Article IV CITIZENSHIP

Citizenship- is membership in a political community which is personal and more

or less permanent in character.

Nationality- is membership in any class or form of political community. Thus,

nationals may be citizens [if member of a democratic community] or subjects [if
members of a monarchial community]. It does not necessarily include the right or
privilege of exercising political and civil rights.

Usual modes of acquiring citizenship:

a. By Birth

i. Jus sanguinis-by blood

ii. Jus soli-by birth

b. By Naturalization

c. By Marriage

The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of JUS SANGUINIS.

Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless

of the place of his birth, as opposed to the doctrine of JUS SOLI which determines the
nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA
543)

Modes (by birth) applied in the Philippines

1. Before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution

i. Jus Sanguinis. All inhabitants of the islands who were Spanish
subjects on April 11, 1899, and residing in the islands who did not
declare their intention of preserving Spanish nationality between said
date and October 11, 1900, were declared citizens of the Philippines
[Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones Law of 1916], and their
children born after April 11, 1899. (en masse Filipinization)
ii. Jus Soli. Those declared as Filipino citizens by the courts are
recognized
 as such today, not because of the application of the jus soli principle,
but principally because of the doctrine of res judicata.

2. After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution: Only the Jus Sanguinis doctrine.

Section 1, Article IV— The following are citizens of the Philippines:

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution; (February 2, 1987)
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; (jus sanguinis)
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Section 2, Article IV— 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 in accordance with
paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia, to spouses Telesforo
Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez,
an Australian. Is she a Filipino citizen and, therefore, qualified to run for Governor of her
province?

¨Historically, she was born a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect
and at that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the organic acts
by which the US governed the country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and
the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also known as the Jones Law.

These laws defined who were deemed to be citizens of the Philippine Islands. Xxx Under
both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April
11, 1899 and resided therein including their children are deemed to be Philippine citizens.
Private respondent’s father, Telesforo, was born on January 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines
Norte, a fact duly evidenced by a certified true copy of an entry in the registry of Births.
Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed
to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws, which were the law in force at the
time of her birth, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is likewise a citizen of the Philippines.

The signing into law of the 1935 Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis
as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship xxx. This principle confers citizenship
by virtue of blood relationship. It was subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987
Constitutions.

Thus, herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having
been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not

tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus
soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her
possession of dual citizenship. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August 9, 2000)

Maria Jeanette Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004 (on the
controversy surrounding the citizenship of FPJ) –The Court took note of the fact that
Lorenzo Pou (grandfather of FPJ), who died in 1954 at the age of 84 years of age, would
have been born sometime in 1870, when the Philippines was under the Spanish rule, and
that San Carlos, pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the
absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death,
such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization” that the
Philippine Bill of 1902 effected. That Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou, if acquired, would
thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe (father of FPJ). The 1935 Constitution, during
which regime FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose
fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or
illegitimate.

Marriage by Filipino to an alien: “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” [Sec.4, Art. IV].

Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter
No. 914, October 1, 1999— Vicente Ching, a legitimate child, having been born on April
11, 1964 of Filipino mother and an alien father, was already 35 years old when he
complied with the requirements of CA 625 on June 15, 1999, or over 14 years after he
had reached the age of majority. By any reasonable yardstick, Ching’s election was
clearly beyond the allowable period within which to exercise the privilege. All his acts
(passing the CPA and Bar Exams) cannot vest in him citizenship as the law gives him the
requirement for election of Filipino citizenship which he did not comply with. (He was not
allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath)

The proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the
pronouncements of the Department of State of the US government to the effect that the
election should be made within a “reasonable time” after attaining the age of majority. The
phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean that the election should be made
within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority except when there is justifiable
reason to delay.

The span of 14 years that lapsed from the time he reached 21 until he finally expressed
his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the
requirement of electing “upon reaching the age of majority”.

(If his parents were not married, he will follow the citizenship of his mother and he need
not elect Philippine citizenship.)

If born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, the person must elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. [Within reasonable time=3 years except
when there is justifiable reason to delay]

Procedure for election of Philippine citizenship:

1. Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party
concerned before any official authorized to administer oaths.

2. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil Registry accompanied with the
Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines [Sec. 1,
CA 625].

Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines—Prospective application,

consistent with the 1973 Constitution

GThe constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only
to legitimate children. In Republic vs. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004,
it was held that the respondent, who was concededly an illegitimate child considering that
her Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married, is not required to comply with
said constitutional and statutory requirements. Being an illegitimate child of a Filipino
mother, respondent became a Filipino upon birth. Record shows that respondent elected
Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. She registered as a voter in
Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old. The exercise of the right of suffrage and
the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of electing Philippine
citizenship.
Naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization,
generally under CA No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which
repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by RA 530.

To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision
granting Philippine citizenship becomes executor only after 2 years from its promulgation
when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the applicant:

1. Has not left the Philippines;

2. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession;
3. Has not been convicted of any offense or violation of government promulgated
rules; or
4. Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to
any government announced policies. [Sec. 1, RA 530] (Bengzon III vs. HRET,
G.R. No. 142840, may 7, 2001)

Qualifications that must be possessed by an applicant:

1. He must be not less than 21 years of age on the day of the hearing of petition;
2. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than 10
years; may be reduced to 5 years if:

a. he honorably held office in Government;

b. He established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines;
c. He is married to a Filipino woman;
d. Has been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines (in a public or private school not
established for the exclusive instruction of persons of a particular nationality or
race) or in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of not less than
2 years
e. He was born in the Philippines

3. He must be of GMC and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine

Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living;
4. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5,000.00, Philippine
currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation;
5. He must be able to write and speak English or Spanish and any of the principal
languages; and
6. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools
or private schools recognized by the Bureau of private Schools of the Philippines
where Philippine history, government and civic are taught or prescribed as part of the
school curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required
of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Filipino citizen.
Disqualifications:

1. Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group

of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
2. Those defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal
assault or assassination for the success of predominance of their ideas;
3. Polygamists or believers of polygamy;
4. Those convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
5. Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease;
6. Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines have not mingled
socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and
embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of Filipinos;
7. Those citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war, during
the period of such war;
8. Those citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do

Edison So vs. RP, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007—Naturalization signifies the
act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation by clothing him or
her with privileges of a citizen. Under current and existing laws, there are 3 ways by
which an alien may become a citizen by naturalization:

1. Administrative naturalization pursuant to RA 9139;

2. Judicial naturalization pursuant to CA No. 473, as amended—covers all aliens
regardless of class; and
3. Legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowing
Philippine citizenship to an alien.

It is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good moral character but also
the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who must be credible persons. A
naturalization proceeding is nota judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision
rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A certificate of naturalization may be
cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleadintg
the court upon any material fact.
RA 9139—not all aliens may avail of this remedy. Only native born aliens who have
been residing here in the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any other country
and all along thought that they were Filipinos; who have demonstrated love and loyalty
to the Philippines, and affinity to the customs and traditions of the Filipinos.
 NATURALIZATION REPATRIATION
mode for both acquisition and -mode for reacquisition for those who lost
reacquisition of citizenship their citizenship
-governed by CA 473 (for acquisition) and -governed by various statutes
CA 63 (for reacquisition)
-consists of taking of an oath of
-consists a lengthy process allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and registering said oath in
the Local Civil Registrar of the place
where the person concerned resides or
last resided

Effects of Naturalization:

1. Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be lawfully naturalized; (She need not go
through the naturalization process; if she doesn’t suffer from any disqualification, no need to prove the
qualifications)

2. Minor children born in the Philippines before the naturalization shall be considered
citizens of the Philippines;
3. Minor children born outside the Philippines who were residing in the Philippines at
the time of naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizens.
4. Minor children born outside the Philippines before parent’s naturalization shall be
considered Filipino citizens only during minority, unless they begin to reside
permanently in the Philippines;
5. Child born outside the Philippines after parent’s naturalization shall be considered
Filipino citizen, provided that he registers as such before any Philippine consulate
within one year after attaining majority age, and takes his oath of allegiance.
Denaturalization

Grounds:

1. Naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally;

2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to some foreign country and
establishes residence there;

Prima Facie evidence of intent to take up residence:

a. Native country-1-yearstay
b. Foreign country-2-yearstay

3. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intent;

4. Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the parents either by
neglecting to support them or by transferring them to another school;
5. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy;

DUAL ALLEGIANCE

Policy against Dual Allegiance: “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national
interest and shall be dealt with by law” [Sec. 5, Art. IV].

The phrase “dual citizenship” in RA 7160, Section 40(d) LGC must be understood as
referring to “dual allegiance”. Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not
fall under this disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must be subject to
strict process with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual
citizenship, it should suffice if, upon filing of their Certificates of Candidacy (COC), they
elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship
considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of
different states.

By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same time, forswear

allegiance to the other country of which they are also citizens and thereby terminate
their status as dual citizens. It may be that, from the point of view of the foreign state
and of its laws, such an individual has not effectively renounced his foreign citizenship.
That is of no moment.

The filing of a COC suffices to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing

any disqualification as dual citizen. This is so because in the COC, one declares that he
is a Filipino citizen and that he will support and defend the Constitution and will maintain
true faith and allegiance to the same. Such declaration under oath operates as an
effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. In this case, the Court adopted the liberal
interpretation of the rule. Manzano is not really prohibited to run due to dual citizenship.
Dual allegiance is the one prohibited. Dual citizenship referred to under Section 40 (d)
of the Local Government Code refers to dual allegiance under Section 5 of Article IV of
the 1987 Constitution.[Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999]

DUAL CITIZENSHIP DUAL ALLEGIANCE

arises as a result of the concurrent refers to a situation in which a person
application of the different laws of 2 or simultaneously owes, by some positive
more states, a person is simultaneously act, loyalty to 2 or more states
considered as a national of said states
voluntary
involuntary

Calilung vs. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007, what RA 9225 does is
allow dual citizenship to natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship
by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not
recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the
person implicitly renounces its foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, RA 9225
stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting
the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country.
What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of RA 9225.

Instances when a citizen of the Philippines may possess dual citizenship:

1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow
the principle of jus soli;
2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws
of their father’s country such children are citizens of that country;
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are
considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have
renounced Philippine citizenship. [Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May
26, 1999]
Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship

A. Loss of citizenship:
1. By naturalization in a foreign country (Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA

245) However, this was modified by RA 9225—An Act Making the Citizenship of
Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent— September 15,
2003 which declares the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become
citizens of another country shall be deemed to have lost their Philippine citizenship
under the conditions of this Act.

• They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance

• Those Filipino citizens who, after the effectivity of RA 9225, become citizens of a
foreign country, may reacquire Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of
allegiance
• Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years of
age, of those who reacquire their Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of RA
9225 shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines
• Those who reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full
civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following
conditions:
o Meet the requirements of RA 9189, The Overseas Absentee Voting Act
of 2003, and other existing laws
o For those seeking elective public office and appointive office, meet the
qualifications, make personal and sworn renunciation, subscribe and
swear to an oath of allegiance to the RP
o For those intending to practice their profession, apply with the proper
authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice

2. By express renunciation of citizenship

o Conscious, voluntary and intelligent renunciation

Labo vs. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1, Labo lost Filipino citizenship because
he expressly renounced allegiance to the Philippines when he applied for
Australian citizenship.

o Express renunciation means a renunciation made known distinctly and

explicitly, and not left to inference or implication.
o Mere registration of alien in BID and mere possession of foreign passport do
not constitute effective renunciation. (Valles vs. COMELEC)
o In Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364, obtaining a Portuguese
passport and signing commercial documents as a Portuguese were construed
as renunciation of Philippine citizenship.
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a
foreign country upon attaining the age of 21; provided, however, that a Filipino may
not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in this manner while RP is at war with
any country. –an application of the principle of Indelible Allegiance.—by virtue of
RA 9225
4. By rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a
foreign country EXCEPT:

¬ If RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign
country; and

¬ The said foreign country maintains armed forces in Philippine territory with the
consent of RP

5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization

6. By having been declared by competent authority a deserter of the Philippine
armed forces in time of war UNLESS subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty
has been granted.

B. Reacquisition of citizenship:

1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of allegiance

2. By naturalization
3. By repatriation
4. By direct act of Congress

Effect of repatriation:

It allows the person to recover or return to, his original status before he lost his
Philippine citizenship. Thus, the respondent, a former natural-born Filipino citizen who
lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the US Marine Corps, was deemed to
have recovered his natural-born status when he reacquired Filipino citizenship through
repatriation. (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001)

Joevanie Arellano Tabasa vs. CA, G.R. No. 125793, August 29, 2006, the only
persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following: a) Filipino women who
lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b) Natural-born Filipinos
including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political
or economic necessity