CONSTITUTION - MIDTERMS NOTES ASSOCIATION

ATTY. BADAYOS - formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable
links. (EX. For external-defense)
STATE AND TERRITORY - one state, the associate, delegates certain responsibilities to other, the
principal, while maintaining its international status as a state. free
associations represent a middle ground between integration and full
ARTICLE 1 - MONTIVIDEO CONVENTION independence. (colonies)

The sate as a person of IL should possess the following qualifications: Is an international law concept embodied in several provisions of the MOA-
1. permanent population AD, most explicitly in paragraph 4 governing GOVERNANCE thus:
2. defined territory - “The relationship between the Central Government and the
3. government Bangsamoro juridical entity shall be associative characterized by shred
authority and responsibility. “
4. capacity to enter intro relations with other states.

MOA-AD PROVISIONS, CONSISTENT WITH ASSOCIATION

“A community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a
definite portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing a
government to which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.”
PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO V. GRP
• MOA-AD: Ancestral Domain
• Creates the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE)
• TO be entered by GRP and the MILF as part of the peace process in
Mindanao
• Petition for Prohibition - to enjoin GRP from entering into the MOA-AD
being unconstitutional
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT
The constitution does not contemplate nay state in this jurisdiction other than
the Philippine State. The BJE, created by the MOA-AD, is a state.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT
BJE is not a state. It is only an “expanded version” of the ARMM, which is
allowed in the 1987 Constitution. Therefore not Unconstitutional.
ISSUE: WON BJE is a state; AN associated state.
• BJE’s capacity to enter into economic and trade relations with foreign
countries.
• Commitment of the Central Government to ensure the BJE’s participation
in meetings ad events in the ASEAN and the specialized UN agencies.
• Continuing responsibility of the Central government over external defense.
• BJE’s right to participate in the {H official missions bearing negotiation of
border agreements, environmental protection, and sharing of revenue
pertaining to the bodies of water adjacent to or between the islands forming
part of the ancestral domain.
- diplomats have immunities (exceptions) because he is representing
a state and this immunity is an off-shoot to the state.
- right to participate in an official diplomatic mission, the BJE
sending a diplomat of its own and diplomats having immunities presupposes
that BJE has also sovereign immunity therefore passes the 4th requisite.
- BJE is an association state.
• BJE is a state in all name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the
Montivideo Conventions, namely:
1. permanent population
2. defined territory
3. government
4. capacity to enter intro relations with other states.
THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY
ARTICLE 1 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial
and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the
insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
(b) “archipelago"means a group of islands, including parts of islands,
interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely
interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an
intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically
have been regarded as such.
TRACING WHAT COMPRISES THE PH ARCHIPELAGO
• 1987 PROVISION = 1973 PROVISION
• “the PH archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein”
• According to Committee Chairman Quintero of the 1972 Constitutional
Convention, reference must be made to the 1935 Constitution.

1935 CONSTITUTION
FIRST The PH archipelago with all the islands and waters
all the territories, islands and waters embraced in the following treaties:
embraced therein
SECOND all other territories to which the PH has sovereignty and
jurisdiction. TREATY OF PARIS • PH Archipelago, with doubts arising from
COMPONENTS terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its the line draw by the technical description
territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular of Article III.
shelves, and other submarine areas. TREATY OF • Islands of Sulu + Cagayan de Sulu
WASHINGTON
INTERNAL waters around, between, and connecting the islands of
WATERS the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and 1930 TREATY (GREAT • Turtle Island + Mangoes Island
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the PH. BRITAIN AND US)

BATANES • “all other territories over which the resent

THE PH ARCHIPELAGO Government of the PH islands exercises
jurisdiction”
• A cluster of islands forming a territorial unity
• A unit of water studded with islands • there were more than 3 treaty
because there were confusions as to
Article 46, UNCLOS III which islands is covered under PH
For the purposes of this Convention: archipelago.
• 1935 concon believed that Batanes
(a) "archipelagic State" means a State constituted wholly by one or more
was not stated in the 3 treaties; but
archipelagos and may include other islands;
under UNCLOS it was already part
of the PH archipelago.
 • Malaysia asserts that the agreement and contract in Bahasa was ceded.
ARCHIPELAGIC PRINCIPLE
• Waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters KALAYAAN ISLANDS GROUP (PD 1596 issued by Marcos)
of the PH.
• subject to the sovereignty of the PH.
• single, indivisible unit or territory
• provides the limitation fo this territory.
• in UNCLOS III if you are island, it will generate maritime zones:
territorial sea, contiguous zone (sovereign rights) , EEZ (sovereign • RA 9522 - present baseline law
rights), high seas (not owned by any state); any foreign ship can pass - both Kalayaan and Scarborough are territories which we have
by it without asking permission. acquired jurisdiction and dominion over.
• drawing baselines from the outermost part which compromise the
internal waters as a single unit; no other state can unilaterally go (C) COMPONENTS OF TERRITORY
inside the internal waters. consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial
sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
(B) ALL OTHER TERRITORIES TO WHICH THE OH HAS
SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION
TERRESTRIAL DOMAIN - Land

territories which are outside the PH archipelago: FLUVIAL - Waters (bays, rivers)
SABAH
AERIAL DOMAIN - where outer space starts, is the
end of our aerial domain.

SPRATLYS/KALAYAAN ISLAND GROUP TERRITORIAL SEA - 12 nautical miles; marginal sea

(FREEDOM LAND)
SEABED - beyond 12 nautical miles; surface
BAJO DE MASINIOC/ SCARBOROUGH
SHOAL area of the land that holds the sea
SUBSOIL - everything beneath the surface soil
MARIANAS ISLANDS
and seabed
INSULAR SHELVES - directly under the water beyond the
BATANES
territorial sea
OTHER SUBMARINE AREAS
SABAH CLAIM (SECTION 2, RA 5446)
• The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the PH archipelago
as provided in this Act. ARTICLE 5 - NORMAL BASELINE
• People of inhabitants of Sabah, exercise their self-determination thru a • Except where otherwise provided in this Convention, the normal baseline
plebiscite WON they want to be part on the Federal republic of Malaysia. for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along
• PH questioned its validity as they only leased it to Great Britain.
 the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the • The baselines cannot be drawn from the boundaries or other portions of the
coastal State. rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris but from the “outermost
islands and drying reefs of the archipelago.”
STRAIGHT BASELINE (ARTICLE 7)
• draw imaginary baselines connecting the selected points on the coat NECESSITY OF CLASSIFYING REGIME OF ISLANDS
without appreciable departure from the general shape of the coast. • Far from surrendering the PH claims ver the KIG and the Scarborough
• PH EMPLOYS STRAIGHT BASELINE METHOD
 Shoal, Congress decision to classify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as
“Regime of Islands” under the Republic of the PH consistent with Article
121 of UNCLOS III manifests the PH state’s responsible observance of its
1. RA 3046
pacta sunt servant obligation under UNCLOS III.
2. RA 5446
• UNCLOS III not a tool to acquire or lose a territory.
3. ART. 47, UNCLOS III
• INTERNAL WATERS (1987 CONSTI)
4. RA 9522
- states have the right over innocent passage. Congress should pass a
law identifying our seaminess but the absence of such, the archipelagic state
- In the current state, we have only 1 baseline law. has the right to suspend if it s prejudicial to their security.
- UNCLOS III provided certain rues in drawing baselines and such was - states can exercise it by virtue of customary international law.
violated y RA 5446 and RA 9522 was passed in order to comply. • ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS (UNCLOS III)
- in drawing baseline you must connect the outermost most point of the • TERRITORIAL SEA (ART. 17 UNCLOS III)
outermost islands
• INNCONCENT PASSAGE (ART. 19, UNCLOS III)
- should not have any appreciable departure from the archipelago;
-not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal
maximum length of 125 nautical miles.
state.
- not depart to any
CONTIGOUS ZONES EEZ
MAGALONA V. EMRITA not extend beyond 24 nautical miles no sovereignty; only sovereign
from the baseline rights.
PETITIONER’s ARGUMENT we exercise sovereign rights.
• RA 9522 reduces PH maritime territory (all the waters that we owned) and exercise control necessary to: COASTAL STATE’S RIGHTS
logically the reach of the PH state’s sovereign power, in violation of Article OVER THE EEZ
1 of the 1987 Constitution, embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and
ancillary treaties
• failed to encompass the framework established in UNCLOS in determining
the baseline.
• It opens the country’s waters to innocent and sea lanes passages hence
undermining our sovereignty and security.
• UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It
is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over
maritime zones.
 CONTIGOUS ZONES EEZ ART. 3, SEC. 1 of 1973 CONSTITUTION

a. prevent infringement of its
customs, fiscal, immigration or
sanitary was and regulations
within its territory or territorial
sea;
b. push infringement of the above
laws and regulations committed
within its territory or territorial
sea.
1. Sovereign rights fro the
purpose of exploring and
exploiting, conserving and
managing the natural
resources; whether living or
non-living, of the waters
superjacent to the sea bed and
of the seabed and its subsoil.
2. Jurisdiction as provided for in
the relevant provisions of
I. Those who are citizens of the PH at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution (look back at 1935 Constitution)
II. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the PH
III. Those who elect PH citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the
constitution of 1935
IV. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law
Almost the same as 1987 Constitution but wordings of par 3 are changed
ART. 3, SEC 1 of 1935 CONSTITUTION

I. Those who are citizens of the PH at the time of the adoption

ARTICLE 12 - 1987 CONSTITUTION
• states shall protect the nations marine wealth exclusively to Filipino
citizens
LIMITATIONS:
1. suppose to determine allowable maximum catch that we can share to
other states over EEZ.
2. when archipelagic state decides to share, it can only be shared to
developing states and and-locked states (don’t have internal waters)
CITIZENSHIP
(1) CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION
• Requires an examination of prior rules on citizenship (identify rules
that are not carried over in the 1987 Constitution, they only apply at a
particular period in time)
• Treated as a citizen if at the time of the adoption, you are already a
citizen of the PH
II. Those born in the pH islands of foreign parents who before the adoption
of this constitution had been elected to public office in the PH islands –
not carried over in 1987
III. Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines
IV. Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and upon reaching
the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship
V. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law
POE LLAMANZARES V. COMELEC
• 1968 – Grace Poe was found abandoned as a newborn infant in the Parish
of Jaro, Iloilo
• 1974 – Grace Poe was legally adopted by FPJ and Susan Roces
• 2016 – Grace Poe ran for President
• Petitions for Disqualification were filed against Poe on the ground of
material misrepresentation because she is not a Natural-born Filipino
Citizen
Petitioner’s Arguments:
• Under 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
• 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.
SC CLARIFYING THE ISSUE
1. The factual issue is not who the parents of petitioner are, as their
identities are unknown, but whether such parents are Filipinos
2. In other words, we can determine whether your parents are Filipinos
even if we do not know who your parents are
3. GRACE POE IS A NATURAL-BORN FILIPINO CITIZEN
A. Statistics
B. Legal presumptions arising form established facts
C. Deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention The exchange
between Commissioners Ragols, Roxas and Montinola reveals that
as a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural born Filipino
citizens
D. International Law
I. GAPIL + PIL = Incorporation
II. The common thread of the UDHR, UNCRC & ICCPR is to
obligate the Philippines to grant nationality form birth and
ensure that no child is stateless. This grant of nationality must be
at the time of birth.
III. 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions relating to the
Conflict of Nationality Laws + 1961 Convention on the
Reduction of Statelesnesss = GAPIL = a foundling is presumed
to have the “nationality of the country of birth”
IV. When do you apply transformation as opposed to incorporation?
• If the source of international law is a treaty = transformation unless
supported by local legislation
• GAPIL & CIL = incorporation, not written, not agreed upon but
became a law by virtue of a traditional long standing belief,
Natural born
• ¬ One that does not have to do anything to acquire or perfect
citizenship
• ¬ It was not by choice of the foundling to be left there.
HELD:
GRACE POE IS NATURAL-BORN
• ¬ Adopting these legal principles from the 1930 Hague
Convention and the 1961 Convention on Statelessness is rational and
reasonable and consistent with the jus sanguinis regime in our
Constitution.
• ¬ The presumption of natural-born citizenship of foundlings
stem from the presumption that their parents are nationals of the
Philippines.
• ¬ As empirical data provided by the PSA show, that
presumption is at more than 99% is a virtual certainty.
VALLES V. COMELEC
1. Private respondent Rosalid Ybasco Lopez
2. Born on May 16, 1934 in Australian
3. Father: Telesforo Ybasco, Filipino
4. Mother: Theresa Marquez, Australian
5. May 11, 1998 Elections: She ran for her 3rd term as Governor of Davao
Oriental
6. Petitioner Valles filed for disqualification against private respondent
Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, contesting her citizenship
GOVERNING LAW ON CITIZENSHIP PRIOR TO 1935
• Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 – All inhabitants of the PH islands
continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the
eleventh day of April, eighteenth hundred and ninety-nine, (when US
and Spain entered into the treaty of Paris, Spain gave the US the
territory and inhabitants) and then resided in the Philippine Islands,
and their children born subsequent thereto; shall be deemed and held
to be citizens of the PH islands
• Integrated the rule of jus sanguinis –your children shall be deemed
and held to be citizens of the Philippines
• Respondent is governed by this law since she was born before the
adoption of the 1935 Constitution
• Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916 also known as the Jones
Law – All inhabitants of the PH 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
We must look into the father of the respondent:
• Inhabitant of the ph
• A Spanish subject on April 11
• Resident of the PH
• Therefore Rosalid Ybasco Lopez is also a Filipino citizen by virtue of
jus sanguinis. Ever since the PH bill of 1902 Jones law lay down to
the 1987 Constitution, we follow the jus sanguinis principle
TECSON V. COMELEC
1. RONALD ALLAN KELLEY POE
2. Date of Birth: August 20, 1939
3. Manila
4. Grandfather: Lorenzo Pou
5. Father: Allan Poe
6. Mother: Bessie Kelley Poe, American
7. His candidacy was challenged on the basis that he made material
misrepresentation by saying that he is a natural-born Filipino
• Respondents contend that he is not a natural born Filipino
• Both parents were foreigners
• Illegitimate child of an American mother
FPJ’S ASCENDANTS ARE FILIPINO CITIZENS
Established by Death certificate: Lorenzo Pou died in Pangasinan
Inferences derived: (where you died is where you spent your days there,
presumed that for the rest of his life he lived in the PH)
1. Born as a subject of the Spanish Crown
2. Petitioner Argued that Lorenzo was not in the PH in 1898 to 1902. SC:
Petitioner has burden to prove that. Otherwise, he’s presumed to be in
the Philippines then.
3. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it should be sound to
conclude or at least presume, that the place of residence of a person at
the time of his death was also his residence before death
Note: Remember what provision applies to a person, according to the date
the statute is enacted
WHY IS FPJ A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?
• Section 1, article 3 1935 Constitution
• Those whose fathers are citizens of the PH
• Even if illegitimate, FPJ is still a Filipino citizen
PH Bill and Jones Law – are not carried over in the 1987 Constitution,
that only applies in a particular period in time
ROA DOCTRINE – no longer operative
• Jus Soli – those born in the Philippines of alien parents are deemed
citizens of the Philippines
• Roa doctrine was pronounced by the Supreme Court on October 30,
1912
• The doctrine was overturned by the SC on September 16, 1947 –
limited application of the Jus Soli principle in the Philippines
• You have to be judicially declared to be a Filipino citizen before
September 16, 1947, if beyond, one is no longer covered by the Roa
Doctrine
• Effective until Sep. 16, 1947: Unlimited application of the Jus Soli
Doctrine in the PH those born before the 1935 Constitution
CITIZENSHIP OF CHILDREN BORN THE PH BEFORE THE 1935
CONSTI
• General rule: they are not Filipino citizens because of Jus Sanguinis
• Exception: Judicially declared to be Filipino Citizens before
September 16, 1947. They are Filipino citizens because of Jus Soli
• Only applies to children born of foreign parents because said
citizenship is doubtful on the basis of jus soli
TIO TIAM V. REPUBLIC
1. Born in Cebu City of Chinese parents on January 12, 1904
2. Filed a Petition for Naturalization before the MTC
3. Weirdly enough, he asked that he be allowed to present evidence to
show that long before the filing of the petition he had already possessed
the status of a Filipino citizen
ACCORDING TO RTC
• Declared petitioner as having already acquired Filipino citizenship
replying apparently on the decision rendered in the cause of Roa vs.
CIC which holds that those born in the pH of alien parents are deemed
Filipino citizens by virtue of the principle of jus soli
ACCORDING TO SC
• Petitioner cannot invoke the said decision in his favor for the reason
that the same has already been overruled in the case of Tan Chong vs.
Sec of Labor
• Neither can petitioner invoke the benefit of the Roa decision even if
he is similarly situated for the reason that he has not been declared a
Filipino citizen by judicial pronouncement before the overruling of
said decision
ROA DOCTRINE NO LONGER CARRIED IN THE 1987 CONSTI,
UNTIL SEPTEMBER 16, 1947 – APPLICATION IS DEPENDENT ON
THE DATE OF FINALITY
CARAM PROVISION UNDER THE 1935 CONSTITUTION
• Article 4, Section 1 (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
• His Syrian dad was elected as a Philippine official
• Concon inserted this provision so that Caram will be considered as
Filipino
• Born in the Philippines to Syrian Parents
CARAM PROVISION NO LONGER CARRIED IN THE 1987 CONSTI
CHIONGBIAN V. DE LEON
• There is a need to be a Filipino in order to own vessels that time
• Commissioner of Customs was threatening to cancel Petitioner
Chiongbian’s vessels certificate of registration
• Philippine Shipping Administration threatening to rescind the sale of
three vessels to petitioner
• Basis: petitioner is not a Filipino citizen and therefore not qualified by
law to operate and own vessels of Philippine registry
• Petitioner petitioned the SC to permanently prohibit the 2 respondents
from the threatened cancellation and rescission
PETITIONER:
• Son of Victoriano Chiongbian, a Chinese citizen who was elected in
1925 as Municipal Councilor of Plaridel, Misamis Occidental
SC RULING:
• Members of the ConCon could not have dedicated a provision of our
Constitution merely for the benefit of one person without considering
that it could affect others
• The mere deletion of the phrase “and their descendants” is not
determinative of any conclusion. It could have been done because the
learned framers of our Constitution considered t superfluous, knowing
full well that the meaning of such a phrase was adequately covered by
subsection 3
CARAM PROVISION NO LONGER CARRIED IN THE 1987 CONSTI
• No need to go over provision in the past because it is already carried
over in the 1987 PH constitution
• But take note of those that aren’t carried over so the present provision
may not affect retroactively those who relied on the statutes governing
them beforehand
(2) THOSE WHOSE FATHERS OR MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS OF
THE PH
• Both the 1973 Constitution and the 1987 Constitutions follow this
rule
• The 1935 Constitution limits its application to Fathers
• Prospective in Application
• In the 1935 consti, it has a different rule: must not be applied
retroactively
(3) CITIZENS BY ELECTION
• Article 4, Section 3, 1987 Constitution
• Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers who elect
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority
o If either of these 2 are not present, you cannot elect Filipino
citizenship
How do we elect Filipino citizenship?
CA 625: MANNER OF ELECTION (FORMAL)
• ¬ Section 1: 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 PH
• ¬ Notarized election of Philippine Citizenship
1. 1. Notarized affidavit statement of election of PH citizenship
2. 2. Oath of allegiance
WHEN TO ELECT?
General Rule: Within 3 years upon reaching the age of majority
Exception: There is justifiable reason for the delay
CUECO V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
1. Chinese Father + mother claimed to be Filipino
2. February 16, 1923
3. Came of age 194
4. Election of citizenship – May 15, 1951, 28 yo
5. May 19 1521, asked the commissioner of Immigration to cancel his
Alien Certificate of Registration because accordingly he has already
elected Filipino citizenship
6. 947 – petitioner knew that he had to make a formal election
ISSUES THAT AROSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS:
• Mom is not a Filipino, therefore he cannot elect Philippine Citizenship
• SOJ sad NO. SC did not review the finding as discretionary acts and
determination by SOJ are not subject to mandamus
• At any rate, did petitioner timely elect Filipino citizenship?
UPON REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY
• ¬ General rule: it is true that this clause has been construed to
mean a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority, and that the
SOJ has ruled that three years is the reasonable time to elect PH
citizenship under the constitutional provision adverted to above
• ¬ Exception: Period may be extended under certain
circumstances, as when the person concerned has always considered
himself a Filipino
EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY PETITIONER:
• Birth certificate, in which he was referred to as Filipino
• Marriage contract and in the birth certificate of his children, in which
he was referred to as Filipino
• He married a Filipina
• He enlisted in the guerilla forces in December 1942
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE
• He joined a unit of Chinese volunteers
• He registered himself in the BI as a Chinese
SC RULING:
• ¬ Such explanation is patently insufficient to excuse said delay
or to warrant extension of the period to elect Philippine citizenship

CO V. HRET
1. 1948 – Mr. Ong was born of a Chinese Father who was later
naturalized as Filipino, and a Filipina Mother
2. at 9 years old, his Father became naturalized under the RNA
3. Section 15, RNA – Minor children of persons naturalized under this
law who have been born in the Philippines shall be considered citizens
thereof
4. 1987 – he ran as representative of the 2nd District of Northern Samar
and was overwhelmingly voted by his constituents
5. He did NOT formally elect to be a Filipino citizen
6. Constitution requires him to be natural-born
7. Father was naturalized, minor children will follow the citizenship
QUESTIONS:
• Is formal election necessary in the present case?
• Did Mr. Ong elect to be a Filipino citizen
FORMAL ELECTION WAS NOT NECESSARY
• ¬ To expect the respondent to have formally or in writing
elected citizenship when he came of age is to ask for the unnatural and
unnecessary. The reason is obvious.
• ¬ He was already a citizen. Not only was his mother a natural
born citizen but his father had been naturalized when the respondent
was just 9 years old.
YES. MR ONG ELECTED TO BE A FILIPINO CITIZEN
• ¬ The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in
election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine
citizenship (informal)
• ¬ Application of Millare: for those in the peculiar situation of
the respondent who cannot be expected to have elected citizenship, as
they were already citizens, we apply the Re Millare Rule.
ISSUE: are you natural-born even if you elected prior to the 1987
constitution?
• ¬ 1973: 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
• ¬ 1987: 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.
NATURAL BORN, REGARDLESS WHEN ELECTION MADE
• ¬ According to Fr. Bernas, in the records of the deliberation of
the 1987, the provision of Citizenship by Election applies to all those
who elected Filipino Citizenship whether under the 1935, 1973 and
1987 Constitution
• ¬ Regardless of when the election was made, natural-born
status is accorded.
SC RULING
• ¬ Under the 1973 constitution, those born of Filipino fathers
and Filipino mothers with an alien father were placed on equal
footing. They were both considered as natural-born citizens,
• ¬ It is for this reason that the amendments were enacted, that
is, in order to remedy this accidental anomaly, and therefore, treat
equally all those born before the 1973 constitution and who elected
Philippine citizenship either before or after the effectivity of that
Constitution.
IN RE: APPLICATION OF VICENTE CHING
1. Born April 11, 1964
2. Chinese father, Filipina mother
3. Took the 1998 Bar Exams
4. Passed but not allowed to take oath because his citizenship was
challenged
5. July 27, 1999 at 35 years old, he elected Philippine citizenship
CHING
• In the present case, Ching having been born on 11 April 1964, was
already 35 years old when he complied with the requirements of CA
No. 625 on June 15, 1999 or over 14 years after he had reached the
age of majority. Based on the interpretation of the phrase upon
reaching the age of majority
CAN CHING RELY ON IN RE: MILLARE?
• No!
• The facts and circumstances obtaining therein are very different from
those in the present case, thus, negating its applicability. First, Millare
was born before the effectivity
• PH citizenship can never be treated like a commodity that can be
claimed when needed and suppressed when convenient. One who is
privileged to elect PHC has only an inchoate right to such citizenship.
As such, he should avail of the right with fervor, enthusiasm and
promptitude.
• ¬ Implication of inchoate right: during minority, the child is an
alien
REPUBLIC V. CHULE LIM
1. Born October 29, 1954
2. Father Chinese
3. Mother – Filipino
4. Illegitimate child since his father was previously married in China
5. Filed for correction of entries because among others her Birth
Certificate reflects that she is “Chinese” although she claims that she is
a Filipino
ARGUMENTS:
OSG: She is not a Filipino, she did not elect
Chule: I am Filipino, I do not need to elect because I am an illegitimate child
SC: ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN DO NOT NEED TO ELECT
• ¬ The above constitutional and statutory requirements of
electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. These
do not apply in the case of respondent who was concededly an
illegitimate child, considering that her Chinese father and Filipino
mother were never married. As such she was not required to comply
with said constitutional and statutory requirements to become a
Filipino citizen. By being an illegitimate child, of a Filipino mother,
respondent automatically became a Filipino upon birth. Stated
differently, she is Filipino since birth without having to elect Filipino
citizenship when she reached the age of majority.
• ¬ Respondent elected Filipino citizenship by exercising her
right of suffrage.
(4) NATURALIZATION – NATURALIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW
Article 4, Section 1 (3) 1987 Constitution:
• Those who are naturalized in accordance with law
3 MODES OF NATURALIZATION
1. Judicial naturalization – full blown trial
2. Administrative naturalization – special administrative body who has
the function of vesting upon Filipino citizenship, jut present certain
evidence
3. Legislative naturalization – Congress may pass a law specifically for a
group of people so you may be treated as naturalized citizens (e.g PBA
players)
JUDICIAL NATURALIZATION
1. Governed by CA 473 Or Naturalization law
A. SEC. 2 CA 473 QUALIFICATIONS
• 21 years old
• Philippine Residence for 10 years (continuous period)
• Good Moral Character + believes in Constitutional Principles + Conducts
in Proper and Irreproachable Manner
• Real Estate or at least 5k or Lucrative TPLO
• Speak & write E/S + Phil Language
 • Minor children of school age enrolled in schools in the PH for the entire V. Minor child born outside the PH after naturalization acquires
period of the 10 year continuous residence, teaching history, government Filipino citizenship but shall within 1 year after reaching majority age,
and civics register as Filipino citizen at the consulate or residence + oath of
allegiance
B. EXCEPTION TO THE 10 YEAR RESIDENCE, REDUCED TO 5
YEARS MOY YA LIM YAO
i. Held government office • Lau Yuen Yeung
ii. New industry/invention • Chinese citizen
iii. Married to a Filipino woman • March 13, 1961: she came to the pH and allowed under her visa to stay for
iv. Teacher in a PH school for 2 years a month
v. Born in the PH • Several extensions were given to her. The last being until Feb 13, 1962
• Jan 25, 1962: she married Moy Ya Lim Yao, an alleged Filipino Citizen
• Nearing Feb 13, 1962, they filed a Petition for Injunction against COI from
arresting and deporting her.
C. DISQUALIFICATIONS
• ¬ I am a naturalized citizen and my wife will ipso facto be a
A. Opposed to organized govt/affiliated in such org
naturalized citizen
B. Convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude
LAU YUEN YEUNG:
C. Citizens of an enemy country during war time
• 1. Could not write or speak English or Tagalog
D. Defense violence as a legitimate tool
• 2. Could not name any Filipino neighbor
E. Suffering mental alienation/incurable contagious disease
F. Citizens of a country refusing to grant Filipino citizenship
LOWER COURT DENIED THE PETITION
G. Polygamists/believer thereof
• ¬ The clause “who might herself be lawfully naturalized”
H. Have not mingled with Filipinos/no sincere desire to embrace Filipino incontestably implies that an alien women may be deemed a citizen of
customs the PH by virtue of her marriage to Filipino citizen only if she
possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
SEC. 15, CA 473: EFFECTS OF NATURALIZATION specified in the law, because these are the explicit requisites provided
by law for an alien to be naturalized
• ¬ Here she claims to have no disqualification, but she doesn’t
I. Wife acquires Filipino citizenship if she herself may be naturalized
have the disqualifications as well
II. Minor child born in the PH before naturalization acquires Filipino
citizenship
SC DECISION
III. Minor child born outside the PH but residing in the PH at the time of
naturalization acquires Filipino Citizenship • ¬ We now hold, all previous decisions of this Court indicating
otherwise notwithstanding, that under Section 15
IV. Minor child born outside the PH and residing outside the PH at the
time or naturalization acquires Filipino Citizenship only during
minority unless begins to permanently reside in the PH SEC. 18: GROUNDS FOR DENATURALIZATOIN
1. Naturalization obtained fraudulently or illegally
2. Within 5 years from naturalization, returns to native or other foreign • Petitioner’s contention that the qualifications an applicant for naturalization
country and resides therein should possess are those provided for in RA 9139 and not those set forth in
3. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention CA 473 is barren of merit
4. Failure of minor children to graduate from high school through the
fault of their parents INTENT BEHIND RA 9139
5. Allowed to be used as dummy - Was enacted as a remedial

ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION (RA 9139) CA 473 RA 9139 are separate and distinct laws – the former covers all
• ¬ Governed by RA 9139 – different from CA aliens regardless of class while the latter covers native born aliens who lived
here in the PH all their lives,
• ¬ Applies EXCLUSIVELY to native born aliens who lived in
the Philippines all their lives
OPTIONS FOR NATIVE-BORN ALIENS
SO V. REPUBLIC The only implication is that, a native born alien has the choice to apply for
judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the prescribed
1. Edison So
qualifications and disqualifications
2. Native-born Chinese who lived in Binondo, Manila since birth
3. Filed a petition for Naturalization before RTC under CA 473
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATURALIZATION
4. Was only 20 years old at the time of the first hearing
The administrative body before which a native-born alien
5. Lacks some qualifications under CA 473 but fulfills all qualifications
under RA 9139
QUALIFICATIONS 9139
6. RTC approved the petition

1. 18 years old
OSG APPEAL
2. Philippine Residence for 10 years (continuous period)
• He cannot be naturalized by the court/ he must show that he has
qualifications set forth in CA 473, which he failed to do 3. Good Moral Character + believes in Constitutional Principles + Conducts
in Proper and Irreproachable Manner
4. Real Estate or at least 5k or Lucrative TPLO
PETITIONER’s CLAIM:
5. Speak & write E/S + Phil Language
• I can be naturalized under CA 473 and rely on the qualifications under
RA 9139, which I have satisfied 6. Minor children of school age enrolled in schools in the PH for the entire
period of the 10 year continuous residence, teaching history, government
and civics
ON NATURALIZATION AND MODES
7. Disqualifications the same
• Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting foreigner into the
political body of a nation by clothing him
SEC 11: STATUS OF ALIEN WIFE AND MINOR CHILDREN
SC: CA 473 =/= RA 9139
Applicant’s alien lawful wife and minor children may acquire Filipino
citizenship upon:
 himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the
1. Filing a petition for cancellation of their alien certificates of registration Republic of the pH is at war with any country – no longer true
with the Committee on Naturalization D. By rendering services to or accepting commission in the armed
2. Payment of the filing fee and naturalization fee forces of a foreign country
3. Taking of the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines E. By cancellation of the certificates or naturalization
= Alien wife and minor children will be treated as citizens of the PH F. By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of
the pH armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a
plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted
SEC 12: STATUS OF ALIEN HUSBAND AND MINOR CHILDREN
1. it will not benefit the alien husband
MODES OF REACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP
2. the minor children will benefited but will have to follow the 3 things
1. Taking an oath of allegiance under RA 9225
that have to be done under sec. 11.
2. Naturalization
3. Repatriation under PD 725
SEC 13: CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF
NATURALIZATION 4. Repatriation under RA 8171
1. Naturalization obtained fraudulently or illegally
2. Within 5 years from naturalization, returns to native or other foreign TAKING AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE UNDER 9225 (MAQUILING V.
country and resides therein COMELEC)
3. Allowed to be used as dummy 1. Respondent Rommel Arnado
4. Act inimical to national 2. Natural born Filipino citizen who subsequently lost his Filipino
citizenship after becoming a naturalized American citizen
3. July 10, 2008 – took an Oath of Allegiance and applied for repatriation
LEGISLATIVE NATURALIZATION
under RA 9225
• Exercise of function as a legislative body
4. April 3, 2009 – took another Oath of Allegiance + executed an Affidavit
of Renunciation (because he wanted to run for public office)
LOSS OF REACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP 5. Nov 30, 2009 – filed his COC for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte
• Article 4, Section 3, 1987 Constitution for the May 2010 elections
• Philippine citizenship may be lot or reacquired in the manner 6. Candidacy was challenged on the ground that he is NOT a Filipino
provided by law Citizen

MODES OF LOSING CITIZENSHIP ARNADO’S ACTIONS VIS-À-VIS RA 9225

1. Sec 1, CA 63, as amended by RA 9225
A. By naturalization in a foreign country – no longer true RA 9225 – Citizenship Retention and reacquisition act
B. By express renunciation of citizenship Policy: natural-born Filipino citizens who acquired foreign citizenship may
C. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the retain and reacquire Filipino citizenship
constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining 21 years
of age or more: provided however that a Filipino may not divest
= Retention, after the passage of 9225, won’t lose anything to begin with,
they did not lose their Filipino citizenship, only applies to natural-born
Filipinos
HOW TO RETAIN OR REACQUIRE FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP
UNDER RA 9225
Sec. 3 Retention of Philippine Citizenship – any provision of law to the
contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT IF YOU RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
Sec, 5 (2) RA 9225
Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the qualification
for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing
laws
PROBLEMS: USE OF US PASSPORT
• Is Arnado a Filipino citizen?
• Is he qualified to run for Mayor?
Dual citizens by virtue of birth, who are not required by law to take the oath
of renunciation as the mere filing of the certificate of candidacy already
carries with it an implied renunciation of foreign citizenship. Dual citizens by
naturalization, on the other hand, are required to not only take the Oath of
Allegiance to the Republic of the Republic of the pH but also to personally
renounce foreign citizenship in order to qualify as candidate for public office
LOPEZ EUSEBIO EUGENIO LOPEZ
• Natural-born Filipino Citizen
• Subsequently became a naturalized American citizen
• Took an oath of allegiance to the RP in California
• Came back to the PH
• Ran as Brgy. Chairman
Opponent Tessie Villanueva filed for a DQ case against Lopez on the ground
that he is not a Filipino citizen
= He is a Filipino citizen but he is not qualified to run because he did not
execute an Affidavit of Renunciation

The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a
positive and voluntary act of representation as to one’s nationality and
citizenship; it does not divest Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but
recants the Oath of Renunciation required to run for an elective position
DERIVATIVE NATURALIZATION UNDER 9225
Section 4: The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted
below 18 years of age, of those who reacquire Philippine citizenship upon
effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizen of the Philippines

HYPOTHETICAL REPATRIATION UNDER PD 725 - THIS DOES NOT APPLY ANYMORE

Juan Dela Cruz 1. Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to
Born in the US of Filipino Parents aliens – covered under RA 8171
Resides in the PH for 30 years 2. Natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship –
covered under RA 9225
At 35 yo, took an Oath of Allegiance
Then, he ran for Mayor
REPATRIATION UNDER RA 8171
Is he qualified to run for mayor?

1. Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to

aliens
2. Natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship,
including their minor children, on account of political or economic
necessity
FRIVALDO V. COMELEC
WHY RETROACTIVE?
If PD 725 were not to be given retroactive effect, and the special
committee decides, former Filipinos who may be stateless – having already
renounced his American citizenship may be prejudiced for causes outside
their control.

Juan Frivaldo: BENGZON 3 V. HRET

1. ran as Goernor of Sorsogon 3 times Effect of repatriation:
2. first 2 tries: he was judicially declared non Filipino and thus twice Allows the person to recover or return to his original status before he lost his
disqualified from holding and discharging Philippine citizenship
3. Aug 17, 1994 APPLIED FOR REPATRIATION
Dual allegiance – unsettled kind of allegiance of persons who are already
Filipinos who, by their acts, may be said to be bound by a second allegiance.
May 23, 1995: opponent Lee sought for Frivaldo’s DQ
May 8, 1995: Frivaldo overwhelmingly won as Governor
Dual citizenship - Usually a function of the accident of marriage or of birth
June 21, 1995: Application for repatriation was granted
on foreign soil.
June 30, 1995, 2PM: Frivaldo took his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the
pH
June 30, 1995, 8PM: proclaimed as governor

LEE: Frivaldo, you need to be a citizen at the time you filed your COC, not
just after you won the elections

SC: there is yet another reason why the prime issue of citizenship should be
reckoned from the date of proclamation, not necessarily the date of election
or date of filing of the COC

BUT SC did not stop there. It made an even-if argument. Even if citizenship
is required at the time of filing of the COC, Frivaldo is already a Filipino
citizen at the time he filed the COC.

RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF REPATRIATION

- But to remove all doubts, we hold that the repatriation of Frivaldo
Retroacted to the Date of the filing of his application on August 17, 1994
Note: He filed his COC on March 20, 1995