Sees. 4-5 ART.
IV - CITIZENSHIP 183
ARTICLE IV
CITIZENSHIP
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.
Q. What is citizenship?
A. Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent membership in a
political community. It denotes possession within that particular
political community of full civil and political rights subject to special
disqualifications such as minority. Reciprocally, it imposes the duty of
allegiance to the political community.
Q. What are the modes of acquiring citizenship?
A. Modern law recognizes three distinct modes of acquiring citizenship: (1) jus
sanguinis — acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship;
(2) jus soli — acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth; (3)
naturalization — the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with
the privilege of a native born citizen. Basic Philippine law follows the
rule of jus sanguinis and provides for naturalization.
182
Q. Who are citizens of the Philippines?
A. See supra, Section 1.
Q. Who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987
Constitution?
A. Philippine citizens at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution were
those who were citizens under the 1973 Constitution.
Q. Who were citizens of the Philippines under the 1973 Constitution?
A. Section 1 of the article on Citizenship under the 1973 Constitution was the
same as Section 1 under the new Constitution.
Q. Who were citizens of the Philippines at the time of adoption of the 1973
Constitution?
A. They were those who were citizens under Article IV, Section 1 of the 1935
Constitution, namely:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time
of the adoption of the (1935) Constitution;
(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.
Q. How is the principle of jus sanguinis applied in the 1987 Constitution?
A. Section 1(2) declares as Filipino citizens "Those whose fathers or mothers
are citizens of the Philippines." This is the same rule as that under the
1973 Constitution. This means that if a child is born under the 1973 or
1987 Constitution and either his father or mother is a Filipino citizen at
the time the child is born, the child is a Filipino citizen no matter where
he may be born.
184 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sec. 10
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
Q. Emilio Osmena is a holder of an alien registration certificate. He
is also a son of a Filipino father (and a grandson of President Osmena)
and the holder of a valid subsisting Philippine passport, a continuous
resident of the Philippines and a registered voter since 1965. It is
contended that he is an alien and therefore disqualified from holding
public office. Decide.
A. By virtue of his being a son of a Filipino father the presumption
is that he is Filipino and remains Filipino until proof is shown that he has
renounced or lost Philippine citizenship. There is no proof that he has
been naturalized in a foreign country, or has expressly renounced
Philippine citizenship, or has sworn allegiance to a foreign country.
Possession of an alien registration certificate unaccompanied by proof
of performance of acts whereby Philippine citizenship is lost is not
adequate proof of loss of citizenship. Aznar v. COMELEC and Osmena,
185 SCRA 703 (1990).
Q. What is the citizenship of an illegitimate child of a Filipina mother?
A. Filipino. This is true whether the child be born under the 1935 or under the
1973 or 1987 Constitution.
Q. What is the citizenship of an illegitimate child of a Filipino father and an
alien mother?
A. Filipino, if paternity is clear, because of jus sanguinis, which makes no
distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children. This was the
case of Tecson v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004.
Q. If a child was born of a Filipina mother and an alien father before the
effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, do the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions
recognize such child as Filipino?
A. No, unless upon reaching majority the child elects Philippine citizenship
pursuant to the 1935 Constitution. In other words, Section 1(2) of the
1973, which is the same as Section 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution, took
effect only with the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution on January 17,
1973. Hence, children similarly situated but born prior to January 17,
1973 are governed by Section 1(4) of Article IV of the 1935 Constitution.
Q. Who may elect Philippine citizenship under the 1935 Constitution?
A. Those born under the 1935 Constitution whose mothers were Philippine
citizens (at the time at least of their marriage to an alien father) may
elect Philippine citizenship.
Sees. 4-5 ART. IV - CITIZENSHIP 185
Q. When must the election be made?
A. The election must be made within a reasonable period after reaching
majority. InDy Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice, L-18069, May 26, 1962, the
Supreme Court cited with approval the ruling of the Secretary of Justice
to the effect that three years is a reasonable period within which to
make the election, which period, however, may be extended under
certain circumstances as when the person concerned has always
considered himself a Filipino citizen.
Q. How is election made?
A. Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 625, enacted on June 7, 1941, says that
the election must be expressed in a statement sworn before any officer
authorized to administer oaths and filed with the nearest civil registry
and accompanied by an oath of allegiance to the Philippine Constitution.
However, participating in elections and campaigning for candidates, and
similar acts done prior to June 7, 1941, have been recognized as
sufficient to show one's preference for Philippine citizenship. In re
Florencio Mallare, 59 SCRA 45, 52, September, 1974.
Q. May a child born under the 1973 or the 1987 Constitution of a Filipina
mother and an alien father elect Philippine citizenship?
A. No. If the mother was still a Filipina at the time of the birth of the child then
the child is already Filipino by birth, and hence need not elect. If the
mother, however, had lost Philippine citizenship by the time of the birth
of the child, the child has no right of election and may acquire citizenship
only by naturalization. In other words, the provision on election in the
1973 and 1987 Constitution are transitory provisions intended to take
care of those who under the 1935 Constitution could have elected
Philippine citizenship upon reaching majority but had not yet reached
majority at the time of the effectivity of the 1973 or 1987 Constitution.
Q. Should children born under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and
an alien father, who executed an affidavit of election of Philippine
citizenship and took their oath of allegiance to the government upon
reaching the age of majority, but who failed to immediately file the
documents of election with the nearest civil registry, be considered
foreign nationals subject to
186 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sees.
4-5
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
deportation as undocumented aliens for failure to obtain alien
certificates of registration?
A. No. This case involved children who had grown to adult years and for some
reason failed to register their election but had all along acted as citizens.
Among the things which the Court noted was that the 1973
Constitution had already corrected the chauvinistic provision of the
1935 Constitution by making those born of a Filipina mother a citizen
without need for election. Cabiling Ma v. Commissioner, G.R. No.
183133, July 26, 2010.
Q. What is naturalization?
A. Naturalization is the legal act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with
the privileges of a natural-born citizen. A person may be naturalized
either by complying with both the substantive and procedural
requirements of a general naturalization law or he may be naturalized
by a special act of the legislature.
Q. What kind of naturalization laws and procedures have been used in the
Philippines?
A. The following have been used:
1. General law of naturalization applied through a judicial
process. (Revised Naturalization Law, C.A. 473, June 17,1939. This is still
in effect.)
2. Special naturalization law, i.e., an act of the legislature
making a named individual a citizen of the Philippines. E.g., the Republic
Act which made Father James Moran, S.J. a citizen or the Presidential
Decree which made Mr. Ronnie Nathanielz a citizen.
3. Mass naturalization law. The Philippine Bill of 1902 made
Filipino citizens of "all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to
reside in them who were Spanish subjects" on 11 April 1899 "and then
resided in said islands."
4. General law of naturalization applied through a
combination of administrative process and presidential legislative
process (Letter of Instruction No. 270, in effect for a limited period from
its promulgation by President Marcos on April 11,1975.)
Sees. 4-5 ART. IV - CITIZENSHIP 187
5. Administrative Naturalization Law, R.A. 9139, enacted in 2000.
Q. What kind of requirements must an applicant for naturalization satisfy
under the Revised Naturalization Law?
A. Both substantive and procedural requirements.
Q. What are the substantive requirements for naturalization?
A. Briefly, Section 2 of C A. 473 prescribes requirements of age, residence,
moral character and political belief, real property or lucrative
occupation, language, and education of children.
Q. Applicant for citizenship received a favorable decision after the
Fiscal failed to raise any objection. In the hearing after the two year
probation, however, the Fiscal turned around to say that the
respondent had no lucrative business, trade, or profession. May such
subject be raised for the first time in the final hearing?
A. Yes. In re petition of Martin Ng to be admitted a Filipino Citizen,
158 SCRA 492 (1988).
Q. What procedural requirements must be satisfied?
A. The applicant must go through the following steps: declaration of intention,
filing of petition, hearing and initial judgment, period of probation,
rehearing and final judgment.
Q. When does the applicant become a Filipino citizen?
A. Upon taking the oath provided by law after satisfactorily passing the period
of probation.
Q. What kind of requirements must an applicant for naturalization satisfy
under the Administrative Naturalization Law?
A. Both substantive and procedural requirements.
Q. What are the substantive Requirements?
A. a. The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing therein since
birth;
b. The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of
age, at the time of filing of his/her petition;
c. The iapplicant must be of good moral character and believes
in the underlying principles of the Constitution,
188 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sec. 10
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
and must have conducted himself/herself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during his/her entire period of residence in the
Philippines in his relation with the duly constituted government as well
as with the community in which he/she is living;
d. The applicant must have received his/her primary and
secondary education in any public or private educational institution duly
recognized by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, where
Philippine history, government and civics are taught and prescribed as
part of the school curriculum and where enrollment is not limited to
any race or nationality: Provided, that should he/she have minor
children of school age, he/she must have enrolled them in similar
schools;
e. The applicant must have a known trade, business,
profession or lawful occupation, from which he/she derives income
sufficient for his/her support and if he/she is married and/or has
dependents, also that of his/her family: Provided, however, That this
shall not apply to applicants who are college degree holders but are
unable to practice their profession because they are disqualified to do
so by reason of their citizenship;
f. The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino
or any of the dialects of the Philippines; and
g. The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and
evinced desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals
of the Filipino people.
Q. How is the application handled?
A. It is handled through the Special Committee on Naturalization chaired by
the Solicitor General. Sec. 5 & 6, R.A. 9139.
Q. What is the effect ofthe naturalization ofa father on legitimate minor children?
A. In general, the minor children become citizens of the Philippines. (C.A. 473,
Sees. 15,16)
Q. What is the effect on the wife of the naturalized husband?
A. She becomes a Filipino citizen, provided she shows, in an administrative
procedure for the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration,
that she has none of the disqualifications
Sees. 4-5 ART. IV - CITIZENSHIP 189
found in C.A. 473, Sec. 2. Burca v. Republic, 51 SCRA 248 (June 15,1973).
Q. What is the effect of the naturalization of a husband under RA. 9139?
A. Applicant's alien lawful wife and minor children may file a petition for
cancellation of their alien certificates of registration with the Committee.
Sec. 11.
Q. What is the effect of the naturalization of a wife?
A. Her administrative naturalization will not benefit her alien husband but her
minor children may file a petition for cancellation of their alien certificate
of registration. Sec. 12.
SEC. 2. NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS ARE THOSE WHO ARE CITIZENS(3)
OF
THE PHILIPPINES FROM BIRTH WITHOUT HAVING TO PERFORM ANY ACTTHOSE
TO BORN BEFORE JANUARY 17, 1973, OF FILIPINO
ACQUIRE OR PERFECT THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. THOSE WHO ELECTMOTHERS, WHO ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (3), SECTIONUPON REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY
1 HEREOF SHALL BE DEEMED NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS.
Q. Is one who is a Filipino citizen by election a natural-born citizen under
Section 1(3)?
A. Yes, because of the second sentence of Section 2. This is a clarification made
by the 1987 Constitution.
Q. Is this a new rule?
A. Although this rule has been made explicit only under the 1987 Constitution,
there is the view that this was the implicit rule even before 1987, the
reason being that a child born of a Filipina mother already has the
inchoate right to Filipino citizenship from birth. At any rate, the rule as
worded in the 1987 Constitution applies even to those who made their
election prior to the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2,
1987.
Q. Jose was born a Chinese and married a natural born Filipina in 1932. Jose
was eventuaUy naturalized and took his oath of allegiance in 1955. At
that time Jose, Jr. was 9 years old. In 1987 Jose, Jr. was elected to the
House of Representatives.
1. May the citizenship of Jose, Sr., already deceased, be attacked
collaterally in this case?
190 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sec. 10
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
2. Did the minor Jose, Jr. become a Filipino citizen with his
father?
3. Did he have to elect Philippine citizenship when he came of
age?
4. Is he a natural born citizen? A. 1.
No.
2. Yes, under the Naturalization Law.
3. No, because he already was one. It would be unnatural to expect
him to. Election of Philippine citizenship presupposes that you are
not one. Moreover, jurisprudence recognizes both formal and
informal election. See e.g., In re Mallare, 59 SCRA 45 (1974).
4. Yes. He benefits from the curative nature of Section 2. He derives
his status of being a natural born citizen not from his father, who
made election unnecessary for him, but from his mother who
was a natural born Filipina. Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of
Representatives, G.R. No. 92191-92, July 30,1991.
Q. May the law treat natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens differently?
A. No, except in the instances where the Constitution itself makes a
distinction. Otherwise there would be a violation of the equal
protection clause. Chen Teck Lao v. Republic, 55 SCRA 1, 5-6 (1974).
SEC. 3. PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED BY LAW.
Q. What laws govern loss and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship?
A. Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended, and Republic Acts No. 965 and
2639, and P.D. 725 on repatriation.
Q. May a certificate of naturalization be canceled?
A. Yes, if it is shown to have been obtained fraudulently or illegally, or if the
person is shown to have violated the prohibitions
Sees. 4-5 ART. IV - CITIZENSHIP 191
imposed on him by C.A. 473, Section 18. But to justify cancellation of
such certificate, the evidence must be "clear, unequivocal and
convincing" and not merely preponderant. Citizenship acquired through
naturalization is not second-class citizenship. Republic v. Cokeng, 23
SCRA 559 (1963) and 34 SCRA 668 (1970).
Q. After naturalization proceedings, Cesar Guy took his oath of
allegiance on December 22,1959. The government sought the
cancellation of his certificate of naturalization on the ground that (1)
during the pendency of his petition for naturalization he filed a sworn
application for a timber license falsely claiming that he was Filipino (for
which he was subsequently convicted for perjury), and that (2) on
December 12, 1963 he was convicted of rape. On May 28, 1974, the
lower court ordered the cancellation of his certificate on the ground that
it had been obtained fraudulently and illegally. On appeal, Guy
contended that both convictions were after the two-year probationary
period and after the final judgment on his citizenship and hence could
not be used against him. Decide.
A. 1. A decision in a naturalization proceeding is not res judicata as
to any of the matters which could support a judgment canceling the
certificate for illegal or fraudulent procurement. In fact, the certificate
may be canceled for acts committed after naturalization.
2. Perjury, committed during the pendency of his petition, is
evidence of lack of good moral character; hence his having been able to
obtain citizenship despite this misconduct rendered his acquisition
thereof fraudulent or illegal. (The Naturalization Law allows cancellation
of a certificate of naturalization if it is found to have been obtained
"fraudulently or illegally.") Republic v. Cesar Guy, G.R. No. 41399, July
20,1982.
Q. Petitioner was issued a Portuguese passport in 1971. He was
given naturalization as Filipino citizen in 1978. In 1980, however, he still
declared his citizenship as Portuguese in commercial documents and in
1981 he still obtained a Portuguese passport which expired in 1986. Has
petitioner renounced Philippine citizenship?
A. Yes, his actions constitute renunciation. "While normally the
question of whether or not a person has renounced his Philippine
citizenship should be heard before a trial court of law in adversary
proceedings, this has become unnecessary as this Court, no less, upon
insistence of petitioner, had to look into the facts and satisfy itself on
whether or not petitioner's claim to continued Philippine citizenship is
meritorious." In Willie Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, G.R. No. 83882, January
24,1989.
192 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sec. 10
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
Q. Labo went through a process of naturalization as Australian
and thereafter took the oath of allegiance renouncing Philippine
citizenship. He claims that his acquisition of Australian citizenship was
invalid and that therefore he was still Filipino citizen qualified to run for
Philippine office.
A. Whether or not he acquired Australian citizenship validly is
between him and Australia. The fact is he renounced Philippine
citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to Australia. And since he has
not taken any of the steps for re-acquiring Philippine citizenship, he is
not one now and is not qualified to hold an elective office. Labo, Jr. v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 86564, August 1,1989.
Q. Frivaldo does not deny that he was naturalized an American
citizen. He, however, claims that his naturalization was involuntary since
it was the only way he could stay in the United States and thereby
protect himself from Mr. Marcos. Moreover, he claims that by
participating in the Philippine political process and filing his certificate of
candidacy, he thereby renounced American citizenship and reacquired
Philippine citizenship. Decide.
A. He is not Filipino. There were many Filipinos similarly situated
in the United States, but they did not find it necessary to abandon
Philippine citizenship nor pledge allegiance to the United States. And by
participating in the political process of the Philippines, at best it would
have rendered him stateless. As to reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship, if he really wanted to he could have easily done so through
the process of repatriation. He did not. Frivaldo v. Comelec, 174 SCRA
245 (1989).
Q. How may lost citizenship be reacquired?
A. Either by naturalization or repatriation.
Q. What is repatriation?
A. Repatriation is the recovery of original citizenship. Thus, if what was lost was
naturalized citizenship, that is what will be reacquired. If what was lost
was natural born citizenship, that will be reacquired. Bengzon v. Cruz,
G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001.
Q. Who may be repatriated?
A. Under Republic Act No. 8171 only (1) women who lost citizenship by
marriage and (2) those who lost citizenship for political or economic
reasons may be repatriated. Tabasa v. CA, August 29,2006.
Sees. 4-5 ART. IV - CITIZENSHIP 193
Q. How is repatriation accomplished?
A. The current law on the subject is found in Republic Act No. 8171. Section 2
says:
Repatriation shall be effected by taking the necessary oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the
proper civil registry and in the Bureau of Immigration. The Bureau of
Immigration shall thereupon cancel the pertinent alien certificate of
registration and issue the certificate of identification as Filipino citizen to
the repatriated citizen.
Q. Is the registration of petitioner's repatriation with the proper civil registry
and with the Bureau of Immigration a prerequisite in effecting
repatriation?
A. Yes. Altarejos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 163256, November 10,2004.
Q. Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. On November 5, 1985,
however, he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and, without the
consent of the Republic of the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to
the United States. As a consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship. On
June 5, 1990, he was naturalized as an American. On March 17,1994, he
reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under Republic
Act No. 2630. He ran for and was elected as the Representative of the
Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11,1998 elections. Was he a
natural born Filipino citizen?
A. As defined in the same Constitution, natural-born citizens "are those citizens
of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship." On the other hand,
naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through
naturalization, generally under Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise
known as the Revised Naturalization Law. Cruz was not naturalized but
repatriated. Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those
who lost their citizenship due to: (1) desertion of the armed forces; (2)
service in the armed forces of the allied forces in World War II; (3)
service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other time; (4)
marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and (5) political and economic
necessity. As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization,
repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and registering said oath in the Local Civil
 194 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sees.
4-5
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last
resided. Repatriation, as the word connotes, results in the recovery of
what had been lost. When what was lost is natural born citizenship,
what is recovered is also natural born citizenship. Having thus taken the
required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the
same in the Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance
with the aforecited provision, respondent Cruz is deemed to have
recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen, a status which he
acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father. There are only two kinds
of citizenship: natural born and naturalized. Since Cruz did not undergo
naturalization, he is natural born. Bengzon v. Cruz, G.R. No. 142840, May
7, 2001.
Q. If a person who has reacquired Philippine citizenship wants to run for office,
what must he do?
A. Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos, who
have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who
reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of
allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for those
seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute
a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship
before an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of
their certificates of candida<y, to qualify as candidates in Philippine
elections. Jacot v. Dal, G.R. No. 179848, November 26, 2008.
Q. A natural born Filipino citizen who becomes a green card resident of the
United States, or who becomes naturalized citizen of America loses his
domicile of origin in the Philippines. Does reacquisition of Filipino
citizenship under R.A. 9225 have the effect of restoring his Philippine
domicile?
A. No. To reacquire domicile he must provide proof of intent to stay in the
Philippines. After he does that, his occasional absence from the
recovered domicile does not have the effect of removing him from the
domicile for as long as he manifests animus manendi et revertendi.
Japzon v. Ty, G.R. No. 180088, January 19,2009.
NOTE: Where a person is natural born Filipino because of a Filipino
mother, and also a natural born American for
Sees. 4-5 ART. IV - CITIZENSHIP 195
having been born in the United States, he has dual citizenship. The INS
certification obtained for him by his father did not confer American
citizenship on him because he was already one. His travels under a US
passport did not strip him of Philippine citizenship. The fact that he had
dual citizenship did not disqualify him from running for office. Nor did he
have to renounce his American citizenship if he wanted to run for local
office. The need for renunciation applies only to those who reacquired
Philippine citizenship through R.A. 9225. Cordora v. Comelec, G.R. No.
176947, February 19,2009.
Q. Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace,
Broome, Western Australia, to the spouses, Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino
citizen and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. This was a year before the
1935 Constitution took into effect. Was Rosalinda a Filipino citizen?
A. At that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the
principal organic acts by which the United States governed the country.
These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine
Autonomy Act of August 29,1916, also known as the Jones Law. Under
both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish
subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their children
were deemed to be Philippine citizens. Private respondent's father,
Telesforo Ybasco, was born on January 5,1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte,
a fact duly evidenced by a certified true copy of an entry in the Registry
of Births. Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law,
Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the
same laws, Telesforo's daughter, herein private respondent Rosalind
Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a citizen of the Philippines. Valles v. Comelec,,
G.R. No. 137000, August 9,2000.
Q. In the above case, Valles claims that Ybasco Lopez had renounced her
Filipino citizenship because she had applied for an Alien Certificate of
Registration (ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR), on
September 19, 1988, and because she had been issued an Australian
passport on March 3,1988. Decide.
A. In order that citizenship may be lost by renunciation, such renunciation
must be express. Petitioner's contention that the application of private
respondent for an alien certificate
196 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sec. 10
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
of registration, and her Australian passport, is bereft of merit. This issue
was put to rest in the case of Aznar v. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703, and in
the more recent case of Mercado v. Manzano and COMELEC, G.R. No.
135083, May 26, 1999. In the case of Aznar, the Court ruled that the
mere fact that respondent Osmena was a holder of a certificate stating
that he is an American did not mean that he is no longer a Filipino, and
that an application for an alien certificate of registration was not
tantamount to renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.
And, in Mercado v. Manzano and COMELEC, it was held that the
fact that respondent Manzano was registered as an American citizen in
the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and was holding an
American passport on April 22,1997, only a year before he filed a
certificate of candidacy for vice-mayor of Makati, were just assertions of
his American nationality before the termination of his American
citizenship.
Thus, the mere fact that private respondent Rosalind Ybasco
Lopez was a holder of an Australian passport and had an alien certificate
of registration are not acts constituting an effective renunciation of
citizenship and do not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship.
For renunciation to effectively result in the loss of citizenship, the same
must be express. Valles v. Comelec, G.R. No. 137000, August 9,2000.
Q. Valles also maintains that even on the assumption that the private
respondent had dual citizenship, still, she is disqualified to run for
governor of Davao Oriental; citing Section 40 of Republic Act 7160
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, which states:
"SEC. 40. Disqualifications. — The following persons are
disqualified from running for any elective local position:
(d) Those with dual citizenship;
A. Again, petitioner's contention is untenable. In the aforecited case of
Mercado v. Manzano, the Court clarified "dual citizenship" as used in the
Local Government Code and reconciled the same with Article IV, Section
5 of the 1987 Constitution on dual allegiance. Recognizing situations in
which a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act, and as an
involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries,
be also a citizen of another state, the Court explained that dual
Sees. 4-5 ART. IV - CITIZENSHIP 197
citizenship as a disqualification must refer to citizens with dual
allegiance. The Court succinctly pronounced: . . the phrase 'dual
citizenship' in R.A. No. 7160,... (d) and in R.A. No. 7854,... must be
understood as referring to 'dual allegiance.' Consequently, persons with
mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification."
Furthermore, it was ruled that 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. The filing of a certificate of candidacy
sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing any
disqualification as a dual citizen. This is so because in the certificate of
candidacy, one declares that he/she is a Filipino citizen and that he/she
will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. Such declaration, which is
under oath, operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.
Therefore, when the herein private respondent filed her certificate of
candidacy in 1992, such fact alone terminated her Australian citizenship.
Valles v. Comelec, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000.
Q. Valles maintains further that when citizenship is raised as an issue in judicial
or administrative proceedings, the resolution or decision thereon is
generally not considered res judicata in any subsequent proceeding
challenging the same; citing the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner
of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292, he insists that the same issue of citizenship
may be threshed out anew.
A. Petitioner is correct insofar as the general rule is concerned, i.e., the
principle of res judicata generally does not apply in cases hinging on the
issue of citizenship. However, in the case oiBurca v. Republic, 51 SCRA
248, an exception to this general rule was recognized. The Court ruled in
that case that in order that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in
cases of citizenship, the following must be present:
1) a person's citizenship be raised as a material issue in a
controversy where said person is a party;
2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took
active part in the resolution thereof; and
198 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sec. 10
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
3) the finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court.
Although the general rule was set forth in the case of Moy Ya Lim
Yao, the case did not foreclose the weight of prior rulings on citizenship.
It elucidated that reliance may somehow be placed on these
antecedent official findings, though not really binding, to make the
effort easier or simpler. Indeed, there appears sufficient basis to rely on
the prior rulings of the Commission on Elections in SPA.-N0. 95-066 and
EPC 92-54 which resolved the issue of citizenship in favor of the herein
private respondent. The evidence adduced by petitioner is substantially
the same evidence presented in these two prior cases. Petitioner failed
to show any new evidence or supervening event to warrant a reversal
of such prior resolutions. However, the procedural issue
notwithstanding, considered on the merits, the petition cannot prosper.
Valles v. Comelec, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000.
Q. What is the effective date of the repatriation when approved.
A. In the case of former natural born citizens, the effective date is the date of
application for repatriation not the date when repatriation was
approved. Lee v. Commission on Elections & Frivaldo, G.R. No. 120295,
June 28,1996. (Plurality opinion.)
Q. Petitioner claims that she was an illegitimate daughter of a Filipina mother;
that she was erroneously registered as an alien; that she lost her
citizenship upon marriage to an alien; that her alien husband has died.
She petitioned the CFI for "judicial repatriation" and the court declared
her ^judicially repatriated." Was the repatriation proper?
A. No. There is no law authorizing "judicial repatriation." All that is needed is
for the woman to take the necessary oath of allegiance and to register
the oath in the proper civil registry. However, the petitioner's claim of
Philippine citizenship prior to her marriage may not be established in an
action where the mother or her heirs are not made parties. Philippine
citizenship may not be declared in a non-adversary suit where affected
persons are not made parties. Dugcoy Jao v. Republic, G.R. No. 29397,
March 29,1983.
(NOTE: Compare with People v. Avengonza, G.R!. No. 27976,
December 7,1982.)
Sees. 4-5 ART. IV - CITIZENSHIP 199
Q. Does the repatriation of a mother entitle her minor son to a declaration that
he is entitled to Philippine citizenship?
A. Yes . Republic v. Honorable Judge Tandayag, G.R. No. 32999, October
15,1982 (Reiterating Talaroc v. Uy, 92 Phil. 52 [19521).
SEC. 4. CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES WHO MARRY ALIENS SHALL
RETAIN THEIR CITIZENSHIP, UNLESS BY THEIR ACT OR OMISSION THEY ARE
DEEMED, UNDER THE LAW, TO HAVE RENOUNCED IT.
Q. What was Philippine law on the citizenship of the Filipina married to an alien
before the 1973 Constitution?
A. Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, Section 1(7), a Filipino woman loses her
Philippine citizenship "upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of
the laws in force in her husband's country, she acquires his nationality."
The 1973 Constitutional provision repeals this statutory rule and the
1987 Constitution made it applicable not just to female citizens.
SEC. 5. DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS INIMICAL TO THE NATIONAL
INTEREST AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW.
Q. Does the Constitution allow dual citizenship?
A. Because Philippine law has no control over citizenship laws of other
countries, dual citizenship can be unavoidable under the present
Constitution. A child of a Filipina mother is a Filipino [Section 1(2)] and
might also have his alien father's citizenship. A Filipina married to an
alien remains a Philippine citizen (Section 2) but might also require her
alien husband's citizenship.
Q. Does not Section 5 in effect prohibit dual citizenship?
A. The specific target of this new provision is not dual citizenship but dual
allegiance arising from e.g., mixed marriages or birth in foreign soil. This
was seen as more insidious than dual citizenship. To the extent,
however, that dual citizenship also imports dual allegiance, then it must
also be "dealt with by law." In other words, the Constitution leaves the
disposition of the problem of dual citizenship and dual allegiance to
ordinary legislation.
200 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sees. 4-5
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
Q. Explain how R.A. 9225 operates.
A. What R.A. 9225, the Dual Citizenship Law, has done is to
liberalize the reacquisition and retention of natural born
Philippine citizenship. The law deals with two classes of
persons: (1) Filipinos who lost their citizenship prior to the
enactment of RA 9225 and (2) Filipinos who become citizens
of another country after the effectivity of R.A. 9225.
Regarding those who lost Philippine citizenship prior to
R.A. 9225, the law says:
Section 2. Declaration of Policy — It is hereby
declared the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens
of another countiy shall be deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship
— Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
natural-born citizenship by reason of their naturalization
as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to
have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the
following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
"I ______________________ solemnly swear
(or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and
obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the
duly constituted authorities of the Philippines;
and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept
the supreme authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that
I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily
without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
What Section 3 is saying is that one who lost his citizenship
prior to R.A. 9225 reacquires his citizenship upon taking the
prescribed oath. For its part, Section 2 says that such person
is deemed not to have lost or never to have lost his Philippine
citizenship. (See In re Benjamin M. Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678,
December 17,2007. Also Crisologo v. Tan, Comelec Resolution,
May 4,2010.)
For those who lose their citizenship after R.A. 9225, the
applicable law is the last paragraph of Section 3:
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after
the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign
Sees. 4-5 ART. IV - CITIZENSHIP 201
country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
aforesaid oath.
R.A. 9225 also provides for derivative citizenship as well as civil and
political rights and liabilities.
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship — The unmarried child,
whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18)
years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon
effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizenship of the
Philippines.
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities — Those
who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall
enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant
liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines
and the following conditions:
(1) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage
must Meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the
Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing laws;
(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall
meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by
the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of
the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an oath;
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe
and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their
assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of
allegiance to the country where they took that oath;
(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the
Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or
permit to engage in such practice; and
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any
public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended
to, those who:
202 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sees.
