CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 1

IV. CITIZENSHIP A. Definition  Personal & more or less permanent membership in a political community  Possession of the community of full, civil & political rights subject to special disqualifications such as minority  Imposes duty of allegiance to the community B. Importance of Citizenship  See Lee vs. Director of Lands  Gives us the capacity to enjoy political rights (participate in gov’t thru voting, holding public office & petitioning for redress of grievances)  It’s man’s basic right for it’s nothing less than the right to have rights (Perez vs. Brownell, dissent of CJ Warren) C. Modes of Acquiring Citizenship  Jus Sanguinis – blood relationship; basic rule in RP  Jus Soli – place of birth  Naturalization – legal act of adopting an alien & clothing him w/ privilege of a native born citizen D. Who are Philippine Citizens – Art. IV, Sec. 1 1. Citizens of the Philippines at the time of adoption of the 1987 Consti a. Citizens under the 1935 Consti  Citizens of PI at the time of adoption of ’35 Consti  Born in PI of foreign parents who, before Consti adoption, had been elected to public office in the PI  Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines  Those who elected upon reaching majority age  Those who are naturalized in accordance w/law b. Citizens under the 1973 Consti  Those already citizens  Those whose fathers or mother are citizens  Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to 35 Consti  Those who were naturalized *If one’s citizenship was subj to judicial challenge under the old law, it remains subj to challenge under the new 2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens  Under the 73 Consti, children with Filipino mothers are already considered as citizens w/o need for election upon reaching the age of majority. This is not retroactive. Applicable only on or after Jan. 17, ’73. (Consti took effect)  Only applicable to natural filiation & not to filiation by adoption  Illegitimate children – follow mother’s nationality since they’re under mom’s authority 3. Those who elect Philippine citizenship  For ’35 provision to be applicable: mother should be a Filipino citizen either by birth or naturalization at the time of her marriage  If mom lost her citizenship by marriage but reacquires it during child’s minority, child would still need to elect citizenship   Before June 1, 1947 – election may be manifested by participation in election & campaigning for candidates CA 625 (June 7, 1941) – election must be: 1) expressed in a statement 2) sworn before any officer authorized to administer oaths 3) filed w/ nearest civil registrar and 4) accompanied by an oath of allegiance to Phil. Consti. How soon should one elect? Dy Cuenco vs. Sec. Of Justice tells us it should be w/in 3 years. But extension may be justified if person has always considered himself a Filipino citizen After ’73 Consti – no need to elect citizenship, if mom’s Filipina, you’re a natural-born Filipino already Transitory provision until such time when all those who were born before 73 Consti have elected their citizenship. (expired na actually coz they must have reached majority by age 21 w/c was in 1994)

 

5. Those who are naturalized in accordance w/law  May be obtained thru a: 1) judicial process such as CA 473 (Revised Naturalization Law, June 17, 1939) or 2) special act passed by the legislature  Phil. Bill of 1902 - Mass naturalization law w/c made all PI inhabitants continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 & resided in said islands, Filipino citizens  Not a matter of right but it’s a privilege w/c is delicate since it affects public interest thus, subj to conditions prescribed by law  Legislature has the power to control how citizenship may be acquired, lost. It can set criteria for admission, fix its consequences on wife and minor children. It’s slow, arduous & cumbersome.  Grant of citizenship to a parent also extends citizenship to minor children under parental authority. If a male has been granted citizenship, his wife is deemed citizen too if she cancels her ACR & proves that she doesn’t have any of the criteria for disqualification thru an administrative procedure. E. Natural Born Citizens – Art. IV, Sec. 2 1. 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.  First sentence from 73 Consti, second sentence added in 87 Consti. Added to make election retroactive because it was not settled under the 35 Consti if upon election, child becomes natural-born or otherwise. This equalizes all those born of Filipino mothers whether election was done before or after the 73 Consti.  If a natural-born citizen loses his citizenship by renunciation or other mode recognized by law, he would no longer be considered as natural-born once he reacquires his citizenship. 2. Advantages of Natural-born citizens  Even after losing Philippine citizenship, a natural-born Filipino can still be a transferee of private lands. (Art. XII, Sec. 8)  President or Vice-President of the Philippines (Art. VII, Sec. 2 & 3)  Senator or Member of House of Representatives (Art. VI, Sec. 3 & 6)  Supreme Court Justice or member of lower collegiate courts (Art. VIII, Sec. 7.1)  Ombudsman (Art. XI, Sec. 8)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 2
 Civil Service Commission Chair & Commissioners (Art. IX-B, Sec. 1.1)  COMELEC Chair & Commissioners (Art. IX-C, Sec. 1.1)  Commission on Audit Chair & Commissioners (Art. IX-D, Sec. 1.1)  Members of Central Bank Governing Board (Art. XII, Sec. 20)  Commission on Human Rights Chair & Members (Art. XIII, Sec. 17.2) Those whose fathers & mothers are citizens. Those who elect Filipino citizenship. Former natural-born citizens who reacquire citizenship by repatriation. See: a. Tecson vs. COMELEC b. Bengzon vs. HRET c. In re Ching d. Co vs. HRET Naturalization By Judicial Proceeding a. Commonwealth Act. No. 473 (Revised Naturalization Law)  Sec. 2 – Qualifications: i. not less than 20 ii. resided in the Philippines continuously for not <10 years iii. good moral character, believes in principles of RP Consti, conducted himself in proper & irreproachable manner in his stay in the Philippines iv. own real estate in the RP worth not less than P5,000.00 or have a known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation v. speak & write English or Spanish & any one of the principal Philippine languages vi. enrolled minor children of school age in any public/private schools recognized by Office of Private Education of the Philippines where RP history, gov’t & civics are taught during period required of him to reside in RP prior to hearing of petition for naturalization  Sec. 3 – Special Qualifications – 10 years residency requirement reduced to 5 if one has: i. honorably held office under the RP gov’t or any of its political subdivisions ii. established a new industry or introduced useful invention in RP iii. married to a Filipino woman iv. teacher in any public or recognized private school in RP not exclusive to students of a particular race/nationality for at least 2 years v. born in the Philippines  Sec. 4 - Disqualified from being naturalized: i. opposed to organized gov’t or affiliated w/any association or group advocating such ii. defending/teaching necessity/propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for success & predominance of their ideas iii. polygamists or its believers iv. convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude v. mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases vi. have not mingled socially w/Filipinos or did not display sincere desire to learn & embrace RP customs, traditions & ideals vii. citizens/subjects of countries w/whom US & RP are at war while war is on-going viii. foreign countries other than US whose laws don’t grant Filipinos rt. To be naturalized Sec. 5 – Declaration of Intention: One year prior to filing petition for admission to Phil. citizenship, one must file with Bureau of Justice/RTC a declaration under oath his bona fide intention to become a Phil. citizen. Include the following: i. name, age, occupation, personal description, place of birth, last foreign residence & allegiance, date of arrival, name of vessel/aircraft if any in w/c he came to Phil. & current residence in the RP ii. he has enrolled his minor children in RP schools pursuant to Sec. 2 iii. 2 photographs Sec. 7 – Petition for Citizenship: filed w/ competent court in triplicate and include the following: i. two photos ii. name & surname, present & former places of residence, occupation, place & date of birth iii. single/married and if the father, name, age, birthplace & residence of wife & children iv. approximate date of arrival in the RP, name of port of debarkation & name of ship if he remembers v. declaration that he has qualifications & is not disqualified vi. declaration that he complied w/ sec. 5 vii. declaration that he’ll reside in the RP continuously from date of filing petition up to time of admission to Phil citizenship viii. signature of applicant in his own handwriting ix. affidavit of at least 2 credible RP citizens who know the applicant & vouch for his good conduct & qualifications x. names & addresses of witnesses he may want to introduce at hearing of case xi. certificate of arrival xii. declaration of intention Sec. 8 – Competent Court: CFI of province where applicant has resided for at least 1 year has exclusive, original jurisdiction Sec. 15 – Effect on Wife & Children: i. They’ll be considered RP citizens. ii. Foreign-born minor if living in the Philippines at the time of naturalization is automatically becomes a citizen. iii. Foreign-born minor not in the Philippines at the time of naturalization is deemed a citizen during minority unless he permanently resides in the RP during his minority. iv. Born outside RP after parent’s naturalization, Phil. citizen as long as he registers himself as RP citizen at the American Consulate of the foreign country w/in 1 year after he reaches age of majority & takes oath of allegiance. Sec. 18 – Cancellation of naturalization certificate issued initiated by Sol Gen or provincial fiscal, decreed by judge if: i. certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally

3. 4. 5. 6.

F. 1.

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 3
w/in 5 years after issuance, he establishes a permanent residence in his native country for more than 1 year or another foreign country for more than 2 years iii. invalid declaration of intention iv. minor enrolled in RP school failed to graduate due to parents’ negligence in supporting minor or transferring them to another school/s v. allowed himself to be used as a dummy requiring Phil. citizenship as a requisite for exercise, use or enjoyment of a rt., franchise or privilege R.A. No. 530, Additional Provisions for Naturalization Sec. 1  No petition shall be heard w/in 6 mos from publication  Executory only after 2 years from promulgation  During intervening time of 2 years, applicant has: i. has not left country ii. dedicated himself continuously in a lawful calling/profession iii. not been convicted of any offense or violation of RP rules iv. not committed any act prejudicial to interest of country or government’s policies see:  Republic vs. dela Rosa  Republic vs. Liyao  Moya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner ii. ii. if he or his wife or children commits act inimical to national security 3. By direct act of Congress 4. Denaturalization G. Loss of Citizenship – Art. IV, Sec. 3 1. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. 2. Two laws: a. CA No. 63 – for natural-born & naturalized. Lost by: 1) naturalization in a foreign country, 2) express renunciation, 3) oath of allegiance to a foreign country, 4) rendering service in armed forces of a foreign country, 5) being a deserter of armed forces b. CA No. 473- for naturalized only. See Sec. 18. 3. Renunciation must be express. Mere possession of an ACR w/o proof of performance of acts whereby RP citizenship has been lost is not enough proof of loss of citizenship. Example of renunciation: Yu vs. Santiago, Frivaldo vs. COMELEC 4. Order of naturalization does not really become executory & not res judicata. May be revoked if you violate any of the conditions. 5. May be cancelled only upon clear, unequivocal & convincing evidence. 6. See Coquilla vs. COMELEC H. Reacquisition of Ctizenship 1. Modes a. naturalization b. repatriation i. for 1) women who lost their citizenship thru marriage to aliens, 2) natural born Filipinos including their minor children and 3) persons who have lost their citizenship on account of economic/political necessity & are not disqualified. Accomplished by taking oath of allegiance to RP & registering in proper Civil Registry and BI. Processed by Special Committee on Naturalization. ii. for those who served US armed forces, take oath of allegiance to RP & register in local Civil Registry where you reside/last resided. c. direct grant of law 2. Courts have no jurisdiction over repatriation 3. Once repatriated, citizen regains level of former citizenship (natural-born or naturalized). – Bengzon vs. Cruz 4. This should be accompanied by an express & unequivocal act of formally rejecting adopted state & reaffirming total & exclusive allegiance & loyalty to RP. (Bengzon vs. Cruz, Melo dissent) 5. Effectivity: date of application for repatriation & not when repatriation’s approved (Lee vs. COMELEC and Frivaldo) 6. Bengzon & Frivaldo: Jurisprudence values natural-born citizenship highly & it will facilitate giving it back to its former possessor. 7. CA No. 63 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED Sec. 1 (2) How Citizenship May be lost – by express renunciation of citizenship YU vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO [January 24, 1989] Petition for Habeas Corpus Willie Yu

b.

c.

2. By Administrative Proceeding – R.A. No. 9138 (Administrative Naturalization) a. Sec. 3 - Qualifications i. born in RP & residing here since birth ii. not less than 18 iii. good moral character iv. received primary & secondary education in any public/private school recognized by DECS v. known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation. Not applicable to degree holders but can’t practice profession due to disqualification. vi. Read, write, speak Filipino or any other RP dialect vii. Mingled w/ Filipinos b. Sec. 4 – Disqualifications – same as sec. 4 CA 473 c. Sec. 5 – Petition should include among others, perpetual renunciation of native country & other pertinent documents, info d. Sec. 6 – forms Special Committee on Naturalization composed of Sol Gen, DFA Sec. & National Security Adviser e. Sec. 9 – Decree of Naturalization: oath of allegiance shall be taken w/in 60 days from issuance of certificate & upon presentation of proof of payment of Naturalization fees f. Sec. 11 – Status of Alien Wife & Minor Children – May file petition for cancellation of their ACRs w/ corresponding fees g. Sec. 12 – Status of Alien Husband & Minor Children – It won’t benefit husband but minors may file petition for cancellation of ACRs h. Sec. 13 – Cancellation of Certificate of Naturalization: ii & v of Sec. 18 of CA 473 plus: i. false statement, misrepresentation, committed violation of law, rules & regulations re naturalization proceedings or citizenship obtained fraudulently or illegally

Petitioner:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 4
Respondents: Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Bienvenido Alano, Jr., Major Pabalan, Deleo Hernandez, Bloddy Herrera, Benny Reyes and Jun Espiritu Santo Passports are generally issued only to nationals. No proof of Yu’s unequivocal & deliberate renunciation of Phi. Citizenship w/ full awareness of its significance & consequences as provided for in CA No. 63. Commercial documents signed are not proof enough of renunciation. FERNAN, DISSENTING: Summary procedure & pieces of documentary evidence are not enough to reach such decision. Evidence must be clear & express w/o room for interference or implication. In a deportation proceeding where alien claims citizenship w/substantial evidence, he’s entitled to have his status determined by judicial & not an executive tribunal. He deserves a full-blown trial under more rigid rules of evidence in a court proceeding. SC is not a trier of facts. GUTIERREZ, JR., DISSENTING: Summary procedure would not suffice. Something as important as denaturalization should be filed & prosecuted in proper trial court in accordance w/the due process clause. When a person pleads vigorously that he has not renounced his citizenship, he should at least be given a full trial where his actions may be explored & the facts fully ascertained. Dangerous precedent to allow administrative officials to rule that one has renounced his citizenship based on informal evidence. Mere use of a foreign passport is not express renunciation. He may have passport for other purposes (employment, convenience). Some high gov’t officials have done acts w/c are more indicative of express renunciation than mere use of passport or different citizenship has been signed. SC is not a trier of facts. Yu’s morality is beside the point. He deserves his full day in court. CORTES, DISSENTING: CID findings are subject to judicial review. Loss of Yu’s Filipino citizenship has not been established. Evidence presented were not authenticated by proper Philippine consul, thus not substantial and are inadequate. Frivaldo vs. COMELEC [June 28, 1996] G.R. No. 120295 – Frivaldo vs. COMELEC and Raul Lee G.R. No. 123755 – Lee vs. COMELEC AND Juan Frivaldo G.R. No. 123755 Facts:  During 1992 and 1988 elections he won for the position of governor but he was disqualified because he was not a citizen.  March 20, 1995 – Juan G. Frivaldo filed his certificate of candidacy for the office of Governor of Sorsogon in the May 8, 1995 elections.  March 28, 1995 – Raul R. Lee filed a petition praying that Frivaldo be disqualified from seeking or holding any public office or position by reason of not yet being a citizen of the Philippines  May 1, 1995 – COMELEC promulgated a resolution granting the petition  Frivaldo filed a motion for reconsideration but it was decided until May 11, 1995. COMELEC affirmed its decision. (note the motion was denied after the May 8, 1995 election)  Frivaldo garnered the highest number of votes with a margin of around 20,000 votes from the Lee who got the second largest number of votes.  June 30, 1995 8:30 pm Lee was proclaimed as the governor of Sorsogon. On July 6, 1995 Frivaldo file with COMELEC a new petition praying for the annulment of the June 30, 1995 proclamation of Lee and for his own proclamation. He alleged that on June 30 , 1995 at 2:00 pm he took his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines after his petition for repatriation

Facts:  1971 – Yu was issued a Portuguese passport in 1971 valid for 5 years & renewed for same period upon presentment before Portuguese consular officer  Feb. 10, 1978 – He was naturalized as a Phil. citizen  April 1980 – signed commercial documents in Hong Kong (Companies Registry of Tai Shun Estate, Ltd.) and he declared his nationality as Portuguese  July 21, 1981 – He applied & was issued another Portuguese passport in Tokyo. Passport will expire July 20, 1986. Procedural Facts: (ang dami! File sila ng file!)  July 4, 1988 – He filed for a petition for habeas corpus. He was detained because the Commission on Immigration & Deportation was processing his deportation. CID claims that his acts are tantamount to an express renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.  July 20, 1988 – oral arguments  Nov. 10, 1988 – SC resolution denied petition for habeas corpus & resolved issued on jurisdiction of CID over naturalized Filipino citizen & validity of warrantless arrest & detention. Yu filed MFR, denied w/finality. Filed urgent motion for issuance of restraining order, denied.  Dec. 5, 1988 – Yu filed motion for clarification w/prayer for restraining order.  Dec. 7, 1988 – SC issued TRO. CID ordered to cease & desist from deporting Yu pending conclusion of hearings before Board of Special Inquiry of CID.  Dec. 13, 1988 – Respondent commissioner (I’m assuming this is Miriam coz she’s the first respondent.) filed motion to lift TRO saying the commission already issued a summary judgment of deportation against Yu on Dec. 2, 88.  Dec. 13, 1988 – Yu filed an urgent motion for release from arbitrary detention. Opposed vigorously to lifting of TRO.  Yu ordered to explain why he should still be considered a Phil citizen. He complied. His reply revealed aforementioned substantive facts. ISSUE: WON the acts of Yu constitute an express renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. HELD: Yes. Motion for release from detention denied. TRO lifted. RATIO: 1. Renunciation – made known distinctly & explicitly and not left to interference or implication (BI Commissioners vs. Go Gallano). His resumption/reacquisition of his Portuguese citizenship and passport and representation as a Portuguese even after he has acquired Filipino citizenship are proof enough of his renunciation. 2. He does not dispute the facts. He was given the opportunity to show proof of continued Philippine citizenship but he failed. There is no denial of due process. 3. Trial court should have jurisdiction over this case. But due to petitioner’s insistence, SC had to do it. 4. Philippine citizenship is not a commodity or were to be displayed when required and suppressed when convenient. CRUZ, CONCURRING IN RESULT: Yu has failed to overcome presumption that he has forfeited his status as naturalized Filipino by obtaining Portuguese passport.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 5
 under PD 725 which he filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization in September 1994. December 19, 1995 – COMELEC first division held that Frivaldo who garnered the highest number of votes and having reacquired his citizenship by repatriation on June 30, 1995 under the provision of PD 725 is qualified to hold the office of Governor. Lee filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the COMELEC. within the period referred to in Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, viz., "not later than fifteen days before the elections"? Ratio: Frivaldo’s Repatriation  Frivaldo had been declared by this Court as a non-citizen, and it is therefore incumbent upon him to show that he has reacquired his citizenship.  Citizenship may be reacquired by: o Direct act of Congress o Naturalization o Repatriation  He was able to reacquire his citizenship via repatriation and he took his oath of allegiance at 2 pm on June 30, 1995.

G.R. No. 120295 Facts:  Petition to annul three resolutions of COMELEC 1. Resolution of the Second Division, promulgated on May 1, 1995, disqualifying Frivaldo from running for governor of Sorsogon in the May 8, 1995 elections "on the ground that he is not a citizen of the Philippines"; 2. Resolution of the Comelec en banc, promulgated on May 11, 1995; and 3. Resolution of the Comelec en banc, promulgated also on May 11, 1995 suspending the proclamation of, among others, Frivaldo   Basically the facts are the same with GR 123755 except that Frivaldo assails the resolutions under different grounds. Frivaldo contends that the failure of the Comelec to act on the petition for disqualification within the period of fifteen days prior to the election as provided by law is a jurisdictional defect which renders the said Resolutions null and void.

Consolidated Issues: 1. Was the repatriation of Frivaldo valid and legal? If so, did it seasonably cure his lack of citizenship as to qualify him to be proclaimed and to hold the Office of Governor? If not, may it be given retroactive effect? If so, from when? 2. Is Frivaldo's "judicially declared" disqualification for lack of Filipino citizenship a continuing bar to his eligibility to run for, be elected to or hold the governorship of Sorsogon? 3. Did the respondent Comelec have jurisdiction over the initiatory petition in SPC No. 95-317 considering that said petition is not "a pre-proclamation case, an election protest or a quo warranto case"? 4. Was the proclamation of Lee, a runner-up in the election, valid and legal in light of existing jurisprudence? 5. Did the respondent Commission on Elections exceed its jurisdiction in promulgating the assailed Resolutions, all of which prevented Frivaldo from assuming the governorship of Sorsogon, considering that they were not rendered

