I.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Citizenship is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a
member of a state. A person may have multiple citizenships and a person who does
not have citizenship of any state is said to be stateless.
Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent membership in a
political community. It denotes possession within that particular political
community of full civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications such as
minority.
Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship notably in international law
although the term is sometimes understood as denoting a person's membership
of a nation (a large ethnic group). It is a membership in any class or form of
political community. Thus, a national may be citizen of a democratic community or
a subject of a monarchical government. Nationality does not necessarily include the
right or privilege of exercising civil or political rights.
Nationality versus Citizenship
Nationality is legally a distinct concept from citizenship. Conceptually,
citizenship is focused on the internal political life of the state, and nationality is a
matter of international dealings [Turner, Bryan S; Isin, Engin F. Handbook of
Citizenship Studies].
In the modern era, the concept of full citizenship encompasses not only
active political rights, but full civil rights and social rights. Nationality is a necessary
but not sufficient condition to exercise full political rights within a state or other
polity. Nationality is required for full citizenship, and some people have nationality
without having full citizenship.
Historically, the most significant difference between a national and a citizen
is that the citizen has the right to vote for elected officials, and to be elected. This
distinction between full citizenship and other, lesser relationships goes back to
antiquity. Until the 19th and 20th centuries, it was typical for only a small
percentage of people who belonged to a city or state to be full citizens. In the past,
most people were excluded from citizenship on the basis of gender, socioeconomic
class, ethnicity, religion, and other factors. However, they held a legal relationship
with their government akin to the modern concept of nationality. (Source:
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia)
1
II. DETERMINING FACTORS/MODES of Acquiring Citizenship
A person can be a citizen for several reasons. Usually citizenship of the place of
birth is automatic; in other cases an application may be required.
A. Parents are citizens (jus sanguinis). If one or both of a person's parents
are citizens of a given state, then the person may have the right to be a
citizen of that state as well. Formerly this might only have applied through
the paternal line, but sex equality became common since the late
twentieth century. Citizenship is granted based on ancestry or ethnicity,
and is related to the concept of a nation state common in China. Where jus
sanguinis holds, a person born outside a country, one or both of whose
parents are citizens of the country, is also a citizen.
B. Born within a country (jus soli). Some people are automatically citizens
of the state in which they are born. This form of citizenship originated in
England where those who were born within the realm were subjects of the
monarch (a concept pre-dating citizenship), and is common in common law
countries.
In many cases both jus solis and jus sanguinis hold; citizenship either by
place or parentage (or of course both).
C. Marriage to a citizen (jure matrimonii). Many countries fast-track
naturalization based on the marriage of a person to a citizen. Countries
which are destinations for such immigration often have regulations to try to
detect sham marriages, where a citizen marries a non-citizen typically for
payment, without them having the intention of living as man and wife.
D. Naturalization. States normally grant citizenship to people who have
entered the country legally and been granted permit to stay, or been
granted political asylum, and also lived there for a specified period. In some
countries, naturalization is subject to conditions which may include passing
a test demonstrating reasonable knowledge of the language or way of life
of the host country, good conduct (no serious criminal record), swearing
allegiance to their new state or its ruler and renouncing their prior
citizenship. Some states allow dual citizenship and do not require
naturalized citizens to renounce any other citizenship. (Source: Wikipedia:
The Free Encyclopedia)
 III. LAWS GOVERNING WHO ARE THE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES
1. 1987 Constitution
2. 1973 Constitution
3. 1935 Constitution
4. Treaty of Paris: Philippine Bill of 1902: Jones Law of 1916
5. Res Judicata: Jus Soli: Roa vs. Collector of Customs
The Philippine nationality law is based upon the principles of jus sanguinis
(Latin: right of blood) and therefore descent from a parent who is a citizen or
national of the Republic of the Philippines is the primary method of acquiring
Philippine citizenship. For the purpose of determining citizenship, the identity of the
blood parents is important.This is contrasted with the legal principle of jus soli
where being born on the soil of a country, even to foreign parents, grants one
citizenship. For those born in the Philippines to non-Filipino parents, the
Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000 (R.A. 9139) provides a path for
administrative naturalization for those who qualify.
