Q. What is citizenship? renounced Philippine citizenship, or has sworn allegiance to a foreign country.

Possession
A. Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent membership in a political of an alien registration certificate unaccompanied by proof of performance of acts whereby
community. It denotes possession within that particular political community of full civil and Philippine citizenship is lost is not adequate proof of loss of citizenship. Aznar v.
political rights subject to special disqualifications such as minority. Reciprocally, it imposes COMELEC and Osmena,
the duty of allegiance to the political community.
Q. What is the citizenship of an illegitimate child of a Filipina mother?
Q. What are the modes of acquiring citizenship? A. Filipino. This is true whether the child be born under the 1935 or under the 1973 or 1987
A. Modern law recognizes three distinct modes of acquiring citizenship: (1) jus sanguinis Constitution.
— acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship; (2) jus soli — acquisition of
citizenship on the basis of place of birth; (3) naturalization — the legal act of adopting an Q. What is the citizenship of an illegitimate child of a Filipino father and an alien mother?
alien and clothing him with the privilege of a native born citizen. Basic Philippine law A. Filipino, if paternity is clear, because of jus sanguinis, which makes no distinction
follows the rule of jus sanguinis and provides for naturalization. between legitimate and illegitimate children. This was the case of Tecson v. Comelec, G.R.
No. 161434, March 3, 2004.
Q. Who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution?
A. Philippine citizens at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution were those who Q. If a child was born of a Filipina mother and an alien father before the effectivity of the
were citizens under the 1973 Constitution. 1973 Constitution, do the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions recognize such child as Filipino?
A. No, unless upon reaching majority the child elects Philippine citizenship pursuant to the
Q. Who were citizens of the Philippines under the 1973 Constitution? 1935 Constitution. In other words, Section 1(2) of the 1973, which is the same as Section
A. Section 1 of the article on Citizenship under the 1973 Constitution was the same as 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution, took effect only with the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution
Section 1 under the new Constitution. on January 17, 1973. Hence, children similarly situated but born prior to January 17,
1973 are governed by Section 1(4) of Article IV of the 1935 Constitution.
Q. Who were citizens of the Philippines at the time of adoption of the 1973 Constitution?
A. They were those who were citizens under Article IV, Section 1 of the 1935 Q. Who may elect Philippine citizenship under the 1935 Constitution?
Constitution, namely: A. Those born under the 1935 Constitution whose mothers were Philippine citizens (at the
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of the (1935) time at least of their marriage to an alien father) may elect Philippine citizenship.
Constitution;
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Q. When must the election be made?
Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands; A. The election must be made within a reasonable period after reaching majority. InDy
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines; Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice, L-18069, May 26, 1962, the Supreme Court cited with
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of approval the ruling of the Secretary of Justice to the effect that three years is a reasonable
majority, elect Philippine citizenship; period within which to make the election, which period, however, may be extended under
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. certain circumstances as when the person concerned has always considered himself a
Filipino citizen.
Q. How is the principle of jus sanguinis applied in the 1987 Constitution?
A. Section 1(2) declares as Filipino citizens "Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of Q. How is election made?
the Philippines." This is the same rule as that under the 1973 Constitution. This means that A. Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 625, enacted on June 7, 1941, says that the election
if a child is born under the 1973 or 1987 Constitution and either his father or mother is a must be expressed in a statement sworn before any officer authorized to administer oaths
Filipino citizen at the time the child is born, the child is a Filipino citizen no matter where and filed with the nearest civil registry and accompanied by an oath of allegiance to the
he may be born. Philippine Constitution. However, participating in elections and campaigning for
candidates, and similar acts done prior to June 7, 1941, have been recognized as
Q. Emilio Osmena is a holder of an alien registration certificate. He is also a son of a sufficient to show one's preference for Philippine citizenship. In re Florencio Mallare, 59
Filipino father (and a grandson of President Osmena) and the holder of a valid subsisting SCRA 45, 52, September, 1974.
Philippine passport, a continuous resident of the Philippines and a registered voter since
1965. It is contended that he is an alien and therefore disqualified from holding public Q. May a child born under the 1973 or the 1987 Constitution of a Filipina mother and an
office. Decide. alien father elect Philippine citizenship?
A. No. If the mother was still a Filipina at the time of the birth of the child then the child is
A. By virtue of his being a son of a Filipino father the presumption is that he is Filipino and already Filipino by birth, and hence need not elect. If the mother, however, had lost
remains Filipino until proof is shown that he has renounced or lost Philippine citizenship. Philippine citizenship by the time of the birth of the child, the child has no right of election
There is no proof that he has been naturalized in a foreign country, or has expressly and may acquire citizenship only by naturalization. In other words, the provision on election
in the 1973 and 1987 Constitution are transitory provisions intended to take care of those
who under the 1935 Constitution could have elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching
majority but had not yet reached majority at the time of the effectivity of the 1973 or 1987
Constitution.
Q. Should children born under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien
father, who executed an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and took their oath of
allegiance to the government upon reaching the age of majority, but who failed to
immediately file the documents of election with the nearest civil registry, be considered
foreign nationals subject to deportation as undocumented aliens for failure to obtain alien
certificates of registration?
A. No. This case involved children who had grown to adult years and for some
reason failed to register their election but had all along acted as citizens. Among the things
which the Court noted was that the 1973 Constitution had already corrected the chauvinistic
provision of the 1935 Constitution by making those born of a Filipina mother a citizen
without need for election. Cabiling Ma v. Commissioner,
Q. What is naturalization?
A. Naturalization is the legal act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with the
privileges of a natural-born citizen. A person may be naturalized either by complying with
both the substantive and procedural requirements of a general naturalization law or he may
be naturalized by a special act of the legislature.
Q. What kind of naturalization laws and procedures have been used in the
Philippines?
A. The following have been used:
1. General law of naturalization applied through a judicial process. (Revised Naturalization
Law, C.A. 473, June 17,1939. This is still in effect.)
2. Special naturalization law, i.e., an act of the legislature making a named individual a
citizen of the Philippines. E.g., the Republic Act which made Father James Moran, S.J. a
citizen or the Presidential Decree which made Mr. Ronnie Nathanielz a citizen.
3. Mass naturalization law. The Philippine Bill of 1902 made Filipino citizens of "all
inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside in them who were Spanish
subjects" on 11 April 1899 "and then resided in said islands."
4. General law of naturalization applied through a combination of administrative process
and presidential legislative process (Letter of Instruction No. 270, in effect for a limited
period from its promulgation by President Marcos on April 11,1975.)
5. Administrative Naturalization Law, R.A. 9139, enacted in 2000.
Q. What kind of requirements must an applicant for naturalization satisfy under the Revised
Naturalization Law?
A. Both substantive and procedural requirements.
Q. What are the substantive requirements for naturalization?
A. Briefly, Section 2 of C A. 473 prescribes requirements of age, residence, moral character General. Sec. 5 & 6, R.A. 9139.
and political belief, real property or lucrative occupation, language, and education of
children.
Q. Applicant for citizenship received a favorable decision after the Fiscal failed to raise any
objection. In the hearing after the two year probation, however, the Fiscal turned around to
say that the respondent had no lucrative business, trade, or profession. May such subject be
raised for the first time in the final hearing?
A. Yes. In re petition of Martin Ng to be admitted a Filipino Citizen,
Q. What procedural requirements must be satisfied?
A. The applicant must go through the following steps: declaration of intention,
filing of petition, hearing and initial judgment, period of probation,
rehearing and final judgment.
Q. When does the applicant become a Filipino citizen?
A. Upon taking the oath provided by law after satisfactorily passing the period of probation.
Q. What kind of requirements must an applicant for naturalization satisfy under the
Administrative Naturalization Law?
A. Both substantive and procedural requirements.
Q. What are the substantive Requirements?
A. a. The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth;
b. The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of age, at the time of filing of
his/her petition;
c. The iapplicant must be of good moral character and believes in the underlying principles
of the Constitution, and must have conducted himself/herself in a proper and irreproachable
manner during his/her entire period of residence in the Philippines in his relation with the
duly constituted government as well as with the community in which he/she is living;
d. The applicant must have received his/her primary and secondary education in any public
or private educational institution duly recognized by the Department of Education, Culture
and Sports, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught and prescribed as
part of the school curriculum and where enrollment is not limited to any race or nationality:
Provided, that should he/she have minor children of school age, he/she must have enrolled
them in similar schools;
e. The applicant must have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation, from
which he/she derives income sufficient for his/her support and if he/she is married and/or
has dependents, also that of his/her family: Provided, however, That this shall not apply to
applicants who are college degree holders but are unable to practice their profession
because they are disqualified to do so by reason of their citizenship;
f. The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of the
Philippines; and
g. The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced desire to learn and
embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.
