Adm. Case No. 216-CFI - Barroso vs. Arche

Case Summary (Adm. Case No. 216-CFI)

Petitioner

Arsenio A. Agustin was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1997, subsequently executed an Oath of Allegiance and an Affidavit of Renunciation of U.S. citizenship, filed his CoC on October 5, 2012 and declared in the CoC that he was a natural-born Filipino and a resident of Marcos, Ilocos Norte for 25 years.

Respondent

Salvador S. Pillos was a rival mayoralty candidate who filed the petition in COMELEC (SPA No. 13-023 (DC)) alleging material misrepresentation in Agustin’s CoC, specifically that Agustin falsely represented residency for one year, citing that Agustin had registered as a voter in the municipality only on May 31, 2012.

Key Dates

Naturalization as U.S. citizen: 1997.
Oath of Allegiance: March 9, 2012 (per documents later submitted).
Affidavit of Renunciation: October 2, 2012.
Filing of CoC: October 5, 2012.
Travel using U.S. passport after renunciation: October 6, 2012 and subsequent travels.
COMELEC Second Division resolution denying Pillos’ petition: January 28, 2013.
COMELEC En Banc resolution cancelling and denying due course to Agustin’s CoC: April 23, 2013.
May 13, 2013 elections and subsequent proclamation of Agustin as winner (later contested).

Applicable Law and Rules

1987 Constitution (as the case decision is post-1990).
Republic Act No. 9225 (RA 9225) — Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, specifically Section 3 and Section 5(2) concerning re-acquisition and conditions for elective office.
Omnibus Election Code (OEC), Section 78 (petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC) and related jurisprudence distinguishing Section 78 petitions from disqualification petitions.
Local Government Code (LGC), Section 40(d) — disqualification of persons with dual citizenship from running for elective local positions.
Republic Act No. 6646, Section 6 — effect of disqualification declared by final judgment before an election.
COMELEC Rules of Procedure provisions cited by the Court (e.g., Rule 13, Section 1(d) disallowing motions for reconsideration of en banc rulings; Rule 18 Section 13; Rule 37 Section 3) concerning finality of COMELEC en banc resolutions.

Procedural Background in COMELEC

Pillos filed a Section 78-type petition to deny due course to or cancel Agustin’s CoC alleging material misrepresentation on residency. Agustin answered, asserting that residency, not voter registration, was the relevant requirement and that he had renounced U.S. citizenship and presented an Affidavit of Renunciation. The COMELEC Second Division denied Pillos’ petition for lack of merit on January 28, 2013. Pillos sought reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc; the En Banc granted Pillos’ motion for reconsideration in part and cancelled and denied due course to Agustin’s CoC on April 23, 2013 on grounds that Agustin failed to sufficiently show compliance with RA 9225 (in particular, failure to present his Oath of Allegiance at that time).

Submission of Additional Evidence and Election Day Events

After the April 23, 2013 En Banc resolution, Agustin filed a Verified Urgent Motion for Reconsideration (May 3, 2013) and attached the Order of Approval (February 12, 2012) and his Oath of Allegiance (March 9, 2012) issued by the Philippine Consulate General in Honolulu, and certified that such documents had been received and retained by COMELEC election officers. Despite the En Banc resolution, Agustin’s name remained on the ballot; he received the highest number of votes and was proclaimed mayor on May 13, 2013. Agustin then filed the present petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC En Banc and violation of due process.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The primary issue was Agustin’s eligibility to run for mayor — whether he was disqualified by reason of dual citizenship or whether his CoC could be cancelled for material misrepresentation. A subsidiary issue was the propriety of Pillos’ claim to be proclaimed mayor in light of COMELEC and Supreme Court proceedings and the timing of finality of the disqualification.

