PEOPLE/CITIZENSHIP

A. Modes of Acquisition; Citizens of the Philippines

 Citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution
o Article 4, Section 1 (1), 1987 Constitution
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
(We have to look into prior laws or previous laws in citizenship that vests
Filipino Citizenship. We only have to look at rules in the past that were not
carried over in the 1987 constitution. Implication: you have to examine rules on
citizenship of 1935 consti)
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

 Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 221697 &

221698-700, 8 March 2016. (Grace Poe v. COMELEC)

Facts:

 Grace Poe was a foundling and was adopted by Fernando Poe and
Susan Roces at the age of 5. (assumed that she was born in 1968
 She studied abroad, got married to a fellow Filipino in the
Philippines but opted to reside abroad.
 Went to PH to support her father’s candidacy then went back to
US but went home to PH again after the death of her father.
 Sold properties and belongings in US and executed an Oath of
Renunciation of Nationality of the US
 In 2012, she filed with the COMELEC her COC for Senator where
it was stated that her perion of residence in the PH was 6 yrs and
6 months.
 In 2015, she filed with the COMELEC her COC for and declared
that she is a natural-born citizen and that her residence in the
Philippines was 10 yrs and 11 months already.
 Estrella Elamparo (Elamparo) filed a petition to cancel said COC.

RA 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 (Citizenship Retention and
Re-acquisition Act of 2003.)

Respondents Argument:
(Elamparo)

 Grace Poe committed material misrepresentation when she stated

in her COC that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and that she
is a resident of the Philippines for at least ten (10) years and eleven
(11) months up to the day before the 9 May 2016 Elections.
 CITIZENSHIP: Elamparo argued that petitioner cannot be
considered as a natural-born Filipino on account of the fact that
she was a foundling. Elamparo claimed that international law
does not confer natural-born status and Filipino citizenship on
foundlings. Following this line of reasoning, petitioner is not
qualified to apply for reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under
R.A. No. 9225 for she is not a natural-born Filipino citizen to begin
with. Even assuming arguendo that petitioner was a natural-born
Filipino, she is deemed to have lost that status when she became a
naturalized American citizen. According to Elamparo, natural-
born citizenship must be continuous from birth.
 RESIDENCY: Elamparo pointed out that petitioner was bound by
the sworn declaration she made in her 2012 COC for Senator
wherein she indicated that she had resided in the country for only
six (6) years and six (6) months as of May 2013 Elections.
Elamparo likewise insisted that assuming arguendo that
petitioner is qualified to regain her natural-born status under R.A.
No. 9225, she still fell short of the ten-year residency requirement
of the Constitution as her residence could only be counted at the
earliest from July 2006, when she reacquired Philippine
citizenship under the said Act. Also on the assumption that
petitioner is qualified to reacquire lost Philippine Citizenship,
Elamparo is of the belief that she failed to reestablish her domicile
in the Philippines.
(Tatad)
 Tatad theorized that since the Philippines adheres to the principle
of jus sanguinis, persons of unknown parentage, particularly
foundlings, cannot be considered natural-born Filipino citizens
since blood relationship is determinative of natural-born status.
Tatad invoked the rule of statutory construction that what is not
included is excluded. He averred that the fact that foundlings
were not expressly included in the categories of citizens in the
1935 Constitution is indicative of the framers' intent to exclude
them. Therefore, the burden lies on petitioner to prove that she is
a natural-born citizen.
 Neither can petitioner seek refuge under international
conventions or treaties to support her claim that foundlings have a
nationality. According to Tatad, international conventions and
 treaties are not self-executory and that local legislations are
necessary in order to give effect to treaty obligations assumed by
the Philippines. He also stressed that there is no standard state
practice that automatically confers natural-born status to
foundlings.
 Valdez alleged that her repatriation under R.A. No. 9225 did not
bestow upon her the status of a natural-born citizen. 83 He
advanced the view that former natural-born citizens who are
repatriated under the said Act reacquires only their Philippine
citizenship and will not revert to their original status as natural-
born citizens.
 Referring to petitioner's COC for Senator, Tatad concluded that
she did not comply with the ten (10)-year residency requirement.
Tatad opined that petitioner acquired her domicile in Quezon City
only from the time she renounced her American citizenship which
was sometime in 2010 or 2011. Additionally, Tatad questioned
petitioner's lack of intention to abandon her U.S. domicile as
evinced by the fact that her husband stayed thereat and her
frequent trips to the U.S.
Petitioner’s Argument:
 She did not make any material misrepresentation in the COC
regarding her citizenship and residency qualifications for:
a. the 1934 Constitutional Convention deliberations show that
foundlings were considered citizens;
b. foundlings are presumed under international law to have been
born of citizens of the place where they are found;
c. she reacquired her natural-born Philippine citizenship under
the provisions of R.A. No. 9225;
d. she executed a sworn renunciation of her American citizenship
prior to the filing of her COC for President in the May 9, 2016
Elections and that the same is in full force and effect and has not
been withdrawn or recanted;
e. the burden was on Elamparo in proving that she did not
possess natural-born status;
f. residence is a matter of evidence and that she reestablished her
domicile in the Philippines as early as May 24, 2005;
g. she could reestablish residence even before she reacquired
natural-born citizenship under R.A. No. 9225;
h. statement regarding the period of residence in her 2012 COC for
Senator was an honest mistake, not binding and should give way
to evidence on her true date of reacquisition of domicile;
 i. Elamparo's petition is merely an action to usurp the sovereign
right of the Filipino people to decide a purely political question,
that is, should she serve as the country's next leader.
 customary international law dictates that foundlings are entitled
to a nationality and are presumed to be citizens of the country
where they are found. Consequently, the petitioner is considered
as a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
 she claimed that as a natural-born citizen, she has every right to be
repatriated under R.A. No. 9225 or the right to reacquire her
natural-born status. Moreover, the official acts of the Philippine
Government enjoy the presumption of regularity, to wit: the
issuance of the 18 July 2006 Order of the BI declaring her as
natural-born citizen, her appointment as MTRCB Chair and the
issuance of the decree of adoption of San Juan RTC. She believed
that all these acts reinforced her position that she is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines.
 she maintained that as early as the first quarter of 2005, she started
reestablishing her domicile of choice in the Philippines as
demonstrated by her children's resettlement and schooling in the
country, purchase of a condominium unit in San Juan City and the
construction of their family home in Corinthian Hills.
 she insisted that she could legally reestablish her domicile of
choice in the Philippines even before she renounced her American
citizenship as long as the three determinants for a change of
domicile are complied with. She reasoned out that there was no
requirement that renunciation of foreign citizenship is a
prerequisite for the acquisition of a new domicile of choice.
ISSUE:
With regard to: a) being a foundling, and b) her repatriation, is the
petitioner a natural-born citizen of the Philippines? YES to both

Did the petitioner meet the 10-year residency requirement for running as
president? YES.
Did the petitioner commit material misrepresentation in her Certificate of
Candidacy? NO.

SC Clarifying the issue: The factual case is not who the parents of
petitioner are, as their identities are unknown, but whether such parents
are Filipinos.

RULING:
 The tribunals which have jurisdiction over the question of the
qualifications of the President, the Vice-President, Senators and the
 Members of the House of Representatives was made clear by the
Constitution. There is no such provision for candidates for these
positions.
 (1) there is high probability that Poe’s parents are Filipinos, as being
shown in her physical features which are typical of Filipinos, aside from
the fact that she was found as an infant in Jaro, Iloilo, a municipality
wherein there is 99% probability that residents there are Filipinos,
consequently providing 99% chance that Poe’s bilogical parents are
Filipinos. Said probability and circumstancial evidence are admissible
under Rule 128, Sec 4 of the Rules on Evidence.
 (2) Foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens. While the 1935
Constitution's enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no
restrictive language which would definitely exclude foundlings either.
 Domestic laws on adoption also support the principle that foundlings are
Filipinos. These laws do not provide that adoption confers citizenship
upon the adoptee. Rather, the adoptee must be a Filipino in the first place
to be adopted.
 Foundlings are likewise citizens under international law. Under the 1987
Constitution, an international law can become part of the sphere of
domestic law either by transformation (if source is treaty) or
incorporation (if source is GAPIL and CIL). The transformation method
requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law
through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. On the other
hand, generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the
incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land
even if they do not derive from treaty obligations.
 principle that a foundling is presumed born of citizens of the country
where he is found, contained in Article 2 of the 1961 United Nations
Convention on the Reduction of Stateless
o Article 3, Section 1, 1973 Constitution
SECTION 1. The following are 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 (1935).

