Comparison of Philippine Citizenship Laws

A. Spanish Laws on Citizenship

Not all the laws of Spain on citizenship were made applicable
to the Philippines. Those that were effective were extended by
Royal decrees.[1] Four can be traced back as early as the 1800s.
According

to

Law

3,

Book

6,

Title

II,

of Novisima

Recopilacion promulgated in Spain on 16 July 1805, the following

were considered citizens:
All foreigners who obtained the privilege of naturalization those who
were born in these kingdoms; those who, residing therein may be
converted to the holy Catholic faith; those being self-supporting,
established their domicile therein; those who ask for and obtain
residence in any town thereof; those who marry native women of said
kingdoms and domiciled therein; and in case of a foreign woman who
marries a native man, she thereby becomes subject to the same laws
and acquires the same domicile as her husband; those who establish
themselves in the country by acquiring real property; those who have
trade or profession and go there to practice the same; also those who
practice some mechanical trade therein or keep a retail store;... those
who reside for a period of ten years in a home of his own; and also
foreigners who, in accordance with the common law, royal orders and
other laws of the kingdom, may have become naturalized or acquired
residence therein...

Though it is unclear whether or not the Philippines would have

been within the scope of these laws, some authors and Supreme
Court justices later argued that the Philippines, as a colony would
have been included as one of the kingdoms in that law:
Moreover, the Government of the Spanish Monarchy, in encouraging
the multiplication of her subjects during the period of her glory and in
granting citizenship by birth in these kingdoms which were carried
forward in the Spanish Civil Code in 1889, under the same policy of
the multiplication of her subjects, can have no other intention than to

apply said law to the inhabitants of its dominions, colonies and

territories under its sovereignties.[2]

Another law of Spain which involved citizenship was the Order

of the Regency of 14 August 1841. Some provisions stated that:
Foreigners who desire to gain Spanish citizenship should apply for it
by means of an application filed with the Governor-General who was
empowered in the interest of the nation to grant or deny the same.
Compliance with this Royal Decree has been declared absolutely
essential for the acquisition of citizenship with a view to acquire the
status of a Spanish subject in the Philippine Islands prior to the
change of sovereignty.[3]

The Royal Decree of 23 August 1868, promulgated specifically

for the Philippine Islands, provided for the political status of
children of foreigners born in the Philippines. The following were
considered foreigners:
First, the legitimate and recognized natural children of a father who
belongs to another independent State, and the unrecognized natural,
and other illegitimate children of a mother belonging to another State
born outside of the Spanish dominions; Second- The children specified
in the preceding paragraph, born in the Spanish dominions or on
board Spanish vessels on high seas if they do not, on attaining the age
of majority fixed in the laws of the kingdom, elect Spanish nationality;
Third- Those being Spaniards, acquire another nationality, as well by
renouncing the first as be accepting employment from another
government without authority of the sovereign; Fourth- The woman
who contracts marriage with the subject of another state. [4]

Finally, there was the Law of 4 July 1870 the Ley Extranjera
de Ultramar which was expressly extended to the Philippines by
Royal Decree of 13 July 1870, and published in the Official Gazette
on 18 September 1870:
Art. 1. These are foreigners: (a) All persons born of foreign parents
outside of the Spanish territory; (b) Those born outside of the Spanish

territory of foreign fathers and Spanish mothers while they do not

claim Spanish nationality; (c) Those born in Spanish territory of
foreign parents, or foreign fathers and Spanish mothers, while they do
not make that claim; (d) Spaniards who may have lost their
nationality; (e) Those born outside of Spanish territory of parents who
may have lost their Spanish nationality; and (f) The Spanish woman
married to a foreigner. For purposes of this article, national vessels
are considered a part of Spanish dominions.
Art. 2. Foreigners who under the laws obtain naturalization papers or
acquire domicile in any town in the Spanish provinces of the Ultramar
are considered Spaniards.

B. Treaty of Paris
To end the six-month hostilities between Spain and the United
States following the declaration of war by the United States in 25
April 1898, Commissioners met in Paris on 1 October 1898 to
produce a treaty that would bring an end to the war. The treaty was
signed on 10 December 1898 whereby Spain yielded possession of
the Philippines, along with Puerto Rico, Guam and Cuba, to
the United States. The treaty tackled the disposition of the Islands
ceded by Spain to the United States
Article IX of the Treaty of Paris defined those who were the
citizens of the Philippines. The provision read:
Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory
over which Spain by present treaty relinquishes or cedes her
sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom,
retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the right
to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds; and they shall
also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce, and
professions, being subject thereof to such laws as are applicable to
other foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may
preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a
court of record, within a year from the date of the exchange of

ratification of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve

such allegiance; in default of which they shall be held to have
renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in
which they may reside.
The civil and political status of the native inhabitants of the
territories thereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by
the Congress.[5]

Under the Treaty, native subjects and Spanish subjects who

did not exercise their option to leave the Philippines, but remained
in the country and adopted the nationality of the Philippines were
considered citizens of the Philippines. However, those Spanish
subjects who remained in the Philippines, but who declared before
a court of record their intention to preserve their allegiance to
Spain within a year and a half from the date of ratification of the
treaty (11 April 1900) retained their Spanish nationality.
In the case of Bosque v. U.S., 1 Phil.88 (1908) it was held that
the absence of a Spanish subject from the Philippines during the
entire period allowed by treaty for making a declaration of his
intention to preserve allegiance to the Crown of Spain prevented
the loss of his Spanish Nationality by his failure to make such a
declaration. It was opined that under the treaty it was necessary
that he had a residence de facto in the Philippines for the eighteen
months following the ratification of the treaty.

A child under parental authority whose father did not take

advantage of the right of declaration of Spanish citizenship as
provided for by the treaty also was considered a citizen of
the Philippines.[6] However, if the child had no parents or guardians
in the Philippines or Puerto Rico at the time the treaty was ratified,
he would retain his Spanish nationality without the necessity of
declaring such to be his intention.[7]

C. The Philippine Bill

The Philippine Bill was enacted by the Congress of the United
States on 1 July 1902. It was the composite report of two Philippine
Commissions, the work of the War Departments of the United
States, hearing before the committees of U.S. Congress and
legislative conferences. The act was originally thought out to be a
temporary one. It was meant to prepare the Filipinos for
independence and self-governance for a period of at most eight
years. However, it became the guide for the administration of civil
government of the Philippines for fourteen years. It has little
character of a constitutional act. Those provisions which one would
expect to find in a constitution, such as establishing the framework
for government, limiting governmental powers, and providing for
the political organization of the executive, legislative and judicial

branches, were lacking[8]. An assembly was, however, authorized for

a future date. Most of the sections concerned general legislation on
commerce, the sale and lease of public lands, utilization of forests,
granting of mining claims, municipal bonds and franchises. The Bill
of Rights was also extended.
Section 4 of the Philippine Bill defines who the citizens of
the Philippines were. It stated:
That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside
therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April,
eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands,
and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held
to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the
protection of the United States, except as such as shall have elected
to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with
the provisions of the treaty of peace between the united States and
Spain signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninetyeight: Provided, That the Philippine legislature is hereby authorized to
provide by law for the acquisition Philippine citizenship by those
natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come within the foregoing
provisions, the natives of other insular possessions of the United
States, and such other persons residing in the Philippine Island who
could become citizens of the United States if residing therein.[9]

All

those

that

were

considered

citizens

of

the Philippines under the Treaty of Paris were deemed to be

citizens under the Philippine Bill.
All those born after 11 April 1899 to parents who were
Spanish subjects on that date and who continued to reside in
the Philippines were ipso
Islands.

factocitizens

of

the

Philippine

In effect the doctrine of jus soli, citizenship by place of

birth, which prevails in the United States, was extended to

thePhilippines.[10]
A woman of foreign nationality who married a citizen of
the Philippines was also considered a Philippine citizen as she
followed her husbands citizenship.[11]
Children born of Chinese fathers and Filipina mothers within
the Philippines, with certain exceptions, were also citizens of
the Philippines. Even though the Chinese father and mother of the
child were not legally married, the child was nevertheless
presumed prima facie to be a citizen of the Philippines, inasmuch
as under the law he followed the status of his legally recognized
parent, who is his mother, a Filipina. If such children were taken to
their fathers country during their minority, they still remained
citizens of the Philippines. However, if their fathers origin claimed
them as citizens under the principle ofjus sanguinis, they were then
considered as possessing dual nationality.
Children born in the Philippines of Chinese parents were also
considered citizens of the Philippines.[12] A child born of alien
parents, who went to his fathers native land at a tender age and
remained there during minority, on becoming of age, he should
elect Philippine citizenship if he desires to be a citizen of
the Philippines. A failure to express such desire within a reasonable

period of time should be regarded as a strong presumption of his

purpose to become definitely identified with the body politic of his
fathers country.[13]
Citizenship may be lost by the action of a person, either
express or implied. Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation of
ones nationality and allegiance by becoming a citizen of another
country.[14] Actual renunciation may not be necessary in order to
forfeit citizenship; a mere absence for a prolonged period, without
an intention to return may be sufficient. The rule of the Department
of State of the United States government was adopted, whereby, a
continued residence abroad for three years, after attainment of
majority, produces a loss of citizenship, unless it is clearly proved
that animus revertendi existed. Commission of certain crimes may
also cause the loss of citizenship[15].

D. The Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law)

The Philippine Bill was later on superseded by Philippine
Autonomy Act. The latter was superior in various ways to the
former. It essentially mirrored a constitution as it provided for a
framework of government, Bill of Rights and certain positive
powers and prohibitions. It, however, retained in totothe same

provision on citizenship as its predecessor. Section 2 of the Act

stated:
That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish
subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninetynine, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born
subsequent thereto, shall be deemed citizens of the Philippine Islands,
except as such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the
Crown of Spain in accordance with the provision of the treaty of peace
between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris December tenth,
eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and except such others as have
since become citizens of some other country: Provided, That the
Philippine legislature, herein provided for, is hereby authorized to
provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by those
natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come within the foregoing
provisions, the natives of the insular possession of the United States,
or who could become citizens of the United States under the laws
of the United States if residing therein.[16]

As the above-stated provision is just a re-enactment of Section

4 of the Philippine Bill, all persons considered as citizens under the
former law were also considered as such under the Philippine
Autonomy Act. However, it was only in the latter that the proviso,
also found in the Philippine Bill, providing for suppletory law for
the acquisition of Philippine citizenship was given effect by the
enactment of Act No. 2927 by the Philippine Legislature in 1920.
The said law constituted the Naturalization Act of the Philippines.
Under the law citizenship may now be acquired by the following
groups of people:
a.

natives of the Philippines who are not citizens thereof;

b.

natives of insular possessions of the United States; and

c.

citizens of the United States, or

d.

foreigners who, under the laws of the United States, may become
citizens of the later country if residing therein.[17]

E. 1935 Constitution
In the 1935 Constitution, Filipino citizenship was defined,
classified and regulated by Article IV, which stated that:
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines
(1)
Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of
the adoption of this Constitution
(2)
Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who,
before the adoption of the Constitution, had been elected to
public office in the Philippine Islands
(3)
Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines
(4)
Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines, and upon
reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship
(5)
Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the
manner provided by law.[18]

Those who were considered citizens at the time of the

adoption of the constitution included those deemed citizens under
the Jones Law: all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands, who were
Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April, 1989, and then residing in
the said islands, and their children born and subsequent thereto...
This was in turn a reproduction of Section 4 of the Philippine Bill of
1902.[19]

Those who were naturalized according to the Naturalization

Law of Act No. 2927 (March 26, 1920), come under the scope of
Section 1(1). Under this Act, the privilege of naturalization was
given to the following persons:
(1) natives of the Philippines who were not citizens of the
Philippines, because they were not living in the Philippines on April
11, 1899, and were not subjects of Spain on that date, not were they
children of Filipino citizens born after that date; (2) natives of the
insular possessions of the United States, such as natives of Guam,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; (3) residents of the
Philippines who were citizens of the United States; and (4) residents
of the Philippines who could become citizens of the United States
under the American laws if residing there.[20]

As can be seen from the previous citizenship laws, the

principle of jus sanguinis was not applicable prior to the 1935
Constitution. Before Section 1, which considered citizens those
whose fathers were Filipino citizens, the prevailing doctrine had
been jus soli.[21] By recognizing the principle of jus sanguinis, it was
recognized that a blood relationship would serve as a better
guarantee of loyalty to the country of ones parents[22] than jus soli.
Section 1(2), at the time the Constitution was framed, was
said to be inserted for the benefit of Delegate Fermin Caram
of Iloilo. Since Caram was born of Syrian parents and had not been
naturalized, an anomaly of the Constitution being signed by one
who is not a citizen would have been an issue, if thus subsection
had not been included. However, the Supreme Court has held that

the delegates would not have added such a provision without

considering its effect on others.[23]
Section 1(4) contemplated a situation where only the mother
was a Filipino citizen, and gave the child an opportunity to elect
Filipino citizenship only when he reached the age of majority. Prior
to his reaching such an age, he at most has an inchoate right to
Filipino citizenship.[24] The provision is also applicable to mothers
who were Filipinos before acquiring the nationality of their foreign
spouses. To restrict its interpretation in such a way that the time of
election was considered controlling as to the status when the
mother should be a Filipina would have nullified the particular
provision.[25] For illegitimate children however, this provision would
not have been applicable, since the citizenship of the father would
not then be material, since an illegitimate child as a rule follows the
nationality of the mother.[26]
The right to elect is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 652,
which states the requirements and procedure for election, and
must be express:
Option to elect Philippine citizenship shall be expressed in a
statement to be filed and sworn to by the party concerned before any
officer authorized to administer oath and shall be filed with the
nearest civil registrar. The party elected must likewise accompany the
aforementioned statement with the oath of allegiance to the
Constitution and the Government of the Philippines. Where the party
concerned resides abroad, he must make the statement before any
officer of the government of the Philippines authorized to administer

oaths and must forward such statement together with his oath of
allegiance to the civil registrar of Manila.[27]

On the naturalization of non-citizens, Section 1(5) possessed

great significance. Desirable aliens are welcomed, but a balance
must be created wherein the law bars undesirables without unduly
discouraging

the

worthwhile

aliens

desirous

of

becoming

Filipinos.[28] Naturalization has been defined as the legal act of

adopting an alien and clothing him with the rights that belong to a
natural born citizen. Naturalization may be obtained through a
general law of naturalization applied through a judicial process.[29]
F. 1973 Constitution
Article III, Section 2 enumerates the following as citizens of
the Philippines:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the

adoption of this Constitution.
Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines
Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the
provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirtyfive
Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

The purpose of the first paragraph of the provision was to

protect the continued enjoyment of Philippine citizenship to those
who already possess the right as of 17 January 1973.
The

Section

2(2)

followed

the

principle

of jus

sanguinis. However, unlike the 1935 Constitution, Filipino mothers

were placed by the 1973 Constitution on equal footing with Filipino

fathers as far as the determination of the citizenship of their
children was concerned. The father or mother may be a naturalborn Filipino or a Filipino by naturalization or by election. The only
important consideration here was that the mother must be a
Filipino at the time of the birth of the child. It must be reiterated
that this rule applied only to those born of a Filipino mother on or
after 17 January 1973.
As

the

1973

Constitution

followed

the

doctrine

of jus

sanguinis, it disregarded the place of birth of a person. As long as

one was born of Filipino parents, he was considered a Filipino. If he
was born in a country where the rule of jus soli was the prevailing
principle, it would be a case of dual citizenship.
The Section 2(3) defined the status of individuals who elect
Philippine citizenship under the 1935 Constitution. Under the said
Constitution, a child born of a Filipina mother married to an alien
was considered an alien unless he elected Philippine citizenship
within a reasonable period after reaching the age of majority.
However,

if

his

mother

reacquired

her Philippines citizenship

during his minority there was no need for election since by

operation of law, he is a Filipino citizen.

Section 2(4) provided for a means by which even individuals,

who were not Filipino citizens by virtue of birth or of Filipino
mothers,

may

become

citizens

of

the Philippines through

naturalization.

G. 1987 Constitution
The 1987 Constitution builds on the previous Constitutions,
but modifies provisions which cannot be found in the 1973 and
1935 Constitution. Those who were citizens during the adoption of
the new Constitution were considered citizens. However, this does
not rectify any defects in the acquisition of such citizenship under
the 1935 or 1973 Constitution. If a persons citizenship was
subject to judicial challenge under the old law, it still remains
subject to challenge under the new whether or not the judicial
challenge had been commenced prior to the effectivity of the new
Constitution.[30]
The principle of jus sanguinis still applies, and in following the
lead of the 1973 Constitution, the Filipino woman is placed on the
same footing as Filipino men in matters of citizenship. It is
essential, however, that the mother is a Filipina when the child is
born.[31] The principle of parental authority is still applicable in the
new Constitution, so this article only applies to legitimate children,

not to adopted or illegitimate ones. Mothers have parental

authority over illegitimate children. Adopted children, on the other
hand, as they are not related by blood, do not follow their adoptive
parents citizenship, despite being under their parental authority. [32]
As for those who were born after the adoption of the 1973
Constitution of Filipino mothers, the 1987 Constitution still
provides the transitory provision that was also in the 1973
Constitution: Those born before 17 January 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority.[33]
Naturalization still remains one of the ways by which a person
may acquire citizenship. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution defines
natural born citizens:
Natural-born
citizens
are
those
who
are
citizens
of
the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1
hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens

In the 1973 Constitution, the second sentence was not yet

included. Furthermore, even under the 1935 Constitution, it was
not settled whether the child of a Filipino mother who elects
Philippine citizenship was a natural-born Filipino or a naturalized
one. A liberal view was adopted by the 1987 Constitution, based on

the argument that the election retroacts to the moment of birth,

since it was such that gives him potential to make the election.[34]
However, if a person loses his citizenship and subsequently
reacquires such citizenship, that person would no longer be
considered a natural-born Filipino but a naturalized one (whether
under the 1973 or the 1987 Constitution). An exception to this rule
is reacquiring ones citizenship through repatriation, where one
regains ones former citizenship.[35]
Section 3 states that Philippine citizenship may be lost or
reacquired

in

the

manner

provided

by

law.[36] The

loss

of

citizenship is governed by two laws, Commonwealth Act No. 63 (for

natural-born and naturalized citizenship) and Commonwealth Act
No. 473 (for naturalized citizenship). Under C.A. No. 63, citizenship
may be lost: through naturalization in a foreign country, by
express renunciation of citizenship, by oath of allegiance to a
foreign country, by rendering service in the armed forces of a
foreign country, and by being a deserter of the armed forces.
Under

Commonwealth

Act

No.

473,

ones

certificate

of

naturalization may be cancelled if found to have been fraudulently

obtained, by permanent residence in the country of origin within
five years of naturalization, or when petition is found to have been
made on an invalid declaration of intent, or upon failure to comply

with the requirements for the education of minor children, or if the

person allows himself to be a dummy for aliens.[37]
Reacquisition may happen either through naturalization or
repatriation.
Section 4, which states that citizens of the Philippines who
marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
omission, they are deemed under the law, to have renounced
it,[38] modifies the 1973 Constitution by making no reference to
sex... on the chance that some country might have a law which
divests a foreign husband of his citizenship.[39]
In Section 5, the Constitution recognizes the problem of dual
allegiance, but leaves concrete ways of dealing with it to
Congress.[40] The same may be said of dual citizenship, which is not
contemplated in the provision, it being a seldom intentional and
perhaps never insidious...condition that arises from the fact that
Philippine law cannot control international law, and the laws of
other countries on citizenship.[41] Dual Citizenship is covered by RA
9225,

which

provides

that

natural-born

citizens

of

the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens
of a foreign country shall retain their citizenship after taking the
oath mentioned therein.
As can be seen, though there had been changes from the
Spanish Laws to the Philippine Constitutions, continuity has been
maintained. Each Constitution usually includes a provision to

accommodate previous ones. Major changes include the transition

from jus

soli to jus

sanguinis in

the

1935

Constitution,

the

equalization of men and women (fathers and mothers) as regards

citizenship in the 1973 Constitution, and the classification of
children of Filipino mothers who needed to elect citizenship as
natural-born, the

retention

of

citizenship

upon

marriage

to

foreigners, and the recognition of the problem of dual allegiance in

the 1987 Constitution.

http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html