Tan Vs Crisologo 2017

TAN VS. CRISOLOGO 6.
1 Dec 2009: Tan filed her Certificate of Candidacy to run as QC

November 8, 2017 | Martires, J 1st District representative.
7. 28 Dec 2009: Bingbong Crisologo filed a petition before the
PETITIONER: VIVIENNE TAN MeTC seeking to exclude Tan from the voter’s list, alleging 1)
RESPONDENT: VINCENT “BINGBONG” CRISOLOGO she was not a PH citizen when she registered as a voter and 2)
she failed to meet the residency requirement.
SUMMARY: Vivienne Tan was a naturalized US citizen who sought to 8. MeTC ruled to exclude Tan from the voter’s list, holding that
run for QC 1st district representative. However, she only took her Oath she was not a PH citizen at the time she registered as a voter.
of Allegiance to the PH, as required by RA 9225, after she had applied 9. Tan appealed to the RTC. RTC reversed the MeTC and
to be a registered voter. Crisologo challenged her inclusion in the voter’s dismissed Crisologo’s petition. RTC opined that the question of
list, saying she was not a citizen at the time of her registration, and that her citizenship was cured by Tan’s subsequent Oath, Petition for
she failed to meet the residency requirement. SC held that she was not Reacquisition, the BI’s Order granting the said petition, and
a PH citizen at the time she registered. Sworn Declaration re: renouncing her allegiance to the US.
10. The RTC decision became final and executory due to RA 8189.
DOCTRINE Hence, Crisologo filed for certiorari before the CA.
1. RA 9225 makes a distinction between 1) those who lost PH 11. The CA held that the RTC committed GADALEJ in reversing
citizenship before RA 9225 and reacquired it under the same the MeTC decision, hence this Petition.
and 2) those who lost PH citizenship after RA 9225 and retained
citizenship. ISSUE/HELD
2. Tan took her Oath of Allegiance to the US on 19 Jan 2003, W/N Tan can be considered a PH citizen at the time she registered as a
before the enactment of RA 9225. If retroactive application is voter – NO. Basically, no legal basis for the retroactive application of
permitted, then the distinction is RA 9225 is rendered futile. RA 9225. Her inclusion in the voter’s list is highly irregular.
3. To consider that the reacquisition of the PH citizenship retroacts
to the date it was lost = absurd scenario where the person would W/N when PH citizenship is reacquired after taking the Oath as required
still be considered a PH citizen when he had renounced his by RA 9225, the effect on citizenship status retroacts to period before
citizenship. taking said oath - NO
FACTS RATIO
1. 19 Jan 1993: Vivienne Tan became a naturalized US citizen. 1. The reacquisition of PH citizenship under RA 9225 requires only
2. 20 August 2003: RA 9225 was enacted. the taking of an oath of allegiance to the PH.
3. 26 Oct 2009: Tan applied to be a registered voter in Quezon City. 2. RA 9225 makes a distinction between 1) those who lost PH
She indicated that she was a Filipino by birth. The Election citizenship before RA 9225 and reacquired it under the same
Registration Board approved her application on 16 Nov 2009. and 2) those who lost PH citizenship after RA 9225 and retained
4. 30 Nov 2009: Tan took her Oath of Allegiance to the PH in citizenship.
Makati. 3. Tan took her Oath of Allegiance to the US on 19 Jan 2003,
5. 1 Dec 2009: Tan filed a petition before the Bureau of before the enactment of RA 9225. If retroactive application is
Immigration for the reacquisition of her PH citizenship and permitted, then the distinction is RA 9225 is rendered futile.
executed a declaration renouncing allegiance to the US. The BI
confirmed her reacquisition.
4. An interpretation giving RA 9225 retroactive effect as
contemplated by Tan would cause confusion, especially with
respect to Sec. 3, RA 9225. Verba legis.
5. The Court also used the holistic approach, citing Mactan-Cebu
Intl Airport Authority vs. Urgello. The law must not be read in
truncated parts; its provisions must be read in relation to the
whole law.
6. RA 9225 contains to provision regarding the retroactivity of its
effects as regards natural-born citizens who became naturalized
citizens of a foreign country before RA 9225.
7. To consider that the reacquisition of the PH citizenship retroacts
to the date it was lost = absurd scenario where the person would
still be considered a PH citizen when he had renounced his
citizenship.
8. Rule is also that statutes are to be construed as having only a
prospective operation, unless legislature intended to tive them a
retroactive effect.
9. Citing Maquiling vs COMELEC (penned by CJ Sereno): the
renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can
simply be professed at any time, only to be violated the next day.
It requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign
citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and political rights
granted by the foreign country which granted the citizenship.
10. We cannot consider one a Filipino citizen unless and until his or
her allegiance to the Republic of the PH is reaffirmed.
NOTES

Tan Vs Crisologo 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan Vs Crisologo 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan Vs Crisologo 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TAN VS. CRISOLOGO 6.

1 Dec 2009: Tan filed her Certificate of Candidacy to run as QC

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.