Contents

Contents..................................................................................................................... 1 Herrera v Comelec...................................................................................................1 Cordora v Comelec..................................................................................................5

Herrera v Comelec
EN BANC

G.R. No. 131499 November 17, 1999 Hermie M. Herrera, Donabella T. Sorongon, Julio T. Tamayor, Edeljulio R. Romero, petitioners, vs. The Commission on Elections, respondent.

PURISIMA, J.: This is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside Resolution No. 2950 promulgated on November 3, 1997 by respondent Commission on Elections, which amended its Resolution Nos. 2379, 2396 and 2778 on the districting and adjustment of Sangguniang Panlalawigan and Panglungsod seats in connection with the May 11, 1998 elections, on the alleged ground of grave abuse of discretion tainting the same. In particular, petitioners, as taxpayers, assail the portion of subject Resolution dividing the Province of Guimaras into two provincial districts and apportioning eight (8) elective Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats therefor. The facts that matter are as follows: In view of the addition of the two (2) new municipalities, San Lorenzo and Sibunag, to the Province of Guimaras, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Guimaras decided to have the province subdivided into two provincial districts. Conformably, on March 25, 1996, it passed Resolution No. 68 requesting the Commission on Elections to bring about the desired division. Acting upon the said Resolution, the Provincial Election Supervisor in the Province of Guimaras conducted two consultative meetings on August 21, 1996 and on October 2 of the same year, with due notice to all elected provincial and municipal officials, barangay captains, barangay kagawads, representatives of all political parties, and other interested parties. Through secret balloting, a consensus was reached unanimously in favor of a division as follows:

First District shall be composed of the Municipalities of Jordan Buenavista and San Diego with three (3) Sangguniang Panlalawigan Members.002 voters (4 seats) Buenavista — 37. 2) the "consultative meeting" upon which the districting was based did not express the true sentiment of the voters of the province. the Bureau of Local Government Finance of the Department of Finance issued Memorandum Circular No. which was reclassified from fifth class to fourth class province. Nueva Valencia and Sibunag with three (3) Sangguniang Panlalawigan Members. 3) the apportionment of the province into two districts is not equitable. Petitioners propose that the province be redistricted as follows: FIRST DISTRICT — 63. pointing out that: 1) the districts do not comprise a compact. on November 3. Sibunag — 17.681 1. the Provincial Election Supervisor issued a Memorandum recommending the division of the Province of Guimaras into two (2) provincial districts. The Second District shall be composed of the Municipalities of Jordan. contiguous and adjacent area.537 2. In line with such reclassification. and 2.321 2. San Lorenzo — 18. 2950 of the Commission on Elections is the subject of the present Petition for Certiorari brought by the petitioners.470 (8 seats) 1st District — 56. 1996. On April 30. Jordan — 25. the Resolution No. as taxpayers and residents of the Province of Guimaras. 1997. Buenavista — 37. 2950 under attack. dividing it into two provincial districts in the following manner: Region VI 1.1.158 3. Petitioners question the manner in which the province was so divided into districts.773 Resolution No. and 4) there is disparity in the ratio of the number of voters that a Board Member represents. GUIMARAS — 126. 1997. Nueva Valencia — 27.681 . guided by the result of the consultative meetings. which allotted eight (8) Sangguniang Panlalawigan seats to the Province of Guimaras.252 (3 seats) (5 seats) 1. 97-1 reclassifying several provinces including the Province of Guimaras.218 2nd District — 70. On October 3. the Commission on Elections issued.

the Province of Guimaras. Section 4 of R. 6636 shall have eight Sangguniang Panlalawigan members.158 Sibunag — 17. xxx xxx xxx A province with only one legislative district. In relation thereto. 3 (b) For provinces with only one (1) legislative district. 1997. such as Guimaras. of the number of elective members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan are provided for by law.696 voters.537 resulting in a ratio of one (1) Board member per 15. 97-1 issued by the Bureau of Local Government Finance of the Department of Finance. pointing out that such redistricting is more in accordance with provisions of law and the Constitution. and fifth and sixth class provinces. and the number of seats of elective members of their respective sanggunian shall be equitably apportioned between the districts in accordance with the immediately preceding paragraph. the Commission shall divide them into two (2) districts for purposes of electing the members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Thus. by district. 4 Provinces and Municipalities — First and second class provinces shall each have ten (10) elective members. 6636 provides: Sec. having only . The division of provinces into districts and the corresponding apportionment. six to be elected at large by the qualified voters therein. the Province of Guimaras was re-classified from a fifth class to a fourth class province under Memorandum Circular No.468 VOTERS (4 seats) Nueva Valencia — 27. eight.000 voters SECOND DISTRICT — 63. each district comprising a compact.Jordan — 25.A. Under Republic Act No. Hence. 1 allotment of elective members to provinces and municipalities must be made on the basis of its classification as a province and/or municipality. It must be noted that on April 30. should therefore be divided into two provincial districts. a fourth class province under R. All other municipalities shall have the same number of elective members as provided in existing laws.A. as nearly as practicable according to the number of inhabitants. 7166 2 reads: Sec. Republic Act No. 6636. contiguous and adjacent territory.321 resulting in a ratio of one (1) Board member per 15.773 San Lorenzo — 18. third and fourth class provinces.

that for provinces with only one (1) legislative district: a) The province shall be divided into two (2) Sanggunian districts for provincial representation. 2950 results in a disparity of representation in that. Corollarily. contiguous and adjacent territory. the ratio is one board member per 14. in the first district. of the number of elective members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in provinces with only one (1) legislative district is provided for by law. in no case shall a part thereof be apportioned to another provincial Sanggunian district.A. Thus. among others.one legislative district. (2) consultations.739 voters while in the second district. 2131 which provides the rules and guidelines for the apportionment by district of members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in provinces with only one legislative district and Sangguniang Bayan of municipalities in the Metro Manila area. and (4) the number of seats of elective members of the respective Sanggunian equitably apportioned between the districts. Petitioners' contention is untenable. representatives of political parties. It is claimed that the districting embodied in Resolution No. civic and religious groups and other sectors of the community for their suggestions and proposals for possible incorporation into the project of apportionment. . 7166. by district. the population of each district and showing the delineation of boundaries be submitted to the COMELEC for study and evaluation. Petitioners aver that the apportionment of the Province of Guimaras into two districts is not equitable due to disproportionate representation. nongovernment organizations. hearings and meetings be conducted with elective local officials. and (3) the project of apportionment and the map of the province indicating the districts. the basis for division into districts shall be the number of inhabitants of the province concerned and not the number of listed or registered voters as theorized upon by petitioners. b) Each district shall comprise a compact. as nearly as practicable according to the number of inhabitants based on the 1990 census of population. there is a ratio of one board member per 18. 7166 and Comelec Resolution No. 2313. Comelec did not act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution because clearly. The rules and guidelines to be followed by the Commission on Elections in the apportionment. the basis for the districting is the number of inhabitants of the Province of Guimaras by municipality based on the official 1995 Census of Population as certified to by Tomas P. division of provinces into districts shall be done in a manner: (1) as nearly as practicable. Administrator of the National Statistics Office. has to be divided into two provincial districts with an allotment of eight elective members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan by virtue of its reclassification into a fourth class province. COMELEC also promulgated Resolution No.050 voters. c) A municipality shall belong to one (1) district ONLY. The said Resolution provides. Under R. Under the above cited R. Africa. The same Resolution requires that (1) the 1990 census of population be secured from the provincial or municipal representative of the National Statistics Office concerned.A. contiguous and adjacent territory. (2) according to the number of inhabitants. (3) each district comprising a compact.

Cordora v Comelec EN BANC G. Buenavista is at the northern part of Guimaras while San Lorenzo is at the east portion of the province. On its face. abutting. Again. 2950. SO ORDERED. respectively. Romulo L. 2009 . petitioners maintain that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued Resolution No. one on August 21 and another on October 2. the Court is of the irresistible conclusion. "Contiguous" and/or "adjacent" means "adjoining. WHEREFORE. the municipalities which comprise each district do not embrace a compact. No. Lequisia. In that case. Finally. Nueva Valencia and Sibunag. It would be different if the towns grouped together to form one district were Buenavista and Nueva Valencia or Buenavista and Sibunag. As duly certified to by Mr. And. Provincial Election Supervisor of the Province of Guimaras. nearby. Petitioners' asseveration is equally erroneous." 3 Not even a close perusal of the map of the Province of Guimaras is necessary to defeat petitioners' stance. 2950 because thereunder. Appended to respondent Comelec's Comment are the attendance sheets where the names and signatures of those who attended the consultative meetings and the corresponding barangay and/or group which they represented appear and which belie petitioners' allegation that there was no valid representation. having a common border. No pronouncement as to costs. They touch along boundaries and are connected throughout by a common border. Under Comelec Resolution No.A. as shown by the documentary exhibits. contiguous and adjacent area. connected. and so finds. the towns of Buenavista and San Lorenzo were grouped together to form the first district and the second district is composed of the municipalities of Jordan. all interested parties were duly notified and represented during the two consultative meetings as required by Comelec Resolution No. 2313. 2950.R. 1996. the districting would clearly be without any basis because these towns are not contiguous or adjacent.Petitioners' next contention is that the consultative meetings upon which the districting was based did not express the true sentiment of the voters of the province as the inhabitants were not properly represented during the said meetings. Premises studiedly considered in proper perspective. 7166 requires that each district must cover a compact. 176947 February 19. R. in order to arrive at a consensus on the matter of the proposed districting of Guimaras into two Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts. that the respondent Comelec did not gravely abuse its discretion when it issued Resolution No. and/or touching along boundaries often for considerable distances. this contention of petitioners is bereft of any basis. the map of Guimaras indicates that the municipalities of Buenavista and San Lorenzo are "adjacent" or "contiguous". for lack of merit the petition under consideration is hereby DISMISSED. Buenavista is at the north while Nueva Valencia and Sibunag are at the southern and southeastern part of the province. contiguous and adjacent territory. two consultative meetings were held by the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor.

The Facts In his complaint affidavit filed before the COMELEC Law Department. 6). The present petition seeks to reverse the 18 August 2006 Resolution as well as the Resolution2 dated 20 February 2007 of the COMELEC En Banc which denied Cordora’s motion for reconsideration. among others. In EO Case No. No. The Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) En Banc dismissed Cordora’s complaint in a Resolution1 dated 18 August 2006. Cordora asserted that Tambunting made false assertions in the following items: That Annex A [Tambunting’s Certificate of Candidacy for the 2001 elections] and Annex B [Tambunting’s Certificate of Candidacy for the 2004 elections] state.3 (Boldface and capitalization in the original) Cordora stated that Tambunting was not eligible to run for local public office because Tambunting lacked the required citizenship and residency requirements. To disprove Tambunting’s claim of being a natural-born Filipino citizen. DECISION CARPIO. Cordora concluded: That Councilor Gustavo S. with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. No. J. 6. Tambunting claimed that he is an American: upon arrival in the Philippines on 16 December 2000 and upon departure from the Philippines on 17 June 2001. 9 – No. in two instances.residence requirement which he . among others. particularly Nos. 6 – I am a Natural Born/Filipino Citizen 2. Petitioner. Cordora presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration which stated that. Gaudencio M. 36 in the Philippines and 25 in the Constituency where I seek to be elected. Tambunting contrary to the provision of Sec 74 (OEC): [sic] Re: CONTENTS OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY: which requires the declarant/affiant to state. Tambunting (Tambunting) of an election offense for violating Section 74 in relation to Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code. No. under oath.: The Case This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus. 9 and 12 thereof: 1. Cordora (Cordora) accused Gustavo S. Hawaii on 2 December 2000. According to Cordora. 12 – I am ELIGIBLE for the office I seek to be elected. of years of Residence before May 14.GAUDENCIO M. as follows. 05-17. No. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and GUSTAVO S. 2001. 9. these travel dates confirmed that Tambunting acquired American citizenship through naturalization in Honolulu. CORDORA. that he is a Filipino (No. vs. 3. Respondents. TAMBUNTING.

maintained that he did not make any misrepresentation in his certificates of candidacy. has spoken the Filipino language. Tambunting contended that the residency requirement is not the same as citizenship. 2000 at [sic] Honolulu. or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. Tambunting further stated that he has resided in the Philippines since birth. the contrary is indubitably established by his own statements before the Philippine Bureau of Immigration x x x. Commissioner Sarmiento pointed out that Tambunting could be considered a dual citizen. Tambunting maintained that proof of his loyalty and devotion to the Philippines was shown by his service as councilor of Parañaque. Sarmiento (Commissioner Sarmiento) wrote a separate opinion which concurred with the findings of the En Banc Resolution. Tambunting’s possession of an American passport did not mean that Tambunting is not a Filipino citizen. Moreover. SO ORDERED. The Ruling of the COMELEC Law Department The COMELEC Law Department recommended the dismissal of Cordora’s complaint against Tambunting because Cordora failed to substantiate his charges against Tambunting.A. Tambunting also took an oath of allegiance on 18 November 2003 pursuant to Republic Act No. Tambunting presented a copy of his birth certificate which showed that he was born of a Filipino mother and an American father. To refute Cordora’s claim that the number of years of residency stated in Tambunting’s certificates of candidacy is false because Tambunting lost his residency because of his naturalization as an American citizen. 12 – that he is indeed eligible for the office to which he seeks to be elected. Tambunting has imbibed the Filipino culture. and has been educated in Filipino schools. Tambunting effectively renounced his .4 (Emphases in the original) Tambunting. when in truth and in fact. The certificate of citizenship conferred by the US government after Tambunting’s father petitioned him through INS Form I-130 (Petition for Relative) merely confirmed Tambunting’s citizenship which he acquired at birth. Tambunting further denied that he was naturalized as an American citizen. the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause. on the other hand. No. The Ruling of the COMELEC En Banc The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the findings and the resolution of the COMELEC Law Department. 9225).5 Commissioner Rene V. The COMELEC En Banc was convinced that Cordora failed to support his accusation against Tambunting by sufficient and convincing evidence. Cordora’s reliance on the certification of the Bureau of Immigration that Tambunting traveled on an American passport is not sufficient to prove that Tambunting is an American citizen. premises considered. 9225 (R.lost when [he was] naturalized as an American Citizen on December 2. The dispositive portion of the COMELEC En Banc’s Resolution reads as follows: WHEREFORE. Hawaii. To refute Cordora’s claim that Tambunting is not a natural-born Filipino. knowingly and willfully affirmed and reiterated that he possesses the above basic requirements under No.

and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge. x x x the political party to which he belongs. The Ruling of the Court The petition has no merit. that the obligation imposed by his oath is assumed voluntarily.American citizenship when he filed his certificates of candidacy in 2001 and 2004 and ran for public office. negating or qualifying the allegations in the complaint. that he will obey the laws. the COMELEC En Banc dismissed Cordora’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. Whether there is Probable Cause to Hold Tambunting for Trial for Having Committed an Election Offense There was no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC En Banc’s ruling that there is no sufficient and convincing evidence to support a finding of probable cause to hold Tambunting for trial for violation of Section 74 in relation to Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code. that he will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. xxx The person filing a certificate of candidacy shall also affix his latest photograph. without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Determining probable cause is an intellectual activity premised on the prior physical presentation or submission of documentary or testimonial proofs either confirming. residence. Cordora filed a motion for reconsideration which raised the same grounds and the same arguments in his complaint. — The certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office. The Issue Cordora submits that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared that there is no sufficient evidence to support probable cause that may warrant the prosecution of Tambunting for an election offense. his post office address for all election purposes. his profession or occupation. if he so desires. Probable cause constitutes those facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. In its Resolution promulgated on 20 February 2007. a statement in duplicate containing his bio-data and program of government not exceeding one hundred words. his date of birth. . Cordora’s petition is not an action to disqualify Tambunting because of Tambunting’s failure to meet citizenship and residency requirements. civil status.6 Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code reads as follows: Contents of certificate of candidacy. legal orders and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities. passport size. We affirm the ruling of the COMELEC En Banc. that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country. Neither is the present petition an action to declare Tambunting a non-Filipino and a non-resident. The present petition seeks to prosecute Tambunting for knowingly making untruthful statements in his certificates of candidacy.

among other sections in the Code. Clearly. . IV) of our Constitution. The former arises when. (3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are considered citizens. (2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers’ country such children are citizens of that country. as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states. provides that violation of Section 74. shall constitute an election offense. but the above cases are clearly possible given the constitutional provisions on citizenship. a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. Neither does he deny that he underwent the process involved in INS Form I-130 (Petition for Relative) because of his father’s citizenship. However. such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Tambunting possessed dual citizenship prior to the filing of his certificate of candidacy before the 2001 elections. ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part. insists that Tambunting is a naturalized American citizen. on the other hand. Because of the circumstances of his birth. it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship: (1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli. the same certification showed nine other trips where Tambunting claimed that he is Filipino.Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code. To begin with. The certification from the Bureau of Immigration which Cordora presented contained two trips where Tambunting claimed that he is an American. Manzano. Tambunting claims that because of his parents’ differing citizenships. There may be other situations in which a citizen of the Philippines may. unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship. Considering the citizenship clause (Art. dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. wherein we ruled that dual citizenship is not a ground for disqualification from running for any elective local position. he is both Filipino and American by birth. be also a citizen of another state. Such a person. The process involved in INS Form I-130 only served to confirm the American citizenship which Tambunting acquired at birth.7 Requirements for dual citizens from birth who desire to run for public office We deem it necessary to reiterate our previous ruling in Mercado v. We agree with Commissioner Sarmiento’s observation that Tambunting possesses dual citizenship. For instance. it was no longer necessary for Tambunting to undergo the naturalization process to acquire American citizenship. without performing any act. The fact that Tambunting had dual citizenship did not disqualify him from running for public office. on the other hand. Tambunting’s Dual Citizenship Tambunting does not deny that he is born of a Filipino mother and an American father. Cordora.

a citizen without any overt act to claim the citizenship. a person whose mother is a citizen of the Philippines is. President. persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. But whether or not she is considered a citizen of another country is something completely beyond our control. There are such countries in the world. On the assumption that this person would carry two passports. upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy. Mr. from the point of view of the foreign state and of its laws. in effect. one of the most perceptive members of the Constitutional Commission. Well. at birth. by some positive act. page 17: "Any person with dual citizenship" is disqualified to run for any elective local position. such an individual has not effectively renounced his foreign citizenship. No. for candidates with dual citizenship. 1avvphi1 SENATOR PIMENTEL. . It may be that. No. be subject to strict process with respect to the termination of their status." Consequently.A. he has to repudiate one of his citizenships. refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes. That is of no moment as the following discussion on §40(d) between Senators Enrile and Pimentel clearly shows: SENATOR ENRILE. Mr. Mr. But. one belonging to the country of his or her father and one belonging to the Republic of the Philippines. Suppose he carries only a Philippine passport but the country of origin or the country of the father claims that person. §20 must be understood as referring to "dual allegiance. it should suffice if. I would like to ask clarification of line 41. the Constitution does not require an election.Dual allegiance. may such a situation disqualify the person to run for a local government position? SENATOR PIMENTEL. someone whose mother is a citizen of the Philippines but his father is a foreigner is a natural-born citizen of the Republic. §40(d) and in R. Mr. While dual citizenship is involuntary. We recognize a child of a Filipino mother. must elect or give up Philippine citizenship. Hence. they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states. the very fact that he is running for public office would. upon reaching the age of majority. President. 7160. it only means that at the moment when he would want to run for public office. loyalty to two or more states. who must. Bernas. precisely. dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition. To my mind. 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. SENATOR ENRILE. pointed out: "[D]ual citizenship is just a reality imposed on us because we have no control of the laws on citizenship of other countries. 7854. Under the Constitution. As Joaquin G. President. Unlike those with dual allegiance.A.? No one can renounce. SENATOR ENRILE. as a citizen. therefore. on the other hand. President. the concern of the Constitutional Commission was not with dual citizensper se but with naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. the phrase "dual citizenship" in R." By electing Philippine citizenship. Under the present Constitution. be an election for him of his desire to be considered a Filipino citizen. There is no requirement that such a natural-born citizen. xxx [I]n including §5 in Article IV on citizenship. nevertheless.

Our rulings in Manzano and Valles stated that dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance both by cause and. like Tambunting. No. Dual allegiance." SENATOR ENRILE. was enacted years after the promulgation of Manzano and Valles. possessed dual citizenship by the circumstances of their birth. COMELEC. Yes.A. Manzano. the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se. . and I have only one citizenship. No. AASJS states that. COMELEC.14 and Japzon v. But we are talking from the viewpoint of Philippine law.10 and AASJS v. and that is the citizenship invested upon him or her in the Constitution of the Republic. No. or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003.13 Velasco v. The act of taking an oath of allegiance is an implicit renunciation of a naturalized citizen’s foreign citizenship. 9225. by effect. He will always have one citizenship. Manzano was born to Filipino parents in the United States which follows the doctrine of jus soli. That is true. President. under R. the first thing he should do is to say in the Certificate of Candidacy that: "I am a Filipino citizen. So. and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. 9225 reads as follows: I __________ . is: Under the Gentleman’s example. on the other hand. at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. Datumanong.A. But if he exercises acts that will prove that he also acknowledges other citizenships. 9225. a Filipino who becomes a naturalized citizen of another country is allowed to retain his Filipino citizenship by swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines.A. for those desiring to run for public office. No.A. Dal and COMELEC.11 Mercado and Valles involve similar operative facts as the present case. a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states.A. but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. Mr. like any other natural-born Filipino. Valles was born to an Australian mother and a Filipino father in Australia. Dual citizenship is involuntary and arises when. 9225 states that naturalized citizens who reacquire Filipino citizenship and desire to run for elective public office in the Philippines shall "meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and. if he is really interested to run.12 Section 5(3) of R. 9225. as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states. COMELEC. SENATOR PIMENTEL. then he is opening himself to question.8 (Emphasis supplied) We have to consider the present case in consonance with our rulings in Mercado v. is brought about by the individual’s active participation in the naturalization process. Mr.A. President. make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath" aside from the oath of allegiance prescribed in Section 3 of R.15 all of which involve natural-born Filipinos who later became naturalized citizens of another country and thereafter ran for elective office in the Philippines.9 Valles v. What we are saying. R. and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. The twin requirements of swearing to an Oath of Allegiance and executing a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship served as the bases for our recent rulings in Jacot v. No. then he will probably fall under this disqualification. President. it is enough for a person with dual citizenship who seeks public office to file his certificate of candidacy and swear to the oath of allegiance contained therein. 9225. Thus. No. Manzano and Valles. solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines.SENATOR PIMENTEL. if he does not renounce his other citizenship. In the present case. Mr. The oath found in Section 3 of R. In Sections 2 and 3 of R.

05-17.Tambunting. WHEREFORE. includes the twin elements of the fact of residing in a fixed place and the intention to return there permanently. residency. Cordora’s reasoning fails because Tambunting is not a naturalized American. we hold that Cordora failed to establish that Tambunting indeed willfully made false entries in his certificates of candidacy. . We AFFIRM the Resolutions of the Commission on Elections En Bancdated 18 August 2006 and 20 February 2007 in EO Case No. Tambunting’s residency Cordora concluded that Tambunting failed to meet the residency requirement because of Tambunting’s naturalization as an American. we DISMISS the petition. a natural-born Filipino. In view of the above. 9225 do not apply to him. Tambunting is eligible for the office which he sought to be elected and fulfilled the citizenship and residency requirements prescribed by law. On the contrary. Tambunting sufficiently proved his innocence of the charge filed against him. 16 and is not dependent upon citizenship. Moreover. SO ORDERED.A. the twin requirements in R. Hence. for the purpose of election laws. did not subsequently become a naturalized citizen of another country. No.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful