citizenship in the philippines

8/10/2019 Citizenship in the Philippines

1/5


2/5

militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For renunciation to effectively result in the loss of citizenship,

the same must be express. As held by this Court in the aforecited case of Aznar, an application for an alien

certificate of registration does not amount to an express renunciation or repudiation of ones citizenship. The

application of the herein private respondent for an alien certificate of registration, and her holding of an Australian

passport, as in the case of Mercado v. Manzano, were mere acts of assertion of her Australian citizenship before

she effectively renounced the same. Thus, at the most, private respondent had dual citizenship she was an

Australian and a Filipino, as well.

Moreover, under Commonwealth Act 63, the fact that a child of Filipino parent/s was born in another

country has not been included as a ground for losing ones Philippine citizenship. Since private respondent did

not lose or renounce her Philippine citizenship, petitioners claim that respondent must go through the process of

repatriation does not hold water. (Valles v. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, Aug. 9, 2000, En Banc [Purisima])

Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may x x x reacquire the same in the manner provided by law.

Commonwealth Act No. 63enumerates the three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a

former citizen: (1)by naturalization, (2)by repatriation, and (3)by direct act of Congress. (Frivaldo v.

COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727, June 28, 1996, En Banc [Panganiban]; Antonio Bengson II I v. HRET, G.R. No.

142840, May 7, 2001, En Banc [Kapunan])

NATURALIZATION is a mode for both acquisition and reacquisitionof Philippine citizenship. As amode of initially acquiringPhilippine citizenship, naturalization is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 473, as

amended. On the other hand, naturalization as a mode for reacquiring Philippine citizenship is governed by

Commonwealth Act No. 63 (An Act Providing for the Ways in Which Philippine Citizenship May Be Lost or

Reacquired [1936]). Under this law, a former Filipino citizen who wishes to reacquire Philippine citizenship

must possess certain qualifications and none of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 4 of C.A. 473.

REPATRIATION, on the other hand, may be had under various statutes by those who lost their citizenship

due to: (1)desertionof the armed forces (Section 4, C.A. No. 63); (2)service in the armed forces of the allied

forcesin World War II (Section 1, Republic Act No. 965 [1953]); (3)service in the Armed Forces of the United

Statesat any other time (Sec. 1, Republic Act No. 2630 [1960]); (4)marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien

(Sec. 1, Republic Act No. 8171 [1995]); and (5) political and economic necessity(Ibid).

As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization, REPATRIATIONsimply consists of the takingof an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry

of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided.

In Angat v. Republi c(314 SCRA 438 [1999]), we held:

[P]arenthetically, under these statutes (referring to RA Nos. 965 and 2630), the person desiring to

reacquire Philippine citizenship would noteven be required to file a petition in court, and all that he had to

do was to take an oath of allegianceto the Republic of the Philippines and to register that fact with the

civil registryin the place of his residence or where he had last resided in the Philippines.

Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized

Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other

hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to hisformer status as a natural-born Filipino.(Antonio Bengson II I v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, En Banc

[Kapunan])

R.A. No. 8171, which has lapsed into law on October 23, 1995, is an act providing for the repatriation (a)

of Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and (b) of natural-born

Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity.

(Gerardo Angat v. Republi c, G.R. No. 132244, Sept. 14, 1999 [Vitug])


3/5

Under Section 1 of P.D. No. 725, dated June 5, 1975, amending C.A. No. 63, an application for

repatriation could be filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization,chaired by the Solicitor Generalwith

the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairsand the Director of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agencyas the

other members. Although the agency was deactivated by virtue of President Corazon C. Aquinos Memorandum of

March 27, 1987, it was not, however, abrogated. The Committee was reactivated on June 8, 1995. Hence, the

application should be filed with said Agency, not with the Regional Trial Court. (Gerardo Angat v. Republ ic,

G.R. No. 132244, Sept. 14, 1999 [Vitug])

REPATRIATION results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized

Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other

hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his

former status as a natural-born Filipino.

In respondent Cruzs case, he lost his Filipino citizenship when he rendered service in the Armed Forces of

the United States. However, he subsequently reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 2630, which

provides:

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 Local CivilRegistry 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.

Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the same in the

Civil Registry of Mangatarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited provision, respondent Cruz is deemed

to have recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a

Filipino father. It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his original status

before he lost his Philippine citizenship.

Petitioners contention that respondent Cruz is no longer a natural-born citizen since he had to perform an

act to regain his citizenship is untenable. [T]he term natural-born citizen was first defined in Article III, Section 4

of the 1973 Constitution as follows:

Section 4. A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without

having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.

Two requisites must concur for a person to be considered as such: (1)a person must be a F il ipino citizen

from birth and (2)he does not have to perform any act to obtain or perfect his Philippine citizenship.

Under the 1973 Constitution definition, there were two categories of Filipino citizens which were not

considered natural-born: (1) those who were naturalized and (2) those born before January 17, 1973 (the date of

effectivity of the 1973 Constitution), of Filipino mothers who, upon reaching the age of majority, elected Philippine

citizenship. Those naturalized citizens were not considered natural-born obviously because they were not

Filipinos at birth and had to perform an act to acquire Philippine citizenship. Those born of Filipino mothers before

the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution were likewise not considered natural-born because they also had to perform

an act to perfect their Philippine citizenship.

The present Constitution, however, now considers those born of Filipino mothers before the effectivity of

the 1973 Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the majority age as natural-born. After

defining who are natural-born citizens, Section 2 of Article IV adds a sentence: Those who elect Philippine

citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

Consequently, only naturalized Filipinos are considered not natural-born citizens. It is apparent from the

enumeration of who are citizens under the present Constitution that there are only two classes of citizens: (1) those

who are natural-bornand (2) those who are naturalizedin accordance with law. A citizen who is not a naturalized

Filipino, i.e., did not have to undergo the process of naturalization to obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily


4/5

is a natural-born Filipino. Noteworthy is the absence in the said enumeration of a separate category for persons

who, after losing Philippine citizenship, subsequently reacquire it. The reason therefore is clear: as to such persons,

they would either be natural-born or naturalized depending on the reasons for the loss of their citizenship

and the mode prescribed by the applicable law for the reacquisition thereof. As respondent Cruz was not

required by law to go through naturalization proceedings in order to reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce a

natural-born Filipino. As such, he possessed all the necessary qualifications to be elected as member of the House

of Representatives. (Antonio Bengson I I I v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, En Banc [Kapunan])

DUAL CITIZENSHIParises 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 sanguinisis born in a

state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso factoand without any voluntary act on his part, is

concurrently considered a citizen of both states.

DUAL ALLEGIANCE, on the other hand, refers to a 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. (Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999, En Banc [Mendoza])

In including Section 5 in Article IV on citizenship, the concern of the Constitutional

Commission was not with dual citizens per se but with naturalized citizens who maintaintheir allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. Hence, the

phrase dual citizenship in R.A. No. 7160, Section 40(d) (Local Government Code) must

be understood as referring to dual allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere dual

citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Unli ke those with dual al legiance, who

must, x x x, be subject to str ict process with respect to the terminati on of their status, for

candidates with dual citi zenship, it shoul d suf fi ce if , upon the fi li ng of their cer tif icate of

candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual

citi zenship considering that their condition i s the unavoidable consequence of confl icting laws

of di ff erent states.

By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same time forswear allegiance to the other

country of which they are also citizens and thereby terminate their status as dual citizens. It may be that, fromthe point of view of the foreign state and of its laws, such an individual has not effectively renounced his foreign

citizenship. That is of no moment. (Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999

[Mendoza])

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 Phil ippine citi zenshi p.

(Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999 [Mendoza])

Petitioner maintains further that when citizenship is raised as an issue in judicial or administrative proceedings, the

resolution or decision thereon is generally not considered res judicata in any subsequent proceeding challenging the

same; citing the case of Moy Ya L im Yao v. Commissioner of Immigr ation(41 SCRA 292 [1971]). He insists that

the same issue of citizenship may be threshed out anew.

Petitioner is correct insofar as the general rule is concerned, i.e., the principle of res judicatagenerally does

not apply in cases hinging on the issue of citizenship. However, in the case of Burca v. Republic (51 SCRA 248

[1973]), an exceptionto this general rule was recognized. The Court ruled in that case that in order that the doctrine

of res judicatamay be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present:


5/5

1)

a persons citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party;

2)

the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof,

and

3)

the finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court.

Although the general rule was set forth in the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao, the case did not foreclose the

weight of prior rulings on citizenship. It elucidated that reliance may somehow be placed on these antecedent

official findings, though not really binding, to make the effort easier or simpler. (Valles v. COMELEC, 337 SCRA

543, Aug. 9, 2000, En Banc [Purisima])

citizenship in the philippines

Documents