Labo vs COMELEC (Election Laws)

Labo Jr. vs COMELEC and Lardizabal

G.R. No. 86564

August 1, 1989

Facts:

Petitioner Labo was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio City. Private respondent Lardizabal, the losing candidate, filed a petition for quo warranto questioning petitioner’s citizenship. The latter claims that petitioner is a naturalized Australian citizen, having married an Australian citizen. Records also showed petitioner’s oath and affirmation of allegiance to the Queen of Australia. These were not denied; petitioner however claimed that his naturalization in Australia made him at worst only a dual national and did not divest him of his Philippine citizenship and that his naturalization in Australia was annulled after it was found that his marriage to the Australian citizen was bigamous.

Issue:

Is the petitioner a Filipino citizen?

Ruling:

NO. CA No. 63 enumerates the modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Among these are: (1) naturalization in a foreign country; (2) express renunciation of citizenship; and (3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. All of which are applicable to the petitioner. In connection with this, Article IV, Section 5, of the present Constitution provides that, “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.”

Even if it be assumed that, as the petitioner asserts, his naturalization in Australia was annulled after it was found that his marriage to the Australian citizen was bigamous, that circumstance alone did not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship. His divestiture of Australian citizenship does not concern us here. That is a matter between him and his adopted country. What we must consider is the fact that he voluntarily and freely rejected Philippine citizenship and willingly and knowingly embraced the citizenship of a foreign country. The possibility that he may have been subsequently rejected by Australia, as he claims, does not mean that he has been automatically reinstated as a citizen of the Philippines.

Under CA No. 63 as amended by PD No. 725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. It does not appear in the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of these methods. He does not point to any judicial decree of naturalization as to any statute directly conferring Philippine citizenship upon him. Neither has he shown that he has complied with PD No. 725, providing that:

… (2) natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship may reacquire Philippine citizenship through repatriation by applying with the Special Committee on Naturalization created by Letter of Instruction No. 270, and, if their applications are approved, taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, after which they shall be deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship. The Commission on Immigration and Deportation shall thereupon cancel their certificate of registration.
Philippine citizenship is not a cheap commodity that can be easily recovered after its renunciation. It may be restored only after the returning renegade makes a formal act of re-dedication to the country he has abjured and he solemnly affirms once again his total and exclusive loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines. This may not be accomplished by election to public office.