ARSENIO A. AGUSTIN, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SALVADOR S. PILLOS, RESPONDENTS.

Agustin versus Commission on Elections and Pillos

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Arsenio Agustin against the Commission on Elections and his rival candidate Salvador Pillos, decided by the Supreme Court in November 2015. Agustin asks the Court to annul the resolution of the Commission on Elections En Banc that cancelled his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Marcos, Ilocos Norte in the May 2013 local elections. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole architecture of candidate eligibility: the difference between a petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code and a petition for disqualification, the effect of renouncing foreign citizenship under the dual citizenship law, the disqualification of persons with dual citizenship under the Local Government Code, and the rule that votes cast for a candidate disqualified by final judgment before election day are stray votes that must not be counted.

Procedural History

Pillos filed with the Commission on Elections a Petition to Deny Due Course and to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Agustin, docketed as a special action. The Second Division of the Commission denied the petition for lack of merit, holding that registration as a voter need not precede the filing of the certificate of candidacy by one year, and that there was no competent evidence that the respondents were residents or citizens of other countries. Pillos moved for reconsideration with the Commission En Banc. The En Banc granted the motion as against Agustin, cancelled his certificate of candidacy, and denied it due course, on the ground that he failed to show compliance with the dual citizenship law. Agustin filed a verified urgent motion for reconsideration with leave of court, attaching his Oath of Allegiance and the order approving it. Pillos moved for a writ of execution. Agustin then withdrew his motion for reconsideration and, on May 28, 2013, filed this petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Commission En Banc later issued a writ of execution, and the Supreme Court required the parties to observe the status quo prevailing before the April 23, 2013 resolution.

Facts

In 1997, Agustin was naturalized as a citizen of the United States of America. He later re-acquired Philippine citizenship: he took his Oath of Allegiance on March 9, 2012 before the Philippine Consulate General in Honolulu, and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his American citizenship on October 2, 2012. He had also been issued a Philippine passport on August 23, 2012.

On October 5, 2012, Agustin filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Marcos, Ilocos Norte as the official candidate of the Nacionalista Party. He declared that he was eligible for the office, that he was a natural born Filipino citizen, and that he had been a resident of Marcos for twenty five years. On October 10, 2012, Pillos, a rival mayoralty candidate, filed his petition to deny due course and to cancel the certificate of candidacy, alleging that the residency declaration was a material misrepresentation because Agustin had registered as a voter in Marcos only on May 31, 2012.

Unknown to the Commission at first, Agustin travelled to Hawaii on October 6, 2012, one day after filing his certificate of candidacy, using his United States passport, and he continued to use that passport in subsequent travels abroad despite having a Philippine passport. On election day, May 13, 2013, his name remained on the ballot, and he was proclaimed mayor with five thousand twenty votes, the highest among the contending parties.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections En Banc violated Agustin's right to due process when it resolved the motion for reconsideration on the ground of citizenship, which was not the ground of the original petition.
• Whether or not Agustin made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy that would justify its cancellation or the denial of due course under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
• Whether or not Agustin was disqualified from running for mayor on the ground of dual citizenship under Section 40 of the Local Government Code.
• Whether or not the votes cast for Agustin should be counted, and whether Pillos should be proclaimed the winning candidate.

Applicable Provisions

Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Section 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

This is the provision under which Pillos proceeded, and it requires a false material representation, not merely a lack of qualification.

Section 5 of Republic Act Number 9225 provides:

Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions: x x x x (2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath; x x x x

This is the provision the Commission said Agustin failed to comply with, and which the Court found he had in fact complied with through his oath and his affidavit of renunciation.

Section 40 of the Local Government Code provides:

Section 40. Disqualifications. The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: x x x x (d) Those with dual citizenship; x x x x

This is the provision under which the Court ultimately held Agustin disqualified, because his use of his American passport after renunciation reverted him to dual citizenship.

Section 6 of Republic Act Number 6646, the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, provides:

Section 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.

This provision fixes the consequence: a disqualification final before election day makes the votes cast for the candidate stray.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that administrative due process was observed. Agustin himself raised his Philippine citizenship in his answer to bolster his residency claim, so he could not complain of surprise. Due process in administrative proceedings does not always require a trial-type hearing; it is satisfied when a person is notified and given the opportunity to explain or defend himself, and when he is given the opportunity to seek reconsideration. Agustin filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration, and that was enough.

On the second issue, the Court held that Agustin made no material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy. A Section 78 petition requires not only a false material representation but a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact that would render the candidate ineligible. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

The false representation under Section 78 must likewise be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact that would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.

Agustin had taken his Oath of Allegiance and executed his Affidavit of Renunciation before he filed his certificate of candidacy, so on October 5, 2012 he was exclusively a Filipino citizen and eligible. There was therefore no false representation, and no basis to cancel the certificate on that ground.

On the third issue, however, the Court held that Agustin was disqualified. By travelling on his American passport on October 6, 2012, after renouncing American citizenship and after filing his certificate, he represented himself as a citizen of the United States and effectively repudiated his oath of renunciation. He reverted to dual citizenship and fell under the disqualification of Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. The Court stressed that even without a finding of deliberate misrepresentation, the Commission could still declare him disqualified for lack of eligibility.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the disqualification became final before election day. The April 23, 2013 resolution was deemed final because a motion for reconsideration of an En Banc resolution is not allowed under the Commission's rules, and the writ of execution issued on June 18, 2013. Under Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law, the votes cast for Agustin were stray, and Pillos, who obtained the highest number of votes among the remaining candidates, should be proclaimed.

Doctrine

A petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code lies only on the ground of a false material representation, and the falsehood must be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact that would render the candidate ineligible. A mere lack of qualification is not enough.

A natural born Filipino who re-acquires Philippine citizenship under the dual citizenship law must, at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of all foreign citizenship. Once he does so, he is exclusively a Filipino citizen and eligible. But if he later uses a foreign passport, he repudiates that renunciation and reverts to dual citizenship, which disqualifies him under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code.

A candidate declared disqualified by final judgment before election day cannot be voted for, and the votes cast for him are stray and shall not be counted. The candidate who obtains the highest number of votes among the remaining candidates is proclaimed.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed for lack of merit; Agustin was declared disqualified, the votes cast for him were not counted, and Pillos was proclaimed duly elected Mayor of Marcos, Ilocos Norte.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a dual citizen is disqualified from running for public office in the Philippines, and the use of a foreign passport after renunciation of foreign citizenship reverts a candidate to dual citizenship. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a Section 78 petition and a disqualification case, and the rule on stray votes under Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law.