You are on page 1of 11

G.R. No.

195649

April 16, 2013 CAGOCO, LINOG G. !ALUA, Respondents.

CASAN MACODE MAQUILING, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO DECISION SERENO, CJ.: T"E CASE

This is a Petition for Certiorari ender Rule 64 in con unction !ith Rule 6" of the Rules of Court to revie! the Resolutions of the Co##ission on Elections $CO%E&EC'. The Resolution( in SP) No. (*+( *,$DC' of the CO%E&EC -irst Division dated " Octo.er /*( * is .ein0 assailed for appl1in0 Section 44 of the &ocal 2overn#ent Code !hile the Resolution/ of the CO%E&EC En 3anc dated / -e.ruar1 /*(( is .ein0 4uestioned for findin0 that respondent Ro##el )rnado 1 Ca0oco $respondent )rnado5)rnado' is solel1 a -ilipino citi6en 4ualified to run for pu.lic office despite his continued use of a 7.S. passport. #ACTS Respondent )rnado is a natural .orn -ilipino citi6en.8 9o!ever, as a conse4uence of his su.se4uent naturali6ation as a citi6en of the 7nited States of )#erica, he lost his -ilipino citi6enship. )rnado applied for repatriation under Repu.lic )ct $R.).' No. ,//" .efore the Consulate 2eneral of the Philippines in San -ranciso, 7S) and too: the Oath of )lle0iance to the Repu.lic of the Philippines on (* ;ul1 /**<.4 On the sa#e da1 an Order of )pproval of his Citi6enship Retention and Re+ac4uisition !as issued in his favor." The afore#entioned Oath of )lle0iance states= I, Ro##el Ca0oco )rnado, sole#nl1 s!ear that I !ill support and defend the Constitution of the Repu.lic of the Philippines and o.e1 the la!s and le0al orders pro#ul0ated .1 the dul1 constituted authorities of the Philippines and I here.1 declare that I reco0ni6e and accept the supre#e authorit1 of the Philippines and !ill #aintain true faith and alle0iance thereto> and that I i#pose this o.li0ation upon #1self voluntaril1 !ithout #ental reservation or purpose of evasion.6 On 8 )pril /**, )rnado a0ain too: his Oath of )lle0iance to the Repu.lic and e?ecuted an )ffidavit of Renunciation of his forei0n citi6enship, !hich states= I, Ro##el Ca0oco )rnado, do sole#nl1 s!ear that I a.solutel1 and perpetuall1 renounce all alle0iance and fidelit1 to the 7NITED ST)TES O- )%ERIC) of !hich I a# a citi6en, and I divest #1self of full e#plo1#ent of all civil and political ri0hts and privile0es of the 7nited States of )#erica. I sole#nl1 s!ear that all the fore0oin0 state#ent is true and correct to the .est of #1 :no!led0e and .elief.@ On 8* Nove#.er /**,, )rnado filed his Certificate of Candidac1 for %a1or of Aaus!a0an, &anao del Norte, !hich contains, a#on0 others, the follo!in0 state#ents= I a# a natural .orn -ilipino citi6en 5 naturali6ed -ilipino citi6en. I a# not a per#anent resident of, or i##i0rant to, a forei0n countr1. I a# eli0i.le for the office I see: to .e elected to. I !ill support and defend the Constitution of the Repu.lic of the Philippines and !ill #aintain true faith and alle0iance thereto. I !ill o.e1 the la!s, le0al orders and decrees pro#ul0ated .1 the dul1 constituted authorities. I i#pose this o.li0ation upon #1self voluntaril1 !ithout #ental reservation or purpose of evasion.< On /< )pril /*(*, respondent &ino0 C. 3alua $3alua', another #a1oralt1 candidate, filed a petition to dis4ualif1 )rnado and5or to cancel his certificate of candidac1 for #unicipal #a1or of Aaus!a0an, &anao del Norte in connection !ith the (* %a1 /*(* local and national elections., Respondent 3alua contended that )rnado is not a resident of Aaus!a0an, &anao del Norte and that he is a forei0ner, attachin0 thereto a certification issued .1 the 3ureau of I##i0ration dated /8 )pril /*(* indicatin0 the nationalit1 of )rnado as B7S)+ )#erican.B(*To further .olster his clai# of )rnadoCs 7S citi6enship, 3alua presented in his %e#orandu# a co#puter+ 0enerated travel record(( dated *8 Dece#.er /**, indicatin0 that )rnado has .een usin0 his 7S Passport No. *"@@</@** in enterin0 and departin0 the Philippines. The said record sho!s that )rnado left the countr1 on (4 )pril /**, and returned on /" ;une /**,, and a0ain departed on /, ;ul1 /**,, arrivin0 .ac: in the Philippines on /4 Nove#.er /**,. 3alua li:e!ise presented a certification fro# the 3ureau of I##i0ration dated /8 )pril /*(*, certif1in0 that the na#e B)rnado, Ro##el Ca0ocoB appears in the availa.le Co#puter Data.ase5Passen0er #anifest5I3% listin0 on file as of /( )pril /*(*, !ith the follo!in0 pertinent travel records=

The dispositive portion of the Resolution rendered . &anao del Norte dated *8 .). all nei0h. one !ho trul1 divested hi#self of 7S citi6enship !ould not continue to avail of privile0es reserved solel1 for 7S nationals. su.<6> and ".ased on #isrepresentation. Certification fro# the Punon0 3aran0a1 of Po.<" to !or: and returned to the Philippines in /**. &et the order of succession under Section 44 of the &ocal 2overn#ent Code of (. ho!ever. in vie! of the fore0oin0.@.B(6 !hereas the -irst Division still could Bnot conclude that )rnado failed to #eet the one+1ear residenc1 re4uire#ent under the &ocal 2overn#ent Code.)rrival = *(5(/5/*(* N)TION)&ITD = 7S)+)%ERIC)N P)SSPORT = *"@@</@** D)TE O.)rrival = *85/85/*(* N)TION)&ITD = 7S)+)%ERIC)N P)SSPORT = *"@@</@**(/ On 8* )pril /*(*. Ro##el C. served as %a1or of Aaus!a0an.B(@ In the #atter of the issue of citi6enship. . No. Certification dated 8( %a1 /*(* fro# the %unicipal &ocal 2overn#ent Operations Office of Aaus!a0an statin0 that Dr.une /*(* statin0 that )rnado is a . T"E RULING O# T"E COMELEC #IRST DI$ISION Instead of treatin0 the Petition as an action for the cancellation of a certificate of candidac1 . Eoter Certification issued . havin0 .D)TE O.@4 and fro# (" -e. the -irst Division disa0reed !ith )rnadoCs clai# that he is a -ilipino citi6en. 3alua #oved to declare hi# in default and to present evidence e?+parte.ess1 Corpin.B Surel1. %a?i#o P. the CO%E&EC $-irst Division' issued an Order(8 re4uirin0 the respondent to personall1 file his ans!er and #e#orandu# !ithin three $8' da1s fro# receipt thereof.(.//".le hi# to run for office. the petition for dis4ualification and5or to cancel the certificate of candidac1 of Ro##el C. Sr.er of votes and !as su.1 the /*(* elections !here )rnado 0arnered the hi0hest nu#.lind e1e to the 0larin0 inconsistenc1 . and . &anao del Norte. &eoncio Dali0di0.ors of )rnado. to (" )pril (. Fe cannot turn a . attestin0 that )rnado is a lon0+ti#e resident of Aaus!a0an and that he has .een a re0istered voter of Aaus!a0an since *8 )pril /**. . Ba passport is defined as an official docu#ent of identit1 and nationalit1 issued to a person intendin0 to travel or so ourn in forei0n countries. )rnadoCs act of consistentl1 usin0 his 7S passport after renouncin0 his 7S citi6enship on *8 )pril /**. )rnadoCs procla#ation as the !innin0 candidate for %unicipal %a1or of Aaus!a0an. fro# .oint+)ffidavit dated 8( %a1 /*(* of En0r.se4uentl1 proclai#ed as the !innin0 candidate for %a1or of Aaus!a0an.1 )NN7&&ED.(" the CO%E&EC -irst Division considered it as one for dis4ualification. )rnado.aran0a1 and that )rnado !ent to the 7nited States in (. Eir0il Seno.1 the CO%E&EC -irst Division reads= F9ERE-ORE. effectivel1 ne0ated his )ffidavit of Renunciation.een overta:en . Aaus!a0an.lacion.( ta:e effect.64 to .1 the Election Officer of Aaus!a0an certif1in0 that )rnado has .(< Fe find that althou0h )rnado appears to have su. It !as onl1 after his procla#ation that )rnado filed his verified ans!er.1 the Supre#e Court in the Du case. )ffidavit of Renunciation and Oath of )lle0iance to the Repu..ruar1 (. Neither #otion !as acted upon. )s noted .#ittin0 the follo!in0 docu#ents as evidence=(4 (.anuar1 (. )fter )rnado failed to ans!er the petition.lic of the Philippines dated *8 )pril /**. Eir0inia 3ran6uela.> 4./* .ona fide resident of his .een conspicuousl1 and continuousl1 residin0 in his fa#il1Cs ancestral house in Aaus!a0an> 8. ???? )rnadoCs continued use of his 7S passport is a stron0 indication that )rnado had no real intention to renounce his 7S citi6enship and that he onl1 e?ecuted an )ffidavit of Renunciation to ena. &anao del Nore is here. )rnado is here.et!een )rnadoCs une?plained use of a 7S passport si? ti#es and his clai# that he re+ac4uired his Philippine citi6enship and renounced his 7S citi6enship..une (.1 2R)NTED.stantiall1 co#plied !ith the re4uire#ents of R. 3aluaCs contention that )rnado is a resident of the 7nited States !as dis#issed upon the findin0 that B3alua failed to present an1 evidence to support his contention.> /.

%a4uilin0. and that as a second+placer. 6646 !hich allo!s intervention in proceedin0s for dis4ualification even after elections if no final ud0#ent has . should .).tained the hi0hest nu#.). and ruled that the petition !as filed !ell !ithin the period prescri.1 la!.1 the outco#e of the case as it a0rees !ith the dispositive portion of the Resolution of the -irst Division allo!in0 the order of succession under Section 44 of the &ocal 2overn#ent Code to ta:e effect.efore the CO%E&EC En 3anc a %otion for Reconsideration to0ether !ith an Opposition to )rnadoCs )#ended %otion for Reconsideration.een rendered. another candidate for #a1or of Aaus!a0an. It !as at that ti#e.B )s to %a4uilin0Cs intervention.een rendered.1 the -irst Division of the petition as one for dis4ualification. 3aluaCs petition to cancel the certificate of candidac1 of )rnado !as filed out of ti#e.B/( 9e raised the follo!in0 contentions=// (.er of la!ful votes.er of votes in the /*(* elections.enefitted . the date of procla#ation. %a4uilin0 si#ultaneousl1 filed his %e#orandu# !ith his %otion for Intervention and his %otion for Reconsideration. /**.stantiall1 co#plied !ith the re4uire#ents of R. intervened in the case and filed .. the CO%E&EC En 3anc reversed and set aside the rulin0 of the -irst Division and 0ranted )rnadoCs %otion for Reconsideration. Conse4uentl1.efore the CO%E&EC En 3anc on the 0round that Bthe evidence is insufficient to ustif1 the Resolution and that the said Resolution is contrar1 to la!. !hich sho! that he has su. )pril 8. the respondent e#. the CO%E&EC En 3anc held that under Section 6 of Repu. 9e used his 7S passport onl1 .//".ruar1 /*((.1 %a4uilin0.ac: his status as a dual citi6en prior to his renunciation as there is no la! sa1in0 such. %a4uilin0 undou.eca#e a pure Philippine Citi6en a0ain. as the le0iti#ate candidate !ho o. %ore succinctl1.ed ./4 havin0 .e proclai#ed as the !inner. )rnado opposed all #otions filed . 9o!ever.se4uent to his renunciation of his )#erican citi6enship is not tanta#ount to a repudiation of his -ilipino citi6enship. ???? The use of a 7S passport G does not operate to revert . and the -irst DivisionCs treat#ent of the petition as one for dis4ualification constitutes 0rave a.ited after a decision has alread1 . The use of his 7S passport su. . clai#in0 that intervention is prohi.1 the evidence consistin0 of his Oath of )lle0iance and the )ffidavit of Renunciation. he clai#ed that the cancellation of )rnadoCs candidac1 and the nullification of his procla#ation.ecause he !as not infor#ed of the issuance of his Philippine passport. !hich is not later than (( %a1 /*(*. the CO%E&EC En 3anc also cited Section 6 of R. as he did not perfor# an1 act to s!ear alle0iance to a countr1 other than the Philippines> 8. 9is procla#ation as the !innin0 candidate ousted the CO%E&EC fro# urisdiction over the case> and @.).een filed on /< )pril /*(*.1 R. . The proper re#ed1 to 4uestion his citi6enship is throu0h a petition for 4uo !arranto.eca#e a citi6en of another countr1. on the follo!in0 pre#ises= -irst= 31 renouncin0 his 7S citi6enship as i#posed .1 his !innin0 the elections> 6.//"> /. No.tained it> 4. the Co##ission Bshall continue !ith the trial and hearin0 of the action. The CO%E&EC En 3anc a0reed !ith the treat#ent . %a4uilin0 ar0ued that !hile the -irst Division correctl1 dis4ualified )rnado. !hich should have . and !ho 0arnered the second hi0hest nu#.tedl1 the peopleCs choice as indicated . RULING O# T"E COMELEC EN !ANC In its Resolution of */ -e.ut !ent on further to sa1 that %a4uilin0.e pre udiced or .use of discretion a#ountin0 to e?cess of urisdiction>/8 ". !ould not . Petitioner Casan %acode %a4uilin0 $%a4uilin0'. No. that the respondent .raced his Philippine citi6enship as thou0h he never .een filed !ithin ten da1s fro# his procla#ation. 6646. No. the order of succession under Section 44 of the &ocal 2overn#ent Code is not applica.le in this case. as the second placer.tedl1 lost the elections and thus does not stand to . and that he used his Philippine passport after he o. in4uir1 or protest even after the procla#ation of the candidate !hose 4ualifications for office is 4uestioned.1 the final ad udication of the case. the use of a 7S passport does not operate to Bun+renounceB !hat he has earlier on renounced. The findin0 that he is not a -ilipino citi6en is not supported .e pre udiced . .The %otion for Reconsideration and the %otion for Intervention )rnado sou0ht reconsideration of the resolution . 9e is undou.lic )ct No. .

efore election a0ainst a candidate . Hualifications for elective office.er of votes did not #a:e his election valid. This then sho!s that the use of the 7S passport !as . Co##issioner Rene E. In the present case../" In his Separate Concurrin0 Opinion.out three $8' #onths later. It has . )lthou0h he applied for a Philippine passport. 9o!ever.road.e lost.une (<. his havin0 received the hi0hest nu#.lic office despite his continued use of a 7S passport. he is dis4ualified to serve as such. The latterCs continued use of his 7S passport and en o1#ent of all the privile0es of a 7S citi6en despite his previous renunciation of the afore+#entioned citi6enship runs contrar1 to his declaration that he chose to retain onl1 his Philippine citi6enship.e presu#ed to have re#ained a -ilipino despite his use of his )#erican passport in the a. Corollar1 to his plea to reverse the rulin0 of the CO%E&EC En 3anc or to affir# the -irst DivisionCs dis4ualification of )rnado. all dou.e underta:en. Defensor+Santia0o.#ission of a certified true cop1 of his passport sho!in0 that he used the sa#e for his travels on the follo!in0 dates= .#ission !ith the t!in re4uire#ents !as o. %a4uilin0 also see:s the revie! of the applica.The -irst DivisionCs reliance in the case of In Re= Petition for 9a.le e?planation as to the use of his 7S passport.sence of clear. )ccordin0l1. BThe application of the #ore assi#ilative principle of continuit1 of citi6enship is #ore appropriate in this case. )pril (6. /*(*.in0 . and pra1in0 that %a4uilin0 . This fact is proven .andoned his alle0iance to the 7nited States.tained the pluralit1 of votes for the #a1oralt1 post cure the latterCs failure to co#pl1 !ith the 4ualification re4uire#ents re0ardin0 his citi6enship.1 the respondentCs su.orn citi6en !ho chose 0reener pastures . Thus. %a1 /*. The Philippine State e?pects strict conduct of alle0iance to those !ho choose to .viousl1 onl1 for the purpose of co#pl1in0 !ith the re4uire#ents for runnin0 for the #a1oralt1 post in connection !ith the %a1 (*. Thus the #entioned case is not on all fours !ith the case at . Strict polic1 is #aintained in the conduct of citi6ens !ho are not natural . thus discardin0 their ori0inal citi6enship.ut a natural .oth 0rave a. 9e did not appl1 for a 7S passport after his renunciation. %arch 8(.l1 pressin0 needs #i0ht . )s pro. /*(*. /*(*. &anao del Norte. . either . 7nder said principle. !ho ac4uire their citi6enship . Neither does the fact that respondent o.le to 0et it a. 9is ouster fro# office does not violate the principle of vo? populi supre#a est le? . respondent is not a naturali6ed citi6en .e its citi6ens.anuar1 (/.reathIeJ life to the soverei0n !ill of the people !ho e?pressed it !hen the1 ratified the Constitution and !hen the1 elected their representatives !ho enacted the la!.ilit1 of Section 44 of the &ocal 2overn#ent Code.1 . in the instant case respondent after reac4uirin0 his Philippine citi6enship should . Since a dis4ualified candidate is no candidate at all in the e1es of the la!.a. /**.ar. once a person . 68 throu0h !hich Philippine citi6enship #a1 . after ta:in0 his oath as a naturali6ed -ilipino. /*(*.une 4. clai#in0 that the CO%E&EC co##itted reversi.eco#es a citi6en. If a candidate is not a citi6en at the ti#e he ran for office or if he lost his citi6enship after his election to office. he !as not notified of the issuance of his Philippine passport so that he !as actuall1 a.enc1. The petitioner in the said case is a naturali6ed citi6en !ho. the respondent used !hatever is !ithin his control durin0 that ti#e.B/6 On the other hand.orn.use of discretion and reversi.ecause to his :no!led0e. To appl1 it is to . RespondentCs su.irth or naturali6ation.ut !as adversel1 resolved a0ainst hi# after election.ecause the application of the constitutional and statutor1 provisions on dis4ualification is not a #atter of popularit1. applied for the rene!al of his Portu0uese passport. CO%E&EC Chair#an Si?to 3rillantes cited that the use of forei0n passport is not one of the 0rounds provided for under Section ( of Co##on!ealth )ct No. /*(*. his havin0 o. the passport !as onl1 issued on .lic office./@ T"E %ETITION !E#ORE T"E COURT %a4uilin0 filed the instant petition 4uestionin0 the propriet1 of declarin0 )rnado 4ualified to run for pu. and this assu#ption stands until he voluntaril1 denationali6es or e?patriates hi#self.er of votes does not validate his election.anuar1 8(.eas Corpus of Fill1 Du v.road and then decided to repatriate to supposedl1 help in the pro0ress of Aaus!a0an.1 !or:in0 a.se4uent travels a. une4uivocal and co#petent proof of e?patriation. Sar#iento dissented.e resolved in favor of retention of citi6enship. such as citi6enship. the respondent alread1 used the sa#e in his su. it is assu#ed that he desires to continue to .tained the hi0hest nu#.e a citi6en.een held that !here a petition for dis4ualification !as filed . Det as soon as he !as in possession of his Philippine passport.le error in rulin0 that Bthe succession of the vice #a1or in case the respondent is dis4ualified is . %a4uilin0 no! see:s to reverse the findin0 of the CO%E&EC En 3anc that )rnado is 4ualified to run for pu. is #isplaced. are continuin0 re4uire#ents> once an1 of the# is lost durin0 his incu#. et al.e proclai#ed as the !inner in the /*(* #a1oralt1 race in Aaus!a0an.le error on the part of the CO%E&EC En 3anc for rulin0 that )rnado is a -ilipino citi6en despite his continued use of a 7S passport. /*(* )uto#ated National and &ocal Elections. ???? The respondent presented a plausi. /*(* and . )scri.1 choice.ts should . thus= Respondent evidentl1 failed to prove that he trul1 and !holeheartedl1 a. his Philippine passport !as not 1et issued to hi# for his use. title to the office itself is dee#ed forfeited.

1 the intervenor prevents it fro# attainin0 finalit1.een no final ud0#ent rendered.e dis4ualified and he is voted for and receives the !innin0 nu#.er of votes in such election. + )n1 candidate !ho has .1 final ud0#ent to .er of votes in such election.e allo!ed in proceedin0s for dis4ualification even after election if there has 1et . It is onl1 after this Court has ruled upon the issues raised in this instant petition that the dis4ualification case ori0inall1 filed .1 final ud0#ent ./.efore the CO%E&EC is one for cancellation of the certificate of candidac1 and 5 or dis4ualification. No. in4uir1. does not deprive %a4uilin0 of the ri0ht to elevate the #atter . %an6ano/< clarified the ri0ht of intervention in a dis4ualification case.e dis4ualified shall not . 6646= Sec.in order. CO%E&EC8* are present and therefore !ould not . 6. upon #otion of the co#plainant or an1 intervenor.etter fra#in0 of the 4uestion thou0h should . If for an1 reason a candidate is not declared .e addressed seriati# as the su.se4uent 4uestions hin0e on the result of the first. Clearl1 then.1 the outco#e of the case. The elevation of the case .een declared .e !hether or not the use of a forei0n passport after renouncin0 forei0n citi6enship affects oneCs 4ualifications to run for pu.1 3alua a0ainst )rnado !ill attain finalit1. considerin0 that in the event the latter is dis4ualified. %ercado v. %a4uilin0 has the ri0ht to intervene in the case. Petitioner Casan %acode %a4uilin0 intervened at the sta0e !hen respondent )rnado filed a %otion for Reconsideration of the -irst Division Resolution .e dis4ualified shall not .e counted. the Court or Co##ission shall continue !ith the trial and hearin0 of the action.e proclai#ed as the !inner in the elections.een declared .e considered stra1 and the second+placer should .<@. The effect of a dis4ualification case is enunciated in Section 6 of R. If for an1 reason a candidate is not declared . The third 4uestion is !hether or not the rule on succession in the &ocal 2overn#ent Code is applica.1 final ud0#ent .e dis4ualified and he is voted for and receives the !innin0 nu#. OUR RULING Intervention of a rival candidate in a disqualification case is proper when there has not yet been any proclamation of the winner. !hich provides= )n1 candidate !ho has . intervention #a1 .efore this Court !hich !ill . In that case. or protest and. upon #otion of the co#plainant or an1 intervenor. or protest and. %a4uilin0 contends that he has an interest in the dis4ualification case filed a0ainst )rnado.le to this case. 7nder this provision. #a1 durin0 the pendenc1 thereof order the suspension of the procla#ation of such candidate !henever the evidence of his 0uilt is stron0.e counted. The fact that the CO%E&EC En 3anc has alread1 ruled that %a4uilin0 has not sho!n that the re4uisites for the e?e#ption to the second+placer rule set forth in Sinsuat v.1 the parties .B There are three 4uestions posed . The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of representation as to one’s nationality and citizenship it does not divest !ilipino citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants the "ath of #enunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective position. Effect of Dis4ualification Case. and the votes cast for hi# shall not . No.e voted for. 6646. )s the candidate !ho 0arnered the second hi0hest nu#. and the votes cast for hi# shall not . cannot .e e#phasi6ed that !hile the ori0inal petition . The first 4uestion is !hether or not intervention is allo!ed in a dis4ualification case. the votes cast for hi# should . . the Court or Co##ission shall continue !ith the trial and hearin0 of the action. #a1 durin0 the pendenc1 thereof order the suspension of the procla#ation of such candidate !henever the evidence of 0uilt is stron0. It #ust . The second 4uestion is !hether or not the use of a forei0n passport after renouncin0 forei0n citi6enship a#ounts to undoin0 a renunciation earlier #ade.efore this Court.e sustained.e voted for.efore an election to .lic office. the CO%E&EC -irst Division and the CO%E&EC En 3anc correctl1 treated the petition as one for dis4ualification.e pre udiced .1 final ud0#ent to . the Court said= That petitioner had a ri0ht to intervene at that sta0e of the proceedin0s for the dis4ualification a0ainst private respondent is clear fro# Section 6 of R. in4uir1.).).efore an election to . )rnadoCs clai# that the #ain case has attained finalit1 as the ori0inal petitioner and respondents therein have not appealed the decision of the CO%E&EC En 3anc. other!ise :no!n as the Electoral Refor#s &a! of (. ) .efore the CO%E&EC En 3anc.er of votes.

B8< Fe a0ree !ith the CO%E&EC En 3anc that such act of usin0 a forei0n passport does not divest )rnado of his -ilipino citi6enship. after ta:in0 his oath as a naturali6ed citi6en. .le to run for pu. 3et!een *8 )pril /**.se4uentl1 does so#e act constitutin0 renunciation of his Philippine citi6enship. . 31 renouncin0 his forei0n citi6enship.efore an1 pu.e solel1 a -ilipino citi6en.oth countries that he is an )#erican citi6en.le to run for pu.lic office.1 the forei0n countr1 !hich 0ranted the citi6enship.lic. )rnado positivel1 and voluntaril1 represented hi#self as an )#erican.ilit1 to run for pu.e su. onl1 to . )t the ti#e. )rnado too: the Oath of )lle0iance not ust onl1 once .ut su. in effect declarin0 . !hich he ac4uired .solutel1 and perpetuall1 renounce$s' all alle0iance and fidelit1 to the 7NITED ST)TES O. .8/ 9o!ever. 31 usin0 his forei0n passport. )fter reac4uirin0 his Philippine citi6enship. ho!ever.).road that he !as a Portu0uese national.lic office. actions that run counter to the affidavit of renunciation he had earlier e?ecuted.. )rnado voluntaril1 and effectivel1 reverted to his earlier status as a dual citi6en.solute and perpetual renunciation of the forei0n citi6enship and a full divest#ent of all civil and political ri0hts 0ranted .efore i##i0ration authorities of . 31 ta:in0 the Oath of )lle0iance to the Repu.8" it is nevertheless an act !hich repudiates the ver1 oath of renunciation re4uired for a for#er -ilipino citi6en !ho is also a citi6en of another countr1 to . on (* .lic office. si#ultaneous !ith the e?ecution of his )ffidavit of Renunciation. Defensor+Santia0o. It re4uires an a..ut t!ice= first. The renunciation of forei0n citi6enship is not a hollo! oath that can si#pl1 .1 representin0 hi#self as an )#erican citi6en.)%ERIC)B8@ and that he Bdivest$s' hi#self of full e#plo1#ent of all civil and political ri0hts and privile0es of the 7nited States of )#erica. after renouncin0 his forei0n citi6enship. In Du v. the citi6en perfor#s positive acts sho!in0 his continued possession of a forei0n citi6enship.ul1 /**< !hen he applied for repatriation . ) si#ilar sanction can .lic office.e violated the ne?t da1. %an6ano84 alread1 hinted at this situation !hen the Court declared= 9is declarations !ill . Fhile the act of usin0 a forei0n passport is not one of the acts enu#erated in Co##on!ealth )ct No.ilities and responsi. ect to all attendant lia. this le0al presu#ption does not operate per#anentl1 and is open to attac: !hen.//" or the Citi6enship Retention and Re+ac4uisition )ct of /**8. The pivotal 4uestion to deter#ine is !hether he !as solel1 and e?clusivel1 a -ilipino citi6en at the ti#e he filed his certificate of candidac1. Such reversion !as not retroactive> it too: place the instant )rnado represented hi#self as an )#erican citi6en .efore filin0 his certificate of candidac1 on 8* Nove#.e professed at an1 ti#e. there.Section "$/' of The Citi6enship Retention and Re+ac4uisition )ct of /**8 provides= Those !ho retain or re+ac4uire Philippine citi6enship under this )ct shall en o1 full civil and political ri0hts and . No.e 4ualified to run for a local elective position. or ust eleven da1s after he renounced his )#erican citi6enship.er /**. he continued to use his 7S passport to travel in and out of the countr1 .. )rnado renounced his )#erican citi6enship . and a0ain on *8 )pril /**. after renouncin0 the forei0n citi6enship.1 usin0 his 7S passport.etra1 that trust.eca#e eli0i. 9e too: the Oath of )lle0iance and renounced his forei0n citi6enship.er /**.ilities under e?istin0 la!s of the Philippines and the follo!in0 conditions= ???? $/'Those see:in0 elective pu.lic officer authori6ed to ad#inister an oath.1 the 7nited States of )#erica. There is no 4uestion that after perfor#in0 these t!in re4uire#ents re4uired under Section "$/' of R.eco#e a dual citi6en. he recanted his Oath of Renunciation86 that he Ba. )rnado had therefore . the date he renounced his forei0n citi6enship. .efore the Consulate 2eneral of the Philippines in San -rancisco. Indeed. he applied for the rene!al of his Portu0uese passport and declared in co##ercial docu#ents e?ecuted a.e ta:en a0ainst an1one !ho. Should he . he used his 7S passport four ti#es.lic in the Philippines shall #eet the 4ualification for holdin0 such pu. !ith all attendant ri0hts and privile0es 0ranted . )rnado re+ac4uired his Philippine citi6enship.1 repatriation. 68 constitutin0 renunciation and loss of Philippine citi6enship.88 )rnado hi#self su. 7S). thus co#pletin0 the re4uire#ents for eli0i.1 renderin0 hi# eli0i. renounces his forei0n nationalit1. he li:e!ise possessed )#erican citi6enship.1 e?ecutin0 an )ffidavit of Renunciation. in electin0 Philippine citi6enship. there are enou0h sanctions for declarin0 the loss of his Philippine citi6enship throu0h e?patriation in appropriate proceedin0s. ? ? ?8( Ro##el )rnado too: all the necessar1 steps to 4ualif1 to run for a pu.1 the Constitution and e?istin0 la!s and. he !as dee#ed to . ected the issue of his citi6enship to attac: !hen. #a:e a personal and s!orn renunciation of an1 and all forei0n . at the ti#e of the filin0 of the certificate of candidac1. %ercado v. !e sustained the denial of entr1 into the countr1 of petitioner on the 0round that..e ta:en upon the faith that he !ill fulfill his underta:in0 #ade under oath. and 8* Nove#. 9o!ever.lic office as re4uired . the date he filed his COC. he . re0ardless of the effect of such renunciation under the la!s of the forei0n countr1. Fhen )rnado used his 7S passport on (4 )pril /**.

stated BDet. are re4uired to ta:e not onl1 the Oath of )lle0iance to the Repu. Section 4*$d' of the &ocal 2overn#ent Code applies to his situation. has recanted the sa#e Oath of Renunciation he too:.lic office .This act of usin0 a forei0n passport after renouncin0 oneCs forei0n citi6enship is fatal to )rnadoCs . ..ad0e of identit1 that co#es !ith attendant civil and political ri0hts accorded .lic and to no other.lic of the Philippines . the Portu0uese national !ho sou0ht naturali6ation as a -ilipino citi6en and later applied for the rene!al of his Portu0uese passport.er /**. It !as still a positive act of representation as a 7S citi6en . If indeed.irth.ut even fro# .e possessed not onl1 at the ti#e of appoint#ent or election or assu#ption of office .id for pu. his su.lic trust. as a result of !hich he !as onl1 a.une /**.se4uent use of his Philippine passport does not correct the fact that after he renounced his forei0n citi6enship and prior to filin0 his certificate of candidac1. or fro# 8 )pril /**. as soon as he !as in possession of his Philippine passport.ut !ho su.efore the i##i0ration officials of this countr1.er /**. he !ould not have used his 7S passport on /4 Nove#. .lic office. In effect.).e deservin0 of the pu. on !hich date he first used his )#erican passport after renouncin0 his )#erican citi6enship.B4/ This does not #ean.lic office are re4uired to renounce their forei0n citi6enship to ..er. to hold an1 pu.. )rnadoCs su.lic office.se4uentl1 represents hi#self as a forei0n citi6en. . The CO%E&EC. )rnado ustifies the continued use of his 7S passport !ith the e?planation that he !as not notified of the issuance of his Philippine passport on (< . Three #onths fro# . )rnado !as solel1 and e?clusivel1 a -ilipino citi6en onl1 for a period of eleven da1s. No.eco#in0 a candidate in the %a1 /*(* elections. 9e is dis4ualified not onl1 fro# holdin0 the pu.. Fe a0ree !ith the pronounce#ent of the CO%E&EC -irst Division that B)rnadoCs act of consistentl1 usin0 his 7S passport effectivel1 ne0ated his B)ffidavit of Renunciation. It !as after co#pl1in0 !ith the re4uire#ents that he perfor#ed positive acts !hich effectivel1 dis4ualified hi# fro# runnin0 for an elective pu. !ho are not re4uired . This Court has previousl1 ruled that= Hualifications for pu.lic office pursuant to Section 4*$d' of the &ocal 2overn#ent Code of (.1 !hich forei0n citi6enship is ac4uired throu0h a positive act of appl1in0 for naturali6ation.48 The CO%E&EC En 3anc differentiated )rnado fro# Fill1 Du.ut also to personall1 renounce forei0n citi6enship in order to 4ualif1 as a candidate for pu.le to o. In the sa#e !a1 that the use of his forei0n passport does not undo his Oath of Renunciation.//".1 la! to ta:e the oath of renunciation as the #ere filin0 of the certificate of candidac1 alread1 carries !ith it an i#plied renunciation of forei0n citi6enship. )n1 act !hich violates the oath of renunciation opens the citi6enship issue to attac:.4* he !as not 4ualified to run for a local elective position. It is a . It #ust .ut durin0 the officerKs entire tenure..l1 challen0ed. .lic office is a continuin0 one.e th!arted if !e !ere to allo! a person !ho has earlier renounced his forei0n citi6enship. Fhile those !ho ac4uire dual citi6enship .B44 Fe cannot a0ree !ith the CO%E&EC. Dual citi6ens . Citi6enship is not a #atter of convenience.1 the e?press dis4ualification under Section 4*$d' of the &ocal 2overn#ent Code.tain his Philippine passport three $8' #onths later. 9oldin0 pu.1 usin0 his 7S passport after renouncin0 his )#erican citi6enship. Fe therefore hold that )rnado. as it effectivel1 i#posed on hi# a dis4ualification to run for an elective local position. until (4 )pril /**.(.1 virtue of . his title #a1 .4( The citi6enship re4uire#ent for elective pu. those !ho see: election or appoint#ent to pu. This is distinct fro# those considered dual citi6ens .lic office. 9e !as 4ualified to vote. That )rnado did not appl1 for a 7S passport after his renunciation does not #a:e his use of a 7S passport less of an act that violated the Oath of Renunciation he too:. 31 the ti#e he filed his certificate of candidac1 on 8* Nove#. The purpose of the &ocal 2overn#ent Code in dis4ualif1in0 dual citi6ens fro# runnin0 for an1 elective pu.lic office are continuin0 re4uire#ents and #ust . in rulin0 favora. It li:e!ise de#ands the conco#itant dut1 to #aintain alle0iance to oneCs fla0 and countr1.1 the state to its citi6ens.ut continuousl1.1 naturali6ation.lic office !ould . Once an1 of the re4uired 4ualifications is lost. )rnado !as a dual citi6en en o1in0 the ri0hts and privile0es of -ilipino and )#erican citi6enship.8. he used his 7S passport. )rnado used his Philippine passport as soon as he !as in possession of it. that he failed to co#pl1 !ith the t!in re4uire#ents under R. for he in fact did.1 choice are afforded the ri0ht of suffra0e.une is Septe#.e seasona. 3esides. on the other hand.lic office de#ands full and undivided alle0iance to the Repu. ? ? ?.se4uent travels a. the respondent alread1 used the sa#e in his su. )rnadoCs cate0or1 of dual citi6enship is that .e possessed not ust at the ti#e of the renunciation of the forei0n citi6enship .road. .l1 for )rnado.ut .se4uent use of his Philippine passport does not undo his earlier use of his 7S passport.

