Lopez v. Commission on Elections
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Eusebio Eugenio K. Lopez was a candidate for Barangay Chairman in the October 29, 2007 synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. Respondent Tessie P. Villanueva filed a petition to disqualify Lopez, alleging he was an American citizen and thus ineligible to run for public office. Lopez contended he was a dual citizen, both Filipino and American, by virtue of Republic Act No. 9225, also known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, and had returned to reside in the Philippines. 2. Procedural History: The petition for disqualification was filed with the Provincial Election Supervisor of Iloilo. Following the election, Lopez was declared the winner. However, on February 6, 2008, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Second Division, issued a Resolution granting the petition and disqualifying Lopez from running as Barangay Chairman. The COMELEC found that Lopez had not regained his Filipino citizenship in the manner required by law, specifically by failing to personally and sworn renounce his foreign citizenship at the time of filing his certificate of candidacy. After his motion for reconsideration was denied, Lopez filed the present petition. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, in relation to Rule 64 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Resolution and Omnibus Order of the COMELEC, Second Division. Petitioner Lopez argues that his filing of a certificate of candidacy operated as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship, citing the case of Valles v. Commission on Elections. He imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC for disqualifying him. The petition seeks to overturn the COMELEC's decision, which held that Lopez failed to comply with Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225, requiring a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a certificate of candidacy by a dual citizen operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner from running as Barangay Chairman.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The COMELEC committed no grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner as candidate for Chairman in the Barangay elections of 2007.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the filing of a certificate of candidacy operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship: The Court distinguished the present case from Valles v. Commission on Elections. In Valles, the dual citizenship was acquired by accident of birth, and the candidate did not perform any act to swear allegiance to a foreign country. In contrast, petitioner deliberately sought American citizenship and renounced his Filipino citizenship before re-acquiring it. More importantly, the Court's ruling in Valles has been superseded by R.A. No. 9225, which explicitly provides the conditions for dual citizens seeking elective office. The law requires a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. Petitioner's argument that filing the certificate of candidacy itself constitutes renunciation is not supported by the explicit mandate of R.A. No. 9225. On the issue of whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner: The Court found that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC correctly observed that while petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, he failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of making a personal and sworn renunciation of his American citizenship before an authorized public officer. There was no evidence presented to show compliance with this provision. The absence of proof of renunciation led the COMELEC to conclude that petitioner failed to comply with the law's positive mandate. The Court affirmed that winning the election, taking an oath, and discharging the functions of office cannot cure the defect of a disqualified candidacy, as the application of disqualification provisions is not a matter of popularity.
Main Doctrine
A dual citizen seeking an elective public office in the Philippines must, at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy, personally and in writing renounce all foreign citizenship before a public officer authorized to administer oaths, as mandated by Republic Act No. 9225.