Scribd
Upload
3K views1 page

Aznar vs. COMELEC Digest

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition challenging respondent Osmena's eligibility to run for provincial governor due to his alleged dual citizenship. [1] The petitioner failed to present direct proof that Osmena lost his Filipino citizenship by naturalizing in a foreign country, expressly renouncing his Filipino citizenship, or swearing allegiance to another country's constitution. [2] Osmena maintained he remained a Filipino citizen as shown by his valid Philippine passport and continuous voter registration. [3] His possession of an American certificate alone did not prove he lost his Filipino citizenship, as dual citizenship was possible and there was no express or implied renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.

Uploaded by

Chow Galan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views1 page

Aznar vs. COMELEC Digest

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition challenging respondent Osmena's eligibility to run for provincial governor due to his alleged dual citizenship. [1] The petitioner failed to present direct proof that Osmena lost his Filipino citizenship by naturalizing in a foreign country, expressly renouncing his Filipino citizenship, or swearing allegiance to another country's constitution. [2] Osmena maintained he remained a Filipino citizen as shown by his valid Philippine passport and continuous voter registration. [3] His possession of an American certificate alone did not prove he lost his Filipino citizenship, as dual citizenship was possible and there was no express or implied renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.

Uploaded by

Chow Galan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

83820 May 25, 1990

JOSE B. AZNAR, petitioner,


vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EMILIO MARIO RENNER OSMEÑA, respondents.

Ponente: PARAS, J.:
Petitioner: Aznar – provincial chairman of PDP Laban in Cebu
Respondent: COMELEC and Osmena – candidate for provincial governor of Cebu

FACTS:

1) On November 19, 1987, private respondent Emilio "Lito" Osmeña filed his certificate of candidacy with the
COMELEC for the position of Provincial Governor of Cebu Province in the January 18, 1988 local elections.

2) On January 22, 1988, petitioner Jose B. Aznar in his capacity as its incumbent Provincial Chairman filed with the
COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of private respondent on the ground that he is allegedly not a Filipino
citizen, being a citizen of the United States of America.

3) On January 27, 1988, petitioner filed a Formal Manifestation submitting a Certificate issued by the then
Immigration and Deportation Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago certifying that private respondent is an
American and is a holder of Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) No. B-21448 and Immigrant Certificate of
Residence (ICR) No. 133911, issued at Manila on March 27 and 28, 1958, respectively. (Annex "B-1").

4) During the hearing at the COMELEC Private respondent, maintained that he is a Filipino citizen, alleging: that he is
the legitimate child of Dr. Emilio D. Osmeña, a Filipino and son of the late President Sergio Osmeña, Sr.; that he is
a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport No. 0855103 issued on March 25, 1987; that he has been
continuously residing in the Philippines since birth and has not gone out of the country for more than six months;
and that he has been a registered voter in the Philippines since 1965.

5) Thereafter, on June 11, 1988, COMELEC (First Division) dismissed the petition for disqualification for not having
been timely filed and for lack of sufficient proof that private respondent is not a Filipino citizen. Hence, the
petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Osmena is no longer a Filipino citizen by acquiring dual-citizenship?

HELD:

SC dismissed petition for certiorari upholding COMELEC’s decision. The petitioner failed to present direct proof that private
respondent had lost his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided for under C.A. No. 63. these 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 private respondent Osmeña did
not lose his Philippine citizenship by any of the three mentioned hereinabove or by any other mode of losing Philippine
citizenship.

In the instant case, private respondent vehemently denies having taken the oath of allegiance of the United States. He is a
holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine passport and has continuously participated in the electoral process in this
country since 1963 up to the present, both as a voter and as a candidate. Thus, private respondent remains a Filipino and
the loss of his Philippine citizenship cannot be presumed.

Considering the fact that admittedly Osmeña was both a Filipino and an American, the mere fact that he has a Certificate
stating he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino. In the case of Osmeña, the Certification that he is an
American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities or citizenships. Indeed, there
is no express renunciation here of Philippine citizenship; truth to tell, there is even no implied renunciation of said
citizenship. When we consider that the renunciation needed to lose Philippine citizenship must be "express", it stands to
reason that there can be no such loss of Philippine 'citizenship when there is no renunciation either "'express" or "implied".

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy