Comparison of Philippine Citizenship Laws

 
A.  Spanish Laws on Citizenship

Not all the laws of Spain on citizenship were made applicable to the Philippines.

Those that were effective were extended by Royal decrees. [1]  Four can be traced back

as early as the 1800s.

According to Law 3, Book 6, Title II, of Novisima Recopilacion promulgated

in Spain on 16 July 1805, the following were considered citizens:

All foreigners who obtained the privilege of naturalization those who were born in
these kingdoms; those who, residing therein may be converted to the holy Catholic
faith; those being self-supporting, established their domicile therein; those who ask
for and obtain residence in any town thereof; those who marry native women of
said kingdoms and domiciled therein; and in case of a foreign woman who marries
a native man, she thereby becomes subject to the same laws and acquires the same
domicile as her husband; those who establish themselves in the country by
acquiring real property; those who have trade or profession and go there to
practice the same; also those who practice some mechanical trade therein or keep
a retail store;... those who reside for a period of ten years in a home of his own;
and also foreigners who, in accordance with the common law, royal orders and
other laws of the kingdom, may have become naturalized or acquired residence
therein...

Though it is unclear whether or not the Philippines would have been within the scope of

these laws, some authors and Supreme Court justices later argued that the Philippines,

as a colony would have been included as one of the “kingdoms” in that law:
Moreover, the Government of the Spanish Monarchy, in encouraging the
multiplication of her subjects during the period of her glory and in granting
citizenship by birth in “these kingdoms” which were carried forward in the Spanish
Civil Code in 1889, under the same policy of the multiplication of her subjects, can
have no other intention than to apply said law to the inhabitants of its dominions,
colonies and territories under its sovereignties. [2]
 

Another law of Spain which involved citizenship was the Order of the Regency of

14 August 1941. Some provisions stated that:

Foreigners who desire to gain Spanish citizenship should apply for it by means of
an application filed with the Governor-General who was empowered in the interest
of the nation to grant or deny the same. Compliance with this Royal Decree has
been declared absolutely essential for the acquisition of citizenship with a view to
acquire the status of a Spanish subject in the Philippine Islands prior to the change
of sovereignty.[3]
 
 The Royal Decree of 23 August 1868, promulgated specifically for the Philippine

Islands, provided for the political status of children of foreigners born in

the Philippines. The following were considered foreigners:

First, the legitimate and recognized natural children of a father who belongs to
another independent State, and the unrecognized natural, and other illegitimate
children of a mother belonging to another State born outside of the Spanish
dominions; Second- The children specified in the preceding paragraph, born in the
Spanish dominions or on board Spanish vessels on high seas if they do not, on
attaining the age of majority fixed in the laws of the kingdom, elect Spanish
nationality; Third- Those being Spaniards, acquire another nationality, as well by
renouncing the first as be accepting employment from another government without
authority of the sovereign; Fourth- The woman who contracts marriage with the
subject of another state.[4]
 

Finally, there was the Law of 4 July 1870 – the “Ley Extranjera de Ultramar”

which was expressly extended to the Philippines by Royal Decree of 13 July 1870, and

published in the Official Gazette on 18 September 1870:

Art. 1. These are foreigners: (a) All persons born of foreign parents outside of the
Spanish territory; (b) Those born outside of the Spanish territory of foreign fathers
and Spanish mothers while they do not claim Spanish nationality; (c) Those born in
Spanish territory of foreign parents, or foreign fathers and Spanish mothers, while
they do not make that claim; (d) Spaniards who may have lost their nationality; (e)
Those born outside of Spanish territory of parents who may have lost their Spanish
nationality; and (f) The Spanish woman married to a foreigner. For purposes of this
article, national vessels are considered a part of Spanish dominions.
 
Art. 2. Foreigners who under the laws obtain naturalization papers or acquire
domicile in any town in the Spanish provinces of the Ultramar are considered
Spaniards.
 
 
B.  Treaty of Paris

To end the six-month hostilities between Spain and the United States following

the declaration of war by the United States in 25 April 1898, Commissioners met

in Paris on 1 October 1898 to produce a treaty that would bring an end to the war. The

treaty was signed on 10 December 1898 whereby Spain yielded possession of

the Philippines, along with Puerto Rico, Guam and Cuba, to the United States.  The

treaty tackled the disposition of the Islands ceded by Spain to the United States

Article IX of the Treaty of Paris defined those who were the citizens of

the Philippines. The provision read:

 Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which
Spain by present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such
territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of
property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds;
and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce, and
professions, being subject thereof to such laws as are applicable to other
foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may preserve their allegiance
to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the
date of the exchange of ratification of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to
preserve such allegiance; in default of which they shall be held to have renounced
it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside.
 
The civil and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories   thereby
ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.[5]
 

            Under the Treaty, native subjects and Spanish subjects who did not exercise

their option to leave the Philippines, but remained in the country and adopted the

nationality of the Philippines were considered citizens of the Philippines. However,

those Spanish subjects who remained in the Philippines, but who declared before a

court of record their intention to preserve their allegiance to Spain within a year and a

half from the date of ratification of the treaty (11 April 1900) retained their Spanish

nationality.

In the case of Bosque v. U.S., 1 Phil.88 (1908) it was held that the absence of a

Spanish subject from the Philippines during the entire period allowed by treaty for

making a declaration of his intention to preserve allegiance to the Crown of Spain

prevented the loss of his Spanish Nationality by his failure to make such a declaration.

It was opined that under the treaty it was necessary that he had a residence de factoin

the Philippines for the eighteen months following the ratification of the treaty.

A child under parental authority whose father did not take advantage of the right

of declaration of Spanish citizenship as provided for by the treaty also was considered a

citizen of the Philippines.[6]However, if the child had no parents or guardians in

the Philippines or Puerto Rico at the time the treaty was ratified, he would retain his

Spanish nationality without the necessity of declaring such to be his intention. [7]

           
 C.  The Philippine Bill

The Philippine Bill was enacted by the Congress of the United States on 1 July

1902. It was the composite report of two Philippine Commissions, the work of the War

Departments of the United States, hearing before the committees of U.S. Congress and

legislative conferences. The act was originally thought out to be a temporary one. It

was meant to prepare the Filipinos for independence and self-governance for a period

of at most eight years. However, it became the guide for the administration of civil

government of the Philippines for fourteen years. It has little character of a

constitutional act. Those provisions which one would expect to find in a constitution,

such as establishing the framework for government, limiting governmental powers, and

providing for the political organization of the executive, legislative and judicial

branches, were lacking[8]. An assembly was, however, authorized for a future date. Most

of the sections concerned general legislation on commerce, the sale and lease of public

lands, utilization of forests, granting of mining claims, municipal bonds and franchises.

The Bill of Rights was also extended.

Section 4 of the Philippine Bill defines who the citizens of the Philippines were. It

stated:
That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were
Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine,
and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall
be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to
the protection of  the United States, except as such as shall have elected to
preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions
of the treaty of peace between the united States and Spain signed at Paris
December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight: Provided, That the Philippine
legislature is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition Philippine
citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come within the
foregoing provisions, the natives of other insular possessions of  the United States,
and such other persons residing in the Philippine Island who could become citizens
of the United States if residing therein.[9]
 

All those that were considered citizens of the Philippines under the Treaty of Paris

were deemed to be citizens under the Philippine Bill.

All those born after 11 April 1899 to parents who were Spanish subjects on that

date and who continued to reside in the Philippines were ipso facto citizens of the

Philippine Islands.       In effect the doctrine of jus soli, citizenship by place of birth,

which prevails in the United States, was extended to the Philippines.[10]

A woman of foreign nationality who married a citizen of the Philippines was also

considered a Philippine citizen as she followed her husband’s citizenship. [11]

Children born of Chinese fathers and Filipina mothers within the Philippines, with

certain exceptions, were also citizens of the Philippines. Even though the Chinese

father and mother of the child were not legally married, the child was nevertheless

presumed prima facie to be a citizen of the Philippines, inasmuch as under the law he

followed the status of his legally recognized parent, who is his mother, a Filipina.  If

such children were taken to their father’s country during their minority, they still

remained citizens of the Philippines. However, if their fathers’ origin claimed them as

citizens under the principle of jus sanguinis, they were then considered as possessing

dual nationality.

Children born in the Philippines of Chinese parents were also considered citizens

of the Philippines.[12] A child born of alien parents, who went to his father’s native land

at a tender age and remained there during minority, on becoming of age, he should

elect Philippine citizenship if he desires to be a citizen of the Philippines. A failure to

express such desire within a reasonable period of time should be regarded as a strong

presumption of his purpose to become definitely identified with the body politic of his

father’s country.[13]

Citizenship may be lost by the action of a person, either express or implied.

Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation of one’s nationality and allegiance by

becoming a citizen of another country.[14]Actual renunciation may not be necessary in

order to forfeit citizenship; a mere absence for a prolonged period, without an intention

to return may be sufficient. The rule of the Department of State of the United

States government was adopted, whereby, a continued residence abroad for three

years, after attainment of majority, produces a loss of citizenship, unless it is clearly

proved that animus revertendi existed. Commission of certain crimes may also cause

the loss of citizenship[15].

D.  The Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones’ Law)

The Philippine Bill was later on superseded by Philippine Autonomy Act. The

latter was superior in various ways to the former. It essentially mirrored a constitution

as it provided for a framework of government, Bill of Rights and certain positive powers

and prohibitions. It, however, retained in toto the same provision on citizenship as its

predecessor. Section 2 of the Act stated:

That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the
eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said
Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed citizens of
the Philippine Islands, except as such as shall have elected to preserve their
allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provision of the treaty of
peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris December tenth,
eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and except such others as have since become
citizens of some other country: Provided, That the Philippine legislature, herein
provided for, is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of
Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come
within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possession of the United
States, or who could become citizens of the United States under the laws of  the
United States if residing therein.[16]
 

As the above-stated provision is just a re-enactment of Section 4 of the Philippine

Bill, all persons considered as citizens under the former law were also considered as

such under the Philippine Autonomy Act. However, it was only in the latter that the

proviso, also found in the Philippine Bill, providing for suppletory law for the acquisition

of Philippine citizenship was given effect by the enactment of Act No. 2927 by the

Philippine Legislature in 1920. The said law constituted the Naturalization Act of

the Philippines. Under the law citizenship may now be acquired by the following groups

of people:

a.        natives of the Philippines who are not citizens thereof;

b.       natives of insular possessions of the United States; and

c.        citizens of the United States, or

 d.       foreigners who, under the laws of the United States, may become citizens of

the later country if residing therein.[17]

E.  1935 Constitution

In the 1935 Constitution, Filipino citizenship was defined, classified and regulated

by Article IV, which stated that:

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines
(1)                 Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption
of this Constitution
(2)                 Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the
adoption of the Constitution, had been elected to public office in the
Philippine Islands
(3)                 Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines
(4)                 Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines, and upon reaching
the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship
(5)                 Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
 
Section 2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided
by law.[18]
 

Those who were considered citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution

included those deemed citizens under the Jones Law: “all inhabitants of the Philippine

Islands, who were Spanish subjects on the 11 th day of April, 1989, and then residing in

the said islands, and their children born and subsequent thereto...” This was in turn a

reproduction of Section 4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902.[19]

Those who were naturalized according to the Naturalization Law of Act No. 2927

(March 26, 1920), come under the scope of Section 1(1). Under this Act, the privilege of

naturalization was given to the following persons:

(1) natives of the Philippines who were not citizens of the Philippines, because
they were not living in the Philippines on April 11, 1899, and were not subjects of
Spain on that date, not were they children of Filipino citizens born after that
date; (2) natives of the insular possessions of the United States, such as natives
of Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; (3) residents of the
Philippines who were citizens of the United States; and (4) residents of the
Philippines who could become citizens of the United States under the American
laws if residing there.[20]
 

As can be seen from the previous citizenship laws, the principle of jus

sanguinis was not applicable prior to the 1935 Constitution. Before Section 1, which
considered citizens those whose fathers were Filipino citizens, the prevailing doctrine

had been jus soli.[21] By recognizing the principle of jus sanguinis, it was recognized that

a blood relationship would serve “as a better guarantee of loyalty to the country of

one’s parents”[22] than jus soli.

Section 1(2), at the time the Constitution was framed, was said to be inserted for

the benefit of Delegate Fermin Caram of Iloilo. Since Caram was born of Syrian parents

and had not been naturalized, an “anomaly of the Constitution being signed by one who

is not a citizen” would have been an issue, if thus subsection had not been included.

However, the Supreme Court has held that the delegates would not have added such a

provision without considering its effect on others.[23]

Section 1(4) contemplated a situation where only the mother was a Filipino

citizen, and gave the child an opportunity to elect Filipino citizenship only when he

reached the age of majority. Prior to his reaching such an age, he at most has an

inchoate right to Filipino citizenship. [24] The provision is also applicable to mothers who

were Filipinos before acquiring the nationality of their foreign spouses. To restrict its

interpretation in such a way that the time of election was considered controlling as to

the status when the mother should be a Filipina would have nullified the particular

provision.[25] For illegitimate children however, this provision would not have been

applicable, since the citizenship of the father would not then be material, since an

illegitimate child as a rule follows the nationality of the mother.[26]

The right to elect is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 652, which states the

requirements and procedure for election, and must be express:

Option to elect Philippine citizenship shall be expressed in a statement to be filed
and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer
oath and shall be filed with the nearest civil registrar. The party elected must
likewise accompany the aforementioned statement with the oath of allegiance to
the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines. Where the party
concerned resides abroad, he must make the statement before any officer of the
government of the Philippines authorized to administer oaths and must forward
such statement together with his oath of allegiance to the civil registrar of Manila.
[27]

 
 On the naturalization of non-citizens, Section 1(5) possessed great significance.

Desirable aliens are welcomed, but a balance must be created wherein the law “bars

undesirables without unduly discouraging the worthwhile aliens desirous of becoming

Filipinos.”[28] Naturalization has been defined as the “legal act of adopting an alien and

clothing him with the rights that belong to a natural born citizen. Naturalization may be

obtained through a general law of naturalization applied through a judicial process.”[29]

 
            F.  1973 Constitution
Article III, Section 2 enumerates the following as citizens of the Philippines:
1.                   Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution.
2.                   Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines
3.                   Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five
4.                   Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
 

The purpose of the first paragraph of the provision was to protect the continued

enjoyment of Philippine citizenship to those who already possess the right as of 17

January 1973.

The Section 2(2) followed the principle of jus sanguinis. However, unlike the 1935

Constitution, Filipino mothers were placed by the 1973 Constitution on equal footing

with Filipino fathers as far as the determination of the citizenship of their children was

concerned. The father or mother may be a natural-born Filipino or a Filipino by

naturalization or by election. The only important consideration here was that the

mother must be a Filipino at the time of the birth of the child. It must be reiterated that

this rule applied only to those born of a Filipino mother on or after 17 January 1973.

As the 1973 Constitution followed the doctrine of jus sanguinis, it disregarded the

place of birth of a person. As long as one was born of Filipino parents, he was

considered a Filipino. If he was born in a country where the rule of jus soli was the

prevailing principle, it would be a case of dual citizenship.

The Section 2(3) defined the status of individuals who elect Philippine citizenship

under the 1935 Constitution. Under the said Constitution, a child born of a Filipina
mother married to an alien was considered an alien unless he elected Philippine

citizenship within a reasonable period after reaching the age of majority. However, if

his mother reacquired her Philippines citizenship during his minority there was no need

for election since by operation of law, he is a Filipino citizen.

Section 2(4) provided for a means by which even individuals, who were not

Filipino citizens by virtue of birth or of Filipino mothers, may become citizens of

the Philippines through naturalization.

G.  1987 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution builds on the previous Constitutions, but modifies

provisions which cannot be found in the 1973 and 1935 Constitution. Those who were

citizens during the adoption of the new Constitution were considered citizens. However,

this does not rectify any defects in the acquisition of such citizenship under the 1935 or

1973 Constitution. “If a person’s citizenship was subject to judicial challenge under the

old law, it still remains subject to challenge under the new – whether or not the judicial

challenge had been commenced prior to the effectivity of the new Constitution.”[30]

The principle of jus sanguinis still applies, and in following the lead of the 1973

Constitution, the Filipino woman is placed on the same footing as Filipino men in

matters of citizenship. It is essential, however, that the mother is a Filipina when the

child is born.[31] The principle of parental authority is still applicable in the new

Constitution, so this article only applies to legitimate children, not to adopted or

illegitimate ones. Mothers have parental authority over illegitimate children. Adopted

children, on the other hand, as they are not related by blood, do not follow their

adoptive parents’ citizenship, despite being under their parental authority. [32]

As for those who were born after the adoption of the 1973 Constitution of Filipino

mothers, the 1987 Constitution still provides the transitory provision that was also in

the 1973 Constitution: “Those born before 17 January 1973, of Filipino mothers, who

elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.”[33]

 Naturalization still remains one of the ways by which a person may acquire

citizenship. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution defines natural born citizens:

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.
Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1
hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens
 

In the 1973 Constitution, the second sentence was not yet included. Furthermore,

even under the 1935 Constitution, it was not settled whether the child of a Filipino

mother who elects Philippine citizenship was a natural-born Filipino or a naturalized

one. A liberal view was adopted by the 1987 Constitution, based on the argument that

the election retroacts to the moment of birth, since it was such that gives him potential

to make the election.[34]

However, if a person loses his citizenship and subsequently reacquires such

citizenship, that person would no longer be considered a natural-born Filipino but a

naturalized one (whether under the 1973 or the 1987 Constitution). An exception to this

rule is reacquiring one’s citizenship through repatriation, where one regains one’s

former citizenship.[35]

Section 3 states that “Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the

manner provided by law.”[36] The loss of citizenship is governed by two laws,

Commonwealth Act No. 63 (for natural-born and naturalized citizenship) and

Commonwealth Act No. 473 (for naturalized citizenship). Under C.A. No. 63, citizenship

may be lost: “through naturalization in a foreign country, by express renunciation of

citizenship, by oath of allegiance to a foreign country, by rendering service in the

armed forces of a foreign country, and by being a deserter of the armed forces.” Under

Commonwealth Act No. 473, one’s certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if

“found to have been fraudulently obtained, by permanent residence in the country of

origin within five years of naturalization, or when petition is found to have been made

on an invalid declaration of intent, or upon failure to comply with the requirements for
the education of minor children, or if the person allows himself to be a “dummy” for

aliens.”[37]
Reacquisition may happen either through naturalization or repatriation.
Section 4, which states that “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,”[38] modifies the 1973 Constitution by “making no reference to
sex... on the chance that some country might have a law which divests a foreign
husband of his citizenship.”[39]

In Section 5, the Constitution “recognizes the problem of dual allegiance, but

leaves concrete ways of dealing with it to Congress.”[40] The same may be said of dual

citizenship, which is not contemplated in the provision, it being a “seldom intentional

and perhaps never insidious...condition that arises from the fact that Philippine law

cannot control international law, and the laws of other countries on citizenship.” [41] Dual

Citizenship is covered by RA 9225, which provides that natural-born citizens of

the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign

country shall retain their citizenship after taking the oath mentioned therein.

As can be seen, though there had been changes from the Spanish Laws to the

Philippine Constitutions, continuity has been maintained. Each Constitution usually

includes a provision to accommodate previous ones. Major changes include the

transition from jus soli to jus sanguinis in the 1935 Constitution, the equalization of

men and women (fathers and mothers) as regards citizenship in the 1973 Constitution,

and the classification of children of Filipino mothers who needed to elect citizenship as

natural-born, the retention of citizenship upon marriage to foreigners, and the

recognition of the problem of dual allegiance in the 1987 Constitution.