Tabasa vs CA Facts: Joevanie Arellano Tabasa was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

In 1968,[3] when petitioner was seven years old, [4] his father, Rodolfo Tabasa, became a naturalized citizen[5] of the United States. By derivative naturalization (citizenship derived from that of another as from a person who holds citizenship by virtue of naturalization[6]), petitioner also acquired American citizenship. Petitioner arrived in the Philippines on August 3, 1995, and was admitted as a balikbayan for one year. Thereafter, petitioner was arrested and was subsequently brought to the BID Detention Center in Manila. Petitioner was investigated and on the same day, Tabasa was accused of violating Section 8, Chapter 3, Title 1, Book 3 of the 1987 Administrative Code, in a charge sheet which alleged: That in a letter dated 16 April 1996, Honorable Kevin Herbert, Consul General of [the] U.S. Embassy, informed the Bureau that respondents Passport No. 053854189 issued on June 10, 1994 in San Francisco, California, U.S.A., had been revoked by the U.S. Department of State. Hence, respondent [petitioner Tabasa] is now an undocumented and undesirable alien and may be summarily deported pursuant to Law and Intelligence Instructions No. 53 issued by then Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago to effect his deportation (Exhibit 3).The BID ordered petitioners deportation to his country of origin, the United States, on May 29, 1996However, on June 13, 1996, petitioner filed a Supplemental Petition alleging that he had acquired Filipino citizenship by repatriation in accordance with Republic Act No. 8171 (RA 8171), and that because he is now a Filipino citizen, he cannot be deported or detained by the respondent Bureau. Issue: What is repatriation? Is it a right or a matter of privilege? Who can seek repatriation? Ruling: Repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the RP and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided. Persons qualified for 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. Repatriation is not a matter of right, but it is a privilege granted by the State. This is mandated by the 1987 Constitution under Section 3, Article IV, which provides that citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. The State has the power to prescribe by law the qualifications, procedure, and requirements for repatriation. It has the power to determine if an applicant for repatriation meets the requirements of the law for it is an inherent power of the State to choose who will be its citizens, and who can reacquire citizenship once it is lost. If the applicant, like petitioner Tabasa, fails to comply with said requirements, the State is justified in rejecting the petition for repatriation. AASJS vs Datumanong Facts: Petitioner filed the instant petition against respondent, then Secretary of Justice Simeon Datumanong, the official tasked to implement laws governing citizenship.1 Petitioner prays that a writ of prohibition be issued to stop respondent from implementing Republic Act No. 9225, entitled "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." Petitioner avers that Rep. Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that states, "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law." Petitioner contends that Rep. Act No. 9225 cheapens Philippine citizenship. He avers that Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, together, allow dual allegiance and not dual citizenship. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) claims that Section 2 merely declares as a state.The OSG further claims that the oath in Section 3 does not allow dual allegiance since the oath taken by the former Filipino citizen is an effective renunciation and repudiation of his foreign citizenship. The fact that the applicant taking the oath recognizes and accepts the supreme authority of the Philippines is an unmistakable and categorical affirmation of his undivided loyalty to the Republic. Issue: Is Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution a self-executing provision? Ruling: Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization.9 Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters of what really constitutes dual allegiance.10 Until this is done, it would be premature for the judicial department, including this Court, to rule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance. Go vs Ramos Facts: hese petitions stemmed from the complaint-affidavit[9] for deportation initiated by Luis T. Ramos before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (now Bureau of Immigration) against Jimmy T. Go alleging that the latter is an illegal and undesirable alien. To prove his contention, Luis presented the birth certificate of Jimmy, issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar of Iloilo City, which indicated Jimmys citizenship as FChinese. Luis argued that although it appears from Jimmys birth certificate that his parents, Carlos and Rosario Tan, are Filipinos, the document seems to be tampered, because only the citizenship of Carlos appears to be handwritten while all the other entries were typewritten.. Jimmy refuted the allegations in his counter-affidavit,[10] averring that the complaint for deportation initiated by Luis was merely a harassment case designed to oust him of his rightful share in their business dealings and insisted that he is a natural-born Filipino. Jimmy alleged that his father Carlos, who was the son of a Chinese father and Filipina mother, elected Philippine citizenship in accordance with Article IV, Section 1, paragraph 4[11] of the 1935 Constitution and Commonwealth Act No. 625[12] (Com. Act No. 625), as evidenced by his having taken the Oath of Allegiance on July 11, 1950 and having executed an Affidavit of Election of Philippine citizenship on July 12, 1950.

Issue: Did we adopt the jus soli or jus sanguinis principle? Does the principle of res adjudicate apply to decisions on citizenship? Ruling: The court ruled that his registration as a voter indicates his desire to exercise a right appertaining exclusively to Filipino citizens but does not alter his real citizenship, which, in this jurisdiction, is determined by blood (jus sanguinis). The exercise of the rights and privileges granted only to Filipinos is not conclusive proof of citizenship, because a person may misrepresent himself to be a Filipino and thus enjoy the rights and privileges of citizens of this country.[79]Citizenship proceedings, as aforestated, are a class of its own, in that, unlike other cases, res judicata does not obtain as a matter of course. In a long line of decisions, this Court said that every time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res judicata; hence, it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand.[58] Res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship only if the following concur:1.)a persons citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2.)the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof; and 3.) the finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court.[59] DOJ VERSUS PINNISI Facts: Michael Alfio Pennisi was born on 13 March 1975 in Queensland, Australia to Alfio Pennisi, an Australian national, and Anita T. Quintos, allegedly a Filipino citizen. In March 1999, he filed a petition for recognition as Filipino citizen before the Bureau of Immigration (BI). The BI granted his petition. Pinnisi was drafted and played for the Red Bull basketball team in the PBA. On 7 August 2003, the Senate Committees on Games, Amusement and Sports recommended the BI to conduct summary deportation proceedings against several Filipino-foreign PBA players, including respondent, based on the following findings: Michael Alfio Pennisi was able to present before the BI, the birth certificate of his Filipino mother, Anita Tomeda Quintos, which reveals highly suspicious circumstances. His alleged mother and other relatives, specifically the parents of the former, namely: Felipe M. Quintos and Celina G. Tomeda, who were mentioned in his application for recognition of Philippine citizenship in the BI, are not known and have never existed in Panabingan, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija. Pinnisi was subjected to summary deportation proceedings. Issue: Did the departure of Pennisi from the Philippines render moot the proceedings that challenged the DOJs revocation of his certificate of recognition and his summary deportation by the Bureau of Immigration? Is Pennisi a Filipino citizen? Ruling: no. the DOJ cited the case of Lewin. However, the court said that the issue in the Lewin case is different from the case at bar. Lewins status as he entered the country as a temporary visitor rendered it academic the question of his deportation as an undesirable alien. In Pinnisis case, prior to his deportation, he was already recognized as a Filipino citizen. He manifested his intent to return to the country because his Filipino wife and children are residing in the Philippines. THE FILING OF THE PETITIONS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS AND BEFORE THIS COURT SHOWED HIS INTENTION TO PROVE HIS FILIPINO LINEAGE AND CITIZENSHIP, AS WELL AS THE ERROR COMMITTED BY PETITIONERS IN CAUSING HIS DEPORTATION FROM THE COUNTRY. HE WAS PRECISELY QUESTIONING THE DOJS REVOCATION OF HIS CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION AND HIS SUMMARY DEPORTATION BY THE BI. the RESPONDENTS DEPORTATION DID NOT RENDER THE PRESENT CASE MOOT. The SC affirmed the CAs ruling that the Doj was not able to present other evidence to support their claims. The Court of Appeals ruled that the authenticity of the documents issued by the Australian government was never questioned nor put in issue. The Court of Appeals further ruled that the fact that the Quintoses and Tomedas were not included in the census or master list of voters did not automatically render Quintos birth certificate invalid. The Court of Appeals ruled that unless a public document is declared invalid by competent authority, it should be presumed valid and binding for all intents and purposes. Pinnisi is a Filipino citizen. MA VERSUS FERNANDEZ Facts: Balgamelo, Felix, Jr., Valeriano, Lechi Ann, Arceli, Nicolas, and Isidro(all surnamed Ma) are the children of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, a Taiwanese, and Dolores Sillona Cabiling, a Filipina. They were all raised in the Philippines and have resided in this country for almost sixty (60) years, studied and received their primary and secondary education in the country. During their age of minority, they secured from the BI their Alien Certificates of Registration (ACRs). upon reaching the age of 21, they claimed Philippine citizenship in accordance with Section 1(4), Article IV, of the 1935 Constitution, which provides that (t)hose whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship are citizens of the Philippines. Thus, on 15 August 1969, Felix, Jr. executed his affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and took his oath. In 1978, Valeriano took his oath of allegiance. however, they failed to have the necessary documents registered in the civil registry as required under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625 (An Act Providing the Manner in which the Option to Elect Philippine Citizenship shall be Declared by a Person whose Mother is a Filipino Citizen). It was only on 27 July 2005 or more than thirty (30) years after they elected Philippine citizenship. Issues: What are the statutory formalities of electing Philippine citizenship? Within what period must Philippine citizenship be elected? Should children born under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien father but who failed to immediately file the documents of election with the nearest civil registry, be considered foreign nationals? Ruling: The statutory formalities of electing Philippine citizenship are: (1) a statement of election under oath; (2) an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the Philippines; and (3) registration of the statement of election and of the oath with the nearest civil registry. x x x [T]he 1935 Constitution and C.A. No. 625 did not prescribe a time period within which the election of Philippine citizenship should be made. The 1935 Charter only provides that the election should be made upon reaching the age of

majority. The age of majority then commenced upon reaching twenty-one (21) years. the proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the pronouncements of the Department of State of the United States Government to the effect that the election should be made within a reasonable time after attaining the age of majority.[41] The phrase reasonable time has been interpreted to mean that the elections should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority.[42] However, we held in Cue[n]co vs. Secretary of Justice,[43] that the three (3) year period is not an inflexible rule. No. Registration is only a means of confirming the fact that citizenship has been claimed. It is not the registration that will confer Philippine citizenship on the petitioners. Having a Filipino mother is permanent. It is the basis of the right of the petitioners to elect Philippine citizenship. Petitioners elected Philippine citizenship in form and substance. The failure to register the election in the civil registry should not defeat the election and resultingly negate the permanent fact that they have a Filipino mother. The lacking requirements may still be complied with subject to the imposition of appropriate administrative penalties, if any. KILOSBAYAN VERSUS JANOLO (wala ko kau kasabot ani na kaso) Facts: On July 9, 2007, private respondent Gregory Ong (Ong), following the promulgation of the Courts Decision in Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita,[1] filed a petition[2] under Rule 108 of the Rules Court for the amendment/correction/supplementation or annotation of the entry on citizenship in his Certificate of Birth, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 11767-SJ and raffled to Branch 264 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City over which public respondent Leoncio Janolo, Jr. presided. Via the present recourse of certiorari and prohibition, petitioners Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan Foundation assail four Orders and the Decision emanating from the proceedings in the RTC case. Issue: Can substantial corrections to the nationality or citizenship of persons recorded in the civil registry be effected through an ex parte application? Ruling: The Court, in Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita,[68] stated that substantial corrections to the nationality or citizenship of persons recorded in the civil registry are effected through a petition filed in court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Jurisprudence has settled that such proceedings are adversarial in nature or [o]ne having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte application, one which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it.[69] In this case, impleaded as defendants were the Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila and any other person having or claiming an interest under the entry sought to be corrected. The interest of the State was amply represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, while petitioners interest was deemed waived when they failed to appear and file a responsive pleading.