aznar vs comelec and osmena.docx

7/23/2019 aznar vs comelec and osmena.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aznar-vs-comelec-and-osmenadocx 1/24

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 83820 May 25, 1990

JOSE B. AZNAR (as Pro!"#!a$ C%a!r&a" o' PP )a*a" !" C+*-, petitioner,

vs.

COMMSSON ON E)ECTONS a"/ EM)O MARO RENNER OSMEA, respondents.

Rufino B. Requina for petitioner.

Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for private respondent.

PARAS, J.:

Before Us is a petition for certiorari assailing the Resolution of the Commission on Elections

C!ME"EC# dated $une %%, %&'', (hich dismissed the petition for the dis)ualification of private

respondent Emilio *"ito* !sme+a as candidate for Provincial overnor of Cebu Province.

-he facts of the case are briefl as follo(s/

!n November %&, %&'0, private respondent Emilio *"ito* !sme+a filed his certificate of candidac

(ith the C!ME"EC for the position of Provincial overnor of Cebu Province in the $anuar %', %&''local elections.

!n $anuar 11, %&'', the Cebu P2P3"aban Provincial Council Cebu3P2P "aban, for short#, as

represented b petitioner $ose B. A4nar in his capacit as its incumbent Provincial Chairman, filed

(ith the C!ME"EC a petition for the dis)ualification of private respondent on the ground that he is

allegedl not a 5ilipino citi4en, being a citi4en of the United 6tates of America.

!n $anuar 10, %&'', petitioner filed a 5ormal Manifestation submitting a Certificate issued b the

then 7mmigration and 2eportation Commissioner Miriam 2efensor 6antiago certifing that private

respondent is an American and is a holder of Alien Certificate of Registration ACR# No. B31%88'

and 7mmigrant Certificate of Residence 7CR# No. %99&%%, issued at Manila on March 10 and 1',%&:', respectivel. Anne; *B3%*#.

-he petitioner also filed a 6upplemental Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the 7ssuance of a -emporar

Restraining !rder to temporaril en<oin the Cebu Provincial Board of Canvassers from

tabulating=canvassing the votes cast in favor of private respondent and proclaiming him until the final

resolution of the main petition.



-hus, on $anuar 1', %&'', the C!ME"EC en banc resolved to order the Board to continue

canvassing but to suspend the proclamation.

At the hearing before the C!ME"EC 5irst 2ivision#, the petitioner presented the follo(ing e;hibits

tending to sho( that private respondent is an American citi4en/ Application for Alien Registration

5orm No. % of the Bureau of 7mmigration signed b private respondent dated November 1%, %&0&E;h. *B*#> Alien Certificate of Registration No. ?%:9:@ in the name of private respondent dated

November 1%, %&0& E;h. *C*#> Permit to Re3enter the Philippines dated November 1%, %&0& E;h.

*2*#> 7mmigration Certificate of Clearance dated $anuar 9, %&'? E;h. *E*#. pp. %%03%%', Rollo#

Private respondent, on the other hand, maintained that he is a 5ilipino citi4en, alleging/ that he is the

legitimate child of 2r. Emilio 2. !sme+a, a 5ilipino and son of the late President 6ergio !sme+a, 6r.>

that he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport No. ?'::%?9 issued on March 1:,

%&'0> that he has been continuousl residing in the Philippines since birth and has not gone out of

the countr for more than si; months> and that he has been a registered voter in the Philippines

since %&@:. pp. %?03%?', Rollo#

!n March 9, %&'', C!ME"EC 5irst 2ivision# directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the

(inning candidates. aving obtained the highest number of votes, private respondent (as

proclaimed the Provincial overnor of Cebu.

-hereafter, on $une %%, %&'', C!ME"EC 5irst 2ivision# dismissed the petition for dis)ualification for

not having been timel filed and for lac of sufficient proof that private respondent is not a 5ilipino

citi4en.

ence, the present petition.

-he petition is not meritorious.

-here are t(o instances (here a petition )uestioning the )ualifications of a registered candidate to

run for the office for (hich his certificate of candidac (as filed can be raised under the !mnibus

Election Code B.P. Blg. ''%#, to (it/

%# Before election, pursuant to 6ection 0' thereof (hich provides that/

6ection 0'. Petition to den due course or to cancel a certificate of candidac . D A

verified petition seeing to den due course or to cancel a certificate of candidac

ma be filed b an person e;clusivel on the ground that an material

representation contained therein as re)uired under 6ection 08 hereof is false. -hepetition ma be filed at an ti!e not later t"an t#ent-five das fro! t"e ti!e of t"e

filing of t"e certificate of candidac and shall be decided, after the notice and

hearing, not later than fifteen das before the election.

and

1# After election, pursuant to 6ection 1:9 thereof, vi4/



6ec. 1:9. Petition for quo #arranto. $ An voter contesting the election of an

Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or cit officer on the ground

of ineligibilit or of disloalt to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a s(orn

petition for quo #arranto (ith the Commission #it"in ten das after t"e procla!ation

of t"e results of t"e election.

-he records sho( that private respondent filed his certificate of candidac on November %&, %&'0

and that the petitioner filed its petition for dis)ualification of said private respondent on $anuar 11,

%&''. 6ince the petition for dis)ualification (as filed beond the t(ent five3da period re)uired in

6ection 0' of the !mnibus Election Code, it is clear that said petition (as filed out of time.

-he petition for the dis)ualification of private respondent cannot also be treated as a petition for quo

#arrantounder 6ection 1:9 of the same Code as it is un)uestionabl premature, considering that

private respondent (as proclaimed Provincial overnor of Cebu onl on March 9, %&''.

o(ever, e deem it is a matter of public interest to ascertain the respondents citi4enship and

)ualification to hold the public office to (hich he has been proclaimed elected. -here is enough basisfor us to rule directl on the merits of the case, as the C!ME"EC did belo(.

Petitioners contention that private respondent is not a 5ilipino citi4en and, therefore, dis)ualified

from running for and being elected to the office of Provincial overnor of Cebu, is not supported b

substantial and convincing evidence.

7n the proceedings before the C!ME"EC, the petitioner failed to present direct proof that private

respondent had lost his 5ilipino citi4enship b an of the modes provided for under C.A. No. @9.

Among others, these are/ %# b naturali4ation in a foreign countr> 1# b e;press renunciation of

citi4enship> and 9# b subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or la(s of a

foreign countr. 5rom the evidence, it is clear that private respondent !sme+a did not lose hisPhilippine citi4enship b an of the three mentioned hereinabove or b an other mode of losing

Philippine citi4enship.

7n concluding that private respondent had been naturali4ed as a citi4en of the United 6tates of

America, the petitioner merel relied on the fact that private respondent (as issued alien certificate

of registration and (as given clearance and permit to re3enter the Philippines b the Commission on

7mmigration and 2eportation. Petitioner assumed that because of the foregoing, the respondent is

an American and *being an American*, private respondent *must have taen and s(orn to the !ath

of Allegiance re)uired b the U.6. Naturali4ation "a(s.* p. '%, Rollo#

Philippine courts are onl allo(ed to determine (ho are 5ilipino citi4ens and (ho are not. hether or not a person is considered an American under the la(s of the United 6tates does not concern Us

here.

B virtue of his being the son of a 5ilipino father, the presumption that private respondent is a 5ilipino

remains. 7t (as incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that private respondent had lost his Philippine

citi4enship. As earlier stated, ho(ever, the petitioner failed to positivel establish this fact.



-he cases of $uan %allanosa rivaldo v. C'(E)EC et al , .R. No. '0%&9, $une 1%, %&'&#

and Ra!on ). )abo v. C'(E)EC et al .R. No. '@:@8, August %, %&'&# are not applicable to the

case at bar.

7n the rivaldo case, evidence sho(s that he (as naturali4ed as a citi4en of the United 6tates in

%&'9 per certification from the United 6tates 2istrict Court, Northern 2istrict of California, as dulauthenticated b Fice Consul Amado P. Corte4 of the Philippine Consulate eneral in 6an

5rancisco, California, U.6.A.

5rivaldo e;pressl admitted in his ans(er that he (as naturali4ed in the United 6tates but claimed

that he (as forced to embrace American citi4enship to protect himself from the persecution of the

Marcos government. -he Court, ho(ever, found this suggestion of involuntariness unacceptable,

pointing out that there (ere man other 5ilipinos in the United 6tates similarl situated as 5rivaldo

(ho did not find it necessar to abandon their status as 5ilipinos.

"ie(ise, in the case of "abo, records sho( that "abo (as married to an Australian citi4en and that

he (as naturali4ed as an Australian citi4en in %&0@, per certification from the Australian overnmentthrough its Consul in the Philippines. -his (as later affirmed b the 2epartment of 5oreign Affairs.

-he authenticit of the above evidence (as not disputed b "abo. 7n fact, in a number of s(orn

statements, "abo categoricall declared that he (as a citi4en of Australia.

7n declaring both 5rivaldo and "abo not citi4ens of the Philippines, therefore, dis)ualified from

serving as overnor of the Province of 6orsogon and Maor of Baguio Cit, respectivel, the Court

considered the fact that b their o(n admissions, the are indubitabl aliens, no longer o(ing an

allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines since the have s(orn their total allegiance to a foreign

state.

7n the instant case, private respondent vehementl denies having taen the oath of allegiance of the

United 6tates p. '%, Rollo#. e is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine passport and has

continuousl participated in the electoral process in this countr since %&@9 up to the present, both

as a voter and as a candidate pp. %?03%?', Rollo#. -hus, private respondent remains a 5ilipino and

the loss of his Philippine citi4enship cannot be presumed.

7n the learned dissent of Mr. $ustice -eodoro Padilla, he stresses the fact that because !sme+a

obtained Certificates of Alien Registration as an American citi4en, the first in %&:' (hen he (as 18

ears old and the second in %&0&, he, !sme+a should be regarded as having e;pressl renounced

Philippine citi4enship. -o !ur mind, this is a case of non sequitur 7t does not follo(#. Considering the

fact that admittedl !sme+a (as both a 5ilipino and an American, the mere fact that he has aCertificate stating he is an American does not mean that he is not still a 5ilipino. -hus, b (a of

analog, if a person (ho has t(o brothers named $ose and Mario states or certifies that he has a

brother named $ose, this does not mean that he does not have a brother named Mario> or if a

person is enrolled as student simultaneousl in t(o universities, namel Universit G and Universit

H, presents a Certification that he is a student of Universit G, this does not necessaril mean that he

is not still a student of Universit H. 7n the case of !sme+a, the Certification that he is an American

does not mean that he is not still a 5ilipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities or citi4enships.



7ndeed, there is no e;press renunciation here of Philippine citi4enship> truth to tell, there is even no

implied renunciation of said citi4enship. hen e consider that the renunciation needed to lose

Philippine citi4enship must be *e;press*, it stands to reason that there can be no such loss of

Philippine citi4enship #"en t"ere is no renunciation eit"er *+express* or *i!plied*.

Parentheticall, the statement in the %&'0 Constitution that *dual allegiance of citi4ens is inimical tothe national interest and shall be dealt (ith b la(*Art. 7F, 6ec. :# has no retroactive effect. And

(hile it is true that even before the %&'0 Constitution, !ur countr had alread fro(ned upon the

concept of dual citi4enship or allegiance, the fact is it actuall e;isted. Be it noted further that under

the aforecited proviso, the effect of such dual citi4enship or allegiance shall be dealt (ith b a future

la(. 6aid la( has not et been enacted.

ERE5!RE, the petition for certiorari is hereb 276M766E2 and the Resolution of the C!ME"EC

is hereb A557RME2.

6! !R2ERE2.

arvasa, Bidin, %rio-Aquino, (edialdea and Regalado, ., concur.

eliciano, ., / concur. / also 0oin in t"e concurring opinion of ustice 1ar!iento.

Cortes, ., concur in t"e result.

ernan, C.., too2 no part.

%ancaco, ., is on leave.

S+ara+ O!"!o"s

SARMENTO, J., concurring/

-he ma<orit seems agreed that the private respondent has ac)uired American citi4enship, onl that

he did not necessaril lose his 5ilipino citi4enship. -he important )uestion, ho(ever, inheres in ho(he obtained American citi4enship. 7 find that there is a dearth of facts here.

5or, if the private respondent became an American b naturali4ation, he has lost 5ilipino citi4enship

Com. Act No. @9> 5rivaldo v. C!ME"EC, .R. No. '0%&9, $une 1%, %&'&> "abo v. C!ME"EC, .R.

No. '@:@8, August %, %&'&#. 7f he, ho(ever, became one b the application of the principle of 0us

soli it is b force of circumstances rather than choice. But he does not lose his 5ilipino citi4enship, if

he (ere other(ise born of 5ilipino parents.



7n the absence of evidence, (e can not presume that he had ceased to be a citi4en of the

Philippines, simpl because he is, at the same time. a citi4en of the United 6tates. -here must be a

clear sho(ing that he lost his 5ilipino citi4enship b an of the means enumerated b

Common(ealth Act No. @9. -he fact that he had obtained an alien certificate of registration, standing

alone, does not amount to *e;press renunciation.*

ME)ENCO4ERRERA, J., dissenting/

7 <oin the dissent of Messrs. $ustices 7sagani A. Cru4 and -eodoro R. Padilla.

hile it ma be that dual citi4enship usuall results from accident of birth, a choice (ill have to be

made b the individual concerned at some point in time in his life, involving as it does the priceless

heritage of citi4enship.

-hat election (as made b private respondent (hen, in %&:', at the age of 18, and in %&0&, at 8:,he obtained Alien Certificates of Registration. Registration as an alien is a clear and unambiguous

act or declaration that one is not a citi4en. 7f, in fact, private respondent (as merel compelled to so

register because of the *uncooperativeness* of the past regime, he could have, under the ne(

dispensation, ased for the cancellation of those Alien Certificates and abandoned his alienage,

speciall before he ran for public office in %&''.

-he %&'0 Constitution declares in no uncertain terms that *dual allegiance of citi4ens is inimical to

the national interest and shall be dealt (ith b la(* Article 7F, 6ection :#. -hat statement is but a

reaffirmation of an innate conviction shared b ever 5ilipino. -he la( referred to need not be

a(aited for one to consider giving up the legal convenience of dual citi4enship.

Accordingl, 7 vote to grant the Petition.

CRUZ, J., dissenting/

7 <oin Mr. $ustice Padilla in his dissent.

7t seems to me that (hen a person voluntaril registers as an alien, he is in effect affirming that he is

not a citi4en. -he terms *citi4en* and *alien* are mutuall e;clusive from the vie(point of municipal

la(, (hich is (hat reall matters in the case at bar. Under this discipline, one is either a citi4en of thelocal state or he is not> and the )uestion is resolved on the basis of its o(n la(s alone and not those

of an other state.

!ne of the several modes of losing Philippine citi4enship under C.A. No. @9 is b *e;press

renunciation* thereof. 7n the case of rivaldo v. Co!!ission on Elections, .R. No. '0%&9, $une

19,%&'&, there (as such renunciation (hen the petitioner too an oath as a naturali4ed citi4en of the

United 6tates in (hich he renounced all allegiance to all other states. 7n the case of )abo v.



Co!!ission on Elections, .R. No. '@:8@, August %, %&'&, the petitioner not onl too a similar oath

after his naturali4ation in Australia but also e;ecuted other documents in (hich he stated that he (as

not a 5ilipino.

-he fact that his naturali4ation (as later revoed did not also invalidate his disavo(al of Philippine

citi4enship. *E;press renunciation* is a separate mode of losing Philippine citi4enship and is notnecessaril dependent on *naturali4ation in a foreign countr,* (hich is another and different mode.

hen a person re<ects and divorces his (ife to enter into a second marriage, he cannot sa he still

loves her despite his desertion. -he undeniable fact is that he has left her for another (oman to

(hom he has totall and solemnl transferred his troth. 7t does him no credit (hen he protests he

married a second time simpl for material convenience and that his heart still belongs to the (ife he

has abandoned. At (orst, it (ould reveal his sordid and deceitful character.

B the same toen, professing continued allegiance to the Philippines after renouncing it because of

its meager resources, or for other ulterior and e)uall base reasons, is to me a paltr form of

patriotism. 7t is a sop to the repudiated state and a slight to the adopted state. No matter ho( noblethis attitude ma appear to others, it is to me nothing less than plain and simple hpocris that (e

should not condone, let alone e;tol.

Coming no( to the case at bar, 7 note first of all that no naturali4ation is involved here as the private

respondent claims to be a citi4en both of the Philippines and of the United 6tates. -he )uestion 7

thin (e must ans(er is/ as there an e;press renunciation of Philippine citi4enship b the private

respondent (hen he no(ingl and voluntaril registered as an alien (ith the Commission of

7mmigration and 2eportation in %&:' and in %&0&I

7n Hu v. Commission of 7mmigration and 2eportation, .R. No. '9''1, $anuar 18, %&'&, 7 made the

follo(ing observations in a separate opinion/

Regretfull, 7 cannot agree (ith the finding that the petitioner has e;pressl renounced his Philippine

citi4enship. -he evidence on this point is in m vie( rather meager. E;press renunciation of

citi4enship as a made of losing citi4enship under Com. Act No. @9 is an une)uivocal and deliberate

act (ith full a(areness of its significance and conse)uences. 7 do not thin the *commercial

documents he signed* suggest such categorical disclaimer.

-hat case is distinguished from the one before us no( in that Hu did not as the Philippine

government to register him as an alien. ov. !sme+a did.

7t is m opinion that if the governor had confined himself to simpl seeing and using an Americanpassport, these acts could not have b themselves alone constituted a repudiation of Philippine

citi4enship. -he problem, though, is that he did more than en<o this legal convenience. hat he

actuall did (as register (ith the Philippine government as an alien (ithin its o(n territor,

presumabl so he could be insulated from the <urisdiction it e;ercises over its nationals. -his (as a

voluntar act. As a citi4en of the Philippines, he (as not re)uired to register as an alien.

Nevertheless, he chose to do so of his o(n free (ill. B this decision, he categoricall ased the



Republic of the Philippines to treat him as an American and not a 5ilipino, choosing to be an alien in

this land that (as (illing to consider him its o(n.

C.A. No. @9 does not necessaril re)uire that the e;press renunciation of Philippine citi4enship be

made in connection (ith the naturali4ation of the erst(hile 5ilipino in a foreign countr. Renunciation

ma be made independentl of naturali4ation proceedings. Moreover, no sacramental (ords areprescribed b the statute for the e;press renunciation of Philippine citi4enship. As long as the

repudiation is categorical enough and the preference for the foreign state is unmistaable, as in the

case at bar, Philippine citi4enship is lost.

-he private respondent (ould have his cae and eat it too, but this can never be allo(ed (here

Philippine citi4enship is involved. 7t is a gift that must be deserved to be retained. -he Philippines for

all her modest resources compared to those of other states, is a <ealous and possessive mother

demanding total love and loalt from her children. 7t is bad enough that the love of the dual national

is shared (ith another state> (hat is (orse is (here he formall re<ects the Philippines, and in its

o(n territor at that, and offers his total devotion to the other state.

7 am a(are of the praise(orth efforts of ov. !sme+a to improve the province of Cebu, and also, 7

should add, of the commendable record of ov. 5rivaldo and Maor "abo in the administration of

their respective <urisdictions. But that is not the point. -he point is that it is not la(ful to maintain in

public office an person (ho, although supported b the electorate, is not a 5ilipino citi4en. -his is a

relentless restriction (e cannot ignore.

Regretfull, therefore, 7 must vote to RAN- the petition.

PA))A, J., dissenting/

7 am constrained to dissent.

7 start from the premise that the private respondent Emilio Mario Renner !sme+a en<oed at one

time dual citi4enship, i.e,, Philippine and U.6. citi4enships. e (as born in the Philippines of a

5ilipino father and an American U.6.# mother. o(ever, his s(orn application for alien registration

dated 1% November %&0& E;h. B# filed (ith the Philippine immigration authorities (as, in m vie(,

an e;press renunciation of his Philippine citi4enship. As held in Board of 7mmigration Commissioners

vs. o Callano 1 e;press renunciation means a renunciation that is made no(n distinctl and

e;plicitl and not left to inference or implication.

Nothing can be more distinct and e;plicit than (hen a dual citi4enship holder3lie the private

respondent of age, and (ith full legal capacit to act, voluntaril and under oath applies (ith the

Philippine overnment for registration as an alien, insofar as his intention not to remain a 5ilipino

citi4en is concerned. And because of that distinct and e;plicit manifestation of desire to be

considered an alien in the Philippines, the Philippine immigration authorities issued to private

respondent Alien Certificate of Registration No. ?%:9:@ dated 1% November %&0& E;h. C#, Permit to



Re3 enter the Philippines No. %11?%' dated 1% November %&0& E;h. 2# and 7mmigration Certificate

of Clearance No. 23%8@8'9 dated 9 $anuar %&'? E;h E# 2

All the foregoing documents issued b the Philippine immigration authorities to the private

respondent at his re)uest are predicated on the proposition that private respondent is an alien under

Philippine la(s. 7t should also be mentioned that, (hile not mared as e;hibit in the case at bar,private respondent (as lie(ise issued in Cebu Cit Native Born Certificate of Residence No.

%%:''9 on 1% November %&0& as verified from 7mmigration records#. -his document, cop of (hich

is attached hereto as Anne; A, is again predicated on the proposition that private respondent is a

dul3registered align American# residing in the Philippines.

Another relevant document that merits attention is the Application for Re3entr Permit e;ecuted and

signed b private respondent on 9 $anuar %&'?, again under oath, and verified from the records at

the C72 (herein private respondent e;pressl stated that he is a U.6. national. -he importance of

this document cannot be underestimated 5or, if private respondent believed that he is a 5ilipino

citi4en, he (ould not have e;ecuted said Application for Re3entr Permit, since it is the right of ever

5ilipino citi4en to return to his countr the Philippines#. -he fact, therefore, that private respondente;ecuted said s(orn Application for Re3entr Permit, cop of (hich is attached hereto as Anne; B, is

again an abundant proof that he himself, no less, believed that he (as, as he continuous to be, a

resident alien American# in the Philippines.

7t (ill further be noted that earlier, or in %&:', private respondent had alread registered as an alien

(ith the Bureau of 7mmigration under the Alien Registration Act of %&:? RA :@1#. 6ection % of said

Act provides/

6EC-7!N %. Aliens residing in t"e P"ilippines s"all , (ithin thirt das after the approval

of this Act, appl for registration, in the case of those residing in the Cit of Manila, at the

Bureau of 7mmigration and in the case of those residing in other localities at the office of

the cit or municipal treasurers, or at an other office designated b the

President. ... . 3 Emphasis supplied#

Accordingl, per certification of the Commissioner of 7mmigration and 2eportation Miriam 2efensor

6antiago E;h. A#, issued on 1@ $anuar %&'', private respondent had been issued ACR No. B31%3

88' and 7CR No. %99&% on 10 and 1' March %&:' respectivel. e, therefore, registered himself in

the Philippines as an alien t(ice> first, in the ear %&:', (hen he (as 18 ears old and again in

%&0&, (hen he (as 8: ears old. B t(ice registering under oath as an alien (ith the Bureau of

7mmigration, private respondent thereb clearl, distinctl and e;plicitl manifested and declared that

he (as an alien and, therefore, not a 5ilipino citi4en# residing in the Philippines and under its la(s.

At this point, and to be ob<ectivel fair to the private respondent, a clarification should be made. 7n

his Comment on the Petition at bar Rollo, p. '%#, it is stated b his counsel that he private

respondent# (as born in %&98 D hence, our mathematical conclusion that (hen he first registered

as an alien in %&:', he (as 18 ears old and in %&0& (hen he re3registered as an alien, he (as 8:

ears old. o(ever, private respondents immigration records disclose that he (as born in %&9' not

in %&98#. !n the assumption that the ear %&9' is the correct ear of birth of private respondent and

that his alleged ear of birth, %&98, as stated in his Comment at bar is erroneous#, then in %&:',



(hen he first registered as an alien, he (as 1? ears old, (hile in %&0& (hen he re3registered as an

alien, he (as 8% ears old.

6till, his first registration as an alien at age 1?# has to be taen, in m vie(, as an e;press

renunciation of his Philippine citi4enship, because %# at that time, he (as almost 1% ears old the

age of ma<orit, and 1# more importantl, under the applicable Alien Registration Act RA :@1#, analien %8 ears or over has to register in person and not through his parents or guardian#. 7t provides/

-he parent or legal guardian of an alien (ho is less than fourteen ears of age, shall

have the dut of registering such alien/ Provided, -hat (henever an such alien

attains his fourteenth birthda in the Philippines he shall, (ithin fifteen das

thereafter, appl in person for registration. 6ec. %, par. 1#

7 tae the above provision to mean that the choice b a dual nationalit holder on (hether to remain

a 5ilipino citi4en or an alien has to be made at age %8, and private respondent although a bit late#

made the notice in %&:' at age 1?# in favor of his U.6. citi4enship.

7f all the foregoing acts of e;press renunciation of Philippine citi4enship had been made or filed b

private respondent else(here not (ith the Philippine overnment#, there could perhaps be some

room for contention that vis3a3 vis the Philippine overnment, private respondent had not renounced

his Philippine citi4enship. But said acts of e;press renunciation (ere filed (ith the Philippine

overnment and done right in the Philippines. 7n turn the Philippine overnment, through the

immigration authorities, accepted and acted on private respondents aforesaid representations, and

registered and documented him -7CE as an alien under Philippine la(.

-he polic of our la(s has been, and (ith laudable reason, to discourage dual citi4enship, because

this condition or status assumes as a necessar complement thereof dual allegiance at the same

time to t(o 1# different countries. As earl as %@ 6eptember %&80, a unanimous 6upreme Court,speaing thru Mr. $ustice 6abino Padilla in the celebrated case of 3an C"ong vs. 1ecretar of )abor ,

re<ected the principle of 0us soli as determinative of Philippine citi4enship, for the follo(ing reason,

among others/

... . Citi4enship, the main integrate element of (hich is allegiance, must not be taen

lightl. 2ual allegiance must be discouraged and prevented. But the application of the

principle <us soli to persons born in this countr of alien parentage (ould encourage dual

allegiance (hich in the long run (ould be detrimental to both countries of (hich such

persons might claim to be citi4ens.

-his polic found later e;pression in the %&'0 Constitution (hich no( provides D

6ec. :. 2ual allegiance of citi4en is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt

(ith b la(. Article 7F#

2ual citi4enship, in m considered opinion, must be esche(ed. hile having the *best of t(o 1#

(ords* mabe the result of birth or other factors accidentall brought about, the *dual citi4en* has to

mae a choice at one time or another. aving t(o 1# citi4enships is, as 7 see it, similar in man (as



to having t(o 1# legal spouses, (hen as a matter of principle and sound public polic, fealt to onl

one %# spouse is both compelling and certainl desirable.

ordon and Rosenfield in their boo on 7mmigration "a( and Procedure state/

2ual nationalit is universall recogni4ed as an undesirable phenomenon. 7t inevitablresults in )uestionable loalties and leads to international conflicts. 2ual nationalit also

maes possible the use of citi4enship as a badge of convenience rather than of undivided

loalt. And it impairs the singleness of commitment (hich is the hallmar of citi4enship

and allegiance. A person should have a right to choose his o(n nationalit, and this

choice should be honored b all countries. o(ever, he should not be entitled to claim

more than one nationalit. 5 Emphasis supplied#

Private respondent made a deliberate and decisive choice (hen he ased the Philippine

overnment (hich, lie man other countries, considers dual allegiance as against national or public

interest to register him at least t(ice and, therefore, unmistaabl# as an alien in this countr. -hat

choice pro tanto (as a renunciation of his Philippine citi4enship. -he choice must be respected as a

conscious and no(ledgeable act of a discerning, distinguished and respected person (ho must be

presumed to have no(n the full import of his acts.

5inall, the last thing that should be said against the Court is that it is inconsistent in its rulings. 7n the

light of its recent decision in .R. No. '@:@: Ramon ". "abo, $r. vs. -he Commission on Elections,

et al.# 7 see no valid <ustification for holding Mr. "abo an alien upper Philippine la( (hile holding

private respondent herein a 5ilipino citi4en. 5or, as the ma<orit states/ *7n fact, in a number of s(orn

statements, "abo categoricall declared that he (as a citi4en of Australia* p. 0, 2ecision#. And is

e;actl (hat private respondent did. 7n a number of s(orn statements, he declared that he (as a

citi4en of the United 6tates.

-o Mr. "abo, the Court said, *so be it, ou are an Australian,* et to the private respondent, despite

such s(orn statements that he is a U.6. citi4en, the Court sas, *never mind those s(orn

statements, ou are still a 5ilipino.* 6auce for the goose, as the saing goes, is sauce for the gander.

-he doctrinal basis of the Courts decisions should be built on the merits, not on distinctions that

reall mae no difference.

ACC!R27N"H, 7 vote to RAN- the petition and to declare the private respondent not a 5ilipino

citi4en b his o(n acts of e;press renunciation of such citi4enship.

GUTERREZ, JR., J., dissenting/

M stand in the cases of 4illie 5u vs. (iria! 6efensor 1antiago, et al . .R. No, '9''1, $anuar 18,

%&'&# andRa!on )abo, r, v. Co!!ission on Elections .R. '@:@8, August 1, %&'&# is clear. 7

regret, ho(ever, that 7 cannot participate in this case because one of the principal counsel is m

relative b affinit, (ithin the fourth civil degree.



S+ara+ O!"!o"s


-he ma<orit seems agreed that the private respondent has ac)uired American citi4enship, offl that

he did not necessaril lose his 5ilipino citi4enship. -he important )uestion, ho(ever, inheres in ho(

he obtained American citi4enship. 7 find that there is a dearth of facts here.



No. '@:@8, August %, %&'&#. 7f he, ho(ever, became one b the application of the principle of <us soliit is b force of circumstances rather than choice. But he does not lose his 5ilipino citi4enship, if he

(ere other(ise born of 5ilipino parents.



clear sho(ing that he lost his 5ilipino citi4enship b an of the means enumerated b

Common(ealth Act No. @9. -he fact that he had obtained an alien certificate of registration, standing







-hat election (as made b private respondent (hen, in %&:', at the age of 18, and in %&0&, at 8:,

he obtained Alien Certificates of Registration. Registration as an alien is a clear and unambiguous

act or declaration that one is not a citi4en. 7f, in fact, private respondent (as merel compelled to soregister because of the *uncooperativeness* of the past regime, he could have, under the ne(













not a citi4en. -he terms *citi4en* and *alien* are mutuall e;clusive from the vie(point of municipal

la(, (hich is (hat reall matters in the case at bar. Under this discipline, one is either a citi4en of the

local state or he is not> and the )uestion is resolved on the basis of its o(n la(s alone and not those

of an other state.


renunciation* thereof. 7n the case of rivaldo v. Co!!ission on Elections, .R. No. '0%&9, $une


United 6tates in (hich he renounced all allegiance to all other states. 7n the case of )abo v.

Co!!ission on Elections, .R. No. '@:8@, August %, %&'&, the petitioner not onl too a similar oath


not a 5ilipino.


citi4enship. *E;press renunciation* is a separate mode of losing Philippine citi4enship and is not

necessaril dependent on *naturali4ation in a foreign countr,* (hich is another and different mode.



(hom he has totall and solemnl transferred his troth. 7t does him no credit (hen he protests he




its meager resources, or for other ulterior and e)uall base reasons, is to me a paltr form of

patriotism. 7t is a sop to the repudiated state and a slight to the adopted state. No matter ho( noble

this attitude ma appear to others, it is to me nothing less than plain and simple hpocris that (eshould not condone, let alone e;tol.








7n 5u v. Co!!ission of /!!igration and 6eportation, .R. No. '9''1, $anuar 18, %&'&, 7 made the

follo(ing observations in a separate opinion/



citi4enship as a made of losing citi4enship under Com. Act No. @9 is an une)uivocal and deliberateact (ith full a(areness of its significance and conse)uences. 7 do not thin the *commercial




7t is m opinion that if the governor had confined himself to simpl seeing and using an American

passport, these acts could not have b themselves alone constituted a repudiation of Philippine



presumabl so he could be insulated from the <urisdiction it e;ercises over its nationals. -his (as avoluntar act. As a citi4en of the Philippines, he (as not re)uired to register as an alien.




C.A. No. @9 does not necessaril re)uire that the e;press renunciation of Philippine citi4enship be

made in connection (ith the naturali4ation of the erst(hile 5ilipino in a foreign countr. Renunciation

ma be made independentl of naturali4ation proceedings. Moreover, no sacramental (ords are

prescribed b the statute for the e;press renunciation of Philippine citi4enship. As long as the











their respective <urisdictions. But that is not the point. -he point is that it is not la(ful to maintain inpublic office an person (ho, although supported b the electorate, is not a 5ilipino citi4en. -his is a








time dual citi4enship, i.e,, Philippine and U.6. citi4enships. e (as born in the Philippines of a5ilipino father and an American U.6.# mother. o(ever, his s(orn application for alien registration


an e;press renunciation of his Philippine citi4enship. As held in Board of /!!igration Co!!issioners

vs. %o Callano 1 e;press renunciation means a renunciation that is made no(n distinctl and






considered an alien in the Philippines, the Philippine immigration authorities issued to privaterespondent Alien Certificate of Registration No. ?%:9:@ dated 1% November %&0& E;h. C#, Permit to



All the foregoing documents issued b the Philippine immigration authorities to the private

respondent at his re)uest are predicated on the proposition that private respondent is an alien under

Philippine la(s. 7t should also be mentioned that, (hile not mared as e;hibit in the case at bar,

private respondent (as lie(ise issued in Cebu Cit Native Born Certificate of Residence No.



dul3registered alien American# residing in the Philippines.




this document cannot be underestimated. 5or, if private respondent believed that he is a 5ilipino


5ilipino citi4en to return to his countr the Philippines#. -he fact, therefore, that private respondent

e;ecuted said s(orn Application for Re3entr Permit, cop of (hich is attached hereto as Anne; B, is





Act provides/

6EC-7!N %. Aliens residing in the Philippines shall, (ithin thirt das after the approval of

this Act, appl for registration, in the case of those residing in the Cit of Manila, at the















respondent# (as born in %&983hence, our mathematical conclusion that (hen he first registered as

an alien in %&:', he (as 18 ears old and in %&0& (hen he re3registered as an alien, he (as 8:








age of ma<orit, and 1# more importantl, under the applicable Alien Registration Act RA :@1#, an

alien %8 ears or over has to register in person and not through his parents or guardian#. 7t provides/











his Philippine citi4enship. But said acts of e;press renunciation (ere filed (ith the Philippineovernment and done right in the Philippines. 7n turn the Philippine overnment, through the




this condition or status assumes as a necessar complement thereof dual allegiance at the same

time to t(o 1# different countries. As earl as %@ 6eptember %&80, a unanimous 6upreme Court,



speaing thru Mr. $ustice 6abino Padilla in the celebrated case of -an Chong vs. 6ecretar of "abor,

re<ected the principle of <us soli as determinative of Philippine citi4enship, for the follo(ing reason,

among others/






-his polic found later e;pression in the %&'0 Constitution (hich no( provides3









2ual nationalit is universall recogni4ed as an undesirable phenomenon. 7t inevitabl

results in )uestionable loalties and leads to international conflicts. 2ual nationalit also




choice should be honored b all countries. o(ever, he should not be entitled to claimmore than one nationalit. 5 Emphasis supplied#








light of its recent decision in .R. No. '@:@: Ramon ". "abo, $r. vs. -he Commission on Elections,et al.#, 7 see no valid <ustification for holding Mr. "abo an alien upper Philippine la( (hile holding

private respondent herein a 5ilipino citi4en. 5or, as the ma<orit states/ *7n fact, in a number of s(orn

statements, "abo categoricall declared that he (as a citi4en of Australia* p. 0, 2ecision#. And is







statements, ou are still a 5ilipino.* 6auce for the goose, as the saing goes, is sauce for the gander





GUTERREZ, JR., J., separate opinion/





S+ara+ O!"!o"s


-he ma<orit seems agreed that the private respondent has ac)uired American citi4enship, offl that

he did not necessaril lose his 5ilipino citi4enship. -he important )uestion, ho(ever, inheres in ho(he obtained American citi4enship. 7 find that there is a dearth of facts here.



No. '@:@8, August %, %&'&#. 7f he, ho(ever, became one b the application of the principle of <us soli

it is b force of circumstances rather than choice. But he does not lose his 5ilipino citi4enship, if he

(ere other(ise born of 5ilipino parents.



clear sho(ing that he lost his 5ilipino citi4enship b an of the means enumerated bCommon(ealth Act No. @9. -he fact that he had obtained an alien certificate of registration, standing









-hat election (as made b private respondent (hen, in %&:', at the age of 18, and in %&0&, at 8:,

he obtained Alien Certificates of Registration. Registration as an alien is a clear and unambiguous

act or declaration that one is not a citi4en. 7f, in fact, private respondent (as merel compelled to so

register because of the *uncooperativeness* of the past regime, he could have, under the ne(











not a citi4en. -he terms *citi4en* and *alien* are mutuall e;clusive from the vie(point of municipalla(, (hich is (hat reall matters in the case at bar. Under this discipline, one is either a citi4en of the

local state or he is not> and the )uestion is resolved on the basis of its o(n la(s alone and not those

of an other state.


renunciation* thereof. 7n the case of 5rivaldo v. Commission on Elections, .R. No. '0%&9, $une


United 6tates in (hich he renounced all allegiance to all other states. 7n the case of "abo v.

Commission on Elections, .R. No. '@:8@, August %, %&'&, the petitioner not onl too a similar oath


not a 5ilipino.


citi4enship. *E;press renunciation* is a separate mode of losing Philippine citi4enship and is not

necessaril dependent on *naturali4ation in a foreign countr,* (hich is another and different mode.





(hom he has totall and solemnl transferred his troth 7t does him no credit (hen he protests he




its meager resources, or for other ulterior and e)uall base reasons, is to me a paltr form ofpatriotism. 7t is a sop to the repudiated state and a slight to the adopted state. No matter ho( noble

this attitude ma appear to others, it is to me nothing less than plain and simple hpocris that (e

should not condone, let alone e;tol.






7n Hu v. Commission of 7mmigration and 2eportation, .R. No. '9''1, $anuar 18, %&'&, 7 made thefollo(ing observations in a separate opinion/



citi4enship as a made of losing citi4enship under Com. Act No. @9 is an une)uivocal and deliberate

act (ith full a(areness of its significance and conse)uences. 7 do not thin the *commercial




7t is m opinion that if the governor had confined himself to simpl seeing and using an American

passport, these acts could not have b themselves alone constituted a repudiation of Philippine



presumabl so he could be insulated from the <urisdiction it e;ercises over its nationals. -his (as a

voluntar act. As a citi4en of the Philippines, he (as not re)uired to register as an alien.




C.A. No. @9 does not necessaril re)uire that the e;press renunciation of Philippine citi4enship bemade in connection (ith the naturali4ation of the erst(hile 5ilipino in a foreign countr. Renunciation

ma be made independentl of naturali4ation proceedings. Moreover, no sacramental (ords are

prescribed b the statute for the e;press renunciation of Philippine citi4enship. As long as the













their respective <urisdictions. But that is not the point. -he point is that it is not la(ful to maintain in

public office an person (ho, although supported b the electorate, is not a 5ilipino citi4en. -his is a






time dual citi4enship, i.e,, Philippine and U.6. citi4enships. e (as born in the Philippines of a

5ilipino father and an American U.6.# mother. o(ever, his s(orn application for alien registration


an e;press renunciation of his Philippine citi4enship. As held in Board of 7mmigration Commissioners

vs. o Callano 1 e;press renunciation means a renunciation that is made no(n distinctl and






considered an alien in the Philippines, the Philippine immigration authorities issued to private

respondent Alien Certificate of Registration No. ?%:9:@ dated 1% November %&0& E;h. C#, Permit to



All the foregoing documents issued b the Philippine immigration authorities to the privaterespondent at his re)uest are predicated on the proposition that private respondent is an alien under

Philippine la(s. 7t should also be mentioned that, (hile not mared as e;hibit in the case at bar,

private respondent (as lie(ise issued in Cebu Cit Native Born Certificate of Residence No.



dul3registered align American# residing in the Philippines.






this document cannot be underestimated 5or, if private respondent believed that he is a 5ilipino


5ilipino citi4en to return to his countr the Philippines#. -he fact, therefore, that private respondente;ecuted said s(orn Application for Re3entr Permit, cop of (hich is attached hereto as Anne; B, is





Act provides/

6EC-7!N %. Aliens residing in the Philippines shall, (ithin thirt das after the approval of

this Act, appl for registration, in the case of those residing in the Cit of Manila, at the













respondent# (as born in %&983hence, our mathematical conclusion that (hen he first registered as

an alien in %&:', he (as 18 ears old and in %&0& (hen he re3registered as an alien, he (as 8:








age of ma<orit, and 1# more importantl, under the applicable Alien Registration Act RA :@1#, an

alien %8 ears or over has to register in person and not through his parents or guardian#. 7t provides/













his Philippine citi4enship. But said acts of e;press renunciation (ere filed (ith the Philippine

overnment and done right in the Philippines. 7n turn the Philippine overnment, through the




this condition or status assumes as a necessar complement thereof dual allegiance at the sametime to t(o 1# different countries. As earl as %@ 6eptember %&80, a unanimous 6upreme Court,

speaing thru Mr. $ustice 6abino Padilla in the celebrated case of -an Chong vs. 6ecretar of "abor,

re<ected the principle of <us soli as determinative of Philippine citi4enship, for the follo(ing reason,

among others/






-his polic found later e;pression in the %&'0 Constitution (hich no( provides3









2ual nationalit is universall recogni4ed as an undesirable phenomenon. 7t inevitabl

results in )uestionable loalties and leads to international conflicts. 2ual nationalit also






choice should be honored b all countries. o(ever, he should not be entitled to claim

more than one nationalit. 5 Emphasis supplied#








light of its recent decision in .R. No. '@:@: Ramon ". "abo, $r. vs. -he Commission on Elections,

et al., 7 see no valid <ustification for holding Mr. "abo an alien upper Ph. Philippine la( (hile holding

private respondent herein a 5ilipino citi4en. 5or, as the ma<orit states/ *7n fact,, in a number of s(orn

statements, "abo categoricall declared that he (as a citi4en of Australia*p. 0, 2ecision#. And is





statements, ou are still a 5ilipino.* 6auce for the goose, as the saing goes, is sauce for the gender





GUTERREZ, JR., J., separate opinion/





Documents

aznar vs comelec and osmena.docx