Wilfred P.

Alfeche

Topic: Dual Citizenship under the Dual Citizenship Law

Reference: Jacot vs. DAL and COMELEC; GR No. 179848, November 27, 2008

Facts:
Petitioner Nestor A. Jacot in this case assails the Resolutiondated 28 September 2007
of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)En Bancin SPA No. 07-361, affirming the
Resolution dated 12 June 2007 of the COMELEC Second Division disqualifying him
from running for the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin, in the 14 May 2007
National and Local Elections, on the ground that he failed to make a personal
renouncement of his United States (US) citizenship. Petitioner was a natural born
citizen of the Philippines, who became a naturalized citizen of the US on December 13,
1989.

Petitioner sought to reacquire his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225,
otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act. He filed a request
for the administration of his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines with the
Philippine Consulate General (PCG) of Los Angeles, California. The Los Angeles PCG
issued on June 19, 2006 an Order of Approvalof petitioners request, and on the same
day, petitioner took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before Vice
Consul Edward C. Yulo. On September 27, 2006, the Bureau of Immigration issued
Identification Certificate No. 06-12019 recognizing petitioner as a citizen of the
Philippines.

Six months after, on March 26, 2007; the petitioner filed his Certificate of Candidacy for
the Position of Vice-Mayor of the Municipality of Catarman, Camiguin. In the meantime,
the 14 May 2007 National and Local Elections were held. Petitioner garnered the
highest number of votes for the position of Vice Mayor.

On June 12, 2007; the COMELEC Second Division finally issued its
Resolution11 disqualifying the petitioner from running for the position of Vice-Mayor of
Catarman, Camiguin, for failure to make the requisite renunciation of his US citizenship.

Issues:
Whether or not the petitioner is disqualified from running as a candidate in the May 14,
2007 local elections for his failure to make a personal and sworn renunciation of his US
citizenship.

Ruling:
Contrary to the assertions made by petitioner, his oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines made before the Los Angeles PCG and his Certificate of Candidacy do
not substantially comply with the requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of
Wilfred P. Alfeche

foreign citizenship because these are distinct requirements to be complied with for
different purposes. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 requires that natural-born
citizens of the Philippines, who are already naturalized citizens of a foreign country,
must take the following oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippinesto reacquire
or retain their Philippine citizenship.

By the oath dictated in the afore-quoted provision, the Filipino swears allegiance to the
Philippines, but there is nothing therein on his renunciation of foreign citizenship.
Precisely, a situation might arise under Republic Act No. 9225 wherein said Filipino has
dual citizenship by also reacquiring or retaining his Philippine citizenship, despite his
foreign citizenship.

The afore-quoted oath of allegiance is substantially similar to the one contained in

theCertificate of Candidacywhich must be executed byany personwho wishesto run
for public officein Philippine elections.

The law categorically requires persons seeking elective public office, who either
retained their Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired it, to make a personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before a public officer authorized to
administer an oath simultaneous with or before the filing of the certificate of candidacy.

Hence,Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225compelsnatural-born Filipinos, who have

been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired or retained their
Philippine citizenship;
1) To take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225; and
2) For those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute
a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an
authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of
candidacy,to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections.
Wilfred P. Alfeche

Topic: Dual Citizenship under the Dual Citizenship Law

Reference: Cordora vs. COMELEC; G.R. No. 176947, February 19, 2009

Facts:
Cordora filed a complaint affidavit before Comelec law department against Tambunting
asserting that Gustavo Tambunting made false assertion in his certificate of candidacy
by claiming that Natural Born Filipino and resident before the election in 2001 and 2004.
Cordora alleged that Tambunting was not eligible to run for local public office because
Tambunting lacked the required citizenship and residency requirements.Cordora
presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration which stated that, in two
instances, Tambunting claimed that he is an American: upon arrival in the Philippines on
16 December 2000 and upon departure from the Philippines on 17 June 2001.

According to Cordora, these travel dates confirmed that Tambunting acquired American
citizenship through naturalization in Honolulu, Hawaii on 2 December 2000.Tambunting,
on the other hand, maintained that he did not make any misrepresentation in his
certificates of candidacy. To refute Cordoras claim that Tambunting is not a natural-born
Filipino, Tambunting presented a copy of his birth certificate which showed that he was
born of a Filipino mother and an American father. Tambunting further denied that he was
naturalized as an American citizen. The certificate of citizenship conferred by the US
government after Tambuntings father petitioned him through INS Form I-130 (Petition
for Relative) merely confirmed Tambuntings citizenship which he acquired at birth.
Tambuntings possession of an American passport did not mean that Tambunting is not
a Filipino citizen. Tambunting also took an oath of allegiance on 18 November 2003
pursuant to Republic Act No. 9225 (R.A. No. 9225), or the Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act of 2003.

The Comelec law department recommended the dismissal of complaint because it failed
to substantiate the charges. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the findings and the
resolution of the COMELEC Law Department. The COMELEC En Banc was convinced
that Cordora failed to support his accusation against Tambunting by sufficient and
convincing evidence. Commissioner Sarmiento wrote a separate opinion which
concurred with the findings of the En Banc Resolution. Commissioner Sarmiento
pointed out that Tambunting could be considered a dual citizen. Moreover, Tambunting
effectively renounced his American citizenship when he filed his certificates of
candidacy in 2001 and 2004 and ran for public office. Petitioner filed a MR but was
denied, hence, this petition.

Issues:
Whether or not Tambunting is natural born Filipino.
Wilfred P. Alfeche

Ruling:
Tambunting does not deny that he is born of a Filipino mother and an American father.
Neither does he deny that he underwent the process involved in INS Form I-130
(Petition for Relative) because of his fathers citizenship. Tambunting claims that
because of his parents differing citizenships, he is both Filipino and American by birth.
Cordora, on the other hand, insists that Tambunting is a naturalized American citizen.

We agree with Commissioner Sarmientos observation that Tambunting possesses dual

citizenship. Because of the circumstances of his birth, it was no longer necessary for
Tambunting to undergo the naturalization process to acquire American citizenship. The
process involved in INS Form I-130 only served to confirm the American citizenship
which Tambunting acquired at birth. The certification from the Bureau of Immigration
which Cordora presented contained two trips where Tambunting claimed that he is an
American. However, the same certification showed nine other trips where Tambunting
claimed that he is Filipino. Clearly, Tambunting possessed dual citizenship prior to the
filing of his certificate of candidacy before the 2001 elections. The fact that Tambunting
had dual citizenship did not disqualify him from running for public office.

Dual citizenship is involuntary and arises when, as a result of the concurrent application
of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a
national by the said states. Thus, like any other natural-born Filipino, it is enough for a
person with dual citizenship who seeks public office to file his certificate of candidacy
and swear to the oath of allegiance contained therein. Dual allegiance, on the other
hand, is brought about by the individuals active participation in the naturalization
process. AASJS states that, under R.A. No. 9225, a Filipino who becomes a naturalized
citizen of another country is allowed to retain his Filipino citizenship by swearing to the
supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines. The act of taking an oath of
allegiance is an implicit renunciation of a naturalized citizens foreign citizenship.

Section 5(3) of R.A. No. 9225 states that naturalized citizens who reacquire Filipino
citizenship and desire to run for elective public office in the Philippines shall "meet the
qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing
laws and, at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
administer an oath"
The twin requirements of taking an Oath of Allegiance and executing a Renunciation of
Foreign Citizenship involve natural-born Filipinos who later became naturalized citizens
of another country and thereafter ran for elective office in the Philippines. In the present
case, Tambunting, a natural-born Filipino, did not subsequently become a naturalized
citizen of another country. Hence, the twin requirements in R.A. No. 9225 do not apply
to him.