FACTS:

Nestor A. Jacot, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who became a naturalized citizen of the United States, sought to reacquire his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225. He filed a request for the administration of his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines with the Philippine Consulate General of Los Angeles, California, which was approved. The Bureau of Immigration recognized him as a citizen of the Philippines. Jacot filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin, but was eventually disqualified by the COMELEC Second Division for failing to renounce his US citizenship as required by Republic Act No. 9225. Jacot filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was dismissed by the COMELEC en banc. Jacot then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, presenting an Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States and Any and All Foreign Citizenship.

The main issue is whether Jacot is disqualified from running as a candidate due to his failure to make a personal and sworn renunciation of his US citizenship. The court finds that Jacot's oath of allegiance made before the Philippine Consulate General and his Certificate of Candidacy do not substantially comply with the requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship. The court explains that the oath of allegiance required by Republic Act No. 9225 is different from the renunciation of foreign citizenship required for those seeking elective public office. It states that the law requires persons seeking elective public office 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. Therefore, the court determines that Jacot failed to comply with the provisions of the law and should be disqualified from running as a candidate.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner's filing of a certificate of candidacy containing an oath of allegiance constitutes a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship, as required under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225.

2. Whether the petitioner's new theory of compliance with the renunciation requirement should be entertained by the Court.

3. Whether the petitioner's late submission of evidence, specifically the Affidavit of Renunciation, should be admitted.

4. Whether the petitioner's excuse for the late presentation of the Affidavit of Renunciation is acceptable.

5. Whether the petitioner renounced his foreign citizenship as required by law.

6. Whether the petitioner was deprived of due process.

7. Whether the petitioner's receiving the highest number of votes dispenses with the citizenship requirement.

RULING:

1. No, the petitioner's filing of a certificate of candidacy containing an oath of allegiance does not constitute a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship. Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 explicitly requires Filipinos who have reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer prior to or simultaneous with the filing of their certificates of candidacy. The filing of a certificate of candidacy, which includes an oath of allegiance, is a general requirement for all candidates and does not satisfy the specific requirement of renouncing foreign citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225.

2. The Court ruled that the petitioner's new theory of compliance with the renunciation requirement cannot be entertained since it was not raised during the proceedings before the COMELEC. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court or administrative agency need not be considered on appeal, as they cannot be raised for the first time at a late stage. This rule is based on considerations of fairness and due process.

3. The Court held that the petitioner's late submission of evidence, specifically the Affidavit of Renunciation, should not be admitted. The petitioner should have offered the Affidavit during the proceedings before the COMELEC. Section 1 of Rule 43 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that evidence not formally presented shall not be considered. Admitting the document would be contrary to due process, and the piecemeal presentation of evidence is not in accord with orderly justice.

4. The Court found the petitioner's excuse for the late presentation of the Affidavit of Renunciation to be unconvincing. Even if the petitioner's counsel advised against presenting the evidence, the petitioner and his counsel could have easily adduced it to support his case. The Court emphasized that a client is bound by his counsel's conduct and mistakes, unless there is reckless or gross negligence that deprives the client of due process or results in the deprivation of property through a technicality. In this case, the exceptions to the general rule were not present, and thus the petitioner cannot avoid the consequences of his counsel's decisions.

5. The Court ruled that the petitioner did not renounce his foreign citizenship as required by law. The petitioner's claims of renunciation were found to be unsubstantiated and insufficient. Thus, he remains ineligible to run for the position of Vice-Mayor.

6. The Court held that the petitioner was not deprived of due process. His counsel actively defended his suit, and his cause was not defeated by a mere technicality but due to reliance on an inapplicable legal doctrine.

7. The Court emphasized that the fact that the petitioner received the highest number of votes does not waive or dispense with the citizenship requirement. The rules on citizenship qualifications for candidates must be strictly applied, and popularity does not supersede the eligibility criteria.

PRINCIPLES:

• Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 requires Filipinos who have reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer prior to or simultaneous with the filing of their certificates of candidacy.

• The oath of allegiance contained in the Certificate of Candidacy, which is similar to the one in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, does not constitute the personal and sworn renunciation sought under Section 5(2) of the same law.

• The ruling in Valles and Mercado, which considered the filing of a certificate of candidacy containing an oath of allegiance as a renunciation of foreign citizenship, is not applicable to cases governed by Republic Act No. 9225.

• The case of Lopez v. Commission on Elections, which involved a similar factual situation, supports the disqualification of a candidate who fails to make a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship as required under Republic Act No. 9225.

• Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not raised during the proceedings before the lower court or administrative agency need not be considered on appeal.

• Evidence not formally presented before the court or administrative agency shall not be admitted.

• A client is generally bound by the mistakes and conduct of his counsel, unless there is reckless or gross negligence that deprives the client of due process or results in the deprivation of property through a technicality.

• Candidates for public office must comply with the citizenship requirements and renounce any foreign citizenship.

• Clients are bound by the acts and mistakes of their counsel.

• Due process is not violated when counsel actively defends a suit and the cause is defeated due to reliance on an unapplicable legal doctrine.

• The will of the people through the ballot cannot cure the ineligibility of a candidate if they mistakenly believed the candidate was qualified.