Arnado and applied the order of succession under Section 44 of the Local

Maquiling vs Comelec (2013) Government Code of 1991.

G.R. No. 195649 | 2013-04-16
Petitioner Casan Macode Maquiling who garnered the second highest number of
Subject votes in the 2010 mayoral elections, intervened in the case. He contests the
application of Section 44 of the LGC and argued that, as the second placer, he
Intervention in a Disqualification Case; Use of Foreign Passport After Renouncing should be proclaimed as the winner
Foreign Citizenship; Dual Citizenship; Citizenship Requirement For Elective Public
Office; Ineligibility of Winning Candidate in an Election; Right of Second-placer in an The Comelec En Banc reversed the Division and held that the use of a US passport
Election Contest did not undo Arnado’s earlier renunciation of his US citizenship.

Facts:

Rommel Arnado y Cagoco is a natural born Filipino citizen. He underwent The issues before the Supreme Court are (1) WON intervention is allowed in a
naturalization as a US citizen disqualification case; (2) WON the use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign
citizenship affects one’s qualifications to run for public office; and (3) WON the rule
Arnado applied for repatriation under Republic Act No. 9225 before the Consulate on succession in the Local Government Code is applicable.
General of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA and on July 10, 2008, he took his
Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and was granted an Order of
Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition. On April 3, 2009, Arnado
again took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic and executed an Affidavit of Held:
Renunciation of his foreign citizenship Disqualification Case

On November 30, 2009, Arnado filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of 1. While the original petition before the COMELEC is one for cancellation of the
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, where he declared that he is a Filipino citizen and that certificate of candidacy and/or disqualification, the COMELEC First Division and the
he is not a permanent resident of, or immigrant to, a foreign country. COMELEC En Banc correctly treated the petition as one for disqualification.

Linog C. Balua (Balua), another mayoralty candidate, filed a petition to disqualify

Arnado and/or to cancel his certificate of candidacy contending that Arnado is not a
resident of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and that he is a foreigner, attaching thereto 2. The effect of a disqualification case is enunciated in Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646
a certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration dated 23 April 2010 indicating the a.k.a Electoral Reforms Law of 1987:
nationality of Arnado as “USA-American.” Balua also showed travel records showing
that Arnado has been using his US Passport in his trips in and out of the country in
2009.
Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who has been declared by
final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him
shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
While the case was pending, the 2010 elections were held and Arnado garnered the before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning
highest number of votes and was proclaimed as the winning candidate for Mayor of number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the
Kauswagan. trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the
complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the
The Comelec First Division held that Arnado’s continued use of his US passport after suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt
renouncing his US citizenship effectively negated his Affidavit of Renunciation. It is strong
treated the petition of Balua as one for disqualification, annulled the proclamation of
Intervention in a Disqualification Cas in Commonwealth Act No. 63 constituting renunciation and loss of philippine
citizenship, it is nevertheless an act which repudiates the very oath of
3. Intervention of a rival candidate in a disqualification case is proper when renunciation required for a former Filipino citizen who is also a citizen of another
there has not yet been any proclamation of the winner. country to be qualified to run for a local elective position.

4. Under Section 6 of RA 6646, intervention may be allowed in proceedings for 11. We agree with the COMELEC En Banc that such act of using a foreign passport
disqualification even after election if there has yet been no final judgment rendered. does not divest Arnado of his Filipino citizenship, which he acquired by repatriation.
The elevation of the case by the intervenor prevents it from attaining finality. It is However, by representing himself as an American citizen, Arnado voluntarily
only after this Court has ruled upon the issues raised in this instant petition that the and effectively reverted to his earlier status as a dual citizen. Such reversion
disqualification case originally filed by Balua against Arnado will attain finality. was not retroactive; it took place the instant Arnado represented himself as an
American citizen by using his US passport. Such reversion to dual citizenship status
Use of Foreign Passport After Renouncing Foreign Citizenship effectively imposed on him a disqualification to run for an elective local position.

5. The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a Dual Citizenship (By naturalization
positive and voluntary act of representation as to one’s nationality and
citizenship; it does not divest Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but 12. Arnado’s category of dual citizenship is that by which foreign citizenship is
it recants the Oath of Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an acquired through a positive act of applying for naturalization. This is distinct from
elective position. those considered dual citizens by virtue of birth, who are not required by law to
take the oath of renunciation as the mere filing of the certificate of candidacy
6. Arnado took the Oath of Allegiance and renounced his foreign citizenship. After already carries with it an implied renunciation of foreign citizenship.
performing these twin requirements required under Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 or
the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, he became eligible to run
for public office.
13. Dual citizens by naturalization, on the other hand, are required to take not
only the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines but also to
personally renounce foreign citizenship in order to qualify as a candidate for
7. By renouncing his foreign citizenship, he was deemed to be solely a Filipino public office.
citizen, regardless of the effect of such renunciation under the laws of the foreign
country. However, this legal presumption does not operate permanently and is 14. By the time he filed his certificate of candidacy on 30 November 2009, Arnado
open to attack when, after renouncing the foreign citizenship, the citizen performs was a dual citizen enjoying the rights and privileges of Filipino and American
positive acts showing his continued possession of a foreign citizenship. citizenship. He was qualified to vote, but by the express disqualification under
Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code, he was not qualified to run for a local
8. Between 03 April 2009, the date Arnado renounced his foreign citizenship, and elective position.
30 November 2009, the date he filed his COC, he used his US passport four times,
actions that run counter to the affidavit of renunciation he had earlier executed. By
using his foreign passport, Arnado positively and voluntarily represented 15. Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code applies to his situation. He is
himself as an American, in effect declaring before immigration authorities of both disqualified not only from holding the public office but even from becoming a
countries that he is an American citizen, with all attendant rights and privileges candidate in the May 2010 elections.
granted by the United States of America.
Citizenship Requirement For Elective Public Office
9. The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath. It requires an absolute
and perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all civil 16. The citizenship requirement for elective public office is a continuing one.
and political rights granted by the foreign country which granted the citizenship. It must be possessed not just at the time of the renunciation of the foreign citizenship
but continuously. Any act which violates the oath of renunciation opens the
10. While the act of using a foreign passport is not one of the acts enumerated citizenship issue to attack.
17. While those who acquire dual citizenship by choice are afforded the right of 23. A void COC cannot produce any legal effect. Thus, the votes cast in favor of
suffrage, those who seek election or appointment to public office are required to the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determining the winner of
renounce their foreign citizenship to be deserving of the public trust. Holding public an election.
office demands full and undivided allegiance to the Republic and to no other. The
purpose of the Local Government Code in disqualifying dual citizens from running 24. When there are participants who turn out to be ineligible, their victory is voided
for any elective public office would be thwarted if we were to allow a person who has and the laurel is awarded to the next in rank who does not possess any of the
earlier renounced his foreign citizenship, but who subsequently represents himself disqualifications nor lacks any of the qualifications set in the rules to be eligible as
as a foreign citizen, to hold any public office. candidates.

Ineligibility of Winning Candidate in an Electio 25. The electorate’s awareness of the candidate’s disqualification is not a
prerequisite for the disqualification to attach to the candidate. The very
existence of a disqualifying circumstance makes the candidate
18. An ineligible candidate who receives the highest number of votes is a wrongful ineligible. Knowledge by the electorate of a candidate’s disqualification is not
winner. Ineligibility does not only pertain to his qualifications as a candidate but necessary before a qualified candidate who placed second to a disqualified one can
necessarily affects his right to hold public office. The number of ballots cast in his be proclaimed as the winner. The second-placer in the vote count is actually the
favor cannot cure the defect of failure to qualify with the substantive legal first-placer among the qualified candidates.
requirements of eligibility to run for public office.

19. When a person who is not qualified is voted for and eventually garners the
highest number of votes, even the will of the electorate expressed through the ballot
cannot cure the defect in the qualifications of the candidate.

20. With Amado being barred from even becoming a candidate, his certificate of
candidacy is thus rendered void from the beginning. It could not have produced any
other legal effect except that Amado rendered it impossible to effect his
disqualification prior to the elections because he filed his answer to the petition when
the elections were conducted already and he was already proclaimed the winner.

21. That the disqualified candidate has already been proclaimed and has assumed
office is of no moment. The subsequent disqualification based on a substantive
ground that existed prior to the filing of the certificate of candidacy voids not only
the COC but also the proclamation

Right of Second-placer in an Election Contes

22. Maquiling is not a second-placer as he obtained the highest number of

votes from among the qualified candidates. Arnado being a non-candidate, the
votes cast in his favor should not have been counted. This leaves Maquiling as the
qualified candidate who obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore, the rule
on succession under the Local Government Code will not apply.