CALILUNG VS DATUMANONG

FACTS:
Petitioner prays that a writ of
prohibition be issued to stop
respondent from implementing
Republic Act No. 9225, entitled "An Act
Making the Citizenship of Philippine
Citizens Who Acquire Foreign
Citizenship Permanent, Amending for
the Purpose Commonwealth Act No.
63, As Amended, and for Other
Purposes." Petitioner avers that Rep.
Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional as it
violates Section 5, Article IV of the
1987 Constitution that states, "Dual
allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt
with by law."
RA 9225 Section 2 and 3:
Section 2: Declaration of Policy: It is
hereby declared the policy of the State
that all Philippine Citizens who
become citizens of another country
shall be deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship under the
condition of this Act.
Section 3: Retention of Philippine
Citizenship: Any provision of law to the
contrary notwithstanding, natural-born
citizens of the Philippines who have
lost their Philippine citizenship by
reason of their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country are
hereby deemed to have reacquired
Philippine citizenship upon taking the
following oath of allegiance to the
Republic.
ISSUES (HELD):
1- WON RA 9225 is unconstitutional
(NO)
2- WON the SC has jurisdiction to pass
upon the issue of dual allegiance (NO)
RA 9225 SHIFTS THE ISSUE OF DUAL
ALLEGIANCE OF DUAL CITIZENS AWAY
FROM THE PHILIPPINES
CALILUNGS ARGUMENTS
RA 9225 cheapens Philippine
citizenship. Sec 2 and 3 of the law,
together, allow dual allegiance and not

dual citizenship. Sec 2 allows

all Filipinos, either natural born or
naturalized, who become foreign
citizens, to retain their Philippine
citizenship without losing their foreign
citizenship.
Sec 3 permits dual allegiance because
it allows natural born citizens of the
Philippines to regain their Philippine
citizenship by simply ta8ing an oath of
allegiance without forfeiting their
foreign allegiance, contrary to
the Constitutions characterization
of dual allegiance.
OSG ARGUMENTS
Sec 2 merely declares as a state policy
that Philippine citizens who become
citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship.
The oath in Sec 3 does not allow
dual allegiance since the oath ta8en
by the former Filipino citizen is an
effective renunciation and repudiation
of his foreign citizenship.
The fact that the applicant taking
the oath recognizes and accepts the
supreme authority of the Philippines is
an unmista8able and categorical
affirmation of his undivided loyalty to
the Republic.
HELD:
No. Section 5, Article IV of the
Constitution is a declaration of a policy
and it is not a self-executing provision.
The legislature still has to enact the
law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2
and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the
framers were not concerned with dual
citizenship per se, but with the status
of naturalized citizens who maintain
their allegiance to their countries of
origin even after their naturalization.
Congress was given a mandate to
draft a law that would set specific
parameters of what really constitutes
dual allegiance. Until this is done, it
would be premature for the judicial
department, including this Court, to
rule on issues pertaining to dual
allegiance.