4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Renunciation. As basis, the First Division cited the Court’s ruling in In Re Petition for Habeas Corpus of Willie Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, et al. It concluded that Arnado’s continued use of his US passport was a strong indication that he had no real intention to renounce his US citizenship and that he only executed an Oath of Renunciation to enable him to run for office. The Division noted in this regard the glaring inconsistency between Arnado’s unexplained use of his US passport and his claim that he had reacquired Philippine citizenship and had renounced his US citizenship. Based on these premises, the Comelec First Division disqualified Arnado, annulled his proclamation, and ordered that the order of succession to the mayoralty under Section 44 of the LGC be given effect.[21] Maquiling’s Intervention While Arnado’s motion for reconsideration was pending, Maquiling intervened and filed a Motion for Reconsideration and an opposition to Arnado’s motion for reconsideration. Maquiling argued that while the First Division correctly disqualified Arnado, the order of succession under Section 44 is not applicable; he claimed that with the cancellation of Arnado’s CoC and the nullification of his proclamation, he should be proclaimed the winner since he was the legitimate candidate who obtained the highest number of votes.[22] The Comelec en banc Ruling The Comelec en banc affirmed the First Division’s treatment of the petition as a petition for disqualification. It also agreed with the disposition of the First Division to follow the order of succession under Section 44, thus ruling out second placer Maquiling’s entitlement to the post of Mayor. The Comelec en banc however, reversed the First Division ruling and granted Arnado’s Motion for Reconsideration. It held that by renouncing his US citizenship, Arnado became a “pure” Philippine citizen again. It ruled that the use of a US passport does not operate to revert Arnado’s status as a dual citizen prior to his renunciation; it does not operate to “un-renounce” what had earlier been renounced. The Comelec en banc further ruled that the First Division’s reliance on In Re Petition for Habeas Corpus of Willie Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, et al.,[23] was misplaced as the facts of this cited case are not the same or comparable with those of the present case. Unlike the present case, the petitioner in Yu was a naturalized citizen who, after taking his oath as a naturalized Filipino citizen, applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport. Finally, the Comelec en banc found that Arnado presented a plausible and believable explanation justifying the use of his US passport. While his Philippine passport was issued on June 18, 2009, he was not immediately notified of the issuance so that he failed to actually get it until after three months later. He thereafter used his Philippine elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55820 38/49