Comparison of Philippine Citizenship Laws

A. Spanish Laws on Citizenship

Not all the laws of Spain on citizenship were made applicable to
the Philippines. Those that were effective were extended by Royal
decrees.[1] Four can be traced back as early as the 1800s.
According to Law 3, Book 6, Title II, of Novisima Recopilacion promulgated
in Spain on 16 July 1805, the following were considered citizens:
All foreigners who obtained the privilege of naturalization those who were born in
these kingdoms; those who, residing therein may be converted to the holy Catholic
faith; those being self-supporting, established their domicile therein; those who
ask for and obtain residence in any town thereof; those who marry native women
of said kingdoms and domiciled therein; and in case of a foreign woman who
marries a native man, she thereby becomes subject to the same laws and acquires
the same domicile as her husband; those who establish themselves in the country
by acquiring real property; those who have trade or profession and go there to
practice the same; also those who practice some mechanical trade therein or keep
a retail store;... those who reside for a period of ten years in a home of his own;
and also foreigners who, in accordance with the common law, royal orders and
other laws of the kingdom, may have become naturalized or acquired residence
therein...

Though it is unclear whether or not the Philippines would have been within the
scope of these laws, some authors and Supreme Court justices later argued that
the Philippines, as a colony would have been included as one of the “kingdoms”
in that law:
Moreover, the Government of the Spanish Monarchy, in encouraging the
multiplication of her subjects during the period of her glory and in granting
citizenship by birth in “these kingdoms” which were carried forward in the
Spanish Civil Code in 1889, under the same policy of the multiplication of her
subjects, can have no other intention than to apply said law to the inhabitants of
its dominions, colonies and territories under its sovereignties.[2]

Another law of Spain which involved citizenship was the Order of the
Regency of 14 August 1941. Some provisions stated that:
Foreigners who desire to gain Spanish citizenship should apply for it by means of
an application filed with the Governor-General who was empowered in the
interest of the nation to grant or deny the same. Compliance with this Royal
Decree has been declared absolutely essential for the acquisition of citizenship
with a view to acquire the status of a Spanish subject in the Philippine Islands
prior to the change of sovereignty.[3]
 The Royal Decree of 23 August 1868, promulgated specifically for the
Philippine Islands, provided for the political status of children of foreigners born
in the Philippines. The following were considered foreigners:
First, the legitimate and recognized natural children of a father who belongs to
another independent State, and the unrecognized natural, and other illegitimate
children of a mother belonging to another State born outside of the Spanish
dominions; Second- The children specified in the preceding paragraph, born in
the Spanish dominions or on board Spanish vessels on high seas if they do not, on
attaining the age of majority fixed in the laws of the kingdom, elect Spanish
nationality; Third- Those being Spaniards, acquire another nationality, as well by
renouncing the first as be accepting employment from another government
without authority of the sovereign; Fourth- The woman who contracts marriage
with the subject of another state.[4]

Finally, there was the Law of 4 July 1870 – the “Ley Extranjera de Ultramar”
which was expressly extended to the Philippines by Royal Decree of 13 July 1870,
and published in the Official Gazette on 18 September 1870:
Art. 1. These are foreigners: (a) All persons born of foreign parents outside of the
Spanish territory; (b) Those born outside of the Spanish territory of foreign
fathers and Spanish mothers while they do not claim Spanish nationality; (c)
Those born in Spanish territory of foreign parents, or foreign fathers and Spanish
mothers, while they do not make that claim; (d) Spaniards who may have lost their
nationality; (e) Those born outside of Spanish territory of parents who may have
lost their Spanish nationality; and (f) The Spanish woman married to a foreigner.
For purposes of this article, national vessels are considered a part of Spanish
dominions.

Art. 2. Foreigners who under the laws obtain naturalization papers or acquire
domicile in any town in the Spanish provinces of the Ultramar are considered
Spaniards.

B. Treaty of Paris
To end the six-month hostilities between Spain and the United
States following the declaration of war by the United States in 25 April 1898,
Commissioners met in Paris on 1 October 1898 to produce a treaty that would
bring an end to the war. The treaty was signed on 10 December 1898
whereby Spain yielded possession of the Philippines, along with Puerto Rico,
Guam and Cuba, to the United States. The treaty tackled the disposition of the
Islands ceded by Spain to the United States
Article IX of the Treaty of Paris defined those who were the citizens of
the Philippines. The provision read:
Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which
Spain by present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such
territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of
property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds;
and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce, and
professions, being subject thereof to such laws as are applicable to other
foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may preserve their allegiance
to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the
date of the exchange of ratification of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to
preserve such allegiance; in default of which they shall be held to have renounced
it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside.

The civil and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories thereby
ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.[5]

Under the Treaty, native subjects and Spanish subjects who did not
exercise their option to leave the Philippines, but remained in the country and
adopted the nationality of the Philippines were considered citizens of
the Philippines. However, those Spanish subjects who remained in the
Philippines, but who declared before a court of record their intention to preserve
their allegiance to Spain within a year and a half from the date of ratification of
the treaty (11 April 1900) retained their Spanish nationality.
In the case of Bosque v. U.S., 1 Phil.88 (1908) it was held that the absence
of a Spanish subject from the Philippines during the entire period allowed by
treaty for making a declaration of his intention to preserve allegiance to the
Crown of Spain prevented the loss of his Spanish Nationality by his failure to
make such a declaration. It was opined that under the treaty it was necessary that
he had a residence de facto in the Philippines for the eighteen months following
the ratification of the treaty.
A child under parental authority whose father did not take advantage of
the right of declaration of Spanish citizenship as provided for by the treaty also
was considered a citizen of the Philippines.[6]However, if the child had no parents
or guardians in the Philippines or Puerto Rico at the time the treaty was ratified,
he would retain his Spanish nationality without the necessity of declaring such to
be his intention.[7]

C. The Philippine Bill

The Philippine Bill was enacted by the Congress of the United States on 1
July 1902. It was the composite report of two Philippine Commissions, the work
of the War Departments of the United States, hearing before the committees of
U.S. Congress and legislative conferences. The act was originally thought out to
be a temporary one. It was meant to prepare the Filipinos for independence and
self-governance for a period of at most eight years. However, it became the guide
for the administration of civil government of the Philippines for fourteen years.
It has little character of a constitutional act. Those provisions which one would
expect to find in a constitution, such as establishing the framework for
government, limiting governmental powers, and providing for the political
organization of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, were lacking[8]. An
assembly was, however, authorized for a future date. Most of the sections
concerned general legislation on commerce, the sale and lease of public lands,
utilization of forests, granting of mining claims, municipal bonds and franchises.
The Bill of Rights was also extended.
Section 4 of the Philippine Bill defines who the citizens of
the Philippines were. It stated:
That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who
were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and
ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent
thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as
such entitled to the protection of the United States, except as such as shall have
elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the
provisions of the treaty of peace between the united States and Spain signed at
Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight: Provided, That the
Philippine legislature is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition
Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come
 within the foregoing provisions, the natives of other insular possessions of the
United States, and such other persons residing in the Philippine Island who could
become citizens of the United States if residing therein.[9]

All those that were considered citizens of the Philippines under the
Treaty of Paris were deemed to be citizens under the Philippine Bill.
All those born after 11 April 1899 to parents who were Spanish subjects
on that date and who continued to reside in the Philippines were ipso
facto citizens of the Philippine Islands. In effect the doctrine of jus soli,
citizenship by place of birth, which prevails in the United States, was extended to
the Philippines.[10]
A woman of foreign nationality who married a citizen of
the Philippines was also considered a Philippine citizen as she followed her
husband’s citizenship.[11]
Children born of Chinese fathers and Filipina mothers within
the Philippines, with certain exceptions, were also citizens of the Philippines.
Even though the Chinese father and mother of the child were not legally married,
the child was nevertheless presumed prima facie to be a citizen of the Philippines,
inasmuch as under the law he followed the status of his legally recognized parent,
who is his mother, a Filipina. If such children were taken to their father’s
country during their minority, they still remained citizens of the Philippines.
However, if their fathers’ origin claimed them as citizens under the principle
of jus sanguinis, they were then considered as possessing dual nationality.
Children born in the Philippines of Chinese parents were also considered
citizens of the Philippines.[12] A child born of alien parents, who went to his
father’s native land at a tender age and remained there during minority, on
becoming of age, he should elect Philippine citizenship if he desires to be a
citizen of the Philippines. A failure to express such desire within a reasonable
period of time should be regarded as a strong presumption of his purpose to
become definitely identified with the body politic of his father’s country.[13]
 Citizenship may be lost by the action of a person, either express or
implied. Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation of one’s nationality and
allegiance by becoming a citizen of another country.[14] Actual renunciation may
not be necessary in order to forfeit citizenship; a mere absence for a prolonged
period, without an intention to return may be sufficient. The rule of the
Department of State of the United Statesgovernment was adopted, whereby, a
continued residence abroad for three years, after attainment of majority,
produces a loss of citizenship, unless it is clearly proved that animus
revertendi existed. Commission of certain crimes may also cause the loss of
citizenship[15].

D. The Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones’ Law)

The Philippine Bill was later on superseded by Philippine Autonomy Act.
The latter was superior in various ways to the former. It essentially mirrored a
constitution as it provided for a framework of government, Bill of Rights and
certain positive powers and prohibitions. It, however, retained in toto the same
provision on citizenship as its predecessor. Section 2 of the Act stated:
That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the
eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said
Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed citizens of
the Philippine Islands, except as such as shall have elected to preserve their
allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provision of the treaty of
peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris December tenth,
eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and except such others as have since become
citizens of some other country: Provided, That the Philippine legislature, herein
provided for, is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of
Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come
within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possession of the
United States, or who could become citizens of the United States under the laws
of the United States if residing therein.[16]

As the above-stated provision is just a re-enactment of Section 4 of the

Philippine Bill, all persons considered as citizens under the former law were also
considered as such under the Philippine Autonomy Act. However, it was only in
the latter that the proviso, also found in the Philippine Bill, providing for
suppletory law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship was given effect by
the enactment of Act No. 2927 by the Philippine Legislature in 1920. The said
law constituted the Naturalization Act of the Philippines. Under the law
citizenship may now be acquired by the following groups of people:
a. natives of the Philippines who are not citizens thereof;

b. natives of insular possessions of the United States; and

c. citizens of the United States, or

d. foreigners who, under the laws of the United States, may become citizens of

the later country if residing therein.[17]

E. 1935 Constitution
In the 1935 Constitution, Filipino citizenship was defined, classified and
regulated by Article IV, which stated that:
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines
(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 the Constitution, had been elected to public office in the
Philippine 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.

Section 2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided

by law.[18]

Those who were considered citizens at the time of the adoption of the
constitution included those deemed citizens under the Jones Law: “all
inhabitants of the Philippine Islands, who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day
of April, 1989, and then residing in the said islands, and their children born and
subsequent thereto...” This was in turn a reproduction of Section 4 of the
Philippine Bill of 1902.[19]
 Those who were naturalized according to the Naturalization Law of Act
No. 2927 (March 26, 1920), come under the scope of Section 1(1). Under this
Act, the privilege of naturalization was given to the following persons:
(1) natives of the Philippines who were not citizens of the Philippines, because
they were not living in the Philippines on April 11, 1899, and were not subjects
of Spain on that date, not were they children of Filipino citizens born after that
date; (2) natives of the insular possessions of the United States, such as natives
of Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; (3) residents of the
Philippines who were citizens of the United States; and (4) residents of the
Philippines who could become citizens of the United States under the
American laws if residing there.[20]

As can be seen from the previous citizenship laws, the principle of jus
sanguinis was not applicable prior to the 1935 Constitution. Before Section 1,
which considered citizens those whose fathers were Filipino citizens, the
prevailing doctrine had been jus soli.[21] By recognizing the principle of jus sanguinis,
it was recognized that a blood relationship would serve “as a better guarantee of
loyalty to the country of one’s parents”[22] than jus soli.
Section 1(2), at the time the Constitution was framed, was said to be
inserted for the benefit of Delegate Fermin Caram of Iloilo. Since Caram was
born of Syrian parents and had not been naturalized, an “anomaly of the
Constitution being signed by one who is not a citizen” would have been an issue,
if thus subsection had not been included. However, the Supreme Court has held
that the delegates would not have added such a provision without considering its
effect on others.[23]
Section 1(4) contemplated a situation where only the mother was a
Filipino citizen, and gave the child an opportunity to elect Filipino citizenship
only when he reached the age of majority. Prior to his reaching such an age, he at
most has an inchoate right to Filipino citizenship.[24] The provision is also
applicable to mothers who were Filipinos before acquiring the nationality of
their foreign spouses. To restrict its interpretation in such a way that the time of
election was considered controlling as to the status when the mother should be a
Filipina would have nullified the particular provision.[25] For illegitimate children
however, this provision would not have been applicable, since the citizenship of
the father would not then be material, since an illegitimate child as a rule follows
the nationality of the mother.[26]
The right to elect is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 652, which
states the requirements and procedure for election, and must be express:
Option to elect Philippine citizenship shall be expressed in a statement to be filed
and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer
oath and shall be filed with the nearest civil registrar. The party elected must
likewise accompany the aforementioned statement with the oath of allegiance to
the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines. Where the party
concerned resides abroad, he must make the statement before any officer of the
government of the Philippines authorized to administer oaths and must forward
such statement together with his oath of allegiance to the civil registrar
of Manila.[27]

On the naturalization of non-citizens, Section 1(5) possessed great

significance. Desirable aliens are welcomed, but a balance must be created
wherein the law “bars undesirables without unduly discouraging the worthwhile
aliens desirous of becoming Filipinos.”[28] Naturalization has been defined as the
“legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the rights that belong to a
natural born citizen. Naturalization may be obtained through a general law of
naturalization applied through a judicial process.”[29]

F. 1973 Constitution
Article III, Section 2 enumerates the following as citizens of
the Philippines:
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 nineteen hundred and thirty-five
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

The purpose of the first paragraph of the provision was to protect the
continued enjoyment of Philippine citizenship to those who already possess the
right as of 17 January 1973.
 The Section 2(2) followed the principle of jus sanguinis. However, unlike
the 1935 Constitution, Filipino mothers were placed by the 1973 Constitution on
equal footing with Filipino fathers as far as the determination of the citizenship
of their children was concerned. The father or mother may be a natural-born
Filipino or a Filipino by naturalization or by election. The only important
consideration here was that the mother must be a Filipino at the time of the birth
of the child. It must be reiterated that this rule applied only to those born of a
Filipino mother on or after 17 January 1973.
As the 1973 Constitution followed the doctrine of jus sanguinis, it
disregarded the place of birth of a person. As long as one was born of Filipino
parents, he was considered a Filipino. If he was born in a country where the rule
of jus soli was the prevailing principle, it would be a case of dual citizenship.
The Section 2(3) defined the status of individuals who elect Philippine
citizenship under the 1935 Constitution. Under the said Constitution, a child
born of a Filipina mother married to an alien was considered an alien unless he
elected Philippine citizenship within a reasonable period after reaching the age of
majority. However, if his mother reacquired her Philippines citizenship during
his minority there was no need for election since by operation of law, he is a
Filipino citizen.
Section 2(4) provided for a means by which even individuals, who were
not Filipino citizens by virtue of birth or of Filipino mothers, may become
citizens of the Philippines through naturalization.

G. 1987 Constitution
The 1987 Constitution builds on the previous Constitutions, but modifies
provisions which cannot be found in the 1973 and 1935 Constitution. Those
who were citizens during the adoption of the new Constitution were considered
citizens. However, this does not rectify any defects in the acquisition of such
citizenship under the 1935 or 1973 Constitution. “If a person’s citizenship was
subject to judicial challenge under the old law, it still remains subject to challenge
under the new – whether or not the judicial challenge had been commenced
prior to the effectivity of the new Constitution.”[30]
The principle of jus sanguinis still applies, and in following the lead of the
1973 Constitution, the Filipino woman is placed on the same footing as Filipino
men in matters of citizenship. It is essential, however, that the mother is a
Filipina when the child is born.[31] The principle of parental authority is still
applicable in the new Constitution, so this article only applies to legitimate
children, not to adopted or illegitimate ones. Mothers have parental authority
over illegitimate children. Adopted children, on the other hand, as they are not
related by blood, do not follow their adoptive parents’ citizenship, despite being
under their parental authority.[32]
As for those who were born after the adoption of the 1973 Constitution
of Filipino mothers, the 1987 Constitution still provides the transitory provision
that was also in the 1973 Constitution: “Those born before 17 January 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority.”[33]
Naturalization still remains one of the ways by which a person may
acquire citizenship. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution defines natural born
citizens:
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

In the 1973 Constitution, the second sentence was not yet included.
Furthermore, even under the 1935 Constitution, it was not settled whether the
child of a Filipino mother who elects Philippine citizenship was a natural-born
Filipino or a naturalized one. A liberal view was adopted by the 1987
Constitution, based on the argument that the election retroacts to the moment of
birth, since it was such that gives him potential to make the election.[34]
 However, if a person loses his citizenship and subsequently reacquires
such citizenship, that person would no longer be considered a natural-born
Filipino but a naturalized one (whether under the 1973 or the 1987 Constitution).
An exception to this rule is reacquiring one’s citizenship through repatriation,
where one regains one’s former citizenship.[35]
Section 3 states that “Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in
the manner provided by law.”[36] The loss of citizenship is governed by two laws,
Commonwealth Act No. 63 (for natural-born and naturalized citizenship) and
Commonwealth Act No. 473 (for naturalized citizenship). Under C.A. No. 63,
citizenship may be lost: “through naturalization in a foreign country, by express
renunciation of citizenship, by oath of allegiance to a foreign country, by
rendering service in the armed forces of a foreign country, and by being a
deserter of the armed forces.” Under Commonwealth Act No. 473, one’s
certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if “found to have been fraudulently
obtained, by permanent residence in the country of origin within five years of
naturalization, or when petition is found to have been made on an invalid
declaration of intent, or upon failure to comply with the requirements for the
education of minor children, or if the person allows himself to be a “dummy” for
aliens.”[37]
Reacquisition may happen either through naturalization or repatriation.
Section 4, which states that “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,”[38] modifies the 1973 Constitution by
“making no reference to sex... on the chance that some country might have a law
which divests a foreign husband of his citizenship.”[39]
In Section 5, the Constitution “recognizes the problem of dual allegiance,
but leaves concrete ways of dealing with it to Congress.”[40] The same may be said
of dual citizenship, which is not contemplated in the provision, it being a
“seldom intentional and perhaps never insidious...condition that arises from the
fact that Philippine law cannot control international law, and the laws of other
countries on citizenship.”[41]Dual Citizenship is covered by RA 9225, which
provides that natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of
this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their citizenship after
taking the oath mentioned therein.
As can be seen, though there had been changes from the Spanish Laws to
the Philippine Constitutions, continuity has been maintained. Each Constitution
usually includes a provision to accommodate previous ones. Major changes
include the transition from jus soli to jus sanguinis in the 1935 Constitution, the
equalization of men and women (fathers and mothers) as regards citizenship in
the 1973 Constitution, and the classification of children of Filipino mothers who
needed to elect citizenship as natural-born, the retention of citizenship upon
marriage to foreigners, and the recognition of the problem of dual allegiance in
the 1987 Constitution.