Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 195649 April 16, 2013
CASAN MACODE MAQUIING, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON EECTIONS, ROMME ARNADO ! CAGOCO, INOG G. "AUA,
Respondents.
D E C I S I N
SERENO, CJ.:
T#E CASE
!his is a Petition for Certiorari ender Rule "# in con$unction %ith Rule "& of the Rules of Court
to revie% the Resolutions of the Co''ission on Elections (CME)EC*. !he Resolution
+
in SPA
No. +,-+ ,.(DC* of the CME)EC /irst Division dated & ctober 0,+ , is bein1 assailed for
appl2in1 Section ## of the )ocal 3overn'ent Code %hile the Resolution
0
of the CME)EC En
Banc dated 0 /ebruar2 0,++ is bein1 4uestioned for findin1 that respondent Ro''el Arnado 2
Ca1oco (respondent Arnado5Arnado* is solel2 a /ilipino citi6en 4ualified to run for public office
despite his continued use of a 7.S. passport.
$ACTS
Respondent Arnado is a natural born /ilipino citi6en.
8
9o%ever, as a conse4uence of his
subse4uent naturali6ation as a citi6en of the 7nited States of A'erica, he lost his /ilipino
citi6enship. Arnado applied for repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.* No. .00& before the
Consulate 3eneral of the Philippines in San /ranciso, 7SA and too: the ath of Alle1iance to
the Republic of the Philippines on +, ;ul2 0,,<.
#
n the sa'e da2 an rder of Approval of his
Citi6enship Retention and Re-ac4uisition %as issued in his favor.
&
!he afore'entioned ath of Alle1iance states=
I, Ro''el Ca1oco Arnado, sole'nl2 s%ear that I %ill support and defend the Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines and obe2 the la%s and le1al orders pro'ul1ated b2 the dul2
constituted authorities of the Philippines and I hereb2 declare that I reco1ni6e and accept the
supre'e authorit2 of the Philippines and %ill 'aintain true faith and alle1iance thereto> and that
I i'pose this obli1ation upon '2self voluntaril2 %ithout 'ental reservation or purpose of
evasion.
"
n 8 April 0,,. Arnado a1ain too: his ath of Alle1iance to the Republic and e?ecuted an
Affidavit of Renunciation of his forei1n citi6enship, %hich states=
I, Ro''el Ca1oco Arnado, do sole'nl2 s%ear that I absolutel2 and perpetuall2 renounce all
alle1iance and fidelit2 to the 7NI!ED S!A!ES / AMERICA of %hich I a' a citi6en, and I
divest '2self of full e'plo2'ent of all civil and political ri1hts and privile1es of the 7nited
States of A'erica.
I sole'nl2 s%ear that all the fore1oin1 state'ent is true and correct to the best of '2 :no%led1e
and belief.
@
n 8, Nove'ber 0,,., Arnado filed his Certificate of Candidac2 for Ma2or of Aaus%a1an,
)anao del Norte, %hich contains, a'on1 others, the follo%in1 state'ents=
I a' a natural born /ilipino citi6en 5 naturali6ed /ilipino citi6en.
I a' not a per'anent resident of, or i''i1rant to, a forei1n countr2.
I a' eli1ible for the office I see: to be elected to.
I %ill support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and %ill 'aintain
true faith and alle1iance thereto. I %ill obe2 the la%s, le1al orders and decrees pro'ul1ated b2
the dul2 constituted authorities.
I i'pose this obli1ation upon '2self voluntaril2 %ithout 'ental reservation or purpose of
evasion.
<
n 0< April 0,+,, respondent )ino1 C. Balua (Balua*, another 'a2oralt2 candidate, filed a
petition to dis4ualif2 Arnado and5or to cancel his certificate of candidac2 for 'unicipal 'a2or of
Aaus%a1an, )anao del Norte in connection %ith the +, Ma2 0,+, local and national elections.
.
Respondent Balua contended that Arnado is not a resident of Aaus%a1an, )anao del Norte and
that he is a forei1ner, attachin1 thereto a certification issued b2 the Bureau of I''i1ration dated
08 April 0,+, indicatin1 the nationalit2 of Arnado as B7SA-A'erican.B
+,
!o further bolster his
clai' of ArnadoCs 7S citi6enship, Balua presented in his Me'orandu' a co'puter-1enerated
travel record
++
dated ,8 Dece'ber 0,,. indicatin1 that Arnado has been usin1 his 7S Passport
No. ,&@@<0@,, in enterin1 and departin1 the Philippines. !he said record sho%s that Arnado left
the countr2 on +# April 0,,. and returned on 0& ;une 0,,., and a1ain departed on 0. ;ul2 0,,.,
arrivin1 bac: in the Philippines on 0# Nove'ber 0,,..
Balua li:e%ise presented a certification fro' the Bureau of I''i1ration dated 08 April 0,+,,
certif2in1 that the na'e BArnado, Ro''el Ca1ocoB appears in the available Co'puter
Database5Passen1er 'anifest5IBM listin1 on file as of 0+ April 0,+,, %ith the follo%in1
pertinent travel records=
DA!E / Arrival = ,+5+050,+,
NA!INA)I!D = 7SA-AMERICAN
PASSPR! = ,&@@<0@,,
DA!E / Arrival = ,850850,+,
NA!INA)I!D = 7SA-AMERICAN
PASSPR! = ,&@@<0@,,
+0
n 8, April 0,+,, the CME)EC (/irst Division* issued an rder
+8
re4uirin1 the respondent to
personall2 file his ans%er and 'e'orandu' %ithin three (8* da2s fro' receipt thereof.
After Arnado failed to ans%er the petition, Balua 'oved to declare hi' in default and to present
evidence e?-parte.
Neither 'otion %as acted upon, havin1 been overta:en b2 the 0,+, elections %here Arnado
1arnered the hi1hest nu'ber of votes and %as subse4uentl2 proclai'ed as the %innin1 candidate
for Ma2or of Aaus%a1an, )anao del Norte.
It %as onl2 after his procla'ation that Arnado filed his verified ans%er, sub'ittin1 the follo%in1
docu'ents as evidence=
+#
+. Affidavit of Renunciation and ath of Alle1iance to the Republic of the Philippines
dated ,8 April 0,,.>
0. ;oint-Affidavit dated 8+ Ma2 0,+, of En1r. Eir1il Seno, Eir1inia Bran6uela, )eoncio
Dali1di1, and ;ess2 Corpin, all nei1hbors of Arnado, attestin1 that Arnado is a lon1-ti'e
resident of Aaus%a1an and that he has been conspicuousl2 and continuousl2 residin1 in
his fa'il2Cs ancestral house in Aaus%a1an>
8. Certification fro' the Punon1 Baran1a2 of Poblacion, Aaus%a1an, )anao del Norte
dated ,8 ;une 0,+, statin1 that Arnado is a bona fide resident of his baran1a2 and that
Arnado %ent to the 7nited States in +.<& to %or: and returned to the Philippines in 0,,.>
#. Certification dated 8+ Ma2 0,+, fro' the Municipal )ocal 3overn'ent perations
ffice of Aaus%a1an statin1 that Dr. Ma?i'o P. Arnado, Sr. served as Ma2or of
Aaus%a1an, fro' ;anuar2 +."# to ;une +.@# and fro' +& /ebruar2 +.@. to +& April
+.<"> and
&. Eoter Certification issued b2 the Election fficer of Aaus%a1an certif2in1 that Arnado
has been a re1istered voter of Aaus%a1an since ,8 April 0,,..
T#E RUING O$ T#E COMEEC $IRST DI%ISION
Instead of treatin1 the Petition as an action for the cancellation of a certificate of candidac2 based
on 'isrepresentation,
+&
the CME)EC /irst Division considered it as one for dis4ualification.
BaluaCs contention that Arnado is a resident of the 7nited States %as dis'issed upon the findin1
that BBalua failed to present an2 evidence to support his contention,B
+"
%hereas the /irst Division
still could Bnot conclude that Arnado failed to 'eet the one-2ear residenc2 re4uire'ent under the
)ocal 3overn'ent Code.B
+@
In the 'atter of the issue of citi6enship, ho%ever, the /irst Division disa1reed %ith ArnadoCs
clai' that he is a /ilipino citi6en.
+<
Fe find that althou1h Arnado appears to have substantiall2 co'plied %ith the re4uire'ents of
R.A. No. .00&, ArnadoCs act of consistentl2 usin1 his 7S passport after renouncin1 his 7S
citi6enship on ,8 April 0,,. effectivel2 ne1ated his Affidavit of Renunciation.
? ? ? ?
ArnadoCs continued use of his 7S passport is a stron1 indication that Arnado had no real
intention to renounce his 7S citi6enship and that he onl2 e?ecuted an Affidavit of Renunciation
to enable hi' to run for office. Fe cannot turn a blind e2e to the 1larin1 inconsistenc2 bet%een
ArnadoCs une?plained use of a 7S passport si? ti'es and his clai' that he re-ac4uired his
Philippine citi6enship and renounced his 7S citi6enship. As noted b2 the Supre'e Court in the
Du case, Ba passport is defined as an official docu'ent of identit2 and nationalit2 issued to a
person intendin1 to travel or so$ourn in forei1n countries.B Surel2, one %ho trul2 divested
hi'self of 7S citi6enship %ould not continue to avail of privile1es reserved solel2 for 7S
nationals.
+.
!he dispositive portion of the Resolution rendered b2 the CME)EC
/irst Division reads=
F9ERE/RE, in vie% of the fore1oin1, the petition for dis4ualification and5or to cancel the
certificate of candidac2 of Ro''el C. Arnado is hereb2 3RAN!ED. Ro''el C. ArnadoCs
procla'ation as the %innin1 candidate for Municipal Ma2or of Aaus%a1an, )anao del Nore is
hereb2 ANN7))ED. )et the order of succession under Section ## of the )ocal 3overn'ent
Code of +..+ ta:e effect.
0,
!he Motion for Reconsideration and
the Motion for Intervention
Arnado sou1ht reconsideration of the resolution before the CME)EC En Banc on the 1round
that Bthe evidence is insufficient to $ustif2 the Resolution and that the said Resolution is contrar2
to la%.B
0+
9e raised the follo%in1 contentions=
00
+. !he findin1 that he is not a /ilipino citi6en is not supported b2 the evidence consistin1
of his ath of Alle1iance and the Affidavit of Renunciation, %hich sho% that he has
substantiall2 co'plied %ith the re4uire'ents of R.A. No. .00&>
0. !he use of his 7S passport subse4uent to his renunciation of his A'erican citi6enship
is not tanta'ount to a repudiation of his /ilipino citi6enship, as he did not perfor' an2
act to s%ear alle1iance to a countr2 other than the Philippines>
8. 9e used his 7S passport onl2 because he %as not infor'ed of the issuance of his
Philippine passport, and that he used his Philippine passport after he obtained it>
#. BaluaCs petition to cancel the certificate of candidac2 of Arnado %as filed out of ti'e,
and the /irst DivisionCs treat'ent of the petition as one for dis4ualification constitutes
1rave abuse of discretion a'ountin1 to e?cess of $urisdiction>
08
&. 9e is undoubtedl2 the peopleCs choice as indicated b2 his %innin1 the elections>
". 9is procla'ation as the %innin1 candidate ousted the CME)EC fro' $urisdiction
over the case> and
@. !he proper re'ed2 to 4uestion his citi6enship is throu1h a petition for 4uo %arranto,
%hich should have been filed %ithin ten da2s fro' his procla'ation.
Petitioner Casan Macode Ma4uilin1 (Ma4uilin1*, another candidate for 'a2or of Aaus%a1an,
and %ho 1arnered the second hi1hest nu'ber of votes in the 0,+, elections, intervened in the
case and filed before the CME)EC En Banc a Motion for Reconsideration to1ether %ith an
pposition to ArnadoCs A'ended Motion for Reconsideration. Ma4uilin1 ar1ued that %hile the
/irst Division correctl2 dis4ualified Arnado, the order of succession under Section ## of the
)ocal 3overn'ent Code is not applicable in this case. Conse4uentl2, he clai'ed that the
cancellation of ArnadoCs candidac2 and the nullification of his procla'ation, Ma4uilin1, as the
le1iti'ate candidate %ho obtained the hi1hest nu'ber of la%ful votes, should be proclai'ed as
the %inner.
Ma4uilin1 si'ultaneousl2 filed his Me'orandu' %ith his Motion for Intervention and his
Motion for Reconsideration. Arnado opposed all 'otions filed b2 Ma4uilin1, clai'in1 that
intervention is prohibited after a decision has alread2 been rendered, and that as a second-placer,
Ma4uilin1 undoubtedl2 lost the elections and thus does not stand to be pre$udiced or benefitted
b2 the final ad$udication of the case.
RUING O$ T#E COMEEC EN "ANC
In its Resolution of ,0 /ebruar2 0,++, the CME)EC En Banc held that under Section " of
Republic Act No. ""#", the Co''ission Bshall continue %ith the trial and hearin1 of the action,
in4uir2 or protest even after the procla'ation of the candidate %hose 4ualifications for office is
4uestioned.B
As to Ma4uilin1Cs intervention, the CME)EC En Banc also cited Section " of R.A. No. ""#"
%hich allo%s intervention in proceedin1s for dis4ualification even after elections if no final
$ud1'ent has been rendered, but %ent on further to sa2 that Ma4uilin1, as the second placer,
%ould not be pre$udiced b2 the outco'e of the case as it a1rees %ith the dispositive portion of
the Resolution of the /irst Division allo%in1 the order of succession under Section ## of the
)ocal 3overn'ent Code to ta:e effect.
!he CME)EC En Banc a1reed %ith the treat'ent b2 the /irst Division of the petition as one
for dis4ualification, and ruled that the petition %as filed %ell %ithin the period prescribed b2
la%,
0#
havin1 been filed on 0< April 0,+,, %hich is not later than ++ Ma2 0,+,, the date of
procla'ation.
9o%ever, the CME)EC En Banc reversed and set aside the rulin1 of the /irst Division and
1ranted ArnadoCs Motion for Reconsideration, on the follo%in1 pre'ises=
/irst=
B2 renouncin1 his 7S citi6enship as i'posed b2 R.A. No. .00&, the respondent e'braced his
Philippine citi6enship as thou1h he never beca'e a citi6en of another countr2. It %as at that ti'e,
April 8, 0,,., that the respondent beca'e a pure Philippine Citi6en a1ain.
? ? ? ?
!he use of a 7S passport G does not operate to revert bac: his status as a dual citi6en prior to
his renunciation as there is no la% sa2in1 such. More succinctl2, the use of a 7S passport does
not operate to Bun-renounceB %hat he has earlier on renounced. !he /irst DivisionCs reliance in
the case of In Re= Petition for 9abeas Corpus of Fill2 Du v. Defensor-Santia1o, et al. is
'isplaced. !he petitioner in the said case is a naturali6ed citi6en %ho, after ta:in1 his oath as a
naturali6ed /ilipino, applied for the rene%al of his Portu1uese passport. Strict polic2 is
'aintained in the conduct of citi6ens %ho are not natural born, %ho ac4uire their citi6enship b2
choice, thus discardin1 their ori1inal citi6enship. !he Philippine State e?pects strict conduct of
alle1iance to those %ho choose to be its citi6ens. In the present case, respondent is not a
naturali6ed citi6en but a natural born citi6en %ho chose 1reener pastures b2 %or:in1 abroad and
then decided to repatriate to supposedl2 help in the pro1ress of Aaus%a1an. 9e did not appl2 for
a 7S passport after his renunciation. !hus the 'entioned case is not on all fours %ith the case at
bar.
? ? ? ?
!he respondent presented a plausible e?planation as to the use of his 7S passport. Althou1h he
applied for a Philippine passport, the passport %as onl2 issued on ;une +<, 0,,.. 9o%ever, he
%as not notified of the issuance of his Philippine passport so that he %as actuall2 able to 1et it
about three (8* 'onths later. Det as soon as he %as in possession of his Philippine passport, the
respondent alread2 used the sa'e in his subse4uent travels abroad. !his fact is proven b2 the
respondentCs sub'ission of a certified true cop2 of his passport sho%in1 that he used the sa'e
for his travels on the follo%in1 dates= ;anuar2 8+, 0,+,, April +", 0,+,, Ma2 0,, 0,+,, ;anuar2
+0, 0,+,, March 8+, 0,+, and ;une #, 0,+,. !his then sho%s that the use of the 7S passport %as
because to his :no%led1e, his Philippine passport %as not 2et issued to hi' for his use. As
probabl2 pressin1 needs 'i1ht be underta:en, the respondent used %hatever is %ithin his control
durin1 that ti'e.
0&
In his Separate Concurrin1 pinion, CME)EC Chair'an Si?to Brillantes cited that the use of
forei1n passport is not one of the 1rounds provided for under Section + of Co''on%ealth Act
No. "8 throu1h %hich Philippine citi6enship 'a2 be lost.
B!he application of the 'ore assi'ilative principle of continuit2 of citi6enship is 'ore
appropriate in this case. 7nder said principle, once a person beco'es a citi6en, either b2 birth or
naturali6ation, it is assu'ed that he desires to continue to be a citi6en, and this assu'ption stands
until he voluntaril2 denationali6es or e?patriates hi'self. !hus, in the instant case respondent
after reac4uirin1 his Philippine citi6enship should be presu'ed to have re'ained a /ilipino
despite his use of his A'erican passport in the absence of clear, une4uivocal and co'petent
proof of e?patriation. Accordin1l2, all doubts should be resolved in favor of retention of
citi6enship.B
0"
n the other hand, Co''issioner Rene E. Sar'iento dissented, thus=
Respondent evidentl2 failed to prove that he trul2 and %holeheartedl2 abandoned his alle1iance
to the 7nited States. !he latterCs continued use of his 7S passport and en$o2'ent of all the
privile1es of a 7S citi6en despite his previous renunciation of the afore-'entioned citi6enship
runs contrar2 to his declaration that he chose to retain onl2 his Philippine citi6enship.
RespondentCs sub'ission %ith the t%in re4uire'ents %as obviousl2 onl2 for the purpose of
co'pl2in1 %ith the re4uire'ents for runnin1 for the 'a2oralt2 post in connection %ith the Ma2
+,, 0,+, Auto'ated National and )ocal Elections.
Hualifications for elective office, such as citi6enship, are continuin1 re4uire'ents> once an2 of
the' is lost durin1 his incu'benc2, title to the office itself is dee'ed forfeited. If a candidate is
not a citi6en at the ti'e he ran for office or if he lost his citi6enship after his election to office, he
is dis4ualified to serve as such. Neither does the fact that respondent obtained the pluralit2 of
votes for the 'a2oralt2 post cure the latterCs failure to co'pl2 %ith the 4ualification
re4uire'ents re1ardin1 his citi6enship.
Since a dis4ualified candidate is no candidate at all in the e2es of the la%, his havin1 received the
hi1hest nu'ber of votes does not validate his election. It has been held that %here a petition for
dis4ualification %as filed before election a1ainst a candidate but %as adversel2 resolved a1ainst
hi' after election, his havin1 obtained the hi1hest nu'ber of votes did not 'a:e his election
valid. 9is ouster fro' office does not violate the principle of vo? populi supre'a est le? because
the application of the constitutional and statutor2 provisions on dis4ualification is not a 'atter of
popularit2. !o appl2 it is to breathIeJ life to the soverei1n %ill of the people %ho e?pressed it
%hen the2 ratified the Constitution and %hen the2 elected their representatives %ho enacted the
la%.
0@
T#E PETITION "E$ORE T#E COURT
Ma4uilin1 filed the instant petition 4uestionin1 the propriet2 of declarin1 Arnado 4ualified to run
for public office despite his continued use of a 7S passport, and pra2in1 that Ma4uilin1 be
proclai'ed as the %inner in the 0,+, 'a2oralt2 race in Aaus%a1an, )anao del Norte.
Ascribin1 both 1rave abuse of discretion and reversible error on the part of the CME)EC En
Banc for rulin1 that Arnado is a /ilipino citi6en despite his continued use of a 7S passport,
Ma4uilin1 no% see:s to reverse the findin1 of the CME)EC En Banc that Arnado is 4ualified
to run for public office.
Corollar2 to his plea to reverse the rulin1 of the CME)EC En Banc or to affir' the /irst
DivisionCs dis4ualification of Arnado, Ma4uilin1 also see:s the revie% of the applicabilit2 of
Section ## of the )ocal 3overn'ent Code, clai'in1 that the CME)EC co''itted reversible
error in rulin1 that Bthe succession of the vice 'a2or in case the respondent is dis4ualified is in
order.B
!here are three 4uestions posed b2 the parties before this Court %hich %ill be addressed seriati'
as the subse4uent 4uestions hin1e on the result of the first.
!he first 4uestion is %hether or not intervention is allo%ed in a dis4ualification case.
!he second 4uestion is %hether or not the use of a forei1n passport after renouncin1 forei1n
citi6enship a'ounts to undoin1 a renunciation earlier 'ade.
A better fra'in1 of the 4uestion thou1h should be %hether or not the use of a forei1n passport
after renouncin1 forei1n citi6enship affects oneCs 4ualifications to run for public office.
!he third 4uestion is %hether or not the rule on succession in the )ocal 3overn'ent Code is
applicable to this case.
OUR RUING
Intervention of a rival candidate in a
disqualification case is proper when
there has not yet been any
proclamation of the winner.
Petitioner Casan Macode Ma4uilin1 intervened at the sta1e %hen respondent Arnado filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the /irst Division Resolution before the CME)EC En Banc. As
the candidate %ho 1arnered the second hi1hest nu'ber of votes, Ma4uilin1 contends that he has
an interest in the dis4ualification case filed a1ainst Arnado, considerin1 that in the event the
latter is dis4ualified, the votes cast for hi' should be considered stra2 and the second-placer
should be proclai'ed as the %inner in the elections.
It 'ust be e'phasi6ed that %hile the ori1inal petition before the CME)EC is one for
cancellation of the certificate of candidac2 and 5 or dis4ualification, the CME)EC /irst
Division and the CME)EC En Banc correctl2 treated the petition as one for dis4ualification.
!he effect of a dis4ualification case is enunciated in Section " of R.A. No. ""#"=
Sec. ". Effect of Dis4ualification Case. - An2 candidate %ho has been declared b2 final $ud1'ent
to be dis4ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for hi' shall not be counted. If for
an2 reason a candidate is not declared b2 final $ud1'ent before an election to be dis4ualified and
he is voted for and receives the %innin1 nu'ber of votes in such election, the Court or
Co''ission shall continue %ith the trial and hearin1 of the action, in4uir2, or protest and, upon
'otion of the co'plainant or an2 intervenor, 'a2 durin1 the pendenc2 thereof order the
suspension of the procla'ation of such candidate %henever the evidence of his 1uilt is stron1.
Mercado v. Man6ano
0<
clarified the ri1ht of intervention in a dis4ualification case. In that case, the Court said=
!hat petitioner had a ri1ht to intervene at that sta1e of the proceedin1s for the dis4ualification
a1ainst private respondent is clear fro' Section " of R.A. No. ""#", other%ise :no%n as the
Electoral Refor's )a% of +.<@, %hich provides= An2 candidate %ho has been declared b2 final
$ud1'ent to be dis4ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for hi' shall not be
counted. If for an2 reason a candidate is not declared b2 final $ud1'ent before an election to be
dis4ualified and he is voted for and receives the %innin1 nu'ber of votes in such election, the
Court or Co''ission shall continue %ith the trial and hearin1 of the action, in4uir2, or protest
and, upon 'otion of the co'plainant or an2 intervenor, 'a2 durin1 the pendenc2 thereof order
the suspension of the procla'ation of such candidate %henever the evidence of 1uilt is stron1.
7nder this provision, intervention 'a2 be allo%ed in proceedin1s for dis4ualification even after
election if there has 2et been no final $ud1'ent rendered.
0.
Clearl2 then, Ma4uilin1 has the ri1ht to intervene in the case. !he fact that the CME)EC En
Banc has alread2 ruled that Ma4uilin1 has not sho%n that the re4uisites for the e?e'ption to the
second-placer rule set forth in Sinsuat v. CME)EC
8,
are present and therefore %ould not be
pre$udiced b2 the outco'e of the case, does not deprive Ma4uilin1 of the ri1ht to elevate the
'atter before this Court.
ArnadoCs clai' that the 'ain case has attained finalit2 as the ori1inal petitioner and respondents
therein have not appealed the decision of the CME)EC En Banc, cannot be sustained. !he
elevation of the case b2 the intervenor prevents it fro' attainin1 finalit2. It is onl2 after this
Court has ruled upon the issues raised in this instant petition that the dis4ualification case
ori1inall2 filed b2 Balua a1ainst Arnado %ill attain finalit2.
The use of foreign passport after renouncing ones foreign citizenship is a positive and
voluntary act of representation as to ones nationality and citizenship it does not divest
!ilipino citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants the "ath of #enunciation required
to qualify one to run for an elective position.
Section &(0* of !he Citi6enship Retention and Re-ac4uisition Act of 0,,8 provides=
!hose %ho retain or re-ac4uire Philippine citi6enship under this Act shall en$o2 full civil and
political ri1hts and be sub$ect to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under e?istin1 la%s
of the Philippines and the follo%in1 conditions=
? ? ? ?
(0*!hose see:in1 elective public in the Philippines shall 'eet the 4ualification for holdin1 such
public office as re4uired b2 the Constitution and e?istin1 la%s and, at the ti'e of the filin1 of the
certificate of candidac2, 'a:e a personal and s%orn renunciation of an2 and all forei1n before
an2 public officer authori6ed to ad'inister an oath.
? ? ?
8+
Ro''el Arnado too: all the necessar2 steps to 4ualif2 to run for a public office. 9e too: the
ath of Alle1iance and renounced his forei1n citi6enship. !here is no 4uestion that after
perfor'in1 these t%in re4uire'ents re4uired under Section &(0* of R.A. No. .00& or the
Citi6enship Retention and Re-ac4uisition Act of 0,,8, he beca'e eli1ible to run for public
office.
Indeed, Arnado too: the ath of Alle1iance not $ust onl2 once but t%ice= first, on +, ;ul2 0,,<
%hen he applied for repatriation before the Consulate 3eneral of the Philippines in San
/rancisco, 7SA, and a1ain on ,8 April 0,,. si'ultaneous %ith the e?ecution of his Affidavit of
Renunciation. B2 ta:in1 the ath of Alle1iance to the Republic, Arnado re-ac4uired his
Philippine citi6enship. At the ti'e, ho%ever, he li:e%ise possessed A'erican citi6enship. Arnado
had therefore beco'e a dual citi6en.
After reac4uirin1 his Philippine citi6enship, Arnado renounced his A'erican citi6enship b2
e?ecutin1 an Affidavit of Renunciation, thus co'pletin1 the re4uire'ents for eli1ibilit2 to run
for public office.
B2 renouncin1 his forei1n citi6enship, he %as dee'ed to be solel2 a /ilipino citi6en, re1ardless
of the effect of such renunciation under the la%s of the forei1n countr2.
80
9o%ever, this le1al presu'ption does not operate per'anentl2 and is open to attac: %hen, after
renouncin1 the forei1n citi6enship, the citi6en perfor's positive acts sho%in1 his continued
possession of a forei1n citi6enship.
88
Arnado hi'self sub$ected the issue of his citi6enship to attac: %hen, after renouncin1 his forei1n
citi6enship, he continued to use his 7S passport to travel in and out of the countr2 before filin1
his certificate of candidac2 on 8, Nove'ber 0,,.. !he pivotal 4uestion to deter'ine is %hether
he %as solel2 and e?clusivel2 a /ilipino citi6en at the ti'e he filed his certificate of candidac2,
thereb2 renderin1 hi' eli1ible to run for public office.
Bet%een ,8 April 0,,., the date he renounced his forei1n citi6enship, and 8, Nove'ber 0,,.,
the date he filed his CC, he used his 7S passport four ti'es, actions that run counter to the
affidavit of renunciation he had earlier e?ecuted. B2 usin1 his forei1n passport, Arnado
positivel2 and voluntaril2 represented hi'self as an A'erican, in effect declarin1 before
i''i1ration authorities of both countries that he is an A'erican citi6en, %ith all attendant ri1hts
and privile1es 1ranted b2 the 7nited States of A'erica.
!he renunciation of forei1n citi6enship is not a hollo% oath that can si'pl2 be professed at an2
ti'e, onl2 to be violated the ne?t da2. It re4uires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the
forei1n citi6enship and a full divest'ent of all civil and political ri1hts 1ranted b2 the forei1n
countr2 %hich 1ranted the citi6enship.
Mercado v. Man6ano
8#
alread2 hinted at this situation %hen the Court declared=
9is declarations %ill be ta:en upon the faith that he %ill fulfill his underta:in1 'ade under oath.
Should he betra2 that trust, there are enou1h sanctions for declarin1 the loss of his Philippine
citi6enship throu1h e?patriation in appropriate proceedin1s. In Du v. Defensor-Santia1o, %e
sustained the denial of entr2 into the countr2 of petitioner on the 1round that, after ta:in1 his
oath as a naturali6ed citi6en, he applied for the rene%al of his Portu1uese passport and declared
in co''ercial docu'ents e?ecuted abroad that he %as a Portu1uese national. A si'ilar sanction
can be ta:en a1ainst an2one %ho, in electin1 Philippine citi6enship, renounces his forei1n
nationalit2, but subse4uentl2 does so'e act constitutin1 renunciation of his Philippine
citi6enship.
Fhile the act of usin1 a forei1n passport is not one of the acts enu'erated in Co''on%ealth Act
No. "8 constitutin1 renunciation and loss of Philippine citi6enship,
8&
it is nevertheless an act
%hich repudiates the ver2 oath of renunciation re4uired for a for'er /ilipino citi6en %ho is also
a citi6en of another countr2 to be 4ualified to run for a local elective position.
Fhen Arnado used his 7S passport on +# April 0,,., or $ust eleven da2s after he renounced his
A'erican citi6enship, he recanted his ath of Renunciation
8"
that he Babsolutel2 and perpetuall2
renounce(s* all alle1iance and fidelit2 to the 7NI!ED S!A!ES / AMERICAB
8@
and that he
Bdivest(s* hi'self of full e'plo2'ent of all civil and political ri1hts and privile1es of the 7nited
States of A'erica.B
8<
Fe a1ree %ith the CME)EC En Banc that such act of usin1 a forei1n passport does not divest
Arnado of his /ilipino citi6enship, %hich he ac4uired b2 repatriation. 9o%ever, b2 representin1
hi'self as an A'erican citi6en, Arnado voluntaril2 and effectivel2 reverted to his earlier status as
a dual citi6en. Such reversion %as not retroactive> it too: place the instant Arnado represented
hi'self as an A'erican citi6en b2 usin1 his 7S passport.
!his act of usin1 a forei1n passport after renouncin1 oneCs forei1n citi6enship is fatal to ArnadoCs
bid for public office, as it effectivel2 i'posed on hi' a dis4ualification to run for an elective
local position.
ArnadoCs cate1or2 of dual citi6enship is that b2 %hich forei1n citi6enship is ac4uired throu1h a
positive act of appl2in1 for naturali6ation. !his is distinct fro' those considered dual citi6ens b2
virtue of birth, %ho are not re4uired b2 la% to ta:e the oath of renunciation as the 'ere filin1 of
the certificate of candidac2 alread2 carries %ith it an i'plied renunciation of forei1n
citi6enship.
8.
Dual citi6ens b2 naturali6ation, on the other hand, are re4uired to ta:e not onl2 the
ath of Alle1iance to the Republic of the Philippines but also to personall2 renounce forei1n
citi6enship in order to 4ualif2 as a candidate for public office.
B2 the ti'e he filed his certificate of candidac2 on 8, Nove'ber 0,,., Arnado %as a dual
citi6en en$o2in1 the ri1hts and privile1es of /ilipino and A'erican citi6enship. 9e %as 4ualified
to vote, but b2 the e?press dis4ualification under Section #,(d* of the )ocal 3overn'ent Code,
#,

he %as not 4ualified to run for a local elective position.
In effect, Arnado %as solel2 and e?clusivel2 a /ilipino citi6en onl2 for a period of eleven da2s,
or fro' 8 April 0,,. until +# April 0,,., on %hich date he first used his A'erican passport after
renouncin1 his A'erican citi6enship.
!his Court has previousl2 ruled that=
Hualifications for public office are continuin1 re4uire'ents and 'ust be possessed not onl2 at
the ti'e of appoint'ent or election or assu'ption of office but durin1 the officerKs entire tenure.
nce an2 of the re4uired 4ualifications is lost, his title 'a2 be seasonabl2 challen1ed. ? ? ?.
#+
!he citi6enship re4uire'ent for elective public office is a continuin1 one. It 'ust be possessed
not $ust at the ti'e of the renunciation of the forei1n citi6enship but continuousl2. An2 act %hich
violates the oath of renunciation opens the citi6enship issue to attac:.
Fe a1ree %ith the pronounce'ent of the CME)EC /irst Division that BArnadoCs act of
consistentl2 usin1 his 7S passport effectivel2 ne1ated his BAffidavit of Renunciation.B
#0
!his
does not 'ean, that he failed to co'pl2 %ith the t%in re4uire'ents under R.A. No. .00&, for he
in fact did.
It %as after co'pl2in1 %ith the re4uire'ents that he perfor'ed positive acts %hich effectivel2
dis4ualified hi' fro' runnin1 for an elective public office pursuant to Section #,(d* of the )ocal
3overn'ent Code of +..+.
!he purpose of the )ocal 3overn'ent Code in dis4ualif2in1 dual citi6ens fro' runnin1 for an2
elective public office %ould be th%arted if %e %ere to allo% a person %ho has earlier renounced
his forei1n citi6enship, but %ho subse4uentl2 represents hi'self as a forei1n citi6en, to hold an2
public office.
Arnado $ustifies the continued use of his 7S passport %ith the e?planation that he %as not
notified of the issuance of his Philippine passport on +< ;une 0,,., as a result of %hich he %as
onl2 able to obtain his Philippine passport three (8* 'onths later.
#8
!he CME)EC En Banc differentiated Arnado fro' Fill2 Du, the Portu1uese national %ho
sou1ht naturali6ation as a /ilipino citi6en and later applied for the rene%al of his Portu1uese
passport. !hat Arnado did not appl2 for a 7S passport after his renunciation does not 'a:e his
use of a 7S passport less of an act that violated the ath of Renunciation he too:. It %as still a
positive act of representation as a 7S citi6en before the i''i1ration officials of this countr2.
!he CME)EC, in rulin1 favorabl2 for Arnado, stated BDet, as soon as he %as in possession of
his Philippine passport, the respondent alread2 used the sa'e in his subse4uent travels abroad.B
##
Fe cannot a1ree %ith the CME)EC. !hree 'onths fro' ;une is Septe'ber. If indeed, Arnado
used his Philippine passport as soon as he %as in possession of it, he %ould not have used his 7S
passport on 0# Nove'ber 0,,..
Besides, ArnadoCs subse4uent use of his Philippine passport does not correct the fact that after he
renounced his forei1n citi6enship and prior to filin1 his certificate of candidac2, he used his 7S
passport. In the sa'e %a2 that the use of his forei1n passport does not undo his ath of
Renunciation, his subse4uent use of his Philippine passport does not undo his earlier use of his
7S passport.
Citi6enship is not a 'atter of convenience. It is a bad1e of identit2 that co'es %ith attendant
civil and political ri1hts accorded b2 the state to its citi6ens. It li:e%ise de'ands the conco'itant
dut2 to 'aintain alle1iance to oneCs fla1 and countr2. Fhile those %ho ac4uire dual citi6enship
b2 choice are afforded the ri1ht of suffra1e, those %ho see: election or appoint'ent to public
office are re4uired to renounce their forei1n citi6enship to be deservin1 of the public trust.
9oldin1 public office de'ands full and undivided alle1iance to the Republic and to no other.
Fe therefore hold that Arnado, b2 usin1 his 7S passport after renouncin1 his A'erican
citi6enship, has recanted the sa'e ath of Renunciation he too:. Section #,(d* of the )ocal
3overn'ent Code applies to his situation. 9e is dis4ualified not onl2 fro' holdin1 the public
office but even fro' beco'in1 a candidate in the Ma2 0,+, elections.
Fe no% resolve the ne?t issue.
Resolvin1 the third issue necessitates revisitin1 !opacio v. Paredes
#&
%hich is the $urisprudential
sprin1 of the principle that a second-placer cannot be proclai'ed as the %inner in an election
contest. !his doctrine 'ust be re-e?a'ined and its soundness once a1ain put to the test to address
the ever-recurrin1 issue that a second-placer %ho loses to an ineli1ible candidate cannot be
proclai'ed as the %inner in the elections.
!he /acts of the case are as follo%s=
n ;une #, +.+0, a 1eneral election %as held in the to%n of I'us, Province of Cavite, to fill the
office of 'unicipal president. !he petitioner, /elipe !opacio, and the respondent, Ma?i'o Abad,
%ere opposin1 candidates for that office. !opacio received #8, votes, and Abad 0<+. Abad
contested the election upon the sole 1round that !opacio %as ineli1ible in that he %as reelected
the second ti'e to the office of the 'unicipal president on ;une #, +.+0, %ithout the four 2ears
re4uired b2 Act No. 0,#& havin1 intervened.
#"
Abad thus 4uestioned the eli1ibilit2 of !o p a c i o on the basis of a statutor2 prohibition for
see:in1 a second re-election absent the four 2ear interruption.
!he often-4uoted phrase in !opacio v. Paredes is that Bthe %reath of victor2 cannot be transferred
fro' an ineli1ible candidate to an2 other candidate %hen the sole 4uestion is the eli1ibilit2 of the
one receivin1 a pluralit2 of the le1all2 cast ballots.B
#@
!his phrase is not even the ratio decidendi> it is a 'ere obiter dictu'. !he Court %as co'parin1
Bthe effect of a decision that a candidate is not entitled to the office because of fraud or
irre1ularities in the elections ? ? ? %ith that produced b2 declarin1 a person ineli1ible to hold
such an office.B
!he co'plete sentence %here the phrase is found is part of a co'parison and contrast bet%een
the t%o situations, thus=
A1ain, the effect of a decision that a candidate is not entitled to the office because of fraud or
irre1ularities in the elections is 4uite different fro' that produced b2 declarin1 a person
ineli1ible to hold such an office. In the for'er case the court, after an e?a'ination of the ballots
'a2 find that so'e other person than the candidate declared to have received a pluralit2 b2 the
board of canvassers actuall2 received the 1reater nu'ber of votes, in %hich case the court issues
its 'anda'us to the board of canvassers to correct the returns accordin1l2> or it 'a2 find that the
'anner of holdin1 the election and the returns are so tainted %ith fraud or ille1alit2 that it cannot
be deter'ined %ho received a pluralit2 of the le1all2 cast ballots. In the latter case, no 4uestion
as to the correctness of the returns or the 'anner of castin1 and countin1 the ballots is before the
decidin1 po%er, and 1enerall2 the onl2 result can be that the election fails entirel2. In the for'er,
%e have a contest in the strict sense of the %ord, because of the opposin1 parties are strivin1 for
supre'ac2. If it be found that the successful candidate (accordin1 to the board of canvassers*
obtained a pluralit2 in an ille1al 'anner, and that another candidate %as the real victor, the
for'er 'ust retire in favor of the latter. In the other case, there is not, strictl2 spea:in1, a contest,
as the %reath of victor2 cannot be transferred fro' an ineli1ible candidate to an2 other candidate
%hen the sole 4uestion is the eli1ibilit2 of the one receivin1 a pluralit2 of the le1all2 cast ballots.
In the one case the 4uestion is as to %ho received a pluralit2 of the le1all2 cast ballots> in the
other, the 4uestion is confined to the personal character and circu'stances of a sin1le
individual.
#<
(E'phasis supplied*
Note that the sentence %here the phrase is found starts %ith BIn the other case, there is not,
strictl2 spea:in1, a contestB in contrast to the earlier state'ent, BIn the for'er, %e have a contest
in the strict sense of the %ord, because of the opposin1 parties are strivin1 for supre'ac2.B
!he Court in !opacio v. Paredes cannot be said to have held that Bthe %reath of victor2 cannot be
transferred fro' an ineli1ible candidate to an2 other candidate %hen the sole 4uestion is the
eli1ibilit2 of the one receivin1 a pluralit2 of the le1all2 cast ballots.B
A proper readin1 of the case reveals that the rulin1 therein is that since the Court of /irst Instance
is %ithout $urisdiction to tr2 a dis4ualification case based on the eli1ibilit2 of the person %ho
obtained the hi1hest nu'ber of votes in the election, its $urisdiction bein1 confined Bto deter'ine
%hich of the contestants has been dul2 electedB the $ud1e e?ceeded his $urisdiction %hen he
Bdeclared that no one had been le1all2 elected president of the 'unicipalit2 of I'us at the
1eneral election held in that to%n on # ;une +.+0B %here Bthe onl2 4uestion raised %as %hether
or not !opacio %as eli1ible to be elected and to hold the office of 'unicipal president.B
!he Court did not rule that !opacio %as dis4ualified and that Abad as the second placer cannot
be proclai'ed in his stead. !he Court therein ruled=
/or the fore1oin1 reasons, %e are of the opinion and so hold that the respondent $ud1e e?ceeded
his $urisdiction in declarin1 in those proceedin1s that no one %as elected 'unicipal president of
the 'unicipalit2 of I'us at the last 1eneral election> and that said order and all subse4uent
proceedin1s based thereon are null and void and of no effect> and, althou1h this decision is
rendered on respondentsK ans%er to the order to sho% cause, unless respondents raised so'e ne%
and additional issues, let $ud1'ent be entered accordin1l2 in & da2s, %ithout costs. So ordered.
#.
n closer scrutin2, the phrase relied upon b2 a host of decisions does not even have a le1al basis
to stand on. It %as a 'ere pronounce'ent of the Court co'parin1 one process %ith another and
e?plainin1 the effects thereof. As an independent state'ent, it is even illo1ical.
)et us e?a'ine the state'ent=
B? ? ? the %reath of victor2 cannot be transferred fro' an ineli1ible candidate to an2 other
candidate %hen the sole 4uestion is the eli1ibilit2 of the one receivin1 a pluralit2 of the le1all2
cast ballots.B
Fhat prevents the transfer of the %reath of victor2 fro' the ineli1ible candidate to another
candidateL
Fhen the issue bein1 decided upon b2 the Court is the eli1ibilit2 of the one receivin1 a pluralit2
of the le1all2 cast ballots and ineli1ibilit2 is thereafter established, %hat stops the Court fro'
ad$ud1in1 another eli1ible candidate %ho received the ne?t hi1hest nu'ber of votes as the
%inner and besto%in1 upon hi' that B%reathLB
An ineli1ible candidate %ho receives the hi1hest nu'ber of votes is a %ron1ful %inner. B2
e?press le1al 'andate, he could not even have been a candidate in the first place, but b2 virtue of
the lac: of 'aterial ti'e or an2 other intervenin1 circu'stances, his ineli1ibilit2 'i1ht not have
been passed upon prior to election date. Conse4uentl2, he 'a2 have had the opportunit2 to hold
hi'self out to the electorate as a le1iti'ate and dul2 4ualified candidate. 9o%ever,
not%ithstandin1 the outco'e of the elections, his ineli1ibilit2 as a candidate re'ains unchan1ed.
Ineli1ibilit2 does not onl2 pertain to his 4ualifications as a candidate but necessaril2 affects his
ri1ht to hold public office. !he nu'ber of ballots cast in his favor cannot cure the defect of
failure to 4ualif2 %ith the substantive le1al re4uire'ents of eli1ibilit2 to run for public office.
The popular vote does not cure the
ineligibility of a candidate.
!he ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutor2 re4uire'ents for 4ualifications and
dis4ualifications of candidates. Fhen the la% re4uires certain 4ualifications to be possessed or
that certain dis4ualifications be not possessed b2 persons desirin1 to serve as elective public
officials, those 4ualifications 'ust be 'et before one even beco'es a candidate. Fhen a person
%ho is not 4ualified is voted for and eventuall2 1arners the hi1hest nu'ber of votes, even the
%ill of the electorate e?pressed throu1h the ballot cannot cure the defect in the 4ualifications of
the candidate. !o rule other%ise is to tra'ple upon and rent asunder the ver2 la% that sets forth
the 4ualifications and dis4ualifications of candidates. Fe 'i1ht as %ell %rite off our election
la%s if the voice of the electorate is the sole deter'inant of %ho should be proclai'ed %orth2 to
occup2 elective positions in our republic.
!his has been, in fact, alread2 laid do%n b2 the Court in /rivaldo v. CME)EC
&,
%hen %e
pronounced=
? ? ?. !he fact that he %as elected b2 the people of Sorso1on does not e?cuse this patent
violation of the salutar2 rule li'itin1 public office and e'plo2'ent onl2 to the citi6ens of this
countr2. !he 4ualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased b2 the electorate alone.
!he %ill of the people as e?pressed throu1h the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineli1ibilit2,
especiall2 if the2 'ista:enl2 believed, as in this case, that the candidate %as 4ualified.
bviousl2, this rule re4uires strict application %hen the deficienc2 is lac: of citi6enship. If a
person see:s to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he 'ust o%e his total lo2alt2 to this
countr2 onl2, ab$urin1 and renouncin1 all fealt2 and fidelit2 to an2 other state.
&+
(E'phasis
supplied*
!his issue has also been $urisprudentiall2 clarified in Eelasco v. CME)EC
&0
%here the Court
ruled that the rulin1 in Hui6on and Sa2a-an1 cannot be interpreted %ithout 4ualifications lest
BElection victor2 ? ? ? beco'es a 'a1ic for'ula to b2pass election eli1ibilit2 re4uire'ents.B
&8
Fe have ruled in the past that a candidateCs victor2 in the election 'a2 be considered a sufficient
basis to rule in favor of the candidate sou1ht to be dis4ualified if the 'ain issue involves defects
in the candidateCs certificate of candidac2. Fe said that %hile provisions relatin1 to certificates of
candidac2 are 'andator2 in ter's, it is an established rule of interpretation as re1ards election
la%s, that 'andator2 provisions re4uirin1 certain steps before elections %ill be construed as
director2 after the elections, to 1ive effect to the %ill of the people. Fe so ruled in Hui6on v.
CME)EC and Sa2a-an1 v. CME)EC=
!he present case perhaps presents the proper ti'e and opportunit2 to fine-tune our above rulin1.
Fe sa2 this %ith the reali6ation that a blan:et and un4ualified readin1 and application of this
rulin1 can be frau1ht %ith dan1erous si1nificance for the rule of la% and the inte1rit2 of our
elections. /or one, such blan:et5un4ualified readin1 'a2 provide a %a2 around the la% that
effectivel2 ne1ates election re4uire'ents ai'ed at providin1 the electorate %ith the basic
infor'ation to 'a:e an infor'ed choice about a candidateCs eli1ibilit2 and fitness for office.
!he first re4uire'ent that 'a2 fall %hen an un4ualified readin1 is 'ade is Section 8. of the
)3C %hich specifies the basic 4ualifications of local 1overn'ent officials. E4uall2 susceptive of
bein1 rendered toothless is Section @# of the EC that sets out %hat should be stated in a CC.
Section @< 'a2 li:e%ise be e'asculated as 'ere dela2 in the resolution of the petition to cancel
or den2 due course to a CC can render a Section @< petition useless if a candidate %ith false
CC data %ins. !o state the obvious, candidates 'a2 ris: falsif2in1 their CC 4ualifications if
the2 :no% that an election victor2 %ill cure an2 defect that their CCs 'a2 have. Election
victor2 then beco'es a 'a1ic for'ula to b2pass election eli1ibilit2 re4uire'ents. (Citations
o'itted*
Fhat %ill stop an other%ise dis4ualified individual fro' filin1 a see'in1l2 valid CC,
concealin1 an2 dis4ualification, and e'plo2in1 ever2 strate12 to dela2 an2 dis4ualification case
filed a1ainst hi' so he can sub'it hi'self to the electorate and %in, if %innin1 the election %ill
1uarantee a disre1ard of constitutional and statutor2 provisions on 4ualifications and
dis4ualifications of candidatesL
It is i'perative to safe1uard the e?pression of the soverei1n voice throu1h the ballot b2 ensurin1
that its e?ercise respects the rule of la%. !o allo% the soverei1n voice spo:en throu1h the ballot
to tru'p constitutional and statutor2 provisions on 4ualifications and dis4ualifications of
candidates is not de'ocrac2 or republicanis'. It is electoral anarch2. Fhen set rules are
disre1arded and onl2 the electorateCs voice spo:en throu1h the ballot is 'ade to 'atter in the
end, it precisel2 serves as an open invitation for electoral anarch2 to set in.1wphi1
$aquiling is not a second%placer as
he obtained the highest number of
votes from among the qualified
candidates.
Fith ArnadoCs dis4ualification, Ma4uilin1 then beco'es the %inner in the election as he
obtained the hi1hest nu'ber of votes fro' a'on1 the 4ualified candidates.
Fe have ruled in the recent cases of Aratea v. CME)EC
&#
and ;alos$os v. CME)EC
&&
that a
void CC cannot produce an2 le1al effect.
!hus, the votes cast in favor of the ineli1ible candidate are not considered at all in deter'inin1
the %inner of an election.
Even %hen the votes for the ineli1ible candidate are disre1arded, the %ill of the electorate is still
respected, and even 'ore so. !he votes cast in favor of an ineli1ible candidate do not constitute
the sole and total e?pression of the soverei1n voice. !he votes cast in favor of eli1ible and
le1iti'ate candidates for' part of that voice and 'ust also be respected.
As in an2 contest, elections are 1overned b2 rules that deter'ine the 4ualifications and
dis4ualifications of those %ho are allo%ed to participate as pla2ers. Fhen there are participants
%ho turn out to be ineli1ible, their victor2 is voided and the laurel is a%arded to the ne?t in ran:
%ho does not possess an2 of the dis4ualifications nor lac:s an2 of the 4ualifications set in the
rules to be eli1ible as candidates.
!here is no need to appl2 the rule cited in )abo v. CME)EC
&"
that %hen the voters are %ell
a%are %ithin the real' of notoriet2 of a candidateCs dis4ualification and still cast their votes in
favor said candidate, then the eli1ible candidate obtainin1 the ne?t hi1her nu'ber of votes 'a2
be dee'ed elected. !hat rule is also a 'ere obiter that further co'plicated the rules affectin1
4ualified candidates %ho placed second to ineli1ible ones.
!he electorateCs a%areness of the candidateCs dis4ualification is not a prere4uisite for the
dis4ualification to attach to the candidate. !he ver2 e?istence of a dis4ualif2in1 circu'stance
'a:es the candidate ineli1ible. Ano%led1e b2 the electorate of a candidateCs dis4ualification is
not necessar2 before a 4ualified candidate %ho placed second to a dis4ualified one can be
proclai'ed as the %inner. !he second-placer in the vote count is actuall2 the first-placer a'on1
the 4ualified candidates.
!hat the dis4ualified candidate has alread2 been proclai'ed and has assu'ed office is of no
'o'ent. !he subse4uent dis4ualification based on a substantive 1round that e?isted prior to the
filin1 of the certificate of candidac2 voids not onl2 the CC but also the procla'ation.
Section " of R.A. No. ""#" provides=
Section ". Effect of Dis4ualification Case. - An2 candidate %ho has been declared b2 final
$ud1'ent to be dis4ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for hi' shall not be
counted. If for an2 reason a candidate is not declared b2 final $ud1'ent before an election to be
dis4ualified and he is voted for and receives the %innin1 nu'ber of votes in such election, the
Court or Co''ission shall continue %ith the trial and hearin1 of the action, in4uir2, or protest
and, upon 'otion of the co'plainant or an2 intervenor, 'a2 durin1 the pendenc2 thereof order
the suspension of the procla'ation of such candidate %henever the evidence of his 1uilt is
stron1.
!here %as no chance for ArnadoCs procla'ation to be suspended under this rule because Arnado
failed to file his ans%er to the petition see:in1 his dis4ualification. Arnado onl2 filed his Ans%er
on +& ;une 0,+,, lon1 after the elections and after he %as alread2 proclai'ed as the %inner.
!he dis4ualif2in1 circu'stance surroundin1 ArnadoCs candidac2 involves his citi6enship. It does
not involve the co''ission of election offenses as provided for in the first sentence of Section
"< of the 'nibus Election Code, the effect of %hich is to dis4ualif2 the individual fro'
continuin1 as a candidate, or if he has alread2 been elected, fro' holdin1 the office.
!he dis4ualif2in1 circu'stance affectin1 Arnado is his citi6enship. As earlier discussed, Arnado
%as both a /ilipino and an A'erican citi6en %hen he filed his certificate of candidac2. 9e %as a
dual citi6en dis4ualified to run for public office based on Section #,(d* of the )ocal 3overn'ent
Code.
Section #, starts %ith the state'ent B!he follo%in1 persons are dis4ualified fro' runnin1 for an2
elective local position.B !he prohibition serves as a bar a1ainst the individuals %ho fall under an2
of the enu'eration fro' participatin1 as candidates in the election.
Fith Arnado bein1 barred fro' even beco'in1 a candidate, his certificate of candidac2 is thus
rendered void fro' the be1innin1. It could not have produced an2 other le1al effect e?cept that
Arnado rendered it i'possible to effect his dis4ualification prior to the elections because he filed
his ans%er to the petition %hen the elections %ere conducted alread2 and he %as alread2
proclai'ed the %inner.
!o hold that such procla'ation is valid is to ne1ate the prohibitor2 character of the
dis4ualification %hich Arnado possessed even prior to the filin1 of the certificate of candidac2.
!he affir'ation of ArnadoKs dis4ualification, althou1h 'ade lon1 after the elections, reaches
bac: to the filin1 of the certificate of candidac2. Arnado is declared to be not a candidate at all in
the Ma2 0,+ , elections.
Arnado bein1 a non-candidate, the votes cast in his favor should not have been counted. !his
leaves Ma4uilin1 as the 4ualified candidate %ho obtained the hi1hest nu'ber of votes.
!herefore, the rule on succession under the )ocal 3overn'ent Code %ill not appl2.
F9ERE/RE, pre'ises considered, the Petition is 3RAN!ED. !he Resolution of the
CME)EC En Bane dated 0 /ebruar2 0,++ is hereb2 ANN7))ED and SE! ASIDE.
Respondent RMME) ARNAD 2 CA3C is dis4ualified fro' runnin1 for an2 local
elective position. CASAN MACDE MAH7I)IN3 is hereb2 DEC)ARED the dul2 elected
Ma2or of Aaus%a1an, )anao del Norte in the +, Ma2 0,+, elections.
!his Decision is i''ediatel2 e?ecutor2.
)et a cop2 of this Decision be served personall2 upon the parties and the Co''ission on
Elections.
No pronounce'ent as to costs.
S RDERED.
MARIA OURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief ;ustice
FE CNC7R=
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
tr ali1nMBcenterBN
PRES"ITERO &. %EASCO, &R.
Associate ;ustice
TERESITA &. EONARDO'DE
CASTRO
Associate ;ustice
ARTURO D. "RION
Associate ;ustice
DIOSDADO M. PERATA
Associate ;ustice
UCAS P. "ERSAMIN
Associate ;ustice
MARIANO C. DE CASTIO
Associate ;ustice
RO"ERTO A. A"AD
Associate ;ustice
MARTIN S. %IARAMA, &R.
Associate ;ustice
RO"ERTO A. A"AD
Associate ;ustice
MARTIN S. %IARAMA, &R.
Associate ;ustice
&OSE PORTUGA PERE(
Associate ;ustice
&OSE CATRA MENDO(A
Associate ;ustice
"IEN%ENIDO . RE)ES
Associate ;ustice
ESTEA M. PERAS'"ERNA"E
Associate ;ustice
MAR%IC MARIO %ICTOR $. EONEN
Associate ;ustice
C E R ! I / I C A ! I N
Pursuant to Section +8, Article EIII of the Constitution, I certif2 that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case %as assi1ned to the %riter of the
opinion of the Court.
MARIA OURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief ;ustice
$oo*+o*,-
+
Rollo, pp. 8<-#..
0
Id. at &,-"@.
8
Id. at 00., E?hibit B+-MR,B Certificate of )ive Birth.
#
Id. at 0#+, E?hibit B+0-MR,B ath of Alle1iance.
&
Id. at 08., E?hibit B+,-MR,B rder of Approval.
"
Ibid, Note 0 and Anne? B+B of Dul2 Eerified Ans%er, Rollo, p. +", and Anne? B0B of
Me'orandu' for Respondent, Rollo, p. +@<.
@
Ibid, p. +", and +@<.
<
Id. at +8., Anne? BBB of Petition for Dis4ualification> Id. at +@@, Anne? B+B
Me'orandu' for Respondent.
.
Id. at +8#, Petition to Dis4ualif2 Ro''el Ca1oco Arnado and5or to Cancel his
Certificate of Candidac2 for Municipal Ma2or of Aaus%a1an, )anao del Norte in
Connection %ith Ma2 +,, 0,+, )ocal and National Elections.
+,
Id. at +#,, Certification.
++
Id. at +.+, E?hibit BAB of Me'orandu' for Petitioner filed before the Co''ission on
Elections.
+0
Id. at +.0, E?hibit BCB of Me'orandu' for Petitioner filed before the Co''ission on
Elections.
+8
Records, pp. @"-@@.
+#
Rollo, p. #0, Resolution dated & ctober 0,+,, penned b2 Co''issioner Rene E.
Sar'iento, and concurred in b2 Co''issioner Ar'ando C. Eelasco and 3re1orio D.
)arra6abal.
+&
Id.
+"
Id. at #8.
+@
Id. at ##.
+<
Id.
+.
Id. at #"-#@, Resolution dated & ctober 0,+,.
0,
Id at #<.
0+
Id. at 0+#, A'ended Motion for Reconsideration.
00
Id. at +.8-0++, Eerified Motion for Reconsideration> id. at 0+0-0#", A'ended Motion
for Reconsideration> id. at 0#@-0&#, Re$oinder to PetitionerCs Co''ent5pposition to
RespondentCs A'ended Motion for Reconsideration.
08
Id. at 00#, A'ended Motion for Reconsideration.
0#
A verified petition to dis4ualif2 a candidate pursuant to Sec. "< of the EC and the
verified petition to dis4ualif2 a candidate for lac: of 4ualifications or possessin1 so'e
1rounds for dis4ualification 'a2 be filed on an2 da2 after the last da2 for filin1 of
certificates of candidac2 but not later than the date of procla'ation. (Sec. #.B.+.
CME)EC Resolution No. <"."*.
0&
Rollo, pp. "#-"", CME)EC En Banc Resolution dated 0 /ebruar2 0,++.
0"
Id. at "., Separate Concurrin1 pinion.
0@
Id. at @0-@8, Dissentin1 pinion of Co''issioner Rene E. Sar'iento, citin1 the cases
of !ora2no, Sr. v. CME)EC, 88@ SCRA &@# I0,,,J> Santos v. CME)EC, +,8 SCRA
"0< I+.<+J> Sanche6 v. Del Rosario, + SCRA ++,0 I+."+J> and Re2es v. CME)EC, .@
SCRA &,, I+.<,J.
0<
8"@ Phil. +80 (+...*.
0.
Id. at +#0-+#8.
8,
3.R. No. +,&.+., " Au1ust +..0, 0+0 SCRA 8,..
8+
Section &(0* of R.A. No. .00&.
80
See e?cerpts of deliberations of Con1ress reproduced in AAS;S v. Datu'anon1, 3.R.
No. +",<"., ++ Ma2 0,,@, &08 SCRA +,<.
In resolvin1 the aforecited issues in this case, resort to the deliberations of
Con1ress is necessar2 to deter'ine the intent of the le1islative branch in draftin1
the assailed la%. Durin1 the deliberations, the issue of %hether Rep. Act No. .00&
%ould allo% dual alle1iance had in fact been the sub$ect of debate. !he record of
the le1islative deliberations reveals the follo%in1=
? ? ? ?
Pursuin1 his point, Rep. Dilan1alen noted that under the 'easure, t%o situations
e?ist O the retention of forei1n citi6enship, and the reac4uisition of Philippine
citi6enship. In this case, he observed that there are t%o citi6enships and therefore,
t%o alle1iances. 9e pointed out that under the Constitution, dual alle1iance is
ini'ical to public interest. 9e thereafter as:ed %hether %ith the creation of dual
alle1iance b2 reason of retention of forei1n citi6enship and the reac4uisition of
Philippine citi6enship, there %ill no% be a violation of the Constitution.
