G.R. No. 130634-35 - People vs. Oyanib y Mendoza

Case Summary (G.R. No. 130634-35)

Short Statement of Relief Sought

Petitioner Mercado filed a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the COMELEC en banc resolution that reversed a Second Division order disqualifying Manzano and to declare Manzano disqualified to hold the office of Vice Mayor of Makati City on the ground of dual citizenship.

Procedural History — Second Division Disqualification Ruling

On May 7, 1998 the COMELEC Second Division granted a disqualification petition by Ernesto Mamaril and ordered cancellation of Manzano’s certificate of candidacy on the ground that Manzano held dual citizenship (U.S. and Philippine) and was therefore disqualified under Sec. 40(d) of the Local Government Code. The Second Division based its decision on Manzano’s birth in San Francisco (jus soli), his Alien Certificate of Registration with the Philippine Bureau of Immigration, and concluded he held dual citizenship.

Motion for Reconsideration, Election, and Proclamation Suspension

Manzano filed a motion for reconsideration on May 8, 1998. The motion remained pending through the May 11, 1998 elections. Pursuant to COMELEC Omnibus Resolution No. 3044 (May 10, 1998), the Makati board of canvassers tabulated votes but suspended the proclamation of the winner while the disqualification proceeding remained unresolved.

Petitioner’s Intervention Attempt and COMELEC En Banc Review

Petitioner Mercado sought to intervene in the disqualification proceedings (motion filed May 19–20, 1998). The motion was not resolved. On August 31, 1998, the COMELEC en banc (4–1, with one abstention) reversed the Second Division and declared Manzano qualified to run and ordered his proclamation as Vice Mayor; the board of canvassers proclaimed Manzano the same evening.

Issues Raised in the Certiorari Petition

Petitioner’s principal contentions were: (A) Manzano did not effectively renounce U.S. citizenship by acts alleged (voting in Philippine elections and attaining majority) so he remained a dual citizen and therefore disqualified under Sec. 40(d); (B) Manzano was not qualified to hold the vice mayoralty; and (C) at the time of the May 11, 1998 elections the Second Division resolution was allegedly not final; petitioner argued this affected his entitlement to the office even if Manzano were later disqualified.

Threshold Issue — Petitioner’s Standing to Bring the Action

The Court considered whether Mercado had the personality to brin g the certiorari petition given his unsuccessful motion to intervene before COMELEC. Under COMELEC Rule 8 (Sections 1 and 3), intervention may be permitted to any person with legal interest. The Court found Mercado had sufficient interest: at the time he sought intervention there had been no proclamation of the winner, and as a rival candidate he had a legitimate interest in seeking the disqualification of a competing candidate. The Court relied on R.A. No. 6646 Sec. 6, which allows continuation of disqualification actions after an election and permits intervenors to move for suspension of proclamation when evidence is strong. The non-resolution of Mercado’s motion by the COMELEC en banc was treated as tantamount to denial, justifying his filing of the certiorari petition. The petition thus properly raised both procedural (denial of intervention) and substantive issues.

Legal Distinction — Dual Citizenship versus Dual Allegiance

The Court analyzed Sec. 40(d) of R.A. No. 7160 against the background of the 1987 Constitution. It emphasized the distinction between (a) dual citizenship — a status that may arise involuntarily under conflicting nationality rules of different states (e.g., jus sanguinis and jus soli), and (b) dual allegiance — a volitional or positive act of owing loyalty to two states. The Court noted Article IV, Section 5 (A5) of the 1987 Constitution was intended to address dual allegiance as inimical to national interest. The Court concluded that the phrase “dual citizenship” in Sec. 40(d) and in comparable local charters should be understood, in the constitutional context, as referring to dual allegiance rather than mere dual citizenship.

Consequences of the Distinction and Legal Policy

Because mere dual citizenship (an involuntary legal status) is different from dual allegiance (a volitional commitment to another state), the Court held that persons who happen to hold dual citizenship need not be automatically disqualified. For such candidates, the filing of a certificate of candidacy and an election of Philippine citizenship at the time of filing should suffice to terminate their status as dual citizens for purposes of qualification, even if the foreign state’s laws may still consider them nationals. The Court relied on constitutional debates and legislative discussions (senatorial exchanges) that supported the view that running for public office constitutes an election of Philippine citizenship and an effective repudiation of competing allegiance under Philippine law.

Applicable Foreign-Law Considerations and U.S. Law

The Court acknowledged U.S. statutory language (cited by COMELEC) that once provided loss of U.S. nationality for voting in foreign elections, but noted that the cited U.S. provision had been declared unconstitutional (Afroyim v. Rusk). The Court did not adopt a rule depending on foreign nationality law to determine a candidate’s Philippine qualification; instead, it looked to the candidate’s sworn declarations and acts under Philippine law to effect the election of Philippine citizenship.

Petitioner's Challenge on Sufficiency and Timing of Renunciation

Petitioner argued that (1) voting in Philippine elections or other acts was insufficient evidence of renunciation of U.S. citizenship, and (2) any renunciation after attaining majority was ineffective because renunciation allegedly had to occur at majority. The Court rejected both contentions: no law requires the election of Philippine citizenship to be made precisely at majority; and the oath and declarations in the candidate’s certificate of candidacy are sufficient, under Philippine law, to constitute election of Philippine citizenship and repudiation of foreign allegiance for purposes of eligibility.

Facts Relating to Manzano’s Election of Philippine Citizenship

The record showed Manzano was born in San Francisco on September 14 (or 4), 1955, to Filipino parents and thus was both a U.S. and Philippine national at birth. Manzano had been registered as an alien with the Philippine Bureau of Immigration and had used a U.S. passport for travel, and he participated in Philippine elections in 1992, 1995 and 1998. The COMELEC en banc found that by voting and, critically, by filing a certificate of candidacy (filed in March 1998 — dates in the record appear as March 21 and March 27, 1998) containing sworn statements that he was a natural-born Filipino, a registered voter, not a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country, and that he would support and defend the Constitution and maintain true faith and allegiance, Manzano effectively elected Philippine citizenship and repudiated U.S. nationality for purposes of his eligibility.

Precedents and Ana

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 130634-35)

Procedural Posture

Petition for certiorari filed by Ernesto S. Mercado seeking to set aside the resolution of the COMELEC en banc (August 31, 1998) that reversed the Second Division's cancellation of Eduardo B. Manzano's certificate of candidacy and declared Manzano qualified to run for vice-mayor of Makati City.
The petition challenges both the denial of Mercado’s motion for leave to intervene in the disqualification proceedings and the substantive ruling of the COMELEC en banc on Manzano’s alleged disqualification for dual citizenship.
The petition was resolved by the Supreme Court in a decision authored by Mendoza, J., dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Ernesto S. Mercado — candidate for vice-mayor of Makati City in the May 11, 1998 elections; sought leave to intervene in disqualification proceedings against Manzano.
Private Respondent: Eduardo B. (Luis) Barrios Manzano — candidate for vice-mayor of Makati City; subject of an original disqualification petition filed by Ernesto Mamaril alleging foreign citizenship (United States).
Respondent: Commission on Elections (COMELEC) — adjudicated the disqualification petition first through its Second Division and later en banc; issued orders, suspensions, and ultimately reconfirmed Manzano’s qualification and directed proclamation.

Facts

Candidates for vice-mayor, May 11, 1998: Eduardo B. Manzano, Ernesto S. Mercado, and Gabriel V. Daza III.
Election returns recorded: Eduardo B. Manzano — 103,853 votes; Ernesto S. Mercado — 100,894 votes; Gabriel V. Daza III — 54,275 votes.
A petition for disqualification against Manzano was filed by Ernesto Mamaril, alleging Manzano was a U.S. citizen and thus ineligible under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code (persons with dual citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective local position).
Manzano admitted registration as a foreigner with the Philippine Bureau of Immigration under Alien Certificate of Registration No. B-31632, and admission of U.S. birth (San Francisco, California) and U.S. citizenship by operation of U.S. laws, while asserting he was a Filipino citizen by parentage.
Manzano had used an American passport for travel (last recorded travel to the U.S. on April 22, 1997) and had been registered with the Bureau of Immigration; he later filed a certificate of candidacy (March 27, 1998) containing sworn statements electing Filipino citizenship and asserting eligibility.

Election Results and Proclamation Status

Despite tabulation of votes, the proclamation of the winner for vice-mayor of Makati City was suspended pursuant to Omnibus Resolution No. 3044 dated May 10, 1998, because of the pending disqualification proceedings.
At the time Mercado sought to intervene (May 19, 1998; motion filed May 20, 1998), no proclamation had been made.
Following the COMELEC en banc resolution of August 31, 1998, the Makati City Board of Canvassers reconvened and, on the evening of August 31, 1998, proclaimed Manzano as vice-mayor of Makati City.

COMELEC Second Division Resolution (May 7, 1998)

Second Division (per Commissioner Amado M. Calderon, concurred in by Commissioners Julio F. Desamito and Japal M. Guiani) granted Mamaril’s petition and ordered cancellation of Manzano’s certificate of candidacy on the ground Manzano was a dual citizen and therefore disqualified under Section 40(d) of R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code).
The Second Division found Manzano was registered as an alien with the Bureau of Immigration (Alien Certificate B-31632), was born in the U.S. (San Francisco), and “would appear” to be both a Filipino and a U.S. citizen, hence holding dual citizenship and subject to disqualification under Section 40(d).

Motion for Reconsideration; Interim Proceedings

Manzano filed a motion for reconsideration on May 8, 1998; the motion remained pending through and after the May 11, 1998 elections.
Omnibus Resolution No. 3044 (dated May 10, 1998) led to the suspension of proclamation pending resolution of disqualification.
Mercado filed a motion for leave to intervene in the disqualification proceedings on May 19/20, 1998; Manzano opposed the motion. The motion was not resolved by the Second Division.

COMELEC En Banc Resolution (August 31, 1998) — Findings and Rationale

The COMELEC en banc (per Chairman Bernardo P. Pardo and concurred in by Commissioners Manolo B. Gorospe, Teresita Dy-Liaco Flores, Japal M. Guiani, and Luzviminda G. Tancangco; Commissioner Julio F. Desamito dissented; noted vote count 4–1 with one abstention earlier) reversed the Second Division and declared Manzano qualified as a candidate for vice-mayor.
Key factual and legal findings of the en banc:
- Manzano was born in San Francisco, California, and acquired U.S. citizenship by jus soli and was a natural-born Filipino by operation of the 1935 Philippine Constitution because both parents were Filipinos at his birth.
- At age six, Manzano was brought to the Philippines using an American passport; his parents registered him as an alien with the Philippine Bureau of Immigration, and he was issued an alien certificate of registration — actions that did not, by themselves, result in loss of Philippine citizenship since he did not renounce Philippine citizenship nor take an oath of allegiance to the U.S.
- Manzano was an active participant in Philippine civic life: he registered to vote and voted in the elections of 1992, 1995, and 1998.
- The en banc held that by voting in those Philippine elections Manzano “effectively renounced his U.S. citizenship under American law,” and under Philippine law he no longer had U.S. citizenship at the time of the May 11, 1998 elections.
- The en banc emphasized a policy preference: in applying election laws, it is preferable to err in favor of the popular choice rather than be enmeshed in complex private international law issues that could be addressed by higher courts (citing Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727).
The en banc ordered the Makati City Board of Canvassers to reconvene and proclaim Manzano as the winning candidate for vice-mayor of Makati City.

Issues Raised by Petitioner Mercado

Mercado contended the COMELEC en banc erred in holding: A. That under Philippine law Manzano was no longer a U.S. citizen when:
- He supposedly renounced U.S. citizenship upon attaining the age of majority (alleged renunciation when he was already 37 years old); and
- He renounced U.S. citizenship by merely registering himself as a voter and voting in the Philippine elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998. B. That Manzano is qualified to run for and hold the elective office of vice-mayor. C. That at the time of the May 11, 1998 elections, the Second Division’s May 7, 1998 resolution was not yet final so that petitioner could not be declared the winner even assuming Manzano was disqualified.

Threshold Procedural Question — Mercado’s Standing / Right to Intervene

The Court first addressed Mercado’s personality to bring the certiorari petition, considering Rule 8 of COMELEC’s Rules (Section 1 and Section 3) regarding intervention: intervention may be permitted if the applicant has legal interest and the Commission may exercise discretion to allow or disallow intervention considering delay, prejudice, and whether rights may be protected in separate proceedings.
Manzano argued Mercado had no legal interest because as a defeated candidate he could not be proclaimed Vice-Mayor even if Manzano were eventually disqualified.
The Court rejected this argument as premised on the incorrect assumption that a proclamation had already been made at the time Mercado sought to intervene; in fact, no proclamation had been made when Mercado filed his motion for leave to intervene (May 20, 1998).
The Court reasoned Mercado had an interest in ousting Manzano from the race at the time he sought to intervene and was therefore competent to seek intervention, similarly to Ernesto Mamaril, a registered voter who originally instituted the disqualification proceedings.
The Court cited Section 6 of R.A. No. 664