POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

NOTES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
Based from the lectures of:
Atty. Gil Dela Banda

CONSTI I OUTLINE

1. National Territory
2. Citizenship
3. Legislative Department
4. Executive Department
5. Judicial Department
6. Constitutional Commission/COA
7. Impeachment
8. National Patrimony
9. Academic Freedom
10. State Immunity
11. Amendment/Revision
12. Commission on Human Rights

Format:

1. Bar principles and provisions

2. Cases
3. Bar Questions

Notes:

1. All lectures
2. 10 Minute break in between
lectures
3. Lectures stop at 9:20 for questions
4. We will meet even during holidays

Grading System

•There is a quiz every week in face-to-face class.

•If there is a way sir might give it – it is 20% of
grade
•There is one oral exam for Consti I and one oral
exam for Consti II.
 NATIONAL TERRITORY
ARTICLE I
National Territory
The national territory comprises the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial,
and aerial domains, including its territorial sea,
the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves,
and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of
the Philippines.
Definition of what constitutes National Territory is
part of municipal law thus it binds only the state
and is not part of international law. Example the
issue in relation to the West Philippine Sea and
the difference between the old and the new map.
Components:
The national territory comprises…
1. the Philippine archipelago all the islands
and waters embraced therein,
2. all other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
consisting of
o its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial
domains,
o including its territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves,
and other submarine areas
3. The waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
United Nations Convention on Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) definitions or Terms on
National Territory:
1. Archipelagic/Internal Waters - The waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of
the archipelago (foreign ships cannot navigate
without consent, except in hot pursuit)
2. Territorial Sea – the waters within 12
miles from base line (part of territory and
exercises full sovereignty but there’s right of
innocent passage)
3. Contiguous zone – the waters not
exceeding 24 miles from the base line. State
exercises control to
(1) prevent and punish breach of customs,
(2) immigration and
(3) sanitary or environmental laws – we
do not exercise full sovereignty under
here.
4. Exclusive Economic Zone EEZ – The
waters within 200 miles from the base line. State
can explore, manage and exploit living and non-
living resources (freedom of navigation, right of
over-flight) this is exclusive meaning to the
exclusion of other states – they cannot do these
within this area.
5. Continental Shelf – the seabed and sub-
soil which extends through the natural
prolongation of its land territory to the extent of
350 miles or to within 200 miles if the natural
prolongation does not go beyond; state can
explore and exploit living and non-living
resources
o If the shelf suddenly falls down ex
bangin/cliff still continental shelf extends
up to 200 miles; but it shelf falls goes
further then continental shelf can go as
much as to 350 miles.
o So limit is 200 to 350 miles. It
cannot be less than 200 or more than 350
miles.
6. High Seas – not much; this is sea free for
all; belongs to no one; states are free to exploit
or explore.
Republic v Province of Palawan
G.R. No. 170867, December 04, 2018
RP entered into service contract with 2 petroleum
corp for exclusive conduct of petroleum
operations 80km from shore of Palawan. The said
operations are being conducted on the
continental shelf. Province of Palawan asserts
share over proceeds that place is located in its
territorial jurisdiction. Is the province correct?
**SC Held that an LGU cannot gain territorial
jurisdiction over an area simply because its gov
exercises authority over it. Territory has
reference only to mass of land area and waters
over which political unit has control. If the
marginal sea is not included with more reason
can marginal shelf be excluded therefrom. The
UNCLOS does not apply to LGU(?)
Notes: the territory of state is within 12 nautical
miles from baselines, but for LGU it only extends
up to mass of land area itself – for purpose of
exploitation of resources. There is a different rule
for computing territory of LGU to territory of
state.
Republic v Provincial Government of
Palawan
G.R. No. 170867, December 04, 2018
On December 11, 1990, the Republic of the
Philippines (Republic or National Government),
through the Department of Energy (DoE),
entered into Service Contract No. 38 with Shell
Philippines Exploration for the exclusive conduct
of petroleum operations in the area known as
"Camago-Malampaya" located offshore northwest
of Palawan. Exploration of the area led to the
drilling of the Camago-Malampaya natural gas
reservoir about 80 kilometers from the main
island of Palawan and 30 kms from the platform
The Provincial Government of Palawan asserted
its claim over forty percent (40%) of the National
Government's share in the proceeds of the
project. It argued that since the reservoir is
located within its territorial jurisdiction, it is
entitled to said share under Section 290of the
Local Government Code.
The National Government disputed the claim,
arguing that since the gas fields were
approximately 80 k.ms from Palawan's coastline,
they are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
province and is within the national territory of the
Philippines.
The Provincial Government of Palawan argues
that its territorial jurisdiction extends to the
Camago-Malampaya reservoir considering that its
local police maintains peace and order in the
area; crimes committed within the waters
surrounding the province have been prosecuted
and tried in the courts of Palawan; and the
provincial government enforces environmental
laws over the same area.[242] The province also
cites Section 468 of the Local Government Code,
which authorizes the Sanggunian Panlalawigan to
enact ordinances that protect the environment,
as well as Sections 26 and 27 of the law, which
require consultation with the LGUs concerned and
the approval of their respective sanggunian
before the National Government may commence
any project that will have an environmental
impact.[243] The province avers that the
Contractor, in fact, obtained the necessary
endorsement from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of Palawan before starting its operations.
ISSUE:
WON the gas fields are within the territorial
jurisdiction of the province and thus entitling it to
40% share in the proceeds – NO. the fields are
not within the territorial jurisdiction of the
province, and it is not entitled to the proceeds.
HELD:
The province cites illegal fishing, poaching and
illegal entry as the cases tried before the courts
of Palawan. As conceded by the parties, however,
the subject gas reservoir is situated, not in the
marine waters, but in the continental shelf. The
Province of Palawan has not established that it
has, in fact, exercised jurisdiction over this
submerged land area. The LGU's authority to
adopt and implement measures to protect the
environment does not determine the extent of its
territorial jurisdiction.
In fine, an LGU cannot claim territorial
jurisdiction over an area simply because its
government has exercised a certain degree of
authority over it. Territorial jurisdiction is defined,
not by the local government, but by the law that
creates it; it is delimited, not by the extent of the
LGU's exercise of authority, but by physical
boundaries as fixed in its charter.
Unless clearly expanded by Congress, the LGU's
territorial jurisdiction refers only to its land area.
Utilization of natural resources found within the
land area as delimited by law is subject to the
40% LGU share.
Under the Local Government Code, particularly
the provisions on the creation of municipalities,
cities and provinces, and LGUs in general,
territorial jurisdiction is contextually synonymous
with territory and the term "territory" is used to
refer to the land area comprising the LGU.
the Code now uses the words "land area" in lieu
of "territory" to emphasize that the area required
of an LGU does not include the sea for purposes
of compliance with the requirements of the Code
for its creation.
The parties all agree that the Camago-
Malampaya reservoir is located in the continental
shelf.[254] If the marginal sea is not included in
the LGU's territory, with more reason should the
continental shelf, located miles further, be
deemed excluded therefrom.
Further, There is No law clearly granting the
Province of Palawan territorial jurisdiction over
the Camago-Malampaya reservoir
As defined in its organic law, the Province of
Palawan is comprised merely of islands. The
continental shelf, where the Camago-Malampaya
reservoir is located, was clearly not included in its
territory.
Island versus Continental Shelf
An island, as herein before-mentioned, is defined
under Article 121 of the UNCLOS as "a naturally
formed area of land, surrounded by water, which
is above water at high tide."
The continental shelf, on the other hand, is
defined in Article 76 of the same Convention as
comprising "the seabed and subsoil of the
submarine areas that extend beyond (the coastal
State's) territorial sea throughout the natural
prolongation of its land territory to the outer
edge of the continental margin, or to a distance
of 200 nm from the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial sea is measured where
the outer edge of the continental margin does not
extend up to that distance." Where the
continental shelf of the coastal state extends
beyond 200 nm, Article 76 allows the State to
claim an extended continental shelf up to 350 nm
from the baselines.[265]
Under Palawan's charter, therefore, the Camago-
Malampaya reservoir is not located within its
territorial boundaries.
P.D. No. 1596, which constituted Kalayaan as a
separate municipality of the Province of Palawan,
cannot be the basis for holding that the Camago-
¬Malampaya reservoir forms part of Palawan's
territory.
FURTHER,
In Section 1, Article X of the 1987 Constitution;
By indicating that the LGUs comprise the
territorial subdivisions of the State, the
Constitution did not ipso facto make every
portion of the national territory a part of an LGU's
territory.
MOREOVER,
The UNCLOS did not confer on LGUs their own
continental shelf. The Republic was correct in
arguing that the concept of continental shelf
under the UNCLOS does not, by the doctrine of
transformation, automatically apply to the LGUs.
It must be stressed that the provisions under the
UNCLOS are specific in declaring the rights and
duties of a state, not a local government unit.
The UNCLOS confirms the sovereign rights of the
States over the continental shelf and the
maritime zones. The UNCLOS did not confer any
rights to the States' local government units.
BAR QUESTIONS
1. 1989 no. 20; What do you understand
by the Archipelagic Doctrine? Is it Reflected in
the Constitution?
2. 1991, No. 15: Define (e) Continental
Shelf (i) innocent passage.
3. What is the basis of PH’s claim to a part
of the spratly Islands? Discuss briefly 2000
(1) Section 1 of Article 1 is the embodiment
of Archipelagic doctrine. State is allowed to
create a baseline connecting outermost point of
islands and everything in between is included
in its territory. It emphasizes and treats the
entire archipelago as an entire unity.
(2) Continental Shelf is the seabed and the
subsoil (not the waters) take note of limits
cannot be more than 350 miles but not less
than 200 miles.
(3) Innocent passage refers to passage of
ships which does not threaten security of ships
or economy. There is continuous passage, the
ship passing does not conduct any research
does not display military strength or does not
fish when prohibited. Does not threaten peace
and security of coastal state.
(4) As to basis of PH’s claim Historically
with trade. If you look at old maps prepared by
Spanish colonizers.
What is the concept of the EEZ
Waters 200 nautical miles from baseline. The
exception would be if there is a neighboring
state, there is an imaginary line dividing the
area between two states. This is the area to
exploit natural resources and explore.
What is outer space (2003)
The aerial space is the are above land and sea
area. Above the aerial domain is the outer
space. Aerial domain extends from the surface
of territory to 800km. Justice Corona was
saying that Outer Space that portion where
there is no more air; The outer space is the
space that belongs to no state at all and is free
for exploration as long as they have the
capacity.
Distinguish between territorial sea and internal
waters;
Contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone
Contiguous is the area up to 24miles; the first
12 miles is territorial sea the next is the
contiguous zone.
original shape of the archipelago. It should not
appreciably depart from the actual
configuration of the archipelago.
The separate island has its own baseline ,
territorial sea, continental shelf and eez.
2020 Bar Exam: A.2. Under the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), what are the rights of the
Philippines within the following areas:
(a) Contiguous zone (2%)
(b) Exclusive economic zone (2%)

2005/1c Enumerate the rights of a coastal Can the President allow Chinese fishermen to
state in the Exclusive Economic Zone. fish within the EEZ, particularly the Recto
Bank?

2015, No. 2: (2) Describe the following No, the president cannot allow Chinese
maritime regimes under UNCLOS (4%) fishermen to fish within the Philippine EEz. Art.
XII, Sec. 2: The State shall protect the nations
(a) Territorial sea marine wealth in its archipelagic waters,
(b) Contiguous zone territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone,
(c) Exclusive economic zone and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively
(d) Continental shelf to Filipino citizens.

2016, No. -XVII-

[a] Define the archipelagic doctrine of national

territory, state its rationale; and explain how it
is implemented through the straight baseline
method. (2.5%)

State is allowed to draw a baseline by

connecting outermost baseline and those within
is part of territory…

[b] Section 2 of RA 9522 declared the

Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough
Shoal as "Regimes of Islands." Professor
Agaton contends that since the law did not
enclose said islands, then the Philippines lost
its sovereignty and jurisdiction over them. Is
his contention correct? Explain. (2.5%)

[See Magallona v. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476

(2011)

When a state is allowed to draw a baseline

connecting outermost points of island there are
limitations. Island should not be more than 100
nautical miles from main body of islands.

Another limitation is that when you draw a

baseline, the baseline should not distort the

ARTICLE IV. CITIZENSHIP
Citizenship – is membership in a political
community which is personal and more or less
permanent in character.
Nationality – is membership in any class or form
of political community. Thus, nationals may be
citizens [if member of a democratic community]
or subjects [if members of a monarchial
community]. It does not necessarily include the
right or privilege of exercising political and civil
rights.
Classification:
1. Citizens
a. Natural-born
b. Naturalized
c. Duals
2. Aliens
3. Stateless individuals
Usual modes of acquiring citizenship:
1. By Birth
a. Jus sanguinis-by blood
b. Jus soli-by birth
2. By Naturalization
3. By Marriage
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 mothers are
citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
Citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in
accordance with law.
The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the
principle of JUS SANGUINIS. Thereunder, a child
follows the nationality or citizenship of the
parents regardless of the place of his birth, as
opposed to the doctrine of JUS SOLI which
determines the nationality or citizenship on the
basis of place of birth. (Valles vs. COMELEC,
337 SCRA 543)
2015, No. 12: XII. Discuss the evolution of the
principle of jus sanguinis as basis of Filipino
citizenship under the 1935, 1973, and 1987
Constitutions. (3%)
In the 1935 the rule was that you are only
filipino if your father is filipino and your mother
alien (legitimate), but the problem was that if
your father is alien and mother is filipino in order
for you to get filipino – you have to elect
Philippine citizenship
In 1973 or 1987 they removed the distinction – it
is enough that your father OR mother is filipino.
It is enough that one of them is Filipino.
Modes (by birth) applied in the Philippines:
1. Before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution
a. Jus Sanguinis. All inhabitants of the
islands who were Spanish subjects on
April 11, 1899, and residing in the islands
who did not declare
their intention of preserving Spanish
nationality between said date and October
11, 1900, were declared citizens of the
Philippines [Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of 1902;
Sec. 2, Jones Law of 1916], and their
children born after April 11,1899. (en
masse Filipinization)
b. Jus Soli. Those declared as Filipino
citizens by the courts are recognized as
such today, not because of the application
of the jus soli principle, but principally
because of the doctrine of res judicata.
2. After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution:
Only the Jus Sanguinis doctrine.
the Thus, herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco
Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a
Filipino father. The fact of her being born in
Australia is not tantamount to her losing her
Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the
principle of jus soli, then at most, private
respondent can also claim Australian citizenship
resulting to her possession of dual citizenship.
(Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August
9, 2000)
If illegitimate child of Filipino father and alien
woman, he is FILIPINO. However, the father
must be known, and filiation be established.
There is no distinction as to whether or not the
child is legitimate. (Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 161434, March 3, 2004)
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
Citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority;
Class take note of the DATE!!! Why is this date
significant?
This is the date when the 1987 Constitution took
effect and from then on there is no more
distinction – but before that you have to have an
election.
If you did not elect Filipino citizenship – you
follow citizenship of your father.
Republic v. Lim (2004)- Must an illegitimate
child of a Filipino woman and an alien man also
elect?
Lim (woman) here did not elect Philippine
Citizenship but was child of Chinese and
filipino woman. When she was mature she
never elected but claimed to be a Filipino.
The SC held that if you are an illegitimate
child of a filipino woman and Chinese –
you are a filipino.
(3) applies only to legitimate children
must elect. If you are illegitimate no
need more to elect.
From FT: Plainly, the above constitutional
and statutory requirements of electing
Filipino citizenship apply only
to legitimate children. These do not apply
in the case of respondent who was
concededly an illegitimate child,
considering that her Chinese father and
Filipino mother were never married. As
such, she was not required to comply with
said constitutional and statutory
requirements to become a Filipino citizen.
By being an illegitimate child of a Filipino
mother, respondent automatically became
a Filipino upon birth. Stated differently,
she is a Filipino since birth without having
to elect Filipino citizenship when she
reached the age of majority.
Note: Both parents are Filipinos – The
Constitution does not distinguish whether child is
legitimate or illegitimate.
2011, No. 62: 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 dual citizen.
d) a natural born Filipino citizen.
1990, No. 3: Y was elected Senator in the May
1987 national elections. He was born out of
wedlock in 1949 of an American father and a
naturalized Filipina mother. Y never elected
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority. Is Y a natural-born Filipino citizen?
a) No, because he failed to elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
b) No, because while he is not required to elect,
he is not natural-born Filipino
c) No, because he follows the citizenship of his
father
d) Yes, because being illegitimate, election does
not apply to him (by virtue of the fact that his
mother is a Filipino)
Y is a Filipino citizen. More than that, he is a
natural born citizen of the Philippines qualified to
become a Senator. Since Y is an illegitimate
child of a Filipino mother, he follows the
citizenship of his mother. He need not elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority as held in re Mallare, 59 SCRA 45.
In Osias v. Antonino, Electoral Case No. 11,
August 6, 1971, the Senate Electoral Tribunal
held that the illegitimate child of an alien father
and a Filipino mother is a Filipino citizen and is
qualified to be a Senator.
 1996, No. 8: X was born [a legitimate child] in
the United States of a Filipino father and a
Mexican mother. He returned to the Philippines
when he was 26 years of age, carrying an
American passport and he was registered as an
alien with the Bureau of Immigration. Was X
qualified to run for membership in the House of
Representatives in the 1995 elections?
a) Yes, because one whose father or mother is a
Filipino is also a Filipino
b) No, because he was born in the US which
follows the jus soli principle
c) No, because the fact the he carried an
American passport proves that he is an American
d) No, because his mother, being a Mexican, he
has a dual citizenship
Since X was born in the United States, which
follows jus soli, X is also an American citizen. In
accordance with Aznar vs. Commission, on
Elections, 185 SCRA 703, the mere fact a person
with dual citizenship registered as an alien with
the Commission on Immigration and Deportation
does not necessarily mean that he is renouncing
his Philippine citizenship. Likewise, the mere fact
that X used an American passport did not result
in the loss of his Philippine citizenship. As held in
Kawakita vs. United States, 343 U.S. 717, since
a person with dual citizenship has the rights of
citizenship in both countries, the use of a
passport issued by one country is not
inconsistent with his citizenship in the other
country.
1998, No. 4: Andres Ang was born of a Chinese
father and a Filipino mother in Sorsogon on Jan.
20, 1973. In 1988, his father was naturalized as
a Filipino citizen. On May 11, 1998, Ang was
elected Representative of the First District of
Sorsogon. Is Ang a natural born citizen of the
Philippines? Yes!
Note he was born on January 20, 1973.
Three Questions:
1. Who can elect?
Three requisites:
a. the child must be legitimate
b. the mother must be Filipino and father
is alien
c. must be born before Jan. 17, 1973
(when the 1935 constitution was in effect)
No. 1, 1993: In 1964, Ruffa, a Filipina domestic
helper working in HK, went to Taipeh for a
vacation, where she met Cheng SioPao, whom
she married. Under Chinese Law, Ruffa
automatically became a Chinese citizen. The
couple resided in HK where in May 9, 1965,Ruffa
gave birth to a boy named Earnest. Upon
reaching the age of majority Ernest elected
Philippine citizenship. Is Ernest Cheng a natural-
born Filipino citizen?
Ernest could elect Philippine citizenship since he
was born before January 17, 1973 and his
mother is a Filipino. As stated in the cases of
Torres vs. Tan Chim, 69 Phil. 518 and Cu vs.
Republic, 83 Phil. 473, for this provision to apply,
the mother need not be a Filipino citizen at the
time she gave birth to the child in question. It is
sufficient that she was a Filipino citizen at the
time of her marriage. Otherwise, the number of
persons who would be benefited by the foregoing
provision would be limited. Having elected
Philippine citizenship, Ernest is a natural-born
Filipino citizen in accordance with Section 2,
Article IV of the Constitution, which reads: Those
who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance
with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be
deemed natural born citizens."
The minimum requirement for a person born of a
Filipino mother and an alien father before Jan.
17, 1973 to elect Philippine citizenship is that his
mother is/was a Filipino:
a) at the time of marriage to his
b) at the time he was born
c) at the time he reaches the age of majority
d) at the time he actually exercises the right to
elect Philippine citizenship
At what time must the mother be Filipino?
 If after marriage woman can become a
Chinese or it can be that during the
marriage he was filipino but at time of
birth he was no longer filipino or at time
at birth he was filipino but at time you
elected mother is no longer filipino
 It is sufficient that mother is filipino at
time of marriage. Not necessary that she
is filipino at time you are born. BECAUSE
in the old days if you are a filipina woman
marrying alien- if the husband’s country
gives you citizenship you forfeit filipino
 citizenship – that’s why it is only required
that at the time of marriage mother is
filipina.
2. When do you elect?
Constitution: “upon reaching the age of
majority”
Jurisprudence: “within a reasonable time upon
reaching the age of majority” [3 years except
when there is justifiable reason to delay]
Re: Application for Admission to the
Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter
No. 914, October 1, 1999
Vicente Ching, a legitimate child, having been
born on April 11, 1964 of Filipino mother and an
alien father, was already 35 years old when he
complied with the requirements of CA 625 on
June 15, 1999, or over 14 years after he had
reached the age of majority. By any reasonable
yardstick, Ching’s election was clearly beyond the
allowable period within which to exercise the
privilege. All his acts (passing the CPA and Bar
Exams) cannot vest in him citizenship as the law
gives him the requirement for election of Filipino
citizenship which he did not comply with. (He was
not allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath)
The proper period for electing Philippine
citizenship was, in turn, based on the
pronouncements of the Department of State of
the US government to the effect that the election
should be made within a “reasonable time” after
attaining the age of majority. 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 except
when there is justifiable reason to delay. The
span of 14 years that lapsed from the time he
reached 21 until he finally expressed his intention
to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way
beyond the contemplation of the requirement of
electing “upon reaching the age of majority”.
1999, No. 3(c): Victor Ahmad was born on
Dec. 16, 1972 of a Filipino mother and an alien
father. Under the law of his father’s country,
his mother did not acquire his father’s
citizenship. Victor consults you on Dec. 21,
1993 (3 years old and 5 days already upon
reaching age of majority) and informs you of
his intention to run for Congress in the 1995
elections. Is he qualified to run? What advice
would you give him? Would your answer be the
same if he had seen and consulted you on Dec.
16, 1991 and informed you of his desire to run
for Congress in the 1992 elections?
Under Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution,
Victor Ahmad must have elected Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority
to be considered a natural born citizen and
qualified to run for Congress. Republic Act No.
6809 reduced the majority age to eighteen
(18) years. Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice, 5
SCRA 108 recognized three (3) years from
reaching the age of majority as the reasonable
period for electing Philippine citizenship. Since
Republic Act No. 6809 took effect in 1989 and
there is no showing that Victor Ahmad elected
Philippine citizenship within three (3) years
from the time he reached the age of majority
on
December 16, 199C, he is not qualified to run
for Congress. Thus, I shall advise him to elect
Philippine citizenship, if he has not yet done so,
and to wait until the 1998 elections.
If he consulted me in 1991 and informed me of
his desire to run in the 1992 election, my
answer will be different since Victor is within
reasonable time being only 19 years old at the
time. The right to elect is within that period.
Hence, he must elect so that he can run.
Caram provision – Those born in the Philippines
of foreign parents who, before the adoption of
the 1935 Constitution, had been elected to public
office in the Islands are considered citizens of the
Philippines.
In Chiongbian vs. de Leon, the SC held that
the right acquired by virtue of this provision is
transmissible.
Re: 1973 Constitution: Those whose mothers are
citizens of the Philippines. Provision is prospective
in application; to benefit only those born on or
after January 17, 1973 (date of effectivity of
1973 Constitution).
3. How do you elect? (Ma v. Commissioner
[2010])
1. Residing in the Philippines
a. Make a statement of election under
oath
b. an oath of allegiance to the Constitution
and Government of the Philippines;
 c. Registration of (1) and (2) with the
nearest Civil Registrar
2. Residing abroad
a. (1) and (2) apply
b. Register with the Philippine diplomatic
or consular office
Re: Florencio Mallare – Can there be an
implied election?
This case involves a person born with a Filipino
mother and an alien father. He was able to elect
but failed to register the same. The Solicitor
General deported him for failure to register in
LCR. The SC made exception of the fact that said
person had been living in the country for 50
years, voted for several elections, and worked as
government official. For those in the peculiar
situation of those who cannot be excepted to
have elected Philippine citizenship as they were
already citizens, apply the In Re Mallare rule,
where it was ruled that the exercise of the right
of suffrage when he came of age, constitutes a
positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.
Also, Mallare in that case was already a Filipino
citizen. Any election of Philippine citizenship on
his part would not only have been superfluous
but it would also have resulted in an absurdity.
How can a Filipino citizen elect Philippine
citizenship?
However, in Re: Application for Admission to
the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, there
can be no IMPLIED ELECTION. Even if we
consider the special circumstances in the life of
Ching like his having lived in the Philippines all
his life and his consistent belief that he is a
Filipino, the SC held that Ching failed to validly
elect Philippine citizenship. The span of fourteen
(14) years that lapsed from the time he reached
the age of majority until he finally expressed his
intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly
way beyond the contemplation of the
requirement of electing "upon reaching the age of
majority." Moreover, Ching has offered no reason
why he delayed his election of Philippine
citizenship.
Note: The right to elect Philippine citizenship is
an inchoate right; during his minority, the child is
an alien.
2013, No. 6: VI. 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 --
(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
Those who are naturalized in accordance
with law:
1. Judicial naturalization (CA 473)
a. Filing of declaration of intention – 1 year prior
to the filing of the Petition with the OSG
Persons exempt from filing declaration of
intention:
1) Those born in the Philippines and
received their primary and secondary
education in public or private schools
recognized by the Government and not
limited to any race or nationality;
2) Those resided in the Philippines for 30
years or more before the filing of the
petition, and enrolled their children in
elementary and HS recognized by the
government and not limited to any race or
nationality;
3) Those widows and minor children of
aliens who have declared their intention to
become citizens of the Philippines and die
before they are actually naturalized.
b. Filing of the Petition, accompanied by the
affidavit of 2 credible persons, citizens of the
Philippines, who personally know the petitioner,
as character witness;
c. Publication of the Petition in the O.G. or in a
newspaper of general circulation once a week for
3 consecutive weeks. Failure to comply is fatal.
(Po Yo Bi vs. Republic, 205 SCRA 400)
d. Actual residence in the Philippines during the
entire proceedings.

e. Hearing of the Petition.
f. Promulgation of the decision.
g. Hearing after 2 years. During the 2-year
probation period, applicant has:
1) Not left the Philippines;
2) Dedicated himself continuously to a
lawful calling or profession;
3) Not been convicted of any offense or
violation of rules; and
4) Not committed an act prejudicial to the
interest of the nation or contrary to any
government-announced policies.
h. Oath taking and issuance of Certificate of
Naturalization.
NOTE: Your citizenship retroacts to day you filed
petition with the RTC.
2. Administrative naturalization –
Refer to Administrative Naturalization Law of
2000
Requisites:
1. Born in the Philippines and residing therein
since birth
2. Not less than 18 years of age at the time of
filing
2011, No. 92: 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.
3. Legislative naturalization
Direct act of Congress – Basis: “those who may
be naturalized in accordance with law.” (may
refer to General or Special Law)
Can Congress pass a law granting citizenship to a
single person?
Yes. The basis is Plenary power of Congress.
2005, No. 9: In the May 8, 1995 election for
local officials whose term were to commence
on June 30, 1995, Ricky filed on March 30,
1995 his COC forGovernor of Laguna. He won,
but his qualification as an elected official was
questioned. It is admitted that he is a
repatriated Filipino citizen. To be qualified for
the office to which a local official has been
elected, when at the latest should he be a
Filipino citizen?
a) At the time of proclamation and at the start
of his term – you only become an elected
official at the time of proclamation (applies
only to “local elective official” under Local
Government Code)
b) On the day of the election
c) At the time he files his certificate of
candidacy
d) At least one year before the election
Naturalization
1. Not a right but a mere privilege (doubt in the
law shall be strictly construed against the
application even if the applicant is a former
Filipino, in view of the fact that it is merely a
privilege)
2. Not barred by res adjudicata (if granted, it can
still be questioned anytime)
3. Naturalization of the father benefits wife and
minor children (derivative naturalization, only
minor children benefit)
4. Action for denaturalization does not prescribe
(you can be denaturalized anytime)
1994, No. 7 and 1998, No. 10: Lim tong Biao,
a Chinese citizen applied for and was granted
Philippine citizenship by the court. He took his
oath as citizen of the Philippines in July 1963.
In 1975, the Office of the SolGen filed a
petition to cancel his Philippine citizenship for
the reason that in Aug. 1963, the Court of Tax
Appeals found him guilty of tax evasion for
deliberately understating his income taxes for
the years 1959-61. Can Lim Tong Biao’s
Filipino citizenship be cancelled?
a) No, because due to the lapse of time
prescription has set in
b) No, because the RTC’s granting citizenship is
 now res judicata
c) Yes, because an action for denaturalization
is not subject to prescription
d) Yes, because while prescription applies, the
period provided by law has not yet lapsed
Naturalized citizens are those who have
become Filipino citizens through naturalization,
generally under CA No. 473, otherwise known as
the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed
the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927),
and by RA 530. To be naturalized, an applicant
has to prove that he possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications
provided by law to become a Filipino citizen.
Qualifications possessed by an applicant:
1. He must be not less than 21 years of age on
the day of the hearing of petition;
2. He must have resided in the Philippines for a
continuous period of not less than 10 years; may
be reduced to 5 years if:
a. he honorably held office in
Government;
b. He established a new industry or
introduced a useful invention in the
Philippines;
c. He is married to a Filipino woman;
d. Has been engaged as a teacher in the
Philippines (in a public or private school
not established for the exclusive
instruction of persons of a particular
nationality or race) or
in any of the branches of education or
industry for a period of not less than 2
year; or
e. He was born in the Philippines
3. He must be of GMC 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 as well as with the
community in which he is living;
4. He must own real estate in the Philippines
worth not less than P5,000.00, Philippine
currency, or must have some known lucrative
trade, profession or lawful occupation;
5. He must be able to write and speak English or
Spanish and any of the principal languages; and
6. 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 hearing of
his petition for naturalization as Filipino citizen.
(Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840,
2001)
Disqualifications:
1. Those opposed to organized government or
affiliated with any association or group of persons
who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all
organized governments;
2. Those defending or teaching the necessity or
propriety of violence, personal assault or
assassination for the success of predominance of
their ideas;
3. Polygamists or believers of polygamy;
4. Those convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
5. Those suffering from mental alienation or
incurable contagious disease;
6. Those 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 Filipinos;
7. Those citizens or subjects of nations with
whom the Philippines is at war, during the period
of such war;
8. Those citizens or subjects of a foreign country
whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to
become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
2011, No.1: Filipino citizenship may be
acquired through judicial naturalization only by
an alien:
a) born, raised, and educated in the Philippines
who has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen.
 b) who has all the qualifications and none of reacquisition) consists of taking of
the disqualifications to become a Filipino an oath of allegiance
citizen. consists a lengthy to the RP and
c) born and raised in the Philippines who has process registering said oath
all the qualifications and none of the in the LCR of the place
disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen. where the person
concerned resides or
d) whose mother or father is a naturalized
last resided
Filipino and who himself is qualified to be
naturalized.
Effects of Naturalization:

1. Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be

Modes of Naturalization: lawfully naturalized; (She need not go through
the naturalization process; if she doesn’t suffer
from any disqualification, no need to prove the
1. DIRECT – through:
qualifications)
a. Judicial or administrative proceedings –
e.g. RA 9139 The Administrative
Naturalization Law of 2000—grants 2. Minor children born in the Philippines before
Philippine citizenship to aliens born and the naturalization shall be considered citizens of
residing in the Philippines the Philippines;
b. Special act of legislature – this is
discretionary on Congress; usually 3. Minor children born outside the Philippines who
conferred on an alien who has made an were residing in the Philippines at the time of
outstanding contribution to the country naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizens.
c. Collective change of nationality, as a
result of cessation or subjugation 4. Minor children born outside the Philippines
d. Some cases, by adoption of orphan before parent’s naturalization shall be considered
minors as nationals of the State where Filipino citizens only during minority, unless they
they are born begin to reside permanently in the Philippines;

2. DERIVATIVE – Citizenship conferred on: 5. Child born outside the Philippines after
parent’s naturalization shall be considered Filipino
a. Wife of naturalized husband;
citizen, provided that he registers as such before
b. Minor children of naturalized person; any Philippine consulate within one year after
c. Alien woman upon marriage to a attaining majority age, and takes his oath of
national. allegiance.
Note: Under RA 9139, not all aliens may avail of
this remedy. Only native born aliens who have Denaturalization(Grounds):
been residing here in the Philippines all their
lives, who never saw any other country and all 1. Naturalization certificate was obtained
along thought that they were Filipinos; who have fraudulently or illegally;
demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines,
and affinity to the customs and traditions of the
2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native
Filipinos.
country or to some foreign country and
establishes residence there;
NATURALIZATION REPATRIATION
Note: Prima Facie evidence of intent to
take up residence:
mode for both mode for reacquisition
a. Native country- 1-year stay
acquisition and for those who lost
reacquisition of their citizenship b. Foreign country- 2-year stay
citizenship
governed by various 3. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of
governed by CA 473 statutes intent;
(for acquisition) and
CA 63 (for
4. Minor children failed to graduate through the
fault of the parents either by neglecting to
support them or by transferring them to another
school;
5. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy;
In Republic vs. Guy, 115 SCRA 244, although
misconduct was committed after the 2-year
probationary period, conviction of perjury and
rape was held to be valid ground for
denaturalization.
Effects of Denaturalization:
1. If the ground affects the intrinsic validity of the
proceedings, denaturalization shall divest the wife
and children of their derivative naturalization;
2. If the ground was personal to the
denaturalized person, his wife and children shall
retain their Philippine citizenship.
Sec. 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
under para. 3, Sec. 1 hereof, shall be
natural born citizens.
GR: 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.
XPN: Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof
shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
2nd sentence – Ong v. HRET: those who elect
Filipino Citizenship prior to 1987 constitution
(election made on 1960 and 1970) are
considered natural born citizens, as it is given
retroactive effect)
Bengzon v. HRET – a natural born Filipino
(congressman) became a US Marine and acquired
US Citizenship. Later, he repatriated and
reacquired Filipino Citizenship, and ran for
congressman. Can he still be considered a
Natural born Citizen in view of 1st Paragraph?
Yes. He is considered Natural Born. If you
reacquire your citizenship by repatriation, you are
restored to your former status.
Kilosbayan v. Ermita – naturalized along with
the parents, but see Kilosbayan v. Janole, 2010
(Justice Ong was Sandiganbayan justice, his
Chinese parents were naturalized, he was
nominated as SC Justice. His nomination was
questioned on the ground that he is not a
natural-born, as he only acquired his Filipino
citizenship by virtue of the naturalization of his
parents. Is he a natural born citizen? NO! By
virtue of Kilosbayan vs. Ermita ruling. He is not
natural born citizen because he acquired his
Filipino citizenship when his parents were
naturalized. Hence, he is merely naturalized. It is
conflicting with the provision that “natural born
are those who are citizens of the Philippines from
birth without having performed any act to acquire
or perfect their citizenship.” It satisfies first part
but not on the second. The SC ruling: Ong is only
a naturalized Filipino, not natural born Filipino.
(Derivative citizenship)
2006, No. 8(a): Atty. Emily Go, a legitimate
daughter of a Chinese father and a Filipino
mother, was born in1945. At 21, she elected
Philippine citizenship and studied law. She
passed the bar and engaged in private
practice. Her nomination is being contested by
Atty. Juris Castillo, also an aspirant to the
position. She claims that Atty. Go is not a
natural-born citizen, hence, not qualified to be
appointed to the Supreme Court. Is the
contention correct? Is Atty. Go a natural born
Filipino citizen?
a) No, because she performed an act in order
to complete or perfect her citizenship
b) No, because she made the election prior to
the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution
c) Yes, because those who elect Philippine
citizenship because only their mothers are
Filipino are deemed natural born. (Retroactive
Effect: if you elect, you are natural born)
d) Yes, because in her case, election is a
surplusage because one of her parents is was a
Filipino citizen
2006, 8(b): Atty. Richard Chua was born in
1964. He is a legitimate son of a Chinese
father and a Filipino mother. His father became
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.
a) Yes, not having elected Philippine citizenship
he is an alien
b) Yes, because even if he is a Filipino since his
father was naturalized while Atty. Chua was
still a minor, he is not natural born
c) No, since he was a minor when his father
was naturalized, he also obtained derivative
citizenship. (only Filipino citizenship is a
requirement to take the bar; to become a
lawyer, you need not be natural born citizen)
d) No, because lack of citizenship is not a
ground for disbarment under Rule 139-B
2003, No. 4; 2002, No. 1; 1999, No. 3: Julio
Hortal was born of Filipino parents. Upon
reaching the age of majority, he became
naturalized citizen in another country. Later he
reacquired Philippine citizenship. Could Hortal
regain his status as a natural-born Filipino
citizen? Would your answer be the same
whether he reacquires his Filipino citizenship
by repatriation or by act of Congress? Explain.
If he reacquired the same by repatriation, he is
restored to his former status as natural born.
If it is through or by act of congress, he is not
natural born by reason of the fact that he is
naturalized by act of congress.
General Rule: If citizenship is reacquired by
any act (act by congress or naturalization)
other than repatriation, restoration to a former
status as natural born cannot be had.
2019, Candidate X, a naturalized Filipino
citizen, ran for Congressman for the Lone
District of Batanes. After a close electoral
contest, he won by a slim margin of 500 votes.
His sole opponent, Y, filed an election protest
before the Commission on Election (COMELEC),
claiming that X should be disqualified to run for
said position because he is not a natural-born
citizen. While the case was pending, X was
proclaimed by the Provincial Election
Supervisor of Batanes as the duly elected
Congressman of the province.
(a) Distinguish between natural-born and
naturalized citizen under the 1987
Constitution, (2%)
Natural born is the one who did not perform
any act to complete citizenship. Naturalized
those by judicially, administratively or by direct
act of congress.
Natural Born ones can occupy constitutional
positions. Naturalized cannot hold
constitutional comm
(b) Is X qualified to run for Congress? Explain.
(1%)
No as he is naturalized.
(c) Did X’s proclamation divest the COMELEC of
its jurisdiction to decide the case and vest the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) jurisdiction to hear the case? Explain.
(2%)
Sec. 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost
or reacquired in a manner provided by
law.
Grounds for loss: (CA 63)
1. Naturalization in a foreign country, except if
one avails of RA 9225 (An Act Making the
Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire
Foreign Citizenship Permanent) – Naturalization
in another country does not necessarily result in
loss of Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 because
it is a law of retainership and reacquisition.
Those Filipino citizens, who, after the effectivity
of RA 9225, become citizens of a foreign country,
may reacquire Philippine citizenship upon taking
the oath of allegiance,
Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate
or adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who
reacquire their Philippine citizenship upon the
effectivity of RA 9225, shall be deemed citizens of
the Philippines.
Those who reacquire or retain Philippine
citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and
political rights and be subject to all attendant
liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws
of the Philippines.

2. Express renunciation of citizenship –
conscious, voluntary and intelligent renunciation
(no implied renunciation!); Express renunciation
means a renunciation made known distinctly and
explicitly, and not left to inference or implication.
Mere registration of alien in BID and mere
possession of foreign passport do not constitute
effective renunciation.
3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support
laws of another country upon attaining the age of
21; provided, however, that a Filipino may not
divest himself of Philippine citizenship in this
manner while RP is at war with any country – an
application of the principle of Indelible Allegiance
— by virtue of RA 9225
4. Rendering service in the armed forces of
another country (exceptions: (1) If RP has a
defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with
the said foreign country; and (2) the said foreign
country maintains armed forces in Philippine
territory with the consent of RP)
5. Cancellation of certificate of naturalization
(apply if you are a naturalized Filipino)
6. By having been declared by competent
authority a deserter of the Philippine armed
forces in time of war UNLESS subsequently, a
plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted.
(apply only in an international war, not war with
rebels, MILF, etc.)
Reacquisition of citizenship:
1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of allegiance
2. By naturalization
3. By repatriation
4. By direct act of Congress
Effect of repatriation – It allows the person to
recover or return to, his original status before he
lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus, the
respondent, a former natural-born Filipino citizen
who lost his Philippine citizenship when he
enlisted in the US Marine Corps, was deemed to
have recovered his natural-born status when he
reacquired Filipino citizenship through
repatriation. (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No.
142840, May 7, 2001)
In Joevanie Arellano Tabasa vs. CA, G.R. No.
125793, August 29, 2006, the only persons
entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the
following: a) Filipino women who lost their
Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and
b) Natural-born Filipinos including their minor
children who lost their Philippine citizenship on
account of political or economic necessity.
Who are qualified for repatriation?
1. Deserter in the armed forces (CA 63)
2. Filipina who lost citizenship by marriage to an
alien (RA 8171)
3. Natural born who lost it by political or
economic necessity (Angat/Tabasa)
4. Any natural born who lost it by naturalization
[PD 725] (still in effect)
5. Joining Armed Forces of US without consent of
Philippine government [Bengzon/RA 2630]
Implication: If you reacquired your citizenship by
repatriation, you are restored to your former
status as natural born citizen.
Take note! If you lost your citizenship by taking
an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution
of a foreign country or renouncement of
citizenship, you cannot get it back through
repatriation, probably only by naturalization.
2000, No. 18: Enumerate the ways by which
Philippine citizenship may be reacquired?
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)
Take note of Frivaldo and Alterajos case!
-citizenship retroacts to the day you filed
your application for repatriation.
Principle of Retroactivity – General Rule: if
you get back your citizenship through
repatriation, it will retroact to the date of
application for repatriation. Hence, consequences
will have to be that I will be deemed to have
reacquired my Filipino citizenship on the date of
my application.
Who can reacquire Philippine citizenship
through repatriation?
a) a Filipino male who married a Saudi Arabian
woman and joined the forces of his wife’s
 country (No, because no defense treaty, not
deserter)
b) a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost
Philippine citizenship in 1990 because he was
naturalized in a foreign state
c) a 20-year old natural-born Filipino who lost
citizenship while still a minor because his
parents lost Philippine citizenship on account of
political necessity (No, because it does not
apply to children but to the person himself)
d) a natural-born Filipino citizen who expressly
renounced Philippine citizenship after a long
residency abroad
Sec. 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.
Marriage alone does not result to loss of
Philippine citizenship. (Labo v. COMELEC)
What acts will result to loss? By
naturalization, desertion, taking an oath of
allegiance or renunciation of citizenship, rendered
service
What omissions result to loss? No omissions
are defined; only acts.
1994, No. 8: In 1989, Zeny Reyes married Ben
Tulog, a national of the state of Kongo. Under
the laws of Kongo, an alien woman marrying a
Kongo national automatically acquires a Kongo
citizenship. After her marriage, Zeny resided in
Kongo and acquired a Kongo passport. In
1991, Zeny returned to the Philippines to run
for governor of Sorsogon. Was Zeny qualified
to run for Congressman? Yes!
a) Yes, because marriage to an alien does not
result to loss of citizenship
b) No, because by acquiring a Congo passport
she is deemed to have renounced her
Philippine citizenship
c) No, because by automatically acquiring
Kongo citizenship she is deemed to have
renounced Philippine citizenship
d) No, because by choosing to reside in Kongo
she became a dual citizen and thus became
ineligible for membership in the House
2004, No. 4: TAC, 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
secure. 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 TAC qualified to run for
Mayor?
a) No, because by marrying an alien she lost
Philippine citizenship
b) No, because by her act of acquiring the
citizenship of her husband she lost Philippine
citizenship
c) No, because be taking an oath of allegiance
to her husband’s country, she is deemed under
the law to have renounced Philippine
citizenship
d) Yes, because marriage of a Filipino citizen to
an alien does not result to loss of Philippine
citizenship
2014, No. 25: Rosebud is a natural-born
Filipino woman who got married to Rockcold, a
citizen of State Frozen. By virtue of the laws of
Frozen, any person who marries its citizens
would automatically be deemed its own citizen.
After ten years of marriage, Rosebud, who has
split her time between the Philippines and
Frozen, decided to run for Congress. Her
opponent sought her disqualification, however,
claiming that she is no longer a natural-born
citizen. In any event, she could not seek
elective position since she never renounced her
foreign citizenship pursuant to the Citizenship
Retention and Reacquisition Act (R.A. No.
9225). Is Rosebud disqualified to run by
reason of citizenship? (4%)
Marriage alone does not result to lost of
citizenship
The others side: Effect on the citizenship of
the alien:
1. Effect on the alien woman:
Moy Ysa Lim Yao – CA 473, Art. 15: Any
woman who is now or may hereafter be married
to a Filipino citizen and who might herself be
lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of
the Philippines.” She is ipso facto a Filipino by
marrying Filipino if she possesses none of the
disqualification
What is important is she is not disqualified.
Meaning she is not violent, not inflicted with or
suffered sickness, or threat to the government.
She need not be a resident for a certain period,
need not own property, or need not speak any
dialect.
Djumantan v. Domingo (1995) – Marriage of
an alien woman to a Filipino husband does not
ipso facto make her a Filipino citizen.
Administrative proceeding with the BID must be
had to acquire Filipino citizenship.
It is not automatic; it is subject to administrative
proceeding by filing an application with the BID
showing:
(1) The alien woman must file a petition for the
cancellation of her alien certificate of registration
alleging, among other things, that she is married
to a Filipino citizen and that she is not
disqualified from acquiring her husband’s
citizenship pursuant to Section 4 of
Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.
(2) Upon the filing of said petition, which should
be accompanied or supported by the joint
affidavit of the petitioner and her Filipino
husband to the effect that the petitioner does not
belong to any of the groups disqualified by the
cited section from becoming naturalized Filipino
citizen x x x,
(3) the Bureau of Immigration conducts an
investigation and promulgates its order or
decision granting or denying the petition.
(4) If granted, she shall take an oath of
allegiance to support the Constitution and laws of
the Philippines.
Note: No need to be naturalized WHICH will take
a long time.
2003, No. 3: Miss Universe from Finland, came
to the Philippines on a tourist visa. While in
this country, she fell in love with and married a
Filipino doctor, Her tourist visa having expired
and after the maximum extension allowed
therefor, the BID is presently demanding that
she leave the country but she refuses to do so,
claiming that she is already a Filipino citizen by
her marriage to a Filipino citizen. Can the BID
still order the deportation of Miss Universe? Is
she a Filipino citizen?
No! Marriage of an alien to a Filipino does not
ipso facto make her Filipino. She must undergo
administrative naturalization with the BID.
Thus, the BID may order the deportation of
Miss Universe.
2. Effect on the Alien Male (TAKE NOTE!)
2. Effect on the Alien Male
CA 473: Qualifications for naturalization:
Section 2.Qualifications. – Subject to section four
of this Act, any person having the following
qualifications may become a citizen of the
Philippines by naturalization:
x xx
Second. He must have resided in the Philippines
for a continuous period of not less than ten
years;
Section 3.Special qualifications. The ten years of
continuous residence required under the second
condition of the last preceding section shall be
understood as reduced to five years for any
petitioner having any of the following
qualifications:
x xx
(3) Being married to a Filipino woman;
An ALIEN male does not ipso facto become a
Filipino after marriage and administrative
proceeding, but must comply the qualifications
set forth for naturalization (the 5-year residency
period). Hence, must apply for naturalization.
1999, No. 3: What are the effects of marriages
of:
1. a citizen to an alien?
Filipino citizens who marry aliens retain their
citizenship, unless by their act or omission they
are deemed, under the law, to have renounced
it. But distinction must be had as to male alien
and female alien.

2. an alien to a citizen; on their spouses and
children?
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.
Sec. 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is
inimical to national interest and shall be
dealt with by law.
Definition of Dual Citizenship –
A situation in which an individual holds citizenship
in more than one country. It arises when, as a
result of the concurrent application of the
different laws of two or more states, a person is
simultaneously considered a national by more
than one state.
Causes of Dual Citizenship
1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers
in foreign countries which follow the principle of
jus soli;
2. Those born of Filipino mothers and alien
fathers if by the laws of their fathers’ country
such children are citizens of that country;
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the
latter’s country the former are considered
citizens, unless by their act or omission they are
deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
4. Those who retained or reacquired Philippine
citizenship under the provisions of RA No. 9225.
Dual Citizenship v. Dual Allegiance
1. Dual allegiance- refers to the situation in which
a person simultaneously owes, by some positive
act, loyalty to two or more states
2. Dual Citizenship – refers to a situation in a
person is simultaneously a national of two or
more states
What has Congress done?
1. Sec. 40, RA 7160:
2. RA No. 9225: Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act
1. Section 40 (d), LGC: Disqualifications.—
The following persons are disqualified from
running from any elective local election: x xx
(d) Those with dual citizenship. x xx.
The provision prohibits dual citizenship but the
Supreme Court ruled that it refers to prohibition
on dual allegiance.
Doctrine of INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE: an
individual may be compelled to retain his original
nationality even if he has already renounced or
forfeited it under the laws of the second State
whose nationality he has acquired.
Are persons with dual citizenship prohibited
from running for a local elective position? No.
The phrase “dual citizenship” in RA 7160,
Section 40(d) LGC must be understood as
referring to “dual allegiance”. Consequently,
persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall
under this disqualification. Unlike those with
dual allegiance, who must be subject to strict
process with respect to the termination of their
status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it
should suffice if, upon filing of their Certificates
of Candidacy (COC), they elect Philippine
citizenship to terminate their status as persons
with dual citizenship considering that their
condition is the unavoidable consequence of
conflicting laws of different states.
By electing Philippine citizenship, such
candidates at the same time, forswear
allegiance to the other country of which they
are also citizens and thereby terminate their
status as dual citizens. It may be that, from
the point of view of the foreign state and of its
laws, such an individual has not effectively
renounced his foreign citizenship. That is of no
moment.
The filing of a COC suffices to renounce foreign
citizenship, effectively removing any
disqualification as dual citizen. This is so
because in the COC, one declares that he is a
Filipino citizen and that he will support and
defend the Constitution and will maintain true
faith and allegiance to the same. Such
declaration under oath operates as an effective
renunciation of foreign citizenship. In this case,
 the Court adopted the liberal interpretation of
the rule. Manzano is not really prohibited to
run due to dual citizenship. Dual allegiance is
the one prohibited. Dual citizenship referred to
under Section 40 (d) of LGC refers to dual
allegiance under Section 5 of Article IV of the
1987 Constitution. (Mercado vs. Manzano,
307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999)
Valles v. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543 (2000)–
Lopez’s mother was Filipino and her father was
Australian. She holds dual citizenship. She ran
and won for governor. She was questioned on the
ground of prohibition under the Local
Government Code? The SC ruled that a person
with dual citizenship is not prohibited from
running local elective position. The constitution is
concerned with dual allegiance as prohibited. The
LGC on dual citizenship prohibition must be
understood to be dual allegiance.
Note: The SC has ruled that the mere act of filing
a certificate of candidacy terminates the status of
dual citizenship. It is deemed a renunciation of
his alien citizenship.
In Calilung vs. Datumanong, G.R. No.
160869, May 11, 2007, what RA 9225 does is
allow dual citizenship to natural-born citizens who
have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of
their naturalization as citizens of a foreign
country. On its face, it does not recognize dual
allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority
of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces
its foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, RA
9225stayed clear out of the problem of dual
allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting
the issue of whether or not there is dual
allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What
happens to the other citizenship was not made a
concern of RA 9225.
Cordora vs. COMELEC
Manzano and Valles, like Tambunting, possessed
dual citizenship by the circumstances of their
birth. Manzano was born to Filipino parents in the
United States which follows the doctrine of jus
soli. Valles was born to an Australian mother and
a Filipino father in Australia.
Our rulings in Manzano and Valles stated that
dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance
both by cause and, for those desiring to run for
public office, by effect. Dual citizenship is
involuntary and arises when, as a result of the
concurrent application of the different laws of two
or more states, a person is simultaneously
considered a national by the said states.
Thus, like any other natural-born Filipino, it is
enough for a person with dual citizenship who
seeks public office to file his certificate of
candidacy and swear to the oath of allegiance
contained therein. Dual allegiance, on the other
hand, is brought about by the individual’s active
participation in the naturalization
process. AASJS states that, under R.A. No. 9225,
a Filipino who becomes a naturalized citizen of
another country is allowed to retain his Filipino
citizenship by swearing to the supreme authority
of the Republic of the Philippines. The act of
taking an oath of allegiance is an implicit
renunciation of a naturalized citizen’s foreign
citizenship. 
Instances when a citizen of the Philippines
may possess dual citizenship:
a. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers
in foreign countries which follow the principle of
jus soli;
b. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino
mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their
father’s country such children are citizens of that
country;
c. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the
latter’s country the former are considered
citizens, unless by their act or omission they are
deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
(Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630,
[1999])
2. Sec. 3, RA No. 9225 (Citizenship
Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003)
Retention of Philippine Citizenship–
Any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by
reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-
acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the
following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
"I _____________________, solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and
obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by
the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines;
and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept
the supreme authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and
that I imposed this obligation upon myself
voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose
of evasion."
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after
the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a
foreign country shall retain their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
Field to Application of RA No. 9225:
1. Applies only to natural-born Filipinos
2. Applies only to those who got naturalized in a
foreign country, either
a. prior to the effectivity of said
law[reacquisition]
b. after its effectivity [retention]
Date of Approval: August 29, 2003
Is it constitutional? AASJS v. Datumanong,
523 SCRA 108 (2007) – YES!
1. By swearing to supreme authority of the
Republic of the Philippines, he implicitly
renounces his allegiance to the foreign country
[no dual allegiance];
2. By requiring an oath, it shifted the problem
of dual allegiance to the other country [other
citizenship is not a concern of the RA 9225]
Can dual citizens vote?
Yes. As a general rule under the absentee
voting act [Nicolas-Lewis]
Exceptions:
1. Not a candidate in a foreign country;
2. Not occupying public office or in the armed
forces of the foreign country
Can you run for or get appointed to a public
office?
Yes, but you must:
1. Make a personal and sworn renunciation of
all
foreign citizenship upon filing
2. Residency requirement [Caasi] – this must
be complied
3. Not a candidate in a foreign country, and not
occupying public office or in the armed forces
of the foreign country
Lopez v. COMELEC, 559 SCRA 696 (2008) –
Lopez was a candidate for the position of
Chairman of Barangay Bagacay, San Dionisio,
Iloilo City in the election held on October 29,
2007. He was a dual citizen having been
naturalized in the United States but regained his
Philippine citizenship by virtue of RA No. 9225,
otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and
Re- acquisition Act of 2003. When his dual
citizenship status was questioned, he invoked
Valles v. COMELEC, claiming that by filing his
certificate of candidacy, he is deemed to have
renounced his foreign citizenship. The SC ruled
that the contention of Lopez is wrong. Valles vs.
Comelec cannot be applied. He must make a
personal and sworn renunciation of all foreign
citizenship upon filing. (At the time of filing, his
latter renunciation cannot be given effect as it
must be made at the time of filing.)
Also Jacot v. Dal, 572 SCRA 295 (2008)
Maquiling v. COMELEC, 696 SCRA 420 (2013) –
What is the effect if after renouncing your alien
citizenship your continued using your alien
passport in traveling out of the country? (“results
to renunciation of your renunciation”) meaning
since you renounce your renunciation, your
renunciation has lost its effect. You are now a
dual citizen and must be removed from office.
See also Agustin v. COMELEC, 774 SCRA 353
(2015)
When do you execute the Affidavit of
Renunciation?
Arnado v. COMELEC, 767 SCRA 168 (2015)
Upon the filing of COC. You cannot wait for the
result of the election. It must be passed with the
COC.
Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, 786 SCRA 1
(2016): If one reacquires Philippine citizenship
under RA No. 9225, is he/she natural-born or
naturalized? (one is restored to his natural-born
status even if you habe performed an act)
Upon taking the oath of allegiance required
under R.A. 9225, are you a natural-born or
not?
2009, No. IX: Warlito, a natural-born Filipino,
took up permanent residence in the United
States, and eventually acquired American
citizenship(naturalized). 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 U.S.
nationality. Thus, he took the oath of
allegiance required under R.A. 9225.
(a) Having reacquired Philippine citizenship, is
Warlito a natural-born or a naturalized Filipino
citizen today? Explain your answer.
He is natural born Filipino. In the first place, he
is deemed to have retained his natural born
status by virtue of Sec.2 (Declaration Policy of
RA 9225).
“Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby
declared the policy of the State that all
Philippine citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their Philippine
citizenship under the conditions of this Act.”
(b) With Warlito having regained Philippine
citizenship, will Shirley also become a Filipino
citizen? If so, why? If not, what would be the
most speedy procedure for Shirley to acquire
Philippine citizenship? Explain.
NO. Derivative citizenship. Pursuant to Mo Ya
Lim Yao case, there is no need of naturalization
proceeding. He needs only to undergo
administrative proceeding with BID.
(c) Do the children – Johnny, Warlito Jr., and
Luisa – become Filipino citizens with their
father's reacquisition of Philippine citizenship?
Explain your answer.
Only Luisa, the minor, acquires Filipino
citizenship by virtue of Derivative Citizenship
(Sec. 3 of RA 9225).
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The
unmarried child, whether legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18)
years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine
citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be
deemed citizenship of the Philippines.
Can you practice profession in the Philippines?
Those intending to practice their profession in the
Philippines shall apply with the proper authority
for a license or permit to engage in such practice;
Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of
Law, Benjamin Dacanay, 540 SCRA 424
(2007)–
Dacanay was admitted to the Philippine bar in
March 1960. He practiced law until he migrated
to Canada and acquired Canadian citizenship. On
July 14, 2006, pursuant to RA 9225, Dacanay
reacquired his Philippine citizenship. Thereafter,
he returned to the Philippines and now intends to
resume his law practice. Did Dacanay lose his
membership in the Philippine bar when he gave
up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004?
“All Philippine citizens who become citizens of
another country shall be deemed not to have lost
their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of
RA 9225“
The SC ruled that there is no need to take
another BAR again. Just apply for permission to
practice legal profession by paying fees and
attend MCLE. It would be otherwise if he
reacquired his citizenship by naturalization,
wherein he cannot be said to have not lost his
Philippine citizenship.
Tan v. Crisologo, 844 SCRA 365 (2017) See
distinction between those who retain (losing
Philippine citizenship after the law took effect)
and reacquiring (losing it prior to the effectivity of
the law): in the first case, there is a period when
one was an alien.
Which of the following are not considered
natural-born citizens of the Philippines?
a) Those who elected Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority because
their mother is Filipina but their father is an
alien
b) Naturalized Filipino citizens who lost
Philippine citizenship but reacquired it through
repatriation – If you reacquired your citizenship
by repatriation, you are restored to your
former status
c) Natural-born citizens who got naturalized in
a foreign country and reacquire citizenship
under RA 9225
d) The minor children of parents whose parents
got naturalized as Filipino citizen (debatable in
view of Ong case)
Res judicata in cases involving citizenship:
General Rule: It does not apply to questions of
citizenship.
Exception: In Burca vs. Republic, 51 SCRA
248, an exception to the general rule was
recognized provided the following must be
present:
1. A person’s citizenship be raised as a material
issue in a controversy where said person is a
party;
2. The Solicitor general or his authorized
representative took active part in the resolution
thereof; and
3. The finding on citizenship is affirmed by SC.
Although the GR was set forth in the case of Moy
Ya Lim Yao, the case did not foreclose the weight
of prior rulings on citizenship. It elucidated that
reliance may somehow be placed on these
antecedent official findings, though not really
binding, to make the effort easier or simpler.
(Valles vs. COMELEC).
2016, No. 14, Onofre, a natural born Filipino
citizen, arrived in the United States in 1985. In
1990, he married Salvacion, a Mexican, and
together they applied for and obtained
American citizenship in 2001. In 2015, the
couple and their children --Alfred, 21 years of
age, Robert, 16, and Marie, 14, who were all
born in the U.S. -- returned to the Philippines
on June 1, 2015. On June 15, 2015, informed
that he could reacquire Philippine citizenship
without losing his American citizenship, Onofre
went home to the Philippines and took the oath
of allegiance prescribed under R.A. No. 9225.
On October 28, 2015, he filed a Certificate of
Candidacy to run in the May 9, 2016 elections
for the position of Congressman in his home
province of Pala wan, running against re-
electionist Congressman Profundo.
2. On June 15, 1015 he was informed that
he could acquire and assuming that he
did, he still did not obtain the 1 year
residency requirement.
2019, H, a naturalized American citizen who
later became a dual citizen under Republic Act
No. 9225 (the Citizenship Retention and Re-
acquisition Act), decided to run for Congress
and thus, filed a certificate of candidacy (CoC).
A citizen argued that H is ineligible for the
position because of his status as a dual citizen.
H responded that his act of filing a CoC
amounted to his renunciation of foreign
citizenship, rendering him eligible for the
position.
(a) Was H’s filing of a CoC sufficient to
renounce foreign citizenship? Explain. (2.5%)
No. He is a dual because of 9225 and not of
another reason.
(b) Assuming that H is a dual citizen because
his parents are Filipino citizens and he was
born in California, USA, was filing of a CoC
sufficient to renounce his foreign citizenship?
Explain. (2.5%)
Manzano case

[a] Did Onofre's reacquisition of Philippine

citizenship benefit his wife, Salvacion, and
their minor children and confer upon them
Filipino citizenship? Explain your answer.
(2.5%)

Only minor children are benefitted.

[b] Before the May 9, 2016 elections,

Profundo's lawyer filed a Petition to Deny Due
Course or to Cancel the Certificate of
Candidacy against Onofre. What grounds can
he raise in his Petition to support it? Explain
your answer. (2.5%)

1. Question that he did not expressly

renounce his citizenship.