Practice question
Marco was a natural-born Filipino, became naturalized abroad, then validly reacquired Philippine citizenship. He executed the required sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship for a mayoral candidacy. Before filing, however, he deliberately used that country's passport for several foreign trips, representing himself as its national. He argues that the affidavit is conclusive and the travel cannot matter. Under Maquiling, which conclusion best distinguishes citizenship from electoral eligibility?
- The travel necessarily makes him stateless
- The passport use automatically erases every Philippine citizenship right
- The affidavit makes any subsequent nationality representation legally irrelevant
- The passport use may recant the renunciation required for candidacy without divesting the reacquired Philippine citizenship
- Only the number of votes received determines the issue
Legal references
- Maquiling v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/55820
- Republic Act No. 9225, Sections 3 and 5(2): https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2003/ra_9225_2003.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.