Title
Gana-Carait y Villegas vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 257453
Decision Date
Aug 9, 2022
A dual citizen by birth challenged COMELEC's disqualification ruling; SC reversed, affirming her eligibility without R.A. 9225 compliance.
dual citizen
disqualification
petition

Case Summary (G.R. No. 257453)

Factual Background

Petitioner was born on 25 June 1991 in Makati City to a Filipino father and an American mother. The COMELEC record includes a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) indicating that she “acquired United States Citizenship at birth” and showing documentary evidence presented to the United States Consular Service on 23 August 2004; she obtained and used a United States passport between 2010 and 2018. Petitioner previously ran and won as Barangay Kagawad in 2013 and as Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod in 2016, and she filed a CoC for Member, Sangguniang Panlungsod of Biñan City for the May 2019 elections.

Proceedings Before the COMELEC

Respondent Lim filed a petition for disqualification alleging that petitioner acquired US citizenship and failed to personally and swornly renounce foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer, and that her use of a US passport negated her claim of Filipino citizenship. Respondent Nunez sought denial of due course to or cancellation of petitioner’s CoC on similar grounds, asserting that petitioner’s CoC contained false declarations. The COMELEC First Division consolidated the matters, conducted a preliminary conference, received memoranda and documentary offers, and on 27 February 2019 denied the disqualification petition but granted the petition to cancel the CoC. Petitioner moved for partial reconsideration, which the COMELEC En Banc denied on 23 September 2021. The COMELEC thereafter issued a Certificate of Finality and Entry of Judgment dated 13 December 2021, and a Writ of Execution dated 31 January 2022.

Positions of the Parties

Petitioner maintained that she did not knowingly make a material misrepresentation in her CoC, that she is a dual citizen by birth and not precluded from office, that she did not perform any voluntary act to acquire US citizenship, that R.A. No. 9225 does not apply to her, and that possession or use of a US passport is not a disqualifying fact. The COMELEC and private respondents argued that the CRBA and her passport use showed acquisition of US citizenship through a positive act such that petitioner is a dual citizen by naturalization; they contended that under R.A. No. 9225, petitioner was required to take an oath of allegiance and personally renounce foreign citizenship before filing a CoC, and that failure to do so constituted a material misrepresentation warranting cancellation of the CoC.

COMELEC First Division Ruling

The COMELEC First Division found petitioner to be a dual citizen based on her Filipino parentage and the CRBA, observed that she used a US passport from 2010 to 2018, and held that the CRBA and relevant provisions of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) indicated a “positive act” in acquiring US citizenship. The First Division concluded that petitioner was a dual citizen by naturalization and therefore subject to the twin requirements of Section 3 and Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225; because petitioner had not taken the required oath of allegiance nor renounced foreign citizenship, the First Division cancelled her CoC and declared votes cast for her stray.

COMELEC En Banc Resolution

The COMELEC En Banc denied petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration and affirmed the First Division’s resolution. The En Banc agreed that petitioner’s failure to comply with R.A. No. 9225 rendered her ineligible to run for elective office and that her CoC contained a material misrepresentation as to eligibility, thus upholding the cancellation of the CoC.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues Considered by the Court

The Supreme Court addressed whether the En Banc resolution had attained finality and whether the petition for certiorari was timely. The Court reconciled the COMELEC Rules, which treat certain En Banc rulings as executory after five days if not restrained, with the Constitution and Rule 64 which afford thirty days from receipt of a copy of a Commission decision to file a petition for certiorari. The Court held that COMELEC procedural rules are subordinate to substantive law and the Constitution; decisions rendered executory under COMELEC rules remain non-final for purposes of judicial review where a timely Rule 64 petition is filed. The Court further invoked the exception to mootness because the issue is capable of repetition yet evades review, noting petitioner’s relevant term had ended but the citizenship question could recur.

Legal Issue(s) Presented

The principal legal questions were whether petitioner acquired United States citizenship by birth or by naturalization, whether R.A. No. 9225 applies to her, and whether petitioner’s alleged failure to comply with the twin requirements of Section 3 and Section 5(2) warranted cancellation of her CoC for material misrepresentation. Ancillary issues involved the proper interplay of COMELEC procedural rules with the Constitution and Rules of Court.

Supreme Court’s Merits Analysis and Reasoning

The Court held that R.A. No. 9225 applies only to dual citizens by naturalization and not to dual citizens by birth. The Court reiterated jurisprudence in De Guzman v. COMELEC, Maquiling v. COMELEC, and Cordora v. COMELEC that the statute’s concern is with natural-born Filipinos who later became foreign citizens through the naturalization process, thereby potentially creating dual allegiance. The Court found that the COMELEC erred in treating the CRBA, and documentary acts before a consular office, as evidence that petitioner underwent naturalization; foreign law and statutes such as the INA cannot be judicially noticed and were not properly proven, and the record contained no evidence that petitioner personally underwent naturalization or undertook the naturalization process. The CRBA itself expressly stated that petitioner “acquired United States Citizenship at birth,” and the Court reasoned that confirmation of a citizenship status by presentation of documents to a consular officer does not convert a birthright citizenship into a naturalization. The Court therefore concluded that petitioner was a dual citizen by birth, not by naturalization, and that she was not subject to the renunciation and separate oath requirements of Section 3 and Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225.

Effect of the Court’s Legal Conclusion on Material Misrepresentation Claim

Given the above, the Court held that petitioner did not make a false material representation in her CoC by declaring herself eligible for office. The Court further explained that, even assuming arguendo that R.A. No. 9225 had been violated, failure to renounce foreign citizenship under Section 5(2) does not strip a person of Filipino citizenship reacquired or retained pursuant to Section 3, and therefore does not per se negate the qualification of being a citizen under Section 39 of the Local Government Code. The Court emphasized that noncompliance with Section 5(2) is a condition on the exercise of electoral rights by naturalized dual citizens and, if at all, is the proper basis for a disqualification proceeding under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code, not an automatic nullity of a CoC where the candidate remains a Filipino citizen.

Disposition

The Court granted the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. It annulled and set aside the COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated 23 September 2021 and the COMELEC First Division Resolution dated 27 February 2019. The Co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms