Dual citizens by birth

Read - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/29129/

"SC: Naturalization Does not Apply to Dual Citizens by Birth

August 12, 2022

The Supreme Court has held that Filipinos born to one Filipino parent and one foreign parent are considered dual citizens by birth and not by naturalization, regardless of subsequent acts performed to confirm the foreign citizenship.

In a Decision penned by Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the Supreme Court En Banc granted the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Mariz Lindsey Tan Villegas Gana-Carait, and annulled and set aside the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc Resolution dated September 23, 2021 which denied Gana-Carait’s Motion for Reconsideration of the COMELEC First Division’s Resolution dated February 27, 2019. The said COMELEC resolutions denied the petition to disqualify Gana-Carait as a candidate for Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the Lone District of Biñan, Laguna for the May 2019 elections, but granted the petition to deny due course to or cancel her certificate of candidacy (CoC).

On October 17, 2018, Gana-Carait filed her CoC for the May 2019 National and Local Elections. Two petitions were then filed before the COMELEC against her: one for her disqualification, on the ground that she failed to renounce her United States (US) citizenship; the other for the cancellation of her COC, for false representations on her eligibility to run for office given her American citizenship.

The COMELEC’s First Division resolved the consolidated cases in its February 27, 2019 Resolution, dismissing the petition for disqualification but granting the petition for the cancellation of Gana-Carait’s COC, finding that she was a dual citizen by naturalization because of positive acts subsequently performed by her mother to secure a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America and a US passport for Gana-Carait.

Thus, the COMELEC held that Gana-Carait must comply with RA No. 9225, or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act, which requires candidates who are dual citizens by naturalization to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to renounce their foreign citizenship. Gana-Carait moved to reconsider the ruling, but was denied by the COMELEC En Banc, prompting Gana-Carait to go to the Supreme Court.

In ruling to set aside COMELEC’s cancellation of Gana-Carait’s COC, the Court held that Gana-Carait, who was born to a Filipino father and an American mother, is a dual citizen by birth, and not by naturalization.

The Court also found that the subsequent positive acts made by Gana-Carait’s mother to request confirmation from the United States Consular Service of Gana-Carait’s US citizenship is not considered a naturalization process but a mere presentation of documentary evidence to establish the fact that Gana-Carait is an American citizen by birth.

The Court held that since Gana-Carait is a dual citizen by birth, and not by naturalization, she is not covered by the provisions of the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act requiring candidates who are dual citizens by naturalization to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to renounce their foreign citizenships in order to become eligible for elective office. As a dual citizen by birth, Gana-Carait is thus considered a Filipino qualified to run for public office. Hence, she could not be said to have made a false representation in her COC, ruled the Court.

The Court also harmonized conflicting provisions under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure (COMELEC Rules) and the Rules of Court on the reckoning point for the 30-day period within which one can challenge a COMELEC ruling before the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari.

Under Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, which is based on Section 7, Article IX of the Constitution, a petition for certiorari shall be filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution to be reviewed. Section 1, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules, however, provides that such petition must be filed within 30 days from the promulgation date. Further, Section 3 of the same Rule declares that decisions in petitions to cancel COCs become final and executory after five days from promulgation, unless restrained by the Court.

The Court held that the COMELEC Rules are merely procedural and thus cannot override substantive law, especially the Constitution. The COMELEC Rules cannot be applied in a way that would shorten the constitutionally mandated period within which aggrieved parties can question an adverse COMELEC ruling.

The Court ruled that to harmonize the COMELEC Rules with the Constitution and the Rules of Court, the proper interpretation of Section 8, Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules is that COMELEC rulings, in the absence of a restraining order from the Supreme Court, issued within five days from receipt of the aggrieved party, shall be rendered only executory, but not final.

In the case of Gana-Carait, despite the COMELEC’s issuance of the Certificate of Finality, Entry of Judgment, and Writ of Execution, the challenged COMELEC ruling did not actually attain finality since Gana-Carait was able to file the Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court within 30 days from notice of the COMELEC ruling.

The SC Public Information Office will upload the full text of the Decision on the SC website once available.###"