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 one’s 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]

1973 Constitution

Article III, Section 2 enumerates the following as citizens of the Philippines:

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.

2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines

3. Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and
thirty-five

4. 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 natural-born 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 naturalize
tion.

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 person’s
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 one’s citizenship through repatriation, where one regains one’s 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,
one’s 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.