1.) (1) Gandang Bai filed her certificate of candidacy (COC) for municipal mayor stating that she is eligible to run for the said position. Pasyo Maagap, who also filed his COC for the same position, filed a petition to deny due course or cancel Bai's COC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code for material misrepresentation as before Bai filed her COC, she had already been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Hence, she is disqualified perpetually from holding any public office or from being elected to any public office. Before the election, the COMELEC cancelled Bai' s COC but her motion for reconsideration (MR) remained pending even after the election. Bai garnered the highest number of votes followed by Pasyo Maagap, who took his oath as Acting Mayor. Thereafter, the COMELEC denied Bai's MR and declared her disqualified for running for Mayor. P. Maagap asked the Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary to be allowed to take his oath as permanent municipal mayor. This request was opposed by Vice Mayor Umaasa, invoking the rule on succession to the permanent vacancy in the Mayor's office. Who between Pasyo Maagap and Vice Mayor Umaasa has the right to occupy the position of Mayor? Explain your answer.
Pasyo Maagap would be entitled to occupy the position of Mayor upon disqualification of Gandang Bai on the basis of the petition to deny due course or cancel her certificate of candidacy under the provisions of Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
The rule is that “an ineligible candidate who receives the highest number of votes is a wrongful winner. By express legal mandate, he could not even have been a candidate in the first place, but by virtue of the lack of material time or any other intervening circumstances, his ineligibility might not have been passed upon prior to election date. Consequently, he may have had the opportunity to hold himself out to the electorate as a legitimate and duly qualified candidate. However, notwithstanding the outcome of the elections, his ineligibility as a candidate remains unchanged. Ineligibility does not only pertain to his qualifications as a candidate but necessarily affects his right to hold public office. The number of ballots cast in his favor cannot cure the defect of failure to qualify with the substantive legal requirements of eligibility to run for public office.” (Maquiling v. COMELEC, GR No. 195649, April 16, 2013)
Accordingly, Gandang Bai “being anon- candidate, the votes cast in his favor should not have been counted.” This leaves Pasyo Maagap as “the qualified candidate who obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore, the rule on succession under the Local Government Code will not apply.” (Maquiling v. COMELEC, GR No. 195649, April 16, 2013).
2.) In 1990, Agripina migrated to Canada and acquired Canadian citizenship. In 2008, Agripina retired and returned to the Philippines to permanently reside in her hometown of Angeles, Pampanga. A month after returning to the Philippines, Agripina took her oath of allegiance and executed a sworn renunciation of her Canadian citizenship in accordance with R.A. No. 9225. In 2009, Agripina filed her certificate of candidacy for Congress for the 2010 elections. Agripina's political rivals lost no time in causing the filing of various actions to question her candidacy. They questioned her eligibility to run as member of Congress. Since Agripina had to take an oath under R.A. No. 9225, it meant that she needed to perform an act to perfect her Philippine citizenship. Hence, they claimed that Agripina could not be considered a natural-born citizen. Agripina raised the defense that, having complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 9225, she had reacquired, and was deemed never to have lost, her Philippine citizenship. Is Agripina disqualified to run for Congress for failing to meet the citizenship requirement?
Agripina is eligible to run as member of Congress. Repatriation results in the recovery of a person’s original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a Filipino citizen. If she were originally a natural-born citizen before she lost her Philippine citizenship, she would be restored to her former status as a natural-born Filipino. (Bengson III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001. See also: Parreno v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 162224, June 7, 2007, and Tabasa v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 221697 & 221698-700, March 8, 2016)
RA 9225 makes a distinction between those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens before and after the effectivity of RA No. 9225. For those who were naturalized in a foreign country, they shall be deemed to have reacquired their Philippine citizenship which was lost pursuant to CA 63. In the case of those who became foreign citizens after RA 9225 took effect, they shall retain Philippine citizenship despite having acquired foreign citizenship, provided they take the oath of allegiance under the new law.
Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of RA 9225, she belongs to the first category of natural-born Filipinos who lost their Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country, under the first paragraph of Section 3. As the new law allows dual citizenship, she was able to reacquire her Philippine citizenship by taking the required oath of allegiance (See Bengson v. HRET and as affirmed by Poe- Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016)
3.) President Alfredo died during his third year in office. In accordance with the Constitution, Vice President Anastasia succeeded him. President Anastasia then nominated the late President Alfredo's Executive Secretary, Anna Maria, as her replacement as Vice President. The nomination was confirmed by a majority of all the Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, voting separately. Can Anastasia run as President in the next election?
YES, Anastacia can still run as President in the next election since she has served for less than four years. Section 4, Article VII provides that “no person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.”
4.) W, the incumbent Congressman of the Province of Albay, decided to run for Governor. He filed his certificate of candidacy (CoC) for Governor without resigning from his post and continued exercising his duties as Congressman, such as attending plenary sessions and committee hearings in the House of Representatives. One of W’s fiercest critics, X, claimed that W should not be dispensing the functions of a Congressman since he is deemed ipso facto resigned as such upon his filing of a CoC for Governor of Albay. (a) Is X’s argument correct? Explain. (b) Assuming that W is instead, an incumbent Undersecretary of the Department of National Defense, what is the effect of the filing of his CoC for the position of Governor of Albay to said post? Explain.
(a) The argument of X is not correct. Section 14 of RA 9006 (Fair Elections Act) reads: “Sec. 14. Repealing Clause. - Sections 67 and 85 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) and Sections 10 and 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 are hereby repealed.” Section 47 of BP 881, which deemed elective officials ipso facto resigned when they file their Certificate of Candidacy, is inoperative, and therefore W may still continue office.
(b) W would be considered ipso facto resigned. Under Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), “any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.” W, as Undersecretary of the Department of National Defense, is an appointive official and therefore falls under this provision.
5.) A, a City Legal Officer, and B, a City Vice- Mayor, filed certificates of candidacy for the position of City Mayor in the May 14, 2001 elections. a. Was A ipso facto considered resigned and, if so, effective on what date? b. Was B ipso facto considered resigned and, if so, effective on what date? In both cases, state the reason or reasons for your answer.
a. A was considered ipso facto resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy, because being a City Legal Officer, he is an appointive official. Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that any person holding a public appointive office shall be considered ipso facto resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
b. B is not considered ipso facto resigned. Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code considers any elective official ipso facto resigned from office upon his filing of a certificate of candidacy for any office other than the one he is holding except for President and Vice-President, was repealed by the Fair Election Act.
6.) Pedro Reyes is an incumbent Vice-Mayor of Quezon City. He intends to run in the regular elections for the position of City Mayor of Quezon City whose incumbent mayor would have fully served three consecutive terms by 2004. 1. Would Pedro Reyes have to give up his position as Vice-Mayor: a. Once he files his certificate of candidacy; or b. When the campaign period starts; or c. Once and if he is proclaimed winner in the election; or d. Upon his assumption to the elective office; or e. None of the above. Choose the correct answer 2. If Pedro Reyes were, instead, an incumbent Congressman of Quezon City, who intends to seek the mayoralty post in Quezon City, would your choice of answer in no. (1) above be the same? If not, which would be your choice?
The correct answer is (e). Section 14 of the Fair Election Act repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, which provided that any elected official, whether national or local, who runs for any office other than the one he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of Section 14 of the Fair Election Act likewise rendered ineffective the first proviso in the third paragraph of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436.
Consequently, Pedro Reyes can run for Mayor without giving up his position as Vice-Mayor. He will have to give up his position as Vice-Mayor upon expiration of his term as Vice-Mayor on June 30, 2004.
The answer is the same if Pedro Reyes is a Congressman of Quezon City, because the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code covers both elective national and local officials.