Chua v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Arlene Llena Empaynado Chua (Chua) filed a Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for Councilor in the Fourth District of Manila for the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections. After the elections, Chua garnered the sixth highest number of votes and was proclaimed. On the same day, Imelda E. Fragata (Fragata) filed a petition to declare Chua a nuisance candidate and to deny due course or cancel her CoC, alleging Chua was not a Filipino citizen and was a permanent resident of the USA, holding a Green Card and a professional license in Georgia, USA. Procedural History: Chua contended she was a natural-born Filipino and had complied with residency requirements. She argued Fragata's petition was belatedly filed. Krystle Marie C. Bacani (Bacani), who ranked seventh, intervened, arguing Chua was a dual citizen and thus disqualified. Bacani presented evidence of Chua's US naturalization, passport usage, and failure to renounce American citizenship. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division allowed Bacani's intervention, treated Fragata's petition as one for disqualification, and found Chua to be a dual citizen who failed to renounce her foreign citizenship. Consequently, COMELEC annulled Chua's proclamation and directed the proclamation of Bacani. The COMELEC En Banc denied Chua's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Chua filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC Resolutions with grave abuse of discretion. She argued that if disqualified, the vacancy should be filled by succession, not by proclaiming the next highest vote-getter. She also reiterated that Fragata's petition was belatedly filed.
Issue(s)
Whether private respondent Imelda E. Fragata filed a petition for disqualification or a petition to deny due course or cancel certificate of candidacy, considering the timing and grounds invoked in her petition. Whether the rule on succession under Section 45 of the Local Government Code applies in cases where a candidate's certificate of candidacy is void ab initio due to dual citizenship and failure to renounce foreign citizenship.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. It held that Fragata's petition was a timely filed petition for disqualification. The Court found that COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in disqualifying Chua, annulling her proclamation, and subsequently proclaiming Bacani as the duly elected Councilor.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of Fragata's Petition: The Court held that the allegations in Fragata's petition clearly indicated it was a petition for disqualification, not a petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy. Fragata asserted that Chua was disqualified under Section 40 of the Local Government Code due to being a permanent resident of the United States. While a petition to deny due course or cancel a CoC could also be filed on grounds of material misrepresentation regarding permanent residency, Fragata's petition specifically invoked a disqualification ground under the Local Government Code. The Court clarified that while the remedies might overlap in grounds, the petitioner's chosen remedy and the basis of the claim determine the nature of the petition. Fragata's petition was filed on May 15, 2013, the date of Chua's proclamation, which falls within the period prescribed for petitions for disqualification: "any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy, but not later than the date of proclamation." On the applicability of the rule on succession: The Court ruled that the rule on succession under Section 45 of the Local Government Code does not apply when a candidate's certificate of candidacy is void ab initio. The Court reiterated the ruling in Maquiling v. Commission on Elections that dual citizens who fail to renounce their foreign citizenship are considered to have certificates of candidacy that are void ab initio because the disqualifying circumstance exists prior to the filing of the CoC. Such individuals are legally considered non-candidates, and the votes cast for them are stray. Therefore, the vacancy is not filled by succession but by the candidate who garnered the next highest number of votes among the eligible candidates. In this case, Bacani, having obtained the sixth highest number of votes among the qualified candidates, was correctly proclaimed as Councilor. The Court emphasized that the will of the electorate cannot override constitutional and statutory requirements for qualifications and disqualifications, and the ballot cannot cure the defect of ineligibility.
Main Doctrine
Dual citizens who fail to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of their foreign citizenship, as required by Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225, are disqualified from running for any elective local position. Their certificates of candidacy are void ab initio, and votes cast for them are considered stray. The candidate who garners the next highest number of votes among the eligible candidates is entitled to the position.