Genuino v.

De Lima sought to be accomplished thereby, in The conclusion then is inevitable that, indeed,
order to construe the whole as to make the the system of initiative on the Constitution under
words consonant to that reason and Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is
Doctrine Constitutional Supremacy - the calculated to effect that purpose.
Constitution is the fundamental, paramount not self-executory. Has Congress “provided” for
and supreme law of the nation; it is deemed the implementation of the exercise of this
written in every statute and contract.  If a law
70
Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat. The
Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole. right? Those who answer the question in the
or an administrative rule violates any norm of
the Constitution, that issuance is null and void affirmative, like the private respondents and
and has no effect. In other words, the court must harmonize intervenor Senator Roco, point to us R.A. No.
them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of 6735. There is, of course, no other better way for
The Constitution is a testament to the living a construction which will render every word Congress to implement the exercise of the right
democracy in this jurisdiction. It contains the operative, rather than one which may make than through the passage of a statute or
compendium of the guaranteed rights of the words idle and nugatory. legislative act.
individuals, as well as the powers granted to
and restrictions imposed on government Chavez v. JBC Lambino v. COMELEC
officials and instrumentalities. It is that lone
unifying code, an inviolable authority that For this reason, the Court cannot accede to Constitutional Law; Amendments and Revisions
demands utmost respect and obedience. the argument of plain oversight in order to of the Constitution; People’s Initiative; The
justify constitutional construction. As stated in essence of amendments “directly proposed by
Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives the July 17, 2012 Decision, in opting to use
the people through initiative upon a petition” is
the singular letter "a" to describe
Methods of Interpreting the Constitution - that the entire proposal on its face is a petition
"representative of Congress," the Filipino
To determine the merits of the issues raised in by the people— first, the people must author and
people through the Framers intended that
the instant petitions, this Court must thus sign the entire proposal, and, second, as an
Congress be entitled to only one (1) seat in
necessarily turn to the Constitution itself which initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
employs the well-settled principles of the JBC. Had the intention been otherwise,
the Constitution could have, in no uncertain
embodied in a petition; The full text of the
constitutional construction.
terms, so provided, as can be read in its other proposed amendments may be either written on
First, verba legis, that is, wherever possible, provisions. the face of the petition, or attached to it, and if
the words used in the Constitution must be so attached, the petition must state the fact of
given their ordinary meaning except where Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC such attachment.
technical terms are employed.
Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly This case also discuss the difference between
Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis propose amendments to the Constitution through Revision and Amendement.
est anima. The words of the Constitution the system of initiative would remain entombed
should be interpreted in accordance with the in the cold niche of the Constitution until Under both the quantitative and qualitative
intent of its framers. And so did this Court tests, the Lambino Group’s initiative is a
apply this principle in Civil Liberties Union v. Congress provides for its implementation. Stated
otherwise, while the Constitution has recognized revision and
Executive Secretary38 in this wise: The object
is to ascertain the reason which induced or granted that right, the people cannot exercise not merely an amendment; A change in the
the framers of the Constitution to enact the it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not structure of government is a revision of the
particular provision and the purpose provide for its implementation. Constitution, as when the three great co-equal
branches of government in the present Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS “SEC. 16. The State shall protect and advance
Constitution is reduced into two; A shift from the right of the people to a balanced and
A constitution is a system of fundamental laws
the present BicameralPresidential system to healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
for the governance and administration of a
Unicameral-Parliamentary system is a revision harmony of nature.”
nation—it is supreme, imperious, absolute and
of the Constitution—merging the legislative and
unalterable except by the authority from which This right unites with the right to health
executive branches is a radical change in the
it emanates. Since the Constitution is the which is provided for in the preceding
structure of the government.
fundamental, paramount and supreme Iaw of the section of the same article:
Marmeto v. COMELEC nation, it is deemed written in every statute and
contract. “SEC. 15. The State shall protect and promote
Initiative and referendum are the means by
A constitutional provision is self-executing if the the right to health of the people and instill health
which the sovereign people exercise their
nature and extent of the right conferred and the consciousness among them.”
legislative power, and the valid exercise thereof
should not be easily defeated by claiming lack of liability imposed are fixed by the constitution
specific budgetary appropriation for their itself, so that they can be determined by an While the right to a balanced and healthful
conduct. The Court reiterates its ruling in Goh v. examination and.construction of its terms, and ecology is to be found under the Declaration
Bayron, 742 SCRA 303 (2014), that the grant there is no language indicating that the subject of Principles and State Policies and not
of a line item in the FY 2014 GAA for the is referred to the legislature for action. under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow
conduct and supervision of elections constitutes that it is less important than any of the civil
Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative
as sufficient authority for the COMELEC to use and political rights enumerated in the latter.
act is necessary to enforce a constitutional
the amount for elections and other political
mandate, the presumption now is that all Tañada v. Angara
exercises, including initiative and recall, and to
provisions of the constitution are self-executing.
augment this amount from the COMELEC’s
existing savings. These principles in Article II are not intended to
A constitutional provision may be selfexecuting be self-executing principles ready for
Nonetheless, as the Court ruled in Subic Bay in one part and non-self-executing in another. enforcement through the courts. They are used
Metropolitan Authority, the COMELEC is likewise by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the
SET 2
given the power to review the sufficiency of initiative exercise of its power of judicial review, and by
petitions, particularly the issue of whether the Oposa v. Factoran the legislature in its enactment of laws.
propositions set forth therein are within the power of
the concerned Sanggunian to enact. In as much as a The complaint focuses on one specific The principles and state policies enumerated in
sanggu,nian does not have the power to create a Article II and some sections of Article XII are
fundamental legal right—the right to a
separate local legislative body and that other not “self-executing provis ions, the disregard of
propositions in Marmeto's initiative petition clearly balanced and healthful ecology which, for
which can give rise to a cause of action in the
contravene the existing laws, the COMELEC did not the first time in our nation’s constitutional
courts. They do not embody judicially
commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack history, is solemnly incorporated in the
or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition and
enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines
fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of
cannot be ordered to conduct and supervise the for legislation.
the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:
procedure for the conduct of initiative elections.
Same; Same; Trade Liberalization; “Filipino An inquiry into the intent of the framers constitutional right to information on matters
First” Policy; While the Constitution indeed produces the same determination that the of public concern and the State’s policy of
mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, provision is not self-executory. full public disclosure.
services, labor and enterprises, at the same
time, it recognizes the need for business Obviously, the provision is not intended to But the people’s right to information is not
exchange with the rest of the world on the bases compel the State to enact positive measures absolute. According to Legaspi v. Civil
of equality and reciprocity and limits protection Service Commission,18 the constitutional
that would accommodate as many people as
of Filipino enterprises only against foreign guarantee to information “does not open
possible into public office. every door to any and all information.”19 It
competition and trade practices that are unfair
—the Constitution did not intend to pursue an is limited to matters of public concern, and
Imbong v. Ochoa
is subject to such limitations as may be
isolationist policy.
The grounds for assailing the RH bill is the provided by law.20 Likewise, the State’s
Pamatong v. COMELEC violation policy of full public disclosure is restricted
of the right to life, right to health, freedom to transactions involving public interest, and
There is no constitutional right to run for or of religion and right to free speech, right is further subject to reasonable conditions
hold public office and, particularly, to seek the to privacy (marital privacy and prescribed by law.
autonomy), freedom of expression and
presidency—what is recognized is merely a
academic freedom, due process clause,
privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. Two requisites must concur before the right
equal protection clause, and prohibition
against involuntary servitude. to information may be compelled by writ of
What is recognized is merely a privilege subject mandamus. Firstly, the information sought
to limitations imposed by law. Section 26, In general, the Court does not find the RH must be in relation to matters of public
Article II of the Constitution neither bestows Law as concern or public interest. And secondly, it
such a right nor elevates the privilege to the unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to must not be exempt by law from the
provide access to medically-safe, non- operation of the constitutional guarantee.
level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in
abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable,
the plain language of the provision which and quality reproductive healthcare
suggests such a thrust or justifies an As to the first requisite, there is no rigid test in
services, methods, devices, and supplies.
determining whether or not a particular
interpretation of the sort. As earlier pointed out, the religious
information is of public concern or public
freedom of some sectors of society cannot
be trampled upon in pursuit of what the interest. As such, whether or not the information
The provisions under the Article are generally
law hopes to achieve. After all, the sought is of public interest or public concern is
considered not self-executing, and there is no left to the proper determination of the courts on
Constitutional safeguard to religious
plausible reason for according a different a case to case basis.
freedom is a recognition that man stands
treatment to the “equal access” provision— like accountable to an authority higher than
the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the State. The second requisite is that the information
the provision does not contain any judicially requested must not be excluded by law from the
Sereno v. Committee on Trade constitutional guarantee. In that regard, the
enforceable constitutional right but merely the issue is whether or not the CTRM may Court has already declared that the constitutional
specifies a guideline for legislative or executive be compelled by mandamus to furnish the guarantee of the people’s right to information
action. petitioner with a copy of the minutes of the does not cover national security matters and
May 23, 2005 meeting based on the
intelligence information, trade secrets and Church and State and the constitutional the doctrine of parens patriae. It
banking transactions and criminal matters. prohibition against appropriation of public focuses on the role of the state as a
money or property for the benefit of a sect,
Equally excluded from coverage of the "sovereign" and expresses the
church, denomination, or any other system
constitutional guarantee are diplomatic of religion. inherent power and authority of the
correspondence, closed-door Cabinet state to provide protection of the
meeting and executive sessions of either Maynilad v. Sec. of DENR person and property of a person non
house of Congress, as well as the internal Then comes into relevance police sui juris.
deliberations of the Supreme Court.26 In
power, one of the inherent powers of
Chavez v. Public Estates Authority,27 the
Court has ruled that the right to information the State. Police power is described in Parens patriae means "father ofhis
does not extend to matters acknowledged as Gerochi v. Department of Energy. country", and refers to the State as a
“privileged information under the separation last-ditch provider of protection to
of powers,” which include “Presidential [P]olice power is the power of the state to those unable to care and fend for
conversations, correspondences, or promote public welfare by restraining themselves. It can be said that Filipino
discussions during closed-door Cabinet and regulating the use of liberty and
consumers have become such persons
meetings.”28 Likewise exempted from the property. It is the most pervasive, the least
right to information are “information on limitable, and the most demanding of the of disability deserving protection by
military and diplomatic secrets, information three fundamental powers of the State. The the State, as their welfare are being
affecting national security, and information justification is found in the Latin maxim increasingly downplayed, endangered,
on investigations of crimes by law salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the and overwhelmed by business
enforcement agencies before the prosecution people is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo pursuits.
of the accused.” ut alienum non laedas (so use your property as
not to injure the property of others). As an
City Government of Valenzuela v.
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano inherent attribute of sovereignty which
Abacan
Whether the holding of masses at the virtually extends to all public needs, police
basement of the Quezon City hall of justice power grants a wide panoply of instruments
violates the constitutional principle of through which the State, as parens patriae, Among the State's inherent powers
separation of church and state as well as the gives effect to a host of its regulatory that need not be expressly granted is
constitutional prohibition against eminent domain, which "enables it to
powers. We have held that the power to
appropriation of public money or property
"regulate" means the power to protect, forcibly acquire private lands intended
for the benefit of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or foster, promote, preserve, and control, for public use upon payment of just
system of religion. with due regard for the interests, first and
compensation to the owner."47 The
foremost, of the public, then of the utility
and of its patrons. exercise of this power is limited by
In fine, the Court denies the plea that the
holding of Catholic masses at the basement
Article III, Section 9 of the
of the QC Hall of Justice be prohibited Hand-in-hand with police power in Constitution, which states that
because the said practice does not violate the the promotion of general welfare is "[p]rivate property [shall] not be taken
constitutional principle of separation of
for public use without just The immunity of the State from suit, known In its challenged decision,14 the CA
compensation[.]" also as the doctrine of sovereign immunity answered in the
or non-suability of the State, is expressly negative,
provided in Article XVI of the 1987
Section 19 of the Local Government Constitution, viz.: the CA thereby correctly appreciated the
Code confers the power of eminent “Section 3. The State may not be sued juridical character of the ATO as an agency
domain to local government units. without its consent.” of the Government not performing a purely
The requisites for the local The immunity from suit is based on the governmental or sovereign function, but was
government's exercise of eminent political truism that the State, as a sovereign, instead involved in the management and
can do no wrong. maintenance of the Loakan Airport, an
domain are:
activity that was not the exclusive
A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because prerogative of the State in its sovereign
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local of any formal conception or obsolete theory, capacity.
legislative council authorizing the local chief but on the logical and practical ground that
executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise there can be no legal right as against the We further observe the doctrine of sovereign
the power of eminent domain or pursue authority that makes the law on which the immunity cannot be successfully invoked to
expropriation proceedings over a particular right depends. “Car on
defeat a valid claim for compensation arising
private property. peut bien recevoir loy d'autruy, mais il est
from the taking without just compensation
2. The power of eminent domain is and without the proper expropriation
exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, An unincorporated government agency
without any separate juridical personality of proceedings being first resorted to of the
or for the benefit of the poor and the plaintiffs’ property.
landless. its own enjoys immunity from suit because it
3. There is payment of just compensation, as is invested with an inherent power of
sovereignty. However, the need to The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of
required under Section 9, Article III of the sovereign immunity was not an instrument
Constitution, and other pertinent laws. distinguish between an unincorporated
government agency performing for perpetrating any injustice on a citizen.
4.A valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner of the governmental function and one performing
proprietary functions has arisen. The Arigo v. Swift
property sought to be expropriated, but said *pag digest na lang sa TSN ug Pascua
offer was not accepted. immunity has been upheld in favor of the
former because its function is governmental Notes.
Air Transportation Office v. Ramos or incidental to such function;12 it has not
been upheld in favor of the latter whose City of Bacolod v. Phuture Visions
The principle of immunity from suit is embodied
The State’s immunity from suit does not function was not in pursuit of a necessary in Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Philippine
extend to the petitioner because it is an function of government but was essentially a Constitution which states that “[t]he State cannot
agency of the State engaged in an enterprise business.13 be sued without its consent.” The purpose
that is far from being the State’s exclusive behind this principle is to prevent the loss of
Should the doctrine of sovereignty governmental efficiency as a result of the time
prerogative.
immunity or nonsuability of the State be and energy it would require to defend itself
extended to the ATO? against lawsuits. The State and its political
subdivisions are open to suit only when they known as the Government Auditing Code of Presidential Decree No. 1445, it is the
consent to it. the Philippines. All money claims against the COA which has primary jurisdiction
Government must first be filed with the
Consent may be expressed or implied, such as Commission on Audit which must act upon it over money claims against
when the government exercises its proprietary within sixty days. Rejection of the claim will government agencies and
functions, or where such is embodied in a authorize the claimant to elevate the matter instrumentalities.
general or special law. this Court (SC) has held to the Supreme Court on certiorari and in
that the power to issue or grant licenses and
effect sue the State thereby (P[residential] *pag digest na lang pud sa TSN ani.
business permits is not an exercise of the
government’s proprietary function. Instead, it is D[ecree] [No.] 1445, Sections 49-50).
in an exercise of the police power of the State, Philippine Textile Research
ergo a governmental act. As a rule, public funds may not be disbursed
absent an appropriation of law or other Institute v. CA
Constitutional Law; State Immunity; Petitioners, specific statutory authority.
in ordering the closure of respondent’s bingo Nicolas v. Romulo
operations, were exercising their duty to Only when the Commission on Audit rejects National Territory; Clark and Subic and the
implement laws and ordinances which include the claim can the claimant elevate the matter other places in the Philippines covered by the
the local government’s authority to issue to this Court on certiorari and, in effect, sue RP-US Military Bases Agreement of 1947 were
licenses and permits for business operations in not Philippine Territory, as they were excluded
the state.
the city. This authority is granted to them as a from the cession and retained by the U.S.
delegated exercise of the police power of the
State. "claimants have to prosecute their money
The provision of the Constitution is Art. XVIII,
claims against the Government under
Sec. 25 which states: Sec. 25. After the
Civil Law; Damages; Damnum Absque Injuria; Commonwealth Act 327 ... and that the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the
In order that the law will give redress for an act conditions provided in Commonwealth Act Philippines and the United States of America
causing damage, there must be damnum et 327 for filing money claims against the concerning Military Bases, foreign military
injuria that act must be not only hurtful, but Government must be strictly observed." bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in
wrongful. the Philippines except under a treaty duly
the Court partly granted the petition of the concurred in by the Senate and, when the
Republic v. Fetalvero state and reversed and set aside the CA ruling Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of
because the amount of just compensation was the votes cast by the people in a national
this Court elaborated on the proper not filed before the Commission on Audit referendum held for that purpose, and
process of raising money claims recognized as a treaty by the other contracting
So the parties must file before the State.
against the government. Commission on Audit regarding the amount
of just compensation. This is noteworthy, because what this means is
it is settled jurisprudence that upon that Clark and Subic and the other places in the
determination of State liability, the MMDA v. D.M. Consunji, Inc. Philippines covered by the RP-US Military
prosecution, enforcement or satisfaction Bases Agreement of 1947 were not Philippine
thereof must still be pursued in accordance Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, territory, as they were excluded from the cession
with the rules and procedures laid down in as amended by Section 26 of and retained by the US. Accordingly, the
P[residential] D[ecree] No. 1445, otherwise Philippines had no jurisdiction over these bases
except to the extent allowed by the United But merely to the US Congress under the Case “sovereignty or jurisdiction.” The Constitution
States. Zablocki Act within 60 days of its ratification. It mandates: “The State shall protect the nation’s
is for this reason that the US has certified that it marine wealth in its archipelagic waters,
and with the expiration of the RP-US Military recognizes the VFA as a binding international territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone,
Bases Agreement in 1991, the territory covered agreement, i.e., a treaty, and this substantially and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to
by these bases were finally ceded to the complies with the requirements of Art. XVIII, Filipino citizens.”
Philippines. Sec. 25 of our Constitution. The provision of
Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Constitution, is Saguisag v. Ochoa
Article XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Constitution is complied with by virtue of the fact that the
designed to ensure that any agreement allowing presence of the US Armed Forces through the Republic v. Provincial Government of
the presence of foreign military bases, troops or VFA is a presence “allowed under” the RP-US Palawan
facilities in Philippine territory shall be equally Mutual Defense Treaty.
binding on the Philippines and the foreign Republic of the Philippines v. China
sovereign State involved, the idea being to the rule in international law is that a foreign
prevent a recurrence of what happened in the armed forces allowed to enter one’s territory is
past.—To prevent a recurrence of this immune from local jurisdiction, except to the Set 3. Citizenship
experience, the provision in question was extent agreed upon.
adopted in the 1987 Constitution. The provision Ma v. Fernandez
is thus designed to ensure that any agreement It was not the intention of the framers of the Same; Same; Same; Under the facts peculiar to
allowing the presence of foreign military bases, 1987 Constitution, in adopting Article XVIII, the petitioners, the right to elect Philippine
troops or facilities in Philippine territory shall be Sec. 25, to require the other contracting State to citizenship has not been lost and they should be
equally binding on the Philippines and the convert their system to achieve alignment and allowed to complete the statutory requirements
foreign sovereign State involved. The idea is to parity with ours. It was simply required that the for such election.—The instant case presents a
prevent a recurrence of the situation in which the treaty be recognized as a treaty by the other different factual setting. Petitioners complied
terms and conditions governing the presence of contracting State. with the first and second requirements upon
foreign armed forces in our territory were reaching the age of majority. It was only the
binding upon us but not upon the foreign State. Magallona v. Ermita registration of the documents of election with
the civil registry that was belatedly done. We
whether or not the presence of US Armed Forces The President is not authorized by law to rule that under the facts peculiar to the
in Philippine territory pursuant to the VFA is allow foreign military bases, troops, or facilities petitioners, the right to elect Philippine
allowed “under a treaty duly concurred in by the to enter the Philippines, except under a treaty citizenship has not been lost and they should be
Senate x x x and recognized as a treaty by the concurred in by the Senate.—To this Court, a allowed to complete the statutory requirements
other contracting State.” This Court finds that plain textual reading of Article XIII, Section 25, for such election.
it is, for two reasons. First, as held in Bayan v. inevitably leads to the conclusion that it applies
Zamora, 342 SCRA 449 (2000), the VFA was only to a proposed agreement between our The statutory formalities of electing
duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and government and a foreign government, whereby Philippine citizenship are: (1) a statement of
has been recognized as a treaty by the United military bases, troops, or facilities of such election under oath; (2) an oath of allegiance
States as attested and certified by the duly foreign government would be “allowed” or to the Constitution and Government of the
authorized representative of the United States would “gain entry” Philippine territory. Philippines; and (3) registration of the
government.
statement of election and of the oath with the
Thus, the Philippine “national territory” refers to
areas over which the Philippines has nearest civil registry.
 schools recognized by the Government and
The instant case presents a different factual not limited to any race or nationality. The this case highlights that Naturalization laws
setting. Petitioners complied with the first same shall be understood applicable with should be strictly followed. in this case,
and second requirements upon reaching the respect to the widow and minor children of an respondent was unable to provide the certificate
alien who has declared his intention to become a of arrival. the certificate of arrival is important
age of majority. It was only the registration
citizen of the Philippines, and dies before he is so that the state can ascertain if the person
of the documents of election with the civil actually naturalized. legally entered into the country.
registry that was belatedly done.
OSG argued that it violated Sec 1 RA 530 Naturalization laws should be strictly followed
What we now say is that where, as in because the hearing for the petition took place because it is not a right but a privilege only
petitioners’ case, the election of citizenship earlier than 6 months. given to those who can comply with the
has in fact been done and documented requisites.
within the constitutional and statutory whether the respondent should be admitted as a
timeframe, the registration of the documents Filipino citizen despite his undisputed failure to Please see Section 7 of the Revised
of election beyond the frame should be comply with the requirements provided for in Naturalization Law or CA 473 requires, among
allowed if in the meanwhile positive acts of CA No. 473, as amended―which are mandatory others, that an applicant for naturalization
and jurisdictional in character―particularly: (i) *words from Sec. 7
citizenship have publicly, consistently, and
the filing of his petition for naturalization within The approximate date of his or her arrival in
continuously been done. the one (1) year proscribed period from the date the Philippines, the name of the port of
he filed his declaration of intention to become a debarkation, and, if he remembers it, the
Republic v. Li Ching Chung Filipino citizen; (ii) the failure to attach to the name of the ship on which he came
The only exception to the mandatory filing of a petition his certificate of arrival; and (iii) the
declaration of intention is specifically stated in failure to comply with the publication and The certificate of arrival, and the declaration
Section 6 of CA No. 473, to wit: posting requirements prescribed by CA No. 473. of intention must be made part of the petition.
Section 6. Persons exempt from requirement to this case entails that the one year period of filing Respondent came to the country sometime
make a declaration the intention before the petition for admission in 1973; thus, he should have attached a
of intention.―Persons born in the Philippines must be strictly followed. this case also provides
and have received their primary and
Certificate of Arrival to his Petition for
the exceptions. Naturalization. This is mandatory as
secondary education in public schools or
those recognized by the Government and not respondent must prove that he entered the
Republic v. Go Pei Hung
limited to any race or nationality, and those The petition for naturalization should not [have
country legally and not by unlawful means
who have resided continuously in the been] granted because: i) respondent did not file or any other manner that is not sanctioned
Philippines for a period of thirty years or his declaration of intention with the OSG; ii) by law. Because if he entered the country
more before filing their application, may be respondent did not state the details of his arrival illegally, this would render his stay in the
naturalized without having to make a declaration in the Philippines in his petition and the country unwarranted from the start, and no
of intention upon complying with the other certificate of arrival was not attached to the number of years’ stay here will validate his
requirements of this Act. To such petition; iii) respondent is not engaged in a unlawful entry. The spring cannot rise
requirements shall be added that which lucrative profession, trade or occupation; and iv) higher than its source, so to speak.
establishes that the applicant has given respondent failed to present during hearing
primary and secondary education to all his qualified character witnesses as required under
children in the public schools or in private this Court held that the failure to attach a
CA No. 473.
copy of the applicant’s certificate of arrival
to the petition as required by Section 7 of disqualified. the mistake of his counsel does not office (mayor) but was disqualified because she
CA 473 is fatal to an applicant’s petition for exempt him. did not renounce her Australian citizenship
naturalization
Constitutional Law; Citizenship and *the renunciation was not sworn before an
Naturalization; Section 3 of Republic Act No. officer authorized to administer oath.
The Certificate of Arrival should prove that
9225 requires that natural-born citizens of the
respondent’s entry to the country is lawful. Philippines, who are already naturalized *petitioner contends that the requirement of
Without it, his Petition for Naturalization is citizens of a foreign country, must take the renunciation is a pro forma requirement. the
incomplete and must be denied outright. following oath of allegiance to the Republic of Court denied this contention stating that the law
Even if respondent acquired permanent the Philippines to reacquire or retain their should be strictly complied.
resident status, this does not do away with Philippine citizenship.
the requirement of said certificate of arrival. On September 18, 2006, or a year before she
An application to become a naturalized The law categorically requires persons seeking initially sought elective public office, she
Philippine citizen involves requirements elective public office, who either retained their filed a renunciation of Australian citizenship
different and separate from that for Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired in Canberra, Australia. Admittedly,
permanent residency here. it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation of
however, the same was not under oath
any and all foreign citizenship before a public
officer authorized to administer an oath contrary to the exact mandate of Section
The Declaration of Intention is entirely 5(2) that the renunciation of foreign
simultaneous with or before the filing of the
different from the Certificate of Arrival; the certificate of candidacy. citizenship must be sworn before an officer
latter is just as important because it proves authorized to administer oath.
that the applicant’s entry to the country was Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels
not illegal — that he was a documented alien natural-born Filipinos, who have been Maquiling v. COMELEC
whose arrival and presence in the country is naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but
in good faith and with evident intention to who reacquired or retained their Philippine That Arnado’s use of his U.S. passport amounts
submit to and abide by the laws of the citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance to an express renunciation of his Filipino
Republic. under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and citizenship or some of his rights as a citizen.
(2) for those seeking elective public offices in
the Philippines, to additionally execute a Tabasa v. CA
Jacot v. Dal
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all *petitioner is a son of a natural born filipino who
*In this case, the petitioner presented his
foreign citizenship before an authorized public was naturalized in a foreign country, and
personal and sworn renunciation of foreign
officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their petitioner's nationality was also naturalized
citizenship only after the filing of his CoC
certificates of candidacy, to qualify as through derivative naturalization.
*this case provides that when a natural born candidates in Philippine elections.
*petitioner claims that upon arriving here in the
Filipino becomes a naturalized foreigner, he can
Sobejana-Condon v. COMELEC Philippines he was automatically repatriated, but
reacquire his Filipino citizenship by taking oath
the Court said no because he is not among those
of allegiance according to RA 9225. but in order
*petitioner was a natural born Filipino who qualified to repatriate. and also he was already
to run for public office, he must swore an oath
acquired dual citizenship because she was 35 or beyond the age of majority.
renunciating his foreign citzenship.
married to an australian. she was able to
reacquire Filipino citizenship and ran for public Citizenship; Repatriation; Republic Act No.
*in this case the petitioner was unable to
8171; Persons Entitled to Repatriation Under
renounce his american citizenship hence he is
Republic Act No. 8171.—The only persons and economic reasons, and extended indirectly petitioner was a natural born Filipino who
entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the to the minor children at the time of repatriation. became a naturalized American citizen. he
following: a. Filipino women who lost their returned home (kausawagan, lanao del norte)
Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and In Re: Petition to Re-acquire the Privilege to and ran for mayor. he reacquired his filipino
b. Natural-born Filipinos including their minor Practice Law in the Philippines, B.M. No. citizenship through RA 9225 and also made an
children who lost their Philippine citizenship on 2112, July 24, 2012 sworn renunciation of his foreign citizenship.
account of political or economic necessity. *petitioner was a lawyer who went to canada to
receive healthcare then eventually became a he won for the position but he was disqualified
Repatriation; Republic Act No. 8171; The Canadian citizen. petitioner went back to the because he still uses his US passport even after
privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is Philippines and wants to retire here and wants to he filed his CoC and reacquired Philippine
extended directly to the naturalborn Filipinos practice law. citizenship.
who could prove that they acquired citizenship
of a foreign country due to political and *the Court ruled that he can be allowed to the Court ruled that the petitioner's use of his US
economic reasons, and extended indirectly to practice law again in the Philippines provided passport amounts to a repudiation of his
the minor children at the time of repatriation— that he re-acquires his Philippine citizenship renunciation of his foreign citizenship. Therefore
In the case at bar, there is no dispute that through RA 9225 and comply with the he is disqualified.
petitioner was a Filipino at birth. In 1968, while requirements given to him.
he was still a minor, his father was naturalized as Caballero v. COMELEC
an American citizen; and by derivative David v. Agbay *petitioner was a natural born Filipino who
naturalization, petitioner acquired U.S. became a naturalized Canadian citizen. he
citizenship. Petitioner now wants us to believe *mao ni katong nahimo siyag naturalized reacquired filipino citizenship and renounced his
that he is entitled to automatic repatriation as a canadian citizen tas niuli siya dre sa pilipinas tas canadian citizenship. he went back to the
child of natural-born Filipinos who left the nagrent ug public land pero gibutang niya sa Philippines to run as mayor in Uyugan, Batanes.
country due to political or economic necessity. contract of lease na Filipino citizen siya mao A petition for disqualification was filed against
This is absurd. Petitioner was no longer a minor gikasohan siyag falsification of public him because he was unable to comply with the
at the time of his “repatriation” on June 13, documents. one year residency requirement
1996. The privilege under RA 8171 belongs to
children who are of minor age at the time of the *ingon siya na di daw dapat siya pakasohan ana *this case highlights that RA 9225 is concerned
filing of the petition for repatriation. Neither can kay naa daw diyay intention na i-reacquire ang only with citizenship and not residence. if the
petitioner be a natural-born Filipino who left the filipino citizenship niya through RA 9225 person who re-acquired philippine citizenship
country due to political or economic necessity. wishes to run for public office then having
Clearly, he lost his Philippine citizenship by *but the Court said no residence is required pursuant to the election
operation of law and not due to political or laws.
economic exigencies. It was his father who *petitioner's plea of retroactive application in
could have been motivated by economic or favor of the accused does not apply because *also, re-acquisition of citizenship does not
political reasons in deciding to apply for RA9225 is not a penal statute. automatically mean re-establishment of
naturalization. The decision was his parent’s and residence or domicile. for purposes of elections,
not his. The privilege of repatriation under RA *the said law having no retroactive effect insofar the candidate must re-establish and prove his
8171 is extended directly to the natural-born as his dual citizenship is concerned. residence.
Filipinos who could prove that they acquired
citizenship of a foreign country due to political Arnado v. COMELEC Citizenship; View that Republic Act (RA) No.
9225 is concerned only with citizenship; it does
not touch on and does not require residency in *Tan countered that she was already a resident
the Philippines to reacquire Philippine before here in the PH and RA9225 applies
citizenship. retroactively.

Residency in the Philippines becomes material *The Court denied the petition of Tan because it
only when the natural-born Filipino who held that RA9225 does not apply retroactively.
reacquires or retains Philippine citizenship
under the provisions of RA No. 9225 decides to *RA 9225 is does not retroact to the period
run for public office. before taking said oath.

Petitioner’s retention of his Philippine Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of

citizenship under Republic Act (RA) No. 9225 2003; Retroactivity of Laws; Republic Act (RA)
did not automatically make him regain his No. 9225 contains no provision stating that it
residence in Uyugan, Batanes. He must still may be applied retroactively as regards natural-
prove that after becoming a Philippine citizen born citizens who became naturalized citizens of
on September 13, 2012, he had reestablished a foreign country prior to the effectivity of the
Uyugan, Batanes as his new domicile of choice said law.
which is reckoned from the time he made it as
such.

Chua v. COMELEC

*Chua is a natural born filipino who became a

naturalized american citizen. she took oath of
allegiance to the PH but she did not make a
personal and sworn renunciation of her american
citizenship and she still uses her US passport.
Bacani argued that being a dual citizen, Chua is
not qualified to run for public office.

Tan v. Crisologo
*Tan was a natural born Filipino who became a
naturalized American. She took an oath of
allegiance and a personal and sworn
renunciation of her US citizenship then she filed
a CoC to run for congresswoman.

*respondent sought to disqualify Tan because

she is not considered a registered voter as she
was unable to comply with the 1yr residency
requirement.