You are on page 1of 2

Hector Calilung vs Hon. Simeon Datumanong, in his official capacity as Sec.

of
Justice
Gr. No. 160869
May 11 2007

Facts:
- There was this RA 9225 entitled An Act Making the Citizenship of
Philippine Citizens who Acquire Foreign Citizenship permanent,
Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63.
- As member of the Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School
Teachers and Allied Workers, Hector Calilung filed with the Supreme Court an
Original action for prohibition under Rule 65.
- Mr. Calilung contends that this RA 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates
section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that states Dual allegiance of
citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by
law.
- Contending that it cheapens the Filipino Citizenship and allows dual
allegiance and not dual citizenship. Specifically section 2 and 3 of the said RA
9225.
o In Section 2 of RA 9225, the Filipinos who become citizens of another
country shall be deemed not to have lost their Filipino citizenship
o In Section 3 of RA 9225, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who
have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization
as citizens of a foreign country reacquires the Filipino citizenship by
taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic.
- The OSG as counsel of the state claims that section 2 merely declares a state
policy that Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall
be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship. And Section 3 does
not allow dual allegiance since the oath taken by former citizen is an effective
renunciation and repudiation of his foreign citizenship.

ISSUE:
- WON RA 9225 is unconstitutional.

RULING:
- The intent of the legislative branch was inquired by the SC. It was found out
in the deliberations of Rep. Dilangalen and Rep. Locsin that in Section 3 there
is a requirement of oath of allegiance, by doing the oath, the problem of dual
allegiance is transferred from the Philippines to the foreign country
concerned. Rep. Locsin clarified that by swearing to the supreme authority of
the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. The bill
seeks to address is recognition of Philippine citizenship but nothing about
other citizenship.
- SC states that Section 5 Art IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy
and it is not self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law
on dual allegiance. In Sec 2 and 3 of RA 9225, the framers were not
concerned with dual citizenship per se but with the status of naturalized
citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after
their naturalization. Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would
set specific parameters of what really constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is
done, it would be premature for the judicial department to rule on issues
pertaining to dual allegiance.
- The contention using the Mercado vs Edu Manzano case on dual allegiance
cannot hold water since in that case, no parameters were set of what
constitutes dual allegiance but merely made a distinction between dual
allegiance and dual citizenship.
- In Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the SC stated the courts must assume that the
legislature is ever conscious of the borders and edges of its plenary powers,
and passed laws with full knowledge of the facts and for the purpose of
promoting what is right and advancing the welfare of the majority. Hence, in
determining whether the acts of the legislature are in tune with the
fundamental law, we must proceed with judicial restraint and act with caution
and forbearance. The doctrine of separation of powers demands no less. We
cannot arrogate the duty of setting the parameters of what constitutes dual
allegiance when the Constitution itself has clearly delegated the duty of
determining what acts constitute dual allegiance for study and legislation by
Congress.

- Petition was DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT.