CITIZENSHIP

Co v. Hret
ON THE ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP
The records show that in the year 1895, the private respondent's grandfather, Ong
Te, arrived in the Philippines from China. Ong Te estalished his residence in the
m!nicipality of "aoang, #amar on land which he o!ght from the fr!its of hard wor$.
%s a resident of "aoang, Ong Te was ale to otain a certi&cate of residence from
the then #panish colonial administration.
The father of the private respondent, 'ose Ong Ch!an was orn in China in 19(5. )e
was ro!ght y Ong Te to #amar in the year 1915.
'ose Ong Ch!an spent his childhood in the province of #amar. *n "aoang, he was
ale to estalish an end!ring relationship with his neighors, res!lting in his easy
assimilation into the comm!nity.
%s 'ose Ong Ch!an grew older in the r!ral and seaside comm!nity of "aoang, he
asored +ilipino c!lt!ral val!es and practices. )e was apti,ed into Christianity. %s
the years passed, 'ose Ong Ch!an met a nat!ral orn-+ilipino, %gripina "ao. The two
fell in love and, thereafter, got married in 19./ according to Catholic faith and
practice.
The co!ple ore eight children, one of whom is the private respondent who was
orn in 1908.
The private respondent's father never emigrated from this co!ntry. )e decided to
p!t !p a hardware store and shared and s!rvived the vicissit!des of life in #amar.
The !siness prospered. 12pansion ecame inevitale. %s a res!lt, a ranch was
set-!p in 3inondo, 4anila. *n the meantime, the father of the private respondent,
!ns!re of his legal stat!s and in an !ne5!ivocal a6rmation of where he cast his life
and family, &led with the Co!rt of +irst *nstance of #amar an application for
nat!rali,ation on +er!ary 15, 1950.
On %pril /8, 1955, the C+* of #amar, after trial, declared 'ose Ong Ch!an a +ilipino
citi,en.
On 4ay 15, 1957, the Co!rt of +irst *nstance of #amar iss!ed an order declaring the
decision of %pril /8, 1955 as &nal and e2ec!tory and that 'ose Ong Ch!an may
already ta$e his Oath of %llegiance.
P!rs!ant to said order, 'ose Ong Ch!an too$ his Oath of %llegiance8 correspondingly,
a certi&cate of nat!rali,ation was iss!ed to him.
%t the time 'ose Ong Ch!an too$ his oath, the private respondent then a minor of
nine years was &nishing his elementary ed!cation in the province of #amar. There is
nothing in the records to di9erentiate him from other +ilipinos insofar as the
c!stoms and practices of the local pop!lace were concerned.
+ort!nes changed. The ho!se of the family of the private respondent in "aoang,
#amar was !rned to the gro!nd.
:nda!nted y the catastrophe, the private respondent's family constr!cted another
one in place of their r!ined ho!se. %gain, there is no showing other than that
"aoang was their aode and home.
%fter completing his elementary ed!cation, the private respondent, in search for
etter ed!cation, went to 4anila in order to ac5!ire his secondary and college
ed!cation.
*n the meantime, another misfort!ne was s!9ered y the family in 1975 when a &re
g!tted their second ho!se in "aoang, #amar. The respondent's family constr!cted
still another ho!se, this time a 1;-door apartment !ilding, two doors of which were
reserved for the family.
The private respondent grad!ated from college, and thereafter too$ and passed the
CP% 3oard 12aminations.
#ince employment opport!nities were etter in 4anila, the respondent loo$ed for
wor$ here. )e fo!nd a <o in the Central 3an$ of the Philippines as an e2aminer.
"ater, however, he wor$ed in the hardware !siness of his family in 4anila. *n 1971,
his elder rother, 1mil, was elected as a delegate to the 1971 Constit!tional
Convention. )is stat!s as a nat!ral orn citi,en was challenged. Parenthetically, the
Convention which in drafting the Constit!tion removed the !ne5!al treatment given
to derived citi,enship on the asis of the mother's citi,enship formally and solemnly
declared 1mil Ong, respondent's f!ll rother, as a natural born Filipino. The
Constit!tional Convention had to e aware of the meaning of nat!ral orn
citi,enship since it was precisely amending the article on this s!<ect.
The private respondent fre5!ently went home to "aoang, #amar, where he grew !p
and spent his childhood days.
*n 1980, the private respondent married a +ilipina named =esiree "im.
+or the elections of 1980 and 198;, 'ose Ong, 'r. registered himself as a voter of
"aoang, #amar, and correspondingly, voted there d!ring those elections.
The private respondent after eing engaged for several years in the management of
their family !siness decided to e of greater service to his province and ran for
p!lic o6ce. )ence, when the opport!nity came in 1987, he ran in the elections for
representative in the second district of >orthern #amar.
4r. Ong was overwhelmingly voted y the people of >orthern #amar as their
representative in Congress. 1ven if the total votes of the two petitioners are
comined, Ong wo!ld still lead the two y more than 7,((( votes.
The pertinent portions of the Constit!tion fo!nd in %rticle *? read@
#1CT*O> 1, the following are citi,ens of the Philippines@
1. Those who are citi,ens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the
Constit!tion8
/. Those whose fathers or mothers are citi,ens of the Philippines8
.. Those orn efore 'an!ary 17, 197., of +ilipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citi,enship !pon reaching the age of ma<ority8 and
0. Those who are nat!rali,ed in accordance with law.
#1CT*O> /, >at!ral-orn Citi,ens are those who are citi,ens of the Philippines from
irth witho!t having to perform any act to ac5!ire or perfect their citi,enship. Those
who elect Philippine citi,enship in accordance with paragraph . hereof shall e
deemed nat!ral-orn citi,ens.
The Co!rt interprets #ection 1, Paragraph . aove as applying not only to those who
elect Philippine citi,enship after +er!ary /, 1987 !t also to those who, having
een orn of +ilipino mothers, elected citi,enship efore that date.
The provision in Paragraph . was intended to correct an !nfair position which
discriminates against +ilipino women.
4r. Aodrigo@ The p!rpose of that provision is to remedy an ine5!itale sit!ation.
3etween 19.5 and 197. when we were !nder the 19.5 Constit!tion, those orn of
+ilipino fathers !t alien mothers were nat!ral-orn +ilipinos. )owever, those orn of
+ilipino mothers !t alien fathers wo!ld have to elect Philippine citi,enship !pon
reaching the age of ma<ority8 and if they do elect, they ecome +ilipino citi,ens !t
not nat!ral-orn +ilipino citi,ens. BAecords of the Constit!tional Commission, ?ol. 1,
p. .5;C
The foregoing signi&cantly reveals the intent of the framers. To ma$e the provision
prospective from +er!ary ., 1987 is to give a narrow interpretation res!lting in an
ine5!itale sit!ation. *t m!st also e retroactive.
*t sho!ld e noted that in constr!ing the law, the Co!rts are not always to e
hedged in y the literal meaning of its lang!age. The spirit and intendment thereof,
m!st prevail over the letter, especially where adherence to the latter wo!ld res!lt in
as!rdity and in<!stice. BCasela v. Co!rt of %ppeals, .5 #CA% /79 D197(EC
% Constit!tional provision sho!ld e constr!ed so as to give it e9ective operation
and s!ppress the mischief at which it is aimed, hence, it is the spirit of the provision
which sho!ld prevail over the letter thereof. B'arrolt v. 4aerly, 1(. :.#. 58(C
*n the words of the Co!rt in the case of J.M. Tuason v. LTA B.1 #CA% 01. D197(E@
To that primordial intent, all else is s!ordinated. O!r Constit!tion, any constit!tion
is not to e constr!ed narrowly or pedantically for the prescriptions therein
contained, to paraphrase '!stice )olmes, are not mathematical form!las having
their essence in their form !t are organic living instit!tions, the signi&cance of
which is vital not formal. . . . Bp. 0/7C
The provision in 5!estion was enacted to correct the anomalo!s sit!ation where one
orn of a +ilipino father and an alien mother was a!tomatically granted the stat!s of
a nat!ral-orn citi,en while one orn of a +ilipino mother and an alien father wo!ld
still have to elect Philippine citi,enship. *f one so elected, he was not, !nder earlier
laws, conferred the stat!s of a nat!ral-orn.
Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Fii!ino f"thers "nd those born
of Fii!ino #others $ith "n "ien f"ther $ere !"%ed on e&u" footin'. They
were oth considered as nat!ral-orn citi,ens.
)ence, the estowment of the stat!s of Fnat!ral-ornF cannot e made to depend
on the Geeting accident of time or res!lt in two $inds of citi,ens made !p of
essentially the same similarly sit!ated memers.
*t is for this reason that the amendments were enacted, that is, in order to remedy
this accidental anomaly, and, therefore, treat e5!ally all those orn efore the 197.
Constit!tion and who elected Philippine citi,enship either efore or after the
e9ectivity of that Constit!tion.
The Constit!tional provision in 5!estion is, therefore c!rative in nat!re. The
enactment was meant to correct the ine5!itale and as!rd sit!ation which then
prevailed, and th!s, render those acts valid which wo!ld have een nil at the time
had it not een for the c!rative provisions. BSee =evelopment 3an$ of the
Philippines v. Co!rt of %ppeals, 9; #CA% .0/ D198(EC
There is no dis!ute th"t the res!ondent(s #other $"s " n"tur" born
Fii!in" "t the ti#e of her #"rri"'e. Cru%i" to this %"se is the issue of
$hether or not the res!ondent ee%ted or %hose to be " Fii!ino %iti)en.
1lection ecomes material eca!se #ection / of %rticle *? of the Constit!tion
accords nat!ral orn stat!s to children orn of +ilipino mothers efore 'an!ary 17,
197., if they elect citi,enship !pon reaching the age of ma<ority.
To e*!e%t the res!ondent to h"ve for#"+ or in $ritin' ee%ted %iti)enshi!
$hen he %"#e of "'e is to "s, for the unn"tur" "nd unne%ess"r+. The
re"son is obvious. He $"s "re"d+ " %iti)en. >ot only was his mother a nat!ral
orn citi,en !t his father had een nat!rali,ed when the respondent was only nine
B9C years old. He %oud not h"ve divined $hen he %"#e of "'e th"t in 1973
"nd 19-7 the Constitution $oud be "#ended to re&uire hi# to h"ve .ed
" s$orn st"te#ent in 19/9 ee%tin' %iti)enshi! ins!ite of his "re"d+
h"vin' been " %iti)en sin%e 1907. *n 19;9, election thro!gh a sworn statement
wo!ld have een an !n!s!al and !nnecessary proced!re for one who had een a
citi,en since he was nine years old.
He have <!rispr!dence that de&nes FelectionF as oth a formal and an informal
process.
*n the case of In e@ Florencio Mallare B59 #CA% 05 D1970EC, the Co!rt held that the
e2ercise of the right of s!9rage and the participation in election e2ercises constit!te
a positive act of election of Philippine citi,enship. *n the e2act prono!ncement of the
Co!rt, we held@
Esteban!s e"ercise o# t$e ri%$t o# su&ra%e '$en $e ca(e o# a%e) constitutes a
positive act o# election o# P$ilippine citi*ens$ip Bp. 5/8 emphasis s!ppliedC
The private respondent did more than merely e2ercise his right of s!9rage. )e has
estalished his life here in the Philippines.
+or those in the pec!liar sit!ation of the respondent who cannot e e2pected to
have elected citi,enship as they were already citi,ens, we apply the In e
Mallare r!le.
The respondent was orn in an o!tlying r!ral town of #amar where there are no
alien enclaves and no racial distinctions. The respondent has lived the life of a
+ilipino since irth. )is father applied for nat!rali,ation when the child was still a
small oy. )e is a Aoman Catholic. )e has wor$ed for a sensitive government
agency. )is profession re5!ires citi,enship for ta$ing the e2aminations and getting a
license. )e has participated in political e2ercises as a +ilipino and has always
considered himself a +ilipino citi,en. There is nothing in the records to show that he
does not emrace Philippine c!stoms and val!es, nothing to indicate any tinge of
alien-ness no acts to show that this co!ntry is not his nat!ral homeland. The mass
of voters of >orthern #amar are frilly aware of 4r. Ong's parentage. They sho!ld
$now him etter than any memer of this Co!rt will ever $now him. They voted y
overwhelming n!mers to have him represent them in Congress. 3eca!se of his
acts since childhood, they have considered him as a +ilipino.
The &ling of sworn statement or formal declaration is a re5!irement for those who
still have to elect citi,enship.For t$ose alrea+, Filipinos when the time to elect came
!p, there are acts of delierate choice which cannot e less inding. 1ntering a
profession open only to +ilipinos, serving in p!lic o6ce where citi,enship is a
5!ali&cation, voting d!ring election time, r!nning for p!lic o6ce, and other
categorical acts of similar nat!re are themselves formal manifestations of choice for
these persons.
%n election of Philippine citi,enship pres!pposes that the person electing is an alien.
Or his stat!s is do!tf!l eca!se he is a national of two co!ntries. There is no do!t
in this case ao!t 4r. Ong's eing a +ilipino when he t!rned twenty-one B/1C.
He repeat that any election of Philippine citi,enship on the part of the private
respondent wo!ld not only have een s!perG!o!s !t it wo!ld also have res!lted in
an as!rdity. )ow can a +ilipino citi,en elect Philippine citi,enshipI
The respondent )A1T has an interesting view as to how 4r. Ong elected citi,enship.
*t oserved that Fwhen protestee was only nine years of age, his father, 'ose Ong
Ch!an ecame a nat!rali,ed +ilipino. #ection 15 of the Aevised >at!rali,ation %ct
s5!arely applies its ene&t to him for he was then a minor residing in this co!ntry.
Concededly, it 'as t$e la' itsel# t$at $a+ alrea+, electe+ P$ilippine citi*ens$ip #or
protestee b, +eclarin% $i( as suc$.F B1mphasis s!ppliedC
The petitioners arg!e that the respondent's father was not, validly, a nat!rali,ed
citi,en eca!se of his premat!re ta$ing of the oath of citi,enship.
The Co!rt cannot go into the collateral proced!re of stripping 4r. Ong's father of his
citi,enship after his death and at this very late date <!st so we can go after the son.
The petitioners 5!estion the citi,enship of the father thro!gh a collateral approach.
This can not e done. *n o!r <!risdiction, an attac$ on a person's citi,enship may
only e done thro!gh a direct action for its n!llity. BSee J!eto v. Catolico, .1 #CA%
5/ D197(EC
To as$ the Co!rt to declare the grant of Philippine citi,enship to 'ose Ong Ch!an as
n!ll and void wo!ld r!n against the principle of d!e process. 'ose Ong Ch!an has
already een laid to rest. )ow can he e given a fair opport!nity to defend himself.
% dead man cannot spea$. To 5!ote the words of the )A1T FOng Ch!an's lips have
long een m!ted to perpet!ity y his demise and ovio!sly he co!ld not !se
eyond where his mortal remains now lie to defend himself were this matter to e
made a central iss!e in this case.F
The iss!e efore !s is not the n!lli&cation of the grant of citi,enship to 'ose Ong
Ch!an. O!r f!nction is to determine whether or not the )A1T committed a!se of
a!thority in the e2ercise of its powers. 4oreover, the respondent traces his nat!ral
orn citi,enship thro!gh his (ot$er, not thro!gh the citi,enship of his father. The
citi,enship of the father is relevant only to determine whether or not the respondent
FchoseF to e a +ilipino when he came of age. %t that time and !p to the present,
oth mother and father were +ilipinos. Aespondent Ong coul+ not $ave electe+ an,
ot$er citi*ens$ip !nless he &rst formally reno!nced Philippine citi,enship in favor of
a foreign nationality. :nli$e other persons faced with a prolem of election, there
was no foreign nationality of his father which he co!ld possily have chosen.
There is another reason why we cannot declare the )A1T as having committed
manifest grave a!se of discretion. The same iss!e of nat!ral-orn citi,enship has
already een decided y the Constit!tional Convention of 1971 and y the 3atasang
Pamansa convened y a!thority of the Constit!tion drafted y that Convention.
1mil Ong, f!ll lood rother of the respondent, was declared and accepted as a
nat!ral orn citi,en y oth odies.
%ss!ming that o!r opinion is di9erent from that of the Constit!tional Convention,
the 3atasang Pamansa, and the respondent )A1T, s!ch a di9erence co!ld only e
characteri,ed as error. There wo!ld e no asis to call the )A1T decision so
aritrary and whimsical as to amo!nt to %rave abuse o# +iscretion.
Hhat was the asis for the Constit!tional Convention's declaring 1mil Ong a nat!ral
orn citi,enI
:nder the Philippine 3ill of 19(/, inhaitants of the Philippines who were #panish
s!<ects on the 11th day of %pril 1899 and then residing in said islands and their
children orn s!se5!ent thereto were conferred the stat!s of a +ilipino citi,en.
Has the grandfather of the private respondent a #panish s!<ectI
%rticle 17 of the Civil Code of #pain en!merates those who were considered #panish
#!<ects, vi*@
%AT*C"1 17. The following are #paniards@
1. Persons orn in #panish territory.
/. Children orn of a #panish father or mother, even tho!gh they were orn o!t of
#pain.
.. +oreigners who may have otained nat!rali,ation papers.
0. T$ose 'it$out suc$ papers) '$o (a, $ave ac-uire+ +o(icile in an, to'n in t$e
Monarc$,. B1mphasis s!ppliedC
The do#i%ie of " n"tur" !erson is the !"%e of his h"bitu" residen%e. This
do#i%ie, on%e est"bished is %onsidered to %ontinue "nd $i not be
dee#ed ost unti " ne$ one is est"bished. B%rticle 5(, >CC8 %rticle 0(, Civil
Code of #pain8 K!ellig v. Aep!lic, 8. Phil. 7;8 D1909EC
%s earlier stated, Ong Te ecame a permanent resident of "aoang, #amar aro!nd
1895. Correspondingly, a certi&cate of residence was then iss!ed to him y virt!e of
his eing a resident of "aoang, #amar. BAeport of the Committee on 1lection
Protests and Credentials of the 1971 Constit!tional Convention, #eptemer 7, 197/,
p. .C
The domicile that Ong Te estalished in 1895 contin!ed !ntil %pril 11, 18998 it even
went eyond the t!rn of the 19th cent!ry. *t is also in this place were Ong Te set-!p
his !siness and ac5!ired his real property.
%s concl!ded y the Constit!tional Convention, Ong Te falls within the meaning of
s!-paragraph 0 of %rticle 17 of the Civil Code of #pain.
%ltho!gh Ong Te made rief visits to China, he, nevertheless, always ret!rned to the
Philippines. The fact that he died in China, d!ring one of his visits in said co!ntry,
was of no moment. This will not change the fact that he already had his domicile
&2ed in the Philippines and p!rs!ant to the Civil Code of #pain, he had ecome a
#panish s!<ect.
*f Ong Te ecame a #panish s!<ect y virt!e of having estalished his domicile in a
town !nder the 4onarchy of #pain, necessarily, Ong Te was also an inhaitant of the
Philippines for an inhaitant has een de&ned as one who has act!al &2ed residence
in a place8 one who has a domicile in a place. B3o!vier's "aw =ictionary, ?ol. **C
%priori, there can e no other logical concl!sion !t to ed!ce that Ong Te 5!ali&ed
as a +ilipino citi,en !nder the provisions of section 0 of the Philippine 3ill of 19(/.
The )A1T itself fo!nd this fact of asol!te verity in concl!ding that the private
respondent was a nat!ral-orn +ilipino.
The petitioners' sole gro!nd in disp!ting this fact is that doc!ment presented to
prove it were not in compliance with the est the evidence r!le. The petitioners
allege that the private respondent failed to present the original of the doc!mentary
evidence, testimonial evidence and of the transcript of the proceedings of the ody
which the aforesaid resol!tion of the 1971 Constit!tional Convention was
predicated.
On the contrary, the doc!ments presented y the private respondent fall !nder the
e2ceptions to the est evidence r!le.
*t was estalished in the proceedings efore the )A1T that the originals of the
Committee Aeport >o. 1/, the min!tes of the plenary session of 1971 Constit!tional
Convention held on >ovemer /8, 197/ cannot e fo!nd.
This was a6rmed y %tty. Aicafrente, %ssistant #ecretary of the 1971 Constit!tional
Convention8 y %tty. >olledo, =elegate to the 1971 Constit!tional Convention8 and
y %tty. %ntonio #antos, Chief "irarian of the :.P "aw Center, in their respective
testimonies given efore the )A1T to the e9ect that there is no governmental
agency which is the o6cial c!stodian of the records of the 1971 Constit!tional
Convention. BT#>, =ecemer 1/, 1988, pp. .(-.18 T#>, 'an!ary 17, 1989, pp. .0-.58
T#>, +er!ary 1, 1989, p. 008 T#>, +er!ary ;, 1989, pp. /8-/9C
The e2ec!tion of the originals was estalished y %tty. Aicafrente, who as the
%ssistant #ecretary of the 1971 Constit!tional Convention was the proper party to
testify to s!ch e2ec!tion. BT#>, =ecemer 1/, 1989, pp. 11-/0C
The inaility to prod!ce the originals efore the )A1T was also testi&ed to as
aforestated y %tty. Aicafrente, %tty. >olledo, and %tty. #antos. *n proving the
inaility to prod!ce, the law does not re5!ire the degree of proof to e of s!6cient
certainty8 it is eno!gh that it e shown that after a ona &de diligent search, the
same cannot e fo!nd. Bsee Lovernment of P.*. v. 4artine,, 00 Phil. 817 D1918EC
#ince the e2ec!tion of the doc!ment and the inaility to prod!ce were ade5!ately
estalished, the contents of the 5!estioned doc!ments can e proven y a copy
thereof or y the recollection of witnesses.
4oreover, to erase all do!ts as to the a!thenticity of the doc!mentary evidence
cited in the Committee Aeport, the former memer of the 1971 Constit!tional
Convention, %tty. >olledo, when he was presented as a witness in the hearing of the
protest against the private respondent, categorically stated that he saw the
disp!ted doc!ments presented d!ring the hearing of the election protest against
the rother of the private respondent. BT#>, +er!ary 1, 1989, pp. 8-9C
*n his conc!rring opinion, 4r. '!stice #armiento, a vice-president of the
Constit!tional Convention, states that he was presiding o6cer of the plenary
session which delierated on the report on the election protest against =elegate
1mil Ong. )e cites a long list of names of delegates present. %mong them are 4r.
Chief '!stice +ernan, and 4r. '!stice =avide, 'r. The petitioners co!ld have presented
any one of the long list of delegates to ref!te 4r. Ong's having een declared a
nat!ral-orn citi,en. They did not do so. >or did they dem!r to the contents of the
doc!ments presented y the private respondent. They merely relied on the
proced!ral o<ections respecting the admissiility of the evidence presented.
The Constit!tional Convention was the sole .u+%e of the 5!ali&cations of 1mil Ong
to e a memer of that ody. The )A1T y e2plicit mandate of the Constit!tion, is
the sole .u+%e of the 5!ali&cations of 'ose Ong, 'r. to e a memer of Congress. 3oth
odies delierated at length on the controversies over which they were sole .u+%es.
=ecisions were arrived at only after a f!ll presentation of all relevant factors which
the parties wished to present. 1ven ass!ming that we disagree with their
concl!sions, we cannot declare their acts as committed with grave a!se of
discretion. He have to $eep clear the line etween error and %rave abuse.
1o"rd of I##i'r"tion Co##issioners v. 2o C""no
The 5!estion, whether petitioners who are admittedly +ilipino citi,ens at irth
s!se5!ently ac-uire+Chinese citi,enship !nder the Chinese "aw of >ationality y
reason of recognition or a prolonged stay in China, is a &t s!<ect for the Chinese
law and the Chinese co!rt to determine, which cannot e resolved y a Philippine
co!rt witho!t encroaching on the legal system of China. +or, the settled r!le of
international law, a6rmed y the )ag!e Convention on ConGict of >ationality "aws
of %pril 1/, 19.( and y the *nternational Co!rt of '!stice, is that F3n+ &uestion "s
to $hether " !erson !ossesses the n"tion"it+ of " !"rti%u"r st"te shoud
be deter#ined in "%%ord"n%e $ith "$s of th"t st"te .F B5!oted in #alonga,
Private *nternational "aw, 1957 1d., p. 11/.C There was no necessity of deciding that
5!estion eca!se so far as concerns the petitioners' stat!s, the only 5!estion in this
proceeding is@ 4id the !etitioners lose their Phii!!ine %iti)enshi! u!on the
!erfor#"n%e of %ert"in "%ts or the h"!!enin' of %ert"in events in Chin"5 *n
deciding this 5!estion no foreign law can e applied. The petitioners are admittedly
+ilipino citi,ens at irth, and their stat!s m!st e governed y Philippine law
wherever they may e, in conformity with %rticle 15 Bformerly %rticle 9C of the Civil
Code which provides as follows@ F"aws relating to family rights and d!ties, or to
the status, conditions and legal capacity of persons are inding !pon citi,ens of the
Philippines, even tho!gh living aroad.F :nder %rticle *?, #ection /, of the Philippine
Constit!tion, FPhilippine citi,enship may e lost or reac5!ired in the manner
provided y law,F which i#!ies th"t the &uestion of $hether " Fii!ino h"s
ost his Phii!!ine %iti)enshi! sh" be deter#ined b+ no other th"n the
Phii!!ine "$.
#ection 1 of Commonwealth %ct >o. ;., as amended y Aep!lic %ct >o. 1(;,
provides th"t " Fii!ino %iti)en #"+ ose his %iti)enshi! b+ n"tur"i)"tion in
" forei'n %ountr+6 e*!ress renun%i"tion of %iti)enshi!6 subs%ribin' to "n
o"th of "e'i"n%e to su!!ort the %onstitution or "$s of " forei'n %ountr+6
renderin' servi%e to, or "%%e!tin' " %o##ission in, the "r#ed for%es of "
forei'n %ountr+6 %"n%e"tion of the %erti.%"te of n"tur"i)"tion6
de%"r"tion b+ %o#!etent "uthorit+ th"t he is " deserter of the Phii!!ine
"r#ed for%es in ti#e of $"r6 in the %"se of " $o#"n b+ #"rri"'e to "
forei'ner if, b+ virtue of "$s in for%e in her husb"nd(s %ountr+, she
"%&uires his n"tion"it+. eco%nition o# t$e petitioners b, t$eir alien #at$er is
not among the ground for losing Philippine citizenship under Philippine
law, and it cannot e said that the petitioners lost their former stat!s y reason of
s!ch recognition. %o!t the only mode of losing Philippine citi,enship which closely
ears on the petitioners is ren!nciation. 3!t even ren!nciation cannot e cited in
s!pport of the concl!sion that petition lost their Philippine citi,enship
eca!se the law requires an express renunciation $hi%h #e"ns "
renun%i"tion th"t is #"de ,no$n distin%t+ "nd e*!i%it+ "nd not eft to
inferen%e or i#!i%"tion8 a ren!nciation manifested y direct and appropriate
lang!age, as disting!ished from that which is inferred from cond!ct. BOpinion >o. ;9
of the #ecretary of '!stice, #eries of 190(.C *ndeed, as the #!preme Co!rt held
in U/S/ v/ On% Tianse, /9 Phil. ../, a case for deportation, where Ong, a nat!ral child
of a +ilipino mother and a Chinese father, orn in the Philippines, was ro!ght y his
parents to China when he was 0 years old, where he remained for 18 or 19 years,
ret!rning to the Philippines at /5 years of age, FThe fact that a minor child in those
conditions was ta$en to China and remained there for several years is not
su7%ient 'round u!on $hi%h to hod th"t he h"s %h"n'ed his n"tion"it+,
$hen, "fter re"%hin' his #"8orit+, he did not e*!ress his desire to %hoose
the n"tion"it+ of his f"ther.9 The i#!ort of the fore'oin' !ronoun%e#ent
is th"t of itsef " !rotr"%ted st"+ in " forei'n %ountr+ does not "#ount to
renun%i"tion. Moreover) $erein petitioners 'ere all (inors '$en t$e, '$ere
brou%$t to C$ina in 0112. They were witho!t legal capacity to reno!nce their stat!s.
:pon their ret!rn to the Philippines only 3eato Lo Callano had attained the age of
ma<ority, !t even as to him there co!ld not have een ren!nciation eca!se he did
not manifest y direct and appropriate lang!age that he was disclaiming Philippine
citi,enship. On the contrary, after he has attained the age of ma<ority, he applied for
registration as a Philippine citi,en and so!ght entry into this co!ntry, which are
clear indicia of his intent to contin!e his former stat!s. The foregoing shows that the
petitioners have not lost their Philippine citi,enship.
1en'son III v. Hret
The main 5!estion here is@ =id the )o!se of Aepresentatives 1lectoral Tri!nal
B)A1TC commit grave a!se of discretion in holding that, y reason of his
repatriation, Congressman Teodoro C. Cr!, had reverted to his original stat!s as a
nat!ral-orn citi,enI * respectf!lly s!mit that the answer is F>o.F *n fact, * elieve
that the )A1T was correct in its r!ling.
0/ epatriation Is ecover, o# Ori%inal Citi*ens$ip
First) repatriation is simply the recovery of ori%inal citi,enship. :nder #ection 1 of
A% /;.(, a person Fwho haDsE lost his citi,enshipF may Freac5!ireF it y F ta$ing an
oath of allegiance to the Aep!lic of the Philippines.F +ormer #enate President 'ovito
A. #alonga, a noted a!thority on the s!<ect, e2plains this method more precisely in
his treatise, Private International La'/
5
)e de&nes repatriation as Fthe re%over+ of
the original n"tion"it+ u!on fu.#ent of %ert"in %ondition.F
;
Hester
!ttresses this de&nition y descriing the ordinary or common !sage ofrepatriate,
as Fto restore or ret!rn to one's co!ntry of origin, allegiance, or citi,enship8 2 2
2.F
7
*n relation to o!r s!<ect matter, repatriation) then, means restoration o#
citi*ens$ip/ *t is not a grant of a ne' citi,enship, !t a re%over+ of one(s for#er
or ori'in" %iti)enshi!.
To Freac5!ireF simply means Fto get ac$ as one's own again.F
8
Er%o) since Cr!,,
prior to his ecoming a :# citi,en, was a nat!ral-orn +ilipino citi,en, he
Freac5!iredF the same stat!s !pon repatriation. To r!le otherwise M that Cr!,
ecame a non-nat!ral-orn citi,en M wo!ld not e consistent whit the legal and
ordinary meaning of repatriation. *t wo!ld e a$in to nat!rali,ation, which is the
ac5!isition of a new citi,enship. F>ew.F 3eca!se it is not the same as the with which
he has previo!sly een endowed.
*n any case, Fthe e"nin', in &uestions of %iti)enshi!, shoud "$"+s be in
f"vor of :its; %"i#"nt 2 2 2.F
9
%ccordingly, the same sho!ld e constr!ed in favor
of private respondent, who claims to e a nat!ral-orn citi,en.
3/ Not 4ein% Naturali*e+) espon+ent Is Natural 4orn
Secon+) !nder the present Constit!tion, private respondent sho!ld e deemed
nat!ral-orn, eca!se was not nat!rali,ed. "et me e2plain.
There are generally two classes of citi,ens@ B1C nat!ral-orn citi,ens and B/C
nat!rali,ed citi,ens.
1(
Hhile C% ;. provides that citi,enship may also e ac5!ired y
direct act of the "egislat!re, * elieve that those who do ecome citi,ens thro!gh
s!ch proced!re wo!ld properly fall !nder the second category Bnat!rali,edC.
11
N"tur"i)ed %iti)ens "re for#er "iens or forei'ners $ho h"d to under'o "
ri'id !ro%edure, in $hi%h the+ h"d to "ddu%e su7%ient eviden%e to !rove
th"t the+ !ossessed " the &u"i.%"tions "nd none of the dis&u"i.%"tions
!rovided b+ "$ in order to be%o#e Fii!ino %iti)ens. *n contrast, as stated in
the early case oa v/ Collector o# Custo(s)
1/
" n"tur"<born %iti)en is " %iti)en
9$ho h"s be%o#e su%h "t the #o#ent of his birth.9
The assailed )A1T =ecision, penned y 4r. '!stice ?icente ?. 4endo,a, e2plains
clearly who are considered nat!ral-orn +ilipino citi,ens. )e traces the concept as
&rst de&ned in %rticle *** of the 197. Constit!tion, which simply provided as follows@
9Se% =. 3 n"tur"<born %iti)en is one $ho is " %iti)en of the Phii!!ines
fro# birth $ithout h"vin' to !erfor# "n+ "%t to "%&uire or !erfe%t his
Phii!!ine %iti)enshi!.9
:nder the aove de&nition, there are two re5!isites in order that a +ilipino citi,en
may e considered Fnat!ral-ornF@ B1C one m!st e a citi,en of the Philippines from
irth, and B/C one does not have to do anything to ac5!ire or perfect one's
Philippine citi,enship.
1.
Th!s, !nder the 197. Constit!tion, e2cl!ded from the class
of Fnat!ral-orn citi,ensF were B1C those who were nat!rali,ed and B/C those orn
efore 'an!ary 17, 197., of +ilipino mothers who, !pon reaching the age of ma<ority,
elected Philippine citi,enship.
10
The present Constit!tion, however, has e2panded the scope of nat!ral-orn citi,ens
to incl!de FDtEhose who elect Philippine citi,enship in accordance with paragraph
B.C, #ection 1 hereof,F meaning those covered !nder class B/C aove. Conse5!ently,
on+ n"tur"i)ed Fii!ino %iti)ens "re not %onsidered n"tur"<born %iti)ens.
Pre#isin' therefro#, res!ondent > bein' %e"r+ "nd %on%eded+ not
n"tur"i)ed > is, therefore, " n"tur"<born %iti)en of the Phii!!ines.
10
Hith respect to repatriates, since the Constit!tion does not classify them separately,
they nat!rally reac5!ire theirori%inal classi&cation efore the loss of their Philippine
citi,enship. *n the case of Congressman Teodoro C. Cr!,, !pon his repatriation
in1990, he reac5!ired his lost citi,enship. In other $ords, he re'"ined his
ori'in" st"tus "s " n"tur"<born Fii!ino %iti)en, nothin' ess.
48u#"nt"n v. 4o#in'o
Lenerally, the right of the President to e2pel or deport aliens whose presence is
deemed inimical to the p!lic interest is as asol!te and !n5!ali&ed as the right to
prohiit and prevent their entry into the co!ntry B%nnotations, 8 %"A 1/8;C. this
right is ased on the fact that since the aliens are not part of the nation, their
"d#ission into the territor+ is " #"tter of !ure !er#ission "nd si#!e
toer"n%e $hi%h %re"tes no obi'"tion on the !"rt of the 'overn#ent to
!er#it the# to st"+ B. %m. '!r. /d. 7/C.
The interest, which an alien has in eing admitted into or allowed to contin!e to
reside in the co!ntry, is protected only so far as Congress may choose to protect it
B:nited #tates e2 rel. Nalo!dis v. #ha!hnessy 18( +. /d. 089C.
There is no "$ 'u"r"nteein' "iens #"rried to Fii!ino %iti)ens the ri'ht to
be "d#itted, #u%h ess to be 'iven !er#"nent residen%+, in the
Phii!!ines.
The fact of marriage y an alien to a citi,en does not withdraw her from the
operation of the immigration laws governing the admission and e2cl!sion of aliens
B:nited #tates e2 rel. Nna!9 v. #ha!hnessy, ..8 :# 5.7 90 ". 1d. .17, 7( #. Ct. .(9
D195(E8 "ow Hah #!ey v. 3ac$!s, //5 :# 0;( 5; ". 1d. 11;5, ./ #. Ct. 7.0 D191/E8
%nnotations, 71 %"A 1/1.C. ?"rri"'e of "n "ien $o#"n to " Fii!ino husb"nd
does not ipso facto #",e her " Fii!ino %iti)en "nd does not e*%use her
fro# her f"iure to de!"rt fro# the %ountr+ u!on the e*!ir"tion of her
e*tended st"+ here "s "n "ien B'oa5!in v. Lalang, .. #CA% .;/ D197(EC.
:nder #ection 9 of the *mmigration %ct of 190(, it is not mandatory for the C*= to
admit any alien who applies for a visitor's visa. Once admitted into the co!ntry, the
alien has no right to an inde&nite stay. :nder #ection 1. of the law, an alien allowed
to stay temporarily may apply for a change of stat!s and Fmay e admittedF as a
permanent resident. 3#on' those %onsidered &u"i.ed to "!!+ for
!er#"nent residen%+ if the $ife or husb"nd of " Phii!!ine %iti)en
B*mmigration %ct of 190(, #ec. 1.DaEC. The entry of aliens into the co!ntry and their
admission as immigrants is not " #"tter of ri'ht, even if the+ "re e'"+
#"rried to Fii!ino %iti)ens.
?er%"do v. ?"n)"no
***. P1T*T*O>1A'# 1"1CT*O> O+ P)*"*PP*>1 C*T*K1>#)*P
The record shows that private respondent was orn in #an +rancisco, California on
#eptemer 0, 1955, of +ilipino parents. #ince the Philippines adheres to the principle
of jus sanguinis, while the :nited #tates follows the doctrine of .us soli, the parties
agree that, at irth at least, he was a national oth of the Philippines and of the
:nited #tates. )owever, the CO41"1C en banc held that, y participating in
Philippine elections in 199/, 1995, and 1998, private respondent Fe9ectively
reno!nced his :.#. citi,enship !nder %merican law,F so that now he is solely a
Philippine national.
Petitioner challenges this r!ling. )e arg!es that merely ta$ing part in Philippine
elections is not s!6cient evidence of ren!nciation and that, in any event, as the
alleged ren!nciation was made when private respondent was already .7 years old,
it was ine9ective as it sho!ld have een made when he reached the age of ma<ority.
*n holding that y voting in Philippine elections private respondent reno!nced his
%merican citi,enship, the CO41"1C m!st have in mind O.09 of the *mmigration and
>ationality %ct of the :nited #tates, which provided that F% person who is a national
of the :nited #tates, whether y irth or nat!rali,ation, shall lose his nationality
y@ . . . BeC ?oting in a political election in a foreign state or participating in an
election or pleiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory.F To e s!re
this provision was declared un%onstitution" y the :.#. #!preme Co!rt in A#ro,i(
v. us5
1/
as eyond the power given to the :.#. Congress to reg!late foreign
relations. )owever, y &ling a certi&cate of candidacy when he ran for his present
post, private respondent ee%ted Phii!!ine %iti)enshi! "nd in e@e%t
renoun%ed his 3#eri%"n %iti)enshi!. Private respondent's certi&cate of
candidacy, &led on 4arch /7, 1998, contained the following statements made !nder
oath@
;. * %4 % +*"*P*>O C*T*K1> B#T%T1 *+ F>%T:A%"-3OA>F OA F>%T:A%"*K1=FC
>%T:A%"-3OA>
222 222 222
1(. * %4 % A1L*#T1A1= ?OT1A O+ PA1C*>CT >O. 707-%, 3%A%>L%P #%> "OA1>KO,
C*TPQ4:>*C*P%"*TP O+ 4%N%T*, PAO?*>C1 O+ >CA.
11. * %4 >OT % P1A4%>1>T A1#*=1>T O+, OA *44*LA%>T TO, % +OA1*L> CO:>TAP.
1/. * %4 1"*L*3"1 +OA T)1 O++*C1 * #11N TO 31 1"1CT1=. * H*"" #:PPOAT %>=
=1+1>= T)1 CO>#T*T:T*O> O+ T)1 P)*"*PP*>1# %>= H*"" 4%*>T%*> TA:1 +%*T)
%>= %""1L*%>C1 T)1A1TO8 T)%T * H*"" O31P T)1 "%H#, "1L%" OA=1A# %>=
=1CA11# PAO4:"L%T1= 3P T)1 =:"P CO>#T*T:T1= %:T)OA*T*1# O+ T)1
A1P:3"*C O+ T)1 P)*"*PP*>1#8 %>= T)%T * *4PO#1 T)*# O3"*L%T*O> :PO> 4P#1"+
?O":>T%A*"P, H*T)O:T 41>T%" A1#1A?%T*O> OA P:APO#1 O+ 1?%#*O>. * )1A13P
C1AT*+P T)%T T)1 +%CT# #T%T1= )1A1*> %A1 TA:1 %>= COAA1CT O+ 4P OH>
P1A#O>%" N>OH"1=L1.
The .in' of su%h %erti.%"te of %"ndid"%+ su7%ed to renoun%e his
3#eri%"n %iti)enshi!, e@e%tive+ re#ovin' "n+ dis&u"i.%"tion he #i'ht
h"ve "s " du" %iti)en. Th!s, in Frival+o v. COMELEC it was held@
17
*t is not disp!ted that on 'an!ary /(, 198. +rivaldo ecame an %merican. Ho!ld the
retroactivity of his repatriation not e9ectively give him d!al citi,enship, which !nder
#ec. 0( of the "ocal Lovernment Code wo!ld dis5!alify him Ffrom r!nning for any
elective local positionIF He answer this 5!estion in the negative, as there is cogent
reason to hold that +rivaldo was really #T%T1"1## at the time he too$ said oath of
allegiance and even efore that, when he ran for governor in 1988. *n his Comment,
+rivaldo wrote that he Fhad long reno!nced and had long aandoned his %merican
citi,enship R long efore 4ay 8, 1995. %t est, +rivaldo was stateless in the interim
R when he aandoned and reno!nced his :# citi,enship !t efore he was
repatriated to his +ilipino citi,enship.F
On this point, we 5!ote from the assailed Aesol!tion dated =ecemer 19, 1995@
3y the laws of the :nited #tates, petitioner +rivaldo lost his %merican citi,enship
when he too$ his oath of allegiance to the Philippine Lovernment when he ran for
Lovernor in 1988, in 199/, and in 1995. Ever+ %erti.%"te of %"ndid"%+ %ont"ins
"n o"th of "e'i"n%e to the Phii!!ine 2overn#ent.
These fact!al &ndings that +rivaldo has lost his foreign nationality long efore the
elections of 1995 have not een e9ectively re!tted y "ee. +!rthermore, it is asic
that s!ch &ndings of the Commission are concl!sive !pon this Co!rt, asent any
showing of capricio!sness or aritrariness or a!se.
There is, therefore, no merit in petitioner's contention that the oath of allegiance
contained in private respondent's certi&cate of candidacy is ins!6cient to constit!te
ren!nciation that, to e e9ective, s!ch ren!nciation sho!ld have een made !pon
private respondent reaching the age of ma<ority since no law re5!ires the election of
Philippine citi,enship to e made !pon ma<ority age.
+inally, m!ch is made of the fact that private respondent admitted that he is
registered as an %merican citi,en in the 3!rea! of *mmigration and =eportation and
that he holds an %merican passport which he !sed in his last travel to the :nited
#tates on %pril //, 1997. There is no merit in this. :ntil the &ling of his certi&cate of
candidacy on 4arch /1, 1998, he had d!al citi,enship. The acts attri!ted to him
can e considered simply as the assertion of his %merican nationality efore the
termination of his %merican citi,enship. Hhat this Co!rt said in A*nar
v.COMELEC
1-
applies (utatis (un+atis to private respondent in the case at ar@
. . . Considering the fact that admittedly OsmeSa was oth a +ilipino and an
%merican, the mere fact that he has a Certi&cate staring he is an %merican does not
mean that he is not still a +ilipino. . . . DTEhe Certi&cation that he is an %merican
does not mean that he is not still a +ilipino, possessed as he is, of oth nationalities
or citi,enships. *ndeed, there is no e2press ren!nciation here of Philippine
citi,enship8 tr!th to tell, there is even no implied ren!nciation of said citi,enship.
Hhen Ae %onsider th"t the renun%i"tion needed to ose Phii!!ine
%iti)enshi! #ust be 9e*!ress,9 it stands to reason that there can e no s!ch loss
of Philippine citi,enship when there is no ren!nciation, either Fe2pressF or Fimplied.F
To recapit!late, y declaring in his certi&cate of candidacy that he is a +ilipino
citi,en8 that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another co!ntry8 that he
will defend and s!pport the Constit!tion of the Philippines and ear tr!e faith and
allegiance thereto and that he does so witho!t mental reservation, private
respondent has, as far as the laws of this co!ntry are concerned, e@e%tive+
re!udi"ted his 3#eri%"n %iti)enshi! "nd "n+thin' $hi%h he #"+ h"ve s"id
before "s " du" %iti)en.
Bn the other h"nd, !riv"te res!ondent(s o"th of "e'i"n%e to the
Phii!!ines, $hen %onsidered $ith the f"%t th"t he h"s s!ent his +outh "nd
"duthood, re%eived his edu%"tion, !r"%ti%ed his !rofession "s "n "rtist,
"nd t",en !"rt in !"st ee%tions in this %ountr+, e"ves no doubt of his
ee%tion of Phii!!ine %iti)enshi!.
)is declarations will e ta$en !pon the faith that he will f!l&ll his !nderta$ing made
!nder oath. #ho!ld he etray that tr!st, there are eno!gh sanctions for declaring
the loss of his Philippine citi,enship thro!gh e2patriation in appropriate proceedings.
*n 6u v. 7e#ensor8Santia%o,
19
we s!stained the denial of entry into the co!ntry of
petitioner on the gro!nd that, after ta$ing his oath as a nat!rali,ed citi,en, he
applied for the renewal of his Port!g!ese passport and declared in commercial
doc!ments e2ec!ted aroad that he was a Port!g!ese national. % similar sanction
can e ta$en against any one who, in electing Philippine citi,enship, reno!nces his
foreign nationality, !t s!se5!ently does some act constit!ting ren!nciation of his
Philippine citi,enship.
C"%ot v. 4"
This Co!rt &nds that petitioner sho!ld indeed e dis5!ali&ed.
Contrary to the assertions made y petitioner, his oath of allegiance to the Aep!lic
of the Philippines made efore the "os %ngeles PCL and his Certi&cate of Candidacy
do not s!stantially comply with the re5!irement of a personal and sworn
ren!nciation of foreign citi,enship eca!se these are distinct re5!irements to e
complied with for di9erent p!rposes.
Se%tion 3 of De!ubi% 3%t No. 9EE0 re5!ires that n"tur"<born %iti)ens of the
Philippines, who are already nat!rali,ed citi,ens of a foreign co!ntry, m!st ta$e the
following oath of allegiance to the Aep!lic of the Philippines to re"%&uire or
ret"in their Phii!!ine %iti)enshi!@
#1C. .. etention o# P$ilippine Citi*ens$ip.M%ny provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, nat!ral-orn citi,ens of the Philippines who have lost their
Philippine citi,enship y reason of their nat!rali,ation as citi,ens of a foreign
co!ntry are herey deemed to have reac5!ired Philippine citi,enship !pon ta$ing
the following o"th of "e'i"n%e to the De!ubi%@
F* TTTTTTTTTT solemnly swear Bor a6rmC that * will s!pport and defend the
Constit!tion of the Aep!lic of the Philippines and oey the laws and legal orders
prom!lgated y the d!ly constit!ted a!thorities of the Philippines8 and * herey
declare that * recogni,e and accept the s!preme a!thority of the Philippines and will
maintain tr!e faith and allegiance thereto8 and that * impose this oligation !pon
myself vol!ntarily, witho!t mental reservation or p!rpose of evasion.F
>at!ral-orn citi,ens of the Philippines who, after the e9ectivity of this %ct, be%o#e
%iti)ens of " forei'n %ountr+ sh" ret"in their Phii!!ine %iti)enshi! u!on
t",in' the "fores"id o"th.
3y the oath dictated in the afore-5!oted provision, the +ilipino swears allegiance to
the Philippines, !t there is nothin' therein on his renun%i"tion of forei'n
%iti)enshi!. Precisely, a sit!ation might arise !nder Aep!lic %ct >o. 9//5 wherein
said +ilipino has d!al citi,enship y also reac5!iring or retaining his Philippine
citi,enship, despite his foreign citi,enship.
The afore-5!oted oath of allegiance is s!stantially similar to the one contained in
the Certi.%"te of C"ndid"%+ which m!st e e2ec!ted y "n+ !erson who
wishes to run for !ubi% o7%e in Philippine elections. #!ch an oath reads@
* am eligile for the o6ce * see$ to e elected. * will s!pport and defend the
Constit!tion of the Philippines and will maintain tr!e faith and allegiance thereto8
that * will oey the laws, legal orders and decrees prom!lgated y the d!ly
constit!ted a!thorities of the Aep!lic of the Philippines8 and that * impose this
oligation !pon myself vol!ntarily, witho!t mental reservation or p!rpose of
evasion. * herey certify that the facts stated herein are tr!e and correct of my own
personal $nowledge.
>ow, #ection 5B/C of Aep!lic %ct >o. 9//5 speci&cally provides that@
#ection 5. Civil and Political Aights and "iailities.MThose who retain or reac5!ire
Philippine citi,enship !nder this %ct shall en<oy f!ll civil and political rights and e
s!<ect to all attendant liailities and responsiilities !nder e2isting laws of the
Philippines and the following conditions@
2 2 2 2
B/C Those see$ing elective p!lic o6ce in the Philippines shall meet the
5!ali&cations for holding s!ch p!lic o6ce as re5!ired y the Constit!tion and
e2isting laws and, at the time of the &ling of the certi&cate of candidacy, #",e "
!erson" "nd s$orn renun%i"tion of "n+ "nd " forei'n %iti)enshi! before
"n+ !ubi% o7%er "uthori)ed to "d#inister "n o"th.
The law categorically re5!ires persons see$ing elective p!lic o6ce, who either
retained their Philippine citi,enship or those who reac5!ired it, to ma$e a personal
and sworn ren!nciation of any and all foreign citi,enship efore a p!lic o6cer
a!thori,ed to administer an oath sim!ltaneo!s with or efore the &ling of the
certi&cate of candidacy.
/(
)ence, Se%tion 0FEG of De!ubi% 3%t No. 9EE0 compels n"tur"<born Fii!inos,
$ho h"ve been n"tur"i)ed "s %iti)ens of " forei'n %ountr+, but $ho
re"%&uired or ret"ined their Phii!!ine %iti)enshi! F1G to t",e the o"th of
"e'i"n%e under Se%tion 3 of De!ubi% 3%t No. 9EE0, "nd FEG for those
see,in' ee%tive !ubi% o7%es in the Phii!!ines, to additionally e2ec!te
a !erson" "nd s$orn renun%i"tion of any and all foreign citi,enship efore an
a!thori,ed p!lic o6cer prior or sim!ltaneo!s to the &ling of their certi&cates of
candidacy, to &u"if+ "s %"ndid"tes in Phii!!ine ee%tions.
Clearly #ection 5B/C of Aep!lic %ct >o. 9//5 Bon the ma$ing of a personal and
sworn ren!nciation of any and all foreign citi,enshipC re&uires of the Fii!inos
"v"iin' the#seves of the bene.ts under the s"id 3%t to "%%o#!ish "n
undert",in' other th"n th"t $hi%h the+ h"ve !resu#"b+ %o#!ied $ith
under Se%tion 3 thereof Fo"th of "e'i"n%e to the De!ubi% of the
Phii!!inesC. This is made clear in the disc!ssion of the 3icameral Conference
Committee on =isagreeing Provisions of )o!se 3ill >o. 07/( and #enate 3ill >o.
/1.( held on 18 %!g!st /((. Bprec!rsors of Aep!lic %ct >o. 9//5C, where the )on.
Chairman +ran$lin =rilon and )on. Aepresentative %rth!r =efensor e2plained to
)on. Aepresentative 12e5!iel 'avier that the o"th of "e'i"n%e is di@erent fro#
the renun%i"tion of forei'n %iti)enshi!H
C)%*A4%> =A*"O>. O$ay. #o, >o. /. FThose see$ing elective p!lic o6ce in the
Philippines shall meet the 5!ali&cations for holding s!ch p!lic o6ce as re5!ired y
the Constit!tion and e2isting laws and, at the time of the &ling of the certi&cate of
candidacy, #",e " !erson" "nd s$orn renun%i"tion of "n+ "nd " forei'n
%iti)enshi! before "n+ !ubi% o7%er "uthori)ed to "d#inister "n o"th.F *
thin$ itUs very good, haI >o prolemI
A1P. '%?*1A. V I thin, itIs "re"d+ %overed b+ the o"th.
C)%*A4%> =A*"O>. Aeno!ncing foreign citi,enship.
A1P. '%?*1A. 3hJ but he h"s t",en his o"th "re"d+.
C)%*A4%> =A*"O>. NoJno, renoun%in' forei'n %iti)enshi!.
2 2 2 2
C)%*A4%> =A*"O>. Can * go ac$ to >o. /. HhatUs yo!r prolem, 3oyI Those
see,in' ee%tive o7%e in the Phii!!ines.
A1P. '%?*1A. They are trying to ma$e him reno!nce his citi,enship thin$ing that
anoV
C)%*A4%> =A*"O>. )is %merican citi,enship.
A1P. '%?*1A. To disco!rage him from r!nningI
C)%*A4%> =A*"O>. >o.
A1P. %.=. =1+1>#OA. >o. Ahen he runs he $i on+ h"ve one %iti)enshi!.
Ahen he runs for o7%e, he $i h"ve on+ one. B1mphasis o!rs.C
There is little do!t, therefore, that the intent of the e'is"tors $"s not on+
for Fii!inos re"%&uirin' or ret"inin' their Phii!!ine %iti)enshi! under
De!ubi% 3%t No. 9EE0 to t",e their o"th of "e'i"n%e to the De!ubi% of
the Phii!!ines, but "so to e*!i%it+ renoun%e their forei'n %iti)enshi! if
the+ $ish to run for ee%tive !osts in the Phii!!ines. To 5!alify as a
candidate in Philippine elections, +ilipinos m!st only have one citi,enship, namely,
Philippine citi,enship.
3y the same to$en, the oath of allegiance contained in the Certi&cate of Candidacy,
which is s!stantially similar to the one contained in #ection . of Aep!lic %ct >o.
9//5, does not %onstitute the !erson" "nd s$orn renun%i"tion sou'ht
under Se%tion 0FEG of De!ubi% 3%t No. 9EE0. It bears to emphasize that
the said oath of allegiance is a general requirement for all those who wish
to run as candidates in Philippine elections; while the renunciation of
foreign citizenship is an additional requisite only for those who have
retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act o! "##$
and who see% elective public posts& considering their special circumstance
of having more than one citizenship!
Sobe8en"<Condon v. Co#ee%
:nder the provisions of the aforementioned law, the petitioner has validly re-
ac5!ired her +ilipino citi,enship when she too$ an Oath of %llegiance to the Aep!lic
of the Philippines on =ecemer 5, /((5. %t that point, she held d!al citi,enship, i.e.,
%!stralian and Philippine.
On #eptemer 18, /((;, or a year efore she initially so!ght elective p!lic o6ce,
she &led a ren!nciation of %!stralian citi,enship in Canerra, %!stralia. %dmittedly,
however, the same was not !nder oath contrary to the e2act mandate of #ection
5B/C that the ren!nciation of foreign citi,enship m!st e sworn efore an o6cer
a!thori,ed to administer oath.
To oviate the fatal conse5!ence of her in!tile ren!nciation, the petitioner pleads
the Co!rt to interpret the Fsworn ren!nciation of any and all foreign citi,enshipF in
#ection 5B/C to e a mere pro forma re5!irement in conformity with the intent of the
"egislat!re. #he anchors her s!mission on the statement made y Aepresentative
'avier d!ring the Goor delierations on ).3. >o. 07/(, the prec!rsor of A.%. >o.
9//5.
%t the o!tset, it ears stressing that the Co!rtUs d!ty to interpret the law according
to its tr!e intent is e2ercised only when the law is amig!o!s or of do!tf!l
meaning. The &rst and f!ndamental d!ty of the Co!rt is to apply the law. 3s su%h,
$hen the "$ is %e"r "nd free fro# "n+ doubt, there is no o%%"sion for
%onstru%tion or inter!ret"tion8 there is on+ roo# for "!!i%"tion.
19
#ection
5B/C of A.%. >o. 9//5 is one s!ch instance.
%mig!ity is a condition of admitting two or more meanings, of eing !nderstood in
more than one way, or of referring to two or more things at the same time. +or a
stat!te to e considered amig!o!s, it m!st admit of two or more possile
meanings.
/(
The lang!age of #ection 5B/C is free fro# "n+ "#bi'uit+. *n "ope, v.
CO41"1C,
/1
we declared its categorical and single meaning@ a +ilipino %merican or
any d!al citi,en cannot r!n for any elective p!lic position in the Philippines uness
he or she !erson"+ s$e"rs to " renun%i"tion of " forei'n %iti)enshi! "t
the ti#e of .in' the %erti.%"te of %"ndid"%+. He also e2po!nded on the form
of the ren!nciation and held that to e valid, the renun%i"tion #ust be
%ont"ined in "n "7d"vit du+ e*e%uted before "n o7%er of the "$ $ho is
"uthori)ed to "d#inister "n o"th st"tin' in %e"r "nd une&uivo%" ter#s
th"t "7"nt is renoun%in' " forei'n %iti)enshi!.
The same meaning was emphasi,ed in 'acot v. =al,
//
when we held that +ilipinos re-
ac5!iring or retaining their Philippine citi,enship !nder A.%. >o. 9//5 m!st
e*!i%it+ renoun%e their forei'n %iti)enshi! if the+ $ish to run for ee%tive
!osts in the Phii!!ines.
The Co!rt has admitted certain e2ceptions to the aove r!les and held that the
e2istence of a foreign law may also e estalished thro!gh@ B1C a testimony !nder
oath of an e2pert witness s!ch as an attorney-at-law in the co!ntry where the
foreign law operates wherein he 5!otes veratim a section of the law and states
that the same was in force at the time material to the facts at hand8 and B/C
li$ewise, in several nat!rali,ation cases, it was held y the Co!rt that evidence of
the law of a foreign co!ntry on reciprocity regarding the ac5!isition of citi,enship,
altho!gh not meeting the prescried r!le of practice, may e allowed and !sed as
asis for favorale action, if, in the light of all the circ!mstances, the Co!rt is
Fsatis&ed of the a!thenticity of the written proof o9ered.F Thus, in " nu#ber of
de%isions, #ere "uthenti%"tion of the Chinese N"tur"i)"tion K"$ b+ the
Chinese Consu"te 2ener" of ?"ni" $"s hed to be " %o#!etent !roof of
th"t "$.
3L
The petitioner failed to prove the %!stralian Citi,enship %ct of 1908 thro!gh any of
the aove methods. %s !niformly oserved y the ATC and CO41"1C, the petitioner
failed to show proof of the e2istence of the law d!ring trial. 3so, the etter issued
b+ the 3ustr"i"n 'overn#ent sho$in' th"t !etitioner "re"d+ renoun%ed
her 3ustr"i"n %iti)enshi! $"s un"uthenti%"ted hence, the co!rts a 5!o acted
8udi%ious+ in disre'"rdin' the s"#e.
He are o!nd to arrive at a similar concl!sion even if we were to admit as
competent evidence the said letter in view of the photocopy of a Certi&cate of
%!thentication iss!ed y Cons!lar #ection of the Philippine 1massy in Canerra,
%!stralia attached to the petitionerUs motion for reconsideration.
?"&uiin' v. Co#ee%
'he use of foreign passport after renouncing one(s foreign citizenship is a
positive and voluntary act of representation as to one(s nationality and
citizenship; it does not divest )ilipino citizenship regained by repatriation
but it recants the *ath of Renunciation required to qualify one to run for
an elective position!
#ection 5B/C of The Citi,enship Aetention and Ae-ac5!isition %ct of /((. provides@
Those who retain or re-ac5!ire Philippine citi,enship !nder this %ct shall en<oy f!ll
civil and political rights and e s!<ect to all attendant liailities and responsiilities
!nder e2isting laws of the Philippines and the following conditions@
2 2 2 2
B/CThose see$ing elective p!lic in the Philippines shall meet the 5!ali&cation for
holding s!ch p!lic o6ce as re5!ired y the Constit!tion and e2isting laws and, "t
the ti#e of the .in' of the %erti.%"te of %"ndid"%+, #",e " !erson" "nd
s$orn renun%i"tion of "n+ "nd " forei'n before "n+ !ubi% o7%er
"uthori)ed to "d#inister "n o"th.
2 2 2
.1
Aommel %rnado too$ all the necessary steps to 5!alify to r!n for a p!lic o6ce. )e
too$ the Oath of %llegiance and reno!nced his foreign citi,enship. There is no
5!estion that after performing these twin re5!irements re5!ired !nder #ection 5B/C
of D.3. No. 9EE0 or the Citi,enship Aetention and Ae-ac5!isition %ct of /((., he
be%"#e ei'ibe to run for !ubi% o7%e.
*ndeed, %rnado too$ the Oath of %llegiance not <!st only once !t twice@ &rst, on 1(
'!ly /((8 when he applied for repatriation efore the Cons!late Leneral of the
Philippines in #an +rancisco, :#%, and again on (. %pril /((9 sim!ltaneo!s with the
e2ec!tion of his %6davit of Aen!nciation. 3y ta$ing the Oath of %llegiance to the
Aep!lic, %rnado re-ac5!ired his Philippine citi,enship. %t the time, however, he
li$ewise possessed %merican citi,enship. 3rn"do h"d therefore be%o#e " du"
%iti)en.
%fter reac5!iring his Philippine citi,enship, %rnado reno!nced his %merican
citi,enship y e2ec!ting an %6davit of Aen!nciation, thus %o#!etin' the
re&uire#ents for ei'ibiit+ to run for !ubi% o7%e.
3y reno!ncing his foreign citi,enship, he was deemed to e solely a +ilipino citi,en,
regardless of the e9ect of s!ch ren!nciation !nder the laws of the foreign co!ntry.
./
Ho$ever, this e'" !resu#!tion does not o!er"te !er#"nent+ "nd is
o!en to "tt"%, $hen, "fter renoun%in' the forei'n %iti)enshi!, the %iti)en
!erfor#s !ositive "%ts sho$in' his %ontinued !ossession of " forei'n
%iti)enshi!.
33
%rnado himself s!<ected the iss!e of his citi,enship to attac$ when, after
reno!ncing his foreign citi,enship, he contin!ed to !se his :# passport to travel in
and o!t of the co!ntry efore &ling his certi&cate of candidacy on .( >ovemer
/((9. The pivotal 5!estion to determine is whether he was solely and e2cl!sively a
+ilipino citi,en at the time he &led his certi&cate of candidacy, therey rendering
him eligile to r!n for p!lic o6ce.
3etween (. %pril /((9, the date he reno!nced his foreign citi,enship, and .(
>ovemer /((9, the date he &led his COC, he !sed his :# passport fo!r times,
actions that r!n co!nter to the a6davit of ren!nciation he had earlier e2ec!ted. 1+
usin' his forei'n !"ss!ort, 3rn"do !ositive+ "nd vount"ri+ re!resented
hi#sef "s "n 3#eri%"n, in e@e%t de%"rin' before i##i'r"tion "uthorities
of both %ountries th"t he is "n 3#eri%"n %iti)en, $ith " "ttend"nt ri'hts
"nd !rivie'es 'r"nted b+ the United St"tes of 3#eri%".
The ren!nciation of foreign citi,enship is not " hoo$ o"th th"t %"n si#!+ be
!rofessed "t "n+ ti#e, on+ to be vio"ted the ne*t d"+. It re&uires "n
"bsoute "nd !er!etu" renun%i"tion of the forei'n %iti)enshi! "nd " fu
divest#ent of " %ivi "nd !oiti%" ri'hts 'r"nted b+ the forei'n %ountr+
$hi%h 'r"nted the %iti)enshi!.
3esides, %rnadoUs s!se5!ent !se of his Philippine passport does not correct the
fact that after he reno!nced his foreign citi,enship and prior to &ling his certi&cate
of candidacy, he !sed his :# passport. *n the same way that the !se of his foreign
passport does not !ndo his Oath of Aen!nciation, his s!se5!ent !se of his
Philippine passport does not !ndo his earlier !se of his :# passport.
Citi,enship is not a matter of convenience. *t is a adge of identity that comes with
attendant civil and political rights accorded y the state to its citi,ens. *t li$ewise
demands the concomitant d!ty to maintain allegiance to oneUs Gag and co!ntry.
Hhile those who ac5!ire d!al citi,enship y choice are a9orded the right of
s!9rage, those who see$ election or appointment to p!lic o6ce are re5!ired to
reno!nce their foreign citi,enship to e deserving of the p!lic tr!st. Hodin'
!ubi% o7%e de#"nds fu "nd undivided "e'i"n%e to the De!ubi% "nd to
no other.
He therefore hold that %rnado, b+ usin' his US !"ss!ort "fter renoun%in' his
3#eri%"n %iti)enshi!, h"s re%"nted the s"#e B"th of Denun%i"tion he
too,. #ection 0(BdC of the "ocal Lovernment Code applies to his sit!ation. He is
dis&u"i.ed not on+ fro# hodin' the !ubi% o7%e but even fro#
be%o#in' " %"ndid"te in the ?"+ EL1L ee%tions.
4B?ICIKE
?"r%os Do#u"de) v. Co#ee%
*n s!pport of its asseveration that petitioner's domicile co!ld not possily e in the
+irst =istrict of "eyte, the #econd =ivision of the CO41"1C, in its assailed Aesol!tion
of %pril /0,1995 maintains that Fe2cept for the time when BpetitionerC st!died and
wor$ed for some years after grad!ation in Tacloan City, she contin!o!sly lived in
4anila.F The Aesol!tion additionally cites certain facts as indicative of the fact that
petitioner's domicile o!ght to e any place where she lived in the last few decades
e2cept Tacloan, "eyte. +irst, according to the Aesol!tion, petitioner, in 1959,
resided in #an '!an, 4etro 4anila where she was also registered voter. Then, in
19;5, following the election of her h!sand to the Philippine presidency, she lived in
#an 4ig!el, 4anila where she as a voter. *n 1978 and thereafter, she served as a
memer of the 3atasang Pamansa and Lovernor of 4etro 4anila. F#he co!ld not,
have served these positions if she had not een a resident of 4etro 4anila,F the
CO41"1C stressed. )ere is where the conf!sion lies.
He have stated, many times in the past, that an individ!al does not ose his
do#i%ie even if he h"s ived "nd #"int"ined residen%es in di@erent
!"%es. Desiden%e, it ears repeating, implies a fact!al relationship to a given
place for vario!s p!rposes. The "bsen%e fro# e'" residen%e or do#i%ie to
!ursue " !rofession, to stud+ or to do other thin's of " te#!or"r+ or se#i<
!er#"nent n"ture does not %onstitute oss of residen%e. Th!s, the assertion
y the CO41"1C that Fshe co!ld not have een a resident of Tacloan City since
childhood !p to the time she &led her certi&cate of candidacy eca!se she ecame
a resident of many placesF Gies in the face of settled <!rispr!dence in which this
Co!rt caref!lly made distinctions etween Bact!alC residence and domicile for
election law p!rposes.
+rom the foregoing, it can e concl!ded that in its aove-cited statements
s!pporting its proposition that petitioner was ineligile to r!n for the position of
Aepresentative of the +irst =istrict of "eyte, the CO41"1C was ovio!sly referring to
petitioner's vario!s places of Bact!alC residence, not her domicile. *n doing so, it not
only ignored settled <!rispr!dence on residence in election law and the delierations
of the constit!tional commission !t also the provisions of the Omni!s 1lection
Code B3.P. 881C.
30
Hhat is !ndeniale, however, are the following set of facts which estalish the fact
of petitioner's domicile, which we lift veratim from the CO41"1C's #econd
=ivision's assailed Aesol!tion@
3/
*n or ao!t 19.8 when respondent was a little over 8 years old, she estalished her
domicile in Tacloan, "eyte BTacloan CityC. #he st!died in the )oly *nfant %cademy
in Tacloan from 19.8 to 1909 when she grad!ated from high school. #he p!rs!ed
her college st!dies in #t. Pa!l's College, now =ivine Hord :niversity in Tacloan,
where she earned her degree in 1d!cation. Thereafter, she ta!ght in the "eyte
Chinese #chool, still in Tacloan City. *n 195/ she went to 4anila to wor$ with her
co!sin, the late spea$er =aniel K. Aom!alde, in his o6ce in the )o!se of
Aepresentatives. *n 1950, she married e2-President +erdinand 1. 4arcos when he
was still a congressman of *locos >orte and registered there as a voter. Hhen her
h!sand was elected #enator of the Aep!lic in 1959, she and her h!sand lived
together in #an '!an, Ai,al where she registered as a voter. *n 19;5, when her
h!sand was elected President of the Aep!lic of the Philippines, she lived with him
in 4alacanang Palace and registered as a voter in #an 4ig!el, 4anila.
D*En +er!ary 198; Bshe claimed thatC she and her family were ad!cted and
$idnapped to )onol!l!, )awaii. *n >ovemer 1991, she came home to 4anila. *n
199/, respondent ran for election as President of the Philippines and &led her
Certi&cate of Candidacy wherein she indicated that she is a resident and registered
voter of #an '!an, 4etro 4anila.
%pplying the principles disc!ssed to the facts fo!nd y CO41"1C, what is
inescapale is that petitioner held v"rious residen%es for di9erent p!rposes
d!ring the last fo!r decades. None of these !ur!oses une&uivo%"+ !oint to
"n intention to "b"ndon her do#i%ie of ori'in in T"%ob"n, Ke+te. 4oreover,
while petitioner was orn in 4anila, as a minor she nat!rally followed the domicile
of her parents. #he grew !p in Tacloan, reached her ad!lthood there and
event!ally estalished residence in di9erent parts of the co!ntry for vario!s
reasons. 1ven d!ring her h!sand's presidency, at the height of the 4arcos
Aegime's powers, petitioner $ept her close ties to her domicile of origin y
estalishing residences in Tacloan, celerating her irthdays and other important
personal milestones in her home province, instit!ting well-p!lici,ed pro<ects for the
ene&t of her province and hometown, and estalishing a political power ase
where her silings and close relatives held positions of power either thro!gh the
allot or y appointment, always with either her inG!ence or consent. These well-
p!lici,ed ties to her domicile of origin are part of the history and lore of the 5!arter
cent!ry of 4arcos power in o!r co!ntry. 1ither they were entirely ignored in the
CO41"1C'# Aesol!tions, or the ma<ority of the CO41"1C did not $now what the rest
of the co!ntry always $new@ the fact of petitioner's domicile in Tacloan, "eyte.
Private respondent in his Comment, contends that Tacloan was not petitioner's
domicile of origin eca!se she did not live there !ntil she was eight years old. )e
avers that after leaving the place in 195/, she Faandoned her residency BsicC
therein for many years and . . . Bco!ld notC re-estalish her domicile in said place y
merely e2pressing her intention to live there again.F He do not agree.
+irst, #inor foo$s the do#i%ie of his !"rents. %s domicile, once ac5!ired is
retained !ntil a new one is gained, it follows that in spite of the fact of petitioner's
eing orn in 4anila, T"%ob"n, Ke+te $"s her do#i%ie of ori'in b+ o!er"tion
of "$. This domicile was not estalished only when her father ro!ght his family
ac$ to "eyte contrary to private respondent's averments.
Se%ond, do#i%ie of ori'in is not e"si+ ost. To su%%essfu+ e@e%t " %h"n'e
of do#i%ie, one #ust de#onstr"teH
37
1. 3n "%tu" re#ov" or "n "%tu" %h"n'e of do#i%ie6
E. 3 bona +de intention of "b"ndonin' the for#er !"%e of residen%e "nd
est"bishin' " ne$ one6 "nd
3. 3%ts $hi%h %orres!ond $ith the !ur!ose.
In the "bsen%e of %e"r "nd !ositive !roof b"sed on these %riteri", the
residen%e of ori'in shoud be dee#ed to %ontinue. Only with evidence
showing conc!rrence of all three re5!irements can the pres!mption of contin!ity or
residence e re!tted, for " %h"n'e of residen%e re&uires "n "%tu" "nd
deiber"te "b"ndon#ent, "nd one %"nnot h"ve t$o e'" residen%es "t the
s"#e ti#e.
3-
*n the case at ench, the evidence add!ced y private respondent
plainly lac$s the degree of pers!asiveness re5!ired to convince this co!rt that an
aandonment of domicile of origin in favor of a domicile of choice indeed occ!rred.
To e@e%t "n "b"ndon#ent re&uires the vount"r+ "%t of rein&uishin'
!etitioner(s for#er do#i%ie $ith "n intent to su!!"nt the for#er do#i%ie
$ith one of her o$n %hoosin' B+o(iciliu( voluntariu(C.
*n this connection, it cannot e correctly arg!ed that petitioner lost her domicile of
origin y operation of law as a res!lt of her marriage to the late President +erdinand
1. 4arcos in 195/. +or there is a clearly estalished distinction etween the Civil
Code concepts of FdomicileF and Fresidence.F
39
The pres!mption that the wife
a!tomatically gains the h!sand's domicile y operation of law !pon marriage
cannot e inferred from the !se of the term FresidenceF in %rticle 11( of the Civil
Code eca!se the Civil Code is one area where the two concepts are well
delineated. =r. %rt!ro Tolentino, writing on this speci&c area e2plains@
*n the Civil Code, there is an ovio!s di9erence etween domicile and residence.
3oth terms imply relations etween a person and a place8 !t in residence, the
relation is one of fact while in domicile it is legal or <!ridical, inde!endent of the
ne%essit+ of !h+si%" !resen%e.
=L
%rticle 11( of the Civil Code provides@
%rt. 11(. R The h!sand shall &2 the residence of the family. 3!t the co!rt may
e2empt the wife from living with the h!sand if he sho!ld live aroad !nless in the
service of the Aep!lic.
% s!rvey of <!rispr!dence relating to %rticle 11( or to the concepts of domicile or
residence as they a9ect the female spo!se !pon marriage +ieds nothin' $hi%h
$oud su''est th"t the fe#"e s!ouse "uto#"ti%"+ oses her do#i%ie of
ori'in in f"vor of the husb"nd(s %hoi%e of residen%e u!on #"rri"'e.
%rticle 11( is a virt!al restatement of %rticle 58 of the #panish Civil Code of 1889
which states@
"a m!<er esta oligada a seg!ir a s! marido donde 5!iera 5!e &<e s! residencia. "os
Tri!nales, sin emargo, podran con <!sta ca!sa e2imirla de esta oligacion c!ando
el marido transende s! residencia a !ltramar o' a pais e2tran<ero.
>ote the !se of the phrase F+on+e -uiera su 9.e +e resi+enciaF in the afore5!oted
article, which means wherever Bthe h!sandC 'is$es to establis$ resi+ence. This
part of the article clearly contemplates only act!al residence eca!se it refers to a
positive act of &2ing a family home or residence. 4oreover, this interpretation is
f!rther strengthened y the phrase Fcuan+o el (ari+o transla+e su resi+enciaF in
the same provision which means, Fwhen the h!sand s$all trans#er his residence,F
referring to another positive act of relocating the family to another home or place of
act!al residence. The article ovio!sly cannot e !nderstood to refer to domicile
which is a &2ed,
fairly-permanent concept when it plainly connotes the possiility of transferring
from one place to another not only once, !t as often as the h!sand may deem &t
to move his family, a circ!mstance more consistent with the concept of act!al
residence.
The right of the h!sand to &2 the act!al residence is in harmony with the intention
of the law to strengthen and !nify the family, recogni,ing the fact that the h!sand
and the wife ring into the marriage di9erent domiciles Bof originC. This di9erence
co!ld, for the sa$e of family !nity, e reconciled only y allowing the h!sand to &2
a single place of act!al residence.
?ery signi&cantly, %rticle 11( of the Civil Code is fo!nd !nder Title ? !nder the
heading@ A*L)T# %>= O3"*L%T*O># 31TH11> ):#3%>= %>= H*+1. *mmediately
preceding %rticle 11( is %rticle 1(9 which oliges the h!sand and wife to live
together, th!s@
%rt. 1(9. R The h!sand and wife are oligated to live together, oserve m!t!al
respect and &delity and render m!t!al help and s!pport.
The d!ty to live together can only e f!l&lled if the h!sand and wife are physically
together. This ta$es into acco!nt the sit!ations where the co!ple has many
residences Bas in the case of the petitionerC. *f the h!sand has to stay in or transfer
to any one of their residences, the wife sho!ld necessarily e with him in order that
they may Flive together.F )ence, it is illogical to concl!de that %rt. 11( refers to
FdomicileF and not to Fresidence.F Otherwise, we shall e faced with a sit!ation
where the wife is left in the domicile while the h!sand, for professional or other
reasons, stays in one of their Bvario!sC residences. %s =r. Tolentino f!rther e2plains@
Aesidence and =omicile R Hhether the word FresidenceF as !sed with reference to
partic!lar matters is synonymo!s with FdomicileF is a 5!estion of some di6c!lty,
and the !ltimate decision m!st e made from a consideration of the p!rpose and
intent with which the word is !sed. #ometimes they are !sed synonymo!sly, at
other times they are disting!ished from one another.
222 222 222
Aesidence in the civil law is a material fact, referring to the !h+si%" !resen%e of
" !erson in " !"%e. % person can have two or more residences, s!ch as a co!ntry
residence and a city residence. Aesidence is ac5!ired y living in place8 on the other
hand, do#i%ie %"n e*ist $ithout "%tu"+ ivin' in the !"%e. The important
thing for domicile is that, once residence has een estalished in one place, there
e an intention to stay there permanently, even if residence is also estalished in
some other
place.
=1
*n fact, even the matter of a common residence etween the h!sand and the wife
d!ring the marriage is not an iron-clad principle8 *n cases applying the Civil Code on
the 5!estion of a common matrimonial residence, o!r <!rispr!dence has recogni,ed
certain sit!ations
=E
where the spo!ses co!ld not e compelled to live with each
other s!ch that the wife is either allowed to maintain a residence di9erent from that
of her h!sand or, for ovio!sly practical reasons, revert to her original domicile
Bapart from eing allowed to opt for a new oneC. *n 7e la :ina vs. :illareal
=3
this
Co!rt held that FDaE married woman may ac5!ire a residence or domicile separate
from that of her h!sand d!ring the e2istence of the marriage where the h!sand
has given ca!se for divorce.F
==
>ote that the Co!rt allowed the wife either to otain
new residence or to choose a new domicile in s!ch an event. *n instances where the
wife act!ally opts, .!nder the Civil Code, to live separately from her h!sand either
y ta$ing new residence or reverting to her domicile of origin, the Co!rt has held
that the wife co!ld not e compelled to live with her h!sand on pain of contempt.
*n Arro,o vs. :as-ues +e Arro,o
=0
the Co!rt held that@
:pon e2amination of the a!thorities, we are convinced that it is not within the
province of the co!rts of this co!ntry to attempt to compel one of the spo!ses to
cohait with, and render con<!gal rights to, the other. Of co!rse where the property
rights of one of the pair are invaded, an action for restit!tion of s!ch rights can e
maintained. 3!t we are disinclined to sanction the doctrine that an order, enforcile
BsicC y process of contempt, may e entered to compel the restit!tion of the p!rely
personal right of consorti!m. %t est s!ch an order can e e9ective for no other
p!rpose than to compel the spo!ses to live !nder the same roof8 and he e2perience
of those co!ntries where the co!rts of <!stice have ass!med to compel the
cohaitation of married people shows that the policy of the practice is e2tremely
5!estionale. Th!s in 1ngland, formerly the 1cclesiastical Co!rt entertained s!its for
the restit!tion of con<!gal rights at the instance of either h!sand or wife8 and if the
facts were fo!nd to warrant it, that co!rt wo!ld ma$e a mandatory decree,
enforceale y process of contempt in case of disoedience, re5!iring the
delin5!ent party to live with the other and render con<!gal rights. Pet this practice
was sometimes critici,ed even y the <!dges who felt o!nd to enforce s!ch orders,
and in ;el+on v. ;el+on B9 P.=. 5/C, decided in 188., #ir 'ames )annen, President
in the Proate, =ivorce and %dmiralty =ivision of the )igh Co!rt of '!stice,
e2pressed his regret that the 1nglish law on the s!<ect was not the same as that
which prevailed in #cotland, where a decree of adherence, e5!ivalent to the decree
for the restit!tion of con<!gal rights in 1ngland, co!ld e otained y the in<!red
spo!se, !t co!ld not e enforced y imprisonment. %ccordingly, in oedience to
the growing sentiment against the practice, the 4atrimonial Ca!ses %ct B1880C
aolished the remedy of imprisonment8 tho!gh a decree for the restit!tion of
con<!gal rights can still e proc!red, and in case of disoedience may serve in
appropriate cases as the asis of an order for the periodical payment of a stipend in
the character of alimony.
Parenthetically when Petitioner was married to then Congressman 4arcos, in 1950,
petitioner was oliged R y virt!e of %rticle 11( of the Civil Code R to follow her
h!sand's act!al place of residence &2ed y him. The prolem here is that at that
time, 4r. 4arcos had several places of residence, among which were #an '!an, Ai,al
and 3atac, *locos >orte. There is no showing which of these places 4r. 4arcos did &2
as his family's residence. 3!t ass!ming that 4r. 4arcos had &2ed any of these
places as the con<!gal residence, $h"t !etitioner '"ined u!on #"rri"'e $"s
"%tu" residen%e. She did not ose her do#i%ie of ori'in.
On the other hand, the common law concept of Fmatrimonial domicileF appears to
have een incorporated, as a res!lt of o!r <!rispr!dential e2periences after the
drafting of the Civil Code of 195(, into the >ew +amily Code. To !nderscore the
di9erence etween the intentions of the Civil Code and the +amily Code drafters,
the term residence has een s!pplanted y the term domicile in an entirely new
provision B%rt. ;9C distinctly di9erent in meaning and spirit from that fo!nd in %rticle
11(. The provision recogni,es revol!tionary changes in the concept of women's
rights in the intervening years y ma$ing the choice of domicile a prod!ct of m!t!al
agreement etween the spo!ses.
=/
Hitho!t as m!ch elaoring the point, the term residence may mean one thing in
civil law Bor !nder the Civil CodeC and 5!ite another thing in political law. Hhat
stands clear is that insofar as the Civil Code is concerned-a9ecting the rights and
oligations of h!sand and wife R the term residence sho!ld only e interpreted to
mean Fact!al residence.F The inescapale concl!sion derived from this
!namig!o!s civil law delineation therefore, is that when petitioner married the
former President in 1950, she $ept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new
home, not a +o(iciliu( necessariu(.
1ven ass!ming for the sa$e of arg!ment that petitioner gained a new FdomicileF
after her marriage and only ac5!ired a right to choose a new one after her h!sand
died, petitioner's acts following her ret!rn to the co!ntry clearly indicate that she
not only impliedly !t e2pressly chose her domicile of origin Bass!ming this was lost
y operation of lawC as her domicile. This FchoiceF was !ne5!ivocally e2pressed in
her letters to the Chairman of the PCLL when petitioner so!ght the PCLL's
permission to Frehailitate Bo!rC ancestral ho!se in Tacloan and +arm in Olot,
"eyte. . . to ma$e them livale for the 4arcos family to have a home in o!r
homeland.F
=7
+!rthermore, petitioner otained her residence certi&cate in 199/ in
Tacloan, "eyte, while living in her rother's ho!se, an act which s!pports the
domiciliary intention clearly manifested in her letters to the PCLL Chairman. #he
co!ld not have gone straight to her home in #an '!an, as it was in a state of
disrepair, having een previo!sly looted y vandals. )er FhomesF and FresidencesF
following her arrival in vario!s parts of 4etro 4anila merely 5!ali&ed as temporary
or Fact!al residences,F not domicile. 4oreover, and proceeding from o!r disc!ssion
pointing o!t speci&c sit!ations where the female spo!se either reverts to her
domicile of origin or chooses a new one d!ring the s!sistence of the marriage, it
wo!ld e highly illogical for !s to ass!me that she cannot regain her original
domicile !pon the death of her h!sand asent a positive act of selecting a new one
where sit!ations e2ist within the s!sistence of the marriage itself where the wife
gains a domicile di9erent from her h!sand.
*n the light of all the principles relating to residence and domicile en!nciated y this
co!rt !p to this point, we are pers!aded that the facts estalished y the parties
weigh heavily in favor of a concl!sion s!pporting petitioner's claim of legal
residence or domicile in the +irst =istrict of "eyte.
C""si v. C"
#ection 18, %rticle W* of the 1987 Constit!tion provides@
#ec. 18. P!lic o6cers and employees owe the #tate and this Constit!tion
allegiance at all times, and any p!lic o6cer or employee who see$s to change his
citi,enship or ac5!ire the stat!s of an immigrant of another co!ntry +urin% $is
tenure shall e dealt with y law.
*n the same vein, !t not 5!ite, #ection ;8 of the Omni!s 1lection Code of the
Philippines B3.P. 3lg. 881C provides@
#1C. ;8. 7is-uali9cations ... %ny person who is a permanent resident of or an
immigrant to a foreign co!ntry sh" not be &u"i.ed to run for "n+ ee%tive
o7%e under this Code, uness s"id !erson h"s $"ived his st"tus "s
!er#"nent resident or i##i'r"nt of " forei'n %ountr+ in accordance with the
residence re5!irement provided for in the election laws. B#ec. /5, 1971, 1CC.
*n view of c!rrent r!mor that a good n!mer of elective and appointive p!lic
o6cials in the present administration of President Cora,on C. %5!ino are holders of
green cards in foreign co!ntries, their e9ect on the holders' right to hold elective
p!lic o6ce in the Philippines is a 5!estion that e2cites m!ch interest in the
o!tcome of this case.
*n the case of 4erito 4ig!el, the Co!rt deems it signi&cant that in the F%pplication
for I((i%rant ?isa and %lien AegistrationF BOptional +orm >o. /.(, =epartment of
#tateC which 4ig!el &lled !p in his own handwriting and s!mitted to the :#
1massy in 4anila efore his depart!re for the :nited #tates in 1980, 4ig!el's
answer to J!estion >o. /1 therein regarding his F"ength of intended stay Bif
permanently, so stateC,F 4ig!el's answer was,<Per(anentl,/<
On its face, the green card that was s!se5!ently iss!ed y the :nited #tates
=epartment of '!stice and *mmigration and Aegistration #ervice to the respondent
4erito C. 4ig!el identi&es him in clear old letters as a A1#*=1>T %"*1>. On the
ac$ of the card, the !pper portion, the following information is printed@
%lien Aegistration Aeceipt Card.
Person identi&ed y this card is entitled to resi+e per(anentl, and wor$ in the
:nited #tates.F B%nne2 % pp. 189-19(, Aollo of L.A. >o. 805(8.C
=espite his vigoro!s disclaimer, 4ig!el's immigration to the :nited #tates in 1980
constit!ted "n "b"ndon#ent of his do#i%ie "nd residen%e in the
Phii!!ines. +or he did not go to the :nited #tates merely to visit his children or his
doctor there8 he entered the limited #tates with the intention to h"ve there
!er#"nent+ "s eviden%ed b+ his "!!i%"tion for "n i##i'r"nt(s Bnot a
visitor's or to!rist'sC visa. 3ased on that application of his, he was iss!ed y the :.#.
Lovernment the re5!isite green card or a!thority to reside there permanently.
*mmigration is the removing into one place from another8 the act of immigrating the
entering into a co!ntry with the intention of residing in it.
3n immigrant is " !erson $ho re#oves into " %ountr+ for the !ur!ose
of permanent residence/ %s shown infra 80, however, stat!tes sometimes give a
roader meaning to the term Fimmigrant.F B. C'# ;70.C
%s a resident alien in the :.#., 4ig!el owes temporary and local allegiance to the
:.#., the co!ntry in which he resides B. C'# 5/7C. This is in ret!rn for the protection
given to him d!ring the period of his residence therein.
%liens reading in the limited #tates, while they are permitted to remain, are in
general entitled to the protection of the laws with regard to their rights of person
and property and to their civil and criminal responsiility.
*n general, aliens residing in the :nited #tates, while they are permitted to remain
are entitled to the safeg!ards of the constit!tion with regard to their rights of
person and property and to their civil and criminal responsiility. Th!s resident alien
friends are entitled to the ene&t of the provision of the +o!rteenth %mendment to
the federal constit!tion that no state shall deprive Fany personF of life lierty, or
property witho!t d!e process of law, or deny to any person the e5!al protection of
the law, and the protection of this amendment e2tends to the right to earn a
livelihood y following the ordinary occ!pations of life. #o an alien is entitled to the
protection of the provision of the +ifth %mendment to the federal constit!tion that
no person shall e deprived of life, lierty, or property witho!t d!e process of law. B.
C'# 5/9-5.(.C
#ection 18, %rticle W* of the 1987 Constit!tion which provides that Fany p!lic
o6cer or employee who see$s to change his citi,enship or ac5!ire the stat!s of an
immigrant of another co!ntry d!ring his ten!re shall e dealt with y lawF is not
applicale to 4erito 4ig!el for he ac5!ired the stat!s of an immigrant of the :nited
#tatesbe#ore he was elected to p!lic o6ce, not Fd!ring his ten!reF as mayor of
3olinao, Pangasinan.
The law applicale to him is #ection ;8 of the Omni!s 1lection Code B3.P. 3lg. 881C,
which provides@
222 222 222
3n+ !erson $ho is " !er#"nent resident of or "n i##i'r"nt to " forei'n
%ountr+ sh" not be &u"i.ed to run for "n+ ee%tive o7%e under this
Code, uness su%h !erson h"s $"ived his st"tus "s !er#"nent resident or
i##i'r"nt of " forei'n %ountr+ in "%%ord"n%e $ith the residen%e
re&uire#ent !rovided for in the ee%tion "$s.(
=id 4ig!el, y ret!rning to the Philippines in >ovemer 1987 and presenting himself
as a candidate for mayor of 3olinao in the 'an!ary 18,1988 local elections, waive his
stat!s as a permanent resident or immigrant of the :nited #tatesI
To e F5!ali&ed to r!n for elective o6ceF in the Philippines, the law re5!ires that the
candidate who is a green card holder m!st have Fwaived his stat!s as a permanent
resident or immigrant of a foreign co!ntry.F Therefore, his act of &ling a certi&cate of
candidacy for elective o6ce in the Philippines, did not of itself constit!te a waiver of
his stat!s as a permanent resident or immigrant of the :nited #tates. The $"iver
of his 'reen %"rd shoud be #"nifested b+ so#e "%t or "%ts inde!endent of
"nd done !rior to .in' his %"ndid"%+ for ee%tive o7%e in this %ountr+.
Aithout su%h !rior $"iver, he $"s 9dis&u"i.ed to run for "n+ ee%tive
o7%e9 B#ec. ;8, Omni!s 1lection CodeC.
Aespondent 4erito 4ig!el admits that he holds a green card, which proves that he
is a permanent resident or immigrant it of the :nited #tates, !t the records of this
case are star$ly are of proof that he had waived his stat!s as s!ch be#ore he ran
for election as m!nicipal mayor of 3olinao on 'an!ary 18, 1988. Ae, therefore,
hod th"t he $"s dis&u"i.ed to be%o#e " %"ndid"te for th"t o7%e.
The reason for #ection ;8 of the Omni!s 1lection Code is not hard to &nd.
Aesidence in the m!nicipality where he intends to r!n for elective o6ce for at least
one B1C year at the time of &ling his certi&cate of candidacy, is one of the
5!ali&cations that a candidate for elective p!lic o6ce m!st possess B#ec. 0/,
Chap. 1, Title /, "ocal Lovernment CodeC. ?i'ue did not !ossess th"t
&u"i.%"tion be%"use he $"s " !er#"nent resident of the United St"tes
"nd he resided in 1oin"o for " !eriod of on+ three F3G #onths Fnot one
+e"rG "fter his return to the Phii!!ines in Nove#ber 19-7 "nd before he
r"n for #"+or of th"t #uni%i!"it+ on C"nu"r+ 1-, 19--.
*n anning from elective p!lic o6ce Philippine citi,ens who are permanent
residents or immigrants of a foreign co!ntry, the Omni!s 1lection Code has laid
down a clear policy of e2cl!ding from the right to hold elective p!lic o6ce those
Philippine citi,ens who possess du" o+"ties "nd "e'i"n%e. The law has
reserved that privilege for its citi,ens who have cast their lot with o!r co!ntry
F$ithout #ent" reserv"tions or !ur!ose of ev"sion.F The ass!mption is that
those who are resident aliens of a foreign co!ntry are in%"!"be of su%h entire
devotion to the interest "nd $ef"re of their ho#e"nd for $ith one e+e on
their !ubi% duties here, the+ #ust ,ee! "nother e+e on their duties under
the "$s of the forei'n %ountr+ of their %hoi%e in order to !reserve their
st"tus "s !er#"nent residents thereof.
4ig!el insists that even tho!gh he applied for immigration and permanent
residence in the :nited #tates, he never really intended to live there permanently,
for all that he wanted was a green card to enale him to come and go to the :.#.
with ease. *n other words, he wo!ld have this Co!rt elieve that he applied for
immigration to the :.#. under f"se !retenses8 that all this time he only had one
foot in the :nited #tates !t $ept his other foot in the Philippines. Even if th"t
$ere true, this Court $i not "o$ itsef to be " !"rt+ to his du!i%it+ b+
!er#ittin' hi# to bene.t fro# it, "nd 'ivin' hi# the best of both $ords
so to s!e",.
4ig!el's application for immigrant stat!s and permanent residence in the :.#. and
his possession of a green card attesting to s!ch stat!s are %on%usive !roof th"t
he is " !er#"nent resident of the U.S. despite his occasional visits to the
Philippines. The waiver of s!ch immigrant stat!s sho!ld e as ind!itale as his
application for it. 3bsent %e"r eviden%e th"t he #"de "n irrevo%"be $"iver
of th"t st"tus or th"t he surrendered his 'reen %"rd to the "!!ro!ri"te
U.S. "uthorities before he r"n for #"+or of 1oin"o in the o%" ee%tions on
C"nu"r+ 1-, 19--, our %on%usion is th"t he $"s dis&u"i.ed to run for s"id
!ubi% o7%e, hen%e, his ee%tion thereto $"s nu "nd void.
?"%"int" v. Co#ee%
%ccordingly, #ection 0 of A.%. >o. 9189 provides for the coverage of the asentee
voting process, to wit@
SEC. =. ,overage. M %ll citi,ens of the Philippines aroad, who are not otherwise
dis5!ali&ed y law, at least eighteen B18C years of age on the day of elections, may
vote for president, vice-president, senators and party-list representatives.
which does not re5!ire physical residency in the Philippines8 and #ection 5 of the
assailed law which en!merates those who are dis5!ali&ed, to wit@
SEC. 0. -isquali+cations. M The following shall e dis5!ali&ed from voting !nder
this %ct@
aC Those who have lost their +ilipino citi,enship in accordance with Philippine laws8
C Those who have e2pressly reno!nced their Philippine citi,enship and who have
pledged allegiance to a foreign co!ntry8
cC Those who have committed and are convicted in a &nal <!dgment y a co!rt or
tri!nal of an o9ense p!nishale y imprisonment of not less than one B1C year,
incl!ding those who have committed and een fo!nd g!ilty of =isloyalty as de&ned
!nder %rticle 1.7 of t$e evise+ Penal Co+e, s!ch disaility not having een
removed y plenary pardon or amnesty@ Provi+e+, $o'ever, That any person
dis5!ali&ed to vote !nder this s!section shall a!tomatically ac5!ire the right to
vote !pon e2piration of &ve B5C years after service of sentence8 Provi+e+, #urt$er,
That the Commission may ta$e cogni,ance of &nal <!dgments iss!ed y foreign
co!rts or tri!nals only on the asis of reciprocity and s!<ect to the formalities and
processes prescried y the ules o# Court on e2ec!tion of <!dgments8
dG 3n i##i'r"nt or " !er#"nent resident $ho is re%o'ni)ed "s su%h in the
host %ountr+, uness heMshe e*e%utes, u!on re'istr"tion, "n "7d"vit
!re!"red for the !ur!ose b+ the Co##ission de%"rin' th"t heMshe sh"
resu#e "%tu" !h+si%" !er#"nent residen%e in the Phii!!ines not "ter
th"n three F3G +e"rs fro# "!!rov" of hisMher re'istr"tion under this 3%t.
Su%h "7d"vit sh" "so st"te th"t heMshe h"s not "!!ied for %iti)enshi! in
"nother %ountr+. F"iure to return sh" be %"use for the re#ov" of the
n"#e of the i##i'r"nt or !er#"nent resident fro# the N"tion" De'istr+
of 3bsentee Noters "nd hisMher !er#"nent dis&u"i.%"tion to vote in
absentia.
eC %ny citi,en of the Philippines aroad previo!sly declared insane or incompetent
y competent a!thority in the Philippines or aroad, as veri&ed y the Philippine
emassies, cons!lates or foreign service estalishments concerned, !nless s!ch
competent a!thority s!se5!ently certi&es that s!ch person is no longer insane or
incompetent.
%s &nally approved into law, #ection 5BdC of A.%. >o. 9189 speci&cally dis5!ali&es
an i((i%rant or per(anent resi+ent who is Frecogni,ed as s!ch in the host co!ntryF
eca!se immigration or permanent residence in another co!ntry implies
ren!nciation of oneUs residence in his co!ntry of origin. )owever, same #ection
allows an immigrant and permanent resident aroad to register as voter for as long
as heQshe e2ec!tes an a6davit to show that heQshe has not aandoned his domicile
in p!rs!ance of the constit!tional intent e2pressed in #ections 1 and / of %rticle ?
that Fall citi,ens of the Philippines not otherwise dis5!ali&ed y lawF m!st e
entitled to e2ercise the right of s!9rage and, that Congress m!st estalish a system
for asentee voting8 for otherwise, if act!al, physical residence in the Philippines is
re5!ired, there is no sense for the framers of the Constit!tion to mandate Congress
to estalish a system for asentee voting.
Contrary to the claim of petitioner, the e2ec!tion of the a6davit itself is not the
enaling or enfranchising act. The a6davit re5!ired in #ection 5BdC is not only proof
of the intention of the immigrant or permanent resident to go ac$ and res!me
residency in the Philippines, !t more signi&cantly, it serves as an e2plicit
e2pression that he had not in fact aandoned his domicile of origin. Th!s, it is not
correct to say that the e2ec!tion of the a6davit !nder #ection 5BdC violates the
Constit!tion that proscries Fprovisional registration or a promise y a voter to
perform a condition to e 5!ali&ed to vote in a political e2ercise.F
To re!e"t, the "7d"vit is re&uired of i##i'r"nts "nd !er#"nent residents
"bro"d be%"use b+ their st"tus in their host %ountries, the+ "re !resu#ed
to h"ve rein&uished their intent to return to this %ountr+6 thus, $ithout
the "7d"vit, the !resu#!tion of "b"ndon#ent of Phii!!ine do#i%ie sh"
re#"in.
+!rther per!sal of the transcripts of the #enate proceedings discloses another
reason why the #enate re5!ired the e2ec!tion of said a6davit. *t wanted the a6ant
to e2ercise the option to ret!rn or to e2press his intention to ret!rn to his domicile
of origin and not to preempt that choice y legislation. Th!s@
Sen"tor 3n'"r". The r"tion"e for this, ?r. President, is th"t $e $"nt to be
e*!"nsive "nd "<in%usive in this "$. Th"t as long as he is a )ilipino& no
matter whether he is a green.card holder in the /!0! or not& he will be
authorized to vote. 1ut if he is "re"d+ " 'reen<%"rd hoder, th"t #e"ns he
h"s "%&uired !er#"nent residen%+ in the United St"tes, then he #ust
indi%"te "n intention to return. This is $h"t #",es for the de.nition of
9do#i%ie.9 %nd to ac5!ire the vote, we tho!ght that we wo!ld re5!ire the
immigrants and the green-card holders . . . 4r. President, the three administration
senators are leaving, maye we may as$ for a vote D"a!ghterE.
Sen"tor 3n'"r". 4r. President, going ac$ to the !siness at hand. The rationale
for the re5!irement that an immigrant or a green-card holder sho!ld &le an a6davit
that he will go ac$ to the Philippines is that, if he is already an immigrant or a
green-card holder, that means he may not ret!rn to the co!ntry any more and that
contradicts the de&nition of FdomicileF !nder the law.
1ut what we are trying to do here& 2r! President& is really provide the
choice to the voter. The voter, after cons!lting his lawyer or after delieration
within the family, may decide F>o, * thin$ we are ris$ing o!r permanent stat!s in the
:nited #tates if we &le an a6davit that we want to go ac$.F 1ut we want to give
him the opportunity to ma%e that decision! 3e do not want to ma%e that
decision for him.
.9
B1mphasis s!ppliedC
The <!rispr!dential declaration in Caasi vs/ Court o# Appeals that green card holders
are dis5!ali&ed to r!n for any elective o6ce &nds no application to the present case
eca!se the Caasi case did not, for ovio!s reasons, consider the asentee voting
rights of +ilipinos who are immigrants and permanent residents in their host
co!ntries.
*n the advent of T$e Overseas Absentee :otin% Act o# 3==> or /A/ ?0@?, they may
still e considered as a F5!ali&ed citi,en of the Philippines aroadF !pon f!l&llment
of the re5!irements of registration !nder the new law for the p!rpose of e2ercising
their right of s!9rage.
*t m!st e emphasi,ed that #ection 5BdC does not only re5!ire an a6davit or a
promise to Fres!me act!al physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later
than three years from approval of hisQher registration,F the +ilipinos aroad m!st
also declare that they have not applied for citi,enship in another co!ntry. Th!s, they
m!st ret!rn to the Philippines8 otherwise, their fail!re to ret!rn Fshall e ca!se for
the removalF of their names Ffrom the >ational Aegistry of %sentee ?oters and
hisQher permanent dis5!ali&cation to vote in absentia.F
Th!s, Congress crafted a process of registration y which a +ilipino voter
permanently residing aroad who is at least eighteen years old, not otherwise
dis5!ali&ed y law, '$o $as not relin-uis$e+ P$ilippine citi*ens$ip and who has not
act!ally aandoned hisQher intentions to ret!rn to hisQher domicile of origin, the
Philippines, is allowed to register and vote in the Philippine emassy, cons!late or
other foreign service estalishments of the place which has <!risdiction over the
co!ntry where heQshe has indicated hisQher address for p!rposes of the elections,
while providing for safeg!ards to a clean election.
Th!s, #ection 11 of A.%. >o. 9189 provides@
#1C. 11. Proced!re for %pplication to ?ote in %sentia. M
11.1. 1very 5!ali&ed citi,en of the Philippines aroad whose application for
registration has een approved, incl!ding those previo!sly registered !nder
Aep!lic %ct >o. 8189, shall, in every national election, &le with the o6cer of the
emassy, cons!late or other foreign service estalishment a!thori,ed y the
Commission, a sworn written application to vote in a form prescried y the
Commission. The a!thori,ed o6cer of s!ch emassy, cons!late or other foreign
service estalishment shall transmit to the Commission the said application to vote
within &ve B5C days from receipt thereof. The application form shall e accomplished
in triplicate and s!mitted together with the photocopy of hisQher overseas
asentee voter certi&cate of registration.
11./. 1very application to vote in absentia may e done personally at, or y mail to,
the emassy, cons!late or foreign service estalishment, which has <!risdiction over
the co!ntry where heQshe has indicated hisQher address for p!rposes of the
elections.
11... Cons!lar and diplomatic services rendered in connection with the overseas
asentee voting processes shall e made availale at no cost to the overseas
asentee voter.
Contrary to petitionerUs claim that #ection 5BdC circ!mvents the Constit!tion,
Congress enacted the law prescriing a system of overseas asentee voting in
compliance with the constit!tional mandate. #!ch mandate e2pressly re5!ires that
Congress provide a system of absentee votin% that necessarily pres!pposes that the
F5!ali&ed citi,en of the Philippines aroadF is not physically present in the co!ntry.
The provisions of #ections 5BdC and 11 are components of the system of overseas
asentee voting estalished y A.%. >o. 9189. The 5!ali&ed +ilipino aroad who
e2ec!ted the a6davit is deemed to have retained his domicile in the Philippines. )e
is pres!med not to have lost his domicile y his physical asence from this co!ntry.
)is having ecome an immigrant or permanent resident of his host co!ntry does not
necessarily imply an aandonment of his intention to ret!rn to his domicile of origin,
the Philippines. Therefore, !nder the law, he m!st e given the opport!nity to
e2press that he has not act!ally aandoned his domicile in the Philippines y
e2ec!ting the a6davit re5!ired y #ections 5BdC and 8BcC of the law.
PetitionerUs spec!lative apprehension that the implementation of #ection 5BdC wo!ld
a9ect the crediility of the elections is insigni&cant as what is important is to ens!re
that all those who possess the 5!ali&cations to vote on the date of the election are
given the opport!nity and permitted to freely do so. The CO41"1C and the
=epartment of +oreign %9airs have eno!gh reso!rces and talents to ens!re the
integrity and crediility of any election cond!cted p!rs!ant to A.%. >o. 9189.
%s to the event!ality that the +ilipino aroad wo!ld renege on his !nderta$ing to
ret!rn to the Philippines, the penalty of perpet!al disenfranchisement provided for
y #ection 5BdC wo!ld s!6ce to serve as deterrence to non-compliance with hisQher
!nderta$ing !nder the a6davit.
Petitioner arg!es that sho!ld a si,ale n!mer of FimmigrantsF renege on their
promise to ret!rn, the res!lt of the elections wo!ld e a9ected and co!ld even e a
gro!nd to contest the proclamation of the winning candidates and ca!se f!rther
conf!sion and do!t on the integrity of the res!lts of the election. *ndeed, the
proaility that after an immigrant has e2ercised the right to vote, he shall opt to
remain in his host co!ntry eyond the third year from the e2ec!tion of the a6davit,
is not farfetched. )owever, it is not for this Co!rt to determine the wisdom of a
legislative e2ercise. %s e2pressed in TaAa+a vs/ Tuvera,
0(
the Co!rt is not called
!pon to r!le on the wisdom of the law or to repeal it or modify it if we &nd it
impractical.
Congress itself was conscio!s of said proaility and in fact, it has addressed the
e2pected prolem. #ection 5BdC itself provides for a deterrence which is that the
+ilipino who fails to ret!rn as promised stands to lose his right of s!9rage. :nder
#ection 9, sho!ld a registered overseas asentee voter fail to vote for two
consec!tive national elections, his name may e ordered removed from the >ational
Aegistry of Overseas %sentee ?oters.
Other serio!s legal 5!estions that may e raised wo!ld e@ what happens to the
votes cast y the 5!ali&ed voters aroad who were not ale to ret!rn within three
years as promisedI Hhat is the e9ect on the votes cast y the non-ret!rnees in
favor of the winning candidatesI The votes cast y 5!ali&ed +ilipinos aroad who
failed to ret!rn within three years shall not e invalidated eca!se they were
5!ali&ed to vote on the date of the elections, !t their fail!re to ret!rn shall e
ca!se for the removal of the names of the immigrants or permanent residents from
the >ational Aegistry of %sentee ?oters and their permanent dis5!ali&cation to
vote in absentia.
*n &ne, considering the !nderlying intent of the Constit!tion, the Co!rt does not &nd
#ection 5BdC of A.%. >o. 9189 as constit!tionally defective.
Ni%o"s<Ke$is v. Co#ee%
%fter what appears to e a s!ccessf!l application for recognition of Philippine
citi,enship !nder A.%. 9189, petitioners now invo$e their right to en.o, B political
ri%$ts) speci&cally the right of s!9rage, p!rs!ant to #ection 5 thereof.
Opposing the petitionersU id, however, respondent CO41"1C invites
attention to the same #ection 5 B1C providing that Xd!alsY can en<oy their right to
vote, as an ad<!nct to political rights, only if they meet the re5!irements of #ection
1, %rticle ? of the Constit!tion, A.%. 9189 and other e2isting laws. Capitali,ing on
what at &rst l!sh is the clashing provisions of the aforecited provision of the
Constit!tion, which, to repeat, re5!ires residency in the Philippines for a certain
period, and A.%. 9189 which grants a +ilipino non-resident asentee voting rights,
D1/E
CO41"1C arg!es@
0. Z7UALSC MUST FIST ESTA4LISH THEI 7OMICILED ESI7ENCE IN
THE PHILIPPINES
0.(1. The incl!sion of s!ch additional and speci&c re5!irements in A% 9//5 is
logical. The Zd!als,U !pon reno!ncement of their +ilipino citi,enship and ac5!isition
of foreign citi,enship, have practically and legally aandoned their domicile and
severed their legal ties to the homeland as a conse5!ence. )aving s!se5!ently
ac5!ired a second citi,enship Bi/e., +ilipinoC then, Zd!alsU m!st, for p!rposes of
voting, &rst of all, decisively and de&nitely estalish their domicile thro!gh positive
acts8
D1.E
The Co!rt disagrees.
3s #"+ be noted, there is no !rovision in the du" %iti)enshi! "$ < D.3.
9EE0 < re&uirin' 9du"s9 to "%tu"+ est"bish residen%e "nd !h+si%"+ st"+
in thePhii!!ines .rst before the+ %"n e*er%ise their ri'ht to vote. Bn the
%ontr"r+, D.3. 9EE0, in i#!i%it "%,no$ed'#ent th"t Odu"sP "re #ost
i,e+ non<residents, 'r"nts under its Se%tion 0F1G the s"#e ri'ht of
su@r"'e "s th"t 'r"nted "n "bsentee voter under D.3. 91-9. It %"nnot be
overe#!h"si)ed th"t D.3. 91-9 "i#s, in essen%e, toenfr"n%hise "s #u%h
"s !ossibe " overse"s Fii!inos $ho, s"ve for the residen%+ re&uire#ents
e*"%ted of "n ordin"r+ voter under ordin"r+ %onditions, "re &u"i.ed to
vote. Thus, $rote the Court in 2acalintal4
*t is clear from these disc!ssions of the V Constit!tional Commission that DitE
intended to enfranchise as m!ch as possile all +ilipino citi,ens aroad who have
not aandoned their domicile of origin. The Commission even intended to e2tend to
yo!ng +ilipinos who reach voting age aroad whose parentsU domicile of origin is in
the Philippines, and consider them 5!ali&ed as voters for the &rst time.
*t is in p!rs!ance of that intention that the Commission provided for #ection /
D%rticle ?E immediately after the residency re5!irement of #ection 1. 3y the
doctrine of necessary implication in stat!tory constr!ction, V, the strategic location
of #ection / indicates that t$e Constitutional Co((ission provi+e+ #or an e"ception
to t$e actual resi+enc, re-uire(ent o# Section 0 with respect to 5!ali&ed +ilipinos
aroad. The same Commission has in e9ect declared that 5!ali&ed +ilipinos who
are not in the Philippines may e allowed to vote even tho!gh they do not satisfy
the residency re5!irement in #ection 1, %rticle ? of the Constit!tion.
That #ection / of %rticle ? of the Constit!tion is an e2ception to the residency
re5!irement fo!nd in #ection 1 of the same %rticle was in fact the s!<ect of deate
when #enate 3ill >o. /1(0, which ecame A.%. >o. 9189, was delierated !pon on
the #enate Goor, th!s@
Senator Arro,o. 4r. President, this ill sho!ld e loo$ed into in relation to the
constit!tional provisions. * thin$ the sponsor and * wo!ld agree that the Constit!tion
is s!preme in any stat!te that we may enact.
"et me read #ection 1, %rticle ?, of the Constit!tion V.
>ow, 4r. President, the Constit!tion says, Xwho shall have resided in
the Philippines.Y They are permanent immigrants. They have changed residence so
they are arred !nder the Constit!tion. This is why * as$ed whether this committee
amendment which in fact does not alter the original te2t of the ill will have any
e9ect on thisI
Senator An%ara. Lood 5!estion, 4r. President. %nd this has een as$ed in vario!s
fora. This is in compliance with the Constit!tion. One, the interpretation here of
XresidenceY is synonymo!s with Xdomicile.Y
%s the gentleman and * $now, 4r. President, XdomicileY is the intent to ret!rn to
one's home. And the fact that a )ilipino may have been physically absent
from the Philippines and may be physically a resident of the /nited
0tates& for example& but has a clear intent to return to the Philippines& will
ma%e him quali+ed as a resident of the Philippines under this law.
This is consistent, 4r. President, with the constit!tional mandate that we M that
Congress M m!st provide a franchise to overseas +ilipinos.
If we read the ,onstitution and the su5rage principle literally as
demanding physical presence& then there is no way we can provide for
o5shore voting to our o5shore %ababayan, 4r. President.
Senator Arro,o. 4r. President, when the Constit!tion says, in #ection / of %rticle ?,
it reads@ XThe Congress shall provide a system for sec!ring the secrecy and sanctity
of the allot as well as a system for asentee voting y 5!ali&ed +ilipinos aroad.Y
'he %ey to this whole exercise& 2r! President& is 6quali+ed!7 In other
words& anything that we may do or say in granting our compatriots abroad
must be anchored on the proposition that they are quali+ed! Absent the
quali+cation& they cannot vote! And 6residents7 BsicC is a quali+cation.
"oo$ at what the Constit!tion says M X*n the place wherein they propose to
vote for at least si2 months immediately preceding the election.Y
4r. President, all of !s here have r!n BsicC for o6ce.
* live in 4a$ati. 4y neighor is Pateros V. He are separated only y a cree$. 3!t
one who votes in 4a$ati cannot vote in Pateros !nless he resides in Pateros for si2
months. That is how restrictive o!r Constit!tion is. V.
%s * have said, if a voter in 4a$ati wo!ld want to vote in Pateros, yes, he may do
so. 3!t he m!st do so, ma$e the transfer si2 months efore the election, otherwise,
he is not 5!ali&ed to vote.
Senator An%ara. *t is a good point to raise, 4r. President. 3!t it is a point already
well-deated even in the constit!tional commission of 198;. And the reason
0ection # of Article 8 was placed immediately after the six.month9one.
year residency requirement is to demonstrate unmista%ably that 0ection #
which authorizes absentee voting is an exception to the six.month9one.
year residency requirement. That is the &rst principle, 4r. President, that one
m!st rememer.
The second reason, 4r. President, is that !nder o!r <!rispr!dence V M XresidencyY
has een interpreted as synonymo!s with Xdomicile.Y
1ut the third #ore !r"%ti%" re"son, J is, if
$e foo$ the inter!ret"tion of the 'ente#"n, then it is e'"+ "nd
%onstitution"+ i#!ossibe to 'ive " fr"n%hise to vote to overse"s Fii!inos
$ho do not !h+si%"+ ive in the %ountr+, $hi%h is &uite ridi%uous
be%"use th"t is e*"%t+ the $hoe !oint of this e*er%ise > to enfr"n%hise
the# "nd e#!o$er the# to vote.
D10E
B1mphasis and words in rac$et added8
citations omittedC
"est it e overloo$ed, no less than the CO41"1C itself admits that the Citi*ens$ip
etention an+ e8Ac-uisition Act e2panded the coverage of overseas asentee
voting. %ccording to the poll ody@
1.(5 Hith the passage of A% 9//5 the scope of overseas asentee voting has
een conse5!ently e2panded so as to incl!de +ilipinos who are also citi,ens of other
co!ntries, s!<ect, however, to the strict prere5!isites indicated in the pertinent
provisions of A% 9//58
D15E
Considering the !nison intent of the Constit!tion and A.%. 9189 and the e2pansion
of the scope of that law with the passage of A.%. 9//5, the irresistile concl!sion is
that Fd!alsF may now e2ercise the right of s!9rage thr! the absentee
votin% scheme and as overseas absentee voters/ A.%. 9189 de&nes the terms
adverted to in the following wise@
XAbsentee :otin%E refers to the process y which 5!ali&ed citi,ens of
the Philippines aroad e2ercise their right to vote8
FOverseas Absentee :oterE refers to a citi,en of the Philippines who is 5!ali&ed to
register and vote !nder this %ct, not otherwise dis5!ali&ed y law, who is aroad on
the day of elections8
Hhile perhaps not determinative of the iss!e tendered herein, we note that
the e2panded thr!st of A.%. 9189 e2tends also to what might e tag as the ne2t
generation of Fd!alsF. This may e ded!ced from the incl!sion of the provision on
derivative citi,enship in A.%. 9//5 which reads@
#1C. 0. 7erivative Citi*ens$ip. M The !nmarried child, whether legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted, elow eighteen B18C years of age, of those who re-ac5!ire
Philippine citi,enship !pon e9ectivity of this %ct shall e deemed citi,ens of the
Philippines.
*t is very li$ely that a considerale n!mer of those un(arrie+ c$il+ren bel
o' ei%$teen B18C ,ears o# a%e had never set foot in the Philippines. >ow
then, if the ne2t generation of Fd!alsF may nonetheless avail themselves the right
to en.o, #ull civil an+ political ri%$ts !nder #ection 5 of the %ct, then there is neither
no rhyme nor reason why the petitioners and other present day Fd!als,F provided
they meet the re5!irements !nder #ection 1, %rticle ? of the Constit!tion in relation
to A.%. 9189, e denied the right of s!9rage as an overseas asentee voter.
Congress co!ld not have pla!sily intended s!ch as!rd sit!ation.
%ccordingly, the Co!rt r!les and so holds that those who retain or re-ac5!ire
Philippine citi,enship !nderDe!ubi% 3%t No. 9EE0, the Citi*ens$ip etention an+
e8Ac-uisition Act o# 3==>, may e2ercise the right to vote !nder the system of
asentee voting in De!ubi% 3%t No. 91-9, the Overseas Absentee :otin% Act o#
3==>.
C"o vs. C"
The facts in Eusebio were di9erent from those in the case at ar. The decedent
therein, %ndres 1!seio, passed away while in the process of transferring his
personal elongings to a ho!se in J!e,on City. )e was then s!9ering from a heart
ailment and was advised y his doctorQson to p!rchase a J!e,on City residence,
which was nearer to his doctor. Hhile he was ale to ac5!ire a ho!se in J!e,on
City, 1!seio died even efore he co!ld move therein. *n said case, we r!led that
1!seio retained his domicile --- and hence, residence --- in #an +ernando,
Pampanga. *t cannot e said that 1!seio changed his residence eca!se, strictly
spea$ing, his physical presence in J!e,on City was <!st temporary.
*n the case at ar, there is s!stantial proof that the decedents have transferred to
petitionerUs J!e,on City residence. Petitioner failed to s!6ciently ref!te
respondentUs assertion that their elderly parents stayed in his ho!se for some three
to fo!r years efore they died in the late 198(s.
+!rthermore, the decedentsU respective death certi&cates state that they were oth
residents of J!e,on City at the time of their demise. #igni&cantly, it was petitioner
himself who &lled !p his late motherUs death certi&cate. To o!r mind, this
!n5!ali&edly shows that at that time, at least, petitioner recogni,ed his deceased
motherUs residence to e J!e,on City. 4oreover, petitioner failed to contest the
entry in *gnacioUs death certi&cate, accomplished a year earlier y respondent.
The recitals in the death certi&cates, which are admissile in evidence, were th!s
properly considered and pres!med to e correct y the co!rt a -uo. He agree with
the appellate co!rtUs oservation that since the death certi&cates were
accomplished even efore petitioner and respondent 5!arreled over their
inheritance, they may e relied !pon to reGect the tr!e sit!ation at the time of their
parentsU death.
The death certi&cates th!s prevailed as proofs of the decedentsU residence "t the
ti#e of de"th, over the n!mero!s doc!mentary evidence presented y petitioner.
To e s!re, the doc!ments presented y petitioner pertained not to residen%e "t
the ti#e of de"th, as re5!ired y the A!les of Co!rt, !t to !er#"nent
residen%e or do#i%ie. *n Garcia8Fule v/ Court o# Appeals)
1;
we held@
222 222 222 the term FresidesF connotes e" vi ter(ini Fact!al residenceF as
disting!ished from Flegal residence or domicile.F This term FresidesF, li$e the terms
FresidingF and FresidenceF, is elastic and sho!ld e interpreted in the light of the
o<ect or p!rpose of the stat!te or rule in which it is employed. *n the application of
ven!e stat!tes and r!les M #ection 1, A!le 7. of the Aevised A!les of Co!rt is of
s!ch nat!re M residence rat$er t$an domicile is the signi&cant factor. 1ven where
the stat!te !ses the word FdomicileF still it is constr!ed as meaning residence and
not domicile in the technical sense. #ome cases ma$e a distinction etween the
terms FresidenceF and FdomicileF !t as generally !sed in stat!tes &2ing ven!e, the
terms are synonymo!s, and convey the same meaning as the term Finhaitant.F *n
other words, FresidesF sho!ld e viewed or !nderstood in its pop!lar sense,
meaning, the personal, act!al or physical haitation of a person, act!al residence or
place of aode. *t signi&es physical presence in a place and act!al stay thereat. *n
this pop!lar sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal residence,
not legal residence or domicile. Aesidence simply re5!ires odily presence as an
inhaitant in a given place, while domicile re5!ires odily presence in that place
and also an intention to ma$e it oneUs domicile. >o partic!lar length of time of
residence is re5!ired tho!gh8 however, the residence m!st e more than
temporary.
17
3oth the settlement co!rt and the Co!rt of %ppeals fo!nd that the decedents have
een living with petitioner at the time of their deaths and for some time prior
thereto. He &nd this concl!sion to e s!stantiated y the evidence on record. %
close per!sal of the challenged decision shows that, contrary to petitionerUs
assertion, the co!rt elow considered not only the decedentsU physical presence in
J!e,on City, !t also other factors indicating that the decedentsU stay therein was
more than temporary. *n the asence of any s!stantial showing that the lower
co!rtsU fact!al &ndings stemmed from an erroneo!s apprehension of the evidence
presented, the same m!st e held to e concl!sive and inding !pon this Co!rt.
N"tion"it+ "nd 4o#i%ie of Cor!or"tions
2"#bo" v. Teves :de%ision;
Co(pliance 'it$ t$e re-uire+ Filipino o'ners$ip o# a corporation s$all be
+eter(ine+ on t$e basis o# outstan+in% capital stoc5 '$et$er #ull, pai+ or not) but
onl, suc$ stoc5s '$ic$ are %enerall, entitle+ to vote are consi+ere+/
For stoc5s to be +ee(e+ o'ne+ an+ $el+ b, P$ilippine citi*ens or P$ilippine
nationals) (ere le%al title is not enou%$ to (eet t$e re-uire+ Filipino e-uit,/ Full
bene9cial o'ners$ip o# t$e stoc5s) couple+ 'it$ appropriate votin% ri%$ts is
essential/ T$us) stoc5s) t$e votin% ri%$ts o# '$ic$ $ave been assi%ne+ or trans#erre+
to aliens cannot be consi+ere+ $el+ b, P$ilippine citi*ens or P$ilippine nationals/
In+ivi+uals or .uri+ical entities not (eetin% t$e a#ore(entione+ -uali9cations are
consi+ere+ as non8P$ilippine nationals/ HE(p$asis supplie+I
4ere legal title is ins!6cient to meet the ;( percent +ilipino-owned FcapitalF
re5!ired in the Constit!tion. +!ll ene&cial ownership of ;( percent of the
o!tstanding capital stoc$, co!pled with ;( percent of the voting rights, is re5!ired.
The legal and ene&cial ownership of ;( percent of the o!tstanding capital stoc$
m!st rest in the hands of +ilipino nationals in accordance with the constit!tional
mandate. Otherwise, the corporation is Fconsidered as non-Philippine nationalDsE.F
:nder #ection 1(, %rticle W** of the Constit!tion, Congress may Freserve to citi,ens
of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least si2ty per centu( of
whose capital is owned y s!ch citi,ens, or s!ch higher percentage as Congress
may prescrie, certain areas of investments.F Th!s, in n!mero!s laws Congress has
reserved certain areas of investments to +ilipino citi,ens or to corporations at least
si2ty percent of the F%"!it"F of which is owned y +ilipino citi,ens. #ome of these
laws are@ B1C Aeg!lation of %ward of Lovernment Contracts or A.%. >o. 518.8 B/C
Philippine *nventors *ncentives %ct or A.%. >o. .85(8 B.C 4agna Carta for 4icro,
#mall and 4edi!m 1nterprises or A.%. >o. ;9778 B0C Philippine Overseas #hipping
=evelopment %ct or A.%. >o. 70718 B5C =omestic #hipping =evelopment %ct of /((0
or A.%. >o. 9/958 B;C Philippine Technology Transfer %ct of /((9 or A.%. >o. 1((558
and B7C #hip 4ortgage =ecree or P.=. >o. 15/1. )ence, the term F%"!it"F in #ection
11, %rticle W** of the Constit!tion is also !sed in the s"#e %onte*t in nu#erous
"$s reserving certain areas of investments to +ilipino citi,ens.
To constr!e roadly the term FcapitalF as the total o!tstanding capital stoc$,
incl!ding oth common and non8votin% preferred shares, grossly contravenes the
intent and letter of the Constit!tion that the F#tate shall develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy e5ectively controlled y +ilipinos.F % road
de&nition !n<!sti&aly disregards who owns the all-important voting stoc$, which
necessarily e5!ates to control of the p!lic !tility.
He shall ill!strate the glaring anomaly in giving a road de&nition to the term
Fcapital.F "et !s ass!me that a corporation has 1(( common shares owned y
foreigners and 1,(((,((( non-voting preferred shares owned y +ilipinos, with oth
classes of share having a par val!e of one peso BP1.((C per share. :nder the road
de&nition of the term Fcapital,F s!ch corporation wo!ld e considered compliant
with the 0( percent constit!tional limit on foreign e5!ity of p!lic !tilities since the
overwhelming ma<ority, or more than 99.999 percent, of the total o!tstanding
capital stoc$ is +ilipino owned. This is ovio!sly as!rd.
*n the e2ample given, only the foreigners holding the common shares have voting
rights in the election of directors, even if they hold only 1(( shares. The foreigners,
with a min!sc!le e5!ity of less than (.((1 percent, e2ercise control over the p!lic
!tility. On the other hand, the +ilipinos, holding more than 99.999 percent of the
e5!ity, cannot vote in the election of directors and hence, have no control over the
p!lic !tility. This star$ly circ!mvents the intent of the framers of the Constit!tion,
as well as the clear lang!age of the Constit!tion, to place the control of p!lic
!tilities in the hands of +ilipinos. *t also renders ill!sory the #tate policy of an
independent national economy e5ectively controlled y +ilipinos.
The e2ample given is not theoretical !t can e fo!nd in the real world, and in fact
exists in the present case/
)olders of P"=T preferred shares are e2plicitly denied of the right to vote in the
election of directors. P"=TUs %rticles of *ncorporation e2pressly state that Fthe
hoders of Seri" Preferred Sto%, sh" not be entited to vote "t "n+
#eetin' of the sto%,hoders for the ee%tion of dire%tors or for "n+ other
!ur!ose or otherwise participate in any action ta$en y the corporation or its
stoc$holders, or to receive notice of any meeting of stoc$holders.F
51
On the other hand, holders of common shares are granted the e2cl!sive right to
vote in the election of directors. P"=TUs %rticles of *ncorporation
5/
state that Feach
holder of Common Capital #toc$ shall have one vote in respect of each share of
s!ch stoc$ held y him on all matters voted !pon y the stoc$holders, and the
hoders of Co##on C"!it" Sto%, sh" h"ve the e*%usive ri'ht to vote for
the ee%tion of dire%tors "nd for " other !ur!oses.F
5.
*n short, only holders of common shares can vote in the election of directors,
meaning only common shareholders e2ercise control over P"=T. Conversely, holders
of preferred shares, who have no voting rights in the election of directors, do not
have any control over P"=T. *n fact, !nder P"=TUs %rticles of *ncorporation, holders
of common shares have voting rights for all p!rposes, while holders of preferred
shares have no voting right for any p!rpose whatsoever.
*t m!st e stressed, and res!ondents do not dis!ute, that foreigners hold a
ma<ority of the common shares of P"=T. *n fact, ased on P"=TUs /(1( Leneral
*nformation #heet BL*#C,
50
which is a doc!ment re5!ired to e s!mitted ann!ally to
the #ec!rities and 12change Commission,
55
foreigners hold 1/(,(0;,;9( common
shares of P"=T whereas +ilipinos hold only ;;,75(,;// common shares.
5;
*n other
words, foreigners hold ;0./7[ of the total n!mer of P"=TUs common shares, while
+ilipinos hold only .5.7.[. #ince holding a ma<ority of the common shares e5!ates
to control, it is clear that foreigners e2ercise control over P"=T. #!ch amo!nt of
control !nmista$aly e2ceeds the allowale 0( percent limit on foreign ownership of
p!lic !tilities e2pressly mandated in #ection 11, %rticle W** of the Constit!tion.
4oreover, the =ividend =eclarations of P"=T for /((9,
57
as s!mitted to the #1C,
shows that per share the #*P
58
preferred shares earn a pittance in dividends
compared to the common shares. P"=T declared dividends for the common shares
at P7(.(( per share, while the declared dividends for the preferred shares amo!nted
to a measly P1.(( per share.
59
#o the preferred shares not only cannot vote in the
election of directors, they also have very little and ovio!sly negligile dividend
earning capacity compared to common shares.
%s shown in P"=TUs /(1( L*#,
;(
as s!mitted to the #1C, the par val!e of P"=T
common shares is P5.(( per share, whereas the par val!e of preferred shares
is P1(.(( per share. *n other words, preferred shares have twice the par val!e of
common shares !t cannot elect directors and have only 1Q7( of the dividends of
common shares. 4oreover, 99.00[ of the preferred shares are owned y +ilipinos
while foreigners own only a min!sc!le (.5;[ of the preferred shares.
;1
Horse,
preferred shares constit!te 77.85[ of the a!thori,ed capital stoc$ of P"=T while
common shares constit!te only //.15[.
;/
This !ndenialy shows that ene&cial
interest in P"=T is not with the non-voting preferred shares !t with the common
shares, latantly violating the constit!tional re5!irement of ;( percent +ilipino
control and +ilipino ene&cial ownership in a p!lic !tility.
The legal and ene&cial ownership of ;( percent of the o!tstanding capital stoc$
m!st rest in the hands of +ilipinos in accordance with the constit!tional mandate.
+!ll ene&cial ownership of ;( percent of the o!tstanding capital stoc$, co!pled
with ;( percent of the voting rights, is constit!tionally re5!ired for the #tateUs grant
of a!thority to operate a p!lic !tility. The !ndisp!ted fact that the P"=T preferred
shares, 99.00[ owned y +ilipinos, are non-voting and earn only 1Q7( of the
dividends that P"=T common shares earn, grossly violates the constit!tional
re5!irement of ;( percent +ilipino control and +ilipino ene&cial ownership of a
p!lic !tility.
In short, Fii!inos hod ess th"n /L !er%ent of the votin' sto%,, "nd e"rn
ess th"n /L !er%ent of the dividends, of PK4T. This directly contravenes the
e2press command in #ection 11, %rticle W** of the Constit!tion that FDnEo franchise,
certi&cate, or any other form of a!thori,ation for the operation of a p!lic !tility
shall e granted e2cept to 2 2 2 corporations 2 2 2 organi,ed !nder the laws of the
Philippines, "t e"st si*t+ !er %entu# of $hose %"!it" is o$ned b+ su%h
%iti)ens * * *.F
To repeat, B1C foreigners own ;0./7[ of the common shares of P"=T, which class of
shares e2ercises the soeright to vote in the election of directors, and th!s e2ercise
control over P"=T8 B/C +ilipinos own only .5.7.[ of P"=TUs common shares,
constit!ting a minority of the voting stoc$, and th!s do not e2ercise control over
P"=T8 B.C preferred shares, 99.00[ owned y +ilipinos, have no voting rights8 B0C
preferred shares earn only 1Q7( of the dividends that common shares earn8
;.
B5C
preferred shares have twice the par val!e of common shares8 and B;C preferred
shares constit!te 77.85[ of the a!thori,ed capital stoc$ of P"=T and common
shares only //.15[. This $ind of ownership and control of a p!lic !tility is a
moc$ery of the Constit!tion.
*ncidentally, the fact that P"=T common shares with a par val!e of P5.(( have a
c!rrent stoc$ mar$et val!e ofP/,./8.(( per share,
;0
while P"=T preferred shares
with a par val!e of P1(.(( per share have a c!rrent stoc$ mar$et val!e ranging from
only P1(.9/ to P11.(; per share,
;5
is a glaring con&rmation y the mar$et that
control and ene&cial ownership of P"=T rest with the common shares, not with the
preferred shares.
*ndisp!taly, constr!ing the term FcapitalF in #ection 11, %rticle W** of the
Constit!tion to incl!de oth voting and non-voting shares will res!lt in the a<ect
s!rrender of o!r telecomm!nications ind!stry to foreigners, amo!nting to a clear
adication of the #tateUs constit!tional d!ty to limit control of p!lic !tilities to
+ilipino citi,ens. #!ch an interpretation certainly r!ns co!nter to the constit!tional
provision reserving certain areas of investment to +ilipino citi,ens, s!ch as the
e2ploitation of nat!ral reso!rces as well as the ownership of land, ed!cational
instit!tions and advertising !sinesses. The Co!rt sho!ld never open to foreign
control what the Constit!tion has e2pressly reserved to +ilipinos for that wo!ld e a
etrayal of the Constit!tion and of the national interest. The Co!rt m!st perform its
solemn d!ty to defend and !phold the intent and letter of the Constit!tion to
ens!re, in the words of the Constit!tion, Fa self-reliant and independent national
economy e&ectivel, controlle+ y +ilipinos.F
#ection 11, %rticle W** of the Constit!tion, li$e other provisions of the Constit!tion
e2pressly reserving to +ilipinosspeci9c areas of investment, s!ch as the
development of nat!ral reso!rces and ownership of land, ed!cational instit!tions
and advertising !siness, is self.executing. There is no need for legislation to
implement these self-e2ec!ting provisions of the Constit!tion.
2"#bo" v. Teves :Desoution;
The ar!pt application of the constr!ction of #ec. 11, %rt. W** of the Constit!tion to
foreigners c!rrently holding voting shares in a p!lic !tility corporation is not only
constit!tionally prolematic8 it is li$ewise replete with pragmatic di6c!lties that
co!ld hinder the real-world translation of this Co!rtUs Aesol!tion. %ltho!gh
apparently enevolent, the ma<orityUs concession to allow Fp!lic !tilities that fail to
comply with the nationality re5!irement !nder #ection 11, %rticle W** and the +*%
DtoE c!re their de&ciencies prior to the start of the administrative case or
investigationF
1;5
co!ld indirectly occasion a comp!lsory deprivation of the p!lic
!tilitiesU foreign stoc$holders of their voting shares. Certainly, these p!lic !tilities
m!st immediately pare down their foreign-owned voting shares to avoid the
imposale sanctions. This holds tr!e especially for P"=T whose ;0./7[ of its
common voting shares are foreign-s!scried and held. P"=T is, therefore, forced to
immediately deprive, or at the very least, dil!te the property rights of their foreign
stoc$holders efore the commencement of the administrative proceedings, which
wo!ld e a mere farce considering the transparency of the p!lic !tility from the
onset.
1ven with the chance granted to the p!lic !tilities to remedy their s!pposed
de&ciency, the ne!lo!s time-frame given y the ma<ority, i.e., Fprior to the start of
the administrative case or investigation,F
1;;
may very well prove too short for these
p!lic !tilities to raise the necessary amo!nt of money to increase the n!mer of
their a!thori,ed capital stoc$ in order to dil!te the property rights of their foreign
stoc$holders holding voting shares.
1;7
#imilarly, if they ind!ce their foreign
stoc$holders to transfer the e2cess voting shares to 5!ali&ed Philippine nationals,
this period efore the &ling of the administrative may not e s!6cient for these
stoc$holders to &nd Philippine nationals willing to p!rchase these voting shares at
the mar$et price. This Co!rt cannot ignore the fact that the voting shares of
Philippine p!lic !tilities li$e P"=T are listed and sold at large in foreign capital
mar$ets. )ence, foreigners who have previo!sly p!rchased their voting shares in
these mar$ets will not have a ready Philippine mar$et to immediately transfer their
shares. 4ore than li$ely, these foreign stoc$holders will e forced to sell their voting
shares at a loss to the few Philippine nationals with money to spare, or the p!lic
!tility itself will e constrained to ac5!ire these voting shares to the pre<!dice of its
retained earnings.
1;8
Hhatever means the p!lic !tilities choose to employ in order to c!t down the
foreign stoc$holdings of voting shares, it is necessary to determine who among the
foreign stoc$holders of these p!lic !tilities m!st ear the !rden of !nloading the
voting shares or the dil!tion of their property rights. *n a sit!ation li$e this, there is
at present no settled r!le on who sho!ld e deprived of their property rights. Hill it
e the foreign stoc$holders who o!ght the latest iss!ancesI Or the &rst foreign
stoc$holders of the p!lic !tility corporationsI This iss!e cannot e realistically
settled within the time-frame given y the ma<ority witho!t raising more disp!tes.
Hith these loose ends, the ma<ority cannot penali,e the p!lic !tilities if they sho!ld
fail to comply with the directive of complying with the Fnationality re5!irement
!nder #ection 11, %rticle W** and the +*%F within the !nreasonaly ne!lo!s and
limited period Fprior to the start of the administrative case or investigation.F
1;9
*n the light of the new prono!ncement of the Co!rt that p!lic !tilities that fail to
comply with the nationality re5!irement !nder #ection 11, %rticle W** of the
Constit!tion C%> C:A1 T)1*A =1+*C*1>C*1# prior to the start of the administrative
case or investigation, * s!mit that a9ected companies li$e P"=T sho!ld e given
reasonale time to !nderta$e the necessary meas!res to ma$e their respective
capital str!ct!re compliant, and the #1C, as the reg!latory a!thority, sho!ld come
!p with the appropriate g!idelines on the process and s!pervise the same. #1C
sho!ld li$ewise adopt the necessary r!les and reg!lations to implement the
prospective compliance y all a9ected companies with the new r!ling regarding the
interpretation of the provision in 5!estion. #!ch r!les and reg!lations m!st respect
the d!e process rights of all a9ected corporations and de&ne a reasonale period
for them to comply with the '!ne /8, /(11 =ecision
Crisosto#o vs SEC
He &nd no merit in the petition. The &rst allegation that the #1C en banc erred in
reversing the orders of the hearing o6cer, 1steves, is the same gro!nd raised y
the petitioner in C%-L.A. >o. #P 170.5. The iss!e is frivolo!s for the a!thority of the
#1C en banc to review, revise, reverse, or a6rm orders of its hearing o6cers is too
elementary to warrant any deate.
15!ally !nmeritorio!s are the second and third gro!nds of the petition R that the
P57 million investment of the 'apanese gro!p in :=4C violates the constit!tional
provisions restricting the transfer or conveyance of private lands B%rt. W***, #ec. 7,
1987 Constit!tionC and the ownership of ed!cational instit!tions B%rt. W?*, #ec.
10DaE, 1987 Constit!tionC, to citi,ens of the Philippines or corporations at least ;([
of the capital of which is owned y +ilipino citi,ens. Hhile 8/[ of :=4C's capital
stoc$ is indeed s!scried y the 'apanese gro!p, only .([ Be5!ivalent to 171,7/1
shares or P17,17/.((C is owned y the 'apanese citi,ens, namely, the Pamada
spo!ses and Tomotada 1nats!. 5/[ is owned y 1dita 1nats!, who is a +ilipino.
%ccordingly, in its application for approvalQregistration of the foreign e5!ity
investments of these investors, :=4C declared that J=K o# its capital stoc5 is
o'ne+ b, Filipino citi*ens, incl!ding 1dita 1nats!. That application was approved y
the Central 3an$ on %!g!st ., 1988 Bp. /09, Aollo,C.
The investments in :=4C of =octors Pamada and 1nats! do not violate the
Constit!tional prohiition against foreigners practising a profession in the
Philippines B#ection 10, %rticle W**, 1987 Constit!tionC for they do not practice their
profession BmedicineC in the Philippines, neither have they applied for a license to
do so. They only own shares of stoc$ in a corporation that operates a hospital. >o
law limits the sale of hospital shares of stoc$ to doctors only. The ownership of s!ch
shares does not amo!nt to engaging Billegally,C in the practice of medicine, or,
n!rsing. *f it were otherwise, the petitioner's stoc$holding in :=4C wo!ld also e
illegal.
The #1C's orders dated '!ne /7, 1989 and '!ly /1, 1989 Bdirecting the secretary of
:=4C to call a stoc$holders' meeting, etc.C are not premat!re, despite the
petitioner's then pending motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Co!rt of
%ppeals. The lifting y the Co!rt of %ppeals of its writ of preliminary in<!nction in
C%-L.A. #P >o. 170.5 cleared the way for the implementation y the #1C's en
banc resol!tion in #1C 13 Case >o. 191. The #1C need not wait for the Co!rt of
%ppeals to resolve the petitioner's motion for reconsideration for a <!dgment
decreeing the dissol!tion of a preliminary in<!nction is immediately e2ec!tory.
*t <s$all not be sta,e+ a#ter its ren+ition an+ be#ore an appeal is ta5en or +urin% t$e
pen+enc, o# an appeal/< B#ec. 0, A!le .9, A!les of Co!rt8 4arcelo #teel Corp. vs.
Co!rt of %ppeals, 50 #CA% 89 D197.E8 %g!ilar vs. Tan, .1 #CA% /(5 D197(E8 #itia
Teco vs. ?ent!ra, 1 Phil. 097 D19(/E8 Hatson \ Co., "td. vs. 4. 1nri5!e,, * Phil. 08(
D19(/EC.
Tonentino v. Se%
?**. Alle%e+ violations o# t$e +ue process) e-ual protection an+ contract clauses an+
t$e rule on ta"ation. CA13% asserts that A.%. >o. 771; B1C impairs the oligations of
contracts, B/C classi&es transactions as covered or e2empt witho!t reasonale asis
and B.C violates the r!le that ta2es sho!ld e !niform and e5!itale and that
Congress shall Fevolve a progressive system of ta2ation.F
Hith respect to the &rst contention, it is claimed that the application of the ta2 to
e2isting contracts of the sale of real property y installment or on deferred payment
asis wo!ld res!lt in s!stantial increases in the monthly amorti,ations to e paid
eca!se of the 1([ ?%T. The additional amo!nt, it is pointed o!t, is something that
the !yer did not anticipate at the time he entered into the contract.
The short answer to this is the one given y this Co!rt in an early case@ F%!thorities
from n!mero!s so!rces are cited y the plainti9s, !t none of them show that a
lawf!l ta2 on a new s!<ect, or an increased ta2 on an old one, interferes with a
contract or impairs its oligation, within the meaning of the Constit!tion. 1ven
tho!gh s!ch ta2ation may a9ect partic!lar contracts, as it may increase the det of
one person and lessen the sec!rity of another, or may impose additional !rdens
!pon one class and release the !rdens of another, still the ta2 m!st e paid !nless
prohiited y the Constit!tion, nor can it e said that it impairs the oligation of any
e2isting contract in its tr!e legal sense.F B"a *ns!lar v. 4ach!ca Lo-Ta!co and >!la
Co-#iong, .9 Phil. 5;7, 570 B1919CC. *ndeed not only e2isting laws !t also Ft$e
reservation o# t$e essential attributes o# soverei%nt,, is . . . read into contracts as a
post!late of the legal order.F BPhilippine-%merican "ife *ns. Co. v. %!ditor Leneral, //
#CA% 1.5, 107 B19;8CC Contracts m!st e !nderstood as having een made in
reference to the possile e2ercise of the rightf!l a!thority of the government and no
oligation of contract can e2tend to the defeat of that a!thority. B>orman v.
3altimore and Ohio A.A., 79 ". 1d. 885 B19.5CC.
*t is ne2t pointed o!t that while O0 of A.%. >o. 771; e2empts s!ch transactions as
the sale of agric!lt!ral prod!cts, food items, petrole!m, and medical and veterinary
services, it grants no e2emption on the sale of real property which is e5!ally
essential. The sale of real property for sociali,ed and low-cost ho!sing is e2empted
from the ta2, !t CA13% claims that real estate transactions of Fthe less poor,F i.e.,
the middle class, who are e5!ally homeless, sho!ld li$ewise e e2empted.
The sale of food items, petrole!m, medical and veterinary services, etc., which are
essential goods and services was already e2empt !nder O1(., pars. BC BdC B1C of the
>*AC efore the enactment of A.%. >o. 771;. Petitioner is in error in claiming that
A.%. >o. 771; granted e2emption to these transactions, while s!<ecting those of
petitioner to the payment of the ?%T. 4oreover, there is a di9erence etween the
Fhomeless poorF and the Fhomeless less poorF in the e2ample given y petitioner,
eca!se the second gro!p or middle class can a9ord to rent ho!ses in the
meantime that they cannot yet !y their own homes. The two social classes are
th!s di9erently sit!ated in life. F*t is inherent in the power to ta2 that the #tate e
free to select the s!<ects of ta2ation, and it has een repeatedly held that
'ine5!alities which res!lt from a singling o!t of one partic!lar class for ta2ation, or
e2emption infringe no constit!tional limitation.'F B"!t, v. %raneta, 98 Phil. 108, 15.
B1955C. Accor+, City of 3ag!io v. =e "eon, 1.0 Phil. 91/ B19;8C8 #ison, 'r. v. %ncheta,
1.( #CA% ;50, ;;. B1980C8 Napatiran ng mga >agliling$od sa Pamahalaan ng
Pilipinas, *nc. v. Tan, 1;. #CA% .71 B1988CC.
+inally, it is contended, for the reasons already noted, that A.%. >o. 771; also
violates %rt. ?*, O/8B1C which provides that FThe r!le of ta2ation shall e !niform
and e5!itale. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of ta2ation.F
15!ality and !niformity of ta2ation means that all ta2ale articles or $inds of
property of the same class e ta2ed at the same rate. The ta2ing power has the
a!thority to ma$e reasonale and nat!ral classi&cations for p!rposes of ta2ation. To
satisfy this re5!irement it is eno!gh that the stat!te or ordinance applies e5!ally to
all persons, forms and corporations placed in similar sit!ation. BCity of 3ag!io v. =e
"eon, supra8 #ison, 'r. v. %ncheta, supraC