4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly within the prescribed period. On motion for reconsideration, the appeal was reinstated by the COMELEC en banc in its Resolution[11] dated September 6, 2011. In the same issuance, the substantive merits of the appeal were given due course. The COMELEC en banc concurred with the findings and conclusions of the RTC; it also granted the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal filed by the private respondents. The decretal portion of the resolution reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered the Commission RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES as follows: 1. To DISMISS the instant appeal for lack of merit; 2. To AFFIRM the DECISION dated 22 October 2010 of the court a quo; and 3. To GRANT the Motion for Execution filed on November 12, 2010. SO ORDERED.[12] (Emphasis supplied) Hence, the present petition ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the COMELEC en banc. The Petitioner’s Arguments The petitioner contends that since she ceased to be an Australian citizen on September 27, 2006, she no longer held dual citizenship and was only a Filipino citizen when she filed her certificate of candidacy as early as the 2007 elections. Hence, the “personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship” imposed by Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 to dual citizens seeking elective office does not apply to her. She further argues that a sworn renunciation is a mere formal and not a mandatory requirement. In support thereof, she cites portions of the Journal of the House of Representatives dated June 2 to 5, 2003 containing the sponsorship speech for House Bill (H.B.) No. 4720, the precursor of R.A. No. 9225. She claims that the private respondents are estopped from questioning her eligibility since they failed to do so when she filed certificates of candidacy for the 2007 and 2010 elections. Lastly, she disputes the power of the COMELEC en banc to: (a) take cognizance of the substantive merits of her appeal instead of remanding the same to the COMELEC Second Division for the continuation of the appeal proceedings; and (b) allow the execution pending appeal of the RTC’s judgment. The Issues Posed for resolution are the following issues: I) Whether the COMELEC en banc may resolve the merits of an appeal after ruling on its reinstatement; II) Whether the COMELEC en banc may order the execution of a judgment rendered by a trial court in elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55170 3/18