2015 PREBAR REVIEW NOTES

IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW of Zambales. A shaol is a triangle shaped chain of reefs and

(Prepared by Judge ESTELA ALMA A. SINGCO) islands (but mostly rocks. 55 kilometers around with an area of

150 square kilometer. Its 123 miles west of Subic Bay. Basis:

ARTICLE I terra nullius; 200 EEZ

NATIONAL TERRITORY
- Spratly Archipelago- international reference to the entire

- Archipelago as defined by Article 46 of UNCLOS: archipelago wherein the Kalayaan chain of islands is located. The

A group of islands, including parts of the islands, interconnecting Philippines essentially claims only the western section of

waters and other natural features which are closely interrelated Spratlys, which is nearest to Palawan.

that such islands, waters, and other natural resources form an

intensive geographical, economic, political entity or to have

historically regarded as an archipelago.

- Archipelagic State- means a State constituted wholly by one

or more archipelagos and may include other islands.

- Archipelagic Baselines- basis: UNCLOS: how to treat

Kalayaan Group of Islands (KGI) and Scarborough Shaol:

whether to include or to exclude them from the baselines;

and/or consider as part of the regime of islands.

- Kalayaan Islands (constituted under RA 1596)- part of

Region IV-B, Province of Palawan but under the custody of DND.

Found some 380 miles west of the southern end of Palawan.

- Scarborough shaol (Bajo de Masinloc)- also known as

scarborough reef, Panatag Shoal and Huangyan Dao. Found in

the South China Sea or West Philippine Sea, part of the province
- RA 9522 (March 10, 2009)- It defines the general area because no country can claim exclusive ownership of any of

configuration of the archipelago, including the extended these islands. The islands generate their own applicable maritime

continental shelf and exclusive economic zone to make it more zones.-

compliant with the UNCLOS.

- Magalona, et al. vs. Exec. Sec., GR No. 187167, August 16,

- It redrew the country’s baseline to comply with the UNCLOS 2011- Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KGI and the

requirements for archipelagic state, in the process excluding the Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippine archipelago, adverse

disputed Kalayaan Island Group and the Scarborough shoal from legal effects would have ensued. The Philippines would have

the main archipelago and classifying them instead as “regime of committed a breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III. First,

islands”. They excluded from the baselines. The national territory Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires that "[t]he drawing of such

constitutes a roughly triangular delineation which excludes large baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the

areas of waters within 600 miles by 1,200 miles rectangular general configuration of the archipelago." Second, Article 47 (2)

enclosing the Philippine archipelago as defined in the Treaty of of UNCLOS III requires that "the length of the baselines shall not

Paris. exceed 100 nautical miles," save for three per cent (3%) of the

total number of baselines which can reach up to 125 nautical

- Regime of islands (Art. 121 of UNCLOS) – consists of islands miles.

or naturally formed areas of land surrounded by water that

Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty
remain above water during high tide. The principle forces

claimant states over a certain territory to maintain peace in the

 foreign State to which the premises belong.

- Kalayaan Island Group

a) historic right

b) P.D. No. 1596, dated June 11, 1978

c) effective occupation
over the KGI and the Scarborough Shoal for several decades,
d) principle of contiguity because of proximity
these outlying areas are located at an appreciable distance from
e) part of the continental shelf
the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago, such that any
f) RA 3046 (demarcating the maritime baselines of the
straight baseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint

will inevitably "depart to an appreciable extent from the general

configuration of the archipelago”.

- Constitutional issues:

Internal waters vs. Archipelagic waters

EEZ; claims over Sabbah and Spratly islands

Delineation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of

Paris vs. RA 9552

- Right of innocent passage- archipelagic sea lane passage and

right of overflight

- 200-Economic Zone (includes Territorial Seas and

Contiguous Zone) – READ: UN Convention on the Law of

the Sea.

