Republic of the Philippines Lanao del Norte in the 2010 elections.

Under Section
SUPREME COURT 40(d) of the Local Government Code, those with dual
Manila citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective
local position.
EN BANC
Considering that the Court had pinpointed the defect in
G.R. No. 210164               August 18, 2015 Amado's oath of renunciation, the simple act of taking
the oath anew would have been enough compliance
ROMMEL C. ARNADO, Petitioner, with the requirement of the law.
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FLORANTE The Decision found that from the time Amado used his
CAPITAN, Respondents, US passport to travel in and out of the country up to the
filing of his Certificate of Candidacy for the succeeding
CONCURRING OPINION elections in 2013, there had been no change in his
circumstances.   He still had not made a sworn
9

renunciation of his US citizenship. Thus, the ruling in

SERENO, CJ:
Maquiling still applies: that Arnado had dual citizenship
when he filed for his candidacy on 1 October 2012.
In Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of
Immigration,   we emphasized the variable nature of a
1

It did not matter that Maquiling was promulgated

person's citizenship, which cannot be determined with
months after Arnado had filed for candidacy. Since he
finality or become the basis of rules that can be applied
was not totally unaware that the use of his US passport
to any and all proceedings thereafter. We said:
might have adverse consequences on his candidacy for
the 2013 elections, the Decision concludes that he
Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or should have been prudent enough to remedy whatever
indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, defect there might have been in his citizenship. 10

whatever the corresponding court or administrative

authority decides therein as to such citizenship is
Even J. Brion concedes that Amado could have been
generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has
more circumspect in order to secure his qualification to
to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may
run for public office.   However, it is insisted that the
11

demand.  2

members of this Court should remove the present case

from the shadow of Maquiling and arrive at its resolution
In election contests, this pronouncement gains based merely on the attendant factual and legal
significance, as elective local officials are considerations specific to it.
12

constitutionally allowed to run and serve for three

consecutive terms.   While citizenship is a continuing
3

It cannot be denied that by virtue of its being a decision

requirement that must be possessed not only at the
of the Court that joins the country's body of laws as
time of election or assumption of office, but also during
jurisprudence, Maquiling serves as a "legal
the entire tenure of the official,  it is not a continuing
4

consideration" in the resolution of the present case.

disqualification to run for and hold public office. 5

Maquiling' s application cannot be helped, especially

since the Decision therein hinged not only on relevant
As such, each case involving the question of an elective laws, but largely on the facts then presented before the
official's citizenship must be treated anew in Court. Thus, while the legal conclusion in Maquiling was
accordance with the surrounding relevant facts and not a final determination of Amado's citizenship - as it
applicable laws. applied only for purposes of the 2010 elections - the
facts on which its legal conclusion was founded cannot
In this regard, I agree with some of the statements of J be totally ignored.
Brion in his Dissenting Opinion. Indeed, the Court's
ruling in Maquiling v. COMELEc6 went only so far as to A person's citizenship may be "threshed out again and
determine whether Rommel C. Arnado (Amado) was again"  in every proceeding as long as it becomes
13

qualified to run for public office in the 2010 elections. It relevant and necessary. Except for some clearly
did not operate as, nor was it intended to be, a final unmeritorious cases, it is always a good idea to decide
determination of Amado's citizenship that would forever on the merits, especially in election controversies in
derail his career as a public official. which the law is sometimes placed at odds with the will
of the people. At the same time, the Court puts a
In Maquiling, we reiterated that natural-born citizens of premium on economy, and where previous declarations
the Philippines who have lost their citizenship by reason of one's citizenship become pertinent, those cases may
of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country be used as a take-off point if only to emphasize the
may qualify to run for public office upon taking the Oath differences and similarities, as well as the measures
of Allegiance   and making a sworn renunciation of their
7
that were taken in the interim.
foreign citizenship.  Arnado subjected his citizenship to
8

attack when he continued to use his United States (US) One point of contention between the Decision and the
passport to travel in and out of the country despite Dissenting Opinion is the finding that Arnado used his
previously renouncing his US citizenship. The Court US passport for his travels in and out of the country on
ruled that his use of his US passport nullified the effect 12 January 2010 and 23 March 2010.
of his previous renunciation of US citizenship. While he
did not lose his Philippine citizenship in the process, he
One point of contention between the Decision and the
reverted to his status as a dual citizen and remained as
Dissenting Opinion is the finding that Arnado used his
such at the time that he filed his Certificate of
US passport for his travels in and out of the country on
Candidacy for the position of mayor of Kauswagan,
12 January 2010 and 23 March 2010.
Maquiling indeed made a finding that Arnado used his On the basis of this finding, the Court rejected the claim
US passport for travel on those dates. In the Court that Amado's use of his US passport several times were
Resolution dated 2 July 2013, we said: mere isolated acts that were done only because he was
not yet issued his Philippine passport.16

Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of

administrative bodies will not be interfered with by the To my mind, this is the turning point of Maquiling that
courts in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on regrettably still applies in this case: that whatever
the part of said agencies, or unless the aforementioned professions of faith and allegiance to the Republic that
findings are not supported by substantial Amado claims when his citizenship is in question, the
evidence.  They are accorded not only great respect but
1âwphi1 fact remains that during the instances that he used his
even finality, and are binding upon this Court, unless it US passport despite having a Philippine passport in his
is shown that the administrative body had arbitrarily possession, those same professions became hollow.
disregarded or misapprehended evidence before it to And, that up to the filing of Amado's Certificate of
such an extent as to compel a contrary conclusion had Candidacy for the 2013 elections, he failed to remedy
such evidence been properly appreciated. the fatal blow that such repeated use of his US passport
dealt on his electoral qualifications.
Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that COMELEC
First I therefore concur with the DISMISSAL of the
PETITION.
Division found that Arnado used his U.S. Passport at
least six times after he renounced his American MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
citizenship. This was debunked by the COMELEC En Chief Justice
Banc, which found that Arnado only used his U.S.
passport four times, and which agreed with Amado's DISSENTING OPINION
claim that he only used his U.S. passport on those
occasions because his Philippine passport was not yet BRION, J.:
issued. The COMELEC En Banc argued that Amado
was able to prove that he used his Philippine passport
The present certiorari petition, filed under Rule 64 in
1

for his travels on the following dates: 12 January 2010,

relation with Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, involves the
31 January 2010, 31 March 2010, 16 April 2010, 20
disqualification of the present petitioner, Rommel C.
May 2010, and 4 June 2010.
Amado (Arnado), in the May 13, 2013 National and
Local Elections (May 2013 Elections).
None of these dates coincide with the two other dates
indicated in the certification issued by the Bureau of
This case traces its roots to the earlier disqualification
Immigration showing that on 21 January 2010 and on
case [docketed as SPA No . .J0-109 (DC)] filed against
23 March 2010, Arnado arrived in the Philippines using
Amado in relation with the May 10, 2010 Elections, that
his U.S. Passport No. 057782700 which also indicated
led to the Court's decision in Maquiling v. Comelec
therein that his nationality is USA-American. Adding
disqualifying Arnado. To some extent, the present case
2

these two travel dates to the travel record provided by

is factually linked to the earlier disqualification case.
the Bureau of Immigration showing that Arnado also
presented his U.S. passport four times (upon departure
on 14 April 2009, upon arrival on 25 June 2009, upon As in Maquiling, Amado and his qualification to run for
departure on 29 July 2009 and upon arrival on 24 public office are at the center of the present petition.
November 2009), these incidents sum up to six. Private re8pondent Florante Capitan seeks to
strengthen the linkage with the earlier Maquiling case
by adopting the Maquiling positions and considering the
The COMELEC En Banc concluded that "the use of the
present case as a seamless continuation of Maquiling.
US passport was because to his knowledge, his
Philippine passport was not yet issued to him for his
use." This conclusion, however, is not supported by the Despite some commonalities, the present
facts. Arnado claims that his Philippine passport was disqualification case, however, is separate and
issued on 18 June 2009. The records show that he substantively distinct from the Maquiling disqualification
continued to use his U.S. passport even after he case. The present case involves an election period
already received his Philippine passport. Arnado's travel (2013) separate and distinct from the election period
records show that he presented his U.S. passport on 24 covered by the Maquiling ruling (2010). The factual
November 2009, on 21 January 2010, and on 23 March circumstances and consequent legal considerations
2010. These facts were never refuted by Arnado. also vary, as will be explained below, so that the
present case need not necessarily follow the governing
ruling in Maquiling.
Thus, the ruling of the COMELEC En Banc is based on
a misapprehension of the facts that the use of the U.S.
passport was discontinued when Amado obtained his Thus, at the outset, I invite the Court: to keep an open
Philippine passport.  (Emphases supplied)
14 mind and remove any initial impression that the present
case is a re-run of Maquiling; to recognize that at some
point, the present case diverges from and must be
It is important to clarify that the certification from the
viewed independently of Maquiling; and to resolve it
Bureau of Immigration indicated that Amado arrived in
from the perspective solely of the attendant factual and
the country using his US passport on 12 January 2010
legal considerations specific to it.
and 23 March 2010.  The Court gave full credence to
15

the certification, not only because it carried with it the

presumption of regularity, but more important, Arnado The Court must not also forget that this is an election
never bothered to refute the contents thereof. case where the electorate has its own separate interest
to protect. This is an interest that the Court must not
ignore when the issues posed carry the potential of a. The intervening 2010 Maquiling
setting aside the electorate's expressed choice. disqualification ruling did not and could
not have invalidated Arnado's status as
Notably, the present controversy involves .a candidate a "pure" Philippine citizen who was
whose disqualification (to run for elective office) has qualified to run for public office after
twice been sought based on the same cited facts and having complied with the RA No. 9225
grounds, but who nevertheless has twice been elected requirements in the May 2013 Elections.
by a clear and overwhelming majority of the voters - in
the May 2010 and May 2013 Elections. In 2013, he (3) The Comelec gravely abused its discretion in
garnered 84% of the votes of the people of Kauswagan. ruling that the May 9, 2013 Confirmation of the
Oath of Affirmation was filed out of time.
This clear and undeniably overwhelming voice of the
electorate, to my mind, renders it necessary for the a. The Comelec grossly failed to
Court to consider and apply deeper democratic consider (i) the circumstances of the
principles.  The circumstances of the present
3
filing of the October 1, 2012 Certificate
controversy call for this kind of consideration, of Candidacy (CoC), and (ii) the
particularly when the electorate's already limited circumstances and the dynamics
democratic decision making process runs the risk of between the 2010 Maquiling case and
being negated for no clear and conclusive reason, as ruling, and the present 2013
discussed below. disqualification case, in terms of the
retroactive application of the Maquiling
To disregard the electorate's voice once can perhaps ruling.
be excused by invoking the rule of law; to ignore the
people's voice a second time can only be justified by b. When Amado filed his CoC on
clear reasons from this Court that the people can readily October 1, 2012 (for the 2013
understand. Elections), the prevailing Comelec en
bane ruling [in its February 2, 2011
I submit this Dissenting Opinion to object to the resolution in SPA No. 10-109 (DC)] was
ponencia's conclusion that Arnado is disqualified that he was not disqualified to run for
from running in the May 2013 Elections and that his elective public office; hence, Amado did
proclamation as elected Mayor of Kauswagan, not need to execute another affidavit of
Lanao del Norte, should now be set aside. renunciation.

I specifically find the ponencia 's conclusions grossly c. Based solely on the Maquiling
erroneous and tainted with grave abuse of discretion Decision (that pertained to Arnado's
based on the following considerations: disqualification for the 2010 elections),
the Comelec disqualified Arnado for the
(1) Amado became a "pure" Philippine citizen May 2013 elections because his
on April 3, 2009, after he took his oath of October 1, 2012 CoC was not supported
allegiance and executed his affidavit of by any Affidavit of Renunciation (since
renunciation. That he was subsequently Maquiling considered his April 3, 2009
deemed to have recanted his renunciation is Affidavit of Renunciation for the 2010
unfortunate, but even the Maquiling ruling elections effectively recanted). This
recognizes that for some eleven (11) days (i.e., Comelec ruling disregards the unusual
from April 3 to 14, 2009), he was qualified to run consequences of the April 3, 2009
for public office because he was a "pure" Affidavit and the unique circumstances
Filipino. under which the October 1, 2012 CoC
was filed.
Arnado more than reconfirmed and regained
this status and was qualified to run for public d. Since the Comelec did not accept the
office in the May 2013 Elections based on his Affidavit of Renunciation that Arnado
persistent assertions of sole allegiance to the filed on May 9, 2013 (for the 2013
Republic and his repeated renunciation of his Elections) in the light of the 2010
US citizenship. Maquiling ruling, he was placed in an
impossible situation of being disqualified
in 2013 for a ruling applicable to the
a. Separately from the April 3, 2009
2010 elections, without being given the
Affidavit of Renunciation that Maquiling
opportunity to submit his compliance for
said Amado recanted, Arnado executed
the May 2013 elections.
on May 9, 2013, another Affidavit of
Renunciation affirming the terms of his
April 3, 2009 Affidavit and thus cured e. Notably, his May 9, 2013 Affidavit of
any defect in his qualification to run in Renunciation, submitted to comply with
the May 2013 Elections. his May 2013 candidacy, was rejected
because it should have been filed on
October 1, 2012 (i.e., when he filed his
(2) The legal consequences of the Maquiling
CoC for the May 2013 elections). If the
ruling is limited to Arado's qualification for public
Maquiling ruling, made on April 16,
office in the May 2010 elections.
2013, was made to retroactively apply to
October 1, 2012, so should the
opportunity to comply be similarly made
 retroactive. To the extent he was denied On November 30, 2009, Amado filed his CoC for the
this opportunity is grave abuse of mayoralty post of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, for the
discretion. May 2010 Elections. On the same day, he executed
another Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of
(4) Af any rate, all doubts should be resolved in Allegiance. 8

favour of Arnado's qualification:

Notably, this Affidavit of Renunciation came after his
a. Arnado' s unequivocal acts and show travel using an American passport.
of allegiance to the Republic and
renunciation of other citizenships, taken Linog C. Balua, another mayoralty candidate, filed with
together, should have resolved all the Comelec a petition to disqualify Amado and/or to
doubts in favor of his qualification; cancel his CoC (2010 Disqualification case) on the
ground that Arnado remained a US citizen: he
b. the mandate of the people of continued to use his US passport for entry to and exit
Kauswagan that twice elected Amado from the Philippines after executing the April 3, 2009
as their Mayor should be respected and Affidavit of Renunciation. Balua's petition was docketed
upheld. as SPA No. 10-109 (DC).

I. Roots of the Present Petition Arnado was proclaimed the winning candidate in the
May 2010 Elections.
A. Factual Background
In a resolution dated February 2, 2011, the Comelec En
For a· fuller understanding of the present Banc ruled [in SPA No. 10-109 (DC)) that Arnado's use
disqualification case, I reiterate below the important of his US passport, subsequent to his 2009 Affidavit of
antecedent facts. Renunciation, did not have the effect of reverting him to
his status as a dual citizen. The Comelec En Banc
found believable and plausible Arnado's explanation
Arnado is a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his
that he continued to use his US passport because he
Filipino citizenship after becoming a naturalized citizen
only knew of and received his Philippine passport three
of the United States of America (US.) in 1985.
months after it was issued on June 18, 2009. As soon
as he received his Philippine passport, he used it in his
In 2003, Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) No. 9225 subsequent travels abroad.
(Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003). 4

The 2010 disqualification case eventually reached this

Arnado opted to re-acquire his Philippine citizenship Court via the petition for certiorari filed by Maquiling; the
pursuant to RA No. 9225 and soon filed the required case was. docketed as GR No. 195649 entitled
application before the Philippine Consul General in San Maquiling v. Comelec.
Francisco, U.S.A. On July 10, 2008, Arnado took his
Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
a. The Court's Maquiling Decision.
the Approval of his Citizenship retention and re-
acquisition was issued on the same date.
In its April 16, 2013 Decision, the Court annulled and
set aside the Comelec En Banc 's February 2, 2011
On April 3, 2009, Arnado executed an Affidavit of
Resolution; disqualified Amado from running for the
Renunciation of his foreign citizenship (interchangeably
position of Mayor; and declared Maquiling the duly
referred to, from here on, as April 3, 2009 Affidavit of
elected mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, in the
Renunciation or 2009 express renunciation).
May 2010 Elections. The Court ruled that by his
subsequent use of his US passport, Arnado effectively
On April 14, 2009, Arnado left the country for the US disavowed or recanted his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of
using his US passport - US passport (No. 057782700) - Renunciation.
which identified his nationality as "USA-American." He
returned to the country on June 25, 2009, using the
In ruling on the case, the Court significantly
same US passport. He again left for the US on July 29,
acknowledged that:
2009, and returned to the country on November 24,
2009, still using his US passport.
i. The "act of using a foreign passport
does not divest Arnado of his Filipino
Unknown to Amado, however, the Philippine Consulate
citizenship, which he re-acquired by
General in San Francisco, USA, had approved and
repatriation. By representing himself as
issued in his favor a Philippine Passport (No. XX
an American citizen, however, Amado
3979162) on June 18, 2009.  He only received this
5

voluntarily and effectively reverted to his

Philippine passport three months later. 6

earlier status as a dual citizen. Such

reversion was not retroactive; it took
From then on, he used his Philippine passport in his place the instant Arnado represented
travels on the following dates: December 11, 2009 himself as an American citizen by using
(departure); January 12, 2010 (arrival); January 31, his US passport. "
2010 (departure); March 31, 2010 (arrival); April 11,
2010 (departure); April 16, 2010 (arrival); May 20, 2010
ii. "In effect, Arnado was solely and
(departure); and June 4, 2010 (arrival).7

exclusively a Filipino citizen only for a

period of eleven days, or from April 3,
B. The Maquiling Case and its Incidents 2009, until 14 April 2009, on which date
 he first used his American passport after as this subsequent affidavit should have been executed
renouncing his American citizenship." 10
on or before the filing of his CoC on October 1, 2012

C. The Present Disqualification Case B. The Comelec En Banc Ruling

On October l, 2012, and while the Maquiling case was In its December 9, 2013 resolution, the Comelec En
still pending before this Court (so that the existing Banc fully affirmed the Second Division's ruling;
standing rule was the Comelec ruling that he was annulled Arnado's proclamation; and declared Capitan
qualified to be a candidate), Arnado filed his CoC  for11
the duly elected mayor of Kauswagan..
the same mayoralty post for the May 2013 Elections.
Thus, Arnado saw no need to undertake another III. The Issues
Renunciation.
The issues raised for the Court's consideration are:
Respondent Florante Capitan also filed his CoC  for the
12

same position. A. Whether the Comelec En Banc and the

Second Division violated procedural due
On April 16, 2013, the Court issued its Decision in process and committed grave abuse of
Maquiling v. Comelec, disqualifying Arnado for the May discretion in failing to dismiss the petitions filed
2010 Elections. by Capitan for forum shopping and/or late filing;

Apparently in response to the Maquiling ruling, Arnado B. Whether the Comelec En Banc violated due
executed on May 9, 2013, an Oath of Allegiance and process and committed grave abuse of
Oath of Renunciation affirming the terms of his April 3, discretion by allowing . Commissioner Elias
2009 Affidavit of Renunciation(herein referred to as Yusoph to review the decision he wrote for the
2013 Affidavit).  Arnado undertook the required acts as
13
Second Division;
soon as he was aware that they had to be done to
perfect his May 2013 candidacy. C. Whether the Comelec committed grave
abuse of discretion in disenfranchising 84o/o of
On May 10, 2013, Capitan filed a petition to the voters ofKauswagan in the May 2013
disqualify  Arnado from running for the Kauswagan
14
elections; and
mayoralty post and/or to cancel his CoC (2013
Disqualification case) based on the Court's Maquiling D. Whether the Comelec committed grave
ruling. The case was docketed as SPA No. 13-309 (DC) abuse of discretion in disqualifying Arnado who
and was raffled to the Comelec had fully complied with the requirements of RA
No. 9225 before the filing of his CoC on October
Second Division (Second Division). 15
1, 2012.

On May 14, 2013, during the pendency of the 2013 IV. Refutation of the Ponencia
Disqualification case before. the Second Division,
Arnado was proclaimed the duly elected Mayor of A. Re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship
Lanao del Norte in the May 2013 Elections. 16
under RA No. 9225; purposes and legal
effect of the oath of allegiance and oath
Capitan responded to the proclamation by filing a of renunciation
petition to nullify Arnado's proclamation, arguing that
pursuant to the Maquiling ruling (which declared Amado RA No. 9225 was enacted to allow natural-born Filipino
disqualified from running for any local elective office), citizens who lost their Philippine citizenship through
Arnado's proclamation was void and carried no legal naturalization in a foreign country, to expeditiously re-
effect. acquire Philippine citizenship.   It is a unique mode of
17

re-acquiring Philippine citizenship and is a far departure

In a resolution dated July 2, 2013, the Court denied from the citizenship re-acquisition procedure under
Arnado's motion for reconsideration of the April 16, Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 63,  the law in place
18

2013 Maquiling Decision. before RA No. 9225 was enacted.

II. The Proceedings before the Comelec Under CA No. 63, Philippine citizenship may be re-
acquired by: (1) naturalization; (2) repatriation of
A. Comelec Second Division Ruling deserters of the Army, Navy, or Air Corps, or of a
woman who has lost her citizenship by reason of
In its resolution dated September 6, 2013, in SP A No. marriage to an alien after the termination of her marital
13-309(DC), the Comelec Second Division disqualified status; and (3) direct act of the National Assembly. 19

Amado from running in the May 2013 Elections.

The Second Division declared that at the time he filed

his CoC on October 1, 2012, Arnado still failed to
comply with RA No. 9225's requirement of making a
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship, as his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation
had been deemed withdrawn or recalled pursuant to
Maquiling. His 2013 Affidavit did not rectify this failure
Notably, re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship under that the Constitution states to "be inimical to public
the first mode (i.e., by naturalization) involves the more interest."
stringent procedure laid down in CA No. 473.  The20

reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under the second Pursuing his point, Rep. Dilangalen noted that under the
mode (i.e., by repatriation), on the other hand, provides measure, two situations exist - the retention of foreign
for an easier procedure as it requires only the taking of citizenship, and the reacquisition of Philippine
the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines citizenship. In this case, he observed that there are two
and registration in the proper civil registry; it applies, citizenships and therefore, two allegiances. He pointed
however, only to the specific group of persons out that under the Constitution, dual allegiance is
enumerated therein. inimical to public interest. He thereafter asked whether
with the creation of dual allegiance by reason of
Under the procedure currently in place under RA No. retention of foreign citizenship and the reacquisition of
9225, the re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship Philippine citizenship, there will now be a violation of the
requires only the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Constitution ....
Republic of the Philippines in a manner similar to the
second mode under CA No. 63. But, RA No. 9225 Rep. Locsin underscored that the measure does not
provides for a deeper effect by declaring it a State seek to address the constitutional injunction on dual
policy that under its terms "all Philippine citizens of allegiance as inimical to public interest. He said that the
another country shall be deemed not to have lost their proposed law aims to facilitate the reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship"  under the conditions provided
21
Philippine citizenship by speedy means. However, he
therein. said that in one sense, it addresses the problem of dual
citizenship by requiring the taking of an oath. He
The full implication of the effects of RA No. 9225 can explained that the problem of dual citizenship is
fully be appreciated by considering Section 3 of the law, transferred from the Philippines to the foreign country
which reads: because the latest oath that will be taken by the former
Filipino is one of allegiance to the Philippines and not to
Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any the United States, as the case may be. He added that
provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural- this is a matter which the Philippine government will
born citizenship by reason of their naturalization as have no concern and competence over.
citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have
re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the Rep. Dilangalen asked why this will no longer be the
following oath of allegiance to the Republic: country's concern, when dual allegiance is involved.

"'I , solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and Rep. Locsin clarified that this was precisely his
defend the Constitution of the Republic of the objection to the original version of the bill, which did not
Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders require an oath of allegiance. Since the measure now
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the requires this oath, the problem of dual allegiance is
Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and transferred from the Philippines to the foreign country
accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will concerned, he explained.
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I
imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without Rep. Dilangalen asked whether in the particular case,
mental reservation or purpose of evasion." [emphases the person did not denounce his foreign citizenship and
supplied] therefore still owes allegiance to the foreign
government, and at the same time, owes his allegiance
By its express terms, this oath is one of allegiance that to the Philippine government, such that there is now a
recognizes the "supreme authority" of the Philippines case of dual citizenship and dual allegiance.
and the obligation to "maintain true faith and allegiance
thereto." Rep. Locsin clarified that by swearing to the supreme
authority of the Republic, the person implicitly
These terms, while seemingly allowing dual citizenship renounces his foreign citizenship. However, he said that
for natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost their this is not a matter that he wishes to address in
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as Congress because he is not a member of a foreign
citizens in a foreign country,  carry the implicit effect of
22
parliament but a Member of the House.
renouncing their foreign citizenship and allegiance
because of the renewed allegiance that is accorded to Rep. Locsin replied that it is imperative that those who
the supreme authority of the Republic. 23
have dual allegiance contrary to national interest should
be dealt with by law. However, he said that the dual
In effect, the problem of dual allegiance created by dual allegiance problem is not addressed in the bill. He then
citizenship is transferred from the Philippines to the cited the Declaration of Policy in the bill which states
foreign country. Since the latest oath that the person that "It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all
takes is one of allegiance to the Republic, whatever citizens who become citizens of another country shall
treatment the foreign country may have on his or her be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship
status is a matter outside the concern and competence under the conditions of this Act." He stressed that what
of the Philippine government!. 24
the bill does is recognize Philippine citizenship but says
nothing about the other citizenship.
The congressional exchanges on dual citizenship and
the potential problem of dual allegiance (which under Rep. Locsin further pointed out that the problem of dual
the Constitution is inimical to public interest), attest to allegiance is created wherein a natural-born citizen of
this interpretation as these exchanges reconciled the the Philippines takes an oath of allegiance to another
possession of dual citizenship and the dual allegiance country and in that oath says that he abjures and
absolutely renounces all allegiance to his country of for the purpose of running for elective public office,
origin and swears allegiance to that foreign country. The apparently to ensure that foreign citizenship and mixed
original Bill had left it at this stage, he explained. In the loyalties are kept out of the elective public service.
present measure, he clarified, a person is required to
take an oath and the last he utters is one of allegiance To paraphrase Japzon v. Comelec,   the oath of
28

to the country. He then said that the problem of dual renunciation makes these natural-born potential
allegiance is no longer the problem of the Philippines candidates for public office "pure" Philippine
but of the other foreign country. [emphases supplied] citizens  from the perspective of the election laws.
29

Jurisprudence confirms this interpretation of RA No. In sum, the oath of allegiance not only allows these
9225 in AASJS v. Hon. Datumanong  when the Court
25
natural-born Filipinos to re-acquire Philippine
pointedly declared: citizenship; thereby, they also implicitly renounce their
citizenship and allegiance to any and all foreign country
By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, as they assert allegiance to the "supreme authority of
the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. the Philippines and xx x maintain true faith and
Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225 stayed clear allegiance thereto". The oath of renunciation, on the
out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the other hand, complements their oath of allegiance
burden of confronting the issue of whether OF not there through the express manifestation, for purpose of
is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. running for public office, that the candidate is a "pure"
What happens to the other citizenship was not made a Filipino.
concern of Rep. Act No. 9225.  [emphasis supplied]
26

B. Arnado's attainment, loss of "pure"

The oath of allegiance taken under RA No. 9225 entitles Filipino citizen status, and subsequent
a person to enjoy full civil and political rights that include Developments
the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
establishment or administration of the government.   He 27
Based on the above discussions, I find - as the
or she may now vote. ponencia and the majority in Maquiling did - that Arnado
became a "pure" Philippine citizen when he took his
To be voted upon to an elective office, however, a oath of allegiance to the Philippines on July 10, 2008,
natural-born Filipino citizen who has implicitly and his oath of renunciation on April 3, 2009.  With his
30

renounced foreign allegiance when he or she swears oath of renunciation, he became solely a Filipino citizen
allegiance to the Republic under RA No. 9225 must still with total allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
make his or her previous implicit renunciation "express."
In the words of the law, he must "make a personal and He could have, at that point, validly run for public office,
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship." except that subsequent to his renunciation, he travelled
[Section 5(2) of RA No. 9225] using his U.S. passport - a development that the
Maquiling ruling unfortunately characterized as a
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - recantation of his previous renunciation of American
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship citizenship.
under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and
be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities Had the developments that transpired in Amado's
under existing laws of the Philippines and the following political life simply stopped with his candidacy in the
conditions: May 2010 Elections, then the present case and its
complications would have been avoided. But as
(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall subsequent developments showed, a confluence of
meet the qualification for holding such public office as complicating factors arose.
required by the Constitution and existing laws, and at
the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, First, Arnado ran again for the same office in the May
make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all 2013 Elections, and events overlapped. His
foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized disqualification case was not resolved with dispatch so
to administer an oath; .... [emphases and underscoring that the period for the filing of the CoC for the May 2013
supplied] Elections (in October 2012) was set while the present
case was still pending with this Court.
The requirement of an express renunciation, however,
does not negate the effect of, or make any less real, the Second, at that time, the standing ruling was the
prior implicit renunciation of citizenship and allegiance Comelec en bane decision that Arnado was not
made upon taking the oath of allegiance. Thus, persons disqualified and had perfected the required submissions
availing of RA No. 9225 do not renounce their foreign for his candidacy. No restraining order or any other
citizenship for the first time by executing the Affidavit of ruling from this Court intervened to prevent this
renunciation that Section 5(2) of the law requires; they Comelec ruling from being the governing rule in the
have implicitly made this renunciation when they swore interim.
allegiance to the supreme authority of the Republic.
As a result, Amado saw no need to undertake remedial
What the oath of renunciation simply does is to make measures addressing the matters complained about in
express what natural-born. Filipino citizens have the 2010 Maquiling disqualification case. But at that
already implicitly renounced. The requirement of point, he had already filed two oaths of renunciation - on
express renunciation highlights the implication that it is April 3, 2009 and on November 30, 2009 - when he filed
not the exclusive means by which natural-born Filipino his CoC for the May 2010 Elections.
citizens may renounce their foreign citizenship. In
reality, the oath of renunciation is a requirement simply
Third, he did not submit any oath of renunciation consider Arnado disqualified. To reiterate, no
together with his October 1, 2012 CoC since, to his intervening restraining order was issued by this Court
knowledge, he had complied with the requirements of addressing this Comelec ruling. Hence, there was no
RA No. 9225 and the Local Government Code, and had immediate need, at the time of the CoC's filing, for a
attained "pure" Filipino citizen status. (That he did attain replacement supporting oath of renunciation.
this status based on the 2008 oath of allegiance and his
2009 affidavit of renunciation is in fact confirmed by Second, since the Comelec did not accept Amado's
Maquiling, although his subsequent recantation May 9, 2013 Affidavit of Renunciation (for the May 2013
intervened.) Elections) in the light of the Maquiling 11Jling (affecting
the May 2010 elections), he was placed in an
Arnado's political world was overturned when the Court impossible situation of being disqualified in the May
resolved the May 2010 disqualification case on April 16, 2013 Elections for a ruling applicable only to the May
2013, or a few days before the May 2013 elections. But 2010 Elections, without being given the opportunity to
Arnado did not fully dwell on the past. While filing a submit his compliance for the May 2013 Elections.
motion for reconsideration of the Maquiling ruling, he
also acted on his October 1, 2012 CoC by executing Third, along the same line of thought, Arnado's May 9,
and submitting, on May 9, 2013, an Oath of Allegiance 2013 Affidavit of Renunciation, submitted to comply with
and Oath of Renunciation affirming his April 3, 2009 his May 2013 candidacy, was rejected because it
Affidavit of Renunciation. should have been filed on October 1, 2012 (i.e., when
he filed his CoC for the May 2013 elections).
Thus, from the perspective of the laws governing
natural-born Filipinos who have re-acquired Philippine If the Maquiling ruling of April 16, 2013, which
citizenship and who wish to run for public office, Amado addressed the separate 2010 disqualification case, was
did not only comply with the twin requirements of RA made to retroactively apply to October 1, 2012, in the
No. 9225 as of April 3, 2009; he even exceeded the separate 2013 disqualification case, then a retroactive
requirements of the law by asserting his oath of opportunity should also be given in the 2013
allegiance to the Republic four times, while also disqualification case to comply with what retroactively
impliedly renouncing any and all foreign citizenships for applied in Maquiling.
the same number of "times, and twice expressly
renouncing any and all other citizenships (with one To the extent that Arnado was denied the chance to
express renunciation declared recanted by Maquiling). submit a replacement ·oath of renunciation in 2013,
there was an unfair and abusive denial of opportunity
All these are material considerations that should be equivalent to grave abuse of discretion.
taken into account in resolving the present case and are
more fully discussed under separate headings below. D. The Maquiling ruling is limited to
Arnado 's qualification to run for public
C. The Comelec gravely abused its office and only for the purpose of the
discretion in ruling that the May 9, May 2010 elections
2013 Confirmation of Oath of
Affirmation was out of time. I submit that the ponencia 's ruling, insofar as it adopts
the Maquiling ruling, is an overreach that runs counter
After the promulgation of the Maquiling Decision to the policy behind RA No. 9225.
disqualifying Amado for the May 2010 elections and
relying solely on its terms, the Comelec disqualified I submit that the extent of the legal consequences of the
Amado for the May 2013 elections because his October Maquiling ruling affect solely Arnado 's qualification to
1, 2012 CoC was not supported by any Affidavit of run for public office and only for the purpose of the May
Renunciation (since Maquiling considered his April 3, 2010 elections. These consequences should not be
2009 Affidavit of Renunciation for the May 2010 extended to situations outside of and not contemplated
elections effectively recanted). by Maquiling.

The Comelec ruling and its underlying reasons are, on The following reasons support my view:
their face, patently unreasonable since they did not
consider at all the surrounding circumstances of the
First, the Maquiling ruling only considered the material
filing of the October 1, 2012 CoC and the circumstances
facts surrounding the May 2010 Elections. The critical
that led to the absence of any oath of renunciation after
facts on which the Maquiling case turned dwelt with the
the Maquiling ruling. The Comelec approach is in fact
travels of Amado using his U.S. passport. These facts
simplistic to the point of grave abuse of discretion.
are not contested in the present case. Nor am I
Apparently, it considered that with the oath of
contesting that for eleven days in April 2009, Amado
renunciation·recanted and with no oath filed with the
was a "pure" Filipino, until a recantation of his
October 1, 2012 CoC, then the CoC should be
renunciation oath took place. These are settled and
considered fatally deficient. The ponencia 's reasoning
accepted facts.
also runs this way.
The Maquiling ruling left out, because these are facts
Subject to fuller discussions below, I submit that the
that it did not consider material for its resolution (such
Comelec missed out on at least three (3) basic
as the overlaps in the filing of the October 1, 2012 CoC
considerations.
and the resolution of Maquiling; the effect of Maquiling
on the 2013 disqualification case; the oath of allegiance
First, at the time the October 1, 2012 CoC was filed, the and renunciation that accompanied the November 30,
prevailing ruling, although then contested before the 2009 CoC for the May 2010 elections) or because they
Court, was the Comelec en bane ruling that did not
were outside the scope of the relevant facts of that Maquiling invalidated Arnado 's renunciation oath
Maquiling (such as the prevailing Comelec en bane solely for the purpose of his qualification/or the May
ruling on October 1, 2012 when Amado filed his CoC; 2010 elections.
the facts surrounding the filing of the CoC on October 1,
2012; and the May 9, 2013 filing of the Oath of Third, Amado became a "pure" Philippine citizen as of
Allegiance and Oath of Renunciation affirming his April April 3, 2009, a legal consequence that Maquiling
3; 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation). recognized and conceded as it declared that "he in fact
did" comply with the "twin requirements under RA No.
From these perspectives, how can the 2010 Maquiling 9225" for the purpose of election qualification.
case be a seamless continuation of the 2013
disqualification case now before this Court? What made the Court rule against Amado's qualification
for the May 2010 Elections was the finding of positive,
Second, the implied renunciation of foreign citizenship albeit isolated, acts that effectively "disqualified him
that Amado made on several occasions is different from from running for an elective public office pursuant to
and has distinct legal implications separate from the Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991."
express renunciation he made on April 3, 2009.
Otherwise stated, Amado, in the Maquiling sense, was
The implied renunciation of foreign citizenship proceeds indisputably already a "pure" Philippine citizen as of
from the oath of allegiance that natural-born Filipino April 3, 2009. He reverted to a dual citizen status (and
citizens take to re-acquire Philippine citizenship. This is only from the perspective of the concerned foreign
patent from the terms of the oath of allegiance and is a country) only on the date subsequent to April 3, 2009,
consequence of the resulting re-acquisition of Philippine and only by virtue of the ruling that considered his use
citizenship. of his US passport on isolated occasions as a
"voluntar[y] and effective[] [act of] revert[ing] to [the]
The express renunciation, in contrast, is an after-the- earlier status [of] a dual citizen."
fact requirement that arises only if these natural-born
Filipino citizens choose to run for public office. The To quote and highlight the majority's pronouncement on
requirement of an express renunciation of foreign this point: "[s]uch reversion was not retroactive as it
citizenship arises only after they have re-acquired took place the instant Arnado represented himself as an
Philippine citizenship for the exclusive purpose of American citizen by using his US passport. ,, 31

qualifying them for elective public office.

Thus, even if only for qualification purposes, the April 3,
Note in this regard that Maquiling declared as recanted 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation was a valid and Court-
only the express renunciation that Arnado executed on recognized express declaration of Amado's renunciation
April 3, 2009, not the implied renunciation that Amado of his US citizenship that the Court cannot lightly
made on several occasions when he swore allegiance disregard in the present disqualification case.
to the supreme authority of the Republic.
Fourth, even Maquiling did not perpetually and
This Maquiling declaration and the distinction that it absolutely disqualify Arnado from running for any
signifies are crucial: first, the implied renunciation of elective public office, or from running in any elections as
foreign allegiance that Amado made on several they declared that "[h]e is disqualified xx from becoming
occasions still stands as valid, as Maquiling affected a candidate in the May 2010 elections. " 32

only his April 3, 2009 express renunciation; second, the

implied renunciation must be valid because it did not In other words, Maquiling declared Amado as
affect Amado's reacquisition of Filipino citizenship; and disqualified from running only in the May 2010
third, Arnado's express renunciation was declared Elections; they did not declare him as disqualified for
recanted solely for the purpose of the May 2010 any and all other elections, including the May 2013
Elections, not for any and all other purposes. Elections.

In short, Maquiling did not declare Arnado 's E. Arnado's May 9, 2013 Affidavit of
renunciation of his US citizenship invalid for all Renunciation, affirming his April 3,
purposes; it certainly could not have done so as that 2009 Affidavit, cured any alleged defect
case involved an election disqualification case that in his qualification to run for public
challenged Amado's candidacy for the mayoralty post office during the May 2013 Elections
by reason of an alleged defect in his qualification, i.e.,
Amado's isolated acts that, to the majority, effectively I take exception to the ponencia 's ruling that ignores
recanted his express renunciation. Amado's May 9, 2013 Affidavit of Renunciation simply
because it was executed after Amado filed his CoC on
In ruling as it did, Maquiling did not and could not have October 1, 2012. I submit that Arnado's May 9, 2013
gone beyond the confines of the underlying election Affidavit of Renunciation bears crucial significance to
disqualification case and could not have ruled on Amado's qualification to run for the May 2013 Elections
Arnado 's Philippine citizenship per se without which the Court cannot and should not lightly ignore.
exceeding the confines of the Court's jurisdiction.
Maquiling unequivocably held that by using an
Citizenship and its loss, acquisition, and re-acquisition American passport, he effectively recanted his express
are much broader concepts that cannot definitively be renunciation of his US citizenship.
affected by a Court ruling in an election disqualification
case, even if the disqualification case touches on the Jurisprudence defines the act of recantation to mean to
citizenship qualification of the candidate. Thus, I submit "withdraw or repudiate formally and publicly;" "to
renounce or withdraw prior statement." To "retract" 3, 2009. Rather, it affirmed and revalidated the Court-
means to "take back;" "to retract an offer is to withdraw recognized renunciation oath that he had earlier taken.
it before acceptance. "33

Indisputably, Maquiling found that Amado's express

That Arnado took back his statement disavowing renunciation had been validly made. This express
allegiance to the US government, however, does not renunciation, having been disavowed, can be re-
render invalid his status as a natural-born Filipino affirmed by subsequent acts - through his May 9, 2013
citizen; neither does it negate the fact that he had Affidavit of Renunciation and through the statement in
impliedly renounced his US citizenship, and had his October 1, 2012 CoC.
subsequently made an express renunciation of his US
citizenship. The statement in Amado's October 1, 2012 CoC, for
instance, is substantially similar to the oath of allegiance
Granting that Amado's use of his US passport required in RA No. 9225. This oath not only recognizes
amounted to a withdrawal of the express renunciation Amado's Filipino citizenship, but impliedly renounces
he made of his allegiance to the US, this withdrawal his US citizenship. That he swore sole allegiance to the
does not erase the fact that he did make an express Philippine Republic in his October 1, 2012 CoC in effect
renunciation of his US citizenship. affirmed his express renunciation of US citizenship; and
thus dispenses with the need for another express
To my mind, this express renunciation, even if recanted, renunciation.
may still be re-affirmed, ·in the same way a statement
already made and subsequently denied, can be re- Rather than an oath that should simply be brushed
confirmed. Thus, Arnado's 2013 Affidavit of aside as the Comelec did, the May 9, 2013 Affidavit
Renunciation can validly re-affirm the 2009 express served: first, to repair his reverted dual citizen status as
renunciation that the Court held to have been recanted declared in Maquiling; and second, to re-assert and
in Maquiling. emphasize his clear intent to renounce his US
citizenship which he had expressly done once and
Note that in the May 9, 2013 Affidavit of Renunciation, impliedly done four times.
Amado categorically stated that he renounces his US
citizenship, as well as any and all foreign citizenship; In this sense, the May 9, 2013 Affidavit of Renunciation
swears allegiance to the Republic; and confirms the retroacted to April 3, 2009, and cured any alleged
renunciation (of his US citizenship). he had previously defect in Amado's October 1, 2012 CoC. More
made in the April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation. importantly, it cured any defect that the intervening
Maquiling ruling introduced on Amado's qualification to
Note, likewise, that as explained above, the April 3, run for public office during the May 2013 Elections.
2009 Affidavit of Renunciation is a valid and Court-
confirmed oath that Amado had validly confirmed in his That Amado executed his May 9, 2013 Affidavit of
May 9, 2013 Affidavit. To confirm means "to make firm: Renunciation while Maquiling was still under the Court's
strengthen in a resolution, conviction, loyalty, position; consideration (it was not confirmed on reconsideration
to give new assurance of the truth or validity; to state or until July 2, 2013) is not without significance. While the
imply the truth,"  and implies a prior existing act.
34
May 9, 2013 Affidavit was filed for purposes of the
present disqualification case, it could have, had the
Finally, note that the Maquiling ruling was issued after Court been so inclined, considered as a factor in ruling
Amado took his oath of allegiance to the Republic four on Maquiling's reconsideration; but apparently it was
times - on July 10, 2008, April 3, 2009 (when he not at all considered since Amado's use of his US
executed the affidavit of renunciation); November 30, passport was the focal point of the controversy.
2009 (when he filed his CoC for the May 2010
Elections); and October 1, 2012 (when he filed his CoC F. The intervening Maquiling ruling did
for the May 2013 Elections). It was also issued after not and could not have invalidated his
Arnado renounced his US citizenship expressly on April status as a "pure" Philippine citizen
3, 2009, and impliedly on four occasions - on July 10, who was qualified to run and had filed a
2008; April 3, 2009; November 30, 2009; and October valid CoC for the May 2013 Elections
1, 2012 - when he swore allegiance to the supreme
authority of the Republic. As the legal consequences of the Maquiling. ruling on
Amado's renunciation of his US citizenship did not
In fact, in his October 1, 2012 CoC, Amado made the extend beyond his qualification to run for public office
following oath: during the May 2010 elections; and that the May 9,
2013 Affidavit of Renunciation cured any alleged defect
I will support and defend the Constitution of the in Amado's qualification to run for the May 2013
Republic of the Philippines and will maintain true faith Elections, I submit that the Maquiling ruling on April 16,
and allegiance thereto. I will obey all laws, legal orders 2013 did not affect and could not have affected
and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted Armado's qualification to run for public office for the
authorities. I impose this obligation upon myself purpose of the May 2013 Elections.
voluntarily, without mental reservation and purpose of
evasion. Under the circumstances, Amado had effectively
become a "pure" natural-born Philippine citizen again
Taken together, all these facts undeniably show that on October 1, 2012, when he executed the retroactive
Amado's May 9, 2013 Affidavit of Renunciation was not and curative May 9, 2013 Affidavit of Renunciation, and
entirely new, nor completely different and independent which status continued well beyond the May 2013
from the oath of renunciation that Arnado took on April Elections. In this way, Arnado qualified for the position
of Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, and filed a appropriate case. In this respect, I submit that in
valid CoC. situations of doubt where the strict application of the
equivocal letter of the law would clearly and
G. When Arnado filed his CoC on October undoubtedly disregard the legislative intent, the Court
1, 2012, the Comelec En Banc, in its must and should tread lightly as it rules on the relatively
February 2, 2011 Resolution in SPA uncharted area of application where RA No. 9225
No. 10-109(DC), declared him as overlaps with our elections laws.
qualified to run/or the elective office;
hence, Arnado did not need to execute The unique factual situation of this case presents such
another Affidavit of Renunciation situation of doubt which the Court must resolve in the
because of this standing Comelec ruling light of the clear legislative intent, rather than from the
strict application of the equivocal letter of the law. I find
I likewise strongly object to the ponencia for faulting that Amado's persistent assertion of his allegiance to
Amado for not executing another oath of renunciation at the Republic and renunciation of his US citizenship
the time of or prior to the filing of his CoC on October more than sufficiently prove his determined resolve to
1, . 2012, reasoning out that as "early as 2010 x x x profess allegiance only to the Republic and to none
Amado has gotten wind that the use of his US passport other.
might pose a problem to his candidacy."
I submit that the following considerations should not be
It should be remembered that in the February 2, 2011 missed.
Resolution in SP A No. 10-109(DC), the Comelec En
Banc declared Arnado as a "pure" Philippine citizen At the time Amado filed his CoC on October 1, 2012, he
again, qualified to run for elective public office. This had fully satisfied all of the requirements of RA No.
Comelec ruling still stood and had not yet been 9225 to run for elective public office: he has re-acquired
overturned at the time Arnado filed his CoC on October Philippine citizenship after having filed the Oath of
1, 2012 for the May 2013 Elections. Arnado, therefore, Allegiance and secured the order of approval on July
had every right and reason to rely on this Comelec 10, 2008; he has also met all of the qualifications under
ruling and to believe that he was not disqualified to run the Constitution and the law for the local elective office;
in the May 2013 Elections. and he has already executed an Affidavit of
Renunciation on April 3, 2009.
I concede that, as the events have shown, he should, in
retrospect, have exercised greater care and have taken Likewise, as of October 1, 2012, Amado had sworn
every. step to secure his qualification to run for public allegiance to the Republic four times, i.e., on July 10,
office. His failure, however, should not and cannot affect 2008; April 3, 2009; November 30, 2009; and October
his qualification which then stands and is authoritatively 1, 2012. He had also renounced his US citizenship
affirmed by the Comelec. expressly on April 3, 2009, and impliedly thrice on July
10, 2008, November 30, 2009, and October 1, 2012.
Indeed "there is no law prohibiting him from executing
an Affidavit of Renunciation every election period" as Additionally, on October 1, 2012, the Comelec en bane,
the ponencia puts it. But, note that there is equally no via the February 2, 2011 resolution in SPA No. 10-
law that requires him to constantly and consistently· 109(DC), had ruled in his favour, affirmed the existence
assert his renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship. and validity of his oath of renunciation, and confirmed
Neither is there any law that expressly or impliedly his continuing qualification for the elective post. At that
imposes on natural-born Filipino citizens the obligation time, the February 2, 2011 Comelec ruling had not yet
to constantly assert their allegiance to the Republic and been reversed by this Court and stood as the final and
perform positive acts to assert this allegiance. most recent ruling as regards his qualification to run for
the local elective post. As it had not yet been reversed,
In fact, as the law stands, natural-born Filipino citizens he clearly and rightfully had every reason to rely on this
who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of Comelec ruling when he filed his CoC on October 1,
their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country need 2012.
only to take an oath of allegiance to the supreme
authority of the Republic to re-acquire Philippine In these lights, Amado's allegiance to the supreme
citizenship as they are "deemed not to have lost their authority of the Republic and his renunciation of any
Philippine citizenship." Once they re-acquire their and all foreign allegiance, including those to the US
Philippine citizenship after complying with these legal government, cannot be doubted. From the time he had
steps, they no longer need to perform any positive act re-acquired "pure" Philippine citizenship under the
to assert Philippine citizenship or to elect citizenship.
35
terms of RA No. 9225, Arnado has persistently asserted
these oaths even while the law does not require him to
H. Arnado 's persistent assertions of his do so.
allegiance to the Republic and
renunciation of his US citizenship more In this situation, any doubt or ambiguity should be
than sufficiently proved his determined resolved in favor of his full Filipino citizenship - with his
resolve to profess allegiance only to the qualification to run for the May 2013 Elections - since
Republic; these continuing assertions the thrust of RA No. 9225 is to encourage the return to
should have resolved any doubt in favor Filipino citizenship of natural-born Filipinos who lost
of his qualification their Philippine citizenship through their acquisition of
foreign citizenship.   Note in this regard that Amado
36

RA No. 9225 is a relatively new statutory enactment consciously and voluntarily gave up a very much
whose provisions have not been exhaustively sought-after citizenship status in favor of returning to full
interpreted and ruled upon by this Court, through an
Filipino citizenship and of participating in Philippine from running for the May 2013 Elections, was clearly
governance. 37
tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

I. Maquiling did not say that Arnado used The Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion
his US passport again on January 12, when: first, it relied completely and indiscriminately on
2010, and on March 23, 2010 the Maquiling ruling - the wrong and irrelevant, or at the
very least, incomplete - consideration in deciding the
A minor matter, asserted by the ponencia, which should underlying disqualification case; and second, it did not
be corrected is the claim that Amado "used his US make its own finding of facts and evaluation of the
passport on January 12, 2010, and on March 23, 2010, evidence, independent of Maquiling, and disregarded
as found by this Court in Maquiling." relevant facts and evidence subsequent to Maquiling - a
clear misapprehension of the facts. Note that the
I strongly object to this observation as the ponencia Comelec, both in the September 6, 2013, and
clearly misread Maquiling. December 9, 2013 resolutions, quoted heavily portions
of the Maquiling ruling and drew its discussions and
conclusion largely from Maquiling.
Nowhere in Maquiling did the Court make a finding that
Arnado used his US passport again on January 12,
2010, and March 23, 2010 - months after he had For these reasons, and under the circumstances of this
received his Philippine passport. Rather, the alleged case, I submit that the assailed Comelec actions must
use by Arnado of his US passport on these dates was a be struck down for grave abuse of discretion amounting
mere assertion of Balua, before the Comelec First to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Division in the Maquiling case; interestingly, Balua was
no longer a party when the case reached this Court. In K. At any rate, all doubts should be
fact, the Court in Maquiling, quoting a portion of the resolved in favor of Arnado 's
Comelec En Banc decision, noted that on January 12, qualification: the mandate of the people
2010, what Arnado used was his Philippine passport, of Kauswagan that twice elected Arnado
not his US passport. as their Mayor should be respected and
upheld
J. Under the circumstances, the Comelec
committed grave abuse of discretion Independently of all these issues - of Amado's
qualification to run for the May 2013 Elections and the
In this Rule 64-Rule 65 petition, the Court's review is intervention of the Maquiling ruling - the
limited to the jurisdictional issue of whether the
Comelec acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or Court cannot and should not now ignore the undeniable
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or fact that the people of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte,
excess of jurisdiction. have themselves responded to the situation of doubt
that might have arisen because of the factual link
As a concept, grave abuse of discretion generally refers between the present disqualification case and the
to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is intervention of the Maquiling ruling.
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; the abuse of discretion
must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of The people themselves made their own ruling when
a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty they elected Arnado as their mayor in the two
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, successive elections - the May 2010 and the May 2013
as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and elections - despite the "foreigner" label his rivals, even
despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. the ponencia, sought to continuously pin on him.
Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be
grave. Arnado received an overwhelming 8,902 votes as
against the meager 1,707 votes of his opponent Capitan
The Court's review power is also limited by the in the May 2013 Elections; in the May 2010 Elections,
condition, under Section 5, Rule 64 of the Rules of he received the majority 5,952 of the total 11,309 votes
Court, that findings of fact of the Comelec, supported by cast. At this point, "even this Court should heed this
substantial evidence, shall be final and non-reviewable. verdict by resolving all doubts regarding Arnado's
In this respect, the Court does not ordinarily review the eligibility in his favor.". This is not a novel approach.  To
40

Comelec' s appreciation and evaluation of evidence as reiterate what Sinaca v. Mula  teaches us:
41

any misstep by the Comelec in this regard generally

involves an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction. [When] a candidate has received popular mandate,
overwhelmingly and clearly expressed, all possible
In exceptional situations, however, where the assailed doubts should be resolved in favor of the candidate's
judgment is based on misapprehension or erroneous eligibility for to rule otherwise is to defeat the will of the
apprehension of facts or on the use of wrong or people. Above and beyond all, the determination of the
irrelevant considerations in deciding an issue  -
38 true will of the electorate should be paramount. It is their
situations that are tainted with grave abuse of discretion voice, not ours or of anyone else, that must prevail.
- the Court is not only obliged but has the constitutional This, in essence, is the democracy we continue to hold
duty to intervene.   When grave abuse of discretion is
39 sacred.
present, the resulting errors mutate from error of
judgment to one of jurisdiction. In the words of another leading case - Frivaldo v.
Comelec42- the law and the courts, including this Court,
I find that, based on the reasons discussed above, the must give serious consideration to the popular will.
Comelec' s action in this case as it disqualified Amado
"In any action involving the possibility of a reversal of proceedings before the Commission on Elections is
the popular electoral choice, this Court must exert unsubstantiated.
utmost effort to resolve the issues in a manner that
would give effect to the will of the majority, for it is However, I cannot agree with the conclusion that
merely sound public policy to cause elective offices to petitioner remained an American citizen in accordance
be filled by those who are the choice of the majority. To with this court's ruling in Maquiling. Petitioner was
successfully challenge a winning candidate's already a Filipino citizen at the time he filed his
qualifications, the petitioner must clearly demonstrate Certificate of Candidacy on October 1, 2012. He was
that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to qualified to run in the 2013 Elections. The Petition
constitutional and legal principles that overriding such should be granted.
ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will
of the people would ultimately create greater prejudice I
to the very democratic institutions and juristic traditions
that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and
Petitioner has performed all the acts required by
promote. 43

Republic Act No. 9225  in order to reacquire his Filipino

2

citizenship.
Under the evidentiary and unique factual situation of
this case, the alleged eligibility of Amado is not
Under Section 39(a) of the Local Government Code,  a 3

antagonistic, patently or otherwise, to constitutional and

candidate for Mayor must be a citizen of the Philippines,
legal principles such that giving effect to the sovereign
a registered voter, a resident in the municipality or city
will would create prejudice to our democratic
where he or she intends to be elected for at least one
institutions.
(1) year immediately preceding the day of election, and
be able to read and write Filipino or any local language
Notably, the Office of the Sanggunianng Bayan, through or dialect.
Resolution No. 002-2014  dated January 2, 2014, and
44

the Liga ng Mga Barangay, through Resolution No. 001-

Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code   expressly
4

2014  dated January 2, 2014, expressed their

45

disqualifies those who possess dual citizenship from

continuing and overwhelming support for Amado,
running in any local elective position. These provisions,
notwithstanding the Comelec rulings disqualifying him
however, do not disqualify candidates who might have
from the May 2013 Elections, and implores the Court to
lost their citizenship but were able to reacquire it before
heed the Kauswagan people's voice under the principle
running for public office.
vox populi, vox dei.
Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that
Under the circumstances of this case, the ponencia 's
"Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the
action that resolves all doubts against Amado's
manner provided by law."
eligibility undoubtedly defeats the will of the Kauswagan
electorate.   In ruling as it does, the ponencia effectively
46

disenfranchises an undoubtedly overwhelming majority Those who lose their Filipino citizenship through
of the Kauswagan people as "[t]he rights of suffrage can naturalization in another country may reacquire it
be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a through the procedure outlined in Republic Act No.
citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting 9225. This also applies to naturalized citizens who wish
the free exercise of the franchise." to reacquire their Filipino citizenship in order to run for
public office.
 The Court should respect and uphold the will of the
47

electorate. According to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225:

For the above reasons, I vote to grant the petition. SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship. -
Any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by
ARTURO D. BRION
reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
Associate Justice
foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-
acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION following oath of allegiance to the Republic:

LEONEN, J.: "I , solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will

support and defend the Constitution of
Petitioner Rommel C. Amado renounced his foreign the Republic of the Philippines and obey
citizenship in accordance with Republic Act No. 9225 no the laws and legal orders promulgated
less than three times. After he had filed his candidacy by the duly constituted authorities of the
for the position of Mayor in 2013, this court promulgated Philippines; and I hereby declare that I
its Decision in Maquiling v. Commission on recognize and accept the supreme
Elections,   which made it impossible for him to again
1
authority of the Philippines and will
renounce or reiterate his renunciation of his foreign maintain true faith and allegiance
citizenship. In the 2013 elections, he won garnering thereto; and that I impose this obligation
84o/o of the votes cast in his municipality. The majority upon myself voluntarily without mental
opinion requires him now, yet again, to renounce his reservation or purpose of evasion."
foreign citizenship.
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who,
I concur with the ponencia's finding that petitioner's after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens
claim of procedural infirmities that occurred during the
 of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine The law categorically requires persons seeking elective
citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath. public office, who either retained their Philippine
citizenship or those who reacquired it, to make a
The effect of reacquisition is the restoration of Philippine personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have citizenship before a public officer authorized to
been naturalized as citizens in a foreign country. All that administer an oath simultaneous with or before the filing
is required to retain their citizenship is to take the oath of the certificate of candidacy.
of allegiance under the law.
Hence, Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels
In the previous repatriation law, naturalized citizens natural-born Filipinos, who have been naturalized as
seeking to reacquire Philippine citizenship only had to citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired or
take an oath of allegiance in order to regain their retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath
citizenship, including the right to seek public office.   Act
5 of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225,
No. 63  states:
6 and (2) for those seeking elective public offices in the
Philippines, to additionally execute a personal and
SEC. 4. Repatriation shall be effected by merely taking sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship
the necessary oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth before an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous
of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil to the filing of their certificates of candidacy, to qualify
registry. as candidates in Philippine elections.

The same requirement is present in the present Clearly Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 (on the
reacquisition law. Philippine citizenship is deemed to making of a personal and sworn renunciation of any and
have been reacquired through the taking of the oath of all foreign citizenship) requires of the Filipinos availing
allegiance embodied in Section 3 of Republic Act No. themselves of the benefits under the said Act to
9225. However, unlike the previous law, the mere act of accomplish an undertaking other than that which they
taking the oath of allegiance is not sufficient compliance have presumably complied with under Section 3 thereof
for those seeking to run for public office. The law (oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines).
includes an additional requisite before they become This is made clear in the discussion of the Bicameral
qualified to run for public office, thus: Conference Committee on Disagreeing Provisions of
House Bill No. 4720 and Senate Bill No. 2130 held on
18 August 2003 (precursors of Republic Act No. 9225),
SEC. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. - Those
where the Hon. Chairman Franklin Drilon and Hon.
who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this
Representative Arthur Defensor explained to Hon.
Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be
Representative Exequiel Javier that the oath of
subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities
allegiance is different from the renunciation of foreign
under existing laws of the Philippines and the following
citizenship:
conditions:
CHAIRMAN DRILON. Okay. So, No. 2. "Those seeking
(2) Those seeking elective public in the
elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the
Philippines shall meet the qualification for
qualifications for holding such public office as required
holding such public office as required by the
by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of
Constitution and existing laws and, at the time
the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a
of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
a personal and sworn renunciation of any and
citizenship before any public officer authorized to
all foreign citizenship before any public officer
administer an oath." I think it's very good, ha? No
authorized to administer an oath[.] (Emphasis
problem?
supplied)
REP. JAVIER.... I think it's already covered by the oath.
In Japzon v. Commission on Elections:  7

CHAIRMAN DRILON. Renouncing foreign citizenship.

[F]or a natural born Filipino, who reacquired or retained
his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225,
to run for public office, he must: ( 1) meet the REP. JAVIER. Ah ... but he has taken his oath already.
qualifications for holding such public office as required
by the Constitution and existing laws; and (2) make a CHAIRMAN DRILON. No ... no, renouncing foreign
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship.
citizenships before any public officer authorized to
administer an oath. 8
CHAIRMAN DRILON. Can I go back to No. 2. What's
your problem, Boy? Those seeking elective office in the
The law requires a personal and sworn renunciation of Philippines.
all foreign citizenships before the candidate files a
certificate of candidacy. REP. JAVIER. They are trying to make him renounce
his citizenship thinking that ano ...
In Jacot v. Dal and Commission on Elections,  this court
9

disqualified Nestor A. Jacot from running for Vice Mayor CHAIRMAN DRILON. His American citizenship.
of Catarman, Camiguin, after he failed to make a
personal and sworn renunciation of his American REP. JAVIER. To discourage him from running?
citizenship:
CHAIRMAN DRILON. No.
REP. A.D. DEFENSOR. No. When he runs he will only likewise, it enables the electorate to evaluate the office
have one citizenship. When he runs for office, he will seekers' qualifications and fitness for the job they aspire
have only one. for."  The length of a candidate's residency depends on
14

the time necessary to acquire familiarity with the

There is little doubt, therefore, that the intent of the constituency as well as sensitivity to the welfare of the
legislators was not only for Filipinos reacquiring or constituents. The requirement seeks "to exclude a
retaining their Philippine citizenship under Republic Act stranger or newcomer, unacquainted with the conditions
No. 9225 to take their oath of allegiance to the Republic and needs of a community and not identified with the
of the Philippines, but also to explicitly renounce their latter, from an elective office to serve that community."15

foreign citizenship if they wish to run for elective posts

in the Philippines. To qualify as a candidate in Continuity does not always guarantee familiarity. A
Philippine elections, Filipinos must only have one momentary absence from the country does not negate
citizenship, namely, Philippine citizenship. the purpose of the residency requirement.  A candidate
16

who has spent some time abroad may offer a unique

By the same token, the oath of allegiance contained in perspective as opposed to a candidate who has never
the Certificate of Candidacy, which is substantially left the country.
similar to the one contained in Section 3 of Republic Act
No. 9225, does not constitute the personal and sworn The former may be in a better position to observe the
renunciation sought under Section 5(2) of Republic Act changes the country may have undergone through the
No. 9225. It bears to emphasize that the said oath of years, or may have a stronger intuition as to the level of
allegiance is a general requirement for all those who growth it still needs. What is important is that the
wish to run as candidates in Philippine elections; while purpose of residency is complied with.
the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional
requisite only for those who have retained or reacquired Petitioner took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of
Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and the Philippines on July 10, 2008. On April 3, 2009, he
who seek elective public posts, considering their special executed his Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign
circumstance of having more than one citizenship. Petitioner alleges that he executed his
citizenship.  (Emphasis in the original)
10
Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Allegiance on
November 30, 2009. On May 9, 2013, he again
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9225 restores full civil and executed the Affidavit Affirming Rommel C. Arnado 's
political rights to those who wish to reacquire their "Affidavit of Renunciation Dated April 3, 2009. "
citizenship, including the right to vote and be voted for.
A candidate may have the right to vote and be voted for Petitioner renounced his American citizenship no less
as long as he or she has already done all positive acts than three times before he filed his Certificate of
necessary for the reacquisition of his or her Philippine Candidacy on October 1, 2012. He had performed all
citizenship before filing his or her certificate of the acts required by Republic Act No. 9225 in order to
candidacy. reacquire his Filipino citizenship before he ran for public
office.
Residency as a requirement for public office must also
be interpreted as a separate matter from citizenship. However, the ponencia takes exception to these
Residence is said to be synonymous to findings of fact and rules that, in accordance with this
domicile.  Domicile requires both physical presence and
11
court's findings in Maquiling, petitioner's use of his
animus revertendi or intent to return.  Citizenship may
12
American passport after executing his Affidavit of
be presumed from one's domicile,  but this presumption
13
Renunciation negated his Affidavit. I cannot agree with
is disputable. Further proof other than domicile may be this conclusion.
required to prove citizenship.
II
A person residing in the Philippines is presumed to be a
Filipino citizen. Domicile, however, does not ipso facto Petitioner's use of his American passport was an
prove his or her citizenship. A Filipino may reside in the isolated act required by the circumstances. At that time,
United States but still remain a Filipino citizen. An he had not yet been issued his Philippine passport.
American may also reside in the Philippines and still
remain an American citizen. The presumption created
In the dissent in Maquiling led by Associate Justice
by residency is not conclusive of one's citizenship.
Arturo D. Brion, it was pointed out that when Amado
traveled back to the United States, "he had no
Residency also need not be continuous for as long as Philippine passport that he could have used to travel to
the total number of required years have been complied the United States to attend to the winding up of his
with before the election. Section 39(a) of the Local business and other affairs in America." 17

Government Code requires residency for "at least one

(1) year immediately preceding the day of the election
The use of a foreign passport should not by itself cause
for local elective office." A candidate for local elective
the immediate nullity of one's affidavit of renunciation.
office may be eligible to run for as long as he or she is
Its circumstances must also be taken into account.
proven to have animus revertendi in a certain domicile
for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the
elections. The necessity of the use of his American passport is
shown by the timeline of events, thus:
The purpose of the residency requirement is "to give
candidates the opportunity to be familiar with the needs, Affidavit of Renunciation: April 3, 2009
difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth[,] and all
matters vital to the welfare of their constituencies; Date of Issuance of Philippine Passport: June 18, 2009
 Receipt of Philippine Passport: September 2009 abroad.  There is a presumption that this piece of
23

evidence, like the certification by the Bureau of

Second Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Immigration, can be relied upon since it forms part of
Allegiance (alleged by petitioner): November 30, 2009 the case records. Under the presumption of regularity,
his passport is presumed to have been stamped by the
Date of Travels 18 Bureau of Immigration. Until and unless it is alleged and
proven that the stamps on his Philippine passport are
fraudulent, it is presumed that the Bureau of
Date of Departure from the Philippines Date of Arrival in the Philippines
Immigration certified the use of his Philippine passport
April 14, 2009 June 25, 2009 and the use of his American passport on the dates
alleged. It is also possible that at the time the
July 29, 2009 November 24, 2009certification was issued, the Bureau of Immigration had
not yet updated its database. Therefore, it was
December 11, 2009 January 12, 2010 erroneous for the ponencia to conclude that petitioner
January 31, 2010 March 31, 2010 used his American passport on January 12, 2010 and
on March 23, 2010 based merely on the certification
April 11, 2010 April 16, 2010 dated April 23, 2010. 24

May 20, 2010 June 4, 2010

III

Petitioner could use only his American passport when Even if the ponencia applied the ruling in Maquiling,
he traveled on April 14, 2009 since the Consulate of the Amado should have already been qualified to run in the
Philippines had not yet issued him a Philippine 2013 Elections
passport.
Maquiling held that petitioner's use of his American
When petitioner received his Philippine passport passport negated his Affidavit of Renunciation, thus
sometime in September 2009, he could not immediately disqualifying him to run in the 2010 Elections:
use it to exit the United States since he entered the
country using an American passport. If he exited using
We therefore hold that Amado, by using his US
a Philippine passport, one presumably without an
passport after renouncing his American citizenship, has
American visa, immigration authorities of both the
recanted the same Oath of Renunciation he took.
Philippines and the United States would have
Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code applies to
questioned his travel documents. He would have had no
his situation. He is disqualified not only from holding the
choice but to use his American passport to exit the
public office but even from becoming a candidate in the
United States.
May 2010 elections.  25

However, petitioner did use his Philippine passport in

Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that, per
his subsequent travels. Hence, his isolated use of his
Maquiling, petitioner's use of his Philippine passport
American passport when he did not yet have his
signifies his Philippine citizenship.
Philippine passport is not sufficient cause to negate his
Affidavit of Renunciation.
According to Republic Act No. 8239,  a passport is "a
26

document issued by the Philippine government to its

The ponencia cites Maquiling, in that Linog C. Balua,
citizens and requesting other governments to allow its
petitioner's rival candidate in the 2010 Elections,
citizens to pass safely and freely, and in case of need to
presented a certification dated April 23, 2010 from the
give him/her all lawful aid and protection."27

Bureau of Immigration indicating that as of January 12,

2010 and March 23, 2010, petitioner's nationality was
"USA-American." The Computer Database/Passenger By definition, a Philippine passport is a document
Manifest states: issued by the government to its citizens. Clearly, a
Philippine passport cannot be issued to an American
citizen.
DATE OF Arrival : 01/12/2010
NATIONALITY : USA-AMERICAN
If this court concludes, as the ponencia has done, that
PASSPORT : 057782700 petitioner remained an American citizen, the facts
DATE OF Arrival : 03/23/2010 should show that he continued to use his American
NATIONALITY : USA-AMERICAN passport before he filed his Certificate of Candidacy for
PASSPORT : 057782700 19
the 2013 Elections.

This certification is contradicted by petitioner's As of June 18, 2009, petitioner was issued a Philippine
Philippine passport which was stamped by the Bureau passport. He has continually used his Philippine
of Immigration also on these dates.   It was, therefore,
20 passport from December 11, 2009. He also executed an
erroneous for the ponencia to refer to the certification as Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Allegiance on
"uncontroverted. " 21 November 30, 2009. By the time he filed his Certificate
of Candidacy on October 1, 2012, he was already the
The ponencia unduly gives weight to the Bureau of bearer of a Philippine passport. In Yu v. Defensor-
Immigration's certification on the basis that the copy of Santiago,  a petition for habeas corpus was filed
28

his Philippine passport was a mere "certified true copy against then Commissioner for Immigration and
from the machine copy on file."  Maquiling undoubtedly
22 Deportation Miriam Defensor-Santiago for the release of
states that petitioner was issued a Philippine passport Willie Yu (Yu) from detention. This court, confronted
and that he used it for his subsequent travels with the issue of Yu's citizenship, found:
Petitioner's own compliance reveals that he was Election laws must be interpreted to give effect to the
originally issued a Portuguese passport in 1971, valid will of the people.
for five (5) years and renewed for the same period upon
presentment before the proper Portuguese consular Petitioner garnered an overwhelming 8,902 votes, 84%
officer. Despite his naturalization as a Philippine citizen of the total votes cast3° in the 2013 mayoralty elections.
on 10 February 1978, on 21 July 1981, petitioner If he is disqualified, Florante Capitan, his opponent who
applied for and was issued Portuguese Passport No. garnered 1, 707 votes, a mere 16% of the total votes
35/81 serias N. 1517410 by the Consular Section of the cast,  will become the duly elected mayor of
31

Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. Said Consular Office Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. This court will have
certifies that his Portuguese passport expired on 20 July substituted its discretion over the sovereign will of the
1986. While still a citizen of the Philippines who had people.
renounced, upon his naturalization, "absolutely and
forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, The ponencia erroneously cites Lopez v. Commission
potentate, state or sovereignty" and pledged to on Elections  as basis for stating that petitioner's
32

"maintain true faith and allegiance to the Republic of the landslide victory could not override eligibility
Philippines," he declared his nationality as Portuguese requirements.
in commercial documents he signed, specifically, the
Companies Registry of Tai Shun Estate Ltd. filed in
In Lopez, a petition for disqualification was filed against
Hongkong sometime in April 1980.
Eusebio Eugenio K. Lopez (Lopez) to disqualify him
from running for Barangay Chair in the 2007 Barangay
To the mind of the Court, the foregoing acts considered Elections. Lopez argued that he was a dual citizen by
together constitute an express renunciation of virtue of Republic Act No. 9225 and, hence, was
petitioner's Philippine citizenship acquired through qualified to run.
naturalization. In Board of Immigration Commissioners
vs. Go Galiano, express renunciation was held to mean
This court disagreed and disqualified Lopez from
a renunciation that is made known distinctly and
running in public office since he failed to make a
explicitly and not left to inference or implication.
personal and sworn renunciation of his American
Petitioner, with full knowledge, and legal capacity, after
citizenship. It also ruled that his subsequent victory in
having renounced Portuguese citizenship upon
the elections could not cure the defect of his
naturalization as a Philippine citizen resumed or
disqualification:
reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese citizen,
applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport and
represented himself as such in official documents even While it is true that petitioner won the elections, took his
after he had become a naturalized Philippine citizen. oath and began to discharge the functions of Barangay
Such resumption or reacquisition of Portuguese Chairman, his victory cannot cure the defect of his
citizenship is grossly inconsistent with his maintenance candidacy. Garnering the most number of votes does
of Philippine citizenship.  (Emphasis supplied)
29 not validate the election of a disqualified candidate
because the application of the constitutional and
statutory provisions on disqualification is not a matter of
Yu's renewal of his Portuguese passport was a
popularity.33

renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. This court took

into account Yu's application for renewal and his
declaration of his Portuguese nationality in commercial Lopez, however, does not apply since the candidate in
documents. that case failed to execute a personal and sworn
renunciation of his American citizenship.  In this case,
1avvphi1

petitioner made a personal and sworn renunciation of

In contrast, petitioner was forced by his circumstances
his American citizenship no less than three times.
to use his American passport at a time when he had not
yet been issued a Philippine passport. Upon the
issuance of his Philippine passport, however, petitioner In Japzon v. Commission on Elections,   a petition for
34

consistently used this passport for his travels. His disqualification was brought against Jaime S. Ty (Ty),
consistent use of his Philippine passport was a positive who won as Mayor of MacArthur, Eastern Samar in the
act that showed his continued allegiance to the country. 2007 Elections. Ty was a natural born Filipino citizen
who migrated to the United States and stayed there for
25 years. He took an Oath of Allegiance in 2005 and
Petitioner's continued intent to renounce his American
renounced his American citizenship before a notary
citizenship is clear when he executed his Affidavit
public on March 19, 2007. The question before this
Affirming Rommel C. Arnado 's "Affidavit of
court, however, was whether his reacquisition of
Renunciation Dated April 3, 2009" on May 9, 2013.
citizenship has the effect of regaining his domicile, in
compliance with the residency requirements for
Republic Act No. 9225 requires a personal and sworn elections.
renunciation from persons who seek to reacquire their
Philippine citizenship in order to run for local office.
In resolving the issue, this court found that Ty
Petitioner's Affidavit of Renunciation dated April 3,
substantially complied with the requirements of Section
2009, his continued use of his Philippine passport, his
5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 when he personally
alleged Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Allegiance
executed a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship before
dated November 30, 2009, and his Affidavit dated May
a notary public before filing his Certificate of
9, 2013 are more than enough evidence to show his
Candidacy.  It also ruled that Ty was able to comply
personal and sworn renunciation of his American
1âwphi1

with the residency requirements:

citizenship.
[W]hen the evidence of the alleged lack of residence
IV
qualification of a candidate for an elective position is
weak or inconclusive and it clearly appears that the juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so
purpose of the law would not be thwarted by upholding zealously protect and promote."  (Emphasis supplied)
37

the victor's right to the office, the will of the electorate

should be respected. For the purpose of election laws is Petitioner has proven over and over again that he has
to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the renounced his American citizenship. He continues to
voters. To successfully challenge Ty's disqualification, use his Philippine passport for his foreign travels. His
Japzon must clearly demonstrate that Ty's ineligibility is landslide victory in the 2013 Elections represents the
so patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal trust of his constituents in him. To disqualify him from
principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby public office for the isolated and reasonable use of his
giving effect to the apparent will of the people would American passport would be to set aside the clear and
ultimately create greater prejudice to the very unmistakable sovereign will of the people. It will impose
democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our an unreasonable burden over his and the electorate's
Constitution and laws so zealously protect and promote. fundamental right to suffrage.
In this case, Japzon failed to substantiate his claim that
Ty is ineligible to be Mayor of the Municipality of ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.
General Macarthur, Eastern Samar,
Philippines.  (Emphasis supplied)
35

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice
In Bengson III v. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal,   a similar citizenship issue was raised against
36

Teodoro C. Cruz (Cruz) on the ground that he lost his

citizenship when he enlisted in the United States Marine
Corps in 1985. This court disagreed, stating that Cruz
reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation
under Republic Act No. 2630.

Former Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban's

Concurring Opinion is particularly instructive in stating
that this court has a duty to uphold the clear mandate of
the people, thus:

4. In Case of Doubt, Popular Will Prevails

[T]he Court has a solemn duty to uphold the clear and

unmistakable mandate of the people. It cannot supplant
the sovereign will of the Second District of Pangasinan
with fractured legalism. The people of the District have
clearly spoken. They overwhelmingly and unequivocally
voted for private respondent to represent them in the
House of Representatives. The votes that Cruz
garnered (80, 119) in the last elections were much more
than those of all his opponents combined (66, 182). In
such instances, all possible doubts should be resolved
in favor of the winning candidate's eligibility; to rule
otherwise would be to defeat the will of the people.

Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that

in case of doubt, political laws must be so construed as
to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely
expressed through the ballot. Public interest and the
sovereign will should, at all times, be the paramount
considerations in election controversies. For it would be
better to err in favor of the people's choice than to be
right in complex but little understood legalisms. "Indeed,
this Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of
giving effect to the sovereign will in order to ensure the
survival of our democracy. In any action involving the
possibility of a reversal of the popular electoral choice,
this Court must exert utmost effort to resolve the issues
in a manner that would give effect to the will of the
majority, for it is merely sound public policy to cause
elective offices to be filled by those who are the choice
of the majority. To successfully challenge a winning
candidate's qualifications, the petitioner must clearly
demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently
antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles that
overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to
the apparent will of the people would ultimately create
greater prejudice to the very democratic institutions and