MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S POE- LLAMANZARES vs. COMELEC,et al.
residents there are Filipinos, consequently providing 99% chance that Poe’s bilogical
FACTS: In her COC for Presidency on the May 2016 elections, Grace Poe declared that
she is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and that her residence up to day before
May 9, 2016 would be 10 years and 11 months counted from May 24, 2005.
Grace Poe was born in 1968., found as newborn infant in Jaro,Iloilo and was legally
adopted by RONALD ALLAN KELLY POE (FPJ) and JESUS SONORA POE (SUSAN ROCES)
in 1974. She immigrated to the US in 1991 after her marriage to Theodore
Llamanzares who was then based at the US. Grace Poe then became a naturalized
American citizen in 2001.
On December 2004, he returned to the Philippines due to his father’s deteriorating
medical condition, who then eventually demice on February 3,2005. She then quitted
her job in the US to be with her grieving mother and finally went home for good to
the Philippines on MAY 24, 2005.
On JULY 18, 2006, the BI granted her petition declaring that she had reacquired her
Filipino citizenship under RA 9225. She registered as a voter and obtained a new
Philippine Passport.
In 2010, before assuming her post as appointes Chairperson of the MTRCB , she
renounced her American citizenship to satisfy the RA 9225 requirements as to
Reacquistion of Filipino Citizenship. From then on, she stopped using her American
passport.
Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or cancel her candidacy on the
ground particularly among others, that she cannot be considered a natural born
Filipino citizen since she was a FOUNDLING and that her bioligical parents cannot be
proved as Filipinos. The Comelec en banccancelled her candidacy on the ground that
she is in want of citizenship and residence requirements and that she committed
misrepresentation in her COC.
On CERTIORARI, the SUPREME COURT, reversed the ruling and held a vote of 9-6
that POE is qualified as candidate for Presidency.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Grace Poe- Llamanzares is a natural- born Filipino citizen
(2) Whether or not Poe satisfies the 10-year residency requirement.
HELD:
YES. GRACE POE is considerably a natural-born Filipino Citizen. For that, she satisfied
the constitutional reqt that only natural-born Filipinos may run for Presidency.
(1) there is high probability that Poe’s parents are Filipinos, as being shown in her
physical features which are typical of Filipinos, aside from the fact that she was found
as an infant in Jaro, Iloilo, a municipality wherein there is 99% probability that
parents are Filipinos. Said probability and circumstancial evidence are admissible
under Rule 128, Sec 4 of the Rules on Evidence.
(2) The SC pronounced that FOUNDLINGS are as a class, natural born- citizens as
based on the deliberations of the 1935 Constitutional Convention, wherein though its
enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language either to
definitely exclude the foundlings to be natural born citizens.
(3) That Foundlings are automatically conferred with the natural-born citizenship as
to the country where they are being found, as covered and supported by the UN
Convention Law.
As to the residency issue, Grace Poe satisfied the 10-year residency because she
satisfied the requirements of ANIMUS MANENDI (intent to remain permanently)
coupled with ANIMUS NON REVERTENDI (intent of not returning to US) in acquiring a
new domicile in the Philippines. Starting May 24,2005, upon returning to the
Philippines, Grace Poe presented overwhelming evidence of her actual stay and
intent to abandon permanently her domicile in the US, coupled with her eventual
application to reacquire Filipino Citizenship under RA 9225. Hence, her candidacy for
Presidency was granted by the SC.
CASAN MACODE MAQUILING v. COMELEC, GR No. 195649, 2013-04-16
Facts:
Arnado applied for repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 before the
Consulate General of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA and took the Oath of
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on 10 July 2008.[4
On 3 April 2009 Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic and
executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship
To further bolster his claim of Arnado's US citizenship, Balua presented in his
Memorandum a computer-generated travel record[11] dated 03 December 2009
indicating that Arnado has been using his US Passport No. 057782700 in entering and
departing the
Philippines. The said record shows that Arnado left the country on 14 April 2009 and
returned on 25 June 2009, and again departed on 29 July 2009, arriving back in the
Philippines on 24 November 2009.
