POLITICAL LAW

G.R. NO.199082/G.R. NO. 199085/G.R. NO. 199118

JULY 23, 2013

JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO V. DOJ, ET.AL./BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR.

vs. HON. LEILA DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE, ET.AL./GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VS. COMELEC,
ET.AL.
Political Law; COMELECs concurrent jurisdiction. The COMELECs
exclusive power to investigate and prosecute cases under BP 881 or the
Omnibus Election Code has been amended by Section 43 of RA 9369 so that
it and other prosecuting arms of the government now exercises concurrent
jurisdiction in the prosecution of election offenses.
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS: Joint Order No. 001-2011 by Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
and Department of Justice (DOJ) created and constituted a Joint Committee
and Fact-Finding Team (Joint Panel) for the 2004 and 2007 National
Elections electoral fraud and manipulation cases. The Joint Committee was
charged with the Preliminary Investigation based on the evidences gathered
and charges from the Fact-finding Team while the latter was tasked for
gathering real, documentary and testimonial evidence that can be used in
the preliminary investigation by the Joint Committee. The Fact-finding Team
found out that there was a manipulation of the results of the May 14, 2007
Senatorial Elections in North and South Cotabato and Maguindanao. Thus,
a preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage be conducted was
recommended against Benjamin Abalos, Sr. while Mike Arroyo was deemed
to be subjected to further investigation.
On the other hand, a complaint affidavit for Electoral Sabotage was
filed by Senator Pimentel against the petitioners and twelve other people.
The Committee issued two (2) subpoenas against the petitioners. Separate
petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction
which assailed the creation of the Joint Panel were filed by petitioners. Mike
Arroyo and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) filed a Motion to Defer
Proceedings before the Joint Committee and an Omnibus Motion ad
Cautelam, respectively. The said motion filed by GMA was for Senator
Pimentel to present documents mentioned in his complaint affidavit and for
the election documents related to the electoral sabotage. She likewise
prayed to file her counter-affidavit. The motions were denied by the Joint
Committee. The COMELEC en banc issued a resolution which approved and

adopted the Joint Resolution of the Joint Committee. Meanwhile, an

information for electoral sabotage was filed against GMA and Abalos.
Charges against Mike Arroyo were dismissed. An information against GMA,
Governor Andal Ampatuan, Sr. and Atty. Lintang Bidol for violation of Sec.
42 (b)(3) of Republic Act No. 9369, amending Section 27 (b) of RA 6640 was
filed. GMA filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam with the RTC and
a Motion to Vacate Ad Cautelam with the Comelec.
The RTC issued a warrant of arrest against GMA. She entered a plea
of not guilty and thereafter, was placed on a hospital arrest. The Supreme
Court dismissed the petitions of the petitioners which ruled that Joint Order
No. 001-2011 and the Fact-Finding Teams Initial Report and preliminary
investigation were valid. In the petitioners motions for reconsideration,
Mike Arroyo contended that the Joint Panel undermined the COMELECs
independence and that the DOJ should not exercise concurrent jurisdiction.
GMA claimed that the COMELEC Resolution which created the Joint Panel
was different from those past resolutions where the DOJ Secretary assigned
prosecutors to assist the COMELEC. She also contended that the COMELEC
has the primary authority to conduct preliminary investigation of election
cases and not the Joint Committee.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC HAS THE EXCLUSIVE POWER
TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF
ELECTION LAW.
HELD: NEGATIVE. The SC ruled that the exclusive power to investigate and
prosecute cases covered by Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 or the Omnibus
Election Code is a legislative enactment. Thus, it can be amended by
Section 43 of Republic Act No. 9369. The COMELEC and other prosecuting
arms of the government like the Department of Justice exercise concurrent
jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses. The
discrepancy mentioned by former President GMA between COMELEC
Resolution No. 3467 and Joint Order No. 001-2011 was resolved by the
amendment. Under COMELEC Resolution No. 3467, the delegation of
powers to prosecutors was maintained while the COMELEC Law
Department and the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor of the DOJ jointly
supervise the investigatory and prosecutory functions of the COMELEC-DOJ
Task Force. The Joint Committee is not repugnant to concurrent
jurisdiction. The simultaneous exercise of power between two Coordinate
bodies is not prohibited. It will only be prohibited if the complaint is filed
with one office for preliminary investigation and after being acted upon the
same is refiled with the other office. Despite concurrent jurisdiction, the
provision indicated in the joint order provided that the resolution of the
Joint Committee finding probable cause for election offenses is subject to
approval of the COMELEC.

