Last Assignment.doc

8/9/2019 Last Assignment.doc

1/54


2/54

After the parties have submitted their respective pleadin#s,the Court, on !une &3, &''(, Resolved to consider the casesubmitted for decision.

=. R No. &-&&&

=n essence, it is the contention of petitioner abo that he is a$ilipino citizen. Alle#in# lac5 of trial on the merits as "ell asthe lac5 of opportunit% to be heard in abo v. Commission onElections +supra1, it is the submission of petitioner that hecan prove his $ilipino citizenship.

Petitioner cites the &'/- D2 case of )ance v. *erra+as +000D2 ((1, "herein it "as held that in provin# e:patriation, ane:patriatin# act an intent to relin4uish citizenship must beproved b% a preponderance of evidence.

Petitioner contends that no findin# "as made either b% theCommission on =mmi#ration or the Comelec as re#ards hisspecific intent to renounce his Philippine citizenship.

Petitioner also faults the Comelec for the supposedabbreviated proceedin#s in 2PA No. '(6-(' "hich denied

him ade4uate opportunit% to present a full6dress presentationof his case. Thus> a1 onl% one +&1 da% "as set for hearin# ofthe case, i.e., Ma% 0, &''( b1 t"o da%s later, Ma% 3, &''(the hearin# "as set c1 instead of holdin# a hearin#, theComelec issued the 4uestioned resolution on Ma% ', &''(.

=f onl% to refresh the mind of petitioner abo, as "ell as thatof his counsel, records disclose that summons "ere issuedb% respondent Comelec as earl% as March (9, &''( follo"edb% a tele#ram on April &, &''(. But petitioner chose to i#norethe same. Came April &, &''(, petitioner *rte#a filed amotion to declare petitioner abo in default. *ver6e:tendin#him +abo1 the benefit of due process, respondent Comelecissued another order dated April (0, &''(, this time directin#

the Actin# Cit% Election Re#istrar of Ba#uio to personall%serve the summons. The alle#ed dela% in the resolution of2PA No. '(6-(' can onl% be attributed to petitioner abo andno one else. Thus, the respondent Comelec in its resolutiondated Ma% ', &''( stated>

*n Ma% 0, &''(, the Actin# Re#ional ElectionRe#istrar called this case for reception of evidence.2urprisin#l%, "hile as of that date respondent hadnot %et filed his Ans"er, a la"%er appeared for him.

The petitioner +*rte#a1 presented the certificate ofcandidac% of respondent Ramon . abo, !r., "hichcontained in item ' thereof the verified statementthat respondent is a 8natural6born8 $ilipino citizen.To prove that respondent is not a $ilipino citizen,petitioner submitted the decision of the 2upremeCourt in 8Ramon . abo, !r., petitioner, v. Comelec,et al.,8 R No. /330, Au#ust &, &'/', thedispositive portion of "hich states>

?@ERE$*RE, petitioner Ramon !. +sic1 abo, !r. ishereb% declared N*T a citizen of the Philippinesand therefore =2FDA=$=E from continuin# toserve as Ma%or of Ba#uio Cit%. @e is ordered toACATE his office and surrender the same to theice6Ma%or of Ba#uio Cit% once this decisionbecomes final and e:ecutor%.

No evidence "as adduced for the respondent as infact he had no Ans"er as of the hearin#.

*n Ma% , &''(, respondent +abo1 filed his verified Ans"er, insistin# that he is a $ilipino citizen andcontinue to maintain and preserve his $ilipinocitizenship that he does not hold an Australiancitizenship that the doctrine of res udicata does notappl% in citizenship and that 8e:istin# facts supporthis continuous maintenance and holdin# ofPhilippine citizenship8 and 8supervenin# events no"preclude the application of the rulin# in the abo v.Comelec case and the respondent +abo1 no" hold

and eno%s Philippine citizenship.

o evidence has been o##ered by respondent tosho hat these existing #acts and superveningevents are to preclude the application o# the Labodecision. +emphasis supplied1

The Commission is bound b% the final declarationthat respondent is not a $ilipino citizen.Conse4uentl%, respondent7s verified statement inhis certificate of candidac% that he is a 8natural6born8 $ilipino citizen is a false materialrepresentation.8 +Rollo, pp. 060/ R No. &-&&&1

Dp to this moment, petitioner abo still failed to submit ascintilla of proof to shore his claim before this Court that hehas indeed reac4uired his Philippine citizenship.

=nstead, petitioner relies in the D2 case of )ance v. *erra+as%supra'. 2uffice it to state that petitioner has alread%pleaded )ance in his motion for reconsideration in Labo v.Comelec +supra Rollo, p. )91. @avin# been previousl%passed upon, the Court sees no pressin# need to re6e:amine the same and ma5e a len#th% dissertation thereon.

At an% rate, the fact remains that he has not submitted in theinstant case an% evidence, if there be an%, to prove his

reac4uisition of Philippine citizenship either before this Courtor the Comelec. *n this score alone, ?e find no #rave abuseof discretion committed b% respondent Comelec in cancellin#his +abo7s1 certificate of candidac% and declarin# that he isN*T a $ilipino citizen pursuant to our rulin# in the &'/' caseof Labo v. Comelec +supra1.

Petitioner abo claims, ho"ever, that 2ec. 9( 2 of the*mnibus Election Code 8operates as a le#islativel%mandated special repatriation proceedin#8 and that it allo"shis proclamation as the "innin# candidate since theresolution dis4ualif%in# him "as not %et final at the time theelection "as held.

The Court finds petitioner abo7s strained ar#ument 4ui:oticand untenable. =n the first place, 2ec. 9( of the *mnibusElection Code has alread% been repealed b% 2ec. 3 of RANo. 3303, to "it>

2ec. 3. E##ect o# /is"uali#ication Case. G An%candidate "ho has been declared b% final ud#mentto be dis4ualified shall not be voted for, and thevotes cast for him shall not be counted. 0# #or anyreason a candidate is not declared by #inal udgment be#ore an election to be dis"uali#ied andhe is voted for and receives the "innin# number ofvotes in such election, the Court or the Commissionshall continue ith the trial and hearing o# the

action, in"uiry, or protest and, upon motion of thecomplainant or an% intervenor, ma% during the pendency thereo# order the suspension o# the

2 | P a g e


3/54

proclamation o# such candidate henever theevidence o# his guilt is strong . +emphasis supplied1

A perusal of the above provision "ould readil% disclose thatthe Comelec can le#all% suspend the proclamation ofpetitioner abo, his reception of the "innin# number of votesnot"ithstandin#, especiall% so "here, as in this case. abofailed to present an% evidence before the Comelec to supporthis claim of reac4uisition of Philippine citizenship.

$urthermore, "e need onl% to reiterate "hat "e have statedin Labo v. Comelec +supra', viz.,>

Dnder CA No. 3), as amended b% P.. No. 9(,Philippine citizenship ma% be reac4uired b% a directact of Con#ress, b% naturalization, or b%repatriation. =t does not appear in the record, nordoes the petitioner claim, that he has reac4uiredPhilippine citizenship b% an% of these methods. @edoes not point to an% udicial decree ofnaturalization or to an% statute directl% conferrin#Philippine citizenship upon him. . . .

Petitioner abo7s status has not chan#ed in the case at bar.To reiterate, he +abo1 "as dis4ualified as a candidate forbein# an alien. @is election does not automaticall% restorehis Philippine citizenship, the possession of "hich is anindispensable re4uirement for holdin# public office +2ec. )',ocal overnment Code1.

2till, petitioner ta5es pains in raisin# a ne" ar#ument notliti#ated before the respondent Comelec. Petitioner claimsthat he has reac4uired his $ilipino citizenship b% citin# hisapplication for reac4uisition of Philippine citizenship filedbefore the *ffice of the 2olicitor eneral pursuant to P 9(and etter of =nstruction No. (9- 3+Rollo, pp. &&36&&' .R.No. &-&&&1.

To date, ho"ever, and despite favorable recommendation b%the 2olicitor eneral, the 2pecial Committee onNaturalization had %et acted upon said application forrepatriation. =ndeed, such fact is even admitted petitioner. =nthe absence of an% official action or approval b% the properauthorities, a mere application for repratriation, does not, andcannot, amount to an automatic reac4uisition of theapplicant7s Philippine citizenship.

==. R No. &-)/0

Petitioner *rte#a submits that since this Court did not issuea temporar% restrainin# order as re#ards the Ma% ', &''(resolution of respondent Comelec cancellin# abo7scertificate of candidac%, said resolution has alread% becomefinal and e:ecutor%. *rte#a further posits the vie" that as aresult of such finalit%, the candidate receivin# the ne:thi#hest number of votes should be declared Ma%or of Ba#uioCit%.

?e a#ree "ith *rte#a7s first proposition.

At the time petitioner abo filed his petition +R No. &-&&&1on Ma% &, &''(, the Ma% ', &''( resolution of respondentComelec cancellin# his +abo7s1 certificate of candidac% hadalread% become final and e:ecutor% a da% earlier, or on Ma%

&0, &''(, said resolution havin# been received b% petitionerabo on the same da% it "as promul#ated, i.e., Ma% ', &''(and in the interim no restrainin# order "as issued b% thisCourt.

Thus, 2ec. 9/ of the *mnibus Election Code provides>

2ec. 9/. Petition to den% due course or to cancel acertificate of candidac% G

::: ::: :::

+e1 The decision, order, or rulin# of the Commissionshall, a#ter #ive %&' days #rom receipt of a cop%

thereof b% the parties, be #inal and executory unlessstayed by the 1upreme Court . +emphasis supplied1

A similar provision is also found in 2ec. ), Rule )' of theComelec Rules of procedure, to "it>

2ec. ). /ecisions #inal a#ter #ive days. G /ecisionsinpre6proclamation cases and petitions to deny duecourse to or cancel certi#icates o# candidacy , todeclare a candidate as nuisance candidate or todis4ualif% a candidate, and to postpone or suspendelections shall become #inal and executory a#ter thelapse o# #ive %&' days #rom their promulgation,

unless restrained by the 1upreme Court . +emphasissupplied1

The resolution cancellin# abo7s certificate of candidac% onthe #round that he is not a $ilipino citizen havin# ac4uiredfinalit% on Ma% &0, &''( constrains Ds to rule a#ainst hisproclamation as Ma%or of Ba#uio Cit%.

To be#in "ith, one of the 4ualifications of an elective officialis that he must be a citizen of the Philippines. Thus, theocal overnment Code provides>

2ec. )'. 2uali#ications. G +a1 3n elective local

o##icial must be a citi+en o# the Philippines are#istered voter in the baran#a%, municipalit%, cit%,or province or, in the case of a member of thesan##unian# panlala"i#an, san##unian#panlun#sod, san##unian# ba%an, the district "herehe intends to be elected a resident therein for atleast one +&1 %ear immediatel% precedin# the da% ofthe election and able to read and "rite $ilipino oran% other local lan#ua#e or dialect. +emphasissupplied1

Dndoubtedl%, petitioner abo, not bein# a $ilipino citizen,lac5s the fundamental 4ualification for the contested office.Philippine citizenship is an indispensable re4uirement for

holdin# an elective office. As mandated b% la"> 8An electivelocal official must be a citizen of the Philippines.8

The issue here is citizenship andHor abo7s aliena#e G thever% essence "hich stri5es at the ver% core of petitionerabo7s 4ualification to assume the contested office, he bein#an alien and not a $ilipino citizen. The fact that he "aselected b% the maorit% of the electorate is of no moment. As"e have held in 4rivaldo v. Commission on Elections +&902CRA (0 ;&'/'

. . . The fact that he "as elected b% the people of2orso#on does not e:cuse this patent violation ofthe salutar% rule limitin# public office and

emplo%ment onl% to the citizens of this countr%. The4ualifications prescribed for elective office cannotbe erased b% the electorate alone. The "ill of the

3 | P a g e


4/54

people as e:pressed throu#h the ballot cannot curethe vice of ineli#ibilit%, especiall% if the% mista5enl%believed, as in this case, that the candidate "as4ualified. *bviousl%, this rule re4uires strictapplication "hen the deficienc% is lac5 ofcitizenship. =f a person see5s to serve in theRepublic of the Philippines, he must o"e his totallo%alt% to this countr% onl%, aburin# and renouncin#all fealt% and fidelit% to an% other state.

This brin#s us to the second issue raised b% petitioner*rte#a, i.e., "hether the dis4ualification of petitioner aboentitles the candidate +*rte#a1 receivin# the ne:t hi#hestnumber of votes to be proclaimed as the "innin# candidatefor ma%or of Ba#uio Cit%.

?e hold in the ne#ative. The dis4ualification of petitionerabo does not necessaril% entitle petitioner *rte#a as thecandidate "ith the ne:t hi#hest number of votes toproclamation as the Ma%or of Ba#uio Cit%.

?e ma5e mention of petitioner *rte#a because in hispetition, he alle#es that>

. . . the Ma% &&, &''( elections "ere held "ith bothherein petitioner +Roberto *rte#a1 and respondentAB* havin# been voted for the position of Ma%orand unofficial results indicate that i# the name o#respondent L3(5 ere deleted #rom the list o#candidates, herein petitioner %5rtega' ill beentitled to be proclaimed as Mayor-elect o# (aguioCity . +Rollo, p. 9, R No. &-)/0 emphasissupplied1

and further pra%s this Court 8to proclaim as the Ma%or6electof Ba#uio Cit% the candidate "ho ma% have #arnered themost number of votes after the e:clusion of the name of

respondent candidate AB*.8 +Rollo, p. &, 0bid .1 =mplicit,therefore, is petitioner *rte#a7s desire to be proclaimedMa%or6elect of Ba#uio Cit%.

As discussed hereunder, ho"ever, the Court finds *rte#a7spra%er devoid of merit.

?hile *rte#a ma% have #arnered the second hi#hestnumber of votes for the office of cit% ma%or, the fact remainsthat he "as not the choice of the soverei#n "ill. Petitionerabo "as over"helmin#l% voted b% the electorate for theoffice of ma%or in the belief that he "as then 4ualified toserve the people of Ba#uio Cit% and his subse4uentdis4ualification does not ma5e respondent *rte#a the

ma%or6elect. This is the import of the recent case of 3bella v.Comelec +(-& 2CRA () ;&''&

6hile it is true that 1PC o. 77-&8 as originally a petition to deny due course to the certi#icate o#candidacy o# Larra+abal and as #iled be#oreLarra+abal could be proclaimed, the #act remainsthat the local elections of $eb. &, &'// in theprovince of e%te proceeded ith Larra+abalconsidered as a bona #ide candidate. *he voters o#the province voted #or her in the sincere belie# thatshe as a "uali#ied candidate #or the position o#governor. :er votes as counted and she obtainedthe highest number o# votes. The net effect is that

petitioner lost in the election. @e "as repudiated b%the electorate. . . . ?hat matters is that in the eventa candidate #or an elected position ho is voted #or

and ho obtains the highest number o# votes isdis"uali#ied #or not possessing the eligibilityre"uirements at the time o# the election as provided by la, the candidate ho obtains the secondhighest number o# votes #or the same positioncannot assume the vacated position. +emphasissupplied1

*ur rulin# in 3bella applies s4uarel% to the case at bar and"e see no compellin# reason to depart therefrom. i5e

Abella, petitioner *rte#a lost in the election. @e "asrepudiated b% the electorate. @e "as obviousl% not thechoice of the people of Ba#uio Cit%.

Thus, "hile respondent *rte#a +R No. &-&&&1 ori#inall%filed a dis4ualification case "ith the Comelec +doc5eted as2PA6'(6-('1 see5in# to den% due course to petitioner7s+abo7s1 candidac%, the same did not deter the people ofBa#uio Cit% from votin# for petitioner abo, "ho, b% then,"as allo"ed b% the respondent Comelec to be voted upon,the resolution for his dis4ualification havin# %et to attain thede#ree of finalit% +2ec. 9/. *mnibus Election Code1.

And in the earlier case of Labo v. Comelec %supra1, ?e held>

$inall%, there is the 4uestion of "hether or not theprivate respondent, "ho filed the "uoarrantopetition, can replace the petitioner asma%or. @e cannot. The simple reason is that as heobtained onl% the second hi#hest number of votesin the election, he "as obviousl% not the choice ofthe people of Ba#uio Cit%.

The latest rulin# of the Court in this issue is 2antosv. Commission on Election, +&)9 2CRA 90-1decided in &'/. =n that case, the candidate "hoplaced second "as proclaimed elected after the

votes for his "innin# rival, "ho "as dis4ualified asa turncoat and considered a non6candidate, "ere alldisre#arded as stra%. =n effect, the second placer"on b% default. That decision "as supported b%ei#ht members of the Court then+Cuevas, $ ., ponente, "ith Ma5asiar, Concepcion,!r., Escolin, Relova, e la $uente, Alampa%, and

A4uino $$ ., concurrin#1 "ith three dissentin#+Teehan5ee, actin#C.$ ., Abad 2antos and Melencio6@errera1 and another t"o reservin# their votes+Plana and utierrez, !r.1. *ne "as on official leave+$ernando, C .$ .1

Re6e:aminin# that decision, the Court finds, and so

holds, that it should be reversed in favor of theearlier case of eronimo v. 2antos +&)3 2CRA0)1, "hich represents the more lo#ical anddemocratic rule. That case, "hich reiterated thedoctrine first announced in &'&( in Topacio vs.Paredes +() Phil. ()/1 "as supported b% tenmembers of the Court +utierrez, !r.,!., ponente, "ith Teehan5ee, Abad 2antos,Melencio6@errera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, e la$uente, Cuevas and Alampa%, $$ ., concurrin#1,"ithout an% dissent, . . . . There the Court held>

. . . it "ould be e:tremel% repu#nant to the basicconcept of the constitutionall% #uaranteed ri#ht to

suffra#e if a candidate "ho has not ac4uired themaorit% or pluralit% of votes is proclaimed a "innerand imposed as the representative of aconstituenc%, the maorit% of "hich have positivel%

4 | P a g e


5/54

declared throu#h their ballots that the% did notchoose him.

2ound polic% dictates that public elective offices arefilled b% those "ho have received the hi#hestnumber of votes cast in the election for that office,and it is a fundamental idea in all republican formsof #overnment that no one can be declared electedand no measure can be declared carried unless heor it receives a maorit% or pluralit% of the le#al votes

cast in the election. +(- Corpus !uris (nd, 2 (0), p.3931

The fact that a candidate "ho obtained the hi#hestnumber of votes is later declared to be dis4ualifiedor not eli#ible for the office to "hich he "as electeddoes not necessaril% entitle the candidate "hoobtained the second hi#hest number of votes to bedeclared the "inner of the elective office. The votescast for a dead, dis4ualified, or non6eli#ible personma% be valid to vote the "inner into office ormaintain him there. @o"ever, in the absence of astatute "hich clearl% asserts a contrar% political andle#islative polic% on the matter, if the votes "ere

cast in the sincere belief that that candidate "asalive, 4ualified, or eli#ible, the% should not betreated as stra%, void or meanin#less.

The rule, therefore, is> the ineli#ibilit% of a candidatereceivin# maorit% votes does not entitle the eli#iblecandidate receivin# the ne:t hi#hest number of votes to bedeclared elected. A minorit% or defeated candidate cannot bedeemed elected to the office.

=ndeed, this has been the rule in the Dnited 2tates since&/0' +2tate e: rel. unnin# v. iles, ( Am. ec. &0'1.

=t is therefore incorrect to ar#ue that since a candidate hasbeen dis4ualified, the votes intended for the dis4ualifiedcandidate should, in effect, be considered null and void. This"ould amount to disenfranchisin# the electorate in "homsoverei#nt% resides. At the ris5 of bein# repetitious, thepeople of Ba#uio Cit% opted to elect petitioner abo bona#ide, "ithout an% intention to misappl% their franchise, and inthe honest belief that abo "as then 4ualified to be theperson to "hom the% "ould entrust the e:ercise of thepo"ers of the #overnment. Dnfortunatel%, petitioner aboturned out to be dis4ualified and cannot assume the office.

?hether or not the candidate "hom the maorit% voted forcan or cannot be installed, under no circumstances can a

minorit% or defeated candidate be deemed elected to theoffice. 2urel%, the &(,3-( votes cast for petitioner *rte#a isnot a lar#er number than the (9,09& votes cast for petitionerabo +as certified b% the Election Re#istrar of Ba#uioCit% rollo, p. &-' R No. &-&&&1.

The rule "ould have been different if the electorate full%a"are in fact and in la" of a candidate7s dis4ualification soas to brin# such a"areness "ithin the realm of notoriet%,"ould nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineli#iblecandidate. =n such case, the electorate ma% be said to have"aived the validit% and efficac% of their votes b% notoriousl%misappl%in# their franchise or thro"in# a"a% their votes, in"hich case, the eli#ible candidate obtainin# the ne:t hi#her

number of votes ma% be deemed elected.

But this is not the situation obtainin# in the instant dispute. =thas not been sho"n, and none "as alle#ed, that petitionerabo "as notoriousl% 5no"n as an ineli#ible candidate,much less the electorate as havin# 5no"n of such fact. *nthe contrar%, petitioner abo "as even allo"ed b% no lessthan the Comelec itself in its resolution dated Ma% &-, &''(to be voted for the office of the cit% ma%or as its resolutiondated Ma% ', &''( den%in# due course to petitioner abo7scertificate of candidac% had not %et become final and subectto the final outcome of this case.

As aforesaid, the ineli#ibilit% of a candidate receivin# maorit%votes does not entitle the candidate receivin# the ne:thi#hest number of votes to be declared elected. *rte#afailed to satisf% the necessar% re4uisite of "innin# theelection either b% a maorit% or mere pluralit% of votessufficient to elevate him in public office as ma%or of Ba#uioCit%. @avin# lost in the election for ma%or, petitioner *rte#a"as obviousl% not the choice of the people of Ba#uio Cit%.

As a conse4uence of petitioners7 ineli#ibilit%, a permanentvacanc% in the contested office has occurred. This shouldno" be filled b% the vice6ma%or, in accordance "ith 2ec. 00of the ocal overnment Code, to "it>

Chapter (. acancies and 2uccession

2ec. 00. Permanent acancies in the *ffices of theovernor, ice6overnor, Ma%or and ice6Ma%or.G +a1 0# a permanent vacancy occurs in the o##ice o# the #overnor or mayor , the vice6#overnor or thevice-mayor concerned shall become the #overnoror mayor . . . . +emphasis supplied1

?@ERE$*RE, the instant petitions are =2M=22E for lac5of merit. Petitioners both bein# ineli#ible for the *ffice of theCit% Ma%or of Ba#uio Cit% and in vie" of the vacanc% created

in said office, the vice6ma%or elect of said cit% in the Ma% &&,&''( elections is hereb% declared Ma%or of Ba#uio Cit% afterproclamation b% the Cit% Board of Canvassers. No costs.

2* *RERE.

arvasa, C.$., Cru+, Paras, 4eliciano, Padilla, ;ri


6/54


7/54

(. !oint6Affidavit dated )& Ma% (-&- of En#r. ir#il2eno, ir#inia Branzuela, eoncio ali#di#, and!ess% Corpin, all nei#hbors of Arnado, attestin# that

Arnado is a lon#6time resident of Iaus"a#an andthat he has been conspicuousl% and continuousl%residin# in his famil%Js ancestral house inIaus"a#an

). Certification from the Punon# Baran#a% ofPoblacion, Iaus"a#an, anao del Norte dated -)

!une (-&- statin# that Arnado is a bona fideresident of his baran#a% and that Arnado "ent tothe Dnited 2tates in &'/ to "or5 and returned tothe Philippines in (--'

0. Certification dated )& Ma% (-&- from theMunicipal ocal overnment *perations *ffice ofIaus"a#an statin# that r. Ma:imo P. Arnado, 2r.served as Ma%or of Iaus"a#an, from !anuar% &'30to !une &'90 and from & $ebruar% &'9' to & April&'/3 and

. oter Certification issued b% the Election *fficerof Iaus"a#an certif%in# that Arnado has been are#istered voter of Iaus"a#an since -) April (--'.

T)E RULING O* T)E COMELEC *IRST $I+ISION

=nstead of treatin# the Petition as an action for thecancellation of a certificate of candidac% based onmisrepresentation,& the C*MEEC $irst ivision consideredit as one for dis4ualification. BaluaJs contention that Arnadois a resident of the Dnited 2tates "as dismissed upon thefindin# that 8Balua failed to present an% evidence to supporthis contention,8&3 "hereas the $irst ivision still could 8notconclude that Arnado failed to meet the one6%ear residenc%re4uirement under the ocal overnment Code.8&9

=n the matter of the issue of citizenship, ho"ever, the $irstivision disa#reed "ith ArnadoJs claim that he is a $ilipinocitizen.&/

?e find that althou#h Arnado appears to have substantiall%complied "ith the re4uirements of R.A. No. '((, ArnadoJsact of consistentl% usin# his D2 passport after renouncin# hisD2 citizenship on -) April (--' effectivel% ne#ated his

Affidavit of Renunciation.

: : : :

ArnadoJs continued use of his D2 passport is a stron#indication that Arnado had no real intention to renounce hisD2 citizenship and that he onl% e:ecuted an Affidavit ofRenunciation to enable him to run for office. ?e cannot turna blind e%e to the #larin# inconsistenc% bet"een ArnadoJsune:plained use of a D2 passport si: times and his claimthat he re6ac4uired his Philippine citizenship and renouncedhis D2 citizenship. As noted b% the 2upreme Court in the Kucase, 8a passport is defined as an official document ofidentit% and nationalit% issued to a person intendin# to travelor soourn in forei#n countries.8 2urel%, one "ho trul%divested himself of D2 citizenship "ould not continue to availof privile#es reserved solel% for D2 nationals.&'

The dispositive portion of the Resolution rendered b% theC*MEEC

$irst ivision reads>

?@ERE$*RE, in vie" of the fore#oin#, the petition fordis4ualification andHor to cancel the certificate of candidac%of Rommel C. Arnado is hereb% RANTE. Rommel C.

ArnadoJs proclamation as the "innin# candidate forMunicipal Ma%or of Iaus"a#an, anao del Nore is hereb%

ANNDE. et the order of succession under 2ection 00 of the ocal overnment Code of &''& ta5e effect.(-

The Motion for Reconsideration andthe Motion for =ntervention

Arnado sou#ht reconsideration of the resolution before theC*MEEC En Banc on the #round that 8the evidence isinsufficient to ustif% the Resolution and that the saidResolution is contrar% to la".8(& @e raised the follo"in#contentions>((

&. The findin# that he is not a $ilipino citizen is notsupported b% the evidence consistin# of his *ath of

Alle#iance and the Affidavit of Renunciation, "hichsho" that he has substantiall% complied "ith the

re4uirements of R.A. No. '((

(. The use of his D2 passport subse4uent to hisrenunciation of his American citizenship is nottantamount to a repudiation of his $ilipinocitizenship, as he did not perform an% act to s"earalle#iance to a countr% other than the Philippines

). @e used his D2 passport onl% because he "asnot informed of the issuance of his Philippinepassport, and that he used his Philippine passportafter he obtained it

0. BaluaJs petition to cancel the certificate ofcandidac% of Arnado "as filed out of time, and the$irst ivisionJs treatment of the petition as one fordis4ualification constitutes #rave abuse ofdiscretion amountin# to e:cess of urisdiction()

. @e is undoubtedl% the peopleJs choice asindicated b% his "innin# the elections

3. @is proclamation as the "innin# candidateousted the C*MEEC from urisdiction over thecase and

9. The proper remed% to 4uestion his citizenship is

throu#h a petition for 4uo "arranto, "hich shouldhave been filed "ithin ten da%s from hisproclamation.

Petitioner Casan Macode Ma4uilin# +Ma4uilin#1, anothercandidate for ma%or of Iaus"a#an, and "ho #arnered thesecond hi#hest number of votes in the (-&- elections,intervened in the case and filed before the C*MEEC EnBanc a Motion for Reconsideration to#ether "ith an*pposition to ArnadoJs Amended Motion for Reconsideration.Ma4uilin# ar#ued that "hile the $irst ivision correctl%dis4ualified Arnado, the order of succession under 2ection00 of the ocal overnment Code is not applicable in thiscase. Conse4uentl%, he claimed that the cancellation of

ArnadoJs candidac% and the nullification of his proclamation,Ma4uilin#, as the le#itimate candidate "ho obtained the

7 | P a g e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt23


8/54

hi#hest number of la"ful votes, should be proclaimed as the"inner.

Ma4uilin# simultaneousl% filed his Memorandum "ith hisMotion for =ntervention and his Motion for Reconsideration.

Arnado opposed all motions filed b% Ma4uilin#, claimin# thatintervention is prohibited after a decision has alread% beenrendered, and that as a second6placer, Ma4uilin#undoubtedl% lost the elections and thus does not stand to bepreudiced or benefitted b% the final adudication of the case.

RULING O* T)E COMELEC EN BANC

=n its Resolution of -( $ebruar% (-&&, the C*MEEC EnBanc held that under 2ection 3 of Republic Act No. 3303, theCommission 8shall continue "ith the trial and hearin# of theaction, in4uir% or protest even after the proclamation of thecandidate "hose 4ualifications for office is 4uestioned.8

As to Ma4uilin#Js intervention, the C*MEEC En Banc alsocited 2ection 3 of R.A. No. 3303 "hich allo"s intervention inproceedin#s for dis4ualification even after elections if no final

ud#ment has been rendered, but "ent on further to sa% that

Ma4uilin#, as the second placer, "ould not be preudiced b%the outcome of the case as it a#rees "ith the dispositiveportion of the Resolution of the $irst ivision allo"in# theorder of succession under 2ection 00 of the ocalovernment Code to ta5e effect.

The C*MEEC En Banc a#reed "ith the treatment b% the$irst ivision of the petition as one for dis4ualification, andruled that the petition "as filed "ell "ithin the periodprescribed b% la",(0 havin# been filed on (/ April (-&-,"hich is not later than && Ma% (-&-, the date ofproclamation.

@o"ever, the C*MEEC En Banc reversed and set aside

the rulin# of the $irst ivision and #ranted ArnadoJs Motionfor Reconsideration, on the follo"in# premises>

$irst>

B% renouncin# his D2 citizenship as imposed b% R.A. No.'((, the respondent embraced his Philippine citizenship asthou#h he never became a citizen of another countr%. =t "asat that time, April ), (--', that the respondent became apure Philippine Citizen a#ain.

: : : :

The use of a D2 passport L does not operate to revert bac5his status as a dual citizen prior to his renunciation as thereis no la" sa%in# such. More succinctl%, the use of a D2passport does not operate to 8un6renounce8 "hat he hasearlier on renounced. The $irst ivisionJs reliance in the caseof =n Re> Petition for @abeas Corpus of ?ill% Ku v. efensor62antia#o, et al. is misplaced. The petitioner in the said caseis a naturalized citizen "ho, after ta5in# his oath as anaturalized $ilipino, applied for the rene"al of hisPortu#uese passport. 2trict polic% is maintained in theconduct of citizens "ho are not natural born, "ho ac4uiretheir citizenship b% choice, thus discardin# their ori#inalcitizenship. The Philippine 2tate e:pects strict conduct ofalle#iance to those "ho choose to be its citizens. =n the

present case, respondent is not a naturalized citizen but anatural born citizen "ho chose #reener pastures b% "or5in#abroad and then decided to repatriate to supposedl% help inthe pro#ress of Iaus"a#an. @e did not appl% for a D2

passport after his renunciation. Thus the mentioned case isnot on all fours "ith the case at bar.

: : : :

The respondent presented a plausible e:planation as to theuse of his D2 passport. Althou#h he applied for a Philippinepassport, the passport "as onl% issued on !une &/, (--'.@o"ever, he "as not notified of the issuance of hisPhilippine passport so that he "as actuall% able to #et itabout three +)1 months later. Ket as soon as he "as inpossession of his Philippine passport, the respondentalread% used the same in his subse4uent travels abroad.This fact is proven b% the respondentJs submission of acertified true cop% of his passport sho"in# that he used thesame for his travels on the follo"in# dates> !anuar% )&,(-&-, April &3, (-&-, Ma% (-, (-&-, !anuar% &(, (-&-,March )&, (-&- and !une 0, (-&-. This then sho"s that theuse of the D2 passport "as because to his 5no"led#e, hisPhilippine passport "as not %et issued to him for his use. Asprobabl% pressin# needs mi#ht be underta5en, therespondent used "hatever is "ithin his control durin# thattime.(

=n his 2eparate Concurrin# *pinion, C*MEEC Chairman2i:to Brillantes cited that the use of forei#n passport is notone of the #rounds provided for under 2ection & ofCommon"ealth Act No. 3) throu#h "hich Philippinecitizenship ma% be lost.

8The application of the more assimilative principle ofcontinuit% of citizenship is more appropriate in this case.Dnder said principle, once a person becomes a citizen,either b% birth or naturalization, it is assumed that he desiresto continue to be a citizen, and this assumption stands untilhe voluntaril% denationalizes or e:patriates himself. Thus, inthe instant case respondent after reac4uirin# his Philippinecitizenship should be presumed to have remained a $ilipinodespite his use of his American passport in the absence ofclear, une4uivocal and competent proof of e:patriation.

Accordin#l%, all doubts should be resolved in favor ofretention of citizenship.8(3

*n the other hand, Commissioner Rene . 2armientodissented, thus>

Respondent evidentl% failed to prove that he trul% and"holeheartedl% abandoned his alle#iance to the Dnited2tates. The latterJs continued use of his D2 passport andeno%ment of all the privile#es of a D2 citizen despite hisprevious renunciation of the afore6mentioned citizenship runs

contrar% to his declaration that he chose to retain onl% hisPhilippine citizenship. RespondentJs submission "ith the t"inre4uirements "as obviousl% onl% for the purpose ofcompl%in# "ith the re4uirements for runnin# for thema%oralt% post in connection "ith the Ma% &-, (-&-

Automated National and ocal Elections.

Fualifications for elective office, such as citizenship, arecontinuin# re4uirements once an% of them is lost durin# hisincumbenc%, title to the office itself is deemed forfeited. =f acandidate is not a citizen at the time he ran for office or if helost his citizenship after his election to office, he isdis4ualified to serve as such. Neither does the fact thatrespondent obtained the pluralit% of votes for the ma%oralt%

post cure the latterJs failure to compl% "ith the 4ualificationre4uirements re#ardin# his citizenship.

8 | P a g e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt26


9/54

2ince a dis4ualified candidate is no candidate at all in thee%es of the la", his havin# received the hi#hest number ofvotes does not validate his election. =t has been held that"here a petition for dis4ualification "as filed before electiona#ainst a candidate but "as adversel% resolved a#ainst himafter election, his havin# obtained the hi#hest number ofvotes did not ma5e his election valid. @is ouster from officedoes not violate the principle of vo: populi suprema est le:because the application of the constitutional and statutor%provisions on dis4ualification is not a matter of popularit%. To

appl% it is to breath;e< life to the soverei#n "ill of the people"ho e:pressed it "hen the% ratified the Constitution and"hen the% elected their representatives "ho enacted thela".(9

T)E PETITION BE*ORE T)E COURT

Ma4uilin# filed the instant petition 4uestionin# the propriet%of declarin# Arnado 4ualified to run for public office despitehis continued use of a D2 passport, and pra%in# thatMa4uilin# be proclaimed as the "inner in the (-&- ma%oralt%race in Iaus"a#an, anao del Norte.

Ascribin# both #rave abuse of discretion and reversible erroron the part of the C*MEEC En Banc for rulin# that Arnadois a $ilipino citizen despite his continued use of a D2passport, Ma4uilin# no" see5s to reverse the findin# of theC*MEEC En Banc that Arnado is 4ualified to run for publicoffice.

Corollar% to his plea to reverse the rulin# of the C*MEECEn Banc or to affirm the $irst ivisionJs dis4ualification of

Arnado, Ma4uilin# also see5s the revie" of the applicabilit%of 2ection 00 of the ocal overnment Code, claimin# thatthe C*MEEC committed reversible error in rulin# that 8thesuccession of the vice ma%or in case the respondent isdis4ualified is in order.8

There are three 4uestions posed b% the parties before thisCourt "hich "ill be addressed seriatim as the subse4uent4uestions hin#e on the result of the first.

The first 4uestion is "hether or not intervention is allo"ed ina dis4ualification case.

The second 4uestion is "hether or not the use of a forei#npassport after renouncin# forei#n citizenship amounts toundoin# a renunciation earlier made.

A better framin# of the 4uestion thou#h should be "hether or not the use of a forei#n passport after renouncin# forei#ncitizenship affects oneJs 4ualifications to run for public office.

The third 4uestion is "hether or not the rule on succession inthe ocal overnment Code is applicable to this case.

OUR RULING

Intervention of a rival candidate in adisqualification case is proper whenthere has not yet been any proclamation of the winner.

Petitioner Casan Macode Ma4uilin# intervened at the sta#e"hen respondent Arnado filed a Motion for Reconsiderationof the $irst ivision Resolution before the C*MEEC EnBanc. As the candidate "ho #arnered the second hi#hest

number of votes, Ma4uilin# contends that he has an interestin the dis4ualification case filed a#ainst Arnado, considerin#that in the event the latter is dis4ualified, the votes cast forhim should be considered stra% and the second6placershould be proclaimed as the "inner in the elections.

=t must be emphasized that "hile the ori#inal petition beforethe C*MEEC is one for cancellation of the certificate ofcandidac% and H or dis4ualification, the C*MEEC $irstivision and the C*MEEC En Banc correctl% treated the

petition as one for dis4ualification.

The effect of a dis4ualification case is enunciated in 2ection3 of R.A. No. 3303>

2ec. 3. Effect of is4ualification Case. 6 An% candidate "hohas been declared b% final ud#ment to be dis4ualified shallnot be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not becounted. =f for an% reason a candidate is not declared b% final

ud#ment before an election to be dis4ualified and he isvoted for and receives the "innin# number of votes in suchelection, the Court or Commission shall continue "ith thetrial and hearin# of the action, in4uir%, or protest and, uponmotion of the complainant or an% intervenor, ma% durin# thependenc% thereof order the suspension of the proclamationof such candidate "henever the evidence of his #uilt isstron#.

Mercado v. Manzano(/

clarified the ri#ht of intervention in a dis4ualification case. =nthat case, the Court said>

That petitioner had a ri#ht to intervene at that sta#e of theproceedin#s for the dis4ualification a#ainst privaterespondent is clear from 2ection 3 of R.A. No. 3303,other"ise 5no"n as the Electoral Reforms a" of &'/9,

"hich provides> An% candidate "ho has been declared b%final ud#ment to be dis4ualified shall not be voted for, andthe votes cast for him shall not be counted. =f for an% reasona candidate is not declared b% final ud#ment before anelection to be dis4ualified and he is voted for and receivesthe "innin# number of votes in such election, the Court orCommission shall continue "ith the trial and hearin# of theaction, in4uir%, or protest and, upon motion of thecomplainant or an% intervenor, ma% durin# the pendenc%thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of suchcandidate "henever the evidence of #uilt is stron#. Dnderthis provision, intervention ma% be allo"ed in proceedin#s for dis4ualification even after election if there has %et been nofinal ud#ment rendered.('

Clearl% then, Ma4uilin# has the ri#ht to intervene in the case.The fact that the C*MEEC En Banc has alread% ruled thatMa4uilin# has not sho"n that the re4uisites for thee:emption to the second6placer rule set forth in 2insuat v.C*MEEC)- are present and therefore "ould not bepreudiced b% the outcome of the case, does not depriveMa4uilin# of the ri#ht to elevate the matter before this Court.

ArnadoJs claim that the main case has attained finalit% as theori#inal petitioner and respondents therein have notappealed the decision of the C*MEEC En Banc, cannot besustained. The elevation of the case b% the intervenorprevents it from attainin# finalit%. =t is onl% after this Court has

ruled upon the issues raised in this instant petition that thedis4ualification case ori#inall% filed b% Balua a#ainst Arnado"ill attain finalit%.

9 | P a g e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt30


10/54

The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’sforeign citizenship is a positive and voluntary act ofrepresentation as to one’s nationality and citizenship itdoes not divest !ilipino citizenship regained byrepatriation but it recants the "ath of #enunciationrequired to qualify one to run for an elective position.

2ection +(1 of The Citizenship Retention and Re6ac4uisition Act of (--) provides>

Those "ho retain or re6ac4uire Philippine citizenship underthis Act shall eno% full civil and political ri#hts and be subectto all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under e:istin#la"s of the Philippines and the follo"in# conditions>

: : : :

+(1Those see5in# elective public in the Philippines shall meetthe 4ualification for holdin# such public office as re4uired b%the Constitution and e:istin# la"s and, at the time of thefilin# of the certificate of candidac%, ma5e a personal ands"orn renunciation of an% and all forei#n before an% publicofficer authorized to administer an oath.

: : :)&

Rommel Arnado too5 all the necessar% steps to 4ualif% to runfor a public office. @e too5 the *ath of Alle#iance andrenounced his forei#n citizenship. There is no 4uestion thatafter performin# these t"in re4uirements re4uired under2ection +(1 of R.A. No. '(( or the Citizenship Retentionand Re6ac4uisition Act of (--), he became eli#ible to run forpublic office.

=ndeed, Arnado too5 the *ath of Alle#iance not ust onl%once but t"ice> first, on &- !ul% (--/ "hen he applied forrepatriation before the Consulate eneral of the Philippinesin 2an $rancisco, D2A, and a#ain on -) April (--'simultaneous "ith the e:ecution of his Affidavit ofRenunciation. B% ta5in# the *ath of Alle#iance to theRepublic, Arnado re6ac4uired his Philippine citizenship. Atthe time, ho"ever, he li5e"ise possessed Americancitizenship. Arnado had therefore become a dual citizen.

After reac4uirin# his Philippine citizenship, Arnadorenounced his American citizenship b% e:ecutin# an Affidavitof Renunciation, thus completin# the re4uirements foreli#ibilit% to run for public office.

B% renouncin# his forei#n citizenship, he "as deemed to be

solel% a $ilipino citizen, re#ardless of the effect of suchrenunciation under the la"s of the forei#n countr%.)(

@o"ever, this le#al presumption does not operatepermanentl% and is open to attac5 "hen, after renouncin#the forei#n citizenship, the citizen performs positive actssho"in# his continued possession of a forei#n citizenship.))

Arnado himself subected the issue of his citizenship toattac5 "hen, after renouncin# his forei#n citizenship, hecontinued to use his D2 passport to travel in and out of thecountr% before filin# his certificate of candidac% on )-November (--'. The pivotal 4uestion to determine is"hether he "as solel% and e:clusivel% a $ilipino citizen at

the time he filed his certificate of candidac%, thereb%renderin# him eli#ible to run for public office.

Bet"een -) April (--', the date he renounced his forei#ncitizenship, and )- November (--', the date he filed hisC*C, he used his D2 passport four times, actions that runcounter to the affidavit of renunciation he had earliere:ecuted. B% usin# his forei#n passport, Arnado positivel%and voluntaril% represented himself as an American, in effectdeclarin# before immi#ration authorities of both countriesthat he is an American citizen, "ith all attendant ri#hts andprivile#es #ranted b% the Dnited 2tates of America.

The renunciation of forei#n citizenship is not a hollo" oaththat can simpl% be professed at an% time, onl% to be violatedthe ne:t da%. =t re4uires an absolute and perpetualrenunciation of the forei#n citizenship and a full divestmentof all civil and political ri#hts #ranted b% the forei#n countr%"hich #ranted the citizenship.

Mercado v. Manzano)0 alread% hinted at this situation "henthe Court declared>

@is declarations "ill be ta5en upon the faith that he "ill fulfillhis underta5in# made under oath. 2hould he betra% thattrust, there are enou#h sanctions for declarin# the loss of hisPhilippine citizenship throu#h e:patriation in appropriateproceedin#s. =n Ku v. efensor62antia#o, "e sustained thedenial of entr% into the countr% of petitioner on the #roundthat, after ta5in# his oath as a naturalized citizen, he appliedfor the rene"al of his Portu#uese passport and declared incommercial documents e:ecuted abroad that he "as aPortu#uese national. A similar sanction can be ta5en a#ainstan%one "ho, in electin# Philippine citizenship, renounces hisforei#n nationalit%, but subse4uentl% does some actconstitutin# renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.

?hile the act of usin# a forei#n passport is not one of theacts enumerated in Common"ealth Act No. 3) constitutin#renunciation and loss of Philippine citizenship,) it isnevertheless an act "hich repudiates the ver% oath ofrenunciation re4uired for a former $ilipino citizen "ho is alsoa citizen of another countr% to be 4ualified to run for a localelective position.

?hen Arnado used his D2 passport on &0 April (--', or usteleven da%s after he renounced his American citizenship, herecanted his *ath of Renunciation)3 that he 8absolutel% andperpetuall% renounce+s1 all alle#iance and fidelit% to theDN=TE 2TATE2 *$ AMER=CA8)9 and that he 8divest+s1himself of full emplo%ment of all civil and political ri#hts andprivile#es of the Dnited 2tates of America.8)/

?e a#ree "ith the C*MEEC En Banc that such act of usin#

a forei#n passport does not divest Arnado of his $ilipinocitizenship, "hich he ac4uired b% repatriation. @o"ever, b%representin# himself as an American citizen, Arnadovoluntaril% and effectivel% reverted to his earlier status as adual citizen. 2uch reversion "as not retroactive it too5 placethe instant Arnado represented himself as an Americancitizen b% usin# his D2 passport.

This act of usin# a forei#n passport after renouncin# oneJsforei#n citizenship is fatal to ArnadoJs bid for public office, asit effectivel% imposed on him a dis4ualification to run for anelective local position.

ArnadoJs cate#or% of dual citizenship is that b% "hich forei#n

citizenship is ac4uired throu#h a positive act of appl%in# fornaturalization. This is distinct from those considered dualcitizens b% virtue of birth, "ho are not re4uired b% la" to ta5e

10 | P a g e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt38


11/54

the oath of renunciation as the mere filin# of the certificate of candidac% alread% carries "ith it an implied renunciation offorei#n citizenship.)' ual citizens b% naturalization, on theother hand, are re4uired to ta5e not onl% the *ath of

Alle#iance to the Republic of the Philippines but also topersonall% renounce forei#n citizenship in order to 4ualif% asa candidate for public office.

B% the time he filed his certificate of candidac% on )-November (--', Arnado "as a dual citizen eno%in# the

ri#hts and privile#es of $ilipino and American citizenship. @e"as 4ualified to vote, but b% the e:press dis4ualificationunder 2ection 0-+d1 of the ocal overnment Code,0- he "asnot 4ualified to run for a local elective position.

=n effect, Arnado "as solel% and e:clusivel% a $ilipino citizenonl% for a period of eleven da%s, or from ) April (--' until &0

April (--', on "hich date he first used his Americanpassport after renouncin# his American citizenship.

This Court has previousl% ruled that>

Fualifications for public office are continuin# re4uirements

and must be possessed not onl% at the time of appointmentor election or assumption of office but durin# the officer7sentire tenure. *nce an% of the re4uired 4ualifications is lost,his title ma% be seasonabl% challen#ed. : : :.0&

The citizenship re4uirement for elective public office is acontinuin# one. =t must be possessed not ust at the time ofthe renunciation of the forei#n citizenship but continuousl%.

An% act "hich violates the oath of renunciation opens thecitizenship issue to attac5.

?e a#ree "ith the pronouncement of the C*MEEC $irstivision that 8ArnadoJs act of consistentl% usin# his D2passport effectivel% ne#ated his 8Affidavit of

Renunciation.80( This does not mean, that he failed to compl%"ith the t"in re4uirements under R.A. No. '((, for he infact did.

=t "as after compl%in# "ith the re4uirements that heperformed positive acts "hich effectivel% dis4ualified himfrom runnin# for an elective public office pursuant to 2ection0-+d1 of the ocal overnment Code of &''&.

The purpose of the ocal overnment Code in dis4ualif%in#dual citizens from runnin# for an% elective public office "ouldbe th"arted if "e "ere to allo" a person "ho has earlierrenounced his forei#n citizenship, but "ho subse4uentl%represents himself as a forei#n citizen, to hold an% publicoffice.

Arnado ustifies the continued use of his D2 passport "iththe e:planation that he "as not notified of the issuance of hisPhilippine passport on &/ !une (--', as a result of "hich he"as onl% able to obtain his Philippine passport three +)1months later .0)

The C*MEEC En Banc differentiated Arnado from ?ill% Ku,the Portu#uese national "ho sou#ht naturalization as a$ilipino citizen and later applied for the rene"al of hisPortu#uese passport. That Arnado did not appl% for a D2passport after his renunciation does not ma5e his use of a

D2 passport less of an act that violated the *ath ofRenunciation he too5. =t "as still a positive act ofrepresentation as a D2 citizen before the immi#rationofficials of this countr%.

The C*MEEC, in rulin# favorabl% for Arnado, stated 8Ket,as soon as he "as in possession of his Philippine passport,the respondent alread% used the same in his subse4uenttravels abroad.800 ?e cannot a#ree "ith the C*MEEC.Three months from !une is 2eptember. =f indeed, Arnadoused his Philippine passport as soon as he "as inpossession of it, he "ould not have used his D2 passport on(0 November (--'.

Besides, ArnadoJs subse4uent use of his Philippine passport

does not correct the fact that after he renounced his forei#ncitizenship and prior to filin# his certificate of candidac%, heused his D2 passport. =n the same "a% that the use of hisforei#n passport does not undo his *ath of Renunciation, hissubse4uent use of his Philippine passport does not undo hisearlier use of his D2 passport.

Citizenship is not a matter of convenience. =t is a bad#e ofidentit% that comes "ith attendant civil and political ri#htsaccorded b% the state to its citizens. =t li5e"ise demands theconcomitant dut% to maintain alle#iance to oneJs fla# andcountr%. ?hile those "ho ac4uire dual citizenship b% choiceare afforded the ri#ht of suffra#e, those "ho see5 election orappointment to public office are re4uired to renounce their

forei#n citizenship to be deservin# of the public trust. @oldin#public office demands full and undivided alle#iance to theRepublic and to no other.

?e therefore hold that Arnado, b% usin# his D2 passportafter renouncin# his American citizenship, has recanted thesame *ath of Renunciation he too5. 2ection 0-+d1 of theocal overnment Code applies to his situation. @e isdis4ualified not onl% from holdin# the public office but evenfrom becomin# a candidate in the Ma% (-&- elections.

?e no" resolve the ne:t issue.

Resolvin# the third issue necessitates revisitin# Topacio v.Paredes0 "hich is the urisprudential sprin# of the principlethat a second6placer cannot be proclaimed as the "inner inan election contest. This doctrine must be re6e:amined andits soundness once a#ain put to the test to address the ever6recurrin# issue that a second6placer "ho loses to anineli#ible candidate cannot be proclaimed as the "inner inthe elections.

The $acts of the case are as follo"s>

*n !une 0, &'&(, a #eneral election "as held in the to"n of=mus, Province of Cavite, to fill the office of municipalpresident. The petitioner, $elipe Topacio, and the

respondent, Ma:imo Abad, "ere opposin# candidates forthat office. Topacio received 0)- votes, and Abad (/&. Abadcontested the election upon the sole #round that Topacio"as ineli#ible in that he "as reelected the second time to theoffice of the municipal president on !une 0, &'&(, "ithout thefour %ears re4uired b% Act No. (-0 havin# intervened.03

Abad thus 4uestioned the eli#ibilit% of To p a c i o on thebasis of a statutor% prohibition for see5in# a second re6election absent the four %ear interruption.

The often64uoted phrase in Topacio v. Paredes is that 8the"reath of victor% cannot be transferred from an ineli#iblecandidate to an% other candidate "hen the sole 4uestion isthe eli#ibilit% of the one receivin# a pluralit% of the le#all% castballots.809

11 | P a g e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt47


12/54

This phrase is not even the ratio decidendi it is a mere obiter dictum. The Court "as comparin# 8the effect of a decisionthat a candidate is not entitled to the office because of fraudor irre#ularities in the elections : : : "ith that produced b%declarin# a person ineli#ible to hold such an office.8

The complete sentence "here the phrase is found is part ofa comparison and contrast bet"een the t"o situations, thus>

A#ain, the effect of a decision that a candidate is not entitledto the office because of fraud or irre#ularities in the electionsis 4uite different from that produced b% declarin# a personineli#ible to hold such an office. =n the former case the court,after an e:amination of the ballots ma% find that some otherperson than the candidate declared to have received apluralit% b% the board of canvassers actuall% received the#reater number of votes, in "hich case the court issues itsmandamus to the board of canvassers to correct the returnsaccordin#l% or it ma% find that the manner of holdin# theelection and the returns are so tainted "ith fraud or ille#alit%that it cannot be determined "ho received a pluralit% of thele#all% cast ballots. =n the latter case, no 4uestion as to thecorrectness of the returns or the manner of castin# andcountin# the ballots is before the decidin# po"er, and

#enerall% the onl% result can be that the election fails entirel%.=n the former, "e have a contest in the strict sense of the"ord, because of the opposin# parties are strivin# forsupremac%. =f it be found that the successful candidate+accordin# to the board of canvassers1 obtained a pluralit% inan ille#al manner, and that another candidate "as the realvictor, the former must retire in favor of the latter. =n the other case, there is not, strictl% spea5in#, a contest, as the "reathof victor% cannot be transferred from an ineli#ible candidateto an% other candidate "hen the sole 4uestion is theeli#ibilit% of the one receivin# a pluralit% of the le#all% castballots. =n the one case the 4uestion is as to "ho received apluralit% of the le#all% cast ballots in the other, the 4uestionis confined to the personal character and circumstances of a

sin#le individual.

0/

+Emphasis supplied1

Note that the sentence "here the phrase is found starts "ith8=n the other case, there is not, strictl% spea5in#, a contest8 incontrast to the earlier statement, 8=n the former, "e have acontest in the strict sense of the "ord, because of theopposin# parties are strivin# for supremac%.8

The Court in Topacio v. Paredes cannot be said to have heldthat 8the "reath of victor% cannot be transferred from anineli#ible candidate to an% other candidate "hen the sole4uestion is the eli#ibilit% of the one receivin# a pluralit% of thele#all% cast ballots.8

A proper readin# of the case reveals that the rulin# therein isthat since the Court of $irst =nstance is "ithout urisdiction totr% a dis4ualification case based on the eli#ibilit% of theperson "ho obtained the hi#hest number of votes in theelection, its urisdiction bein# confined 8to determine "hich of the contestants has been dul% elected8 the ud#e e:ceededhis urisdiction "hen he 8declared that no one had beenle#all% elected president of the municipalit% of =mus at the#eneral election held in that to"n on 0 !une &'&(8 "here8the onl% 4uestion raised "as "hether or not Topacio "aseli#ible to be elected and to hold the office of municipalpresident.8

The Court did not rule that Topacio "as dis4ualified and that Abad as the second placer cannot be proclaimed in hisstead. The Court therein ruled>

$or the fore#oin# reasons, "e are of the opinion and so holdthat the respondent ud#e e:ceeded his urisdiction indeclarin# in those proceedin#s that no one "as electedmunicipal president of the municipalit% of =mus at the last#eneral election and that said order and all subse4uentproceedin#s based thereon are null and void and of noeffect and, althou#h this decision is rendered onrespondents7 ans"er to the order to sho" cause, unlessrespondents raised some ne" and additional issues, let

ud#ment be entered accordin#l% in da%s, "ithout costs. 2o

ordered.

0'

*n closer scrutin%, the phrase relied upon b% a host ofdecisions does not even have a le#al basis to stand on. =t"as a mere pronouncement of the Court comparin# oneprocess "ith another and e:plainin# the effects thereof. Asan independent statement, it is even illo#ical.

et us e:amine the statement>

8: : : the "reath of victor% cannot be transferred from anineli#ible candidate to an% other candidate "hen the sole4uestion is the eli#ibilit% of the one receivin# a pluralit% of thele#all% cast ballots.8

?hat prevents the transfer of the "reath of victor% from theineli#ible candidate to another candidate

?hen the issue bein# decided upon b% the Court is theeli#ibilit% of the one receivin# a pluralit% of the le#all% castballots and ineli#ibilit% is thereafter established, "hat stopsthe Court from adud#in# another eli#ible candidate "horeceived the ne:t hi#hest number of votes as the "inner andbesto"in# upon him that 8"reath8

An ineli#ible candidate "ho receives the hi#hest number ofvotes is a "ron#ful "inner. B% e:press le#al mandate, he

could not even have been a candidate in the first place, butb% virtue of the lac5 of material time or an% other intervenin#circumstances, his ineli#ibilit% mi#ht not have been passedupon prior to election date. Conse4uentl%, he ma% have hadthe opportunit% to hold himself out to the electorate as ale#itimate and dul% 4ualified candidate. @o"ever,not"ithstandin# the outcome of the elections, his ineli#ibilit%as a candidate remains unchan#ed. =neli#ibilit% does not onl%pertain to his 4ualifications as a candidate but necessaril%affects his ri#ht to hold public office. The number of ballotscast in his favor cannot cure the defect of failure to 4ualif%"ith the substantive le#al re4uirements of eli#ibilit% to run forpublic office.

The popular vote does not cure theineligibility of a candidate.

The ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutor%re4uirements for 4ualifications and dis4ualifications ofcandidates. ?hen the la" re4uires certain 4ualifications tobe possessed or that certain dis4ualifications be notpossessed b% persons desirin# to serve as elective publicofficials, those 4ualifications must be met before one evenbecomes a candidate. ?hen a person "ho is not 4ualified isvoted for and eventuall% #arners the hi#hest number ofvotes, even the "ill of the electorate e:pressed throu#h theballot cannot cure the defect in the 4ualifications of thecandidate. To rule other"ise is to trample upon and rent

asunder the ver% la" that sets forth the 4ualifications anddis4ualifications of candidates. ?e mi#ht as "ell "rite off our election la"s if the voice of the electorate is the sole

12 | P a g e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt49


13/54

determinant of "ho should be proclaimed "orth% to occup%elective positions in our republic.

This has been, in fact, alread% laid do"n b% the Court in$rivaldo v. C*MEEC- "hen "e pronounced>

: : :. The fact that he "as elected b% the people of 2orso#ondoes not e:cuse this patent violation of the salutar% rulelimitin# public office and emplo%ment onl% to the citizens ofthis countr%. The 4ualifications prescribed for elective officecannot be erased b% the electorate alone.

The "ill of the people as e:pressed throu#h the ballot cannotcure the vice of ineli#ibilit%, especiall% if the% mista5enl%believed, as in this case, that the candidate "as 4ualified.*bviousl%, this rule re4uires strict application "hen thedeficienc% is lac5 of citizenship. =f a person see5s to serve inthe Republic of the Philippines, he must o"e his total lo%alt%to this countr% onl%, aburin# and renouncin# all fealt% andfidelit% to an% other state.& +Emphasis supplied1

This issue has also been urisprudentiall% clarified in elascov. C*MEEC( "here the Court ruled that the rulin# in

Fuizon and 2a%a6an# cannot be interpreted "ithout4ualifications lest 8Election victor% : : : becomes a ma#icformula to b%pass election eli#ibilit% re4uirements.8)

?e have ruled in the past that a candidateJs victor% in theelection ma% be considered a sufficient basis to rule in favorof the candidate sou#ht to be dis4ualified if the main issueinvolves defects in the candidateJs certificate of candidac%.?e said that "hile provisions relatin# to certificates ofcandidac% are mandator% in terms, it is an established rule of interpretation as re#ards election la"s, that mandator%provisions re4uirin# certain steps before elections "ill beconstrued as director% after the elections, to #ive effect to the"ill of the people. ?e so ruled in Fuizon v. C*MEEC and

2a%a6an# v. C*MEEC>

The present case perhaps presents the proper time andopportunit% to fine6tune our above rulin#. ?e sa% this "iththe realization that a blan5et and un4ualified readin# andapplication of this rulin# can be frau#ht "ith dan#eroussi#nificance for the rule of la" and the inte#rit% of ourelections. $or one, such blan5etHun4ualified readin# ma%provide a "a% around the la" that effectivel% ne#ateselection re4uirements aimed at providin# the electorate "iththe basic information to ma5e an informed choice about acandidateJs eli#ibilit% and fitness for office.

The first re4uirement that ma% fall "hen an un4ualified

readin# is made is 2ection )' of the C "hich specifies thebasic 4ualifications of local #overnment officials. E4uall%susceptive of bein# rendered toothless is 2ection 90 of the*EC that sets out "hat should be stated in a C*C. 2ection9/ ma% li5e"ise be emasculated as mere dela% in theresolution of the petition to cancel or den% due course to aC*C can render a 2ection 9/ petition useless if a candidate"ith false C*C data "ins. To state the obvious, candidatesma% ris5 falsif%in# their C*C 4ualifications if the% 5no" thatan election victor% "ill cure an% defect that their C*Cs ma%have. Election victor% then becomes a ma#ic formula tob%pass election eli#ibilit% re4uirements. +Citations omitted1

?hat "ill stop an other"ise dis4ualified individual from filin#

a seemin#l% valid C*C, concealin# an% dis4ualification, andemplo%in# ever% strate#% to dela% an% dis4ualification casefiled a#ainst him so he can submit himself to the electorate

and "in, if "innin# the election "ill #uarantee a disre#ard ofconstitutional and statutor% provisions on 4ualifications anddis4ualifications of candidates

=t is imperative to safe#uard the e:pression of the soverei#nvoice throu#h the ballot b% ensurin# that its e:erciserespects the rule of la". To allo" the soverei#n voice spo5enthrou#h the ballot to trump constitutional and statutor%provisions on 4ualifications and dis4ualifications ofcandidates is not democrac% or republicanism. =t is electoral

anarch%. ?hen set rules are disre#arded and onl% theelectorateJs voice spo5en throu#h the ballot is made tomatter in the end, it precisel% serves as an open invitation for electoral anarch% to set in.=phi

$aquiling is not a second%placer ashe obtained the highest number of votes from among the qualified candidates.

?ith ArnadoJs dis4ualification, Ma4uilin# then becomes the"inner in the election as he obtained the hi#hest number ofvotes from amon# the 4ualified candidates.

?e have ruled in the recent cases of Aratea v.C*MEEC0 and !alosos v. C*MEEC that a void C*Ccannot produce an% le#al effect.

Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineli#ible candidate arenot considered at all in determinin# the "inner of an election.

Even "hen the votes for the ineli#ible candidate aredisre#arded, the "ill of the electorate is still respected, andeven more so. The votes cast in favor of an ineli#iblecandidate do not constitute the sole and total e:pression ofthe soverei#n voice. The votes cast in favor of eli#ible andle#itimate candidates form part of that voice and must also

be respected.

As in an% contest, elections are #overned b% rules thatdetermine the 4ualifications and dis4ualifications of those"ho are allo"ed to participate as pla%ers. ?hen there areparticipants "ho turn out to be ineli#ible, their victor% isvoided and the laurel is a"arded to the ne:t in ran5 "hodoes not possess an% of the dis4ualifications nor lac5s an%of the 4ualifications set in the rules to be eli#ible ascandidates.

There is no need to appl% the rule cited in abo v.C*MEEC3 that "hen the voters are "ell a"are "ithin therealm of notoriet% of a candidateJs dis4ualification and stillcast their votes in favor said candidate, then the eli#iblecandidate obtainin# the ne:t hi#her number of votes ma% bedeemed elected. That rule is also a mere obiter that furthercomplicated the rules affectin# 4ualified candidates "hoplaced second to ineli#ible ones.

The electorateJs a"areness of the candidateJsdis4ualification is not a prere4uisite for the dis4ualification toattach to the candidate. The ver% e:istence of a dis4ualif%in#circumstance ma5es the candidate ineli#ible. Ino"led#e b%the electorate of a candidateJs dis4ualification is notnecessar% before a 4ualified candidate "ho placed secondto a dis4ualified one can be proclaimed as the "inner. Thesecond6placer in the vote count is actuall% the first6placeramon# the 4ualified candidates.

13 | P a g e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt56


14/54

That the dis4ualified candidate has alread% been proclaimedand has assumed office is of no moment. The subse4uentdis4ualification based on a substantive #round that e:istedprior to the filin# of the certificate of candidac% voids not onl%the C*C but also the proclamation.

2ection 3 of R.A. No. 3303 provides>

2ection 3. Effect of is4ualification Case. 6 An% candidate"ho has been declared b% final ud#ment to be dis4ualifiedshall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not becounted. =f for an% reason a candidate is not declared b% final

ud#ment before an election to be dis4ualified and he isvoted for and receives the "innin# number of votes in suchelection, the Court or Commission shall continue "ith thetrial and hearin# of the action, in4uir%, or protest and, uponmotion of the complainant or an% intervenor, ma% durin# thependenc% thereof order the suspension of the proclamationof such candidate "henever the evidence of his #uilt isstron#.

There "as no chance for ArnadoJs proclamation to besuspended under this rule because Arnado failed to file hisans"er to the petition see5in# his dis4ualification. Arnadoonl% filed his Ans"er on & !une (-&-, lon# after theelections and after he "as alread% proclaimed as the "inner.

The dis4ualif%in# circumstance surroundin# ArnadoJscandidac% involves his citizenship. =t does not involve thecommission of election offenses as provided for in the firstsentence of 2ection 3/ of the *mnibus Election Code, theeffect of "hich is to dis4ualif% the individual from continuin#as a candidate, or if he has alread% been elected, fromholdin# the office.

The dis4ualif%in# circumstance affectin# Arnado is hiscitizenship. As earlier discussed, Arnado "as both a $ilipino

and an American citizen "hen he filed his certificate ofcandidac%. @e "as a dual citizen dis4ualified to run for publicoffice based on 2ection 0-+d1 of the ocal overnmentCode.

2ection 0- starts "ith the statement 8The follo"in# personsare dis4ualified from runnin# for an% elective local position.8The prohibition serves as a bar a#ainst the individuals "hofall under an% of the enumeration from participatin# ascandidates in the election.

?ith Arnado bein# barred from even becomin# a candidate,his certificate of candidac% is thus rendered void from thebe#innin#. =t could not have produced an% other le#al effect

e:cept that Arnado rendered it impossible to effect hisdis4ualification prior to the elections because he filed hisans"er to the petition "hen the elections "ere conductedalread% and he "as alread% proclaimed the "inner.

To hold that such proclamation is valid is to ne#ate theprohibitor% character of the dis4ualification "hich Arnadopossessed even prior to the filin# of the certificate ofcandidac%. The affirmation of Arnado7s dis4ualification,althou#h made lon# after the elections, reaches bac5 to thefilin# of the certificate of candidac%. Arnado is declared to benot a candidate at all in the Ma% (-& - elections.

Arnado bein# a non6candidate, the votes cast in his favorshould not have been counted. This leaves Ma4uilin# as the4ualified candidate "ho obtained the hi#hest number of

votes. Therefore, the rule on succession under the ocalovernment Code "ill not appl%.

?@ERE$*RE, premises considered, the Petition isRANTE. The Resolution of the C*MEEC En Bane dated( $ebruar% (-&& is hereb% ANNDE and 2ET A2=E.Respondent R*MME ARNA* % CA*C* is dis4ualifiedfrom runnin# for an% local elective position. CA2ANMAC*E MAFD==N is hereb% ECARE the dul%elected Ma%or of Iaus"a#an, anao del Norte in the &- Ma%

(-&- elections.

This ecision is immediatel% e:ecutor%.

et a cop% of this ecision be served personall% upon theparties and the Commission on Elections.

No pronouncement as to costs.

2* *RERE.

MARIA LOUR$ES P. A. SERENOChief !ustice

?E C*NCDR>

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 10%053 Auu- 1/, 199#

OTTOMAMA BENITO, petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AB$ALAE M.PAGRANGAN, a! )'r- o $4a-! MayoralyCa!'!a MURA$ ISMEN SAMPIANO OGCA,r&r-! 6y CABILI SAMPIANO, respondents.

Pedro 2. 2uadra and Macarupung (. /ibaratun #or petitioner.

Mangurun (. (atuampar and Romaraban /. Macabantog #or private respondents.

APUNAN, J.:

This special civil action for certiorari see5s to set aside thefollo"in# resolutions of respondent Commission on Elections+C*MEEC1, vi+> +a1 Resolution dated !une &&, &''( in 2PANo. '(6&09 and 2PA No. '(6&0 den%in# the Motion to2uspend the Proclamation of Murad Iismen 2ampiano *#cain the event that he is elected ma%or of Balaba#an, anaodel 2ur +b1 Resolution dated !une (', &''( in 2PC No. '(6)-) directin# the Municipal Board of Canvassers ofBalaba#an, anao del 2ur to proclaim the candidate "ho

obtained the hi#hest number of votes durin# the Ma% &&,&''( election as the "inner for the contested office and +c1Resolution dated !ul% 3, &''( in 2PC No. '(6 &3), 2PC No.

14 | P a g e


15/54

'(6)-), and 2PC No. '(6)9 declarin# the proclamation of*ttomama Benito as "innin# candidate for ma%or ofBalaba#an, anao del 2ur null and void and of no force andeffect. =n the last resolution, the Municipal Board ofCanvassers "as li5e"ise directed to set aside the certificateof canvass and proclamation and to prepare a ne" certificateof canvass indicatin# therein that the "innin# candidate forma%or is @adi Murad *#ca but placin# the information thathe died on Ma% (-, &''( for the purpose of appl%in# the ruleon le#al succession to office pursuant to 2ection 00 of R. A.

9&3-.

Petitioner assails the above6mentioned resolutions on the#round that the% "ere issued "ithout urisdiction andHor "ith#rave abuse of discretion amountin# to lac5 of urisdiction.

The facts of the case are as follo"s>

Petitioner *ttomama Benito and the deceased @adi MuradIismen 2ampiano *#ca "ere candidates for ma%or in themunicipalit% of Balaba#an, anao del 2ur in the Ma% &&,&''( election.

*n Ma% &, &''(, Commission on Elections +C*MEEC1eput% for Balaba#an, anao del 2ur, 2ultan Iisa .Mi5unu# filed a petition for dis4ualification a#ainst MuradIismen 2ampiano *#ca. Mi5unu# alle#ed that at around fiveo7cloc5 in the afternoon of April (/, &''(, "hile inside abilliard hall, *#ca as5ed him to "or5 for the former7s re6election. @o"ever, "hen Mi5unu# refused, *#ca struc5 himon the head "ith a billiard cue. 1

*n Ma% 3, &''(, the C*MEEC referred the dis4ualificationpetition to its a" epartment for investi#ation. 2 =n turn, thea" epartment referred the same to the irector of the*ffice of the Re#ional Election irector of Cotabato Cit% forinvesti#ation. 3

*n !une &-, &''(, the Re#ional Election irector ofCotabato Cit% issued a resolution statin# that there "asa prima #acie case a#ainst *#ca and that the latter "asprobabl% #uilt% of the char#es in the petition fordis4ualification. #

Thereafter, nothin# more "as heard of the petition fordis4ualification.

=n the meantime, on Ma% (-, &''(, candidate *#ca "as5illed in an ambush "hile returnin# home from the residenceof anao del 2ur overnor 2aidamen Pan#arun#an inMara"i Cit%.

*n the same date, petitioner, probabl% not a"are of thedeath of his opponent, filed a motion to suspend theproclamation of *#ca as elected ma%or of Balaba#an, anaodel 2ur, contendin# that there "as stron# evidence of #uilta#ainst him in the dis4ualification case. 5

Resolvin# the motion to suspend proclamation, theC*MEEC, on !une &&, &''(, denied the same statin# thatMurad Iismen 2ampiano *#ca "as dead, hence, hisproclamation as "inner "as essential to pave the "a% forsuccession b% the ice6Ma%or6elect as provided for in2ection 00 of the ocal overnment Code of &''& +R. A.

9&3-1.%

Mean"hile, the Municipal Board of Canvassers "hen as5edto e:clude from tall%in#, countin# and canvassin# all votesfor and in the name of deceased ma%oralt% candidate *#ca,ruled, on Ma% )-, &''(, that>

&. The Board shall continue countin#Htabulatin# allthe votes cast for deceased Ma%oralt% CandidateMurad I. 2. *#ca and ice Ma%oralt% CandidateCadal u5s in the 2tatement of otes b%Municipalit%HPrecinct +CE $orm No. (-6A1 for

purposes of records onl% and for the reference and#uidance of the Commission on Elections, but itshall not include them +eceased Candidates1 inthe Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation of"innin# candidates +CE $orm No. (1 in case the%"on +sic1, it bein# moot and academic.

(. The Board shall e:clude the names of thedeceased Ma%oralt% candidate Murad I. 2. *#caand ice Ma%oralt% candidate Cadal u5s from thelist of the L0)0; candidates includin# the votesobtained b% them +eceased Candidates1,considerin# that their deaths are of public5no"led#e and admitted b% both parties, and

thereafter proclaim the "innin# candidates forMunicipal *fficials, subect to the confirmation of theCommission on Elections. /

*n !une 0, &''(, herein private respondents appealed theabove rulin# to the C*MEEC pra%in# that the MunicipalBoard of Canvassers be enoined from implementin# itsrulin# and that it be directed to ascertain the results of theelections and to proclaim the candidate obtainin# the hi#hestnumber of votes as the "inner. "

*n !une (', &''(, the C*MEEC resolved to direct theMunicipal Board of Canvassers of Balaba#an, anao del 2ur to proclaim as "inner for the contested office the candidate"ho obtained the hi#hest number of votes durin# the Ma% &&,&''( election. 9

*n !une )-, &''( at t"o o7cloc5 in the afternoon, theMunicipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner*ttomama Benito as the dul% elected ma%or of themunicipalit% of Balaba#an, anao del 2ur. 10

*n !ul% &, &''(, the Election Re#istrar and Chairman of theBoard of Canvassers of Balaba#an, anao del 2ur submitteda memorandum to the C*MEEC informin# it that the Boardof Canvassers of Balaba#an had proclaimed *ttomamaBenito as ma%or6elect of the said to"n.

*n !ul% (, &''(, petitioner too5 his oath of office before2ecretar% of =nterior and ocal overnment Rafael Alunan===. 11

*n !ul% 3, &''(, the C*MEEC issued a resolutiondeclarin# the proclamation of petitioner an absolute nullit%and of no force and effect. The certificate of canvass andproclamation "as set aside. The Municipal Board ofCanvassers "as li5e"ise directed to prepare a ne"certificate of canvass indicatin# therein that the "innin#candidate for ma%or "as @adi Murad *#ca but "ith theinformation, in parenthesis, that he died on Ma% (-, &''(, for the purpose of appl%in# the rule on le#al succession to office

pursuant to 2ection 00 of R. A. No. 9&3-. 12

@ence, the instant petition.

15 | P a g e


16/54

Petitioner faults the C*MEEC "ith lac5 of urisdictionandHor "ith #rave abuse of discretion amountin# to lac5 of

urisdiction for the follo"in# reasons, vi+>

::: ::: :::

C*MEEC @A2 N* !DR=2=CT=*N *ER 2PCN*. '(6 )-). T@AT !DNE (', &''( RE2*DT=*N=2 ND AN *= 3( 00*05

::: ::: :::

T@E C*MEEC RE2*DT=*N *$ !DK 3, &''(;ANNE A< =2 A2* ND AN *= BECAD2ET@E C*MEEC @A2 N* !DR=2=CT=*N. =T ?A2

A2* =22DE =N =*AT=*N *$ DE PR*CE22*$ A?.

::: ::: :::

T@E =NTER*CDT*RK *RER *$ !DNE &&,&''( =22DE =N 2PA N*2. '(6&09 AN '(6&03+sic1 ENK=N T@E M*T=*N T* 2D2PENPR*CAMAT=*N ?A2 =22DE ?=T@ RAE

ABD2E *$ =2CRET=*N AM*DNT=N T* ACI*$ !DR=2=CT=*N. 13

The petition must fail.

The proclamation of petitioner *ttomama Benito as ma%or6elect of Balaba#an, anao del 2ur, b% the Municipal Board of Canvassers "as not a valid proclamation. =t appears fromthe record that durin# the Ma% &&, &''( election, thedeceased ma%oralt% candidate Murad 2ampiano *#caobtained a total of ),3'' votes as a#ainst petitioner7s (,300.Thereupon, it "as the dut% of the Municipal Board of

Canvassers to proclaim as "inner the candidate "hoobtained the hi#hest number of votes. @o"ever, theMunicipal Board of Canvassers, instead of performin# "hat"as incumbent upon it, that is, to proclaim *#ca as the"inner but "ith the information that he died, to #ive "a% tole#al succession to office, "ent on to proclaim hereinpetitioner, the candidate "ho obtained the second hi#hestnumber of votes as "inner, believin# that the death of *#carendered his victor% and proclamation moot andacademic. 1# This cannot be countenanced.

=n ever% election, the people7s choice is the paramountconsideration and their e:pressed "ill must, at all times, be#iven effect. ?hen the maorit% spea5s and elects into office

a candidate b% #ivin# him the hi#hest number of votes castin the election for that office, no one can be declared electedin his place.

The fac

Last Assignment.doc

Documents

Transcript of Last Assignment.doc