19 MERCADO V. MANZANO & COE G.R. No.

135083 May 26, 1999

Topics: Dual citizenship; Dual allegiance

FACTS: Petitioner Ernesto S. Mercado and private respondent Eduardo B. Manzano were candidates for
vice mayor of the City of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections. Manzano garnered the highest vote,
while Mercado the 2nd highest.

Manzanos proclamation was suspended as a certain Ernesto Mamaril filed a petition for the
disqualification and alleged that Manzano was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States.
COMELEC's Second Division granted the petition cancelling the certificate of candidacy of Manzano on
May 7, 1998 on the grounds that dual citizens are disqualified from running any elective position under
Sec 40 of the Local Goverment Code. Manzano filed for an MR and Mercado sought to intervene.

On August 19, 1998, the COMELEC en banc reversed the said decision declaring that private respondent
Manzano is qualified to run for Vice-mayor of Makati. It found that Manzano was born in San Francisco,
California, U.S.A. He acquired US citizenship by operation of the United States Constitution and laws
under the principle of jus soli. He was also a natural born Filipino citizen by operation of the 1935
Philippine Constitution, as his father and mother were Filipinos at the time of his birth. At the age of six,
his parents brought him to the Philippines using an American passport as travel document. His parents
also registered him as an alien with the Philippine Bureau of Immigration. He was issued an alien
certificate of registration. This, however, did not result in the loss of his Philippine citizenship, as he did
not renounce Philippine citizenship and did not take an oath of allegiance to the United States. It is an
undisputed fact that when respondent attained the age of majority, he registered himself as a voter, and
voted in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998, which effectively renounced his US citizenship under
American law. Under Philippine law, he no longer had U.S. citizenship.

ISSUE: WON dual citizenship is a ground for disqualification.

HELD: NO because dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. What is inimical is not dual
citizenship per se, but with naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin
even after their naturalization. Hence, the phrase dual citizenship in RA 7160 must be understood as
referring to dual allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this
disqualification.

Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. Dual citizenship is involuntary; it arises out of
circumstances of birth or marriage, where a person is recognized to be a national by two or more states.
Dual allegiance is a result of a persons volition; it is a situation wherein a person simultaneously owes,
by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. Dual citizenship is an issue because a person who
has this raises a question of which states law must apply to him/her, therefore posting a threat to a
countrys sovereignty. Hence, dual citizenship in the aforementioned disqualification clause must
mean dual allegiance. Therefore, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this
disqualification.
There was also valid election of citizenship. It should suffice that upon filing of certificates for candidacy,
such persons with dual citizenship have elected their Philippine citizenship to terminate their dual
citizenship. In private respondents certificate of candidacy, he made these statements under oath on
March 27, 1998: I am a Filipino citizenNatural-born. I am not a permanent resident of, or immigrant
to, a foreign country. I am eligible for the office I seek to be elected. I will support and defend the
Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance theretoThe filing of such
certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any
disqualification he might have as a dual-citizen.