Chua vs. Commission on Elections

Dual citizens are disqualified from running for any elective local position under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code; their certificates of candidacy are void ab initio because the disqualifying circumstance exists prior to filing, votes cast for them are stray, and the candidate with the next highest number of votes among eligible candidates is entitled to be proclaimed.

Arlene Llena Empaynado Chua was born to Filipino parents in Cabanatuan City in 1967, making her a natural-born Filipino citizen. She later naturalized as an American citizen in 1977, losing her Philippine citizenship. On September 21, 2011, she reacquired her Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 by taking an Oath of Allegiance, but failed to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of her American citizenship as required by Section 5(2) of the same Act for those seeking elective public office. She continued to use her American passport for travel in 2012 and 2013. She filed her Certificate of Candidacy for Councilor of the Fourth District of Manila on October 3, 2012, and was proclaimed winner on May 15, 2013 after garnering the sixth highest number of votes.

• Chua filed her Certificate of Candidacy for Councilor for the Fourth District of Manila on October 3, 2012.
• The Fourth District of Manila is entitled to six seats in the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
• After the elections, Chua garnered the sixth highest number of votes and was proclaimed by the Board of Canvassers on May 15, 2013.
• On the same date of proclamation, Imelda E. Fragata filed a petition to declare Chua a nuisance candidate and to deny due course to or cancel her Certificate of Candidacy, alleging Chua was not a Filipino citizen and was a permanent resident of the United States (green card holder, resided in Georgia for 33 years, registered nurse in Georgia).
• Krystle Marie C. Bacani, who ranked seventh in the elections, filed a Motion to Intervene on June 19, 2013, claiming she should be proclaimed if Chua was disqualified.
• Chua was born to Filipino parents in 1967 but was naturalized as an American citizen on December 7, 1977.
• She reacquired Philippine citizenship on September 21, 2011 by taking an Oath of Allegiance under Republic Act No. 9225.
• She did not execute a sworn and personal renunciation of her American citizenship as required by Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225.
• She continued using her American passport for travel on October 16, 2012, December 11, 2012, and May 30, 2013.
• The Commission on Elections Second Division allowed Bacani's intervention and ruled that Fragata's petition was actually one for disqualification, not cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy.
• The Commission found Chua was a dual citizen at the time of filing her Certificate of Candidacy and was thus disqualified under Section 40 of the Local Government Code.
• The Commission annulled Chua's proclamation and directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim Bacani as the duly elected Councilor.
• Chua's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Commission En Banc on January 30, 2015.

• Chua argued that Fragata's petition was belatedly filed, whether treated as a petition to declare a nuisance candidate or to deny due course or cancel Certificate of Candidacy, as it was filed on May 15, 2013, beyond the 5-day and 25-day periods under the COMELEC Rules.
• She maintained that since she was already proclaimed, Fragata's proper remedy was a petition for quo warranto under Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code.
• She contended that the Commission on Elections should have respected the voice of the people who elected her.
• She argued that assuming she was ineligible, this created a permanent vacancy to be filled by succession under Section 45 of the Local Government Code, not by proclaiming the candidate with the next highest number of votes.
• She claimed she had renounced her American citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance under Republic Act No. 9225.

• Fragata and Bacani maintained that the petition was one for disqualification assailing Chua's citizenship and permanent resident status, filed within the reglementary period under Rule 25, Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules (any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation).
• They argued that Chua was a dual citizen at the time she filed her Certificate of Candidacy because she failed to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of her American citizenship as required by Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225.
• They contended that dual citizens are disqualified under Section 40 of the Local Government Code, making Chua's Certificate of Candidacy void ab initio.
• They argued that all votes cast for Chua were stray and should be disregarded, and following Maquiling v. Commission on Elections, Bacani should be proclaimed as she garnered the next highest number of votes.
• The Commission on Elections argued that the will of the people cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if voters mistakenly believed the candidate was qualified.
• They maintained that Section 45 of the Local Government Code on succession does not apply because the disqualifying circumstance existed prior to the filing of the Certificate of Candidacy.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether private respondent Imelda E. Fragata filed a petition for disqualification or a petition to deny due course or cancel Certificate of Candidacy.
  • Whether the petition was filed within the reglementary period.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether petitioner Arlene Llena Empaynado Chua was disqualified from running for Councilor by reason of dual citizenship.
  • Whether the rule on succession under Section 45 of the Local Government Code applies to fill the vacancy caused by Chua's disqualification.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court held that Fragata's petition was a petition for disqualification, not a petition to deny due course or cancel Certificate of Candidacy.
  • The petition alleged grounds for disqualification under Section 40 of the Local Government Code (being a permanent resident/dual citizen), not false material representation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
  • As a petition for disqualification, it was filed within the period under Rule 25, Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules (filed on May 15, 2013, the date of proclamation, which is "not later than the date of proclamation").
  • The Commission on Elections did not gravely abuse its discretion in admitting Bacani's Motion to Intervene as she had a legal interest in the matter.
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that Chua was a dual citizen at the time she filed her Certificate of Candidacy on October 3, 2012.
  • While she reacquired Philippine citizenship on September 21, 2011 by taking an Oath of Allegiance under Republic Act No. 9225, she failed to comply with the additional requirement under Section 5(2) of the same Act for those seeking elective public office: making a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship.
  • The Oath of Allegiance is a general requirement for all candidates, while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional requisite only for dual citizens seeking elective office.
  • As a dual citizen, Chua was disqualified under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code.
  • Her Certificate of Candidacy was void ab initio because the disqualifying circumstance existed prior to filing; she was legally not a candidate.
  • All votes cast for her were stray and should not be counted.
  • Consequently, Krystle Marie C. Bacani, who garnered the next highest number of votes among eligible candidates, was properly proclaimed.
  • Section 45 of the Local Government Code on succession does not apply because it covers vacancies caused by those whose Certificates of Candidacy were valid at the time of filing but subsequently became disqualified, not those with void ab initio Certificates of Candidacy.

• Void ab initio Certificate of Candidacy of Dual Citizens — Certificates of candidacy filed by dual citizens are void from the beginning because the disqualification under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code exists prior to the filing of the certificate. Such candidates are considered non-candidates, and votes cast for them are stray.
• Distinction Between Petition to Cancel COC and Petition for Disqualification — A petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code is based exclusively on false material representation regarding eligibility, while a petition for disqualification is based on grounds under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, Section 12 thereof, or Section 40 of the Local Government Code. The remedy chosen depends on the allegations made.
• Renunciation Requirement for Dual Citizens Seeking Elective Office — Under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225, natural-born citizens who reacquired Philippine citizenship must execute a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath, in addition to the Oath of Allegiance, to be qualified to run for elective office.
• Next Highest Votes Doctrine — When a candidate is disqualified and their certificate of candidacy is void ab initio, the candidate who obtained the next highest number of votes among the eligible candidates is entitled to be proclaimed, not through succession but as the rightful winner.
• Inapplicability of Succession Rule to Void ab initio COCs — Section 45 of the Local Government Code on filling permanent vacancies applies only when the officer's Certificate of Candidacy was valid at the time of filing but subsequent events created the vacancy; it does not apply when the Certificate of Candidacy was void from the beginning due to pre-existing disqualifications.

• "Dual citizens are disqualified from running for any elective local position. They cannot successfully run and assume office because their ineligibility is inherent in them, existing prior to the filing of their certificates of candidacy. Their certificates of candidacy are void ab initio, and votes cast for them will be disregarded."
• "The ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutory requirements for qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. When the law requires certain qualifications to be possessed or that certain disqualifications be not possessed by persons desiring to serve as elective public officials, those qualifications must be met before one even becomes a candidate."
• "Elections are more than a numbers game."
• "To rule otherwise is to trample upon and rent asunder the very law that sets forth the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. We might as well write off our election laws if the voice of the electorate is the sole determinant of who should be proclaimed worthy to occupy elective positions in our republic."

• Maquiling v. Commission on Elections — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that votes cast for an ineligible candidate are stray and the candidate with the next highest number of votes among the eligible should be proclaimed.
• Fermin v. Commission on Elections — Cited for the distinction between petitions to cancel certificates of candidacy and petitions for disqualification, and the confusion surrounding these remedies.
• Jacot v. Dal — Cited for the ruling that the Oath of Allegiance under Republic Act No. 9225 does not constitute the personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship required under Section 5(2) of the same Act for elective office seekers.
• Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections — Cited for the distinction between vacancies caused by void ab initio certificates of candidacy (where succession does not apply) and those caused by subsequent disqualifications.
• Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections — Cited for the principle that possessing qualifications does not imply absence of disqualifications, and vice versa.
• Villafuerte v. Commission on Elections — Cited for the definition of "material representation" in certificates of candidacy.

• Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code — Disqualifies persons with dual citizenship from running for any elective local position.
• Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) — Requires those seeking elective public office who retain or re-acquired Philippine citizenship to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.
• Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 — Provides for the retention or re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship by natural-born citizens through an Oath of Allegiance.
• Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code — Enumerates the contents of the certificate of candidacy, including the declaration that the candidate is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country.
• Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code — Governs petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy based on false material representation.
• Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code — Provides grounds for disqualification of candidates.
• Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code — Provides additional grounds for disqualification.
• Section 45 of the Local Government Code — Governs the filling of permanent vacancies in the sanggunian.
• Rule 25, Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Prescribes the period for filing petitions for disqualification (any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy, but not later than the date of proclamation).
• Commonwealth Act No. 63, Section 1 — Provides for loss of Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country.
• Article IV, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution — Defines natural-born citizens.