4-5
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
(a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office
in the country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or
(b) are in active service as commissioned or non-
commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country which ARTICLE V
they are naturalized citizens.
SUFFRAGE

SECTION 1. SUFFRAGE MAY BE EXERCISED BY ALL CITIZENS OF

THE PHILIPPINES NOT OTHERWISE DISQUALIFIED BY LAW, WHO ARE AT
LEAST EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND WHO SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN THE
PHILIPPINES FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR AND IN THE PLACE WHEREIN THEY
PROPOSE TO VOTE FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING
THE ELECTION. NO LITERACY, PROPERTY, OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE
REQUIREMENT SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THE EXERCISE OF SUFFRAGE.

Q. What is suffrage?
A. Suffrage traditionally has been understood as the right to vote in elections.
Under the 1973 Constitution, Article V, Section 4, however, it was given
the additional meaning of the obligation to vote. The 1973 provision has
not been carried into the 1987 Constitution.
Q. Who may exercise suffrage?
A. "Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall
have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place
wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately
preceding the election."
Q. Why has the voting age been lowered to eighteen years?
A. In order to broaden the mass electoral base and in order to emphasize the
role of the youth in public affairs.
Q. What does "residence" mean?
A. The term "residence" as used in the election law has two meanings. In the
requirement of residence in the Philippines, resi

203
204 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sees.
4-5
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
dence is synonymous with "domicile," which imports not only intention to
reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention. In order to acquire a domicile by choice,
there must concur: (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an
intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. In
other words, there must be an animus non reuer- tendi and an animus
manendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an
indefinite period of time. The acts of the person must conform with his
purpose. The change of residence must be voluntary; the residence at the
place chosen for the domicile must be actual; and to the fact of residence
there must be added the animus manendi. Gallego v. Verra, 73 Phil. 453,455-6
(1941).
With respect, however to the requirement of residence in the
place where one is to vote, residence can mean either domicile, as
described above, or temporary residence. Thus, one domiciled in a
municipality in Camarines Sur but is assigned by his company to Quezon
City has a choice of either voting in Camarines Sur or in Quezon City if he
has been "residing" in Quezon City for at least six months. This certainly
is the doctrine that can be dawn from Faypon. Faypon makes no sug-
gestion at all that his registration away from his domicile was invalid. 96
Phil. 294,299-300 (1954).
NOTE: In Romualdez v. Regional Trial Court, 226 SCRA 408, 415
(1993), Philip Romualdez returned from the United States where he
had sought asylum after the EDSA Revolution. He was allowed to
register as a voter in Tolosa, Leyte. His residence (and also domicile) in
Tolosa, Leyte, established in the early 1980's, was recognized as never
having been abandoned in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Q. May citizens residing abroad exercise their right of suffrage?
A. R A. 9189 now allows citizens residing abroad to vote even if they are
recognized as immigrants by the country of their residence. They may
vote for President, Vice-President, Senators, and party-list
representatives. But they are required to file an affidavit "prepared for
the purpose by the Commission [on Elections] declaring that he/she
shall resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not
later than three (3) years from approval of his/her registration under
this Act."
Sec. 1 ART. V - SUFFRAGE 205
The affidavit is meant to be a statement the he or she never
intended to abandon his or her domicile in the Philippines. If no affidavit
is filed, the person is deemed disqualified. But if after filing such affidavit
the person does not reestablish physical residence within three years,
the person is likewise disqualified.
Q. Section 8, of R.A. 8189, which provides a system of continuing registration,
says:
"SECTION 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. —
The Personal filing of application of registration of voters shall be
conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer during regular
office hours. No registration shall, however, be conducted during
the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a
regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election."
Likewise, Section 35 of R.A. 8189, which among others, speaks of a
prohibitive period within which to file a sworn petition for the exclusion
of voters from the permanent voter's list, provides:
"SECTION 35. Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the List —
Any registered voter, representative of a political party . .. may file .
.. except one hundred (100) days prior to a regular election "
These provisions notwithstanding, it is being sought that the
Comelec be compelled to conduct registration during the prohibited
days on the argument that suffrage is a very impotent right. Decide.
A. The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain
procedural requirements he must undergo: among others, the process
of registration. Specifically, a citizen in order to be qualified to exercise
his right to vote, in addition to the minimum requirements set by the
fundamental charter, is obliged by law to register, at present, under the
provisions of Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the "Voter's
Registration Act of 1996.'' The State, in the exercise of its inherent police
power, may enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voter's
registration for the ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and
peaceful election,
206 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sees.
4-5
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
to the incidental yet generally important end, that even preelection
activities could be performed by the duly constituted authorities in a
realistic and orderly manner. Mandamus will not Ue. Kahayan, et al. v.
Comelec, G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001.
Q. Who prescribes disqualifications?
A. The Congress has been given the discretion to create disqualifications.
However, the Congress is prohibited from prescribing any literacy,
property, or other substantive requirements.
Q. Does a law prohibiting voters in a city from voting for elective provincial
officials impose a substantial requirement for the exercise of suffrage
thus violating Article V, Section 1?
A. No. "The prohibition contemplated in the Constitution has reference to
such requirements as the Virginia poll tax, invalidated in Harper v.
Virginia Board of Elections, or the New York requirement that to be
eligible to vote in a school district, one must be a parent of a child
enrolled in a local public school, nullified in Kramer v. Union Free School
District, 395 U.S. 621, which impose burdens on the right of suffrage
without achieving permissible state objectives. In this particular case, no
such burdens are imposed upon the voters of the cities of Cebu and
Mandau. They are free to exercise their rights without any other
requirement, save that of being registered voters in the cities where
they reside and the sanctity of their ballot is maintained." Celia v.
COMELEC, L-52304, January 28,1980.
Q. Who are not qualified to vote under the Election Code?
A. The following persons shall not be qualified to vote:
(a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to
suffer an imprisonment of not less than one year, such disability not
having been removed by plenary pardon: Provided, however, That any
person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically
reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five years after service of
sentence.
(b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by
competent court of having violated his allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.
(c) Insane or feeble-minded persons.
Sec. 1 ART. V - SUFFRAGE 207
Q. Have the above disqualifications been in any way affected by the provision
which prohibits the legislature from prescribing any literacy, property or
substantive requirements?
A. It will be noted that the disqualifications found in the Election Code are
"substantive," in that they touch on the "quality" of the voter, as distinct
from the procedural requirement of, e.g., registration. However, unlike
literacy or property qualifications, they are not "neutral" by themselves
but have a direct bearing on the "moral" or "mental" worth of the
individual. It is submitted therefore that these disqualifications are
compatible with the constitutional prohibition. The substantive
requirements prohibited by the Constitution are those which
equivalently impose a penalty for faultless disadvantage such as illiteracy
or poverty.
Q. If eighteen is the minimum voting age, how could fifteen year olds be
allowed to vote, e.g., in the referendum of February 27, 1975?
A. Since the referendum held on February 27, 1975, was purely consultative,
there was no need to apply the voting age qualifications found in the
Constitution. Moreover, the decree calling for the referendum
prescribed separate ballot boxes for those who were below eighteen.
See Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, L-40117, and February
22,1975.
SEC. 2. THE CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE A SYSTEM FOR SECURING
THE SECRECY AND SANCTITY OF THE BALLOT AS WELL AS A SYSTEM FOR
ABSENTEE VOTING BY QUALIFIED FILIPINOS ABROAD.
THE CONGRESS SHALL ALSO DESIGN A PROCEDURE FOR THE
DISABLED AND THE ILLITERATES TO VOTE WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF
OTHER PERSONS. UNTIL THEN, THEY SHALL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE UNDER
EXISTING LAWS AND SUCH RULES AS THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS MAY
PROMULGATE TO PROTECT THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.
Q. Is absentee voting allowed?
A. Yes, under R A. 9189.
Q. What is the rule?
A. Sec. 4 says: "Sec. 4. Coverage. — All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who
are not otherwise disqualified by law, at least eighteen (18) years of age
on the day of elections, may
208 THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sees. Sec. 1 ART. V - SUFFRAGE 209
4-5
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER
vote for president, vice-president, senators and party-list "duals" to actually establish residence and physically stay in the
representatives." Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote. On the
contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that "duals" are most
Q. Does this rule dispense with the residence requirement? likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of
A. No. Section 4 applies to those who have not lost their domicile in the suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under RA. 9189. The Court
Philippines. added that it cannot be overemphasized that R.A. 9189 aims, in
Q. What is the rule on immigrants? essence, to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who,
save for the residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under
A. Sec. 5 says: aAn immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote. Nicolas-Lewis v. Comelec, G.R.
such in the host country, unless he/she executes, upon registration, an No. 162759, August 4,2006.
affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission declaring that
he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence in the The Court seems to have recognized a novel way of amending the
Philippines not later than three (3) years from approval of his/her Constitution, that is, by silence! Because the new citizens under R.A.
registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has 9225 are not specifically required to establish residence in the
not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be Philippines, the conclusion is drawn that residence is not required. To
the cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent bolster the conclusion the Court assimilates the new citizens to
resident from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her absentee voters under R.A. 9189 who, incidentally, are required to file
permanent disqualification to vote in absentia an affidavit as indication that they had not abandoned their Philippine
domicile.
Q. But does not being an immigrant abroad mean that one has lust Philippine
domicile?
A. Not necessarily. Loss of domicile is evidentiary matter. The presumption is
that being an immigrant according to the laws of another country may
not necessarily mean loss of domicile. The required declaration of intent
to return is meant to be an assertion that one has not abandoned
Philippine domicile. However, proof of loss of domicile may be shown in
a exclusion proceeding under the Election Law.
Q. Will those who have reacquired their citizenship through R.A. 9225 and
have dual citizenship have to reacquire Philippine domicile in order to
vote?
A. Section 1 of Article V prescribes residency requirement as a general
eligibility factor for the right to vote. On the other hand, Section 2
authorizes Congress to devise a system wherein an absentee may vote,
implying, the Court surprisingly said, that a nonresident may, as an
exception to the residency prescription in the Section 1, be allowed to
vote. The Court noted there is no provision in the dual citizenship law —
R.A. 9225 — requiring