I.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

government akin to the modern concept of nationality. (Source:

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia)

Citizenship is the status of a person recognized under the

custom or law as being a member of a state. A person may
have multiple citizenships and a person who does not have
citizenship of any state is said to be stateless.

II. DETERMINING FACTORS/MODES of Acquiring Citizenship

A person can be a citizen for several reasons. Usually
citizenship of the place of birth is automatic; in other cases an
application may be required.

Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent

membership in a political community. It denotes possession within
that particular political community of full civil and political rights
subject to special disqualifications such as minority.
Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship notably in
international law although the term is sometimes understood as
denoting a person's membership of a nation (a large ethnic group).
It is a membership
in any class or form of political
community. Thus, a national may be citizen of a democratic
community or a subject of a monarchical government. Nationality
does not necessarily include the right or privilege of exercising civil
or political rights.

A. Parents are citizens (jus sanguinis). If one or both of a

person's parents are citizens of a given state, then the
person may have the right to be a citizen of that state as
well. Formerly this might only have applied through the
paternal line, but sex equality became common since the
late twentieth century. Citizenship is granted based on
ancestry or ethnicity, and is related to the concept of a
nation state common in China. Where jus sanguinis holds, a
person born outside a country, one or both of whose parents
are citizens of the country, is also a citizen.
B. Born within a country (jus soli). Some people are
automatically citizens of the state in which they are born.
This form of citizenship originated in England where those
who were born within the realm were subjects of the
monarch (a concept pre-dating citizenship), and is common
in common law countries.

Nationality versus Citizenship

Nationality is legally a distinct concept from citizenship.
Conceptually, citizenship is focused on the internal political life of
the state, and nationality is a matter of international dealings
[Turner, Bryan S; Isin, Engin F. Handbook of Citizenship Studies].

In many cases both jus solis and jus sanguinis hold;

citizenship either by place or parentage (or of course both).

In the modern era, the concept of full citizenship

encompasses not only active political rights, but full civil rights and
social rights. Nationality is a necessary but not sufficient condition
to exercise full political rights within a state or other polity.
Nationality is required for full citizenship, and some people have
nationality without having full citizenship.

C. Marriage to a citizen (jure matrimonii). Many countries

fast-track naturalization based on the marriage of a person
to a citizen. Countries which are destinations for such
immigration often have regulations to try to detect sham
marriages, where a citizen marries a non-citizen typically for
payment, without them having the intention of living as man
and wife.

Historically, the most significant difference between a

national and a citizen is that the citizen has the right to vote for
elected officials, and to be elected. This distinction between full
citizenship and other, lesser relationships goes back to antiquity.
Until the 19th and 20th centuries, it was typical for only a small
percentage of people who belonged to a city or state to be full
citizens. In the past, most people were excluded from citizenship on
the basis of gender, socioeconomic class, ethnicity, religion, and
other factors. However, they held a legal relationship with their

D. Naturalization. States normally grant citizenship to

people who have entered the country legally and been
granted permit to stay, or been granted political asylum,
and also lived there for a specified period. In some
countries, naturalization is subject to conditions which may
include passing a test demonstrating reasonable knowledge
1

of the language or way of life of the host country, good

conduct (no serious criminal record), swearing allegiance to
their new state or its ruler and renouncing their prior
citizenship. Some states allow dual citizenship and do not
require naturalized citizens to renounce any other
citizenship. (Source: Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia)

[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;

III. LAWS GOVERNING WHO ARE THE CITIZENS OF THE

PHILIPPINES

1916

1.
2.
3.
4.

1987 Constitution
1973 Constitution
1935 Constitution
Treaty of Paris: Philippine Bill of 1902: Jones Law of

[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

ARTICLE III of the 1973 Constitution
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

5. Res Judicata: Jus Soli: Roa vs. Collector of Customs

[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of

the adoption of this Constitution (irrespective of place of
birth).

The Philippine nationality law is based upon the

principles of jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) and therefore
descent from a parent who is a citizen or national of the Republic of
the Philippines is the primary method of acquiring Philippine
citizenship. For the purpose of determining citizenship, the identity
of the blood parents is important.This is contrasted with the legal
principle of jus soli where being born on the soil of a country, even
to foreign parents, grants one citizenship. For those born in the
Philippines to non-Filipino parents, the Administrative Naturalization
Law of 2000 (R.A. 9139) provides a path for administrative
naturalization for those who qualify.

[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the

Philippines.
[3] Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the
provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and
thirty-five.
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Article IV of 1987 Constitution enumerates the

citizenship of Filipinos. There are two kinds of citizens: Naturalborn citizens who are citizens from birth and have the right to vote
and right to run for public office and Naturalized citizens, who are
immigrants who acquire, voluntarily or by operation of law, the
citizenship of the Philippines.

ARTICLE IV of the 1935 Constitution

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution.

A. Citizenship by Birth/Election (natural born)

B. Citizenship by Naturalization

[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.

1987 Constitution
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

Case Law: Fermin Caram Provision; Chiongbian vs. De Leon (G.R.

No. L-2007, January 31, 1949- the right is transmissible)
2

participating in elections and campaigning for candidates

and similar acts done prior to June 7, 1941, have been
recognized as sufficient to show ones preference for
Philippine citizenship (In re Mallare, 59 SCRA 45, September
1974).

[3] Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.

[4] Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines
and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine
citizenship.
Legal Basis: Sec. 1, CA 625-Election is expressed in a statement
and sworn to by the party before any official authorized to
administer oaths. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil
Registry with Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and the
Government of the Philippines.
Case Law: Rep. vs. Chule Lim, GR No. 153883, January 13, 2004the constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino
citizenship apply only to legitimate children. The child follows the
citizenship of his only known parent, the mother.
Co vs. HRET (G.R. No. 92191-92, July 30, 1991)- The
exercise of the right to suffrage and the participation in election
exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine
citizenship.

Dy Cuenco vs. Sec of Justice, May 26, 1962-3 years is a

reasonable period.

Election must be expressed in a statement sworn before any

officer authorized to administer oaths and filed with the
nearest civil registry and accompanied by an oath of
allegiance to the Philippine Constitution. However,

Ma vs. Fernandez, July 26, 2010- The omission of the

statutory requirement of registration of the documents of
election should not result in the obliteration of the right to
Philippine citizenship. It does not negate the permanent fact
that the mother is Filipino. The lacking requirements may
still be complied with subject to the imposition of
appropriate administrative penalties.

Rep. vs. Sagun, Feb. 15. 2011- there is no such specific

statutory or procedural rule which authorizes the direct filing
of a petition for declaration of election of Philippine
citizenship before the courts.
[5] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Article IX of the Treaty of Paris

Under Article IX of the treaty, the civil rights and political
status of the native inhabitants of the territories ceded to the
United States would be determined by its Congress -

In re: Vicente Ching, Bar Matter 914, October 1, 1999

permission to take the lawyers oath; Ching elected Filipino
citizenship
beyond
the
required
upon
reaching the age of majority If the citizenship of a person was
subject to challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to
challenge under the new charter even if the judicial challenge had
not been commenced before the effectivity of the new Constitution;
CA 625 and the 1935 Constitution did not prescribe a time within
which the election of Philippine citizenship should be made;
reasonable time; upon reaching the age of majority it was
clearly beyond by any reasonable yardstick, the able period to
exercise the privilege.
-

"Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory

over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her
sovereignty may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom,
retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the
right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds; and they
shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce, and
professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are
applicable to foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they
may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making,
before a court of record, within a year from the date of the
exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their
decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which
declaration they shall be held to have renounced it and to
have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they
reside.

Thus, the civil rights and political status of the native

inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States
shall be determined by the Congress.

are citizens of the United States, or who could become

citizens of the United States under the laws of the United
States, if residing therein."

Philippine Bill of 1902

Under the Jones Law, a native-born inhabitant of the

Philippines was deemed to be a citizen of the Philippines as of 11
April 1899 if he was 1) a subject of Spain on 11 April 1899, 2)
residing in the Philippines on said date, and, 3) since that date, not
a citizen of some other country.

Sec. 4. 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.
-

Case Law: Tecson vs. COMELEC (G.R. No.161434, March 3,

2004) Documentary evidence adduced by petitioner would tend
to indicate that the earliest established direct ascendant of FPJ was
his paternal grandfather Lorenzo Pou, married to Marta Reyes, the
father of Allan F. Poe. While the record of birth of Lorenzo Pou had
not been presented in evidence, his death certificate, however,
identified him to be a Filipino, a resident of San Carlos,
Pangasinan, and 84 years old at the time of his death on 11
September 1954. The certificate of birth of the father of FPJ, Allan
F. Poe, showed that he was born on 17 May 1915 to an Espaol
father, Lorenzo Pou, and a mestiza Espaol mother, Marta Reyes.
Introduced by petitioner was an uncertified copy of a supposed
certificate of the alleged marriage of Allan F. Poe and Paulita Gomez
on 05 July 1936. The marriage certificate of Allan F. Poe and Bessie
Kelley reflected the date of their marriage to be on 16 September
1940. In the same certificate, Allan F. Poe was stated to be twentyfive years old, unmarried, and a Filipino citizen, and Bessie Kelley to
be twenty-two years old, unmarried, and an American citizen. The
birth certificate of FPJ, would disclose that he was born on 20
August 1939 to Allan F. Poe, a Filipino, twenty-four years old,
married to Bessie Kelly, an American citizen, twenty-one years old
and married.

The concept of Philippine citizen had for the first time

crystallized. The word Filipino was used by William Howard
Taft, the first civil governor general.
Jones Law of 1916

In 1916, the Philippine Autonomy Act, also known as the

Jones Law restated virtually the provisions of the Philippine Bill of
1902, as so amended by the Act of Congress in 1912

Section 2: That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who

were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen
hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands,
and their children born subsequently thereto, shall be
deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands,
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 and except such others as have
since become citizens of some other country; Provided, That
the Philippine Legislature, herein provided for, is hereby
authorized to provide for the acquisition of Philippine
citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who
do not come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of
the insular possessions of the United States, and such
other persons residing in the Philippine Islands who

Valles vs. COMELEC, GR No. 137000, August 9, 2000- Rosalind

Ybasco Lopez was born to an Australian mother and Filipino father
on May 16, 1934 before the 1935 constitution took effect.
Rosalinds father was Filipino applying the organic laws. Under the
jus sanguinis principle, Rosalind followed the citizenship of her
father.
RES JUDICATA
(status of children born in the Philippines between April 11,
1899 to July 1, 1902)
4

In the case of Roa vs. Collector of Customs, 23

Phil.,315, the Supreme Court passed upon the question as to
whether a person born in the Philippines of a Chinese father and a
Filipino mother, legally married; is a citizen thereof. In this case the
Supreme Court took into consideration the provisions of articles 17,
18 and 19 of the Civil Code in view of the fact that the petitioner
was born on 6 July 1889; the second paragraph of Article IX of the
Treaty of Paris; section 4 of the Philippine Bill (Act of Congress of 1
July 1902) and the amendatory Act of Congress of 23 March 1912,
these being the laws then applicable. Commenting on Sec. 4 of the
Philippine Bill, as amended, this Court said:

usually judicial, under general naturalization laws; (2) by

special act of the legislature, often in favor of distinguished
foreigners who have rendered some notable service to the
local state; (3) by collective change of nationality
(naturalization en masse) as a result of cession or
subjugation; and (4) in some cases, by adoption of orphan
minors as nationals of the State where they are born. b)
Derivative naturalization in turn is conferred: (1) on the
wife of the naturalized husband; (2) on the minor children of
the naturalized parent; and (3) on the alien woman upon
marriage to a national.
B. Direct Naturalization under Philippine Laws:

By section 4 the doctrine or principle of citizenship by place

of birth which prevails in the United States was extended to
the Philippine Islands, but with limitations. In the United
States every person, which certain specific exceptions, born
in the United States is a citizen of that country. Under
section 4 every person born after the 11th of April,
1889, of parents who were Spanish subjects on that
date and who continued to reside in this country are
at the moment of their birth ipso facto citizens of the
Philippine Islands. From the reading of section 4 and
taking into consideration the Act of March 23, 1912, it is
clear that Congress realized that there were inhabitants in
the Philippine Islands who did not come within the
provisions of said section, and also that Congress did not
then by express legislation determine the political status of
such persons. Therefore, the inquiry is Did Congress
intend to say that all of the inhabitants who were not
included in section 4 are to be "deemed and held to be"
aliens to the Philippine islands?

1. Judicial Naturalization: Act No. 2927 (March 26,

1920), then CA 473
2. Administrative Naturalization: 1) of Foreign
women married to Filipino citizens before or after
November 30, 1938 who might themselves be
lawfully naturalized: Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Comsr.
of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292
2) RA 9139- Administrative Naturalization Law of
2000 would grant Philippine citizenship by
administrative proceedings to aliens born and
residing in the Philippines: So vs. Rep., GR No.
170603, January 29, 2007.
3. Legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by
Congress, bestowing Philippine Citizenship to an alien. Examples:
Fr. James Moran (1981) and Fr. James Reuter (1984)

Abandoned: Tan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor, 79 Phil., 249;

Teotimo Rodriguez Tio Tiam vs. Republic, GR No. L-9602-April 25,
1957.

C.Naturalization under CA 473

1. Qualifications/Disqualifications
2. Procedure
3. Effects of Naturalization
a) wife
b) minor children

NATURALIZATION
-

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

a nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen.

4. Effects of Denaturalization
Case Law: Limkaichong vs. COMELEC, GR No.
179120, April 1, 2009- It is the State, through its
representatives designated by statute, that may

A. Modes: It may be direct or derivative. a) Direct

naturalization is effected: (1) by individual proceedings,
5

question the illegally or invalidly procured certificate of

naturalization proceedings. It is not a matter that may
be raised by private persons in an election case
involving the naturalized citizens descendant.

of the Philippine citizenship in the foregoing

manner when the Philippines is at war at any
country.
4. By rendering services to, or accepting commission in,
the armed forces of a foreign country, and the taking
of an oath of allegiance incident thereto, except in
certain specified cases. EXCEPT: 1) with the consent
of the Rep. such as the Rep. has a defensive and/or
offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign
country; or the said foreign country maintains armed
forces in the Philippine territory with the consent of
the Republic;

Case Law: Burca vs. Republic (GR No. L-24252Jan. 30, 1967)
D. RA 9139-The native born alien has the choice to apply for
judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the prescribed
qualifications and disqualifications to be determined by the Special
Committee on Naturalization.
1. Qualifications/Disqualifications
2. Status of Alien Wife and Minor Children
3. Cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization

5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization (CA

473);

IV.LOSS OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP

A. Commonwealth Act No. 63, dated 20 October 1936,
provides that Philippine citizens may lose citizenship in any of the
following ways or events:
1. By naturalization in a foreign country
9225);

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; and

(Read RA

7. In the 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 his nationality. She
remains Filipino citizen if the foreign law is silent on
the matter.

2. By express renunciation of citizenship: Board of

Immigration Commissioners vs. Callano, 25 SCRA
890; Labo vs. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1; Valles vs.
COMELEC; Yu vs. Santiago, 169 SCRA 364

3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the

constitution or laws of a foreign country upon
attaining twenty-one years of age or more: Provided,
however, that a Filipino may not divest himself of
Philippine citizenship in any manner while the
Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country.

1987/1973 constitutions- Filipino citizen who marries an

alien retains his/her citizenship, unless by his/her act or
omission he/she is deemed, under the law to have
renounced it, such any of those enumerated under CA 63.
Otherwise, the Filipino spouse will have dual citizenship.
V. REACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP

A. MODES
1. RA 9225
2. By Naturalization
3. By repatriation of the deserters of the AFP and Filipina who lost
her citizenship by reason of her marriage
4. Direct Act of Congress

Note: Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance- an individual

maybe compelled by municipal law to retain
his original nationality even if he has already
renounced or forfeited it under the laws of
the second state whose nationality he has
acquired. Thus, a Filipino may not divest himself
6

APPLICABLE PHILIPPINE LAWS

A former natural-born citizen who is already in the

Philippines but has not registered with the BI within 60 days
from date of arrival shall file a petition under oath to the
Commissioner of Immigration for the issuance of an IC under
RA 9225.

PD 725- allows the repatriation of former natural born Filipino

citizens who lost Filipino citizenship: Frivaldo vs. COMELEC- it was
not repealed by Aquinos Memorandum of March 27, 1986, and
thus, was a valid mode for the reacquisition of Filipino citizenship
by Sorsogon Governor Juan Frivaldo.

Where do I apply for re-acquisition of Philippine

citizenship if I am overseas?

Republic Act No. 8171, approved 23 October 1995, provided a

mechanism allowing Filipino women who have lost their
Philippine 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, to reacquire Philippine citizenship.
Repatriation is effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance
to the Republic and registration in the proper civil registry and in
the BID- Tabasa vs, CA, GR No. 125793, August 29, 2006.
-

A former natural-born citizen who is abroad but is a BIregistered alien shall file a petition under oath to the nearest
Philippine Embassy or Consulate for evaluation. Thereafter,
the Embassy or Consulate shall forward the entire records to
the Commissioner of Immigration for the cancellation of the
ACR and issuance of an IC under RA 9225.
A former natural-born citizen who is abroad and is not a BIregistered alien shall file a petition under oath to the nearest
Philippine Embassy or Consulate for the issuance of an IC
under RA 9225.

Registration of applicants repatriation with the

proper civil registry and with the BID a prerequisite in
effecting repatriation (Altarejos vs. COMELEC,
Nov. 10, 2004).

(Source: Philippine Consulate-General)

Republic Act No. 9225, approved 29 August 2003, provided that

natural-born citizens of the Philippines who had lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country would be deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking an oath of allegiance to
the Republic, and that their children whether legitimate, illegitimate
or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, shall be deemed
citizens of the Philippines.

Submission of the Oath of Allegiance

Applicants under these Rules shall also sign and
attach an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines as follows:

"I, (name of the applicant) solemnly swear (or affirm) that

I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of
the Philippines and obey the laws and local orders
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the
Philippines, and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept
the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain
true faith and allegiance thereto, and that I impose this
obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental
reservation or purpose of evasion."

Where do I apply for re-acquisition of Philippine

citizenship if I am in the Philippines?
A former natural-born Filipino citizen who is already in the
Philippines and registered in the Bureau of Immigration shall
file a petition under oath to the Commissioner of
Immigration for the cancellation of the Alien Certificate of
Registration (ACR) and issuance of an Identification
Certificate (IC) as the case may be, under RA 9225.

Naturalized citizens cannot have dual citizenship- to

prevent dual allegiance to two distinct jurisidiction.
Further:
7

1. They shall enjoy full civil and political rights

3. Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe

and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Rep. and its duly
constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office provided,
that they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where
they took that oath.

2. Right of Suffrage: must meet the requirements under

Section 1, Art. V of the Constitution, RA 9189 otherwise known as
The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 and other existing
laws.

4. Those intending to practice their profession in the

Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for license or
permit to engage in such practice.
Case Law: BM No. 1678, Petition for Leave to Resume the
Practice of Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay, December 17, 2007Dual citizens may practice law in the Philippines by leave of the
Supreme Court and upon compliance with the requirements, which
will restore their good standing as members of the Philippine Bar.

Case Law: Lewis vs. COMELEC, August 4, 2006-The same right

of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under RA 9189 which
aims to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos, who
save for residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under
ordinary conditions are qualified to vote.
3. Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines
shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as
required by the constitution and existing laws and, at the time of
the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an oath.

5. The right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public

office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by or extended to,
those who are candidates for or occupying any public office
in the country of which they are naturalized; and/or are
active service as commissioned or non-commissioned
officers in the armed forces of the country which they are
naturalized citizens.

Case Law: 1. Lopez vs. COMELEC, GR No. 182701, July 23,

2008; Jacot vs. COMELEC, GR No. 179848, November 27,
2008: The mere filing of the certificate of candidacy is not
sufficient. Section 5 of RA 9225 categorically requires the individual
to state in clear and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all
foreign citizenship. The fact that he may have won the elections,
took, his oath and began discharging the functions of the office
cannot cure the defect of his candidacy.

B. EFFECT of REPATRIATION
- repatriation retroacts to the date of filing of the
application. It allows the person to recover, or return to, his
original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship- Bengzon
III vs. HRET, GR No. 142840, May 7, 2001. Jurisprudence says
that such a person is deemed never to have lost his or her
natural-born citizenship. (Cruz served the US Marine Corps,
without the consent of the Republic, took his oath of allegiance to
the US and lost his citizenship. He reacquired his citizenship thru
repatriation under RA No. 2630.

2. Maquiling vs. COMELEC, GR No. 195649, April 16,

2013: dual citizens by naturalization are required to take not only
the oath of allegiance to the Republic, but also to personally
renounce foreign citizenship in order to qualify as candidate for
public office. If after he had renounced his foreign citizenship, he
should still use his foreign passport, he is not divested of his Filipino
citizenship. However, by representing himself as a foreign citizen,
he voluntarily and effectively reverted to his status as a dual
citizen. Such reversion is not retroactive- it takes place the
moment he represents himself as a foreign citizen by using his
foreign passport. As dual citizen, he is qualified to vote, but by
express disqualification under Sec. 40(d) of the LGC, he is not
qualified to run for a local elective office.

Note: There is no law authorizing judicial repatriation. But

the repatriation of a mother entitle her minor son to a declaration
that he is entitled to Philippine citizenship.
V. ISSUES ON CITIZENSHIP
A. Dual Citizenship vs. Dual Allegiance
8

Case Law: Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630- the court
distinguished dual citizenship from dual allegiance. According to
the Supreme Court, Dual Allegiance refers to the situation in which
a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to
two or more states. It says that while dual citizenship is involuntary,
dual allegiance is the result of the individuals own volition.

operation of law; and 3) domicile of choice made freely by a person

of legal age.

It held that the phrase "dual citizenship" in RA 7160 (Local

Government Code), 40 (d), and in RA 7854 (Makati Charter), 20,
as a disqualification must be understood as referring to a citizen
with "dual allegiance." Consequently, persons with mere dual
citizenship do not fall under this disqualification.

Domicile of choice imports not only the intention to

reside in one fixed place but also personal presence in that place,
coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes
a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent for business or
pleasure or for like reasons, one intends to return. Makalintal vs.
COMELEC, July 10, 2003. In short, domicile of choice is a question of
fact. One intends to return, and depends on facts and
circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent (animus
revertendi).

It is enough that they elect Philippine citizenship upon he

filing of their certificate of candidacy to terminate their status as
persons with dual citizenship. The filing of a certificate of
candidacy suffices to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively
removing any disqualification as dual citizen.

Settled jurisprudence recognizes three rules to determine a

persons domicile: First, everyone must always have one of the
three kinds of domicile; second, once established, a domicile
remains the same until a new one is acquired; and third, a person
can have only one domicile at any given time.

This does not apply to one, who after having

reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 9225, runs for
public office. To comply with the provisions of Section 5 (2) of RA
9225, it is necessary that the candidate for public office must state
in clear and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign
citizenship (Lopez vs. COMELEC, GR No. 182701, July 23,
2008).

Applied to Poe. As a foundling found in Jaro, Iloilo, she

acquired the domicile (and citizenship) of her parents who,
according to generally-accepted principles of law, are presumed
to be Filipinos. So, her domicile of origin is Jaro, Iloilo. After she
married an American and moved to and worked in the United
States, she lost her domicile of origin and followed the domicile of
her husband in America. When she and her husband moved back
for good here after the death of Fernando Poe Jr., she acquired a
new domicile of choice in the Philippines. As to when she acquired
it depends, on her clear intention, conduct and physical presence in
the new location.

Note: But the question is whether this additional oath requirement

can be imposed on national candidates. The qualifications of
national candidates have been fixed by the Constitution and
the list is exclusive (Fr. Bernas).

In Marcos vs Comelec (Sept. 18, 1995), the Supreme Court

held that the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of
candidacy, [is] decisive in determining whether or not an individual
has
satisfied
the
Constitutions
residence
qualification
requirement. The Supreme Court said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos
made an honest mistake in writing seven months residence in her
certificate of candidacy for a congressional seat, a period less than
the constitutional requirement of not less than one year for that
position.

B. Citizenship vs. Residency: Use of Foreign Passport:

Green Card Holder (Immigrant)
Residence is equated with domicile. In election law,
residence is synonymous to domicile, not necessarily with a
persons home address. A man may have several places of
residence but has only one domicile. Or he may be a nomad or
travelling salesman with no permanent home. Nonetheless, the law
recognizes one domicile for him.

Recent jurisprudence. Cordora vs Comelec (Feb. 19, 2009) held

that residency is not dependent on citizenship because
even a foreigner can establish a Philippine domicile.

There are three kinds of domicile: 1) domicile of originthat

is, a child follows the domicile of the parents; 2) domicile by
9

More clearly, Japson vs Comelec (Jan. 19, 2009) ruled that a

former Filipino who was naturalized abroad may choose to
reestablish his/her domicile here even prior to the
reacquisition of citizenship under the Dual Citizenship Law.

Questions:
How and when did she renounce her US citizenship?
Was the mere act of taking an oath as MTRCB chief tantamount to a
renunciation under Philippine and US laws?
Was the oath a sufficient proof under Philippine law that she had
already renounced her US citizenship when under US law that
might not still be the case?

Said the Supreme Court: [I]n order to acquire a new domicile by

choice, there must concur: 1) residence or bodily presence in
the new locality, 2) an intention to remain there, and 3) an
intention to abandon the old domicile. The purpose to remain
in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of
time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence
at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.
Moreover, Jalosjos vs Comelec (Oct. 19, 2010) ruled that the
abandonment of a home in Australia, renunciation of Australian
citizenship, reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and settling down
in Zamboanga Sibugay show an intent to change domicile for
good.
Maquiling vs Comelec (April 16, 2013) clarified, though, that
the use of an American passport after a renunciation of American
citizenship effectively reverses such renunciation and disqualifies
one who reacquired citizenship under the Dual Citizenship Law from
being elected to a public office.
(References:
Panganiban)

Columns

of

Fr.

J.Bernas

and

Justice

C. Citizenship/Nationality of Foundling:
Basis and As Applied under Philippine Laws:
1. Section 2 of 1961 International Convention- Under Art. 2 of
the 1961 International Convention on Statelessness, [a] foundling
found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence
of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born
within the territory of parents possessing the nationality of
that State. (Applying that article to Senator Grace Poe, a
foundling found in the Philippines is presumed, in the absence of
contrary proof, to have Filipino biological parents. Since she was
found near a church in Jaro, Iloilo, when she was only a few days
old, her parents are presumed to be Filipinos.)
2.

A.

Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 552 SCRA 231- A Filipino citizens

acquisition of permanent resident status abroad constitutes
abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. The
green card status in the USA is a renunciation of ones status
as a resident of the Philippines.
But: Q. Does reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under RA
9225 have the effect of restoring his Philippine domicile?
A. No. To reacquire domicile, he must provide proof of
intent to stay in the Philippines. After he does that, his occasional
absence from the recovered domicile does not have the effect of
removing him from the domicile for as long as he manifests
animus manendi et revertendi (Japzon vs. Ty, January 19,
2009)

Incorporation Clause (Sec. 2 of Art. II of the 1987

Constitution): Philippines is not a signatory or a Contracting
State in this treaty. However, the treaty possesses the two
elements of a generally accepted principle of international law
because the grant of nationality to a foundling is an established,
widespread and consistent practice of many states since
1961 to the present. Hence, it is deemed a part of the law of
the Nation.According to Razon vs Taglis (Dec. 3, 2009), this
widespread practice or international custom could be shown
from State practice, State legislation, international and national
judicial decisions, recitals in treaties and other international
instruments, a pattern of treaties in the same form, the practice of
international organs, and resolutions relating to legal questions in
the UN General Assembly.

3. 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which

the Philippines is a signatory and which our Supreme Court has
consistently enforced, Everyone has a right to a nationality.
Thus, a denial of nationality or citizenship to Senator Poe would be
a plain violation of the UDHR.
10

only had the nationality of Liechtenstein. The question arises, who

then had the power to grant Nottebohm diplomatic protection? It
would be the nationality of the country in which he is habitually and
principally resident or the nationality of the country with which in
the circumstances he appears to be in fact most closely connected.

D. Principle of Effective Nationality- Article 5 of the

Hague Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of Nationality
Laws- Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) - This
principle was previously applied only in cases of dual nationality to
determine which nationality should be used in a given case.
However Nottebohm had forfeited his German nationality and thus

11