FRIVALDO VS.

COMELEC
FACTS:
1995, Frivaldo filed coc for Governor Sorsogon about 3 weeks before the election.
Lee, another candidate filed a petition to disqualify Frivaldo by reason of not being a citizen of the Philippines, and
that his coc be cancelled. A week before the election, COMELEC granted petition.
MFR was filed by Frivaldo which remained unacted until after the elections. Thus, his candidacy continued and he
was voted during the elections.Few days after the Election, COMELEC En Banc previous decision.
Frivaldo garnered the highest number of votes in the said election. Lee filed a petition praying for his proclamation
as Governor. Lee was then proclaimed as Governor.
Frivaldo filed a petition for annulment of the proclamation of Lee and for his own proclamation alleging that he had
already taken his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines which he filed a petition for repatriation month
after the election. But application was stil in 1994.
Frivaldos motion was recognized and was then proclaimed as Governor.
ISSUES:
W/N Frivaldos repatriation was valid and legal. If it, did was it able to cure his lack of citizenship. If not, may it be
given a retroactive effect?
DECISION:
On the legal issue of repatriation,lis mota. LGC 1991 requires Phil Cit. as a qualification for elective official
including prov governor. Sec 39 Qualifications: 1 elec official mist be cit of phil 2 reg voter o the brgy, municpalty,
city,or provinc; 3 in case of saguniang panlalawgan, panlungsod, bayan, the distrct where he intends to be elected 4
residence of at least 1 yr immed preceding election 5 able to read and write Fil. Or any other language or dialect.
Candidate for governor, vce gov or member os sanguniang panlalawigan, mayor , vice mayr, , or member of
sanguniang panglungsid or highly urbanized cities mst be at least 23 yers old on day of election.
Under phil law, cit is reaquired by direct act of congress, naturalization, by repatriation. Frivaldo claims that he tried
1 drect acts of congress but failed due to political rivalries, 2 naturalizatio buut rejected due to jurisdicational
substantial and procedural defects.
He was elected gverner 1988, 1992, and 1995. He is disuaified twice from holding ofis. Repat was his last resort. It
was questioned that his repat should only be effective 2pm of june 30 but the law says, must exist at time of election.
____ the law doesnt specify any time or date when candidate must poses citi. Unlike residence. And age. Phil cit is
a indispecsable req for holding elective public office. And the purpse is to ensure that no alien, shall gvern our
people, country or umit of territory. Official only vegins to dischre fx oly after hs proclamation and day law madates
his term of office to begin.
Frivaldo re assumed cit june 30 1995, the very day when the term of office of governor began, he was alreddy
qualified to gvern hs native sorsogon. Literak meaning over liber construction.
Law itends citizenship to be distinct from voter.
CITI SHALL BE RECKONED FRM DATE OF PROCLAMATION, NOT NECESSARILY THE DATE OF
ELECTION OR DATE OF FILING OF COC.
Issue on retractivity: repatt of frivaldo retroacted to date of filing his application on 1994. Under civil law, laws are
not retroactive but the exception is, when the statute is curative or remedial. Or when it creates a new right. The
reason: law intended that it apply retroactive or restroospective manner to events, situatios abd rransactios
subsequent to passage of sch law.
Issue on continuti of disqualification: denial of cit cannt govern a persons future status with finaltuty. Reason: the
person may reaquire or for that matter lose his cit under any of the modes recognized by law for the purpose
Issue on sucesionL rule is the ineligibility of a candidate receving majority votes does not entitle the elible candidate
receiving the next hghest no of votes to be delared elected. A minority ir defeated candidate cant be demed elected to
the ofis.
**
The Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of COMELEC.
Under Sec. 39 of the Local Government Code, "(a)n elective local official must be:
A Citizen of the Philippines
The court held that the law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship.
At the same time, literally speaking, such qualification of citizenship should thus be possessed when the elective
[elected] official begins to govern. In the instant case, Frivaldo re-assumed his citizenship on the very day the term
of office of governor (and other elective official) began; he was therefore already qualified to be proclaimed, to hold
the office and to discharge the functions and responsibilities thereof as of said date.

LABO VS COMELEC (citizenship was subject of the quo waranto)

Pt proclaimed mayor elect in baguio (1988). QUp waranto petition iled by respondent 6 days after but no filing fee
was paid. . It was paid 21 days after proclamation. Thus ineffectual. Deemed filed only when the filing fee is fully
paid.
Sec 23 quo waranto- sworn statement, done vy a voter, with the commission withn 10 daysafter proclamation
This was denide by resp saying, it was paid on time, and ahead. Immediate Annulment of proclamation
and restraining. Comelec regarded the pt as a pre proclamation controversy. Becos filing of quo waranto
was deemed suspended.
Court ruled: filed on time. That fee was paid 19 day period as extended by th ppendencyof the pt when its
treated by comelec as a ppreproclamation proceedingwhich didnt require filing fee

VALLES VS COMELEC
FACTS:
Rosalinda Lopez born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. In 1949, (15 yo)
she left Australia and came to settle in the Philippines. later married a Filipino and has since then participated in the
electoral process not only as a voter but as a candidate. 1998 elections, she ran for governor but Valles filed a
petition for her disqualification as candidate on the ground that she is an Australian.
1992-ran as gverner, elecred but contested in a pt for quo waranto. Here, she was able tprove it by documentary
proofs of the it of his father, and prove her cit by the principle of jus sanguinis. Pts evidence was inadequate.
1995- ran again. Contested by dismissed by comelec.
1998- cit was questioned again. No by Valles.
Comelec ruled a fil cit, qualified to run becos 1her father is a Filipino and by jus sanguinis in 1987,2 married to a
Filipino, 3 that she renounced autralian cit iin 1992 before DEpt of Imigration and Ethnic affairs of austrilia and her
Australian passport was cancelled, 4 there were resolutions declaring her a Filipino.
Pt argued that these acts (dec of comelec) doesnt automatically restore statuts. For Valles, to re aquire phil cit, he
must compky with mandatory req for repatriation and that her election o public office ddnt mean restrration of fil cit,
Coupled with renunciation, she is now statkess which is disqualified for public office.
Valles argues that ot was improper to use res judicata. --- no merit becos we adhere too jus sanguinis(follows cit of
prents regardless of place of birth). This is wwas vefore the 1935 consti so, goverened by Jones Law. So defined
wgo are cit of the Phil:
1. Inhabitants who were Spanish on april 11, 1891 and resided children born subsequently except if preserved
a,egiance to crown of spain. THIS WAS MET. His father was born 1879, and proven by records.
1935 Conti 1.Phil cit at time of adoption , 2 born with foreign before adoption had been elected to public office 3
whose fathers are cit 4 mothers are citm and upon majorit, elect phil cit5 naturalized. Jus sanguinis was subsequently
retained (1973 and 1987 conti)thus Rsalinda is a FIl cit. The fact that sh was born in Aus, not tantamount to losing
her {hil cit.If Australia follows jus solis, then Rosalinda can claim dual cit.
Valles claims she has lost phil cit becs of her applction for Alien Certificate of Registration and immigrant certificate
of residence in 1988 and issuance of Australian passport n 1988. No merit. For cit to be lost, ther mist be express
renunciation. Holder of such doesnt militater her claim of fil cit. Having such only mean here asswrtion of
Australian cit. before she eggectively renounces the same. Thus, she was a dual cit. But Commonwealth 63, a chil of
Fili parnets born in another country gas bot been included ground to lose Fil cit.
Pt: alleged that even tho shes dual, she is disqualified. Court clarifjed that this means dual allegiance. Those with
mere dual cit is not a disqualication. For dual, it is eough that they elect Phil cit upon filing of coc to terminate status
as dual. Filing of coc is sufficed to renounce foreign cit effectively removing disqualiftion. Rison: at coc, you
declarethat you are a fil, and that you support and defend and maintain true faith and allegiance. And under oath. An
effective renunciation of foreign cit. so when it filed in 1992, aust cit terminated already. And her subsequent acts of
declaration of renun. And cancellation of passport.
Issue of Res Judicta: True but exception:
1. Person cit raised as a material issue wher the person is a party
2. SG or hs authorized rep took active part in the resolution
3. Finding on cit was affirmed by this court.
QUALIFIED TO RUN!

MERCADO VS MANZADO
Facts:

Edu Manzano, Ernesto Mercado and Gabriel Daza were candidates for V Mayor 1998 elections.
A certain Ernesto Mamaril filed a pt for disqualification on Manzano contends an American citizen thus
suspending the proclamation.(based on records of BI and misrepresented himself as natural born)
MAnzados defense: yes, registered as foreigner in BI under alien cert of reg, and alleged Fili becos born in
1955 of Filipino mother and father.
Born in US and consi American cit under their laws.
COMELEC's granted the pt cancelling the coc of Manzado
on the grounds that dual citizens are
disqualified under Sec 40 of the LGC from running any elective position.
Manzado filed MFR on May 8, 1998 and the motion remained pending even after the election.
The petitioner, Mercado sought to intervene in the case for disqualification which was opposed by the
private respondent.

