CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE FEBRUARY 20 2014 CITIZENSHIP The article in citizenship basically answered the question: who are

citizens of the Philippines? That is why in section 1, it provides who are the citizens of the Philippines. But then, you have enumeration of four categories of who are the citizens of the Philippines. The first one would be: 1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this constitution. Ibig sabihin nung this constitution, is the 1987 constitution. So, it is not a complete answer of who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this constitution. So, to know the answer to that, you go back to the constitution of 1973. Section 1 of the article on citizenship of the 1973 constitution also gives the same answer. Who are the citizens of the Philippines? (1973)-those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this constitution-referring to the 1973 constitution. So, it is not again a complete answer. So, you go back to the 1935 constitution, section 1 of which would say- those who are citizens at the time of the adoption of this constitution-meaning the 1935 constitution. So, in order to give a complete answer when you are asked who are citizens of the Philippines, you have to provide the complete answer. Kelangan i enumerate mo rin who are the citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987 constitution, the 1973 constitution and the 1935 constitution. Bernas defines citizenship as the personal or more or less a permanent membership in a political community. It denotes a possession within that community a full civil and political rights subject to special disqualification such as minority. There are three distinct modes of acquiring citizenship: a. By blood relationship or jus sanguinis Sagre=blood b. Jus soli or land-place of birth c. Naturalization The Philippines adopts the rule of jus sanguinis. So, if you are a Filipino citizen and you gave birth to your child in the United States, your child follows your bloodline. So, if you are a Filipino citizen, then he/she is a Filipino citizen. The United States follows the jus soli as a mode of acquiring citizenship. Meaning, place of birth. So that a child of Filipino parents born in the United States can become an American citizen by virtue of jus soli because that child is born in the United States. Therefore, the question in your mindpano yun?. Dalawa ang pwede niyang maging citizenship( DUAL CITIZENSHIP)

SECTION 1
Under the 1973 constitution, it defines the following who are citizens of the Philippines. 1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this constitutionreferring to the 1973 constitution 2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines 3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the 1935 constitution 4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law But before that section 1, lets complete the section 1 of the 1987 constitution 1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this constitution(1987); 2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; 3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and 4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law So,kapag i compare mo ung 1987 at saka 1973 constitution,ang magkapareho dun ay ang no. 1 and no.2 according to substance. January 17 1973- the effectivity of the 1973 constitution. So, those born before January 17, 1973, they are governed by the 1935 constitution. If you are born before January 17, 1973, the constitution that governs you will be the 1935 constitution. But born after January 17, 1973, you will be governed by the 1973 constitution. or on January

What is the importance of being born before January 17, 1973 17,1973?

If you are born before January 17, 1973- you will be governed by 1935 constitution and by the provisions of the 1935 constitution, no. 3 thereof; those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and upon reaching the age of majority, shall elect Philippine citizenship. It is not automatic under the 1935 constitution ksi pag pupunta na tayo ngayon sa 1935 constitution it provides; 1) Those who are citizen of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this constitution(1935) 2) Those born in the Philippine islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of the 1935 constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine islands.

