from ten (10) years to fifteen (15) years
Ex Post Facto
Salvador vs. Mapa, Jr.
President Fidel Ramos; Administrative Order
No. 13
Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on
Behest Loans
loan transactions between
Metal Exploration Asia, Inc (MEA), now
Philippine Eagle Mines, Inc. (PEMI), and the
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).
For investigation
characteristics of behest loans
Memorandum Order No. 61
stockholders and officers of PEMI were known
cronies of then President Marcos
under-collateralized and PEMI was under-
capitalized at the time the loan was granted.
Atty. Orlando L. Salvador, Consultant of the
Fact-Finding Committee; representing the
Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG
filed with the Office of the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman) a sworn complaint for violation
of Sections 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019
against the Respondents
dismissing the complaint
offenses charged had already prescribed
Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019; ANTI-GRAFT AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
prescriptive period for violations of the said Act
(R.A. 3019) is ten (10) years
BP 195, enacted on March 16, 1982, amended
the period of prescription
Records show that the complaint was referred
and filed with this Office on October 4, 1996
after the lapse of more than fifteen (15) years
from the violation of the law
already been prescribed or forever barred by
the Statute of Limitations
Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans
created on October 8, 1992 under
Administrative Order No. 13.
Memorandum Order No. 61, issued defining the
criteria to be utilized as a frame of reference in
determining behest loans
SC: impossible; State, the aggrieved party
violations of R.A. No. 3019 ANTI-GRAFT AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT at the time the
questioned transactions were made
public officials concerned connived or conspired
with the “beneficiaries of the loans.”
Court agreed with the Committee that the
prescriptive period
computed from the discovery of the
commission thereof and not from the day of
such commission
violations of R.A. No. 3019; prior to the
February 1986 EDSA Revolution that ousted
President Ferdinand Marcos,
government as the aggrieved party could not
have known the violations at the time the
questioned transactions were made
no person would have dared to question the
legality of those transactions.
counting of the prescriptive period commenced
from the date of the discovery of the offense in
1992 after an exhaustive investigation by the
Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans

not ex post facto laws

(a) which makes an action done before the

passing of the law and which was innocent
does not mete out penalty for the act of
when done criminal, and punishes such action;
granting behest loans
(b) which aggravates a crime or makes it
Memorandum Order No. 61 merely provides a
greater than it was when committed;
frame of reference for determining behest
(c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a loans.
greater punishment than the law annexed to
Not penal laws; cannot be characterized as ex
the crime when it was committed;
post facto laws
(d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and
no basis for the Ombudsman to rule that the
receives less or different testimony than the
subject administrative and memorandum
law required at the time of the commission of
orders are ex post facto.
the offense in order to convict the defendant.

This Court added two (2) more to the list,

namely:

(e) that which assumes to regulate civil rights

and remedies only but in effect imposes a
penalty or deprivation of a right which when
done was lawful;

(f) that which deprives a person accused of a

crime of some lawful protection to which he
has become entitled, such as the protection of
a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.

constitutional doctrine that outlaws an ex post

facto law; generally, prohibits the
retrospectivity of penal laws

Penal laws are those acts of the legislature

which prohibit certain acts and establish
penalties for their violations; or those that
define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide
for their punishment

Administrative Order No. 13 creates the

Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on
Behest Loans; provides for its composition and
functions
CITIZENSHIP
1. Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC
Grace Poe Petition; assailing 2 Comelec
resolutions canceling her Certificate of
Candidacy elective position of President in the
2016
abandoned as a newborn infant in Iloilo by
Edgardo Militar; was passed on to Emiliano
Militar, relative of Edgardo
turned 5, celebrity spouses Fernando Poe Jr.
and Susan Roces adopted her
18, she registered as a voter, studied in Univ. of
the Phils but opted to finish at Boston College in
the United States with BS Political Science
1991, she married Teodor Llamanzares and
stayed in the US.
2009, petitioner became a naturalized American
citizen.
flew back home during the presidential
campaign of FPJ and during the unfortunate
demise of FPJ, decided to permanently stay in
the Phils.
2006, pursuant to RA 9225 Citizen Retention
and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, she took the
Oath of Allegiance to the RP
Bureau of Immigration declared that she was
deemed to have reacquired Phil. Citizenship.
2010, she was appointed chairperson of MTRCB
and eventually, became a member of the
Senate in 2012
petitioner's Cert. of Candidacy is being opposed
by Estrella Elamparo, Francisco Tatad, Antonio
Contreras and Amado Valdez; petitioner lacked
the requisite residency and citizenship to qualify
her for presidency
being a foundling, she's not considered a
natural-born Filipino and even if she were, it
was deemed lost due to becoming a naturalized
American citizen.(jus sanguini does not apply to
her being a foundling).
Jus sanguinis nationality law;
which citizenship is determined or acquired by
the nationality or ethnicity of one or both
parents.
WON petitioner is a natural-born citizen as a
foundling and in her re-acquisition of
citizenship. (YES).
SC: ordered Comelec Resolutions annulled and
set aside and further declaring petitioner is a
qualified candidate
Rule 25 Comelec Rules of Procedure does not
give Comelec authority to disqualify ineligible
candidates
to disqualify a candidate, a declaration by a final
judgment by a competent court that the
candidate sought to be disqualified is guilty of
or found by Commission to be suffering from
any disqualification provided by law
grave abuse of discretion when it declared
petitioner, being a foundling, casted doubt on
her possession of blood relations with a Filipino
citizen when such relationship is
indemonstrable,
There is sufficient evidence that petitioner has
Filipino parents and is, therefore, a natural born
Filipino
1). Phil. Statistics Authority showed in 1965-
1975 that only 15,986 foreigners were born in
Iloilo to 10.5 million Filipinos, an average of 99%
chance that a child born in the province would
be Filipino
abandoned in a Catholic church and had
features such as mid-height, flat nasal bridge,
straight black hair, almond shaped eyes and
oval face—all common Filipino traits
2). Foundlings are, as a class, natural-born
citizens. It was omitted in the 1935 Constitution
because their numbers were insignificant at
that time to warrant specific mention
3). The Constitution aims to create a just and
humane society, provide basic equal protection
of laws and promotion of human dignity and
denying nationality to persons of unknown
parentage is contradictory to this.
Univ. Rec. of Human Rights, UN Convention on
the Rights of Child, UN Covenant on Civil
Rights-- everyone has the right to nationality
Art. 14 of 1930 Hague Convention states that,
“A child whose parents are both unknown shall
have the nationality of the country of birth”.
petitioner did not reacquire natural-born
citizenship but plain Phil. Citizenship was
erroneous as in the Repatriation Statute of RA
9225,
re-acquisition under the act will recover his/her
natural born citizenship
able to clearly show her compliance of the two
requisites of Oath of Allegiance and Affidavit of
Renunciation; fulfilling residency requirements
deemed to have recovered her natural-born
status; qualified to run for the presidency.
GRANTED.
2.) CASAN MACODE MAQUILING, vs. COMELEC
Passport
Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino
citizen
he lost his Filipino citizenship; naturalization as
a citizen of the United States of America,
Arnado applied for repatriation under Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9225 before the Consulate
General of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA
and took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines
On the same day an Order of Approval of his
Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition was
issued in his favor
Linog C. Balua (Balua), another mayoralty
candidate, filed a petition to disqualify Arnado
cancel his certificate of candidacy for municipal
mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte
May 2010 local and national elections
Respondent Balua contended that Arnado is not
a resident of Kauswagan, that he is a foreigner,
attaching thereto a certification issued by the
Bureau of Immigration dated 23 April indicating
the nationality of Arnado as "USA-American
COMELEC En Banc agreed; treatment by the
First Division
COMELEC En Banc reversed and set aside the
ruling of the First Division
Granted Arnado’s Motion for Reconsideration
First: By renouncing his US citizenship as
imposed by R.A. No. 9225, the respondent
embraced his Philippine citizenship as though
he never became a citizen of another country.
It was at that time, April 3 that the respondent
became a pure Philippine Citizen again.

continued use of foreign passport after
renouncing foreign citizenship disqualify an
individual to run for public office
SC: Yes.
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
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.
Section 5(2) of The Citizenship Retention and
Re-acquisition Act of 2003 provides:
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:
(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 before any public officer authorized
to administer an oath
renouncing his foreign citizenship, he was
deemed to be solely a Filipino citizen, regardless
of the effect of such renunciation under the
laws of the foreign country.
legal presumption does not operate
permanently and is open to attack when, after
renouncing the foreign citizenship, the citizen
performs positive acts showing his continued
possession of a foreign citizenship
3.) Labo Jr. vs COMELEC
Marriage to australian
Petitioner Labo was proclaimed mayor-elect of
Baguio City
Private respondent Lardizabal, losing candidate
petition for quo warranto; questioning
petitioner’s citizenship
naturalized Australian citizen; married an
Australian citizen
petitioner’s oath and affirmation of allegiance
to the Queen of Australia
claimed that his naturalization in Australia
made him at worst only a dual national and did
not divest him of his Philippine citizenship
his naturalization in Australia was annulled after
it was found that his marriage to the Australian
citizen was bigamous
SC: Not Filipino citizen
CA No. 63 enumerates the modes by which
Philippine citizenship may be lost.
(1) naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) express renunciation of citizenship;
(3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
support the Constitution or laws of a foreign
country.
All of which are applicable to the petitioner
Article IV, Section 5, “Dual allegiance of citizens
is inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law.”
assumed that annulled did not automatically
restore his Philippine citizenship
 once again his total and exclusive loyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines
divestiture of Australian citizenship does not
concern us here ; him and his adopted country.

fact that he voluntarily and freely rejected 4.) Mercado v Manzano

Philippine citizenship and willingly and
DISQUALIFICATION TO RUN FOR AN OFFICE
knowingly embraced the citizenship of a foreign
UNDER LGC 1991 SPEAKS OF DUAL
country
ALLEGIANCE, NOT DUAL CITIZENSHIP
possibility that he may have been subsequently
Mercado and respondent Manzano were
rejected by Australia, as he claims, does not
candidates for vice mayor of the City of Makati
mean that he has been automatically reinstated
in the May 1998 elections.
as a citizen of the Philippines.
Manzano won as he garnered the highest votes
CA No. 63 as amended by PD No. 725
followed by petitioner Mercado
Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by
suspended as prior to the election, the Second
direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by
Division of the COMELEC granted the petition
repatriation
of a certain Mamaril ordering the cancellation
does not appear in the record, nor does the of the certificate of candidacy
petitioner claim, that he has reacquired
grounded on the finding that Manzano is a dual
Philippine citizenship
citizen and under Section 40(d) of the Local
does not point to any judicial decree of Government Code, persons with dual
naturalization as to any statute directly citizenship are disqualified from running for any
conferring Philippine citizenship upon him elective position

no compliance with PD No. 725, reversed by the COMELEC en banc;

(2) natural-born Filipinos who have lost their
Philippine citizenship may reacquire Philippine
citizenship through repatriation by applying
with the Special Committee on Naturalization
created by Letter of Instruction No. 270
necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines
proclamation of Manzano
participation in the elections of 1992, 1995, and
1998 effectively renounced his U.S. citizenship
under American law
Under Philippine law, he no longer had U.S.
citizenship.

Commission on Immigration and Deportation

shall thereupon cancel their certificate of
registration.

not a cheap commodity that can be easily

recovered after its renunciation; may be
restored only after the returning renegade
makes a formal act of re-dedication to the
country he has abjured and he solemnly affirms

SC: NO does not LGC disqualifies those who
have dual citizenship.
dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance
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 the said states.
Dual allegiance refers to the situation in which
a person simultaneously owes, by some
positive act, loyalty to two or more states.
While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual
allegiance is the result of an individual's
volition.
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.
"dual citizenship" in R.A. No. 7160, Sec 40(d)
and in R.A. No. 7854, Sec 20 must be
understood as referring to "dual allegiance.
private respondent was born in San Francisco of
Filipino parents
Petitioner: merely taking part in Philippine
elections is not sufficient evidence of
renunciation
renunciation was made when private
respondent was already 37years old, it was
ineffective as it should have been made when
he reached the age of majority.
filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for
his present post, private respondent elected
Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced
his American citizenship.
I AM A FILIPINO CITIZEN (STATE IF "NATURAL-
BORN" OR "NATURALIZED")
NATURAL-BORN
sufficed to renounce his American citizenship,
effectively removing any disqualification he
might have as a dual citizen.
no merit in petitioner's contention that the oath
of allegiance contained in private respondent’s
certificate of candidacy is insufficient to
constitute renunciation
no law requires the election of Philippine
citizenship to be made upon majority age.

Philippines adheres to the principle of jus

sanguinis,

while the United States follows the doctrine of

jus soli, the parties agree that, at birth at least,
he was a national both of the Philippines and
of the United States.

Comelec: by participating in Philippine elections

in 1992, 1995, and 1998, private respondent
"effectively renounced his U.S. citizenship under
American law," so that now he is solely a
Philippine national.
5) ANTONIO BENGSON III vs. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and
TEODORO C. CRUZ
Respondent Cruz was a natural-born citizen of
the Philippines
April 27, 1960 of Filipino parents
law then applicable was the 1935 Constitution
1985; Cruz 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
lost his Filipino citizenship for under
Commonwealth Act No. 63, Section 1(4), a
Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by,
among others, “rendering service to or
accepting commission in the armed forces of a
foreign country”
naturalized as a U.S. citizen in connection with
his service in the U.S. Marine Corps
1994 respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine
citizenship through repatriation under Republic
Act No. 2630
ran for and was elected as the Representative
of the Second District of Pangasinan and won
over petitioner Antonio Bengson III, who was
then running for reelection
for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam; House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
pet: not a natural-born citizen as required
under Article VI, Section 6 of the Constitution.
Has to perform act to reacquire
HRET dismissed the petition
SC: repatriation respondent Cruz regained his
status as a natural-born Filipino citizen
two ways of acquiring citizenship:
(1) by birth,
(2) by naturalization.
natural-born citizen, and the naturalized citizen
time of his birth is a citizen of a particular
country, is a natural-born citizen thereof.
“are those citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or
perfect his Philippine citizenship.”
naturalized citizens are those who have become
Filipino citizens through naturalization,
generally under Commonwealth Act No. 473,
Revised Naturalization Law
naturalized:
applicant has to prove that he possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualification
provided by law to become a Filipino citizen
decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes
executory only after two (2) years from its
promulgation
court is satisfied that during the intervening
period, the applicant has
(1) not left the Philippines;
(2) has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or
profession;
(3) has not been convicted of any offense or
violation of Government promulgated rules; or
(4) committed any act prejudicial to the interest
of the nation or contrary to any Government
announced policies
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship
may however reacquire
Commonwealth Act. No. 63 (CA No. 63),
enumerates the three modes by which
Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a
former citizen:
(1) by naturalization,
(2) by repatriation,
(3) by direct act of Congress.
mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship
initially acquiring Philippine citizenship,
naturalization is governed by Commonwealth
Act No. 473, as amended
naturalization as a mode for reacquiring
Philippine citizenship is governed by
Commonwealth Act No. 63
former Filipino citizen who wishes
to reacquire Philippine citizenship must possess
certain qualifications and none of the
disqualifications mentioned in Section 4 of CA.
473.
Repatriation, on the other hand, may be had
under various statutes by those who lost their
citizenship due to:
(1) desertion of the armed forces;
(2) service in the armed forces of the allied
forces in World War II;
(3) service in the Armed Forces of the United
States at any other time;
(4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien;
(5) political and economic necessity
distinguished from the lengthy process of
naturalization, repatriation simply consists of
the taking of an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines
registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry of
the place where the person concerned resides
or last resided.
Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery
of the original nationality
originally a natural-born citizen before he lost
his Philippine citizenship
restored to his former status as a natural-born
Filipino
he subsequently reacquired Philippine
citizenship under RA. No. 2630, Section 1.
taken the required oath of allegiance to the
Republic and having registered the same in the
Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan
deemed to have recovered his original status as
a natural-born citizen, a status which he
acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father
Petitioner’s contention that respondent Cruz is
no longer a natural-born citizen since he had to
perform an act to regain his citizenship is
untenable
the term “natural-born citizen” was first defined
in Article III, Section 4, of the 1973 Constitution
Two requisites of Natural Born
(1) a person must be a Filipino citizen from
birth
(2) he does not have to perform any act to
obtain or perfect his Philippine citizenship.
two categories of Filipino citizens which were
not considered natural-born:
Jus soli- commonly referred to as birthright
(1) those who were naturalized; citizenship, is the right of anyone born in the
territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.
(2) those born before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers who, upon reaching the age of
majority, elected Philippine citizenship.
Execute an affidavit of renunciation
present Constitution, however, now considers
Oath of renunciation separate from Oath of
those born of Filipino mothers before the
Allegiance for Dual Citizen (RA 9225)
effectivity of the 1973 Constitution and who
elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the Run for mayor example
majority age as natural-born.

Section 2 of Article IV adds a sentence

“Those who elect Philippine citizenship in

accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof
shall be deemed natural-born citizens.”

Only naturalized Filipinos are considered not

natural-born citizens.

Constitution that there are only two classes of

citizens:

(1) those who are natural-born

(2) those who are naturalized in accordance

with law

citizen who is not a naturalized Filipino; did not

have to undergo the process of naturalization to
obtain Philippine citizenship

is a natural-born Filipino.

As respondent Cruz was not required by law to

go through naturalization proceedings in order
to reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce a
natural-born Filipino. As such, he possessed all
the necessary qualifications to be elected as
member of the House of Representatives.