The Supreme Court held that natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of another country must personally and formally renounce their foreign citizenship to run for public office in the Philippines, even after reacquiring Filipino citizenship. This requirement is separate from taking an oath of allegiance to the Philippines or declaring allegiance in a Certificate of Candidacy. The decision emphasizes the importance of undivided loyalty to the Philippines for those seeking to serve in public office, upholding the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) disqualification of a candidate who failed to properly renounce their foreign citizenship.

From U.S. Citizen Back to Filipino Official? The Tale of a Disqualified Candidate

Nestor A. Jacot, a natural-born Filipino who later became a naturalized U.S. citizen, sought to run for Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin. He had reacquired his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, also known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act. However, a petition was filed to disqualify him, arguing that he had not properly renounced his U.S. citizenship as required by law. Jacot contended that his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and the oath within his Certificate of Candidacy served as sufficient renunciation. The COMELEC disagreed, disqualifying him, a decision ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.

The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225, which stipulates that those seeking elective public office must make a “personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship.” This requirement is in addition to the oath of allegiance required to reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship under Section 3 of the same Act. The oath of allegiance focuses on loyalty to the Philippines but doesn’t explicitly renounce other citizenships. Consequently, the Supreme Court clarified that these are distinct legal acts serving different purposes. It held that these two acts differ, with the renunciation being more specific and geared towards candidates who reacquired their Philippine citizenship and wanted to run for office.

The Supreme Court rejected Jacot’s reliance on previous cases like Valles v. COMELEC and Mercado v. Manzano. In those cases, filing a certificate of candidacy with an oath of allegiance was considered sufficient renunciation. The Court clarified that these cases predate the enactment of Republic Act No. 9225, which provides specific requirements for those reacquiring Philippine citizenship and seeking public office. Thus, the more explicit requirements of Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225, requiring personal renunciation of foreign citizenship, supersedes the older rulings.

Adding another twist, Jacot presented an “Affidavit of Renunciation” to the Supreme Court, claiming he had executed it before filing his Certificate of Candidacy. However, the Court refused to consider this evidence, citing that it was never presented to the COMELEC during the initial proceedings. The Court emphasized the principle that issues and evidence not raised in lower courts cannot be introduced on appeal. This procedural lapse, coupled with Jacot’s changing legal theories, further weakened his case.

Moreover, Jacot’s argument that his lawyer was negligent in not presenting the affidavit earlier was rejected. The Court held that clients are generally bound by the actions of their counsel. Only in cases of gross negligence that deprives a client of due process would the Court deviate from this rule. In Jacot’s case, his counsel’s actions, while perhaps a misjudgment, did not constitute the kind of gross negligence that would warrant overturning the established legal principle. This reinforces the idea of the client being bound to the lawyer they hire and the responsibility it carries.

Finally, the Supreme Court addressed the argument that disqualifying Jacot would frustrate the will of the people. While acknowledging that he received the most votes, the Court reiterated that eligibility requirements must be strictly applied. Receiving the most votes does not waive these requirements, especially if voters mistakenly believed the candidate was qualified. In essence, while popularity matters in an election, it is superseded by eligibility under the law, which includes, in this case, singular allegiance to the Philippines when seeking office.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a natural-born Filipino who reacquired citizenship under R.A. 9225 needed to personally renounce foreign citizenship to run for public office.
What is Republic Act No. 9225?	Republic Act No. 9225, also known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003, allows natural-born Filipinos who have become citizens of another country to reacquire or retain their Philippine citizenship.
What does Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225 require?	Section 5(2) requires those seeking elective public office to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before filing their certificate of candidacy.
Why was Jacot disqualified?	Jacot was disqualified because he did not personally and formally renounce his U.S. citizenship before filing his certificate of candidacy, as required by Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225.
Does the oath of allegiance fulfill the renunciation requirement?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that the oath of allegiance to the Philippines and the oath in the Certificate of Candidacy are distinct from the personal and sworn renunciation required by Section 5(2).
What was the effect of Jacot presenting a new affidavit to the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court refused to consider the affidavit because it was not presented during the initial proceedings before the COMELEC, violating the principle against raising new issues on appeal.
Is a client responsible for their lawyer’s mistakes?	Generally, yes. The Supreme Court held that clients are bound by their counsel’s actions, unless the negligence is so gross as to deprive the client of due process.
Does winning the popular vote negate the eligibility requirements?	No, the Supreme Court emphasized that receiving the highest number of votes does not waive the legal requirements for holding public office.

This case underscores the strict requirements for dual citizens seeking public office in the Philippines. It reaffirms that holding public office demands undivided loyalty, formally expressed through renunciation of any other citizenship. The Supreme Court’s decision aims to prevent dual allegiance and ensure that those serving the country are wholly committed to its interests.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Nestor A. Jacot v. Rogen T. Dal and COMELEC, G.R. No. 179848, November 27, 2008