%a?i#o ).e that the election fails entirel1.4< $E#phasis supplied' Note that the sentence !here the phrase is found starts !ith BIn the other case. the for#er #ust retire in favor of the latter. (. -elipe Topacio.B4@ This phrase is not even the ratio decidendi> it is a #ere o.46 ).e deter#ined !ho received a pluralit1 of the le0all1 cast . In the latter case.een le0all1 elected president of the #unicipalit1 of I#us at the 0eneral election held in that to!n on 4 .le candidate to an1 other candidate !hen the sole 4uestion is the eli0i.een dul1 electedB the ud0e e?ceeded his urisdiction !hen he Bdeclared that no one had . its urisdiction . and ).le candidate cannot . no 4uestion as to the correctness of the returns or the #anner of castin0 and countin0 the . Resolvin0 the third issue necessitates revisitin0 Topacio v.1 the .ecause of the opposin0 parties are strivin0 for supre#ac1. unless respondents raised so#e ne! and additional issues.le to hold such an office. thus= )0ain.le candidate to an1 other candidate !hen the sole 4uestion is the eli0i.e proclai#ed as the !inner in an election contest.oard of canvassers to correct the returns accordin0l1> or it #a1 find that the #anner of holdin0 the election and the returns are so tainted !ith fraud or ille0alit1 that it cannot . and the respondent.(/B !here Bthe onl1 4uestion raised !as !hether or not Topacio !as eli0i.une 4. The Court therein ruled= -or the fore0oin0 reasons. Paredes is that Bthe !reath of victor1 cannot .e transferred fro# an ineli0i.ilit1 of the one receivin0 a pluralit1 of the le0all1 cast . in !hich case the court issues its #anda#us to the . !ere opposin0 candidates for that office.allots.e transferred fro# an ineli0i.ad /<(.1 declarin0 a person ineli0i. there is not. The petitioner.sent the four 1ear interruption. the effect of a decision that a candidate is not entitled to the office .oard of canvassers actuall1 received the 0reater nu#.B The co#plete sentence !here the phrase is found is part of a co#parison and contrast . !ithout costs.1 declarin0 a person ineli0i. . The -acts of the case are as follo!s= On .er of votes in the election. The often+4uoted phrase in Topacio v.ad as the second placer cannot .allots. althou0h this decision is rendered on respondentsK ans!er to the order to sho! cause.e elected and to hold the office of #unicipal president.e said to have held that Bthe !reath of victor1 cannot . a contestB in contrast to the earlier state#ent. In the for#er.ad.ilit1 of To p a c i o on the .B ) proper readin0 of the case reveals that the rulin0 therein is that since the Court of -irst Instance is !ithout urisdiction to tr1 a dis4ualification case .asis of a statutor1 prohi. there is not.ased thereon are null and void and of no effect> and. !e have a contest in the strict sense of the !ord. So ordered. (. /*4" havin0 intervened.1 )ct No. Province of Cavite.B The Court did not rule that Topacio !as dis4ualified and that ).ecause of fraud or irre0ularities in the elections ? ? ? !ith that produced .er of votes.ilit1 of the person !ho o. the 4uestion is confined to the personal character and circu#stances of a sin0le individual.le in that he !as reelected the second ti#e to the office of the #unicipal president on .e re+e?a#ined and its soundness once a0ain put to the test to address the ever+recurrin0 issue that a second+placer !ho loses to an ineli0i.ad contested the election upon the sole 0round that Topacio !as ineli0i.le to hold such an office.allots.une (.e entered accordin0l1 in " da1s. as the !reath of victor1 cannot . !e are of the opinion and so hold that the respondent ud0e e?ceeded his urisdiction in declarin0 in those proceedin0s that no one !as elected #unicipal president of the #unicipalit1 of I#us at the last 0eneral election> and that said order and all su.oard of canvassers' o.le candidate to an1 other candidate !hen the sole 4uestion is the eli0i.iter dictu#.allots. !e have a contest in the strict sense of the !ord.4.allots> in the other. a 0eneral election !as held in the to!n of I#us. If it .ilit1 of the one receivin0 a pluralit1 of the le0all1 cast . In the other case.e found that the successful candidate $accordin0 to the . BIn the for#er. Paredes4" !hich is the urisprudential sprin0 of the principle that a second+placer cannot .tained a pluralit1 in an ille0al #anner.le to . to fill the office of #unicipal president. and 0enerall1 the onl1 result can .e proclai#ed in his stead. The Court !as co#parin0 Bthe effect of a decision that a candidate is not entitled to the office . Paredes cannot .ecause of fraud or irre0ularities in the elections is 4uite different fro# that produced .(/. In the for#er case the court.une 4. In the one case the 4uestion is as to !ho received a pluralit1 of the le0all1 cast .ecause of the opposin0 parties are strivin0 for supre#ac1.allots is . let ud0#ent .et!een the t!o situations. strictl1 spea:in0. Topacio received 48* votes.ein0 confined Bto deter#ine !hich of the contestants has . .B The Court in Topacio v.allots #a1 find that so#e other person than the candidate declared to have received a pluralit1 .ad thus 4uestioned the eli0i.se4uent proceedin0s .ilit1 of the one receivin0 a pluralit1 of the le0all1 cast . !ithout the four 1ears re4uired .ition for see:in0 a second re+election a. after an e?a#ination of the . ). strictl1 spea:in0.e proclai#ed as the !inner in the elections.e transferred fro# an ineli0i. .tained the hi0hest nu#.efore the decidin0 po!er. This doctrine #ust .Fe no! resolve the ne?t issue.ased on the eli0i. a contest. and that another candidate !as the real victor.(/.

alread1 laid do!n . Conse4uentl1. he #a1 have had the opportunit1 to hold hi#self out to the electorate as a le0iti#ate and dul1 4ualified candidate.ilit1. CO%E&EC= The present case perhaps presents the proper ti#e and opportunit1 to fine+tune our a. CO%E&EC"/ !here the Court ruled that the rulin0 in Hui6on and Sa1a+an0 cannot . not!ithstandin0 the outco#e of the elections.B"8 Fe have ruled in the past that a candidateCs victor1 in the election #a1 .allot cannot override the constitutional and statutor1 re4uire#ents for 4ualifications and dis4ualifications of candidates. CO%E&EC"* !hen !e pronounced= ? ? ?. a. those 4ualifications #ust . he #ust o!e his total lo1alt1 to this countr1 onl1. that the candidate !as 4ualified.ove rulin0.e proclai#ed !orth1 to occup1 elective positions in our repu. Fe so ruled in Hui6on v. it is even illo0ical. The popular vote does not cure the ineligibility of a candidate.ut necessaril1 affects his ri0ht to hold pu. The . Fe said that !hile provisions relatin0 to certificates of candidac1 are #andator1 in ter#s.asic 4ualifications of local 0overn#ent officials. !hat stops the Court fro# ad ud0in0 another eli0i.lic office.allot cannot cure the vice of ineli0i. The 4ualifications prescri. in fact.allots.ilit1 is thereafter esta.ilit1 of the one receivin0 a pluralit1 of the le0all1 cast .1 persons desirin0 to serve as elective pu. -or one. that #andator1 provisions re4uirin0 certain steps .ilit1 does not onl1 pertain to his 4ualifications as a candidate .1 the Court is the eli0i.e erased . E4uall1 susceptive of .e e#asculated as #ere dela1 in the resolution of the petition to cancel or den1 due course to a COC can render a Section @< petition useless if a candidate !ith false COC data !ins.efore one even .er of votes. such .1 the electorate alone. 31 e?press le0al #andate.B Fhat prevents the transfer of the !reath of victor1 fro# the ineli0i.e transferred fro# an ineli0i.stantive le0al re4uire#ents of eli0i.ilit1 to run for pu. even the !ill of the electorate e?pressed throu0h the .1 virtue of the lac: of #aterial ti#e or an1 other intervenin0 circu#stances. O.asis to rule in favor of the candidate sou0ht to .On closer scrutin1.lan:et5un4ualified readin0 #a1 provide a !a1 around the la! that effectivel1 ne0ates election re4uire#ents ai#ed at providin0 the electorate !ith the .e not possessed .1 the people of Sorso0on does not e?cuse this patent violation of the salutar1 rule li#itin0 pu.le candidate !ho receives the hi0hest nu#. the phrase relied upon . to 0ive effect to the !ill of the people.eco#es a #a0ic for#ula to .1pass election eli0i.ein0 rendered toothless is Section @4 of the OEC that sets out !hat should . urin0 and renouncin0 all fealt1 and fidelit1 to an1 other state.elieved. To rule other!ise is to tra#ple upon and rent asunder the ver1 la! that sets forth the 4ualifications and dis4ualifications of candidates.allots and ineli0i. his ineli0i.een passed upon prior to election date.lic of the Philippines.e possessed or that certain dis4ualifications . The fact that he !as elected . especiall1 if the1 #ista:enl1 . Fe #i0ht as !ell !rite off our election la!s if the voice of the electorate is the sole deter#inant of !ho should . Section @< #a1 li:e!ise .asis to stand on.asic infor#ation to #a:e an infor#ed choice a. )s an independent state#ent.le candidate to another candidateL Fhen the issue . The first re4uire#ent that #a1 fall !hen an un4ualified readin0 is #ade is Section 8.ilit1 and fitness for office.le candidate to an1 other candidate !hen the sole 4uestion is the eli0i.1 the Court in -rivaldo v.efore elections !ill . The nu#. 9o!ever.le candidate !ho received the ne?t hi0hest nu#.er of votes as the !inner and .ilit1 re4uire#ents. this rule re4uires strict application !hen the deficienc1 is lac: of citi6enship.ilit1 #i0ht not have .lic office and e#plo1#ent onl1 to the citi6ens of this countr1.e frau0ht !ith dan0erous si0nificance for the rule of la! and the inte0rit1 of our elections.lic officials.e #et .e dis4ualified if the #ain issue involves defects in the candidateCs certificate of candidac1. Fhen a person !ho is not 4ualified is voted for and eventuall1 0arners the hi0hest nu#.1 a host of decisions does not even have a le0al .een. Fhen the la! re4uires certain 4ualifications to . CO%E&EC and Sa1a+an0 v. it is an esta.ilit1 as a candidate re#ains unchan0ed. Ineli0i.e stated in a COC.esto!in0 upon hi# that B!reathLB )n ineli0i. Fe sa1 this !ith the reali6ation that a . . he could not even have . The !ill of the people as e?pressed throu0h the . It !as a #ere pronounce#ent of the Court co#parin0 one process !ith another and e?plainin0 the effects thereof. To state .allot cannot cure the defect in the 4ualifications of the candidate. This has .ut .een a candidate in the first place. of the &2C !hich specifies the .e considered a sufficient .lan:et and un4ualified readin0 and application of this rulin0 can .out a candidateCs eli0i.ein0 decided upon . &et us e?a#ine the state#ent= B? ? ? the !reath of victor1 cannot .een urisprudentiall1 clarified in Eelasco v. If a person see:s to serve in the Repu.allots cast in his favor cannot cure the defect of failure to 4ualif1 !ith the su.lished.er of .eco#es a candidate.viousl1.e construed as director1 after the elections.ilit1 of the one receivin0 a pluralit1 of the le0all1 cast .e interpreted !ithout 4ualifications lest BElection victor1 ? ? ? ."( $E#phasis supplied' This issue has also .lic office.er of votes is a !ron0ful !inner. his ineli0i.ed for elective office cannot .lished rule of interpretation as re0ards election la!s. as in this case.lic.

