G.R. No. 180048 June 19, 2009
ROSELLER DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ANGELINA DG. DELA CRUZ, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Roseller De Guzman and private respondent Angelina DG. Dela Cruz were candidates for vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections. Private respondent filed a petition for disqualification against petitioner, alleging he was not a Philippine citizen but an immigrant and resident of the United States. Petitioner admitted he was a naturalized American citizen but claimed he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003) by taking an oath of allegiance on September 6, 2006. The COMELEC First Division resolved to disqualify petitioner, finding that while he validly reacquired Philippine citizenship, he failed to make the personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship required by Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 for those seeking elective office. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the COMELEC En Banc dismissed it for being moot in view of private respondent’s victory in the election. However, the Regional Trial Court, in a subsequent election protest, declared petitioner the winner. Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari, arguing the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

1. Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for being moot.
2. Whether petitioner is disqualified from running for vice-mayor for having failed to renounce his American citizenship in accordance with R.A. No. 9225.

RULING

1. Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the motion for reconsideration as moot. An issue becomes moot when it ceases to present a justifiable controversy. The pendency of the election protest meant the issue of petitioner’s citizenship remained relevant and could affect the protest’s outcome, especially since the trial court later declared petitioner the winner. A definitive ruling on citizenship was necessary.
2. Yes, petitioner is disqualified from running for public office. While petitioner validly re-acquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 by taking the oath of allegiance, Section 5(2) of the same law imposes an additional requirement for those seeking elective public office: they must “make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath” at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy. Petitioner failed to execute this separate renunciation. The filing of a certificate of candidacy does not ipso facto amount to such renunciation under R.A. No. 9225, and the Court’s prior rulings in Frivaldo v. COMELEC and Mercado v. Manzano are not applicable because R.A. No. 9225 provides for more specific requirements.