Okay, lets start with qualifications of local elective officials.

Some of these
cases were assigned in Consti or ---? Okay, this class is way ahead of the
others noh? So, the implication is we might slow it down. And by slowing it
down there would be more questions. Hahaha
Okay, ah, (nanawag ug names), oh Gamayon, you still owe me.
Gamayon: Yes sir.
Q: What are the qualifications of local elective officials under Sec 39 of the
Local Government Code?
A: Section 39. Qualifications. (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered
voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a
member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or
sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be elected; a resident
therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the
election; and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or
dialect.
(b) Candidates for the position of governor, vice-governor, or member of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, or mayor, vice-mayor or member of the
sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized cities must be at least twentyone (21) years of age on election day.
(c) Candidates for the position of mayor or vice-mayor of independent
component cities, component cities, or municipalities must be at least
twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.
(d) Candidates for the position of member of the sangguniang panlungsod or
sangguniang bayan must be at least eighteen (18) years of age on election
day.
(e) Candidates for the position of punong barangay or member of the
sangguniang barangay must be at least eighteen (18) years of age on
election day.
(f) Candidates for the sangguniang kabataan must be at least fifteen (15)
years of age but not more than twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.
Q: Okay wait, now, are you referring for a citizen or a natural-born citizen?
A: Citizen, sir.
Q: So, if you are naturalized, can you still run for local position?
A: Yes, sir.
Sir: Yes, because it is less strict now in the policy of local elective officials
because it does not require for being a natural-born citizen. Naturalized,
pwede.
Q: Now, you mention about the ability to read and write. Did it qualify what
kind of language?
A: Yes, sir. Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
Q: Or dialect. Okay, what do you think is the reason why?
A: Ahm, I think the reason why, sir, is to associate with the culture and to
reach the grass roots wherein that person to be able to govern its
constituents.
Sir: Ah, you cited culture that is a very good point because language is just
part and parcel of culture. Remember that. Just like religion, its just like part
or parcel of culture.

Q: Now, did the Constitution, in so far as the President, Vice-President,

Senators and District Representatives, qualify the ability to read and write?
What kind of language?
A: Ahm, no sir.
Sir. No, it did not. So, now, the way it looks, the Local Government Code is
more specific as opposed to the Constitution in so far as the ability to read
and write is concerned. Because sa local man gud it is more closer to the
people. You have to know the language.
Q: Now, are these qualifications under the local Government Code based on
the Constitution?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Yes they are. So, having said that, can Congress legislate to add more to
these qualifications?
A: I think yes sir.
Q: So, can the Congress now say, for the local Government officials, the drug
test, the mandatory drug test may now apply? Can Congress legislate that?
A: Yes, sir.
Sir: Since the LGC is the creation of Congress, Congress can also amend that.
However, there might be some implications in so far as when the Constitution
says that it cannot impose literacy, property and other substantive
requirements, especially ( di klaro ang tingog). Okay so, what happened in
Frivaldo vs Comelec?
A: (Digest from Scribd)
FACTS:
Petitioner Frivaldo filed his certificate for Candidacy for Governor about 3
weeks before the election. Private Respondent Lee, another candidate for the
said position, filed a petition to disqualify Frivaldo by reason of not being a
citizen of the Philippines. A week before the election, Second Division of
COMELEC promulgated a resolution granting the petition
of Lee. A motion for Reconsideration was filed by Frivaldo which remained
unacted until after the elections. Thus, his candidacy continued and he was
voted during the elections.
Few days after the Election, COMELEC En Banc affirmed the promulgated
resolution of the Second Division. Frivaldo garnered the highest number of
votes in the said election. Lee filed a petition praying for his proclamation as
Governor. Lee was then proclaimed as Governor. Frivaldo filed a petition for
annulment of the proclamation of Lee and for his own proclamation alleging
that he had already taken his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines
which he filed a couple of months ago before the election. Frivaldos motion
was recognized and was then proclaimed as Governor. Lee filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied by COMELEC En Banc.
ISSUES:
Private Respondent Lee filed this instant petition for Certiorari, Preliminary
Injunction, and Annulment of the COMELEC decision and resolution.
W/N Frivaldos repatriation was valid and legal. If it, did was it able to cure his
lack of citizenship? If not, may it be given a retroactive effect?
DECISION:
The Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of COMELEC.
Under Sec. 39 of the Local Government Code, "(a)n elective local official must
be:

A Citizen of the Philippines

The court held that the law does not specify any particular date or time when
the candidate must possess citizenship. At the same time, literally speaking,
such qualification of citizenship should thus be possessed when the elective
[elected] official begins to govern. In the instant case, Frivaldo reassumed
his citizenship on the very day the term of office of governor (and other
elective official) began; he was therefore already qualified to be proclaimed,
to hold the office and to discharge the functions and responsibilities thereof
as of said date.
Sir: In other words, when you are a second placer in an election, the General
Rule there is you cannot succeed because you are not the choice of the
people. However, let me qualify that. Because if he succeed by virtue of his
qualifications, he need to be further qualified by reason of his qualifications. If
these qualifications is by reason of representation in the COC. Meaning you
lied about CARRL. If you lied about CARRL, meaning you possess this
qualifications where in fact you do not. The remedy there is to cancel or deny
due course of his COC. In which case, if it is granted, its like saying that there
is no candidate in the first place. If that happens, the second placer, will
defeat him. Because there is no candidate in the first place. However, if the
disqualifications is due to the fact that you did something along the way. You
violated election rules, probably vote buying. If you are disqualified, the
second placer cannot succeed. Because there was candidate in the first
place. Unfortunately, that candidate was disqualified. But here in this case,
what happened was Frivaldo was a former natural-born Filipino. He went to
the United States, renounced that came back and, what did he do to
reacquire his former status?
A: He had actually applied for repatriation sir.
Q: Aside from that? Did he not try other means by which he can reacquire his
Filipino citizenship? By the way, what are the three ways by which you can
reacquire your Filipino citizenship?
A: 1. By direct act of Congress
2. By naturalization
3. Through repatriation
Q: Did he try direct act of Congress?
A: Yes
Q: But he did not pursue because?
Sir: Because he had a lot of enemies there. So, they will never grant.
Q: What about naturalization?
A: Yes
Q: What happened?
A: The judiciary took it so long for him to be naturalized.
Sir: He said, my enemies will always deny. And naturalization is a tedious
process. So, what is the last option for him?
A: Repatriation.
Q: So, what happened in repatriation? When was he repatriated?
A: A day prior to his proclamation.
Q: Are you sure?
A: Precisely at June 30, about 2pm.
Q: What did we say, when does the term of office start?
A: The term of office start from

Q: What time of June 30?

A: Noon
Sir: Two hours past 12 noon he reacquire his Philippine citizenship. How did
the SC address that?
A: What actually govern is the day of proclamation or the day he assumed
office.
Sir: So, in other words, the SC said that the effects of repatriation retroacts.
But again there is another argument here that says, when should he possess
the Philippine citizenship, the day he filed his COC? The day of election? The
day of proclamation? Or the day he assumed office?
A: Actually in this case sir, it is the day where he assumed office.
Q: What is the basis? You go back to Section 39 of LGC.
A: Proclamation or the time he assumed office.
Sir: You read the first line there.
(a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a
registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in
the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be
elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or
any other local language or dialect.
Does it talks about candidates or elective local officials?
A: Elective local officials
Sir: Yes, it does not talk about candidates. Thats how the SC justifies that.
Anyways, Section 39 does not talk about candidates. It talks about local
elective officials. As such, these qualifications need not be possessed at the
time of the filing of the COC and at the time of the election. But it can be at
the time of proclamation or assumption to office. However, please take note
that this case belongs to ( wa ko kaklaro). It takes another Frivaldo to apply
this ruling. Because today, were very specific. These qualifications must be
possessed at the time of the filing of COC. Except age. Next, lets talk about
Labo vs. Comelec. (Nanawag ug names) De las Lgas
A: (Digest from net)
Facts:
Petitioner and Respondent were candidates for the office of the Mayor of
Baguio City during Elections. Having garnered the highest number of votes,
Petitioner was elected and proclaimed winner while Respondent garnered the
second highest number of votes. Subsequently Respondent filed a petition for
quo warranto contesting the election of the Petitioner on the ground that the
latter is a naturalized Australian citizen and was divested of his Philippine
citizenship having sworn allegiance to the Queen of Australia. Petitioner
opposes to the contrary.
Section 42 of the Local Government Code provides for the qualifications that
an elective official must be a citizen of the Philippines.
From the evidence adduced, it was found out that citizenship requirements
were not possessed by the petitioner during elections. He was disqualified
from running as mayor and, although elected, is not now qualified to serve as
such.
Issue:
WON private respondent, having garnered the 2nd highest number of votes,

can replace the petitioner as mayor.

Held:
No. The simple reason is that he obtained only the second highest number of
votes in the election, he was obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio
City.
The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later
declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was
elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second
highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office.
Note:
L
L

Dual citizenship is not a bar in running for elections, dual allegiance is.
Mere repatriation is not enough to run for elections.
A written certification of an oath of allegiance to the Philippines
must be attached together with the COC.
Q: What kind of case was brought against Labo?
A: Quo Warranto
Q: So, the issue there was, of course the Quo warranto was filed on time?
However the filing fee was not paid. Please take note that in this case the
main issue here was the timeliness of the Quo Warranto because they said it
was not timely anymore because he did not pay the filing fee. However, the
SC said that is a mere technicality because citizenship is also very important
issue here. And it must be address because?
A: (Di klaro ang tingog)
Sir: Youre almost there. This must be prioritize, because? There is a key word
there.
A:
Q: What does it involve when you talk about citizenship as a qualification in
elective local officials? Does it involve about the public?
A: Yes
Sir: In other words, it affects public interest. Or you can say that citizenship is
imbued or impressed public interest as such bla bla bla bla bla bla . Now, how
did he lose his Philippine citizenship? Was he naturalized?
A:
Sir: And now, he is saying that I am now Filipino again because? What
happened to his marriage?
A:
Sir: How did the SC address that?
A:
Q: Because what he is saying is impliedly I am not a Filipino citizen yet but
how did the SC address that?
A: That his ---- was not valid because
Q: What are the acts required to reacquire Philippine citizenship?
A: 1. By naturalization
2. By act of Congress
3. Through repatriation
Q: These are three. So now, by annulling his marriage, does it fall in any of
these acts?
A: No
Q: Exactly. Because the SC said, it must be express. So he cannot now say

that I am a Filipino because my marriage there is null and void. And according
to the SC in this case, it is been you and Australia. Not between you and the
Philippines. So, whats your one liner in this case?
A:
Sir: Before I let you go, here, actually he said that technicality aside; it was an
overwhelming victory because the people choose him. How did the SC
address that?
A: He was disqualified sir because the qualifications must be continuing
because actually he wasnt able to regain his citizenship
Q: But aside from that? His contention was SC, mura bag pagbigyan niyo ako.
A:
Q: How many votes did he obtain over the second placer?
A: 2,100
Sir: Exactly. The SC said, it is not loud anyway, it is only 2100 votes. As
opposed to Frivaldo, where 21,000 people voted.
Sir: Next, Roa. Lets talk about disqualifications.
A:
Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified
from running for any elective local position:
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral
turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of
imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to
the Republic;
(d) Those with dual citizenship;
(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad;
(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the
right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the
effectivity of this Code; and
(g) The insane or feeble-minded.
Q: Now, did you talk about remove administratively?
A: Yes, sir
Q: However, remember that in Aguinaldo doctrine, for example, you are now
an incumbent Mayor and there is a case against you. Of course it has criminal
aspect and administrative aspect. If you are re-elected as Mayor, your
administrative liability disappears because according to this doctrine you are
forgiven by the people. The fact that you are re-elected, the people did not
mind the administrative liability. However, remember the Binay case, just
recently the SC abandoned that because there is no basis in the Consti and
the law. But when the SC decided that case, it was like a win-win solution.
Because it said that we are going to abandon the Aguinaldo doctrine only
after this case. In other words, Binay still benefited from ---. So, puntos kay
Binay. It will reapply prospectively. So, the Aguinaldo doctrine can no longer
be apply prospectively. However, for Binay that is now moot and academic he
was just been dismissed. So lets talk about Valles vs Comelec. What
happened in this case?
A: (Digest from Scribd)
This is a petition forcertiora ri under Rule 65, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 64 of

the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing Resolutions dated July 17, 1998 and January
15, 1999, respectively, of the Commission on Elections in SPA No. 98-336,
dismissing the petition for disqualification filed by the herein petitioner, Cirilo
R. Valles, against private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, in the May 1998
elections for governor of Davao Oriental.
FACTS:
Respondent was born in Australia on May 16, 1934 to a Filipino father and an
Australian mother. She ran for governor. Petitioner, her opponent, filed a case
for disqualification on the ground that she is not a Filipino citizen since she
was issued an alien certificate of registration; there was an application for an
immigrant certificate of residence and she was a holder of an Australian
passport.
HELD:
The respondent is a Filipino citizen since her father is a Filipino. Holding of an
Australian passport and an alien certificate of registration does not constitute
an effective renunciation of citizenship and does not militate against her
claim of Filipino citizenship. At most, she has dual citizenship.
DISMISSED and the COMELEC Resolutions, dated July 17, 1998 and January
15, 1999, respectively, in SPA No. 98336 AFFIRMED. Private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is hereby adjudged
qualified to run for governor of
Davao Oriental.No pronouncement as to costs.
Q: Okay now, did she apply for Alien certificate?
A: Yes, sir. But then the SC said that it is not enough that she is an alien.
Q: Was he issued an alien passport?
A: Yes, sir but she subsequently acquired for its cancellation.
Q: Okay, so, is the application for alien registration certificate and the
issuance of Autralian passport, are these enough to renounced Philippine
citizenship?
A: No sir because there are acts, her acts must be expressly done sir.
Sir: Yah, in other words renunciation must be express, it cannot be implied.
And mere holding of a foreign passport does not mean that you are no longer
a Filipino. So, what is you one liner in this case?
A: Renunciation must be express, it can never be implied.
Sir: Next is Mercado vs Manzano. Legaspi.
A:
Facts:
Petitioners filed for respondents disqualification for election alleging that
respondent is a dual citizen, and under the Local Government Code, dual
citizens cannot run for public office.
Respondent is a son of both Filipinos but was born in the U.S which follows
the principle of jus soli, hence, considered an American citizen as well.
COMELEC allowed Manzano to run because he was considered natural-born
because of the vrtue that he is a son of both Filipino citizens but petitioners
assail this.
Issue: Is respondent Manzano a dual citizen and cannot run for public office?
Ruling: The Court first defined dual citizenship and compared it to dual

allegiance.
Dual citizenship arises when a person whose parents are citizens of a state
that follows jus saguinis and was born in a state that follows jus soli, hence,
resulting to a concurrent application of different two laws or more.
On the other hand, dual allegiance is a situation whre a person
simultaneously owes loyalty to two or more states.
In this case, Respondent, though dual citizen, his act of filing a certificate of
candidacy tantamount to his election of Phil. citizenship meaning he
forswears allegiance to the other country and thereby terminating their
status as dual.
The Court stressed that participating in the election is an express
renunciation of American citizenship.
Q: Okay, now, here Edu Manzano is a dual citizen. Is that the one that is being
disallowed?
A: No, sir. SC actually said sir dual citizenship as a disqualification is not the
one but instead dual allegiance wherein you owe allegiance for two States.
Q: Why do we disallow dual allegiance?
A: It might affect economy.
Q: In other words what? Will your attention be divided?
A: Yes
Sir: Or your devotion will be divided. Thats what the SC said. So, its like
serving two masters at the same time. Does dual citizenship arise by your
own choice?
A: No sir. Dual citizenship sir, is a product wherein it have ---. Because there
are some who marry foreigners and usually dual citizenship arises when a
Filipino citizen, probably marries a foreigner or two Filipino parents and the
child is born in another country. Especially if the country, since we follow jus
sanguinis, the citizenship of the child follows the citizenship of the parents.
But if the country where the child is born follows jus soli, then that is where
you could be dual citizenship.
Sir: In other words, dual citizenship arises when with the concurrent
application of two different laws of two different States; you become a citizen
of the both States. In other words, it is not your fault; it is not your choice. So,
it should not be taken against you. But what should be taken against you is
dual allegiance. However, there was also a contention that Edu Manzano is
not really a Filipino because he declare before the Bureau of Immigration that
he is an American holding an American passport. How did the SC address
that?
A: Yes, sir but when he filed his COC it was said there that he renounced his
allegiance to the US. There was a part there that says you have to say it
under oath. So, that is why sir when he filed his candidacy, he automatically
cancelled or renounced his allegiance to US.
Sir: Yah, correct. But again lets go back to my question. Because the
argument there was, No, Edu Manzano adhered or even admitted before the
Bureau of Immigration that he is an American citizen. How did the SC address
that? Or better yet, how did the SC justify that?
A: The mere holding of an American passport sir is not an express
renunciation, as was held in the case of

Q: Okay, holding as oppose to using? Diba, he can hold a passport but not
necessarily use it. How did the SC address that? That he admitted yes I am
US citizen and I am holding an American passport. Would it not negate his
claim now that he owes allegiance to this country only and no one else?
A:
Q: Did you not encounter that Mark?
A:
Sir: I like this phrase, holding an American passport is just like mere
assertions of a nationality, not citizenship. And it was even very dramatic
because Edu Manzano called for a conference, where he said that he is a 100
percent Filipino and if this passport is your problem, I am going to tear it
down. And luckily he won as Vice Mayor of Makati. I dont know if he was reelected. But I am so sure that he did not win as VP. Okay, one liner for this
case.
A: Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. What is prohibited is dual
allegiance.
Sir: Next, lets talk about Roseller vs Comelec. Okay, Sebastian. What
happened in this case?
A:
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order assails the June 15, 2007 Resolution of the First
Division of COMELEC, disqualifying ROSELLER DE GUZMAN from running as
vice-mayor in the May 14, 2007 elections. Petitioner was a naturalized
American. However, on January 25, 2006, he applied for dual citizenship
under RA 9225. Upon approval of his application, he took his oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on September 6, 2006. Having
reacquired Philippine citizenship, he is entitled to exercise full civil and
political rights. As such, qualified to run as vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva
Ecija.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is disqualified from running for vice-mayor of
Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections for having failed to
renounce his American Citizenship in accordance with RA 9225.
HELD:
We find that petitioner is disqualified from running for public office in view of
his failure to renounce his
American citizenship. RA 9225 was enacted to allow reacquisition and
retention of Philippine citizenship for:
1. Natural born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of
their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country;
2. Natural born citizens of the Philippines who after the effectivity of the law,
becomes citizens of a foreign country.
The law provides that they are not deemed to have reacquired or retained
their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance. Petitioners oath of allegiance
and certificate of candidacy did not comply with section(5)2 of RA 9225 which
further requires those seeking elective public office in the Philippines to make
a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship. Petitioner failed to

renounce his American citizenship; as such, he is disqualified from running for

vice mayor.
Q: How does this case defer from Mercado vs Manzano?
A: I think sir because public view (?)
Q: Aside from that. Now, is so far as what is required if you are not a Filipino
citizen, what does the law require on you so that you can be a candidate for
public office? In Mercado, what was required was?
A: His renunciation of citizenship.
Sir: Okay, take note in Mercado, the SC allowed dual citizen for as long as you
dont have dual allegiance. Now, the SC in this case is telling as that the
Mercado ruling is not enough evidence because there is something required
under this law. And what is required?
A: The law requires a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship, which should be in a separate form.
Q: Okay, that qualification is required if you want to be something. What is
that something?
A: Run for public office.
Q: When should he renounce?
A: Before you run as a candidate
Sir: Okay, under the law it says that before you file your COC. But there is a
jurisprudence there that was quoted by the SC where it said that it could be
before you file or during or simultaneous. As a matter of fact, our COC now is
adjusted. Before, there were like 12 sworn statements including the oath of
allegiance. Now, there is 15 and that is to renounce any and all foreign
citizenship. That is the new requirement now. Okay, so what is your one liner
in this case in relation to Manzano?
A: The oath of allegiance does not constitute the personal and sworn
renunciation.
Sir: In other words, oath of allegiance is not enough there must be personal
and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship prior to or
simultaneous with filing of the COC.
Sir: Next, Sibay. What happened in Sobejana-Condon v Comelec?
A: (Digest from Scribd)
Key Doctrine: Failure to renounce foreign citizenship in accordance with the
exact tenor of Section 5(2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 renders a dual
citizen ineligible to run for and thus hold any elective public office.
Facts: The petitioner is a natural-born Filipino citizen having been born of
Filipino parents on August 8, 1944. On December 13, 1984, she became a
naturalized Australian citizen owing to her marriage to a certain Kevin
Thomas Condon. On December 2, 2005, she filed an application to re-acquire
Philippine citizenship before the Philippine Embassy in Canberra, Australia
pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225 otherwise known as the Citizenship
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. The application was approved and
the petitioner took her oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on
December 5, 2005.
On September 18, 2006, the petitioner filed an unsworn Declaration of
Renunciation of Australian Citizenship before the Department of Immigration

and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra, Australia, which in turn issued the Order
certifying that she has ceased to be an Australian citizen. The petitioner ran
for Mayor in her hometown of Caba, La Union in the 2007 elections. She lost
in her bid. She again sought elective office during the May 10, 2010 elections
this time for the position of Vice-Mayor. She obtained the highest numbers of
votes and was proclaimed as the winning candidate. She took her oath of
office. Soon thereafter, private respondents all registered voters of Caba, La
Union, filed separate petitions for quo warranto questioning the petitioners
eligibility before the RTC. The petitions similarly sought the petitioners
disqualification from holding her elective post on the ground that she is a
dual citizen and that she failed to execute a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer
authorized to administer an oath as imposed by Section 5(2) of R.A. No.
9225.
The petitioner denied being a dual citizen and averred that since September
27, 2006, she ceased to be an Australian citizen. She claimed that the
Declaration of Renunciation of Australian Citizenship she executed in
Australia sufficiently complied with Section 5(2), R.A. No. 9225 and that her
act of running for public office is a clear abandonment of her Australian
citizenship.
Trial court held that the petitioners failure to comply with Section 5(2) of R.A.
No. 9225 rendered her ineligible to run and hold public office. As admitted by
the petitioner herself during trial, the personal declaration of renunciation she
filed in Australia was not under oath.
The petitioner appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC en banc concurred
with the findings and conclusions of the RTC.
Hence, the present petition ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the
COMELEC en banc.
The petitioner contends that since she ceased to be an Australian citizen on
September 27, 2006, she no longer held dual citizenship and was only a
Filipino citizen when she filed her certificate of candidacy as early as the 2007
elections. Hence, the personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship
imposed by Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 to dual citizens seeking elective
office does not apply to her. She further argues that a sworn renunciation is a
mere formal and not a mandatory requirement.
Issue: For purposes of determining the petitioners eligibility to run for public
office, is the sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship in Section 5(2) of R.A.
No. 9225 mere pro-forma requirement?
Held: No.
R.A. No. 9225 allows the retention and re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship for
natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by taking an

oath of allegiance to the Republic. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines

who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country
shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
The oath is an abbreviated repatriation process that restores ones Filipino
citizenship and all civil and political rights and obligations concomitant
therewith, subject to certain conditions imposed in Section 5, viz:
Sec. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. Those who retain or
re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and
political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following
conditions:
xxx (2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall
meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the
Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of
any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
administer an oath;xxx
Under the provisions of the aforementioned law, the petitioner has validly reacquired her Filipino citizenship when she took an Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines on December 5, 2005. At that point, she held dual
citizenship, i.e., Australian and Philippine.
In Jacot v. Dal, the Court held that Filipinos re-acquiring or retaining their
Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 must explicitly renounce their
foreign citizenship if they wish to run for elective posts in the Philippines,
thus:
The law categorically requires persons seeking elective public office,
who either retained their Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired
it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before a public officer authorized to administer an oath
simultaneous with or before the filing of the certificate of candidacy.
Hence, Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels naturalborn Filipinos, who have been naturalized as citizens of a
foreign country, but who reacquired or retained their
Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance under
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for those seeking
elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute a
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship
before an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of
their certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in
Philippine elections.
[T]he intent of the legislators was not only for Filipinos reacquiring
or retaining their Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225

to take their oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,

but also to explicitly renounce their foreign citizenship if they wish
to run for elective posts in the Philippines. To qualify as a candidate in
Philippine elections, Filipinos must only have one citizenship, namely,
Philippine citizenship.
The foreign citizenship must be formally rejected through an
affidavit duly sworn before an officer authorized to administer oath.
It is also palpable in the above records that Section 5 was intended to
complement Section 18, Article XI of the Constitution on public officers
primary accountability of allegiance and loyalty, which provides:
Sec. 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this
Constitution allegiance at all times and any public officer or employee
who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an
immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by
law.
The solemn promise, and the risk of punishment attached to an oath ensures
truthfulness to the prospective public officers abandonment of his adopted
state and promise of absolute allegiance and loyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines. To hold the oath to be a mere pro forma requirement is to say
that it is only for ceremonial purposes; it would also accommodate a mere
qualified or temporary allegiance from government officers when the
Constitution and the legislature clearly demand otherwise.
The petitioners act of running for public office does not suffice to serve as an
effective renunciation of her Australian citizenship. While this Court has
previously declared that the filing by a person with dual citizenship of a
certificate of candidacy is already considered a renunciation of foreign
citizenship, such ruling was already adjudged superseded by the enactment
of R.A. No. 9225 on August 29, 2003 which provides for the additional
condition of a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship.
In fine, R.A. No. 9225 categorically demands natural-born Filipinos who reacquire their citizenship and seek elective office, to execute a personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before an authorized
public officer prior to or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of
candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections.The rule applies to
all those who have re-acquired their Filipino citizenship, like petitioner,
without regard as to whether they are still dual citizens or not. It is a prerequisite imposed for the exercise of the right to run for public office.
Stated differently, it is an additional qualification for elective office specific
only to Filipino citizens who re-acquire their citizenship under Section 3 of R.A.
No. 9225. It is the operative act that restores their right to run for public
office. The petitioner's failure to comply therewith in accordance with the
exact tenor of the law, rendered ineffectual the Declaration of Renunciation

of Australian Citizenship she executed on September 18, 2006. As such, she

is yet to regain her political right to seek elective office. Unless she executes
a sworn renunciation of her Australian citizenship, she is ineligible to run for
and hold any elective office in the Philippines.
Petition was DISMISSED
Q: How did she come to that argument, that anyways its just a formal
requirement?
A: She based her argument from
Q: No, aside from that, you are talking already about the legal basis. There
was situation there that prospers to argue that anyway it was just a formal
requirement. What was that situation? There is something wrong with the
document. What was lacking in her document?
A: Document of renunciation.
Q: Was it sworn or unsworn?
A: Unsworn
Sir: And because of that she now argues that anyway its only a formal
requirement. How did the SC address that? As a matter of fact, she merely
based her argument from the deliberations of Congress.
A: To hold the oath to be a mere pro forma requirement is to say that it is only
for ceremonial purposes; it would also accommodate a mere qualified or
temporary allegiance from government officers when the Constitution and
the legislature clearly demand otherwise.
Q: Aside from that. In so far as the reacquisition of the natural-born status is
concerned?
A: Only with respect to the reacquisition of ones status as a natural-born
Filipino citizen, so as to override the effect of the principle that natural-born
citizen need not perform any act to perfect their citizenship.
Sir: That actually answer the question if Grace Poe, granting ha that Grace
Poe is a natural-born then she renounced that because she became US
citizen. When she repatriated herself as a Filipino, is she Filipino or naturalborn Filipino? The answer is she is natural-born Filipino. If she was a naturalborn Filipino in the first place. If she is, the fact that she renounced her status
as such and now that she has repatriated herself she reversed back to be
natural-born because the requirement that you have to do something to
reacquire Philippine citizenship is what is now contemplated as a formal
requirement. How did we define natural-born? You did not do anything to
perfect your citizenship. The fact that we require repatriation process, then
you are doing something. So, you cannot be natural-born anymore. But the
SC said that, that is only a formal requirement. So, what is your one line in
this case?
A: The additional requirement set forth in Section 5(2) of RA 9225 is capable
only of one interpretation that explicit renunciation of foreign citizenship must
be sworn.
Q: Because? Does it have to mean to do something to be natural-born?
A: Yes
Q: So, in other words he cannot revert back to be natural-born?
A: Yes

Q: Are you sure? Because he did something. So, he cannot be a natural-born

anymore because we said that a natural-born need not to do anything to
perfect his citizenship. But here, you are doing something? Did it bar you
from reacquiring a natural-born citizenship?
A: No, because of this formal requirement.
Sir: Okay, let me emphasize ha. Katong in so far as Mercado and Roseller are
concerned, if you execute a document of oath of allegiance to the country,
you can be Filipino again. But if you like to run for public office, there is an
additional requirement. And that is the personal and sworn renunciation. Take
note ha because it might be a twist on the case. So, you can be a Filipino with
an oath of allegiance. But once you run for public office you must go step
higher and that is personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship. But you can do it simultaneously with the filing of your COC. Next
is Macquiling vs Comelec. Ragasa what happened in this case?
A:
Facts:
Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. However, as a
consequence of his subsequent naturalization as a citizen of the United
States of America, he lost his Filipino citizenship. Arnado applied for
repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 before the Consulate General
of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA and took the Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines on 10 July 2008. On the same day an Order of
Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition was issued in his
favor. On 3 April 2009 Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship,
which states: On 30 November 2009, Arnado filed his Certificate of
Candidacy for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, On 28 April 2010,
respondent Linog C. Balua (Balua), another mayoralty candidate, filed a
petition to disqualify Arnado and/or to cancel his certificate of candidacy for
municipal mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte in connection with the 10
May 2010 local and national elections. Respondent Balua contended that
Arnado is not a resident of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and that he is a
foreigner, attaching thereto a certification issued by the Bureau of
Immigration dated 23 April 2010 indicating the nationality of Arnado as "USAAmerican."To further bolster his claim of Arnados US citizenship, Balua
presented in his Memorandum a computer-generated travel record dated 03
December 2009 indicating that Arnado has been using his US Passport No.
057782700 in entering and departing the Philippines. On 30 April 2010, the
COMELEC (First Division) issued an Order requiring the respondent to
personally file his answer and memorandum within three (3) days from
receipt thereof. After Arnado failed to answer the petition, Balua moved to
declare him in default and to present evidence exparte. Neither motion was acted upon, having been overtaken by the 2010
elections where Arnado garnered the highest number of votes and was
subsequently proclaimed as the winning candidate for Mayor of Kauswagan,
Lanao del Norte. It was only after his proclamation that Arnado filed his
verified answer,
Issues:
1. whether or not intervention is allowed in a disqualification case.

2. whether or not the use of a foreign passport after renouncing

foreign citizenship amounts to undoing a renunciation earlier made.
3. whether or not the rule on succession in the Local Government
Code is applicable to this case.
SC:
1. Intervention of a rival candidate in a disqualification case is proper when
there has not yet been any proclamation of the winner.
2. The use of foreign passport after renouncing ones foreign citizenship is a
positive and voluntary act of representation as to ones nationality and
citizenship; it does not divest Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but
it recants the Oath of Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an
elective position. Between 03 April 2009, the date he renounced his foreign
citizenship, and 30 November 2009, the date he filed his COC, he used his US
passport six times, actions that run counter to the affidavit of renunciation he
had earlier executed. By using his foreign passport, Arnado positively and
voluntarily represented himself as an American, Arnados category of dual
citizenship is that by which
foreign citizenship is acquired through a positive act of applying for
naturalization. This is distinct from those considered dual citizens by virtue of
birth, who are not required by law to take the oath of renunciation as the
mere filing of the certificate of candidacy already carries with it an implied
renunciation of foreign citizenship. Dual citizens by naturalization, on the
other hand, are required to take not only the Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines but also to personally renounce foreign citizenship
in order to qualify as a candidate for public office. By the time he filed his
certificate of candidacy on 30 November 2009, Arnado was a dual citizen
enjoying the rights and privileges of Filipino and American citizenship. He was
qualified to vote, but by the express disqualification under Section 40(d) of
the Local Government Code, he was not qualified to run for a local elective.
3. The rule on Succession under LGC is not applicable. Maquiling is not a
second-placer as he obtained the highest number of votes from among the
qualified candidates. Resolving the third issue necessitates revisiting Topacio
v. Paredes which is the jurisprudential spring of the principle that a secondplacer cannot be proclaimed as the winner in an election contest. This
doctrine must be re-examined and its soundness once again put to the test to
address the ever-recurring issue that a second-placer who loses to an
ineligible candidate cannot be
proclaimed as the winner in the elections. The often-quoted phrase in Topacio
v. Paredes is that "the wreath of victory cannot be transferred from an
ineligible candidate to any other candidate when the sole question is the
eligibility of the one receiving a plurality of the legally cast ballots.
Q: How many time did he used his passport?
A: 4 times
Q: Are you sure:
A: 6 times
Sir: If you are not so sure, just say several times. Listen to this case ah, in
Mercado we said, dual citizens could still run for public office as long as you
do not maintain your oath of allegiance. But in the case of Roseller, the SC
said it is not enough. You must also execute a separate sworn and personal
renunciation. But here in this case, perfect na unta. He reacquired his

Philippine citizenship, renounced any and all foreign citizenship. Perfect na.
He can already run for public office. But he did something. What is that
something?
A: He used his passport.
Q: So, what is now the effect of the continued use of the passport in so far as
the renunciation is concerned?
A: Arnado got his US citizenship back
Q: US citizenship right away?
A: Yes
Sir: Not necessarily yet. Okay, continue. Aside from you said that the
continued use of the US passport, somehow, he reacquired his US citizenship.
What did the SC said about the effect in so far as the renunciation in
concerned. Diba, he renounced already but still he used his passport. What is
the effect of the continued use to his renunciation?
A: As if the renunciation did not happen.
Sir: Or better said it vacates the renunciation. Because renunciation must be,
in Valles we said it must be express but in Macquiling it must be something
else.
A:
Sir: The SC said that it must be complete and unequivocal. The SC here said
that renunciation when you reacquire your Philippine citizenship; the oath of
allegiance is a what? When you take an oath of allegiance, what kind of
duties you have? What is expected in you? You renounced already diba? You
swear to renounce. Is that a promise?
A: Yes
Q: So, what do we do with promises?
A: The promises that are not followed should be punished.
Q: Punished or should be realized? Here, the SC said that it is a solemn duty.
The renunciation is a solemn duty to the country. That you owe allegiance to
the Philippines now. You can use the passport for convenience but continued
use will vacate the renunciation. Whats your one liner for this case? You
summarized the case in one line about renunciation.
A:
Q: What you should do about renunciation to make it acceptable? It must be
what?
A: It must be complete and unequivocal.
Sir: By the way, last year noh, I asked this in class, written exam. If you are
the lawyer of bla bla bla, he still has the passport after renunciation noh.
What advice would you give? Of course the correct answer there is never use
the passport otherwise it vacates the renunciation. (Gacontinue about atong
two students na lahi ilang answer). Next, Davad. What happened in Marquez
v Comelec?
A: (Digest from net)
FACTS:
Bienvenido Marquez, a defeated candidate in the Province of Quezon filed a
petition for certiorari praying for the reversal of the COMELEC Resolution
which dismissed his petition for quo warranto against Eduardo Rodriguez, for
being allegedly a fugitive from justice.
It is averred that at the time private respondent filed his certificate of
candidacy, a criminal charge against him for ten (10) counts of insurance

fraud or grand theft of personal property was still pending before the
Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, State
of California, U.S.A. A warrant issued by said court for his arrest, it is claimed,
has yet to be served on private respondent on account of his alleged flight
from that country.
Petitioners subsequent recourse (in G.R. No. 105310) from the COMELECs
May 8, 1992 resolution was dismissed without prejudice, however, to the
filing in due time of a possible post-election quo warranto proceeding against
private respondent.
Before the 11th May 1992 elections, petitioner filed a petition with the
COMELEC for cancellation of respondents CoC on account of the candidates
disqualification under Sec. 40 (e) of the LGC.
Private respondent was proclaimed Governor-elect of Quezon on 29 May
1992. Forthwith, petitioner instituted quo warranto proceedings (EPC 92-28)
against private respondent before the COMELEC.
ISSUE:
Whether private respondent who, at the time of the filing of his certificate of
candidacy (and to date), is said to be facing a criminal charge before a
foreign court and evading a warrant for his arrest comes within the term
fugitive from justice contemplated by Section 40(e) of the LGC and is,
therefore, disqualified from being a candidate for, and thereby ineligible from
holding on to, an elective local office.
HELD:
Section 40(e) of the LGC (RA 7160) provide that a Fugitive from justice in
criminal cases here and abroad are disqualified from running for any
elective local position.
It has been held that construction placed upon law by the officials in charge
of its enforcement deserves great and considerable weight (Atlas
Consolidated Mining and Development Corp. vs. CA, 182 SCRA 166,181).
However, when there clearly is no obscurity and ambiguity in an enabling
law, it must merely be made to apply as it is so written. An administrative
rule or regulation can neither expand nor constrict the law but must remain
congruent to it.
The confinement of the term fugitive from justice in Article 73 of the Rules
and Regulations Implementing the LGC of 1991 to refer only to a person who
has been convicted by final judgment is an inordinate and undue
circumscription of the law.
Unfortunately, the COMELEC did not make any definite finding on whether or
not private respondent is in fact a fugitive from justice as such term must
be interpreted and applied in the light of the Courts opinion. The omission is
understandable since the COMELEC outrightly dismissed the petition for quo
warranto on the basis instead of Rule 73 of the Rules and Regulations
promulgated by the Oversight Committee. The Court, not being a trier of
facts, is thus constrained to remand the case to the COMELEC for a
determination of this unresolved factual matter.
"Fugitive from justice" includes not only those who flee after conviction to
avoid punishment but likewise those who, after being charged flee to avoid
prosecution.
Q: In this case, was the case still pending?

A: Yes because at the time he filed his COC, there was also a warrant of arrest
that has not been served because of an alleged flight.
Q: Did the SC disqualify the guy here?
A: Yes
Q: By the SC?
A: It was remanded back to the Comelec to clarify what is really the meaning
of fugitives from justice.
Sir: Exactly. It was not the SC who disqualify the guy. What the SC did in this
case is, okay Comelec this is the definition of fugitive from justice. Based on
this, you rule on the case. The case was remanded to the Comelec. The SC
merely settled the meaning of fugitive from justice and that definition is?
A: Fugitive from justice refers to a person who has been convicted by final
judgment. Includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid
punishment but likewise those who, after being charged flee to avoid
prosecution.
Sir: Take note of that definition. Next, Torcal. What happened in Caasi vs CA?
A:
Facts: Private respondent Merito Miguel was elected as municipal mayor of
Bolinao, Pangasinan during the local elections of January 18, 1988. His
disqualification, however, was sought by herein petitioner, Mateo Caasi, on
the ground that under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code private
respondent was not qualified because he is a green card holder, hence, a
permanent resident of the United States of America, not of Bolinao.
Issues:
1. Whether or not a green card is proof that the holder is a permanent
resident of the United States.
2. Whether respondent Miguel had waived his status as a permanent resident
of or immigrant to the U.S.A. prior to the local elections on January 18, 1988.
Held: The Supreme Court held that Miguels application for immigrant status
and permanent residence in the U.S. and his possession of a green card
attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he is a permanent resident
of the U.S. despite his occasional visits to the Philippines. The waiver of such
immigrant status should be as indubitable as his application for it. Absent
clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that status or that he
surrendered his green card to the appropriate U.S. authorities before he ran
for mayor of Bolinao in the local election on January 18, 1988, the Courts
conclusion is that he was disqualified to run for said public office, hence, his
election thereto was null and void.
Q: If you are a green card holder, what are you?
A: Immigrant
Sir: If you are an immigrant again, where is your residence?
A: In the foreign country where you choose to migrate.
Sir: Here we are talking about the effect of immigration on residence and
domicile. Now, what is the effect of immigration in so far as the residence and
domicile is concerned?
A: The SC said sir, that Miguels immigration to US constituted an
abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines.
Sir: So, thats the word there. It abandons the domicile and residence in the

Philippines. In which case, he cannot run for public office because residence
is a requirement in running for public office. Now, in so far as Grace Poe is
concerned that might also factor there, because she was already in the US.
Was she a US citizen or just a green card holder? US citizen. Kana, with more
your reason that you already a US citizen. And we have said that domicile
and residence are synonymous in so far as election laws is concerned. Can
she comply the 10-year requirement prior to May 9, 2016? Thats another
question. So, whats your one line for this case?
A: That the waiver of immigrant status should be inevitable as ones
application for
Sir: Aside from that. What is the effect of immigration?
A: Its an abandonment of ones domicile and residence.
Sir: Next, Singh. About the grounds and date of election, you just read them.
A:
Facts:
Private respondent Merito Miguel was elected as municipal mayor of Bolinao,
Pangasinan during the local elections of January 18, 1988. His disqualification,
however, was sought by herein petitioner, Mateo Caasi, on the ground that
under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code private respondent was not
qualified because he is a green card holder, hence, a permanent resident of
the United States of America, not of Bolinao.
Issues:
1. Whether or not a green card is proof that the holder is a permanent
resident of the United States.
2. Whether respondent Miguel had waived his status as a permanent resident
of or immigrant to the U.S.A. prior to the local elections on January 18, 1988.
Held: The Supreme Court held that Miguels application for immigrant status
and permanent residence in the U.S. and his possession of a green card
attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he is a permanent resident
of the U.S. despite his occasional visits to the Philippines. The waiver of such
immigrant status should be as indubitable as his application for it. Absent
clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that status or that he
surrendered his green card to the appropriate U.S. authorities before he ran
for mayor of Bolinao in the local election on January 18, 1988, the Courts
conclusion is that he was disqualified to run for said public office, hence, his
election thereto was null and void.
Sir: Here in this case, Akbayan youth is a youth organization and they
petitioned to the SC that they be allowed two more days so that they can
register. Because they did not register despite the long period of time. They
choose to come to Comelec at the dying hours of registration. Now, they are
invoking that anyway the Comelec has the power to adjust the period of preelection requirement? And the SC said that legislations is a pre-election
requirement. So, can the Comelec adjust that? It can adjust, however, subject
to?
A: Subject to the condition that it is possible to be done.
Sir: In other words, the SC is saying that do not ask the Comelec the
impossible. It must be reasonably done. Indeed by now, you will realize that
the Comelec is indowed with massive powers. So what is your one liner in this

case?
A: If you want to exercise your right to suffrage, do it promptly and do not
sleep on your rights.
Sir: Yah, you know what there is no reason for you not to register because
were open on Sundays, Saturdays and holidays. So, you cannot say I was
busy. As a matter of fact, we extend registration hours beyond 5 oclock.