citizenship report final

7/31/2019 Citizenship Report FINAL

1/32

1

Araullo UniversityBitas, Cabanatuan City

Citizenship

A Paper Presented to Atty. Michael Angelo Reyes

In Partial Fulfillmentof the requirements for Law 012

Legal Bibliography

By:Jetro S. BautistaIsrael G. Bonite

Arvin De GuzmanRod Rafael De Leon

Marlie C. Eduardo Arvin P. Eugenio

2ND Semester 2011-2012


2/32

2

INTRODUCTION:

A persons identity is important in every transaction he makes. Living in a civil

society entails identification. As such, citizenship primarily describes him. Furthermore,

it determines whether or not he could hold certain positions in the government.

Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement in elective posts as in the

cases of Fernando Poe Jr, Ramon L. Labo, Juan G. Frivaldo and many more. Likewise,

admission to Philippine bar requires Philippine citizenship.

In light of the above, one can conclude that citizenship is an indispensable part of

a persons survival. It is important in ones personal, social and political existence as

shown in jurisprudence concerning participation in affairs exclusive to Filipinos.

The concept of citizenship has three main elements. Citizenship as legal status is

defined by civil, political and social rights. Under this element, the citizen is the legal

person free to act according to the law and have the right to claims with the protection of

the law. It need not mean that the citizen takes part in the law's formulation, nor does it

require that rights be uniform between citizens. Citizenship as as political agents

defined by actively participating in a society's political institutions. Citizenship asmembership in a political community that furnishes a distinct source of identity.

This paper is aimed at digging out issues, concerns and importance of

citizenship.

WHAT IS CITIZENSHIP 1

Joaquin Bernas SJ, defines citizenship as personal and more or less permanent

membership in a political community. It denotes possession within that particular political community of full civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications

such as minority. Reciprocally, it imposes the duty of allegiance to the political

community.

WHAT IS NATIONALITY 2

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 or civil rights.

__________________

1Joaquin G. Bernas, S. J., The 1987 Constitution A reviewer-primer, Fourth Edition 2002


3/32

3

22008 Political Law and Public International Law

This status confers upon the individual certain prerogatives which may be denied

the alien. Thus, the citizen enjoys certain exclusive rights, such as the rights to vote, to

run for public office, to exploit natural resources, to operate public utilities, to administer

educational institutions, and to manage the mass media. 3

In the same way, Black defines it as a status of one who, under the constitution

and the laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political

community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of civil rights. 4

PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP, DUAL CITIZENSHIP, AND DUAL ALLEGIANCE 5

RA 9225, the Dual Citizenship Law was signed by then President Gloria

Macapagal Arroyo on August 29, 2003. This Act makes the citizenship of the Philippine

citizens who acquire foreign citizenship permanent. This law is also known as The

Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 which is a consolidation of

Senate Bill 2130 and House Bill 4720, sponsored by Senate President Franklin Drilon

and Representative Oscar Rodriguez, respectively.

This law amended Commonwealth Act No. 63, providing the acquisition of

foreign citizenship as a ground for the loss of Philippine Citizenship. Thus, under R.A.

9225, citizen of the Philippines who become citizens of another country shall be

deemed no to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of the law. 3 This

leaves only the following as grounds for one to lose his Philippine citizenship:

a) express renunciation of Filipino citizenship;

b) being in service of the armed forces of a foreign country; and

c) seeking public office in a foreign country

RA 9225 effectively allows and approves dual citizenship.

Although the law has survived the debates in the halls of Congress, critics

maintain that Dual Citizenship is not allowed under Section 5 of Article IV of the 1987

Constitution which considers it inimical to national interest. Also, the law has been

under incessant attack from writers such as Conrado De Quiros and Raul Palabrica,

including eminent constitutionalists like Fr. Joaquin Bernas and Justice Isagani Cruz.

__________

3. I. Cruz, Constitutional Law 372 (2000)

4Blacks LawDictionary (6th ed. 1991)


4/32

4

5James Benedict F. Panopio, 06 Ll.B., cand, University of Sto. Tomas Faculty of Civil Law; Articles Editor, UST LawReview.

On the other hand, Senator Drilon claims, as lawmakers have agreed, that what

the Constitution prohibits is dual allegiance, not dual citizenship. He also argues that the

law would encourage Filipinos who ave become naturalized citizen of the other countries to visit the Philippines more often and settle in the country permanently once

they retire. Further, when asked whether it would harm the national interest, he said that

dual citizenship even enhances the national interest because we open up the economy

to more Filipinos by allowing them to engage in economic areas and investments

previously closed to them. The law has received great support from former Filipinos

abroad, especially those who are based in the United States.

MODES OF ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP

Modern law recognizes three distinct modes of acquiring citizenship:

(1) jus sanguinis , or acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship;

(2) jus soli , or acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth; and

(3) naturalization, or the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the

privilege of a native born citizen.

Prior to the adoption of the 1935 Constitution, the Supreme Court applied the

principle of jus soli to determine the citizenship of persons who were born in the

Philippines. Thus, in one case, it was held that "all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands

who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April, 1899, and then resided in said

islands and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be

citizens of the Philippine Islands, except such as shall have elected to preserve their

allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, signed in Paris, December tenth, 1898,

and except such others as have since become citizens of some other country."

The Supreme Court later abandoned this principle in favor of the principle of jus

sanguinis . It has been held, however, that the abandonment of the principle of jus soli

did not, in certain cases, divest those who have been conferred Philippine citizenship

under the principle of res judicata .

At present, basic Philippine law follows the rule of jus sanguinis based on Section

1 (2) of Article IV of the 1987 Constitution. The jus soli rule, on the other hand, is the

one being used in countries like the United States18 and Canada. Naturalization is also

allowed in our jurisdiction. It may be direct or derivative. Direct naturalization is effected:


5/32

5

(1) by individual proceedings, usually judicial, under general naturalization laws;

(2) by special act of the legislature, often in favor of distinguished foreigners who have

rendered some notable service to the local state;

(3) by collective change of nationality (naturalization en masse) as a result of cession or

subjugation; and

(4) in some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State where

they are born.

Derivative naturalization in turn is conferred:

(1) on the wife of the naturalized husband;

(2) on the minor children of the naturalized parent; and

(3) on the alien woman upon marriage to a national.

CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES

Under the present Constitution, the following are considered citizensof the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of thisConstitution.(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.

(3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippinecitizenship upon attaining the age of majority.

(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Hence, based on Article IV, Section 1 (2) of our 1987 Constitution, the basic rule

on citizenship in the Philippines, irrespective of the place of birth, is that a person born

of either a Filipino father or a Filipino mother shall be considered a Philippine citizen

following the jus sanguinis rule.

Unlike the rule in American law, however, where the Congress cannot

strip a person of his citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation, our Constitution

expressly provides that 'Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner

provided by law. Thus, our Congress can provide for specific grounds that could result

in loss of one's Philippine citizenship such as those provided under Commonwealth Act

No. 63.


6/32

6

This distinction is relevant for whatever efforts the US Congress makes in

preventing dual citizenship, it just cannot do so without amending their own

Constitution, which elevates US citizenship to a constitutionally protected

right which cannot be taken away without the voluntary consent of the

citizen.25 In fact, recognizing the problems it may cause, the official US

position is that they allow dual citizenship not because they approve of it but

because they tolerate it.26 On the other hand, the Philippine Congress, given

with ample powers to prevent the undesirable problems dual citizenship can

cause, still chooses to allow it with full approbation despite the

constitutional declaration that "dual allegiance is inimical to the national

interest."

Congress has no express power under the Constitution to strip a person of

citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty.

The Fourteenth Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the

United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . ." completely controls the status of

citizenship and prevents the cancellation of petitioner's citizenship without his assent

COMPARISON OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP LAWS

A. Spanish Laws on Citizenship

Not all the laws of Spain on citizenship were made applicable to the Philippines.

Those that were effective were extended by Royal decrees . [1] Four can be traced back

as early as the 1800s.

According to Law 3, Book 6, Title II, of Novisima Recopilacion promulgated

in Spain on 16 July 1805, the following were considered citizens:

All foreigners who obtained the privilege of naturalization those who were

born in these kingdoms ; those who, residing therein may be converted to

the holy Catholic faith; those being self-supporting, established their

domicile therein; those who ask for and obtain residence in any town

thereof; those who marry native women of said kingdoms and domiciledtherein; and in case of a foreign woman who marries a native man, she

thereby becomes subject to the same laws and acquires the same

domicile as her husband; those who establish themselves in the country

by acquiring real property; those who have trade or profession and go
http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn1http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn1http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn1http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn1


7/32

7

there to practice the same; also those who practice some mechanical

trade therein or keep a retail store;... those who reside for a period of ten

years in a home of his own; and also foreigners who, in accordance with

the common law, royal orders and other laws of the kingdom, may have

become naturalized or acquired residence therein...

Though it is unclear whether or not the Philippines would have been within the scope of

these laws, some authors and Supreme Court justices later argued that the Philippines,

as a colony would have been incl uded as one of the kingdoms in that law:

Moreover, the Government of the Spanish Monarchy, in encouraging the

multiplication of her subjects during the period of her glory and in granting

citizenship by birth in these kingdoms which were carried forwar d in the

Spanish Civil Code in 1889, under the same policy of the multiplication of

her subjects, can have no other intention than to apply said law to the

inhabitants of its dominions, colonies and territories under its

sovereignties .[2]

Another law of Spain which involved citizenship was the Order of the Regency of

14 August 1941. Some provisions stated that:

Foreigners who desire to gain Spanish citizenship should apply for it by

means of an application filed with the Governor-General who was

empowered in the interest of the nation to grant or deny the same.

Compliance with this Royal Decree has been declared absolutely

essential for the acquisition of citizenship with a view to acquire the status

of a Spanish subject in the Philippine Islands prior to the change of

sovereignty .[3]

The Royal Decree of 23 August 1868, promulgated specifically for the Philippine

Islands, provided for the political status of children of foreigners born in the Philippines.

The following were considered foreigners:

First, the legitimate and recognized natural children of a father who

belongs to another independent State, and the unrecognized natural, and

other illegitimate children of a mother belonging to another State born

outside of the Spanish dominions; Second- The children specified in the
http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn2http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn2http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn2http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn3http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn3http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn3http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn3http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn2


8/32

8

preceding paragraph, born in the Spanish dominions or on board Spanish

vessels on high seas if they do not, on attaining the age of majority fixed in

the laws of the kingdom, elect Spanish nationality; Third- Those being

Spaniards, acquire another nationality, as well by renouncing the first as

be accepting employment from another government without authority of

the sovereign; Fourth- The woman who contracts marriage with the

subject of another state .[4]

Finally, there was the Law of 4 July 1870 the Ley Extranjera de Ultramar

which was expressly extended to the Philippines by Royal Decree of 13 July 1870, and

published in the Official Gazette on 18 September 1870:

Art. 1. These are foreigners: (a) All persons born of foreign parents

outside of the Spanish territory; (b) Those born outside of the Spanish

territory of foreign fathers and Spanish mothers while they do not claim

Spanish nationality; (c) Those born in Spanish territory of foreign parents,

or foreign fathers and Spanish mothers, while they do not make that claim;

(d) Spaniards who may have lost their nationality; (e) Those born outside

of Spanish territory of parents who may have lost their Spanish nationality;

and (f) The Spanish woman married to a foreigner. For purposes of this

article, national vessels are considered a part of Spanish dominions.

Art. 2. Foreigners who under the laws obtain naturalization papers or

acquire domicile in any town in the Spanish provinces of the Ultramar are

considered Spaniards.

