Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I Wigmore
July 7, 2014
Legal Writing
AASJS
(Advocates
and
Adherents
of
Social
Justice
for
School
Teachers
and
Allied
Workers)
Member
-
Hector
Calilung
Gumangan,
petitioner
Vs.
The
Honorable
Simeon
Datumanong,
in
his
official
capacity
as
the
Secretary
of
Justice,
respondent
Facts:
The
petitioner
filed
petition
praying
for
a
writ
of
prohibition
to
stop
respondent
from
implementing
RA
9225,
particularly
sections
2
and
3,
on
the
ground
that
it
violates
Section
5,
Article
4
of
the
1987
Constitution
which
states,
"dual
allegiance
of
citizens
is
inimical
to
the
national
interest
and
shall
be
dealt
with
by
law".
The
OSG
contends
that
section
2
merely
declares
a
state
policy
while
section
3
is
an
"effective
renunciation
and
repudiation
of
his
foreign
citizenship"
and
"recognizes
the
supreme
authority
of
the
Philippines".
Issues:
1.
Whether
Republic
Act
no.
9225
("An
Act
Making
the
Citizenship
of
Philippine
Citizens
Who
Acquire
Foreign
Citizenship
Permanent,
Amending
for
the
Purpose
Commonwealth
Act
No.
63,
As
Amended
and
for
Other
Purposes")
is
unconstitutional?
2.
Whether the Court have jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual allegiance?
Ruling:
The
court
dismissed
the
petition
for
lack
of
merit.
The
court
ruled
that
the
Section
2
of
RA
9225
only
allows
dual
citizenship,
and
not
dual
allegiance,
to
Filipinos
who
have
lost
their
Philippine
citizenship
due
to
their
naturalization
as
citizens
of
a
foreign
country.
Section
3
of
said
Act
steers
clear
from
the
problem
of
dual
allegiance
by
shifting
the
burden
of
resolving
the
said
problem
to
the
concerned
foreign
country.
Section
5
of
Article
4
of
the
1987
Constitution,
noting
that
it
is
a
declaration
of
policy
and
not
a
self-executing
provision,
states
that
dual
allegiance
shall
be
dealt
with
by
law.
Thus,
the
court
held
that
it
would
be
premature
for
the
judicial
department
to
rule
on
issues
pertaining
to
dual
allegiance
until
the
legislature
enacts
a
law
governing
it.
Fulgar, Jc Jaf O.
I Wigmore
July 7, 2014
Legal Writing
The
COMELEC
ruled
in
favor
of
the
respondent
stating
that
there
were
no
new
and
enough
evidence
to
prove
that
the
respondent
is
not
a
Filipino
citizen.
The
petitioner
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration
but
was
denied
by
the
COMELEC.
Hence,
the
instant
petition.
Petitioner
argues
that
the
respondents,
aside
from
renouncing
her
Filipino
citizenship
when
she
acquired
a
an
alien
certificate
from
the
Bureau
of
Immigration
as
an
Australian
national,
an
immigrant
certificate
of
residence,
and
an
Australian
passport,
even
assuming
that
the
respondent
is
Filipino,
she
cannot
run
as
government
official
because
of
her
dual
citizenship.
Issue:
Whether
the
respondent's
dual
citizenship,
inter
alia,
disqualifies
her
from
running
as
a
governor
of
Davao
Oriental?
Ruling:
The
court
dismissed
the
petition
and
affirmed
the
previous
rulings
in
the
previous
cases
of
the
same
matter
against
the
respondent.
First,
there
was
sufficient
evidence
proving
that
the
respondent
cancelled
the
documents
stating
she
was
an
Australian
national.
Second,
under
the
Philippine
Bill
of
1902,
the
Jones
Law,
as
well
as
the
1935
Philippine
Constitution,
the
respondent
is
a
Filipino
given
that
she
is
born
to
a
Filipino
father.
Moreover,
under
Commonwealth
Act
No.
63,
in
order
for
one
to
lose
his/her
citizenship
s/he
must
expressly
renounce
it
-
one
which
the
respondent
did
not
do,
and
where
the
respondent
has
not
met
the
requirements
to
lose
her
citizenship
under
the
said
Act
-
and
her
being
born
in
a
different
country
is
not
a
ground
for
losing
one's
Philippine
citizenship.
Lastly,
the
court
reiterated
the
decision
in
Mercado
v
Manzano,
stating
that
the
term
"dual
citizenship"
used
in
the
Local
Government
code
and
as
reconciled
in
Sec
5,
Art
4
of
the
1987
Constitution,
refers
to
"dual
allegiance"
and
as
such,
the
respondent's
dual
citizenship
does
not
automatically
disqualify
her
from
running
for
public
office.