CASE DIGEST: Labo v. Commission on Elections

 

Labo v. COMELEC G.R. No. 86564, August 1, 1989

DOCTRINE:  Eligibility and qualifications of public officers

FACTS:

Petitioner was proclaimed mayor-elect of Bagiuo City on January 20, 1988. Private respondent filed a petition for quo warranto against him on January 26, 1988 questioning his citizenship.

Ramon Labo was married in the Philippines to an Australian citizen. As the spouse of an Australian citizen, he was not required to meet normal requirements for the grant of citizenship and was granted Australian citizenship by Sydney on July 28, 1976. On June 27, 1980, the marriage was declared void in the Australian Federal Court on the ground that the marriage had been bigamous.

Neither does petitioner deny that he obtained Australian Passport No. 754705, which he used in coming back to the Philippines in 1980, when he declared before the immigration authorities that he was an alien and registered as such under Alien Certificate of Registration No. B-323985. He later asked for the change of his status from immigrant to a returning former Philippine citizen and was granted Immigrant Certificate of Residence No. 223809. He also categorically declared that he was a citizen of Australia in a number of sworn statements voluntarily made by him and even sought to avoid the jurisdiction of the barangay court on the ground that he was a foreigner.

ISSUE:

If his citizenship was rejected by the other country, does that mean that he has been automatically reinstated as a citizen of the Philippines?

RULING:

The petitioner’s contention that his marriage to an Australian national in 1976 did not automatically divest him of Philippine citizenship is irrelevant. There is no claim or finding that he automatically ceased to be a Filipino because of that marriage. He became a citizen of Australia because he was naturalized as such through a formal and positive process, simplified in his case because he was married to an Australian citizen. As a condition for such naturalization, he formally took the Oath of Allegiance and/or made the Affirmation of Allegiance. Renouncing all other allegiance, he swore “to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia . . .” and to fulfill his duties “as an Australian citizen.”

The petitioner now claims that his naturalization in Australia made him at worst only a dual national and did not divest him of his Philippine citizenship. Such a specious argument cannot stand against the clear provisions of CA No. 63, which enumerates the modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Among these are: (1) naturalization in a foreign country; (2) express renunciation of citizenship; and (3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country, all of which are applicable to the petitioner. It is also worth mentioning in this connection that under Article IV, Section 5, of the present Constitution, “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.”

Even if it be assumed that, as the petitioner asserts, his naturalization in Australia was annulled after it was found that his marriage to the Australian citizen was bigamous, that circumstance alone did not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship. His divesture of Australian citizenship is not of any concern. That is a matter between him and his adopted country. What must be considered is the fact that he voluntarily and freely rejected Philippine citizenship and willingly and knowingly embraced the citizenship of a foreign country. The possibility that he may have been subsequently rejected by Australia, as he claims, does not mean that he has been automatically reinstated as a citizen of the Philippines.

Under CA No. 63 as amended by PD No. 725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. It does not appear in the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of these methods. He does not point to any judicial decree of naturalization as to any statute directly conferring Philippine citizenship upon him. Neither has he shown that he has complied with PD No. 725.

The petitioner is not now, nor was he on the day of the local elections on January 18, 1988, a citizen of the Philippines. In fact, he was not even a qualified voter under the Constitution itself because of his alienage. He was therefore ineligible as a candidate for mayor of Baguio City under Section 42 of the Local Government Code.