FACTS
Mariz Lindsey Tan Villegas Gana-Carait filed her Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) to run as Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Biñan City, Laguna, for the May 13, 2019 National and Local Elections. Following this, two petitions were filed against her. The first was by Rommel Mitra Lim, who claimed she was ineligible due to her U.S. citizenship and her failure to make a sworn renunciation of her foreign citizenship. The second was by Dominic Nuñez, who argued that her CoC contained false material representations, particularly her claim of being solely a Filipino citizen despite using a U.S. passport.
Gana-Carait responded by asserting she was a dual citizen by birth—born to a Filipino father and an American mother—and thus not required to comply with the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act (RA 9225). She emphasized that dual citizenship by birth is not prohibited by law, and unlike dual allegiance, it does not disqualify a candidate from running for public office.
Despite these arguments, the COMELEC First Division ruled that she was a dual citizen by naturalization, citing the documentary submission for her U.S. citizenship and the issuance of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) as evidence of a “positive act.” As a result, COMELEC canceled her CoC, ruling that she failed to comply with the twin requirements under RA 9225—namely, taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and renouncing her U.S. citizenship.
She sought reconsideration, but the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the First Division’s ruling. Gana-Carait then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, arguing that her dual citizenship was by birth, not naturalization, and that RA 9225 should not apply to her.
Petitioner Gana-Carait contended that she is a dual citizen by birth—not by naturalization—since she was born in the Philippines to a Filipino father and an American mother. She argued that she automatically acquired U.S. citizenship at birth under U.S. law and never underwent a naturalization process. Consequently, RA 9225 does not apply to her, and she was under no obligation to take an oath of allegiance or renounce her U.S. citizenship. She emphasized that dual citizenship by birth is not a ground for ineligibility.
Respondents, including the COMELEC and private parties, argued that Gana-Carait is a dual citizen by naturalization because her U.S. citizenship was acquired through a “positive act,” namely, the submission of documents to obtain her CRBA. As such, they claimed she fell under the scope of RA 9225 and was required to both take an oath of allegiance and renounce her foreign citizenship before running for public office. Her failure to do so, they argued, rendered her ineligible and constituted material misrepresentation in her CoC.
ISSUES
- Whether or not Mariz Lindsey Tan Gana-Carait is a dual citizen by naturalization.
- Whether or not RA 9225 requires Mariz Lindsey Tan Gana-Carait to comply with the twin requirements of taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and renouncing her U.S. citizenship.
RULING
1. NO, Mariz Lindsey Tan Gana-Carait is not a dual citizen by naturalization, but by birth.
In Garcia v. Recio, the Court defined naturalization as a legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him [or her] with the political and civil rights belonging to a citizen. It implies the renunciation of a former nationality and the fact of entrance into a similar relation towards a new body politic. Therefore, naturalization is a process through which a State confers an outsider, i.e., a non-citizen/alien/foreigner, with rights enjoyed by its citizens. 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.
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.
Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws, and these must be proven as fact under the rules on evidence.
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.
2. NO, RA 9225 does not require Mariz Lindsey Tan Gana-Carait to comply with the twin requirements of taking an oath of allegiance and renouncing her U.S. citizenship.
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.
Assuming arguendo that petitioner was indeed aware that some act was performed to obtain the CRBA or establish her US citizenship, the same does not suffice to place her within the coverage of R.A. 9225. As held in a plethora of cases, the law applies only to natural-born Filipinos who became citizens of a foreign country specifically by naturalization. COMELEC concludes that petitioner falls under the second category because she acquired her US citizenship after the passage of R.A. 9225 on 23 August 2004 (the date when the CRBA was issued). While the second category does not speak of “naturalization,” jurisprudence is settled that R.A. 9225 covers only natural-born Filipinos who later became naturalized citizens of a foreign country, either before or after the passage of R.A. 9225
Indeed, R.A. 9225 covers only natural-born Filipinos who personally and voluntarily become naturalized foreign citizens, 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.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The Resolution dated 23 September 2021 of the Commission on Elections En Banc and the Resolution dated 27 February 2019 of the Commission on Elections First Division are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
The Certificate of Finality dated 13 December 2021, the Entry of Judgment dated 13 December 2021, and the Writ of Execution dated 31 January 2022 issued by the COMELEC En Banc, in relation to the Resolution dated 23 September 2021, are likewise CANCELLED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy dated 6 November 2018, filed by private respondent Dominic P. Nuñez against petitioner Mariz Lindsey Tan Villegas Gana-Carait, docketed as SPA Case No. 18-126 (DC), is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Full text of the case.
