GR 216607; (April, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 216607 April 5, 2016
ARLENE LLENA EMPAYNADO CHUA, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, IMELDA E. FRAGATA, and KRYSTLE MARIE C. BACANI, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Arlene Llena Empaynado Chua filed her Certificate of Candidacy for Councilor of the Fourth District of Manila for the May 13, 2013 elections. She garnered the sixth highest number of votes and was proclaimed on May 15, 2013. On the same day, respondent Imelda E. Fragata filed a Petition to declare Chua a nuisance candidate and to deny due course or cancel her Certificate of Candidacy, alleging Chua was not a Filipino citizen and was a permanent resident of the United States. Respondent Krystle Marie C. Bacani, who ranked seventh, filed a Motion to Intervene, arguing Chua was a dual citizen disqualified from running. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division allowed the intervention and treated Fragata’s Petition as one for disqualification. The COMELEC found that Chua, naturalized as an American citizen in 1977, reacquired Philippine citizenship in 2011 by taking an Oath of Allegiance but failed to execute a sworn renunciation of her American citizenship as required by law. Thus, she remained a dual citizen at the time of filing her candidacy. The COMELEC annulled Chua’s proclamation, declared her Certificate of Candidacy void ab initio, and directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim Bacani as the duly elected Councilor, having garnered the next highest number of votes. The COMELEC En Banc denied Chua’s motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling Chua’s proclamation and proclaiming Bacani as the duly elected Councilor.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The Court held that dual citizens are disqualified from running for any elective local position under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. Chua’s ineligibility, existing prior to filing her Certificate of Candidacy, rendered it void ab initio. Consequently, votes cast for her were considered stray. Following the doctrine in Maquiling v. Commission on Elections, the candidate who garnered the next highest number of votes among the eligible candidates, Bacani, is legally entitled to the position. The Court ruled that Fragata’s Petition was a timely filed petition for disqualification, not a petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy, as it was filed on the date of proclamation, which is within the period allowed under COMELEC rules. The rule on succession under the Local Government Code does not apply because a dual citizen is deemed a non-candidate; thus, no valid proclamation occurred to create a permanent vacancy.