Citizenship: General Principles

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
CITIZENSHIP
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who
marry aliens shall retain their citizenship,
unless by their act or omission, they are
deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is

inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law.
Section 1. The following are citizens of the
Philippines:
WHAT IS CITIZENSHIP?
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines
at the time of the adoption of this - Membership in a political community
Constitution; which is personal and more or less
permanent in character.
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are
- Distinguished from nationality.
citizens of the Philippines;
Nationality is membership in any
class or form of political community.
[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Thus, nationals may be citizens [if
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine members of a democratic community]
citizenship upon reaching the age of or subjects [if members of a
majority; and monarchical community].

[4] Those who are naturalized in - Nationality does not necessarily
accordance with law. include the right or privilege of
exercising civil or political rights.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those
who are citizens of the Philippines from WHAT IS NATIONALITY?
birth without having to perform any act to - Nationality refers to membership in a
acquire or perfect their Philippine political community, one that is
citizenship. Those who elect Philippine personal and more or less permanent,
citizenship in accordance with paragraph not temporary.
(3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed
natural-born citizens. What is NATIONAL OR CITIZEN?
- In broader sense a national or citizen

Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost
is one who owes allegiance to and is
or reacquired in the manner provided by entitled to protection from, the State.
law. In Philippine political law, however,
there is a distinction between a
FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Resilience is knowing that YOU are the only one that has the power and responsibility to pick
yourself up"

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL
Page | 1

MENDIOLA, MANILA
national and a citizen. For while and consequence of statelessness, on

citizens are limited to those who are the other hand, the Universal
endowed with political and civil rights Declaration of Human Rights adopted
in the body politic of a State, the term unanimously by the General Assembly
nationals includes citizens as well as of the United Nations on December 10,
persons who, not being citizens, owe 1948, recognizes that Every person
permanent allegiance to the State and has the right to a nationality and that
are entitled to its protection. In other No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of
words, all citizens are nationals, but his nationality nor denied the right to
not all nationals are citizens of a State. change his nationality

For purposes of Private International
Law, however, no such distinction WHAT DETERMINES NATIONALITY?
exits. Citizens are referred to as
nationals, and vice-versa. - As a general principle, each State is
free to determine by its own law the
persons whom it considers to be its
WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF own nationals.
NATIONALITY?
Rules:
- The importance of nationality for a
civil law country like the Philippines 1. It is for the municipal law of each
is obvious: under the conflicts rules of State to determine who are the
the Civil Code, the national law of an nationals of a particular State,
individual regulates his civil status subject to certain limitations.
and condition, his family rights and
duties, the intrinsic validity of his will Basis: Hague Convention:
and the rights of succession to his It is for each State to
properties. determine under its own law who
are its nationals. This law shall be
- In Public International Law, it is the recognized by other States insofar
bond of nationality that qualifies and as it is consistent with
enables a State to extend its international conventions,
diplomatic protection to those of its international customs, and the
citizens who are in other States, and principles of law generally
to demand reparations for inquiries recognized with regard to
that may be suffered by them for nationality.
failure of said States to conform to the
so-called minimum international 2. If it is for the municipal law of
standard of justice. Because of the each State to determine who are
importance of nationality, on the one its nationals, it would necessarily
hand, and the undesirable condition follow that-


yourself up"

Page | 2

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Any question as to whether a

person possesses the nationality b) By naturalization
of a particular State shall be c) By marriage
determined in accordance with
the law of that State
BY BIRTH
In short, no other law than that of a) Before the adoption of the 1935
the Philippines determines Constitution:
whether or not a person is a
Filipino national. i) Jus sanguinis. All inhabitants of the
islands who were Spanish subjects on
Example. For a Philippine court April 11,1899, and residing in the
to say that under Philippine law, a islands who did not declare their
Filipino woman who marries a intention of preserving Spanish
Chinese national acquires Chinese nationality between said date and
nationality is not only a October 11, 1900, were declared
misapplication of Philippine law; citizens of the Philippines [Sec. 4,
it is an imposition on the law of Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones
China, the only State that can by Law of 1916], and their children born
its own rules, determine whether after April 11, 1899.
by the act of marriage she has .
acquired Chinese nationality. ii) Jus soli. As held in Roa v. Collector
What Philippine law can of Customs, 25 Phil 315, which was
competently decide is whether uniformly followed until abandoned
she has lost, by act of marriage in Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor, 79
her Philippine Citizenship. Phil 249; but applied again in Talaroc
v. Uy, 92 Phil 52, until abandoned with
The authority of a State, however, finality in Teotimo Rodriguez Tio Tiam
to define who its nationals are is v. Republic, 101 Phil. 195. Those
not absolute; it must be consistent declared as Filipino citizens by the
with international treaties, courts are recognized as such today,
international customs, and not because of the application of the
principles of law generally jus soli doctrine, but principally
recognized with regard to because of the doctrine of res judicata.
nationality.

WHAT ARE THE USUAL MODES OF b) After the adoption of the 1935
ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP? Constitution:
a) By birth
i) jus sanguinis Only the jus sanguinis doctrine.
ii) jus soli

yourself up"

Page | 3

MENDIOLA, MANILA
more than one nationality shall be

What is Dual or Multiple nationality? treated as if he had only one. Without
prejudice to the application of its law
- Dual or Multiple nationality arises in matters of personal status and of
from the concurrent application of jus any conventions in force, a third state
soli and jus sanguinis at birth or from shall, of the nationalities which any
a refusal of certain States to accept a such person possess, recognize
full application of the doctrine of exclusively in its territory either the
expatriation. Likewise, it may result nationality of the country in which he
from marriage, or it may be produced is habitually and principally resident,
by a formal and voluntary act. or the nationality of the country with
which in the circumstances he
- Where a person is simultaneously a appears to be in fact most closely
national of the State of the forum and connected.
of some other State, in matters of
status he is usually considered by the Who is a Stateless Persons?
forum as exclusively its own national,
his additional foreign nationality - The condition of statelessness may
being disregarded. easily arise under ordinary
international circumstances, as where
In a case, however, where a person is a child of parents whose home
a national of two or more countries country adheres to the pure principle
but the litigation arises in a third of jus soli is born in a country in
country, the law most consistently which the priciple of jus sanguinis is
applied is that of the country of which in force. In this instance, neither
the person is not only a national but country can claim him to be its
where he also has his domicile or national.
habitual residence, or in the absence
thereof, his residence. This view was
approved by the Sixth Conference of What is the law governing matters of civil
International Private Law held at the status and capacity of statelss persons in
Hague in 1928. But for purposes of countries following the nationality theory?
Public International Law, it has long
been a well recognized tendency to - Since they have no definite nationality,
prefer among several nationalities of they are generally subject to the la of
a person that which in a given case their domicile or habitual residence
appears to be the most effective one. and in default thereof, to the law of
their temporary residence.
The Hague Convention on Conflict of
Nationality Laws of 1930 formulated
the following principle in Article 5: Can there be a Judicial Declaration that a
Within a third State, a person having person is a Filipino Citizen? Why?

yourself up"

Page | 4

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899,

- No. There can be no judicial who did not opt in writing to retain
declaration of Filipino citizenship. He Spanish nationality between April 11,
has to apply for naturalization and 1899 to October 11, 1900 including
adduce evidence of his qualifications. their children were deemed
citizens of the Philippines. Rosalinds
father was, therefore, a Filipino
X Claims to be a Filipino, but he is being citizen, and under the principle of jus
required to register as an alien. Can he sanguinis, Rosalind followed the
prove citizenship in an injunction case citizenship of her father.
against such officers? Why?
jb) A similar conclusion was reached
- Yes. If a person claiming to be a in Maria Jeanette Tecson v. Comelec,
Filipino is being required to register G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004, on the
as an alien, he can file for a petition controversy surrounding the
for injunction and porve therein that citizenship of Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ),
he is indeed a Filipino. (lim vs. dela presidential candidate. The issue of
rosa) whether or not FPJ is a natural-born
citizen would depend on whether his
father, Allan F. Poe, was himself a
Filipino citizen, and if in the
CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES affirmative, whether or not the
alleged illegitimacy of FPJ prevents
1. Those who are citizens of the him from taking after the Filipino
Philippines at the time of the adoption of citizenship of his putative father. The
this [1987] Constitution. Court took note of the fact that
Lorenzo Pou (father of Allan F. Poe),
a) Re: 1935 Constitution who died in 1954 at 84 years old,
i) Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones would have been born sometime in
Law of 1916 [including children born after 1870, when the Philippines was under
April 11, 1899], Spanish rule, and that San Carlos,
ia) In Valles v. Comelec, supra., the Pangasinan, his place of residence
Supreme Court made reference to upon his death in 1954, in the absence
these organic acts and declared that of any other evidence, could have well
private respondent Rosalind Ybasco been his place of residence before
Lopez who was born in Australia to death, such that Lorenzo Pou would
parents Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino, have benefited from the en masse
and Theresa Marquez, an Australian, Filipinization that the Philippine Bill
on May 16, 1934, before the 1935 of 1902 effected. That Filipino
Constitution took effect, was a Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou, if acquired,
citizen. Under these organic acts, would thereby extend to his son, Allan
inhabitants of the islands who were F. Poe (father of FPJ), The 1935

yourself up"

Page | 5

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Constitution, during which regime FPJ application, consistent with provision of

has seen first light, confers citizenship the 1973 Constitution.
to all persons whose fathers are
Filipino citizens regardless of whether 3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of
such children are legitimate or Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
illegitimate. citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority.
ii) Act No. 2927 [March 26,1920], then CA473,
on naturalization [including children below a) Procedure for election. Election is
21 and residing in the Philippines at the time expressed in a statement to be signed
of naturalization, as well as children born and sworn to by the party concerned
subsequent to naturalization], before any official authorized to
administer oaths. Statement to be
iii) Foreign women married to Filipino filed with the nearest Civil Registry.
citizens before or after November 30, 1938 The statement is to be accompanied
[effectivity of CA 473] who might themselves with the Oath of Allegiance to the
be lawfully naturalized [in view of the Constitution and the Government of
Supreme Court interpretation of Sec. 15, the Philippines [Sec. 1, CA 625].
CA473, in Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of
Immigration, 41 SCRA 292]. b) When to elect. Within three (3)
years from reaching the age of
iv) Those benefited by the Roa doctrine majority [Opinion, Secretary of Justice,
applying the jus soli principle. s. 1948]; except when there is a
justifiable reason for the delay.
v) Caram provision: Those born in the
Philippines of foreign parents who, before the i) In Cuenco v. Secretary of
adoption of this [1935] Constitution, had Justice, 5 SCR A 110, where the
been elected to public office in the Islands. In Supreme Court ruled that
Chiongbian v. de Leon, the Supreme Court held there was justifiable reason
that the right acquired by virtue of this for the delay because the
provision is transmissible. party thought all along that he
was already a Filipino citizen.
vi) Those who elected Philippine citizenship. See also In Re: Florencio
Mallari, 59 SCRA 45, where the
b) Re: 1973 Constitution. Those whose Supreme Court enunciated the
mothers are citizens of the Philippines. doctrine of implied election.
Provision is prospective in application; to And in Co v. HRET, supra., the
benefit only those born on or after January 17, Supreme Court affirmed the
1973 [date of effectivity of 1973 Constitution], finding of the HRET that the
exercise of the right of
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are suffrage and participation in
citizens of the Philippines. Prospective election exercises constitute a

yourself up"

Page | 6

MENDIOLA, MANILA
positive act of election of citizenship apply only to legitimate

Philippine citizenship. children. In Republic v. Chule Lim, G.R.
No. 153883, January 13, 2004, it was
ii) But see In Re: Ching, Bar held that respondent, who was
Matter No. 914, October 1, concededly an illegitimate child
1999, where Ching, having considering that her Chinese father
been born on April 11, 1964, and Filipino mother were never
was already 35 years old married, is not required to comply
when he complied with with with said constitutional and statutory
requirements of CA 625 on requirements. Being an illegitimate
June 15, 1999, or over 14 child of a Filipino mother, respondent
years after he had reached the became a Filipino upon birth. This
age of majority. By any notwithstanding, records show that
reasonable yardstick, Chings the respondent elected Filipino
election was clearly beyond citizenship when she reached the age
the allowable period within of majority. She registered as a voter
which to exercise the privilege. in Misamis Oriental when she was 18
All his mentioned acts cannot years old. The exercise of the right of
vest in him citizenship as the suffrage and the participation in
law gives the requirement for election exercises constitute a
election of Filipino citizenship positive act of electing Philippine
which Ching did not comply citizenship.
with.
i) Indeed, in Serra v. Republic,
c) The right is available to the child as 91 Phil 914, it was held that if
long as his mother was a Filipino the child is illegitimate, he
citizen at the time of her marriage to follows the status and
the alien, even if by reason of such citizenship of his only known
marriage, she lost her Philippine parent, the mother.
citizenship [Cu v. Republic, 89 Phil
473]; and even if the mother was not a 4. Those who are naturalized in
citizen of the Philippines at birth accordance with law.
[Opinion, Sec. of Justice, s. 1948].
Naturalization. The act of formally adopting
d) The right to elect Philippine a foreigner into the political body of a nation
citizenship is an inchoate right; during by clothing him or her with the privileges of a
his minority, the child is an alien citizen [Record, Senate, 12th Congress, June 4-
[Villahermosa v. Commissioner of 5, 2001],
Immigration, 80 Phil 541].

e) The constitutional and statutory
requirements of electing Filipino

yourself up"

Page | 7

MENDIOLA, MANILA
What is Naturalization? orphan minors as nationals of the

- It is the grant of citizenship upon State where they are born.
application or by some act which b) Derivative: Citizenship conferred on:
would qualify an individual for a new (i) Wife of naturalized husband;
nationality. (ii) Minor children of naturalized
person; or on the
What is Reparation? (iii) Alien woman upon marriage to a
- It is the recovery of the original national.
nationality upon fulfillment of certain
conditions. Doctrine of indelible allegiance.
An individual may be compelled to retain his
What is Subjugation and Cession? original nationality even if he has already
- These are political changes that result renounced or forfeited it under the laws of
in the establishment of new relations the second State whose nationality he has
between the inhabitants of a territory acquired.
and the new sovereign.

How is nationality lost? Direct naturalization under Philippine
laws.
Nationality is lost by any of the following Under current and existing laws, there are
modes: three (3) ways by which an alien may become
1. release a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:
2. deprivation
3. expiration a) judicial naturalization under
4. renunciation Commonwealth Act No. 473, as
amended;
- Substitution is the loss of nationality b) administrative naturalization under Rep.
ipso facto by naturalization abroad or Act No. 9139; and
by marriage. c) legislative naturalization in the form of a
law enacted by Congress, bestowing
Philippine citizenship to an alien.

Modes of naturalization:
Naturalization under C.A. 473.
a) Direct: Citizenship is acquired by:
(i) Individual, through judicial or a) Qualifications:
administrative proceedings;
(ii) Special act of legislature; [a] Not less than 21 years of age on the date of
(iii) Collective change of nationality, the hearing of the petition;
as a result of cession or subjugation;
or (iv) In some cases, by adoption of [b] Resided in the Philippines for a
continuous period of not less than 10 years;

yourself up"

Page | 8

MENDIOLA, MANILA
may be reduced to 5 years if he honorably [b] Defending or teaching the necessity or

held office in Government, established a new propriety of violence, personal assault or
industry or introduced a useful invention in assassination for the success or
the Philippines, married to a Filipino woman, predominance of their ideas;
been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines [c] Polygamists or believers in polygamy;
(in a public or private school not established [d] Convicted of a crime involving moral
for the exclusive instruction of persons of a turpitude;
particular nationality or race) or in any of the [e] Suffering from mental alienation or
branches of education or industry for a period incurable contagious disease;
of not less than two years, or bom in the [f] Who, during the period of their residence
Philippines; in the Philippines, have not mingled socially
with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a
[c] Good moral character; believes in the sincere desire to learn and embrace the
principles underlying the Philippine customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos;
Constitution; must have conducted himself in [g] Citizens or subjects of nations with whom
a proper and irreproachable manner during the Philippines is at war, during the period of
the entire period of his residence in the such war; [
Philippines in his relations with the h] Citizens or subjects of a foreign country
constituted government as well as the whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to
community in which he is living; become naturalized citizens or subjects
[d] Own real estate in the Philippines worth thereof.
not less than P5,000.00, or must have some
known lucrative trade, profession or lawful c) Procedure:
occupation; i) Filing of declaration of intention one year
[e] Speak and write English or Spanish and prior to the filing of the petition with the
any of the principal Philippine languages; Office of the Solicitor General. The following
[f] Enrolled his minor children of school age are exempt from filing declaration of
in any of the public or private schools intention:
recognized by the Government where
Philippine history, government and civics are ia) Born in the Philippines and have
taught as part of the school curriculum, received their primary and secondary
during the entire period of residence in the education in public or private schools
Philippines required of him prior to the recognized by the Government and
hearing of his petition for naturalization. not limited to any race or nationality.

b) Disqualifications: ib) Resided in the Philippines for 30
Those : years or more before the filing of the
petition, and enrolled his children in
[a] Opposed to organized government or elementary and high schools
affiliated with any association or group of recognized by the Government and
persons who uphold and teach doctrines not limited to any race or nationality.
opposing all organized governments;

yourself up"

Page | 9

MENDIOLA, MANILA
ic) Widow and minor children of an Tsitung v. Republic, 122 Phil. 805; Po
alien who has declared his intention Yo Bi v. Republic, 205 SCRA 400].
to become a citizen of the Philippines
and dies before he is actually iiib) This rule applies equally to the
naturalized. determination of the sufficiency of the
contents of the notice of hearing and
ii) Filing of the petition, accompanied by the of the petition itself, because an
affidavit of two credible persons, citizens of incomplete notice or petition, even if
the Philippines, who personally know the published, is no publication at all.
petitioner, as character witnesses. order that Thus, in Sy v. Republic, 154 Phil. 673, it
there be a valid publication, the following was held that the copy of the petition
requisites must concur: to be posted and published should be
a textual or verbatim restatement of
(a) the petition and notice of hearing the petition filed.
must be published;
(b) the publication must be made iiic) In the same vein, the failure to
once a week for three consecutive weeks; and state all the required details in the
(c) the publication must be in the notice of hearing, like the names of
Official Gazette and in a newspaper of applicants witnesses, constitutes a
general circulation in the province fatal defect. The publication of the
where the applicant resides. In affidavit of such witnesses did not
addition, copies of the petition and cure the omission of their names in
notice of hearing must be posted in the notice of hearing. It is a settled
the office of the Clek of Court or in the rule that naturalization laws should
building where the office is located be rigidly enforced and strictly
[Republic v. Hamilton Tan Keh, G.R. No. construed in favour of the
144742, November 11, 2004], The government and against the applicant
same notice must also indicate, among [Ong Chua v. Republic G R No 127240,
others, the names of the witnesses March 27, 2000].
whom the petitioner proposes to
introduce at the trial [Republic v. iv) Actual residence in the Philippines during
Michael Hong, G.R. No. 168877 March the entire proceedings.
23 2006],
v) Hearing of the petition.
iiia) Publication is a jurisdictional
requirement. Noncompliance is fatal vi) Promulgation of the decision.
for it impairs the very root or
foundation of the authority to decide vii) Hearing after two years. At this hearing,
the case, regardless of whether the the applicant shall show that during the two-
one to blame is the clerk of court or year probation period, applicant has
the petitioner or his counsel [Gan
(i) not left the Philippines;

yourself up"

Page | 10

MENDIOLA, MANILA
(ii) (ii) dedicated himself Filipino need not go through the

continuously to a lawful calling or formal process of naturalization in
profession; order to acquire Philippine
(iii) not been convicted of any offense citizenship. All she has to do is to file
or violation of rules; and (iv) not before the Bureau of Immigration and
committed an act prejudicial to Deportation a petition for the
the interest of the nation or cancellation of her Alien Certificate of
contrary to any Government Registration (ACR). At the hearing on
announced policies. the petition, she does not have to
prove that she possesses all the
viii) Oath taking and issuance of the qualifications for naturalization; she
Certificate of Naturalization. [In Republic v. only has to show that she does not
de la Rosa, 232 SCRA 785], and companion labor under any of the
cases, the Supreme Court noted several disqualifications. Upon the grant of
irregularities which punctuated the petition the petition for cancellation of the
and the proceedings in the application for ACR, she may then take the oath of the
naturalization of Juan C. Frivaldo, viz: the allegiance to the Republic of the
petition lacked several allegations required Philippines and thus, become a citizen
by Secs. 2 and 6 of the Naturalization Law; the of the Philippines.
petition and the order for hearing were not
published once a week for three consecutive ii) Minor children born in the Philippines
weeks in the Official Gazette and in a before the naturalization shall be considered
newspaper of general circulation; the petition citizens of the Philippines.
was not supported by affidavits of two
credible witnesses vouching for the good iii) Minor child born outside the Philippines
moral character of the petitioner; the actual who was residing in the Philippines at the
hearing of the petition was held earlier than time of naturalization shall be considered a
the scheduled date of hearing; the petition Filipino citizen.
was heard within 6 months from the last
publication; the petitioner was allowed to iv) Minor child born outside the Philippines
take the oath of allegiance before finality of before parents naturalization shall be
the judgment, and without observing the two considered Filipino citizens only during
year probationary period.] minority, unless he begins to reside
permanently in the Philippines.
d) Effects of naturalization: ,
i) Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may v) Child born outside the Philippines after
be lawfully naturalized (as interpreted by the parents naturalization shall be considered a
Supreme Court in Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Filipino, provided that he registers as such
Commissioner of Immigration, supra.). before any Philippine consulate within one
year after attaining majority age, and takes
ia) In Moy Ya Lim Yao, the Court said his oath of allegiance.
that the alien wife of the naturalized

yourself up"

Page | 11

MENDIOLA, MANILA
e) Denaturalization. ii) Effects of denaturalization:

If the ground for denaturalization affects the
i) Grounds: intrinsic validity of the proceedings, the
ia) Naturalization certificate is denaturalization shall divest the wife and
obtained fraudulently or illegally. In children of their derivative naturalization. But
Republic v. Li Yao, 214 SCRA 748, the if the ground was personal to the
Supreme Court declared that a denaturalized Filipino, his wife and children
certificate of naturalization may be shall retain their Philippine citizenship.
cancelled if it is subsequently
discovered that the applicant
obtained it by misleading the court 5. Naturalization by direct legislative
upon any material fact. Availment of a action.
tax amnesty does not have the effect This is discretionary on Congress; usually
of obliterating his lack of good moral conferred on an alien who has made
character. outstanding contributions to the country.

ib) If, within 5 years, he returns to his
native country or to some foreign 6. Administrative Naturalization [R.A.
country and establishes residence 9139].
there; provided, that 1-year stay in The Administrative Naturalization Law of
native country, or 2-year stay in a 2000 would grant Philippine citizenship by
foreign country shall be prima facie administrative proceedings to aliens born and
evidence of intent to take up residing in the Philippines. In So v. Republic,
residence in the same. G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007, the
Supreme Court declared that CA 473 and RA
ic) Petition was made on an invalid 9139 are separate and distinct laws. The
declaration of intention. former covers aliens regardless of class, while
the latter covers native-born aliens who lived
id) Minor children failed to graduate in the Philippines all their lives, who never
through the fault of the parents either saw any other country and all along thought
by neglecting to support them or by that they were Filipinos, who have
transferring them to another school. demonstrated love and loyalty to the
Philippines and affinity to Filipino customs
ie) Allowed himself to be used as a and traditions. The intention of the legislature
dummy. [In Republic v. Guy, 115 SCRA in enacting RA 9139 was to make the process
244, although the misconduct was of acquiring Philippine citizenship less
committed after the two-year tedious, less technical, and more encouraging.
probationary period, conviction of There is nothing in the law from which it can
perjury and rape was held to be valid be inferred that CA473 is intended to be
ground for denaturalization.] annexed to or repealed by RA 9139. What the
legislature had in mind was merely to
prescribe another mode of acquiring

yourself up"

Page | 12

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Philippine citizenship which may be availed school age, he/she must have enrolled
of by native-born aliens. The only implication them in similar schools;
is that a native- born alien has the choice to [5] have a known trade, business,
apply for judicial or administrative profession or lawful occupation, from
naturalization, subject to the prescribed which he/she derives income
qualifications and disqualifications. sufficient for his/her support and that
of his/her family; provided that this
a) Special Committee on Naturalization. shall not apply to applicants who are
Composed of the Solicitor General, as college degree holders but are unable
chairman, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or to practice their profession because
his representative, and the National Security they are disqualified to do so by
Adviser, as members, this Committee has the reason of their citizenship;
power to approve, deny or reject applications [6] be able to read, write and speak
for naturalization under this Act. Filipino or any of the dialects of the
Philippines; and [7] have mingled
b) Qualifications: Applicant must with the Filipinos and evinced a
sincere desire to learn and embrace
[1] be born in the Philippines and the customs and traditions and ideals
residing therein since birth; of the Filipino people.
[2] not be less than 18 years of age, at
the time of filing of his/her petition; c) Disqualifications: The same as those
[3] be of good moral character and provided in C.A. 473.
believes in the underlying principles
of the Constitution and must have d) Procedure:
conducted himself/ herself in a Filing with the Special Committee on
proper and irreproachable manner Naturalization of a petition (see Sec. 5, RA
during his/her entire period of 9139, for contents of the petition);
residence in the Philippines in his publication of pertinent portions of the
relatioins with the duly constituted petition once a week for three consecutive
government as well as with the weeks in a newspaper of general circulation,
community in which he/she is living; with copies thereof posted in any public or
[4] have received his/her primary and conspicuous area; copies also furnished the
secondary education in any public Department of Foreign Affairs, Bureau of
school or private educational Immigration and Deportation, the civil
institution duly recognized by the registrar of petitioners place of residence and
Department of Education, where the National Bureau of Investigation which
Philippine history, government and shall post copies of the petition in any public
civics are taught and prescribed as or conspicuous areas in their buildings offices
part of the school curriculum and and premises, and within 30 days submit to
where enrolment is not limited to any the Committee a report stating whether or
race or nationality, provided that not petitioner has any derogatory record on
should he/she have minor children of file or any such relevant and material

yourself up"

Page | 13

MENDIOLA, MANILA
information which might be adverse to The Special Committee on Naturalization may

petitioners application for citizenship; cancel certificates of naturalization issued
Committee shall, within 60 days from receipt under
of the report of the agencies, consider and this act in the following cases:
review all information received pertaining to
the petition (if Committee receives any [1] if the naturalized person or his duly
information adverse to the petition, the authorized representative made any false
Committee shall allow the petitioner to statement or misrepresentation, or
answer, explain or refute the information); committed any violation of law, rules and
regulations in connection with the petition, or
Committee shall then approve or deny the if he obtains Philippine citizenship
petition. Within 30 days from approval of the fraudulently or illegally;
petition, applicant shall pay to the Committee [2] if, within five years, he shall establish
a fee of P100,000, then take the oath of permanent residence in a foreign country,
allegiance and a certificate of naturalization provided that remaining for more than one
shall issue. Within 5 days after the applicant year in his country of origin or two years in
has taken his oath of allegiance, the Bureau of any foreign country shall be prima facie
Immigration shall forward a copy of the oath evidence of intent to permanently reside
to the proper local civil registrar, and therein;
thereafter, cancel petitioners alien certificate [3] if allowed himself or his wife or child with
of registration. acquired citizenship to be used as a dummy;
[4] if he, his wife or child with acquired
e) Status of Alien Wife and Minor Children. citizenship commits any act inimical to
After the approval of the petition for national security.
administrative naturalization and
cancellation of the applicants alien certificate
of registration, applicants alien lawful wife
and minor children may file a petition for SAMPLE QUESTIONS FROM ALBANO:
cancellation of their alien certificates of
registration with the If the mother of the child gives birth to him
Committee, subject to the payment of the while she is unmarried, what is the
required fees. But, if the applicant is a citizenship of the child? Why?
married woman, the approval of her petition
for administrative naturalization shall - The child follows the citizenship of
not benefit her alien husband, although her the mother
minor children may still avail of the
right to seek the cancellation of their alien
certificate of registration. If a child is born under the 1935
Constitution, what is his citizenship during
f) Cancellation of the Certificate of minority if his mother is a Filipino and his
Naturalization. father is a Chinese?


yourself up"

Page | 14

MENDIOLA, MANILA
- The child is an alien during minority utterly is no cogent justification to prescribe

because the provision those who conditions or distinctions where there clearly
elect is prospective in nature. are none provided.

What are the reasons for the prospective
nature of the constitution?
TECSON vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 161434,
- 1. The language is prospective March 3, 2004
- 2. The constitution says elect
Philippine Citizenship which is FACTS: On 31 December 2003, Ronald
prospective, and Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe,
- 3. Construction of constitutional Jr. (FPJ), filed his certificate of candidacy for
provision is prospective unless the position of President of the Republic of
retroactively is expressly provided. the Philippines. In his certificate of candidacy,
FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to
be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his
date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his
TECSON vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 161434, place of birth to be Manila. Victorino X.
March 3, 2004 Fornier, initiated, a petition before the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to
DOCTRINE: disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to
Where jurisprudence regarded an illegitimate cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the
child as taking after the citizenship of its thesis that FPJ made a material
mother, it did so for the benefit the child. It misrepresentation in his certificate of
was to ensure a Filipino nationality for the candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born
illegitimate child of an alien father in line with Filipino citizen when in truth, according to
the assumption that the mother had custody, Fornier, his parents were foreigners; his
would exercise parental authority and had mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American,
the duty to support her illegitimate child. It and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish
was to help the child, not to prejudice or national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a
discriminate against him. The fact of the Spanish subject. Granting, Fornier
matter perhaps the most significant asseverated, that Allan F. Poe was a Filipino
consideration is that the1935 Constitution, citizen, he could not have transmitted his
the fundamental law prevailing on the day, Filipino citizenship to FPJ, the latter being an
month and year of birth of respondent FPJ, illegitimate child of an alien mother. Fornier
can never be more explicit than it is. based the allegation of the illegitimate birth of
Providing neither conditions nor distinctions, FPJ on two assertions: (1) Allan F. Poe
the Constitution states that among the contracted a prior marriage to a certain
citizens of the Philippines are "those whose Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie
fathers are citizens of the Philippines." There Kelley and, (2) even if no such prior marriage

yourself up"

Page | 15

MENDIOLA, MANILA
had existed, Allan F. Poe, married Bessie Kelly month and year of birth of FPJ appeared to be
only a year after the birth of FPJ. On 23 20 August 1939 during the regime of the
January 2004, the COMELEC dismissed SPA 1935 Constitution. Through its history, four
04-003 for lack of merit. 3 days later, or on 26 modes of acquiring citizenship -
January 2004, Fornier filed his motion for naturalization, jus soli, res judicata and jus
reconsideration. The motion was denied on 6 sanguinis had been in vogue. Only two, i.e.,
February 2004 by the COMELEC en banc. On jus soli and jus sanguinis, could qualify a
10 February 2004, Fornier assailed the person to being a natural-born citizen of the
decision of the COMELEC before the Supreme Philippines. Jus soli, per Roa vs. Collector of
Court conformably with Rule 64, in relation to Customs (1912), did not last long. With the
Rule 65, of the Revised Rules of Civil adoption of the 1935 Constitution and the
Procedure. The petition likewise prayed for a reversal of Roa in Tan Chong vs. Secretary of
temporary restraining order, a writ of Labor (1947), jus sanguinis or blood
preliminary injunction or any other relationship would now become the primary
resolution that would stay the finality and/or basis of citizenship by birth. Considering the
execution of the COMELEC resolutions. The reservations made by the parties on the
other petitions, later consolidated with GR veracity of some of the entries on the birth
161824, would include GR 161434 and GR certificate of FPJ and the marriage certificate
161634, both challenging the jurisdiction of of his parents, the only conclusions that could
the COMELEC and asserting that, under be drawn with some degree of certainty from
Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 the documents would be that
Constitution, only the Supreme Court had
original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve The parents of FPJ were Allan
the basic issue on the case. F. Poe and Bessie Kelley;
FPJ was born to them on 20
ISSUE: Whether FPJ was a natural born August 1939;
citizen, so as to be allowed to run for the Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley
offcie of the President of the Philippines. were married to each other on
16 September, 1940;
HELD: Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 The father of Allan F. Poe was
Constitution expresses that "No person may Lorenzo Poe; and
be elected President unless he is a natural- At the time of his death on 11
born citizen of the Philippines, a registered September 1954, Lorenzo Poe
voter, able to read and write, at least forty was 84 years old.
years of age on the day of the election, and a
resident of the Philippines for at least ten The marriage certificate of Allan F.
years immediately preceding such election." Poe and Bessie Kelley, the birth certificate of
The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to FPJ, and the death certificate of Lorenzo Pou
include "those who are citizens of the are documents of public record in the custody
Philippines from birth without having to of a public officer. The documents have been
perform any act to acquire or perfect their submitted in evidence by both contending
Philippine citizenship." Herein, the date,

yourself up"

Page | 16

MENDIOLA, MANILA
parties during the proceedings before the such intention "in a statement to be signed
COMELEC. But while the totality of the and sworn to by the party concerned before
evidence may not establish conclusively that any officer authorized to administer oaths,
FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the and shall be filed with
Philippines, the evidence on hand still would 182 the nearest civil registry. The said party
preponderate in his favor enough to hold that shall accompany the aforesaid statement with
he cannot be held guilty of having made a the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and
material misrepresentation in his certificate the Government of the Philippines."
of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in
relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus Plainly, the above constitutional and statutory
Election Code. Fornier has utterly failed to requirements of electing Filipino citizenship
substantiate his case before the Court, apply only to legitimate children. These do
notwithstanding the ample opportunity given not apply in the case of respondent who was
to the parties to present their position and concededly an illegitimate child, considering
evidence, and to prove whether or not there that her Chinese father and Filipino mother
has been material misrepresentation, which, were never married. As such, she was not
as so ruled in Romualdez-Marcos vs. required to comply with said constitutional
COMELEC, must not only be material, but also and statutory requirements to become a
deliberate and willful. The petitions were Filipino citizen. By being an illegitimate child
dismissed. of a Filipino mother, respondent
automatically became a Filipino upon birth.
Stated differently, she is a Filipino since birth
without having to elect Filipino citizenship
REPUBLIC VS LIM, G.R. No. 153883, when she reached the age of majority.
January 13, 2004

DOCTRINE:
Instead, in its first assignment of error, the
Republic avers that respondent did not REPUBLIC VS LIM, G.R. No. 153883,
comply with the constitutional requirement January 13, 2004
of electing Filipino citizenship when she
reached the age of majority. It cites Article IV, FACTS:The respondent, Chule Y. Lim, is an
Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, which illegitimate daughter of a Chinese father and a
provides that the citizenship of a legitimate Filipina mother, who never got married due
child born of a Filipino mother and an alien to a prior subsisting marriage of her father.
father followed the citizenship of the father, The respondent petitioned that there were
unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the few mistakes as to her citizenship and
child elected Philippine citizenship. Likewise, identity, to wit:
the Republic invokes the provision in Section
1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625, that 1. That her surname Yu was misspelled as
legitimate children born of Filipino mothers Yo. She has been using Yu in all of her
may elect Philippine citizenship by expressing school records and in her marriage certificate.

yourself up"

Page | 17

MENDIOLA, MANILA
2. That her fathers name in her birth record Court held that the two above provisions only
was written as Yo Diu To (Co Tian) when it apply to legitimate children. These do not
should have been Yu Dio To (Co Tian). apply in the case of the respondent who was
an illegitimate child considering that her
3. That her nationality was entered as Chinese parents never got married. By being an
when it should have been Filipino considering illegitimate child of a Filipino mother,
that her father and mother got married. respondent automatically became a Filipino
upon birth, and as such, there was no more
4. That she was entered as a legitimate child need for her to validly elect Filipino
on her birth certificate when in fact, it should citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
have been illegitimate. Both the trial court Also, she registered as a voter inside the
and Court of Appeals granted the country when she reached 18 years old. The
respondents petition. exercise of the right of suffrage and the
participation in election exercises constitute a
Issue: positive act of election of Philippine
citizenship.
The Republic of the Philippines appealed the
decision to the Supreme Court on the
following grounds: No. The Republics submission was
misleading. The Court of Appeals did not
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in allow respondent to use her fathers surname.
ordering the correction of the citizenship of What it did allow was the correction of her
respondent Chule Y. Lim from Chinese to fathers misspelled surname which she has
Filipino despite the fact that respondent been using ever since she can remember. The
never demonstrated any compliance with the court held that prohibiting the respondent to
legal requirements for election of citizenship. use her fathers surname would only sow
confusion. Also, Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act
No. 142 which regulates the use of aliases as
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in
well as the jurisprudence state that it is
allowing respondent to continue using her
allowed for a person to use a name by which
fathers surname despite its finding that
he has been known since childhood. Even
respondent is an illegitimate child.
legitimate children cannot enjoin the
illegitimate children of their father from using
Held:
his surname. While judicial authority is
required for a chance of name or surname,
No. The Republic avers that respondent did there is no such requirement for the
not comply with the constitutional continued use of a surname which a person
requirement of electing Filipino citizenship has already been using since childhood.
when she reached the age of majority as The doctrine that disallows such change of
mandated in Article IV, Section 1(3) of the name as would give the false impression of
1935 Constitution and Section 1 of the family relationship remains valid but only to
Commonwealth Act No. 625. The Supreme the extent that the proposed change of name

yourself up"

Page | 18

MENDIOLA, MANILA
would in great probability cause prejudice or the Constitution would be amended to

future mischief to the family whose surname require him to have filed a sworn statement
it is that is involved or to the community in in 1969 electing citizenship inspite of his
general. In this case, the Republic has not already having been a citizen since 1957. In
shown that the Yu family in China would 1969, election through a sworn statement
probably be prejudiced or be the object of would have been an unusual and unnecessary
future mischief. procedure for one who had been a citizen
since he was nine years old.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
instant petition brought by the Republic is We have jurisprudence that defines "election"
DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is as both a formal and an informal process. In
AFFIRMED. the case of In Re: Florencio Mallare (59 SCRA
45 [1974]), the Court held that the exercise of
the right of suffrage and the participation in
election exercises constitute a positive act of
election of Philippine citizenship. In the exact
pronouncement of the Court, we held:
CO VS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. Esteban's exercise of the right of suffrage
Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991 when he came of age, constitutes a positive
act of election of Philippine citizenship". (p.
DOCTRINE: 52; emphasis supplied)

FORMAL ELECTION OF CITIZENSHIP The private respondent did more than merely
APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE YET exercise his right of suffrage. He has
TO ACQUIRE PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP established his life here in the Philippines. For
AND NOT TO THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY those in the peculiar situation of the
FILIPINOS WHEN THE TIME TO ELECT respondent who cannot be expected to, have
COMES. Election becomes material because elected citizenship as they were already
Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution citizens, we apply the In Re Mallare rule.
accords natural born status to children born
of Filipino mothers before January 17, 1973, if The respondent was born in an outlying rural
they elect citizenship upon reaching the age town of Samar where there are no alien
of majority. To expect the respondent to have enclaves and no racial distinctions. The
formally or in writing elected citizenship respondent has lived the life of a Filipino
when he since birth. His father applied for
came of age is to ask for the unnatural and naturalization when the child was still a small
unnecessary. The reason is obvious. He was boy. He is a Roman Catholic. He has worked
already a citizen. Not only was his mother a for a sensitive government agency. His
natural born citizen but his father had been profession requires citizenship for taking the
naturalized when the respondent was only examinations and getting a license. He has
nine (9) years old. He could not have divined participated in political exercises as a Filipino
when he came of age that in 1973 and 1987 and has always considered himself a Filipino

yourself up"

Page | 19

MENDIOLA, MANILA
citizen. There is nothing in the records to How can a Filipino citizen elect Philippine
show that he does not embrace Philippine citizenship?
customs and values, nothing to indicate any
tinge of alien-ness, no acts to show that this The respondent HRET has an interesting view
country is not his natural homeland. The as to how Mr. Ong elected citizenship. It
mass of voters of Northern Samar are fully observed that "when protestee was only nine
aware of Mr. Ong's parentage. They should years of age, his father, Jose Ong Chuan
know him better than any member of this became a naturalized Filipino. Section 15 of
Court will ever know him. They voted by the Revised Naturalization Act squarely
overwhelming numbers to have him applies its benefit to him for he was then a
represent them in Congress. Because of his minor residing in this country. Concededly, it
acts since childhood, they have considered was the law itself that had already elected
him as a Filipino. Philippine citizenship for protestee by
declaring him as such." (Emphasis supplied)
The filing of sworn statement or formal
declaration is a requirement for those who RESIDENCE IN ELECTION LAW IS
still have to elect citizenship. For those EQUIVALENT TO DOMICILE. The petitioners
already Filipinos when the time to elect came lose sight of the meaning of "residence" under
up, there are acts of deliberate choice which the Constitution. The term "residence" has
cannot be less binding. Entering a profession been understood as synonymous with
open only to Filipinos, serving in public office domicile not only under the previous
where citizenship is a qualification, voting Constitutions but also under the 1987
during election time, running for public office, Constitution. The deliberations of the
and other categorical acts of similar nature Constitutional Commission reveal that the
are themselves formal manifestations of meaning of residence vis-a-vis the
choice for these persons. qualifications of a candidate for Congress
continues to remain the same as that of
An election of Philippine citizenship domicile, to wit:
presupposes that the person electing is an
alien. Or his status is doubtful because he is a "Mr. Nolledo:
national of two countries. There is no doubt With respect to Section 5, I remember that in
in this case about Mr. Ong's being a Filipino the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there
when he turned twenty-one (21). We repeat was an attempt to require residence in the
that any election of Philippine citizenship on place not less than one year immediately
the part of the private respondent would not preceding the day of the elections. So my
only have been superfluous but it would also question is: What is the Committee's concept
have resulted in an absurdity. of residence of a candidate for the legislature?
Is it actual residence or is it the concept of
domicile or constructive residence?


yourself up"

Page | 20

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Mr. Davide: "domicile" denotes a fixed permanent

Madame President, insofar as the regular residence to which when absent for business
members of the National Assembly are or pleasure, one intends to return. (Ong Huan
concerned, the proposed section merely Tin v. Republic, 19 SCRA 966 [1967]) The
provides, among others, 'and a resident absence of a person from said permanent
thereof, that is, in the district, for a residence, no matter how long,
period of not less than one year preceding the notwithstanding, it continues to be the
day of the election. This was in effect lifted domicile of that person. In other words,
from the 1973 Constitution, the domicile is characterized by animus
interpretation given to it was domicile." revertendi. (Ujano v. Republic, 17 SCRA 147
(Records of the 1987 Constitutional [1966])
Convention, Vol. II, July 22, 1986, p. 87)
xxx xxx xxx The domicile of origin of the private
respondent, which was the domicile of his
"Mrs. Rosario Braid: parents, is fixed at Laoang, Samar. Contrary to
The next question is on Section 7, page 2. I the petitioners' imputation, Jose Ong, Jr. never
think Commissioner Nolledo has raised the abandoned said domicile; it remained fixed
same point that 'resident' has been therein even up to the present.
interpreted at times as a matter of intention
rather than actual residence. Mr. De los PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IS NOT MATERIAL
Reyes: Domicile. IN DETERMINING THE RESIDENCE. Even
assuming that the private respondent does
Ms. Rosario Braid: not own any property in Samar, the Supreme
Yes, So, would the gentlemen consider at the Court in the case of De los Reyes D. Solidum
proper time to go back to actual residence (61 Phil. 893 [1935]) held that it is not
rather than mere intention to reside? required that a person should have a house in
order to establish his residence and domicile.
Mr. De los Reyes: It is enough that he should live in the
But we might encounter some difficulty municipality or in a rented house or in that of
especially considering that a provision in the a friend or relative. (Emphasis supplied)
Constitution in the Article on Suffrage says
that Filipinos living abroad may vote as To require the private respondent to own
enacted by law. So, we have to stick to the property in order to be eligible to run for
original concept that it should be by domicile Congress would be tantamount to a property
and not physical and actual residence." qualification. The Constitution only requires
(Records of the 1987 Constitutional that the candidate meets the age, citizenship,
Commission, Vol. II, July 22, 1986, p. 110) voting and residence requirements. Nowhere
is it required by the Constitution that the
The framers of the Constitution adhered to candidate should also own property in order
the earlier definition given to the word to be qualified to run. (see Maquera v. Borra,
"residence" which regarded it as having the 122 Phil. 412 [1965]) It has also been settled
same meaning as domicile. The term that absence from residence to pursue studies

yourself up"

Page | 21

MENDIOLA, MANILA
or practice a profession or registration as a Balinquit and Antonio Co and the

voter other than in the place where one is private respondent, Jose Ong, Jr.
elected, does not constitute loss of residence. Respondent Ong was proclaimed the
(Faypon v. Quirino, 96 Phil. 294 [1954]) duly elected representative of the
second district of Northern Samar.
As previously stated, the private respondent The petitioners filed election protests
stayed in Manila for the purpose of finishing against the private respondent
his studies and later to practice his profession. premised on the following grounds:
There was no intention to abandon the o 1)Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural
residence in Laoang, Samar. On the contrary, born citizen of the Philippines;
the periodical journeys made to his home and
province reveal that he always had the o 2)Jose Ong, Jr. is not a resident
animus revertendi. of the second district of
Northern Samar.
The HRET in its decision dated
CO VS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. November 6, 1989, found for the
Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991 private respondent.
A motion for reconsideration was
filed by the petitioners on November
- Attack on ones citizenship may be 12, 1989. This was, however, denied
made only through a direct, not a by the HRET in its resolution dated
collateral proceeding February 22, 1989.
Hence, these petitions for certiorari.

FACTS:
ISSUE: WON Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born
The petitioners come to this Court citizen of the Philippines.
asking for the setting aside and
reversal of a decision of the House of HELD: Yes. Petitions are dismissed.
Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET). Ratio:
The HRET declared that respondent
Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born Filipino The records show that in the year 1895, Ong
citizen and a resident of Laoang, Te (Jose Ong's grandfather), arrived in the
Northern Samar for voting purposes. Philippines from China. Ong Te established
On May 11, 1987, the congressional his residence in the municipality of Laoang,
election for the second district of Samar on land which he bought from the
Northern Samar was held. fruits of hard work.
Among the candidates who vied for
the position of representative in the
second legislative district of Northern
Samar are the petitioners, Sixto

yourself up"

Page | 22

MENDIOLA, MANILA
As a resident of Laoang, Ong Te was able to that Jose Ong Chuan may already take his
obtain a certificate of residence from the then Oath of Allegiance.
Spanish colonial administration.
Pursuant to said order, Jose Ong Chuan took
The father of the private respondent, Jose Ong his Oath of Allegiance; correspondingly, a
Chuan was born in China in 1905. He was certificate of naturalization was issued to him.
brought by Ong Te to Samar in the year 1915. During this time, Jose Ong (private
Jose Ong Chuan spent his childhood in the respondent) was 9 years old, finishing his
province of Samar. elementary education in the province of
Samar.
As Jose Ong Chuan grew older in the rural and
seaside community of Laoang, he absorbed There is nothing in the records to differentiate
Filipino cultural values and practices. He was him from other Filipinos insofar as the customs
baptized into Christianity. As the years passed, and practices of the local populace were
Jose Ong Chuan met a natural born-Filipino, concerned.
Agripina Lao. The two fell in love and,
thereafter, got married in 1932 according to After completing his elementary education,
Catholic faith and practice. the private respondent, in search for better
education, went to Manila in order to acquire
The couple bore eight children, one of whom his secondary and college education.
is the Jose Ong who was born in 1948.
Jose Ong graduated from college, and
Jose Ong Chuan never emigrated from this thereafter took and passed the CPA Board
country. He decided to put up a hardware Examinations. Since employment
store and shared and survived the opportunities were better in Manila, the
vicissitudes of life in Samar. respondent looked for work here. He found a
job in the Central Bank of the Philippines as
The business prospered. Expansion became an examiner. Later, however, he worked in
inevitable. As a result, a branch was set-up in the hardware business of his family in Manila.
Binondo, Manila. In the meantime, Jose Ong
Chuan, unsure of his legal status and in an In 1971, his elder brother, Emil, was elected
unequivocal affirmation of where he cast his as a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional
life and family, filed with the Court of First Convention. His status as a natural born
Instance of Samar an application for citizen was challenged. Parenthetically, the
naturalization on February 15, 1954. Convention which in drafting the Constitution
removed the unequal treatment given to
On April 28, 1955, the CFI of Samar, after trial, derived citizenship on the basis of the
declared Jose Ong Chuan a Filipino citizen. On mother's citizenship formally and solemnly
May 15, 1957, the Court of First Instance of declared Emil Ong, respondent's full brother,
Samar issued an order declaring the decision as a natural born Filipino. The Constitutional
of April 28, 1955 as final and executory and Convention had to be aware of the meaning of

yourself up"

Page | 23

MENDIOLA, MANILA
natural born citizenship since it was precisely If one so elected, he was not, under earlier
amending the article on this subject. laws, conferred the status of a natural-born
The pertinent portions of the Constitution Election becomes material because Section 2
found in Article IV read: of Article IV of the Constitution accords
natural born status to children born of
SECTION 1, the following are citizens of the Filipino mothers before January 17, 1973, if
Philippines: they elect citizenship upon reaching the age
of majority.
1. Those who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the adoption of the To expect the respondent to have formally or
Constitution; in writing elected citizenship when he came
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are of age is to ask for the unnatural and
citizens of the Philippines; unnecessary. He was already a citizen. Not
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, only was his mother a natural born citizen but
of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine his father had been naturalized when the
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; respondent was only nine (9) years old.
and
4. Those who are naturalized in He could not have divined when he came of
accordance with law. age that in 1973 and 1987 the Constitution
would be amended to require him to have
SECTION 2, Natural-born Citizens are those filed a sworn statement in 1969 electing
who are citizens of the Philippines from birth citizenship inspite of his already having been
without having to perform any act to acquire a citizen since 1957.
or perfect their citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with pa In 1969, election through a sworn statement
agraph 3 hereof shall be deemed natural-born would have been an unusual and unnecessary
citizens. procedure for one who had been a citizen
since he was nine years old
The Court interprets Section 1, Paragraph 3
above as applying not only to those who elect o In Re: Florencio Mallare: the
Philippine citizenship after February 2, 1987 Court held that the exercise of
but also to those who, having been born of the right of suffrage and the
Filipino mothers, elected citizenship before participation in election
that date. The provision in question was exercises constitute a positive
enacted to correct the anomalous situation act of election of Philippine
where one born of a Filipino father and an citizenship
alien mother was automatically granted the o The private respondent did
status of a natural-born citizen while one more than merely exercise his
born of a Filipino mother and an alien father right of suffrage. He has
would still have to elect Philippine citizenship.

yourself up"

Page | 24

MENDIOLA, MANILA
established his life here in the However, the 1935 Constitution and C.A. No.
Philippines. 625 did not prescribe a time period within
which the election of Philippine citizenship
Petitioners alleged that Jose Ong Chuan was should be made. The 1935 Charter only
not validly a naturalized citizen because of his provides that the election should be made
premature taking of the oath of citizenship. "upon reaching the age of majority." The age
of majority then commenced upon reaching
SC: The Court cannot go into the collateral twenty-one (21) years. In the opinions of the
procedure of stripping respondents father of Secretary of Justice on cases involving the
his citizenship after his death. An attack on a validity of election of Philippine citizenship,
persons citizenship may only be done this dilemma was resolved by basing the time
through a direct action for its nullity, period on the decisions of this Court prior to
therefore, to ask the Court to declare the the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. In
grant of Philippine citizenship to these decisions, the proper period for electing
respondents father as null and void would Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on
run against the principle of due process the pronouncements of the Department of
because he has already been laid to rest State of the United States Government to the
effect that the election should be made within
In re: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO a "reasonable time" after attaining the age of
THE BAR OF VICENTE CHING majority. The phrase "reasonable time" has
been interpreted to mean that the election
DOCTRINE: should be made within three (3) years from
ELECTION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IS reaching the age of majority. However, we
A FORMAL AND EXPRESS ACT. C.A. No. 625 held in Cuenco vs. Secretary of Justice, that
which was enacted pursuant to Section 1(3), the three (3) year period is not an inflexible
Article IV of the 1935 Constitution, prescribes rule.
the procedure that should be followed in
order to make a valid election of Philippine We said:
citizenship. Under Section 1 thereof, It is true that this clause has been construed
legitimate children born of Filipino mothers to mean a reasonable period after reaching
may elect Philippine citizenship by expressing the age of majority, and that the Secretary of
such intention "in a statement to be signed Justice has ruled that three (3) years is the
and sworn to by the party concerned before reasonable time to elect Philippine
181 any officer authorized to administer citizenship under the constitutional provision
oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil adverted to above, which period may be
registry. The said party shall accompany the extended under certain circumstances, as
aforesaid statement with the oath of when the person concerned has always
allegiance to the Constitution and the considered himself a Filipino.
Government of the Philippines."
However, we cautioned in Cuenco that the
extension of the option to elect Philippine
citizenship is not indefinite: Regardless of the

yourself up"

Page | 25

MENDIOLA, MANILA
foregoing, petitioner was born on February The Resolution in this Court, he was allowed
16, 1923. He became of age on February 16, to take the bar if he submit to the Court the
1944. His election of citizenship was made on following documents as proof of his
May 15, 1951, when he was over twenty-eight Philippine Citizenship: Certification issued
(28) years of age, or over seven (7) years by the PRC Board of Accountancy that Ching
after he had reached the age of majority. It is is a certified accountant;
clear that said election has not been made Voter Certification issued COMELEC in Tubao
"upon reaching the age of majority." La Union showing that Ching is a registered
voter of his place; and Certification showing
In the present case, Ching, having been born that Ching was elected as member of the
on 11 April 1964, was already thirty five (35) Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao, La Union
years old when he complied with the
requirements of C.A. No. 625 on 15 June 1999,
or over fourteen (14) years after he had On April 5, 1999, Ching was one of the bar
reached the age of majority. Based on the passers. The oath taking ceremony was
interpretation of the phrase "upon reaching scheduled on May 5, 1999.m Because of his
the age of majority," Ching's election was questionable status of Ching's citizenship, he
clearly beyond, by any reasonable yardstick, was not allowed to take oath. He was
the allowable period within which to exercise required to submit further proof of his
the privilege. It should be stated, in this citizenship.
connection, that the special circumstances The Office of the Solicitor General was
invoked by Ching, i.e., his continuous and required to file a comment on Ching's petition
uninterrupted stay in the Philippines and his for admission to the Philippine Bar. In his
being a certified public accountant, a report:
registered voter and a former elected public
official, cannot vest in him Philippine
citizenship as the law specifically lays down Ching, under the 1935 Constitution, was a
the requirements for acquisition of Philippine Chinese citizen and continue to be so, unless
citizenship by election. upon reaching the age of majority he elected
Philippine citizenship, under the compliance
with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No.
In re: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO 265 "an act providing for the manner in
THE BAR OF VICENTE CHING which the option to elect Philippine
[B.M. No. 914, October 1, 1999] citizenship shall be declared by a person
whose mother is a Filipino citizen"
FACTS: Vicente D. Ching, a legitimate child of He pointed out the Ching has not formally
a Filipino mother and an alien Chinese father, elected Philippine citizenship, and if ever he
was born on April 11, 1964 in Tubao La Union, does, it would already be beyond the
under the 1935 Constitution. He has resided "reasonable time" allowed by the present
in the Philippines.He completed his Bachelor jurisprudence.
of Laws at SLU in Baguio on July 1998, filed an
application to take the 1998 Bar Examination.

yourself up"

Page | 26

MENDIOLA, MANILA
ISSUE: required under Section 1 of Commonwealth

Act No. 625.
Whether or not he has elected Philippine
citizenship within "a reasonable time". ISSUE: Whether late registration of the
acquired Filipino citizenship in the Civil
HELD: Registry encumbers persons to become
naturalized citizens of the Philippines.
1. No. Ching, despite the special
circumstances, failed to elect Philippine RULING: No. Petitioners complied with the
citizenship within a reasonable time. The first and second requirements upon reaching
reasonable time means that the election the age of majority. It was only the
should be made within 3 years from "upon registration of the documents of election with
reaching the age of majority", which is 21 the civil registry that was belatedly done. The
years old. Instead, he elected Philippine SC ruled that under the facts peculiar to the
citizenship 14 years after reaching the age of petitioners, the right to elect Philippine
majority which the court considered not citizenship has not been lost and they should
within the reasonable time. Ching offered no be allowed to complete the statutory
reason why he delayed his election of requirements for such election.The actual
Philippine citizenship, as procedure in exercise of Philippine citizenship, for over
electing Philippine citizenship is not a tedious half a century by the herein petitioners, is
and painstaking process. All that is required is actual notice to the Philippine public which is
an affidavit of election of Philippine equivalent to formal registration of the
citizenship and file the same with the nearest election of Philippine citizenship.
civil registry.
WHEREFORE, the Decision Court of Appeals
is hereby SET ASIDE.

CABILING MA VS. FERNANDEZ

FACTS: The petitioners herein were born of a YU vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO GR No. L-
naturalized Filipino father and a natural-born 83882, January 24, 1989
Filipino mother. They were all raised, have
resided and lived their whole lives in this DOCTRINE:
country. During their age of minority, they
secured from the Bureau of Immigration their AQCUISITION OF FOREIGN PASSPORT IS
Alien Certificates of Registration EQUIVALENT TO RENUNCIATION OF
(ACRs).Immediately upon reaching the age of PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. To the mind of
twenty-one, they claimed Philippine the Court, the foregoing acts considered
citizenship. Having taken their oath of together constitute an express renunciation
allegiance as Philippine citizens, petitioners, of petitioner's Philippine citizenship acquired
however, failed to have the necessary through naturalization. In Board of
documents registered in the civil registry as Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Gallano,

yourself up"

Page | 27

MENDIOLA, MANILA
express renunciation was held to mean a - There are, of course, exceptions,

renunciation that is made known distinctly where in the exercise of its sovereign
and explicitly and not left to inference or prerogatives the Philippines may
implication. Petitioner, with full knowledge, grant refugee status, refuse to
and legal capacity, after having renounced extradite an alien, otr otherwise allow
Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization as him or her to stay here even if he/she
a Philippine citizen resumed or reacquired his has no valid passport or visa. Good
prior status as a Portuguese citizen, applied Example are BOAT PEOPLE seeking
for a renewal of his Portuguese passport and residences elsewhere. However, the
represented himself as such in official grant of privilege of staying in the
documents even after he had become a Philippines is discretionary on the
naturalized Philippine citizen. Such part of the proper authorities.
resumption or reacquisition of Portuguese
citizenship is grossly inconsistent with his
maintenance of Philippine citizenship.
YU vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO GR No. L-
Philippine citizenship, it must be stressed, is 83882, January 24, 1989
not a commodity or ware to be displayed
when required and suppressed when FACTS: Petitioner Yu was originally issued a
convenient. This then resolves adverse to the Portuguese passport in 1971. On February 10,
petitioner his motion for clarification and 1978, he was naturalized as a Philippine
other motions mentioned in the second citizen. Despite his naturalization, he applied
paragraph, page 3 of this Decision. for and was issued Portuguese Passport by
the Consular Section of the Portuguese
Embassy in Tokyo on July 21, 1981. Said
What happens If a foreign country cancels Consular Office certifies that his Portuguese
the passport of an alien? passport expired on 20 July 1986. He also
declared his nationality as Portuguese in
- If a foreign embassy cancels the commercial documents he signed, specifically,
passport of the alien or did not the Companies registry of Tai Shun Estate Ltd.
reissue a valid passport to him, the filed in Hongkong sometime in April 1980.
alien loses the privilege to remain in
the country, under the immigration The CID detained Yu pending his deportation
act sections 10 and 5. The automatic case. Yu, in turn, filed a petition for habeas
loss of the privilege obviates corpus. An internal resolution of 7 November
deportation proceedings. In such 1988 referred the case to the Court en banc.
instance, the board of commissioners The Court en banc denied the petition. When
may issue summary judgment of his Motion for Reconsideration was denied,
deportation which shall be petitioner filed a Motion for Clarification.
immediately executor.


yourself up"

Page | 28

MENDIOLA, MANILA
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners acts FACTS: Respondent Arnado is a natural born
constitute renunciation of his Philippine Filipino citizen.However, as a consequence of
citizenship his subsequent naturalization as a citizen of
the United States of America, he lost his
HELD: Express renunciation was held to Filipino citizenship. Arnado applied for
mean a renunciation that is made known repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.) No.
distinctly and explicitly and not left to 9225 before the Consulate General of the
inference or implication. Petitioner, with full Philippines in San Franciso, USA and took the
knowledge, and legal capacity, after having Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
renounced Portuguese citizenship upon Philippines on 10 July 2008.4 On the same
naturalization as a Philippine citizen resumed day an Order of Approval of his Citizenship
or reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese Retention and Re-acquisition was issued in
citizen, applied for a renewal of his his favor.5
Portuguese passport and represented himself
as such in official documents even after he On 3 April 2009 Arnado again took his Oath of
had become a naturalized Philippine citizen. Allegiance to the Republic and executed an
Such resumption or reacquisition of Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign
Portuguese citizenship is grossly inconsistent citizenship, which states:
with his maintenance of Philippine
citizenship. On 30 November 2009, Arnado filed his
Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of
While normally the question of whether or Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, On 28 April
not a person has renounced his Philippine 2010, respondent Linog C. Balua (Balua),
citizenship should be heard before a trial another mayoralty candidate, filed a petition
court of law in adversary proceedings, this to disqualify Arnado and/or to cancel his
has become unnecessary as this Court, no less, certificate of candidacy for municipal mayor
upon the insistence of petitioner, had to look of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte in connection
into the facts and satisfy itself on whether or with the 10 May 2010 local and national
not petitioner's claim to continued Philippine elections.
citizenship is meritorious.
Respondent Balua contended that Arnado is
Philippine citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a resident of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte
not a commodity or were to be displayed and that he is a foreigner, attaching thereto a
when required and suppressed when certification issued by the Bureau of
convenient Immigration dated 23 April 2010 indicating
the nationality of Arnado as "USA-
American."10To further bolster his claim of
Arnados US citizenship, Balua presented in
his Memorandum a computer-generated
MAQUILING VS COMELEC travel record11 dated 03 December 2009
indicating that Arnado has been using his US

yourself up"

Page | 29

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Passport No. 057782700 in entering and Reconsideration. Maquiling argued that while
departing the Philippines. the First Division correctly disqualified
Arnado, the order of succession under Section
On 30 April 2010, the COMELEC (First 44 of the Local Government Code is not
Division) issued an Order13 requiring the applicable in this case. Consequently, he
respondent to personally file his answer and claimed that the cancellation of Arnados
memorandum within three (3) days from candidacy and the nullification of his
receipt thereof. After Arnado failed to answer proclamation, Maquiling, as the legitimate
the petition, Balua moved to declare him in candidate who obtained the highest number
default and to present evidence exparte. of lawful votes, should be proclaimed as the
Neither motion was acted upon, having been winner.
overtaken by the 2010 elections where
Arnado garnered the highest number of votes RULING OF THE COMELEC EN BANC: ruled
and was subsequently proclaimed as the in favor of arnado
winning candidate for Mayor of Kauswagan, Maquiling filed the instant petition
Lanao del Norte. questioning the propriety of declaring Arnado
qualified to run for public office despite his
It was only after his proclamation that Arnado continued use of a US passport, There are
filed his verified answer, three questions posed by the parties before
this Court which will be addressed seriatim as
THE RULING OF THE COMELEC FIRST the subsequent questions hinge on the result
DIVISION: of the first.
Instead of treating the Petition as an action
for the cancellation of a certificate of
candidacy based on misrepresentation, the ISSUES:
COMELEC First Division considered it as one 1. whether or not intervention is allowed in a
for disqualification. The First Division disqualification case.
disagreed with Arnados claim that he is a 2. whether or not the use of a foreign
Filipino citizen.18The Court ruled that passport after renouncing foreign citizenship
Arnados act of consistently using his US amounts to undoing a renunciation earlier
passport after renouncing his US citizenship made.
on 03 April 2009 effectively negated his 3. whether or not the rule on succession in
Affidavit of Renunciation. the Local Government Code is applicable to
this case.
Petitioner Casan Macode Maquiling
(Maquiling), another candidate for mayor of
Kauswagan, and who garnered the second SC:
highest number of votes in the 2010 elections, 1. Intervention of a rival candidate in a
intervened in the case and filed before the disqualification case is proper when there has
COMELEC En Banc a Motion for not yet been any proclamation of the winner.
Reconsideration together with an Opposition
to Arnados Amended Motion for

yourself up"

Page | 30

MENDIOLA, MANILA
2. The use of foreign passport after renouncing

ones foreign citizenship is a positive and 3. The rule on Succession under LGC is not
voluntary act of representation as to ones applicable. Maquiling is not a second-placer as
nationality and citizenship; it does not divest he obtained the highest number of votes from
Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation among the qualified candidates.
but it recants the Oath of Renunciation
required to qualify one to run for an elective Resolving the third issue necessitates
position. revisiting Topacio v. Paredes45 which is the
jurisprudential spring of the principle that a
Between 03 April 2009, the date he second-placer cannot be proclaimed as the
renounced his foreign citizenship, and 30 winner in an election contest. This doctrine
November 2009, the date he filed his COC, he must be re-examined and its soundness once
used his US passport four times, actions that again put to the test to address the ever-
run counter to the affidavit of renunciation he recurring issue that a second placer who loses
had earlier executed. By using his foreign to an ineligible candidate cannot be
passport, Arnado positively and voluntarily proclaimed as the winner in the elections.
represented himself as an American,
The often-quoted phrase in Topacio v.
Arnados category of dual citizenship is that Paredes is that "the wreath of victory cannot
by which foreign citizenship is acquired be transferred from an ineligible candidate to
through a positive act of applying for any other candidate when the sole question is
naturalization. This is distinct from those the eligibility of the one receiving a plurality
considered dual citizens by virtue of birth, of the legally cast ballots."
who are not required by law to take the oath
of renunciation as the mere filing of the This phrase is not even the ratio decidendi; it
certificate of candidacy already carries with it is a mere obiter dictum. The Court was
an implied renunciation of foreign comparing "the effect of a decision that a
citizenship.39 Dual citizens by naturalization, candidate is not entitled to the office because
on the other hand, are required to take not of fraud or irregularities in the elections x x x
only the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of with that produced by declaring a person
the Philippines but also to personally ineligible to hold such an office."
renounce foreign citizenship in order to
qualify as a candidate for public office. A proper reading of the case reveals that the
ruling therein is that since the Court of First
By the time he filed his certificate of Instance is without jurisdiction to try a
candidacy on 30 November 2009, Arnado was disqualification case based on the eligibility of
a dual citizen enjoying the rights and the person who obtained the highest number
privileges of Filipino and American of votes in the election, its jurisdiction being
citizenship. He was qualified to vote, but by confined "to determine which of the
the express disqualification under Section contestants has been duly elected" the judge
40(d) of the Local Government Code,40 he exceeded his jurisdiction when he "declared
was not qualified to run for a local elective. that no one had been legally elected president

yourself up"

Page | 31

MENDIOLA, MANILA
of the municipality of Imus at the general

election held in that town on 4 June 1912" It is imperative to safeguard the expression
where "the only question raised was whether of the sovereign voice through the ballot by
or not Topacio was eligible to be elected and ensuring that its exercise respects the rule of
to hold the office of municipal president." law. To allow the sovereign voice spoken
through the ballot to trump constitutional
The Court did not rule that Topacio was and statutory provisions on qualifications and
disqualified and that Abad as the second disqualifications of candidates is not
placer cannot be proclaimed in his stead. An democracy or republicanism. It is electoral
ineligible candidate who receives the highest anarchy. When set rules are disregarded and
number of votes is a wrongful winner. By only the electorates voice spoken through the
express legal mandate, he could not even ballot is made to matter in the end, it
have been a candidate in the first place, but precisely serves as an open invitation for
by virtue of the lack of material time or any electoral anarchy to set in.
other intervening circumstances, his
ineligibility might not have been passed upon With Arnados disqualification, Maquiling
prior to election date. then becomes winner in the election as he
obtained the highest number of votes from
Consequently, he may have had the among the qualified candidates.We have
opportunity to hold himself out to the ruled in the recent cases of Aratea v.
electorate as a legitimate and duly qualified COMELEC and Jalosjos v. COMELEC that a
candidate. However, notwithstanding the void COC cannot produce any legal
outcome of the elections, his ineligibility as a effect.Thus, the votes cast in favor of the
candidate remains unchanged. Ineligibility ineligible candidate are not considered at all
does not only pertain to his qualifications as a in determining the winner of an election.
candidate but necessarily affects his right to Even when the votes for the ineligible
hold public office. The number of ballots cast candidate are disregarded, the will of the
in his favor cannot cure the defect of failure to electorate is still respected, and even more so.
qualify with the substantive legal The votes cast in favor of an ineligible
requirements of eligibility to run for public candidate do not constitute the sole and total
office. expression of the sovereign voice. The votes
cast in favor of eligible and legitimate
The will of the people as expressed through candidates form part of that voice and must
the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, also be respected.
especially if they mistakenly believed, as in
this case, that the candidate was qualified. There is no need to apply the rule cited in
Obviously, this rule requires strict application Labo v. COMELEC56 that when the voters are
when the deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a well aware within the realm of notoriety of a
person seeks to serve in the Republic of the candidates disqualification and still cast their
Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to votes in favor said candidate, then the eligible
this country only, abjuring and renouncing all candidate obtaining the next higher number
fealty and fidelity to any other state. of votes may be deemed elected. That rule is

yourself up"

Page | 32

MENDIOLA, MANILA
also a mere obiter that further complicated elections were conducted already and he was
the rules affecting qualified candidates who already proclaimed the winner. Arnado's
placed second to ineligible ones. disqualification, although made long after the
elections, reaches back to the filing of the
The electorates awareness of the candidates certificate of candidacy. Arnado is declared to
disqualification is not a prerequisite for the be not a candidate at all in the May 201 0
disqualification to attach to the candidate. elections. Arnado being a non-candidate, the
The very existence of a disqualifying votes cast in his favor should not have been
circumstance makes the candidate ineligible. counted. This leaves Maquiling as the
Knowledge by the electorate of a candidates qualified candidate who obtained the highest
disqualification is not necessary before a number of votes. Therefore, the rule on
qualified candidate who placed second to a succession under the Local Government Code
disqualified one can be proclaimed as the will not apply.
winner. The second-placer in the vote count is
actually the first-placer among the qualified
candidates. Natural-born citizens. Those who are citizens
of the Philippines from birth without having to
That the disqualified candidate has already perform any act to acquire or perfect their
been proclaimed and has assumed office is of Philippine citizenship. Those who elect
no moment. The subsequent disqualification Philippine citizenship shall be deemed natural-
based on a substantive ground that existed born citizens [Sec. 2, Art. IV],
prior to the filing of the certificate of
candidacy voids not only the COC but also the Marriage by Filipino to an alien: Citizens of
proclamation. The disqualifying circumstance the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain
surrounding Arnados candidacy involves his their citizenship, unless by their act or omission
citizenship. It does not involve the they are deemed, under the law, to have
commission of election offenses as provided renounced it [Sec. 4, Art. IV].
for in the first sentence of Section 68 of the
Omnibus Election Code, the effect of which is
to disqualify the individual from continuing FROM NACHURA
as a candidate, or if he has already been
elected, from holding the office. COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 63 LOSS AND
REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE
The disqualifying circumstance affecting CITIZENSHIP
Arnado is his citizenship. With Arnado being
barred from even becoming a candidate, his 1. Loss of citizenship.
certificate of candidacy is thus rendered void
from the beginning. It could not have a) By naturalization in a foreign country.
produced any other legal effect except that See Frivaldo v. Comelec, 174SCRA245.
Arnado rendered it impossible to effect his
disqualification prior to the elections because i) However, this is modified by R.A.
he filed his answer to the petition when the 9225, entitled An Act Making the

yourself up"

Page | 33

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who iv) The unmarried child, whether

Acquire Foreign Cititzenship legitimate, illegitimate or adopted,
Permanent (which took effect below 18 years of age, of those who
September 17, 2003), which declares reacquire Philippine citizenship upon
the policy of the State that all the effectivity of this Act shall be
Philippine citizens who become deemed citizens of the Philippines
citizens of another country shall be [Sec. 4, R.A. 9225].
deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship under the v) Those who retain or reacquire Phiilippine
conditions of this Act. citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil
and political rights and be subject to all
ii) Natural-born citizens of the attendant liabilities and responsibilities
Philippines who have lost their under existing laws of the Philippines and the
Philippine citizenship by reason of following conditions:
their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are deemed to have va) Those intending to exercise their
reacquired Philippine citizenship right of suffrage must meet the
upon taking the following oath of requirements under Sec. 1, Art. V of
allegiance to the Republilc: 7 the Constitution, R.A. 9189, otherwise
________________ , solemnly swear (or known as The Overseas Absentee
affirm) that I will support and Voting Act of 2003 and other existing
defend the Constitution of the laws;
Republic of the Philippines and obey
the laws and legal orders vb) Those seeking elective public
promulgated by the duly constituted office in the Philippines shall meet the
authorities of the Philippines; and I qualifications for holding such public
hereby declare that I recognize and office as required by the Constitution
accept the supreme authority of the and existing laws and, at the time of
Philippines and will maintain true the filing of the certificate of
faith and allegiance thereto; and candidacy, make a personal and
that I impose this obligation upon sworn renunciation of any and all
myself voluntarily, without mental foreign citizenship before any public
reservation or purpose of evasion. officer authorized to administer an
[Sec. 3, R.A. 9225] oath;

iii) Natural-born citizens of the vb1) In Eusebio Eugenio Lopez
Philippines who, after the effectivity v. Comelec, G.R. No. 182701,
of this Act, become citizens of a July 23, 2008, reiterated in
foreign country shall retain their Jacotv. Dal and Comelec, G.R.
Philippine citizenship upon taking the No. 179848, November 27,
aforesaid oath [Sec. 3, R.A. 9225]. 2008, it was held that a
Filipino-American, or any dual

yourself up"

Page | 34

MENDIOLA, MANILA
citizen cannot run for elective

public office in the Philippines ve) The right to vote or be elected or
unless he personally swears to appointed to any public office in the
a renunciation of all foreign Philippines cannot be exercised by, or
citizenship at the time of filing extended to, those who:
of the certificate of candidacy. (1) are candidates for or are
The mere filing of a certificate occupying any public office in
of candidacy is not sufficient; the country of which they are
Sec. 5 (2) of R.A. 9225 naturalized citizens; and/or
categorically requires the (2) are in active service as
individual to state in clear and commissioned or non-
unequivocal terms that he is commissioned officers in the
renouncing all foreign armed forces of the country
citizenship, failing which, he is which they are naturalized
disqualified from running for citizens [Sec. 5, R.A. 9225].
an elective position. The fact
that he may have won the b) By express renunciation of citizenship.
elections, took his oath and In Board of Immigration
began discharging the Commissioners v. Go Callano, 25 SCRA
functions of the office cannot 890, it was held that express
cure the defect of his renunciation means a renunciation
candidacy. The doctrine laid that is made known distinctly and
down in Valles v. Comelec, explicitly, and not left to inference or
supra., and Mercado v. implication. Thus, in Labo v. Comelec,
Manzano, supra., does not 176 SCRA 1, it was held that Labo lost
apply. Filipino citizenship because he
expressly renounced allegiance to the
vc) Those appointed to any public Philippines when he applied for
office shall subscribe and swear to an Australian citizenship.
oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines and its duly i) In Valles v. Comelec, supra., it
constituted authorities prior to their was held that the fact that
assumption of office; Provided, That private respondent was born
they renounce their oath of allegiance in Australia does not mean
to the country where they took that that she is not a Filipino. If
oath; Australia follows the principle
of jus soli, then at most she can
vd) Those intending to practice their also claim Australian
profession in the Philippines shall citizenship, resulting in her
apply with the proper authority for a having dual citizenship. That
license or permit to engage in such she was a holder of an
practice; Australian passport and had

yourself up"

Page | 35

MENDIOLA, MANILA
an alien certificate of
registration do not constitute Provided, that the rendering of service to, or
effective renunciation, and do acceptance of such commission in, the armed
not militate against her claim, forces of a foreign country and the taking of
of Filipino citizenship. For an oath of allegiance incident thereto, with
renunciation to effectively consent of the Republic of the Philippines,
result in the loss of citizenship, shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine
it must be express. citizenship if either of the following
circumstances is present:
ii) But see Willie Yu v.
Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA (i) The Republic of the
364, where obtention of a Philippines has a defensive
Portuguese passport and and/or offensive pact of
signing of commercial alliance with the said foreign
documents as a Portuguese country;
were construed as (ii) The said foreign country
renunciation of Philippine maintains armed forces in
citizenship. Philippine territory with the
consent of the Republic of the
c) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance Philippines.
to support the Constitution or laws of a
foreign country upon attaining 21 years of
age; e) By cancellation of the certificate of
naturalization.
Provided, however, that a Filipino may not
divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any f) By having been declared by competent
manner while the Republic of the Philippines authority a deserter of the Philippine
is at war with any country. armed forces in time of war, unless
subsequently, a plenary pardon or
i) This should likewise be considered amnesty has been granted.
modified by R.A. 9225.
ii) The proviso that a Filipino may not
divest himself of Philippine 2. Reacquisition of citizenship.
citizenship in this manner while the
Republic of the Philippines is at war a) Under R.A. 9225, bv taking the oath of
with any country may be considered allegiance required of former natural-born
as an application of the principle of Philippine citizens who may have lost their
indelible allegiance. Philippine citizenship by reason of their
acquisition of the citizenship of a foreign
d) By rendering service to or accepting country.
commission in the armed forces of a
foreign country;

yourself up"

Page | 36

MENDIOLA, MANILA
b) By naturalization, provided that the reactivated on June 8, 1995,

applicant possesses none of the and it is before this Committee
disqualifications prescribed for naturalization. that a petition for repatriation
is filed [Angat v. Republic, G.R.
i) In Republic v. Judge de la Rosa, No. 132244, September 14,
supra., the naturalization proceeding 1999].
was so full of procedural flaws that
the decision granting Filipino ii) When repatriation takes effect. In
citizenship to Governor Juan Frivaldo Frivaldo v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727, it
was deemed a nullity. was held that repatriation of Frivaldo
retroacted to the date of filing of his
c) By repatriation of deserters of the Army, application on August 17, 1994. In
Navy or Air Corps, provided that a woman Altarejos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 163256,
who lost her citizenship by reason of her November 10, 2004, the same
marriage to an alien may be repatriated in principle was applied. Petitioner took
accordance with the provisions of this Act his Oath of Allegiance on December
after the termination of the marital status. 17,1997, but his Certificate of
Repatriation was registered with the
i) See P.D. 725, which allows Civil Registry of Makati only after six
repatriation of former natural-born years, or on February 18, 2004, and
Filipino citizens who lost Filipino with the Bureau of Immigration on
citizenship. March 1, 2004. He completed all the
requirements for repatriation only
ia) In Frivaldo v. Comelec and after he filed his certificate of
Lee v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727, candidacy for a mayoralty position,
the Supreme Court held that but before the elections. But because
P.D. 725 was not repealed by his repatriation retroacted to
President Aquinos December 17-, 1997, he was deemed
Memorandum of March 27, qualified to run for mayor in the May
1986, and, thus, was a valid 10, 2004 elections.
mode for the reacquisition of
Filipino citizenship by iii) Effectofrepatriation. In Bengzon lllv.
Sorsogon Governor Juan House of Representatives Electoral
Frivaldo. Tribunal, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001,
the Supreme Court ruled that the act
ib) The Special Committee on of repatriation allows the person to
Naturalization created by PD recover, or return to, his original
725, chaired by the Solicitor status before he lost his Philippine
General with the citizenship. Thus, respondent Cruz, a
Undersecretary of Foreign former natural born Filipino citizen
Affairs and the Director of the who lost his Philippine citizenship
NICA as members, was when he enlisted in the United States

yourself up"

Page | 37

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Marine Corps, was deemed to have of the Philippines, acquired

recovered his natural- born status American citizenship through
when he reacquired Filipino derivative naturalization
citizenship through repatriation. when, still a minor, his father
became a naturalized citizen
iv) Repatriation under R. A. 8171 of the United States. On
(lapsed into law on October 23, 1995). October 3,1995, he was
The law governs the repatriation of admitted to the Philippines as
Filipino women who may have lost a balikbayan, but within a
Filipino citizenship by reason of year, he was charged by the
marriage to aliens, as well as the Bureau of Immigration and
repatriation of former natural-born Deportation (BID), because it
Filipino citizens who lost Filipino appeared that the US
citizenship on account of political or Department of Justice had
economic necessity, including their revoked his passport and was
minor children, provided the the subject of an outstanding
applicant is not a person federal warrant of arrest for
possession of firearms and
[a] opposed to organized government one count of sexual battery.
or affiliated with any association or Finding him an undocumented
group of persons who uphold and and undesirable alien, the BID
teach doctrines opposing organized ordered his deportation. After
government; [ learning of the BID order, he
b] defending or teaching the necessity then immediately executed an
or propriety of violence, personal Affidavit of Repatriation and
assault or assassination for the took an oath of allegiance to
predominance of his ideas; [c] the Republic of the Philippines.
convicted of a crime involving moral On the issue of whether he
turpitude; or [d] suffering from validly reacquired Philippine
mental alienation or incurable citizenship, the Supreme Court
contagious disease. Repatriation is ruled in the negative. The
effected by taking the necessary oath privilege of RA 8171 is
of allegiance to the Republic of the available only to natural-born
Philippines and registration in the Filipinos who lost their
proper Civil Registry and in the citizenship on account of
Bureau of Immigration and political or economic necessity
Deportation. and to their minor children.
This means that if a parent
iva) In Tabasa v. Court of who had renounced his
Appeals, G.R. No. 125793, Philippine citizenship due to
August 29, 2006, Joevanie political or economic reasons
Tabasa, a natural-born citizen later decides to repatriate

yourself up"

Page | 38

MENDIOLA, MANILA
under RA8171, his alleged forfeiture is between him and the

repatriatioin will also benefit United States as his adopted country. It
his minor children. Thus, to should be obvious that even if he did lose his
claim the benefit of RA 8171, naturalized American citizenship, such
the children must be of minor forfeiture did not and could not have the
age at the time the petition for effect of automatically restoring his
repatriation is filed by the citizenship in the Philippines that he had
parent. This is so because a earlier renounced. At best, what might have
child does not have the legal happened as a result of the loss of his
capacity to undertake a naturalized citizenship was that he became a
political act like the election of stateless individual.
citizenship. On their own, the
minor children cannot apply Frivaldo's contention that he could not have
for repatriation or repatriated himself under LOI 270 because
naturalization separately from the Special Committee provided for therein
the parents. Tabasa is not had not yet been constituted seems to suggest
qualified to avail himself of that the lack of that body rendered his
repatriation under RA8171. repatriation unnecessary. That is far-fetched
if not specious. Such a conclusion would open
d) By direct act of Congress. the floodgates, as it were. It would allow all
Filipinos who have renounced this country to
claim back their abandoned citizenship
without formally rejecting their adopted state
and reaffirming their allegiance to the
FRIVALDO VS. COMELEC G.R. No. 87193, Philippines. It does not appear that Frivaldo
June 23, 1989 has taken these categorical acts. He contends
that by simply filing his certificate of
DOCTRINE: candidacy he had, without more, already
effectively recovered Philippine citizenship.
LOST OF FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP ACQUIRED But that is hardly the formal declaration the
THROUGH SUBSEQUENT law envisions surely, Philippine citizenship
NATURALIZATION DOES NOT previously disowned is not that cheaply
AUTOMATICALLY CONFER PREVIOUS recovered. If the Special Committee had not
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. While Frivaldo yet been convened, what that meant simply
does not invoke either of the first two was that the petitioner had to wait until this
methods, he 183 nevertheless claims he has was done, or seek naturalization by legislative
reacquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of or judicial proceedings.
a valid repatriation. He claims that by actively
participating in the elections in this country, It is true as the petitioner points out that the
he automatically forfeited American status of the natural-born citizen is favored
citizenship under the laws of the United by the Constitution and our laws, which is all
States. Such laws do not concern us here. The the more reason why it should be treasured

yourself up"

Page | 39

MENDIOLA, MANILA
like a pearl of great price. But once it is claims that by actively participating in the
surrendered and renounced, the gift is gone local elections, he automatically forfeited
and cannot be lightly restored. This country American citizenship under the laws of the
of ours, for all its difficulties and limitations, United States of America. The Court stated
is like a jealous and possessive mother. Once that that the alleged forfeiture was between
rejected, it is not quick to welcome back with him and the US. If he really wanted to drop
eager arms its prodigal if repentant children. his American citizenship, he could do so in
The returning renegade must show, by an accordance with CA No. 63 as amended by CA
express and unequivocal act, the renewal of No. 473 and PD 725. Philippine citizenship
his loyalty and love. may be reacquired by direct act of Congress,
by naturalization, or by repatriation.

FRIVALDO VS. COMELEC G.R. No. 87193,
June 23, 1989 REPUBLIC VS. DELA ROSA G.R. No. 104654,
June 6, 1994
FACTS: Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed
governor of the province of Sorsogon and DOCTRINE:
assumed office in due time. The League of
Municipalities filed with the COMELEC a THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
petition for the annulment of Frivaldo on the NATURALIZATION LAW IS
ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, JURISDICTIONAL IN NATURE. Private
having been naturalized in the United States. respondent, having opted to reacquire
Philippine citizenship thru naturalization
Frivaldo admitted the allegations but pleaded under the Revised Naturalization Law, is duty
the special and affirmative defenses that he bound to follow the procedure prescribed by
was naturalized as American citizen only to the said law. It is not for an applicant to
protect himself against President Marcos decide for himself and to select the
during the Martial Law era. requirements which he believes, even
sincerely, are applicable to his case and
ISSUE: Whether or not Frivaldo is a Filipino discard those which be believes are
citizen. inconvenient or merely of nuisance value. The
law does not distinguish between an
RULING: No. Section 117 of the Omnibus applicant who was formerly a Filipino citizen
Election Code provides that a qualified voter and one who was never such a citizen. It does
must be, among other qualifications, a citizen not provide a special procedure for the
of the Philippines, this being an indispensable reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by
requirement for suffrage under Article V, former Filipino citizens akin to the
Section 1, of the Constitution. repatriation of a woman who had lost her
Philippine citizenship by reason of her
He claims that he has reacquired Philippine marriage to an alien.
citizenship by virtue of valid repatriation. He

yourself up"

Page | 40

MENDIOLA, MANILA
The trial court never acquired jurisdiction to credible persons who vouched for the good
hear the petition for naturalization of private moral character of private respondent as
respondent. The proceedings conducted, the required by Section 7 of the Revised
decision rendered and the oath of allegiance Naturalization Law. Private respondent also
taken therein, are null and void for failure to failed to attach a copy of his certificate of
comply with the publication and posting arrival to the petition as required by Section 7
requirements under the Revised of the said law. The proceedings of the trial
Naturalization Law. Under Section 9 of the court was marred by the following
said law, both the petition for naturalization irregularities:
and the order setting it for hearing must be
published once a week for three consecutive (1) the hearing of the petition was set ahead
weeks in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of the scheduled date of hearing, without a
of general circulation. Compliance therewith publication of the order advancing the date of
is jurisdictional (Po Yi Bo v. Republic, 205 hearing, and the petition itself;
SCRA 400 [1992]). Moreover, the publication (2) the petition was heard within six months
and posting of the petition and the order must from the last publication of the petition;
be in its full text for the court to acquire (3) petitioner was allowed to take his oath of
jurisdiction (Sy v. Republic, 55 SCRA 724 allegiance before the finality of the judgment;
[1974]). and

The petition for naturalization lacks several (4) petitioner took his oath of allegiance
allegations required by Sections 2 and 6 of the without observing the twoyear waiting period.
Revised Naturalization Law, particularly:
A decision in a petition for naturalization

becomes final only after 30 days from its
(1) that the petitioner is of good moral
promulgation and, insofar as the Solicitor
character;
General is concerned, that period is counted
(2) that he resided continuously in the
from the date of his receipt of the copy of the
Philippines for at least ten years;
decision (Republic v. Court of First Instance of
(3) that he is able to speak and write English
Albay, 60 SCRA 195 [1974]). Section 1 of R.A.
and any one of the principal dialects;
No. 530 provides that no decision granting
(4) that he will reside continuously in the
citizenship in naturalization proceedings shall
Philippines from the date of the filing of the
be executory until after two years from its
petition until his admission to Philippine
promulgation in order to be able to observe if:
citizenship; and

(5) that he has filed a declaration of intention
(1) the applicant has left the country;
or if he is excused from said filing, the
(2) the applicant has dedicated himself
justification therefore.
continuously to a lawful calling or profession;

(3) the applicant has not been convicted of
The absence of such allegations is fatal to the
any offense or violation of government
petition (Po Yi Bi v. Republic, 205 SCRA 400
promulgated rules; and
[1992]). Likewise the petition is not
supported by the affidavit of at least two

yourself up"

Page | 41

MENDIOLA, MANILA
(4) the applicant has committed any act Section 25 of the Interim Rules, to annul the
prejudicial to the interest of the country or decision made on February 27, 1992 and to
contrary to government announced policies. nullify the oath of allegiance taken by
Even discounting the provisions of R.A. No. Frivaldo on same date.
530, the courts cannot implement any
decision granting the petition for ISSUE: Whether or not Frivaldo was duly re-
naturalization before its finality. admitted to his citizenship as a Filipino.

RULING: No. The supreme court ruled that
Private respondent is declared NOT a citizen
REPUBLIC VS. DELA ROSA G.R. No. 104654, of the Philippines and therefore disqualified
June 6, 1994 from continuing to serve as governor of the
Province of Sorsogon. He is ordered to vacate
FACTS: September 20, 1991 - Frivaldo filed a his office and to surrender the same to the
petition for naturalization under the Vice-Governor of the Province of Sorsogon
Commonwealth Act No. 63 before the RTC once this decision becomes final and
Manila. October 7, 1991 - Judge dela Rosa set executory. The proceedings of the trial court
the petition for hearing on March 16, 1992, was marred by the following irregularities:
and directed the publication of the said order
and petition in the Official Gazette and a
newspaper of general circulation, for 3 (1) the hearing of the petition was set ahead
consecutive weeks, the last publication of of the scheduled date of hearing, without a
which should be at least 6 months before the publication of the order advancing the date of
date of the said hearing. hearing, and the petition itself;
(2) the petition was heard within six months
January 14, 1992 - Frivaldo asked the Judge to from the last publication of the petition;
cancel the March 16 hearing and move it to (3) petitioner was allowed to take his oath of
January 24, 1992, citing his intention to run allegiance before the finality of the judgment;
for public office in the May 1992 elections. and
Judge granted the motion and the hearing was (4) petitioner took his oath of allegiance
moved to February 21. No publication or copy without observing the two-year waiting
was issued about the order. period.
February 21, 1992 - the hearing proceeded.

February 27, 1992 - Judge rendered the
assailed Decision and held that Frivaldo is
readmitted as a citizen of the Republic of the LABO VS COMELEC G.R. No. 86564,
Philippines by naturalization. August 1, 1989

Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for DOCTRINE:
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules
of Court in relation to R.A. No. 5440 and

yourself up"

Page | 42

MENDIOLA, MANILA
FORFEITURE OF FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO

DOES NOT RESTORE PHILIPPINE QUESTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP. There is also
CITIZENSHIP FORMERLY LOST. The the claim that the decision can no longer be
petitioner now claims that his naturalization reversed because of the doctrine of res
in Australia made him at worst only a dual judicata, but this too must be dismissed. This
national and did not divest him of his doctrine does not apply to questions of
Philippine citizenship. Such a specious citizenship, as the Court has ruled in several
argument cannot stand against the clear cases. Moreover, it does not appear that it
provisions of CA No. 63, which enumerates was properly and seasonably pleaded, in a
the modes by which Philippine citizenship motion to dismiss or in the answer, having
may be lost. Among these are: been invoked only when the petitioner filed
his reply to the private respondent's
(1) naturalization in a foreign country; comment. Besides, one of the requisites of res
(2) express renunciation of citizenship; and judicata, to wit, identity of parties, is not
(3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to present in this case.
support the Constitution or laws of a foreign
country, all of which are applicable to the
petitioner. It is also worth mentioning in this Res judicata in cases involving citizenship.
connection that under Article IV, Section 5, of The doctrine of res judicata does not
the present Constitution, "Dual allegiance of ordinarily apply to questions of citizenship.
citizens is inimical to the national interest and
shall be dealt with by law." (a) A persons citizenship is resolved by a
court or an administrative body as a material
Even if it be assumed that, as the petitioner issue in the controversy, after a full-blown
asserts, his naturalization in Australia was hearing;
annulled after it was found that his marriage (b) With the active participation of the
to the Australian citizen was bigamous, that Solicitor General or his representative; and
circumstance alone did not automatically (c) The finding of his citizenship is affirmed
restore his Philippine citizenship. His by the Supreme Court. Then the decision on
divestiture of Australian citizenship does not the matter shall constitute conclusive proof of
concern us here. That is a matter between such partys citizenship in any other case or
him and his adopted country. What we must proceeding [Board of Commissioners, CID v. de
consider is the fact that he voluntarily and la Rosa, 197 SCRA 853, citing Zita Ngo Burca v.
freely rejected Philippine citizenship and Republic, 19 SCRA 186].
willingly and knowingly embraced the
citizenship of a foreign country. The

possibility that he may have been
LABO VS COMELEC G.R. No. 86564,
subsequently rejected by Australia, as he
August 1, 1989
claims, does not mean that he has been
automatically reinstated as a citizen of the
Philippines. FACTS: In 1988, Ramon Labo, Jr. was elected
as mayor of Baguio City. His rival, Luis

yourself up"

Page | 43

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Lardizabal filed a petition for quo warranto It cannot be said also that he is a dual citizen.
against Labo as Lardizabal asserts that Labo Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
is an Australian citizen hence disqualified; national interest and shall be dealt with by
that he was naturalized as an Australian after law. He lost his Filipino citizenship when he
he married an Australian. Labo avers that his swore allegiance to Australia. He cannot also
marriage with an Australian did not make claim that when he lost his Australian
him an Australian; that at best he has dual citizenship, he became solely a Filipino. To
citizenship, Australian and Filipino; that even restore his Filipino citizenship, he must be
if he indeed became an Australian when he naturalized or repatriated or be declared as a
married an Australian citizen, such Filipino through an act of Congress none of
citizenship was lost when his marriage with this happened.
the Australian was later declared void for
being bigamous. Labo further asserts that Labo, being a foreigner, cannot serve public
even if hes considered as an Australian, his office. His claim that his lack of citizenship
lack of citizenship is just a mere technicality should not overcome the will of the electorate
which should not frustrate the will of the is not tenable. The people of Baguio could not
electorate of Baguio who voted for him by a have, even unanimously, changed the
vast majority. requirements of the Local Government Code
and the Constitution simply by electing a
ISSUES: foreigner (curiously, would Baguio have
voted for Labo had they known he is
1. Whether or not Labo can retain his public Australian). The electorate had no power to
office. permit a foreigner owing his total allegiance
to the Queen of Australia, or at least a
2. Whether or not Lardizabal, who obtained stateless individual owing no allegiance to the
the second highest vote in the mayoralty race, Republic of the Philippines, to preside over
can replace Labo in the event Labo is them as mayor of their city. Only citizens of
disqualified. the Philippines have that privilege over their
countrymen.
HELD:
2. Lardizabal on the other hand cannot assert,
1. No. Labo did not question the authenticity through the quo warranto proceeding, that he
of evidence presented against him. He was should be declared the mayor by reason of
naturalized as an Australian in 1976. It was Labos disqualification because Lardizabal
not his marriage to an Australian that made obtained the second highest number of vote.
him an Australian. It was his act of It would be extremely repugnant to the basic
subsequently swearing by taking an oath of concept of the constitutionally guaranteed
allegiance to the government of Australia. He right to suffrage if a candidate who has not
did not dispute that he needed an Australian acquired the majority or plurality of votes is
passport to return to the Philippines in 1980; proclaimed a winner and imposed as the
and that he was listed as an immigrant here. representative of a constituency, the majority
of which have positively declared through

yourself up"

Page | 44

MENDIOLA, MANILA
their ballots that they do not choose him. States of America, the petitioner merely relied
Sound policy dictates that public elective on the fact that private respondent was
offices are filled by those who have received issued alien certificate of registration and was
the highest number of votes cast in the given clearance and permit to re-enter the
election for that office, and it is a fundamental Philippines by the Commission on
idea in all republican forms of government Immigration and Deportation. Petitioner
that no one can be declared elected and no assumed that because of the foregoing, the
measure can be declared carried unless he or respondent is an
it receives a majority or plurality of the legal American and "being an American", private
votes cast in the election. respondent "must have taken and sworn to
the Oath of Allegiance required by the U.S.
Naturalization Laws." (p. 81, Rollo)

Philippine courts are only allowed to
AZNAR VS. COMELEC G.R. No. 83820, determine who are Filipino citizens and who
May 25, 1990 are not. Whether or not a person is
considered an American under the laws of the
DOCTRINE: United States does not concern Us here. By
THE FACT THAT A PERSON IS A HOLDER virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father,
OF ALIEN CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION the presumption that private respondent is a
DOES NOT CONCLUSIVELY MEAN THAT Filipino remains. It was incumbent upon the
THAT THE PERSON IS NOT A FILIPINO petitioner to prove that private respondent
CITIZEN. In the proceedings before the had lost his Philippine citizenship. As earlier
COMELEC, the petitioner failed to present stated, however, the petitioner failed to
direct proof that private respondent had lost positively establish this fact.
his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes
provided for under C.A. No. 63. Among others, In the learned dissent of Mr. Justice Teodoro
these are: Padilla, he stresses the fact that because
Osmea obtained Certificates of Alien
(1) by naturalization in a foreign country; Registration as an American citizen, the first
(2) by express renunciation of citizenship; in 1958 when he was 24 years old and the
and second in 1979, he, Osmea should be
(3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to regarded as having expressly renounced
support the Constitution or laws of a foreign Philippine citizenship. To Our mind, this is a
country. From the evidence, it is clear that case of non sequitur (It does not follow).
private respondent Osmea did not lose his Considering the fact that admittedly Osmea
Philippine citizenship by any of the three was both a Filipino and an American, the
mentioned hereinabove or by any other mode mere fact that he has a Certificate stating he is
of losing Philippine citizenship. an American does not mean that he is not still
a Filipino.
In concluding that private respondent had
been naturalized as a citizen of the United

yourself up"

Page | 45

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Thus, by way of analogy, if a person who has

two brothers named Jose and Mario states or FACTS: Respondent Emilio Lito Osmena
certifies that he has a brother named Jose, filed his certificate of candidacy before the
this does not mean that he does not have a COMELEC as the Governor of Cebu Province.
brother named Mario; or if a person is Aznar, herein petitioner, as the representative
enrolled as student simultaneously in two of the Cebu PDP- Provincial council and as the
universities, namely University X and incumbent Chairman of such, filed a petition
University Y, presents a Certification that he against the respondent before the Comelec
is a student of University X, this does not contending that he should be disqualified
necessarily mean that he is not still a student because he is not a Filipino citizen, instead an
of University Y. In the case of Osmea, the American citizen. Petitioner filed a Formal
Certification that he is an American does not Manifestation showing a Certificate issued by
mean that he is not still a Filipino, possessed the Immigration and Deportation
as he is, of both nationalities or citizenships. Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago that
Indeed, there is no express renunciation here the respondent as an American Citizen is a
of Philippine citizenship; truth to tell, there is holder of Alien Certificate of Registration and
even no implied renunciation of said Immigrant Certificate of Residence. The
citizenship. When We consider that the Comelec en banc ordered the Board of
renunciation needed to lose Philippine Canvassers to continue canvassing but to
citizenship must be "express", it stands to suspend the proclamation upon the filing the
reason that there can be no such loss of motion of herein respondent for the
Philippine citizenship when there is no Temporary Restraining Order to the Cebu
renunciation, either "express" or "implied ". Provincial Board of Canvassers from
Parenthetically, the statement in the 1987 tabulation and proclamation of the
Constitution that "dual allegiance of citizens is respondent until the resolution of said
inimical to the national interest and shall be petition.
dealt with by law" (Art. IV, Sec. 5) has no
retroactive effect. And while it is true that Private respondent alleged that he is a
even before the 1987 Constitution, Our Filipino Citizen that he is the legitimate son of
country had already frowned upon the Dr. Emilio D. Osmena, the latter being the son
concept of dual citizenship or allegiance, the of the late President Sergio Osmena.He also
fact is it actually existed. Be it noted further claimed that he has been continuously
that under the aforecited proviso, the effect of residing in the Philippines since birth and he
such dual citizenship or allegiance shall be has not gone out of the country for more than
dealt with by a future law. Said law has not six months. Furthermore, he contended that
yet been enacted. he is a registered voter of the Philippines
since 1965.

COMELEC (FirstDivision) directed the Board
of Canvassers to proclaim the winning
AZNAR VS. COMELEC G.R. No. 83820, candidates. Having obtained the highest
May 25, 1990

yourself up"

Page | 46

MENDIOLA, MANILA
number of votes, private respondent was allegiance to the Constitution and

proclaimed the Provincial Governor of Cebu. Government of the Philippines.

ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent Within What period should the election be
Emilio Lito Osmena has lost his Filipino made?
Citizenship and thus be disqualified as a
candidate for the Provincial Governor of Cebu - An election must be made within
Province. three (3) years from reaching the age
of majority, except if there is a
HELD: NO. The respondent did not lose his justifiable reason for the delay, as
Filipino Citizenship and thereby qualified as a when the party thought all along that
candidate for the Provincial Governor of Cebu he was already a Filipino (Cuenco vs.
Province. The petitioner failed to present Secretary of Justice)
direct proof that private respondent had lost
his Filipino Citizenship by any of the modes
provided under C.A. No. 63 namely: Can there be an acquisition of citizenship
by implied election of citizenship? Explain.
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) By express renunciation of Citizenship; - Yes. In Re: Florencio Mallari, the
and Supreme Court said that there can be
(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to acquisition of Philippine Citizenship
support the Constitution or laws of a foreign under the DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED
country. ELECTION by having exercise the
right of suffrage when he came of age.
Thus, it is clear that private respondent That was a positive act of election of
Osmea did not lose his Philippine citizenship Philippine Citizenship. In this case, he
by any of the three mentioned herein above participated in elections and
or by any other mode of losing Philippine campaigned for certain candidates.
Citizenship.

Policy against dual allegiance: Dual
State the procedure in electing Filipino allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national
Citizenship. interest and shall be dealt with by law [Sec. 5,
Art. IV].
- Election of Philippine Citizenship can
be expressed in a sentiment signed - In Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630,
and sworn to by the party concerned, the Court clarified the dual
before any official who is authorized citizenship disqualification in Sec. 40,
to administer an oath. The Statement Local Government Code, and
must be filed with the nearest Local reconciled the same with Sec. 5, Art.
City Civil Registry. The Statement IV of the Constitution on dual
must be accompanied by an oath of allegiance. Recognizing situations in

yourself up"

Page | 47

MENDIOLA, MANILA
which a Filipino citizen may, without ii) However, this doctrine in

performing any act and as an Valles and Mercado that the
involuntary consequence of the filing of acertificate of
conflicting laws of different countries, candidacy suffices to renounce
be also a citizen of another state, the foreign citizenship does not
Court explained that dual citizenship apply to one who, after having
as a disqualification must refer to reacquired Philippine
citizens with dual allegiance. citizenship under R.A. 9225,
Consequently, persons with mere dual runs for public office. To
citizenship do not fall under the comply with the provisions of
disqualification. This ruling is Sec. 5 (2) of R.A. 9225, it is
reiterated in Valles v. Comelec, G.R. No. necessary that the candidate
137000, August 9, 2000. for public office must state in
clear and unequivocal terms
i) Furthermore, for candidates that he is renouncing all
with dual citizenship, it is foreign citizenship [Lopez v.
enough that they elect Comeiec, G.R. No. 182701, July
Philippine citizenship upon 23, 2008]. In Mercado, the
the filing of their certificate of disqualification was sought
candidacy to terminate their under another law, Sec. 40 (d)
status as persons with dual of the Local Government Code,
citizenship. The filing of a in which the Court defined the
certificate of candidacy term dual citizenship vis-a-
suffices to renounce foreign vis the concept of dual
citizenship, effectively allegiance, and at the time the
removing any disqualification case was decided, R.A. 9225
as dual citizen. This is so was not yet enacted by
because in the certificate of Congress [Jacot v. Dal and
candidacy one declares that Comeiec, G.R. No. 179848,
he/she is a Filipino citizen and November 27, 2008].
that he/she will support and
defend the Constitution and In Calilung v. Secretary of Justice, G.R.
will maintain true faith and No. 160869, May 11, 2007, the
allegiance to the same. Such constitutionality of R.A. 9225 (An Act
declaration under oath Making the Citizenship of Philippine
operates as an effective Citizens Who Acquire Foreign
renunciation of foreign Citizenship Permanent, amending for
citizenship [Mercado v. the purpose, Com. Act No. 63) was
Manzano, supra.; Valles v. challenged, allegedly for violating Sec.
Comelec, supra.]. 5, Art. IV of the Constitution. It was
claimed that Sec. 2 allows all Filipinos,
whether natural-born or naturalized,

yourself up"

Page | 48

MENDIOLA, MANILA
who become foreign citizens, to retain after their naturalization.

their Philippine citizenship without Congress was given a mandate
losing their foreign citizenship; while to draft a law that would set
Sec. 3 allows former natural-bom specific parameters of what
citizens to regain their Philippine really constitutes dual
citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance; thus, it would be
allegiance without forfeiting their premature for the judicial
foreign allegiance. In upholding the department to rule on issues
validity of RA 9225, the Court said pertaining to it. It should be
that the intent of the legislature is to noted that Mercado v.
do away with the provision in CA63 Manzano did not set the
which takes away Philippine parameters of dual allegiance,
citizenship from natural-born but merely made a distinction
Filipinos who become naturalized between dual allegiance and
citizens of other countries. It allows dual citizenship.
dual citizenship; but on its face, it
does not recognize dual allegiance. By
swearing to the supreme authority of
theRepublic, the person implicitly MERCADO VS MANZANO G.R. No. 135083,
renounces his foreign citizenship. May 26, 1999
Plainly, Sec. 3 stays clear out of the
problem of dual allegiance and shifts DOCTRINE:
the burden of confronting the issue of DUAL ALLEGIANCE NOT DUAL
whether or not there is dual CITIZENSHIP IS PROSCRIBED BY THE
allegiance to the concerned foreign CONSTITUTION. To begin with, dual
country. What happens to the other citizenship is different from dual allegiance.
citizenship was not made a concern of The former arises when, as a result of the
RA 9225. concurrent application of the different laws of
two or more states, a person is
i) Sec. 5, Art. IV of the simultaneously considered a national by the
Constitution is a declaration of said states. For instance, such a situation may
policy and it is not a self arise when a person whose parents are
executing provision. The citizens of a state which adheres to the
legislature still has to enact principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state
the law on dual allegiance. In which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a
Secs. 2 and 3, RA 9225, the person, ipso facto and without any voluntary
legislature was not concerned act on his part, is concurrently considered a
with dual citizenship per se, citizen of both states.
but with the status of
naturalized citizens who Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of
maintain their allegiance to our Constitution, it is possible for the
their countries of origin even

yourself up"

Page | 49

MENDIOLA, MANILA
following classes of citizens of the Philippines perhaps, never insidious. That is often a
to possess dual citizenship: function of the accident of mixed marriages or
of birth on foreign soil.
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or
mothers in foreign countries which follow the And so, I do not question double citizenship at
principle of jus soli; all. What we would like the Committee to
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino consider is to take constitutional cognizance
mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of of the problem of dual allegiance. For example,
their fathers' country such children are we all know what happens in the triennial
citizens of that country; elections of the Federation of Filipino-
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of Chinese Chambers of Commerce which
the latter's country the former are considered consists of about 600 chapters all over the
citizens, unless by their act or omission they country. There is a Peking ticket, as well as a
are deemed to have renounced Philippine Taipei ticket. Not widely known is the fact
citizenship. that the Filipino-Chinese community is
represented in the Legislative Yuan of the
There may be other situations in which a Republic of China in Taiwan. And until
citizen of the Philippines may, without recently, the sponsor might recall, in
performing any act, be also a citizen of Mainland China in the
another state; but the above cases are clearly People's Republic of China, they have the
possible given the constitutional provisions Associated Legislative Council for overseas
on citizenship. Dual allegiance, on the other Chinese wherein all of Southeast Asia
hand, refers to the situation in which a person including some European and Latin countries
simultaneously owes, by some positive act, were represented, which was dissolved after
loyalty to two or more states. While dual several years because of diplomatic friction.
citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is At that time, the Filipino-Chinese were also
the result of an individual's volition. represented in that Overseas Council.

With respect to dual allegiance, Article IV, 5 When I speak of double allegiance, therefore, I
of the Constitution provides: "Dual allegiance speak of this unsettled kind of allegiance of
of citizens is inimical to the national interest Filipinos, of citizens who are already Filipinos
and shall be dealt with by law." This provision but who, by their acts, may be said to be
was included in the 1987 Constitution at the bound by a second allegiance,
instance of Commissioner Blas F. Ople who either to Peking or Taiwan. I also took close
explained its necessity as follows: . . . I want to note of the concern expressed by some
draw attention to the fact that dual allegiance Commissioners yesterday, including
is not dual citizenship. I have circulated a Commissioner Villacorta, who were
memorandum to the Bernas Committee concerned about the lack of guarantees of
according to which a dual allegiance and I thorough assimilation, and especially
reiterate a dual allegiance is larger and Commissioner Concepcion who has always
more threatening than that of mere double been worried about minority claims on our
citizenship which is seldom intentional and, natural resources.

yourself up"

Page | 50

MENDIOLA, MANILA
as a result of the wave of naturalization since

Dual allegiance can actually siphon scarce the decision to establish diplomatic relations
national capital to Taiwan, Singapore, China with the People's Republic of China was made
or Malaysia, and this is already happening. in 1975, a good number of these naturalized
Some of the great commercial places in Filipinos still routinely go to Taipei every
downtown Taipei are Filipino-owned, owned October 10; and it is asserted that some of
by Filipino-Chinese it is of common them do review their oath of allegiance to a
knowledge in Manila. It can mean a tragic foreign government maybe so as to enter into
capital outflow when we have to endure a the spirit of the occasion when the
capital famine which also means economic anniversary of the Sun Yat-Sen Republic is
stagnation, worsening unemployment and commemorated.
social unrest.
And so, I have detected a genuine and deep
And so, this is exactly we ask that the concern about double citizenship, with its
Committee kindly consider incorporating a attendant risk of double allegiance which is
new section, probably Section 5, in the article repugnant to our sovereignty and national
on Citizenship which will read as follows: security. I appreciate what the Committee
DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS INIMICAL TO said that this could be left to the
CITIZENSHIP AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH determination of a future legislature. But
ACCORDING TO LAW. considering the scale of the problem, the real
impact on the security of this country, arising
In another session of the Commission, Ople from, let us say, potentially great numbers of
spoke on the problem of these citizens with double citizens professing double allegiance,
dual allegiance, thus: will the Committee entertain a proposed
amendment at the proper time that will
. . . A significant number of Commissioners prohibit, in effect, or regulate double
expressed their concern about dual citizenship?
citizenship in the sense that it implies a
double allegiance under a double sovereignty Clearly, in including 5 in Article IV on
which some of us who spoke then in a citizenship, the concern of the Constitutional
freewheeling debate thought would be Commission was not with dual citizens per se
repugnant to the sovereignty which pervades but with naturalized citizens who maintain
the Constitution and to citizenship itself their allegiance to their countries of origin
which implies a uniqueness and which even after their naturalization.
elsewhere in the Constitution is defined in
terms of rights and obligations exclusive to Hence, the phrase "dual citizenship" in R.A.
that citizenship including, of course, the No. 7160, 40(d) and in R.A. No. 7854, 20
obligation to rise to the defense of the State must be understood as referring to "dual
when it is threatened, and back of this, allegiance." Consequently, persons with mere
Commissioner Bernas, is, of course, the dual citizenship do not fall under this
concern for national security. In the course of disqualification. Unlike those with dual
those debates, I think some noted the fact that allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject to

yourself up"

Page | 51

MENDIOLA, MANILA
strict process with respect to the termination majority, must elect or give up Philippine
of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship.
citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing
of their certificates of candidacy, they elect On the assumption that this person would
Philippine citizenship to terminate their carry two passports, one belonging to the
status as persons with dual citizenship country of his or her father and one belonging
considering that their condition is the to the Republic of the Philippines, may such a
unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws situation disqualify the person to run for a
of different states. As Joaquin G. Bernas, one local government position?
of the most perceptive members of the
Constitutional Commission, pointed out: SENATOR PIMENTEL. To my mind, Mr.
President, it only means that at the moment
"Dual citizenship is just a reality imposed on us when he would want to run for public office,
because we have no control of the laws on he has to repudiate one of his citizenships.
citizenship of other countries. We recognize a
child of a Filipino mother. But whether or not SENATOR ENRILE. Suppose he carries only a
she is considered a citizen Philippine passport but the country of origin
of another country is something completely or the country of the father claims that person,
beyond our control." nevertheless, as a citizen? No one can
renounce. There are such countries in the
By electing Philippine citizenship, such world.
candidates at the same time forswear
allegiance to the other country of which they SENATOR PIMENTEL. Well, the very fact that
are also citizens and thereby terminate their he is running for public office would, in effect,
status as dual citizens. It may be that, from be an election for him of his desire to be
the point of view of the foreign state and of its considered as a Filipino citizen.
laws, such an individual has not effectively
renounced his foreign citizenship. That is of SENATOR ENRILE. But, precisely, Mr.
no moment as the following discussion on President, the Constitution does not require
40(d) between Senators Enrile and Pimentel an election. Under the Constitution, a person
clearly shows: whose mother is a citizen of the Philippines is,
at birth, a citizen without any overt act to
SENATOR ENRILE. Mr. President, I would claim the citizenship.
like to ask clarification of line 41, page 17:
"Any person with dual citizenship" is SENATOR PIMENTEL. Yes. What we are
disqualified to run for any elective local saying Mr. President, is: Under the
position. Under the present Constitution, Mr. Gentleman's example, if he does not renounce
President, someone whose mother is a citizen his other citizenship, then he is opening
of the Philippines but his father is a foreigner himself to question. So, if he is really
is a natural-born citizen of the Republic. interested to run, the first thing he should do
There is no requirement that such a natural is to say in the Certificate of Candidacy that: I
born citizen, upon reaching the age of

yourself up"

Page | 52

MENDIOLA, MANILA
am a Filipino citizen, and I have only one From the facts presented, it appears that
citizenship." Manzano is both a Filipino and a US citizen.
The Commission on Elections declared
SENATOR ENRILE. But we are talking from Manzano disqualified as candidate for said
the viewpoint of Philippine law, Mr. President. elective position.
He will always have one citizenship, and that
is the citizenship invested upon him or her in However, in a subsequent resolution of the
the Constitution of the Republic. COMELEC en banc, the disqualification of the
respondent was reversed. Respondent was
SENATOR PIMENTEL. That is true, Mr. held to have renounced his US citizenship
President. But if he exercises acts that will when he attained the age of majority and
prove that he also acknowledges other registered himself as a voter in the elections
citizenships, then he will probably fall under of 1992, 1995 and 1998.
this disqualification. This is similar to the
requirement that an applicant for Manzano was eventually proclaimed as the
naturalization must renounce "all allegiance Vice-Mayor of Makati City on August 31, 1998.
and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty" of which at the time he Thus the present petition.
is a subject or citizen before he can be issued
a Certificate of naturalization as a citizen of ISSUE: Whether or not a dual citizen is
the Philippines. disqualified to hold public elective office in
the philippines.

RULING: The court ruled that the phrase
"dual citizenship" in R.A. 7160 Sec. 40 (d) and
R.A. 7854 Sec. 20 must be understood as
referring to dual allegiance. Dual citizenship
MERCADO VS MANZANO G.R. No. 135083, is different from dual allegiance. The former
May 26, 1999 arises when, as a result of the application of
the different laws of two or more states, a
FACTS: person is simultaneously considered a
Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo national by the said states. Dual allegiance on
Manzano were both candidates for Vice- the other hand, refers to a situation in which a
Mayor of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections. person simultaneously owes, by some
Based on the results of the election, Manzano positive act, loyalty to two or more states.
garnered the highest number of votes. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual
However, his proclamation was suspended allegiance is a result of an individual's volition.
due to the pending petition for Article IV Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides
disqualification filed by Ernesto Mercado on "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
the ground that he was not a citizen of the national interest and shall be dealt with by
Philippines but of the United States. law."


yourself up"

Page | 53

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Consequently, persons with mere dual his American citizenship, effectively removing
citizenship do not fall under this any disqualification he might have as a dual
disqualification. Unlike those with dual citizen. By declaring in his certificate of
allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject to candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he
strict process with respect to the termination is not a permanent resident or immigrant of
of their status, for candidates with dual another country; that he will defend and
citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing support the Constitution of the Philippines
of their certificates of candidacy, they elect and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and
Philippine citizenship to terminate their that he does so without mental reservation,
status as persons with dual citizenship private respondent has, as far as the laws of
considering that their condition is the this country are concerned, effectively
unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws repudiated his American citizenship and
of different states. anything which he may have said before as a
dual citizen.
By electing Philippine citizenship, such
candidates at the same time forswear On the other hand, private respondents oath
allegiance to the other country of which they of allegiance to the Philippines, when
are also citizens and thereby terminate their considered with the fact that he has spent his
status as dual citizens. It may be that, from youth and adulthood, received his education,
the point of view of the foreign state and of its practiced his profession as an artist, and
laws, such an individual has not effectively taken part in past elections in this country,
renounced his foreign citizenship. That is of leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine
no moment. citizenship.

When a person applying for citizenship by His declarations will be taken upon the faith
naturalization takes an oath that he that he will fulfill his undertaking made under
renounces his loyalty to any other country or oath. Should he betray that trust, there are
government and solemnly declares that he enough sanctions for declaring the loss of his
owes his allegiance to the Republic of the Philippine citizenship through expatriation in
Philippines, the condition imposed by law is appropriate proceedings. In Yu v. Defensor-
satisfied and complied with. The Santiago, the court sustained the denial of
determination whether such renunciation is entry into the country of petitioner on the
valid or fully complies with the provisions of ground that, after taking his oath as a
our Naturalization Law lies within the naturalized citizen, he applied for the renewal
province and is an exclusive prerogative of of his Portuguese passport and declared in
our courts. The latter should apply the law commercial documents executed abroad that
duly enacted by the legislative department of he was a Portuguese national. A similar
the Republic. No foreign law may or should sanction can be taken against any one who, in
interfere with its operation and application. electing Philippine citizenship, renounces his
foreign nationality, but subsequently does
The court ruled that the filing of certificate of some act constituting renunciation of his
candidacy of respondent sufficed to renounce Philippine citizenship.

yourself up"

Page | 54

MENDIOLA, MANILA
- The following are instances where a

The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for citizen of the Philippines may possess
lack of merit. dual citizenship:

Are there any distinction between dual 1. Those born of Filipino
citizenship and dual allegiance? mothers and/or mothers in foreign
countries which follows the principle
- Yes. Dual Citizenship arises, when, as of Jus Soli.
a result of the concurrent application
of the different laws of two or more 2. Those born in the Philippines
states, a person is simultaneously of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if
considered a national by the states. by the law of their fathers country
For instance, such a situation may such children are citizens of such
arise when a person whose parents country.
are citizens of a state which follows
the doctrine of JUS SOLI. Such a 3. Those who marry aliens if by
person, ipso facto, and without and the laws of the latters country, the
voluntary act on his part, is former are considered citizens, unless
concurrently considered a citizen of by their act or omission, they are
both states. deemed to have renounced Philippine
Citizenship.
- Dual Allegiance, on the other hand,
refers to a person, in which a person
simultaneously owes by some positive
act, loyalty to two or more states.
While dual citizenship is a result of
some individual volition. BENGZON III vs. HRET G.R. No. 142840,
May 7, 2001
State the POLICY OF THE STATE on Dual
Allegiance. DOCTRINE:
REPATRIATION HAS THE EFFECT OF
- The constitution provides that dual REGAINING THE FORMER STATUS OF THE
citizens is inimical to national interest REPATRIATE. There are two ways of
and shall be dealt with by law. (look at acquiring citizenship:
the case of AZNAR as well)
(1) by birth, and
(2) by naturalization.
Give Instances when a citizen of the
Philippines may possess dual citizenship These ways of acquiring citizenship
considering the citizenship clause in correspond to the two kinds of citizens: the
Article 4 of the Philippine Constitution. natural-born citizen, and the naturalized
citizen. A person who at the time of his birth

yourself up"

Page | 55

MENDIOLA, MANILA
is a citizen of a particular country, is a (1) by naturalization,

natural-born citizen thereof. As defined in the (2) by repatriation, and
same Constitution, natural-born citizens "are (3) by direct act of Congress.
those citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire Naturalization is a mode for both acquisition
or perfect his Philippine citizenship." and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. As
a mode of initially acquiring Philippine
On the other hand, naturalized citizens are citizenship, naturalization is governed by
those who have become Filipino citizens Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended. On
through naturalization, generally under the other hand, naturalization as a mode for
Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise reacquiring Philippine citizenship is governed
known as the Revised Naturalization Law, by Commonwealth Act No. 63. Under this law,
which repealed the former Naturalization a former Filipino citizen who wishes to
Law (Act No. 2927), and by Republic Act No. reacquire Philippine citizenship must possess
530. To be naturalized, an applicant has to certain qualifications and none of the
prove that he possesses all the qualifications disqualifications mentioned in Section 4 of
and none of the disqualifications provided by C.A. 473. Repatriation, on the other hand, may
law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision be had under various statutes by those who
granting Philippine citizenship becomes lost their citizenship due to:
executory only after two (2) years from its (1) desertion of the armed forces;
promulgation when the court is satisfied that (2) service in the armed forces of the allied
during the intervening period, the applicant forces in World War II;
has (3) service in the Armed Forces of the United
States at any other time;
(1) not left the Philippines; (4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien;
(2) has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or and
profession; (5) political and economic necessity.
(3) has not been convicted of any offense or
violation of Government promulgated rules; As distinguished from the lengthy process of
or naturalization, repatriation simply consists of
(4) committed any act prejudicial to the the taking of an oath of allegiance to the
interest of the nation or contrary to any Republic of the Philippines and registering
Government announced policies. said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the
place where the person concerned resides or
Filipino citizens who have lost their last resided.
citizenship may however reacquire the same
in the manner provided by law. In Angara v. Republic, we held:
Commonwealth Act No. 63 (CA No. 63), . . .. Parenthetically, under these statutes
enumerates the three modes by which [referring to RA Nos. 965 and 2630], the
Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a person desiring to reacquire Philippine
former citizen: citizenship would not even be required to file
a petition in court, and all that he had to do

yourself up"

Page | 56

MENDIOLA, MANILA
was to take an oath of allegiance to the HELD: YES. Natural-born citizens "are those
Republic of the Philippines and to register citizens of the Philippines from birth without
that fact with the civil registry in the place of having to perform any act to acquire or
his residence or where he had last resided in perfect his Philippine citezenship." On the
the Philippines. other hand, naturalized citizens are those
who have become Filipino citizens through
Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery naturalization, generally under
of the original nationality. This means that a Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise
naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship known as the Revised Naturalization Law,
will be restored to his prior status as a which repealed the former Naturalization
naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, Law (Act No. 2927), and by Republic Act No.
if he was originally a natural born citizen 530.11 To be naturalized, an applicant has to
before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he prove that he possesses all the
will be restored to his former status as a qualifications12 and none of the
natural-born Filipino. disqualification.

Filipino citizens who have lost their
citizenship may however reacquire the same
in the manner provided by law.
BENGZON III vs. HRET G.R. No. 142840, Commonwealth Act. No. (C.A. No. 63),
May 7, 2001 enumerates the three modes by which
Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a
FACTS: The citizenship of Teodoro Cruz, a former citizen:
member of the HOR, is being questioned on
the ground that he is not a natural-born (1) by naturalization,
citizen of the Philippines.

(2) by repatriation, and
Cruz was born in the Philippines in 1960, the
time when the acquisition of citizenship rule
(3) by direct act of Congress.
was still jus soli. However, he enlisted to the

US Marine Corps and he was naturalized as
Naturalization is mode for both acquisition
US citizen in connection therewith. He
and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. As
reacquired Philippine citizenship through
a mode of initially acquiring Philippine
repatriation under RA 2630 and ran for and
citizenship, naturalization is governed by
was elected as a representative. When his
Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended. On
nationality was questioned by petitioner, the
the other hand, naturalization as a mode for
HRET decided that Cruz was a natural born
reacquiring Philippine citizenship is governed
citizen of the Philippines.
by Commonwealth Act No. 63.16 Under this

law, a former Filipino citizen who wishes to
ISSUE: WON Cruz is a natural born citizen of
reacquire Philippine citizenship must possess
the Philippines.
certain qualifications and none of the


yourself up"

Page | 57

MENDIOLA, MANILA
disqualification mentioned in Section 4 of C.A. deemed to have recovered his original status
473. as a natural-born citizen, a status which he
acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino
Repatriation, on the other hand, may be had father. It bears stressing that the act of
under various statutes by those who lost their repatriation allows him to recover, or return
citizenship due to: (1) desertion of the armed to, his original status before he lost his
forces; services in the armed forces of the Philippine citizenship
allied forces in World War II; (3) service in
the Armed Forces of the United States at any
other time, (4) marriage of a Filipino woman What are the requisites to be complied
to an alien; and (5) political economic with one can be considered to be a
necessity. natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

As distinguished from the lengthy process of ANS -The requisites before one can be
naturalization, repatriation simply consists of considered as natural born citizen of the
the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Philippines are:
Republic of the Philippine and registering
said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the - A person must be Filipino citizen by
place where the person concerned resides or birth
last resided. - He does not have to perform an act to
obtain or perfect his Philippine
Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery citizenship.
of the original nationality. This means that a
naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship
will be restored to his prior status as a
naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other Mo Ya Lim Yao VS COMMISSIONER OF
hand, if he was originally a natural-born IMMIGRATION G.R. No. L-21289, October 4,
citizen before he lost his Philippine 1971
citizenship, he will be restored to his former
status as a natural-born Filipino. DOCTRINE:
With all these considerations in mind, We are
In respondent Cruz's case, he lost his Filipino persuaded that it is in the best interest of all
citizenship when he rendered service in the concerned that Section 15 of the
Armed Forces of the United States. However, Naturalization Law be given effect in the
he subsequently reacquired Philippine same way as it was understood and construed
citizenship under R.A. No. 2630. when the phrase "who may be lawfully
naturalized," found in the American statute
Having thus taken the required oath of from which it was borrowed and copied
allegiance to the Republic and having verbatim, was applied by the American courts
registered the same in the Civil Registry of and administrative authorities. There is merit,
Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with of course in the view that Philippine statutes
the aforecited provision, respondent Cruz is should be construed in the light of Philippine

yourself up"

Page | 58

MENDIOLA, MANILA
circumstances, and with particular reference without having to prove that they possess the
to our naturalization laws. We should realize special qualifications of residence, moral
the disparity in the circumstances between character, adherence to American ideals and
the United States, as the so-called "melting American constitution, provided they show
pot" of peoples from all over the world, and they did not suffer from any of the
the Philippines as a developing country disqualifications enumerated in the American
whose Constitution is nationalistic almost in Naturalization Law.
the come. Certainly, the writer of this opinion
cannot be the last in rather passionately Accordingly, We now hold, all previous
insisting that our jurisprudence should speak decisions of this Court indicating otherwise
our own concepts and resort to American notwithstanding, that under Section 15 of
authorities, to be sure, entitled to admiration, Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman
and respect, should not be regarded as source marrying a Filipino, native born or
of pride and indisputable authority. naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina
provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen
Still, We cannot close our eyes to the of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same
undeniable fact that the provision of law now law.
under scrutiny has no local origin and
orientation; it is purely American, factually
taken bodily from American law when the Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien
Philippines was under the dominating who is subsequently naturalized her follows
influence of statutes of the United States the Philippine citizenship of her husband the
Congress. It is indeed a sad commentary on moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen,
the work of our own legislature of the late provided that she does not suffer from any of
1920's and 1930's that given the opportunity the disqualifications under said Section 4. As
to break away from the old American pattern, under any other law rich in benefits for those
it took no step in that direction. coming under it, doubtless there will be
instances where unscrupulous persons will
Indeed, even after America made it patently attempt to take advantage of this provision of
clear in the Act of Congress of September 22, law by entering into fake and fictitious
1922 that alien women marrying Americans marriages or mala fide matrimonies. We
cannot be citizens of the United States cannot as a matter of law hold that just
without undergoing naturalization because of these possibilities, the
proceedings, our legislators still chose to construction of the provision should be
adopt the previous American law of August otherwise than as dictated inexorably by
10, 1855 as embodied later in Section 1994 of more ponderous relevant considerations,
the Revised Statutes of 1874, which, it is legal, juridical and practical. There can always
worth reiterating, was consistently and be means of discovering such undesirable
uniformly understood as conferring American practice and every case can be dealt with
citizenship to alien women marrying accordingly as it arises.
Americans ipso facto, without having to
submit to any naturalization proceeding and

yourself up"

Page | 59

MENDIOLA, MANILA
The question that keeps bouncing back as a - No. As a general rule, she remains a
consequence of the foregoing views is, what Filipino citizen, unless by her actor
substitute is them for naturalization omission, she is deemed to have
proceedings to enable the alien wife of a renounced here citizenship. Section 4,
Philippine citizen to have the matter of her Philippine Constitution.
own citizenship settled and established so
that she may not have to be called upon to
prove it everytime she has to perform an act
On the issue on whether res judicata apply
or enter in to a transaction or business or
applies when the issue of citizenship is
exercise a right reserved only to Filipinos?
raised as an issue in a judicial or

administrative proceedings, it was
The ready answer to such question is that as
contended that res judicata does not apply
the laws of our country, both substantive and
as it can be threshed anew, citing this case.
procedural, stand today, there is no such
Is the contention correct?
procedure, but such paucity is no proof that

the citizenship under discussion is not vested
- Yes. It is correct as far a the general
as of the date of marriage or the husband's
rule is concerned that the principle of
acquisition of citizenship, as the case may be,
res judicata generally does not apply
for the truth is that the same situation
in cases hinging on the issue of
objections even as to native-born Filipinos.
citizenship . However, in the case of
Everytime the citizenship of a person is
Burca vs Republic, an exception to
material or indispensable in a judicial or
this general rule was recognized. The
administrative case, whatever the
court ruled in that case that in order
corresponding court or administrative
that the doctrine of res judicata may
authority decides therein as to such
applied in the case of citizenship the
citizenship is generally not considered as res
following parameters must be
judicata, hence it has to be threshed out again
present:
and again as the occasion may demand. This,

as We view it, is the sense in which Justice
- A persons citizenship be raised as a
Dizon referred to "appropriate proceeding" in
material issue in a controversy where
Brito v. Commissioner, supra. Indeed, only the
said person is a party.
good sense and judgment of those
- The solicitor General or his
subsequently inquiring into the matter may
authorized representative took active
make the effort easier or simpler for the
part in the resolution thereof, and,
persons concerned by relying somehow on
- the finding of citizenship is affirmed
the antecedent official findings, even if these
by this court.
are not really binding.

If a Filipino marries an alien, will she lose
her citizenship? Why?

yourself up"

Page | 60

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Mo Ya Lim Yao VS COMMISSIONER OF for a few words. She could not name any
IMMIGRATION G.R. No. L-21289, October 4, Filipino neighbor, with a Filipino name except
1971 one, Rosa. She did not know the names of her
brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law. As a result,
FACTS: Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a the Court of First Instance of Manila denied
passport visa to enter the Philippines as a the prayer for preliminary injunction. Moya
non-immigrant on 8 February 1961. In the Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed.
interrogation made in connection with her
application for a temporary visitor's visa to ISSUE: Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung ipso
enter the Philippines, she stated that she was facto became a Filipino citizen upon her
a Chinese residing at Kowloon, Hongkong, marriage to a Filipino citizen.
and that she desired to take a pleasure trip to
the Philippines to visit her great grand uncle, HELD: Under Section 15 of Commonwealth
Lau Ching Ping. She was permitted to come Act 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino,
into the Philippines on 13 March 1961 for a native born or naturalized, becomes ipso
period of one month. facto a Filipina provided she is not
disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines
On the date of her arrival, Asher Y. Cheng filed under Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an
a bond in the amount of P1,000.00 to alien woman married to an alien who is
undertake, among others, that said Lau Yuen subsequently naturalized here follows the
Yeung would actually depart from the Philippine citizenship of her husband the
Philippines on or before the expiration of her moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen,
authorized period of stay in this country or provided that she does not suffer from any of
within the period as in his discretion the the disqualifications under said Section 4.
Commissioner of Immigration or his Whether the alien woman requires to
authorized representative might properly undergo the naturalization proceedings,
allow. Section 15 is a parallel provision to Section 16.
Thus, if the widow of an applicant for
After repeated extensions, Lau Yuen Yeung naturalization as Filipino, who dies during the
was allowed to stay in the Philippines up to proceedings, is not required to go through a
13 February 1962. On 25 January 1962, she naturalization proceedings, in order to be
contracted marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao considered as a Filipino citizen hereof, it
alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged should follow that the wife of a living Filipino
Filipino citizen. Because of the contemplated cannot be denied the same privilege.
action of the Commissioner of Immigration to
confiscate her bond and order her arrest and This is plain common sense and there is
immediate deportation, after the expiration of absolutely no evidence that the Legislature
her authorized stay, she brought an action for intended to treat them differently. As the laws
injunction. At the hearing which took place of our country, both substantive and
one and a half years after her arrival, it was procedural, stand today, there is no such
admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung could not write procedure (a substitute for naturalization
and speak either English or Tagalog, except proceeding to enable the alien wife of a

yourself up"

Page | 61

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Philippine citizen to have the matter of her begin. Since Frivaldo re-assumed his
own citizenship settled and established so citizenship on June 30, 1995the very day
that she may not have to be called upon to the term of office of governor (and other
prove it everytime she has to perform an act elective officials) beganhe was therefore
or enter into a transaction or business or already qualified to be proclaimed, to hold
exercise a right reserved only to Filipinos), such office and to discharge the functions and
but such is no proof that the citizenship is not responsibilities thereof as of said date. In
vested as of the date of marriage or the short, at that time, he was already qualified to
husband's acquisition of citizenship, as the govern his native Sorsogon. This is the liberal
case may be, for the truth is that the situation interpretation that should give spirit, life and
obtains even as to native-born Filipinos. meaning to our law on qualifications
Everytime the citizenship of a person is consistent with the purpose for which such
material or indispensible in a judicial or law was enacted. x x x
administrative case. Whatever the
corresponding court or administrative Paraphrasing this Court's ruling in Vasquez v.
authority decides therein as to such Giap and Li Seng Giap & Sons, if the purpose
citizenship is generally not considered as res of the citizenship requirement is to ensure
adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out that our people and country do not end up
again and again as the occasion may demand. being governed by aliens, i.e., persons owing
Lau Yuen Yeung, was declared to have allegiance to another nation, that aim or
become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue purpose would not be thwarted but instead
of her marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao al as achieved by construing the citizenship
Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino citizen of qualification as applying to the time of
25 January 1962. proclamation of the elected official and at the
start of his term.

