G.R. No.

210164               August 18, 2015 It did not matter that Maquiling was promulgated months after Arnado
had filed for candidacy. Since he was not totally unaware that the use
of his US passport might have adverse consequences on his
ROMMEL C. ARNADO, Petitioner,
candidacy for the 2013 elections, the Decision concludes that he
should have been prudent enough to remedy whatever defect there
vs. might have been in his citizenship.10
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FLORANTE
CAPITAN, Respondents,
Even J. Brion concedes that Amado could have been more
circumspect in order to secure his qualification to run for public
CONCURRING OPINION office. 11 However, it is insisted that the members of this Court should
remove the present case from the shadow of Maquiling and arrive at its
resolution based merely on the attendant factual and legal
SERENO, CJ: considerations specific to it.12

In Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, 1 we emphasized It cannot be denied that by virtue of its being a decision of the Court
the variable nature of a person's citizenship, which cannot be that joins the country's body of laws as jurisprudence, Maquiling serves
determined with finality or become the basis of rules that can be as a "legal consideration" in the resolution of the present case.
applied to any and all proceedings thereafter. We said: Maquiling' s application cannot be helped, especially since the
Decision therein hinged not only on relevant laws, but largely on the
Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a facts then presented before the Court. Thus, while the legal conclusion
judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or in Maquiling was not a final determination of Amado's citizenship - as it
administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is applied only for purposes of the 2010 elections - the facts on which its
generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed legal conclusion was founded cannot be totally ignored.
out again and again as the occasion may demand. 2
A person's citizenship may be "threshed out again and again"13 in
In election contests, this pronouncement gains significance, as elective every proceeding as long as it becomes relevant and necessary.
local officials are constitutionally allowed to run and serve for three Except for some clearly unmeritorious cases, it is always a good idea
consecutive terms. 3 While citizenship is a continuing requirement that to decide on the merits, especially in election controversies in which
must be possessed not only at the time of election or assumption of the law is sometimes placed at odds with the will of the people. At the
office, but also during the entire tenure of the official,4 it is not a same time, the Court puts a premium on economy, and where previous
continuing disqualification to run for and hold public office.5 declarations of one's citizenship become pertinent, those cases may
be used as a take-off point if only to emphasize the differences and
similarities, as well as the measures that were taken in the interim.
As such, each case involving the question of an elective official's
citizenship must be treated anew in accordance with the surrounding
relevant facts and applicable laws. One point of contention between the Decision and the Dissenting
Opinion is the finding that Arnado used his US passport for his travels
in and out of the country on 12 January 2010 and 23 March 2010.
In this regard, I agree with some of the statements of J Brion in his
Dissenting Opinion. Indeed, the Court's ruling in Maquiling v.
COMELEc6 went only so far as to determine whether Rommel C. One point of contention between the Decision and the Dissenting
Arnado (Amado) was qualified to run for public office in the 2010 Opinion is the finding that Arnado used his US passport for his travels
elections. It did not operate as, nor was it intended to be, a final in and out of the country on 12 January 2010 and 23 March 2010.
determination of Amado's citizenship that would forever derail his
career as a public official. Maquiling indeed made a finding that Arnado used his US passport for
travel on those dates. In the Court Resolution dated 2 July 2013, we
In Maquiling, we reiterated that natural-born citizens of the Philippines said:
who have lost their citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country may qualify to run for public office upon Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of administrative bodies will
taking the Oath of Allegiance 7 and making a sworn renunciation of not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of grave abuse of
their foreign citizenship.8 Arnado subjected his citizenship to attack discretion on the part of said agencies, or unless the aforementioned
when he continued to use his United States (US) passport to travel in findings are not supported by substantial evidence.1âwphi1 They are
and out of the country despite previously renouncing his US accorded not only great respect but even finality, and are binding upon
citizenship. The Court ruled that his use of his US passport nullified the this Court, unless it is shown that the administrative body had arbitrarily
effect of his previous renunciation of US citizenship. While he did not disregarded or misapprehended evidence before it to such an extent
lose his Philippine citizenship in the process, he reverted to his status as to compel a contrary conclusion had such evidence been properly
as a dual citizen and remained as such at the time that he filed his appreciated.
Certificate of Candidacy for the position of mayor of Kauswagan,
Lanao del Norte in the 2010 elections. Under Section 40(d) of the Local
Government Code, those with dual citizenship are disqualified from Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that COMELEC First
running for any elective local position.
Division found that Arnado used his U.S. Passport at least six times
Considering that the Court had pinpointed the defect in Amado's oath after he renounced his American citizenship. This was debunked by
of renunciation, the simple act of taking the oath anew would have the COMELEC En Banc, which found that Arnado only used his U.S.
been enough compliance with the requirement of the law. passport four times, and which agreed with Amado's claim that he only
used his U.S. passport on those occasions because his Philippine
passport was not yet issued. The COMELEC En Banc argued that
The Decision found that from the time Amado used his US passport to Amado was able to prove that he used his Philippine passport for his
travel in and out of the country up to the filing of his Certificate of travels on the following dates: 12 January 2010, 31 January 2010, 31
Candidacy for the succeeding elections in 2013, there had been no March 2010, 16 April 2010, 20 May 2010, and 4 June 2010.
change in his circumstances. 9 He still had not made a sworn
renunciation of his US citizenship. Thus, the ruling in Maquiling still
applies: that Arnado had dual citizenship when he filed for his None of these dates coincide with the two other dates indicated in the
candidacy on 1 October 2012. certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration showing that on 21
January 2010 and on 23 March 2010, Arnado arrived in the Philippines
using his U.S. Passport No. 057782700 which also indicated therein
that his nationality is USA-American. Adding these two travel dates to
the travel record provided by the Bureau of Immigration showing that (2013) separate and distinct from the election period covered by the
Arnado also presented his U.S. passport four times (upon departure on Maquiling ruling (2010). The factual circumstances and consequent
14 April 2009, upon arrival on 25 June 2009, upon departure on 29 legal considerations also vary, as will be explained below, so that the
July 2009 and upon arrival on 24 November 2009), these incidents present case need not necessarily follow the governing ruling in
sum up to six. Maquiling.

The COMELEC En Banc concluded that "the use of the US passport Thus, at the outset, I invite the Court: to keep an open mind and
was because to his knowledge, his Philippine passport was not yet remove any initial impression that the present case is a re-run of
issued to him for his use." This conclusion, however, is not supported Maquiling; to recognize that at some point, the present case diverges
by the facts. Arnado claims that his Philippine passport was issued on from and must be viewed independently of Maquiling; and to resolve it
18 June 2009. The records show that he continued to use his U.S. from the perspective solely of the attendant factual and legal
passport even after he already received his Philippine passport. considerations specific to it.
Arnado's travel records show that he presented his U.S. passport on
24 November 2009, on 21 January 2010, and on 23 March 2010.
The Court must not also forget that this is an election case where the
These facts were never refuted by Arnado.
electorate has its own separate interest to protect. This is an interest
that the Court must not ignore when the issues posed carry the
Thus, the ruling of the COMELEC En Banc is based on a potential of setting aside the electorate's expressed choice.
misapprehension of the facts that the use of the U.S. passport was
discontinued when Amado obtained his Philippine
Notably, the present controversy involves .a candidate whose
passport.14 (Emphases supplied)
disqualification (to run for elective office) has twice been sought based
on the same cited facts and grounds, but who nevertheless has twice
It is important to clarify that the certification from the Bureau of been elected by a clear and overwhelming majority of the voters - in
Immigration indicated that Amado arrived in the country using his US the May 2010 and May 2013 Elections. In 2013, he garnered 84% of
passport on 12 January 2010 and 23 March 2010. 15 The Court gave full the votes of the people of Kauswagan.
credence to the certification, not only because it carried with it the
presumption of regularity, but more important, Arnado never bothered
This clear and undeniably overwhelming voice of the electorate, to my
to refute the contents thereof.
mind, renders it necessary for the Court to consider and apply deeper
democratic principles.3 The circumstances of the present controversy
On the basis of this finding, the Court rejected the claim that Amado's call for this kind of consideration, particularly when the electorate's
use of his US passport several times were mere isolated acts that were already limited democratic decision making process runs the risk of
done only because he was not yet issued his Philippine passport.16 being negated for no clear and conclusive reason, as discussed below.

To my mind, this is the turning point of Maquiling that regrettably still To disregard the electorate's voice once can perhaps be excused by
applies in this case: that whatever professions of faith and allegiance to invoking the rule of law; to ignore the people's voice a second time can
the Republic that Amado claims when his citizenship is in question, the only be justified by clear reasons from this Court that the people can
fact remains that during the instances that he used his US passport readily understand.
despite having a Philippine passport in his possession, those same
professions became hollow. And, that up to the filing of Amado's
I submit this Dissenting Opinion to object to the ponencia's
Certificate of Candidacy for the 2013 elections, he failed to remedy the
conclusion that Arnado is disqualified from running in the May
fatal blow that such repeated use of his US passport dealt on his
2013 Elections and that his proclamation as elected Mayor of
electoral qualifications.
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, should now be set aside.

I therefore concur with the DISMISSAL of the PETITION.

I specifically find the ponencia 's conclusions grossly erroneous and
tainted with grave abuse of discretion based on the following
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO considerations:
Chief Justice
(1) Amado became a "pure" Philippine citizen on April 3,
DISSENTING OPINION 2009, after he took his oath of allegiance and executed his
affidavit of renunciation. That he was subsequently deemed
to have recanted his renunciation is unfortunate, but even
BRION, J.:
the Maquiling ruling recognizes that for some eleven (11)
days (i.e., from April 3 to 14, 2009), he was qualified to run
The present certiorari petition,1filed under Rule 64 in relation with Rule for public office because he was a "pure" Filipino.
65 of the Rules of Court, involves the disqualification of the present
petitioner, Rommel C. Amado (Arnado), in the May 13, 2013 National
Arnado more than reconfirmed and regained this status and
and Local Elections (May 2013 Elections).
was qualified to run for public office in the May 2013
Elections based on his persistent assertions of sole
This case traces its roots to the earlier disqualification case [docketed allegiance to the Republic and his repeated renunciation of
as SPA No . .J0-109 (DC)] filed against Amado in relation with the May his US citizenship.
10, 2010 Elections, that led to the Court's decision in Maquiling v.
Comelec disqualifying Arnado.2To some extent, the present case is
a. Separately from the April 3, 2009 Affidavit of
factually linked to the earlier disqualification case.
Renunciation that Maquiling said Amado recanted,
Arnado executed on May 9, 2013, another Affidavit
As in Maquiling, Amado and his qualification to run for public office are of Renunciation affirming the terms of his April 3,
at the center of the present petition. Private re8pondent Florante 2009 Affidavit and thus cured any defect in his
Capitan seeks to strengthen the linkage with the earlier Maquiling case qualification to run in the May 2013 Elections.
by adopting the Maquiling positions and considering the present case
as a seamless continuation of Maquiling.
(2) The legal consequences of the Maquiling ruling is limited
to Arado's qualification for public office in the May 2010
Despite some commonalities, the present disqualification case, elections.
however, is separate and substantively distinct from the Maquiling
disqualification case. The present case involves an election period
 a. The intervening 2010 Maquiling disqualification A. Factual Background
ruling did not and could not have invalidated
Arnado's status as a "pure" Philippine citizen who
For a· fuller understanding of the present disqualification case, I
was qualified to run for public office after having
reiterate below the important antecedent facts.
complied with the RA No. 9225 requirements in
the May 2013 Elections.
Arnado is a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Filipino citizenship
after becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States of America
(3) The Comelec gravely abused its discretion in ruling that
(US.) in 1985.
the May 9, 2013 Confirmation of the Oath of Affirmation was
filed out of time.
In 2003, Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) No. 9225 (Citizenship
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003).4
a. The Comelec grossly failed to consider (i) the
circumstances of the filing of the October 1, 2012
Certificate of Candidacy (CoC), and (ii) the Arnado opted to re-acquire his Philippine citizenship pursuant to RA
circumstances and the dynamics between the No. 9225 and soon filed the required application before the Philippine
2010 Maquiling case and ruling, and the present Consul General in San Francisco, U.S.A. On July 10, 2008, Arnado
2013 disqualification case, in terms of the took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; the
retroactive application of the Maquiling ruling. Approval of his Citizenship retention and re-acquisition was issued on
the same date.
b. When Amado filed his CoC on October 1, 2012
(for the 2013 Elections), the prevailing Comelec en On April 3, 2009, Arnado executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his
bane ruling [in its February 2, 2011 resolution in foreign citizenship (interchangeably referred to, from here on, as April
SPA No. 10-109 (DC)] was that he was not 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation or 2009 express renunciation).
disqualified to run for elective public office; hence,
Amado did not need to execute another affidavit of
On April 14, 2009, Arnado left the country for the US using his US
renunciation.
passport - US passport (No. 057782700) - which identified his
nationality as "USA-American." He returned to the country on June 25,
c. Based solely on the Maquiling Decision (that 2009, using the same US passport. He again left for the US on July 29,
pertained to Arnado's disqualification for the 2010 2009, and returned to the country on November 24, 2009, still using his
elections), the Comelec disqualified Arnado for the US passport.
May 2013 elections because his October 1, 2012
CoC was not supported by any Affidavit of
Unknown to Amado, however, the Philippine Consulate General in San
Renunciation (since Maquiling considered his April
Francisco, USA, had approved and issued in his favor a Philippine
3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation for the 2010
Passport (No. XX 3979162) on June 18, 2009. 5 He only received this
elections effectively recanted). This Comelec
Philippine passport three months later.6
ruling disregards the unusual consequences of the
April 3, 2009 Affidavit and the unique
circumstances under which the October 1, 2012 From then on, he used his Philippine passport in his travels on the
CoC was filed. following dates: December 11, 2009 (departure); January 12, 2010
(arrival); January 31, 2010 (departure); March 31, 2010 (arrival); April
11, 2010 (departure); April 16, 2010 (arrival); May 20, 2010
d. Since the Comelec did not accept the Affidavit
(departure); and June 4, 2010 (arrival).7
of Renunciation that Arnado filed on May 9, 2013
(for the 2013 Elections) in the light of the 2010
Maquiling ruling, he was placed in an impossible B. The Maquiling Case and its Incidents
situation of being disqualified in 2013 for a ruling
applicable to the 2010 elections, without being
given the opportunity to submit his compliance for On November 30, 2009, Amado filed his CoC for the mayoralty post of
the May 2013 elections. Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, for the May 2010 Elections. On the
same day, he executed another Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of
Allegiance.8
e. Notably, his May 9, 2013 Affidavit of
Renunciation, submitted to comply with his May
2013 candidacy, was rejected because it should Notably, this Affidavit of Renunciation came after his travel using an
have been filed on October 1, 2012 (i.e., when he American passport.
filed his CoC for the May 2013 elections). If the
Maquiling ruling, made on April 16, 2013, was Linog C. Balua, another mayoralty candidate, filed with the Comelec a
made to retroactively apply to October 1, 2012, so petition to disqualify Amado and/or to cancel his CoC (2010
should the opportunity to comply be similarly made Disqualification case) on the ground that Arnado remained a US
retroactive. To the extent he was denied this citizen: he continued to use his US passport for entry to and exit from
opportunity is grave abuse of discretion. the Philippines after executing the April 3, 2009 Affidavit of
Renunciation. Balua's petition was docketed as SPA No. 10-109 (DC).
(4) Af any rate, all doubts should be resolved in favour of
Arnado's qualification: Arnado was proclaimed the winning candidate in the May 2010
Elections.
a. Arnado' s unequivocal acts and show of
allegiance to the Republic and renunciation of In a resolution dated February 2, 2011, the Comelec En Banc ruled [in
other citizenships, taken together, should have SPA No. 10-109 (DC)) that Arnado's use of his US passport,
resolved all doubts in favor of his qualification; subsequent to his 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation, did not have the
effect of reverting him to his status as a dual citizen. The Comelec En
b. the mandate of the people of Kauswagan that Banc found believable and plausible Arnado's explanation that he
twice elected Amado as their Mayor should be continued to use his US passport because he only knew of and
respected and upheld. received his Philippine passport three months after it was issued on
June 18, 2009. As soon as he received his Philippine passport, he
used it in his subsequent travels abroad.
I. Roots of the Present Petition
The 2010 disqualification case eventually reached this Court via the II. The Proceedings before the Comelec
petition for certiorari filed by Maquiling; the case was. docketed as GR
No. 195649 entitled Maquiling v. Comelec.
A. Comelec Second Division Ruling

a. The Court's Maquiling Decision.

In its resolution dated September 6, 2013, in SP A No. 13-309(DC), the
Comelec Second Division disqualified Amado from running in the May
In its April 16, 2013 Decision, the Court annulled and set aside the 2013 Elections.
Comelec En Banc 's February 2, 2011 Resolution; disqualified Amado
from running for the position of Mayor; and declared Maquiling the duly
The Second Division declared that at the time he filed his CoC on
elected mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, in the May 2010
October 1, 2012, Arnado still failed to comply with RA No. 9225's
Elections. The Court ruled that by his subsequent use of his US
requirement of making a personal and sworn renunciation of any and
passport, Arnado effectively disavowed or recanted his April 3, 2009
all foreign citizenship, as his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation had
Affidavit of Renunciation.
been deemed withdrawn or recalled pursuant to Maquiling. His 2013
Affidavit did not rectify this failure as this subsequent affidavit should
In ruling on the case, the Court significantly acknowledged that: have been executed on or before the filing of his CoC on October 1,
2012
i. The "act of using a foreign passport does not divest
Arnado of his Filipino citizenship, which he re-acquired by B. The Comelec En Banc Ruling
repatriation. By representing himself as an American citizen,
however, Amado voluntarily and effectively reverted to his
In its December 9, 2013 resolution, the Comelec En Banc fully affirmed
earlier status as a dual citizen. Such reversion was not
the Second Division's ruling; annulled Arnado's proclamation; and
retroactive; it took place the instant Arnado represented
declared Capitan the duly elected mayor of Kauswagan..
himself as an American citizen by using his US passport. "

III. The Issues

ii. "In effect, Arnado was solely and exclusively a Filipino
citizen only for a period of eleven days, or from April 3, 2009,
until 14 April 2009, on which date he first used his American The issues raised for the Court's consideration are:
passport after renouncing his American citizenship."10
A. Whether the Comelec En Banc and the Second Division
C. The Present Disqualification Case violated procedural due process and committed grave abuse
of discretion in failing to dismiss the petitions filed by Capitan
for forum shopping and/or late filing;
On October l, 2012, and while the Maquiling case was still pending
before this Court (so that the existing standing rule was the Comelec
ruling that he was qualified to be a candidate), Arnado filed his B. Whether the Comelec En Banc violated due process and
CoC11 for the same mayoralty post for the May 2013 Elections. Thus, committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing .
Arnado saw no need to undertake another Renunciation. Commissioner Elias Yusoph to review the decision he wrote
for the Second Division;
Respondent Florante Capitan also filed his CoC12 for the same
position. C. Whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of
discretion in disenfranchising 84o/o of the voters
ofKauswagan in the May 2013 elections; and
On April 16, 2013, the Court issued its Decision in Maquiling v.
Comelec, disqualifying Arnado for the May 2010 Elections.
D. Whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of
discretion in disqualifying Arnado who had fully complied
Apparently in response to the Maquiling ruling, Arnado executed on
with the requirements of RA No. 9225 before the filing of his
May 9, 2013, an Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Renunciation affirming
CoC on October 1, 2012.
the terms of his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation(herein referred
to as 2013 Affidavit).13 Arnado undertook the required acts as soon as
he was aware that they had to be done to perfect his May 2013 IV. Refutation of the Ponencia
candidacy.
A. Re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship
On May 10, 2013, Capitan filed a petition to disqualify 14 Arnado from under RA No. 9225; purposes and legal
running for the Kauswagan mayoralty post and/or to cancel his CoC effect of the oath of allegiance and oath
(2013 Disqualification case) based on the Court's Maquiling ruling. The of renunciation
case was docketed as SPA No. 13-309 (DC) and was raffled to the
Comelec
RA No. 9225 was enacted to allow natural-born Filipino citizens who
lost their Philippine citizenship through naturalization in a foreign
Second Division (Second Division).15 country, to expeditiously re-acquire Philippine citizenship. 17 It is a
unique mode of re-acquiring Philippine citizenship and is a far
departure from the citizenship re-acquisition procedure under
On May 14, 2013, during the pendency of the 2013 Disqualification
Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 63,18 the law in place before RA No. 9225
case before. the Second Division, Arnado was proclaimed the duly
was enacted.
elected Mayor of Lanao del Norte in the May 2013 Elections.16

Under CA No. 63, Philippine citizenship may be re-acquired by: (1)

Capitan responded to the proclamation by filing a petition to nullify
naturalization; (2) repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy, or Air
Arnado's proclamation, arguing that pursuant to the Maquiling ruling
Corps, or of a woman who has lost her citizenship by reason of
(which declared Amado disqualified from running for any local elective
marriage to an alien after the termination of her marital status; and (3)
office), Arnado's proclamation was void and carried no legal effect.
direct act of the National Assembly.19

In a resolution dated July 2, 2013, the Court denied Arnado's motion

Notably, re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship under the first mode
for reconsideration of the April 16, 2013 Maquiling Decision.
(i.e., by naturalization) involves the more stringent procedure laid down
in CA No. 473.20 The reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under the citizenship is transferred from the Philippines to the foreign country
second mode (i.e., by repatriation), on the other hand, provides for an because the latest oath that will be taken by the former Filipino is one
easier procedure as it requires only the taking of the oath of allegiance of allegiance to the Philippines and not to the United States, as the
to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil case may be. He added that this is a matter which the Philippine
registry; it applies, however, only to the specific group of persons government will have no concern and competence over.
enumerated therein.
Rep. Dilangalen asked why this will no longer be the country's concern,
Under the procedure currently in place under RA No. 9225, the re- when dual allegiance is involved.
acquisition of Philippine citizenship requires only the taking of an oath
of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines in a manner similar to
Rep. Locsin clarified that this was precisely his objection to the original
the second mode under CA No. 63. But, RA No. 9225 provides for a
version of the bill, which did not require an oath of allegiance. Since the
deeper effect by declaring it a State policy that under its terms "all
measure now requires this oath, the problem of dual allegiance is
Philippine citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost
transferred from the Philippines to the foreign country concerned, he
their Philippine citizenship"21 under the conditions provided therein.
explained.

The full implication of the effects of RA No. 9225 can fully be

Rep. Dilangalen asked whether in the particular case, the person did
appreciated by considering Section 3 of the law, which reads:
not denounce his foreign citizenship and therefore still owes allegiance
to the foreign government, and at the same time, owes his allegiance
Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any provision of law to to the Philippine government, such that there is now a case of dual
the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their citizenship and dual allegiance.
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to
have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath
Rep. Locsin clarified that by swearing to the supreme authority of the
of allegiance to the Republic:
Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship.
However, he said that this is not a matter that he wishes to address in
"'I , solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Congress because he is not a member of a foreign parliament but a
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and Member of the House.
legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the
Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the
Rep. Locsin replied that it is imperative that those who have dual
supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and
allegiance contrary to national interest should be dealt with by law.
allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this obligation upon myself
However, he said that the dual allegiance problem is not addressed in
voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
the bill. He then cited the Declaration of Policy in the bill which states
[emphases supplied]
that "It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all citizens who
become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost
By its express terms, this oath is one of allegiance that recognizes the their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act." He
"supreme authority" of the Philippines and the obligation to "maintain stressed that what the bill does is recognize Philippine citizenship but
true faith and allegiance thereto." says nothing about the other citizenship.

These terms, while seemingly allowing dual citizenship for natural-born Rep. Locsin further pointed out that the problem of dual allegiance is
Filipino citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of created wherein a natural-born citizen of the Philippines takes an oath
their naturalization as citizens in a foreign country, 22 carry the implicit of allegiance to another country and in that oath says that he abjures
effect of renouncing their foreign citizenship and allegiance because of and absolutely renounces all allegiance to his country of origin and
the renewed allegiance that is accorded to the supreme authority of the swears allegiance to that foreign country. The original Bill had left it at
Republic.23 this stage, he explained. In the present measure, he clarified, a person
is required to take an oath and the last he utters is one of allegiance to
the country. He then said that the problem of dual allegiance is no
In effect, the problem of dual allegiance created by dual citizenship is
longer the problem of the Philippines but of the other foreign country.
transferred from the Philippines to the foreign country. Since the latest
[emphases supplied]
oath that the person takes is one of allegiance to the Republic,
whatever treatment the foreign country may have on his or her status is
a matter outside the concern and competence of the Philippine Jurisprudence confirms this interpretation of RA No. 9225 in AASJS v.
government!.24 Hon. Datumanong25 when the Court pointedly declared:

The congressional exchanges on dual citizenship and the potential By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person
problem of dual allegiance (which under the Constitution is inimical to implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3,
public interest), attest to this interpretation as these exchanges Rep. Act No. 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance
reconciled the possession of dual citizenship and the dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether OF not there
that the Constitution states to "be inimical to public interest." is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What happens to
the other citizenship was not made a concern of Rep. Act No.
9225.26 [emphasis supplied]
Pursuing his point, Rep. Dilangalen noted that under the measure, two
situations exist - the retention of foreign citizenship, and the
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. In this case, he observed that The oath of allegiance taken under RA No. 9225 entitles a person to
there are two citizenships and therefore, two allegiances. He pointed enjoy full civil and political rights that include the right to participate,
out that under the Constitution, dual allegiance is inimical to public directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of the
interest. He thereafter asked whether with the creation of dual government. 27 He or she may now vote.
allegiance by reason of retention of foreign citizenship and the
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, there will now be a violation of
To be voted upon to an elective office, however, a natural-born Filipino
the Constitution ....
citizen who has implicitly renounced foreign allegiance when he or she
swears allegiance to the Republic under RA No. 9225 must still make
Rep. Locsin underscored that the measure does not seek to address his or her previous implicit renunciation "express." In the words of the
the constitutional injunction on dual allegiance as inimical to public law, he must "make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all
interest. He said that the proposed law aims to facilitate the foreign citizenship." [Section 5(2) of RA No. 9225]
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by speedy means. However, he
said that in one sense, it addresses the problem of dual citizenship by
requiring the taking of an oath. He explained that the problem of dual
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who retain or Second, at that time, the standing ruling was the Comelec en bane
re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and decision that Arnado was not disqualified and had perfected the
political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and required submissions for his candidacy. No restraining order or any
responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following other ruling from this Court intervened to prevent this Comelec ruling
conditions: from being the governing rule in the interim.

(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the As a result, Amado saw no need to undertake remedial measures
qualification for holding such public office as required by the addressing the matters complained about in the 2010 Maquiling
Constitution and existing laws, and at the time of the filing of the disqualification case. But at that point, he had already filed two oaths of
certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of renunciation - on April 3, 2009 and on November 30, 2009 - when he
any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to filed his CoC for the May 2010 Elections.
administer an oath; .... [emphases and underscoring supplied]
Third, he did not submit any oath of renunciation together with his
The requirement of an express renunciation, however, does not negate October 1, 2012 CoC since, to his knowledge, he had complied with
the effect of, or make any less real, the prior implicit renunciation of the requirements of RA No. 9225 and the Local Government Code,
citizenship and allegiance made upon taking the oath of allegiance. and had attained "pure" Filipino citizen status. (That he did attain this
Thus, persons availing of RA No. 9225 do not renounce their foreign status based on the 2008 oath of allegiance and his 2009 affidavit of
citizenship for the first time by executing the Affidavit of renunciation renunciation is in fact confirmed by Maquiling, although his subsequent
that Section 5(2) of the law requires; they have implicitly made this recantation intervened.)
renunciation when they swore allegiance to the supreme authority of
the Republic.
Arnado's political world was overturned when the Court resolved the
May 2010 disqualification case on April 16, 2013, or a few days before
What the oath of renunciation simply does is to make express what the May 2013 elections. But Arnado did not fully dwell on the past.
natural-born. Filipino citizens have already implicitly renounced. The While filing a motion for reconsideration of the Maquiling ruling, he also
requirement of express renunciation highlights the implication that it is acted on his October 1, 2012 CoC by executing and submitting, on
not the exclusive means by which natural-born Filipino citizens may May 9, 2013, an Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Renunciation affirming
renounce their foreign citizenship. In reality, the oath of renunciation is his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation.
a requirement simply for the purpose of running for elective public
office, apparently to ensure that foreign citizenship and mixed loyalties
Thus, from the perspective of the laws governing natural-born Filipinos
are kept out of the elective public service.
who have re-acquired Philippine citizenship and who wish to run for
public office, Amado did not only comply with the twin requirements of
To paraphrase Japzon v. Comelec, 28 the oath of renunciation makes RA No. 9225 as of April 3, 2009; he even exceeded the requirements
these natural-born potential candidates for public office "pure" of the law by asserting his oath of allegiance to the Republic four times,
Philippine citizens29 from the perspective of the election laws. while also impliedly renouncing any and all foreign citizenships for the
same number of "times, and twice expressly renouncing any and all
other citizenships (with one express renunciation declared recanted by
In sum, the oath of allegiance not only allows these natural-born
Maquiling).
Filipinos to re-acquire Philippine citizenship; thereby, they also
implicitly renounce their citizenship and allegiance to any and all
foreign country as they assert allegiance to the "supreme authority of All these are material considerations that should be taken into account
the Philippines and xx x maintain true faith and allegiance thereto". The in resolving the present case and are more fully discussed under
oath of renunciation, on the other hand, complements their oath of separate headings below.
allegiance through the express manifestation, for purpose of running
for public office, that the candidate is a "pure" Filipino.
C. The Comelec gravely abused its
discretion in ruling that the May 9,
B. Arnado's attainment, loss of "pure" 2013 Confirmation of Oath of
Filipino citizen status, and subsequent Affirmation was out of time.
Developments
After the promulgation of the Maquiling Decision disqualifying Amado
Based on the above discussions, I find - as the ponencia and the for the May 2010 elections and relying solely on its terms, the Comelec
majority in Maquiling did - that Arnado became a "pure" Philippine disqualified Amado for the May 2013 elections because his October 1,
citizen when he took his oath of allegiance to the Philippines on July 2012 CoC was not supported by any Affidavit of Renunciation (since
10, 2008, and his oath of renunciation on April 3, 2009.30 With his oath Maquiling considered his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation for the
of renunciation, he became solely a Filipino citizen with total allegiance May 2010 elections effectively recanted).
to the Republic of the Philippines.
The Comelec ruling and its underlying reasons are, on their face,
He could have, at that point, validly run for public office, except that patently unreasonable since they did not consider at all the
subsequent to his renunciation, he travelled using his U.S. passport - a surrounding circumstances of the filing of the October 1, 2012 CoC and
development that the Maquiling ruling unfortunately characterized as a the circumstances that led to the absence of any oath of renunciation
recantation of his previous renunciation of American citizenship. after the Maquiling ruling. The Comelec approach is in fact simplistic to
the point of grave abuse of discretion. Apparently, it considered that
with the oath of renunciation·recanted and with no oath filed with the
Had the developments that transpired in Amado's political life simply
October 1, 2012 CoC, then the CoC should be considered fatally
stopped with his candidacy in the May 2010 Elections, then the present
deficient. The ponencia 's reasoning also runs this way.
case and its complications would have been avoided. But as
subsequent developments showed, a confluence of complicating
factors arose. Subject to fuller discussions below, I submit that the Comelec missed
out on at least three (3) basic considerations.
First, Arnado ran again for the same office in the May 2013 Elections,
and events overlapped. His disqualification case was not resolved with First, at the time the October 1, 2012 CoC was filed, the prevailing
dispatch so that the period for the filing of the CoC for the May 2013 ruling, although then contested before the Court, was the Comelec en
Elections (in October 2012) was set while the present case was still bane ruling that did not consider Arnado disqualified. To reiterate, no
pending with this Court. intervening restraining order was issued by this Court addressing this
Comelec ruling. Hence, there was no immediate need, at the time of
the CoC's filing, for a replacement supporting oath of renunciation.
Second, since the Comelec did not accept Amado's May 9, 2013 allegiance and is a consequence of the resulting re-acquisition of
Affidavit of Renunciation (for the May 2013 Elections) in the light of the Philippine citizenship.
Maquiling 11Jling (affecting the May 2010 elections), he was placed in
an impossible situation of being disqualified in the May 2013 Elections
The express renunciation, in contrast, is an after-the-fact requirement
for a ruling applicable only to the May 2010 Elections, without being
that arises only if these natural-born Filipino citizens choose to run for
given the opportunity to submit his compliance for the May 2013
public office. The requirement of an express renunciation of foreign
Elections.
citizenship arises only after they have re-acquired Philippine citizenship
for the exclusive purpose of qualifying them for elective public office.
Third, along the same line of thought, Arnado's May 9, 2013 Affidavit of
Renunciation, submitted to comply with his May 2013 candidacy, was
Note in this regard that Maquiling declared as recanted only the
rejected because it should have been filed on October 1, 2012 (i.e.,
express renunciation that Arnado executed on April 3, 2009, not the
when he filed his CoC for the May 2013 elections).
implied renunciation that Amado made on several occasions when he
swore allegiance to the supreme authority of the Republic.
If the Maquiling ruling of April 16, 2013, which addressed the separate
2010 disqualification case, was made to retroactively apply to October
This Maquiling declaration and the distinction that it signifies are
1, 2012, in the separate 2013 disqualification case, then a retroactive
crucial: first, the implied renunciation of foreign allegiance that Amado
opportunity should also be given in the 2013 disqualification case to
made on several occasions still stands as valid, as Maquiling affected
comply with what retroactively applied in Maquiling.
only his April 3, 2009 express renunciation; second, the implied
renunciation must be valid because it did not affect Amado's
To the extent that Arnado was denied the chance to submit a reacquisition of Filipino citizenship; and third, Arnado's express
replacement ·oath of renunciation in 2013, there was an unfair and renunciation was declared recanted solely for the purpose of the May
abusive denial of opportunity equivalent to grave abuse of discretion. 2010 Elections, not for any and all other purposes.

D. The Maquiling ruling is limited to In short, Maquiling did not declare Arnado 's renunciation of his US
Arnado 's qualification to run for public citizenship invalid for all purposes; it certainly could not have done so
office and only for the purpose of the as that case involved an election disqualification case that challenged
May 2010 elections Amado's candidacy for the mayoralty post by reason of an alleged
defect in his qualification, i.e., Amado's isolated acts that, to the
majority, effectively recanted his express renunciation.
I submit that the ponencia 's ruling, insofar as it adopts the Maquiling
ruling, is an overreach that runs counter to the policy behind RA No.
9225. In ruling as it did, Maquiling did not and could not have gone beyond
the confines of the underlying election disqualification case and could
not have ruled on Arnado 's Philippine citizenship per se without
I submit that the extent of the legal consequences of the Maquiling
exceeding the confines of the Court's jurisdiction.
ruling affect solely Arnado 's qualification to run for public office and
only for the purpose of the May 2010 elections. These consequences
should not be extended to situations outside of and not contemplated Citizenship and its loss, acquisition, and re-acquisition are much
by Maquiling. broader concepts that cannot definitively be affected by a Court ruling
in an election disqualification case, even if the disqualification case
touches on the citizenship qualification of the candidate. Thus, I submit
The following reasons support my view:
that Maquiling invalidated Arnado 's renunciation oath solely for the
purpose of his qualification/or the May 2010 elections.
First, the Maquiling ruling only considered the material facts
surrounding the May 2010 Elections. The critical facts on which the
Third, Amado became a "pure" Philippine citizen as of April 3, 2009, a
Maquiling case turned dwelt with the travels of Amado using his U.S.
legal consequence that Maquiling recognized and conceded as it
passport. These facts are not contested in the present case. Nor am I
declared that "he in fact did" comply with the "twin requirements under
contesting that for eleven days in April 2009, Amado was a "pure"
RA No. 9225" for the purpose of election qualification.
Filipino, until a recantation of his renunciation oath took place. These
are settled and accepted facts.
What made the Court rule against Amado's qualification for the May
2010 Elections was the finding of positive, albeit isolated, acts that
The Maquiling ruling left out, because these are facts that it did not
effectively "disqualified him from running for an elective public office
consider material for its resolution (such as the overlaps in the filing of
pursuant to Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991."
the October 1, 2012 CoC and the resolution of Maquiling; the effect of
Maquiling on the 2013 disqualification case; the oath of allegiance and
renunciation that accompanied the November 30, 2009 CoC for the Otherwise stated, Amado, in the Maquiling sense, was indisputably
May 2010 elections) or because they were outside the scope of the already a "pure" Philippine citizen as of April 3, 2009. He reverted to a
relevant facts of Maquiling (such as the prevailing Comelec en bane dual citizen status (and only from the perspective of the concerned
ruling on October 1, 2012 when Amado filed his CoC; the facts foreign country) only on the date subsequent to April 3, 2009, and only
surrounding the filing of the CoC on October 1, 2012; and the May 9, by virtue of the ruling that considered his use of his US passport on
2013 filing of the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Renunciation affirming isolated occasions as a "voluntar[y] and effective[] [act of] revert[ing] to
his April 3; 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation). [the] earlier status [of] a dual citizen."

From these perspectives, how can the 2010 Maquiling case be a To quote and highlight the majority's pronouncement on this point:
seamless continuation of the 2013 disqualification case now before this "[s]uch reversion was not retroactive as it took place the instant Arnado
Court? represented himself as an American citizen by using his US
passport. ,,31
Second, the implied renunciation of foreign citizenship that Amado
made on several occasions is different from and has distinct legal Thus, even if only for qualification purposes, the April 3, 2009 Affidavit
implications separate from the express renunciation he made on April of Renunciation was a valid and Court-recognized express declaration
3, 2009. of Amado's renunciation of his US citizenship that the Court cannot
lightly disregard in the present disqualification case.
The implied renunciation of foreign citizenship proceeds from the oath
of allegiance that natural-born Filipino citizens take to re-acquire Fourth, even Maquiling did not perpetually and absolutely disqualify
Philippine citizenship. This is patent from the terms of the oath of Arnado from running for any elective public office, or from running in
any elections as they declared that "[h]e is disqualified xx from I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the
becoming a candidate in the May 2010 elections. "32 Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. I will
obey all laws, legal orders and decrees promulgated by the duly
constituted authorities. I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily,
In other words, Maquiling declared Amado as disqualified from running
without mental reservation and purpose of evasion.
only in the May 2010 Elections; they did not declare him as disqualified
for any and all other elections, including the May 2013 Elections.
Taken together, all these facts undeniably show that Amado's May 9,
2013 Affidavit of Renunciation was not entirely new, nor completely
E. Arnado's May 9, 2013 Affidavit of
different and independent from the oath of renunciation that Arnado
Renunciation, affirming his April 3,
took on April 3, 2009. Rather, it affirmed and revalidated the Court-
2009 Affidavit, cured any alleged defect
recognized renunciation oath that he had earlier taken.
in his qualification to run for public
office during the May 2013 Elections
Indisputably, Maquiling found that Amado's express renunciation had
been validly made. This express renunciation, having been disavowed,
I take exception to the ponencia 's ruling that ignores Amado's May 9,
can be re-affirmed by subsequent acts - through his May 9, 2013
2013 Affidavit of Renunciation simply because it was executed after
Affidavit of Renunciation and through the statement in his October 1,
Amado filed his CoC on October 1, 2012. I submit that Arnado's May 9,
2012 CoC.
2013 Affidavit of Renunciation bears crucial significance to Amado's
qualification to run for the May 2013 Elections which the Court cannot
and should not lightly ignore. The statement in Amado's October 1, 2012 CoC, for instance, is
substantially similar to the oath of allegiance required in RA No. 9225.
This oath not only recognizes Amado's Filipino citizenship, but
Maquiling unequivocably held that by using an American passport, he
impliedly renounces his US citizenship. That he swore sole allegiance
effectively recanted his express renunciation of his US citizenship.
to the Philippine Republic in his October 1, 2012 CoC in effect affirmed
his express renunciation of US citizenship; and thus dispenses with the
Jurisprudence defines the act of recantation to mean to "withdraw or need for another express renunciation.
repudiate formally and publicly;" "to renounce or withdraw prior
statement." To "retract" means to "take back;" "to retract an offer is to
Rather than an oath that should simply be brushed aside as the
withdraw it before acceptance. "33
Comelec did, the May 9, 2013 Affidavit served: first, to repair his
reverted dual citizen status as declared in Maquiling; and second, to
That Arnado took back his statement disavowing allegiance to the US re-assert and emphasize his clear intent to renounce his US citizenship
government, however, does not render invalid his status as a natural- which he had expressly done once and impliedly done four times.
born Filipino citizen; neither does it negate the fact that he had
impliedly renounced his US citizenship, and had subsequently made
In this sense, the May 9, 2013 Affidavit of Renunciation retroacted to
an express renunciation of his US citizenship.
April 3, 2009, and cured any alleged defect in Amado's October 1,
2012 CoC. More importantly, it cured any defect that the intervening
Granting that Amado's use of his US passport amounted to a Maquiling ruling introduced on Amado's qualification to run for public
withdrawal of the express renunciation he made of his allegiance to the office during the May 2013 Elections.
US, this withdrawal does not erase the fact that he did make an
express renunciation of his US citizenship.
That Amado executed his May 9, 2013 Affidavit of Renunciation while
Maquiling was still under the Court's consideration (it was not
To my mind, this express renunciation, even if recanted, may still be confirmed on reconsideration until July 2, 2013) is not without
re-affirmed, ·in the same way a statement already made and significance. While the May 9, 2013 Affidavit was filed for purposes of
subsequently denied, can be re-confirmed. Thus, Arnado's 2013 the present disqualification case, it could have, had the Court been so
Affidavit of Renunciation can validly re-affirm the 2009 express inclined, considered as a factor in ruling on Maquiling's
renunciation that the Court held to have been recanted in Maquiling. reconsideration; but apparently it was not at all considered since
Amado's use of his US passport was the focal point of the controversy.
Note that in the May 9, 2013 Affidavit of Renunciation, Amado
categorically stated that he renounces his US citizenship, as well as F. The intervening Maquiling ruling did
any and all foreign citizenship; swears allegiance to the Republic; and not and could not have invalidated his
confirms the renunciation (of his US citizenship). he had previously status as a "pure" Philippine citizen
made in the April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation. who was qualified to run and had filed a
valid CoC for the May 2013 Elections
Note, likewise, that as explained above, the April 3, 2009 Affidavit of
Renunciation is a valid and Court-confirmed oath that Amado had As the legal consequences of the Maquiling. ruling on Amado's
validly confirmed in his May 9, 2013 Affidavit. To confirm means "to renunciation of his US citizenship did not extend beyond his
make firm: strengthen in a resolution, conviction, loyalty, position; to qualification to run for public office during the May 2010 elections; and
give new assurance of the truth or validity; to state or imply the that the May 9, 2013 Affidavit of Renunciation cured any alleged defect
truth,"34 and implies a prior existing act. in Amado's qualification to run for the May 2013 Elections, I submit that
the Maquiling ruling on April 16, 2013 did not affect and could not have
affected Armado's qualification to run for public office for the purpose
Finally, note that the Maquiling ruling was issued after Amado took his of the May 2013 Elections.
oath of allegiance to the Republic four times - on July 10, 2008, April 3,
2009 (when he executed the affidavit of renunciation); November 30,
2009 (when he filed his CoC for the May 2010 Elections); and October Under the circumstances, Amado had effectively become a "pure"
1, 2012 (when he filed his CoC for the May 2013 Elections). It was also natural-born Philippine citizen again on October 1, 2012, when he
issued after Arnado renounced his US citizenship expressly on April 3, executed the retroactive and curative May 9, 2013 Affidavit of
2009, and impliedly on four occasions - on July 10, 2008; April 3, 2009; Renunciation, and which status continued well beyond the May 2013
November 30, 2009; and October 1, 2012 - when he swore allegiance Elections. In this way, Arnado qualified for the position of Mayor of
to the supreme authority of the Republic. Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, and filed a valid CoC.

In fact, in his October 1, 2012 CoC, Amado made the following oath: G. When Arnado filed his CoC on October
1, 2012, the Comelec En Banc, in its
February 2, 2011 Resolution in SPA
No. 10-109(DC), declared him as
qualified to run/or the elective office; public office: he has re-acquired Philippine citizenship after having filed
hence, Arnado did not need to execute the Oath of Allegiance and secured the order of approval on July 10,
another Affidavit of Renunciation 2008; he has also met all of the qualifications under the Constitution
because of this standing Comelec ruling and the law for the local elective office; and he has already executed
an Affidavit of Renunciation on April 3, 2009.
I likewise strongly object to the ponencia for faulting Amado for not
executing another oath of renunciation at the time of or prior to the Likewise, as of October 1, 2012, Amado had sworn allegiance to the
filing of his CoC on October 1, . 2012, reasoning out that as "early as Republic four times, i.e., on July 10, 2008; April 3, 2009; November 30,
2010 x x x Amado has gotten wind that the use of his US passport 2009; and October 1, 2012. He had also renounced his US citizenship
might pose a problem to his candidacy." expressly on April 3, 2009, and impliedly thrice on July 10, 2008,
November 30, 2009, and October 1, 2012.
It should be remembered that in the February 2, 2011 Resolution in SP
A No. 10-109(DC), the Comelec En Banc declared Arnado as a "pure" Additionally, on October 1, 2012, the Comelec en bane, via the
Philippine citizen again, qualified to run for elective public office. This February 2, 2011 resolution in SPA No. 10-109(DC), had ruled in his
Comelec ruling still stood and had not yet been overturned at the time favour, affirmed the existence and validity of his oath of renunciation,
Arnado filed his CoC on October 1, 2012 for the May 2013 Elections. and confirmed his continuing qualification for the elective post. At that
Arnado, therefore, had every right and reason to rely on this Comelec time, the February 2, 2011 Comelec ruling had not yet been reversed
ruling and to believe that he was not disqualified to run in the May 2013 by this Court and stood as the final and most recent ruling as regards
Elections. his qualification to run for the local elective post. As it had not yet been
reversed, he clearly and rightfully had every reason to rely on this
Comelec ruling when he filed his CoC on October 1, 2012.
I concede that, as the events have shown, he should, in retrospect,
have exercised greater care and have taken every. step to secure his
qualification to run for public office. His failure, however, should not In these lights, Amado's allegiance to the supreme authority of the
and cannot affect his qualification which then stands and is Republic and his renunciation of any and all foreign allegiance,
authoritatively affirmed by the Comelec. including those to the US government, cannot be doubted. From the
time he had re-acquired "pure" Philippine citizenship under the terms of
RA No. 9225, Arnado has persistently asserted these oaths even while
Indeed "there is no law prohibiting him from executing an Affidavit of
the law does not require him to do so.
Renunciation every election period" as the ponencia puts it. But, note
that there is equally no law that requires him to constantly and
consistently· assert his renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship. In this situation, any doubt or ambiguity should be resolved in favor of
Neither is there any law that expressly or impliedly imposes on natural- his full Filipino citizenship - with his qualification to run for the May
born Filipino citizens the obligation to constantly assert their allegiance 2013 Elections - since the thrust of RA No. 9225 is to encourage the
to the Republic and perform positive acts to assert this allegiance. return to Filipino citizenship of natural-born Filipinos who lost their
Philippine citizenship through their acquisition of foreign
citizenship. 36 Note in this regard that Amado consciously and
In fact, as the law stands, natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost
voluntarily gave up a very much sought-after citizenship status in favor
their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens
of returning to full Filipino citizenship and of participating in Philippine
of a foreign country need only to take an oath of allegiance to the
governance.37
supreme authority of the Republic to re-acquire Philippine citizenship
as they are "deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship." Once
they re-acquire their Philippine citizenship after complying with these I. Maquiling did not say that Arnado used
legal steps, they no longer need to perform any positive act to assert his US passport again on January 12,
Philippine citizenship or to elect citizenship.35 2010, and on March 23, 2010

H. Arnado 's persistent assertions of his A minor matter, asserted by the ponencia, which should be corrected is
allegiance to the Republic and the claim that Amado "used his US passport on January 12, 2010, and
renunciation of his US citizenship more on March 23, 2010, as found by this Court in Maquiling."
than sufficiently proved his determined
resolve to profess allegiance only to the
I strongly object to this observation as the ponencia clearly misread
Republic; these continuing assertions
Maquiling.
should have resolved any doubt in favor
of his qualification
Nowhere in Maquiling did the Court make a finding that Arnado used
his US passport again on January 12, 2010, and March 23, 2010 -
RA No. 9225 is a relatively new statutory enactment whose provisions
months after he had received his Philippine passport. Rather, the
have not been exhaustively interpreted and ruled upon by this Court,
alleged use by Arnado of his US passport on these dates was a mere
through an appropriate case. In this respect, I submit that in situations
assertion of Balua, before the Comelec First Division in the Maquiling
of doubt where the strict application of the equivocal letter of the law
case; interestingly, Balua was no longer a party when the case
would clearly and undoubtedly disregard the legislative intent, the
reached this Court. In fact, the Court in Maquiling, quoting a portion of
Court must and should tread lightly as it rules on the relatively
the Comelec En Banc decision, noted that on January 12, 2010, what
uncharted area of application where RA No. 9225 overlaps with our
Arnado used was his Philippine passport, not his US passport.
elections laws.

J. Under the circumstances, the Comelec

The unique factual situation of this case presents such situation of
committed grave abuse of discretion
doubt which the Court must resolve in the light of the clear legislative
intent, rather than from the strict application of the equivocal letter of
the law. I find that Amado's persistent assertion of his allegiance to the In this Rule 64-Rule 65 petition, the Court's review is limited to the
Republic and renunciation of his US citizenship more than sufficiently jurisdictional issue of whether the Comelec acted without or in excess
prove his determined resolve to profess allegiance only to the Republic of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
and to none other. excess of jurisdiction.

I submit that the following considerations should not be missed. As a concept, grave abuse of discretion generally refers to capricious
or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction; the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to
At the time Amado filed his CoC on October 1, 2012, he had fully
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a
satisfied all of the requirements of RA No. 9225 to run for elective
duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the people. Above and beyond all, the determination of the true will of
the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason the electorate should be paramount. It is their voice, not ours or of
of passion and hostility. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must anyone else, that must prevail. This, in essence, is the democracy we
be grave. continue to hold sacred.

The Court's review power is also limited by the condition, under In the words of another leading case - Frivaldo v. Comelec42- the law
Section 5, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, that findings of fact of the and the courts, including this Court, must give serious consideration to
Comelec, supported by substantial evidence, shall be final and non- the popular will.
reviewable. In this respect, the Court does not ordinarily review the
Comelec' s appreciation and evaluation of evidence as any misstep by
"In any action involving the possibility of a reversal of the popular
the Comelec in this regard generally involves an error of judgment, not
electoral choice, this Court must exert utmost effort to resolve the
of jurisdiction.
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
In exceptional situations, however, where the assailed judgment is those who are the choice of the majority. To successfully challenge a
based on misapprehension or erroneous apprehension of facts or on winning candidate's qualifications, the petitioner must clearly
the use of wrong or irrelevant considerations in deciding an issue 38 - demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to
situations that are tainted with grave abuse of discretion - the Court is constitutional and legal principles that overriding such ineligibility and
not only obliged but has the constitutional duty to intervene. 39 When thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the people would ultimately
grave abuse of discretion is present, the resulting errors mutate from create greater prejudice to the very democratic institutions and juristic
error of judgment to one of jurisdiction. traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and
promote.43
I find that, based on the reasons discussed above, the Comelec' s
action in this case as it disqualified Amado from running for the May Under the evidentiary and unique factual situation of this case, the
2013 Elections, was clearly tainted with grave abuse of discretion. alleged eligibility of Amado is not antagonistic, patently or otherwise, to
constitutional and legal principles such that giving effect to the
sovereign will would create prejudice to our democratic institutions.
The Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when: first, it relied
completely and indiscriminately on the Maquiling ruling - the wrong and
irrelevant, or at the very least, incomplete - consideration in deciding Notably, the Office of the Sanggunianng Bayan, through Resolution
the underlying disqualification case; and second, it did not make its No. 002-201444 dated January 2, 2014, and the Liga ng Mga Barangay,
own finding of facts and evaluation of the evidence, independent of through Resolution No. 001-201445 dated January 2, 2014, expressed
Maquiling, and disregarded relevant facts and evidence subsequent to their continuing and overwhelming support for Amado, notwithstanding
Maquiling - a clear misapprehension of the facts. Note that the the Comelec rulings disqualifying him from the May 2013 Elections,
Comelec, both in the September 6, 2013, and December 9, 2013 and implores the Court to heed the Kauswagan people's voice under
resolutions, quoted heavily portions of the Maquiling ruling and drew its the principle vox populi, vox dei.
discussions and conclusion largely from Maquiling.
Under the circumstances of this case, the ponencia 's action that
For these reasons, and under the circumstances of this case, I submit resolves all doubts against Amado's eligibility undoubtedly defeats the
that the assailed Comelec actions must be struck down for grave will of the Kauswagan electorate. 46 In ruling as it does, the ponencia
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. effectively disenfranchises an undoubtedly overwhelming majority of
the Kauswagan people as "[t]he rights of suffrage can be denied by a
debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as
K. At any rate, all doubts should be
effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."
resolved in favor of Arnado 's
qualification: the mandate of the people
47
of Kauswagan that twice elected Arnado  The Court should respect and uphold the will of the electorate.
as their Mayor should be respected and
upheld
For the above reasons, I vote to grant the petition.

Independently of all these issues - of Amado's qualification to run for

ARTURO D. BRION
the May 2013 Elections and the intervention of the Maquiling ruling -
Associate Justice
the

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

Court cannot and should not now ignore the undeniable fact that the
people of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, have themselves responded to
the situation of doubt that might have arisen because of the factual link LEONEN, J.:
between the present disqualification case and the intervention of the
Maquiling ruling.
Petitioner Rommel C. Amado renounced his foreign citizenship in
accordance with Republic Act No. 9225 no less than three times. After
The people themselves made their own ruling when they elected he had filed his candidacy for the position of Mayor in 2013, this court
Arnado as their mayor in the two successive elections - the May 2010 promulgated its Decision in Maquiling v. Commission on
and the May 2013 elections - despite the "foreigner" label his rivals, Elections, 1 which made it impossible for him to again renounce or
even the ponencia, sought to continuously pin on him. reiterate his renunciation of his foreign citizenship. In the 2013
elections, he won garnering 84o/o of the votes cast in his municipality.
The majority opinion requires him now, yet again, to renounce his
Arnado received an overwhelming 8,902 votes as against the meager
foreign citizenship.
1,707 votes of his opponent Capitan in the May 2013 Elections; in the
May 2010 Elections, he received the majority 5,952 of the total 11,309
votes cast. At this point, "even this Court should heed this verdict by I concur with the ponencia's finding that petitioner's claim of procedural
resolving all doubts regarding Arnado's eligibility in his favor.". This is infirmities that occurred during the proceedings before the Commission
not a novel approach.40 To reiterate what Sinaca v. Mula41 teaches us: on Elections is unsubstantiated.

[When] a candidate has received popular mandate, overwhelmingly However, I cannot agree with the conclusion that petitioner remained
and clearly expressed, all possible doubts should be resolved in favor an American citizen in accordance with this court's ruling in Maquiling.
of the candidate's eligibility for to rule otherwise is to defeat the will of Petitioner was already a Filipino citizen at the time he filed his
Certificate of Candidacy on October 1, 2012. He was qualified to run in The same requirement is present in the present reacquisition law.
the 2013 Elections. The Petition should be granted. Philippine citizenship is deemed to have been reacquired through the
taking of the oath of allegiance embodied in Section 3 of Republic Act
No. 9225. However, unlike the previous law, the mere act of taking the
I
oath of allegiance is not sufficient compliance for those seeking to run
for public office. The law includes an additional requisite before they
Petitioner has performed all the acts required by Republic Act No. become qualified to run for public office, thus:
92252 in order to reacquire his Filipino citizenship.
SEC. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. - Those who retain or
Under Section 39(a) of the Local Government Code,3 a candidate for re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and
Mayor must be a citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
resident in the municipality or city where he or she intends to be responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following
elected for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of conditions:
election, and be able to read and write Filipino or any local language or
dialect.
(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall
meet the qualification for holding such public office as
Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code 4 expressly disqualifies required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the
those who possess dual citizenship from running in any local elective time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a
position. These provisions, however, do not disqualify candidates who personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
might have lost their citizenship but were able to reacquire it before citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer
running for public office. an oath[.] (Emphasis supplied)

Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that "Philippine In Japzon v. Commission on Elections: 7
citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law."
[F]or a natural born Filipino, who reacquired or retained his Philippine
Those who lose their Filipino citizenship through naturalization in citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, to run for public office, he
another country may reacquire it through the procedure outlined in must: ( 1) meet the qualifications for holding such public office as
Republic Act No. 9225. This also applies to naturalized citizens who required by the Constitution and existing laws; and (2) make a personal
wish to reacquire their Filipino citizenship in order to run for public and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before any
office. public officer authorized to administer an oath.8

According to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225: The law requires a personal and sworn renunciation of all foreign
citizenships before the candidate files a certificate of candidacy.
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship. - Any provision
of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born In Jacot v. Dal and Commission on Elections,9 this court disqualified
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a Nestor A. Jacot from running for Vice Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin,
foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired after he failed to make a personal and sworn renunciation of his
Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of American citizenship:
allegiance to the Republic:
The law categorically requires persons seeking elective public office,
"I , solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support who either retained their Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired
and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders citizenship before a public officer authorized to administer an oath
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of simultaneous with or before the filing of the certificate of candidacy.
the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I
recognize and accept the supreme authority of the
Hence, Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born
Philippines and will maintain true faith and
Filipinos, who have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country,
allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation
but who reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take
upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation
the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and
or purpose of evasion."
(2) for those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to
additionally execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or
effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of candidacy, to qualify as
shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the candidates in Philippine elections.
aforesaid oath.
Clearly Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 (on the making of a
The effect of reacquisition is the restoration of Philippine citizenship to personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship)
natural-born Filipino citizens who have been naturalized as citizens in a requires of the Filipinos availing themselves of the benefits under the
foreign country. All that is required to retain their citizenship is to take said Act to accomplish an undertaking other than that which they have
the oath of allegiance under the law. presumably complied with under Section 3 thereof (oath of allegiance
to the Republic of the Philippines). This is made clear in the discussion
of the Bicameral Conference Committee on Disagreeing Provisions of
In the previous repatriation law, naturalized citizens seeking to House Bill No. 4720 and Senate Bill No. 2130 held on 18 August 2003
reacquire Philippine citizenship only had to take an oath of allegiance (precursors of Republic Act No. 9225), where the Hon. Chairman
in order to regain their citizenship, including the right to seek public Franklin Drilon and Hon. Representative Arthur Defensor explained to
office. 5 Act No. 636 states: Hon. Representative Exequiel Javier that the oath of allegiance is
different from the renunciation of foreign citizenship:
SEC. 4. Repatriation shall be effected by merely taking the necessary
oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth of the Philippines and CHAIRMAN DRILON. Okay. So, No. 2. "Those seeking elective public
registration in the proper civil registry. office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications 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." I think it's very good, 39(a) of the Local Government Code requires residency for "at least
ha? No problem? one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election for local
elective office." A candidate for local elective office may be eligible to
run for as long as he or she is proven to have animus revertendi in a
REP. JAVIER.... I think it's already covered by the oath.
certain domicile for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the
elections.
CHAIRMAN DRILON. Renouncing foreign citizenship.
The purpose of the residency requirement is "to give candidates the
REP. JAVIER. Ah ... but he has taken his oath already. opportunity to be familiar with the needs, difficulties, aspirations,
potentials for growth[,] and all matters vital to the welfare of their
constituencies; likewise, it enables the electorate to evaluate the office
CHAIRMAN DRILON. No ... no, renouncing foreign citizenship. seekers' qualifications and fitness for the job they aspire for." 14 The
length of a candidate's residency depends on the time necessary to
CHAIRMAN DRILON. Can I go back to No. 2. What's your problem, acquire familiarity with the constituency as well as sensitivity to the
Boy? Those seeking elective office in the Philippines. welfare of the constituents. The requirement seeks "to exclude a
stranger or newcomer, unacquainted with the conditions and needs of
a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office to
REP. JAVIER. They are trying to make him renounce his citizenship serve that community."15
thinking that ano ...

Continuity does not always guarantee familiarity. A momentary

CHAIRMAN DRILON. His American citizenship. absence from the country does not negate the purpose of the
residency requirement.16 A candidate who has spent some time abroad
REP. JAVIER. To discourage him from running? may offer a unique perspective as opposed to a candidate who has
never left the country.
CHAIRMAN DRILON. No.
The former may be in a better position to observe the changes the
country may have undergone through the years, or may have a
REP. A.D. DEFENSOR. No. When he runs he will only have one stronger intuition as to the level of growth it still needs. What is
citizenship. When he runs for office, he will have only one. important is that the purpose of residency is complied with.

There is little doubt, therefore, that the intent of the legislators was not Petitioner took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
only for Filipinos reacquiring or retaining their Philippine citizenship on July 10, 2008. On April 3, 2009, he executed his Affidavit of
under Republic Act No. 9225 to take their oath of allegiance to the Renunciation of his foreign citizenship. Petitioner alleges that he
Republic of the Philippines, but also to explicitly renounce their foreign executed his Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Allegiance on
citizenship if they wish to run for elective posts in the Philippines. To November 30, 2009. On May 9, 2013, he again executed the Affidavit
qualify as a candidate in Philippine elections, Filipinos must only have Affirming Rommel C. Arnado 's "Affidavit of Renunciation Dated April 3,
one citizenship, namely, Philippine citizenship. 2009. "

By the same token, the oath of allegiance contained in the Certificate Petitioner renounced his American citizenship no less than three times
of Candidacy, which is substantially similar to the one contained in before he filed his Certificate of Candidacy on October 1, 2012. He had
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, does not constitute the personal performed all the acts required by Republic Act No. 9225 in order to
and sworn renunciation sought under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. reacquire his Filipino citizenship before he ran for public office.
9225. It bears to emphasize that the said oath of allegiance is a
general requirement for all those who wish to run as candidates in
Philippine elections; while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an However, the ponencia takes exception to these findings of fact and
additional requisite only for those who have retained or reacquired rules that, in accordance with this court's findings in Maquiling,
Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and who seek petitioner's use of his American passport after executing his Affidavit of
elective public posts, considering their special circumstance of having Renunciation negated his Affidavit. I cannot agree with this conclusion.
more than one citizenship.10 (Emphasis in the original)
II
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9225 restores full civil and political rights
to those who wish to reacquire their citizenship, including the right to Petitioner's use of his American passport was an isolated act required
vote and be voted for. A candidate may have the right to vote and be by the circumstances. At that time, he had not yet been issued his
voted for as long as he or she has already done all positive acts Philippine passport.
necessary for the reacquisition of his or her Philippine citizenship
before filing his or her certificate of candidacy.
In the dissent in Maquiling led by Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, it
was pointed out that when Amado traveled back to the United States,
Residency as a requirement for public office must also be interpreted "he had no Philippine passport that he could have used to travel to the
as a separate matter from citizenship. Residence is said to be United States to attend to the winding up of his business and other
synonymous to domicile.11 Domicile requires both physical presence affairs in America."17
and animus revertendi or intent to return.12 Citizenship may be
presumed from one's domicile,13 but this presumption is disputable.
Further proof other than domicile may be required to prove citizenship. The use of a foreign passport should not by itself cause the immediate
nullity of one's affidavit of renunciation. Its circumstances must also be
taken into account.
A person residing in the Philippines is presumed to be a Filipino citizen.
Domicile, however, does not ipso facto prove his or her citizenship. A
Filipino may reside in the United States but still remain a Filipino The necessity of the use of his American passport is shown by the
citizen. An American may also reside in the Philippines and still remain timeline of events, thus:
an American citizen. The presumption created by residency is not
conclusive of one's citizenship. Affidavit of Renunciation: April 3, 2009

Residency also need not be continuous for as long as the total number Date of Issuance of Philippine Passport: June 18, 2009
of required years have been complied with before the election. Section
 Receipt of Philippine Passport: September 2009 that petitioner used his American passport on January 12, 2010 and on
March 23, 2010 based merely on the certification dated April 23,
2010.24
Second Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Allegiance (alleged by
petitioner): November 30, 2009
III
Date of Travels18
Even if the ponencia applied the ruling in Maquiling, Amado should
have already been qualified to run in the 2013 Elections
te of Departure from the Philippines Date of Arrival in the Philippines

il 14, 2009 June 25, 2009 Maquiling held that petitioner's use of his American passport negated
his Affidavit of Renunciation, thus disqualifying him to run in the 2010
y 29, 2009 November 24, 2009 Elections:

cember 11, 2009 January 12, 2010

We therefore hold that Amado, by using his US passport after
nuary 31, 2010 March 31, 2010 renouncing his American citizenship, has recanted the same Oath of
Renunciation he took. Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code
il 11, 2010 April 16, 2010 applies to his situation. He is disqualified not only from holding the
public office but even from becoming a candidate in the May 2010
y 20, 2010 June 4, 2010 elections. 25

Petitioner could use only his American passport when he traveled on Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that, per Maquiling,
April 14, 2009 since the Consulate of the Philippines had not yet issued petitioner's use of his Philippine passport signifies his Philippine
him a Philippine passport. citizenship.

When petitioner received his Philippine passport sometime in According to Republic Act No. 8239, 26 a passport is "a document
September 2009, he could not immediately use it to exit the United issued by the Philippine government to its citizens and requesting other
States since he entered the country using an American passport. If he governments to allow its citizens to pass safely and freely, and in case
exited using a Philippine passport, one presumably without an of need to give him/her all lawful aid and protection."27
American visa, immigration authorities of both the Philippines and the
United States would have questioned his travel documents. He would By definition, a Philippine passport is a document issued by the
have had no choice but to use his American passport to exit the United government to its citizens. Clearly, a Philippine passport cannot be
States. issued to an American citizen.

