G.R. No. 179848 November 27, 2008
NESTOR A. JACOT, petitioner, vs. ROGEN T. DAL and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nestor A. Jacot, a natural-born Filipino citizen, became a naturalized U.S. citizen on December 13, 1989. He sought to reacquire Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act). On June 19, 2006, he took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles, and the Bureau of Immigration later issued an Identification Certificate recognizing his Philippine citizenship. On March 26, 2007, he filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin. Respondent Rogen T. Dal filed a Petition for Disqualification before the COMELEC, arguing that Jacot failed to make the personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship required under Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225. The COMELEC Second Division disqualified Jacot, ruling that his Oath of Allegiance and the oath in his Certificate of Candidacy did not constitute the required renunciation. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the disqualification. Jacot then filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, presenting for the first time an “Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States and Any and All Foreign Citizenship” dated February 7, 2007, which he claimed he had executed but was advised by his former counsel was unnecessary.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Nestor A. Jacot is disqualified from running as a candidate in the 14 May 2007 local elections for his failure to make a personal and sworn renunciation of his U.S. citizenship as required by Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioner is disqualified. The Court held that the oath of allegiance to the Republic under Section 3 of R.A. 9225 and the oath contained in a Certificate of Candidacy are distinct from and do not substantially comply with the requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship under Section 5(2). The law categorically requires those seeking elective public office who reacquired Philippine citizenship to execute such a renunciation before any public officer authorized to administer an oath, simultaneous with or before the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Petitioner’s Oath of Allegiance and his Certificate of Candidacy oath did not constitute an effective renunciation. The Affidavit of Renunciation dated February 7, 2007, was presented only on appeal and was not considered by the COMELEC; thus, it could not be taken into account. The Court also distinguished the cases of Valles v. COMELEC and Mercado v. Manzano, noting that those involved dual citizens from birth, whereas petitioner lost his Filipino citizenship through naturalization and actively elected to acquire foreign citizenship. Therefore, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner.