You are on page 1of 39

Article IV

Citizenship

Citizenship

Citizenship- is membership in a political community which is personal and more or less permanent in character. Nationality- is membership in any class or form of political community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if member of a democratic community] or subjects [if members of a monarchial community]. It does not necessarily include the right or privilege of exercising political and civil rights.

Usual modes of acquiring citizenship:


a. By Birth i. Jus sanguinis-by blood ii. Jus soli-by birth b. By Naturalization c. By Marriage The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of JUS SANGUINIS. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his birth, as opposed to the doctrine of JUS SOLI which determines the nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543)

Modes (by birth) applied in the Philippines


A. Before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution i. Jus Sanguinis. All inhabitants of the islands who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, and residing in the islands who did not declare their intention of preserving Spanish nationality between said date and October11, 1900, were declared citizens of the Philippines [Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones Law of 1916], and their children born after April 11, 1899. (en masse Filipinization) ii. Jus Soli. Those declared as Filipino citizens by the courts are recognized as such today, not because of the application of the jus soli principle, but principally because of the doctrine of res judicata. B. After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution: Only the Jus Sanguinis doctrine. Section 1, Article IV The following are citizens of the Philippines: 1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution; (February 2, 1987) 2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; (jus sanguinis) 3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; 4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. Section 2, Article IV 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.

Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia, to spouses Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. Is she a Filipino citizen and, therefore, qualified to run for Governor of her province?
Historically, she was born a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect and at that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the organic acts by which the US governed the country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also known as the Jones Law. These laws defined who were deemed to be citizens of the Philippine Islands. Xxx Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their children are deemed to be Philippine citizens. Private respondents father, Telesforo, was born on January 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte, a fact duly evidenced by a certified true copy of an entry in the registry of Births. Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws, which were the law in force at the time of her birth, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is likewise a citizen of the Philippines. The signing into law of the 1935 Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship xxx. This principle confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship. It was subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Thus, herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August 9, 2000)

Maria Jeanette Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004 (on the controversy surrounding the citizenship of FPJ)
The Court took note of the fact that Lorenzo Pou (grandfather of FPJ), who died in 1954 at the age of 84 years of age, would have been born sometime in 1870, when the Philippines was under the Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the en masse Filipinization that the Philippine Bill of 1902 effected. That Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou, if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe (father of FPJ). The 1935 Constitution, during which regime FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.

Marriage by Filipino to an alien


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 [Sec.4, Art. IV].

Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999
Vicente Ching, a legitimate child, having been born on April 11, 1964 of Filipino mother and an alien father, was already 35 years old when he complied with the requirements of CA 625 on June 15, 1999, or over 14 years after he had reached the age of majority. By any reasonable yardstick, Chings election was clearly beyond the allowable period within which to exercise the privilege. All his acts (passing the CPA and Bar Exams) cannot vest in him citizenship as the law gives him the requirement for election of Filipino citizenship which he did not comply with. (He was not allowed to take the Lawyers Oath) The proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the pronouncements of the Department of State of the US government to the effect that the election should be made within a reasonable time after attaining the age of majority. The phrase reasonable time has been interpreted to mean that the election should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority except when there is justifiable reason to delay. The span of 14 years that lapsed from the time he reached 21 until he finally expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the requirement of electing

Caram Provision
Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who, before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Islands are considered citizens of the Philippines. In Chiongbian vs. de Leon, the SC held that the right acquired by virtue of this provision is transmissible. [Re: 1973 Constitution: Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Provision is prospective in application; to benefit only those born on or after January 17, 1973 (date of effectivity of 1973 Constitution)].

If born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, the person must elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. [Within reasonable time=3 years except when there is justifiable reason to delay]

Procedure for election of Philippine citizenship


1. Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any official authorized to administer oaths. 2. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil Registry accompanied with the Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines [Sec. 1, CA 625].

Procedure for election of Philippine citizenship

Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines Prospective application, consistent with the 1973 Constitution. The right to elect Philippine citizenship is an inchoate right; during his minority, the child is an alien [Villahermosa vs. Commissioner of Immigration 80 Phil. 541]. The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. In Republic vs. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004, it was held that the respondent, who was concededly an illegitimate child considering that her Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married, is not required to comply with said constitutional and statutory requirements. Being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent became a Filipino upon birth. Record shows that respondent elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. She registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old. The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of electing Philippine citizenship.

Naturalized Citizens
Naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally under CA No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by RA 530. To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes executor only after 2 years from its promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the applicant: 1. Has not left the Philippines; 2. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession; 3. Has not been convicted of any offense or violation of government promulgated rules; or 4. Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies. [Sec. 1, RA 530] (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, may 7, 2001)

Qualifications that must be possessed by an applicant


1. He must be not less than 21 years of age on the day of the hearing of petition; 2. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than 10 years; may be reduced to 5 years if: a. he honorably held office in Government; b. He established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines; c. He is married to a Filipino woman; d. Has been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines (in a public or private school not established for the exclusive instruction of persons of a particular nationality or race) or in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of not less than 2 year; or e. He was born in the Philippines

Qualifications that must be possessed by an applicant


3. He must be of GMC and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living; 4. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5,000.00, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation; 5. He must be able to write and speak English or Spanish and any of the principal languages; and 6. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Bureau of private Schools of the Philippines where Philippine history, government and civic are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Filipino citizen. (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001)

Disqualifications
1. Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; 2. Those defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success of predominance of their ideas; 3. Polygamists or believers of polygamy; 4. Those convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; 5. Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease; 6. Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of Filipinos; 7. Those citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such war; 8. Those citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

Procedure
1. Filing of declaration of intention- 1 year prior to the filing of the Petition with the OSG Persons exempt from filing declaration of intention : a. Those born in the Philippines and received their primary and secondary education in public or private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality; b. Those resided in the Philippines for 30 years or more before the filing of the petition, and enrolled their children in elementary and HS recognized by the government and not limited to any race or nationality; c. Those widows and minor children of aliens who have declared their intention to become citizens of the Philippines and die before they are actually naturalized.

Procedure
2. Filing of the Petition, accompanied by the affidavit of 2 credible persons, citizens of the Philippines, who personally know the petitioner, as character witness; 3. Publication of the Petition in the O.G. or in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Failure to comply is fatal. (Po Yo Bi vs. Republic, 205 SCRA 400) 4. Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire proceedings.

Procedure
5. Hearing of the Petition. 6. Promulgation of the decision. 7. Hearing after 2 years. During the 2-year probation period, applicant has: a. Not left the Philippines; b. Dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession; c. Not been convicted of any offense or violation of rules; and d. Not committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government-announced policies. 8. Oath taking and issuance of Certificate of Naturalization.

Modes of Naturalization
1. DIRECT- through: a. Judicial or administrative proceedings- e.g. RA 9139 The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000grants Philippine citizenship to aliens born and residing in the Philippines b. Special act of legislature- this is discretionary on Congress; usually conferred on an alien who has made an outstanding contribution to the country c. Collective change of nationality, as a result of cessation or subjugation d. Some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State where they are born 2. DERIVATIVE-Citizenship conferred on: a. Wife of naturalized husband; b. Minor children of naturalized person; c. Alien woman upon marriage to a national.

Edison So vs. RP, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007


Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation by clothing him or her with privileges of a citizen. Under current and existing laws, there are 3 ways by which an alien may become a citizen by naturalization: a. Administrative naturalization pursuant to RA 9139; b. Judicial naturalization pursuant to CA No. 473, as amendedcovers all aliens regardless of class; and c. Legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien. It is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good moral character but also the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who must be credible persons. A naturalization proceeding is nota judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleadintg the court upon any material fact.

R.A. 9139
Not all aliens may avail of this remedy. Only native born aliens who have been residing here in the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any other country and all along thought that they were Filipinos; who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines, and affinity to the customs and traditions of the Filipinos.

Naturalization vs. Repatriation

Effects of Naturalization
1. Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be lawfully naturalized; (She need not go through the naturalization process; if she doesnt suffer from any disqualification, no need to prove the qualifications) 2. Minor children born in the Philippines before the naturalization shall be considered citizens of the Philippines; 3. Minor children born outside the Philippines who were residing in the Philippines at the time of naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizens. 4. Minor children born outside the Philippines before parents naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizens only during minority, unless they begin to reside permanently in the Philippines; 5. Child born outside the Philippines after parents naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizen, provided that he registers as such before any Philippine consulate within one year after attaining majority age, and takes his oath of allegiance.

Denaturalization

Grounds:

1. Naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally; 2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to some foreign country and establishes residence there;
Prima Facie evidence of intent to take up residence: a. Native country- 1-year stay b. Foreign country- 2-year stay

3. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intent; 4. Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the parents either by neglecting to support them or by transferring them to another school; 5. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy; In Republic vs. Guy, 115 SCRA 244, although misconduct was committed after the 2- year probationary period, conviction of perjury and rape was held to be valid ground for denaturalization.

Effects of Denaturalization
1. If the ground affects the intrinsic validity of the proceedings, denaturalization shall divest the wife and children of their derivative naturalization; 2. If the ground was personal to the denaturalized person, his wife and children shall retain their Philippine citizenship.

Policy Against Dual Allegiance


Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law [Sec. 5, Art. IV]. The phrase dual citizenship in RA 7160, Section 40(d) LGC must be understood as referring to dual allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must be subject to strict process with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon filing of their Certificates of Candidacy (COC), they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states. By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same time, forswear allegiance to the other country of which they are also citizens and thereby terminate their status as dual citizens. It may be that, from the point of view of the foreign state and of its laws, such an individual has not effectively

Policy Against Dual Allegiance


The filing of a COC suffices to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification as dual citizen. This is so because in the COC, one declares that he is a Filipino citizen and that he will support and defend the Constitution and will maintain true faith and allegiance to the same. Such declaration under oath operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. In this case, the Court adopted the liberal interpretation of the rule. Manzano is not really prohibited to run due to dual citizenship. Dual allegiance is the one prohibited. Dual citizenship referred to under Section 40 (d) of the Local Government Code refers to dual allegiance under Section 5 of Article IV of the 1987 Constitution.[Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999]

Section 5, Article IVDual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
This section is not a self-executing law. It needs an implementing law. Section 40 (d), LGCDisqualifications.The following persons are disqualified from running from any elective local election: xxx (d) Those with dual citizenship. x x x. The provision prohibits dual citizenship but the Supreme Court ruled that it refers to prohibition on dual allegiance.

Doctrine of INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE


An individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality even if he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second State whose nationality he has acquired.

Calilung vs. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007


What RA 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces its foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, RA 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of RA 9225.

Instances when a citizen of the Philippines may possess dual citizenship

1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli; 2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers country such children are citizens of that country; 3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced

Res judicata in cases involving citizenship:


General Rule: It does not apply to questions of citizenship. Exception: In Burca vs. Republic, 51 SCRA 248, an exception to the general rule was recognized provided the following must be present: 1. A persons citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2. The Solicitor general or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof; and 3. The finding on citizenship is affirmed by SC. Although the GR was set forth in the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao, the case did not foreclose the weight of prior rulings on citizenship. It elucidated that reliance may somehow be placed on these antecedent official findings, though not really binding, to make the effort easier or simpler. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August 9, 2000).

Article IV

LOSS AND RE-ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP

Loss Of Citizenship
1. By naturalization in a foreign country (Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245) However, this was modified by RA 9225An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent September 15, 2003 which declares the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act. > They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance > Those Filipino citizens who, after the effectivity of RA 9225, become citizens of a foreign country, may reacquire Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance > Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who reacquire their Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of RA 9225 shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines. > Those who reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions: o Meet the requirements of RA 9189, The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, and other existing laws o For those seeking elective public office and appointive office, meet the qualifications, make personal and sworn renunciation, subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the RP o For those intending to practice their profession, apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice

Loss Of Citizenship
2. By express renunciation of citizenship Conscious, voluntary and intelligent renunciation Labo vs. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1, Labo lost Filipino citizenship because he expressly renounced allegiance to the Philippines when he applied for Australian citizenship.
Express renunciation means a renunciation made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to inference or implication. Mere registration of alien in BID and mere possession of foreign passport do not constitute effective renunciation. (Valles vs. COMELEC) In Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364, obtaining a Portuguese passport and signing commercial documents as a Portuguese were construed as renunciation of Philippine citizenship.

Loss Of Citizenship
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining the age of 21; provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in this manner while RP is at war with any country. an application of the principle of Indelible Allegiance. by virtue of RA 9225 4. By rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country EXCEPT: If RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign country; and The said foreign country maintains armed forces in Philippine territory with the consent of RP

Loss Of Citizenship
5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization 6. By having been declared by competent authority a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war UNLESS subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted.

Reacquisition of Citizenship
1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of allegiance 2. By naturalization 3. By repatriation 4. By direct act of Congress

Effect of Repatriation
It allows the person to recover or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus, the respondent, a former natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the US Marine Corps, was deemed to have recovered his natural-born status when he reacquired Filipino citizenship through repatriation. (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001) Joevanie Arellano Tabasa vs. CA, G.R. No. 125793, August 29, 2006, the only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following: a) Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b) Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity.

END OF ARTICLE IV

You might also like