POLITICAL LAW

CITIZENSHIP

 As held in Republic vs. Li Yao, 214 SCRA 748, a certificate of naturalizalion may be cancelled at any
time if it was fraudulently obtained by misleading the court regarding the moral character of the
petitioner.

 One cannot ask for the denial of the petition for the cancellation of his certificate of naturalization on the
ground that he had availed of the tax amnesty. In accordance with the ruling in Republic vs. Li Yao, 224
SCRA 748, the tax amnesty merely removed all the civil, criminal and administrative liabilities of Enzo.
The tax amnesty does not have the effect of obliterating his lack of good moral character and
irreproachable conduct which are grounds for denaturalization.

 On the assumption that he left a family, the death of Enzo does not render the petition for the
cancellation of his certificate of naturalization moot. As held in Republic vs. Li Yao, 224 SCRA 748, the
outcome of the case will affect his wife and children.

 The filing of a certificate of candidacy does not constitute a waiver of the status of the holder of a green
card as a permanent resident of the United States. As held in Coast vs. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA229,
the waiver should be manifested by an act independent of and prior to the filing of his certificate of
candidacy.

 Indeed, a Filipino woman can have dual allegiance resulting from her marriage to a foreigner under Sec.
4, so long as she does not do or omit to do an act amounting to renunciation under Commonwealth Act.
No. 63, Sec. 1(2). Under this law, express renunciation is different from an act of allegiance to a
foreign power as a ground for loss of Philippine citizenship. Moreover, what constitutes "dual
allegiance" inimical to national interest is and what the sanctions for such dual allegiance will be, will
still have to be defined by law pending adoption of such legislation, objection based on dual allegiance
will be premature.

 The Constitution provides that those who seek either to change their citizenship or to acquire the status
of an immigrant of another country "during their tenure" shall be dealt with by law (Art. XI, sec. 17).
The provision cannot apply to Brown for the following reasons: First, Brown is in addition an American
citizen and thus has a dual citizenship which is allowed by the Constitution. (Cf. Art. IV, sec. 4),
Second, Brown did not seek to acquire the status of an immigrant, but is an American by birth under the
principle of jus soli obtaining in the United States. Third, he did not seek to change his status during his
tenure as a public officer. Fourth, the provision of Art. XI, sec. 17 is not self-executing but requires an
implementing law. Fifth, but above all, the House Electoral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide this
question since it does not concern the qualification of a member-elect.

 Under Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution. Zeny retained her Filipino citizenship. Since she also
became a citizen of Kongo, she possesses dual citizenship. Pursuant to Section 40 (d) of the Local
 Government Code, she is disqualified to run for governor. In addition, if Zeny returned to the
Philippines, less than a year immediately before the day of the election, Zeny is not qualified to run for
Governor of Sorsogon. Under Section 39(a) of the Local Government Code, a candidate for governor
must be a resident in the province where he intends to run at least one (1) year immediately preceding
the day of the election. By residing in Kongo upon her marriage in 1989, Zeny abandoned her residence
in the Philippines.

 Although under Section 11(1), Article XVI of the Constitution, mass media must be wholly owned by
Filipino citizens and under Section 2 of the Anti-Dummy Law aliens may not intervene in the
management of any nationalized business activity. Zeny may be elected vice president of the Philippine
Bulletin, because she has remained a Filipino citizen. Under Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution,
Filipino citizens who marry aliens retains their citizenship unless by their act or omission they are
deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. The acts or omission which will result in loss of citizenship
are enumerated in Commonwealth Act No, 63. Zeny is not guilty of any of them. As held in Kawakita
vs. United States, 343 U.S. 717, a person who possesses dual citizenship like Zeny may exercise rights
of citizenship in both countries and the use of a passport pertaining to one country does not result in loss
of citizenship in the other country.

 Yes, Lily Teh ipso facto became a Philippine citizen upon her marriage to Peter Go, who is a Philippine
citizen, provided she possesses none of the disqualifications laid down in Section 4 of the Revised
Naturalization Law. According to to the ruling in Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration,
41 SCRA 292, an alien woman who marries a Filipino husband ipso facto becomes a Filipino citizen
without having to possess any of the qualifications prescribed in Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization
Law provided she possesses none of the disqualifications set forth in Section 4 of the same law. All of
the grounds invoked by the former girlfriend of Peter Go for opposing the petition of Lily Teh, except
for the last one, are qualifications, which Lily Teh need not possess. The fact that Lily Teh is advocating
the unification of Taiwan with mainland China is not a ground for disqualification under Section 4 of the
Revised Naturalization Law.

 On the assumption that TCA took an oath of allegiance to ZOZ to acquire the citizenship of her
husband, she is not qualified to run for mayor. She did not become a citizen of ZOZ merely by virtue of
her marriage, she also took an oath of allegiance to ZOZ. By this act, she lost her Philippine citizenship.
(Section 1 [3], Commonwealth Act No. 63.)

 Julian Mortal can regain his status as a natural born citizen by repatriating. Since repatriation involves
restoration of a person to citizenship previously lost by expatriation and Julian Mortal was previously a
natural born citizen, in case he repatriates he will be restored to his status as a natural born citizen. If he
reacquired his citizenship by an act of Congress, Julian Hortal will not be a natural born citizen, since he
reacquired his citizenship by legislative naturalization.

 Cruz was qualified to run as representative of the First District of Pampanga. Since his parents were
Filipino citizens, he was a naturalborn citizen. Although he became a naturalized American citizen,
under the ruling in Bengson v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. 357 SCRA 545 [2001], by
virtue of his repatriation, Cruz was restored to his original status as a natural-born Filipino citizen.

 According to Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution, Filipino citizens who marry aliens retain their
citizenship, unless by their act oromission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
 According to Mo Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292, under Section 15 of the
Revised Naturalization Law, a foreign woman who marries a Filipino citizen becomes a Filipino citizen
provided she possesses none of the disqualifications for naturalization. A foreign man who marries a
Filipino citizen does not acquire Philippine citizenship. However, under Section 3 of the Revised
Naturalization Act, in such a case the residence requirement for naturalization will be reduced from ten
(10) to five (5) years. Under Section 1(2), Article IV of the Constitution, the children of an alien and a
Filipino citizen are citizens of the Philippines.

 Lacqui Chan is a Filipino citizen and need not elect Philippine citizenship. His father, Hap Chan, was a
Chinese subject, was residing in the Philippines on April 11, 1899, and continued to reside in the
Philippines. In accordance with Section 4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902, he was a Filipino citizen.
Hence, in accordance with Section 1(3} of the 1935 Constitution, Lacqui Chan is a natural born Filipino
citizen, since his father was a Filipino citizen.

 Nicasio no longer possesses Philippine citizenship. As held in Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245,
by becoming a naturalized American citizen, Nicasio lost his Philippine citizenship. Under Section 1(1)
of Commonwealth Act No. 63, Philippine citizenship is lost by naturalization in a foreign country. If
Nicasio was born in the United States, he would still be a citizen of the Philippines, since his parents are
Filipinos. Under Section 1(2), those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines are citizens
of the Philippines. Nicasio would possess dual citizenship, since under American Law persons born in
the United States are American citizens. As held in Aznor vs. COMELEC. 185 SCRA 703, a person
who possesses both Philippine and American citizenship is still a Filipino and does not lose his
Philippine citizenship unless he renounces it.

 Atty. Chua will not be disbarred. Atty. Chua is already a Filipino citizen and there was no need for him
to file the affidavit electing Filipino citizenship. An election of Philippine citizenship presupposes that
the person electing is an alien. His father, however, already became a Filipino citizen when Atty. Chua
was still a minor and thus, he was already a Filipino before the age of majority.

 Lim Tong Biao cannot raise the defense of prescription. As held in Republic us. Go Bon Lee, 1 SCRA
1166, 1170, a decision granting citizenship is not res judicata and the right of the government to ask for
the cancellation of a certificate cancellation is not barred by the lapse of time.

 The citizenship requirement is to be possessed by an elective official at the latest as of the time he is
proclaimed and at the start of the term of office to which he has been elected. Section 39 of the Local
Government Code, which enumerates the qualifications of elective local government officials, does not
specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship. (Frivaldo v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, June 28,1996)

 Under Section 39 of the Local Government Code, an individual must possess the residency requirement
in the locality where he intends to run at least one year immediately preceding the day of election.

 Yes, Y is a Filipino citizen. More than that he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines qualified to
become a Senator. Since Y is an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, he follows the citizenship of his
mother. He need not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority as held In re Mallare.
59 SCRA 45. In Osias v. Antonino, Electoral Case No. 11, August 6, 1971, the Senate Electoral
Tribunal held that the illegitimate child of an alien father and a Filipino mother is a Filipino citizen and
is qualified to be a Senator.
 Whether or not X was qualified to run for membership in the House of Representatives in the 1995
election depends on the circumstances.

If X was an Illegitimate child, he is not qualified to run for the House of Representatives. According to
the case of in re Mallare, 59 SCRA 45, an illegitimate child follows the citizenship of the mother. Since
the mother of X is a Mexican, he will be a Mexican citizen if he is an illegitimate child, even if his father
is a Filipino.

If X is a legitimate child, he is a Filipino citizen. Under Section 2(2), Article IV of the Constitution,
those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines are Filipino citizens. Since X was born in the United
States, which follows jus soli, X is also an American citizen. In accordance with Aznar vs. Commission,
on Elections, 185 SCRA 703, the mere fact a person with dual citizenship registered as an alien with the
Commission on Immigration and Deportation does not necessarily mean that he is renouncing his
Philippine citizenship. Likewise, the mere fact that X used an American passport did not result in the
loss of his Philippine citizenship. As held in Kawakita vs. Untied States, 343 U.S. 717, since a person
with dual citizenship has the rights of citizenship in both countries, the use of a passport issued by one
country is not inconsistent with his citizenship in the other country.

 Miguel Sin is a Filipino citizen because he is the legitimate child of a Filipino mother. Under Article IV,
Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, his mother retained her Philippine citizenship despite her marriage to
an alien husband, and according to Article IV, Section 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution, children born of a
Filipino mother are Filipino citizens.

 Ways of Reacquiring Citizenship:

1. By naturalization;
2. By repatriation pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171; and
3. By direct act of Congress (Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 63).