ARSENIO A. AGUSTIN vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and SALVADOR SALVADOR S. PILLOS G.R. No. 207105. Novembe 10! 2015 "ERSAMIN!# DUE PROCESS PROCESS IN ADMINISTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TIVE PROCEED PROCEEDINGS INGS
The observance of due process in administrative proceedings does not always require or involve a trial-type proceeding, proceeding, for the demand of due process process is also met met whenever a person, being being notified, is afforded afforded the opportunity opportunity to explain or defend himself. The rule is the same in election cases. DUAL CITIZENSHIP CITIZENSHIP
The petitioner’s continued exercise of his rights as a citizen of the United tates of !merica "U!# through using his U! passport after the renunciation renunciation of his U! citizenship reverted reverted him to his earlier status as a dual citizen. uch reversion reversion disqualified him from being elected to public office in the $hilippines pursuant to ection %&"d# of the 'ocal (overnment (overnment )ode "'()# "'()#.. EFFECT OF THE THE FINAL DECISION DECISION CANCELLING CANCELLING THE THE COC
!ny candidate who has been declared by final *udgment to be disqualified disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. +is rival, should be proclaimed duly elected ayor for obtaining the highest number of votes in the elections. $ACTS%
In 1997, the petitioner was naturalized as a citizen of the United States of America (USA). In 212, he filed his certificate of candidac! ("o") for the position of #a!or of the #unicipalit! of #arcos, Ilocos $orte to %e contested in the #a! 21& local elections. As the official candidate of the $acionalista 'art!, he declared in his "o" that he was elii%le for the office he was seein to %e elected to* that he was a natural+%orn ilipino citizen* and that he had %een a resident of the #unicipalit! of #arcos, Ilocos $orte for 2- !ears. espondent Sal/ador S. 'illos, a ri/al ma!oralt! candidate, filed in the "0#" a $etition a $etition To eny ue )ourse and 3 and 3or to )ancel the )ertificate of )andidacy of !rsenio !. !gustin, !gustin , allein that the petitioner petitioner had made a material misrepresentation misrepresentation in his "o" %! statin that he had %een a resident of the #unicipalit! of #arcos for 2- !ears despite ha/in reistered as a /oter therein onl! on #a! &1, 212. In his answer, the petitioner countered that the one+!ear re4uirement referred to residenc!, not to /oter reistration* that residenc! was not dependent on citizenship, such that his tra/el to 5awaii for %usiness purposes did not /iolate the residenc! re4uirement pursuant to pre/ailin 6urisprudence* and that as reards citizenship, he attached a cop! of his !ffidavit his !ffidavit of enunciation of U.. !merican U.. !merican )itizenship. )itizenship. he "0#" Second 8i/ision issued its omni%us resolution holdin that the re4uirement that a candidate must %e a reistered /oter does not carr! with it the re4uirement that he must %e so one !ear %efore the elections %ecause this refers to the residenc! 4ualification. As far as reistration as a /oter is concerned, it should suffice that the! are dul! reistered upon the filin of their "0"s or within the period prescri%ed %! law for such reistration. 'illos mo/ed for the reconsideration with the "0#" /n 0anc. 0anc. 5e alleed that the certification issued %! the ureau of Immiration reflected that the petitioner had /oluntaril! declared in his tra/el documents that he was a citizen of the USA* that when he tra/elled to 5awaii, USA on 0cto%er :, 212, he still used his USA passport despite his renunciation of his USA citizenship on 0cto%er 2, 212 and after filin his "o" on 0cto%er -, 212, in which he declared that he was a resident of the #unicipalit! of #arcos, Ilocos $orte* and that the petitioner;s declaration of his elii%ilit! in his "o" constituted material misrepresentation %ecause of his failure to meet the citizenship and residenc! re4uirements. 0n April 2&, 21&, the "0#" /n "0#" /n 0anc issued its assailed resolution cancellin and den!in due course to the petitioner;s "o", o%ser/in that that while Austin presented presented a cop! of his Affida/it Affida/it of enunciation, enunciation, he failed to to furnish this this "ommis "ommissio sion n a cop! cop! of his his 0ath 0ath of Alle Alleian iance. ce. $otewo $oteworth! rth! is the fact, fact, that that in Aust Austin; in;ss Affi Affida/ da/it it of enunciation, it was stated that his 0ath of Alleiance is attached* howe/er, said attachment has not %een made a/aila%le for the perusal of this "ommission. 5a/in failed to sufficientl! show that he complied with the pro/isions of A 922-, Austin;s Austin;s "0" must %e cancelled and3or denied due course. 0n election da!, the name of the petitioner remained in the %allot. 5e was later on proclaimed as the dul! elected #unicipal #a!or of #arcos, Ilocos $orte, the hihest amon the contendin parties.
he petitioner filed on an Urgent otion to 1ithdraw 2erified Urgent otion for econsideration with 'eave of )ourt. he petitioner then instituted this case, allein ra/e a%use of discretion amountin to lac or e
1.
8oes the "0#" n anc esolution /iolated the 'etitioner;s uaranteed "onstitutional iht to 8ue 'rocess= 2. Is the petitioner elii%le as a candidate for the position of #a!or of the #unicipalit! of #arcos, Ilocos $orte= &. Is 'illos; claim that he is the rihtful occupant of the contested electi/e position correct= &ELD% 1. No. It is worth! to state that the o%ser/ance of due process in administrati/e proceedins does not alwa!s re4uire
or in/ol/e a trial+t!pe proceedin, for the demand of due process is also met whene/er a person, %ein notified, is afforded the opportunit! to e
rendered him dis4ualified from continuin as a ma!oralt! candidate. here are two remedies a/aila%le under e
of the 0", or Section ? of the @". 0n the other hand, a petition to den! due course to or cancel a "o" can onl! %e rounded on a statement of a material representation in the said certificate that is false. he petitions also ha/e different effects. hile a person who is dis4ualified under Section :> is merel! prohi%ited to continue as a candidate, the person whose certificate is cancelled or denied due course under Section 7> is not treated as a candidate at all, as if he3she ne/er filed a "o". Section 7> of the 0", therefore, is to %e read in relation to the constitutional and statutor! pro/isions on 4ualifications or elii%ilit! for pu%lic office. If the candidate su%se4uentl! states a material representation in the "o" that is false, the "0#", followin the law, is empowered to den! due course to or cancel such certificate. he petition of 'illos was in the nature of the Section 7> petition to den! due course to or to cancel the "o" of the Bet, the "0#" /n 0anc canceled the petitioner;s "o" not %ecause of his failure to meet the residenc! re4uirement %ut %ecause of his failure Cto sufficientl! show that he complied with the pro/isions of A 922-.D Such %asis for cancellation was unwarranted considerin that he %ecame elii%le to run for pu%lic office when he e
renunciation of his USA citizenship re/erted him to his earlier status as a d*a+ ',(,-en. Such re/ersion dis4ualified him from %ein elected to pu%lic office in the 'hilippines pursuant to Section ?(d) of the 'ocal (overnment )ode. . /e. he petitioner was declared dis4ualified %! final 6udment %efore election da!* hence, the /otes cast for him
should not %e counted. 5is ri/al, respondent 'illos, should %e proclaimed dul! elected #a!or for o%tainin the hihest num%er of /otes in the elections. he effect of the petitioner;s dis4ualification under the April 2&, 21& resolution depended on when the dis4ualification attained finalit!. he distinction e, 21&* and that the petitioner;s dis4ualification thus attained finalit! prior to the #a! 1&, 21& elections. 'illos; su%mission is correct. Althouh the petitioner filed his 2erified Urgent otion for econsideration with 'eave of )ourt, the April 2&, 21& resolution rantin 'illos; motion for reconsideration, such filin did not impede the April 2&, 21& resolution from %ein deemed final and e, and Section &, ule &7, %oth of the 199& "0#" ules of 'rocedure, the April 2&, 21& resolution %ecame final and e