B.

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW

1. CITIZENSHIP: Who are the citizens of the Philippines?

A citizen  is one who is a member of a State who was accorded with full civil and political rights, subject
to disqualifications provided by law, and who is duly protected inside and outside of the State where he is
a citizen. Together with other citizens, they make up a political community.

Citizenship is a term signifying membership of a citizen in a political community. Since the State provides
protection and security to its members, the member on the other hand has the reciprocal duty of
allegiance to the State.

To be a Filipino citizen, a person must belong to any classes of citizen enumerated under Section 1,
Article IV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The same section provides:

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 who fathers and 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.

Based on the said provision of the Constitution, there are two kinds of Filipino citizens: 1) natural – born
Filipino citizen, and naturalized Filipino citizen. In determining the kind of citizenship, we follow the jus
sanguinis principle. Under the jus sanguinis principle, blood relationship is the basis for the acquisition
of citizenship. This means that a newly – born child follows the citizenship of his parents. In contrast with
the jus soli  or jus loci principle, a newly – born child follows the citizenship of the State where he was
born irrespective of the citizenship of his parents.
Following the principle of jus sanguinis therefore, a natural – born Filipino citizen generally is one who
was born with one of his parents, or both, is a Filipino citizen Regardless of the place where he was born,
he follows the citizenship of the Filipino parent.
A natural – born Filipino citizen specifically is one who does not have to perform any act to acquire his
Philippine citizenship. Those who elect citizenship in accordance with par. 3, sec. 1 hereof shall also be
deemed natural – born citizens (Sec 2, Art 4, 1987 Constitution).
A naturalized Filipino citizen is one who underwent the naturalization process under the law of the
Philippines.Naturalization is the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political community of a
State and giving him the rights and privileges of citizenship. When a person is naturalized, he already
renunciated his former citizenship, therefore, his allegiance is now on the State where he was naturalized.
The Revised Naturalization Act (CA No. 473, as amended) is the current naturalization law of the
Philippines.
The following are the ways of acquiring Filipino citizenship by naturalization:

1)      By judgment of the court – application for naturalization shall be filed in the proper Regional Trial
Court.

2)      By direct act of Congress – the Congress enacts an act conferring citizenship on a foreigner.

3)      By administrative proceedings – subject to Republic Act 9139 “The Administrative Naturalization
Law of 2000” (January 8, 2001).

Dual Citizenship vs. Dual Allegiance

Dual citizenship refers to the possession of two citizenships by an individual, that of his original
citizenship and that of the country where he became a naturalized citizen. It may also arise in an instance
wherein a person was born of Filipino parents but in another country where said country follows jus
soli  or jus loci principle.
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the continued allegiance of a naturalized citizen to their
mother country even after acquiring Filipino citizenship.

The Philippine government prohibits dual allegiance. Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution
declares that “dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interests and shall be dealt with by
law”.

Dual allegiance is not prohibited, however, it may be regulated or restricted by Philippine laws where it is
conducive or could deal to dual allegiance. It is because citizenship requires allegiance to a country to
which one is a citizen which must be absolute and undivided. This is to avoid as to the one having a dual
citizenship shall support just in case the “national interest” of the countries where he has citizenships
collide most especially if there is a state of war.

An instance where dual allegiance is not allowed is in the qualification for an elective or appointive
position in the Philippine government service. Public service requires “…utmost loyalty…” (Section 1,
Article XI, 1987 Constitution). It was deemed that a public officer having dual allegiance cannot serve with
utmost loyalty.

Filipino citizens having dual citizenships are disqualified from seeking an elective position in the
Philippines.
CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE

Black’s Law Dictionary defines moral turpitude as:

[An] act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in private and social duties which man owes to his fellow
man, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man
and man. xxx  Act or behavior that gravely violates moral sentiment or accepted moral standards of
community and is a morally culpable quality held to be present in some criminal offenses as distinguished
from others. xxx The quality of a crime involving grave infringement of the moral sentiment of the
community as distinguished from statutory mala prohibita.

In a case which involved a lawyer (In Re Basa, 1920) having committed abduction with consent, the
Supreme Court (of the Philippines) through Justice Malcolm have spoken:

“Moral turpitude,” it has been said, “includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, cited by numerous courts.) Although no decision
can be found which has decided the exact question, it cannot admit of doubt that crimes of this character
involve moral turpitude. The inherent nature of the act is such that it is against good morals and the
accepted rule of right conduct.

Since then crimes involving moral turpitude are identified as follows:

1. Abduction with consent

2. Seduction under promise of marriage
3. Bigamy
4. Concubinage
5. Adultery
6. Smuggling
7. Rape
8. Estafa through falsification of a document
9. Attempted Bribery
10. Profiteering
11. Robbery
12. Murder, whether consummated or attempted
13. Estafa
14. Theft
15. Blackmail
16. Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker
17. Violation of BP Bldg. 22
18. Falsification of Document
19. Mutilation of public records
20. Fabrication of evidence
21. Making fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract
22. Offenses against pension laws
23. Evasion of income tax
24. Intriguing against Honor
25. Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
26. Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-pushing)
27. Criminal conspiracy to smuggle opium
28. Perjury
29. Forgery
30. Libel
31. Direct Bribery
32. Frustrated Homicide
33. Arson
34. Barratry
35. Dueling
36. Embezzlement
 On the other hand, the following crimes were ruled out not to be involving moral turpitude:

1. Minor transgressions of the law (i.e., conviction for speeding)

2. Illegal recruitment
3. Slight physical injuries
4. Carrying of deadly weapon (Illegal possession of firearms)
5. Indirect Contempt

There were three (3) approaches to determine if the any crime, not previously identified, may be
considered as crime involving moral turpitude:

First approach: (objective approach) involvement of moral turpitude where an act is intrinsically immoral,
regardless of whether it is punishable by law or not. The Court emphasized that moral turpitude goes
beyond being merely mala prohibita; the act itself must be inherently immoral.  Thus, this approach
requires that the committed act itself be examined, divorced from its characterization as a crime. 
Second approach: look at the act committed through its elements as a crime.  The Court recognized that
as a “general rule, all crimes of which fraud is an element are looked on as involving moral
turpitude.”  This is the same conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court, that crimes requiring fraud or intent
to defraud always involve moral turpitude.
Third approach: (subjective approach) essentially takes the offender and his acts into account in light of
the attendant circumstances of the crime: was he motivated by ill will indicating depravity?
For the three approaches, the defining question is:  Is it contrary to the accepted rules of right and duty,
justice, honesty and good morals? To be able to be cleared and ruled out of the definition of “moral
turpitude”, all three must be answered in the negative.
BTW, in the cited case, the SC ruled:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the Commission on Elections
dated May 11, 2007 and October 9, 2007 disqualifying petitioner Edgar Y. Teves from running for the
position of Representative of the 3rd District of Negros Oriental, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a
new one is entered declaring that the crime committed by petitioner(violation of Section 3(h) of R.A.
3019) did not involve moral turpitude.