MAQUILING VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his US citizenship.
>>> All this
G.R. No. 195649 / April 16, 2013 / SERENO, C.J. / Qualifications / EFHDy
NATURE PETITION for certiorari
PETITIONERS Casan Macode Maquiling
RESPONDENTS Commission on Elections, Rommel Arnado y Cagoco,
Linog G. Balua
SUMMARY. Arnado was a natural born Filipino who subsequently gained
US citizenship through naturalization, losing his PH citizenship in the
process. However, in order to be qualified to run for the position of Mayor of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, he gained back his PH citizenship through
repatriation, taking 2 oaths of allegiance to the country and renouncing his
US citizenship. He won the election, prompting his opponents to file a case
of disqualification against him, arguing that he was still a foreigner as
evidenced by his continuous use of his US passport even after his Oath of
Allegiance to the PH. The SC ruled that Arnado was indeed disqualified. The
use of a foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a
positive and voluntary act of representation as to one’s nationality. Arnado
did not lose his Filipino citizenship, but regained his US citizenship and
became a dual citizen. Under sec. 40(d) of the LGC, those with dual
citizenships are expressly disqualified from running for local gov’t positions.
The effect of this is that Maquiling, the losing candidate with the highest
number of votes, should be declared Mayor. As ruled in Jalosjos v.
COMELEC, when there are participants who turn out to be ineligible, their
victory is voided and the next qualified candidate with the most votes wins
the election. In cases like this, the winner is not considered a second-placer,
but the “first-placer” amongst the qualified candidates.
DOCTRINE. The use of a foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign
citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of representation as to one’s
nationality. Under sec. 40(d) of the LGC, those with dual citizenships are
expressly disqualified from running for local gov’t positions.
DISSENT, BRION, J.: Arnado’s use of a foreign passport was just an
isolated act and it cannot be considered as an express renunciation of his PH
citizenship.
FACTS.
 Background – Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. He
subsequently lost his PH citizenship when he underwent naturalization as a
US citizen. He then regained his PH citizenship under RA 9225 by taking
two Oaths of Allegiance to the RP (one on July 10, 2008 and one on April
3, 2009). These oaths were accepted, and an Order of Approval of his
Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition was issued in his favor. He also
made him qualified to file his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte for the 2010 local elections.
 Case for DQ – Another candidate for mayor, Balua, filed a petition to
disqualify Arnado and/or to cancel his CoC. He contended that Arnado was
not a resident of Kauswagan, and that he was still a foreigner based on
the following: (a) certification by the Bureau of Immigration indicating that
his nationality was “USA-American”; and (b) Arnado’s travel record
indicating that he had been using his US Passport even after his Oath to
the PH.
 COMELEC ordered Arnado to file his answer >> Arnado failed to file
ansser >> Balua filed motion to declare him in default
 COMELEC did not act on the motions in time, so the elections pushed
through before petition was decided.
 Result of Elections – Arnado won and was proclaimed Mayor.
 Continuation of DQ case – Arnado only filed his answer after winning.
He submitted the following documents to show he was qualified: (a)
Affidavit of Renunciation and Oath of Allegiance; (b) a Join-Affidavit of
City Engineer and other neighbors of Arnado, attesting that he was a long-
time resident of Kauswagan; (c) certification from Punong Barangay of
Kauswagan stating he was a bona-fide resident; (d) certification from
Municipal Local Gov’t that Arnado’s father was also a resident, and even
served as Mayor; (e) Voter Certification showing that Arnado had been a
registered voter in Kauswagan since April 3, 2009
 COMELEC First Division – Ruled against Arnado. It treated the case as
one for disqualification, not as one of cancellation of CoC. First ruled that
Arnado was not a US resident because Balua was not able to present
sufficient evidence. However, in terms of citizenship, the COMELEC ruled
that Arnado was not Filipino because of his act of consistently using his
US passport (used it six times) after renouncing his US citizenship. Thus,
they annulled his proclamation as Mayor and ruled that the winner of
Vice-Mayor should succeed in his place pursuant to Sec. 44 of the LGC.
 Intervention by petitioner Maquiling – Petitioner was another candidate
for Mayor and garnered the second highest number of votes. He intervened
and argued that while COMELEC was correct in DQing Arnado, they were
wrong in ruling that Vice-Mayor should succeed as Mayor under Sec. 44
LGC. He argues that he should be proclaimed winner for being the
qualified candidate who garnered the most votes.
 COMELEC En Banc – Reversed the First Division’s ruling and stated
that Arnado was qualified. Ruled that the use of a US passport does not
operate to revert back his status as a US/dual citizen since no law provides
such.
  The principle of continuity of citizenship, which provides that once
a person becomes a citizen, it is assumed that he desired to
continue to be one until he voluntarily denationalizes or expatriates
himself. In this case, Arnado should be presumed to have remained
Filipino despite his use of the US passport absent any clear and
unequivocal proof of expatriation.
 Furthermore, Arnado’s claim that he had no choice but to use his
US passport because he had not been given notice of the issuance
of his PH passport yet was a valid excuse. He was only able to
claim his PH passport 3 months after its issuance, and he used it
ever since.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON the intervention of a rival candidate in a DQ case is proper
when there has been no proclamation of a winner yet. – YES.
 In this case, Maquiling intervened at the stage when Arnado filed
an MR of the COMELEC First Division ruling before the
COMELEC En Banc. The COMELEC decided to treat the case as
one for Disqualification, so the applicable law is Sec. 6 of RA
6646 (Electoral Reform Law of 1987), which allows interventions
during DQ proceedings even after the election, as long as there has
been no final judgment on the eligibility of the candidate yet.
 The fact that the COMELEC En Banc had already ruled that
Maquiling had not shown the requisites for the exemption to the
“second-placer rule” and therefore would not be prejudiced by the
outcome of the case is of no moment, and does not deprive him the
right to elevate the matter to the SC.
 Arnado argues that the case has attained finality because the
original petitioner and respondents did not appeal the En Banc
decision >>> SC = no finality precisely because Maquiling
elevated it to SC. It is only after SC has ruled upon issues that DQ
case originally filed by Balua will attain finality.
2. WON Arnado was qualified to run for local office. – NO. His use of a
US passport after renouncing US citizenship amounts to an undoing of
such renunciation.
 The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign
citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of representation as to
one’s citizenship. It does not divest PH citizenship regained by
repatriation, but recants the Oath of Renunciation of foreign
citizenship, which is required to run for elective position.
 Renunciation of foreign citizenship: Initially, Arnado complied
with the twin requirements of Oath of Allegiance + Renunciation
under RA9225 Sec. 5(2) to be eligible to run for an elective position.
By renouncing his foreign citizenship, he was deemed to be solely a
PH citizen.
 However, this legal presumption of citizenship is not permanent, and
may be open to attack when, after such renunciation, the person
performs positive acts showing his continued possession of foreign
citizenship.
 APPLIED: The important thing to determine is WoN Arnado was
solely a PH citizen when he filed his CoC. In this case, between the
date he renounced his US citizenship and the date he filed his CoC,
he used his US passport to travel six times. By using his foreign
passport, Arnado positively and voluntarily represented himself as an
American, in effect declaring before immigration authorities of both
countries that he is an American citizen, with all attendant rights and
privileges granted by the USA.
 The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can
simply be professed at any time, only to be violated the next day. It
requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign
citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and political rights
granted by the foreign country which granted the citizenship.
 Even if the act of using a foreign passport is not one of the acts
enumerated in CA631 constituting loss of PH citizenship, it
nevertheless is an act which repudiates the very oath of renunciation
required by a dual citizen to be qualified to run for a local elective
position. He was therefore under the disqualification under Sec. 40
(d) of the LGC.
 Dual Citizenship: COMELEC was correct in ruling that Arnado did
not lose his PH citizenship. All that happened was a reversion to his
status as a dual citizen, which was fatal to his eligibility.
1 Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship:
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country; (2) By express renunciation of citizenship; (3) By
subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country
upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more; (4) By accepting commission in the military,
naval or air service of a foreign country; (5) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization;
(6) By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed
forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted:
and (7) In case of a woman, upon her marriage, to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force
in her husband’s country, she acquires his nationality.
  There are two classes of dual citizens: (a) those who acquired
foreign citizenship through positive act of naturalization; (b) those
who are considered dual citizens by virtue of birth. >>> Those in the
first class need to take both an Oath of Allegiance to PH and an Oath
of Renunciation of foreign citizenship. Those in the second class
only need to take an Oath of Allegiance because the mere act of
filing for a CoC carries with it an implied renunciation of foreign
citizenship.
