Q1: 1.

Despite lingering questions about his Filipino citizenship and his one-
year residence in the district, Gabriel filed his COC for Congressman before
the deadline set by law. His opponent, Vito, hires you as lawyer to contest
Gabriel’s candidacy.
a. Before election day, what action/s will you institute against Gabriel
and before which office/commission/tribunal will you file such
action/s? Reasons.
Answer:
I will institute a petition to deny due course or cancel the COC of
Gabriel before the COMELEC.
The law provides that an action to deny due course or cancel the COC
of a person is proper when what is involved is his eligibility. By
eligibility means that it pertains to his citizenship, residence and age
among others.
Here, since Gabriel’s citizenship and residence requirements are
questioned, which is a question on eligibility, then such remedy above
stated is proper to be filed.
b. If during the pendency of such action/s but before election day,
Gabriel withdraws his COC, can he be substituted as candidate? If so,
by whom and why? If not, why not?
Answer:
No.
Under the law, in order for a substitution to be valid, the person to be
substituted must have validly filed a certificate of candidacy (COC).
Here, since Gabriel withdrew his COC, then he cannot be validly
substituted for there is no valid COC deemed filed.
c. If action/s instituted should be dismissed with finality before election,
and Gabriel assumes office after being proclaimed the winner in the
election, can the issue of his candidacy and/or citizenship and
residence still be questioned? If so, what action/s may be filed and
where? If not, why not?
Answer:
Yes.
Under the law, the jurisdiction of the COMELEC ends when that of
the electoral tribunal begins. The jurisdiction of the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) over election, returns and
 qualifications of its members begins when a person becomes a
member of the House, e.g. after he/she was proclaimed, took an oath
and assumed the duties of his/her office.
Here, since Gabriel has assumed the duties of his office after having
been proclaimed, then, he is already considered as a member of the
House.
Hence, questions as to his qualifications are under the jurisdiction of
the HRET and may be heard in a quo warranto petition.

Q2. Crack agents of the Manila Police Anti-Narcotics Unit were on

surveillance of a cemetery where the same and use of prohibited drugs
were rumored to be rampant. The team saw a man with reddish and
glassy eyes walking unsteadily towards them, but he immediately veered
away upon seeing the policemen. The team approached the man,
introduced themselves as peace officers, then asked what he had in his
clenched fist. Because the man refused to answer, a policeman pried the
fist open and saw a plastic sachet filled with crystalline substance. The
team then took the man into custody and submitted the contents of the
sachet to forensic examination. The crystalline substance in the sachet
turned out to be shabu. The man was accordingly charged in court.
During the trial, the accused: a. Challenged the validity of his arrest; and,
b. Objected to the admission in evidence of the prohibited drugs,
claiming that it was obtained in an illegal search and seizure. Decide with
reasons.
a. Answer:

The arrest is illegal.

Under the law, a warrantless arrest is valid if an offense has just been
committed and the arresting officer has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed the offense.

Here, the arrest was not attended by probable cause because the fact
that the man is with reddish and glassy eyes, walking unsteadily and
immediately veered away upon seeing the policemen, are insufficient
to constitute personal knowledge as basis of probable cause.

Hence, the arrest without a warrant is illegal.

b. Answer:

The man’s objection must be sustained.

Under the Constitution, any evidence obtained in violation of the right

of the person against unreasonable search and seizure must be
inadmissible in evidence.

Here, since there was an illegal warrantless arrest, then the subsequent
search is also deemed unlawful. The search being illegal, hence, the
drugs obtained are inadmissible in evidence.

Q.3 3. Warlito, a natural-born Filipino, took-up permanent residence

in the United States, and eventually acquired American citizenship.
He then married Shirley, an American, and sired three children. In
August 2009, Warlito decided to visit the Philippines with his wife
and children: Johnny, 23 y/o; 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
naturalized Filipino citizen today? Explain your answer. 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 t acquire Philippine citizenship?
Explain. c. Do the children- Johnny, Warlito, Jr., and Luisa- become
Filipino citizens with their father’s reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship? Explain your answer.

a. Warlito is a natural-born citizen.

Under the RA 9225, reacquisition of citizenship has the effect of
restoration to one’s former citizenship before its loss.

Here, since Warlito has reacquired his citizenship when he took his
oath of allegiance to the Philippines, then, he has been restored to his
former natural-born citizenship.

b. Yes, Shirley will also become a Filipino citizen.

The law states that an alien woman who marries a Filipino acquires
the latter’s by derivative citizenship.
Here, since Warlito recovered his Filipino citizenship, then his wife
Shirley has also derived said citizenship.
c. Only Luisa becomes a Filipino citizen.
Under the law, only the minor children of those who reacquired their
Filipino citizenship may benefit from derivative citizenship.
Here, only Luisa, among Warlito’s children is a minor, hence, she is
the only one who can benefit from her father’s reacquired citizenship.

Q4 4. Are aliens absolutely prohibited from owning private lands in

the Philippines?
No.
Jurisprudence teaches us that aliens may own private lands in the
Philippines in the following cases:
1. In cases of hereditary succession and
2. In cases where former Filipino citizens were made a transferee
of private lands.
Q5. Distinction between dual citizenship and dual allegiance.
Dual citizenship is distinguished with dual allegiance as follows:
1. As to mode of acquisition:
Dual citizenship occurs as a result of involuntary acquisition of other
citizenships by virtue of the conflicting laws of several states, while
dual allegiance takes place by deliberate and intentional acts of
acquiring citizenship of foreign countries usually through taking oath
of allegiance to their laws or government.
2. As to effect on eligibility to run for office:
The Supreme Court has held that the prohibition on holding public
position must refer to those with dual allegiance and not those with
dual citizenship.