Renouncing Foreign Citizenship: A Hard Requirement for Elective Office in the Philippines

The Supreme Court has made clear that Filipinos who reacquire or retain their Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 cannot simply run for elective office on the strength of their oath of allegiance alone. In Jacot v. Dal (G.R. No. 179848, November 27, 2008), the Court ruled that the law demands a separate, personal, and sworn renunciation of any foreign citizenship at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. The decision is a firm reminder that the will of the voters cannot cure a candidate's failure to meet this legal requirement.

The Facts of the Case

Nestor A. Jacot was a natural-born Filipino who became a naturalized US citizen in 1989. In 2006, he reacquired his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 by taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic before the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles. The Bureau of Immigration later issued him a certificate recognizing his Philippine citizenship.

In March 2007, Jacot filed his certificate of candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin. A rival candidate, Rogen T. Dal, filed a petition for disqualification, arguing that Jacot failed to make the personal and sworn renunciation of his US citizenship required by Section 5(2) of RA 9225. The COMELEC disqualified Jacot, and the Commission en banc affirmed. Although Jacot won the most votes in the election, the Supreme Court upheld his disqualification.

The Issue

The central question was whether Jacot's oath of allegiance to the Philippines—both the one he took before the consulate and the one embedded in his certificate of candidacy—satisfied the requirement of renouncing his foreign citizenship.

The Ruling: Two Separate Requirements

The Supreme Court ruled that the oath of allegiance and the renunciation of foreign citizenship are distinct requirements under RA 9225.

Section 3 of RA 9225 requires a former Filipino who reacquires citizenship to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic. That oath, however, contains nothing about renouncing foreign citizenship. A person can take that oath and still hold dual citizenship.

Section 5(2) of RA 9225, on the other hand, imposes an additional condition on those seeking elective office. It requires them to make a "personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship" before a public officer authorized to administer an oath, at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. The Court emphasized that this renunciation must be made prior to or simultaneous with the filing of the certificate.

The oath in the certificate of candidacy, being substantially similar to the Section 3 oath of allegiance, does not qualify as the required renunciation. It is a general requirement for all candidates; the renunciation is an extra step for those who reacquired or retained Philippine citizenship under RA 9225.

Why Earlier Cases Did Not Apply

Jacot invoked the earlier rulings in Valles v. COMELEC and Mercado v. Manzano, where the Court held that filing a certificate of candidacy with an oath of allegiance amounted to a renunciation of foreign citizenship. The Court distinguished those cases: they involved persons who were dual citizens from birth, not those who voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship through naturalization. More importantly, those cases were decided before RA 9225 was enacted in 2003. The Court found Lopez v. COMELEC, a case with nearly identical facts, to be the controlling precedent.

The Late Evidence Was Not Considered

Jacot also tried to present, for the first time on appeal, an affidavit of renunciation allegedly executed before he filed his certificate of candidacy. The Court refused to consider it. The affidavit was never formally offered before the COMELEC, and a party cannot raise a new theory or present new evidence for the first time on appeal. The Court also rejected Jacot's claim that his former counsel was negligent, noting that a client is generally bound by the mistakes of counsel.

Practical Takeaways

• A separate renunciation is mandatory. Taking the oath of allegiance under RA 9225 does not automatically qualify a person to run for elective office.
• Timing matters. The sworn renunciation must be made before or at the same time as the filing of the certificate of candidacy. A renunciation executed after filing will not cure the defect.
• The oath in the certificate of candidacy is not enough. It is a general oath for all candidates, not the specific renunciation required of dual citizens under RA 9225.
• Votes do not cure ineligibility. A candidate who wins the election but failed to comply with the requirements remains disqualified.
• Present all evidence early. New evidence and new legal theories raised only on appeal will not be considered.

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