Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2797)
Mootness and Importance of Determination
Although Arnado’s term has concluded, the ruling addresses the broader principle of election validity and candidate qualification under Philippine law, ensuring future consistency.
Lack of New Arguments by Respondent
Arnado failed to present any legal ground warranting reversal. He instead reiterated his performance as mayor and repeated his multiple oath‐takings, which do not bear on the legal issue of citizenship renunciation.
Central Issue: Efficacy of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship
The Court focuses on whether Arnado’s renunciation of U.S. citizenship was effective, not on the number of times he swore allegiance to the Philippines or on his mayoral achievements.
Insufficiency of Achievements and Oaths to Salvage Candidacy
Accomplishments in office and repeated allegiance oaths cannot remedy a failure to fully divest oneself of foreign citizenship as required for elective candidacy.
US Statute on Expatriation and its Effect
Arnado cites Section 349 of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act to claim expatriation upon executing a renunciation affidavit. However, his continued use of a U.S. passport contradicts complete divestment.
Inadmissibility of Unauthenticated Foreign Law
The Court declines to take judicial notice of U.S. law absent proper authenticated documentation under Rule 132, stressing that mere pleading references are insufficient.
Reliance on Philippine Law over Foreign Law
Philippine election law, specifically Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code, governs dual‐citizen candidacy, not foreign statutes. Arnado’s dual citizenship at filing triggers disqualification.
Policy of RA 9225 on Reacquisition of Citizenship
RA 9225 aims to allow reacquisition of Philippine citizenship without loss. The policy’s purpose relates to regaining citizenship, not to permit continued foreign allegiance when seeking office.
Requirement to Renounce Foreign Citizenship for Elective Office
Section 5(2) of RA 9225 mandates a sworn renunciation of all foreign citizenships before filing for elective office. Read with Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code, this enforces exclusive Philippine citizenship for candidates.
Consequence of Continued Use of Foreign Passport
Permitting reinstated Filipinos to use foreign passports post‐renunciation would nullify the exclusive citizenship requirement and grant an unwarranted privilege to dual citizens.
Unambiguous Disqualification under Section 40(d)
There is no ambiguity: dual citizens are disqualified from local elective positions. A passport is a definitive declaration of nationality by the issuing state.
Use of Foreign Passport as Declaration of Nationality
Presenting a passport confirms recognition by that state of the bearer as its national, undermining any claim to exclusive Philippine citizenship at the time of candidacy.
Indisputable Facts of Dual Citizenship at Filing
Arnado was a natural‐born Filipino and a U.S. citizen by naturalization. He reacquired Filipino citizenship and renounced U.S. citizenship but continued using his U.S. passport thereafter.
Continued Use of US Passport Raises Doubt on Renunciation
His post‐renunciation passport use creates legal uncertainty regarding the completeness and sincerity of his renunciation oath.
Implications of En Banc Findings on Passport Use
The COMELEC En Banc reduced passport uses from six to four, attributing continued use to delays in Philippine passport issuance, but this contradicts immigration records and Arnado’s own statements.
Factual Errors in En Banc’s Conclusion
Records show Arnado used his U.S. passport even after allegedly receiving his Philippine passport, a fact he never refuted. The En Banc misapprehended this key point.
Principle of Exclusive Philippine Citizenship in Candidacy
Allowing any post‐renunciation foreign passport use would erode the policy that public office holders must be solely Filipino citizens, effectively nullifying Section 40(d).
Denial of Motions for Reconsideration
Because Arnado has not overcome the clear disqualification rule and factual inconsistencies remain, both the Motion and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration are denied with finality.
Dissent on Policy and Legal Soundness
Justice Brion argues the majority’s decision contradicts RA 9225’s purpose, is legally unsound, and creates a new, unjust ground for loss of Filipino political rights.
Application in Doubt and Uncharted RA 9225 Overlaps
He contends the case presents doubt in an uncharted overlap between RA 9225 and election laws, warranting resolution in Arnado’s favor.
Question of Full Filipino Citizenship and Elective Eligibility
Once Arnado met RA 9225’s renunciation and allegiance requirements, he became a “pure” Filipino eligible for office. The real issue is whether isolated passport use negates that status.
Aznar Precedent on Express Renunciation vs. Conduct
Citing Aznar v. Commission on Elections (1990), he underscores that loss of citizenship requires express renunciation, not inference from isolated conduct such as passport use.
Doubt Resolution in Favor of Filipino Citizenship
In cases of d
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-2797)
Procedural History
- The Supreme Court Resolution addresses the Motion for Reconsideration (filed May 10, 2013) and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (filed May 20, 2013) by respondent Arnado.
- Although Arnado’s term as Mayor ended on June 30, 2010, the Court proceeded to resolve the motions to affirm either the validity of his election or his disqualification.
- The case stemmed from the Court’s April 16, 2013 decision disqualifying Arnado for dual citizenship under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code.
- Lower administrative findings by the COMELEC First Division and COMELEC En Banc were reviewed, particularly regarding Arnado’s use of a U.S. passport after renunciation.
- Justice Brion filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen.
Facts
- Rommel C. Arnado is a natural-born Filipino who acquired U.S. citizenship by naturalization.
- On April 3, 2009, Arnado executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of American Citizenship and took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
- Arnado presented that he took the Oath of Allegiance six times.
- Philippine passport issuance: June 18, 2009.
- Travel records show use of U.S. passport on departure (14 April 2009), arrival (25 June 2009), departure (29 July 2009), arrival (24 November 2009), and Philippine arrival using U.S. passport on 21 January 2010 and 23 March 2010.
- Arnado also used his Philippine passport on six occasions: 12 January 2010; 31 January 2010; 31 March 2010; 16 April 2010; 20 May 2010; and 4 June 2010.
- At the time of filing his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, Arnado was a dual citizen by his own declaration.
Issue
- Whether Arnado’s renunciation of U.S. citizenship was effective when he continued to use his U.S. passport after executing his Affidavit of Renunciation, thereby disqualifying him under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code for dual citizenship.
- Whether foreign laws (specifically Section 349 of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act) could be judicially noticed to determine the efficacy of Arnado’