CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

In re Ching, Bar Matter No. 914 Petition for Admission to the Phil Bar. FACTS: April 1964: Vicente D Ching born as the legitimate son of sps Tat Ching, Chinese citizen, and Prescila Dulay, Filipina, in La Union. Since birth, Ching has resided in the Phils July 1998: Ching, after graduating from St. Louis University in Baguio City, filed an application to take the 98 Bar Examinations. Sept 1998: Court allowed Ching to take the exams provided he must submit proof of his Phil citizenship Nov 1998: Ching submitted certification that he is CPA, Voter Cert from COMELEC, and Cert as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao, La Union also from COMELEC. April 1999: results of Bar Exams were released and Ching passed. He was further required to submit more proof of citizenship. July 1999: Ching filed Manifestation w/ Affidavit of Election of Phil Citizenship and his Oath of Allegiance.

OSG commented that Ching being the legitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother and born under the 1935 Consti was a Chinese citizen and continued to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Phil citizenship. If Ching formally elects Phil citizenship, it would already be beyond the reasonable time allowed by present jurisprudence. Two conditions of an effective election of Phil citizenship (from OSG): 1st the mother of the person making the election must be a Phil citizen 2nd election must be made upon reaching the age of majority (w/c means a reasonable time interpreted by the Sec of Justice as 3 yrs, from the Velayo case, and may be extended up to 7 yrs, from the Cuenco case ISSUES: 1) WON Ching has elected Phil citizenship w/in a reasonable time 2) If affirmative, WON his citizenship has retroacted to the time he took the bar. HELD: Court denies Vicente D Chings application for admission to the Philippine Bar (ouch!) RATIO: 1& 2) No, Chings election was clearly beyond, by any reasonable yardstick, the allowable pd w/in which to exercise the privilege. Being born in April 1964, he was already 35 yrs old when he complied w/ the requirements of C.A. No 625 in June 99. He was already more then 14 yrs over the age of majority. Although the Court is sympathetic of his plight, controlling statues and jurisprudence compel the Court in its decision. Also, Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his election of Phil citizenship, the latter not being a tedious and painstaking process. Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a commodity that can be claimed when needed and suppressed when convenient. It should be availed of with fervor, enthusiasm and promptitude.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Moya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, and Lau Yuen Yeung v. Commissioner of Immigration (1971) Appeal from a decision of CFI of Manila FACTS: Feb 1961: Ms Lau Yuen Yeung, HK Chinese, applied for a passport temporary visa to enter Phils as nonimmigrant. Purpose of pleasure trip was to visit her great grand uncle Lau Ching Ping for a month. March 1961: Visa granted. Expiration date after 1 month April 13, 1961. Visas expiry extended many times. Date of her arrival: bond of P1,000 filed by Asher Cheng to ensure her departure before visa expires. Jan 25, 1962: Lau Yuen Yeung married Moya Lim Yao, a Filipino citizen. Feb 28, 1962: Final date of visa expiration. Commissioner of Immigration ordered plaintiff Lau Yuen Yeung to leave the Phils, cause her arrest and immediate deportation. Plaintiff brings this action to court for issuance of writ of injunction. Court hearing 10 months after the marriage: Plaintiff is 7 mos pregnant. Furthermore, she was found unable to write either English or Tagalog. She could not name any Filipino neighbour except for one, Rosa. She did not know the names of her bros/sisters-in-law.

ISSUES: 1) WON plaintiff may be deemed a Phil citizen by virtue of her marriage to a Filipino 2) If affirmative, WON her marriage to co-plaintiff justified or excused her failure to depart from the Phils before date of expiration of visa. HELD: Judgment dismissing petition for injunction reversed and set aside. Lau Yuen Yeung declared to have become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her marriage to Moya Lim. RATIO: 1) Alein woman who marries a Fil citizen, native-born or naturalized, ipso facto becomes a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Phils under Sec 4 of C.A. 473. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows the Phil citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as Fil citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under Sec.4. The basis of the judgment is Sec 15 of the Naturalization Law, w/c in turn was taken directly, copied verbatim and adopted from its American counterpart. From the history of the law traced in the case, it is shown that the American provision shows intent to remove racial requirements for naturalization. Hence, settled is the rule in statutory construction that laws if modelled and copied from another state law must be understood and construed in the jurisdiction which they were taken. 2) Yes, there is no reason why an alien who has been in the Phils as a temporary visitor but who has in the meanwhile become Filipino should be required to still leave the Phils for a foreign country, only to apply for a re-entry and undergo the same process of showing that he is entitled to come back. Consider the case of minor children of an alien who is naturalized: It is obvious that they become ipso facto citizens of the Phils. It is unreasonable that they still have to be taken abroad so that they have a right to have permanent residence here. Naturalization of an alien visitor as a Phil citizen logically produces the effect of conferring upon the person ipso facto all the rights of citizenship including entitlement to permanently stay in the Phils outside the orbit of authority of the Comm of Immigration because the Immigration Law is a law only for aliens and is inapplicable to Phil citizens. In reference, Sec 9 of the Immigration Act states: An alien who is admitted as a non-immigrant cannot remain in the Phils permanently. To obtain permanent admission, a nonimmigrant alien must first depart voluntarily to some foreign country & procure from the appropriate Phil consul the proper visa & thereafter undergo examination by the officers of the Bureau of Immigration at a Phil port of entry for determination of his admissibility in accordance w/ the requirements of this Act. IMPLICATIONS OF MOYA LIM YAO RULING: It finally settled the long drawn controversy over the citizenship status of alien women who marry Philippine citizens. It reversed former rulings (i.e. Burca ruling) wherein alien women who marry Filipino citizens do not acquire automatically Philippine citizenship. Under the new doctrine, an alien woman marrying a Filipino citizen should not be disqualified from becoming a citizen. Moreover, she need not prove that she possesses all the qualifications. Moreover, this ruling is more consistent with the spirit of family solidarity as manifested in the CC (Art 52) unlike the Burca ruling which in effect divides and separates H from W in giving all the qualificaations and requirements to become a naturalized citizen.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
However, this new ruling might be used as a convenient means of circumventing the restrictive policies of the Phil Naturalization Law. But in case of doubt, the naturalization law should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the govt and against the applicant for citizenship. Dissenting Opinion, J Reyes: The adoption of similar rulings in the American courts is tenable if and only if the Phil statute had been in its entirety a reproduction of the American model. The spirit of the American law, decidedly favorable to the absorption of immigrants is not in our Consti and laws.