Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 198742 August 10, 2012
TEODORA SOBEJANA-CONDON, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMSSON ON E!ECTONS, !US M. BAUTSTA, ROBE!TO ". PCAR #$% &!MA P.
PAGADUAN,Respondents.
SERENO,
*
PERLAS-ERNAE, !!
*
D E C S O N
RE'ES, J.:
"ailure to renounce forei#n citi$enship in accordance %ith the e&act tenor of Section '()* of Republic
Act (R.A.* No. +))' renders a dual citi$en ineli#ible to run for and thus hold an, elective public
office.
T() C#s)
At bar is a special civil action for certiorari
-
under Rule ./ of the Rules of 0ourt see1in# to nullif,
Resolution
)
dated Septe2ber ., )3-- of the 0o22ission on Elections (0OMELE0* en banc in EA0
(AE* No. A-//-)3-3. 4he assailed resolution (a* reversed the Order
5
dated Nove2ber 53, )3-3 of
0OMELE0 Second 6ivision dis2issin# petitioner7s appeal8 and (b* affir2ed the consolidated
6ecision
/
dated October )), )3-3 of the Re#ional 4rial 0ourt (R40*, auan#, La 9nion, ranch 55,
declarin# petitioner 4eodora Sobe:ana-0ondon (petitioner* dis;ualified and ineli#ible to her position
as <ice-Ma,or of 0aba, La 9nion.
T() U$%*s+ut)% ,#-ts
4he petitioner is a natural-born "ilipino citi$en havin# been born of "ilipino parents on Au#ust =,
-+//. On 6ece2ber -5, -+=/, she beca2e a naturali$ed Australian citi$en o%in# to her 2arria#e to
a certain >evin 4ho2as 0ondon.
On 6ece2ber ), )33', she filed an application to re-ac;uire Philippine citi$enship before the
Philippine E2bass, in 0anberra, Australia pursuant to Section 5 of R.A. No. +))' other%ise 1no%n
as the ?0iti$enship Retention and Re-Ac;uisition Act of )335.?
'
4he application %as approved and
the petitioner too1 her oath of alle#iance to the Republic of the Philippines on 6ece2ber ', )33'.
On Septe2ber -=, )33., the petitioner filed an uns%orn 6eclaration of Renunciation of Australian
0iti$enship before the 6epart2ent of @22i#ration and @ndi#enous Affairs, 0anberra, Australia, %hich
in turn issued the Order dated Septe2ber )A, )33. certif,in# that she has ceased to be an
Australian citi$en.
.
4he petitioner ran for Ma,or in her ho2eto%n of 0aba, La 9nion in the )33A elections. She lost in
her bid. She a#ain sou#ht elective office durin# the Ma, -3, )3-3 elections this ti2e for the position
of <ice-Ma,or. She obtained the hi#hest nu2bers of votes and %as proclai2ed as the %innin#
candidate. She too1 her oath of office on Ma, -5, )3-3.
Soon thereafter, private respondents Robelito <. Picar, Bil2a P. Pa#aduan
A
and Luis M.
autista,
=
(private respondents* all re#istered voters of 0aba, La 9nion, filed separate petitions for
;uo %arranto ;uestionin# the petitioner7s eli#ibilit, before the R40. 4he petitions si2ilarl, sou#ht the
petitioner7s dis;ualification fro2 holdin# her elective post on the #round that she is a dual citi$en and
that she failed to e&ecute a ?personal and s%orn renunciation of an, and all forei#n citi$enship
before an, public officer authori$ed to ad2inister an oath? as i2posed b, Section '()* of R.A. No.
+))'.
4he petitioner denied bein# a dual citi$en and averred that since Septe2ber )A, )33., she ceased to
be an Australian citi$en. She clai2ed that the 6eclaration of Renunciation of Australian 0iti$enship
she e&ecuted in Australia sufficientl, co2plied %ith Section '()*, R.A. No. +))' and that her act of
runnin# for public office is a clear abandon2ent of her Australian citi$enship.
Ru.*$g o/ t() RTC
@n its consolidated 6ecision dated October )), )3-3, the trial court held that the petitioner7s failure to
co2pl, %ith Section '()* of R.A. No. +))' rendered her ineli#ible to run and hold public office. As
ad2itted b, the petitioner herself durin# trial, the personal declaration of renunciation she filed in
Australia %as not under oath. 4he la% clearl, 2andates that the docu2ent containin# the
renunciation of forei#n citi$enship 2ust be s%orn before an, public officer authori$ed to ad2inister
oath. 0onse;uentl,, the R407s decision disposed as follo%sC
BDERE"ORE, pre2ises considered, the 0ourt renders :ud#2ent in "A<OR of Eprivate respondentsF
and AGA@NS4 (petitioner*C
-* 6E0LAR@NG EpetitionerF 4EO6ORA SOE!ANA-0ON6ON, dis;ualified and ineli#ible to hold the
office of <ice-Ma,or of 0aba, La 9nion8
)* N9LL@"H@NG her procla2ation as the %innin# candidate for <ice-Ma,or of said 2unicipalit,8 and
5* 6E0LAR@NG the position of <ice-Ma,or in said 2unicipalit, vacant.
SO OR6ERE6.
+
Ru.*$g o/ t() COME!EC
4he petitioner appealed to the 0OMELE0 but the appeal %as dis2issed b, the Second 6ivision in
its Order
-3
dated Nove2ber 53, )3-3 for failure to pa, the doc1et fees %ithin the prescribed period.
On 2otion for reconsideration, the appeal %as reinstated b, the 0OMELE0 en banc in its
Resolution
--
dated Septe2ber ., )3--. @n the sa2e issuance, the substantive 2erits of the appeal
%ere #iven due course. 4he 0OMELE0 en banc concurred %ith the findin#s and conclusions of the
R408 it also #ranted the Motion for E&ecution Pendin# Appeal filed b, the private respondents.
4he decretal portion of the resolution readsC
&0ERE,ORE, pre2ises considered the 0o22ission RESO!"ED as it hereb, RESO!"ES as
follo%sC
-. 4o DSMSS the instant appeal for lac1 of 2erit8
). 4o A,,RM the DECSON dated )) October )3-3 of the court a ;uo8 and
5. 4o GRANT the Motion for E&ecution filed on Nove2ber -), )3-3.
SO OR6ERE6.
-)
(E2phasis supplied*
Dence, the present petition ascribin# #rave abuse of discretion to the 0OMELE0 en banc.
T() P)t*t*o$)12s A1gu3)$ts
4he petitioner contends that since she ceased to be an Australian citi$en on Septe2ber )A, )33.,
she no lon#er held dual citi$enship and %as onl, a "ilipino citi$en %hen she filed her certificate of
candidac, as earl, as the )33A elections. Dence, the ?personal and s%orn renunciation of forei#n
citi$enship? i2posed b, Section '()* of R.A. No. +))' to dual citi$ens see1in# elective office does
not appl, to her.
She further ar#ues that a s%orn renunciation is a 2ere for2al and not a 2andator, re;uire2ent. @n
support thereof, she cites portions of the !ournal of the Douse of Representatives dated !une ) to ',
)335 containin# the sponsorship speech for Douse ill (D..* No. /A)3, the precursor of R.A. No.
+))'.
She clai2s that the private respondents are estopped fro2 ;uestionin# her eli#ibilit, since the,
failed to do so %hen she filed certificates of candidac, for the )33A and )3-3 elections.
Lastl,, she disputes the po%er of the 0OMELE0 en banc toC (a* ta1e co#ni$ance of the substantive
2erits of her appeal instead of re2andin# the sa2e to the 0OMELE0 Second 6ivision for the
continuation of the appeal proceedin#s8 and (b* allo% the e&ecution pendin# appeal of the R407s
:ud#2ent.
T() ssu)s
Posed for resolution are the follo%in# issuesC @* Bhether the 0OMELE0 en banc 2a, resolve the
2erits of an appeal after rulin# on its reinstate2ent8 @@* Bhether the 0OMELE0 en banc 2a, order
the e&ecution of a :ud#2ent rendered b, a trial court in an election case8 @@@* Bhether the private
respondents are barred fro2 ;uestionin# the ;ualifications of the petitioner8 and @<* "or purposes of
deter2inin# the petitioner7s eli#ibilit, to run for public office, %hether the ?s%orn renunciation of
forei#n citi$enship? in Section '()* of R.A. No. +))' is a 2ere pro-for2a re;uire2ent.
T() Cou1t2s Ru.*$g
. A$ #++)#. 3#4 5) s*3u.t#$)ous.4
1)*$st#t)% #$% %)/*$*t*6).4 1)so.6)%
54 t() COME!EC )$ 5#$- *$ #
1)so.ut*o$ %*s+os*$g o/ # 3ot*o$ /o1
1)-o$s*%)1#t*o$.
4he po%er to decide 2otions for reconsideration in election cases is arro#ated unto the 0OMELE0
en banc b, Section 5, Article @I-0 of the 0onstitution, vi$C
Sec. 5. 4he 0o22ission on Elections 2a, sit en banc or in t%o divisions, and shall pro2ul#ate its
rules of procedure in order to e&pedite disposition of election cases, includin# pre-procla2ation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that 2otions
for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided b, the 0o22ission en banc.
A co2ple2entar, provision is present in Section '(c*, Rule 5 of the 0OMELE0 Rules of Procedure,
to %itC
An, 2otion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or rulin# of a 6ivision shall be resolved b, the
0o22ission en banc e&cept 2otions on interlocutor, orders of the division %hich shall be resolved
b, the division %hich issued the order.
0onsiderin# that the above cited provisos do not set an, li2its to the 0OMELE0 en banc7s
prero#ative in resolvin# a 2otion for reconsideration, there is nothin# to prevent the bod, fro2
directl, ad:udicatin# the substantive 2erits of an appeal after rulin# for its reinstate2ent instead of
re2andin# the sa2e to the division that initiall, dis2issed it.
Be thus see no i2propriet, 2uch 2ore #rave abuse of discretion on the part of the 0OMELE0 en
banc %hen it proceeded to decide the substantive 2erits of the petitioner7s appeal after rulin# for its
reinstate2ent.
"urther, records sho% that, in her 2otion for reconsideration before the 0OMELE0 en banc, the
petitioner not onl, proffered ar#u2ents on the issue on doc1et fees but also on the issue of her
eli#ibilit,. She even filed a supple2ental 2otion for reconsideration attachin# there%ith supportin#
docu2ents
-5
to her contention that she is no lon#er an Australian citi$en. 4he petitioner, after
obtainin# an unfavorable decision, cannot be per2itted to disavo% the en banc7s e&ercise of
discretion on the substantial 2erits of her appeal %hen she herself invo1ed the sa2e in the first
place.
4he fact that the 0OMELE0 en banc had re2anded si2ilar appeals to the 6ivision that initiall,
dis2issed the2 cannot serve as a precedent to the disposition of the petitioner7s appeal. A decision
or resolution of an, ad:udicatin# bod, can be disposed in several %a,s. 4o sustain petitioner7s
ar#u2ent %ould be virtuall, puttin# a strai#ht:ac1et on the 0OMELE0 en banc7s ad:udicator,
po%ers.
More si#nificantl,, the re2and of the appeal to the 0OMELE0 Second 6ivision %ould be
unnecessaril, circuitous and repu#nant to the rule on preferential disposition of ;uo %arranto cases
espoused in Rule 5., Section -' of the 0OMELE0 Rules of Procedure.
-/
. T() COME!EC )$ 5#$- (#s t()
+o7)1 to o1%)1 %*s-1)t*o$#14
)8)-ut*o$ o/ 9u%g3)$t.
Be cannot subscribe to petitioner7s sub2ission that the 0OMELE0 en banc has no po%er to order
the issuance of a %rit of e&ecution and that such function belon#s onl, to the court of ori#in.
4here is no reason to dispute the 0OMELE07s authorit, to order discretionar, e&ecution of :ud#2ent
in vie% of the fact that the suppletor, application of the Rules of 0ourt is e&pressl, sanctioned b,
Section -, Rule /- of the 0OMELE0 Rules of Procedure.
-'
9nder Section ), Rule 5+ of the Rules of 0ourt, e&ecution pendin# appeal 2a, be issued b, an
appellate court after the trial court has lost :urisdiction. @n atul v. a,ron,
-.
%e stressed the i2port of
the provision vis-J-vis election cases %hen %e held that :ud#2ents in election cases %hich 2a, be
e&ecuted pendin# appeal includes those decided b, trial courts and those rendered b, the
0OMELE0 %hether in the e&ercise of its ori#inal or appellate :urisdiction.
. P1*6#t) 1)s+o$%)$ts #1) $ot
)sto++)% /1o3 :u)st*o$*$g
+)t*t*o$)12s ).*g*5*.*t4 to (o.% +u5.*-
o//*-).
4he fact that the petitioner7s ;ualifications %ere not ;uestioned %hen she filed certificates of
candidac, for )33A and )3-3 elections cannot operate as an estoppel to the petition for ;uo
%arranto before the R40.
9nder the atas Pa2bansa ilan# ==- (O2nibus Election 0ode*, there are t%o instances %here a
petition ;uestionin# the ;ualifications of a re#istered candidate to run for the office for %hich his
certificate of candidac, %as filed can be raised, to %itC
(-* Before election, pursuant to Section A= thereof %hich provides thatC
Sec. A=. Petition to den, due course or to cancel a certificate of candidac,. K A verified petition
see1in# to den, due course or to cancel a certificate of candidac, 2a, be filed b, an, person
e&clusivel, on the #round that an, 2aterial representation contained therein as re;uired under
Section A/ hereof is false. 4he petition 2a, be filed at an, ti2e not later than t%ent,-five da,s fro2
the ti2e of the filin# of the certificate of candidac, and shall be decided, after due notice and
hearin#, not later than fifteen da,s before the election8 and
()* After election, pursuant to Section )'5 thereof, vi$C
Sec. )'5. Petition for ;uo %arranto. K An, voter contestin# the election of an, Me2ber of the
atasan# Pa2bansa, re#ional, provincial, or cit, officer on the #round of ineli#ibilit, or of dislo,alt,
to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a s%orn petition for ;uo %arranto %ith the 0o22ission
%ithin ten da,s after the procla2ation of the results of the election. (E2phasis ours*
Dence, if a person ;ualified to file a petition to dis;ualif, a certain candidate fails to file the petition
%ithin the t%ent,-five ()'*-da, period prescribed b, Section A= of the O2nibus Election 0ode for
%hatever reasons, the elections la%s do not leave hi2 co2pletel, helpless as he has another
chance to raise the dis;ualification of the candidate b, filin# a petition for ;uo %arranto %ithin ten
(-3* da,s fro2 the procla2ation of the results of the election, as provided under Section )'5 of the
O2nibus Election 0ode.
-A
4he above re2edies %ere both available to the private respondents and their failure to utili$e
Section A= of the O2nibus Election 0ode cannot serve to bar the2 should the, opt to file, as the,
did so file, a ;uo %arranto petition under Section )'5.
". P)t*t*o$)1 *s %*s:u#.*/*)% /1o3
1u$$*$g /o1 ).)-t*6) o//*-) /o1
/#*.u1) to 1)$ou$-) ()1 Aust1#.*#$
-*t*;)$s(*+ *$ #--o1%#$-) 7*t(
S)-t*o$ <=2> o/ R.A. No. 922<.
R.A. No. +))' allo%s the retention and re-ac;uisition of "ilipino citi$enship for natural-born citi$ens
%ho have lost their Philippine citi$enship
-=
b, ta1in# an oath of alle#iance to the Republic, thusC
Section 5. Retention of Philippine 0iti$enship. K An, provision of la% to the contrar, not%ithstandin#,
natural-born citi$ens of the Philippines %ho have lost their Philippine citi$enship b, reason of their
naturali$ation as citi$ens of a forei#n countr, are hereb, dee2ed to have re-ac;uired Philippine
citi$enship upon ta1in# the follo%in# oath of alle#iance to the RepublicC
?@, LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL, sole2nl, s%ear (or affir2* that @ %ill support and defend the
0onstitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obe, the la%s and le#al orders
pro2ul#ated b, the dul, constituted authorities of the Philippines8 and @ hereb, declare that @
reco#ni$e and accept the supre2e authorit, of the Philippines and %ill 2aintain true faith
and alle#iance thereto8 and that @ i2posed this obli#ation upon 2,self voluntaril, %ithout
2ental reservation or purpose of evasion.?
Natural-born citi$ens of the Philippines %ho, after the effectivit, of this Act, beco2e citi$ens of a
forei#n countr, shall retain their Philippine citi$enship upon ta1in# the aforesaid oath.
4he oath is an abbreviated repatriation process that restores one7s "ilipino citi$enship and all civil
and political ri#hts and obli#ations conco2itant there%ith, sub:ect to certain conditions i2posed in
Section ', vi$C
Sec. '. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. K 4hose %ho retain or re-ac;uire Philippine
citi$enship under this Act shall en:o, full civil and political ri#hts and be sub:ect to all attendant
liabilities and responsibilities under e&istin# la%s of the Philippines and the follo%in# conditionsC
(-* 4hose intendin# to e&ercise their ri#ht of suffra#e 2ust 2eet the re;uire2ents under Section -,
Article < of the 0onstitution, Republic Act No. +-=+, other%ise 1no%n as ?4he Overseas Absentee
<otin# Act of )335? and other e&istin# la%s8
()* 4hose see1in# elective public office in the Philippines shall 2eet the ;ualification for holdin# such
public office as re;uired b, the 0onstitution and e&istin# la%s and, at the ti2e of the filin# of the
certificate of candidac,, 2a1e a personal and s%orn renunciation of an, and all forei#n citi$enship
before an, public officer authori$ed to ad2inister an oath8
(5* 4hose appointed to an, public office shall subscribe and s%ear to an oath of alle#iance to the
Republic of the Philippines and its dul, constituted authorities prior to their assu2ption of officeC
Provided, 4hat the, renounce their oath of alle#iance to the countr, %here the, too1 that oath8
(/* 4hose intendin# to practice their profession in the Philippines shall appl, %ith the proper authorit,
for a license or per2it to en#a#e in such practice8 and
('* 4hat ri#ht to vote or be elected or appointed to an, public office in the Philippines cannot be
e&ercised b,, or e&tended to, those %hoC
(a* are candidates for or are occup,in# an, public office in the countr, of %hich the, are naturali$ed
citi$ens8 andMor
(b* are in active service as co22issioned or non-co22issioned officers in the ar2ed forces of the
countr, %hich the, are naturali$ed citi$ens. (E2phasis ours*
9nder the provisions of the afore2entioned la%, the petitioner has validl, re-ac;uired her "ilipino
citi$enship %hen she too1 an Oath of Alle#iance to the Republic of the Philippines on 6ece2ber ',
)33'. At that point, she held dual citi$enship, i.e., Australian and Philippine.
On Septe2ber -=, )33., or a ,ear before she initiall, sou#ht elective public office, she filed a
renunciation of Australian citi$enship in 0anberra, Australia. Ad2ittedl,, ho%ever, the sa2e %as not
under oath contrar, to the e&act 2andate of Section '()* that the renunciation of forei#n citi$enship
2ust be s%orn before an officer authori$ed to ad2inister oath.
4o obviate the fatal conse;uence of her inutile renunciation, the petitioner pleads the 0ourt to
interpret the ?s%orn renunciation of an, and all forei#n citi$enship? in Section '()* to be a 2ere pro
for2a re;uire2ent in confor2it, %ith the intent of the Le#islature. She anchors her sub2ission on
the state2ent 2ade b, Representative !avier durin# the floor deliberations on D.. No. /A)3, the
precursor of R.A. No. +))'.
At the outset, it bears stressin# that the 0ourt7s dut, to interpret the la% accordin# to its true intent is
e&ercised onl, %hen the la% is a2bi#uous or of doubtful 2eanin#. 4he first and funda2ental dut, of
the 0ourt is to appl, the la%. As such, %hen the la% is clear and free fro2 an, doubt, there is no
occasion for construction or interpretation8 there is onl, roo2 for application.
-+
Section '()* of R.A.
No. +))' is one such instance.
A2bi#uit, is a condition of ad2ittin# t%o or 2ore 2eanin#s, of bein# understood in 2ore than one
%a,, or of referrin# to t%o or 2ore thin#s at the sa2e ti2e. "or a statute to be considered
a2bi#uous, it 2ust ad2it of t%o or 2ore possible 2eanin#s.
)3
4he lan#ua#e of Section '()* is free fro2 an, a2bi#uit,. @n Lope$ v. 0OMELE0,
)-
%e declared its
cate#orical and sin#le 2eanin#C a "ilipino A2erican or an, dual citi$en cannot run for an, elective
public position in the Philippines unless he or she personall, s%ears to a renunciation of all forei#n
citi$enship at the ti2e of filin# the certificate of candidac,. Be also e&pounded on the for2 of the
renunciation and held that to be valid, the renunciation 2ust be contained in an affidavit dul,
e&ecuted before an officer of the la% %ho is authori$ed to ad2inister an oath statin# in clear and
une;uivocal ter2s that affiant is renouncin# all forei#n citi$enship.