Siningit lng to in oder to favor one person, Karam, who became a delegate in the 1935 constitution who is not a Filipino. 3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines - Take note already the difference of the 1935 constitution so far as parentage is concern. In the 1935 constitution, it states that those fathers are Filipino citizens.so,kung yung tatay mo Pilipino, dun ka lang pwedeng maging Filipino citizen.kung nanay mo hindi,hindi ka rin pwedeng maging Filipino citizen. Fathers only. But it does not mean that you can no longer be a Filipino if you have a Filipino mother because under number four,it provides: 4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and upon reaching the age of majority shall elect Philippine citizenship -meron pang election process kapag ang nanay mo lang ang Pilipino.you can see now the difference of the 1935, 1973 and the 1987 constitution in so far as parentage is concern. DIFFERENCE: Under 1935 constitution, those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines-automatic Filipino citizen.BUT ,those whose mothers are Filipino citizens upon reaching the age of majority shall elect Philippine citizenship-there is still a process(that upon reaching the age of majority,they shall elect Philippine citizenship). Under 1973 constitution, there is a change. It included both father and mother. Those whose fathers or mothers are Filipino, automatic Filipino citizen. Who are the citizens of the Philippines before the adoption of the 1935 constitution: -Those who are inhabitants of Philippine islands continuing to reside therein who are Spanish subjects before April 11,1899 and resided in that island. What is the significance of April 11, 1899? -The Treaty of Paris. It said that the inhabitants of the Philippine island at the time of the signing of Treaty of Paris, they are considered citizen of the Philippines. Children of those who became Filipino citizens under Philippine bill of 1932, those who are naturalized citizen in accordance with the naturalization law of 1920, children who are minors at the time of the naturalization of their parents if dwelling in the Philippines, foreign women married Filipino citizens who may have acquired Philippine citizenship under Act 348, those who are citizens of the Philippines when the principle of res judicata or by final court judgment. What principle we must always remember?

- Article IV, section 1 (enumeration of who are citizens of the Philippines under 1987 constitution), does not cure any defect in the acquisition of citizenship under the 1935 or 1973 constitution. If you are not a Filipino under 1987, then you are not a Filipino citizen. Pumasok ka sa 1973 or 1935 kung gusto mo.

SECTION 1 (2)-Children of Filipino fathers or mothers

This is an innovation carried from the 1973 constitution. This change started in 1973.Under 1935, born with Filipino mothers, may right of election. Filipino fathers-automatic. But under 1973,in the 1971 constitutionalconvention, the rule of jus sanguinis (by blood) was expanded in its application by placing the Filipino woman in the same level as males in matters of citizenship. Therefore, those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines, even if the father is an alien, are Filipino citizens. Rationale: The reason or justification of the change is jus sanguinis or by blood. Kung ang tatay Pilipino,pti ung nanay may dumadaloy din na Filipino blood. So, it is because of the blood of the mother that runs through her veins that is the basis of the citizenship of the child because we adhere to jus sanguinis. The1971 constitutional convention deemed it wise to adopt the expanded operation of jus sanguinis to cover those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines. RETROACTIVITY The innovation in the 1973 constitution is not retroactive. It applies only to those who are born of a Filipina mother on or after the effectivity of the 1973 constitution (January 17, 1973). For those born of Filipina mothers before January 17, 1973, would still need to elect Philippine citizen upon reaching the age of majority. Why? Because they are governed by the 1935 constitution.

Cases under 1935 constitution:

Fornier vs COMELEC (FPj case)

-the importance of this case is that before the Fornier is decided by the Supreme Court, it was the rule in the Philippines that only legitimate children of Filipino fathers can become Filipino citizens under the 1935 constitution. Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines, there is still a qualification -if legitimate. FPj was illegitimate son because his father was then married to somebody else before he lives with FPJs mother. FPJ was then born out of wedlock. Sera case- old rule that illegitimate child of Filipino father cannot become a Filipino citizen.

The Supreme Court qualifies the sera case from the fornier case. The sera case involves an adopted child while Fornier involves an illegitimate child. The Supreme Court stressed that it is now the rule that the child whose father is a Fillipino citizen becomes a Filipino citizen whether legitimate or not. The justification for this is when the law does not distinguish, neither the court can distinguish .the constitution does not distinguish. It does not say legitimate son of Filipino fathers. It merely states those born of Filipino fathers.