However, petitioner did use his Philippine passport in his subsequent If this court concludes, as the ponencia has done, that petitioner
travels. Hence, his isolated use of his American passport when he did remained an American citizen, the facts should show that he continued
not yet have his Philippine passport is not sufficient cause to negate to use his American passport before he filed his Certificate of
his Affidavit of Renunciation. Candidacy for the 2013 Elections.

The ponencia cites Maquiling, in that Linog C. Balua, petitioner's rival As of June 18, 2009, petitioner was issued a Philippine passport. He
candidate in the 2010 Elections, presented a certification dated April has continually used his Philippine passport from December 11, 2009.
23, 2010 from the Bureau of Immigration indicating that as of January He also executed an Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Allegiance
12, 2010 and March 23, 2010, petitioner's nationality was "USA- on November 30, 2009. By the time he filed his Certificate of
American." The Computer Database/Passenger Manifest states: Candidacy on October 1, 2012, he was already the bearer of a
Philippine passport. In Yu v. Defensor-Santiago,28 a petition for habeas
DATE OF Arrival : 01/12/2010 corpus was filed against then Commissioner for Immigration and
Deportation Miriam Defensor-Santiago for the release of Willie Yu (Yu)
NATIONALITY : USA-AMERICAN
from detention. This court, confronted with the issue of Yu's citizenship,
PASSPORT : 057782700 found:
DATE OF Arrival : 03/23/2010
NATIONALITY : USA-AMERICAN
Petitioner's own compliance reveals that he was originally issued a
PASSPORT : 05778270019 Portuguese passport in 1971, valid for five (5) years and renewed for
the same period upon presentment before the proper Portuguese
This certification is contradicted by petitioner's Philippine passport consular officer. Despite his naturalization as a Philippine citizen on 10
which was stamped by the Bureau of Immigration also on these February 1978, on 21 July 1981, petitioner applied for and was issued
dates. 20 It was, therefore, erroneous for the ponencia to refer to the Portuguese Passport No. 35/81 serias N. 1517410 by the Consular
certification as "uncontroverted. "21 Section of the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. Said Consular Office
certifies that his Portuguese passport expired on 20 July 1986. While
still a citizen of the Philippines who had renounced, upon his
The ponencia unduly gives weight to the Bureau of Immigration's naturalization, "absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any
certification on the basis that the copy of his Philippine passport was a foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty" and pledged to
mere "certified true copy from the machine copy on file." 22 Maquiling "maintain true faith and allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,"
undoubtedly states that petitioner was issued a Philippine passport and he declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he
that he used it for his subsequent travels abroad. 23 There is a signed, specifically, the Companies Registry of Tai Shun Estate Ltd.
presumption that this piece of evidence, like the certification by the filed in Hongkong sometime in April 1980.
Bureau of Immigration, can be relied upon since it forms part of the
case records. Under the presumption of regularity, his passport is
presumed to have been stamped by the Bureau of Immigration. Until To the mind of the Court, the foregoing acts considered together
and unless it is alleged and proven that the stamps on his Philippine constitute an express renunciation of petitioner's Philippine citizenship
passport are fraudulent, it is presumed that the Bureau of Immigration acquired through naturalization. In Board of Immigration
certified the use of his Philippine passport and the use of his American Commissioners vs. Go Galiano, express renunciation was held to
passport on the dates alleged. It is also possible that at the time the mean a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly and
certification was issued, the Bureau of Immigration had not yet updated not left to inference or implication. Petitioner, with full knowledge, and
its database. Therefore, it was erroneous for the ponencia to conclude legal capacity, after having renounced Portuguese citizenship upon
naturalization as a Philippine citizen resumed or reacquired his prior In Japzon v. Commission on Elections, 34 a petition for disqualification
status as a Portuguese citizen, applied for a renewal of his Portuguese was brought against Jaime S. Ty (Ty), who won as Mayor of
passport and represented himself as such in official documents even MacArthur, Eastern Samar in the 2007 Elections. Ty was a natural
after he had become a naturalized Philippine citizen. Such resumption born Filipino citizen who migrated to the United States and stayed
or reacquisition of Portuguese citizenship is grossly inconsistent with there for 25 years. He took an Oath of Allegiance in 2005 and
his maintenance of Philippine citizenship.29 (Emphasis supplied) renounced his American citizenship before a notary public on March
19, 2007. The question before this court, however, was whether his
reacquisition of citizenship has the effect of regaining his domicile, in
Yu's renewal of his Portuguese passport was a renunciation of his
compliance with the residency requirements for elections.
Philippine citizenship. This court took into account Yu's application for
renewal and his declaration of his Portuguese nationality in commercial
documents. In resolving the issue, this court found that Ty substantially complied
with the requirements of Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 when
he personally executed a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship before a
In contrast, petitioner was forced by his circumstances to use his
notary public before filing his Certificate of Candidacy.1âwphi1 It also
American passport at a time when he had not yet been issued a
ruled that Ty was able to comply with the residency requirements:
Philippine passport. Upon the issuance of his Philippine passport,
however, petitioner consistently used this passport for his travels. His
consistent use of his Philippine passport was a positive act that [W]hen the evidence of the alleged lack of residence qualification of a
showed his continued allegiance to the country. candidate for an elective position is weak or inconclusive and it clearly
appears that the purpose of the law would not be thwarted by
upholding the victor's right to the office, the will of the electorate should
Petitioner's continued intent to renounce his American citizenship is
be respected. For the purpose of election laws is to give effect to,
clear when he executed his Affidavit Affirming Rommel C. Arnado 's
rather than frustrate, the will of the voters. To successfully challenge
"Affidavit of Renunciation Dated April 3, 2009" on May 9, 2013.
Ty's disqualification, Japzon must clearly demonstrate that Ty's
ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal
Republic Act No. 9225 requires a personal and sworn renunciation principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to
from persons who seek to reacquire their Philippine citizenship in order the apparent will of the people would ultimately create greater
to run for local office. Petitioner's Affidavit of Renunciation dated April prejudice to the very democratic institutions and juristic traditions that
3, 2009, his continued use of his Philippine passport, his alleged our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and promote. In this
Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Allegiance dated November 30, case, Japzon failed to substantiate his claim that Ty is ineligible to be
2009, and his Affidavit dated May 9, 2013 are more than enough Mayor of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar,
evidence to show his personal and sworn renunciation of his American Philippines.35 (Emphasis supplied)
citizenship.
In Bengson III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 36 a
IV similar citizenship issue was raised against 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
Election laws must be interpreted to give effect to the will of the people. reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under
Republic Act No. 2630.
Petitioner garnered an overwhelming 8,902 votes, 84% of the total
votes cast3° in the 2013 mayoralty elections. If he is disqualified, Former Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban's Concurring Opinion
Florante Capitan, his opponent who garnered 1, 707 votes, a mere is particularly instructive in stating that this court has a duty to uphold
16% of the total votes cast,31 will become the duly elected mayor of the clear mandate of the people, thus:
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. This court will have substituted its
discretion over the sovereign will of the people.
4. In Case of Doubt, Popular Will Prevails
32
The ponencia erroneously cites Lopez v. Commission on Elections  as
basis for stating that petitioner's landslide victory could not override [T]he Court has a solemn duty to uphold the clear and unmistakable
eligibility requirements. 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
In Lopez, a petition for disqualification was filed against Eusebio unequivocally voted for private respondent to represent them in the
Eugenio K. Lopez (Lopez) to disqualify him from running for Barangay House of Representatives. The votes that Cruz garnered (80, 119) in
Chair in the 2007 Barangay Elections. Lopez argued that he was a the last elections were much more than those of all his opponents
dual citizen by virtue of Republic Act No. 9225 and, hence, was combined (66, 182). In such instances, all possible doubts should be
qualified to run. resolved in favor of the winning candidate's eligibility; to rule otherwise
would be to defeat the will of the people.
This court disagreed and disqualified Lopez from running in public
office since he failed to make a personal and sworn renunciation of his Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that in case of
American citizenship. It also ruled that his subsequent victory in the doubt, political laws must be so construed as to give life and spirit to
elections could not cure the defect of his disqualification: the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot. Public
interest and the sovereign will should, at all times, be the paramount
While it is true that petitioner won the elections, took his oath and considerations in election controversies. For it would be better to err in
began to discharge the functions of Barangay Chairman, his victory favor of the people's choice than to be right in complex but little
cannot cure the defect of his candidacy. Garnering the most number of understood legalisms. "Indeed, this Court has repeatedly stressed the
votes does not validate the election of a disqualified candidate because importance of giving effect to the sovereign will in order to ensure the
the application of the constitutional and statutory provisions on survival of our democracy. In any action involving the possibility of a
disqualification is not a matter of popularity.33 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
Lopez, however, does not apply since the candidate in that case failed offices to be filled by those who are the choice of the majority. To
to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of his American successfully challenge a winning candidate's qualifications, the
citizenship.1avvphi1 In this case, petitioner made a personal and petitioner must clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently
sworn renunciation of his American citizenship no less than three antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles that overriding such
times. ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the people
would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic
institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so
zealously protect and promote."37 (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner has proven over and over again that he has renounced his
American citizenship. He continues to use his Philippine passport for
his foreign travels. His landslide victory in the 2013 Elections
represents the trust of his constituents in him. To disqualify him from
public office for the isolated and reasonable use of his American
passport would be to set aside the clear and unmistakable sovereign
will of the people. It will impose an unreasonable burden over his and
the electorate's fundamental right to suffrage.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice