https://batasnatin.

com/law-library/political-and-public-international-law/constitutional-law/1718-
double-jeopardy.html

Dual Citizenship

Valles v. COMELEC
– Australian citizenship; governor of Davao Oriental - Philippine law on citizenship adheres
to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of
the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli
which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of the place of birth; The signing
into law of the 1935 Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for
acquisition of Philippine citizenship; The mere fact of a person is a holder of an Australian
passport and has an ACR are not acts constituting an
effective renunciation of citizenship and don’t militate against her claim of Philippine
citizenship; For candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough that they elect Philippine
citizenship upon the filing of their
certificate of candidacy to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship; A
declaration to support and defend the Constitution is effective renunciation of foreign
citizenship.

Mercado v. Manzano
– candidates for vice-mayor of Makati -Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance.
The former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of
two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states.
Dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some
positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual
allegiance is a result of an individual’s volition;

Under our Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the
Philippines to possess dual citizenship:

a. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the
principle of jus soli
b. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their
fathers’ country such children are citizens of that country
c. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are considered
citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced their
Philippine citizenship

Calilung v. Datumanong

constitutionality of the Dual Citizenship Law (RA 9225) – What RA 9225 does is dual
citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who has lost Philippine citizenship by reason of
their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country; On its face, it does not recognize dual
allegiance; By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly
renounces his foreign citizenship

Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita

–appointment of Ong to the SC; naturalborn – the alleged subsequent recognition of a
person’s natural-born status by the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ cannot amend the
final decision of the trial court stating such individual and his mother were NATURALIZED
along with his father; No substantial change or correction in an entry in a civil register can
be made without a
judicial order; change of citizenship status is a substantial change

Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC
– citizenship retention; absentee voting – There is no provision in the law requiring “duals”
to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can
exercise their right to vote; RA 9225 makes the implicit recognition that “duals” are most
likely non-residents; derivative citizenship (Derivative citizenship - unmarried child below
18 years of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of the Act shall be
deemed citizens of the Philippines).
Petition for Leave to Resume the Practice of Law of Benjamin
Dacanay
– A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost
his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225 but although he is
also deemed to never have terminated his membership in the Philippine Bar, no automatic
right to resume the practice of law accrues; must comply with IBP requirements and take
the lawyer’s oath again.

Loss of Citizenship

Yu v. Defensor Santiago
– Portuguese passport – Yu’s act of applying for a Portuguese passport despite his
naturalization as a Philippine citizen and his act of declaring his nationality as Portuguese
in commercial documents, constitute an EXPRESS renunciation of his Philippine citizenship
acquired through naturalization; Philippine citizenship is not a commodity or ware to be
displayed when required and suppressed when convenient

Frivaldo v. COMELEC
– governor-elect of Sorsogon; American citizenship; repatriation – Loss of naturalized
Philippine citizenship did not and could not have the effect of automatic restoration of
one’s Philippine citizenship; mere filing of certificate of candidacy wherein Frivaldo
claimed that he is a natural born citizen is
not a sufficient act of repatriation; repatriation requires an express and unequivocal act;

Labo v. COMELEC
– mayor of Baguio City; Australian citizenship; “bigamous marriage” – Res judicata does not
apply to questions of citizenship;

Modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost:

a. naturalization in a foreign country
b. express renunciation of citizenship
c. subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign
country; annulment of Labo’s Australian citizenship as a result of finding that his marriage
to an Australian national was bigamous did not automatically restore his Philippine
citizenship; Philippine citizenship may be acquired by direct act of Congress; by
naturalization or by repatriation.

Aznar v. COMELEC
– disqualification of Osmeña; American citizenship – Aznar failed to present direct proof
that Osmeña
had lost his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided by law; The fact the Osmeña
was both a Filipino and an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino;

CITIZENSHIP - Citizens by election

Co v. HRET
- representative; 2nd District of Samar; election of citizenship – The exercise of the right to
suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of
Philippine citizenship; Any election of Philippine citizenship on the part of Jose Ong would
not only have been superfluous but would also have resulted in absurdity considering that
it was the law itself that had already elected Philippine citizenship for him.

In re: Ching
– permission to take the lawyer’s oath; Ching elected Filipino citizenship beyond the
required “upon
reaching the age of majority” – If the citizenship of a person was subject to challenge under
the old charter, it remains subject to challenge under the new charter even if the judicial
challenge had not been commenced before the effectivity of the new Constitution; CA 625
and the 1935 Constitution did not prescribe a time within which the election of Philippine
citizenship should be made; “reasonable time”; “upon reaching the age of majority” – it was
clearly beyond by any reasonable yardstick, the able period to exercise the privilege.

EX POST FACTO LAWS; BILLS OF ATTAINDER

Article 3, SECTION 22

----- Ex post facto laws -----

People v. Jabinal

– possession of unlicensed firearms; secret agent; -

No criminal liability would attach to such possession of said firearm in spite of the absence
of a license and permit. Jabinal must be absolved; Jabinal may not be punished for an act
which at the time it was
done was held not to be punishable; (case of SC abandoning previous decisions; stare
decisis)

----- Bill of Attainder -----

People v. Ferrer

– constitutionality of the [then] Anti-Subversion Act – A bill of attainder is a legislative act

which inflicts
punishment without a trial; Anti-Subversion act not a bill of attainder; It does not specify
the CPP or its members; CPP is used for definition purposes only because in the law, it also
says “any other organization having the same purpose and their successors”; mere
membership to the CPP not punished; even if the Act specifies individuals, this feature is
not enough to consider it a bill of attainder

People v. Sandiganbayan
– violation under Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
– The new 15-year prescriptive period (formerly 10) in the Act cannot be given retroactive
effect because it will be prejudicial to the accused.