COMELEC en banc rendered its resolution reversing COMELEC's Second Division, declaring that
private respondent Manzano is qualified to run for Vice mayor of Makati.
Pursuant to the resolution rendered by the COMELEC enbanc, on August 31, 1998, the board of canvassers
proclaimed private respondent as the Vice Mayor of the city of Makati.
Thus, this petition for Certiorari praying to set aside the resolution of the COMELEC en banc and to
declare private respondent Manzano, disqualified to hold the office Vice Mayor of Makati.
Under 1935 Consstu, he is a natural born. As both prents are fil. At time of birth. He was brought here to the Phil.
Didnt renounce phil cit, and ddint took oath of allegiance in US.Upn readhing hs age of majort, he registered as
voter and voted in 1992, 1995, and 1998. Whoch effectively renounced hs US cit.
Issues:
1.
2.
3.

WON, petitioner Mercado has personality to bring this suit considering that he was not an original party in
the case for disqualification filed by Ernesto Mamaril.
WON dual citizenship a ground for disqualification?
WON there was a valid election of citizenship?

Reasons:
1.

Yes, petitioner Mercado, has the right to bring suit. At the time Mercado filed a "Motion for Leave to File
Intervention" on May 20, 1998, there had been no proclamation of the winner, and petitioner's purpose was
precisely to have private respondent disqualified "from running for [an] elective local position" under
40(d) of R.A. No. 7160. If Ernesto Mamaril (who originally instituted the disqualification proceedings), a
registered voter of Makati City, was competent to bring the action, so was Mercado since the he was a rival
candidate for vice mayor of Makati City. Mercado had a right to intervene at that stage of the proceedings
for the disqualification against private respondent is clear from 6 of R.A. No. 6646 or the Electoral
Reforms Law of 1987 which provides that intervention may be allowed in proceedings for disqualification even after
election if there has been no final judgment rendered. Failure of COMELEC en banc to resolve petitioners
motion for intervention was tantamount to denial of the motion, justifying this petition for certiorari.

2.

NO. Invoking the maxim dura lex sed lex, petitioner contends that through Sec. 40(d) of the Local
Government Code (which declares as disqualified from running for elective local position Those with
dual-citizenship), Congress has command[ed] in explicit terms the ineligibility of persons possessing
dual allegiance to hold elective office. Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. Dual citizenship
is involuntary; it arises out of circumstances of birth or marriage, where a person is recognized to be a
national by two or more states. Dual allegiance is a result of a persons volition; it is a situation wherein a
person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. Dual citizenship is an
issue because a person who has this raises a question of which states law must apply to him/her, therefore
posting a threat to a countrys sovereignty. Hence, dual citizenship in the aforementioned disqualification
clause must mean dual allegiance. Therefore, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this
disqualification. Dual cit acquired in the ff:

Born of Fil fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follows jus soli.

Borb in Phil of fil mothers and laien fathers if by laws of their fathers country such children are cit of thear
country

Those who marry Aliens if by laws of the latters country the former are considered cit unless by their acts
or omission they are deemed to gace renounced phil cit.
Dual cit- concurrent application of diff laws if two or mores tates

3.

Yes, there was a valid election of citizenship. It should suffice that upon filing of certificates for candidacy,
such persons with dual citizenship have elected their Philippine citizenship to terminate their dual
citizenship. In private respondents certificate of candidacy, he made these statements under oath on March
27, 1998: I am a Filipino citizenNatural-born. I am not a permanent resident of, or immigrant to, a
foreign country. I am eligible for the office I seek to be elected. I will support and defend the Constitution
of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance theretoThe filing of such certificate of
candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he
might have as a dual-citizen.

You and Adult years, practiced profession as artist.

PT DISMISSED.
ROSELLER DEGUZMAN VS COMELEC
De Guzman and resp were candidates for Vmayr in N. Ecija 2007 election. On april 2007, resp filed againsy disquali
of pt alleging r a fil cit. but an immigrant and resident of US> Pt admitted a natiralized American. Jan 2006, he
applied dual cit. under Citizzen Retention and RE acquisition . Upon approval, he took oath of allegiance in ROP on
the same yr. Thus believing to exercise civil and political rights.
Pt won on 2007 election but protested by res on grounds of irregularity and massive cheating. Granted ( the basis is
that, he had taken oath of allegiance but doesnt mean it had renounced American cit. Also, renunciation shud have
been done before running). This means it needs personal and ssworn renun of any and all foreighn cit.
Issue:Whether or not, he is disqualified on the ground that there was no express renunci?
Ruling:
Issue on Mootno. the resolution of the issue is an indispensable req in holding eecltive office.
Issue on cit- Disqualified. RA 9225 enacted ti allow re acquisition of Phil cit. for :1 natural born who have lost their
phil cit by naturaltxation as cit of foreign countru, and 2 natural born of phil who after effectivity of law becomes cit
of foreign country. Law provides that they are deened to have re acquired or retained phil cit upon taking oath of
allegiance.
Pt falls under the first no question thats he acquired phil cit. after taking oath on 2006. But it must beemhasized that
additional req on tose who wish ti seek electice public office. Sec 2: Those seeking elective public office in phil shall
meet the quali for holding such public office as required by the consti and existing laws and at the tome of filing of
coc, make a personal and sowrn renunciation of any and all foreign cit before any public officer authorized to admin
oath.
Under RA 9225, filing of coc doesnt ipso facto amount to renunciationof his foreign cit. Ruling or frivaldo and
manzado dont apply here (ra 9225). Here, there are twin req: 1 swear oth of allegiance and 2 executung
renunciation of foreign cit. Law requires those seeking elective blic office who either retained their phil cit. or those
qho re acquired it, to make personal and sworn renunciation of any and all all foregn citinship bfre a public officer
authorized to admini simul or bfore fling of coc. To qualify as candidate in Phul election must onli have one ct.
Diffrenece: oath of allegiance in cocdoesnt constitue the personal and sowrn statement under ra 9225. It is a gen
requi for all those who wish to run as candidate . While renunciation of foreign cit is an addi req only for those who
have retained or re acquired phil cit under ra 9225 and who seeks elective post.

DISQUALIFIED. BECOS NO PERSONAL AND SWORN RENUN.

Sobejana vs comelec
Facts: Pt natural born with Fil parents on 1944. 1984, she became naturalized Australian cit by marriage. 2005, she
filed application to re acquire phil citpursuant to ra 9225 so took oath in 2005 after appli cation was approved. 206he filed unsworn declaration of renunciation of austrlian cit and certified that she has ceased to be an Australian cit.
2007- she run for mayor,lost bid so run again in 2010 as Vmayor.Proclaimed then the winniner. Later, registered
voters (resp)filre quo warantoquestioing eligibility. Alleged he is a dual citand failed to excute personal and sworn
renun. Of any and all foreign cit.
Pt contents, she is not dual since 2007 hence the req on sworn renun doesnt apply to her and that the sworn is a
mere formal and not mandatory req.
Ruling:
Issue on resp are ept elgibility to hold public the fact that it wasnt questioned in 2007 and 10 cant operate as
abestoppel to the pt for quo waranto. Omnibus election code provides where pt questioning quali of registered
cndiates to run for which his coc is filed.
1. Before election (verified pt), material representation is false. Not later than 25 days from filing of coc.
2. After election, quo waranto. Sworn. 10 days from proclamation.
Issue on failure to renounce Australian citRA 9225 akkows retention and re acwuisito of phil cit. for natural born.
Who lost phil cit. Natural born after effectvity of this act become cit of foreign shall retain Phil cit uon taking ths
oath.
Pt has validly reqaquired Fil cit when she took oath of allegiance in 2005. So dual sya. In 2006, she filed
renunciation of Australian cit. but not under oath. Contrary to sec 5 that renun of foreign cit must be sworn befre an
officer autho to administer oath. RA 9225 requires oath of allegiance to ROP and renounce their foreign cit if wish to
run elective posts.
Pt act of running public ofis doesnt suffice to serve as an effective renunciation of her Australian cit. while court
previously declared that filing person with dual cit. of coc is already considered renunciation of foreign cit, such has
been superseded by enactment of ra 9225 on aug 29, 2003.providing additional req of personal and sworn renum of
foreign cit.
The fact thatpt won doesnt cure the defect. Winnig doesnt validare the ekection of disaualified candaiet becos
application of constitutional and statutory provision on disqual is not a matter of popularity.

MAQUILING VS COMELEC
-Arnado is a natural born fil, acquired American cit bu naturalition. He had taken oath and renounced but used pasort
6x.
ReSP Arnado failed to advance evidence to suppor plea in court but presented accomplishments as mayor and
reiterated that he has taken oath of allegiance not oly twice but 6 x.Alleged that the relevant question is the efficacy
of the renunciation and not the taking of oath of allegiance. Resp alleged Sec 349 of Immiration and naturalization
act of US having the effct of expatriation when he executed affidavit of renun of American cit. on 2009. And thus
claims he was divester amer cit. If indeed resp was divesterd, the fact that sge has used hs US pasoirt after excuting
affidavit repudiates this claim. Ciurt canttake judicial notice of foreign laws. , which must be presented as ublic doc
of foreign country and must be evidenced by an official publication. Failed also to provide that once divested, it will
be reacwuired by using US passport.
Arnado by his own declaration at the time of filing of coc, was dual. Application of phil law not foreign law to
decide who is disqualified.
RA 992phil cit who have become cit of aother country shall be deemed not to have lost phil cit. when read together
with LGC, those running shall solely and exclusively a Filipino cit. To allow a former Filipino who re aquire ohil cit
to continue using foreign passport whichindicates recognition of foreign state of an indi even after the fil has
renounced his foreign cit is to allow a complete disregard of this policy. LGC disqualified thos dual cit. for running..
Use of ppassort- positive declrtion that one is a cit of that country. Or that the country tht isues it recognizes he is a
national
Altho his Phil passport was already release, he continues to use his US passport. IF we allow dual to run for public
office to renounce their foreign cit and afterwards continue using foreign passport, we are gving special privilege
for these dual threby junking prohibition in sec 40 lgc.

MARQUEZ VS COMELEC
Marquez, defeated candidate 1992 election. Avered that at time resp filed coc, a criminal charge against him (10
counts of insurance fraud or grandtheft of personal prop was pending before MC of los angeles. A warrant was
issued, and claimed has yet to be servedon on account of his alleged flight: fro that coutry.
Before 1992 election, ot for cancelation of resp coc was filed by petitioner. Resp proclaimed governor elect in may
1002
I: WON resp who at the time of filing of coc is said to be facing criminal chrges I foreign court and evading a
warrant for his arrestcomes within the term fugitive from justice contemplated in LGC> therefore disqualified.
Sec 40 ra 7160- disqualifies fugitive from justice includes not oly those who flee after comviction to avoid
punishment but those who after being charged flee to avoid prosecution.
** if the disqu neabt were to be so taken as to embrace those who merely are facing criminal charges.
LGC: Disqualificationfugitive from justice in criminal or non political cases here or abroad. Fygi refers
To a person whi gas veen convicted by final judgment.Fugitive doesnt means a [erson convicted by final judgment.
It includes those who after being charged flee to avoid presocutio .
Remanded BACK TO COMELEC
oPINIONS:
davide: definition provided final judgment is inordinate. And this expands unreasonably the scopre of
disqualification. Becos it disqualifies all those convicted by finl judgment, with no distinction on the penaltie,s,
serving or had evaded service. Negates the word fugitive That issue on dis doesnt involve presumption of
innocence,

CAASI VS CA
He alleged ad
Facts: Miguel, elected for municioal mayor in 1998. Contested by Mateo Caasi , rival candidatethe ground that he is
agreen card holder hence, a permanent resident of USA ot Bulinao.
Miguel admitted green car issued to him by US immigration. But denied being a permanent resident of USA.
He alleged that it was for more convenience for purposes of freely entering for periodical medical examination and
visit children.alleged resident in Pangasinan, voted n all previous elections inclu plebiscitw for ratification of 9187
costi and congressional election 1987.
ISsure: wON a green card is a proeef that the holder is a ppermanent resident of US, 2, WON resp had waived his
status as a ppermanent resident of or imigrnt to the US pprior to local election 1988.
Ruling:
Sec 68 Omnibus DisqualificationAny person who is a permnanet resident or immigrant of foreign country shall
be disqualified tor un for any elective office unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign country.
Court considered the answer of Migue in its application for mmigrat vosa and alien registration in US embassy
Manila. The queston waslength of intended staypermantly. So the green card subsequently issued was on its
face, in bold letters as RESIDENT ALIEN. (back: can work and reside in US). Miguels immigration in 1984
constituded abandonment of domicile and residence in Phil.
Immigration- the act of removing into one place to another with the intent of residing.
Miguel as resident alien of US, owes temporary allegiance to US , country in which he resides.
Sec 18 art XI of the conti providing thatAny public officer or employee who seeks to chnge his citizen or aquire
status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by lawnpt applicable to Miguel for
he acquired the status of an immigrat of US before he was elected to public office not during his tenure as mayor of
Bolinao. Omnibus applies yo him.
Returned to phil in 1987, die he waive his status when he presned himself for candidate in 1988?law requires that
the candaiate who is a green card holder must have waived his tsatus as permanent resident or immigrant . his act of
filig coc for elective office of pgil didnt itself constitute a waiver of hs sattus as permanent resident or immigrant. It
should be manifested by some act of acts independednt of and done pprior to filig of candidacy for elective office in
ths country Absence waiver, he is disqualified.
One requirement to be a candaiate is 1 yer residence at the time of filing of cocMiguel onl resideded for 3 months
after his return and before he run for mayor.
thekaw gas reserved that privilege fir uts citizens who have cast their vote with our country without metal
reservation or purpose of evasion. Assumption: those who are resident alien of a foregn countryare incapable of
such entire devition to the intrest and welfare of theor homeland for with one eye on their public duties here, they
must keep another eye on their duties under the laws of foreign country of their choice in order to preserve their
status as permanent resident.
The green card is conclusive prrof despite his occasional visit in Phil. Waiver if such immigrant status shud be
indubitable as his application for it. .

LABO VS COMELEC
Oetitioner was proclaimed mayor elect in 1988 Baguio.
Comelec decision in 1982- pt is a citizen of Phil.
Commion on immigration and deportation 1988- pt is not a citizen. In the proceeding before comelec, there is no
direct proof that pt had been formally naturalized as cit of Australia. This conjecture was eventually rejected as
merely inferred from the fact that he had married an Australian cit, obtain Australian passport and registered as alien
with the CID upon his return to ths country in 1980. Decidion of CID took uto account official statement from
Australian gvt in 1984 that pt was still Australian cit by reason of hs naturalization in 1976.
**See tab for note from embassy**
Pt does not question the authenticity of the evidences. Doesnt deny he obtained astralian passport and used it in
coming back to the phil. Where he even declared vfore immigration authorities thet he was an alien. He later asked
for a change of is status from immigrant to a retirning former phil cit. and was granted immigrant cert of residence.
He made a lot of statements, declaring he is an Australian.
(No res judicate in cit. identity of parties- notcomplied)
Here, there is no inding that he automatically ceased to be a Filipino becos of that marriage. He became cit of
Australia becos he was naturalized as such thru forma anad positive oricess , simplified in his case becos he was
married to an Australian. As a condition of naturaliztaion, ge formally took oath of allegiance and made affirmation
of allegiance.
Pt claims that his naturaloation only made him a dual cit. This is n contradiction of CA 63, enumerates modes by
which Phil cit can be lost:1 naturalization n foreign country 2express renunciation of cit 3 subscrbing to an oath of
allegiance to support constior laws of foreign , all are applicable to pt. Nat in Australia was annulled after it was
found oyt that hs marriage was bigamoys, that circumstance alone doesnt automatically restire his phil cit.
CA 63, amened by PD 725, phil cit may be reaquired by direct aact of congress , anturaliatio and repatriation. These
methods are not seen here by pt. this is the reason why CID rejected his application foor cancellation of alience
certificate of registration. Also the reason why we must deny hs present claim for recognition as cit oof phil.
Hence, he is not now nor on ethe dat of election 1988, a cit of pphil. He wasnt even a qualifeied voter in
constitherfore, ineligible to run for mayor. \\SEc 42 lgc qualif: 1. Cit of phil 2 23 yers old on election day 4 qualified
voter registered as such brgy, muni, coty or province where he propose to be elected 5 resident for 1 yer att time of
filing coc, 6able to read and write English, filipink and other local languages. The result of the election cant nullify
rhe qualifications for the office ow held by him. These quali are continuing requirementsonce any of thesem is lost
during incumbency, title to the office itself is deemed forfeited. Here, cit and voting req are not subsequently lost but
were not possessed at all on the day of election.
Resp, as secnd hghest vites cant replace position.