This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A repeal may be express or implied.[36] An express repeal is one wherein a statute declares, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and specific law, identified by its number or title, is repealed.[37] An implied repeal, on the other hand, transpires when a substantial conflict exists between the new and the prior laws. In the absence of an express repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and the old laws.[38] | |||||
|
2015-08-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| With due respect to my esteemed colleague, it appears that J. Leonen is not only reviving an issue that had already been settled with finality in the Maquiling case, but he is also going beyond the issues raised in this petition. To reiterate for clarity, Arnado's argument in this case-that he is qualified to run for mayor as he has satisfied the requirements of Sec. 5(2) of RA 9225 relative to the May 13, 2013 elections- is premised only on the alleged newly discovered November 30, 2009 Affidavit. Nothing more. He does not claim in this case that his use of US passport in his travel abroad in 2009 is an isolated act, as J. Leonen insists. In Vazquez v. De Borja,[54] it was held that courts do not have jurisdiction over issues neither raised in the pleading nor tried with the express or implied consent of the parties. They cannot render judgment based on issues that have never been raised before them. Equally settled is the rule that "points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower [tribunal] need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage. Basic considerations of due process underlie this rule."[55] The same goes true with J. Brion's theory that what was cancelled by virtue of Maquiling was only the April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation where Arnado expressly renounced any foreign citizenship; not the July 10, 2008 Oath of Allegiance which carried with it an implied abdication of foreign citizenship. For J. Brion, "[t]he requirement of an express renunciation x x x does not negate the effect of, or make any less real, the prior implicit renunciation of citizenship and allegiance made upon taking the oath of allegiance." Again, this was never raised in this petition. At any rate, the execution of an Oath of Allegiance is required by Section 3[56] of RA 9225. For those who avail themselves of RA 9225 and intend to run for public office, Section 5(2) thereof provides the additional requirement of making a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships prior to or at the time of filing of their CoC. Definitely, the provisions of Section 5(2) are not useless or meaningless surplusage. When the law expressly requires an explicit renunciation, an implicit one would be insufficient. Furthermore, even assuming that Arnado's 2008 implied renunciation is sufficient, the same has also been negated by his use of his US passport in 2009, following the ruling in Maquiling. | |||||