and the votes cast for hi# shall not . )s in an1 contest. CO%E&EC"4 and .e dee#ed elected.e respected.o v. CO%E&EC"" that a void COC cannot produce an1 le0al effect. %a4uilin0 then . fro# holdin0 the office.le and le0iti#ate candidates for# part of that voice and #ust also . the votes cast in favor of the ineli0i.tained the hi0hest nu#.e ineli0i. If for an1 reason a candidate is not declared .).efore a 4ualified candidate !ho placed second to a dis4ualified one can .er of votes #a1 . the !ill of the electorate is still respected.e dis4ualified and he is voted for and receives the !innin0 nu#. )rnado onl1 filed his )ns!er on (" .ecause )rnado failed to file his ans!er to the petition see:in0 his dis4ualification.ilit1 re4uire#ents. The dis4ualif1in0 circu#stance surroundin0 )rnadoCs candidac1 involves his citi6enship.le.ut also the procla#ation. That the dis4ualified candidate has alread1 .1pass election eli0i. CO%E&EC"6 that !hen the voters are !ell a!are !ithin the real# of notoriet1 of a candidateCs dis4ualification and still cast their votes in favor said candidate. if !innin0 the election !ill 0uarantee a disre0ard of constitutional and statutor1 provisions on 4ualifications and dis4ualifications of candidatesL It is i#perative to safe0uard the e?pression of the soverei0n voice throu0h the .allot is #ade to #atter in the end.een declared .e proclai#ed as the !inner.licanis#. then the eli0i. + )n1 candidate !ho has .le candidate are not considered at all in deter#inin0 the !inner of an election.een elected.tainin0 the ne?t hi0her nu#.#it hi#self to the electorate and !in.le ones.eco#es the !inner in the election as he o. No. Ano!led0e . Fhen there are participants !ho turn out to .iter that further co#plicated the rules affectin0 4ualified candidates !ho placed second to ineli0i. . it precisel1 serves as an open invitation for electoral anarch1 to set in.eco#es a #a0ic for#ula to . upon #otion of the co#plainant or an1 intervenor.1âwphi1 $aquiling is not a second%placer as he obtained the highest number of votes from among the qualified candidates. the effect of !hich is to dis4ualif1 the individual fro# continuin0 as a candidate. There is no need to appl1 the rule cited in &a. To allo! the soverei0n voice spo:en throu0h the . The su. Effect of Dis4ualification Case.allot . concealin0 an1 dis4ualification. Fith )rnadoCs dis4ualification. lon0 after the elections and after he !as alread1 proclai#ed as the !inner.le as candidates.us Election Code.le candidate are disre0arded.e voted for.stantive 0round that e?isted prior to the filin0 of the certificate of candidac1 voids not onl1 the COC . Even !hen the votes for the ineli0i. 6646 provides= Section 6.allot to tru#p constitutional and statutor1 provisions on 4ualifications and dis4ualifications of candidates is not de#ocrac1 or repu.e counted.e suspended under this rule . $Citations o#itted' Fhat !ill stop an other!ise dis4ualified individual fro# filin0 a see#in0l1 valid COC.er of votes in such election. Fhen set rules are disre0arded and onl1 the electorateCs voice spo:en throu0h the .1 ensurin0 that its e?ercise respects the rule of la!. #a1 durin0 the pendenc1 thereof order the suspension of the procla#ation of such candidate !henever the evidence of his 0uilt is stron0. The second+placer in the vote count is actuall1 the first+placer a#on0 the 4ualified candidates. in4uir1.e eli0i.een proclai#ed and has assu#ed office is of no #o#ent. and even #ore so. It is electoral anarch1.the o.le candidate o.le.1 final ud0#ent to .1 the electorate of a candidateCs dis4ualification is not necessar1 . their victor1 is voided and the laurel is a!arded to the ne?t in ran: !ho does not possess an1 of the dis4ualifications nor lac:s an1 of the 4ualifications set in the rules to . Thus. Section 6 of R. The votes cast in favor of eli0i.e dis4ualified shall not .ased on a su. the Court or Co##ission shall continue !ith the trial and hearin0 of the action. Election victor1 then .efore an election to . The votes cast in favor of an ineli0i.le candidate do not constitute the sole and total e?pression of the soverei0n voice. The electorateCs a!areness of the candidateCs dis4ualification is not a prere4uisite for the dis4ualification to attach to the candidate. or if he has alread1 .1 final ud0#ent .se4uent dis4ualification .1 rules that deter#ine the 4ualifications and dis4ualifications of those !ho are allo!ed to participate as pla1ers. Fe have ruled in the recent cases of )ratea v. The ver1 e?istence of a dis4ualif1in0 circu#stance #a:es the candidate ineli0i. elections are 0overned . or protest and.vious.une /*(*. That rule is also a #ere o. It does not involve the co##ission of election offenses as provided for in the first sentence of Section 6< of the O#ni.er of votes fro# a#on0 the 4ualified candidates.alos os v. There !as no chance for )rnadoCs procla#ation to . and e#plo1in0 ever1 strate01 to dela1 an1 dis4ualification case filed a0ainst hi# so he can su. candidates #a1 ris: falsif1in0 their COC 4ualifications if the1 :no! that an election victor1 !ill cure an1 defect that their COCs #a1 have.

F9ERE-ORE. &anao del Norte in the (* %a1 /*(* elections.e served personall1 upon the parties and the Co##ission on Elections.ac: to the filin0 of the certificate of candidac1. Respondent RO%%E& )RN)DO 1 C)2OCO is dis4ualified fro# runnin0 for an1 local elective position. Section 4* starts !ith the state#ent BThe follo!in0 persons are dis4ualified fro# runnin0 for an1 elective local position. This leaves %a4uilin0 as the 4ualified candidate !ho o. The affir#ation of )rnadoKs dis4ualification. )rnado . SO ORDERED.B The prohi. &et a cop1 of this Decision . his certificate of candidac1 is thus rendered void fro# the . )rnado !as . The Resolution of the CO%E&EC En 3ane dated / -e. althou0h #ade lon0 after the elections.ar a0ainst the individuals !ho fall under an1 of the enu#eration fro# participatin0 as candidates in the election. reaches .The dis4ualif1in0 circu#stance affectin0 )rnado is his citi6enship.ein0 .1 )NN7&&ED and SET )SIDE.ein0 a non+candidate.ased on Section 4*$d' of the &ocal 2overn#ent Code.eco#in0 a candidate.een counted.itor1 character of the dis4ualification !hich )rnado possessed even prior to the filin0 of the certificate of candidac1. To hold that such procla#ation is valid is to ne0ate the prohi. This Decision is i##ediatel1 e?ecutor1. C)S)N %)CODE %)H7I&IN2 is here.arred fro# even .e0innin0. the rule on succession under the &ocal 2overn#ent Code !ill not appl1.e not a candidate at all in the %a1 /*( * elections. the Petition is 2R)NTED.1 DEC&)RED the dul1 elected %a1or of Aaus!a0an. )rnado is declared to . 9e !as a dual citi6en dis4ualified to run for pu. the votes cast in his favor should not have .oth a -ilipino and an )#erican citi6en !hen he filed his certificate of candidac1.ruar1 /*(( is here.ition serves as a . Fith )rnado .er of votes. )s earlier discussed. It could not have produced an1 other le0al effect e?cept that )rnado rendered it i#possi. No pronounce#ent as to costs. Therefore.ecause he filed his ans!er to the petition !hen the elections !ere conducted alread1 and he !as alread1 proclai#ed the !inner.tained the hi0hest nu#. pre#ises considered. .lic office .le to effect his dis4ualification prior to the elections .