G.R. NO. 185740

JULY 23, 2013
THE
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
OF CAMARINES
NORTE,
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR. vs. BEATRIZ
O. GONZALES
Political Law; Local Government Code; Highly confidential position.
RA 7160 made the provincial administrator position coterminous with its
appointing authority, reclassifying it as a non-career service position that is
primarily confidential.
BRION, J.:
FACTS: An administrative case for gross insubordination/gross discourtesy
in the course of official duties, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best
interest of the service was filed against Beatriz Gonzales who on a
permanent capacity, was appointed as Provincial Administrator of
Camarines Norte on April 1, 1991. After submitting her comment, an Ad
Hoc Investigation Committee found her guilty of the above charges; findings
of which were adopted by Governor Pimentel, who ordered for her
dismissal.
On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) modified the
Governors order of dismissal; suspending Gonzales for six months. Upon
the resolution of the CSC, Governor Pimentel reinstated Gonzales on
October 12, 2000, but terminated her the next day, for lack of confidence.
In his letter to the CSC, the Governor in terminating the respondent,
cited Resolution No. 0001158, alleging that the provincial administrator
position is highly confidential and is coterminous in nature. The CSC
responded through a resolution for Gonzales reinstatement. It clarified that
while the Local Government Code of 1991(RA 7160) made the provincial
administrator position coterminous and highly confidential in nature, this
conversion should not prejudice officials who were already issued
permanent appointments as administrators prior to the new laws effectivity.
In February 2005, Gonzales wrote to the CSC alleging that incumbent
Governor Jesus O. Typoco, Jr. of Camarines Norte refused her
reinstatement. In its resolution, the CSC ordered the respondents
reinstatement to the provincial administrator position or that of an
equivalent. On appeal to the CA, the appellate court noted that lack of
confidence was not in the list of the valid causes for dismissal and thus,
Gonzales had been illegally terminated without due process.

ISSUES: WHETHER CONGRESS HAS RE-CLASSIFIED THE PROVINCIAL

ADMINISTRATOR POSITION FROM A CAREER SERVICE TO A PRIMARILY
CONFIDENTIAL, NON CAREER SERVICE POSITION
HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The Supreme Court supports the CSCs conclusion
that the provincial administrator position has been classified into a
primarily confidential, non-career position when Congress, through RA
7160, made substantial changes to it.
The Court ruled that the creation of the provincial administrator
position under the old Local Government Code used to be a prerogative of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. In introducing the mandatory provincial
administrator position, RA 7160 also amended the qualifications for the
provincial administrator position. RA 7160 made the provincial
administrator position coterminous with its appointing authority,
reclassifying it as a non-career service position that is primarily
confidential.
Section 480(b) of RA 7160 mandates constant interaction between the
provincial administrator and the provincial governor, which makes the
employment relationship, highly confidential. As the CSC correctly noted in
its resolution, the administrator position demands a close intimate
relationship with the office of the governor (its appointing authority) to
effectively develop, implement and administer the different programs of the
province. The position of an administrator demands full trust and
confidence from its appointing authority. This renders clear the intent of
Congress to make the provincial administrator position primarily
confidential under the non-career service category of the civil service.
In the instant case, Gonzales had been reinstated in pursuance of the
CSC resolution, but she was subsequently terminated. Under the law
prevailing at the time of the termination of her services, she was already
occupying a position that was primarily confidential. Thus, her termination
for lack of confidence because she no longer enjoyed the trust and
confidence of the appointing authority, was lawful.
G.R. No. 206844-45/G.R. No. 206982 July 23, 2013
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES (Senior Citizens Party-list), represented herein by its
Chairperson and First Nominee FRANCISCO G. DATOL, Jr. vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE
PHILIPPINES (Senior Citizens Party-list), represented by its
President
and Incumbent Representative in the House of

Representatives, ATTY. GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA vs. COMMISSION

ON ELECTIONS,
Political Law; Due process.
The hearing and decision-making due
process rights are similar in substance to the constitutional requirement
that a decision of a court must state distinctly the facts and the law upon
which it is based.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS: The present petitions were filed by two opposing factions from the
same party-list organization, The Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens
in the Philippines (Senior Citizens Party-list.)
The filing of the petitions was preceded by Senior Citizens Party-lists
participation in the 2007 Elections which, by virtue of its intervention in the
case of Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency
(BANAT) vs. Commission on Elections (COMELEC), it was awarded with
one seat in the Congress which Atty. Godofredo V. Arquiza, as the
organizations first nominee, assumed for Senior Citizens Party-list.
The Party-list joined once again in the 2010 Elections. For this, the
nominees of the Senior Citizens Party-list executed an agreement to which
they consented that the assignment in the assumption of office will be as
follows: (1) Atty. Godofredo Arquiza, (2) Atty. David Kho, (3) Francisco Datol,
(4) Remedios Arquiza and (5) Linda Gaddi David. They likewise agreed on
the manner of assumption of office relative to the number of seats which the
party-list may win, to wit:
If they won 1 seat:
No. 1 Nominee = 2 years
No. 2 Nominee = 1 year
If they won 2 seats:
No. 1 Nominee = 3 years
No. 2 Nominee = 1 years
No. 3 Nominee = 1 years
If they won 3 seats:
No. 1 Nominee = 3 years
No. 2 Nominee = 2 years
No. 3 Nominee = 2 years
No. 4 Nominee = 1 year
No. 5 Nominee = 1 year

Senior Citizens Party-list ranked second among all candidates for the
party-list system and was awarded with two seats which Atty. Arquiza and
Atty. Kho assumed.
To this, the factions started. Members of the Senior Citizens Party-list
conducted a nationwide convention wherein they discussed the unfulfilled
obligations of Atty. Arquiza to his constituents. To this convention, Francisco
Datol was declared as the new President. To counter-act, the Board of
Trustees of the Senior Citizens Party-list, which is for Arquiza, expelled
Datol from the Senior Citizens Party-list.
Following the stipulations of the agreement, 2nd nominee Kho
tendered his resignation to let the nominee in line assume his place in
Congress. The nominee next in line is supposed to be Datol, but due to his
expulsion from the party-list, 4th nominee Remedios Arquiza was considered.
Khos resignation was tendered to COMELEC as well which was
numbered as E.M. No 12-040. Upon COMELECs hearing anent the
resignation of Kho, Arquizas group admitted that the resignation was
pursuant to their agreement. For this reason, COMELEC denied the
acceptance of Khos resignation, pronouncing that the assumption of office
by nominees cannot be governed by agreements like the one made by the
Senior Citizens Party-list.
For this matter, Kho continued assuming the second nominee position
until his remaining term of office.
In 2013 party-list registration, COMELEC disqualified Senior Citizens
Party-list for the upcoming elections. This is based on the term-sharing
agreement executed by such group which, to the COMELEC, is a gross
circumvention of the Constitutional mandate that a Representative in
Congress has only a term of three years.
Their motions for reconsideration having been denied, and the 2013
Elections drawing near, these two factions were impleaded to the Supreme
Court (SC) for the declaration of a status quo ante order. The SC found for
the petitioners and ordered the inclusion of Senior Citizens Party-list in the
ballots for the 2013 Elections. Meanwhile, the SC remanded to the
COMELEC, the query regarding petitioners disqualification. COMELEC En
Banc stayed its decision of disqualification against Senior Citizens Party-list.
However, notwithstanding the disqualification, Senior Citizens Partylist still won seats in the 2013 Elections with a total of 677,642 votes. But
before it could obtain the same, the COMELEC first ordered to cancel the
counting of votes in favor of said party list. Upon the two factions request,
the SC issued a status quo ante order.

COMELEC then declared the first 14 party-lists that won the 2013
elections. Senior Citizens Party-list, however, despite a large number of
votes, was not included. This announcement was followed by another
declaration about which party-lists will assume the first 53 out of the 58
available seats allotted to their Congressional representation; again,
without the mention of the Senior Citizens Party-list.
ISSUES: 1) WHETHER OR NOT THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE SENIOR
CITIZENS PARTY-LIST WAS DONE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
2) WHETHER OF NOT SUCH DISQUALIFICATION HAD BEEN
DONE WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE COMELECS PART.
HELD: 1) AFFIRMATIVE. The SC ruled that the constitutional right to due
process had been trampled. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7941 provides for
the procedure to the review of the registration of party-lists organization.
Said the Court, it was very clear in Section 6 that due notice and hearing
must first be accorded to the party-list whose registration is being
impugned.
These requirements of due notice and hearing are indispensable in
cases such as the instant case. However these same rights were not
afforded to petitioners. They were not apprised of the fact that the termsharing agreement they entered into would be a material consideration for
their registration.
The importance of accordance of due process in cancellation
proceedings spearheaded by the COMELEC was made clear by the Court,
citing the case of Mendoza vs. Commission on Elections, wherein the rights
of the party to a hearing wherein he can put forward his witnesses and
proffer evidences were considered as vested rights and should be
countenanced by COMELEC at all costs.
In the same case, the High Tribunal ratiocinated that the denial of this
vested right to due process would constitute a ground for the invalidity of
the COMELECs decision.
Since COMELEC failed to accord the Senior Citizens Party-list due
process before it rendered its decision cancelling the latters registration,
the decision assailed by the Senior Citizens Party-list was rendered void.
(2) AFFIRMATIVE. The SC ruled that the main reason for the
disqualification of Senior Citizens Party-list was their execution of the termsharing agreement. However, it may be remembered that the same was
declared null and void by COMELEC. It was not even implemented because

Khos resignation was denied by COMELEC and Kho went on to serve his
remaining term of office.
The SC ruled that it would be greatly unfair for Senior Citizens Partylist to be penalized of disqualification for an agreement which was not
implemented in the first place. The Court found that COMELEC abused its
discretion for cancelling the registration of the Senior Citizens Party-list
despite the lack of a legal basis. The decision lacking legal framework, the
SC ruled to overturn the same.

G.R. No. 189028

July 16, 2013
NATIONAL ARTIST FOR LITERATURE, VIRGILIO ALAMARIO, ET. AL.
vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET. AL
Political Law; Faithful execution clause. The Presidents discretion in
the conferment of the Order of National Artists should be exercised in
accordance with the duty to faithfully execute the relevant laws. The
faithful execution clause is best construed as an obligation imposed on the
President, not a separate grant of power.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS: On September 19, 2003 Executive Order No. 236, s. 2003, entitled
Establishing the Honors Code of the Philippines to Create an Order of
Precedence of Honors Conferred and for Other Purposes, was issued. The
National Artists Award was renamed the Order of National Artists. This
issuance recognizes the vital role of the National Commission for Culture
and Arts (NCCA) and the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) in
identifying Filipinos who have made distinct contributions to arts and
letters.
EO 236 created a Committee on Honors to assist the President in
evaluating nominations for recipients of Honors, including the Order of
National Artists, and presidential awards. The Committee on Honors shall,
as a general rule, serve as a screening committee to ensure that
nominations received from the various awards committees meet two tests:
1. that there has not been an abuse of discretion in making the nomination,
and 2. that the nominee is in good standing. Should a nomination meet
these criteria, a recommendation to the President for conferment shall be
made.

On January 30, 2007, a joint meeting of the NCCA Board of

Commissioners and the CCP Board of Trustees was held to discuss the
evaluation of the 2009 Order of National Artists and the convening of the
National Artist Award Secretariat. On April 3, 2009, the First Deliberation
Panel met. A total of 87nominees were considered during the deliberation
and a preliminary shortlist of 32 names was compiled. On April 23, 2009,
the Second Deliberation Panel shortlisted 13 out of the 32 names in the
preliminary shortlist. A final deliberation was then conducted where from
the 13 names in the second shortlist, a final list of four has agreed upon.
Through a letter, Undersecretary Vilma Labrador, the Chairperson of
the NCCA and Mr. Nestor Jardin, the President and Artistic Director of the
CCP submitted to then
President
Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo
a
recommendation of the NCCA and Board of Trustees. Mr. MANUEL
CONDE Film and Broadcast Arts, Dr. RAMON SANTOS Music, Mr.
LAZARO FRANCISCO Literature, Mr. FEDERICO AGUILAR-ALCUAZ
Visual Arts were identified by experts in the various fields of arts and
culture, including living National Artists. Such letter was referred by the
Office of the President to the Committee on Honors.
The Office of the President allegedly received nominations from
various sectors, cultural groups and individuals strongly endorsing private
respondents Cecile Guidote-Alvarez, Carlo Magno Jose Caparas, Francisco
Maosa and Jose Moreno. Meanwhile, the Committee on Honors submitted
a memorandum to then President Arroyo recommending the conferment of
the Order of National Artists on the four recommendees of the NCCA and
the CCP Boards, as well as on private respondents Guidote-Alvarez,
Caparas, Maosa and Moreno. Acting on this recommendation,
Proclamation No. 1823 and Proclamation Nos. 1824-1829 were issued
declaring Manuel Conde, Lazaro Francisco, Federico Aguilar-Alcuaz,
Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Maosa and Moreno, as National Artists.
The petitioners instituted this petition for prohibition, certiorari and
injunction, with prayer for restraining order, praying that the Order of
National Artists be conferred on Dr. Santos and that the conferment of the
Order of National Artists on respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Maosa
and Moreno be enjoined and declared to have been rendered in grave abuse
of discretion.
In a Resolution dated August 25, 2009, the Court issued a status quo
order enjoining public respondents from conferring the rank and title of the
Order of National Artists on private respondents and from releasing the
cash awards that accompany such conferment and recognition and from
holding the acknowledgment ceremonies for recognition of the private
respondents as National Artists.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

WHEN THE PRESIDENT PROCLAIMED THE RESPONDENTS GUIDOTEALVAREZ, CAPARAS, MANOSA AND MORENO AS NATIONAL ARTISTS.
HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The powers granted to the NCCA and the CCP
Boards in connection with the conferment of the Order of National Artists
by executive issuances were institutionalized by two laws, namely,
Presidential Decree No. 208 dated June 7, 1973 and Republic Act No. 7356.
In particular, Proclamation No. 1144 dated May 15, 1973 constituted the
CCP Board as the National Artists Awards Committee and tasked it to
administer the conferment of the category of National Artist upon deserving
Filipino artists with the mandate to draft the rules to guide its deliberations
in the choice of National Artists.
The rules, guidelines and policies regarding the Order of National
Artists jointly issued by the CCP Board of Trustees and the NCCA pursuant
to their respective statutory mandates have the force and effect of law. Until
set aside, they are binding upon executive and administrative agencies,
including the President himself/herself as chief executor of laws. Though
the advice or recommendation of the NCCA and the CCP is subject to the
Presidents discretion, such is not a free-spirited stallion that runs and
roams wherever it pleases but is reined in to keep it from straying. Pursuant
to Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution, the President shall ensure that
the laws be faithfully executed.
In accordance with Section 2(a) 59 of Executive Order No. 236,
s.2003, the Order of National Artists is an exclusive association of honored
individuals. A rigid nomination and screening process has been established
with different sets of renowned artists and respected art critics invited to sit
as the Council of Experts for the First and Second Deliberation Panels.
Furthermore, National Artists are given a voice on who should be included
in their exclusive club as they automatically become members of the Final
Deliberation Panel that will vote on who should be included in the final list
to be submitted to the President for conferment of the Order of National
Artists.
In view of the various stages of deliberation in the selection process
and as a consequence of her duty to faithfully enforce the relevant laws, the
discretion of the President in the matter of the Order of National Artists is
confined to the names submitted to him/her by the NCCA and the CCP
Boards. The act of the then President considering Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas,
Maosa and Moreno who were not even recommended by the NCAA and
the CCP Boards negate the exclusive nature of the said order. The stringent
selection and meticulous screening process were rendered meaningless. In
accordance with the guidelines, respondent Guidote-Alvarez who was the

