Citizenship

A.) Who are Filipino citizens

1.) TECSON VS. COMELEC

July 07, 2013

GR No. 161434, March 3 2004

FACTS:

Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his certificate of candidacy
on 31 December 2003 for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines in the forthcoming
national elections. 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 place of birth to be Manila.

Petitioner Fornier filed before the COMELEC a petition to disqualify FPJ and cancel his certificate of
candidacy by claiming that FPJ is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, his parents were foreigners: his
mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the
son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.

The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

HELD:

Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution expresses:

No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered
voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the
Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.

Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform
any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Based on the evidence presented which the
Supreme consider as viable is the fact that the death certificate of Lorenzo Poe, father of Allan Poe, who
in turn was the father of private respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. indicates that he died on September 11,
1954 at the age of 84 years, in San Carlos, Pangasinan. Evidently, in such death certificate, the residence
of Lorenzo Poe was stated to be San Carlos, Pangansinan. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary,
it should be sound to conclude, or at least to presume, that the place of residence of a person at the
time of his death was also his residence before death. Considering that the allegations of petitioners are
not substantiated with proof and since Lorenzo Poe may have been benefited from the “en masse
Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902, there is no doubt that Allan Poe father of
private respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. was a Filipino citizen. And,

1.) since the latter was born on August 20, 1939, governed under 1935 Constitution, which constitution
considers as citizens of the Philippines those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines, Fernando Poe,
Jr. was in fact a natural-born citizen of the Philippines regardless of whether or not he is legitimate or
illegitimate.

2.) Go vs Ramos

FACTS:

These petitions stemmed from the complaint-affidavit for deportation initiated by Luis T. Ramos before
the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (now Bureau of Immigration) against Jimmy T. Go alleging
that the latter is an illegal and undesirable alien. Luis alleged that while Jimmy represents himself as a
Filipino citizen, Jimmy’s personal circumstances and other records indicate that he is not so. To prove his
contention, Luis presented the birth certificate of Jimmy, issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar of
Iloilo City, which indicated Jimmy’s citizenship as “FChinese.”

Luis argued that although it appears from Jimmy’s birth certificate that his parents, Carlos and Rosario
Tan, are Filipinos, the document seems to be tampered, because only the citizenship of Carlos appears to
be handwritten while all the other entries were typewritten. He also averred that in September 1989 or
thereabout, Jimmy, through stealth, machination and scheming managed to cover up his true citizenship,
and with the use of falsified documents and untruthful declarations, was able to procure a Philippine
passport from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

ISSUE:

Can the bailbond cancellation be assailed via a petition for habeas corpus?

RULING:

No. A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is a special proceeding governed by Rule 102 of
the Revised Rules of Court. The objective of the writ is to determine whether the confinement or
detention is valid or lawful. If it is, the writ cannot be issued.

Once a person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention through a
petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. His remedy would be to quash the information and/or
the warrant of arrest duly issued. The writ of habeas corpus should not be allowed after the party sought
to be released had been charged before any court. The term “court” in this context includes quasi-
judicial bodies of governmental agencies authorized to order the person’s confinement, like the
Deportation Board of the Bureau of Immigration. Likewise, the cancellation of his bail cannot be assailed
via a petition for habeas corpus. When an alien is detained by the Bureau of Immigration for deportation
pursuant to an order of deportation by the Deportation Board, the Regional Trial Courts have no power
to release such alien on bail even in habeas corpus proceedings because there is no law authorizing it.
3.) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL M. GONZALEZ Vs. MICHAEL ALFIO PENNISI

Facts:

Michael Alfio Pennisi (respondent) was born on 13 March 1975 in Queensland, Australia to Alfio Pennisi,
an Australian national, and Anita T. Quintos (Quintos), allegedly a Filipino citizen. In March 1999,
respondent filed a petition for recognition as Filipino citizen before the Bureau of Immigration (BI).

After submitting all the requirements necessary to prove that he is a Filipino the BI and DOJ granted his
petition to be a Filipino citizen.

On 7 August 2003, the Senate Committees on Games, Amusement and Sports and on Constitutional
Amendments (Senate Committees) jointly submitted Committee Report No. 256[5](Committee Report)
recommending, among other things, that (1) the BI conduct summary deportation proceedings against
several Filipino-foreign PBA players, including respondent; and (2) the DOJ Secretary conduct an
immediate review of all orders of recognition. Respondent was included in the said list.

On the said list the inclusion of his name is anchored on the ground that the authenticity of the
document presented by him are suspicious.

His alleged mother and other relatives, specifically the parents of the former, namely: Felipe M. Quintos
and Celina G. Tomeda, who were mentioned in his application for recognition of Philippine citizenship in
the BI, are not known and have never existed in Panabingan, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija.

On 18 October 2004, the DOJ issued a resolution revoking respondent’s certificate of recognition and
directing the BI to begin summary deportation proceedings against respondent and other Filipino-foreign
PBA players.

An appeal was filed before the CA. After hearing CA affirmed the first decision of the BI and DOJ retaining
the petitioners status as a Filipino.

Hence this petition.

Issue:

W/N Pennisi is a Filipino citizen.

Ruling:

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT WHILE THE AFFIDAVITS OF SOLIMAN AND PERALTA
MIGHT HAVE CAST DOUBT ON THE VALIDITY OF QUINTOS’ CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, SUCH
CERTIFICATE REMAINS VALID UNLESS DECLARED INVALID BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THE RULE STANDS
THAT “(D)OCUMENTS CONSISTING OF ENTRIES IN PUBLIC RECORDS MADE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A
DUTY BY A PUBLIC OFFICER ARE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS STATED THEREIN. X X X.”[22]

WE FURTHER SUSTAIN THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THERE COULD BE REASONS WHY THE
QUINTOSES AND TOMEDAS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CENSUS, SUCH AS THEY COULD HAVE BEEN
MERE TRANSIENTS IN THE PLACE. AS FOR THEIR ABSENCE IN THE MASTER’S LIST OF VOTERS, THEY
COULD HAVE FAILED TO REGISTER THEMSELVES AS VOTERS. THE LATE REGISTRATION OF QUINTOS’
CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH WAS MADE 10 YEARS AFTER HER BIRTH AND NOT ANYTIME NEAR THE FILING
OF RESPONDENT’S PETITION FOR RECOGNITION AS FILIPINO CITIZEN. AS SUCH, IT COULD NOT BE
PRESUMED THAT THE CERTIFICATE’S LATE FILING WAS MEANT TO USE IT FRAUDULENTLY. FINALLY, THE
AUSTRALIAN DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS ITSELF ATTESTED THAT AS
OF 14 JULY 1999, QUINTOS HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP. RESPONDENT
SUBMITTED A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF QUINTOS’ AUSTRALIAN CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF
ALIEN, INDICATING HER NATIONALITY AS FILIPINO. THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER
THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY SOLIMAN AND PERALTA TO THE SENATE COMMITTEES.

WHEREFORE, WE DENY THE PETITION. WE AFFIRM THE 30 SEPTEMBER 2005 DECISION OF

THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 87271.

SO ORDERED.

4.) Villando vs HRET

Facts:

Limkaichong ran as a representative in the 1st District of Negros Oriental. Because of this, her opponent,
Paras and some other concerned citizens filed disqualification cases against Limkaichong. They alleged
that Limkaichong was not a natural born citizen of the Philippines because when she was born her father
was still a Chinese and that her mother, lost her Filipino citizenship by virtue of her marriage to
Limkaichong’s father. During the pendency of the case against Limkaichong before the COMELEC,
Election day came and votes were cast. Results came in and Limkaichong won over her rival Paras.
COMELEC after due hearing declared Limkaichong as disqualified. Few days after the counting of votes,
COMELEC declared Limkaichong as a disqualified candidate. On the following days however,
notwithstanding their proclamation disqualifying Limkaichong, the COMELEC issued a proclamation
announcing Limkaichong as the winner of the recently conducted elections. This is in compliance with
Resolution No. 8062 adopting the policy-guidelines of not suspending the proclamation of winning
candidates with pending disqualification cases which shall be without prejudice to the continuation of
the hearing and resolution of the involved cases. Paras countered the proclamation and she filed a
petition before the COMELEC. Limkaichong asailed Paras’ petition arguing that since she is now the
proclaimed winner, it should be the HRET which has the jurisdiction over the matter and not the
COMELEC. COMELEC agreed with Limkaichong.
Issues:

WON the proclamation done by the COMELEC is valid.

WON the HRET already acquired jurisdiction over the case.

WON Limkaichong is qualified to hold an office in the Republic of the Philippines

Held:

1. The proclamation of Limkaichong was valid. Limkaichong timely filed with the COMELEC En Banc
her motion for reconsideration as well as for the lifting of the incorporated directive suspending her
proclamation. The filing of the motion for reconsideration effectively suspended the execution of the
COMELEC’s Joint Resolution. Since the execution of the Joint Resolution was suspended, there was no
impediment to the valid proclamation of Limkaichong as the winner pursuant to Section 2, Rule 19 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

2. The HRET must exercise jurisdiction after Limkaichong’s proclamation. The SC has invariably held
that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of
the House of Representatives the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election,
returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins. It follows then that the
proclamation of a winning candidate divests the COMELEC of its jurisdiction over matters pending before
it at the time of the proclamation. The party questioning his qualification should now present his case
in a proper proceeding before the HRET, the constitutionally mandated tribunal to hear and decide a
case involving a Member of the House of Representatives with respect to the latter’s election, returns
and qualifications. The use of the word “sole” in Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution and in
Section 250 of the OEC underscores the exclusivity of the Electoral Tribunals’ jurisdiction over election
contests relating to its members.

3. Records disclose that Limkaichong was born in Dumaguete City on November 9, 1959. The
governing law is the citizenship provision of the 1935 Constitution. The HRET, therefore, correctly relied
on the presumption of validity of the July 9, 1957 and September 21, 1959 Orders of the Court of First
Instance (CFI) Negros Oriental, which granted the petition and declared Julio Sy a naturalized Filipino
absent any evidence to the contrary. Respondent Limkaichong falls under the category of those persons
whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. (Section 1(3), Article IV, 1935 Constitution) It matters not
whether the father acquired citizenship by birth or by naturalization. Therefore, following the line of
transmission through the father under the 1935 Constitution, the respondent has satisfactorily complied
with the requirement for candidacy and for holding office, as she is a natural-born Filipino citizen.
Respondent participated in the barangay elections as a young voter in 1976, accomplished voter's
affidavit as of 1984, and ran as a candidate and was elected as Mayor of La Libertad, Negros Oriental in
2004. These are positive acts of election of Philippine citizenship. The case of In re: Florencio Mallare,
elucidates how election of citizenship is manifested in actions indubitably showing a definite choice. We
note that respondent had informally elected citizenship after January 17, 1973 during which time the
1973 Constitution considered as citizens of the Philippines all those who elect citizenship in accordance
with the 1935 Constitution.

The present petition filed by Vilando was DISMISSED. The Court affirms the March 24, 2010 Decision of
the HRET declaring that Limkaichong is not disqualified as Member of the House of Representatives
representing the First District, Negros Oriental.