TodayisSunday,August14,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.142840May7,2001
ANTONIOBENGSONIII,petitioner,
vs.
HOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVESELECTORALTRIBUNALandTEODOROC.CRUZ,respondents.
CONCURRINGOPINION
DISSENTINGOPINION
KAPUNAN,J.:
ThecitizenshipofrespondentTeodoroC.Cruzisatissueinthiscase,inviewoftheconstitutionalrequirement
that"nopersonshallbeaMemberoftheHouseofRepresentativeunlessheisanaturalborncitizen."1
RespondentCruzwasanaturalborncitizenofthePhilippines.HewasborninSanClemente,Tarlac,onApril27,
1960,ofFilipinoparents.Thefundamentallawthenapplicablewasthe1935Constitution.2
On November 5, 1985, however, respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and without the
consentoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,tookanoathofallegiancetotheUnitedStates.AsaConsequence,he
lost his Filipino citizenship for under Commonwealth Act No. 63, section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his
citizenship by, among other, "rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign
country."Saidprovisionoflawreads:
SECTION1.Howcitizenshipmaybelost.AFilipinocitizenmaylosehiscitizenshipinanyofthefollowing
waysand/orevents:
xxx
(4)Byrenderingservicesto,oracceptingcommissionin,thearmedofaforeigncountry:Provided,Thatthe
rendering of service to, or the acceptance of such commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country,
andthetakingofanoathofallegianceincidentthereto,withtheconsentoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,
shallnotdivestaFilipinoofhisPhilippinecitizenshipifeitherofthefollowingcircumstancesispresent:
(a) The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with said foreign
countryor
(b)ThesaidforeigncountrymaintainsarmedforcesonPhilippineterritorywiththeconsentoftheRepublic
of the Philippines: Provided,That the Filipino citizen concerned, at the time of rendering said service, or
acceptanceofsaidcommission,andtakingtheoathofallegianceincidentthereto,statesthathedoesso
only in connection with his service to said foreign country And provided, finally, That any Filipino citizen
whoisrenderingserviceto,oriscommissionedin,thearmedforcesofaforeigncountryunderanyofthe
circumstancesmentionedinparagraph(a)or(b),shallnotbeRepublicofthePhilippinesduringtheperiod
ofhisserviceto,orcommissionin,thearmedforcesofsaidcountry.Uponhisdischargefromtheserviceof
the said foreign country, he shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil and politically
entitledtothefullenjoymentofhiscivilpoliticalrightsasaFilipinocitizenxxx.
Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss of Philippine citizenship was erased by his naturalization as a
U.S.citizenonJune5,1990,inconnectionwithhisserviceintheU.S.MarineCorps.
OnMarch17,1994,respondentCruzreacquiredhisPhilippinecitizenshipthroughrepatriationunderRepublicAct
No.2630.3HeranforandwaselectedastheRepresentativeoftheSecondDistrictofPangasinanintheMay11,

1998elections.Hewonbyaconvincingmarginof26,671votesoverpetitionerAntonioBengsonIII,whowasthen
runningforreelection.
1 w p h i1 .n t

Subsequently,petitionerfiledacaseforQuo Warranto Ad Cautelam with respondent House of Representatives

ElectoralTribunal(HRET)claimingthatrespondentCruzwasnotqualifiedtobecomeamemberoftheHouseof
RepresentativessinceheisnotanaturalborncitizenasrequiredunderArticleVI,section6oftheConstitution.4
OnMarch2,2000,theHRETrendereditsdecision5dismissingthepetitionforquowarrantoanddeclaringCruz
the duly elected Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 1998 elections. The HRET
likewisedeniedpetitioner'smotionforreconsiderationofthedecisioninitsresolutiondatedApril27,2000.6
PetitionerthusfiledthepresentpetitionforcertiorariassailingtheHRET'sdecisiononthefollowinggrounds:
1.TheHRETcommittedseriouserrorsandgraveabuseofdiscretion,amountingtoexcessofjurisdiction,
whenitruledthatprivaterespondentisanaturalborncitizenofthePhilippinesdespitethefactthathehad
ceasedbeingsuchinviewofthelossandrenunciationofsuchcitizenshiponhispart.
2.TheHRETcommittedseriouserrorsandgraveabuseofdiscretion,amountingtoexcessofjurisdiction,
when it considered private respondent as a citizen of the Philippines despite the fact he did not validly
acquirehisPhilippinecitizenship.
3.Assumingthatprivaterespondent'sacquisitionofPhilippinecitizenshipwasinvalid,theHRETcommitted
serious errors and grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction, when it dismissed the
petitiondespitethefactthatsuchreacquisitioncouldnotlegallyandconstitutionallyrestorehisnaturalborn
status.7
The issue now before us is whether respondent Cruz, a naturalborn Filipino who became an American citizen,
canstillbeconsideredanaturalbornFilipinouponhisreacquisitionofPhilippinecitizenship.
Petitioner asserts that respondent Cruz may no longer be considered a naturalborn Filipino since he lost h is
PhilippinecitizenshipwhenhesworeallegiancetotheUnitedStatesin1995,andhadtoreacquirethesameby
repatriation. He insists that Article citizens are those who are from birth with out having to perform any act to
acquireorperfectsuchcitizenship.
Respondent on the other hand contends that he reacquired his status as naturalborn citizen when he was
repatriated since the phrase "from birth" in Article IV, Section 2 refers to the innate, inherent and inborn
characteristicofbeinganaturalborncitizen.
Thepetitioniswithoutmerit.
The1987ConstitutionenumerateswhoareFilipinocitizensasfollow:
(1)ThosewhoarecitizensofthePhilippinesatthetimeoftheadoptionofthisConstitution
(2)ThosewhosefathersormothersarecitizensofthePhilippines
(3)ThosebornbeforeJanuary17,1973ofFilipinomother,whoelectPhilippinecitizenshipuponreaching
theageofmajority,and
(4)Thosewhoarenaturalizedinaccordancewithlaw.8
There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2) by naturalization. These ways of acquiring
citizenshipcorrespondtothetwokindsofcitizens:thenaturalborncitizen,andthenaturalizedcitizen.Aperson
whoatthetimeofhisbirthisacitizenofaparticularcountry,isanaturalborncitizenthereof.9
AsdefinedinthesameConstitution,naturalborncitizens"arethosecitizensofthePhilippinesfrombirthwithout
havingtoperformanyacttoacquireorperfecthisPhilippinecitezenship."10
On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization,
generallyunderCommonwealthActNo.473,otherwiseknownastheRevisedNaturalizationLaw,whichrepealed
theformerNaturalizationLaw(ActNo.2927),andbyRepublicActNo.530.11Tobenaturalized,anapplicanthas
toprovethathepossessesallthequalifications12andnoneofthedisqualification13providedbylawtobecomea
Filipino citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes executory only after two (2) years from its
promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the applicant has (1) not left the
Philippines(2)hasdedicatedhimselftoalawfulcallingorprofession(3)hasnotbeenconvictedofanyoffense

orviolationofGovernmentpromulgatedrulesor(4)committedanyactprejudicialtotheinterestofthenationor
contrarytoanyGovernmentannouncedpolicies.14
Filipinocitizenswhohavelosttheircitizenshipmayhoweverreacquirethesameinthemannerprovidedbylaw.
Commonwealth Act. No. (C.A. No. 63), enumerates the three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be
reacquiredbyaformercitizen:(1)bynaturalization,(2)byrepatriation,and(3)bydirectactofCongress.15
Naturalization is mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. As a mode of initially
acquiringPhilippinecitizenship,naturalizationisgovernedbyCommonwealthActNo.473,asamended.Onthe
otherhand,naturalizationasamodeforreacquiringPhilippinecitizenshipisgovernedbyCommonwealthActNo.
63.16Underthislaw,aformerFilipinocitizenwhowishestoreacquirePhilippinecitizenshipmustpossesscertain
qualifications17andnoneofthedisqualificationmentionedinSection4ofC.A.473.18
Repatriation,ontheotherhand,maybehadundervariousstatutesbythosewholosttheircitizenshipdueto:(1)
desertionofthearmedforces19servicesinthearmedforcesofthealliedforcesinWorldWarII20(3)servicein
theArmedForcesoftheUnitedStatesatanyothertime,21(4)marriageofaFilipinowomantoanalien22and(5)
politicaleconomicnecessity.23
Asdistinguishedfromthelengthyprocessofnaturalization,repatriationsimplyconsistsofthetakingofanoathof
allegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippineandregisteringsaidoathintheLocalCivilRegistryoftheplacewhere
thepersonconcernedresidesorlastresided.
InAngatv.Republic,24weheld:
xxx. Parenthetically, under these statutes [referring to RA Nos. 965 and 2630], the person desiring to
reacquirePhilippinecitizenshipwouldnotevenberequiredtofileapetitionincourt,andallthathehadto
dowastotakeanoathofallegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippinesandtoregisterthatfactwiththecivil
registryintheplaceofhisresidenceorwherehehadlastresidedinthePhilippines.[Italicsintheoriginal.25
Moreover,repatriationresultsintherecoveryoftheoriginalnationality.26Thismeansthata naturalized Filipino
wholosthiscitizenshipwillberestoredtohispriorstatusasanaturalizedFilipinocitizen.Ontheotherhand,ifhe
was originally a naturalborn citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former
statusasanaturalbornFilipino.
InrespondentCruz'scase,helosthisFilipinocitizenshipwhenherenderedserviceintheArmedForcesofthe
UnitedStates.However,hesubsequentlyreacquiredPhilippinecitizenshipunderR.A.No.2630,whichprovides:
Section 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of the
UnitedStates,acquiredUnitedStatescitizenship,mayreacquirePhilippinecitizenshipbytakinganoathof
allegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippinesandregisteringthesamewithLocalCivilRegistryintheplace
whereheresidesorlastresidedinthePhilippines.Thesaidoathofallegianceshallcontainarenunciation
ofanyothercitizenship.
Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the same in the Civil
RegistryofMagantarem,Pangasinaninaccordancewiththeaforecitedprovision,respondentCruzisdeemedto
have recovered his original status as a naturalborn citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a
Filipinofather.27 It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his original
statusbeforehelosthisPhilippinecitizenship.
Petitioner'scontentionthatrespondentCruzisnolongeranaturalborncitizensincehehadtoperformanactto
regain his citizenship is untenable. As correctly explained by the HRET in its decision, the term "naturalborn
citizen"wasfirstdefinedinArticleIII,Section4ofthe1973Constitutionasfollows:
Sec.4.AnaturalborncitizenisonewhoisacitizenofthePhilippinesfrombirthwithouthavingtoperform
anyacttoacquireorperfecthisPhilippinecitizenship.
Tworequisitesmustconcurforapersontobeconsideredassuch:(1)apersonmustbeaFilipinocitizenbirth
and(2)hedoesnothavetoperformanyacttoobtainorperfecthisPhilippinecitizenship.
Under the 1973 Constitution definition, there were two categories of Filipino citizens which were not considered
naturalborn:(1)thosewhowerenaturalizedand(2)thosebornbeforeJanuary17,1973,38 of Filipino mothers
who, upon reaching the age of majority, elected Philippine citizenship. Those "naturalized citizens" were not
considered naturalborn obviously because they were not Filipino at birth and had to perform an act to acquire

Philippinecitizenship.ThosebornofFilipinomothersbeforetheeffectivelyofthe1973Constitutionwerelikewise
notconsiderednaturalbornbecausetheyalsohadtoperformanacttoperfecttheirPhilippinescitizenship.
ThepresentConstitution,however,nowconsiderthosebornofFilipinomothersbeforetheeffectivityofthe1973
ConstitutionandwhoelectedPhilippinecitizenshipuponreachingthemajorityageasnaturalborn.Afterdefining
who re naturalborn citizens, Section 2 of Article IV adds a sentence: "Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed naturalborn citizens." Consequently, only
naturalized Filipinos are considered not naturalborn citizens. It is apparent from the enumeration of who are
citizensunderthepresentConstitutionthatthereareonlytwoclassesofcitizens:(1)thosewhoarenaturalborn
and(2)thosewhoarenaturalizedinaccordancewithlaw.AcitizenwhoisnotanaturalizedFilipino,i.e.,didnot
havetoundergotheprocessofnaturalizationtoobtainPhilippinecitizenship,necessarilyisnaturalbornFilipino.
Noteworthy is the absence in said enumeration of a separate category for persons who, after losing Philippine
citizenship, subsequently reacquire it. The reason therefor is clear: as to such persons, they would either be
naturalbornornaturalizeddependingonthereasonsforthelossoftheircitizenshipandthemodeprescribedby
the applicable law for the reacquisition thereof. As respondent Cruz was not required by law to go through
naturalizationproceedinginordertoreacquirehiscitizenship,heisperforceanaturalbornFilipino.Assuch,he
possessedallthenecessaryqualificationstobeelectedasmemberoftheHouseofRepresentatives.
Afinalpoint.TheHREThasbeenempoweredbytheConstitutiontobethe"solejudge"ofallcontestsrelatingto
theelection,returns,andqualificationsofthemembersoftheHouse.29TheCourt'sjurisdictionovertheHRETis
merely to check "whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction"onthepartofthelatter.30Intheabsencethereof,thereisnooccasionfortheCourttoexerciseits
correctivepowerandannulthedecisionoftheHRETnortosubstitutetheCourt'sjudgementforthatofthelatter
forthesimplereasonthatitisnottheofficeofapetitionforcertioraritoinquireintothecorrectnessoftheassailed
decision.31Thereisnosuchshowingofgraveabuseofdiscretioninthiscase.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Bellosillo,Puno,andJJ.,concur.
Melo,Vitug,Mendoza,nopart.
Panganiban,concurringopinion.
Quisumbing,Buena,DeLeon,Jr.,onleave.
SandovalGutierrez,dissentingopinion.
Pardo,GonzagaReyes,concuronthisandtheconcurringopinionofJ.Panganiban
YnaresSantiago,certifymajorityopinionofJ.Kapunan.

Footnote
11987Constitution,ArticleIV,Section6.
2ArticleIV,Section1ofthe1935Constitutionstates:

ThefollowingarecitizensofthePhilippines:
1)ThosewhoarecitizensofthePhilippineIslandsatthetimeoftheadoptionoftheConstitution
2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this
ConstitutionhadbeenelectedtopublicofficeinthePhilippineIslands
3)ThosewhosefathersarecitizensofthePhilippines
4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority,
electedPhilippinecitizenshipand
5)Thosewhoarenaturalizedinaccordancewithlaw.

3 An Act Providing for Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Persons Who Lost Such Citizenship by

RenderingServiceTo,orAcceptingCommissionIn,theArmedForcesoftheUnitedStates(1960).
4Saidprovisionreads:

NopersonshallbeamemberoftheHouseofRepresentativesunlessheisanaturalborncitizenof
thePhilippinesand,onthedayoftheelection,isatleasttwentyfiveyearsofage,abletoreadand
write,andexceptthepartylistrepresentatives,aregisteredvoterinthedistrictinwhichheshallbe
elected,andaresidentthereofforaperiodofnotlessthanoneyearimmediatelyprecedingtheday
oftheelection.
5Rollo,p.36.
6Id.,at69.
7Id.,at13.
8ArticleIV,Section1.
9TOLENTINO,COMMETARIESANDJURISPRUDENCEONTHECIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES188,

1990Ed.
101987Constitution,ArticleIV,Section2.
11 During the period under Martial Law declared by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, thousands of aliens

werenaturalizedbyPresidentialDecreewherethescreeningoftheapplicantswasundertakenbyspecial
committeeunderLetterofInstructionsNo.270,datedApril11,1975,asamended.
12Section2,Act473providesthefollowingqualifications:

(a)Hemustbenotlessthan21yearsofageonthedayofthehearingofthepetition
(b)HemusthaveresidedinthePhilippinesforacontinuousperiodofnotlessthantenyears
(c) He must be of good moral character and believes 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 and
wellaswiththecommunityinwhichheisliving
(d) He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine
currency,ormusthavesomeknownlucrativetrade,profession,orlawfuloccupation
(e)HemustbeabletospeakandwriteEnglishorSpanishandanyoftheprincipallanguagesand
(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 of the Philippines where Philippine history,
government and civic 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 learning of his petition for
naturalizationasPhilippinecitizen.
13Section4,Act473,providesthefollowingdisqualifications:

(a)Hemustnotbeopposedtoorganizedgovernmentoraffiliatedwithanyassociationorgroupof
personswhoupholdandteachdoctrinesopposingallorganizedgovernments
(b)Hemustnotbedefendingorteachingthenecessityorproprietyofviolence,personalassault,or
assassinationforthesuccessandpredominanceoftheirideas
(c)Hemustnotbepolygamistorbelieverinthepracticeofpolygamy
(d)Hemustnothavebeenconvictedofanycrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude
(e)Hemustnotbesufferingfrommentalalienationorincurablecontagiousdiseases
(f) He must have, during the period of his residence in the Philippines (of not less than six months
before filing his application), mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere
desiretolearnandembracethecustoms,traditionsandidealsoftheFilipinos

(g) He must not be a citizen or subject of a nation with whom the Philippines is at war, during the
periodofsuchwar
(h)HemustnotbecitizenorsubjectofforeigncountrywhoselawsdonotgrantFilipinostherightto
becomenaturalizedcitizensorsubjectsthereof.
14Section1,R.A.530.
15Section2,C.A.No.63.
16AnActProvidingfortheWaysinWhichPhilippineCitizenshipMayBeLostorReacquired(1936).
171.TheapplicantmusthavelosthisoriginalPhilippinecitizenshipbynaturalizationinaforeigncountryor

byexpressrenunciationofhiscitizenship(Sec.1[1]and[2],C.A.No.63)
2.HemustbeatleasttwentyoneyearsofageandshallhaveresidedinthePhilippinesatleastsixmonths
beforeheappliesfornaturalization(Sec.3[1],C.A.No.63)
3.Hemusthaveconductedhimselfinaproperandirreproachablemannerduringtheentireperiodofhis
residence(ofatleastsixmonthspriortothefilingoftheapplication)inthePhilippines,inhisrelationswith
theconstitutedgovernmentaswellaswiththecommunityinwhichheisliving(Sec.3[2],C.A.No.63)
4. He subscribes to an oath declaring his intention to renounce absolutely and perpetually al faith and
allegiancetotheforeignauthority,stateorsovereigntyofwhichhewasacitizenorsubject(Sec.3[3],C.A.
No.63).
18Seenote13.
19Sec4,C.a.No.63.
20Sec.1,RepublicActNo.965(1953).
21Sec.1,RepublicActNo.2630(1960).
22Sec.1,RepublicActNo.8171(1995).
23Ibid.
24314SCRA438(1999)
25Id.,at450.
26JovitoR.Salonga,PrivateInternationalLaw,p.165(1995)
27SeeArt.IV,Sec.1,1935Constitution.
28Thedateofeffectivityofthe1973Constitution.
29ArticleIV,Section17ofthe1987Constitutionprovidesthus:

Sec.17.TheSenateandtheHouseofRepresentativeshalleachhaveanElectoralTribunalwhich
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members three of whom
shallbeJusticesoftheSupremeCourttobedesignatedbytheChiefJustice,andtheremainingsix
shallbeMembersoftheSenateoftheHouseofRepresentatives,asthecasemaybe,whoshallbe
chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the partylist system represented therein. The senior Justice in the
ElectoralTribunalshallbeitsChairman.
30Garciavs.HouseofRepresentativesElectoralTribunal,312SCRA353,364(1999).

ENBANC

G.R.No.142840May7,2001
ANTONIOBENGSONIII,petitioner,
vs.
HOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVESELECTORALTRIBUNALandTEODOROC.CRUZ,respondents.
CONCURRINGOPINION
PANGANIBAN,J.:
Iconcurintheponenciaof Mr. Justice Santiago M. Kapunan, holding that the House Electoral Tribunal did not
gravely abuse its discretion in ruling that Private Respondent Teodoro C. Cruz remains a naturalborn Filipino
citizenandiseligibletocontinuebeingamemberofCongress.Letmejustaddafewpoints.
TheFactsinBrief
ItisundisputedthatCongressmanCruzwasbornonApril27,1960inSanClemente,Tarlac,toFilipinoparents.
Hewas,therefore,aFilipinocitizen,pursuanttoSection1(2),1ArticleIVoftheConstitution.Furthermore, not
having done any act to acquire or perfect the Philippine citizenship he obtained from birth, he was a
naturalbornFilipinocitizen,inaccordancewithSection22ofthesameArticleIV.
ItisnotdisputedeitherthatprivaterespondentrenderedmilitaryservicetotheUnitedStatesMarineCorpsfrom
November1958toOctober1993.OnJune5,1990,hewasnaturalizedasanAmericancitizen,inconnectionwith
hisUSmilitaryservice.Consequently,underSection1(4)3ofCANo.63,helosthisPhilippinecitizenship.
Upon his discharge from the US Marine Corps, private respondent returned to the Philippines and decided to
regainhisFilipinocitizenship.Thus,onMarch17,1994,availinghimselfofthebenefitsofRepublicAct(RA)No.
2630, entitled "An Act Providing for Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Persons Who Lost Such by
RenderingServiceto,orAcceptingCommissionin,theArmedForceoftheUnitedStates,"4Cruztookhisoathof
allegiancetotheRepublicandregisteredthesamewiththeLocalCivilRegistryofMangatarem,Pangasinan.On
thesameday,healsoexecutedanAffidavitofReacquisitionofPhilippineCitizenship.
MainIssue
Themainquestionhereis:DidtheHouseofRepresentativesElectoralTribunal(HRET)commitgraveabuseof
discretioninholdingthat,byreasonofhisrepatriation,CongressmanTeodoroC.Cruzhadrevertedtohisoriginal
statusasanaturalborncitizen?Irespectfullysubmitthattheansweris"No."Infact,IbelievethattheHRETwas
correctinitsruling.
1.RepatriationIsRecoveryofOriginalCitizenship
First,repatriationissimplytherecoveryoforiginalcitizenship.UnderSection1ofRA2630,aperson"whoha[s]
losthiscitizenship"may"reacquire"itby"takinganoathofallegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippines."Former
SenatePresidentJovitoR.Salonga,anotedauthorityonthesubject,explainsthismethodmorepreciselyinhis
treatise, Private International Law.5 He defines repatriation as "the recovery of the original nationality upon
fulfillmentofcertaincondition."6Websterbuttressesthisdefinitionbydescribingtheordinaryorcommonusageof
repatriate,as"torestoreorreturntoone'scountryoforigin,allegiance,orcitizenshipxxx."7Inrelationtoour
subject matter, repatriation,then, means restoration of citizenship. It is not a grant of a new citizenship, but a
recoveryofone'sformerororiginalcitizenship.
To "reacquire" simply means "to get back as one's own again."8Ergo,since Cruz, prior to his becoming a US
citizen,wasanaturalbornFilipinocitizen,he"reacquired"thesamestatusuponrepatriation.Toruleotherwise
that Cruz became a nonnaturalborn citizen would not be consistent whit the legal and ordinary meaning of
repatriation.Itwouldbeakintonaturalization,whichistheacquisitionofanewcitizenship."New."Becauseitis
notthesameasthewithwhichhehaspreviouslybeenendowed.
In any case, "the leaning, in questions of citizenship, should always be in favor of [its] claimant x x x."9
Accordingly,thesameshouldbeconstruedinfavorofprivaterespondent,whoclaimstobeanaturalborncitizen.
2.NotBeingNaturalized,RespondentIsNaturalBorn
Second, under the present Constitution, private respondent should be deemed naturalborn, because was not
naturalized.Letmeexplain.
Therearegenerallytwoclassesofcitizens:(1)naturalborncitizensand(2)naturalizedcitizens.10 While CA 63
providesthatcitizenshipmayalsobeacquiredbydirectactoftheLegislature,Ibelievethatthosewhodobecome

citizensthroughsuchprocedurewouldproperlyfallunderthesecondcategory(naturalized).11
Naturalizedcitizensareformeraliensorforeignerswhohadtoundergoarigidprocedure,inwhichtheyhadto
adduce sufficient evidence to prove that they possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
provided by law in order to become Filipino citizens. In contrast, as stated in the early case Roa v. Collector of
Customs,12anaturalborncitizenisacitizen"whohasbecomesuchatthemomentofhisbirth."
The assailed HRET Decision, penned by Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, explains clearly who are considered
naturalborn Filipino citizens. He traces the concept as first defined in Article III of the 1973 Constitution, which
simplyprovidedasfollows:
"Sec4.AnaturalborncitizenisonewhoisacitizenofthePhilippinesfrombirthwithouthavingtoperform
anyacttoacquireorperfecthisPhilippinecitizenship."
Under the above definition, there are two requisites in order that a Filipino citizen may be considered "natural
born":(1)onemustbeacitizenofthePhilippinesfrombirth,and(2)onedoesnothavetodoanythingtoacquire
orperfectone'sPhilippinecitizenship.13Thus,underthe1973Constitution,excludedfromtheclassof"natural
born citizens" were (1) those who were naturalized and (2) those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
motherswho,uponreachingtheageofmajority,electedPhilippinecitizenship.14
ThepresentConstitution,however,hasexpandedthescopeofnaturalborncitizenstoinclude"[t]hosewhoelect
Philippinecitizenshipinaccordancewithparagraph(3),Section1hereof,"meaningthosecoveredunderclass(2)
above. Consequently, only naturalized Filipino citizens are not considered naturalborn citizens. Premising
therefrom,respondentbeingclearlyandconcededlynotnaturalizedis,therefore,anaturalborncitizenofthe
Philippines.15
Withrespecttorepatriates,sincetheConstitutiondoesnotclassifythemseparately,theynaturallyreacquiretheir
originalclassificationbeforethelossoftheirPhilippinecitizenship.InthecaseofCongressmanTeodoroC.Cruz,
uponhisrepatriationin1994,hereacquiredhislostcitizenship.Inotherwords,heregainedhisoriginalstatusasa
naturalbornFilipinocitizen,nothingless.
3.NoGraveAbuseofDiscretiononthePartofHRET
Third, the HRET did not abuse, much less gravely abuse, its discretion in holding that Respondent Cruz is a
naturalbornFilipinocitizenwhoisqualifiedtobeamemberofCongress.IstressthattheCourt,inthiscertiorari
proceedingbeforeus,islimitedtodeterminingwhethertheHRETcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its assailed Decision. The Court has no power to reverse or modify
HRET's rulings, simply because it differs in its perception of controversies. It cannot substitute its discretion for
thatofHRET,anindependent,constitutionalbodywithitsownspecificmandate.
TheConstitutionexplicitlystatesthattherespectiveElectoralTribunalsofthechambersofCongress"shallbethe
sole judges of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications their respective members."16 In
severalcases,17thisCourthasheldthatthepowerandthejurisdictionoftheElectoralTribunalsareoriginaland
exclusive, as if they remained in the legislature, a coequal branch of government. Their judgment are beyond
judicialinterference,unlessrenderedwithoutorinexcessoftheirjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.18
IntheelegantwordsofMr.JusticeHugoE.GutierrezJr.:19
"The Court does not venture into the perilous area of trying to correct perceived errors of independent
branchesoftheGovernment.Itcomesinonlywhenithastovindicateadenialofdueprocessorcorrectan
abuseofdiscretionsograveorglaringthatnolessthantheConstitutioncallsforremedialaction."
True,thereisnosettledjudicialdoctrineontheexacteffectofrepatriation.But,asearlierexplained,thelegaland
common definition of repatriation is the reacquisition of the former citizenship. How then can the HRET be
rebukedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion?Atbest,Icanconcedethatthelegaldefinitionisnotjudiciallysettledoris
evendoubtful.Butaninterpretationmadeingoodfaithandgroundedoreasononewayortheothercannotbe
thesourceofgraveabuseamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.TheHRETdidnotviolatetheConstitution
orthelaworanysettledjudicialdoctrine.Itwasdefinitelyactingwithinitsexclusivedomain.
BeitrememberedthatourConstitutionvestsupontheHRETthepowertobethesolejudgeofthequalifications
ofmembersoftheHouseofRepresentatives,oneofwhichiscitizenship.Absentanyclearshowingofamanifest
violationoftheConstitutionorthelawornayjudicialdecision,thisCourtcannotimputegraveabuseofdiscretion
to the HRET in the latter's actions on matters over which full discretionary authority is lodged upon it by our
fundamentallaw.20 Even assuming that we disagree with the conclusion of public respondent, we cannot ipso
factoattributetoit"graveabuseofdiscretion."Verily,thereisalinebetweenperceivederrorandgraveabuse.21

Bygraveabuseofdiscretionismeantsuchcapriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentasisequivalenttolack
ofjurisdiction.Mereabuseofdiscretionisnotenough."Itmustbegraveabuseofdiscretionaswhenthepoweris
exercisedinanarbitraryordespoticmannerbyreasonofpassionorpersonalhostility,andmustbesopatentand
sogrossastoamounttoanevasionofapositivedutyortoavirtualrefusaltoperformthedutyenjoinedortoact
atallincontemplationoflaw."22
That the HRET, after careful deliberation and purposeful study, voted 7 to 2 to issue its Decision upholding the
qualifications of Congressman Cruz could not in any wise be condemned as gravely abusive. Neither can I find
any"patentorgross"arbitrarinessordespotism"byreasonofpassionorhostility"insuchexercise.
4.InCaseofDoubt,PopularWillPrevails
Fourth, the court has a solemn duty to uphold the clear and unmistakable mandate of the people. It cannot
supplantthesovereignwilloftheSecondDistrictofPangasinanwithfracturedlegalism.ThepeopleoftheDistrict
have clearly spoken. They overwhelmingly and unequivocally voted for private respondent to represent them in
theHouseofRepresentatives.ThevotesthatCruzgarnered(80,119)inthelastelectionsweremuchmorethan
those of all his opponents combined (66, 182).23 In such instances, all possible doubts should be resolved in
favorofthewinningcandidate'seligibilitytoruleotherwisewouldbetodefeatthewillofthepeople.24
Wellentrenchedinourjurisprudenceisthedoctrinethatincaseofdoubt,politicallawsmustbesoconstructedas
to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot.25 Public interest and the
sovereign will should, at all times, be the paramount considerations in election controversies.26 For it would be
bettertoerrinfavorofthepeople'schoicethantoberightincomplexbutlittleunderstoodlegalisms.27
"Indeed,thisCourthasrepeatedlystressedtheimportanceofgivingeffecttothesovereignwillinordertoensure
thesurvivalofourdemocracy.Inanyactioninvolvingthepossibilityofareversalofthepopularelectoralchoice,
this Court must exert utmost effort to resolve the issues in a manner that would give effect to the will of the
majority,foritismerelysoundpublicpolicytocauseelectiveofficestobefilledbythosewhoarethechoiceofthe
majority.Tosuccessfullychallengeawinningcandidate'squalifications,thepetitionermustclearlydemonstrative
thattheineligibilityissopatentlyantagonistictoconstitutionalandlegalprinciplesthatoverridingsuchineligibility
andtherebygivingeffecttotheapparentwillofthepeoplewouldultimatelycreategreaterprejudicetothevery
democraticinstitutionsandjuristictraditionsthatourConstitutionandlawssozealouslyprotectandpromote."28
5.CurrentTrendTowardsGlobalization
Fifth, the current trend, economically as well as politically, is towards globalization.29 Protectionist barriers
dismantled.Whereas,inthepast,governmentsfrownedupontheopeningoftheirdoorstoalienswhowantedto
enjoythesameprivilegesastheircitizens,thecurrenteraisadoptingamoreliberalperspective.Nolongerare
applicantsforcitizenshipeyedwiththesuspicionthattheymerelywanttoexploitlocalresourcesforthemselves.
Theyarenowbeingconsideredpotentialsourcesofdevelopmentalskills,knowhowandcapital.
1 w p h i1 .n t

MoresoshouldourgovernmentopenitsdoorstoformerFilipinos,likeCongressmanCruz,whowanttorejointhe
Filipinocommunityascitizensagain.Theyarenot"aliens"inthetruesenseofthelaw.TheyareactuallyFilipino
byblood,byoriginandbyculture,whowanttoreacquiretheirformercitizenship.
ItcannotbedeniedthatmostFilipinosgoabroadandapplyfornaturalizationinforeigncountries,becauseofthe
greateconomicorsocialopportunitiesthere.Hence,weshouldwelcomeformerFilipinocitizensdesirousofnot
simplyreturningtothecountryorregainingPhilippinecitizenship,butofservingtheFilipinopeopleaswell.Oneof
theseadmirableFilipinoisprivaterespondentwho,inonlyayearafterbeingabsentfromthePhilippinesforabout
eight (8) years, was already voted municipal mayor of Mangatarem, Pangasinan. And after serving as such for
justoneterm,hewasoverwhelminglychosenbythepeopletobetheirrepresentativeinCongress.
Ireiterate,thepeoplehavespoken.Letnotarestrictiveandparochialinterpretationofthelawbarthesovereign
will.LetnotgraveabusebeimputedonthelegitimateexerciseofHRET'sprerogatives.
WHEREFORE,IvotetoDISMISSthepetition.
Footnote
1"Section1.ThefollowingarecitizensofthePhilippines:

(2)ThosewhosefathersormothersarecitizensofthePhilippines
xxxxxxxxx"

2"Section2.Naturalborncitizensarethosewhoarecitizensfrombirthwithouthavingtoperformanyactto

acquireorperfecttheirPhilippinecitizenship.xxx."
3"Section1.Howcitizenshipmaybelost.AFilipinocitizenmaylosehiscitizenshipinanyofthefollowing

waysand/orevents:
xxxxxxxxx"
(4)Byrenderingservicesto,oracceptingcommissionin,thearmedforcesofaforeigncountry:xxx
."
4Sec.1thereofprovides:

"Sec. 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
commissionin,theArmedForcesoftheUnitedStates,orafterseparationfromtheArmedForcesof
the United States, acquired U.S. citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath
allegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippinesandregisteringthesamewiththeLocalCivilRegistryin
theplacewhereheresidesoflastresidedinthePhilippines.Thesaidoathofallegianceshallcontain
arenunciationofanyothercitizenship.
51995ed.
6Ibid.,p.165citedintheassailedHRETDecision,p.13.(Italicsours.)
7Webster'sThirdNewInternationalDictionary:Unabridged,1993ed.
8Webster's,ibid.,definesreacquireas"toacquireagain",andacquireas"togetasone'sown."
9Roav.CollectorofCustoms,23Phil315,338(1912),perTrent,J.citingBoydv.Thaye,143US135.
10RonaldoP.Ledesma,AnOutlineofPhilippineImmigrationandCitizenshipLaws,1999ed.,p.354.See

also14CJSS1,11283AAmJur2daliensandCitizens,s1411.
11SeeLedesma,ibid.,p.355.
12Supra.
13AssailedDecision,p.8.
14Ibid.
15Ibid.,p.9.
16Sec.17,Art.IV.(Emphasisours.)
17 Lazatin v. HRET, 168 SCRA 391, December 8, 1988 Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of

Representatives,199SCRA692,July30,1991citingAngarav.ElectoralCommission,63Phil139(1936).
18Cov.HRET,ibid.,citingRoblesv.HRET,181SCRA780,February5,1990andMorrerovBocar,66Phil

429(1938).SeealsoLibananv.HRET,283SCRA520,December22,1997.
19Co.v.HRET,ibid.
20Santiagov.GuingonaJr.,298SCRA756,November18,1998.
21Ibid.
22Taadav.Angara,272SCRA18,May2,1997,perPanganiban,J.
23"Thefollowingweretheresultsoftheelection:

TeodoroC.Cruz

80,119

AntonioE.BengsonIII

53,448

AlbertoB.Zamuco

11,941

ManuelR.Castro

622

MarianoA.Padlan

171"

(HRETDecision,pp.23rollo,pp.3738.)
24Sinacav.Mula,315SCRA266,September27,1999.
25Frivaldov.Comelec,257SCRA727,June28,1996perPanganiban,J.
26Olondrizv.Comelec,313SCRA128,August25,1999.
27Frivaldov.Comelec,supra.
28Ibid
29SeePacificoA.Agabin,"GlobalizationandtheJudicialFunction,"OdyseyandLegacy:TheChiefJustice

AndresR.NarvasaCentennialLectureSeries,compliedandeditedbyAtty.AntonioM.Eliciano,published
bytheSupremeCourtPrintingServices,1998ed.SeealsoArtenioV.Panganiban,"OldDoctrinesandNew
Paradigms," a lecture delivered during the Supreme Court Centenary Lecture Series, on February 13,
2001.

ENBANC
G.R.No.142840May7,2001
ANTONIOBENGSONIII,petitioner,
vs.
HOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVESELECTORALTRIBUNALandTEODOROC.CRUZ,respondents.
DISSENTINGOPINION
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:
With due respect, I disagree with the ponencia of Justice Santiago M. Kapunan. I am convinced that private
respondent Teodoro C. Cruz is not natural born citizen and, therefore, must be disqualified as a member of
Congress.
Whoarenaturalborncitizens?
Thelawsoncitizenshipitsacquisitionorloss,andtherights,privilegesandimmunitiesofcitizenshavegiven
rise to some of the most disputations and visceral issues resolved by this Court. The problem is taken up
connectionwiththesovereignrightofvoterstochoosetheirrepresentativesinCongress.
Inthispetitionforcertiorari,petitionerAntonioBengsonIIIasksthisCourtofRepresentativeoftheSecondDistrict
ofPangasinanbecausehedoesnotpossestheconstitutionalrequirementofbeinganaturalborncitizenofthis
country.Respondent,ontheotherhand,insiststhatheisqualifiedtobeelectedtoCongressconsideringthatby
repatriation,hereacquiredhisstatusasanaturalbornFilipinocitizen.
Records show that Teodoro Cruz was born in the Philippines on April 27, 1960 to Filipino parents, spouses
LambertoandCarmelitaCruz.OnNovember5,1985,heenlistedintheUnitedStatesArmedForcesandserved
theUnitedStatesMarineCorps.Whileintheserviceforalmostfiveyears,heappliedfornaturalizationwiththe
USDistrictCourtofNorthernDistrictofCaliforniaandwasissuedhisCertificateofNaturalizationNo.14556793as
an American citizen. On October 27, 1993, he was honorably discharged from the US Marine Corps. He then
decidedtoreturntothePhilippines.
Cruz availed of repatriation under R.A. No. 2630, an act providing for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by
persons who lost such citizenship by rendering service to or accepting commission in the Armed Forces of the
UnitedStates.OnMarch17,1994,hetookhisoathofallegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippines.Theoathwas
registeredwiththeLocalCivilRegistryofMangatarem,Pangasinan.Onthesamedate,heexecutedanAffidavit
of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship. Thus, on April 11, 1994, the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation

orderedthecancellationofhisAlienCertificateofResidence(ICRNo.286582)andissuedhimanIdentification
Certificate.
ThecancellationofhisACRandICRwasaffirmedbytheJusticeDepartment.OnJanuary18,1995,theUnited
StatesEmbassyinManilaissuedtohimaCertificateofLossofNationalityoftheUnitedStates.
In the local election of 1995, Cruz filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor of Mangatarem, Pangasinan,
declaringhimselftobeanaturalizedFilipinocitizen.Hewonandservedasmayorforoneterm.
Thereafter,CruzfiledhiscertificateofcandidacyforaseatinCongress,thistimedeclaringhimselfasanatural
bornFilipino.Again,hewonwithaleadof26,671votesovercandidateAntonioBengson,III.
On September 3, 1998, Cruz was proclaimed winner in the congressional race in the Second District of
Pangasinan.
BengsonthenfiledapetitionforQuoWarrantoAdCautelamwiththeHouseofRepresentativeElectoralnotbeing
anaturalbornFilipinocitizenwhenhefiledhisCertificateofCandidacyonMarch15,1998,isnotqualifiedtorun
as a member of the House of Representatives. That he should be a naturalborn citizen is a qualification
mandatedbySection6,ArticleVIoftheConstitutionwhichprovides:"NopersonshallbeamemberoftheHouse
ofRepresentativesunlessheisanaturalborncitizenofthePhilippines."
After oral arguments and the submission by the parties of their respective memoranda and supplemental
memoranda, the HRET rendered a decision holding that Cruz reacquired his naturalborn citizenship upon his
repatriationin1994anddeclaringhimdulyelectedrepresentativeoftheSecondDistrictofPangasinanintheMay
11,1998elections,thus:
"WHEREFORE, the petition for quo warranto is DISMISSED and Respondent Teodoro C. Cruz is hereby
DECLARED duly elected Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998
elections.
"As soon as this Decision becomes final and executory, let notices and copies thereof be sent to the
PresidentofthePhilippinestheHouseofRepresentatives,throughtheSpeaker,andtheCommissionon
Audit, through its Chairman, pursuant to Rule 76 of the 1998 Rules of the House of Representatives
ElectoralTribunal.Costsdeoficio."
OnMarch13,2000,BengsonfiledamotionforreconsiderationofthesaidDecisionbutthesamewasdeniedby
theHRETinResolutionNo.0048.
BengsonnowcomestousviaapetitionforcertiorariassailingtheHRETDecisionongroundsthat:
"1.TheHRETcommittedseriouserrorsandgraveabuseofdiscretion,amountingtoexcessofjurisdiction,
whenitruledthatprivaterespondentisanaturalborncitizenofthePhilippinesdespitethefactthathehad
ceasedbeingsuchinviewofthelossandrenuciationofsuchcitizenshiponhispart.
"2.TheHRETcommittedseriouserrorsandgraveabuseofdiscretion,amountingtoexcessofjurisdiction,
whenitconsideredprivaterespondentasacitizenofthePhilippinesdespitethefactthathedidnotvalidly
acquirehisPhilippinecitizenship.
"3.Assumingthatprivaterespondent'sacquisitionofPhilippinecitizenshipwasinvalid,theHRETcommitted
serious errors and grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of despite the fact that such
reacquisitioncouldnotlegallyandconstitutionallyrestorehisnaturalbornstatus."
ThesoleissueraisedinthispetitioniswhetherornotrespondentCruzwasnaturalborncitizenofthePhilippines
atthetimeofthefilingofhisCertificateofCandidacyforaseatintheHouseofRepresentatives.
Section2,ArticleIVoftheConstitution1provides:
"Sec. 2. Naturalborn citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
performanyacttoacquireorperfecttheirPhilippinecitizenship.xxx."
Petitioner and respondent present opposing interpretations of the phrase "from birth" contained in the above
provisions.
Petitionercontendsthatthephrase"frombirth"indicatesthatcitizenshipmuststartatadefinitepointandmustbe
continuous, constant and without interruption. The Constitution does not extend the privilege of reacquiring a
naturalborncitizenstatustorespondent,whoatonetime,becameanalien.Hislossofcitizenshipcarriedwithit
theconcomitantlossofallthebenefits,privilegesandattributesof"naturalborn"citizenship.Whenhereacquired
hiscitizenshipin1994,hehadtocomplywithrequirementsforrepatriation,thuseffectivelytakinghimoutofthe

constitutionaldefinitionofanaturalbornFilipino.Forhispart,respondentmaintainsthatthephrase"frombirth"
refers to the innate, inherent and inborn characteristic of being a "naturalborn". Since he was born to Filipino
frombirth.HisreacquisitionofPhilippinecitizenshipunderRepublicActNo.2630resultsinhisreacquisitionofhis
inherentcharacteristicofbeinganaturalborncitizen.
For his part, respondent maintains that the phrase "from birth" refers to the innate, inherent and inborn
characteristicofbeinga"naturalborn".SincehewasborntoFilipinoparents,hehasbeenanaturalbornFilipino
frombirth.HisreacquisitionofPhilippinecitizenshipunderRepublicActNo.2630resultsinhisreacquisitionofhis
inherentcharacteristicofbeinganaturalborncitizen.
Thestateofbeinganaturalborncitizenhasbeenregarded,notsomuchinitsliteralsense,butmoreinitslegal
connotation.
The very first naturalborn Filipinos did not acquire that status at birth. They were born as Spanish subjects. In
Roa vs. Collector of Customs,2 the Supreme Court traces the grant of naturalborn status from the Treaty of
Paris,andtheActsofCongressofJuly1,1902andMarch23,1912,whichisareenactmentofSection4ofthe
formerwithaprovisowhichreads:
"Provided, That the Philippine Legislature is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of
Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come within the foregoing
provisions,thenativesofotherInsularpossessionsoftheUnitedStatesandsuchotherpersonsresidingin
thePhilippineIslandswhocouldbecomecitizensoftheUnitedStateunderthelawsoftheUnitedState,if
residingtherein."
Itwasfurtherheldthereinthatunderthesaidprovision,"everypersonbornthe11thofApril,ofparentswhowere
Spanish subjects on that date and who continued to reside in this country are at the moment of their birth ipso
factocitizensofthePhilippineIslands."
Under the April 7, 1900 Instructions of President William McKinley to the Second Philippine Commission,
considered as our first colonial charter of fundamental law, we were referred to as "people of the Islands," or
"inhabitants of the Philippine Islands," or "natives of the Islands" and not as citizens, much less naturalborn
citizens.Thefirstdefinitionof"citizensofthePhilippineIslands"inourlawisfoundinSection4ofthePhilippine
Billof1902.3
Philippinecitizenship,includingthestatusofnaturalborn,wasinitiallyalooseorevennonexistentqualification.
As a requirement for the exercise of certain rights and privileges, it became a more strict and difficult status to
achievewiththepassingoftheyears.
Early decisions of the Supreme Court held that Philippine citizenship could be acquired under either the jus
sanguinisorjussolidoctrine.4
ThisliberalpolicywasappliedevenasthePhilippineBillof1902andtheJonesLawofthePhilippineAutonomy
Act of 1916 appear to have limited "citizens of the Philippine Islands" to resident inhabitants who were Spanish
subjectsonApril11,1899,theirchildrenbornsubsequentthereto,andlater,thosenaturalizedaccordingtolawby
thePhilippinelegislature.Onlylaterwasjussanguinisfirmlyappliedandjussoliabandoned.
Hence,thestatusofbeinganaturalborncitizenatitsincipientisaprivilegeconferredbylawdirectlytothosewho
intended, and actually continued, to belong to the Philippine Island. Even at the time of its conception in the
Philippines, such persons upon whom citizenship was conferred did not have to do anything to acquire full
citizenship.5
Respondent wants us to believe that since he was naturalborn Filipino at birth, having been born in the
PhilippinestoFilipinoparents,hewasautomaticallyrestoredtothatstatuswhenhesubsequentlyreacquiredhis
citizenshipafterlosingit.
Public respondent HRET affirmed respondent's position when it pronounced that the definition of naturalborn
citizeninSection2,ArticleIVoftheConstitutionreferstotheclassesofcitizensenumeratedinSection1ofthe
sameArticle,towit:
"Section1.ThefollowingarecitizensofthePhilippines:
(1)ThosewhoarecitizensofthePhilippinesatthetimeoftheadoptionofthisConstitution
(2)ThosewhosefathersormothersarecitizensofthePhilippines
(3)ThosebornbeforeJanuary17,1973,ofFilipinomothers,whoelectPhilippinecitizenshipuponreaching
theageofmajorityand

(4)Thosewhoarenaturalizedinaccordancewithlaw."
Thus , respondent HRET held that under the above enumeration, there are only two classes of citizens, i.e.,
naturalbornandnaturalized.SincerespondentCruzisnotanaturalizedcitizen,thenheisanaturalbornFilipino
citizen.
Idonotagree.IreiteratethatSection2,ArticleIVoftheConstitutiondefinesnaturalborncitizensas"thosewho
are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship."
PursuanttoR.A.No.2630,quotedasfollow:
"Republic Act No. 2630. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY
PERSONS WHO LOST SUCH CITIZENSHIP BY RENDERING SERVICE TO, OR ACCEPTING
COMMISSIONIN,THEARMEDFORCESOFTHEUNITEDSTATES,provides:
Section 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship be rendering service to, or accepting
commission in the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of the
UnitedStates,acquiredUnitedStatescitizenship,mayreacquirePhilippinecitizenshipbytakinganoathof
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same with the Local Civil Registry in the
place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall contain a
renunciationofanyothercitizenship."
respondentCruzhadperformcertainactsbeforehecouldagainbecomeaFilipinocitizen.Hehadtotakeanoath
ofallegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippinesandregisterhisoathwiththeLocalCivilRegistryofMangatarum,
Pangasinan. He had to renounce his American citizenship and had to execute an affidavit of reacquisition of
Philippinecitizenship.
Clearly,hedidnotreacquirehisnaturalborncitizenship.Thecardinalruleintheinterpretationandconstitutionof
aconstitutionistogiveeffecttotheintentionoftheframersandofthepeoplewhoadoptedit.Wordsappearingin
Constitutionareusedaccordingtotheirplain,natural,andusualsignificanceandimportandmustbeunderstood
inthesensemostobvioustothecommonunderstandingofthepeopleatthetimeofitsadoption.
Theprovisionon"naturalborncitizensofthePhilippines"isprecise,clearanddefinite.Indeed,neitherHRETnor
thisCourtcanconstrueitotherthanwhatitsplainmeaningconveys.Itisnotphrasedingenerallanguagewhich
maycallforconstructionofwhatthewordsimply.
InJ.M.Tuason&Co.,Inc.vs.LandTenureAdministration,6thisCourtheld:
"Ascertainment of meaning of provisions of Constitution begins with the language of the document itself.
The words used in the Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning, except where technical terms
are employed, in which case the significance thus attached to them prevails. As the Constitution is not
primarilyalawyer'sdocument,itbeingessentialfortheruleoflawtoobtainthatitshouldeverbepresentin
the people's consciousness, its language as much as possible, should be understood in the sense they
have in common use. What it says according to the text of the provision to be construed compels
acceptanceandnegatesthepowerofthecourtstoalterit,basedonthepostulatethattheframersandthe
peoplemeanwhattheysay."
ThedefinitionofanaturalborncitizenintheConstitutionmustbeappliedtothispetitionaccordingtoitsnatural
sense.
Respondent HRET likewise ruled that the "reacquisition of Philippine citizenship through any of these modes:
(naturalization, repatriation and legislation under Section 3, C.A. No. 63) results in the restoration of previous
status,eitherasanaturalbornoranaturalizedcitizen"isasimplisticapproachandtendstobemisleading.
If citizenship is gained through naturalization, repatriation or legislation, the citizen concerned can not be
considerednaturalborn.Obviously,hehastoperformcertainactstobecomeacitizen.
AsexpressedintheDissentofJusticeJoseC.Vitug7intheinstantcase,concurredinbyJusticeA.R.Melo:8
"Repatriation is the resumption or recovery of the original nationally upon the fulfillment of certain
conditions.Whileanapplicantneednothavetoundergothetediousandtimeconsumingprocessrequired
by the Revised Naturalization Law (CA 473, s amended), he, nevertheless, would still have to make an
expressandunequivocalactofformallyrejectinghisadoptedstateandreaffirminghistotalandexclusive
allegianceandloyaltytotheRepublicofthePhilippines.Itbearsemphasisthat,tobeofsection2,ArticleIV,
ofthe1987Constitution,oneshouldnothavetoperformanyactatallorgothroughanyprocess,judicial
oradministrative,toenablehimtoreacquirehiscitizenship.willoughbyopinesthatanaturalborncitizenis

one who is able to claim citizenship without any prior declaration on his part of a desire to obtain such
status.Underthisview,theterm'naturalborn'citizenscouldalsocoverthosewhohavebeencollectively
deemedcitizensbyreasonoftheTreatyofParisandthePhilippineBillof1902andthosewhohavebeen
accordedbythe1935ConstitutiontobeFilipinocitizens(thoseborninthePhilippinesofalienparentswho,
beforetheadoptionofthe1935Constitutionhadbeenelectedtopublicoffice.)"
The two dissenting Justice correctly stated that the "stringent requirement of the Constitution is so placed as to
insurethatonlyFilipinocitizenswithanabsoluteandpermanentdegreeofallegianceandloyaltyshallbeeligible
for membership in Congress, the branch of the government directly involved and given the dedicate task of
legislation."
Thedissentingopinionfurtherstates:
"The term 'naturalborn' Filipino citizen, first constitutionally defined in the 1973 Charter, later adopted by
the 1987 Constitution, particularly in Section 2, Article IV thereof, is meant to refer to those ' who are
citizensofthePhilippinesfrombirthwithouthavingtoperformanyacttoacquireorperfecttheircitizenship,'
and to those ' who elect Philippine citizenship.' Time and again, the Supreme Court has declared that
wherethelawsspeaksinclearandcategoricallanguage,thereisnoroomforinterpretation,vacillationor
equivocation there is only room for application. The phrase 'from birth indicates that there is a starting
pointofhiscitizenshipandthiscitizenshipshouldbecontinuous,constantandwithoutinterruption."
Thus,respondentisnoteligibleforelectiontoCongressastheConstitutionrequiresthatamemberoftheHouse
ofRepresentativemustbea"naturalborncitizenofthePhilippines."
Forsure,theframersofourConstitutionintendedtoprovideamorestringentcitizenshiprequirementforhigher
elective offices, including that of the office of a Congressman. Otherwise, the Constitution should have simply
providedthatacandidateforsuchpositioncanbemerelyacitizenofthePhilippines,asrequiredoflocalelective
officers.
Thespiritofnationalismpervadingthe1935Constitution,thefirstcharterframedandratifiedbytheFilipino(even
asthedrafthadtobeapprovedbyPresidentFranklinDelanoRooseveltoftheUnitedStates)guideandgoverns
the interpretation of Philippine citizenship and the more narrow and bounden concept of being a naturalborn
citizen.
Underthe1935costitution,9therequirementofnaturalborncitizenshipwasapplicabletothePresidentandVice
Persident.10Apersonwhohadbeenacitizenforonlyfive(5)yearscouldbeelectedtotheNationalAssembly.11
Onlyin1940,12whenthefirstConstitutionwasamendeddidnaturalborncitizenshipbecomearequirementfor
SenatorsandMembersoftheHouseofRepresentatives.13AFilipinonaturalizedforatleastfive(5)yearscould
stillbeappointedJusticeoftheSupremecourtoraJudgeofalowercourt.14
ThehistoryoftheConstitutionshowsthatthemeaningandapplicationoftherequirementofbeingnaturalborn
havebecomemorenarrowandqualifiedovertheyears.
Underthe1973Constitution,15thePresident,membersoftheNationalAssembly,PrimeMinister,Justicesofthe
SupremeCourt,Judgesofinferiorcourts,thechairmenandmembersoftheConstitutionalCommissionandthe
majority of members of the cabinet must be naturalborn citizens.16 The 1987 Constitution added the
Ombudsman and his deputies and the members of the Commission on Human Rights to those who must be
naturalborncitizens.17
The questioned Decision of respondent HRET reverses the historical trend and clear intendment of the
Constitution.Itshowsamoreliberal,ifnotacavalierapproachtothemeaningandimportofnaturalborncitizen
andcitizenshipingeneral.
Itbearsstressingthatwearetracingandenforcingadoctrineembodiedinnolessthattheconstitution.Indeed,a
deviationfromtheclearandconstitutionaldefinitionofa"naturalbornFilipinocitizen"isamatterwhichcanonly
beaccomplishedthroughaconstitutionalamendment.ClearlyrespondentHRETgravelyabuseditsdiscretion.
RespondentCruzhasavailedhimselfoftheprocedurewherebyhiscitizenshiphasbeenrestored.Hecanrunfor
public office where naturalborn citizenship is not mandated. But he cannot be elected to high offices which the
ConstitutionhasreservedonlyfornaturalbornFilipinocitizens.
WHEREFORE,IvotetoGRANTthepetition.

Footnote

1 w p h i1 .n t

11987ConstitutionoftheRepublicofthePhilippines.
223Phil315(1912).
3 Section 4. That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish

subjectsontheeleventhdayofApril,eighteenhundredandninetynineandthenresidedinsaidIslands,
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 provision of the treaty of peace
betweentheUnitedStatesandSpainsignedatParis,Decembertenth,eighteenhundredandninetyeight.
4Roavs.CollectorofCustoms,supraLimTecovs.Collector,24Phil84(1913)UnitedStatevs.LimBin,

36Phil924(1917).
5Roavs.CollectorofCustoms,ibid.
631SCRA413(1970).
7MemberoftheHRET.
8Chairman,ibid.
9Thisreferstothe1935ConstitutionasadoptedbythePhilippineConstitutionConventiononFebruary8,

1935, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 23, 1935 and ratified by Filipino voters in a
plebisciteheldonMay14,1935.
10Section3,ArticleVIII.1935Constitution.
11Section2,ArticleVI,ibid.
12 The 1935 Constitution was amendedby Resolution Numbered Seventythree, adopted by the Second

National Assembly on the 11th day of April 1940, and approved by the President of the United Sates on
December2,940.
13Section4and7,ArticleVI,1935Constitution,asamended.
14Section6and8,ArticleVIII,ibid.
15 This refers to the 1973 Constitution as approved by the Filipino people in a referendum held between

January10,1973andJanuary15,1973andwhichbecameeffectiveonJanuary17,1973.
16Section2,ArticleVIIsection4,ArticleVIIISection3and4,ArticleIXSection3(1)and(2),ArticleX

Section1(1)ArticleXIIB,Section1(1),ArticleXIIICSection1(1)ArticleXIID,1973Constitution.
17Section8,ArticleXIandSection17(2),ArticleXIII,1987Constitution
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation