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 mother are citizens of the Philippines; (3)Those born before January 17,1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age majority; and (4)Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. 1. Citizenship 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. Reciprocally, it imposes the duty of allegiance to the political community. 2. Three distinct modes of acquiring citizenship: (1) Jus Sanguinis Acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship. (2) Jus Soli Acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth. (3) Naturalization The legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a native born-citizen. 3. Naturalization Naturalization is the process of acquiring the citizenship of another country. (a) In the strict sense, it is a judicial process, where formalities of the law have to be complied with, including a judicial hearing and

approval of the petition. (b) In the loose and broad sense, it may mean not only the judicial process but also the acquisition of another citizenship by such acts as marriage to a citizen, and the exercise of the option to elect a particular citizenship. Mo Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration[GR L-21289, 4 October 1971]En Banc, Barredo (J): 4 concur, 1 reserves right to file separate concurring opinion, 1 concurs except as the interpretation accorded some American decisions as to which he is not fully persuaded, 1 dissents in separate opinion Facts: On 8 February 1961, Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a non-immigrant. In the interrogation made in connection with her application for a temporary visitor's visa to enter the Philippines, she stated that she was a Chinese residing at Kowloon, Hong Kong, and that she desired to take a pleasure trip to the Philippines to visit her great granduncle Lau Ching Ping for a period of one month. She was permitted to come into the Philippines on 13 March 1961, and was permitted to stay for a period of one month, which would expire on 13 April 1961. On the date of her arrival, Asher Y, Cheng filed a bond in the amount of P1,000.00 to undertake, among others, that said Lau Yuen Yeung would actually depart from the Philippines on or before the expiration of her authorized period of stay in this country or within the period as in his discretion the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized representative might properly allow. After repeated extensions, Lau Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in the Philippines up to 13 February 1962. On 25 January 1962, she contracted marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged Filipino citizen. Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest and immediate deportation, after the expiration of her authorized stay, she brought an action for injunction with preliminary injunction. At the hearing, which took place one and a

half years after her arrival, it was admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung could not write either English or Tagalog. Except for a few words, she could not speak either English or Tagalog. She could not name any Filipino neighbor, with a Filipino name except one, Rosa. She did not know the names of her brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law. The Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case 49705) denied the prayer for preliminary injunction. Moya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed. Issue: Whether Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a Filipino citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen. Held: Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4. Whether the alien woman requires to undergo the naturalization proceedings, Section 15 is a parallel provision to Section 16. Thus, if the widow of an applicant for naturalization as Filipino, who dies during the proceedings, is not required to go through naturalization proceedings, in order to be considered as a Filipino citizen hereof, it should follow that the wife of a living Filipino cannot be denied the same privilege. This is plain common sense and there is absolutely no evidence that the Legislature intended to treat them differently. As the laws of our country, both substantive and procedural, stand today, there is no such procedure (a substitute for naturalization proceeding to enable the alien wife of a Philippine citizen to have the matter of her own citizenship settled and established so that she may not have to be called upon to prove it everytime she has to perform an act or enter into a transaction or business or exercise a

right reserved only to Filipinos), but such is no proof that the citizenship is not vested as of the date of marriage or the husband's acquisition of citizenship, as the case may be, for the truth is that the situation obtains even as to native-born Filipinos. Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensible in a judicial or administrative case, Whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. Lau Yuen Yeung, was declared to have become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao al as Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino citizen of 25 January 1962. 4. Attributes of Naturalization (a) Citizenship is not aright, it is a privilege. Thus, to acquire Philippine citizenship by naturalization is merely a privilege granted to certain aliens under certain conditions. Naturalization being a privilege and not a right, the burden is on the applicant to show clearly that he has complied with every condition that the law imposes. (b) The requisite conditions for naturalization are laid down by congress; courts cannot change or modify them.( G.R. No. L-3353
December 29, 1950)

(c) Only foreigners may be naturalized. If the petitioner turns out to be already a Filipino, the petition for naturalization as such must be turned down. (d) Just as a state may denationalize its own citizens, so many naturalization be revoked, by the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization. In this sense, a final judgment for naturalization can never be truly final. (e) Naturalization demands allegiance to our constitution, laws, and government. 5. Qualifications for Naturalization

Our

Naturalization

Law

requires

the

petitioner

for

naturalization to have ALL the qualifications and NONE of the disqualifications referred to therein. The petitioner himself must take the witness stand so that he may be examined regarding his qualifications. It is not sufficient for the petitioner to undertake this task alone. The sworn assertions made by him must be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible witnesses as well as by their sworn testimony. Parenthetically, the qualifications must be possessed at the time the petitioner applies for naturalization, not subsequently. The testimony of petitioners witnesses to the effect that petitioner is not in any way disqualified simply because he possesses all the qualifications to become a Filipino does not prove affirmatively that the petitioner does not possess any of the disqualifications. To possess the qualification is one thing, and it is another not to possess any of the disqualifications. The following are the qualifications for naturalization: (a) The petitioner must not be less than 21 years of age on the date of the hearing of the petition; Minors do not have to file a petition for naturalization; if their father is naturalized, they generally also become Filipino citizens. (b) He must have, as a rule, resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten years; The residence contemplated is not merely legal residence but ACTUAL and SUBSTANTIAL residence in order that the purpose of the law may be obtained: 1) Firstly, to enable the government and the community to observe the conduct of the applicant; 2) Secondly, to ensure his having imbibed sufficiently the principles and the spirit of our institutions. The residence requirement is reduced to five years in any of the following cases: 1) If the applicant has honorably held office under the government of the Philippines or under that of any the provinces, cities,

municipalities, or political subdivisions thereof; 2) If he has established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines; 3) If he is married to a Filipino woman; 4) If he had been engaged as a teacher 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 two years; 5) If he was born in the Philippines. (c) He must be of good moral character, and believe in the principles underlying the Philippine constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living; Regarding good morals, there is no necessity for a criminal conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude. True, such a conviction is required to show a DISQUALIFICATION, but lack of a conviction does not necessarily mean that the petitioner is of good moral character. (d) He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5, 000, Philippine currency, or must have some lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation; In the absence of credible proof regarding allegations of property ownership, the court will be constrained to conclude that petitioner has not met the requirement of ownership of property. One good proof is the certificate of assessment or a declaration of real estate property ownership. (e) He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages; A deaf-mute cannot speak; therefore, he cannot be naturalized. If the applicant can understand but cannot speak and write the requisite languages, he is not qualified. Faultless, fluent,

and idiomatic language is not essential; it is sufficient that in the petitioners association with Filipinos in daily life, he can understand them. (f) He must have enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Bureau of Private Schools where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught the entire period of the residence required of him, prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as citizen. The reason for this provision is for the children of the applicants (prospective Filipino citizens themselves) to learn and imbibe the customs, traditions, and ideals of Filipinos: this is preparatory to a life of responsible and law-abiding citizenship. Since under the law, naturalization generally gives the wife and minor children of the petitioner Philippine citizenship, it is necessary that the petitioner proves the filiation of his alleged children. 6. Disqualification for Naturalization Sec. 4. Naturalization Law. 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 propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas; (c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy; Mere belief in polygamy without practicing it is enough to disqualify. (d) Persons convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; Moral turpitude is that which shows in a person the unit of injustice, dishonesty, immodesty, or immorality. Crimes involving this include estafa, concubinage, and profiteering, but not speeding, nor the playing of mahjong during prohibited hours.

(e) Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases; The disease must be both incurable and contagious to constitute a disqualification. (f) Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos; (g) Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States and the Philippines are at war; (h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United States, whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. 7. Steps in Naturalization Proceedings (a) A declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen must first be filed, unless the applicant is exempted from this requirement. (Secs. 5 and 6, Com. Act No. 473) (b) The petition for naturalization must then be filed. (Sec. 8, Com. Act No. 473) After the lapse of one year from the time the declaration of intention (if married) is filed, the petition itself for naturalization may be presented in court. Under Sec. 8 of the Naturalization Law. The court of first instance of the province in which the petitioner has resided for at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the petition. The affidavit of two credible persons must support the petition for naturalization. Said persons must state: 1) That they are citizens of the Philippines; 2) That they personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by the naturalization law; 3) That the petitioner is a person of good repute and is immorally

irreproachable. 4) That he has, in their opinion, all the qualifications, and none of the disqualifications for naturalization. (c) The petition will then be heard. (Sec. 9, Com. Act No. 473, as amended) After proper publication 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 proper posting of the petition, the same shall be heard by the court. (d) If the petition is approved, there will be a rehearing two years after the promulgation of the judgment awarding naturalization. (Sec. 1,Rep. Act No. 530) Even if the court approves the petition, the decision will not be executory until two years from its promulgation. Certain conditions will have to be fulfilled and proper proof thereof must be presented. The purpose of the two-year period is to place the petitioner on probation. (Ivanovich v. Republic, L-15998, May 26,1964) (e) The last step will be the taking of the oath of allegiance to support and defend the constitution and the laws of the Philippines. (Sec. 11, Com. Act No. 473, as amended) After due hearing 9after two years) by the same court that granted the naturalization, the order of the court granting citizenship shall be registered, if the court is convinced that the conditions imposed for the two-year probation period have been duly fulfilled and proved.

Ivanovich v. Republic L-15998, May 26, 1964 Facts: On March 30, 1957, petitioner was allowed by the trial court to become a Filipino citizen in a resolution promulgated for that purpose subject to the provisions of R.A. No. 530. During the two-year probationary period, he requested permission from the lower court to leave the Philippines for business reasons.

Although his request was denied, he went abroad to gather information on insurance and re-insurance schemes being used un other countries in the interest of the company he represents but at the same time he was appointed by the president of the Philippines as representative of the Republic of the Philippines to observe economic trends in connection with social security system and insurance treaties in foreign countries. With this contention, he desires to convey the impression that he left the Philippines not of his own volition but at the instance of the government. Held: This contention is believed by his own evidence. Thus, in his own letter to Solicitor-General mentioned elsewhere, he indicated that his purpose in going abroad was principally for the benefit of fieldmens insurance company, Inc. of which he is the executive vice president, general manager, and chief administrative officer elected by its Board of Directors to make the necessary contact with its re-insurers abroad in the shortest time possible. He emphasized that as such official, it was his duty to establish fresh contact in the world reinsurance market for the re-insurers requirement of said company and that he is going to journey in Europe and also in America, which trip is scheduled to be during the middle part of August 2, 2957 and is expected not to exceed three months, all in behalf of the Fieldmens insurance Company, Inc. It is true that petitioner is invoking in his behalf a letter of former President Carlos P. Garcia wherein apparently he was given authority to go abroad as a representative of the republic of the Philippines to observe economic trends in connection with social security system and insurance treaties in foreign countries. But this letter cannot give him comfort, for there it appears that he was to be given a formal appointment for that purpose but that his trip would be at his own expense. It also appears that such appointment was never extended. At any rate, even if the required authority were given by our government still it could not erase the impression that his trip abroad was in the interest of his business concern, for it is to be presumed that his designation was extended merely to accommodate him just to give some official color to his trip. Certainly, such trip cannot furnish any valid justification for infringing the letter and spirit of Republic

Act No. 530. G.R. No. L-3353 December 29, 1950 In the matter of the petition of Benjamin Bautista (alias Ban Siong) to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. BENJAMIN BAUTISTA, petitioner-appellee, vs.THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

Facts: This is an appeal by the Government from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila granting the petition for naturalization of Benjamin Bautista alias Ban Siong, a citizen of China.The appeal is predicated on the ground that (1) the petition for naturalization was heard before the expiration of 90 days from the last publication of the notice thereof, (2) petitioner has not secured from his government permission to renounce his Chinese nationality, and (3) petitioner does not write English. As to the third ground paragraph 5, section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law provides that the petitioner for naturalization "must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any of the principal Philippine Languages." Petitioner says that he speaks and writes Tagalog. But he admits that he does not speak and write Spanish; and although he claims he speaks a little English, he does not say that he writes that language. As a matter of fact, the trial judge ordered it made of record "that the petitioner says he does not write English," and the order did not evoke any protest form either petitioner or his counsel. The statement in the decision below that petitioner writes English is without basis in evidence. The record shows just the contrary. It being thus established that petitioner does not speak and write Spanish and that although he speaks a little English, he nevertheless does not write this language, it is obvious that he does not possess the full qualifications prescribed in paragraph 5, section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law. Held: It is contended, however, that the legal requirement as to the knowledge of English must be deemed abrogated with the adoption of Tagalog as an official language in this country. The contention is untenable, for while the Filipino national language has been declared to be one of the official languages of the Philippines, it has not as yet been made the exclusive official language (Commonwealth Act No. 570). And the Constitution (section 3, Article XIV) ordains that "Until otherwise provided by law English and Spanish shall continue as official languages."Lawphil.net The law requires that a petitioner for naturalization must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any of the principal Philippine languages. The courts have no choice but to require full compliance with this statutory provision. Of application here is the following pronouncement of the U.S. Supreme Court: An alien who seeks political rights as member of this nation can rightfully obtain them only upon terms and conditions specified by the Congress. Courts are without authority to sanction changes or modifications; their duty is rigidly to, enforce the legislative will in respect of the matters so vital to the public welfare. (U.S. vs. Ginsberg 243 U.S., 472; 61 L. ed 853, 856.) The decision appealed from is reversed and the applicant's petition for naturalization denied, with costs.