 >>> Arnado belongs to the first class. Basically, Arnado actually
complied with the twin requirements under RA9225, but lost it
subsequently. The purpose of the LGC in disqualifying dual citizens
from running for any elective public office would be thwarted if we
were to allow a person who has earlier renounced his foreign
citizenship, but who subsequently represents himself as a foreign
citizen, to hold any public office.
 Qualification Requirements are continuing in nature: In this case,
the citizenship requirement must be possessed not just at the time of
renunciation of the foreign citizenship, but continuously. Therefore,
Arnado’s act of using his US passport stopped this continuity.
 The case of Yu v. Defensor-Santiago can be compared to this
case: Yu was a Portugese dude who sought naturalization as a
Filipino and later renewed his Portugal passport. In the case at hand,
Arnado’s act of using his US passport was also a positive act of
representation as a US citizen.
 COMELEC En Banc, in ruling in favor of Arnado, stated that he
had a justifiable excuse because he used his PH passport as soon
as he got it, which was 3 months after its issuance.
 >>> SC said this was erroneous. His PH Passport was issued on
June. Three months from June is only September. If indeed Arnado
used his PH passport continuously once he got it, he would not have
used his US passport on November 2009. Also, his subsequent use of
a PH passport will not cure the defect caused by the use of his US
passport.
3. WON Maquiling should be proclaimed Mayor as the recipient of the
2nd highest number of votes. – YES.
 First of all, Topacio v. Paredes, the case that provided for the
principle that a second-placer cannot be proclaimed winner in an
election must be re-examined
 This case involved the 1912 elections in the town of Imus, Cavite for
the position of municipal president between Abad and Topacio.
Topacio received the most votes while Abad was the second-placer.
Abad then contested the election on the ground that Topacio was
ineligible because he was running for a second time without
observing the four-year interruption rule under Act No. 2045.
 Said case contained the oft-quoted phrase of “the wreath of victory
cannot be transferred from an ineligible candidate to any other
candidate when the sole question is the eligibility of the one
receiving a plurality of the legally cast ballots.”
 >>> First, the SC said that this phrase was only obiter dictum
because the issue in that case was NOT WoN Abad can be
proclaimed the winner as second-placer because of Topacio’s
disqualification. The issue that the court actually ruled on was WoN
the CFI has jurisdiction to try a DQ case based on the eligibility of
the person who obtained the most votes. The ruling was that since a
CFI’s jurisdiction is confined “to determine which of the contestants
as been duly elected”, the judge exceeded his jurisdiction when he
“declared that no one had been legally elected president of the
municipality” where the only question raised was whether or not
Topacio was eligible to be elected and to hold the office of municipal
president.
 Second, we have to look at the context upon which the phrase was
used. The phrase was located in a paragraph that was comparing (a)
the situation where a candidate is not entitled to a position because of
fraud in the elections itself, and (b) the situation where a candidate is
ineligible because of his own qualifications. In the first situation, a
winner can be proclaimed because there was a contest in the strict
sense of the word. For instance, if it is found that one candidate won
because fraud in vote-counting, and that it is clear that another other
candidate should have won, such rightful candidate can be
proclaimed the winner. On the other hand, in the second situation,
there is no actual contest, as the wreath of victory cannot be
transferred from an ineligible candidate to any other candidate when
the sole question is the eligibility of the one receiving a plurality.
 The popular vote does not cure the ineligibility of a candidate:
The ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutory
requirements for qualifications and disqualifications of candidates.
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. To rule otherwise is to trample upon
the very law that sets forth the qualifications and disqualifications of
candidates. To allow the sovereign voice spoken through the ballot to
trump mandatory provisions is not democracy nor republicanism, but
 electoral anarchy. This principle has been laid down by several
cases such as Frivaldo v. COMELEC, Quizon v. COMELEC, and
Velasco v. COMELEC.
 Maquiling is not a second-placer, but the first-placer among the
qualified candidates and should thus be proclaimed winner: As
ruled in the cases of Jalosjos v. COMELEC and Aratea v.
COMELEC, a void CoC cannot produce any legal effect. Thus, all
the votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not considered
at all in determine the winner of an election.
 However, this does not mean that the entire elections are rendered
void. Votes cast in favor of an ineligible candidate do not constitute
the sole and total expression of sovereign voice, and the votes cast in
favor of the other legitimate candidates should also be respected.