Article IV of 1987 Constitution enumerates the citizenship of Filipinos.
There are two kinds of citizens: Natural-born citizens who are citizens from birth
and have the right to vote and right to run for public office and Naturalized citizens,
who are immigrants who acquire, voluntarily or by operation of law, the citizenship
of the Philippines.
A. Citizenship by Birth/Election (natural born)
B. Citizenship by Naturalization
1987 Constitution
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
[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;
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
2
ARTICLE III of the 1973 Constitution
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of
the adoption of this Constitution (irrespective of place of
birth).
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines.
[3] Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the
provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and
thirty-five.
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
ARTICLE IV of the 1935 Constitution
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution.
[2] Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign
parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution,
had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.
Case Law: Fermin Caram Provision; Chiongbian vs. De Leon (G.R. No. L-2007,
January 31, 1949- the right is transmissible)
[3] Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
[4] Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines
and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine
citizenship.
Legal Basis: Sec. 1, CA 625-Election is expressed in a statement and sworn to by the
party before any official authorized to administer oaths. Statement to be filed with
the nearest Civil Registry with Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and the
Government of the Philippines.
Case Law: Rep. vs. Chule Lim, GR No. 153883, January 13, 2004- the constitutional
and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate
children. The child follows the citizenship of his only known parent, the mother.
Co vs. HRET (G.R. No. 92191-92, July 30, 1991)- The exercise of the right
to suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of
election of Philippine citizenship.
In re: Vicente Ching, Bar Matter 914, October 1, 1999 permission to take the
lawyers oath; Ching elected Filipino citizenship beyond the required upon
reaching the age of majority If the citizenship of a person was subject to
challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to challenge under the new
charter even if the judicial challenge had not been commenced before the
effectivity of the new Constitution; CA 625 and the 1935 Constitution did not
prescribe a time within which the election of Philippine citizenship should be made;
reasonable time; upon reaching the age of majority it was clearly beyond by
any reasonable yardstick, the able period to exercise the privilege.
- Dy Cuenco vs. Sec of Justice, May 26, 1962-3 years is a reasonable period.
- Election must be expressed in a statement sworn before any officer
authorized to administer oaths and filed with the nearest civil registry and
accompanied by an oath of allegiance to the Philippine Constitution.
However, participating in elections and campaigning for candidates and
similar acts done prior to June 7, 1941, have been recognized as sufficient
to show ones preference for Philippine citizenship (In re Mallare, 59 SCRA
45, September 1974).
- Ma vs. Fernandez, July 26, 2010- The omission of the statutory
requirement of registration of the documents of election should not result
in the obliteration of the right to Philippine citizenship. It does not negate
the permanent fact that the mother is Filipino. The lacking requirements
may still be complied with subject to the imposition of appropriate
administrative penalties.
- Rep. vs. Sagun, Feb. 15. 2011- there is no such specific statutory or
procedural rule which authorizes the direct filing of a petition for
declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before the courts.
[5] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Article IX of the Treaty of Paris
Under Article IX of the treaty, the civil rights and political status of the
native inhabitants of the territories ceded to the United States would be determined
by its Congress -
"Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain
by the present treaty relinquishes 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
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, within a year from the date
of the exchange of ratifications 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 nationality of the territory in which they
reside.
Thus, the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the
territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.
Philippine Bill of 1902
Sec. 4. That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein
who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and
ninety-nine, and then resided in the Philippine Islands, and their children born
subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine
Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, 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.
- The concept of Philippine citizen had for the first time crystallized. The
word Filipino was used by William Howard Taft, the first civil governor
general.
Jones Law of 1916
3
 In 1916, the Philippine Autonomy Act, also known as the Jones Law
restated virtually the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902, as so amended by the
Act of Congress in 1912 -
Section 2: That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish
subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine,
and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequently
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 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."
Under the Jones Law, a native-born inhabitant of the Philippines was
deemed to be a citizen of the Philippines as of 11 April 1899 if he was 1) a subject of
Spain on 11 April 1899, 2) residing in the Philippines on said date, and, 3) since that
date, not a citizen of some other country.
Case Law: Tecson vs. COMELEC (G.R. No.161434, March 3, 2004) Documentary
evidence adduced by petitioner would tend to indicate that the earliest established
direct ascendant of FPJ was his paternal grandfather Lorenzo Pou, married to Marta
Reyes, the father of Allan F. Poe. While the record of birth of Lorenzo Pou had not
been presented in evidence, his death certificate, however, identified him to be a
Filipino, a resident of San Carlos, Pangasinan, and 84 years old at the time of his
death on 11 September 1954. The certificate of birth of the father of FPJ, Allan F.
Poe, showed that he was born on 17 May 1915 to an Espaol father, Lorenzo Pou,
and a mestiza Espaol mother, Marta Reyes. Introduced by petitioner was an
uncertified copy of a supposed certificate of the alleged marriage of Allan F. Poe and
Paulita Gomez on 05 July 1936. The marriage certificate of Allan F. Poe and Bessie
Kelley reflected the date of their marriage to be on 16 September 1940. In the same
certificate, Allan F. Poe was stated to be twenty-five years old, unmarried, and a
Filipino citizen, and Bessie Kelley to be twenty-two years old, unmarried, and an
American citizen. The birth certificate of FPJ, would disclose that he was born on 20
4
August 1939 to Allan F. Poe, a Filipino, twenty-four years old, married to Bessie Kelly,
an American citizen, twenty-one years old and married.
Valles vs. COMELEC, GR No. 137000, August 9, 2000- Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was
born to an Australian mother and Filipino father on May 16, 1934 before the 1935
constitution took effect. Rosalinds father was Filipino applying the organic laws.
Under the jus sanguinis principle, Rosalind followed the citizenship of her father.
RES JUDICATA
(status of children born in the Philippines between April 11, 1899 to July 1, 1902)
In the case of Roa vs. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil.,315 , the Supreme
Court passed upon the question as to whether a person born in the Philippines of a
Chinese father and a Filipino mother, legally married; is a citizen thereof. In this case
the Supreme Court took into consideration the provisions of articles 17, 18 and 19
of the Civil Code in view of the fact that the petitioner was born on 6 July 1889; the
second paragraph of Article IX of the Treaty of Paris; section 4 of the Philippine Bill
(Act of Congress of 1 July 1902) and the amendatory Act of Congress of 23 March
1912, these being the laws then applicable. Commenting on Sec. 4 of the Philippine
Bill, as amended, this Court said:
By section 4 the doctrine or principle of citizenship by place of birth which
prevails in the United States was extended to the Philippine Islands, but
with limitations. In the United States every person, which certain specific
exceptions, born in the United States is a citizen of that country. Under
section 4 every person born after the 11th of April, 1889, of parents who
were Spanish subjects on that date and who continued to reside in this
country are at the moment of their birth ipso facto citizens of the
Philippine Islands. From the reading of section 4 and taking into
consideration the Act of March 23, 1912, it is clear that Congress realized
that there were inhabitants in the Philippine Islands who did not come
within the provisions of said section, and also that Congress did not then
by express legislation determine the political status of such persons.
Therefore, the inquiry is Did Congress intend to say that all of the
inhabitants who were not included in section 4 are to be "deemed and held
to be" aliens to the Philippine islands?
Abandoned: Tan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor, 79 Phil., 249; Teotimo Rodriguez Tio
Tiam vs. Republic, GR No. L-9602-April 25, 1957.
 NATURALIZATION
- the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation by
clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen.
A. Modes: It may be direct or derivative. a) Direct naturalization is effected:
(1) by individual proceedings, usually judicial, under general naturalization
laws; (2) by special act of the legislature, often in favor of distinguished
foreigners who have rendered some notable service to the local state; (3) by
collective change of nationality (naturalization en masse) as a result of
cession or subjugation; and (4) in some cases, by adoption of orphan minors
as nationals of the State where they are born. b) Derivative naturalization in
turn is conferred: (1) on the wife of the naturalized husband; (2) on the
minor children of the naturalized parent; and (3) on the alien woman upon
marriage to a national.
B. Direct Naturalization under Philippine Laws:
1. Judicial Naturalization: Act No. 2927 (March 26,
1920), then CA 473
2. Administrative Naturalization: 1) of Foreign
women married to Filipino citizens before or after
November 30, 1938 who might themselves be
lawfully naturalized: Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Comsr.
of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292
2) RA 9139- Administrative Naturalization Law of
2000 would grant Philippine citizenship by
administrative proceedings to aliens born and
residing in the Philippines: So vs. Rep., GR No.
170603, January 29, 2007.
3. Legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress, bestowing
Philippine Citizenship to an alien. Examples: Fr. James Moran (1981) and Fr. James
Reuter (1984)
C.Naturalization under CA 473
1. Qualifications/Disqualifications
2. Procedure
3. Effects of Naturalization
5
a) wife
b) minor children
4. Effects of Denaturalization
Case Law: Limkaichong vs. COMELEC, GR No. 179120, April 1, 2009-
It is the State, through its representatives designated by statute, that
may question the illegally or invalidly procured certificate of
naturalization proceedings. It is not a matter that may be raised by
private persons in an election case involving the naturalized citizens
descendant.
Case Law: Burca vs. Republic (GR No. L-24252-Jan. 30, 1967)
D. RA 9139-The native born alien has the choice to apply for judicial or
administrative naturalization, subject to the prescribed qualifications and
disqualifications to be determined by the Special Committee on Naturalization.
1. Qualifications/Disqualifications
2. Status of Alien Wife and Minor Children
3. Cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization
IV.LOSS OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
A. Commonwealth Act No. 63, dated 20 October 1936, provides that
Philippine citizens may lose citizenship in any of the following ways or events:
1. By naturalization in a foreign country (Read RA 9225);
2. By express renunciation of citizenship: Board of Immigration
Commissioners vs. Callano, 25 SCRA 890; Labo vs. COMELEC, 176
SCRA 1; Valles vs. COMELEC; Yu vs. Santiago, 169 SCRA 364
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution
or laws of a foreign country upon attaining twenty-one years of
age or more: Provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest
himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the Republic
of the Philippines is at war with any country.
Note: Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance- an individual
maybe compelled by municipal law to retain
his original nationality even if he has already
 renounced or forfeited it under the laws of
the second state whose nationality he has
acquired. Thus, a Filipino may not divest himself
of the Philippine citizenship in the foregoing
manner when the Philippines is at war at any
country.
4. By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed
forces of a foreign country, and the taking of an oath of allegiance
incident thereto, except in certain specified cases. EXCEPT: 1) with
the consent of the Rep. such as the Rep. has a defensive and/or
offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign country; or the said
foreign country maintains armed forces in the Philippine territory
with the consent of the Republic;
5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization (CA 473);
6. By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the
Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a
plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted; and
7. In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by
virtue of the laws in force in her husband's country, she acquires
his nationality. She remains Filipino citizen if the foreign law is
silent on the matter.
1987/1973 constitutions- Filipino citizen who marries an alien retains
his/her citizenship, unless by his/her act or omission he/she is deemed,
under the law to have renounced it, such any of those enumerated under
CA 63. Otherwise, the Filipino spouse will have dual citizenship.
V. REACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP
A. MODES
1. RA 9225
2. By Naturalization
3. By repatriation of the deserters of the AFP and Filipina who lost her citizenship
by reason of her marriage
4. Direct Act of Congress
APPLICABLE PHILIPPINE LAWS
6
PD 725- allows the repatriation of former natural born Filipino citizens who lost
Filipino citizenship: Frivaldo vs. COMELEC- it was not repealed by Aquinos
Memorandum of March 27, 1986, and thus, was a valid mode for the reacquisition
of Filipino citizenship by Sorsogon Governor Juan Frivaldo.
Republic Act No. 8171, approved 23 October 1995, provided a mechanism allowing
Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens
and natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship, including
their minor children, on account of political or economic necessity, to reacquire
Philippine citizenship. Repatriation is effected by taking the necessary oath of
allegiance to the Republic and registration in the proper civil registry and in the BID-
Tabasa vs, CA, GR No. 125793, August 29, 2006.
- Registration of applicants repatriation with the proper civil
registry and with the BID a prerequisite in effecting repatriation
(Altarejos vs. COMELEC, Nov. 10, 2004).
Republic Act No. 9225, approved 29 August 2003, provided that natural-born
citizens of the Philippines who had lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of
their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country would be deemed to have re-
acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic,
and that their children whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen
(18) years of age, shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines.
Where do I apply for re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship if I am in the
Philippines?
A former natural-born Filipino citizen who is already in the Philippines and
registered in the Bureau of Immigration shall file a petition under oath to
the Commissioner of Immigration for the cancellation of the Alien
Certificate of Registration (ACR) and issuance of an Identification Certificate
(IC) as the case may be, under RA 9225.
A former natural-born citizen who is already in the Philippines but has not
registered with the BI within 60 days from date of arrival shall file a petition
under oath to the Commissioner of Immigration for the issuance of an IC
under RA 9225.
Where do I apply for re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship if I am
overseas?
 A former natural-born citizen who is abroad but is a BI-registered alien shall
file a petition under oath to the nearest Philippine Embassy or Consulate
for evaluation. Thereafter, the Embassy or Consulate shall forward the
entire records to the Commissioner of Immigration for the cancellation of
the ACR and issuance of an IC under RA 9225.
A former natural-born citizen who is abroad and is not a BI-registered alien
shall file a petition under oath to the nearest Philippine Embassy or
Consulate for the issuance of an IC under RA 9225.
(Source: Philippine Consulate-General)
- Submission of the Oath of Allegiance Applicants under these
Rules shall also sign and attach an Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines as follows:
"I, (name of the applicant) solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the
laws and local orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of
the Philippines, and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the
supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and
allegiance thereto, and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily
without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
Naturalized citizens cannot have dual citizenship- to prevent dual
allegiance to two distinct jurisidiction.
Further:
1. They shall enjoy full civil and political rights
2. Right of Suffrage: must meet the requirements under Section 1, Art. V of
the Constitution, RA 9189 otherwise known as The Overseas Absentee Voting Act
of 2003 and other existing laws.
Case Law: Lewis vs. COMELEC, August 4, 2006-The same right of suffrage as that
granted an absentee voter under RA 9189 which aims to enfranchise as much as
possible all overseas Filipinos, who save for residency requirements exacted of an
ordinary voter under ordinary conditions are qualified to vote.
7
3. Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the
qualifications 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.
Case Law: 1. Lopez vs. COMELEC, GR No. 182701, July 23, 2008; Jacot vs. COMELEC,
GR No. 179848, November 27, 2008: The mere filing of the certificate of candidacy
is not sufficient. Section 5 of RA 9225 categorically requires the individual to state in
clear and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship. The fact
that he may have won the elections, took, his oath and began discharging the
functions of the office cannot cure the defect of his candidacy.
2. Maquiling vs. COMELEC, GR No. 195649, April 16, 2013: dual citizens by
naturalization are required to take not only the oath of allegiance to the Republic,
but also to personally renounce foreign citizenship in order to qualify as candidate
for public office. If after he had renounced his foreign citizenship, he should still use
his foreign passport, he is not divested of his Filipino citizenship. However, by
representing himself as a foreign citizen, he voluntarily and effectively reverted to
his status as a dual citizen. Such reversion is not retroactive- it takes place the
moment he represents himself as a foreign citizen by using his foreign passport. As
dual citizen, he is qualified to vote, but by express disqualification under Sec. 40(d)
of the LGC, he is not qualified to run for a local elective office.
3. Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an
oath of allegiance to the Rep. and its duly constituted authorities prior to their
assumption of office provided, that they renounce their oath of allegiance to the
country where they took that oath.
4. Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply
with the proper authority for license or permit to engage in such practice.
Case Law: BM No. 1678, Petition for Leave to Resume the Practice of Law,
Benjamin M. Dacanay, December 17, 2007- Dual citizens may practice law in the
Philippines by leave of the Supreme Court and upon compliance with the
requirements, which will restore their good standing as members of the Philippine
Bar.
5. The right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the
Philippines cannot be exercised by or extended to, those who are candidates for or
occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized; and/or
are active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed
forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens.

B. EFFECT of REPATRIATION
- repatriation retroacts to the date of filing of the application. It allows the
person to recover, or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine
citizenship- Bengzon III vs. HRET, GR No. 142840, May 7, 2001. Jurisprudence says
that such a person is deemed never to have lost his or her natural-born citizenship.
(Cruz served the US Marine Corps, without the consent of the Republic, took his
oath of allegiance to the US and lost his citizenship. He reacquired his citizenship
thru repatriation under RA No. 2630.
Note: There is no law authorizing judicial repatriation. But the
repatriation of a mother entitle her minor son to a declaration that he is entitled to
Philippine citizenship.
V. ISSUES ON CITIZENSHIP
A. Dual Citizenship vs. Dual Allegiance
Case Law: Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630- the court distinguished dual
citizenship from dual allegiance. According to the Supreme Court, Dual Allegiance
refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act,
loyalty to two or more states. It says that while dual citizenship is involuntary, dual
allegiance is the result of the individuals own volition.
It held that the phrase "dual citizenship" in RA 7160 (Local Government
Code), 40 (d), and in RA 7854 (Makati Charter), 20, as a disqualification must be
understood as referring to a citizen with "dual allegiance." Consequently, persons
with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification.
It is enough that they elect Philippine citizenship upon he filing of their
certificate of candidacy to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship.
The filing of a certificate of candidacy suffices to renounce foreign citizenship,
effectively removing any disqualification as dual citizen.
This does not apply to one, who after having reacquired Philippine
citizenship under RA 9225, runs for public office. To comply with the provisions of
Section 5 (2) of RA 9225, it is necessary that the candidate for public office must
state in clear and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship
(Lopez vs. COMELEC, GR No. 182701, July 23, 2008).
Note: But the question is whether this additional oath requirement can be imposed
on national candidates. The qualifications of national candidates have been fixed
by the Constitution and the list is exclusive (Fr. Bernas).
B. Citizenship vs. Residency: Use of Foreign Passport: Green Card Holder
(Immigrant)
Residence is equated with domicile. In election law, residence is
synonymous to domicile, not necessarily with a persons home address. A man
may have several places of residence but has only one domicile. Or he may be a
nomad or travelling salesman with no permanent home. Nonetheless, the law
recognizes one domicile for him.
There are three kinds of domicile: 1) domicile of originthat is, a child
follows the domicile of the parents; 2) domicile by operation of law; and 3) domicile
of choice made freely by a person of legal age.
Domicile of choice imports not only the intention to reside in one fixed
place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of
such intention. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when
absent for business or pleasure or for like reasons, one intends to return.
Makalintal vs. COMELEC, July 10, 2003. In short, domicile of choice is a question of
fact. One intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense
that they disclose intent (animus revertendi).
Settled jurisprudence recognizes three rules to determine a persons
domicile: First, everyone must always have one of the three kinds of domicile;
second, once established, a domicile remains the same until a new one is acquired;
and third, a person can have only one domicile at any given time.
Applied to Poe. As a foundling found in Jaro, Iloilo, she acquired the
domicile (and citizenship) of her parents who, according to generally-accepted
principles of law, are presumed to be Filipinos. So, her domicile of origin is Jaro,
Iloilo. After she married an American and moved to and worked in the United
States, she lost her domicile of origin and followed the domicile of her husband in
America. When she and her husband moved back for good here after the death of
Fernando Poe Jr., she acquired a new domicile of choice in the Philippines. As to
when she acquired it depends, on her clear intention, conduct and physical
presence in the new location.
In Marcos vs Comelec (Sept. 18, 1995), the Supreme Court held that the
fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy, [is] decisive in

8
determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the Constitutions residence
qualification requirement. The Supreme Court said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos made
an honest mistake in writing seven months residence in her certificate of
candidacy for a congressional seat, a period less than the constitutional requirement
of not less than one year for that position.
Recent jurisprudence. Cordora vs Comelec (Feb. 19, 2009) held that residency is
not dependent on citizenship because even a foreigner can establish a Philippine
domicile.
More clearly, Japson vs Comelec (Jan. 19, 2009) ruled that a former Filipino who
was naturalized abroad may choose to reestablish his/her domicile here even
prior to the reacquisition of citizenship under the Dual Citizenship Law.
Said the Supreme Court: [I]n order to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must
concur: 1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, 2) an intention to
remain there, and 3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. The purpose to
remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the
change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for
the new domicile must be actual.
Moreover, Jalosjos vs Comelec (Oct. 19, 2010) ruled that the abandonment of a
home in Australia, renunciation of Australian citizenship, reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship and settling down in Zamboanga Sibugay show an intent to change
domicile for good.
Maquiling vs Comelec (April 16, 2013) clarified, though, that the use of an
American passport after a renunciation of American citizenship effectively reverses
such renunciation and disqualifies one who reacquired citizenship under the Dual
Citizenship Law from being elected to a public office.
(References: Columns of Fr. J.Bernas and Justice A. Panganiban)
Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 552 SCRA 231- A Filipino citizens acquisition of
permanent resident status abroad constitutes abandonment of his domicile and
residence in the Philippines. The green card status in the USA is a renunciation of
ones status as a resident of the Philippines.
But: Q. Does reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 have the effect of
restoring his Philippine domicile?
A. No. To reacquire domicile, he must provide proof of intent to stay in the
Philippines. After he does that, his occasional absence from the recovered domicile
does not have the effect of removing him from the domicile for as long as he
manifests animus manendi et revertendi (Japzon vs. Ty, January 19, 2009)
Questions:
How and when did she renounce her US citizenship?
Was the mere act of taking an oath as MTRCB chief tantamount to a renunciation
under Philippine and US laws?
Was the oath a sufficient proof under Philippine law that she had already renounced
her US citizenship when under US law that might not still be the case?
C. Citizenship/Nationality of Foundling:
Basis and As Applied under Philippine Laws:
1. Section 2 of 1961 International Convention- Under Art. 2 of the 1961 International
Convention on Statelessness, [a] foundling found in the territory of a Contracting
State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been
born within the territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State.
(Applying that article to Senator Grace Poe, a foundling found in the Philippines is
presumed, in the absence of contrary proof, to have Filipino biological parents. Since
she was found near a church in Jaro, Iloilo, when she was only a few days old, her
parents are presumed to be Filipinos.)
2. Incorporation Clause (Sec. 2 of Art. II of the 1987 Constitution): Philippines is not a
signatory or a Contracting State in this treaty. However, the treaty possesses the
two elements of a generally accepted principle of international law because the
grant of nationality to a foundling is an established, widespread and consistent
practice of many states since 1961 to the present. Hence, it is deemed a part of
the law of the Nation.According to Razon vs Taglis (Dec. 3, 2009), this widespread
practice or international custom could be shown from State practice, State
legislation, international and national judicial decisions, recitals in treaties and other
international instruments, a pattern of treaties in the same form, the practice of
international organs, and resolutions relating to legal questions in the UN General
Assembly.
3. 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which the Philippines is a
signatory and which our Supreme Court has consistently enforced, Everyone has a
right to a nationality. Thus, a denial of nationality or citizenship to Senator Poe
would be a plain violation of the UDHR.
9
 D. Principle of Effective Nationality- Article 5 of the Hague Convention of
1930 on the Conflict of Nationality Laws- Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)
- This principle was previously applied only in cases of dual nationality to determine
which nationality should be used in a given case. However Nottebohm had forfeited
his German nationality and thus only had the nationality of Liechtenstein. The
question arises, who then had the power to grant Nottebohm diplomatic
protection? It would be the nationality of the country in which he is habitually and
principally resident or the nationality of the country with which in the circumstances
he appears to be in fact most closely connected.

10