CITIZENSHIP &

DUAL NATIONALITY
Reported by:
Acuna, Jared
Afan, Elizabeth
Amores, Patricia Ysabel

Conflicts of Law-SPL
Atty. Risel Castillo-Taleon
 OUTLINE
AMORES
I. Introduction
II. Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws ACUNA
III. The Nationality Theory
IV. Citizens of the Philippines
A. Natural Born Citizens
AMORES
B. Election of Citizenship
C. Naturalization
i. Direct Naturalization
ii. Derivative Naturalization
V. Dual citizenship and Dual allegiance
VI. Expatriation
VII. Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship
A. Loss of Citizenship
B. Reacquisition of Citizenship AFAN
i. Retention v. Reacquisition
ii. RA 9225: Citizenship Retention & Reacquisition Act
iii. Memorandum Circular No. AFF .05002
iv. RA 9225 and US Citizenship
VIII. Practice of Profession ACUNA
IX. Citizenship of Juridical Entities
I. Introduction

In the study of choice of law, citizenship and nationality are synonymous and interchangeable
concepts which indicate ties of allegiance and loyalty. It is defined as the membership of a
person in a particular state which brings with it the duties of loyalty and allegiance and
entitlement to its protection and to the enjoyment of civil and political rights therein. According
to the Hague Convention on Conflict of Nationality Laws of 1930, Any question as to whether
a person possesses the nationality of a particular state should be determined in accordance
with the law of that state. Article IV of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines determines
who Filipino citizens are. Hence, each country or state has the sole power and authority to
determine under its internal or municipal law who its citizens and nationals are.

II. Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws

Some of the guiding principles enunciated in the Hague Convention on Certain Questions
Relating to Conflict Nationality Laws:

Article 1

It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law
shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international
conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognized
with regard to nationality.

Article 2

Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State

shall be determined in accordance with the law of that State.

Article 3

Subject to the provisions of the present Convention, a person having two or more
nationalities may be regarded as its national by each of the States whose
nationality he possesses.

Article 4

A State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a State
whose nationality such person also possesses.

Article 5

Within a third State, a person having more than one nationality shall be treated as
if he had only one. Without prejudice to the application of its law in matters of
personal status and of any conventions in force, a third State shall, of the
nationalities which any such person possesses, recognise exclusively in its territory
 either the nationality of the country in which he is habitually and principally
resident, or the nationality of the country with which in the circumstances he
appears to be in fact most closely connected.

Article 6

Without prejudice to the liberty of a State to accord wider rights to renounce its
nationality, a person possessing two nationalities acquired without any voluntary
act on his part may renounce one of them with the authorization of the State
whose nationality he desires to surrender. This authorization may not be refused
in the case of a person who has his habitual and principal residence abroad, if the
conditions laid down in the law of the State whose nationality he desires to
surrender are satisfied.

III. The Nationality Theory

A person's citizenship is relevant to the determination of the personal law or the law that
should govern status and capacity of an individual. Moreover, the nationality of a party litigant
is one of the circumstances taken into account in determining the applicable law in a conflict
of laws situation.

Article 15 of the Civil Code adopts the nationality principle. Thus, pursuant to Article 15,
Philippine laws relating to the family rights and obligations and status, condition and legal
capacity of persons, accompany a Filipino citizen although he may reside in a different country.

The second paragraph of Article 16 of the Civil Code states that Intestate and testamentary
succession, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional
rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions shall be regulated by the national
law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the
property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. The national law
refers to the private law of the state of which the decedent was a citizen.1

IV. Citizens of the Philippines

Filipino citizens are either natural-born citizens or naturalized citizens. This may be gleaned
Section 1 Article IV of the 1987 Constitution:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987
Constitution,
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines,
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, and

1
Aznar v. Garcia, 7 SCRA 95 [1963].
 4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with the law.

A. Natural Born Citizenship

Section 2, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution defines natural born citizens to be those who
are citizens of the Philippines without having to perform any act or perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.

There are two guiding principles respecting acquisition of citizenship at birth: Jus sanguinis
and jus soli. A person acquires citizenship thru jus soli by being born within the territorial
boundaries of a state. On the other hand, citizenship thru jus sanguinis is acquired through
blood relationship with the parent. This is the rule that we follow in the Philippines: those
whose fathers or mothers, or both parents are Filipino citizen, is a Filipino citizen.

In the case of Valles v. COMELEC2, petitioner maintained that private respondent is an

Australian citizen, not qualified to run for elective office, because: she is a holder of an
Australian passport; and she expressly renounced her Filipino citizenship when she
declared under oath in her application for alien certificate of registration and immigrant
certificate of residence that she was a citizen or subject of Australia.SC maintained that the
private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a
Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her
Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private
respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual
citizenship. A similar conclusion was reached in the case of Maria Jeanette Tecson v.
COMELEC3 on the controversy surrounding the citizenship of Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ),
presidential candidate.

Under Section 4 Art IV of the 1987 Constitution, 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.

B. Election of Citizenship

Commonwealth 625 which was enacted pursuant to the 1935 Constitution, prescribes the
procedure for a valid lection of Philippine citizenship. He must express such intention in a
statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized
to administer oath. The sworn statement shall be filed, together with oath of allegiance to
the Philippine Constitution, with the nearest civil registry. The election must be made
within a reasonable time (3 years) from reaching the age of majority.

2
Valles v. Commission on Elections, 392 PHIL 327-342 [2000].
3
Maria Jeanette Tecson v. COMELEC, GR No. 161434 [2004].
 The procedure for election is mandatory. Thus, in Republic v. Sagun4 respondent clearly
failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a valid and effective election of
Philippine citizenship. Respondent cannot assert that the exercise of suffrage and the
participation in election exercises constitutes a positive act of election of
Philippine citizenship since the law specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition
of citizenship by election. The mere exercise of suffrage, continuous and uninterrupted
stay in the Philippines, and other similar acts showing exercise of
Philippine citizenship cannot take the place of election of Philippine citizenship. As the
Supreme Court decided in the case of Ching5 the prescribed procedure in electing
Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is required
of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter,
file the same with the nearest civil registry. Having failed to comply with the foregoing
requirements, respondent's petition before the trial court must be denied.

Presently, election of citizenship as a mode of acquiring citizenship has been eliminated

due to the passage of time. It was a transitory law in such a manner that it was effective
only as long as there were children of Filipino mothers and alien fathers who were allowed
to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching 21 years old. After 1994, there were no long
those who could elect Philippine citizenship, as they have already reached the age of
majority, who either elected or did not elect at all.

C. Naturalization

Naturalization is the process of conferring on an alien the citizenship of another country,

by any means provided by law. It is an act formally adopting a foreigner into the political
bod of a nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen.6Under current and
existing laws, there are two modes by which an alien may become a citizen by
naturalization: direct and derivative.

1. Direct Naturalization

Under current and existing laws, there are three ways by which an alien may
become a citizen based on requirements:

a. By juridical process under Commonwealth Act 473;

Under Commonwealth Act 473, the following are the qualifications to

apply for judicial naturalization: (1) He must be not less than twenty-one
years of age on the day of the hearing of the petition; (2) He must have
resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten
years; (3) He must be of good moral character and believes in the

4
Republic v. Sagun682 PHIL 303-317 [2012].
5
Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar of Vicente D. Ching B.M. No. 914 374 PHIL 342-355 [1999].
6
Record, Senate, 12th Congress [2001].
 principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the
entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he is
living. (4) He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than
five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known
lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation; (5) He must be able to
speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine
languages; and (6). He must have enrolled his minor children of school
age, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Office
of Private Education of the Philippines, where the Philippine history,
government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school
curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines
required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as
Philippine citizen.

A declaration of intention must be filed one year prior to the filing of

petition with the Solicitor General. The filing of the petition must be
accompanied by the affidavit of two character witnesses. The petition
shall be published. Publication is a jurisdictional requirement. Non-
compliance is fatal for it impairs the very root or foundation of the
authority to decide the case, regardless of whether the one to blame is
the clerk of court or the petitioner or his counsel. 7 Thereafter, a hearing
of the petition shall take place, and a promulgation of the decision. After
two years, a hearing shall be conducted wherein petitioner shall show that
during the two-year probation, applicant has not left the Philippines,
dedicated himself to a lawful calling, not convicted and not committed any
act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government
announced policies.

Naturalization vests on the wife if she does not possess any of the
disqualifications. In Mo Ya Lim Yao8, the alien wife of a Filipino need not
go through the formal process of naturalization in order to acquire
Philippine citizenship. All she had to do was to file before the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation a petition for the cancellation of her Alien
Certificate of Registration (ACR). Upon the grant of the petition for
cancellation of ACR, she may take the oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines, and thus become a citizen of the Philippines.

b. By legislative process

7
Gan Tsitung v. Republic, 122 Phil. 805
8
MoyYa Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of immigration 41 SCRA 292 [1971].
 This is in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowing citizenship
upon an alien. It is discretionary on Congress, and usually conferred on an
alien who has made outstanding contributions to the country.

c. By administrative process pursuant to The Administrative Naturalization

Law of 2000.

R.A. No. 9139 was enacted as a remedial measure intended to make the
process of acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical and
more encouraging. It likewise addresses the concerns of degree holders
who, by reason of lack of citizenship requirement, cannot practice their
profession, thus promoting brain drain for the Philippines.9

C.A. No. 473 and R.A. No. 9139 are separate and distinct laws the former
covers all aliens regardless of class while the latter covers native-born
aliens who lived here in the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any
other country and all along thought that they were Filipinos; who have
demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines and affinity to the
customs and traditions. To reiterate, the intention of the legislature in
enacting R.A. No. 9139 was to make the process of acquiring Philippine
citizenship less tedious, less technical and more encouraging which is
administrative rather than judicial in nature. Thus, although the legislature
believes that there is a need to liberalize the naturalization law of the
Philippines, there is nothing from which it can be inferred that C.A. No.
473 was intended to be amended or repealed by R.A. No. 9139. What the
legislature had in mind was merely to prescribed another mode of
acquiring Philippine citizenship which may be availed of by native born
aliens. The only implication is that, a native born alien has the choice to
apply for judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the
prescribed qualifications and disqualifications.

2. Derivative Naturalization

Derivative naturalization is Philippine citizenship conferred on the wife of a

naturalized husband, the minor children of a naturalized father, and the alien wife
of a natural born or naturalized citizen. Thus, in Republic v. Batuigas10, under
existing laws, an alien may acquire Philippine citizenship through either
judicial naturalization under CA473 oradministrative naturalization under Republi

9
So v. Rep., G.R. No. 170603, [2007]
10
Republic v. Batuigas719 PHIL 20-36 [2013]
 c Act No. 9139 (the "Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000"). A third option,
called derivative naturalization, which is available to alien women married to
Filipino husbands is found under Section 15 of CA 473, which provides that:

"Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen

of the Philippines and who might herself be lawfully naturalized
shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines."

Under this provision, foreign women who are married to Philippine citizens may
be deemed ipso facto Philippine citizens and it is neither necessary for them to
prove that they possess other qualifications for naturalization at the time of their
marriage nor do they have to submit themselves to judicial naturalization. Copying
from similar laws in the United States which has since been amended, the
Philippine legislature retained Section 15 of CA 473, which then reflects its intent
to confer Filipino citizenship to the alien wife thru derivative naturalization.

V. Dual citizenship and Dual allegiance

Dual citizenship means the status of a person who is a citizen of two or more countries at the
same time. It arises when as a result of the concurrent application of the different of laws of
two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered as a national by the said states. The
problem of dual citizenship of Filipino would arise only from the point of view of the third state.
The theory of effective nationality, which shall be applied in by the third state in determining
the citizenship of an individual, is embodied in Article 5 of the Hague Convention on Conflicts
of Nationality of Laws.

Section 5 of Article IV of the 1987 Constitution provides that dual allegiance is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by law. This shall not mean however, that dual
citizenship is prohibited by law. Dual citizenship cannot be avoided due to the diverse laws of
the countries of the world. The concern of the aforementioned provision is only with regard to
those naturalized citizens of the Philippines who still maintain their allegiance to their countries
of origin.

In the case of Mercado v. Manzano11 , the Supreme Court clarified the dual citizenship
disqualification in Section 40 of the Local Government Code, and reconciled the same with dual
allegiance. Recognizing situations in which a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act
and as an involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries, be also a
citizen of another state, the Court explained the dual citizenship as a disqualification must refer
to citizens with dual allegiance. It shall be enough for the candidates with dual citizenship to
elect Philippine citizenship upon filing of a certificate of candidacy to terminate their status as
persons with dual citizenship. Thus by declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a

11
Mercado v. Manzano 307 SCRA 620 [1999].
 Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he
will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance
thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the
laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship and
anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen.

A different rule applies to a person who, after having reacquired Philippine citizenship under
RA 9225, shall run for public office. In Lopez v. COMELEC12, the Supreme Court maintained that
it is necessary that the candidate for public office must state in unequivocal and clear terms
that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship.

VI. Expatriation

Section 3, Article IV of the Constitution sanctions the expatriation of Philippine citizens by the
commission of expatriating acts and gives the State the power to strip the people of their
citizenships. Expatriation is the commission of an act that results in the loss of citizenship.
Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, a citizen may lose his citizenship by the commission of any
of the following acts:

1. By naturalization in a foreign country;

2. By express renunciation of citizenship;
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign
country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more: Provided, however, That a
Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the
Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country;
4. By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a foreign
country: Provided, That the rendering of service to, or the acceptance of such
commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country, and the taking of an oath of
allegiance incident thereto, with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, shall
not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of the following circumstances
is present:
a. The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of
alliance with the said foreign country; or
b. The said foreign country maintains armed forces on Philippine territory with
the consent of the Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the Filipino
citizen concerned, at the time of rendering said service, or acceptance of said
commission, and taking the oath of allegiance incident thereto, states that he
does so only in connection with his service to said foreign country: And
provided, finally, That any Filipino citizen who is rendering service to, or is
commissioned in, the armed forces of a foreign country under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), shall not be permitted to

12
Lopez v. COMELEC GR no. 18701 [2008].
 participate nor vote in any election of the Republic of the Philippines during
the period of his service to, or commission in, the armed forces of said foreign
country. Upon his discharge from the service of the said foreign country, he
shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil and political
rights as a Filipino citizen;
5. By cancellation of the of the certificates of naturalization;
6. By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed
forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been
granted; and
7. In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in
force in her husband's country, she acquires his nationality.1

However, under Sec. 4, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, it is no longer expatriating unless
they categorically renounce their Philippine citizenship. In Board of Immigration
Commissioners v. Callano13, Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended by Republic
Act No. 106, provides the ways in which a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship. Recognition
of the petitioners by their alien father is not among the ground for losing Philippine citizenship
under Philippine law, and it cannot be said that the petitioners lost their former status by
reason of such recognition. About the only mode of losing Philippine citizenship which closely
bears on the petitioners is renunciation. But even renunciation cannot be cited in support of
the conclusion that petition lost their Philippine citizenship because the law requires an express
renunciation which means a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly and not
left to inference or implication; a renunciation manifested by direct and appropriate language,
as distinguished from that which is inferred from conduct.

VII. Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship

A. Reacquisition v. Retention

There are two groups of beneficiaries under Republic Act No. 9225. To the first group
belong those who naturalized in a foreign country before the effectivity of RA 9225. To the
second group belong those who naturalized in a foreign country after the effectivity of RA
9225. Beneficiaries who belong to the first group are deemed to reacquire their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic. Those who belong to the
second group are deemed to retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the same oath
of allegiance.

B. RA 9225: Citizenship Retention & Reacquisition Act

Congress enacted Republic Act No. 9225 to enable former Filipino citizens who have since
naturalized in a foreign country to reacquire their Filipino citizenships without losing their
present citizenships. This law allows former Filipino citizens to repatriate themselves by

13
Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Callano 25 SCRA 890 (1968)
 taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines without, however,
renouncing their present citizenships. What is more, this law grants derivative Filipino
citizenship to the unmarried children below 18yrs of age of those availing of its benefits.
This privilege comes with no qualification that the child should have stayed in the
Philippines for a number of years or that the child makes a choice of citizenship.

Republic Act No. 9225 is also an indication that the State no longer places that much value
on unitary citizenship. The Philippines is following a growing trend among nations of
allowing their citizens to possess dual or multiple citizenships. Thus, this law appears to
weaken Commonwealth Act No. 63 insofar as it negates the effects of an expatriating act,
like the act of naturalization, as former Filipinos may now repatriate themselves.

Republic Act No. 9225 also makes it a state policy that those who naturalize in other
countries after the laws effectivity are deemed to retain their Filipino citizenships upon
their taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic.

Filipinos who repatriate themselves under RA No. 9225 are deemed to be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines for they do not have to perform any act to acquire or perfect
their citizenship14.This status of being a natural-born citizen retroacts to the day when they
were born.

The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9225 are as follows:

Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared the policy of the State that
all Philippine citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.

Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any provision of law to the contrary

notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine
citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:

"I _____________________, 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; 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 imposed this obligation upon myself
voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

14
Bengson III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840 [2001].
 Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act,
become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon
taking the aforesaid oath.

Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child, whether legitimate,

illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire
Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizenship of the
Philippines.

Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - 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 and the following conditions:

1. Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the

requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic
Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act
of 2003" and other existing laws;
2. Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the
qualification for holding such public office as required by the
Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of
any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
administer an oath;
3. Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly
constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office: Provided,
That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they
took that oath;
4. 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; and
5. That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in
the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who:

a. are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the

country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or
b. are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned
officers in the armed forces of the country which they are
naturalized citizens.

C. Memorandum Circular No. AFF .05002

 Memorandum Circular No. AFF. 05002 supplemented RA No. 9225 and provided for the
procedures in the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. Moreover, it clarified that a child
who has been aged-out (beyond 18 years of age) may still be the beneficiary of Republic
Act No. 9225 so long as he was born when either or both of her parents was still a Filipino
citizen. However, he must apply for reacquisition on his own behalf, and no longer as a
derivative beneficiary.

Republic Act No. 9225 also benefits adopted children who are minors when they were
adopted by their Filipino parents. The nationality of the adopted children does not matter
as the source of their right to become Filipino is the nationality of their adopting parents.

When travelling between countries, beneficiaries of Republic Act No. 9225 can use either
use their foreign passports or Philippine passport. However, at the Philippine immigration
counter, they must present their Philippine passport to facilitate their entry in the
Philippines as nationals hereof rather than as aliens.

Since they are natural-born citizens once more, they are also restored to their civil and
political rights. Hence, they can acquire properties without limitations just like ordinary
natural-born Filipinos. They can practice their professions, including the right to practice
law as well as the right to take the bar exams. They can also exercise their right to vote and
to be voted for as they are also restored to their political rights subject to certain limitations
provided for by law.

In Jacot v. Dal15 it was discussed that Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-
born Filipinos, who have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who
reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship:
1. To take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of RA No. 9225, and
2. For those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute
a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an
authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of
candidacy to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections.

The oath of allegiance contained in the Certificate of Candidacy, which is substantially

similar to the one contained in Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9225 does not constitute the personal
and sworn renunciation sought under Sec. 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225.

15
JACOT vs. DAL G.R. No. 179848 [2008].
 However, a it was discussed in Maquiling v. COMELEC16 that the use of foreign passport
after renouncing ones foreign citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of
representation as to ones nationality and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino
citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants the Oath of Renunciation required
to qualify one to run for an elective position. The citizenship requirement for elective
public office is a continuing one. It must be possessed not just at the time of the
renunciation of the foreign citizenship but continuously. Any act which violates the
oath of renunciation opens the citizenship issue to attack.

D. RA 9225 and US Citizenship

For Filipinos who have since naturalized as Americans and who want to reacquire their
Philippine citizenship under RA 9225, they can do so without worrying that they might be
stripped of their U.S. citizenships. While taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign state is
expatriating, the presumption under current State Department rules is that the person
intended to retain his U.S. citizenship. The U.S. citizen need only answer no to the question
of a consular officer if he intended to relinquish his U.S. citizenship. With such negative
answer, the person is deemed to retain his U.S. citizenship.

United States citizenship is a cherished commodity. Unlike Philippine laws which readily
sanctions the loss of Philippine citizenship, U.S. law and jurisprudence make expatriation a
difficult, if not impossible, proposition. This was not formerly the case, however, as earlier
U.S. jurisprudence sanctioned the loss of U.S. nationality by the simple performance of an
expatriating act. The earlier view was that the State had the power to strip a person of his
citizenship based on the foreign relations power of Congress.

VIII. Practice of Profession

The practice of profession is an activity or undertaking rendered by a registered and licensed

professional or a holder of special temporary permit as defined in the scope of practice of a
professional regulatory law.

Section 14 Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides: "The sustained development of a
reservoir of national talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals,
managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen in all fields shall
be promoted by the State. The State shall encourage appropriate technology and regulate its
transfer for the national benefit.
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases
prescribed by law. "

16
Maquiling vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 195649 [2013]
 The practice of profession is a privilege and is therefore restricted to Philippine citizens. While
a foreigner is allowed to practice his profession in our country, he must first seek a license or
permit from the government authority. Thus, In Re: Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to
Practice Law in the Philippines17, petitioner Epifanio B. Muneses became a member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines in 1966 but lost that privilege when he became a U.S. citizen
on August 28, 1981. He thereafter reacquired his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 which
raised the issue of whether or not he may be permitted by the Supreme Court for him to
resume the practice of law. The Court reiterated that Filipino citizenship is a requirement for
admission to the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss
thereof means termination of the petitioners membership to the bar; ipso jure the privilege
to engage in the practice of law. Under RA 9225, natural born citizens who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are
deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to
the Republic. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-
acquires his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine
Bar.

However, the right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. RA 9225 provides that a
person who intends to practice his profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper
authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.

A. Alien Employment Permit

It is a document issued by the Department of Labor and Employment which authorizes a

foreign national to work in the Philippines. All foreign nationals who intend to engage in
gainful employment in the Philippines. Foreign professionals who are allowed to practice
their profession in the Philippines under reciprocity and other international agreements
and consultancy services pursuant to Section 7(j) of the PRC Modernization Act of 2000.
Holders of Special Investors Resident Visa, Special Retirees Resident Visa, Treaty Traders
Visa or Special Non-Immigrant Visa for as long as they occupy any executive, advisory,
supervisory, or technical position in any establishment.

B. Regulation of Practice of Profession of Foreigners in the Philippines

It is the Supreme Court which is constitutionally mandated under Article VIII, Section 5(5)
to promulgate rules on the practice of law and admission to the bar. In this regard, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court states that only Filipino citizens may be admitted to the Philippine
bar and therefore practice law.

Practice of law - any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to

17
In Re: Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to Practice Law in the Philippines BM 2112 [2012].
 perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law
is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in
any degree of legal knowledge or skill.

The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and the Supreme Court (SC) are the official
organizations mandated by the Philippine government to regulate and supervise the
practice of various professionals. They are responsible for the administration,
implementation, and enforcement of regulatory policies on the regulation and licensing of
various professions and occupations under Philippine jurisdiction.

Licensed professionals from foreign countries who wish to practice their professions in the
Philippines, except in the practice of law, should obtain a special temporary permit from
the PRC based on the provision of Republic Act 8981.

The practice of law is reserved exclusively for Philippine citizens who have completed the
requisite coursework at a duly accredited Philippine law school and have passed the bar
examinations. The two exceptions to the citizenship and education requirement are (1)
U.S. citizens who, before July 4, 1946, were licensed to practice before Philippine courts,
and (2) Philippine citizens who were enrolled attorneys in good standing in the Supreme
Court of the United States or in any circuit court of appeals or district court therein, or in
the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States.

Consequently, foreign lawyers cannot engage in the practice of law in the Philippines, and
must be represented by a member of the Philippine Bar in all matters connected with such
practice.

IX. Citizenship of Juridical Entities

Under Section 2 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines, a domestic corporation is defined
as a corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law, having the right of succession
and the powers, attributes and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its
existence. A corporation is an artificial being, intangible and existing only in contemplation of
law and is the collective name of its corporators, members and stockholders. Its citizenship
cannot be disassociated from the persons who compose it.

As a general rule, the nationality of a private corporation is determined by the character or

citizenship of its controlling stockholders. There are two tests to determine whether a
corporation or juridical entity is a Filipino corporation: the grandfather test and the control
test.

Shares belonging to corporations or partnerships, at least 60 percent of the capital stock

of which is owned by Filipino citizens, shall be considered as of Philippine nationality, but if
the percentage of Filipino ownership in the corporation or partnership is less than 60
 percent, only the number of shares corresponding to such percentage shall be counted as
of Philippine nationality.

The High Court explained that the first part of the quoted paragraph pertains to the control
test or the liberal rule, while the second part refers to the stricter and more stringent
grandfather rule. In applying these rules to the present case, the Court did not limit the
application of the grandfather rule to instances when the Filipino stockholdings are less than
60 percent. It stated that when there is doubt over the 60-40 Filipino equity ownership, the
grandfather may be applied, contrary to the allegations by the petitioners that the control test
should be used as it was the test applied under Republic Act 7042 as amended (otherwise
known as the Foreign Investments Act or FIA).

The Court concluded that the control test is still the prevailing mode of determining the
nationality of a corporation, within the ambit of the Constitution, as to who is entitled to
participate in the exploration, development and utilization of the natural resources of the
Philippines. The grandfather rule would only apply if based on the surrounding facts and
circumstances, there is doubt on the 60-40 required Filipino-equity ownership in the
corporation.

References:

Agpalo. (2004). Conflict of Laws and Private International Law.

Nachura (2015). Outline/Review in Political Law.

Paras (2016). Pre-week Handbook in Civil Law (Including Conflicts of Law and Land Registration.

Sempio-Dy. (2004). Handbook on Conflict of Laws.