When there are participants who turn out to be ineligible, their
victory is voided and the laurel is awarded to the next in rank who
does not possess any of the disqualifications
 There is no need to apply the rule cited in Labo v. COMELEC
that when the voters are well aware within the realm of notoriety of a
candidate’s disqualification and still cast their votes in favor said
candidate, then the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher
number of votes may be deemed elected. That rule is also a mere
obiter that further complicated the rules affecting qualified
candidates who placed second to ineligible ones. The electorate’s
awareness of a candidate’s disqualification is not a prerequisite for
the DQ to attach to the candidate. The very existence of disqualifying
circumstance makes the candidate ineligible.
 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. Sec. 6 of RA 66462 provides that when a
candidate has not been declared DQ’d by final judgment yet, but is
subsequently proclaimed the winner, the COMELEC or Court shall
2
Section 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 before an election to
be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election,
the Court or Commission shall continue with the 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 suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence
of his guilt is strong.
continue with the trial and may suspend the proclamation of such
candidate when evidence of guilt is strong. In this case, the only
reason Arnado was able to continue with his candidacy without
suspension was because he only filed his answer to the DQ case
against him when the elections were already conducted.
DECISION.
Petition GRANTED. Respondent ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO is
disqualified from running for any local elective position. CASAN MACODE
MAQUILING is hereby DECLARED the duly elected Mayor of Kauswagan,
Lanao del Norte in the 10 May 2010 elections.
NOTES.
DISSENT, BRION, J.
Arnado’s use of US passport on November 24, 2009 was an isolated act
and a matter of practicability, since he was returning to the PH, having
used US passport before. (Risky daw na gumamit siya ng US passport
palabas ng PH tapos pagbalik niya PH passport na siya)
 Arnado’s Philippine passport was issued on June 18, 2009, but he
was not immediately notified of the issuance so that and he only
received his passport three months after or sometime in September
2009. Clearly, when Arnado travelled on April 14, 2009, June 25,
2009 and July 29, 2009, he had no Philippine passport that he could
have used to travel to the United States to attend to the winding up of
his business and other affairs in America.
 A travel document issued by the proper Philippine government
agency (e.g., a Philippine consulate office in the US) would not
suffice because travel documents could not be used; they are issued
only in critical instances, as determined by the consular officer, and
allow the bearer only a direct, one-way trip to the Philippines.
 Although Arnado received his Philippine passport by the time he
returned to the Philippines on November 24, 2009, he could not use
this without risk of complications with the US immigration
authorities for using a travel document different from what he
used in his entry into the US on July 29, 2009. Plain practicality
then demanded that the travel document that he used to enter
the US on July 29, 2009 be the same travel document he should
use in leaving the country on November 24, 2009.
 Given these circumstances, Arnado’s use of his US passport in
travelling back to the Philippines on November 24, 2009 was an
isolated act that could not, by itself, be an express renunciation of the
 Philippine citizenship he adopted as his sole citizenship under RA
9225.

What the law requires in an express renunciation, not mere inference

from conduct
 I loathe to rule that Arnado’s use of his US passport amounts to an
express renunciation of his Filipino citizenship, when its use was an
isolated act that he sufficiently explained and fully justified.
 I emphasize that the law requires express renunciation in order to
lose Philippine citizenship. The term means a renunciation that is
made distinctly and explicitly and is not left to inference or
implication; it is a renunciation manifested by direct and
appropriate language, as distinguished from that which is inferred
from conduct.
 Other than the use of his US passport in two trips to and from the
United States, the record does not bear out any indication, supported
by evidence, of Arnado’s intention to reacquire US citizenship.
 To my mind, in the absence of clear and affirmative acts of
reacquiring US citizenship either by naturalization or by express acts
(such as the reestablishment of permanent residency in the United
States), Arnado’s use of his US passport cannot but be considered an
isolated act that did not undo his renunciation of his US citizenship.
What he might in fact have done was to violate American law on the
use of passports, but this is a matter irrelevant to the present case.
 Thus, Arnado remains to be a “pure” Filipino citizen and the loss of
his Philippine citizenship cannot be presumed or inferred from his
isolated act of using his US passport for travel purposes.

The People of Kauswagan have spoken and any doubt should be resolved in
favor of their verdict.

*Digester’s note: Hindi sakto yung argument’s ni J. Brion sa ponencia. Ang

sabi ng ponencia DQ si Arnado dahil dual citizen siya (fact of using foreign
passport means he represented himself as US citizen also.) Argument ni J.
Brion ay he did not lose his Filipino Citizenship, w/c is totoo naman in the
case of dual citizenship.