DENATURALIZATION: RA 9139
circumstances arrive in a particular naturalization
Co v. Civil Register
Discussed by Atty. Darije…
So, LOI 270 was an enactment which is much later
than CA 473. CA 473 was a law on naturalization. LOI
270 is a subsequent law on naturalization which
gives certain kinds of people an opportunity to apply
for naturalization, but CA 473 is still existing
because it was the general law on naturalization.
There was requirements there “iba din yung 270”
but in 270 though it did not repeal nor amend any
of the provisions of CA 473, it was a
complementary or supplementary rule for other
kinds of foreign national or whatever that may be
granted naturalization for why they may be follow
the requirements of that particular naturalization
law. So it was discussed here yung in pare materia
rule because the grant of the naturalization of their
family was perusal to LOI 270 later on amended by
PD 1055 and not CA 473. K but in LOI 270 and PD
1055, there was no provision on derivative
naturalization. What was what they were claiming
here was that they derived the naturalization given
to their father although it is not found in LOI 270 and
yung sa PD 1055. The supreme court interpreted
yung in pare materia rule that when statutes are the
same or for the same purpose, they must be
construed as one and to give effect of one and the
other so that it will be consistent. So while there is
no provision on derivative naturalization for LOI 270
as amended by PD 1055 because of this rule because
those laws are both for naturalization, the effect is
that whatever the effect of CA 473 for the wife,
widow, or minor children. It will also be the effect
for the widow, wife, or minor children of those
granted naturalization under LOI 270 as amended by
PD 1055. So they will derive the Philippine or the
naturalization as Philippine citizens of their father.
Klaro yun?
The point in in pare materia rule is the same sila na
law in the subject matter that they don’t amend or
repeal each other so they must be construed as one
to give effect to one and to the other in the same
manner. The purpose of naturalization again diba it
is a privilege granted to those who are qualified so if
you follow the rules under a particular law on
naturalization whatever benefit is granted to you it
may be granted to those who have under similar
law such as in this case. In CA 473, there is derivative
naturalization and a similar naturalization law it
does not provide because they are statutes in pare
materia. The effect of one law is also given to the
other naturalization law. Klaro or hindi? Next is
Republic v ong. Sino ba assigned ditto?
__________________________________________
Republic v. Ong
Discussed by Atyy. Darije…
So what happened in this case in republic v ong it
was a discussion on the requirement of a lucrative
trade remember under CA 473 diba she was initially
granted, but the OSG appealed because he was not
able to prove any lucrative trade, proffesion, etc. so
remember that naturalization is a grant of privilege.
When you are granted Philippine citizenship, or
citizenship per se if you remember the discussion on
what citizenship is, it is the grant of rights and
privileges and the concomitant duty na grant sayo
ang Philippines ng rights and privileges no as a
citizen ano ba pwede mong gawin, you can own
property, you can exercise certain kind of business
exclusively for Filipino, you can vote here, you can
run for public office, etc. so meron ka mga pivileges,
okay? Now, if you are granted Philippine citizenship,
you should not be a burden to the Philippines.
That’s why there is the requirement on property or
lucrative trade so that the state is sure that you will
be able to support yourself otherwise ano ba yung
rule ng government if its people cannot support
itself? Diba it will be the role of the government to
help them? Okay that’s why there are poverty
alleviation measure social services granted to the
less fortunate. Okay so if you are applying for
naturalization and you are not able to support
yourself then isa ka sa mga madagdag sa concerns
ng Philippine government to support. K that’s why
it’s important to prove property lucrative trade and
profession. If you remember our 1139 diba mas
stringent doon because it’s not only you, you have
wife, your family to prove that you can support
them. So in this case it was actually extended to CA
473 like it’s not only your capacity to support
yourself, but if you have a family, you have to also
show that lucrative trade, profession, etc. would be
able to support your family. That if the Philippines
would grant you its citizenship, you would not be a
burden to the Philippines. So, again, because you
are the one applying for naturalization, you have
the burden of proof to prove that you have all the
requirements under the law.
In this case, he was not able to satisfactorily prove
his lucrative trade that he was able to support
himself and his family. K so, because you have the
burden of proof, it’s a matter of evidence noh
depende sa ma show mo na evidence and in this case
he was not able to show enough evidence to prove
that he has a lucrative trade or profession to support
himself and his family. So remember part of the
requirement noh in the naturalization law are
important because it is not a grant of a right, but
because it is a grant of privilege. Kita niyo yung
difference kanina nung election of Philippines
citizenship atchaka *inaudible* of naturalization. Sa
election kanina, we have a case na hindi niya na
register, but he was given a leeway because
registration lang naman yung kulang and
registration is not a mode of acquiring a right. Okay
it was just a recognition that you are or a recognition
of a fact that you are or you have already elected
Philippine citizenship. In this case, because it was a
privilege. All of the requirements must be
sufficiently or satisfactorily met.
NATURALIZED CITIZENS: RA 9139,
COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 473
Go Sr. v Republic
Recits…
In the case of Go Sr. v Republic. The petitioner here
is a Chinese national filed a petition for
naturalization under commonwealth act 473. So
aside from his presentation of other requirements
he also presented as witnessed. Dr. Anlacan, Dr.
Tordesillas, Silvino Ong, Teresita Go, and Juan Go.
Dr Anlacan testified that based on the psychiatric
examination he conducted on petitioner, he had no
psychiatric abnormality at the time of the test. Dr.
Tordesillas, on the other hand, reported that
petitioner’s medical examination results were
normal. Ong, a friend of petitioner’s family, said that
he had known petitioner since childhood through
his association with the family in times of
celebration. Teresita described him as peace-loving
person who participated in activities sponsored by
his school and the barangay. Lastly, Juan, a
businessman by profession, also claimed that he
knew petitioner personally. The RTC rendered a
decision granting the petition for naturalization
ruling that the petitioner possessed the
qualifications set forth by law. But the CA reversed
and set aside said decision. Hence, the petition.
Issue here is whether or not Go’s petition for
naturalization should be granted.
The Supreme court said no, jurisprudents dictates
that in judicial naturalization. The application must
show substantial and formal compliance with C.A.
473. In other words, an applicant must comply with
the jurisdictional requirements, establish his or her
possession of the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications enumerated under the law, and
present at least two character witnesses to support
his allegations. He was not able to establish that his
witnesses are credible in other words he did not
prove that his witnesses has good standing in the
community known to be honest, upright,
trustworthy, and reliable. And that their word may
be taken at face value as a good warranty of the
worthiness of petitioner. Furthermore, the
background checks done on petitioner yielded
negative results due to the uncooperative behavior
of the members of his household. In fact, petitioner
himself disobliged when asked for an interview by
BOI agents to the court, this is a display of
insincerity to embrace Filipino customes,
traditions, and ideals. Finally, it is noteworthy that
petitioners’ failure to state his former residence in
the petition was fatal to his application for
naturalization. Indeed, this omission has deprived
the trial of court of jurisdiction to hear and decide
the case. Hence, the petition for naturalization is
dismissed without prejudice. So ang point lang nun
is diba kay going back to the discussion of
naturalization being grant of privilege, dapat lahat
ng rrquirements sundin niyo. If you recall on our
discussion under the procedure, there is a
requirement on to witness rule, okay, and the two
witnesses must be credible. So that’s what
happened here, the petitioner was not able to prove
that his witnesses are credible. So na-deny yung
kanyang petition or na-reverse while it was initially
granted. It was reversed saying that there was
actually a failure. Failure of the petitioner to prove
that his witnesses were credible. Aside from your
own qualification, you must also prove the
qualification of your witnesses. For CA 473, it’s
credible witnesses. If you look up RA 9139, iba yung
wording ng witnesses. If you look at section 5,
number 2, letter E, two Filipino citizens of good
reputation. So for CA 473, its credible, Credible
yung kanilang qualifications for the two witnesses.
For RA 9139, administrative naturalization, its two
Filipinos of good reputation. So yung yung
kailangan i-prove ng petitioner.