RA 9225, UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The congress cannot by legislation enact a law which is contrary to the

enshrined principles defined in the constitution. It can only define the terms and
limitations to which the constitution shall be applied, but not to add, alter or include
provisions on the constitution without amending in accordance with the proper
procedures. The 1935 and the 1987 constitution has defined and limited who are
considered as Natural-Born Citizens, upon this premise, the congress cannot
supplant nor include by law such definition without offending proper procedure to
amending the constitution. The enactment of R.A. No. 9225 in so far as it allows the
reacquisition of a Natural Born Citizen Status has encroached on the constitutional
provision that defined and limited Citizens who are considered as Natural-Born. Said
law in giving effect to its provisions would provide for another mode of acquiring
Natural Born Status despite its limited ways of being considered as such in the
constitution. This erroneous application and interpretation of the particular
constitutional provision in question must be overturned and be declared
unconstitutional.
Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution defines natural-born citizens as those who
are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.
It is a basic precept in Statutory Construction that when the law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall
be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the
intent of the legislature. Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution clearly states that
natural-born citizens are those who do not perform ANY act to acquire
citizenship. It is evident in the wordings of RA 9225 of the necessary acts in order to
reacquire Philippine Citizenship, to wit, RA 9225 provides:
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.Any provision of
law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the
Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of
their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby
deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the
following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
I ___________________________, solemnly swear (or
affirm) 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; and I hereby declare
that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of
the Philippines and will maintain true faith and
allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation

upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or

purpose of evasion.
The above mentioned section clearly requires a person to perform an oath in order
to perfect or complete the reacquisition of the Filipino Citizenship. A clear
contravention of the Constitutional provision which defined natural-born citizens as
those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any
act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Sec. 3 of the said law also
stated any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding. This however, cannot
be given effect as this provision is exactly infringing on the Constitutional provisions
on Filipino Citizenship which far superior than any subsequent law passed by the
congress.

Upholding the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9225 also would create another
issue in terms of Military Service. Even with the act of swearing to the Supreme
Authority of the Republic, it still does not take away the citizenship of a person from
the foreign countrys standpoint. It can arguably said that a person who undergone
repatriation through R.A. No. 9225 can still be considered as a citizen of the foreign
country. Loyalty and allegiance still remains with the foreign country despite taking
the oath of allegiance in the Philippines as far as the foreign country is concerned.
The case of Calilung vs. Datumanong as held by the Supreme Court stated that the
matter on dual allegiance was not made a concern in the enactment of R.A. 9225
since there is no law yet passed by congress concerning dual allegiance. This
pronouncement by the Supreme Court when it did not take the issue on dual
allegiance is what gives a citizen the dilemma of being recognized as a Filipino by
the Republic of the Philippines and as a citizen of another country in the eyes and
law of that foreign country, thereby arguably having a variance of citizenship known
as dual allegiance. In this sense, its loyalty and allegiance to a country will not be
determined, conflict might arise as to which country will a person serve in case of
war between two countries to which he is both a citizen. As expressively argued by
Senator Tito Guingona,
Can there be a more ridiculous concept that someone
swearing absolute, total and exclusive loyalty to two flags?
That is like swearing absolute, total and exclusive loyalty to
two wives. As it is, swearing absolute, total and exclusive
loyalty to two wives is banned as bigamy. Yet swearing
absolute, total and exclusive loyalty to two flags is
embraced as a virtue. What if the two flags get divided on

war? Will you serve in the army of the one as a conscript

while the other opposes it? 1

1 Tito

Guingona, On dual citizenship (visited Apr. 14, 2005)

<http://www.dfa.gov.ph/archive/speech/guingona/dualcitizenship.htm >