CITIZENSHIP - A persons membership in a
particular state. That brings the duties of loyalty
and allegiance.
 A person with alien citizenship brings forth a
foreign element that triggers the conflict of
law.
People now trade and communicate with each
other without regard to the other persons
nationality. People no longer act because they are
nationals of this country but they at because this is
what is good for them and their families.
- The rules of citizenship have been so liberalized
that the element of exclusivity that citizenship once
occupied is already gone. Hence, there are group of
nations willing to give multiple citizenship to their
citizens and subjects.
Citizenship how acquired? (sec 1, article IV of
the of the constitution)
IMPORTANCE OF CITIZENSHIP
- Citizenship important because it is source of
rights.
- Source of duties and obligations
- Citizenship defines voting rights and the right
to hold public office
- Certain rights also flow from citizenship.
Citizenship in relation to conflict of laws
-Citizenship is releavnt to conflict of laws because
ceratin states require the application of state’s laws
to certain matters affecting citizens.
- Application of the laws of two or more states results
in a situation where a person becomes a citizen of
two or more countries.
Eg. Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and
duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity
of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad.
ARTICLE 16. Real property as well as personal
property is subject to the law of the country where it
is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions,
both with respect to the order of succession and to
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at
the time of adoption of Constitution.
2. Those fathers/mothers are citizens of the
Philippines.
3. Those who are born before January 17, 1973
of Filipino mothers who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law.
Two principles in the acquisition of citizenship at
birth
1. Jus Soli- by born within the territorial
boundaries of the estate
2. Jus Sanguinis - by blood
Multiple Citizenship- acquired by multiple
application of the doctrine of Jus Soli and Jus
Sanguinis.
Natural Born Citizens- Citizens of the Philippines
without having to perform any act to acquire or
perfect their relationship
the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic
validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated
by the national law of the person whose succession is
under consideration, whatever may be the nature of
the property and regardless of the country wherein
said property may be found.
What is Dual allegiance? What is Dual Citizenship?
Having dual or multiple State of having two or
allegiance to several more citizenships
states.
Resulted from voluntary Resulted from
involuntarily act
Dual allegiance is consdired inimical to the national
interest and shall be dealt with according to law
(section 5, Article IV of the Constitution). Citizens who
are already Filipino but who by their acts maybe said
to be bound by a second allegiance. There is a
seeming inconsistency with respect to our policy on
dual allegaince. With the enactment of RA 9225,
congress has now allowed dual allegaince for Filipinos
as the law allows former Filipinos to reclaim their old
citizenship without them renouncing their present
citizenship. While naturalize citizens are not allowed
to have dual allegiance the same does not apply to
natural born citizens.
Bengson III vs HRET Poe-Llamanzares vs COMELEC Djumantan vs Domingo

Repatriation results in
the recovery of the
original nationality. Thus,
a naturalized Filipino
who lost his citizenship
will be restored to his
prior status as a
naturalized Filipino
Citizenship.
A naturalized Filipino,
one who have to undergo
the process of
naturalization to obtain
Philippine citizenship. As
respondent Cruz was not
required by law to go
through the process of
naturalization
proceedings in order to
re-acquire his Filipino
citizenship , he is a
perforce a natural-born
Filipino.
Foundlings: Abandon children with no known natural parents The marriage of the
are considered natural born citizens as long as there us high petitioner to a Filipino
probability that the foundlings parents are Filipino. citizen did not
automatically bestow upon
Petitioner is a Filipino citizen. The solicitor general offered her the privilege to enter
statistics from PSA, the statistical probability that any child born and stay in the Philippines.
in the Philippines in the decade is a Filipino citizen is 99.83% .
While the 1935 constitution enumeration is silent as to
foundlings there is no restrictive language which would
definitely exclude foundlings either. Marriage of an alien to a
Filipino husband does not
excuse her from her failure
The rule of adoption all expressly refer to Filipino Children and
to depart from the country
include foundlings as among Filipino children who maybe
adopted. upon the extended stay
here as an alien. The entry
of aliens into the country
Natural born citizen are those who are citizen of the Philippines
and their admissions as
from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or
perfect their Philippine citizenship. “having to perform an act” immigrants is not a matter
means that the act must be personally done by the citizens. In of right even if they are
this instance, the determination of the foundling status is done legally married to a
not by the child but by the authorities. Filipino Citizens.
Foundlings are likewise citizens under international law.
Generally accepted principles of international law forms parts of
the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty
obligations. At-least 60 countries in Asia have passed legislation
recognizing foundlings as its citizens . It is a generally accepted
principle of international law to presume foundlings as having
been born of nationals of the country in which the foundling is
found.

