Macquiling vs.

COMELEC

Facts:

Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. However, as a consequence of his subsequent naturalization as a citizen of
the United States of America, he lost his Filipino citizenship. Arnado applied for repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225
before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA and took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines on 10 July 2008. On the same day an Order of Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition was issued in
his favor.

On 28 April 2010, respondent Linog C. Balua (Balua), another mayoralty candidate, filed a petition to disqualify Arnado and/or
to cancel his certificate of candidacy for municipal mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte in connection with the 10 May 2010
local and national elections. He contends that Arnado is a foreigner and presented travel record indicating that Arnado has
been using his US Passport in entering and departing the Philippines. The said record shows that Arnado left the country on 14
April 2009 and returned on 25 June 2009, and again departed on 29 July 2009, arriving back in the Philippines on 24 November
2009.

On 30 April 2010, the COMELEC (First Division) issued an Order requiring the respondent to personally file his answer and
memorandum within three (3) days from receipt thereof.

After Arnado failed to answer the petition, Balua moved to declare him in default and to present evidence ex-parte.

Neither motion was acted upon, having been overtaken by the 2010 elections where Arnado garnered the highest number of
votes and was subsequently proclaimed as the winning candidate for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. It was only after
his proclamation that Arnado filed his verified answer.

THE RULING OF THE COMELEC FIRST DIVISION

Instead of treating the Petition as an action for the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy based on misrepresentation, the
COMELEC First Division considered it as one for disqualification. Balua’s contention that Arnado is a resident of the United States
was dismissed upon the finding that "Balua failed to present any evidence to support his contention,".

In the matter of the issue of citizenship, however, the First Division disagreed with Arnado’s claim that he is a Filipino citizen.

It found that although Arnado appears to have substantially complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 9225, Arnado’s act of
consistently using his US passport after renouncing his US citizenship on 03 April 2009 effectively negated his Affidavit of
Renunciation. Arnado’s continued use of his US passport is a strong indication that Arnado had no real intention to renounce his US
citizenship and that he only executed an Affidavit of Renunciation to enable him to run for office.

COMELEC allows the order of succession under Sec. 44 of LGC take effect .

Arnado sought reconsideration of the resolution before the COMELEC En Banc on the ground that "the evidence is insufficient
to justify the Resolution and that the said Resolution is contrary to law. Petitioner Casan Macode Maquiling (Maquiling),
another candidate for mayor of Kauswagan, and who garnered the second highest number of votes in the 2010 elections,
intervened in the case and filed before the COMELEC En Banc a Motion for Reconsideration together with an Opposition to
Arnado’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration. Arnado opposed all motions filed by Maquiling, claiming that intervention is
prohibited after a decision has already been rendered, and that as a second-placer, Maquiling undoubtedly lost the elections
and thus does not stand to be prejudiced or benefitted by the final adjudication of the case.

RULING OF THE COMELEC EN BANC

As to Maquiling’s intervention, the COMELEC En Banc also cited Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 which allows intervention in proceedings
for disqualification even after elections if no final judgment has been rendered, agrees on the order of succession under Sec. 44 of
LGC take effect and reversed the decision of the 1st division ruling that the use of a US passport … does not operate to revert back
his status as a dual citizen prior to his renunciation as there is no law saying such.

Issue:

1. WON intervention is allowed in disqualification case. (YES)

 2. WON the use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship affects one’s qualification to run for public
office. (YES)
3. WON the rule on succession (vice mayor will replace) is applicable in this case. (NO)

Ruling:

1. Intervention of a rival candidate in a disqualification case is proper when there has not yet been any proclamation of the
winner.

Yes, under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, which provides: Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be
disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared
by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such
election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion
of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such
candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong. Under this provision, intervention may be allowed in proceedings for
disqualification even after election if there has yet been no final judgment rendered.

The fact that the COMELEC En Banc has already ruled that Maquiling has not shown that the requisites for the exemption to the
second-placer rule set forth in Sinsuat v. COMELEC are present and therefore would not be prejudiced by the outcome of the
case, does not deprive Maquiling of the right to elevate the matter before this Court.