Q. How is the application handled?
A. It is handled through the Special Committee on Naturalization chaired by the Solicitor
Q. What is the effect ofthe naturalization ofa father on legitimate minor children?
A. In general, the minor children become citizens of the Philippines. (C.A. 473,
Sees. 15,16)
Q. What is the effect on the wife of the naturalized husband? 2639, and P.D. 725 on repatriation.
A. She becomes a Filipino citizen, provided she shows, in an administrative procedure for
the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration, that she has none of the Q. May a certificate of naturalization be canceled?
disqualifications found in C.A. 473, Sec. 2. Burca v. Republic,). A. Yes, if it is shown to have been obtained fraudulently or illegally, or if the person is
shown to have violated the prohibitions imposed on him by C.A. 473, Section 18. But to
Q. What is the effect of the naturalization of a husband under RA. 9139? justify cancellation of such certificate, the evidence must be "clear, unequivocal and
A. Applicant's alien lawful wife and minor children may file a petition for convincing" and not merely preponderant. Citizenship acquired through naturalization is not
cancellation of their alien certificates of registration with the Committee. second-class citizenship. Republic v. Cokeng,

Q. What is the effect of the naturalization of a wife? Q. After naturalization proceedings, Cesar Guy took his oath of allegiance on December
A. Her administrative naturalization will not benefit her alien husband but her 22,1959. The government sought the cancellation of his certificate of naturalization on the
minor children may file a petition for cancellation of their alien certificate ground that (1) during the pendency of his petition for naturalization he filed a sworn
of registration application for a timber license falsely claiming that he was Filipino (for which he was
subsequently convicted for perjury), and that (2) on December 12, 1963 he was convicted of
Q. Is one who is a Filipino citizen by election a natural-born citizen under rape. On May 28, 1974, the lower court ordered the cancellation of his certificate on the
Section 1(3)? ground that it had been obtained fraudulently and illegally. On appeal, Guy contended that
A. Yes, because of the second sentence of Section 2. This is a clarification made both convictions were after the two-year probationary period and after the final judgment on
by the 1987 Constitution. his citizenship and hence could not be used against him. Decide.
A. 1. A decision in a naturalization proceeding is not res judicata as to any of the matters
Q. Is this a new rule? which could support a judgment canceling the certificate for illegal or fraudulent
A. Although this rule has been made explicit only under the 1987 Constitution, there is the procurement. In fact, the certificate may be canceled for acts committed after naturalization.
view that this was the implicit rule even before 1987, the reason being that a child born of a 2. Perjury, committed during the pendency of his petition, is evidence of lack of good moral
Filipina mother already has the inchoate right to Filipino citizenship from birth. At any rate, character; hence his having been able to obtain citizenship despite this misconduct rendered
the rule as worded in the 1987 Constitution applies even to those who made their his acquisition thereof fraudulent or illegal. (The Naturalization Law allows cancellation
election prior to the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987. of a certificate of naturalization if it is found to have been obtained "fraudulently or
illegally.") Republic v. Cesar Guy,
Q. Jose was born a Chinese and married a natural born Filipina in 1932. Jose was
eventuaUy naturalized and took his oath of allegiance in 1955. At that time Jose, Jr. was 9 Q. Petitioner was issued a Portuguese passport in 1971. He was given naturalization as
years old. In 1987 Jose, Jr. was elected to the House of Representatives. Filipino citizen in 1978. In 1980, however, he still declared his citizenship as Portuguese in
1. May the citizenship of Jose, Sr., already deceased, be attacked collaterally in this case? commercial documents and in 1981 he still obtained a Portuguese passport which expired in
2. Did the minor Jose, Jr. become a Filipino citizen with his father? 1986. Has petitioner renounced Philippine citizenship?
3. Did he have to elect Philippine citizenship when he came of age?
4. Is he a natural born citizen? A. Yes, his actions constitute renunciation. "While normally the question of whether or not
A. 1. No. a person has renounced his Philippine citizenship should be heard before a trial court of law
2. Yes, under the Naturalization Law. in adversary proceedings, this has become unnecessary as this Court, no less, upon
3. No, because he already was one. It would be unnatural to expect him to. Election of insistence of petitioner, had to look into the facts and satisfy itself on whether or not
Philippine citizenship presupposes that you are not one. Moreover, jurisprudence recognizes petitioner's claim to continued Philippine citizenship is meritorious." In Willie Yu v.
both formal and informal election. See e.g., In re Mallare, 59 SCRA 45 (1974). Defensor-Santiago, G.R. No. 83882,
4. Yes. He benefits from the curative nature of Section 2. He derives his status of being a
natural born citizen not from his father, who made election unnecessary for him, but from Q. Labo went through a process of naturalization as Australian and thereafter took the oath
his mother who was a natural born Filipina. Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of of allegiance renouncing Philippine citizenship. He claims that his acquisition of Australian
Representatives, G.R. No. 92191-92, July 30,1991. citizenship was invalid and that therefore he was still Filipino citizen qualified to run for
Philippine office.
Q. May the law treat natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens differently? A. Whether or not he acquired Australian citizenship validly is between him and Australia.
A. No, except in the instances where the Constitution itself makes a distinction. Otherwise The fact is he renounced Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to Australia.
there would be a violation of the equal protection clause. Chen Teck Lao v. Republic And since he has not taken any of the steps for re-acquiring Philippine citizenship, he is
not one now and is not qualified to hold an elective office. Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC,
Q. What laws govern loss and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship?
A. Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended, and Republic Acts No. 965 and
Q. Frivaldo does not deny that he was naturalized an American citizen. He, however, claims known as the Revised Naturalization Law. Cruz was not naturalized but repatriated.
that his naturalization was involuntary since it was the only way he could stay in the United Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those who lost their citizenship due to:
States and thereby protect himself from Mr. Marcos. Moreover, he claims that by (1) desertion of the armed forces; (2) service in the armed forces of the allied forces in
participating in the Philippine political process and filing his certificate of candidacy, he World War II; (3) service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other time; (4)
thereby renounced American citizenship and reacquired Philippine citizenship. Decide. marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and (5) political and economic necessity. As
A. He is not Filipino. There were many Filipinos similarly situated in the United States, but distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization, repatriation simply consists of the
they did not find it necessary to abandon Philippine citizenship nor pledge allegiance to the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering said oath in
United States. And by participating in the political process of the Philippines, at best it the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided.
would have rendered him stateless. As to reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, if he really Repatriation, as the word connotes, results in the recovery of what had been lost. When
wanted to he could have easily done so through the process of repatriation. He did not. what was lost is natural born citizenship, what is recovered is also natural born citizenship.
Frivaldo v. Comelec, Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the
same in the Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited
Q. How may lost citizenship be reacquired? provision, respondent Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural-born
A. Either by naturalization or repatriation. citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father. There are only two
kinds of citizenship: natural born and naturalized. Since Cruz did not undergo
Q. What is repatriation? naturalization, he is natural born. Bengzon v. Cruz,
A. Repatriation is the recovery of original citizenship. Thus, if what was lost was
naturalized citizenship, that is what will be reacquired. If what was lost was natural born Q. If a person who has reacquired Philippine citizenship wants to run for office, what must
citizenship, that will be reacquired. Bengzon v. Cruz, he do?
A. Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos, who have been
Q. Who may be repatriated? naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired or retained their Philippine
A. Under Republic Act No. 8171 only (1) women who lost citizenship by marriage and (2) citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and
those who lost citizenship for political or economic reasons may be repatriated. Tabasa v. (2) for those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute
CA, August 29,2006. a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized
public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of candida<y, to qualify
Q. How is repatriation accomplished? as candidates in Philippine elections. Jacot v. Dal, G.R. No. 179848, November 26, 2008.
A. The current law on the subject is found in Republic Act No. 8171. Section 2
says: Repatriation shall be effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Q. A natural born Filipino citizen who becomes a green card resident of the United States,
Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of or who becomes naturalized citizen of America loses his domicile of origin in the
Immigration. The Bureau of Immigration shall thereupon cancel the pertinent alien Philippines. Does reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under R.A. 9225 have the effect of
certificate of registration and issue the certificate of identification as Filipino citizen to restoring his Philippine domicile?
the repatriated citizen. A. No. To reacquire domicile he must provide proof of intent to stay in the Philippines.
After he does that, his occasional absence from the recovered domicile does not have the
Q. Is the registration of petitioner's repatriation with the proper civil registry and with the effect of removing him from the domicile for as long as he manifests animus manendi et
Bureau of Immigration a prerequisite in effecting repatriation? revertendi. Japzon v. Ty, G.R. No. 180088, January 19,2009.
A. Yes. Altarejos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 163256, November 10,2004. NOTE: Where a person is natural born Filipino because of a Filipino mother, and also a
natural born American for having been born in the United States, he has dual citizenship.
Q. Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. On November 5, 1985, however, he The INS certification obtained for him by his father did not confer American citizenship on
enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and, without the consent of the Republic of the him because he was already one. His travels under a US passport did not strip him of
Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the United States. As a consequence, he lost his Philippine citizenship. The fact that he had dual citizenship did not disqualify him from
Filipino citizenship. On June 5, 1990, he was naturalized as an American. On March running for office. Nor did he have to renounce his American citizenship if he wanted to run
17,1994, he reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under Republic for local office. The need for renunciation applies only to those who reacquired Philippine
Act No. 2630. He ran for and was elected as the Representative of the Second District of citizenship through R.A. 9225. Cordora v. Comelec,
Pangasinan in the May 11,1998 elections. Was he a
natural born Filipino citizen? Q. Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western
A. As defined in the same Constitution, natural-born citizens "are those citizens of the Australia, to the spouses, Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and Theresa Marquez, an
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine Australian. This was a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect. Was Rosalinda a
citizenship." On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino Filipino citizen?
citizens through naturalization, generally under Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise
A. At that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the principal disqualification." Furthermore, it was ruled that for candidates with dual citizenship, it is
organic acts by which the United States governed the country. These were the Philippine enough that they elect Philippine citizenship upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy,
Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29,1916, also known as the to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship. The filing of a certificate of
Jones Law. Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing any
subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their children were deemed to be disqualification as a dual citizen. This is so because in the certificate of candidacy, one
Philippine citizens. Private respondent's father, Telesforo Ybasco, was born on January declares that he/she is a Filipino citizen and that he/she will support and defend the
5,1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte, a fact duly evidenced by a certified true copy of an entry Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. Such
in the Registry of Births. Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, declaration, which is under oath, operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.
Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws, Therefore, when the herein private respondent filed her certificate of candidacy in 1992,
Telesforo's daughter, herein private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a citizen such fact alone terminated her Australian citizenship. Valles v. Comelec,
of the Philippines. Valles v. Comelec,,
Q. Valles maintains further that when citizenship is raised as an issue in judicial or
Q. In the above case, Valles claims that Ybasco Lopez had renounced her Filipino administrative proceedings, the resolution or decision thereon is generally not considered
citizenship because she had applied for an Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) and res judicata in any subsequent proceeding challenging the same; citing the case of Moy Ya
Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR), on September 19, 1988, and because she had Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292, he insists that the same issue of
been issued an Australian passport on March 3,1988. Decide. citizenship may be threshed out anew.
A. In order that citizenship may be lost by renunciation, such renunciation must be express. A. Petitioner is correct insofar as the general rule is concerned, i.e., the principle of res
Petitioner's contention that the application of private respondent for an alien certificate judicata generally does not apply in cases hinging on the issue of citizenship. However, in
of registration, and her Australian passport, is bereft of merit. This issue was put to rest in the case oiBurca v. Republic, 51 SCRA 248, an exception to this general rule was
the case of Aznar v. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703, and in the more recent case of Mercado v. recognized. The Court ruled in that case that in order that the doctrine of res judicata may
Manzano and COMELEC, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999. In the case of Aznar, the Court be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present:
ruled that the mere fact that respondent Osmena was a holder of a certificate stating that he 1) a person's citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a
is an American did not mean that he is no longer a Filipino, and that an application for an party;
alien certificate of registration was not tantamount to renunciation of his Philippine 2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution
citizenship. And, in Mercado v. Manzano and COMELEC, it was held that the fact that thereof; and
respondent Manzano was registered as an American citizen in the Bureau of Immigration 3) the finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court. Although the general rule was set
and Deportation and was holding an American passport on April 22,1997, only a year forth in the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao, the case did not foreclose the weight of prior rulings
before he filed a certificate of candidacy for vice-mayor of Makati, were just assertions of on citizenship. It elucidated that reliance may somehow be placed on these antecedent
his American nationality before the termination of his American citizenship. Thus, the mere official findings, though not really binding, to make the effort easier or simpler. Indeed,
fact that private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was a holder of an Australian passport there appears sufficient basis to rely on the prior rulings of the Commission on Elections in
and had an alien certificate of registration are not acts constituting an effective renunciation SPA.-N0. 95-066 and EPC 92-54 which resolved the issue of citizenship in favor of the
of citizenship and do not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For renunciation herein private respondent. The evidence adduced by petitioner is substantially the same
to effectively result in the loss of citizenship, the same must be express. Valles v. Comelec, evidence presented in these two prior cases. Petitioner failed to show any new evidence or
G.R. No. 137000, August 9,2000. supervening event to warrant a reversal of such prior resolutions. However, the procedural
issue notwithstanding, considered on the merits, the petition cannot prosper. Valles v.
Q. Valles also maintains that even on the assumption that the private respondent had dual Comelec, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000.
citizenship, still, she is disqualified to run for governor of Davao Oriental; citing Section 40
of Republic Act 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, which Q. What is the effective date of the repatriation when approved.
states: "SEC. 40. Disqualifications. — The following persons are disqualified from running A. In the case of former natural born citizens, the effective date is the date of application for
for any elective local position: (d) Those with dual citizenship; repatriation not the date when repatriation was approved. Lee v. Commission on Elections &
A. Again, petitioner's contention is untenable. In the aforecited case of Mercado v. Frivaldo, G.R. No. 120295, June 28,1996. (Plurality opinion.)
Manzano, the Court clarified "dual citizenship" as used in the Local Government Code and
reconciled the same with Article IV, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution on dual allegiance. Q. Petitioner claims that she was an illegitimate daughter of a Filipina mother; that she was
Recognizing situations in which a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act, and as erroneously registered as an alien; that she lost her citizenship upon marriage to an alien;
an involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries, be also a citizen that her alien husband has died. She petitioned the CFI for "judicial repatriation" and the
of another state, the Court explained that dual citizenship as a disqualification must refer to court declared her ^judicially repatriated." Was the repatriation proper?
citizens with dual allegiance. The Court succinctly pronounced: . . the phrase 'dual A. No. There is no law authorizing "judicial repatriation." All that is needed is for the
citizenship' in R.A. No. 7160,... (d) and in R.A. No. 7854,... must be understood as referring woman to take the necessary oath of allegiance and to register the oath in the proper civil
to 'dual allegiance.' Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this registry. However, the petitioner's claim of Philippine citizenship prior to her marriage may
not be established in an action where the mother or her heirs are not made parties.
Philippine citizenship may not be declared in a non-adversary suit where affected persons
are not made parties. Dugcoy Jao v. Republic, G.R. No. 29397, March 29,1983. (NOTE:
Compare with People v. Avengonza, G.R!. No. 27976,
December 7,1982.)

Q. Does the repatriation of a mother entitle her minor son to a declaration that
he is entitled to Philippine citizenship?
A. Yes . Republic v. Honorable Judge Tandayag, G.R. No. 32999, October
15,1982 (Reiterating Talaroc v. Uy, 92 Phil. 52 [19521).

Q. What was Philippine law on the citizenship of the Filipina married to an alien
before the 1973 Constitution?
A. Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, Section 1(7), a Filipino woman loses her Philippine
citizenship "upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force in her
husband's country, she acquires his nationality." The 1973 Constitutional provision repeals
this statutory rule and the 1987 Constitution made it applicable not just to female citizens.

Q. Does the Constitution allow dual citizenship?

A. Because Philippine law has no control over citizenship laws of other countries, dual
citizenship can be unavoidable under the present Constitution. A child of a Filipina mother
is a Filipino [Section 1(2)] and might also have his alien father's citizenship. A Filipina
married to an alien remains a Philippine citizen (Section 2) but might also require her
alien husband's citizenship.

Q. Does not Section 5 in effect prohibit dual citizenship?

A. The specific target of this new provision is not dual citizenship but dual allegiance
arising from e.g., mixed marriages or birth in foreign soil. This was seen as more insidious
than dual citizenship. To the extent, however, that dual citizenship also imports dual
allegiance, then it must also be "dealt with by law." In other words, the Constitution leaves
the disposition of the problem of dual citizenship and dual allegiance to
ordinary legislation.