CASTRO, Kathrine Celine

2007-78667
De Guzman vs COMELEC 2009
FACTS:
P De Guzman and PR Angelina DG. Dela Cruz candidates
for vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija
PR filed a petition for disqualification against P alleging that P
is not a citizen of the Phil but an immigrant and resident of the
USA
P admitted that he was a naturalized American but on Jan
25, 2006, he applied for dual citizenship under RA 9225. He
then took his oath of allegiance to the RP on Sept 2006. He
agrued that since he reacquired Phil citizenship, he is entitled to
exercise full civil and political rights hence he is qualified to run
as vice mayor of Guimba Nueva Ecija.
PR won. Hence P filed an election protest on grounds of
irregularities and massive cheating.
COMELEC ruled that P should be disqualified. Under RA
9225 P has validly reacquired Fil citizenship. BY taking Oath to
the Phil, P was deemed a dual citizen, possessing both Fil and
American citizenship. However, a provision in the said act
provides that Those who retain and reacquire Phil Citizenship
shall enjoy full civil and political rights on the following
conditions: (2) Those seeking elective public office shall meet
the qualifications for holding such public office as required by
the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of
the COC, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and
all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
administer an oath. BUT COMELEC ruled that since P did not
renounce his American citizenship before he can run for any
public, the fact that he took Oath of Allegiance did not mean the
he renounced his American citizenship. Thus, at the time he

filed his COC, he was still a dual citizenship. Hence,

disqualified.
P alleged that there was GAD on the part of the COMELEC
because of his failure to renounce his American citizenship. He
invoked Frivaldo and Mercado Rulings that the filing by a person
with dual citizenship of a COC, containing an oath of allegiance,
tantamount to a renunciation of his foreign citizenship.
PR still claims that the passage of RA 9225 abandoned the
above rulings; that the current law requires a personal and
sworn renunciation of any foreign citizenship; that P, failing to
renounce his American citizenship remains a dual citizen and is
therefore disqualified from running of an elective public position
under LGC.
ISSUES:
(1) WON COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in
dismissing Ps MFR for being moot - NO
(2) WON P is disqualified for running for vice mayor of
Guimba, Nueva Ecija for having failed to renounce
his American citizenship according to RA 9225 - YES
HELD:
(1) Issue becomes moot when it ceases to present a
justifiable controversy so that a determination would be
without practical use and value
In this case, pendency of Ps election protest did not render
moot the MFR which he filed assailing his disqualification. The
issue is still relevant because it could significantly affect the
outcome of the election protest.
Phil citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding an
elective office. Law provides that An elective local official must
be a citizen of the Philippines. It must be stressed that RTC
ruled in favor of P and declared him the winner. Hence, rulling
on Ps citizenship was clearly necessary.

(2) Yes, P is disqualified from running for public office

because he failed to renounce his American citizenship.
RA 9225 allows reacquisition and retention of Phil citizenship
for:
(a) NB who have lost Phil citizenship because of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country; and
(b) NB who, after the effectivity of the law, become citizens of
a foreign country.
The law provides that they are deemed to reacquire Phil
citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance.
st

SC ruled that P falls under the 1 category a NB who lost his

Phil citizenship upon his naturalization as an American citizen.
In the case at hand, no doubt that P reacquired his Phil
citizenship after taking the oath of allegiance. But RA 9225
imposes an additional requirement on those who wish to seek
elective public office.
The filing of a COC does not ipso facto amount to a
renunciation of his foreign citizenship under RA 9225.
Frivaldo and Mercado rulings are not applicable because
Ra 9225 provides for more requirements.

RA 9225 requires the twin requirements of:

(a) Swearing an Oath of Allegiance; and
(b) Executing a Personal and Sworn Renunciation of Foreign
Citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or
simultaneous to the filing of their COCs
In the discussion of the Bicameral Conference Committee, it
was explained that the oath of allegiance if differenct from the
renunciation of foreign citizenship.
To qualify as a candidate in Phil elections, Filipinos must only
have one citizenship, namely, Philippine citizenship.
The oath of allegiance if a general requirement for al those who
wish to run as candidates in Philippine elections; while the
renunciation of foreign citizenship if an additional requisite only
for those who have retained or reacquired Phil citizenship under
RA 9225 and who seek elective public posts.
Here, Ps Path of Allegiance and COC did not comply with
RA9225 which requires those seeking elective public office in
the Phils to make a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign
citizenship. P failed to renounce his American citizenship and
hence, he is disqualified from running.