Moreover, in the case of Frivaldo v.
Commission on Elections, the Court ruled that
ALTAJEROS vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163256, "the repatriation of Frivaldo RETROACTED to
November 10, 2004 the date of the filing of his application." In
said case, the repatriation of Frivaldo was by
DOCTRINE: virtue of Presidential Decree No. 725, which
Philippine citizenship is an indispensable took effect on June 5, 1975. The Court therein
requirement for holding an elective public declared that Presidential Decree No. 725 was
office, and the purpose of the citizenship a curative statute, which is retroactive in
qualification is none other than to ensure that nature.
no alien, i.e., no person owing allegiance to
another nation, shall govern our people and The retroactivity of Frivaldo's repatriation to
our country or a unit of territory thereof. Now, the date of filing of his application was
an official begins to govern or to discharge his justified by the Court, thus:
functions only upon his proclamation and on
the day the law mandates his term of office to

yourself up"

Page | 62

MENDIOLA, MANILA
The reason for this is simply that if, as in to be presumed that the law-making body
this case, it was the intent of the legislative intended right and justice to prevail.
authority that the law should apply to past
events i.e., situations and transactions Republic Act No. 8171 has impliedly repealed
existing even before the law came into Presidential `Decree No. 725. They cover the
beingin order to benefit the greatest same subject matter: Providing for the
number of former Filipinos possible thereby repatriation of Filipino women who have lost
enabling them to enjoy and exercise the their Philippine citizenship by marriage to
constitutionally guaranteed right of aliens and of natural-born Filipinos. The
citizenship, and such legislative intention is to Court's ruling in Frivaldo v. Commission on
be given the fullest effect and expression, Elections that repatriation retroacts to the
then there is all the more reason to have the date of filing of one's application for
law apply in a retroactive or retrospective repatriation subsists for the same reasons
manner to situations, events and transactions quoted above.
subsequent to the passage of such law. That is,
the repatriation granted to Frivaldo x x x can Accordingly, petitioner's repatriation
and should be made to take effect as of date of retroacted to the date he filed his application
his application. As earlier mentioned, there is in 1997. Petitioner was, therefore, qualified to
nothing in the law that would bar this or run for a mayoralty position in the
would show a contrary intention on the part government in the May 10, 2004 elections.
of the legislative authority; and there is no Apparently, the COMELEC was cognizant of
showing that damage or prejudice to anyone, this fact since it did not implement the
or anything unjust or injurious would result assailed Resolutions disqualifying petitioner
from giving retroactivity to his repatriation. to run as mayor of San Jacinto, Masbate.
Neither has Lee shown that there will result
the impairment of any contractual obligation,
disturbance of any vested right or breach of
some constitutional guaranty.

Another argument for retroactivity to the
ALTAJEROS vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163256,
date of filing is that it would prevent
November 10, 2004
prejudice to applicants. If P.D. 725 were not

to be given retroactive effect, and the Special
FACTS: Private respondents filed with the
Committee decides not to act, i.e., to delay the
COMELEC to disqualify and deny due course
processing of applications for any substantial
or cancel the certificate of candidacy of
length of time, then the former Filipinos who
Ciceron P. Altarejos, on the ground that he is
may be stateless, as Frivaldohaving already
not a Filipino citizen and that he made a false
renounced his American citizenshipwas,
representation in his COC that he was not a
may be prejudiced for causes outside their
permanent resident of the Municipality of San
control. This should not be. In case of doubt in
Jacinto, Masbate, the town he's running for as
the interpretation or application of laws, it is
mayor in the May 10, 2004 elections.

yourself up"

Page | 63

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Altarejos answered that he was already section 1, Article IV, of the Constitution shall
issued a Certificate of Repatriation by the be expressed in a statement to be signed and
Special Committee on Naturalization in sworn to by the party concerned before any
December 17, 1997. officer authorized to administer oaths, and
shall be filed with the nearest civil registry.
ISSUE: Whether or not the registration of The said party shall accompany the aforesaid
petitioners repatriation with the proper civil statement with the oath of allegiance to the
registry and with the Bureau of Immigration a Constitution and the Government of the
prerequisite in effecting repatriation. Philippines.

RULING: Yes. The registration of certificate of Section 2. If the party concerned is absent
repatriation with the proper local civil from the Philippines, he may make the
registry and with the Bureau of Immigration statement herein authorized before any
is a prerequisite in effecting repatriation. officer of the Government of the United
Petitioner completed all the requirements of States2 authorized to administer oaths, and
repatriation only after he filed his certificate he shall forward such statement together
of candidacy for a mayoralty position but with his oath of allegiance, to the Civil
before the elections. Petitioners repatriation Registry of Manila.
retroacted to the date he filed his
application and was, therefore, qualified to
run for a mayoralty position in the Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine
government in the May 10, 2004 elections. Citizenship (C.A. 63).

1. Loss of citizenship.

a) By naturalization in a foreign country.
See Frivaldo v. Comelec, 174SCRA245.

i) However, this is modified by R.A.
9225, entitled An Act Making the
COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 625
Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who
Acquire Foreign Cititzenship
Permanent (which took effect
AN ACT PROVIDING THE MANNER IN September 17, 2003), which declares
WHICH THE OPTION TO ELECT the policy of the State that all
PHILIPPINE Philippine citizens who become
CITIZENSHIP SHALL BE DECLARED BY A citizens of another country shall be
PERSON WHOSE MOTHER IS A FILIPINO deemed not to have lost their
CITIZEN Philippine citizenship under the
conditions of this Act.
Section 1. The option to elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with subsection (4),

yourself up"

Page | 64

MENDIOLA, MANILA
ii) Natural-born citizens of the rights and be subject to all attendant

Philippines who have lost their liabilities and responsibilities under
Philippine citizenship by reason of existing laws of the Philippines and
their naturalization as citizens of a the following conditions:
foreign country are deemed to have
reacquired Philippine citizenship va) Those intending to
upon taking the following oath of exercise their right of suffrage
allegiance to the Republilc: 7 must meet the requirements
________________ , solemnly swear (or under Sec. 1, Art. V of the
affirm) that I will support and Constitution, R.A. 9189,
defend the Constitution of the otherwise known as The
Republic of the Philippines and obey Overseas Absentee Voting Act
the laws and legal orders of 2003 and other existing
promulgated by the duly constituted laws;
authorities of the Philippines; and I
hereby declare that I recognize and vb) Those seeking elective
accept the supreme authority of the public office in the Philippines
Philippines and will maintain true shall meet the qualifications
faith and allegiance thereto; and for holding such public office
that I impose this obligation upon as required by the
myself voluntarily, without mental Constitution and existing laws
reservation or purpose of evasion. and, at the time of the filing of
[Sec. 3, R.A. 9225] the certificate of candidacy,
make a personal and sworn
iii) Natural-born citizens of the renunciation of any and all
Philippines who, after the effectivity foreign citizenship before any
of this Act, become citizens of a public officer authorized to
foreign country shall retain their administer an oath;
Philippine citizenship upon taking the
aforesaid oath [Sec. 3, R.A. 9225]. vb1) In Eusebio
Eugenio Lopez v.
iv) The unmarried child, whether Comelec, G.R. No.
legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, 182701, July 23, 2008,
below 18 years of age, of those who reiterated in Jacotv.
reacquire Philippine citizenship upon Dal and Comelec, G.R.
the effectivity of this Act shall be No. 179848, November
deemed citizens of the Philippines 27, 2008, it was held
[Sec. 4, R.A. 9225]. that a Filipino-
American, or any dual
v) Those who retain or reacquire citizen cannot run for
Phiilippine citizenship under this Act elective public office in
shall enjoy full civil and political the Philippines unless

yourself up"

Page | 65

MENDIOLA, MANILA
he personally swears
to a renunciation of all vd) Those intending to
foreign citizenship at practice their profession in
the time of filing of the the Philippines shall apply
certificate of with the proper authority for a
candidacy. The mere license or permit to engage in
filing of a certificate of such practice;
candidacy is not
sufficient; Sec. 5 (2) of ve) The right to vote or be
R.A. 9225 categorically elected or appointed to any
requires the individual public office in the Philippines
to state in clear and cannot be exercised by, or
unequivocal terms extended to, those who:
that he is renouncing
all foreign citizenship, (1) are candidates for or are
failing which, he is occupying any public office in
disqualified from the country of which they are
running for an elective naturalized citizens; and/or
position. The fact that (2) are in active service as
he may have won the commissioned or non-
elections, took his oath commissioned officers in the
and began discharging armed forces of the country
the functions of the which they are naturalized
office cannot cure the citizens [Sec. 5, R.A. 9225].
defect of his candidacy.
The doctrine laid b) By express renunciation of citizenship.
down in Valles v. In Board of Immigration
Comelec, supra., and Commissioners v. Go Callano, 25 SCRA
Mercado v. Manzano, 890, it was held that express
supra., does not apply. renunciation means a renunciation
that is made known distinctly and
vc) Those appointed to any explicitly, and not left to inference or
public office shall subscribe implication. Thus, in Labo v. Comelec,
and swear to an oath of 176 SCRA 1, it was held that Labo lost
allegiance to the Republic of Filipino citizenship because he
the Philippines and its duly expressly renounced allegiance to the
constituted authorities prior Philippines when he applied for
to their assumption of office; Australian citizenship.
Provided, That they renounce
their oath of allegiance to the i) In Valles v. Comelec, supra., it
country where they took that was held that the fact that
oath; private respondent was born

yourself up"

Page | 66

MENDIOLA, MANILA
in Australia does not mean citizenship in this manner while the

that she is not a Filipino. If Republic of the Philippines is at war
Australia follows the principle with any country may be considered
of jus soli, then at most she can as an application of the principle of
also claim Australian indelible allegiance.
citizenship, resulting in her
having dual citizenship. That d) By rendering service to or accepting
she was a holder of an commission in the armed forces of a
Australian passport and had foreign country;
an alien certificate of
registration do not constitute Provided, that the rendering of service to, or
effective renunciation, and do acceptance of such commission in, the armed
not militate against her claim, forces of a foreign country and the taking of
of Filipino citizenship. For an oath of allegiance incident thereto, with
renunciation to effectively consent of the Republic of the Philippines,
result in the loss of citizenship, shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine
it must be express. citizenship if either of the following
circumstances is present:
ii) But see Willie Yu v.
Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA (i) The Republic of the
364, where obtention of a Philippines has a defensive
Portuguese passport and and/or offensive pact of
signing of commercial alliance with the said foreign
documents as a Portuguese country; or
were construed as (ii) The said foreign country
renunciation of Philippine maintains armed forces in
citizenship. Philippine territory with the
consent of the Republic of the
c) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance Philippines.
to support the Constitution or laws of a
foreign country upon attaining 21 years of e) Bv cancellation of the certificate of
age; naturalization.

Provided, however, that a Filipino may not f) Bv having been declared bv competent
divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any authority a deserter of the Philippine
manner while the Republic of the Philippines armed forces in time of war, unless
is at war with any country. subsequently, a plenary pardon or
amnesty has been granted.
i) This should likewise be considered
modified by R.A. 9225.
ii) The proviso that a Filipino may not 2. Reacquisition of citizenship.
divest himself of Philippine

yourself up"

Page | 67

MENDIOLA, MANILA
a) Under R.A. 9225, bv taking the oath of and the Director of the NICA as
allegiance required of former natural- members, was reactivated on June 8,
born Philippine citizens who may have 1995, and it is before this Committee
lost their Philippine citizenship by reason that a petition for repatriation is filed
of their acquisition of the citizenship of a [Angat v. Republic, G.R. No. 132244,
foreign country. September 14, 1999].

b) By naturalization, provided that the ii) When repatriation takes effect. In
applicant possesses none of the Frivaldo v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727, it was held
disqualifications prescribed for that repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to the
naturalization. date of filing of his application on August 17,
1994. In Altarejos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 163256,
In Republic v. Judge de la Rosa, supra., the November 10, 2004, the same principle was
naturalization proceeding was so full of applied. Petitioner took his Oath of Allegiance
procedural flaws that the decision granting on December 17,1997, but his Certificate of
Filipino citizenship to Governor Juan Frivaldo Repatriation was registered with the Civil
was deemed a nullity. Registry of Makati only after six years, or on
February 18, 2004, and with the Bureau of
c) By repatriation of deserters of the Army, Immigration on March 1, 2004. He completed
Navy or Air Corps, provided that a woman all the requirements for repatriation only
who lost her citizenship by reason of her after he filed his certificate of candidacy for a
marriage to an alien may be repatriated in mayoralty position, but before the elections.
accordance with the provisions of this Act But because his repatriation retroacted to
after the termination of the marital status. December 17-, 1997, he was deemed qualified
to run for mayor in the May 10, 2004
i) See P.D. 725, which allows repatriation of elections.
former natural-born Filipino citizens who lost
Filipino citizenship. iii) Effect of repatriation. In Bengzon lllv.
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,
ia) In Frivaldo v. Comelec and Lee v. G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, the Supreme
Comelec, 257 SCRA 727, the Supreme Court ruled that the act of repatriation allows
Court held that P.D. 725 was not the person to recover, or return to, his
repealed by President Aquinos original status before he lost his Philippine
Memorandum of March 27, 1986, and, citizenship. Thus, respondent Cruz, a former
thus, was a valid mode for the natural born Filipino citizen who lost his
reacquisition of Filipino citizenship by Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the
Sorsogon Governor Juan Frivaldo. United States Marine Corps, was deemed to
have recovered his natural- born status when
ib) The Special Committee on he reacquired Filipino citizenship through
Naturalization created by PD 725, repatriation.
chaired by the Solicitor General with
the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs

yourself up"

Page | 68

MENDIOLA, MANILA
iv) Repatriation under R. A. 8171 (lapsed of the United States. On

into law on October 23, 1995). The law October 3,1995, he was
governs the repatriation of Filipino women admitted to the Philippines as
who may have lost Filipino citizenship by a balikbayan, but within a
reason of marriage to aliens, as well as the year, he was charged by the
repatriation of former natural-born Filipino Bureau of Immigration and
citizens who lost Filipino citizenship on Deportation (BID), because it
account of political or economic necessity, appeared that the US
including their minor children, provided the Department of Justice had
applicant is not a person revoked his passport and was
the subject of an outstanding
[a] opposed to organized government federal warrant of arrest for
or affiliated with any association or possession of firearms and
group of persons who uphold and one count of sexual battery.
teach doctrines opposing organized Finding him an undocumented
government; and undesirable alien, the BID
ordered his deportation. After
[b] defending or teaching the learning of the BID order, he
necessity or propriety of violence, then immediately executed an
personal assault or assassination for Affidavit of Repatriation and
the predominance of his ideas; took an oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines.
[c] convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude; or [d] suffering from On the issue of whether he
mental alienation or incurable validly reacquired Philippine
contagious disease. Repatriation is citizenship, the Supreme Court
effected by taking the necessary oath ruled in the negative. The
of allegiance to the Republic of the privilege of RA 8171 is
Philippines and registration in the available only to natural-born
proper Civil Registry and in the Filipinos who lost their
Bureau of Immigration and citizenship on account of
Deportation. political or economic necessity
and to their minor children.
iva) In Tabasa v. Court of This means that if a parent
Appeals, G.R. No. 125793, who had renounced his
August 29, 2006, Joevanie Philippine citizenship due to
Tabasa, a natural-born citizen political or economic reasons
of the Philippines, acquired later decides to repatriate
American citizenship through under RA8171, his
derivative naturalization repatriatioin will also benefit
when, still a minor, his father his minor children. Thus, to
became a naturalized citizen claim the benefit of RA 8171,

yourself up"

Page | 69

MENDIOLA, MANILA
the children must be of minor

age at the time the petition for
repatriation is filed by the What Agency should application for
parent. This is so because a repatriation under RA 8171 be filed?
child does not have the legal
- Under Section 1 of PD no 725
capacity to undertake a
amending CA no. 63, an application
political act like the election of
for repatriation could be filed with the
citizenship. On their own, the
Special Committee for Naturalization
minor children cannot apply
Chaired by the Solicitor General with
for repatriation or
the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs
naturalization separately from
and the Director of National
the parents. Tabasa is not
Intelligence Coordinating Agency as
qualified to avail himself of
other members. It should not be filed
repatriation under RA8171.
with the RTC because the committee

was reactivated last June 1995.
d) By direct act of Congress.

What is Republic Act 8171 and who may
validly avail repatriation under it?

- RA 8171 which has lapsed in to law
on October 23, 1995 is an act
providing for the repatriation of

a. Filipino
women who
have lost their
Philippine
Citizenship by
marriage to
alien
REPUBLIC ACT No. 8171

b. Of Natural
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE
Born Filipinos
REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO WOMEN WHO
who have lost
HAVE LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE
their
CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE TO ALIENS
citizienshipon
AND OF NATURAL BORN FILIPINOS.
account of

political or
Section 1. Filipino women who have lost their
economic
Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens
necessity.
and natural-born Filipinos who have lost their
Philippine citizenship, including their minor

yourself up"

Page | 70

MENDIOLA, MANILA
children, on account of political or economic

necessity, may reacquire Philippine (1) Those who are
citizenship through repatriation in the citizens of the Philippines at the
manner provided in Section 4 of time of the adoption of this
Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended: Constitution;
Provided, That the applicant is not a:
(2) Those whose
(1) Person opposed to organized government fathers or mothers are citizens of
or affiliated with any association or group of the Philippines;
persons who uphold and teach doctrines
opposing organized government; (3) Those born before
(2) Person defending or teaching the January 17, 1973, of Filipino
necessity or propriety of violence, personal mothers, who elect Philippine
assault, or assassination for the citizenship upon reaching the age
predominance of their ideas; of majority;
(3) Person convicted of crimes involving
moral turpitude; or (4) Those who are
(4) Person suffering from mental alienation naturalized in accordance with
or incurable contagious diseases. law.
Section 2. Repatriation shall be effected by
taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Article III, Section 1(1) of the 1973
Republic of the Philippines and registration in Constitution provides:
the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of
Immigration. The Bureau of Immigration shall
thereupon cancel the pertinent alien SECTION 1. The following are citizens
certificate of registration and issue the of the Philippines:
certificate of identification as Filipino citizen
to the repatriated citizen. (1) Those who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
ALBANO: Constitution.

Citizens or Nationals of the (2) Those whose fathers or mothers
Philippines are citizens of the Philippines.

Article IV, Section 1 of the (3) Those who elect Philippine
1987 Constitution enumerates citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the
the persons who are considered Constitution of nineteen hundred and
citizens or nationals of the thirty-five.
Philippines.

(4) Those who are naturalized in
Section 1. The following are
accordance with law.
citizens of the Philippines:

yourself up"

Page | 71

MENDIOLA, MANILA
2. Natives of the Spanish Peninsula

who resided in the Philippines on April 11,
Citizens under the 1935 Constitution, 1899, and who did not declare their intention
Article IV of preserving their Spanish nationality
between that date and October 11, 1900,
SECTION 1. The following are citizens unless they had lost their Philippine
of the Philippines: citizenship on or before May 14, 1935.
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine 3. Naturalized citizens of Spain who
Islands at the time of the adoption of this resided in the Philippines on april 11, 1899
Constitution. and id not declare their intention to preserve
their Sapanish nationality within the
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of prescribed period (up to Oct. 11, 1900),
foreign parents who, before the adoption of unless they had lost their Philippine
this Constitution, had been elected to public citizenship on or before May 14, 1935;
office in the Philippine Islands.
4. Children born of (1), (2), and (3)
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the subsequent to april 11, 1899, unless they had
Philippines. lost thier Philippine citizenship on or before
May 14, 1935;
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the
Philippines and, upon reaching the age of 5. Persons who became naturalized
majority, elect Philippine citizenship. citizens of the Philippines in accordance with
the Naturalization Law since its enactment on
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance Mar. 26, 1920, unless they had lost their
with law. Philippine citizenship on or before May 14,
1935;
The following persons were the citizens of
the Philippines on May 14, 1935 the date 6. Children of persons embraced in
of the adoption of the 1935 Constitution: (5), unless they had lost their Philippine
citizenship on or before May 14, 1935. These
a. Those who are citizens of the Philippine include:
Islands at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution which is May 14, 1935: a. Children under age of
twenty-one years on the date of the
naturalization of said persons, provided that
1. Persons born in the Philippine
they were dwelling at the time in the
Islands who resided therein on April 11, 1899
and were Spanish subjects on that date, Philippines;
unless they had lost their Philippine
citizenship on or before May 14, 1935;

yourself up"

Page | 72

MENDIOLA, MANILA
b. Children born in the before or after the naturalization of the father

Philippines subsequent to the naturalization is a Filipino citizen. However, in the case of a
of said persons; minor child born outside the Philippines, a
distinction must be made. If he is born before
7. Foreign women married before the naturalization and is dwelling in the
may 14, 1935 to citizens of the Philippines, Philippines at the time of the parents
who might themselves be lawfully naturalized naturalization, he is a Filipino. However, if the
in the Philippines, who might themselves be child is born before the naturalization but is
lawfully naturalized in the Philippines, unless residing outside the Philippines at the time of
they had lost their Philippine citizenship on the naturalization, he is a Filipino only during
or before May 14, 1935; his minority unless he resides permanently
here when still a minor, in which case he will
8. According to the decision of the continue to be a Filipino citizen even after he
Supreme court of the Philippines in other becomes of age. On the other hand, a child
case, those who had been declared Filipino born after the naturalization shall be
citizens or upon whom such citizenship had considered a Filipino citizen, unless within
been conferred by the courts due to the one year after reaching the age of majority he
principle of res judicata. fails to register himself as a Filipino citizen at
the Philippine consulate of the country where
b. Those born in the Philippine Islands of he resides and take the necessary oath of
foreign parents who, before the adoption allegiance.
of this Constitution, had been elected to
public office in the Philippine Islands. d. Those whose mothers are citizens of the
Philippines and, upon reaching the
c. Those whose fathers are citizens of the age of majority, elect Philippine
Philippines. citizenship.
This provision stresses the principle Under the 1935 Constitution,

of jus sanguinis. Irrespective of the those whose mothers were citizens of
nationality of the mother, the child of a the Philippines, did not become
Filipino father is himself a Filipino. There is o Filipino citizens by birth, but they
doubt that this rule applies in the case of a could become Filipino citizens if upon
father who is a natural born citizen of the reaching the age of majority elect
Philippines. Philippine citizenship.
The difficulty now arises with respect In interpreting the 1935 Constitution,
to the father who is a naturalized citizen. The the pertinent question has been asked
law lays emphasis on the date and place of as of what moment must the mother
birth of the minor child in relation to the date be a citizen of the Philippines?
of the naturalization of his father. Thus a
minor child born in the Philippines either

yourself up"

Page | 73

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Three possible situations are Section 2. Qualifications. Subject to section

contemplated her: four of this Act, any person having the
following qualifications may become a citizen
1. her Filipino citizenship at of the Philippines by naturalization:
the time of the birth of the child;
First. He must be not less than twenty-
2. her Filipino citizenship at one years of age on the day of the
the time the child elects Philippine hearing of the petition;
citizenship;
Second. He must have resided in the
3. her Filipino citizenship at Philippines for a continuous period of
the time of her marriage to a not less than ten years;
foreigner.
Third. He must be of good moral
e. Those whose fathers or mother are character and believes in the
citizens of the Philippines. principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution, and must have
f. Those who are naturalized in accordance conducted himself in a proper and
with law irreproachable manner during the
entire period of his residence in the
Naturalization is the legal process of Philippines in his relation with the
clothing an alien with the rights that constituted government as well as
belong to a natural born citizen. with the community in which he is
Naturalization is considered not a living.
matter of right but one of privilege
and may be enjoyed only under the Fourth. He must own real estate in the
precise conditions prescribed by law. Philippines worth not less than five
thousand pesos, Philippine currency,
or must have some known lucrative
trade, profession, or lawful
occupation;
Fifth. He must be able to speak and

COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 473 write English or Spanish and any one
of the principal Philippine languages;
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE and
ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION, AND Sixth. He must have enrolled his
TO REPEAL ACTS NUMBERED TWENTY- minor children of school age, in any of
NINE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN the public schools or private schools
AND THIRTY-FOUR HUNDRED AND
FORTY-EIGHT.

yourself up"

Page | 74

MENDIOLA, MANILA
recognized by the Office of Private evinced a sincere desire to learn and

Educationxxx. embrace the customs, traditions, and
ideals of the Filipinos;
Section 3. Special qualifications. The ten g. Citizens or subjects of nations
years of continuous residence required under with whom the United States 2and the
the second condition of the last preceding Philippines are at war, during the
section shall be understood as reduced to five period of such war;
years for any petitioner having any of the h. Citizens or subjects of a
following qualifications: foreign country other than the United
States whose laws do not grant
1. Having honorably held office xxx; Filipinos the right to become
2. Having established a new industry or naturalized citizens or subjects
introduced a useful invention in the thereof.
Philippines;
3. Being married to a Filipino woman; Section 5. Declaration of intention. One year
4. Having been engaged as a teacher xxx prior to the filing of his petition for admission
for a period of not less than two years; to Philippine citizenship, the applicant for
5. Having been born in the Philippines. Philippine citizenship shall file with the
Bureau of Justice a declaration under oath
Section 4. Who are disqualified. - The xxx.
following cannot be naturalized as Philippine
citizens: Section 6. Persons exempt from requirement
to make a declaration of intention. Persons
a. Persons opposed to organized born in the Philippines and have received
government xxx; their primary and secondary education in
b. Persons defending or teaching public schools or those recognized by the
the necessity or propriety of violence, Government and not limited to any race or
personal assault, or assassination for nationality, and those who have resided
the success and predominance of their continuously in the Philippines for a
ideas; period of thirty years or more before filing
c. Polygamists or believers in the their application, xxx. To such
practice of polygamy; requirements shall be added that which
d. Persons convicted of crimes establishes that the applicant has given
involving moral turpitude; primary and secondary education to all his
e. Persons suffering from mental children in the public schools or in private
alienation or incurable contagious schools recognized by the Government
diseases; and not limited to any race or nationality.
f. Persons who, during the
period of their residence in the
Philippines, have not mingled socially
with the Filipinos, or who have not REPUBLIC ACT NO. 530 - AN ACT MAKING

yourself up"

Page | 75

MENDIOLA, MANILA
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR Provided, however, That in pending cases

NATURALIZATION where the requisite of publication under the
old law and already been complied with, the
publication herein required shall not apply.
Section 1. The provisions of existing laws
notwithstanding, no petition for Philippine
citizenship shall be heard by the courts until
after six months from the publication of the
application required by law, nor shall any
decision granting the application become
executory until after two years from its REPUBLIC ACT 9225
promulgation and after the court, on proper
hearing, with the attendance of the Solicitor AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF
General or his representative, is satisfied, and PHILIPPINE CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE
so finds, that during the intervening time the FOREIGN CITIZENSHIPPERMANENT.
applicant has (1) not left the Philippines, (2) AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
has dedicated himself continuously to a COMMONWEALTH ACT. NO. 63, AS
lawful calling or profession, (3) has not been AMENDED AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
convicted of any offense or violation of
Government promulgated rules, (4) or Section 3. Retention of Philippine
committed any act prejudicial to the interest Citizenship - Any provision of law to the
of the nation or contrary to any Government contrary notwithstanding, natural-born
announced policies. citizenship by reason of their naturalization
as citizens of a foreign country are hereby
Sec. 2. After the finding mentioned in deemed to have re-acquired Philippine
section one, the order of the court granting citizenship upon taking the xxx oath of
citizenship shall be registered and the oath allegiance to the Republic.
provided by existing laws shall be taken by
the applicant, whereupon, and not before, he Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The
will be entitled to all the privileges of a unmarried child, whether legitimate,
Filipino citizen. illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18)
years of age, of those who re-acquire
Sec. 3. Such parts of Act Numbered Four Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this
hundred seventy-three as are inconsistent Act shall be deemed citizenship of the
with the provisions of the present Act are Philippines.
hereby repealed.
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and
Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect upon its Liabilities - Those who retain or re-acquire
approval, and shall apply to cases pending in Philippine citizenship under this Act shall
court and to those where the applicant has enjoy full civil and political rights and be
not yet taken the oath of citizenship: subject to all attendant liabilities and

yourself up"

Page | 76

MENDIOLA, MANILA
responsibilities under existing laws of the the country of which they are
Philippines and the following conditions: naturalized citizens; and/or
(1) Those intending to exercise their (b) are in active service as

right of surffrage must Meet the commissioned or non-
requirements under Section 1, Article commissioned officers in the
V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. armed forces of the country
9189, otherwise known as "The which they are naturalized
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of citizens.
2003" and other existing laws;

(2) Those seeking elective public in
the Philippines shall meet the
qualification for holding such public
office as required by the Constitution
xxx; BONUS PACK!!!!!!

(3) Those appointed to any public
office shall subscribe and swear to an MARY GRACE POE LLAMANZARES vs
oath of allegiance to the Republic of COMELEC et al G.R. NO. 221697 221698-
the Philippines and its duly 700
constituted authorities prior to their
assumption of office: Provided, That FACTS: Grace Poe (Poe) was found
they renounce their oath of allegiance abandoned in a church in Jaro Iloilo sometime
to the country where they took that 1968. Parental care was passed to the
oath; relatives of Edgardo Militar, the person who
found the child. The relatives then reported
(4) Those intending to practice their and registered the child as a founding with
profession in the Philippines shall the Civil Registrar of Iloilo. The child was then
apply with the proper authority for a named Mary Grace Militar. The child
license or permit to engage in such was subsequently adopted by Fernando Poe,
practice; and Jr and Susan
(5) That right to vote or be elected or Roces sometime in 1974. Necessary

appointed to any public office in the annotations were placed in the childs
Philippines cannot be exercised by, or foundling certificate but it was only in 2005
extended to, those who: that Susan Roces discovered that their lawyer
failed to secure a new Certificate of Live Birth
(a) are candidates for or are indicating Poes new name as well as the
occupying any public office in name of the adoptive parents. Roces then
submitted an affidavit and in 2006, a

yourself up"

Page | 77

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Certificate of Live Birth in the name of Mary In early 2006, Poe and husband acquired a
Grace Poe was released by the Civil Registry property in Corinthian Hills in Quezon City
of Iloilo.At the age of 18, Poe was registered where they built their family home. On July 7,
as a voter of San Juan. In 1988, she was issued 2006, Poe took her Oath of Allegiance to the
a Philippine passport. In 1991, Poe married Republic of the Philippines pursuant to
Teodoro Llamanzares and flew to the US right R.A.9225. On July 10, 2006, she filed a
after the wedding. She then gave birth to her sworn petition to reacquire Philippine
eldest child in the US. In 2001, Poe became a citizenship together with petitions for
naturalized American Citizen and she derivative citizenship on behalf of her three
obtained a US Passport that same year. children. The Bureau of Immigration acted in
favor of the petition on July 18, 2006. She and
In April 2004, Poe came back to the her children were then considered dual
Philippines in order to support her fathers citizens. Poe then registered as voter in
candidacy. It was at this time that she August 2006 and secured a Philippine
gave birth to her youngest daughter. She then passport thereafter.
returned to the US in July 2004with her two
daughters. Poe returned in December 2004 On October 6, 2010, she was appointed as
after learning of her fathers deteriorating Chairperson of the MTRCB. Before assuming
condition. The latter died and Poe stayed until her post, she executed an Affidavit of
February 2005 to take care of the funeral Renunciation of Allegiance to the US before a
arrangements. Poe stated that she wanted to notary public in Pasig City on October 20,
be with her grieving mother hence, she and 2010. The following day, she submitted the
her husband decided to move and reside Affidavit to the Bureau of Immigration and
permanently in the Philippines sometime first took her oath as MTRCB
quarter of 2005. They prepared for Chairperson. According to Poe, she stopped
resettlement including notification of their using her American passport from then on.
childrens schools, coordination with On July 12, 2011, Poe executed an
property movers and inquiry with Philippine Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of
authorities as to how they can bring their pet Nationality of the US before the Vice Consul of
dog. According to Poe, as early as 2004, she the US Embassy in Manila. On December 9,
already quit her job in the US. Poe came home 2011, the US Vice Consul issued a Certificate
on May 24, 2005 and immediately secured a of Loss of Nationality of the US effective
TIN while her husband stayed in the US. She October 21, 2010.On October 2, 2012, Poe
and her family stayed with her mother until filed with COMELEC her Certificate of
she and husband was able to purchase a Candidacy for Senator stating that she was a
condominium in San Juan sometime February resident of the Philippines for a period of 6
2006. years and 6 months before May 13, 2013.She
was then proclaimed a Senator on May 16,
On February 14, 2006, Poe returned to the US 2013.On October 15, 2015, Poe filed her COC
to dispose the other family belongings. She for the Presidency for the May 2016
travelled back in March 2006. elections. She declared that she is a natural
born and her residence in the Philippine up to

yourself up"

Page | 78

MENDIOLA, MANILA
the day before election would be 10 years and as those who repatriates only acquires
11 months counted from May 24, Philippine citizenship and not their original
2005.Several petitions were filed against status as natural born citizens. Poe countered
Poe alleging that (1) she committed material these petitions by alleging that: The grounds
misrepresentation in her COC when she invoked by the petitioners were not proper
stated that she is a resident of the Philippines grounds for a disqualification case as
for at least10 years 11 months up to the day enumerated under Section 12 and 68 of the
before May 9, 2016 Elections, (2) she is not Omnibus Election Code. What the petitioners
natural born considering that Poe is a filed focus on establishing her ineligibility,
foundling. It was argued that hence, they fall within the exclusive
international law does not confer natural jurisdiction of the Presidential Electoral
born status and Filipino citizenship to Tribunal, not the COMELEC.
foundlings hence, she is not qualified to apply
for reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under The July 18, 2006 Order of the Bureau of
R.A.9225 as she is not a natural citizen to Immigration declaring her as natural born,
begin with. Assuming that Poe was a natural herappointment as MTRCB Chair and the
born citizen, she lost it when she became a US issuance of the decree of adoption reinforced
Citizen. In addition, one of the petitioners, herposition as a natural born citizen. As early
Francisco Tatad, theorized that: as first quarter of 2005, she started to
reestablish her domicile in the Philippines
1. Philippines adhere to the principle and that she can reestablish her domicile of
of jus sanguinis and hence persons of choice even before she renounced her
unknown parentage, particularly American citizenship. The period of residency
foundlings, are not natural born as stated in her COC for senator was a mistake
Filipino citizens. in good faith. COMELEC ruled against the
2. Using statutory construction, petitioner resolving that she is not a natural
considering that foundlings were not born citizen and that she failed to complete
expressly included in the categories of the 10 year residency requirement. Hence,
citizens in the 1935 Constitution, the the present petition for certiorari before the
framers are said to have the intention Supreme Court.
to exclude them.
3. International conventions are not self-
executory hence, local legislations are
necessary to give effect to obligations ISSUES AND RATIO:
assumed by the Philippines.
4. There is no standard practice that Whether the COMELEC
automatically confers natural born has jurisdiction to disqualify POE
status to foundlings
The procedure and the conclusions from
Petitioner Valdez alleged that Poes which the Resolutions of the COMELEC
repatriation under R.A 9225 did not bestow emanated are tainted with grave abuse of
upon her the status of a natural born citizen

yourself up"

Page | 79

MENDIOLA, MANILA
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Whether it can be concluded that Poes

The issue before the COMELEC is whether the parents are Filipinos.
COC should be denied due course on the
exclusive ground that she made in Presumption regarding paternity is
the certificate a false material representation. neither unknown nor unacceptable in
COMELEC should restrain itself from Philippine Law. There is more than sufficient
going into the issue of qualifications of the evidence that Poe has Filipino parents and is
candidate. It cannot, in the same cancellation therefore a natural-born Filipino. Hence, the
case, decide the qualification or lack burden of proof was on private respondents
thereof of a candidate. Not one of the to show that petitioner is not a Filipino
enumerated powers of the COMELEC as citizen. Private respondents should show that
stated in Article IX C, Sec. 2 of the Constitution Poes parents were aliens. Her admission
grants the commission the power to that she is a foundling did not shift the
determine the qualifications of a burden to her because such status did not
candidate. Such powers are granted to the exclude the possibility that her parents were
Electoral Tribunal as stated in Article VI Filipinos. In fact, there is a high probability
Section 17 and the Supreme Court under that her parents are Filipinos. The Solicitor
Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution. General offered official Statistics from the
Insofar as the qualification of a candidate is Philippine Statistics office that from 1965
concerned, Rule 25 and Rule 23 of the to1975, the total number of foreigners born
COMELEC rules do not allow, are not in the Philippines was 15,985. While the
authorization and are not vestment of Filipinos born in the country were more than
jurisdiction for the COMELEC to determine 10 Million. On this basis, there is a 99%
the qualification of a candidate. The facts of chance that the child born in the Philippines
qualification must first be established in a would be a Filipino which in turn, would
prior proceeding before an authority vested indicate more than ample probability that
with jurisdiction. Prior determination of Poes parents are Filipinos. Other
qualification may be by statute, by an circumstantial evidence of the nationality of
executive order or by a judgment of a Poes parents are the fact that: She was
competent court or tribunal. abandoned in a Roman Catholic Church in
Iloilo. She has typical Filipino features. There
Lacking this prior determination, the are disputable presumptions that things have
certificate of candidacy cannot be cancelled or happened according to the ordinary course of
denied due course on ground of false nature. On this basis, it is safer to assume
representations regarding a candidates that Poes parents are Filipinos. To assume
qualifications except if there exists self- otherwise is to accept the absurd.
evident facts of unquestioned
or unquestionable veracity and Whether as a foundling, Poe is
judicial confessions. In this light the a natural born Citizen
COMELEC cannot cancel Poes certificate of
candidacy lacking prior determination of her
qualifications by a competent body.

yourself up"

Page | 80

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Foundlings are as a class, natural determine the whereabouts of the parents,

born citizens. While the 1935 Constitution is not the citizenship of the child and lastly, the
silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive process is not analogous to naturalization
language that would exclude proceedings. Under international law,
them either. Because of silence and ambiguity foundlings are citizens. Generally accepted
in the enumeration, there is a need to principles of international law which include
examine the intent of the framers. The international customs form part of the laws of
amendment to the Constitution proposed by the land. The common thread of the Universal
constitutionalist Rafols to include foundlings Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention
as natural born citizens was not carried out, on the Rights of the Child and the
not because there was any objection to the International Convent on Civil and Political
notion that persons of unknown parentage Rights obligates the Philippines to grant
are not citizens, but only because their nationality from birth and to ensure that no
number was not enough to merit specific child is stateless.
mention. There was no intent or language
that would permit discrimination against The principles stated in the:
foundlings. On the contrary, all
three Constitutions guarantee the basic right 1. Hague Convention on Certain
to equal protection of the laws. Likewise, Questions Relation to the Conflict
domestic laws on adoption support the of Nationalist laws (that a
principle that foundlings are Filipinos. These foundling is presumed to have the
laws do not provide that adoption confers nationality of the country of birth)
citizenship upon the adoptee rather, the 2. Convention on the Reduction of
adoptee must be Filipino in the first place to Statelessness (foundling is
be adopted. Recent legislation all expressly presumed born of citizens of the
refer to Filipino children and include country where he is found) bind
foundlings as among Filipino children who the Philippines although we are
may be adopted. The argument that the not signatory to these conventions.
process to determine that the child is a Although we are not a signatory to
foundling leading to the issuance of a the Hague Convention, we are a
foundling certificate are acts to acquire or signatory to the Universal
perfect Philippine citizenship is without Declaration of Human
merit. Hence, the argument that as a Rights (UDHR) which affirms
foundling, Poe underwent a process in order Article 14 of the Hague
to acquire or perfect her Philippine Convention. Likewise, the
citizenship, is untenable. Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness affirms Article 15 of
Having to perform an act means that the the UDHR. By analogy, although
act must be personally done by the citizen. In the Philippines has not signed the
this case, the determination of foundling International Convention for the
status was done by authorities, not by Poe. Protection of Persons from
Second, the object of the process is to Enforced Disappearance, we (the

yourself up"

Page | 81

MENDIOLA, MANILA
Supreme Court) ruled that the Neither is repatriation an act to

proscription against enforced acquire or perfect ones citizenship. In the
disappearance was nonetheless case of Bengson, the Court pointed out that
binding as a generally accepted there are only two types of citizens under the
principle of international law. 1987 constitution: natural born and
naturalized. There is no third category for
3. Poes evidence shows that at least repatriated citizens. The COMELEC cannot
60 countries in Asia, North and reverse a judicial precedent. Hence,
South America and Europe have COMELECs decision is wrapped with grave
passed legislation recognizing abuse of discretion.
foundlings as its citizens. 166 out
of 189 countries accept that
foundlings are recognized
as citizens. Hence, there is a Whether Poe is a resident of the Philippine
generally accepted principle of for 10 years
international law to presume
foundlings as having been born Poe alleged that her residency should
and a national of the country in be counted from May 24, 2005 when she
which it is found. Hence, as a returned for good from the US. There are
foundling, Poe is a natural born three requisites to acquire a new domicile
Filipino citizen
1. Residence or bodily
presence in a new locality
Whether Poes repatriation resulted to 2. Intention to remain (animus

reacquisition of natural born citizenship. manendi ) and
The COMELEC arrogantly disregarded 3. Intention to abandon the

jurisprudence on the matter of repatriation old domicile (animus non-
which states that repatriation results in revertendi). The purpose to remain in
the recovery of the original nationality. A or at the domicile of choice must
natural born citizen before he lost his before an indefinite period of time,
Philippine nationality will be restored to his the change of residence must be
former status as natural born Filipino after voluntary and the residence at the
repatriation (Benson v. HRET, Pareno v. place chosen for the new domicile
Commission on Audit etc). In passing R.A. must be actual.
9225, Congress saw it fit to decree that
natural born citizenship may be Poe presented voluminous evidence
reacquired even if it has been lost. It is not for showing that she and her family abandoned
the COMELEC to disagree with the Congress their US domicile and relocated to the
determination. Philippines for good. These evidence

yourself up"

Page | 82

MENDIOLA, MANILA
include former US passport showing her could be given in evidence against her but it
arrival on May 24, 2005 and her return to the was by no means conclusive considering the
Philippines every time she travelled abroad, overwhelming evidence submitted by
email correspondences with freight company Poe. Considering that the COMELEC failed to
to arrange for the shipment of household take into consideration these overwhelming
items as well as with the pet Bureau; school evidence, its decision is tainted with grave
records of her children showing enrolment in abuse of discretion. The decision of the
the Philippine to the Philippine schools COMELEC is hereby annulled and set aside.
starting on June 2005 etc. COMELEC refused Poe is thus declared qualified to be a
to consider the petitioners domicile has been candidate for President in the National and
timely changed as of May 24, 2005 and Local Election on May 9, 2016.
maintained that although there is physical
presence and animus manendi, there is no
animus revertendi.

Respondents contend that the stay of
an alien former Filipino cannot be counted
until he/she obtains a permanent resident
visa or reacquired Philippine citizenship since
she is still an American until July 7, 2006 on
the basis of previous cases ruled upon by the
SupremeCourt.SC held that the other cases
previously decided by the court wherein
residence was counted only from the
acquisition of permanent residence were
decided as such because there is sparse
evidence on establishment of residence.
These cases cannot be applied in the present
case. In the case at bar, there is overwhelming
evidence that leads to no to other conclusion
that Poe decided to permanently abandon her
US residence and reside in the Philippines as
early as May 24, 2005.
These evidence, coupled with her

eventual application to reacquire Philippine
citizenship is clear that when she returned in
May 2005, it was for good. The stamp in her
passport as a balikbayan does not make Poe
an ordinary transient. Poe was able to prove
that her statement in her 2012 COC was
only a mistake in good faith. Such a mistake

yourself up"

Page | 83

Sprache

Willkommen bei Scribd!

Citizenship: General Principles

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Beschreibung:

Datum des Uploads

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Beschreibung:

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Citizenship: General Principles

Originaltitel:

Hochgeladen von

Beschreibung:

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Verwandte Titel

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017

GENERAL PRINCIPLES Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is

- In broader sense a national or citizen

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

national and a citizen. For while and consequence of statelessness, on

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Any question as to whether a

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

more than one nationality shall be

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899,

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Constitution, during which regime FPJ application, consistent with provision of

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

positive act of election of citizenship apply only to legitimate

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

What is Naturalization? orphan minors as nationals of the

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

may be reduced to 5 years if he honorably [b] Defending or teaching the necessity or

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

(ii) (ii) dedicated himself Filipino need not go through the

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

e) Denaturalization. ii) Effects of denaturalization:

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

information which might be adverse to The Special Committee on Naturalization may

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

- The child is an alien during minority utterly is no cogent justification to prescribe

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

would in great probability cause prejudice or the Constitution would be amended to

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Mr. Davide: "domicile" denotes a fixed permanent

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

or practice a profession or registration as a Balinquit and Antonio Co and the

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

ISSUE: required under Section 1 of Commonwealth

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

express renunciation was held to mean a - There are, of course, exceptions,

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

2. The use of foreign passport after renouncing

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

of the municipality of Imus at the general

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

FRAFFUCI-NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM