Loss of Citizenship Category: Constitutional Law Loss of Citizenship Yu v.

Defensor Santiago Portuguese passport Yus act of applying for a Portuguese passport despite his naturalization as a Philippine citizen and his act of declaring his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents, constitute an EXPRESS renunciation of his Philippine citizenship acquired through naturalization; Philippine citizenship is not a commodity or ware to be displayed when required and suppressed when convenient Frivaldo v. COMELEC governor-elect of Sorsogon; American citizenship; repatriation Loss of naturalized Philippine citizenship did not and could not have the effect of automatic restoration of ones Philippine citizenship; mere filing of certificate of candidacy wherein Frivaldo claimed that he is a natural born citizen is not a sufficient act of repatriation; repatriation requires an express and unequivocal act; Labo v. COMELEC mayor of Baguio City; Australian citizenship; bigamous marriage Res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship; Modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost: a. naturalization in a foreign country b. express renunciation of citizenship c. subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country; annulment of Labos Australian citizenship as a result of finding that his marriage to an Australian national was bigamous did not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship; Philippine citizenship may be acquired by direct act of Congress; by naturalization or by repatriation. Aznar v. COMELEC disqualification of Osmea; American citizenship Aznar failed to present direct proof that Osmea had lost his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided by law; The fact the Osmea was both a Filipino and an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino;

Jacot vs. Dal Petitioner Nestor Jacot assails the Resolution of COMELEC 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 US citizenship. He was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who became a naturalized citizen of the US on 13 December 1989. He sought to reacquire his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225. ISSUE: Did Nestor Jacot effectively renounce his US citizenship so as to qualify him to run as a vice-mayor? HELD: No. It bears to emphasize that the oath of allegiance is a general requirement for all those who wish to run as candidates in Philippine elections; while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional requisite only for those who have retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and who seek elective public posts, considering their special circumstance of having more than one citizenship.

Case Digest on Valles v. Comelec November 10, 2010 G.R. No. 137000 (August 9, 2000) FACTS: Respondent was born in Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. Australia follows jus soli. She ran for governor. Opponent filed petition to disqualify her on the ground of dual citizenship. HELD: Dual citizenship as a disqualification refers to citizens with dual allegiance. The fact that she has dual citizenship does not automatically disqualify her from running for public office. Filing a certificate of candidacy suffices to renounce foreign citizenship because in the certificate, the candidate declares himself to be a Filipino citizen and that he will support the Philippine Constitution. Such declaration operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.

G.R. No. 182701, July 23, 2008LOPEZ VS COMELEC A Filipino-American or any dual citizen cannot run for any elective public position in the Philippines unless he or she personally swears to a renunciation of all foreign citizenship at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. FACTS:

Civil Procedure assailing the (1) Resolution and (2) Omnibus Order of the Commission on Elections(COMELEC), Second Division, disqualifying petitioner from running as Barangay Chairman.Petitioner Eusebio Eugenio K. Lopez was a candidate for the position of Chairman of Barangay Bagacay, SanDionisio, Iloilo City in the synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections held on October 29,2007. On October 25, 2007, respondent Tessie P. Villanueva filed a petition before the Provincial Election Supervisor of the Province of Iloilo, praying for the disqualification of petitioner on the ground that he is an American citizen, hence, ineligible from running for any public office. In his Answer ,petitioner argued that he is a dual citizen, a Filipino and at the same time an American, by virtue of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225,otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Re- acquisition Act of 2003.He returned to the Philippines and resided in Barangay Bagacay. Thus, he said, he possessed all the qualifications to run for Barangay Chairman.After the votes for Barangay Chairman were canvassed, petitioner emerged as the winner. On February 6, 2008,COMELEC issued the assailed Resolution granting the petition for disqualification. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners filing of a certificate of candidacy operated as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. HELD:R.A. No. 9225 expressly provides for the conditions before those who re-acquired Filipino citizenship may run for a public office in the Philippines. Section 5 of the said law states :Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions: (2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of 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. Petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the cited law. This new law explicitly provides that should one seek elective public office, he should first "make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. "Petitioner failed to comply with this requirement. We quote with approval the COMELEC observation on this point:

While respondent was able to regain his Filipino Citizenship by virtue of the Dual Citizenship Law when he took his oath of allegiance before the Vice Consul of the Philippine Consulate General's Office in Los Angeles,California, the same is not enough to allow him to run for a public office. The above-quoted provision of law mandates that a candidate with dual citizenship must make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. There is no evidence presented that will show that respondent complied with the provision of R.A. No. 9225. Absent such proof we cannot allow respondent to run for Barangay Chairman of Barangay Bagacay.For the renunciation to be valid, it must be contained in an affidavit duly executed before an officer of law who is authorized to administer an oath.The affiant must state in clear and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship for it to be effective. In the instant case, respondent Lopez's failure to renounce his American citizenship as proven by the absence of an affidavit that will prove the contrary leads this Commission to believe that he failed to comply with the positive mandate of law. For failure of respondent to prove that he abandoned his allegiance to the United States, this Commission holds him disqualified from running for an elective position in the Philippines. While it is true that petitioner won the elections, took his oath and began to discharge the functions of Barangay Chairman, his victory cannot cure the defect of his candidacy. Garnering the most number of votes does not validate the election of a disqualified candidate because the application of the constitutional and statutory provisions on disqualification is not a matter of popularity.