Citizens of the Philippines under the 1987 Constitution: Historical Context and Relevant References

1. Citizens at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution:

Section 1 of Article IV of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines defines who are considered citizens of the
Philippines. The provision includes individuals who are citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
This principle reflects the continuity of citizenship laws from earlier constitutional frameworks, particularly the 1935
Constitution, which shaped much of the legal framework for Philippine citizenship until the 1987 revision.

Historical Background:

Before delving into the specific case of Valles v. COMELEC, it is important to understand how citizenship was treated
in earlier laws:

1. Philippine Bill of 1902 (also known as the Organic Act of 1902):

○ Under Section 4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902, the inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish
subjects on April 11, 1899, were considered to be Philippine citizens as long as they did not
explicitly renounce their Spanish citizenship between April 11, 1899, and October 11, 1900. This law
was a crucial step in the establishment of Philippine citizenship after the Philippines transitioned from
Spanish to American rule.

○ Children born to these Spanish subjects (who did not renounce their Spanish citizenship) were
considered citizens of the Philippines by jus sanguinis (right of blood), meaning they followed the
citizenship of their parents.

2. Jones Law of 1916 (also known as the Philippine Autonomy Act):

○ Section 2 of the Jones Law affirmed the Philippine government's commitment to eventual
independence and further solidified the idea that the people of the Philippines, especially those born
to Filipino parents, would be considered Philippine citizens.

○ It extended the principles established in the Philippine Bill of 1902 and defined citizenship as being
tied to parentage (again, jus sanguinis), rather than the place of birth (jus soli).

3. The 1935 Constitution:

○ The 1935 Constitution (which was in effect prior to the 1987 Constitution) defined Filipino
citizenship primarily based on the principles of jus sanguinis and jus soli for those born in the
Philippines and to Filipino parents, respectively.

○ Section 1 of Article IV of the 1935 Constitution stated that Filipino citizens included individuals who
were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, as well as those whose fathers or
mothers were Filipino citizens.

○ As part of this framework, Filipino citizenship was also extended to people who were born in the
Philippines or born to Filipino parents abroad.

Valles v. COMELEC Case:

The Valles v. COMELEC case sheds light on the application of citizenship laws under these earlier frameworks,
specifically under the 1935 Constitution.

● Facts of the case:

○ Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, born in Australia to a Filipino father, Telesforo Ybasco, and an Australian
mother, Theresa Marquez, was involved in a citizenship dispute. She was born before the 1935
Constitution took effect, specifically on May 16, 1934.

1
 ○ The question before the Supreme Court was whether she could claim Filipino citizenship despite
being born in Australia.

● Supreme Court's Ruling:

○ The Supreme Court ruled that Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was indeed a Filipino citizen under the
principle of jus sanguinis. The Court referred to the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law of
1916 to determine that the child of a Filipino parent (in this case, her father, Telesforo Ybasco, a
Filipino citizen) followed the citizenship of the father.

○ Since Telesforo Ybasco was a Filipino citizen under the applicable provisions of the Philippine Bill
of 1902, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was granted Filipino citizenship through the principle of jus
sanguinis (citizenship by descent).

○ The Court emphasized that residency or birth within the Philippines was not necessary for
claiming citizenship, especially for individuals born to Filipino parents abroad. Thus, even though
Rosalind was born in Australia, she was still a Filipino citizen because her father was Filipino.

● Key Point: The ruling in Valles v. COMELEC referenced the organic acts that governed citizenship before the
1935 Constitution, specifically the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law of 1916. These laws had
established that those born to Filipino parents (regardless of where they were born) were deemed Filipino
citizens. The Valles case is a critical example of how Filipino citizenship was interpreted even before the
adoption of the 1935 Constitution.

Key Takeaways from Valles v. COMELEC:

● The principle of jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent) plays a central role in determining Filipino citizenship,
even when individuals are born outside the Philippines.

● Filipino citizens at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution include those who were citizens under
earlier laws, including the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law of 1916, regardless of whether they
were born within or outside the Philippines.

● The ruling reinforced the notion that Filipino citizenship, particularly for children of Filipino parents, is not
solely determined by place of birth but also by parental citizenship.

Conclusion:

The Valles v. COMELEC case exemplifies the application of earlier organic acts, such as the Philippine Bill of 1902
and the Jones Law of 1916, in establishing Filipino citizenship. These acts laid the foundation for the citizenship laws
that followed and were referenced in the 1987 Constitution to determine who could claim Filipino citizenship,
especially for those born before the Constitution’s adoption.

These provisions show the continuity of the jus sanguinis principle in Philippine citizenship law and its importance in
the determination of Filipino nationality, irrespective of where an individual is born. The 1987 Constitution solidified the
idea that citizens at the time of its adoption would continue to hold their citizenship rights, in line with the organic acts
and earlier constitutional provisions.

Maria Jeanette T. Tecson v. COMELEC (GR No. 161434, March 3, 2004) and the Citizenship of Fernando Poe,
Jr. (FPJ)

The Tecson v. COMELEC case involved a petition questioning the citizenship of Fernando Poe, Jr., who was a
presidential candidate in the 2004 Philippine elections. The primary issue was whether FPJ could be considered a
natural-born Filipino citizen, which is a requirement for presidential candidates under the 1987 Constitution.

The Core Issue:

The controversy arose around FPJ's citizenship, specifically whether he could be considered a natural-born citizen.
This depended on whether his father, Allan F. Poe, was a Filipino citizen at the time of FPJ's birth and whether the
illegitimacy of FPJ (he was born to an unmarried couple) would affect his ability to inherit his father's citizenship
under the principle of jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent).

2
Key Legal Considerations:

1. Citizenship of Allan F. Poe (FPJ's Father):

○ The Court's analysis focused on whether Allan F. Poe was a Filipino citizen. Allan Poe was the son of
Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish national who had lived in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period.

○ Lorenzo Pou, who died in 1954, would have been born sometime around 1870 when the Philippines
was still under Spanish rule. The Philippine Bill of 1902 (which granted citizenship to those who
were Spanish subjects and did not renounce their Spanish nationality) was cited as a possible source
of citizenship for Lorenzo Pou.

○ If Lorenzo Pou was indeed a Filipino citizen under the Philippine Bill of 1902, his Filipino
citizenship would have extended to his son, Allan F. Poe, under the principle of jus sanguinis.

2. Application of the 1935 Constitution:

○ The 1935 Constitution, which was in effect when FPJ was born, granted Filipino citizenship to
anyone born to a Filipino father, regardless of whether the child was legitimate or illegitimate.

○ Therefore, the Court concluded that even though FPJ was illegitimate, the Filipino citizenship of
his father, Allan F. Poe, was sufficient for FPJ to claim Filipino citizenship, following the principle of
jus sanguinis.

○ The Court emphasized that the illegitimacy of FPJ did not prevent him from acquiring his father’s
Filipino citizenship. This ruling confirmed that under the 1935 Constitution, illegitimate children of
Filipino citizens could still inherit citizenship.

Relevant Legal Doctrines and Historical Laws:

In addition to the 1935 Constitution, several historical laws were referenced in the case to clarify how citizenship was
acquired and transmitted:

1. Act No. 2927 (March 26, 1920):

○ Act No. 2927, which later became Commonwealth Act No. 473 (the Naturalization Law), specified
the process for naturalizing foreigners and extended citizenship to their children.

○ It allowed the children of naturalized citizens (below the age of 21 and residing in the Philippines at
the time of their parent's naturalization) to acquire Philippine citizenship, including children born after
the parent’s naturalization.

2. Foreign Women Married to Filipino Citizens (CA 473, Section 15):

○ Under Commonwealth Act No. 473, women who married Filipino citizens could be naturalized and
acquire Philippine citizenship. The Moy Ya Um Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration case (41
SCRA 292) interpreted this provision and established that foreign women who married Filipinos before
or after the law’s enactment could lawfully be naturalized.

3. The Roa Doctrine (Jus Soli Principle):

○ The Roa Doctrine expanded the application of jus soli (right of the soil), meaning that people born in
the Philippines, regardless of their parentage, could be considered Filipino citizens if they were born
before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution and if their parents had been elected to public office.
This principle allowed some individuals born to foreign parents to claim citizenship based on their birth
in the Philippines.

3
 4. Caram Provision:

○ The Caram Provision (linked to the 1935 Constitution) extended Filipino citizenship to those born in
the Philippines of foreign parents who had been elected to public office in the country. The
Chiongbian v. de Leon case ruled that the right to citizenship acquired under this provision was
transmissible to descendants, further broadening the scope of who could claim citizenship based on
birth and parentage.

Summary of the Court's Ruling in Tecson v. COMELEC:

In Tecson v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled that Fernando Poe, Jr. was a natural-born Filipino citizen
despite the controversy surrounding his legitimacy. The Court’s decision was grounded in the following factors:

● Jus sanguinis: FPJ inherited his Filipino citizenship from his father, Allan F. Poe, who was a Filipino citizen
through his father, Lorenzo Pou, who benefited from the Philippine Bill of 1902.

● No impact of illegitimacy: The Court held that the illegitimacy of FPJ did not bar him from inheriting his
father's citizenship, affirming that illegitimate children of Filipino citizens can still acquire Filipino citizenship.

● The 1935 Constitution: The Court applied the provisions of the 1935 Constitution, which explicitly granted
Filipino citizenship to individuals born to Filipino fathers, regardless of the legitimacy of their birth.

This case was significant because it reinforced the interpretation of citizenship laws under the 1935 Constitution and
clarified how parental citizenship (rather than birth status) determines Filipino citizenship.

Conclusion:

The Tecson v. COMELEC case highlighted the complexities of Filipino citizenship and reinforced the principles of
jus sanguinis and jus soli. The ruling also clarified how historical legal frameworks, such as the Philippine Bill of
1902 and Commonwealth Act No. 473, continue to influence the interpretation of citizenship laws. Ultimately, the
case affirmed that citizenship through descent (even if illegitimate) remains the key to determining natural-born
Filipino citizenship, which is a fundamental requirement for presidential eligibility in the Philippines.

+++++

Re: 1973 Constitution: Citizenship Provisions and Prospective Application

1. Those Whose Mothers Are Citizens of the Philippines (Prospective Application)

The 1973 Philippine Constitution introduced a provision allowing children born before January 17, 1973 (the date of
its adoption) to elect Philippine citizenship if their mothers were Filipino citizens. The prospective application of this
provision means it applies only to those born after the effectivity of the Constitution.

The provision aimed to address issues of gender discrimination that arose under previous constitutions. Under the
1935 Constitution, citizenship by descent was granted only through the father. This revision in the 1973
Constitution allowed Filipino mothers to transmit citizenship to their children, equalizing the ability of both parents to
pass on citizenship, in line with evolving views on gender equality.

Relevant Case Law:

1. Cuenca v. Secretary of Justice (5 SCRA 110):

○ This case explored the issue of justifiable delay in the election of citizenship, which is required when
the individual, born to a Filipino mother, reaches the age of majority. The Supreme Court held that
justifiable reason for delay existed when the person believed they were already a Filipino citizen.
This decision underlined that good faith in actions regarding citizenship claims is important,
especially when the individual is unaware of their obligation to elect their citizenship.

4
 2. Florencio Mallari (59 SCRA 45):

○ This case further clarified the doctrine of implied election of citizenship. The Court held that
participating in election exercises, such as voting, can be considered a positive act of electing
Philippine citizenship. This establishes the principle that engagement in public duties or rights
(such as voting) can effectively constitute the formalization of an individual's citizenship status, even if
they did not formally declare it at an earlier stage.

2. Election of Philippine Citizenship Upon Reaching the Age of Majority

For individuals who were born before January 17, 1973, to a Filipino mother, the 1973 Constitution allows them to
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. This election must be done within three years from
the individual's 18th birthday or the date they reach adulthood.

Key Cases on Election of Citizenship:

1. In Re: Ching, Bar Matter No. 914 (October 1, 1999):

○ Ching was born on April 11, 1964, and complied with the requirements to elect Philippine citizenship
14 years after reaching the age of majority. The Supreme Court ruled that Ching's election of
citizenship was beyond the permissible period, which was limited to three years from reaching the
age of majority. This decision highlighted the strict compliance with the constitutional
requirements for electing citizenship.

2. Republic v. Chule Um (G.R. 153883, January 13, 2004):

○ This case dealt with illegitimate children who were born to Filipino mothers and foreign fathers. The
Court ruled that an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother who was born before the 1973
Constitution was not required to elect citizenship because they were already Filipino citizens at birth
under the principle of jus sanguinis. This ruling confirmed that illegitimacy does not negate the
child's right to Philippine citizenship.

○ The Court's decision emphasized that Filipino citizenship by birth applies to illegitimate children
of Filipino mothers, just as it does for legitimate children. This illustrates the non-discriminatory
nature of the 1973 provision regarding Filipino mothers' citizenship rights.

3. The Election Procedure for Filipino Citizenship

For those who choose to elect their Filipino citizenship, the procedure is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 625.
According to this law, the election must be expressed in a written statement, which must be sworn to before a
notary public or an official authorized to administer oaths. The statement should be filed with the nearest Civil
Registry and accompanied by an Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines.

This procedure ensures that the individual formally declares their allegiance to the Philippines and fulfills the legal
requirements set by the 1973 Constitution and CA 625.

Noteworthy Precedent:

1. Villahermosa v. Commissioner of Immigration (80 Phil 541):

○ This case reinforced that while a minor born to a Filipino mother and foreign father may be considered
an alien during their minority, they could elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority. The decision affirmed that election of citizenship is an inchoate right, which becomes
actionable once the individual attains legal adulthood.

2. Cu v. Republic (89 Phil 473):

5
 ○ This case clarified that even if a mother loses her Filipino citizenship due to marriage to a
foreigner, the child retains the right to elect Philippine citizenship. The key issue here was
whether a child's citizenship was contingent on the mother's continuing citizenship status. The
Court affirmed that election of citizenship was not precluded by a mother's loss of Philippine
citizenship due to marriage to an alien.

4. The Right to Elect Citizenship Is Available to Children of Filipino Mothers

The right to elect citizenship is granted to children born before January 17, 1973, if their mother was a Filipino
citizen. This right exists even if the mother loses her citizenship later due to marriage to a foreigner, highlighting the
child's right to claim and preserve Filipino citizenship.

The constitutional right to elect citizenship was recognized as an individual and personal privilege that cannot be
assumed or exercised by others on behalf of the individual.

Implications for Illegitimate Children:

While the 1973 Constitution allows illegitimate children to claim citizenship, the procedural requirements for
legitimate children to elect citizenship apply equally to illegitimate children. Illegitimacy does not affect the right to
elect citizenship, though it might impact other legal rights, such as inheritance.

Summary of Key Points:

● Prospective Application: The provision concerning Filipino mothers transmitting citizenship applies only to
those born after January 17, 1973, in line with the 1973 Constitution.

● Election of Citizenship: Citizens born before 1973 to Filipino mothers must elect Philippine citizenship when
they reach the age of majority, subject to a three-year window.

● Illegitimate Children: Even illegitimate children born before 1973 to Filipino mothers are entitled to elect
Philippine citizenship, and they inherit citizenship by birth under jus sanguinis.

● Strict Compliance: The three-year election window must be adhered to, as emphasized in In Re: Ching
(1999).

These cases and doctrines demonstrate the evolving nature of Philippine citizenship laws, particularly as they relate
to gender equality, the rights of illegitimate children, and the process of electing citizenship for those born to
Filipino mothers before the 1973 Constitution.