4he sa2e 2eanin# %as e2phasi$ed in !acot v. 6al,
))
%hen %e held that "ilipinos re-ac;uirin# or
retainin# their Philippine citi$enship under R.A. No. +))' 2ust e&plicitl, renounce their forei#n
citi$enship if the, %ish to run for elective posts in the Philippines, thusC
4he la% cate#oricall, re;uires persons see1in# elective public office, %ho either retained their
Philippine citi$enship or those %ho reac;uired it, to 2a1e a personal and s%orn renunciation of an,
and all forei#n citi$enship before a public officer authori$ed to ad2inister an oath si2ultaneous %ith
or before the filin# of the certificate of candidac,.
Dence, Section '()* of Republic Act No. +))' co2pels natural-born "ilipinos, %ho have been
naturali$ed as citi$ens of a forei#n countr,, but %ho reac;uired or retained their Philippine
citi$enship (-* to ta1e the oath of alle#iance under Section 5 of Republic Act No. +))', and ()* for
those see1in# elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionall, e&ecute a personal and s%orn
renunciation of an, and all forei#n citi$enship before an authori$ed public officer prior or
si2ultaneous to the filin# of their certificates of candidac,, to ;ualif, as candidates in Philippine
elections.
0learl, Section '()* of Republic Act No. +))' (on the 2a1in# of a personal and s%orn renunciation
of an, and all forei#n citi$enship* re;uires of the "ilipinos availin# the2selves of the benefits under
the said Act to acco2plish an underta1in# other than that %hich the, have presu2abl, co2plied %ith
under Section 5 thereof (oath of alle#iance to the Republic of the Philippines*. 4his is 2ade clear in
the discussion of the ica2eral 0onference 0o22ittee on 6isa#reein# Provisions of Douse ill No.
/A)3 and Senate ill No. )-53 held on -= Au#ust )335 (precursors of Republic Act No. +))'*,
%here the Don. 0hair2an "ran1lin 6rilon and Don. Representative Arthur 6efensor e&plained to
Don. Representative E&e;uiel !avier that the oath of alle#iance is different fro2 the renunciation of
forei#n citi$enship8
& & & &
The intent of the legislators was not only for Filipinos reacquiring or retaining their Philippine
citienship under Republic Act !o. "##$ to ta%e their oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines& but also to e'plicitly renounce their foreign citienship if they wish to run for elective
posts in the Philippines. 4o ;ualif, as a candidate in Philippine elections, "ilipinos 2ust onl, have
one citi$enship, na2el,, Philippine citi$enship.
)5
(0itation o2itted and italics and underlinin# ours*
Dence, in 6e Gu$2an v. 0OMELE0,
)/
%e declared petitioner therein to be dis;ualified fro2 runnin#
for the position of vice-2a,or for his failure to 2a1e a personal and s%orn renunciation of his
A2erican citi$enship.
Be find no reason to depart fro2 the 2andator, nature infused b, the above rulin#s to the phrase
?s%orn renunciation?. 4he lan#ua#e of the provision is plain and una2bi#uous. @t e&presses a sin#le,
definite, and sensible 2eanin# and 2ust thus be read literall,.
)'
4he forei#n citi$enship 2ust be
for2all, re:ected throu#h an affidavit dul, s%orn before an officer authori$ed to ad2inister oath.
@t is conclusivel, presu2ed to be the 2eanin# that the Le#islature has intended to conve,.
).
Even a
resort to the !ournal of the Douse of Representatives invo1ed b, the petitioner leads to the sa2e
inference, vi$C
@N4ERPELLA4@ON O" REP. !A<@ER
Rep. !avier initiall, in;uired %hether under the ill, dual citi$enship is onl, li2ited to natural-born
"ilipinos and not to naturali$ed "ilipinos.
Rep. Libanan replied in the affir2ative.
Rep. !avier subse;uentl, adverted to Section ' of the ill %hich provides that natural-born "ilipinos
%ho have dual citi$enship shall continue to en:o, full civil and political ri#hts. 4his bein# the case, he
sou#ht clarification as to %hether the, can indeed run for public office provided that the, renounce
their forei#n citi$enship.
Rep. Libanan replied in the affir2ative, citin# that these citi$ens %ill onl, have to 2a1e a personal
and s%orn renunciation of forei#n citi$enship before an, authori$ed public officer.
Rep. !avier sou#ht further clarification on this 2atter, citin# that %hile the ill provides the2 %ith full
civil and political ri#hts as "ilipino citi$ens, the 2easure also discri2inates a#ainst the2 since the,
are re;uired to 2a1e a s%orn renunciation of their other forei#n citi$enship if and %hen the, run for
public office. De thereafter proposed to delete this particular provision.
@n his re:oinder, R)+. !*5#$#$ )8+.#*$)% t(#t t(*s s)16)s to )1#s) #.. %ou5ts 1)g#1%*$g #$4
*ssu)s t(#t 3*g(t 5) 1#*s)% +)1t#*$*$g to t() -*t*;)$s(*+ o/ #$4 -#$%*%#t). 0) su5s):u)$t.4
-*t)% t() -#s) o/ A/1o4*3 6s. Rus?, 7()1)*$ t() U$*t)% St#t)s -o$s*%)1)% # $#tu1#.*;)%
A3)1*-#$ st*.. #s #$ A3)1*-#$ -*t*;)$ )6)$ 7()$ () -#st (*s 6ot) *$ s1#). %u1*$g o$) o/ *ts
).)-t*o$s.
