PRE-MIDTERM Kinds of Constitution
-Written (embodied in one document) / unwritten (scattered
Introductory Concepts
I. Concepts/Constitution
Political Law- is that branch of public law which deals with
the operation and organization of the governmental organs
of the state and defines the relationship between the state
and inhabitants of its territory
Branches:
1. Constitutional Law
2. Election Law
3. Law on Public Officers
4. Administrative Law
5. Law on Public corporations
Public Law- is that branch of law which deals with the state,
state agencies and protection of state interests
Branches:
1. Political Law
2. Criminal Law
3. International Law
Private Law- is that branch of law which deals with the
relationship between and among individuals
1. Civil law
2. Commercial law
e.g. persons and family relations
CASE: Macariola vs. AsuncionPolitical Law automatically
abrogated, private law retainedthis goes down to meaning
of pol law; change of state means theres a new sovereign; so
theres new relationship between state and inhabitants;
private law retained because peoples relationships with each
other dont change
- Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce partakes more of the
nature of an administrative law (part of pol law) because it
regulates the conduct of certain public officers& employers
with respect to engaging in business, hence political in
essence; Art 14 of this code must be deemed abrogated
because where there is a change in sovereignty, the pol laws
of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with
those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated
unless they are expressly reenacted by an affirmative act of
the new sovereign
Constitutional Law- is the study of the constitution and
principles coming out of the interpretations of the provisions
of the constitution
Constitution + jurisprudence
-Constitution is the body of rules and maxims in accordance
with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised
-Is constitution the source of states powers? No. Constitution
only serves to limit or set limitations on powers
-Nature of the constitution: Fundamental (supreme law of
the land) & Supreme (Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy)
CASE: Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS: Constitution is the
fundamental & paramount law of the nation. It is the
supreme law to which all other laws must conform & in
accordance with which all private rights must be determined
& all public authority administered. Under the doctrine of
Constitutional Supremacy, if a law/contract violates the
constitution, law/contract is null & void & without any force
& effect. Constitution is deemed written in every
statute/contract
-Filipino first policy upheld against foreign bidder
in various sources)
-Rigid (follows a process more rigid than ordinary law) /
Flexible (changed like ordinary law)
-not on the number of changes but on how constitution is
changed
-Phil Consti: Written & Rigid
II. Amendments & Revision
How to change Phil Consti: 2 steps (Art 17)
1. Proposal- Constituent Assembly, Constitutional
Convention, Peoples Initiative (3 ways for amendments,
but Con Ass & Con Con only for revisions)
Con Ass: Congress transforms itself into Con Ass, passing
amendments/revisions; not ordinary law; still the same
Congress & proposes by 3/4 vote
Vs. Con con: separate body created Congress by 2/3 vote;
when congress cant decide, question of creating Con Con
thrown to people by majority vote
2. Ratification- ratified by a majority of votes cast in a
plebiscite
-Doctrine of equality of Con Con with other 3 branches of
government
-Amendment vs Revision: 2 tests
a. Quantitative- substantial no. of provisions affected; if not
affected substantially, its amendment which only adds,
deletes or reduces without altering basic principles of consti
b. Qualitative- change is such that it changes the
philosophical underpinnings of the Consti, even if few
provisions are affected (this is now revision, not amendment)
CASE: Lambino vs Comelec- proposed amendment from
presidential/unicameral to parliamentary/unicameral;
however, this is a revision & the Lambino group wrongly used
peoples initative; qualitative test- philosophy changed such
as separation of powers, check and balance
-How to propose through peoples initiative?
