Dual Citizens Barred From Local Office: Void Candidacy and Next-Placer Rule

The Supreme Court has long held that dual citizens are disqualified from running for any elective local position. In Chua v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 216607, April 5, 2016), the Court clarified what happens when such a candidate wins: their certificate of candidacy is void from the start, all votes cast for them are disregarded, and the candidate with the next highest number of votes among eligible candidates is entitled to the seat.

The case is a practical guide for naturalized Filipinos, election lawyers, and voters on the strict requirements of running for local office.

The Facts of the Case

Arlene Llena Empaynado Chua filed her certificate of candidacy for Councilor in the Fourth District of Manila for the May 2013 elections. She was born to Filipino parents in 1967, making her a natural-born Filipino. However, in 1977, she became a naturalized American citizen, thereby losing her Filipino citizenship.

On September 21, 2011, Chua took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, reacquiring her Filipino citizenship under the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9225). She did not, however, execute a personal and sworn renunciation of her American citizenship.

Chua won the sixth highest number of votes and was proclaimed councilor on May 15, 2013. On that same day, a rival filed a petition before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify her. Another candidate, Krystle Marie C. Bacani, who placed seventh, intervened and sought Chua's disqualification on the ground of dual citizenship.

The Legal Issue

The central issue was whether Chua, a dual citizen who had reacquired Filipino citizenship but failed to renounce her foreign citizenship, was qualified to run for local office.

A second issue concerned the remedy: was the petition against Chua a petition for disqualification or a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy? The distinction mattered because the two remedies have different filing periods.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed Chua's petition and upheld her disqualification.

First, the Court ruled that the petition filed against Chua was a petition for disqualification, not a petition to cancel her certificate of candidacy. The petition alleged that Chua was a permanent resident of the United States, a ground for disqualification under Section 40 of the Local Government Code. Under COMELEC rules, a petition for disqualification may be filed any day after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation. Since the petition was filed on the very date of Chua's proclamation, it was timely.

Second, the Court held that Chua was disqualified under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code, which disqualifies persons with dual citizenship from running for any elective local position. While Chua had reacquired her Filipino citizenship, Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 requires those seeking elective public office to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any foreign citizenship at the time of filing their certificate of candidacy. The Oath of Allegiance is not the same as this renunciation; the latter is an additional requirement for those who have reacquired Philippine citizenship.

Third, the Court applied the rule from Maquiling v. Commission on Elections: because Chua's disqualifying circumstance existed before she filed her certificate of candidacy, her certificate was void ab initio. She was never a valid candidate, and the votes cast for her were stray. Bacani, having obtained the next highest number of votes among eligible candidates, was legally entitled to the position.

The Court rejected Chua's argument that the vacancy should be filled by succession under Section 45 of the Local Government Code. That rule applies only when a candidate's certificate was valid at filing but a disqualification arose later. Here, the disqualification existed from the start.

Why the Oath of Allegiance Was Not Enough

The Court emphasized that the oath of allegiance in a certificate of candidacy is a general requirement for all candidates. The personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional requirement specifically for those who have retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 and who seek elective office. Because of their special circumstance of holding more than one citizenship, they must take this extra step.

Practical Takeaways

• Dual citizens cannot run for local office without a sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship. Taking an Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines is not enough.
• A certificate of candidacy filed by a disqualified dual citizen is void from the beginning. Such a person is legally considered a non-candidate.
• Votes cast for a disqualified dual citizen are stray votes. They are not counted in favor of the candidate.
• The next eligible candidate wins. When a disqualified candidate's votes are disregarded, the candidate with the next highest number of votes among eligible candidates is entitled to the position—not the person next in line under succession rules.
• The will of the voters cannot cure a candidate's ineligibility. Even if a disqualified candidate wins by a large margin, the law's qualification requirements prevail.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.