CONSTITUTIONAL LAW l Atty.
Renato Galeon l Reviewer by Tanya Ibañez
THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE
STATE
 A legal or political concept.
 A community of persons, more or less numerous occupying a
fixed territory, and possessed of an independent government
organized for political ends to which the great body of inhabitants
render habitual obedience.
May comprise of several nations
o United States
o Malaysia (Malays, Chinese)
o United Kingdom (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland)
NATION
 Came from the word nasci – to be born
 Indicates a relation to birth or origin and implies a common race,
usually characterized by community of language, customs and
traditions.
 A group of people bound together by common attractions and
repulsions into a living organism, possessed of common
intelligence, pulse, and inspiration and destined to have common
history and faith.
May comprise of several states
o Arab Nation (Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt,
Jordan, Algeria)
Take Note:
There could be a nation, without there being a state. But there can
never be a state, without there being a nation.
ELEMENTS OF A STATE
People
 Human beings who are the inhabitants of the state.
 Must be numerous enough to be self-sufficing and to defend
themselves against external aggression, and small enough to be
easily administered and sustained.
 Must be composed of men and women.
Territory
Fixed portion of the surface of the earth being occupied by the
inhabitants of the State.
Components of territory
1. Terrestrial domain
2. Maritime
3. Fluvial domain
4. Aerial domain
National Territory
Article 1 of the Philippine Constitution
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its
terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of
the internal waters of the Philippines.
Specific territories comprising the national territory
1935 Constitution
1. Territories that were ceded to the United States through the
Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898
2. All the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at
Washington between United States and Spain on November
7, 1900 (Islands Cagayan, Sulu Cebu)
3. Treaty concluded between United States and Great Britain
on January 2, 1930 (Tortol and Maxin islands)
4. All other territories over which the present
Is Sabah part of the Philippines?
RA 5446 (1968 Baseline Law)
The baselines of the territorial sea around Sabah, over which the
Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.
1973 Constitution
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories belonging
to the Philippinies by historic right or legal title…
(This is the 1973 Constitution, and take note that as early as 1968, the
Philippines already had a law which laid claim over Sabah)
1|P a g e
But is Sabah really part of the Philippines?
Sabah is owned by the sultan of Sulu. Sometime in 1978, the sultan
leased out Sabah to Gustavos, an Austrian consul-general, in
exchange of firearms, because Sulu was waging war against the
Spanish regime in the Philippines.
The contract was carried out by a company owned by the partner of
Gustavos and later out was carried out by the British North Borneo
company. In the written agreement, it was clearly stipulated that Sabah
should not be turned over to any country without the permission of the
sultan of Sulu. But the British government declared Sabah as part of its
colony, as a leased colony at that.
Later on, the British government ceded Sabah to Malaysia, upon the
latter’s confederation. The legal title is with the sultan of Sulu but the
same was ceded by the British government to Malaysia.
Two referendums were conducted. Over 70% of the inhabitants of
Sabah preferred to be under Malaysia.
Decision
In 1973 Constitution, the Philippines claims ownership of Sabah under
the phrase “belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title”
But in the 1987 Constitution, such clause could no longer be found.
What does it imply? Does it mean that the Philippines is already
abandoning it claims over Sabah?
According to the framers, we are not abandoning our claims over
Sabah. It’s just that, such claims should be adjudicated formally by the
United Nations.
Archipelagic doctrine
All the islands comprising the Philippine archipelago shall be regarded
as one integral or political unit.
Towards the end, we have to draw imaginary baselines connecting the
outermost portions of the outermost islands of the archipelago and the
waters inside the imaginary baselines would be regarded as our inland
water, pursuant to our baseline law.
Different Baseline Laws
RA 3406 (amended by RA 5446)
1. All the waters around, between and connecting the islands of
the Philippine archipelago, irrespective of their width or
dimension are necessary appurtenances of the land territory,
forming part of the inland or internal waters of the
Philippines.
2. All the waters outside the outermost islands of the Philippine
archipelago, but within the limits of the Treaty of Paris
comprise the territorial sea of the Philippines
3. Baselines will consist of straight lines joining appropriate
points of the outermost islands of the archipelago
PD 370
Declaring as subject to the jurisdiction and control of the Philippines all
mineral and other natural resources in the continental shelf.
PD 1599
Establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone and for other purposes.
PD 1596
Philippines laid claim over the Kalayaan Groups or the Spratlys
1. The Kalayaan Groups or Spratlys do not legally belong to
any state but by reason of history, indispensable need and
effective occupation and control established in accordance
with the international law, such areas must now be deemed
to belong and subject to the jurisdiction of the Philippines
2. While other states have laid claims to some of these areas,
their claims have lapsed by abandonment and cannot prevail
over that of the Philippines on legal, historical and equitable
grounds.
RA 9522 (2008 Baseline Law)
Reiterated the 1968 (RA 5446) Baseline Law and laid claims over the
Scarborough Shoals, situated above the Spratlys.
* However these PDs would only bind the Philippines and not other
states who also claim jurisdiction over the said islands.
Ratification of the UNCLOS
Philippines ratified the UNCLOS in August 1983. It is a convention
entered into by all archipelagic states which espoused the archipelagic
doctrine.
o An archipelagic state may draw straight baselines joining the
outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of
the archipelago.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW l Atty. Renato Galeon l Reviewer by Tanya Ibañez

o The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any
appreciable extent from the general configuration of the
archipelago.
The UNCLOS further provides
1. Internal waters – waters within the baselines
2. Territorial waters – 12 nautical miles from the baselines
3. Contiguous Zone – 24 nautical miles from the baselines (No
longer part of our national territory, only that we are allowed
to enforce our customs, immigration, taxation and pollution
laws within the area)
4. Exclusive Economic Zone – 200 nautical miles from the
baselines. (No longer part of our national territory, only that
we are given preferential rights to exploit the natural
resources found therein)
Do the provisions of the UNCLOS provide for a solution in respect to
the conflicting claims over Scarborough Shoal and Spratlys?
either because it has been withdrawn from it or it has not yet actually
entered into the exercise thereof.
De Facto Government
One which has no legal title or legal rights but is exercising the acts of
sovereignty. Not the rightful government, just a government of fact.
Three kinds of De Facto government
1. One which gets possession and control of, or usurps, by
force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal
government and maintains itself against the will of the latter.
Example:
Government of England under the Commonwealth
2. One which is established as an independent government by
the inhabitants of a country who rise insurrection against the
parent state.
Example:
Southern Confederacy in revolt against the Union during the
war of secession in the United States.

Magallona v. Ermita
3. One which is established and maintained by military forces
The UNCLOS has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory. It is a who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy state, and
multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones. which is denominated as a government of paramount force.
Therefore, the UNCLOS would not resolve our conflicting claims over Example:
Scarborough Shoal, Spratlys and even Sabah. Castine in Maine which was reduced to a British possession
in the war
Government
Refers to the agency or instrumentality by which the will of the state is Sovereignty
formulated, expressed and realized. Supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that
State is governed.
Administrative Code of 1997
Government refers to the corporate governmental entity through which Kinds of Sovereignty
the functions of the government are exercised throughout the Legal sovereignty
Philippines, including the various acts through which the political The authority which has the power to issue final commands.
authority is made effective in the Philippines, including among others (Congress)’
the autonomous region, the provinces, cities, municipalities, barangay
and other local political units. Political sovereignty
The power behind the legal sovereign, or the sum of influences that
Government v. State operate upon it. (Different sectors that mold public opinion)
Government is nothing but an element of the state. State is the
Internal sovereignty
principal, government is the agent. The State is an abstraction,
The power of the State to control its domestic affairs and impose
whereas the government puts into reality the will of the State.
obedience upon its people.
Government v. Administration External sovereignty
Government refers to the entire agency or instrumentality of the State The power of the State to direct its relations with other States. Also
while administration refers to the group of persons in whose hands the known as independence.
reins of the government are entrusted for the time-being. Refers to the
ruling political party. Administration is transitional, while government is US Military Bases vis-à-vis infringement of sovereignty
permanent. No, because we allowed and consented to having US Military Bases in
the Philippines. We were not forced to allow them to occupy a portion
Primary function of the government is to promote the welfare of the of our territory. It was a product of an agreement between the US and
people. the Philippines.

Two kinds of functions of the government Classifications of Sovereignty from the viewpoint of jurisdiction
Constituent function  Territorial Sovereignty
Refers to the vital functions, such that the performance of which is  Personal Sovereignty
mandatory on the part of the government, because they constitute the  Extra-territorial Sovereignty
very bond of the society.
Examples: Territorial Sovereignty
1. Maintenance of public peace and order The laws of the State are enforceable within its territory and govern all
2. Administration of justice persons inside its territorial jurisdiction.
3. Definition and punishment of crimes
4. Regulation of property holding Exceptions
5. Transmission of property rights 1. Laws on preferential application (Immunity of diplomats)
6. Regulation of the relation between husband and wife 2. Heads of states and diplomatic agents
7. Administration of the free political rights of the people 3. Foreign properties inside Philippine soil (Foreign embassies)
4. Acts of State
Ministrant function 5. Foreign merchant ships going inside our territorial waters in
Undertaken to advance the general interest of society but the times of calamity
performance of which is merely optional on the part of the State. 6. Foreign military bases
Examples: 7. International organizations like the ILO, performing their
1. Promotion of charitable works functions in the Philippine territory
2. Regulation of trade and industry. Personal Sovereignty
Philippine laws follow Filipino citizens wherever they may go.
Take Note
Owing to the growing changes in the society, jurisprudence has it that Example:
there is no more distinction between the two, such that it now becomes Article 15 of the Civil Code
obligatory on the part of the State to perform all acts as geared Laws relating to family rights, duties, status, and legal capacity shall be
towards promoting the general welfare of the people. (PVTA v. CIR) binding upon Filipinos, whether in the Philippines or living abroad.
Doctrine of Parens Patriae
Long Arm statute
The State is to act as the parent of the people, and has to protect their
A law that has far-reaching effects.
rights and promote their interests.

Kinds of Government Extra-territorial Sovereignty

Refers to the application of Philippine laws outside Philippine territory.
De Jure Government
One which has the legal title or legal right, although it may not be Examples:
performing in the meantime, or exercising the acts of sovereignty, 1. Article 15
2. Philippine embassies in foreign states
2|P a g e
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW l Atty. Renato Galeon l Reviewer by Tanya Ibañez
3. Article 2 of the RPC
4. Sending delegations to foreign countries pursuant to the
thrust of the UN membership
5. Enforcement of customs, immigration, taxation and pollution
laws within the contiguous zone
6. Crimes committed in the high seas (e.g. conspiracy)
Characteristics of Sovereignty
1. Permanent
2. Exclusive
3. Comprehensive
4. Absolute
5. Indivisible,
6. Inalienable
7. Imprescriptible
Take Note
Owing to this characteristic of sovereignty, sovereignty remains vested
in the de jure government even during belligerent occupation.
Example:
Sovereignty over the Philippines remained with the United States
during the Japanese occupation although the Americans could not
exercise any control over the occupied territory at the time. What the
belligerent occupant took over was only the exercise of sovereignty.
General Rule:
Political laws of the de jure government are merely suspended during
belligerent occupation, subject to revival upon the end of the
occupation.
Exceptions
1. Laws on treason (Giving aid to the enemies during war)
Case in point: Laurel v. Missa
While treason is a political law, it is not deemed suspended during
belligerent occupation because our loyalty and allegiance to the
Republic cannot be suspended, even during belligerent occupation.
2. Members of the military or armed forces are still governed by
our political laws especially the National Defense Act or the
Articles of War, even during belligerent occupation.
Case in point: Ruffy v. Chief of Staff
The rule suspending political laws affects only the civilian inhabitants
of the occupied territory and not members of the military or armed
forces.
What happens to judicial decisions when the rightful government
is restored to power?
During belligerent occupation, sovereignty remains vested in the de
jure government, although the de fact government is performing in the
meantime the acts of sovereignty, but political laws are suspended.
However, when the belligerent occupation is over, the political laws
that were suspended are automatically restored without need of an
enactment.
With regards to judicial decisions, a distinction should be made
between political and non-political decisions.
o Political decisions – deemed abrogated the moment the
belligerent occupation is over.
Case in point: Peralta v. Director of Prisons
Peralta, a Filipino, refused to collaborate with the Japanese imperial
forces and was prosecuted and tried for treason for not giving up his
allegiance. He got convicted and when the belligerent occupation was
over, Peralta filed a petition for habeas corpus, asking that he be
released from jail. The Supreme Court granted the petition because
Peralta was convicted of a political offense.
o Non-political decisions – are to be respected and continued
to be tried even when the belligerent occupation is already
over.
What happens if there is already a complete change of
sovereignty? Are political laws merely suspended or abrogated?
In times of belligerent occupations, political laws are merely
suspended, but where there is already a complete change or transfer
of sovereignty, political laws are not only suspended, but totally
abrogated.
However with regards to other municipal laws (laws of persons,
property, obligations and contracts) which are not political in character,
they shall remain, provided that they are not abrogated by the new
sovereign power.
Example:
Transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States government.
Cases in point:
3|P a g e
People v. Perfecto
Perfecto was prosecuted for maligning the reputation of the old Congress of the
Philippines. He wrote an article in the newspaper maligning the senators, calling
them incompetent fools. He was prosecuted for libel under the old provision of
the Spanish Penal Code. Perfecto was convicted, but his conviction was
overturned by the SC, noting that the Spanish Penal Code was already
abrogated by the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US.
Macariola v. Ascunscion
Ascunscion was a judge of the Court of First Instance. During that time, there
was a provision under Art 14 of the Code of Commerce prohibiting justice or
magistrates of the courts from acquiring financial interests or shareholdings in
corporations located within their territorial jurisdiction.
Judge Ascunscion bought a property and shares of a particular corporation with a
principal office within his territorial jurisdiction. A case was filed against the said
judge and dismissal from service was recommended. The SC disagreed and
exonerated the said judge noting that such particular provision of the Code of
Commerce, partook of the nature of a political law, because it governs actions of
a public officer. And since there was already a transfer of sovereignty, such
provision shall be deemed abrogated.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
When Cory Aquino became president, she ordered the confiscation of the
properties of Marcos’ cronies. One of those affected was Major Ramas. His
properties and all his assets were confiscated without the benefit of a search
warrant.
Major Ramas objected, invoking the 1973 provision of the constitution which
prohibits the confiscation and seizure of properties without a search warrant.
However, the SC disagreed because at that time, they were still under the
revolutionary government and the 1973 constitution was inoperative. In fact,
Aquino made an announcement that her administration was instituted in defiance
of the 1973 constitution and that her administration totally abrogated such
constitution. Hence, major Ramas could not invoke such provision of the dead
constitution.
But the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, invoking the principles under the
universal declaration of human rights and the international civil and political rights
which President Aquino did not declare to have been abandoned.
CITIZENSHIP
Citizenship
Membership in a political community which is personal and more or
less permanent in character.
Nationality
Membership in an ethnic, social, racial and cultural group.
Who are citizens of the Philippines?
Article 4, Sec 1 1935 Constitution
Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the
adoption of 1935 Constitution on May 14, 1935
1. Persons born in the Philippines who resided therein on April 11,
1899 and were Spanish subjects on that date, unless they had
lost their citizenship on or before the adoption of the Philippine
Constitution on May 14, 1935
April 11, 1899 - cut off date of the effectivity date of the treaty of
Paris whereby Spain ceded the Philippines to United States
2. Natives on Peninsular Spain who resided in the Philippines on
April 11, 1899, and who did not declared their intention of
preserving their Spanish nationality
3. Spanish subjects who resided in the Philippines on April 11,
1899 and who did not declare their intention of preserving their
Spanish nationality
Tecson v. Comelec
Lorenzo Poe, the grandfather of FPJ was regarded a Filipino because of
this particular provision, because Lorenzo Poe was considered a Spanish
subject pursuant to the old civil code of Spain. Considering that Lorenzo
was already in the Philippines as early as 1870 or before April 11, 1899,
then applying the provisions of Philippine Bill of 1902 and Jones Law of
1916, Lorenzo Poe was considered a Filipino citizen. Hence, it follows
that Alan Poe, the father of the FPJ is also a Filipino citizen.
4. Children born of (1), (2), and (3) subsequent to April 11, 1899
5. Persons who became naturalized citizens of the Philippines in
accordance with the formal procedure set forth in the
Naturalization Law since its enactment on March 1920
6. Children of persons embraced under (5)
7. Filipino women who after having lost Philippine citizenship by
marriage to foreigners, had subsequently become widows and
regained citizenship on or before the adoption of the 1935
Constitution
8. Children of (7) who were still under 21 years of age at the time
their mothers regained Philippine citizenship
9. Foreign women who married Filipino citizens on or before the
adoption of the 1935 Constitution.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW l Atty. Renato Galeon l Reviewer by Tanya Ibañez
Provided that:
a. They themselves could be lawfully naturalized
b. They had not lost their Philippine citizenship by May 14,
1935
c. Their Filipino citizenship had been so declared by judgment
of a court of justice in the proper naturalization or
citizenship proceedings
10. All other persons born in the Philippines who, on the strength of
the erroneous recognition of the jus soli doctrine, were
mistakenly declared by the courts to be Filipino citizenship
Roa v. Collector of Customs 23 Phil 321
Roa was born to a Chinese father and a Filipino mother. While he was still
a minor, and after the death of his father, went to China to pursue his
studies. While still being a minor, Roa attempted to return to the
Philippines but he was not allowed entry by the Collector of Customs
because according to him, Roa was a Chinese national.
When the case was decided by the SC, it ruled that Roa should be
allowed entry to Philippine soil because he was a Filipino citizen. In as
much as the father of Roa who was a Chinese already died, and
considering that his mother regained her Philippine citizenship while Roa
was still a minor, then Roa should be considered as a Filipino citizen.
But the SC made an obiter dictum. It declared that considering further
that Roa was born in the Philippines, then applying the jus soli doctrine,
Roa should be considered as a Filipino citizen.
SC made an error by announcing that Roa should be considered a
Filipino citizen because he was born in the Philippines. It was an obiter
dictum because it was not necessary in the determination of the case.
Pursuant to this erroneous ruling, there were cases subsequently decided
wherein the courts applied the jus soli doctrine
Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the
adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the
Philippine Islands shall be considered Filipinos
Who should be considered Filipinos?
Person born to foreign parents or the foreign parents?
Answer: Child of the foreign parents
For this provision to apply, it is necessary that the person born to
foreign parents must be:
1. Born in the Philippines
2. Must have been elected to a public office prior to the
adoption of the 1935 Constitution (not by appointment, not a
public office)
This provision is otherwise known as the Caram provision, for such
provision was inserted to favor a person named Fermin Caram
Caram case
Fermin Caram was born to foreign parents, Syrian nationals, but was born in the
Philippines. He got elected as a member of the ConCon which drafted the 1935
Constitution. It was an anomalous situation wherein a foreigner drafted the
Philippine Constitution.
If only to cure such anomaly, the framers of the 1935 Constitution inserted this
particular provision, knowing that Caram before the adoption of the 1935
Constitution and before he got elected as a member of the ConCon, previously
held an office, as an elected provincial board member of Iloilo.
How about the child of that person born to foreign parents who held a
public office (like if Caram had a child), what should be his citizenship?
Chungbian v. De Leon G.R. No. 2007 January 31, 1949
The father of William Chungbian was Victoriano Chungbian and the parents of
Victoriano are foreigners. But Victoriano got elected as a municipal councilor in
Plaridel Misamis Occidental in 1925, before the adoption of the 1935
Constitution.
Applying the 1935 Constitution, it would appear that Victoriano was a Filipino
national. But according to the Collector of Customs who sought for the
cancellation of the registration of the vessels in the name of William Chunbian,
William was not a Filipino. While his father, Victoriano, could be considered a
Filipino because of this provision, William was not because this provision only
applies to his father and not to him.
But the SC disagreed. While it is true that William would not fall under the
purview of the provision, William would fall within the purview of the third
paragraph, because his father was already a Filipino.
Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines
Case if Chungbian v. Collector of Customs (above)
Under this provision, those whose fathers are citizens of the
Philippines shall be regarded as Filipino citizens.
Former interpretation
This particular provision was interpreted to govern a situation where
the child is a legitimate child of a Filipino father. Otherwise, if the child
4|P a g e
is illegitimate, the child would have to follow the citizenship of the
mother.
Present interpretation
The former interpretation was abandoned in light of the ruling in the
case of Tecson v. Comelec
Tecson v. Comelec
The SC ruled that such provision does not make a distinction between a
legitimate and an illegitimate child. Therefore, even an illegitimate child of a
Filipino father would be considered a Filipino citizen.
Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon
reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship shall be
considered Filipinos
For this provision to govern, it is necessary that
1. The child must be born to a Filipino mother and a foreign
father (otherwise if the father is a Filipino, the previous
provision shall apply)
2. The parents must be validly married, otherwise, the
illegitimate child must follow the citizenship of the illegitimate
mother. (Republic v. Lee G.R. No. 153883 January 13, 2004)
At what point in time should the mother be a Filipino?
If the mother should be a Filipino at the time election is to be made,
then nobody can avail of this election process because the rule before:
Once a Filipina gets married to a foreigner, she would acquire the
citizenship of the husband.
Therefore, it is enough that the mother was a Filipino at the time of her
marriage to the foreigner for the child to be given a chance to elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
Within what time should such election be made?
Because it says that upon reaching the age of majority or 21 years old.
Can’t the child elect Philippine citizenship at the age of 22 or 23?
Case of Vicente Ching
The SC adjudged that a period of 3 years after reaching the age of majority is
reasonable enough and in fact the same may be extended if the child thought
that he was already a Filipino during minority. But a period of 7 is already not
reasonable enough.
An election has to be done upon reaching the age of majority
The child should elect Philippine citizen before he could be considered
a Filipino citizen under the 1935 Constitution. Otherwise, he shall be
considered a foreigner. (The child is also considered a foreigner during
his minority)
But in the case of Vicente Ching, it was mentioned that there is such
thing as informal election. As clarified in the same case, the so called
informal election may only be applied if the person was already a
Filipino during minority. In other words, while there is such thing as
informal election, the best recourse for a child born to a Filipino mother
is to opt for a formal election. (By executing an affidavit and taking an
oath or swear allegiance to the RP and file the affidavit in the local civil
registrar)
Case of Vicente Ching
He invoked the informal election, invoking the cases of Co v. House of Reps but
the SC held that such cases are not applicable because they involve a situation
whereby the person whose citizenship was under consideration was already
considered Filipinos even during their minority.
How about the mother, supposing she eventually became a widow?
Upon marriage with a foreigner, the mother would lose her Philippine
citizenship. But what happens if she eventually became a widow?
Would she regain her Philippine citizenship or is there a need to apply
for repatriation?
It depends. If the Filipino mother who married a foreigner eventually
became a widow before October 21, 1936, she would automatically
regain her Philippine citizenship, otherwise she has to apply for
repatriation.
October 21, 1936 – The time Commonwealth Act No. 63 took effect, an
act which requires Filipino mothers who married foreigner and who
eventually became widows, to apply for repatriation for them to regain
their Philippine citizenship.
Those who are naturalized in accordance with law
1935 v. 1973 and 1987 Constitutions
Who are citizens of the Philippines?
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW l Atty. Renato Galeon l Reviewer by Tanya Ibañez

 10 years later, the person wanted to run for Congress which

1935 Constitution
Those who are citizens of the
Philippine Islands at the time of
the adoption of 1935 Constitution
on May 14, 1935
Those born in the Philippine
Islands of foreign parents who,
before the adoption of this
Constitution, had been elected to
public office in the Philippine
Islands
Those whose fathers are citizens
of the Philippines
1973 and 1987 Constitutions
Those who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution
Those whose fathers or mothers are
citizens of the Philippines
(1973) Those who elect Philippine
citizenship pursuant to the provisions
of the 1935 Constitution
(1987) Those born before January
17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who
elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority
requires that the candidate must be a natural born Filipino
 Can he run? No. Because he performed an act to perfect his
Philippine citizenship or even acquired his citizenship
1987 Constitution
 Child born in 1972 with a foreign father and Filipino mother
 1972 + 21 = 1993
 1993 – Child elected Philippine citizenship
 10 years later, the person wanted to run for Congress which
requires that the candidate must be a natural born Filipino
 Can he run? Yes, because he already elected Philippine
citizenship under the 1987 Constitution which considers those
who elected Philippine citizenship as natural-born citizens.
But supposing the person who elected Philippine citizenship in 1957
under the 1935 Constitution is still alive today and wants to run for
Congress, is he allowed to run?
Co v. HRET
This particular provision (Art 4 Sect 2 of the 1987 Constitution) is curative in
character, and as such, it should be given a retroactive application. While as a
rule, the provisions of the Constitution should only be given prospective
application, it can be given retroactive application when the law is curative in
nature, such that it was inserted to cure the seeming inequality in the treatment
of those born to Filipino mothers before.

Those whose mothers are Those who are naturalized in Take Note
citizens of the Philippines and, accordance with law Given this particular curative provision under the 1987 Constitution
upon reaching the age of providing that those who elected Philippine citizenship, shall be
majority, elect Philippine regarded as natural born citizens, there is no more citizen called citizen
citizenship by election.
In the past, there used to be Filipino citizens by elections. But now,
Those who are naturalized in ----- there are only two kinds of citizens under the 1987 Constitution
accordance with law.
Kinds of Citizens
1. Natural-born citizens
Differences 2. Naturalized citizens
1935 Constitution - If a child was born to a Filipino mother but whose
Modes of Acquiring Philippine Citizenship
father is a foreigner, there is a need for the child to elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
By Birth
1973 and 1987 Constitutions – A child born to Filipino father or  Jus sanguinis – citizenship by blood (principle adhered to in the
mother is already considered a Filipino. Election is no longer Philippines)
required. It is enough that a child is born either to a Filipino mother  Jus soli – citizenship by place of birth
or father for him to be considered a Filipino.
By Naturalization
Rationale behind the omission of election of citizenship The act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a
Because of the provisions on marriage under the 1973 and 1987 nation by clothing him or her with privileges of a citizen.
Constitutions
In our jurisdiction, there are three kinds of naturalization
1. 1973 Constitution Article 4, Section 2 – A female citizen of 1. Judicial Naturalization
the Philippines who marries an alien shall retain her Philippine 2. Administrative Naturalization
citizenship, unless she has renounced her citizenship. 3. Naturalization by Direct Act of Congress

2. 1987 Constitution Article 4, Section 4 – Citizens of the Judicial naturalization

Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, Governed by CA 473, as amended by RA 53
unless they have renounced their citizenship.
Qualifications of the applicant:
Natural-born Citizens 1. Not less than 21 on the date of the hearing of the petition
2. Resided in the Philippines for continuous period of not less 10
1973 Constitution (Art 4, Sec 4) 1987 Constitution (Art 4, Sec 2) years
May be reduced to 5 years if:
a. He honorably held office in the government
One who is a citizen of the One who is a citizen of the b. Established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the
Philippines from birth without Philippines from birth without Philippines
having to perform any act to having to perform any act to c. Married to a Filipino woman
acquire or perfect his Philippine acquire or perfect his Philippine d. Been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines, in public or
citizenship citizenship. Those born of Filipino private, for a period of 2 years
mothers who elect Philippine e. Born in the Philippines
citizenship upon reaching the age
of majority.
3. Good moral character, believes in the principles underlying the
Philippine Constitution, must have conducted himself in a proper
and irreproachable manner during the entire period in the
This new provision is very significant Philippines
4. Own a real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5,000 or
1935 Constitution must have some lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation
 Child born in 1936 with a foreign father and Filipino mother
5. Speak and write English or Spanish and any of the principal
 1936 + 21 = 1957
Philippine languages
 1957 – Child elected Philippine citizenship
 10 years later, the person wanted to run for Congress which 6. Enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public or
requires that the candidate must be a natural born Filipino private schools recognized by government where Philippine
 Can he run? No. Because he was not a natural born Filipino history, government and civics are taught as part of the school
from the viewpoint of the 1935 Constitution curriculum

1973 Constitution Disqualifications of the applicant:

 Child born in 1955 with a foreign father and Filipino mother 1. Those who are opposed to organized government affiliated with
 1955 + 21 = 1976 any association or group of persons who uphold and teach
 1976 – Child elected Philippine citizenship doctrines opposing all organized governments
5|P a g e
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW l Atty. Renato Galeon l Reviewer by Tanya Ibañez
2. Defending or teaching the success of predominance of their ideas
3. Polygamists or believes in polygamy
4. Convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
5. Suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease
6. Who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines have
not mingled socially with the Filipinos or who have not evinced
sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and
ideals of the Filipinos
7. Citizens subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war,
during the period of such war
8. Citizens or subject of a foreign country whose laws do not grant
Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens
Procedure (CA 473)
1. Filing with Office of the Solicitor General of a declaration of
intention to become a Filipino citizen, at least 1 year prior to the
filing of the petition in the proper court. (Applicant need not be 21
years old)
Exceptions:
a. Those born in the Philippines and have received their primary and
secondary education in public or private schools recognized by the
Government
b. Those who resided in the Philippines for 30 years and enrolled his
children in elementary and high schools
c. Widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his intention
to become a citizen of the Philippines and dies before is actually
naturalized
2. Filing of the petition with the appropriate Regional Trial Court,
together with the affidavits of two credible citizens of the
Philippines, who personally know the petitioner
Republic v. De la Rosa
The Supreme Court declared that the petition filed by Frivaldo was deficient
because among other things, it was not supported by affidavits of 2
character witnesses.
3. Publication of the petition in the OG or in a newspaper where the
applicant resides, once a week for 3 consecutive weeks
4. Hearing of the petition
5. If the petition is approved, there will be a rehearing 2 years after
the promulgation of judgment to establish the following:
a. Applicant has not left the Philippines
b. Dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or
profession
c. Not been convicted of any offense or violation of rules
d. Not committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the nation
or contrary to any government-announced policies
6. Oath taking and issuance of the certificate of naturalization
Effects of Naturalization (CA 473)
What would be the effect if the petition for naturalization is granted, if
the applicant is the husband, would the wife also be conferred with
Philippine citizenship?
 On the wife
Moya v. Commissioner of Immigration
Vests citizenship on the wife provided that she is not disqualified to be a citizen
of the Philippines. It is not anymore necessary for an alien woman to institute
naturalization proceedings. 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
 On the children
A. If born before naturalization
 If born in the Philippines –Filipino
 If born outside the Philippines
o If dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the
parent’s naturalization – is a Filipino
o If dwelling outside the Philippines – is a Filipino only
during his minority unless he permanently resides in
the Philippines when still a minor, in which case he
will continue to be a Filipino citizen even after
becoming of age
B. If born after naturalization
 If born in the Philippines – Filipino
Limkaichong v. Comelec
Limkaichong was born 19 days after the naturalization of her
father. Hence, she was regarded as a Filipino citizen.
6|P a g e
 If born outside the Philippines – Filipinos still but they should
register as Filipino citizens in the Philippine consulate of the
country where they reside and take the oath of allegiance
Cancellation of Naturalization
Citizenship by virtue of judicial naturalization is merely a privilege and
as such may be cancelled if:
1. It is shown the said naturalization certificate was obtained
fraudulently
2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country (a year) or to
some foreign country (2 years) and establishes residence
there.
3. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention
4. Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the
parents, either by neglecting to support them or by
transferring them to another school
5. Petitioner allowed himself to be used as dummy (by a
foreign national to acquire properties under his name)
Who may institute denaturalization
Upon motion made in the proper proceedings by the Solicitor General
or his representative, or by the proper Provincial Fiscal, the competent
judge may cancel the naturalization certificate.
1. Solicitor General
2. His authorized representative
3. Provincial Fiscal
Limkaichong v. Comelec
The persons moving for the cancellation of the certification of naturalization were
mere private individuals. For that reason, the SC said that it was rather a
collateral attack. Hence, the certification of naturalization was not cancelled.
Co v. House of Representatives
The naturalization of Jose Ong Jr’s father was questioned but it was not given
due course by the Supreme Court because the one petitioning the same was not
the Solicitor General or his authorized representative nor the provincial fiscal.
Republic v. De la Rosa
The Supreme Court cancelled the certificate issued to Frivaldo because in that
case it was the Solicitor General himself who appealed the judgment of the RTC
granting Frivaldo’s petition for judicial naturalization.
Effect of Denaturalization
1. If the ground of the denaturalization affects the intrinsic
validity of proceedings, the denaturalization shall divest the
wide and children of their derivative naturalization
2. If the ground was personal to the denaturalized Filipino, his
wife and children shall retain their Philippine citizenship.
Administrative naturalization
Governed by RA 9139
Qualifications of the applicant:
1. Born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth
(Administrative naturalization can only be availed of by resident aliens
or aliens who are born in the Philippines and resided since birth)
2. Not be less than 18 years of age at the time of filing his
petition
3. Be of good moral character, believes in the principles
underlying the Philippine Constitution, must have conducted
himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the
entire period in the Philippines
4. Have received his primary and secondary education in any
public school or private educational institution where
Philippine history, government and civics are taught,
provided that should he have minor children of school age,
he must have enrolled them in similar schools
5. Have a known trade, business, profession or lawful
occupation, provided that this shall not apply to applicant
who are college degree holders but are unable to practice
their profession because they are disqualified by reason of
their citizenship
6. Be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the
dialects of the Philippines
7. Have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire
to learn and embrace the customs and traditions and ideals
of the Filipino people.
Disqualifications of the applicant
Same as provided in CA 473
1. Those who are opposed to organized government affiliated with
any association or group of persons who uphold and teach
doctrines opposing all organized governments
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW l Atty. Renato Galeon l Reviewer by Tanya Ibañez
2. Defending or teaching the success of predominance of their ideas
3. Polygamists or believes in polygamy
4. Convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
5. Suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease
6. Who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines have
not mingled socially with the Filipinos or who have not evinced
sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and
ideals of the Filipinos
7. Citizens subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war,
during the period of such war
8. Citizens or subject of a foreign country whose laws do not grant
Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens
Procedure
1. Filing of the petition with the Special Committee on Naturalization
2. Publication of the pertinent portions of the petition once a week
for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper and posting of the
petition in any public or conspicuous area, and furnishing of
copies to the following offices and the same shall post copies of
such petition in their buildings or offices.
a. Department of Foreign Affairs
b. Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
c. Civil Registrar of petitioner’s place of residence
d. National Bureau of Investigation
3. Within 30 days from receipt of their copies of the petition, the
DFA, BID, LCR and NBI will submit to the Special Committee on
Naturalization a report stating whether or not the petitioner has
any derogatory record on file. If there are any, the Committee
shall allow the petitioner to answer, explain or refute the same
4. The committee shall then approve or deny the petition
5. If petition is granted, the petitioner shall take an oath after 30 days
from approval and after payment of 100,000
Effects of Administrative Naturalization
1. Wife and minor children are likewise bestowed Philippine
citizenship without need of filing an application for administrative
naturalization. They should just file a petition for cancellation of
their alien certificates of registration with the Special Committee
on Naturalization. (Derivative naturalization)
2. If the applicant is a married woman, the approval of the petition
shall not benefit her alien husband, although her minor children
may become Filipinos.
Cancellation of Administrative Naturalization
Citizenship conferred pursuant to an administrative naturalization is
also a privilege, and the same may be cancelled on the following
grounds by the Special Committee on Naturalization
1. If the naturalized person or his duly authorized representative
made any false statement or committed any violation of law in
connection with the petition or if he obtains Philippine citizenship
fraudulently.
2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country (a year) or to
some foreign country (2 years) and establishes residence there.
3. If he allowed himself or wife or child with acquired citizenship to
be used as dummy by foreign nationals
4. If he allowed himself or wife or child with acquired citizenship and
commits any act prejudicial to our national security
Loss of Philippine Citizenship (CA No. 63)
It is not only citizenship conferred by naturalization that can be
cancelled, but even citizenship by reason of birth on the following
grounds:
1. By naturalization in a foreign country
Modified by RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act)
Nicolas Lewis v. Comelec
RA 9225 is valid and in fact, dual citizens may be allowed to vote
pursuant to the other act – Absentee Voters Act RA 9189. If a Filipino
applies for and is granted naturalization in a foreign state, he is
thereby divested of his Philippine citizenship
2. By express renunciation of citizenship (Executing an affidavit
expressly renouncing your citizenship)
William Yu v. Defensor Santiago 169 SCRA 364
The Supreme Court considered William Yu as having been divested
of his Filipino citizenship by his act of applying for a Portugese
passport. Also, he signed important legal documents wherein he
represented himself as a Portugese. The SC decreed that he was no
longer a Filipino even if he did not apply for naturalization in Portugal
7|P a g e
because his express acts are considered as express renunciation of
Philippine citizenship
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
Constitution of a foreign country upon attaining 21 years of
age, provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest
himself of Philippine citizenship
But this cannot be done at times when the Philippines is at war.
When Philippines is at war, one cannot renounce his allegiance to the
Republic (Indelible allegiance)
4. By rendering service to or accepting commission in the
armed forces of a foreign country, provided, that the
rendering of service in the armed forces of a foreign country
and the taking of oath of allegiance incident, with consent of
the Republic of the Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of
his Philippines citizenship if either of the following
circumstances is present:
a. The Philippines has a defensive or offensive pact of allegiance
with the said foreign country
b. The said foreign country maintains armed forces in Philippine
territory with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines
5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization
6. By having been declared by competent authority a deserter
of the Philippine Armed Forces in times of war, unless
subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been
granted.
Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship
1. By taking the oath of allegiance required of the former natural-
born Filipinos (RA 9225 Citizenship Retention and Re-
acquisition Act)
2. By naturalization (only judicial naturalization)
3. By repatriation
 RA 965 – Those who rendered service in an allied foreign country
during the war
 RA 2630 – Those who lost citizenship by rendering service in the
armed forces of the United States
 RA 725 – For Filipino women who lost citizenship by marriage and for
natural-born Filipinos
 RA 8171 – For Filipino women who lost their citizenship by reason of
marriage to foreigners and for former natural-born who lost their
Filipino citizenship on account of political or economic necessity.
Tabasa v. Court of Appeals
The SC said that insofar as the minor children of those who got
naturalized in other foreign states on account of political or economic
necessity, if those children would subsequently become of age, they
cannot apply for repatriation under RA 8171. They may apply for
naturalization or by RA 9225. Because RA 8171 is only for Filipino
women who lost their citizenship by reason of marriage or by the
applicants themselves who lost citizenship on account of political or
economic necessity and not their children.
Bengzon III v. HRET
The Supreme Court decreed that a person who reacquires his
citizenship by reason of repatriation will be reverted to his original
status as a natural-born Filipino.
Frivaldo v. Comelec
Third case involving Frivaldo where the Supreme Court said that the
effect of repatriation would retroact to the day the petition of
repatriation was filed.
4. By direct act of Congress
Dual Citizenship/Allegiance
Article 4, Section 5 1987 Constitution
Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall
be dealt with by law. But there is no law yet defining what dual
allegiance really is nor imposing a penalty therefor.
Mercado v. Manzano and Valles v. Comelec
The Supreme Court said that dual allegiance is different from dual citizenship.
Dual allegiance is a result of the intentional act or conduct of the person
concerned whereas dual citizenship is not always a result of the same. Dual
citizenship may be obtained by reason of a cross application or overlapping
applications of the jus soli and jus sanguinis principles.
It was not the fault of Manzano that he was born to Filipino parents in the United
States. In the same way that it was not the fault of Rosalem (Valles v. Comelec)
to be born in Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother.
The Supreme Court succinctly ruled that the provisions imposed to the end that
persons with dual citizenship are prohibited from running or seeking public office
could well refer to dual allegiance, but not dual citizenship. The mere filing of
certificate of candidacy has the effect of repudiating any or all foreign
allegiances.
By Manzano’s filing of certificate of candidacy, he thereby effectively renounced
his foreign citizenship and/or foreign allegiance. Hence, he was qualified to run.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW l Atty. Renato Galeon l Reviewer by Tanya Ibañez

Take Note
In our jurisdiction, what is prohibited is not dual citizenship but dual
allegiance

How about those persons who become dual citizens not because of
the cross applications of the jus soli and jus sanguinis principles, but
because of application under RA 9225? Is he qualified to run?

Lopez v. Comelec G.R. No. 182701

Lopez was formerly a natural born Filipino, then he got naturalized in the United
States and returned to the Philippines and applied for retention of the Filipino
citizenship by virtue of RA 9225 and the same was granted.

He then filed a certificate of candidacy to become a barangay chairman of Iloilo.

His qualifications were questioned by his opponent. According to his opponent,
he should be disqualified because he was a dual citizen. Lopez said he cannot
be disqualified invoking the case of Manzano and Valles.

The Supreme Court said that Lopez cannot invoke the doctrines enunciated in
the case of Manzano and Valles because they are different from his case, in a
sense that in the case of Manzano and Valles, they became dual citizens by
virtue of the cross application of the jus soli and jus sanguinis principles. But in
the case of Lopez, he became a dual citizen by virtue of his having applied for
under RA 9225.

Sec 5 par 2 of RA 9225 provides that if a dual citizen would want to run for a
public office, it is not enough that he swears an oath of allegiance, he also has to
make an affidavit repudiating any other allegiances, which was not duly complied
with by Lopez. Hence, Lopez was disqualified.

8|P a g e