Dual Citizenship v. Dual
Allegiance
Article IV Section 5 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution provides that dual allegiance of citizens is inimical
to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.[1]
Dual citizenship is not dual allegiance; as such dual allegiance and not dual
citizenship shall be dealt with by the law.
Mercado
v. Manzano (307 SCRA 630)
As what was stated in the case of
Mercado v. Manzano, dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The
former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different
laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by
the said states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose
parents are citizens of a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act
on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states.[2]
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person
simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While
dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s
volition.[3]
In this case, Ernesto S. Mercado and
Eduardo B. Manzano were candidates for vice mayor of the city of
The COMELEC en banc held that Manzano
acquired US citizenship by operation of the United States Constitution and laws
under the principle of jus soli. He
was issued an alien certificate of registration. This, however, did not result
in the loss of his Philippine citizenship since he did not take an oath of
allegiance to the United States. It is an undisputed fact that when Manzano
attained the age of majority, he registered himself as a voter, and voted in
the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998, which
effectively renounced his US citizenship under American law. As such,
Eduardo B. Manzano was qualified to run for the position of vice mayor of
Makati. Petitioner argued that the COMELEC en banc erred in its decision that
Manzano was qualified, invoking the maxim dura
lex sed lex. Petitioner, as well as the solicitor general, who sides with
him in this case, contends that according to the Local Government Code,
Congress has “commanded in explicit terms the ineligibility of persons
possessing dual allegiance to hold local elective office.” Petitioner also
contends that such is also provided by the Article on Citizenship under the
Philippine Constitution.
However, the court held that in
including Section 5 Article IV on citizenship, the concern of the
Constitutional Commission was not on dual citizens per se but with naturalized citizens, who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after
their naturalization. Petitioner also argued that the en banc erred in ruling
that Manzano already effectively renounced his US citizenship under the
American law. The petitioner’s argument does not hold water, as the court held
that by filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post,
Manzano elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced his American
citizenship. As what was stated earlier what the law prohibits is dual allegiance
and not dual citizenship.
Aznar
v. Commission on Elections (185 SCRA 703)
In this case, Emilio “Lito” Osmeña filed
his certificate of candidacy with the COMELEC for the position of Provincial
Governor of Cebu in the 18 January 1988 elections. Petitioner, Jose B. Aznar,
filed with the COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of Osmeña on the
ground that he is not a Filipino citizen since he is a citizen of the United
States. COMELEC en banc decided to suspend the proclamation. Osmeña maintained that
he is a Filipino citizen, alleging that (1) he is the legitimate child of Dr.
Emilio D. Osmeña, a Filipino and son of the late President Sergio Osmeña, Sr.,
(2) that he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport, (3) that
he was continuously residing in the Philippines since birth and has not gone
out of the country for more than six months, and (4) that he has been a
registered voter in the Philippines since 1965.
The court held that the Aznar’s contention was not meritorious. Aznar’s argument
that Osmeña is not a Filipino citizen and therefore, disqualified from running
for and being elected to the office of Governor of Cebu, is not supported by
substantial and convincing evidence. Aznar failed to provide proof that Osmeña
has lost the citizenship by any of the modes provided for under C.A. No. 63,
these are: (1) by naturalization in a foreign country, (2) by express
renunciation of citizenship, or (3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. Osmeña did not lose his
Philippine citizenship in any of the modes provided. By virtue of his being a
son of a Filipino father, the presumption that Osmeña is a Filipino remains. In
this case, Osmeña denies having taken the oath of allegiance of the United
States. He is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine passport and has
continuously participated in the electoral process in this country since 1963.
The court held that the dissent of Mr. Justice Teodoro Padilla, that because
Osmeña obtained certificates of Alien Registration as an American citizen, the
first in 1958 when he was 24 years old and the second in 1979, he should be
regarded as having expressly renounced Philippine citizenship, does not hold
water. The court in this case held that Osmeña is still a Filipino citizen. It
may also be noted he was not even declared a dual citizen.
[1] Phil Const.
art. IV § 5.
[2] Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, 640.
[3] Id at 641.
[4] Supra
note 51, at 634.