View full case

ROMMEL C. ARNADO v. COMELEC

FACTS:

Rommel C. Arnado lost his Philippine citizenship when he became a US citizen. He later applied for repatriation under RA 9225 and renounced his US citizenship. However, he continued to use his US passport for travel to and from the Philippines. Despite this, Arnado filed his COC for the mayoralty post of Kauswagan and won in the 2010 elections. The Comelec First Division disqualified Arnado, but this decision was later reversed by the Comelec En Banc. In the meantime, another case questioning the Comelec En Banc's decision was filed in the Supreme Court.

While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, Arnado filed his COC for the same position in the 2013 elections. The Supreme Court, in its decision in the Maquiling case, disqualified Arnado and declared the other candidate as the duly elected mayor. After the Supreme Court's decision, Arnado executed an Affidavit affirming his earlier Renunciation. The next day, Capitan filed a petition to disqualify Arnado from running in the 2013 elections.

Arnado filed his COC for the mayoralty position in 2012. After the Maquiling decision was issued, Capitan filed a petition to disqualify Arnado based on the ruling. The petition was later granted by the Comelec Second Division, and Arnado's proclamation was annulled.

Arnado filed a petition with the Supreme Court, arguing violations of procedural due process, grave abuse of discretion, and disenfranchisement of voters. He claimed that he had complied with the requirements of RA 9225 before filing his COC.

Arnado also argued that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion by not dismissing Capitan's petition, alleging forum-shopping. He claimed that the petition was filed beyond the prescribed period and that there were procedural infirmities in the proceedings before the Comelec. Arnado also alleged that his right to due process was violated by the participation of a Comelec commissioner who had previously written a decision on the case. Additionally, he presented evidence of his execution of an Affidavit of Renunciation to prove his qualification as a Filipino citizen.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Comelec En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the December 9, 2013 Resolution.

  2. Whether there is forum-shopping in the petitions filed by Capitan.

  3. Whether Capitan's petition in SPA No. 13-309 (DC) was filed late.

  4. Whether the Comelec committed procedural lapses in deciding the case.

  5. Whether or not the motion for consolidation filed by the petitioner was effectively abandoned

  6. Whether or not the failure to consolidate the cases is a grave abuse of discretion

  7. Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) correctly disqualified the petitioner from running for public office due to his failure to comply with the renunciation requirement under Republic Act (RA) No. 9225.

  8. Whether the alleged November 30, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Allegiance should be given probative weight.

  9. Whether the evidence presented, including the certification from the Bureau of Immigration, is sufficient to prove that the respondent used his US passport in 2009.

  10. Whether the use of a US passport in 2009 is an isolated act and justified by the circumstances at that time.

  11. Whether the cancellation of the April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation also includes the July 10, 2008 Oath of Allegiance.

  12. Whether an explicit renunciation of citizenship is required by law, and if an implicit renunciation is sufficient.

  13. Whether the use of a US passport by the candidate after a renunciation of citizenship effectively negates the renunciation.

  14. Whether the candidate's use of a Philippine passport is sufficient to prove that he did not renounce his US citizenship.

  15. Whether a candidate's landslide election victory can override eligibility requirements.

RULING:

  1. The petition for certiorari is devoid of merit. The Court will not interfere with the resolutions of the Comelec unless it is shown that it had committed grave abuse of discretion. In this case, there is no showing that the Comelec En Banc acted capriciously or whimsically or contrary to law or jurisprudence in issuing the resolution.

  2. Arnado failed to substantiate his claim of forum-shopping. He did not demonstrate how forum-shopping was present and did not show that the petitions involved the same parties, issues, and reliefs.

  3. The allegation of late filing of Capitan's petition in SPA No. 13-309 (DC) is incorrect. The petition was filed within the prescribed period, in accordance with the Comelec Rules of Procedure.

  4. The other procedural lapses alleged by Arnado are unsubstantiated. Even assuming the allegations to be true, the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion in deciding the case without resolving Capitan's motion to consolidate.

  5. Yes, the motion for consolidation was effectively abandoned when the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and subsequently appealed to the Court without resolving the motion for consolidation. It is not right for a party to affirm and invoke the jurisdiction of a court and then deny that same jurisdiction.