Administrative Due Process Determination

The Court ruled that administrative due process was observed. Agustin could not credibly claim denial of due process because he had placed his citizenship at issue in his answer to the petition and had the opportunity to oppose Pillos’ motion for reconsideration and later to file motions and submit evidence. The Court reiterated that administrative due process does not always require trial-type hearings and may be satisfied by notice and opportunity to explain or defend, including the opportunity to seek reconsideration.

Validity of the CoC and Nature of Section 78 Petitions

The Court explained that a valid CoC is created by timely filing and a sworn declaration of eligibility. A Section 78 petition addresses material misrepresentations in the CoC and differs from a disqualification petition: Section 78 cancels a CoC when there is a false material representation with deliberate intent to mislead, whereas disqualification proceedings under other provisions focus on substantive qualifications. The Court emphasized that cancellation under Section 78 requires both materiality and intent to deceive (citing Mitra and other precedents), and that a Section 78 petition must be denied if it fails to meet these standards.

RA 9225 Compliance and Oath of Allegiance

The Court analyzed Agustin’s compliance with RA 9225: Section 5(2) requires those re-acquiring Philippine citizenship to, at the time of filing CoC, make a personal and sworn renunciation of all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer. Agustin’s Oath of Allegiance (March 9, 2012) and Affidavit of Renunciation (October 2, 2012) demonstrated that he had, on October 5, 2012 (CoC filing date), reverted to exclusive Filipino citizenship and thus met RA 9225’s requirements at that time. The Court concluded that Agustin did not make a material misrepresentation in his CoC regarding eligibility and that cancellation of his CoC on the ground of material misrepresentation lacked legal and factual basis.

Dual Citizenship by Subsequent Passport Use and Disqualification under LGC

Despite the foregoing, the Court upheld COMELEC’s determination that Agustin was ineligible to run because he reverted to dual citizenship after using his U.S. passport on October 6, 2012 — representing himself as a U.S. citizen despite having renounced U.S. citizenship on October 2, 2012 and having a Philippine passport already issued on Au

Case Syllabus (Adm. Case No. 216-CFI)

Case Caption, Decision, and Core Holding

Decision rendered by the Supreme Court, En Banc, reported at 772 Phil. 592, G.R. No. 207105, November 10, 2015.
Opinion authored by Justice Bersamin.
Core holding summarized by the Court: a person of dual citizenship is disqualified from running for a public office in the Philippines; petitioner’s certificate of candidacy (CoC) was not materially misrepresentative but petitioner was nonetheless disqualified for resuming exercise of U.S. citizenship after renunciation, and therefore votes cast for him should not be counted; respondent Salvador S. Pillos is declared duly elected Mayor of Marcos, Ilocos Norte.

Antecedent Facts (Personal and Chronological)

Petitioner Arsenio A. Agustin was naturalized as a citizen of the United States of America in 1997.
On October 5, 2012, Agustin filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for Mayor of the Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte for the May 13, 2013 local elections.
As the official candidate of the Nacionalista Party, Agustin declared in his CoC that he was eligible for the office sought, that he was a natural born Filipino citizen, and that he had been a resident of the Municipality of Marcos for 25 years.
On October 6, 2012, after filing his CoC (and after his affidavit of renunciation dated October 2, 2012), Agustin traveled to Hawaii and used his U.S. passport.
Agustin had been issued a Philippine passport on August 23, 2012, and he executed his Oath of Allegiance on March 9, 2012 and his Affidavit of Renunciation on October 2, 2012 (the Oath and Order of Approval were later produced and filed).

Filing Challenging COC and Ground Alleged

On October 10, 2012, respondent Salvador S. Pillos filed in COMELEC a Petition To Deny Due Course and/or to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Arsenio A. Agustin, docketed SPA No. 13-023 (DC).
The petition alleged material misrepresentation in Agustin’s CoC, specifically that Agustin falsely declared residency of 25 years while he had registered as a voter in the municipality only on May 31, 2012.
The petition prayed that the Commission issue an order to immediately deny due course to and/or cancel Agustin’s CoC and for other just and equitable reliefs.

Petitioner’s Answer and Documentary Exhibits

In his answer, Agustin asserted:
- The one-year requirement is a residency requirement, not a voter registration requirement.
- Residency is not dependent upon citizenship; his travel to Hawaii for business did not violate residency requirements according to prevailing jurisprudence.
- He attached a copy of his Affidavit of Renunciation of U.S./American citizenship executed on October 2, 2012, asserting compliance with re-acquisition requirements of Philippine citizenship.
Subsequently, Agustin filed and attached copies of the Order of Approval dated February 12, 2012 and his Oath of Allegiance dated March 9, 2012 issued by the Consulate General of the Philippines in Honolulu, Hawaii, and certifications by Election Officers in Ilocos Norte attesting the documents were received by COMELEC and retained in its files.

COMELEC Second Division Resolution (Jan 28, 2013)

The COMELEC Second Division issued an omnibus resolution denying the petitions for lack of merit, reasoning:
- Registered voter status is a material fact akin to citizenship or residence, but requirements differ: voter registration requirement does not carry a one-year preregistration rule.
- Length of residence cannot be inferred false solely because party became registered voters only recently.
- Registration as a voter suffices if done upon filing COC or within prescribed period.
- Petitioners (challengers) failed to substantiate allegations that respondents were residents or citizens of other countries that prevented voting; burden of proof lies with the party alleging facts.

Motion for Reconsideration to COMELEC En Banc by Pillos

On February 12, 2013, Pillos moved for reconsideration to the COMELEC En Banc.
Pillos emphasized:
- Bureau of Immigration certification reflected petitioner had declared U.S. citizenship in travel documents.
- Agustin used his U.S. passport to travel to Hawaii on October 6, 2012 despite renouncing U.S. citizenship on October 2, 2012 and having filed his CoC on October 5, 2012 where he declared residency in Marcos.
- Agustin’s declaration of eligibility in his CoC constituted material misrepresentation due to noncompliance with citizenship and residency requirements.

COMELEC En Banc Resolution (April 23, 2013) — Assailed Resolution

The COMELEC En Banc granted Pillos’ motion for reconsideration as against Agustin and cancelled and denied due course Agustin’s CoC.
COMELEC reasoning:
- Having admitted his dual citizenship, Agustin bore the burden to prove compliance with Republic Act No. 9225 (RA 9225), particularly Sections 3 and 5(2).
- Agustin presented an Affidavit of Renunciation but failed to furnish the Oath of Allegiance; the Affidavit stated the Oath was attached as Annex “B,” but the attachment was not produced for COMELEC’s perusal.
- Having failed to sufficiently show compliance with RA 9225, COMELEC cancelled/denied due course Agustin’s CoC.

Post-En Banc Proceedings, Election, and Subsequent Filings

On May 3, 2013, Agustin filed a Verified Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with Leave of Court attaching his Order of Approval and Oath of Allegiance (dated March 9, 2012) and certifications from Ilocos Norte election officers indicating COMELEC had the documents in its files; he explained the documents were not earlier presented because the original petition focused on residency.
Pillos filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution and Comment on May 8, 2013, asking implementation of cancellation.
On May 13, 2013 election day, Agustin’s name remained on the ballot; Agustin was proclaimed duly elected Municipal Mayor of Marcos, Ilocos Norte for obtaining 5,020 votes — the highest among contending parties.
Sensing the approaching 30-day period for filing a certiorari petition, Agustin filed on May 24, 2013 an Urgent Motion to Withdraw his May 3 motion for reconsideration, and on May 28, 2013 Agustin instituted the instant case in the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by COMELEC En Banc.
COMELEC En Banc, on June 18, 2013, issued the writ of execution, pointing out a motion for reconsideration of an en banc resolution was not allowed under Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules; the April 23, 2013 resolution was deemed final and executory pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, Section 8(2).
On July 16, 2013, the Supreme Court required parties to observe the status quo preceding the COMELEC En Banc April 23,