Citizenship

Political Law (Constitutional Law) – Article IV

DEC 20

Posted by Magz
ARTICLE IV – CITIZENSHIP

Who are citizens of the Philippines?

1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987
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 majority.

4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Modes of acquiring citizenship:

1) Jus Soli – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth

2) Jus Sanguinis – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship

3) Naturalization – the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of
a native-born citizen.

Note: The Philippines follows (2) and (3)

Election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution:

Prior to the 1973 Constitution, if a Filipina married an alien, she lost her Filipino
citizenship. Hence, her child would have to elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority. Under the 1973 Constitution, however, children born of Filipino mothers were
already considered Filipinos. Therefore, the provision on election of citizenship under the
1987 Constitution only applies to those persons who were born under the 1935 Constitution. In
order for the children to elect Filipino citizenship, the mothers must have been Filipinos at the
time of their marriage. So, if your mother was a Filipina who married an alien under the 1935
constitution and you were born before January 17, 1973, you can elect Filipino citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority.

When must the election be made:

The election must be made within a reasonable period after reaching the age of majority.

Effects of naturalization:

1) The legitimate minor children of the naturalized father become Filipinos as well.

2) The wife also becomes a Filipino citizen, provided that she does not have any
disqualification which would bar her from being naturalized.

Natural-born citizens:

1) Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need to perform any act to acquire or
perfect their Philippine citizenship.

2) Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. IV, Sec. 1(3) of 1987 Constitution.

Marriage of Filipino with an alien:

1) General Rule: The Filipino RETAINS Philippine citizenship
2) Exception: If, by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have
renounced it.
Examples of renunciation of Philippine citizenship:

1) Voluntarily obtaining foreign passport

2) Pledging allegiance to another country (ex. by becoming a naturalized citizen of another

country)

Re-acquisition of citizenship

Natural-born Filipinos who are deemed to have lost their citizenship may re-acquire the same
via repatriation proceedings. This involves taking an oath of allegiance and filing the same
with the civil registry.

How may one lose citizenship:

1. By naturalization in a foreign country
2. By express renunciation of citizenship
3. By subscribing oath or allegiance to a foreign Constitution
4. By serving in the armed forces of an enemy country
5. By being a deserter of the armed forces of one’s country
How may one reacquire citizenship:
1. By direct act of Congress
2. By naturalization
3. By repatriation

CITIZENSHIP
 Category: Constitutional Law

Citizenship

Repatriation under Rule 8171.

The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following:

a. Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and

b. Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on
account of political or economic necessity.

Petitioner theorizes that he could be repatriated under RA 8171 because he is a child of a natural-
born Filipino, and that he lost his Philippine citizenship by derivative naturalization when he was still
a minor.

Petitioner overlooks the fact that the privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is available only to
natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, and to
the minor children of said natural-born Filipinos. This means that if a parent who had renounced his
Philippine citizenship due to political or economic reasons later decides to repatriate under RA 8171,
his repatriation will also benefit his minor children according to the law. This includes a situation
where a former Filipino subsequently had children while he was a naturalized citizen of a foreign
country. The repatriation of the former Filipino will allow him to recover his natural-born citizenship
and automatically vest Philippine citizenship on his children of jus sanguinis or blood relationship;
the children acquire the citizenship of their parent(s) who are natural-born Filipinos. To claim the
benefit of RA 8171, however, the children must be minor age at the time the petition for repatriation
is filed by the parent. This is so because a child does not have the legal capacity for all acts of civil
life much less the capacity to undertake a political act like the election of citizenship. On their own,
the minor children cannot apply for repatriation or naturalization separately from their parents.
(Tabasa vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 125793, August 29, 2006).
If a person, petitioner is not qualified to avail himself of repatriation under RA 8171. However, he can
possibly reacquire Philippine citizenship by availing of the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition
Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9225) by simply taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines. (Tabasa vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 125793, August 29, 2006).

Limited coverage of the law.

A reading in Section 1 of RA 8171 shows that the manifest intent of the legislature to limit the benefit
of repatriation only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of
political or economic necessity, in addition women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage
to aliens. The precursor of RA 8171, Presidential Decree No. 725 (P.D. 725), which was enacted on
June 5, 1975 amending Commonwealth Act No. 63, also gave to the same groups of former
Filipinos the opportunity to repatriate but without the limiting phrase, “on account of political or
economic necessity” in relation to natural-born Filipinos. By adding the said phrase to RA 8171, the
lawmakers clearly intended to limit the application of the law only to political or economic migrants,
aside from the Filipino women who lost their citizenship by marriage to aliens. This intention is more
evident in the sponsorship speech of Rep. Andrea B. Domingo where she stated that there are only
four types of Filipinos who leave the country.

The first is what we call the “economic refugees” who go abroad to work because there is no work to
be found in the country. Then we have the “political refugees” who leave the country for fear of their
lives because they are not in consonance with the prevailing policy of government. The third type
are those who have committed crimes and would like to escape from the punishment of said crimes.
Lastly, we have those Filipinos who feel that they are not Filipinos, thereby seeking other citizenship
elsewhere.

Of these four types of Filipinos, the first two have to leave the country not of choice, but rather of
sacrifice to look for a better life, as well as for a safer abode for themselves and their families. It is
for these two types of Filipinos that this measure is being proposed for approval by this body.

Thus, the intent of the law is to exclude those Filipinos who have abandoned their country for
reasons other than political or economic necessity. (Tabasa vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 125793, August
2006).

Effect if foreign country cancels the passport of an alien.

If a foreign embassy cancels the passport of the alien, or does not reissue a valid passport to him,
the alien loses the privilege to remain in the country, under the Immigration Act, Section 10 and 15
(Schonemann vs. Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 81461, 30 May 1989). The automatic loss of the
privilege obviates deportation proceedings. In such instance, the Board of Commissioners may
issue summary judgment of deportation which shall be immediately executory.

Right to vote of dual citizens.

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 citizen, are
qualified to vote. Thus, it was ruled in Macalintal vs. COMELEC, 405 SCRA 614:

“It is clear from these discussions of the Constitutional Commission that it intended to enfranchise as
much as possible all Filipino citizens abroad who have not abandoned their domicile of origin. The
Commission even intended to extend to young Filipinos who reach voting age abroad whose
parents’ domicile of origin is in the Philippines, and consider them qualified as voters for the first
time.

It is in pursuance of that intention that the Commission provided for Section 2, Article V, immediately
after the residency requirement of Section 1. By the doctrine of necessary implication in statutory
construction, …., the strategic location of Section 2 indicates that the Constitutional Commission
provided for an exception to qualified Filipinos who are not in the Philippines may be allowed to vote
even though they do not satisfy the residency requirement in Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.

That Section 2 of Article V of the Constitution is an exception to the residency requirement found in
Section 1 of the same Article was in fact the subject of debate when Senate Bill No. 2104, which
became R.A. No. 9189.

Considering the unison intent of the Constitution and RA 9189 and the expansion of the scope of
that law with the passage of RA 9225, the irresistible conclusion is that “duals” may now exercise
the right of suffrage thru the absentee voting scheme and as overseas absentee voters. RA 9189
defines the terms adverted to in the following wise:

“Absentee Voting” refers to the process by which qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad
exercise their right to vote;

“Overseas Absentee Voter” refers to a citizen of the Philippines who is qualified to register and vote
under this Act, not otherwise disqualified by law, who is abroad on the day of elections. (Loida
Nicolas-Lewis, et al. vs. COMELEC, G.R. 162759, August 4, 2006).
Rule cover the next generation of duals.

The expanded thrust of RA 9189 extends also to what might be tagged as the next generation of
“duals”. This may be deduced from the inclusion of the provision on derivative citizenship in RA
9225 which reads:

Sec. 4. Derivative Citizenship. – The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted,
below eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of
this Act shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines. (Loida Nicolas-Lewis, et al. vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 162759, August 4, 2006).

Q — What is naturalization? Give the modes of

becoming a citizen by naturalization.

ANS: Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a
nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen. Under current and existing laws, there
are three ways by which an alien may become a citizen by naturalization: (a) administrative
naturalization pursuant to R.A. No. 9139; (b) judicial naturalization pursuant to C.A. No. 473, as
amended; and (c) legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowing
Philippine citizenship to an alien.(So v. Rep., G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007).

Q — In a petition for naturalization, it was contended

that the qualifications of an applicant for naturalization
should possess those provided for in R.A. No. 9139 and
not those set forth in C.A. No. 473. Is the contention
correct? Why?
ANS: No. The qualifications and disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization by judicial act
are set forth in Sections 2 and 4 of C.A. No. 473. On the other hand, Sections 3 and 4 of R.A. No.
9139 provide for the qualifications and disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization by
administrative act. (So v. Rep., G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007).

Q — State the rationale for the enactment of RA 9139

otherwise known as Administrative Naturalization Law.

ANS: R.A. No. 9139 was enacted as a remedial measure intended to make the process of
acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical and more encouraging. It likewise
addresses the concerns of degree holders who, by reason of lack of citizenship requirement, cannot
practice their profession, thus promoting “brain drain” for the Philippines. (So v. Rep., G.R. No.
170603, January 29, 2007).

Q — Are the qualifications prescribed under Act No.

473 applicable to RA 9139? Explain.

ANS: No. First. C.A. No. 473 and R.A. No. 9139 are separate and distinct laws – the former covers
all aliens regardless of class while the latter covers native-born aliens who lived here in the
Philippines all their lives, who never saw any other country and all along thought that they were
Filipinos; who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines and affinity to the customs and
traditions. To reiterate, the intention of the legislature in enacting R.A. No. 9139 was to make the
process of acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical and more encouraging which
is administrative rather than judicial in nature. Thus, although the legislature believes that there is a
need to liberalize the naturalization law of the Philippines, there is nothing from which it can be
inferred that C.A. No. 473 was intended to be amended or repealed by R.A. No. 9139. What the
legislature had in mind was merely to prescribed another mode of acquiring Philippine citizenship
which may be availed of by native born aliens. The only implication is that, a native born alien has
the choice to apply for judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the prescribed
qualifications and disqualifications.
Second, if the qualifications prescribed in R.A. No. 9139 would be made applicable even to judicial
naturalization, the coverage of the law would be broadened since it would then apply even to aliens
who are not native born. It must be stressed that R.A. No. 9139 applies only to aliens who were born
in the Philippines and have been residing here.

Third, applying the provisions of R.A. No. 9139 to judicial naturalization is contrary to the intention of
the legislature to liberalize the naturalization procedure in the country. One of the qualifications set
forth in R.A. No. 9139 is that the applicant was born in the Philippines and should have been
residing herein since birth. Thus, one who was born here but left the country, though resided for
more than ten (10) years from the filing of the application is also disqualified. On the other hand, if
we maintain the distinct qualifications under each of the two laws, an alien who is not qualified under
R.A. No. 9139 may still be naturalized under C.A. No. 473.

Thus, absent a specific provision expressly amending C.A. No. 473, the law stands and the
qualifications and disqualifications set forth therein are maintained. (So v. Rep., G.R. No. 170603,
January 29, 2007).

Q — State the basic requirement of witnesses in a

naturalization proceeding. Explain.

ANS: The witnesses presented should be competent to vouch for his good moral character, and
are themselves possessed of good moral character. The character witnesses in naturalization
proceedings stand as insurers of the applicant’s conduct and character. Thus, they ought to testify
on specific facts and events justifying the inference that the applicant possesses all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications provided by law. (So v. Rep., G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007,
citing Rep. v. Hong, G.R. No. 168877, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 405).
Q — State the duty of an applicant for naturalization
before he can be naturalized. Explain.

ANS: In naturalization proceedings, it is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good
moral character but also the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who must be credible
persons. Within the purview of the naturalization law, a “credible person” is not only an individual
who has not been previously convicted of a crime; who is not a police character and has no police
record; who has not perjured in the past; or whose affidavit or testimony is not credible. What must
be credible is not the declaration made but the person making it. This implies that such person must
have a good standing in the community; that he is known to be honest and upright; that he is
reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be taken on its face value; as a good
warranty of the applicant’s worthiness. (So v. Rep., G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007).

Q — In naturalization proceedings, may the State

appeal the decision even if it did not oppose the
petition? Explain.

ANS: Yes. A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision
rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it
is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the court upon any material
fact. Law and jurisprudence even authorize the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization upon
grounds or conditions arising subsequent to the granting of the certificate. If the government can
challenge a final grant of citizenship, with more reason can it appeal the decision of the RTC within
the reglementary period despite its failure to oppose the petition before the lower court. (So v. Rep.,
G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007).

Note:
It must be stressed that admission to citizenship is one of the highest privileges that the Republic of
the Philippines can confer upon an alien. It is a privilege that should not be conferred except upon
persons fully qualified for it, and upon strict compliance with the law.

Q — Who has the burden to show that a person is

entitled to be naturalized? Explain.

ANS: It is well-settled rule that “it is the bounded and inescapable duty of anyone applying for
naturalization to carry at all times the burden of proving his right thereto, not only by complying with
all the substantive and procedural requirements and submitting proof thereof at the trial. (Tiu v.
Rep., 158 Phil. 1137 (1974); In Re: Petition for Admission as Citizen of the Phils., Shewak A.
Keswani, et al. v. Rep., G.R. No. 153986, June 8, 2007).

CITIZENSHIP AND SUFFRAGE

This paper explains briefly Article IV (Citizenship) and Article V (Suffrage) of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.

At the end the discussion, the students are expected to:

1. Explain the meaning and requirements of Philippine citizenship;

2. Discuss and distinguish the different principles and concepts involving citizenship;

3. Explain the meaning and requirements of suffrage; and

4. Discuss the various related concepts and principles in suffrage.

PRELIMINARIES

Need for Citizenship Education

1. Citizenship education, which is the primary purpose of studying Philippine politics and
governance, entails knowing the basic rights as well as the corresponding duties of the citizens.
Section 3 (2), Article XIV provides that all educational institutions “shall inculcate patriotism and
nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national
heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship,
strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline, encourage
critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote
vocational efficiency.”

2. It must also be noted that one of the State Policies of the Philippines is the rearing of the youth for
civic efficiency. Section 13, Article II provides that “the State recognizes the vital role of the youth in
nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social
well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their
involvement in public and civic affairs.” This is also why, under Section 12, Article II, the State
supports the parents in their primary right and duty in rearing the youth for civic efficiency and
development of moral character.

3. Before delving on the rights and duties of the citizens, it is logically important to know first who are
the citizens of the Philippines, the modes of acquiring citizenship, the types of citizens, and
difference between a citizen and a non-citizen as to possession of rights, privileges, and duties.
Knowing these concepts will preparatory for the discussion of suffrage, which is one of the rights
and duties of a citizen, and the bill of rights, which is the declaration and enumeration of the rights
individuals as will be discussed in Chapter 9.

Constitutional Provisions on Citizenship and Suffrage

Article IV of the 1987 Constitution discusses Citizenship. Article V discusses Suffrage. These
provisions will be explained in detail in the following subtopics.

CITIZENSHIP

Meaning of Citizenship

Citizenship refers to the membership of a person to a democratic state which bestows upon him/her
full civil and political rights (unless especially disqualified by law), and the corresponding duty to
support and maintain allegiance to the state. Such membership underscores the symbiotic
relationship of the state, which on the one hand gives protection to the citizen, and the citizen, who
on the other hand is duty bound to support the state.

Citizens of the Philippines

1. Classification. There are four instances enumerated in the Constitution as to who are considered
citizens of the Philippines. Section 1, Article IV of the Constitution, provides:

“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 born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and

(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.”

First, those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution,
referring to those who were already Filipinos under the 1973 Constitution and were still citizens at
the time of the passage of the 1987 Constitution. Second, those who are Philippine citizens because
either their fathers “or” mothers are Philippine citizens. Third, those whose fathers are foreigners,
and then later elected their Philippine citizenship upon reaching 18 years old in accordance with
1935 Constitution which was in effect at the time of their birth. And fourth, those who are naturalized
under the procedures provided by law.

2. Natural Born and Naturalized Citizens. Basically, there are only two categories of Philippine
citizens: the natural born and the naturalized. On the one hand, a natural born citizen is someone
who is already a Filipino at the time of his birth and does not have to do anything to acquire or
perfect his citizenship (Sec. 2, Art. II). In other words, he is a Filipino by birth. On the other hand, a
naturalized citizen is someone who was once a foreigner then later on became a Filipino by legal
fiction. Paragraph 2 (Either father or mother is a Filipino) and paragraph 3 (Elect Philippine
Citizenship) of the above provision are natural born citizens, while paragraph 4 (naturalized under
the law) refers to the naturalized citizen. Paragraph 1 (citizen at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution) may refer to either a natural born or naturalized citizen depending on the kind of
citizenship he has at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution.

3. Principles Determining Citizenship. How can birth determine citizenship in the case of natural
born citizens? There are two principles that could answer this. First is the jus sanguinis principle,
which states that “blood relations” determine citizenship, and the second is the jus soli or jus loci
principle, which states that the “place of birth” determines citizenship. The Philippines adopts the jus
sanguinis principle and is now the underlying theory behind Article IV. Thus, someone becomes a
Filipino by birth if either his mother “or” father is a Filipino, so that by virtue of his blood relations to
either his Filipino parents he is also a Filipino. If Pedro, for example, has a Filipino mother and a
foreigner father, then he is still a Filipino by birth, and therefore a natural born citizen.

4. Old Rule. It must be noted that the present rule is different from that in the 1935 Constitution.
Under the old rule, those whose fathers are foreigners and whose mothers are citizens of the
Philippines must still elect their Philippine citizenship upon reaching 18 years old. In other words,
citizenship depends upon blood relations with the father. This was no longer the rule under the 1973
Constitution and under the present Constitution. Citizenship is now attributable to both the father
and mother. But for those who were born during the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, or before
January 17, 1973 (the date of promulgation of the 1973 Constitution), they must still elect their
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. For instance, if Pedro was born in January
1, 1970, of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, then in 1988 when he is already 18 years old, he
must elect his Philippine citizenship. Under Section 2, Article II, those who elect their Philippine
citizenship are still deemed natural born citizens.

Naturalized Citizens

1. Who are Naturalized Citizens? Naturalized citizens those are clothed by law with the rights and
privileges accorded to a citizen of the Philippines, as well as bound by their duties to the State. In
other words, they are also Filipinos. Thus they can vote during elections, acquire real property, and
engage in business, among others. They must likewise observe loyalty to the Philippines, pay their
taxes, and obey the laws and duly constituted authorities of the land. However, they cannot be
elected President or Vice-President, or member of the Congress, or appointed justice of the
Supreme Court or lower collegiate courts, or member of any of the Constitutional Commissions, or
Ombudsman or his Deputy, or member of the Central Monetary Agency. These are among the
restrictions to a naturalized citizen which are reserved only to a natural born citizen, who is by birth
and heart a Filipino.

2. Naturalization entails renunciation of former allegiance and the subsequent act of formal entrance
into a new body politic. The grant of citizenship by naturalization is an act of grace on the part of the
State. Just as the State can confer or grant citizenship, it can also withhold or take away the same.
Thus, aliens or foreigners do not have a natural or inherent right to demand membership to the
State.

3. Kinds of Naturalization. The government, through its three branches, can confer citizenship by
naturalization. Hence, a foreigner can be naturalized in either of three ways:

(a) Judicial naturalization refers to naturalization by means of court judgment pursuant to the
“Revised Naturalization Act.” Applications are filed with the proper Regional Trial Court which will
render the decree of naturalization;

(b) Legislative naturalization refers to naturalization by means of a direct act of Congress, that is, by
the enactment of a law by the Congress declaring therein that a foreigner is conferred citizenship
and admitted into the political community; and

(c) Administrative naturalization is naturalization by means of administrative proceedings before the

Special Committee on Naturalization pursuant to the “Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000.”
Applicants must be aliens born and residing in the Philippines with all of the qualifications and none
of the disqualifications provided by law.

Lost and Reacquisition of Citizenship

1. Lost of Citizenship. Section 3, Article 4 of the Constitution states that “Philippine citizenship may
be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.” There are two laws which provide the manner
of loss of citizenship. First is “Commonwealth Act No. 63” which provides that citizenship is lost by
naturalization in another country, by express renunciation of citizenship, by subscribing to an oath of
allegiance to support the constitution and laws of another country, by rendering service to a foreign
armed forces, and by deserting the armed forces of the Philippines. Second is Commonwealth Act
No. 473 which states that citizenship is lost by cancellation of certificate of naturalization by court, by
permanent residence in the country of origin for a period of five years from the time of naturalization,
by an invalid declaration of intent in the petition, by failure to with the educational requirements of
the minor children, and by allowing oneself to used by a foreigner.

2. Reacquisition of Citizenship. As far as reacquisition of citizenship is concerned, Commonwealth

Act No. 63 also provides that citizenship which was lost may be reacquired by naturalization, by a
direct act of Congress, or by repatriation.

(a) Naturalization may be applied for by a former Philippine citizen who lost his citizenship under any
of the aforesaid ways. For example, Pedro was a Filipino who became a naturalized citizen in
another country, and as a result he lost his Philippine citizenship. If he applies for naturalization and
later on the court gave him a decree of naturalization, then he reacquires his Philippine citizenship.

(b) The Congress can also reinstitute, by means of a law, citizenship to those who lost it.

(c) Repatriation is accomplished by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and then registering the same in the proper Civil Registry and in the Bureau of
Immigration. This is available to women who have lost their citizenship through marriage to aliens,
those who lost their citizenship on account of economic and political necessity not otherwise
disqualified by law, and deserters of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

3. R.A. No. 9225. Special note must be given to Republic Act No. 9225, otherwise known as
“Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003,”which amended Commonwealth Act No. 63. It
provides that natural born citizens of the Philippines who lost their citizenship because of
naturalization in a foreign country shall be deemed to have reacquired their Philippine citizenship
upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. After the effectivity of RA 9225,
those who are naturalized in a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship also upon
taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Thus, under the present law, it is the
taking of the necessary oath of allegiance and registration of the same that retains and reacquires
Philippine citizenship.

4. Marriage to an Alien. Under Section 4, Article IV, mere marriage to an alien is not a ground for
losing Philippine citizenship, unless there is implied or express renunciation through acts or
omissions. For example, if Maria is married to Friedrich, a foreigner, and in Friedrich’s country his
marriage confers on Maria their citizenship, then Maria will not automatically lose her citizenship as
provided by the Constitution. What she has is dual citizenship. But if Maria subscribes to an oath of
allegiance to her husband’s country, then her act is deemed a renunciation of her Philippine
citizenship, thus, a ground for losing her citizenship.

Dual Allegiance and Dual Citizenship

1. Dual Allegiance as Provided in the Constitution. Section 5, Article IV states, “Dual allegiance of
citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.” Dual allegiance happens
when a naturalized citizen of the Philippines maintains his allegiance to his country of origin. For
example, if Joe, who was a foreigner, becomes a naturalized citizen of the Philippines, and after
naturalization he still maintains his allegiance to his mother country, then his case is said to be one
of dual allegiance. This is prohibited by the Constitution to prevent a former foreigner, who gained
political membership, to have false allegiance or pretend loyalty to the Philippines.

2. Dual Allegiance vs. Dual Citizenship. The Constitution, however, does not prohibit dual
citizenship. Dual allegiance is different from dual citizenship. Dual citizenship happens when an
individual is a citizen of two countries because the laws of both countries confer upon him
membership to their State. For example, if Pedro’s parents are Filipinos and he is born in United
State of America, he acquires Philippine citizenship under the principle of jus sanguinis and
American citizenship under the principle of jus soli. Thus, he has dual citizenship because of the
respective laws of the two countries. Another example is when a Filipino marries a foreigner and
thereby acquires the citizenship of the spouse, there is also dual citizenship. The Philippines cannot
prohibit dual citizenship because its laws cannot control the laws of other states. It is dual allegiance
that is prohibited because it is intentional while dual citizenship is generally unintentional, in that it is
only accidentally cause by birth in a foreign state or marriage with a foreigner.

3. Limitation on Dual Citizenship. Dual citizenship may be prohibited under special cases. For
instance, pursuant to the Constitution, RA 9225 requires that all those who are seeking elective
public offices in the Philippines to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship to qualify them as candidates in the Philippine elections.

SUFFRAGE

Meaning of Suffrage

Suffrage is the right and obligation to vote. It is a political right conferred by the Constitution
empowering a citizen to participate in the process of government which makes the State truly
democratic and republican. Section 1, Article V, however, provides that “suffrage may be
exercised…” thus, making it non-mandatory. Failure to exercise such right is not punishable by law,
but nonetheless makes a citizen irresponsible. In other words, suffrage is an obligation but a non-
mandatory one.

When Suffrage may be Exercised

Suffrage is exercised not only during elections, but also during initiatives, referendums, plebiscite,
and recalls. Election is the means by which the people choose their representatives who are
entrusted the exercise of the powers of the government. Initiative is the means by which people
directly propose and enact laws, that is, they initiate the law-making process. Referendum refers to
process by which the people ratify or reject a law or part thereof referred or submitted to them by the
national or local law-making body. Plebiscite entails a process by which the people either ratify or
reject an amendment or revision to the Constitution. And recall is a mode of removing an incumbent
official from office by a vote of the people upon proper registration of a petition signed by the
required number of qualified voters. In all these instances, a qualified citizen can rightfully exercise
suffrage.

Who may Exercise Suffrage

1. Qualified Citizens Only. Suffrage can be exercised only by a citizen of the Philippines, who has
none of the disqualifications, at least eighteen years of age on the day of the election, and a resident
of the Philippines for at least one year and of the place where he intends to vote for at least six
months immediately preceding the election (Section 1, Article V). Suffrage is an attribute of
citizenship, and therefore aliens cannot exercise the same.

2. Reason for Lowering the Voting Age. The voting age was lowered down from 21 to 18 years old
to broaden the electoral base. If the voting age is 21, then only a small percentage of the total
population of the Philippines can vote. Moreover, according to psychologists, 18 to 21 year-old
Filipino youth, living in urban or rural areas, have the same political maturity. This is affirmed in
many provisions of Philippine law, in that the marrying age, the age when someone can enter into a
contract, and the age when someone can be called to defend the State, is 18 years old. It must be
noted, however, “registration” may be done before reaching the age of majority for as long as the
voter is 18 years old on the day of the election.

3. Explanation of Residency Requirement. A citizen, in order to be qualified to vote, must have

resided in the Philippines for at least one year and for at least six months on the place where he
intends to vote immediately preceding the elections. The “one year residency requirement” means
“permanent residence” while the “six month residency requirement” means either “permanent or
temporary residence.” On the on hand, permanent residence or domicile requires bodily presence in
the locality, the intention to remain there (animus manendi), and an intention to return to it if one
goes somewhere else (animus revertendi). If a new residence is established, permanent residence
requires an intention not to return to the old domicile (animus non revertandi). For example, if a
Filipino citizen works abroad to look for greener pastures, but still has the “intention to return” to the
Philippines, he can still exercise his right to vote since his domicile is still in the Philippines. On the
other hand, temporary residence only requires the intention to reside in a fixed place. To be familiar
with the needs of the locality, a voter must reside therein for at least six months immediately
preceding the elections. This is requirement for both national and local elections. In here, since
residence can also mean temporary residence, one can vote in either his locality of permanent
residence or locality of temporary residence during local or national elections. For example, Pedro is
domiciled in Tuguegarao City and is a registered voter therein. But he is working in Manila for more
than six months already, has established a temporary residence, and is likewise a registered voter
there. Under the law, he can vote in Tuguegarao city since he is a permanent resident of the place
or in Manila since he has a temporary residence there.

4. No Additional Substantive Requirement. Still in keeping with the trend for broadening electoral
base, the Constitution does not provide for “literacy, property or other substantive requirements.”
Rather it encourages the “participation” and “equalization” of the privileges and rights of the people.
Being democratic and republican, the State endeavors for the establishment of a wide base of
electoral involvement by the people, not only by the rich minority who joy the privilege of formal
education, but also by the poor majority who are usually unlettered because of poverty. It must also
be emphasize that there is no direct relationship between education or property, on the one hand,
and capacity for intelligent voting, on the other, in that even a rich and highly educated person may
initiate and be swayed by sham elections.

Absentee Voting

Because of the phenomenon of “Filipino labor explosion overseas,” the so-called “absentee voting
system” is mandated by the Constitution to be provided for, or legislated, by the Congress. Section
2, Article V states, “The Congress shall provide… a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos
abroad.” For as long as they are qualified, overseas Filipino workers can still participate in elections
despite their temporary absence in the Philippines. While residency is a voting requirement, it must
not be a reason for disenfranchising thousands of Filipinos abroad whose hearts are still with the
Philippines.

Importance of Suffrage

As a final note, the importance of suffrage cannot be overemphasized as it is the bed rock of
Philippine democracy and republicanism. Removed, then the Philippines is no longer democratic
and republican. This is why the Constitution mandates the Congress “to provide a system for
securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot.” The mandate becomes especially important now
that the electoral base is broadened to include the illiterate and the disabled who are the usual prey
of unscrupulous politicians. Thus, to secure the very essence of Philippine democracy and to protect
the illiterates and disabled from being disenfranchised, the Constitution also provides that “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.”
The Philippine nationality law is based upon the principles of jus sanguinis (Latin for right of blood) and
therefore descent from a parent who is a citizen or national of the Republic of the Philippines is the
primary method of acquiring Philippine citizenship. This is contrasted with the legal principle of jus
soli where being born on the soil of a country, even to foreign parents, grants one citizenship. For those
born in the Philippines to non-Filipino parents, the Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000 (R.A. 9139)
provides a path for administrative naturalization for those who qualify.[1][2]

Contents

 1Citizenship by birth
 2Citizenship by naturalization
 3Loss and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship
 4Travel freedom
 5See also
 6Notes
 7References
 8Further reading
 9External links

Citizenship by birth[edit]
Philippine nationality law provides that a person is a Philippine citizen by birth if

 that person was born on or after January 17, 1973 and at least one
parent was a Philippine citizen on the birthdate;[3]
 or that person was born before January 17, 1973 whose father was a
Philippine citizen— or whose mother was a Philippine citizen and the
person has formally elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the
age of majority;[4]
 or that person was born on or after May 14, 1935 and the father was a
Philippine citizen or, if the father was not, the mother was a Philippine
citizen and the person elected Philippine citizenship pursuant to the
provisions of the 1935 Constitution;[5]
 or that person was born on or after August 29, 1916 and prior to May
14, 1935 and at least one parent was an inhabitant and resident of the
Philippine Islands and a Spanish subject on April 11, 1899, or that
person was an inhabitant and resident of the Philippine Islands and a
Spanish subject on April 11, 1899, except in certain specific cases.[6]
For Philippine citizens born abroad of Filipino parent(s), the Philippine government requires that a
notarized report of birth be executed by a parent, physician, or nurse and filed with the Department of
Foreign Affairs or of civil registry be accomplished with a Philippine consulate abroad. For delayed
registration, a notarized affidavit of birth is executed by the child, if 18 years old or over, a father, mother,
or guardian, and filed. Registration of birth is required for the issuance of a Philippine passport. The child
or person born abroad of a Filipino parent is a Philippine citizen from birth, and that citizenship may pass
to subsequent generations in perpetuity.[7]

Citizenship by naturalization[edit]
Commonwealth Act No. 473, the Revised Naturalization Law, approved June 17, 1939, provided that
persons having certain specified qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization.[8]
Section 2 of CA No. 473 specifies that the applicant must possess the following qualifications:
  He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the
hearing of the petition;
 He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not
less than ten years;
 He must be of good moral character and believe in the principles
underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted
himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period
of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted
government as well as with the community in which he is living.
 He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five
thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known
lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation;
 He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the
public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private
Education1 of the Philippines, where the Philippine history,
government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school
curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines
required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as
Philippine citizen.
Section 4 of CA No. 473 provides that the following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens:

 Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any

association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines
opposing all organized governments;
 Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence,
personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of
their ideas;
 Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
 Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
 Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious
diseases;
 Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines,
have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced
a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals
of the Filipinos;
 Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States and the
Philippines are at war, during the period of such war;
 Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United States
whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized
citizens or subjects thereof.
Republic Act No. 9139, approved June 8, 2001, provided that aliens under the age of 18 who were born in
the Philippines, who have resided in the Philippines and have resided therein since birth, and who possess
other specified qualifications may be granted Philippines citizenship by administrative proceeding subject
to certain requirements.[1][2]

Loss and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship[edit]

Commonwealth Act No. 63, dated 20 October 1936, provides that Philippine citizens may lose citizenship
in any of the following ways or events:[9]

1. By naturalization in a foreign country;

2. By express renunciation of citizenship;
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining
 twenty-one years of age or more: Provided, however,
That a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine
citizenship in any manner while the Republic of the
Philippines is at war with any country.
4. By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the
armed forces of a foreign country, and the taking of an
oath of allegiance incident thereto, except in certain
specified cases;
5. By cancellation of the certificates of naturalization;
6. By having been declared by competent authority, a
deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war,
unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has
been granted; and
7. In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner
if, by virtue of the laws in force in her husband's country,
she acquires his nationality.
Republic Act No. 8171, approved 23 October 1995, provided a
mechanism allowing Filipino women who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by marriage to aliens and natural-born Filipinos who have
lost their Philippine citizenship, including their minor children, on
account of political or economic necessity, to reacquire Philippine
citizenship.[10]
Republic Act No. 9225, approved 29 August 2003, provided that
natural-born citizens of the Philippines who had lost their Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign
country would be deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship
upon taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic, that their children
whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years
of age, shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines, and that natural
born citizens of the Philippines who become citizens of a foreign
country subsequent to its inactment would retain their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the oath.[11]

Travel freedom[edit]
Main article: Visa requirements for Philippine citizens

Visa requirements for Filipino citizens

In 2017, Philippines citizens had visa-free or visa on arrival access to

61 countries and territories, ranking the Philippine passport 75th in
terms of travel freedom according to the Visa Restrictions Index.[12]

See also[edit]
 Constitution of the Philippines
 Nationality law
 Nationality
 Citizenship
 Oath of Allegiance (Philippines)
 Philippine passport
 Visa requirements for Filipino citizens

Notes[edit]
References[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to:a b The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000,
Chan Robles Law Library, 8 June 2001, retrieved 2006-12-19.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act
No. 9139, Chan Robles Law Library, retrieved 2006-12-19.
3. ^ 1973 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, SChan
Robles Law Library, 17 January 1973, retrieved 2014-06-29.
4. ^ 1973 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, SChan
Robles Law Library, 17 January 1973, retrieved 2014-06-29.
5. ^ 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Chan Robles
Law Library, 14 May 1935, retrieved 2008-10-06.
6. ^ The Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law), Chan Robles Law
Library, August 29, 1916, retrieved 2008-10-06.
7. ^ "Are you a dual US and Philippine citizen?", Asian Journal, 16
November 2013, retrieved 2017-07-09.
8. ^ Commonwealth Act No. 473 : Revised Naturalization Law,
LAWPHIL Project, Arellano Law Foundation, 17 June 1939,
retrieved 2008-10-06
9. ^ An act providing for the ways in which Philippine citizenship may
be lost or reacquired, Chan Robles Law Library, 20 October 1939,
retrieved 2008-10-06.
10. ^ An act providing for the repatriation of Filipino women who have
lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and natural-
born Filipinos, Chan Robles Law Library, 23 October 1995,
retrieved 2008-10-06.
11. ^ Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, Chan
Robles Law Library, 29 August 2003, retrieved 2008-10-06.
12. ^ "Global Ranking - Visa Restrictions Index 2017" (PDF). Henley &
Partners. Retrieved 14 March 2017.

Further reading[edit]
 Cortes, Irene R; Lotilla, Raphael Perpetuo M (1990), "Nationality
and International Law from the Philippine Perspective", in Ko,
Swan Sik, Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective,
Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 335–422, ISBN 0-7923-0876-X
 Cornelius J. Peck (1965), "Nationalistic Influences on the
Philippine Law of Citizenship", The American Journal of
Comparative Law, The American Journal of Comparative Law,
Vol. 14, No. 3, 14 (3): 459–
478, doi:10.2307/838452, JSTOR 838452.

External links[edit]
  The Bureau of Immigration
 Philippines Constitution in Citizenship Law

show

Nationality laws
Categories:
 History of nationality
 Nationality law
 Philippine law
Navigation menu
 Not logged in
 Talk
 Contributions
 Create account
 Log in
 Article
 Talk
 Read
 Edit
 View history
Search

 Main page
 Contents
 Featured content
 Current events
 Random article
 Donate to Wikipedia
 Wikipedia store
Interaction
 Help
 About Wikipedia
 Community portal
 Recent changes
 Contact page
Tools
 What links here
 Related changes
 Upload file
 Special pages
 Permanent link
 Page information
  Wikidata item
 Cite this page
Print/export
 Create a book
 Download as PDF
 Printable version
Languages
Add links
 This page was last edited on 1 August 2018, at 15:44 (UTC).
 Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

 Privacy policy

 About Wikipedia

 Disclaimers

 Contact Wikipedia

 Developers

 Cookie statement

 Mobile view

How to reacquire Filipino citizenship

Felice Suzanne D. Soria

September 24, 2015

As the late Justice Isagani A. Cruz puts it, “Philippine citizenship is a gift that must be deserved to
be retained. The Philippines, for all her modest resources compared to those of other states, is a
jealous and possessive mother demanding total love and loyalty from her children.”

Philippine citizenship has always been valued and treasured by our Supreme Court as it once
described it as “not a cheap commodity,” In the case of In Re Petition For Habeas Corpus Of Willie
Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, the Supreme Court said that “Philippine citizenship is not a commodity or
ware to be displayed when required and suppressed when convenient.” Justice Melencio-Herrera
dubs it as “a priceless heritage”.
The 1987 Constitution expressly provides that “Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in
the manner provided by law.” Thus, Congress can provide for specific grounds that could result in
loss of Philippine citizenship such as those provided under Commonwealth Act No. 63. In said law,
acquisition of foreign citizenship is a ground for the loss of Philippine citizenship.

However, this is modified by the enactment of Republic Act (RA) No. 9225, an Act making the
citizenship of Philippine citizens who acquire foreign citizenship permanent. This law is also known
as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 or, simply, the Dual Citizenship law.

Under RA 9225, the general rule is that citizens of the Philippines who become citizens of another
country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of the law.
The exceptions are: (1) when there is express renunciation of Filipino citizenship; (2) being in the
service of the armed forces of a foreign country; and (3) seeking public office in a foreign country.

Even though Philippine citizenship is lost, it may be reacquired according to the provisions of the law
by taking an oath of allegiance under RA 9225, naturalization, repatriation, or through direct act of
law.

Repatriation is the recovery of original citizenship. Thus, if what was lost was naturalized citizenship
that is what will be reacquired. If what was lost was natural-born citizenship, that will be reacquired.
Technically, it is merely reverting back what was once your citizenship.

Reacquisition of Philippine citizenship does not take effect automatically. In the case of Frivaldo v.
Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the Supreme Court enunciated that even if Frivaldo lost his
naturalized American citizenship, by actively participating in the elections in the Philippines, such
forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of automatically restoring his citizenship in the
Philippines that he had earlier renounced.

As what the Supreme Court held in the case of Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC: “Philippine citizenship is not
a cheap commodity that can be easily recovered after its renunciation. It may be restored only after
the returning renegade makes a formal act of re-dedication to the country he has abjured and he
solemnly affirms once again his total and exclusive loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.”
Moreover, RA 9225 provides that natural born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country, are hereby
deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines.

Also, natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of the law, become citizens of a
foreign country, shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking of the aforesaid oath.

Philippine citizenship will not only be reacquired by the applicant, but will also be acquired by his
unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted, who are below eighteen (18) years of
age. Those who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under the law shall enjoy full civil and
political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the
Philippines and certain conditions.

For those who lost their Philippine citizenship and want to run for office, Section 5 (2) of RA No.
9225 compels natural- born Filipinos, who have been naturalized citizens of a foreign country, but
who reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance under
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for those seeking elective public offices in the
Philippines, to additionally execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of
candidacy.

Further, in Jacot v. Dal and COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled that a candidate’s oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and his Certificate of Candidacy do not substantially
comply with the requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship.

The Supreme Court pronounced that the intent of the legislators was not only for Filipinos
reacquiring or retaining their Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 to take their oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, but also to explicitly renounce their foreign citizenship if
they wish to run for elective posts in the Philippines. To qualify as a candidate in Philippine
elections, Filipinos must only have one citizenship, namely, Philippine citizenship.
 By the same token, the oath of allegiance contained in the Certificate of Candidacy, which is
substantially similar to the one contained in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, does not constitute
the personal and sworn renunciation sought under Section 5 (2) of Republic Act No. 9225.

It bears to emphasize that the said oath of allegiance is a general requirement for all those who wish
to run as candidates in Philippine elections; while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an
additional requisite only for those who have retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under
Republic Act No. 9225 and who seek elective public posts, considering their special circumstance of
having more than one citizenship.

Additionally, the Supreme Court elucidated in Maquiling v. COMELEC, that the requirement of
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship, when read together with Section 40 (d) of the Local
Government Code disqualifying those with dual citizenship from running for any elective local
position, indicates a policy that anyone who seeks to run for public office must be solely and
exclusively a Filipino citizen. To allow a former Filipino who reacquires Philippine citizenship to
continue using a foreign passport -- which indicates the recognition of a foreign state of the
individual as its national -- even after the Filipino has renounced his foreign citizenship, is to allow a
complete disregard of this policy.

It stressed that what is at stake here is the principle that only those who are exclusively Filipinos are
qualified to run for public office.

If we allow dual citizens who wish to run for public office to renounce their foreign citizenship and
afterwards continue using their foreign passports, we are creating a special privilege for these dual
citizens, thereby effectively junking the prohibition in Section 40 (d) of the Local Government Code.

How to become a Filipino Citizen if

Foreigner
There are millions of Filipinos who want to migrate to other countries and
decide to leave their citizenship and adopt the new ones or decide to have
dual citizenship; however, there are some foreigners who want to become
Filipino citizens. If they meet the requirements, they will be granted the
citizenship. The most common way to get this is through Naturalization.
Before we give the ways on how to get Philippine citizenship, let us first
discuss who the citizens of the Philippines are and how to become a Filipino
citizen.

Philippine Citizenship Law

There are 3 bases in Philippine nationality law:

 By Birth
 By Blood
 By Naturalization

By birth a.k.a Jus soli is quite self explanatory. It means you’re an

automatic citizen if you were born in the Philippines soil or territory.
By blood a.k.a. Jus sanguinis is also obvious. You are a citizen if any of
your parents is a Filipino citizen on your birth date according to the
Philippine Nationality Law.
By Naturalization according to the Bureau of Immigration of the
Philippines is the judicial act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with
the privileges of a native-born citizen. It implies the renunciation of a former
nationality and the fact of entrance into a similar relation towards a new
body politic.

 If you are a foreigner born and lived in the Philippines:

On June 2001, Republic Act 9139 was approved and it provides that
foreigners under 18 years old who were born and resided in the Philippines
and have resided here since birth and meet the specified qualifications under
the act may be granted citizenship. Such requirements and qualifications are
posted in this link. If you want to file for a petition, you are required to file 5
copies containing what is required on Section 5 under that RA 9139.

 If you are a foreigner who was not born in the Philippines:

The Revised Naturalization Law may be applicable for you.

The following are the requirements according to the Section 2 of
the Revised Naturalization Act of the Philippines on how to acquire
citizenship by naturalization:

He must not be less than 21 years of age on the day of the hearing
of the petition;
He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of
not less than 10 years;
He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles
underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted
himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire
period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he
is living;
He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than
P5,000, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative
trade, profession, or lawful occupation;
He must be able to speak or write English or Spanish or anyone of
the principal languages;
He must have enrolled his minor children of school age in any of
the public or private schools recognized by the Bureau of Public
Schools of the Philippines where Philippine history, government
and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum,
during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required
of him prior to the hearing of the petition for naturalization as
Philippine citizen;”
However:
Under Section of 4 of the Revised Naturalization Law, the following
persons cannot qualify for Philippine citizenship:

Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any

association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines
opposing all organized governments;
Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of
violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and
predominance of their ideas;
Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious
diseases;
Persons who during the period of their stay in the Philippines, have
not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a
sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and
ideals of the Filipinos;
Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war
Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United
States, whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become
naturalized citizens or subject thereof.”

Philippine Citizenship through Marriage

Can you become a Filipino citizen if you married a Filipino? Lots of
foreigners think if you have married a Filipino, they can also become a
Filipino citizen right away. The fact is you won’t be entitled automatically.

If you have married a Filipino, you are entitled to the citizenship privilege
your spouse have received when he/she married you. Unlike a foreigner who
can apply for citizenship if he stayed for 10 years here, you being married
to a Filipino allow you to apply after 5 years instead.

Under the law of Naturalization, you must take an oath and renounce your
citizenship and leave your former nationality. Your wife however can
choose to be a citizen of this country or your country or both according to
the Philippine Dual Citizenship Law.