B. Treaty of Paris

To end the six-month hostilities between Spain and the United States following

the declaration of war by the United States in 25 April 1898, Commissioners met

in Paris on 1 October 1898 to produce a treaty that would bring an end to the war. The

treaty was signed on 10 December 1898 whereby Spain yielded possession of the Philippines, along with Puerto Rico, Guam and Cuba, to the United States. The

treaty tackled the disposition of the Islands ceded by Spain to the United States

Article IX of the Treaty of Paris defined those who were the citizens of

the Philippines. The provision read:


9/32

9

Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over

which Spain by present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may

remain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event

all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such

property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on

their industry, commerce, and professions, being subject thereof to such

laws as are applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the

territory they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by

making, before a court of record, within a year from the date of the

exchange of ratification of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to

preserve such allegiance; in default of which they shall be held to have

renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in whichthey may reside.

The civil and political status of the native inhabitants of the

territories thereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the

Congress .[5]

Under the Treaty, native subjects and Spanish subjects who did not exercise

their option to leave the Philippines, but remained in the country and adopted the

nationality of the Philippines were considered citizens of the Philippines. However,

those Spanish subjects who remained in the Philippines, but who declared before a

court of record their intention to preserve their allegiance to Spain within a year and a

half from the date of ratification of the treaty (11 April 1900) retained their Spanish

nationality.

In the case of Bosque v. U.S ., 1 Phil.88 (1908) it was held that the absence of a

Spanish subject from the Philippines during the entire period allowed by treaty for

making a declaration of his intention to preserve allegiance to the Crown of Spain

prevented the loss of his Spanish Nationality by his failure to make such a declaration. It

was opined that under the treaty it was necessary that he had a residence de facto in

the Philippines for the eighteen months following the ratification of the treaty.

A child under parental authority whose father did not take advantage of the right

of declaration of Spanish citizenship as provided for by the treaty also was considered a

citizen of the Philippines. However, if the child had no parents or guardians in


10/32

10

the Philippines or Puerto Rico at the time the treaty was ratified, he would retain his

Spanish nationality without the necessity of declaring such to be his intention . [7]

C. The Philippine Bill

The Philippine Bill was enacted by the Congress of the United States on 1 July

1902. It was the composite report of two Philippine Commissions, the work of the War

Departments of the United States, hearing before the committees of U.S. Congress and

legislative conferences. The act was originally thought out to be a temporary one. It was

meant to prepare the Filipinos for independence and self-governance for a period of at

most eight years. However, it became the guide for the administration of civil

government of the Philippines for fourteen years. It has little character of a constitutionalact. Those provisions which one would expect to find in a constitution, such as

establishing the framework for government, limiting governmental powers, and providing

for the political organization of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, were

lacking [8]. An assembly was, however, authorized for a future date. Most of the sections

concerned general legislation on commerce, the sale and lease of public lands,

utilization of forests, granting of mining claims, municipal bonds and franchises. The Bill

of Rights was also extended.

Section 4 of the Philippine Bill defines who the citizens of the Philippines were. It

stated:

That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein

who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred

and ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born

subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the

Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United

States, except as such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance

to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of

peace between the united States and Spain signed at Paris December

tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight: Provided, That the Philippine

legislature is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition

Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not

come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of other insular possessions of the United States, and such other persons residing in the

Philippine Island who could become citizens of the United States if

residing therein.
http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn7http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn7http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn7http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn8http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn8http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn8http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn7


11/32

11

All those that were considered citizens of the Philippines under the Treaty of

Paris were deemed to be citizens under the Philippine Bill.

All those born after 11 April 1899 to parents who were Spanish subjects on that

date and who continued to reside in the Philippines were ipso facto citizens of thePhilippine Islands. In effect the doctrine of jus soli , citizenship by place of birth,

which prevails in the United States, was extended to thePhilippines.

A woman of foreign nationality who married a citizen of the Philippines was also

considered a Philippine citizen as she followed her husbands citizenship [

Children born of Chinese fathers and Filipina mothers within the Philippines, with

certain exceptions, were also citizens of the Philippines. Even though the Chinese

father and mother of the child were not legally married, the child was nevertheless

presumed prima facie to be a citizen of the Philippines, inasmuch as under the law he

followed the status of his legally recognized parent, who is his mother, a Filipina. If

such children were taken to their fathers country during their minority, they still

remained citizens of the Philip pines. However, if their fathers origin claimed them as

citizens under the principle of jus sanguinis, they were then considered as possessing

dual nationality.

Children born in the Philippines of Chinese parents were also considered citizens

of the Philippines. A child born of alien parents, who went to his fathers native land at a

tender age and remained there during minority, on becoming of age, he should elect

Philippine citizenship if he desires to be a citizen of the Philippines. A failure to express

such desire within a reasonable period of time should be regarded as a strong

presumption of his purpose to become definitely identified with the body politic of his

fathers country.

Citizenship may be lost by the action of a person, either express or implied.

Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation of ones nationality and allegiance by

becoming a citizen of another country.Actual renunciation may not be necessary in

order to forfeit citizenship; a mere absence for a prolonged period, without an intention

to return may be sufficient. The rule of the Department of State of the United

States government was adopted, whereby, a continued residence abroad for three

years, after attainment of majority, produces a loss of citizenship, unless it is clearly

proved that animus revertendi existed. Commission of certain crimes may also cause

the loss of citizenship.


12/32

12

D. The Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law)

The Philippine Bill was later on superseded by Philippine Autonomy Act. The

latter was superior in various ways to the former. It essentially mirrored a constitution as

it provided for a framework of government, Bill of Rights and certain positive powers and

prohibitions. It, however, retained in toto the same provision on citizenship as its

predecessor. Section 2 of the Act stated:

That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects

on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then

resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall

be deemed citizens of the Philippine Islands, except as such as shall have

elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance

with the provision of the treaty of peace between the United States and

Spain, signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-

eight, and except such others as have since become citizens of some

other country: Provided, That the Philippine legislature, herein provided

for, is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine

citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come

within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possession of the

United States, or who could become citizens of the United States under

the laws of the United States if residing therein .[16]

As the above-stated provision is just a re-enactment of Section 4 of the Philippine

Bill, all persons considered as citizens under the former law were also considered as

such under the Philippine Autonomy Act. However, it was only in the latter that the

proviso, also found in the Philippine Bill, providing for suppletory law for the acquisitionof Philippine citizenship was given effect by the enactment of Act No. 2927 by the

Philippine Legislature in 1920. The said law constituted the Naturalization Act of

the Philippines. Under the law citizenship may now be acquired by the following groups

of people:

a. natives of the Philippines who are not citizens thereof;

b. natives of insular possessions of the United States; and

c. citizens of the United States, or

d. foreigners who, under the laws of the United States, may become

citizens of the later country if residing therein


13/32

13

E. 1935 Constitution

In the 1935 Constitution, Filipino citizenship was defined, classified and regulatedby Article IV, which stated that:

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time

of the adoption of this Constitution

(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who,

before the adoption of the Constitution, had been elected to publicoffice in the Philippine Islands

(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines

(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines, and

upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship

(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Section 2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner

provided by law.

Those who were considered citizens at the time of the adoption of the

constitution included those deemed citizens under the Jones Law: all inhabitants of the

Philippine Islands, who were Spanish subjects on the 11 th day of April, 1989, and then

residing in the said islands, and their children born and subsequent thereto... This was

in turn a reproduction of Section 4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902.

Those who were naturalized according to the Naturalization Law of Act No. 2927

(March 26, 1920), come under the scope of Section 1(1). Under this Act, the privilege of

naturalization was given to the following persons:

(1) natives of the Philippines who were not citizens of the Philippines,

because they were not living in the Philippines on April 11, 1899, and

were not subjects of Spain on that date, not were they children of Filipino

citizens born after that date; (2) natives of the insular possessions of the

United States, such as natives of Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the


14/32

14

Virgin Islands; (3) residents of the Philippines who were citizens of the

United States; and (4) residents of the Philippines who could become

citizens of the United States under the American laws if residing there.

As can be seen from the previous citizenship laws, the principle of jus

sanguinis was not applicable prior to the 1935 Constitution. Before Section 1, which

considered citizens those whose fathers were Filipino citizens, the prevailing doctrine

had been jus soli .[21] By recognizing the principle of jus sanguinis , it was recognized that

a blood relationship would serve as a better guarantee of loyalty to the country of ones

parents [22] than jus soli .

Section 1(2), at the time the Constitution was framed, was said to be inserted for

the benefit of Delegate Fermin Caram of Iloilo. Since Caram was born of Syrian parents

and had not been naturalized, an anomaly of the Constitution being signed by one who

is not a citizen would have been an issue, if thus subsection had not been included.

However, the Supreme Court has held that the delegates would not have added such a

provision without considering its effect on others.

Section 1(4) contemplated a situation where only the mother was a Filipino

citizen, and gave the child an opportunity to elect Filipino citizenship only when he

reached the age of majority. Prior to his reaching such an age, he at most has an

inchoate right to Filipino citizenship .[24] The provision is also applicable to mothers who

were Filipinos before acquiring the nationality of their foreign spouses. To restrict its

interpretation in such a way that the time of election was considered controlling as to the

status when the mother should be a Filipina would have nullified the particular

provision .[25] For illegitimate children however, this provision would not have been

applicable, since the citizenship of the father would not then be material, since an

illegitimate child as a rule follows the nationality of the mother . [

The right to elect is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 652, which states the

requirements and procedure for election, and must be express:

Option to elect Philippine citizenship shall be expressed in a statement to

be filed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized

to administer oath and shall be filed with the nearest civil registrar. Theparty elected must likewise accompany the aforementioned statement with

the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of

the Philippines. Where the party concerned resides abroad, he must make

the statement before any officer of the government of
http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn21http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn21http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn21http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn22http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn22http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn22http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn24http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn24http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn24http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn25http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn25http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn25http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn26http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn26http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn26http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn26http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn25http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn24http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn22http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn21


15/32

15

the Philippines authorized to administer oaths and must forward such

statement together with his oath of allegiance to the civil registrar

of Manila .[

On the naturalization of non-citizens, Section 1(5) possessed great significance.

Desirable aliens are welcomed, but a balance must be created wherein the l aw bars

undesirables without unduly discouraging the worthwhile aliens desirous of becoming

Filipinos. [28] Naturalization has been defined as the legal act of adopting an alien and

clothing him with the rights that belong to a natural born citizen. Naturalization may be

obtained through a general law of naturalization applied through a judicial process. [29]

F. 1973 Constitution

Article III, Section 2 enumerates the following as 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 who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the

provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five

4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

The purpose of the first paragraph of the provision was to protect the continued

enjoyment of Philippine citizenship to those who already possess the right as of 17

January 1973.

The Section 2(2) followed the principle of jus sanguinis. However, unlike the

1935 Constitution, Filipino mothers were placed by the 1973 Constitution on equal

footing with Filipino fathers as far as the determination of the citizenship of their children

was concerned. The father or mother may be a natural-born Filipino or a Filipino bynaturalization or by election. The only important consideration here was that the mother

must be a Filipino at the time of the birth of the child. It must be reiterated that this rule

applied only to those born of a Filipino mother on or after 17 January 1973.
http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn27http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn27http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn27http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn28http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn28http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn28http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn29http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn29http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn29http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn29http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn28http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn27


16/32

16

As the 1973 Constitution followed the doctrine of jus sanguinis , it disregarded the

place of birth of a person. As long as one was born of Filipino parents, he was

considered a Filipino. If he was born in a country where the rule of jus soli was the

prevailing principle, it would be a case of dual citizenship.

The Section 2(3) defined the status of individuals who elect Philippine citizenship

under the 1935 Constitution. Under the said Constitution, a child born of a Filipina

mother married to an alien was considered an alien unless he elected Philippine

citizenship within a reasonable period after reaching the age of majority. However, if his

mother reacquired her Philippines citizenship during his minority there was no need for

election since by operation of law, he is a Filipino citizen.

Section 2(4) provided for a means by which even individuals, who were notFilipino citizens by virtue of birth or of Filipino mothers, may become citizens of

the Philippines through naturalization.

G. 1987 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution builds on the previous Constitutions, but modifies

provisions which cannot be found in the 1973 and 1935 Constitution. Those who were

citizens during the adoption of the new Constitution were considered citizens. However,

this does not rectify any defects in the acquisition of such citizenship under the 1935 or

1973 Constitution. If a persons citizenship was subject to judicial challenge under the

old law, it still remains subject to challenge under the new whether or not the judicial

challenge had been commenced prior to the effectivity of the new Constitution. [30]

The principle of jus sanguinis still applies, and in following the lead of the 1973

Constitution, the Filipino woman is placed on the same footing as Filipino men inmatters of citizenship. It is essential, however, that the mother is a Filipina when the

child is born .[31] The principle of parental authority is still applicable in the new

Constitution, so this article only applies to legitimate children, not to adopted or

illegitimate ones. Mothers have parental authority over illegitimate children. Adopted

children, on the other hand, as they are not related by blood, do not follow their adoptive

parents citizenship, despite being under their parental authority .[32]

As for those who were born after the adoption of the 1973 Constitution of Filipinomothers, the 1987 Constitution still provides the transitory provision that was also in the

1973 Constitution: Those born before 17 January 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect

Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. [33]
http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn30http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn30http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn30http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn31http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn31http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn31http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn32http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn32http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn32http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn33http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn33http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn33http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn33http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn32http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn31http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn30


17/32

17

Naturalization still remains one of the ways by which a person may acquire

citizenship. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution defines natural born citizens:

Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from

birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippinecitizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with

paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens

In the 1973 Constitution, the second sentence was not yet included.

Furthermore, even under the 1935 Constitution, it was not settled whether the child of a

Filipino mother who elects Philippine citizenship was a natural-born Filipino or a

naturalized one. A liberal view was adopted by the 1987 Constitution, based on theargument that the election retroacts to the moment of birth, since it was such that gives

him potential to make the election .[34]

However, if a person loses his citizenship and subsequently reacquires such

citizenship, that person would no longer be considered a natural-born Filipino but a

naturalized one (whether under the 1973 or the 1987 Constitution). An exception to this

rule is reacquiring ones citizenship through repatriation, where one regains ones

former citizenship .[35]

Section 3 states that Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the

manner provided by law. [36] The loss of citizenship is governed by two laws,

Commonwealth Act No. 63 (for natural-born and naturalized citizenship) and

Commonwealth Act No. 473 (for naturalized citizenship). Under C.A. No. 63, citizenship

may be lost: through naturalization in a foreign country, by express renunciation of

citizenship, by oath of allegiance to a foreign country, by rendering service in the armed

forces of a foreign country, and by being a deserter of the armed forces. Under

Commonwealth Act No. 473, ones certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if

found to have been fraudulently obtained, by permanent residence in the co untry of

origin within five years of naturalization, or when petition is found to have been made on

an invalid declaration of intent, or upon failure to comply with the requirements for the

education of minor children, or if the person allows himself to be a dummy for

aliens. [37]

Reacquisition may happen either through naturalization or repatriation.

Section 4, which states that 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, [38] modifies the 1973 Consti tution by making no reference to
http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn34http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn34http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn34http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn35http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn35http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn35http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn36http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn36http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn36http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn37http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn37http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn37http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn38http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn38http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn38http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn38http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn37http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn36http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn35http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn34


18/32

18

sex... on the chance that some country might have a law which divests a foreign

husband of his citizenship. [39]

In Section 5, the Constitution recognizes the problem of dual allegiance, but

leaves concrete ways of dealing with it to Congress.[40]

The same may be said of dualcitizensh ip, which is not contemplated in the provision, it being a seldom intentional and

perhaps never insidious...condition that arises from the fact that Philippine law cannot

control international law, and the laws of other countries on citizenship. [41] Dual

Citizenship is covered by RA 9225, which provides that natural-born citizens of

the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country

shall retain their citizenship after taking the oath mentioned therein.

As can be seen, though there had been changes from the Spanish Laws to thePhilippine Constitutions, continuity has been maintained. Each Constitution usually

includes a provision to accommodate previous ones. Major changes include the

transition from jus soli to jus sanguinis in the 1935 Constitution, the equalization of men

and women (fathers and mothers) as regards citizenship in the 1973 Constitution, and

the classification of children of Filipino mothers who needed to elect citizenship as

natural-born, the retention of citizenship upon marriage to foreigners, and the

recognition of the problem of dual allegiance in the 1987 Constitution.

LAWS GOVERNING CITIZENSHIP

*COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 63

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BELOST OR REACQUIRED

*COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 473

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BYNATURALIZATION, AND TO REPEAL ACTS NUMBERED TWENTY-NINE HUNDRED

AND TWENTY-SEVEN AND THIRTY-FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHT.

References:

Constitutional Law, Isagani I Cruz, 2000

The Politics of Aristotle, edited and translated by Ernest Barker, OxfordUniversity Press, London, 1946 p.93

The 1987 Philippine Constitution, Joaquin Bernas, 4 th edition,p.238

2008 Political Law and Public International Law
http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn39http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn39http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn39http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn40http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn40http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn40http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn41http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn41http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn41http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn41http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn40http://www.angelfire.com/art3/consti_citizen/Comparison.html#_ftn39


19/32

19

The Philippine Citizenship


20/32

20

In the case of Fornier versus COMELEC and Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known asFernando Poe Jr., docketed as G. R. No. 161824 and promulgated on March 3, 2004, theSupreme Court of the Philippines pointed out that citizenship is a treasured right conferred onthose whom the state believes are deserving of the privilege. It is a precious heritage, as well asan inestimable acquisition, that cannot be taken lightly by anyone - either by those who enjoy itor by those who dispute it.

Greek philosopher Aristotle, in the book entitled The Principle of Politics (1946), asedited and translated by Ernest Larker, gave the earliest concept of citizenship sometime in384 to 322 B.C. when he described the citizen as a man who shared in the administration of

justice and in the holding of an office. In other words, he defines citizenship as he who has thepower to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state. However, he sawsignificance of it to determine the constituency of the State , which he described as beingcomposed of such persons who would be adequate in number to achieve a self-sufficientexistence.

In the book, The Conditions of Citizenship , (1994) [as edited by Bart VanSteenbergen, Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi], Aristotles

concept of citizenship was expanded to include one who would bot h govern and begoverned, for which qualifications like autonomy, judgment and loyalty could beexpected. Citizenship was seen to deal with rights and entitlements, on the one hand,and with concomitant obligations, on the other.

The concept of citizenship has three main elements. Citizenship as legal status isdefined by civil, political and social rights. Under this element, the citizen is the legalperson free to act according to the law and have the right to claims with the protection of the law. It need not mean that the citizen takes part in the law's formulation, nor does itrequire that rights be uniform between citizens. Citizenship as as political agentsdefined by actively participating in a society's political institutions. Citizenship as

membership in a political community that furnishes a distinct source of identity.

The concept of citizenship had undergone several changes. In the 18 th century,the concept of citizenship was confined to civil citizenship.Under this concept, rightsnecessary for individual freedom were established. These rights refer to rights toproperty, personal liberty and justice.

In the 19 th century, the same concept was expanded to include politicalrights. And in the 20 th century, another expansion of the concept was made to includesocial citizenship.

What is social citizenship? This is the citizenship of an individual, whichrecognizes the right of the citizen to economic well-being and social security.

History books gave us the impression that Jose P. Rizal, Andres Bonifacio, andother inhabitants of the Philippines who fought against the Spanish government for theindependence of the Philippines were citizens of the Philippines. Hence, they wereFilipinos. The question is: Were they really citizens of the Philippines? To find theanswer, let us take a deeper analysis of the historical events in the Philippines anddecision of the Supreme Court.

The Spaniards executed Jose Rizal on December 30, 1898. The mediation that

Andres Bonifacio did because of the misunderstanding among those who fight againstthe Spanish government was rebuffed by the clannish middle class of Cavite as divisiveand harmful to unity. Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, the elected president of the provisionalrevolutionary government, ordered the arrest, trial, and execution for "treason andsedition" of Bonifacio and his brothers. On May 10, 1897, Bonifacio was executed. Bothof them died fighting for the freedom of the Philippines. They have given up their lives inthe hope that the Philippines would be free from tyranny. They died beforethe Spain ceded to the United States their authorities over the Philippines.


21/32


22/32

22

acquire another nationality, as well by renouncing the first as be accepting employmentfrom another government without authority of the sovereign; Fourth- The woman whocontracts marriage with the subject of another state.

The Law of 4 July 1870 the Ley Extranjera de Ultramar , as published in the Official Gazetteon 18 September 1870, provided that -

Art. 1. These are foreigners: (a) All persons born of foreign parents outside of the Spanish territory; (b) Those born outside of the Spanish territory of foreignfathers and Spanish mothers while they do not claim Spanish nationality; (c) Thoseborn in Spanish territory of foreign parents, or foreign fathers and Spanish mothers,while they do not make that claim; (d) Spaniards who may have lost their nationality;(e) Those born outside of Spanish territory of parents who may have lost theirSpanish nationality; and (f) The Spanish woman married to a foreigner. For purposesof this article, national vessels are considered a part of Spanish dominions.

Art. 2. Foreigners who under the laws obtain naturalization papers or acquire

domicile in any town in the Spanish provinces of the Ultramar are considered Spaniards.

The Philippine Citizenship

The year 1898 was considered the turning point in history on theSpanish ruling over the Philippines. At this time, the power

of Spain declined. She was forced to give up to the clout of the UnitedStates.

The United States in April 25, 1898 declared were against Spain. To end the six-monthhostilities between Spain and the United States, a treaty was entered into.The treaty was signedon December 10, 1898 and Spain was forced to yield the possession of the Philippines, alongwith Puerto Rico, Guam and Cuba, to the United States.

This treaty was known as the Treaty of Paris of 1898. Under the treaty, the

Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over

which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty mayremain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event alltheir rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry,commerce, and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as areapplicable to foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may preservetheir allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, withina year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration theyshall be held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of theterritory in which they reside.

Under the Treaty of Paris, both native and Spanish subjects who did not exercise theiroption to leave the Philippines, but remained in the country and adopted the nationality of thePhilippines were considered citizens of the Philippines. However, those Spanish subjects whoremained in the Philippines and declared before a court of record their intention to preserve theirallegiance to Spain within a year and a half from the date of ratification of the treaty retainedtheir Spanish nationality


23/32


24/32

24

Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the principlesunderlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in aproper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in thePhilippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with thecommunity in which he is living.

Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than fivethousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade,profession, or lawful occupation;

Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of theprincipal Philippine languages; and

Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of thepublic schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education 1 of the Philippines, where the Philippine history, government and civics are taught

or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of theresidence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen.

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 tofive years for any petitioner having any of the following qualifications:

1. Having honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines or under that of any of the provinces, cities, municipalities, or political subdivisions thereof;

2. Having established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the

Philippines;3. Being married to a Filipino woman;4. Having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a public or recognized

private school not established for the exclusive instruction of children of personsof a particular nationality or race, in any of the branches of education or industryfor a period of not less than two years;

5. Having been born in the Philippines.

Section 4. Who are disqualified. - The following cannot be naturalized as Philippinecitizens:

a. Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organizedgovernments;

b. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personalassault, or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas;

c. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;d. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;e. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;f. Persons 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 tolearn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;

g. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States 2and the Philippinesare at war, during the period of such war;

h. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United States 3whoselaws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjectsthereof.

Section 5. Declaration of intention. One year prior to the filing of his petition for admission to Philippine citizenship, the applicant for Philippine citizenship shall file with


25/32

25

the Bureau of Justice 4 a declaration under oath that it is bona fide his intention tobecome a citizen of the Philippines. Such declaration shall set forth name, age,occupation, personal description, place of birth, last foreign residence and allegiance,the date of arrival, the name of the vessel or aircraft, if any, in which he came to thePhilippines, and the place of residence in the Philippines at the time of making the

declaration. No declaration shall be valid until lawful entry for permanent residence hasbeen established and a certificate showing the date, place, and manner of his arrivalhas been issued. The declarant must also state that he has enrolled his minor children,if any, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of PrivateEducation5 of the Philippines, where Philippine history, government, and civics aretaught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of theresidence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen. Each declarant must furnish two photographs of himself.

Section 6. Persons exempt from requirement to make a declaration of intention.

Persons born in the Philippines and have received their primary and secondaryeducation in public schools or those recognized by the Government and notlimited to any race or nationality, and those who have resided continuously in thePhilippines for a period of thirty years or more before filing their application, maybe naturalized without having to make a declaration of intention upon complying with theother requirements of this Act. To such requirements shall be added that whichestablishes that the applicant has given primary and secondary education to allhis children in the public schools or in private schools recognized by theGovernment and not limited to any race or nationality. The same shall beunderstood applicable with respect to the widow and minor children of an alien whohas declared his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines, and dies before he isactually naturalized. 6

Section 7. Petition for citizenship. Any person desiring to acquire Philippinecitizenship shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate, accompanied bytwo photographs of the petitioner, setting forth his name and surname; his present andformer places of residence; his occupation; the place and date of his birth; whether single or married and the father of children, the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife and of each of the children; the approximate date of his or her arrival in thePhilippines, the name of the port of debarkation, and, if he remembers it, the name of the ship on which he came; a declaration that he has the qualifications required by this

Act, specifying the same, and that he is not disqualified for naturalization under theprovisions of this Act; that he has complied with the requirements of section five of this

Act; and that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship. The petition must besigned by the applicant in his own handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of atleast two credible persons, stating that they are citizens of the Philippines andpersonally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of timerequired by this Act and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable, and thatsaid petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act. Thepetition shall also set forth the names and post-office addresses of such witnesses asthe petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing of the case. The certificate of arrival, and the declaration of intention must be made part of the petition.

Section 8. Competent court. The Court of First Instance of the province in which thepetitioner has resided at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petitionshall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the petition.

Section 9. Notification and appearance. Immediately upon the filing of a petition, itshall be the duty of the clerk of the court to publish the same at petitioner's expense,


26/32


27/32

27

Section 13. Record books. The clerk of the court shall keep two books; one in whichthe petition and declarations of intention shall be recorded in chronological order, notingall proceedings thereof from the filing of the petition to the final issuance of thenaturalization certificate; and another, which shall be a record of naturalizationcertificates each page of which shall have a duplicate which shall be duly attested by

the clerk of the court and delivered to the petitioner.

Section 14. Fees. The clerk of the Court of First Instance shall charge as fees for recording a petition for naturalization and for the proceedings in connection therewith,including the issuance of the certificate, the sum of thirty pesos.

The Clerk of the Supreme Court 17 shall collect for each appeal and for the servicesrendered by him in connection therewith, the sum of twenty-four pesos.

Section 15. Effect of the naturalization on wife and children. Any woman who is nowor may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be

lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.Minor children of persons naturalized under this law who have been born in thePhilippines shall be considered citizens thereof.

A foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the naturalizationof the parent, shall automatically become a Philippine citizen, and a foreign-born minor child, who is not in the Philippines at the time the parent is naturalized, shall be deemeda Philippine citizen only during his minority, unless he begins to reside permanently inthe Philippines when still a minor, in which case, he will continue to be a Philippinecitizen even after becoming of age.

A child born outside of the Philippines after the naturalization of his parent, shall beconsidered a Philippine citizen, unless one year after reaching the age of majority, hefails to register himself as a Philippine citizen at the

*************************** MISSING PAGE "#329" ***********************

the fault of their parents either by neglecting to support them or bytransferring them to another school or schools. A certified copy of thedecree canceling the naturalization certificate shall be forwarded by theclerk of the Court to the Department of the Interior20 and the Bureau of Justice.21

(e ) If it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed himself to be usedas a dummy in violation of the Constitutional or legal provision requiringPhilippine citizenship as a requisite for the exercise, use or enjoyment of a

right, franchise or privilege.

Section 19. Penalties for violation of this Act. Any person who shall fraudulently make,falsify, forge, change, alter, or cause or aid any person to do the same, or who shallpurposely aid and assist in falsely making, forging, falsifying, changing or altering anaturalization certificate for the purpose of making use thereof, or in order that the same


28/32

28

may be used by another person or persons, and any person who shall purposely aidand assist another in obtaining a naturalization certificate in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand pesos or byimprisonment for not more than five years, or both, and in the case that the personconvicted is a naturalized citizen his certificate of naturalization and the registration of

the same in the proper civil registry shall be ordered cancelled.

Section 20. Prescription .No person shall be prosecuted, charged, or punished for anoffense implying a violation of the provisions of this Act, unless the information or complaint is filed within five years from the detection or discovery of the commission of said offense.

Section 21. Regulation and blanks. The Secretary of Justice shall issue the necessaryregulations for the proper enforcement of this Act. Naturalization certificate blanks andother blanks required for carrying out the provisions of this Act shall be prepared andfurnished by the Solicitor-General, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice.

Section 22. Repealing clause. Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred and twenty-sevenas amended by Act Numbered Thirty-four hundred and forty-eight, entitled "TheNaturalization Law", is repealed: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed toaffect any prosecution, suit, action, or proceedings brought, or any act, thing, or matter,civil or criminal, done or existing before the taking effect of this Act, but as to all suchprosecutions, suits, actions, proceedings, acts, things, or matters, the laws, or parts of laws repealed or amended by this Act are continued in force and effect.

Section 23. Date when this Act shall take effect. This Act shall take effect on itsapproval.

Approved, June 17, 1939.

COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 63

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAYBE LOST OR REACQUIRED

Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:

Section 1. How citizenship may be lost . A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship inany of the following ways and/or events:

(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;

(2) By express renunciation of citizenship;

(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of aforeign country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more: Provided,however, That a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in anymanner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country;

(4) By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of aforeign country: Provided, That the rendering of service to, or the acceptance of


29/32

29

such commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country, and the taking of anoath of allegiance incident thereto, with the consent of the Republic of thePhilippines, shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of thefollowing circumstances is present:

(a) The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pactof alliance with the said foreign country; or

(b) The said foreign country maintains armed forces on Philippine territorywith the consent of the Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That theFilipino citizen concerned, at the time of rendering said service, or acceptance of said commission, and taking the oath of allegiance incidentthereto, states that he does so only in connection with his service to saidforeign country: And provided, finally, That any Filipino citizen who isrendering service to, or is commissioned in, the armed forces of a foreigncountry under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b),

shall not be permitted to participate nor vote in any election of theRepublic of the Philippines during the period of his service to, or commission in, the armed forces of said foreign country. Upon hisdischarge from the service of the said foreign country, he shall beautomatically entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil and political rights asa Filipino citizen;

(5) By cancellation of the of the certificates of naturalization;

(6) By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippinearmed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty

has been granted; and(7) In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of thelaws in force in her husband's country, she acquires his nationality. 1

The provisions of this section notwithstanding, the acquisition of citizenship by a naturalborn Filipino citizen from one of the Iberian and any friendly democratic Ibero-Americancountries or from the United Kingdom shall not produce loss or forfeiture of hisPhilippine citizenship if the law of that country grants the same privilege to its citizensand such had been agreed upon by treaty between the Philippines and the foreigncountry from which citizenship is acquired. 2

Section. 2. How citizenship may be reacquired. Citizenship may be reacquired:

(1) By naturalization: Provided, That the applicant possess none of thedisqualification's prescribed in section two of Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundredand twenty-seven, 3

(2) By repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy or Air Corp: Provided, That awoman who lost her citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien may berepatriated in accordance with the provisions of this Act after the termination of the marital status; 4 and

(3) By direct act of the National Assembly.

Section 3. Procedure incident to reacquisition of Philippine citizenship . The procedureprescribed for naturalization under Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred and twenty-seven, 5 as amended, shall apply to the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship bynaturalization provided for in the next preceding section: Provided , That the


30/32

30

qualifications and special qualifications prescribed in section three and four of said Actshall not be required: And provided, further,

(1) That the applicant be at least twenty-one years of age and shall have residedin the Philippines at least six months before he applies for naturalization;

(2) That he shall have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines, in his relations withthe constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living;and

(3) That he subscribes to an oath declaring his intention to renounce absolutelyand perpetually all faith and allegiance to the foreign authority, state or sovereignty of which he was a citizen or subject.

Section 4. Repatriation shall be effected by merely taking the necessary oath of

allegiance to the Commonwealth6

of the Philippines and registration in the proper civilregistry.

Section 5. The Secretary of Justice shall issue the necessary regulations for the proper enforcement of this Act. Naturalization blanks and other blanks required for carrying outthe provisions of this Act shall be prepared and furnished by the Solicitor General,subject to approval of the Secretary of Justice.

Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved, October 21, 1936.

*As Amended by RA 106, RA 2639 and RA 3834.

1Words in bold in the text above are amendments introduced by RA 106,section 1, approved June 2, 1947.

Statutory History of section 1:

Original text- SECTION 1. How citizenship may be lost . - A Filipino

citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events:(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;(2) By express renunciation of citizenship;(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution

or laws of a foreign country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more;

(4) By accepting commission in the [military, naval or air service] of aforeign country;

(5) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization;(6) By having been declared by competent authority, a deserted of the

Philippine [army, navy or air corps] in time of war, unless subsequently aplenary pardon or amnesty has been granted; and

(7) In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, byvirtue of the law in force in her husband's country, she acquires hisnationality. (Ed. Note: Words in brackets were deleted in RA 106 supra.)

2Words in bold in the text above are amendments introduced by RA 3834,section 1, approved June 22, 1963 to the last paragraph of section 1. Said paragraph was inserted as an amendment by RA 2639, section 1, approved June


31/32

31

18, 1960. .Statutory History of (last paragraph of section 1): The provisions of the paragraph as inserted by RA 2639, being similar to the

amemded provisions, supra, except for the words in bold, are not reproducedhere.

3Now Ca 473.

4See PD 725 promulgated June 5, 1975 providing for repatriation of filipinowomen who had lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens.

5Now CA 473.

6Now Republic.

The Citizenship Issue

Historical Background:

The earliest understanding was that given by Aristotle, who, sometime in 384 to32 BC., described the citizen to refer to a man who shared in the administration of

justice and in the holding of an office.

Changes


32/32

32

Report Guide:

I. OVERVIEW

Who are the citizens of the Philippines?

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at 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 majority4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law

Take the following cases:

citizenship report final

Documents