Dual Citizenship and Elections: The Renunciation Requirement Under R.A. 9225

The Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling in De Guzman v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 180048) clarifies a critical rule for Filipino dual citizens who wish to run for public office: reacquiring Philippine citizenship is not enough. A candidate must also execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any foreign citizenship at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. This decision affects natural-born Filipinos who became citizens of another country and later seek elective positions in the Philippines.

The Facts of the Case

Roseller De Guzman was a natural-born Filipino who became a naturalized American citizen. On January 25, 2006, he applied for dual citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. After his application was approved, he took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on September 6, 2006.

De Guzman then filed his certificate of candidacy for vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections. His opponent, Angelina Dela Cruz, filed a disqualification case before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), arguing that De Guzman was still an American citizen and therefore disqualified.

The COMELEC First Division disqualified De Guzman because he failed to renounce his American citizenship, as required by Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225. The COMELEC En Banc later dismissed his motion for reconsideration, ruling it was moot since Dela Cruz had won the election.

The Issue Before the Supreme Court

The Court faced two questions: First, did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the motion for reconsideration as moot? Second, was De Guzman disqualified for failing to renounce his American citizenship?

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the COMELEC erred. The pending election protest—which De Guzman later won—meant the citizenship issue remained relevant. Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding elective office, so the motion was not moot.

The Renunciation Requirement Under R.A. 9225

On the second issue, the Court held that De Guzman was indeed disqualified. Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225 imposes two separate requirements for dual citizens seeking elective office:

1. They must meet the qualifications for public office under the Constitution and existing laws.
2. At the time of filing the certificate of candidacy, they must make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized oath-taking officer.

The Court rejected De Guzman's argument that his oath of allegiance and the oath in his certificate of candidacy already amounted to a renunciation. Citing Japzon v. COMELEC and Jacot v. Dal, the Court explained that these are distinct acts. The oath of allegiance is a general requirement for all candidates; the renunciation is an additional requirement specifically for those who reacquired or retained Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225.

The Court also noted that the law's legislative history confirms this intent. As explained during the Bicameral Conference Committee deliberations, when a dual citizen runs for office, he or she must have only one citizenship—Philippine citizenship. The oath of allegiance does not, by itself, accomplish the renunciation required by law.

Practical Takeaways

• File a separate sworn renunciation. Dual citizens who reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 must execute a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship before or at the same time as filing their certificate of candidacy.
• The oath of allegiance is not enough. Taking the oath under Section 3 of R.A. 9225, or the oath in the certificate of candidacy, does not substitute for the renunciation required by Section 5(2).
• Compliance is a condition for candidacy. Failure to renounce foreign citizenship disqualifies a candidate from running for elective public office.
• Timing matters. The renunciation must be made at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy, not after.
• The rule applies to all elective posts. The requirement covers local positions like vice-mayor, as in this case, as well as other elective offices.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.