The discussion on citizenship has become more relevant these days since the issue on Mayor Alice Guo has erupted in the national scene. The senate investigation on the operation of POGOs in the country has become almost a telenovela followed by millions. They have witnessed the dramatic unfolding of the questionable citizenship and identity of Mayor Guo from the original issue on the operation of the gaming hubs in her territorial jurisdiction. The growing tension on the West Philippines Sea has even probably added fuel to the burning question: is the Mayor a Filipino or Chinese who has succeeded in infiltrating the Philippine political structure? Hmm… This could sell as a script for conspiracy themed movie. Now that an evidence surfaced saying that Mayor Guo is the same person as the Chinese girl who entered the country more than 20 years ago, the next question is, should she be removed from office since she is in fact a foreigner? The same question was asked in the case of Condon vs. COMELEC where Condon’s citizenship was put in issue. Well, not exactly her citizenship but an issue with respect to the process of her renunciation of her other citizenship.
Natural Born
Condon was a natural born Filipino who became a naturalized Australian citizen when she married one. Later she reacquired her Filipino Citizenship pursuant to RA 9225. The same law requires a sworn renunciation of her other citizenships if she intends to run for public office. She submitted a document renouncing her Australian citizenship but the same was not under oath. This fact will prove fatal to her case. She indeed filed her candidacy for mayor in her town but lost then ran for vice-mayor the following election and won. After her proclamation, a case of quo warranto was filed against her alleging that she has no right to hold public office since she did not execute her denunciation of Australian citizenship under oath. To her defense, Condon countered saying she already ceased being an Australian Citizen when she re-acquired her Filipino Citizenship and her act of filing her candidacy in the Philippines clearly indicates that she has fully abandoned her other citizenship. Besides the requirement that the renunciation should be under oath is a mere formality.
The Renunciation is Ineffectual
The “unsworn” denunciation of her Australian Citizenship did not produce the effect intended by RA 9225. The Supreme Court applied the plain meaning rule in interpreting the word of the law when it required that the denunciation should be under oath. The law says: “Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing 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.” (Emphasis supplied) The Supreme Court did not consider the requirement that the document be under oath as a mere formality since the law clearly requires it. The Court cannot use other ways of interpreting the law, such as going through the discussions in congress during the deliberations because there simply was no doubt in the language of the law. There is no other interpretation of the legal provision that the renunciation be under oath other than that it should be really under oath.