CITIZENSHIP

WHO ARE FILIPINO CITIZENS?

The following are citizens of the Philippines:(1)Those who

are citizens of the Philippinesat 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,
whoELECT Philippine citizenshipupon reaching the age of
majority; (4)Those who are NATURALIZED in the
accordance with law.(Section 1, Article IV, 1987
Constitution).

“THOSE WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES AT

THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION.”

RE: 1935 CONSTITUTION

 “SPANISH SUBJECTS ” –Under both the “Philippine Bill of

1902 ”and the “Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 ”[also
known as the “Jones Law”],all inhabitants of the Philippines
who were SPANISH SUBJECTS on April 11, 1899 and resided
therein including their children are deemed to be
PHILIPPINE CITIZENS. (“Except those who elected to preserve
their allegiance to the Crown of Spain.”) 1

 “THOSE BENEFITED BY THE ROA DOCTRINE ”– which

holds that those born in the Philippines of alien parents are

1
See Valles vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000; andTecson vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 161434, March 3, 2004, in relation to Section 1 [1], Article IV of the 1935 Constitution.
 deemed Filipino citizens by virtue of the principle of jus soli.2This
is clearly inferredfrom the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case ofTan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 47616,
September 16, 1947,(which abandoned the “Roa
Doctrine”)wherein the Supreme Court stated that: “This decision
DOES NOT divest of their Filipino citizenship those who had
been declared to be Filipino citizens, or upon whom such
citizenship had been conferred by the courts because of the
doctrine or principle of res judicata.”3

 “THE CARAM PROVISION ”–Those born in the Philippines of

FOREIGN PARENTS who, “before the adoption of the 1935
Constitution,”had been ELECTED to PUBLIC OFFICEin the
Philippines.4The right acquired by virtue of this provision is
transmissible to one’s descendants.5

 “THOSE WHOSE FATHERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE

PHILIPPINES .” 6 - The 1935 Constitution, confers citizenship to
all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of
whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.7

 “THOSE WHO ELECTED PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP ” –

Those whose MOTHERS are CITIZENS of the Philippines and,
upon reaching the age of majority, ELECT Philippine citizenship.8

The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing

Filipino citizenship apply only to LEGITIMATE CHILDREN.
These do not apply in the case ofan illegitimate child who is not
required to comply with said constitutional and statutory
requirements to become a Filipino citizen.An ILLEGITIMATE
CHILD of a Filipino motherautomatically becomes a Filipino

2
Roa vs. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. L-7011, October 30, 1912.
3
See also Tio Tiam vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-9602, April 25, 1957, which abandoned with
finality the doctrine laid down in Roavs. Collector of Customs, citing Tan Chong vs. Secretary of
Labor.
4
Section 1 [2], Article IV of the 1935 Constitution.
5
See Chiongbian vs. De Leon, G.R. No. L-2007, January 31, 1949.
6
Section 1 [3], Article IV of the 1935 Constitution.
7
Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004.
8
Section 1 [4], Article IV of the 1935 Constitution.
 upon birthwithout having to elect Filipino citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority.9

 “THOSE NATURALIZED UNDER CA 473 ” 10 – Any woman

married to a citizen of the Philippines, “who might herself be
lawfully naturalized,”shall be deemed a citizen of the
Philippinesincluding their children born in the Philippines.

A “foreign-born minor child ,” “if DWELLING in the

Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the parent,” shall
automatically become a Philippine citizen, and a “foreign-
born minor child ,”“who is NOT IN THE PHILIPPINES at the
time the parent is naturalized,” shall be deemed a Philippine
citizen only during his minority, UNLESShe begins to reside
permanently in the Philippines when still a minor, in which
case, he will continue to be a Philippine citizen even after
becoming of age.

A “child born outside of the Philippines ”“AFTER the

NATURALIZATION of his parent,” shall be considered a
Philippine citizen UNLESS within one year after reaching the
age of majority he fails to register himself as a Philippine
citizen at the American Consulate of the country where he
resides, and to take the necessary oath of allegiance. 11

NOTE:An alien woman who marries a Filipino to become herself

a Filipino citizen, there is NO NEED for any NATURALIZATION
PROCEEDING because she becomes a Filipina ipso facto from
the time of such marriage, PROVIDED she DOES NOT SUFFER
any of the DISQUALIFICATIONS enumerated in Section 4 of
Commonwealth Act 473. x x x In referring to the disqualification
enumerated in the law,NO INQUIRY NEED BE MADE AS TO
QUALIFICATIONS.12

RE: 1973 CONSTITUTION

9
See Republic vs. Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004.
10
In relation to Section 1 [5], Article IV of the 1935 Constitution.
11
Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473 otherwise known as the “Revised Naturalization Law”.
12
Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-21289, October 4, 1971.
 “THOSE WHOSE FATHERS OR MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS
OF THE PHILIPPINES ” 13– Under the new rule, the child is
considered a natural-born Filipino citizen provided either of his
parents is Filipino citizen.The FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP of the
MOTHER will now also confer NATURAL-BORN Philippine
citizenship upon the child, WITHOUT the necessity of
ELECTION as before upon his attaining majority age.14

 NOTE:This innovation has PROSPECTIVE application,

beginning on the date of the effectivity of the 1973
Constitutionon January 17, 1973 , where it was first
adopted.

HENCE, “a child born in, say, 1970,” to an alien father and

Filipino mother is still considered a foreigner, following his
father’s citizenship(“unless he elects Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority”).

BUTif his birth occurred to the same parents “on or after

January 17, 1973,”when the 1973 Constitution was ratified, he
will be considered a citizen of the Philippines by virtue of his
mother’s citizenship(“without the necessity of election upon his
attaining majority age”).15

“THOSE WHOSE FATHERS OR MOTHERS ARE

CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES.”

 NOTE:Thishas PROSPECTIVE application, beginning on the

date of the effectivity of the 1973 Constitutionon January
17, 1973 , where it was first adopted.16

“THOSE BORN BEFORE JANUARY 17, 1973 , OF

FILIPINO MOTHERS, WHO ELECT PHILIPPINE

13
Section 1 [2], Article III of the 1973 Constitution.
14
Cruz, Constitutional Law [2000 Edition], p. 374.
15
Id. at pp. 374-375.
16
See Note 706 supra.
 CITIZENSHIP UPON REACHING THE AGE OF
MAJORITY.”

 PROCEDURE. – The option to elect Philippine citizenship shall

be expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the
party concerned before any officer authorized to administer
oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry. The
said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the
oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of
the Philippines.17

 WHEN TO ELECT. –The clause “UPON REACHING THE AGE

OF MAJORITY ”has been construed to mean a“reasonable
time” after reaching the age of majority, and that the
Secretary of Justice has ruled thatTHREE (3) YEARS is the
reasonable time to elect Philippine citizenship.18

THUS,in Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine BAR

of Vicente D. Ching, BAR Matter No. 914, October 1,
1999,the Supreme Court held that the span of FOURTEEN (14)
YEARS that lapsed from the time he reached the age of
majority until he finally expressed his intention to elect
Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation
of the requirement of electing “upon reaching the age of
majority.”“His continuous and uninterrupted stay in the
Philippines” and “his being a certified public accountant,” “a
registered voter” and “a former elected public official,”cannot
vest in him Philippine citizenship as the law specifically lays
down the requirements for acquisition of Philippine
citizenship by ELECTION.

HOWEVER, in Cabiling Ma vs. Bureau of Immigration, G.R.

No. 183133, July 26, 2010,the Supreme Court held that“where
the election of citizenship has in fact been done and documented
within the constitutional and statutory time-frame,”the
REGISTRATION of the documents of election BEYOND the

17
Section 1, Commonwealth Act No. 625.
18
Cuenco vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. L-18069, May 26, 1962.
 frame should be ALLOWED IF in the meanwhile POSITIVE
ACTS of CITIZENSHIP have publicly, consistently, and
continuously been done. “The ACTUAL EXERCISE of
Philippine citizenshipis actual notice to the Philippine public
which is EQUIVALENT to formal REGISTRATION” of the
election of Philippine citizenship.

NOTE:In Ching, his application for admission to the Philippine

BAR was DENIED becauseALL THE REQUIREMENTS, to wit: (1)
a statement of election under oath; (2) an oath of allegiance to
the Constitution and Government of the Philippines; and (3)
registration of the statement of election and of the oath with the
nearest civil registry were complied with only FOURTEEN (14)
YEARS after he reached the age of majority. Ching offered no
reason for the late election of Philippine citizenship. In Cabiling
Ma, the petition was GRANTED because it was shown
thatpetitioners have actually executed an affidavit of
election of Philippine citizenship andtook their oath of
allegianceto the governmentUPON REACHING THE AGE OF
MAJORITY.“But, they failed to have the necessary documents
registered in the civil registry. It was only aftermore than thirty
(30) years that petitioner’sdid so.”

 NOTE:The RIGHT of ELECTION is available only to those

born BEFORE“January 17, 1973 ,”of Filipino mothers.
Obviously, “election is not necessary in the case of the child born
to a Filipino mother underthe present Constitution as he would
himself be considered a Filipino citizen at birth.”19

 NOTE:The constitutional and statutory requirements of

electing Filipino citizenship apply only to LEGITIMATE
CHILDREN. These do not apply in the case ofan illegitimate child
who is not required to comply with said constitutional and
statutory requirements to become a Filipino citizen.

19
Cruz, Constitutional Law [2000 Edition], p. 375.
 An ILLEGITIMATE CHILD of a Filipino mother automatically
becomes a Filipino upon birth without having to elect
Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.20

 NOTE: One who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has

only an “inchoate right” to such citizenship.21Until he becomes
of age and makes the election, the child is an alien.22

MODES of ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP

 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 or her birth,as opposed to the “DOCTRINE OF
JUS SOLI ”which determines nationality or citizenship on
the basis of PLACE OF BIRTH.23[BAR 2015]

 NOTE:The signing into law of the 1935 Philippine Constitution

has established the“PRINCIPLE OF JUS SANGUINIS ”as basis
for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship.So also, the principle
of jus sanguinis, which confers citizenship by virtue of blood
relationship, was subsequently retained under the
1973 and1987 Constitutions. [BAR 2015]
24

 NOTE:While there was, at one brief time, divergent views on

whether or not jus soli was a mode of acquiring citizenship, the
1935 Constitution brought to an end to any such link with
common law, by adopting, once and for all, JUS SANGUINIS
or blood relationship as being the basis of Filipino
citizenship.25

 NOTE:With the adoption of the 1935 Constitution and the

reversal of Roa in Tan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor, jus
20
See Republic vs. Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004.
21
See In Re:Ching, BAR Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999.
22
Villahermosa vs. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-1663, March 31, 1948.
23
Valles vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000.
24
Id.
25
Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004.
 sanguinis or blood relationship would now become the
primary basis of citizenship by birth.26

NATURALIZATION and DENATURALIZATION

 The act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of

a nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen. 27It
is a process by which a foreigner acquires, voluntarily or by
operation of law, the citizenship of another State.28

 NOTE:To be NATURALIZED,an applicant has to prove that

he possesses ALL the QUALIFICATIONS and NONE of the
DISQUALIFICATIONS provided by law to become a Filipino
citizen.29

 NOTE:The DECISION granting Philippine citizenship

becomes EXECUTORY only AFTER TWO (2) YEARSfrom its
promulgation “when the court is satisfied that during the
intervening period, the applicant has:”(1)not left the
Philippines; (2)dedicated himself to a lawful calling or
profession; (3)not been convicted of any offense or violation of
Government promulgated rules; or (4)not committed any act
prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any
Government announced policies.30

 RULE OF STRICT APPLICATION. –Naturalization laws

should be RIGIDLY ENFORCED and STRICTLY CONSTRUED
in favor of the government and AGAINST the APPLICANT.31

Thus, in Ong Chia vs. Republic, G.R. No. 127240, March 27,
2000,the Supreme Court held that the RULE of STRICT
APPLICATION of the law in naturalization cases DEFEAT the
26
Id.
27
Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law [2009 Edition], p. 238, citing Record of the
Senate, 12thCongress, June 4-5, 2001.
28
Cruz, Constitutional Law [2000 Edition], p. 376.
29
Bengson, III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001.
30
Ibid.
31
Ong Chia vs. Republic, G.R. No. 127240, March 27, 2000.
 argument of“SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE” with the
requirement under the Revised Naturalization Law.

MODES OF NATURALIZATION

 DIRECT. – Effected by: (1)INDIVIDUAL PROCEEDINGS,

usually judicial, under general naturalization laws; (2)SPECIAL
ACT of LEGISLATURE, often in favor of distinguished
foreigners who had rendered some notable service to the local
State; (3)COLLECTIVE CHANGE of
NATIONALITY(naturalization enmasse)as a result of cession or
subjugation; and (4)In some cases, ADOPTIONof orphan minors
as nationals of the State where they are born.32

 DERIVATIVE. –Conferred on: (1) The WIFEof the naturalized

husband; (2) The MINOR CHILDREN of the naturalized parent;
and (3) The ALIEN WOMAN upon marriage to a national.33

NOTE:In Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration,

G.R. No. L-21289, October 4, 1971,the Supreme Court held
thatan alien woman who marries a Filipino to become herself a
Filipino citizen, there is NO NEED for any NATURALIZATION
PROCEEDING because she becomes a Filipina ipso facto from
the time of such marriage, PROVIDED she DOES NOT SUFFER
ANY of the DISQUALIFICATIONS enumerated in Section 4 of
Commonwealth Act 473. x x x In referring to the disqualification
enumerated in the law,NO INQUIRY NEED BE MADE AS TO
QUALIFICATIONS.34

NATURALIZATION UNDER CA 473

 DECLARATION OF INTENTION. – One (1) year PRIOR to the

filing of his petition for admission to Philippine citizenship, the
applicant for Philippine citizenship shall file with the Bureau of
Justice (now with the office of the Solicitor General)a declaration
32
Cruz, Constitutional Law [2000 Edition], p. 376.
33
Ibid.
34
Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-21289, October 4, 1971.
 under oath that it is bona fide his INTENTION to become a
citizen of the Philippines.35

NOTE:No declaration shall be valid UNTIL lawful entry for

permanent residence has been established and a certificate
showing the date, place, and manner of his arrival has been
issued.36

 PERSONS EXEMPT FROM REQUIREMENT TO MAKE A

DECLARATION OF INTENTION. – (1)Persons BORN in the
Philippines AND have RECEIVED their PRIMARY and
SECONDARY EDUCATION in public schools or those recognized
by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality;
and (2)Those who have RESIDED continuously in the
Philippines for a period of THIRTY (30) YEARS or more before
filing their application.37

 COMPETENT COURT. – The REGIONAL TRIAL COURT“of the

province in which the petitioner has resided at least one year
immediately preceding the filing of the petition”shall have
EXCLUSIVE original JURISDICTION to hear the petition.38

 PUBLICATION. –Immediately upon the filing of a petition, it

shall be the duty of the clerk of the court to PUBLISH the same
at petitioner’s expense, once a week for three consecutive
weeks, in theofficial gazette , ANDin one of thenewspapers
of general circulation in the province where the petitioner
resides, ANDto have copies of saidPETITION anda
generalNOTICE of the HEARING POSTED in a public and
conspicuous place in his office or in the building where said
office is located.39

In Gan Tsitung vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-20819, November 29,

1965, the Supreme Court held thatNON-COMPLIANCE with the
provisions of Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization
35
Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.
36
Ibid.
37
Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.
38
Section 8 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.
39
Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.
 Act,affects the jurisdiction of the court . It constitutes a
FATAL DEFECT, for it impairs the very root or foundation of the
authority to decide the case, regardless of whether the one to
blame therefor is the clerk of court or the petitioner or his
counsel.

Similarly, in Sy vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-32287, February 28,

1974, it was held that THE REQUIREMENT by Section 9 of
Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended, that the COPY of the
PETITION to be POSTED and PUBLISHED“should be a
TEXTUAL or VERBATIM restatement ”of the petition as
filed, is JURISDICTIONAL. Non-compliance therewith
nullifies the proceedings including the decision rendered
therein.

 OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. – BEFORE the NATURALIZATION

CERTIFICATE is ISSUED, the petitioner shall, in open court,
take an OATH of ALLEGIANCE.40

QUALIFICATIONS

 Any person having the following qualifications may become a

citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:

First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the

day of the hearing of the petition;

Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a

continuous period of not less than ten years;

Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the

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.

40
Section 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.
 Fourth. 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;

Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish

and any one of the principal Philippine languages; and

Sixth. 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.41

 SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS. –The TEN YEARS of continuous

residence required under the second condition of the last
preceding section shall be understood as reduced to FIVE
YEARS for any petitioner having any of the following
qualifications: (1)Having honorably HELD OFFICE under the
Government of the Philippinesor under that of any of the
provinces, cities, municipalities, or political subdivisions thereof;
(2)Having established a new industry OR introduced a useful
invention in the Philippines;(3)Being married to a Filipino
woman;(4)Having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines
in a public or recognized private school not established for the
exclusive instruction of children of persons of a particular
nationality or race, in any of the branches of education or
industry for a period of not less than two years;(5)Having been
born in the Philippines.42

DISQUALIFICATIONS

 The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens:

(1)Persons OPPOSED to organized government or affiliated

41
Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.
42
Section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.
 with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach
doctrines opposing all organized governments;(2)Persons
defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of VIOLENCE,
personal assault, or assassination for the success and
predominance of their ideas;(3)POLYGAMISTS or believers in the
practice of polygamy;(4)Persons convicted of crimes involving
MORAL TURPITUDE;(5)Persons suffering from MENTAL
ALIENATION or INCURABLE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES;
(6)Persons who, during the period of their residence in the
Philippines, have NOT MINGLED SOCIALLY with the Filipinos,
or who have NOT evinced a sincere desire to learn and
EMBRACEthe customs, traditions, and IDEALS of the Filipinos;
(7)Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States
and the Philippines are AT WAR, during the period of such war;
and (8)Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the
United States whose laws DO NOT GRANT Filipinos the RIGHT
to become NATURALIZEDcitizens or subjects thereof.43

DENATURALIZATION

 CANCELLATION of NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE.–

Upon motion made in the proper proceedings by the
SolicitorGeneral or his representative, or by the proper
provincial fiscal, the competent judge may cancel the
naturalization certificate issued and its registration in the Civil
Register:

1. If it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained

fraudulently or illegally;

2. If the person naturalized shall, within the five years next

following the issuance of said naturalization certificate, return
to his native country or to some foreign country and
establish his permanent residence there: PROVIDED, that
the fact of the person naturalized remaining for more than one
year in his native country or the country of his former
nationality, or two years in any other foreign country, shall be
43
Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.
 considered as prima facie evidence of his intention of taking up
his permanent residence in the same;

3. If the petition was made on an invalid declaration of

intention;

4. If it is shown that the minor children of the person

naturalized failed to graduate from a public or private high
schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of the
Philippines, where Philippine history, government and civics
are taught as part of the school curriculum, through the fault
of their parents either by neglecting to support them or by
transferring hem to another school or schools. A certified copy
of the decree cancelling the naturalization certificate shall be
forwarded by the clerk of the Court to the Department of the
Interior and the Bureau of Justice;

5. If it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed

himself to be used as a dummyrequiring Philippine
citizenship as a requisite for the exercise, use or enjoyment of
a right, franchise or privilege.44

 In Republic vs. Guy, G.R. No. L-41399, July 20, 1982,the

Supreme Court held that the fact thatconvictions for the
crimes of Perjury and Rape with Serious Physical Injuries were
made after the two-year probationary period and AFTER the
appellant had already been granted Philippine citizenship is
of no moment.

Unlike final decisions in actions and other proceedings in court,

a decision or order granting citizenship to the applicant does not
really become executory, and a naturalization proceeding not
being a judicial adversary proceeding, the decision rendered
therein is not res judicata as to any of the reasons or matters
which would support a judgment cancelling the certificate of
naturalization for illegal or fraudulent procurement. As a matter
of fact, it is settled in this jurisdiction that a certificate of
naturalization may be cancelled upon grounds or conditions
44
Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.
 subsequent to the granting of the certificate of
naturalization.

 EFFECTS OF DENATURALIZATION. –REVOCATION on

grounds affecting the INTRINSIC VALIDITYof the proceedings
shall DIVEST the WIFE and CHILDREN of their DERIVATIVE
NATURALIZATION. “But if the ground was PERSONAL to the
denaturalized Filipino,”as where he permanently resided in a
foreign country after his naturalization, “his wife and children
shall RETAIN their Philippine citizenship.” 45

ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION
[RA 9139]

 NOTE:CA 473 and RA 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.46

 NOTE:The intention of the legislature in enacting RA 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.47

 NOTE: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 CA 473 was
intended to be amended or repealed by RA 9139. What the
legislature had in mind was merely to prescribe 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

45
Cruz, Constitutional Law [2000 Edition], p. 382.
46
So vs. Republic, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007.
47
Ibid.
 administrative naturalization, subject to the prescribed
qualifications and disqualifications. 48

QUALIFICATIONS

 Any person desiring to avail of the benefits of this Act must meet
the following qualifications:

a. The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing

therein since birth;

b. The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of

age, at the time of filing of his/her petition;

c. The applicant must be of good moral character and believes

in the underlying principles of the Constitution, and must
have conducted himself/herself in a proper and irreproachable
manner during his/her entire period of residence in the
Philippines in his relation with the duly constituted
government as well as with the community in which he/she is
living;

d. The applicant must have received his/her primary and

secondary education in any public school or private
educational institution dully recognized by the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports, where Philippine history,
government and civics are taught and prescribed as part of the
school curriculum and where enrollment is not limited to any
race or nationality: Provided, that should he/she have minor
children of school age, he/she must have enrolled them in
similar schools;

e. The applicant must have a known trade, business, profession

or lawful occupation, from which he/she derives income
sufficient for his/her support and if he/she is married and/or
has dependents, also that of his/her family: Provided,
however, that this shall not apply to applicants who are college
48
Ibid.
 degree holders but are unable to practice their profession
because they are disqualified to do so by reason of their
citizenship;

f. The applicant must be able to read, write and speak

FilipinoORany of the dialects of the Philippines; and

g. The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and

evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs,
traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.

DISQUALIFICATIONS

 NOTE: The disqualifications under RA 9139 are the SAME as

those provided in CA 473.49

DUAL CITIZENSHIP and DUAL ALLEGIANCE

DUAL ALLEGIANCEof citizens is inimical to the national

interest and shall be dealt with by law.(Section 5, Article IV,
1987 Constitution).

 NOTE:In Calilung vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 160869,

May 11, 2007, the Supreme Court held thatSection 5, Article
IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is
NOT a SELF-EXECUTING PROVISION. The legislature still has
to enact the law on dual allegiance.

Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set

specific parameters of what really constitutes dual
allegiance.Until this is done, it would be PREMATURE for the
judicial departmentto rule on issues pertaining to dual
allegiance.

49
See Section 4 of CA 473 and Section 4 of RA 9139.
 DUAL CITIZENSHIP arises when, as a result of the
concurrent application of the different laws of two or more
states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by
the said states.

“For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose

parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of
jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus
soli.”Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on
his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. 50

 DUAL ALLEGIANCE , on the other hand, refers to the

situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some
positive act, LOYALTY to two or more states. While dual
citizenship is involuntary, “dual allegiance is the result of an
individuals volition.”51

Thus,in Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26,

1999,the Supreme Court heldthatthe phrase“DUAL
CITIZENSHIP” in Section 40 [d] of R.A. No. 7160[“Local
Government Code”]and in Section 20 [d] of R.A. No.
7854[“Charter of the City of Makati”],must be understood as
referring to DUAL ALLEGIANCE. CONSEQUENTLY, PERSONS
WITH MERE DUAL CITIZENSHIP DO NOT FALL UNDER THIS
DISQUALIFICATION.

 NOTE:In our jurisdiction, an attack on a person’s citizenship

may only be done through a DIRECT ACTION for its nullity.52

 In Valles vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, August 9,

2000,53the Supreme Court explained that as a GENERAL RULE ,
the principle of res judicata DOES NOT apply in cases
hinging on the issue of CITIZENSHIP .

50
Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999.
51
Ibid.
52
Co vs. HRET, G.R. Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991.
53
Citing Burca vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-24252, January 30, 1967.
 HOWEVER ,in order that the doctrine of res judicata may be
applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present:
(1)a person’s CITIZENSHIP be raised as a MATERIAL ISSUE in
a controversy where said person is a party; (2) the SOLICITOR
GENERAL or his authorized representativetook active part in
the resolution thereof; and (3)the FINDING on citizenship is
AFFIRMED by the SUPREME COURT.

LOSS and RE-ACQUISITION ofPHILIPPINE

CITIZENSHIP

LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP
(CA No. 63 in relation to RA 9225)

 BY NATURALIZATION IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY. 54–

However, this is already modified by RA 9225[“Citizenship
Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003”]which provides that:
“It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all Philippine
citizens who become citizens of another country shall be
DEEMED NOT TO HAVE LOST their Philippine citizenship
under the conditions of this Act.”55

NATURAL-BORN citizens of the Philippines who become

citizens of a foreign country shall RETAIN their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.56

NOTE:RETENTION of PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP under RA

9225 is limited toNATURAL-BORN Filipinos and NOT to
NATURALIZED Filipinos.57

54
Section 1 [1] of Commonwealth Act No. 63.
55
Section 2 of RA 9225.
56
Section 3 of RA 9225.
57
Journal of the House of Representatives, June 2-5, 2003, cited in Sobejana-Condon vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 198742, August 10, 2012, p. 15.
 BY EXPRESS RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP. 58–The law
requires an express renunciation which means a renunciation
that is made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to
inference or implication.59

NOTE:An APPLICATION for an ALIEN CERTIFICATE of

REGISTRATION is NOT tantamount to
RENUNCIATIONofPhilippine citizenship. 60

Thus,in Valles vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, August 9,

2000,the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that private
respondent was a HOLDER of an AUSTRALIAN PASSPORT
and had an ALIEN CERTIFICATE of REGISTRATION are NOT
acts constituting an EFFECTIVE RENUNCIATIONof citizenship
and do not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For
renunciation to effectively result in the loss of citizenship, the
same must be EXPRESS.[NOTE: In this case, Rosalind Ybasco
Lopez is a natural-born citizen and did not take an oath of
allegiance to the Queen of Australia.]

However, inYu vs. Defensor-Santiago, G.R. No. L-83882,

January 24, 1989,despite his NATURALIZATION as a
Philippine citizen, “Yu applied for and was issued Portuguese
Passport.”While still a citizen,“he declared his nationality as
Portuguese in commercial documents he signed.” The Supreme
Court held that such acts constitute an EXPRESS
RENUNCIATION of Philippine citizenship acquired through
naturalization.[NOTE: In this case,Yu was merely a naturalized
citizen.]

 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.61
58
Section 1 [2] of Commonwealth Act No. 63.
59
Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Callano, G.R. No. L-24530, October 31, 1968.
60
See Aznar vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 83820, May 25, 1990.
61
Section 1 [3] of Commonwealth Act No. 63.
 NOTE:This should likewise be considered modified by RA 9225. 62

NOTE:The PROVISO may be considered as an application of the

“Principle of Indelible Allegiance.”63

Under the“DOCTRINE of INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE ”, an

individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality
even if he has already renounced or forfeited it under the
laws of the second State whose nationality he has acquired.

 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
citizenshipifeither 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. 64

 BY CANCELLATION OF THE CERTIFICATES OF

NATURALIZATION; 65

 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;66 and

62
Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law [2009 Edition], p. 247.
63
Ibid.
64
Section 1 [4] of Commonwealth Act No. 63.
65
Section 1 [5] of Commonwealth Act No. 63.
66
Section 1 [6] of Commonwealth Act No. 63.
 IN THE CASE OF A WOMAN, UPON HER MARRIAGE TO A
FOREIGNERif, by virtue of the laws in force in her husband’s
country, “she acquires his nationality.”67

NOTE:This rule has been REVERSED by Section 4, Article IV

of the 1987 Constitution which provides 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.”68

Now both MALE and FEMALE citizens shall REMAIN Filipinos

despite their alien spouses“EXCEPT only when they may be
deemed by their act or omission to have RENOUNCED their
Phippine citizenship.”69

REACQUISITION of CITIZENSHIP

 UNDER RA 9225. – Any provision of law to the contrary

notwithstanding, NATURAL-BORN citizens of the Philippines
who have lost their Philippine citizenship“by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country”are hereby
deemed to have RE-ACQUIRED Philippine citizenship upon
taking the OATH of ALLEGIANCE to the Republic.70

NOTE: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 CITIZENS of the Philippines.71

NOTE: Those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship and 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.72
67
Section 1 [7] of Commonwealth Act No. 63.
68
Cruz, Constitutional Law [2000 Edition], p. 383.
69
Ibid.
70
Section 3 of RA 9225.
71
Section 4 of RA 9225.
72
Section 5 [1] of RA 9225.
 NOTE:Those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship and
seeking ELECTIVE PUBLIC OFFICE in the Philippines shall
meet the qualifications 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. 73

Thus,in Lopez vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 182701, July 23,

2008,the Supreme Court expressly held that the ruling in
Valles vs. COMELEC,74“that the filing of a certificate of candidacy
operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship,”has
been superseded by the enactment of R.A. No. 9225.

Similarly,in Jacot vs. Dal and COMELEC, G.R. No. 179848,

November 27, 2008,the Supreme Court held that Section 5 [2]
of Republic Act No. 9225compels natural-born Filipinos, who
have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who
reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship to: (1)take
the OATH of ALLEGIANCE under Section 3 of Republic Act 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.

NOTE:Those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship

andAPPOINTED 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.75

73
Section 5 [2] of RA 9225.
74
G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000.
75
Section 5 [3] of RA 9225.
 NOTE:Those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship
andINTENDING TO PRACTICE THEIR PROFESSION in the
Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license
or permit to engage in such practice.76 and

Thus, in Re: Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to Practice

Law in the Philippines, Epifanio B. Muneses, B.M. No. 2112,
July 24, 2012,it was held that a Filipino LAWYER who
becomes a citizen of another country and laterre-acquires his
Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, REMAINS to be a
MEMBER of the Philippine Bar. HOWEVER, the RIGHT to
RESUME the PRACTICE of LAW is NOT AUTOMATIC. R.A. No.
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.77

NOTE: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.78

 BY NATURALIZATION. –Provided, that the applicant possesses

none of the disqualifications prescribed for naturalization. 79

NOTE:Naturalization is a mode for both ACQUISITION and

REACQUISITION of Philippine citizenship. As a mode of
initially ACQUIRING Philippine citizenship, naturalization is
governed byCommonwealth Act No. 473, as amended. On the
other hand, naturalization as a mode for REACQUIRING
Philippine citizenship is governed byCommonwealth Act No.
63.80
76
Section 5 [4] of RA 9225.
77
In Re: Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to Practice Law in the Philippines, Epifanio B.
Muneses,B.M. No. 2112, July 24, 2012.
78
Section 5 [5] of RA 9225.
79
Section 2 [1] of CA 63 in relation to Section 4 of CA 473 and Section 4 of RA 9139.
80
Bengson, III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001.
 NOTE:To be NATURALIZED,an applicant has to prove that
he possesses ALL the QUALIFICATIONS and NONE of the
DISQUALIFICATIONS provided by law to become a Filipino
citizen.81

 BY REPATRIATIONof DESERTERSof the Army, Navy or Air

Corp. Provided, that a WOMAN who lost her citizenship by
reason of her marriage to an alien may be repatriated in
accordance with the provisions of this Act AFTER the
TERMINATION of the MARITAL STATUS.82

NOTE:Repatriation shall be effected by merely taking the

necessary OATH of ALLEGIANCE to the Republic of the
Philippines and REGISTRATION in the proper civil registry.83

NOTE:REPATRIATION results in the RECOVERY of the

ORIGINAL NATIONALITY.This means that a
naturalized Filipinowho 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 citizenbefore he lost
his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status
as a natural-born Filipino.84

NOTE:Repatriation RETROACTS to the DATE of the FILING

ofAPPLICATION.85

NOTE:RA 8171 governs the repatriation of Filipino WOMEN

who have lost their Philippine citizenship byMARRIAGE to
aliensand NATURAL-BORN Filipinos who have lost their
Philippine citizenship, “including their minor children,” on
account ofPOLITICAL or ECONOMIC NECESSITY .Provided,
that the applicant is NOT a: (1)Person opposed to organized
governmentor affiliated with any association or group of persons
81
Ibid.
82
Section 2 [2] of CA 63.
83
Section 4 of CA 63.
84
Bengson, III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001.
85
Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996, reiterated in Altarejos vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 163256, November 10, 2004.
 who uphold and teach doctrines opposing organized government;
(2)Person defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of
violence, personal assault, or associatEon for the predominance
of their ideas; (3) Person convicted of crimes involving moral
turpitude; or (4) Person suffering from mental alienation or
incurablecontagious diseases.86

Repatriation under RA 8171 shall be effected by taking the

necessary OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to the Republic of the
Philippines and REGISTRATION in the proper CIVIL
REGISTRYand in the BUREAU of IMMIGRATION.87

Any person desirous of repatriating or reacquiring Filipino

citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 8171 shall file a petition
with theSPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NATURALIZATION which
shall process the same.88

In Tabasa vs. CA, G.R. No. 125793, August 29, 2006,the

Supreme Court held that the privilege of repatriation under RA
8171 is available only to NATURAL-BORN Filipinos who lost
their citizenship on account ofPOLITICAL or ECONOMIC
NECESSITY , and to the minor children of said natural-born
Filipinos. x x x The repatriation of the former Filipino will
allow him to recover his NATURAL-BORN citizenship and
automatically vest Philippine citizenship on his CHILDRENof
jus sanguinis or blood relationship.x x x To claim the benefit of
RA 8171, HOWEVER, the CHILDREN must be of MINOR age at
the time the petition for repatriation is filed by the parent.

 BY DIRECT ACT OF CONGRESS. 89

NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS and PUBLIC OFFICE

86
Section 1 of RA 8171.
87
Section 2 of RA 8171.
88
Section 2 of A.O. No. 285dated August 22, 1996.
89
Section 2 [3] of CA 63.
 NATURAL-BORNCITIZENSare 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 ” shall be deemed
natural-born citizens.(Section 2, Article IV, 1987
Constitution).

 NOTE: In Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC, GR. No. 221697,

March 8, 2016, the Supreme Court held that as a matter of
law, “FOUNDLINGS ” 90are as a class, NATURAL-BORN
citizens.

The deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention

show that the framers intended foundlings to be covered by
the enumeration.

Though the Rafols’ amendment was not carried out, it was not
becausethere was any objection to the notion that persons of
“unknown parentage” are not citizens but only because their
number was not enough to meritspecific mention. 91

No person shall be a SENATOR unless he is a natural-

borncitizenof the Philippines.(Section 3, Article VI, 1987
Constitution).

No person shall be a MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES unless he is a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines.(Section 6, Article VI, 1987 Constitution).

90
In A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC, Resolution Approving The Proposed Rule on Adoption (Domestic and
Inter-Country), effective August 22, 2002, “FOUNDLING ” is defined as a deserted or
abandoned infant or child whose parents, guardian or relatives are unknown; or a child
committed to an orphanage or charitable or similar institution with unknown facts of birth and
parentage and registered in the Civil Register as a “foundling.”
91
Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC, GR. No. 221697, March 8, 2016, pp. 25-26.
No person may be elected PRESIDENTor VICE-
PRESIDENTunless he is a natural-born citizenof the
Philippines.(Sections 2 and 3, Article VII, 1987 Constitution).

No person shall be appointed MEMBER of the SUPREME

COURT or any lower COLLEGIATE COURTunless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines.(Section 7 [1],
Article VIII, 1987 Constitution).

The Civil Service shall be administered by the CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION composed of a Chairman and two
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines.(Section 1 [1], Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution).

There shall be a COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS composed

of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines.(Section 1 [1],
Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution).

There shall be a COMMISSION ON AUDITcomposed of a

Chairman and two Commissioners, who shall be natural-
born citizens of the Philippines.(Section 1 [1], Article IX-D,
1987 Constitution).
The OMBUDSMANand his DEPUTIESshall be natural-
born citizens of the Philippines.(Section 8, Article XI, 1987
Constitution).

The COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSshall be composed

of a Chairman and four Members who must be natural-
born citizens of the Philippines.(Section 17, Article XIII,
1987 Constitution).