Complaint filed vs Teodoro over ‘dual citizenship’

A formal complaint has been filed against Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto "Gibo" Teodoro Jr., alleging that he violated laws related to dual citizenship and made false statements in his passport application. The complaint was submitted to the Pasay City Prosecutor’s Office by four individuals—Russel Miraflor, Jerry Hondrado, Antonio Balondo Jr., and Ernie Arimala—who claim they have a legal and public interest in verifying the accuracy of Teodoro’s citizenship status. They argue that the integrity of official documents, especially those used in government processes, must be upheld to maintain public trust.

The petitioners accuse Teodoro of breaching Republic Act No. 8239, the Philippine Passport Act of 1996, by potentially submitting false information during his passport application process. Additionally, they allege that he might have committed offenses under Articles 172(1), 171(4), and 183 of the Revised Penal Code, which pertain to falsification of public documents, perjury, and other related charges. The complaint emphasizes that the petitioners are not motivated by personal vendettas but rather by a desire to ensure transparency in governmental affairs.

To substantiate their claims, the petitioners requested that the prosecutor’s office obtain certified copies of relevant passport application records, passport issuance records, travel records, and documentation regarding the retention or reacquisition of citizenship. These documents would help determine whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a formal investigation. The request highlights the need for concrete proof rather than speculative allegations.

The Department of National Defense (DND) responded to the complaint by dismissing it as based on unverified allegations. According to a statement issued by DND Assistant Secretary Erik Dy, the burden of proof lies with the accusers, not the state. He emphasized that the justice system does not operate on assumptions or incomplete evidence, stating that until credible and verified information is presented, the claims remain unsubstantiated. This response underscores the DND’s stance that the complaint lacks the necessary foundation to warrant further action.

Legal counsel representing the petitioners, Dan Villanueva, explained that the complaint aims to resolve lingering uncertainties about Teodoro’s citizenship history. Specifically, he noted that while media reports have suggested Teodoro held Maltese citizenship in the past, the exact nature of his renunciation and its acceptance by Malta remain unclear. Villanueva expressed concern that without verified records, the public cannot be assured of the legitimacy of Teodoro’s current citizenship status or his qualifications for holding high office.

The complaint also includes a separate petition directed to the Office of the Solicitor General, requesting an evaluation of whether official records justify initiating a quo warranto proceeding to challenge Teodoro’s eligibility to serve as Secretary of National Defense. Villanueva indicated that this additional step would be taken personally on the following day, highlighting the seriousness with which the petitioners view the matter.

Teodoro himself addressed the issue of his past Maltese citizenship in July 2025, confirming that he had once possessed a Maltese passport and had renounced his Maltese citizenship prior to running for senator in October 2021. At that time, he stated that the existence of the Maltese passport had been disclosed to the Bureau of Immigration, the Commission on Elections, and the Committee on Appointments. However, the specifics of the renunciation process and its validation by Malta have not been fully clarified, leaving room for further inquiry.

As the situation unfolds, the outcome of the complaint will depend largely on the availability and verification of official documents. If the Pasay City Prosecutor’s Office finds sufficient evidence to support the allegations, it could lead to a more thorough investigation. Conversely, if the evidence proves inconclusive or insufficient, the matter may be dismissed. Regardless of the result, the case has sparked broader discussions about the importance of transparency in public service and the responsibilities of officials in disclosing their personal backgrounds.