SOBEJANA - CONDON vs.

COMELEC

FACTS:

Petitioner is a natural-born Filipino citizen been born of Filipino parents, she

became a naturalized Australian citizen via her marriage.

She filed an application to re-acquire Philippine citizenship before the Philippine

Embassy in Australia pursuant to Section 3 of RA 9225 otherwise known as the
"Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. The application was
approved and the petitioner took her oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.

The petitioner then files an UNSWORN Declaration of Renunciation of Australian

Citizenship before the Department Immigration and Indigenous Affairs in Australia,
which in turn issued an order certifying that petitioner has ceased to ba na
Australian citizen.

The petitioner ran for Mayor in her hometown in La Union in the 2007 elections, she
lost. On the 2010 elections she ran for Vice Mayor, and she won.

Soon thereafter, a petition was filed questioning the petitioner's eligibility. The
petitions sought the petitioner's disqualification from holding her elective post on
the ground that she is a dual citizen and that she failed to execute a "PERSONAL
AND SWORN RENUNCIATION OF ANY AND ALL FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP BEFORE
ANY PUBLIC OFFICER AUTHORIZE TO ADMINISTER AN OATH" as imposed by
Section 5(2) of RA 9225.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is disqualified from running for elective office for
failure to personally renounce her Australian citizenship in accordance with Section
5(2) of RA 9225.

RULING:

No, the petitioner is not eligible to run for public office.

RATIO:

RA 9225 allows the retention and re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship for natural-
born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of
allegiance to the Republic, thus:
Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign
country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking
the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:

Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become
citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
aforesaid oath.

Further, Section 5 (2) of RA 9225 states that "Those seeking elective public office in
the Philippines shall meet the qualification for holdin such public office as required
by the Constitution and exiting laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath;"

The first fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law. As such, when the law is
clear and free from any doubt, there is no occasion for construction or
interpretation; there is only room for application. Section 5 (2) of RA 9225 is one
such instance.

The intent of the legislators was not only for Filipinos reacquiring or retaining their
Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 to take their oath of allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines, but also to explicitly renounce their foreign citizenship if they
wish to run for elective posts in the Philippines. To qualify as a candidate in the
Philippine elections, Filipinos must only have one citizenship, namely Philippine
citizenship.

As in this case, petitioner Sobejana-Condon failed to make a personal renunciation

of her Australian citizenship. Therefore, she is by operation of law is not allowed to
run for an elective position or public office in the Philippines.