You are on page 1of 2

Fulgar, Jc Jaf O.

I Wigmore
July 7, 2014

Legal Writing

AASJS (Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Teachers and Allied Workers) Member -
Hector Calilung Gumangan, petitioner
Vs.
The Honorable Simeon Datumanong, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Justice, respondent

Facts: The petitioner filed petition praying for a writ of prohibition to stop respondent from
implementing RA 9225, particularly sections 2 and 3, on the ground that it violates Section 5,
Article 4 of the 1987 Constitution which states, "dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by law".

The OSG contends that section 2 merely declares a state policy while section 3 is an "effective
renunciation and repudiation of his foreign citizenship" and "recognizes the supreme authority
of the Philippines".


Issues:
1.

Whether Republic Act no. 9225 ("An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who
Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63,
As Amended and for Other Purposes") is unconstitutional?

2.

Whether the Court have jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual allegiance?


Ruling: The court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

The court ruled that the Section 2 of RA 9225 only allows dual citizenship, and not dual
allegiance, to Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship due to their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country. Section 3 of said Act steers clear from the problem of dual
allegiance by shifting the burden of resolving the said problem to the concerned foreign country.

Section 5 of Article 4 of the 1987 Constitution, noting that it is a declaration of policy and not a
self-executing provision, states that dual allegiance shall be dealt with by law. Thus, the court
held that it would be premature for the judicial department to rule on issues pertaining to dual
allegiance until the legislature enacts a law governing it.

Fulgar, Jc Jaf O.
I Wigmore
July 7, 2014

Legal Writing

Cirilo Valles, petitioner


Vs.
Commission on Elections and Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, respondent

Facts: Rosalind Ybasco Valles ran for re-election as governor of Davao Oriental. As with her previous
experiences in running for public office, an issue was raised by her opponents, this time one by
the name of Cirilo Valles, questioning the authenticity of her Filipino citizenship with regards to
qualifying her to run as governor.

The COMELEC ruled in favor of the respondent stating that there were no new and enough
evidence to prove that the respondent is not a Filipino citizen. The petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied by the COMELEC. Hence, the instant petition.

Petitioner argues that the respondents, aside from renouncing her Filipino citizenship when she
acquired a an alien certificate from the Bureau of Immigration as an Australian national, an
immigrant certificate of residence, and an Australian passport, even assuming that the
respondent is Filipino, she cannot run as government official because of her dual citizenship.


Issue: Whether the respondent's dual citizenship, inter alia, disqualifies her from running as a governor
of Davao Oriental?

Ruling: The court dismissed the petition and affirmed the previous rulings in the previous cases of the
same matter against the respondent.

First, there was sufficient evidence proving that the respondent cancelled the documents stating
she was an Australian national.

Second, under the Philippine Bill of 1902, the Jones Law, as well as the 1935 Philippine
Constitution, the respondent is a Filipino given that she is born to a Filipino father. Moreover,
under Commonwealth Act No. 63, in order for one to lose his/her citizenship s/he must
expressly renounce it - one which the respondent did not do, and where the respondent has not
met the requirements to lose her citizenship under the said Act - and her being born in a
different country is not a ground for losing one's Philippine citizenship.

Lastly, the court reiterated the decision in Mercado v Manzano, stating that the term "dual
citizenship" used in the Local Government code and as reconciled in Sec 5, Art 4 of the 1987
Constitution, refers to "dual allegiance" and as such, the respondent's dual citizenship does not
automatically disqualify her from running for public office.