De Guzman v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Roseller De Guzman and private respondent Angelina Dela Cruz were candidates for vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections. Private respondent filed a petition to disqualify petitioner, alleging he was not a Philippine citizen but a US immigrant. Petitioner admitted being a naturalized American but argued he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (R.A. No. 9225) by taking an oath of allegiance on September 6, 2006. Procedural History: The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division disqualified petitioner on June 15, 2007, finding that while he re-acquired Philippine citizenship, he failed to comply with Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225, which requires a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship for those seeking elective office. The COMELEC En Banc dismissed petitioner's motion for reconsideration on October 9, 2007, deeming it moot due to private respondent's victory. Subsequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared petitioner the winner in an election protest filed by him. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the COMELEC's disqualification and dismissal of his motion for reconsideration, alleging grave abuse of discretion. He argued that his certificate of candidacy, containing an oath of allegiance, constituted renunciation, citing Frivaldo and Mercado. He also contended that the motion for reconsideration was prematurely dismissed as moot.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for being moot; and whether an issue of disqualification based on citizenship remains relevant even if the candidate lost the election. Whether petitioner is disqualified from running for vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija for failure to renounce his American citizenship in accordance with R.A. No. 9225; and whether the oath of allegiance and the oath in the certificate of candidacy substantially comply with the renunciation requirement under Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. Petitioner is declared DISQUALIFIED from running for Vice-Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections because of his failure to renounce his foreign citizenship pursuant to Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness and relevance of citizenship: The Court found that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for being moot. An issue of disqualification based on citizenship remains relevant even if the candidate lost the election, as it could affect the outcome of an election protest. Philippine citizenship is a fundamental requirement for holding elective office, and a definitive ruling was necessary to determine the validity of the election results and the protest. The RTC's subsequent decision in favor of the petitioner in the election protest underscored the importance of resolving the citizenship issue. On the disqualification due to failure to renounce foreign citizenship and compliance with renunciation requirements: The Court held that petitioner is disqualified from running for public office due to his failure to renounce his American citizenship as required by R.A. No. 9225. While R.A. No. 9225 allows natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship to reacquire it by taking an oath of allegiance, Section 5(2) imposes an additional requirement for those seeking elective office. This requirement is 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. The Court clarified that the oath of allegiance taken by the petitioner to reacquire Philippine citizenship, and the oath contained in his certificate of candidacy, do not substantially comply with the explicit mandate of renunciation under Section 5(2). The rulings in Frivaldo and Mercado are no longer controlling in light of the specific provisions of R.A. No. 9225, which clearly distinguishes between the oath of allegiance and the renunciation of foreign citizenship. The legislative intent, as evidenced by the deliberations of the Bicameral Conference Committee, was to require an explicit renunciation of foreign citizenship for those seeking elective posts to ensure they possess only Philippine citizenship for such purpose.
Main Doctrine
A natural-born Filipino citizen who reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and seeks elective public office must, in addition to taking the oath of allegiance, personally andS.W.O.R.N. renounce any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer prior to or simultaneous with the filing of their certificate of candidacy. Failure to comply with this additional requirement disqualifies the candidate.