Citizenship

Definition: PERSONAL and PERMANENT

Membership in a political community which is personal and more or less permanent in
character

Distinguished from nationality:

NATIONALITY IS BROADER
Nationality is membership in any class or form of political community. Thus,
nationals may be citizens [if members of a democratic community] or subjects [if
members of a monarchical community].
Nationality does not necessarily include the right or privilege of exercising civil
or political rights.

Citizenship is objective fact, whereas nationality is imagined or painstakingly

constructed.

As a legal status, citizenship is easier to determine than nationality in most

circumstances

NATIONALITY IS OFTEN THE TERM USED WHEN REFERRING TO PASSPORTS (See Maquiling case)
From what I gathered in comparing various sources, nationality gives the right to
live and work permanently in a country, and includes other rights, such as the
right to have a passport issued by that country, the right of abode in that
country's embassies, right of social security, right to exercise some legal or
political professions (e.g magistrate, president of the country). Nationality may
also include obligations, such as military service.

By contrast, citizenship in itself does not give the right to live in a country (a
visa or nationality is required for that), but only to vote at elections (sometimes
also the right to be elected). Citizenship can
be national (=nationwide), subnational (only in one state, region, province or
municipality), or supranational (valid in several countries, like within the EU or
Commonwealth).

Excerpt from Maquiling Case:

Arnado’s continued use of his US passport is a strong indication that Arnado had no
real intention to renounce his US citizenship and that he only executed an
Affidavit of Renunciation to enable him to run for office. We cannot turn a blind
eye to the glaring inconsistency between Arnado’s unexplained use of a US passport
six times and his claim that he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship and
renounced his US citizenship. As noted by the Supreme Court in the Yu case, "a
passport is defined as an official document of identity and nationality issued to a
person intending to travel or sojourn in foreign countries." Surely, one who truly
divested himself of US citizenship would not continue to avail of privileges
reserved solely for US nationals.

SYLLABUS: Kinds of citizenship, purpose of distinguishing citizenship and kinds of

citizenship

From the modes of acquiring citizenship, our constitution recognizes two kinds of
citizens:
1. Natural-born citizen. As described in Section 2 of Article IV, a natural-born
citizen is one who:
a. Is already a citizen of the state from birth without performing any act to
acquire or perfect his citizenship
b. Those born before January, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. This is called citizenship by
election.

2. Naturalized citizen. He is one who renounced his former citizenship and was
granted citizenship by another state.

Citizenship gives you rights, privileges, and obligations.

Kinds of Citizenship tells you how these rights, privileges, and obligations differ
between a natural-born and a naturalized citizen.

SYLLABUS: WHO ARE CITIZENS?

BEFORE 1935:
We have the Philippine Bill of 1902 (Sec. 4) and the Jones Law of 1916 (Sec. 2)--
A sort of product of the Treaty of Paris

Under these organic acts,

inhabitants of the islands who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, who did not
opt in writing to retain Spanish nationality between April 11, 1899 to October 11,
1900 — including their children — were deemed citizens of the Philippines.

This is how FPJ was able to become a Filipino. His grandfather was born before
April 11, 1899. Thus, absence of proof that he wants to remain a subject of Spain,
he is automatically declared a Filipino. This citizenship also extends to his son
which is the father of FPJ. And since FPJ was born during the regime of the 1935
Constitution, where a citizen of the Philippines is one whose father is also a
citizen of the Philippines, he is a Filipino.

1935 CONSTITUTION- November 15,1935:

Article IV, Section 1.
The following are citizens of the Philippines
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of
this Constitution
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the
adoption of the 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.

Number 4 includes those mothers who were Filipinos before acquiring the citizenship
of their foreign husband after marriage. Otherwise, the provision would be rendered
nugatory.

1973 CONSTITUTION:
Article III, Section 2 enumerates the following as 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 who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

The purpose of the first paragraph of the provision was to protect the continued
enjoyment of Philippine citizenship to those who already possess the right as of 17
January 1973.
The Section 2(2) followed the principle of jus sanguinis. However, unlike the 1935
Constitution, Filipino mothers were placed by the 1973 Constitution on equal
footing with Filipino fathers as far as the determination of the citizenship of
their children was concerned. The father or mother may be a natural-born Filipino
or a Filipino by naturalization or by election. The only important consideration
here was that the mother must be a Filipino at the time of the birth of the child.
It must be reiterated that this rule applied only to those born of a Filipino
mother on or after 17 January 1973.
As the 1973 Constitution followed the doctrine of jus sanguinis, it disregarded the
place of birth of a person. As long as one was born of Filipino parents, he was
considered a Filipino. If he was born in a country where the rule of jus soli was
the prevailing principle, it would be a case of dual citizenship.

Election discussed fully below in "WHAT ABOUT ELECTION?"

1987 CONSTITUTION:
Section I, Article IV now 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 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.”

SYLLABUS: WHO CAN BE CITIZENS?

One who possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications.

For natural-born citizenship, anyone as long as he/she falls under Article IV Sec.
1. (1) (2) or(3)

FOR NATURALIZED
Under the Administrative Naturalization Law RA 9139
Qualifications: BEGETRM

(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 applicant must be of good moral character and believes in the underlying
principles of the Constitution, 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 school or private educational institution dully 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 a sincere desire
to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.

Disqualifications: OG. DV. P. CM. ID. NM. CW. R.

(a) Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association of

group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;

(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety of violence, personal

assault or assassination for the success or predominance of their ideas;

(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;

(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;

(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;

(f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not
mingled socially with Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn
and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos;

(g) Citizens or subjects with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of
such war; and

(h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the
right to be naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

Under Judicial Naturalization

The Revised Naturalization Law CA 473:
Qualifications:
1. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of
the petition;

2. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than
ten years;
Special qualifications:

a. Having honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines or under
that of any of the provinces, cities, municipalities, or political subdivisions
thereof;

b. Having established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the

Philippines;

c. Being married to a Filipino woman;

d. Having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a public or recognized

private school not established for the exclusive instruction of children of persons
of a particular nationality or race, in any of the branches of education or
industry for a period of not less than two years;

e. Having been born in the Philippines.

3. He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the
Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines
in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in
which he is living.

4. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand
pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or
lawful occupation;

5. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the
principal Philippine languages; and

6. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public
schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education1 of the
Philippines, where the Philippine history, government and civics are taught or
prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the
residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition
for naturalization as Philippine citizen.

Same Disqualifications as RA 9139

SYLLABUS: MODES OF ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP

NACHURA:
a) By birth
i) jus sanguinis
ii) jus soli

b) By naturalization

c) By marriage

Marriage by Filipino to an alien: “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”
[Sec. 4, Art. IV]

ADDITION: RES JUDICATA and ELECTION

WHAT ABOUT RES JUDICATA?

Citizenship proceedings, as aforestated, are a class of its own, in that, unlike
other cases, res judicata does not obtain as a matter of course. In a long line of
decisions, this Court said that every time the citizenship of a person is material
or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding
court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is
generally not considered as res judicata; hence, it has to be threshed out again
and again as the occasion may demand. Res judicata may be applied in cases of
citizenship only if the following concur:
1. a person's citizenship must 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

3. the finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court (Supreme Court).

-Go, Sr. v. Ramos

Res judicata working with jus soli

Those declared as Filipino citizens by the courts are recognized as such today, not
because of the application of the jus soli doctrine, but principally because of the
doctrine of res judicata.

WHAT ABOUT ELECTION?

Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

Procedure for election: SIGNED STATEMENT SWORN BEFORE AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL-->FILED

IN NEAREST CIVIL REGISTRY-->ACCOMPANIED WITH OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party
concerned before any official authorized to administer oaths. Statement to be filed
with the nearest Civil Registry. The
statement is to be accompanied with the Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and
the Government of the Philippines [Sec. 1, CA 625].

When to elect? Within 3 years after reaching age of majority EXCEPT when there is a
justifiable reason for the delay

The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship

apply only to legitimate children.
it was held that respondent, who was concededly an illegitimate child considering
that her Chinese father and Filipino mother were
never married, is not required to comply with said constitutional and statutory
requirements. Being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent became a
Filipino upon birth. This notwithstanding, records show that the respondent elected
Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. She registered as a
voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old. The exercise of the right of
suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of
electing Philippine citizenship.
-Republic v. Chule Lim

The right to elect Philippine citizenship is an inchoate right; during his

minority, the child is an alien
-Villahermosa v. Commissioner of Immigration

WHAT ABOUT MARRIAGE?

NO AUTOMATIC CHANGE OF CITIZENSHIP
Art. IV 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.

NATURALIZATION!!!

The act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation by
clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen.

MODES OF NATURALIZATION
Direct-
1. Individual: 2 KINDS: JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
2. Special Act of Legislature
3. Collective change of nationality if in cession or subjugation
4. In some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State where they
are born.

Derivative-
1. Wife of naturalized husband
2. Minor children of naturalized person
3. Alien woman upon marriage to a national

RANDOM: Doctrine of indelible allegiance:

An individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality even if he has
already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second State whose
nationality he has acquired.

JUDICIAL NATURALIZATION UNDER CA 473 (REVISED NATURALIZATION LAW)

Qualifications and disqualifications already discussed. Will discuss procedure

here.
Procedure:
1. File a declaration of intention one year prior to filing the Petition with the
Office of the Solicitor General.
Persons exempted from this:
a. Born in the Philippines and received primary and secondary education in schools
recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality.
b. 30 years residence in the Philippines and children enrolled in primary and
secondary schools recognized by the Govt and not limited to any race or
nationality
c. Widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his intention to become a
citizen of the Philippines and dies before he is actually naturalized.

2. Filing of the Petition, accompanied by the affidavit of two credible persons,

citizens of the Philippines, who personally know the petitioner, as character
witnesses.

3. Publication of the Petition

Publication is a jurisdictional requirement. Noncompliance is fatal for it impairs

the very root or foundation of the authority to decide the case, regardless of
whether the one to blame is the clerk of court or the petitioner or his counsel.
-Gan Tsitung v. Republic

4. Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire proceedings

5. Hearing

6. Promulgation

7. Hearing after two years. At this hearing, the applicant shall show that during
the two-year probation period, applicant has (i) not left the Philippines; (ii)
dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession; (iii) not been
convicted of any offense or violation of rules; and (iv) not committed an act
prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government- announced
policies.

8. Oath-taking and issuance of Certificate of Naturalization

EFFECTS OF NATURALIZATION

1. Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be lawfully naturalized-- provided

she does not possess any of the disqualifications
All she has to do is to file before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation a
petition for the cancellation of her Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR). At
the hearing on the petition, she does not have to prove that she possesses all the
qualifications for naturalization; she only has to show that she does not labor
under any of the disqualifications. Upon the grant of the petition for cancellation
of the ACR, she may then take the oath of the allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and thus, become a citizen of the Philippines.
-Moy Ya Lim Yao vs Commissioner of Immigration

2. Minor children born in the Philippines before the naturalization shall be

considered citizens of the Philippines

3. Minor child born outside the Philippines who was residing in the Philippines at
the time of naturalization shall be considered a Filipino citizen.

4. Minor child born outside the Philippines before parent’s naturalization shall be
considered Filipino citizens only during minority, unless he begins to reside
permanently in the Philippines

5. Child born outside the Philippines after parent’s naturalization shall be

considered a Filipino, provided that he registers as such before any Philippine
consulate within one year after attaining majority age, and takes his oath of
allegiance.

ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION
RA 9139

Qualifications and disqualifications already discussed.

Will discuss procedure and other stuff.

WHY IS THERE AN RA 9139? LESS TEDIOUS, LESS TECHNICAL, AND MORE ENCOURAGING
The intention of the legislature in enacting RA 9139 was to make the process of
acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical, and more
encouraging. There is nothing in the law from which it can be inferred that CA473
is intended to be annexed to or repealed by RA 9139. What the legislature had in
mind was merely to prescribe another mode of acquiring Philippine citizenship which
may be availed of by native-born aliens. The only implication is that a native-
born alien has the choice to apply for judicial or administrative naturalization,
subject to the prescribed qualifications and disqualifications.

PROCEDURE
1. Filing with the Special Committee on Naturalization of a petition
(see Sec. 5, RA 9139, for contents of the petition [super long ass]);

2. Publication of pertinent portions of the petition once a week for three

consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, with copies thereof posted
in any public or conspicuous area;
copies also furnished the Department of Foreign Affairs, Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation, the civil registrar of petitioner’s place of residence and the
National Bureau of Investigation which shall post copies of the petition in any
public or conspicuous areas in their buildings offices and premises, and within 30
days submit to the Committee a report stating whether or not petitioner has any
derogatory record on file or any such relevant and material information which might
be adverse to petitioner’s application for citizenship;
3. Committee shall, within 60 days from receipt of the report of the agencies,
consider and review all information received pertaining to the petition (if
Committee receives any information adverse
to the petition, the Committee shall allow the petitioner to answer, explain or
refute the information);

4. Committee shall then approve or deny the petition.

5. Within 30 days from approval of the petition, applicant shall pay to the
Committee a fee of P100,000, then take the oath of allegiance and a certificate of
naturalization shall issue.

6. Within 5 days after the applicant has taken his oath of allegiance, the Bureau
of Immigration shall forward a copy of the oath to the proper local civil
registrar, and thereafter, cancel petitioner’s alien certificate of registration.

WHAT HAPPENS TO SPOUSE AND CHILDREN?

If the applicant is male, his wife and children can file for petition for
cancellation of their alien certificate of registration and become Filipino
citizens thereafter
If the applicant is a female, the husband will not benefit, only the children.

WHO COMPOSES THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATURALIZATION?

Solicitor General, as chairman
Secretary of Foreign Affairs or his representative,
National Security Adviser
This Committee has the power to approve, deny or reject applications for
naturalization under this Act.

SYLLABUS: MODES OF LOSING AND REACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP:

LOSING CITIZENSHIP

1. NATURALIZATION IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY

JOKE ONLY. This has been modified by RA 9225:
which declares the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become
citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine
citizenship under the conditions of this Act.

Note: RA 9225 applies only to natural-born Filipinos

2. DENATURALIZATION
Grounds:

Revised Naturalization Law (Judicial):

Grounds:
a) Naturalization certificate is obtained fraudulently or illegally.

b) If, within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to some foreign country
and establishes residence there; provided, that 1-year stay in native country, or
2-year stay in a foreign country shall be prima facie evidence of intent to take up
residence in the same.

c) Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention.

d) Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the parents either by
neglecting to support them or by transferring them to another school.
e) Allowed himself to be used as a dummy

Note: In Republic v. Guy, 115 SCRA 244, although the misconduct was committed after
the two-year probationary period, conviction of perjury and rape was held to be
valid ground for denaturalization.

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

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. It
did not obliterate his lack of
good moral character and irreproachable conduct.

EFFECTS OF DENATURALIZATION:
If intrinsic validity of the proceedings is affected, the wife and children will
also lose citizenship
If the reason for denaturalization is personal, then the wife and children will not
be affected

WHO CAN INITIATE DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS?

For Judicial Naturalization, the Solicitor General or his representative, or the
proper provincial fiscal

Administrative Naturalization Law:

Grounds:
[1] if the naturalized person or his duly authorized representative made any false
statement or misrepresentation or committed any violation of law, rules and
regulations in connection with the
petition, or if he obtains Philippine citizenship fraudulently or illegally;
[2] if, within five years, he shall establish permanent residence in a foreign
country, provided that remaining for more than one year in his country of origin or
two years in any
foreign country shall be prima facie evidence of intent to permanently reside
therein;
[3] if allowed himself or his wife or child with acquired citizenship to be used as
a dummy;
[4] if he, his wife or child with acquired citizenship commits any act inimical to
national security.

WHO CAN CANCEL THE CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION?

The Special Committee on Naturalization

NO PRESCRIPTION IN CANCELLATION!!! NOT RES JUDICATA

As held in Republic vs. 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.

3. EXPRESS RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP

4. DESERTER
Bv having been declared bv competent authority a deserter of the Philippine armed
forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been
granted.
5. RENDERING SERVICE TO THE ARMED FORCES OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY
Bv rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign
country;
Provided, that the rendering of service to, or acceptance of such commission in,
the armed forces of a foreign country and the taking of an oath of allegiance
incident thereto, with consent of the Republic of the Philippines, shall not divest
a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of the following circumstances
is present:
(i) The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of
alliance with the said foreign country;
(ii) The said foreign country maintains armed forces in Philippine territory with
the consent of the Republic of the Philippines.

REACQUSITION:
RA 9225
Keywords: only applies to voluntary acts of renunciation

IF REACQUISITION BY LEGISLATIVE NATURLIZATION:

NO RESTORATION OF CITIZENSHIP. THUS, A NATURAL-BORN FILIPINO WILL NOT BE RESTORED
TO A NATURAL-BORN STATUS

EFFECT OF 9225 ON OTHERS

With Warlito having regained Philippine citizenship, will Shirley also become a
Filipino citizen? If so, why? If not, what would be the most speedy procedure for
Shirley to acquire Philippine citizenship? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Shirley will not become a Filipino citizen, because under Republic Act No. 9225,
Warlito’s reacquisition of Philippine citizenship did not extend its benefits to
Shirley. She should instead file with the Bureau of Immigration a petition for the
cancellation of her alien certificate of registration on the ground that in
accordance with Section 15 of the Naturalization Law, because of her marriage to
Warlito, she should be deemed to have become a Filipino citizen. She must allege
and prove that she possesses none of the disqualifications to become a naturalized
Filipino citizen.

SYLLABUS: DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL ALLEGIANCE:

See: Mercado v. Manzano

Dual citizenship is not the same as dual allegiance. TRUE OR FALSE?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

True. Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of

the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a
national by those states and is involuntary.

Dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes by

some positive and voluntary act, loyalty to two or more states (Mercado v. Manzano,
307 SCRA 630 [1999]).

Discuss the evolution of the principle of jus sanguinis as basis of Filipino

citizenship under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. (3%)2015 BAR EXAMS
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In the 1935 Constitution, Filipino citizenship was defined, classified and

regulated by
Article IV, which stated that:
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of
this Constitution
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the
adoption of the 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.

Section 2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided

by law.

As can be seen from the previous citizenship laws, the principle of jus sanguinis
was not applicable prior to the 1935 Constitution. Before Section 1, which
considered citizens those whose fathers were Filipino citizens, the prevailing
doctrine had been jus soli. By recognizing the principle of jus sanguinis, it was
recognized that a blood relationship would serve “as a better guarantee of loyalty
to the country of one’s parents” than jus soli.

Section 1(4) contemplated a situation where only the mother was a Filipino citizen,
and gave the child an opportunity to elect Filipino citizenship only when he
reached the age of majority. Prior to his reaching such an age, he at most has an
inchoate right to Filipino citizenship. The provision is also applicable to mothers
who were Filipinos before acquiring the nationality of their foreign spouses. To
restrict its interpretation in such a way that the time of election was considered
controlling as to the status when the mother should be a Filipina would have
nullified the particular provision. For illegitimate children however, this
provision would not have been applicable, since the citizenship of the father would
not then be material, since an illegitimate child as a rule follows the nationality
of the mother (but not for cases like FPJ who is an illegitimate child of Filipino
father and an American mother. For purposes of running for office, FPJ is a
Filipino because his father is Filipino).

The right to elect is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 652, which states the
requirements and procedure for election, and must be express: Option to elect
Philippine citizenship shall be expressed in a statement to be filed and sworn to
by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oath and shall
be filed with the nearest civil registrar. The party elected must
likewise accompany the aforementioned statement with the oath of allegiance to the
Constitution and the Government of the Philippines. Where the party concerned
resides abroad, he must make the statement before any officer of the government of
the Philippines authorized to administer oaths and must forward such statement
together with his oath of allegiance to the civil registrar of Manila.

1973 Constitution
Article III, Section 1 enumerates the following as 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 who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
The purpose of the first paragraph of the provision was to protect the continued
enjoyment of Philippine citizenship to those who already possess the right as of 17
January 1973.
The Section 2(2) followed the principle of jus sanguinis. However, unlike the 1935
Constitution, Filipino mothers were placed by the 1973 Constitution on equal
footing with Filipino fathers as far as the determination of the citizenship of
their children was concerned. The father or mother may be a natural-born Filipino
or a Filipino by naturalization or by election. The only important consideration
here was that the mother must be a Filipino at the time of the birth of the child.
It must be reiterated that this rule applied only to those born of a Filipino
mother on or after 17 January 1973.
As the 1973 Constitution followed the doctrine of jus sanguinis, it disregarded the
place of birth of a person. As long as one was born of Filipino parents, he was
considered a Filipino. If he was born in a country where the rule of jus soli was
the prevailing principle, it would be a case of dual citizenship.

1987 Constitution
The 1987 Constitution builds on the previous Constitutions, but modifies provisions
which cannot be found in the 1973 and 1935 Constitution. Those who were citizens
during the adoption of the new Constitution were considered citizens. However, this
does not rectify any defects in the acquisition of such citizenship under the 1935
or 1973 Constitution. “If a person’s citizenship was subject to judicial challenge
under the old law, it still remains subject to challenge under the new – whether or
not the judicial challenge had been commenced prior to the effectivity of the new
Constitution.”
The principle of jus sanguinis still applies, and in following the lead of the 1973
Constitution, the Filipino woman is placed on the same footing as Filipino men in
matters of citizenship. It is essential, however, that the mother is a Filipina
when the child is born. The principle of parental authority is still applicable in
the new Constitution, so this article only applies to legitimate children, not to
adopted or illegitimate ones.

Mothers have parental authority over illegitimate children. Adopted children, on

the other hand, as they are not related by blood, do not follow their adoptive
parents’ citizenship, despite being under their parental authority. As for those
who were born before the adoption of the 1973 Constitution of Filipino mothers, the
1987 Constitution still provides the transitory provision that was also in the
1973 Constitution: “Those born before 17 January 1973, of Filipino mothers, who
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.”

Notes on FPJ Case:

Nature of Citizenship:
If the Filipino father acknowledges the illegitimate child at birth, the child is a
natural-born Philippine citizen because
no other act after his birth is required to acquire or perfect his Philippine
citizenship. The child possesses all the
qualifications to be a Philippine citizen at birth.

If the Filipino father acknowledges the child after birth, the child is a
Philippine citizen as of the time of the
acknowledgment. In this case, the child does not possess all the qualifications to
be a Philippine citizen at birth
because an act - the acknowledgement of the Filipino father - is required for the
child to acquire or perfect his
Philippine citizenship. Statutory provisions on retroactivity of acknowledgment
cannot be given effect because they
would be contrary to the constitutional definition of natural- born citizens as
those who are Philippine citizens at birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship.

Macquiling vs COMELEC:

Arnado is natural-born citizen

He then naturalized as an American citizen

He then applied for repatriation under RA 9225:

1. Oath of Allegiance

He then renounced his American citizenship:

2. Affidavit of Renunciation

These are 2 requirements for him to be able to run as a candidate for Mayor (or for
any other gov't post which has a requirement for natural-born citizenship).

BUT THEN, the fire nation attacked. Joke.

BUT THEN, his citizenship was questioned because he kept on using his US passport
even after executing the Affidavit of Renunciation.

1. SO IS HE DISQUALIFIED TO RUN?
2. IS HE STILL A FILIPINO CITIZEN?

ANSWERS:
1. YES
2. YES

The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a

positive and voluntary act of representation as to one’s nationality and
citizenship; it does not divest Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but
it recants the Oath of Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective
position

In short: He is still a Filipino citizen but he cannot run for office.

How?
Filipino Citizenship under 9225 ONLY requires Oath of Allegiance
Running for office that has a natural-born citizenship requirement requires both an
Oath of Allegiance and an Oath/Affidavit of Renunciation

By using his US passport after the Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation, he only
recanted the Oath of Renunciation and not the Oath of Allegiance.

By the time he filed his certificate of candidacy on 30 November 2009, Arnado was a
dual citizen enjoying the rights and privileges of Filipino and American
citizenship. He was qualified to vote, but by the express disqualification under
Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code,[40] he was not qualified to run for a
local elective position.

In effect, Arnado was solely and exclusively a Filipino citizen only for a period
of eleven days, or from 3 April 2009 until 14 April 2009, on which date he first
used his American passport after renouncing his American citizenship.

EXTRA TRIVIA:
Arnado’s category of dual citizenship is that by which foreign citizenship is
acquired through a positive act of applying for naturalization. This is distinct
from those considered dual citizens by virtue of birth, who are not required by law
to take the oath of renunciation as the mere filing of the certificate of candidacy
already carries with it an implied renunciation of foreign citizenship. Dual
citizens by naturalization, on the other hand, are required to take not only the
Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines but also to personally
renounce foreign citizenship in order to qualify as a candidate for public office.