CITIZENS BY ELECTION
Why is it that under 1987 constitutiton, there is still a need for right election like in the 1973? Reason: because the provision of the constitution giving a child of Filipino mother a Philippine citizenship is not retroactive. It covers only those born of Filipina mothers on or after January 17, 1973. So, they have to place this kind of provision to cover those born before January 17, 1973. Rule on reasonable length of time -the child must elect citizenship upon reaching the age of majority or upon a reasonable length of time from the time he attains majority age preferably 3 to 4 years. ( Dyquengco vs. Sec. of justice)- the Supreme Court cited the decision of the Secretary of justice that three years is a reasonable period in which a child must make the election. After such period, the right is lost. Exception: under justifiable circumstance like the person always considers himself as Filipino citizen for a period of time. It can justify the extension of the exercise of right of election. Read Co vs. HRET- cited by bernas Difference between Right of election (1987 & 1973) as against right of election (1935) Under the 1973, Article III, sec.2, allowed the Filipina married to an alien to retain her original citizenship in which by section 1(2) allows the child to follow the citizenship of his mother. A child born under the 1973 constitution of Filipino mother would not have to make the election in order to acquire Philippine citizenship. He is a Filipino citizen by birth. However, since the provision in not retroactive, a provision should be made for a legitimate children born of Filipino mothers under the 1935 who by reason of minority have not yet exercised the right of election when the 1973 constitution took effect. It is clear therefore that the right of election under the 1973 constitution is in the nature of a transitory provision. Its usefulness will expire when all the child who has right to election have either elected their citizenship or forfeited their right to elect. It is for this reason the right to elect is carried in the 1987 constitution. NATURALIZATION Definition: it is a legal act of adopting an alien enclothing him of the rights entitled to a natural-born citizen.This is the 4th mode of acquiring citizenship.

Section 2. NATURAL- BORN CITIZEN

Why do we have to know who are natural born citizens?

-because there are positions provided in the Constitution which are reserved only to natural born citizens. e.g. members of congress(house of representatives& senate) President and v- president of the Philippines Chief justice and justices of the Supreme Court Who are natural born citizens? -Are those who are citizens of the Philippines without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship How about those born under 1935 of Filipino mothers who need to elect citizenship if being a natural born citizen is not having to do anything to perfect your citizenship. Then, the act of election of choosing Philippine citizen upon reaching the age of majority is an act. That is why we have the second sentence. The second sentence is a new provision because before this, there is a question on whether the ones who elect Philippine citizenship is a natural-born citizen. Under the second paragraph, those who elected their citizenship in pursuant of section 1, (3) thereof are considered a natural born citizen. RENUNCIATION A natural-born Filipino citizen who loses his citizenship by renunciation or by any other mode recognized by law and who subsequently reacquires citizenship would no longer be considered as natural-born citizen. There was a positive act of renouncing his citizenship, so when he subsequently reacquires citizenship, he is not any more a natural-born citizen.

SECTION 3-PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED BY MANNER PROVIDED FOR BY LAW
Possession of an alien certificate of registration unaccompanied by a proof of performance of acts whereby Philippine citizenship was lost was not adequate proof of lost of citizenship. In order that citizenship may be lost by renunciation, such renunciation must be express. Read Asdar vs. Comelec Mercado vs. Manzano. it was held by the Supreme Court that in order that citizenship may be lost through renunciation, it must be express. It must be filed with the Bureau of immigration and deportation Osmena Bengzon vs. Cruz

SECTION 4

This is also a new provision. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship unless by their acts or omission they are deemed under the law to have renounced it. Under the 1973 constitution, it merely gave the privileged to female citizens but under 1987, males are also included. DUAL ALLEGIANCE VS. DUAL CITIZENSHIP

SECTION 5
This section provides that dual allegiance is inimical to national interest and shall be dealt with by law. Dual allegiance is inimical- it is illegal or prohibited but we accepted the principle that there may be dual citizenship. In fact, the constitution effectively allows dual citizenship. The principle of jus sanguinis and jus soli allows dual citizenship.pero sabi natin,bawal ang dual allegiance. PLEDGE OF LOYALTY Kapag magiging American citizen ka na, dual citizenship (filipino and american). During the acquisition of American citizenship,there is an oath taking which requires you to take oath that you will owe allegiance to the United State of America. QUESTION: WILL YOU BE ALLOWED TO BE A CITIZEN IN A CERTAIN COUNTRY WITHOUT TAKING OATH OF ALLEGIANCE? ANSWER: BAHALA NA KAU DYAN( ATTY.LARA)HAHA