Mercado v. Manzano Case Digest [G.R. No. 135083.
May 26, 1999] with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the
FACTS:
Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo Manzano were both
candidates for Vice-Mayor of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections.
Based on the results of the election, Manzano garnered the highest
number of votes. However, his proclamation was suspended due to
the pending petition for disqualification filed by Ernesto Mercado on
the ground that he was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the
United States.
From the facts presented, it appears that Manzano is both a Filipino
and a US citizen.
The Commission on Elections declared Manzano disqualified as
candidate for said elective position.
However, in a subsequent resolution of the COMELEC en banc, the
disqualification of the respondent was reversed. Respondent was
held to have renounced his US citizenship when he attained the age
of majority and registered himself as a voter in the elections of 1992,
1995 and 1998.
Manzano was eventually proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of Makati
City on August 31, 1998.
Thus the present petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a dual citizen is disqualified to hold public elective
office in the philippines.
RULING:
The court ruled that the phrase "dual citizenship" in R.A. 7160 Sec.
40 (d) and R.A. 7854 Sec. 20 must be understood as referring to dual
allegiance. Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The
former arises when, as a result of the application of the different
laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a
national by the said states. Dual allegiance on the other hand, refers
to a situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some
positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is
involuntary, dual allegiance is a result of an individual's volition.
Article IV Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides "Dual allegiance of
citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by
law."
Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under
this disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must,
therefore, be subject to strict process with respect to the
termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it
should suffice if, upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy,
they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons
unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states.
By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same time
forswear allegiance to the other country of which they are also
citizens and thereby terminate their status as dual citizens. It may
be that, from the point of view of the foreign state and of its laws,
such an individual has not effectively renounced his foreign
citizenship. That is of no moment.
When a person applying for citizenship by naturalization takes an
oath that he renounces his loyalty to any other country or
government and solemnly declares that he owes his allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines, the condition imposed by law is
satisfied and complied with. The determination whether such
renunciation is valid or fully complies with the provisions of our
Naturalization Law lies within the province and is an exclusive
prerogative of our courts. The latter should apply the law duly
enacted by the legislative department of the Republic. No foreign
law may or should interfere with its operation and application.
The court ruled that the filing of certificate of candidacy of
respondent sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively
removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen. By
declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen;
that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another
country; that he will defend and support the Constitution of the
Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he
does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far
as the laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his
American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as
a dual citizen.
On the other hand, private respondents oath of allegiance to the
Philippines, when considered with the fact that he has spent his
youth and adulthood, received his education, practiced his
profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in this
country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship.
His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will fulfill his
undertaking made under oath. Should he betray that trust, there are
enough sanctions for declaring the loss of his Philippine citizenship
through expatriation in appropriate proceedings. In Yu v. Defensor-
Santiago, the court sustained the denial of entry into the country of
petitioner on the ground that, after taking his oath as a naturalized
citizen, he applied for the renewal of his Portuguese passport and
declared in commercial documents executed abroad that he was a
Portuguese national. A similar sanction can be taken against any
one who, in electing Philippine citizenship, renounces his foreign
nationality, but subsequently does some act constituting
renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit