R.A. No.

9225 is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the definition of a

natural-born citizen as provided by the Constitution.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that Natural-born citizens are those w
ho are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act
to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine c
itizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed na
tural-born citizens.
According to Delegate Roxas, Natural-born citizen means a citizen by birth, a pe
rson who is a citizen by reason of his birth, and not by naturalization or by a
further declaration required by law for his citizenship.
The Republic Act No 9225 provides a former natural-born Filipino citizen who is
already in the Philippines and registered in the Bureau of Immigration shall fil
e a petition under oath to the Commissioner of Immigration for the cancellation
of the Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) and issuance of an Identification
Certificate (IC) as the case may be, under RA 9225. A former natural-born citiz
en who is already in the Philippines but has not registered with the BI within 6
0 days from date of arrival shall file a petition under oath to the Commissioner
of Immigration for the issuance of an IC under RA 9225.
In Cabellero vs. COMELEC, Petitioner was a natural born Filipino who was born an
d raised in Uyugan, Batanes. Thus, it could be said that he had his domicile of
origin in Uyugan, Batanes. However, he later worked in Canada and became a Canad
ian citizen and became a dual Filipino and Canadian citizen pursuant to Republic
Act (RA) No. 9225. The court ruled that the RA No. 9225 did not automatically m
ake him regain his residence in Uyugan, Batanes. He must still prove that after
becoming a Philippine citizen on September 13, 2012, he had reestablished Uyugan
, Batanes as his new domicile of choice which is reckoned from the time he made
it as such.
In Tabasa v. Court of Appeals, the court held that a person can reacquire his Ph
ilippine citizenship by availing of the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition
Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9225) by simply taking an oath of allegiance to t
he Republic of the Philippines.
In Lopez v. Commission on Elections, the court held that For the renunciation to
be valid, it must be contained in an affidavit duly executed before an officer
of law who is authorized to administer an oath. The affiant must state in clear
and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship for it to be
effective.
In Maquiling v. Commission on Elections, the court held that Republic Act No. 92
25 pertains to the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. Section 5(2)6 requir
es those who have re-acquired Philippine citizenship and who seek elective publi
c office, to renounce any and all foreign citizenship.
In David v. Agbay, the court held that Republic Act No. 9225 provides for the pr
ocedure for re-acquiring and retaining Philippine citizenship whereby taking of
oath of allegiance is required for both categories of natural-born Filipino citi
zens who became citizens of a foreign country.
In the aforementioned provision of Republic Act No. 9225 and particular cases th
at in order to retain the philippine citizenship of a former natural-born Filipi
no citizen, he must perform an act such as taking an oath of allegiance to the P
hilippines and renounce his foreign nationality which is contrary to the definit
ion of natural-born which is natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of
the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perf
ect their Philippine citizenship. According to the New Civil code, administrativ

e or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are no
t contrary to the laws or the Constitution. Therefore, Republic Act No. 9225 is
not valid and unconstitutional.
In Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, Vicent
e D. Ching, a legitimate child of a Filipino mother and an alien Chinese father,
was born on April 11, 1964 in Tubao La Union, under the 1935 Constitution. He h
as resided in the Philippines. He completed his Bachelor of Laws at SLU in Bagui
o on July 1998, filed an application to take the 1998 Bar Examination. After pas
sing the Bar examination he was not allowed to take oath because of his question
able status of Ching's citizenship, He was required to submit further proof of h
is citizenship. The court held that natural-born citizens are those who are citi
zens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire
or perfect their Philippine citizenship but the constitution gives an exception
that hose who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Sec
tion 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens and the paragraph (3), Secti
on 1 provides that Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and upon
reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. the citizenship of a
legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the cit
izenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child ele
cted Philippine citizenship. In the case at bar, the constitution gives only one
instance where a person can be deemed natural-born citizen even the latter unde
rgo a process such as filing an Affidavit of Election of Philippine Citizenship
and taking his Oath of Allegiance.
This is the English translation of the explanation given by Delegate Roxas during
the deliberations. Jose M. Aruego, THE FRAMING OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, 1
949,Dual

Vol.Citizenship,
1, pp. 404-405.
Republic of the Philippines, available at http://losangelespcg.d
fa.gov.ph/2014-04-29-01-22-48

500ACT
559
700
G.R.
AN
SCRA
No.TO199113,
9209835,
696
367
ORDAIN
(2006)
(2008).
(2013).
2015.INSTITUTE
AND
(lastTHE
accessed
CIVIL CODE
MarchOF26,THE2016).
PHILIPPINES [Civil Code], Rep
ublic316ActSCRA

No.1386,
(1999).
art. 7(3) (1950).