580

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

ANNOTATION
THE MEANING OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS
QUALIFICATION
FOR
ELECTIVE
NATIONAL
OFFICIALS, MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
By
*
JORGE R. COQUIA
1. Introduction, p. 580
2. Distinction Between the terms Citizen and
National, p. 581
3. Determination of who are Philippine Citizens,
p. 582
4. Historical Background of NaturalBorn
Citizens as qualification of Constitutional
Officials, p. 585
5. Broader Concept of NaturalBorn Citizen
under the 1987 Constitution, p. 586
6. The Main issue in the Teodoro Cruz Case, p.
587
7. The Liberal View Favoring NaturalBorn
Citizen Status, p. 588
8. The Primary Adherence to the Jus Sanguinis
Principle, p. 590
______________

1. Introduction

The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that to be

elected Senator (Art. VI, Sec. 3) or as a member of the
House of Representatives of Congress (Art. VI, Sec. 6), or as
President (Art. VII, Sec. 2), he must be a natural born
citizen.
______________
*

Member, Board of Editorial Consultants, Supreme Court Reports

Annotated (SCRA).
581

VOL. 357, MAY 7, 2001

581

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

To be appointed member of the Supreme Court or any

lower collegiate court (Art. VIII, Sec. 7 [1]) he must be a
natural born citizen. The lower collegiate court includes the
Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan. The same
qualification applies to members of the Constitutional
Commissions such as the Civil Service Commission (Art.
IXB, Sec. 1[1]), Commission on Elections (Art. IXC, Sec. 1
[1]), Commission on Audit (Art. IXD, Sec. [1]), the
Commission on Human Rights (Art. XIII, Sec. 17[2])and the
Ombudsman (Art. XI, Sec. 8).
What is meant by naturalborn citizen was the main
issue raised in ANTONIO BENGZON III, Petitioner,
versus, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL AND TEODORO CRUZ, Respondents, G.R.
No. 142840, Promulgated on 07 May 2001. Whether Private
Respondent Teodoro Cruz who was born of Filipino parents
in the Philippines was still a natural born citizen when
he was later a naturalized citizen of the United States but
reacquired his Philippine citizenship by repatriation.
2. Distinction Between the terms Citizen and
National
The words citizen and national are used interchangeably
and generally understood to have the same meaning.
Actually, there is a difference between the two words as to
origin and as to the exercise of rights. In municipal law or

in a domestic political law, a citizen is considered as a

member of a political community enjoying all the civil and
political rights such as the right to vote and be voted upon
(Patting vs. San Jose Petroleum, 18 SCRA 936 [1966]). The
term national is also a person, although he owes allegiance
to a sovereign state, may not exercise civil and political
rights.
When the Philippines was under the United States
colonial administration, the Filipinos, although considered
U.S. nationals, did not enjoy political rights of a U.S.
citizen (U.S. Nationality Act of 1949). The U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 distinguished
a person born in American territory and the other U.S.
territories, although considered as U.S. nationals, have no
privilege of voting and holding public office in the U.S.
(Gonzales vs. Withraun, 194 U.S. 1).
582

582

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

Nationality may be defined as a bond which unites a

person to a given state, which constitutes his membership
in the particular state, which gives him a claim to the
protection of that state, and which subjects him to the
obligations created by the laws of that state. The term
national has come into use of recent years in place of
citizen or subject, the term citizen not applying in
some states to all members of the body politic and the term
subject carrying with it traditions of monarchical rule
(Fenwick, International Law, Meredith Publishing Co.,
1965, pp. 301302).
In International documents and in Private International
Law or Conflict of Laws, citizens are referred to as
nationals and vice versa. Article 15 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights states that Everyone has the
right to a nationality. Article 24 (3) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that Every
child has the right to acquire nationality.
3. Determination of who are Philippine Citizens

Filipinos during the Spanish regime were known as

subjects of the Spanish crown. It was only at the advent of
the change of sovereignty from Spain to the United States
that the question of who are Philippine citizens arose.
Under article III, Sec. 1(1) of the 1935 Constitution,
Filipino citizens are those citizens at the time of the
adoption of said Constitution. There is a long list of those
who were citizens at the time of adoption of the 1935
Constitution starting from the Treaty of Paris of 1898.
Article IX of said Treaty reads:
1. Spanish subjects, natives of the peninsula, residing
in the territory over which Spain by the present
treaty relinquished or cedes her sovereignty, may
remain in such territory or may remove therefrom,
retaining in either event all their rights of property,
including the right to sell or dispose of such
property or of its proceeds and they shall also have
the right to carry on their industry, commerce and
professions, being subject in respect thereof to such
laws as are applicable to other foreigners. In case
they remain in the territory they may preserve
their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making,
before a court of record, a year from the date of the
exchange of ratification of this treaty, a declaration
of their decision to preserve such allegiance in
default of which declaration they shall be held to
have renounced it and to have adopted the national
583

VOL. 357, MAY 7, 2001

583

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

ity of the territory in which they may reside. (The

Philippine Constitution, Volume I, Philippine
Lawyers Association [1969])
2. The political status of the native inhabitants
depended on section 4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902
enacted by U.S. Congress, which reads:
That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish

subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and

ninetynine, and then resided in said islands, and their children
born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens
of the Philippine Islands, except such as shall have elected to
preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance
with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United
States and Spain, signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen
hundred and ninety eight, and except such others as have since
become citizens of some other country Provided, That the
Philippine Legislature, herein provided for, is hereby authorized
to provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by
those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come within
the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possessions of
the United States, and such other persons residing in the
Philippine Islands who are citizens of the United States, or who
could become citizens of the United States under the laws of the
United States if residing therein. (The Philippine Constitution,
Volume I, Philippine Lawyers Association, p. 245 [1969])

3. Section 2 of the Philippine Autonomy Act of (1916)

known as the Jones Law also provided:
That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish
subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and
ninetynine, and then resided in said islands, and their children
born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens
of the Philippine Islands, except such as shall have elected to
preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance
with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United
States and Spain, signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen
hundred and ninety eight, and except such others as have since
become citizens of some other country: Provided, That the
Philippine Legislature, herein provided for, is hereby authorized
to provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by
those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come within
the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possessions of
the United States, and such other persons residing in the
Philippine Islands who are citizens of the United States, or who
could
584

584

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

become citizens of the United States under the laws of the United
States if residing therein. (The Philippine Constitution, Volume I,
Philippine Lawyers Association, pp. 274275 [1969])

The Philippine Independence Act of 1934 (Tydings

McDuffie Law) provided that the citizens of the Philippines
are those who shall owe allegiance to the United States.
4. Added to the aforesaid list are Filipino women
previously married to foreigners who became
widows and who reverted to their original status on
or before the approval of the Constitution on May
14, 1935, and their children who were still minors
under 21 years of age on that date.
5. Persons who had been naturalized as Filipino
citizens before the approval of the Constitution in
accordance with Act No. 2927, as amended by Act
No. 3448 since the enactment of the former on
March 26, 1920 unless they had lost their
citizenship on or before May 14, 1935.
6. Children of persons embraced in (5), that is,
children under 21 years of age then residing in the
Philippines on the date of naturalization of their
parents, and children born in the Philippines
subsequent to their parents naturalization.
7. Foreign women then belonging to a race eligible to
Philippine citizenship married to citizens of the
Philippines on or before May, 14, 1935, who were
residing in the Philippines at the time of their
marriage or who, if married abroad, subsequent
thereto took up permanent residence in the Islands
on or before May 14, 1935, except those whose
marriages were dissolved and who reverted to their
original foreign nationality before that date.
8. Those who were individually declared citizens of
the Philippines by judicial decisions (res
adjudicata), before the adoption of the Constitution,
unless they had lost such citizenship on or before
May 14, 1935 (Tan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor, 79
Phil. 249 [1947]).
9. Children of those embraced in (8) who had not lost
such citizenship on or before May 14, 1935.
(Francisco, Philippine Political Law, East
Publishing, p. 530 [1954]).

585

VOL. 357, MAY 7, 2001

585

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

10. Aliens granted Philippine citizenship by direct act

of Congress for meritorious services rendered to the
country.
11. Aliens who married Filipino citizens who do not
possess any disqualification to be naturalized
Philippine citizen (Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commission
on Immigration, 41 SCRA 292 [1971])

4. Historical Background of NaturalBorn

Citizens as Qualification of Constitutional Officials
It was the 1973 Constitution that defined the meaning of
natural born citizen. Article III, Sec 4 of the 1973
Constitution provided that a natural born citizen is one
who is a citizen from birth without having to perform any
act to acquire or perfect his citizenship. The provision was
reiterated in Article IV, section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
and added that Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed
natural born citizens.
It was the 1935 Constitution that first mentioned
naturalborn citizen as a qualification for national
elective officials. To be elected as President and Vice
President (Art. VII, sec. 7), as Senator (Art. VI, sec. 4) and
the members of the House of Representatives (Art. VI, sec.
7), they must be natural born citizens. The 1935
Constitution, however, did not define who are natural born
citizens. Apparently, this term natural born citizen was
lifted from the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 7 of the
U.S. Constitution which provides that no person except a
natural born citizen or citizen of the United States at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to
the office of the President.
According to Professor Willoughby, it is reasonable to
hold that a natural born citizen is a person who can claim
citizenship without any prior declaration or act on his part

to obtain such status (Willoughby, On the Constitution of

the United States, 2d ed., Vol. III, p. 354).
Nevertheless, the subject of who are naturalborn
citizens was deliberated upon by the delegates of the
Constitutional Convention of 1934. The delegates
commented that at common law, a natural born citizen is
one who is such at birth. This is the meaning intended for
the phrase natural born in the provision on qualifica
586

586

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

tions for the Presidency. However, in the debates on the

amendments of the Constitution restoring the bicameral
system, the term naturalborn citizen was intended by
the National Assembly, sitting as a constituent body, to
mean all citizens excluding only those by naturalization.
(Proceedings of the Philippine Constitution: Origins,
Making, Meaning and Application, Jose Aruego, editor, Vol.
V. p. 35, Philippine Lawyers Association, [1972]).
A similar discussion was made by Delegate Roxas and
Artadi on the Office of the President and Vice President.
Delegate Roxas in explaining the meaning naturalborn
citizen said:
Delegate Roxas.Mr. President, the phrase natural born
appears in the Constitution of the United States but authors say
that this phrase has never been interpreted authoritatively by the
Supreme Court of the United States, in view of the fact that the
question whether or not an elected president has this
qualification has never been raised. Authors are unanimous in
that the words natural born citizen mean a citizen, by reason of
his birth, not by naturalization or by any subsequent declaration
by the law for his citizenship. In the Philippines, for instance,
according to the provisions of this article on citizenship which we
have approved, all those born in the Philippines of a father who is
a Filipino, whether born in the Philippines or abroad, would be
Filipinos by birth or naturalborn.
And with respect to one born of a Filipina mother, but of a
foreign father, the article which we approved on citizenship
requires that upon reaching the age of majority, this child chooses

the citizenship which he elects, and if he elects Filipino

citizenship, he will be considered a Filipino citizen. According to
this interpretation, the son of a Filipina mother and a foreign
father would not be Filipino by birth, because the law or the
Constitution requires that he make a subsequent declaration
subsequent to his birth. Accordingly, the phrase natural born
citizen, as it is used in the English text, means a Filipino citizen
by birth, without taking into account the place of birth.

5. Broader Concept of NaturalBorn Citizen

under the 1987 Constitution
Article IV, Sections 1 & 2 of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
587

VOL. 357, MAY 7, 2001

587

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers,
who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Naturalborn citizens are those who are citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), section 1
hereof shall be deemed naturalborn citizens.

The children whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the

Philippines, even if one of the parents is a foreigner are
also naturalborn citizens.
6. The Main Issue in the Teodoro Cruz Case

The crux of the issue in the case under annotation is

whether Teodoro Cruz, a natural born citizen, later
naturalized U.S. citizen but reacquired Philippine citizen
by repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630 was
considered natural born citizen at the time he filed his
candidacy for the House of Representatives.
The minority view, as stated in the dissenting opinion of
Justice SandovalGutierrez, is that by being naturalized as
U.S. citizen, he lost his status as natural born citizen and
was therefore not eligible to be elected as member of the
House of Representatives. This is the same view of Fr.
Joaquin Bernas who stated that If a naturalborn citizen
loses his citizenship by renunciation or by any other mode
recognized by law, would he still be considered natural
born if he subsequently reacquires citizenship? It is
submitted that, whether under the 1973 or 1987 provision,
such person would not be a naturalborn Filipino. (Bernas,
The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary, Rex Bookstore, p. 513 [1987]).
588

588

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

7. The Liberal View Favoring NaturalBorn

Citizen Status
The majority opinion, taking the liberal view, held that
private respondent was a naturalized citizen of the United
States, but he reacquired his Philippine citizenship by
repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630 was restored to
his status as a naturalborn citizen. This view draws
support from Justice Artemio Panganiban with his
concurring opinion, when private respondent reacquired
his Philippine citizenship through repatriation, he was
restored to his original status as a natural born citizen. The
determining factor in the status of naturalborn citizen is
right from birth as distinguished from a naturalized
citizen.
The liberal view favoring citizenship status of a natural

born citizen was expressed by the Supreme Court in Aznar

vs. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703 (1985). The case involved
Emilio Lito Osmea, son of the late Dr. Emilio D.
Osmea, and grandson of President Sergio Osmea Sr.,
who was born in the Philippines and continuously resided
in the Philippines since birth. Emilio Lito Osmea was
born with Filipino father and American mother. He went to
the United States and obtained an Alien Certificate of
Registration. He returned to the Philippines, he was
carrying his Alien Certificate of Registration and ran for
Governor of Cebu and won the elections. His opponents
questioned his qualification as citizen of the Philippines
considering that he was carrying an Alien Certificate of
Registration.
The majority opinion, with Justice Edgardo Paras as
ponente, in said case ruled that merely carrying an Alien
Certificate of Registration does not mean that he has
abandoned his Philippine citizenship. According to the
Court, there was no direct proof that Emilio Osmea had
lost his Philippine citizenship under the law which at that
time was Commonwealth Act No. 63.
Dissenting opinions were, however, made by Justice
Ameurfina MelencioHerrera, Justice Isagani Cruz and
Justice Teodoro Padilla. According to Justice Melencio
Herrera, registration as an alien is a clear and
unambiguous act of declaration that he was no longer
Filipino citizen.
589

VOL. 357, MAY 7, 2001

589

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

Justice Cruz, who was the ponente in Frivaldo vs.

COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245 (1989) and Labo vs.
COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1 (1989), stated in the first case
that the status of the naturalborn citizen is favored by the
Constitution and our laws, which is all the more reason
why it should be treasured like a pearl of great price. But
once it is surrendered and renounced, the gift is gone and
cannot be lightly restored. This country of ours, for all its
difficulties and limitations, is like a jealous and possessive
mother. Once rejected, it is not quick to welcome back with

eager arms its prodigal and repentant children. The

returning renegade must show, by an express and
unequivocal act, the renewal of his loyalty and love.
In Labo vs. COMELEC, Labo, a Filipino citizen became
an Australian citizen under Australian law by marrying an
Australian citizen. He took his oath as Australian citizen.
He came to the Philippines carrying an Australian passport
and ran for Mayor of Baguio City. What must be considered
is the fact that he voluntarily and freely rejected Philippine
citizenship and willingly and knowingly embraced the
citizenship of a foreign country. The possibility that he may
have been subsequently rejected by Australia, as he claims,
does not mean that he has been automatically reinstated as
a citizen of the Philippines.
Under Commonwealth Act No. 63 as amended by
Presidential Decree No.725, Philippine citizenship may be
reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or
by repatriation. It does not appear in the record, nor does
the petitioner claim, that he has reacquired Philippine
citizenship by any of these methods. He does not point to
any judicial decree of naturalization as to any statute
directly conferring Philippine citizenship upon him.
Neither has he shown that he has complied with
Presidential Decree No. 725, providing that:
x x x (2) naturalborn Filipinos who have lost their Philippine
citizenship may reacquire Philippine citizenship through
repatriation by applying with the Special Committee on
Naturalization created by Letter of Instruction No. 270, and, if
their applications are approved, taking the necessary oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, after which they
shall be deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship. The
Commission on Immigration and Deportation shall there upon
cancel their certificate of registration.
590

590

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

8. The Primary Adherence to the Jus Sanguinis

Principle
The majority opinion in the case under annotation is a
clear reiteration of the adherence of the Philippines to the
Jus Sanguinis principle in the determination of
nationality, as distinguished from the principle of jus soli
practiced in the United States, United Kingdom and other
common law countries. The principle of jus soli determines
nationality in the soil of the state irrespective of the
nationality of the parents. By contrast, the jus sanguinis
adopted the Code Napoleon and followed in most European
states adhere that to determine the nationality of the child
follows the nationality of the parents regardless of the
place of birth. The Philippines as a civil law country follows
the Code Napoleon on the principle of jus sanguinis.
Delegate Alejandrino during the proceedings of the 1934
Constitutional Convention explained the importance of
electing national officials who are naturalborn citizens,
meaning, the jus sanguinis principle, that would give
assurance of the loyalty to national interests of our elected
national officials. Delegate Alejandrino said:
For centuries we have been subjected to a foreign sovereignty,
imposed upon us by rulers whose policy tended exclusively for the
good and interests and conveniences. To throw off that yoke and
have the right to be governed by men of our race, or by those who
have in their veins some of our blood, our people made enormous
sacrifices succeeding in establishing an ephemeral republic free
and independent. (The Philippine Constitution, op. cit, Jose
Aruego, ed., Vol. V, p. 481)

The principle of Jus Sanguinis has been more pronounced

in the 1987 Constitution by considering children born
either of Filipino mother or father, although the other
parent is a foreigner, as naturalborn citizens. This
conforms to the Harvard Research Draft on the Law of
Nationality, defining jus sanguinis as the nationality of an
individual based on the descent of one of its nationals.
Under this principle, at least one of the parents has
Filipino blood. This was further emphasized in section 2 of
article IV, that those born before January 17, 1973 of
Filipino mothers and elected Filipino
591

VOL. 357, MAY 7, 2001

591

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

citizenship are also naturalborn citizen. The loyalty of

the children born with Filipino blood is at least assured.
o0o
592

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.