Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

TECSON V.

COMELEC, 2004 to conclude, or at least to presume, that the place


of residence of a person at the time of his death
FPJ ran for the presidency. He stated in his certificate
was also his residence before death. It would be
of candidacy that he was a natural-born citizen of the
extremely doubtful if the Records Management and
Philippines. Thus, 3 cases were filed against him for
Archives Office would have had complete records of
material misrepresentation.
all residents of the Philippines from 1898 to 1902.
Question
Thus, Lorenzo could be considered a Philippine, and
Why was FPJ considered a natural-born citizen? by extension, his son Allan as well.

Answer Question
He is a natural-born Filipino citizen because he was In the absence of contrary proof, what is the
born of a Filipino father. Under the 1935 presumed residence of one died prior to his death?
Constitution, those who are born of Filipino fathers
Answer
are considered citizens. And those who need not act
to acquire or perfect their citizenship are considered Please refer to previous answer.
natural-borns. Thus, since FPJ did not have to act to
Question
acquire or perfect his citizenship, he is a natural-born
citizen. Does an illegitimate child under the 1935
Constitution follow the citizenship of his father or
Allan Poe (FPJs father) was considered a Philippine
mother?
citizen because he was the son of a Philippine citizen,
Lorenzo Pou. And Lorenzo was considered a Answer
Philippine citizen because of the en masse
Filipinization that the Philippine Bill had effected in An illegitimate child follows the citizenship of the
1902. parent who is Filipino. In FPJs case, he followed the
citizenship of his father, without prejudice to
Under the Philippine Bill of 1902, all inhabitants of American laws conferring citizenship on him
the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects because of her mothers citizenship.
on the 11th day of April, 1899, and then resided in
Where jurisprudence regarded an illegitimate child
said Islands, and their children born subsequently
as taking after the citizenship of its mother, it did so
thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of
the Philippine Islands. for the benefit the child. It was to ensure a Filipino
nationality for the illegitimate child of an alien father
Lorenzo was a Spanish subject. And the death in line with the assumption that the mother had
certificate of Lorenzo Pou would indicate that he custody, would exercise parental authority and had
died on 11 September 1954, at the age of 84 years, in the duty to support her illegitimate child. It was to
San Carlos, Pangasinan. It could thus be assumed help the child, not to prejudice or discriminate
that Lorenzo Pou was born sometime in the year against him.
1870 when the Philippines was still a colony of
Spain. Petitioner would argue that Lorenzo Pou was Note: FPJ was considered illegitimate because he
was born before his parents got married.
not in the Philippines during the crucial period of
from 1898 to 1902 considering that there was no Question
existing record about such fact in the Records
Management and Archives Office. Petitioner, Does the 1935 Constitution require that the child has
however, likewise failed to show that Lorenzo Pou to be legitimate in order to follow the citizenship of
was at any other place during the same period. In his his father?
death certificate, the residence of Lorenzo Pou was Answer
stated to be San Carlos, Pangasinan. In the absence
of any evidence to the contrary, it should be sound
It does not. (Amicus curiae Bernass opinion, Petitioner was a natural born citizen of the
adopted by the court) Aside from the fact that such a Philippines, who became a naturalized citizen of the
distinction would have no textual foundation in the US on 13 December 1989.
Constitution, it would also violate the equal
protection clause of the Constitution not once but
Petitioner sought to reacquire his Philippine
twice. First, it would make an illegitimate distinction
citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, otherwise
between a legitimate child and an illegitimate child,
and second, it would make an illegitimate distinction known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-
between the illegitimate child of a Filipino father and Acquisition Act. He filed a request for the
the illegitimate child of a Filipino mother. administration of his Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines with the Philippine
The doctrine on constitutionally allowable
Consulate General (PCG) of Los Angeles, California.
distinctions was established long ago by People vs.
The Los Angeles PCG issued on 19 June 2006 an
Cayat. I would grant that the distinction between
legitimate children and illegitimate children rests on Order of Approval4 of petitioners request, and on
real differences. But real differences alone do not the same day, petitioner took his Oath of Allegiance
justify invidious distinction. Real differences may to the Republic of the Philippines before Vice Consul
justify distinction for one purpose but not for another Edward C. Yulo. 5 On 27 September 2006, the
purpose. Bureau of Immigration issued Identification
Certificate No. 06-12019 recognizing petitioner as a
What is the relevance of legitimacy or illegitimacy to
elective public service? What possible state interest citizen of the Philippines.
can there be for disqualifying an illegitimate child
from becoming a public officer. It was not the fault Six months after, on 26 March 2007, petitioner filed
of the child that his parents had illicit liaison. Why his Certificate of Candidacy for the Position of Vice-
deprive the child of the fullness of political rights for Mayor of the Municipality of Catarman, Camiguin.
no fault of his own? To disqualify an illegitimate
child from holding an important public office is to In the meantime, the 14 May 2007 National and
punish him for the indiscretion of his parents. There Local Elections were held. Petitioner garnered the
is neither justice nor rationality in that. And if there highest number of votes for the position of Vice
is neither justice nor rationality in the distinction, Mayor.
then the distinction transgresses the equal protection
clause and must be reprobated.
On 12 June 2007, the COMELEC Second Division
finally issued its Resolution11 disqualifying the
petitioner from running for the position of Vice-
JACOT VS DAL, 2008
Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin, for failure to make
the requisite renunciation of his US citizenship.
Jacot questioned Resolution dated 28 September
2007 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
Question
En Banc in SPA No. 07-361, affirming the
Is petitioner disqualified from running as a
Resolution dated 12 June 2007 of the COMELEC
candidate because of his failure to make a
Second Division2 disqualifying him from running
personal and sworn renunciation of his
for the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman,
American citizenship.
Camiguin, in the 14 May 2007 National and Local
Elections, on the ground that he failed to make a
Answer
personal renouncement of his United States (US)
Yes. His oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
citizenship.
Philippines made before the Los Angeles PCG
and his Certificate of Candidacy do not Philippines, to additionally execute a personal
substantially comply with the requirement of a and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer
citizenship because these are distinct prior or simultaneous to the filing of their
requirements to be complied with for different certificates of candidacy, to qualify as
purposes. candidates in Philippine elections.

Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 requires that


natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who are
already naturalized citizens of a foreign MAQUILING V. COMELEC, 2013
country, must take the following oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines to Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. However,
reacquire or retain their Philippine citizenship. as a consequence of his subsequent naturalization as
By the oath dictated in the afore-quoted a citizen of the United States of America, he lost his
provision, the Filipino swears allegiance to the Filipino citizenship. Arnado applied for repatriation
Philippines, but there is nothing therein on his under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 before the
renunciation of foreign citizenship. Precisely, a Consulate General of the Philippines in San
situation might arise under Republic Act No. Franciso, USA and took the Oath of Allegiance to the
9225 wherein said Filipino has dual citizenship Republic of the Philippines on 10 July 2008. On the
by also reacquiring or retaining his Philippine same day an Order of Approval of his Citizenship
citizenship, despite his foreign citizenship. Retention and Re-acquisition was issued in his favor.

The afore-quoted oath of allegiance is On 3 April 2009 Arnado again took his Oath of
substantially similar to the one contained in the Allegiance to the Republic and executed an Affidavit
Certificate of Candidacy which must be of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship, which
executed by any person who wishes to run for states:
public office in Philippine elections.
On 30 November 2009, Arnado filed his Certificate
The law categorically requires persons seeking of Candidacy for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del
elective public office, who either retained their Norte, On 28 April 2010, respondent Linog C. Balua
Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired (Balua), another mayoralty candidate, filed a petition
it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation to disqualify Arnado and/or to cancel his certificate
of any and all foreign citizenship before a public of candidacy for municipal mayor of Kauswagan,
officer authorized to administer an oath Lanao del Norte in connection with the 10 May 2010
simultaneous with or before the filing of the local and national elections.
certificate of candidacy.
Respondent Balua contended that Arnado is not a
Hence, Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 resident of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and that he
compels natural-born Filipinos, who have been is a foreigner, attaching thereto a certification issued
naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but by the Bureau of Immigration dated 23 April 2010
who reacquired or retained their Philippine indicating the nationality of Arnado as "USA-
citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance American." To further bolster his claim of Arnados
under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and US citizenship, Balua presented in his
(2) for those seeking elective public offices in the Memorandum a computer-generated travel record
dated 03 December 2009 indicating that Arnado has Imelda Romualdez-Marcos was running for the
been using his US Passport No. 057782700 in position of Representative of the First District of
entering and departing the Philippines. Leyte for the 1995 Elections. Cirilo Roy Montejo, the
incumbent Representative of the First District of
Question Leyte and also a candidate for the same position, filed
Is using a foreign passport after renouncing a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification"
foreign citizenship a retraction of the previous with the Commission on Elections alleging that
renunciation? petitioner did not meet the constitutional
requirement for residency. The petitioner, in an
Answer honest misrepresentation, wrote seven months under
Yes. The use of foreign passport after residency, which she sought to rectify by adding the
renouncing ones foreign citizenship is a words "since childhood" in her Amended/Corrected
positive and voluntary act of representation as Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 29, 1995 and
to ones nationality and citizenship; it does not that "she has always maintained Tacloban City as
divest Filipino citizenship regained by her domicile or residence. She arrived at the seven
repatriation but it recants the Oath of months residency due to the fact that she became a
Renunciation required to qualify one to run for resident of the Municipality of Tolosa in said
an elective position. months.

Question
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V. COMELEC,
Did petitioner meet the residency requirement?
1995

Answer
Imelda, a little over 8 years old, in or about 1938,
Yes. It must be noted that residence is used
established her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte where she
synonymously with domicile for election
studied and graduated high school in the Holy Infant
purposes. The court is in favor of a conclusion
Academy from 1938 to 1949. She then pursued her
supporting petitioners claim of legal residence
college degree, education, in St. Pauls College now
or domicile in the First District of Leyte despite
Divine Word University also in Tacloban.
her own declaration of 7 months residency in
Subsequently, she taught in Leyte Chinese School
the district for the following reasons:
still in Tacloban. She went to manila during 1952 to
work with her cousin, the late speaker Daniel
Firstly, a minor follows domicile of her parents.
Romualdez in his office in the House of
Tacloban became Imeldas domicile of origin by
Representatives. In 1954, she married late President
operation of law when her father brought them
Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a Congressman
to Leyte.
of Ilocos Norte and was registered there as a voter.
When Pres. Marcos was elected as Senator in 1959,
Secondly, domicile of origin is only lost when
they lived together in San Juan, Rizal where she
there is actual removal or change of domicile, a
registered as a voter. In 1965, when Marcos won
bona fide intention of abandoning the former
presidency, they lived in Malacanang Palace and
residence and establishing a new one, and acts
registered as a voter in San Miguel Manila. She
which correspond with the purpose. In the
served as member of the Batasang Pambansa and
absence and concurrence of all these, domicile
Governor of Metro Manila during 1978.
of origin should be deemed to continue.
Thirdly, a wife does not automatically gain the was proclaimed Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes, on May
husbands domicile because the term 14, 2013. On May 16, 2013, petitioner filed a Motion
residence in Civil Law does not mean the for Reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc
same thing in Political Law. When Imelda but the same was denied. Thus, on December 12,
married late President Marcos in 1954, she kept 2013, COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr.
her domicile of origin and merely gained a new issued a Writ of Execution and private respondent
home and not domicilium necessarium. took his Oath of Office on December 20, 2013. Hence
this appeal.
Fourthly, assuming that Imelda gained a new
domicile after her marriage and acquired right Question
to choose a new one only after the death of Pres. Is Caballero to run for Mayor of Uyugan,
Marcos, her actions upon returning to the Batanes?
country clearly indicated that she chose
Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile Answer
of choice. To add, petitioner even obtained her No. Without a doubt, the petitioner was a
residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte natural born Filipino who was born and raised
while living in her brothers house, an act, in Uyugan, Batanes. Thus, he had his domicile
which supports the domiciliary intention of origin in Uyugan, Batanes. Nevertheless, he
clearly manifested. She even kept close ties by later worked in Canada and became a Canadian
establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating citizen. It is settled ruled that naturalization in a
her birthdays and other important milestones. foreign country may result in an abandonment
of domicile in the Philippines. In the case at bar,
CABALLERO, v. COMELEC, 2015 the petitioner permanent resident status in
Canada is required for the acquisition of
Caballero and Nanud, Jr. were both candidates for Canadian citizenship. Therefore, he had in
the mayoralty position of the Municipality of effect abandoned his domicile in the Philippines
Uyugan, Province of Batanes in the May 13, 2013 and transferred his domicile of choice in
elections. The private respondent filed a petition for Canada. Furthermore, the court held that the
the cancellation of petitioner's certificate of frequent visits of the petitioner visits to Uyugan,
candidacy claiming that he was not eligible eligible Batanes during his vacation from work in
to run for Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes. Canada cannot be considered as waiver of such
However, the petitioner argued that prior to the abandonment.
filing of his COC on October 3, 2012, he took an
Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines More so, in this case, the records showed that
before the Philippine Consul General in Toronto, petitioner failed to prove that he had been a
Canada on September 13, 2012 and became a dual resident of Uyugan, Batanes for at least one year
Filipino and Canadian citizen pursuant to Republic immediately preceding the day of elections as
Act (RA) No. 9225.Furthermore, he asserted that he required under Section 39 of the Local
did not lose his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Government Code.
Batanes despite becoming a Canadian citizen.
The Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition
On May 3, 2013, the COMELEC First Division Act of 2003 or RA No. 9225 , declares that
issued a Resolution that the Certificate of Candidacy natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who
of respondent Caballero was cancelled. Petitioner have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason
of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign Answer
country, can re-acquire or retain his Philippine Yes. Miguels immigration to the United States
citizenship under the conditions of the law. in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his
However, it does not mention any effect of such domicile and residence in the Philippines. For
reacquisition or retention of Philippine he did not go to the United States merely to visit
citizenship on the current residence of the his children or his doctor there; he entered the
concerned natural-born Filipino. The limited States with the intention to have there
petitioner's retention of his Philippine permanently as evidenced by his application for
an immigrants (not a visitors or tourists) visa.
citizenship under RA No. 9225 did not
Based on that application of his, he was issued
automatically make him regain his residence in
by the U.S. Government the requisite green card
Uyugan, Batanes.
or authority to reside there permanently (See
Question 21 of Miguels application). To be
qualified to run for elective office in the
CAASI VS. COMELEC, 1990 Philippines, the law requires that the candidate
who is a green card holder must have waived
Merito Miguel was sought to be disqualified for the his status as a permanent resident or immigrant
position of municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan, of a foreign country.
to which he was elected in the local elections of 18
January 1988, under Section 68 of the Omnibus Therefore, his act of filing a certificate of
Election Code, and on the ground that he is a green candidacy for elective office in the Philippines,
card holder, hence, a permanent resident of the did not of itself constitute a waiver of his status
United States of America, not of Bolinao. Miguel as a permanent resident or immigrant of the
admitted that he holds a green card issued to him by United States. The waiver of his green card
the US Immigration Service, but he denied that he is should be manifested by some act or acts
a permanent resident of the United States. He independent of and done prior to filing his
allegedly obtained the green card for convenience in candidacy for elective office in this country.
order that he may freely enter the United States for
his periodic medical examination and to visit his Without such prior waiver, he was disqualified
children there. He alleged that he is a permanent to run for any elective office. Absent clear
resident of Bolinao, Pangasinan, that he voted in all evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of
previous elections, including the plebiscite on 2 that status or that he surrendered his green card
February 1987 for the ratification of the 1987 to the appropriate U.S. authorities before he ran
Constitution, and the congressional elections on 18 for mayor of Bolinao in the local elections on 18
May 1987. The COMELEC with the exception of January 1988, he was disqualified to run for said
Commissioner Anacleto Badoy, Jr. held that the public office, hence, his election thereto was null
possession of a green card by Miguel does not and void.
sufficiently establish that he has abandoned his
residence in the Philippines.

Question
Is a green card a proof that the holder is a
permanent resident of the United States?

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen