David Vs Agbay- lost his citizenship and subsequently re acquired

Facts:

n 1974, petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon
their retirement, petitioner and his wife returned to the Philippines.

Sometime in 2000, they purchased a 600-square meter lot along the beach in Tambong, Gloria,
Oriental Mindoro where they constructed a residential house. However, in the year 2004, they came
to know that the portion where they built their house is public land and part of the salvage zone.

On April 12, 2007, petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application  (MLA) over the subject land
3

with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) at the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) in Socorro.

In the said application, petitioner indicated that he is a Filipino citizen.

Private respondent Editha A. Agbay opposed the application on the ground that petitioner, a
Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land. She also filed a criminal complaint for falsification of
public documents under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (I.S. No. 08-6463) against the
petitioner.

Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the provisions of Republic Act No.
9225,  (R.A. 9225) issued by the Consulate General of the Philippines (Toronto) on October 11,
4

2007.

 the CENRO issued an order rejecting petitioner’s MLA. It ruled that petitioner’s subsequent re-
acquisition of Philippine citizenship did not cure the defect in his MLA which was void ab initio. 8

the March 22, 2011 Order disregarded the legal fiction that once a natural-born Filipino citizen who
had been naturalized in another country re-acquires his citizenship under R.A. 9225, his Filipino
citizenship is thus deemed not to have been lost on account of said naturalization.

MTC properly denied petitioner’s motion for re-determination of probable cause on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused

The RTC issued the assailed Order denying the petition for certiorari:

Issue: Whether or not petitioner may be indicted for falsification for representing himself as a Filipino
in his Public Land Application despite his subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship under
the provisions of R.A. 9225

Held:

R.A. 9225, otherwise known as the "Citizenship Retention and Re- acquisition Act of 2003," was
signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on August 29, 2003. Sections 2 and 3 of said
law read:

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.–It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens
who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine
citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.–Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine
citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:

That the law distinguishes between re-acquisition and retention of Philippine citizenship was made
clear in the discussion of the Bicameral Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of
House Bill No. 4720 and Senate Bill No. 2130 held on August 18, 2003, where Senator Franklin
Drilon was responding to the query of Representative Exequiel Javier:

. Reacquired for those who previously lost [Filipino citizenship] by virtue of Commonwealth
Act 63, and retention for those in the future. (Emphasis supplied)

The reacquisition will apply to those who lost their Philippine citizenship by virtue of
Commonwealth Act 63. Upon the effectivity -- assuming that we can agree on this, upon the
effectivity of this new measure amending Commonwealth Act 63, the Filipinos who lost their
citizenship is deemed to have reacquired their Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of the act.

The second aspect is the retention of Philippine citizenship applying to future instances. So
that’s the distinction.

Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of R.A. 9225,
he belongs to the first category of natural- born Filipinos under the first paragraph of Section 3 who
lost Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country. As the new law allows dual
citizenship, he was able to re-acquire his Philippine citizenship by taking the required oath of
allegiance.

For the purpose of determining the citizenship of petitioner at the time of filing his MLA, it is not
necessary to discuss the rulings in Frivaldo and Altarejos on the retroactivity of such reacquisition
because R.A. 9225 itself treats those of his category as having already lost Philippine citizenship, in
contradistinction to those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 came
into force. In other words, Section 2 declaring the policy that considers Filipinos who became foreign
citizens as not to have lost their Philippine citizenship, should be read together with Section 3, the
second paragraph of which clarifies that such policy governs all cases after the new law’s effectivity.

As to the letter-reply of BI, it simply quoted Section 2 of R.A. 9225 without any reference to Section 3
on the particular application of reacquisition and retention to Filipinos who became foreign citizens
before and after the effectivity of R.A. 9225.

In other words, Section 2 declaring the policy that considers Filipinos who became foreign citizens
as not to have lost their Philippine citizenship, should be read together with Section 3, the second
paragraph of which clarifies that such policy governs all cases after the new law’s effectivity.

Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public document, that he is a Filipino citizen
at the time of the filing of said application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian citizen.

Under CA 63, the governing law at the time he was naturalized as Canadian citizen, naturalization in
a foreign country was among those ways by which a natural-born citizen loses his Philippine
citizenship. While he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 six months later, the
falsification was already a consummated act, the said law having no retroactive effect insofar as his
dual citizenship status is concerned.
NESTOR A. JACOT, petitioner,vs.
ROGEN T. DAL and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Facts: He filed a request for the administration of his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
with the Philippine Consulate General (PCG) of Los Angeles, California. The Los Angeles PCG issued on
19 June 2006 an Order of Approval4 of petitioner’s request, and on the same day, petitioner took his Oath
of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before Vice Consul Edward C. Yulo

March 2007, petitioner filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the Position of Vice-Mayor of the Municipality
of Catarman, Camiguin. 7

respondent Rogen T. Dal filed a Petition for Disqualification 8 before the COMELEC Provincial Office in
Camiguin against petitioner, arguing that the latter failed to renounce his US citizenship, as required
under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225

In the meantime, the 14 May 2007 National and Local Elections were held. Petitioner garnered the
highest number of votes for the position of Vice Mayor.

der Republic Act No. 9225 does not automatically bestow upon any person the privilege to run for any
elective public office. It additionally ruled that the filing of a Certificate of Candidacy cannot be considered
as a renunciation of foreign citizenship. The COMELEC Second Division did not consider Valles v.
COMELEC12 and Mercado v. Manzano13 applicable to the instant case, since Valles and Mercado were
dual citizens since birth, unlike the petitioner who lost his Filipino citizenship by means of naturalization.

