JOSE B. AZNAR (as Provincial Chairman of PDP Laban in Cebu), petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EMILIO MARIO RENNER OSMEÑA, respondents; G.R. No. 83820 May 25, 1990

TOPIC: CITIZENSHIP

RATIONALE:

Philippine citizenship cannot be lost when no renunciation either "'express" or "implied" took place.

GIST:

Aznar filed for Osmena's disqualification for the Cebu Provincial Governor position on the ground that he is not a Filipino, being an American citizen. It was upon Aznar to prove that Osmena lost his Filipino citizenship. However, he was not able to do so. Osmena, even though an American citizen, did not do any express renunciation under CA No. 63:

(1) by naturalization in a foreign country;

(2) by express renunciation of citizenship; and

(3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country.

Thus, Osmena actually possesses dual citizenship, American and Filipino, which is not a ground for disqualification since the qualification is "a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines."

In the instant case, private respondent vehemently 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 up to the present, both as a voter and as a candidate. Thus, private respondent Osmena remains a Filipino and the loss of his Philippine citizenship cannot be presumed.

The statement in the 1987 Constitution that "dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law"(Art. IV, Sec. 5) has no retroactive effect. And while it is true that even before the 1987 Constitution, Our country had already frowned upon the concept of dual citizenship or allegiance, the fact is it actually existed. Be it noted further that under the aforecited proviso, the effect of such dual citizenship or allegiance shall be dealt with by a future law. Said law has not yet been enacted.

FACTS:

1. November 19, 1987: private respondent Emilio "Lito" Osmeña filed his certificate of candidacy with the COMELEC for CEBU provincial governor.

2. Jose B. Aznar, PDP-Laban Chair, filed with the COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of Osmeña on the ground that Osmeña is not a Filipino citizen, being a citizen of the United States of America.

3.  January 27, 1988: petitioner filed a Formal Manifestation submitting a Certificate issued by the Immigration and Deportation Commissioner certifying that private respondent is an American and is a holder of Alien Certificate of Registration No. B-21448 and Immigrant Certificate of Residence No. 133911, issued at Manila on March 27 and 28, 1958, respectively.

4. COMELEC (First Division), petitioner presented the following exhibits tending to show that private respondent is an American citizen: Application for Alien Registration Form No. 1 of the Bureau of Immigration signed by private respondent dated November 21, 1979; Alien Certificate of Registration No. 015356 in the name of private respondent dated November 21, 1979; Permit to Re-enter the Philippines dated November 21, 1979; Immigration Certificate of Clearance dated January 3, 1980.

5. Private respondent, on the other hand, maintained that he is a Filipino citizen, alleging: that he is the legitimate child of Dr. Emilio D. Osmeña, a Filipino and son of the late President Sergio Osmeña, Sr.; that he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport; that he has been continuously residing in the Philippines since birth and has not gone out of the country for more than six months; and that he has been a registered voter in the Philippines since 1965.

6. On March 3, 1988, COMELEC (First Division) directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winning candidates. Having obtained the highest number of votes, private respondent was proclaimed the Provincial Governor of Cebu.

7. Thereafter, on June 11, 1988, COMELEC (First Division) dismissed the petition for disqualification for not having been timely filed and for lack of sufficient proof that private respondent is not a Filipino citizen.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondent Osmena has lost his Filipino Citizenship and thus be disqualified as a candidate for the Provincial Governor of Cebu Province.

RULING:

NO. Osmena hasn't lost his Filipino Citizenship. Even assuming that he is an American citizen, he can just be deemed a dual citizen of America and Philippines since there is no express renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.

Petitioner failed to present direct proof that private respondent had lost his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided for under C.A. No. 63. Among others, these are:

(1) by naturalization in a foreign country;

(2) by express renunciation of citizenship; and

(3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country.

From the evidence, it is clear that private respondent Osmeña did not lose his Philippine citizenship by any of the three mentioned hereinabove or by any other mode of losing Philippine citizenship.

In concluding that private respondent had been naturalized as a citizen of the United States of America, the petitioner merely relied on the fact that private respondent was issued alien certificate of registration and was given clearance and permit to re-enter the Philippines by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. Petitioner assumed that because of the foregoing, the respondent is an American and "being an American", private respondent "must have taken and sworn to the Oath of Allegiance required by the U.S. Naturalization Laws."

Philippine courts are only allowed to determine who are Filipino citizens and who are not. Whether or not a person is considered an American under the laws of the United States does not concern Us here.

By virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father, the presumption that private respondent is a Filipino remains. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that private respondent had lost his Philippine citizenship. As earlier stated, however, the petitioner failed to positively establish this fact.

Considering the fact that admittedly Osmeña was both a Filipino and an American, the mere fact that he has a Certificate stating he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino. In the case of Osmeña, the Certification that he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities or citizenships. Indeed, there is no express renunciation here of Philippine citizenship; truth to tell, there is even no implied renunciation of said citizenship. When We consider that the renunciation needed to lose Philippine citizenship must be "express", it stands to reason that there can be no such loss of Philippine 'citizenship when there is no renunciation either "'express" or "implied".