Case Summary (G.R. No. 210612)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) filed by petitioner: 17 October 2018 for the 13 May 2019 National and Local Elections.
Petitions filed before COMELEC: petition for disqualification by Rommel Lim on 22 October 2018; petition to deny due course to or cancel CoC by Dominic NuAez on 6 November 2018.
COMELEC First Division Resolution: 27 February 2019 (denied disqualification petition; granted petition to cancel CoC).
COMELEC En Banc denied motion for partial reconsideration: 23 September 2021.
Petition for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65; decision of the Supreme Court resolving the petition is discussed in the record provided.
Factual Background
Petitioner was born 25 June 1991 in Makati City to a Filipino father and an American mother. A Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) and a United States passport in petitioner’s name appear in the COMELEC record, showing issuance of a CRBA on 23 August 2004 and US passport use from 2010 to 2018. Petitioner previously held barangay and city-level elective posts (2013 Barangay Kagawad; 2016 Sangguniang Panlungsod member) and filed the challenged CoC in 2018.
Grounds and Reliefs Sought Before COMELEC
Respondent Lim’s petition: alleged petitioner acquired US citizenship and sought office without making a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship as required. Respondent NuAez’s petition: alleged petitioner may be a dual citizen and that petitioner’s CoC contained false representations regarding eligibility; sought denial of due course to or cancellation of CoC. Petitioner answered both petitions, asserting (among other defenses) that she is a dual citizen by birth, did not perform a voluntary positive act to acquire US citizenship, RA 9225 is inapplicable, and possession/use of a US passport is not a disqualifying basis.
COMELEC First Division Findings and Reasoning
The First Division found petitioner to be a dual citizen, noting the CRBA and US passport usage. It treated the CRBA and the submission of documentary evidence as indicating a “positive act” and characterized petitioner as a dual citizen by naturalization rather than by birth. Relying on provisions of U.S. law (cited INA provisions) and jurisprudence interpreting RA 9225, the First Division concluded RA 9225 applied; because petitioner did not comply with the twin RA 9225 requirements for naturalized dual citizens (taking the oath of allegiance and making a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship at CoC filing), the First Division held petitioner committed material misrepresentation in her CoC and cancelled the CoC, ruling votes cast for her stray.
COMELEC En Banc Action
Petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC En Banc (23 September 2021), which affirmed the First Division’s conclusion that petitioner’s failure to comply with RA 9225 rendered her ineligible and that her CoC contained a material misrepresentation. The COMELEC thereafter issued a Certificate of Finality, Entry of Judgment, and Writ of Execution; the petitioner timely filed a Rule 64/65 petition in the Supreme Court challenging the En Banc Resolution.
Petition to the Supreme Court and Timeliness
The Supreme Court found the Rule 64 petition timely filed within the 30-day period provided by Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and mirrored in Rule 64, Rule of Court. The Court addressed an apparent conflict with COMELEC Rules (which treat certain COMELEC rulings as final and executory after five days from promulgation absent a Supreme Court restraining order). The Court held COMELEC’s procedural rules cannot shorten constitutionally and statutorily provided periods for judicial review and that En Banc resolutions rendered executory absent a restraining order are not thereby made final for purposes of seeking certiorari within the 30-day constitutional period.
Harmonization of COMELEC Rules with Constitution and Rules of Court
The Court emphasized that COMELEC procedural rules are subordinate to substantive law and the Constitution. To harmonize conflicting provisions, the Court interpreted COMELEC’s rule about decisions being “final and executory” after five days (absent a restraining order) as meaning “executory but not final,” preserving the constitutional 30-day review period. Consequently, the petitioner’s timely petition prevented the En Banc resolution from attaining finality and permitted Supreme Court review.
Mootness and Exception Applied
Although the petitioner’s relevant term of office expired (term began 30 June 2019 and ended 30 June 2022), the Court invoked the established exception to mootness—cases “capable of repetition yet evading review”—and declined to dismiss the petition as moot. The Court found the citizenship eligibility issue could recur and evade review in future elections, making resolution on the merits appropriate.
Core Legal Issue Presented
The pivotal legal question was whether petitioner’s United States citizenship was acquired at birth (dual citizen by birth) or by naturalization (dual citizen by naturalization), because RA 9225’s twin requirements (oath of allegiance and personal sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship at time of CoC filing) apply to dual citizens by naturalization but not to dual citizens by birth, according to settled jurisprudence cited in the decision.
Statutory and Jurisprudential Framework (RA 9225 and Precedents)
RA 9225 was interpreted as intended for natural-born Filipinos who lost Philippine citizenship by virtue of naturalization in a foreign country and for natural-born Filipinos who later become foreign citizens—the law facilitating retention or re-acquisition by taking an oath of allegiance. Jurisprudence (De Guzman; Maquiling; Cordora; others) distinguishes dual citizenship by birth (involuntary, arising from concurrent application of different states’ laws) from dual allegiance (voluntary, arising from naturalization). The Court reiterated that RA 9225’s oath and renunciation requirements apply to those who became foreign citizens by naturalization (i.e., voluntary positive act), not to those who acquired foreign citizenship by birth.
Analysis of Evidence — CRBA and Burden of Proof
The Court found the COMELEC’s conclusion that petitioner was a dual citizen by naturalization manifestly erroneous. It stressed that foreign laws (including INA provisions) cannot be judicially noticed and must be proven as foreign public documents; COMELEC improperly relied on U.S. statutes without proper proof. The Court also noted that the INA provisions cited, which permit a U.S. citizen parent to apply on behalf of a child, if anything, indicate any “positive act” would have been performed by the parent, not the child. Crucially, the CRBA explicitly stated petitioner “acquired United States citizenship at birth,” and the Court observed that the CRBA’s language confirms acquisition at birth and that submission of documentary evidence before a consular officer was to establish that birth-acquired status, not to effect naturalization. The decision cited Cordora as directly analogous: a parental petition or related procedures only confirmed citizenship acquired at birth and did not transform birthright citizenship into naturalization.
Conclusion on Applicability of R.A. 9225 and Material Misrepresentation
Applying the statutory text and precedent, the Supreme Court concluded RA 9225 applies only to dual citizens by naturalization and not to dual citizens by birth. Because petitioner acquired U.S.
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 210612)
Nature of the Case and Reliefs Sought
- Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with a Prayer for the Immediate Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Status Quo Ante Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
- The petition assails the COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated 23 September 2021 which denied Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the COMELEC First Division Resolution dated 27 February 2019.
- The challenged COMELEC First Division Resolution denied the petition for disqualification filed by private respondent Rommel Mitra Lim but granted the petition to deny due course to or cancel Petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) filed by private respondent Dominic P. NuAez.
- Ultimate relief sought: annulment and setting aside of the assailed COMELEC resolutions and related enforcement actions, and dismissal of the petition to deny due course to or cancel Petitioner’s CoC.
Case Caption, Docket and Decision
- G.R. No. 257453; EN BANC decision promulgated on 09 August 2022; ponente Justice Rosario.
- The Court resolved the petition on the merits and granted certiorari, annulling and setting aside the COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated 23 September 2021 and the COMELEC First Division Resolution dated 27 February 2019.
- The Court also cancelled and set aside the COMELEC’s Certificate of Finality (13 December 2021), Entry of Judgment (13 December 2021), and Writ of Execution (31 January 2022) issued in relation to the En Banc Resolution, and dismissed the petition to deny due course to or cancel the CoC filed by private respondent Dominic P. NuAez.
Parties and Their Roles
- Petitioner: Mariz Lindsey Tan Villegas Gana-Carait — filed CoC for Member, Sangguniang Panlungsod, Lone District of BiAan City, Laguna, for the 13 May 2019 National and Local Elections.
- Public respondent: Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc — authored the challenged Resolution that affirmed the First Division decision.
- Private respondent/petitioner for disqualification: Rommel Mitra Lim — filed petition for disqualification on 22 October 2018 alleging acquisition of U.S. citizenship and failure to make personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship prior to seeking public office; alleged Petitioner’s use of a U.S. passport negated her Filipino citizenship claim.
- Private respondent/petitioner to deny due course or cancel CoC: Dominic P. NuAez — filed petition on 6 November 2018 claiming Petitioner may be a dual citizen, that her use of a U.S. passport shows she was not a Filipino citizen or was at least a dual citizen, and that Petitioner’s CoC representations were false.
Chronology of Key Facts and Procedural Steps
- 25 June 1991: Petitioner born in Makati City to a Filipino father and an American mother (finding of COMELEC First Division).
- Prior to 2012 and as reflected in the record: a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) was issued and a U.S. passport obtained; CRBA indicates Petitioner “acquired United States Citizenship at birth as established by documentary evidence presented to the Consular Service of the United States at Manila, Philippines on August 23, 2004.”
- 2010–2018: Petitioner used a U.S. passport to travel to and from the U.S. and the Philippines (as found by the COMELEC First Division).
- 17 October 2018: Petitioner filed CoC for Member, Sangguniang Panlungsod of BiAan City, Laguna, for the 13 May 2019 NLE.
- 22 October 2018: Lim filed petition for disqualification (docketed SPA Case No. 18-057 [DC]).
- 6 November 2018: NuAez filed petition to deny due course to or cancel CoC (docketed SPA Case No. 18-126 [DC]).
- 3 December 2018: Petitioner filed answers raising factual and legal defenses including that she is a dual citizen by birth, not a naturalized dual citizen, and that she did not commit material misrepresentation.
- 7 December 2018: Petitioner filed a motion for consolidation of the two petitions.
- 27 February 2019: COMELEC First Division issued Resolution denying disqualification petition but granting NuAez’s petition to deny due course to or cancel Petitioner’s CoC.
- 5 March 2019: Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration with the COMELEC.
- 23 September 2021: COMELEC En Banc denied Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration and affirmed the First Division Resolution.
- Petitioner timely filed the present certiorari petition within the 30-day period provided by Rule 64; COMELEC nonetheless issued Certificate of Finality and other enforcement documents which the Court later set aside.
Factual Findings of the COMELEC First Division (as summarized in the record)
- Petitioner was found to be a dual citizen at the time of filing her CoC, being a natural-born Filipino and also a U.S. citizen as evidenced by the CRBA.
- The CRBA and Petitioner’s U.S. passport were taken as indicia of U.S. citizenship.
- The First Division noted Section 2705(2), Title 22 U.S. Code, equating CRBA to proof of U.S. citizenship akin to certificates of naturalization or citizenship issued by the Attorney General or court having naturalization jurisdiction.
- The First Division found no evidence that Petitioner renounced any citizenship and therefore deemed Petitioner a dual citizen when she filed her CoC.
- Although the petition for disqualification was dismissed (no proof Petitioner took an oath of allegiance to the U.S.), the First Division concluded that Petitioner made a material misrepresentation in her CoC by declaring eligibility to run for public office because:
- The First Division characterized Petitioner as a dual citizen by naturalization, asserting a positive act was done to acquire U.S. citizenship (citing Act 322 of the INA and the CRBA language).
- Because the First Division concluded R.A. No. 9225 applied, Petitioner should have complied with its twin requirements (taking an oath of allegiance and personally renouncing any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer) before vying for elective office.
- Conclusion of the First Division: Petitioner’s CoC was cancelled and votes cast for her were to be considered stray.
COMELEC En Banc Ruling and Rationale
- COMELEC En Banc, by Resolution dated 23 September 2021, denied Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration and affirmed the First Division Resolution.
- The En Banc held that Petitioner’s failure to comply with R.A. 9225 rendered her ineligible to run for elective office and that Petitioner thereby committed material misrepresentations in her CoC when she declared her eligibility.
- The En Banc thus affirmed cancellation/denial of Petitioner’s CoC.
Petitioner’s Principal Arguments to the Supreme Court
- COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by affirming that Petitioner is a dual citizen by naturalization and by holding that R.A. No. 9225 required Petitioner’s compliance with its twin requirements.
- Argument specifics:
- There is no factual or legal basis to classify Petitioner as a dual citizen by naturalization rather than by birth.
- The mere acquisition of a foreign citizenship by a natural-born Filipino does not automatically invoke R.A. 9225; the law contemplates naturalization-based acquisitions.
- Petitioner did not voluntarily perform a positive act to acquire U.S. citizenship because she was considered a U.S. citizen at birth; the records have no evidence of voluntary acts by Petitioner to acquire U.S. citizenship.
- The presentation of documents reflected in the CRBA cannot be equated with undergoing the naturalization process.
- Possession and use of a U.S. passport is not, by itself, a basis for disqualification.
- COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to decide the ultimate citizenship qualification where proper authority remains undecided or undetermined.
Respondents’ and COMELEC’s Principal Arguments
- COMELEC (through its Comment and the Office of the Solicitor General) maintained Petitioner acquired U.S. citizenship through a positive act (application) and thus is covered by R.A. 9225. As a natural-born Filipino who became a U.S. citizen on 23 August 2004, Petitioner was required by Section 3 and Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225 to take the oath of allegiance and personally renounce her foreign citizenship before seeking elective office.
- COMELEC argued it did not act with grave abuse of discretion in cancelling Petitioner’s CoC and that Petitioner made a material misrepresentation when she declared eligibility to run for public office.
- Respondents NuAez and Lim asserted that Petitioner’s CRBA and passport demonstrated U.S. citizenship and justified denial/cancellation of the CoC.