Executive Director of the NCCA at that time was even disqualified from
being nominated.
As to the advice or recommendation of the NCCA and the CCP Boards
on the conferment of the Order of National Artists on Conde, Dr. Santos,
Francisco and Alcuaz, the President may or may not adopt such
recommendations. It was well within the Presidents power and discretion
to proclaim all, or some or even none of the recommendees of the CCP and
the NCCA Boards, without having to justify his or her action. Thus, the
exclusion of Santos did not constitute grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the former President.
G.R. No. 195649
April 16, 2013
CASAN MACODE MAQUILING vs. COMELEC, ROMMEL ARNADO,
LINOG BALUA
Political Law; Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship as Condition in
Running for Public Office. The requirement of renunciation of any and
all foreign citizenship, when read together with Section 40 (d) of the Local
Government Code which disqualifies those with dual citizenship from
running for any elective local position, indicates a policy that anyone who
seeks to run for public office must be solely and exclusively a Filipino
citizen.
SERENO, CJ.:
FACTS: In the last 2010 local and national elections, petitioner and private
respondents were contenders for the mayoralty seat for Kauswagan, Lanao
del Norte. Prior to such elections, respondent Arnado was a natural born
Filipino Citizen who became a naturalized American citizen, thus losing his
former citizenship. He applied for repatriation under RA 9225 before the
Consulate of the Philippines. He took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines on July 10, 2008 and again on April 3, 2009. He also
executed an Affidavit of Renunciation on the latter date. In November of the
same year, respondent filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of
Kauswagan.
Balua, one of the candidates for the office, filed a petition to disqualify
Arnado and/or cancel his certificate of candidacy for the reason that Arnado
was a foreigner. Part of the evidence Balua presented was Arnados travel
record showing that the latter used his US Passport 4 times after
renouncing his American citizenship.

The COMELEC First Division, in deciding the case as one for

disqualification, found that his subsequent use of his US passport after
renouncing his US citizenship negated his Affidavit of Renunciation.
Petitioner Maquiling filed a motion for intervention seeking to be
declared the winner of the the mayoralty elections for garnering the second
highest votes. The COMELEC En Banc decided in favor of Arnado, reversing
and setting aside the ruling of the First Division. It found that Arnados use
of his US passport did not operate to revert his status back to dual
citizenship because there was no law providing such.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF A FOREIGN PASSPORT AFTER
RENUNCIATION OF THE FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP WILL AFFECT ONES
QUALIFICATIONS TO RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.
HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The Supreme Court emphasized that the
requirements of RA 9225 were complied with. It is, however, the
performance of the positive act of using his US passport that showed
continued possession of a foreign citizenship which effectively disqualified
him from running for public position, under Section 40 (d) of the Local
Government Code. The law disqualifies dual citizens form running for any
elective public office and it cannot be allowed for a person who renounced
his foreign citizenship, but who represents himself as a foreign citizen, to
hold any public office.
In ruling that the use of foreign passport after renouncing foreign
citizenship works to recant the Oath of Renunciation required by law to
qualify one for an elective office position, the Supreme Court cited Section
5(2) RA 9225 which specifically provides for the making of ...a personal
and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an oath. This should be read in relation to
Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991, which disqualifies a
dual citizen from running for any elective office.
To the Court, respondent Arnados use of his Philippine passport does
not correct the fact that after he renounced his certificate of candidacy, he
again used his US Passport. To this, it was cited that, citizenship is a matter
of convenience; a badge of identity with attendant civil and political rights.
Hence, since holding public office demands full and undivided allegiance to
the Republic and no other, respondents acquisition of dual citizenship
disqualifies him not only from holding public office but even from becoming
a candidate in the May 2010 elections.