Hindi pa naglalabas ng official statement si Edu Manzano tungkol sa disqualification ng Commission on Elections (Comelec) second division sa congressional bid ng aktor sa lone district ng San Juan City dahil sa akusasyong American citizen siya.
Marami ang nagulat sa desisyon ng Comelec second division dahil hindi nagkaroon ng isyu sa citizenship ni Edu nang kumandidato siyang Vice President ng Pilipinas noong 2010 at senador noong 2016.
Para sa kapakanan ng mga nababahalang supporters, habang hindi pa siya naglalabas ng opisyal na pahayag, sinagot muna ni Edu ang isang social media follower na nagtanong tungkol reaksiyon niya sa bagong smear campaign at dirty political tricks laban sa kanya.
Mariing pinabulaanan ni Edu ang balita na kumalat kagabi, May 6, isang linggo bago maganap ang midterm polls sa May 13, 2019.
Saad ng aktor: "Hindi totoo. Second division pa lang iyan. May en banc pa.
"Ginawa sa akin ‘yan in 1998. Nanalo ako sa Supreme Court and went to become Vice Mayor of Makati City.
"Pinayagan ako ng Korte Suprema tumakbo. Nasa Mercado vs Manzano 1998."
Ang Mercado vs Manzano 1998 ang case digest na tinutukoy ni Edu na may General Register number na 135083.
Tungkol ito sa naging desisyon ng korte sa kasong isinampa sa kanya ni Ernesto Mercado, ang kalaban niya sa vice mayoral race sa Makati City noong 1998.
MERCADO VS MANZANO CASE
Ito ang inilabas na impormasyon ng Philippine Law Notes tungkol sa Mercado vs Manzano case:
FACTS: Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo Manzano were both candidates for Vice-Mayor of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections.
Based on the results of the election, Manzano garnered the highest number of votes.
However, his proclamation was suspended due to the pending petition for disqualification filed by Ernesto Mercado on the ground that he was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States.
From the facts presented, it appears that Manzano is both a Filipino and a US citizen.
The Commission on Elections declared Manzano disqualified as candidate for said elective position.
However, in a subsequent resolution of the COMELEC en banc, the disqualification of the respondent was reversed.
Respondent was held to have renounced his US citizenship when he attained the age of majority and registered himself as a voter in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998.
Manzano was eventually proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of Makati City on August 31, 1998.
Thus the present petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not a dual citizen is disqualified to hold public elective office in the Philippines. RULING:
The court ruled that the phrase "dual citizenship" in R.A. 7160 Sec. 40 (d) and R.A. 7854 Sec. 20 must be understood as referring to dual allegiance.
Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance.
The former arises when, as a result of the application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states.
Dual allegiance on the other hand, refers to a situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states.
While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is a result of an individual's volition.
Article IV Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law."
Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification.
Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject to strict process with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states.
By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same time forswear allegiance to the other country of which they are also citizens and thereby terminate their status as dual citizens.
It may be that, from the point of view of the foreign state and of its laws, such an individual has not effectively renounced his foreign citizenship. That is of no moment.
When a person applying for citizenship by naturalization takes an oath that he renounces his loyalty to any other country or government and solemnly declares that he owes his allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, the condition imposed by law is satisfied and complied with.
The determination whether such renunciation is valid or fully complies with the provisions of our Naturalization Law lies within the province and is an exclusive prerogative of our courts.
The latter should apply the law duly enacted by the legislative department of the Republic.
No foreign law may or should interfere with its operation and application.
The court ruled that the filing of certificate of candidacy of respondent sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen.
By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen.
On the other hand, private respondent’s oath of allegiance to the Philippines, when considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship.
His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will fulfill his undertaking made under oath.
Should he betray that trust, there are enough sanctions for declaring the loss of his Philippine citizenship through expatriation in appropriate proceedings.
In Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, the court sustained the denial of entry into the country of petitioner on the ground that, after taking his oath as a naturalized citizen, he applied for the renewal of his Portuguese passport and declared in commercial documents executed abroad that he was a Portuguese national.
A similar sanction can be taken against any one who, in electing Philippine citizenship, renounces his foreign nationality, but subsequently does some act constituting renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.