Case Summary (G.R. No. 216607)
Key Dates
- October 3, 2012: Chua files Certificate of Candidacy
- May 13, 2013: National and local elections held
- May 15, 2013: Chua proclaimed; Fragata files petition for disqualification
- October 17, 2013: COMELEC Second Division annuls Chua’s proclamation, proclaims Bacani
- January 30, 2015: COMELEC En Banc denies Chua’s motion for reconsideration
- April 5, 2016: Supreme Court renders decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution: Qualifications for elective office (natural-born citizenship requirement)
- Omnibus Election Code
• Section 74: Contents of Certificate of Candidacy (including non-permanent-resident declaration)
• Section 78: Petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy (false material representation)
• Rule 25, Section 3 (COMELEC Rules of Procedure): Period to file petition for disqualification - Local Government Code
• Section 40(d): Disqualification of dual citizens from elective local office
• Section 45(a)(1): Rule on filling permanent vacancies in local sanggunian - Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003)
• Section 5(2): Personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship required when filing for elective office
Facts
- Chua, natural-born Filipino, became a U.S. citizen by naturalization on December 7, 1977, thereby losing Filipino citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63.
- On September 21, 2011, she took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, reacquiring Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 but did not execute the separate sworn renunciation of U.S. citizenship required by Section 5(2) of RA 9225.
- Chua filed her Certificate of Candidacy on October 3, 2012, declaring eligibility and non-permanent-resident status.
- After the May 13, 2013 elections, Chua ranked sixth and was proclaimed. Fragata then filed a petition to disqualify her on grounds of U.S. permanent residency.
- Bacani, ranked seventh, moved to intervene, alleging Chua’s dual citizenship and seeking proclamation in her stead.
Procedural History
- COMELEC Second Division treated Fragata’s petition as one for disqualification under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code and Rule 25, Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules, holding it was filed within the permissible period (any time after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy up to the date of proclamation).
- The Division annulled Chua’s proclamation and directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim Bacani.
- The COMELEC En Banc denied Chua’s motion for reconsideration.
- Chua filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court, challenging (1) the nature and timeliness of Fragata’s petition, and (2) the application of the Local Government Code’s succession rule in filling vacancies.
Issues
- Whether Fragata’s petition was one for disqualification or a petition to deny due course/cancel a certificate of candidacy, and whether it was timely filed.
- Whether the rule on succession under Section 45 of the Local Government Code applies in place of proclaiming the next highest vote-getter.
Analysis
Nature and Timeliness of the Petition
- Fragata alleged Chua was a permanent resident abroad—a ground for disqualification under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code—not a material misrepresentation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
- Under Rule 25, Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules, a petition for disqualification may be filed any time after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy up to the date of proclamation. Fragata filed on the day of Chua’s proclamation, making it timely.
Dual Citizenship and Void-ab-Initio Certificate
- At the time of filing her certificate of candidacy, Chua remained a dual citizen because she did not execute the personal and sworn renunciation of U.S. citizenship required by RA 9225, Section 5(2).
- Dual citizens are disqualified from elective local office under Local Government Code Section 40(d). Accordingly, Chua’s certificate was void ab initio and she was considered a non-candidate. Votes cast for her were stray.
Non-Applicability of Succession Rule
- Section 45’s rule on succession applies to vacancies arising after a valid candidate withdraws, dies, or is otherwise incapacitated post-fi
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 216607)
Facts
- On October 3, 2012, petitioner Arlene Llena Empaynado Chua filed her certificate of candidacy for Councilor of the Fourth District of Manila (six seats) in the May 13, 2013 elections.
- Chua placed sixth in the official canvass and was proclaimed Councilor on May 15, 2013.
- On the same day, private respondent Imelda E. Fragata filed a “petition to declare [Chua] as a nuisance candidate” and to cancel Chua’s certificate of candidacy, alleging Chua was not a Filipino citizen and was a permanent U.S. resident with a valid Green Card and Georgia nursing license.
- Chua answered, asserting natural-born Filipino status (born to Filipino parents), residency in Sampaloc, Manila since 2008, timely candidacy, and that Fragata’s petition was belated and should have been a quo warranto.
- On June 19, 2013, Krystle Marie C. Bacani (seventh placer) moved to intervene, arguing that Chua was a dual citizen and thus ineligible under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code, and that Bacani should be proclaimed under Maquiling v. COMELEC.
- Chua opposed Bacani’s intervention as another belated petition to cancel her certificate, filed after elections and after her proclamation.
- The COMELEC Second Division allowed Bacani to intervene, treated Fragata’s petition as one for disqualification under Section 40 of the Local Government Code, found it timely (filed on proclamation day, within Rule 25, Sec. 3), ruled Chua a dual citizen (naturalized U.S. citizen in 1977; reacquired Philippine citizenship in 2011 by oath but did not renounce U.S. citizenship), held her certificate of candidacy void ab initio and votes stray, and directed proclamation of Bacani as the candidate with the sixth highest votes among eligible persons.
- Chua’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC En Banc on January 30, 2015. She petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition, contending: (a) Fragata filed the wrong remedy and was out of time; (b) her proclamation must stand; and (c) any vacancy should be filled by presidential appointment under Section 45 of the Local Government Code, not by proclaiming Bacani.
- Fragata, Bacani, and COMELEC in joint and separate comments maintained the petition was for disqualification, was timely, and that dual citizenship rendered Chua ineligible, rendering her votes stray and entitling Bacani to proclamation under Maquiling.
Procedural History
- COMELEC Second Division (Resolution dated October 17, 2013):
• Treated Fragata’s petition as a disqualification case.
• Allowed Bacani’s