CITIZENSHIP QUALIFICATIONS 1. Co v. House Electoral Tribunal(HRET) FACTS: HRET declared that, Jose Ong, Jr.

., is a natural born Filipino citizen for voting purposes. Ong Te, the grandfather of Jose Ong, Jr., arrived in the Philippines in 1895. He established his residence in Laoang, Samar. He was able to obtain a certificate of residence from the Spanish colonial administration. Jose Ong Chuan, Jose Ong Jr.s father, was born in China in Christianity 1905. In 1915, was baptized into in Samar. He married a natural-born

Filipina, Agripina Lao. He also established his residence in Laoang, Samar. In 15 February 1954, he filed with the Court of First Instance of Samar an application for naturalization. He was declared a Filipino citizen on 28 April 1955; the declaration was made final and executory on 15 May 1957. He took his Oath of Allegiance and was issued a corresponding certificate of Naturalization. Jose Ong, Jr. was 9 yrs of age, and still finishing his elementary education in Samar when his father took his oath. Went to Manila for work. He, however, frequently went home to Samar where he grew up. Emil, brother of respondent was elected a delegate of the 1971 Constitutional Convention. Emils status as a

natural-born citizen was challenged. The Convention, however, declared Emil as a natural-born Filipino. In 1984 and 1986, Jose Jr. registered and voted in Samar. He ran and won in the 1987 elections for representative in the second district of Northern Samar. His opponents protested his election to the post on the grounds that he is not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. ISSUES: Whether RULING: NO. Congressman Jose Ong, Jr. was primarily a naturalborn citizen. Article IV Section 2 of 1987 constitution defines natural-born citizens as those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire well or as perfect those their born Philippine before 17 citizenship,[2] as or not the HRET committed abuse of authority in the exercise of its powers

January 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. [3] Section 1(3) of the 1987 Constitution was interpreted by the Court as applying to those who elected Filipino citizenship not only after 2 February 1987 but also to those who elected citizenship before that date. It was

intended to correct the anomalous situation where one born of a Filipino father and an alien mother was automatically granted the status of natural-born citizen while one born of Filipino mother and an alien father would still have to elect Philippine citizenship, whereby under earlier laws, he was not a natural-born citizen.[4] The Courts based its resolution of the issue by tracing Jose Ong, Jr. citizenship to his mother who was a natural-born Filipina. What is material to the case is whether he elected Filipino citizenship when he reached the age of majority as provided for by Section 1 (4) Article IV of the 1935 Constitution which was the operative law when he was born. Under the 1987 Constitution, natural-born status can only be accorded to individuals who elected citizenship upon reaching majority. In the opinion of the Court it is not necessary for Ong, Jr. to formally or in writing elect citizenship when he came of age as he was already a citizen since he was nine by virtue of his mother being a natural-born citizen and his father a naturalized Filipino.[5] Election can be both formal and informal. In In Re Mallare (59 SCRA 45 [1974]) it was held that the exercise of the right of suffrage when one comes of age constitutes a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship. The rule in the Mallare case was applied

whereby Jose Ongs exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation positive Entering a in acts election of profession exercises open were to considered citizenship. electing Philippine only

Filipinos, serving in public office where citizenship is a qualification, voting during election, running for public office, and other categorical acts of similar nature are themselves formal manifestations of choice. These, according to the court, cannot be less binding than the filing of a sworn statement or formal declaration.[6] BENGZON v. CRUZ FACTS: Respondent Teodoro Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines (San Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27, 1960, of Filipino parents). The fundamental law then applicable was the 1935 Constitution. On November 5, 1985, however, respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and took an Oath of Allegiance to the United States. As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63, section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by, among other, "rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country. He was naturalized in US in 1990.

 On

March

17,

1994,

Cruz

reacquired

his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630. He ran for and was elected as the Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections. He won over petitioner Antonio Bengson III, who was then running for re-election. ISSUES: Whether or not respondent Cruz, a natural-born Filipino Citizen who became an American citizen, can still be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship Whether or not he is qualified to be a House Representative RULING: YES. Respondent is a natural- born citizen of the Philippines through repatriation. He lost his citizenship when he rendered service to the Armed Forces of the US. HOWEVER, he reacquired citizenship as a natural-born under RA 2630: a.) taking required oath of allegiance to RP b.) having registered the same in the Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan VALLES V. COMELEC

FACTS: Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. 1934, a year before the 1935 Consti, what served as the Consti was Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and Jones Law. 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 RULING: YES. Rosalind is a Filipino citizen and thus qualified to run for governor of Davao Oriental. 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. The Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Jones Law, which served as the Constitution when Rosalind was born declares that: 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. Since, 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, Rosalind, is likewise a citizen of the Philippines. The signing into law of the 1935 Philippine Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship.

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. HOWEVER, the filing of a certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship.