Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
DISCUSSIONS:
I. Recap of previous lecture
II. Reacquisition by R.A. 9225
III. Effect of Marriage (Sec. 4)
IV.
Dual
Citizenship/
Dual
Allegiance (Sec. 5)
V. Dual Citizenship and RA 9225
(Citizenship
Retention
and
Reacquisition Act of 2003)
I. Recap of Previous Lecture by
Atty. Jumao-as:
Article IV, Section 1- Provides for
who are citizens of the Philippines.
Philippine Citizenship can be acquired
via:
1. Birth ( Jus Sanguinis)
2. Naturalization
Art. IV, Section 2
It distinguishes natural-born from
naturalized Citizens. Although the
natural born and natural citizen enjoys
almost the same rights, there are
some rights that are reserved only for
natural born citizens.
Art IV, Section 3
Citizenship may be lost or reacquired
provided by laws.
HOW IT MAY BE LOST
A. It may be lost by virtue of
Commonwealth Act 63 by:
1. Naturalization
2. Express renunciation
3. Taking an oath of allegiance.
B. It may be lost by naturalized Filipino
citizen in relation to CA 473 by:
1. Cancellation of naturalization
HOW IT MAY BE ACQUIRED
Citizenship may be acquired:
1. Repatriation

- Backwards
- Effect retroacts at the date of filing
-Restoring the original citizenship of
the concerned person
- If he was a natural born and he
lost it when repatriated, he is
restored to being natural born.
2. Naturalization
II. Reacquisition by R.A. 9225
Republic Act 9225- An Act Making
the
Citizenship
of
Philippine
Citizens Who Acquire Foreign
Citizenship Permanent. Amending
For the Purpose Commonwealth
Act No. 63, As Amended and for
Other Purposes
-Another
mode
of
reacquiring
Philippine Citizenship.
-In fact it’s not only reacquisition but
also retention of Philippine Citizenship.
-RA 9225 was recently enacted in
August 29, 2003 by virtue thereof.
Salient points:
1. This could be available only to
natural born citizen who lost their
Philippine
citizenship
by
foreign
naturalization.
2. They acquire or retain their
Philippine citizenship by merely taking
an oath of allegiance.
- Under Section 3 of RA 9225, if you
take an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and then
you should be considered to have
reacquired your Philippine Citizenship
if you lost it prior to RA 9225 and
deemed to have retained as if you
have not lost at all your Philippine
Citizenship and you were naturalized
after the effectivity of RA 9225.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 I. there are certain conditions.A. In his profession the proper authority is by the Supreme Court. 5. 9225) . but in the practice of profession there are additional requirements by law. to vote and to be voted upon to hold public office. two years after. The Supreme Court requires him to compliance with the following conditions for him to restore his good standing as a member of the Philippine bar. conditioned on: (a) The updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP. He was being forced to be naturalized as a Canadian because of health reason. appointed public office and to exercise his profession. he shall enjoy all civil and political rights. . He migrated in 2004 and became a citizen. If the person who lost his Philippine citizenship by naturalization and reacquires it or retains it via 9225. there are circumstances that the law requires certain conditions. Case: Petition for Leave to Resume Practice. this is specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and (d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court. he cannot automatically resume his practice of law base on Sec. par. Jumao-as on July 18. R. Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines.Under that law. he still retained his citizenship by virtue of RA 9225 thereafter. Pursuant to the facts he started his practice inn 1960s so when he came back to Philippines in 2006 it was already 46 years there from. in this case in the practice of profession. but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. (b) The payment of professional tax. He came back to the Philippines from Canada and wanted to resume his practice of law. 4 of RA 9225 which states that those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice. 5. there are certain conditions provided by law although the law says that upon taking his oath. but he desires to exercise his right of suffrage. Benjamin M. Therefore he must first secure from this Court the authority to do so. Ruling: RA 9225 says that retention is deemed to have not lost citizenship and shall enjoy all civil and political rights. Dacanay that all his life he devoted in the practice of law. Issue: Whether or not he can automatically resume his practice of law. He wanted to avail the social security privileges of a Canadian people. 2013 3. The law provides although a person is deemed to have been retained citizenship. (c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education. Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member of the Philippine bar. Therefore as to his intention. Dacanay 540 SCRA 424 (2007) FACTS: There is this Lawyer Benjamin M. Although RA 9225 grants him the benefit of retaining his citizenship. (Sec.Estrellado Lecture of Atty.

2013 III. 2.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 I. his citizenship was questioned.In other words. 4) Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship unless by their affirmation they are deemed under the law to have renounced it. That is a matter between him and his adopted . When his marriage was found bigamous in Australia. Ruling: The Supreme Court says that nobody was saying that it was his marriage which caused him to change his citizenship from Filipino to Australian. . That is a matter between Philippine citizenship. That he should retain his citizenship because his marriage has not transformed him into Australian. But it was not the marriage per se but it was his act of taking an oath of allegiance which transformed him into an Australian. He contended that his marriage to the Australian should not affect his citizenship because it’s the Constitution which provides the citizenship of the Filipinos. Issue: 1. his naturalization in Australia was annulled after it was found that his marriage to the Australian citizen was bigamous. unless by their affirmation they are deemed under the law to have renounced it. citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship it means that marriage does not affect the citizenship of a Filipino. Now. He went to Australia. -Section 4 of 1987 Philippine Constitution is worded the same as the 1973 Philippine Constitution Section 2 of the Articles of Citizenship provides that females who lost their Philippine Citizenship while the former provides for both male and female. His divestiture of Australian citizenship does not concern us here. His divestiture of Australian citizenship does not concern us here. he was allowed to take an automatically allegiance to Australia. He happened to marry an Australian. But it was the time when he took an oath of allegiance to Australia. he immediately retain his Philippine Citizenship. It is still naturalization simplified because he was married to an Australian. 176 SCRA 1 (1989) Facts: Labo was a natural born Filipino. as the petitioner asserts. He theorized further that since his naturalization was cancelled he is immediately returned back to be a Filipino Citizenship. And there he became an Australian citizen. he wanted to run for public office in the Philippines thus. Whether or not he is a Filipino citizen or has he lost it by virtue of marriage to an Australian. Case: Labo vs Comelec. Now he further claimed that his naturalization in Australia made him at worst only a dual citizen. by virtue of their marriage. that circumstance alone did not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship. the Australian government cancelled his naturalization. Effect of Marriage (Sec. Jumao-as on July 18. Even if it be assumed that. Perhaps under the law of Australian those who are married to Australian can just take an oath and become an Australian.Estrellado Lecture of Atty. Whether or not when his naturalization was cancelled.

Domingo. together with Marina Cabael. His theory was that since the Australian government cancelled his naturalization he is back to being Filipino. He has to reacquire his Philippine citizenship. Questions of Atty." petitioner and her two children lived in the house of Banez. married her and had two children. There are modes also of reacquiring Philippine Citizenship. Of course. 1979. 2. So when she discovered that they were married so she filed for concubinage. Petitioner and her children were admitted to the Philippines as temporary visitors under Section 9(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940. . It took a while more than 3 years to discover that there was more than just friendship. He filed for the reason that Djumantan is an overstaying alien. the prosecutor dismissed the case because the marriage was valid. Why? CA 63 provides modes of losing Philippine Citizenship and one of which is naturalization.Estrellado Lecture of Atty. petitioner and her two children with Banez. On January 13. as he claims. Her contention is that she is legally married to a Filipino so therefore. Case: Djumantan vs. 3. The latter made it appear that he was just a friend of the family of petitioner and was merely repaying the hospitability extended to him during his stay in Indonesia. she had the right to stay in the Philippines. 240 SCRA 746 (1995) Facts: By virtue of economic necessity. What would be the effect of his cancellation of naturalization in Australia? When it was found that his marriage was bigamous In Australia. there he met this woman. Cancellation of his other citizenship would not be one of those modes. does not mean that he has been automatically reinstated as a citizen of the Philippines. Jumao-as on July 18. What we must consider is the fact that he voluntarily and freely rejected Philippine citizenship and willingly and knowingly embraced the citizenship of a foreign country. arrived in Manila as the "guests" of Banez. Banez. Issue: Whether or not she is a Filipino and she can stay in the Philippines since she is married to a Filipino. 1979. by virtue of CA 63 he is deemed to have lost his citizenship. But if it is under RA 9225. was he correct? If he takes an oath of allegiance then he is deemed to have retained his citizenship then he would be correct but the case was decided prior to the enactment of RA 9225. His naturalization gave him a dual citizenship. As "guests. he has to go to Indonesia.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 I. He returned to the Philippines in January 1979. Therefore. The possibility that he may have been subsequently rejected by Australia. He becomes a Stateless person. 2013 country. the Australian government cancelled his naturalization. However the son made a petition by filing a deportation proceeding in the ombudsman but transferred to CID. When petitioner and her two children arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport on January 13. Jumao-as from the Case: 1. Then he embraced the religion of Islam. he is wrong. was he correct? Under the old law. met them.

persons with dual citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective position. 2013 Ruling: Again under our Constitution. The result of which. he was born in USA which observes Jus Soli. he is deemed to be a Filipino. He was also born of Filipino parents. Marriage of an alien to a Filipino doesn’t make an alien spouse ipso facto Filipino. the Supreme Court construed not as dual citizenship but . But when he became of majority age. The concern of the Constitution is with dual allegiance because they would want that the person has oath allegiance only to the Philippines. In case of Manzano. the other one is through his positive act. those who seek to elective public officials. Sometime later he ran for 1998 elections. Jumao-as on July 18. he was deemed to be among Americans. It does not grant also a citizenship to an alien. By operation of law. so he has an American passport. Ruling: Supreme Court distinguished dual citizenship from dual allegiance. The condition is voluntary on the part of individual pursuant to individual’s volition. Case: Mercado Vs Manzano 307 SCRA 630 (1999) Facts: Edu Manzano was born from Filipino parent but was born in America. by virtue of operation of Philippine law. he voted during the elections and exercise acts that are exclusive to Filipinos. The other one is accident occurs or marriage if applicable. there was disqualification that persons with dual citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective position. in this case he is an overstaying alien. dual citizenship it happens because the accident occurs or accident of marriage if applicable. 5) Section 5 -Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.Estrellado Lecture of Atty. he owns loyalty to both state. he is a American passport. He was brought to the Philippines when he was minor (6) years old. Dual Citizenship/ Dual Allegiance (Sec.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 I. When we say dual citizenship. he is in a situation in which he simultaneously owns by some positive act of loyalty to two or more states. As worded with that law. Under the local government code which provides for the qualifications of those who want to get elected at public official. not dual citizenship. So there is no law or decision in the Supreme Court that grants citizenship to an alien by virtue of marriage. a person by virtue of operation of laws of two countries is simultaneously a citizen of both countries. thus. Issue: Whether or not Manzano qualifies for public office despite having dual citizenship. Person with dual allegiance. Regarding the qualification therefore under the local government code. IV. The concern of the framers of the Constitution therefore is not with dual citizenship because it’s not the fault of the person that he has a dual citizenship. marriage does not affect the citizenship of a Filipino and vice versa. On the other hand. He has an ACR. the person has no control over that much less the state of the Philippines over that fact that he is also simultaneously a citizen of another. In this case. it is a condition which arises from a fact that the Philippine law has no control over the effect of the laws of other country particularly on the laws of citizenship. In other words he has no control over his citizenship hence it was involuntary.  Take note Section 5 deals with dual allegiance.

because again she is also a Filipino and the law would want that she would choose Philippine citizenship over the other citizenship and the choosing could suffice in the certificate of candidacy. Jumao-as on July 18. When she ran for governor. it cheapens Philippine citizenship since he has already renounced Philippine citizenship by naturalizing himself as an alien. Edu Manzano is not disqualified because he is also a Filipino notwithstanding that he is also an American. As long as you declare an oath that you are a Filipino.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 I. In other words. It is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. Case: Valles vs Comelec Facts: Ms. isn’t it cheapening Philippine citizenship? Here it is the contention of the petitioner that RA 9225 allows dual allegiance and not just dual citizenship. According to Supreme Court 9225 intends legislature to do away with the provision of CA 63. Because he is of dual citizenship. Therefore. RA 9225 allowed dual citizenship to natural born citizen who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of . 2013 dual allegiance because that is what the Constitution prompts about. she was born in Australia of a Filipino father and an Australian mother. Therefore. the Supreme Court. In other words. it is deemed when he file the certificate of candidacy and declared under oath that he is a Filipino and that he will support the Constitution of the Government of the Philippines. he is not actually disqualified from public office. According to the petitioner. Datumanong 523 SCRA 108 (2007) Facts: Petitioner is questioning the constitutionality of RA 9225. it amends CA 63 first provision wherein naturalization is the mode of losing Philippine citizenship. The said law allows natural born citizen to regain his Philippine citizenship by merely taking his oath of allegiance without forfeiting their foreign allegiance. Ruling: No. Manzano says that the filing of candidacy will suffice as proof that the person with dual citizenship has elected or chosen Philippine citizenship over the other citizenship. Her status is that she has dual citizenship. Dual Citizenship and RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003) Case: AASJS vs. Filipino and American not in his own choosing. is she was petitioned to be disqualified by the mere fact that she has dual citizen.Estrellado Lecture of Atty. More than that. Now why will we embrace him back as a Filipino by just requiring him only to take an oath of allegiance. V. when he filed his certificate of candidacy. Lopez who ran for governor in Mati. Issue: Whether disqualified for or not she the position is of Governor of Mati because of her dual citizenship. in Mercado vs. it will suffice as choosing or electing Philippine citizenship over the other citizenship. Issue: Is RA 9225 constitutional? Is the petitioner correct? Ruling: The Supreme Court rules favourably on the Constitutionality of 9225. there is that portion in the certificate wherein the applicant/candidate will declare under oath that he is a Filipino citizen and that he will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and to maintain through faith and allegiance thereto.

it was cited on 2009. Jumao-as on July 18. Now he wanted to run for public office. With that by simply taking his oath. as far as the Philippines is concerned.Estrellado Lecture of Atty. the filing of certificate of candidacy is sufficient that an individual with dual citizenship has elected Philippine citizenship over other citizenship. Rep. solemny swear (or affrim) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines. he was naturalized as an American and he sought to reacquire his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225. 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. RA 9225 section 3. paragraph 2 of RA 9225 which states (2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and. He quoted the case of Edu Manzano on which case. 2013 naturalization of a foreign country is dual citizenship. In other words the question of dual allegiance is no longer the concern of the Philippines if there is dual allegiance the question is passed on to the other state. implicitly renounce any at all for allegiance. Plainly. Petitioner argued that he had substantially complied the requirements of 9225 to be qualified to run for public office. and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. So in the case. at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy. So there is no question as to dual allegiance in this case. RA 9225 requires that person or that individual to take his oath of allegiance to the Supremacy of the Philippine Constitution and to the Supremacy of the government of the Philippines. ." By taking this oath. from Section 3. AASJS has affirm the constitutionality of RA 9225. Although as worded he acknowledged the supreme authority of the Philippines. Case: Jacot vs Dal.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 I. Thereby. Facts: Applying RA 9225. only to dual citizenship. RA 9225 requires only taking an oath of allegiance. On dual allegiance. Act No. He said that he is taking an oath of allegiance of the Philippines. Issue: Is it sufficient to allow him to run for public office when he reacquired his citizenship via RA 9225? Ruling: Supreme Court pointed out Section 5. the individual declares that he recognizes and accepts the supreme authority of the Philippines. The Philippine is concerned is only that he has declares the supreme authority of the Philippines. In other words. and that I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. he has implicitly renounced. Oath of Allegiance"I _____________________. it is assured that the individual has given allegiance to the Philippines and recognizes the supremacy of the Philippines. RA 9225 therefore allows only dual citizenship and not dual allegiance. make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. The petitioner was natural born citizen.

There was nothing there which mentioned renunciation of foreign allegiance. Thus the oath under Section 3 of 9225 was not sufficient to comply the requirement of Section 5. at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy. of RA 9225 there is an additional requirement of meeting qualification to hold public office and making of personal sworn renunciation of his foreigner citizenship. Petition thereof because his father was American and some documents. .Renunciation not necessary. RA 9225 requires him further in order to qualify. other than that he must make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all oath of allegiance with any foreign state. Dual citizenship acquired by: 1. In other words.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 I. He wanted to go to America and applied for petition as a relative an American Citizen. The oath under RA 9225 would not suffice. By birth. Manzano.necessary to be renounced (personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath) when running for public office. Issue: Is it necessary for him to renounce his American allegiance or would his certificate of candidacy suffice as his election of Philippine citizenship? Ruling: The Supreme Court’s decision states that his certificate of candidacy can suffice as his election of Philippine citizenship. 580 SCRA 12 (2009) Facts: In this case he was born of Filipino mother and American father. he able to go to the US. There was a contention that he was disqualified because he failed to make a personal and sworn renunciation of his American Citizenship. He contends that his filing of certificate of candidacy would suffice his election of Philippine citizenship pursuant to the case of Mercado vs.Estrellado Lecture of Atty. By own doing. He was staying in the Philippines. make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. That he must be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and. 2. His situation was the same with the case of Edu Manzano. Jumao-as on July 18. if you are a natural born citizen lost your citizenship by naturalization of foreign country then reacquires it by taking an Oath of allegiance is a requirement to retain his Philippine citizenship but to run for public office Section 5 paragraph 2 is applicable. If he wants to run for public office. 2013 Other than oath of allegiance under Section 3. Under Section 3. Comelec. statement in the certificate of candidacy can suffice. the purpose is to retain or reacquire his Philippine Citizenship. The Supreme Court said that the requirement in 9225 is he must take an oath of allegiance. There is no need for him to renounce because he has dual citizenship from birth since he is born of a Filipino mother and an American father. He then availed RA 9225 and wanted to run for public office. Case: De Guzman vs Comelec – same ruling on the case of Jacot vs. that he must comply the requirements. Dal Case: Cordora vs.

same ruling on case of Cordora vs. Jumao-as on July 18.Estrellado Lecture of Atty. Comelec 576 SCRA 331 (2009). Comelec -END- .CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 I. 2013 Case: Japson vs.