Polirev Citizenship

CITIZENSHIP
A. General Principles.
1. Defined: Membership in a political community which is personal and more or less
permanent in character
a) Distinguished from nationality. Nationality is membership in any class or form of
political community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if members of democratic
community] or subjects [if members of a monarchical community]. Nationality does
not necessarily include the right or privilege of exercising civil or political rights
2. Usual modes of acquiring citizenship:
a) By birth
i) jus sanguinis
ii) jus soli
b) By naturalization
c) By marriage
3. 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 October 11, 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.
ii) Jus soli. As held in Roa v. Collector of Customs, 25 Phil 315, which was
uniformly followed until abandoned in Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor, 79 Phil
249; but applied again in Talaroc v. Uy, 92 Phil 52, until abandoned with
finality in Teotimo Rodriguez Tio Tiam v. Republic, 101 Phil. 195. Those
declared as Filipino citizens by the courts are recognized as such today, not
because of the application of the jus soli doctrine, but principally because of
the doctrine of res judicata.
b) After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution: Only the jus sanguinis doctrine.
4. Natural-born citizens. 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 shall be deemed natural- born citizens [Sec. 2, Art. IV],
5. 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].
6. 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].
a) In Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, the Court clarified the dual citizenship
disqualification in Sec. 40, Local Government Code, and reconciled the same with
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP
Sec. 5, Art. IV of the Constitution on dual allegiance. Recognizing situations in

which a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act and as an involuntary
consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries, be also a citizen of
another state, the Court explained that dual citizenship as a disqualification must
refer to citizens with dual allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere dual
citizenship do not fall under the disqualification. This ruling is reiterated in Valles v.
Comelec, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000.
i) Furthermore, for candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough that they
elect Philippine citizenship upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy to
terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship. The filing of a
certificate of candidacy suffices to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively
removing any disqualification as dual citizen. This is so because in the
certificate of candidacy one declares that he/she is a Filipino citizen and that
he/she 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 [Mercado v. Manzano, supra.;
Valles v. Comelec, supra.].
ii) However, this doctrine in Valles and Mercado that the filing of a certificate
of candidacy suffices to renounce foreign citizenship does not apply to one
who, after having reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225, runs for
public office. To comply with the provisions of Sec. 5 (2) of R.A. 9225, it is
necessary that the candidate for public office must state in clear and
unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship [Lopez v.
Comeiec, G.R. No. 182701, July 23, 2008]. In Mercado, the disqualification was
sought under another law, Sec. 40 (d) of the Local Government Code, in which
the Court defined the term dual citizenship vis-a-vis the concept of dual
allegiance, and at the time the case was decided, R.A. 9225 was not yet
enacted by Congress [Jacot v. Dal and Comeiec, G.R. No. 179848, November
27, 2008].
b) In Calilung v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007, the
constitutionality of R.A. 9225 (An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens
Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, amending for the purpose, Com. Act No.
63) was challenged, allegedly for violating Sec. 5, Art. IV of the Constitution. It was
claimed that Sec. 2 allows all Filipinos, whether natural-born or naturalized, who
become foreign citizens, to retain their Philippine citizenship without losing their
foreign citizenship; while Sec. 3 allows former natural-bom citizens to regain their
Philippine citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance without forfeiting their
foreign allegiance. In upholding the validity of RA 9225, the Court said that the intent
of the legislature is to do away with the provision in CA63 which takes away
Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of
other countries. It allows dual citizenship; but on its face, it does not recognize dual
allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person
implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly, Sec. 3 stays clear out of the
problem of dual allegiance and shifts 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.
i) Sec. 5, Art. IV of the Constitution is a declaration of policy and it is not a
self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual
allegiance. In Secs. 2 and 3, RA 9225, the legislature was not concerned with
dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who
maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their
naturalization. Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set
specific parameters of what really constitutes dual allegiance; thus, it would
be premature for the judicial department to rule on issues pertaining to it. It
should be noted that Mercado v. Manzano did not set the parameters of dual
allegiance, but merely made a distinction between dual allegiance and dual
citizenship.
7. Attack on ones citizenship may be made only through a direct, not a collateral
proceeding [Co v. HRET, 199 SCRA 692].
8. Res judicata in cases involving citizenship. The doctrine of res judicata does not
ordinarily apply to questions of citizenship. It does so only when: (a) A persons citizenship
is resolved by a court or an administrative body as a material issue in the controversy, after
a full-blown hearing; (b) With the active participation of the Solicitor General or his
representative; and (c) The finding of his citizenship is affirmed by the Supreme Court. Then
the decision on the matter shall constitute conclusive proof of such partys citizenship in
any other case or proceeding [Board of Commissioners, CID v. de la Rosa, 197 SCRA 853,
citing Zita Ngo Burca v. Republic, 19 SCRA 186].
B. Citizens of the Philippines.
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this [1987]
Constitution.
a) Re: 1935 Constitution
i) Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones Law of 1916 [including children
born after April 11, 1899]
ia) In Valles v. Comelec, supra., the Supreme Court made reference to
these organic acts and declared that private respondent Rosalind
Ybasco Lopez who was born in Australia to parents Telesforo Ybasco, a
Filipino, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian, on May 16, 1934, before
the 1935 Constitution took effect, was a Filipino citizen. Under these
organic acts, inhabitants of the islands who were Spanish subjects on
April 11, 1899, who did not opt in writing to retain Spanish nationality
between April 11, 1899 to October 11, 1900 including their children
were deemed citizens of the Philippines. Rosalinds father was,
therefore, a Filipino citizen, and under the principle of jus sanguinis,
Rosalind followed the citizenship of her father.
jb) A similar conclusion was reached in Maria Jeanette Tecson v.
Comelec, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004, on the controversy
surrounding the citizenship of Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ), presidential
candidate. The issue of whether or not FPJ is a natural-born citizen
would depend on whether his father, Allan F. Poe, was himself a Filipino
citizen, and if in the affirmative, whether or not the alleged illegitimacy
of FPJ prevents him from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his
putative father. The Court took note of the fact that Lorenzo Poe (father
of Allan F. Poe), who died in 1954 at 84 years old, would have been
born sometime in 1870, when the Philippines was under 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 Poe 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.
ii) Act No. 2927 [March 26,1920], then CA473, on naturalization [including
children below 21 and residing in the Philippines at the time of naturalization,
as well as children born subsequent to naturalization],
iii) Foreign women married to Filipino citizens before or after November 30,
1938 [effectivity of CA 473] who might themselves be lawfully naturalized [in
view of the Supreme Court interpretation of Sec. 15, CA473, in Moy Ya Lim Yao
v. Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292].
iv) Those benefited by the Roa doctrine applying the jus soli principle.
v) Caram provision: Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who,
before the adoption of this [1935] Constitution, had been elected to public
office in the Islands. In Chiongbian v. de Leon, the Supreme Court held that
the right acquired by virtue of this provision is transmissible.
vi) Those who elected Philippine citizenship.
b) 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],
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Prospective application,
consistent with provision of the 1973 Constitution.
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority.
a) Procedure for election. Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and
sworn to by the party concerned before any official authorized to administer oaths.
Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil Registry. The statement is to be
accompanied with the Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of
the Philippines [Sec. 1, CA 625].
b) When to elect. Within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority [Opinion,
Secretary of Justice, s. 1948]; except when there is a justifiable reason for the delay.
i) In Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice, 5 SCR A 110, where the Supreme Court
ruled that there was justifiable reason for the delay because the party thought
all along that he was already a Filipino citizen. See also In Re: Florencio
Mallari, 59 SCRA 45, where the Supreme Court enunciated the doctrine of
implied election. And in Co v. HRET, supra., the Supreme Court affirmed the
finding of the HRET that the exercise of the right of suffrage and participation
in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine
citizenship.
ii) But see In Re: Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999, where Ching,
having been born on April 11, 1964, was already 35 years old when he
complied with with 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 mentioned acts cannot vest in him citizenship as the law
gives the requirement for election of Filipino citizenship which Ching did not
comply with.
c) The right is available to the child as long as his mother was a Filipino citizen at the
time of her marriage to the alien, even if by reason of such marriage, she lost her
Philippine citizenship [Cu v. Republic, 89 Phil 473]; and even if the mother was not a
citizen of the Philippines at birth [Opinion, Sec. of Justice, s. 1948].
d) The right to elect Philippine citizenship is an inchoate right; during his minority,
the child is an alien [Villahermosa v. Commissioner of Immigration, 80 Phil 541].
e) The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply
only to legitimate children. In Republic v. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13,
2004, it was held that 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. This
notwithstanding, records show that the 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. i)
i) Indeed, in Serra v. Republic, 91 Phil 914, it was held that if the child is
illegitimate, he follows the status and citizenship of his only known parent,
the mother.
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
C. Naturalization. The act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a
nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen [Record, Senate, 12th
Congress, June 4-5, 2001],
1. Modes of naturalization:
a) Direct: Citizenship is acquired by:
(i) Individual, through judicial or administrative proceedings;
(ii) Special act of legislature;
(iii) Collective change of nationality, as a result of cession or subjugation; or
(iv) In some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State
where they are born.
b) Derivative: Citizenship conferred on:
(i) Wife of naturalized husband;
(ii) Minor children of naturalized person; or on the
(iii) Alien woman upon marriage to a national.
2. 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.
3. Direct naturalization under Philippine laws. Under current and existing laws, there are
three (3) ways by which an alien may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:
a) judicial naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended;
b) administrative naturalization under Rep. Act No. 9139; and
c) legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress, bestowing
Philippine citizenship to an alien.
4. Naturalization under C.A. 473.
a) Qualifications:
[a] Not less than 21 years of age on the date of the hearing of the petition;
[b] Resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than 10
years; may be reduced to 5 years if he honorably held office in Government,
established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines,
married to a Filipino woman, 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 two years, or bom in the
Philippines;
[c] Good moral character; believes in the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution; must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable
manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his
relations with the constituted government as well as the community in which
he is living;
[d] Own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5,000.00, or must
have some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation;
[e] Speak and write English or Spanish and any of the principal Philippine
languages;
[f] Enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public or private
schools recognized by the Government where Philippine history, government
and civics are taught as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period
of residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his
petition for naturalization.
b) Disqualifications: Those
[a] Opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or
group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized
governments;
[b] Defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal
assault or assassination for the success or predominance of their ideas;
[c] Polygamists or believers in polygamy;
[d] Convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
[e] Suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease;
[f] 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 the Filipinos;
[g] Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war, during
the period of such war;
[h] Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos
the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
c) Procedure:
i) Filing of declaration of intention one year prior to the filing of the petition
with the Office of the Solicitor General. The following are exempt from filing
declaration of intention:
ia) Born in the Philippines and have received their primary and
secondary education in public or private schools recognized by the
Government and not limited to any race or nationality.
ib) Resided in the Philippines for 30 years or more before the filing of
the petition, and enrolled his children in elementary and high schools
recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or
nationality.
ic) Widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his intention
to become a citizen of the Philippines and dies before he is actually
naturalized.
ii) Filing of the petition, accompanied by the affidavit of two credible persons,
citizens of the Philippines, who personally know the petitioner, as character
witnesses.
iii) Publication of the petition. Under Sec. 9, Revised Naturalization Law, in
order that there be a valid publication, the following requisites must concur:
(a) the petition and notice of hearing must be published; (b) the publication
must be made once a week for three consecutive weeks; and (c) the
publication must be in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province where the applicant resides. In addition, copies of
the petition and notice of hearing must be posted in the office of the Clek of
Court or in the building where the office is located [Republic v. Hamilton Tan
Keh, G.R. No. 144742, November 11, 2004], The same notice must also
indicate, among others, the names of the witnesses whom the petitioner
proposes to introduce at the trial [Republic v. Michael Hong, G.R. No. 168877
March 23 2006],
iiia) Publication is a jurisdictional requirement. Noncompliance is fatal
for it impairs the very root or foundation of the authority to decide the
case, regardless of whether the one to blame is the clerk of court or
the petitioner or his counsel [Gan Tsitung v. Republic, 122 Phil. 805; Po
Yo Bi v. Republic, 205 SCRA 400].
iiib) This rule applies equally to the determination of the sufficiency of
the contents of the notice of hearing and of the petition itself, because
an incomplete notice or petition, even if published, is no publication at
all.
Thus, in Sy v. Republic, 154 Phil. 673, it was held that the copy of the
petition to be posted and published should be a textual or verbatim
restatement of the petition filed.
iiic) In the same vein, the failure to state all the required details in the
notice of hearing, like the names of applicants witnesses, constitutes a
fatal defect. The publication of the affidavit of such witnesses did not
cure the omission of their names in the notice of hearing. It is a settled
rule that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly
construed in favour of the government and against the applicant [Ong
Chua v. Republic G R No 127240, March 27, 2000].
iv) Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire proceedings.
v) Hearing of the petition.
vi) Promulgation of the decision.
vii) Hearing after two years. At this hearing, the applicant shall show that
during the two-year probation period, applicant has (i) not left the Philippines;
(ii) dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession; (iii) not
been convicted of any offense or violation of rules; and (iv) not committed an
act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government
announced policies.
viii) Oath taking and issuance of the Certificate of Naturalization. [In Republic
v. de la Rosa, 232 SCRA 785], and companion cases, the Supreme Court noted
several irregularities which punctuated the petition and the proceedings in
the application for naturalization of Juan C. Frivaldo, viz: the petition lacked
several allegations required by Secs. 2 and 6 of the Naturalization Law; the
petition and the order for hearing were not published once a week for three
consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general
circulation; the petition was not supported by affidavits of two credible
witnesses vouching for the good moral character of the petitioner; the actual
hearing of the petition was held earlier than the scheduled date of hearing;
the petition was heard within 6 months from the last publication; the
petitioner was allowed to take the oath of allegiance before finality of the
judgment, and without observing the two-year probationary period.]
d) Effects of naturalization: ,
i) Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be lawfully naturalized (as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of
Immigration, supra.).
ia) In Moy Ya Lim Yao, the Court said that the alien wife of the
naturalized Filipino need not go through the formal process of
naturalization in order to acquire Philippine citizenship. All she has to
do is to file before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation a
petition for the cancellation of her Alien Certificate of Registration
(ACR). At the hearing on the petition, she does not have to prove that
she possesses all the qualifications for naturalization; she only has to
show that she does not labor under any of the disqualifications. Upon
the grant of the petition for cancellation of the ACR, she may then take
the oath of the allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and thus,
become a citizen of the Philippines.
ii) Minor children born in the Philippines before the naturalization shall be
considered citizens of the Philippines.
iii) Minor child born outside the Philippines who was residing in the Philippines
at the time of naturalization shall be considered a Filipino citizen.
iv) Minor child born outside the Philippines before parents naturalization shall
be considered Filipino citizens only during minority, unless he begins to reside
permanently in the Philippines.
v) Child born outside the Philippines after parents naturalization shall be
considered a Filipino, provided that he registers as such before any Philippine
consulate within one year after attaining majority age, and takes his oath of
allegiance.
e) Denaturalization.
i) Grounds:
ia) Naturalization certificate is obtained fraudulently or illegally. In
Republic v. Li Yao, 214 SCRA 748, the Supreme Court declared that a
certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently
discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the court upon
any material fact. Availment of a tax amnesty does not have the effect
of obliterating his lack of good moral character.
ib) If, within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to some foreign
country and establishes residence there; provided, that 1-year stay in
native country, or 2-year stay in a foreign country shall be prima facie
evidence of intent to take up residence in the same.
ic) Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention.
id) Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the parents
either by neglecting to support them or by transferring them to
another school.
ie) Allowed himself to be used as a dummy. [In Republic v. Guy, 115
SCRA 244, although the misconduct was committed after the two-year
probationary period, conviction of perjury and rape was held to be
valid ground for denaturalization.]
ii) Effects of denaturalization: If the ground for denaturalization affects the
intrinsic validity of the proceedings, the denaturalization shall divest the wife
and children of their derivative naturalization. But if the ground was personal
to the denaturalized Filipino, his wife and children shall retain their Philippine
citizenship.
5. Naturalization by direct legislative action. This is discretionary on Congress; usually
conferred on an alien who has made outstanding contributions to the country.
6. Administrative Naturalization [R.A. 9139]. The Administrative Naturalization Law of
2000 would grant Philippine citizenship by administrative proceedings to aliens born and
residing in the Philippines. In So v. Republic, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007, the
Supreme Court declared that CA 473 and RA 9139 are separate and distinct laws. The
former covers aliens regardless of class, while the latter covers native-born aliens who lived
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 Filipino customs and traditions. The intention of the legislature in enacting RA 9139 was
to make the process of acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical, and
more encouraging. There is nothing in the law from which it can be inferred that CA473 is
intended to be annexed to or repealed by RA 9139. What the legislature had in mind was
merely to prescribe another mode of acquiring Philippine citizenship which may be availed
of by native-born aliens. The only implication is that a native- born alien has the choice to
apply for judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the prescribed qualifications
and disqualifications.
a) Special Committee on Naturalization. Composed of the Solicitor General, as
chairman, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or his representative, and the National
Security Adviser, as members, this Committee has the power to approve, deny or
reject applications for naturalization under this Act.
b) Qualifications: Applicant must [1] be born in the Philippines and residing therein
since birth; [2] not be less than 18 years of age, at the time of filing of his/her
petition; [3] be of good moral character and believes in the underlying principles of
the Constitutioin and must have conducted himself/ herself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during his/her entire period of residence in the Philippines in
his relatioins with the duly constituted government as well as with the community in
which he/she is living; [4] have received his/her primary and secondary education in
any public school or private educational institution duly recognized by the
Department of Education, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught
and prescribed as part of the school curriculum and where enrolment is not limited
to any race or nationality, provided that should he/she have minor children of school
age, he/she must have enrolled them in similar schools; [5] have a known trade,
business, profession or lawful occupation, from which he/she derives income
sufficient for his/her support and that of his/her family; provided that this shall not
apply to applicants who are college degree holders but are unable to practice their
profession because they are disqualified to do so by reason of their citizenship; [6]
be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of the Philippines; and
[7] have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to learn and
embrace the customs and traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.
c) Disqualifications: The same as those provided in C.A. 473.
d) Procedure: Filing with the Special Committee on Naturalization of a petition (see
Sec. 5, RA 9139, for contents of the petition); publication of pertinent portions of the
petition once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation, with copies thereof posted in any public or conspicuous area; copies also
furnished the Department of Foreign Affairs, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation,
the civil registrar of petitioners place of residence and the National Bureau of
Investigation which shall post copies of the petition in any public or conspicuous
areas in their buildings offices and premises, and within 30 days submit to the
Committee a report stating whether or not petitioner has any derogatory record on
file or any such relevant and material information which might be adverse to
petitioners application for citizenship; Committee shall, within 60 days from receipt
of the report of the agencies, consider and review all information received pertaining
to the petition (if Committee receives any information adverse to the petition, the
Committee shall allow the petitioner to answer, explain or refute the information);
Committee shall then approve or deny the petition. Within 30 days from approval of
the petition, applicant shall pay to the Committee a fee of P100,000, then take the
oath of allegiance and a certificate of naturalization shall issue. Within 5 days after
10
the applicant has taken his oath of allegiance, the Bureau of Immigration shall
forward a copy of the oath to the proper local civil registrar, and thereafter, cancel
petitioners alien certificate of registration.
e) Status of Alien Wife and Minor Children. After the approval of the petition for
administrative naturalization and cancellation of the applicants alien certificate of
registration, applicants alien lawful wife and minor children may file a petition for
cancellation of their alien certificates of registration with the Committee, subject to
the payment of the required fees. But, if the applicant is a married woman, the
approval of her petition for administrative naturalization shall not benefit her alien
husband, although her minor children may still avail of the right to seek the
cancellation of their alien certificate of registration.
f) Cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization. The Special Committee on
Naturalization may cancel certificates of naturalization issued under this act in the
following cases: [1] if the naturalized person or his duly authorized representative
made any false statement or misrepresentation, or committed any violation of law,
rules and regulations in connection with the petition, or if he obtains Philippine
citizenship fraudulently or illegally; [2] if, within five years, he shall establish
permanent residence in a foreign country, provided that remaining for more than
one year in his country of origin or two years in any foreign country shall be prima
facie evidence of intent to permanently reside therein; [3] if allowed himself or his
wife or child with acquired citizenship to be used as a dummy; [4] if he, his wife or
child with acquired citizenship commits any act inimical to national security.
D. Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship (C.A. 63).
1. Loss of citizenship.
a) Bv naturalization in a foreign country. See Frivaldo v. Comelec, 174 SCRA 245.
i) However, this is modified by R.A. 9225, entitled An Act Making the Citizenship of
Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Cititzenship Permanent (which took effect
September 17, 2003), which declares the policy of the State that all Philippine
citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost
their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
ii) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship
by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have
reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the
Republilc:
________________ , solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey
the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted
authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize
and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this
obligation upon myself voluntarily, without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion. [Sec. 3, R.A. 9225]
iii) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act,
become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon
taking the aforesaid oath [Sec. 3, R.A. 9225].
11
iv) The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years
of age, of those who reacquire Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of this Act
shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines [Sec. 4, R.A. 9225].
v) Those who retain or reacquire Phiilippine 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:
va) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the
requirements under Sec. 1, Art. V of the Constitution, R.A. 9189, otherwise
known as The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 and other existing
laws;
vb) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the
qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution
and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy,
make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship
before any public officer authorized to administer an oath;
vb1) In Eusebio Eugenio Lopez v. Comelec, G.R. No. 182701, July 23,
2008, reiterated in Jacotv. Dal and Comelec, G.R. No. 179848,
November 27, 2008, it was held that a Filipino-American, or any dual
citizen cannot run for elective public office in the Philippines unless he
personally swears to a renunciation of all foreign citizenship at the time
of filing of the certificate of candidacy. The mere filing of a certificate of
candidacy is not sufficient; Sec. 5 (2) of R.A. 9225 categorically
requires the individual to state in clear and unequivocal terms that he
is renouncing all foreign citizenship, failing which, he is disqualified
from running for an elective position. The fact that he may have won
the elections, took his oath and began discharging the functions of the
office cannot cure the defect of his candidacy. The doctrine laid down
in Valles v. Comelec, supra., and Mercado v. Manzano, supra., does not
apply.
vc) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath
of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted
authorities prior to their assumption of office; Provided, That they renounce
their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath;
vd) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall aplly
with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice;
ve) The right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the
Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who: (1) are
candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they
are naturalized citizens; and/or (2) are in active service as commissioned or
non-commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country which they are
naturalized citizens [Sec. 5, R.A. 9225].
b) By express renunciation of citizenship. In Board of Immigration Commissioners v. Go
Callano, 25 SCRA 890, it was held that express renunciation means a renunciation that is
made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to inference or implication. Thus, in Labo
v. Comelec, 176 SCRA 1, it was held that Labo lost Filipino citizenship because he expressly
renounced allegiance to the Philippines when he applied for Australian citizenship.
12
i) In Valles v. Comelec, supra., it was held that the fact that private
respondent was born in Australia does not mean that she is not a Filipino. If
Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most she can also claim
Australian citizenship, resulting in her having dual citizenship. That she was a
holder of an Australian passport and had an alien certificate of registration do
not constitute effective renunciation, and do not militate against her claim, of
Filipino citizenship. For renunciation to effectively result in the loss of
citizenship, it must be express.
ii) But see Willie Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364, where obtention of a
Portuguese passport and signing of commercial documents as a Portuguese
were construed as renunciation of Philippine citizenship.
c) Bv subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign
country upon attaining 21 years of age; Provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest
himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at
war with any country.
i) This should likewise be considered modified by R.A. 9225.
ii) The proviso that a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in
this manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country
may be considered as an application of the principle of indelible allegiance.
d) Bv rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign
country; Provided, that the rendering of service to, or acceptance of such commission in,
the armed forces of a foreign country and the taking of an oath of allegiance incident
thereto, with consent of the Republic of the Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of his
Philippine citizenship if either of the following circumstances is present: (i) The Republic of
the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign
country; or (ii) The said foreign country maintains armed forces in Philippine territory with
the consent of the Republic of the Philippines.
e) Bv cancellation of the certificate of naturalization.
f) Bv having been declared bv competent authority a deserter of the Philippine armed
forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted.
2. Reacquisition of citizenship.
a) Under R.A. 9225, bv taking the oath of allegiance required of former natural-born
Philippine citizens who may have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their
acquisition of the citizenship of a foreign country.
b) By naturalization, provided that the applicant possesses none of the disqualifications
prescribed for naturalization.
i) In Republic v. Judge de la Rosa, supra., the naturalization proceeding was so full of
procedural flaws that the decision granting Filipino citizenship to Governor Juan
Frivaldo was deemed a nullity.
c) By repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy or Air Corps, provided that a woman who
lost her citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien may be repatriated in accordance
with the provisions of this Act after the termination of the marital status.
13
i) See P.D. 725, which allows repatriation of former natural-born Filipino citizens who
lost Filipino citizenship.
ia) In Frivaldo v. Comelec and Lee v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727, the Supreme
Court held that P.D. 725 was not repealed by President Aquinos Memorandum
of March 27, 1986, and, thus, was a valid mode for the reacquisition of Filipino
citizenship by Sorsogon Governor Juan Frivaldo.
ib) The Special Committee on Naturalization created by PD 725, chaired by
the Solicitor General with the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs and the
Director of the NICA as members, was reactivated on June 8, 1995, and it is
before this Committee that a petition for repatriation is filed [Angat v.
Republic, G.R. No. 132244, September 14, 1999].
ii) When repatriation takes effect. In Frivaldo v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727, it was held
that repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to the date of filing of his application on
August 17, 1994. In Altarejos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 163256, November 10, 2004, the
same principle was applied. Petitioner took his Oath of Allegiance on December
17,1997, but his Certificate of Repatriation was registered with the Civil Registry of
Makati only after six years, or on February 18, 2004, and with the Bureau of
Immigration on March 1, 2004. He completed all the requirements for repatriation
only after he filed his certificate of candidacy for a mayoralty position, but before the
elections. But because his repatriation retroacted to December 17-, 1997, he was
deemed qualified to run for mayor in the May 10, 2004 elections.
iii) Effect of repatriation. In Bengzon lll v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,
G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the act of repatriation
allows the person to recover, or return to, his original status before he lost his
Philippine citizenship. Thus, respondent Cruz, a former natural-born Filipino citizen
who lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the United States Marine
Corps, was deemed to have recovered his natural- born status when he reacquired
Filipino citizenship through repatriation.
iv) Repatriation under R. A. 8171 (lapsed into law on October 23, 1995). The law
governs the repatriation of Filipino women who may have lost Filipino citizenship by
reason of marriage to aliens, as well as the repatriation of former natural-born
Filipino citizens who lost Filipino citizenship on account of political or economic
necessity, including their minor children, provided the applicant is not a person [a]
opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of
persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing organized government; [b]
defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or
assassination for the predominance of his ideas; [c] convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude; or [d] suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious
disease. Repatriation is 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 and Deportation.
iva) In Tabasa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125793, August 29, 2006, Joevanie
Tabasa, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, acquired American
citizenship through derivative naturalization when, still a minor, his father
became a naturalized citizen of the United States. On October 3,1995, he was
admitted to the Philippines as a balikbayan, but within a year, he was
charged by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), because it
appeared that the US Department of Justice had revoked his passport and was
the subject of an outstanding federal warrant of arrest for possession of
14
firearms and one count of sexual battery. Finding him an undocumented and
undesirable alien, the BID ordered his deportation. After learning of the BID
order, he then immediately executed an Affidavit of Repatriation and took an
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. On the issue of whether
he validly reacquired Philippine citizenship, the Supreme Court ruled in the
negative. The privilege of RA 8171 is available only to natural-born Filipinos
who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity and to
their minor children. This means that if a parent who had renounced his
Philippine citizenship due to political or economic reasons later decides to
repatriate under RA8171, his repatriation will also benefit his minor children.
Thus, to claim the benefit of RA 8171, the children must be of minor age at
the time the petition for repatriation is filed by the parent. This is so because
a child does not have the legal capacity to undertake a political act like the
election of citizenship. On their own, the minor children cannot apply for
repatriation or naturalization separately from the parents. Tabasa is not
qualified to avail himself of repatriation under RA8171.
d) By direct act of Congress.
15
CASES
1. SO vs. REPUBLIC
FACTS: On February 28, 2002, petitioner Edison So filed before the RTC a Petition for
Naturalization under Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised
Naturalization Law, as amended.
He was born on February 17, 1982, in Manila; he is a Chinese citizen who has lived in No. 528
Lavezares St., Binondo, Manila, since birth; as an employee, he derives an average annual
income of around P100,000.00 with free board and lodging and other benefits; he is single, able
to speak and write English, Chinese and Tagalog; he is exempt from the filing of Declaration of
Intention to become a citizen of the Philippines pursuant to Section 6 of Commonwealth Act
(C.A.) No. 473, as amended, because he was born in the Philippines, and studied in a school
recognized by the Government where Philippine history, government and culture are taught; he
is a person of good moral character; he believes in the principles underlying the Philippine
constitution; he has 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; he has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has
evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino
people; he has all the qualifications provided under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications
under Section 4 of C.A. No. 473, as amended; he is not opposed to organized government or
affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all
organized governments; he is not defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence,
personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of mens ideas; he is not a
polygamist or a believer in the practice of polygamy; he has not been convicted of any crime
involving moral turpitude; he is not suffering from any incurable contagious diseases or from
mental alienation; the nation of which he is a citizen is not at war with the Philippines; it is his
intention in good faith to become a citizen of the Philippines and to renounce absolutely and
forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and
particularly to China; and he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the time of the filing
of the petition up to the time of his admission as citizen of the Philippines.
Attached to the petition were the Joint Affidavit of Atty. Artemio Adasa, Jr. and Mark B. Salcedo;
and petitioners Certificate of Live Birth, Alien Certificate of Registration, and Immigrant
Certificate of Residence.
No one opposed the petition. During the hearing, petitioner presented Atty. Adasa, Jr. who
testified that he came to know petitioner in 1991 as the legal consultant and adviser of the So
familys business. He would usually attend parties and other social functions hosted by
petitioners family. He knew petitioner to be obedient, hardworking, and possessed of good
moral character, including all the qualifications mandated by law. Atty. Adasa, Jr. further testified
that petitioner was gainfully employed and presently resides at No. 528 Lavezares Street,
Binondo, Manila; petitioner had been practicing Philippine tradition and those embodied in the
Constitution; petitioner had been socially active, mingled with some of his neighbors and had
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire stay in the
Philippines; and petitioner and his family observed Christmas and New Year and some occasions
such as fiestas. According to the witness, petitioner was not disqualified under C.A. No. 473 to
become a Filipino citizen: he is not opposed to organized government or believes in the use of
force; he is not a polygamist and has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
neither is he suffering from any mental alienation or any incurable disease.
Another witness for petitioner, Mark Salcedo, testified that he has known petitioner for ten (10)
years; they first met at a birthday party in 1991. He and petitioner were classmates at the
University of Santo Tomas (UST) where they took up Pharmacy. Petitioner was a member of
some school organizations and mingled well with friends. Salcedo further testified that he saw
16
petitioner twice a week, and during fiestas and special occasions when he would go to
petitioners house. He has known petitioner to have resided in Manila since birth. Petitioner is
intelligent, a person of good moral character, and believes in the principles of the Philippine
Constitution. Petitioner has a gainful occupation, has conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner and has all the qualifications to become a Filipino citizen.
Petitioner also testified and attempted to prove that he has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to become a citizen of the Philippines.
At the conclusion of his testimonial evidence, petitioner offered in evidence the following
documents: (1) Certificate of Live Birth; (2) Alien Certificate of Registration; (3) Immigrant
Certificate of Residence; (4) Elementary Pupils and High School Students Permanent Record
issued by Chang Kai Shek College; (5) Transcript of Record issued by the University of Santo
Tomas; (6) Certification of Part-Time Employment dated November 20, 2002; (7) Income Tax
Returns and Certificate of Withholding Tax for the year 2001; (8) Certification from Metrobank
that petitioner is a depositor; (9) Clearances that he has not been charged or convicted of any
crime involving moral turpitude; and (10) Medical Certificates and Psychiatric Evaluation issued
by the Philippine General Hospital. The RTC admitted all these in evidence.
The RTC granted the petition. The trial court ruled that the witnesses for petitioner had known
him for the period required by law, and they had affirmed that petitioner had all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen. Thus, the court
concluded that petitioner had satisfactorily supported his petition with evidence.
Respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
appealed the decision contending that based on the evidence on record, appellee failed to prove
that he possesses all the qualifications under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under
Section 4 of C.A. No. 473. It insisted that his two (2) character witnesses did not know him well
enough to vouch for his fitness to become a Filipino citizen; they merely made general
statements without giving specific details about his character and moral conduct. The witnesses
did not even reside in the same place as petitioner. Respondent likewise argued that petitioner
himself failed to prove that he is qualified to become a Filipino citizen because he did not give
any explanation or specific answers to the questions propounded by his lawyer. He merely
answered "yes" or "no" or gave general statements in answer to his counsels questions. Thus,
petitioner was unable to prove that he had all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
required by law to be a naturalized Filipino citizen.
On the other hand, petitioner averred that he graduated cum laude from the UST with the
degree of Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy. He is now on his second year as a medical student
at the UST Medicine and Surgery. He avers that the requirements for naturalization under C.A.
No. 473, as amended by LOI 270, in relation to Presidential Decree Nos. 836 and 1379, had been
relaxed after the Philippine government entered into diplomatic relations with the Peoples
Republic of China; the requirements were further relaxed when Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9139 was
signed into law.
In its Reply Brief, respondent alleged that R.A. No. 9139 applies to administrative naturalization
filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization. It insisted that even in the absence of any
opposition, a petition for naturalization may be dismissed.
The CA set aside the ruling of the RTC and dismissed the petition for naturalization without
prejudice. According to the CA, petitioners two (2) witnesses were not credible because they
failed to mention specific details of petitioners life or character to show how well they knew
him; they merely "parroted" the provisions of the Naturalization Act without clearly explaining
their applicability to petitioners case. The appellate court likewise ruled that petitioner failed to
comply with the requirement of the law that the applicant must not be less than 21 years of age
on the day of the hearing of the petition; during the first hearing on December 12, 2002,
petitioner was only twenty (20) years, nine (9) months, and twenty five (25) days old, falling
17
short of the requirement. The CA stated, however, that it was not its intention to forever close
the door to any future application for naturalization which petitioner would file, and that it
believes that he would make a good Filipino citizen in due time, a decided asset to this country.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, the present petition grounded on the
sole issue:
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR WHEN IT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA.
RULING: The petition is denied for lack of merit.
Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation
by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen. Under current and existing laws, there are
three ways by which an alien may become a citizen by naturalization: (a) administrative
naturalization pursuant to R.A. No. 9139; (b) judicial naturalization pursuant to C.A. No. 473, as
amended; and (c) legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowing
Philippine citizenship to an alien.
Petitioners contention that the qualifications an applicant for naturalization should possess are
those provided for in R.A. No. 9139 and not those set forth in C.A. No. 473 is barren of merit. The
qualifications and disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization by judicial act are set forth
in Sections 246 and 447 of C.A. No. 473. On the other hand, Sections 348 and 449 of R.A. No.
9139 provide for the qualifications and disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization by
administrative act.
First. C.A. No. 473 and R.A. No. 9139 are separate and distinct laws the former covers all aliens
regardless of class while the latter covers native-born aliens who lived 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.
To reiterate, the intention of the legislature in enacting R.A. No. 9139 was to make the process
of acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical and more encouraging which is
administrative rather than judicial in nature. Thus, although the legislature believes that there is
a need to liberalize the naturalization law of the Philippines, there is nothing from which it can
be inferred that C.A. No. 473 was intended to be amended or repealed by R.A. No. 9139. What
the legislature had in mind was merely to prescribe another mode of acquiring Philippine
citizenship which may be availed of by native born aliens. The only implication is that, a native
born alien has the choice to apply for judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the
prescribed qualifications and disqualifications.
In the instant case, petitioner applied for naturalization by judicial act, though at the
time of the filing of his petition, administrative naturalization under R.A. No. 9139
was already available. Consequently, his application should be governed by C.A. No.
473.
Second. If the qualifications prescribed in R.A. No. 9139 would be made applicable even to
judicial naturalization, the coverage of the law would be broadened since it would then apply
even to aliens who are not native born. It must be stressed that R.A. No. 9139 applies only to
aliens who were born in the Philippines and have been residing here.
Third. Applying the provisions of R.A. No. 9139 to judicial naturalization is contrary to the
intention of the legislature to liberalize the naturalization procedure in the country. One of the
qualifications set forth in R.A. No. 9139 is that the applicant was born in the Philippines and
should have been residing herein since birth. Thus, one who was born here but left the country,
though resided for more than ten (10) years from the filing of the application is also disqualified.
On the other hand, if we maintain the distinct qualifications under each of the two laws, an alien
who is not qualified under R.A. No. 9139 may still be naturalized under C.A. No. 473.
18
Thus, absent a specific provision expressly amending C.A. No. 473, the law stands and the
qualifications and disqualifications set forth therein are maintained.
In any event, petitioner failed to prove that the witnesses he presented were competent to
vouch for his good moral character, and are themselves possessed of good moral character. It
must be stressed that character witnesses in naturalization proceedings stand as insurers of the
applicants conduct and character. Thus, they ought to testify on specific facts and events
justifying the inference that the applicant possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided by law.
Petitioners witnesses, Atty. Adasa and Salcedo, did not testify on his specific acts;
they did not elaborate on his traits. Their testimonies do not convince the Court that
they personally know petitioner well and are therefore in a position to vouch for his
qualifications. As correctly found by the CA, the witnesses testimonies consisted
mainly of general statements in answer to the leading questions propounded by his
counsel. What they conveniently did was to enumerate the qualifications as set forth
in the law without giving specific details.
In naturalization proceedings, 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.56 Within the purview of the naturalization law, a "credible person" is not only an
individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime; who is not a police character and
has no police record; who has not perjured in the past; or whose affidavit or testimony is not
incredible. What must be credible is not the declaration made but the person making it. This
implies that such person must have a good standing in the community; that he is known to be
honest and upright; that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be
taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the applicants worthiness.
The records likewise do not show that the character witnesses of petitioner are persons of good
standing in the community; that they are honest and upright, or reputed to be trustworthy and
reliable. The most that was established was the educational attainment of the witnesses;
however, this cannot be equated with their credibility. In fine, petitioner focused on presenting
evidence tending to build his own good moral character and neglected to establish the
credibility and good moral character of his witnesses.58
We do not agree with petitioners argument that respondent is precluded from questioning the
RTC decision because of its failure to oppose the petition. A naturalization proceeding is not a
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 misleading the court upon any material fact. Law and jurisprudence
even authorize the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization upon grounds or conditions
arising subsequent to the granting of the certificate.59 If the government can challenge a final
grant of citizenship, with more reason can it appeal the decision of the RTC within the
reglementary period despite its failure to oppose the petition before the lower court. Thus,
petitioner failed to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of
naturalization law. For this reason, we affirm the decision of the CA denying the
petition for naturalization without prejudice.
2. JACOT vs. COMELEC

FACTS: Petitioner Nestor Jacot assails the Resolution of COMELEC disqualifying him from
running for the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin, in the 14 May 2007 National and
Local Elections, on the ground that he failed to make a personal renouncement of US
citizenship. He was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who became a naturalized citizen of
the US on 13 December 1989. He sought to reacquire his Philippine citizenship under Republic
Act No. 9225.
19
ISSUE: Did Nestor Jacot effectively renounce his US citizenship so as to qualify him to run as a
vice-mayor?
HELD: No. It bears to emphasize that the oath of allegiance is a general requirement for all
those who wish to run as candidates in Philippine elections; while the renunciation of foreign
citizenship is an additional requisite only for those who have retained or reacquired Philippine
citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and who seek elective public posts, considering their
special circumstance of having more than one citizenship.
3. TABASA vs. CA
FACTS: In 1968, when petitioner was seven years old, his father, Rodolfo Tabasa, became a
naturalized citizen of the United States. By derivative naturalization (citizenship derived from
that of another as from a person who holds citizenship by virtue of naturalization), petitioner
also acquired American citizenship. Petitioner theorizes that he could be repatriated under RA
8171 because he is a child of a natural-born Filipino, and that he lost his Philippine citizenship by
derivative naturalization when he was still a minor.
ISSUE: Is Jeovanie Tabasa a natural-born Filipino who had lost his Philippine citizenship by
reason of political or economic necessity under RA 8171?
HELD: He does not. 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.
Petitioner overlooks the fact that the privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is available only to
natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity,
and to the minor children of said natural-born Filipinos. Petitioner overlooks the fact that the
privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is available only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their
citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, and to the minor children of said
natural-born Filipinos. The privilege under RA 8171 belongs to children who are of minor age at
the time of the filing of the petition for repatriation.
4. IN RE: CHING
FACTS: Vicente D. Ching, a legitimate child of a Filipino mother and an alien Chinese father,
was born on April 11, 1964 in Tubao La Union, under the 1935 Constitution. He has resided in
the Philippines. He completed his Bachelor of Laws at SLU in Baguio on July 1998, filed an
application to take the 1998 Bar Examination.
The Resolution in this Court, he was allowed to take the bar if he submit to the Court the
following documents as proof of his Philippine Citizenship:
1. Certification
accountant;
issued by the PRC Board of Accountancy that Ching is a certified
2. Voter Certification issued COMELEC in Tubao La Union showing that Ching is a

registered voter of his place; and
3. Certification showing that Ching was elected as member of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Tubao, La Union
20
On April 5, 1999, Ching was one of the bar passers. The oath taking ceremony was scheduled on
May 5, 1999. Because of his questionable status of Ching's citizenship, he was not allowed to
take oath. He was required to submit further proof of his citizenship.
The Office of the Solicitor General was required to file a comment on Ching's petition for
admission to the Philippine Bar.
In his report:
1. Ching, under the 1935 Constitution, was a Chinese citizen and continue to be so,
unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine citizenship, under the
compliance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 265 "an act providing for the
manner in which the option to elect Philippine citizenship shall be declared by a person
whose mother is a Filipino citizen"
2. He pointed out the Ching has not formally elected Philippine citizenship, and if ever he
does, it would already be beyond the "reasonable time" allowed by the present
jurisprudence.
ISSUE: Whether or not he has elected Philippine citizenship within "a reasonable time"?
RULING: No. Ching, despite the special circumstances, failed to elect Philippine citizenship
within a reasonable time. The reasonable time means that the election should be made within 3
years from upon reaching the age of majority, which is 21 years old. Instead, he elected
Philippine citizenship 14 years after reaching the age of majority which the court considered not
within the reasonable time. Ching offered no reason why he delayed his election of Philippine
citizenship, as procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is not a tedious and painstaking
process. All that is required is an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and file the same
with the nearest civil registry.
5. VALLES vs. COMELEC

FACTS: Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father and an
Australian mother. In 1949, at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle in the
Philippines, where she later married a Filipino and has since then participated in the electoral
process not only as a voter but as a candidate, as well. In the May 1998 elections, she ran for
governor but Valles filed a petition for her disqualification as candidate on the ground that she is
an Australian.
ISSUE: Whether or not Rosalind is an Australian or a Filipino
HELD: The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a
child follows the nationality orcitizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth,
as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of
place of birth.
Rosalind Ybasco Lopez 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 principal organic acts by
which the United States governed the country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and
the Philippine Autonomy Act of Aug. 29, 1916, also known as the Jones Law.
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 Ybasco, was born on Jan. 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines
Norte.... 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 laws in force at the time of
her birth, Telesforos daughter, herein private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a
citizen of the Philippines.
21
The signing into law of the 1935 Philippine Constitution has established the principle of jus
sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship, xxx
So also, the principle of jus sanguinis, which confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship,
was subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Thus, the 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.
6. MERCADO vs. MANZANO

FACTS: Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo Manzano are candidates for the position of Vice-Mayor of
Makati City in the May, 1998 elections. Private respondent was the winner of the said election
but the proclamation was suspended due to the petition of Ernesto Mamaril regarding the
citizenship of private respondent. Mamaril alleged that the private respondent is not a citizen of
the Philippines but of the United States. COMELEC granted the petition and disqualified the
private respondent for being a dual citizen, pursuant to the Local Government code that
provides that persons who possess dual citizenship are disqualified from running any public
position. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which remained pending until
after election. Petitioner sought to intervene in the case for disqualification. COMELEC reversed
the decision and declared private respondent qualified to run for the position. Pursuant to the
ruling of the COMELEC, the board of canvassers proclaimed private respondent as vice mayor.
This petition sought the reversal of the resolution of the COMELEC and to declare the private
respondent disqualified to hold the office of the vice mayor of Makati.
ISSUE: WON Manzano is qualified to hold office as Vice-Mayor.
HELD: Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former 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 the said states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person
whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a
state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Private respondent is considered as a dual citizen
because he is born of Filipino parents but was born in San Francisco, USA. Such a person, ipso
facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both
states. Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our Constitution, it is possible for the
following classes of citizens of the Philippines to 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 Philippine citizenship. Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to
the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or
more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individuals
volition.
By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post, private respondent elected
Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced his American citizenship. The filing of such
certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any
disqualification he might have as a dual citizen.
By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a
permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend and support the
Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so
without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of this country are
concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have
said before as a dual citizen. On the other hand, private respondents oath of allegiance to the
22
Philippine, when considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received
his education, practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in this
country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship.
7. TECSON vs. COMELEC

FACTS: The case at bar is a consolidated case filed by petitioners questioning the certificate of
candidacy of herein private respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe also known as Fernando Poe, Jr.
The latter filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of President of the Philippines under
the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) party. He represented himself in said certificate as
a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, which reason that petitioners filed a petition before the
Comelec to disqualify private respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. and to deny due course or to cancel
his certificate of candidacy on the ground that the latter made a material misrepresentation in
his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino when in truth his parents
were foreigners and he is an illegitimate child. The Comelec dismissed the petition. Hence, this
appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
HELD: Before discussing on the issue at hand it is worth stressing that since private respondent
Fernando Poe, Jr. was born on August 20, 1939, the applicable law then controlling was the 1935
constitution. The issue on private respondents citizenship is so essential in view of the
constitutional provision that, No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age
on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately
preceding such election. 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. Based
on the evidence presented which the Supreme consider as viable is the fact that the death
certificate of Lorenzo Poe, father of Allan Poe, who in turn was the father of private respondent
Fernando Poe, Jr. indicates that he died on September 11, 1954 at the age of 84 years, in San
Carlos, Pangasinan. Evidently, in such death certificate, the residence of Lorenzo Poe was stated
to be San Carlos, Pangansinan. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it should be
sound to conclude, or at least to presume, that the place of residence of a person at the time of
his death was also his residence before death. Considering that the allegations of petitioners are
not substantiated with proof and since Lorenzo Poe may have been benefited from the en
masse Filipinization that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902, there is no doubt that Allan
Poe father of private respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. was a Filipino citizen. And, since the latter is
governed by the provisions of the 1935 Constitution which constitution considers as citizens of
the Philippines those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines, Fernando Poe, Jr. was in fact a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines regardless of whether or not he is legitimate or
illegitimate.
8. REPUBLIC vs. SAGUN

FACTS: Respondent is the legitimate child of father, aChinese national, and mother, a Filipino
citizen. She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio Cityand did not elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority. At the age of 33, she executed an Oath of Allegianceto the
Republic of the Philippines. The document was notarized but was not recorded and registered
with the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City. In 2005, she applied for a Philippine passport but
was denied due to the citizenship of her father and there being no annotation on her birth
certificate that she has elected Philippine citizenship. Consequently, she sought a judicial
declaration of her election of Philippine citizenship and prayed that the Local Civil Registrar of
Baguio City be ordered to annotate the same on her birth certificate.
ISSUES:
23
1. Whether respondents petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship is

authorized by the Rules of Court and jurisprudence; and
2. Whether the respondent has effectively elected Philippine citizenship in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by law
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for judicial declaration of election of Philippine
citizenship filed by respondent Nora Fe Sagun is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
1. YES. But it should be stressed that there is no specific statutory or procedural rule which
authorizes the direct filing of a petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before
the courts. Respondent cannot now be allowed to seek the intervention of the court to confer
upon her Philippine citizenship when clearly she has failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship.
2. NO. Based on the foregoing circumstances, respondent clearly failed to comply with the
procedural requirements for a valid and effective election of Philippine citizenship. Respondent
cannot assert that the exercise of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitutes
a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship since the law specifically lays down the
requirements for acquisition of citizenship by election.All that is required of the elector is to
execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the
nearest civil registry. Having failed to comply with the foregoing requirements, respondents
petition before the trial court must be denied.
24
COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 473 - AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF

PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION, AND TO REPEAL ACTS NUMBERED
TWENTY-NINE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN AND THIRTY-FOUR HUNDRED AND
FORTY-EIGHT.
Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:
Section 1. Title of Act. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Revised
Naturalization Law."
Section 2. Qualifications. Subject to section four of this Act, any person having the
following qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:
First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of
the petition;
Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less
than ten years;
Third. He must be of good moral character 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.
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand
pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or
lawful occupation;
Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the
principal Philippine languages; and
Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public
schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education 1 of the
Philippines, where the Philippine history, government and civics 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 Philippine citizen.
Section 3. Special qualifications. The ten years of continuous residence required under the
second condition of the last preceding section shall be understood as reduced to five years
for any petitioner having any of the following qualifications:
1. Having honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines or under that
of any of the provinces, cities, municipalities, or political subdivisions thereof;
25
2. Having established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines;

3. Being married to a Filipino woman;
4. Having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a public or recognized
private school not established for the exclusive instruction of children of persons of a
particular nationality or race, in any of the branches of education or industry for a
period of not less than two years;
5. Having been born in the Philippines.
Section 4. Who are disqualified. - The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine
citizens:
a. Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group
of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
b. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal
assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas;
c. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
d. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
e. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
f.
Persons 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 the Filipinos;
g. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States 2and the Philippines are
at war, during the period of such war;
h. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United States 3whose laws do
not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
Section 5. Declaration of intention. One year prior to the filing of his petition for
admission to Philippine citizenship, the applicant for Philippine citizenship shall file with the
Bureau of Justice4 a declaration under oath that it is bona fide his intention to become a
citizen of the Philippines. Such declaration shall set forth name, age, occupation, personal
description, place of birth, last foreign residence and allegiance, the date of arrival, the
name of the vessel or aircraft, if any, in which he came to the Philippines, and the place of
residence in the Philippines at the time of making the declaration. No declaration shall be
valid until lawful entry for permanent residence has been established and a certificate
showing the date, place, and manner of his arrival has been issued. The declarant must
also state that he has enrolled his minor children, if any, in any of the public schools or
private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education5 of the Philippines, where
26
Philippine history, government, and civics 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 Philippine citizen. Each declarant must
furnish two photographs of himself.
Section 6. Persons exempt from requirement to make a declaration of intention.
Persons born in the Philippines and have received their primary and secondary
education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not
limited to any race or nationality, and those who have resided continuously in
the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before filing their
application, may be naturalized without having to make a declaration of intention upon
complying with the other requirements of this Act. To such requirements shall be
added that which establishes that the applicant has given primary and secondary
education to all his children in the public schools or in private schools recognized
by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. The same shall be
understood applicable with respect to the widow and minor children of an alien who
has declared his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines, and dies before he is
actually naturalized.6
Section 7. Petition for citizenship. Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship
shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate, accompanied by two
photographs of the petitioner, setting forth his name and surname; his present and former
places of residence; his occupation; the place and date of his birth; whether single or
married and the father of children, the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife and
of each of the children; the approximate date of his or her arrival in the Philippines, the
name of the port of debarkation, and, if he remembers it, the name of the ship on which he
came; a declaration that he has the qualifications required by this Act, specifying the same,
and that he is not disqualified for naturalization under the provisions of this Act; that he has
complied with the requirements of section five of this Act; and that he will reside
continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of the petition up to the time of
his admission to Philippine citizenship. The petition must be signed by the applicant in his
own handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating
that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident
of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person of good repute
and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their opinion all the
qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way
disqualified under the provisions of this Act. The petition shall also set forth the names and
post-office addresses of such witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the
hearing of the case. The certificate of arrival, and the declaration of intention must be
made part of the petition.
Section 8. Competent court.The Court of First Instance of the province in which the
petitioner has resided at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the petition.
Section 9. Notification and appearance.Immediately upon the filing of a petition, it shall
be the duty of the clerk of the court to publish the same at petitioner's expense, once a
27
week for three consecutive weeks, in the Official Gazette, and in one of the newspapers of
general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides, and to have copies of said
petition and a general notice of the hearing posted in a public and conspicuous place in his
office or in the building where said office is located, setting forth in such notice the name,
birthplace and residence of the petitioner, the date and place of his arrival in the
Philippines, the names of the witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to introduce in
support of his petition, and the date of the hearing of the petition, which hearing shall not
be held within ninety days from the date of the last publication of the notice. The clerk
shall, as soon as possible, forward copies of the petition, the sentence, the naturalization
certificate, and other pertinent data to the Department of the Interior, 7 the Bureau of
Justice,8 the Provincial Inspector9 of the Philippine Constabulary of the province and the
justice of the peace10 of the municipality wherein the petitioner resides.
Section 10. Hearing of the petition.No petition shall be heard within the thirty days
preceding any election. The hearing shall be public, and the Solicitor-General, either himself
or through his delegate or the provincial fiscal concerned, shall appear on behalf of the
Commonwealth11 of the Philippines at all the proceedings and at the hearing. If, after the
hearing, the court believes, in view of the evidence taken, that the petitioner has all the
qualifications required by, and none of the disqualifications specified in this Act and has
complied with all requisites herein established, it shall order the proper naturalization
certificate to be issued and the registration of the said naturalization certificate in the
proper civil registry as required in section ten of Act Numbered Three thousand seven
hundred and fifty-three.12
Section 11. Appeal.The final sentence may, at the instance of either of the parties, be
appealed to the Supreme Court.13
Section 12. Issuance of the Certificate of Naturalization.If, after the lapse of thirty days
from and after the date on which the parties were notified of the Court, no appeal has been
filed, or if, upon appeal, the decision of the court has been confirmed by the Supreme
Court,14 and the said decision has become final, the clerk of the court which heard the
petition shall issue to the petitioner a naturalization certificate which shall, among other
things, state the following: The file number of the petition, the number of the naturalization
certificate, the signature of the person naturalized affixed in the presence of the clerk of
the court, the personal circumstances of the person naturalized, the dates on which his
declaration of intention and petition were filed, the date of the decision granting the
petition, and the name of the judge who rendered the decision. A photograph of the
petitioner with the dry seal affixed thereto of the court which granted the petition, must be
affixed to the certificate.
Before the naturalization certificate is issued, the petitioner shall, in open court, take the
following oath:
"I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , solemnly swear that I renounce absolutely
and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty,
and particularly to the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of which at this time I am a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and that I will obey the
28
laws, legal orders and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the
Commonwealth15 of the Philippines; [and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the
supreme authority of the United States of America in the Philippines and will maintain true
faith and allegiance thereto;16and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily
without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
"So help me God."
Section 13. Record books.The clerk of the court shall keep two books; one in which the
petition and declarations of intention shall be recorded in chronological order, noting all
proceedings thereof from the filing of the petition to the final issuance of the naturalization
certificate; and another, which shall be a record of naturalization certificates each page of
which shall have a duplicate which shall be duly attested by the clerk of the court and
delivered to the petitioner.
Section 14. Fees.The clerk of the Court of First Instance shall charge as fees for
recording a petition for naturalization and for the proceedings in connection therewith,
including the issuance of the certificate, the sum of thirty pesos.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court 17 shall collect for each appeal and for the services rendered
by him in connection therewith, the sum of twenty-four pesos.
Section 15. Effect of the naturalization on wife and children.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.
Minor children of persons naturalized under this law who have been born in the Philippines
shall be considered citizens thereof.
A foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of
the parent, shall automatically become a Philippine citizen, and a foreign-born minor child,
who is not in the Philippines at the time the parent is naturalized, shall be deemed a
Philippine citizen only during his minority, unless he begins to reside permanently in the
Philippines when still a minor, in which case, he will continue to be a Philippine citizen even
after becoming of age.
A child born outside of the Philippines after the naturalization of his parent, shall be
considered a Philippine citizen, unless one year after reaching the age of majority, he fails
to register himself as a Philippine citizen at the
*************** MISSING PAGE "#329" *****************
the fault of their parents either by neglecting to support them or by
transferring them to another school or schools. A certified copy of the decree
canceling the naturalization certificate shall be forwarded by the clerk of the
Court to the Department of the Interior20 and the Bureau of Justice.21
29
(e) If it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed himself to be used as
a dummy in violation of the Constitutional or legal provision requiring
Philippine citizenship as a requisite for the exercise, use or enjoyment of a
right, franchise or privilege.
Section 19. Penalties for violation of this Act.Any person who shall fraudulently make,
falsify, forge, change, alter, or cause or aid any person to do the same, or who shall
purposely aid and assist in falsely making, forging, falsifying, changing or altering a
naturalization certificate for the purpose of making use thereof, or in order that the same
may be used by another person or persons, and any person who shall purposely aid and
assist another in obtaining a naturalization certificate in violation of the provisions of this
Act, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand pesos or by imprisonment
for not more than five years, or both, and in the case that the person convicted is a
naturalized citizen his certificate of naturalization and the registration of the same in the
proper civil registry shall be ordered cancelled.
Section 20. Prescription.No person shall be prosecuted, charged, or punished for an
offense implying a violation of the provisions of this Act, unless the information or
complaint is filed within five years from the detection or discovery of the commission of
said offense.
Section 21. Regulation and blanks.The Secretary of Justice shall issue the necessary
regulations for the proper enforcement of this Act. Naturalization certificate blanks and
other blanks required for carrying out the provisions of this Act shall be prepared and
furnished by the Solicitor-General, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice.
Section 22. Repealing clause.Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred and twenty-seven as
amended by Act Numbered Thirty-four hundred and forty-eight, entitled "The Naturalization
Law", is repealed: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any
prosecution, suit, action, or proceedings brought, or any act, thing, or matter, civil or
criminal, done or existing before the taking effect of this Act, but as to all such
prosecutions, suits, actions, proceedings, acts, things, or matters, the laws, or parts of laws
repealed or amended by this Act are continued in force and effect.
Section 23. Date when this Act shall take effect.This Act shall take effect on its approval.
30
COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 63 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH

PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED
Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:
Section 1. How citizenship may be lost. A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any
of the following ways and/or events:
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) By express renunciation of citizenship;
(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a
foreign country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more: Provided,
however, That a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any
manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country;
(4) By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a
foreign country: Provided,That the rendering of service to, or the acceptance of such
commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country, and the taking of an oath of
allegiance incident thereto, with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, shall
not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of the following
circumstances is present:
(a) The Republic of 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 on Philippine territory
with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the Filipino
citizen concerned, 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 his service to said foreign country: And
provided, finally, That any Filipino citizen who is rendering service to, or is
commissioned in, the armed forces of a foreign country under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), shall not be permitted to
participate nor vote in any election of the Republic of the Philippines during
the period of his service to, or commission in, the armed forces of said foreign
country. Upon his discharge from the service of the said foreign country, he
shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil and political
rights as a Filipino citizen;
(5) By cancellation of the of the certificates 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; and
(7) In the 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.1
The provisions of this section notwithstanding, the acquisition of citizenship by a natural
born Filipino citizen from one of the Iberian and any friendly democratic Ibero-American
countries or from the United Kingdom shall not produce loss or forfeiture of his
Philippine citizenship if the law of that country grants the same privilege to its citizens and
31
such had been agreed upon by treaty between the Philippines and the foreign country from
which citizenship is acquired.2
Section. 2. How citizenship may be reacquired. Citizenship may be reacquired:
(1) By naturalization: Provided, That the applicant possess none of the
disqualification's prescribed in section two of Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred
and twenty-seven,3
(2) By repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy or Air Corp: Provided, That a
woman who lost her citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien may be
repatriated in accordance with the provisions of this Act after the termination of the
marital status;4 and
(3) By direct act of the National Assembly.
Section 3. Procedure incident to reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. The procedure
prescribed for naturalization under Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred and twentyseven,5 as amended, shall apply to the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by
naturalization provided for in the next preceding section: Provided, That the qualifications
and special qualifications prescribed in section three and four of said Act shall not be
required:And provided, further,
(1) That the applicant be at least twenty-one years of age and shall have resided in
the Philippines at least six months before he applies for naturalization;
(2) That he shall have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines, in his relations with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living; and
(3) That he subscribes to an oath declaring his intention to renounce absolutely and
perpetually all faith and allegiance to the foreign authority, state or sovereignty of
which he was a citizen or subject.
Section 4. Repatriation shall be effected by merely taking the necessary oath of allegiance
to the Commonwealth6 of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry.
Section 5. The Secretary of Justice shall issue the necessary regulations for the proper
enforcement of this Act. Naturalization blanks and other blanks required for carrying out the
provisions of this Act shall be prepared and furnished by the Solicitor General, subject to
approval of the Secretary of Justice.
Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved, October 21, 1936.
*As Amended by RA 106, RA 2639 and RA 3834.

1
Words in bold in the text above are amendments introduced by RA 106, section 1,
approved June 2, 1947.
32
Statutory History of section 1:

Original textSECTION 1. How citizenship may be lost. - A Filipino
citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events:
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) By express renunciation of citizenship;
(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or
laws of a foreign country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more;
(4) By accepting commission in the [military, naval or air service] of a
foreign country;
(5) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization;
(6) By having been declared by competent authority, a deserted of the
Philippine [army, navy or air corps] in time of war, unless subsequently a
plenary partdon or amnesty has been granted; and
(7) In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue
of the law in force in her husband's country, she acquires his nationality. (Ed.
Note: Words in brackets were deleted in RA 106 supra.)
2
Words in bold in the text above are amendments introduced by RA 3834,

section 1, approved June 22, 1963 to the last paragraph of section 1. Said paragraph
was inserted as an amendment by RA 2639, section 1, approved June 18, 1960..
Statutory History of (last paragraph of section 1):
The provisions of the paragraph as inserted by RA 2639, being similar to the
amemded provisions, supra, except for the words in bold, are not reproduced here.
3
Now CA 473.
See PD 725 promulgated June 5, 1975 providing for repatriation of filipino women
who had lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens.
5
Now CA 473.
Now Republic.
33
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 2630 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE

CITIZENSHIP BY PERSONS WHO LOST SUCH CITIZENSHIP BY RENDERING SERVICE
TO, OR ACCEPTING COMMISSION IN, THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES
Section 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or
accepting commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from
the Armed Forces of the United States, 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.
Sec. 2.
This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
34
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9225 - AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE

CITIZENS
WHO
ACQUIRE
FOREIGN
CITIZENSHIP
PERMANENT.
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH ACT. NO. 63, AS AMENDED AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
Section 1. Short Title this act shall be known as the "Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003."
Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all
Philippine citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine
citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking
the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
"I _____________________, solemny swear (or affrim) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby
declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this obligation upon
myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens
of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate
or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship
upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizenship of the Philippines.
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who retain or re-acquire
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:
(1) Those intending to exercise their right of surffrage must Meet the requirements
under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise
known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing laws;
(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for
holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at
the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
administer an oath;
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior
to their assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to
the country where they took that oath;
35
(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the
proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice; and
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the
Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who:
(a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of
which they are naturalized citizens; and/or
(b) are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the
armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens.
Section 6. Separability Clause - If any section or provision of this Act is held
unconstitutional or invalid, any other section or provision not affected thereby shall remain
valid and effective.
Section 7. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 8. Effectivity Clause This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following
its publication in theOfficial Gazette or two (2) newspaper of general circulation.
36
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9139 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF

PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP
FOR
CERTAIN
ALIENS
BY
ADMINISTRATIVE
NATURALIZATION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as "The Administrative Naturalization Law
of 2000."
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall control and regulate the admission and
integration of aliens into its territory and body politic including the grant of citizenship to
aliens. Towards this end, aliens born and residing in the Philippines may be granted
Philippine citizenship by administrative proceedings subject to certain requirements
dictated by national security and interest.
Section 3. Qualifications. - Subject to the provisions of the succeeding section, any person
desiring to avail of the benefits of this Act must meet the following qualifications:
(a) The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth;
(b) The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of age, at the time of filing of
his/her petition;
(c) The applicant must be of good moral character and believes in the underlying principles
of the Constitution, and must have conducted himself/herself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during his/her entire period of residence in the Philippines in his
relation with the duly constituted government as well as with the community in which
he/she is living;
(d) The applicant must have received his/her primary and secondary education in any
public school or private educational institution dully recognized by the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught
and prescribed as part of the school curriculum and where enrollment is not limited to any
race or nationality: Provided, That should he/she have minor children of school age, he/she
must have enrolled them in similar schools;
(e) The applicant must have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation, from
which he/she derives income sufficient for his/her support and if he/she is married and/or
has dependents, also that of his/her family:Provided, however, That this shall not apply to
applicants who are college degree holders but are unable to practice their profession
because they are disqualified to do so by reason of their citizenship;
(f) The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of the
Philippines; and
(g) The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to learn
and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.
Section 4. Disqualifications, - The following are not qualified to be naturalized as Filipino
citizens under this Act:
(a) Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association of group of
persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
37
(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety of violence, personal assault
or assassination for the success or predominance of their ideas;
(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
(f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled
socially with Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the
customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos;
(g) Citizens or subjects with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such war;
and
(h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to be
naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
Section 5. Petition for Citizenship. - (1) Any person desiring to acquire Philippine
citizenship under this Act shall file with the Special Committee on Naturalization created
under Section 6 hereof, a petition of five (5) copies legibly typed and signed, thumbmarked
and verified by him/her, with the latter's passport-sized photograph attached to each copy
of the petition, and setting forth the following:
(a) The petitioner's name and surname, and any other name he/she has used or by which
he/she is known;
(b) The petitioner's present and former places of residence;
(c) The petitioner's place and date of birth, the names and citizenship of his/her parents
and their residences;
(d) The petitioner's trade, business, profession or occupation, and if married, also that of
his/her spouse;
(e) Whether the petitioner is single or married or his/her marriage is annulled. If married,
petitioner shall state the date and place of his/her marriage, and the name, date of birth,
birthplace, citizenship and residence of his/her spouse; and if his marriage is annulled, the
date of decree of annulment of marriage and the court which granted the same;
(f) If the petitioner has children, the name, date and birthplace and residences of his/her
children ;
(g) A declaration that the petitioner possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications under this Act;
(h) A declaration that the petitioner shall never be a public charge; and
(i) A declaration that it is the petitioner's true and honest intention to acquire Philippine
citizenship and to renounce absolutely and forever any prince, potentate, State or
sovereign, and particularly the country of which the applicant is a citizen or subject.
(2) The application shall be accompanied by:
38
(a) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's birth certificate;

(b) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's alien certificate of registration
and native born certificate of residence;
(c) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's marriage certified, if married,
or the death certificate of his spouse, if widowed, or the court decree annulling his
marriage, if such was the fact;
(d) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of birth certificates, alien certificate of
registration or native born certificate of residence if any, of petitioner's minor children,
wherever applicable;
(e) Affidavit of financial capacity by the petitioner, and sworn statements on the good moral
character of the petitioner by at least two (2) Filipino citizens of good reputation in his/her
place of residence stating that they have personally known the petitioner for at least a
period of ten (10) years and that said petitioner has in their own opinion all the
qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way
disqualified under the provisions of this Act;
(f) A medical certificate that petitioner is not a user of prohibited drugs or otherwise a drug
dependent and that he/she is not afflicted with acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(AIDS);
(g) School diploma and transcript of records of the petitioner in the schools he attended in
the Philippines. Should the petitioner have minor children, a certification that his children
are enrolled in a school where Philippine history, government and civics are taught and are
part of the curriculum; and
(h) If gainfully employed, the income tax return for the past three (3) years.
Section 6. Special Committee on Naturalization. - There shall be constituted a Special
Committee on Naturalization herein referred to as the "Committee", with the Solicitor
General as chairman, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, or his representative, and the
National Security Adviser, as members, with the power to approve, deny or reject
applications for naturalization as provided in this Act.
The Committee shall meet, as often as practicable, to consider applications for
naturalization. For this purpose, the chairman and members shall receive an honorarium of
Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) and One thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500.00),
respectively, per meeting attended.
Section 7. Powers/Functions of the Special Committee on Naturalization. - An alien who
believes that he has all the qualifications, and none of the disqualifications, may file an
application for naturalization with the secretariat of the Special Committee on
Naturalization, and a processing fee of Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00). Thereafter, the
petition shall be stamped to indicate the date of filing and a corresponding docket number.
Within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the petition, the Committee shall determine
whether the petition is complete in substance and in form. If such petition is complete, the
Committee shall immediately publish pertinent portions of the petition indicating the name,
qualifications and other personal circumstances of the applicant, once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, and have copies of the petition
posted in any public or conspicuous area. The Committee shall immediately furnish the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), the Bureau of Immigration (BI), the civil registrar of the
39
petitioner's place of residence and tile National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) copies of the
petition and its supporting documents. These agencies shall have copies of the petition
posted in any public or conspicuous area in their buildings, offices and premises, and shall,
within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the petition, submit to the Committee a report
stating whether or not petitioner has any derogatory record on file or any such relevant and
material information which might be adverse to petitioner's application for citizenship.
If the petition is found by the Committee to be wanting in substance and form, the petition
shall be dismissed without prejudice.
Section 8. Approval or Disapproval of the Petition. - Within sixty (60) days from receipt of
the report of the agencies which were furnished a copy of the petition or the date of the
last publication of the petition, whichever comes in later, the Committee shall consider and
review all relevant and material information it has received pertaining to the petition, and
may, for the purpose call the petitioner for interview to ascertain his/her identity, the
authenticity of the petition and its annexes, and to determine the truthfulness of the
statements and declarations made in the petition and its annexes.
If the Committee shall have received any information adverse to the petition, the
Committee shall allow the petitioner to answer, explain or refute the information.
Thereafter, if the Committee believes, in view of the facts before it, that the petitioner has
all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications required for Philippine citizenship
under this Act, it shall approve the petition and henceforth, notify the petitioner of the fact
of such approval. Otherwise, the Committee shall disapprove the same.
Section 9. Decree of Naturalization and Naturalization Processing Fee. -Within thirty (30)
days from the receipt of the notice of the approval of his/her petition, the applicant shall
pay to the Committee a naturalization fee of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
payable as follows: Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) upon the approval of the petition and
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) upon the taking of the oath of allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines, forthwith, a certificate of naturalization shall be issued. Within sixty (60)
days from the issuance of the certificate, the petitioner shall take an oath of allegiance in
the proper forum upon proof of payment of the required naturalization processing fee and
certificate of naturalization. Should the applicant fail to take the abovementioned oath of
allegiance within said period of time, the approval of the petition shall be deemed
abandoned.
Section 10. Duty of the Bureau of Immigration. - Within five (5) days after the applicant
has taken his oath of allegiance as required in the preceding section, the BI shall forward a
copy of the petitioner's oath to the proper local civil registrar. Thereafter, the BI shall cancel
the alien certificates of registration of the applicant.
Section 11. Status of Alien Wife and Minor Children. - After the approval of the petition for
administrative naturalization in cancellation of applicant's alien certificate of registration,
applicant's alien lawful wife and minor children may file a petition for cancellation of their
alien certificates of registration with the Committee subject to the payment of the filing fee
of Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) and naturalization fee of Forty thousand pesos
(P40,000.00) payable as follows: Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) upon the approval of
the petition and Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) upon the taking of the oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
Section 12. Status of Alien Husband and Minor Children. - If the applicant is a married
woman, the approval of her petition for administrative naturalization will not benefit her
40
alien husband but her minor children may file a petition for cancellation of their alien
certificates of registration with the BI subject to the requirements of existing laws.
Section 13. Cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization. - The Special Committee may
cancel certificates of naturalization issued under this Act in the following cases:
(a) If it finds that the naturalized person or his duly authorized representative made any
false statement or misrepresentation or committed any violation of law, rules and
regulations in connection with the petition for naturalization, or if he otherwise obtains
Philippine citizenship fraudulently or illegally, the certificate of naturalization shall be
cancelled;
(b) If the naturalized person or his wife, or any or his minor children who acquire Filipino
citizenship by virtue of his naturalization shall, within five (5) years next following the grant
of Philippine citizenship, establish permanent residence in a foreign country, that
individual's certificate of naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be cancelled or
revoked: Provided, That the fact of such person's remaining for more than one (1) year in
his country of origin, or two (2) years in any foreign country, shall be considered prima
facie evidence of intent to permanently reside therein;
(c) If the naturalized person or his wife or child with acquired citizenship allows himself or
herself to be used as a dummy in violation of any constitutional or legal provision requiring
Philippine citizenship as a condition for the exercise, use or enjoyment of a right, franchise
or privilege, the certificate of naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be cancelled or
revoked; and
(d) If the naturalized person or his wife or child with acquired citizenship commits any act
inimical to national security, the certificate of naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be
cancelled or revoked.
In case the naturalized person holds any hereditary title, or belong to any order of nobility,
he shall make an express renunciation of his title or membership in this order of nobility
before the Special Committee or its duly authorized representative, and such renunciation
shall be included in the records of his application for citizenship.
Section 14. Penalties. - Any person who shall fraudulently make, falsify, forge, change,
alter, or cause or aid any person to do the same, or who shall purposely aid and assist in
falsely making, forging, falsifying, changing or altering a naturalization certificate issued
under this proceeding for the purpose of making use thereof, or in order that the same may
be used by another person or persons, and any person who shall purposely aid and assist
another in obtaining a naturalization certificate in violation of this Act, shall be punished by
a fine of not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,OOO.OO) and by imprisonment
for not more than five (5) years, and in the case that the person convicted is a naturalized
citizen, his certificate of naturalization shall, if not earlier cancelled by the Special
Committee, be ordered cancelled.
Section 15. Any person who failed to register his/her birth with the concerned city or
municipal civil registrar may, within two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, file a
petition for the acquisition of the Philippine citizenship:Provided, That the applicant
possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under this Act and subject
to the requirements of existing laws.
Section 16. Special Disposition of the Filing Fee. - An amount equivalent to twenty five
percent (25%) of the filing fee to be paid by the applicants pursuant to Section 7 hereof
41
shall accrue to the University of the Philippines Law Center and another twenty-five percent
(25%) shall be allotted for the publication of the Journal of the House of Representatives.
Said amount shall be treated as receipts automatically appropriated.
Section 17. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Special Committee on
Naturalization is hereby authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be
needed for the proper implementation of the provisions of this Act.
Section 18. Repealing Clause. -All provisions of existing laws, orders, decrees, rules and
regulations contrary to or inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.
Section 19. Separability CIause. - If any part, section or provision of this Act is declared
invalid or unconstitutional, the part, section or provision not affected thereby shall continue
to be in force and effect.
Section 20. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following
its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
42
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8171 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO
WOMEN WHO HAVE LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE TO ALIENS
AND OF NATURAL-BORN FILIPINOS.
Section 1. Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens
and natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship, including their minor
children, on account of political or economic necessity, may reacquire Philippine citizenship
through repatriation in the manner provided in Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 63, as
amended:
Provided,
That
the
applicant
is not a:
(1) Person opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or
group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing organized
government;
(2) Person defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal
assault, or association for the predominance of their ideas;
(3) Person convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude; or
(4) Person suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases.
Section 2. 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 or
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.
Section 3. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent
with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
Sectio 4. This Act shall take effect thirty (30) days after its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation.
43

Polirev Citizenship

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Polirev Citizenship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

Sec. 5, Art. IV of the Constitution on dual allegiance. Recognizing situations in

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

2. JACOT vs. COMELEC

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

issued by the PRC Board of Accountancy that Ching is a certified

2. Voter Certification issued COMELEC in Tubao La Union showing that Ching is a

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

5. VALLES vs. COMELEC

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

6. MERCADO vs. MANZANO

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

7. TECSON vs. COMELEC

8. REPUBLIC vs. SAGUN

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

1. Whether respondents petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship is

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 473 - AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

2. Having established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines;

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 63 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

*As Amended by RA 106, RA 2639 and RA 3834.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

Statutory History of section 1:

Words in bold in the text above are amendments introduced by RA 3834,

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 2630 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE

This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9225 - AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9139 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

(a) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's birth certificate;

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | CITIZENSHIP