it. The Court also found the petitioner's excuse for the late presentation, attributing it to his former counsel's advice, to be lame and unconvincing, and reiterated that a client is generally bound by the conduct and mistakes of his counsel. On the procedural issue of motion fees: The Court did not explicitly rule on the motion fees issue in the provided text, but its affirmation of the COMELEC's disqualification implies that any procedural defects, if present, did not warrant a reversal of the main ruling. On the will of the people: The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner's garnering the highest number of votes should override the disqualification. It stated that the will of the people cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, and that election requirements, especially those concerning citizenship, must be strictly applied. Serving the Republic requires undivided loyalty, and the application of disqualification rules is not a matter of popularity.
Main Doctrine
Filipino citizens who reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and seek elective public office must personally and summarily renounce any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer, in addition to taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. The oath of allegiance required for reacquiring/retaining citizenship and the oath in the Certificate of Candidacy do not substitute for this explicit renunciation.