CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 1
IV. CITIZENSHIP
A. Definition
 Personal & more or less permanent membership in a political community
 Possession of the community of full, civil & political rights subject to special
disqualifications such as minority
 Imposes duty of allegiance to the community
B. Importance of Citizenship
 See Lee vs. Director of Lands
 Gives us the capacity to enjoy political rights (participate in gov’t thru voting,
holding public office & petitioning for redress of grievances)
 It’s man’s basic right for it’s nothing less than the right to have rights (Perez vs.
Brownell, dissent of CJ Warren)
C. Modes of Acquiring Citizenship
 Jus Sanguinis – blood relationship; basic rule in RP
 Jus Soli – place of birth
 Naturalization – legal act of adopting an alien & clothing him w/ privilege of a
native born citizen
D. Who are Philippine Citizens – Art. IV, Sec. 1
1. Citizens of the Philippines at the time of adoption of the 1987 Consti
a. Citizens under the 1935 Consti
 Citizens of PI at the time of adoption of ’35 Consti
 Born in PI of foreign parents who, before Consti adoption, had been
elected to public office in the PI
 Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines
 Those who elected upon reaching majority age
 Those who are naturalized in accordance w/law
b. Citizens under the 1973 Consti
 Those already citizens
 Those whose fathers or mother are citizens
 Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to 35 Consti
 Those who were naturalized
*If one’s citizenship was subj to judicial challenge under the old law, it remains
subj to challenge under the new
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens
 Under the 73 Consti, children with Filipino mothers are already considered
as citizens w/o need for election upon reaching the age of majority. This is
not retroactive. Applicable only on or after Jan. 17, ’73. (Consti took effect)
 Only applicable to natural filiation & not to filiation by adoption
 Illegitimate children – follow mother’s nationality since they’re under
mom’s authority
3. Those who elect Philippine citizenship
 For ’35 provision to be applicable: mother should be a Filipino citizen either
by birth or naturalization at the time of her marriage
 If mom lost her citizenship by marriage but reacquires it during child’s
minority, child would still need to elect citizenship
 Before June 1, 1947 – election may be manifested by participation in
election & campaigning for candidates
 CA 625 (June 7, 1941) – election must be: 1) expressed in a statement 2)
sworn before any officer authorized to administer oaths 3) filed w/ nearest
civil registrar and 4) accompanied by an oath of allegiance to Phil. Consti.
 How soon should one elect? Dy Cuenco vs. Sec. Of Justice tells us it should
be w/in 3 years. But extension may be justified if person has always
considered himself a Filipino citizen
 After ’73 Consti – no need to elect citizenship, if mom’s Filipina, you’re a
natural-born Filipino already
 Transitory provision until such time when all those who were born before
73 Consti have elected their citizenship. (expired na actually coz they must
have reached majority by age 21 w/c was in 1994)
5. Those who are naturalized in accordance w/law
 May be obtained thru a: 1) judicial process such as CA 473 (Revised
Naturalization Law, June 17, 1939) or 2) special act passed by the
legislature
 Phil. Bill of 1902 - Mass naturalization law w/c made all PI inhabitants
continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 &
resided in said islands, Filipino citizens
 Not a matter of right but it’s a privilege w/c is delicate since it affects public
interest thus, subj to conditions prescribed by law
 Legislature has the power to control how citizenship may be acquired, lost.
It can set criteria for admission, fix its consequences on wife and minor
children. It’s slow, arduous & cumbersome.
 Grant of citizenship to a parent also extends citizenship to minor children
under parental authority. If a male has been granted citizenship, his wife is
deemed citizen too if she cancels her ACR & proves that she doesn’t have
any of the criteria for disqualification thru an administrative procedure.
E. Natural Born Citizens – Art. IV, Sec. 2
1. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph
(3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
 First sentence from 73 Consti, second sentence added in 87 Consti. Added
to make election retroactive because it was not settled under the 35 Consti
if upon election, child becomes natural-born or otherwise. This equalizes all
those born of Filipino mothers whether election was done before or after
the 73 Consti.
 If a natural-born citizen loses his citizenship by renunciation or other mode
recognized by law, he would no longer be considered as natural-born once
he reacquires his citizenship.
2. Advantages of Natural-born citizens
 Even after losing Philippine citizenship, a natural-born Filipino can still be a
transferee of private lands. (Art. XII, Sec. 8)
 President or Vice-President of the Philippines (Art. VII, Sec. 2 & 3)
 Senator or Member of House of Representatives (Art. VI, Sec. 3 & 6)
 Supreme Court Justice or member of lower collegiate courts (Art. VIII, Sec.
7.1)
 Ombudsman (Art. XI, Sec. 8)
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 2
 Civil Service Commission Chair & Commissioners (Art. IX-B, Sec. 1.1) vi. have not mingled socially w/Filipinos or did not display sincere
 COMELEC Chair & Commissioners (Art. IX-C, Sec. 1.1) desire to learn & embrace RP customs, traditions & ideals
 Commission on Audit Chair & Commissioners (Art. IX-D, Sec. 1.1) vii. citizens/subjects of countries w/whom US & RP are at war
 Members of Central Bank Governing Board (Art. XII, Sec. 20) while war is on-going
 Commission on Human Rights Chair & Members (Art. XIII, Sec. 17.2) viii. foreign countries other than US whose laws don’t grant
3. Those whose fathers & mothers are citizens. Filipinos rt. To be naturalized
4. Those who elect Filipino citizenship.  Sec. 5 – Declaration of Intention: One year prior to filing petition for
5. Former natural-born citizens who reacquire citizenship by repatriation. admission to Phil. citizenship, one must file with Bureau of Justice/RTC
6. See: a declaration under oath his bona fide intention to become a Phil.
a. Tecson vs. COMELEC citizen. Include the following:
b. Bengzon vs. HRET i. name, age, occupation, personal description, place of birth,
c. In re Ching last foreign residence & allegiance, date of arrival, name of
d. Co vs. HRET vessel/aircraft if any in w/c he came to Phil. & current
residence in the RP
F. Naturalization ii. he has enrolled his minor children in RP schools pursuant to
1. By Judicial Proceeding Sec. 2
a. Commonwealth Act. No. 473 (Revised Naturalization Law) iii. 2 photographs
 Sec. 2 – Qualifications:  Sec. 7 – Petition for Citizenship: filed w/ competent court in triplicate
i. not less than 20 and include the following:
ii. resided in the Philippines continuously for not <10 years i. two photos
iii. good moral character, believes in principles of RP Consti, ii. name & surname, present & former places of residence,
conducted himself in proper & irreproachable manner in his occupation, place & date of birth
stay in the Philippines iii. single/married and if the father, name, age, birthplace &
iv. own real estate in the RP worth not less than P5,000.00 or residence of wife & children
have a known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation iv. approximate date of arrival in the RP, name of port of
v. speak & write English or Spanish & any one of the principal debarkation & name of ship if he remembers
Philippine languages v. declaration that he has qualifications & is not disqualified
vi. enrolled minor children of school age in any public/private vi. declaration that he complied w/ sec. 5
schools recognized by Office of Private Education of the vii. declaration that he’ll reside in the RP continuously from date
Philippines where RP history, gov’t & civics are taught during of filing petition up to time of admission to Phil citizenship
period required of him to reside in RP prior to hearing of viii. signature of applicant in his own handwriting
petition for naturalization ix. affidavit of at least 2 credible RP citizens who know the
 Sec. 3 – Special Qualifications – 10 years residency requirement applicant & vouch for his good conduct & qualifications
reduced to 5 if one has: x. names & addresses of witnesses he may want to introduce at
i. honorably held office under the RP gov’t or any of its political hearing of case
subdivisions xi. certificate of arrival
ii. established a new industry or introduced useful invention in xii. declaration of intention
RP  Sec. 8 – Competent Court: CFI of province where applicant has resided
iii. married to a Filipino woman for at least 1 year has exclusive, original jurisdiction
iv. teacher in any public or recognized private school in RP not  Sec. 15 – Effect on Wife & Children:
exclusive to students of a particular race/nationality for at i. They’ll be considered RP citizens.
least 2 years ii. Foreign-born minor if living in the Philippines at the time of
v. born in the Philippines naturalization is automatically becomes a citizen.
 Sec. 4 - Disqualified from being naturalized: iii. Foreign-born minor not in the Philippines at the time of
i. opposed to organized gov’t or affiliated w/any association or naturalization is deemed a citizen during minority unless he
group advocating such permanently resides in the RP during his minority.
ii. defending/teaching necessity/propriety of violence, personal iv. Born outside RP after parent’s naturalization, Phil. citizen as
assault or assassination for success & predominance of their long as he registers himself as RP citizen at the American
ideas Consulate of the foreign country w/in 1 year after he reaches
iii. polygamists or its believers age of majority & takes oath of allegiance.
iv. convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude  Sec. 18 – Cancellation of naturalization certificate issued initiated by
v. mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases Sol Gen or provincial fiscal, decreed by judge if:
i. certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 3
ii. w/in 5 years after issuance, he establishes a permanent ii. if he or his wife or children commits act inimical to national security
residence in his native country for more than 1 year or
another foreign country for more than 2 years 3. By direct act of Congress
iii. invalid declaration of intention 4. Denaturalization
iv. minor enrolled in RP school failed to graduate due to parents’
negligence in supporting minor or transferring them to G. Loss of Citizenship – Art. IV, Sec. 3
another school/s 1. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
v. allowed himself to be used as a dummy requiring Phil. 2. Two laws:
citizenship as a requisite for exercise, use or enjoyment of a a. CA No. 63 – for natural-born & naturalized. Lost by: 1) naturalization in a
rt., franchise or privilege foreign country, 2) express renunciation, 3) oath of allegiance to a foreign
b. R.A. No. 530, Additional Provisions for Naturalization Sec. 1 country, 4) rendering service in armed forces of a foreign country, 5) being
 No petition shall be heard w/in 6 mos from publication a deserter of armed forces
 Executory only after 2 years from promulgation b. CA No. 473- for naturalized only. See Sec. 18.
 During intervening time of 2 years, applicant has: 3. Renunciation must be express. Mere possession of an ACR w/o proof of
i. has not left country performance of acts whereby RP citizenship has been lost is not enough proof of
ii. dedicated himself continuously in a lawful calling/profession loss of citizenship. Example of renunciation: Yu vs. Santiago, Frivaldo vs.
iii. not been convicted of any offense or violation of RP rules COMELEC
iv. not committed any act prejudicial to interest of country or 4. Order of naturalization does not really become executory & not res judicata.
government’s policies May be revoked if you violate any of the conditions.
c. see: 5. May be cancelled only upon clear, unequivocal & convincing evidence.
 Republic vs. dela Rosa 6. See Coquilla vs. COMELEC
 Republic vs. Liyao
 Moya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner H. Reacquisition of Ctizenship
1. Modes
2. By Administrative Proceeding – R.A. No. 9138 (Administrative Naturalization) a. naturalization
a. Sec. 3 - Qualifications b. repatriation
i. born in RP & residing here since birth i. for 1) women who lost their citizenship thru marriage to aliens, 2)
ii. not less than 18 natural born Filipinos including their minor children and 3) persons
iii. good moral character who have lost their citizenship on account of economic/political
iv. received primary & secondary education in any public/private necessity & are not disqualified. Accomplished by taking oath of
school recognized by DECS allegiance to RP & registering in proper Civil Registry and BI.
v. known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation. Not Processed by Special Committee on Naturalization.
applicable to degree holders but can’t practice profession due to ii. for those who served US armed forces, take oath of allegiance to RP &
disqualification. register in local Civil Registry where you reside/last resided.
vi. Read, write, speak Filipino or any other RP dialect c. direct grant of law
vii. Mingled w/ Filipinos 2. Courts have no jurisdiction over repatriation
b. Sec. 4 – Disqualifications – same as sec. 4 CA 473 3. Once repatriated, citizen regains level of former citizenship (natural-born or
c. Sec. 5 – Petition should include among others, perpetual renunciation of naturalized). – Bengzon vs. Cruz
native country & other pertinent documents, info 4. This should be accompanied by an express & unequivocal act of formally
d. Sec. 6 – forms Special Committee on Naturalization composed of Sol Gen, rejecting adopted state & reaffirming total & exclusive allegiance & loyalty to
DFA Sec. & National Security Adviser RP. (Bengzon vs. Cruz, Melo dissent)
e. Sec. 9 – Decree of Naturalization: oath of allegiance shall be taken w/in 60 5. Effectivity: date of application for repatriation & not when repatriation’s
days from issuance of certificate & upon presentation of proof of payment approved (Lee vs. COMELEC and Frivaldo)
of Naturalization fees 6. Bengzon & Frivaldo: Jurisprudence values natural-born citizenship highly & it
f. Sec. 11 – Status of Alien Wife & Minor Children – May file petition for will facilitate giving it back to its former possessor.
cancellation of their ACRs w/ corresponding fees 7. CA No. 63 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE
g. Sec. 12 – Status of Alien Husband & Minor Children – It won’t benefit CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED Sec. 1 (2) How Citizenship May be
husband but minors may file petition for cancellation of ACRs lost – by express renunciation of citizenship
h. Sec. 13 – Cancellation of Certificate of Naturalization: ii & v of Sec. 18 of
CA 473 plus: YU vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO [January 24, 1989]
i. false statement, misrepresentation, committed violation of law, rules & Petition for Habeas Corpus
regulations re naturalization proceedings or citizenship obtained Petitioner: Willie Yu
fraudulently or illegally
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 4
Respondents: Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Bienvenido Alano, Jr., Major Pabalan,
Deleo Hernandez, Bloddy Herrera, Benny Reyes and Jun Espiritu
Santo
Facts:
 1971 – Yu was issued a Portuguese passport in 1971 valid for 5 years &
renewed for same period upon presentment before Portuguese consular officer
 Feb. 10, 1978 – He was naturalized as a Phil. citizen
 April 1980 – signed commercial documents in Hong Kong (Companies Registry
of Tai Shun Estate, Ltd.) and he declared his nationality as Portuguese
 July 21, 1981 – He applied & was issued another Portuguese passport in Tokyo.
Passport will expire July 20, 1986.
Procedural Facts: (ang dami! File sila ng file!)
 July 4, 1988 – He filed for a petition for habeas corpus. He was detained
because the Commission on Immigration & Deportation was processing his
deportation. CID claims that his acts are tantamount to an express renunciation
of his Philippine citizenship.
 July 20, 1988 – oral arguments
 Nov. 10, 1988 – SC resolution denied petition for habeas corpus & resolved
issued on jurisdiction of CID over naturalized Filipino citizen & validity of
warrantless arrest & detention. Yu filed MFR, denied w/finality. Filed urgent
motion for issuance of restraining order, denied.
 Dec. 5, 1988 – Yu filed motion for clarification w/prayer for restraining order.
 Dec. 7, 1988 – SC issued TRO. CID ordered to cease & desist from deporting Yu
pending conclusion of hearings before Board of Special Inquiry of CID.
 Dec. 13, 1988 – Respondent commissioner (I’m assuming this is Miriam coz
she’s the first respondent.) filed motion to lift TRO saying the commission
already issued a summary judgment of deportation against Yu on Dec. 2, 88.
 Dec. 13, 1988 – Yu filed an urgent motion for release from arbitrary detention.
Opposed vigorously to lifting of TRO.
 Yu ordered to explain why he should still be considered a Phil citizen. He
complied. His reply revealed aforementioned substantive facts.
ISSUE: WON the acts of Yu constitute an express renunciation of his Philippine
citizenship.
HELD: Yes. Motion for release from detention denied. TRO lifted.
RATIO:
1. Renunciation – made known distinctly & explicitly and not left to interference or
implication (BI Commissioners vs. Go Gallano). His resumption/reacquisition of
his Portuguese citizenship and passport and representation as a Portuguese
even after he has acquired Filipino citizenship are proof enough of his
renunciation.
2. He does not dispute the facts. He was given the opportunity to show proof of
continued Philippine citizenship but he failed. There is no denial of due process.
3. Trial court should have jurisdiction over this case. But due to petitioner’s
insistence, SC had to do it.
4. Philippine citizenship is not a commodity or were to be displayed when required
and suppressed when convenient.
CRUZ, CONCURRING IN RESULT: Yu has failed to overcome presumption that he has
forfeited his status as naturalized Filipino by obtaining Portuguese passport.
Passports are generally issued only to nationals. No proof of Yu’s unequivocal &
deliberate renunciation of Phi. Citizenship w/ full awareness of its significance &
consequences as provided for in CA No. 63. Commercial documents signed are not
proof enough of renunciation.
FERNAN, DISSENTING: Summary procedure & pieces of documentary evidence are
not enough to reach such decision. Evidence must be clear & express w/o room for
interference or implication. In a deportation proceeding where alien claims
citizenship w/substantial evidence, he’s entitled to have his status determined by
judicial & not an executive tribunal. He deserves a full-blown trial under more rigid
rules of evidence in a court proceeding. SC is not a trier of facts.
GUTIERREZ, JR., DISSENTING: Summary procedure would not suffice. Something
as important as denaturalization should be filed & prosecuted in proper trial court in
accordance w/the due process clause. When a person pleads vigorously that he has
not renounced his citizenship, he should at least be given a full trial where his
actions may be explored & the facts fully ascertained. Dangerous precedent to allow
administrative officials to rule that one has renounced his citizenship based on
informal evidence. Mere use of a foreign passport is not express renunciation. He
may have passport for other purposes (employment, convenience). Some high gov’t
officials have done acts w/c are more indicative of express renunciation than mere
use of passport or different citizenship has been signed. SC is not a trier of facts.
Yu’s morality is beside the point. He deserves his full day in court.
CORTES, DISSENTING: CID findings are subject to judicial review. Loss of Yu’s
Filipino citizenship has not been established. Evidence presented were not
authenticated by proper Philippine consul, thus not substantial and are inadequate.
Frivaldo vs. COMELEC [June 28, 1996]
G.R. No. 120295 – Frivaldo vs. COMELEC and Raul Lee
G.R. No. 123755 – Lee vs. COMELEC AND Juan Frivaldo
G.R. No. 123755
Facts:
 During 1992 and 1988 elections he won for the position of governor but he was
disqualified because he was not a citizen.
 March 20, 1995 – Juan G. Frivaldo filed his certificate of candidacy for the office
of Governor of Sorsogon in the May 8, 1995 elections.
 March 28, 1995 – Raul R. Lee filed a petition praying that Frivaldo be
disqualified from seeking or holding any public office or position by reason of
not yet being a citizen of the Philippines
 May 1, 1995 – COMELEC promulgated a resolution granting the petition
 Frivaldo filed a motion for reconsideration but it was decided until May 11,
1995. COMELEC affirmed its decision. (note the motion was denied after the
May 8, 1995 election)
 Frivaldo garnered the highest number of votes with a margin of around 20,000
votes from the Lee who got the second largest number of votes.
 June 30, 1995 8:30 pm Lee was proclaimed as the governor of Sorsogon. On
July 6, 1995 Frivaldo file with COMELEC a new petition praying for the
annulment of the June 30, 1995 proclamation of Lee and for his own
proclamation. He alleged that on June 30 , 1995 at 2:00 pm he took his oath
of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines after his petition for repatriation
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 5
under PD 725 which he filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization in
September 1994.
 December 19, 1995 – COMELEC first division held that Frivaldo who garnered
the highest number of votes and having reacquired his citizenship by
repatriation on June 30, 1995 under the provision of PD 725 is qualified to hold
the office of Governor.
 Lee filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the COMELEC.
G.R. No. 120295
Facts:
 Petition to annul three resolutions of COMELEC
1. Resolution of the Second Division, promulgated on May 1, 1995, disqualifying
Frivaldo from running for governor of Sorsogon in the May 8, 1995 elections
"on the ground that he is not a citizen of the Philippines";
2. Resolution of the Comelec en banc, promulgated on May 11, 1995; and
3. Resolution of the Comelec en banc, promulgated also on May 11, 1995
suspending the proclamation of, among others, Frivaldo
 Basically the facts are the same with GR 123755 except that Frivaldo assails the
resolutions under different grounds.
 Frivaldo contends that the failure of the Comelec to act on the petition for
disqualification within the period of fifteen days prior to the election as provided
by law is a jurisdictional defect which renders the said Resolutions null and
void.
Consolidated Issues:
1. Was the repatriation of Frivaldo valid and legal? If so, did it seasonably cure his
lack of citizenship as to qualify him to be proclaimed and to hold the Office of
Governor? If not, may it be given retroactive effect? If so, from when?
2. Is Frivaldo's "judicially declared" disqualification for lack of Filipino citizenship a
continuing bar to his eligibility to run for, be elected to or hold the governorship of
Sorsogon?
3. Did the respondent Comelec have jurisdiction over the initiatory petition in SPC
No. 95-317 considering that said petition is not "a pre-proclamation case, an
election protest or a quo warranto case"?
4. Was the proclamation of Lee, a runner-up in the election, valid and legal in light
of existing jurisprudence?
5. Did the respondent Commission on Elections exceed its jurisdiction in
promulgating the assailed Resolutions, all of which prevented Frivaldo from
assuming the governorship of Sorsogon, considering that they were not rendered
within the period referred to in Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, viz., "not
later than fifteen days before the elections"?
Ratio:
Frivaldo’s Repatriation
 Frivaldo had been declared by this Court as a non-citizen, and it is therefore
incumbent upon him to show that he has reacquired his citizenship.
 Citizenship may be reacquired by:
o Direct act of Congress
o Naturalization
o Repatriation
 He was able to reacquire his citizenship via repatriation and he took his oath of
allegiance at 2 pm on June 30, 1995.
 Lee’s asserts that P.D. No. 725 had "been effectively repealed", asserting that
"then President Corazon Aquino exercising legislative powers under the
Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution, forbade the grant of citizenship
by Presidential Decree or Executive Issuances as the same poses a serious and
contentious issue of policy which the present government, in the exercise of
prudence and sound discretion, should best leave to the judgment of the first
Congress under the 1987 Constitution", adding that in her memorandum dated
March 27, 1987 to the members of the Special Committee on Naturalization
constituted for purposes of Presidential Decree No. 725, President Aquino
directed them "to cease and desist from undertaking any and all proceedings
within your functional area of responsibility as defined under Letter of
Instructions (LOI) No. 270 dated April 11, 1975, as amended. The Court held
that the memo cannot be construed as a law sanctioning or authorizing the
repeal of PD 725. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and repeal may
be express or implied. There is no question on whether there was an express
repeal. There is also no implied repeal because it is the basic rule of statutory
construction that repeals by implication are not favored. An implied repeal will
not be allowed unless it is convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated that
the two laws are clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot
co-exist
 Lee also contends that the repatriation proceedings were made in haste. The
Court held that the presumption of legality in the repatriation of Frivaldo have
not been successfully rebutted by Lee. The requirement s of repatriation are
not difficult to comply with nor are they tedious and cumbersome.
 Lee also contends that even if the repatriation is valid it could only be effective
as at 2 pm of June 30, 1995 whereas the citizenship qualification prescribed by
the Local Government Code must exist on the date of his election, if not when
the certificate of candidacy is filed.
o Local Government Code Sec. 39: An elective local official must
 a citizen of the Philippines
 a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province . . .
where he intends to be elected
 a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the
day of the election
 able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect
 In addition, "candidates for the position of governor . . . must be at
least twenty-three (23) years of age on election day
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 6
o The LGC does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate the 1992 elections. That he was disqualified for such elections is final and can
must possess citizenship unlike that for residency and age. no longer be changed. This was the basis of COMELEC for the disqualification
o Sec. 39 provides for the qualifications of ELECTIVE officials and not of Frivaldo but decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship cannot
candidates. govern a person's future status with finality. This is because a person may
o Qualification, unless otherwise provided for, must be possessed when the subsequently reacquire, or for that matter lose, his citizenship under any of the
elective official begins to govern (the time he is proclaimed and at the start modes recognized by law for the purpose.
of his term.
Comelec’s Jurisdiction over the petition in SPC no. 95-317 – COMELEC has
o If the law intended the citizenship qualification to be possessed prior to jurisdiction
election consistent with the requirement of being a registered voter, then it
would not have made citizenship a SEPARATE qualification. The law  The Constitution has given the Comelec ample power to "exercise exclusive
intended CITIZENSHIP to be a qualification distinct from being a VOTER, original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns and
even if being a voter presumes being a citizen first qualifications of all elective . . . provincial . . . officials." Instead of dwelling at
o Juan G. Frivaldo was already and indubitably a citizen, having taken his length on the various petitions that Comelec, in the exercise of its constitutional
oath of allegiance earlier in the afternoon of the same day, then he should prerogatives, may entertain, suffice it to say that this Court has invariably
have been the candidate proclaimed as he unquestionably garnered the recognized the Commission's authority to hear and decide petitions for
highest number of votes in the immediately preceding elections and such annulment of proclamations -- of which SPC No. 95-317 obviously is one.
oath had already cured his previous "judicially-declared" alienage
 Should the repatriation of Frivaldo be applied retroactively to the date of the Is Section 78 of the Election Code Mandatory? MOOT AND ACADEMIC
filling of his application on August 17, 1994? YES  Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy. -- A
o Civil Code of the Philippines provides that laws shall have no retroactive verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of
effect, unless the contrary is provided. But there are settled exceptions to candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any
this general rule, such as when the statute is CURATIVE or REMEDIAL in material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof
nature or when it CREATES NEW RIGHTS is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days
o PD 725 creates a new right and also provides for a new remedy. from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided
o P.D. 725 granted a new right -- the right to re-acquire Filipino citizenship after notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.
(Emphasis supplied.)
even during their marital coverture, which right did not exist prior to P.D.
 Moot and Academic because these resolutions are deemed superseded by the
725. On the other hand, said statute also provided a new remedy and a
subsequent ones issued by the Commission of Dec. 19, 1995 affirmed en banc
new right in favor of other "natural born Filipinos who lost their Philippine
on February 23 , 1996 which both upheld the election.
citizenship but now desire to re-acquire Philippine citizenship", because
 Section 78 is merely directory as section 6 of RA 6646 authorizes the
prior to the promulgation of P.D. 725 such former Filipinos would have had
Commission to try and decide petitions for disqualifications even after the
to undergo the tedious and cumbersome process of naturalization, but with
elections.
the advent of P.D. 725 they could now re-acquire their Philippine citizenship
under the simplified procedure of repatriation.
Davide’s Dissent Answer of the Main Opinion
o Retrospective operation is given to a statute or amendment where the President Aquino's memorandum dated The retroactivity of his repatriation
intent that it should so operate clearly appears from a consideration of the March 27, 1987 should be viewed as a legally cured whatever defects there
act as a whole, or from the terms thereof." It is obvious to the Court that suspension. By allowing Frivaldo to may have been in his registration as a
the statute was meant to "reach back" to those persons, events and register and to remain as a registered voter for the purpose of the 1995
transactions not otherwise covered by prevailing law and jurisprudence. voter, the Comelec and in effect this elections. Such retroactivity did not
And inasmuch as it has been held that citizenship is a political and civil Court abetted a "mockery" of our two change his disqualifications in 1988 and
right equally as important as the freedom of speech, liberty of abode, the previous judgments declaring him a 1992, which were the subjects of such
right against unreasonable searches and seizures and other guarantees non-citizen. previous rulings.
enshrined in the Bill of Rights, therefore the legislative intent to give
retrospective operation to P.D. 725 must be given the fullest effect
possible. It is not only the law itself (P.D. 725) which is to be given
retroactive effect, but even the repatriation granted under said law to Disputes our holding that Frivaldo was Comelec made a finding of fact that
Frivaldo on June 30, 1995 is to be deemed to have retroacted to the date stateless prior to his repatriation, saying Frivaldo was stateless and such finding
of his application therefor, August 17, 1994 that "informal renunciation or has not been shown by Lee to be
abandonment is not a ground to lose arbitrary or whimsical. Thus, following
Is the Lack of Citizenship a continuing Disqualification? NO American citizenship" settled case law, such finding is binding
 First ruling in G.R. No. 87193 disqualifying Frivaldo was rendered in connection and final
with the 1988 elections while that in G.R. No. 104654 was in connection with Frivaldo's ineligibility for being an First, there is absolutely no empirical
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 7
American was publicly known evidence for such "public" knowledge.
Second, even if there is, such knowledge
can be true post facto only of the last
two previous elections. Third, even the
Comelec and now this Court were/are
still deliberating on his nationality
before, during and after the 1995
elections.
Section 39 of the Local Government Section 39, par. (a) thereof speaks of
Code refers to the qualifications of "elective local official" while par. (b) to
elective local officials, i.e., candidates, (f) refer to "candidates". If the
and not elected officials, and that the qualifications under par. (a) were
citizenship qualification must be intended to apply to "candidates" and
possessed by candidates, not merely at not elected officials, the legislature
the commencement of the term, but by would have said so, instead of
election day at the latest differentiating par. (a) from the rest of
the paragraphs. Secondly, if Congress
had meant that the citizenship
qualification should be possessed at
election day or prior thereto, it would
have specifically stated such detail, the
same way it did in pars. (b) to (f) far
other qualifications of candidates for
governor, mayor, etc
Questions the giving of retroactive effect The provision should be understood
to Frivaldo's repatriation on the ground, thus: that after taking the oath of
among others, that the law specifically allegiance the applicant is deemed to
provides that it is only after taking the have reacquired Philippine citizenship,
oath of allegiance that applicants shall which reacquisition (or repatriation) is
be deemed to have reacquired Philippine deemed for all purposes and intents to
citizenship have retroacted
ANGAT vs. REPUBLIC (1999:Manila)
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of CA
Order in RTC Marikina is in the Matter of Gerardo Legaspi Angat to be Re-admitted
as a Citizen of the Phils under Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended, and RA Nos.
965 and 263.
FACTS:
♦ March ’96: Petitioner Gerardo Angat, originally a natural born citizen of the Phils
until he lost his citizenship by naturalization in USA, now resides in Marikina
City, filed a petition to regain his status under CA statute cited above. In his
petition applying for naturalization, he included the ff:
→ His latest picture
→ Present place of residence (Marikina City)
→ Trade/profession (buy & sell)
→ Date of birth: June 22, 1954; Present citizenship: American
→ Marriage contract, W is Zenaida Lim, resident of Tondo
→ Copy of alien registration; 1991 was yr when he returned to Mla
→ He possesses all the qualifications required by CA No 63 and none of the
disqualifications listed in CA No 473. He has resided in the Phils at least 6 mos
before date of petition
→ He is not opposed to organized govt nor affiliated w/ any grp opposing such;
not a polygamist; not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;
not suffering from any mental alienation or incurable contagious disease. The
nation of w/c he is a citizen is not at war w/ the Phils.
→ In reacquiring Phil citizenship, he will renounce absolutely and forever all
allegiance & fidelity to US
♦ June ’96: Petitioner sought to be allowed to take his oath of allegiance pursuant
to RA 8171
♦ July ’96: Motion denied by RTC. Subsequent motion for reconsideration denied.
♦ Aug ’96: Denial reconsidered by the Court. Petitioner ordered to take his oath
of allegiance to RP on Oct 3 ’96, 11a.m.
♦ Oct ’96: Petitioner repatriated & declared as Phil citizen pursuant to RA No
8171. Copy of certificate/order to be registered in the Local Civil Registry of
Marikina.
♦ March ’97: Manifestation and Motion (or motion for reconsideration) was filed
by OSG, as counsel of the State, asserting that petition should have been
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the proper forum for it was the
Special Committee on Naturalization, as the implementing agency, consistent
w/ AO 285 dated Aug 22, 1996. Consequently, order should be declared null
and void.
ISSUES:
1) WON Court erred in dismissing the petition by giving retroactive effect to AO
285, absent a provision on Retroactive Application
2) WON Oct ’96 Order was null and void
HELD: Angat’s petition for review denied. Order of dismissal of petition is affirmed
for want of jurisdiction.
RATIO:
1) No, Court was right in maintaining that petition for repatriation should be filed
with the Special Committee on Naturalization and not with RTC w/c had no
jurisdiction thereover for AO 285 promulgated on Aug 22 ’96 was merely then a
confirmatory issuance of PD 725. The agency was indeed deactivated by virtue
of Pres Aquino’s Memorandum of March 1987, however it was not abrogated or
abolished. It is obvious that no express repeal was made then because it did
not categorically and/or impliedly state that PD 725, creating the Committee,
was being repealed or was being rendered w/o any legal effect.
It is a basic rule of statutory construction that repeals by implications are not
favored. An implied repeal will not be allowed unless it is convincingly and
unambiguously demonstrated that the two laws are clearly repugnant and
patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist.
2) Yes, such order was null and void, and it did not acquire finality nor could it be
a source of right on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner should not
have invoked RA 965 for that law pertains to Phil citizens who lost said
citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting commission in the armed
forces of an allied foreign country or of USA.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – CITIZENSHIP - 8

JAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

121 SCRA 359 (1983)

Nature: Petition to review the decision of the Davao CFI

Facts: Modesta Dugcoy Jao’s father was Chinese while her mom was a Filipina who
was not legally married to her father. That would make her a citizen of the
Philippines. But she lost her Philippine citizenship when she married Go Wan, a
Chinese with whom she had three children. Go Wan died in 1962. Jao alleged that
her illiterate mother erroneously registered her as an alien with the Bureau of
Immigration and so she was issued Alien Certificate of Registration No. A-176678.
Jao thus files a petition in the Davao CFI for repatriation under CA No. 63, as
amended but her petition contains no prayer for relief.
Though the petition was not published, the Provincial Fiscal was notified who
appeared at the hearing but did not present evidence. After receiving the
petitioner’s evidence, the CFI issued an Order declaring the petitioner as “judicially
repatriated,” and ordering the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration. The
Provincial Fiscal, in behalf of RP, took this appeal.
Issue: WON one may be repatriated by judicial proceedings
Held: No. CFI decision, revoked and set aside.
Repatriation by judicial proceedings is null and void because there is no law
requiring or authorizing that repatriation be effected by judicial proceeding.
All that is required for a female citizen of the Philippines who lost her citizenship to
an alien to reacquire her Philippine citizenship, upon termination of her marital
status, “is for her to take necessary oath of allegiance to the RP and to register said
oath in the proper civil registry”.
The claim of Philippine citizenship prior to petitioner's marriage for being allegedly
an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother may not be
established in an action where the mother or her heirs are not parties.
Philippine citizenship may not be declared in a non- adversary suit where the
persons whose rights are affected by such a declaration are not parties, such as an
action for declaratory relief, (Tiu Navarro vs. Commissioner of Immigration) a
petition for judicial repatriation (Lim vs. Republic), or an action to cancel
registration as an alien (Tan vs. Republic).
Lim vs. Republic: "there is no proceeding established by law or the rules by which
any person claiming to be a citizen may get a declaration in a court of justice to that
effect or in regard to his citizenship."