Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondent MARIZ LINDSEY VILLEGAS TAN GANA-CARAIT's Certificate of Candidacy for Member, Sangguniang Panlungsod of Biñan City, Laguna for the May 2019 National and Local Elections is hereby CANCELLED. The votes cast in her favor will be considered stray. SO ORDERED .
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondent MARIZ LINDSEY VILLEGAS TAN GANA-CARAIT's Certificate of Candidacy for Member, Sangguniang Panlungsod of Biñan City, Laguna for the May 2019 National and Local Elections is hereby CANCELLED. The votes cast in her favor will be considered stray. SO ORDERED . [29] (Emphases in the original) On 5 March 2019, petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, [30] which was denied by the COMELEC En Banc in its 23 September 2021 Resolution (COMELEC En Banc Resolution), [31] thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission ( En Banc ) RESOLVES to DENY the Motion for Partial Reconsideration for lack of merit, and accordingly AFFIRMS the challenged Resolution dated 27 February 2019 of the Commission ( First Division ). SO ORDERED . [32] (Emphases in the original) According to the COMELEC En Banc, petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of R.A. 9225 rendered her ineligible to run for elective office and, thus, she committed material misrepresentations in her CoC when she stated therein that she was eligible to run for election. [33] Hence, this petition. Petitioner argues that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it affirmed the COMELEC First Division's findings that she is a dual citizen by naturalization, and in holding that, under R.A. No. 9225, she is required to comply with the twin requirements of taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and renouncing her US citizenship. [34] Petitioner claims, among others, that: (1) while the COMELEC En Banc may be correct in stating that she is a dual citizen as evidenced by the CRBA, there is no factual or legal basis to say that she is a dual citizen by naturalization and not by birth; [35] (2) the mere fact that a natural-born Filipino subsequently acquires foreign citizenship does not automatically mean he/she falls under the application of R.A. 9225, [36] as the said law contemplates natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens through the process of naturalization; [37] (3) she is not a dual citizen by naturalization as she was considered a US citizen at birth and did not have to perform any action to acquire her Philippine and US citizenships; [38] (4) the records are bereft of any evidence showing that she voluntarily performed any action to acquire US citizenship; [39] (5) naturalization involves a tedious process that is resorted to only if one is not a US citizen by birth or if the applicant did not acquire or derive US citizenship from his or her parents automatically after birth; [40] and (6) even if the CRBA expressly states the words "acquired United States Citizenship at birth as established by documentary evidence presented to the Consular Service of the United States at Manila, Philippines ," the act of presenting the documents as mentioned therein cannot be deemed tantamount to naturalization, which is a differe