ARTICLE IV: CITIZENSHIP Section 1.

The following are citizens of the Philippines: [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. Citizens are classifiable into: (i) natural-born citizens (covering #'s 1, 2, and 3) and (ii) naturalized citizens (covering #4). Election of Philippine citizenship Com. Act No. 625 (June 7, 1941.) AN ACT PROVIDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OPTION TO ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP SHALL BE DECLARED BY A PERSON WHOSE MOTHER IS A FILIPINO CITIZEN Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with subsection (4), section 1, Article IV [1935 Constitution: Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship] shall be expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines. Section 2. If the party concerned is absent from the Philippines, he may make the statement herein authorized before any officer of the Government of the United States (now officials of Philippine Embassy or Consulate) authorized to administer oaths, and he shall forward such statement together with his oath of allegiance, to the Civil Registry of Manila. Note: The right of election permitted under the 1987 Constitution is available only to those born to Filipino mothers under the 1935 Constitution who, had that charter not been changed, would have been able to elect Philippine citizenship upon attaining majority age. - That right is retained for them under Article IV, Section 1 (3). - Obviously, election is not necessary in the case of the child to a Filipino mother under the present constitution as she would be considered a Filipino citizen at birth. Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives 199 SCRA 692 (1991) - The Court interprets Sec. 1 par. 3 of the Constitution as applying not only to those who elect Phil. citizenship after 2 February 1987 but also those who, having been born of Filipino mothers, elected citizenship before that date. 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. Those

who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. Having the status of a natural-born citizen is important for the purpose of certain political and economic rights open only to such citizens. Who must be natural born citizens: (1) President Art. VII, Sec. 2 (2) Vice-President Art. VII, Sec. 3 (3) Members of Congress Art. VI, Sec. 3 and 6 (4) Justices of the SC and lower collegiate courts Art. VIII, Sec. 7(1) (5) Ombudsman and his deputies Art. XI, Sec. 8 (6) Constitutional Commissions Art. IX, B, Sec. 1 (1)), Art. IX, C, Sec. 1(1), Art. IX, D, Sec. 1(1) (7) Members of the Central Monetary Authority Art, XII, Sec. 20 (8) Members of the CHR Art. XIII, Sec. 17(2) Case A: A Filipino woman married B, an American in 1961. The marriage made A an American citizen (which under CA 63, stripped her of her Philippine citizenship, the marriage having been celebrated before 17 January 1973). A and B lived in the US since then and in 1962, begot C, who was automatically an American citizen by jus soli and jus sanguinis. In 1983, when C turns 21, can he elect Philippine citizenship? Yes, according to obiters in Cu v Republic and Villahermosa v CID, in order to elect Philippine citizenship, at least for election purposes, it is enough that (1) the person's mother was a Filipino at the time of her marriage to the alien father, even if she subsequently lose her citizenship by virtue of the marriage and (2) the person be a child of that marriage, for him to elect Philippine citizenship. If C wants to run for Congress, is he considered a natural born Filipino? Under the 1973 Constitution, no. But under the 1987 Constitution, yes. Note that if he were born after 17 January 1973, the child would not even be a Filipino.

Who are qualified to be naturalized Qualifications (Sec. 2, CA 473) A. Age 1) He must not be less than 21 years old at the date of hearing. Barlongay Case: When the law uses the phase "age of majority," use 18 years old, but not when it uses the phrase "not less than 21 years old.

(5) Having been born in the Philippines. B. Residence 2) He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten years. C. Character 3.) He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in an irreproachable conduct during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living. D. Property 4.) He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5,000 or must have some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation. (Test: Can he support himself and his family?) E. Education 5.) Must be able to speak and write (not read and write) Filipino or English, and a principal dialect (as pro tanto modified by the 1987 Constitution, since the law itself spoke of English or Spanish, and a principal dialect). Thus, a deaf and mute is disqualified, Orestoff v Republic.

Who are disqualified to be naturalized? CA 473, Sec. 4 The applicant must not only possess the qualifications, he must not have any of the disqualifications set by law. Section 4. Who are disqualified. The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens: (a) Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; (b) Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas; (c) polygamy; (d) turpitude. Moral turpitude involves dishonesty, depravity. A propensity to break the law, even just traffic laws, constitute moral depravity. While murder being a crime of passion does not involve moral turpitude, theft and estafa do. (e) Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease; (f) Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled socially with Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos; (g) Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such war; (h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. Persons convicted of a crime involving moral Polygamists, or believers in the practice of

When is the ten-year residence requirement reduced to five (5) years? Com. Act No. 473, sec. 3. Sec. 3. Special qualifications. The Ten years of continuous residence required under the second condition of the last preceding section shall be understood as reduced to five years for any petitioner having any of the following qualifications: (1) Having honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines or under that of any of the provinces, cities, municipalities, or political subdivisions. (which was allowed before by the 1935 Constitution, no distinction whether appointive or elective posts.) (2) Having established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines. . (3) Being married to a Filipino woman If it were an alien woman who married a Filipino man, she would only need: 1. an administrative proceeding for the cancellation of her Alien Certificate of Registration, 2. upon proof of marriage and 3. according to the holding in Moy Yam Lim, proof of non-disqualification. - These are the only requirements because ipso facto, she became a Filipino herself by marriage. (4) Having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a public or recognized private school not established for the exclusive instruction of children of persons of a particular nationality or race, in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of not less than two years.

Declaration of Intention Com. Act No. 473, sec. 5. Sec. 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 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 the 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 Bureau of Private Schools 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 for himself. 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. If one who is not exempted, fails to file, or files an invalid declaration of intention, he can be denaturalized anytime through denaturalization proceedings. Procedure Com. Act. No. 473, Secs. 7-12 Section 7. Petition for citizenship.-- Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner setting forth his: 1. name and surname; 2. his present and former places of residence; 3. his occupation; 4. the place and date of his birth; 5. whether single or married and the father of children, the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife and of each of the children; 7. the approximate date of his or her arrival in the Philippines, the name of the port of debarkation, and, if he remembers it, the name of the ship on which he came; 8. a declaration that he has the qualifications required by this Act, specifying the same, and that he is not disqualified for naturalization under the provisions of this Act; 9. that he has complied with the requirements of section five of this Act; and 10. that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship. The petition must be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person

of good repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act. The petition shall also set forth the names and postoffice addresses of such witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing of the case. The certificate of arrival, and the declaration of intention must be made part of the petition. Section. 8. Competent court.-- The Court of First Instance of the province in which the petitioner has resided at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the petition. Section 9. Notification and appearance.-- Immediately upon the filing of a petition, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court to publish the same at petitioner's expense, once a week for three consecutive weeks, in the Official Gazette, and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides, and to have copies of said petition and a general notice of the hearing posted in a public and conspicuous place in his office or in the building where said office is located, setting forth in such notice the name, birthplace and residence of the petitioner, the date and place of his arrival in the Philippines, the names of the witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to introduce in support of his petition, and the date of the hearing of the petition, which hearing shall not be held within ninety days from the date of the last publication of the notice. The clerk shall, as soon as possible, forward copies of the petition, the sentence, the naturalization certificate, and other pertinent data to the Office of the President, the Office of the Solicitor-General, the Provincial Commander of the Philippine National Police of the province and the municipal judge of the municipality wherein the petitioner resides. Section. 10. Hearing of the petition.-- No petition shall be heard within the thirty (30) days preceding any election. The hearing shall be public, and the Solicitor-General, either himself or through his delegate or the provincial fiscal concerned, shall appear on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines at all the proceedings and at the hearing. If, after the hearing, the court believes, in view of the evidence taken, that the petitioner has all the qualifications required by, and none of the disqualifications specified in this Act and has complied with all requisites herein established, it shall order the proper naturalization certificate to be issued and the registration of the said naturalization certificate in the proper civil registry as required in section ten of Act Numbered Three thousand seven hundred fifty-three. Section 11. Appeal.-- The final sentence may, at the instance of either of the parties, be appealed to the Supreme Court. Section 12. Issuance of the Certificate of Naturalization.-- If, after the lapse of thirty days from and after the date on which the parties were notified of the decision of the Court, no appeal has been filed, or if, upon appeal, the decision of the court has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, and the said decision has become final, the clerk of the court which heard the petition shall issue to the petitioner a naturalization certificate which shall, among other things, state the following: 1. The file number of the petition, the number of the naturalization certificate, the signature of the person naturalized affixed in the presence of the clerk of the court,

2. the personal circumstances of the person naturalized, the dates on which his declaration of intention and petition were filed, 3. the date of the decision granting the petition, and the name of the judge who rendered the decision. A photograph of the petitioner with the dry seal affixed thereto of the court which granted the petition, must be affixed to the certificate. Before the naturalization certificate is issued, the petitioner shall, in open court, take the following oath: "I_________________________________, solemnly swear that I renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty and particularly to the ___________________________ of which at this time I am a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and that I will obey the laws, legal orders and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God." a. Declaration of intention filed with the OSG one year before actual application. b. Filing of petition for naturalization with the RTC of the province in which the applicant is a resident for at least one year. c. Hearing, except within 30 days before an election. The State is represented by the Solicitor General or by the fiscal in his behalf. Two witnesses to testify on the character of the applicant are presented. d. Decision. Appeal of the decision of the RTC may be made to SC, pursuant to RA 530, amending Sec. 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. (Under BP 129, appeal is to the CA). e. Decision becomes final but not executory, thirty (30) days after notice of the decision is received by the parties. - The notice of the decision must be received by the OSG; copy furnished to the fiscal is not sufficient to start the running of the 30-day period. - A favorable decision becomes executory only after 2 years from the finality of the decision. It shall become executory only after the period of 2 years during which the petitioner shall continue to be under probation, as it were, so the government can be doubly sure he is entitled to be naturalized as a citizen of the Philippines. (Republic Act 530, Section 1) f. Summary hearing after two years, which is really a continuation of the previous proceedings, to prove that: i) He did not leave RP during the 2-year period of probation; ii) He devoted himself to lawful calling; iii) He was not convicted of any offense of violation of government rules. iv) He did not commit an act prejudicial to national interest or inimical to a government announced policy. g. Oath before the RTC. h. Issuance of a Certificate of Naturalization issued by the Court. (Only a certification is given because the decision two years before has granted him his citizenship.)

i. Cancellation of ACR before the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation.

"Derivative Naturalization" (Sec. 15) " xxx Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines."

Effect of Naturalization on the Children I. If the child is of age, no effect. II. If the child is a minor: a. If born in RP - automatically becomes a citizen upon the naturalization of the father. b. If born abroad 1. If before the naturalization of the father. a. If residing in RP at the time of naturalization - automatically becomes a citizen. If not residing in RP at the time of naturalization - considered citizen only during his minority, unless he takes permanent residence in RP before reaching majority age. - In other words, he continues to be a Filipino after reaching 18 years old only if he decides to reside here permanently before reaching that age. 2. If after the naturalization of the father Considered citizen on the condition that upon reaching the age of majority, he takes an oath of allegiance in the Philippine consulate of the place where he may be. If he fails to register his intent to continue as Filipino within one (1) year upon reaching 21 years, he ceases to be a Filipino citizen. Denaturalization Com. Act No. 473, Sec. 18 Section 18. Cancellation of naturalization certificate issued.-- Upon motion made in the proper proceedings by the Solicitor General or his representative, or by the proper provincial fiscal, the competent judge may cancel the naturalization certificate issued and its registration in the Civil Registry: (a) If it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally; (b) If the person naturalized shall, within the five years next following the issuance of said naturalization certificate, return to his native country or to some foreign country and establish his permanent residence there: Provided, that the fact of the person naturalized remaining for more than one year in his native country or the country of his former nationality, or two years in any other foreign country, shall be considered as prima facie evidence of his intention of taking up permanent residence in the same; (c) If the petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention; b.

(d) If it is shown that the minor children of the person naturalized failed to graduate from a public or private high schools recognized by the Bureau of Private Schools of the Philippines, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught as part of the school curriculum through the fault of their parents either by neglecting to support them or by transferring them to another school or schools. A certified copy of the decree cancelling the naturalization certificate shall be forwarded by the clerk of the Court to the Office of the President and the Solicitor-General; Not when they dropped out because of scholastic performance (e) If it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed himself to be used as a dummy in violation of the Constitutional or legal provision requiring Philippine citizenship, as a requisite for the exercise, use or enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege. Procedure: Filed by the Solicitor General before the same RTC that granted his naturalization, regardless of where he may be residing at that time. Republic vs. Li Yao (214 SCRA 748) F: Fifteen (15) years after Li Yao was conferred with Filipino citizenship by naturalization, the Republic sought the cancellation thereof on the grounds of: 1) not being of good moral character by having amorous relations with women; 2) not having conducted himself in an irreproachable manner in dealing with the duly constituted authorities by using names other than that authorized, by resorting to tax evasion and violating the Anti-Dummy Law. The trial court relying solely on the ground of evasion of the payment of lawful taxes by underdeclaration of income as reflected in his income tax return for 1946-51, cancelled his naturalization. Hence this appeal. ISSUE: W/n the cancellation of Li Yao's naturalization was valid. HELD: Yes. A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the court upon any material fact. Law and jurisprudence even authorize the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization upon grounds or conditions which arise subsequent to the granting of the certificate of naturalization. Moreover, a naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, the decision rendered therein not constituting res judicata as to any matter that would support a judgement cancelling a certificate of naturalization on the ground of illegal or fraudulent procurement thereof. The concealment of applicant's income to evade payment of lawful taxes shows that his moral character is not irreproachable, thus disqualifying him for naturalization. A tax amnesty only relieves him from any civil, criminal or administrative liability insofar as his tax case is concerned. It does not have the effect of obliterating his lack of good moral character and irreproachable conduct which are grounds for denaturalization. MRM.

Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship Article IV, Sec. 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. (referring to CA 63.) Article IV, Sec. 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law (CA 63) to have renounced it. Commmonwealth Act 63 Section 1. How citizenship may be lost.-- A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events: (1) By naturalization in a foreign country; (2) expatriation; By express renunciation of citizenship or

(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon reaching the age of majority; Provided, however, That a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the Philippines is at war with any country; (4) By rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country: Provided, That the rendering of service to, or the acceptance of such commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country, and the taking of an oath of allegiance incident thereto, with the consent of the Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of the ff. circumstances is present: (a) The Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign country; or (b) The said foreign country maintains armed forces in the Philippine territory with the consent of the Philippines; Provided that the Filipino citizen concerned, at the time of rendering said service or acceptance of said commission, and taking the oath of allegiance incident thereto, states that he does so only in connection with his service to said foreign country: And provided finally, That any Filipino citizen who is rendering service to, or is commissioned in, the armed forces of a foreign country under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) shall not be permitted to participate nor vote in any election of the Philippines during the period of his service to, or commission in, the armed forces of said foreign country. Upon his discharge from the service of the said foreign country, he shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil and political rights as a Filipino citizen; (5) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization; (6) By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted; (7) In case of a woman, upon her marriage, to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force in her husbands country, she acquires his nationality. [This is now qualified by Art. IV, Sec. 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.] The provisions of this section notwithstanding, the acquisition of citizenship by a natural born Filipino citizen from one of the Iberian and any friendly democratic Ibero-American countries or from the United Kingdom shall not produce loss or

forfeiture of his Philippine citizenship if the law of that country grants the same privilege to its citizens and such had been agreed upon by treaty between the Philippines and the foreign country from which citizenship is acquired. a. Loss of Citizenship Grounds: (1) Naturalization in a foreign country [CA 63, Sec. 1(1)] Frivaldo v COMELEC (174 SCRA 245) (1989) F: Frivaldo was elected as governor of Sorsogon. The League of Municipalities filed a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo's election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the US in 1983. He admitted such but raised as a defense that he did so to protect himself from Marcos and that his naturalization as an American citizen was not impressed with voluntariness but was obtained only for reasons of convenience. The League argued that since Frivaldo was a naturalized American citizen and had not reacquired Philippine citizenship on the day of the election, he was not qualified to run for governor. Frivaldo countered that his oath in his certificate of candidacy that he was a natural born citizen should be a sufficient act of repatriation. Additionally, his active participation in the 1987 elections had divested him of his US citizenship under the laws of the US. HELD: Frivaldo claims he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of a valid repatriation. He claims that by actively participating in the elections, he automatically forfeited American citizenship under US laws. Such laws do not concern us. Such forfeiture is between him and the US as his adopted country. It should be obvious that even if he did lose his naturalized American citizenship, such forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of automatically restoring his citizenship in the Philippines that he had earlier renounced. At best, what might have happened as a result of the loss of his naturalized citizenship was that he became a stateless individual. Mere filing of certificate of candidacy is not a sufficient act of repatriation. Repatriation requires an express and equivocal act. Frivaldo's claim that he could not have repatriated himself under LOI 270 because the Special Committee provided for therein had not yet been constituted seems to suggest that the lack of that body rendered his repatriation unnecessary. That is farfetched if not specious. Such a conclusion would open the floodgates, as it were. It would allow all Filipinos who have renounced this country to claim back their abandoned citizenship w/o formally rejecting their adopted state and reaffirming their allegiance to the Philippines. It does not appear that Frivaldo has taken these categorical acts. He contends that by simply filing his certificate of candidacy he had, w/o more, already effectively recovered Phil. citizenship. But that is hardly the formal declaration the law envisions-surely, Phil. citizenship previously disowned is not that cheaply recovered. If the Special Committee had not yet been convened, what it meant simply was that the petitioner had to wait until this was done, or seek naturalization by legislative or judicial proceedings. Labo vs COMELEC (176 SCRA 1)

F: Ramon Labo, Jr. married an Australian citizen in the Phils. He was granted Australian citizenship . He took an oath of allegiance renouncing all other allegiance, etc. Though the marriage was declared void for being bigamous, Labo was, according to the records still an Australian citizen. In the 1988 local elections, Labo ran for mayor of Baguio. His Filipino citizenship was questioned on the ground that he had acquired Australian citizenship through his marriage to an Australian citizen and his taking an oath of allegiance to Australia where he renounced all other allegiance to other countries. Labo claimed that (1) his marriage did not automatically divest him of his Filipino citizenship and that (2) his naturalization in Australia made him at worst only a dual national and did not divest him of his Philippine citizenship. HELD: Labo's first contention is irrelevant. He became an Australian citizen by virtue of naturalization and not by marriage. The second argument is specious w/c cannot stand against the clear provisions of CA No. 63, w/c enumerates the modes by w/c Phil. citizenship may be lost, and among them are (1) naturalization in a foreign country; (2) express renunciation of citizenship; and (3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution. or laws of a foreign country, all of w/c are applicable to petitioner. Under Article IV, Section 5, "dual allegiance of citizen is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law." Even if it be assumed that, as petitioner asserts, his naturalization was annulled after it was found that his marriage was bigamous, that circumstance alone did not automatically restore his Phil. citizenship. His divestiture of Australian citizenship does not concern us here. That is a matter between him and his adopted country. What we must consider is the fact that he voluntarily and freely rejected Phil. citizenship and willingly and knowingly embraced the citizenship of another country. The possibility that he may have been subsequently rejected by Australia does not mean that he has been automatically reinstated as a Phil. citizen Phil. citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of congress, by naturalization or by repatriation. It does not appear that petitioner has reacquired Phil. citizenship by any of these methods. (2) Express renunciation or Expatriation [CA 63, Sec 1(2)] This overrules Haw v Government, where the SC held that renunciation could be implied. Go Gullian v. Government - Expatriation is a constitutional right. No one can be compelled to remain a Filipino if he does not want to. Yu v Defensor-Santiago (169 SCRA 364) F: Yu was issued a Portuguese passport in 1971, valid for five years and renewed for the same period upon presentment before the proper Portuguese consular officer. Despite his naturalization as a Philippine citizen in 1978, he applied for and was issued a Portuguese passport in 1981. While still a citizen of the Philippines who had renounced, upon his naturalization, "absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty" and

pledged to "maintain true faith and allegiance to the Philippines," he declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed. HELD: The foregoing acts considered together constitute an express renunciation of petitioner's Philippine citizenship acquired through naturalization. In Board of Immigration Commissioner vs Go Gallano, express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or implication. Yu, with full knowledge and legal capacity, after having renounced Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization as a Philippine citizen resumed or reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese citizen, applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport and represented himself as such in official documents even after he had become a naturalized Philippine citizen. Such resumption or reacquisition of Portuguese citizenship is grossly inconsistent with his maintenance of Philippine citizenship. Dissenting: The mere use of a foreign passport is not ipso facto express renunciation of Filipino citizenship. Whatever may be the reasons for doing so, it must be ascertained in a court of law where a full trial is conducted instead of an administrative determination of a most summary nature (as in this case). Aznar v Osmena, COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703 (May 1990) F:Emelito Osmena ran for Governor of Cebu in the Jan. 18, 1988 elections. Aznar as Cebu Chairman of LDPLaban filed with COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of Osmena on the ground that he is allegedly not a Filipino citizen, being a US citizen, as evidenced by Osmena's application for alien, his alien certificate of registration, permit to re-enter the Philippines, immigration certificate of clearance etc. Osmena on the other hand maintained that he is a Filipino citizen, alleging that he is the legitimate child of Dr. Emilio Osmena, that he is a holder of a valid Phil passport, that he has been continuously residing in the Philippines since birth & has not gone out of the country for more than 6 months and that he has been a registered voter in the Philippines since 1965. The Comelec decided for Osmena. HELD: 1. In the proceedings before the COMELEC, the pet failed to present direct proof that private respondent had lost his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided for under CA #63. Among others, these are: (1) by naturalization in a foreign country; (2) by express renunciation of citizenship; (3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. From the evidence, it is clear that private respondent Osmena did not lose his Phil citizenship by any of the 3 mentioned hereinabove or by any other mode of losing Phil citizenship. 2. By virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father, the presumption that private respondent is a Filipino remains. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that private respondent had lost his Phil citizenship. Pet Aznar failed to positively establish this fact. Osmena remains a Filipino & the loss of his Phil citizenship cannot be presumed.

3. Considering the fact that admittedly Osmena was both a Filipino & an American, the mere fact that he has a Certificate stating he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino. In the case of Osmena, the Certification that he is an American does not mean that he is not STILL a Filipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities or citizenship. There is no express renunciation here of Phil citizenship. There is even no implied renunciation of said citizenship. When we consider that the renunciation needed to lose Phil citizenship must be EXPRESS, it stands to reason that there can be no such loss of Phil citizenship WHEN THERE IS NO RENUNCIATION, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. 4. The statement in the 1987 constitution that "dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest & shall be dealt with by law" has no retroactive effect. (3) Taking an oath of allegiance to another country upon reaching the age of majority. (4) Accepting a commission and serving in the armed forces of another country, unless there is an offensive or defensive pact with the country, or maintains armed forces in RP with RP's consent. (5) Denaturalization. (6) Being found by final judgment to be a deserter of the AFP. (7) Marriage by a Filipino woman to an alien, if by the laws of her husband's country, she becomes a citizen thereof. This is deemed repealed by the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, which mandate that Filipino citizens who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their "act" or "omission", they are deemed under the law to have renounced it. At present, the law (CA 63, Sec. 1 par. 7) only provides for express renunciation (i.e., act), and so there is no law at the moment on "renunciation by omission." But Congress may provide for such later. But Sec. 2 of the 1973 Constitution. (Carried over as Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution.) only has a prospective application. Thus, CA 63 continues for marriages celebrated before 17 January 1973. If a Filipino married a Greek in 1972 and became a Greek citizen herself thereby, then she lost her Filipino citizenship. As to her children, however, it is enough that she was a Filipina at the time of marriage to qualify them to elect Philippine citizenship when they reached the age of majority (Villahermosa ruling). But if the children were born after 1973, then under the 1987 Constitution, those children are now even natural-born. But if, in 1961, a Filipino woman married an alien whose country did not make her an automatic citizen, and so in order to acquire his citizenship, she applied for naturalization, and after her naturalization she begot C, C could no longer elect Philippine citizenship. The ruling in Cu and Villahermosa applies only to mothers who lost their citizenship by operation of law and not by their own voluntary acts. If C was born after the application but before the approval of the naturalization of his mother, he could still elect Philippine citizenship.

 But for similar marriages celebrated after 17 January 1973, the mere fact of marriage alone does not strip the Filipino woman of her Philippine citizenship. Thus, if a Filipina marries an alien in 1974, even if she gains her husband's citizenship, lives abroad, does not pay her taxes, never returns to RP, she is still a Filipina under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, so long as she does not categorically renounce her citizenship. It follows that her children are natural-born citizens, being the children of Filipino mothers, and this time without the need of election. Expatriation Go Gullian v. Government - Expatriation is a constitutional right. No one can be compelled to remain a Filipino if he does not want to. Exception: Com. Act. No. 63, Sec. 1(3). [A] Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country. People vs. Manayao, 74 Phil. 721 (1947) F: Manayao was one of the Makapilis who took part in the killing of the residents in barrio Banaban, municipality of Angat, Bulacan. After the liberation, he, among others, was charged w/ treason and w/ multiple murder in the People's court. In his defense, he argues, among others, he has lost his Philippine citizenship and was therefore not amenable to the Phil. law on treason. HELD: Appellant's contention is repugnant to the most fundamental and elementary principles governing the duties of a citizen toward his country under the Constitution. The defense of the State is a prime duty of government and in the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by law to render personal, military or civil service. During a period of stress, under a Constitution enshrining such tenets, the citizen cannot be considered free to cast off his loyalty and obligations toward his Fatherland. It would shock the conscience of any enlightened citizenry to say that this appellant, by the very fact of committing the treasonous acts charged against him, divested himself of his Phil. citizenship and thereby placed himself beyond the arm of our treason law. For if this were so, his very crime would be the shield that would protect him from punishment. Art. XI, Sec. 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all times, and any public officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law.

elections of 1/18/88, on the ground that he is a green card holder, hence, a permanent resident of the US, not of Bolinao. HELD: Despite his vigorous disclaimer, Miguel's immigration to the US in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. For he did not go to the US merely to visit his children or his doctor there; he entered the US w/ the intention to live there permanently as evidenced by his application for an immigrant's (not a visitor's or tourist's) visa. Based on his application, he was issued by the US Govt the requisite green card or authority to reside there permanently. To be "qualified to run for elective office" in the Philippines., the law (Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code) requires that the candidate who is a green card holder must have "waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country." Therefore, his act of filing a certificate of candidacy for elective office in the Philippines, did not of itself constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the US. The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some act of acts independent of and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country. Without such prior waiver, he was "disqualified to run for any elective office." Residence in the municipality where he intends to run for elective office for at least 1 year at the time of the filing of his cert. of candidacy, is one of the qualifications that a candidate for elective public office must possess. Miguel did no possess that qualification because he was a permanent resident of the US and he resided in Bolinao for a period of only 3 mos. after his return to the Phils. in Nov. 1987.

b. Reacquisition of Citizenship Secs. 2- 5, Commonwealth Act 63 Sec. 2. How citizenship may be reacquired.-Citizenship may be reacquired: (1) By naturalization: Provided, That the applicant possess none of the disqualifications prescribed in section two of Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred twenty-seven (now Sec. 4 of CA 473.) (2) By repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy or Air Corp: Provided, That a woman who lost her citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien may be repatriated in accordance with the provisions of this Act after the termination of the marital status; and (3) By direct act of the National Assembly (now Congress.) Sec. 3. Procedure incident to reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.-The procedure prescribed for naturalization under Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred twentyseven (now CA 473) shall apply to the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by naturalization provided for in the next preceding section: Provided, That the qualifications and special qualifications prescribed in sections 3 and 4 of said Act shall not be required: And Provided, further, (1) That the applicant be at least twenty-one years of age and shall have resided in the Philippines at least six months before he applies for naturalization;

BARLONGAY CASE: Caasi vs. Court of Appeals (191 SCRA 229) F: These 2 cases were consolidated because they have the same objective: the disqualification under Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the private resp., Merito Miguel, for the position of municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan, to w/c he was elected in the local

(2) That he shall have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines, in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living; and (3) That he subscribes to an oath declaring his intention to renounce absolutely and perpetually all faith and allegiance to the foreign authority, state or sovereignty of which he was a citizen or subject. Sec. 4. Repatriation shall be effected by merely taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry. Sec. 5. The Secretary of Justice shall issue the necessary regulations for the proper enforcement of this Act. Naturalization blanks and other blanks required for carrying out the provisions of this Act shall be prepared and furnished by the Solicitor General, subject to approval of the Secretary of Justice. (1) Naturalization (CA 63 and CA 473) But this is now an abbreviated process, with no need to wait for three years (one year for declaration of intent, and two years for the judgment to become executory). An applicant must only possess the following: a. 21 years of age; b. Resident for 6 months; c. Good moral character; d. No disqualification. (2) Repatriation (i) Woman who by her marriage lost her citizenship. (This is no longer true under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, if the loss was due only to marriage.) People v. Avengoza, 119 SCRA 119 (1982) F: Go Cham, a Chinese, his wife Anselma Avengoza, and the latter's mother, Gavina A., were accused of violation of CA 108. It was charged that Go Gam and Anselma A. used Gavina A. as dummy in order to acquire lands in Camarines Sur w/c the couple were not qualified to acquire under the 1935 Consti. Pending trial, Gavina A. and Go Cham died. On her motion the trial court allowed Anselma A. to withdraw her previous plea of not guilty and to file a motion to quash w/c the court later granted. The trial court ruled that Anselma had reacquired her Filipino citizenship upon the death of her husband, Go Cham, and upon complying w/ CA 63, sec. 4 by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic and filing the oath w/ the Civil Registrar. The prosecution appealed. HELD: Def. Avengoza's sole evidence on record to support her repatriation is her oath of allegiance to the Republic. Def. Avengoza became an alien by reason of her lawful marriage to a Chinese citizen; however this does not necessarily mean that she was a Filipino citizen previous to such marriage. Thus, she should first prove her citizenship previous to her marriage and as there is no conclusive proof of this matter on record, this question must be judicially determined before she can be legally repatriated. Jao v. Republic, 121 SCRA 358 (1983) F: Petitioner filed in the CFI-Davao a petition for repatriation. She claimed that while her father was a

Chinese and her mother a Filipino, her parents were not legally married, and that although she lost her Phil. citizenship when she married a Chinese national, her husband died on 9/6/62. After trial, the court declared the petitioner judicially repatriated. The govt appealed. HELD: Although her citizenship prior to her marriage to a Chinese husband needed judicial confirmation, the process of repatriation itself (i.e., of reacquiring that citizenship) involves a purely administrative proceeding. Thus: Filipino citizenship prior to its loss by virtue of marriage to an alien and gaining his citizenship needs judicial declaration. But re- acquisition of such citizenship by repatriation is a purely administrative procedure. In the case at bar, the proceedings taken in the trial court are a complete nullity. Moreover, the petitioner's claim of Phil. citizenship prior to her marriage for being allegedly an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother may not be established in an action where the other or her heirs are not parties. It is consistent rule that Phil. citizenship may not be declared in a non-adversary suit where the persons whose rights are affected by such declaration are not parties, such as an action for declaratory relief or a petition for judicial repatriation as an alien. (ii) Those declared by authorities to be deserters of the Armed Forces. (Only this is applicable to the present.)

(3) Legislative Act - Which is both a mode of acquiring and reacquiring citizenship. BARLONGAY CASE: Republic vs. Dela Rosa, 232 SCRA 785 F: Three (3) petitions involving the same issues and parties were consolidated. Said cases questioned the readmission of Juan Frivaldo as a Filipino citizen under CA 63 or the Revised Naturalization Law as amended by CA 473. Frivaldo became a US citizen allegedly due to the pressure from the Marcos regime. He came back here, ran for Governor of Sorsogon and won. HELD: (DISQUALIFIED) Frivaldo must vacate his office and surrender the same to the Vice-Governor. A former citizen who opts to reacquire Phil. citizenship through naturalization under CA 63 is duty bound to follow the procedure prescribed by said law, and it is not for him to decide and select the requirements which he believes are inconvenient. The law does not distinguish between an applicant who was formerly a Filipino citizen and one who was never a citizen. (Barlongay: This statement is inaccurate because there are indeed differences.) Failure to comply with the publication and posting requirements under the law rendered null and void the proceedings conducted, the decision rendered and the oath of allegiance taken. The TC never acquired jurisdiction to hear the petition for naturalization of Frivaldo. Under the law, both the petition for

naturalization and the order setting it for hearing must be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the OG or in a newspaper of general circulation. Moreover, the publication and the posting must be in its full text for the Court to acquire jurisdiction. The petition for naturalization lacks several allegations under Secs. 2 and 6 of the law: (1) that petitioner is of good moral character; (2) he resided continuously in the Phil. for at least ten years; (3) that he is able to speak and write English and any one of the principal dialects; (4) he will reside continuously in the Phil. from date of filing of petition until his admission to Phil citizenship; (5) that he has filed a declaration of intention or if he is excused from said filing, the justification therefor. The absence of such allegations is fatal to the petition. A decision in a petition for naturalization becomes final only after 30 days from promulgation, counted from the date of receipt by the Sol. Gen. of his copy of the decision. Sec. 1 of RA 530 provides that no decision granting citizenship in naturalization proceedings shall be executory until after 2 years from its promulgation in order to be able to observe if the applicant has: (1) not left the country; (2) dedicated himself continuously to lawful calling; (3) not been convicted of any offense or for violation of government promulgated rules; (4) not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the country or contrary to government announced policies. In the case at bar, the proceedings in the TC were marred by irregularities. The hearing was set ahead of the scheduled date upon request of Frivaldo so he could catch up with the last day for filing his certificate of candidacy, without publication; the petition was heard within 6 months from last publication; Frivaldo was allowed to take his oath of allegiance even before the finality of judgment and without waiting for the 2 year waiting period.