Rep. )ocsin underscored that the 'easure does not see: to address the
constitutional in$unction on dual alle1iance as ini'ical to public interest. 9e said
that the proposed la% ai's to facilitate the reac4uisition of Philippine citi6enship
b2 speed2 'eans. 9o%ever, he said that in one sense, it addresses the proble' of
dual citi6enship b2 re4uirin1 the ta:in1 of an oath. 9e e?plained that the proble'
of dual citi6enship is transferred fro' the Philippines to the forei1n countr2
because the latest oath that %ill be ta:en b2 the for'er /ilipino is one of
alle1iance to the Philippines and not to the 7nited States, as the case 'a2 be. 9e
added that this is a 'atter %hich the Philippine 1overn'ent %ill have no concern
and co'petence over. Rep. Dilan1alen as:ed %h2 this %ill no lon1er be the
countr2Ks concern, %hen dual alle1iance is involved.
Rep. )ocsin clarified that this %as precisel2 his ob$ection to the ori1inal version
of the bill, %hich did not re4uire an oath of alle1iance. Since the 'easure no%
re4uires this oath, the proble' of dual alle1iance is transferred fro' the
Philippines to the forei1n countr2 concerned, he e?plained.
? ? ? ?
Rep. Dilan1alen as:ed %hether in the particular case, the person did not denounce
his forei1n citi6enship and therefore still o%es alle1iance to the forei1n
1overn'ent, and at the sa'e ti'e, o%es his alle1iance to the Philippine
1overn'ent, such that there is no% a case of dual citi6enship and dual alle1iance.
Rep. )ocsin clarified that b2 s%earin1 to the supre'e authorit2 of the Republic,
the person i'plicitl2 renounces his forei1n citi6enship. 9o%ever, he said that this
is not a 'atter that he %ishes to address in Con1ress because he is not a 'e'ber
of a forei1n parlia'ent but a Me'ber of the 9ouse.
? ? ? ?
Rep. )ocsin replied that it is i'perative that those %ho have dual alle1iance
contrar2 to national interest should be dealt %ith b2 la%. 9o%ever, he said that the
dual alle1iance proble' is not addressed in the bill. 9e then cited the Declaration
of Polic2 in the bill %hich states that BIt is hereb2 declared the polic2 of the State
that all citi6ens %ho beco'e citi6ens of another countr2 shall be dee'ed not to
have lost their Philippine citi6enship under the conditions of this Act.B 9e stressed
that %hat the bill does is reco1ni6e Philippine citi6enship but sa2s nothin1 about
the other citi6enship.
Rep. )ocsin further pointed out that the proble' of dual alle1iance is created
%herein a natural-born citi6en of the Philippines ta:es an oath of alle1iance to
another countr2 and in that oath sa2s that he ab$ures and absolutel2 renounces all
alle1iance to his countr2 of ori1in and s%ears alle1iance to that forei1n countr2.
!he ori1inal Bill had left it at this sta1e, he e?plained. In the present 'easure, he
clarified, a person is re4uired to ta:e an oath and the last he utters is one of
alle1iance to the countr2. 9e then said that the proble' of dual alle1iance is no
lon1er the proble' of the Philippines but of the other forei1n countr2. (E'phasis
supplied*
88
See Discussion of Senators Enrile and Pi'entel on Sec. #,(d* of the )ocal 3overn'ent
Code, reproduced in Cordora v. CME)EC, 3.R. No. +@".#@, +. /ebruar2 0,,., &<,
SCRA +0.
B2 electin1 Philippine citi6enship, such candidates at the sa'e ti'e fors%ear
alle1iance to the other countr2 of %hich the2 are also citi6ens and thereb2
ter'inate their status as dual citi6ens. It 'a2 be that, fro' the point of vie% of the
forei1n state and of its la%s, such an individual has not effectivel2 renounced his
forei1n citi6enship. !hat is of no 'o'ent as the follo%in1 discussion on P#,(d*
bet%een Senators Enrile and Pi'entel clearl2 sho%s=
SENA!R ENRI)E=
Mr. President, I %ould li:e to as: clarification of line #+, pa1e +@= BAn2 person
%ith dual citi6enship B is dis4ualified to run for an2 elective local position. 7nder
the present Constitution, Mr. President, so'eone %hose 'other is a citi6en of the
Philippines but his father is a forei1ner is a natural-born citi6en of the Republic.
!here is no re4uire'ent that such a natural-born citi6en, upon reachin1 the a1e of
'a$orit2, 'ust elect or 1ive up Philippine citi6enship.
n the assu'ption that this person %ould carr2 t%o passports, one belon1in1 to
the countr2 of his or her father and one belon1in1 to the Republic of the
Philippines, 'a2 such a situation dis4ualif2 the person to run for a local
1overn'ent positionL
SENA!R PIMEN!E)=
!o '2 'ind, Mr. President, it onl2 'eans that at the 'o'ent %hen he %ould %ant
to run for public office, he has to repudiate one of his citi6enships.
SENA!R ENRI)E=
Suppose he carries onl2 a Philippine passport but the countr2 of ori1in or the
countr2 of the father clai's that person, nevertheless, as a citi6enL No one can
renounce. !here are such countries in the %orld.
SENA!R PIMEN!E)=
Fell, the ver2 fact that he is runnin1 for public office %ould, in effect, be an
election for hi' of his desire to be considered a /ilipino citi6en.
SENA!R ENRI)E=
But, precisel2, Mr. President, the Constitution does not re4uire an election. 7nder
the Constitution, a person %hose 'other is a citi6en of the Philippines is, at birth,
a citi6en %ithout an2 overt act to clai' the citi6enship.
SENA!R PIMEN!E)=
Des. Fhat %e are sa2in1, Mr. President, is= 7nder the 3entle'anKs e?a'ple, if he
does not renounce his other citi6enship, then he is openin1 hi'self to 4uestion.
So, if he is reall2 interested to run, the first thin1 he should do is to sa2 in the
Certificate of Candidac2 that= BI a' a /ilipino citi6en, and I have onl2 one
citi6enship.B
SENA!R ENRI)E=
But %e are tal:in1 fro' the vie%point of Philippine la%, Mr. President. 9e %ill
al%a2s have one citi6enship, and that is the citi6enship invested upon hi' or her
in the Constitution of the Republic.
SENA!R PIMEN!E)=
!hat is true, Mr. President. But if he e?ercises acts that %ill prove that he also
ac:no%led1es other citi6enships, then he %ill probabl2 fall under this
dis4ualification.
8#
Supra note 0< at +&8.
8&
7nder Co''on%ealth Act No. "8, a /ilipino citi6en 'a2 lose his citi6enship=
(+* B2 naturali6ation in a forei1n countr2>
(0* B2 e?press renunciation of citi6enship>
(8* B2 subscribin1 to an oath of alle1iance to support the constitution or la%s of a
forei1n countr2 upon attainin1 t%ent2-one 2ears of a1e or 'ore>
(#* B2 acceptin1 co''ission in the 'ilitar2, naval or air service of a forei1n
countr2>
(&* B2 cancellation of the certificate of naturali6ation>
("* B2 havin1 been declared b2 co'petent authorit2, a deserter of the Philippine
ar'ed forces in ti'e of %ar, unless subse4uentl2, a plenar2 pardon or a'nest2 has
been 1ranted= and
(@* In case of a %o'an, upon her 'arria1e, to a forei1ner if, b2 virtue of the la%s
in force in her husbandCs countr2, she ac4uires his nationalit2.
8"
See Note @.
8@
Id.
8<
Id.
8.
See Cordora v. CME)EC, 3.R. No. +@".#@, +. /ebruar2 0,,., &<, SCRA +0.
#,
Sec. #,. Dis4ualifications. - !he follo%in1 persons are dis4ualified fro' runnin1 for
an2 elective local position=
? ? ? ?
(d* !hose %ith dual citi6enship> ? ? ?.
#+
/ivaldo v. CME)EC, 0&& Phil. .8#, .## (+.<.*.
#0
Rollo, p. #", Resolution dated & ctober 0,+,.
#8
Id. at 0+., A'ended Motion for Reconsideration.
##
Id. at "", Resolution dated ,0 /ebruar2 0,++.
#&
08 Phil. 08< (+.+0*.
#"
Id. at 0#,.
#@
Id. at 0&&.
#<
Id at 0&#-0&&.
#.
Id. at 0&<
&,
Supra note #+.
&+
Id. at .##-.#&.
&0
3.R. No. +<,,&+, 0# Dece'ber 0,,<, &@& SCRA &.,, "+#-"+&.
&8
Id. at "+&, citin1 Hui6on v. CME)EC, 3.R. No. +@@.0@, +& /ebruar2 0,,<, &#&
SCRA "8&, Sa2a-an1 v. CME)EC, #"0 Phil. 8@8 (0,,8*.
&#
3. R. No. +.&00., . ctober 0,+0.
&&
3.R. Nos. +.808@5+.8&8", . ctober 0,+0.
&"
3.R. No. +,&+++, 8 ;ul2 8 +..0, 0++ SCRA 0.@, 8+0.