8/6/2019 Article IV- Consti 1

1/6

Article IV CITIZENSHIPCitizenship- is membership in a political community which is personal andmore or less permanent in character.Nationality- is membership in any class or form of political community. Thus,nationals may be citizens [if member of a democratic community] orsubjects [if members of a monarchial community]. It does not necessarilyinclude the right or privilege of exercising political and civil rights.

Usual modes of acquiring citizenship:a. By Birth i. Jus sanguinis-by blood ii.Jus soli-by birthb. By Naturalizationc. By Marriage

The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of JUS SANGUINIS. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parentsregardless of the place of his birth, as opposed to the doctrine of JUS SOLIwhich determines the nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.(Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543)

Modes (by birth) applied in the Philippines:

A. Before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution> Jus Soli. Those declared as Filipino citizens by the courts are recognizedas such today, not because of the application of the jus soli principle, butprincipally because of the doctrine of res judicata.

> Jus Sanguinis. All inhabitants of the islands who were Spanish subjectson April 11, 1899, and residing in the islands who did not declare theirintention of preserving Spanish nationality between said date and October11, 1900, were declared citizens of the Philippines [Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of1902; Sec. 2, Jones Law of 1916], and their children born after April 11,1899. (en masse Filipinization)

B. After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution: Only the Jus Sanguinisdoctrine.

Section 1, Article IV- The following are citizens of the Philippines:1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption ofthis Constitution; (February 2, 1987)2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; (jussanguinis)3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who electPhilippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Section 2, Article IV- Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of thePhilippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfecttheir Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in

accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-borncitizens.

Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia, to spousesTelesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, andTheresa Marquez, an Australian. Is she a Filipino citizen and, therefore, qualifiedto run for Governor of her province?

Historically, she was born a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effectand at that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were theorganic acts by which the US governed the country. These were the Philippine Billof July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also knownas the Jones Law. These laws defined who were deemed to be citizens of thePhilippine Islands. Xxx Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippineswho were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including theirchildren are deemed to be Philippine citizens.

Private respondent's father, Telesforo, was born on January 5, 1879 in Daet,Camarines Norte, a fact duly evidenced by a certified true copy of an entry in theregistry of Births. Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law,Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same

laws, which were the law in force at the time of her birth, Rosalind Ybasco Lopezis likewise a citizen of the Philippines. The signing into law of the 1935Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for theacquisition of Philippine citizenship xxx. This principle confers citizenship byvirtue of blood relationship. It was subsequently retained under the 1973 and1987 Constitutions.

Thus, herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen,having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is nottantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows theprinciple of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australiancitizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. (Valles vs. COMELEC,337 SCRA 543, August 9, 2000)

Maria Jeanette Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004 (on thecontroversy surrounding the citizenship of FPJ) -The Court took note of the factthat Lorenzo Pou (grandfather of FPJ), who died in 1954 at the age of 84 years ofage, would have been born sometime in 1870, when the Philippines was underthe Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, pangasinan, his place of residence uponhis death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been hisplace of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefitedfrom the "en masse Filipinization" that the Philippine Bill of 1902 effected.

That Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou, if acquired, would thereby extend to hisson, Allan F. Poe (father of FPJ). The 1935 Constitution, during which regime FPJhas seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipinocitizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.

8/6/2019 Article IV- Consti 1

2/6

Marriage by Filipino to an alien: "Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliensshall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they aredeemed, under the law, to have renounced it" [Sec.4, Art. IV].

Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, BarMatter No. 914, October 1, 1999- Vicente Ching, a legitimate child, havingbeen born on April 11, 1964 of Filipino mother and an alien father, wasalready 35 years old when he complied with the requirements of CA 625 on

June 15, 1999, or over 14 years after he had reached the age of majority.

By any reasonable yardstick, Ching's election was clearly beyond theallowable period within which to exercise the privilege. All his acts (passingthe CPA and Bar Exams) cannot vest in him citizenship as the law gives himthe requirement for election of Filipino citizenship which he did not complywith. (He was not allowed to take the Lawyer's Oath) The proper period forelecting Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the pronouncements ofthe Department of State of the US government to the effect that the electionshould be made within a "reasonable time" after attaining the age ofmajority.

The phrase "reasonable time" has been interpreted to mean that the

election should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age ofmajority except when there is justifiable reason to delay. The span of 14years that lapsed from the time he reached 21 until he finally expressed hisintention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond thecontemplation of the requirement of electing "upon reaching the age ofmajority". (If his parents were not married, he will follow the citizenship ofhis mother and he need not elect Philippine citizenship.)

Caram provision. Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who, beforethe adoption of the 1935 Constitution, had been elected to public office inthe Islands are considered citizens of the Philippines. In Chiongbian vs. deLeon, the SC held that the right acquired by virtue of this provision istransmissible. Re: 1973 Constitution: Those whose mothers are citizens ofthe Philippines. Provision is prospective in application; to benefit only thoseborn on or after January 17, 1973 (date of effectivity of 1973 Constitution).

If born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, the person must electPhilippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. [Within reasonabletime=3 years except when there is justifiable reason to delay]

Procedure for election of Philippine citizenship:

1. Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by theparty concerned before any official authorized to administer oaths.

2. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil Registry accompanied with theOath of Allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines[Sec. 1, CA 625]. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines-Prospective application, consistent with the 1973 Constitution.

The right to elect Philippine citizenship is an inchoate right; during his minority,the child is an alien [Villahermosa vs. Commissioner of Immigration 80 Phil. 541].

The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenshipapply only to legitimate children.

In Republic vs. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004, it was held that therespondent, who was concededly an illegitimate child considering that herChinese father and Filipino mother were never married, is not required to complywith said constitutional and statutory requirements. Being an illegitimate child ofa Filipino mother, respondent became a Filipino upon birth. Record shows thatrespondent elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority.She registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old.

The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercisesconstitute a positive act of electing Philippine citizenship. Naturalized citizens are

those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally underCA No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealedthe former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by RA 530.

To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all thequalifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law to become aFilipino citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes executoronly after 2 years from its promulgation when the court is satisfied that duringthe intervening period, the applicant:1. Has not left the Philippines;2. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession;3. Has not been convicted of any offense or violation of government promulgatedrules; or4. Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contraryto any government announced policies. [Sec. 1, RA 530] (Bengzon III vs. HRET,G.R. No. 142840, may 7, 2001)

Qualifications that must be possessed by an applicant:1. He must be not less than 21 years of age on the day of the hearing of petition;

2. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not lessthan 10 years; may be reduced to 5 years if:a. he honorably held office in Government;b. He established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in thePhilippines;c. He is married to a Filipino woman;

8/6/2019 Article IV- Consti 1

3/6

d. Has been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines (in a public or privateschool not established for the exclusive instruction of persons of a particularnationality or race) or in any of the branches of education or industry for aperiod of not less than 2 year; ore. He was born in the Philippines He must be of GMC and believes in theprinciples underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conductedhimself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of hisresidence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government

as well as with the community in which he is living; He must own real estatein the Philippines worth not less than P5,000.00, Philippine currency, or musthave some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation; He mustbe able to write and speak English or Spanish and any of the principallanguages; and He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, inany of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Bureau ofprivate Schools of the Philippines where Philippine history, government andcivic are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during theentire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to thehearing of his petition for naturalization as Filipino citizen. (Bengzon III vs.HRET, G.R. No. 142840, may 7, 2001)

Disqualifications:1. Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any associationor group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organizedgovernments;

2. Those defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence,personal assault or assassination for the success of predominance of theirideas;

3. Polygamists or believers of polygamy;

4. Those convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;

5. Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease;

6. Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines have notmingled socially with the Filipinos,or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs,traditions and ideals of Filipinos;

7. Those citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war,during the period of such war;

8. Those citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grantFilipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

Procedure:

1. Filing of declaration of intention- 1 year prior to the filing of the Petition withthe OSG Persons exempt from filing declaration of intention:a. Those born in the Philippines and received their primary and secondaryeducation in public or private schools recognized by the Government and notlimited to any race or nationality;

b. Those resided in the Philippines for 30 years or more before the filing of thepetition, and enrolled their children in elementary and HS recognized by the

government and not limited to any race or nationality;

c. Those widows and minor children of aliens who have declared their intention tobecome citizens of the Philippines and die before they are actually naturalized.

2. Filing of the Petition, accompanied by the affidavit of 2 credible persons,citizens of the Philippines, who personally know the petitioner, as characterwitness;

3. Publication of the Petition in the O.G. or in a newspaper of general circulationonce a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Failure to comply is fatal. (Po Yo Bi vs.Republic, 205 SCRA 400)

4. Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire proceedings.

5. Hearing of the Petition.

6. Promulgation of the decision.

7. Hearing after 2 years. During the 2-year probation period, applicant has:a. Not left the Philippines;b. Dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession;c. Not been convicted of any offense or violation of rules; andd. Not committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary toany government-announced policies.

8. Oath taking and issuance of Certificate of Naturalization.

Modes of Naturalization:

1. DERIVATIVE-Citizenship conferred on:a. Wife of naturalized husband;b. Minor children of naturalized person;c. Alien woman upon marriage to a national.

2. DIRECT- through:d. Judicial or administrative proceedings- e.g. RA 9139 The AdministrativeNaturalization Law of 2000-grants Philippine citizenship to aliens born andresiding in the Philippines

8/6/2019 Article IV- Consti 1

4/6

e. Special act of legislature- this is discretionary on Congress; usuallyconferred on an alien who has made an outstanding contribution to thecountryf. Collective change of nationality, as a result of cessation or subjugationg. Some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State wherethey are born

Effects of Naturalization:1. Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be lawfully naturalized; (Sheneed not go through the naturalization process; if she doesn't suffer fromany disqualification, no need to prove the qualifications)

2. Minor children born in the Philippines before the naturalization shall beconsidered citizens of the Philippines;

3. Minor children born outside the Philippines who were residing in thePhilippines at the time of naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizens.

4. Minor children born outside the Philippines before parent's naturalizationshall be considered Filipino citizens only during minority, unless they begin

to reside permanently in the Philippines;

5. Child born outside the Philippines after parent's naturalization shall beconsidered Filipino citizen, provided that he registers as such before anyPhilippine consulate within one year after attaining majority age, and takeshis oath of allegiance.It is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good moralcharacter but also the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who mustbe credible persons. A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversaryproceeding, and the decision rendered therein does not constitute resjudicata.

A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequentlydiscovered that the applicant obtained it by misleadintg the court upon anymaterial fact. RA 9139-not all aliens may avail of this remedy. Only nativeborn aliens who have been residing here in the Philippines all their lives, whonever saw any other country and all along thought that they were Filipinos;who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines, and affinity tothe customs and traditions of the Filipinos.

Naturalization- mode for both acquisition.- governed by CA 473 (for acquisition)

- -consists a lengthy processRepatriation- mode for reacquisition for those who lost reacquisition ofcitizenship their citizenship

- governed by various statutes CA 63 (for reacquisition)

- consists of taking of an oath of allegiance to the RP and registeringsaid oath in the LCR of the place where the person concerned residesor last resided

Edison So vs. RP, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007- Naturalization signifies theact of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation by clothinghim or her with privileges of a citizen. Under current and existing laws, there are3 ways by which an alien may become a citizen by

naturalization:a. Administrative naturalization pursuant to RA 9139;b. Judicial naturalization pursuant to CA No. 473, as amended-covers all aliensregardless of class; andc. Legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowingPhilippine citizenship to an alien.

Denaturalization Grounds:1. Naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally;

2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to some foreign country andestablishes residence there; Prima Facie evidence of intent to take upresidence:

a. Native country- 1-year stayb. Foreign country- 2-year stay

3. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intent;

4. Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the parents either byneglecting to support them or by transferring them to another school;

5. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy; In Republic vs. Guy, 115 SCRA 244,although misconduct was committed after the 2year probationary period,conviction of perjury and rape was held to be valid ground for denaturalization.

Effects of Denaturalization:1. If the ground affects the intrinsic validity of the proceedings, denaturalizationshall divest the wife and children of their derivative naturalization;

2. If the ground was personal to the denaturalized person, his wife and childrenshall retain their Philippine citizenship.

Policy against Dual Allegiance: "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to thenational interest and shall be dealt with by law" [Sec. 5, Art. IV]. The phrase "dualcitizenship" in RA 7160, Section 40(d) LGC must be understood as referring to"dual allegiance". Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fallunder this disqualification.

Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must be subject to strict process withrespect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it

8/6/2019 Article IV- Consti 1

5/6

should suffice if, upon filing of their Certificates of Candidacy (COC), theyelect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dualcitizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequenceof conflicting laws of different states.

By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same time,forswear allegiance to the other country of which they are also citizens andthereby terminate their status as dual citizens. It may be that, from the point

of view of the foreign stateand of its laws, such an individual has not effectively renounced his foreigncitizenship. That is of no moment. The filing of a COC suffices to renounceforeign citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification as dual citizen.This is so because in the COC, one declares that he is a Filipino citizen andthat he will support and defend the Constitution and will maintain true faithand allegiance to the same. Such declaration under oath operates as aneffective renunciation of foreign citizenship. In this case, the Court adoptedthe liberal interpretation of the rule. Manzano is not really prohibited to rundue to dual citizenship. Dual allegiance is the one prohibited. Dualcitizenship referred to under Section 40 (d) of the Local Government Coderefers to dual allegiance under Section 5 of Article IV of the 1987Constitution.[Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999].

Section 5, Article IV-Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the nationalinterest and shall be dealt with by law.This section is not a self-executing law. It needs an implementing law.Section 40 (d), LGC-Disqualifications.-The following persons are disqualifiedfrom running from any elective local election: xxx (d) Those with dualcitizenship. x x x. ?The provision prohibits dual citizenship but the SupremeCourt ruled that it refers to prohibition on dual allegiance.

Doctrine of INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE: an individual may be compelled to retainhis original nationality even if he has already renounced or forfeited it underthe laws of the second State whose nationality he has acquired.

Dual Citizenship- arises as a result of the concurrent application of thedifferent laws of 2 or more states, a person is simultaneously considered asa national of said states involuntary.

Dual Allegiance- refers to a situation in which a person simultaneously owes,by some positive act, loyalty to 2 or more states voluntary.

Calilung vs. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007, what RA 9225does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born citizens who have lost theirPhilippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreigncountry. On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing tothe supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces itsforeign citizenship.

Plainly, from Section 3, RA 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dualallegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not thereis dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What happens to the othercitizenship was not made a concern of RA 9225.

Instances when a citizen of the Philippines may possess dual citizenship:1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which followthe principle of jus soli;

2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by thelaws of their father's country such children are citizens of that country;

3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter's country the former areconsidered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to haverenounced Philippine citizenship. [Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May 26,1999]

Res judicata in cases involving citizenship: General Rule: It does not apply toquestions of citizenship.

Exception: In Burca vs. Republic, 51 SCRA 248, an exception to the general rule

was recognized provided the following must be present:1. A person's citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where saidperson is a party;

2. The Solicitor general or his authorized representative took active part in theresolution thereof; and

3. The finding on citizenship is affirmed by SC. Although the GR was set forth inthe case of Moy Ya Lim Yao, the case did not foreclose the weight of prior rulingson citizenship. It elucidated that reliance may somehow be placed on theseantecedent official findings, though not really binding, to make the effort easieror simpler. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August 9, 2000).

Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine CitizenshipA. Loss of citizenship:1. By naturalization in a foreign country (Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245)

However, this was modified by RA 9225- An Act Making the Citizenship ofPhilippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent- September 15,2003 which declares the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens whobecome citizens of another country shall be deemed to have lost their Philippinecitizenship under the conditions of this Act.>They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance.>Those Filipino citizens who, after the effectivity of RA 9225, become citizens ofa foreign country, may reacquire Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath ofallegiance.

8/6/2019 Article IV- Consti 1

6/6

>Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18years of age, of those who reacquire their Philippine citizenship upon theeffectivity of RA 9225 shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines.

Those who reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship under this Act shallenjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilitiesand responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the followingconditions:

>Meet the requirements of RA 9189,>The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, and other existing laws

For those seeking elective public office and appointive office, meet thequalifications>make personal and sworn renunciation>subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the RP

For those intending to practice their profession>apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in suchpractice

2. By express renunciation of citizenship>Conscious, voluntary and intelligent renunciation Labo vs. COMELEC, 176SCRA 1, Labo lost Filipino citizenship because he expressly renouncedallegiance to the Philippines when he applied for Australian citizenship.>Express renunciation means a renunciation made known distinctly andexplicitly, and not left to inference or implication.Mere registration of alien in BID and mere possession of foreign passport donot constitute effective renunciation. (Valles vs. COMELEC)In Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364, obtaining a Portuguesepassport and signing commercial documents as a Portuguese wereconstrued as renunciation of Philippine citizenship.

3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or lawsof a foreign country upon attaining the age of 21; provided, however, that aFilipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in this manner whileRP is at war with any country. -an application of the principle of IndelibleAllegiance.-by virtue of RA 9225

4. By rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of aforeign countryEXCEPT: If RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the saidforeign country; and The said foreign country maintains armed forces inPhilippine territory with the consent of RP

5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization

6. By having been declared by competent authority a deserter of the Philippinearmed forces in time of war UNLESS subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnestyhas been granted.

B. Reacquisition of citizenship:1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of allegiance

2. By naturalization

3. By repatriation

4. By direct act of Congress

Effect of repatriation: It allows the person to recover or return to, his originalstatus before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus, the respondent, a formernatural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted inthe US Marine Corps, was deemed to have recovered his natural-born statuswhen he reacquired Filipino citizenship through repatriation. (Bengzon III vs.HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001)

Joevanie Arellano Tabasa vs. CA, G.R. No. 125793, August 29, 2006, the onlypersons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following:

a) Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and

b) Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippinecitizenship on account of political or economic necessity.