ARTICLE IV – CITIZENSHIP
Valles vs COMELEC
(Principle of jus sanguinis; How Philippine
citizenship is acquired; Effect of filing certificate
of candidacy: express renunciation of other
citizenship)
Ong Chia vs Republic
(For the naturalization to work, the applicant
must comply with the substantive requirements
of C.A. No. 473 (Revised Naturalization Law)
Board of Commissioners vs De la Rosa
Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16,
1934 in Australia to a Filipino father and an
Australian mother. In 1949, at the age of fifteen,
she left Australia and came to settle in the
Philippines, where she later married a Filipino
and has since then participated in the electoral
process not only as a voter but as a candidate,
as well. In the May 1998 elections, she ran for
governor of Davao Oriental but Valles filed a
petition for her disqualification as candidate on
the ground that she is an Australian.
Ong Chia, after spending most of his entire life
in the Philippines, filed for a petition that he be
admitted as a Filipino citizen. This was granted
by the Trial Court but was challenged by the
respondent by showing that the petitioner did
not follow the proper rules.
On July 6, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian,
grandfather of William Gatchalian, was
recognized by the BOI as a native born Filipino
*W/N Rosalind is a Filipino
*YES. The Philippine law on citizenship
adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis.
Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or
citizenship of the parents regardless of the
place of his/her birth, as opposed to the
doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality
or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.
*W/N Trial Court’s decision should be reversed
*YES. It is settled that naturalization laws
should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed
in favor of the government and against the
applicant. [T]he rule of strict application of the
law in naturalization cases defeat petitioner’s
argument of “substantial compliance” with the
requirement under the Revised Naturalization
Law.
For the naturalization to work, the applicant
must comply with the requirements of C.A. No.
473 (Revised Naturalization Law). He must
have submitted the following information: (1) all
the names he had been known; (2) former
places of residence; (3) if he had conducted
himself in a proper and reproachable manner,
and, (4) if he has a lucrative occupation.
*W/N Gatchalian is to be declared as a Filipino
Citizen
*YES. William Gatchalian is declared as a

Co. vs Electoral Tribunal
(Election may be done impliedly through
performance of positive acts showing one’s
choice to be a Filipino;
If a minor’s father is naturalized, he does not
need to elect Philippine citizenship anymore.)
citizen. Santiago Gatchalian testified that he Filipino Citizen. Having declared the assailed
has 5 children. On June 27, 1961, William marriage as valid, respondent William
Gatchalian then a twelve year old minor arrived Gatchalian follows the citizenship of his father,
in Manila and sought admission as Filipino a Filipino as legitimate child. Respondent
citizen which was eventually granted by the belongs to a class of Filipinos who are citizens
board of special inquiry. However, the of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of
Secretary of Justice issued a memorandum the constitution.
setting aside all decisions and directed the *Yes. The Supreme Court held that in the
Board of Commissions to review all cases absence of the evidence to the contrary foreign
where entry was allowed among which was that laws on a particular subject are presumed to be
of William Gatchalian. the same as those of the Philippines. This is
known as Processual Presumption. In this
case, there being no proof of Chinese law
relating to marriage, there arises a presumption
that it is the same of that of Philippine law the
said marriage then is declared valid. Therefore,
William Gatchalian following the citizenship of
his father is a Filipino citizen.
On May 11, 1987, the congressional election of *W/N Priv Respondent Ong is a Filipino
Northern Samar was held.Among the candidate *YES. Co did not even have to do anything to
is herein respondent Jose Ong, Jr. Respondent “acquire” citizenship because he is Filipino as
Ong was proclaimed the duly elected his grandfather is a Filipino, the fact which also
representative of the second district of Northern makes him a Filipino. Assuming arguendo that
Samar. Petitioners questioned the citizenship of he had to elect citizenship, he was already able
respondent Ong since Ong’s father was only a to do it by positive acts such as establishing his
naturalized Filipino citizen and questioned entire life as a Filipino.
Ong’s residence qualificationsince Ong does *YES. On April 28, 1955, Jose OngChuan,
not own any property in Samar. respondent’s father, an immigrant from China
was declared a Filipino citizen by the CFI of
Samar. At the time Jose OngChuan took his
oath, the private respondent then is a minor of
nine years, was finishing his elementary
education in the province of Samar. Hence,

Frivaldo vs COMELEC [174 SCRA 245]
(Citizenship once lost may be reacquired either
by naturalization or repatriation or by direct
grant by law (CA 63) which was not invoked by
the petitioner.)
(Only citizens of the Philippines which have one
allegiance can run in local elective office.)
Frivaldo vs COMELEC [257 SCRA 727]
Petitioner was proclaimed governor-elect of the
province of Sorsogon on January 22, 1988. On
October 27, 1988, respondents filed with the
COMELEC a petition for the annulment of
petitioner’s election and proclamation on the
ground that he was a naturalized American
citizen in Jan 23, 1983 and had not reacquired
Philippine citizenship on the day of the election
on January 18, 1988. He was therefore not
qualified to run for and be elected governor.
Frivaldo admitted but said naturalization was
not “impressed with voluntariness” because he
was only forced to do so because of the Marcos
Regime, and that he went back to the Phil after
such regime.
Juan G. Frivaldo ran for Governor of Sorsogon
again and won. Raul R. Lee questioned his
citizenship. He then petitioned for repatriation
under Presidential Decree No. 725 and was
able to take his oath of allegiance as a
Philippine citizen. However, on the day that he
got his citizenship, the Court had already ruled
based on his previous attempts to run as
governor and acquire citizenship, and had
proclaimed Lee, who got the second highest
number of votes, as the newly elect Governor
of Sorsogon.
there is no ground to deny the Filipino
citizenship of respondent Ong. Respondent
Ong was also born of a natural-born Filipino
mother, thus the issue of citizenship is
immaterial.
*W/N Frivaldo is a Filipino citizen at the time of
his election on Jan. 18, 1988?
*NO. First, petitioner’s loss of his naturalized
American citizenship did not and could not have
the effect of automatic restoration of his
Philippine citizenship. Second, the mere filing of
COC wherein petitioner claimed that he is a
natural born Filipino citizen, is not a sufficient
act of repatriation. Third, qualifications for
public office are continuing requirements and
must be possessed not only at the time of
appointment or election or assumption of office
but during the officer’s entire tenure. Once any
of the required qualifications is lost, his title may
be seasonably challenged.
*W/N Frivaldo’s repatriation is valid
*YES. It was valid and legal and because of the
curative nature of Presidential Decree No. 725,
his repatriation retroacted to the date of the
filing of his application to run for governor. The
steps to reacquire Philippine Citizenship by
repatriation under Presidential Decree No. 725
are: (1) filing the application; (2) action by the
committee; and (3) taking of the oath of
allegiance if the application is approved. It is
only upon taking the oath of allegiance that the
applicant is deemed ipso jure to have

Labo Jr. vs COMELEC [176 SCRA 1]
(Rule: The ineligibility of a candidate receiving
majority votes does not entitle the eligible
candidate receiving the next highest number of
votes to be declared elected. A minority or
defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected
to the office.)
Note:
*Dual citizenship is not a bar in running for
elections, dual allegiance is.
*Mere repatriation is not enough to run for
elections.
*A written certification of an oath of allegiance
to the Philippines must be attached together
with the COC.
Labo Jr. vs COMELEC [211 SCRA 297]
Petitioner and Respondent were candidates for
the office of the Mayor of Baguio City during
Elections. Having garnered the highest number
of votes, Petitioner was elected and proclaimed
winner while Respondent garnered the second
highest number of votes. Subsequently
Respondent filed a petition for quo warranto
contesting the election of the Petitioner on the
ground that the latter is a naturalized Australian
citizen and was divested of his Philippine
citizenship having sworn allegiance to the
Queen of Australia. Petitioner opposes to the
contrary. Section 42 of the Local Government
Code provides for the qualifications that an
elective official must be a citizen of the
Philippines. From the evidence adduced, it was
found out that citizenship requirements were
not possessed by the petitioner during
elections. He was disqualified from running as
mayor and, although elected, is not now
qualified to serve as such.
For the second time around, believing that he is
a Filipino ctizen, Ramon Labo, Jr filed his COC
for mayor of Baguio City on March 23, 1992 for
the May 11, 1992 elections. Petitioner Roberto
Ortega on other hand, also filed his COC for the
same office on March 25, 1992. On March 26,
reacquired Philippine citizenship. If the decree
had intended the oath taking to retroact to the
date of the filing of the application, then it
should not have explicitly provided otherwise.
He is therefore qualified to be proclaimed
governor of Sorsogon.
*W/N private respondent, having garnered the
2nd highest number of votes, can replace the
petitioner as mayor.
*NO. The simple reason is that he obtained
only the second highest number of votes in the
election, he was obviously not the choice of the
people of Baguio City. The fact that the
candidate who obtained the highest number of
votes is later declared to be disqualified or not
eligible for the office to which he was elected
does not necessarily entitle the candidate who
obtained the second highest number of votes to
be declared the winner of the elective office.
*WON Petitioner Labo who had the highest
number of votes is qualified to assume as
Mayor of Baguio City.
*WON disqualification of petitioner Labo entitles
the candidate (Ortega) receiving the next
highest number of votes to be proclaimed as
 1992, petitioner Ortega filed a disqualification
proceeding against Labo before the COMELEC
on the ground that Labo is not a Filipino citizen.
On May 9, 1992, respondent Comelec issued
the assailed resolution denying Labo’s COC.
On May 10, 1992, respondent Comelec issued
an Order which reads: Acting on the “Urgent
Ex-Parte Motion for Clarification”, filed by
respondent (Labo) on May 9, 1992, the
Commission resolves that the decision
promulgated on May 9, 1992 disqualifying
respondent Ramon L. Labo, Jr., shall become
final and executory only after five (5) days from
promulgation pursuant to Rule 18, Section 13,
Paragraph (b) of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure. Accordingly, respondent (Labo)
may still continue to be voted upon as
candidate for City Mayor of Baguio City on May
11, 1992 subject to the final outcome of this
case in the event the issue is elevated to the
Supreme Court either on appeal or certiorari.
Labo Jr vs COMELEC (Crombonds) Labo did not reacquire Filipino citizenship yet.
(Three modes of reacquiring citizenship: When it was alleged that he is not a Filipino, he
1) Congressional Action did not give any evidence to refute this and
2) Naturalization claimed citizenship pursuant to a ruling in a US
3) Repatriation case. Tenable?
Aznar vs Osmena On November 19, 1987, private respondent
the winning candidate for mayor of Baguio City.
*1) At the time petitioner Labo filed his petition
on May 15, 1992, the May 9, 1992 resolution of
respondent Comelec cancelling his (Labo’s)
certificate of candidacy had already become
final and executory a day earlier, or on May 14,
1992, said resolution having been received by
petitioner Labo on the same day it was
promulgated, i.e., May 9, 1992 and in the
interim no restraining order was issued by this
Court. The resolution cancelling Labo’s
certificate of candidacy on the ground that he is
not a Filipino citizen having acquired finality on
May 14, 1992 constrains the SC to rule against
his proclamation as Mayor of Baguio City.
*2) NO. While Ortega may have garnered the
second highest number of votes for the office of
city mayor, the fact remains that he was not the
choice of the sovereign will. Petitioner Labo
was overwhelmingly voted by the electorate for
the office of mayor in the belief that he was
then qualified to serve the people of Baguio
City and his subsequent disqualification does
not make respondent Ortega the mayor-elect.
Petitioner Ortega lost in the election. He was
repudiated by the electorate. He was obviously
not the choice of the people of Baguio City.
*No. Labo has not shown that he had
reacquired his citizenship either by
congressional action, naturalization, or
repatriation.
*WON petition for disqualification was timely
(When to file for disqualification?)
(3 modes of losing citizenship:
(1) by naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) by express renunciation of citizenship; and
(3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
support the Constitution or laws of a foreign
country.)
Mercado vs Manzano
(Dual citizenship is not equal to dual allegiance.
Emilio "Lito" Osmeña filed his certificate of
candidacy with the COMELEC for the position
of Provincial Governor of Cebu Province in the
January 18, 1988 local elections. On January
22, 1988, the Cebu PDP-Laban Provincial
Council (Cebu-PDP Laban, for short), as
represented by petitioner Jose B. Aznar in his
capacity as its incumbent Provincial Chairman,
filed with the COMELEC a petition for the
disqualification of Osmeña on the ground that
he is allegedly not a Filipino citizen, being a
citizen of the United States of America.
Osmeña on the other hand, maintained that he
is a Filipino citizen, alleging: that he is the
legitimate child of Dr. Emilio D. Osmeña, a
Filipino and son of the late President Sergio
Osmeña, Sr.; that he is a holder of a valid and
subsisting Philippine Passport issued on March
25, 1987. On March 3, 1988, COMELEC
directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim
the winning candidates. Having obtained the
highest number of votes, Osmena was
proclaimed the Provincial Governor of Cebu.
On June 11, 1988, COMELEC dismissed the
petition for disqualification for not having been
timely filed and for lack of sufficient proof that
Osmena is not a Filipino citizen.
Petitioner Mercado is seeking to disqualify
Eduardo Manzano, the winner for the position
filed.
*WON Osmena is a Filipino citizen
*NO. There are two instances where a petition
questioning the qualifications of a registered
candidate to run for the office for which his
certificate of candidacy was filed can be raised
under the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg.
881), to wit:
1) Before election, the petition may be filed at
any time not later than twenty five days from
the time of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy.
2) After election, may be filed within ten days
after the proclamation of the results of the
election.
Osmena filed his certificate of candidacy on
November 19, 1987 and that Aznar filed his
petition for disqualification on January 22, 1988.
Hence, beyond twenty-day period.
*YES. Aznar failed to present direct proof that
Osmena had lost his Filipino citizenship by any
of the modes provided for under C.A. No. 63.
Among others, these are: (1) by naturalization
in a foreign country; (2) by express renunciation
of citizenship; and (3) by subscribing to an oath
of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws
of a foreign country. From the evidence,
Osmeña did not lose his Philippine citizenship
by any of the three mentioned hereinabove or
by any other mode of losing Philippine
citizenship.
*W/N should be disqualified on the ground of
dual citizenship
The former arises when, as a result of the
application of the different laws of two or more
states, a person is simultaneously considered a
national by the said states. Dual allegiance on
the other hand, refers to a situation in which a
person simultaneously owes, by some positive
act, loyalty to two or more states;
Mere possession of an alien certificate of
registration does not amount to renunciation.)
In re: Application to the bar of Vicente Ching
(Section 1, par. 3)
Bengson vs HRET
(One who is repatriated regains the level of his
former citizenship)
of Makati vice mayor in 1998. It was alleged
that Manzano has dual-citizenship, a ground for
disqualification under Philippine Laws.
Vicente D. Ching, legitimate son of the spouses
Tat Ching, a Chinese citizen, and Prescila A.
Dulay, a Filipino, was born in Francia West,
Tubao, La Union on 11 April 1964. Since his
birth, Ching has resided in the Philippines. After
having completed a Bachelor of Laws course at
the St. Louis University in Baguio City, Ching
filed an application to take the 1998 Bar
Examinations. In a Resolution of this Court, he
was allowed to take the Bar Examinations,
subject to the condition that he must submit to
the Court proof of his Philippine citizenship. On
November 1998, he submitted the important
documents in compliance with the said
resolution. He passed the 1998 bar but was not
allowed to take the oath due to his questionable
citizenship. OSG points out that Ching has not
formally elected Philippine citizenship and, if
ever he does, it would already be beyond the
"reasonable time" allowed by present
jurisprudence.
Respondent Teodoro Cruz was a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines who was born in
Tarlac. In 1985, he joined the US Marine Corps
*NO. By filing a COC, the respondent
effectively took an oath of allegiance to the
Philippines and thereby removing any
disqualification he may have as a dual. Also,
the court distinguished “dual citizenship” from
“dual allegiance.” Dual citizenship, per se, is not
a ground for disqualification under our laws.
*WON he has elected Philippine citizenship
within a "reasonable time.
*NO. No. Ching, despite the special
circumstances, failed to elect Philippine
citizenship within a reasonable time. The
reasonable time means that the election should
be made within 3 years from "upon reaching the
age of majority", which is 21 years old. Instead,
he elected Philippine citizenship 14 years after
reaching the age of majority which the court
considered not within the reasonable time.
Ching offered no reason why he delayed his
election of Philippine citizenship, as procedure
in electing Philippine citizenship is not a tedious
and painstaking process. All that is required is
an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship
and file the same with the nearest civil registry.
*W/N Cruz is a natural born citizen of the
Philippines
*YES. As distinguished from the lengthy

Tecson vs COMELEC
(If paternity is clearly proven, the child is
Filipino because the rule of jus sanguinis does
not make any distinction between legitimate
and illegitimate.)
and took an oath of allegiance to the US. In process of naturalization, repatriation simply
1994, he reacquired his Philippine citizenship consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to
through repatriation under RA No. 2630. He ran the Republic of the Philippine and registering
and was elected the Represetative of said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place
Pangasinan in May 1998 elections. He won where the person concerned resides or last
over petitioner of Antonio Bengson III, who was resided. This means that a naturalized Filipino
then running for reelection. who lost his citizenship will be restored to his
prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On
the other hand, if he was originally a natural-
born citizen before he lost his Philippine
citizenship, he will be restored to his former
status as a natural-born Filipino.
Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also *W/N FPJ is a Filipino citizen
known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his *YES. Tracing respondent’s paternal lineage,
certificate of candidacy on 31 December 2003 his grandfather Lorenzo, as evidenced by the
for the position of President of the Republic of latter’s death certificate was identified as a
the Philippines in the forthcoming national Filipino Citizen. His citizenship was also drawn
elections. In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, from the presumption that having died in 1954
representing himself to be a natural-born citizen at the age of 84, Lorenzo would have been
of the Philippines, stated his name to be born in 1870. In the absence of any other
"Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date evidence, Lorenzo’s place of residence upon
of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of his death in 1954 was presumed to be the
birth to be Manila. place of residence prior his death, such that
Petitioner Fornier filed before the COMELEC a Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the "en
petition to disqualify FPJ and cancel his masse Filipinization" that the Philippine Bill had
certificate of candidacy by claiming that FPJ is effected in 1902. Being so, Lorenzo’s
not a natural-born Filipino citizen, an illegitimate citizenship would have extended to his son,
son of both parents who are foreigners: his Allan---respondent’s father.
mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, Respondent, having been acknowledged as
and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish Allan’s son to Bessie, though an American
national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a citizen, was a Filipino citizen by virtue of
Spanish subject. paternal filiation as evidenced by the
respondent’s birth certificate. The 1935

AASJS-Calilung vs Datumanong
(Section 5 or dual citizenship)
Cabiling Ma vs Commissioner Hernandez
Petitioner prays for a writ of prohibition be
issued to stop respondent from implementing
RA 9225, or Act Making the Citizenship of the
Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign
Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the
Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63, as
Amended, and for Other Purposes. Petitioner
avers that said Act is unconstitutional as it
violates Section 5, Article IV of the 1987
Constitution: "Dual allegiance of citizens is
inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law."
The petitioners herein were born of a
naturalized Filipino father and a natural-born
Filipino mother. They were all raised, have
resided and lived their whole lives in this
country. During their age of minority, they
secured from the Bureau of Immigration their
Alien Certificates of Registration
(ACRs).Immediately upon reaching the age of
twenty-one, they claimed Philippine citizenship.
Having taken their oath of allegiance as
Philippine citizens, petitioners, however, failed
to have the necessary documents registered in
the civil registry as required under Section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 625.
Constitution on citizenship did not make a
distinction on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of
the child.
*W/N RA 9225 is unconstitutional
*NO. Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is
a mere declaration of policy and is not self-
executing provision. What RA 9225 does is to
allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino
citizens who have lost their Philippine
citizenship, by reason of naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country. In its face, it does
not recognize dual allegiance.
*Whether late registration of the acquired
Filipino citizenship in the Civil Registry
encumbers persons to become naturalized
citizens of the Philippines.
*NO. Petitioners complied with the first and
second requirements upon reaching the age of
majority. It was only the registration of the
documents of election with the civil registry that
was belatedly done. The SC ruled that under
the facts peculiar to the petitioners, the right to
elect Philippine citizenship has not been lost
and they should be allowed to complete the
statutory requirements for such election.The
actual exercise of Philippine citizenship, for
over half a century by the herein petitioners, is
actual notice to the Philippine public which is
equivalent to formal registration of the election
of Philippine citizenship.
Macquiling vs Comelec Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino
citizen. However, as a consequence of his
subsequent naturalization as a citizen of USA,
he lost his Filipino citizenship. Arnado applied
for repatriation under R.A 9225 and took Oath
of Allegianceto to the RP on July 10, 2008. In
2009, he took an Oath of Allegiance again to
RP and executed an affidavit of renunciation of
foreign citizenship. On 30 Nov 2009, he filed his
COC for Mayor of Lanao Del Norte.
Respondent Balua, a mayoralty candidate, filed
a petition to disqualify Arnado on the ground
that he has been using his US passport in
entering and departing US. Macquiling, another
mayoralty candidate, intervened in the case
through filing a MOR to disqualify Arnado and
claimed that such disqualification, since he
garnered the second highest number of votes,
would result to him being proclaimed as the
winner.
Llmanzares vs COMELEC In her COC for presidency for the May 2016
elections, Grace Poe declared that she is a
natural-born citizen and that her residence in
the Philippines up to the day before 9 May 2016
would be 10 years and 11 months counted from
24 May 2005. May 24, 2005 was the day she
came to the Philippines after deciding to stay in
the PH for good. Before that however, and even
afterwards, she has been going to and fro
between US and Philippines. She was born in
1968, found as newborn infant in Iloilo, and was
legally adopted. She immigrated to the US in
1991 and was naturalized as American citizen
*W/N the use of a foreign passport after
renouncing foreign citizenship amounts to
undoing a renunciation earlier made
*YES. The use of foreign passport after
renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a
positive and voluntary act of representation as
to one’s 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.
Between 03 April 2009, the date he renounced
his foreign citizenship, and 30 November 2009,
the date he filed his COC, he used his US
passport four times, actions that run counter to
the affidavit of renunciation he had earlier
executed. By using his foreign passport,
Arnado positively and voluntarily represented
himself as an American. Hence, ground for
disqualification.
*W/N Grace Poe is a natural born citizens and
therefore qualified to run for president
*YES. Yes, Grace Poe might be and is
considerably a natural-born Filipino. First, there
is a high probability that Grace Poe’s parents
are Filipinos. Her physical features are typical
of Filipinos. The fact that she was abandoned
as an infant in a municipality where the
population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly
Filipinos such that there would be more than
99% chance that a child born in such province
is a Filipino is also a circumstantial evidence of
her parents’ nationality. That probability and the
 in 2001. On July 18, 2006, the BI granted her
petition declaring that she had reacquired her
Filipino citizenship under RA 9225. She
registered as a voter and obtained a new
Philippine passport. In 2010, before assuming
her post as an appointed chairperson of the
MTRCB, she renounced her American
citizenship to satisfy the RA 9225 requirement .
From then on, she stopped using her American
passport. Petitions were filed before the
COMELEC to deny or cancel her candidacy on
the ground particularly, among others, that she
cannot be considered a natural-born Filipino
citizen since she cannot prove that her
biological parents or either of them were
Filipinos. The COMELEC en banc cancelled
her candidacy on the ground that she is in want
of citizenship and residence requirements, and
that she committed material misrepresentations
in her COC.
Justice Carpio’s Dissenting Opinion:
evidence on which it is based are admissible
under Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised Rules
on Evidence.
Second, by votes of 7-5, the SC pronounced
that foundlings are as a class, natural-born
citizens. This is based on the finding that the
deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional
Convention show that the framers intended
foundlings to be covered by the enumeration.
While the 1935 Constitution’s enumeration is
silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive
language which would definitely exclude
foundlings either. Because of silence and
ambiguity in the enumeration with respect to
foundlings, the SC felt the need to examine the
intent of the framers. Third, that foundlings are
automatically conferred with natural-born
citizenship is supported by treaties and the
general principles of international law. Although
the Philippines is not a signatory to some of
these treaties, it adheres to the customary rule
to presume foundlings as having born of the
country in which the foundling is found.
Grace Poe is NOT a Natural-born Filipino
Citizen
1. There is no Philippine law automatically
conferring Philippine citizenship to a foundling
at birth. Even if there were, such a law would
only result in the foundling being a naturalized
Filipino citizen, not a natural-born Filipino
citizen.
2. Second, there is no legal presumption in
favor of Philippine citizenship, whether natural-
born or naturalized. Citizenship must be
established as a matter of fact and any doubt is
resolved against the person claiming Philippine
citizenship.
3. Third, the letter and intent of the 1935
Constitution clearly excluded foundlings from
being considered natural-born Filipino citizens.
The Constitution adopts the jus sanguinis
principle, and identifies natural-born Filipino
citizens as only those whose fathers or mothers
are Filipino citizens. Petitioner failed to prove
that either her father or mother is a Filipino
citizen.
4. Fourth, there is no treaty, customary
international law or a general principle of
international law granting automatically
Philippine citizenship to a foundling at birth.
5. Fifth, even assuming that there is a
customary international law presuming that a
foundling is a citizen of the country where the
foundling is found, or is born to parents
possessing the nationality of that country, such
presumption cannot prevail over our
Constitution since customary international law
has the status merely of municipal statutory
law. This means that customary international
law is inferior to the Constitution, and must yield
to the Constitution in case of conflict. Since the
Constitution adopts the jus sanguinis principle,
and identifies natural-born Filipino citizens as
only those whose fathers or mothers are
Filipino citizens, then petitioner must prove that
either her father or mother is a Filipino citizen
for her to be considered a natural-born Filipino
citizen. Any international law which contravenes
the jus sanguinis principle in the Constitution
must of course be rejected.
6. Sixth, petitioner failed to discharge her
burden to prove that she is a natural-born
Filipino citizen. Being a foundling, she admitted
that she does not know her biological parents,
and therefore she cannot trace blood relation to
a Filipino father or mother. Without credible and
convincing evidence that petitioner’s biological
father or mother is a Filipino citizen, petitioner
cannot be considered a natural-born Filipino
citizen.
7. Seventh, a foundling has to perform an act,
that is, prove his or her status as a foundling, to
acquire Philippine citizenship. This being so, a
foundling can only be deemed a naturalized
Filipino citizen because the foundling has to
perform an act to acquire Philippine citizenship.
Since there is no Philippine law specifically
governing the citizenship of foundlings, their
citizenship is addressed by customary
international law, namely: the right of every
human being to a nationality, and the State’s
obligations to avoid statelessness and to
facilitate the naturalization of foundlings.