Rep. !avier ho%ever pointed out that the 2atter of votin# is different because in votin#, one is not
re;uired to renounce his forei#n citi$enship. De pointed out that under the ill, "ilipinos %ho run for
public office 2ust renounce their forei#n citi$enship. De pointed out further that this is a contradiction
in the ill.
4hereafter, Rep. !avier in;uired %hether "ilipino citi$ens %ho had ac;uired forei#n citi$enship and
are no% entitled to reac;uire their "ilipino citi$enship %ill be considered as natural-born citi$ens. As
such, he li1e%ise in;uired %hether the, %ill also be considered ;ualified to run for the hi#hest
elective positions in the countr,.
Rep. Libanan replied in the affir2ative, citin# that the onl, re;uire2ent is that the, 2a1e a s%orn
renunciation of their forei#n citi$enship and that the, co2pl, %ith the residenc, and re#istration
re;uire2ents as provided for in the 0onstitution.
Bhereupon, Rep. !avier noted that under the 0onstitution, natural-born citi$ens are those %ho are
citi$ens at the ti2e of birth %ithout havin# to perfor2 an act to co2plete or perfect hisMher
citi$enship.
Rep. Libanan a#reed there%ith, citin# that this is the reason %h, the ill see1s the repeal of 0A No.
.5. 4he repeal, he said, %ould help "ilipino citi$ens %ho ac;uired forei#n citi$enship to retain their
citi$enship. Bith re#ard then to Section ' of the ill, he e&plained that the 0o22ittee had decided to
include this provision because Section -=, Article I@ of the 0onstitution provides for the
accountabilit, of public officers.
@n his re:oinder, Rep. !avier 2aintained that in this case, the s%orn renunciation of a forei#n
citi$enship %ill onl, beco2e a pro for2a re;uire2ent.
On further ;ueries of Rep. !avier, Rep. Libanan affir2ed that natural-born "ilipino citi$ens %ho
beca2e forei#n citi$ens and %ho have reac;uired their "ilipino citi$enship under the ill %ill be
considered as natural-born citi$ens, and therefore ;ualified to run for the presidenc,, the vice-
presidenc, or for a seat in 0on#ress. De also a#reed %ith the observation of Rep. !avier that a
natural-born citi$en is one %ho is a citi$en of the countr, at the ti2e of birth. De also e&plained that
the ill %ill, in effect, return to a "ilipino citi$en %ho has ac;uired forei#n citi$enship, the status of
bein# a natural-born citi$en effective at the ti2e he lost his "ilipino citi$enship.
As a re:oinder, Rep. !avier opined that doin# so %ould be discri2inatin# a#ainst naturali$ed "ilipino
citi$ens and "ilipino citi$ens b, election %ho are all dis;ualified to run for certain public offices. De
then su##ested that the ill be a2ended b, not considerin# as natural-born citi$ens those "ilipinos
%ho had renounced their "ilipino citi$enship and ac;uired forei#n citi$enship. De said that the,
should be considered as repatriated citi$ens.
@n repl,, Rep. Libanan assured Rep. !avier that the 0o22ittee %ill ta1e note of the latter7s
co22ents on the 2atter. De ho%ever stressed that after a len#th, deliberation on the sub:ect, the
0o22ittees on !ustice, and "orei#n Affairs had decided to revert bac1 to the status of bein# natural-
born citi$ens those natural-born "ilipino citi$ens %ho had ac;uired forei#n citi$enship but no%
%ished to reac;uire their "ilipino citi$enship.
Rep. !avier then e&plained that a "ilipina %ho loses her "ilipino citi$enship b, virtue of her 2arria#e
to a forei#ner can re#ain her repatriated "ilipino citi$enship, upon the death of her husband, b,
si2pl, ta1in# her oath before the 6epart2ent of !ustice (6O!*.
Rep. !avier said that he does not oppose the ill but onl, %ants to be fair to other "ilipino citi$ens
%ho are not considered natural-born. De reiterated that natural-born "ilipino citi$ens %ho had
renounced their citi$enship b, pled#in# alle#iance to another soverei#nt, should not be allo%ed to
revert bac1 to their status of bein# natural-born citi$ens once the, decide to re#ain their "ilipino
citi$enship. De underscored that this %ill in a %a, allo% such "ilipinos to en:o, dual citi$enship.
On %hether the Sponsors %ill a#ree to an a2end2ent incorporatin# the position of Rep. !avier, Rep.
Libanan stated that this %ill defeat the purpose of the ill.
Rep. !avier disa#reed there%ith, addin# that natural-born "ilipino citi$ens %ho ac;uired forei#n
citi$enships and later decided to re#ain their "ilipino citi$enship, %ill be considered as repatriated
citi$ens.
Rep. Libanan cited the case of en#$on vs. DRE4 %herein the Supre2e 0ourt had ruled that onl,
naturali$ed "ilipino citi$ens are not considered as natural-born citi$ens.
@n reaction, Rep. !avier clarified that onl, citi$ens b, election or those %hose 2others are "ilipino
citi$ens under the -+5' 0onstitution and %ho elected "ilipino citi$enship upon reachin# the a#e of
2aturit,, are not dee2ed as natural-born citi$ens.
@n response, Rep. Libanan 2aintained that in the en#$on case, repatriation results in the recover,
of one7s ori#inal nationalit, and onl, naturali$ed citi$ens are not considered as natural-born citi$ens.
On %hether the Sponsors %ould a#ree to not #ivin# bac1 the status of bein# natural-born citi$ens to
natural-born "ilipino citi$ens %ho ac;uired forei#n citi$enship, Rep. Libanan re2ar1ed that the od,
in plenar, session %ill decide on the 2atter.
)A
4he petitioner obviousl, espouses an isolated readin# of Representative !avier7s state2ent8 she
convenientl, disre#ards the precedin# and succeedin# discussions in the records.
4he above-;uoted e&cerpts of the le#islative record sho% that Representative !avier7s state2ent
ou#ht to be understood %ithin the conte&t of the issue then bein# discussed, that is K %hether for2er
natural-born citi$ens %ho re-ac;uire their "ilipino citi$enship under the proposed la% %ill revert to
their ori#inal status as natural-born citi$ens and thus be ;ualified to run for #overn2ent positions
reserved onl, to natural-born "ilipinos, i.e. President, <ice-President and Me2bers of the 0on#ress.
@t %as Representative !avier7s position that the, should be considered as repatriated "ilipinos and
not as natural-born citi$ens since the, %ill have to e&ecute a personal and s%orn renunciation of
forei#n citi$enship. Natural-born citi$ens are those %ho need not perfor2 an act to perfect their
citi$enship. Representative Libanan, ho%ever, 2aintained that the, %ill revert to their ori#inal status
as natural-born citi$ens. 4o reconcile the renunciation i2posed b, Section '()* %ith the principle that
natural-born citi$ens are those %ho need not perfor2 an, act to perfect their citi$enship,
Representative !avier su##ested that the s%orn renunciation of forei#n citi$enship be considered as
a 2ere pro for2a re;uire2ent.
Petitioner7s ar#u2ent, therefore, loses its point. 4he ?s%orn renunciation of forei#n citi$enship? 2ust
be dee2ed a for2al re;uire2ent onl, %ith respect to the re-ac;uisition of one7s status as a natural-
born "ilipino so as to override the effect of the principle that natural-born citi$ens need not perfor2
an, act to perfect their citi$enship. Never %as it 2entioned or even alluded to that, as the petitioner
%ants this 0ourt to believe, those %ho re-ac;uire their "ilipino citi$enship and thereafter run for
public office has the option of e&ecutin# an uns%orn affidavit of renunciation.
@t is also palpable in the above records that Section ' %as intended to co2ple2ent Section -=,
Article I@ of the 0onstitution on public officers7 pri2ar, accountabilit, of alle#iance and lo,alt,, %hich
providesC
Sec. -=. K Public officers and e2plo,ees o%e the State and this 0onstitution alle#iance at all ti2es
and an, public officer or e2plo,ee %ho see1s to chan#e his citi$enship or ac;uire the status of an
i22i#rant of another countr, durin# his tenure shall be dealt %ith b, la%.
An oath is a sole2n declaration, acco2panied b, a s%earin# to God or a revered person or thin#,
that one7s state2ent is true or that one %ill be bound to a pro2ise. 4he person 2a1in# the oath
i2plicitl, invites punish2ent if the state2ent is untrue or the pro2ise is bro1en. 4he le#al effect of an
oath is to sub:ect the person to penalties for per:ur, if the testi2on, is false.
)=
@ndeed, the sole2n pro2ise, and the ris1 of punish2ent attached to an oath ensures truthfulness to
the prospective public officer7s abandon2ent of his adopted state and pro2ise of absolute alle#iance
and lo,alt, to the Republic of the Philippines.
4o hold the oath to be a 2ere pro for2a re;uire2ent is to sa, that it is onl, for cere2onial purposes8
it %ould also acco22odate a 2ere ;ualified or te2porar, alle#iance fro2 #overn2ent officers %hen
the 0onstitution and the le#islature clearl, de2and other%ise.
Petitioner contends that the Australian 0iti$enship Act of -+/=, under %hich she is alread, dee2ed
to have lost her citi$enship, is entitled to :udicial notice. Be disa#ree.
"orei#n la%s are not a 2atter of :udicial notice. Li1e an, other fact, the, 2ust be alle#ed and
proven.
)+
4o prove a forei#n la%, the part, invo1in# it 2ust present a cop, thereof and co2pl, %ith
Sections )/ and )' of Rule -5) of the Revised Rules of 0ourt %hich readsC
Sec. )/. Proof of official record. K 4he record of public docu2ents referred to in para#raph (a* of
Section -+, %hen ad2issible for an, purpose, 2a, be evidenced b, an official publication thereof or
b, a cop, attested b, the officer havin# the le#al custod, of the record, or b, his deput,, and
acco2panied, if the record is not 1ept in the Philippines, %ith a certificate that such officer has the
custod,. @f the office in %hich the record is 1ept is in a forei#n countr,, the certificate 2a, be 2ade
b, a secretar, of the e2bass, or le#ation, consul #eneral, consul, vice- consul, or consular a#ent or
b, an, officer in the forei#n service of the Philippines stationed in the forei#n countr, in %hich the
record is 1ept, and authenticated b, the seal of his office. (E2phasis ours*
Sec. )'. (hat attestation of copy )ust state. K Bhenever a cop, of a docu2ent or record is attested
for the purpose of the evidence, the attestation 2ust state, in substance, that the cop, is a correct
cop, of the ori#inal, or a specific part thereof, as the case 2a, be. 4he attestation 2ust be under the
official seal of the attestin# officer, if there be an,, or if he be the cler1 of a court havin# a seal, under
the seal of such court.
4he 0ourt has ad2itted certain e&ceptions to the above rules and held that the e&istence of a forei#n
la% 2a, also be established throu#hC (-* a testi2on, under oath of an e&pert %itness such as an
attorne,-at-la% in the countr, %here the forei#n la% operates %herein he ;uotes verbati2 a section
of the la% and states that the sa2e %as in force at the ti2e 2aterial to the facts at hand8 and ()*
li1e%ise, in several naturali$ation cases, it %as held b, the 0ourt that evidence of the la% of a forei#n
countr, on reciprocit, re#ardin# the ac;uisition of citi$enship, althou#h not 2eetin# the prescribed
rule of practice, 2a, be allo%ed and used as basis for favorable action, if, in the li#ht of all the
circu2stances, the 0ourt is ?satisfied of the authenticit, of the %ritten proof offered.? 4hus, in a
nu2ber of decisions, 2ere authentication of the 0hinese Naturali$ation La% b, the 0hinese
0onsulate General of Manila %as held to be a co2petent proof of that la%.
53
4he petitioner failed to prove the Australian 0iti$enship Act of -+/= throu#h an, of the above
2ethods. As unifor2l, observed b, the R40 and 0OMELE0, the petitioner failed to sho% proof of
the e&istence of the la% durin# trial. Also, the letter issued b, the Australian #overn2ent sho%in#
that petitioner alread, renounced her Australian citi$enship %as unauthenticated hence, the courts a
;uo acted :udiciousl, in disre#ardin# the sa2e.
Be are bound to arrive at a si2ilar conclusion even if %e %ere to ad2it as co2petent evidence the
said letter in vie% of the photocop, of a 0ertificate of Authentication issued b, 0onsular Section of
the Philippine E2bass, in 0anberra, Australia attached to the petitioner7s 2otion for reconsideration.
Be have stressed in Advocates and Adherents of Social !ustice for School 4eachers and Allied
Bor1ers (AAS!S* Me2ber v. 6atu2anon#
5-
that the fra2ers of R.A. No. +))' did not intend the la%
to concern itself %ith the actual status of the other citi$enship.
4his 0ourt as the #overn2ent branch tas1ed to appl, the enact2ents of the le#islature 2ust do so
confor2abl, %ith the %isdo2 of the latter sans the interference of an, forei#n la%. @f %e %ere to read
the Australian 0iti$en Act of -+/= into the application and operation of R.A. No. +))', %e %ould be
appl,in# not %hat our le#islative depart2ent has dee2ed %ise to re;uire. 4o do so %ould be a
bra$en encroach2ent upon the soverei#n %ill and po%er of the people of this Republic.
5)
4he petitioner7s act of runnin# for public office does not suffice to serve as an effective renunciation
of her Australian citi$enship. Bhile this 0ourt has previousl, declared that the filin# b, a person %ith
dual citi$enship of a certificate of candidac, is alread, considered a renunciation of forei#n
citi$enship,
55
such rulin# %as alread, ad:ud#ed superseded b, the enact2ent of R.A. No. +))' on
Au#ust )+, )335 %hich provides for the additional condition of a personal and s%orn renunciation of
forei#n citi$enship.
5/
4he fact that petitioner %on the elections can not cure the defect of her candidac,. Garnerin# the
2ost nu2ber of votes does not validate the election of a dis;ualified candidate because the
application of the constitutional and statutor, provisions on dis;ualification is not a 2atter of
popularit,.
5'
@n fine, R.A. No. +))' cate#oricall, de2ands natural-born "ilipinos %ho re-ac;uire their citi$enship
and see1 elective office, to e&ecute a personal and s%orn renunciation of an, and all forei#n
citi$enships before an authori$ed public officer prior to or si2ultaneous to the filin# of their
certificates of candidac,, to ;ualif, as candidates in Philippine elections.
5.
4he rule applies to all
those %ho have re-ac;uired their "ilipino citi$enship, li1e petitioner, %ithout re#ard as to %hether
the, are still dual citi$ens or not. @t is a pre-re;uisite i2posed for the e&ercise of the ri#ht to run for
public office.
Stated differentl,, it is an additional ;ualification for elective office specific onl, to "ilipino citi$ens
%ho re-ac;uire their citi$enship under Section 5 of R.A. No. +))'. @t is the operative act that restores
their ri#ht to run for public office. 4he petitionerNs failure to co2pl, there%ith in accordance %ith the
e&act tenor of the la%, rendered ineffectual the 6eclaration of Renunciation of Australian 0iti$enship
she e&ecuted on Septe2ber -=, )33.. As such, she is ,et to re#ain her political ri#ht to see1 elective
office. 9nless she e&ecutes a s%orn renunciation of her Australian citi$enship, she is ineli#ible to run
for and hold an, elective office in the Philippines.
&0ERE,ORE, in vie% of all the fore#oin#, the petition is hereb, DSMSSED. 4he Resolution dated
Septe2ber ., )3-- of the 0o22ission on Elections en bane in EA0 (AE* No. A-//-)3-3
is A,,RMED in toto.
SO OR6ERE6.