Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Jacot V Dal

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

NESTOR A.

JACOT
vs.
ROGEN T. DAL and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 179848 November 27, 2008

TOPIC:
Loss and Re-Acquisition of Citizenship

FACTS:

Petitioner Nestor A. Jacot assails the Resolution dated 28 September 2007 of


the , affirming the Resolution dated 12 June 2007 of the COMELEC Second
Division, disqualifying him from running for the position of Vice-Mayor of
Catarman, Camiguin in the 14 May 2007 National and Local Elections, on the
ground that he failed to make a personal renouncement of his US citizenship.

Petitioner was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who became a


naturalized citizen of the US on 13 December 1989. Petitioner sought to
reacquire his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, otherwise
known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act.

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 Approval 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. On 27 September 2006, the Bureau of Immigration issued
and Identification Certificate, recognizing petitioner as a citizen of the
Philippines.

Six months after, on 26 March 2007, petitioner filed his Certificate of


Candidacy for the Position of Vice-Mayor of the Municipality of Catarman,
Camiguin.

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.

On 12 June 2007, the COMELEC Second Division finally issued its


Resolution11 disqualifying the petitioner from running for the position of
Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin, for failure to make the requisite
renunciation of his US citizenship.
ISSUE/S:

Whether or not petitioner has validly complied the citizenship requirement as


required by law for persons seeking public office.

HELD:

Contrary to the assertions made by petitioner, his oath of allegiance to the


Republic of the Philippines made before the Los Angeles
PCG and his Certificate of Candidacy do
not substantially comply with the requirement of
a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship, because these
are distinct requirements to be complied with for different purposes.

Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 requires that natural-born citizens of the
Philippines, who are already naturalized citizens of a foreign country, must
take the following oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines to
reacquire or retain their Philippine citizenship.

By the oath dictated in the afore-quoted provision, the Filipino swears


allegiance to the Philippines, but there is nothing therein on his renunciation
of foreign citizenship.

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.

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.

You might also like