FACTS:

Gaudencio Cordora filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus against Gustavo Tambunting, accusing him of an election offense for allegedly making false assertions in his certificates of candidacy regarding his citizenship and residency requirements. Cordora presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration to support his claim that Tambunting claimed to be an American citizen on two occasions. Tambunting, however, presented his birth certificate to prove that he is a Filipino citizen by birth and denied being naturalized as an American citizen. The COMELEC Law Department recommended the dismissal of Cordora's complaint due to lack of evidence, a decision which was affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc. Cordora's motion for reconsideration was also dismissed. Cordora then filed a petition with the court, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The court ruled that there was no merit to the petition, affirming the COMELEC's decision. The court held that there was insufficient and convincing evidence to support the prosecution of Tambunting for an election offense. The court also recognized Tambunting's dual citizenship, ruling that he acquired American citizenship at birth and did not need to undergo the naturalization process.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Tambunting possesses dual citizenship.

2. Whether Tambunting's dual citizenship disqualifies him from running for public office.

3. Whether or not Tambunting's dual citizenship disqualifies him from running for public office.

4. Whether or not Tambunting meets the residency requirement for running for public office.

5. Whether Tambunting is eligible for the office which he sought to be elected.

6. Whether Tambunting fulfilled the citizenship and residency requirements prescribed by law.

RULING:

1. Tambunting possesses dual citizenship. The circumstances of his birth, being born of a Filipino mother and an American father, make him both Filipino and American by birth. The process he underwent to confirm his American citizenship through INS Form I-130 only served to validate his existing American citizenship acquired at birth.

2. Tambunting's dual citizenship does not disqualify him from running for public office. Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. While dual citizenship is involuntary and arises from the application of different laws of two or more states, dual allegiance is the result of an individual's voluntary act, wherein they owe loyalty to two or more states. As per previous Supreme Court rulings, dual citizenship is not a ground for disqualification from running for any elective local position. Candidates with dual citizenship may elect Philippine citizenship upon filing their certificates of candidacy, thereby terminating their status as dual citizens and forswearing allegiance to the other country.

3. Tambunting's dual citizenship does not disqualify him from running for public office. The Court ruled that dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. Dual citizenship is involuntary and arises when a person is simultaneously considered a national by two or more states. Under the law, it is enough for a person with dual citizenship who seeks public office to file his certificate of candidacy and swear to the oath of allegiance. On the other hand, dual allegiance is voluntarily acquired through active participation in the naturalization process. Tambunting, being a natural-born Filipino, is not required to take an oath of allegiance and renounce his foreign citizenship.

4. Tambunting meets the residency requirement for running for public office. The Court held that residency, for the purpose of election laws, includes the fact of residing in a fixed place and the intention to return there permanently. Residency is not dependent upon citizenship. Therefore, Tambunting's naturalization as an American does not affect his residency status in the Philippines.

5. The Court found that Tambunting is eligible for the office and has fulfilled the citizenship and residency requirements. The petition was dismissed, and the Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc were affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

• Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance.

• Dual citizenship arises when a person is considered a national by two or more states due to the concurrent application of different laws.

• Dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a person owes loyalty to two or more states voluntarily.

• Dual citizenship is not a ground for disqualification from running for any elective local position.

• Candidates with dual citizenship may elect Philippine citizenship upon filing their certificates of candidacy to terminate their status as dual citizens.

• The termination of status as dual citizens is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states.

• Mere dual citizenship does not fall under the disqualification of election offenses under the Election Code.

• Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. Dual citizenship is involuntary and does not disqualify a person from running for public office. Dual allegiance, on the other hand, is voluntarily acquired through active participation in the naturalization process and may disqualify a person from running for public office.

• A person with dual citizenship who seeks public office only needs to file a certificate of candidacy and swear to the oath of allegiance.

• Residency, for the purpose of election laws, includes the fact of residing in a fixed place and the intention to return there permanently. It is not dependent upon citizenship.

• Eligibility for public office must be determined in accordance with the qualifications prescribed by law.

• Fulfillment of citizenship and residency requirements is necessary for candidates seeking public office.