G.R. No.

195649               April 16, 2013

Maquiling v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 195649 | 2013 | Sereno, J | Candidate Who Obtained the Second Highest Number of Votes

FACTS

Respondent (Arnado Cagoco) is a natural born Filipino citizen, but as a consequence of subsequent
naturalization as a US Citizen, he lost his Filipino citizenship. Arnado applied for repatriation under RA
9225 before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Francisco and took the Oath of Allegiance
to the Republic of the Philippines on July 10, 2008. On the same day, an Order of Approval of his
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition was issued in his favor.

On April 3, 2009, Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic and executed an Affidavit of
Renunciation of his foreign citizenship. On November 30, 2009, he filed his COC for the Mayor of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. On April 28, 2010, respondent Balua (another mayoralty candidate) filed a
petition to disqualify Arnado or cancel his COC contending that Arnado is not a resident of Kauswagan
and that he is a foreigner attaching a certification issued by the Immigration dated April 23, 2010
indicating that Arnado’s citizenship as USA-American.

Balua presented a computer-generated travel record indicating that Arnado used his US Passport (Left—
April 14, 2009; Returned—June 25, 2009; Again departed on July 29, 2009, arrived back in the
Philippines – November 24, 2009). On April 30, 2010, COMELEC First Division issued an order requiring
Arnado to personally file his answer but he failed to do so, Balua moved to declare him in default. Neither
motion was acted upon, having been overtaken by the 2010 elections. Arnado garnered the highest
number of votes and was proclaimed as the winning candidate. It was only after proclamation that
Arnado filed his answer
COMELEC treated the petition as a petition for disqualification (instead of cancellation of COC based on
misrepresentation). COMELEC granted the petition and annulled the proclamation of Arnado. Arnado
sought for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc.
nd
Meanwhile, petitioner (Maquiling), another candidate, and garnered the 2 highest number of votes,
intervened in the case and filed a Motion for Reconsidation (MR) and opposition to Arnado’s MR
Maquiling contends that Arnado was correctly disqualified. Because of the cancellation of Arnado’s COC
and nullification of his proclamation, Maquiling (as the legitimate candidate who obtained the highest vote)
should be proclaimed the winner COMELEC en banc reversed and set aside the ruling of the First
Division and granted Arnado’s MR. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/RATIO

1) Whether or not the use of foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship recants the
Oath of Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective position? Yes.

By renouncing his foreign citizenship, he was deemed to be solely a Filipino citizen, regardless of the
effect of such renunciation under the laws of the foreign country. But that legal presumption does not
operate permanently and open to attack when after renouncing foreign citizenship, citizen performs
positive acts showing his continued possession of foreign citizenship.
Arnado subjected himself to this attack when he continued to use his US passport to travel after
renouncing his foreign citizenship (before filing of COC). Between April 3, 2009 (date of renunciation) and
November 30, 2009 (filing of COC), he used his passport 4 times. The use of his US passport runs
counter to the affidavit of renunciation he had executed. Further, Arnado positively and voluntarily
represented himself as an American, in effect, declaring before the immigration authorities of both
countries that he is an American citizen with all attendant rights and privileges granted by US.

Renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can be professed at any time, only to be
violated the next day. It requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of foreign citizenship and full
divestment of all civil and political rights granted by the foreign country granting the citizenship. While the
use of foreign passport is not one of the acts enumerated in Commonwealth Act 63 (constituting
renunciation and loss of Philippine citizenship), it is nevertheless an act repudiating the very oath of
renunciation required for a former Filipino citizen who is also a citizen of another country to be qualified to
run for a local elective position. Thus, when Arnado used his US passport, he recanted his Oath of
Renunciation that he absolutely and perpetually renounces all allegiance and fidelity to USA and that he
divests himself of full employment of all civil and political rights and privileges of US.

The use of foreign passport does not divest Arnado of his Filipino citizenship, but by representing himself
as an American citizen, Arnado voluntarily and effectively reverted to his earlier status as a DUAL
CITIZEN. The act of using a passport after renouncing his US citizenship effectively imposed on him a
disqualification to run for an elective local position. Hence, by the time he filed his COC on November 30,
2009, he was a dual citizen enjoying rights and privileges of a Filipino and American Citizen. The Court
held that when Arnado used his US passport after his renunciation of his US citizenship, he recanted the
same Oath of Renunciation he took.

2) Whether or not popular vote cures the ineligibility of a candidate? No.

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 the
law requires certain qualifications to be possessed or that certain disqualifications be not possessed by
persons desiring to serve as elective public officials, those qualifications must be met before one even
becomes a candidate. To rule otherwise is to trample upon and rent asunder the very law that sets forth
the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. 

As pronounced in Frivaldo v. COMELEC, the fact that he was elected by the people of Sorsogon does not
excuse this patent violation of the salutary rule limiting public office and employment only to the citizens of
this country. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility,
especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this case, that the candidate was qualified. Obviously, this rule
requires strict application when the deficiency is lack of citizenship.

If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to this country
only. To state the obvious, candidates may risk falsifying their COC qualifications if they know that an
election victory will cure any defect that their COCs may have. Election victory then becomes a magic
formula to bypass election eligibility requirements.

3) Whether or not Maquiling is a qualified candidate obtaining the highest number of votes? Yes.

Maquiling is not a second-placer as he obtained the highest number of votes from among the qualified
candidates. With Arnado’s disqualification, Maquiling then becomes the winner in the election as he
obtained the highest number of votes from among the qualified candidates.

A void COC cannot produce any legal effect. Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are
not considered at all in determining the winner of an election. 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.

Moreover, the electorate’s awareness of the candidate’s disqualification is not a prerequisite for the
disqualification to attach to the candidate. The very existence of a disqualifying circumstance makes the
candidate ineligible. Further, 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.

With Arnado being barred from even becoming a candidate, his certificate of candidacy is thus rendered
void from the beginning. It could not have produced any other legal effect except that Arnado rendered it
impossible to effect his disqualification prior to the elections because he filed his answer to the petition
when the elections were conducted already and he was already proclaimed the winner. Arnado being a
non-candidate, the votes cast in his favor should not have been counted. This leaves Maquiling as the
qualified candidate who obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore, the rule on succession under
the Local Government Code will not apply.

RULING

Petition is granted.

NOTES

Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 provides:

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.