Lee’s asserts that P.D. No. 725 had "been effectively repealed", asserting that "then President Corazon Aquino exercising legislative powers under the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution, forbade the grant of citizenship by Presidential Decree or Executive Issuances as the same poses a serious and contentious issue of policy which the present government, in the exercise of prudence and sound discretion, should best leave to the judgment of the first Congress under the 1987 Constitution", adding that in her memorandum dated March 27, 1987 to the members of the Special Committee on Naturalization constituted for purposes of Presidential Decree No. 725, President Aquino directed them "to cease and desist from undertaking any and all proceedings within your functional area of responsibility as defined under Letter of Instructions (LOI) No. 270 dated April 11, 1975, as amended. The Court held that the memo cannot be construed as a law sanctioning or authorizing the repeal of PD 725. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and repeal may be express or implied. There is no question on whether there was an express repeal. There is also no implied repeal because it is the basic rule of statutory construction that repeals by implication are not favored. An implied repeal will not be allowed unless it is convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated that the two laws are clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist Lee also contends that the repatriation proceedings were made in haste. The Court held that the presumption of legality in the repatriation of Frivaldo have not been successfully rebutted by Lee. The requirement s of repatriation are not difficult to comply with nor are they tedious and cumbersome. Lee also contends that even if the repatriation is valid it could only be effective as at 2 pm of June 30, 1995 whereas the citizenship qualification prescribed by the Local Government Code must exist on the date of his election, if not when the certificate of candidacy is filed. o Local Government Code Sec. 39: An elective local official must  a citizen of the Philippines  a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province . . . where he intends to be elected  a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election  able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect  In addition, "candidates for the position of governor . . . must be at least twenty-three (23) years of age on election day

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 6
The LGC does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship unlike that for residency and age. o Sec. 39 provides for the qualifications of ELECTIVE officials and not candidates. o Qualification, unless otherwise provided for, must be possessed when the elective official begins to govern (the time he is proclaimed and at the start of his term. o If the law intended the citizenship qualification to be possessed prior to election consistent with the requirement of being a registered voter, then it would not have made citizenship a SEPARATE qualification. The law intended CITIZENSHIP to be a qualification distinct from being a VOTER, even if being a voter presumes being a citizen first o Juan G. Frivaldo was already and indubitably a citizen, having taken his oath of allegiance earlier in the afternoon of the same day, then he should have been the candidate proclaimed as he unquestionably garnered the highest number of votes in the immediately preceding elections and such oath had already cured his previous "judicially-declared" alienage  Should the repatriation of Frivaldo be applied retroactively to the date of the filling of his application on August 17, 1994? YES o Civil Code of the Philippines provides that laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. But there are settled exceptions to this general rule, such as when the statute is CURATIVE or REMEDIAL in nature or when it CREATES NEW RIGHTS o PD 725 creates a new right and also provides for a new remedy. o the 1992 elections. That he was disqualified for such elections is final and can no longer be changed. This was the basis of COMELEC for the disqualification of Frivaldo but decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship cannot govern a person's future status with finality. This is because a person may subsequently reacquire, or for that matter lose, his citizenship under any of the modes recognized by law for the purpose. Comelec’s Jurisdiction over the petition in SPC no. 95-317 – COMELEC has jurisdiction

The Constitution has given the Comelec ample power to "exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective . . . provincial . . . officials." Instead of dwelling at length on the various petitions that Comelec, in the exercise of its constitutional prerogatives, may entertain, suffice it to say that this Court has invariably recognized the Commission's authority to hear and decide petitions for annulment of proclamations -- of which SPC No. 95-317 obviously is one.

Is Section 78 of the Election Code Mandatory? MOOT AND ACADEMIC

o

o

P.D. 725 granted a new right -- the right to re-acquire Filipino citizenship even during their marital coverture, which right did not exist prior to P.D. 725. On the other hand, said statute also provided a new remedy and a new right in favor of other "natural born Filipinos who lost their Philippine citizenship but now desire to re-acquire Philippine citizenship", because prior to the promulgation of P.D. 725 such former Filipinos would have had to undergo the tedious and cumbersome process of naturalization, but with the advent of P.D. 725 they could now re-acquire their Philippine citizenship under the simplified procedure of repatriation. Retrospective operation is given to a statute or amendment where the intent that it should so operate clearly appears from a consideration of the act as a whole, or from the terms thereof." It is obvious to the Court that the statute was meant to "reach back" to those persons, events and transactions not otherwise covered by prevailing law and jurisprudence. And inasmuch as it has been held that citizenship is a political and civil right equally as important as the freedom of speech, liberty of abode, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and other guarantees enshrined in the Bill of Rights, therefore the legislative intent to give retrospective operation to P.D. 725 must be given the fullest effect possible. It is not only the law itself (P.D. 725) which is to be given retroactive effect, but even the repatriation granted under said law to Frivaldo on June 30, 1995 is to be deemed to have retroacted to the date of his application therefor, August 17, 1994

Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy. -- A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided after notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election. (Emphasis supplied.) Moot and Academic because these resolutions are deemed superseded by the subsequent ones issued by the Commission of Dec. 19, 1995 affirmed en banc on February 23 , 1996 which both upheld the election. Section 78 is merely directory as section 6 of RA 6646 authorizes the Commission to try and decide petitions for disqualifications even after the elections. Answer of the Main Opinion The retroactivity of his repatriation legally cured whatever defects there may have been in his registration as a voter for the purpose of the 1995 elections. Such retroactivity did not change his disqualifications in 1988 and 1992, which were the subjects of such previous rulings.

Davide’s Dissent President Aquino's memorandum dated March 27, 1987 should be viewed as a suspension. By allowing Frivaldo to register and to remain as a registered voter, the Comelec and in effect this Court abetted a "mockery" of our two previous judgments declaring him a non-citizen.

Is the Lack of Citizenship a continuing Disqualification? NO  First ruling in G.R. No. 87193 disqualifying Frivaldo was rendered in connection with the 1988 elections while that in G.R. No. 104654 was in connection with

Disputes our holding that Frivaldo was stateless prior to his repatriation, saying that "informal renunciation or abandonment is not a ground to lose American citizenship" Frivaldo's ineligibility for being an

Comelec made a finding of fact that Frivaldo was stateless and such finding has not been shown by Lee to be arbitrary or whimsical. Thus, following settled case law, such finding is binding and final First, there is absolutely no empirical

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 7
American was publicly known evidence for such "public" knowledge. Second, even if there is, such knowledge can be true post facto only of the last two previous elections. Third, even the Comelec and now this Court were/are still deliberating on his nationality before, during and after the 1995 elections. Section 39, par. (a) thereof speaks of "elective local official" while par. (b) to (f) refer to "candidates". If the qualifications under par. (a) were intended to apply to "candidates" and not elected officials, the legislature would have said so, instead of differentiating par. (a) from the rest of the paragraphs. Secondly, if Congress had meant that the citizenship qualification should be possessed at election day or prior thereto, it would have specifically stated such detail, the same way it did in pars. (b) to (f) far other qualifications of candidates for governor, mayor, etc The provision should be understood thus: that after taking the oath of allegiance the applicant is deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship, which reacquisition (or repatriation) is deemed for all purposes and intents to have retroacted → → He possesses all the qualifications required by CA No 63 and none of the disqualifications listed in CA No 473. He has resided in the Phils at least 6 mos before date of petition He is not opposed to organized govt nor affiliated w/ any grp opposing such; not a polygamist; not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; not suffering from any mental alienation or incurable contagious disease. The nation of w/c he is a citizen is not at war w/ the Phils. In reacquiring Phil citizenship, he will renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance & fidelity to US June ’96: Petitioner sought to be allowed to take his oath of allegiance pursuant to RA 8171 July ’96: Motion denied by RTC. Subsequent motion for reconsideration denied. Aug ’96: Denial reconsidered by the Court. Petitioner ordered to take his oath of allegiance to RP on Oct 3 ’96, 11a.m. Oct ’96: Petitioner repatriated & declared as Phil citizen pursuant to RA No 8171. Copy of certificate/order to be registered in the Local Civil Registry of Marikina. March ’97: Manifestation and Motion (or motion for reconsideration) was filed by OSG, as counsel of the State, asserting that petition should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the proper forum for it was the Special Committee on Naturalization, as the implementing agency, consistent w/ AO 285 dated Aug 22, 1996. Consequently, order should be declared null and void.

Section 39 of the Local Government Code refers to the qualifications of elective local officials, i.e., candidates, and not elected officials, and that the citizenship qualification must be possessed by candidates, not merely at the commencement of the term, but by election day at the latest

→ ♦ ♦ ♦

♦ ♦

Questions the giving of retroactive effect to Frivaldo's repatriation on the ground, among others, that the law specifically provides that it is only after taking the oath of allegiance that applicants shall be deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship

ISSUES: 1) WON Court erred in dismissing the petition by giving retroactive effect to AO 285, absent a provision on Retroactive Application 2) WON Oct ’96 Order was null and void HELD: Angat’s petition for review denied. Order of dismissal of petition is affirmed for want of jurisdiction. RATIO: 1) No, Court was right in maintaining that petition for repatriation should be filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization and not with RTC w/c had no jurisdiction thereover for AO 285 promulgated on Aug 22 ’96 was merely then a confirmatory issuance of PD 725. The agency was indeed deactivated by virtue of Pres Aquino’s Memorandum of March 1987, however it was not abrogated or abolished. It is obvious that no express repeal was made then because it did not categorically and/or impliedly state that PD 725, creating the Committee, was being repealed or was being rendered w/o any legal effect. It is a basic rule of statutory construction that repeals by implications are not favored. An implied repeal will not be allowed unless it is convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated that the two laws are clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist. 2) Yes, such order was null and void, and it did not acquire finality nor could it be a source of right on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner should not have invoked RA 965 for that law pertains to Phil citizens who lost said citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting commission in the armed forces of an allied foreign country or of USA.

ANGAT vs. REPUBLIC (1999:Manila) Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of CA Order in RTC Marikina is in the Matter of Gerardo Legaspi Angat to be Re-admitted as a Citizen of the Phils under Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended, and RA Nos. 965 and 263. FACTS: ♦ March ’96: Petitioner Gerardo Angat, originally a natural born citizen of the Phils until he lost his citizenship by naturalization in USA, now resides in Marikina City, filed a petition to regain his status under CA statute cited above. In his petition applying for naturalization, he included the ff: → His latest picture → Present place of residence (Marikina City) → Trade/profession (buy & sell) → Date of birth: June 22, 1954; Present citizenship: American → Marriage contract, W is Zenaida Lim, resident of Tondo → Copy of alien registration; 1991 was yr when he returned to Mla

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 8
JAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 121 SCRA 359 (1983) Nature: Petition to review the decision of the Davao CFI Facts: Modesta Dugcoy Jao’s father was Chinese while her mom was a Filipina who was not legally married to her father. That would make her a citizen of the Philippines. But she lost her Philippine citizenship when she married Go Wan, a Chinese with whom she had three children. Go Wan died in 1962. Jao alleged that her illiterate mother erroneously registered her as an alien with the Bureau of Immigration and so she was issued Alien Certificate of Registration No. A-176678. Jao thus files a petition in the Davao CFI for repatriation under CA No. 63, as amended but her petition contains no prayer for relief. Though the petition was not published, the Provincial Fiscal was notified who appeared at the hearing but did not present evidence. After receiving the petitioner’s evidence, the CFI issued an Order declaring the petitioner as “judicially repatriated,” and ordering the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration. The Provincial Fiscal, in behalf of RP, took this appeal. Issue: WON one may be repatriated by judicial proceedings Held: No. CFI decision, revoked and set aside. Repatriation by judicial proceedings is null and void because there is no law requiring or authorizing that repatriation be effected by judicial proceeding. All that is required for a female citizen of the Philippines who lost her citizenship to an alien to reacquire her Philippine citizenship, upon termination of her marital status, “is for her to take necessary oath of allegiance to the RP and to register said oath in the proper civil registry”. The claim of Philippine citizenship prior to petitioner's marriage for being allegedly an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother may not be established in an action where the mother or her heirs are not parties. Philippine citizenship may not be declared in a non- adversary suit where the persons whose rights are affected by such a declaration are not parties, such as an action for declaratory relief, (Tiu Navarro vs. Commissioner of Immigration) a petition for judicial repatriation (Lim vs. Republic), or an action to cancel registration as an alien (Tan vs. Republic). Lim vs. Republic: "there is no proceeding established by law or the rules by which any person claiming to be a citizen may get a declaration in a court of justice to that effect or in regard to his citizenship."

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful