CITIZENSHIP

Prepared by: Adwana Miranda

 What is Citizenship?
 A personal and more or less permanent membership in a political community. It
denotes possession within that particular political community of full civil and
political rights subject to special disqualifications such as minority.
 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.
“ citizenship is man’s basic right for it is nothing less than the right to have rights.
Remove this priceless possession and there remains a stateless person, disregard
and degraded in the eyes of his countrymen” – Chief Justice Warren <3
 Article IV Sec. 1.
The following are citizens of the Philippines:

01 02 03 04
THOSE WHO ARE
THOSE WHO ARE THOSE WHOSE FATHERS OR THOSE BORN NATURALIZED IN
CITIZENS OF THE MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS OF BEFORE JANUARY
17, 1973, OF FILIPINO ACORDANCE
PHILIPPINES AT THE THE PHILIPPINES; WITH LAW
TIME OF THE MOTHERS, WHO
ELECT PHILIPINES
ADOPTION OF THIS CITIZENSHIP UPON
CONSTITUTION; REACHING THE AGE
OF MAJORITY;
 Modes of acquiring citizenship

JUS SANGUINIS JUS SOLI NATURALIZATION

- acquisition of - acquisition of - the legal act of

citizenship on the citizenship on the adopting an alien
basis of blood basis of place of and clothing him
relationship. birth. with the privilege
of a native born-
citizen.
 Children of Filipino fathers or mothers
The child of a Filipino
father, whether born in the
Philippines or abroad, was
a Filipino citizen from the
moment of birth. At the
1935 Constitutional
Convention, an attempt
was made to make
citizenship by birth,
subject to such
limitations as may be
prescribed by the
National Assembly
The 1973 Constitution ( principle of sanguinis)- those
whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines , even if the
father is an alien, are Filipino citizens. It is essential that
the mother must be a Filipina at the time of the birth of
the child. The new provision is not retroactive. It applies
only to those born of a Filipina mother on or before the
effectivity of the 1973 constitution.
The principle of jus sanguinis applies only to natural filiation
and not to filiation by adoption. Likewise if a settled rule that
only legitimate children follow the citizenship of the father and
that illegitimate children are under the parental authority of the
mother and follow her nationality, not that of the illegitimate
father.
 Citizens by election
What is the By article IV, sec. 1 (4) of the 1935 Constitution: Those whose
scope of the mothers are citizens of the Philippines and upon reaching the age
right of of majority, elect Philippines citizenship.
election
given by the
1935 When must the mother be a citizen of the Philippines?
- Villahermosa v. Commissioner of Immigration
Constitution - The mother must be a Filipina at the time of the election by the
? child.
- To benefit from the right of election under 1935 Constitution, it
is sufficient that the mother be a Filipino citizen, either by birth
or by naturalization, at the time of her marriage.
 Citizens by election
If the mother lost her Philippine citizenship
by marriage but subsequently reacquired it
during the minority of the child, does the
minor child automatically acquire the
citizenship of her mother or must he still
elect Philippine Citizenship?
In Villahermosa v. Commissioner of
Immigration:
- The SC ruled that it is still necessary for
the child to make the election if he wishes
to become a Filipino citizen.
 Sec 1 of Commonwealth Act
625 enacted on June 7, 1941:
- The election must be
expressed in a statement sworn
before any officer authorized to
administer oaths and filed with
the nearest civil registry and
accompanied by an oath of
allegiance to the Philippine
Constitution.
 Citizens by election
 How soon after reaching majority
must the child make the election?
In Dy Cuenco v. Secretary of
Justice:
- 3 years is the reasonable period
within which the child must make the
election. After such period, the right is
lost. However, justifiable
circumstances, such as when the
person concerned has always
considered himself a Filipino citizen,
may justify the extension of the 3-yr
 Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of
Representatives:
Jose Co, born a Chinese national, married a
Filipina in 1932. In 1955, when their son Jose,
Jr. was 9 yrs old, Jose, Sr. was naturalized and
took his oath of allegiance. In 1987 Jose, Jr.
was elected to the House of Representatives.
When his citizenship qualification was
challenged on the ground that he had never
elected Philippine citizenship, the court said
that it would be ridiculous to acquire him to
elect citizenship when, by naturalization of his
father, he too had become a Filipino citizen
even while still minor.
 Citizens by election
With the adoption of the 1973 Constitution which by Article III, Section
2, allowed the Filipina who marries an alien to retain her original
citizenship and which by Section 1(2) allowed the child to follow the
citizenship of his Filipino mother, a child born under the 1973
Constitution of a Filipino mother would not have to make the election
in order to acquire Philippine citizenship. He is already a Filipino
citizen by birth. However, since the new provision allowing the
legitimate child to follow the citizenship of the Filipino mother is not
retroactive, provision had to be made for legitimate children born of
Filipino mothers under the 1935 Constitution who by reason of
minority had not yet exercised their option when the 1973 Constitution
took effect.
 Citizens by election
Can the right to elect Philippine citizenship still be available
to
children
It is submitted born
that thereafter
is nothe 1973
right of Constitution
"Thosetook
who effect?
elect Philippine
election for children born under the 1973 citizenship pursuant to the provisions
Constitution. It is very clear from the convention of the Constitution of nineteen
deliberations that Section 1(3) is intended to be in hundred and
the nature of a transitory provision applicable to thirty-five."
children born under the 1935 Constitution who had
not yet reached majority when the 1973 -The clear implication of such language
Constitution took effect. Moreover, if it had been is that the right of election referred to by
the intention of the Convention to preserve the the new provision can only be one which
1935 provision as a permanent part of the 1973 was acquired under the 1935
Constitution, the Convention would not have Constitution
worded the new provision the way it did.
 Naturalization, judicial and administrative
Naturalization is the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the rights
that belong to a natural born citizen. Naturalization may be obtained through a
general law of naturalization applied
through a judicial process. Such is the process prescribed in the existing Revised
Naturalization Law, C.A. 473 , June 17,1939
The grant of citizenship to a parent also extends citizenship to minor children under parental
authority. The rule on the citizenship of the wife upon the naturalization of the husband is a little more
involved. The law says that she is "deemed a citizen" of the Philippines.
This has been interpreted to mean that she becomes a Filipino citizen, provided she shows, in an
administrative procedure for the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration, that she has none of
the disqualifications found in C.A. No. 473, i.e., even if she does not have all the qualifications found in
C.A. No. 473, Sec. 2. "
Aside from judicial naturalization there is now administrative naturalization. The matter is handled
through the Special Committee on Naturalization chaired by the Solicitor General and is governed by
Sections 3,4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9139.
 Natural-born citizen
SEC 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.

Would the second sentence of Section 2
apply only to those who elect citizenship
after the effectivity of the 1987
Constitution?
-It would apply to anybody who elected
Philippine citizenship by virtue of the
provision of the 1935 Constitution,
whether the election was done before or
after January 17,1973.
If a natural-born Filipino 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 a person
would not be a natural-born Filipino
 Loss of citizenship
SEC. 3. PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED BY LAW.

2 laws on loss of citizenship

Commonwealth Commonwealth Act 473 ,

Act No. 63, applies to both applies to naturalized
natural-born and naturalized citizenship.
citizenship.
 Reacquisition of citizenship
Citizenship once lost may be reacquired
either by naturalization or by repatriation
or by a direct grant by law. For women
who have lost their citizenship through
marriage to aliens, and for natural born
Filipinos, including their minor children,
as well as persons who have lost their
citizenship on account of economic or
political necessity, and who are not
disqualified, repatriation is accomplished
by taking the oath of allegiance to the
Republic and registering in the proper
Civil Registry and in the Bureau of
Immigration.
Section 2 of R.A. No. 8171: Repatriation shall
be effected by taking the necessary oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
and registration in the proper civil registry and
in the Bureau of Immigration. The Bureau of
Immigration shall thereupon cancel the
pertinent alien certificate of registration and
issue the certificate of identification as Filipino
citizen to the repatriated citizen.
Repatriation is the resumption or
recovery of the original nationality upon
the fulfillment of certain conditions.
 Marriage to an alien spouse
SEC. 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.

The 1973 Constitution's version of this provision read: "A female citizen of the
Philippines who marries an alien shall retain her Philippine citizenship, unless by her
act or omission she is deemed, under the law, to have renounced her citizenship." The
1987 provision makes no reference to sex thus making the rule applicable to both
males and females on the chance that some country might have a law which divests a
foreign husband of his citizenship.
Commonwealth Act No. 63 , Section 1(7), provided that a Filipino woman lost her
Philippine citizenship "upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in
force in her husband's country, she acquires his nationality.”
 SEC 5. DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS INIMICAL TO THE
NATIONAL INTEREST AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW.
Dual citizenship Dual allegiance
The universal rule is that the child Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who,
follows the citizenship of the father, and after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a
since under Section 1(2) the child also foreign country shall retain their Philippine
follows the citizenship of the Filipino citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens
mother, and since under Section 4 the shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
Filipino woman does not lose Philippine omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have
citizenship by marriage to an alien husband, renounced it. Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens
it is clear that the Constitution allows for the is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt
possibility of dual citizenship. It is, after all, with by law.
a condition which arises from the fact that Congress has dealt with dual allegiance by
Philippine law cannot control international allowing dual citizenship. R.A. No. 9225, entitled
law and the laws of other countries on "An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine
citizenship. Citizens who Acquire Foreign Citizenship
Permanent
 Moy Ya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung v. Commissioner of Immigration
Gr. No. l-21289 October 4, 1971

Facts: On February 8, 1961, Lau Yuen Yeung applied for passport visa to enter the Philippines as a non-
immigrant. She stated that she desired to take a pleasure trip to visit her great grand uncle. On the date
of her arrival, Asher Cheng filed a bond of 1k to undertake that Lau would depart the Philippines on or
before the expiration of her authorize period of stay of within the period as in the discretion of the
Commission of Immigrant might properly allow. After repeated extensions, Lau was allowed to stay in
the country until February 13, 1962. On January 25, 1962, she contracted a marriage with Moy Ya Lim
Yao, a Filipino citizen.
Issue: Does Lau, as an alien woman, may be deemed a citizen of the Philippines by virtue of her
marriage to a Filipino citizen?
Ruling: YES, an alien woman may be deemed a citizen of the Philippines by virtue of her marriage to a Filipino
citizen only if she possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications specified in the law, because
these are the explicit requisites provided by law for an alien to be naturalized. Section 15 of the Revised
Naturalization law provides that “any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the
Philippines and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.” Section
15 was obviously to accord to an alien woman, by reason of her marriage to a Filipino, a privilege not similarly
granted to other aliens.
  
Mercado v. Manzano & COMELEC
Gr No. 135083 May 26, 1999

 Facts: Ernesto S. Mercado and Eduardo Manzano were candidates for vice mayor of the City
of Makati. Manzano won the elections, however his proclamation was suspended because a
certain Ernesto Mamaril filed a petition for the disqualification and alleged that Manzano
was not a citizen of the Philippines but of US. COMELEC 2nd Division granted the petition
and cancelled the certificate of candidacy on the grounds that dual citizens are qualified from
running any elective position under Sec. 40 of the LGC. But COMELEC en banc reversed
the said decision. It found that Manzano acquired US citizenship by operation of the US
Constitution. He was also a natural born Filipino Citizen by operation of 1935 Constitution,
as his father and mother were Filipinos at the time of his birth. At the age of 6 his parents
brought him in the country and registered him as an alien, but this however did not result in
the loss of Phil. Citizenship, as he did not renounce Phil. Citizenship and did not take oath of
allegiance to the US. At the age of majority, Manzano registered himself as a voter and voted
in the effectively renounce the US Citizenship under American Law.
Issue: Is dual citizenship a ground for disqualification?
Ruling: NO, dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The phrase dual citizenship
in RA 7160 must be understood as referring to dual allegiance and persons with dual
citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Dual Citizenship is involuntary, it arises
out of circumstances like birth or marriage, while dual allegiance is a result of a person’s
simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to 2 or more states. Also, Manzano upon
filing his certificate for candidacy have elected Phil, Citizenship thus terminating his dual
citizenship. He made these statements: “I am a Filipino citizen Natural born, I am not a
permanent resident of or immigration to, a foreign country, I am eligible for the office, I
seek to be elected, I will support the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true
faith and allegiance thereto.” Thus, the filing sufficed to renounce his American
Citizenship.
 Bengson v. HRET and Cruz
Gr. No. 142840 May 7, 2001

 Facts: Teodoro Cruz was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, of Filipino parents making him a
natural born citizen of the Philippines. However, respondent Cruz was 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 by his
naturalization as a U.S Marine Corps. Thereafter. Respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine
citizenship through repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630. He ran for and was elected as
the Representatives of the Second District of Pangasinan in the 1998 elections. He won over
Antonio Bengson III, who was then running for reelection. Subsequently, Bengson filed a
case with House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) claiming that respondent
Cruz was not qualified to become a member of the House of Representatives since he is not a
natural born citizen as required under Article VI, Section 6 of the Constitution. The HRET
dismissed the petition for quo warranto and declared respondent Cruz was duly elected as a
representative. The HRET also denied Bengson’s motion for reconsideration.
Issue: Is Cruz, a natural born Filipino who became an American citizen, can still be considered a
natural born Filipino upon his reacquisition of the Philippine citizenship?
Ruling: YES, Cruz can still be considered a natural born Filipino upon his reacquisition of the
Philippine citizenship. He may have lost his Filipino citizenship when he rendered service in the Armed
Forces of US. However, he subsequently reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA No. 2630, sec. 1,
which provides: “any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or
accepting commission in, the Armed Forces of the US, or after separation from the Armed Forces of the
US, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same with the Local Civil Registry in
the place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall contain a
renunciation of any other citizenship to the Republic and having registered the same in the civil registry
of Mangatarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited provision, is deemed to have recovered
his original status as a natural born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the act of repatriation
allows him to recover, or return to, his original status before he lost hi Philippine citizenship.
 Thank you 
Merry Christmas!