G.R. No. 257453 – 927 Phil. 890 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – Elements of a State – People; Citizenship – Dual Citizenship vs Dual Allegiance – Dual citizens by birth vs Dual citizens by naturalization
In October 2018, Marie Lindsey Tan Gana-Carait filed her certificate of candidacy (COC) for councilor of Biñan, Laguna. Petitions were filed for the cancellation of her COC on the ground that she is a dual citizen having dual allegiance as she is a naturalized American citizen.
It was alleged that Gana-Carait was born in Makati in 1991 to a Filipino father and an American mother; that in 2004, Gana-Carait was recognized as an American citizen because her birth was reported to the US Embassy as evidenced by the Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) which states that Gana-Carait “acquired United States Citizenship at birth as established by documentary evidence presented to the Consular Service of the United States at Manila, Philippines on August 23, 2004.” Thereafter, Gana-Carait was issued a US passport.
The COMELEC cancelled Gana-Carait’s COC. It ruled that the statement in the CRBA is proof that Gana-Carait underwent naturalization proceedings to acquire her US citizenship; that as such, before she may be elected to a public office, she is required by Sec. 5 (5) of RA No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 to (1) take an oath of allegiance and (2) renounce her foreign citizenship.
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC is correct.
HELD: No. Gana-Carait is a dual citizen but she does not have dual allegiance. The CRBA cannot be considered as proof that she underwent naturalization to be a US citizen. In fact, the CRBA itself expressly states that she was merely being recognized as a US citizen at birth in accordance with US law which provides that children of US citizens born outside the US may be recognized as US citizens provided they are properly reported. Such reporting process is hardly contemplated as the naturalization process under our law.
Naturalization as a legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him or her with the political and civil rights belonging to a citizen. It implies the renunciation of a former nationality and the fact of entrance into a similar relation towards a new body politic. Therefore, naturalization is a process through which a State confers an outsider, i.e., a non-citizen/alien/foreigner, with rights enjoyed by its citizens. Based on the definition of naturalization, an insider, i.e., a citizen, is disqualified from undergoing naturalization proceedings.
Dual citizens at birth are not required to perform the requirements under RA 9225 prior to running for an elective position. Only those dual citizens by naturalization are required to do so.
One thought on “Maria Lindsey Tan Gana-Carait vs Commission on Elections”
As a professional lawyer with an interest in constitutional law, I find the distinction between dual citizenship and dual allegiance in this case to be particularly intriguing. The ruling in Gana-Carait’s case highlights the importance of understanding the legal implications of acquiring multiple citizenships, especially in the context of holding public office.
My question for further exploration would be: How do international laws and conventions on dual citizenship intersect with national laws, such as RA No. 9225 in the Philippines, when it comes to determining the rights and responsibilities of individuals who hold multiple citizenships?
It would be interesting to delve deeper into the complexities of dual citizenship and the obligations that come with it, especially in cases where individuals are born with dual citizenship versus those who acquire it through naturalization. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of clarity in understanding the legal status of individuals with dual citizenships within the context of their rights and duties as citizens.