Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Article IV: Citizenship

    Uploaded by

    Dei Gonzaga
    129 views33 pages
    Digest of Cases and Laws Related to Citizenship (Article IV of the 1987 Constitution). Cases and Laws included: Co vs. House of Representatives [G.R. Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991] Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago [G.R. No. 83882, January 24, 1989] Frivaldo vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989] Republic vs. De la Rosa [G.R. No. 104654, June 6, 1994] Labo vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 86564, August 1, 1989] Aznar vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 83820, May 25, 1990] Mercado vs. Manzano [G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999] In re: Application for Admission to the Bar of Vicente Ching [B.M. No. 914, October 1, 1999] Bengzon III vs. HRET [G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001] Mo Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration [G.R. No. L-21289, October 4, 1971] Tecson vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004] Republic vs. Lim [G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004] Altajeros vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 163256, November 10, 2004] Commonwealth Act No. 625 Commonwealth Act No. 63 Commonwealth Act No. 473 Republic Act No. 530 Republic Act No. 9225 Republic Act No. 8171

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Digest of Cases and Laws Related to Citizenship (Article IV of the 1987 Constitution). Cases and Laws included: Co vs. House of Representatives [G.R. Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991] Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago [G.R. No. 83882, January 24, 1989] Frivaldo vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989] Republic vs. De la Rosa [G.R. No. 104654, June 6, 1994] Labo vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 86564, August 1, 1989] Aznar vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 83820, May 25, 1990] Mercado vs. Manzano [G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999] In re: Application for Admission to the Bar of Vicente Ching [B.M. No. 914, October 1, 1999] Bengzon III vs. HRET [G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001] Mo Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration [G.R. No. L-21289, October 4, 1971] Tecson vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004] Republic vs. Lim [G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004] Altajeros vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 163256, November 10, 2004] Commonwealth Act No. 625 Commonwealth Act No. 63 Commonwealth Act No. 473 Republic Act No. 530 Republic Act No. 9225 Republic Act No. 8171

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    129 views33 pages

    Article IV: Citizenship

    Uploaded by

    Dei Gonzaga
    Digest of Cases and Laws Related to Citizenship (Article IV of the 1987 Constitution). Cases and Laws included: Co vs. House of Representatives [G.R. Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991] Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago [G.R. No. 83882, January 24, 1989] Frivaldo vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989] Republic vs. De la Rosa [G.R. No. 104654, June 6, 1994] Labo vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 86564, August 1, 1989] Aznar vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 83820, May 25, 1990] Mercado vs. Manzano [G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999] In re: Application for Admission to the Bar of Vicente Ching [B.M. No. 914, October 1, 1999] Bengzon III vs. HRET [G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001] Mo Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration [G.R. No. L-21289, October 4, 1971] Tecson vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004] Republic vs. Lim [G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004] Altajeros vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 163256, November 10, 2004] Commonwealth Act No. 625 Commonwealth Act No. 63 Commonwealth Act No. 473 Republic Act No. 530 Republic Act No. 9225 Republic Act No. 8171

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 33
    [G-NOTES: CASES IN POLITICAL LAW) Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel [ANTONIO ¥.CO vs. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE [MOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and JOSE ONG, JR. ‘GA. Nos. 92191-92. July 30, 1991 (GUTIERREZ, 3. DOCTRINE: Sec. 2 of Art IV of the 1987 Constitution on Election of" Ctzenship, apples ony to those bor of Fine mother land alien father But not to one whose father has been naturalized when minor was only ‘ine (9) years of age. FACTS: the 1987 congressional election, three (3) ‘candidates vied for the positon of representative forthe 2° estrict of Northern Samar. They were petitioners S0qTO BALINQUIT and “ANTONIO 'CO, and priate respondent JOSE ONG, JR. ‘After ONG, JR. was proclaimed duly elected, NALINQUIT {and €0 fled election protests onthe ground ONG, I. ‘ot natural bom etzen ofthe Philppines Respondent House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (RET) found for ONG, IR. Hence, these petition for cartier ‘it appears that ONG, 18's father, JOSE ONG UOSE) was bor a Chinese, but later married a atura-born Fino ln 3982. 4088 was eventual naturalized and took his Cath of aleglance In 2955, At tat time, ONG, JR. was 9 eas la. Issues: (2). te necessary that ONG, I. lect Philippine clizenship under Art. 1, Sec. 3(3) before he «an be considered a natura-bor citizen? (2) What rule wil apply to ONG IRs case, given that he cannot be expected to have elected Prilippine cizenship? (8) May an attack on a person's ctzenship be done collaterally? ELD: (1) NO. The pertinent portions ofthe Constitution {ound in Art. IV read: SEC. 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Flipino mothers, who elect Pippin izenship upon reaching the age of majority: and ‘The Court interprets Se. (3) above as applying not only to those who elect Philippine citizenship after February 2, 1987 but also to those who, having been bom of Filpino mothers, elected ctizenship before that date, ‘The provision in question was enacted to correct the anomalous stuation where one bom of 2 Filpino father and an alien mother was automaticaly granted the status of a natura-bor chizen while one born of @ Fllpino mother and an allen father would stil have to ‘lect Philippine citizenship. tone so elected, he was not, Under ear laws, conferred the status of natural born Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Filipino {fathers and those born of Flipino mothers with an allen father were placed on equal footing. They were both considered 8s natura-bom cizens. Hence, the bestowment of the status of natura-bom cannot be made to depend on the leting accident of time or result in two kinds of chizens made up of essentay the same siary situated members. ‘The amendments were enacted in order to remedy thie ‘accidental anomaly, and, therefore, teat equally all ‘those bom before the 1973 Constitution and who lected Philppine izenship ether before or after the effectivity of that Constitution. The Constitutional rovision Is therefore curatve in nature. Ther ‘otural:bom Flipina atthe time of her mariage ‘ruc to this caue Is the issue of whether or not ONG, ‘Rslected or chose to bea Filipino cizen, Election becomes material because Sec. 2 of Ar 1V of the Constitution accords matura-borm status to children ‘bor of Fino mothers before Jan. 17, 1973, if they lect etzenship upon reaching the oge of majority. ‘unnatural and unnecessary, The reason is obvious. He was already a cltzen. Not only was ONG, JR's mother a ‘atura-bom ctizen but Ns father had been naturalized when he was only nine (9) years old. He could not have divined when he came of age that in 1973 and 1987 the CConstution would be amended to require him to have ‘fled 2 sworn statement in 1969 electing cizenship Inspte of his already having been a ctzen since 1957, in 1969, election through 2 sworn statement would have been an unusual and unnecessary procedure for one who had been ctzen since he was rine years ol. {2} For those in the peclar situation of the ONG, JR, ‘who cannot be expected to have elected citizenship as ‘they were already citizens, the In Re Molle rule applies. Jurisprudence defines “election” as both a formal and an Informal process. In the case of In Re: Florenco Intellectual Property of ODESSA GRACE E. GONZAGA |San Beda College of Law [G-NOTES: CASES IN POLITICAL LAW) Rezo ‘Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel ‘Matar’, tye Court held that the exercise of the right of sufirage and the participation in election exercises constitute a postive act of lection of Philippine ctizenhip Here, ONG, I. did more than merely exercise his right of sufrage. He has estabshed hs le here in the Phtppines. ‘ONG, a. was born in an outyng rural town of Samar Where there are no allen encaves and no racial distinctions. He has lve the ife ofa Flpina since birth, ‘is father applied for natualzation when the child was stlla small boy. He is a Roman Catholic He has worked for 2 sensitve government agency. HS_profesion requles.chizenship for taking the examinations. and {getting alcense. He has partipatedn political eercses 1352 Filipino and has aways considered himself a Filpino itz, There is nothing in the records to show that he doesnot embrace Plippine customs and values, nothing tw Indicate any tinge of aleness, no acs to show that this county Is not his natural homeland. The mass of voters of Norther Samar are fully aware of ONG, 28's parentage. They should know him beter than any ‘member of this Court will ever know hi, They voted by ‘overwhelming numbers to have him represent them In Congress. Because of his acts since childhood, they have considered him a Flipino, “The fling of sworn statement or formal declaration is 2 requirement for those who stil have to elec citizenship. For those already Filpnos when the time to elect came up, there are acts of deliberate choice which cannot be ess binding. Entering a profession open only to Flipinos, serving in. public offce where citizenship. is ‘qualifeation, voting during election time, running for public office, and other categorical acts of similar nature Bare themseves formal manfestators of choice for these persons ‘An section of Philpine cizenship presupposes that ‘the person electing Is an allen or his statu is doubtful Decause he i 2 national of two counties There is no doubt inthis case about ONG, JR's being a Flipine when he turned tweneyone (2) ‘Again, ay election of Philippine ctizenship on ONG, JR's part would not only have been superfluous but it would ‘aso have resutted in an absurcity. How eon a Filipino ‘zen elect Phillppine ctvenship? MET hasan interesting view 2s to how ONG, IR. elected citizenship. It observed that ONG, IR. was ony nine (9) years of age, is father, JOSE ONG CHUAN became 2 naturalized Fllpno. See. 15° of the Revised ‘Naturoization Act squarely applies ts benefit to him for he was then a minor residing in this county. Concededly, it waste law itself that had already elected + sosoRA.s (1974) 2 Pa. 2 threo ales “Mor chien of persone ‘aturalzed under this tw who have been Bern he Phin shal be desed a citzen, 2 Conmonmonth Act 3 Prilippine citizenship for ONG, 3. by declaring him as. sch (2) NO. CO argues that JOSE was not, validly, a naturalized ckizen because of his premature taking of the ‘oath of ctizenship, ‘The Court ruled that It cannot go Into the colateral procedure of sipping JOSE of his cizenship after his ‘death and at this very late date jst so the Court can go afer his son. {CO questions the ctzenship of JOSE through a colateral approach This cannot be done. Indeed, an attack ona persons citizenship may only be done through a direct action forts uly * To ask the Court to dectare the grant of Philippine citizenship to JOSE ONG CHUAN as null and void would ‘un against the principle of due process. Jose Ong Chuan thas already been laid to rest. How can he be given 2 fair. ‘opportunity to defend himselP? A dead man cannot speak ‘Moreover, ONG, JR. traces his natural bom citizenship through his mother, not through the citizenship of his father. The cizenship ofthe father Is relevant only to

    You might also like