Board of Immigration Commissioner vs Go

Callano
Whether the prolong stay from the Philippines
and recognition of their father are expatriating
acts.

Recognition of the petitioners of their own

Chinese father is not among the grounds for losing
Philippine citizenship under the Philippine law.
Even renunciation cannot be cited upon to
support the conclusion that petitioner has lost
their citizenship because the law requires an
express renunciation and not left to inference or
by implication. Moreover herein petitioners were
all minors when they are brought to china. They
were without legal capacity to renounce their
status. Under Ph law there is no requirements of
voluntariness in expatriation. Mere commission of
expatriating act results in the loss of citizenship
Expatriation- the commission of an act the results
on the loss of citizenship
Section 3 of Article IV of the constitution gives the
state the power to strip the people of their
citizenship.
Citizenship maybe loss by any of the following acts:
1. Naturalization in a foreign country
2. Express renunciation of citizenship
3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support
the constitution or laws of the foreign country
upon attaining 21 yrs of age or more
Note: A Filipino may not divest himself of
Philippine citizenship while PH is at war with any
country.
4. By rendering serviced to or accepting
commission in the Armed forces of a foreign
country
EXP:
A. The ph has a defensive or an offensive pact of
alliance with the foreign country
B. The foreign country maintains armed forces on
Ph territory
Provided that the PH citizen at the time of rending
service and taking of oath of allegiance thereto
states that he does so only in connection with his
service to said country and he shall no be
permitted to participate nor vote in any election of
the republic of the PH during the period of his
service.
5. By cancellation of certificate of naturalization
6. having been declared as a deserter of the AFP in
time of war exp. Plenary pardon and amnesty has
been granted.
7. Citizens of the PH who marry aliens shall retain
their citizenship unless by their act or omission
they are deemed under the law to have renounced
it.
Jacot vs. Dal 
GR. 179848, November 27, 2008   COMELEC that renunciation must be contained in
Jacot applied for re-acquisition of his Filipino
Citizenship under R.A. 9225 upon approval Jacot
took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.  
He then filed a certificate of candidacy, a
disqualification was filed against him on the
ground that he failed to renounce his US
citizenship as required by Section 5(2) of R.A.
9225.
ISSUE: WON the oath of allegiance and the oath
contained in his certificate of candidacy operated
as an effective renunciation of his foreign
citizenship.  hold for any elective office.
HELD: Nothing in the oath of allegiance and the
oath contained in the certificate of candidacy
provides for the renunciation of foreign
citizenship. Jacot is disqualified from running as a
candidate. 
Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225 compels natural born
Filipinos, who have been naturalized citizens of
foreign country, but who reacquired or retained
their Philippine citizenship to: 
1. Take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of
R.A. 9225 and; 
2. For those seeking elective public offices in the
Philippines, to additionally  execute a personal and
sworn renunciation of any or all foreign citizenship
before an authorized public officer or simultaneous
to the filing of their certificate of candidacy, to
qualify as candidates in Philippine Election.  
Sobejana-Condon v COMELEC 
GR. 198742, August 10, 2012
Petitioner took the Oath of Allegiance on December
05, 2000. 9 Months later she filed an unsworn
declaration of Renunciation of Australian
Citizenship before the Dept. of Immigration and
Indigenous Affairs, said office subsequently issued
a certification that she has ceased to be an
Australian citizen.  
The petitioner won as Vice Mayor but a quo
warranto proceedings was filed against her on the
ground that she failed to renounce her foreign
citizenship as required by Section 5(2) of RA 9225
which provides that renunciation must be sworn
before an officer authorized to administer an oath.  
ISSUE: whether the sworn renunciation of foreign
citizenship is a mere pro-forma requirement? 
Held: The court ruled in the case of Lopez vs
an affidavit duly executed before an officer of the
law who is authorized to administer an oath
stating in clear and unequivocal terms that
affidavit is renouncing her foreign citizenship.  
To hold the oath to be a mere proforma
requirement is to say that it is merely for
ceremonial purposes resulting in a mere or
qualified allegiance when the constitution or
legislature demands otherwise.  
Since Section 3 of RA 9225 is the operative act that
restores their right to run for public office. Unless
she executes a sworn renunciation of her
Australian Citizenship , she is ineligible to run and
 
ISSUE: WON the Australian Citizen Act under
which she is deemed to have lost her citizenship is
entitled to judicial notice? 
HELD: No. Foreign laws must be alleged and
proven. Petitioner failed to prove the Australian
Citizenship Act of 1948. If the aforesaid act will be
read into the application and operation of RA 9225
we would be applying not what our legislative
department has deemed wise too require.  
 Maquiling v. COMELEC 
G.R. 195649, April 16, 2013
Before filing for certificate of candidacy, Arnado
applied for repatriation under RA 9225 where he
took an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and executed an affidavit of
renunciation of U.S. Citizenship
The other mayoralty candidate seek to disqualify
Arnado on the ground that Arnado continued to
use his U.S. passport in his travels abroad even
after executing an affidavit of renunciation.   up-to taking of oath of
 ISSUE: WON the use of foreign passport amounts
to undoing an earlier renunciation?
RULING: The act of using foreign passport does not
by itself divest Arnado of Filipino citizenship but
the representation of himself as American citizen.
The Filipino citizenship requirement for an elective
public office is a continuing one. Any act which
violated the oath opens the citizenship issue to
attack.  privilege comes with no qualification that the
The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a
hollow oath that can simply be professed at any
time and be violated the next day. It requires an
absolute and perpetual renunciation of foreign
citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and
political rights granted by the foreign country.   citizens to possess dual or multiple citizenship.
Arnado vs COMELEC  embraces another nationality in favor of a better
GR. 210164, August 18, 2015  life for themselves and their families.
The court decided Maquiling on April 16, 2013,
after the lapse of the period for filing of Certificate
of candidacy. On May 09, 2013 Arnado submitted
an affidavit affirming his affidavit of renunciation
dated April 3, 2009.   Filipinos they can acquire properties without
On 2013 elections Arnado won. The other
candidate filed a petition to nullify Arnado’s
proclamation .
ISSUE: WON Arnado complied with the
requirement of personal and sworn renunciation
of any and all foreign citizenship prior to or at the
time of the filing of his certificate of candidacy. 
HELD: Arnado’s use of passport in 2009
invalidated his oath of renunciation resulting in his
disqualification in the 2010 election. Since then
and up to the time he filed his CoC for the 2013
elections, Arnado has not cured the defect in his
qualifications. The ruling in Maquiling, therefore is
binding on this case.
 REACQUISITION VS RETENTION
Reacquisition Retention
RA 9225
Sept. 17,
2003
Naturalized before RA Naturalized after RA
9225 9225
Not considered as Considered as Filipinos
Filipinos from the time from naturalization up-
of their naturalization to the time they took an
oath of allegiance.
allegiance.
RA 9225 allows former Filipino citizens to
repatriate themselves by taking the oath of
allegiance to the Philippines without renouncing
their present citizenship.
- Grants derivative Filipino citizenship to the
unmarried children below 18 years of age. The
child should have stayed in the Philippines for a
number of years .
- RA 9225 no longer places that much value of
unitary citizenship. The Philippines if following
a growing trend among nations of allowing their
With migration now a fact of life more citizens
- Since beneficiaries of RA 9225 are natural born
citizens once more they are restored of their
civil and political rights . Just like ordinary
limitations. They can practice their profession as
well as the right to take the bar -exam. However
the restoration of one civil and political rights
are subject to pre-conditions. Before a dual
citizen can enjoy the privilege granted by law,
for instance, the right to hold an elective office
is conditioned upon the persons renunciation of
his foreign citizenship.
-Being a dual citizen of the Philippines and
another country presents several advantages.
1. Allows the person to stay indefinitely in our parents was still a
country since the person is already a Ph citizen. Filipino citizen shall
2. Allows the person to enjoy civil and political be cinsidered a natural;
rights. born Filipino and may
3. Allows the persons minor children to become apply for reacquisition
Filipinos as well. for his own behalf.
4. The beneficiary maybe entitled to possess Revocation The order of approval
several passports which the person can use issued maybe revoked
overseas for convenience. by the DOJ upon a
substantive finding of
fraud,
The procedure for re-acquisition is specified in
misrepresentation or
memorandum Circular No. AFF 05-002
concealment on the
part of the applicant
Coverage Natural born citizens and adminsitrative
who have lost their Ph hearing.
citizenship by reason
of their naturalization
to foreign country.
Filing of verified Former natural born
petition Ph citizen in the Section 5(2) of RA Section 5(3) of RA
Philippines - bureau of 9225 9225
Immigration Personal and sworn Renounce their oath of
renunciation of any allegiance to the
and all foreign country where they
Former natural born
citizenship before any took that oath
Ph citizen in the
public officer
Abroad - file a verified
authorized to
petition with the
administer oath.
nearest Philippine
Foreign Post.
Oath of Allegiance - If the applicant is in DAVID v. AGBAY
final act to retain/ the Ph, he may take his
reacquire Ph oath of allegiance G.R. 199113, March 18, 2015
citizenship before the
commissioner of On 1974 Petitioner became a Canadian Citizen by
Immigration. naturalization.

If the applicant is On April 2007, Petitioner applied for Miscellaneous

abroad, only the Lease Application with the DENR, petitioner
consul general or duly indicated in is application that he was a Filipino.
commissioned foreign
service officer may On October 2007, petitioner re-acquired his
administer the oath. Philippine citizenship. A case for falsification of
Beneficiaries of RA A child below 18 yrs public documents was filed against Petitioner.
9225 of age shall be
considered to have Petitioner asserts that re-acquisition and retention
reacquired the Ph in RA 9225 should not be distinguished in view of
citizenship at the same the constitutional presumption of innocence. The
petitioner being a non-lawyer at the time of the
time the mother or
commission of the offense.
father reacquires Ph
citizenship provided
the applicant included ISSUE: WON Petitioner is liable for falsification.
the child as the
beneficiary. HELD: Petitioner made the untruthful statement in
the MLA, a public document. Stating that he is
Filipino citizen at the time of the filing of said
A child who is more application when in fact he was still then a
than 18 years of age Canadian Citizen. While he re-acquired Philippine
born when either citizenship under RA 9225 six months later. The
falsification was already consummated. The said Practice of Profession
law having no retroactive effects insofar as his dual
status is concerned.

 The practice of professions being a privilege is therefore restricted to Philippine Citizens.

 Foreigner is not allowed to practice his professions without obtaining a permit or license.

IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVELEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES

B.M. No. 2112, July 24, 2012

ISSUE: Whether Muneses is entitled to resume his practice of law in the Philippines after he lost and later
re-acquired his Philippine citizenship?

HELD: Yes, A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine
citizenship under R.A. 9225, remains to be a member of the bar. However the right to resume practice of law
is not automatic. He must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.

General Principles In Dealing with Conflict of Nationality Laws. (Hague Convention)

Article 1 Each state shall determine its own laws as to who

are its nationals, subject to international
conventions, customs and the principle of laws that
is generally recognised.
Article 2 Whther a person possess a nationality of a particular
state shall be determined in accordance with the law
of that state.

DOMICILE - the relation which the law
creates between and individual and a
particular locality.
The place where he has his true, fixed,
permanent home and principal establishment
to which when one is absent he has the
intention of returning
Elements of Domicile
1. Physical presence in the place
2. Intention of returning
3 kinds of Domicile
1. Domicile of Birth/ Origin
2. Domicile of Choice
3. Domicile by Operation of Law
Domicile of Birth/ Origin - Domicile of a
persons parents/ head of the family
Domicile of Choice - place chosen by a
person to replace his former domicile
Domicile by operation of law - domicile
assigned or attributed to a person by law.
* There are instances when a person leaves
his state of citizenship and establishes his
domicile or residence in another state. Thus
in determining a persons domicile one must
look beyond a persons citizenship to
determine his domicile
Citizenship may be presumed from ones
domicile but this presumption is disputable ,
further proof may be presented
* Domicile maybe lost through the
performance of certain acts indicative of an
intent to abandon domicile.
* The question of Domicile is determined by
the law of the forum of the state.
* domicile is significant for it is a source of
rights and obligations.
Acts indicative of domicile are;
1. Persons residence
2. Membership in church
3. Voting
4. Holding Office petition for adjustment of status from non-
5. Paying taxes immigrant status to permanent resident.
6. Ownership of property
* For people who are still in the Philippines
To successful effect of change of domicile and who are petitioned by their loved ones
one must abroad, they have to wait for the approval and
1. Actual removal or an actual change of release of immigrant visas before they can go
domicile abroad
2. Bonafide intention of abandoning the
former place of residence and establishing a * A permanent Visa or a green card is issued
new one to applicant who have the privilege to stay in
3. Acts which correspondence to the purpose the US on a permanent basis. Compared to
holders of tourist or student visa, these latter
* For people with non-immigrant visas categories only allow temporary stay in the
(tourist and students) they usually file a US with the holder thereof still maintaining
their domicile in their country of origin.
Romualdez Marcos vs Jalosjos v COMELEC Caballero vs COMELEC Caasi vs CA
COMELEC
Issue: Whether Leyte is the Jalosjos migrated to ISSUE: Whether petitioner Whether Miguel has
domicile of Marcos Australia and returned has abandoned his abandoned his domicile in the
to the Philippines and domicile in Batanes Philippines
Held: Leyte is the domicile of stayed at his brothers
Marcos. house in QC. He took HELD: Residence refers to HELD: Miguel's immigration
Residence indicate a place of his oath of allegiance dwelling and habitation to the United States
abode whether permanent or to the PH and while domicile is partly or constitutes an abandonment
temporary renounced his constructively a of his domicile and residence
Domicile - Fixed Permanent Australian citizenship. permanent home. A in the Philippines. He entered
residence to which when Jalosjos then bought a domicile of origin is the united states with the
absent, one has the intention residential property in acquired by every person intention to live there
of returning. IN Election law QC and a fishpond in at birth. It is usually the permanently as evidenced by
residence means domicile. Isidro place where the child's his application for immigrant
What is inescapable is that parents reside and visa and not a tourist
petitioner held various ISSUE: Whether continues until the same is passport. Immigration is the
residences for different Jalosjos has able to abandoned by acquisition removing into one place from
purposes during the last four proof his bona fide of new domicile. It consist another.
decades. None of these intention to establish not only the intention to
purposes unequivocally point his residence is reside in a fixed place but ISSUE: Whether Miguel’s
to an intention to abandon Zamboanga, Sibugay also personal presence in return to the Philippines and
her domicile of origin in that place coupled with presenting himself as a
Tacloban Leyte. She grew up HELD: When he came the conduct indicative of candidate for Mayor in
in tacloban and reach her to the Philippines in such intention. Bolinao waive his status as a
adulthood there. Even during November to live with Petitioner was born in permanent resident or
her husband presidency his brother in Batanes and later worked immigrant of the united
petitioner kept her close to Zamboanga Sibugay, it in Canada and became a states.
ties to her domicile of origin is evidence that Canadian citizen. In
by establishing residences I Jalosjos did so with Coquila vs Comelec we HELD: The waiver of his
Tacloban, instituting well the intent to change ruled that naturalization green card should be
publicized projects for the his domicile for good. in a foreign country may manifested by some acts or
benefit of her province and He left Australia and result in abandonment of acts independent of and done
hometown. renounced his domicile in the Philippines prior to filing his candidacy
A change of residence allegiance to that since a permanent for elective office in this
requires an actual and country. A candidate is resident status in Canada country. Miguel did not
deliberate abandonment and not required to have a is required for acquisition posses the qualification
one cannot have two legal house in a community of Canadian citizenship. because he was a permanent
residences at the same time. It to establish his Frequent visits in Batanes resident of US and he resided
cannot be correctly argued residence or domicile during his vacation from in Bolinao for a period of only
that petitioner lost her in a particular place. It work in Canada cannot be 3 months. “Without menta
domicile of origin by is sufficient that he considered as waiver of reservation or purpose o
operation of law as a result of should live there even such abandonment. evasion”. The assumption is
her marriage to the late
President E. Marcos, what
petitioner gained upon
marriage was the actual
residence. She did not lose
her domicile of origin.
Petitioner's acts of following
her return to the country
clearly indicate that she not
only impliedly but expressly
chose her domicile of origin.
if it be rented or a Petitioners retention of his that those who are resident
house of a relative. Philippine citizenship did aliens of a foreign country are
Jalosjos has proved not automatically make incapable of such entire
two things actual him regain his residence in devotion to the interest and
physical presence and Uyugan Batanes. He must welfare of their homeland.
an intention of making still prove that after
it his domicile. Jalosjos becoming a Philippine
bought a residential citizen he had
lot in the same village reestablished Batanes as
where he lived and a his new domicile.
fishpond in San Isidro. COMELEC found that
petitioner failed to present
competent evidence to
prove that he was able to
reestablish his residence
in Uyugan within a period
of one year immediately
preceding the election.

Coquilla v COMELEC Poe-LLamanzares vs Macalintal v COMELEC Nicolas-Lewis v COMELE

Facts: Coquilla joined the
US navy on 1965 he
subsequently naturalized
as a citizen of the United
States. He returned to the
Philippines and apply for
repatriation under RA No.
8171. His application was
approved and he took his
oath as a citizen on
November 10, 2000. He
then applied for
registration as a voter.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner
had been a resident of
Eastern SAMAR at least
one year prior to Election.
HELD: No, he lacks the
residency requirement.
Petitioner lost his Domicile
after enlisiting in the US
Navy. From then in until
November 10, 2000 when
he reacquired Philippine
Citizenship petitioner was
an alien without any right
to reside in the Philippines
except as visitor or
resident alien. The fact
that he is naturalized
abroad he lost his
Philippine citizenship and
with it his residence on the
Philippines . Petitioners
contention that he
reestablished his residence
COMELEC
Grace married Fil-American
Llamanzares in 1991. She
joined her husband in the US
where she naturalized as a
citizen in 2001. In 2004 she
return to the Philippines to be
with her ailing father who
dies in early 2005. For this
purpose she and her husband
purchased a condominium
unit and enrolled her children
in Philippine schools. She
made a quick trip to the
United states in February
2006 to dispose of their
properties then promptly
returned to the Philippines in
March 2006. She and her
husband purchased a condo
unit and enrolled her children
in Philippine schools. She
made a quick trip to the
United States to dispose of
their properties hen promptly
returned to the Philippines in
March 2006. In the process of
settling here they sold their
house in the Unites States and
informed the US postal
service of the abandonment
of their United states address.
Grace applied for repatriation
on July 7, 2006. When she
filed her certificate of
candidacy for president she
declared that she is a resident
of Philippines for 10 years
and 11 months. COMELEC
ISSUE: Whether Section
5(d) of RA 9189 violate
section 1 Article V of the
1987 Constitution.
HELD: Petitioner solely
focus on Section 1, Article
V of the constitution totally
ignoring the provisions of
Section 2, empowering the
congress to provide a
system for absentee voting
by qualified Filipinos
abroad. RA 9189 was
enacted in obeisance to
the mandate of the first
paragraph of Section 2
Article V of the constitution
that Congress shall provide
a system for voting by
qualified Filipinos abroad.
By the doctrine of
necessary implication,
which maybe applied in
construing constitutional
provision the strategic
location of Section 2
indicates that the
Constitutional Commission
provided for an exception
to the actual residency
requirement of Section 1
with respect to qualified
Filipinos abroad. Section
5(d) of RA 9189
disqualified an immigrant
or permanent resident who
is recognized as such in the
There is no provision in t
dual citizenship law
9225 requiring duals
actually establ
residence and physica
stay in the Philippines fi
before they can exerc
their right to vote. On t
contrary duals are m
likely non-residents. Du
may now exercise the rig
of suffrage through t
absentee voting sche
and as an overse
absentee vot
“Derivative Citizensh
Next generation duals m
nonetheless av
themselves the right
enjoy civil and politi
rights under section 5
the RA9225 then there
no reason why the orese
days duals be denied
their suffrage.
 in this country when he
came back to prepare for
the mayoralty election and
constantly declares to his
town mates his intention to
seek repatriation and run
for mayor cannot be given
credence, The only
evidence of petitioners
status was when entered
the country on October 15,
1998 is the statement
Philippine Immigration
Balikbayan in his 1998 US
Passport. The stamp bore
added inscription good for
one year stay Under
Section 2 of RA 6768, the
term balikbayan includes a
former Filipino citizen
which had been
naturalized in a foreign
country and comes or
returns to the Philippines-
visa free-entry.
disregarded the evidence host country because
presented by petitioner on immigrant or permanent
the basis that petitioner could residence in another
have started residence in the country implies
Philippines in July 2006 when renunciation of ones
her application was residence in his country of
approved. origin. The execution of
affidavit required in
ISSUE: Whether petitioner section 5(d) is an explicit
domicile is the Philippines expression that he had not
HELD: IN earlier cases in fact abandoned his
decided by the court because domicile of origin thus it is
of the sparse evidence on not correct to say that the
residence in the four cases execution of the affidavit
cited by the respondents, the violates the the
court had no choice but to Constitution that
hold that residence should be prescribed provisional
counted only from the registration or a promise
acquisition of a permanent by a voter to perform a
resident visa or from re condition to be qualified to
acquisition of Philippine vote in a political exercise.
citizenship. Based on the
evidence presented it is clear
that when petitioner returned
on May 24. 2005 it was for
good.

Section 1, Article V of the Consti Section 2, Article V of the Consti

Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the
Philippines…who shall have resided in the
Philippines for at-least one year and in the
place wherein they proposed to vote for at-
least 6 months immediately preceding the
election.
OFW who are not disqualified y law maybe
able to cast their vote on election day in
Philippine consulates and authorized foreign
stations.

This residency requirement must conform with

the doctrine of domicile.

RA 9225- dual citizenship have allowed dual citizens of the Philippines to vote even though they
lack the residency and domicile required by law
The state of the law now is that all Filipinos overseas may vote without demonstrating actual
residency of domicile in the Philippines.

RA 10590 “Overseas voting act of 2013” Omitted the affidavit requirement found in RA 9189.
Coverage:
1. All citizens of the Philippine abroad not disqualified by law
2. At least 18years of age on the day of election
3. May vote for President, Vice-president, Senators and Party-List representatives as well as
national referanda and plebiscites.

WHO ARE DISQUALIFIED UNDER THIS ACT?

1. Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with the PH law.
 2. Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and who have pledged
allegiance to a foreign country
EXP: Reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship under RA 9225
3. Those who have committed by final judgement by a Philippine court of an offense punishable
by imprisonment of not less than 1 year
EXP: Plenary pardon or amnesty
4. Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or incompetent by a
competent authority in the PH or abroad as verified by PH embassies.

Venue in estate proceedings:

 Residence for venue purposes usually refer to an actual residence or place of abode and not
a persons domicile.
 Actual residence signified personal residence ie. Physical presence and actual stay thereat.
This physical presence nonetheless must be more than temporary and must be more than
temporary and with continuity and consistency.

Jao vs Court of Appeals San Luis vs San Luis

ISSUE: Whether venue in the estate
proceedings refers to ordinary residence and
not domicile
HELD: Venue refers only to ordinary residence
and not to domicile. Venue for ordinary civil
actions and that for special proceedings have
one and the same meaning. Residence means
nothing more than a persons actual residence
or place of abode provided he resides therein
with the continuity and consistency.
There is a distinction between residence for
purposes of election laws and residence for
purposes of fixing the venue of actions. In
election cases, residence and domicile are
treated as synonymous terms. Venue under the
rules of court, the residence of a person is his
personal actual and physical habitation