(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

 SEC. 2. 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.

SEC. 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided

by law.

SEC. 4. 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.

o Article 4, Section 1, 1935 Constitution

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. (refers to different set of rules prior to 1935 consti)

(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 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.

SEC. 2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or re-acquired in the manner provided

by law.

 Section 4, Philippine Bill of 1902 (AN ACT TEMPORARILY TO

PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE AFFAIRS OF CIVIL
GOVERNMENT IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES)
Section 4. 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 the Philippine
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 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.
  Section 2, Jones Law of 1916
Section 2.―Philippine Citizenship and Naturalization.
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 and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands, except 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, 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
possessions of the United States, and such other persons residing in the
Philippine Islands who are citizens of the United States, or who could
become citizens of the United States under the laws of the United States if
residing therein.

 Valles v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 137000, 9 August 2000.

Ph bill of 1902
Jones law
Jus Sanguinis
 Tecson v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 161434, 3 March 2004.
 Roa v. Insular Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 7011, 30 October 1912.
**Roa Doctrine (Jus Soli) was overturned on Sept, 16, 1947 by SC on case
of Tan Chong (only Jus Sanguinis is applicable).
**You only benefit from Roa doctrine if you have been judicially declared
as Filipino citizen before Sept 16, 1947.

laws not carried out: 1) Ph Bill of 1902 & Jones Law 2) Roa Doctrine
 Teotimo Rodriguez Tio Tiam v. Republic, G.R. No. L-9602, 25 April
1957.
 Caram, Jr. v. Laureta, G.R. No. L-28740, 24 February 1981.
 Chiongbian v. de Leon, G.R. No. L-2007, 31 January 1949.
o Children of Filipino Fathers or Mothers
 Article 4, Section 1 (2), 1987 Constitution
Section 1. The following are 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 born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
 [4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

o Citizens by Election
 Article 4, Section 1 (3), 1987 Constitution
Section 1. The following are 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 born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

 Commonwealth Act 625

AN ACT PROVIDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OPTION TO
ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP SHALL BE DECLARED BY A
PERSON WHOSE MOTHER IS A FILIPINO CITIZEN

Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:

Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with

subsection (4), section 1, Article IV, of the Constitution shall be expressed
in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before
any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the
nearest civil registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid
statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the
Government of the Philippines. (formal election of filipino citizenship)

Section 2. If the party concerned is absent from the Philippines, he may

make the statement herein authorized before any officer of the
Government of the United States authorized to administer oaths, and he
shall forward such statement together with his oath of allegiance, to the
Civil Registry of Manila.

Section 3. The civil registrar shall collect as filing fees of the statement, the
amount of ten pesos.

Section 4. The penalty of prision correccional, or a fine not exceeding ten

thousand pesos, or both, shall be imposed on anyone found guilty of
fraud or falsehood in making the statement herein prescribed.

Section 5. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved, June 7, 1941.

  Cueco v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. L-18068, 26 May 1962

Pursuant to this provisions, two (2) conditions must concur in order that
the election of Philippine citizenship therein mentioned may be effective,
namely: (a) the mother of the person making the election must be a citizen
of the Philippines; and (b) said election must be made "upon reaching the
age of majority."

 Co v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 92191-92, 30

July 1991.

The filing of sworn statement or formal declaration is a requirement for

those who still have to elect citizenship. For those already Filipinos when
the time to elect came up, there are acts of deliberate choice which cannot
be less binding. Entering a profession open only to Filipinos, serving in
public office where citizenship is a qualification, voting during election
time, running for public office, and other categorical acts of similar nature
are themselves formal manifestations of choice for these persons.

 In Re: Application of Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, 1 October 1999.

 Villahermosa v. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-1663, 31
March 1948
 Republic v. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883, 13 January 2004

B. Naturalization: Judicial, Administrative, Legislative

o Article 4, Section 1 (3), 1987 Constitution

Section 1. The following are 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 born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
o Article 4, Section 2, 1987 Constitution

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.

o Judicial Naturalization under Commonwealth Act 473

No. 473. AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION, AND TO REPEAL ACTS NUMBERED
 TWENTY-NINE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN AND THIRTY-FOUR HUNDRED
AND FORTY-EIGHT.
 Qualifications
 a. Republic v. Huang Te Fu, G.R. No. 200983, 18 March 2015.
 Disqualifications
 Procedure
a. Republic v. Li Ching Chung, G.R. No. 197450, 20 March 2013.
b. Republic v. Hamilton Tan Keh, G.R. No. 144742, 11 November 2004
c. Republic v. Michael Hong, G.R. No. 168877, 23 March 2006.
d. Sy v. Republic, G.R. No. L-32287, 28 February 1974.
e. Ong Chua v. Republic, G.R. No. 127240, 27 March 2000.
f. Republic v. Kerry Lao Ong, G.R. No. 175430, 18 June 2012.
g. Republic v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 104654 105715 & 105735, 06 June 1994
 Effects of Naturalization
 a. Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-21289, 4
October 1971.
 Denaturalization
 a. Republic v. Li Yao, G.R. No. 35947, 20 October 1992.
 b. Republic v. Guy, G.R. No. L-41399, 20 July 1982.
 Effects of Denaturalization
 a. Republic v. Li Yao, G.R. No. 35947, 20 October 1992.
o Administrative Naturalization under Republic Act No. 9139
 So v. Republic, G.R. No. 170603, 29 January 2007.
 Special Committee on Naturalization
 Qualifications
 Disqualifications
 Procedure
 Status of Alien Wife and Minor Children
 Cancellation of Certificate of Naturalization
o Legislative Naturalization

C. Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship

o Article 4, Section 3, 1987 Constitution

Section 1. The following are 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 born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
o Loss of Citizenship
 Section 1, Commonwealth Act 63, as modified by Republic Act No. 9225
 Commonwealth Act No. 63.—An Act providing for the ways in which Philippine
citizenship may be lost or reacquired.

Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:

SECTION 1. How citizenship may be lost.—A Filipino citizen may lose his
citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events:

(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;

(2) By express renunciation of citizenship;

(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a

foreign country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more;

(4) By accepting commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign

country;

(5) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization;

(6) By having been declared, by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine

army, navy or air corps in time of war, unless subsequently a plenary pardon or
amnesty has been granted; and

(7) In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the
law in force in her husband’s country, she acquires his nationality.

 Section 18, Commonwealth Act 473

Sec. 18. Cancellation of Naturalization Certificate Issued. - 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 issued and its registration in the Civil Register:

1. If it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or

illegally.

2. If the person naturalized shall, within the five years next following the
issuance of said naturalization certificate, return to his native country or to some
foreign country and establish his permanent residence there: Provided, That the
fact of the person naturalized remaining for more than one year in his native
country or the country of his former nationality, or two years in any other
foreign country, shall be considered as prima facie evidence of his intention of
taking up his permanent residence in the same;
 3. If the petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention;

4. If it is shown that the minor children of the person naturalized failed to

graduate from a public or private high schools recognized by the Office of
Private Education of the Philippines, where Philippine history, government and
civics are taught as part of the school curriculum, through the fault of their
parents either by neglecting to support them or by transferring hem to another
school or schools. A certified copy of the decree cancelling the naturalization
certificate shall be forwarded by the clerk of the Court to the Department of the
Interior and the Bureau of Justice.

5. If it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed himself to be used as a

dummy requiring Philippine citizenship as a requisite for the exercise, use or
enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege.

o Reacquisition of Citizenship
 By taking the Oath of Allegiance under RA 9225
a. Maquiling v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 195649, 16 April 2013
b. Lopez v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 182701, 23 July 2008
 By naturalization
 By repatriation under PD 725 and RA 8171
a. Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 120295, 28 June 1996.
b. Altarejos v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 163256, 10 November 2004.
c. Bengzon III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 142840, 7
May 2001.
d. Tabasa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125793, 29 August 2006.

D. Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance