University of Southern Mindanao (USM)

College of Law
First Year
2022-2023

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
Art. IV. Citizenship (Part I)
Lecture Format:
1. Provisions of the Constitution and
Principles of Law
2. Supreme Court Decisions Applying
the Provision or Principle
3. Bar Questions on the Topic
Citizenship – pertains to the relationship between an individual and a
State to which the individual owes allegiance and in turn is entitled to
its protection.
Two aspects:
1. the individual has duties to the State
2. the State has obligations to the individual
Illustration: Art. II, Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution: “The prime duty of the
government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may
call upon the people to defend the State, and in fulfillment thereof, all
citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render
personal, military or civil service.”
Historical aspect of citizenship:
1. Biblical concept of Jews v. Gentiles
(based on religious beliefs)

2. The arrest of St. Paul and trial in

Cesaria (first time where citizenship appears
in the Bible)
Classifications of Persons:
 1. Citizens
 a. Natural-born citizens
b. Naturalized citizens
 c. Dual citizens
 2. Aliens
 3. Stateless individuals
Some notes on statelessness:
1. Family Code, Art. 26: When either or both of the contracting
parties are citizens of a foreign country, it shall be necessary for them
before a certificate of marriage can be obtained, to submit a certificate
of legal capacity to contract marriage, issued by their respective
diplomatic or consular officials.
Stateless persons or refugees from other countries shall, in lieu of
the certificate of legal capacity herein required, shall execute an
affidavit showing the circumstances such such capacity to contract
marriage.
2. Commonwealth Act No. 63. An act providing for the ways in which
how Philippine citizenship may be list or reacquired.

Sec. 1. How Philippine citizenship may be lost .- A Filipino citizen may

lose his Philippine citizenship in any of the following ways and/or
events: xxx
6. By having been declared, by a competent authority, of being a
deserter of the Philippine Army, navy or air corps, in time of war xxx.
Two bases of acquiring in all legal systems:
1. Jus sanguines – “right by blood” [based
on Roman Law] (Philippines, most
European countries)
2. Jus soli – “right by soil” [based on
British Common Law] (US, British
Commonwealth and former colonies)
Outline of Art. IV. Citizenship:
1. Citizens of the Philippines in general (Sec.
1)
2. Natural-born Filipino citizens (Sec. 2)
3. Lose and Reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship (Sec. 3)
4. Effect of marriage of a Filipino citizen to an
alien (Sec. 4)
5. Dual citizenship (Sec. 5)
Art. IV, Sec. 1: The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens at the time of adoption of

the Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
(3) Those born before Jan. 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers
who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority;
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Question: Suppose you adopt a child who is a foreigner, does the
child become a Filipino citizen?
Citizenship (Art. III)
 Sec. 1. The following are citizens of the
Philippines
 (1) Those who are citizens at the time of
adoption of the Constitution.

 Intended to ensure continuity….

 Adopted: February 2, 1987
 (2) Those whose fathers OR mothers are citizens of the
Philippines
Some comments:
1. The 1987 Constitution adopts the jus sanguines principle (same
as 1973 Constitution.
2. But in the 1935 Constitution: Sec. 1. “The following are citizens
of the Philippines: xx
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines;
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and,
upon reaching the age majority elect Philippine citizenship.”
Cases:
 Tecson v. COMELEC (2004)– What is the
citizenship of an illegitimate child of
Filipino father and alien woman?

 [Note: Prior to this Decision, it was

assumed that the child follows the
citizenship of the mother.]
 Tecson v. COMELEC, 424 SCRA 277 (2004)
 Fernando Poe, Jr. was born in 1939 as an illegitimate son of Bessie Kelly, an
American national, and Allan Poe, a Filipino citizen. On Dec. 31, 2003, he filed his
certificate of candidacy for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines
representing himself as a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. Considering that
Poe is an illegitimate son of an alien woman, did he follow the citizenship of his
mother who is an American?
 Held: No. Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1935 Constitution provides that “those whose fathers
are citizens of the Philippines” are Filipino citizens. As pointed out by the amicus
curiae, the Constitution states that the child is Filipino without making any distinction
whether he is legitimate or illegitimate. To hold otherwise would make an illegitimate
distinction between the illegitimate child of a Filipino father and the illegitimate child of
a Filipino mother. While the equal protection clause may permit classifications, it is
only allowable if there are real differences. In the case of public service, however,
there appears to be no relevant state interest in disqualifying an illegitimate child from
becoming a public officer. To do so would be to punish the child for the indiscretion of
his parents.
 Bar Question, 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%)
 The following are……
(3) Those born before Jan. 17, 1973 of Filipino
mothers who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority
Notes:
1. What is the significance of the date?
2. Why is it necessary to include the provision?
3. Must an illegitimate child of a Filipino woman
and an alien man also elect?
 Republic v. Lim, 419 SCRA 123 (2004)/Reiterated in Uy-Belleza v. Civil
Registrar of Tacloban, G.R. No. 218354, September 15, 2021
 Chule Lim was an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipina
mother born in Iligan City in 1954. In her Birth Certificate she was
described as “Chinese”. She sought to correct this entry but the Solicitor
General opposed contending that she failed to elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority as required by the 1935 Constitution
according to the procedure found in Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625.
Is the contention correct?
 Held: No. The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing
Philippine citizenship apply only to legitimate children. They do not apply in
the case of Lim 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, she 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.
Bar Question, 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?
Bar Question, 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?
 Bar Question, 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?
Three Questions:
1. Who are qualified to elect?
2. When must the right to elect be
exercised?
3. How is election done?
1. Who can elect? Requisites:
(a) Must be a legitimate child (Republic v. Lim)
(b) Mother is Filipino and father is alien
(c) Born prior to Jan. 17, 1973

At what time must the mother be Filipino?

 To be able to exercise the right to elect, at
what time must the mother be Filipino?
a. At the time the child makes the election
b. At the time the child reaches the age of
majority
c. At the time he was born
d. At the time his mother married his
father
Bar Question, No. 1, 1993: In 1964, Ruffa, a
Filipina domestic helper working in HK, went to
Taipeh for a vacation, where she met Cheng Sio
Pao, 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?
;
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]
See RA No. 6809 (1989) – lowered age of majority
to 18 from 21.
Re Application for Admission, 316 SCRA 1 (1999) :
(14 years from reaching the age of majority.
Republic v. Sagun, 666 SCRA 321 (2012) (33
years old when she elected)
 Re: Application for Admission, 316 SCRA 1 (1999)
 Vicente Ching was born of a Filipino mother and a Chinese father on April 11,
1964 in La Union. Considering that he always considered himself a Filipino, he never
formally elected Philippine citizenship in accordance with CA No. 625. He took and
passed the Bar examinations in 1998 and upon being informed that he was an alien,
he formally elected Philippine citizenship. Can a child of a Filipino mother and an
alien father elect Philippine citizenship 14 years after reaching the age of majority?
 Held: No. The 1935 Constitution provides that election should be made upon
reaching the age of majority. The phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to
mean that the election should be made within 3 years from reaching the age of
majority but it is not an inflexible rule. In the present case, Ching having been born
on April 11, 1964 was already 35 years old when he complied with the requirements
of CA No. 625 in 1999 or over 14 years after he had reached the age of majority.
Based on the interpretation of the phrase “upon reaching the age of majority”, Ching’s
election was clearly beyond, by any reasonable yardstick, the allowable period within
which to exercise the privilege.
Bar Question, 1999, No. 3©:
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 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?
3. How do you elect? Ma v. Commissioner, 625 SCRA 566
(2010)
(a) Residing in the Philippines
(1) statement of election under oath
(2) Oath of allegiance to the
Constitution/Government
(3) Registration of (1) and (2) with Civil Registrar
(b) Residing abroad
-Register with the Philippine diplomatic or consular
office
Note: Re Application for Admission and Sagun
cases: Can there be an implied election?
Re: Application for Admission, 316 SCRA 1 (1999)
Vicente Ching, who never formally elected Philippine citizenship,
considered himself a Filipino. He declared himself as such in all
official documents, practiced a profession (CPA) reserved for
Filipino citizens, voted in elections, and ran and won as
Sangguniang Bayan member for 2 terms. Had Ching informally
elected Philippine citizenship?
  Held: No. Such circumstances cannot vest Philippine citizenship
in him as the law specifically lays down the requirements for
acquisition of Philippine citizenship by election.
 Bar Question, 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
Citizenship (2)
 (4) Those who are naturalized in
accordance with law.
 Three (3) ways of getting naturalized:
(a) Judicial naturalization (CA No. 473)
(b) Administrative naturalization (RA No.
9139)
(c) Legislative naturalization
A. Judicial Naturalization
It is called judicial since you have to file
a case in court (Regional Trial Court) and
the case will be tried. You have to hire a
lawyer and the Solicitor General will
oppose the petition, usually represented
by the Solicitor General
1. Who are qualified for judicial naturalization?

Qualifications under CA No. 473, Sec 2: June 17, 1939

1. Not less than 21 years on the day of the hearing of the
petition;
2. Resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of
not less than 10 years;
3. Must be of good moral character, believes in the
principles underlying the Philippine Constitution and must
have conducted himself in an irreproachable manner;
 4. Must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less
than P5,000.00 or must have a lucrative trade, profession
of lawful occupation;
5. Must be able to read and speak English or Spanish
and anyone of the principal Philippine languages;
6. Must have enrolled his minor children in any public
or private school recognized by the [DepEd] where
Philippine history, government or civics are taught as part
of the curriculum.
2. Who are qualified for judicial naturalization?

Disqualifications under CA No. 473, Sec 2: June 17, 1939

1. Persons opposed to any organized governments or
affiliated with any association or group of persons who
uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized
governments;
2. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or
propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for
the success or predominance of their ideas;
3. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
 4. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral
turpitude;
5. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable
contiguous diseases.

Other grounds-----
3. What is the procedure for judicial naturalization? (RA No.
473)
1. One year prior to the filing of the petition, he must file a
declaration of intention under oath with the Office of
the Solicitor General
2. After the lapse of the period, he must file his petition
with the Regional Trial Court
3. The petition shall be published in the Official Gazette
and one (1) newspaper of general circulation in the
province once a week for 3 consecutive weeks,
together with Notice of Hearing
4. Hearing shall commence after 90 days from the last day
of publication
5. If granted, rehearing after 2 years whether he continues
to possess the qualifications (RA No. 530, see also
Republic g. Go Pei Hung, G.R. No. 212785, April 4,
2018.
6. Take the Oath of Allegiance
a. Renounce all other allegiances
b. Support and defend the Constitution and obey all
laws
Re: Naturalization:
1. Not a right but a mere privilege
2. Not barred by res adjudicata
3. Naturalization of the father benefits wife and
minor children (wife needs to undergo certain
procedure, but for minor children it is automatic)
4. Action for denaturalization does not prescribe
5. While naturalized citizens can vote, they are
disqualified from holding constitutional offices
 Republic v. Dela Rosa, 232 SCRA 785 (1994)
 On Sept. 20, 1991 Juan Frivaldo filed a petition for naturalization as a citizen of
the Philippines. The petition was set for hearing on March 16, 1992 and ordered
published in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation. Since
Frivaldo wanted to run in the 1992 election and the deadline for filing the certificate of
candidacy was March 15, he moved that the hearing be set to Feb. 21, which was
granted. Six days after the hearing, the judge ordered him readmitted as a Filipino
and he took his oath of allegiance. Did Frivaldo validly reacquire Philippine
citizenship?
 Held: No. The naturalization proceeding was null and void for failure to comply with
the Revised Naturalization Law. 1) The hearing of the petition was set ahead of the
scheduled date of hearing, without publication of the order advancing the date of
hearing, and the petition itself. 2) The petition was heard within six months from the
last publication. 3) The petitioner was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before
the finality of the judgment. [Note: Finality comes after the lapse of 30 days.] 4) The
petitioner was allowed to take his oath of allegiance without observing the two-year
waiting period. The procedure under the Revised Naturalization law must be strictly
complied with.
 Republic v. Li Ching Chung, 694 SCRA 249 (2013)
 On August 22, 2007, respondent, a Chinese national, filed his Declaration of
Intention before the Office of the Solicitor General to become a citizen of the
Philippines. On March 12, 2008 or almost seven months after filing his declaration
of intention, respondent filed his Petition for Naturalization before the RTC. The
petition was set for hearing on April 3, 2008. Eventually, the RTC granted the
petition, which decision was sustained by the Court of Appeals. May the Decision be
reversed on the ground that the petition was filed within one (1) year from the
submission of the declaration of intention?
 Held: Yes. Section 5 of CA No. 473, as amended, expressly states that: “One year
prior to the filing of his petition for admission to Philippine citizenship, the applicant
for Philippine citizenship shall file with the Bureau of Justice (now Office of the
Solicitor General) a declaration under oath that it is bona fide his intention to become
a citizen of the Philippines.” As held in Tan v. Republic, "the period of one year
required therein is the time fixed for the State to make inquiries as to the
qualifications of the applicant. If this period of time is not given to it, the State will
have no sufficient opportunity to investigate the qualifications of the applicants and
gather evidence thereon." The law is explicit that the declaration of intention must be
filed one year prior to the filing of the petition for naturalization.
Question: If the parents are naturalized, and minor children
are benefited, are the children natural-born or naturalized?

 Kilosbayan v. Ermita, 526 SCRA 353 (2007)

 Ong was issued an appointment as Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court. It appears that he was born on May 15, 1953 of
Chinese parents. When he was 11 years old, however, his father
was granted Filipino citizenship by naturalization. Ong’s Birth
Certificate states that he is a Chinese. However, his Identification
Certificate issued by the Bureau of Immigration buttressed by an
opinion from the Secretary of Justice states that he is a natural-born
Filipino citizen. Is Ong a natural-born citizen to be qualified to be a
justice of the Supreme Court?
 Held: No. Ong is a naturalized Filipino citizen. The alleged
subsequent recognition of his natural-born status by the Bureau of
Immigration and the DOJ cannot amend the final decision of the trial
court stating that respondent Ong and his mother were naturalized
along with his father.
 Bar Question, 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 Solicitor General 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?]
B. Administrative Naturalization
RA No. 9139 – Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000,
June 8, 2001
Who are qualified to apply:
1. The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing therein
since birth
2. He must not be less than 18 years of age at the time of filing of
the petition
3. He must be of good moral character, believe in the principles
underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted
himself in an irreproachable manner
4. He must have received his primary and secondary
education in any public or private school recognized by
DECS…
5. He must have a known trade, business or profession
from which he derives income sufficient to support
himself or his family
6. He must be able to read, write or speak Filipino or any
of the dialects of the Philippines;
7. He must have mingled with Filipinos and show and
sincere desire to embrace the customs, traditions amd
Filipino ideals…
Some notes:
1. Who are disqualified? (the same, except the addition
of those citizens of a country where the Philippines is at
war and the addition of the principle of reciprocity)
2. Why is it called administrative? Petition is filed with
the Special Committee on Naturalization, chaired by the
Solicitor General
C. Legislative Naturalization
By direct act of Congress. Basis:
“those who may be naturalized in
accordance with law.”
Can Congress pass a law granting
citizenship to a single person? Plenary
power of Congress.
Note: This provision was abused by
Marcos.
Example: House Bill No. 7120, Feb. 6, 2018

AN ACT GRANTING FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP TO

MR. PHILLIP LEACH

Ra No. 10,636 – July 22, 2013,

AN ACT GRANTING PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP

TO ANDRAY BLATCHE
Sec. 2:

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.

Requisites:
1. One is a citizen from birth; and
2. He did not perform any act to complete or perfect his
citizenship
 Question:
 “A” was a natural-born Filipino citizen. Later
on, he went to the United States and got
naturalized as an American citizen. After living
in Texas for many years, he returned to the
Philippines and got naturalized as a Filipino
citizen.
 Is “A” a natural-born or a naturalized Filipino
citizen?
Exception:

 Bengzon v. HRET, 357 SCRA 545 (2001)

 Cruz was a natural-born Filipino citizen. In 1985, however, he enlisted in the
US Marine Corps and, without the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, took an
oath of allegiance to the United States, thus losing his citizenship. In 1990, he also
became naturalized as a US citizen. On March 17, 1994, however, Cruz reacquired
his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under RA No. 2630. On May 11, 1998,
he was elected as the Representative of the 2nd District of Pangasinan. Is Cruz a
natural-born Filipino so as to qualify for the position?
 Held: Yes. As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization, repatriation
simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance and registering said oath in the
Local Civil Registrar. Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery of the original
nationality. This means that if he was originally a natural—born citizen before he lost
his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born
Filipino. As Cruz was not required by law to go through the naturalization
proceedings in order to reacquire his citizenship, he is a natural born Filipino. As
such, he possessed all the necessary qualifications to be elected as member of the
House of Representatives.
Citizenship of Foundlings:

 Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, 786 SCRA 1 (2016)

 Grace Poe was found as an abandoned infant in Jaro, Iloilo on Sept.
3, 1968. When she was 5 years old she was legally adopted by Fernando
Poe, Jr., and Susan Roces. On October 15, 2015, petitioner filed her COC
for the Presidency for the May 2016 Elections. As a foundling with no
known natural parents, is she a natural-born Filipino citizen?
 Held: The foundling, particularly petitioner on this case, should be regarded
as a natural-born Filipino citizen for the following reasons: (1) There is a
statistical certainty that a person with typical Filipino features found
abandoned in a municipality where the population is overwhelmingly
Filipinos (more than a 99%) that the petitioner's parents are Filipinos. (2)
The deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention show that the
framers of the 1935 Constitution, under which the foundling was born,
intended foundlings to be covered by the enumeration. (3) Under generally
accepted principles of international law, which is adopted by the 1987
Constitution as part of Philippine law, a foundling is presumed to have the
"nationality of the country of birth.”
 Bar Question, 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?]
Bar Question, 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.
Bar Question, 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?