G.R. No. 257453, August 9, 2022
MARIZ LINDSEY TAN GANA-CARAIT Y VILLEGAS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL MITRA LIM, AND DOMINIC P. NUÑEZ, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Mariz Lindsey Tan Gana-Carait filed her Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for Sangguniang Panlungsod of Biñan, Laguna, for the 2019 elections. Private respondents Rommel Mitra Lim and Dominic P. Nuñez filed separate petitions before the COMELEC, seeking her disqualification and the cancellation of her CoC, respectively. They alleged she was a dual citizen, being a natural-born Filipino who also acquired American citizenship, and that she failed to execute the personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship required by Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) for those seeking elective office. The COMELEC First Division denied the disqualification petition but granted the petition to cancel her CoC, a ruling affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc. The COMELEC found petitioner was born to a Filipino father and an American mother, and a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) evidenced her U.S. citizenship. It ruled she was a dual citizen not by birth but by naturalization, as the CRBA issuance involved a positive act of application. Consequently, she was required under R.A. 9225 to execute a sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship when she filed her CoC, which she did not do.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling petitioner’s Certificate of Candidacy on the ground of material misrepresentation for her failure to execute the renunciation of foreign citizenship under R.A. 9225.

RULING

No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC’s ruling. The legal logic proceeds from the application of R.A. 9225. The Court clarified that the law applies not only to natural-born Filipinos who naturalized in a foreign country but also to those who, like the petitioner, were recognized as foreign citizens at birth abroad under the laws of a foreign country, provided that recognition was perfected after the law’s effectivity. The CRBA is a formal document evidencing U.S. citizenship acquired by operation of U.S. law, but its issuance constitutes an affirmative act of claiming that citizenship. Since this act occurred after 2003, petitioner fell under the ambit of R.A. 9225. Section 5(2) of the law mandates that a dual citizen seeking elective office must, at the time of filing the CoC, make a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship. Petitioner’s failure to do so rendered the representation in her CoC that she was “eligible to run for public office” a material falsehood. This misrepresentation is a valid ground for the denial of due course to or cancellation of the CoC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. The Court distinguished this from disqualification under the Local Government Code, noting that the cancellation proceeding properly focused on the falsity of the CoC entry, not her inherent qualification, which was correctly addressed in the denied disqualification petition.