Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dual Allegiance Citizenship
Dual Allegiance Citizenship
ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP
Section 4. 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.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law.
insane or feeble-minded
RATIO:
1.
Pursuant to Omnibus Election Code, Sec. 78, a petition to disqualify a
registered candidate before the election may be filed by any person exclusively
on the ground that any material representation of requirements under Sec. 74
is false. It should be filed not later than 25 days from time of filing COC &
should be decided not later than 15 days before election. Petition was filed
more than 2 mos after Osmena filed his COC. A petition for quo warranto stated
in Sec. 253 is only applicable for petitions after the election. Thus, it cannot be
invoked for such is premature considering that Osmena was proclaimed only on
March 3, 1988.
2.
No substantial & convincing evidence presented to prove Osmena is no
longer a Filipino citizen & disqualified from running. Filipino citizenship is lost by
naturalization in a foreign country or by express renunciation of citizenship or
by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support another countrys consti or
laws (CA No. 63). No proof that Osmena did any of those. Aznar assumed that
the ACR & permit to re-enter were proof of such. However, only RP courts are
allowed to determine whether one is a Filipino citizen or not, regardless of
whether that person is considered an American under US laws. His father is
Filipino thus, without proof of contrary, the presumption that he is a Filipino
remains.
3.
Frivaldo & Labo cases not applicable because they have both admitted that
they are foreign citizens whereas Osmena vehemently denies his American
citizenship.
4.
He has a Philippine passport & he has continuously participated in electoral
process in RP both as a voter & as a candidate.
5.
Certificate stating that hes American is just a certificate. It doesnt say
that hes not a Filipino nor is there any express or implied renunciation of his
Filipino citizenship.
6.
Art. 4, Sec. 5 87 Consti: dual allegiance will be dealt w/by law. (they
raised this because Osmena is both Filipino & American) However, no
implementing rules have been enacted yet.
Melencio-Herrera, dissenting: If Osmena had dual citizenship, he had the chance
to elect his citizenship upon majority. He did elect such when he was 24 & 45 by
obtaining an ACR w/c is a clear & unambiguous proof that hes no longer a citizen.
He claims he was compelled by past regime to change his citizenship but he could
have asked for its cancellation before he ran for office. We need not wait for the
implementing guidelines of the dual allegiance law to consider giving up legal
convenience of dual citizenship.
Cruz, Dissenting: When one voluntarily registers as a citizen, he in effect affirms
that hes not a citizen. There was express renunciation on his part when he took his
oath as a naturalized US citizen. Even if naturalization is revoked, his renunciation
still lies (Labo vs. COMELEC). There was an express renunciation of citizenship as
defined in CA No. 63 w/c is an unequivocal & deliberate act w/full awareness of its
significance & consequences (Yu vs. CID). Osmena was not required to register as
an alien but he chose to do so despite having a land willing to consider him as its
own. Philippine citizenship is lost as long as repudiation is categorical enough &
preference for foreign state in unmistakable, such as in this case. His efforts in
improving Cebu and the fact that majority of the people voted for him are
immaterial owing to the fact that it is unlawful to keep him, a non-Filipino citizen, in
office.
Padilla, Dissenting: He was a dual citizen at one point. His ACR application is
tantamount to an express renunciation of his Filipino citizenship & proof that hes an
alien under RP laws. If he were truly a Filipino citizen, he should have not applied
for a re-entry permit since its every Filipino citizens rt to return to his country. He
has been a registered alien since 1958 and another registration took place in 1979.
The first registration is an express renunciation because this is under the provision
requiring aliens 14 yrs or above to elect their citizenship and if they choose to
remain an alien, they must register personally & acquire an ACR. Osmena was
about 20 during the time of the first registration. Dual citizenship should be
prohibited because it is a necessary complement of dual allegiance. It results in
questionable loyalties & leads to international conflicts. Citizens can choose their
nationality but limited to one choice only. If Labo was declared an alien, how come
Osmenas not? SC is inconsistent in its rulings.
Sarmiento, Concurring: Impt to know how he obtained US citizenship. If by
naturalization, then he has lost his Filipino citizenship. If by jus soli, its by force of
circumstances & not by choice, then he doesnt lose RP citizenship if he were born of
Filipino parents. Without any evidence re this, presumption of his Filipino citizenship
remains. ACR is not equal to an express renunciation.
Gutierrez: Stand in Labo & Yu cases remain. He cant participate coz hes related to
one of the counsels w/in 4th civ degree.
Mercado vs. Manzano [May 26, 1999]
Special Civil Actio in the Supreme Court. Certiorari
Facts:
May 7, 1998 the Second Division of Comelec granted the petition on the
ground that Manzano is a dual citizen and, under section 40 (d) of the Local
Government Code, persons with dual citizenship are disqualified from running
for any elective position. A motion for reconsideration was filed but it remained
pending until the May 11, 1998 elections.
May 19, 1998 Mercado sought to intervene in the case for disqualification
this motion for intervention was opposed by Manzano.
August 31, 1998 the Comelec en banc reversed the ruling of the second
division on the grounds that when Manzano registered himself as a voter and
voted in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998 he effectively renounced his US
citizenship under the American Law. Under Philippine law, he no longer had US
citizenship.
August 31, 1998 Manzano was proclaimed as the vice mayor of the City of
Makati.
Mercado file a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the resolution of
the Comelec en banc.
Issues:
1.
WON Mercado has the right to bring the suit. YES
2.
that he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino, possessed
as he is, of both nationalities or citizenship.
By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that
he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will
defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and
allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private
respondent has, as far as the laws of this country is concerned, effectively
repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said
before as a dual citizen.
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) vs. Zamora [Oct. 10, 2000]
Special Civil Actions in the SC. Certiorari & Prohibition
Nature: This involves 5 consolidated petitions for certiorari & prohibition regarding
an agreement forged by the government with the USA the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA).
Facts:
March 14, 1947: RP-US forged Military Bases Agreement (MBA) w/c included
US military use of installations in RP
Aug. 30, 1951: RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) wherein they agreed to
respond to external armed attack on their territories, armed forces, public
vessels & aircraft
MBA expired in 1991. Parties negotiated for extension however, Senate rejected
proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation & Security, extending US
stay. MDT continued.
July 18, 1997: US & RP met and discussed their complementing strategic
interests in the Asia-Pacific. They discussed possible elements of VFA.
Negotiations & conferences took place on Jan. 12-13, 1998.
Feb. 10, 1998: then Pres. Ramos, DFA Sec. Siazon & US Ambassador Thomas
Hubbard approved & signed VFA.
May 27, 1999: VFA approved by a vote of 18-5. Became Sen. Resolution. No.
18
June 1, 1999: VFA enforced after US (Hubbard) & RP (Siazon) exchange of
notes. It has a preamble & 9 articles providing for mechanism that will govern
USAF & defense personnel in RP. (pls. see pp. 469 476 for whole VFA text)
Petitioners assail constitutionality of VFA as legislators, NGOs, citizens &
taxpayers. They allege that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion.
For one to have standing, one must prove that law is invalid & that he/she
has/wills sustain some direct injury if law will be enforced. It also involves
denial of rights/privileges one is entitled to. Petitioners were not able to prove
this.
Petitioners: Sec. 25, Art. XVIII is applicable (After the expiration in 1991 of
the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of
America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities
shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in
by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the
votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and
recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.) because it involves
foreign military troops.
VFA: agreement w/c defines treatment of US troops & personnel visiting RP.
Provides guidelines & rts of both parties. Sec. 25, Art. XVIII is then
applicable. Sec. 21, Art. VII will be applicable in the sense that it states the
number of votes required to obtain valid Senate concurrence w/c is 2/3.
LEX SPECIALIS DEROGANT GENERALI: Special provision such as Art. XVIII,
Sec. 25, prevails over a general one like Art. VII, Sec. 21. General enactment
will only be suppletory to the special provision.
UBI LEX NON DISTINGUIT NEC NOS DISTINGUIRE DEBEMOS: When no
distinction is made by law, the Court should not distinguish. Art. XVIII, Sec. 25
does not distinguish between a permanent or transient stay of troops, thus
duration of US military stay in RP is immaterial.
A18 S25 is applicable even if only foreign troops & facilities and not bases are
involved. Disjunctive or is used with a comma, meaning, the 3 are
independent from each. Provision contemplates 3 different situations. Fr.
Bernas expressly stated during Con Con that even if only one situation arises,
the requirements would still be the same. Military bases are actually no longer
viable because of other alternatives such as nuclear weapons, warships, etc.
which are mobile & no longer require presence in a territory.
Petitioners allege that 3rd requisite of the contracting party recognizing the
agreement as a treaty has not been met. They claim that VFA should have
advice & consent of US Senate & not be considered merely as an executive
agreement by the US. Respondents on the other hand presented a letter from
Hubbard saying that VFA is binding on the US govt. They say that for VFA to be
binding, it must only be accepted as a treaty by the US. SC view: recognition
only means accepting or acknowledging the agreement as a treaty. Requiring
US Senate concurrence would accord a strict meaning to the phrase. Remember
verba legis, ordinary meaning/common use unless technical terms are
employed. Besides, under International Law, an executive agreement is binding
as a treaty. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defined a treaty as an
internatl instrument concluded between States in written form & governed by
international law whatever its particular designation. Name is immaterial as
long as the negotiating functionaries have remained w/in their powers. A treaty
can be called differently (act, protocol, agreement, concordat, convention,
declaration, etc.) & still mean the same. RP recognizes binding effect of
executive agreements w/o Senate or Congress concurrence. We recognize
power of executive to enter into binding agreements w/o concurrence. US SC
has recognized such too. (Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading)
Con Con deliberations also show that ratification by the other state should be
governed by their own laws. Hubbards letter is also proof of US acceptance &
acknowledgment. (see p. 491 for the letter) Ratification is generally held to be
an executive act undertaken by head of state or govt. In RP, such power is
vested on President. Senate is only limited to giving or w/holding consent or
concurrence to ratification. Since VFA has been ratified and there has been an
exchange of notes bet. RP & US, such agreement is already binding on us. We
It is w/in presidents power to enter into & ratify treaties. Consti grants him
such powers. He is the sole organ & authority in countrys external affairs. He is
the chief architect of our nations foreign policy. Senate & Congress cannot
intrude into the Presidents power to negotiate. SC believes it is w/in Presidents
power to ratify & w/in Senates power to concur with VFA. Senate is an
independent body & wisdom of its actions are beyond SCs jurisdiction. SC can
only check WON other branches went beyond their jurisdiction & not that it
erred or has a different view.
Holding: Case dismissed.
Puno Dissent
Only issue for him is WON A18 S25 was violated. This agreement can be classified
as permanent there being no mention of duration of joint military exercises. It is
open-ended. Only states that it will expire 180 days from date on w/c either party
notifies the other in writing of its desire to terminate agreement. It can be in force
indefinitely. Siazon said VFA will continue until there is no longer a possible threat to
our national security. Training will be on a larger scale according to Defense Sec.
Mercado. Then, escalation of duration & frequency are highly probable too. This is
w/in A18 S25 & such is ripe for adjudication.
To ascertain if VFA has complied w/ constil provision, we should look at intent of
Consti framers. Con Con deliberations show that such provision was enacted to
remove flaws of the 1947 MBA. By the phrase recognized as a treaty, they meant
that other party must perform all acts required for the agreement to reach the
status of a treaty in their country. Thus, we should go back to US Consti. US Consti
allows president to make treaties provided that 2/3 of senate concurs. US
recognizes 4 types of international agreements: treaty, executive agreement
pursuant to a treaty, congressional-executive agreements & sole executive
agreements. Exec. Agreement is a convenient catch-all to subsume all international
agreements intended to bind US & another govt other than those w/c receive
consent of 2/3 of US Senate. This is recognized by all branches of the govt. This is
used to come up with decisions & actions expediently using force or diplomacy. It
may be treaty-authorized (authority conferred in prior treaty), congressionalexecutive (either negotiated w/prior Congressional authorization or confirmed by
Congress after negotiation), or presidential or sole (exclusive presidential powers
such as commander-in-chief). VFA falls under the presidential or sole executive
agreement accdg to Puno but respondents failed to quality under which category
VFA falls. This is important in determining criminal jurisdiction over US forces
stationed abroad. Sole executive agreements and treaties, although both superior
over state laws, have different effects when pitted against prior inconsistent acts of
Congress. A treaty can supersede a prior act of Congress and vice-versa. The one
with later date will prevail. Sole executive agreements cannot prevail over prior
inconsistent federal legislation. It can only do so if it is supported by an appropriate
legislation. President does not have the power to repeal existing federal laws, thus
he cant make an indirect appeal thru a sole executive agreement. SC cant equate
the VFA to a treaty since it is only an executive agreement. A treaty has a greater
dignity due to its constitutional effectiveness. It commits the Senate & people of the
US & its subsequent abrogation is less likely. VFA cant climb to the same lofty
height that the dignity of treaty can reach. It does not meet the 3 rd requisite.
Lim vs. Executive Secretary [April 11, 2002]
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the
joint exercise
Facts:
The petitioners contend that the MDT is applicable only when there is an
armed attack by an external aggressor and that the attacks of ASG cannot be
considered as external. Also, the VFA does not authorize the American soldiers
to engage in combat operations in the Philippine territory, not even to fire back
if fired upon.
In the reply filed by the Solicitor General he pointed out the following:
o
They may not file suit in their capacities as taxpayers because it
has not been shown that Balikatan 02-1 involves the exercise of Congress
taxing or spending power
o
Cannot file suit in their capacities as lawyers because being
lawyers does not invest them with sufficient personality to initiate the case
o
The petitioners have failed to demonstrate the requisite showing
of direct personal injury
Issue:
1.
2.
3.
WON the petitioners have the legal standing to file the suit. NO
The court agreed with the solicitor general that the petitioners
cannot file suit in their capacity as taxpayers and as lawyers. Also the
petitioners failed to demonstrate the requisite showing of direct injury.
WON the court can take cognizance of the case. YES
The court ruled that they can take cognizance of the case because
of its transcendental importance to the public. The court cites cases
wherein the court ruled that in cases of transcendental importance, the
Court may relax the standing requirements and to allow a suit to prosper
even when there is no direct injury to the party claiming the right of
judicial review (Kilosbayan vs. Guingona Jr.)
WON the Balikatan -02-1 is covered by the Visiting Forces Agreement. YES
The VFA permits US personnel to engage, on an impermanent
basis, in activities. The exact meaning of activities was left undefined.
The court used the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to aid them in
interpreting the word activities.
Neither the MDT nor the VFA allow foreign troops to engage in an
offensive war on the Philippine territory.
4.
In Gonzales vs. Hechanova the court ruled that the SC may not be
deprived of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal, certiorari, or writ of error as the law or rules of court may provide, final
judgements and decrees of inferior courts. Our constitution authorizes the
nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts the fundamental law, but, also
when it runs counter to an act of Congress.
5.