914, October 1, 1999 (Constitutional Law Citizenship)
FACTS: Petitioner, who resided in the Philippines since his birth during the 1935 Constitution, is a legitimate son o a Filipina married to a Chinese citi!en" Subse#uentl$, petitioner elected Philippine citi!enship 1% $ears ater he reached the age o ma&orit$" 'S( recommends the rela)ation o the standing rule on the construction o the phrase *reasonable period+ and the allowance o the petitioner to elect Philippine citi!enship due to circumstances li,e petitioner ha-ing li-ed in the Philippines all his lie and his consistent belie that he is a Filipino" .SS/0: 1hether or not a legitimate child under the 1935 Constitution o a Filipino mother and an alien ather -alidl$ elect Philippine citi!enship 1% $ears ater he has reached the age o ma&orit$" 2034: 5o, despite the special circumstances, Petitioner ailed to -alidl$ elect Philippine citi!enship" The span o 1% $ears that lapsed rom the time he reached the age o ma&orit$ until he 6nall$ e)pressed his intention to elect Philippine citi!enship is clearl$ wa$ be$ond the contemplation o the re#uirement *upon reaching the age o ma&orit$"+ .n addition, there was no reason wh$ he dela$ed his election o Philippine citi!enship" Valles v. COMELEC Facts: Petitioner #uestions the #uali6cation o pri-ate respondent 7osalind 8basco 3ope! to run or go-ernor o 4a-ao 'riental on citi!enship grounds" 7espondent was born in 193% in Australia to a Filipino ather and an Australian mother" .n 1999, she applied or an Alien Certi6cate o 7egistration :AC7; and .mmigrant Certi6cate o 7esidence :.C7; and was issued an Australian passport" .ssue: 1'5 respondent is a Filipino< and i she is, 1'5 she renounced her citi!enship b$ appl$ing or AC7 and .C7 and being issued an Australian passport" 7uling: 7espondent is a Filipino" .n 193%, the controlling laws o the Philippines were the Philippine =ill o >ul$ 1, 19?@ and the Philippine Autonom$ Act o August @9, 191A :>ones 3aw;" /nder both organic acts, all inhabitants o the Philippines who were Spanish sub&ects on April 11, 1999 and resided therein, including their children, are considered Philippine citi!ens" 7espondentBs ather was thereore a Filipino, and conse#uentl$, her" 7espondent did not lose her citi!enship" 7enunciation o citi!enship must be e)press" Appl$ing or AC7, .C7, and Australian passport are not enough to renounce citi!enship" The$ are merel$ acts o assertion o her Australian citi!enship beore she eCecti-el$ renounced the same" 4ual citi!enship as a dis#uali6cation reers to citi!ens with dual allegiance" The act that she has dual citi!enship does not automaticall$ dis#uali$ her rom running or public oDce" Filing a certi6cate o candidac$ suDces to renounce oreign citi!enship because in the certi6cate, the candidate declares himsel to be a Filipino citi!en and that he will support the Philippine Constitution" Such declaration operates as an eCecti-e renunciation o oreign citi!enship" Mercado v. Manzano Facts: 0du Ean!ano ran or the position o -ice ma$or in 1999 and got the most number o -otes" 2is coFcandidate 6led a petition to dis#uali$ Ean!ano on the ground that he is a dual citi!en :/S and P2;" Petition was dismissed" There is no doubt that Ean!ano is a dual citi!en upon birth being born to both Filipino parents in Caliornia" Court held that the dis#uali6cation o dual citi!ens contemplates dual allegiance and b$ merel$ registering as a -oter, 6ling CoC and electing in the said certi6cate Philippine citi!enship, Ean!ano has eCecti-el$ renounced his /S citi!enship" F Petitioner 0rnesto Eercado and respondent 0duardo Ean!ano were candidates or -iceFma$or in Ea,ati Cit$ in the Ea$ 11, 1999 F Ean!ano got the most number o -otes but his proclamation was suspended in -iew o the pending petition or dis#uali6cation 6led b$ a certain 0rnesto Eamaril who alleged that pri-ate respondent was not a citi!en o the P2 but o the /S F 'n Ea$ G 1999, C'E030C Second 4i-ision ordered the cancellation o the CoC o the respondent on the ground that he is a dual citi!en and, under Section %?:d; o the 3ocal (o-ernment Code, persons with dual citi!enship are dis#uali6ed rom running or an$ electi-e position F Ean!ano was born to his Filipino parents in San Francisco Caliornia on September 1%, 1955 and is considered an American citi!en under /S laws F 31August: C'E030C en banc re-ersed decision o the Second 4i-ision and declared Ean!ano #uali6ed to run or -iceF ma$or stating that Ean!ano is also a Filipino citi!en b$ operation o the 1935 constitution and he has eCecti-el$ renounced his /S citi!enship when he registered himsel as a -oter and -oted in the elections o 199@, 1995 and 1999 F .n -iew o this, Ean!ano was proclaimed as -iceFma$or o Ea,ati F 0rnesto Eercado who ran,ed ne)t to Ean!ano in the elections 6led this petition
.ssueHs: 1hether petitioner Eercado has personalit$ to bring this suit 1hether respondent Ean!ano possesses dual citi!enship and, i so, whether he is dis#uali6ed rom being a candidate or -ice ma$or o Ea,ati Cit$
7uling: Petition 4.SE.SS04"
7atio: 1" 80S F Failure o C'E030C en banc to address the petitionerBs Eotion to .nter-ene &usti6es petitioner to 6le this case @" 4/A3 C.T.I05S2.P JS 4/A3 A330(.A5C0 F 4/A3 C.T.I05S2.P: arises when, as a result o the concurrent application o the diCerent laws o two or more states, a person is simultaneousl$ considered a national b$ the said states F 4/A3 A330(.A5C0: person owes, b$ some positi-e act, lo$alt$ to two or more states< result o an indi-idualBs own -olition F Section 5 Art % o the Constitution concerns naturali!ed citi!ens who maintain their allegiance to their countr$ o origin F 4is#uali6cation based on *dual citi!enship+ contemplates dual allegiance F For candidates with dual citi!enship, it would be suDce i the$ elect Philippine citi!enship upon 6ling their CoC to terminate their status as persons with dual citi!enship So v. Republc FACTS: 'n Februar$ @9, @??@, petitioner 0dison So 6led beore the 7TC a Petition or 5aturali!ation under Commonwealth Act :C"A"; 5o" %G3, otherwise ,nown as the 7e-ised 5aturali!ation 3aw, as amended" 2e alleged the ollowing in his petition" 2e was born on Februar$ 1G, 199@, in Eanila< he is a Chinese citi!en who has li-ed in 5o" 5@9 3a-e!ares St", =inondo, Eanila, since birth< as an emplo$ee, he deri-es an a-erage annual income o around P1??,???"?? with ree board and lodging and other bene6ts< he is single, able to spea, and write 0nglish, Chinese and Tagalog< he is e)empt rom the 6ling o 4eclaration o .ntention to become a citi!en o the Philippines pursuant to Section A o Commonwealth Act :C"A"; 5o" %G3, as amended, because he was born in the Philippines, and studied in a school recogni!ed b$ the (o-ernment where Philippine histor$, go-ernment and culture are taught< he is a person o good moral character< he belie-es in the principles underl$ing the Philippine constitution< he has conducted himsel in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period o his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted go-ernment as well as with the communit$ in which he is li-ing< he has mingled sociall$ with the Filipinos and has e-inced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals o the Filipino people< he has all the #uali6cations pro-ided under Section @ and none o the dis#uali6cations under Section % o C"A" 5o" %G3, as amended< he is not opposed to organi!ed go-ernment or aDliated with an$ association or group o persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organi!ed go-ernments< he is not deending or teaching the necessit$ or propriet$ o -iolence, personal assault or assassination or the success or predominance o menKs ideas< he is not a pol$gamist or a belie-er in the practice o pol$gam$< he has not been con-icted o an$ crime in-ol-ing moral turpitude he is not suCering rom an$ incurable contagious diseases or rom mental alienation< the nation o which he is a citi!en is not at war with the Philippines< it is his intention in good aith to become a citi!en o the Philippines and to renounce absolutel$ and ore-er all allegiance and 6delit$ to an$ oreign prince, potentate, state or so-ereignt$, and particularl$ to China< and he will reside continuousl$ in the Philippines rom the time o the 6ling o the petition up to the time o his admission as citi!en o the Philippines" The petition was doc,eted as 5aturali!ation Case 5o" ?@F1?@99%" .SS/0: 1hether or not petition or naturali!ation be grantedL 2034: 405.04, Thus, petitioner ailed to show ull and complete compliance with the re#uirements o naturali!ation law" For this reason, we aDrm the decision o the CA den$ing the petition or naturali!ation without pre&udice" .t must be stressed that admission to citi!enship is one o the highest pri-ileges that the 7epublic o the Philippines can coner upon an alien" .t is a pri-ilege that should not be conerred e)cept upon persons ull$ #uali6ed or it, and upon strict compliance with the law" R! 9""# $!u%ust "9, "&&'( !N !C) M!*+N, )-E C+)+.ENS-+/ O0 /-+L+//+NE C+)+.ENS 1-O !C23+RE 0ORE+,N C+)+.ENS-+/ /ERM!NEN), !MEN4+N, 0OR )-E /3R/OSE COMMON1E!L)- !C) NO. 5', !S !MEN4E4, !N4 0OR O)-ER /3R/OSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: S0CT.'5 1" Short Title" M This Act shall be ,nown as the NCiti!enship 7etention and 7eFac#uisition Act o @??3"N S0C" @" Declaration of Policy. M .t is hereb$ declared the polic$ o the State that all Philippine citi!ens who become citi!ens o another countr$ shall be deemed not to ha-e lost their Philippine citi!enship under the conditions o this Act" S0C" 3" Retention of Philippine Citienship. M An$ pro-ision o law to the contrar$ notwithstanding, naturalFborn citi!ens o the Philippines who ha-e lost their Philippine citi!enship b$ reason o their naturali!ation as citi!ens o a oreign countr$ are hereb$ deemed to ha-e reFac#uired Philippine citi!enship upon ta,ing the ollowing oath o allegiance to the 7epublic: N. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, solemnl$ swear :or aDrm; that . will support and deend the Constitution o the 7epublic o the Philippines and obe$ the laws and legal orders promulgated b$ the dul$ constituted authorities o the Philippines, and . hereb$ declare that . recogni!e and accept the supreme authorit$ o the Philippines and will maintain true aith and allegiance thereto< and that . impose this obligation upon m$sel -oluntaril$ without mental reser-ation or purpose o e-asion"N 5aturalFborn citi!ens o the Philippines who, ater the eCecti-it$ o this Act, become citi!ens o a oreign countr$ shall retain their Philippine citi!enship upon ta,ing the aoresaid oath" S0C" %" Derivative Citienship. M The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen :19; $ears o age, o those who reFac#uire Philippine citi!enship upon eCecti-it$ o this Act shall be deemed citi!ens o the Philippines" S0C" 5" Civil and Political Rights and !iabilities. M Those who retain or reFac#uire Philippine citi!enship under this Act shall en&o$ ull ci-il and political rights and be sub&ect to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under e)isting laws o the Philippines and the ollowing conditions: 1" Those intending to e)ercise their right o suCrage must meet the re#uirements under Section 1, Article J o the Constitution, 7epublic Act 5o" 919, otherwise ,nown as NThe '-erseas Absentee Joting Act o @??3N and other e)isting laws< @" Those see,ing electi-e public oDce in the Philippines shall meet the #uali6cations or holding such public oDce as re#uired b$ the Constitution and e)isting laws and, at the time o the 6ling o the certi6cate o candidac$, ma,e a personal and sworn renunciation o an$ and all oreign citi!enship beore an$ public oDcer authori!ed to administer an oath< 3" Those appointed to an$ public oDce shall subscribe and swear to an oath o allegiance to the 7epublic o the Philippines and its dul$ constituted authorities prior to their assumption o oDce: Provided" That the$ renounce their oath o allegiance to the countr$ where the$ too, that oath< %" Those intending to practice their proession in the Philippines shall appl$ with the proper authorit$ or a license or permit to engage in such practice< and 5" That right to -ote or be elected or appointed to an$ public oDce in the Philippines cannot be e)ercised b$, or e)tended to, those who: a" are candidates or or are occup$ing an$ public oDce in the countr$ o which the$ are naturali!ed citi!ens< andHor b" are in acti-e ser-ice as commissioned or nonFcommissioned oDcers in the armed orces o the countr$ which the$ are naturali!ed citi!ens" S0C" A" Separability Clause. M . an$ section or pro-ision o this Act is held unconstitutional or in-alid, an$ other section or pro-ision not aCected thereb$ shall remain -alid and eCecti-e" S0C" G" Repealing Clause" M All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with the pro-isions o this Act are hereb$ repealed or modi6ed accordingl$" S0C" 9" 0Cecti-it$ Clause" M This Act shall ta,e eCect ater 6teen :15; da$s ollowing its publication in the 'Dcial (a!ette or two :@; newspapers o general circulation" Ben%zon v. -OR Political !a# $ %&atural Born' Re(uirement $ Re(uirements to be a Congressman 0acts6 =engson and Cru! were ri-als in the 1999 elections in the @ nd 4istrict o Pangasinan" The$ were running or Congress" Cru! won b$ a signi6cant margin o-er the incumbent =engson" =engson then 6led a Puo 1arranto proceeding in the 270T alleging that Cru! is not a natural born citi!en, as de6ned b$ law< hence he should be dis#uali6ed rom holding oDce" The 270T subse#uentl$ declared and aDrmed Cru! as the winner" =engson 6led a motion or reconsideration alleging that Cru! was indeed born a Filipino and he is de6ned under the 1935 Constitution as a natural born citi!en" Cru! howe-er lost his citi!enship when he enlisted in the /S Arm$ in 1995" 2e also swore allegiance to the /S without consent rom the Philippines" Cru!, on the other hand, argued that he regained his Filipino Citi!enship b$ -irtue o 7A @A3? which pro-ides that *An$ person who had lost his Philippine citi!enship b$ rendering ser-ice to, or accepting commission in, the Armed Forces o the /nited States, or ater separation rom the Armed Forces o the /nited States, ac#uired /nited States citi!enship, ma$ reac#uire Philippine citi!enship b$ ta,ing an oath o allegiance to the 7epublic o the PhilippinesQ+" =engson insists that Article .J, Section @ o the Constitution e)pressl$ states that naturalFborn citi!ens are those who are citi!ens rom birth without ha-ing to perorm an$ act to ac#uire or perect such citi!enship" +SS3E6 1hether or not Cru! is a naturalFborn citi!en" -EL46 PetitionerBs contention that respondent Cru! is no longer a naturalFborn citi!en since he had to perorm an act to regain his citi!enship is untenable" As correctl$ e)plained b$ the 270T in its decision, the term *naturalFborn citi!en+ was 6rst de6ned in Article ..., Section % o the 19G3 Constitution as ollows: Sec. ). * natural+born citien is one #ho is a citien of the Philippines from birth #ithout having to perform any act to ac(uire or perfect his Philippine citienship. As de6ned in the same Constitution, naturalFborn citi!ens *are those citi!ens o the Philippines rom birth without ha-ing to perorm an$ act to ac#uire or perect his Philippine citi!enship. .n respondent Cru!Bs case, he lost his Filipino citi!enship when he rendered ser-ice in the Armed Forces o the /nited States" 2owe-er, he subse#uentl$ reac#uired Philippine citi!enship under 7"A" 5o" @A3?" Eoreo-er, repatriation results in the reco-er$ o the original nationalit$" This means that a naturali!ed Filipino who lost his citi!enship will be restored to his prior status as a naturali!ed Filipino citi!en" 'n the other hand, i he was originall$ a naturalFborn citi!en beore he lost his Philippine citi!enship, he will be restored to his ormer status as a naturalFborn Filipino" Tecson -" C'E030C Facts: Jictorino R" Fornier, petitioner initiated a petition beore the C'E030C to dis#uali$ FP> and toden$ due course or to cancel his certi6cate o candidac$ upon the thesis that FP> made amaterial misrepresentation in his certi6cate o candidac$ b$ claiming to be a naturalFborn Filipinociti!en when in truth, according to Fornier, his parents were oreigners< his mother, =essie Selle$Poe, was an American, and his ather, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son o 3oren!o Pou, a Spanish sub&ect" (ranting, petitioner asse-erated, that Allan F" Poe was a Filipinociti!en, he could not ha-e transmitted his Filipino citi!enship to FP>, the latter being an illegitimatechild o an alien mother" Petitioner based the allegation o the illegitimate birth o respondent ontwo assertions F 6rst, Allan F" Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain Paulita (ome! beorehis marriage to =essie Selle$ and, second, e-en i no such prior marriage had e)isted, Allan F"Poe, married =essie Sell$ onl$ a $ear ater the birth o respondent" .ssue: 1hether or 5ot FP> is a natural born Filipino citi!en" 2eld: .t is necessar$ to ta,e on the matter o whether or not respondent FP> is a naturalFborn citi!en,which, in turn, depended on whether or not the ather o respondent, Allan F" Poe, would ha-ehimsel been a Filipino citi!en and, in the aDrmati-e, whether or not the alleged illegitimac$ o respondent pre-ents him rom ta,ing ater the Filipino citi!enship o his putati-e ather" An$conclusion on the Filipino citi!enship o 3oren!o Pou could onl$ be drawn rom the presumptionthat ha-ing died in 195% at 9% $ears old, 3oren!o would ha-e been born sometime in the $ear 19G?, when the Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his placeo residence upon his death in 195%, in the absence o an$ other e-idence, could ha-e well beenhis place o residence beore death, such that 3oren!o Pou would ha-e bene6ted rom the Nenmasse Filipini!ationN that the Philippine =ill had eCected in 19?@" That citi!enship :o 3oren!oPou;, i ac#uired, would thereb$ e)tend to his son, Allan F" Poe, ather o respondent FP>" The1935 Constitution, during which regime respondent FP> has seen 6rst light, coners citi!enship toall persons whose athers are Filipino citi!ens regardless o whether such children are legitimateor illegitimate"=ut while the totalit$ o the e-idence ma$ not establish conclusi-el$ that respondent FP> is anaturalFborn citi!en o the Philippines, the e-idence on hand still would preponderate in his a-or enough to hold that he cannot be held guilt$ o ha-ing made a material misrepresentation in hiscerti6cate o candidac$ in -iolation o Section G9, in relation to Section G%, o the 'mnibus0lection Code" Ea#uiling -" C'E030C : Sereno, April 1A, @?13; Facts: T 7espondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citi!en" 2owe-er, as a conse#uence o his subse#uentnaturali!ation as a citi!en o the /nited States o America, he lost his Filipino citi!enship" Arnado appliedor repatriation under 7epublic Act :7"A"; 5o" 9@@5beore the Consulate (eneral o the Philippines in SanFranciso, /SA and too, the 'ath o Allegiance to the7epublic o the Philippines on 1? >ul$ @??9" 'n thesame da$ an 'rder o Appro-al o his Citi!enship7etention and 7eFac#uisition was issued in his a-or" T 'n 3 April @??9 Arnado again too, his 'ath o Allegianceto the 7epublic and e)ecuted an ADda-it o7enunciation o his oreign citi!enship, which states: T 'n 3? 5o-ember @??9, Arnado 6led his Certi6cate oCandidac$ or Ea$or o Sauswagan, 3anao del 5orte,'n @9 April @?1?, respondent 3inog C" =alua :=alua;,another ma$oralt$ candidate, 6led a petition to dis#uali$ Arnado andHor to cancel his certi6cate o candidac$ ormunicipal ma$or o Sauswagan, 3anao del 5orte inconnection with the 1? Ea$ @?1? local and nationalelections" T 7espondent =alua contended that Arnado is not aresident o Sauswagan, 3anao del 5orte and that he is aoreigner, attaching thereto a certi6cation issued b$ the=ureau o .mmigration dated @3 April @?1? indicating thenationalit$ o Arnado as N/SAFAmerican"N 1? To urtherbolster his claim o ArnadoBs /S citi!enship, =aluapresented in his Eemorandum a computerFgeneratedtra-el record 11 dated ?3 4ecember @??9 indicating that Arnado has been using his /S Passport 5o" ?5GG9@G??in entering and departing the Philippines" T 'n 3? April @?1?, the C'E030C :First 4i-ision; issuedan 'rder 13 re#uiring the respondent to personall$ 6le hisanswer and memorandum within three :3; da$s romreceipt thereo" T Ater Arnado ailed to answer the petition, =alua mo-edto declare him in deault and to present e-idence e)Fparte" T 5either motion was acted upon, ha-ing been o-erta,enb$ the @?1? elections where Arnado garnered thehighest number o -otes and was subse#uentl$proclaimed as the winning candidate or Ea$or oSauswagan, 3anao del 5orte" T .t was onl$ ater his proclamation that Arnado 6led his-eri6ed answer, T20 7/3.5( 'F T20 C'E030C F.7ST 4.J.S.'5: T .nstead o treating the Petition as an action or thecancellation o a certi6cate o candidac$ based onmisrepresentation, 15 the C'E030C First 4i-isionconsidered it as one or dis#uali6cation" The First4i-ision disagreed with ArnadoBs claim that he is aFilipino citi!en" 19 The Court ruled that ArnadoBs act oconsistentl$ using his /S passport ater renouncing his/S citi!enship on ?3 April @??9 eCecti-el$ negated his ADda-it o 7enunciation" T Petitioner Casan Eacode Ea#uiling :Ea#uiling;, anothercandidate or ma$or o Sauswagan, and who garneredthe second highest number o -otes in the @?1?elections, inter-ened in the case and 6led beore theC'E030C 0n =anc a Eotion or 7econsiderationtogether with an 'pposition to ArnadoBs Amended Eotionor 7econsideration" Ea#uiling argued that while the First4i-ision correctl$ dis#uali6ed Arnado, the order osuccession under Section %% o the 3ocal (o-ernmentCode is not applicable in this case" Conse#uentl$, heclaimed that the cancellation o ArnadoBs candidac$ andthe nulli6cation o his proclamation, Ea#uiling, as thelegitimate candidate who obtained the highest number oUawul -otes, should be proclaimed as the winner" 7/3.5( 'F T20 C'E030C 05 =A5C: ruled in a-or o arnado T Ea#uiling 6led the instant petition #uestioning thepropriet$ o declaring Arnado #uali6ed to run or publicoDce despite his continued use o a /S passport, Thereare three #uestions posed b$ the parties beore thisCourt which will be addressed seriatim as thesubse#uent #uestions hinge on the result o the 6rst".ssues:1" whether or not inter-ention is allowed in a dis#uali6cation case"@" whether or not the use o a oreign passport ater renouncingoreign citi!enship amounts to undoing a renunciation earlier made"3" whether or not the rule on succession in the 3ocal (o-ernmentCode is applicable to this case" SC: 1" .nter-ention o a ri-al candidate in a dis#uali6cation case is proper when there has not $et been an$ proclamation o thewinner" @" The use o oreign passport ater renouncing oneBs oreignciti!enship is a positi-e and -oluntar$ act o representation as tooneBs nationalit$ and citi!enship< it does not di-est Filipinociti!enship regained b$ repatriation but it recants the 'ath o7enunciation re#uired to #uali$ one to run or an electi-e position"
T =etween ?3 April @??9, the date he renounced hisoreign citi!enship, and 3? 5o-ember @??9, the date he6led his C'C, he used his /S passport our times,actions that run counter to the aDda-it o renunciation hehad earlier e)ecuted" =$ using his oreign passport, Arnado positi-el$ and -oluntaril$ represented himsel asan American, T ArnadoBs categor$ o dual citi!enship is that b$ whichoreign citi!enship is ac#uired through a positi-e act oappl$ing or naturali!ation" This is distinct rom thoseconsidered dual citi!ens b$ -irtue o birth, who are notre#uired b$ law to ta,e the oath o renunciation as themere 6ling o the certi6cate o candidac$ alread$ carrieswith it an implied renunciation o oreign citi!enship" 39 4ual citi!ens b$ naturali!ation, on the other hand, arere#uired to ta,e not onl$ the 'ath o Allegiance to the7epublic o the Philippines but also to personall$renounce oreign citi!enship in order to #uali$ as acandidate or public oDce" T =$ the time he 6led his certi6cate o candidac$ on 3?5o-ember @??9, Arnado was a dual citi!en en&o$ing therights and pri-ileges o Filipino and American citi!enship"2e was #uali6ed to -ote, but b$ the e)pressdis#uali6cation under Section %?:d; o the 3ocal(o-ernment Code, %? he was not #uali6ed to run or alocal electi-"3" The rule on Succession under 3(C is not applicable" Ea#uilingis not a secondFplacer as he obtained the highest number o -otesrom among the #uali6ed candidates"
T 7esol-ing the third issue necessitates re-isiting Topacio-" Paredes %5 which is the &urisprudential spring o theprinciple that a secondFplacer cannot be proclaimed asthe winner in an election contest" This doctrine must bereFe)amined and its soundness once again put to thetest to address the e-erF recurring issue that a secondFplacer who loses to an ineligible candidate cannot beproclaimed as the winner in the elections" T The otenF#uoted phrase in Topacio -" Paredes is thatNthe wreath o -ictor$ cannot be transerred rom anineligible candidate to an$ other candidate when the sole#uestion is the eligibilit$ o the one recei-ing a pluralit$ othe legall$ cast ballots"N %G
T This phrase is not e-en the ratio decidendi< it is a mereobiter dictum" The Court was comparing Nthe eCect o a decision that a candidate is not entitled to the oDcebecause o raud or irregularities in the elections ) ) )with that produced b$ declaring a person ineligible tohold such an oDce"N T A proper reading o the case re-eals that the rulingtherein is that since the Court o First .nstance is without &urisdiction to tr$ a dis#uali6cation case based on theeligibilit$ o the person who obtained the highest numbero -otes in the election, its &urisdiction being con6ned Ntodetermine which o the contestants has been dul$electedN the &udge e)ceeded his &urisdiction when heNdeclared that no one had been legall$ elected presidento the municipalit$ o .mus at the general election held inthat town on % >une 191@N where Nthe onl$ #uestionraised was whether or not Topacio was eligible to beelected and to hold the oDce o municipal president"N T The Court did not rule that Topacio was dis#uali6ed andthat Abad as the second placer cannot be proclaimed inhis stead" An ineligible candidate who recei-es thehighest number o -otes is a wrongul winner" =$ e)presslegal mandate, he could not e-en ha-e been a candidatein the 6rst place, but b$ -irtue o the lac, o material timeor an$ other inter-ening circumstances, his ineligibilit$might not ha-e been passed upon prior to election date"Conse#uentl$, he ma$ ha-e had the opportunit$ to holdhimsel out to the electorate as a legitimate and dul$#uali6ed candidate" 2owe-er, notwithstanding theoutcome o the elections, his ineligibilit$ as a candidateremains unchanged" .neligibilit$ does not onl$ pertain tohis #uali6cations as a candidate but necessaril$ aCectshis right to hold public oDce" The number o ballots castin his a-or cannot cure the deect o ailure to #uali$with the substanti-e legal re#uirements o eligibilit$ to runor public oDce" T The will o the people as e)pressed through the ballotcannot cure the -ice o ineligibilit$, especiall$ i the$mista,enl$ belie-ed, as in this case, that the candidatewas #uali6ed" 'b-iousl$, this rule re#uires strictapplication when the de6cienc$ is lac, o citi!enship" . aperson see,s to ser-e in the 7epublic o the Philippines,he must owe his total lo$alt$ to this countr$ onl$, ab&uringand renouncing all ealt$ and 6delit$ to an$ other state" 51 :0mphasis supplied; T .t is imperati-e to saeguard the e)pression o theso-ereign -oice through the ballot b$ ensuring that itse)ercise respects the rule o law" To allow the so-ereign-oice spo,en through the ballot to trump constitutionaland statutor$ pro-isions on #uali6cations anddis#uali6cations o candidates is not democrac$ orrepublicanism" .t is electoral anarch$" 1hen set rules aredisregarded and onl$ the electorateBs -oice spo,enthrough the ballot is made to matter in the end, itprecisel$ ser-es as an open in-itation or electoralanarch$ to set in" 1Vwphi1
T 1ith ArnadoBs dis#uali6cation, Ea#uiling then becomesthe winner in the election as he obtained the highestnumber o -otes rom among the #uali6ed candidates" T 1e ha-e ruled in the recent cases o Aratea -"C'E030C 5% and >alos&os -" C'E030C 55 that a -oidC'C cannot produce an$ legal eCect" T Thus, the -otes cast in a-or o the ineligible candidateare not considered at all in determining the winner o anelection" T 0-en when the -otes or the ineligible candidate aredisregarded, the will o the electorate is still respected,and e-en more so" The -otes cast in a-or o an ineligiblecandidate do not constitute the sole and total e)pressiono the so-ereign -oice" The -otes cast in a-or o eligibleand legitimate candidates orm part o that -oice andmust also be respected" T There is no need to appl$ the rule cited in 3abo -"C'E030C 5A that when the -oters are well aware withinthe realm o notoriet$ o a candidateBs dis#uali6cationand still cast their -otes in a-or said candidate, then theeligible candidate obtaining the ne)t higher number o-otes ma$ be deemed elected" That rule is also a mereobiter that urther complicated the rules aCecting#uali6ed candidates who placed second to ineligibleones" T The electorateBs awareness o the candidateBsdis#uali6cation is not a prere#uisite or thedis#uali6cation to attach to the candidate" The -er$e)istence o a dis#uali$ing circumstance ma,es thecandidate ineligible" Snowledge b$ the electorate o acandidateBs dis#uali6cation is not necessar$ beore a#uali6ed candidate who placed second to a dis#uali6edone can be proclaimed as the winner" The secondFplacerin the -ote count is actuall$ the 6rstFplacer among the#uali6ed candidates" T That the dis#uali6ed candidate has alread$ beenproclaimed and has assumed oDce is o no moment"The subse#uent dis#uali6cation based on a substanti-eground that e)isted prior to the 6ling o the certi6cate ocandidac$ -oids not onl$ the C'C but also theproclamation" T The dis#uali$ing circumstance surrounding ArnadoBscandidac$ in-ol-es his citi!enship" .t does not in-ol-e thecommission o election oCenses as pro-ided or in the6rst sentence o Section A9 o the 'mnibus 0lectionCode, the eCect o which is to dis#uali$ the indi-idualrom continuing as a candidate, or i he has alread$ beenelected, rom holding the oDce" T The dis#uali$ing circumstance aCecting Arnado is hisciti!enship" 1ith Arnado being barred rom e-enbecoming a candidate, his certi6cate o candidac$ is thusrendered -oid rom the beginning" .t could not ha-eproduced an$ other legal eCect e)cept that Arnadorendered it impossible to eCect his dis#uali6cation priorto the elections because he 6led his answer to thepetition when the elections were conducted alread$ andhe was alread$ proclaimed the winner" T ArnadoKs dis#uali6cation, although made long ater theelections, reaches bac, to the 6ling o the certi6cate ocandidac$" Arnado is declared to be not a candidate atall in the Ea$ @?1 ? elections" T Arnado being a nonFcandidate, the -otes cast in his a-orshould not ha-e been counted" This lea-es Ea#uiling asthe #uali6ed candidate who obtained the highest numbero -otes" Thereore, the rule on succession under the 3ocal (o-ernment Code will not appl$"