a. draft of proposed consti amendment should be ready &
shown to the people before they sign such proposal; people
should sign on proposal itself (full text of proposed
amendments)
b. full text may be either written on the face of the petition or
attached to it. If attached, petition must state fact of
attachment
-as of now, peoples initiative cant be done yet; its not a self-
executing provision; needs an enabling legislation; right of
using initiative still remains entombed
-in the last analysis, still dependent on congressional action;
til congress provides for its implementation
-How do you change Consti? Make a proposal, have it ratified
-How do you make proposal? Refer to no. 1
-Why is peoples initiative only for amendment? Cant entrust
something substantial to people; might be done drastically
III. Theory of Judicial Review
A. Theory of Judicial Review Judicial Review is the
power of the courts to declare that a law (passed by
Congress) or executive act is not in accord with the
Constitution; mechanism by which courts interpret Consti;
limited to determining whether act is against/not of the
consti
-Vs. Judicial power in general- broader than review, found in
first part of section 1, article 8
-Judicial review in Art 8, sec 1 of Consti: The judicial power
shall be vested in one SC & in such lower courts as may be
established by law. Judicial Power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable & enforceable, & to
determine whether/not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch/instrumentality of the government
CASES:
1. Marbury vs Madison- Madison wants mandamus for his
justice of the peace commission
-it is the province & duty of the court to say what the law is;
judicial power extends to all cases arising under the Consti
(U.S. case)
-no express provision on judicial power but implied through
history & usage
2. Angara vs. Elec Commission- Ynsua filed election protest
against co-candidate Angara who was proclaimed winner
-Judicial review is the mechanism by which to direct the
course of government along constitutional channels
moderating power of the courts; applies limitations &
restrictions set by consti
-the judiciary is the only rational way to determine
extent/scope of powers of government
-Power of judicial review- courts dont in reality
nullify/invalidate acts of legislature; only asserts its solemn &
sacred obligation assigned to it by Consti to determine
conflicting claims of authority; court only makes declaration
of unconstitutionality but its the Conti thats really
invalidating acts of other branchesthis isnt judicial
supremacy but supremacy of the Constitution
-judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in
actual & appropriate cases & controversies, & is the power &
duty to see that no branch/agency of government transcends
the Consti
-Why does Judiciary have the power to invalidate acts of
Congress and President? there is legal significance in the
saying hereby declared unconstitutional- all the courts do is
to declare the act unconstitutional- pronouncing something
already there.
-Can court exercise judicial review w/o Art. 8? In the US where
no express constitutional grant is found in their constitution,
the possession of this moderating power of the courts, not to
speak of its historical origin and development there, has been
implied. In Phils, judicial power is expressly stated
3 types of Constitution
1. British- no written constitution
2. Continental- with written constitution but not
interpreted by courts; interpretation done during making
of bill/law
3. American- written consti, interpreted by courts (also
Phils)
B. Conditions/ Requisites for Exercise of Judicial Review
1. Actual case/controversy
2. Proper party
3. Constitutional question raised at the earliest opportunity
4. Necessity of deciding the constitutional question
Actual Case/Controversy
-not hypothetical question which may happen/not
-conflict of rights
-Why cant hypothetical questions be asked in court?
Decisions/advices on these are not binding;
Congress/President may follow/not; also, one should not
upset the principle of separation of powers
Proper Party
-stands to be directly injured, affected, prejudiced, locus
standi
-Direct injury test- to determine whos proper party; personal
& substantial; the ones injured are those whose rights are
violated by the act or one in immediate danger of suffering
the injury
a. citizen- must be direct & personal, not generalized interest
shared with the rest of citizenry; involves assertion of a public
right
b. taxpayer- allege illegal disbursement of public funds
c. legislator- showing that their prerogatives are infringed
d. association- composed of substantial taxpayers
e. class suits- sufficiently numerous to fully protect interests
of all concerned
RULE: use Direct Injury Test
EXCEPTIONS (also exceptions on mootness):
a. Transcendental importance- paramount public interest
b. Capable of repetition yet evading review
Determinants of transcendental importance:
a. Characteristics of the funds/other assets involved in the
case
b. Presence of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional/statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency of the government
c. Lack of any other party with a more direct & specific
interest
Constitutional Question raised at the earliest opportunity
-not as an afterthought; must be in the pleadings, not on
appeal
Necessity of deciding the constitutional question
-only when theres a need since courts can use other grounds
in deciding a case
-prescription is the period of time with which to file a case; if
courts can use this as ground, they wont deal with issue of
constitutionality
-Why not? Theres a presumption that other branches acted
in accordance with the consti
-Purposeful Hesitation- whenever courts can, they wont
touch an issue to respect other branches; to doubt is to
sustain
-Decide only if theres absolutely no other way to decide the
case but to deal with the constitutional question
-must be lis mota of the case/unavoidable question
-becomes lis mota when theres no other ground to use in
deciding a case
CASES:
1. Funa vs Ermita- Funa questioned constitutionality of
Bautistas appointment as MARINA Administrator while
being DOTC Undersec
-a party will be allowed to litigate only if: as proper party,
a)show he has suffered actual/threatened injury due to the
alleged illegal conduct of govt, b) injury fairly traceable to
challenged action, c) injury likely to be redressed by a
favorable action
-moot & academic case- one that ceases to present a
justiciable issue by virtue of supervening events; except:
theres grave violation of the consti, formulate controlling
principles to bench & bar, capable of repetition yet evading
review
2. Macalintal vs PET- Macalintal questioned creation of PET
-adopt the direct injury test; show he has sustained direct
injury and not just general interest common to members of
the public
-here, no legal standing and didnt raise at earliest
opportunity
3. IBP vs Zamora- question on constitutionality of order of
Erap deploying marines
-no locus standi- IBP anchors its standing on its alleged
responsibility to uphold law & Consti; no other basis to
support its locus standi; this is too general an interest shared
by other groups & citizenry
-judicial review- justiciable controversies, plus expanded
concept of judicial review which is determining grave abuse
of discretion
-grave abuse of discretion- capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment that is patent & gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined
by law; power is exercised in an arbitrary & despotic manner
due to passion/hostility
-act here is constitutional, discretionary on President as
commander in chief of armed forces
4. Southern Hemisphere vs Anti-Terrorism Council-
constitutionality of Human Security Act of 2007 is questioned
due to tagging
-mere invocation to preserve rule of law not sufficient locus
standi
-dismissed cause here, petitioners failed to show actual case;
no demonstrable threat, real/existing threat
5. Francisco vs House of Reps-if filing of 2nd impeachment
complaint against Davide a political question; 1st filed by
Estrada & 2nd by Teodoro & Fuentebella
-moderating power to determine proper allocation of powers
is inherent in all courts
-judicial review is a check; essential for maintenance &
enforcement of separation of powers & balancing of powers
among 3 branches
-extended power product of our experience during martial
law; determining grave abuse of discretion not merely judicial
power but a duty; courts cannot claim such matters are pol
questions like martial law era
-difference between judicial power of US & Phil: power only
impliedly granted to US SC & discretionary in nature; in Phils,
expressly provided & is a duty with expanded definition
-for case to be ripe for adjudication- something had by then
been accomplished/performed by either branch before court
can proceed
6. Mamba vs Lara- taxpayers suit against New Cagayan Town
Center
-2 requisites of taxpayers suit: public funds from taxation are
disbursed by a political subdivision and in doing so, a law is
violated/irregularity is committed; & peititioner is directly
affected by alleged act
-taxpayer need not be aprty to the contract to challenge its
validity; as long as taxes are involved, people have right to
question contracts entered into by government
-even if failed to show direct injury test, may invoke
transcendental importance, paramount public interest, far-
reaching implications
-a liberal approach is adopted in determining locus standi in
public suits to protect interests of people & prevent wasting
taxes
7. Serrano vs Gallant Maritime Services- alleged violation to
OFWs consti rights
-here, petitioner has locus standi being aggrieved by his
salary
-clause is declared unconsti & OFW gets his fair salary
8. Lozano vs Nograles- petitions seek to trigger justiciable
controversy by deciding on the supposed Con Con
-no actual case- no actual convention has transpired yet, no
proposal has been made, this involves an event which
may/may not happen
-liberality on transcendental doctrine not to be abused; not
an open invitation for the ignorant & ignoble to file petitions
that prove nothing but their cerebral deficit
-judicial review is effective because not simply available at
behest of partisan faction; only exercised to remedy
particular, concrete injury
9. Liban vs Gordon- to declare Gordon as having forfeited his
seat in senate in being elected as chairman of PNRC
-no locus standi- this action is usurpation of public office
against respondent; generally commenced by the
government or individual who claims to be entitled to the
public office allegedly usurped by another
10. Alunan vs Mirasol- conflict on exemption of Manila from
SK election by DILG
-decided cause capable of repetition yet evading review
-DILG upheld to have had authority
11. Pormento vs Estrada- interpretation of president shall
not be eligible for any reelection, asks if Erap is covered
-dismissed- since reelection will be premised on a persons
2nd election as president, theres no actual case here
-hypothetical & speculative; serve no useful/practical purpose
12. Bayan vs Zamora- ratification of VFA
-no locus standi, but SC decided because of transcendental
importance
-transcendental importance to the public of these cases
demands that they be settled promptly & definitely, brushing
aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure
IV. Functions of Judicial Review
a. To check- settles cases questioning constitutionality of a
law; nullify acts of coordinate branches
b. To legitimate- may also sustain their validity
c. Symbolic function- educating bench and bar
CASES:
1. Osmena vs COMELEC- constitutionality of act providing for
national & local elections 1992 for synchronized election
-court will not hesitate to make the hammer fall &heavily
-performed check; law declared unconsti
2. Occena vs COMELEC- question consti as fundamental law
-Function of judicial review has both negative & positive
aspect; SC can check & legitimate; may not only nullify acts of
coordinate branches but may also sustain their validity
3. Salonga vs Cruz Pano- several bombing, Salonga implicated
cause of picture
-Court has duty to formulate guiding & controlling
constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules; it has
the symbol function of educating the bench & bar on the
extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees
4. Javier vs COMELEC- petitioner was killed, brutal elections
under martial law
-SC acts not only for the vindication of the outraged right,
though gone, but also for the guidance of & restraint upon
the future
5. ABSCBN vs COMELEC- COMELEC stopped ABS CBN from
conducting exit polls on tv
-symbolic function of educating bench & bar
V. What court may exercise judicial review
-The SC (art 8 sec 5) has power to: review, revise, reverse,
modify/affirm on appeal/certiorari final judgments & orders
of lower courts, including in all cases involving
unconstitutionality/validity of any treaty,
international/executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question
-courts may only decide legal questions
-Juidical power is duty- courts have to exercise it when
properly invoked
CASES:
1. Tuason vs CA- demolition of houses
-inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving
constitutionality of any treaty/law cause SC is limited to
appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases
where constitutionality is issue; 2/3 vote of SC needed only in
exercise by SC of its appellate jurisdiction
2. Ynot vs IAC- transporting of carabao
-lower courts should observe modesty in examining
constitutional questions; not prevented from resolving them,
subject only to review by SC
VI. Political Questions
-courts have no jurisdiction here
-pol questions involve: a)wisdom, b)beneficiality, c)full
discretionary authority, e.g. power to pardon
-Why cant courts decide political questions (wisdom, etc)?
