Any review of a rape case begins with the settled reality

that accusing a person of this crime can be done with

facility. The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and
their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by trial
courts, because of their unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude,
especially under cross-examination. It is natural for
inconsistencies to creep into the testimony of a rape victim
who is of tender age. (People vs. Carpio, 508 SCRA 604
[2006])

——o0o——

G.R. No. 182701. July 23, 2008.*

EUSEBIO EUGENIO K. LOPEZ, petitioner, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and TESSIE P.
VILLANUEVA, respondents.

Election Law; Citizenship; Citizenship Retention and Re-

Acquisition Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9225); The case of Valles
v. Commission on Elections, 337 SCRA 543 (2000), has been
superseded by the enactment of Republic Act No. 9225 or the Dual
Citizenship Act in 2003—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, i.e., that they make a
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship.—The Court’s 2000 ruling in Valles has been
superseded by the enactment of R.A. No. 9225 in 2003. 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: x x x x (2) Those seeking elective

_______________

* EN BANC.

697
 VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 697

Lopez vs. Commission on Elections

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.
Same; Same; 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.—While it is true
that petitioner won the elections, took his oath and began to
discharge the functions of Barangay Chairman, his victory can
not 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.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
   Jagna-an, Belloga, Agot & Associates for petitioner.

RESOLUTION

REYES, R.T., J.:

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.
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, in relation
to Rule 64 of the Rules on Civil Procedure assailing the (1)
Resolution1 and (2) Omnibus Order2 of the Commission on
Elec-

_______________

1  SPA 07-198 (BGY), signed by Rene V. Sarmiento, as Presiding

Commissioner, and Nicodemo T. Ferrer, as Commissioner; Rollo, pp. 16-
20.
2 Signed by Jose A.R. Melo, as Chairman, and Romeo A. Brawner, Rene
V. Sarmiento, and Nicodemo T. Ferrer, as Commissioners.

698

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. Commission on Elections
tions (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, San
Dionisio, 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 petition3 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,4 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 2003.5 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.6
On February 6, 2008, COMELEC issued the assailed
Resolution granting the petition for disqualification,
disposing as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for

Disqualification is GRANTED and respondent Eusebio Eugenio
K. Lopez is DISQUALIFIED from running as Barangay
Chairman of Barangay Bagacay, San Dionisio, Iloilo.
SO ORDERED.”7

In ruling against petitioner, the COMELEC found that

he was not able to regain his Filipino citizenship in the
manner

_______________

3 Rollo, pp. 31-35.

4 Id., at pp. 36-37.
5 Also known as the Dual Citizenship Law.
6 Rollo, pp. 6, 19.
7 Id., at p. 20.

699

VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 699

Lopez vs. Commission on Elections

provided by law. According to the poll body, to be able to

qualify as a candidate in the elections, petitioner should
have made a personal and sworn renunciation of any and
all foreign citizenship. This, petitioner failed to do.
 His motion for reconsideration having been denied,
petitioner resorted to the present petition, imputing grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC for
disqualifying him from running and assuming the office of
Barangay Chairman.
We dismiss the petition.
Relying on Valles v. Commission on Elections,8
petitioner argues that his filing of a certificate of candidacy
operated as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.
We note, however, that the operative facts that led to
this Court’s ruling in Valles are substantially different
from the present case. In Valles, the candidate, Rosalind
Ybasco Lopez, was a dual citizen by accident of birth on
foreign soil.9 Lopez was born of Filipino parents in
Australia, a country which follows the principle of jus soli.
As a result, she acquired Australian citizenship by
operation of Australian law, but she was also considered a
Filipino citizen under Philippine law. She did not perform
any act to swear allegiance to a country other than the
Philippines.
In contrast, petitioner was born a Filipino but he
deliberately sought American citizenship and renounced
his Filipino citizenship. He later on became a dual citizen
by re-acquiring Filipino citizenship.
More importantly, the Court’s 2000 ruling in Valles has
been superseded by the enactment of R.A. No. 922510 in
2003. R.A. No. 9225 expressly provides for the conditions
before

_______________

8  G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000, 337 SCRA 543.

9  See Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999, 307 SCRA
630.
10 See note 5.

700

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. Commission on Elections

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:
x x x x
 (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.” (Emphasis added)

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

701

VOL. 559, JULY 23, 2008 701

Lopez vs. Commission on Elections

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.”11 (Emphasis added)

While it is true that petitioner won the elections, took

his oath and began to discharge the functions of Barangay
Chairman, his victory can not 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.12
In sum, the COMELEC committed no grave abuse of
discretion in disqualifying petitioner as candidate for
Chairman in the Barangay elections of 2007.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio,

Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Chico-
Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro and
Brion, JJ., concur.
Tinga, J., In the result.

Petition dismissed.

Notes.—The signing into law of the 1935 Constitution

has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for
the acquisition of Philippine citizenship. (Valles vs.
Commission on Elections, 337 SCRA 543 [2000])
There is no provision in the dual citizenship law—R.A.
9225—requiring “duals” to actually establish residence and
physically stay in the Philippines first before they can
exercise the right to vote. On the contrary, R.A. 9225, in
implicit acknowledgment that “duals” are most likely non-
residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of
suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under R.A.
9189. (Nicolas-Lewis vs. Commission on Elections, 497
SCRA 649 [2006])

——o0o——

_______________

11 Rollo, p. 19.
12  See Reyes v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 52699, May 15,
1980, 97 SCRA 500.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.