Arnado’s claim that the main case has attained finality as the original petitioner and respondents therein have not appealed the
decision of the COMELEC En Banc, cannot be sustained. The elevation of the case by the intervenor prevents it from attaining
finality. It is only after this Court has ruled upon the issues raised in this instant petition that the disqualification case originally
filed by Balua against Arnado will attain finality.

2. 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 Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants(repudiate)
the Oath of Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective position.

Yes, the court ruled that, the citizenship requirement for elective public office is a continuing one. It must be possessed not just
at the time of the renunciation of the foreign citizenship but continuously. Any act which violates the oath of renunciation
opens the citizenship issue to attack. The use of foreign passport is a positive act that repudiates the oath of renunciation, in
effect it reverted to his earlier status as a dual citizen. Being a dual citizen at the time he filed his COC, he is disqualified to run
for an elective local position pursuant to Sec. 40(d) of the LGC.

Why reverted back to dual citizen? Bec. The use of US passport does not constitutes renunciation and loss Philippine citizenship
it only repudiates the oath of renunciation (katong pag renounce niya as American citizen).

Natural born – naturalized American(dual) – renunciation (pure Filipino) – use of passport (back to being dual bec. It negates
the renunciation)

3. Maquiling is not a second-placer as he obtained the highest number of votes from among the qualified candidates.

NO, the rule on succession will not apply.

The court ruled that the popular vote does not cure the ineligibility of a candidate. The disqualifying circumstance surrounding
Arnado’s candidacy involves his citizenship. It does not involve the commission of election offenses as provided for in the first
sentence of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, the effect of which is to disqualify the individual from continuing as a
candidate, or if he has already been elected, from holding the office.

The affirmation of Arnado's disqualification, although made long after the elections, reaches back to the filing of the certificate
of candidacy (void COC cannot produce legal effect). Arnado is declared to be not a candidate at all in the May 201 0 elections.
Arnado being a non-candidate, the votes cast in his favor should not have been counted. This leaves Maquiling as the
qualified candidate who obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore, the rule on succession under the Local Government
Code will not apply.
Caasi vs CA

Facts:

These two cases were consolidated(G.R. No. 88831 and 84508) because they have the same objective; the disqualification
under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the private respondent, Merito Miguel for the position of municipal mayor of
Bolinao, Pangasinan, to which he was elected in the local elections of January 18, 1988, on the ground that he is a green card
holder, hence, a permanent resident of the United States of America, not of Bolinao.

Miguel admitted that he holds a green card issued to him by the US Immigration Service, but he denied that he is a permanent
resident of the United States. He allegedly obtained the green card for convenience in order that he may freely enter the
United States for his periodic medical examination and to visit his children there. He alleged that he is a permanent resident of
Bolinao, Pangasinan, that he voted in all previous elections, including the plebiscite on February 2,1987 for the ratification of
the 1987 Constitution, and the congressional elections on May 18,1987.

After hearing the consolidated petitions before it, the COMELEC dismissed the petitions on the ground that The possession of a
green card by the respondent (Miguel) does not sufficiently establish that he has abandoned his residence in the Philippines.
Respondent has sufficiently indicated his intention to continuously reside in Bolinao as shown by his having voted in successive
elections in said municipality. As the respondent meets the basic requirements of citizenship and residence for candidates to
elective local officials (sic) as provided for in Section 42 of the Local Government Code, there is no legal obstacle to his
candidacy for mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan.

In G.R. No. 88831, The Court of Appeals ordered the regional trial court to dismiss and desist from further proceeding in the
quo warranto case. The Court of Appeals held that it is pointless for the Regional Trial Court to hear the case questioning the
qualification of the petitioner as resident of the Philippines, after the COMELEC has ruled that the petitioner meets the very
basic requirements of citizenship and residence for candidates to elective local officials (sic) and that there is no legal obstacles
(sic) for the candidacy of the petitioner, considering that decisions of the Regional Trial Courts on quo warranto cases under
the Election Code are appealable to the COMELEC.

Issue:

1. WON a green card is proof that the holder is a permanent resident. (YES)
2. WON Miguel had waived his status as a permanent resident of or immigrant to the USA prior to the local elections on
January 18, 1988. (NO)

Ruling:

1. YES, Miguel's immigration to the United States in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the
Philippines. ( not tourist visa)

Respondent Merito Miguel admits that he holds a green card, which proves that he is a permanent resident or immigrant it of
the United States

Immigration is the removing into one place from another; the act of immigrating the entering into a country with the intention
of residing in it.

An immigrant is a person who removes into a country for the purpose of permanent residence. As shown infra 84, however,
statutes sometimes give a broader meaning to the term "immigrant."

Under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), which provides: Any person who is a permanent resident of or
an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless such person has
waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws.'

A green card holder is an immigrant and as an immigrant(green card holder) therefore he is not qualified to run for public
office.

Section 18, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution is not applicable because Miguel acquired the status of an immigrant BEFORE he
was elected to public office, not during his tenure as mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan.
2. NO, The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some act or acts independent of and done prior to filing his
candidacy for elective office in this country.

Miguel’s act of filing a certificate of candidacy for elective office in the Philippines, did not of itself constitute a waiver of his
status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the United States. The waiver of such immigrant status should be as
indubitable (clear) as his application for it. Absent clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that status or that he
surrendered his green card to the appropriate U.S. authorities before he ran for mayor of Bolinao in the local elections on
January 18, 1988, he was disqualified to run for said public office, hence, his election thereto was null and void.

ATONG PAGLAUM DIGEST SA INTERNET

This case partially abandoned the rulings in Ang Bagong Bayani vs COMELEC and BANAT vs COMELEC.

Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other parties were disqualified by the Commission on Elections in the May 2013 party-list elections
for various reasons but primarily for not being qualified as representatives for marginalized or underrepresented sectors.

Atong Paglaum et al then filed a petition for certiorari against COMELEC alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of
COMELEC in disqualifying them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the said party-lists.

HELD: No. The COMELEC merely followed the guidelines set in the cases of Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT. However, the
Supreme Court remanded the cases back to the COMELEC as the Supreme Court now provides for new guidelines which
abandoned some principles established in the two aforestated cases. The new guidelines are as follows:

I. Parameters. In qualifying party-lists, the COMELEC must use the following parameters:

1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or
organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.

2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not
need to represent any “marginalized and underrepresented” sector.

3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field
candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district
elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list
system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.

4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political
constituencies.” It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The
sectors that are “marginalized and underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack “well-defined political constituencies” include
professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.

5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” must
belong to the “marginalized and underrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral
parties or organizations that lack “well-defined political constituencies” must belong to the sector they represent. The
nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the “marginalized and underrepresented,” or that represent those
who lack “well-defined political constituencies,” either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of
advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide
members of such parties or organizations.

6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified,
provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

II. In the BANAT case, major political parties are disallowed, as has always been the practice, from participating in the party-list
elections. But, since there’s really no constitutional prohibition nor a statutory prohibition, major political parties can now
participate in the party-list system provided that they do so through their bona fide sectoral wing (see parameter 3 above).
Allowing major political parties to participate, albeit indirectly, in the party-list elections will encourage them to work
assiduously in extending their constituencies to the “marginalized and underrepresented” and to those who “lack well-defined
political constituencies.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court gave weight to the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission when they were drafting the
party-list system provision of the Constitution. The Commissioners deliberated that it was their intention to include all parties
into the party-list elections in order to develop a political system which is pluralistic and multiparty. (In the BANAT case, Justice
Puno emphasized that the will of the people should defeat the intent of the framers; and that the intent of the people, in
ratifying the 1987 Constitution, is that the party-list system should be reserved for the marginalized sectors.)

III. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the party-list system is NOT RESERVED for the “marginalized and
underrepresented” or for parties who lack “well-defined political constituencies”. It is also for national or regional parties. It is
also for small ideology-based and cause-oriented parties who lack “well-defined political constituencies”. The common
denominator however is that all of them cannot, they do not have the machinery – unlike major political parties, to field or
sponsor candidates in the legislative districts but they can acquire the needed votes in a national election system like the party-
list system of elections.

If the party-list system is only reserved for marginalized representation, then the system itself unduly excludes other cause-
oriented groups from running for a seat in the lower house.

As explained by the Supreme Court, party-list representation should not be understood to include only labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other sectors that by
their nature are economically at the margins of society. It should be noted that Section 5 of Republic Act 7941 includes, among
others, in its provision for sectoral representation groups of professionals, which are not per se economically marginalized but
are still qualified as “marginalized, underrepresented, and do not have well-defined political constituencies” as they are
ideologically marginalized.

ATONG PAGLAUM VS. COMELEC (SA FULL TEXT)

Facts:

Approximately 280 groups and organizations registered and manifested their desire to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list
elections. In a Resolution dated 5 December 2012,19 the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the COMELEC Second Division’s resolution
to grant Partido ng Bayan ng Bida’s (PBB) registration and accreditation as a political party in the National Capital Region.
However, PBB was denied participation in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections because PBB does not represent any
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector; PBB failed to apply for registration as a party-list group; and PBB failed to
establish its track record as an organization that seeks to uplift the lives of the "marginalized and underrepresented." These 13
petitioners (ASIN, Manila Teachers, ALA-EH, 1AAAP, AKIN, AAB, AI, ALONA, ALAM, KALIKASAN, GUARDJAN, PPP, and PBB) were
not able to secure a mandatory injunction from this Court. The COMELEC, on 7 January 2013 issued Resolution No. 9604,21
and excluded the names of these 13 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the 13 May 2013 party-list elections.

Pursuant to paragraph 222 of Resolution No. 9513, the COMELEC En Banc scheduled summary evidentiary hearings to
determine whether the groups and organizations that filed manifestations of intent to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list
elections have continually complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v.
COMELEC. The COMELEC disqualified 39 groups. These 39 petitioners (AKB, Atong Paglaum, ARAL, ARC, UNIMAD, 1BRO-PGBI,
1GANAP/GUARDIANS, A BLESSED Party-List, 1-CARE, APEC, AT, ARARO, AGRI, AKMA-PTM, KAP, AKO-BAHAY, BANTAY, PACYAW,
PASANG MASDA, KAKUSA, AG, ANAD, GREENFORCE, FIRM 24-K, ALIM, AAMA, SMART, ABP, BAYANI, AANI, A-IPRA, COCOFED,
ABANG LINGKOD, ABROAD, BINHI, BUTIL, 1st KABAGIS, 1-UTAK, SENIOR CITIZENS) were able to secure a mandatory injunction
from this Court, directing the COMELEC to include the names of these 39 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the
13 May 2013 party-list elections.

Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. This Court issued
Status Quo Ante Orders in all petitions. This Decision governs only the 54 consolidated petitions that were granted Status Quo
Ante Orders,

ISSUE:
first, whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disqualifying
petitioners from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either by denial of their new petitions for registration
under the party-list system, or by cancellation of their existing registration and accreditation as party-list organizations; and

second, whether the criteria (two criteria: (1) all national, regional, and sectoral groups or organizations must represent the
"marginalized and underrepresented" sectors, and (2) all nominees must belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector they represent.) for participating in the party-list system laid down in Ang Bagong Bayani and
Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency v. Commission on Elections49 (BANAT) should be applied by
the COMELEC in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections.

Ruling:

1. No. The COMELEC merely followed the guidelines set in the cases of Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT.

2. No. contrary to the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.

Petitioners may have been disqualified by the COMELEC because as political or regional parties they are not organized along
sectoral lines and do not represent the "marginalized and underrepresented." Also, petitioners' nominees who do not belong to
the sectors they represent may have been disqualified, although they may have a track record of advocacy for their sectors.
Likewise, nominees of non-sectoral parties may have been disqualified because they do not belong to any sector. Moreover, a
party may have been disqualified because one or more of its nominees failed to qualify, even if the party has at least one
remaining qualified nominee (contrary ni cya sa new guidelines set by the SC)

New Parameters for the 2013 party-list elections:

1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or
organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.

2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do
not need to represent any "marginalized and underrepresented" sector.

3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field
candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district
elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list
system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition.

4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political
constituencies." It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The
sectors that are "marginalized and underrepresented" include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack "well-defined political constituencies"
include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.

5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented"
must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of
sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies" must belong to the sector they represent.
The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented," or that represent
those who lack "well-defined political constituencies," either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track
record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona-
fide members of such parties or organizations.

6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified,
provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.