ARTICLE 4 of the 1987 Constitution (Bar Q’s)

pp. 275 - 277

2000 Bar - Cruz, a Filipino by birth, became an American citizen. In his old age he has returned to the
country and wants to become a Filipino again. As his lawyer, enumerate the ways by which citizenship
may be reacquired. (2%)

Suggested Answer:

Cruz may reacquire Philippine citizenship in the following ways: 1 By naturalization; 2 By repatriation
pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171; and 3 By direct act of Congress (Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No.
63).

2001 Bar - From mainland China where he was born of Chinese parents, Mr Nya Tsa Chan migrated to
the Philippines in 1894. As of April 11, 1899, he was already a permanent resident of the Philippine
Islands and continued to reside in this country until his death. During his lifetime and when he was
already in the Philippines, Mr. Nya Tsa Chan married Charing, a Filipina, with whom he begot one son,
Hap Chan, who was born on October 18. 1897. Hap Chan got married also to Nimfa, a Filipina, and one
of their children was Lacqui Chan who was born on September 27, 1936. Lacqui Chan finished the course
Bachelor of Science in Commerce and eventually engaged in business. In the May 1989 election, Lacqui
Chan ran for and was elected Representative (Congressman). His rival candidate, Ramon Deloria, filed a
quo warranto or disqualification case against him on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen. It was
pointed out in particular, that Lacqui Chan did not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
21. Decide whether Mr. Lacqui Chan suffers from a disqualification or not. (5%)

Suggested Answer:

Lacqui Chan is a Filipino citizen and need not elect Philippine citizenship. His father, Hap Chan, was a
Spanish subject, was residing in the Philippines on April 11, 1899, and continued to reside in the
Philippines. In accordance with Section 4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902, he was a Filipino citizen. Hence,
in accordance with Section 1(3} of the 1935 Constitution, Lacqui Chan is a natural born Filipino citizen,
since his father was a Filipino citizen.

2003 Bar - Miguel Sin was born a year ago in China to a Chinese father and a Filipino mother His parents
met in Shanghai where they were lawfully married just two years ago. Is Miguel Sin a Filipino citizen?

Suggested Answer:
Miguel Sin is a Filipino citizen because he is the legitimate child of a Filipino mother. Under Article IV,
Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, his mother retained her Philippine citizenship despite her marriage
to an alien husband, and according to Article IV, Section 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution, children born of a
Filipino mother are Filipino citizens.

2004 Bar - TCA, a Filipina medical technologist, left in 1975 to work in ZOZ State. In 1988 she married
ODH, a citizen of ZOZ. Pursuant to ZOZ's law, by taking an oath of allegiance, she acquired her husband's
citizenship. ODH died in 2001, leaving her financially secured. She returned home in 2002, and sought
elective office in 2004 by running for Mayor of APP, her hometown. Her opponent sought to have her
disqualified because of her ZOZ citizenship. She replied that although she acquired ZOZ's citizenship
because of marriage, she did not lose her Filipino citizenship. Both her parents, she said, are Filipino
citizens. Is TCA qualified to run for Mayor? (5%)

Suggested Answer:

On the assumption that TCA took an oath of allegiance to ZOZ to acquire the citizenship of her husband,
she is not qualified to run for mayor. She did not become a citizen of ZOZ merely by virtue of her
marriage, she also took an oath of allegiance to ZOZ. By this act, she lost her Philippine citizenship.
(Section 1 [3], Commonwealth Act No. 63.)

2006 Bar - Atty. Emily Go, a legitimate daughter of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, was born in
1945. At 21, she elected Philippine citizenship and studied law. She passed the bar examinations and
engaged in private practice for many years. The Judicial and Bar Council nominated her as a candidate
for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. But her nomination is being contested by
Atty. Juris Castillo, also an aspirant to the position. She claims that Atty. Emily Go is not a natural-born
citizen, hence, not qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Is this contention correct? (5%)

Suggested Answer:

The contention is not correct. Under Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1987 Constitution, it is provided that
those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine Citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority are Filipino citizens. Atty. Emily Go was born of a Filipino mother in 1945 and elected
citizenship upon reaching the age of 21. She is a natural born Filipino citizen as provided by Article IV,
Section 2 of the Constitution — "x x x those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with
paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens." Hence she is qualified to be
appointed to the Supreme Court.

2006 Bar - Atty. Richard Chua was born in 1964. He is a legitimate son of a Chinese father and a Filipino
mother. His father became a naturalized Filipino citizen when Atty. Chua was still a minor. Eventually, he
studied law and was allowed by the Supreme Court to take the bar examinations, subject to his
submission to the Supreme Court proof of his Philippine citizenship. Although he never complied with
such requirement, Atty. Chua practiced law for many years until one Noel Eugenio filed with the
Supreme Court a complaint for disbarment against him on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen. He
then filed with the Bureau of Immigration an affidavit electing Philippine citizenship. Noel contested it
claiming it was filed many years after Atty. Chua reached the age of majority. Will Atty. Chua be
disbarred? Explain. (5%)

Suggested Answer:

No, Atty. Chua will not be disbarred. Atty. Chua is already a Filipino citizen and there was no need for
him to file the affidavit electing Filipino citizenship. An election of Philippine citizenship presupposes
that the person electing is an alien. His father, however, already became a Filipino citizen when Atty.
Chua was still a minor and thus, he was already a Filipino before the age of majority (Co v. HRET, G.R.
Nos. 92191-92, July 30,1991).

2009 Bar - Warlito, a natural-born Filipino, took up permanent residence in the United States, and
eventually acquired American citizenship. He then married shirley, an American, and sired three
children. In August 2009, Warlito decided to visit the Philippines with his wife and children: Johnny, 23
years of age; Warlito Jr., 20; and Luisa 17. While in the Philippines, a friend informed him that he could
reacquire Philippine citizenship without necessarily losing US nationality. Thus, he took the oath of
allegiance required under RA no. 9225.

(a) Having reacquired Philippine citizenship, is Warlito a natural born or naturalized Filipino Citizen
today? Explain your answer (3%).

Suggested Answer: NATURAL BORN. Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship under RA no. 9225 will
restore him back of his former status as a natural-born citizen (Bengzon vs. House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal, 357 SCRA 545 [2001]; R.A. 2630)

(b) With Warlito having regained Philippine Citizenship, will shirly also become a Filipino Citizen? If so,
why? If not, what would be the most speedy procedure for shirly to acquire Philippine citizenship?
Explain

Suggested Answer:

Shirley will not become a Filipino citizen, because under RA 9225, Warlito’s reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship did not extend its benefits to Shirley. She should instead file with the Bureau of Immigration
a petition for cancellation of her alien certificate of registration on the ground that in accordance with
Section 15 of the Naturalization Law, because of her Marriage to Warlito, she should be deemed to have
become a Filipino Citizen. She must allege and prove that she possesses none of the disqualifications to
become a naturalized Filipino citizen (Burca vs. Republic, 51 SCRA 248 [1973]).
Alternative Answer:

NO. Shirly will not become a Filipino Citizen because only Warlito’s unmarried children whether
legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years of age shall be entitled to derivative Philippine
citizenship. Shirly may acquire Philippine citizenship in the most speedy procedure through JUDICIAL
NATURALIZATION under CA no. 473, as amended

(c) Do the Children - - - Johnny, Warlito Jr. and Luisa - - - become Filipino citizens with their father’s
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship? Explain your answer. (3%)

Suggested Answer:

Only LUISA shall acquire Philippine Citizenship upon the reacquisition of her father’s Filipino citizenship
under RA no. 9225. The unmarried children, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years
of age shall be entitled to derivative Philippine citizenship.

2011 Bar (MCQ) - Filipino citizenship may be acquired through judicial naturalization only by an alien

(A) Filipino citizenship may be acquired through judicial naturalization only by an alien
(B) who has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen.
(C) born and raised in the Philippines who has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
to become a Filipino citizen.
(D) whose mother or father is a naturalized Filipino and who himself is qualified to be naturalized.

2011 Bar (MCQ) - A child born in the United States to a Filipino mother and an American father is

(A) a Filipino citizen by election.

(B) a repatriated Filipino citizen
(C) a repatriated Filipino citizen
(D) a natural born Filipino citizen.

2011 Bar (MCQ) - The Special Committee on Naturalization is headed by

(A) the Secretary of Justice.

(B) the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
(C) the National Security Adviser
(D) the Solicitor General.
2012 Bar (MCQ) - Basic Philippine law, in respect of the modes of acquiring citizenship, follows the
rule(s) of:

a. jus soli and jus sanguinis;

b. naturalization and provides for jus soli;
c. jus sanguinis and provides for naturalization;
d. jus sanguinis and provides for naturalization;

2012 Bar (MCQ)- Dual allegiance by citizen is:

a. inimical to the national interest and is therefore proscribed by law;

b. inimical to the national interest and is therefore prescribed by law;
c. inimical to the national interest and therefore shall be dealt with by law;
d. inimical to the national interest and is therefore outside of coverage of law

2013 Bar (MCQ) - A child born under either the 1973 or the 1987 Constitution, whose father or mother
is a Filipino citizen at the time of his birth, is __________. (1%)

(A) not a Filipino citizen as his father and mother must both be Filipino citizens at the time of his
birth
(B) not a Filipino citizen if his mother is a Filipino citizen but his father is not, at the time of his birth
(C) a Filipino citizen no matter where he or she may be born
(D) a Filipino citizen provided the child is born in the Philippines
(E) a Filipino citizen if he or she so elects upon reaching the age of 21

ARTICLE 5 of the 1987 Constitution (Bar Q’s)

pp. 291 - 292