a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer.
ISSUE: Whether or not Osmeña remains a Filipino and loss of his Philippine Citizenship cannot be presumed.
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.
RATIO DECIDENDI: Yes, Petitioner failed to present direct proof that Osmeña had lost his Filipino Citizenship by any of the modes provided for under C.A. No. 63 these are : 1. By naturalization in foreign country; 2. By express renunciation of Citizenship; and 3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or Law of the foreign country. The evidence clearly shows that Osmeña did not lose his Philippine citizenship by any of the three (3) mentioned hereinaboved or any other modes of losing Philippine citizenship. The 1987 Constitution, Article IV, Section 5 states “Dual allegiance of citizens is iniminical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law” has no retroactive effect.