Professional Documents
Culture Documents
b. Citizenship
2. Natural born citizen vs Naturalized Citizens
Loss and re-acquisition of Philippine Citizen ship
Relevant Article IV, Section 2 refers to the innate, inherent and inborn
Topic/s characteristic of being a natural-born citizen.
ways of acquiring citizenship:
(1) by birth, (Natural born Citizen)
(2) by naturalization (Naturalized born Citizen)
three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by
a former citizen:
(1) by naturalization, -Naturalization is mode for both acquisition and
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship
(2) by repatriation, and -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;19 services in the armed forces of the
allied forces in World War II;20 (3) service in the Armed Forces of the
United States at any other time,21 (4) marriage of a Filipino woman to
an alien;22 and (5) political economic necessity.23
-As distinguished from the lengthy process of
naturalization, repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippine and registering said oath in
the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides
or last resided.
(3) by direct act of Congress
Article III, Section 4 of the 1973 Constitution as follows:
SC Ruling DISMISSED.
Concepts Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire
the same in the manner provided by law. Commonwealth Act. No. (C.A.
No. 63), enumerates the three modes by which Philippine citizenship
may be reacquired by a former citizen: (1) by naturalization, (2) by
repatriation, and (3) by direct act of Congress
There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2) by
naturalization.
xxx
(a) The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact
of alliance with said foreign country; or
FACTS:
Respondent Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in San
Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27,1960, of Filipino parents. The fundamental law then
applicable was the 1935 Constitution.2
On November 5, 1985, however, respondent 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. As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for
under Commonwealth Act No. 63, section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship
by, among other
Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss of Philippine citizenship was erased by
his naturalization as a U.S. citizen on June 5, 1990, in connection with his service in the
U.S. Marine Corps.
On March 17, 1994, respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through
repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630.3 He ran for and was elected as the
Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections. He
won by a convincing margin of 26,671 votes over petitioner Antonio Bengson III, who
was then running for reelection
1. The HRET committed Respondent on the other The HRET has been
serious errors and grave hand contends that he empowered by the Constitution
abuse of discretion, amounting reacquired his status as to be the "sole judge" of all
to excess of jurisdiction, when natural-born citizen when contests relating to the
it ruled that private respondent he was repatriated since election, returns, and
is a natural-born citizen of the the phrase "from birth" in qualifications of the members
Philippines despite the fact Article IV, Section 2 refers of the House.29 The Court's
that he had ceased being such to the innate, inherent and jurisdiction over the HRET is
in view of the loss and inborn characteristic of merely to check "whether or
renunciation of such being a natural-born not there has been a grave
citizenship on his part. citizen. abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of
jurisdiction" on the part of the
latter.30 In the absence
2. The HRET committed The petition is without thereof, there is no occasion
serious errors and grave merit. for the Court to exercise its
abuse of discretion, amounting corrective power and annul the
to excess of jurisdiction, when decision of the HRET nor to
it considered private substitute the Court's
respondent as a citizen of the The 1987 Constitution
enumerates who are judgement for that of the latter
Philippines despite the fact he for the simple reason that it is
did not validly acquire his Filipino citizens as follow:
not the office of a petition for
Philippine citizenship. certiorari to inquire into the
correctness of the assailed
(1) Those who are citizens decision.31 There is no such
3. Assuming that private of the Philippines at the showing of grave abuse of
respondent's acquisition of time of the adoption of this discretion in this case.
Philippine citizenship was Constitution;
invalid, the HRET committed WHEREFORE, the petition is
serious errors and grave hereby DISMISSED.
abuse of discretion, amounting (2) Those whose fathers or
to excess of jurisdiction, when mothers are citizens of the
it dismissed the petition
despite the fact that such Philippines;
reacquisition could not legally
and constitutionally restore his
natural-born status.7
(3) Those born before
Petitioner asserts that January 17, 1973 of
respondent Cruz may no Filipino mother, who elect
longer be considered a Philippine citizenship upon
natural-born Filipino since he reaching the age of
lost h is Philippine citizenship majority, and
when he swore allegiance to
the United States in 1995, and
had to reacquire the same by (4) Those who are
repatriation. He insists that naturalized in accordance
Article citizens are those who with law.8
are from birth with out having
to perform any act to acquire
or perfect such citizenship.
ISSUE-HELD-RATIO:
1. by naturalization,
2. by repatriation, and
3. by direct act of Congress.
**
RULING/OTHER NOTES: