G.R. No. 83820 – 264 Phil. 307 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Elements of a State – People; Citizens – Citizenship – Dual Citizenship; Dual Allegiance
Emilio Mario R. Osmeña is the grandson of former President Sergio Osmeña, Sr. Emilio grew up in the Philippines. However, immigration records show that in 1954, he obtained a certificate of alien registration as an American. He obtained the same certification in 1979. In 1987, he ran for governor for the province of Cebu. Jose Aznar filed a petition for the cancellation of Emilio’s certificate of candidacy on the ground that Emilio is an American citizen and he is not a Filipino. Aznar presented as evidence the alien certificate of registration of Osmeña. Emilio won the election and was subsequently proclaimed as the governor of Cebu.
ISSUE: Whether or not the proclamation is proper.
HELD: Yes. There is insufficient evidence to prove that Emilio is not a Filipino. There may be proof that he is an American but there is no proof that he is not a Filipino. There is no direct proof that Emilio lost his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided for under C.A. No. 63 which 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 Emilio did not lose his Philippine citizenship.
The mere fact that Emilio was issued an ACR issued to him as an American does not mean that he was naturalized as an American. This cannot be presumed. Philippine courts are only allowed to determine who Filipino citizens are and who are not. Whether or not a person is considered an American under the laws of the United States does not concern Philippine courts.
By virtue of Emilio being the son of a Filipino father, the presumption that he is a Filipino remains. It was incumbent upon Aznar to prove that Emilio lost his Philippine citizenship.
The Supreme Court also pronounced: 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.
Note: This was decided in 1990. In 1991, the Local Government Code was enacted and its Section 40(d) provides that dual citizens are disqualified from seeking elective positions.
