MEMORIZE THE PROVISIONS. / FAMILAIRIZE THE CASE.

/ REVIEW NOTES FOR CONSTITUTIONAL

LAW FINAL EXAM.

ARTICLE IV. CITIZENSHIP

Defined:
The Supreme Court defined citizenship in the case of Republic v. Karbasi, that citizenship
pertains to a membership in a political community, which is personal and more or less
permanent in character. It denotes possession within that particular political community of full
civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications. Reciprocally, it imposes the duty of
allegiance to the political community. The core of citizenship is the capacity to enjoy political
rights, that is, the right to participate in government principally through the right to vote, the
right to hold public office and the right to petition the government for redress of grievance.

Kinds of citizenship:
1. Natural-born citizens
a. Jus solis
b. Jus sanguinis
2. Naturalized-citizens
--- The legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a citizen in
accordance with the Philippine Naturalization Law.

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(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 who were 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 the law.

Doctrine and Principles:

1. Jus soli
The common law principle of jus soli, otherwise known as the principle of territoriality, the
basis of citizenship is the place of birth. This doctrine was not adopted in the Philippines.
2. Jus sanguinis
Under the principle of jus sanguinis, the basis of citizenship is by blood relation. Under
Section 1 (2) of the 1987 Constitution, when one parent is a citizen of the Philippines, his or
her child is a natural-born citizen. Additionally, Section 1(3) provides that those who were
born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

Familiarize:
1. Discuss the evolution of the principle of jus sanguinis as basis of Filipino citizenship under the
1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. (2015 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the doctrine of jus sanguinis or blood relationship as the basis of Philippine
citizenship, as provided for in Section 1(3), Article III of the 1935 Constitution, a
legitimate child, by the fact of legitimacy, automatically follows the citizenship of the
Filipino father. However, Subsection 4, Section 1, Article III of the 1935 Constitution
provided that if the mother was a Filipino citizen who lost her Philippine citizenship
because of her marriage to a foreign husband, her children could elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

Section 1 (2), Article III of the 1973 Constitution provided that a child born of a father or
a mother who is a citizen of the Philippines is a Filipino citizen. The same is provided in
Section 1 (2), Article IV of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, Section 1 (3), Article IV of
the 1987 Constitution provided that a child born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority is a
natural-born Filipino citizen.

Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those 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.

Page 1 of 3
 MEMORIZE THE PROVISIONS. / FAMILAIRIZE THE CASE. / REVIEW NOTES FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW FINAL EXAM.

Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.

Grounds for Losing Philippine Citizenship (N-E-S-Re-Ca-De-M)

1. Naturalization in a foreign country;
2. Express renunciation of citizenship (expatriation); or
3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to the constitution or laws of a foreign country upon
attaining 21 years of age; or
4. Rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country
unless:
a. The Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said
foreign country; or
b. The said foreign country maintains armed forces in the Philippine territory with its
consent provided that at the time of rendering said service, or acceptance of said
commission, and taking the oath of allegiance incident thereto, states that he does
so only in connection with its service to said foreign country.
5. Cancellation of certificate of naturalization (Denaturalization); or
6. Having been declared by final judgment a Deserter of the armed forces of the Philippines in
times of war; or
7. In case of a woman, upon her Marriage, to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force in her
husband’s country, she acquires his nationality.

2. Warlito, a natural-born Filipino, took up permanent residence in the United States, and
eventually acquired American citizenship. He then married Shirley, an American, and sired
three children. In August 2009, Warlito decided to visit the Philippines with his wife and
children: Johnny, 23 years of age; Warlito, Jr., 20; and Luisa, 17.

While in the Philippines, a friend informed him that he could reacquire Philippine citizenship
without necessarily losing U.S. nationality. Thus, he took the oath of allegiance required under
R.A. 9225.

(A) Having reacquired Philippine citizenship, is Warlito a natural-born or a naturalized Filipino

citizen today? Explain your answer. (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Warlito is a natural-born Filipino citizen. In the case of Bengson v. HRET, the
Supreme Court held that the repatriation of Filipinos results in the recovery of the
original nationality. Since Warlito was a natural-born Filipino citizen before he lost his
Philippine citizenship, he was restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino
citizen.

(B) With Warlito having regained Philippine citizenship, will Shirley also become a Filipino
citizen? If so, why? If not, what would be the most speedy procedure for Shirley to acquire
Philippine citizenship? Explain. (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Warlito’s marriage with Shirly and his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship
does not automatically make his wife a citizen of the Philippines. In the case of Burca v.
Republic, the Supreme Court ruled that an alien woman married to a Filipino does not
become ipso facto a citizen.
Sec. 15, Revised Naturalization Law recites that she "shall be deemed a citizen of
the Philippines" if she "might herself be lawfully naturalized. So that she may acquire
the status of a Filipino citizen she must file a "petition for citizenship" reciting that she
possesses all the qualifications set forth in Section 2, and none of the disqualifications
under Section 4, both of the Revised Naturalization Law; the said petition must be filed
in the Court of First Instance where petitioner has resided at least one year immediately
preceding the filing of the petition.

Page 2 of 3
 MEMORIZE THE PROVISIONS. / FAMILAIRIZE THE CASE. / REVIEW NOTES FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW FINAL EXAM.

(C) Do the children — Johnny, 23 years of age; Warlito, Jr., 20; and Luisa, 17—become Filipino
citizens with their father’s reacquisition of Philippine citizenship? Explain your answer. (2009
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, except Luisa. Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9225, the principle of
derivative citizenship extends only to the unmarried child, whether legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of former Filipino parents who
re-acquired Philippine citizenship shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines.
In the given case, Johny and Warlito are beyond the 18-year age limit which
makes them disqualified to avail of derivative citizenship. While Luisa, 17 years of age, is
the only child qualified for derivative citizenship. Thus only the latter becomes Filipino
citizen with their father’s reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.

Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.

Section 5. Dual allegiance by citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.

3. Rosebud is a natural-born Filipino woman who got married to Rockcold, a citizen of State
Frozen. By virtue of the laws of Frozen, any person who marries its citizens would
automatically be deemed its own citizen. After ten years of marriage, Rosebud, who has
split her time between the Philippines and Frozen, decided to run for Congress. Her
opponent sought her disqualification, however, claiming that she is no longer a natural-
born citizen. In any event, she could not seek elective position since she never renounced
her foreign citizenship pursuant to the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act (R.A.
No. 9225). Is Rosebud disqualified to run by reason of citizenship? (2014 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Rosebud is disqualified from running for an elective office in the Philippines
because by her marriage to Rockcold, by virtue of the laws of Frozen, she was automatically
deemed its citizen. As a result, she is considered, under the law, to have renounced her
Philippine citizenship.
In the case of Sobejena-Condon v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled that under
Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225, a Filipino American or any dual citizen cannot run for any elective
public position in the Philippines unless she has personally executed a sworn renunciation of
foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath at the time of
filing of the certificate of candidacy.
Therefore, Rosebud is disqualified from running for an elective office in the
Philippines for failure to renounce her Frozen citizenship in accordance with Section 5(2) of
R.A. No. 9225.

4. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false.
Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (2009 Bar Question)

Dual citizenship is not the same as dual allegiance.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
True.
In the case of Mercado v. Manzano, the Supreme Court explained that 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 those states and is
involuntary., Dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes
by some positive and voluntary act, loyalty to two or more states.

Page 3 of 3