Naturalization

[Republic v. Liyao]
G.R. No. 35947
Facts:

William Li Yao, a Chinese national, filed for a petition for naturalization on June 3, 1949.In the decision of the
court it was held that he possesses all the qualifications necessary to become a naturalized Filipino but the
decision shall not become executory until after 2 years from its promulgation when the court is satisfied that
during the intervening period, the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines; (2) has dedicated himself to a lawful
calling or profession; (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules;
or (4) committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government announced
policies.

November 20, 1952 – prayed for the execution of the decision of the court and the court allowed him to take
his oath of allegiance as Filipino.

January 5, 1968 – Solicitor General filed a motion to cancel the certificate of naturalization of Yao on the
ground that it was fraudulently and illegally obtained.

Lower court cancelled his certificate of naturalization on the basis that he evaded payment of taxes due to
the government by under declaration of his income. Yao filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.

January 7, 1972 -filed a notice of appeal to the SC. After both parties filed their briefs Li Yao died but the
case is not moot because its disposition would have grave implications for the wife and children of Li Yao.
Issue:
WON the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization of Li Yao made by the government through the office of
the Solicitor General is valid.
Held: Yes.
Ratio:

Based on section 18(a) of Com. Act no. 473 known as the Revised Naturalization Act, which provides that a
naturalization certificate may be cancelled if it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained
fraudulently or illegally.

A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, the decision rendered therein, not
constituting res judicata as to any matter that would support a judgment cancelling a certificate of naturalization
on the ground of illegal or fraudulent procurement thereof.

Lim Eng Yu vs. Republic – concealment of applicant’s income to evade payment of lawful taxes shows that
his moral character is not irreproachable, thus disqualifying him for naturalization.

Even if the Li Yao paid his tax liability via the tax amnesty program its legal effect would merely remove any
civil, criminal or administrative liability on the part of the taxpayer, only insofar as his tax case is concerned.
Tax amnesty does not have the effect of obliterating his lack of good moral character and irreproachable
conduct which are grounds for denaturalization.
 Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced in favor of the government and against the applicant. When the
applicant failed to meet the qualifications required for naturalization, the latter is not entitled to Filipino citizens.

Reacquisition of Citizenship
Angat vs. Republic, 314 SCRA 438Petition:
Petitioner:Gerardo Angat
Respondent:Republic of the Philippines
Ponente:J. Vitug
Date:14 September 1999

Facts:Petitioner Gerardo Angat was a natural born citizen of the Philippines until he lost his citizenship by
naturalization in the United States of America.
-11 March 1996 filed before RTC of Marikina City, Branch 272, a petition to regain his Status as a citizen of
the Philippines [under CA 63, RA 965 and RA 2630]
-30 April 1996 the trial court issued a notice setting the case for initial hearing on
-27 January1997 copy received by the Office of the Solicitor General ("OSG"),
-13 June 1996 Angat sought to be allowed to take his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
pursuant to R.A. 8171
–motion initially denied by the trial judge, but Angat just filed another motion afterwards, and eventually the
court consented.
-3 October 1996 on court order, Angat took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines [pursuant
to RA 8171]
-4 October 1996
, the trial judge issued another order stating, among others, “… the petitioner is hereby repatriated and
declared as citizen of the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171.
-19 March 1997
, OSG asserted that the petition itself should have been dismissed by the court a quo for lack of jurisdiction
because the proper forum for it was the Special Committee on Naturalization [pursuant to AO 285, dated
22 Aug 1996
-22 September 1997 the trial court found merit in the OSG’s assertion: “xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the motion to dismiss filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General is hereby granted. The orders of this Court dated September 20,1996 and October 04, 1996 are
hereby set aside and the herein petition is ordered DISMISSED on the ground of lack of jurisdiction without
prejudice to its re-filing before the Special Committee on Naturalization.”
-13 October 1997 Angat filed motion for reconsideration, questioned the September 1997decision by the trial
court: he asserted that his petition was filed on 14 March 1996, months before the Special Committee on
Naturalization was supposedly constituted [pursuant to AO 285] the trial judge denied the motion for recon. on
29 Dec 1997.
-PD 703: designated the Special Committee on Naturalization as the proper body to process there partitions of
Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens, and natural born Filipinos who have
lost their Philippine citizenship.
-Letter of Instruction No. 270 (amended by LOI 491): among others, defined which public officers constituted
the Special Committee.

Issues:
1. At the time the petition [to regain his Status as a citizen of the Philippines] was filed, did the RTC have
jurisdiction over repatriation cases for natural-born Filipinos?

Ruling:
1. No. The law in effect at the time the petition was PD 703, and according to PD 703
the Special Committee on Naturalization was the proper venue for such a petition, not the RTC.
Ratio 1.

The important question is, at the time the petition was filed, on 11 March 1996, which of therepatriation laws in
effect was/were applicable to the case of the petitioner, Mr. Angat?

Pursuant to PD 703, the Special Committee on Naturalization [chaired by the Solicitor General with the
Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency as the
other members] was the proper body to receive and act on repatriation petitions of natural-born Filipinos, from
5 June 1975 till 27 March 1987, when it was deactivated, "to cease and desist from undertaking any and all
proceedings . . . under Letter of Instruction 270.", by virtue of a Memorandum issued by President Corazon
Aquino. This Special Committee was reactivated on 8 June 1995 and was still in effect at the time the petition
was filed.
SC: “The Office of the Solicitor General was right in maintaining that Angat's petition should have been filed
with the Committee, aforesaid, and not with the RTC which had no jurisdiction there over. The court's order of
4 October 1996 was thereby null and void, and it did not acquire finality nor could be a source of right on the
part of petitioner.”
On the correctness of the initial basis asserted by the petitioner for his repatriation:
“It should also be noteworthy that the petition in Case No. N-96-03-MK was one for repatriation, and it was thus
incorrect for petitioner to initially invoke Republic Act No. 965 and R.A. No. 2630 since these laws could only
apply to persons who had lost their citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the armed
forces of an allied foreign country or the armed forces of the United States of America, a factual matter not
alleged in the petition, Parenthetically, under these statutes, the person desiring to re-acquire Philippine
citizenship would not even be required to file a petition in court, and all that he had to do was to take an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to register that fact with the civil registry in the place of his
residence or where he had last resided in the Philippines.”
Sovereignty
Tañada v. Angara G.R. No. 118295 | May 2, 1997
Petitioners: Wigberto Tanada, et al.
Respondents: Edgardo Angara, et al.

Summary: Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Philippines acceding to the World Trade Organization
for being violative of provisions which are supposed to give preference to Filipino workers and economy and on
the ground that it infringes legislative and judicial power. The WTO, through it provisions on “most favored
nation” and national treatment, require that nationals and other member countries are placed in the same
footing in terms of products and services. However, the Court brushed off these contentions and ruled that the
WTO is constitutional. Sections 10 and 12 of Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) should be read in
relation to Sections 1 and 13 (promoting the general welfare). Also, Section 10 is self-executing only to “rights,
privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony” but not every aspect of trade and
commerce. There are balancing provisions in the Constitution allowing the Senate to ratify the WTO
agreement. Also, the Constitution doesn’t rule out foreign competition. States waive certain amount of
sovereignty when entering into treaties.

Facts:

 This case questions the constitutionality of the Philippines being part of the World Trade Organization,
particularly when President Fidel Ramos signed the Instrument of Ratification and the Senate
concurring in the said treaty.

 Following World War 2, global financial leaders held a conference in Bretton Woods to discuss global
economy. This led to the establishment of three great institutions: International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (World Bank), International Monetary Fund and International Trade Organization.

 However, the ITO failed to materialized. Instead, there was the General Agreement on Trades and
Tariffs. It was on the Uruguay Round of the GATT that the WTO was then established.

 The WTO is an institution regulating trade among nations, including the reduction of tariff and barriers.

 Petitioners filed a case assailing the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution
to “develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos, to give
preference to qualified Filipinos and to promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials
and locally produced goods.”

 It is petitioners’ position that the “national treatment” and “parity provisions” of the WTO Agreement
“place nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products,”
in contravention of the “Filipino First” policy of the Constitution. They allegedly render meaningless the
phrase “effectively controlled by Filipinos.”

Issue 1: Does the petition present a justiciable controversy? YES!

In seeking to nullify the Senate’s act as being unconstitutional, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable
controversy. It becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute
Issue 2: Do the provisions of the WTO Agreement contravene Section 19, Article II and Section 10 & 12,
Artilce XII of the 1987 Constitution? NO!

Petitioners’ Contentions:

 Petitioners argue that the “letter, spirit and intent” of the Constitution mandating “economic nationalism”
are violated by the so-called “parity provisions” and “national treatment” clauses scattered in parts of
WTO Agreement
o This is in view of the most-favored nation clause (MFN) of the TRIMS (trade-related investment
measures), TRIPS (Trade Related aspects of intellectual property rights), Trade in Services,
and par. 4 of Article III of GATT 1994.
o “shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of national
origin”

 Sec. 19, Art II:The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos.

 Sec. 10, Art XII: Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of
enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. In the grant of rights, privileges, and
concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified
Filipinos.

 Sec. 12, Art XII: The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and
locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.”

Ruling:

 These provisions are not self-executing

o Merely guides in the exercise of judicial review and in making laws.

 Secs. 10 and 12 of Article XII should be read and understood in relation to the other sections in said
article, especially Sec. 1 and 13:
o A more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth;
o A sustained increase in the amount of goods and services
o An expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life

 The issue here is not whether this paragraph of Sec. 10 of Art. XII is self-executing or not. Rather, the
issue is whether, as a rule, there are enough balancing provisions in the Constitution to allow the
Senate to ratify the Philippine concurrence in the WTO Agreement. And we hold that there are.

 WTO Recognizes Need to Protect Weak Economies

o Unlike in the UN where major states have permanent seats and veto powers in the Security
Council, in the WTO, decisions are made on the basis of sovereign equality, with each
member’s vote equal in weight.

 Specific WTO Provisos Protect Developing Countries

 o Tariff reduction – developed countries must reduce at rate of 36% in 6 years, developing 24% in
10 years
o Domestic subsidy – developed countries must reduce 20% over six (6) years, developing
countries at 13% in 10 years
o Export subsidy – developed countries, 36% in 6 years; developing countries, 3/4ths of 36% in
10 years

 Constitution Does Not Rule Out Foreign Competition

o Encourages industries that are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets

 The Court will not pass upon the advantages and disadvantages of trade liberalization as an economic
policy. It will only perform its constitutional duty of determining whether the Senate committed grave
abuse of discretion

Issue 3: Does the text of the WTO and its Annexes limit, restrict or impair the exercise of legislative power by
Congress? NO!

 A portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution.

 While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the
domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the
Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations. Unquestionably, the
Constitution did not envision a hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the world.
By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of
international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our laws. A treaty
engagement is not a mere moral obligation on the parties. By their inherent nature, treaties
really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. The Philippines has effectively agreed to
limit the exercise of its sovereign powers of taxation, eminent domain and police power. The
underlying consideration in this partial sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of the other
contracting states in granting the same privilege and immunities to the Philippines, its officials
and its citizens. The same reciprocity characterizes the same commitments under WTO-GATT.
The point is that a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution,
based on the rationale that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of cooperation and
amity with all nations.

 The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact and in reality be considered

absolute. Certain restrictions enter into the picture: limitations imposed by the nature of
membership in the family of nations & limitations imposed by treaty stipulations.