Issue: WON PETITIONER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. 9225,

Held: The law categorically requires persons seeking elective public office, who either retained their
Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and
all foreign citizenship before a public officer authorized to administer an oath simultaneous with or before
the filing of the certificate of candidacy.20

Hence, Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos, who have been
naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired or retained their Philippine
citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for
those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute a personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or
simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine
elections.

There is little doubt, therefore, that the intent of the legislators was not only for Filipinos reacquiring or
retaining their Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 to take their oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, but also to explicitly renounce their foreign citizenship if they wish to run for
elective posts in the Philippines. To qualify as a candidate in Philippine elections, Filipinos must only have
one citizenship, namely, Philippine citizenship.

By the same token, the oath of allegiance contained in the Certificate of Candidacy, which is substantially
similar to the one contained in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, does not constitute the personal and
sworn renunciation sought under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225. It bears to emphasize that the
said oath of allegiance is a general requirement for all those who wish to run as candidates in Philippine
elections; while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional requisite only for those who have
retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and who seek elective public
posts, considering their special circumstance of having more than one citizenship.
Petitioner also makes much of the fact that he received the highest number of votes for the position of
Vice-Mayor of Catarman during the 2007 local elections. The fact that a candidate, who must comply with
the election requirements applicable to dual citizens and failed to do so, received the highest number of
votes for an elective position does not dispense with, or amount to a waiver of, such requirement. 37 The
will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they
mistakenly believed that the candidate was qualified. The rules on citizenship qualifications of a candidate
must be strictly applied. If a person seeks to serve the Republic of the Philippines, he must owe his loyalty
to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state. 38 The application of
the constitutional and statutory provisions on disqualification is not a matter of popularity. 39

TEODORA SOBEJANA-CONDON, Petitioner,vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, LUIS M. BAUTISTA, ROBELITO V. PICAR and WILMA P.
PAGADUAN

Facts: The petitioner is a natural-born Filipino citizen having been born of Filipino parents on August
8, 1944. On December 13, 1984, she became a naturalized Australian citizen owing to her marriage
to a certain Kevin Thomas Condon.

 she filed an application to re-acquire Philippine citizenship before the Philippine Embassy in
Canberra, Australia pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225 otherwise known as the "Citizenship
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003." The application was approved and the petitioner took her
5 

oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on December 5, 2005.

 she filed an application to re-acquire Philippine citizenship before the Philippine Embassy in
Canberra, Australia pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225 otherwise known as the "Citizenship
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003." The application was approved and the petitioner took her
5 

oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on December 5, 2005.

The petitioner ran for Mayor in her hometown of Caba, La Union in the 2007 elections. She lost in
her bid. She again sought elective office during the May 10, 2010 elections this time for the position
of Vice-Mayor. She obtained the highest numbers of votes and was proclaimed as the winning
candidate. Then took her oath.

The petitions similarly sought the petitioner’s disqualification from holding her elective post on the
ground that she is a dual citizen and that she failed to execute a "personal and sworn renunciation of
any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath" as imposed
by Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225.

Private respondents filed separate petitions for quo warranto questioning the petitioner’s eligibility
before the RTC. 

she failed to execute a "personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before
any public officer authorized to administer an oath" as imposed by Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225.

 the trial court held that the petitioner’s failure to comply with Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 rendered
her ineligible to run and hold public office

COMELEC: appeal dismissed

Issue: For purposes of determining the petitioner’s eligibility to run for public office, whether the
"sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship" in Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 is a mere pro-forma
requirement.
Held: R.A. No. 9225 allows the retention and re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship for natural-born
citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic,
18 

thus:

Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship. – Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine
citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:

"I, _____________________, 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; and I hereby declare that I
recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith
and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without
mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a
foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.

The oath is an abbreviated repatriation process that restores one’s Filipino citizenship and all civil
and political rights and obligations concomitant therewith, subject to certain conditions imposed in
Section 5, viz:

Sec. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. – Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine
citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant
liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:

(1) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the requirements under Section 1,
Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The Overseas Absentee
Voting Act of 2003" and other existing laws;

(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding such
public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship
before any public officer authorized to administer an oath;

(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office:
Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath;

(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority
for a license or permit to engage in such practice; and

(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot be
exercised by, or extended to, those who:

(a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized
citizens; and/or
(b) are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed forces of the
country which they are naturalized citizens. (Emphasis ours)

Admittedly, however, the same was not under oath contrary to the exact mandat o obviate the fatal
consequence of her inutile renunciation, the petitioner pleads the Court to interpret the "sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship" in Section 5(2) to be a mere pro forma requirement in
conformity with the intent of the Legislature. She anchors her submission on the statement made by
Representative Javier during the floor deliberations on H.B. No. 4720, the precursor of R.A. No.
9225.e of Section 5(2) that the renunciation of foreign citizenship must be sworn before an officer
authorized to administer oath.

To obviate the fatal consequence of her inutile renunciation, the petitioner pleads the Court to
interpret the "sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship" in Section 5(2) to be a mere pro
forma requirement in conformity with the intent of the Legislature. She anchors her submission on
the statement made by Representative Javier during the floor deliberations on H.B. No. 4720, the
precursor of R.A. No. 9225.

 We also expounded on the form of the renunciation and held that to be valid, the renunciation must
be contained in an affidavit duly executed before an officer of the law who is authorized to administer
an oath stating in clear and unequivocal terms that affiant is renouncing all foreign citizenship.

We find no reason to depart from the mandatory nature infused by the above rulings to the phrase
"sworn renunciation". The language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. It expresses a single,
definite, and sensible meaning and must thus be read literally. The foreign citizenship must be
25 

formally rejected through an affidavit duly sworn before an officer authorized to administer oath.

An oath is a solemn declaration, accompanied by a swearing to God or a revered person or thing,

that one’s statement is true or that one will be bound to a promise. The person making the oath
implicitly invites punishment if the statement is untrue or the promise is broken. The legal effect of an
oath is to subject the person to penalties for perjury if the testimony is false.28

Indeed, the solemn promise, and the risk of punishment attached to an oath ensures truthfulness to
the prospective public officer’s abandonment of his adopted state and promise of absolute allegiance
and loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.

To hold the oath to be a mere pro forma requirement is to say that it is only for ceremonial purposes;
it would also accommodate a mere qualified or temporary allegiance from government officers when
the Constitution and the legislature clearly demand otherwise.

The petitioner failed to prove the Australian Citizenship Act of 1948 through any of the above
methods. As uniformly observed by the RTC and COMELEC, the petitioner failed to show proof of
the existence of the law during trial. Also, the letter issued by the Australian government showing
that petitioner already renounced her Australian citizenship was unauthenticated hence, the courts a
quo acted judiciously in disregarding the same.

In fine, R.A. No. 9225 categorically demands natural-born Filipinos who re-acquire their citizenship
and seek elective office, to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenships before an authorized public officer prior to or simultaneous to the filing of their
certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections. The rule applies to all
36 

those who have re-acquired their Filipino citizenship, like petitioner, without regard as to whether
they are still dual citizens or not. It is a pre-requisite imposed for the exercise of the right to run for
public office.

Stated differently, it is an additional qualification for elective office specific only to Filipino citizens
who re-acquire their citizenship under Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225. It is the operative act that restores
their right to run for public office. The petitioner's failure to comply therewith in accordance with the
exact tenor of the law, rendered ineffectual the Declaration of Renunciation of Australian Citizenship
she executed on September 18, 2006. As such, she is yet to regain her political right to seek elective
office. Unless she executes a sworn renunciation of her Australian citizenship, she is ineligible to run
for and hold any elective office in the Philippines.

CASAN MACODE MAQUILING, Petitioner,vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO, LINOG G. BALUA

Facts: Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. 3 However, as a consequence of his
subsequent naturalization as a citizen of the United States of America, he lost his Filipino citizenship.
Arnado applied for repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 before the Consulate General of
the Philippines in San Franciso, USA and took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines on 10 July 2008.4 On the same day an Order of Approval of his Citizenship Retention and
Re-acquisition was issued in his favor.5

On 3 April 2009 Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic and executed an Affidavit
of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship

Arnado filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, which contains,
among others,

respondent Linog C. Balua (Balua), another mayoralty candidate, filed a petition to disqualify Arnado
and/or to cancel his certificate of candidacy 

To further bolster his claim of Arnado’s US citizenship, Balua presented in his Memorandum a
computer-generated travel record11 dated 03 December 2009 indicating that Arnado has been using
his US Passport No. 057782700 in entering and departing the Philippines. 

Comelec; We find that although Arnado appears to have substantially complied with the
requirements of R.A. No. 9225, Arnado’s act of consistently using his US passport after renouncing
his US citizenship on 03 April 2009 effectively negated his Affidavit of Renunciation

Reversed Comelec en banc; By renouncing his US citizenship as imposed by R.A. No. 9225, the
respondent embraced his Philippine citizenship as though he never became a citizen of another
country. It was at that time, April 3, 2009, that the respondent became a pure Philippine Citizen
again.