ERNESTO S. MERCADO, Petitioner, vs. Eduardo Barrios Manzano and The Commission On Elections, Respondents
ERNESTO S. MERCADO, Petitioner, vs. Eduardo Barrios Manzano and The Commission On Elections, Respondents
ERNESTO S. MERCADO, Petitioner, vs. Eduardo Barrios Manzano and The Commission On Elections, Respondents
province and is an exclusive prerogative of our courts. The latter should apply the law duly enacted by the
legislative department of the Republic. No foreign law may or should interfere with its operation and
application.
The court ruled that the filing of certificate of candidacy of respondent sufficed to renounce his American
citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen. By declaring in his
certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of
another country; that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith
and allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as
the laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which
he may have said before as a dual citizen.
On the other hand, private respondents oath of allegiance to the Philippines, when considered with the
fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as an
artist, and taken part in past elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine
citizenship.
His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will fulfill his undertaking made under oath. Should
he betray that trust, there are enough sanctions for declaring the loss of his Philippine citizenship through
expatriation in appropriate proceedings. In Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, the court sustained the denial of
entry into the country of petitioner on the ground that, after taking his oath as a naturalized citizen, he
applied for the renewal of his Portuguese passport and declared in commercial documents executed
abroad that he was a Portuguese national. A similar sanction can be taken against any one who, in
electing Philippine citizenship, renounces his foreign nationality, but subsequently does some act
constituting renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.
Issue:
Whether or not the use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship amounts to undoing a
renunciation earlier made?
Ruling:
Yes, The use of foreign passport after renouncing ones foreign citizenship is a positive and voluntary act
of representation as to ones nationality and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino citizenship regained by
repatriation but it recants the Oath of Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective position.
After reacquiring his Philippine citizenship, Arnado renounced his American citizenship by executing an
Affidavit of Renunciation, thus completing the requirements for eligibility to run for public office.
By renouncing his foreign citizenship, he was deemed to be solely a Filipino citizen, regardless of the
effect of such renunciation under the laws of the foreign country.
However, this legal presumption does not operate permanently and is open to attack when, after
renouncing the foreign citizenship, the citizen performs positive acts showing his continued possession of
a foreign citizenship.
Arnado himself subjected the issue of his citizenship to attack when, after renouncing his foreign
citizenship, he continued to use his US passport to travel in and out of the country before filing his
certificate of candidacy on 30 November 2009. The pivotal question to determine is whether he was solely
and exclusively a Filipino citizen at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy, thereby rendering him
eligible to run for public office.
The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply be professed at any time, only
to be violated the next day. It requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship
and a full divestment of all civil and political rights granted by the foreign country which granted the
citizenship.
We agree with the COMELEC En Banc that such act of using a foreign passport does not divest Arnado of
his Filipino citizenship, which he acquired by repatriation. However, by representing himself as an
American citizen, Arnado voluntarily and effectively reverted to his earlier status as a dual citizen. Such
reversion was not retroactive; it took place the instant Arnado represented himself as an American citizen
by using his US passport.
This act of using a foreign passport after renouncing ones foreign citizenship is fatal to Arnados bid for
public office, as it effectively imposed on him a disqualification to run for an elective local position.