View full case

CIRILO R. VALLES v. COMELEC

FACTS:

In the case, petitioner Cirilo R. Valles filed a petition for certiorari against Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, challenging the Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in SPA No. 98-336. Valles questions Lopez's eligibility to run for governor of Davao Oriental in the May 1998 elections.

Lopez, a Filipino citizen, was born in Broome, Western Australia, to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. She settled in the Philippines in 1949, at the age of fifteen, and married a Filipino citizen in 1952. She has actively participated in the electoral process and has held positions in government.

In previous elections, Lopez's Filipino citizenship was contested, but the COMELEC dismissed the petitions. The COMELEC found evidence of her Filipino citizenship through her father and her marriage to a Filipino. No sufficient proof of her alleged Australian citizenship or renunciation of her Filipino citizenship was presented.

In the May 1998 elections, Valles alleged that Lopez is an Australian citizen. The COMELEC's First Division dismissed the petition, stating that no new evidence was presented to overturn previous resolutions declaring Lopez's Filipino citizenship. Valles' motion for reconsideration was also denied by the COMELEC en banc.

The COMELEC ruled that Lopez is a Filipino citizen based on the principle of jus sanguinis, as her father is a Filipino citizen. They also found that her marriage to a Filipino made her a Filipino citizen under Commonwealth Act 473. Furthermore, she renounced her Australian citizenship on January 15, 1992, as certified by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of Australia.

Valles argues that Lopez is an Australian citizen based on her registration and the issuance of an Australian passport.

Lopez was born to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. At the time of her birth, the applicable laws defined Philippine citizens as those who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, and their children born thereafter. Lopez later acquired Australian citizenship and then sought to reacquire Filipino citizenship. Valles argues that her application for an alien certificate of registration and immigrant certificate of residence, as well as her renunciation of Australian citizenship, should disqualify her from running for public office. Valles also contends that Lopez should have complied with the requirements for repatriation under Republic Act 8171 to reacquire Filipino citizenship. The COMELEC found that Lopez had renounced her Australian citizenship and therefore qualified to run for public office in the Philippines. Valles argues that the principle of res judicata does not apply to the case, citing the ruling in Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether private respondent is a Philippine citizen under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law.

  2. Whether private respondent renounced her Philippine citizenship.

  3. Whether the private respondent's possession of an Australian passport and alien certificate of registration constitutes an effective renunciation of Philippine citizenship.

  4. Whether the private respondent, if found to have dual citizenship, is disqualified from running for public office.

  5. Whether the private respondent's renunciation of Australian citizenship and filing of a certificate of candidacy effectively terminated her dual citizenship.

  6. Whether or not prior rulings on citizenship can be used as a basis to resolve the issue of citizenship in a subsequent case.

  7. Whether or not the petition can prosper.

RULING:

  1. Private respondent is a Philippine citizen under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, as her father was a Spanish subject and resident of the Philippines on April 11, 1899, and she was born subsequent thereto.

  2. Private respondent did not renounce her Philippine citizenship, as the application for an alien certificate of registration and her Australian passport are not considered express renunciation of citizenship.

  3. The possession of an Australian passport and alien certificate of registration does not amount to an express renunciation of Philippine citizenship. It is only an assertion of foreign nationality before the termination of dual citizenship. Thus, the private respondent still holds Filipino citizenship in addition to her Australian citizenship.

  4. Dual citizenship does not automatically disqualify an individual from running for public office. The disqualification applies only to citizens with dual allegiance. Therefore, the private respondent is not disqualified from running for governor of Davao Oriental.

  5. The filing of a certificate of candidacy operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. Therefore, when the private respondent filed her certificate of candidacy, her Australian citizenship was terminated. Additionally, her execution of a Declaration of Renunciation of Australian Citizenship and the cancellation of her Australian passport further support the termination of her dual citizenship.

  6. Yes, prior rulings on citizenship can be relied upon in resolving the issue of citizenship in a subsequent case. These prior rulings may not be binding, but they can be considered to make the determination easier or simpler.

  7. The petition cannot prosper. The petitioner failed to present any new evidence or supervening event that would warrant a reversal of the prior resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in favor of the private respondent. Thus, the COMELEC resolutions are affirmed and the private respondent is adjudged qualified to run for governor of Davao Oriental.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law deem all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, and resided in the Philippines, including their children, as Philippine citizens.

  • The 1935, 1973, and 1987 Philippine Constitutions establish the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship.

  • Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, Philippine citizenship may be lost by naturalization in a foreign country, express renunciation of citizenship, subscribing to an oath of allegiance to a foreign country, accepting a commission in the military of a foreign country, cancellation of the certificate of naturalization, being declared a deserter of the Philippine armed forces, and in the case of a woman, upon marriage to a foreigner if she acquires his nationality.

  • Renunciation of Philippine citizenship must be express. The application for an alien certificate of registration and possession of an Australian passport do not constitute express renunciation of citizenship.

  • The possession of an alien certificate of registration and a foreign passport does not constitute an effective renunciation of Philippine citizenship.

  • The mere fact of dual citizenship, without dual allegiance, does not disqualify an individual from running for public office.

  • The filing of a certificate of candidacy operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.

  • The principle of res judicata generally does not apply in cases involving the issue of citizenship, unless certain conditions are present.

  • The weight of prior rulings on citizenship can be considered to make the determination of citizenship easier or simpler, though these rulings may not be binding. (Moy Ya Lim Yao v. COMELEC)

  • A petition cannot prosper if there is a failure to present new evidence or supervening events that would warrant a reversal of prior resolutions.