580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as Qualification for

Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

ANNOTATION

THE MEANING OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” AS

QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTIVE NATIONAL OFFICIALS,
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSIONS
By *
JORGE R. COQUIA

§ 1. Introduction, p. 580
§ 2. Distinction Between the terms Citizen and National, p.
581
§ 3. Determination of who are Philippine Citizens, p. 582
§ 4. Historical Background of “Natural-Born Citizens” as
qualification of Constitutional Officials, p. 585
§ 5. Broader Concept of “Natural-Born Citizen” under the
1987 Constitution, p. 586
§ 6. The Main issue in the Teodoro Cruz Case, p. 587
§ 7. The Liberal View Favoring “Natural-Born Citizen”
Status, p. 588
§ 8. The Primary Adherence to the Jus Sanguinis Principle,
p. 590

______________

§ 1. Introduction

The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that to be elected Senator

(Art. VI, Sec. 3) or as a member of the House of Representatives of
Congress (Art. VI, Sec. 6), or as President (Art. VII, Sec. 2), he must
be a natural born citizen.

______________

* Member, Board of Editorial Consultants, Supreme Court Reports Annotated

(SCRA).
 581

VOL. 357, MAY 7, 2001 581

The Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as Qualification for
Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

To be appointed member of the Supreme Court or any lower

collegiate court (Art. VIII, Sec. 7 [1]) he must be a natural born
citizen. The lower collegiate court includes the Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan. The same qualification applies to members of
the Constitutional Commissions such as the Civil Service
Commission (Art. IX-B, Sec. 1[1]), Commission on Elections (Art.
IXC, Sec. 1 [1]), Commission on Audit (Art. IX-D, Sec. [1]), the
Commission on Human Rights (Art. XIII, Sec. 17[2])and the
Ombudsman (Art. XI, Sec. 8).
What is meant by “natural-born citizen” was the main issue
raised in ANTONIO BENGZON III, Petitioner, versus, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND
TEODORO CRUZ, Respondents, G.R. No. 142840, Promulgated on
07 May 2001. Whether Private Respondent Teodoro Cruz who was
born of Filipino parents in the Philippines was still a “natural born
citizen” when he was later a naturalized citizen of the United States
but reacquired his Philippine citizenship by repatriation.

§ 2. Distinction Between the terms Citizen and National

The words citizen and national are used interchangeably and

generally understood to have the same meaning. Actually, there is a
difference between the two words as to origin and as to the exercise
of rights. In municipal law or in a domestic political law, a citizen is
considered as a member of a political community enjoying all the
civil and political rights such as the right to vote and be voted upon
(Patting vs. San Jose Petroleum, 18 SCRA 936 [1966]). The term
national is also a person, although he owes allegiance to a sovereign
state, may not exercise civil and political rights.
When the Philippines was under the United States colonial
administration, the Filipinos, although considered U.S. nationals, did
not enjoy political rights of a U.S. citizen (U.S. Nationality Act of
1949). The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952
distinguished a person born in American territory and the other U.S.
territories, although considered as U.S. nationals, have no privilege
of voting and holding public office in the U.S. (Gonzales vs.
Withraun, 194 U.S. 1).

582

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as Qualification for
Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions
“Nationality” may be defined as a bond which unites a person to a
given state, which constitutes his membership in the particular state,
which gives him a claim to the protection of that state, and which
subjects him to the obligations created by the laws of that state. The
term “national” has come into use of recent years in place of
“citizen” or “subject,” the term “citizen” not applying in some states
to all members of the body politic and the term “subject” carrying
with it traditions of monarchical rule (Fenwick, International Law,
Meredith Publishing Co., 1965, pp. 301-302).
In International documents and in Private International Law or
Conflict of Laws, citizens are referred to as nationals and vice versa.
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that
“Everyone has the right to a nationality.” Article 24 (3) of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that
“Every child has the right to acquire nationality.”

§ 3. Determination of who are Philippine Citizens

Filipinos during the Spanish regime were known as subjects of the

Spanish crown. It was only at the advent of the change of
sovereignty from Spain to the United States that the question of who
are Philippine citizens arose. Under article III, Sec. 1(1) of the 1935
Constitution, Filipino citizens are those citizens at the time of the
adoption of said Constitution. There is a long list of those who were
citizens at the time of adoption of the 1935 Constitution starting
from the Treaty of Paris of 1898. Article IX of said Treaty reads:

1. ”Spanish subjects, natives of the peninsula, residing in the

territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquished
or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or
may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their
rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of
such property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have
the right to carry on their industry, commerce and
professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as
are applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the
territory they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of
Spain by making, before a court of record, a year from the
date of the exchange of ratification of this treaty, a
declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance’ in
default of which declaration they shall be held to have
renounced it and to have adopted the national

583

VOL. 357, MAY 7, 2001 583

The Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as Qualification for
Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions
 ity of the territory in which they may reside.” (The
Philippine Constitution, Volume I, Philippine Lawyers’
Association [1969])
2. The political status of the native inhabitants depended on
section 4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 enacted by U.S.
Congress, which reads:

“That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on
the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then
resided in said islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be
deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands, except such as
shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in
accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United
States and Spain, signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and
ninety eight, and except such others as have since become citizens of some
other country; Provided, That the Philippine Legislature, herein provided
for, is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine
citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come
within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possessions of the
United States, and such other persons residing in the Philippine Islands who
are citizens of the United States, or who could become citizens of the United
States under the laws of the United States if residing therein.” (The
Philippine Constitution, Volume I, Philippine Lawyers’ Association, p. 245
[1969])

3. Section 2 of the Philippine Autonomy Act of (1916) known

as the Jones Law also provided:

“That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on
the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then
resided in said islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be
deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands, except such as
shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in
accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United
States and Spain, signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and
ninety eight, and except such others as have since become citizens of some
other country: Provided, That the Philippine Legislature, herein provided
for, is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine
citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come
within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possessions of the
United States, and such other persons residing in the Philippine Islands who
are citizens of the United States, or who could

584

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as Qualification for Elective
National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the Constitutional
Commissions

become citizens of the United States under the laws of the United States if
residing therein.” (The Philippine Constitution, Volume I, Philippine
Lawyers’ Association, pp. 274-275 [1969])

The Philippine Independence Act of 1934 (Tydings McDuffie Law)

provided that the citizens of the Philippines are those who shall owe
allegiance to the United States.

4. Added to the aforesaid list are Filipino women previously

married to foreigners who became widows and who
reverted to their original status on or before the approval of
the Constitution on May 14, 1935, and their children who
were still minors under 21 years of age on that date.
5. Persons who had been naturalized as Filipino citizens
before the approval of the Constitution in accordance with
Act No. 2927, as amended by Act No. 3448 since the
enactment of the former on March 26, 1920 unless they had
lost their citizenship on or before May 14, 1935.
6. Children of persons embraced in (5), that is, children under
21 years of age then residing in the Philippines on the date
of naturalization of their parents, and children born in the
Philippines subsequent to their parents’ naturalization.
7. Foreign women then belonging to a race eligible to
Philippine citizenship married to citizens of the Philippines
on or before May, 14, 1935, who were residing in the
Philippines at the time of their marriage or who, if married
abroad, subsequent thereto took up permanent residence in
the Islands on or before May 14, 1935, except those whose
marriages were dissolved and who reverted to their original
foreign nationality before that date.
8. Those who were individually declared citizens of the
Philippines by judicial decisions (res adjudicata), before the
adoption of the Constitution, unless they had lost such
citizenship on or before May 14, 1935 (Tan Chong vs.
Secretary of Labor, 79 Phil. 249 [1947]).
9. Children of those embraced in (8) who had not lost such
citizenship on or before May 14, 1935. (Francisco,
Philippine Political Law, East Publishing, p. 530 [1954]).

585

VOL. 357, MAY 7, 2001 585

The Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as Qualification for
Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

10. Aliens granted Philippine citizenship by direct act of

Congress for meritorious services rendered to the country.
11. Aliens who married Filipino citizens who do not possess
any disqualification to be naturalized Philippine citizen
(Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commission on Immigration, 41
SCRA 292 [1971])
§ 4. Historical Background of “Natural-Born Citizens” as
Qualification of Constitutional Officials

It was the 1973 Constitution that defined the meaning of “natural

born” citizen. Article III, Sec 4 of the 1973 Constitution provided
that “a natural born citizen is one who is a citizen from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his citizenship.” The
provision was reiterated in Article IV, section 2 of the 1987
Constitution and added that “Those who elect Philippine citizenship
in accordance with paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed natural born
citizens.”
It was the 1935 Constitution that first mentioned “natural-born
citizen” as a qualification for national elective officials. To be
elected as President and Vice President (Art. VII, sec. 7), as Senator
(Art. VI, sec. 4) and the members of the House of Representatives
(Art. VI, sec. 7), they must be natural born citizens. The 1935
Constitution, however, did not define who are natural born citizens.
Apparently, this term natural born citizen was lifted from the U.S.
Constitution. Article II, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution which
provides that “no person except a natural born citizen or citizen of
the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution
shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
According to Professor Willoughby, it is reasonable to hold that a
natural born citizen is a person who can claim citizenship without
any prior declaration or act on his part to obtain such status
(Willoughby, On the Constitution of the United States, 2d ed., Vol.
III, p. 354).
Nevertheless, the subject of who are natural-born citizens was
deliberated upon by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention
of 1934. The delegates commented that at common law, a natural
born citizen is one who is such at birth. This is the meaning intended
for the phrase “natural born” in the provision on qualifica-

586

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as Qualification for
Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

tions for the Presidency. However, in the debates on the amendments

of the Constitution restoring the bicameral system, the term “natural-
born citizen” was intended by the National Assembly, sitting as a
constituent body, to mean all citizens excluding only those by
naturalization. (Proceedings of the Philippine Constitution: Origins,
Making, Meaning and Application, Jose Aruego, editor, Vol. V. p. 35,
Philippine Lawyers’ Association, [1972]).
A similar discussion was made by Delegate Roxas and Artadi on
the Office of the President and Vice President. Delegate Roxas in
explaining the meaning “natural-born citizen” said:
“Delegate Roxas.—Mr. President, the phrase ‘natural born’ appears in the
Constitution of the United States; but authors say that this phrase has never
been interpreted authoritatively by the Supreme Court of the United States,
in view of the fact that the question whether or not an elected president has
this qualification has never been raised. Authors are unanimous in that the
words ‘natural born citizen’ mean a citizen, by reason of his birth, not by
naturalization or by any subsequent declaration by the law for his
citizenship. In the Philippines, for instance, according to the provisions of
this article on citizenship which we have approved, all those born in the
Philippines of a father who is a Filipino, whether born in the Philippines or
abroad, would be Filipinos by birth or natural-born.
“And with respect to one born of a Filipina mother, but of a foreign
father, the article which we approved on citizenship requires that upon
reaching the age of majority, this child chooses the citizenship which he
elects, and if he elects Filipino citizenship, he will be considered a Filipino
citizen. According to this interpretation, the son of a Filipina mother and a
foreign father would not be Filipino by birth, because the law or the
Constitution requires that he make a subsequent declaration subsequent to
his birth. Accordingly, the phrase ‘natural born citizen,’ as it is used in the
English text, means a Filipino citizen by birth, without taking into account
the place of birth.”

§ 5. Broader Concept of “Natural-Born Citizen” under the 1987

Constitution

Article IV, Sections 1 & 2 of the 1987 Constitution:

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

587

VOL. 357, MAY 7, 2001 587

The Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as Qualification for
Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

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.

Section 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 children whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the

Philippines, even if one of the parents is a foreigner are also natural-
born citizens.
§ 6. The Main Issue in the Teodoro Cruz Case

The crux of the issue in the case under annotation is whether

Teodoro Cruz, a natural born citizen, later naturalized U.S. citizen
but reacquired Philippine citizen by repatriation under Republic Act
No. 2630 was considered natural born citizen at the time he filed his
candidacy for the House of Representatives.
The minority view, as stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice
Sandoval-Gutierrez, is that by being naturalized as U.S. citizen, he
lost his status as natural born citizen and was therefore not eligible
to be elected as member of the House of Representatives. This is the
same view of Fr. Joaquin Bernas who stated that “If a natural-born
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 person would not be a
natural-born Filipino. (Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of
the Philippines: A Commentary, Rex Bookstore, p. 513 [1987]).

588

588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as Qualification for
Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

§ 7. The Liberal View Favoring “Natural-Born Citizen” Status

The majority opinion, taking the liberal view, held that private
respondent was a naturalized citizen of the United States, but he
reacquired his Philippine citizenship by repatriation under Republic
Act No. 2630 was restored to his status as a natural-born citizen.
This view draws support from Justice Artemio Panganiban with his
concurring opinion, when private respondent reacquired his
Philippine citizenship through repatriation, he was restored to his
original status as a natural born citizen. The determining factor in
the status of natural-born citizen is right from birth as distinguished
from a naturalized citizen.
The liberal view favoring citizenship status of a natural born
citizen was expressed by the Supreme Court in Aznar vs.
COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703 (1985). The case involved Emilio
“Lito” Osmeña, son of the late Dr. Emilio D. Osmeña, and grandson
of President Sergio Osmeña Sr., who was born in the Philippines and
continuously resided in the Philippines since birth. Emilio “Lito”
Osmeña was born with Filipino father and American mother. He
went to the United States and obtained an Alien Certificate of
Registration. He returned to the Philippines, he was carrying his
Alien Certificate of Registration and ran for Governor of Cebu and
won the elections. His opponents questioned his qualification as
citizen of the Philippines considering that he was carrying an Alien
Certificate of Registration.
The majority opinion, with Justice Edgardo Paras as ponente, in
said case ruled that merely carrying an Alien Certificate of
Registration does not mean that he has abandoned his Philippine
citizenship. According to the Court, there was no direct proof that
Emilio Osmeña had lost his Philippine citizenship under the law
which at that time was Commonwealth Act No. 63.
Dissenting opinions were, however, made by Justice Ameurfina
Melencio-Herrera, Justice Isagani Cruz and Justice Teodoro Padilla.
According to Justice Melencio-Herrera, registration as an alien is a
clear and unambiguous act of declaration that he was no longer
Filipino citizen.

589

VOL. 357, MAY 7, 2001 589

The Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as Qualification for
Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

Justice Cruz, who was the ponente in Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174
SCRA 245 (1989) and Labo vs. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1 (1989),
stated in the first case “that the status of the natural-born citizen is
favored by the Constitution and our laws, which is all the more
reason why it should be treasured like a pearl of great price. But
once it is surrendered and renounced, the gift is gone and cannot be
lightly restored. “This country of ours, for all its difficulties and
limitations, is like a jealous and possessive mother. Once rejected, it
is not quick to welcome back with eager arms its prodigal and
repentant children. The returning renegade must show, by an express
and unequivocal act, the renewal of his loyalty and love.”
In Labo vs. COMELEC, Labo, a Filipino citizen became an
Australian citizen under Australian law by marrying an Australian
citizen. He took his oath as Australian citizen. He came to the
Philippines carrying an Australian passport and ran for Mayor of
Baguio City. What must be considered is the fact that he voluntarily
and freely rejected Philippine citizenship and willingly and
knowingly embraced the citizenship of a foreign country. The
possibility that he may have been subsequently rejected by
Australia, as he claims, does not mean that he has been
automatically reinstated as a citizen of the Philippines.
Under Commonwealth Act No. 63 as amended by Presidential
Decree No.725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct
act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. It does not
appear in the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that he has
reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of these methods. He does
not point to any judicial decree of naturalization as to any statute
directly conferring Philippine citizenship upon him. Neither has he
shown that he has complied with Presidential Decree No. 725,
providing that:
“x x x (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, and, if their applications are approved, taking the necessary oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, after which they shall be
deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship. The Commission on
Immigration and Deportation shall there upon cancel their certificate of
registration.”

590

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as Qualification for
Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

§ 8. The Primary Adherence to the Jus Sanguinis Principle

The majority opinion in the case under annotation is a clear

reiteration of the adherence of the Philippines to the Jus Sanguinis
principle in the determination of nationality, as distinguished from
the principle of jus soli practiced in the United States, United
Kingdom and other common law countries. The principle of jus soli
determines nationality in the soil of the state irrespective of the
nationality of the parents. By contrast, the jus sanguinis adopted the
Code Napoleon and followed in most European states adhere that to
determine the nationality of the child follows the nationality of the
parents regardless of the place of birth. The Philippines as a civil
law country follows the Code Napoleon on the principle of jus
sanguinis. Delegate Alejandrino during the proceedings of the 1934
Constitutional Convention explained the importance of electing
national officials who are natural-born citizens, meaning, the jus
sanguinis principle, that would give assurance of the loyalty to
national interests of our elected national officials. Delegate
Alejandrino said:

“For centuries we have been subjected to a foreign sovereignty, imposed

upon us by rulers whose policy tended exclusively for the good and interests
and conveniences. To throw off that yoke and have the right to be governed
by men of our race, or by those who have in their veins some of our blood,
our people made enormous sacrifices succeeding in establishing an
ephemeral republic free and independent.” (The Philippine Constitution, op.
cit, Jose Aruego, ed., Vol. V, p. 481)

The principle of Jus Sanguinis has been more pronounced in the

1987 Constitution by considering children born either of Filipino
mother or father, although the other parent is a foreigner, as natural-
born citizens. This conforms to the Harvard Research Draft on the
Law of Nationality, defining jus sanguinis as the nationality of an
individual based on the descent of one of its nationals. Under this
principle, at least one of the parents has Filipino blood. This was
 further emphasized in section 2 of article IV, that those born before
January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers and elected Filipino

591

VOL. 357, MAY 7, 2001 591

The Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as Qualification for
Elective National Officials, Members of Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions

citizenship are also “natural-born citizen.” The loyalty of the

children born with Filipino blood is at least assured.

——o0o——

592

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.