  6. No, the consolidation of cases is only permissive and not mandatory. The cases in question do not involve the same parties and reliefs sought, therefore, there is no grave abuse of discretion in not consolidating them.

  7. The COMELEC did not err in disqualifying the petitioner. It ruled that the petitioner failed to comply with the renunciation requirement under RA No. 9225 because he used his US passport after executing an Affidavit of Renunciation. The court upheld this ruling and stated that the petitioner had not cured the defect in his qualification. The court also held that the ruling in Maquiling v. Commission on Elections, which states that the use of a foreign passport amounts to repudiation or recantation of the oath of renunciation, is applicable to the present case. The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the qualifications to run for public office and rejected the petitioner's argument that he should be given the opportunity to correct the deficiency in his qualification.

  8. The alleged November 30, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Allegiance cannot be given any probative weight because it was never presented before the Comelec and surfaced for the first time in this petition. The late submission of evidence is not in accord with orderly justice and violates due process.

  9. The evidence presented, including the certification from the Bureau of Immigration, is sufficient to prove that the respondent used his US passport in 2009. The respondent failed to correct or refute the statements regarding his travel using his US passport.

  10. The dissenting opinion maintains that the use of the US passport in 2009 is an isolated act justified by the circumstances at that time. However, this issue was already settled in a previous case and is not within the scope of the present petition.

  11. The cancellation of the April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation does not include the July 10, 2008 Oath of Allegiance. The execution of an Oath of Allegiance is required by law, and an explicit renunciation is necessary when the law expressly requires it.

  12. An explicit renunciation of citizenship is required by law. An implicit renunciation would not be sufficient.

  13. The use of a US passport by the candidate after a renunciation of citizenship effectively negates the renunciation.

  14. The use of a Philippine passport is not sufficient to prove that the candidate did not renounce his US citizenship.

  15. A candidate's landslide election victory cannot override eligibility requirements.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A petition for certiorari is limited to determining whether the respondent tribunal acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Jurisprudence)

  • Grave abuse of discretion is defined as the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. (Jurisprudence)

  • Forum-shopping exists when two or more actions or proceedings founded on the same cause are instituted by a party on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, and the existence of res judicata are elements of forum-shopping. (Jurisprudence)

  • The nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the petition. (Jurisprudence)

  • A petition for disqualification should be filed any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation. (Comelec Rules of Procedure)

  • The term "may" in Section 9, Rule 3 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure indicates a mere possibility or option, granting the opportunity to consolidate cases that involve similar questions of law and fact.

  • Proceedings in a special action for disqualification of candidates under Rule 25 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure are summary in nature, and the technical rules of evidence should not be rigorously applied.

  • The Comelec en banc reviewing and evaluating a party's petition is tantamount to a fair hearing of his case.

  • A person with dual citizenship is disqualified from running for any elective local position, unless they comply with the requirements of RA 9225, which includes making a personal and sworn renunciation of any foreign citizenship at the time of filing their certificate of candidacy. Subsequent compliance does not suffice.

  • The use of a foreign passport after executing an Affidavit of Renunciation amounts to repudiation or recantation of the renunciation requirement under RA No. 9225.

  • Matters dealing with qualifications for public elective office must be strictly complied with.

  • The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere requires adherence to precedents and bars relitigation of the same issue.

  • Candidates should be aware of possible legal setbacks in their candidacy and should take steps to remedy any deficiencies in their qualification.

  • Points of law, issues, and arguments not raised in the lower court or administrative agency need not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time at a late stage. This principle is based on considerations of fairness and due process.

  • Evidence that has not been formally offered before the court or administrative agency cannot be considered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.

  • Courts do not have jurisdiction over issues that have never been raised in the pleadings or tried with the consent of the parties. Courts cannot render judgment based on issues that have not been raised before them.

  • The execution of an Oath of Allegiance is required by law. An explicit renunciation is necessary when the law expressly requires it; an implicit renunciation is insufficient in such cases.

  • An explicit renunciation of citizenship is required by law.

  • The use of a US passport after a renunciation of citizenship effectively negates the renunciation.

  • The use of a Philippine passport is not sufficient to prove that a candidate did not renounce their foreign citizenship.

  • A candidate's landslide election victory cannot override eligibility requirements.