Case Digest (G.R. No. 216607) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Arlene Llena Empaynado Chua v. Commission on Elections, Imelda E. Fragata, and Krystle Marie C. Bacani (G.R. No. 216607, April 5, 2016), petitioner Chua filed on October 3, 2012 her Certificate of Candidacy for Councilor of the Fourth District of Manila in the May 13, 2013 elections. After garnering the sixth highest votes, she was proclaimed on May 15, 2013. On that same day, private respondent Fragata, a registered voter in the Fourth District, filed a petition captioned as one to declare Chua a nuisance candidate and to cancel her certificate, alleging Chua was not Filipino and was a permanent U.S. resident. Chua answered that she was natural-born Filipino, had filed her residence in Manila since 2008, and that Fragata’s petition was filed out of time. Intervenor Bacani, who placed seventh, moved to intervene and asserted that Chua was a dual citizen disqualified under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. The COMELEC Second Division on October 17, 2013 ruled th Case Digest (G.R. No. 216607) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioner Arlene Llena Empaynado Chua filed her Certificate of Candidacy on October 3, 2012 for Councilor, Fourth District of Manila, which elects six members.
- After the May 13, 2013 elections, Chua placed sixth and was proclaimed on May 15, 2013.
- Challenges Before the Comelec
- On May 15, 2013, respondent Imelda E. Fragata filed a “petition to declare [Chua] as a nuisance candidate” and to cancel her COC, alleging Chua was (a) not a Filipino citizen and (b) a U.S. permanent resident (Green Card holder) who had lived in Georgia for 33 years.
- Chua answered, asserting natural-born Filipino status, residency in Sampaloc since 2008, and that Fragata’s petition was belated, her remedy being quo warranto.
- Intervention and Comelec Resolutions
- On June 19, 2013, Krystle Marie C. Bacani, seventh placer, moved to intervene, asserting Chua was a dual citizen disqualified under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code and citing an immigration order showing Chua’s U.S. naturalization in 1977 and continued use of a U.S. passport.
- The Comelec Second Division (Oct. 17, 2013) held Fragata’s petition was one for disqualification, filed within period (post-COC filing to proclamation), found Chua a dual citizen (failure to renounce U.S. citizenship under R.A. 9225 §5[2]), voided her COC ab initio, disregarded votes for her, and proclaimed Bacani.
- The Comelec en banc (Jan. 30, 2015) denied Chua’s motion for reconsideration.
- Supreme Court Petition
- Chua sought certiorari and prohibition, arguing (a) Fragata’s petition was belated and mischaracterized, (b) her proclamation created a permanent vacancy to be filled by presidential appointment under LGC §45, and (c) the voice of the people should be respected.
- Fragata, Bacani, and the Comelec maintained the petition was proper for disqualification, Chua was a dual citizen at COC filing, her COC void ab initio, and Bacani rightly proclaimed under Maquiling v. Comelec.
Issues:
- Nature and Timeliness of Fragata’s Petition
- Whether Fragata filed a petition for disqualification or a petition to deny due course/cancel COC.
- Whether the petition was timely under the relevant rules.
- Applicability of Succession Rule
- Whether the rule on filling permanent vacancies under LGC §45 applies to a case where the ineligibility existed prior to candidacy.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)