Jacot vs. Dal

G.R. No. 179848
A naturalized U.S. citizen reacquired Philippine citizenship, ran for vice-mayor, but was disqualified for failing to formally renounce U.S. citizenship, despite winning the election.
naturalized us citizen disqualified renunciation

Case Summary (G.R. No. 179848)

Factual Background

Petitioner Nestor A. Jacot was a natural-born Filipino who became a naturalized United States citizen on 13 December 1989. He sought reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and requested administration of the oath of allegiance at the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles PCG issued an Order of Approval dated 19 June 2006, and petitioner took the prescribed Oath of Allegiance on the same day before Vice Consul Edward C. Yulo. The Bureau of Immigration thereafter issued Identification Certificate No. 06-12019 on 27 September 2006 recognizing petitioner as a Filipino citizen.

Proceedings Before the COMELEC

On 26 March 2007 petitioner filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin. On 2 May 2007 respondent Rogen T. Dal filed a Petition for Disqualification before the COMELEC Provincial Office asserting that petitioner failed to make a personal and sworn renunciation of his United States citizenship as required by Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225. Petitioner answered on 6 May 2007 and filed a Position Paper on 8 May 2007 contending that his Oath of Allegiance before the Los Angeles PCG and the oath contained in his Certificate of Candidacy sufficed as lawful renunciation. After the elections, in which petitioner garnered the highest number of votes for Vice-Mayor, the COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution on 12 June 2007 disqualifying petitioner for failure to make the requisite personal and sworn renunciation. The COMELEC en banc denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration on 28 September 2007.

The Parties' Contentions

Petitioner contended before the COMELEC and continued to assert before the Court that his Oath of Allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 and the oath in his Certificate of Candidacy operated as an effective renunciation of his foreign citizenship. On appeal petitioner amended his theory by submitting, for the first time to the Supreme Court, an “Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States and Any and All Foreign Citizenship” allegedly executed on 7 February 2007, and argued that this affidavit proved compliance with Section 5(2) prior to filing his Certificate of Candidacy. Respondents maintained that Section 5(2) requires a distinct, personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship before a public officer authorized to administer oaths simultaneous with or prior to filing the certificate of candidacy, and that petitioner had not so complied.

Issues Presented to the Court

Petitioner framed three principal issues: whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that petitioner failed to comply with Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225; whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion regarding motion fees required by COMELEC rules; and whether affirming the COMELEC’s decision would frustrate the will of the electorate of Catarman, Camiguin. The Court treated the dispositive issue as whether petitioner was disqualified for failing to make the personal and sworn renunciation of his foreign citizenship as mandated by Section 5(2).

Supreme Court's Determination

The Court held that petitioner was disqualified from running for Vice-Mayor in the 14 May 2007 elections for failure to make the personal and sworn renunciation required by Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225. The Court affirmed the COMELEC Second Division Resolution dated 12 June 2007 and the COMELEC en banc Resolution dated 28 September 2007. The petition was dismissed and costs were awarded against petitioner.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court explained that Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 prescribes an oath of allegiance by which natural-born Filipinos who were naturalized abroad reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship, but that the oath contains no renunciation of foreign citizenship. By contrast Section 5(2) expressly requires those who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under the Act and who seek elective office to “make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath” at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. The Court emphasized that the oath of allegiance under Section 3 and the oath contained in a Certificate of Candidacy are substantially similar and do not satisfy the additional and distinct statutory requirement of personal and sworn renunciation. The legislative history cited by the Court confirmed the intent that the renunciation be distinct from the oath of allegiance so that a candidate would possess only Philippine citizenship when seeking elective office.

On Late Evidence and Counsel's Conduct

The Court refused to admit the affidavit of renunciation that petitioner first presented to the Supreme Court and said he should have offered it before the COMELEC. The Court applied Section 1 of Rule 43 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which makes pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court applicable, and invoked Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court which directs that the court consider no evidence not formally offered. The Court found that admitting the affidavit would have violated due process because respondents had no opportunity to examine or controvert it. The Court further held that petitioner neither established gross negligence or reckless conduct by counsel sufficient to invoke exceptions relieving a client from the consequences of counsel’s mistakes, nor showed that he was deprived of due process or that application of the rule would result in an outright deprivation of property by technicality. The Court observed that petitioner continued to press the same legal theory advanced by his former counsel and that petitioner himself bore responsibility for the failure to present the affidavit earlier.

Precedential Analysis

The Court distinguished prior decisions in Valles v. COMELEC and Mercado v. Manzano, explaining that those cases involved persons who were dual citizens by operation of law from birth and not persons who acquired foreign citizenship by an act of naturalization. The Court deemed Lopez v. Commission on Elections the more apposite precedent because Lopez, like petitioner, had been na

...continue reading