- Contiguous Zone (12 nm from the end of territorials seas)

- Teritorial seas/maritime domain (12 nm from baseline)

- Internal waters vs. Archipelagic waters

- Reagan vs. CIR, 30 SCRA 968- An exception to the full and

complete power of a nation within its territories is by virtue of the

consent of the nation itself. The embassy premises of a foreign

power are within the territorial domain of the host State. The

ground occupied as embassy premises is not the territory of the

 Philippines as an archipelagic State) privilege -Neri vs. Senate Committee, GR. No. 180643,

g) RA 5446 (reserving the drawing of baselines around Mach 25, 2008)

Sabah in North Borneo

- Judicial Review: Requisites (Francisco, et al. vs. HR,
h) RA 9552
et al., November 10, 2003; ABAKADA Guro Party List, et

- Freedom islands to which Spratly islands belong- basis: terra al. vs. Executive Secretary Ermita, September 1, 2005;

nullius David et al. vs. Ermita, et al., April 20, 2006).

ARTICLE II Local governments: With Rep. Act No. 7160, the union of

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES legislative and executive powers in the office of the local chief

executive under the BP Blg. 337 has been disbanded, so that

- Republicanism
either department now comprises different and non-

- Separation of Powers intermingling official personalities with the end in view of

- Principles of Blending of Powers and Checks & Balances ensuring a better delivery of public service and provide a system

- under the principle of separation of powers, courts cannot of check and balance between the two. The avowed intent of

interfere with the exercise by the legislature of its authority to Rep. Act. No. 7160, therefore, is to vest on the Sangguniang

conduct investigations in aid of legislation (Senate Blue Ribbon Panlalawigan independence in the exercise of its legislative

vs Majaducon, GR # 136760, July 29, 2003; Executive functions vis-a-vis the discharge by the Governor of the

executive functions. (Atienza vs. Villarosa, May 10, 2005).

2
 - Incorporated: 1. Treaties duly ratified (Pimente vs.

Ermita, 462 SCRA 622, July 6, 2005)

2. norms of general or customary laws

3. treaties which have become part of

customary law (Mejoff vs. Director of

Non-Delegation of legislative power ( Abakada Guro Prisons; Kuroda vs. Jalandoni

Party List vs. Executive Secretary, September 1, 2005;

- Mijares, et al. vs. Javier, et al., April 12, 2005- There is no
Epira case-Gerochi vs. DOE, GR. No. 159796, July 17,
obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions that requires
2007).
the Philippines to recognize foreign judgments, or allow a

Permissible delegation: procedure for the enforcement thereof. However, generally

1. tariff powers of the President (Sec. 28 (2) Art. VI) accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the

2. emergency power of the President (Sec. 23 (2) of incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of

Art. VI the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations. The

3. people (Sec. 32 of Art. VI; Sec. 10 of Art. X, Sec. 2 classical formulation in international law sees those customary

of Art. XVII; RA 6735) rules accepted as binding result from the combination two

4. local governments (Art X) elements: the established, widespread, and consistent

5. administrative bodies (power of subordinate practice on the part of States; and a psychological element

legislation) known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to

law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that

Tests of valid delegation: the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of
1. completeness test * Gerochi vs. DOE, July 17, a rule of law requiring it.
2007

2. sufficient standard *Santiago vs. COMELEC,

3/19/97; Abakada Guro

Party List vs. Exec. Sec.

- Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr. et al. vs. The Secretary of Justice, that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing to do is to

GR No. 203335, February 11, 2014- In order to determine enforce it. The second test mandates adequate guidelines or

whether there is undue delegation of legislative power, the Court limitations in the law to prevent the delegation from running riot.

has adopted two tests: the completeness test and the sufficient
- Incorporation Clause -By the doctrine of incorporation, the
standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in
country is bound by generally accepted principles of international
all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such
law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own
 laws.[Tanada vs. Angara, May 2, 1997] - Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, GR No.190582, April

8, 2010- At this time, we are not prepared to declare that these

Yogyarta Principles contain norms that are obligatory on the

Philippines. There are declarations and obligations outlines in said

Principles which are not reflective of the current state of

3
international law, and do not find basis in any of the sources of

international law enumerated under Article 38(1) of the Statute

of the International Court of Justice. Xxx Using even the most

liberal lenses, these Yogyarta Principles, consisting of a

declaration formulated by various international law professors,

are – at best - de lege refenda- and do not constitute binding

obligations on the Philippines. Indeed, so much of contemporary

international law is characterized by the soft law nomenclature,

i.e., international law is full of principles that promote

international cooperation, harmony, and respect for human

 rights, most of which amounts to no more than well-meaning

desires, without support of either State practice or opinio juris. - Separation of the Church and State- Estrada vs. Escritor,

June 22, 2006- It is indubitable that benevolent neutrality-

- Lim vs. Exec. Sec., April 11, 2002 – generally accepted accommodation, whether mandatory or permissive, is the

principles of International Law, the provisions of a treaty are spirit, intent and framework underlying the Philippine

always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent Constitution. Benevolent neutrality could allow for

law, or that it is subject to the police power of the State. accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does

not offend “compelling state interest”.

- The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal not pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over

tribunals (or local courts) are confronted with situations in which national or municipal law in the municipal sphere. The doctrine of

there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of

and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. international law are given equal standing with, but are

Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give not superior to, national legislative enactments.

effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect

enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles – a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a

of international law in observance of the Incorporation Clause in treaty. In states where the constitution is the highest law

the above-cited constitutional provision (Cruz, Philippine Political of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both

Law, 1996 ed., p. 55). In a situation, however, where the conflict statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in

is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a conflict with the constitution [Sec. of Justice vs. Lantion]

rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence

dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the

municipal courts (Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155

4
[1957]; Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 [1963]; In re:

Garcia, 2 SCRA 984 [1961]) for the reason that such courts are

organs of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all

circumstances (Salonga & Yap, op. cit., p. 13). The fact that

international law has been made part of the law of the land does
- Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Philippines vs. Office of the parent or has had miscarriage is anti-family and violates Section

Executive Secretary, July 9, 2003. Only the prevention of 12 of Art. II. Also, Section 23(a)(ii) is unconstitutional as it denies

an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare the right of parental authority in cases where what is involved is

of the community can justify the infringement of religious “non-surgical procedures”.

freedom. If the government fails to show the seriousness and

immediacy of the threat, State intrusion is constitutionally - Balanced & Healthful Ecology- The right to a balanced and
unacceptable. In a society with a democratic framework like ours, healthful ecology is a fundamental legal right that carries with it
the State must minimize its interference with the affairs of its the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
citizens and instead allow them to exercise reasonable freedom environment. This right implies, among other things, the
of personal and religious activity. judicious management and conservation of the country’s

resources, which duty is reposed in the DENR. ( Prov. of Rizal

- Imbong vs. Ochoa, GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014-
vs. Exec. Sec., December 13, 2005)
Conception refers to the moment of “fertilization” and the

protection of the unborn child upon fertilization. Xxx Only those

contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum would be

prohibited.xxx ection 7 of RH law which excludes parental consent

in cases where a minor undergoing a procedure is already a

 privileges of a citizen. Xxx Under current and existing laws, there

- Local Autonomy ( Basco vs. Pagcor)- the power of local are three ways by which an alien may become a citizen by

government to impose taxes and fees is always subject to naturalization: (a) administrative naturalization pursuant to RA

limitations which Congress may provide by law. The principle of No. 9139; (b) judicial naturalization pursuant to CA No. 473 ,

local autonomy under the 1987 constitution simply means as amended; and (c) legislative naturalization in the form of a law

decentralization. It does not make local governments enacted by Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien.

sovereign within the state of an “imperium in imperio”

- Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543- Having a Filipino father
(unlike in a Federal System). The matter of regulating, taxing or
at the time of birth makes one a Filipino. Having an Australian
otherwise dealing with gambling is a State concern and hence, it
passport and an alien certificate of registration does not constitute
is the sole prerogative of the State to retain it or delegate it to
an effective renunciation of citizenship and does not militate
local governments.
against the claim of Filipino citizenship.

- Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP Peace Panel, (GR No.

- Co vs. HRET, 199 SCRA 692- An attack on a person’s citizenship
183591, Oct. 14, 2008)- The Constitution does not contemplate
may be done through a direct action for its nullity.
any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State much

less does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare - Re: Vicente Ching, 316 SCRA 1- There are two conditions
any part of the Philippine territory for independence. in order that the election of Philippine citizenship is

effective:
- An association is formed when two states of unequal power
1. the mother of the person making
voluntarily establish durable links. Xxx In international practice,
the election must be citizen of the
the associated state arrangement has usually been used as a
Philippines; and
transitional device of former colonies on their way to full
2. said election must be made upon
independence. Xxx The concept of Association is not recognized
reaching the age of majority.
under the 1987 constitution.

Ma v. Fernandez, July 26, 2010, GR No. 183133 - the “evolvement

ARTICLE IV
- Casan Macode Maquiling vs. COMELEC, et al., GR No.
CITIZENSHIP
 195649, April 16, 2013- Citizenship is not a matter of from election of Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority

convenience. It is a badge of identity that comes with attendant under the 1935 Philippine Constitution to dispensing with the election

civil and political rights accorded by the State to its citizens, It requirement under the 1973 Philippine Constitution to express

likewise demands the concomitant duty to maintain allegiance to classification of these children as natural-born citizens under the 1987

one’s flag and country. Constitution towards the conclusion that the omission of the 1941

statutory requirement of registration of the documents of election

should not result in the obliteration of the right to Philippine citizenship.

- The Court concluded that, “having a Filipino mother is permanent. It is

- Edison So vs. Republic, GR No. 170603, January 29, 2007-

Petitioners elected Philippine citizenship in form and substance. The

Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner

failure to register the election in the civil registry should not defeat the

into the political body of a nation by clothing him or her the

5
 election and negate the permanent fact that they have a Filipino mother.

The lacking requirements may still be complied with subject to the - Repatriation retroacts to the date of the filing of one’s

imposition of appropriate administrative penalties, if any.” application for repatriation. Supra.

Republic of Phil vs. Nora Fe Sagun (Feb 15, 2011)- there is no - Repatriation results in the recovery of the original

- nationality. If he was originally a natural born citizen before he

specific statutory or procedural rule which authorizes the direct filing of lost his citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as

a petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before the natural born Filipino.

courts. CA 625- election within reasonable time is 3 years from reaching

- NATURAL BORN- Read Sections 2 and 4 of RA 9225,
the age of majority
amending CA 63, otherwise known as Citizenship

- Bengson vs. HRET, May 7, 2001- Repatriation may be had under Retention and Reacquisition Act (August 29, 2003)-

various statutes by those who lost their citizenship due to: 1) including citizens repatriated and unmarried children,

desertion of the AFP; 2) served in the armed forces of the allied forces whether legitimate or illegitimate or adopted, below 18

in WWII; 3) service in the AF of the US at any other time; 4) marriage years of age of those repatriated.

of a Filipino woman to an alien; 5) political and economic necessity.

- DUAL CITIZENSHIP- Read: Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA

- R.A. No. 8171, which has lapsed into law on 23 October 1995, political or economic necessity”].

is an act providing for the repatriation (a) of Filipino women who

- Repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance
have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and (b)
to the RP and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry of
of natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine
the place where the person concerned resides or last resided.
citizenship on account of political or economic necessity.

To claim the benefit of RA 8171, the children must be of minor - Altarejos vs. COMELEC, 441 SCRA 655- In addition to the
age at the time of the petititon for repatriation was filed by taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
the parent [Angat vs. RP, September 14, 1999; Tabasa vs. the registration of the Certificate of Repatriation in the proper
CA, GR. No. 125793, August 29, 2006- no showing that civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration is a prerequisite
Tabasa’s parents lost their Philippine citizenship “on account of in effecting the repatriation of a citizen.
 630- The phrase “dual citizenship” in RA 7160 must be understood

as referring to dual allegiance (especially for naturalized citizens).

In filing a certificate of candidacy, the person with dual

6
citizenship effectively renounces his foreign citizenship.

The oath of allegiance contained in the certificate of candidacy

constitutes sufficient renunciation of his foreign citizenship.

- The phrase “dual citizenship in RA 7160, Section 40(d) of the LGC

must be understood as referring to “dual allegiance”.

Consequently, persons with dual citizenship do not fall under this

disqualification. It should suffice if, upon filing of their certificate

of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their

status as persons with dual citizenship.

- Corodora v. COMELEC, GR No. 176947, February 19, 2009-

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a natural-born Filipino,

who also possesses American citizenship having been born of an

American father and a Filipino mother, is exempt from the twin

requirements of swearing to an Oath of Allegiance and executing

a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship under the Citizenship

Retention and Reacquisition Act (RA 9225) before running for

 Act No. 9225 imposes no residency requirement for the

reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it

mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of Philippine

citizenship on the current residence of the concerned natural-born

Filipino. Clearly, Republic Act No. 9225 treats citizenship

public office. The Supreme Court En Banc held that that it has independently of residence. This is only logical and consistent

applied the twin requirements to cases “which involve natural- with the general intent of the law to allow for dual citizenship.

born Filipinos who later became naturalized citizens of another Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, both

country and thereafter ran for elective office in the Philippines. In Philippine and foreign citizenships, he may establish residence

the present case, [private respondent Gustavo S.] Tambunting, a either in the Philippines or in the foreign country of which he is

natural-born Filipino, did not subsequently become a naturalized also a citizen. Residency in the Philippines only becomes relevant

citizen of another country. Hence, the twin requirements in RA

No. 9225 do not apply to him.”

- LOPEZ VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 182701, July 23, 2008 –

7

Valles and Mercado Doctrines do not apply is one reacquires his

citizenship under RA 9225 and runs for public office. To comply

with the provisions of Section 5 (2) of RA 9225, it is necessary

that the candidate for public office must state in clear and

unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship.

- Jacot vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 179848, November 27, 2008

– Mercado case was decided under Section 40 of LGC re dual

allegiance, and that time RA 9225 was not yet enacted.

- Manuel B. Japzon vs. COMELEC, GR No. 180088, January

19, 2009- It bears to point out that Republic Act No. 9225

governs the manner in which a natural-born Filipino may

reacquire or retain his Philippine citizenship despite acquiring a

foreign citizenship, and provides for his rights and liabilities under

such circumstances. A close scrutiny of said statute would reveal

that it does not at all touch on the matter of residence of the

natural-born Filipino taking advantage of its provisions. Republic

 when the natural-born Filipino with dual citizenship decides to run under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be

for public office. Under Republic Act No. 9225, to run for public subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under

office, he must: (1) meet the qualifications for holding such public existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:

office as required by the Constitution and existing laws; and (2)

- x x x x (2)Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines
make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as
citizenships before any public officer authorized to administer an
required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time
oath.
of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal

- Roseller de Guzman vs. COMELEC, GR No. 180048, June 19, and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship

2009- R.A. No. 9225 was enacted to allow re-acquisition and before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.

retention of Philippine citizenship for: 1) natural-born citizens who The filing of a certificate of candidacy does not ipso facto amount

have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their to a renunciation of his foreign citizenship under R.A. No. 9225.

naturalization as citizens of a foreign country; and 2) natural-born The rulings in the cases of Frivaldo and Mercado are not applicable

citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of the law, because R.A. No. 9225 provides for more requirements.

become citizens of a foreign country. The law provides that they

are deemed to have re-acquired or retained their Philippine - BM No. 1678, Petition for Leave to Resume the Practice of
citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance. However, it Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay, December 17, 2007- Dual
must be emphasized that R.A. No. 9225 imposes an additional

requirement on those who wish to seek elective public

office, as follows: Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and

Liabilities. – Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine Citizenship

 held Nottebohm to be still a national of Germany, with which he

was more closely connected than with Liechtenstein.

*Read: Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, GR No. 87193, June 23, 1989

citizens may practice law in the Philippines by leave of the - AASJS, Calilung vs. Datumanong, GR No. 160869, May 11, 2007-

Supreme Court and upon compliance with the requirements, It is clear that the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225

which will restore their good standing as members of the is to do away with the provision in Commonwealth Act No. 63 which

Philippine Bar. takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who

- Effective nationality principle (Nottebohm case)- The

Nottebohm case cited by the petitioner invoked the international

8
law principle of effective nationality which is clearly not applicable

to the case at bar. This principle is expressed in Article 5 of the

Hague Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of Nationality Laws as

follows: Art. 5. Within a third State a person having more than

one nationality shall be treated as if he had only one. Without

prejudice to the application of its law in matters of personal status

and of any convention in force, a third State shall, of the

nationalities which any such person possesses, recognize

exclusively in its territory either the nationality of the country in

which he is habitually and principally resident or the nationality of

the country with which in the circumstances he appears to be in

fact most closely connected. Nottebohm was a German by birth

but a resident of Guatemala for 34 years when he applied for and

acquired naturalization in Liechtenstein one month before the

outbreak of World War II. Many members of his family and his

business interests were in Germany. In 1943, Guatemala, which

had declared war on Germany, arrested Nottebohm and

confiscated all his properties on the ground that he was a German

national. Liechtenstein thereupon filed suit on his behalf, as its

citizen, against Guatemala. The International Court of Justice

become naturalized citizens of other countries. What Rep. Act No.

9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino

- Tecson vs. COMELEC, 424 SCRA 148; Velez vs. Poe and Fornier
citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their
vs. COMELEC, March 3, 2004- Under the Philippine Bill of 1902, a
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not
“citizen of the Philippines” was one who was an inhabitant of the
recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of
Philippines, and a Spanish subject on the 11th day of April 1899. The
the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign
term “inhabitant” was taken to include 1) a native-born inhabitant,
citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225 stayed clear out
2) an inhabitant who was a native of Peninsular Spain, and 3)
of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting
an inhabitant who obtained Spanish papers on or before 11 April
the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned
1899. Whether or not respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen, which,
foreign country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a
in turn, depended on whether or not the father of respondent, Allan F.
concern of Rep. Act No. 9225. xxx To begin with, Section 5, Article IV
Poe, would have himself been a Filipino citizen and, in the affirmative,
of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-
whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of respondent prevents him from
executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual
taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. Any conclusion
allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers were
on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the
not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of
presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old, Lorenzo would
naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of
have been born sometime in the year 1870, when the Philippines was
origin even after their naturalization. Congress was given a mandate

to draft a law that would set specific parameters of what really

constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is done, it would be

premature for the judicial department, including the Supreme

Court, to rule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance.

 affirmed by the Supreme Court.

under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of

residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence,

could have well been his place of residence before death, such that

Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization”

that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo

Pou), if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe, father

of respondent FPJ. The 1935 Constitution, during which regime

respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons

whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children

are legitimate or illegitimate.

- As Section 3, Article IV of the 1935 Constitution does not

distinguish between legitimate child and illegitimate child

of a Filipino father, we should not make a distinction. The

civil status of legitimacy or illegitimacy, by itself, is not

determinative of the Philippine citizenship.

- Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner Immigration, 41 SCRA

292- When citizenship is raised as an issue in judicial or

administrative proceedings, the resolution or decision thereon is

generally not considered as res judicata in any subsequent

proceeding challenging the same.

- Burca vs. Republic, 51 SCRA 248- EXCEPTIONS (to res

judicata principle) 1.) a person’s citizenship be raised as a

material issue in a controversy where the person is a party; 2.)

the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active

part in the resolution thereof; and 3.) the finding on citizenship is

 by the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ cannot amend Philippines. The “green card” status in the USA is a renunciation

the final decision of the trial court stating that respondent on one’s status as a resident of the Philippines.

Ong and his mother were naturalized along with his father.
- Casan Macode Maquiling vs. COMELEC, GR No. 195649,

- JOCELYN SY LIMKAICHONG VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. April 16, 2013- The act of using a foreign passport is not one

179120, April 1, 2009- Clearly, under the law and of the acts enumerated in CA No. 63 constituting renunciation and

jurisprudence, it is the - State, through its representatives loss of Philippine citizenship, it is nevertheless an act which

designated by statute, that may question the illegally or invalidly repudiates the very oath of renunciation required for a former

procured certificate of naturalization proceedings. It is not a Filipino citizen who is also a citizen of another country to be

matter that maybe raised by private persons in an election case qualified to run for a local elective position. Xxx The

involving the naturalized citizen’s descendant. citizenship requirement for elective public office is a continuing

one. It must be possessed not just at the time of the renunciation

- Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 552 SCRA 231- A Filipino
of the foreign citizenship but continuously. Any act which violates
citizen’s acquisition of permanent resident status abroad
the oath of renunciation opens citizenship issue to attack.
constitutes an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the

- Administrative Naturalization (R.A. No. 9139) – grants

Philippine citizenship by administrative proceedings to aliens ARTICLE V

born and residing in the Philippines. They have the choice to apply (SUFFRAGE)

for judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the

- The right of suffrage is not absolute. The exercise of the right
prescribed qualifications and disqualifications.
is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements

embodied in our Constitution, statute books and other

- Kilosbayan vs. Ermita, GR No. 177721, July 3, 2007 . The
repositories of law.
alleged subsequent recognition of his natural-born status

9
 address. A man may have several places of residence but has only

one domicile. Or he may be a nomad or travelling salesman with

no permanent home. Nonetheless, the law recognizes one

domicile for him.

- The right of citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon

certain procedural requirements he must undergo, among others

the process of registration under RA 8189 (Voter’s Registration

Act of 1996).

- There are three kinds of domicile: 1) domicile of origin—that

- Makalintal vs. COMELEC, July 10, 2003- The interpretation of
is, a child follows the domicile of the parents; 2) domicile by
residence is synonymous to domicile. An absentee remains
operation of law; and 3) domicile of choice made freely by a
attached to his residence in the Philippines, as residence is
person of legal age.
considered synonymous with domicile. Domicile means an

individual’s permanent home or a place to which, whenever - Domicile of choice “imports not only the intention to reside in

absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and one fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled

depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a fixed

disclose intent. permanent residence to which, when absent for business or

pleasure or for like reasons, one intends to return.” Makalintal vs.

- Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. COMELEC- Three basic rules on domicile:
COMELEC, July 10, 2003. In short, domicile of choice is a question
1) a man must have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2)
of fact. One intends to return, and depends on facts and
domicile, once established, remains until a new one is validly
circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent (animus
acquired; (3) a man can have but one residence or domicile at
revertendi).
any given time.

- Absentee voting – under Section 2 of RA 9189 – is an exception same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter

to the six-month/one-year residency requirement. under R.A. 9189 (election for president, v-pres., senators).

It cannot be overemphasized that R.A. 9189 aims, in essence,

- Lewis vs. COMELEC, August 4, 2006- There is no provision
to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos
in the dual citizenship law - R.A. 9225 - requiring "duals"
who, save for the residency requirements exacted of an
to actually establish residence and physically stay in the
ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are qualified to
Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote. On
vote.
the contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that “duals”

are most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the - Residence is equated with domicile. In election law, residence is
 synonymous to “domicile,” not necessarily with a person’s home - Settled jurisprudence recognizes three rules to determine a

person’s domicile: First, everyone must always have one of the

three kinds of domicile; second, once established, a domicile

remains the same until a new one is acquired; and third, a person
1
can have only one domicile at any given time.
0
- Applied to Poe. As a foundling found in Jaro, Iloilo, she acquired

the domicile (and citizenship) of her parents who, according to

“generally-accepted principles of law,” are presumed to be

Filipinos. So, her domicile of origin is Jaro, Iloilo. After she married

an American and moved to and worked in the United States, she

lost her domicile of origin and followed the domicile of her

husband in America. When she and her husband moved back for

good here after the death of Fernando Poe Jr., she acquired a new

domicile of choice in the Philippines. As to when she acquired

it depends, on her clear intention, conduct and physical

presence in the new location.

- In Marcos vs Comelec (Sept. 18, 1995), the Supreme Court held

that “the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of abandonment of a home in Australia, renunciation of Australian

candidacy, [is] decisive in determining whether or not an citizenship, reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and settling

individual has satisfied the Constitution’s residence qualification down in Zamboanga Sibugay show an “intent to change domicile

requirement.” The Supreme Court said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos for good.”

made an honest mistake in writing “seven months residence” in

her certificate of candidacy for a congressional seat, a period less

than the constitutional requirement of “not less than one year”

for that position.

- Recent jurisprudence. Cordora vs Comelec (Feb. 19, 2009) held

that residency is not dependent on citizenship because even a

foreigner can establish a Philippine domicile.

- More clearly, Japson vs Comelec (Jan. 19, 2009) ruled that a

former Filipino who was naturalized abroad may choose to

reestablish his/her domicile here even prior to the reacquisition

of citizenship under the Dual Citizenship Law.

- Said the Supreme Court: “[I]n order to acquire a new

domicile by choice, there must concur: 1) residence or

bodily presence in the new locality, 2) an intention to

remain there, and 3) an intention to abandon the old

domicile. “The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice

must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence

must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the

new domicile must be actual.”

- Moreover, Jalosjos vs Comelec (Oct. 19, 2010) ruled that the

 - (References: Columns of Fr. J.Bernas and Justice A. Panganiban) ARTICLE VI

(LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT)
- Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 552 SCRA 231- A Filipino

citizen’s acquisition of permanent resident status abroad - Pimentel III vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 178413, March 13,

constitutes abandonment of his domicile and residence in the 2008- in elections for President, V-President, Senators and

Philippines. The green card status in the USA is a renunciation of Members of the House of Representatives, the general rule still is

one’s status as a resident of the Philippines. that pre-proclamation cases on matters relating to the

preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of

- But: Q. Does reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under RA
election returns or certificates of canvass are prohibited. As with
9225 have the effect of restoring his Philippine domicile?
other general rules, there are recognized exceptions to he

- A. No. To reacquire domicile, he must provide proof of intent to prohibition namely: (1) correction of manifest errors; (2)

stay in the Philippines. After he does that, his occasional absence questions affecting the composition of proceeding of the board of

from the recovered domicile does not have the effect of removing canvassers; and (3) determination of the authenticity and the due

him from the domicile for as long as he manifests animus manendi execution of certificates of canvass as provided in Section 30 of

et revertendi (Japzon vs. Ty, January 19, 2009) RA 7166, as amended by RA No. 9369.

- Maquiling vs Comelec (April 16, 2013) clarified, though, that - Non delegation of legislative power

the use of an American passport after a renunciation of American

Gerochi vs. DOE, GR. No. 159796, July 17, 2007 - Under the
citizenship effectively reverses such renunciation and disqualifies
-
one who reacquired citizenship under the Dual Citizenship Law
first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions
from being elected to a public office.
when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the

1
1