cause theyre not elected; elected members (Congress &
President) represent what the people want, but SC does not
CASE:
1. Estrada vs Desierto- conflict on office of president between
Estrada & Arroyo
-Pol questions refer to those questions which under the
Consti, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the legislative/executive branch of
government
-dependent upon wisdom, not legality of particular measure
VII. Effect of declaration of unconstitutionality
-2nd par, art 8 sec 1, provide for grave abuse of discretion
(GAD)
-exercised whimsically, capriciously, then can ask certiorari
from SC
-aims to weaken political question doctrine- this is EFFECT of
1987 Consti, as long as theres alleged GAD, courts must
decide
-expanded certiorari jurisdiction- led to weakening of political
question doctrine
-if no provision on GAD, mistakes remain uncorrected
-Dangers in granting SC power of determining GAD- a) other
branches are periodic, but SC/judiciary is not, theyre not
elected & so dont reflect will of the people; they can also be
wrong or commit GAD but cant change them periodically
whenever they commit wrong; b)courts can be guilty of
counter-majoritarianism- counter the will of the people
through their representatives
-Why do we still have to have provision on GAD despite
dangers? 1987 consti product of martial law era, other
branches cant use defense of political question all the time,
SC must determine GAD; without provision, we have nothing
to do with GAD except elections
-court with integrity- needs the provision on GAD vs court
without integrity- provision is dangerous
CASES:
1. Serrano vs Agbayani- extrajudicial proceedings,
moratorium law
-orthodox view- unconstitutional act cannot be source of any
legal rights/ duties; nor can it justify any official act taken
under it; act shall be void & consti shall govern
-in our jurisdiction- doctrine of operative fact- before being
nullified, the act existed as a fact
-acts had consequences/effects before being nullified that
cant be ignored
2. Salazar vs Achacoso- act of secretary of labor issuing
warrants nullified
-of no force & effect
3. League of Cities vs COMELEC- nullification of cityhood laws
-operative fact doctrine- exception to the general rule that
unconsti law produces no rights, imposes no duties & affords
no protection
-only applicable when declaration of unconstitutionality will
impose an undue burden on those who have relied on invalid
law
-operative fact never validates/constitutionalizes an unconsti
law; they remain unconsti, operative fact only
affects/modifies the effects of the unconsti law, not unconsti
law itself; effects may be considered valid & effective
VIII. Principles of Constitutional Construction
-parallel jurisdiction in USA since we adopted American
constitutionalism
Francisco vs HOR:
1. Verba legis- 1st thing to do, go by letter, used in
determining ordinary meaning & when no technical term
is involved
e.g. reelection- using ordinary meaning, means
incumbent president cant be elected again
2. ratio legis- resort to this when ordinary meaning not clear
& ambiguous; intent of framers & original understanding of
people ratifying the consti
3.ut magis valeat quam pereat- consti to be interpreted as a
whole
THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE
I. STATE DEFINED
-only 4 elements needed to be a state (people, territory,
sovereignty, government): intl recognition not needed
-2 theories on existence of state: a)constitutive- state if you
have 4 elements, b)declarative-one may have form but needs
recognition
CASES:
1. North Cotabato vs GRP- GRP signing MOA-AD with MILF,
creating Bangsamoro Juridical Entity
-this seeks to establish association, formed when 2 states
of unequal power voluntarily establish durable links;
associated states only used as transitional device of former
colonies on their way to full independence; association not
recognized in our constitution
-creation of BJE is that of a state; leads to a state within a
state (Phils); BJE is given capacity to enter into relations
with other countries, but under our consti, only President
can do that
2. CIR vs Campos Rueda- properties of deceased in issue
-4 elements
II. Territory
-Article 1: The national territory comprises the Phil
Archipelago, with all islands & waters embraced therein, & all
other territories over which the Phils has sovereignty &
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial & aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil,
the insular shelves & other submarine areas. (Archipelgic
doctrine) The waters around, between, & connecting the
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth &
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Phils.
-Archipelagic doctrine: count 12 nm from baselines; draw
baselines thru straight baselines method- connect outermost
parts of islands with a straight line to enclose territory
-importance of Art 1: so USA before cant dismember us.
Now, no legal importance but 1987 consti still adopted it
from past constis, only serves as a proof of our claims but
cant settle intl dispute
-importance of Archipelagic doctrine: without this, res nullius-
open for anybody, cant be regulated, used for commerce
CASE: Magalona vs Ermita
- Questioned law demarcating Phils as archipelagic state
pursuant to UNCLOS
- Continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic
baselines
- States acquire territory thru: occupation, accretion, cession
& prescription
- Phils exercise jurisdiction & sovereignty in areas not inside
baselines such as Kalayaan Group of Islands- known as
Regime of Islands
- EEZ- reserving solely to Phils the exploitation of all living &
non-living resources within such zone
II. People
A. Concepts of People
-3 senses by which term people is understood in Consti:
Filipino citizens, inhabitants & voters
B. Citizenship
-modes of acquiring citizenship: birth, naturalization
-2 kinds of citizens: natural-born, naturalized
-bases of Phil citizenship- jus soli, jus sanguinis, naturalization
-Jus Sanguinis rules:
a) 1935 consti- father only
b) 1973 & 1987- father & mother
-applicable only in natural filiation, excluding filiation by
adoption
Citizenship Laws and Important Dates:
Before 11 April 1899 (Treaty of Paris), no Citizens of the
Philippines (only Spanish subjects);
* December 11, 1898 date of signing of Treaty of Paris.
From 11 April 1899 to 01 July 1902 (Phil. Bill of 1902),
some judges applied Jus Soli (as it was and still is the
one followed in the United States);
On 01 July 1902, the Phil. Bill of 1902 defines Citizens of
the Philippines as those who were
o (1) Spanish subjects (native or otherwise) on 11 April 1899
(including their children born thereafter),
o (2) who remain inhabitants of the Philippines, and
o (3) did not becomes citizens of another state. [excluding
those who declared to remain under Spain];
On August 29, 1916, Jones Law of 1916 reiterated Phil. Bill
of 1902;
On March 22, 1920, Act No. 2927 (old Naturalization Law)
was enacted;
On May 14, 1935, the 1935 Constitution took effect which
provided for jus sanguinis. But only those born of
Filipino Father can be Filipinos by birth. Those born of
Filipino Mother and alien father had to elect citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority (meaning, the child was
alien during minority), but decision of courts still applying
jus soli in certain cases would have to be respected
because of res judicata;
On June 17, 1939, C.A. No. 473 (new Naturalization Law)
took effect;
On June 7, 1941, C.A. No. 625 was enacted provided for
the manner of electing Phil. Citizenship as required by the
1935 Constitution (sworn statement to be filed with the
Civil Registry accompanied by oath allegiance to the
Constitution and Government);
1973 Constitution took effect on January 17, 1973 which
makes jus sanguinis fully applicable (to either father or
mother). It also recognized as natural-born those who
elected Phil. Citizenship under the 1935 Constitution;
1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987,
adopting the same provisions in the 1973 Constitution;
Republic Act No. 9139 was enacted on June 8, 2001 which
provides for Administrative Naturalization in certain
cases;
Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-
acquisition Act of 2003) was enacted on August 29, 2003.
Section 1, Article IV, 1987 Constitution now 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.
-Who are natural born citizens? Those who are citizens of the
Phils from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire/perfect their citizenship. Those who elect Phil
citizenship in accordance with sec 1 par 3 shall also be
deemed natural-born
-reasons for knowing who natural-born citizens are:
purposes of being elected/appointed in constitutional offices;
owning private lands
STEPS IN ELECTING CITIZENSHIP
1. Requisites in electing cit: his mother must be a Fil citizen &
election must be made upon reaching age of majority
2. Execute an affidavit expressing ones intention of selecting
Phil citizenship
3. Have this signed & sworn to by the party concerned before
any officer authorized to administer oaths
4. Requirements/requisites/statutory formalities in electing
citizenship: a)statement of election under oath, b)oath of
allegiance to the constitution & govet of Phils, c)
registration of statement of election & of the oath with
nearest civil registry
-Prior to election, what is citizenship of person? not Filipino
before electing Phil citizenship, neither foreigner cause only
foreign countries can define their own citizens; safest answer
is not Filipino unless he elects at age of majority; hes also
natural-born even if he has to do something according to sec
2
CASES: Modes of Acquisition
1. Tecson vs COMELEC- Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, father was
Spanish national & mother was American citizen
-FPJ born under 1935 consti which conferred citizenship to all
persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of
whether such children are legitimate/ illegitimate
2. Valles vs COMELEC- Lopez questioned, born in Australia,
father Filipino citizen, mother Australian
-Phil law on citizenship follows jus sanguinis/blood
relationship, child follows nationality/ citizenship of parents
regardless of place of his/her birth
-1934, regime of Jones Law- her father was deemed Phil
citizen & also Lopez (Jones law provides that all inhabitants of
the Phils who are Spanish subjects & their children)
-renunciation of citizenship (cit) must be express; application
for alien certificate of registration not tantamount to
renunciation, nor mere fact of holding Australian passport
-with dual citizenship, it is enough that they elect Phil cit upon
filing of certificate of candidacy; filing sufficient to renounce
foreign cit
3. Application of Ching- son of Chinese & Filipina
-election upon reaching age of majority (21 in his time)-
reasonable time has been 3 years
-here, Ching already 35 years old/14 years beyond time;
failed to validly elect Phil cit
-Phil cit can never be treated like a commodity that can be
claimed when needed & suppressed when convenient
4.Go vs Ramos- being deported for being Chinese
-cases involving cit are sui generis- once cit of an individual is
questioned, it has to be threshed out & decided upon
-3 years period may be extended (but very rare) as when a
person has always regarded himself as Filipino- but exercise
of rights & privileges granted to Filipinos is not conclusive
proof
5. Co vs HRET- Jose Ong natural born citizen
-Father alien, mother Filipina- did not need to elect
citizenship, Ong already citizen since father elected cit when
he was 9
-law itself elected citizenship for him
6. Cabiling vs Fernandez- did steps in electing but failed to
register in nearest civil registry, only after 30 years
-right to elect Phil cit has not been lost & they should be
allowed to complete statutory requirements for election
-if election of citizenship has been done within reasonable
timeframe, registration of documents beyond timeframe
must be allowed if in the meanwhile positive acts of cit have
been publicly, consistently & continuously done (but with
imposition of administrative penalties)
-registration is the confirmation of fact of election
C. NATURALIZATION
3 Kinds: judicial, administrative, and congressional
a. Judicial naturalization: CA No. 473 Revised Naturalization
Law
STEPS:
-make a declaration of intention & file in Bureau of Justice
-wait 1 year before going to court
-file petition for citizenship in the competent court (RTC)
where petitioner has resided at least 1 year preceding filing
of petition
-Clerk of court shall publish it once a week for 3
consecutive weeks in OG/newspaper of GC.
-heard by court until after 6 months from publication of
application
-decision promulgated granting Phil cit becomes final &
executory until after 2 years from promulgation
-order of the court granting citizenship shall be registered
-petitioner will then take oath of allegiance
-naturalization certificate will be issued by clerk of court
-register naturalization certificate in the proper civil registry
HAS ALL QUALIFICATIONS
-not less than 21 on day of hearing of petition
-resided in PHILS for continuous period of not less than 10
years
-good moral character
-own real estate in PHILS or have some lawful occupation
-Speak & write English/Spanish & any 1 of the principal Phil
languages
-enrolled minor children in public/private school
AND NONE OF THE DISQUALIFICATIONS
-opposed to organized government
-defending/teaching violence, personal assault,
assassination
-polygamists/believers
-convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude
-suffering from mental alienation/incurable contagious
disease
-have not mingles socially with Filipinos
-citizens/subjects of nations with whom the USA & Phils are
at war, during period of such war
- citizens/ subjects of a foreign country other than USA
whose laws dont grant Filipinos right to become
naturalized cit thereof
Effect on wife and children (Act 473):
1. On wife shall be deemed citizen of the Phils if she is one
who might herself be lawfully naturalized; Filipino at the
moment husband took oath provided she doesnt possess
any of the disqualifications that would bar her from being
naturalized
2. On minor children:
-if born in Phils, automatically becomes citizen
-if born abroad before naturalization of father
--residing in Phils at the time of naturalization,
automatically
becomes citizen
--not residing in Phils at time of naturalization,
considered
citizen only during his minority unless he begins to reside
permanently in the Phils when hes still a minor, & will
continue being a citizen even after becoming of age
-born outside after naturalization of parent, considered
citizen provided hes registered before any Phil. Consulate
within 1 year after attaining majority age & takes oath of
allegiance
CASES:
1. Moy Ya Lim vs. Comm. Of Imm. Chinese citizen, take
pleasure trip tp visit Phils, made repeated extensions,
married Filipino citizen, could not speak/write English,
cant name any Filipino neighbor
-an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native-born or
naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina from time of
marriage provided she isnt disqualified to be a citizen of
the Phils
-an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently
naturalized here follows Phil citizenship of her husband
the moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen , provided
she doesnt suffer from any of the disqualifications under
sec.4
-ipso facto doesnt mean all alien wives & minor children,
from mere fact of relationship, necessarily becomes
citizens also. Those who dont meet statutory
requirements do not ipso facto become citizens; they
must apply for naturalization to acquire status.
-Everytime the citizenship of a person is material in a
judicial/admin case, whatever the corresponding court
decided is generally considered not res judicata; hence, it
has to be threshed out again & again as the occasion may
demand
2. RP vs. de la Rosa, Frivaldo Frivaldo filed petition for
judicial naturalization, later filed motion to set hearing
ahead of schedule because deadline for filing certificate of
candidacy was March 15, 1 day before scheduled hearing,
granted & order wasnt published, hearing proceeded
with Frivaldo as sole witness, he took oath of allegiance on
same day, Hermo alleged proceedings were tainted with
defects, still won as gov of Sorsogon
 -Frivaldo, having opted to reacquire Phil citizenship under
RNL, is duty-bound to follow procedure prescribed by law.
The law doesnt distinguish between and applicant who
was formerly a Filipino & 1 who was never a citizen; no
special procedure for reacquisition of Phil cit by former
Filipino citizens
-decision in a petition for naturalization becomes final only
after 30 days from its promulgation
-RA 530: decision shall be executory until after 2 years from
promulgation to observe if: 1)applicant has left the country
2)applicant has dedicated himself continuously to a lawful
profession 3) applicant not been convicted of any
offense/violation of government promulgated rules
4)applicant not committed any act prejudicial to interest of
the country
3. RP vs Liyao Yao Chinese citizen filed petition for
naturalization, took oath after 2 years, SolGen file motion
to cancel cert of naturalization after 15 years because it
was fraudulently & illegally obtained since applicant had
illicit relationships (not good moral character) at time of
filing petition, lower court based on tax evasion, cert
cancelled
-naturalization cert may be cancelled (sec 18, CA 473) if
said cert was obtained fraudulently & illegally;
discovered that applicant obtained it by misleading the
court upon any material fact
-tax amnesty doesnt have the effect of obliterating his lack
of good moral character & irreproachable conduct which
are grounds for denaturalization
-laws should be rigidly enforced in favor of the government
& against the applicant; where the applicant failed to
meet the qualifications required for naturalization, not
entitled to Phil cit
4. Limkaichong vs COMELEC issue is her qualification to
run, be elected and assume position of rep for 1 st District
of Negros Oriental, contended she isnt natural-born
because her parents were Chinese at time of her birth,
claimed proceedings for naturalization of her father never
became final due to defects
-in assailing cit of her father, proper proceeding must be
according to sec 18: cancellation of nat cert issued- upon
motion by the solicitor general/ his representative, or by
the proper provincial fiscal, the competent judge may
cancel nat cert & its registration in the civil register
-it is the state thru its reps that may question the
illegally/invalidly procured cert of naturalization in the
appropriate denaturalization proceedings; cant be raised
by private persons in an election case involving the
naturalized citizens descendant
b. Administrative Naturalization: RA 9139, Administrative
Naturalization Law of 2000
STEPS:
-file with Special Committee on Naturalization, fee of
P40,000
-pay P50,000 upon approval of petition and P50,000 for
taking oath of allegiance
-cert of naturalization will be issued
-w/in 60 days from issuance, petitioner will take oath of
allegiance
-within 5 days after petitioner took oath of allegiance,
Bureau of Immigration shall forward copy of petitioners
oath to proper local civil registrar
-BI shall cancel applicants alien certificate of registration
(ACR)
HAS ALL QUALIFICATIONS:
-born & residing in the Phils since birth
-not less than 18 at time of filing of his petition
-good moral character
-received primary & secondary education in any
public/private school; provided that if he has minor children,
must enroll them in similar schools
-has known trade/lawful occupation from which he derives
sufficient income; provided this doesnt apply to applicants
who are college degree holders but are unable to practice
their profession because theyre disqualified by reason of cit
-able to read, write & speak Filipino/any dialect of Phils
-mingled w/ Filipinos
AND NONE OF THE DISQUALIFICATIONS:
(same with judicial naturalization)
Status of alien lawful wife & minor children:
-may file petition for cancellation of their ACR w/ the
committee; pay filing fee of P20,000 & naturalization fee of
P40,000
-if applicant is woman, approval of her petition wont
benefit husband but her minor children may file petition for
cancellation of their ACR w/ the BI
c. Congressional Naturalization: Special Act of Legislature;
discretionary on Congress; usually conferred on alien whos
made outstanding contribution to our country
D. LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP
-How citizenship may be lost: CA 63
1. naturalization in another country
2. express renunciation of citizenship
3. subscribing to an oath of allegiance to a foreign country
when hes 21
4. by rendering services to, or accepting commission in the
armed forces of a foreign country, but will not be divested of
cit if:
--Phis has defensive/offensive pact of alliance with foreign
country
--foreign country maintains armed forces in the Phils with its
consent
5. by cancellation of certificates of naturalization
6. being declared by competent authority as deserter of the
Phil armed forces in time of war unless amnesty/pardon is
granted
7. woman upon marriage to foreigner, if by virtue of the
laws of foreign husband, she acquires her nationality
CASES:
1. Bengson vs HRET- accepted commission in US marine RA 9225: Aug 29, 2003
corps -Citizenship Retention & Reacquisition Act of 2003
-Repatriation only allowed for those who lost cit due to: -Retention is mode for retaining Phil cit, if one acquired it,
desertion of the armed forces, services in the allied forces after passage of this act; vs Reacquisition is for those who
during WWII, service in US armed forces, marriage of a lost citizenship by acquiring another citizenship before
Filipina to alien, political/economic necessity passage of this act
-repatriation allows one to restore/recover/return to original -natural-born citizens shall retain cit upon taking the oath
status as natural-born
-those who lost cit reacquire Phil cit by taking same oath
-Derivative Citizenship- the unmarried child, whether
E. Reacquisition legitimate, illegitimate/adopted, below 18 years of age, of
-3 modes of reacquiring: naturalization, repatriation, direct those who reacquire Phil citizenship upon effectivity of this
act of congress act are deemed citizens of Phils
STEPS IN REPATRIATION: -for those running for a position, taking oath not enough,
-apply for repatriation in Special committee on naturalization must comply with other requirements, e.g. In local
government code
-will be granted with certificate of repatriation
-Effects of retention, reacquisition- enjoy full civil & political
-take oath of allegiance to Phils
rights & be subjected to all attendant liabilities &
-register oath in the local civil registry of the place where responsibilities under existing Phil laws
person resides/last resided
HOW:
-register certificate of repatriation with Bureau of
-take oath that one will support & defend the Consti of the
immigration
Phil
CASES:
CASES:
1. Frialdo vs COMELEC- Frivaldo disqualified 2 times for 1. Mercado vs Manzano- Mercado questioned nationality of
Governor of Sorsogon Edu Manzano; Manzano has dual cit being born in US with
-took oath of allegiance on June 30 1995 2 PM, applied for Filipino parents
repat pursuant to PD 725 on September 1994 -dual cit vs dual allegiance: dual cit arises when, as a result of
concurrent application of the different laws of 2/more states,
-qualified to govern Sorsogon- reacquired cit on June 13, day
a person is simultaneously considered a national by said
of assuming office; official only begins to govern or assume
states; such person is ipso facto & without any voluntary act
office only upon proclamation & on the day law mandates his
on his part is concurrently considered citizen of both states
term of office to begin, he was then qualified to be
-dual allegiance meanwhile is voluntary; result of ones own
proclaimed having reacquired on same day; Local Gove code
volition
speaks of citizenship as qualification of elective officials and
-filing of certificate of candidacy enough to renoucn American
not of candidates; cit should be possessed when elective
citizenship; renounced American cit & elected Phil cit
official begins to govern or star of his term
2. Calilung vs Datumanong- issue of implementing RA 9225
-applying to the time of proclamation of the elected official & -this does not deal with dual allegiance, only allows dual
at the start of his term citizenship to those who lost Phil cit by naturalization in
-question of whether cit be possessed at time candidate another country
registered as voter- law intended cit to be a distinct -shifted burden of dual allegiance to the concerned foreign
qualification from voter; only required to be a registered country
voter, not required to vote actually; registration & not actual -no law yet on dual allegiance
voting is the qualification
-Repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to the date of filing of his
repat application since PD 725 is curative in nature; must also
retroact because the special committee may delay processing
& people waiting for repatriation may be stateless
2. Altarejos vs COMELEC- Altarejos sought to be disqualified
as mayor in Masbate, failed to register certificate
-registration in proper local civil registry and BI is prerequisite
in effecting repatriation
-if one did not register certificate, certificate shall be deemed
ineffectual
-here, his repatriation still retroacted to date of filing
F. Dual Citizenship & Dual Allegiance
-declared inimical in Consti is dual allegiance, not dual
citizenship