By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
The allegiance required of elected officials
While it is true that we cannot choose to be a Filipino, British or an American at birth, a person may change his citizenship at a later point in his life. A Filipino may choose to apply for an American citizenship in the same manner that a foreign citizen may apply for naturalization as a Filipino citizen. Citizenship is important since it is a badge of person’ identity. It is a legal status and relation between a person and a state that entails specific legal rights and duties.
When the law mandates that an occupant of a public office must be a Filipino citizen, the law requires that the public officer must owe his allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines only. This is particularly true to elective positions in local government units.
In the case of Maquiling vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013, the Supreme Court had the occasion to emphasize the requirement of total and undivided allegiance that all elective officials must possess as a continuing qualification for public office.
Rommel C. Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. He was subsequently naturalized as a citizen of the United States of America. Consequently, he lost his Philippine citizenship.
Arnado applied for repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA and took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on 10 July2008.On the same day an Order of Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition was issued in his favor. In his oath, Arnado declared he will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines and that he recognizes and accepts the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto.
On 3 April 2009 Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship, which states that he absolutely and perpetually renounces all allegiance and fidelity to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of which he is a citizen, and he divests himself of full employment of all civil and political rights and privileges of the United States of America.
On 30 November 2009, Arnado filed his Certificate of Candidacy fo Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. However, On 28 April 2010, respondent Linog C. Balua (Balua), another mayoralty candidate, filed a petition to disqualify Arnado and/or to cancel his certificate of candidacy for municipal mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte in connection with the 10 May 2010 local and national elections. Balua contended that Arnado is not a resident of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and that he is a foreigner, attaching thereto a certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration dated 23 April 2010 indicating the nationality of Arnado as “USA-American.” Balua likewise presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration dated 23 April 2010, certifying that the name “Arnado, Rommel Cagoco” appears in the available Computer Database/Passenger manifest/IBM listing on file as of 21 April 2010. It was shown in the certification that Arnado used his American passport in his travels on January 12, 2010 and on March 23, 2010.
After due notice and hearing, the COMELEC First Division disqualified Arnado but the said decision was reversed by the COMELEC En Banc which ruled that Arnado is qualified to run for mayor.
The case was elevated on appeal to the Supreme Court ascribing both grave abuse of discretion and reversible error on the part of the COMELEC En Banc for ruling that Arnado is a Filipino citizen despite his continued use of a US passport.
The Supreme Court ruled that Arnado, by using his US passport after renouncing his American citizenship, has recanted the same Oath of Renunciation he took. Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code applies to his situation. He is disqualified not only from holding the public office but even from becoming a candidate in the May 2010 elections.
Citizenship is not a matter of convenience. It is a badge of identity that comes with attendant civil and political rights accorded by the state to its citizens. It likewise demands the concomitant duty to maintain allegiance to one’s flag and country. While those who acquire dual citizenship by choice are afforded the right of suffrage, those who seek election or appointment to public office are required to renounce their foreign citizenship to be deserving of the public trust. Holding public office demands full and undivided allegiance to the Republic and to no other.
The purpose of the Local Government Code in disqualifying dual citizens from running for any elective public office would be thwarted if we were to allow a person who has earlier renounced his foreign citizenship, but who subsequently represents himself as a foreign citizen, to hold any public office.