Citizenship

I. Citizenship defined
Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent membership in a political
community. It denotes possession within that particular political community of full
civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications such as minority.
Reciprocally, it imposes the duty of allegiance to the political community.

II. Modes of acquiring citizenship

(1) jus sanguinis — acquisition of citizenship on the basis of
blood relationship;
(2) jus soli — acquisition of citizenship on the basis
of place of birth;
(3) naturalization — the legal act of adopting an alien
and clothing him with the privilege of a native born-citizen

III. Who are citizens of the Philippines?

SECTION 1. 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.

IV. Citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1973
Constitution.
Article IV, Section 1(1) refers to Article III, Section 1(1) of the 1973
Constitution which read:
Section 1. 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 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.
Article IV, Section 1, however, should not be read as having the
effect of curing any defect in the acquisition of citizenship under the
1935 or 1973 Constitutions. If a person's citizenship was subject to judicial
challenge under the old law, it remains subject to challenge under the new, whether
or not the judicial challenge had been commenced prior to the effectivity of the
new Constitution.
V. Children of Filipino fathers or mothers
The 1935 Constitution adopted the principle of jus sanguinis as an absolute rule.
The child of a Filipino father, whether born in the Philippines or abroad, was a
Filipino citizen from the moment of birth. At the 1935 Constitutional Convention,
an attempt was made to make citizenship by birth subject to such limitations as
may be prescribed by the National Assembly. The attempt failed.
The 1973 Constitution preserved the principle of jus sanguinis as the basic
foundation of citizenship and expanded its application by placing the Filipino
woman on the same level as the male in matters of citizenship. Those whose
mothers are citizens of the Philippines, even if the father is an alien, are Filipino
citizens. To come under this expanded rule, however, it is essential that the mother
must be Filipina at the time of the birth of the child. Moreover, the new provision
is not retroactive. It applies only to those born of a Filipina mother on or after the
effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. 7 Hence, it is important to remember that the
1973 Constitution took effect on January 17,1973.
 VI. Citizens by election
By Article IV, Section 1 (4) of the 1935 Constitution, counted as Philippine
citizens were: "Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon
reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship." This provision was
supplemented by Commonwealth Act No. 625 which prescribes the procedure for
making the election.
In the case of Villahermoso v. Commissioner of Immigration:
The mother must be Filipina at the time of the election by the child. Such a
suggestion, however, would render the provision nugatory because the rule,
rejected by Philippine law only in 1973, used to be that the woman loses her
citizenship upon marriage to a foreigner if she acquires the citizenship of her
husband. Thus, the better interpretation seems to be that, to benefit from the right
of election under the 1935 Constitution, it is sufficient that the mother be a Filipino
citizen, either by birth or by naturalization, at the time of her marriage.
Assuming that the mother lost her Philippine citizenship by marriage but
subsequently reacquired it during the minority of the child, does the minor child
automatically acquire the citizenship of her mother or must he still elect Philippine
citizenship?
The same Villahermoso case ruled that it is still necessary for the child to make
the election if he wishes to become a Filipino citizen.

VII. Naturalization, judicial and administrative

Naturalization is the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the
rights that belong to a natural born citizen. Naturalization may be obtained through
a general law of naturalization applied through a judicial process. Such is the
process prescribed in the existing Revised Naturalization Law, C.A. 473, June
17,1939. Named individuals may also acquire citizenship through a special act
passed by the legislature or by the President in the exercise of special legislative
power if granted by the Constitution.
The grant of citizenship to a parent also extends citizenship to minor children
under parental authority. The rule on the citizenship of the wife upon the
naturalization of the husband is a little more involved. The law says that she is
"deemed a citizen" of the Philippines. This has been interpreted to mean that she
becomes a Filipino citizen, provided she shows, in an administrative procedure for
the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration, that she has none of the
disqualifications found in C.A. No. 473.
Aside from judicial naturalization there is now administrative naturalization.
The matter is handled through the Special Committee on Naturalization chaired by
the Solicitor General and is governed by Sections 3,4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9139.

VIII. Natural-born citizen.

SEC 2. 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.
The first sentence of Section 2 first appeared as Section 4 of the 1973
Constitution. It gives the basic definition of a natural-born Filipino citizen. Under
the definition, and without the second sentence which was added only by the 1987
Constitution, one who elects Philippine citizenship by virtue of Section 1(3) would
definitely not be a natural-born Filipino.
Would the second sentence of Section 2 apply only to those who elect
citizenship after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution?
It would apply to anybody who elected Philippine citizenship by virtue of the
proviso of the 1935 Constitution, whether the election was done before or after
January 17,1973.
If a natural-born Filipino citizen loses his citizenship by renunciation or by
any other mode recognized by law, would he still be considered natural-born
if he subsequently reacquires citizenship?
It is submitted that, whether under the 1973 or 1987 provision, such a person
would not be a natural-born Filipino.
Under the 2nd sentence of section 2, the purpose is to equalize the status of those
born of Filipina parents before January 17, 1973, with those born of Filipina
parents on or after January 17, 1973.
Strictly speaking, however, the children might not be equally situated because, as
already explained, to have the right of election under the 1935 Constitution, it is
enough that the mother was Filipina at the time of marriage even if she no longer
was one at the time of the birth of the child; whereas under Section 1(2) the mother
must be Filipina at the time of the birth of the child.

IX. Loss of citizenship

SEC. 3. PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.
There are two laws on loss of citizenship:
the first, Commonwealth Act No. 63, applies to both natural-born and naturalized
citizenship. Section 1 provides, subject to stated exceptions, that citizenship is lost
by naturalization in a foreign country, by express renunciation of citizenship, by
oath of allegiance to a foreign country, by rendering service in the armed forces of
a foreign country, and by being a deserter of the armed forces;
the second, Commonwealth Act 473 , applies to naturalized citizenship. Section 18
provides that a certificate of naturalization may be canceled when found to have
been fraudulently or illegally obtained, or by permanent residence in the country of
origin within five years from naturalization, or when the petition is found to have
been made on an invalid declaration of intent, or upon failure to comply with the
requirements for the education of minor children, or if the person allows himself to
be a "dummy " for aliens.
In the case of Emilio Osmenia:
who run for Vice-President with Fidel Ramos, comes under the first law. Osmenia,
a son of a Filipino father and a grandson of President Osmenia was a holder of a
valid subsisting passport and a continuous resident of the Philippines and a
registered voter since 1965. He was, however, also a holder of an alien registration
certificate. His right to hold public office was challenged on the ground that he was
an alien. Deciding in his favor, the Court said that by virtue of his being a son of a
Filipino father, the presumption was that he was Filipino and remained Filipino
until proof could be shown that he had renounced or lost his Philippine citizenship.
There was no proof that he had been naturalized in a foreign country, or had
expressly renounced Philippine citizenship, or had sworn allegiance to a foreign
country. The Court said that possession of an alien registration certificate
unaccompanied by proof of performance of acts whereby Philippine citizenship
had been lost was not adequate proof of loss of citizenship. The Court has
consistently followed this rule saying that in order that citizenship may be lost by
renunciation, such renunciation must be express. The mere application or
possession of an alien certificate of registration does not amount to renunciation.

X. Reacquisition of citizenship
Citizenship once lost may be reacquired either by naturalization or by repatriation
or by a direct grant by law. For women who have lost their citizenship through
marriage to aliens, and for natural born Filipinos, including their minor children, as
well as persons who have lost their citizenship on account of economic or political
necessity, and who are not disqualified, repatriation is accomplished by taking the
oath of allegiance to the Republic and registering in the proper Civil Registry and
in the Bureau of Immigration. Processing of applications is done by the Special
Committee on Naturalization consisting of the Solicitor General as Chairman, an
Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, and the Director of the National Intelligence
Coordinating Agency.
Under R.A. Nos. 965 and 2630, those who lost citizenship by serving in the
United States Armed Forces, could avail of repatriation simply by taking an oath of
allegiance to the Republic and registering the same in the local Civil Registry
where one resides or where one last resided. However, now under Republic Act
No. 8171 only:
(1) women who lost citizenship by marriage and
(2) those who lost citizenship for political or economic reasons may be
repatriated may be repatriated.
The procedure is found in Section 2 of R.A. No. 8171:
Repatriation shall be effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry and in the
Bureau of Immigration. The Bureau of Immigration shall thereupon cancel the
pertinent alien certificate of registration and issue the certificate of identification as
Filipino citizen to the repatriated citizen. Registration is an essential element.
Hence, Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural born Filipinos,
who have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired or
retained their Philippine citizenship:
(1) to take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and;
(2) for those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally
execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before
an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates
of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections.

XI. Marriage to an alien spouse

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.
The 1973 Constitution's version of this provision read: A female citizen of the
Philippines who marries an alien shall retain her Philippine citizenship, unless by
her act or omission she is deemed, under the law, to have renounced her
citizenship. The 1987 provision makes no reference to sex thus making the rule
applicable to both males and females on the chance that some country might have a
law which divests a foreign husband of his citizenship.

XII. A. Dual citizenship

SEC 5. DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS INIMICAL TO THE
NATIONAL INTEREST AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW.
Since the universal rule is that the child follows the citizenship of the father, and
since under Section 1(2) the child also follows the citizenship of the Filipino
mother, and since under Section 4 the Filipino woman does not lose Philippine
citizenship by marriage to an alien husband, it is clear that the Constitution allows
for the possibility of dual citizenship. It is, after all, a condition which arises from
the fact that Philippine law cannot control international law and the laws of other
countries on citizenship. If, however, Philippine citizenship is acquired by
naturalization and not by operation of the Constitution, it is well within the power
of Philippine law to require prior renunciation of foreign nationality as a condition.
Likewise, by Section 3, it is well within the power of the legislature to make
acquisition of foreign nationality a cause of loss of Philippine citizenship, provided
that the acquisition of a new citizenship is not through marriage.

B. Dual allegiance.
Citizenship involves allegiance to the country of citizenship. Congress has dealt
with dual allegiance by allowing dual citizenship. R.A. No. 9225, entitled "An Act
Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens who Acquire Foreign
Citizenship Permanent," has the following key provision:
Sec. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship. — Any provision of law to the
contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-
acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to
the Republic:
"I , solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I
hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the
Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I
imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion."
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. Although their civil and political rights are restored,
there are restrictions:
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities: those who retain or re-
acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political
rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing
laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:
(1) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must Meet the requirements
under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise
known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing laws;
(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for
holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at
the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized
to administer an oath;
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities
prior to their assumption of office: Provided, that they renounce their oath of
allegiance to the country where they took that oath;
(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with
the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice; and
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the
Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who:
(a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which
they are naturalized citizens; and/or
(b) are in active service as commissioned or noncommissioned officers in the
armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens.

Cases:
May Ya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung v. Commissioner of Immigration
Gr. No. l-21289 October 4, 1971
Facts:
On February 8, 1961, Lau Yuen Yeung applied for passport visa to enter the
Philippines as a non-immigrant. She stated that she desired to take a pleasure trip
to visit her great grand uncle. On the date of her arrival, Asher Cheng filed a bond
of 1k to undertake that Lau would depart the Philippines on or before the
expiration of her authorize period of stay of within the period as in the discretion of
the Commission of Immigrant might properly allow. After repeated extensions,
Lau was allowed to stay in the country until February 13, 1962. On January 25,
1962, she contracted a marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao, a Filipino citizen.
Issue:
Does Lau, as an alien woman, may be deemed a citizen of the Philippines by virtue
of her marriage to a Filipino citizen?
Ruling:
YES, an alien woman may be deemed a citizen of the Philippines by virtue of her
marriage to a Filipino citizen only if she possesses all the qualifications and none
of the disqualifications specified in the law, because these are the explicit
requisites provided by law for an alien to be naturalized.
Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization law provides that “any woman who is
now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines and who might
herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.”
Section 15 was obviously to accord to an alien woman, by reason of her marriage
to a Filipino, a privilege not similarly granted to other aliens.

Mercado v. Manzano & COMELEC

Gr No. 135083 May 26, 1999

Facts:
Ernesto S. Mercado and Eduardo Manzano were candidates for vice mayor of the
City of Makati. Manzano won the elections, however his proclamation was
suspended because a certain Ernesto Mamaril filed a petition for the
disqualification and alleged that Manzano was not a citizen of the Philippines but
of US. COMELEC 2nd Division granted the petition and cancelled the certificate of
candidacy on the grounds that dual citizens are qualified from running any elective
position under Sec. 40 of the LGC. But COMELEC en banc reversed the said
decision. It found that Manzano acquired US citizenship by operation of the US
Constitution. He was also a natural born Filipino Citizen by operation of 1935
Constitution, as his father and mother were Filipinos at the time of his birth. At the
age of 6 his parents brought him in the country and registered him as an alien, but
this however did not result in the loss of Phil. Citizenship, as he did not renounce
Phil. Citizenship and did not take oath of allegiance to the US. At the age of
majority, Manzano registered himself as a voter and voted in the effectively
renounce the US Citizenship under American Law.

Issue:
Is dual citizenship a ground for disqualification?

Ruling:
NO, dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The phrase dual citizenship
in RA 7160 must be understood as referring to dual allegiance and persons with
dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Dual Citizenship is
involuntary, it arises out of circumstances like birth or marriage, while dual
allegiance is a result of a person’s simultaneously owes, by some positive act,
loyalty to 2 or more states.
Also, Manzano upon filing his certificate for candidacy have elected Phil,
Citizenship thus terminating his dual citizenship. He made these statements: “I am
a Filipino citizen Natural born, I am not a permanent resident of or immigration to,
a foreign country, I am eligible for the office, I seek to be elected, I will support
the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance
thereto.” Thus, the filing sufficed to renounce his American Citizenship.

Bengson v. HRET and Cruz

Gr. No. 142840 May 7, 2001

Facts:
Teodoro Cruz was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, of Filipino parents making him a
natural born citizen of the Philippines. However, respondent Cruz was enlisted in
the United States Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of the
Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the United States. As a consequence, he
lost his Filipino Citizenship by his naturalization as a U.S Marine Corps.
Thereafter. Respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through
repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630. He ran for and was elected as the
Representatives of the Second District of Pangasinan in the 1998 elections. He won
over Antonio Bengson III, who was then running for reelection. Subsequently,
Bengson filed a case with House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
claiming that respondent Cruz was not qualified to become a member of the House
of Representatives since he is not a natural born citizen as required under Article
VI, Section 6 of the Constitution. The HRET dismissed the petition for quo
warranto and declared respondent Cruz was duly elected as a representative. The
HRET also denied Bengson’s motion for reconsideration.

Issue:
Is Cruz, a natural born Filipino who became an American citizen, can still be
considered a natural born Filipino upon his reacquisition of the Philippine
citizenship?

Ruling:
YES, Cruz can still be considered a natural born Filipino upon his reacquisition of
the Philippine citizenship. He may have lost his Filipino citizenship when he
rendered service in the Armed Forces of US. However, he subsequently reacquired
Philippine citizenship under RA No. 2630, sec. 1, which provides: “any person
who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
commission in, the Armed Forces of the US, or after separation from the Armed
Forces of the US, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire Philippine
citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and
registering the same with the Local Civil Registry in the place where he resides or
last resided in the Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall contain a
renunciation of any other citizenship to the Republic and having registered the
same in the civil registry of Mangatarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the
aforecited provision, is deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural
born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the act of repatriation allows
him to recover, or return to, his original status before he lost hi Philippine
citizenship.
Prepared by: Adwana C. Miranda