CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I - Exam 1

Course Outline:

I. Introduction
a. Political Law
b. The Philippine Constitution
i. Nature of the Constitution
ii. History of the Philippine Constitution
c. Concept of State/Elements of a State
i. People
ii. Territory
iii. Government
1. Constituent vs. Ministrant
2. De Facto vs. De Jure
iv. Sovereignty
1. Classical/Absolute Theory vs. Newer/Restrictive Theory
2. Suits against Government Instrumentalities
3. Suits against Officers
4. Express and Implied Consent
5. Execution/Garnishment
6. Suits against Local Government Units
II. Article I: National Territory
a. Significance in Defining the National Territory
b. The National Territory
c. Archipelago Doctrine
III. Article II: Declaration of Principles and State Policies
IV. Article IV: Citizenship
a. Who are Citizens of the Philippines
i. Citizens by Birth
1. Children of Filipino Fathers or Mothers
2. Illegitimate Children
3. Election of Philippine Citizenship by CA 625
ii. Citizens by Naturalization
1. Judicial Naturalization by CA 473 as amended by RA 530
2. Administrative Naturalization
b. Natural-born Citizens
c. Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship
i. Loss
1. By CA 63
2. By CA 473
ii. Reacquisition
1. By Naturalization by CA 63
2. By Repatriation by CA 63, RA 965, RA 2630, RA 8171
3. By RA 9225
d. Effect of Marriage
e. Dual Citizenship/Dual Allegiance
i. Dual Citizenship and RA 9225
V. Article V: Suffrage
a. Suffrage as a Right and Duty
b. Qualifications
c. Absentee-voting
 INTRODUCTION

A. Political Law

B. The Philippine Constitution

History of the Philippine Constitution

Timeline:
1521-1899 Spanish Rule
1899-1946 American Rule
1935 First Constitution
1935-2013 78 years of having a constitution
1987-2013 26 years of having a true constitution

1st Philippine Commission Shurman Commission

This was made to survey the desires of the people and recommend certain actions to be
taken. The result of the survey stated that the Filipinos are aspiring for independence, but are not
ready for it yet. They recommended the immediate transfer from military to civil rule in preparation for
independence.

Spooner Amendment
Transferred the government from the military rule to the President of the US.

Taft Commission
The Congress of the US is the legislative body responsible for the Philippines.
Enactment of municipal and provincial codes
Establish Philippine Constabulary for law enforcement and implementation
Established a Judiciary system

Philippine Bill of 1902 (Cooper Act) 1st Organic basic/fundamental law

Definition of Citizens of the Philippines
Bill of Rights
2 Representatives to the US Congress (without voting rights)
Establishment of the Phil Assembly (did not materialize, Taft Commission stands)

Phil Autonomy Act of 1916 (Jones Law)

It was only an official commitment to grant independence subject to certain conditions.

Philippine Independence Act of 1934 (Tyddings-McDuffie)

Transitional period of 10 years
Given a task of writing our own constitution given a framework of government
First effective constitution was the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution effective on May 14,
1935
Drafted in order to please Americans in order to secure independence
Japanese Constitution (puppet government, not recognized)

Independence: July 4, 1946

1973 Constitution
- Demand for the amendment of the 1935 Constitution prompted a call for Constitutional
Commission in 1967, but the work started in 1971.

Javellana vs Exec Sec:

Marcos called for a plebiscite but proclaimed Proclamation 1081 or martial law (September 21,
1972) before the plebiscite could happen. Marcos declared P.D. 73 on November 30, 1972 submitting
the draft for Ratification and scheduled the date for plebiscite on January 15, 1973.

Plebiscite cases: validity of calling for the plebiscite

- People were not given an avenue of open public discussion due to martial law.
- Marcos had no authority to call for a plebiscite. Under 1935, only the Congress can
appropriate funds and call for a plebiscite.
- The time was too short for dissemination of the information, personal consideration and
clear study of the proposal.

On December 17, 1972, the President had issued an order temporarily suspending the effects
of Proclamation No. 1081, for the purpose of free and open debate on the Proposed Constitution. On
December 23, the President announced the postponement of the plebiscite. Due to this order, the
plebiscite cases were deemed moot and academic. The cases were dismissed.

Ratification cases: validity of the ratification

On January 7, 1973, Marcos issued General Order No. 20, directing "that the plebiscite
scheduled to be held on January 15, 1978, be postponed until further notice." Marcos formed the
Citizens/Barangay Assembly with P.D. 87 supposedly as a venue for public discussion. Questions
asked which included those seemingly intended for a plebiscite. On January 17, 1973, Marcos issued
Proclamation No. 1102, announcing the ratification of the constitution by an overwhelming vote
through the Barangay Assemblies.

How should a constitution be ratified under the 1935 constitution?

- The people will ratify it through a plebiscite (not a Barangay Assembly).
- Only those who are male citizens of the Philippines of 21 years old and above are
allowed to vote. (In the Assemblies, those who are 15 years old and above can join as
long as they are residents of the Barangay).
- Voting must be done secret balloting or the counting of written votes cast in
secrecy during a plebiscite. (In the Assemblies, questions were answered through the
raising of hands).
- The COMELEC administers the elections to keep it independent of the executive
department. (The Department of Local Government administered the Barangay
Assemblies).
- Results are collected and tabulated by the COMELEC who keep public record for
transparency. (Results were collated through the Association of the Presidents of the
Barangay Assemblies who passed it to the Association of Presidents of the Provincial
level who submitted it to the DILG who finally gave it to a Francisco Cruz who certified the
results).

Was the 1973 Constitution in effect?

 Javellana vs Exec Sec only ruled on whether or not the Supreme Court will give due course to
the petition. The Rules of Court require the petitioner to prove that the petition has merit enough for
the SC to give due course to it.

- Is it political or justiciable? Justiciable.

- Has the Barangay Assemblies validly ratify the Constitution? No.
- Had the people acquiesced to the new constitution? 4 yes, 3 no, 3 cannot say.
- Should the petitioners be given due course? 6 dismissed, 4 hear the case. Cases are
dismissed.
- Is the 1973 constitution in effect? 4 yes, 3 no, 3 cannot say. There is no Majority to say
otherwise.

In 1986 Marcos called for a snap election. COMELEC said Marocs was the winner, NAMFREL said
Aquino. Batasang Pambansa, as the only legal authority given the duty by the constitution, declared
Marcos as the winner. Edsa Revolution happened as a result of the lack of confidence in Marcos.
Aquino was sworn in as President following the ouster of Marcos.

1987 Constitution
Came about with the issuance of Proclamation No. 3 providing a provisional/transitional 1986
Constitution granting Aquino legislative and executive powers. Aquino in turn called for a new
Constitutional Commission to amend the 1987 constitution.

Esguera vs De Leon (Effectivity of the 1987 Consitution)

Dismissal of De Leon from his office by virtue of a memorandum by OIC governor Esguera dated
February 8, 1987.

Is the memorandum valid under the 1986 Constitution or invalid under the 1987 Constitution?
- The constitution will take effect immediately after its ratification in a plebiscite.

When is the ratification? February 2 is the date of the plebiscite. February 7 is the date of the
proclamation.

Justice Tehankee discussed that the date of the ratification is on the date of the proclamation.
It was argued that certain things may happen on February 2 that may be in violation of the new
constitution but the violators may not know whether or not the constitution is in effect. In the interest of
justice, the effectivity must be on February 7.

The proclamation on February 7 is only the mathematical computation of what happened on February
2. The ratification happened on the day of the plebiscite. The proclamation is only the official
confirmation of the result.

The effectivity is now the date of the actual approval or the date of the actual casting of votes.

C. Concept of a State

State is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of
a territory, independent of external control, and possessing an organized government to which the
great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.

Elements of a State:
 1. People
2. Territory
3. Government
4. Sovereignty

1. People
More or less numerous and sufficient for the continued existence of the community
A state will usually define who will be its citizens or those entitled to its protection and security,
and also the benefits of membership
As members of a particular state, they are bound by the laws of the community, and usually
they are bound even if they are outside the territorial jurisdiction of that state, in some aspects
of their lives

2. Territory
Consists of land, water, airspace above, submarine areas below
Even if an entitys boundaries have not been finally settled or is under dispute, it still retains its
characteristic as a state. It will still satisfy territorial requirement for statehood even if some or
a certain portion of its territory is being claimed by another.
An entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory is under certain
outside control but only temporarily. Otherwise, they will lose their sovereignty and there will
be no state to talk about.
Concept of auto-limitation self-imposed restriction because of the right of self-determination
(Case: Reagan vs. CIR)
Exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and legal self-restriction. Laymans term
waiver.
In the case of US bases and embassies, Philippines has not lost entire control over these
territories. Rather control is only diminished because of state consent.
International law accepts that not even embassy premises are to be considered outside the
territorial domain of the host state.
Example: a consul who commits a crime cannot be prosecuted under our laws not because he
has not committed a crime but because we waived our right to prosecute
Example 2: a similar offense is committed within the embassy and is committed by a Filipino
against a Filipinothis can be prosecuted because the waiver does not go as far as
exempting other persons from criminal liability.
In summary: there are some aspects of sovereignty that we can limit but it does not mean we
surrender our sovereignty completely.

3. Government
Is an agency or instrumentality through which the will of the state is formulated, expressed and
realized
National and local governments
National three great departments: legislative, executive and judiciary
Local decentralization of power referring to provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays
DOES NOT include government entities which are given corporate powers separate and
distinct from the government and which are governed by corporate law.
Example: Davao City Water District
When talking about international law, we are referring only to the national government.

It can be classified based on function or legality of its existence.

Function:
 1. Constituent compulsory functions which constitute the very bonds of society; the reasons
precisely why a government is established (see case of Bacani vs. NACOCO enumeration of
constituent functions) All these functions can be done/performed only by the government. It
cannot be delegated to a private entity, for example the establishment of a police force.
2. Ministrant optional functions like control, distribution and regulation of electricity.

Principles to distinguish between constituent or ministrant functions:

1. That a government should do for the public welfare those things which private capital would
not naturally undertake
2. That a government should do those things which by its nature it is better equipped to
administer for the public welfare than any private individual or group of individuals

Optional functions are also called proprietary.

But in ACCFA vs. CUGCO, the growing complexities of modern society has rendered this traditional
classification of functions unrealistic, if not obsolete." (in reference to ministrant functions) Theres no
clear cut rule what would be ministrant. Sometimes, those optional functions are now
basic/mandatory/compulsory functions. In particular, under our constitution, enshrined therein is the
right to social justice.

In fact, when we say agrarian reform, which is the issue in this case, its mandated by the constitution,
mandated to the government, to the state, by the constitution.

Another one, public education. Maybe before when we were just starting to develop as a state, it was
irrelevant whether or not the citizens are educated or literate as long as the basic needs are provided,
like safety and security. But as modern times become complicated and the needs are more advanced,
there is now a need to make education mandatory. If before education could be left to the private
sector, now its mandatory for the government to provide public education.

Public works. Building roads is a governmental functions. But building skyways, expressways can be
optional functions.

Public hospital, and housing are now governmental functions because social justice demanded that
the government provide them as basic services to the people. The demand is in the constitution.

Another classification based on the basis of its legitimacy/legal existence:

1. De jure established by the authority of the legitimate sovereign
2. De facto established in defiance of the legitimate sovereign

In Co Kim Chan vs. Valez Tan Keh, the issue here is whether the judicial acts and proceedings during
the time of the Japanese occupation are valid.

But before that, Co Kim Chan enumerated what would compromise a de facto government:
1. That which gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority;
revolution
2. That which is established and maintained by invading military forces (case of Co Kim Chan)
3. That which is established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who
rise in insurrection against the parent state

As to the question in Co Kim Chan, the legal truism for de facto governments is that all acts and
proceedings of the legislative, executive and judicial departments are good and valid. This is because
as of that moment, the citizens have no choice but to comply because they are governed by that
government notwithstanding it is a de facto government. In that case, what determines the validity of
the proceedings and acts during this time would only be the rules of war. During a military occupation,
the law that will be observed will be those laws during war time.

Comparing the government of Corazon Aquino and government of Macapagal-Arroyo.

In the case of Lawyers League, they questioned the legitimacy of the government of President
Aquino. It is claimed that her government is illegal because it was not pursuant to the process
prescribed by the 1973 constitution.

The question on the legitimacy of the Aquino government is a political question. When its political, its
outside the realm or jurisdiction of the court to determine. It can only be determined by the sovereign
power, which is the people. In this case, the people have generally accepted the government of
Aquino. The judiciary has sworn allegiance to that new government, and even the international
community has recognized the government of Aquino. It is a legitimate government therefore.

But is it a de facto or de jure government? Ordinarily it would be a de facto government. But because
we are operating under a new constitution in defiance of the 1973 constitution, it is now considered as
a de jure government other than the reason of the Supreme Court that it has gained acceptance by
the people and the international community.

Revolution is that complete overthrow of the established government by those who were previously
subjected to it. It is that sudden radical and fundamental change in the government or political system
usually effected with some violence in it.
It is that which occurs whenever the legal community is nullified and replaced by a new order.
When we are talking about order in this context, we are talking about the constitution.
The people summarily nullified or defied the 1973 constitution and established a new one.
So there lies the qualifying portion when it is able to establish a new order, the revolution is
successful then it is one which is in the inherent right of the people.

Revolution is actually a right

It is the right of the people to cast out their weirs change their policy or effect radical reforms in
their system of government institutions by force or general uprising.
But there is a qualifying phrase therewhen the legal and constitutional methods of making
such changes have proved inadequate or are so obstructed to be unavailable.
The general premise is that we have the constitution as prescribed form of actions and
proceedings. Included therein actions of proceedings or relief available to the people in case
they are not in agreement with the way the officers are running the government.
There is a prescribed method. But when the prescribed legal method is no longer effective or
in the case of Marcos it is no longer available because of Martial Law, though he lifted the
martial law there was still no change in the way he ran the government. In that case, it is no
longer adequate or is obstructed to be unavailable. Then revolution is a matter of right by the
people to change their leaders and policies.
The way to change leaders and policies is prescribed in the constitution. Due to the revolution,
the Aquino government is a new entity and not a continuation of the Marcos government.
In our system, the lawmaking power actually lies within the people. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them.

Legal Maxim: The voice of the people is the supreme law.

That there is a legislative department to enact laws only means that we have delegated that
power of enacting laws to the legislative department. That there is an executive department
implementing the laws only means that we, the sovereign power, have delegated that power to
 implement laws to the executive department. The judiciary is our representative when it comes
to interpreting laws.
AQUINO GOVERNMENT IS A DE JURE GOVERNMENT which is a revolutionary type of
government.

Case of Estrada: He needed immunity from criminal cases. Estrada said he was on leave and Arroyo
was just an acting president (he questioned the legitimacy of Arroyos government).

Differentiate Aquino government from Arroyo government:

AQUINO
EDSA I -The people exercised their right of
revolution in defiance to the existing order,
the 1973 constitution
Took her oath precisely saying that she came She took an oath pursuant to the 1987
to power by the express or direct act from
the people in defiance of the 1973
constitution
It is a political question because the
supreme court cannot choose any reference
to determine the legality of what happened.
the people already disregarded the
constitution. the people decided to
acknowledge the legality of aquinos
government.
The entire government was overthrown
It is a government through revolution
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
EDSA II- The people exercised their right to
assembly in order to address the grievances
or redress against the government which is a
right written in the 1987 constitution. It is
pursuant to an existing order which is the1987
constitution
constitution (succession) and in fact
upholding the 1987 constitution.
It is a justiciable question because the
supreme court can make reference to the
constitution as to the validity of succession of
arroyo from vice president to president. it is
provided in the constitution. they still have to
determine whether or not erap has resigned.
Only the office of the president was affected
but the entire system remained. The judiciary
and legislature are still functioning.
It is a government through the exercise of
freedom of expression

4. Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a state by which the state is
governed.
The constitution states that sovereignty resides in the people and all authority emanates from them.
1. Internal sovereignty refers to the power of the state to control its domestic affairs
2. External sovereignty-refers to the power of the state to direct its relations with other states, is
also known as independence.

Article 16 Section 3 states that the state may not be sued without its consent.

Doctrine of state immunityis the recognition of the sovereign character of the state and an
express affirmation of the unwritten rule insulating it from the jurisdiction of the courts of justice.
The state can do no wrong. The logical reason is that there can be no legal right as against the state
from which the right came from. How can you sue a juridical person when the right was came or
granted by that person?
It is sometimes called the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty. By simply invoking sovereignty
immunity the state can defeat any legitimate claim against it by invoking non-suability.
It is also observed in the international community. Example: The US cannot be called as a
defendant a case in the courts of the Philippines. It is an unwritten agreement between nations.
The laws of government efficiency and the obstacle to the performance of its multifarious functions
would be far greater than that may be caused to an individual.
It is more on allowing the state to provide services that it is called to do than to answer to individual
inconveniences.

a. Classical/Absolute Theory vs. Newer/Restrictive Theory

__________________________________________________________
Case: CNMEG
CNMEG and Northrail are the contracting parties. China agreed to extend a loan to the Philippines on
the condition that the project will only be handled by CNMEG. The respondents questioned the validity
of the $420M contract only to be deferred by some acts. The respondents argued that it did not
undergo public bidding which is a violation of the constitution. CNMEG claimed state immunity. China,
a sovereign cannot be brought to court in the Philippines. Supreme Court ruled that CNMEG is
engaged in proprietary activities therefore it descends to the level if an individual. It has the capacity
to sue and be sued.
__________________________________________________________

Concepts of sovereign immunity

1. Absolute theory- sovereign cannot be, without its consent, be made as a respondent in the
courts of another sovereign. (Article 16 section 3)
It has undergone changes. States are now engaged in activities other than purely
governmental activities. They are engaged in proprietary or business.

2. Restrictive theory- the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regards to public acts
or acts jure imperii of the state but not with regards to private acts or acts jure gestionis.
Governmental acts-immunity can be claimed
Proprietary acts- immunity is not available
The Philippines adheres to the restrictive theory

Immunity from suit is restricted to sovereign or governmental activities (Jure Imperii) it cannot
be extended to private, proprietary or commercial acts.

Constituent and Ministrant-distinction now is obsolete because the better classification now is
governmental and proprietary. This is more useful in determining state immunity.

How can you determine that it is a suit against the state?

The general test is whether or not ultimately the enforcement of the decision in the case would require
an affirmative act from the state such as when the state is called to appropriate an amount to satisfy
the judgment. If the ultimate liability would fall on the state, requiring the state to perform an
affirmative act particularly appropriation of funds to pay a judgment, then it is a suit against the state

b. Suits against Government Instrumentalities

Case: DOH vs Phil Pharmawealth

The facts of the case show that Phil pharmawealth is involved in the distribution of legal drugs. It
participates in regular DOH biddings to supply drugs. You have to be accredited with the DOH as a
supplier. Other than being an accredited supplier, the drugs must also be accredited. They asked
DOH for the accreditation of one kind of drug but it was not added. But later there was bidding for that
particular drug. Phil. Pharmawealth was the lowest bidder but since it was not accredited as a supplier
of that particular drug, because DOH failed to act on that request, it was not awarded to it.
It filed an action against DOH. Reliefs:
 1. Injunction to nullify the awards to another corporation
2. Mandamus to direct DOH to grant it to Phil. Pharmawealth
3. Damages against officials who failed to act
The relief asked for does not require the state to perform an affirmative act such as appropriating
funds. Using the general test, it is not really a suit against the state. It is a suit against an
instrumentality which according to the constitution may be sued because we have a relief called
judicial review where the judiciary can review the acts of certain government offices whether they are
valid or not.
DOH is an unincorporated government agency thus it can claim immunity. But the conclusion in this
case is that it is not a suit against the state since the liability does not fall on the state. There is no
financial liability on the part of the state.
__________________________________________________________

Incorporated or Unincorporated government entity, instrumentality or office

1. Incorporated- It is created pursuant to a charter or a law. It has a charter of its own. It is
created sometimes pursuant to corporation law. It has a juridical personality separate and
distinct from the state. Usually, charters of incorporated government agencies grant them the
capacity to sue and be sued. It cannot claim immunity. It is not necessarily a suit against the
state.
2. Unincorporated- they have no juridical personality separate and distinct from the state but are
attached agencies with the state. It is usually a suit against the state.
Example: DOH, DOJ and DepEd are government agencies that have no juridical personality
separate and distinct from the State but they are attached to the office of the chief executive.
The executive represents the state therefore these may claim sovereign immunity.

July 3 2013 Consitution I Atty Royvenne Jumao-as

Doctrine of Immunity of suit restrictively applies only to Governmental function (Jure imperii) of the state and
not to the commercial/proprietary (Jure gestionis) acts of the state. Now we determine whether the suit
against the state, we have to know whether or not the ultimate liability falls with the state. And that the state
is required to perform some positive acts such as appropriating money to satisfy a judgement against it. So If
its the case, it is a suit against the state notwithstanding the nominal party would be a government office,
agency, instrumentality or a public officer. So when it comes to government offices it is important to know
whether the government instrumentality/ agency is incorporated or unincorporated.

Government instrumentality

- Incorporated- has its own charter which means that it has its own juridical personality separate and
distinct from the state. In that case generally it can be sued because generally its charter would provide
that it can sue and it can be sued.

Now when it comes to public officers when would you know if it is a suit against the state? If the
ultimate liability is with the state to perform positive act.

Now generally also when it comes to suits against public officers that will usually be allowed. why?
Because even the constitution provides that public office is a public trust so how can we make the officers
liable or accountable it is the Through the filing of suits so suits against public officers will be allowed
because even the constitution provides for a judicial dealing of the acts of the officer. So generally it is not a
suit against the state if he is sued in his official capacity or performing a governmental function but the suit or
the relieve demanded does not require the state to perform an act. For example the suit is only for the officer
to be removed from a certain place then there is no liability from the state, then it is not a suit against the
state. For example the suit is for a money claim but the money is already released in the office of the public
officer but he just refused to pay or refused to release the money then in that case it is not a suit against the
state, it is a suit against the public officer. It is also not a suit against the state if the public officer is sued in his
official capacity but for his acts that are called un authorized acts or illegal acts because the state does not
state recognized illegal xxxx? Acts by his agents for example in the case of

1. DOH vs PH pharma wealth- the relief demanded is injunction, nullity of contract, and theres also for
damages. The damage is a addressed against the public officers. In that case, the Undersecretary of
DOH. So can that public officer invoke state Immunity?

SC held: NO she is being sued in her capacity,in the performance of his function, but she
performed an unauthorized act. In this case she failed to act on her inquest for an accreditation on
registry or product so that product can be included in the bidding process.

The relief demanded is not one requiring the state to perform an act, it is one for nullification
of an award or injunction of the award so in this case it is not a suit the state but a suit against the
particular public officer

2. Philippine Agila vs Lichauco. This is against Lichauco. In this case PASI has already been allotted an
orbital slot, but then this undersecretary Lichauco awarded it to the unknown bidder.
T he same orbital slot. Now nullification and injunction was filed, can Lichauco claim immunity from
suit?
SC HELD : No. It is a suit against her being a public officer for an un-authorized act. Other than
that if It is a suit against DOTC it will not xxx because DOTC is an incorporated it is performing
governmental function. now its a suit against her but the act complained of is considered
unauthorized or illegal so it is not a suit against the state.

Now let us say its a suit against the state, if its a suit against the state, can the state claim immunity?
General rule: Yes The state may not be sued without its consent. In other words a state MAY be sued provided
that it consented the suit. Now based on this premise it is important for us to keep in our mind the restrictive
doctrine. We always go back to whether it is a governmental function we are dealing with or proprietary ,
business , business in character, commercial in character. So if its governmental the general rule applies it may
not be sued without its consent . But if it is proprietary no consent is needed, because the other rule will
apply, it may be sued, why? Consent may be Express or implied.

Consent:

1. Express consent- it is xxx that the state consented. How will you know that the state has
consented? An express consent is given via a law. Only the congress has the authority to consent
for the State. The consent is given pursuant to an enactment or a law, in other words if the
consent is given by a lawyer or a counsel for the state it is not binding upon the state because only
a law granting the privilege of the state can be considered as express consent to the state. Now
express consent pursuant to a law may be by virtue of general law or a special law. What do you
mean by that? Are you saying maam that we have now in existence the general law which allows
a citizen to sue the state? Answer: YES. Act 3083- an act defining the condition under which the
government of the Philippines Islands may be sued. That law had been enacted long time ago in
1912.

There is a general consent for the state or the PH government to be sued. In fact in section 1
states the Philippine government consents and submits to be sued upon any money claims
involving liability arising from contract expressly implied which would serve the basis of civil
 action between private parties. So, how come there is a constitution provision that it may be
sued without consent? The consent in this
Law actually is not without conditions. It consents to be sued provided that the claimant
follows certain procedure. In this case, the procedure prescribed is a claim must first be filed
with Commission on Audit. So money claims must be first be filed with COA. Now in relation to
commonwealth Act 327, CA 327 was amended by PD 1445. There is a particular period within
which the commissioner must act on money claims. Thereafter if the decision is adverse to the
claimant or the COA fails to act in the prescribed period then claimant can file a certiorari case
with the Supreme Court. In other words ultimately it consents to be ultimately sued after
these procedures and the claimant is not satisfied. This is Act 3083 in relation to CA 327 as
amended PD 1445

3083- General law which consents, grants the consent for the state to be sued. The
proceedings provided in relation to CA 327- period provisional period to act. PD law
organizing the COA

Express consent via general law

3. Department of Agriculture v NLRC- there is a suit filed by Security guards against its security agency
for non payment of wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentives.They were serving with the
Department of Agriculture. The NLRC decided in favour of the Security Guards because these are
statutory benefits. These benefits are mandated by law particularly the labor code. But the decision of
NLRC included DOA as the party solidarily liable with the security agency. So there is a money
judgement in favour of the security guards, so the security guards filed for the execution of this
judgement. Now NLRC issued the writ of execution against the security agency and also against
Department of Agriculture. DA refused to pay invoking immunity from suit. Before the ultimate
decision the SC discussed immunity from suit and mentioned CA 3083 in relation to act 327 and PD
1445. SC said that money claims must be first filed against the government under CA act, stating CA
3083 stands now merely as a general law waiving the states immunity from suit subject to the general
limitation expressed sec 7 thereof.

Thats the general law waiving immunity .Is theres a special law waiving immunity?

Express consent via special law

Special law- congress acts a law specifically allowing a particular person to file a case against the state.

4. Meritt vs Government- Meritt met an accident by an ambulance of a Government hospital. He is

fortunate because the legislature enacted a law authorizing meritt to file a suit to state for the
determination of who is liable. The congress enacts this law allowing this particular person to file the
suit. SC held: the fact the state consented to be sued does mean that the state acknowledges its
liability. Based on the definition on who is an agent of the state, in this case the driver of the
ambulance is not acting in his authorized capacity. Therefore he is not in that instant considered as an
agent of the state, thus the state is not liable.

Implied consent

Impliedly the state has consented to be sued.

Instances: 1. When the state enters into a contract
2.When the state initiates a case/claim against another

In these 2 instances the state is said to have descended to the level of an ordinary citizens and opens
itself to, for example in a contract, to stipulation or agreement between the parties. And in initiation of case, it
open itself up to possible counterclaims and defenses of the other party. Therefore it has impliedly consented
being sued.
Now in the matter in entering to contract, take not again that since we adhere to the restrictive
doctrine; not all kinds of contracts would operate as waiving of immunity. Only contracts that are proprietary
in nature, commercial would be an implied consent or would operate the waiver of immunity. Now, when it
commences litigation, the state also impliedly consents to be sued because as held in

5.Froilan vs xx oriental shipping the government impliedly allowed itself to be sued when it filed a
complaint in intervention for the purpose of asserting a claim, such as recovery of the vessel and it
opens itself to possible defense of counterclaim of other party.

5. Republic vs Sandiganbayan The republic of the PH initiated a complaint against Negros Occidental
golf country Club incorporated for the reconveyance of certain shares of stocks belonging to Juan
Benedicto. Now the republic alleges that these shares of stocks are ill gotten wealth. Therefore they
are sequestering the shares of stocks. So the shares of stocks were turned over to the state. After, the
state failed to pay the monthly/regular membersip fees that is demanded or required of members of
that country club because a shareholder is a member and required to pay membership fees. The
government leave sequestration, dili na lang siya ill gotten wealth. So the consequence is that they
have to return the shares of stock. But in this case the state failed or refuse to return shares of stocks
that is why Sandiganbayan issued an order requiring the state to return the shares of stocks if not the
stock certificate themselves the value equivalent to stocks certificate. Now the state claim immunity
from suit

SC Held: When it initiated the complaint invoking the shares of stocks the state opens itself to
all possible defenses and counterclaims and even to the orders of the court in relation to this shares of
stocks, therefore it has impliedly consented itself to be sued and it cannot claim immunity from suit.

Lets say that the agency is not performing propriety function and that the government officials are performing
in their function, are there instances wherein notwithstanding all this elements present favorable to immunity,
the immunity is not available? Jurisprudence would point to certain circumstance. For example this doctrine of
immunity from suit cannot be claim or cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating a injustice to citizen.
Cannot be used as an instrument to perpetrate injustice against another

6. Epg construction vs Vigilar(secretary of dpwh) in this case EPG constructions along with other
builders and suppliers initially entered into a contract with DPWH to build houses in relation to the
latters project. Now the contract is only up to a certain phase, 2/3 of the project completion. Now
after that the contract ends, after that there is yet no appropriation for the completion of the contract.
But the undersecretary of DPWH at that time made assurances with the bidders to the
contractors/constructors that the money would be forthcoming and it will be appropriated, so,even
without the needed contract and knowing that theres no appropriation they completed the project.
Now after completing the project the houses were built they now filed a claim for the payment of the
service of work done. DPWH, the secretary, refused to pay.
 Now the first question is the DPWH immune from suit? Yes. It is an unincorporated
government office. It is a department by itself, so it is immune from suit. Is it performing a
governmental function? In this case providing for housing, in our review of accfa vs cugcco the
Supreme Court said that housing could be considered now as a governmental function so its a
governmental function, it is an unincorporated government agency. But the Supreme Court in this case
said that it is not immune from suit. The Supreme Court said that immunity in this case cannot be used
to perpetrate injustice to the constructors and builders. Why? Youve read the case of tesda vs provi,
tesda is also an unincorporated agency attached to Department of Labor. TESDA trains citizens, issues
credits, skills, in relation to the training it issues certifications of xx and IDs so it contracted with PROVI,
the latter will provide hi-tech IDs. Now in the case unfortunately TESDA failed to pay PROVI, PROVI
filed money claims to TESDA.
SC HELD: TESDA is immune from suit. Why? Notwithstanding that it entered a contract with
PROVI it is not in relation to a proprietary act or function. It is in relation to its governmental function
of training, skills, accreditation skills. In that case TESDA, an unincorporated agency is immune from
suit and the SC defeated the claim of PROVI.

Now lets go to DPWH, EPG construction vs DPWH, the same an unincorporated government
office performing government function, this time the Supreme Court said that it is not immuned from
suit, because the doctrine of Non-Suability cannot be used in order to perpetrate injustice against the
citizen. Whats the different with this case with TESDA? Even injustice was also committed against
PROVI, so whats fortunate is that the circumstances in DPWH case all point to grave injustice against
the constructors. Why? In this case they have a contract and they have no intention to continue with
the contract because they know their limits but they continued nonetheless up to its completion
without the benefit of written contract, without the benefit of appropriation because of the verbal
assurances of the DPWH Undersecretary. Not only that, they made the demand with the DPWH upon
the recommendation of a DPWH undersecretary. Other than that, the internal auditor of DPWH
imposed no objection to the payment of this money claims and more than that, Department of Budget
and Management has already allotted the money that they demanded and has actually released it to
DPWH, only that ultimately the Secretary refuse to release it to the payees or to the constructors and
builders. Now the SC said that for several years the houses were already completed the government
has already benefitted from it and not the only the government but also the citizens who are
beneficiaries of this projects. So if they, the SC, will defeat the claim if theres already money payable
they are being used as instruments to perpetrate injustice against the service provider. So thats the
difference between VIGILAR vs DPWH and tesda vs provi. Although it is generally immune, the
Supreme Court actually use the invisibility cloak. The state cannot hide behind or under the invisibility
cloak of immunity. So in this case we have to xx the inivisbility cloak in order to prevent the
perpetration of injustice against EPV construction.

Another instance when although immune from the suit, the doctrine of non suability of immunity will
not be applied is when the government takes private property for public use which demands payment of just
compensation. Is this familiar to you? Taking of Private property for public use, because in this case it is equally
demanded that the payment of just compensation. This is the exercise of the government of eminent domain
or expropriation. Now it is in fact the constitution under the bill of rights which provided for the mandate that
private property cannot be taken for public use or the payment of just compensation. So kung government
agent ka ba, department ka ba, instrumental ka ba, GOCC, or public corporation in the exercise of his power ,
you open yourself up to suits. The state is not immune from suit. Why? Because it is a right, a bill of right, a
constitutional right.

7. ATO vs Spouses Ramos Spouses Ramos who has a lot near the airport runway later discovered that
part of the runway actually is their property. They had no idea that the government used the portion
 of their property. So they made a demand with ATO (Air Transportation Office). So they negotiated
with the ATO which is the office of the agency in charge with the administration management of
airport so the ATO agree to the negotiation and agreed to enter to a deed of sale for the portion of lot.
Whats the problem? ATO later refused or failed to pay the amount as stipulated in the contract, so
the spouses filed for a money claim. Now what they did, ATO invoked immunity. So the ultimate
question the issue for resolution in this case whether or not theATO is immuned in suit. So what is the
action based on our discussions? Based on the nature of the function of ATO. Is it performing a
governmental function?
SC HELD: ATO here is an incorporated government agency performing a proprietary function.
The management and administration of airports is a business endeavour of the state and the
management of airport is not the exclusive prerogative of the state. In fact it can give it up to private
entities, puwede mag manage ng airport. So this is a propriety function. But more than the nature of
the function of ATO even if govt function yan, the immunity will not apply why? It is not available why?
In taking a portion of a private property for public use ATO is exercising power eminent domain. In the
first place this should not have been done without undergoing the expropriation proceedings, but
since the runway has already been built it is an obligation, the ATO is under obligation to pay just
compensation to the private owner. Therefore a suit is always allowed. So in this case taking of
property a suit is always available. In fact the discussion of Supreme Court says even if, the State built
a road in its governmental function, the immunity cannot be claimed because this is the exercise of the
power of eminent domain which is under the bill of rights is a constitutional right.

Now, there is consent to be sued there are law, general law, special law, express consent,
implied consent. Okay, lets go suing. Lets say that theres a money judgement in your favour, can you
not ask the court to issue an order requiring the state to pay the money judgement. In legal terms it is
called a writ of execution, can you now require or ask the court to issue a writ of execution, and if the
court issues the writ of execution, is it proper.

SC HELD: NO. suability is different from liability in fact you have this case of:

8. Republic vs Hidalgo- when the judge issued the writ of execution, executing the properties of the
State, to satisfy the judgement, the judge was administratively sanctioned, for gross ignorance of law.
Why cant we garnish the account of the state? The general idea is that when you have a judgement in
your favour and the other party refuses to pay the easy route is to ask for a writ of garnishment, what
is that? The court will order the bank where the party has an account for the bank to release money in
your favour. Can it be done with the government? Writ of garnishment ang tawag niyan
The SC HELD: NO. Why? Under our constitution also, public funds cannot be used unless there
is an appropriation for that purpose. When you say appropriation there has to be a law appropriating
the use of this public funds. In other words, you cannot just take money from the public treasury and
use it in payment of judgement(?) because we have an appropriation act where the money were
appropriated for certain purposes, now you cannot take some of the money to answer the money
judgment in your favour because these were not set aside for that particular purpose. If it is done by
public officer that is called malversation, the use of public funds not in that particular purpose,
redirecting the public fund appropriated for some other purpose in other words public funds can only
be released pursuant to appropriation. Therefore a judge cannot issue a writ of execution in your
favour even if it is already determined that the State is liable because is not the judge who issues the
appropriation, it is the legislative body.
So in other words suability is not the same as liability. So the function of the judge/court ends
when the judgement is rendered, and as the government funds and properties may not be ceased
under writ of execution/garnishment to satisfy such judgment. It is based also in public policy
 disbursement of funds must be covered by the correspondent appropriation as required by law
otherwise it is diversion of public funds.
In DOA vs NLRC involving those security guards, diba they have a money judgement in their
favour because it was proven that they were not given statutory benefits under the labor code, but the
DOA claimed immunity from suit what is there recourse therefore? Act 3083 --File their money claims
with COA thereafter file a certiorari. In case of

9. Heirs of Pidacan vs ATO- this is also an expropriation proceeding which grant for an award.(?) theres a
final and executionary judgement of the court (SC even)in favour of the private owners, in this case, so
we say the writ of execution cannot be issued against the state, but in this case that the garnishment
issued by the Judge is proper, why? Because in this case it has been shown that the funds had already
been appropriated for the payment of the particular expropriation. So the funds have actually been
appropriated for that purpose so garnishment is allowed.

10. NHA vs heirs of rigodon(?)- here the NHA also exercised its power of expropriation to build housing.
Now they failed to pay the just compensation as ordered by the Court. Can the funds of the NHA can
be garnished to satisfy the judgement?
The SC held: YES why? NHA is an incorporated government agency. Iit is a public corporation and
has a personality separate and distinct from the state. It has funds separate from the funds of the state
therefore this particular fund can be garnished.

Suits agains Local Government Units

Now municipal corporations, provinces, cities, municipalities, these are created pursuant to law, they
have a charter on their own. Now the charter provides that they have the capacity to be sued and sue. Even
under the Local government code theres a provision that LGU are public corporations and such corporations
they have the capacity to sue and be sued. Does that mean that LGU, cities, provinces, municipalities are ipso
facto or automatically are not immune from suit? Is there already an implied or an express consent to be sued?
The SC HELD: NO, even if public corporations such as LGU have in their charters this general characteristic
of corporation of the right to be sued and be sued, it does not mean that they are not immune from suit
because it is still an agency of state. It is still a government agency although in municipal level and is
performing governmental function. Ultimately we still have to determine if it is a governmental or propriety
function. Example:

11. Jaime vs Apostol- suit by the parents of a minor who was killed in a vehicular accident. The car was
privately owned, it was driven by the employee of the Municipality of Koronadal and the passenger
was the mayor, the driver is driving him to airport. So the parents sued the driver, mayor, municipality
and the registered owner of the car and the possessor of the vehicle. The ultimate decision: only driver
and the registered owner is liable. Why not the mayor and the municipality of koronadal? The mayor is
not liable because he is not the employer of the driver. Who is the employee of the driver? The
municipality. The driver is assigned to the office of mayor. Diba with the negligent acts of the
employees the employer is liable. But in this case the

SC held: NO. The municipality is a public corporation it has immunity from suit and specifically
It is immune from torts. Especially if the negligent acts were performed in governmental capacity or
functions in relation to govt functions. It was shown here that the driver was driving the car not
pursuant to a commercial activity but in pursuance to the function of the LGU as a government agency.
12. Municipality vs Dumdum- a business woman entered into a contract to municipality of Hagonoy
Bulacan provided thereafter with several heavy equipment, tractor etc. She has already delivered the
 equipment to the municipality. But, the municipality refused to pay. According to them there is no
contract, it does not underwent proceedings for deeds and awards so it refused to pay. So the
business woman filed a money claim against the municipality. now while being her right was
determined she asked for preliminary attachment (pending pa ang trial). It means she is asking the
court to attach the property, hold it, in the meantime that her rights is being determined in the trial. In
other words by virtue of the writ of attachment, the government or the municipality cannot sell,
dispose, hide the property. so that incase of the favorable to the businesswoman the property is
available. Judge issued the writ. Is it proper? The municipality claimed immunity from suit.
And the SC HELD: Municipality is immune from suit notwithstanding the charter says it can
sued and be sued. It is like a state in general which has immunity from suit. The court says that the
preliminary attachment is useless why? In case of favourable judgement in favour of the business
woman its useless, because the property of the municipality cannot be attached or executed to satisfy
the judgment. Again there has to be appropriation of public funds.

General rule : Local government units have the same immunity with the state. We go back to to
determining whether or not it is performing a governmental function or proprietary function. It is
incorporated by the way so the general rule applies with LGU

13. Makati vs CA- 190 SCRA 206. This is a case for its expropriation filed by the municipality. There is a
judgment in favour of the private owner, but the municipality refused to pay just compensation.
SC held: there is recourse available to the private owner. It can file a petition/case for
mandamus so that the court upon judgment may direct the local Sanggunian to appropriate and act an
ordinance to appropriate THE sum of money to satisfy the judgment. In this case the private party can
file a suit for mandamus. But take note that the recourse or option here is only available to local
legislative bodies.

ARTICLE I: NATIONAL TERRITORY

Article 1 which defines national territory, we have first to understand that the constitution is just a
municipal law in other words it is applicable and observed only within the territorial
jurisdiction of the sovereign.

In other words regarding territory the acquisition or laws of territory is a matter of public international
law, whatever is accepted, general principles of international law, a sovereignty cannot just claim a
territory just by defining what he is claiming to be territory so when a state claims which parts are
inclusive of its territory it has to have some legally accepted instruments or documents-accepted
means its accepted by the international community.

In other words the acquisition or loss of territory is not just by defining it in the constitution so let say
that our constitution is silent with regards to what our national territory comprises would it defeat our
claim of territory and jurisdiction over other places- it will not because as Ive said the right to territory
or the definition of the territory could be found elsewhere other than the constitution.

It is immaterial whether or not the constitution will define its national territory but the moment that we
were given the option to draft our own constitution, we already included what constitutes our territory
as early as 1935, when the first constitution was drafted. It is said that it was done to please the
Americans and so on and so forth -with our cause for security purposes or because we want to clarify
on which parts is within Philippine territory and according to Bernas the 1987 constitution is more on
for educational purposes but why did he say that?
Because the basis of territorial claim can be found elsewhere in some other legal instrumentsin
case of the Philippines:
The first and foremost legal instrument is the Treaty of Paris-that document from where the
Spanish government ceded to the US government the Philippines. It has to define the place which it
surrender or turn over to the Americans .so thats the first document this legal instrument had been
recognized by the international community.
Another document is the Treaty of Washington in 1900 which now included Cagayan, Sulu
and Sibuto.

Then we have the Treaty with Great Britain in 1930..in which the international community
has accepted that turtle and manse island also belong to the territory of the Philippines and then the
rights to territory are also regulated by international agreements or treaties, example are the
convention on aerial civil aviation which regulates the use of air space. How far can you consider that
part of your territory? How far is it considered outer space? Where can you put satellites?
Then convention on territorial sea and continuous zone in 1958--- that was the first time they identify
which would be the baseline and how far do we considered as territorial sea and the convention of the
law of the seas .so what comprises since the constitution defines our national territory, what
comprises our national territory? (Art 1) you dont say the aerial, fluvial and terrestrial domains
because this refers to land water and air. So you cannot say that the national territory consist of land
water and air.

The national territory actually comprises of:

1. The Philippine archipelago with all the waters and islands embrace therein and
2. All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty and jurisdiction.
-And now with regards to this two. What does it constitute? It's now comprises of land/terrestrial,
water/fluvial, and aerial domain. Not only that as describe in our constitution, it also includes the
territorial sea, the sea bed, the subsoil, insular shelves, and other submarine areas. But if you dissect
it, all these refer to the Philippine archipelago and all other territories over which the Philippines have
sovereignty and jurisdiction.

Now talking about the Philippine archipelago, what is an archipelago?

The 1982 convention of the law of the seas , this is a convention wherein multilateral parties
are gathered and agreed on what would be internationally accepted as the extent of sovereign power
when it comes to the right of sea use or the use of the sea. The UNCLOS of 1982 describes an
archipelago as a group of islands including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural
features which are so closely interrelated to such islands, and waters- form an intrinsic geographical
and economic entity or which historically have been regarded as such. In short, you can view iteither
as a group of islands surrounded with water or is considered as a single unit; or a unit or body of
water studded with islands,
Ordinarily, without UNCLOS -each island has separate sovereign over the other; each island would
have their own territorial waters, internal waters and high seas, so that the position of the Philippines,
we should be considered as an archipelago as one integral unit with respect,considered it as a large
mass or body.

Now, all other territories, why included? Because other than the instrument which I mention which
prove our claims over our territory there are still claims that up to now are under controversy.
Sowithout surrendering our claims we just wrote in the constitution-all other territories include all
territories that we may hereafter acquire. So as so far, for example Batanes islands are not included in
any of those treaty instruments. There are also territories which depending upon evidence might
belong to the Philippines. One of these is Spratly Island or that Kalayaan Island group actually several
countries are claiming Spratly Island, also Sabah, Marianas Island Scarborough shoal, these would
be included in the definition of all other territories.
What is territorial sea?
This is the portion of the sea from the baseline all for which have been internationally accepted that
the coastal state or the archipelagic state can still exercise sovereignty tomark territory. Anything that
you want to do these areas is possible because it is internationally accepted as part of territory, before
international community use the Canon shelf?? Rule the measurement of the territorial sea from the
baseline is based on the reach of a canon ball (3 nautical miles) modern international law change it-
extended up to 12 nautical miles.

What is our right over territorial seas? Our right to exercise sovereignty over these areas..now
from the territorial sea upward, seawards these are supposed to be considered high seas, no longer
part of our territory

Now, with regards to territorial sea it is still a customary international law that there should be right of
innocent passage in other words, for the expedient, unimpeded and continuous navigation of
international vessels and aircrafts. Customary states would allow innocent passage provided these
are not prejudicial to the economic interest or to the jurisdiction, safety and security of that coastal
state so this is generally acceptable. This is allowed particularly along territorial sea, in other words
notwithstanding that we are exercising sovereignty over territorial sea; the right to innocent passage is
still internationally recognized and even demanded.

Two methods used for fixing the baseline from which territorial sea is measured seawards (based on
UNCLOS)
1. Normal baseline method-the breadth of territorial sea is measured from the low water line
following the indentations of the coast; following the sinuosity
2. Straight baseline method- instead of the baseline following the sinuosity or the curvatures; it is
drawn straight line connecting the appropriate points on the coast-identify the outermost coast
-using this method it will now include. (Some high seas)
Philippines uses the straight baseline method, it was first demarcated or identified in 1961 via
Republic Act 3046, but other than that no other description for baselines

What is archipelagic doctrine?

For the record, archipelagic doctrine has been espouse almost by the Philippines (and also Indonesia
and the Bahamas)-authors of this doctrine
Our position in the definition of internal waters:
- its in the 2nd sentence of article 1; (regardless of breadth and dimension)
-considered like lakes and rivers within an island/mass of land- there should be no right to
innocent passage- we would like that to be treated as internal waters if internationally accepted
Our position when it comes to archipelagic doctrine:
-considered to be internal waters are Sulu Sea, Mindanao sea, Sibuyan Sea (not even subject
to right of innocent passage)

Is this internationally accepted?

1. Use of straight baseline method-yes
2. But our concept of internal waters is not
In the UNCLOS 1 (1958) - these are called archipelagic waters not internal waters; still part of our
territory but is subject to right of innocent passage

Case: Magallona vs. Ermita

*the first time the congress demarcated our baseline in 1961 via RA 3046
*based on UNCLOS 1 the sovereign right of the states over territorial sea-the breadth was left
undetermined
*via UNCLOS 3 (1982) we also ratified that conclusion , in order to comply with requirements of that
treaty , congress enacted RA 9522 which serves as the same purpose in the first RA to demarcate the
baseline or the points which would be the starting point
*UNCLOS 3 prescribed certain water to land ratio and also the length and contour of baseline, it has
set the deadline for the filling of application for extended continental shelf
*Professors of UP law as well as students filed this petition questioning the constitutionality of
RA9522.

First issue: it reduces Philippine maritime territory by appointing the baseline

-Supreme court said territory is acquired or loss not by virtue of demarcating baselines but by certain
internationally accepted mode of acquisition such as occupation, prescription, and accretion.
-The writing or filling of baseline is not one of those modes, in other words that the congress define
our baseline through this 9522 also called as baseline law does not mean that it has effectively
reduced our territory, the baseline is only a statutory mechanism by which the international community
could effectively know how far is the reach of our right to use the sea. As Ive said - before its only as
far territorial sea which is 12 nautical miles, but what is the reckoning point. That is the purpose of the
baseline law; it does not change anything but merely defines for the notice of other countries. (They
would know when the marking point would start.)
The right to use the seas is actually granted through international agreement.

What are the maritime zones?

*territorial sea-12 nautical miles from baseline
*contiguous zone 24 nautical miles from baseline (what right can the state exercise the coastal
state has the right to exercise jurisdiction or to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitation
laws in these areas.
*exclusive economic zone-from baseline to 200 miles seawards (what right coastal state have-
explore and exploit living or nonliving resources in these areas,
The international community has acknowledge this rights between states and the baseline law is
necessary in order to give notice to the other states how far is the range of this rights or privileges
It does not have the effect of adding to or losing from our established territory.

Next Issue: In RA9522, the Kalayaan Island groups where considered regime of island-meaning
they are separate formations and they have their own maritime zones (territorial sea, contiguous
zone, exclusive economic zone) they object to that- to them its like repeating our claims over
Kalayaan island group.
The Supreme Court said no, in fact 9522 specifically state the baseline in these areas of which the
Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction specified rules
They have to consider it as regime of islands because the international law - UNCLOS said that when
you mark your baseline, it should not divert/depart to any appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago
*Kalaayan Islands-western most part of Palawan
They have to consider it as regime of islands otherwise they would be violating that provision that
when you mark your baseline, it should not divert/depart to any appreciable extent from the
general configuration of the archipelago.
The classification of Kalayaan Island as regime of islands does not violate any law but more
importantly it observed an internationally accepted law.

3rd issue: issue on internal waters

- The Supreme Court said whether we call it internal or archipelagic water, it does not matter because
the right to innocent passage is a customary international law.in other words, with or without it has
already been observe. No modern state can now claim that they can absolutely prohibit a foreign
vessel from passing through their archipelagic or internal waters.
The right to designate the sea route is with the coastal state. The congress can enact a law,
designating where the foreign vessel can pass.
We cannot prohibit Right of innocent passage- Otherwise we would suffer retaliation from other
nations.

So there is no violation there. It is automatically incorporated in the Philippine law.

*another position of the petitioners- reading the UNCLOS 2 it is not mandatory. The Supreme Court
said okay, it is possible but such decision is with the congress. Supreme Court is saying that it is wise
for the congress to identify and mark our baseline because otherwise the effect would be -foreign
vessels exploiting and exploring anywhere between these areas. When we go to international court, it
will weaken our position because we cannot say for sure which belongs to us and the high seas. This
is effective in safeguarding our maritime zones. In conclusion, RA9522 is not unconstitutional. It is a
statutory mechanism for defining our baselines and protecting our rights and privileges over maritime
zones.

ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Section 1: The Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in
the people and all government authority emanates from them.

This is actually the very foundation of our country that we are democratic and a republican state.

What do you mean by democratic and republican?

The second sentence, that sovereignty resides, not in a single power, but in the people and all
government authority emanates from them. As a republican state, we observe a representative
kind of government, meaning that although we are the powerful, power emanates from us, we
elect representatives. We have the option to replace him in another election or to held a recall
proceedings.

The republican state, a government by the people and for the people
That they are doing so as they are holding an office of public trust and always accountable to
the people, there are also in our case we can participate in legislation meeting, thru initiative
and referendum.

No man is above the law.

The mayor, ship this women of ill repute from the red district of Manila to Davao city. He said his
intention is noble, to get rid of immorality and prostitution in Manila. Davao city is very2x far from
manila, so they are cast out from manila to an unknown island. No law authorizing the Mayor to
do that. as to , filed for habeas corpus said, some women find it.

Supreme Court ruled in favour on the women, it is the law that defines power. No official no
matter how high his position is above the law. The law is the only supreme power in our system
of government. Public officials are more obligated to comply with that law, because, they are
only acting as a representative for the people.

Sec. 2 the Philippine renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the
policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
Very wordy section, the point is that the Philippines

The principle is renunciation of war, as an instrument of national policy. In our relationship to the
other countries, war would never be an option. We renounce offensive war, not defensive war.
The state also has the obligation to protect its people.

Actually the renunciation of war, in adoption of the international law as part of the law of the land

Doctrine of incorporation
Since we are members of United Nations, we already agree that all internationally accepted
principles should form part of the law of the land automatically, without the need of legislation.
They are deemed incorporated in our laws.
How do we know that these are international accepted principles?
It is the duty of the Supreme Court to determine which principles are internationally accepted.

Principle of Pacta sunt servanda Agreement must be kept.

International agreement must be complied with in good faith. We are not only at moral
obligation, but at legal obligation to comply with what we have committed in this international
treaties and agreements. That is the only way for the international community to be assured that
not one of the party State or signatory state will violate their international agreement.

One section, apply tanada vs angara

The agreement to establish the World Trade Organization where the Philippines, is a signatory
on that agreement. To establish the WTO
Since we signed the agreement.
All the country state committed to comply, the provisions there. To enact laws, to change some
of the policies to comply with what they have committed in that agreement.
According to petitioners:
There is an undue limitation on the legislative powers of the state. It is now the international
committee that is dictating the congress what laws to enact. The Supreme Court said that we
have declared as our principle the adoption of incorporation wherein all international accepted
principles are automatically incorporated into our principles. One principle is Pacta sunt
servanda
We only not have moral but the legal obligation to comply
If we agree, in that agreement then that our congress will enact laws base of the agreement is
binding
Cause we have the treaty
The different sovereignty, we can restrict of some our sovereign rights that is the concept of
auto limitation, Precisely because we have 100% control of our state as a sovereign nation
including what laws to enact, what restrictions to apply, restrictions to be used in the exercise of
that power, we are at an obligation to comply with this WTO agreement.

What is the effect if we will not comply with the agreement.

Comply , ermitta, Supreme Court said, this right of innocent passage, is an internationally
accepted customary law, an international exercise, what happen if we do not comply with that,
We will suffer retaliation from the international community, like what happened to japan, that
would be worsts than not limiting our sovereign powers.
Section 3: Is the principle of civilian supremacy over the military

Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines
is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and
the integrity of the national territory.

Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the state and the integrity of the national territory. Thats
rule of military, it has no role on civilian enforcement of civilian laws.

Actually there is a segregation of function, military if the integrity of the state, protector of the
people and the State.

Civilian authority over the military must be all time be supreme, specifically in our constitution,
the power to command the military is placed with the president. The commander in chief of the
military is a civilian.

You cannot do anything about it, it is our principle.

IBP vs Zamora:
Erap thru the letter of instruction, called upon the marines to join the police of the visibility
patrolling in manila to decrease the crime rate of Manila. They have this visibility patrol oplan
tulungan. Erap exercised his commander in chief powers in calling the marines. The IBP are
concern, now they are seeing marines in the streets of metro manila,
They question the action of Erap saying the violation of the section 3
The Supreme Court said, No, there is no violation. It is the chief of police of Manila who is the
head of the Oplan. The police oriented the military on police procedures; they provide the
military instructions and equipment; and whoever maybe arrested should be brought to police
barracks. The marines render nothing more of assistance, they were not leading the patrol and
an acceptable participation of the military.
During elections they are also called to be an assistant, as assistance they are still in civilian
authority.

Section 4: The Prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The
Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfilment thereof,
all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal
military, or civil service.
Chicken and Egg principle according to Maam >.<

It is the obligation of the state to protect the people. How could the State protect the people? By
calling the people for mandatory service, we cannot object to this because, we directed the state
to mandate us to comply us to render military, civil service and personal service when needed
or when at war.

Section 5: The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and
property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all
the people of the blessings of democracy.
This is more of a general welfare clause

Section 6: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

This is manifested by some other sections like the bill of rights.
Policies,

It is clearer, that they only served as guidelines. When the congress enacts a law, when the
president implements a law, or the Supreme Court interprets a law. And they do not know how
to act on it. They will go back to the policies and see how this should be implemented.
They will go back to the policies.
These are the guidelines.

Example in the lim v excutive secretary

Balikatan was made possible because of the mutual defense treaty and visiting forces
agreement, made by both Philippines and U.S. states.
Mutual Defense Treaty allows for joint exercises, for advancement and uplifting of techniques,
or exchange of techniques. Visiting Forces Agreement would govern the conduct of an U.S.
military personnel while he is in the Philippines.
So in this case, we have the balikatan in 2002, this is fresh from the September 11, 2001
bombing. This has a relation to the very active anti-terrorism campaign of the US president then
George Bush.
The petitioners were concern, that they were strategically place in case of actual engagement of
war, against other countries.
In particular there were also reports that there were also trainings of the Al qaeda in the
Philippines.
So they question their presence in the Philippines.
One question is do this prohibit U.S. military personnel from engaging war against other states
or our own citizens since they are here in the Philippines?
The Supreme Court held that:
The answer is not only in the U.N. charter which prohibits members to threat another state, but
also in the statement of declaration and state policies. It is the principle of the Philippines to
renounce war as an instrument of national policy.
Section 7: The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with
other states the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial
integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.
These provisions, the words of the Supreme Court, it is not allow them to engage in offensive
war.
The Supreme Court used these sections, as guidelines to interpret the provisions of the Mutual
Defence Treaty and the Balikatan.

Tanada vs angra, WTO

Does WTO agreement, which requires to enact laws, to give equal treatment to imported goods
as that of local goods, that give no less than preferential treatment.
The petitioners questioning the agreement, which it is a violation of section 19 or article 2, which
state that: The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos.
The Supreme Court said that this is only a guideline. It cannot be invoke as a right. it only refers
to freedom from undue foreign control of the national economy such as strategic industries such
as national resources and public utilities. It does not necessary rule out the entry of foreign
investments.
Like what happen to japan after the war, they declared the principle of economic isolation, this
merely serve as a guideline, as a guideline therefore are not generally not self- executing. They
are not enforceable rights, there Is a need of legislation, the provisions are not yet properly
defined, a law is needed to determine the parameters in the implementation of the law, so that
what it means of not self-executing.

example, basco vs pagcor,

The constitutionality of PAGCOR charter was questioned on a principle of autonomy of local
governance, because the PAGCOR charter provides that the local government cannot tax
PAGCOR.

Section 25: The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.
The Supreme Court said that section 25 is merely a guideline, it is not self-executing, it does not
create enforceable right. the principle of local autonomy is the centralization. It is not
sovereignty under a sovereignty.
Morato, the question of online lottery, according to them it violates, sec, 5 and sec, 12 and sec,
13, sec, 17, which under article, the sc, you cannot invoke this sections, this only serve as
guidelines, there is no so called violation, judicial enforceable ,

bar matter, petition to , jospine uy, timosa, she want to be know as uy, finalizing, she does not
want the husband to take the glory, what was the basis of her petition, the basis , the law that is
applicable, the civil code, article 370,

Under the article 370, use of surename in case of women getting married, this are the options is
seeking available, in interpreting art. 370, article 2, sect. 14, the state recognized the role of
women,

Fundamental equality, the SC said, that the provision clearly indicates that the use of her
surenames, is optional, and it is not obligatory, I remained as rovinne Jomao-as, how do the SC,
it is guided by section 14, It signifies that same right, it includes names upon marriage, the SC
said that marriage does not change the womens name, it only changes her status, its not an
indication LOVE! Because of
No, you have the option of ,
so, 370 was interpreted by SC using article 2

Not so executing. Pamatong vs COMELEC

Is there a constitutional right to hold public office, Pamatong ran for president in 2004, against
Gloria. He was declared as a nuisance. According to the COMELEC, he has no capacity to run
for national campaign elections.
He questions the resolution of the COMELEC invoking section 26: The state shall guarantee
equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be
defined by law.
It will guarantee the access for running for public service is still a privilege, unless you are
qualified, so in this case.
Supreme Court Said there is no constitutional right to hold public office. It is still need legislation
to determine the parameter on how this policy should be exercise.

Section 16: The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

They wanted or seeking for the, TLA,which were already granted by the government.
They invoke section 16. The Supreme Court was convinced to the argument by that we have
this intergenerational responsibility, to protect the next generation. This generation has the
responsibility to. this section 16 is a JUDICIABLE ENFORCEABLE RIGHT, because this is part
of the selfl-determination and self-reservation.
That there will be no more balance ecology. It has created a right to balance, because this is
ecaclty the same of the right to life. Now been widely use. In other countries, relative to
environmental cases.

ARTICLE IV: CITIZENSHIP

Essence of a Citizen
A citizen is entitled to protection of a political community. A citizen is given rights that are not
enjoyed by any other individual, more particularly political rights the right to participate in the
government, the right to vote, the right to engage in a profession that is exclusive only to citizens, the
right to own properties of such nature exclusive only to citizens, the right, even, to engage in business
reserved only for citizens.

Modes of Acquiring Citizenship

1. Jus Soli acquisition of citizenship by place of birth. If Jus Soli is observed in a particular
state, regardless of who the parents are or their citizenship, its just the place of birth that
matters.
2. Jus Sanguinis citizenship is transmitted via blood relations; acquisition of citizenship on the
basis of blood relationship.
3. Naturalization pursuant to a law, a person is adopted and granted the privilege of citizenship
of a particular political community.

Philippine Bill of 1902

The Philippine Bill of 1902 is the first organic instrument offered by the US Congress wherein
the term Citizens of the Philippine Islands first came out. It defines citizens of the Philippines as All
inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who are continuing to reside therein and who are Spanish on the
11th day of April, 1899. The reckoning date is April 11, 1899 those who will be found residing in the
Philippines including the Spaniards will be considered as citizens of the Philippines. The Spaniards,
however, have the option to retain their allegiance to the Spanish Crown. Philippine Bill 1902 will
remain relevant as long as a persons citizenship is questioned and his existence happens to date all
the way back in 1902. The example here is the grandfather of FPJ, Lorenzo Poe. In determining the
citizenship of FPJ, we have to trace all the way back to the citizenship of the father, and trace it further
to the grandfather. The only evidence available supports the theory that Lorenzo Poe was in the
Philippines in 1899, thereby no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, based on Philippine Bill 1902,
Lorenzo Poe is considered as citizen of the Philippines.

A. Who are Citizens of the Philippines (Sec. 1)

I. 1935 Constitution
 The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
2. Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before adoption of this
Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands;
3. Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines;
4. Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of
majority, elect Philippine citizenship;
5. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

II. 1973 Constitution

The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of
1935;
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

III. 1987 Constitution

The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines ate the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of maturity;
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

1. Citizens by Birth

a. Children of Filipino Fathers or Mothers

Distinctions among the 3 Constitutions

Under the 1935 Constitution, there is one provision which observes the Jus Soli Those who are
born in the Philippines..But generally, the modes of citizenship observed in the Philippines are Jus
Sanguinis and Naturalization. The 3rd and 4th provisions seem to discriminate women because only
children of Filipino fathers were given automatic Philippine citizenship. How about those born of
Filipino mothers? They are deemed Filipino, on a probationary status. They complete or perfect their
Philippine citizenship only when they elect such citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

By 1973, the equality of women and men is gaining recognition. To cure the discrimination under the
1935 Constitution, the provision Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines was
provided. Under the 1935 Constitution, one proviso says those who are born of Filipino mothers have
to elect Philippine citizenship. The 1973 Constitution has no retroactive effect, thus the 3 rd provision
was provided -those who have elected Philippine citizenship under the 1935 Constitution will be
considered as Filipinos. In other words, by 1973, those who were already governed by the 1935
Constitution still have to comply with the election of Philippine citizenship.

By 1987, there was confusion on who are covered by the 3 rd provision under the 1973 Constitution.
There were instances when a child born under the 1935 Constitution reached the age of majority by
the time the 1973 constitution was already in force or even by the time of 1987 Constitution. For
example, those born by January 16, 1973 (the latest under 1935 Constitution) reached the age of
majority (18 years old) by 1991, under the 1987 Constitution. Regardless of the fact that by 1991 the
1987 Constitution is already in force, they were still required to elect Philippine citizenship because
they were born during the time of 1935 Constitution. The confusion started by 1973, when some
children of Filipino mothers wanted to elect Philippine citizenship when in truth the mothers had lost
their Philippine citizenship by virtue of marriage to a foreign national. [By 1935, only fathers could
transmit Philippine citizenship. Citizenship of children born of Filipino mothers is questionable pending
upon election. According to C.A. No. 63, an act providing ways in which Philippine citizenship may be
lost or re-acquired, a Filipino woman may lose her citizenship when she marries a foreign national. If
the laws of the foreign spouses country provide that the wife acquires the citizenship of the husband,
then the wife automatically loses her Philippine citizenship. The law of citizenship is automatic and is
dependent on the laws of another country. Lets say, the mother is Filipino and the father is Chinese.
The laws of China state that the wife will become Chinese by virtue of marriage. Now, how can the 4 th
provision of 1935 Constitution be effective if the mother has become an alien (Chinese)? As long as
the woman/mother is Filipino at the time of the marriage, then she would be able to transmit her
Philippine citizenship. This means, only the 1 st born will have the option to elect Philippine citizenship
when he/she reaches the age of majority. By the time the mother conceives or gives birth to a 2 nd
child, she is already an alien. This is the only way to give effect to the provision. Under the 1973
Constitution, both fathers and mothers could transmit Philippine Citizenship. To correct the injustice of
the C.A. No. 63 where a woman loses her citizenship automatically upon marriage if it is so provided
in the laws of the alien husband, Section 2, Article III of 1973 Constitution provides that the female
citizen of the Philippines who marries an alien retains her citizenship unless by her act or omission
she is deemed under the law to have renounced her citizenship. A woman marrying an alien will lose
her citizenship only by her choice. By virtue of that provision the principle now is when a Filipino
woman marries an alien, the child is Filipino if the mother is Filipino at the time of birth. This time,
losing Philippine citizenship by the mother is by choice. So who has the option to elect Philippine
citizenship? Only those who were born under the 1935 Constitution. To correct the misleading phrase
in the 1973 Constitution - pursuant to the provisions of 1935 Constitution it was changed into
those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of maturity by 1987. ]

b. Illegitimate Children

How about illegitimate children? The Supreme Court said, in the case of illegitimate child, the mother
has the parental authority over the child, therefore, only the citizenship of the mother will be
considered. In other words, if the mother is Filipino, the child is Filipino by birth and there is no need to
elect Philippine citizenship. The 1935 Constitution provides that those children born of Filipino fathers
are considered Filipino citizens. It does not distinguish whether the child is legitimate or not. If the
mother is Filipino, the child is Filipino even if illegitimate. If the mother is a foreign national and the
father is Filipino, as long as the paternity is clear and the father acknowledges the child as his own,
the child is Filipino even if illegitimate. What can be deduced from this? The law recognizes whatever
is favorable to the child.

c. Election of Philippine Citizenship

Only those who were born under the auspices of the 1935 Constitution will have the option to elect
Philippine citizenship. Election of Philippine citizenship means a child upon reaching the age of
majority will choose his citizenship of preference whether to retain his Philippine citizenship or follow
that of his fathers. How is election done? Pursuant to C.A. 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, election shall be expressed in an affidavit/ statement to be signed and sworn by the
person concerned before an authorized administering officer. This sworn affidavit should be filed in a
nearest Civil Registry, where the person whose citizenship is under consideration will take the Oath of
Allegiance. The Supreme Court is very strict with regards to the compliance of the formal requisites.
Positive or informal acts such as participating in local/national election, holding an elective
government post, engaging in a profession exclusive only for citizens of the Philippines are not
tantamount to electing Philippine citizenship. However, this SC rule is not inflexible. The Supreme
Court considers as long as justifiable reasons are provided.

2. Citizens by Naturalization
Naturalization is the legal act of the country of adopting a person and granting him with the privileges
of a citizen. Between a natural born citizen and naturalized citizen, there is no distinction as to their
rights except when it is a conclusion which provide for legislation. One distinction would be the right to
hold certain public offices, but not all public offices.

Naturalized citizen are entitled to the same treatment as natural-born citizens although there are
exceptions provided by the Constitution itself.

As of the present, we have 2 existing naturalization laws: Judicial naturalization and administrative
naturalization.

a. Judicial Naturalization
C.A. 473 (Revised Naturalization Law) as amended by RA 530- is actually an old law enacted in 1939
but still the law when it comes to judicial naturalization

Judicial naturalization applies to aliens who want to become Philippine citizens but under the law
there are certain qualifications they have to comply with:
1. Have been residents of the Philippines for at least 10 years; shortened to 5 years if married to
Filipino
2. Not having been convicted of crimes
*Note: Read other qualifications in Section 2 of CA 473

To be naturalized, he has to prove he has all the qualifications (C.A. 473 Section 2) and none of the
disqualifications (C.A. 473 Section 4). It is a very tedious process. If client is in a hurry to be
naturalized, then you cannot do that through this procedure because it takes time. Procedure (C.A.
473 Sections 5 to 12):
1. Before allowed to file petition, 1 year prior you should already file your declaration of intent with the
Solicitor General. That means you cannot just directly file with the court. The government/State would
want to take that 1 year span to investigate the person
2. You may file the petition with the courts (RTC) but not yet heard immediately. There is a required
publication of 3 consecutive weeks
3. Wait for another 6 months to be calendared for hearing
4. Trial. Upon judgment, judgment only becomes final only after 230 day. Ordinarily in civil actions,
judgment becomes final after 15 days.
5. After final judgment, he is not yet considered Filipino. He has to wait for another 2 years before he
can actually take his oath. Only when he has taken can he be deemed Filipino and clothed with the
rights of a citizen.
The 2-year period is so that the Philippines can check that the applicant:
1. Has not left the country for a considerable number of times; and has not established residency
outside the Philippines
2. Has not committed crime or has not been convicted of any offense or violation of government
promulgated rules or laws of the Philippines
3. Has dedicated continuously to a lawful calling or profession; and is not a burden to the
Philippines
4. Has not committed acts prejudicial to the interest of the country or contrary to any government
announced policies
Case: Republic vs. Dela Rosa

Facts: Juan Frivaldo became naturalize as an American. When he came back to RP, he wanted
to run for Governor of Sorsogon in 1992. As an American he wanted to go back to being a
Filipino. He applied o restore his Filipino citizenship through CA473- naturalization proceeding
by judicial naturalization. The petition hearing was set on March 16 but deadline for filing his
Certificate of Candidacy was on March 15, a day before. He had a problem because one of the
qualifications was the need to be Filipino. He asked the hearing to be set on an earlier date.
This motion was granted. During the trial, the court granted his petition. He also took his oath on
the same day.

Issue: Was he validly naturalized as a Filipino?

Held: The proceedings were marred with several irregularities. It cannot be heard unless 3
consecutive publications have been complied with. There was no notice that it would be reset-
there should be another publication if there is a reset of the hearing date. It is supposed to be a
notice to the whole world that the hearing was set on that date. Other than that, it was heard
immediately which should be after 6 months. The decision was also considered final on the
same day it was granted which should be 30 days. Not only that, he was allowed to take the
oath on the same day which should be 2 year. It does not matter if he was a former Filipino. No
distinction between Filipino and foreigner. The application of the naturalization law is strict.

Derivative naturalization- an alien whose petition is granted can transmit his citizenship to wife and
minor children (as an affect of his naturalization)

1) Wife
C.A. 473 Section 15. Effect of the naturalization on wife and children.Any woman who is
now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be
lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.

shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines- not to mean an automatic grant . It means she may
apply for an administrative proceeding for a change of status. She must prove that although she has
none of the qualifications, she has to prove that she has none of the disqualifications.

2) Minor children
Those who are minor and born in the Philippines are also deemed to derive the citizenship of
the father
Not born in the Phil but residing in the Phil also get this privilege
Those born and staying outside- shall be considered Phil only in so far as their minority- as
long as they are minors. Thereafter, they will not have this derivative citizenship. But if they
come to the Philippines and stay and reside here during their minority, they will get the benefit
of derivative citizenship.

Naturalization by Presidential Decree: Letter of Instruction 270 of President Marcos

During his time he had the authority to legislate, he had many alien cronies- he wanted to grant them
citizenship so they can engage in business only reserved for Filipinos.

Case: Co vs. Civil Registrar

Facts: Petitioners are children who have benefited under LOI 270. However, there is no
provision of derivative citizenship.

Held: These naturalization laws are in pari materia- they have the same purpose, subject matter
and objective. They should be considered as 1 whole set of legislation. Since our naturalization
grants derivative citizenship, so also must they be granted under this law. They should be
construed together- are supposed to form part of 1 uniform system. Regardless of mode, the
objective is the same- to grant aliens the status of a citizen.

b. Administrative Naturalization
R.A. 9139: The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000- approved in 2001

This would be an easier path because this will not be filed with the courts- there is no hearing or trial
required. You just have to qualify under the law and pay the citizenship fee of Php 100,000. But this is
applicable only to aliens born in the Philippines and lived their entire life in the Philippines. In fact
there are aliens who have not left the PH and have not seen their country and do not speak the
language of their native land. Acknowledging their presence and contribution to the country, the
Congress deemed it proper to enact this law to grant them citizenship (since they have been here
their entire life) through an easier route.

All they have to do is to file a petition with the Special Committee on Naturalization (since this is an
administrative proceeding)- committee is composed of Solicitor General as chairman, the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs and National Security Adviser as members.

Alien is at least 18 years and meet other certain qualified requirements.

Within 60 days from issuance, they can take an oath. This would be the applicable way if the client is
rushing.

There is also derivative citizenship:

1) If husband was naturalized: Wife and minor children may file a petition for cancellation of their ACR
(Alien Certificate of Registration). It is not automatic.
2) If wife was naturalized (Section 12): Husband will not benefit from the naturalization of the wife but
the minor children will still be able to benefit.

B. Natural-born Citizens (Sec. 2)

1935 Constitution Sec.1 par.4 There was silence as to their status, so it was deemed that they are
not natural-born. To correct this criminatory provision, the 1987 Constitution now provides for in the
2nd sentence of Sec.3- they are now considered natural-born.
Do we have to distinguish between naturalized and natural-born citizens? Generally, they should have
the same rights and privileges since they are both citizens of the Philippines. There are just some
rights reserved only for natural-born citizens.

Case: Kilosbayan vs. Ermita

Facts: Gregory Ong is a lawyer and born of Chinese parents but during his minority, the father
applied for naturalization. He derived the citizenship of the father- so he is already Filipino.
Allegedly he is not natural-born. Can he practice law? Yes. Later on, he was to be appointed as
Associate Justice but the Constitution states that Associate Justices should be natural-born.

Held: He is naturalized because you cannot trace his lineage to Filipino because his father was
Chinese. Derivative citizenship makes the child not natural-born but naturalized.

Case: Vilando vs. HRET

Facts: The right to hold public office as a Congressman- required under law to be natural-born
citizen. In 1957, the father who was Chinese filed for naturalization- and it was granted. When
can the father take his oath? 2 years after- September 21, 1959 the father took his oath. 2
months after, Limkaichong was born (November 1959).

Issue: Is she natural-born or naturalized?

Held: She is natural-born because she was already born of a Filipino father.

C. Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship (Sec. 3)

A decision granting Philippine citizenship does not attain finality- there is no res judicata. Everytime a
persons citizenship is questioned; it may be reopened and reexamined. Even for natural-born
citizenship, it may be loss

1. Loss
1) Loss through C.A. 63: An Act Providing for the Ways in which Philippine Citizenship may be Lost or
Reacquired

General ways of losing Philippine citizenship (C.A. 63 Sec.1 numbers 1 to 3):

a) By naturalization in a foreign country
b) By express renunciation of citizenship
c) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country
upon attaining 21 years of age or more

Specific ways of losing: See C.A. 63 Sec.1 numbers 4 to 7

a) Naturalization in a foreign country
Case: Republic vs. Dela Rosa- Frivaldo got naturalized

b) Express renunciation of Philippine citizenship

Case: Aznar vs. COMELEC

Facts: Lito Osmena was born in the Philippines of a Filipino father and American mother. Since
the mother is America, he is a holder of an ACR (Alien Certificate of Registration) stating he is
an American. In the 70s he applied for a permission to re-enter the Philippines- he was granted
a Certificate of Re-entry and immigration certificate of Clearance. He ran for public office which
requires he should be Filipino. Petitioner alleged as holder of ACR- Osmena is not Filipino; that
even if he is Filipino, by holding an ACR he is expressly renouncing his Filipino citizenship.

Held: An ACR is not tantamount of express renunciation of Philippine citizenship. It does not
mean you are not a Filipino. There is no presumption of alienage. Osmena by birth has dual
citizenship- both Filipino and American. Holding an ACR is merely an assertion that he is also
an American. It cannot be deduced that he has renounced his Filipino citizenship. He is a dual
citizen- he has a right/privilege to get an ACR to assert that he is also an American.

Case: Valles vs. COMELEC

Facts: Lopez ran for Governor of Davao Oriental. She was born of Filipino father and Australian
mother outside the Philippines. She is a holder of ACR, ICR (Immigrant Certificate of
Residency) and an Australian passport.

Issue: Would holding an ACR, ICR and Australian passport mean she has expressly renounced
her Filipino citizenship?

Held: There is no express renunciation but an assertion that she is also an Australian. What we
have here is a person with dual citizenship.

Case: Yu vs. Santiago

Facts: Yu is not a natural-born Filipino; he is Portuguese and applied for naturalization to

become Filipino. What is required? To take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and to renounce all other authority, prince, potentate, state or sovereignty. He did
renounce all other authority by taking the oath. Thereafter, after his naturalization, he obtained a
Portuguese passport and in some commercial documents which he issued outside, he stated
that he is Portuguese.

Held: Holding of foreign passport and declaration of petitioner was tantamount to express
renunciation of Philippine citizenship. He did acts (applied for Portuguese passport, etc.) after
his supposedly renunciation of all other allegiance or sovereignty. Philippine citizenship is not a
commodity or were to be displayed when required and suppressed when convenient.

*As compared to Azanar and Valles, there was not taking of oath of allegiance there since they
were dual citizens by birth. Here, he was required to take an oath to renounce all other
allegiances.

c) Subscribing to an oath of allegiance

Case: Labo vs. COMELEC- he took an oath of allegiance with Australia

2) Loss through C.A. 473: Revised Naturalization Law- lost through cancellation of naturalization (if a
naturalized citizen)

2. Reacquisition

1) Reacquisition by naturalization
Naturalization a mode for both acquiring and reacquiring
You have to comply with the requisites in C.A. 63

2) Reacquisition by repatriation
Repatriation is an easier way for reacquiring Philippine citizenship. This is generally only available to
natural-born citizens.
There are several laws providing for repatriation depending on how citizenship was lost:
a) If you were a deserter, via C.A. 63
b) If you served in the allied forces during World War II, via R.A. 965
c) If you served in the armed forces of the United States, via R.A. 2630
d) More common law used is R.A. 8171

R.A. 8171: An Act Providing for the Repatriation of Filipino Women Who Have Lost Such Citizenship
by Marriage to Aliens and of Natural-Born Filipinos - not only for women who lost their citizenship
through marriage but also for those who lost citizenship because of political and economic necessity.
They reacquire citizenship through repatriation by simply subscribing to an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines.

Case: Tabasa vs. CA

Facts: Tabasa was a natural born and became American by derivative citizenship because his
father was naturalized as American. He went to the RP allegedly avoiding US laws. His US
passport was revoked by US in violation of US laws. He is now an undocumented alien, a
stateless person. He took an oath of allegiance to RP via R.A. 8171- availing of repatriation
proceedings.

Issue: Is his repatriation valid? Does he qualify as a natural-born citizen who lost citizenship
because of

Held: This is available only to the person who actually lost his citizenship because of political
and economic necessity. This person is not him- it was his father. He must also remain a minor
to avail of that benefit- he is already 35 years old. If he was a minor, it would still have to be his
father who would have to apply for repatriation and he will derive from it.

Example of political necessity: During the time of Marcos, there were many extrajudicial killing and
maneuverings particularly against the opposition of Marcos. Some of them were summarily arrested
as political detainees; some of them escaped by flying to another country to gain protection and
asylum and were forced to be naturalized in that country.

The precursor of R.A. 8171 (became effective 1995) is P.D. 725- the repatriation in 1975 particularly
targeting women who lost their citizenship upon marriage. The repatriation of natural-born citizens
who lost citizenship because of political or economic necessity are now included in R.A. 8171.
Repatriation is an administrative proceeding so you file it with the Special Committee on
Naturalization.

Effects of repatriation
1. Retroacts to the date of application

Case: Frivaldo vs. COMELEC (related to the Case of Republic vs. Dela Rosa)

Facts: In between 1992 and 1995, he tried to acquire Philippine citizenship again and asked for
a direct act of Congress but there was no legislation for his benefit. For the third time, he tried to
reacquire his citizenship to run for Governor in the 1995 election. The Court already denied his
petition and so he filed a motion for reconsideration. This motion was still pending when
elections came and so his name was included in the ballot. He acquired the majority vote. 2 nd
placer Lee said he is should be the one proclaimed. Raul Lee was proclaimed on June 8:00pm.
Frivaldo says that he already took his oath of allegiance 2:00pm that day therefore removing
any impediment as to his qualification.

Issue: Who is the rightful Governor of Sorsogon?

Held: As to citizenship requirement, the Court reviewed the Local Government Code and said
that unlike residency which must be 1 year prior to election and unlike age which must be at
least 25, there is no requirement for citizenship. The purpose of the law for requiring a political
leader is to avoid a situation where the government and people would be run by aliens with no
loyalty to the people and state he serves. The qualification of citizenship to hold public office is
only required upon proclamation and upon the date the law mandates that the office begins. It is
only thereupon that he is required to serve the people. In other words, even if your petition for
naturalization is still pending, you can still file your certificate of candidacy.
Repatriation retroacts to the day of application. Since it was granted, he is deemed to be Filipino
since August 1994, the day of his filing. This is a just and equitable interpretation of repatriation
because it is the intention of the State through Congress to grant Philippine citizenship to as
many former Filipinos as possible enabling them to enjoy the constitutional right of citizenship.
This would not be prejudicial to any rights and prevent prejudice to the applicants- because
sometime s the committee would delay.

Case: Altarejos vs. COMELEC

Facts: He is a holder of ACR and ICR. He took his oath and availed of repatriation in 1997 but it
was registered in the civil registry only after 6 years. In the interim, he ran for public office. His
citizenship was questioned.

Held: The SC reiterated that repatriation dates back to the date of application.

2. Restores the applicant to his original citizenship. If natural-born then restored to being natural-born

Case: Bengzon vs. HRET

Facts: Teodoro Cruz ran for Congress. Under the Constitution, a congressman must be a
natural-born citizen. In 1985, Cruz listed himself in the US Marine Corp. and took an oath to the
US. In 1990 he also became naturalized as US citizen. On March 1994, he applied for
repatriation under RA 2630. In 1998 he was elected as representative.

Issue: How would we consider him, natural-born or not?

Held: Natural-born citizens are those citizens of the Philippines from birth. The main factor is
birth. Under the 1973 Constitution- you have 2 kinds of naturalized citizens: those who were
naturalized, and those who elected Filipino citizenship born of Filipino mothers and foreign
fathers. In 1987, there is now only 1 type of naturalized citizen: those citizens who become
Filipino by virtue of naturalization by law. Therefore, you only have types of Filipino citizens:
natural-born and naturalized.
The fact that the Constitution is silent is because it will depend on the original citizenship that
was lost. If you are natural-born who lost your citizenship and was repatriated, you return to
your original citizenship which is natural-born. There is recovery of original citizenship- you are
restored to your original status. Repatriation results in the recovery of original citizenship.

3) Reacquisition by R.A. 9225: Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003

-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.
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.

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 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.
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 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 or not she is disqualified for the position 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 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;
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.

Case: Japson vs. Comelec 576 SCRA 331 (2009)- same ruling on case of Cordora vs. Comelec

ARTICLE V: SUFFRAGE
Section1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are
at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year, and in the
place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy,
property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

Suffrage therefore based on Section 1 of Article 5 is a constitutional right granted only to citizen of the
Philippines based on the qualifications set forth in sec 1. Considering that its a right, the right to vote includes
the right not to vote. Contrast that with the 1973 constitution which there a law that penalizes failure to register
and failure to vote. In other words under the 1973 constitution, Suffrage is not only a right but an obligation. But
in the 1987 Constitution, it is a right although its a right that may be exercise and may not be exercise.

The right not to vote is an acceptable expression of oneself. We called it a boycott. In a democratic society
such as ours, no one can be forced to vote. So thats how Suffrage is understood under the 1987 constitution.
As a right it may be understood also in the context of a privilege. In other words, it you invoke it as right, the first
question is: Are you qualified to exercise that right?

Now you have these two Cases of Akbayan & Kabataan Partylist. These cases are similar in as part as both
petitioners here would want the COMELEC to extend the registration of voters.

In Case No. 1, Akbayan Youth vs. COMELEC, it was contended that after the deadline set by the COMELEC,
there are still around 4Million youth who are unable to register. That was for the 2001 election. So they sought
for the extension of the time for registration.

Now registration of voters is governed by R.A. 8189. This is the ____ing law granting or regulating the right to
vote. Now in a similar scenario, in Kabataan Partylist vs. COMELEC, here members of the youth are also calling
for the COMELEC to extend the registration of voters. Originally the deadline was somewhere December 2009
that was for the 2010 automated election-the first time that we will be holding automation during election. But the
deadline was re-set to an earlier date somewhere in October. That is why it was the contention of the Kabataan
Partylist that the registration should extended up to certain period of time.

Now in the Akbayan Youth - the 1st case, the Supreme Court said, the COMELEC did not abuse its discretion in
denying the request of the youth. Why? Under RA 8189, there should be a continuing system for registration of
voters. You can register today, up to a certain period of time. Under the law, atleast before 120 days prior the
election. According to the Supreme Court, thats the reasonable period time that in which the COMELEC can
sort-out and evaluate the voters. Now in this case of Akbayan vs. COMELEC, it was beyond the 120 days
prohibitive period for registration voters.

Is the prohibitive period reasonable? The court said yes. The law provided this period to give the COMELEC
time to evaluate the registrants. Otherwise we will be flooded with flying voters or voters that are not qualified or
ghosts. In the words of the Supreme Court populated with shadows or ghosts.

Now in the other case Kabataan Partylist, the Supreme Court granted the petition of the youth. Why? It was
error for the COMELEC to move the deadline of registration of voters to an earlier date. The law says the
prohibitive period is only that 120 days before the election. But the COMELEC issued as resolution to move it
much further because they said they have to prepare for the automation. The Supreme Court said that is abuse
of discretion. When the petition was filed by the Kabataan Partylist, it was still within the period that is not yet
prohibitive 120-day. Therefore in order to give meaning to the constitutional right to vote, it was error for the
COMELEC to move the deadline for registration.

In both cases, you can see how the Supreme Court decides the case, giving more ___to this constitutional right.
This constitutional right may be exercised only under the framework of certain substantive and procedural laws
or rules. It cannot be exercise just by anyone.

Rule 1: one has to qualify;

Rule 2: one has to abide with the system, in which one should be allowed to.

In our jurisdiction, the system starts with the registration of voters. Failure to register means, notwithstanding
that you are qualified, you cannot vote. The rules are necessary in order to ___ further the exercise of this right.
So it does mean that in the case of Akbayan where the COMELEC denied the petition by the youth concurred
by the Supreme Court, it does not mean that they were denied of their right to vote. They have the opportunity to
register; only that it was their fault that they failed to register. In other words, the right to vote means you have
also to comply with certain substantive and procedural requirements under the constitution and laws. In other
words, bottom line its still a privilege.

Section 1 provides for the qualifications:

1. Citizenship
2. Residency
3. Age

In fact the last sentence provides: that NO LITERACY, PROPERTY, OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE
REQUIREMENT SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THE EXERCISE OF SUFFRAGE."

In other words, the congress cannot enact a law adding to the substantive requirements in order for one to
qualify. Example: Property requirements such as financial capacity or literacy requirement such as able to read
and right. This would be unconstitutional. The only qualifications under the constitution would be:
1. Citizenship that means this is reserved only to Filipinos.

We said that citizenship grants a person his political rights, one of which is the right to vote.

2. Age 18 years of age.

Why 18 and not 21? Under the 1973 constitution it was 21, right? But statistical data would show that if
we keep on allowing just 21 years and above to vote, the direction of this state would be, only 18% of
the population would govern the state. So they have to lower it to 18, besides there is data to show that
18, 19 & 20 year olds are much the same as 21 year old when it comes to political maturity. In fact you
can already enter into contracts or make your will when you turn 18. So it was lowered to 18 under the
1987 constitution.

3. Residency Requirement At least 1 year in the Philippines and 6 months in the place you
intend/propose to vote.

Kokoy Rumualdez vs. RTC and COMELEC.

You have to establish home or domicile in Tulusa, Leyte. When EDSA revolution happened, relatives of
the Marcoses including Kokoy Rumualdez fled out of the Country for the fear of their lives. Fear may be
founded or not, not withstanding, they left Philippines sought asylum in U.S.A. in 1986. But before that
he was already living in Tulusa, Leyte. In fact he became a barangay captain there. In December 1991
he came back to the Philippines. There was election coming in May 1992.

1986 Left for US.

1991 He came back to the Philippines (December)
1992 Election (May) Less than 6 Months

Does this satisfy the residency requirement under the constitution?

The residency requirement is at least 1 year in the Philippines and 6 months in the place you
intend/propose to vote.

The Supreme Court said YES he qualified.

Why? In election laws, political laws, residency is synonymous with domicile. So what do we mean by
Residence and what do we mean by Domicile?

Domicile is the Legal Residence. So residence will connote the physical connection between the place
and the person.

Example
Upi, Maguindanao Davao City
- Birth Place - Present Address
- Grew-up - To study
- Lived for 20 years - To work

= DOMICILE = RESIDENCE

For this illustration, MAGUINDANAO would be the DOMICILE and DAVAO is the RESIDENCE. So
what is residence? There is a physical connection, it connotes physical presence of a person in the
given area, community or country. It involves intent to live when the purpose for which the resident has
taken up his above ends. Why are you in Davao? To study. It may be that you will be staying in Davao
for 4 years or you will not go home or you will go home during the breaks but you will have to come back
to complete the four years in law school. But after that, you will be working in Davao, and establish your
home or family here. But in all these things that happening to your life you still intends to go back to
Maguindanao.

So, you are here because of some purpose and that would be your residence. Now where you intend to
go back when your purpose in a place ends, that would be your domicile. One can only have 1 domicile
at a time but one can have as many residences anytime. Ex. You are studying in Davao and you have a
business in Cebu, and you have a condo unit there. So that would be another residence for you. But
that domicile is the legal residence for one intends to go back, the moment that his purpose: business,
pleasure , study ends - that would be your domicile.

The principle is that election laws, political laws, when you say your residence it is synonymous with
domicile. It could be domicle, it could be residence.

In this case, say that you were in Davao for 2 years. There is an election this coming May. You cannot
go home because you have examination in May. Can you register in Davao? Residence is synonymous
with domicile. In this case, Davao is your residence; the only requirement is 6 months.

So, can you register in Davao? Answer is YES.

Now you changed your mind, you wanted to go back to Maguindanao after you finish your study in Law
school. You wanted to go back and you wanted to transfer your registration there. You stayed there for
1 day. I want to register now as a voter. Will you satisfy the residency requirement? Residence is
synonymous with domicile. In the case, you have been in the Domicile not for 1 day not for 6 months but
for 20 years.

In this is also the case here:

1986 Left for US.

1991 He came back to the Philippines (December)

Is residency in this case, since synonymous with domicile, starts not in 1991 but in 1980s. Therefore in
this case, since residency is synonymous with domicile, he qualifies with the residency requirement in
the constitution.

Velasco Case Rumualdes Case

Born in Papanga in 1952 1986 Left for US.
Left Phil in 1983
He was naturalized in the US
He applied for R.A. 9225
- Dual Citizens

He came back in September 2006 1991 He came back to the Philippines

Election May 2007 1992 Election (May)

= 6 moths?: YES = 6 moths?: YES

= 1 year?:NO = 1 year?:NO

Not qualified. He is no longer considered Qualified. Rumualdez is a domicile even

domicile from the time he was naturalized. he left because he did not lose his
Counting will start from September 2006 - citizenship.
 the time he returned to the Philippines.
Thus, did not qualify to the 1 year
requirement.

Is he qualified considering that residency is synonymous with Domicile? The question is would you
consider him a domicile of the Philippines from1952 up to the present?

The Supreme Court said NO. When he was naturalized as a US Citizen, he severed his ties with the
Philippines. Thereafter he is no longer considered as a resident of, much lesser domicile of the
Philippines. In fact when he comes to the Philippines, he comes in via a Visa. Approved visitors visa.
He is no longer considered as a domicile of the Philippines. So when he came back that was the time
that he started again to establish his residence/domicile. It only started in September 2006, when he
was actually physically present in the Philippines. Thats why, if you compute it, he failed to qualify to the
1 year requirement of residency in the Philippines. Although they are almost the same, the
distinguishing fact is he became naturalized as an American. In Rumualdez case nothing happened, we
just assumed that he continues to be a domicile of the Philippines.

Other substantive requirements may be added in order for 1 to qualify for the requisites of the right to
vote. The congress is given the le-way to provide for certain disqualifications so not otherwise
disqualified by law. The disqualifications may be in the form of forfeiture of the right to vote. Not in the
form of additional substantive requirement. For example, those who were sentenced by final judgment
to suffer imprisonment of not less than 1 year will be disqualified to vote. Its a form of forfeiture of right
to vote. But when the disqualification is removed, meaning he serviced sentence he can again exercise
the right to vote. Again, although those substantive requirements maybe added, there may be
disqualifications in the form of forfeiture of the right to vote.

Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a
system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.

The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without the assistance of
other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the Commission
on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.

So you have several provisions in section 2. System for securing secrecy and sanctity of the ballots, you have
systems via covering a folder. A procedure for illiterates to vote but with the assistance of other person like
relatives up to 4th civil degree, helper or BEI. Until then they shall be allowed to vote under this procedure.

Systems by Absentee Voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.

Macalintal vs. COMELEC

Now because of this command by the constitution for congress to provide for systems for absentee voting by
qualified Filipinos abroad, they enacted R.A. 9189 that is the Overseas Absentee Voting Act 2003. Section V
provides, the following shall be disqualified for voting. Take note this is absentee voting, they are not in their
place where they propose to vote.

Section 5 par. d. disqualifies an immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host
country, unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission
declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three
(3) years from approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not
applied for citizenship in another country.
So under Section 5 paragraph d of the R.A. 9189, an immigrant or permanent resident of another country would
be disqualified. Why? Because there is the presumption that he has left or abandoned his domicile. BUT he can
be qualified if he executes an affidavit declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence
in the Philippines not later than three (3) years from approval of his/her registration.

The first objection of this provision in the case of Macalintal vs. COMELEC is that this violates the residency
requirement. It said in the constitution, you must be at least 1 year in the Philippines and 6 months in the place
you propose. But here there is no residence to talk about. In fact he is in another country, an immigrant, holder
of green card. The contention is this is unconstitutional for being in violation of Section 1. But the Supreme Court
said NO its not unconstitutional. why? It is in fact the intent of the premise of the constitution to enfranchise as
many Filipinos as there are even they if they are located abroad. Or in fact under section 2, it has mandated the
congress to enact a system for absentee voting. Now, construing that it is separated from section 1, means that
it is the intent of the premise of the constitution to enfranchise those who were outside the Philippines. In other
words this is an exception to the residency requirement. Besides if you literally interpret it as to include
residency requirement, then it will not give effect to section 2. How can you establish a system for absentee
voting when you require that person to be a resident in the Philippines? So a literal interpretation would render
section 2 futile. So in this case there is no violation. Those who qualify under the absentee voting are presumed
to be absent. Therefore they are presumed to not qualify pursuant to the residency requirement but still they are
allowed to vote.

So the second objection is, when you allow a person to vote maybe because he executes an affidavit that he will
establish residence in the Philippines within 3 years. Isnt that a probationary or conditional registration of voter
which is not allowed by the constitution? Proviso registration or a promise by a voter to be qualified later on.

So thats also the contention of the petitioner. Supreme Court said NO. Its not merely a promise to establish
residence in the Philippine within 3 years from the approval of the registration. But it is in fact an express
declaration that he has not actually abandoned his domicile. So by declaring under oath that you will establish a
permanent residence in the Philippines, it is his declaration that he has not abandoned his residence. Because
the presumption is that, when you are a green card holder, you have abandoned your domicile. Take note, hes
a green card holder, not a naturalized citizen of other country. So the affidavit is necessary in order for -----
whether or not that person has the intent to return to his domicile once his purpose in that place ends, because
thats the distinction between residency and domicile.

Nicolas-Lewis vs. COMELEC

In this case, spouses Nicolas-Lewis were naturalized as Americans then later on, they availed of 9225. They are
still living in America. Now they registered under 9189-Absentee Voters Act. So they became dual citizens and
registered under 9189. The consulate office did not accept them because they have not complied with the
residency requirements. Is the consulate office correct? In the case of Nicolas-Lewis, they would fall under the
absentee voters act, they will under Section 5 par d. they would be considered immigrants or green card holders
in that case. They are residents of America but are Filipinos.

In the decision of Macalintal, the Supreme Court is saying that residency is not a requirement. In fact it is a
situation where residency is an exemption. Not part of the requirement. Therefore, can they register under
9189? The answer is YES, as long as they execute a required affidavit that they will resume residency within 3
years after the approval of their registration. Why would they not be required like Velasco to establish residency
in the Philippines? Because unlike Velasco, he is registering under our usual registration 8189. His registering
in the Philippines, he wanted to vote in the Philippines as a regular voter.
Now if you will ask me Maam, major similar situation ni Nicolas Lewis, can he register under 9189. The answer
is YES, under the absentee voters act. The only disadvantage is, since they are voting outside the Philippines,
they can only vote for the national positions i.e. President, Vice President, Senators & Party List.

In the case of Velasco he registered under the regular route because he also intended to run for public office. If
you are naturalized but you are staying outside the Philippines, there is no residency requirement. You can
register under Absentee Voters Act. But if you are naturalized and you wanted to vote in the local election i.e.
vice mayor, mayor, congressman, etc. you cannot under Absentee voters act but the usual requirements for
registration.

8189 RESIDENCY IS REQUIRED

9189 RESIDENCY IS AN EXEMPTION

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.
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)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
- 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.
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
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
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
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
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
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.
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.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
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 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 or not she is disqualified for the
position 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.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
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
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?
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
I- Estrellado
Lecture of Atty. Jumao-as on July 18, 2013
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;
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-