Dual Allegiance Disqualification Renunciation Requirements FOR Elective Office

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Arnado v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015) clarifies a critical point for natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship through naturalization abroad and later seek elective office in the Philippines. The case confirms that the twin requirements of Republic Act No. 9225 (the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act) must be strictly met at the time of filing a certificate of candidacy (CoC). A landslide election victory cannot cure a candidate’s failure to comply with these legal requirements.

The Facts of the Case

Rommel C. Arnado was a natural-born Filipino who became a US citizen. In 2008, he applied for repatriation under RA 9225, took an Oath of Allegiance, and was issued an Order of Approval for citizenship retention and re-acquisition. On April 3, 2009, he executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship.

Arnado later filed his CoC for mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, for the May 2010 elections. A rival candidate sought his disqualification, arguing that Arnado remained a US citizen because he continued using his US passport after executing the Affidavit of Renunciation.

In Maquiling v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013), the Supreme Court disqualified Arnado from the 2010 elections. The Court ruled that his continued use of his US passport effectively negated or "recalled" his Affidavit of Renunciation. This meant he had recanted his renunciation and remained disqualified under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code.

The 2013 Elections and the Issue

Despite the Maquiling ruling, Arnado filed another CoC for the May 2013 elections on October 1, 2012. He did not execute a new Affidavit of Renunciation before filing. On May 9, 2013—after the Maquiling decision was promulgated but just days before the elections—he executed an Affidavit Affirming his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation.

Arnado won the May 2013 elections by a landslide, receiving 84% of the votes. His rival, Florante Capitan, filed a petition to disqualify him and nullify his proclamation. The Comelec disqualified Arnado and declared Capitan as the duly elected mayor. Arnado elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the Comelec's decision. The Court ruled that Arnado had not satisfied the twin requirements of Section 5(2) of RA 9225 at the time he filed his CoC for the 2013 elections.

Under Section 5(2) of RA 9225, those seeking elective public office must:

1. Meet the qualifications for holding public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws; and
2. At the time of filing the CoC, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.

The Court held that Arnado's April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation was deemed withdrawn when he used his US passport after executing it, as established in Maquiling. Consequently, at the time he filed his CoC on October 1, 2012, he had not yet complied with the second requirement. His May 9, 2013 affidavit came too late—it should have been executed on or before the filing of the CoC.

The Court also rejected Arnado's argument that he should be given the opportunity to correct the deficiency because Maquiling was decided after the filing period had lapsed. The Court noted that Arnado was already aware of the potential problem as early as 2010 when the first disqualification petition was filed against him. He could have executed a new Affidavit of Renunciation before filing his CoC for the 2013 elections.

Key Points from the Decision

Strict compliance required. The Court emphasized that qualifications for public elective office must be strictly complied with. Novelty of an issue or lack of awareness of potential consequences does not excuse non-compliance.

Use of foreign passport is a disqualifying act. Following Maquiling, using a foreign passport after executing an Affidavit of Renunciation amounts to a repudiation or recantation of that renunciation. This applies even if the candidate later claims they were unaware of the consequences.

Timing matters. The personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship must be made at the time of filing the CoC. A subsequent affidavit—even one executed shortly after the filing period—cannot cure the defect.

Landslide victory does not cure ineligibility. The Court reiterated that popular vote does not override eligibility requirements. A candidate's overwhelming electoral support cannot cure a failure to comply with legal qualifications.

Doctrine of stare decisis applies. The Court applied the principle of adherence to precedents, noting that Maquiling was binding and applicable to Arnado's situation since the circumstances were substantially the same.

Practical Takeaways

• Natural-born Filipinos who reacquired citizenship under RA 9225 must execute a fresh Affidavit of Renunciation before or at the time of filing a CoC for each election where they seek office.
• Using a foreign passport after executing an Affidavit of Renunciation effectively nullifies that renunciation and disqualifies the candidate from running for elective office.
• The renunciation requirement is strict—there is no room for leniency based on good faith, lack of awareness, or the novelty of the legal issue.
• A candidate who wins by a landslide cannot rely on popular support to override clear legal disqualifications.
• Candidates should execute a new Affidavit of Renunciation every election period to avoid questions about their qualifications.

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