[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
2K views2 pages

114 Aznar v. Comelec

1) The petitioner filed a petition to disqualify private respondent Emilio Mario Renner Osmeña from running for Governor of Cebu, claiming he was not a Filipino citizen. 2) COMELEC dismissed the petition, finding it was not filed in a timely manner and there was insufficient proof that Osmeña was not a Filipino citizen. 3) The Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's decision, finding the petitioner did not present direct proof that Osmeña lost his Filipino citizenship according to Philippine law, and that merely having dual Filipino-American citizenship does not mean he lost his Filipino citizenship without an express renunciation.

Uploaded by

VanityHugh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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
2K views2 pages

114 Aznar v. Comelec

1) The petitioner filed a petition to disqualify private respondent Emilio Mario Renner Osmeña from running for Governor of Cebu, claiming he was not a Filipino citizen. 2) COMELEC dismissed the petition, finding it was not filed in a timely manner and there was insufficient proof that Osmeña was not a Filipino citizen. 3) The Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's decision, finding the petitioner did not present direct proof that Osmeña lost his Filipino citizenship according to Philippine law, and that merely having dual Filipino-American citizenship does not mean he lost his Filipino citizenship without an express renunciation.

Uploaded by

VanityHugh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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/ 2

JOSE B. AZNAR, petitioner, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EMILIO


MARIO RENNER OSMEÑA, respondents.

FACTS:
On 19 November 1987, private respondent filed his certification of candidacy with the
COMELEC for the position of Governor of Cebu. Petitioner filed with the COMELEC
a petition for disqualification of Osmeña on the ground that he is allegedly not a
Filipino citizen.
In 27 January 1988, Petitioner filed a Formal Manifestation submitting a
certificate issued by the then Immigration and Deportation Commission that Osmeña
is an American Citizen. According to the evidence presented, Osmeña maintained
that he is a Filipino Citizen, that he is a legitimate son of Emilio Osmeña, a Filipino
and son of the Late President Sergio Osmeña Sr., that he is a holder of a valid and
subsisting Philippine passport and been continuously residing in the Philippines
since birth and that he has been a registered voter in the Philippines.
COMELEC dismissed the petition for Disqualification for not having been
timingly filed and for lack of sufficient proof that private respondent is not s Filipino
citizen and Osmeña was proclaim of winning candidates for obtaining the highest
number of votes.
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