Balua likewise presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration dated 23
April 2010, certifying that the name "Arnado, Rommel Cagoco" appears in the
available Computer Database/Passenger manifest/IBM listing on file as of 21 April
2010, with the following pertinent... travel records:
Neither motion was acted upon, having been overtaken by the 2010 elections where
Arnado garnered the highest number of votes and was subsequently proclaimed as
the winning candidate for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte.
In the matter of the issue of citizenship, however, the First Division disagreed with
Arnado's claim that he is a Filipino citizen.[18]
We find that although Arnado appears to have substantially complied with the
requirements of R.A. No. 9225, Arnado's act of consistently using his US passport
after renouncing his US citizenship on 03 April 2009 effectively negated his Affidavit
of
Renunciation.
Arnado's continued use of his US passport is a strong indication that Arnado had no
real intention to renounce his US citizenship and that he only executed an Affidavit of
Renunciation to enable him to run for office.
Issues:
On 30 November 2009, Arnado filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, which contains, among others,
Ruling:
However, this legal presumption does not operate permanently and is open to attack
when, after renouncing the foreign citizenship, the citizen performs positive acts
showing his continued possession of a foreign citizenship.[3 Arnado himself
subjected the issue of his citizenship to attack when, after renouncing his foreign
citizenship, he continued to use his US passport to travel in and out of the country
before filing his certificate of candidacy on 30 November 2009.
The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply
be professed at any time, only to be violated the next day. It requires an absolute and
perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and
political rights granted... by the foreign country which granted the citizenship.
While the act of using a foreign passport is not one of the acts enumerated
in Commonwealth Act No. 63 constituting renunciation and loss of Philippine
citizenship,[35] it is nevertheless an act which repudiates the very oath of
renunciation required... for a former Filipino citizen who is also a citizen of another
country to be qualified to run for a local elective position.
AASJS v Datumanong
FACTS: Petitioner prays for a writ of prohibition be issued to stop respondent from
implementing RA 9225, or Act Making the Citizenship of the Philippine Citizens Who
Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth
Act No. 63, as Amended, and for Other Purposes. Petitioner avers that said Act is
unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution:
“Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with
by law.”
ISSUE/S:1. Whether R.A. 9225 is unconstitutional
2. Whether the court jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual allegiance
RULING: No. It is clear that the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225
is to do away with the provision in Commonwealth Act No. 635 which takes away
Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of
other countries. What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-
born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual
allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person
implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225
stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of
confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned
foreign country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of
Rep. Act No. 9225.
MERCADO VS. MANZANO [307 SCRA 630; G.R. NO. 135083; 26 MAY 1999]
Facts: Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Private respondent Eduardo Manzano are
candidates for the position of Vice-Mayor of Makati City in the May, 1998 elections.
Private respondent was the winner of the said election but the proclamation was
suspended due to the petition of Ernesto Mamaril regarding the citizenship of private
respondent. Mamaril alleged that the private respondent is not a citizen of the
Philippines but of the United States. COMELEC granted the petition
and disqualified the private respondent for being a dual citizen, pursuant to the Local
Government code that provides that persons who possess dual citizenship
are disqualified from running any public position. Private respondent filed a motion
for reconsideration which remained pending until after election. Petitioner sought to
intervene in the case for disqualification. COMELEC reversed the decision and
declared private respondent qualified to run for the position. Pursuant to the ruling
of the COMELEC, the board of canvassers proclaimed private respondent as vice
mayor. This petition sought the reversal of the resolution of the COMELEC and to
declare the private respondent disqualified to hold the office of the vice mayor of
Makati.
Issue: Whether or Not private respondent is qualified to hold office as Vice-Mayor.
Held: Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former 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. For instance, such a
situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which
adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine
of jus soli. Private respondent is considered as a dual citizen because he is born of
Filipino parents but was born in San Francisco, USA. Such a person, ipso facto and
without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both
states. Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our Constitution, it is possible for
the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to posses dual citizenship: (1) Those
born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle
of jus soli; (2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by
the laws of their fathers’ country such children are citizens of that country; (3) Those
who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are considered
citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced
Philippine citizenship. Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the 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 the result of an
individual’s volition.
By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post, private
respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced
his American citizenship. The filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to
renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing anydisqualification 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 Philippine, 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.
GAUDENCIO M. CORDORA v. COMELEC, GR No. 176947, 2009-02-19
Facts: Cordora asserted that Tambunting made false assertions in the following items:
Tambunting's Certificate of Candidacy for the 2001 elections]... and
Tambunting's Certificate of Candidacy for the 2004 elections
No. 6 - I am a Natural Born/Filipino Citizen
No. 9 - No. of years of Residence before May 14, 2001.
36 in the Philippines and 25 in the Constituency where I seek to be elected;
No. 12 - I am ELIGIBLE for the office I seek to be elected.
Cordora stated 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
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.
Tambunting's possession of an American passport did not mean that
Tambunting is not a Filipino citizen. Tambunting also took an oath of allegiance...
pursuant to
R.A. No. 9225
To refute Cordora's claim that the number of years of residency... is false because
Tambunting lost his residency because of his naturalization as an American citizen,
Tambunting contended that the residency requirement is not the... same as
citizenship.
COMELEC Law Department recommended the dismissal of Cordora's complaint
COMELEC En Banc affirmed... was convinced that Cordora failed to support his
accusation against Tambunting by sufficient and convincing evidence.
Issues: Cordora's petition is not an action to disqualify Tambunting because of
Tambunting's failure to meet citizenship and residency requirements. Neither is the
present petition an action to declare Tambunting a non-Filipino and a non-resident.
The present petition seeks to prosecute
Tambunting for knowingly making untruthful statements in his certificates of
candidacy.
Ruling: The petition has no merit.
Tambunting, possessed dual citizenship by the circumstances of their birth.
Our rulings in Manzano and Valles stated that dual citizenship is different
from dual allegiance both by cause and, for those desiring to run for public office, by
effect. 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 individual's active participation
in the naturalization process.
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 citizen's... 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... swearing to 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.
Tambunting's residency
Cordora's reasoning fails because Tambunting is not a naturalized American.
Moreover, residency, for the purpose of election laws, includes the twin... elements
of the fact of residing in a fixed place and the intention to return there
permanently,... and is not dependent upon citizenship.
we hold that Cordora failed to establish that Tambunting indeed willfully
made false entries in his certificates of candidacy.
Tambunting is eligible for the... office which he sought to be elected and
fulfilled the citizenship and residency requirements prescribed by law.
Eugenio Eusebio Lopez vs. COMELEC
FACTS: Petitioner Lopez, a dual citizen, was a candidate for the position of Chairman
of Barangay Bagacay, San Dionisio, Iloilo City held on October 29, 2007. He was
eventually declared the winner.
On October 25, 2007, respondent Villanueva filed a petition before the
Provincial Election Supervisor of the Province of Iloilo, praying for the disqualification
of Lopez because he was ineligible from running for any public office.
Lopez argued that he is a Filipino-American, by virtue of the Citizenship
Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003. He said, he possessed all the qualifications
to run for Barangay Chairman.
On February 6, 2008, COMELEC issued the Resolution granting the petition
for disqualification of Lopez from running as Barangay Chairman. COMELEC said, to
be able to qualify as a candidate in the elections, Lopez should have made a personal
and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship.
His motion for reconsideration having been denied, Lopez resorted to
petition for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC
for disqualifying him from running and assuming the office of Barangay Chairman.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
COMELEC for disqualifying petitioner.
RULING: No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The COMELEC committed no
grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner as candidate for Chairman in the
Barangay elections of 2007.
Lopez 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.
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.
Lopez 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.
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.
Jacot v COMELEC
FACTS:
Petitioner Nestor A. Jacot assails the Resolution dated 28 September 2007 of
the , 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 US citizenship.
Petitioner was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who became a
naturalized citizen of the US on 13 December 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 19 June 2006 an Order of Approval
of petitioner’s 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 27 September
2006, the Bureau of Immigration issued and Identification Certificate, recognizing
petitioner as a citizen of the Philippines.
Six months after, on 26 March 2007, 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 12 June 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
ISSUE/S: Whether or not petitioner has validly complied the citizenship requirement
as required by law for persons seeking public office.
HELD: 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 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 Philippines to 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.
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. 9225 compels natural-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.
Japzon vs. COMELEC
Facts: Petitioner Manuel B. Japzon (Japzon) and private respondent Jaime S. Ty (Ty)
were candidates for the Office of Mayor of the Municipality of General MacArthur,
Eastern Samar, in the local elections held on 14 May 2007.
Japzon instituted SPA No. 07-568, a Petition to disqualify and/or cancel Ty’s
Certificate of Candidacy on the ground of material misrepresentation.
Japzon’s Contention:
Japzon averred in his Petition that Ty was a former natural-born Filipino,
born on 9 October 1943 in what was then Pambujan Sur, Hernani Eastern Samar (now
the Municipality of General MacArthur, Easter Samar) to spouses Ang Chim Ty (a
Chinese) and Crisanta Aranas Sumiguin (a Filipino). Ty eventually migrated to the
United States of America (USA) and became a citizen thereof and has been residing in
the USA for the last 25 years. As alleged by Japzon in his Petition, Ty filed his
Certificate of Candidacy on 28 March 2007, where he falsely indicatded therein that
he was a resident of Barangay 6, Poblacion, General MacArthur, Eastern Samar, for
one year before 14 May 2007, not being a permanent resident or immigrant of any
foreign country. Japzon also alleged that though Ty may have applied for the
reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship, he never actually resided in Barangay 6,
Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, for a period of one year immediately
preceding the date of election as required under Section 39 of Republic Act No. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991. Despite of reacquiring his
Philippine citizenship, Ty continued travelling to the USA, the most recent of which
was on 31 October 2006 lasting until 20 January 2007.
Ty has already took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
but still continues to consider himself an American citizen proven by his frequent
travel to the USA. Japzon prayed in his Petition for the immediate disqualification of
Ty from running for public office and the cancellation of the Ty’s Certificate of
Candidacy.
Ty’s Contention:
Ty admitted that he is a natural-born Filipino who went to the USA to work
and subsequently became a naturalized American citizen. Ty claimed, however, that
prior to filing his Certificate of Candidacy for the Office of Mayor of the Municipality
of General MacArthur, Eastern Samar, on 28 March 2007, he already performed the
following acts:
1. That with the enactment of Republic Act No. 9225, granting dual citizenship to
natural-born Filipinos, Ty filed with the Philippine Consulate General in Los
Angeles, California, USA, an application for the reacquisition of his Philippine
citizenship;
2. That on 2 October 2005, Ty executed an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines before Noemi T. Diaz, Vice Consul of the Philippine Consulate
General in Los Angeles, California, USA;
3. That Ty applied for a Philippine passport indicating which indicates that his
residence in the Philippines was at A. Mabini St., Barangay 6, Poblacion,
General MacArthur, Eastern Samar. Ty’s application was approved and he was
issued on 26 October 2005 a Philippine passport;
4. That on 8 March 2006, Ty personally secured and signed his Community Tax
Certificate (CTC) from the Municipality of General MacArthur, in which he
stated that his address was at Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur,
Eastern Samar; (5) thereafter, on 17 July 2006, Ty was registered as a voter in
Precinct 0013A, Barangay 6, Poblacion, General MacArthur, Eastern Samar;
5. That Ty secured another CTC dated 4 January 2007 again stating therein his
address as Barangay 6, Poblacion, General MacArthur, Eastern Samar; and
6. That Ty executed on 19 March 2007 a duly notarized Renunciation of Foreign
Citizenship.
Ty reacquired his Philippine citizenship and renounced his American
citizenship, and he has been a resident of the Municipality of General Macarthur,
Eastern Samar, for more than one year prior to the 14 May 2007 elections. Therefore,
Ty sought the dismissal of Japzon’s Petition in SPA No. 07-568. Ty acquired the
highest number of votes and was declared Mayor of the Municipality of General
Macarthur, Eastern Samar, by the Municipal Board of Canvassers on 15 May 2007.
The COMELEC First Division found that Ty complied with the requirements of
Sections 3 and 5 of Republic Act No. 9225 and reacquired his Philippine citizenship, to
wit:
Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding an elective
public office, and the purpose of the citizenship qualification is none other than to
ensure that no alien, i.e., no person owing allegiance to another nation, shall govern
our people and our country or a unit of territory thereof.
Evidences revealed that Ty executed an Oath of Allegiance before Noemi T.
Diaz, Vice Consul of the Philippine Consulate General, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
on October 2, 2005 and executed a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship on March 19,
2007 in compliance with R.A. [No.] 9225. Moreover, neither is Ty a candidate for or
occupying public office nor is in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned
officer in the armed forces in the country of which he was a naturalized citizen
Ty did not commit material misrepresentation in stating in his Certificate of
Candidacy that he was a resident of Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur,
Eastern Samar, for at least one year before the elections on 14 May 2007. It reasoned
that: Although Ty has lost his domicile in [the] Philippines when he was naturalized as
U.S. citizen in 1969, the reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship and subsequent acts
thereof proved that he has been a resident of Barangay 6, Poblacion, General
Macarthur, Eastern Samar for at least one (1) year before the elections held on 14
May 2007 as he represented in his certificate of candidacy.
The petition was denied and COMELEC was in favor of the defendant failing
to obtain a favorable resolution from the COMELEC, Japzon proceeded to file the
instant Petition for Certiorari, that the COMELEC had committed grave abuse of
discretion and lack of discretion for dismissing the petition.
Japzon prays for the Court to annul and set aside the Resolutions dated 31
July 2007 and 28 September 2007 of the COMELEC First Division and en banc,
respectively; to issue a new resolution denying due course to or canceling Ty’s
Certificate of Candidacy; and to declare Japzon as the duly elected Mayor of the
Municipality of General MacArthur, Eastern Samar.
Ty sought the dismissal of the present Petition. According to Ty, the
COMELEC already found sufficient evidence to prove that Ty was a resident of the
Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, one year prior to the 14 May 2007
local elections. The Court cannot evaluate again the very same pieces of evidence
without violating the well-entrenched rule that findings of fact of the COMELEC are
binding on the Court.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), meanwhile, stated that Ty failed to
meet the one-year residency requirement set by law to qualify him to run as a
mayoralty candidate in the 14 May 2007 local elections.The Court finds no merit in
the Petition at bar.
On 19 March 2007, Ty personally executed a Renunciation of Foreign
Citizenship before a notary public. By the time he filed his Certificate of Candidacy for
the Office of Mayor of the Municipality of General MacArthur, Eastern Samar, on 28
March 2007, he had already effectively renounced his American citizenship, keeping
solely his Philippine citizenship.
The Court of Appeals set aside the appealed orders of the COMELEC and the
Court of Appeals and annulled the election of the respondent as Municipal Mayor of
Bolinao, Pangasinan on the ground that respondent’s immigration to the United
States in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the
Philippines. Being a green card holder, which was proof that he was a permanent
resident or immigrant of the United States, and in the absence of any waiver of his
status as such before he ran for election on January 18, 1988, respondent was held to
be disqualified under §68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881).
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defedant has complied with the residency requirement for
elective positions.
RULING:
Yes, the defendant solely complied the residency requirements for elective position.
It bears to point out that Republic Act No. 9225 governs the manner in which
a natural-born Filipino may reacquire or retain[17] his Philippine citizenship despite
acquiring a foreign citizenship, and provides for his rights and liabilities under such
circumstances.
A close scrutiny of said statute would reveal that it does not at all touch on
the matter of residence of the natural-born Filipino taking advantage of its provisions.
Republic Act No. 9225 imposes no residency requirement for the reacquisition or
retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it mention any effect of such
reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the
concerned natural-born Filipino. Clearly, Republic Act No. 9225 treats citizenship
independently of residence. This is only logical and consistent with the general intent
of the law to allow for dual citizenship.
There is no basis for this Court to require Ty to stay in and never leave at all
the Municipality of General MacArthur, Eastern Samar, for the full one-year period
prior to the 14 May 2007 local elections so that he could be considered a resident
thereof. To the contrary, the Court has previously ruled that absence from residence
to pursue studies or practice a profession or registration as a voter other than in the
place where one is elected, does not constitute loss of residence.
The Court also notes, that even with his trips to other countries, Ty was
actually present in the Municipality of General MacArthur, Eastern Samar,
Philippines, for at least nine of the 12 months preceding the 14 May 2007 local
elections. Even if length of actual stay in a place is not necessarily determinative of
the fact of residence therein, it does strongly support and is only consistent with Ty’s
avowed intent in the instant case to establish residence/domicile in the Municipality
of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar.
Japzon repeatedly brings to the attention of this Court that Ty arrived in the
Municipality of General MacArthur, Eastern Samar, on 4 May 2006 only to comply
with the one-year residency requirement, so Ty could run as a mayoralty candidate in
the 14 May 2007 elections.
In Aquino v. COMELEC, the Court did not find anything wrong in an individual
changing residences so he could run for an elective post, for as long as he is able to
prove with reasonable certainty that he has effected a change of residence for
election law purposes for the period required by law. As this Court already found in
the present case, Ty has proven by substantial evidence that he had established
residence/domicile in the Municipality of General MacArthur, Eastern Samar, by 4
May 2006, a little over a year prior to the 14 May 2007 local elections, in which he ran
as a candidate for the Office of the Mayor and in which he garnered the most number
of votes.
To successfully challenge Ty’s disqualification, Japzon must clearly demonstrate that
Ty’s ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles that
overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the
people would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic institutions
and juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and
promote. In this case, Japzon failed to substantiate his claim that Ty is ineligible to be
Mayor of the Municipality, the instant Petition for Certiorari is dismissed.
DE GUZMAN VS COMELEC
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order assails the June 15, 2007 Resolution of the First Division
of COMELEC, disqualifying ROSELLER DE GUZMAN from running as vice-mayor in the
May 14, 2007 elections.
Petitioner was a naturalized American. However, on January 25, 2006, he applied for
dual citizenship under RA
9225. Upon approval of his application, he took his oath of allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines on September 6, 2006. Having reacquired Philippine citizenship, he
is entitled to exercise full civil and political rights. As such, qualified to run as vice-
mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija.
 United States amounted to an abandonment and renunciation of his status as a
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is disqualified from running for vice-mayor of resident of the Philippines; it constituted a change from his domicile of origin, which
Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections for having failed to renounce his was Albuquerque, Bohol, to a new domicile of choice, which is the USA.
American Citizenship in accordance with RA 9225.

HELD: We find that petitioner is disqualified from running for public office in view of
his failure to renounce his American citizenship. RA 9225 was enacted to allow
reacquisition and retention of Philippine citizenship for:
1. Natural born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by
reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country;
2. Natural born citizens of the Philippines who after the effectivity of
the law, becomes citizens of a foreign country.
The law provides that they are not deemed to have reacquired or retained their
Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance.
Petitioner’s oath of allegiance and certificate of candidacy did not comply with
section(5)2 of RA 9225 which further requires those seeking elective public office in
the Philippines to make a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship.
Petitioner failed to renounce his American citizenship; as such, he is disqualified from
running for vice mayor.

G.R. No. 179851, April 18, 2008 MAYOR JOSE UGDORACION, JR. vs. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS and EPHRAIM M. TUNGOL
Residence, in contemplation of election laws, is synonymous to domicile. Domicile is
the place where one actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he,
no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return
(animus revertendi) and remain (animus manendi). It consists not only in the
intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled
with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile is classified into: (1)Domicile of
origin, which is acquired by every person at birth; (2)Domicile of choice, which is
acquired upon abandonment of the domicile of origin; and (3)Domicile by
operation of law, which the law attributes to a person independently of his
residence or intention. In a controversy such as the one at bench, given the parties'
naturally conflicting perspectives on domicile, we are guided by three basic rules,
namely:(1)A man must have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2)Domicile, once
established, remains until a new one is validly acquired; and (3)A man can have but
one residence or domicile at any given time. The general ruleis that the domicile of
origin is not easily lost; it is lost only when there is an actual removal or change of
domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a
new one, and acts which correspond with such purpose. In the instant case,
however, Ugdoracion's acquisition of a lawful permanent resident status in the