Facts:
Mariz Lindsey filed her coc as member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Binan Laguna for the 2019 elections. Rommel Lin filed a petition for disqualification against Mariz stating that she is a US citizen at the time when she filed her coc while Dominic Nunez filed a petition to deny due course or cancel the coc of petitioner Mariz also stating her dual citizenship (US and PH).
Mariz filed her answers stating that she did not commit any material representation in her coc, that she is a dual citizen and not precluded from seeking elective position, that since there is no voluntary or positive action act on her part in acquiring US citizenship, being born in the US, RA 9225 is therefore not applicable to her and that the possession of an American passport is not basis for disqualification.
The COJ\1ELEC First Division found that prior to 2012, petitioner acquired American citizenship as evidenced by the Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA), and obtained her US passport. The COMELEC First Division further ruled that, while the allegation of disqualification must fail, with petitioner being a dual citizen and there being no proof that she took an oath of allegiance to the US, petitioner still committed material misrepresentation in her CoC when she stated therein that she was eligible to run for public office.
The COMELEC First Division ratiocinated that, being thus a dual citizen by naturalization, and with R.A. 9225 being applicable to her, petitioner should have complied with the twin requirements under the said law, specifically the taking of an oath of allegiance and the renunciation of her foreign citizenship, before she vied for an elective office.
Petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of R.A. 9225 rendered her ineligible to run for elective office and, thus, she committed material misrepresentations in her CoC when she stated therein that she was eligible to run for election.
Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it affirmed the COMELEC First Division's findings that she is a dual citizen by naturalization, and in holding that, under R.A. No. 9225, she is required to comply with the twin requirements of taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and renouncing her US citizenship.
Ruling: YES
R.A. 9225 is applicable only to dual citizens by naturalization and not to dual citizens by birth. R.A. 9225 particularly applies to natural-born Filipinos who lost their Filipino citizenship through the process of naturalization.
The pivotal issue however is whether petitioner acquired her US citizenship-and therefore her status as a dual citizen-by birth or through naturalization. Petitioner is a dual citizen by birth, and not by naturalization.
The cited portions of the USA INA (immigration and nationality act), which refers to automatic citizenship of a child upon the application of his or her American citizen parent, even supports the conclusion that, if, indeed, some positive acts were performed in the acquisition of petitioner's US citizenship, the same could not have been performed by her but rather, by her American parent. Notably, the records are bereft of any evidence which would indicate to the slightest degree that petitioner petitioned to acquire her US citizenship or that she went through the pertinent naturalization process.
Based on the definition of naturalization, an insider, i.e., a citizen, is disqualified from undergoing naturalization proceedings. In this regard, the Court recognizes that naturalization is superfluous for persons who are already citizens of a particular State and that it is absurd for a State to issue a certificate of naturalization to its own citizens.
The petitioner never underwent such naturalization process. the very language of the CRBA shows that petitioner's US citizenship was acquired at birth, as it literally states: "acquired United States Citizenship at birth," and that documentary evidence was presented merely to establish such fact. Being a citizen of the US at birth, it would be absurd to construe petitioner's submission of documents to the Consular Service of the US to be akin to one's availment of the naturalization process for the purpose of becoming an American citizen, when she, herself has already been one since her birth.
Considering that petitioner is a dual citizen by birth, not a dual citizen by naturalization, it was not incumbent upon her to perform the twin requirements of Sections 3 and 5(2) of R.A. 9225.
R.A. 9225 covers only natural-born Filipinos who personally and voluntarily become naturalized foreign c1t1zens, thereby possessing simultaneously two or more citizenships and allegiances. It is not concerned with dual citizenships acquired upon birth or due to the circumstances of one's birth, which are involuntary and a product of the concurrent application of different laws of two or more states.
Petitioner is not covered by the twin requirements of R.A. 9225, being that she is not a naturalized US citizen. Thus, her noncompliance with the same does not, in any way, affect her candidacy, or her declaration in her CoC that she was eligible to run for the public office.
Specifically, the failure to renounce foreign citizenship as required by Section 5(2),95 R.A. 9225 does not affect even a naturalized person's status as a Filipino citizen, which is retained or reacquired upon the taking of the oath of allegiance under R.A. 9225~the same oath contained in the CoC. Such failure merely maintains his status as a dual citizen. The requirement to renounce foreign citizenship, and therefore have full and sole allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, is merely a condition imposed upon the exercise by a naturalized dual citizen of his political right to seek elective public office, but not upon his status as a Filipino citizen. This is clear from the language of Section 5.