CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
DISCUSSIONS:
I. Recap of previous lecture
II. Reacquisition by R.A. 9225
III. Effect of Marriage (Sec. 4)
IV.
Dual
Citizenship/
Dual
Allegiance (Sec. 5)
V. Dual Citizenship and RA 9225
(Citizenship
Retention
and
Reacquisition Act of 2003)
I. Recap of Previous Lecture by
Atty. Jumao-as:
Article IV, Section 1- Provides for
who are citizens of the Philippines.
Philippine Citizenship can be acquired
via:
1. Birth ( Jus Sanguinis)
2. Naturalization
Art. IV, Section 2
It distinguishes natural-born from
naturalized Citizens. Although the
natural born and natural citizen enjoys
almost the same rights, there are
some rights that are reserved only for
natural born citizens.
Art IV, Section 3
Citizenship may be lost or reacquired
provided by laws.
HOW IT MAY BE LOST
A. It may be lost by virtue of
Commonwealth Act 63 by:
1. Naturalization
2. Express renunciation
3. Taking an oath of allegiance.
B. It may be lost by naturalized Filipino
citizen in relation to CA 473 by:
1. Cancellation of naturalization
HOW IT MAY BE ACQUIRED
Citizenship may be acquired:
1. Repatriation

- Backwards
- Effect retroacts at the date of filing
-Restoring the original citizenship of
the concerned person
- If he was a natural born and he
lost it when repatriated, he is
restored to being natural born.
2. Naturalization
II. Reacquisition by R.A. 9225
Republic Act 9225- An Act Making
the
Citizenship
of
Philippine
Citizens Who Acquire Foreign
Citizenship Permanent. Amending
For the Purpose Commonwealth
Act No. 63, As Amended and for
Other Purposes
-Another
mode
of
reacquiring
Philippine Citizenship.
-In fact its not only reacquisition but
also retention of Philippine Citizenship.
-RA 9225 was recently enacted in
August 29, 2003 by virtue thereof.
Salient points:
1. This could be available only to
natural born citizen who lost their
Philippine
citizenship
by
foreign
naturalization.
2. They acquire or retain their
Philippine citizenship by merely taking
an oath of allegiance.
- Under Section 3 of RA 9225, if you
take an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and then
you should be considered to have
reacquired your Philippine Citizenship
if you lost it prior to RA 9225 and
deemed to have retained as if you
have not lost at all your Philippine
Citizenship and you were naturalized
after the effectivity of RA 9225.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
3. Those who retain or re-acquire
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. (Sec.
5, R.A. 9225)
- Under that law, there are certain
conditions. If the person who lost his
Philippine citizenship by naturalization
and reacquires it or retains it via 9225,
but he desires to exercise his right of
suffrage, to vote and to be voted upon
to hold public office, appointed public
office and to exercise his profession,
there are certain conditions provided
by law although the law says that
upon taking his oath, he shall enjoy all
civil and political rights.
Case: Petition
for Leave
to
Resume Practice, Benjamin M.
Dacanay 540 SCRA 424 (2007)
FACTS: There is this Lawyer Benjamin
M. Dacanay that all his life he devoted
in the practice of law. He was being
forced to be naturalized as a Canadian
because of health reason. He wanted
to avail the social security privileges of
a Canadian people. He migrated in
2004 and became a citizen, two years
after; he still retained his citizenship
by virtue of RA 9225 thereafter. He
came back to the Philippines from
Canada and wanted to resume his
practice of law.
Issue: Whether or not he can
automatically resume his practice of
law.
Ruling: RA 9225 says that retention is
deemed to have not lost citizenship
and shall enjoy all civil and political
rights. Pursuant to the facts he started
his practice inn 1960s so when he

came back to Philippines in 2006 it

was already 46 years there from. The
law provides although a person is
deemed to have been retained
citizenship, there are circumstances
that
the
law
requires
certain
conditions, in this case in the practice
of profession. Therefore as to his
intention, he cannot automatically
resume his practice of law base on
Sec. 5, par. 4 of RA 9225 which states
that those intending to practice their
profession in the Philippines shall
apply with the proper authority for a
license or permit to engage in such
practice. In his profession the proper
authority is by the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court requires him to
compliance
with
the
following
conditions for him to restore his good
standing as a member of the
Philippine bar.
Therefore he must first secure from
this Court the authority to do so,
conditioned on:
(a) The updating and payment in full
of the annual membership dues in the
IBP;
(b) The payment of professional tax;
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit
hours of mandatory continuing legal
education; this is specially significant
to refresh the applicant/petitioners
knowledge of Philippine laws and
update him of legal developments and
(d) the retaking of the lawyers oath
which will not only remind him of his
duties and responsibilities as a lawyer
and as an officer of the Court, but also
renew
his
pledge
to
maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will
restore his good standing as a
member of the Philippine bar.
Although RA 9225 grants him the
benefit of retaining his citizenship, but
in the practice of profession there are
additional requirements by law.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
III. Effect of Marriage (Sec. 4)
Citizens of the Philippines who marry
aliens shall retain their citizenship
unless by their affirmation they are
deemed under the law to have
renounced it.
-Section
4
of
1987
Philippine
Constitution is worded the same as
the
1973 Philippine
Constitution
Section 2 of the Articles of Citizenship
provides that females who lost their
Philippine Citizenship while the former
provides for both male and female.
- In other words, citizens of the
Philippines who marry aliens shall
retain their citizenship it means that
marriage
does
not
affect
the
citizenship of a Filipino. unless by their
affirmation they are deemed under the
law to have renounced it.
Case: Labo vs Comelec, 176 SCRA
1 (1989)
Facts: Labo was a natural born Filipino.
He happened to marry an Australian.
He went to Australia, by virtue of their
marriage, he was allowed to take an
automatically allegiance to Australia.
And there he became an Australian
citizen. Now, he wanted to run for
public office in the Philippines thus, his
citizenship
was
questioned.
He
contended that his marriage to the
Australian should not affect his
citizenship
because
its
the
Constitution
which
provides
the
citizenship of the Filipinos. That he
should retain his citizenship because
his marriage has not transformed him
into Australian. Now he further
claimed that his naturalization in
Australia made him at worst only a

dual citizen. When his marriage was

found bigamous in Australia, the
Australian government cancelled his
naturalization. He theorized further
that since his naturalization was
cancelled he is immediately returned
back to be a Filipino Citizenship.
Issue:
1. Whether or not he is a Filipino
citizen or has he lost it by virtue of
marriage to an Australian.
2.
Whether
or
not
when
his
naturalization was cancelled, he
immediately retain his Philippine
Citizenship.
Ruling: The Supreme Court says that
nobody was saying that it was his
marriage which caused him to change
his
citizenship
from
Filipino
to
Australian. But it was the time when
he took an oath of allegiance to
Australia. It is still naturalization
simplified because he was married to
an Australian. Perhaps under the law
of Australian those who are married to
Australian can just take an oath and
become an Australian. But it was not
the marriage per se but it was his act
of taking an oath of allegiance which
transformed him into an Australian.
Even if it be assumed that, as
the
petitioner
asserts,
his
naturalization
in
Australia
was
annulled after it was found that his
marriage to the Australian citizen was
bigamous, that circumstance alone did
not automatically restore his Philippine
citizenship.
His
divestiture
of
Australian
citizenship
does
not
concern us here. That is a matter
between Philippine citizenship. His
divestiture of Australian citizenship
does not concern us here. That is a
matter between him and his adopted

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
country. What we must consider is the
fact that he voluntarily and freely
rejected Philippine citizenship and
willingly and knowingly embraced the
citizenship of a foreign country. The
possibility that he may have been
subsequently rejected by Australia, as
he claims, does not mean that he has
been automatically reinstated as a
citizen of the Philippines.
Questions of Atty. Jumao-as from the
Case:
1. His naturalization gave him a dual
citizenship, was he correct?
Under the old law, he is wrong.
Why? CA 63 provides modes of losing
Philippine Citizenship and one of which
is naturalization. Therefore, by virtue
of CA 63 he is deemed to have lost his
citizenship.
2. But if it is under RA 9225, was he
correct?
If he takes an oath of allegiance
then he is deemed to have retained
his citizenship then he would be
correct but the case was decided prior
to the enactment of RA 9225.
3. What would be the effect of his
cancellation
of
naturalization
in
Australia?
When it was found that his
marriage was bigamous In Australia,
the Australian government cancelled
his naturalization. His theory was that
since the Australian government
cancelled his naturalization he is back
to being Filipino. There are modes also
of reacquiring Philippine Citizenship.
Cancellation of his other citizenship
would not be one of those modes. He

becomes a Stateless person. He has to

reacquire his Philippine citizenship.
Case: Djumantan vs. Domingo.
240 SCRA 746 (1995)
Facts: By virtue of economic necessity,
he has to go to Indonesia. Then he
embraced the religion of Islam, there
he met this woman, married her and
had two children. He returned to the
Philippines in January 1979. On
January 13, 1979, petitioner and her
two children with Banez, arrived in
Manila as the "guests" of Banez. The
latter made it appear that he was just
a friend of the family of petitioner and
was merely repaying the hospitability
extended to him during his stay in
Indonesia. When petitioner and her
two children arrived at the Ninoy
Aquino International Airport on January
13, 1979, Banez, together with Marina
Cabael, met them. As "guests,"
petitioner and her two children lived in
the house of Banez. Petitioner and her
children
were
admitted
to the
Philippines as temporary visitors under
Section 9(a) of the Immigration Act of
1940.
It took a while more than 3 years to
discover that there was more than just
friendship. So when she discovered
that they were married so she filed for
concubinage.
Of
course,
the
prosecutor
dismissed
the
case
because the marriage was valid.
However the son made a petition by
filing a deportation proceeding in the
ombudsman but transferred to CID. He
filed for the reason that Djumantan is
an overstaying alien. Her contention is
that she is legally married to a Filipino
so therefore, she had the right to stay
in the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not she is a Filipino
and she can stay in the Philippines
since she is married to a Filipino.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
Ruling: Again under our Constitution,
marriage
does
not
affect
the
citizenship of a Filipino and vice versa.
It does not grant also a citizenship to
an alien. So there is no law or decision
in the Supreme Court that grants
citizenship to an alien by virtue of
marriage, thus, in this case he is an
overstaying alien. Marriage of an alien
to a Filipino doesnt make an alien
spouse ipso facto Filipino.
IV.
Dual
Citizenship/
Dual
Allegiance (Sec. 5)
Section 5 -Dual allegiance of citizens
is inimical to the national interest and
shall be dealt with by law.
Take note Section 5 deals
with dual allegiance, not
dual citizenship.
Case: Mercado Vs Manzano 307
SCRA 630 (1999)
Facts: Edu Manzano was born from
Filipino parent but was born in
America, so he has an American
passport. He was brought to the
Philippines when he was minor (6)
years old. He has an ACR, he is a
American passport. But when he
became of majority age, he voted
during the elections and exercise acts
that
are
exclusive
to Filipinos.
Sometime later he ran for 1998
elections. Under the local government
code
which
provides
for
the
qualifications of those who want to get
elected at public official, there was
disqualification that persons with dual
citizenship
are
disqualified
from
running for any elective position. As
worded with that law, persons with
dual citizenship are disqualified from
running for any elective position.
Issue: Whether or not Manzano
qualifies for public office despite
having dual citizenship.

Ruling: Supreme Court distinguished

dual citizenship from dual allegiance.
When we say dual citizenship, it is a
condition which arises from a fact that
the Philippine law has no control over
the effect of the laws of other country
particularly on the laws of citizenship.
In this case, a person by virtue of
operation of laws of two countries is
simultaneously a citizen of both
countries. In case of Manzano, he was
born in USA which observes Jus Soli.
By operation of law, he was deemed to
be among Americans. He was also
born of Filipino parents, by virtue of
operation of Philippine law, he is
deemed to be a Filipino. In other words
he has no control over his citizenship
hence it was involuntary.
On the other hand, dual citizenship it
happens because the accident occurs
or accident of marriage if applicable,
the person has no control over that
much less the state of the Philippines
over that fact that he is also
simultaneously a citizen of another.
Person with dual allegiance, he is in a
situation in which he simultaneously
owns by some positive act of loyalty to
two or more states.
The other one is accident occurs or
marriage if applicable, the other one is
through his positive act. The result of
which, he owns loyalty to both state.
The condition is voluntary on the part
of individual pursuant to individuals
volition. The concern of the framers of
the Constitution therefore is not with
dual citizenship because its not the
fault of the person that he has a dual
citizenship. The concern of the
Constitution is with dual allegiance
because they would want that the
person has oath allegiance only to the
Philippines. Regarding the qualification
therefore under the local government
code, those who seek to elective
public officials, the Supreme Court
construed not as dual citizenship but

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
dual allegiance because that is what
the Constitution prompts about. It is
inimical to the national interest and
shall be dealt with by law.
Therefore, Edu Manzano is not
disqualified because he is also a
Filipino notwithstanding that he is also
an American. More than that, when he
filed his certificate of candidacy, there
is that portion in the certificate
wherein the applicant/candidate will
declare under oath that he is a Filipino
citizen and that he will support and
defend the Constitution of the
Philippines and to maintain through
faith and allegiance thereto. Because
he is of dual citizenship, Filipino and
American not in his own choosing, it is
deemed when he file the certificate of
candidacy and declared under oath
that he is a Filipino and that he will
support the Constitution of the
Government of the Philippines, it will
suffice as choosing or electing
Philippine citizenship over the other
citizenship. In other words, the
Supreme Court, in Mercado vs.
Manzano says that the filing of
candidacy will suffice as proof that the
person with dual citizenship has
elected
or
chosen
Philippine
citizenship over the other citizenship.
Therefore,
he
is
not
actually
disqualified from public office.
Case: Valles vs Comelec
Facts: Ms. Lopez who ran for
governor in Mati, she was born in
Australia of a Filipino father and an
Australian mother. Her status is that
she has dual citizenship. When she ran
for governor, is she was petitioned to
be disqualified by the mere fact that
she has dual citizen.
Issue: Whether
disqualified for

or not she
the position

is
of

Governor of Mati because of her dual

citizenship.
Ruling: No, because again she is also a
Filipino and the law would want that
she
would
choose
Philippine
citizenship over the other citizenship
and the choosing could suffice in the
certificate of candidacy. As long as you
declare an oath that you are a Filipino.
V. Dual Citizenship and RA 9225
(Citizenship
Retention
and
Reacquisition Act of 2003)
Case: AASJS vs. Datumanong 523
SCRA 108 (2007)
Facts: Petitioner is questioning the
constitutionality of RA 9225. According
to
the
petitioner,
it
cheapens
Philippine citizenship since he has
already
renounced
Philippine
citizenship by naturalizing himself as
an alien. Now why will we embrace
him back as a Filipino by just requiring
him only to take an oath of allegiance,
isnt
it
cheapening
Philippine
citizenship? Here it is the contention of
the petitioner that RA 9225 allows dual
allegiance
and
not
just
dual
citizenship. The said law allows natural
born citizen to regain his Philippine
citizenship by merely taking his oath
of allegiance without forfeiting their
foreign allegiance.
Issue: Is RA 9225 constitutional? Is the
petitioner correct?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court rules
favourably on the Constitutionality of
9225. According to Supreme Court
9225 intends legislature to do away
with the provision of CA 63. In other
words, it amends CA 63 first provision
wherein naturalization is the mode of
losing Philippine citizenship. RA 9225
allowed dual citizenship to natural
born citizen who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
naturalization of a foreign country is
dual citizenship.
On dual allegiance, RA 9225 requires
that person or that individual to take
his oath of allegiance to the
Supremacy
of
the
Philippine
Constitution and to the Supremacy of
the government of the Philippines.
RA 9225 section 3. Oath of Allegiance"I _____________________, solemny swear
(or affrim) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines and obey
the laws and legal orders promulgated
by the duly constituted authorities of
the Philippines; and I hereby declare
that I recognize and accept the
supreme authority of the Philippines
and will maintain true faith and
allegiance thereto; and that I imposed
this obligation upon myself voluntarily
without mental reservation or purpose
of evasion."
By taking this oath, the individual
declares that he recognizes and
accepts the supreme authority of the
Philippines. In other words the
question of dual allegiance is no
longer the concern of the Philippines if
there is dual allegiance the question is
passed on to the other state. The
Philippine is concerned is only that he
has declares the supreme authority of
the Philippines. RA 9225 therefore
allows only dual citizenship and not
dual allegiance. With that by simply
taking his oath, he has implicitly
renounced. Although as worded he
acknowledged the supreme authority
of the Philippines. So there is no
question as to dual allegiance in this
case, only to dual citizenship.
So in the case, AASJS has affirm the
constitutionality of RA 9225. Plainly,
from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 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. In other

words, as far as the Philippines is
concerned, it is assured that the
individual has given allegiance to the
Philippines
and
recognizes
the
supremacy of the Philippines.
Case: Jacot vs Dal.
Facts: Applying RA 9225, it was cited
on 2009. The petitioner was natural
born citizen; he was naturalized as an
American and he sought to reacquire
his Philippine citizenship under RA
9225. RA 9225 requires only taking an
oath of allegiance. Now he wanted to
run for public office. Petitioner argued
that he had substantially complied the
requirements of 9225 to be qualified
to run for public office. He quoted the
case of Edu Manzano on which case,
the filing of certificate of candidacy is
sufficient that an individual with dual
citizenship has elected Philippine
citizenship over other citizenship. He
said that he is taking an oath of
allegiance of the Philippines. Thereby,
implicitly renounce any at all for
allegiance.
Issue: Is it sufficient to allow him to
run for public office when he
reacquired his citizenship via RA 9225?
Ruling: Supreme Court pointed out
Section 5, paragraph 2 of RA 9225
which states (2) Those seeking
elective public in the Philippines shall
meet the qualification for holding such
public office as required by the
Constitution and existing laws and, at
the time of the filing of the certificate
of candidacy, make a personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all
foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an
oath;

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
Other than oath of allegiance under
Section 3, of RA 9225 there is an
additional requirement of meeting
qualification to hold public office and
making of personal sworn renunciation
of his foreigner citizenship.
The Supreme Court said that the
requirement in 9225 is he must take
an oath of allegiance. Under Section 3,
the purpose is to retain or reacquire
his Philippine Citizenship. If he wants
to run for public office, RA 9225
requires him further in order to qualify,
that
he
must
comply
the
requirements, other than that he must
make
a
personal
and
sworn
renunciation of any and all oath of
allegiance with any foreign state. The
oath under RA 9225 would not suffice.
There was nothing there which
mentioned renunciation of foreign
allegiance. Thus the oath under
Section 3 of 9225 was not sufficient to
comply the requirement of Section 5.
In other words, if you are a natural
born citizen lost your citizenship by
naturalization of foreign country then
reacquires it by taking an Oath of
allegiance is a requirement to retain
his Philippine citizenship but to run for
public office Section 5 paragraph 2 is
applicable. That he must be subject to
all
attendant
liabilities
and
responsibilities under existing laws of
the Philippines and shall meet the
qualification for holding such public
office as required by the Constitution
and existing laws and, at the time of
the filing of the certificate of
candidacy, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before any public officer
authorized to administer an oath.
Case: De Guzman vs Comelec
same ruling on the case of Jacot
vs. Dal

Case: Cordora vs. Comelec, 580

SCRA 12 (2009)
Facts: In this case he was born of
Filipino mother and American father.
He was staying in the Philippines. He
wanted to go to America and applied
for petition as a relative an American
Citizen. Petition thereof because his
father was American and some
documents, he able to go to the US.
He then availed RA 9225 and wanted
to run for public office. There was a
contention that he was disqualified
because he failed to make a personal
and
sworn
renunciation
of
his
American Citizenship. He contends
that his filing of certificate of
candidacy would suffice his election of
Philippine citizenship pursuant to the
case of Mercado vs. Manzano.
Issue: Is it necessary for him to
renounce his American allegiance or
would his certificate of candidacy
suffice as his election of Philippine
citizenship?
Ruling: The Supreme Courts decision
states that his certificate of candidacy
can suffice as his election of Philippine
citizenship. There is no need for him to
renounce because he has dual
citizenship from birth since he is born
of a Filipino mother and an American
father. His situation was the same with
the case of Edu Manzano.
Dual citizenship acquired by:
1. By own doing- necessary to be
renounced
(personal
and
sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before any public officer
authorized to administer an oath)
when running for public office.
2.
By birth- Renunciation not
necessary, statement in the certificate
of candidacy can suffice.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
Case: Japson vs. Comelec 576
SCRA 331 (2009)- same ruling on
case of Cordora vs. Comelec
-END-