CASE DIGEST BY HOLLY-ANN A. CABASAG

 

LABO V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. NO. 86564, August 01, 1989

 

FACTS:

Herein petitioner, Ramon Labo and respondent Luis Lardizabal were candidates for the office of the Mayor of Baguio City during elections. Having garnered the highest number of votes, the petitioner was elected and proclaimed winner while respondent garnered the highest number of votes. Subsequently, private respondent, Luis L. Lardizabal the losing candidate, filed a petition for quo warranto questioning petitioner’s citizenship. The latter argued 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:

Whether or not the petitioner was cleared of his Philippine citizenship.

HELD:

Yes. The petitioner was cleared of his Philippine citizenship. The clear provisions of CA No. 63, which 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. It is also worth mentioning in this connection that under Article IV, Section 5, of the present Constitution, "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 a 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 he has shown he has complied with P.D No. 725.

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.