Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 361 views

    Sobejana-Condon vs. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    cmptmarissa
    The petitioner was born in the Philippines but became an Australian citizen through marriage. She renounced her Australian citizenship in 2006. In 2010, she won election as vice mayor of Caba, La Union but her eligibility was questioned through quo warranto petitions. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the petitioner is not estopped from questioning her eligibility just because it was not raised in prior elections, as the law allows such petitions after election; and (2) the COMELEC has authority to order discretionary execution of its judgments, as its rules allow suppletory application of the Rules of Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sobejana-Condon vs. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    cmptmarissa
    361 views4 pages
    The petitioner was born in the Philippines but became an Australian citizen through marriage. She renounced her Australian citizenship in 2006. In 2010, she won election as vice mayor of Caba, La Union but her eligibility was questioned through quo warranto petitions. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the petitioner is not estopped from questioning her eligibility just because it was not raised in prior elections, as the law allows such petitions after election; and (2) the COMELEC has authority to order discretionary execution of its judgments, as its rules allow suppletory application of the Rules of Court.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Sobejana-condon vs. Comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner was born in the Philippines but became an Australian citizen through marriage. She renounced her Australian citizenship in 2006. In 2010, she won election as vice mayor of Caba, La Union but her eligibility was questioned through quo warranto petitions. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the petitioner is not estopped from questioning her eligibility just because it was not raised in prior elections, as the law allows such petitions after election; and (2) the COMELEC has authority to order discretionary execution of its judgments, as its rules allow suppletory application of the Rules of Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    361 views4 pages

    Sobejana-Condon vs. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    cmptmarissa
    The petitioner was born in the Philippines but became an Australian citizen through marriage. She renounced her Australian citizenship in 2006. In 2010, she won election as vice mayor of Caba, La Union but her eligibility was questioned through quo warranto petitions. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the petitioner is not estopped from questioning her eligibility just because it was not raised in prior elections, as the law allows such petitions after election; and (2) the COMELEC has authority to order discretionary execution of its judgments, as its rules allow suppletory application of the Rules of Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    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:
    The petitioner is a natural-born Filipino citizen having been born of Filipino
    parents and became a naturalized Australian citizen owing to her marriage to Kevin
    Thomas Condon. On September 18, 2006, the petitioner filed an unsworn Declaration of
    Renunciation of Australian Citizenship before the Department of Immigration and
    Indigenous Affairs, Canberra, Australia, which in turn issued the Order dated September
    27, 2006 certifying that she has ceased to be an Australian citizen. She lost in running
    for Mayor position in 2007, afterwards in 2010 he run and won for vice mayor for Caba,
    La Union. Hence, she took ought of her office on May 13, 2010.
    Soon thereafter, private respondents Robelito V. Picar, Wilma P. Pagaduan and
    Luis M. Bautista, (private respondents) all registered voters of Caba, La Union, filed
    separate petitions for quo warranto questioning the petitioners eligibility before the
    RTC. The petitions similarly sought the petitioners 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 citizenshipbefore any public
    officer authorized to administer an oath" as imposed by Section 5(2) of R.A. No.9225.
    ISSUES:
    1. Whether or not TEODORA SOBEJANA-CONDON estopped from questioning
    petitioner's eligibility to hold public office.
    2. Whether or not the COMELEC en banc has the power to order discretionary
    execution of judgment.
    Ruling:
    1. The fact that the petitioners qualifications were not questioned when she filed
    certificates of candidacy for 2007 and 2010 elections cannot operate as an estoppel
    to the petition for quo warranto before the RTC.

    Under the Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 (Omnibus Election Code), there are two
    instances where a petition questioning the qualifications of a registered candidate to run
    for the office for which his certificate of candidacy was filed can be raised, to wit: Before
    election, pursuant to Section 78 thereof which provides that:
    Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy. A
    verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may
    be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation
    contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed
    at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of
    candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days
    before the election; and
    (2) After election, pursuant to Section 253 thereof:
    Sec. 253. Petition for quo warranto. Any voter contesting the election of any
    Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground of
    ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for
    quo warranto with the Commission within ten days after the proclamation of the results
    of the election.
    2. There is no reason to dispute the COMELECs authority to order discretionary
    execution of judgment in view of the fact that the suppletory application of the Rules
    of Court is expressly sanctioned by Section 1, Rule 41 of the COMELEC Rules of
    Procedure.
    Under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, execution pending appeal may
    be issued by an appellate court after the trial court has lost jurisdiction.

    You might also like