CITIZENSHIP & SUFFRAGE

By: Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr.

• Q: Who are citizens of the Philippines?
• Those who are Filipino citizens at the time of
the adoption of the 1987 Constitution;
• Those whose fathers or mothers are Filipino
citizens;
• Those born before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority;
• Those naturalized in accordance with law.
(Sec.1, Art. IV, 1987 Constitution)
SECTION 2. Natural-born citizens are those who
are citizens of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3),
Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born
citizens.
SECTION 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or
reacquired in the manner provided by law.
SECTION 4. Citizens of the Philippines who
marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by
their act or omission they are deemed, under the
law, to have renounced it.
SECTION 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is
inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt
with by law.
Q. What are the modes of acquiring citizenship:

• By birth
• Jus sanguinis – acquisition of citizenship on the
basis of blood relationship.
• Jus soli – acquisition of citizenship on the basis
of the place of birth.
• By naturalization – the legal act of adopting an
alien and clothing him with the privilege of a
native-born citizen.
• By marriage
• Q: Who are natural-born citizens?
• Citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship;

• Those born before January 17, 1973 of

Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority.
• Q: What is the nationality of foundlings?
• A: The 1930 Hague Convention on Certain
Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality
Laws (“1930 Hague Convention”) states that:
• Article 14: A child whose parents are both
unknown shall have the nationality of the
country of birth. If the child's parentage is
established, its nationality shall be determined by
the rules applicable in cases where the parentage
is known.
• A foundling is, until the contrary is proved,
presumed to have been born on the territory of
the State in which it was found.
• Q: Are foundlings considered natural-born
citizens?
• A: The 1930 Hague Convention is silent.
Thus, the question is left to each country’s
laws as to who is granted natural-born status.
• In the Philippines, foundlings are either
adopted or their birth simulated in a fabricated
certificate of birth. This is a legal process to
perfect their citizenship.
• Since they have to perform an act to
perfect their citizenship, they cannot be
deemed natural-born.
• Q: The Case of Sen. Grace Poe
• A: As stated in her Certificate of Live Birth, she was
found abandoned in the Parish of Jaro in Iloilo City,
Philippines on 3 September 1968 by a certain Mr.
Edgardo Militar.
• On 13 May 1974, she was adopted by the spouses
Ronald Allan Kelly Poe (a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr.) and
Jesusa Sonora Poe (a.k.a. Susan Roces).
• On 27 July 1991, she married Teodoro Misael Daniel
V. Llamanzares. She then renounced Philippine
citizenship and became a naturalized American
following her husband’s nationality on 18 October
2001.
• On 24 May 2005, she returned to the Philippines.
• Q: The undisputed facts
• A: On 10 July 2006, she applied for repatriation.
• On 18 July 2006, the BI issued an Opinion that she is
“presumed to be a natural-born Filipino citizen”.
• On 6 October 2010, President Benigno S. Aquino III,
appointed her as Chairperson of the MTRCB.
• on 20 October 2010, She executed an “Affidavit of
Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States of America
and Renunciation of American Citizenship.”
• On 9 December 2011, the U.S.A. Vice Consul issued to her
a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States. Said
Certificate attests that under U.S.A. laws, she lost her
U.S.A. citizenship effective 21 October 2010.
• On 12 July 2011, she surrendered her US passport and
executed an Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality
of the United States.
• Q: Is Sen. Grace Poe a natural born Filipino?
• A: YES
• First, there is a high probability that Grace Poe’s parents
are Filipinos. Her physical features are typical of Filipinos.
• The fact that she was abandoned as an infant in a
municipality where the population of the Philippines is
overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be more
than 99% chance that a child born in such province is a
Filipino is also a circumstantial evidence of her parents’
nationality.
• That probability and the evidence on which it is based are
admissible under Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised Rules
on Evidence.
• To assume otherwise is to accept the absurd, if not the
virtually impossible, as the norm. (Grace Poe v.
COMELEC, GR 221697, GR 221698-700 March 8, 2016)
• Q: Is Sen. Grace Poe a natural born Filipino?
• A: YES
• Second, by votes of 7-5, the SC pronounced that
foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens.
• This is based on the finding that the deliberations of the
1934 Constitutional Convention show that the framers
intended foundlings to be covered by the enumeration.
• While the 1935 Constitution’s enumeration is silent as to
foundlings, there is no restrictive language which would
definitely exclude foundlings either.
• Because of silence and ambiguity in the enumeration with
respect to foundlings, the SC felt the need to examine the
intent of the framers.
• (Grace Poe v. COMELEC, GR 221697, GR 221698-700
March 8, 2016)
• Q: Is Sen. Grace Poe a natural born Filipino?
• A: YES
• Third, that foundlings are automatically conferred with
natural-born citizenship is supported by treaties and the
general principles of international law.
• The 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating
to the Conflict of Nationality Laws (“1930 Hague
Convention”) states that:
• Article 14: A child whose parents are both unknown
shall have the nationality of the country of birth. If the
child's parentage is established, its nationality shall be
determined by the rules applicable in cases where the
parentage is known. A foundling is, until the contrary is
proved, presumed to have been born on the territory of
the State in which it was found. (Grace Poe v.
COMELEC, GR 221697, GR 221698-700 March 8, 2016)
• Q: What is the effect if a former dual citizen resumes
using his foreign passport?
• A: This will effectively negate his Affidavit of
Renunciation of foreign citizenship. He will be deemed
a foreign national. Citizenship is not a matter of
convenience. It is a badge of identity that comes with
attendant civil and political rights accorded by the state to
its citizens.
• It likewise demands the concomitant duty to maintain
allegiance to one's flag and country. While those who
acquire dual citizenship by choice are afforded the right of
suffrage, those who seek election or appointment to public
office are required to renounce their foreign citizenship to
be deserving of the public trust. Holding public office
demands full and undivided allegiance to the Republic and
to no other. (Maquiling v. COMELEC, April 16, 2013)
(Arnado v. COMELEC, August 18, 2015)
• Q: What is the effect if a former dual citizen
resumes using his foreign passport?
• A: He is deemed to have thereby effectively
repudiated his oath of renunciation.
• Consequently, his continued exercise of his rights
as a citizen of the USA through using his USA
passport after the renunciation of his USA
citizenship reverted him to his earlier status as a
dual citizen.
• Such reversion disqualified him from being elected
to public office in the Philippines pursuant to
Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code.
• (Agustin v. COMELEC, November 10, 2015) (J.
Bersamin)
• Q: Distinguish the two kinds of dual citizens
• A:
• Dual citizens by virtue of birth (Born Dual), are not
required by law to take the oath of renunciation as
the mere filing of the certificate of candidacy
already carries with it an implied renunciation of
foreign citizenship.
• Dual citizens by naturalization (Acquired Dual), on
the other hand, are required to take not only the
Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines but also to personally renounce foreign
citizenship in order to qualify as a candidate for
public office. (Maquiling v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
195649. April 16, 2013)
• QUESTION:
• “A” is a naturalized citizen of
another country who reacquires
Filipino citizenship. On the other
hand, “B” possesses dual
citizenship by birth.
• If they desire to run for elective
public office, what requirement must
they comply with as regards their
citizenship?
• Answer:
• “A” must comply with the requirements set in
R.A 9225. Sec 5(3) of R.A. 9225 states that
naturalized citizens who reacquire Filipino
citizenship and desire to run for public office
shall “…make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before any public officer
authorized to administer an oath” aside from
the oath of allegiance prescribed in Section
3 of R.A. 9225.
• Answer:
• “B” need not comply with the twin requirements of
swearing an oath of allegiance and executing a
renunciation of foreign citizenship because he is a
natural-born Filipino who did not subsequently
become a naturalized citizen of another country.
• It is sufficed, if upon the filing of his certificate of
candidacy, he elects Philippine citizenship to
terminate his status as person with dual citizenship
considering that his condition in the unavoidable
consequence of conflicting laws of different States.
(Cordora v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176947,
February 19, 2009).
• Q: Distinguish between RETENTION and RE-
ACQUISITION of Philippine Citizenship under RA 9225:
• A: The law makes a distinction between those natural-
born Filipinos who became foreign citizens before and
after the effectivity of R.A. 9225. [Sept 17, 2003]
• Under the first paragraph are those natural-born Filipinos
who have lost their citizenship by naturalization in a foreign
country before RA 9225 - who shall re-acquire their
Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines. [Citizenship was lost]
• The second paragraph covers those natural-born Filipinos
who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect,
who shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
same oath. [Citizenship was NEVER LOST].
• [David vs. Agbay, 753 SCRA 526 (2015)]
• Q: Distinguish between RETENTION and RE-
ACQUISITION of Philippine Citizenship under RA 9225:
• A: The reacquisition will apply to those who lost their
Philippine citizenship by virtue of Commonwealth Act 63 or
before the effectivity of RA 9225. -- the Filipinos who lost
their citizenship is deemed to have reacquired their
Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of the act. Hence
they are not deemed Natural Born but only naturalized.

• The second aspect is the retention of Philippine citizenship

applying to future instances. For these citizens, who lost
their citizenship after the effectivity of RA 9225 -- they are
deemed NEVER to have LOST their Filipino citizenship.
Does, upon taking their oath they are deemed to have
retained their NATURAL BORN status.
• [David vs. Agbay, 753 SCRA 526 (2015)]
• Question:
• X was a natural-born Filipino who went to the
USA to work and subsequently became a
naturalized American citizen.
• On 28 March 2007, he applied for
reacquisition of his Philippine Citizenship.
• He then filed a Certificate of Candidacy for
Mayor of the Municipality of General
Macarthur, Eastern Samar for the May 2007
election.
• When should his residence be reckoned?
Since birth or only at the time he renounced
his foreign citizenship?
• ANSWER:
• X’s reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under
R.A. No. 9225 had no automatic impact or effect on
his residence/domicile.
• The length of his residence therein shall be
determined only from the time he renounced his
foreign citizenship and made the Municipality of
General Macarthur, Eastern Samar as his domicile
of choice.
• His residence shall not retroact to the time of his
birth. It is the fact of residence that is the decisive
factor in determining whether or not an individual
has satisfied the residency qualification requirement.
(Japzon v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180088, Jan.19, 2009)
 BENGZON V. HRET (2001)
May a natural-born Filipino who became an American
citizen still be considered a natural-born Filipino upon
his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and,
therefore, qualified to run for Congressman?

ANSWER: YES. Repatriation results in the recovery of

the original nationality.
This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his
citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a
naturalized Filipino citizen.
On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen
before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be
restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.
 IN RE: VICENTE CHING
• He was a legitimate child born under the 1935
Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien father;
• Upon reaching the age of majority, he voted and even
ran for public office;
• He never left the country;
• He topped the CPA exams;
• Topped his law class in Ateneo and passed the bar;
• SC did not allow him to take the oath because he did
not elect Philippine citizenship within a “reasonable
time” upon reaching the age of majority.
• Can he still do so 14 years after majority age?
 IN RE: VICENTE CHING
• The phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted
to mean that the election should be made within
three (3) years from reaching the age of majority.
• Laches will set in after 14 years.
• Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a
commodity that can be claimed when needed and
suppressed when convenient.
• One who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship
has only an inchoate right to such citizenship. As
such, he should avail of the right with fervor,
enthusiasm and promptitude.
• (In Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine
Bar of Vicente Ching, B.M. 914, October 1, 1999)
 2010 BAR QUESTION

• What are the effects of

marriages of:
• 1) a citizen to an alien;
• 2) an alien to a citizen; on their
spouses and children?
Discuss.
Suggested Answer:

A. 1) According to Section 4, Article IV of the

Constitution, Filipino citizens who marry aliens retain
their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they
are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.

2) According to Mo Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of

Immigration, 41 SCRA 292, under Section 15 of the
Revised Naturalization Law, a foreign woman who
marries a Filipino citizen becomes a Filipino citizen
provided she possesses none of the disqualifications
for naturalization. A foreign man who marries a
Filipino citizen does not acquire Philippine citizenship.
However, under Section 3 of the Revised Naturalization
Act, in such a case the residence requirement for
naturalization will be reduced from ten (10) to five (5)
years. Under Section 1(2), Article IV of the
Constitution, the children of an alien and a Filipino
citizen are citizens of the Philippines.
SUFFRAGE
• Who may vote?
• Filipino citizenship
• At least 18 years of age
• Resident of the Philippines for at least
one year
• Resident of the place where he
proposes to vote for at least 6 months;
and
• Not otherwise disqualified by law
• Who are not qualified to vote?
• Those convicted by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment for not less than one (1) year;
unless pardoned or granted amnesty.

• Those convicted by final judgment of crimes

involving disloyalty to government or against
national security.
• Note: Right to vote is only reacquired upon the expiration
of five (5) years after service of sentence.

• Those who are insane or incompetent persons as

declared by competent authority.
• Q: Is registration a qualification to vote?
• A: No. The act of registration is an indispensable
precondition to the right of suffrage. For
registration is part and parcel of the right to vote
and an indispensable element in the election
process.
• Proceeding from the significance of registration as a
necessary requisite to the right to voter, the State
undoubtedly, in the exercise of its inherent police
power, may then enact laws to safeguard and regulate
the act of voter's registration for the ultimate purpose
of conducting honest, orderly and peaceful election.
• Registration is a regulation, not a qualification.
(Akbayan Youth vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066,
26 March 2001)
• Q: Is failure to sign an application for registration a
valid ground to cancel a voter’s registration?
• A: YES. Failure to affix his signature to the application for
registration will necessarily invalidate his application for
registration.
• Section 10 of RA 8189, explicitly provides: x x x To register
as a voter, he shall personally accomplish an application
form for registration x x x in three (3) copies x x x The
application for registration shall contain three (3) specimen
signatures of the applicant x x x .”
• Gunsi’s application for registration did not comply with the
minimum requirements of RA No. 8189. This leads to only
one conclusion: that Gunsi, not having demonstrated that
he duly accomplished an application for registration, is not
a registered voter. Gunsi v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 168792,
23 February 2009
• Q: Is the “No Bio, No Boto” or Biometrics requirement
of the COMELEC Constitutional?
• A: YES. This requirement is not a "qualification" to the
exercise of the right of suffrage, but a mere aspect of the
registration procedure, of which the State has the right to
reasonably regulate.
• It was institutionalized conformant to the limitations of the
1987 Constitution and is a mere complement to the existing
Voter's Registration Act of 1996.
• Thus, unless it is shown that a registration requirement rises
to the level of a literacy, property or other substantive
requirement as contemplated by the Framers of the
Constitution — the same cannot be struck down as
unconstitutional, as in this case.
• (Kabataan Party-List v. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 221318, December 16, 2015)
• Q: What is absentee voting?
• A: It is a process by which qualified
citizens of the Philippines abroad
exercise their right to vote pursuant to
the constitutional mandate that
Congress shall provide a system for
absentee voting by qualified Filipinos
abroad (Sec. 2, Art. V, 1987
Constitution).
• Who are qualified to vote under the
Absentee Voting Act?
ANSWER: All citizens of the
Philippines residing abroad, who
are not otherwise disqualified by law,
at least eighteen (18) years of age on
the day of the elections, may vote for
president, vice-president, senators
and party-list representatives. (Sec. 4,
RA 9189)
• Is an immigrant or permanent resident
abroad qualified to vote under the
Absentee Voting Act?
• GR: An immigrant or permanent resident may
vote if he/she executes, upon registration, an
affidavit prepared for the purpose by the
Commission declaring that he/she shall resume
actual physical permanent residence in the
Philippines not later than three (3) years from
approval of his/her registration under this Act.
• Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not
applied for citizenship in another country.
(Section 5-d, RA 9189)
• Q: Is Section 5-D of RA 9189 Constitutional?
• A: Yes. Congress enacted the law prescribing a system of
overseas absentee voting in compliance with the
constitutional mandate.
• Such mandate expressly requires that Congress provide a
system of absentee voting that necessarily presupposes
that the "qualified citizen of the Philippines abroad" is not
physically present in the country. He is presumed not to
have lost his domicile by his physical absence from this
country.
• His having become an immigrant or permanent resident of
his host country does not necessarily imply an
abandonment of his intention to return to his domicile of
origin, the Philippines. (Macalintal v. Romulo, G.R. No.
157013, July 10, 2003)
 What is DOMICILE?
• In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a
permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction.
• A person can remain domiciled in a jurisdiction even after
they have left it, if they have maintained sufficient links with
that jurisdiction or have not displayed an intention to leave
permanently (i.e., if that person has moved to a different
state, but has not yet formed an intention to remain there
indefinitely).
• A corporation’s place of domicile is equivalent to its place of
incorporation.
• Traditionally many common law jurisdictions considered a
person's domicile to be a determinative factor in the conflict
of laws and would, for example, only recognize a divorce
conducted in another jurisdiction if at least one of the
parties were domiciled there at the time it was conducted.
• Q: What are the four (4) fundamental
principles of Domicile?
• A:
• 1. No natural person must ever be
without a domicile.
• 2. No natural person can have two or
more domiciles at the same time.
• 3. Every natural person may establish
and change his domicile.
• 4. A domicile once acquired is retained
until a new one is gained.
 Marcos v. COMELEC,
[G.R. No. 119976. September 18, 1995]

- She indicated in her COC that her residence in Leyte

is 7 months. The Constitution requires 1 year
residence. Is she qualified?
- YES. The principle of animus revertendi was used to
show that she has an “intention to return” to the place
where she seeks to be elected.
- The SC has held that the term “residence” is vague. It
ruled that “domicile” and “residence” are synonymous.
- The SC also ruled that the moment FM died, Imelda
automatically reverted to her domicile of origin.
- “Her husband is dead and he cannot rule her beyond
the grave.”
 Aquino v. COMELEC (1995)
• Butz Aquino was a Senator residing in Tarlac
when he filed a COC for Congressman of Makati
City.
• He leased a condo unit in Makati City 1 year
before the election. Is he qualified?
• NO. The term “residence,” as used in election
law, is CLEAR.
• It imports not only an intention to reside in a
fixed place but also a personal presence in that
place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
intention.
• Q: Why was Butz Aquino disqualified?
• A: Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To
successfully effect a change of domicile,
petitioner must prove an actual removal or
an actual change of domicile; a bona fide
intention of abandoning the former place of
residence and establishing a new one and
definite acts which correspond with the
purpose.
• In the absence of clear and positive proof,
the domicile of origin should be deemed to
continue. (Aquino v. Comelec, 248 SCRA 400)
• Q: What is RESIDENCE for election
purposes?
• A: It implies the factual relationship of an
individual to a certain place. It is the physical
presence of a person in a given area, community
or country. For election purposes the concepts of
residence and domicile are dictated by the peculiar
criteria of political laws.
• As these concepts have evolved in our election
law, what has clearly and unequivocally emerged
is the fact that residence for election purposes is
used synonymously with domicile. (Marcos v.
Comelec, G.R. No. 119976, Sept. 18, 1995)
• Q: What is the effect of transfer of
residence?

• A: Any person, who transfers residence

solely by reason of his occupation,
profession or employment in private or
public service, education, etc., shall not
be deemed to have lost his original
residence. (Asistio v. Aguirre, G.R.
No. 191124, April 27, 2010)
• Q: Distinguish residence from domicile.
• A: Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the
factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It
is the physical presence of a person in a given area,
community or country.
• The essential distinction between residence and
domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to
leave when the purpose for which the resident has
taken up his abode ends.
• One may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure,
business, or health. If a person's intent be to remain, it
becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon
as his purpose is established it is residence. (Marcos
v. Comelec, G.R. No. 119976, Sept. 18, 1995)