CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
POLITICAL LAW
Defined as that branch of public law which deals with the
organization and operation of the governmental organs of the
State and define the relations of the state with the inhabitants of
its territory. (Macariola vs Asuncion)
CONSTITUTION
Fundamental Law of the Land. Jurisprudence based on the
constitution; it is the substance of the interpretation.
KINDS/TYPES OF THE CONSTITUTION
1. Written/Unwritten- A written constitution is one
whose precepts are embodied in one document or set
of documents; while an unwritten constitution
consists of rules which have not been integrated into a
single, concrete form but are scattered in various
sources, such as statues of a fundamental character,
judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists,
customs and traditions, and certain common law
principles.
2. Rigid/Flexible- A rigid constitution is one that can be
amended only by a formal and usually difficult
process; while a flexible constitution is one that can be
changed by ordinary legislation.
3. Enacted/Cumulative- enacted or conventional
constitution is enacted, formally struck off at a
definitive time and place following a conscious or
deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler;
while a cumulative or evolved is the result of political
evolution, not inaugurated at any specific time but
changing by accretion rather than by systematic
method.
Philippine Constitution- Written, Rigid, and Enacted
Constitution.
HISTORY OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
Malolos Constitution of 1899- (1901)
 June 12, 1898- declare ng independence sa Kawit,
Cavite
 First Philippine Republic President-Emilio Aguinaldo
 Treaty of Paris signed on 1898, effective 1899.
 Inocuppy tayo ng US so di na applicable.
Philippine Organic Act (Philippine Bill of 1902)
 Considered a constitution, a fundamental law.
 Established the Philippine Assembly, organized by
Filipino legislator. Still under sovereignty of US
government.
Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law) 1916
 First pledge of US gov to give Phils Independence.
1934 Philippines Act, Tydings-McDuffie Law
 Enacted, mechanism that the Philippine has to do to
create a constitution and to have independence
1935 Constitution (Commonwealth) (1935-1946)
 Draft Consti sent to US, Philippine Assembly accepted
it.
 1946 World War II Temporarily nullified. Japanese
occupied us.
1943 Constitution
 Framework of the government under Japanese.
 Jose P. Laurel- Puppet President
[DATE]1
 1945 saved by Mac Arthur
 1935 Constitution was back. Became elastic in 1946
o 1947 Parity Rights Agreement’
 1972, Martial Law by Pres. Marcos. They amended the
constitution. It was no longer responsive to present
time.
1973 Constitution
 Citizens Assembly, ratified by the citizens. No more
plebiscite. Effectivity January 17, 1973.
1. 1976. Gave the President legislative powers even if
the Interim
Batasang Pambansa was already operating.
2. 1980. Raised the retirement of justices from 65 to
70.6
3. 1980. Changed the form of government from
Parliamentary to Presidential.
4. 1984. Provided for a Vice President.
 Martial Law lifted in 1980 but the president was still
very powerful causing the 1986 revolution.
 Batas Pambansa and Presidential Proclamation-
considered as a law made by Marcos.
 Proclamation No. 1 - Feb 25, 1986 Announced the
assumption of power of Aquino and Laurel.
 Supposed to establish the Provisional Government.
 Adapted most of the existing constitution, except the
power of the 3 departments.
 Proclamation 2- suspension of writ of habeas corpus
 Proclamation 3- (Prov Constitution), announced the
promulgation of the Provisional (Freedom)
Constitution.
1987 Constitution ratified by the people of the Philippines.
ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVITY OF THE PRESENT
CONSTITUTION
Article V- Adoption of a new constitution
Sec 1. Within 60 days from the date of proclamation, a
commission shall be appointed by the president to draft a new
constitution. The commission shall be composed of not less
than 30 nor more than fifty natural born citizens of the
Philippines, or recognized probity known for their
independence, nationalism and patriotism. Shall be chosen by
the president after various consultations with society.
Sec2. The commission shall complete its work within a short a
period as may be consistent with the need both to hasten the
return of normal constitutional government and to draft a
document truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations of the
Filipino People.
Sec 3. The commission shall conduct public hearings to ensure
that the people will have adequate participation in the forming
of the constitution.
Sec 4. The plenary sessions of the commission shall be publicly
and fully recorded.
Sec 5. The new Constitution shall be presented by the
commission to the president who shall fit the date for the
holding of the plebiscite. It shall become valid and effective
upon ratification by a majority of the votes cast in such
plebiscite which shall be held within a period of sixty days
following its submission to the president.
Sec 27, Article XVIII of the constitution
This constitution shall take effect immediately upon its
ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held
for the purpose and shall supersede all previous constitutions.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
The foregoing proposed constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines was approved by the constitutional commission of
1986 on the twelfth day of October, 1986 and accordingly
signed on the 15th October, 1986 at the Plenary Hall, National
Government Center, Quezon City by the Commissioners whose
signatures are hereunder affixed.
Proclamation no. 58- Feb 11, 1987
Proclaiming the ratification of the constitution of the Republic
of the Philippines adopted by the constitutional commission of
1986, including the ordinance approved thereto.
 De Leon v. Esguerra; Elected officials should have 6
years in office
 Terms of local officials is 3 years, except of barangay
officials. The 6 year term as stated in the Barangay
elections act of 1982 is still in effect unless otherwise
stated by law.
EFFECTIVITY OF STATUTES:
- Tañada vs. Tuvera (1985) - all statutes, including those of
local application and private laws, shall be published as a
condition for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days
after publication, unless a different effectivity date is fixed
by the legislative. (publication is indispensable)
LAWYERS LEAGUE VS. AQUINO
Questioned the legitimacy of Presidency.
The Aquino government was a result of a "direct state action."
It was not as if a small group revolted and succeeded in wresting
power in the end. Rather, the entire state revolted and overthrew
the government, so that right from the beginning, the
installation was already lawful and the government was at all
times de jure.
Recognized government, valid president of a valid government.
Not based on 1973, caused by People Power Revolution.
IN RE: BERMUDEZ
Clarity of the Incumbent President and Vice President.
Bermudez clarifying the meaning of Incumbent President and
Vice President.
Article 18 (Transitory Provision) It addresses loopholes. 1986
Nainstall, ratified 1987. 6 years dapat. Synchronized elections.
Incumbent Pres and V-Pres don’t necessarily have to avail 6
years. For the next legit president to avail the 6 years.
Section 5, Article 18 of the Proposed 1986 Constitution.
Feb 2, 1987 ratified the Constitution.
TANADA VS TUVERA ( 1)
Facts: There are Presidential Proclamations not published in the
OG.
Issue: are those laws effective without publication?
Ruling: to be effective, it must be published.
TANADA VS TUVERA ( 2)
Fact: they are clarifying where “unless otherwise provided” is
applied in Article 2. Requirement of publication or publication
days?
Ruling: Publication is indispensable. But unless otherwise
provided refers to the publication days but it was also clarified
that it needs to be published before being becoming effective.
Ratification and Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution
No issue to publication, part of the ratification process is
informing people all the things about it.
Depends kung ano nakalagay sa provision. Sometimes: Upon
publication, it is immediately effective.
[DATE]2
PARTS OF A GOOD CONSTITUTION
1. Constitution of Government- provisions of the
constitution which deals with the framework and
structure of the government: executive, legislative and
judicial branch.
2. Constitution of Liberty- the part where it discusses
the constitutional rights, bill of rights. The series of
proscriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and
political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations
on the powers of government as a means of securing
the enjoyment of those rights.
3. Constitution of Sovereignty – pointing out the known
and the procedure of amending and revising the
constitution.
3 RULES OF CONSTRUCTION/INTERPRETATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION
Interpretation pertains to the written provisions of the
constitution, whereas construction pertains to what the framers
of the constitution, what the conditions of the time of the
drafting, of ratifying the constitutions to know what the
provision of the constitution means. We use
Construction/Interpretation when there is doubt as to what the
provision of the constitution is. Construction/Interpretation is
not needed when the provision is clear.
1. Verba Legis- Plain meaning rule. Whenever possible the
words used in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except when technical terms are
employed.
Ex. Domicile and Residency Issue Whether or not
petitioner herein has resided in the subject
Congressional district for at least one (1) year
immediately preceding the May 11, 1998 elections.
Allegedly, counting, from the day after June 22, 1997
when respondent registered at Precinct No. 4400-A, up
to and until the day of the elections on May 11, 1998,
respondent lacks the one (1) year residency requirement
provided for candidates for Member of the House of
Representatives under Section 6, Article VI of the
Constitution.
Rule: Records show that petitioner's domicile of origin
was Candon, Ilocos Sur and that sometime in 1991, he
acquired a new domicile of choice at 24 Bonifacio St.
Ayala Heights, Old Balara, Quezon City, as shown by
his certificate of candidacy for the position of
representative of the 3rd District of Quezon City in the
May 1995 election. Petitioner is now claiming that he
had effectively abandoned his "residence" in Quezon
City and has established a new "domicile" of choice at
the Province of Sarangani. It is doctrinally settled that
the term "residence," as used in the law prescribing the
qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, means
the same thing as "domicile," which imports not only an
intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative
of such intention .
"Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to
which, whenever absent for business, pleasure, or some
other reasons, one intends to return. "Domicile" is a
question of intention and circumstances. In the
consideration of circumstances, three rules must be
borne in mind, namely: (1) that a man must have a
residence or domicile somewhere; (2) when once
established it remains until a new one is acquired; and
(3) a man can have but one residence or domicile at a
time.
As a general rule, the principal elements of domicile,
physical presence in the locality involved and intention
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
to adopt it as a domicile, must concur in order to
establish a new domicile. No change of domicile will
result if either of these elements is absent. Intention to
acquire a domicile without actual residence in the
locality does not result in acquisition of domicile, nor
does the fact of physical presence without intention. The
lease contract entered into sometime in January 1997,
does not adequately support a change of domicile.
The lease contract may be indicative of DOMINO's
intention to reside in Sarangani but it does not engender
the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment
of one's original domicile. The mere absence of
individual from his permanent residence, no matter how
long, without the intention to abandon it does not result
in loss or change of domicile. Thus the date of the
contract of lease of a house and lot located in the
province of Sarangani, i.e., 15 January 1997, cannot be
used, in the absence of other circumstances, as the
reckoning period of the one-year residence requirement.
Further, Domino's lack of intention to abandon his
residence in Quezon City is further strengthened by his
act of registering as voter in one of the precincts in
Quezon City.
While voting is not conclusive of residence, it does give
rise to a strong presumption of residence especially in
this case where DOMINO registered in his former
barangay. Exercising the right of election franchise is a
deliberate public assertion of the fact of residence, and
is said to have decided preponderance in a doubtful case
upon the place the elector claims as, or believes to be,
his residence.
2. Ratio legis et anima - Interpretation according to spirit.
The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of the framers. Concept:
Constitution is a dynamic document. Will adapt to the
present situation of the country at a certain period of time.
Ex. 1987 People Power Revolution
Jehovah’s Witnesses case- force to salute the flag. Same
constitution but different interpretation/view. Right to
religion- right to belief, right to act on belief.
3. The constitution has to be interpreted as a whole. The
constitution ideally is read by people who ratified it and
understood that all those provisions are connected with
one another. Therefore, when the court interpret the
provision of the constitution, it will not interpret it
separately but related to other provisions. Otherwise, the
court will show an opportunity for them to be
contradicting with each other because they will interpret
the provisions separately and will result to conflicts. Basic
principle of the constitution to be consistent must be
achieved.
The above listed are the 3 fundamental ways to interpret or
construct the constitution.
Construction- outside, ano yung nagyari
Interpretation- the provision of the constitution.
General rule: All provisions of the Constitution are self-
executing.
SELF EXECUTING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Already grants rights. Di na kailangan ng enabling law.
(Additional notes: The legislature may still enact legislation to
facilitate the exercise of powers directly granted by the
constitution, further the operation of such a provision, prescribe
a practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a convenient
remedy for the protection of the rights secured or the
determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around
the exercise of the right.)
[DATE]3
Sir: Sovereign power of the state, taxation, eminent domain and
police power. Those are the 3 inherent powers of the state. The
Constitution limits that power. One of the examples of meron
ng rights agad is bill of rights.
So the exemption to the rule:
NONSELF EXECUTING PROVISIONS
You cannot give rise to a right, there must be legislative
action.
Examples: Provisions in Domino v. COMELEC and Pamatong
v. COMELEC
PAMATONG VS COMELEC
Pamatong wanted to run for President in the - elections. So he
filed a COC to the COMELEC, but the COMELEC did not give
due course to his COC because, he is considered as a nuisance
candidate. He did not have enough money to wage a national
campaign.
According to them, the COMELEC in denying his petition,
COC – Article II, Section 26, The State shall guarantee equal
access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political
dynasties as may be defined by law.
What did the Supreme Court say?
That the provision is not self-executing. It cannot give an
intangible right. It can be a basis of a cause of action, but it is
not effective without implementing legislation. That provision
is subsumed under Article II. The provisions of this Article are
generally non self-executing. And there’s no plausible reason to
give a different meaning or treatment to this provision under
this Article.
These provisions under Article II, do not contain any judicially
enforceable Constitutional right. They are mere guidelines for
legislative or executive action.
DIFFERENCE
Self-Executing- you can ask the court to enforce that right
Non-Self Executing- you should find a law that will give you
that right
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS GSIS
Manila Hotel Corporation sought to sold for bidding. One of the
bidders here was this foreign entity – Berhad, and he offered to
buy the shares of Manila Hotel Corporation. Naas yay kalaban
na bidder which is Manila Prince Hotel, their bid was lower. So,
since higher ang bid ni Malaysian firm, this entity was declared
as the winner. So nagsulat katong si Manila Prince Hotel, the
losing bidder that it was them who really topped the bid. Manila
Prince Hotel went to the Supreme Court and challenged this
action by the GSIS before it can sell its shares in the Manila
Hotel Corporation.
Section 10 (2) Article XII. This second paragraph talks about
The Filipino first policy. The provisions – rights, privileges and
concessions covering the – stage of preference to qualified
Filipinos. According to Manila Prince Hotel, this provision is
self-executing.
Is it self-executing or not?
It is. According to the Supreme Court by this provision, 2nd
paragraph of this Section 10, Article XII is a mandatory positive
command which is complete in itself and it doesn’t need further
guidelines, implementing law, rules and regulations for its
enforcement.
It is to give qualified Filipinos preference but only insofar as
grants, rights, privileges and concession covering national are
concerned. It is only shares sa ilahang hotel corporation. It is
the Filipino. Consistent with this self-executing provision.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF NON-SELF-EXECUTORY
PROVISIONS
General Rule for State Policies, not self-executory. Court
released decision making some declaration state policies self-
executory.
Example:
The right to a balance life and a healthy ecology
The right to life
JUDICIAL POWER
The power of the court to settle actual cases or controversies
between real conflicting parties through the application of laws,
including the constitution.
Expanded form – the SC also has the power to determine
whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the government:
1. When its decisions are contrary to the constitution
2. When it is executed capriciously, whimsically, and
maliciously.
Conflict between a law/statute and the constitution - the
constitution will prevail.
SAGISAG VS. OCHOA
Distinguished from the general notion of judicial power, the
power of judicial review refers to both the authority and the duty
of the courts to determine whether a branch or instrumentality
of government (refers to the political branches of government -
legislative/executive branch) has acted beyond the scope of the
latter’s constitutional powers.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
An aspect of judicial power which allows the courts to review,
revise, reverse, modify, affirm on appeal or certiorari any cases
which involves rights that are legally demandable and
enforceable and determine whether or not there is a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Power of SC and lower courts to declare constitutionality of
laws, treaties and presidential issuances. It emanates from
judicial power - power of courts to settle controversies through
the application of laws including the constitution.
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established
by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government
Power of the court every opportunity to review, revise, reverse,
modify or affirm on judgements and order lower courts to
determine whether or not there has been abuse of discretion.
Basic job description:
 Power to settle disputes through the application of laws
including the constitution.
 Actual cases/ controversies
SEPARATION OF POWERS
 Each department is supreme within its sphere and not
over other branches
 A fundamental principle in our system of government.
It obtains not through express provision but by actual
[DATE]4
division in our constitution. Each department of the
government has the exclusive cognizance of matters
within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own
sphere. But it does not follow from the fact the three
powers are to be kept separate in the state that the
constitution intended them to be absolutely
unrestrained and independent of each other. The
constitution provides for the system of checks and
balances to secure coordination in the workings of the
various departments/branches of the government.
 Each department has its own power but it does not
impose supremacy over other departments.
 The constitution is not a grant of power – it is an
expression of the limitations of powers of government
instrumentalities.
ANGGARA VS. ELECTION COMMISSION
 National Assembly - created the Electoral Commission
 EC - made its own rules and regulation on election
protest
 National Assembly - wants its rules to govern.
 Conflict between EC and NA
NA – said that the court has no jurisdiction because it belongs
to their power to make laws and to provide for the powers of
EC
EC – the constitution provides for separation of powers and
checks and balances. The SC has the power to determine
whether a branch of government/instrumentality has exceeded
the powers given to it by the constitution.
“But in the main, the Constitution has blocked out with deft
strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive,
the legislative and the judicial departments of the government.
The overlapping and interlacing of functions and duties
between the several departments, however, sometimes makes it
hard to say just where the one leaves off and the other begins.
In times of social disquietude or political excitement, the great
landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred,
if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial
department is the only constitutional organ which can be called
upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the
several departments and among the integral or constituent units
thereof.”
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in checks and
balances. It is the SC which has the power to define whether
a branch/instrumentality of government has exceeded its
constitutional powers.
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
Encompasses the idea that individual justice/justices/judges can
freely exercise their mandate to resolve justiciable disputes
while the judicial branch as a whole would work in the
discharge of its constitutional functions free of restraints and
influence from the other branches saved only for those imposed
by the constitution itself. There are two categories:
1. Individual judicial independence - focuses on each
particular judge and seeks to ensure his or her ability
to decide cases with autonomy within the constraints
of the law. A judge has his independence when he
can render a judgement that is free from
political/popular influences based solely on the
individual facts and applicable laws.
2. Institutional judicial independence – focuses on
the independence of the judiciary as a branch of
government and protects judges as a class.
RE: COA OPINION
Justices wanted to purchase properties which value is already
depreciated based on their formula.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
The SC decided to peg the amount of the properties depending
on its value over time.
COA – the formula used by the SC is wrong.
SC – “we have fiscal autonomy and we have judicial
independence. This is our computation based on our own
criteria. It is in line with the GAA.” This is not subject for
intervention from other branches because there is a grant of
fiscal autonomy and judicial independence.
Judiciary Fiscal Autonomy is provided by the constitution to the
judiciary as a whole in the spirit of Judicial Independence.
When there is already an allocated budget, it will be given to
them regularly without the usual rules and requirements
governing other institutions without fiscal autonomy. They
have the authority on how they will spend the budget that is
given to them, as long as it is covered by the GAA (General
Appropriations Act). They have the authority to determine
amounts and how they will dispose of this amount accordingly.
COA is an independent commission which should respect the
independence of the judiciary.
Example of Individual Judicial Independence
 A judge hearing an individual’s case, regardless of the
power of that individual/institution, should look at the
facts and apply the laws in resolving the matters filed
before his court.
Still Re: Separation of Powers
CORPUZ VS. PEOPLE
Discusses article 5 of the RPC.
Article 5 provides that the courts have their power to tell the
executive/legislative branch when a particular act not
punishable under the RPC, should be penalized, OR when a
penalty should no longer be applied. It can recommend but does
not have the power to legislate since this power is given the
legislative branch of the government.
MAMISCAL VS. ABDULLAH
Shariah Law is distinct.
In this case, the clerk of court in the Shariah circuit court is also
the serving registrar of Muslim marriages. His job as the clerk
is under the supreme court while his job as a civil registrar of
marriages is under the executive branch.
SC wanted to put him under discipline because of certain acts
he did as a registrar of marriages.
Ruling: In accordance to the principle of Separation of Powers,
SC had no jurisdiction to discipline the clerk because the act
that was complained of was a job fulfilled for his executive role
and not for his judiciary role. The SC’s power to discipline has
its limits.
FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. Legitimating – the act of declaring a
law/statutes/presidential issuance, etc. as NOT
unconstitutional or to put emphasis on the
presumption of constitutionality- presumed that
legislator has acted within its power.
2. Symbolic (teaching) – this is exercised even if the
conditions are not met simply because there is a need
for the courts to lay down the rules or principles which
would serve as a guide for the bench and the bar for
future acts of similar character.
3. Checking – the act of declaring or negating a law as
unconstitutional.
PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
[DATE]5
 The Supreme Court said that it is an established
doctrine that the statute/presidential issues shall be
construed whenever possible, to be in harmony with
rather than in violation of the constitution. The
presumption is that the legislature intended to enact a
valid, sensible, and just law and one which operates no
further than necessary to effectuate the specific
purpose of the law. It is presumed that the legislature
has acted within its constitutional powers so it is the
generally accepted rule that every statute or regularly
accepted act is or will be or shall be presumed to be
valid and constitutional.
 It is the burden of proof of the complainant/petitioner
to prove that a law/statute is unconstitutional.
Otherwise, it is automatically declared by the supreme
court as constitutional.
CONDITIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW:
1. There must be an ACTUAL CASE calling for the
exercise of judicial power.
 Actual case or controversy means a conflict of
legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims
which can be resolved on the basis of existing law
and jurisprudence. [Guingona v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 125532, July 10, 1998].
 The controversy must be definite and concrete,
bearing upon the legal relations of the parties who
are pitted against each other due to their adverse
legal interest. [John Hay People’s Alternative
Coalition v. Lim, G.R. No. 119775, October 24,
2003]
 The issues raised in the case must not be moot and
academic, or because of subsequent
developments, have become moot and academic.
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to
present a justiciable controversy by virtue of
supervening events. [Province of Batangas v.
Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004]
 It involves conflicting legal rights, an assertion of
opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
resolution.
 There is a contrariety of legal rights that can be
interpreted and enforced on basis of existing law
and jurisprudence.
 A party or parties claim that they have legal rights
that must be upheld by the Supreme Court.
 The SC has the power only if there is a contrariety
of legal rights. Otherwise the courts will not
entertain.
 Ripeness – the controversy should be ripe for
judicial adjudication. The act being challenged
has had adverse effects to the concerned party
because it has already been
accomplished/performed by the government
before a court may come into the picture. It is not
anticipated. This should be alleged by someone
claiming or defending his right.
 Mootness – when the controversy ceases to be
justiciable controversy (actual case – ripe) by
virtue of supervening events such that the
declaration of the court will be of no use or value.
When the act no longer affects the parties (e.g.
There has already been a subsequent act that
repeals law, making the problem/case/controversy
no longer relevant), the SC will no longer
entertain the case.
FUNA VS. MANILA ECONOMIC OFFICE
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
Taiwan is not recognized as an independent country, but the PH
has economic trade relationship with it. The Manila Econ office,
a private institution but receives government funds to facilitate
the renewal/grant of passports to OFWs in Taiwan.
The COA issued a memo that on post-audit, MECO should be
included despite MECO’s claim that it’s not a government
office should not be subjected to audit.
However, during the trial, the MECO already conceded to be
subjected to audit. (Supervening Cause)
Given that, there is no longer an actual case.
Even if the case is moot due to supervening causes, the courts
may still exercise judicial review when:
 There is a grave violation of the constitution.
 The case involved is a situation of exceptional
character and is a paramount public interest.
 The constitutional issue raised require the
formulation of principles to guide the bench, the
bar, and the public.
 The case is capable of repetition.
Under these circumstances, the court may rule upon it despite
being moot, but it will not apply to that particular case but in all
similar cases in the future. This purpose is the Symbolic
Function of Judicial Review – to inform/educated the bar, the
bench, and the public that it is a violation of the constitution.
2. The person challenging the law/act must have
LEGAL STANDING/ LOCUS STANDI to assail the
validity of the subject act.
 Locus Standi – right of appearance in the court of
justice on a given question (as defined in Unduran
vs. Aberasturi)
 Real Party In Interest – states that every action
must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest who stands to be benefitted
or injured. The one who has the right to file a suit.
 In Civil Law, he must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has a
stake, or he be affected by the direct injury of a
private person’s act. The interest/injury should
not be anticipated.
 In Constitutional Law, he must have a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that the
party have sustained or will sustain a direct injury
as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged.
Non-Traditional Plaintiffs
 Taxpayers – there must be a claim of illegal
disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure
is unconstitutional
 Concerned Citizens – there must a showing that the
issue raised is of transcendental importance.
 Voters – there must be a showing of obvious interest
in the validity of the election law in question.
 Legislators – there must be a claim that the official
action complained of infringes their prerogatives as
legislators.
 They represent not only their private
interests/injuries but the interest/injuries of a class or
the masses.
 This interest of the masses that need to be protected
has to be proven.
Doctrine of Transcendental Importance
Requisites:
1. The character of the funds or other assets involved in the
case;
[DATE]6
2. the presence of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency or instrumentality of the government;
and
3. the lack of any other party with a more direct and
specific interest in the questions being raised.
In cases with paramount public interest, the court can
waive/relax the technicalities of the requirements of legal
standing and will entertain the case.
Liberal approach to judicial review
The case has far-reaching implications and there is a need to
promulgate rules that will guide the bench, the bar, and the
public in future analogous cases.
Vindication of a public right.
IMBONG VS. OCHOA
 Reproductive Health Bill
 While the individual legal standings of the plaintiffs
were discussed, the court ruled that this case is of
transcendental importance.
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE VS. GREENPEACE
 Case of BT Talong
 The court had a lenient stance stance on the
requirements of legal standing because the case is of
transcendental importance. The court ruled that the
requirement is a matter of procedure which can be
relaxed if the matter is of transcendental importance.
SAGUISAG VS. OCHOA
 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA)
RAPPLER VS. BAUTISTA
 Livestreaming of presidential debates
 The SC issues a resolution granting rappler and all
other media outlets the right to livestream the debates
because the matter is of transcendental importance
because it illuminates the public as to the platforms
and propagandas of presidential and vice-presidential
candidates.
DISINI VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
 Cybercrime Law – transcendental importance
ROSALES VS. ERC
 Requisites of Transcendental Importance:
o Public character of the assets involved.
o Presence of a clear disregard of a constitution
or statutory prohibition by the public
respondent, agency, or instrumentality of the
government.
o Lack of any other party of a more distinct,
direct, and specific interest.
 There are cases that do not fall under these
requirements that the court has a discretion to declare
whether there is transcendental importance.
*Epistolary Jurisdiction – representation of an aggrieved party.
In line with environmental law.
3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at
the earliest opportunity.
 Bodies which have only quasi-judicial
functions, do not have a power of judicial
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
review despite having power to settle
controversies.
 Only the SC and the courts vested with judicial
power review have the power to declare a law
unconstitutional.
 The earliest time is not when the case is raised
in an administrative body where all facts and
questions of the law are exhausted first and
when the body interprets the law based on the
facts (administrative remedies). When it is
raised to a courts with judicial power after the
administrative body, the question on
constitutionality can be raised.
Operative Fact Doctrine
Before declaration of uncertainty, it is already an operative
fact, but after it has been declared void, afterwards law will be
seen proactively.
o Supreme Court recognizes benefits but stops
it for unconstitutionality.
Political Question vs. Justiciable Question
POLITICAL QUESTION - limitation of the power of the
judiciary or Judicial Review.
Lies beyond the power of Judiciary, it lies on the Executive or
Legislative.
An example is Foreign Policy which is in the President’s
discretion.
General Rule: When there is a political question, the court
cannot declare it to be unconstitutional except when the petition
is proved to show that there is grave abuse of discretion.
BROKENSHIRE VS. MINISTRY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT
The issue on constitutionality was raised before the NLRC,
which is a quasi-judicial body.
4. The issue of constitutionality must be the very LIS
MOTA of the case.
 The court will not pass upon a question of
unconstitutionality although properly
presented if the case can be disposed of on
some other grounds such as the application of
the statute or the general law. The petitioner
must be able to show that the case may not be
resolved unless the constitutional question
raised is determined. This is based on the rule
that every law has in its favor the presumption
of constitutionality.
 Lis Mota – the constitutional issue is the real
issue of the case.
 The court cannot rule on the case without
touching on the constitutional issue. If the
court finds other ways to resolve the case, it
will rule that way and dismiss the petition on
the question of constitutionality.
ROBREDO
The provision that is questioned in the case is that provision that
the NHA can order demolition and eviction of illegal settlers.
The petitioner questioned this as unconstitutional.
The SC said it has already ruled on this validity of this eviction.
In deciding the case, the court ruled by determining if, in the
eviction process, the law has been followed, INSTEAD of
questioning the constitutionality of the law. Hence, it was not
the Lis Mota of the case.
QUESTION OF LAW VS QUESTION OF FACT
[DATE]7
Question of Law – when the doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is on a certain state of fact. Whether a law applies
to a fact.
Question of Fact – when the doubt or difference arises as to the
truthfulness or the falsehood of the given facts. It is not an
application of the law.
Courts can only entertain question of law; it cannot entertain
question of facts because the court is not a trier of facts.
LAUDE
The motion was filed by the sister of Jennifer Laude.
The SC emphasized that in criminal cases the people of the
Philippines is the real party in interest. That is, through the
OSG.
7 PILLARS OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE POWER
OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (Disini Vs. Secretary Of Justice
Sereno Concurring Opinion)
1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of
legislation in a friendly, non-adversary proceeding,
declining because to decide such questions 'is
legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in
the determination of real, earnest and vital
controversy between individuals. It never was the
thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party
beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an
inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act.
2. The Court will not 'anticipate question of
constitutional law in advance of the necessity of
deciding it.' 'It is not the habit of the Court to decide
questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely
necessary to a decision of the case.'
3. The Court will not 'formulate a rule of constitutional
law broader than is required by the precise facts to
which it is to be applied.
4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question
although properly presented by the record, if there is
also present some other ground upon which the case
may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied
application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either
of two grounds, one involving a constitutional
question, the other a question of statutory construction
or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.
Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging
its decision of a question under the Federal
Constitution are frequently dismissed because the
judgment can be sustained on an independent state
ground.
5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute
upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is
injured by its operation. Among the many
applications of this rule, none is more striking than the
denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a
personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a
public official interested only in the performance of
his official duty will not be entertained
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of
a statute at the instance of one who has availed
himself of its benefits.
7. When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn
in question, and even if a serious doubt of
constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that
this Court will first ascertain whether a construction
of the statute is fairly possible by which the question
may be avoided.
Pre-enforcement Judicial Review
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
Covers criminal acts passed by congress. While there is not yet
an actual enforcement under the new law, but if there’s an
anticipation of its probable application, these persons already
have the standing and an actual case. Hence, there can be a
judicial review.
 E.g., Anti-Terrorism Act, Cyber Crime Law
ELEMENTS:
1. The challenged law or provision forbids a constitutionally
protected conduct or activity that a petitioner seeks to do.
2. A realistic, imminent, and credible threat or danger
sustaining a direct injury or facing prosecution awaits the
petitioner should the prohibited conduct or activity be
carried out.
3. The factual circumstances surrounding the prohibited
conduct/activity sought to be carried out are real, not
hypothetical and speculative and are sufficiently alleged
and proven.
ANTI TERRORISM ACT CASE
There is definition of what a terrorist or terroristic group are.
A certain group of individuals which feared that they may be
prosecuted under the anti-terrorism act because of the
definition. It seems that they are under that definition. So, they
wanted that provision to be stricken out as unconstitutional.
SC – Albeit there’s really no controversy, it belongs to the
concept of pre-enforcement judicial review.
RELATIVE CONSTITUTIONALITY
1. A statute valid at one time may become void at another
time because of altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute
in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or
confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a
former adjudication is open to inquiry and investigation
in the light of the changed conditions.
2. A statute or an interpretation thereof, its constitutionality
is conditioned but it is being fair or reasonable which in
turn is dependent on the actual situation, never static but
subject to change. So a measure is valid when enacted
subsequently due to altered circumstances that is
stricken down as unconstitutional.
LOWER COURTS have judicial power as provided for in
Section 1, Article 8 and Section 5 (2).
BROKENSHIRE
In determining constitutionality, we should not only look at the
provision but also the distinct set of facts in the case.
AMENDMENT & REVISION
 Amendment - changing the part/ isolated part of the
constitution. Its purpose is to improve specific provisions
of the Constitution. The changes brought about by
amendments will not affect the other provisions of the
Constitution. Otherwise stated, it refers to a change that
adds, reduces or deletes, without altering the basic
principle involved.
 Revision - rewriting major principle; a change in major
principles.
Examination of the entire Constitution to determine how and
to what extent it should be altered. A revision implies
substantive change, affecting the Constitution as a whole. In
short, it implies a change that alters the basic principle in the
Constitution.
LEGAL TESTS (LAMBINO V. COMELEC)
[DATE]8
a) Quantitative Test - Whether the proposed
change is so extensive in its provision as to
change directly the “substance entirety” of the
Constitution by the deletion or alteration of
numerous provisions. The court examines only
the number of provisions affected and does not
consider the degree of the change.
b) Qualitative Test - Inquires into the qualitative
effects of the proposed change in the
Constitution. The main inquiry is whether the
change will “accomplish such far-reaching
changes in the nature of our basic governmental
plan as to amount to a revision.
Steps in the amendatory process:
a.) Proposal of the amendments or revision, which may be
done by:
i. Constituent Assembly - Congress, acting as a Constituent
Assembly, by a 3/4 vote of all its members.
ii. Constitutional Convention - Congress may call a ConCon
by a 2/3 vote of all its members or by a majority vote of
all its members, Congress may submit to the electorate
the question of whether to call a ConCon or not. [Section
3, Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution].
ii. Peoples Initiative – A petition of at least 12% of the total
number of registered voters of which every legislative
district must be represented by at least 3% of the
registered voters therein. No amendment in this manner
shall be authorized within five years following the
ratification of this constitution nor more than once every
five years.
An initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments
to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislation through
an election called for the purpose.
There are three systems of initiatives:
(1) Initiative on the Constitution, which refers to a petition
proposing amendments to the Constitution;
(2) Initiative on statutes, which refers to a petition proposing
to enact a national legislation; and
(3) Initiative on local legislation, which refers to a petition
proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal
or barangay law, resolution or ordinance.
b.) Ratification, the proposed amendment shall be submitted to
the people and shall be deemed ratified by the majority of the
votes cast in the plebiscite, held not earlier than 60 days nor
later than 90 days
(i)After approval of the proposal by Congress or
Constitutional Convention;
(ii)After certification by the COMELEC of sufficiency of
petition of the people.
EFFECTS OF DECLARING A LAW
UNCONSTITUTONAL
1. Orthodox View- Based on Civil law concept and
provision in Section 7- when the courts declare a law
to be inconsistent with the constitution, the former
shall be void and the latter shall govern.
- SC: “Unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers
no rights, imposes no duties, affords no
protection, create no office it is in legal
contemplation, inoperative as if, it had not been
passed; it is therefore, stricken from the statute
books and considered never to have existed at
all.”
- Totally erases a law/ executive act; its
interpretation/operation.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
- Civil law concept: if it’s void, its void from the
start.
2. Unorthodox doctrine
SERRANO AGBAYANI VS PNB
 Introduced concept of Unorthodox doctrine, Operative
fact doctrine.
 It would be unfair, would not be pursuant to justice of
we consider something that has already been done, the
people during its validity is followed by the Filipino
people, if the seek regrets from courts based on that
law.
 Before it was unconstitutional, the fact is, it existed.
The people/ entities which believed in that particular
law.
 The court recognizes the existence of a law or an act
prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality, as
an OPERATIVE FACT that produced consequences
that cannot be erased, ignored, or disregarded. It
nullifies the void laws or act but sustains the effect. It
provides an exception to the general rule that a void/
unconstitutional law produces no effect.
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty
God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a
Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations,
promote the common good, conserve and develop our
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the
blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law
and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace,
do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
The preamble serves as an aid in the interpretation, a summary
of what the entire constitution stands for in relation to the
Filipino People.
It declares certain basic principles underlying the basic charter.
It is the window to the principles and state policies that will
govern the constitution.
You will see source of constitutionality, the Filipino People.
Emphasizes that Filipino people are sovereign people, and not
by virtue of authority of any foreign power or state.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article XVI
Section 1 The flag of the Philippines shall be red, white, and
blue, with a sun and three stars, as consecrated and honored by
the people and recognized by law.
- Eight rays of the sun represents eight provinces, who were
the first to rise against Spain, three stars to represent
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.
- Maybe changed only through constitutional amendment.
- Red - Valor and war, Blue= Filipino resistance against
foreign invaders, also, peace, truth and justice, White -
purity and the Filipino People.
Section 2: The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for
the country, a national anthem, or a national seal, which shall
be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and
traditions of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon
its ratification by the people in a national referendum.
Section 3: The State may not be sued without its consent.
Section 4: The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be
composed of a citizen armed force which shall undergo military
training and serve, as may be provided by law. It shall keep a
regular force necessary for the security of the State.
Section 5
[DATE]9
1. All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or
affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.
2. The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and
nationalist consciousness of the military, and respect
for people's rights in the performance of their duty.
3. Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate
remuneration and benefits of its members shall be a
prime concern of the State. The armed forces shall be
insulated from partisan politics.
No member of the military shall engage directly or
indirectly in any partisan political activity, except to
vote.
4. No member of the armed forces in the active service
shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any
capacity to a civilian position in the Government
including government-owned or controlled
corporations or any of their subsidiaries.
5. Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow
extension of their service.
6. The officers and men of the regular force of the armed
forces shall be recruited proportionately from all
provinces and cities as far as practicable.
7. The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the Armed
forces shall not exceed three years. However, in times
of war or other national emergency declared by the
Congress, the President may extend such tour of duty.
Section 6: The State shall establish and maintain one police
force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character,
to be administered and controlled by a national police
commission. The authority of local executives over the police
units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.
Section 7: The State shall provide immediate and adequate
care, benefits, and other forms of assistance to war veterans and
veterans of military campaigns, their surviving spouses and
orphans. Funds shall be provided therefor and due
consideration shall be given them in the disposition of
agricultural lands of the public domain and, in appropriate
cases, in the utilization of natural resources.
Section 8: The State shall, from time to time, review to upgrade
the pensions and other benefits due to retirees of both the
government and the private sectors.
ARTICLE 2
(DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE
POLICIES)
 Basic political creed of the nation
 Principle is a binding rule which must be observed in
the conduct of government
 Policy is a guideline for the orientation of the state
 Both are generally not self- executing, mere
guidelines for the branches of the government, guide
of the Supreme Court on instances where its wisdom
is being petitioned for judicial review.
 Aid the court in the validity of statutes.
 Republican Government is where sovereignty resides
in the power of the people, essence is a democratic
government represented by a body of people.
“Revolution” as defined by Associate Justice Puno
Complete overthrow of the established government in
any country or state by those who were previously
subject to it or as a sudden, radical and fundamental
change in the government or political system usually
affected by violence or some acts of violence, it is
defined as that which occurs whenever a legal order of a
community is nullified and replaced by a new order in a
way not prescribed by the first order itself.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
That’s why Cory Aquino was considered revolutionary
because her powers were away from the ambit of the
1973 constitution.
“Renunciation of war”
Against war which is against us, but we can declare defensive
war.
Adoption of generally-accepted principles of international
law
- Doctrine of incorporation, practicing it in our local law.
- Doctrine of transformation, transforming the generally-
accepted principles of international law into our
legislation.
Adherence to a policy of peace, freedom, and amity with all
nations
- In connection to Love in the preamble
Civilian Supremacy
- Civilian authority is at all times supreme over the military,
a legacy of American legacy, that civilian authority is
supreme.
Role of the armed forces:
(a) Protector of the people and the state,
(b) to secure the sovereignty of the state and the integrity of
national territory.
- Delineation of roles, proper duty of the military.
Compulsory military service under conditions provided by
law
- NSTP/CWTS
Maintenance of peace and order, promotion of general
welfare
Recognition of hierarchy or rights
- The courts will recognize hierarchy of rights, E.G Life
over liberty
Separation of church and state
- Shall be inviolable, no law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.
Independent foreign policy
- Conduct of the state vis-a-avis other states.
- Sovereign state but does not reject advice from allies of
the community.
- Primary foreign officer is the president
Freedom from nuclear weapons
- Generally bans nuclear weapons and tests, does not cover
peaceful use of nuclear substances like medical treatment
or agriculture
- Does not ban nuclear capable vessels because of phrase
consistent with natural interest.
Promote a just and dynamic social order
- Recognizes that we are a poor country, and aims to provide
all basic commodities.
- Social legislations to better the lives of the people, like
provisions for senior citizens etc.
Personal dignity and human rights
- Not a self-executory provisions, there are laws in place for
the security of human rights.
Family as a basic institution, and natural and primary right
and duty of parents in the rearing of youth
- Respect family as a basic social institution
- concept of the family came before the state was even
formed
[DATE]
10
Protection of the life of the mother and the life of the unborn
from conception
- Life of the person starts upon conception
- Does not discount that the life of the mother is an issue.
Separation of Powers
ABAKADA VS PURISIMA
Congress passed an act which gave employees of agency of
government revenues if they reach revenue targets. It gives
undue advantage to these agencies of government.
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT:
1. Scrutiny- Congressional scrutiny implies a lesser
intensity and continuity of attention to administrative
operations. Its primary purpose is to determine
economy and efficiency of the operation of
government activities. In the exercise of legislative
scrutiny, Congress may request information and report
from the other branches of government. It can give
recommendations or pass resolutions for consideration
of the agency involved.
- Usually happens during budget hearings
2. Congressional investigation - While congressional
scrutiny is regarded as a passive process of looking at
the facts that are readily available, congressional
investigation involves a more intense digging of facts.
The power of Congress to conduct investigation is
recognized by the 1987 Constitution under section 21,
Article VI.
3. Legislative supervision - (unconstitutional) The third
and most encompassing form by which Congress
exercises its oversight power is thru legislative
supervision. "Supervision" connotes a continuing and
informed awareness on the part of a congressional
committee regarding executive operations in a given
administrative area. While both congressional scrutiny
and investigation involve inquiry into past executive
branch actions in order to influence future executive
branch performance, congressional supervision allows
Congress to scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-
making authority, and permits Congress to retain part
of that delegated authority.
LEGISLATIVE VETO
It typically utilizes veto provisions when granting the President
or an executive agency the power to promulgate regulations
with the force of law. These provisions require the President or
an agency to present the proposed regulations to Congress,
which retains a "right" to approve or disapprove any regulation
before it takes effect. Such legislative veto provisions usually
provide that a proposed regulation will become a law after the
expiration of a certain period of time, only if Congress does not
affirmatively disapprove of the regulation in the meantime.
Less frequently, the statute provides that a proposed regulation
will become law if Congress affirmatively approves it.
SUMMARY
- Giving the legislative the power to approve or
disapprove an act of the executive. SC ruled this to be
in violation of the separation of powers and the checks
and balances, anything that has passed congress should
already be in the realm of the executive.
GONZALES III VS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
- Ombudsman, created by the constitution. Independent
constitution commission
- In the case, can the president remove a deputy
ombudsman?
- Ombudsman Law, the president can remove a deputy
ombudsman.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
- SC declared the ombudsman law unconstitutional,
because the ombudsman scrutinizes all heads of
executive government including the president.
General Considerations: The Philippines as a State
COLLECTOR V. CAMPOS RUEDA
ELEMENTS OF A STATE
 Territory
 People
 Sovereignty; and
 Government
1st element: TERRITORY
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago,
with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the
insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines. (Article 1, 1987 Philippine
constitution)
“Archipelagic doctrine” means “[T]he waters around,
between and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines” [Nachura, Outline Reviewer
in Political Law (2009)]
The archipelagic doctrine has a two-fold purpose:
(1) Economic reasons; and
(2) national security.
Straight baseline method consists of drawing straight lines
connecting appropriate points on the coast without departing to
any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast.
These baselines divide the internal waters from the territorial
waters of the archipelago. [Bernas, The 1987 Philippine
Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011)].
 Philippine Archipelago was first defined under Article 3
of the treaty of Paris, it delineated the islands through
coordinates, and it is the ceding of Spain of the
Philippine Islands.
 In 1900’s Spain and the USA entered into a treaty of
Washington, added the islands of Cagayan Sulu, and
Sibuto.
 “Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over
which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and
jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands"
under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with
Article 12136 of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
 a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under
Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
 b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.
 Methods of determining baselines:
 RA 9522- law in compliance with the UNCLOS that we
will enact municipal laws based on UNCLOS.
Determination of the baseline - in the middle of the highwater
mark and low water mark will start the determination of the
baseline.
NOTE: 12 nautical lines from baseline we have sovereignty,
200 nautical miles, we have exclusive economic zone or
sovereign rights (to explore, trade, etc. but not to own). After
200 miles it is already considered high seas.
[DATE]
11
 Continental shelf still part of our territory even if it’s
beyond 12 nautical miles.
 Marginal Sea/ Marine bed is 12 nautical miles from the
baseline, sea within that demarcation seabed/ sea
bottom.
 Land that holds the sea, it is the top portion of the
submarine area; area below the seabed.
MAGALONA VS OMMITA
Questioned RA 9522, according to petitioners violated Art 1,
sec 1.
The SC said baseline laws does not define our territory, it only
demarcates where we should base our baselines, and it
increased our territory.
RA 9522 was just an implementation of our commitment to the
UNCLOS.
Decision of the permanent court of arbitration against
China
 China did not submit any formal positions paper.
 PCA said formations cannot be a basis of maritime
zone; only an island. Shoals cannot produce its own
maritime zone.
 9 dash line has no basis; Kalayaan is part of our EEZ,
sovereign rights not 12 nautical miles.
NICOLAS V. ROMULO
Questioning the validity of visiting forces agreement.
VFA was constitutional, self-executing agreement obligations
under RP-US mutual defenses agreement.
SAGUISAG V. OCHOA
Issue: whether or not the RP-US mutual defenses agreement
was unconstitutional
Ruling: Valid because of mutual defenses treaty, within bounds
of obligation. Territory, ceded portions of Philippines except
Clark and Pampanga portions of Philippine islands/naval base
still part of the US.
2nd element: PEOPLE
Different meanings of the word “People” under the
Constitution: (People will mean differently for different
provisions. The term people will not have the same connotation
or the same meaning in all the provisions of the Constitution).
I. Inhabitants
 Section 15, Article II The State shall protect and
promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.
 Section 16, Article II The State shall protect and
advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.
 Section 2, Article III The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized.
QUA CHE GAN V. DEPORTATION BOARD
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
Right to life, liberty should be respected due process of law also
upon people who are aliens.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a Filipino citizen or not, as long as
you’re residing in the Philippines, you are an inhabitant.
In this case, the highlight was the right of the people not to be
deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of
law. The rights of the accused aliens to file counter affidavit,
cross examine witnesses etc, are found in the Bill of Rights.
Even if they are aliens, they can enforce rights under certain
provisions in our Philippine Constitution. Inhabitants of our
national territory have the same rights as citizens.
Under section 15 of Article II The right to be protected. The
right to health and instill health consciousness (Imbong v
Ochoa). The right to a balanced and helpful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature (Oposa v Factoran).
These are the jurisprudence which recognize these rights of
inhabitants not only for citizens.
Inhabitants (more broad term) include Filipino citizens and
citizens of other countries, all those who are sojourning in the
Philippines or are found in our national territory.
Most of the Bill of Rights, especially if the provision recognizes
the right under International Law, is granted not only to
Filipinos but all those inhabitants or in the Philippines.
II. Citizens
- Citizens of the Philippines
- Preamble We, the sovereign Filipino people,
imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order
to build a just and humane society, and
establish a Government that shall embody
our ideals and aspirations, promote the
common good, conserve and develop our
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our
posterity, the blessings of independence and
democracy under the rule of law and a
regime of truth, justice, freedom, love,
equality, and peace, do ordain and
promulgate this Constitution.
- Section 1, Article II The Philippines is a
democratic and republican State.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
- Section 4, Article II The prime duty of the
Government is to serve and protect the
people. The Government may call upon the
people to defend the State and, in the
fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be
required, under conditions provided by law,
to render personal, military or civil service.
- Section 7, Article III The right of the people
to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research
data used as basis for policy development,
shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
III. Electors or voters
- Article 5, suffrage; suffrage is not an absolute
right.
- Section 2, Article VI The Senate shall be
composed of twenty-four Senators who shall
be elected at large by the qualified voters of
the Philippines, as may be provided by law.
- Section 25, Article XVIII After the expiration
in 1991 of the Agreement between the
Republic of the Philippines and the United
[DATE]
12
States of America concerning military bases,
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities
shall not be allowed in the Philippines except
under a treaty duly concurred in by the
Senate and, when the Congress so requires,
ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the
people in a national referendum held for that
purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the
other contracting State.
- Article V of the Constitution, Suffrage, lists
the requirements to become Voters or
Electors, those entitled to vote in an election
or participate in a plebiscite or referendum.
- In the discussion about Revisions and
Amendments, those who can only ratify are
voters. The requirements on the initiative for
the Constitution: 12% of the registered voters
in the national scope, 3% of the voters for
each legislative department. Voters are not
the entire citizenry nor the inhabitants.
- In the case of Kabataan (biometric
registration), automation of validation of
registration. Was it a violation of the people’s
right to exercise their right to suffrage? Those
who weren’t able to register their biometrics
were not allowed to vote. SC ruled that
suffrage is not an absolute right. There are
requirements to be followed under various
election laws. To be able to vote, one should
follow the Constitution and the implementing
laws. Requirement for people to register
again via biometrics is not unconstitutional
because it is another way of implementing the
provisions of the Constitution on suffrage.
CITIZENSHIP
i. Natural born- Jus Sanguinis Filipino by blood
ii. Naturalized
WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES?
Sec 1. Article 4
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of
the adoption of this Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
(2, 4) Prospective
*3 recognition of 1935, and 1973 constitution.
The first concept of Filipinos- William Howard Taft in the April
11, 1899 Treaty of Paris
HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION
When did we first have the concept of Filipinos?
The word “Filipino” was first made used by William H. Taft,
the first Civil Governor General in the Philippines when he
initially made mention of it in his slogan, “The Philippines for
the Filipinos.”
Filipino citizenship came into provision when Spain ceded the
Philippines to the Americans.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
Why? Because also in the Treaty of Paris, all of the subjects of
Spain in the Philippine Islands were granted opportunity to
choose whether or not they will retain their Spanish citizenship
(Spanish Insulares) or they want to become Filipino citizens.
So, that was in April 1899, the Treaty of Paris.
This is important because we need to trace back the time of the
adoption of this Constitution, sa lahat ng Constitution before it.
Because at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution
(February 2), meron ng mga naging citizens of the Philippines
before that, either by naturalization or by other modes. So we
should look at first the 1973 Constitution.
SECTION 1, ARTICLE III, 1973 CONSTITUTION.
The following are citizens of the Philippines:
a. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
b. Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens
of the Philippines.
c. Those who elect Philippine citizenship
pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution
of nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
d. Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law.
SECTION 1, ARTICLE III, 1935 CONSTITUTION.
The following are the citizens of the Philippines:
a. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
b. Those born in the Philippine Islands of
foreign parents who, before the adoption of
this Constitution, had been elected to public
office in the Philippine Islands.
c. Those whose fathers are citizens of the
Philippines.
d. Those whose mothers are citizens of the
Philippines and upon reaching the age of
majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
e. Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law.
SECTION 4 (PHILIPPINE BILL OF 1902)
That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to
reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of
April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in the
Philippine Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto,
shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands
and as such entitled to the protection of the United States,
except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to
the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the
treaty of peace between the United States and Spain signed at
Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight.
Sec.4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 is a mass naturalization.
“Inhabitants of Philippine Islands” meaning those
native Filipinos and those which are foreigners, those
who reside therein and those who retained as Filipinos
because there are inclusions and exclusions.
(1)Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of
the adoption of this Constitution.
Inclusions:
1. persons born in the Philippines
2. persons born in Spain
3. all other inhabitants of the Philippines who were
residents then, provided they were born on or
before Treaty of Paris
Exclusions:
[DATE]
13
 Those who had elected to preserve their
allegiance to the crown of Spain in accordance
with the Treaty of Peace between US and Spain
making before accord of record within one year
from the date of the exchange (one year from
April 11, 1899) their declaration of allegiance
to the crown of Spain.
 The children of those who became Filipinos
under the Bill of 1902 provided therein they
have not lost their citizenship prior to
November 15, 1935.
 Those who were naturalized (April 11, 1899 –
November 14, 1935).
 Minor children of those naturalized.
 They are dwelling in the Philippines.
 They are born after their parents have
been naturalized as Filipinos, provided
that they had not lost their Filipino
citizenship at November 15, 1935.
 Foreign women marry the citizens the Philippines
who may have acquired citizenship under Act
3448.
 Citizens of the Philippines by res judicata (already
finally resolved by the Court).
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who,
before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to
public office in the Philippine Islands.
Case: He was the son of an Iranian father and mother
but they lived in the Philippines before the 1935
Constitution and his father was elected as a Municipal
Mayor. When the 1935 Constitution took effect, later
on he took Philippine Bar, his citizenship was
questioned. But he was born in the Philippines and his
parents were elected in Philippine public office so he
was allowed to take the Bar.
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
Jus Sanguinis Principle (right of blood)- If the father
is Filipino, the legitimate or not child will be Filipino.
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and.
Upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine Citizenship.
Opinion of Fr. Bernas- The mother should be Filipino
when the child was born otherwise if the child is not
Filipino, the Mother is not Filipino at the time the child
was born.
Requirements:
a) Upon reaching age of majority (21 years of age- age of
majority at the time of the this Constitution)
b) After reaching the age of majority, the child should
elect Filipino Citizenship
c) This presupposes that the father is not a Filipino
because if the father is Filipino, automatic, the child is
a Filipino citizen (Go back to #3)
d) Must be born before January 17, 1973- because this
time, the 1935 Constitution was in effect
e) In fact, the 1973 Constitution recognizes the fact that
the previous constitution had this kind of regime in
Article 3 Section 3 of 1973 Constitution, “Those who
elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions
of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-
five.”
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
-If you have not lost your Filipino citizenship when the
1972 and 1987 constitution took effect, you are
Filipino.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION OF THE
1987 CONSTITUTION
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution
2. Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the
Philippines (Same with 1973)
-Prospective
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers,
who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority
-recognition of the #3 1973 Constitution and #3 of the
1935 Constitution
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law
-Prospective
-This system of citizenship is because of the influence
of Spain and the US because they are patriarchal. It
seems that the Mother (ilaw ng tahanan) has not much
of a big role in the family. There is a distinction so they
can sire children whose fathers are sure Filipinos.
-If mothers, the treatment of legitimate and illegitimate
children are different
Requirement/Considerations:
1. Look at the date of your birthd
2. Determine if Legitimate or Illegitimate child
ELECTION OF CITIZENSHIP
1. Upon reaching the age of majority (21 Years)
-No requirement to elect in 1973 Constitution.
-If born after 1973, because if either your parents are
Filipino, the child is Filipino. In 1935, if the mother is
the only Filipino, the process is much more
complicated. It did not provide for a different criteria.
It was just a recognition that you have to comply with
the requirements or if elected during the adoption of
the 1935.
2. Reasonable time is 3 years from the age of majority (up to
age of 25)
-This is the general rule.
NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS
Article 4 Section 2, “Natural-born citizens are those who are
citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform
any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.”
(Memorize/Familiarize)
-Determine whether the act of election is at to perform or to
elect. Otherwise, they will not be considered as natural born.
-Being Natural Born is an important requirement in certain
government positions, i.e. President, Supreme Court Justice,
etc. Some rights and privileges may also may be limited to
Natural-Born citizens
The facts would be yung Filipino child is illegitimate and ito
yung mother niya ang Filipino, is to give the child Philippine
citizenship because otherwise wala siyang citizenship even if
his born here and raised here as a Filipino. He will be deprived
of his Filipino citizenship just because he is illegitimate, ang
reason is for the benefit of the child. In this case () illegitimate
child siya but the question is sino ba ang Filipino, mother niya
or father niya. Since it his father walang distinction, whether
you’re illegitimate or legitimate. So yun yung discussion here
on why FPJ is a Filipino. Now the requirement under the
constitution on President that he is supposed to be a natural born
citizen.
GO V. RAMOS
 Filipina mother and Chinese Father
[DATE]
14
 Burden to prove the Citizenship
 whether or not the cause of action the bureau against
Jimmy was prescribed
 His mother is a Filipina and he is an illegitimate
child.
 not enough evidence that he is Filipino
These are the issues in this case, whether or not the cause of
action of the Bureau against Carlos and Jimmy had prescribed.
So, the discussion there that with the provisions on of the
Bureau of Immigration and how they should question
undesirable aliens. Number 2 by the deportation proceedings
are null and void for failure to retrieve Carlos, yung father ni
Jimmy, to prove their claim to Philippine citizenship. Why?
Because Carlos allegedly already obtain naturalization or in the
alternative yung mother niya is a Filipina and he is an
illegitimate child. Then, whether the evidence 6:06 by Carlos
and Jimmy to prove their claim of Philippine citizenship are
substantial and sufficient to cause the board, oust the board with
its jurisdiction. So, the discussion here is that with the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Immigration to discuss/rule upon
the issue of citizenship of those who are placed before their
jurisdiction then whether due process was properly serve in the
proceedings before the court and whether their petition of
habeas corpus should be dismiss.
CONCEPTS
General rule: cases involving issues on citizenship is sui
generis can be questioned when it is a material issue.
Exception: Res Judicata; when it has already been ruled upon,
with the same evidence.
(GENERAL RULE IS SUI GENERIS. IT WILL BE
QUESTIONED OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE
CITIZENSHIP CASES IS SUI GENERIS. EXCEPTION
WHEN IT IS RES JUDICATA. EACH THE SUPREME
COURT, THE SAME PARTY, THE SAME ISSUE, THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL HAS PARTICIPATED AND
PRESENTED IT EVIDENCE IS RES JUDICATA. IT WILL
NEVER QUESTION CITIZENSHIP BASED ON THE
ISSUES AND GROUNDS IT LIED UPON THE
PARTICULAR CASE. EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION
IS GOING BACK TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT ARE
NEW EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE NOT A
FILIPINO AND IT CAN BE RULED UPON AGAIN.)
Requirements of Res Judicata in citizenship cases:
1. A person’s citizenship must be raised as a material
issue in a controversy where said person is a party;
2. The Solicitor General or his authorized representative
took active part in the resolution thereof; and
3. The finding or citizenship is affirmed by this court
Bureau of Immigration can determine whether or not you are a
Filipino, can be exercised by the court upon a petition raised
before them.
You have to present a clear and substantive claim of citizenship
can the BI be discharged of their jurisdiction.
Value of Citizenship
All those seeking to acquire it must prove to the satisfaction of
the court al the necessary requirements to acquire it.
Citizenship involves political statues, all should be proud of his
status and should cherish it.
AGUSTIN V. COMELEC
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I [DATE]
15
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)

 There is a class of Filipinos who have a dual 4. Submit to the civil registry of Manila
citizenship. This is not tantamount to double Mallare ruled in the Supreme Court, obiter dictum: although not
allegiance. really the issue of the case, the court will just say that she has
 Public officers need to be Natural-born, although the elected.
Philippines recognizes Dual Citizenship, there is a
requirement that Public officers should only be Levels of ruling: 1 not necessary to elect, 2. She has
Philippine Citizens. substantially she complied with the formal election.
 For an Elective post, when you file a COC, you Requirement is to show, that she has exercised his or her
should have renounced any and all foreign political rights.
allegiances.
 In this case, a foreign passport was used to go to a LOSS OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
foreign country. The act was a repudiation of
1. Operation of Law
allegiance, dual citizenship
2. Naturalization
 Disqualified as a public official because did not
3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to a foreign
comply with renunciation element.
country
RA 9225 4. Rendering Service to the Armed Forces of a foreign
country
For natural born Filipinos only, does not apply to naturalized 5. Cancellation of Certificate of Naturalization
citizens. 6. Deserts Philippines during wartime
When a Filipino renounces his citizenship, he can retain 7. When a Filipino marries a foreign husband, takes her
citizenship. Except for when appointed or elected into public husband’s nationality (marries alone does not take it
office. away)
One Citizenship, therefore one Allegiance. RE-ACQUISITION
POE V. COMELEC 1. Naturalization
2. Repatriation
 Foundling found in Jaro,Iloilo, adopted by FPJ
 Paid allegiance to the USA and was naturalized
there, got married there, and studied there. RA 725 - those who married aliens, can only be repatriated if
 2005 she returned to the Philippines and revoked marriage has been severed
citizenship in the United States - flee from other country due to political or
 She applied for RA 9225, and in 2016 she ran for the economic reasons
presidency. RA8171 - repealed the first requirement, not a need the
 COMELEC said she was not a natural born citizen severance
because she did not get her citizenship back. Dual citizenship- Concurrence of laws of statutes; involuntary
 The constitution did not say anything about
foundlings. Dual allegiance- Voluntary
 However, the Philippines adopts the Doctrine of
Incorporation, that foundlings are citizens of the NATURALIZATION
country where he/she is found.
 A privilege not a right
At the onset, who should determine that Po is a Filipino citizen?
 Derivative naturalization, children while minors are
This should supposedly be determined by the parents. But in
considered citizens also the wife.
the case of Grace, she is foundling. There is no way to certainly
 Since it is a privilege, it should be in favor of the
know that Poe is indeed a natural-born citizen. Ratio and
state.
Proportion of Foreigners in Jaro was considered in the case.
3 kinds of Naturalization
Presumptions were also laid down by the Supreme Court to
1. Legislative - by act of congress, through a law.
determine if she is a Filipino (1) Found in a Filipino church (2)
2. Judicial
that she has a Filipino nose (3) We cannot imagine a foreigner
3. Administrative
living a child in a church or living a child in the first place; it’s
in the nature of Filipinos due to poverty (4) a foundling is a
citizen of the country where she is found. CA 473 (JUDICIAL)
Age- 21 years old on the day of the hearing
KINDS OF FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP
1. Residency - continuous and not less than 10 years
1. Natural Born Citizens - From Birth without having 2. Character - Good Moral Character Entire period of
to perform requirements to acquire it; election of stay in the Philippines
citizenship, only natural born Filipinos can be dual 3. Property - Real Estate, lucrative trade/
citizens. profession/occupation
2. Naturalized - Voluntary, adopting a foreigner to be a 4. Education - enrolled minor children of Philippine
part of citizenship like rights, duties and obligations. History, Civics, Government during entire time of
residence
Presupposes that those who are given up for adoption are 5. Language - Filipino, any principal languages
Filipinos
RA 9139 (ADMINISTRATIVE)
ELECTION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
1. Age- 18 upon filing
Commonwealth Act No. 625
2. Residency - Born; residing since birth
Requirements:
3. Character - Good Moral Character since birth
1. Sworn statement
4. Property - Trade/Business/Profession
2. Registration of sworn statement
3. Oath of allegiance to the republic of the Philippines
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I [DATE]
16
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)

5. Occupation - Provided; college degree cannot practice 2. Lawful Profession

due to citizenship 3. Not convicted of any crime
6. Education - Primary and secondary 4. Any act prejudicial to the nation.
Language: able to speak and write any Filipino dialect. 7. Final/ executory order
8. Registration
SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL Issuance of certificate of naturalization
NATURALIZATION
9. Oath taking
10 years to 5 years if:
1. Elected or appointed in the government of the RA 9139 (Section 3) vs CA 473 (Section2)
Philippines
2. Having established new industry or having introduced
a new invention RA 9139 (Section CA 473 (Section 2)
3. Married to a Filipino Woman 3)
4. Teacher not less than two years
5. Born in the Philippines Qualificati (b) The applicant First. He must be not
JUDICIAL PROCESS OF NATURALIZATION ons must not be less less than twenty-one
than eighteen (18) years of age on the day
1. Declaration of intention years of age, at the of the hearing of the
 File with the department of justice a declaration time of filing of petition;
under oath of its bona fide intention to become his/her petition;
a citizen of the Philippines, under section 5 of
473.
 No declaration shall be valid until lawful entry Residency (a) The applicant Second. He must have
for permanent residency has been established, must be born in the resided in the
and a certificate showing date, place, and Philippines and Philippines for a
manner of arrival in the Philippines. residing therein continuous period of
 Prove prior and present residence since birth; not less than 10 years
 Exceptions: 1. Born in the Philippines and
received primary and secondary education in
the Philippines Character (c) The applicant Third. He must be of
 Continuously resided for 30 years or more must be of good good moral character
 Widow and minor children of an applicant who moral character and and believes in the
dies before granting application believes in the principles underlying
underlying the Philippine
2. Petition principles of the Constitution, and must
 Must be signed by the applicant in his handwriting, Constitution, and have conducted
and must be signed in an affidavit by two credible must have himself in a proper and
witnesses, conducted irreproachable manner
 File to the competent authority RTC of the place, himself/herself in a during the entire period
residing for one year proper and of his residence in the
 Cannot file within one year from declaration irreproachable Philippines in his
 2 witnesses rule for character also prove capacity manner during relation with the
for witnesses. his/her entire period constituted
 Requirements for witnesses: of residence in the government as well as
1. Credible (person is of good repute) Philippines in his with the community in
2. Citizens of the Philippines relation with the which he is living.
3. Knows petitioner duly constituted
4. Resident of the Philippines for 10 years. government as well
3. Notification and appearance as with the
 Responsibility of the court community in
 Publication, 3 consecutive weeks, once every week which he/she is
in the official Gazette and General circulation. living;
 Posting requirement; General notice: petition/
hearing schedule Property (e) The applicant Fourth. He must own
4. Hearing must have a known real estate in the
 within 6 months from publication, not thirty days trade, business, Philippines worth not
preceding national, local, or SK election profession or lawful less than five thousand
5. Order of the court occupation, from pesos, Philippine
 Appeal 15 days from issuance or order saying which he/she currency, or must have
naturalization was granted and for the derives income some known lucrative
naturalization certificate to be issued in the proper sufficient for his/her trade, profession, or
civil registry. support and if lawful occupation;
 This is different from the naturalization itself, OSG he/she is married Basis: to prove that
can still appeal against it. and/or has you will not be a
 RA 530- issuance of the order six months after last dependents, also burden to the state
publication that of his/her
 Executory only after 2 years after hearing family: Provided,
6. Hearing however, That this *Was 5k before
 Court will determine: shall not apply to
1. Applicant has not left the Philippines applicants who are
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I [DATE]
17
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)

college degree 1. Having honorably held office under the government of

holders but are the Philippines or under that any of the provinces,
unable to practice cities, municipalities or political subdivision thereof
their profession *Either elected or appointed, national or local
because they are
disqualified to do so 2. Having established new industry or introduced a new
by reason of their invention.
citizenship; 3. Being married to a Filipino woman.
4. Having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippine in
a public or recognized private school not established
for the exclusive instruction of children or persons of
a particular nationality or race in any of the branches
of education industry for a period of not less than 2
years
Education (d) The applicant Fifth. He must be able
must have received to speak and write *Must teach Philippine history, government, civics
his/her primary and English or Spanish and 5. Having been born in the Philippines
secondary education any one of the
in any public school principal Philippine
or private languages PROCESS (CA 473, SECTION 5)
educational
institution dully 1. Declaration of intention
recognized by the *Refers to his children
Where to file: One year prior to the filing of his petition for
Department of admission to Philippine citizenship, the applicant for Philippine
Education, Culture Sixth. He must have citizenship shall file with the Bureau of Justice a declaration
and Sports, where enrolled his minor under oath that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen
Philippine history, children of school age, of the Philippines.
government and in any of the public Section 5 of CA 473 (specific requirements)
civics are taught and schools or private
prescribed as part of “No declaration shall be valid until lawful entry for permanent
schools recognized by
the school residence has been established and a certificate showing the
the Office of Private
curriculum and date, place, and manner of his arrival has been issued.”
Education1 of the
where enrollment is Philippines, where the
not limited to any Philippine history,
race or *Must show when and how you arrived in the Philippines.
government and civics Should also prove all prior and present residence
nationality: Provide are taught or
d, That should Formal requirement: 2 photographs of himself; no
prescribed as part of
he/she have minor specification in contrast with RA 9139 which is passport size
the school curriculum,
children of school during the entire period
age, he/she must of the residence in the
have enrolled them EXCEPTIONS:
Philippines required of
in similar schools; 1. Persons born in the Philippines and have received their
him prior to the
hearing of his petition primary and secondary education in public schools or
for naturalization as those recognized by the Government and not limited
to any race or nationality
Philippine citizen.
2. Those who have resided continuously in the
Language (f) The applicant Fifth. He must be able Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before
must be able to read, to speak and write filing their application
write and speak English or Spanish and
3. The same shall be understood applicable with respect
Filipino or any of any one of the
to the widow and minor children of an alien who has
the dialects of the principal Philippine
declared his intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines; and languages; and
Philippines and dies before he is actually naturalized.
So, in number 3, the widow and minor children of an applicant,
*Repealed by who applied for naturalization and in the process, complied with
constitution, that our the procedure, but died before being granted naturalization. So,
national language is the widow and the minor children need not declare their
Filipino intention.
Also, a provision It is the filing of petition for naturalization as a Filipino. But
providing: any of the you cannot file the petition within one year from number 1, or
principal languages the declaration of intention.
So if you file today, today is July 25, you cannot file until July
26, 2020. Within one year, you cannot file a petition for
naturalization except if you belong to the exemptions, which
SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL allows you to file the petition right away.
NATURALIZATION Under the petition, your consideration is you will prove all of
Under the requirement on residence: the 10-year continuous these and the other requirements (e.g. what you write, how you
residence required under the second condition of the last write, what you rode, etc.), for residency, all your prior
preceding section shall be understood as reduced to 5years for residences. For your character, there is a two-witness rule.
any petitioner having any of the following qualification: Under the two-witness rule, you should also prove the capacity
of your witnesses. It says in CA 473 that your petition must be
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
signed by the applicant, in his own handwriting, and is
supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons. (Take
note of the word “credible”, stating that they are citizens and
are of good reputation.)
These are the requirements for the witnesses:
1. Credible (jurisprudence: credible means that the person
is also of good refute and is morally reproachable
2. Citizens of the Philippines
3. Personally knows the petitioner
4. A resident of the Philippines for the same period ( take
note that if the applicant needs a 10 year residency
period, the witness must also have resided for 10 years.
if he falls within the exception that does not require the
10 or 5 year residency, it would depend on what kind
of applicant you are testifying to)
The additional formal requirements for the witness:
They should include/attach their post office addresses
After the petition, you file that in a court with competent
jurisdiction. The court which has judicial jurisdiction to try
naturalization is the Regional Trial Court of the province where
the applicant is residing for at least one year. (Take note that if
the applicant, required to reside for 10 years or 5 years, but if
the applicant is a new resident of a particular locality, he should
be a resident of that locality for at least 1 year. otherwise, he
should file the petition on the RTC of his previous residence
where he lived for at least 1 year. if he has not resided for at
least 1 year in his new residence then the court of his new
residence does not have jurisdiction.)
2. Notification and appearance
The notification requirement is a responsibility of the court but
as applicant, you should ensure that the court would publish.
It is a publication requirement of your petition [be posted] for 3
consecutive weeks in the official gazette, and 1 newspaper of
general circulation, once every week.
Aside from the publication, there should also be a general
notice. So, there is a posting requirement. The content of the
posting is the petition, and the hearing schedule it will also
include the inquiry if anyone has any objection, or comment
then you should attend the hearing on naturalization. There is a
requirement that a petition shall not be heard after 30 days
preceding any election. This includes the national, local,
barangay, or SK elections.
After notification is the hearing.
3. Hearing
Again, the hearing cannot be heard after 30 days preceding any
election.
After the court sees that you are qualified, they shall issue an
order saying that the naturalization is granted and the
naturalization certificate shall be issued and is to be registered
in the proper civil registry.
4. Order
This order is different from the naturalization certificate itself.
The Office of the Solicitor General can still appeal even when
you are granted naturalization. Remember our earlier discussion
that naturalization is a privilege and any of the grounds for
denaturalization can be sought by the prosecution anytime
because it will not prescribe. The OSG also the right to appeal
the grant of your naturalisation. So if there is no appeal, appeal
in the ordinary course of the rules is 15 days from the issuance
of the order, it becomes final.
RA 530
Take note of RA 530 because it adds additional requirements to
the process.
[DATE]
18
Sec. 1 provides that:
“No petition for Philippine citizenship shall be heard by
the courts within 6 months from the publication of the
petition required so this falls under notification and
appearance.”
Aside from the 30 days prohibition after elections, the law
provides that you cannot hear the petition within 6 months from
publication. So if you remember this requirement that is
publication for 3 consecutive weeks, once every week. Six
months will run from the last day of publication. Again, you
cannot hear the petition within 6 months from the last day of the
publication requirement. Another prohibition is that you cannot
hear the petition after 30 days following an election.
Another requirement added by RA 530 is the issuance of the
order nor shall any decision granting the application become
executory until after 2 after from its promulgation and after the
court and proper hearing, with the attendance of the solicitor
general or his representative is satisfied and so founds that
during the intervening time that the applicant has.
So, before the court issues the order, the 15 days that I
mentioned earlier about the appeal will not apply because it will
become execution period of the petition only after two years and
not immediately after.
For example, if the order was promulgated today, July 25, 2019
the effectively of the decision will be on 2021. But, there is
another hearing.
In that hearing, what the court will determine are the following:
1. That the applicant has not left the Philippines;
2. He has dedicated himself to continuously practiced his
lawful calling or profession;
3. He has not been convicted of any offences or violation
of government promulgated rules;
4. Or committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the
nation or contrary to the government’s policy.
These are the four facts that the Court has to show.
The hearing and the confirmation, the court will already
promulgate the order granting him naturalization and order him
to take the oath. The order states that he should take an oath
then you are already a naturalized Filipino citizen and your
certificate of naturalization, after being signed, will be
registered before the proper civil registry. For example, if you
applied here in Davao, the certificate will be registered in
Davao’s civil registry.
No. 4- hearing
No. 5- order granting
No. 6- 2 years waiting period
No. 7- confirmation of facts hearing
If the court is satisfied, the order shall become final and
executory.
No. 8-issuance of certificate of naturalization
When the order is granted, it also adds the requirement of the
registration to the proper registry.
Usually, the place of application is also the place of residence
of the applicant. Usually it’s the same as where the court has
jurisdiction.
For example, if you filed your application here in Davao City,
the civil register of Davao City will register it. Also, the
registration comes here.
After that, there will be an oath taking. So usually, the oath is
also in the certificate of naturalization that you would sign. You
will sign that you took the oath and you will also take the oath
before a person who is authorized to administer the oath.
After that, he will be a Filipino Citizen of the naturalized kind.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
Now, there are certain effects for the minor children and the
wife. Still in CA 470, “any woman who is now or maybe after
remarried to a citizen of the Philippines who might, herself, be
lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the
Philippines. So, it’s not as easy as being married to, or marrying
a Filipino citizen who’s naturalized. She must also register that
she is the wife of a naturalized Filipino citizen. She will also
allege that she is qualified and she has none of the
disqualifications.
Clarification: So the wife need not to follow the same
procedure?
Yes, it will be just administrative. So she will just file it. Hindi
na siya sa court, we will not follow these anymore.
For the minor children, those who have been born in the
Philippines shall be considered citizens thereof. There may be
instances that because they’re still foreigners, they will not
register in the Philippines. Registered sila kung saan sila
originally citizens. But after their father has been granted a
certificate of naturalization, yung requirement na nasa wife will
be lesser, and sa children will also be lesser. They will just
present the certificate of naturalization of their father and they
will register with the civil register. They will register as Filipino
citizens. Magkakaroon sila altogether ng birth certificate.
A foreign minor child. So first is, born in the Philippines. When
the minor child is born outside the Philippines, if dwelling in
the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the parents
shall automatically become a Philippine citizen.
First category, born in the Philippines, IN THE PHILIPPINES.
Automatic din. Second category, born outside the Philippines
but during the time of the naturalization of the parent, he/she is
already dwelling in the Philippines. Automatically, he/she will
become a Filipino citizen. So this concept is derivative
naturalization. The minor children will derive the citizenship of
their father. But because this is derivative naturalization, their
citizenship is naturalized citizen, not natural born. During that
time.
Take note ha, because it will have a different effect if you are
born after a change in the Constitution.
Why?
Because, diba yung naturalized Filipino citizens, for example,
in the 1935 Constitution. Once the 1987 Constitution was
already ratified and became effective, those who are Filipinos
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Therefore, yung
children nila that was born after the 1987 Constitution will
already become natural born citizens. Gets niyo?
So, during that time, for example, 1935 Constitution. I’m 17
years old, yung tatay ko ay naturalized siya when I was 17 years
old. Kunwari Chinese ako. So during that time I think 1935
Constitution, I’m a Filipino citizen but I am naturalized. What
if, after the 1973 Constitution nag took effect na siya, My
father, was naturalized in the 1935 Constitution, then I was born
after 1973. After 1973, yung father ko became part of the class
of citizens that was already Filipino citizens at the adoption of
the constitution. So after, part na siya nung citizen adoption and
nung part na Filipino mother and father. So, diba?
Sa tatlo, yung number one, Filipino mother and father, and yung
born before January 17, 1973 na mag elect. All of those are
natural born citizens, diba? Only, yung naturalized citizens, yun
lang yung naturalized.
EXAMPLE QUESTION:
1935 Constitution. Na-naturalized ang tatay ko. And I was 17
years old. WHAT AM I? What is my status?
NATURALIZED FILIPINO BECAUSE OF DERIVATIVE
NATURALIZATION.
What if in the 1935 Constitution, na-naturalized yung tatay
ko, wala pa ako. Tapos, after January 17, 1973, I was born.
[DATE]
19
Pinanganak ako after pa nung adoption of the new
Constitution. Remember the classification doon. First, those
who are Filipino citizens upon the adoption of this Constitution,
those whose fathers and mothers are Filipino, those who were
born before January 17, 1935 who elected Philippine
Citizenship and those who are naturalized Filipino. So, if I was
born after 1973, WHAT AM I?
-NATURAL-BORN, SIR.
Yan yung point ko, okay? So, depende sa time. Because again,
important ang distinction between a naturalized and natural-
born because there are certain positions in government which
requires natural-born citizenship.
So, dalawa na yung classification ha? Foreign minor children
born in the Philippines residing therein automatically becomes
naturalized also. Born outside but during the time of the
naturalization, is dwelling in the Philippines, automatically
again becomes a Filipino Citizen. Derivative lang ito na
naturalization ha?
Then, a child born outside the Philippines after the
naturalization of his parent shall be considered Philippine
Citizen unless, within one year after reaching the age of
majority, he fails to register himself as a Philippine Citizen at
the Philippine Consulate kung nasaan siya and take the
necessary oath of allegiance.
So, the third classification, is born outside but during and after
the naturalization of his father he is outside the Philippines. The
effect is, during his minority, he is a Filipino Citizen because of
derivative naturalization. But, after the age of majority, there is
a requirement for him to register that he is a Filipino Citizen and
take an oath of allegiance to the Philippines. Otherwise, he loses
his Philippine citizenship.
So, first category, born and resides in the Philippines. Second,
born outside the Philippines but resides in the Philippines at the
time of the naturalization. Third, born outside and is residing
outside during minority. So, there is a requirement when it
comes of age. 18 years old. So, remember those three
categories. Okay? Yung third and mayroong requirement when
he becomes of age.
RIGHTS OF A WIDOW AND THEIR CHILDREN
Nasabi ko na rin sa inyo what are the rights of a widow and
their children if the petitioner dies during the process of
naturalization na judicial.
They can continue with the naturalization process as if the
petitioner is still alive. So, for example, namatay siya sa interim
law, yung 2-year period while waiting. So, I allege na lang doon
na during the part noong 2-year period na buhay pa siya, he was
just in the Philippines. The widow and the children will just
have to prove yung mga necessary facts to establish for the
finality of this order.
What if namatay siya after? Kunwari, 2 years na. They went sa
court room. Present and follow the facts necessary for the
finality and executory nature of this order. So ang next is dapat
ang issuance of naturalization. So, before the issuance of the
certificate of naturalization, the petitioner died. So, the widow
and the children can continue hanggang dito sa process na ito.
So, still, yung effect sa kanila, aside from, if, for example, the
petitioner is naturalized, they will have their relative
naturalization… Sa kanila, sila na yung gagawa nun as if they
were the petitioner.
REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 17 , (ROYAL TITLE)
Then, there is a requirement under Section 17, if you have a
royal title of nobility, then, you should renounce it. So, in case
the alien applying and admitted to the citizenship was born and
inherited a hereditary title, has been of any of the orders of
nobility in the kingdom or state of which he came, he shall, in
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
addition to the abovementioned requisite, he can express
renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to which
his application was made and his renunciation must be recorded
in the court unless with expressed consent of the national
assembly.
So, aside from the procedure, when he takes his oath he must
also renounce his title of nobility. The Duchess, the Jew,
etcetera. I-renounce nila yun, unless the congress will allow
him. But there is a state policy that we don’t really allow the
titles of nobility in the Constitution. So, because of the CA
473’s implication in the 1935 Constitution pa, it already deemed
that provision repealed by the 1987 Constitution. So, no titles
of nobilities allowed in the Philippine setup in this current
Constitution. And if you violate any of the provisions of CA
473, if you commit fraud in your application, the government
or any interested party only has 5 years to charge you to bring
an action in court otherwise, what they prescribe. So, that
pertains to any action of fraud, violation of the provision in CA
473.
But, take note that the government does not lose its right to
revoke or cancel your certificate of naturalization based on the
provisions of CA 473 on the naturalization.
PROCEDURE FOR THE PETITION IN RA NO. 9139
OR THE NATURALIZATION BY ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS
Under Section 5, petition for citizenship,
“Any persons who will acquire Philippine Citizenship under
this act shall file with the special committee on naturalization.”
So, the special committee on naturalization is sila yung
committee na magtanggap or mag deny sa petition. So, the
petitioner shall submit 5 copies legibly typed, signed, marked
and have verified by him or her with the latter’s passport sized
photograph attached to each copy of the petition exactly for the
following.
So, for the petition, first is the petitioner’s name, place of
residence, date of birth, business or profession or occupation,
whether he/she is single or married, if they have children, if the
petitioner possesses all of the qualifications and not the
disqualifications, and the petitioner’s true intention to acquire
Philippine citizenship.
So, next is it should also be accompanied by the petitioner’s
birth certificate, petitioner’s alien certificate of registration,
native born certificate of residence, petitioner’s marriage
certificate, certified photocopies of birth certificate, alien
certificate of registration, for native born certificate of residence
of any of petitioner’s minor children, and affidavit of financial
capacity of petitioner, medical certificate that petitioner is not a
user of prohibited drugs, school diploma and TOR’s, Income
Tax Return for the past 3 years.
The special committee on naturalization would then decide
for the approval or disapproval of the petition within 60 days
from the receiving of the report of the agencies which furnished
the copies of the petition, or the date of the last publication of
the petition, whichever comes in later.
The committee shall consider and review all of the relevant and
material information that it has received pertaining to the
petition. So, if the committee shall receive any information
under the petition, the committee shall allow the petitioner to
answer, explain, or refute the information. And thereafter the
committee believes that the petitioner has all the qualifications
and not the disqualifications required for the Philippine
Citizenship under this act, it shall approve the petition and
notify the petitioner of the fact of such approval.
So, the next process will be for degree of naturalization and
the naturalization processing fee that within 30 days from the
receipt of the approval of the petition, the applicant shall pay
[DATE]
20
the document fee and the authorization fee of 100,000.00 pesos.
If the applicant fail, the approval of the petition shall be deemed
abandoned.
So, after is the oath of allegiance.
Within 5 days after the applicant has taken his oath of
allegiance, the Bureau of Immigration shall forward the
copy of the petitioner’s oath to the proper local civil
registrar. And thereafter it is the duty of the Bureau of
Immigration to cancel the alien certificates of the registration of
the applicant.
STATUS OF ALIEN WIFE AND MINOR CHILDREN
The approval of the petition for administrative naturalization
and cancellation of the applicants alien certificate of registration
application. The applicant’s alien lawful wife and minor
children may file a petition for the cancellation of their alien
certificate registration of the same committee but if it was the
wife who filed the naturalization, the approval of her petition
for administrative naturalization will not benefit her alien
husband, minor children may file a petition for cancellation of
their alien certificate of registration with the bureau of
immigration.
APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION
1. Petition for application for naturalization
Sa special committee of naturalization (SCN), the chair is the
Sol Gen and then members we have DFA secretrary and the
national security adviser.
2. SCN will determine sufficiency in form and substance.
Form is yung mga requirements and photographs, allegations.
Substance is whether or not all the allegations necessarily yung
mga menention all attachments are present. So when there is
kulang sa form kulang sa substance the SCN will just dismiss
it but without prejudice to a filing of a more complete petition
or application. So if it is granted, then we have publication and
posting.
3. Publication And Posting
So for publication sa if you remember sa judicial natin,
newspaper of general circulation and Official Gazette. So for
this it’s just newspaper of general circulation. there is no
requirement that also in the Official Gazette. The same pa rin
once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. And then, sa posting
dalawa siya the scn will also post it sa public and conspicuous
place.
4. Furnish, Bureau of Immigration, NBI, DFA of the
petition for them to react or submit a report.
Now under the same provision they also have the posting
requirement, still in a public and conspicuous place.
5. Submission of report.
This is within 30 days from being furnished. So once they are
already submitted the reports sa SCN, ang SCN within 60 days
will determine if kung submit sila ng report or kung walang
nag anything or react. Basta within 60 days from the expiration
of the 30 days. It will determine whether or not the petition or
application to grant naturalization is very notorious. Tignan
nila lahat ng requirements.
Then after the 60 days of determination, they will notify the
applicant whether or not na approve ang kanyang application or
application.
6. Notification of approval or disapproval
After this kung na approve. Again if na disapprove, it will not
prejudice filing a new petition.
7. Issuance of certificate of naturalization.
After the payment ng mga administrative fees. Hindi ka pa
issuhan nitong certificate of administrative fees
(naturalization?) if you have not complied with the other
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
formal requirements after you have been notified you’re
granted of Philippine citizenship after 30 days dapat nagbayad
ka ng 50,000 upon the approval and 50,000 upon taking of the
oath.
8. Payment
Then after you paid. Take the oath.
9. Oath
Then after you take the oath cancel ang iyong ACR(alien
certificate of registration).
The same actually ang effect if you are male and then your wife
and minor children will have their derivative naturalization. So
what they will do is they will just file with the SCN the
cancellation of their ACR.
But, if yung wife mo ang nagapply for naturalization it will not
have a derivative effect to your husband so that’s an express
provision under RA 9139. So the husband must file a separate
application or petition for naturalization. So wala na siyang
difference as regards whether or not your children are born in
or outside. They will be Filipino citizens agad kahit nasa ibang
bansa sila.
Take note because it is derivative naturalization and they are
just minor children, they will just get the naturalization of their
father or mother ,as the case may be, but when they have
performed after the age of majority any acts of grounds for
denaturalization then they will also lose their Pilipino
citizenship.
DENATURALIZATION
For the grounds of cancellation, sa CA 473, Sec 18 and Sec 13
sa 9139. And if you look at it, it is the same grounds. [TAMA
BA NA SECTION?]
 Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated
with any association or group of persons who uphold and
teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
 Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety
of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the
success and predominance of their ideas
 Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy
 Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(these crimes wala siyang exact definition but almost
crimes under RPC almost all ha because there are certain
felonies under the RPC which the court already said are
not crimes with moral turpitude. Then special criminal
laws, for example, graft and corruption is a crime of
moral turpitude yung drugs is crime moral turpitude.
Yun yung mga crimes. So if you are convicted then you
will be probably denaturalized.)
 Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable
contagious diseases; (that is why because your petition
under RA 9139 there is a requirement of submitting a
medical certificate and dahil kasali ang contagious
disease I dont know why na single out yung medical
certificate saying that you dont have AIDS. Nakalagay
doon sa 9139 it should have just been incurable disease.)
 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 embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of
the Filipinos; (for this ground under judicial is also
found in the allegations in your petition for
administrative because if you recall the petitioner here
or applicant was born in the Philippines and for the time
for 18 yrs at least nasa Philippines siga so dapat ipakita
niya na he mingled with his community and yung mga
customs and traditions ng Filipino he adapts. )
[DATE]
21
 Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United
States and the Philippines are at war, during the period
of such war; (under the administrative wala tayong
United States na phrase Philippines is at war na lang.)
 Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the
United States whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right
to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
(under the administrative wala ng United States just take
note if you read CA 473 it was because we were still
under the occupation of US. 1900-1946)
 So yung last na disqualification is actually the rule of no
reciprocity. Wala silang law like North Korea. They
don’t have any law granting Filipinos a path to
citizenship in North Korea. So if a North Korean goes to
the Philippines and ask for naturalization then we cannot
grant naturalization because wala silang granting
Filipinos the same privilege. Pwede din mangyari before
because we are in a friendly relationship with a country,
meron pa silang reciprocal laws granting each citizen a
path to citizenship sa country but later on that country of
the original petitioner already severed this international
relationship with the Philippines. The Philippine
Government can cancel your certificate of naturalization
if wala ng reciprocity yung countries.
So for petitions of denaturalization sa judicial, you also file sa
court. Usually it will be the Sol Gen will file. For the
administrative it will be just filed at the SCN, motu proprio, the
committee if it finds that one of the grounds of denaturalization
is present then it will cancel your certificate of naturalization
but there is a provision of due process. You are allowed to
explain your side. Due process in administrative cases are mere
opportunities.
Where exactly is the office of SCN?
I think within the office of the Solicitor General. Probably wala
silang physical office because they just meet ang may office
lang ang kanilang support staff. Because it is ex officio na mga
designation. This under primary duty, just a function of its
office.
ELECTION OF CITIZENSHIP
If you are born before the 1973 Constitution, or during the 1935
Constitution of a Filipino mother and a foreigner father and you
are a legitimate child born under the 1935 Constitution or before
January 17, 1973 then you need to elect Filipino Citizenship
after reaching the age of majority which is 18 years old or a
reasonable time thereafter.
IN RE: APPLICATION FOR THE ADMISSION
TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR v. CHING
So this is a case of a legitimate child born under the 1935
Constitution whose father is Chinese and mother is Filipino.
This is about the application for the admission in the Philippine
Bar. Who is born and raised here in the Philippines and resided
in La Union. He graduated law in St. Louis University in Baguio
City.
FACTS:
 Vincente Ching legitimate son of Tat Ching, a Chinese
Citizen, and Prescila Dulay, A Filipino.
 Born and raised in La Union and resided in the PH
since then
 Graduated Law in St. Louie University in Baguio City
 Allowed by the court to take the 1998 Bar Exam
PROVIDED that he must submit proof of his PH
Citizenship
 In compliance with the Court, He sumbmitted the ff:
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
1. PRC License as Certified Public Accountant
(CPA)
2. Voter’s ID
 COMELEC Certification as an elected Public Servant
in Tubao, La Union (Member of the Sangguniang
Bayan)
 Took the 1998 Bar Exam and Successfully passed it
 HOWEVER, he was not allowed to take his Lawyer’s
Oath DUE to his Questionable Citizenship (SAD ☹)
ISSUE:
W/N Ching has elected PH Citizenship within a “Reasonable
Time” and be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.
RULING:
NO, Ching wasn’t able to elect his PH Citizenship w/in the
“reasonable time” and wasn’t allowed to take his Lawyer’s Oath
and be admitted in the PH Bar.
Ching was already 35 y/o or 14yrs. After he had reached the age
of majority (21y/o) when he expressed his intention to elect his
PH Citizenship and complied with the requirements of
Commonwealth Act. 625.
Ching’s special circumstances like, He considered himself a
Filipino all his life, and that he was a CPA and a Public Officer
serving the Filipino people CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
according to the OSG.
Additionally, Ching didn’t give any reasonable justification on
why he was late in electing his Filipino Citizenship.
Thus, the Court DENIED Ching’s application for admission to
the PH Bar and wasn’t able to take the Lawyer’s Oath.
*TAKE NOTE (ATTY. DERIJE):
Take note of the factual circumstances. That he was late in
electing PH Citizenship although he actually served as a public
officer, graduated CPA and exercised his profession, probably
the PRC gave him a PRC ID. He was also able to Vote,
etc. BUT he was 14 years LATE in electing his PH
citizenship. So, the SC held that HE IS NOT A FILIPINO but
a Chinese national.
REPUBLIC v LIM
FACTS:
 Chule Y. Lim, respondent, was born on October 29,
1954 and an ILLEGITIMATE CHILD of a Chinese
father and a Filipino mother.
 She filed a petition to the court for correction of four
erroneous entries in her birth certificate to 1.) her
surname Yu was misspelled as Yo 2.) her father s name
was written as Yo Diu To (Co Tian) when it should have
been Yu Dio To 3.) her nationality was entered as
Chinese when it should have been Filipino 4.) that she
was a legitimate child when she should have been
described as illegitimate considering that her parents
were never married.
 After the trial court conducted the appropriate
proceeding, it granted the petition sought by respondent
to set the records straight and in their proper perspective.
–
 However, petitioner herein filed an appeal specifically
on the correction of her citizenship (from Chinese to
Filipino) not having complied with the legal
requirements for election of citizenship.
 It cited Article IV, Sec 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution and
Sec 1, CA No. 625 which provides the ELECTION OF
ACITIZENSHIP of a LEGITIMATE CHILD of a
Filipino mother and alien father upon reaching the age
of maturity.
[DATE]
22
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent needs to elect Filipino
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority?
RULING:
NO, Lim doesn’t need to elect Filipino citizenship.
The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing
Filipino citizenship apply only to LEGITIMATE
CHILDREN.
The case at bar clearly states that respondent is an
illegitimate child of a Filipino mother and alien father.
Under 1935 Constitution by being an illegitimate child of a
Filipino mother, respondent automatically became a
Filipino upon birth.
*TAKE NOTE (ATTY. DERIJE):
So, In this case she registered that she was 18, that she was able
to vote. Now, what is the difference between the cases of Lim
and Ching?
Under this case, Lim is a ILLEGITMATE CHILD of a Filipino
mother.
RULE: An ILLEGITMATE CHILD is NOT required to elect
PH Citizenship.
REMEMBER: That requirement of election of PH Citizenship
applies only to a LEGITIMATE CHILD with a Filipino mother
and a Foreign Father under 1935 Constitution.
The change of the status of a child/person affects his/her
Citizenship and whether or not his/her rule in the election of PH
Citizenship applies.
IN RE: MALLARE CASE
In this case, the court discussed that there are 2 Forms of
Electing Citizenship:
1. Formal
2.Informal
However in the subsequent case, the SC said that/ the ruling in
the Mallare case saying that there is an INFROMAL mode of
electing citizenship is an obiter.
*TAKE NOTE (ATTY. DERIJE)
So, It’s important to read if what case they applied if Informal
or not.
The election must be within the “reasonable period of time.
Reasonable time is 3 years upon reaching the age of majority
(21y/o at that time)
3 FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF CITIZENSHIP
ELECTION:
1. State w/in the reasonable time (3yrs upon reaching the
age of majority (21y/o) that you elect PH citizenship.
2. Take Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the PH and to
the duly constituted government of the Republic of the PH.
3. Register in the Civil Registry – for the purpose of
notification.
IN RE: CHING CASE
The election was made 14 years after he reached the age of
majority.
Although he cited In re: Mallare Case that there was an
“Informal Waive of Election”, HOWEVER the SC said that it
was not the ruling of the case. Thus, Ching failed to elect his
citizenship because it was delayed.
IN RE: MALLARE CASE:
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
The election requirement was not applied because she was a
Filipino Citizen already, because she is an “illegitimate child”
of a Filipino Mother and a Foreign Father.
*TAKE NOTE (ATTY. DERIJE):
In any case the SC also discussed there was act of
being/manifestation of being a Filipino, like voting,
participating in political exercises, etc.
In a way the SC recognizes the “Informal Waive of Election” to
show that you have elected your Filipino Citizenship.
MA v FERNADEZ CASE
In this case, yun yung di nila nagawa “w/in the reasonable
period of time given”, the Registration. But, they were able to
elect and were able to take their oath.
The SC allowed or considered it because it was already
sufficient election of PH citizenship. They discussed that
Registration is or the purpose of notification, that you have
already elected your PH citizenship.
In this case, people already know that they are Filipino citizens
because they have exercised so many political and whatever
rights that are pertaining to a Filipino. They have always
showed to become or to have been Filipinos.
The SC also said that Registration is actually not a mode of
acquiring a right. It is just a means of informing people of a
certain fact.
So, whether or not they have registered in the Civil Registry,
the fact that there was already a due notice to the public and
that because registration is not really fatal.
They were allowed to comply with the 3rd requirement is
registration and they were considered duly elected PH
Citizenship w/in the reasonable period of time.
VILANDO v HRET CASE
The SC ruled having failed to prove that a lost of Filipino
citizenship respondent can be considered a natural born citizen
having been born with a mother who’s a natural born Filipina at
the time of marriage
And because respondent was able to elect PH citizenship
“Informally” when she reached the age of majority.
Respondent participated in barangay elections as a voter and
accomplished voter’s affidavit in 1984. Run as a candidate and
was elected mayor of Negros Oriental. These are positive acts
of election of PH Citizenship.
In this case the SC RECOGNIZED that categorically there’s
an“Informal Election of Citizenship”, despite the ruling before
in the case of In Re: Mallare on informal election of citizenship
is an obiter.
*TAKE NOTE (ATTY. DERIJE)
However because there are various decisions of the SC in the
matter of INFORMAL Election of PH Citizenship.
Take note of the cases where the SC discussed and held
THERE IS Informal and NO Informal Election in some cases.
But there are certain situation like in the case of Lim.
REPUBLIC v LIM CASE
The SC recognized that THERE WAS “Informal Election”
BUT the Ruling really rest on that she was an “illegitimate
child” of a Filipino mother and of a foreign father.
REPUBLIC v SAGUN CASE
FACTS:
Nora Fe Sagun is the legitimate child of Albert S. Chan, a
Chinese national, and Marta Boromeo, a Filipino citizen.
[DATE]
23
She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio City and did not
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
In 1992, at the age of 33 and after getting married, she
executed an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.
It was notarized, however, it was not recorded and registered
with the local civil registrar.
In 2005, she applied for a Philippine passport but her
application was denied because of the citizenship of her father
and there being no annotation on her birth certificate that she
elected Philippine Citizenship. So after she sought a judicial
declaration of Philippine Citizenship and prayed that the LCR
will annotate her birth certificate.
She contended that she was raised as a Filipino, she attended
local schools in Baguio and she is a registered voter at Baguio
City where she voted local and national elections. So she
claims with those acts, she has effectively elected the
Philippine Citizenship. Such act should be annotated on her
birth certificate.
ISSUE:
W/N the respondent has effectively elected Philippine
Citizenship in accordance with the procedure prescribed by
law.
RULING:
The Court noted that the respondent was born on 1959 and the
governing law was the 1935 Constitution.
In the said Constitution, under Article 4, Section 1, Paragraph
4 states that those whose mothers are citizens of the
Philippines and upon reaching the age of majority, must elect
the Philippine Citizenship. In this provision, it is applicable to
a legitimate child and in this case the respondent is a
legitimate child.
The citizenship that should be followed is that of her father
which is Chinese unless she elects Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority. The Commonwealth Act 625
enacted pursuant to Article 4 of 1935 Constitution prescribes
the procedure that should be followed in order to make a valid
the electing of the Philippine citizenship.
The statutory formalities of electing the Philippine
Citizenship, an oath of allegiance to the constitution and
government of the Philippines and registration of the
statement of election.
In this case, the Court held that the respondent failed to
comply with the legal requirements for a valid election since
she had not executed a sworn statement of her election of
Philippine Citizenship. What she only submitted is her oath of
allegiance which was executed in reasonable years after she
reached the age of majority. Assuming arguendo that the oath
of allegiance suffices, still its execution was not made in
reasonable time which was three years after reaching the age
of majority. The court held that she failed to comply her
requirements.
_______________________
While it may seem that this case is similar to the first case with
14 years, she was not able to elect Philippine Citizenship, in this
particular case, take note of the action made by the petitioner.
If you remember our discussion, it’s just a simple process.
You just make a statement of election, you take an oath of
allegiance and then you submit it. What she did here was she
filed a petition in court that she be judicially declared a Filipino
Citizen. So the issue of W/N that is allowed to settle in this case,
aside from the discussion that she was not able to elect
Philippine citizenship within the reasonable period of time
which is three years, sa time na ito it was 12 years, that’s already
settled.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
But in this case, the Court said that ito yung procedure, there’s
no rule that allows you to file a petition for declaration of her
Philippine citizenship in court. The court disallowed her action.
But in effect, she was declared as not Filipino because of the
petition that she filed. Thereby, based upon the evidence that
she showed, aside from saying that she was not a Philippine
citizen, she failed to elect Philippine citizenship in the most
opportune time, and her action was not allowed under any rules
so it will not be entertained by any court.
So again, the election is purely administrative. So any petition
before the court, to declare you as Philippine citizen is not
allowed because there is no rule granting such right.
The important things to remember here is kung sino yung
required to elect Philippine citizenship, what are the formal
requirements for election of Philippine citizenship and take note
of the period of reasonable time also, and the concept of the
informal election of Philippine citizenship.
So now let’s discuss cases on naturalization, naturalized
citizens. If you look at your syllabus, we already discussed who
are qualified to be naturalized, there are annotations there,
effects of age of majority. Here it must be from 18-21 years,
yung sa judicial, the mode of naturalization. Note the effect of
Language requirement. In the CA 473, Spanish and English,
now it is Filipino.
LI CHING CHUNG *lalabas daw to sa exam*
TOPIC: Naturalization Proceedings
DOCTRINE: The only right that a foreigner has, to be given
the chance to become a Filipino citizen, is that which the statute
confers upon him; and to acquire such right, he must strictly
comply with all the statutory conditions and requirements. The
absence of one jurisdictional requirement is fatal to the petition
as this necessarily results in the dismissal or severance of the
naturalization process.
FACTS:
On August 22, 2007, respondent, otherwise known as Bernabe
Luna Li or Stephen Lee Keng, a Chinese national, filed his
Declaration of Intention to Become a Citizen of the Philippines
before the OSG. Almost seven months after filing his
declaration of intention, respondent filed his Petition for
Naturalization before the RTC.
On April 5, 2008, respondent filed his Amended Petition for
Naturalization, wherein he alleged that he was born in China,
which granted the same privilege of naturalization to Filipinos;
that he came to the Philippines on March 15, 1988; that on
November 19, 1989, he married Cindy Sze Mei Ngar, a British
national, with whom he had 4 children, all born in Manila; that
he had been continuously and permanently residing in the
country since his arrival and is currently a resident of Manila
with prior residence in Malabon; that he could speak and write
in English and Tagalog; that he was entitled to the benefit of
Sec 3 of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 473 reducing to 5 years
the requirement under Sec 2 of ten years of continuous
residence, because he knew English and Filipino having
obtained his education in Manila; and that he had successfully
established a trading general merchandise business. He attached
several documentary evidence in support of his application.
The petition was set for initial hearing on April 3, 2009 and its
notice was posted in a conspicuous place at the Manila City Hall
and was published in the Official Gazette and in the Manila
Times.
Thereafter, respondent filed the Motion for Early Setting
praying that the hearing be moved from April 3, 2009 to July
31, 2008 so he could acquire real estate properties.
The OSG filed its Opposition, arguing that the said motion for
early setting was a "clear violation of Sec 1, RA 530, which
provides that hearing on the petition should be held not earlier
[DATE]
24
than 6 months from the date of last publication of the notice."
The last publication in the newspaper of general circulation was
on June 13, 2008, the earliest setting could only be scheduled 6
months later or on December 15, 2008.
The RTC granted respondent’s application for naturalization as
a Filipino citizen. And CA affirmed. The CA held that although
the petition for naturalization was filed less than 1 year from the
time of the declaration of intent before the OSG, this defect was
not fatal.
The OSG argues that "the petition for naturalization should not
be granted in view of its patent jurisdictional infirmities,
particularly because: 1) it was filed within the one (1) year
proscribed period from the filing of declaration of intention; 2)
no certificate of arrival, which is indispensable to the validity
of the Declaration of Intention, was attached to the petition; and
3) respondent’s failure to comply with the publication and
posting requirements set under CA 473." In particular, the OSG
points out that the publication and posting requirements were
not strictly followed, specifically citing that: "(a) the hearing of
the petition on 15 December 2008 was set ahead of the
scheduled date of hearing on 3 April 2009; (b) the order moving
the date of hearing (Order dated 31 July 2008) was not
published; and, (c) the petition was heard within six (6) months
(15 December 2008) from the last publication (on 14 July
2008).
ISSUE/S:
Whether the respondent should be admitted as a Filipino citizen
despite his undisputed failure to comply with the requirements
provided for in CA No. 473, as amended – which are mandatory
and jurisdictional in character – particularly: (i) the filing of his
petition for naturalization within the one (1) year proscribed
period from the date he filed his declaration of intention to
become a Filipino citizen; (ii) the failure to attach to the petition
his certificate of arrival; and (iii) the failure to comply with the
publication and posting requirements prescribed by CA No.
473.
RULING:
No. Section 5 of CA No. 473,47 as amended,48 expressly
states:
Section 5. Declaration of intention. – One 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 Office of the Solicitor General) a declaration
under oath that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen
of the Philippines. Such declaration shall set forth name, age,
occupation, personal description, place of birth, last foreign
residence and allegiance, the date of arrival, the name of the
vessel or aircraft, if any, in which he came to the Philippines,
and the place of residence in the Philippines at the time of
making the declaration. 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. The declarant must also state that he has
enrolled his minor children, if any, in any of the public schools
or private schools recognized by the Office of Private
Education of the Philippines, where 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. Each declarant
must furnish two photographs of himself.
As held in Tan v. Republic, "the period of one year required
therein is the time fixed for the State to make inquiries as to the
qualifications of the applicant. If this period of time is not given
to it, the State will have no sufficient opportunity to investigate
the qualifications of the applicants and gather evidence thereon.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
An applicant may then impose upon the courts, as the State
would have no opportunity to gather evidence that it may
present to contradict whatever evidence that the applicant may
adduce on behalf of his petition." The period is designed to give
the government ample time to screen and examine the
qualifications of an applicant and to measure the latter’s good
intention and sincerity of purpose. Stated otherwise, the waiting
period will unmask the true intentions of those who seek
Philippine citizenship for selfish reasons alone, such as, but not
limited to, those who are merely interested in protecting their
wealth, as distinguished from those who have truly come to love
the Philippines and its culture and who wish to become genuine
partners in nation building.
The only exception to the mandatory filing of a declaration of
intention is specifically stated in Section 6 of CA No. 473, to
wit:
Section 6. Persons exempt from requirement to make a
declaration of intention. – 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 those who have resided
continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or
more before filing their application, may be naturalized without
having to make a declaration of intention upon complying with
the other requirements of this Act. To such requirements shall
be added that which establishes that the applicant has given
primary and secondary education to all his children in the
public schools or in private schools recognized by the
Government and not limited to any race or nationality. The
same shall be understood applicable with respect to the widow
and minor children of an alien who has declared his intention
to become a citizen of the Philippines, and dies before he is
actually naturalized.
Unquestionably, respondent does not fall into the category of
such exempt individuals that would excuse him from filing a
declaration of intention one year prior to the filing of a petition
for naturalization. Contrary to the CA finding, respondent’s
premature filing of his petition for naturalization before the
expiration of the one-year period is fatal.
In naturalization proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the
applicant to show full and complete compliance with the
requirements of the law. The opportunity of a foreigner to
become a citizen by naturalization is a mere matter of grace,
favor or privilege extended to him by the State; the applicant
does not possess any natural, inherent, existing or vested right
to be admitted to Philippine citizenship. The only right that a
foreigner has, to be given the chance to become a Filipino
citizen, is that which the statute confers upon him; and to
acquire such right, he must strictly comply with all the statutory
conditions and requirements. The absence of one jurisdictional
requirement is fatal to the petition as this necessarily results in
the dismissal or severance of the naturalization process.
_______________________
So if you remember, sa judicial naturalization, there are so
many waiting periods (1 year, 6 months..). Remember all those
things are mandatory. Pag hindi yun nasunod, there was a lapse
in the procedure, then your naturalization process is defective.
Therefore, it can be granted or be cancelled.
Yun yung point nung case, if you heard the reason why there
was a one-year period, the reason is for those who are
concerned, the government, the OSG, those who may be in
opposition, have ample time to study or to make or to prepare
the opposition against the application for naturalization. Such
that, if there is a breach in the period of time, it effectively
deprives those who should have been benefitted by the time,
that you have to wait for the process to go on. So, have we
discussed the grounds for denaturalization? I think so.
[DATE]
25
So, denaturalization. Judiciary is section 18. Administrative
section 13. Same lang sila ng grounds for denaturalization. So,
persons filiated with any association, group of persons who
teach doctrine of organized governments, persons defending or
teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault
or assassination for the success in predomination of their ideas,
polygamist, moral turpitude… na discuss ko na talaga to.
CO VS. CIVIL REGISTRAR (LETTER OF
INSTRUCTIONS 270)
FACTS:
Hubert Tan Co was born on March 23, 1974. His sister, Arlene
Tan Co, was born on May 19, 1975. In their respective
certificates of birth, it is stated that their parents Co Boon Peng
and Lourdes Vihong K. Tan are Chinese citizens.
Thereafter, Co Boon Peng filed an application for his
naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines with the Special
Committee on Naturalization under Letter of Instruction (LOI)
No. 270. His application was granted and he was conferred
Philippine citizenship under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
1055. The Chairman of the Committee issued on February 15,
1977 Certificate of Naturalization in his favor. Thus, on
February 15, 1977, Co Boon Peng took his oath as a Philippine
citizen. In the meantime, Hubert and Arlene Co finished college
and earned their respective degrees in architecture and
accountancy in Philippine schools.
On August 27, 1998, they filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Manila a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for
correction of entries in their certificates of birth. They alleged
in their petition that:
1. They were born in the Philippines and the legitimate
children of CO BOON PENG;
2. Co Boon Peng, who is formerly a citizen of China, was
conferred Philippine citizenship by naturalization under
Presidential Decree No. 1055 and had taken his oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on 15th
February, 1977 in the City of Manila;
3. At the time of birth of [the] petitioners, their father CO
BOON PENG was still a Chinese citizen that is why
entry in their respective birth certificates as to their
father’s citizenship was Chinese;
4. Upon granting of Philippine citizenship by
naturalization to Co Boon Peng in 1977, [the]
petitioners who were born in the Philippines and still
minors at that time became Filipino citizens through
the derivative mode of naturalization. Our
Naturalization Law, specifically Section 15 of
Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended by
Commonwealth Act No. 535 which provides:
"Minor children of persons naturalized under this law
who have been born in the Philippines shall be
considered citizens thereof;"
5. The naturalization of petitioners’ father in 1977 was an
act or event affecting and concerning their civil status
that must be recorded in the Civil Register, Article 407
of the New Civil Code of the Philippines which
provides:
The petitioners prayed that the trial court render judgment
correcting and changing the entries in their respective birth
certificates as to the citizenship of their father Co Boon Peng,
from "Chinese" to "Filipino.”
On September 23, 1998, the RTC issued an order dismissing the
petition outright on the ground that the petition was insufficient,
solely because the petitioners’ father Co Boon Peng applied for
naturalization under LOI No. 270 and was conferred Philippine
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
citizenship by naturalization under PD No. 1055 and not under
Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 473.
They assert THAT they are qualified to claim the benefit of
Section 15 of CA No. 473, which provides that minor children
of persons naturalized thereunder who were born in the
Philippines shall likewise be considered citizens thereof. They
contend that although LOI No. 270, under which the
petitioners’ father was naturalized does not contain a provision
similar to Section 15 of CA No. 473, the latter provision should
be deemed incorporated therein. They point out that both laws
have the same purpose and objective, i.e., to grant Philippine
citizenship to qualified aliens permanently residing in the
Philippines.They posit that CA No. 473 and LOI No. 270 should
be harmonized and reconciled since "all statutes relating to the
same subject, or having the same general purpose, should be
read in connection with it, and should be construed together as
they constitute one law.”
ISSUE:
W/N Hubert and Arlene can be granted Filipino Citizenship in
the fact that their father was naturalized under LOI 270
RULING:
Petitioners should be granted Filipino Citizenship.
LOI No. 270 and CA No. 473 are laws governing the
naturalization of qualified aliens residing in the Philippines.
While they provide for different procedures, CA No. 473
governs naturalization by judicial decree while LOI No. 270
governs naturalization by presidential decree; both statutes have
the same purpose and objective: to enable aliens permanently
residing in the Philippines, who, having demonstrated and
developed love for and loyalty to the Philippines, as well as
affinity to the culture, tradition and ideals of the Filipino people,
and contributed to the economic, social and cultural
development of our country, to be integrated into the national
fabric by being granted Filipino citizenship. Under the LOI, the
procedure for the acquisition of citizenship by naturalization is
more expeditious, less cumbersome and less expensive. The
sooner qualified aliens are naturalized, the faster they are able
to integrate themselves into the national fabric, and are thus able
to contribute to the cultural, social and political well- being of
the country and its people.
Clearly, LOI No. 270 and CA No. 473 are, as the petitioners
correctly posit, statutes in pari materia. Absent any express
repeal of Section 15 of CA No. 473 in LOI No. 270, the said
provision should be read into the latter law as an integral part
thereof, not being inconsistent with its purpose. Thus, Section
15 of CA No. 473, which extends the grant of Philippine
citizenship to the minor children of those naturalized
thereunder, should be similarly applied to the minor children of
those naturalized under LOI No. 270, like the petitioners in this
case.
It is not enough that the petitioners adduce in evidence the
certificate of naturalization of their father, Co Boon Peng, and
of his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, to
entitle them to Philippine citizenship. They are likewise
mandated to prove the following material allegations in their
petition: (a) that they are the legitimate children of Co Boon
Peng; (b) that they were born in the Philippines; and, (c)
that they were still minors when Co Boon Peng was
naturalized as a Filipino citizen.
DENATURALIZATION: RA 9139
So, LOI 270 was an enactment which is much later than CA
473. CA 473 was a law on naturalization. LOI 270 is a
subsequent law on naturalization which gives certain kinds of
people an opportunity to apply for naturalization, but CA 473
is still existing because it was the general law on
naturalization. There was requirements there “iba din yung
[DATE]
26
270” but in 270 though it did not repeal nor amend any of
the provisions of CA 473, it was a complementary or
supplementary rule for other kinds of foreign national or
whatever that may be granted naturalization for why they
may be follow the requirements of that particular
naturalization law.
It was discussed here yung in pare materia rule because the grant
of the naturalization of their family was perusal to LOI 270 later
on amended by PD 1055 and not CA 473. But in LOI 270 and
PD 1055, there was no provision on derivative naturalization.
What was what they were claiming here was that they derived
the naturalization given to their father although it is not found
in LOI 270 and yung sa PD 1055. The supreme court interpreted
yung in pare materia rule that when statutes are the same or for
the same purpose, they must be construed as one and to give
effect of one and the other so that it will be consistent.
While there is no provision on derivative naturalization for LOI
270 as amended by PD 1055 because of this rule because those
laws are both for naturalization, the effect is that whatever the
effect of CA 473 for the wife, widow, or minor children. It will
also be the effect for the widow, wife, or minor children of those
granted naturalization under LOI 270 as amended by PD 1055.
So they will derive the Philippine or the naturalization as
Philippine citizens of their father.
The point in in pare materia rule is the same sila na law in the
subject matter that they don’t amend or repeal each other so they
must be construed as one to give effect to one and to the other
in the same manner.
The purpose of naturalization again diba it is a privilege granted
to those who are qualified so if you follow the rules under a
particular law on naturalization whatever benefit is granted to
you it may be granted to those who have under similar
circumstances arrive in a particular naturalization law such as
in this case. In CA 473, there is derivative naturalization and a
similar naturalization law it does not provide because they are
statutes in pare materia. The effect of one law is also given to
the other naturalization law.
In pare materia in this concept, if you recall 9139 there is a
specific provision on the effect of the husband because if it was
not provided not even the husband will have derivative
naturalization that’s why a specific provision under 9139 that
the husband will not derive the naturalization of a wife who is
naturalized as a Filipino okay kasi in pare materia parin sila
its the same no its a naturalization process so if hindi siya
naprovide it would have beneffited also the husband no pero
ewan ko bat theres a distinction between sa husband and wife
siguro kasi ganti kasi medyo mga laws natin in favor of the
husband so may bias ganun yung legislature nung pinasa yung
9139 okay nasan na tayo.
REPUBLIC V. ONG
In this case, it was a discussion on the requirement of a lucrative
trade remember under CA 473 diba she was initially granted,
but the OSG appealed because he was not able to prove any
lucrative trade, proffesion, etc. so remember that naturalization
is a grant of privilege.
When you are granted Philippine citizenship, or citizenship per
se if you remember the discussion on what citizenship is, it is
the grant of rights and privileges and the concomitant duty na
grant sayo ang Philippines ng rights and privileges no as a
citizen ano ba pwede mong gawin, you can own property, you
can exercise certain kind of business exclusively for Filipino,
you can vote here, you can run for public office, etc. so meron
ka mga pivileges,
Now, if you are granted Philippine citizenship, you should not
be a burden to the Philippines. That’s why there is the
requirement on property or lucrative trade so that the state is
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
sure that you will be able to support yourself otherwise ano ba
yung rule ng government if its people cannot support itself?
Diba it will be the role of the government to help them? Okay
that’s why there are poverty alleviation measure social services
granted to the less fortunate.
If you are applying for naturalization and you are not able to
support yourself then isa ka sa mga madagdag sa concerns ng
Philippine government to support. K that’s why it’s important
to prove property lucrative trade and profession. If you
remember our 1139 diba mas stringent doon because it’s not
only you, you have wife, your family to prove that you can
support them. So in this case it was actually extended to CA 473
like it’s not only your capacity to support yourself, but if you
have a family, you have to also show that lucrative trade,
profession, etc. would be able to support your family. That if
the Philippines would grant you its citizenship, you would not
be a burden to the Philippines. So, again, because you are the
one applying for naturalization, you have the burden of
proof to prove that you have all the requirements under the
law.
In this case, he was not able to satisfactorily prove his
lucrative trade that he was able to support himself and his
family. K so, because you have the burden of proof, it’s a matter
of evidence depende sa ma show mo na evidence and in this
case he was not able to show enough evidence to prove that he
has a lucrative trade or profession to support himself and his
family. So remember part of the requirement in the
naturalization law are important because it is not a grant of a
right, but because it is a grant of privilege. Kita niyo yung
difference kanina nung election of Philippines citizenship
atchaka *inaudible* of naturalization. Sa election kanina, we
have a case na hindi niya na register, but he was given a leeway
because registration lang naman yung kulang and registration
is not a mode of acquiring a right.
It was just a recognition that you are or a recognition of a fact
that you are or you have already elected Philippine citizenship.
In this case, because it was a privilege. All of the requirements
must be sufficiently or satisfactorily met.
NATURALIZED CITIZENS: RA 9139
COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 473
GO SR. V REPUBLIC
FACTS:
The petitioner here is a Chinese national filed a petition for
naturalization under commonwealth act 473. So aside from his
presentation of other requirements he also presented as
witnessed. Dr. Anlacan, Dr. Tordesillas, Silvino Ong, Teresita
Go, and Juan Go.
Dr Anlacan testified that based on the psychiatric examination
he conducted on petitioner, he had no psychiatric abnormality
at the time of the test. Dr. Tordesillas, on the other hand,
reported that petitioner’s medical examination results were
normal. Ong, a friend of petitioner’s family, said that he had
known petitioner since childhood through his association with
the family in times of celebration. Teresita described him as
peace-loving person who participated in activities sponsored by
his school and the barangay. Lastly, Juan, a businessman by
profession, also claimed that he knew petitioner personally. The
RTC rendered a decision granting the petition for naturalization
ruling that the petitioner possessed the qualifications set forth
by law. But the CA reversed and set aside said decision. Hence,
the petition.
ISSUE:
[DATE]
27
Whether or not Go’s petition for naturalization should be
granted.
RULING:
The Supreme court said no, jurisprudents dictates that in
judicial naturalization. The application must show substantial
and formal compliance with C.A. 473. In other words, an
applicant must comply with the jurisdictional requirements,
establish his or her possession of the qualifications and none of
the disqualifications enumerated under the law, and present at
least two character witnesses to support his allegations.
He was not able to establish that his witnesses are credible in
other words he did not prove that his witnesses has good
standing in the community known to be honest, upright,
trustworthy, and reliable. And that their word may be taken at
face value as a good warranty of the worthiness of petitioner.
Furthermore, the background checks done on petitioner yielded
negative results due to the uncooperative behavior of the
members of his household.
In fact, petitioner himself disobliged when asked for an
interview by BOI agents to the court, this is a display of
insincerity to embrace Filipino customes, traditions, and ideals.
Finally, it is noteworthy that petitioners’ failure to state his
former residence in the petition was fatal to his application for
naturalization.
Indeed, this omission has deprived the trial of court of
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Hence, the petition for
naturalization is dismissed without prejudice.
So ang point lang nun is diba kay going back to the discussion
of naturalization being grant of privilege, dapat lahat ng
requirements sundin niyo.
If you recall on our discussion under the procedure, there is a
requirement on to witness rule, okay, and the two witnesses
must be credible. So that’s what happened here, the petitioner
was not able to prove that his witnesses are credible. So na-deny
yung kanyang petition or na-reverse while it was initially
granted. It was reversed saying that there was actually a failure.
Failure of the petitioner to prove that his witnesses were
credible.
Aside from your own qualification, you must also prove the
qualification of your witnesses. For CA 473, it’s credible
witnesses. If you look up RA 9139, iba yung wording ng
witnesses. If you look at section 5, number 2, letter E, two
Filipino citizens of good reputation. So for CA 473, its
credible, Credible yung kanilang qualifications for the two
witnesses. For RA 9139, administrative naturalization, its
two Filipinos of good reputation. So yung yung kailangan i-
prove ng petitioner.
REPUBLIC V. BATUIGAS
FACTS:
Azucena saavedra Batuigas filed a petition for naturalization
before the RTC of Zamboanga Del Sur.
In her petition, she alleged that she was born on sept 8 1941 in
Zamboanga Del Sur, she was a Chinese citizen who has lived
in Zamboanga Del Sur since birth and can speak english tagalog
bisaya and chabacano. Her primary secondary and tertiary
education were taken in Philippine schools and she graduated
with a degree in education in Ateneo de Zamboanga.
She married Santiago Batuigas, a natural born Filipino citizen
and together they had five children all of whom studied in
Philippine public and private schools and are all professionals
and when she graduated in college she started as a teacher and
then after getting married she and her husband engaged in a
retail of rice and copra and as proof of their income Azucena
submitted their joint annual tax returns and brandished from
2000 to 2002 and from 2001 and 2005.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
After all their jurisdictional requirements had been complied
with, the OSG filed its motion to dismiss on the ground that
Azucena failed to allege that she engaged in a lawful occupation
or trade. The OSG maintained that Azucena is not allowed to a
lucrative trade to engage directly or indirectly in the retail trade
the OSG likewise disputed Azucenas claim that she owns real
property because the aliens are precluded from owning lands in
the country.
Therefore, the hearing for the presentation of Azucenas
evidence was set on the 2004, during the initial hearing neither
the OSG nor the office of the provincial prosecutor appeared in
the hearing hence Azucena’s counsel looked that the evidence
be presented ex parte which the RTC granted accordingly. The
RTC designated its clerk of court as revisionary to receive it as
evidence. During the ex parte hearing the OSG did not appear
despite due notice so after presenting the evidence the RTC
found that Azucena amply supported her petition thus granting
her naturalization.
The OSG appealed the ruling of RTC because they contend that
Azucena failed to comply with the income requirement under
CA 473 and they further asserted that the ex parte proceeding
before the commissioner is now above limit hearing the ex parte
started the chambers without the public in attendance.
ISSUE:
Whether or not azucena failed to meet the income and public
hearing requirements under CA 473.
RULING:
Azucena fully complied and met with the income and public
requirements under CA 473 because under the income
requirement Azucena graduated in education and she could
have provided for her family. Then after her stint as a teacher
she and her husband engaged in a retail business and together
husband and wife were able to raise all 5 children all graduate
as professionals, certainly this is proof enough both husband
and wife’s lucrative trade azucena herself is a professional. Her
profession more than gives her sufficient guaranty that she will
not abandon her only country since birth moreover the court
acknowledged the main objective of extending the citizenship
privilege.
In connection with the OSGs appeal that aliens cannot own
property in the Philippines, the court says:
“it is therefore not conclude not congruent with our cherished
traditions of family unity and identity that the husband should
be a citizen and the wife an alien and that the citizenship of the
other should be different from that of the other thus it cannot be
that the husbands interest in property and business activity
should not require that the conjugal property regime be denied
with the wife nor that she herself cannot to her own accords”
For the benefit of the partnership acquired property there in so
for that the court ruled that she has complied with the income
requirement under CA 473.
Though under the publication requirement the OSG had the
opportunity to contest the qualifications of Azucena during the
initial hearing scheduled, however, the OSG and the office of
the provincial prosecutor failed to appear in said hearing and
even after due notice the OSG failed to also appear during the
ex parte proceeding so the court ruled that they dismissed he
appeal by the republic and granted naturalization to Azucena.
___________________
SUMMARY:
She was a foreigner married to a naturalized Filipino husband
but she filed for judicial naturalization because she filed for
judicial naturalization she has to prove all over again yung mga
requirements for a petition for judicial naturalization medyo
tanga rin to siya kasi meron ng derivative naturalization
[DATE]
28
although it was recognized in that case diba foreigner siya so
this would have been sufficient
The procedure for derivative naturalization once your husband
and you’re a foreigner or if you’re a minor child, you only file
with the bureau of immigration a petition to cancel your ACR
then joint affidavit with your husband that you are qualified and
that you do not have any of the disqualification and then the BI
will investigate okay its a matter of administrative procedure
Pero siya nag hago hago pa siya nag file pa ug petition for
judicial naturalization yan tuloy dumating pa sa supreme court
ang case niya pero buti nalang para madiscuss natin ngayon
What happened there diniscuss din ng court na necessarily if
your husband is able to prove that he’s qualified to be
naturalized as a Filipino because of the nature of our family
code of our ano relationship between husband and wife the
property of the husband is the property of the wife and hindi or
benefit the children.
So if you question the qualification of the wife though na
naturalize na yung asawa niya in its parang contrary to the
common conception of a family okay parang iniba mo yung
wife sa husband or sa family niya but in any case the Supreme
Court recognized that she is a professional she has a stable job
etc okay so parang tinuruan niya rin yung OSG na wag ka
magpataka para di na tayo magabot sa ganitong situation pero
okay diba atleast nadiscuss natin ngayon so minsna yung mga
dumadating sa sc purely lang katangahan atleast we learn from
their mistakes ganun so under this case you will find the more
complete description of reqs for uhm the administrative process
uhm ano to recognize your derivative naturalization after this
kung nacancel an yung ACR kailangan mo kasi sa civil registry
ipa annotate or magpagawa ka ng iyong certificate no that you
are a filipino k so ipapagawa ko din yun aside from this process
kasi kailangan nila yun sa census ilan na ba ang filipinos
104million ganun .
LOSS AND REACQUISITION
 Naturalized in a foreign country
 Express renunciation
 Subscribing to the oath of allegiance in a foreign
country
 Rendering service or accepting provision in a foreign
armed forces
Under CA 63,may mga qualifications itong armed forces which
if the government allowed you to served and be commissioned
provided hat its only for a limited time and there are other
conditions na nafollow then you will not be deemed to have lost
your citizenship.
Cancellation of certificate of naturalization through
denaturalization.
Declared by competent authority a deserter of the
philippine army in time of war except when he is granted a
pardon
Sino nagbibigay ng pardon ang president ng Philippines
There is a seventh one sa 63 but hat has already been repealed
by the 1987 constitution according to CA 63 that if the wife in
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 her nationality.
So this is no longer the case because under the constitution the
wife can only lose her Philippine citizenship if she expressly
renounces okay or by her acts or omission she is considered to
have lost her citizenship so yung number 7 hindi na siya
applicable take note of that.
AASJS V. DATUMANONG (2007)
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
To begin with allow me to cite the provision in our constitution
that is of concern which is the section 5 article 4 of the 1987
constitution that states dual allegiance of citizens is inimical in
the national interest and shall be dealt with accordingly.
In this case. AASGS represented by Hectore Gumama (?)
Petitioner avers that the implementation of RA 9225 is
unconstitutional.
RA 9225 entitled an act making the citizenship of Philippine
citizens who acquire foreign citizenship or … and amending
CA 63 as amended and for other purposes
In short this is act be known as the Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition act of 2003.
So the petitioner avers that section 2 and section 3 of RA 9225
together allow dual allegiance not dual citizenship he explains
that section who allows all Filipinos either natural born or
naturalized who become foreign citizens to retain their
Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship.
Section 3 allows dual allegiance because said law allows natural
born citizens of the Philippines to regain their Philippine
citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance without
forfeiting their foreign allegiance.
The constitution however is categorical that dual allegiance is
inimical to the national interest. The office of the SG claims that
Section 2 merely declares as a state policy that Philippine
citizens who become citizens of another country shall be
deemed to have not lost their Philippine citizenship.
The office of the SG further claims that the oath in Section 3
does not allow dual allegiance since the oath taken by the
former Filipino citizen is an effective renunciation of his foreign
citizenship.
In resolving the foretasted issues in this case, there is a
deliberation in progress that Representative Gale noted - under
the constitution, dual allegiance is inimical to public interest -
that thereafter the creation of dual allegiance by reason of
retention of foreign citizenship and the reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship, there will be a violation of the
constitution.
Representative Locsin replied that the proposed law aims to
facilitate the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by speedy
means and he explained that the problem of dual citizenship is
transferred from the Philippines to the foreign country.
However, representative Dimangalen asked whether the person
did not renounce his foreign citizenship and therefore still owes
allegiance to the foreign government and at the same time still
owes his allegiance to the Philippine government. Rep. Locsin
then replied that the person implicitly renounces his foreign
citizenship. Today Rep Locsin clarified that person implicitly
renounces his foreign citizenship and further... having dual
allegiance compared to national interest should be dealt with by
la.
However, he said that dual allegiance is not addressed in the RA
9225. He stressed that RA 9225 recognized Philippine
citizenship but says nothing about other citizenship. That the
framers of RA 9225 is not concerned with dual citizenship per
se but with the status of naturalized citizens to maintain their
allegiance to the country of their origin even after their
naturalization. For now, congress was given a mandate to draft
a law that would set specific parameters of what really
constitutes dual allegiance and until this is done it would be
premature for the moment to include or discuss in the supreme
court the concerns regarding dual allegiance
Here, the constitutionality of RA 9225 was questioned so
inallege nila that the law allows dual allegiance which
according to the framers is inimical to the national interest.
The Supreme Court was not ready to determine whether RA
9225 was the law enabling or enacting dual allegiance because
[DATE]
29
if you read the law it will merely allow you to acquire or to
retain your Philippine citizenship.
If you recall our previous discussions and this will be discussed
in so many cases assigned discussing RA 9225 and the
requirements for elective and appointive uh public officials the
status when you take yung oath under RA 9225. Dun siya
mismo. The law will just allow you to retain or reacquire your
Filipino citizenship if you become naturalized in a foreign
country.
The concept of dual citizenship is not new in our country and it
has been ruled that due dual citizenship is hindi yun yung
concept na inimical sa atin. Natural sa ating country sa halip is
dual allegiance. Allegiance, meaning that you owe loyalty etc
to a particular state whereas citizenship again kung ano yung
mga mga binibigay ng citizenship rights and privileges in the
duties no in the duty of the citizen to the state.
Whereas citizenship, again, kung ano yung mga binibigay ng
citizenship, rights and privileges and the duty of the xxx
(inaudible) duty of the citizen to the state. So yun lang.
However, if you want to become a public official, elective or
appointed, there will be no dual citizenship to speak of;
pertaining sa Philippines lang, because you will already, take an
oath of allegiance to the Philippines. Oath of allegiance na ha,
hindi na oath to reacquire or to retain your Philippine
citizenship.
So aside from the oath to retain or reacquire your Philippine
citizenship, you should also take an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and that you renounce all foreign
allegiances or foreign governments. Meaning, sa tingin ng
Philippines, if you’re elective or appointive public official you
are holding a Philippine citizen. You are neither dual citizen nor
having any dual allegiances because of the second requirement
of an oath of allegiance.
Yung problema ng dual citizenship or allegiance could no
longer be within the hands of the Philippines, but sa hands nung
kung ano yung foreign citizenship mo because as regards sa
Philippines you already complied with renouncing your
citizenship sa another country, so problema na nila yon.
So, yung sa first na requirement nung iretain or ireacquire yung
citizenship mo, it only deals with your status as a citizen and
not your allegiance to any country. Kasi when you want to
kunware exercise yung particular office in the Philippines, there
is another level of requirement or another safeguard, na
maensure ng Philippines that you have a single allegiance and
that is, sa Philippines.
So almost all the other cases will deal with, itong mga Lopez
(Lopez vs COMELEC, 559 SCRA 698, 2008), Jacot (Jacot vs
Dal, 572 SCRA 295, 2008), De Guzman (De Guzman vs
COMELEC, 590 SCRA 149, 2009), Sobejana (Sobejana-
Condon vs Comelec, 678 SCRA 267, 2012) and Maquiling
(Maquiling vs COMELEC, 696 SCRA 420; 700 SCRA 367,
2013), will discuss that concept. Yun yung point nung mga
cases na yan. So different facts, again the same sa election, ito
siya different facts but the same, almost the same ruling.
When you, for example, I think there is two cases here na diba
merong oath to retain or reacquire, and then there is another
oath. If you want, most of these are requirements for elective
official yung mga cases here, so it’s either hindi sila nag oath of
allegiance – yung second level dapat kasi yung oath of
allegiance gawin mo siya before or on filing of the Certificate
of Candidacy. Meaning nag take ka na ng oath to reaquire and
retain your citizenship. If you want to run for public office, you
will sign a certificate of candidacy. Sa COC mo meron
nakalagay doon oath but it will not suffice kasi may nakalagay
doon na xxx(inaudible) na parang “you are a filipino citizen,
you will respect...” pero wala doon yung oath of allegiance that
is necessary under R.A. 9225. So yung ibang cases yun yung
ruling ng Supreme Court. Hindi sila naka oath of allegiance; it
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
is a separate act aside from the COC dapat on or before ka
nagfile ng COC you already renounced your foreign
allegiances.
Next, even if you have done that, nacomply mo na yung R.A.
9225 but you used your foreign citizenship in any way, for
example you used your foreign passport, you represented that
you are a foreign citizen outside or within the Philippines. In
one case nagpa-renew siya ng passport. Those are considered a
revocation of your oath of allegiance to the Philippines,
meaning meron ka ng first – you will retain your citizenship,
your status as a Filipino is retained, but you failed to comply
with the second requirement which is the oath of allegiance. So
again, important na concept here is that you may retain your
Philippine citizenship, but if you want to be in public office,
appointive or elective, there is an oath of allegiance. In these
cases, because these are mostly elective na mga cases, what they
did was either hindi sila naka oath of allegiance or even if they
took the oath of allegiance, they actually expressly renounced
yung kanilang allegiance sa Philippines because of using their
foreign citizenship, their passport representing themselves as
foreigners and not as Filipinos. Even one time mo lang siyang
gamitin, is already enough to expressly renounce your xxx
(inaudible) oath of allegiance to the Philippines. Thereby, hindi
ka na qualified as an elective. Sa appointive kase I think it’s less
stringent. You read R.A. 9225; it’s not the same as for elective.
So nakalagay sa Section 5, if you are intending to exercise the
right of suffrage you must comply with the vote overseas (???)
kung overseas absentee voter ka, or if you’re a voter here you
must meet the qualification and not the disqualification. Those
appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Ayun, oath
of allegiance parin pala. Those seeking public elective office
shall meet the qualification for holding such office as required
by the constitution and existing laws by, upon filing or before
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 oath. So yun yung
requirement for elective. Renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship. For public appointive official, subscribe and swear
an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. So
express renunciation is also called expatriation.
NATURALIZATION IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY
GUY V. IGNACIO
FACTS:
Petitioners were Canadian citizens, there father became a
naturalized Filipino. They established businesses in the
Philippines while having Canadian passports. They were
questioned by the Bureau of Immigration that they were not a
Filipino and they are undesirable and must be deported.
ISSUE:
Is the owning a Canadian passport a conclusive evidence that
you are a foreigner?
RULING:
The SC held that NO, especially in the case because their father
was naturalized, they derived the naturalization of their father
making them a Filipino citizen even they have Canadian
Passports. The petitioner, he obtained a Philippine
naturalization in 1978. But afterwards, he renewed his passport.
According to the Supreme Court, the renewal of his passport is
an express renunciation of his Filipino citizenship. Therefore,
it’s a ground for the cancellation of his naturalization certificate.
REPUBLIC VS DELA ROSA
FACTS:
Juan Frivaldo is actually, originally is a Filipino citizen but then
he renounced his Filipino citizenship during the precarious
political atmosphere in the country during martial law and
[DATE]
30
compelled him to seek political asylum in the United States and
eventually he renounced his citizenship, then claims that his
petition for naturalization was his only available remedy for his
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. So, he tried to reacquire
his ph citizenship through repatriation and direct act of
congress. So, xxx(inaudible) it was this time because later he
was informed that repatriation proceedings were limited to
army deserters or Filipino women who had lost their citizenship
by reason of their marriage to foreigners, but as we all know it’s
not the main reason why Frivaldo renounced his citizenship. So,
it’s his choice due to the atmosphere in the martial law or during
those martial law times. And then his request to congress for
sponsorship of a bill allowing him to reacquire his Philippine
citizenship failed to materialize notwithstanding the
indorsement of several members of the house of the
representatives in favor of Frivaldo. So, after that he also claims
that the rescheduling of the hearing of the petitions that would
be discussed by my other xxx(inaudible).
Itong si Frivaldo, medjo sikat because he attempted three times
to reacquire Filipino citizenship. After Marcos ang nangyari he
had applied for and was granted foreign citizenship in the US,
nagging US citizen siya. Then he came back. So, previously he
was a public official in the Philippines but because of yung the
Marcos era, Martial Law, etc., he was forced to ano, because he
was not politically aligned sa Marcos. So, he returned, he ran
for Representative of Sorsogon. This was not the first time. The
first time he went back, he actually won but he was not a
Filipino citizen because he failed to, properly reacquire Filipino
citizenship.
How will you be able to reacquire?
w\We have naturalization. Three, tatlo yon, okay? During his
time ha because wala pa yung R.A. 9225 we have repatriation.
But instances of repatriations are very specific. If you’re a
foreign woman who lost your Philippine citizenship because
you are married to a foreigner or if nag political asylum ka
because of political or economic reasons in the Philippines and
you acquired foreign citizenship, you can be repatriated if you
follow the requirements, or if you serve as an army in sa foreign
land meron ka ding way to be repatriated. So, these are
governed by different laws, and you must follow it. But because
it is limited, kung sino lang yung mga tao na that comes under
the terms and conditions of the law, yun lang sila ang ma
repatriate.
So trinry to ni Frivaldo once; he failed. So, nag explore siya ng
iba: Judicial naturalization, gusto niya mag legislative, hindi
natuloy. But eventually, nagfile siya ng tamang petition tapos
kinuwestiyon na naman siya. Kasi lagi siyang nananalo; gusto
siya ng taga Sorsogon. So eventually narealize na ng Supreme
Court na “tangina ilang beses na itong umakyat-akyat dito”
gusto niya talagang maging Pilipino balik. So, sinabi ng
Supreme Court na they took judicial notice of their own
decisions. It’s always the same situation. He will try to make a
comeback sa Philippine citizenship niya, but it’s the wrong
remedy. The people want him to serve them as their leader. But,
because of his citizenship issue, always siyang nau-unseat or
hindi nauupo because he is not a natural born Filipino citizen.
So out of the question na yung naturalized because if you
become naturalized Filipino, hindi ka natural born. You cannot
be a Senator, you cannot be yung mga required na naturalized.
So, the proper way sana is to either repatriate, because
repatriation has the effect of the same as retention and
reacquisition na if you are a natural born citizen you will come
back to that status, a natural born citizen. So, eventually,
hanggang napagod na rin ang Supreme Court sinabi nila na
because masyado siyang pursigido, they already allowed even
if yung sa last niya na petition there was still a failure in
complying with all the procedures, they took note of all his
efforts to reacquire his Filipino citizenship. That’s what
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
happened itong kay Dela Rosa. So, try niyo basahin ito na case,
nandoon na yung history.
EXPRESS RENUNCIATION OR EXPATRIATION
REPUBLIC V. DELA ROSA
FACTS:
On September 20, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for
naturalization captioned: "In the Matter of Petition of Juan G.
Frivaldo to be Re-admitted as a Citizen of the Philippines under
Commonwealth Act No. 63"
In an Order dated October 7, 1991 respondent Judge set the
petition for hearing on March 16, 1992, and directed the
publication of the said order and petition in the Official Gazette
and a newspaper of general circulation, for three consecutive
weeks, the last publication of which should be at least six
months before the said date of hearing. The order further
required the posting of a copy thereof and the petition in a
conspicuous place in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court, Manila
On January 14, 1992, private respondent filed a "Motion to Set
Hearing Ahead of Schedule," where he manifested his intention
to run for public office in the May 1992 elections. He alleged
that the deadline for filing the certificate of candidacy was
March 15, one day before the scheduled hearing. He asked that
the hearing set on March 16 be cancelled and be moved to
January 24
The motion was granted in an Order dated January 24, 1992,
wherein the hearing of the petition was moved to February 21,
1992. The said order was not published nor a copy thereof
posted.
Six days later, on February 27, respondent Judge rendered and
GRANTED the petition. On the same day, private respondent
was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before respondent
Judge.
ISSUE:
Won there was proper reacquisition of Philippine citizenship
RULING:
No, there was no proper reacquisition of Filipino citizenship
because of two main reasons:
1. Petition for naturalization lacks several allegations
required by Sections 2 and 6 of the Revised
Naturalization Law.
2. During Proceeding in the trial court is marred by
several irregularities
Petition for naturalization lacks several allegations required by
Sections 2 and 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law:
 the petitioner is of good moral character;
 he resided continuously in the Philippines for at least
ten years;
 he is able to speak and write English and any one of
the principal dialects; and
 the petitioner will continuously reside in the PH upon
the filing of the petition up until his readmission to the
PH citizenship and lastly, the declaration of the
intention of the petitioner and if he is excused from
said filing, the justification thereof.
PO YI BI V. REPUBLIC
The Court held there that, lack of absence of allegation is fatal
to the petition. Likewise the petition lacks affidavit of two
credible persons who can vouch for the good moral character of
the petitioner as well as the certificate of arrival of the petition
which are both required by Section 7 of the Revised
Naturalization Law.
[DATE]
31
The proceeding of the trial court was also marred by several
irregularities, particularly:
(1) that the petition was heard without the publication
of the order that sets the hearing ahead of schedule;
(2) that the petition was heard within six months before
the last publication of the petition;
(3) the petitioner was able to take his oath of allegiance
without the decision becoming final; and
(4) the petitioner was able to take his oath of allegiance
without the two-year waiting period which is required
before under RA No. 530.
A decision in a petition for the naturalization becomes final only
after 30 days following its promulgation and insofar as the
Solicitor General is concerned, that period is counted from the
date of his receipt of the copy of the decision.
Section 1 of R.A. No. 530 provides that no decision granting
citizenship in naturalization proceedings shall be executory
until after two years from its promulgation in order to be able
to observe if:
(1) the applicant has left the country;
(2) the applicant has dedicated himself continuously to
a lawful calling or profession;
(3) the applicant has not been convicted of any offense
or violation of government promulgated rules; and
(4) the applicant has committed any act prejudicial to
the interest of the country or contrary to government
announced policies.
Even discounting the provisions of R.A. No. 530, the courts
cannot implement any decision granting the petition for
naturalization before its finality.
In this case, if you recall our discussion, if you lose your
Philippine citizenship, you can either get a naturalization or a
repatriation. In this particular case, Republic v. Dela Rosa, what
he sought was judicial naturalization under CA 473. As we
discuss, there are requirements and time periods to wait. In this
case, he committed violations. There are a lot (of requirements)
he didn’t follow – the six-month period, one-year period, the
two-year waiting period. Actually, all (requirements). Before
this case, he availed of repatriation. We’ll discuss repatriation.
What I think he availed was RA 8171.
RA 8171, this involves previous Filipino citizens who,
 Because they were married to a foreigner or a Filipina
woman married to a foreign spouse because of the
marriage, became a foreign citizen;
 Those who served the military of a foreign country;
and
 Those, because of economic and political necessity,
has to flee to other country and obtain naturalization
there.
Under this Repatriation Act, it is limited as to who can avail
repatriation under this act. He applied for this repatriation but
again, he is not included as to those who were described to be
covered by the Repatriation Law. But eventually Dela Rosa in
her 3rd try was able to succeed to substantially re acquire her
Philippine citizenship.
There are many laws regarding repatriation, there is a different
treatment with regards with cases. Generally in repatriation, the
only requirement is that you take an oath of allegiance and
then you register your oath at civil register and at the
Bureau of Immigration and Commission of Immigration
and Deportation.
Under RA 8171 for a time in 1996, there was a letter of
instruction that was promulgated creating a special
committee on repatriation. Under 8171, you should file a
petition. What should alleged is that you part of the people
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
described under RA 8171 and you have done all the
qualification under the law to reacquire Filipino
citizenship.
· If you have read the cases, some says that there is no need
to file for petition in the court. You just need to take the
oath and register. But such process is only correct in terms
of RA 2630, it’s a different repatriation law. But under RA
8171 a petition is required. However, the requirement for
petition was suspended for a time during 1986 and was
later affirmed.
AZNAR V. COMELEC
FACTS:
What happened here was Osmena was a son of Filipino parents
but he was born in America. So he had a dual citizenship. By
virtue of jus soli, he is an American citizen. By virtue of our
Philippine laws, jus sangguinis, he is also a Filipino citizen. But
because was born in the USA, he was issued a passport,
American citizenship documents. When he went back to the
Philippines, he was issued an alien certificate of registration, the
documents pertaining to an alien. So eventually, he established
his life in Cebu, and he ran for public office. His citizenship was
questioned.
ISSUE:
WON having ACR and alien documents is conclusive that you
are not a Filipino citizen?
RULING:
The SC said that because of the operation of law, Osmena …
Filipino. So there was no express renunciation. There was no
positive act to acquire foreign citizenship. So if you look at the
list of those possible rules that you can lose a Filipino
citizenship, it is not there because of the operation of law that
he was able to obtain that foreign citizenship.
According to the SC, having dual citizenship is not tantamount
to the disqualification provided for by the local government
code that if you have dual citizenship you are disqualified,
because it is not in the list of those who will lose citizenship. He
is a Filipino because his father and mother are Filipinos.
VILANDO V. HRET
The important concept that was promulgated here is that when
you are duly repatriated, when you follow the rules on
repatriation under RA 9652 or 8571, you will return to your
original status as a natural born Filipino much like when you
retain or when you acquire Filipino citizenship under RA 9225.
The law granting repatriation, or RA 9225, presupposes that
you are originally a natural born Filipino citizen. Otherwise, if
you are a naturalized Filipino citizen, and you expressly
renounce your Filipino citizenship, you lose your Filipino
citizenship because it is just a privilege. You were not born with
it, so you cannot return back to being a naturalized Filipino
citizen because you are not part of the category of those who
can repatriate, reacquire or regain Filipino citizenship.
So only Filipinos who are natural born are under those in the
category which can go back to their original status as a natural
born when they get repatriated or when they regain or reacquire
their Filipino citizenship.
ANGAT V. REPUBLIC
This is the case that discussed RA 8171. This is a 1995 law.
Under Section 1, Filipino women who lost their Filipino
citizenship by marriage to aliens and natural born Filipinos who
have lost their Philippine citizenship, including their minor
children on account of political or economic necessity may
reacquire Philippine citizenship through repatriation in the
manners provided under except the following:
Under Sec. 1 of Presidential Decree 725 (PD 725), amending
Commonwealth Act 63 (CA 63)
[DATE]
32
Repatriation of Filipino women who lost their
citizenship because of economic and political
necessity with the special committee on naturalization
PD 725 was enacted on 5 June 1975, it was effective from 1975
until 28 March 28 1987, it was deactivated by virtue of late
president Cory Aquino’s Memorandum dated 27 March 1987,
hence, from 28 March 1987 until 7 June 1995, there was no
precedent or special committee on naturalization for it was
suspended by president Aquino. It was then reactivated on 8
June 1995 by former president Fidel Ramos. This time and
onwards we file repatriation with the special committee on
naturalization but during the time interim rule or when the
committee did not exist we follow the simple administrative
rule in repatriation.
ALTERAJOS V. COMELEC
In the present case, a disqualification case was filed against
Alterajos on the ground of his citizenship, as he did not meet
the citizenship requirement required by law. Alterjos was able
to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
however, he filed the registration of the same late, it was before
the start of his term but after the filing of his certificate of
candidacy (COC).
The Supreme Court (SC) said that the process of Repatriation
under Republic Act (RA) 965 and RA 2630 clearly provide that
repatriation is effective by taking and Oath of Allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines and register it with the proper
civil registry and Bureau of Immigration.
The concept ruled in this case is that your repatriation retroacts
to the date of when you applied for, filed for or took your oath
of allegiance to be repatriated as a Filipino citizen. The
completion of the requirements, taking oath of Allegiance and
registration of the same will retroact, so he became a Filipino
citizen effectively upon application.
Further, the citizenship requirement is required at the start and
during the term of Office. Thus, the determination of whether
you are qualified or not is your citizenship at the start of your
term, if you are Filipino citizen at the start of your term of Office
then you are qualified.
For all public officials, when there is a requirement on
citizenship, it is a continuing requirement. That once you lose
your citizenship or the requirement necessary to sit in an office,
the government can always question your authority to be in that
office. That is why the OSG questioned the Chief Justice, the
Supreme Court ruled there is no prescription in questioning the
citizenship of government officials. In citizenship issues, for
example one is a Filipino citizen by virtue of RA 9225 and
executed a sworn renunciation his foreign allegiance but in the
middle of his term he used his foreign passport. On that point,
he effectively repealed his sworn renunciation. The government
can question that person’s citizenship, it being imprescriptible.
TABASA vs. CA
FACTS:
 Petitioner Joevanie Tabasa was a natural-born citizen
of the PH.
 In 1968, when Tabasa was 7 yrs. old, his father became
a naturalized citizen of the US. And by “derivative
naturalization” (citizenship derived from that of
another as from a person who holds citizenship by
virtue of naturalization), he also acquired American
citizenship.
 In 1995, he arrived at the PH for 1 year as a balikbayan.
He was then arrested and detained by agent Soluren of
the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID)
pursuant to a BID Mission Order.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
 Petitioner was charged with 1 count of felon in
possession of firearm and 1 count of sexual battery
both of which violates the California Penal Code
 Due to this, the Consul General of the US filed a
request with the BID to apprehend and deport Tabasa
due to the standing warrant for several federal charges
issued to him and Tabasa’s American passport has
been revoked.
 According to the BID, due to that revocation, Tabasa
is now considered undocumented & undesirable alien
and may be summarily deported to his country of
origin, the US. 7. *Note that when Tabasa filed this
petitioner, he was already 35 years old.
The court also noted that:
Aug. 3, 1995- he arrived in the PH
May 29, 1996 - Tabasa was ordered deported by the BID
June 6, 1996 - he then executed an Affidavit of Repatriation
June 13, 1996 - he took an oath of allegiance to the RP.
The court takes it as a last ditch effort to avoid deportation and
prosecution in the US.
Contention of Tabasa:
· He already took an oath of allegiance of the RP,
executed an affidavit of repatriation which he
registered together with the certificate of live birth
with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila.
To which said office issued a certificate of such
registration.
· With regard the procedure of proving that the
applicant lost his Philippine citizenship on account of
political or economic necessity, Tabasa asserts that the
reference to political or economic reasons is merely
descriptive, not restrictive, of the widely accepted
reasons for naturalization in a foreign country.
· He contends that it is not necessary to prove his
political or economic reasons because the act itself of
renouncing allegiance to one’s native country
necessarily means shifting of his political allegiance
and his father’s loss of Philippine citizenship through
naturalization implies that its reason is due to political
or economic necessity.
· He also contends that since he is now a Filipino
citizen, he cannot be deported or detained by the
Bureau.
ISSUE: (1) Did Tabasa validly reacquire his Philippine
citizenship under RA 8171? NO. (2) Was there a valid
repatriation? None.
HELD:
(1) No. He is not one of those people qualified for repatriation
under RA 8171.
PERSONS QUALIFIED FOR REPATRIATION UNDER
RA 8171
a. Filipino women who lost their Philippine
citizenship by marriage to aliens; and
b. Natural-born Filipinos including their minor
children who lost their Philippine citizenship on
account of political or economic necessity.
· The privilege of repatriation is available only to natural-born
Filipino who lost their citizenship due to political and economic
necessity AND to MINOR children of said natural-born
Filipinos.
· To claim the benefit of RA 8171, the child must be a MINOR
at the time of the petition for repatriation which is filed by the
parent. This benefit also includes a former Filipino who
[DATE]
33
subsequently had children while a naturalized citizen of a
foreign country.
· The repatriation of the former Filipino will allow him to
recover his natural-born citizenship and automatically vest
Philippine citizenship on his children of jus sanguinis or blood
relationship: the children acquire the citizenship of their
parent(s) who are natural-born Filipinos.
· The privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is extended
directly to the natural-born Filipinos who could prove that they
acquired citizenship of a foreign country due to political and
economic reasons, and extended indirectly to the minor children
at the time of repatriation
IN THE CASE AT BAR, Tabasa was no longer a minor at the
time of his alleged repatriation on June 13, 1996. And when
Tabasa lost his Philippine citizenship this was due to operation
of law and not due to political or economic exigencies.
· Also, while it is true that renunciation of allegiance to one’s
native country is necessarily a political act, it does not follow
that the act is inevitably politically or economically motivated.
(2) There was no valid repatriation since Tabasa did not comply
with the procedure prescribed by law.
· Repatriation is not a matter of right, but it is a privilege granted
by the State. This is mandated under Sec 3, Article IV of the
1987 Constitution, which provides that citizenship may be lost
or reacquired in the manner provided by the law.
· It is the inherent power of the State to prescribe by law the
qualifications and requirements for repatriation and has the
power to choose who will be citizens and who can reacquire
citizenship once it is lost.
· And the State has the power to reject the petition for
repatriation if the applicant failed to comply with the
requirements prescribed by law.
Since Tabasa seeks for repatriation under RA 8171, he should
file a petition with the Special Committee on Naturalization
(SCN). If the application is approved, the applicant will then
take the oath of allegiance to the RP and after which they shall
be deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship.
In this case, he failed to follow the proper procedure for
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship since he merely executed
an affidavit of repatriation and registered it in the local civil
registry.
ALSO, in the case of Schonemann v. Defensor Santiago, et al.,
the court held that if an alien wants to stay in the Philippines,
he must possess the necessary documents, one of which is a
valid passport. And an alien whose passport is canceled after
his admission into the country, becomes an undocumented alien
who can be summarily deported.
Since Tabasa’s passport was subsequently cancelled after he
entered in the Philippines, he became an undocumented alien
who can be summarily deported. Ø His subsequent alleged
“repatriation” cannot bar such deportation especially
considering that he has no legal and valid reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship.
CABALLERO V COMELEC
FACTS:
Petitioner and private respondent Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud,
Jr. were both candidates for the mayoralty position of the
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
Municipality of Uyugan, Province of Batanes in the May 13,
2013 elections.
Private respondent filed a petition cancellation of petitioner's
certificate of candidacy alleging that the latter made a false
representation when he declared in his COC that he was eligible
to run for Mayor... despite being a Canadian... citizen and a
non-resident thereof.
Petitioner argued that prior to the filing of his COC he took an
Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the
Philippine Consul General in Toronto, Canada on and became
a dual Filipino and Canadian citizen pursuant to Republic Act
(RA) No. 9225.
Thereafter, he renounced his Canadian citizenship and executed
an Affidavit of Renunciation before a Notary Public in Batanes
on 2012 .
On 2013 COMELEC, issued a Resolution finding that
petitioner made a material misrepresentation in his COC when
he declared that he is a resident of Barangay Imnajbu within one
year prior to the election.
It found that while petitioner complied with the requirements of
RA No. 9225 since he had taken his Oath of Allegiance to the
Philippines and had validly renounced his Canadian citizenship,
he failed to comply with the other requirements provided under
RA No. 9225 for those seeking elective office, i.e., persons who
renounced their foreign citizenship must still comply with the
one year residency requirement provided for under Section 39
of the Local Government Code. Elections were subsequently
held and petitioner won over private respondent was proclaimed
Mayor petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the
COMELEC canceling his COC.
Private respondent filed a Petition to Annul Proclamation
COMELEC En Banc denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration. Petitioner filed with us the instant petition for
certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order. COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. issued a
Writ of Execution. Private respondent took his Oath of Office...
claims that he did not abandon his Philippine domicile.
He was born and baptized in Uyugan,... he was a registered
voter and had... exercised his right of suffrage and even built his
house therein. Also contends that he usually comes back to
Uyugan. Petitioner insists that the COMELEC gravely abused
its discretion in canceling his COC.
ISSUES:
WON petitioner had been a resident of Uyugan, Batanes at least
one (1) year before the elections held on May 13, 2013 as he
represented in his COC and what is the effect of petitioner's
retention of his Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 on
his residence or domicile?
RULING:
We are not persuaded. RA No. 9225, which is known as the
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003, declares
that natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country, can re-acquire or retain his
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of the law.
The law does not provide for residency requirement for the
reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it
mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of
Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the concerned
natural-born Filipino.
[DATE]
34
RA No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of
residence.Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same
time, both Philippine and foreign citizenships, he may establish
residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign country of
which he is also a citizen.
However, when a natural-born Filipino with dual citizenship
seeks for an elective public office, residency in the Philippines
becomes material.
Government Code requires that the candidate must be a resident
of the place where he seeks to be elected at least one year
immediately preceding the Election Day.
Petitioner was a natural born Filipino who was born and raised
in Uyugan, Batanes. Thus, it could be said that he had his
domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes. However, he later
worked in Canada and became a Canadian citizen.
Naturalization in a foreign country may result in an
abandonment of domicile in the Philippines. This holds true in
petitioner's case as permanent resident status in Canada is
required for the acquisition of Canadian citizenship.
Hence, petitioner had effectively abandoned his domicile in the
Philippines and transferred his domicile of choice in Canada.
His frequent visits to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacation from
work in Canada cannot be considered as waiver of such
abandonment.
[Petitioner's] reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under
Republic Act No. 9225 had no automatic impact or effect on his
residence/domicile.
Hence, petitioner's retention of his Philippine citizenship under
RA No. 9225 did not automatically make him regain his
residence in Uyugan, Batanes. He must still prove that after
becoming a Philippine citizen on September 13, 2012, he had
reestablished Uyugan, Batanes as his... new domicile of choice
which is reckoned from the time he made it as such.
Petitioner failed to prove that he was able to reestablish his
residence in Uyugan within a period of one year immediately
preceding the May 13, 2013 elections... the period from
September 13, 2012 to May 12, 2013 was even less than the one
year residency required by law.
We concluded that material representation contemplated by
Section 78 refers to qualifications for elective office, such as the
requisite residency, age, citizenship or any... other legal
qualification necessary to run for a local elective office as
provided for in the Local Government Code.
Furthermore, aside from the requirement of materiality, the
misrepresentation must consist of a deliberate attempt to
mislead,... misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise
render a candidate ineligible.
We, therefore, find no grave abuse of discretion committed by
the COMELEC in canceling petitioner's COC for material
misrepresentation.
Discussion:
Now the final argument was because of his reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship, he also reacquired the prior loss of his
residency. If you prove your citizenship, you should also prove
your residency. Residency under the law is a technical term. It
means domicile. Your intention to return there, for positive act
showing that you have returned to that locality and also under
the law, the reason for residency requirement is to know that
you really are acquainted with your locality, that you are the
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
best person to serve the locality because you have been with
them for a period of time. In this case, the requirement to live
in that place was not met although he argued under RA 9225.
That is not the effect, the effect of RA 9225 is to retain your
Philippine citizenship and if you want to run for public office,
you have to renounce any or all foreign citizenship, but it does
not affect your residency.
DUAL ALLEGIANCE
MERCADO V. MANZANO
It is a landmark case, a famous case on dual allegiance and in
constitutional law. So, the same yung nangyari sa kanya sa
nangyari kay Osmeña. He was born in the United States of
America of Filipino parents and he went back to the Philippines
and ran for a position of being a Vice Mayor of Makati City.
His citizenship was questioned. Allegedly, he is not a Filipino.
This is an old case, 1999. Wala pa young RA 9225. But in this
case, let's discuss first the difference between dual citizenship
and dual allegiance.
 Dual allegiance of citizenship is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by law. By
all means, dual citizenship shall not be dealt with
by law for dual citizenship is not dual allegiance.
 Dual citizenship is Citizenship in two different
countries. The concept of Dual Citizenship
recognizes that a person may have and excersice
rights of nationality in two countries and be
subject to the responsibilities of both. It is a
generally result of a concurrent application of the
different laws of two or more states; a person is
simultaneously considered as a national by the
said states.
That's why the court decided to educate the people of the
difference between dual allegiance and dual citizenship. Since
he ran for Vice Mayor, under the local government code Section
40, it is stated there that the disqualification is dual citizenship,
the SC says not dual citizenship per se, but dual allegiance.
The disqualification calls for dual allegiance.
Dual allegiance rests to two countries wherein there is loyalty
to one country and another country. Not dual citizenship
because of the operation of law and involuntary needs. And
again, when you are naturalized outside of the country, you
have other requirements to make you just one citizen like a
citizen of the Philippines only through renunciation, any and all
citizenship. However, in this case, dual citizens are not required
based on the operation of law because wala naman silang
ginawa to acquire that citizenship. It is not their fault that they
were born in a foreign country which observes jus soli.
With respect to dual allegiance, Article IV, §5 of the
Constitution provides: "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical
to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law."
This provision was included in the 1987 Constitution at the
instance of Commissioner Blas F. Ople who explained that,
“dual allegiance is not dual citizenship. Dual
allegiance is larger and more threatening than
that of mere double citizenship (Double
citizenship is also called as dual citizenship)
which is seldom intentional and, perhaps, never
insidious. That is often a function of the accident
of mixed marriages or of birth on foreign soil.
And so, I do not question double citizenship at
all.
[DATE]
35
When I speak of double allegiance, therefore, I
speak of this unsettled kind of allegiance of
Filipinos, of citizens who are already Filipinos
but who, by their acts, may be said to be bound
by a second allegiance, either to Peking or
Taiwan. I also took close note of the concern
expressed by some Commissioners yesterday,
including Commissioner Villacorta, who were
concerned about the lack of guarantees of
thorough assimilation, and especially
Commissioner Concepcion who has always been
worried about minority claims on our natural
resources.”
These are the concerns on why dual allegiance of citizens is
inimical to the national interest. More so, it is consistent with
our stands that foreign ownership of land is not allowed.
Ownership of key industries are only reserved to Filipinos or a
majority of the control must be Filipinos.
In cases of dual citizens, though acquired foreign citizenship by
operation of laws, there is really no positive act of allegiance on
another country. Simply, dual citizenship may be had by a
concurrent application of different laws of two states then it is
involuntary as mentioned in the example of the case of Osmeña
v Manzano where the country they were born was practicing jus
soli and our country is practicing jus sanguinis. Or on foreign
spouses, when it provides that their children shall have their
citizenship, or on marriages to aliens if by their laws you are
considered also as a citizen of their country. While dual
allegiance in its essence is simultaneous, allegiance to two
independent states by some positive act is voluntary and this is
what is prohibited or is the essence of the disqualification
under the Local Government Code. Dual citizenship per se is
not the disqualification although ito yung nakalagay because it
has a technical significance in this dual allegiance.
3rd element: SOVEREIGNTY
A state is defined by its people occupying its territory and
exercising its sovereignty through a government.
Sovereignty implies to:
1. Supreme authority to govern - In our setting,
sovereignty resides in the people in all government
authority emanates from them.
2. Sovereignty also implies to supreme and
uncontrollable power inherent in the state by which
the state is govern. If there is no sovereignty to speak
of in a fix territory then it couldn’t be considered a
state.
CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY
Legal Omnipotence - Absolute concept of
sovereignty. Legal omnipotence is not subject to law
for it is honored and source of law. It is above the law,
unchangeable and illimitable.
“So yun yung parang common connotation when
sovereignty must first be discussed or point that
sovereignty was supposed to be absolute it cannot be
change or limited because it is the source of law or
right by which the government governs or a state
becomes independent from other states. “
“However, yung concept nayun is purely for
discussion purposes because, as of now or as the
concept of sovereignty evolves, sovereignty is not
entirely absolute or free from any limitation because
,aside from the state having the option to limit itself,
there are also other laws that will limit the exercise of
sovereignty.”
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
LAWS THAT WILL LIMIT SOVEREIGNTY
Example:
 International Law or The law of the Nations
 Law of Nature
 Law of God
Example in the Philippines:
 Constitution
 Rule of Law
 Power of Judicial Review-power of the courts to
determine WON the branch of government has
exceeded the limit of its power as a contemplated or
defined by the constitution.
KINDS OF SOVEREIGNTY AS TO ITS ASPECTS
1. Internal Sovereignty - Power to rule within its
territory
2. External Sovereignty (Independence) - Freedom to
carry out its activities without subjection to control or power of
other states.
KINDS OF SOVEREIGNTY AS TO ITS NATURE
1) Legal Sovereignty – Unlimited competence to
promulgate laws binding upon all.
*written on the constitution or as to provide
for by law. There is a certain source of
sovereignty which is exercised.
2) Political Sovereignty – Other sources of
power behind the legal sovereign particularly public
commission
*Philippines setting- it is the power of the
people to choose who they want to govern
them.
“If you can remember our discussion in the
Provision on Sovereignty residing to the
people, it is presumed or inferred that the
people has the power to revolt. Although the
legal way to manifest the displeasure is
suffrage, voice out ka ng iyong hinain in the
streets, freedom of expression, freedom to say
what you want to the government for
grievances or etc. but there is implied or
inferred power of the people because we are
the source of sovereignty, the power to
change the government extra-constitutionally
That’s why we have people power revolution
kay cory which was eventually recognized by
the Supreme Court as a valid means of
changing the government. “
ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
SOVEREIGNTY
1. Absoluteness - cannot be changed or limited.
However, there can be inherent limitations.
2. Exclusiveness- Sovereignty will reside only to one
entity. However, it might be exercised or delegated to certain
individuals or group of individuals.
3. Comprehensiveness- Political control over the
persons, properties/organization within its territory or otherwise
known as jurisdiction.
a. Imperium – synonymous to
sovereignty which is power to govern or to
fix territory
b. Dominium – power or right of the state
to own property
4. Permanence (Imprescriptibility) - sovereignty exists
as long as the state exists and vice versa. There is no state if
there is no sovereignty and vice versa.
5. Indivisibility - It resides in the state. In the
Philippines, it resides in Filipino people as a single unit,
[DATE]
36
although the powers may be divisible. Having sovereignty is
different from the exercise of sovereignty. Having sovereignty
is indivisible. It will rest in the state, or as manifested in our
Constitution, it will rest in the Filipino people, collectively.
However, it may be divisible in the exercise. If you remember
our discussion in separation of powers, in checks and balances,
it is defined: “the exercise of sovereignty”. It’s not sovereignty
per se, but the exercise of or what emanates from having
sovereignty. So it is divided into the executive, legislative,
judiciary.
6. Inalienability or it is inalienable, because to transfer
sovereignty is to destroy sovereignty. If the sovereignty is
changed, then it’s no longer a sovereignty, it will be subsued.
Whoever was occupied will no longer be a State. Therefore,
there was no sovereignty and vice versa. The concept of
sovereignty is inalienable as an element of a state because if
there is no state, there is no sovereignty, and vice versa. You
cannot really transfer it otherwise, it will no longer exist or it
will be destroyed.
In the Philippines, we have the concept of “POPULAR
SOVEREIGNTY” where the people, not the government
functionaries, are repository of sovereignty.
Now, existence of sovereignty is a question of fact. In the later
part we’ll find out what government agency is the conclusive
source of the fact whether or not one is a sovereign country.
SOVEREIGNTY MAY BE SUSPENDED DURING
BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION
When there is an invasion of a foreign power, there is an effort
to invade or to occupy. If the law is in the nature of a political
law, it will be suspended during this belligerent occupation.
There will be a change of sovereignty, it is no longer
suspension, if a new state has already occupied or invaded
another state. Political laws are already ipso facto, by the fact
of the invasion will be suspended unless it is adopted or re-
enacted by the state which has invaded over the previous
sovereignty.
Aside from the inherent limitations of sovereignty, we also have
INTERNATIONAL LAWS OR RELATIONS. Countries
may be dependent economically, in the military, or in the
protection of the people. When they enter into agreements with
foreign nations, may it be multilateral or bilateral, we let go of
a certain part of a sovereignty in order for us to meet halfway,
or to have better terms and conditions. It is not common to have
an agreement with a foreign country without concessions or
trail-off. Usually, when we enter into this kind of agreements,
we have certain part of our sovereignty which we should let go
for example jurisdiction or certain part of public funds will be
expended only for a certain purpose. It will be limited when we
enter into said international agreements.
We also have GLOBALIZATION. It is a limitation because it
is a fact that one country cannot survive without having any
relations to other countries. Globalization will encourage more
progress. It will encourage freeflow of information, investment
in goods and services, for the betterment of the State and its
people.
Then we have AUTO-LIMITATION where a state may, by its
own consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its
sovereign rights through treaties, exclusive capacity, or legal
self-determination and self-restriction. While there is a
limitation, it is also a manifestation that one is sovereign
because you cannot really give consent when you do not have
the right or the power to do so. While it may limit the sovereign
of a country, it also is a manifestation that one country or a state
is sovereign because it has a power to limit itself. A state then,
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise
is illimitable competence because of its sovereignty.
Under the discussion on Sovereignty, what usually comes out
in the bar is the concept of Sovereign Immunity and Diplomatic
Immunity. This is also called Suability or Royal Prerogative of
Dishonesty.
ROYAL PREROGATIVE OF DISHONESTY
This is the 1st time that the concept of sovereign
immunity came out as to the principle that “The King can do no
wrong” for he is the source of power and the right of the
kingdom, whatever he does is right even if it is against the law
for he can always change the law.
Even if sovereign immunity has been enshrined in our
constitution (Art. 16 sec. 3). The state cannot be sued without
its consent. Even if it is not placed in our constitution, it has
been recognized as a generally accepted principle of
International Law that all sovereign are immune from suit.
One of the manifestation of Republicanism is the
sovereign immunity from suit. Sovereign people created a
government through which they had agreed to exercise the
powers and discharges their sovereignty. A suit against the state
is a suit against the rest of the sovereign people, thus the
sovereign people are considered to have a higher rights and
larger interest represented by the government. When you file
against an agency or a department, the government or the people
heading them in the discharge or their functions, it is as if you
are filing against the entire Filipino people.
BASIS FOR SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
1. Public Policy: Public service would be hindered and public
safety would be endangered from suits. If the government then
is not immune, what the government will do will always to
protect and defend itself due to its exercise of its function. There
is immunity so that the effort, money and time will not be
wasted on protecting the government itself.
2. Essence of Sovereignty: Immunity is inherent in all
sovereign state because there can be no legal right against the
authority that makes the law on which the right depends. There
can be no actions against the source of such rights for the
government is the maker of the laws and promulgate laws.
3. Sovereign equality among states (Par in parem non habet
imperium): Meaning an “equal has no power over an
equal”. This is based on the principle of reciprocity committee
and independence of equality of states.
The rule on sovereign immunity is that a state, either the
government or other government or states, cannot be sued
without its consent. The absolute theory or the old theory is that
states, government, Republic of the Philippines, or other states
are absolutely immune from suit, no exceptions.
However, due to the absurdity of that rule, the international
community in the Philippines as well has adopted a restrictive
theory of sovereign immunity. Under this theory, immunity of
the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or
act jure imperii, but not with regard to private acts or act jure
gestionis.
Jure Imperuii - talks about imperium, public acts or acts of the
government in pursuit of their functions as a government.
[DATE]
37
Jure Gestionis – private acts; these are commercial acts,
proprietary acts not related to the functions of a government.
THERE IS A TEST FOR RESTRICTIVE THEORY
1) Is it a regular conduct of business?
Conduct of business, meaning, is it what that
government agency usually do as a matter of course?
For example: coastal services. What do they usually
do? Mailing, receiving of mail, etc. that is their
function.
2) Is it in pursuit of sovereign activity or incident thereof?
Is that business a pursuit of sovereign function or
activity or incident thereof? Is coastal service a
government or sovereign function?
If the answer is it’s a conduct of business, the more important
question is number 2, whether or not it is a sovereign function
or incident thereof. Because if you will answer yes in the second
question, then most probably it is act jure imperuii, and
therefore, the government is immune from being sued. Because
there may be times that it is not the usual conduct of the business
of a particular Department, but it is still a sovereign act or an
incident thereof.
So that is the most important element – the nature of the
business being conducted by the government. So if the
answer is that it is not a sovereign function, it is merely
proprietary, then the government is not immune from suit.
Because of the volume of cases that have reached the Supreme
Court, there is already a list of when it is a suit against the state.
WHEN IS THERE A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE
1. When the Republic of the Philippines is impleaded as
a defendant by name; and
2. When the suit is against an unincorporated agency of
the government.
So what do you mean by unincorporated?
The concept of incorporation is proper for
private corporations or companies. It is when
you register your company in the Securities
and Exchange Commission. So it will give a
juridical personality separate and distinct
from the one who registered it. Usually it is
the incorporators of that company. When it
is an unincorporated agency of the
government, it exists by virtue of the
organization of the government itself. It does
not have any distinct personality from the
government. For example: The Departments.
(I think) most of the Departments enact the
Administrative Code of the Philippines, but
what the Administrative Code provides is just
an organization of this Department of
Education, Department of Agriculture, etc.
but there is no separate or distinct personality
because these Departments are not registered
in the SEC. It was not given any juridical
personality separate from the government
itself or the government structure.
3. A judgment therein would impose financial liability
for publication on the government.
Meaning, even if you will file a case, the Republic of
the Philippines is not impleaded, or the unincorporated
government agency is not impleaded. But the ultimate
liability will rest upon the offers of the government.
Meaning, the government will have to shell out
cash/public funds in order to satisfy the judgment of a
court, then that will be a suit against the state.
4. A judgment therein would require the state to perform an
affirmative act to satisfy the same or to discharge an
obligation, such as the appropriation of an amount to pay
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
damages. The same explanation with number 3. When
there is an affirmative act that the government has to do in
the ultimate analysis or ultimately it will be the
government who will have to satisfy the judgment, then it
is a suit against the state. However, affirmative acts are not
included -- those acts that are required by law to be
performed by the government or by the officers in charge
of that government; or that the officer himself can satisfy
without the government having to do any positive act; or
the compensation for any damages that may result from
suit has already been appropriated or there is already fund
available for the purpose of paying the damages as
provided in the judgment.
So 4 exceptions in the ultimate analysis it will be the
government who will have to answer or will have to perform an
act is again, (1) when the act which is compelled by the one
filing the case is an act which that government agency or the
officer in charge of that agency is required to do by law.
For example the Register of Deeds (ROD) in case of
involuntary registrations when there are certain set of facts, for
example there is already final judgment awarding a certain
property to a person or that has already been quieted in the
quieting of the title of the case and the ROD is implead as a
party to the case, and in the dispositive part of the final
judgment it said the cancellation of the title as it was acquired
by fraud, etc. and the issuance of a new title in favor of the party
who won the case, it something that is required by law to be
done by law the ROD.
So while maybe it is a suit against an officer of the government,
it is not a suit against the state which is covered under the
immunity from suit because it is something that is required by
law to be done by these officers or by the government.
 If the officer himself can do it without the government
having to do anything or any positive act then it is not
a suit against the state, although it may come under the
rule of immunity from suit but there is already an
appropriation or money set aside for the purpose of
paying the damages or monetary liability then it would
be an exception to the immunity from suit.
 When it is a suit against a public officer for his official
acts, ultimately again it would the state which is liable
although the state may not be impleaded.
The government’s immunity from suit may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings because of this immunity the courts
will generally have no jurisdiction to try or to handle the case
against the government, if there are so many parties, the
government should not be included or should be dropped as
party of that case. Further, the Immunity from suit is not
applicable to actions questioning the constitutionality of the
law.
GAMBOA V. TETES
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was
impleaded as a party to the case. The question in this case was
the interpretation of the ownership and control provision of the
Constitution as regards to foreign ownership of corporations
which has to have a certain Filipino ownership and control. An
argument was raised that the SEC cannot be impleaded as party
to the case because it is part of the government, thus, immune
from suit.
However, the Supreme Court (SC) said that the SEC itself,
intervened or entered into the case. Further, that when the
question is as to the unconstitutionality of a certain act of a law
the concept of immunity from suit is not applicable because
[DATE]
38
when precisely you question a law or act emanating from the
interpretation of the law there is a government functionary or
department which is involved and they may be impleaded as a
nominal party because it is their act or interpretation or it is the
law which will be eventually either be declared unconstitutional
or constitutional.
It would not make the government or the office under that
department will not be liable for money or damages, it will just
declare his act or the law either unconstitutional or not. So that
there would be no such unconstitutional acts be performed
thereafter.
REPUBLIC V. VILLASOR
FACTS:
The decision that was rendered in favor of respondents P.J.
Kiener Co., Ltd, Gavino Unchuan and International
Construction Corporation was declared final and executory by
Respondent Hon. Guillermo P. Villasor.
Pursuant to the said declaration, the corresponding Alias Writ
of Execution was issued. And for the strength of this writ, the
provincial sheriff served notices of garnishment with several
banks, especially on the 'monies due the Armed Forces of the
Philippines in the form of deposits; the Philippines Veterans
Bank received the same notice of garnishment.
The funds of the AFP on deposit with the banks are public funds
duly appropriated and allocated for the payment of pensions of
retireees, pay and allowances of military and civillian personnel
and for maintenance and operations of AFP.
Petitioner filed a petition against Villasor for acting in excess
jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the
issuance of a Writ of Execution against the properties of AFP,
hence the notices and garnishments are null and void.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Writ of Execution issued by respondent
Judge Villasor is valid.
RULING:
NO. What was done by respondent Judge is not in conformity
with the dictates of the Constitution. It is a fundamental
postulate of constitutionalism flowing from the juristic concept
of sovereignty that the state and its government is immune from
suit unless it gives its consent. A sovereign is exempt from suit
not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory but on
the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right
as against the authority that makes the law on which the right
depends.
MERRIT V GOVERNMENT
FACTS:
The case is an appeal by both parties from a judgment of the
Court of First Instance of the city of Manila in favor of the
plaintiff for the sum of P14, 741, together with the costs of the
cause.
Prior to this appeal, Plaintiff E. Meritt, a contractor, had a
collision with the General Hospital Ambulance which turned
suddenly and unexpectedly without having sounded any whistle
or horn. Merrit was severely injured. His condition had
undergone depreciation and his efficiency as a contractor was
affected. The plaintiff is seeking a certain amount for permanent
injuries and the loss of wages during he was incapacitated from
pursuing his occupation. In order for Merritt to recover
damages, he sought to sue the government which later
authorized the plaintiff to bring suit against the GPI and
authorizing the Attorney- General to appear in said suit.
On this appeal, Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the trial
court erred:
 “in limiting the general damages which the plaintiff
suffered to P5,000, instead of P25,000 as claimed in
the complaint,” and
 “in limiting the time when plaintiff was entirely
disabled to two months and twenty-one days and
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
fixing the damage accordingly in the sum of P2,666,
instead of P6,000 as claimed by plaintiff in his
complaint.”
On the other hand, the Attorney-General on behalf of the
defendant urges that the trial court erred:
 in finding that the collision between the plaintiff’s
motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital
was due to the negligence of the chauffeur, who is an
alleged agent or employee of the Government;
 in holding that the Government of the Philippine
Islands is liable for the damages sustained by the
plaintiff as a result of the collision, even if it be true
that the collision was due to the negligence of the
chauffeur; and
 in rendering judgment against the defendant for the
sum of P14,741.
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the Government is legally liable to the
plaintiff by allowing a lawsuit to commence against it.
 Whether or not the ambulance driver is considered as
an employee of the government.
DISCUSSION:
The waiver of immunity of the State does not mean concession
of its liability. When the State allows itself to be sued, all it does
in effect is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it
can, that the State is liable.
Art. 1903, Par. 5 of the Civil Code reads that “The state is liable
in this sense when it acts through a special agent, but not when
the damage should have been caused by the official to whom
properly it pertained to do the act performed, in which case the
provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable. The
responsibility of the state is limited to that which it contracts
through a special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or
commission to perform some act or charged with some definite
purpose which gives rise to the claim.
RULINGS:
 By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its
immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its
liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his
favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously
recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a pre-
existing liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction
of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful
defense.
 In the case at bar, the ambulance driver was not a
special agent nor was a government officer acting as a
special agent. Hence, there can be no liability from the
government. As stated by Justice Story of United
States “The Government does not undertake to
guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or
agents whom it employs, since that would involve it in
all its operations in endless embarrassments,
difficulties and losses, which would be subversive of
the public interest.”
Discussion:
You will see there an example of a special law. It is a law
granting Merrit consent to file a specific case to the specific
government agency. The special law provides that this
authorizes Merrit to file a case against the government. The
grant of consent to sue is only up to the rendering of judgment
by the court. Meaning, the court, because of the grant of
consent, tried the case base on the facts and the laws, will
determine whether or not the government is liable. At the onset,
the government should be immune from suit. It is non-suable.
But when it gives its consent, it can be suable. However, the
determination of liability will still depend on the facts of the
case and the law that is applicable. Giving the consent to sue is
not an admission or not a determination of liability by the
government. So for example, there’s already a judgment finding
liability for the government to pay a certain sum of money, the
[DATE]
39
consent will only be up to the rendering of the judgment. It
cannot be enforced through the normal means.
What the party should do is give to the Commission on Audit
(COA). Before, under CA 3083, you should forward it to the
President. But in the current setup, you forward it to COA, then
the COA will give a recommendation to the President because
he will make the budget and one of the items in the budget is
the dues payable by the government (debts, liabilities adjudged
against the government). The COA will determine if there is
enough budget to pay the liabilities or whether or not there is a
valid claim against the government. If you have a claim arising
from a contract with the government, you could forward it to
the COA at the onset. If it cannot be resolved by the COA, then
you file a case given that the government gave its consent under
CA 3083, for many claims arising from a contract. When there
is already a determination of liability, you return it to the COA
to determine whether it is valid or not. If it your claim is based
on a judgment already, there is higher chance to claim.
Ultimately, it will be the discretion of the President if it will be
included in the budget. Again, the consent for being sued is only
up to the judgment. Not to the execution. There will be a
different process for the execution. Another concept in this case
is that public funds cannot be the object of a garnishment
proceeding even if the consent to be sued. Garnishment is a
mode of execution where instead of real or movable property
will be executed or to be auctioned for sale to satisfy the money
judgment, it will the money in the banks that will be executed.
But because of the nature of the funds of the government, it is
not subject of garnishment. Grounds why public funds cannot
be garnished:
1. Disbursements of public funds are covered by
corresponding appropriation as required by law.
2. Money in the hands of public officers, although it may
be due government employees, is not liable to the
creditors of these employees in the process of
garnishment.
3. Money sought to be garnished, as long as they remain
in the hands of the disbursing officer of the
Government, belong to the Government, although the
defendant in garnishment may be entitled to a specific
portion thereof.
4. Public policy forbids it.
Again, the way is to COA > President > Passing of General
Appropriations Act.
PROFESSIONAL VIDEO INC. V TESDA
PROVI filed a case against TESDA for money claims. TESDA
raised that it is immune against suit. The Supreme Court
determined the elements of whether or not a government agency
is immune from suit. If it is determined, the next question is
whether or not the act being challenged is an act of the
sovereign. Is entering into a contract i.e., producing ID or
certification an act of the sovereign? The Supreme Court ruled
on the positive. It first determined the job of TESDA to provide
skills development outside of the formal educational framework
and it gives qualifying examinations and certifications to those
who passed all the requirements given therein. Therefore, the
production of certification and plastic IDs is an incident of the
sovereign function. In this case, the Supreme Court mentioned
instances when a suit is against the State:
1. A suit against the Republic by name
2. A suit against an unincorporated agency
3. A suit against a government agency covered by a
charter with respect to the agency’s performance of
governmental functions.
4. A suit that on its face is against a government officer.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
The SC said that TESDA, aside from being an unincorporated
government agency, the act questioned by PROVI is also a
sovereign act and an incident thereof. So it is covered by state
immunity.
HEIRS OF PIDACAN VS AIR TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE (ATO)
There are actually two cases for ATO here. For the first case,
Heirs of Pidacan, aside from determining the Air Transportation
Office, although it's an agency of the government. Is not
immune from suit because although it's an agency of the
government, the second question is "What is this?""Ano yung
ginagawa niya?" So, this is an air transportation and according
to the Supreme Court is not exclusively a sovereign function.
More or less it is proprietary. Private individuals can actually
venture into air transportation that is why all air transportations
are privately owned (CebPac, PAL, Air Asia, ZestAir). While
in a government agency, that's not the only test. Again, it should
be Jure Imperuii or sovereign acts. So what happened here,
ATO used a portion of the land of Pidacan and heirs for a time
and there was actually a determination that it was an exercise of
eminent domain and the question if is it required to pay the heirs
for the use of the parcel of land which was obtained through
eminent domain? The SC said that to prevent injustice, it has
been used by the government for so long, they should be paid
and parang late na naraise ang immunity for suit na ito. and if
any case, it is not applicable to ATO because while itis a
government agency, it is not functioning as or doing function
which are Jure Imperuii or sovereign acts in nature.
AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (ATO) VS.
SPOUSES RAMOS
So for the, here, they actually just reiterated that ATO is not
immune from suit because of its function. But also, if you look
at the latter part of the decision, it says there that the ATO has
already been abolished and the functions of the ATO was
already transferred to or vested with the Civil Aviation
Authority of the Philippines or CAAP. And under the charter of
CAAP or the law making CAAP and abolishing or repealing the
ATO, it expressly provided there that CAAP may be sued. So
that is a special law granting or giving consent to be sued. RA
9497 repeated CAAP which took over the abolished ATO.
CNMEG V SANTA MARIA
Facts:
China National Machinery Integrate Co. entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with PH government.
Different department of the government here were involved,
such as, Department of Finance and department of
Transportation. The memorandum of understanding was for the
Feasibility study on making the Northrail project. Eventually, it
will be the same CNMEG which will build the northrail project.
However, it eventually faltered. When there were already
money spend, the government wanted to annul the contract with
CNMEG. CNMEG contended here that they are immune from
suit because it is a state corporation of china.
Issue:
1. W/N CNMEG is a state corporation or a representation
of China? Because if that is the case, they are immune from the
suit
2. W/N the railway project is a sovereign function?
Held:
1. SC held that, while according the document presented
by CNMEG, it is a state corporation, it is not china per se or
it is not vested with sovereignty that it is supposed to be
immune from suit. The paper showed by the government
establish that CNMEG is actually a commercial or business
corporation, although it is largely own by chines government,
it is not for the function of the government. Instead, it is for
construction which is really not a function of any government.
[DATE]
40
2. Second, the building of the railway project is not
something that is exclusively a function of the government. In
fact, whatever is built for the railway project may have an
income of its own. It is more of a proprietary function or
business venture. You look at the elements whether or not
CNMEG is immune from suit. The answer is no. It is not a
government agency which is immune from suit and even it is
a government agency, the act which is involved in the
memorandum of understanding is not a sovereign act.
Therefore, it is not immune from suit.
Also, the court discussed in this case, that assuming that
CNMEG is a government agency, based on the documents
signed by CNMEG, it has actually waived its immunity. There
are provisions under the memorandum of understanding and
in the lieu agreements, pertinent to the project, waiver of
immunity. While our rule in immunity, consent can only be
given through a general law or a special law (expressed).
However, there are also implied ways which consent can be
given and one of which is entering through business contract.
Since expressed consent in the PH setting, is just really
making of a law, and in this case there is an international
element or it is foreign country that we are talking about, they
would give their consent by entering into business
contract.
Other implied ways to give consent aside from entering into a
business contract or commercial contract, is when it is
inequitable to claim immunity or the claim of immunity
will perpetrate injustice to the citizens.
Third is when the government initiates the complaint, it is
subject counterclaim. When it intervenes into a case, it
opens it up for questions or issues against it or it submits itself
to the jurisdiction of the court or whatever case the party has.
Fourth, when there is an express arbitration agreement in
a contract entered into by the government, it is an implied
consent to be sued. Meaning, not in a formal setting but a
form of arbitration. So, arbitration is an alternative mode of a
dispute resolution which is outside the normal setting. It could
be that there is only one who will arbitrate you or it could
either be an entire tribunal which will settle your controversy.
When your agreement such as in this case, where there is an
arbitration agreement, they will be mandatory covered by
arbitration proceeding when there is an issue in the contract
they entered into.
Summary: Implied consent to be sued are
1. When the government entered into a business contract
or commercial contract
2. When it is inequitable to claim immunity or the claim
of immunity will perpetrate injustice to the citizens.
3. When the government initiates a complaint where it
subject itself to a counter claim
4. When there is an express arbitration agreement in a
contract entered into by the government.
Another way of giving express consent is
incorporating under the corporation code.
Incorporating a government owned or controlled
corporation. Meaning, while the control or majority stocks
is owned by the government, it is registered under the way
na magbuo ka ng private corporation with the SEC
(Security exchange Commission). So we will have a
separate and distinct personality from the government. One
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
of the powers of the corporations which is incorporated
under the corporation code, is the power to sue and be sued.
In a way, it is a general law because if you incorporate
under the corporation code, that is the general law on
corporation which grants the corporations registered
therein, the power to sue and be sued. However it is a
special group because it is owned by the government or
majority of the stocks
DOH V PHIL PHARMA
Facts:
The way an express consent is given through general law,
special law or through the incorporation of the GOCC. What
happened here is that there were administrative orders released
by the DOH for certain pharmaceutical products which affects
pharmaceutical companies. Eventually, there was a failure to
comply with rules and regulations of DOH which lead the Phil
Pharma to feel aggrieved. What they did was they did not
comply with the administrative order and all other orders of the
DOH for them to respond to the question. They then raised the
issue with the courts to declare the administrative orders as null
and void. They argued that the consent of the DOH to be sued
was given in the memorandum of understanding which they
entered into with the DOH.
Issue:
W/N there was an consent was given by the DOH to be sued?
Held:
The SC said that you cannot give express consent through a
memorandum of agreement. It is because, only the legislature
can give consent. The executive branch cannot give its consent.
ARIGO V SWIFT *this will come out in the exam
It is about the damaged Batacan Reef, the petitioner here wanted
to claim for damages. It was a US military ship. The question is
w/n it is a suit against US military ship and its officers therein.
There is also the discussion of the liability of the warship in case
it enters into sovereign waters.
Take note of the ISSUE:
 W/N it is a suit against the US government?
 W/N it is a government entity?
 W/N it is performing a sovereign function?
 W/N it is the government of US which will be
liable?
 W/N USA is immune from suit? Its BASIS?
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY V ROXAS
NHA has its own charter. Meaning, it was made because of a
law. Under the law that made it, it expressly granted it the power
to sue and be sued. The mantle of the State's immunity from suit
did not extend to the NHA despite its being a government-
owned and -controlled corporation. Under Section 6(i) of
Presidential Decree No. 757, which was its charter, the NHA
could sue and be sued. As such, the NHA was not immune from
the suit of Roxas. Again, this is a special law granting or giving
express consent to be sued. Also, under this case it discussed
the process of money claims with the COA.
VETERANS MANPOWER V CA
The most important concept that was held in this case - Waiver
of the State’s immunity from suit, being a derogation of
sovereignty, will not be lightly inferred, but must be construed
strictissimi juris (strictness of the law) Republic v. Feliciano,
148 SCRA 424. The consent of the State to be sued must
emanate from statutory authority, hence, from a legislative act,
not from a mere memorandum. Without such consent, the trial
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the public respondents. It
cannot come from a memorandum understanding by the
executive but it must be through a statutory grant or express
consent must be given through a statute.
[DATE]
41
DEP’T OF AGRICULTURE V NLRC
The DOA engaged or entered into a contract with the security
agency. The Supreme Court then discussed in this case that
entering into a contract with a security agency may be the
contract that is contemplated under CA 3083 - a contract where
money claims may arise. Express consent may be made through
a general law or a special law. In this jurisdiction, the general
law waiving the immunity of the state from suit is found in Act
No. 3083, where the Philippine government "consents and
submits to be sued upon any money claims involving liability
arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as
a basis of civil action between private parties." Implied consent,
on the other hand, is conceded when the State itself commences
litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim or when it enters
into a contract.
In this case, the security guards asked for back wages which is
a money claim. And since it is a contract, it comes with the
consent given under Act No. 3083. While there may be consent
to be sued, therefore, the governent is already suable. It was also
discussed that the consent given whether express or implied
ends until the rendition of judgment because execution of the
judgment is an altogether different consent or procedure. When
the state gives its consent to be sued, it does thereby necessarily
consent to unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when
the State waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to give the
other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State has
a liability. It does not give the aggrieved party the conclusive
proof that the State is liable or that there is really a violation of
a law instead, it does gives the opportunity for the aggrieved
party to prove that the State is indeed liable. Once it is proven
that the State is liable, then the one who would control in the
procedure is the procedure of the provisions of C.A. No. 327 as
amended by P.D. 1445 and the budgetary process.
TYSON V SINGSON
This case discussed the first procedure on C.A. 327 which you
could give or present your claim in the COA and such would
decide within 60 days. If not, it can go to Court to claim for
damages provided that there is consent either express or
implied.
Under incorporation of Government Code and Controlled
Corporation - one example is NHA, aside from the law itself
provides that it can sue or be sued because it is registered under
the STC - a corporation code also expressly grants that GOCC
the power to sue and be sued.
More so, under implied consent, when the government enters
into a business or commercial contract the common concept
discussed by the SC in this case is that when the government
enters into a commercial or business contracts, it steps down
into the level of an individual party such that it already
dispenses with its sovereign power. It is like it goes down into
the level of an ordinary person when it enters into a business or
commercial contract and erases all traits of being a sovereign.
Such that, when a case is filed governing that contract, there is
already an implied consent given just by entering into the same
contract.
Take note that when it is a contract, one should always still
determine whether or not the contract is business or commercial
because at the consent it is seem like for the business or
commercial purpose but, in the ultimate analysis you would
discover that it is an off show of a governmental function or it
is necessary to that governmental function. Like in the case of
DA, when they entered into the security agency, the Supreme
Court actually determined that entering into contract with the
security agency is part of its governmental function. It is like a
necessary incident of its function which is to protect the DA
building and its officers which there is a need to hire security
guards. However, were it not for the provision of the contract
which provides for money claims and that such contract did not
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
provide for a money claim provision then DA would have been
immune from suit. But because it came under the provisions of
CA 3083 then it cannot be immuned from suit since there was
already express consent. However, if government enters into a
Court as per the SC, not all contracts enetered into by the
government is immediately business or commercial contract
with again an implied consent.
But because it came from the CA 3083 then he is immune from
suit because there is already expressed consent through CA
3083. The Supreme Court said when the Government enters
into a contract not all are entered are business-related and
commercial contracts where there is immediately implied
consent. So you should still determine what is the nature of
subject being entered into between the Government and the
private entity whether or not that is purely business, or
proprietary or commercial or it is an incident of governmental
function or a sovereign act so that is important to remember.
PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY VS
PHILIPPINE GOLF DEVELOPMENT EQUIPT. INC.
PDA entered into a contract of developing of a golf course, so
from that you will already know that it is not a governmental
function and it is not an incident to any governmental function.
When did golfing become a governmental function? (Sir
Laughing “utang na loob ha”). In this case, there were two
decisions from the Supreme Court: PTA is not a governmental
agency does not perform governmental functions of PTA. Aside
from that, the contract here for the development of the golf
course is not an incident to a governmental function. So it is
purely commercial for business purpose. The entry of contract
with the golf course is already an implied consent to be sued if
there are issues that may arise from that same contract.
When is it inequitable to claim immunity?
EPG CONSTRUCTION VS VIGILAR
What happened was there were a lot of contractors where with
DPWH to build low cost housing. Now, while there building
the low cost housing the.. of DPWH verbally instructed them to
change certain spec of the low-cost housing so they follow the
instruction of the secretary based on the verbal details only for
the turnover they were not paid based on the changing of
instructions on building the houses . so they demanded for the
difference between the contract price and on the adjusted price
based on the verbal instruction to them. It went up to Supreme
Court
ISSUE: W/N DPWH is immune from suit because it is a non-
government agency department of the government and W/N the
purpose of the project of the low-cost housing was
governmental.
It was not for any business purpose to give this low cost housing
to the less fortunate who were qualified under such project. So
at the onset, when you look at it, DPWH has successfully
defended it based on its immune from suit but the Supreme
Court said that it would be unfair for the contractors to not be
given their due when all they did was follow the instruction of
the government in good faith. So the Supreme Court said in this
case that though the government can raise immunity from suit,
they will not grant it because it will be inequitable to the private
contractors. It will give injustice rather than promoting justice.
REPUBLIC VS UNIMEX
What happened here, the customs were involved so there was a
shipment and at the onset, the BOC instituted seizure
proceedings of that shipment. The Unimex underwent the
process of the seizure, etc. and it went up to the Court of Tax
Appeal (CTA). While it went there and it won, the customs can
no longer return diseased items because of their failure to secure
it. They cannot locate the items. So, Unimex filed for damages
and the recovery of the value of the seized items. Again, seizure
of the items when it enters customs, it’s their job to secure the
[DATE]
42
items and customs is part of the government and an
incorporated governmental agency. So if you look at it, customs
is immune from suit because what they did was based on their
job description and they are part of the government. However,
since BOC was at fault for not securing those lost items that
were seized, which would have been returned if they safely kept
or protected the seized items but they did not do their duty. So
if the government would successfully raise immunity from suit
in this case, it would be unfair for Unimex or the private
company because they were not at fault and eventually his stand
was upheld that those items for shipment should have not been
seized by customs in the first place.
So in that case, the Supreme Court said when raising or
upholding the immunity from suit would be unfair and would
be inequitable to the private citizens. So in that case, it is few
and far in between those ruled under cases like this but just take
note of the circumstances because in both cases, it is really
unfair for the government to raise immunity from suit.
Next, when the government files a complaint or intervenes in a
case. It is easy to understand and you will know it immediately
because it is the government who filed the case in the first place.
So that would be immediately a complied consent so that he will
be suable it is the government … or there is a counterclaim
against it or certain damages will be claimed against it because
of that suit but take note that while that is the rule, the
government cannot be levied by the cost of suit, meaning even
though he filed a case, government is not required to pay any
fees. Even if the Court decides that the government is liable, the
Court cannot award any amount to the cost. It is under the Rule
of Court, that the Government is not made to pay any cost. So
again, while it is implied consent that and it is complained then
it may be sued or it can be open to counterclaims when the Court
ultimately decides on its liability. The Court cannot impose any
cost, cost to the litigation, okay… so there are claims you can
raise like moral damages, exemplary damages, etc. cost of
litigation so there are items in the decisions of the Court. It
cannot be imposed on the Government.
Failure of the customs to preserve the goods which
were the subject of seizure. Implied Consent when the
government initiates the complaint. It is subject to a counter
claim.
IMPLIED IMMUNITY
Not all contracts that the Government enters into
necessarily has an implied consent.
There must be a determination that the contract is commercial
or business or something proprietary in nature even if the
government entered into these contracts but the purpose or
subject of the contract are governmental or sovereign functions
then it is not considered as implied consent.
When it is inequitable to plead immunity in court?
It is when the doctrine of sovereign immunity is being
an instrument for perpetrating injustice to the citizens.
FROILAN V. PAN ORIENTAL
When the government intervened in the proceedings there can
be a counterclaim. May ship na involved. May rights lahat ng
parties. . Government intervened in the case. When government
intervened, the other parties claimed damages against the
government. SC allowed or made sure that the claim for
damages was resolved because government intervened in the
case. Now it is clearer yung Concept of Implied consent when
the government initiates the complaint in the case of Republic
v. Sandiganbayan..
REPUBLIC V. SANDIGANBAYAN
Government was the one who initiated the complaint. PCGG
got a mandate to recover ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses
and cronies. One of the ill-gotten wealth recovered which is
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
subject of this case was the Coconut Levy Fund. CLF was
invested in so many entities and one of them is Negos
Occidental Golf and Country Club. The government filed civil
case Republic vs Benedicto.
REPUBLIC V. BENEDICTO, ET. AL
A complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
restitution, and damages. What happened was, in Negros
Occidental Golf and Country Club (NOGCCI), Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) commissioners
were made liquidators or receivers of the shares of the ill-gotten
wealth. They were made to sit in the Board of NOGCCI.
As board members, according to the by-laws of NOGCCI, they
have to pay for fees as board members or as members of the
NOGCCI. Since they have not paid, it is provided in their rules
that it will be sold on auction the amount that they have not paid.
Because of that, the shares became delinquent and the unpaid
members’ fees has to be paid. What must be done, under the by-
laws, is that the unpaid amount must be auctioned. The amount
that will be realized upon the auction, will be paid for the fees
that were not paid by the seated members. Whoever bought the
shares will be the owner.
Eventually, however, the government filed for reconveyance,
reversion, accounting, and restitution because Benedicto bought
the shares that were sold during the auction. They argued that
the sale, even in a compromise which was later on entered
between the government and Benedicto, was void. The
government initiated the complaint. Benedicto just answered
the complaint and asked for counterclaims and for damages.
As the case went along, the government raised that Benedicto
has no right to claim for any damages, etc. because it is the
government. So the SC said that no, because there is implied
consent for you to be sued. You are liable for any counterclaims
when the government initiated the complaint.
[Discussion] An agreement to submit the dispute to
arbitration. When there is an arbitration agreement, it is an
implied consent that the government has already made its
immunity. Although, technically, arbitration agreements or
arbitration is not a court proceeding. It is an alternative mode of
dispute resolution. Because of the arbitration agreement, the
government impliedly consents to being part of that procedure
or proceedings.
As discussed, the scope of the consent given or the waiver of
immunity from suit, is only until a judgment is rendered by the
court. There is a requirement that for execution, there must be
another waiver or consent in the form of presenting the claim or
judgment to COA.
So in the cases that deals with the issue on the scope of consent,
a judgment against the state in a case where it consents to be
sued simply implies that the legislature will recognize the
judgment as final and make provisions for its satisfaction. The
State is at liberty to determine for itself whether to pay the
judgment or not.
Under the general law, on the concept of government, Act no.
3083 which pertains to money claims arising out of contract,
Section 2 provides that the complainant, the one who initiated
the complaint when it reaches court, must show that he has
presented his claim to COA and that the latter did not decide
within 2 months or within 60 days for the date of its
presentation,
Sec. 7 provides that no execution shall issue upon any
judgement rendered by any court against the government of the
Philippine Island. This provision provides that the judgement is
[DATE]
43
only limited to judgment and it cannot be executed in a normal
way of executing a final or executing judgement of the court
because this is suit against the state where the state consented
the claim which is the judgment of the court must be presented
to the COA and to the President so that it will be included in the
budget.
COMMISSIONER V. SAN DIEGO
Shows you the effect of RA 3083 and how you should claim if
there is a judgment
Facts: After the judgement, the court ordered the garnishment
of funds of the national government.
Held: The SC here reiterated that any judgement against the
government cannot be realize to its execution. Part of the
execution is the garnishment. It is upon the legislature to
appropriate any national amount necessary to determine a
judgement against the state. The scope of the consent will be
only until the judgement, there is a different process for
realizing the award under the final judgement of the court
You’ll encounter many cases that involves Government Owned
Corporations or Corporations of the government which has its
own charter and such charter incorporates it in the SEC and its
own charters expressly says that it can be sue or sued. Such
scope of the consent already includes the execution. Although
the funds of the GOCC are government funds, but because of
the nature of their functions usually when the GOCCs are
required to register is to the SEC or GOCCs by provision that
they can be sue or be sued, these are government agencies
which are exercising propitiatory functions of the government.
Therefore, while the funds of these GOCCs are government
funds, they are not exempt from execution. You should
determine whether or not the functions are purely propitiatory
although they are owned by the government or government with
sovereign function. Take note of the 2 test whether it is part of
the government and if its function is Proprietary commercial
function or governmental sovereign. The most important part of
the 2 test is the 2nd part which is the determination of the subject
of the controversy whether sovereign functions of proprietary
function of the government.
CONCEPT OF ACCURAL FOR GOV’T SALARY
Now, there is this concept of accrual of salary of government
officers. When the salary of government 5 and 25 was given, it
is deposited in their accounts in the Land Bank of the
Philippines. Once deposited, it has accrued to their benefit.
Meaning, it is now theirs. However, because it’s still with the
Land Bank of the Philippines, they did not yet withdraw it, it is
still not in their effective control, it’s still part of government
funds, and it is still not subject to execution or garnishment. But
once has been withdrawn, it is now with their effective control,
they can now garnish or execute the judgment against those
funds. So how is this applied?
For example, the government officer is sued with his agency
and the court will render a judgment making that officer
solidarily liable. Meaning, both he and the government is liable
to pay the amount of liability adjudged against the state. So
because it is solidary, either one of them can be made liable.
Now, when there are funds in his bank account, (the general
rule: government funds are not subject to execution), now
because it is a suit against the state and the consent is until final
judgment only, the one which is for the government, it is cleared
because you cannot execute without a law or appropriations and
it underwent COA, etc. Now, the one for the public officer,
because technically, he is not a government, but he represents
the government. Now in the case, he is found to be liable as
well. So while it is in the bank, the salary has already bee
accrued to him, it is still considered the same with the
government. The still need to process in the COA, etc. It is not
yet subject to garnishment. But once it comes to his effective
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
control, meaning he has already withdrawn the money, it can
already be taken through execution. And then, his personal
properties, are also subject to execution. There is no need to go
through COA: COA and then the Appropriations Act.
SUABILITY V LIABILITY
So under the concept of scope of consent, is the suability vs.
liability.
 Suability depends on the consent of the government.
The rule is that the government is immune from suit or
non-suable. But once it gives its consent, it is already
suable. So that is suability. Yung right of an individual
or someone who has aim against the government, his
right to initiate a suit against the state. However, the
consent will only give you the opportunity to prove
that the government is liable.
 Liability pertains to the applicability of the facts and
the law to a particular case. So if after the government
has consented to being sued, the individual needs to
prove, or anyone who is claiming against the
government, that his claim, according to the facts of
the case, makes the government liable.
Under that topic in the syllabus, we have quasi-delict committed
by special agent under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, because
in this case, there is a specific provision making the special
agents of government liable for quasi-delict.
In the cases cited under this topic, Municipality of San
Fernando, La Union, Municipality of Hagonoy, as
discussed, these are municipal corporations meaning that they
are not the national government, they are not the state.
Based on the Local Government Code (LGC), these municipal
Corporations have two (2) functions/powers, as a Body Politic
and as a Body Corporate.
 Body politic- it is a formed unit of government which
has devolved powers from the national government
(e.g. power of taxation, eminent domain and police
power).
 Body Corporate - it exercises the powers of a private
corporation, it also has proprietary functions.
The LGC which is the general law on local governments, it
specifically provides that municipal corporations which include
municipalities, cities, highly-urbanized cities and provinces can
be sued and it can sue.
Given that a general law provides an express consent that it can
be sued, yet there is a need to prove its liability. According to
Art. 2180, quasi-delict or torts committed by special agents of
the government.
Special agents - engaged by the government for a specific
purpose, they have job descriptions, but they are not necessarily
regular employees of the government, they can be Job Orders
or contractual.
Special Agents can only be held liable if;
1) He is performing proprietary functions; or
2) He while performing governmental functions (his
job description), however, the facts and circumstances
of the damages were not during the time of the
performance of that governmental functions.
Some examples in which special agents are not made liable:
A dump truck driver, while on the act of
getting sand and gravel for the purpose of roadworks,
met an accident. That special agent is not liable
[DATE]
44
because his act was his job description and such act is
a governmental function.
But for example, he was going home from work and
met an accident. Even though he is a special agent
doing governmental function, but the damage was
done not during the act of doing governmental
function, he will be held liable.
Question: If ever the police officer carried out a special act by
the order of the state i.e., buy-bust operation, this police officer
filed a case against the private respondent. But the respondent
was acquitted on the ground that the police did not establish all
the evidence. Then the respondent filed a counter suit against
the police officer. Is it allowed?
The process in filing a criminal complaint, usually if you are the
police officer in the crime scene, you probably are the witness
or the complainant of the criminal complaint that will be filed
in the prosecutor’s office. Such office will determine whether
or not there is probable cause. If there is, the prosecutor’s office
will file the information in court. If not, the prosecutor’s office
will dismiss it. If the information will be filed, the prosecutor’s
office will file in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines and
the party aggrieved is the People of the Philippines. The police
officer who filed the complaint will be a witness of the state. If
the respondent will file a ‘counter suit’, it will be against the
state and not the police officer, which is prohibited because the
State is immune from suit. The respondent may file for damages
against the police officer if he/she can prove that there is
malicious prosecution.
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
Now we also have the concept of diplomatic immunity, while
in sovereign immunity, foreign governments are included.
Diplomatic immunity is actually not immunity from suit. But
immunity from the jurisdiction of a state. Meaning you can file
a case but it will be dismissed because state doesn’t have
jurisdiction. Diplomatic immunity is exemption of individuals
from local jurisdiction so it was originally applied to diplomatic
ambassadors, ministers or counsellors representing their
countries abroad. Ancient civilizations recognize this concept
of diplomatic immunity. The concept of sovereign immunity is
recognized even before but that pertains to the heads of the
state. The ones who have diplomatic immunity are the
representatives of the heads of the state. The difference is that,
the sovereign immunity is for the head of the state like prime
minister, President, king, queen, etc. In diplomatic immunity,
the persons involved are representatives of the state.
The current law governing diplomatic immunity is the Vienna
I96I. Vienna convention on diplomatic and consular relations.
Before, only the head of the state that has diplomatic immunity.
Now, it has been broadened to diplomatic agents. According to
the Vienna convention, diplomatic agents are the following:
head of the delegation and the members of the diplomatic staff.
What immunity do they enjoy? Number one, immunity from
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. This are the
diplomatic agents who are part of the diplomatic mission. A
diplomatic mission from one state to a receiving state. For
example, here in Davao, we have Indonesian embassy, and has
ambassadors and other members of the mission who have
immunity from criminal jurisdiction. Whatever they do here in
the Philippines, though criminal in nature, they won’t be sued
for it because he is a diplomatic agent with diplomatic immunity
under the Vienna Convention.
It also has immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction.
Meaning, he cannot be sued against a civil or an administrative
case. Example for an administrative case is that you cannot sue
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
him for a violation in the BIR or in the HLURB or in any
administrative agencies.
Even after his term you cannot sue him because the receiving
state has no jurisdiction. Unlike in sovereign immunity,
Philippines has jurisdiction but it is not allowed because they
are immune unless there is consent. In diplomatic immunity,
there is no jurisdiction but there is an exception when the
sending State gives consent. In sovereign immunity, they are
really immune from suit while in diplomatic immunity, they are
immune because it has no jurisdiction.
They are immune from civil and administrative jurisdiction
EXCEPT:
1. A real action relating to private immovable properties
situated in the receiving state.
 A real action involves an action relation to
title or ownership of a real property (land,
land improvements, buildings). However, the
caveat here is that it should be personal - it
should not be owned by the government of
the sending state.So in the example of the
Indonesian Embassy, the latter is also
immune from jurisdiction of the Philippines.
While it is considered a part of our territory,
the land and the building of the Indonesian
Embassy is immune from our jurisdiction.
2. An action relating to succession in which the
diplomatic agent is involved as executor,
administrator, heir or legatee as private person.
 Succesion means when there is somebody
who died, his estate would be settled. If the
head of the mission is the executor or the
administrator such being the CEO of the
estate then he can be sued civilly. Actually
you are not filing a case against him but
against the estate he manages.
3. An action relating to any professional or commercial
activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving
state outside of his official functions.
 Meaning, if the head of the mission has a business, it
is not part of his official function and it does not
represent his state. His diplomatic immunity does not
excempt him or be immuned from jurisdiction of his
sending state. And what the receiving state will
actually do is to make or declare him a persona non
grata and ask him to leave the country. If persona non
grata, I think, one cannot go back into our jurisdiction
unless it would be lifted.
The head of state yun yung absolute.
ARTICLE 37 OF VIENNA CONVENTION
Members of the family of diplomatic agents forming part of
his household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving
state, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in article
29 to 36.
Meaning, if they are the wife or other family members
who are not Filipino.
“2.Members of the administrative and technical staff of the
mission, together with members of their families forming part
of their respective households, shall, if they are not nationals
of or permanently resident in the receiving State, enjoy the
privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 35, except
that the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of
the receiving State specified in paragraph 1 of article 31 shall
not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties.
They shall also enjoy the privileges specified in article 36,
paragraph 1, in respect of articles imported at the time of first
installation.”
[DATE]
45
Take note that in the exception of family members of the
diplomatic agent, including the head of mission and staffs, they
have the same immunities except if they are nationals. So,
process of elimination, of the members of the administrative
and technical staff of the nation, they are not part of this
diplomatic agent.
Their families, are also immune based on the diplomatic
immunity. Except, when they are nationals of the PH, or if they
are permanent resident of the PH.
Now, if the diplomatic agent, the head or the staff, is a Filipino
or if a permanent resident of the PH, he or she would still enjoy
diplomatic immunity. However, this immunity is applicable
with respect to official acts perform in the exercise of functions.
Take note, if he or she is not a Filipino and not a permanent
resident, then he or she would enjoy an absolute immunity or
criminal absolute immunity from the jurisdiction. However if
Filipino and permanent resident, then, his immunity is not
absolute. It is because the immunity from his jurisdiction,
criminal, civil or administrative, only when he can prove, that
the certain is act is in line with his function, or in the exercise
of his duties and functions. Example: if an administrative and
technical staff of the mission who is not a Filipino and
permanent resident of the PH rape someone, it is clearly not in
line with his duties and functions, and therefore, he would not
enjoy the diplomatic immunity. He can be criminally charge
although he is the head of mission or a diplomatic agent.
When does the immunity begin?
ARTICLE 39 OF VIENNA CONVENTION
Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy
them from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving
State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its
territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified
to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as
may be agreed.
Meaning, if he is appointed as a diplomatic agent, when he
enters the PH, his diplomatic immunity begins. Or if he is first
sent to the PH and he is not yet appointed, the diplomatic
immunity only begin upon the notification of the PH that he is
appointed as head of mission, or as part of that diplomatic staff,
he is considered as diplomatic agent.
The same rules applies to the members of the family of the head
of mission and other staff considered diplomatic agents.
So the same rule applies to the members of the families of the
heads of mission and the other staff considered diplomatic
agents. Their diplomatic immunity also begins upon arriving in
the territory or upon entering the territory or upon notification
that their spouse or the family member is appointed as the head
of mission or staff which is considered as a diplomatic agent.
Also considered is when he is already appointed and he is
considered to be going to the receiving state. For example, he
(DA) is going to the Philippines then he stops over at Hongkong
then he killed a protester (joke). So when he is proceeding to
take up his post the diplomatic immunity already vests in
diplomatic agents. Now if the diplomatic agent passes through
or is in a territory of a third state which has granted him a
passport or visa, if it was necessary. While he was proceeding
to take up his post or to return to his post or returning to his own
country, the third stage of inviolability or any other immunities
required under the Vienna Convention while he is in transit or
about to return. So meaning, he is not only immune from suit in
the receiving state but also to a third country that is as well
included. They are allowed to claim diplomatic immunity
against China or Hongkong, it remains to be determined
because they are still under protest.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I [DATE]
46
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)

So that is Diplomatic Immunity, there are a lot of cases asked

in the Bar about diplomatic immunity whether or not that person
is liable or can file a suit, civil case, etc. There are 2 questions
on Diplomatic Immunity in your exam.

Remember what to recall in Diplomatic Immunity, the part of

the definition of the diplomatic agent and if he is not part then
up to what extent is his immunity under the Vienna Convention
and then the exceptions to the civil and administrative cases
which can be filed against those who has diplomatic
immunities. Okay, any questions? Next week, we will discuss
Government.