Citizenship

Membership in a political community which is personal and more or less permanent in

character.
Nationality is membership in an ethnic, social, racial, and cultural group, while citizenship is
membership in a political society.

Citizens Under the 1935 Constitution

(Sec. 1, Art IV)

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippine islands at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution.
2. Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this
Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippines Islands.
3. Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
4. Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines, and upon reaching the age of majority,
elect Philippine citizenship.
5. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippine islands at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution.

a. Persons born in the Philippines who resided therein on April 11, 1899 (effectivity of
the Treaty of Paris), and were Spanish subjects on that date, unless they had lost their
citizenship on or before the adoption of the Philippine Constitution on May 14, 1935
(Phil. Bill of 1902 and Jones Law of 1916);
Treaty of Paris - cession of Philippines by Spain to US.
For this to apply, those persons must have been born in the Philippines and
must have resided therein on or before April 11, 1899 and were Spanish
subjects on that date.

b. Natives of Peninsular Spain who resided in the Philippines on April 11, 1899, and
who did not declare their intention of preserving their Spanish nationality between
that date and October 11, 1900, unless they had lost their citizenship by May 14,
1935 (Phil. Bill of 1902 and Jones Law of 1916);
CASE: Tecson vs. COMELEC - Lorenzo Poe, the grandfather of FPJ, was a native
of Peninsular Spain came to the Philippines as early as 1870 before effectivity of
the Treaty of Paris on April 11, 1899.
- HELD: Lorenzo Poe was considered a Filipino citizen under this
provision. For this reason, Allan Poe (FPJ's father) was considered a
Filipino citizen under the jus sanguinis principle.
c. Spanish subjects who resided in the Philippines on April 11, 1899, and who did not
declare their intention of preserving their Spanish nationality between that date and
October 11, 1900, unless they had lost their citizenship by May 14, 1935 (Phil. Bill of
1902 and Jones Law of 1916);
Paragraph (c) refers to Spanish SUBJECTS as opposed to paragraph (b) which
refers to NATIVES of Peninsular Spain (Peninsulares).
- Subjects do not necessarily have to be of Spanish descent nor do they
have to be natives of Spain. This merely refers to those under the rule of
the Spanish Crown who resided in the Philippines on or before April 11,
1899.
CASE: Co vs. HRET - Questioned the citizenship of Jose Ong Jr., who was the
grandson of Ong Te and the son of Jose Ong Chuan respectively. It had to be
proven that Ong Te was a Spanish subject on or before April 11, 1899 in order to
establish the citizenships of Jose Ong Chuan and Jose Ong Jr. under the principle
of jus sanguinis for the purpose of Jose Ong Jr.'s election to Congress. Ong Te
was a Chinese national who came to the Philippine in 1895 before effectivity of
the Treaty of Paris on April 11, 1899. Ong Te became a Spanish subject through
his acquisition of his certificate of residence and computed tax certificate.
- HELD: Ong Te was already Filipino citizen at the time of the adoption
of the 1935 Constitution on May 14, 1935.

d. Children born of (a), (b), and (c) subsequent to April 11, 1899 unless they had lost
their citizenship by May 14, 1935 (Phil. Bill of 1902 and Jones Law of 1916);
CASE: Tecson vs. COMELEC - Allan Poe was a Filipino as Lorenzo Poe fell under
category (a).
CASE: Co vs. HRET - Jose Ong Chuan was already a Filipino as his father, Ong Te,
fell under category (c). Although Jose Ong Chuan applied for naturalization it
was not necessary as the common provision of the Phil. Bill of 1902 and the
Jones Law of 1916 qualified Jose Ong Chuan as a Filipino citizen.

e. Persons who became naturalized citizens of the Philippines in accordance with the
formal procedure set forth in the (old) Naturalization Law since its enactment in
March 1920 (Act No. 2927), unless they had lost their citizenship by May 14, 1935.

f. Children of persons embraced under (e), unless they had lost their citizenship by
May 14, 1935.
g. Filipino women who, after having lost Philippine citizenship by marriage to
foreigners, had subsequently become widows and regained Philippine citizenship on
or before May 14, 1935.
CASE: Roa vs. Collector of Customs - Roa's mother regained her Philippine
citizenship after her husband (Roa's father) died. This happened before May
14, 1935.

h. Children of (g), above, who were still under 21 years of age at the time their
mothers regained Philippine citizenship.
CASE: Roa vs. Collector of Customs - Roa was still under 21 when his father
died and when his mother regained her Philippine citizenship.
- HELD: Roa was Filipino.

i. Foreign women who married Filipino citizens on or before May 14, 1935, provided
that they themselves could be lawfully naturalized, provided further that they had
not lost their Philippine citizenship by May 14, 1935 and provided finally that their
Filipino citizenship had been so declared judgment of a court of justice in the proper
naturalization or citizenship proceedings.
Ruling PRIOR to Mo Ya vs. Commissioner of Immigration.
Under this provision, foreign women who married Filipino citizens on or before
May 14, 1935 SHOULD qualify for naturalization. They should possess all the
necessary qualifications and not the disqualifications.
CASE: Mo Ya vs. Commissioner of Immigration - Mo Ya was considered a
Filipino for marrying a naturalized Filipino citizen despite not possessing all the
qualifications, although not suffering from any disqualification.
Ruling in Mo Ya vs. Commissioner of Immigration became the controlling
doctrine.

j. All other persons born in the Philippines who, on the strength of the erroneous
recognition of the "jus soli" doctrine, were mistakenly declared by the courts to be
Filipino citizens, unless they had lost their citizenship by May 14, 1935.
Refers to persons who were erroneously recognized due to the "jus soli"
principle.
CASE: Roa vs. Collector of Customs - Was decided prior to the 1935
Constitution. Roa was a minor child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother.
While a minor, Roa went to China to study but his father eventually died. Roa's
mother regained her Filipino citizenship and when Roa returned to the
Philippines he was denied entry by the Collector of Customs as according to the
Collector of Customs Roa was a Chinese national as his father was Chinese. Roa
filed a case against the Collector of Customs.
 -HELD: Roa was Filipino as his mother regained Filipino citizenship
before Roa turned 21. Supreme Court went on to rule that Roa can also
be considered a Filipino as he was born in the Philippines. THIS
PRONOUNCEMENT WAS AN OBITER DICTUM and was not necessary for
the determination of the case as Roa's mother regained her Philippine
citizenship before Roa turned 21 and before May 14, 1935 which
qualified Roa as a Filipino citizen under category (g).
Subsequently, numerous cases were decided by the Supreme Court where it
erroneously applied the "jus soli" doctrine which was stated as a mere OBITER
DICTUM in the Roa case.
Framers of the 1935 Constitution deemed it prudent to adopt the erroneous
decisions under Par. (1), Sec. 1, Art. IV of the 1935 Constitution.

2. Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of
this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippines Islands.

Refers to the child whose citizenship is under consideration and not the parents as it
mentions "Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents..."
In order for this provision to apply, the child of foreign parents whose citizenship is
under consideration must have been ELECTED to public office BEFORE the adoption of
the 1935 Constitution on May 14, 1935 and must not have merely held such office by
virtue of appointment or whatnot.
This provision is commonly referred to as the "Caram Provision".
Provision was inserted in the 1935 Constitution only to favor a Mr. Fermin Caram.
- Fermin Carang was born to Syrian parents and, hence, was not FIlipino
according to the "jus sanguinis" principle.
- He held elected public office as a provincial board member in Ilo-ilo.
- He ran and won as a delegate to the 1935 Constitutional Convention where he
was discovered to be a foreigner by the other delegates thereto.
- 1935 Constitutional Convention inserted this provision to make Fermin Carang
a Filipino citizen.
What if such child under this provision also had child, can the child also be considered
Filipino?
- CASE: Chiongbian vs. De Leon - There was a move to cancel the certificate of
public convenience of William Chiongbian because William Chiongbian was alleged to
be not a Filipino citizen as William's father, Victoriano, was Chinese. However, Victor
Chiongbian was elected to the Sangguniang Bayan of Plaridel, Misamis Occidental in
1925 prior to the adoption of the 1935 Constitution. Therefore, Victoriano was
considered a Filipino. It was argued that William cannot be considered a Filipino as this
provision would only apply to his father, Victoriano.
 -HELD: William was also Filipino. William became Filipino not by virtue of this
provision but by (3), Sec. 1, Art. IV of the 1935 Constitution which makes Filipino
citizens those whose fathers are Filipino citizens.

3. Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.

In the past, this provision was understood to only refer to the legitimate children of
Filipino fathers.
Before, it was held that illegitimate children of Filipino fathers were not Filipinos and,
hence, such children had to follow the citizenships of their mothers.
- CASE: Tecson vs. COMELEC - It was argued by the petitioners that even if Allan
Poe was a Filipino, FPJ was an illegitimate child, hence, had to follow the citizenship
of his American mother, citing previous rulings where this provision was only made
to apply to legitimate children of Filipino fathers.
- HELD: SC ruled that, citing the opinion of Fr. Bernas, illegitimate children of
Filipino fathers would also have to be considered Filipino. (3), Sec. 1, Art. IV of
the 1935 Constitution only refers to "Those whose fathers are citizens of
the Philippines." and does not distinguish between legitimate and
illegitimate children of Filipino fathers. Statutory Construction: When the
law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish. Tecson is a
controlling doctrine.

4. Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines, and upon reaching the age of
majority (21), elect Philippine citizenship. Parenthesis added*

Applies to cases where fathers are foreigners and mothers are Filipino.
Only applies when foreign father and Filipino mother are LEGALLY married.
- Under the 1935 Constitution, if the foreign father and Filipino mother
are not legally married then the child will automatically be considered
Filipino, following the citizenship of the mother without the need for
election of citizenship by the child.
- CASE: Republic vs. Chule Lim - An illegitimate child of a Filipino mother
and an alien father is a Filipino citizen without the need of election.
At what point in time must the mother be Filipino in order for the child to be
able to elect Filipino citizenship at the age of majority?
-At the time of birth? Marriage? Or election?
- Mother must be Filipino at the time of marriage with alien spouse.
- Because before the advent of the 1935 Constitution, Filipino wives
would have to follow the citizenships of their foreign husbands, making it
 a legal impossibility for the children to elect Filipino citizenship if the
Filipino citizenship requirement for mothers was set at the time of
birth or election of the children as the mothers would have no longer
been Filipinos by then.
What would be the nationality of the child during minority prior to election?
- Before election, the child is considered to be a citizen of the country of
origin of the father following the jus sanguinis principle. Child can only be
Filipino after electing Philippine citizenship after attaining the age of
majority.
- Commonwealth Act 625: Election would have to be done within a
reasonable period of time after the child attains the age of majority (21).
- CASE: In Re: Vicente Ching, Bar Matter No. 914 - Such reasonable
period is set at THREE (3) YEARS within the attainment of the age of
majority and can be extended beyond three (3) years if the child has
manifested his/her intention while he/she was already a Filipino during
minority. But in no case shall the election be done AFTER SEVEN (7)
YEARS.
-HOWEVER
-CASE: CO vs. HRET - There may be informal election of Philippine
citizenship by a person born to a Filipino mother and an alien father.
-CASE: In Re: Vicente Ching - Vicente Ching invoked informal election as a
defense as enunciated in In Re: Florencio Mallare and CO vs. HRET
(which involved Jose Ong Jr.).
-HELD: Supreme Court disagreed. Informal election applied to
Jose Ong Jr. as during minority he was already a Filipino citizen
because his father was naturalized when Jose Ong Jr. was only
9 years old. Jose Ong Jr. became a Filipino by virtue of "derivative
naturalization" wherein naturalization was no longer necessary.
Therefore, informal election did not apply to Vicente Ching as it
did to Jose Ong Jr. Same holds true with Mallare, Mallare was
already Filipino at minority. Such was not the situation of Vicente
Ching as he was not a Filipino citizen during minority.
 What happens if the Filipino mother who became a foreigner through marriage
became a widow?
- Would the mother automatically reacquire Filipino citizenship and, thus,
cause the minor child to automatically become Filipino? Or is there a
need for her to reacquire Filipino citizenship either through naturalization
or repatriation?
- It depends. Where the Filipino wife/mother became a widow prior to
Oct. 21, 1936 then the widowed mother would AUTOMATICALLY
reacquire Philippine citizenship. Such that if the children was still a minor
at the time of the mother's reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, the
minor child would automatically become a Filipino citizen.
-Conversely, where the Filipino mother became a widow after Oct. 21,
1936 there is a NEED for her to apply for naturalization and repatriation
to reacquire Philippine citizenship. Oct. 21, 1936 was the date
Commonwealth Act 63 became effective, which required Filipino
mothers who acquired foreign citizenship by virtue of marriage to foreign
husbands to reacquire their Philippine citizenship through repatriation or
naturalization should they become widowed after the enactment of CA
63 on Oct. 21, 1936.
- CUT OFF DATE: OCT. 21, 1936
Suppose the mother applied for naturalization or repatriation under CA 63 to
reacquire Filipino citizenship, would that work to the advantage of the minor
child?
-NO. Repatriation/naturalization under CA 63 merely has a personal
effect. Minor child will not follow reacquired Filipino citizenship of the
mother by virtue of repatriation/naturalization under CA 63.

5. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Governed situations where naturalization was done prior to the enactment of the
1935 Constitution on May 14, 1935.
 Comparison of Provisions on Citizenship Between the 1935 and 1973-1987
Constitutions

1935 Constitution 1973-1987 Constitutions

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
2. Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign
parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution,
had been elected to public office in the Philippines
Islands.
3. Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
4. Those whose mothers are citizens of the
Philippines, and upon reaching the age of majority,
elect Philippine citizenship.
5. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution.
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines.
3. Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to
the provisions of the Constitution of 1935. (Those
born before January, 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers
who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age
of majority.)
Those *(3), Sec. 1 of Art. IV of 1987 Constitution
in parenthesis*
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

1973-1987 Constitutions

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.

Those who are already considered citizens of the Philippines pursuant to the 1935 Constitution
would be considered citizens of the Philippines under the 1973 Constitution. They would fall under
the purview of the 1st sentence of the 1973 Constitution.

2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.

It is enough that EITHER THE MOTHER OR FATHER is Filipino for the child be considered Filipino.
- Whereas, under the 1935 Constitution if the mother is a Filipino but the father is an alien the
child would still have to elect Philippine citizenship within a reasonable period after reaching the
age of majority to acquire Filipino citizenship
- 1973 and 1987 Constitutions uniformly provide for Philippine citizenship of individuals whose
fathers OR mothers are Filipino.
- Under 1973 and 1987 Constitutions if a child is born to a Filipino mother and an alien father,
the child is Filipino. NO NEED FOR ELECTION.
Why is there no longer a need for election of Filipino citizenship for those with Filipino mothers and
alien fathers under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions unlike the provision under the 1935
Constitution?
-Due to Sec. 2, Art. III of 1973 Constitution: A female citizen of the Philippines who marries an
alien shall retain her Philippine citizenship, unless by her act or omission she is deemed, under
the law, to have renounced her citizenship.
 -And Sec. 4, Art. IV of the 1987 Constitution: 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.
-Both provisions not in 1935 Constitution, causing Filipino women who marry foreigners to lose
their Philippine citizenships.
- It is for this reason that the children of Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenships
due to marriage to alien husbands prior to the 1935 Constitution are still required to elect
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Whereas, children born to Filipino mothers under
the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions are no longer required to elect Philippine citizenships upon
reaching the age of majority, despite having alien fathers and Filipino mothers.
- Child of EITHER a Filipino mother or father is considered a NATURAL BORN FILIPINO under
1973 and 1987 Constitution.

3. Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of 1935. (Those
born before January, 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the
age of majority.)

4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Who is a natural born citizen?

1973 Constitution:

Sec. 4, Art. III:

A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.
-During the effectivity of the 1973 and 1935 Constitutions those who ELECTED Philippine
citizenship having been born to Filipino mothers and foreign fathers were NOT considered
natural born Filipinos.
- 1935 Constitution requires election of Philippine citizenship by those born of Filipino mothers
and foreign fathers. Such that some of those children who were born during the effectivity of
the 1935 Constitution reached the age of majority during the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution
cannot be considered natural born Filipinos under the 1973 Constitution as they PERFORMED
AN ACT TO ACQUIRE OR PERFECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP.
-MERELY CITIZENS BY ELECTION AND NOT NATURAL BORN.

1987 Constitution

Sec. 2, Art. IV:

Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having
to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

INCLUDES those born of Filipino mothers and foreign fathers during the effectivity of the
1935 Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship.
- CASE: CO vs. HRET - Sec. 2, Art. IV regarding those who elected Philippine citizenship
having been born of Filipino mothers and foreign fathers is a CURATIVE provision and
should be given a RETROACTIVE application to cure discrimination against those born of
Filipino mothers and foreign fathers who elected Philippine citizenship during the
effectivity of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.
-i.e. Someone born in 1972 to a Filipino mother and an alien father during the effectivity
of the 1935 Constitution who reaches the age of majority (21 under the 1935
Constitution) in 1993 during the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution is a NATURAL BORN
Filipino under Sec. 2, Art. IV of the 1987. This person could run for Congress.
 QUESTION: If a person was born in 1957 to a Filipino mother and a foreign father reached the
age of majority in 1978 and elected Philippine citizenship therein, prior to the effectivity of
the 1987 Constitution, can he be considered a natural born Filipino?
- YES. Sec.2, Art. IV also refers to (3), Sec. 1 of Art. IV which states "Those born before
January, 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority."
-CASE: CO vs. HRET - Sec. 2, Art. IV should be given retroactive application and should
thus include those under (3), Sec. 1, Art. IV, citing the deliberations of the framers of the
1987 Constitution.
-If such person is still alive he/she can run for Congress as he/she considered natural
born under 1987 Constitution.

NO LONGER ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN NATURAL BORN CITIZENS AND CITIZENS BY

ELECTION.
- Only two types of citizens under the 1987 Constitution: NATURAL BORN and
NATURALIZED.
- CASE: Poe vs. COMELEC: Foundlings are also considered to be natural born citizens.

Philippine Citizenship can only be acquired through birth or naturalization.

Modes of Acquiring Philippine Citizenship:

BY BIRTH:

Jus Sanguinis - Citizenship by blood. Philippines adheres to this principle.

-If either of the parents is Filipino then the child is considered Filipino, even if the child is
born outside the Philippines.
Jus Soli - Citizenship through place of birth.

NATURALIZATION

The act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation by clothing him or her with
the privileges of a citizen.

3 Types:

a. Judicial Naturalization
b. Administrative Naturalization - RA 9139
c. Legislative Naturalization - By Congressional Act (Case of Andre Blatch)
a. Judicial Naturalization

(CA 473 as amended by RA 530)

Qualifications:

1. Applicant for judicial naturalization must not be 21 years old at the date of the hearing of the
petition.
- applicant may not be 21 at the time of the filing of the petition as it is enough that he is 21 AT
THE DATE OF THE HEARING of the petition.

2. Must have resided in the Philippines for a period of not less than 10 years.

- It may be reduced to 5 years if:

(a) he honorably held office in Government;
(b) established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines;
(c) married to a Filipino woman;
(d) been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines (in a public or private school not
established for the exclusive instruction of persons of a particular nationality or race) or in
any of the branches of education or industry for a period of 2 years; and
(e) born in the Philippines.

3. Good moral character; believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; must have
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his
residence in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted government as well as the
community in which he is living;
If oppositor wants to block naturalization of foreigner through his/her disqualification under
"Good moral character" the oppositor NEED NOT present a conviction. All he has to establish
is that the applicant is of bad moral character through other modes of proving a fact in court.

4. Own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5,000.00, or, must have some known
lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation;
-P 5,000 a huge sum back then (Commonwealth era)
How can a foreigner own real property?
- Before the 1935 Constitution under the Parity Rights Agreement even foreigners could
own real property in the Philippines.

5. Speak and write English or Spanish and any of the principal Philippine languages;
Applicant may not qualify if he/she can speak and write English and Spanish but NOT a
principal Philippines language.
 Likewise, applicant may not qualify if he/she can ONLY speak and write a principal Philippine
language but not English or Spanish

6. Enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public or private schools recognized by the
Government where Philippine history, government and civics are taught as part of the school
curriculum, during the entire period of residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the
hearing of his petition for naturalization.

HOWEVER, IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE APPLICANT POSSESES ALL THE NECESSARY
QUALIFICATIONS. HE/SHE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO NOT BE DISQUALIFIED BY ANY OF THE
DISQUALIFICATIONS.

Disqualifications:

1. Those who are opposed to organized government affiliated with any association or group of
persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
i.e. ISIS members
2. Defending or teaching the success or predominance of their ideas;
3. Polygamists or believers in polygamy;
But how can you prove BELIEF in polygamy?
Probably through proving:
- The applicant may have written a book or any other material promoting polygamy.
(For laughs) Bigamy = Bigaon; Polygamy = Puli puli og gamit. HAHA

4. Convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;

i.e. murder, estafa, deceit
But if crime was reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, although involved death
applicant MAY qualify as it was not intentional and did not involve moral turpitude

5. Suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease;

i.e. HIV/AIDS

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

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

8. Citizens or subject of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become
naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
Based on Principle of Reciprocity.
PROCEDURE (CA 473):

1. Filing with Office of the Solicitor General of a declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen,
at least 1 year prior to the filing of the petition in the proper court, except:
a) Those born in the Philippines and have received their primary and secondary
education in public or private schools recognized by the Government and not limited
to any race or nationality;
b) Those who resided in the Philippines for 30 years or more before the filing of the
petition, and enrolled his children in elementary and high schools recognized by the
Government and not limited to any race or nationality; and
c) Widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his intention to become a
citizen of the Philippines and dies before he is actually naturalized.
- Widow or children merely continue the filing of the petition of the hsuband

2. Filing of the petition with the appropriate Regional Trial Court, together with the affidavits of 2
credible, citizens of the Philippines, who personally know the petitioner (as character witnesses).
CASE: Republic vs. dela Rosa - Petition of Frivaldo was disqualified as it was not accompanied by
the required affidavits.
3. Publication of the petition in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province where the applicant resides, once a week for 3 consecutive weeks.
CASE: Republic vs. dela Rosa - Petition of Frivaldo was not published as he postponed the date
of the hearing

4. Hearing of the petition

5. If the petition is approved, there will be a rehearing two years after the promulgation of the
judgment to establish the following:
a) applicant has 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; and
d) not committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government-
announced policies.
CASE: Republic vs. dela Rosa - Frivaldo was allowed to take his oath immediately after the
decision was rendered without a rehearing two years after. Which was why upon the petition
of the Sol Gen the SC nullified the naturalization decree of Frivaldo because of the procedural
lapses.

6. Oath-taking and issuance of the Certificate of Naturalization

EFFECTS OF CA 473

Suppose that a husband and a father's petition for naturalization was approved and took his after the
re-hearing two years later, will it work to the benefit of the wife and the children?

On the Wife:
- Vests citizenship on the wife provided that she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the
Philippines under Section 4 of C.A. 473. It is no longer necessary for an alien woman to institute
naturalization proceedings. All she has to do is to file before the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation a petition for the cancellation of her Alien Certificate of Registration.
- NEED NOT POSSESS ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS
- CASE: Mo Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration - Wife no longer needs to file a
petition for naturalization for herself. All she has to do is to file before the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation a petition for the cancellation of her Alien Certificate of
Registration. (Controlling Doctrine)
- Before the Mo Ya case it was required that the wife must apply for naturalization and must
possess ALL of the qualifications and none of the disqualifications.

On MINOR Children:

A) If born BEFORE naturalization:

1) If born in the Philippines is a Filipino
-CASE: Co vs. HRET - This was the case of Jose Ong Jr. He was born in the
Philippines and was still a minor when Jose Ong Chuan was naturalized.
"Derivative Naturalization"
2) If born outside the Philippines
2.01. if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the parents naturalization
is a Filipino
2.02. If dwelling outside the Philippines at the time of parents naturalization
is a Filipino only during his minority unless he permanently resides in the
Philippines when still a minor, in which case he will continue to be a Philippine
citizen even after becoming of age

B) If born AFTER naturalization:

1) If born in the Philippines is a Filipino
CASE: Limkaichong vs. COMELEC - Josy Limkaichong was born 19 days after the
naturalization of her father. She is Filipino.

2) If born outside the Philippines shall be considered a Philippine citizen, unless

within one year after reaching the age of majority he fails to register himself as a
Philippine citizen at the Philippine consulate of the country where he resides and to
take the necessary oath of allegiance.
 Citizenship through naturalization is a privilege. Such that it can be cancelled.

Cancellation of Naturalization
(C.A. 473)

a) If it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently;

b) If, within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to some foreign country and establishes
residence there; provided, that 1-year stay in the native country, or 2-year stay in a foreign
country shall be prima facie evidence of intent to take up residence in the same;
c) Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention;
d) Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the parents, either by neglecting to
support them or by transferring them to another school;
e) Petitioner allowed himself to be used as dummy.

NOTE: Not everyone can file for the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization

Who may institute denaturalization proceedings:

Section 18, C.A. No. 473:

Upon motion made in the proper proceedings by the Solicitor General or his representative,
or by the proper Provincial Fiscal, the competent judge may cancel the naturalization
certificate.
-CASE: Limkaichong vs. COMELEC - Decree of naturalization of Josy's father could not be
revoked as it was a form of collateral attack and the one who questioned it was a private
citizen.
-CASE: Republic vs. dela Rosa - The petition was given due course as it was made by the Sol
Gen himself.
What are the effects of denaturalization on the wife and minor children?

If the ground of the denaturalization affects the intrinsic validity of proceedings, the
denaturalization shall divest the wife and children of their derivative naturalization.
-CASE: Republic vs. dela Rosa
-i.e. taking oath before second hearing and other procedural infirmities.
If the ground was personal to the denaturalized Filipino, his wife and children shall retain their
Philippine Citizenship.

Administrative Naturalization
(R.A. 9139)

QUALIFICATIONS:
Applicant must be:

1) Born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth;

-Under Judicial Naturalization the applicant NEED NOT be born in the Philippines.
(Native born aliens)

2) Not be less than 18 years of age at the time of filing his/her petition;
-Judicial = 21 years AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING.

3) Be of good moral character and believes in the underlying principles of the Constitution and
must have conducted himself/herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his/her
entire period of residence in the Philippines and in his relations with the duly constituted
government as well as with the community in which he/she is living;

4) Have received his/her primary and secondary education in any public school or private
educational institution duly recognized by the Department of Education, where Philippine
history, government and civics are taught and prescribed as part of the school curriculum
and where enrolment is not limited to any race or nationality, provided that should he/she
have minor children of school age, he/she must have enrolled them in similar schools;

5) Have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation, from which he/she derives
income sufficient for his/her support and that of his/her family; provided that this shall not
apply to applicants who are college degree holders but are unable to practice their
profession because they are disqualified to do so by reason of their citizenship;
6) Be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of the Philippines; and
-For Judicial Naturalization the applicant must be able to read and write either Spanish
or English and any of the principal Philippine languages. No longer necessary for
Administrative Naturalization only Filipino or any major Philippine dialect.

7) Have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the
customs and traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.

DISQUALIFICATIONS
same as those provided in C.A. 473 (Judicial Naturalization)-

PROCEDURE:

1) Filing of the petition with the Special Committee on Naturalization;

-Judicial Naturalization requires petition to be filed with the proper RTC.

2) Publication of the pertinent portions of the petition once a week for three consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation and posting of the petition in any public or
conspicuous area, and furnishing copies thereof to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Bureau
of Immigration and Deportation, Civil Registrar of petitioners place of residence, and the
National Bureau of Investigation, which shall post copies of such petition in any public or
conspicuous place in their buildings or offices;
- to invite opposition to naturalization on grounds of valid disqualifications.

3) Within 30 days from receipt of their copies of the petition, the DFA, BID, LCR, and NBI will
submit to the Special Committee on Naturalization a report stating whether or not petitioner
has any derogatory record on file, or any such relevant and material information which might
be adverse to petitioners application for citizenship. If there is any adverse report, the
Committee shall allow the petitioner to answer, explain, or refute the same;

4) The committee shall then approve or deny the petition;

5) If petition is granted, the petitioner shall take an oath after 30 days from approval and after
payment of P100,000.00
- Judicial Naturalization, oath taking can only be done after re-hearing after two years
from first hearing.
Effects of Administrative Naturalization (RA 9139):

Wife and minor children of the applicant may file a petition for cancellation of their alien
certificates of registration with the Special Committee on Naturalization.

But if the applicant is a married woman, the approval of the petition shall not benefit her alien
husband, although her minor children may avail of the right to seek cancellation of their alien
certificate of registration.

Cancellation of Administrative Naturalization

The Special Committee on Naturalization may cancel certificates of naturalization on any or all of the
grounds:

1) If the naturalized person or his duly authorized representative made any false statement or
misrepresentation or committed any violation of law, rules and regulations in connection with the
petition, of if he obtains Philippine citizenship fraudulently or illegally;

2) If, within five years, he shall establish permanent residence in a foreign country, provided that
remaining for more than 1 year in his country of origin or 2 years in any foreign country shall be prima
facie evidence of intent to permanently reside therein;

3) If he allowed himself or wife or child with acquired citizenship to be used as dummy;

4) If he, his, wife or child with acquired citizenship commits any act inimical to national security.
Loss of Philippine Citizenship (C.A. No. 63)

a) By naturalization in a foreign country

Modified by R.A. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act; Sept. 17, 2003)
where former Filipinos who were naturalized in other states may reacquire Philippine
citizenship by executing oath of allegiance to the Philippines.

b) By express renunciation of citizenship

CASE: William Yu vs. Miriam Defensor-Santiago - Happened when Miriam was head of
Immigration.Yu secured a Portuguese passport and entered into commercial contracts
and signed them as a Portuguese. This was an express admission of having renounced
Philippine citizenship.

c) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution of a foreign country upon

attaining 21 years of age; provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine
citizenship in any manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country.
Modified by R.A. 9225
"Indelible Allegiance" - We cannot repudiate our citizenships in times of war. Filipinos
expected to remain loyal to defend country. One can be prosecuted for treason when
found to have violated this.
d) By rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country;
provided, that the rendering of service to, or acceptance of such commission in, the armed forces of
a foreign country and the taking of oath of allegiance incident thereto, with consent of the Republic
of the Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of the following
circumstances are present:
1) The Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign
country;
2) The said foreign country maintains armed forces in Philippine territory with the
consent of the Republic of the Philippines.

e) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization;

f) By having been declared by competent authority a deserter of the Philippine armed

forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted.
If a person is divested or stripped of his Philippine citizenship, may that person still reacquire
Philippine citizenship? YES.

Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship

1) Under R.A. 9225 by taking the oath of allegiance required of the

former natural-born Filipinos;
Under RA 9225 those who can avail are former natural born Filipinos who were
naturalized in other states.
CASE: Calilung vs. Datumanong - RA 9225 is valid. It does not promote dual allegiance.
Once a person executes an oath of allegiance to the Philippines, he/she is loyal to the
country as if foreign allegiance has been renounced. It then becomes the problem of
the other state whether or not the repatriated Filipino would still retain allegiance to
their country.
CASE: Lewis vs. COMELEC - "Duals" under RA 9225 can vote under the Overseas
Absentee Voters Act (RA 9189). Lewis wanted to vote under a separate law, COMELEC
disallowed Lewis but SC allowed Lewis to vote under RA 9189.
CASE: Eusebio Lopez vs. COMELEC (2008) - SC resolved the issue on whether or not
dual citizens can run for elective post. Lopez was a natural born Filipino who got
naturalized in the US and applied for repatriation under RA 9225 and executed oath of
allegiance. Filed COC for Brgy. Chairman. Qualification was questioned by opposition,
Lopez could not qualify as he was a dual citizen. Invoking cases of Valles and Manzano
where SC ruled that filing of COC has the effect of repudiating foreign allegiance. BUT
SC DISAGREED, LOPEZ MAY NOT QUALIFY. Cases of Valles and Manzano were the
results of the cross application of the jus sanguinis and jus joli principles, whereas
Lopez became a dual through RA 9225. If a dual citizen wants to run for elective post
he/she has to execute 2 AFFIDAVITS: first, affidavit of oath of allegiance; second,
affidavit repudiating any and all foreign allegiance (par. 2, Sec. 5, RA 9225).
CASE: Maquiling vs. COMELEC, Rommel Arnado (2013) - Arnado was a dual citizen
under RA 9225 and ran for mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. Petittion for
disqualification was filed by Maquiling. Arnado argued that he executed both affidavits,
the oath of allegiance and repudiation. But Maquiling argued that Arnado's execution
of the affidavit of repudiation was not sincere because after Arnado executed such
affidavit, he made several trips to the US using his US passport. SC: Maquiling was
sustained. Arnado's repudiation was not sincere and was disqualified.
CASE: Poe vs. COMELEC - Dual citizens may run for elective office.
2) By naturalization
NOT administrative naturalization as such would ONLY apply to native-born aliens.
Whereas, reacquisition refers to natural-born Filipinos.

3) By repatriation
R.A. 965 for those who rendered service to, or accepting commission in, the armed
forces of an allied foreign country during the war.
R.A. 2630 for persons who lost citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
commission, in the armed forces of the United States.
P.D. 725 - for Filipino women who lost citizenship by marriage and for natural-born
Filipinos.
R.A. 8171 - For Filipino women who lost their citizenship by reason of marriage to
aliens and for former natural-born who lost Filipino citizenship on account of political
or economic necessity.
-CASE: Tabasa vs. CA - Alleged that father was naturalized on account of political
or economic necessity. But SC held that Tabasa was unable to prove such and
even if he was able to prove it, Tabasa COULD NOT apply for repatriation under
RA 8171. Only FILIPINO WOMEN who were married to aliens for reasons or
political or economic necessity can apply for repatriation under RA 8171.
Children cannot apply for repatriation under RA 8171 as soon as they reach the
age of majority.
-CASE: Bengzon III vs. HRET - Repatriation has the effect of restoring back the
previous status of the person. Such that if a person was a natural-born Filipino
he will be reverted to being a natural-born Filipino upon repatriation.
-CASE: Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, Altarejos vs. COMELEC - Effect of repatriation
SHOULD BE RETROACTIVE to the date of the filing of petition for repatriation.

4) By direct act of Congress

Long shot because repatriation by direct act of Congress would have to originate from
the House of Representatives and would have come in the form of a private bill that
would affect one person.
CASE: Manzano, Valles - Intentional: dual allegiance. Unintentional: dual citizenship.
Dual Citizenship/Allegiance

Section 5, Article IV, 1987 Constitution:

Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by
law.

Constitution does not prohibit DUAL CITIZENSHIP but DUAL ALLEGIANCE as dual
citizenship is a voluntary act.
SC: Sec. 40 of LGC regarding the prohibition of those with dual citizenships from seeking
elective post should be read as THOSE WITH DUAL ALLEGIANCE. Dual citizens may be
allowed to run.
Sec. 5, Art. IV is not self-executing and has to be facilitated by law. However, there is no
law that appropriates for the penalty of those with dual allegiance.