Case Summary (G.R. No. 248401)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
Petitioner sought certiorari under Rule 65 (pursuant to Section 2, Rule 64, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) challenging COMELEC Resolutions dated July 17, 1998 (First Division) and January 15, 1999 (en banc) that dismissed his petition for disqualification. He also moved for reconsideration before COMELEC, which was denied. The Supreme Court review affirms or reverses those COMELEC resolutions.
Relevant Facts of Respondent’s Birth, Parentage, and Civic Participation
Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western Australia, to Telesforo Ybasco (Filipino, native of Daet, Camarines Norte) and Theresa Marquez (Australian). She came to the Philippines in 1949, married Leopoldo Lopez (Filipino) on June 27, 1952, and has continuously participated in Philippine elections as voter and candidate, serving as Provincial Board Member and being elected governor in 1992.
Prior Administrative Determinations on Citizenship
Respondent’s citizenship was previously contested in EPC No. 92-54 (quo warranto by opponent Gil Taojo, Jr.) and SPA No. 95-066 (petition by Francisco Rabat). COMELEC dismissed those petitions, finding insufficient proof of renunciation of Philippine citizenship and concluding respondent’s filiation to a Filipino father established Philippine citizenship under jus sanguinis.
Petitioner’s Evidence and Arguments
Petitioner relied on respondent’s foreign-documentary acts: issuance of Australian Passport No. H700888 (March 3, 1988), registration with the Bureau of Immigration as an Australian national and issuance of Alien Certificate of Registration No. 404695 (September 19, 1988), and application for an Immigrant Certificate of Residence. Petitioner argued these acts amounted to renunciation or forfeiture of Philippine citizenship, that respondent remained an Australian unless properly repatriated under R.A. 8171, and that dual/stateless status disqualified her under RA 7160 §40(d).
COMELEC’s Findings in SPA No. 98-336
COMELEC found respondent to be a Filipino citizen by virtue of (1) her Filipino father under the principle of jus sanguinis; (2) marriage to a Filipino under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (ipso jure effect asserted); (3) documentary evidence that respondent renounced Australian citizenship on January 15, 1992 (Declaration of Renunciation registered May 12, 1992) and had her Australian passport cancelled February 11, 1992 as certified by the Australian Embassy; and (4) the prior COMELEC resolutions in EPC No. 92-54 and SPA No. 95-066 declaring her qualified.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework on Citizenship
The Court applies the 1987 Constitution (Article IV) and relevant antecedent laws recognizing jus sanguinis as the principle of Philippine citizenship. Historical organic acts (Philippine Bill of 1902 and Jones Law) and the 1935 Constitution established filiation-based citizenship. Commonwealth Act No. 63 prescribes modes of loss of Philippine citizenship, requiring express renunciation for loss by renunciation. R.A. 8171 (repatriation) and RA 7160 (Local Government Code) are addressed as invoked by petitioner.
Legal Standard on Loss of Citizenship and Renunciation
Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, loss of Philippine citizenship by renunciation must be express. Mere possession of foreign documents or registration abroad is not ipso facto an express renunciation. The Court reiterates that renunciation requires a deliberate, express act with full awareness of its consequences.
Precedents on Foreign Documentation and Effect on Philippine Citizenship
The Court relies on Aznar v. COMELEC and Mercado v. Manzano to hold that holding an alien certificate of registration, being registered as foreign national with immigration, or possessing a foreign passport do not by themselves constitute effective renunciation of Philippine citizenship. Such acts are viewed as assertions of foreign nationality but not conclusive of loss of Philippine citizenship absent express renunciation.
Dual Citizenship, Dual Allegiance, and Effect of Filing Candidacy
The Court distinguishes mere dual citizenship from dual allegiance. Under Mercado v. Manzano, the statutory disqualification for “dual citizenship” in RA 7160 §40(d) relates to dual allegiance inimical to national interest, not to involuntary or de facto dual nationality. The Court further recognizes that for candidates who possess foreign citizenship, the filing of a certificate of candidacy—where the candidate swears to be a Filipino and to support the Constitution—operates as an election of Philippine citizenship and effectively terminates foreign allegiance for purposes of qualification.
Application of Evidence to the Present Case
The Court accepts that respondent’s filiation to a Filipino father confers Philippine citizenship under jus sanguinis. The acts relied upon by petitioner (ACR, ICR application, foreign passport) do not establish express renunciation. COMELEC’s fin
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 248401)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by Cirilo R. Valles assailing Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Resolutions dated July 17, 1998 and January 15, 1999 in SPA No. 98-336.
- The challenged COMELEC Resolutions dismissed petitioner’s petition for disqualification of private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez in the May 1998 elections for governor of Davao Oriental.
- The COMELEC First Division issued the July 17, 1998 Resolution dismissing the petition; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC en banc in its January 15, 1999 Resolution.
- Petitioner then invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by the present certiorari petition.
Factual Background
- Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western Australia.
- Her parents were Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian.
- At age fifteen (1949) she left Australia and settled in the Philippines.
- She married Leopoldo Lopez, a Filipino citizen, on June 27, 1952 at the Malate Catholic Church in Manila.
- She actively participated in the electoral process as a voter and candidate, served as Provincial Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao Oriental, and was elected governor of Davao Oriental in 1992.
- Her citizenship had been previously challenged: EPC No. 92-54 (petition by Gil Taojo, Jr.) alleging Australian citizenship was dismissed by COMELEC for lack of sufficient proof of renunciation of Philippine citizenship.
- In the 1995 local elections, a petition for disqualification (SPA No. 95-066 by Francisco Rabat) again contested her Filipino citizenship but was dismissed by COMELEC, reiterating its earlier decision.
- In relation to the 1998 challenge (SPA No. 98-336), petitioner alleged that respondent had taken acts showing Australian nationality: registration with the Bureau of Immigration as an Australian national and issuance of Alien Certificate of Registration No. 404695 dated September 19, 1988; application for an Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR) on the same date; and issuance of Australian Passport No. H700888 on March 3, 1988.
- COMELEC and the Australian Embassy records indicated that respondent executed a Declaration of Renunciation of Australian Citizenship on January 15, 1992 (registered in Australia on May 12, 1992) and that her Australian passport was cancelled on February 11, 1992, as certified by the Australian Embassy in Manila.
Issues Presented
- Whether respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is a Filipino citizen and therefore qualified to run for governor of Davao Oriental.
- Whether the respondent’s acquisition/possession of Australian documentation (ACR, ICR application, Australian passport) constituted an express renunciation of Philippine citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63.
- Whether respondent’s alleged subsequent renunciation of Australian citizenship (and cancellation of Australian passport) automatically restored Philippine citizenship or required compliance with repatriation requirements under Republic Act No. 8171.
- Whether prior COMELEC resolutions on respondent’s citizenship operate as res judicata or otherwise justify dismissal of the petition.
- Whether dual citizenship disqualifies respondent from elective local office under Section 40(d) of Republic Act No. 7160.
COMELEC Findings (as summarized in the source)
- COMELEC found respondent to be a Filipino citizen on several bases:
- Her father, Telesforo Ybasco, was a Filipino citizen, and by virtue of the principle of jus sanguinis she was a Filipino citizen under the 1987 Constitution.
- Her marriage to a Filipino rendered her a Filipino ipso jure under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 473.
- She renounced Australian citizenship on January 15, 1992 before the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of Australia and her Australian passport was cancelled on February 11, 1992 (certified by the Australian Embassy in Manila).
- Prior COMELEC Resolutions in EPC No. 92-54 and SPA No. 95-066 had earlier declared her a Filipino citizen and qualified for elective office.
Petitioner’s Contentions (as presented in the source)
- Petitioner contended respondent was an Australian citizen because:
- She registered with the Bureau of Immigration as an Australian national and was issued ACR No. 404695 dated September 19, 1988.
- She applied for an Immigrant Certificate of Residence on the same date.
- She was issued Australian Passport No. H700888 on March 3, 1988.
- Petitioner argued those acts amounted to an express renunciation or forfeiture of Philippine citizenship.
- Petitioner asserted that the respondent’s supposed renunciation of Australian citizenship did not automatically restore Philippine citizenship and that repatriation under Republic Act No. 8171 was required to reacquire Philippine citizenship.
- Petitioner further argued that COMELEC erred in applying res judicata because, he contended, the issue of citizenship is generally not res judicata in subsequent proceedings (citing Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration).
Governing Legal Provisions and Precedents Cited
- Principle of jus sanguinis as the basis of Philippine citizenship und