DAVID VS.

SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

FACTS:
 1968-- Senator Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares is a foundling whose biological parents are
unknown. As an infant, she was abandoned at the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo. Edgardo
Militar found her outside the church on September 3, 1968 at about 9:30 a.m.
 1986—Registered as voter in San Juan at the age of 18 years old
 1988—First issued a passport by the DFA
 1988-1991—College in Boston
 1991-- Married Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares, both an American and Filipino
national since birth, in Manila
 2001—Poe was naturalized as an American
 2004—Returned to PH to help in the campaign of her adoptive father, Fernando Poe, Sr.;
Poe, Sr. slipped into a coma and died
 2004-2005- Poe stayed in PH to settle estate
 2006—Took oath of allegiance to Republic of the Philippines; filed a Petition for Retention
and or Re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship through Republic Act No. 9225; granted;
became a registered voter of San Juan
 2006-2009—Continued to use her US passport
 2010—Formally renounced US citizenship; became MTRCB chairperson
 2012—Filed COC for 2013 elections as senatorial candidate
 2013—Won
 2015—David, who lost, filed a quo warranto case for failing to "comply with the citizenship
and residency requirements mandated by the 1987 Constitution."

ISSUE: Is Grace Poe natural born?

HELD: Yes. Though her parents are unknown, private respondent is a Philippine citizen without
the need for an express statement in the Constitution making her so. Her status as such is but
the logical consequence of a reasonable reading of the Constitution within its plain text. The
Constitution's actual definition, in Article IV, Section 2, of "natural-born citizens must be
harmonized with Section 1's enumeration, which includes a reference to parentage. The
assumption should be that foundlings are natural-born unless there is substantial
evidence to the contrary.
 The presumption that all foundlings found in the Philippines are born to at least either
a Filipino father or a Filipino mother (and are thus natural-born, unless there is
substantial proof otherwise) arises when one reads the Constitution as a whole, so as
to "effectuate [its] whole purpose."
 Citizenship is a legal device denoting political affiliation. It is the "right to have rights."
It is one's personal and permanent membership in a political community. The core of
citizenship is the capacity to enjoy political rights, that is, the right to participate in
government principally through the right to vote, the right to hold public office and the
right to petition the government for redress of grievance.
 The term "citizens of the Philippine Islands" first appeared in legislation in the Philippine
Organic Act, otherwise known as the Philippine Bill of 1902.
 The Jones Law of 1916 provided that a native-born inhabitant of the Philippine Islands
was deemed to be a citizen of the Philippines as of April 11, 1899 if he or she was "(1)
a subject of Spain on April 11, 1899, (2) residing in the Philippines on said date, and
(3) since that date, not a citizen of some other country.
 There was previously the view that jus soli may apply as a mode of acquiring
citizenship. It was the 1935 Constitution that made sole reference to parentage vis-a-
vis the determination of citizenship.
 The term "natural-born citizen" first appeared in this jurisdiction in the 1935
Constitution's provision stipulating the qualifications for President and Vice-President
of the Philippines. While it used the term "natural-born citizen," the 1935 Constitution
did not define the term. Ironically, the concept of "natural-born" citizenship is a "foreign"
concept that was transplanted into this jurisdiction as part of the 1935 Constitution's
eligibility requirements for President and Vice-President of the Philippines.
 The 1973 Constitution was the first instrument to actually define the term "natural-born
citizen." Article III, Section 4 of the 1973 Constitution provided: “SECTION 4. A natural-
born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without having to perform
any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.”
 Today, there are only two (2) categories of Filipino citizens: natural-born and
naturalized. One who desires to acquire Filipino citizenship by naturalization is
generally required to file a verified petition. He or she must establish. among others,
that he or she is of legal age, is of good moral character, and has the capacity to adapt
to Filipino culture, tradition, and principles, or otherwise has resided in the Philippines
for a significant period of time. Further, the applicant must show that he or she will not
be a threat to the state, to the public, and to the Filipinos' core beliefs.
 Between Article IV, Section 1(2), which petitioner harps on, and Section 2, it is
Section 2 that is on point. To determine whether private respondent is a natural-
born citizen, we must look into whether she had to do anything to perfect her
citizenship.
 Using circumstantial and substantial evidence of her circumstances and data, for
example, out of the 900,165 recorded births in the Philippines in 1968, only 1,595 or
0.18% newborns were foreigners. This then translates to roughly 99.8% probability that
private respondent was born a Filipino citizen.
 Concluding that foundlings are not natural-born Filipino citizens is tantamount to
permanently discriminating against our foundling citizens. They can then never be of
service to the country in the highest possible capacities. The equal protection clause
serves as a guarantee that "persons under like circumstances and falling within the
same class are treated alike, in terms of 'privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.'
It is a guarantee against 'undue favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile
discrimination or oppression of inequality.'" Other than the anonymity of their biological
parents, no substantial distinction differentiates foundlings from children with known
Filipino parents.
 Other laws which support giving preference to citizenship: Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act of 2006, 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention on
the Rights of the Child, Domestic Adoption Act of 1998.
NICOLAS-LEWIS VS. COMELEC (2006)

FACTS: Petitioners are successful applicants for recognition of Philippine citizenship under R.A.
9225 which accords to such applicants the right of suffrage, among others. Long before the May
2004 national and local elections, petitioners sought registration and certification as "overseas
absentee voter" only to be advised by the Philippine Embassy in the United States that, per a
COMELEC letter, that they have no right to vote yet in such elections owing to their lack of the
one-year residence requirement prescribed by the Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether petitioners, as overseas workers, should be denied the right of suffrage for failing
to meet the 1-year residency requirement under Art. V, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution.

HELD: No. Article V, Sec.1 prescribes residency requirement as a general eligibility factor
for the right to vote. On the other hand, Section 2 authorizes Congress to devise a system
wherein an absentee may vote, implying that a non‑resident may, as an exception to the
residency prescription in the preceding section, be allowed to vote. In response to its above
mandate, Congress enacted R.A. 9189 - the Oversees Absentee Voting Act.
 Section 4 states who can vote; Section 5 lists those who cannot avail themselves of the
absentee voting mechanism.
 Section 5(d) of the enumeration respecting Filipino immigrants and permanent residents
in another country opens an exception and qualifies the disqualification rule. This was
upheld constitutional in the case of Macalintal.
o Sec. 5(d) – 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. Failure to return shall be the cause for
the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the National
Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in
absentia.
 After what appears to be a successful application for recognition of Philippine citizenship
under R.A. 9189, petitioners now invoke their right to enjoy political rights, specifically the
right of suffrage, pursuant to Section 5 thereof.
 Soon after Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189 passed the test of constitutionality, Congress enacted
R.A. 9225.
 There is no provision in the dual citizenship law - R.A. 9225 - requiring "duals" to
actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they
can exercise their right to vote. On the contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit acknowledgment
that duals are most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of
suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under R.A. 9189. It cannot be overemphasized
that R.A. 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos
who, save for the residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary
conditions, are qualified to vote.
IN RE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW OF BENJAMIN DACANAY
(2007)

FACTS: Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until he
migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. He
subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical aid program. His
application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May 2004. In 2006, pursuant to
Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner
reacquired his Philippine citizenship. There is a question, however, whether petitioner Benjamin
M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship
in May 2004.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his
Philippine citizenship.
(2) Whether he can practice again.

HELD:
(1) No. GENERAL RULE: The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the
Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law. Since
Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates
membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice
of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners.
EXCEPTION: The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization
as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is
because "all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed
not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of RA 9225." Therefore, a
Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his
Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Although he is also
deemed never to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic right
to resume law practice accrues.
(2) Yes. But membership in good standing is a continuing requirement. Hence, before a
lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his law
practice, 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 especially significant to refresh the
applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments
and (d) the retaking of the lawyer’s 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.
REPUBLIC VS. HARP (2016)

FACTS: Respondent Davonn Maurice Harp was born and raised in the United States of America.
While on a visit to the Philippines, he was discovered by basketball talent scouts. He was invited
to play in the Philippine Basketball League and was eventually drafted to play in the Philippine
Basketball Association (PBA). Sometime in 2002, respondent was among those invited to
participate in a Senate investigation. The Senate inquiry sought to review the processes and
requirements involved in the acquisition and determination of Philippine citizenship in connection
with the "influx of bogus Filipino American or Filipino-foreign basketball players into the PBA and
other basketball associations in the Philippines." In the courses of the inquiry, it was established
that respondent had previously obtained recognition as a citizen of the Philippines from the BI
and the DOJ. They eventually found out that he submitted spurious documents (e.g., Birth
certificate – simulated/ suspicious; with alterations and superimpositions; cannot find residence
of relatives). In 2004, the BI ordered the summary deportation of respondent. It noted that the
recognition previously accorded to him as a Filipino citizen had been revoked by the DOJ.

ISSUE:
(1) Can DOJ revoke citizenship already recognized?
(2) Can DOJ revoke citizenship in this case?
(3) Is the Summary Deportation Order valid?

HELD:
(1) Yes. This Court has consistently ruled that the issue of citizenship may be threshed out
as the occasion demands. Res judicata only applies once a finding of citizenship is
affirmed by the Court in a proceeding in which: (a) the person whose citizenship is
questioned is a party; (b) the person's citizenship is raised as a material issue; and (c)
the Solicitor General or an authorized representative is able to take an active part. Since
respondent's citizenship has not been the subject of such a proceeding, there is no
obstacle to revisiting the matter in this case.
 As the agency tasked to "provide immigration and naturalization regulatory
services" and "implement the laws governing citizenship and the admission and
stay of aliens," the DOJ has the power to authorize the recognition of citizens of
the Philippines. Any individual born of a Filipino parent is a citizen of the Philippines
and is entitled to be recognized as such. Recognition is accorded by the BI and
the DOJ to qualified individuals, provided the proper procedure is complied with
and the necessary documents are submitted. In this case, respondent was
accorded recognition as a citizen on 24 February 2000.
(2) No. In this case, the Court finds these pieces of evidence inadequate to warrant a
revocation of the recognition accorded to respondent. It appears that the supposed
discovery of alterations was based on a mere photocopy of Manuel's Certificate of Live
Birth. Since the original document was not inspected, the committees could not make any
categorical finding of purported alterations. Meanwhile, there is no proof that relatives
might have died or transferred residence.
 Without more, the Court finds no reason to set aside the rule that public
documents, particularly those related to the civil register, are ''prima facie evidence
of the facts therein contained." Hence, we rely on these documents to declare that
respondent is a citizen of the Philippines.
(3) No. It is settled that summary deportation proceedings cannot be instituted by the BI
against citizens of the Philippines. In Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa, the Court
reiterated the doctrine that citizens may resort to courts for protection if their right to live
in peace, without molestation from any official or authority, is disturbed in a deportation
proceeding. Since respondent has already been declared and recognized as a Philippine
citizen by the BI and the DOJ, he must be protected from summary deportation
proceedings.