Gana-Carait v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mariz Lindsey Tan Gana-Carait filed her Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Biñan, Laguna, for the May 13, 2019 National and Local Elections. Two separate petitions were filed against her: one by Rommel Mitra Lim for disqualification, and another by Dominic P. Nuñez to deny due course to or cancel her CoC. Both petitions alleged that Gana-Carait, a dual citizen by virtue of her birth to a Filipino father and an American mother, failed to renounce her foreign citizenship and that her use of a US passport constituted a false material representation of her eligibility to run for public office. Procedural History: The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division denied the petition for disqualification but granted the petition to deny due course to or cancel Gana-Carait's CoC. The COMELEC First Division found that Gana-Carait was a dual citizen, born in the Philippines to a Filipino father and an American mother, and had acquired US citizenship evidenced by a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) and a US passport. It concluded that she committed material misrepresentation by stating her eligibility to run for office, as she had not complied with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225, which requires natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens to take an oath of allegiance and renounce their foreign citizenship. Gana-Carait's motion for partial reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC En Banc, affirming the First Division's resolution. This led to the filing of the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner Gana-Carait filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the COMELEC En Banc Resolution. She argues that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by finding that she acquired her US citizenship through naturalization, thereby incorrectly applying R.A. No. 9225 to her. Gana-Carait contends that she is a dual citizen by birth, not by naturalization, and therefore, the twin requirements of taking an oath of allegiance and renouncing her foreign citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 do not apply to her. She asserts that her declaration of eligibility in her CoC was not a false material representation, as she possessed the qualifications for the office sought.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the COMELEC First Division's findings that petitioner is a dual citizen by naturalization. Whether petitioner, as a dual citizen by birth, is required to comply with the twin requirements of R.A. 9225 (oath of allegiance and renunciation of foreign citizenship) to be eligible to run for public office. Whether petitioner committed material misrepresentation in her Certificate of Candidacy by stating she was eligible to run for public office.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution dated 23 September 2021 of the Commission on Elections En Banc and the Resolution dated 27 February 2019 of the Commission on Elections First Division are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Certificate of Finality dated 13 December 2021, the Entry of Judgment dated 13 December 2021, and the Writ of Execution dated 31 January 2022 issued by the COMELEC En Banc are likewise CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy filed by private respondent Dominic P. Nuñez against petitioner Mariz Lindsey Tan Villegas Gana-Carait is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner a dual citizen by naturalization: The Supreme Court found the COMELEC En Banc's conclusion manifestly erroneous. The Court noted that foreign laws must be proven as fact and cannot be judicially noticed. The COMELEC's reliance on Act 322 of the US Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was improper without proper proof. Furthermore, the Court clarified that naturalization is a process for aliens, and an insider (a citizen) cannot undergo naturalization. The Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) itself stated that petitioner "acquired United States Citizenship at birth," and the presentation of documents was merely to establish this fact, not to undergo naturalization. The Court distinguished this from cases where a positive act of naturalization was performed. On the issue of whether petitioner, as a dual citizen by birth, is required to comply with the twin requirements of R.A. 9225: The Supreme Court held that R.A. 9225 applies only to dual citizens by naturalization, not by birth. The Court reiterated its ruling in Maquiling v. COMELEC that dual citizens by naturalization are required to take an Oath of Allegiance and renounce foreign citizenship, while those dual citizens by virtue of birth are not. The Court emphasized that R.A. 9225 covers natural-born Filipinos who personally and voluntarily became naturalized foreign citizens, not those whose dual citizenship was acquired by birth or due to the circumstances of birth. Since petitioner acquired her US citizenship at birth, she is not covered by R.A. 9225 and thus not required to perform the twin requirements. On the issue of whether petitioner committed material misrepresentation in her Certificate of Candidacy: The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner did not commit material misrepresentation. Since she is a dual citizen by birth and not covered by R.A. 9225, her non-compliance with its requirements does not affect her candidacy or her declaration of eligibility. Even if she had violated Section 5 of R.A. 9225 (failure to renounce foreign citizenship), this would not render her ineligible for office or be a ground to cancel her CoC. The Court noted that failure to renounce foreign citizenship does not affect one's status as a Filipino citizen and is a matter of disqualification, not ineligibility, and a petition for disqualification against her was dismissed. Therefore, she could not be said to have made a false representation when she declared her eligibility.
Main Doctrine
Republic Act No. 9225 applies only to natural-born Filipinos who became citizens of a foreign country through naturalization, not to those who are dual citizens by birth. Failure to comply with the twin requirements of R.A. 9225 does not constitute material misrepresentation if the individual is a dual citizen by birth.