Title
Arnado vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 210164
Decision Date
Aug 18, 2015
Rommel Arnado, a natural-born Filipino who reacquired citizenship, was disqualified from mayoral races in 2010 and 2013 after using his U.S. passport post-renunciation, violating RA 9225. The Supreme Court upheld his disqualification, prioritizing legal eligibility over voter mandate.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210164)

Petitioner

Rommel C. Arnado’s relevant acts in the record include: naturalization in the U.S., application for repatriation under RA 9225, taking an Oath of Allegiance (July 10, 2008), execution of an Affidavit of Renunciation (April 3, 2009), execution of an additional renunciation allegedly on November 30, 2009, filing Certificates of Candidacy (CoC) for mayor (November 30, 2009 for 2010; October 1, 2012 for 2013), and executing an Affidavit affirming the April 3, 2009 renunciation on May 9, 2013.

Respondents and Other Parties

Commission on Elections (Comelec) — First Division, Second Division and En Banc acted at various stages to assess Arnado’s eligibility and later to annul his proclamation for 2013; Florante T. Capitan — competitor who filed the disqualification petitions; Linog C. Balua and Casan Maquiling — earlier contestants whose actions led to the Maquiling case that informed later proceedings.

Key Dates

  • July 10, 2008: Arnado took Oath of Allegiance under RA 9225 and Order of Approval issued same date.
  • April 3, 2009: Affidavit of Renunciation executed.
  • November 30, 2009: Filed CoC for 2010 elections (and allegedly executed another renunciation same date).
  • October 1, 2012: Filed CoC for 2013 elections.
  • April 16, 2013: Supreme Court decision in Maquiling v. Comelec (10–5) disqualifying Arnado for the May 2010 elections.
  • May 9, 2013: Arnado executed an affidavit affirming his April 3, 2009 renunciation.
  • May 13–14, 2013: 2013 elections held; Arnado won and was proclaimed (8,902 votes, 84%).
  • September 6, 2013: Comelec Second Division disqualified Arnado for the 2013 elections.
  • December 9, 2013: Comelec En Banc affirmed Second Division and annulled Arnado’s proclamation; proclaimed Capitan.
  • August 18, 2015: Supreme Court rendered decision in the present certiorari petition (using the 1987 Constitution as the constitutional basis).

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

1987 Constitution: principles on citizenship and the prohibition against dual allegiance are relevant (Article IV and related jurisprudence cited in the record). Statutory provisions: RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re‑acquisition Act of 2003) — Section 3 (oath of allegiance) and Section 5(2) (requirement that those seeking elective office make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships prior to or at time of filing CoC); Local Government Code (1991) — Sections 39 (qualifications) and 40(d) (disqualification for dual citizenship). Rules of procedure and standards: Rule 64/Rule 65 certiorari standard (grave abuse of discretion), Comelec Rules (Rule 25 on disqualification petitions, summary proceedings).

Factual antecedents and travel/identity evidence

Arnado reacquired Philippine citizenship via RA 9225 processes and took the required oath. A central factual dispute concerned his subsequent use of his U.S. passport after his April 3, 2009 affidavit of renunciation. Administrative records and certifications (e.g., Bureau of Immigration listings and Comelec passport copies) showed entries and presented travel dates; the record reflects conflicting assertions as to whether Arnado used a U.S. passport on certain dates after enrollment of his Philippine passport, and whether a November 30, 2009 affidavit of renunciation existed and was presented earlier.

2010 administrative litigation and Maquiling decision

In 2010 an opponent (Balua) challenged Arnado’s eligibility, alleging his continued use of a U.S. passport negated his renunciation. The Comelec First Division found the April 3, 2009 renunciation negated by later use of the U.S. passport and nullified his proclamation. Comelec En Banc reversed (Feb. 2, 2011), accepting Arnado’s explanation that he used the U.S. passport because he had not yet received the Philippine passport. The matter reached the Supreme Court in Maquiling (G.R. No. 195649). On April 16, 2013 (10–5), the Court annulled the Comelec En Banc decision, held that Arnado’s use of his U.S. passport after renunciation amounted to recantation of the affidavit and effectively reverted him to dual‑citizen status for purposes of the Local Government Code, and disqualified him from the May 2010 elections.

Filing, 2013 election events, and Comelec petitions

While Maquiling was pending, Arnado filed his CoC for the May 2013 elections (Oct. 1, 2012). After the Supreme Court promulgated Maquiling (April 16, 2013), Arnado executed an affirmatory affidavit (May 9, 2013). Capitan filed a petition to disqualify Arnado (SPA No. 13‑309 (DC)) on May 10, 2013; the case was assigned to Comelec Second Division. The May 13, 2013 elections were held during pendency; Arnado won by large margin and was proclaimed May 14, 2013. Capitan then filed a petition to annul the proclamation.

Comelec Second Division and En Banc rulings (2013)

Comelec Second Division (Sept. 6, 2013) applied Maquiling and ruled that Arnado had not complied with the express requirement of Section 5(2) of RA 9225 at the time he filed his CoC on October 1, 2012, because his April 3, 2009 affidavit had been deemed withdrawn by his later use of his U.S. passport and no timely renunciation was executed prior to filing the CoC. A May 9, 2013 affidavit was held belated and insufficient. Comelec En Banc (Dec. 9, 2013) affirmed, annulled Arnado’s proclamation and declared Capitan duly elected. Enforcement actions followed and Arnado sought judicial relief.

Issues presented to the Supreme Court in the certiorari petition

Arnado raised four principal arguments: (I) Comelec violated procedural due process and committed grave abuse by failing to dismiss Capitan’s petition (forum‑shopping and late filing); (II) due process violation and grave abuse in permitting Commissioner Elias Yusoph to participate in review of a decision he had authored; (III) grave abuse in disenfranchising 84% of Kauswagan voters by disqualifying the proclaimed winner; and (IV) grave abuse in disqualifying petitioner who had fully complied with RA 9225 before filing his CoC on October 1, 2012 (asserting existence of a November 30, 2009 renunciation affidavit).

Standard of review: certiorari and grave abuse of discretion

The Court reiterated that certiorari under Rule 64/65 is limited to jurisdictional questions — whether the tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse requires a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; mere error of judgment or ordinary abuse is insufficient. Administrative findings of fact supported by substantial evidence are generally final and not subject to re‑examination, except where misapprehension of facts or reliance on wrong/irrelevant considerations rises to grave abuse.

Court’s analysis on procedural objections (forum‑shopping, timeliness, and process)

The Court found Arnado’s forum‑shopping allegation unproven: he did not identify or submit the other petition (SPC No. 13‑019) or show identity of parties, issues, and reliefs sufficient to establish litis pendentia. On timeliness, Comelec Rules (Rule 25 Sec. 3) permit a petition for disqualification “any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation”; Capitan’s petition (filed May 10, 2013) and the annulment challenge were therefore timely in relation to Arnado’s proclamation on May 14, 2013. The Court also rejected assertions of procedural deprivation for failure to consolidate or absence of a trial setting, noting that Rule 25 proceedings are summary, may dispense with trial and formal rules of evidence, and consolidation is permissive. The alleged participation of Commissioner Yusoph in En Banc review was held not to show any denial of due process because the En Banc resolution was per curiam and no record indicated that Yusoph was the singular author or that his participation violated rules.

Court’s analysis on RA 9225 compliance and application of Maquiling precedent

The Court concluded Arnado had not satisfied the explicit requirement of Section 5(2) of RA 9225 at the time he filed his CoC on October 1, 2012. Under RA 9225 natural‑born Filipinos who reacquire Philippine citizenship must, for elective office, make a personal and sworn renunciation of all foreign citizenships prior to or at the time of filing the CoC. The Comelec properly applied Maquiling, which had held that Arnado’s use of his U.S. passport after his April 3, 2009 affidavit effectively negated that affidavit. Because that defect persisted at time of the Oct. 1, 2012 CoC, the Comelec correctly disqualified Arnado for the May 2013 elections. The Court applied stare decisis: Maquiling’s holding was binding where the facts were substantially the same and where the petitioner had not cured the defect at the critical time (filing of CoC).

Evidence issues and belatedly presented affidavit

The Court refused to give probative weight to the allegedly newly discovered November 30, 2009 affidavit of renunciation because the original/certified copy was not presented and it was not formally offered before Comelec or in Maquiling; its belated presentation violated rules of evidence and due process principles. The Court relied on precedent disallowing new evidence raised for the first time on appeal where it could have been presented earlier. The certification from the Bureau of Immigration indicating use of a U.S. passport on certain dates was treated as uncontroverted because Arnado did not rebut it in the record.

Popular vote, remedy, and legal principle that victory does not cure disqualification

The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that popular vote or landslide victory does not validate the election of a

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms