5. Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No.

135083, May 26, 1999

Petitioner Mercado and private respondent Manzano were candidates for vice mayor of the
City of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections. The proclamation of private respondent was suspended
in view of a pending petition for disqualification filed by a certain Mamaril who alleged that private
respondent was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the US. Manzano was born in US. He acquired
US citizenship by operation of the US Constitution and laws under the principle of jus soli. He was
also a natural born Filipino citizen by operation of the 1935 Philippine Constitution, as his father and
mother were Filipinos at the time of his birth.

The disqualification of private respondent Manzano is being sought under the LGC of 1991
(R.A. No. 7160), which declares as "disqualified from running for any elective local position: . . . (d)
Those with dual citizenship"

Q: Is dual citizenship allowed? If yes, can persons with dual citizenship run for public office?

A:

YES. The concern of the Constitutional Commission was not with dual citizens per se but
with naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after
their naturalization. Hence, the phrase “dual citizenship” in R.A. No. 7160 (as to prohibition)
must be understood as referring to “dual allegiance”. Consequently, persons with mere dual
citizenship are not disqualified considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of
conflicting laws of different states. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject
to strict process with respect to the termination of their status.

Candidates with dual citizenship can run for public office provided that upon the filing
of their certificates of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as
persons with dual citizenship.

For candidates with mere dual citizenship, the filing of certificate of candidacy is considered
as an election of Filipino citizenship and renunciation of foreign citizenship. The filing of such
certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing
any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen.

(OATH) By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not
a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend and support the
Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so without
mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of this country are concerned,
effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a
dual citizen.

Dual citizenship v. Dual allegiance

To begin with, dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former 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 the said states. For instance, such a situation may arise
when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis
is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any
voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. Dual allegiance, on the
other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act,
loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is voluntary, dual allegiance is the result of an
individual’s volition.
Q: In what instances may there be dual citizens?

A: Dual citizens are the following:

1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle
of jus soli;

2. Those born in the Phil of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers’
country such children are citizens of that country; and

3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are considered
citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Phil citizenship.

6. AASJS vs. Datumanong G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007

Petitioner prays that a writ of prohibition be issued to stop respondent from implementing
Republic Act No. 9225, entitled "An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire
Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63, As
Amended, and for Other Purposes." Petitioner avers that Rep. Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional as it
violates Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that states, "Dual allegiance of citizens is
inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law."

Ruling:

It is clear that the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 is to do away with the
provision in CA No. 635 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who
become naturalized citizens of other countries.

What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens
who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign
country. On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority
of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, Rep.
Act No. 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of
confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country.
What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of Rep. Act No. 9225.
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.-It is hereby declared 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.

SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.-Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens
of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign
country are hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to
the Republic
Xxx
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall
retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.

RA 9225 NOT violative of Section 5 of Article IV of the Constitution prohibiting dual allegiance

Section 5 of Article IV of the Constitution is a mere declaration of policy and it is not a self-
executing provisions. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Section 2 and 3
of RA 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship, per se, but with the status of
naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their
naturalization. Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters as
to what really constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is done, it would be premature for the judicial
department to rule on the issues pertaining to dual allegiance.

Neither can we subscribe to the proposition of petitioner that a law is not needed since the
case of Mercado had already set the guidelines for determining dual allegiance. Petitioner misreads
Mercado. That case did not set the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance but merely made
a distinction between dual allegiance and dual citizenship. We cannot arrogate the duty of setting
the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance when the Constitution itself has clearly delegated
the duty of determining what acts constitute dual allegiance for study and legislation by Congress.

7. RE: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar Vicente D. Ching, B.M. No. 914,
October 01, 1999

Q: Can a legitimate child born under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien father
validly elect Philippine citizenship fourteen (14) years after he has reached the age of majority?

Reglementary Period

Under Art IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship of a legitimate child born
of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching
the age of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship. C.A. No. 625 did not prescribe a time
period within which the election of Philippine citizenship should be made. The 1935 Charter only
provides that the election should be made “upon reaching the age of majority.” The age of majority
then commenced upon reaching 21 years. In the opinions of the Secretary of Justice on cases
involving the validity of election of Philippine citizenship, this dilemma is resolved by basing the time
period on the decisions of this Court prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. In these
decisions, the proper period for electing Philippine citizenship, in turn, based on the pronouncements
of the Department of State of the US Government to the effect that the election should be made
within “reasonable time” after attaining the age of majority. This phrase “reasonable time” has
been interpreted to mean the election should be made within three years from reaching the age
of majority.
When Ching was born in 1964, the governing charter was the 1935 Constitution. The right to
elect Philippine citizenship was recognized in the 1973 and the 1987 Constitution. It should be
noted, however, that the 1973 and 1987 Constitutional provisions on the election of Philippine
citizenship should not be understood as having a curative effect on any irregularity in the acquisition
of citizenship for those covered by the 1935 Constitution. If the citizenship of a person was subject to
challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to challenge under the new charter even if the
judicial challenge had not been commenced before the effectivity of the new Constitution.

The special circumstances invoked by Ching, i.e., his continuous and uninterrupted stay in
the Philippines and his being a certified public accountant, a registered voter and a former elected
public official, cannot vest in him Philippine citizenship as the law specifically lays down the
requirements for acquisition of Philippine citizenship by election.

Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his election of Philippine citizenship. The
prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking
process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine
citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Ching's unreasonable and
unexplained delay in making his election cannot be simply glossed over.

Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a commodity that can be claimed when
needed and suppressed when convenient. One who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has
only an inchoate right to such citizenship. As such, he should avail of the right with fervor,
enthusiasm and promptitude.

We repeat that any election of Philippine citizenship on the part of the private respondent
would not only have been superfluous but it would also have resulted in an absurdity. How can a
Filipino citizen elect Philippine citizenship?