G.R. No. 198742; August 10, 2012
TEODORA SOBEJANA-CONDON, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, LUIS M. BAUTISTA, ROBELITO V. PICAR and WILMA P. PAGADUAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Teodora Sobejana-Condon, a natural-born Filipino, acquired Australian citizenship by marriage in 1984. In 2005, she re-acquired her Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) by taking an Oath of Allegiance. In 2006, she filed an unsworn Declaration of Renunciation of Australian Citizenship with Australian authorities, who subsequently certified her loss of Australian citizenship. She ran and won as Vice-Mayor of Caba, La Union, in the 2010 elections. Private respondents, registered voters, filed petitions for quo warranto before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking her disqualification. They argued she was a dual citizen who failed to execute the “personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship” required by Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225 for those seeking elective office.
The RTC ruled in favor of the private respondents, declaring petitioner disqualified and ineligible. It found that her Australian renunciation document was not sworn, thus failing to comply with the strict mandate of Section 5(2). The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, arguing she was no longer a dual citizen when she ran, having effectively renounced Australian citizenship in 2006, and that the sworn requirement was merely formal.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether petitioner’s unsworn renunciation of Australian citizenship complied with Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225, thereby rendering her eligible to hold the elective office of Vice-Mayor.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the COMELEC’s ruling. The legal logic is anchored on a strict and literal interpretation of Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225, which states that those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship and wish to run for public office must make a “personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship.” The Court emphasized that the law imposes a twin requirement: the renunciation must be both “personal” (done by the candidate herself) and “sworn” (made under oath before a duly authorized officer). Petitioner’s act of filing an unsworn declaration with Australian authorities, while effective under Australian law to relinquish that citizenship, did not satisfy the specific, additional statutory requirement imposed by Philippine law for eligibility to run for office.
The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that she was no longer a dual citizen. It clarified that under R.A. 9225, taking the Oath of Allegiance re-acquires Philippine citizenship but does not automatically result in the loss of foreign citizenship; the individual becomes a dual citizen. For elective office purposes, the subsequent sworn renunciation is a distinct, indispensable condition precedent. The Court also dismissed the claim that the sworn requirement was merely formal, holding it to be mandatory and substantive. Compliance cannot be presumed from the act of filing a certificate of candidacy or from a foreign administrative renunciation. The provision is designed to ensure the candidate’s singular allegiance to the Republic at the time of seeking office. Consequently, petitioner’s failure to execute a sworn renunciation as prescribed by law rendered her ineligible from the outset, and her subsequent election did not cure this fatal defect.