Q 1. How are citizenship and nationality different?

Ans. Nationality indicates the place where a person or his parents are born and Citizenship is
legally acquired after fulfilling the eligibilities of becoming a citizen of any country.
Q2
Q 2. Are citizenship and nationality interrelated?
Ans. A person’s nationality remains the same throughout his lifetime as it is inherited. However,
a citizenship can be changed

Differences Nationality and Citizenship

Nationality
Citizenship

Nationality denotes where an individual has been born Citizenship is a legal status in a political institution such as a
or holds citizenship with a state. Nationality is obtained city or a state. The relationship between a citizen and the
through inheritance from his/her parents, institution that confers this status is formal,

Ethnic or Racial Legal or Juristic

The place or country where the individual has taken The individual is designated as a citizen by the government
birth of the country

Birth and Inheritance (subject to the rules prevalent in Birth, Inheritance, Marriage, Naturalization,
the country)

Nationality cannot be changed Citizenship can be changed

An example of nationality is Armenian to a person with An example of citizenship is an Indian being conferred US
Armenian roots born in the United Kingdom Citizenship upon clearing a citizenship test

To conclude, nationality, as the name suggests, is something in connection with the nation,
which a person obtains by birth and is innate. On the other hand, citizenship is a bit different,
which requires a person to fulfil the legal formalities to become a recognized member of the
state.

Republic v. Divorce obtained in Filipino husband invokes The divorce decree cannot be
[16]
Iyoy (Iyo the United States by the divorce decree recognized in the Philippines
y) Filipino wife prior secured by his Filipino since the Filipino wife obtained
to her naturalization wife as additional ground the same while still a Filipino
as an American to grant his petition for citizen, and was, at such time,
citizen declaration of nullity bound by Philippine laws on

Dacasin Divorce obtained in American spouse sought
the United States by enforcement of the Joint
Filipino spouse Custody Agreement he
had executed with his
former Filipino wife,
which bore terms
contrary to those in the
divorce decree
family rights and duties,
pursuant to the nationality
principle.
The divorce decree is binding
on the American spouse,
pursuant to the nationality
principle. Accordingly, he
cannot be allowed to evade the
same by invoking the terms of
the Joint Custody Agreement.

Consistent with the foregoing, the Court held in Iyoy:

As it is worded, Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special situation wherein one of the
[parties in the marriage] is a foreigner who divorces his or her Filipino spouse. By its plain
and literal interpretation, the said provision cannot be applied to the case of respondent
Crasus and his wife Fely because at the time Fely obtained her divorce, she was still, a
Filipino citizen. x x x At the time she filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and
pursuant to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
she was still bound by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal
capacity, even when she was already living abroad. Philippine laws, then and even until now,
do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino spouses. Thus, Fely could not have validly
obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus.

In the book of Senate President Jovito Salonga entitled Private International Law and
precisely because of the National law doctrine, he considers the absolute divorce as valid
insofar as the American husband is concerned but void insofar as the Filipino wife is involved.

As the Supreme Court stated in Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit, 6
“[i]t is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference
to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and
kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.”

This Article discusses how the Supreme Court has interpreted the second paragraph of Article 2610 over
the years, and contends that the Court — in its desire to give the provision an expansive interpretation
— committed a judicial overreach in Republic v. Manalo, 11 by needlessly limiting the application of the
nationality rule and by resorting to judicial legislation.

Despite the common view that the second paragraph was introduced as a curative provision in case a
Van Dorn situation arises again,42 in reality, this provision does not address the dilemma presented in
that case. It is very clear that the second paragraph of Article 26 requires that the divorce be initiated
and obtained by the foreign spouse of the Filipino; otherwise, said Filipino cannot be considered
capacitated to remarry.43 In fact, the Supreme Court,
in Garcia v. Recio,44 reiterated the requisite conditions before the second paragraph of Article 26 of the
Family Code can apply. Thus — At the outset, [the Court] lay[s] the following basic legal principles as the
take-off points for [the Court’s] discussion. Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence,
[Philippine] courts cannot grant it. A marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a
divorce obtained abroad, because of Articles 1522 and 1723 of the Civil Code. In mixed marriages
involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a
subsequent marriage in case the divorce is ‘validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him
or her to remarry.’ A divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the
Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws.

Orbecido Case

The main contention of the government, on the one hand, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), was that the provision did not apply to the respondent’s case since at the time the latter and his
wife were married, they were still both Filipino citizens; that said provision “only applies to a valid mixed
marriage; that is, a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an alien.”59 It was further the
position of the OSG that “there is no law that governs respondent’s situation”60 and that addressing
Orbecido’s situation is “a matter of legislation and not of judicial determination.”61

The Orbecido case provided a “revolutionary” perspective of second paragraph of Article 26. Despite the
clear and plain meaning of the law as to the context within which said provision should be applied, the
Court found a way to expand its interpretation and construe the premise — “Where a marriage between
a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated”74 — as including spouses who, at the time of their
marriage to each other, were still Filipino citizens.7

The basic problem with the decision of the Court is that it wanted to provide a remedy for a situation
that is not within the scope of Article 26, Paragraph 2 to address. This provision was never intended to
carve an exception to the restriction imposed by Article 15.

. It only sought to supplement it by further bringing the process to a fair conclusion that when a foreign
spouse divorces a Filipino citizen, and that the such divorce is recognized within the Philippine
jurisdiction under the nationality rule, fairness dictates that the Filipino concerned should also be
allowed to remarry. It is not enough merely to declare him or her as no longer married to his or her
foreign spouse.

As mentioned in the Orbecido case, according to Judge Sempio-Diy, the purpose of adding Paragraph 2 in
Article 26 is to remedy a situation “where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who,
after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.”It is quite clear that this is the only
scenario that the said Article was envisioned to cure.

MANALO CASE:

The cited provision is quite plain and clear. The foreign spouse must initiate the divorce proceeding. This
is the unequivocal meaning of said provision which has been affirmed in the rulings by the court in Recio
and Orbecido. Although the latter case stated that what is important is the citizenship of the one filing
for divorce “at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse[,]” 89 nevertheless, the
Court still remained true to the letter and intent of the provision that only the foreign spouse can initiate
divorce according to the latter’s national law.
There is a substantial distinction between a Filipino whose marriage was severed through a divorce filed
by his or her foreign spouse and who was subsequently successful in securing a divorce decree; and a
Filipino who initiated the proceeding himself or herself, despite the fact that he or she does not have the
capacity to do so. If the divorce decree is consequently issued in the latter case, said Filipino should take
responsibility for the consequence of being in an absurd and unfair situation. To address the injustice in
the above scenario, it is obvious that the law needs to be changed. In Manalo, the Court took the
position that the issue before them was resolvable not by legislative reform but by jurisprudential
pronouncement.10..

The second paragraph of Article 26 is a window afforded to Filipino nationals who find themselves
trapped in a marriage where their foreign spouses have exercised the right to sever the same through a
divorce proceeding. It is necessarily limited because Philippine law does not afford its own citizens that
same right. Their own national law restricts them. Therefore, the remedy is to change the law, but the
only body authorized to do this is the legislature through an amendment of Article 26, Paragraph 2, or
even by enacting a divorce law altogether.

As Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa pointed out in his dissent — [I]t bears to emphasize that the
public policy against absolute divorce remains in force. At present, there exists no legal mechanism
under Philippine law through which a Filipino may secure a divorce decree upon his [or her] own
initiative. Accordingly, it is the Court’s duty to uphold such policy and apply the law as it currently stands
until the passage of an amendatory law on the subject. As members of the Court, ours is the duty to
interpret the law; this duty does not carry with it the power to determine what the law should be in the
face of changing times, which power, in turn, lies solely within the province of Congress.

“Since the Supreme Court is only granted judicial power, it should not attempt to assume or be
compelled to perform non-judicial functions.”106 In interpreting the law, the judiciary should not go
beyond its well-established parameters, not even if the court believes that by doing so, a just and
equitable resolution of the case would be achieved. This is especially true if the desired remedy lies
elsewhere, within the power of another co-equal body. The Manalo ruling is a clear case of judicial
overreach.

Dura lex, sed lex. "The law is hard, but it is the law."
“The law is hard, but law.”A maxim of Roman civil law meaning that, however regrettable the outcome of
the legal decision may be, the law must be proclaimed and enforced. The maxim has been used both
sincerely and disingenuously. ...

Divorce in the Philippines

Divorce is banned in the Philippines and legal annulments are an arduous and
time-consuming process. Aside from the Vatican, the Philippines is the only
country in the world that does not allow divorce, and church leaders intend to
keep it that way. Huffington Post reported: “With about 80 percent of its
population Roman Catholic, the nation is the bastion of the Catholic church in
Asia. Philippine Catholic leaders remain firm on their stand against divorce,
despite Pope Francis’s recent comment to change the tone on the issue.’

Currently, the existing law in the Philippines allows for annulment, declaration
of nullity of marriage, and legal separation, but not divorce. Marriage
annulment in the Philippines is an extremely difficult legal issue that requires
a qualified lawyer who is intimately familiar with all of the intricacies and
complexities regarding the annulment of marriage in the Philippines. Filipinos
who have obtained a divorce outside of the Philippines must still obtain an
annulment in the Philippines to regularize their situation.

Kate McGeown of the BBC wrote: “With the strong influence of the Catholic
faith, divorce is illegal in the Philippines. But couples who have fallen out of
love find novel ways to split - including multiple annulments. For a country
which does not allow divorce, there seems to be an awful lot of people in the
Philippines who have ex-wives or ex-husbands. It is not something that is
often talked about openly, but in any gathering of professional Filipinos, you
can be fairly sure that at least one is onto their second or maybe even third
marriage. [Source: Kate McGeown, BBC, June 11, 2011 */]

“ And I have met some people who say there is little incentive to get married
in the first place. One woman I found sitting in a doorway cleaning vegetables
- a 22-year-old pregnant with her fourth child - looks at me with bewilderment
when I ask if she's married to the man standing with his arm around her. This
is not really on the agenda for now, she says - they have too many other things
to worry about. */

“There are undoubtedly people who feel trapped by the lack of a divorce law -
those whose first partners are long gone and who would dearly love to marry
someone else, and the children born out of wedlock and into stigma because
their parents cannot get married. Supporters for legal divorce also point to the
high number of battered wives who feel trapped, unable to leave their
husbands. A small percentage of Filipinos are already allowed to divorce - the
5 percent of the population who are Muslim, and also some Filipinos married
to foreigners. */