TAN VS. CRISOLOGO
1 Dec 2009: Tan filed her Certificate of Candidacy to run as QC
November 8, 2017 | Martires, J
PETITIONER: VIVIENNE TAN
RESPONDENT: VINCENT “BINGBONG” CRISOLOGO
SUMMARY: Vivienne Tan was a naturalized US citizen who sought to
run for QC 1st district representative. However, she only took her Oath
of Allegiance to the PH, as required by RA 9225, after she had applied
to be a registered voter. Crisologo challenged her inclusion in the voter’s
list, saying she was not a citizen at the time of her registration, and that
she failed to meet the residency requirement. SC held that she was not
a PH citizen at the time she registered.
DOCTRINE
1. RA 9225 makes a distinction between 1) those who lost PH
citizenship before RA 9225 and reacquired it under the same
and 2) those who lost PH citizenship after RA 9225 and retained
citizenship.
2. Tan took her Oath of Allegiance to the US on 19 Jan 2003,
before the enactment of RA 9225. If retroactive application is
permitted, then the distinction is RA 9225 is rendered futile.
3. To consider that the reacquisition of the PH citizenship retroacts
to the date it was lost = absurd scenario where the person would
still be considered a PH citizen when he had renounced his
citizenship.
FACTS
1. 19 Jan 1993: Vivienne Tan became a naturalized US citizen.
2. 20 August 2003: RA 9225 was enacted.
3. 26 Oct 2009: Tan applied to be a registered voter in Quezon City.
She indicated that she was a Filipino by birth. The Election
Registration Board approved her application on 16 Nov 2009.
4. 30 Nov 2009: Tan took her Oath of Allegiance to the PH in
Makati.
5. 1 Dec 2009: Tan filed a petition before the Bureau of
Immigration for the reacquisition of her PH citizenship and
executed a declaration renouncing allegiance to the US. The BI
confirmed her reacquisition.
6.
1st District representative.
7. 28 Dec 2009: Bingbong Crisologo filed a petition before the
MeTC seeking to exclude Tan from the voter’s list, alleging 1)
she was not a PH citizen when she registered as a voter and 2)
she failed to meet the residency requirement.
8. MeTC ruled to exclude Tan from the voter’s list, holding that
she was not a PH citizen at the time she registered as a voter.
9. Tan appealed to the RTC. RTC reversed the MeTC and
dismissed Crisologo’s petition. RTC opined that the question of
her citizenship was cured by Tan’s subsequent Oath, Petition for
Reacquisition, the BI’s Order granting the said petition, and
Sworn Declaration re: renouncing her allegiance to the US.
10. The RTC decision became final and executory due to RA 8189.
Hence, Crisologo filed for certiorari before the CA.
11. The CA held that the RTC committed GADALEJ in reversing
the MeTC decision, hence this Petition.
ISSUE/HELD
W/N Tan can be considered a PH citizen at the time she registered as a
voter – NO. Basically, no legal basis for the retroactive application of
RA 9225. Her inclusion in the voter’s list is highly irregular.
W/N when PH citizenship is reacquired after taking the Oath as required
by RA 9225, the effect on citizenship status retroacts to period before
taking said oath - NO
RATIO
1. The reacquisition of PH citizenship under RA 9225 requires only
the taking of an oath of allegiance to the PH.
2. RA 9225 makes a distinction between 1) those who lost PH
citizenship before RA 9225 and reacquired it under the same
and 2) those who lost PH citizenship after RA 9225 and retained
citizenship.
3. Tan took her Oath of Allegiance to the US on 19 Jan 2003,
before the enactment of RA 9225. If retroactive application is
permitted, then the distinction is RA 9225 is rendered futile.
 4. An interpretation giving RA 9225 retroactive effect as
contemplated by Tan would cause confusion, especially with
respect to Sec. 3, RA 9225. Verba legis.
5. The Court also used the holistic approach, citing Mactan-Cebu
Intl Airport Authority vs. Urgello. The law must not be read in
truncated parts; its provisions must be read in relation to the
whole law.
6. RA 9225 contains to provision regarding the retroactivity of its
effects as regards natural-born citizens who became naturalized
citizens of a foreign country before RA 9225.
7. To consider that the reacquisition of the PH citizenship retroacts
to the date it was lost = absurd scenario where the person would
still be considered a PH citizen when he had renounced his
citizenship.
8. Rule is also that statutes are to be construed as having only a
prospective operation, unless legislature intended to tive them a
retroactive effect.
9. Citing Maquiling vs COMELEC (penned by CJ Sereno): the
renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can
simply be professed at any time, only to be violated the next day.
It requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign
citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and political rights
granted by the foreign country which granted the citizenship.
10. We cannot consider one a Filipino citizen unless and until his or
her allegiance to the Republic of the PH is reaffirmed.
NOTES