Mercado v. Manzano Case Digest [G.R. No. 135083.
5 of the
May 26, 1999]
FACTS:
Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo Manzano
were both candidates for Vice-Mayor of Makati in the
May 11, 1998 elections.
Based on the results of the election, Manzano
garnered the highest number of votes. However, his
proclamation was suspended due to the pending
petition for disqualification filed by Ernesto Mercado
on the ground that he was not a citizen of the
Philippines but of the United States.
From the facts presented, it appears that Manzano is
both a Filipino and a US citizen.
The Commission on Elections declared Manzano
disqualified as candidate for said elective position.
However, in a subsequent resolution of the
COMELEC en banc, the disqualification of the
respondent was reversed. Respondent was held to
have renounced his US citizenship when he attained
the age of majority and registered himself as a voter in
the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998.
Manzano was eventually proclaimed as the
Vice-Mayor of Makati City on August 31, 1998.
Thus the present petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a dual citizen is disqualified to hold
public elective office in the philippines.
RULING:
The court ruled that the phrase "dual citizenship" in
R.A. 7160 Sec. 40 (d) and R.A. 7854 Sec. 20 must be
understood as referring to dual allegiance. Dual
citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The
former arises when, as a result of the application of
the different laws of two or more states, a person is
simultaneously considered a national by the said states.
Dual allegiance on the other hand, refers to a situation
in which a person simultaneously owes, by some
positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual
citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is a result of
an individual's volition. Article IV Sec.
Constitution provides "Dual allegiance of citizens is
inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with
by law."
Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do
not fall under this disqualification. Unlike those with
dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject to
strict process with respect to the termination of their
status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should
suffice if, upon the filing of their certificates of
candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to
terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship
considering that their condition is the unavoidable
consequence of conflicting laws of different states.
By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at
the same time forswear allegiance to the other country
of which they are also citizens and thereby terminate
their status as dual citizens. It may be that, from the
point of view of the foreign state and of its laws, such
an individual has not effectively renounced his foreign
citizenship. That is of no moment.
When a person applying for citizenship by
naturalization takes an oath that he renounces his
loyalty to any other country or government and
solemnly declares that he owes his allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, the condition imposed by
law is satisfied and complied with. The
determination whether such renunciation is valid or
fully complies with the provisions of our
Naturalization Law lies within the province and is an
exclusive prerogative of our courts. The latter
should apply the law duly enacted by the legislative
department of the Republic. No foreign law may or
should interfere with its operation and application.
The court ruled that the filing of certificate of
candidacy of respondent sufficed to renounce his
American citizenship, effectively removing any
disqualification he might have as a dual citizen. By
declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a
Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or
immigrant of another country; that he will defend and
support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear
true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so
without mental reservation, private respondent has, as
far as the laws of this country are concerned,
effectively repudiated his American citizenship and
anything which he may have said before as a dual
citizen.
On the other hand, private respondent’s oath of
allegiance to the Philippines, when considered with
the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood,
received his education, practiced his profession as an
artist, and taken part in past elections in this country,
leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine
citizenship.

His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he

will fulfill his undertaking made under oath. Should
he betray that trust, there are enough sanctions for
declaring the loss of his Philippine citizenship through
expatriation in appropriate proceedings. In Yu v.
Defensor-Santiago, the court sustained the denial of
entry into the country of petitioner on the ground that,
after taking his oath as a naturalized citizen, he
applied for the renewal of his Portuguese passport and
declared in commercial documents executed abroad
that he was a Portuguese national. A similar sanction
can be taken against any one who, in electing
Philippine citizenship, renounces his foreign
nationality, but subsequently does some act
constituting renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.

The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of

merit.