4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly not perform any act to swear allegiance to a country other than the Philippines; 3. He used his US passport only because he was not informed of the issuance of his Philippine passport, and that he used his Philippine passport after he obtained it; 4. Balua’s petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Arnado was filed out of time, and the First Division’s treatment of the petition as one for disqualification constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction;[23] 5. He is undoubtedly the people’s choice as indicated by his winning the elections; 6. His proclamation as the winning candidate ousted the COMELEC from jurisdiction over the case; and 7. The proper remedy to question his citizenship is through a petition for quo warranto, which should have been filed within ten days from his proclamation. Petitioner Casan Macode Maquiling (Maquiling), another candidate for mayor of Kauswagan, and who garnered the second highest number of votes in the 2010 elections, intervened in the case and filed before the COMELEC En Banc a Motion for Reconsideration together with an Opposition to Arnado’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration. Maquiling argued that while the First Division correctly disqualified Arnado, the order of succession under Section 44 of the Local Government Code is not applicable in this case. Consequently, he claimed that the cancellation of Arnado’s candidacy and the nullification of his proclamation, Maquiling, as the legitimate candidate who obtained the highest number of lawful votes, should be proclaimed as the winner. Maquiling simultaneously filed his Memorandum with his Motion for Intervention and his Motion for Reconsideration. Arnado opposed all motions filed by Maquiling, claiming that intervention is prohibited after a decision has already been rendered, and that as a second-placer, Maquiling undoubtedly lost the elections and thus does not stand to be prejudiced or benefitted by the final adjudication of the case. RULING OF THE COMELEC EN BANC In its Resolution of 02 February 2011, the COMELEC En Banc held that under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, the Commission “shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest even after the proclamation of the candidate whose qualifications for office is questioned.” As to Maquiling’s intervention, the COMELEC En Banc also cited Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 which allows intervention in proceedings for disqualification even after elections if no final judgment has been rendered, but went on further to say that Maquiling, as the second placer, would not be prejudiced by the outcome of the case as it agrees with the dispositive portion of the Resolution of the First Division allowing the order of succession under Section 44 of the Local Government Code to take effect. The COMELEC En Banc agreed with the treatment by the First Division of the petition as one for disqualification, and ruled that the petition was filed well within the period prescribed by law,[24] having been filed on May 2010, the date of proclamation. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55820 28 April 2010, which is not later than 11 5/49