Consti1 TSN Full

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I [DATE]1
IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)
 1945 saved by Mac Arthur

POLITICAL LAW
 1935 Constitution was back. Became elastic in 1946
Defined as that branch of public law which deals with the o 1947 Parity Rights Agreement’
organization and operation of the governmental organs of the
 1972, Martial Law by Pres. Marcos. They amended the
State and define the relations of the state with the inhabitants of
constitution. It was no longer responsive to present
its territory. (Macariola vs Asuncion)
time.
CONSTITUTION 1973 Constitution
 Citizens Assembly, ratified by the citizens. No more
Fundamental Law of the Land. Jurisprudence based on the plebiscite. Effectivity January 17, 1973.
constitution; it is the substance of the interpretation.
1. 1976. Gave the President legislative powers even if
KINDS/TYPES OF THE CONSTITUTION the Interim
1. Written/Unwritten- A written constitution is one Batasang Pambansa was already operating.
whose precepts are embodied in one document or set 2. 1980. Raised the retirement of justices from 65 to
of documents; while an unwritten constitution 70.6
consists of rules which have not been integrated into a 3. 1980. Changed the form of government from
single, concrete form but are scattered in various Parliamentary to Presidential.
sources, such as statues of a fundamental character,
judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists, 4. 1984. Provided for a Vice President.
customs and traditions, and certain common law  Martial Law lifted in 1980 but the president was still
principles. very powerful causing the 1986 revolution.
2. Rigid/Flexible- A rigid constitution is one that can be  Batas Pambansa and Presidential Proclamation-
amended only by a formal and usually difficult considered as a law made by Marcos.
process; while a flexible constitution is one that can be  Proclamation No. 1 - Feb 25, 1986 Announced the
changed by ordinary legislation. assumption of power of Aquino and Laurel.
3. Enacted/Cumulative- enacted or conventional  Supposed to establish the Provisional Government.
constitution is enacted, formally struck off at a
definitive time and place following a conscious or  Adapted most of the existing constitution, except the
deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler; power of the 3 departments.
while a cumulative or evolved is the result of political  Proclamation 2- suspension of writ of habeas corpus
evolution, not inaugurated at any specific time but  Proclamation 3- (Prov Constitution), announced the
changing by accretion rather than by systematic promulgation of the Provisional (Freedom)
method.
Constitution.
Philippine Constitution- Written, Rigid, and Enacted
1987 Constitution ratified by the people of the Philippines.
Constitution.
ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVITY OF THE PRESENT
HISTORY OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
CONSTITUTION
Malolos Constitution of 1899- (1901)
Article V- Adoption of a new constitution
 June 12, 1898- declare ng independence sa Kawit,
Sec 1. Within 60 days from the date of proclamation, a
Cavite
commission shall be appointed by the president to draft a new
 First Philippine Republic President-Emilio Aguinaldo constitution. The commission shall be composed of not less
 Treaty of Paris signed on 1898, effective 1899. than 30 nor more than fifty natural born citizens of the
Philippines, or recognized probity known for their
 Inocuppy tayo ng US so di na applicable. independence, nationalism and patriotism. Shall be chosen by
Philippine Organic Act (Philippine Bill of 1902) the president after various consultations with society.
 Considered a constitution, a fundamental law. Sec2. The commission shall complete its work within a short a
 Established the Philippine Assembly, organized by period as may be consistent with the need both to hasten the
Filipino legislator. Still under sovereignty of US return of normal constitutional government and to draft a
government. document truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations of the
Filipino People.
Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law) 1916
Sec 3. The commission shall conduct public hearings to ensure
 First pledge of US gov to give Phils Independence. that the people will have adequate participation in the forming
1934 Philippines Act, Tydings-McDuffie Law of the constitution.
 Enacted, mechanism that the Philippine has to do to Sec 4. The plenary sessions of the commission shall be publicly
create a constitution and to have independence and fully recorded.
1935 Constitution (Commonwealth) (1935-1946) Sec 5. The new Constitution shall be presented by the
 Draft Consti sent to US, Philippine Assembly accepted commission to the president who shall fit the date for the
it. holding of the plebiscite. It shall become valid and effective
upon ratification by a majority of the votes cast in such
 1946 World War II Temporarily nullified. Japanese plebiscite which shall be held within a period of sixty days
occupied us. following its submission to the president.
1943 Constitution Sec 27, Article XVIII of the constitution
 Framework of the government under Japanese. This constitution shall take effect immediately upon its
 Jose P. Laurel- Puppet President ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held
for the purpose and shall supersede all previous constitutions.
The foregoing proposed constitution of the Republic of the PARTS OF A GOOD CONSTITUTION
Philippines was approved by the constitutional commission of
1986 on the twelfth day of October, 1986 and accordingly 1. Constitution of Government- provisions of the
signed on the 15th October, 1986 at the Plenary Hall, National constitution which deals with the framework and
Government Center, Quezon City by the Commissioners whose structure of the government: executive, legislative and
signatures are hereunder affixed. judicial branch.
Proclamation no. 58- Feb 11, 1987 2. Constitution of Liberty- the part where it discusses
the constitutional rights, bill of rights. The series of
Proclaiming the ratification of the constitution of the Republic
proscriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and
of the Philippines adopted by the constitutional commission of political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations
1986, including the ordinance approved thereto. on the powers of government as a means of securing
 De Leon v. Esguerra; Elected officials should have 6 the enjoyment of those rights.
years in office 3. Constitution of Sovereignty – pointing out the known
 Terms of local officials is 3 years, except of barangay and the procedure of amending and revising the
officials. The 6 year term as stated in the Barangay constitution.
elections act of 1982 is still in effect unless otherwise
stated by law. 3 RULES OF CONSTRUCTION/INTERPRETATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION
EFFECTIVITY OF STATUTES:
- Tañada vs. Tuvera (1985) - all statutes, including those of Interpretation pertains to the written provisions of the
local application and private laws, shall be published as a constitution, whereas construction pertains to what the framers
condition for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days of the constitution, what the conditions of the time of the
after publication, unless a different effectivity date is fixed drafting, of ratifying the constitutions to know what the
by the legislative. (publication is indispensable) provision of the constitution means. We use
Construction/Interpretation when there is doubt as to what the
LAWYERS LEAGUE VS. AQUINO provision of the constitution is. Construction/Interpretation is
not needed when the provision is clear.
Questioned the legitimacy of Presidency.
1. Verba Legis- Plain meaning rule. Whenever possible the
The Aquino government was a result of a "direct state action." words used in the Constitution must be given their
It was not as if a small group revolted and succeeded in wresting ordinary meaning except when technical terms are
power in the end. Rather, the entire state revolted and overthrew employed.
the government, so that right from the beginning, the
installation was already lawful and the government was at all Ex. Domicile and Residency Issue Whether or not
times de jure. petitioner herein has resided in the subject
Congressional district for at least one (1) year
Recognized government, valid president of a valid government. immediately preceding the May 11, 1998 elections.
Not based on 1973, caused by People Power Revolution. Allegedly, counting, from the day after June 22, 1997
when respondent registered at Precinct No. 4400-A, up
IN RE: BERMUDEZ to and until the day of the elections on May 11, 1998,
respondent lacks the one (1) year residency requirement
Clarity of the Incumbent President and Vice President.
provided for candidates for Member of the House of
Bermudez clarifying the meaning of Incumbent President and
Representatives under Section 6, Article VI of the
Vice President.
Constitution.
Article 18 (Transitory Provision) It addresses loopholes. 1986
Rule: Records show that petitioner's domicile of origin
Nainstall, ratified 1987. 6 years dapat. Synchronized elections.
was Candon, Ilocos Sur and that sometime in 1991, he
Incumbent Pres and V-Pres don’t necessarily have to avail 6
acquired a new domicile of choice at 24 Bonifacio St.
years. For the next legit president to avail the 6 years.
Ayala Heights, Old Balara, Quezon City, as shown by
Section 5, Article 18 of the Proposed 1986 Constitution. his certificate of candidacy for the position of
Feb 2, 1987 ratified the Constitution. representative of the 3rd District of Quezon City in the
May 1995 election. Petitioner is now claiming that he
TANADA VS TUVERA ( 1) had effectively abandoned his "residence" in Quezon
City and has established a new "domicile" of choice at
Facts: There are Presidential Proclamations not published in the the Province of Sarangani. It is doctrinally settled that
OG. the term "residence," as used in the law prescribing the
Issue: are those laws effective without publication? qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, means
Ruling: to be effective, it must be published. the same thing as "domicile," which imports not only an
intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
TANADA VS TUVERA ( 2) presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative
of such intention .
Fact: they are clarifying where “unless otherwise provided” is
"Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to
applied in Article 2. Requirement of publication or publication
which, whenever absent for business, pleasure, or some
days?
other reasons, one intends to return. "Domicile" is a
Ruling: Publication is indispensable. But unless otherwise question of intention and circumstances. In the
provided refers to the publication days but it was also clarified consideration of circumstances, three rules must be
that it needs to be published before being becoming effective. borne in mind, namely: (1) that a man must have a
Ratification and Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution residence or domicile somewhere; (2) when once
established it remains until a new one is acquired; and
No issue to publication, part of the ratification process is
(3) a man can have but one residence or domicile at a
informing people all the things about it.
time.
Depends kung ano nakalagay sa provision. Sometimes: Upon
As a general rule, the principal elements of domicile,
publication, it is immediately effective.
physical presence in the locality involved and intention
to adopt it as a domicile, must concur in order to Sir: Sovereign power of the state, taxation, eminent domain and
establish a new domicile. No change of domicile will police power. Those are the 3 inherent powers of the state. The
result if either of these elements is absent. Intention to Constitution limits that power. One of the examples of meron
acquire a domicile without actual residence in the ng rights agad is bill of rights.
locality does not result in acquisition of domicile, nor So the exemption to the rule:
does the fact of physical presence without intention. The
lease contract entered into sometime in January 1997, NONSELF EXECUTING PROVISIONS
does not adequately support a change of domicile.
You cannot give rise to a right, there must be legislative
The lease contract may be indicative of DOMINO's
action.
intention to reside in Sarangani but it does not engender
the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment Examples: Provisions in Domino v. COMELEC and Pamatong
of one's original domicile. The mere absence of v. COMELEC
individual from his permanent residence, no matter how
long, without the intention to abandon it does not result PAMATONG VS COMELEC
in loss or change of domicile. Thus the date of the Pamatong wanted to run for President in the - elections. So he
contract of lease of a house and lot located in the filed a COC to the COMELEC, but the COMELEC did not give
province of Sarangani, i.e., 15 January 1997, cannot be due course to his COC because, he is considered as a nuisance
used, in the absence of other circumstances, as the candidate. He did not have enough money to wage a national
reckoning period of the one-year residence requirement. campaign.
Further, Domino's lack of intention to abandon his
residence in Quezon City is further strengthened by his According to them, the COMELEC in denying his petition,
act of registering as voter in one of the precincts in COC – Article II, Section 26, The State shall guarantee equal
Quezon City. access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political
dynasties as may be defined by law.
While voting is not conclusive of residence, it does give
rise to a strong presumption of residence especially in What did the Supreme Court say?
this case where DOMINO registered in his former That the provision is not self-executing. It cannot give an
barangay. Exercising the right of election franchise is a intangible right. It can be a basis of a cause of action, but it is
deliberate public assertion of the fact of residence, and not effective without implementing legislation. That provision
is said to have decided preponderance in a doubtful case is subsumed under Article II. The provisions of this Article are
upon the place the elector claims as, or believes to be, generally non self-executing. And there’s no plausible reason to
his residence. give a different meaning or treatment to this provision under
2. Ratio legis et anima - Interpretation according to spirit. this Article.
The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in These provisions under Article II, do not contain any judicially
accordance with the intent of the framers. Concept: enforceable Constitutional right. They are mere guidelines for
Constitution is a dynamic document. Will adapt to the legislative or executive action.
present situation of the country at a certain period of time. DIFFERENCE
Ex. 1987 People Power Revolution Self-Executing- you can ask the court to enforce that right
Jehovah’s Witnesses case- force to salute the flag. Same Non-Self Executing- you should find a law that will give you
constitution but different interpretation/view. Right to that right
religion- right to belief, right to act on belief.
3. The constitution has to be interpreted as a whole. The MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS GSIS
constitution ideally is read by people who ratified it and
Manila Hotel Corporation sought to sold for bidding. One of the
understood that all those provisions are connected with
bidders here was this foreign entity – Berhad, and he offered to
one another. Therefore, when the court interpret the
buy the shares of Manila Hotel Corporation. Naas yay kalaban
provision of the constitution, it will not interpret it
na bidder which is Manila Prince Hotel, their bid was lower. So,
separately but related to other provisions. Otherwise, the
since higher ang bid ni Malaysian firm, this entity was declared
court will show an opportunity for them to be
as the winner. So nagsulat katong si Manila Prince Hotel, the
contradicting with each other because they will interpret
losing bidder that it was them who really topped the bid. Manila
the provisions separately and will result to conflicts. Basic
Prince Hotel went to the Supreme Court and challenged this
principle of the constitution to be consistent must be
action by the GSIS before it can sell its shares in the Manila
achieved.
Hotel Corporation.
The above listed are the 3 fundamental ways to interpret or
Section 10 (2) Article XII. This second paragraph talks about
construct the constitution.
The Filipino first policy. The provisions – rights, privileges and
Construction- outside, ano yung nagyari concessions covering the – stage of preference to qualified
Interpretation- the provision of the constitution. Filipinos. According to Manila Prince Hotel, this provision is
self-executing.
General rule: All provisions of the Constitution are self-
executing. Is it self-executing or not?
It is. According to the Supreme Court by this provision, 2nd
SELF EXECUTING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS paragraph of this Section 10, Article XII is a mandatory positive
Already grants rights. Di na kailangan ng enabling law. command which is complete in itself and it doesn’t need further
guidelines, implementing law, rules and regulations for its
(Additional notes: The legislature may still enact legislation to enforcement.
facilitate the exercise of powers directly granted by the
constitution, further the operation of such a provision, prescribe It is to give qualified Filipinos preference but only insofar as
a practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a convenient grants, rights, privileges and concession covering national are
remedy for the protection of the rights secured or the concerned. It is only shares sa ilahang hotel corporation. It is
determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the Filipino. Consistent with this self-executing provision.
the exercise of the right.)
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF NON-SELF-EXECUTORY division in our constitution. Each department of the

PROVISIONS government has the exclusive cognizance of matters
General Rule for State Policies, not self-executory. Court within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own
released decision making some declaration state policies self- sphere. But it does not follow from the fact the three
executory. powers are to be kept separate in the state that the
constitution intended them to be absolutely
Example: unrestrained and independent of each other. The
The right to a balance life and a healthy ecology constitution provides for the system of checks and
The right to life balances to secure coordination in the workings of the
various departments/branches of the government.
JUDICIAL POWER  Each department has its own power but it does not
impose supremacy over other departments.
The power of the court to settle actual cases or controversies  The constitution is not a grant of power – it is an
between real conflicting parties through the application of laws, expression of the limitations of powers of government
including the constitution. instrumentalities.
Expanded form – the SC also has the power to determine
ANGGARA VS. ELECTION COMMISSION
whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any  National Assembly - created the Electoral Commission
branch or instrumentality of the government:  EC - made its own rules and regulation on election
1. When its decisions are contrary to the constitution protest
 National Assembly - wants its rules to govern.
2. When it is executed capriciously, whimsically, and
maliciously.  Conflict between EC and NA
NA – said that the court has no jurisdiction because it belongs
Conflict between a law/statute and the constitution - the
to their power to make laws and to provide for the powers of
constitution will prevail.
EC
SAGISAG VS. OCHOA EC – the constitution provides for separation of powers and
checks and balances. The SC has the power to determine
Distinguished from the general notion of judicial power, the whether a branch of government/instrumentality has exceeded
power of judicial review refers to both the authority and the duty
the powers given to it by the constitution.
of the courts to determine whether a branch or instrumentality
of government (refers to the political branches of government - “But in the main, the Constitution has blocked out with deft
legislative/executive branch) has acted beyond the scope of the strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive,
latter’s constitutional powers. the legislative and the judicial departments of the government.
The overlapping and interlacing of functions and duties
JUDICIAL REVIEW between the several departments, however, sometimes makes it
hard to say just where the one leaves off and the other begins.
An aspect of judicial power which allows the courts to review, In times of social disquietude or political excitement, the great
revise, reverse, modify, affirm on appeal or certiorari any cases landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred,
which involves rights that are legally demandable and if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial
enforceable and determine whether or not there is a grave abuse department is the only constitutional organ which can be called
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the
Power of SC and lower courts to declare constitutionality of several departments and among the integral or constituent units
laws, treaties and presidential issuances. It emanates from thereof.”
judicial power - power of courts to settle controversies through The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in checks and
the application of laws including the constitution. balances. It is the SC which has the power to define whether
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one a branch/instrumentality of government has exceeded its
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established constitutional powers.
by law.
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally Encompasses the idea that individual justice/justices/judges can
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not freely exercise their mandate to resolve justiciable disputes
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack while the judicial branch as a whole would work in the
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or discharge of its constitutional functions free of restraints and
instrumentality of the government influence from the other branches saved only for those imposed
Power of the court every opportunity to review, revise, reverse, by the constitution itself. There are two categories:
modify or affirm on judgements and order lower courts to 1. Individual judicial independence - focuses on each
determine whether or not there has been abuse of discretion. particular judge and seeks to ensure his or her ability
Basic job description: to decide cases with autonomy within the constraints
of the law. A judge has his independence when he
 Power to settle disputes through the application of laws can render a judgement that is free from
including the constitution. political/popular influences based solely on the
 Actual cases/ controversies individual facts and applicable laws.
2. Institutional judicial independence – focuses on
the independence of the judiciary as a branch of
SEPARATION OF POWERS government and protects judges as a class.
 Each department is supreme within its sphere and not RE: COA OPINION
over other branches
 A fundamental principle in our system of government. Justices wanted to purchase properties which value is already
It obtains not through express provision but by actual depreciated based on their formula.
The SC decided to peg the amount of the properties depending  The Supreme Court said that it is an established
on its value over time. doctrine that the statute/presidential issues shall be
COA – the formula used by the SC is wrong. construed whenever possible, to be in harmony with
rather than in violation of the constitution. The
SC – “we have fiscal autonomy and we have judicial presumption is that the legislature intended to enact a
independence. This is our computation based on our own valid, sensible, and just law and one which operates no
criteria. It is in line with the GAA.” This is not subject for further than necessary to effectuate the specific
intervention from other branches because there is a grant of purpose of the law. It is presumed that the legislature
fiscal autonomy and judicial independence. has acted within its constitutional powers so it is the
generally accepted rule that every statute or regularly
Judiciary Fiscal Autonomy is provided by the constitution to the accepted act is or will be or shall be presumed to be
judiciary as a whole in the spirit of Judicial Independence. valid and constitutional.
When there is already an allocated budget, it will be given to  It is the burden of proof of the complainant/petitioner
them regularly without the usual rules and requirements to prove that a law/statute is unconstitutional.
governing other institutions without fiscal autonomy. They Otherwise, it is automatically declared by the supreme
have the authority on how they will spend the budget that is court as constitutional.
given to them, as long as it is covered by the GAA (General CONDITIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL
Appropriations Act). They have the authority to determine REVIEW:
amounts and how they will dispose of this amount accordingly.
COA is an independent commission which should respect the 1. There must be an ACTUAL CASE calling for the
independence of the judiciary. exercise of judicial power.
 Actual case or controversy means a conflict of
Example of Individual Judicial Independence legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims
 A judge hearing an individual’s case, regardless of the which can be resolved on the basis of existing law
power of that individual/institution, should look at the and jurisprudence. [Guingona v. Court of
facts and apply the laws in resolving the matters filed Appeals, G.R. No. 125532, July 10, 1998].
before his court.  The controversy must be definite and concrete,
Still Re: Separation of Powers bearing upon the legal relations of the parties who
are pitted against each other due to their adverse
CORPUZ VS. PEOPLE legal interest. [John Hay People’s Alternative
Coalition v. Lim, G.R. No. 119775, October 24,
Discusses article 5 of the RPC. 2003]
Article 5 provides that the courts have their power to tell the  The issues raised in the case must not be moot and
executive/legislative branch when a particular act not academic, or because of subsequent
punishable under the RPC, should be penalized, OR when a developments, have become moot and academic.
penalty should no longer be applied. It can recommend but does A moot and academic case is one that ceases to
not have the power to legislate since this power is given the present a justiciable controversy by virtue of
legislative branch of the government. supervening events. [Province of Batangas v.
Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004]
MAMISCAL VS. ABDULLAH  It involves conflicting legal rights, an assertion of
opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
Shariah Law is distinct. resolution.
In this case, the clerk of court in the Shariah circuit court is also  There is a contrariety of legal rights that can be
the serving registrar of Muslim marriages. His job as the clerk interpreted and enforced on basis of existing law
is under the supreme court while his job as a civil registrar of and jurisprudence.
marriages is under the executive branch.  A party or parties claim that they have legal rights
SC wanted to put him under discipline because of certain acts that must be upheld by the Supreme Court.
he did as a registrar of marriages.  The SC has the power only if there is a contrariety
of legal rights. Otherwise the courts will not
Ruling: In accordance to the principle of Separation of Powers, entertain.
SC had no jurisdiction to discipline the clerk because the act  Ripeness – the controversy should be ripe for
that was complained of was a job fulfilled for his executive role judicial adjudication. The act being challenged
and not for his judiciary role. The SC’s power to discipline has has had adverse effects to the concerned party
its limits. because it has already been
accomplished/performed by the government
FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
before a court may come into the picture. It is not
1. Legitimating – the act of declaring a anticipated. This should be alleged by someone
law/statutes/presidential issuance, etc. as NOT claiming or defending his right.
unconstitutional or to put emphasis on the  Mootness – when the controversy ceases to be
presumption of constitutionality- presumed that justiciable controversy (actual case – ripe) by
legislator has acted within its power. virtue of supervening events such that the
2. Symbolic (teaching) – this is exercised even if the declaration of the court will be of no use or value.
conditions are not met simply because there is a need When the act no longer affects the parties (e.g.
for the courts to lay down the rules or principles which There has already been a subsequent act that
would serve as a guide for the bench and the bar for repeals law, making the problem/case/controversy
future acts of similar character. no longer relevant), the SC will no longer
3. Checking – the act of declaring or negating a law as entertain the case.
unconstitutional.
FUNA VS. MANILA ECONOMIC OFFICE
PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
Taiwan is not recognized as an independent country, but the PH 2. the presence of a clear case of disregard of a
has economic trade relationship with it. The Manila Econ office, constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
a private institution but receives government funds to facilitate respondent agency or instrumentality of the government;
the renewal/grant of passports to OFWs in Taiwan. and
The COA issued a memo that on post-audit, MECO should be 3. the lack of any other party with a more direct and
included despite MECO’s claim that it’s not a government specific interest in the questions being raised.
office should not be subjected to audit. In cases with paramount public interest, the court can
However, during the trial, the MECO already conceded to be waive/relax the technicalities of the requirements of legal
subjected to audit. (Supervening Cause) standing and will entertain the case.
Given that, there is no longer an actual case. Liberal approach to judicial review
Even if the case is moot due to supervening causes, the courts The case has far-reaching implications and there is a need to
may still exercise judicial review when: promulgate rules that will guide the bench, the bar, and the
public in future analogous cases.
 There is a grave violation of the constitution.
 The case involved is a situation of exceptional Vindication of a public right.
character and is a paramount public interest. IMBONG VS. OCHOA
 The constitutional issue raised require the
formulation of principles to guide the bench, the  Reproductive Health Bill
bar, and the public.  While the individual legal standings of the plaintiffs
 The case is capable of repetition. were discussed, the court ruled that this case is of
Under these circumstances, the court may rule upon it despite transcendental importance.
being moot, but it will not apply to that particular case but in all
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE VS. GREENPEACE
similar cases in the future. This purpose is the Symbolic
Function of Judicial Review – to inform/educated the bar, the  Case of BT Talong
bench, and the public that it is a violation of the constitution.  The court had a lenient stance stance on the
2. The person challenging the law/act must have requirements of legal standing because the case is of
LEGAL STANDING/ LOCUS STANDI to assail the transcendental importance. The court ruled that the
validity of the subject act. requirement is a matter of procedure which can be
 Locus Standi – right of appearance in the court of relaxed if the matter is of transcendental importance.
justice on a given question (as defined in Unduran
vs. Aberasturi) SAGUISAG VS. OCHOA
 Real Party In Interest – states that every action
 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA)
must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest who stands to be benefitted RAPPLER VS. BAUTISTA
or injured. The one who has the right to file a suit.
 In Civil Law, he must have a personal and  Livestreaming of presidential debates
substantial interest in the case such that he has a  The SC issues a resolution granting rappler and all
stake, or he be affected by the direct injury of a other media outlets the right to livestream the debates
private person’s act. The interest/injury should because the matter is of transcendental importance
not be anticipated. because it illuminates the public as to the platforms
 In Constitutional Law, he must have a personal and propagandas of presidential and vice-presidential
and substantial interest in the case such that the candidates.
party have sustained or will sustain a direct injury
as a result of the governmental act that is being DISINI VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
challenged.
 Cybercrime Law – transcendental importance
Non-Traditional Plaintiffs
ROSALES VS. ERC
 Taxpayers – there must be a claim of illegal
disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure  Requisites of Transcendental Importance:
is unconstitutional o Public character of the assets involved.
 Concerned Citizens – there must a showing that the o Presence of a clear disregard of a constitution
issue raised is of transcendental importance. or statutory prohibition by the public
 Voters – there must be a showing of obvious interest respondent, agency, or instrumentality of the
in the validity of the election law in question. government.
 Legislators – there must be a claim that the official o Lack of any other party of a more distinct,
action complained of infringes their prerogatives as direct, and specific interest.
legislators.  There are cases that do not fall under these
 They represent not only their private requirements that the court has a discretion to declare
interests/injuries but the interest/injuries of a class or whether there is transcendental importance.
the masses.
 This interest of the masses that need to be protected *Epistolary Jurisdiction – representation of an aggrieved party.
has to be proven. In line with environmental law.
3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at

Doctrine of Transcendental Importance
the earliest opportunity.
Requisites:  Bodies which have only quasi-judicial
1. The character of the funds or other assets involved in the functions, do not have a power of judicial
case;
review despite having power to settle Question of Law – when the doubt or difference arises as to
controversies. what the law is on a certain state of fact. Whether a law applies
 Only the SC and the courts vested with judicial to a fact.
power review have the power to declare a law Question of Fact – when the doubt or difference arises as to the
unconstitutional. truthfulness or the falsehood of the given facts. It is not an
 The earliest time is not when the case is raised application of the law.
in an administrative body where all facts and
questions of the law are exhausted first and Courts can only entertain question of law; it cannot entertain
when the body interprets the law based on the question of facts because the court is not a trier of facts.
facts (administrative remedies). When it is
LAUDE
raised to a courts with judicial power after the
administrative body, the question on The motion was filed by the sister of Jennifer Laude.
constitutionality can be raised.
The SC emphasized that in criminal cases the people of the
Operative Fact Doctrine Philippines is the real party in interest. That is, through the
Before declaration of uncertainty, it is already an operative OSG.
fact, but after it has been declared void, afterwards law will be
seen proactively. 7 PILLARS OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE POWER
OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (Disini Vs. Secretary Of Justice
o Supreme Court recognizes benefits but stops Sereno Concurring Opinion)
it for unconstitutionality.
Political Question vs. Justiciable Question 1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of
legislation in a friendly, non-adversary proceeding,
POLITICAL QUESTION - limitation of the power of the declining because to decide such questions 'is
judiciary or Judicial Review. legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in
Lies beyond the power of Judiciary, it lies on the Executive or the determination of real, earnest and vital
Legislative. controversy between individuals. It never was the
thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party
An example is Foreign Policy which is in the President’s
beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an
discretion.
inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act.
General Rule: When there is a political question, the court
cannot declare it to be unconstitutional except when the petition 2. The Court will not 'anticipate question of
constitutional law in advance of the necessity of
is proved to show that there is grave abuse of discretion.
deciding it.' 'It is not the habit of the Court to decide
BROKENSHIRE VS. MINISTRY OF LABOR AND questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely
EMPLOYMENT necessary to a decision of the case.'
3. The Court will not 'formulate a rule of constitutional
The issue on constitutionality was raised before the NLRC, law broader than is required by the precise facts to
which is a quasi-judicial body.
which it is to be applied.
4. The issue of constitutionality must be the very LIS 4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question
MOTA of the case. although properly presented by the record, if there is
 The court will not pass upon a question of
also present some other ground upon which the case
unconstitutionality although properly
may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied
presented if the case can be disposed of on application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either
some other grounds such as the application of of two grounds, one involving a constitutional
the statute or the general law. The petitioner
question, the other a question of statutory construction
must be able to show that the case may not be
or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.
resolved unless the constitutional question
Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging
raised is determined. This is based on the rule its decision of a question under the Federal
that every law has in its favor the presumption Constitution are frequently dismissed because the
of constitutionality.
judgment can be sustained on an independent state
 Lis Mota – the constitutional issue is the real
ground.
issue of the case.
 The court cannot rule on the case without 5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute
touching on the constitutional issue. If the upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is
court finds other ways to resolve the case, it injured by its operation. Among the many
will rule that way and dismiss the petition on applications of this rule, none is more striking than the
the question of constitutionality. denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a
personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a
ROBREDO public official interested only in the performance of
his official duty will not be entertained
The provision that is questioned in the case is that provision that
the NHA can order demolition and eviction of illegal settlers. 6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of
The petitioner questioned this as unconstitutional. a statute at the instance of one who has availed
himself of its benefits.
The SC said it has already ruled on this validity of this eviction.
In deciding the case, the court ruled by determining if, in the 7. When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn
eviction process, the law has been followed, INSTEAD of in question, and even if a serious doubt of
questioning the constitutionality of the law. Hence, it was not constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that
the Lis Mota of the case. this Court will first ascertain whether a construction
of the statute is fairly possible by which the question
QUESTION OF LAW VS QUESTION OF FACT may be avoided.
Pre-enforcement Judicial Review
Covers criminal acts passed by congress. While there is not yet a) Quantitative Test - Whether the proposed
an actual enforcement under the new law, but if there’s an change is so extensive in its provision as to
anticipation of its probable application, these persons already change directly the “substance entirety” of the
have the standing and an actual case. Hence, there can be a Constitution by the deletion or alteration of
judicial review. numerous provisions. The court examines only
 E.g., Anti-Terrorism Act, Cyber Crime Law the number of provisions affected and does not
consider the degree of the change.
ELEMENTS:
1. The challenged law or provision forbids a constitutionally b) Qualitative Test - Inquires into the qualitative
protected conduct or activity that a petitioner seeks to do. effects of the proposed change in the
Constitution. The main inquiry is whether the
2. A realistic, imminent, and credible threat or danger
change will “accomplish such far-reaching
sustaining a direct injury or facing prosecution awaits the
changes in the nature of our basic governmental
petitioner should the prohibited conduct or activity be
plan as to amount to a revision.
carried out.
3. The factual circumstances surrounding the prohibited Steps in the amendatory process:
conduct/activity sought to be carried out are real, not a.) Proposal of the amendments or revision, which may be
hypothetical and speculative and are sufficiently alleged done by:
and proven. i. Constituent Assembly - Congress, acting as a Constituent
Assembly, by a 3/4 vote of all its members.
ANTI TERRORISM ACT CASE
ii. Constitutional Convention - Congress may call a ConCon
There is definition of what a terrorist or terroristic group are. by a 2/3 vote of all its members or by a majority vote of
A certain group of individuals which feared that they may be all its members, Congress may submit to the electorate
prosecuted under the anti-terrorism act because of the the question of whether to call a ConCon or not. [Section
definition. It seems that they are under that definition. So, they 3, Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution].
wanted that provision to be stricken out as unconstitutional. ii. Peoples Initiative – A petition of at least 12% of the total
SC – Albeit there’s really no controversy, it belongs to the number of registered voters of which every legislative
concept of pre-enforcement judicial review. district must be represented by at least 3% of the
registered voters therein. No amendment in this manner
RELATIVE CONSTITUTIONALITY shall be authorized within five years following the
ratification of this constitution nor more than once every
1. A statute valid at one time may become void at another five years.
time because of altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute
in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or An initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments
confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislation through
former adjudication is open to inquiry and investigation an election called for the purpose.
in the light of the changed conditions. There are three systems of initiatives:
2. A statute or an interpretation thereof, its constitutionality (1) Initiative on the Constitution, which refers to a petition
is conditioned but it is being fair or reasonable which in proposing amendments to the Constitution;
turn is dependent on the actual situation, never static but
subject to change. So a measure is valid when enacted (2) Initiative on statutes, which refers to a petition proposing
subsequently due to altered circumstances that is to enact a national legislation; and
stricken down as unconstitutional. (3) Initiative on local legislation, which refers to a petition
LOWER COURTS have judicial power as provided for in proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal
Section 1, Article 8 and Section 5 (2). or barangay law, resolution or ordinance.
b.) Ratification, the proposed amendment shall be submitted to
BROKENSHIRE the people and shall be deemed ratified by the majority of the
votes cast in the plebiscite, held not earlier than 60 days nor
In determining constitutionality, we should not only look at the
later than 90 days
provision but also the distinct set of facts in the case.
(i)After approval of the proposal by Congress or
AMENDMENT & REVISION Constitutional Convention;
 Amendment - changing the part/ isolated part of the (ii)After certification by the COMELEC of sufficiency of
constitution. Its purpose is to improve specific provisions petition of the people.
of the Constitution. The changes brought about by
EFFECTS OF DECLARING A LAW
amendments will not affect the other provisions of the
UNCONSTITUTONAL
Constitution. Otherwise stated, it refers to a change that
adds, reduces or deletes, without altering the basic 1. Orthodox View- Based on Civil law concept and
principle involved. provision in Section 7- when the courts declare a law
to be inconsistent with the constitution, the former
 Revision - rewriting major principle; a change in major shall be void and the latter shall govern.
principles. - SC: “Unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers
no rights, imposes no duties, affords no
Examination of the entire Constitution to determine how and protection, create no office it is in legal
to what extent it should be altered. A revision implies contemplation, inoperative as if, it had not been
substantive change, affecting the Constitution as a whole. In passed; it is therefore, stricken from the statute
short, it implies a change that alters the basic principle in the books and considered never to have existed at
Constitution. all.”
- Totally erases a law/ executive act; its
LEGAL TESTS (LAMBINO V. COMELEC) interpretation/operation.
- Civil law concept: if it’s void, its void from the 1. All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or
start. affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.
2. The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and
2. Unorthodox doctrine nationalist consciousness of the military, and respect
for people's rights in the performance of their duty.
SERRANO AGBAYANI VS PNB 3. Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate
remuneration and benefits of its members shall be a
 Introduced concept of Unorthodox doctrine, Operative
prime concern of the State. The armed forces shall be
fact doctrine.
insulated from partisan politics.
 It would be unfair, would not be pursuant to justice of
No member of the military shall engage directly or
we consider something that has already been done, the
indirectly in any partisan political activity, except to
people during its validity is followed by the Filipino
vote.
people, if the seek regrets from courts based on that
4. No member of the armed forces in the active service
law.
shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any
 Before it was unconstitutional, the fact is, it existed.
capacity to a civilian position in the Government
The people/ entities which believed in that particular
including government-owned or controlled
law.
corporations or any of their subsidiaries.
 The court recognizes the existence of a law or an act
5. Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow
prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality, as
extension of their service.
an OPERATIVE FACT that produced consequences
6. The officers and men of the regular force of the armed
that cannot be erased, ignored, or disregarded. It
forces shall be recruited proportionately from all
nullifies the void laws or act but sustains the effect. It
provinces and cities as far as practicable.
provides an exception to the general rule that a void/
7. The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the Armed
unconstitutional law produces no effect.
forces shall not exceed three years. However, in times
PREAMBLE of war or other national emergency declared by the
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty Congress, the President may extend such tour of duty.
God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Section 6: The State shall establish and maintain one police
Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character,
promote the common good, conserve and develop our to be administered and controlled by a national police
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the commission. The authority of local executives over the police
blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.
and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, Section 7: The State shall provide immediate and adequate
do ordain and promulgate this Constitution. care, benefits, and other forms of assistance to war veterans and
veterans of military campaigns, their surviving spouses and
The preamble serves as an aid in the interpretation, a summary orphans. Funds shall be provided therefor and due
of what the entire constitution stands for in relation to the consideration shall be given them in the disposition of
Filipino People. agricultural lands of the public domain and, in appropriate
cases, in the utilization of natural resources.
It declares certain basic principles underlying the basic charter.
It is the window to the principles and state policies that will Section 8: The State shall, from time to time, review to upgrade
govern the constitution. the pensions and other benefits due to retirees of both the
government and the private sectors.
You will see source of constitutionality, the Filipino People.
Emphasizes that Filipino people are sovereign people, and not ARTICLE 2
by virtue of authority of any foreign power or state.
(DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE
GENERAL PROVISIONS POLICIES)
Article XVI  Basic political creed of the nation

 Principle is a binding rule which must be observed in
Section 1 The flag of the Philippines shall be red, white, and the conduct of government
blue, with a sun and three stars, as consecrated and honored by  Policy is a guideline for the orientation of the state
the people and recognized by law.  Both are generally not self- executing, mere
- Eight rays of the sun represents eight provinces, who were guidelines for the branches of the government, guide
the first to rise against Spain, three stars to represent of the Supreme Court on instances where its wisdom
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. is being petitioned for judicial review.
- Maybe changed only through constitutional amendment.  Aid the court in the validity of statutes.
- Red - Valor and war, Blue= Filipino resistance against  Republican Government is where sovereignty resides
foreign invaders, also, peace, truth and justice, White - in the power of the people, essence is a democratic
purity and the Filipino People. government represented by a body of people.
Section 2: The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for
the country, a national anthem, or a national seal, which shall “Revolution” as defined by Associate Justice Puno
be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and Complete overthrow of the established government in
traditions of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon any country or state by those who were previously
its ratification by the people in a national referendum. subject to it or as a sudden, radical and fundamental
Section 3: The State may not be sued without its consent. change in the government or political system usually
Section 4: The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be affected by violence or some acts of violence, it is
composed of a citizen armed force which shall undergo military defined as that which occurs whenever a legal order of a
training and serve, as may be provided by law. It shall keep a community is nullified and replaced by a new order in a
regular force necessary for the security of the State. way not prescribed by the first order itself.
Section 5
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I [DATE]
10
That’s why Cory Aquino was considered revolutionary Protection of the life of the mother and the life of the unborn
because her powers were away from the ambit of the from conception
1973 constitution. - Life of the person starts upon conception
“Renunciation of war” - Does not discount that the life of the mother is an issue.
Against war which is against us, but we can declare defensive Separation of Powers
war.
ABAKADA VS PURISIMA
Adoption of generally-accepted principles of international
law Congress passed an act which gave employees of agency of
- Doctrine of incorporation, practicing it in our local law. government revenues if they reach revenue targets. It gives
- Doctrine of transformation, transforming the generally- undue advantage to these agencies of government.
accepted principles of international law into our CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT:
legislation.
1. Scrutiny- Congressional scrutiny implies a lesser
Adherence to a policy of peace, freedom, and amity with all intensity and continuity of attention to administrative
nations operations. Its primary purpose is to determine
- In connection to Love in the preamble economy and efficiency of the operation of
government activities. In the exercise of legislative
Civilian Supremacy scrutiny, Congress may request information and report
- Civilian authority is at all times supreme over the military, from the other branches of government. It can give
a legacy of American legacy, that civilian authority is recommendations or pass resolutions for consideration
supreme. of the agency involved.
Role of the armed forces: - Usually happens during budget hearings
2. Congressional investigation - While congressional
(a) Protector of the people and the state, scrutiny is regarded as a passive process of looking at
(b) to secure the sovereignty of the state and the integrity of the facts that are readily available, congressional
national territory. investigation involves a more intense digging of facts.
- Delineation of roles, proper duty of the military. The power of Congress to conduct investigation is
recognized by the 1987 Constitution under section 21,
Compulsory military service under conditions provided by Article VI.
law 3. Legislative supervision - (unconstitutional) The third
- NSTP/CWTS and most encompassing form by which Congress
Maintenance of peace and order, promotion of general exercises its oversight power is thru legislative
welfare supervision. "Supervision" connotes a continuing and
informed awareness on the part of a congressional
Recognition of hierarchy or rights committee regarding executive operations in a given
- The courts will recognize hierarchy of rights, E.G Life administrative area. While both congressional scrutiny
over liberty and investigation involve inquiry into past executive
branch actions in order to influence future executive
Separation of church and state
branch performance, congressional supervision allows
- Shall be inviolable, no law shall be made respecting an Congress to scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-
establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise making authority, and permits Congress to retain part
thereof. of that delegated authority.
Independent foreign policy LEGISLATIVE VETO
- Conduct of the state vis-a-avis other states. It typically utilizes veto provisions when granting the President
- Sovereign state but does not reject advice from allies of or an executive agency the power to promulgate regulations
the community. with the force of law. These provisions require the President or
- Primary foreign officer is the president an agency to present the proposed regulations to Congress,
Freedom from nuclear weapons which retains a "right" to approve or disapprove any regulation
before it takes effect. Such legislative veto provisions usually
- Generally bans nuclear weapons and tests, does not cover provide that a proposed regulation will become a law after the
peaceful use of nuclear substances like medical treatment expiration of a certain period of time, only if Congress does not
or agriculture affirmatively disapprove of the regulation in the meantime.
- Does not ban nuclear capable vessels because of phrase Less frequently, the statute provides that a proposed regulation
consistent with natural interest. will become law if Congress affirmatively approves it.
Promote a just and dynamic social order SUMMARY
- Recognizes that we are a poor country, and aims to provide - Giving the legislative the power to approve or
all basic commodities. disapprove an act of the executive. SC ruled this to be
- Social legislations to better the lives of the people, like in violation of the separation of powers and the checks
provisions for senior citizens etc. and balances, anything that has passed congress should
Personal dignity and human rights already be in the realm of the executive.
- Not a self-executory provisions, there are laws in place for
GONZALES III VS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
the security of human rights.
Family as a basic institution, and natural and primary right - Ombudsman, created by the constitution. Independent
and duty of parents in the rearing of youth constitution commission
- In the case, can the president remove a deputy
- Respect family as a basic social institution
ombudsman?
- concept of the family came before the state was even
- Ombudsman Law, the president can remove a deputy
formed
ombudsman.
11
- SC declared the ombudsman law unconstitutional,  Continental shelf still part of our territory even if it’s
because the ombudsman scrutinizes all heads of beyond 12 nautical miles.
executive government including the president.  Marginal Sea/ Marine bed is 12 nautical miles from the
General Considerations: The Philippines as a State baseline, sea within that demarcation seabed/ sea
bottom.
COLLECTOR V. CAMPOS RUEDA  Land that holds the sea, it is the top portion of the
submarine area; area below the seabed.
ELEMENTS OF A STATE
MAGALONA VS OMMITA
 Territory
Questioned RA 9522, according to petitioners violated Art 1,
 People
sec 1.
 Sovereignty; and
 Government The SC said baseline laws does not define our territory, it only
demarcates where we should base our baselines, and it
1st element: TERRITORY increased our territory.
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, RA 9522 was just an implementation of our commitment to the
with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other UNCLOS.
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or Decision of the permanent court of arbitration against
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial China
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the  China did not submit any formal positions paper.
insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,  PCA said formations cannot be a basis of maritime
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, zone; only an island. Shoals cannot produce its own
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the maritime zone.
internal waters of the Philippines. (Article 1, 1987 Philippine  9 dash line has no basis; Kalayaan is part of our EEZ,
constitution) sovereign rights not 12 nautical miles.
“Archipelagic doctrine” means “[T]he waters around,
between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, NICOLAS V. ROMULO
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the
Questioning the validity of visiting forces agreement.
internal waters of the Philippines” [Nachura, Outline Reviewer
in Political Law (2009)] VFA was constitutional, self-executing agreement obligations
under RP-US mutual defenses agreement.
The archipelagic doctrine has a two-fold purpose:
(1) Economic reasons; and SAGUISAG V. OCHOA
(2) national security.
Issue: whether or not the RP-US mutual defenses agreement
Straight baseline method consists of drawing straight lines was unconstitutional
connecting appropriate points on the coast without departing to Ruling: Valid because of mutual defenses treaty, within bounds
any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast. of obligation. Territory, ceded portions of Philippines except
These baselines divide the internal waters from the territorial Clark and Pampanga portions of Philippine islands/naval base
waters of the archipelago. [Bernas, The 1987 Philippine still part of the US.
Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011)].
 Philippine Archipelago was first defined under Article 3 2nd element: PEOPLE
of the treaty of Paris, it delineated the islands through Different meanings of the word “People” under the
coordinates, and it is the ceding of Spain of the Constitution: (People will mean differently for different
Philippine Islands. provisions. The term people will not have the same connotation
 In 1900’s Spain and the USA entered into a treaty of or the same meaning in all the provisions of the Constitution).
Washington, added the islands of Cagayan Sulu, and
Sibuto. I. Inhabitants
 “Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over  Section 15, Article II The State shall protect and
which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and promote the right to health of the people and instill
jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" health consciousness among them.
under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with  Section 16, Article II The State shall protect and
advance the right of the people to a balanced and
Article 12136 of the United Nations Convention on the healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): harmony of nature.
 a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under  Section 2, Article III The right of the people to be
Presidential Decree No. 1596; and secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
 b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal. against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
 Methods of determining baselines: inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
 RA 9522- law in compliance with the UNCLOS that we shall issue except upon probable cause to be
will enact municipal laws based on UNCLOS. determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
Determination of the baseline - in the middle of the highwater witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
mark and low water mark will start the determination of the the place to be searched and the persons or things to
baseline. be seized.
NOTE: 12 nautical lines from baseline we have sovereignty,

200 nautical miles, we have exclusive economic zone or
sovereign rights (to explore, trade, etc. but not to own). After QUA CHE GAN V. DEPORTATION BOARD
200 miles it is already considered high seas.
12
Right to life, liberty should be respected due process of law also States of America concerning military bases,
upon people who are aliens. foreign military bases, troops, or facilities
It doesn’t matter if you’re a Filipino citizen or not, as long as shall not be allowed in the Philippines except
you’re residing in the Philippines, you are an inhabitant. under a treaty duly concurred in by the
Senate and, when the Congress so requires,
In this case, the highlight was the right of the people not to be ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the
deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of people in a national referendum held for that
law. The rights of the accused aliens to file counter affidavit, purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the
cross examine witnesses etc, are found in the Bill of Rights. other contracting State.
Even if they are aliens, they can enforce rights under certain
provisions in our Philippine Constitution. Inhabitants of our - Article V of the Constitution, Suffrage, lists
national territory have the same rights as citizens. the requirements to become Voters or
Electors, those entitled to vote in an election
Under section 15 of Article II The right to be protected. The
or participate in a plebiscite or referendum.
right to health and instill health consciousness (Imbong v
- In the discussion about Revisions and
Ochoa). The right to a balanced and helpful ecology in accord
Amendments, those who can only ratify are
with the rhythm and harmony of nature (Oposa v Factoran).
voters. The requirements on the initiative for
These are the jurisprudence which recognize these rights of
the Constitution: 12% of the registered voters
inhabitants not only for citizens.
in the national scope, 3% of the voters for
Inhabitants (more broad term) include Filipino citizens and each legislative department. Voters are not
citizens of other countries, all those who are sojourning in the the entire citizenry nor the inhabitants.
Philippines or are found in our national territory. - In the case of Kabataan (biometric
registration), automation of validation of
Most of the Bill of Rights, especially if the provision recognizes registration. Was it a violation of the people’s
the right under International Law, is granted not only to right to exercise their right to suffrage? Those
Filipinos but all those inhabitants or in the Philippines. who weren’t able to register their biometrics
were not allowed to vote. SC ruled that
II. Citizens suffrage is not an absolute right. There are
- Citizens of the Philippines requirements to be followed under various
- Preamble We, the sovereign Filipino people, election laws. To be able to vote, one should
imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order follow the Constitution and the implementing
to build a just and humane society, and laws. Requirement for people to register
establish a Government that shall embody again via biometrics is not unconstitutional
our ideals and aspirations, promote the because it is another way of implementing the
common good, conserve and develop our provisions of the Constitution on suffrage.
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our
posterity, the blessings of independence and
democracy under the rule of law and a CITIZENSHIP
regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, i. Natural born- Jus Sanguinis Filipino by blood
equality, and peace, do ordain and ii. Naturalized
promulgate this Constitution.
- Section 1, Article II The Philippines is a WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES?
democratic and republican State.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all Sec 1. Article 4
government authority emanates from them. 1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of
- Section 4, Article II The prime duty of the the adoption of this Constitution;
Government is to serve and protect the 2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
people. The Government may call upon the Philippines;
people to defend the State and, in the 3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
required, under conditions provided by law, the age of majority; and
to render personal, military or civil service. 4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
- Section 7, Article III The right of the people
(2, 4) Prospective
to information on matters of public concern
*3 recognition of 1935, and 1973 constitution.
shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents and papers The first concept of Filipinos- William Howard Taft in the April
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or 11, 1899 Treaty of Paris
decisions, as well as to government research
data used as basis for policy development,
HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION
shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law. When did we first have the concept of Filipinos?
III. Electors or voters
- Article 5, suffrage; suffrage is not an absolute The word “Filipino” was first made used by William H. Taft,
right. the first Civil Governor General in the Philippines when he
- Section 2, Article VI The Senate shall be initially made mention of it in his slogan, “The Philippines for
composed of twenty-four Senators who shall the Filipinos.”
be elected at large by the qualified voters of
the Philippines, as may be provided by law. Filipino citizenship came into provision when Spain ceded the
- Section 25, Article XVIII After the expiration Philippines to the Americans.
in 1991 of the Agreement between the
Republic of the Philippines and the United
13
Why? Because also in the Treaty of Paris, all of the subjects of  Those who had elected to preserve their
Spain in the Philippine Islands were granted opportunity to allegiance to the crown of Spain in accordance
choose whether or not they will retain their Spanish citizenship with the Treaty of Peace between US and Spain
(Spanish Insulares) or they want to become Filipino citizens. making before accord of record within one year
So, that was in April 1899, the Treaty of Paris. from the date of the exchange (one year from
This is important because we need to trace back the time of the April 11, 1899) their declaration of allegiance
adoption of this Constitution, sa lahat ng Constitution before it. to the crown of Spain.
Because at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution  The children of those who became Filipinos
(February 2), meron ng mga naging citizens of the Philippines under the Bill of 1902 provided therein they
before that, either by naturalization or by other modes. So we have not lost their citizenship prior to
should look at first the 1973 Constitution. November 15, 1935.
 Those who were naturalized (April 11, 1899 –
SECTION 1, ARTICLE III, 1973 CONSTITUTION. November 14, 1935).
 Minor children of those naturalized.
The following are citizens of the Philippines:  They are dwelling in the Philippines.
a. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at  They are born after their parents have
the time of the adoption of this Constitution. been naturalized as Filipinos, provided
b. Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens that they had not lost their Filipino
of the Philippines. citizenship at November 15, 1935.
c. Those who elect Philippine citizenship  Foreign women marry the citizens the Philippines
pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution who may have acquired citizenship under Act
of nineteen hundred and thirty-five. 3448.
d. Those who are naturalized in accordance with  Citizens of the Philippines by res judicata (already
law. finally resolved by the Court).
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who,
SECTION 1, ARTICLE III, 1935 CONSTITUTION. before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to
The following are the citizens of the Philippines: public office in the Philippine Islands.
a. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at Case: He was the son of an Iranian father and mother
the time of the adoption of this Constitution. but they lived in the Philippines before the 1935
b. Those born in the Philippine Islands of Constitution and his father was elected as a Municipal
foreign parents who, before the adoption of Mayor. When the 1935 Constitution took effect, later
this Constitution, had been elected to public on he took Philippine Bar, his citizenship was
office in the Philippine Islands. questioned. But he was born in the Philippines and his
c. Those whose fathers are citizens of the parents were elected in Philippine public office so he
Philippines. was allowed to take the Bar.
d. Those whose mothers are citizens of the (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
Philippines and upon reaching the age of Jus Sanguinis Principle (right of blood)- If the father
majority, elect Philippine citizenship. is Filipino, the legitimate or not child will be Filipino.
e. Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law. (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and.
Upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine Citizenship.
SECTION 4 (PHILIPPINE BILL OF 1902) Opinion of Fr. Bernas- The mother should be Filipino
That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to when the child was born otherwise if the child is not
reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of Filipino, the Mother is not Filipino at the time the child
April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in the was born.
Philippine Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, Requirements:
shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands a) Upon reaching age of majority (21 years of age- age of
and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, majority at the time of the this Constitution)
except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to b) After reaching the age of majority, the child should
the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the elect Filipino Citizenship
treaty of peace between the United States and Spain signed at c) This presupposes that the father is not a Filipino
Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight. because if the father is Filipino, automatic, the child is
Sec.4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 is a mass naturalization. a Filipino citizen (Go back to #3)
“Inhabitants of Philippine Islands” meaning those d) Must be born before January 17, 1973- because this
native Filipinos and those which are foreigners, those time, the 1935 Constitution was in effect
who reside therein and those who retained as Filipinos e) In fact, the 1973 Constitution recognizes the fact that
because there are inclusions and exclusions. the previous constitution had this kind of regime in
Article 3 Section 3 of 1973 Constitution, “Those who
(1)Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions
the adoption of this Constitution. of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-
Inclusions: five.”
1. persons born in the Philippines (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
2. persons born in Spain -If you have not lost your Filipino citizenship when the
3. all other inhabitants of the Philippines who were 1972 and 1987 constitution took effect, you are
residents then, provided they were born on or Filipino.
before Treaty of Paris
Exclusions:
14
CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION OF THE  Burden to prove the Citizenship

1987 CONSTITUTION  whether or not the cause of action the bureau against
Jimmy was prescribed
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the  His mother is a Filipina and he is an illegitimate
adoption of this Constitution child.
2. Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the  not enough evidence that he is Filipino
Philippines (Same with 1973)
-Prospective These are the issues in this case, whether or not the cause of
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, action of the Bureau against Carlos and Jimmy had prescribed.
who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of So, the discussion there that with the provisions on of the
majority Bureau of Immigration and how they should question
-recognition of the #3 1973 Constitution and #3 of the undesirable aliens. Number 2 by the deportation proceedings
1935 Constitution are null and void for failure to retrieve Carlos, yung father ni
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law Jimmy, to prove their claim to Philippine citizenship. Why?
-Prospective Because Carlos allegedly already obtain naturalization or in the
-This system of citizenship is because of the influence alternative yung mother niya is a Filipina and he is an
of Spain and the US because they are patriarchal. It illegitimate child. Then, whether the evidence 6:06 by Carlos
seems that the Mother (ilaw ng tahanan) has not much and Jimmy to prove their claim of Philippine citizenship are
of a big role in the family. There is a distinction so they substantial and sufficient to cause the board, oust the board with
can sire children whose fathers are sure Filipinos. its jurisdiction. So, the discussion here is that with the
-If mothers, the treatment of legitimate and illegitimate jurisdiction of the Bureau of Immigration to discuss/rule upon
children are different the issue of citizenship of those who are placed before their
Requirement/Considerations: jurisdiction then whether due process was properly serve in the
1. Look at the date of your birthd proceedings before the court and whether their petition of
2. Determine if Legitimate or Illegitimate child habeas corpus should be dismiss.
ELECTION OF CITIZENSHIP
CONCEPTS
1. Upon reaching the age of majority (21 Years)
-No requirement to elect in 1973 Constitution. General rule: cases involving issues on citizenship is sui
generis can be questioned when it is a material issue.
-If born after 1973, because if either your parents are
Filipino, the child is Filipino. In 1935, if the mother is Exception: Res Judicata; when it has already been ruled upon,
the only Filipino, the process is much more with the same evidence.
complicated. It did not provide for a different criteria. (GENERAL RULE IS SUI GENERIS. IT WILL BE
It was just a recognition that you have to comply with QUESTIONED OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE
the requirements or if elected during the adoption of CITIZENSHIP CASES IS SUI GENERIS. EXCEPTION
the 1935. WHEN IT IS RES JUDICATA. EACH THE SUPREME
2. Reasonable time is 3 years from the age of majority (up to COURT, THE SAME PARTY, THE SAME ISSUE, THE
age of 25) SOLICITOR GENERAL HAS PARTICIPATED AND
-This is the general rule. PRESENTED IT EVIDENCE IS RES JUDICATA. IT WILL
NEVER QUESTION CITIZENSHIP BASED ON THE
NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS ISSUES AND GROUNDS IT LIED UPON THE
PARTICULAR CASE. EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION
Article 4 Section 2, “Natural-born citizens are those who are IS GOING BACK TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT ARE
citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform NEW EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE NOT A
any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.” FILIPINO AND IT CAN BE RULED UPON AGAIN.)
(Memorize/Familiarize)
-Determine whether the act of election is at to perform or to Requirements of Res Judicata in citizenship cases:
elect. Otherwise, they will not be considered as natural born. 1. A person’s citizenship must be raised as a material
-Being Natural Born is an important requirement in certain issue in a controversy where said person is a party;
government positions, i.e. President, Supreme Court Justice, 2. The Solicitor General or his authorized representative
etc. Some rights and privileges may also may be limited to took active part in the resolution thereof; and
Natural-Born citizens 3. The finding or citizenship is affirmed by this court
The facts would be yung Filipino child is illegitimate and ito Bureau of Immigration can determine whether or not you are a
yung mother niya ang Filipino, is to give the child Philippine Filipino, can be exercised by the court upon a petition raised
citizenship because otherwise wala siyang citizenship even if before them.
his born here and raised here as a Filipino. He will be deprived You have to present a clear and substantive claim of citizenship
of his Filipino citizenship just because he is illegitimate, ang can the BI be discharged of their jurisdiction.
reason is for the benefit of the child. In this case () illegitimate Value of Citizenship
child siya but the question is sino ba ang Filipino, mother niya
or father niya. Since it his father walang distinction, whether All those seeking to acquire it must prove to the satisfaction of
you’re illegitimate or legitimate. So yun yung discussion here the court al the necessary requirements to acquire it.
on why FPJ is a Filipino. Now the requirement under the Citizenship involves political statues, all should be proud of his
constitution on President that he is supposed to be a natural born status and should cherish it.
citizen.
AGUSTIN V. COMELEC
GO V. RAMOS
 Filipina mother and Chinese Father
15
 There is a class of Filipinos who have a dual 4. Submit to the civil registry of Manila
citizenship. This is not tantamount to double Mallare ruled in the Supreme Court, obiter dictum: although not
allegiance. really the issue of the case, the court will just say that she has
 Public officers need to be Natural-born, although the elected.
Philippines recognizes Dual Citizenship, there is a
requirement that Public officers should only be Levels of ruling: 1 not necessary to elect, 2. She has
Philippine Citizens. substantially she complied with the formal election.
 For an Elective post, when you file a COC, you Requirement is to show, that she has exercised his or her
should have renounced any and all foreign political rights.
allegiances.
 In this case, a foreign passport was used to go to a LOSS OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
foreign country. The act was a repudiation of
1. Operation of Law
allegiance, dual citizenship
2. Naturalization
 Disqualified as a public official because did not
3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to a foreign
comply with renunciation element.
country
RA 9225 4. Rendering Service to the Armed Forces of a foreign
country
For natural born Filipinos only, does not apply to naturalized 5. Cancellation of Certificate of Naturalization
citizens. 6. Deserts Philippines during wartime
When a Filipino renounces his citizenship, he can retain 7. When a Filipino marries a foreign husband, takes her
citizenship. Except for when appointed or elected into public husband’s nationality (marries alone does not take it
office. away)
One Citizenship, therefore one Allegiance. RE-ACQUISITION
POE V. COMELEC 1. Naturalization
2. Repatriation
 Foundling found in Jaro,Iloilo, adopted by FPJ
 Paid allegiance to the USA and was naturalized
there, got married there, and studied there. RA 725 - those who married aliens, can only be repatriated if
 2005 she returned to the Philippines and revoked marriage has been severed
citizenship in the United States - flee from other country due to political or
 She applied for RA 9225, and in 2016 she ran for the economic reasons
presidency. RA8171 - repealed the first requirement, not a need the
 COMELEC said she was not a natural born citizen severance
because she did not get her citizenship back. Dual citizenship- Concurrence of laws of statutes; involuntary
 The constitution did not say anything about
foundlings. Dual allegiance- Voluntary
 However, the Philippines adopts the Doctrine of
Incorporation, that foundlings are citizens of the NATURALIZATION
country where he/she is found.
 A privilege not a right
At the onset, who should determine that Po is a Filipino citizen?
 Derivative naturalization, children while minors are
This should supposedly be determined by the parents. But in
considered citizens also the wife.
the case of Grace, she is foundling. There is no way to certainly
 Since it is a privilege, it should be in favor of the
know that Poe is indeed a natural-born citizen. Ratio and
state.
Proportion of Foreigners in Jaro was considered in the case.
3 kinds of Naturalization
Presumptions were also laid down by the Supreme Court to
1. Legislative - by act of congress, through a law.
determine if she is a Filipino (1) Found in a Filipino church (2)
2. Judicial
that she has a Filipino nose (3) We cannot imagine a foreigner
3. Administrative
living a child in a church or living a child in the first place; it’s
in the nature of Filipinos due to poverty (4) a foundling is a
citizen of the country where she is found. CA 473 (JUDICIAL)
Age- 21 years old on the day of the hearing
KINDS OF FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP
1. Residency - continuous and not less than 10 years
1. Natural Born Citizens - From Birth without having 2. Character - Good Moral Character Entire period of
to perform requirements to acquire it; election of stay in the Philippines
citizenship, only natural born Filipinos can be dual 3. Property - Real Estate, lucrative trade/
citizens. profession/occupation
2. Naturalized - Voluntary, adopting a foreigner to be a 4. Education - enrolled minor children of Philippine
part of citizenship like rights, duties and obligations. History, Civics, Government during entire time of
residence
Presupposes that those who are given up for adoption are 5. Language - Filipino, any principal languages
Filipinos
RA 9139 (ADMINISTRATIVE)
ELECTION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
1. Age- 18 upon filing
Commonwealth Act No. 625
2. Residency - Born; residing since birth
Requirements:
3. Character - Good Moral Character since birth
1. Sworn statement
4. Property - Trade/Business/Profession
2. Registration of sworn statement
3. Oath of allegiance to the republic of the Philippines
16
5. Occupation - Provided; college degree cannot practice 2. Lawful Profession

due to citizenship 3. Not convicted of any crime
6. Education - Primary and secondary 4. Any act prejudicial to the nation.
Language: able to speak and write any Filipino dialect. 7. Final/ executory order
8. Registration
SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL Issuance of certificate of naturalization
NATURALIZATION
9. Oath taking
10 years to 5 years if:
1. Elected or appointed in the government of the RA 9139 (Section 3) vs CA 473 (Section2)
Philippines
2. Having established new industry or having introduced
a new invention RA 9139 (Section CA 473 (Section 2)
3. Married to a Filipino Woman 3)
4. Teacher not less than two years
5. Born in the Philippines Qualificati (b) The applicant First. He must be not
JUDICIAL PROCESS OF NATURALIZATION ons must not be less less than twenty-one
than eighteen (18) years of age on the day
1. Declaration of intention years of age, at the of the hearing of the
 File with the department of justice a declaration time of filing of petition;
under oath of its bona fide intention to become his/her petition;
a citizen of the Philippines, under section 5 of
473.
 No declaration shall be valid until lawful entry Residency (a) The applicant Second. He must have
for permanent residency has been established, must be born in the resided in the
and a certificate showing date, place, and Philippines and Philippines for a
manner of arrival in the Philippines. residing therein continuous period of
 Prove prior and present residence since birth; not less than 10 years
 Exceptions: 1. Born in the Philippines and
received primary and secondary education in
the Philippines Character (c) The applicant Third. He must be of
 Continuously resided for 30 years or more must be of good good moral character
 Widow and minor children of an applicant who moral character and and believes in the
dies before granting application believes in the principles underlying
underlying the Philippine
2. Petition principles of the Constitution, and must
 Must be signed by the applicant in his handwriting, Constitution, and have conducted
and must be signed in an affidavit by two credible must have himself in a proper and
witnesses, conducted irreproachable manner
 File to the competent authority RTC of the place, himself/herself in a during the entire period
residing for one year proper and of his residence in the
 Cannot file within one year from declaration irreproachable Philippines in his
 2 witnesses rule for character also prove capacity manner during relation with the
for witnesses. his/her entire period constituted
 Requirements for witnesses: of residence in the government as well as
1. Credible (person is of good repute) Philippines in his with the community in
2. Citizens of the Philippines relation with the which he is living.
3. Knows petitioner duly constituted
4. Resident of the Philippines for 10 years. government as well
3. Notification and appearance as with the
 Responsibility of the court community in
 Publication, 3 consecutive weeks, once every week which he/she is
in the official Gazette and General circulation. living;
 Posting requirement; General notice: petition/
hearing schedule Property (e) The applicant Fourth. He must own
4. Hearing must have a known real estate in the
 within 6 months from publication, not thirty days trade, business, Philippines worth not
preceding national, local, or SK election profession or lawful less than five thousand
5. Order of the court occupation, from pesos, Philippine
 Appeal 15 days from issuance or order saying which he/she currency, or must have
naturalization was granted and for the derives income some known lucrative
naturalization certificate to be issued in the proper sufficient for his/her trade, profession, or
civil registry. support and if lawful occupation;
 This is different from the naturalization itself, OSG he/she is married Basis: to prove that
can still appeal against it. and/or has you will not be a
 RA 530- issuance of the order six months after last dependents, also burden to the state
publication that of his/her
 Executory only after 2 years after hearing family: Provided,
6. Hearing however, That this *Was 5k before
 Court will determine: shall not apply to
1. Applicant has not left the Philippines applicants who are
17
college degree 1. Having honorably held office under the government of

holders but are the Philippines or under that any of the provinces,
unable to practice cities, municipalities or political subdivision thereof
their profession *Either elected or appointed, national or local
because they are
disqualified to do so 2. Having established new industry or introduced a new
by reason of their invention.
citizenship; 3. Being married to a Filipino woman.
4. Having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippine in
a public or recognized private school not established
for the exclusive instruction of children or persons of
a particular nationality or race in any of the branches
of education industry for a period of not less than 2
years
Education (d) The applicant Fifth. He must be able
must have received to speak and write *Must teach Philippine history, government, civics
his/her primary and English or Spanish and 5. Having been born in the Philippines
secondary education any one of the
in any public school principal Philippine
or private languages PROCESS (CA 473, SECTION 5)
educational
institution dully 1. Declaration of intention
recognized by the *Refers to his children
Where to file: One year prior to the filing of his petition for
Department of admission to Philippine citizenship, the applicant for Philippine
Education, Culture Sixth. He must have citizenship shall file with the Bureau of Justice a declaration
and Sports, where enrolled his minor under oath that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen
Philippine history, children of school age, of the Philippines.
government and in any of the public Section 5 of CA 473 (specific requirements)
civics are taught and schools or private
prescribed as part of “No declaration shall be valid until lawful entry for permanent
schools recognized by
the school residence has been established and a certificate showing the
the Office of Private
curriculum and date, place, and manner of his arrival has been issued.”
Education1 of the
where enrollment is Philippines, where the
not limited to any Philippine history,
race or *Must show when and how you arrived in the Philippines.
government and civics Should also prove all prior and present residence
nationality: Provide are taught or
d, That should Formal requirement: 2 photographs of himself; no
prescribed as part of
he/she have minor specification in contrast with RA 9139 which is passport size
the school curriculum,
children of school during the entire period
age, he/she must of the residence in the
have enrolled them EXCEPTIONS:
Philippines required of
in similar schools; 1. Persons born in the Philippines and have received their
him prior to the
hearing of his petition primary and secondary education in public schools or
for naturalization as those recognized by the Government and not limited
to any race or nationality
Philippine citizen.
2. Those who have resided continuously in the
Language (f) The applicant Fifth. He must be able Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before
must be able to read, to speak and write filing their application
write and speak English or Spanish and
3. The same shall be understood applicable with respect
Filipino or any of any one of the
to the widow and minor children of an alien who has
the dialects of the principal Philippine
declared his intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines; and languages; and
Philippines and dies before he is actually naturalized.
So, in number 3, the widow and minor children of an applicant,
*Repealed by who applied for naturalization and in the process, complied with
constitution, that our the procedure, but died before being granted naturalization. So,
national language is the widow and the minor children need not declare their
Filipino intention.
Also, a provision It is the filing of petition for naturalization as a Filipino. But
providing: any of the you cannot file the petition within one year from number 1, or
principal languages the declaration of intention.
So if you file today, today is July 25, you cannot file until July
26, 2020. Within one year, you cannot file a petition for
naturalization except if you belong to the exemptions, which
SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL allows you to file the petition right away.
NATURALIZATION Under the petition, your consideration is you will prove all of
Under the requirement on residence: the 10-year continuous these and the other requirements (e.g. what you write, how you
residence required under the second condition of the last write, what you rode, etc.), for residency, all your prior
preceding section shall be understood as reduced to 5years for residences. For your character, there is a two-witness rule.
any petitioner having any of the following qualification: Under the two-witness rule, you should also prove the capacity
of your witnesses. It says in CA 473 that your petition must be
18
signed by the applicant, in his own handwriting, and is Sec. 1 provides that:
supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons. (Take “No petition for Philippine citizenship shall be heard by
note of the word “credible”, stating that they are citizens and the courts within 6 months from the publication of the
are of good reputation.) petition required so this falls under notification and
These are the requirements for the witnesses: appearance.”
1. Credible (jurisprudence: credible means that the person Aside from the 30 days prohibition after elections, the law
is also of good refute and is morally reproachable provides that you cannot hear the petition within 6 months from
2. Citizens of the Philippines publication. So if you remember this requirement that is
3. Personally knows the petitioner publication for 3 consecutive weeks, once every week. Six
4. A resident of the Philippines for the same period ( take months will run from the last day of publication. Again, you
note that if the applicant needs a 10 year residency cannot hear the petition within 6 months from the last day of the
period, the witness must also have resided for 10 years. publication requirement. Another prohibition is that you cannot
if he falls within the exception that does not require the hear the petition after 30 days following an election.
10 or 5 year residency, it would depend on what kind Another requirement added by RA 530 is the issuance of the
of applicant you are testifying to) order nor shall any decision granting the application become
The additional formal requirements for the witness: executory until after 2 after from its promulgation and after the
They should include/attach their post office addresses court and proper hearing, with the attendance of the solicitor
general or his representative is satisfied and so founds that
After the petition, you file that in a court with competent during the intervening time that the applicant has.
jurisdiction. The court which has judicial jurisdiction to try
naturalization is the Regional Trial Court of the province where So, before the court issues the order, the 15 days that I
the applicant is residing for at least one year. (Take note that if mentioned earlier about the appeal will not apply because it will
the applicant, required to reside for 10 years or 5 years, but if become execution period of the petition only after two years and
the applicant is a new resident of a particular locality, he should not immediately after.
be a resident of that locality for at least 1 year. otherwise, he For example, if the order was promulgated today, July 25, 2019
should file the petition on the RTC of his previous residence the effectively of the decision will be on 2021. But, there is
where he lived for at least 1 year. if he has not resided for at another hearing.
least 1 year in his new residence then the court of his new In that hearing, what the court will determine are the following:
residence does not have jurisdiction.)
1. That the applicant has not left the Philippines;
2. Notification and appearance 2. He has dedicated himself to continuously practiced his
The notification requirement is a responsibility of the court but lawful calling or profession;
as applicant, you should ensure that the court would publish. 3. He has not been convicted of any offences or violation
It is a publication requirement of your petition [be posted] for 3 of government promulgated rules;
consecutive weeks in the official gazette, and 1 newspaper of 4. Or committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the
general circulation, once every week. nation or contrary to the government’s policy.
Aside from the publication, there should also be a general These are the four facts that the Court has to show.
notice. So, there is a posting requirement. The content of the The hearing and the confirmation, the court will already
posting is the petition, and the hearing schedule it will also promulgate the order granting him naturalization and order him
include the inquiry if anyone has any objection, or comment to take the oath. The order states that he should take an oath
then you should attend the hearing on naturalization. There is a then you are already a naturalized Filipino citizen and your
requirement that a petition shall not be heard after 30 days certificate of naturalization, after being signed, will be
preceding any election. This includes the national, local, registered before the proper civil registry. For example, if you
barangay, or SK elections. applied here in Davao, the certificate will be registered in
After notification is the hearing. Davao’s civil registry.
3. Hearing No. 4- hearing
Again, the hearing cannot be heard after 30 days preceding any No. 5- order granting
election. No. 6- 2 years waiting period
After the court sees that you are qualified, they shall issue an No. 7- confirmation of facts hearing
order saying that the naturalization is granted and the If the court is satisfied, the order shall become final and
naturalization certificate shall be issued and is to be registered executory.
in the proper civil registry.
No. 8-issuance of certificate of naturalization
4. Order
When the order is granted, it also adds the requirement of the
This order is different from the naturalization certificate itself. registration to the proper registry.
The Office of the Solicitor General can still appeal even when
you are granted naturalization. Remember our earlier discussion Usually, the place of application is also the place of residence
that naturalization is a privilege and any of the grounds for of the applicant. Usually it’s the same as where the court has
denaturalization can be sought by the prosecution anytime jurisdiction.
because it will not prescribe. The OSG also the right to appeal For example, if you filed your application here in Davao City,
the grant of your naturalisation. So if there is no appeal, appeal the civil register of Davao City will register it. Also, the
in the ordinary course of the rules is 15 days from the issuance registration comes here.
of the order, it becomes final. After that, there will be an oath taking. So usually, the oath is
RA 530 also in the certificate of naturalization that you would sign. You
will sign that you took the oath and you will also take the oath
Take note of RA 530 because it adds additional requirements to before a person who is authorized to administer the oath.
the process. After that, he will be a Filipino Citizen of the naturalized kind.
19
Now, there are certain effects for the minor children and the Pinanganak ako after pa nung adoption of the new
wife. Still in CA 470, “any woman who is now or maybe after Constitution. Remember the classification doon. First, those
remarried to a citizen of the Philippines who might, herself, be who are Filipino citizens upon the adoption of this Constitution,
lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the those whose fathers and mothers are Filipino, those who were
Philippines. So, it’s not as easy as being married to, or marrying born before January 17, 1935 who elected Philippine
a Filipino citizen who’s naturalized. She must also register that Citizenship and those who are naturalized Filipino. So, if I was
she is the wife of a naturalized Filipino citizen. She will also born after 1973, WHAT AM I?
allege that she is qualified and she has none of the -NATURAL-BORN, SIR.
disqualifications.
Yan yung point ko, okay? So, depende sa time. Because again,
Clarification: So the wife need not to follow the same important ang distinction between a naturalized and natural-
procedure? born because there are certain positions in government which
Yes, it will be just administrative. So she will just file it. Hindi requires natural-born citizenship.
na siya sa court, we will not follow these anymore. So, dalawa na yung classification ha? Foreign minor children
For the minor children, those who have been born in the born in the Philippines residing therein automatically becomes
Philippines shall be considered citizens thereof. There may be naturalized also. Born outside but during the time of the
instances that because they’re still foreigners, they will not naturalization, is dwelling in the Philippines, automatically
register in the Philippines. Registered sila kung saan sila again becomes a Filipino Citizen. Derivative lang ito na
originally citizens. But after their father has been granted a naturalization ha?
certificate of naturalization, yung requirement na nasa wife will Then, a child born outside the Philippines after the
be lesser, and sa children will also be lesser. They will just naturalization of his parent shall be considered Philippine
present the certificate of naturalization of their father and they Citizen unless, within one year after reaching the age of
will register with the civil register. They will register as Filipino majority, he fails to register himself as a Philippine Citizen at
citizens. Magkakaroon sila altogether ng birth certificate. the Philippine Consulate kung nasaan siya and take the
A foreign minor child. So first is, born in the Philippines. When necessary oath of allegiance.
the minor child is born outside the Philippines, if dwelling in So, the third classification, is born outside but during and after
the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the parents the naturalization of his father he is outside the Philippines. The
shall automatically become a Philippine citizen. effect is, during his minority, he is a Filipino Citizen because of
First category, born in the Philippines, IN THE PHILIPPINES. derivative naturalization. But, after the age of majority, there is
Automatic din. Second category, born outside the Philippines a requirement for him to register that he is a Filipino Citizen and
but during the time of the naturalization of the parent, he/she is take an oath of allegiance to the Philippines. Otherwise, he loses
already dwelling in the Philippines. Automatically, he/she will his Philippine citizenship.
become a Filipino citizen. So this concept is derivative So, first category, born and resides in the Philippines. Second,
naturalization. The minor children will derive the citizenship of born outside the Philippines but resides in the Philippines at the
their father. But because this is derivative naturalization, their time of the naturalization. Third, born outside and is residing
citizenship is naturalized citizen, not natural born. During that outside during minority. So, there is a requirement when it
time. comes of age. 18 years old. So, remember those three
Take note ha, because it will have a different effect if you are categories. Okay? Yung third and mayroong requirement when
born after a change in the Constitution. he becomes of age.
Why? RIGHTS OF A WIDOW AND THEIR CHILDREN
Because, diba yung naturalized Filipino citizens, for example,
in the 1935 Constitution. Once the 1987 Constitution was Nasabi ko na rin sa inyo what are the rights of a widow and
already ratified and became effective, those who are Filipinos their children if the petitioner dies during the process of
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Therefore, yung naturalization na judicial.
children nila that was born after the 1987 Constitution will They can continue with the naturalization process as if the
already become natural born citizens. Gets niyo? petitioner is still alive. So, for example, namatay siya sa interim
So, during that time, for example, 1935 Constitution. I’m 17 law, yung 2-year period while waiting. So, I allege na lang doon
years old, yung tatay ko ay naturalized siya when I was 17 years na during the part noong 2-year period na buhay pa siya, he was
old. Kunwari Chinese ako. So during that time I think 1935 just in the Philippines. The widow and the children will just
Constitution, I’m a Filipino citizen but I am naturalized. What have to prove yung mga necessary facts to establish for the
if, after the 1973 Constitution nag took effect na siya, My finality of this order.
father, was naturalized in the 1935 Constitution, then I was born What if namatay siya after? Kunwari, 2 years na. They went sa
after 1973. After 1973, yung father ko became part of the class court room. Present and follow the facts necessary for the
of citizens that was already Filipino citizens at the adoption of finality and executory nature of this order. So ang next is dapat
the constitution. So after, part na siya nung citizen adoption and ang issuance of naturalization. So, before the issuance of the
nung part na Filipino mother and father. So, diba? certificate of naturalization, the petitioner died. So, the widow
Sa tatlo, yung number one, Filipino mother and father, and yung and the children can continue hanggang dito sa process na ito.
born before January 17, 1973 na mag elect. All of those are So, still, yung effect sa kanila, aside from, if, for example, the
natural born citizens, diba? Only, yung naturalized citizens, yun petitioner is naturalized, they will have their relative
lang yung naturalized. naturalization… Sa kanila, sila na yung gagawa nun as if they
were the petitioner.
EXAMPLE QUESTION:
1935 Constitution. Na-naturalized ang tatay ko. And I was 17 REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 17 , (ROYAL TITLE)
years old. WHAT AM I? What is my status?
Then, there is a requirement under Section 17, if you have a
NATURALIZED FILIPINO BECAUSE OF DERIVATIVE royal title of nobility, then, you should renounce it. So, in case
NATURALIZATION. the alien applying and admitted to the citizenship was born and
What if in the 1935 Constitution, na-naturalized yung tatay inherited a hereditary title, has been of any of the orders of
ko, wala pa ako. Tapos, after January 17, 1973, I was born. nobility in the kingdom or state of which he came, he shall, in
20
addition to the abovementioned requisite, he can express the document fee and the authorization fee of 100,000.00 pesos.
renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to which If the applicant fail, the approval of the petition shall be deemed
his application was made and his renunciation must be recorded abandoned.
in the court unless with expressed consent of the national So, after is the oath of allegiance.
assembly.
Within 5 days after the applicant has taken his oath of
So, aside from the procedure, when he takes his oath he must allegiance, the Bureau of Immigration shall forward the
also renounce his title of nobility. The Duchess, the Jew, copy of the petitioner’s oath to the proper local civil
etcetera. I-renounce nila yun, unless the congress will allow registrar. And thereafter it is the duty of the Bureau of
him. But there is a state policy that we don’t really allow the Immigration to cancel the alien certificates of the registration of
titles of nobility in the Constitution. So, because of the CA the applicant.
473’s implication in the 1935 Constitution pa, it already deemed
that provision repealed by the 1987 Constitution. So, no titles STATUS OF ALIEN WIFE AND MINOR CHILDREN
of nobilities allowed in the Philippine setup in this current The approval of the petition for administrative naturalization
Constitution. And if you violate any of the provisions of CA and cancellation of the applicants alien certificate of registration
473, if you commit fraud in your application, the government application. The applicant’s alien lawful wife and minor
or any interested party only has 5 years to charge you to bring children may file a petition for the cancellation of their alien
an action in court otherwise, what they prescribe. So, that certificate registration of the same committee but if it was the
pertains to any action of fraud, violation of the provision in CA wife who filed the naturalization, the approval of her petition
473. for administrative naturalization will not benefit her alien
But, take note that the government does not lose its right to husband, minor children may file a petition for cancellation of
revoke or cancel your certificate of naturalization based on the their alien certificate of registration with the bureau of
provisions of CA 473 on the naturalization. immigration.
APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION
PROCEDURE FOR THE PETITION IN RA NO. 9139
OR THE NATURALIZATION BY ADMINISTRATIVE 1. Petition for application for naturalization
PROCEEDINGS Sa special committee of naturalization (SCN), the chair is the
Sol Gen and then members we have DFA secretrary and the
Under Section 5, petition for citizenship, national security adviser.
“Any persons who will acquire Philippine Citizenship under 2. SCN will determine sufficiency in form and substance.
this act shall file with the special committee on naturalization.”
Form is yung mga requirements and photographs, allegations.
So, the special committee on naturalization is sila yung Substance is whether or not all the allegations necessarily yung
committee na magtanggap or mag deny sa petition. So, the mga menention all attachments are present. So when there is
petitioner shall submit 5 copies legibly typed, signed, marked kulang sa form kulang sa substance the SCN will just dismiss
and have verified by him or her with the latter’s passport sized it but without prejudice to a filing of a more complete petition
photograph attached to each copy of the petition exactly for the or application. So if it is granted, then we have publication and
following. posting.
So, for the petition, first is the petitioner’s name, place of 3. Publication And Posting
residence, date of birth, business or profession or occupation,
whether he/she is single or married, if they have children, if the So for publication sa if you remember sa judicial natin,
petitioner possesses all of the qualifications and not the newspaper of general circulation and Official Gazette. So for
disqualifications, and the petitioner’s true intention to acquire this it’s just newspaper of general circulation. there is no
Philippine citizenship. requirement that also in the Official Gazette. The same pa rin
once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. And then, sa posting
So, next is it should also be accompanied by the petitioner’s dalawa siya the scn will also post it sa public and conspicuous
birth certificate, petitioner’s alien certificate of registration, place.
native born certificate of residence, petitioner’s marriage
certificate, certified photocopies of birth certificate, alien 4. Furnish, Bureau of Immigration, NBI, DFA of the
certificate of registration, for native born certificate of residence petition for them to react or submit a report.
of any of petitioner’s minor children, and affidavit of financial Now under the same provision they also have the posting
capacity of petitioner, medical certificate that petitioner is not a requirement, still in a public and conspicuous place.
user of prohibited drugs, school diploma and TOR’s, Income 5. Submission of report.
Tax Return for the past 3 years.
This is within 30 days from being furnished. So once they are
The special committee on naturalization would then decide already submitted the reports sa SCN, ang SCN within 60 days
for the approval or disapproval of the petition within 60 days will determine if kung submit sila ng report or kung walang
from the receiving of the report of the agencies which furnished nag anything or react. Basta within 60 days from the expiration
the copies of the petition, or the date of the last publication of of the 30 days. It will determine whether or not the petition or
the petition, whichever comes in later. application to grant naturalization is very notorious. Tignan
The committee shall consider and review all of the relevant and nila lahat ng requirements.
material information that it has received pertaining to the Then after the 60 days of determination, they will notify the
petition. So, if the committee shall receive any information applicant whether or not na approve ang kanyang application or
under the petition, the committee shall allow the petitioner to application.
answer, explain, or refute the information. And thereafter the
committee believes that the petitioner has all the qualifications 6. Notification of approval or disapproval
and not the disqualifications required for the Philippine After this kung na approve. Again if na disapprove, it will not
Citizenship under this act, it shall approve the petition and prejudice filing a new petition.
notify the petitioner of the fact of such approval.
7. Issuance of certificate of naturalization.
So, the next process will be for degree of naturalization and
After the payment ng mga administrative fees. Hindi ka pa
the naturalization processing fee that within 30 days from the
issuhan nitong certificate of administrative fees
receipt of the approval of the petition, the applicant shall pay (naturalization?) if you have not complied with the other
21
formal requirements after you have been notified you’re  Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United
granted of Philippine citizenship after 30 days dapat nagbayad States and the Philippines are at war, during the period
ka ng 50,000 upon the approval and 50,000 upon taking of the of such war; (under the administrative wala tayong
oath. United States na phrase Philippines is at war na lang.)
8. Payment  Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the
Then after you paid. Take the oath. United States whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right
to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
9. Oath (under the administrative wala ng United States just take
Then after you take the oath cancel ang iyong ACR(alien note if you read CA 473 it was because we were still
certificate of registration). under the occupation of US. 1900-1946)
The same actually ang effect if you are male and then your wife  So yung last na disqualification is actually the rule of no
and minor children will have their derivative naturalization. So reciprocity. Wala silang law like North Korea. They
what they will do is they will just file with the SCN the don’t have any law granting Filipinos a path to
cancellation of their ACR. citizenship in North Korea. So if a North Korean goes to
But, if yung wife mo ang nagapply for naturalization it will not the Philippines and ask for naturalization then we cannot
have a derivative effect to your husband so that’s an express grant naturalization because wala silang granting
provision under RA 9139. So the husband must file a separate Filipinos the same privilege. Pwede din mangyari before
application or petition for naturalization. So wala na siyang because we are in a friendly relationship with a country,
difference as regards whether or not your children are born in meron pa silang reciprocal laws granting each citizen a
or outside. They will be Filipino citizens agad kahit nasa ibang path to citizenship sa country but later on that country of
bansa sila. the original petitioner already severed this international
relationship with the Philippines. The Philippine
Take note because it is derivative naturalization and they are Government can cancel your certificate of naturalization
just minor children, they will just get the naturalization of their if wala ng reciprocity yung countries.
father or mother ,as the case may be, but when they have
performed after the age of majority any acts of grounds for So for petitions of denaturalization sa judicial, you also file sa
denaturalization then they will also lose their Pilipino court. Usually it will be the Sol Gen will file. For the
citizenship. administrative it will be just filed at the SCN, motu proprio, the
committee if it finds that one of the grounds of denaturalization
DENATURALIZATION is present then it will cancel your certificate of naturalization
For the grounds of cancellation, sa CA 473, Sec 18 and Sec 13 but there is a provision of due process. You are allowed to
sa 9139. And if you look at it, it is the same grounds. [TAMA explain your side. Due process in administrative cases are mere
BA NA SECTION?] opportunities.
 Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated Where exactly is the office of SCN?
with any association or group of persons who uphold and I think within the office of the Solicitor General. Probably wala
teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; silang physical office because they just meet ang may office
lang ang kanilang support staff. Because it is ex officio na mga
designation. This under primary duty, just a function of its
 Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety
office.
of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the
success and predominance of their ideas ELECTION OF CITIZENSHIP
 Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy If you are born before the 1973 Constitution, or during the 1935
 Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude; Constitution of a Filipino mother and a foreigner father and you
(these crimes wala siyang exact definition but almost are a legitimate child born under the 1935 Constitution or before
crimes under RPC almost all ha because there are certain January 17, 1973 then you need to elect Filipino Citizenship
felonies under the RPC which the court already said are after reaching the age of majority which is 18 years old or a
not crimes with moral turpitude. Then special criminal reasonable time thereafter.
laws, for example, graft and corruption is a crime of IN RE: APPLICATION FOR THE ADMISSION
moral turpitude yung drugs is crime moral turpitude.
TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR v. CHING
Yun yung mga crimes. So if you are convicted then you
will be probably denaturalized.) So this is a case of a legitimate child born under the 1935
 Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable Constitution whose father is Chinese and mother is Filipino.
contagious diseases; (that is why because your petition This is about the application for the admission in the Philippine
under RA 9139 there is a requirement of submitting a Bar. Who is born and raised here in the Philippines and resided
medical certificate and dahil kasali ang contagious in La Union. He graduated law in St. Louis University in Baguio
disease I dont know why na single out yung medical City.
certificate saying that you dont have AIDS. Nakalagay
FACTS:
doon sa 9139 it should have just been incurable disease.)
 Vincente Ching legitimate son of Tat Ching, a Chinese
 Persons who, during the period of their residence in the
Citizen, and Prescila Dulay, A Filipino.
Philippines, have not mingled socially with the
Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to  Born and raised in La Union and resided in the PH
learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of since then
the Filipinos; (for this ground under judicial is also  Graduated Law in St. Louie University in Baguio City
found in the allegations in your petition for
 Allowed by the court to take the 1998 Bar Exam
administrative because if you recall the petitioner here
PROVIDED that he must submit proof of his PH
or applicant was born in the Philippines and for the time
Citizenship
for 18 yrs at least nasa Philippines siga so dapat ipakita
niya na he mingled with his community and yung mga  In compliance with the Court, He sumbmitted the ff:
customs and traditions ng Filipino he adapts. )
22
1. PRC License as Certified Public Accountant ISSUE:

(CPA) Whether or not respondent needs to elect Filipino
2. Voter’s ID citizenship upon reaching the age of majority?
 COMELEC Certification as an elected Public Servant RULING:
in Tubao, La Union (Member of the Sangguniang
Bayan) NO, Lim doesn’t need to elect Filipino citizenship.
 Took the 1998 Bar Exam and Successfully passed it The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing
Filipino citizenship apply only to LEGITIMATE
 HOWEVER, he was not allowed to take his Lawyer’s CHILDREN.
Oath DUE to his Questionable Citizenship (SAD ☹) The case at bar clearly states that respondent is an
ISSUE: illegitimate child of a Filipino mother and alien father.
W/N Ching has elected PH Citizenship within a “Reasonable Under 1935 Constitution by being an illegitimate child of a
Time” and be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath. Filipino mother, respondent automatically became a
Filipino upon birth.
RULING:
*TAKE NOTE (ATTY. DERIJE):
NO, Ching wasn’t able to elect his PH Citizenship w/in the
“reasonable time” and wasn’t allowed to take his Lawyer’s Oath So, In this case she registered that she was 18, that she was able
and be admitted in the PH Bar. to vote. Now, what is the difference between the cases of Lim
and Ching?
Ching was already 35 y/o or 14yrs. After he had reached the age
of majority (21y/o) when he expressed his intention to elect his Under this case, Lim is a ILLEGITMATE CHILD of a Filipino
PH Citizenship and complied with the requirements of mother.
Commonwealth Act. 625. RULE: An ILLEGITMATE CHILD is NOT required to elect
Ching’s special circumstances like, He considered himself a PH Citizenship.
Filipino all his life, and that he was a CPA and a Public Officer REMEMBER: That requirement of election of PH Citizenship
serving the Filipino people CANNOT BE CONSIDERED applies only to a LEGITIMATE CHILD with a Filipino mother
according to the OSG. and a Foreign Father under 1935 Constitution.
Additionally, Ching didn’t give any reasonable justification on The change of the status of a child/person affects his/her
why he was late in electing his Filipino Citizenship. Citizenship and whether or not his/her rule in the election of PH
Thus, the Court DENIED Ching’s application for admission to Citizenship applies.
the PH Bar and wasn’t able to take the Lawyer’s Oath.
IN RE: MALLARE CASE
*TAKE NOTE (ATTY. DERIJE):
Take note of the factual circumstances. That he was late in In this case, the court discussed that there are 2 Forms of
electing PH Citizenship although he actually served as a public Electing Citizenship:
officer, graduated CPA and exercised his profession, probably 1. Formal
the PRC gave him a PRC ID. He was also able to Vote, 2.Informal
etc. BUT he was 14 years LATE in electing his PH
citizenship. So, the SC held that HE IS NOT A FILIPINO but However in the subsequent case, the SC said that/ the ruling in
a Chinese national. the Mallare case saying that there is an INFROMAL mode of
electing citizenship is an obiter.
REPUBLIC v LIM *TAKE NOTE (ATTY. DERIJE)
FACTS: So, It’s important to read if what case they applied if Informal
or not.
 Chule Y. Lim, respondent, was born on October 29,
1954 and an ILLEGITIMATE CHILD of a Chinese The election must be within the “reasonable period of time.
father and a Filipino mother. Reasonable time is 3 years upon reaching the age of majority
 She filed a petition to the court for correction of four (21y/o at that time)
erroneous entries in her birth certificate to 1.) her 3 FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF CITIZENSHIP
surname Yu was misspelled as Yo 2.) her father s name ELECTION:
was written as Yo Diu To (Co Tian) when it should have
been Yu Dio To 3.) her nationality was entered as 1. State w/in the reasonable time (3yrs upon reaching the
Chinese when it should have been Filipino 4.) that she age of majority (21y/o) that you elect PH citizenship.
was a legitimate child when she should have been 2. Take Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the PH and to
described as illegitimate considering that her parents the duly constituted government of the Republic of the PH.
were never married.
3. Register in the Civil Registry – for the purpose of
 After the trial court conducted the appropriate notification.
proceeding, it granted the petition sought by respondent
to set the records straight and in their proper perspective. IN RE: CHING CASE
–
The election was made 14 years after he reached the age of
 However, petitioner herein filed an appeal specifically majority.
on the correction of her citizenship (from Chinese to
Filipino) not having complied with the legal Although he cited In re: Mallare Case that there was an
requirements for election of citizenship. “Informal Waive of Election”, HOWEVER the SC said that it
was not the ruling of the case. Thus, Ching failed to elect his
 It cited Article IV, Sec 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution and citizenship because it was delayed.
Sec 1, CA No. 625 which provides the ELECTION OF
ACITIZENSHIP of a LEGITIMATE CHILD of a IN RE: MALLARE CASE:
Filipino mother and alien father upon reaching the age
of maturity.
23
The election requirement was not applied because she was a She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio City and did not
Filipino Citizen already, because she is an “illegitimate child” elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
of a Filipino Mother and a Foreign Father. In 1992, at the age of 33 and after getting married, she
*TAKE NOTE (ATTY. DERIJE): executed an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
In any case the SC also discussed there was act of Philippines.
being/manifestation of being a Filipino, like voting, It was notarized, however, it was not recorded and registered
participating in political exercises, etc. with the local civil registrar.
In a way the SC recognizes the “Informal Waive of Election” to In 2005, she applied for a Philippine passport but her
show that you have elected your Filipino Citizenship. application was denied because of the citizenship of her father
and there being no annotation on her birth certificate that she
MA v FERNADEZ CASE elected Philippine Citizenship. So after she sought a judicial
declaration of Philippine Citizenship and prayed that the LCR
In this case, yun yung di nila nagawa “w/in the reasonable
will annotate her birth certificate.
period of time given”, the Registration. But, they were able to
elect and were able to take their oath. She contended that she was raised as a Filipino, she attended
local schools in Baguio and she is a registered voter at Baguio
The SC allowed or considered it because it was already
City where she voted local and national elections. So she
sufficient election of PH citizenship. They discussed that
claims with those acts, she has effectively elected the
Registration is or the purpose of notification, that you have
Philippine Citizenship. Such act should be annotated on her
already elected your PH citizenship.
birth certificate.
In this case, people already know that they are Filipino citizens
ISSUE:
because they have exercised so many political and whatever
rights that are pertaining to a Filipino. They have always W/N the respondent has effectively elected Philippine
showed to become or to have been Filipinos. Citizenship in accordance with the procedure prescribed by
law.
The SC also said that Registration is actually not a mode of
acquiring a right. It is just a means of informing people of a RULING:
certain fact. The Court noted that the respondent was born on 1959 and the
So, whether or not they have registered in the Civil Registry, governing law was the 1935 Constitution.
the fact that there was already a due notice to the public and In the said Constitution, under Article 4, Section 1, Paragraph
that because registration is not really fatal. 4 states that those whose mothers are citizens of the
They were allowed to comply with the 3rd requirement is Philippines and upon reaching the age of majority, must elect
registration and they were considered duly elected PH the Philippine Citizenship. In this provision, it is applicable to
Citizenship w/in the reasonable period of time. a legitimate child and in this case the respondent is a
legitimate child.
VILANDO v HRET CASE
The citizenship that should be followed is that of her father
The SC ruled having failed to prove that a lost of Filipino which is Chinese unless she elects Philippine citizenship upon
citizenship respondent can be considered a natural born citizen reaching the age of majority. The Commonwealth Act 625
having been born with a mother who’s a natural born Filipina at enacted pursuant to Article 4 of 1935 Constitution prescribes
the time of marriage the procedure that should be followed in order to make a valid
the electing of the Philippine citizenship.
And because respondent was able to elect PH citizenship
“Informally” when she reached the age of majority. The statutory formalities of electing the Philippine
Citizenship, an oath of allegiance to the constitution and
Respondent participated in barangay elections as a voter and government of the Philippines and registration of the
accomplished voter’s affidavit in 1984. Run as a candidate and statement of election.
was elected mayor of Negros Oriental. These are positive acts
of election of PH Citizenship. In this case, the Court held that the respondent failed to
comply with the legal requirements for a valid election since
In this case the SC RECOGNIZED that categorically there’s she had not executed a sworn statement of her election of
an“Informal Election of Citizenship”, despite the ruling before Philippine Citizenship. What she only submitted is her oath of
in the case of In Re: Mallare on informal election of citizenship allegiance which was executed in reasonable years after she
is an obiter. reached the age of majority. Assuming arguendo that the oath
*TAKE NOTE (ATTY. DERIJE) of allegiance suffices, still its execution was not made in
However because there are various decisions of the SC in the reasonable time which was three years after reaching the age
matter of INFORMAL Election of PH Citizenship. of majority. The court held that she failed to comply her
requirements.
Take note of the cases where the SC discussed and held
THERE IS Informal and NO Informal Election in some cases. _______________________
But there are certain situation like in the case of Lim. While it may seem that this case is similar to the first case with
14 years, she was not able to elect Philippine Citizenship, in this
REPUBLIC v LIM CASE particular case, take note of the action made by the petitioner.
If you remember our discussion, it’s just a simple process.
The SC recognized that THERE WAS “Informal Election”
BUT the Ruling really rest on that she was an “illegitimate You just make a statement of election, you take an oath of
child” of a Filipino mother and of a foreign father. allegiance and then you submit it. What she did here was she
filed a petition in court that she be judicially declared a Filipino
REPUBLIC v SAGUN CASE Citizen. So the issue of W/N that is allowed to settle in this case,
aside from the discussion that she was not able to elect
FACTS: Philippine citizenship within the reasonable period of time
Nora Fe Sagun is the legitimate child of Albert S. Chan, a which is three years, sa time na ito it was 12 years, that’s already
Chinese national, and Marta Boromeo, a Filipino citizen. settled.
24
But in this case, the Court said that ito yung procedure, there’s than 6 months from the date of last publication of the notice."
no rule that allows you to file a petition for declaration of her The last publication in the newspaper of general circulation was
Philippine citizenship in court. The court disallowed her action. on June 13, 2008, the earliest setting could only be scheduled 6
But in effect, she was declared as not Filipino because of the months later or on December 15, 2008.
petition that she filed. Thereby, based upon the evidence that The RTC granted respondent’s application for naturalization as
she showed, aside from saying that she was not a Philippine a Filipino citizen. And CA affirmed. The CA held that although
citizen, she failed to elect Philippine citizenship in the most the petition for naturalization was filed less than 1 year from the
opportune time, and her action was not allowed under any rules time of the declaration of intent before the OSG, this defect was
so it will not be entertained by any court. not fatal.
So again, the election is purely administrative. So any petition The OSG argues that "the petition for naturalization should not
before the court, to declare you as Philippine citizen is not be granted in view of its patent jurisdictional infirmities,
allowed because there is no rule granting such right. particularly because: 1) it was filed within the one (1) year
The important things to remember here is kung sino yung proscribed period from the filing of declaration of intention; 2)
required to elect Philippine citizenship, what are the formal no certificate of arrival, which is indispensable to the validity
requirements for election of Philippine citizenship and take note of the Declaration of Intention, was attached to the petition; and
of the period of reasonable time also, and the concept of the 3) respondent’s failure to comply with the publication and
informal election of Philippine citizenship. posting requirements set under CA 473." In particular, the OSG
So now let’s discuss cases on naturalization, naturalized points out that the publication and posting requirements were
citizens. If you look at your syllabus, we already discussed who not strictly followed, specifically citing that: "(a) the hearing of
are qualified to be naturalized, there are annotations there, the petition on 15 December 2008 was set ahead of the
effects of age of majority. Here it must be from 18-21 years, scheduled date of hearing on 3 April 2009; (b) the order moving
yung sa judicial, the mode of naturalization. Note the effect of the date of hearing (Order dated 31 July 2008) was not
Language requirement. In the CA 473, Spanish and English, published; and, (c) the petition was heard within six (6) months
now it is Filipino. (15 December 2008) from the last publication (on 14 July
2008).
LI CHING CHUNG *lalabas daw to sa exam* ISSUE/S:
TOPIC: Naturalization Proceedings Whether the respondent should be admitted as a Filipino citizen
despite his undisputed failure to comply with the requirements
DOCTRINE: The only right that a foreigner has, to be given
provided for in CA No. 473, as amended – which are mandatory
the chance to become a Filipino citizen, is that which the statute
and jurisdictional in character – particularly: (i) the filing of his
confers upon him; and to acquire such right, he must strictly
petition for naturalization within the one (1) year proscribed
comply with all the statutory conditions and requirements. The
period from the date he filed his declaration of intention to
absence of one jurisdictional requirement is fatal to the petition
become a Filipino citizen; (ii) the failure to attach to the petition
as this necessarily results in the dismissal or severance of the
his certificate of arrival; and (iii) the failure to comply with the
naturalization process.
publication and posting requirements prescribed by CA No.
FACTS: 473.
On August 22, 2007, respondent, otherwise known as Bernabe
Luna Li or Stephen Lee Keng, a Chinese national, filed his
Declaration of Intention to Become a Citizen of the Philippines
before the OSG. Almost seven months after filing his RULING:
declaration of intention, respondent filed his Petition for No. Section 5 of CA No. 473,47 as amended,48 expressly
Naturalization before the RTC. states:
On April 5, 2008, respondent filed his Amended Petition for Section 5. Declaration of intention. – One year prior to the
Naturalization, wherein he alleged that he was born in China, filing of his petition for admission to Philippine citizenship, the
which granted the same privilege of naturalization to Filipinos; applicant for Philippine citizenship shall file with the Bureau of
that he came to the Philippines on March 15, 1988; that on Justice (now Office of the Solicitor General) a declaration
November 19, 1989, he married Cindy Sze Mei Ngar, a British under oath that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen
national, with whom he had 4 children, all born in Manila; that of the Philippines. Such declaration shall set forth name, age,
he had been continuously and permanently residing in the occupation, personal description, place of birth, last foreign
country since his arrival and is currently a resident of Manila residence and allegiance, the date of arrival, the name of the
with prior residence in Malabon; that he could speak and write vessel or aircraft, if any, in which he came to the Philippines,
in English and Tagalog; that he was entitled to the benefit of and the place of residence in the Philippines at the time of
Sec 3 of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 473 reducing to 5 years making the declaration. No declaration shall be valid until
the requirement under Sec 2 of ten years of continuous lawful entry for permanent residence has been established and
residence, because he knew English and Filipino having a certificate showing the date, place, and manner of his arrival
obtained his education in Manila; and that he had successfully has been issued. The declarant must also state that he has
established a trading general merchandise business. He attached enrolled his minor children, if any, in any of the public schools
several documentary evidence in support of his application. or private schools recognized by the Office of Private
The petition was set for initial hearing on April 3, 2009 and its Education of the Philippines, where Philippine history,
notice was posted in a conspicuous place at the Manila City Hall government, and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the
and was published in the Official Gazette and in the Manila school curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in
Times. the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his
petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen. Each declarant
Thereafter, respondent filed the Motion for Early Setting
must furnish two photographs of himself.
praying that the hearing be moved from April 3, 2009 to July
31, 2008 so he could acquire real estate properties. As held in Tan v. Republic, "the period of one year required
therein is the time fixed for the State to make inquiries as to the
The OSG filed its Opposition, arguing that the said motion for
qualifications of the applicant. If this period of time is not given
early setting was a "clear violation of Sec 1, RA 530, which
to it, the State will have no sufficient opportunity to investigate
provides that hearing on the petition should be held not earlier
the qualifications of the applicants and gather evidence thereon.
25
An applicant may then impose upon the courts, as the State So, denaturalization. Judiciary is section 18. Administrative
would have no opportunity to gather evidence that it may section 13. Same lang sila ng grounds for denaturalization. So,
present to contradict whatever evidence that the applicant may persons filiated with any association, group of persons who
adduce on behalf of his petition." The period is designed to give teach doctrine of organized governments, persons defending or
the government ample time to screen and examine the teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault
qualifications of an applicant and to measure the latter’s good or assassination for the success in predomination of their ideas,
intention and sincerity of purpose. Stated otherwise, the waiting polygamist, moral turpitude… na discuss ko na talaga to.
period will unmask the true intentions of those who seek CO VS. CIVIL REGISTRAR (LETTER OF
Philippine citizenship for selfish reasons alone, such as, but not INSTRUCTIONS 270)
limited to, those who are merely interested in protecting their
wealth, as distinguished from those who have truly come to love FACTS:
the Philippines and its culture and who wish to become genuine Hubert Tan Co was born on March 23, 1974. His sister, Arlene
partners in nation building. Tan Co, was born on May 19, 1975. In their respective
The only exception to the mandatory filing of a declaration of certificates of birth, it is stated that their parents Co Boon Peng
intention is specifically stated in Section 6 of CA No. 473, to and Lourdes Vihong K. Tan are Chinese citizens.
wit: Thereafter, Co Boon Peng filed an application for his
Section 6. Persons exempt from requirement to make a naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines with the Special
declaration of intention. – Persons born in the Philippines and Committee on Naturalization under Letter of Instruction (LOI)
have received their primary and secondary education in public No. 270. His application was granted and he was conferred
schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited Philippine citizenship under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
to any race or nationality, and those who have resided 1055. The Chairman of the Committee issued on February 15,
continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or 1977 Certificate of Naturalization in his favor. Thus, on
more before filing their application, may be naturalized without February 15, 1977, Co Boon Peng took his oath as a Philippine
having to make a declaration of intention upon complying with citizen. In the meantime, Hubert and Arlene Co finished college
the other requirements of this Act. To such requirements shall and earned their respective degrees in architecture and
be added that which establishes that the applicant has given accountancy in Philippine schools.
primary and secondary education to all his children in the On August 27, 1998, they filed with the Regional Trial Court of
public schools or in private schools recognized by the Manila a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for
Government and not limited to any race or nationality. The correction of entries in their certificates of birth. They alleged
same shall be understood applicable with respect to the widow in their petition that:
and minor children of an alien who has declared his intention 1. They were born in the Philippines and the legitimate
to become a citizen of the Philippines, and dies before he is children of CO BOON PENG;
actually naturalized.
Unquestionably, respondent does not fall into the category of 2. Co Boon Peng, who is formerly a citizen of China, was
such exempt individuals that would excuse him from filing a conferred Philippine citizenship by naturalization under
declaration of intention one year prior to the filing of a petition Presidential Decree No. 1055 and had taken his oath of
for naturalization. Contrary to the CA finding, respondent’s allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on 15th
premature filing of his petition for naturalization before the February, 1977 in the City of Manila;
expiration of the one-year period is fatal.
In naturalization proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the 3. At the time of birth of [the] petitioners, their father CO
applicant to show full and complete compliance with the BOON PENG was still a Chinese citizen that is why
requirements of the law. The opportunity of a foreigner to entry in their respective birth certificates as to their
become a citizen by naturalization is a mere matter of grace, father’s citizenship was Chinese;
favor or privilege extended to him by the State; the applicant 4. Upon granting of Philippine citizenship by
does not possess any natural, inherent, existing or vested right naturalization to Co Boon Peng in 1977, [the]
to be admitted to Philippine citizenship. The only right that a petitioners who were born in the Philippines and still
foreigner has, to be given the chance to become a Filipino minors at that time became Filipino citizens through
citizen, is that which the statute confers upon him; and to the derivative mode of naturalization. Our
acquire such right, he must strictly comply with all the statutory Naturalization Law, specifically Section 15 of
conditions and requirements. The absence of one jurisdictional Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended by
requirement is fatal to the petition as this necessarily results in Commonwealth Act No. 535 which provides:
the dismissal or severance of the naturalization process. "Minor children of persons naturalized under this law
_______________________ who have been born in the Philippines shall be
So if you remember, sa judicial naturalization, there are so considered citizens thereof;"
many waiting periods (1 year, 6 months..). Remember all those 5. The naturalization of petitioners’ father in 1977 was an
things are mandatory. Pag hindi yun nasunod, there was a lapse act or event affecting and concerning their civil status
in the procedure, then your naturalization process is defective. that must be recorded in the Civil Register, Article 407
Therefore, it can be granted or be cancelled. of the New Civil Code of the Philippines which
Yun yung point nung case, if you heard the reason why there provides:
was a one-year period, the reason is for those who are The petitioners prayed that the trial court render judgment
concerned, the government, the OSG, those who may be in correcting and changing the entries in their respective birth
opposition, have ample time to study or to make or to prepare certificates as to the citizenship of their father Co Boon Peng,
the opposition against the application for naturalization. Such from "Chinese" to "Filipino.”
that, if there is a breach in the period of time, it effectively
deprives those who should have been benefitted by the time, On September 23, 1998, the RTC issued an order dismissing the
that you have to wait for the process to go on. So, have we petition outright on the ground that the petition was insufficient,
discussed the grounds for denaturalization? I think so. solely because the petitioners’ father Co Boon Peng applied for
naturalization under LOI No. 270 and was conferred Philippine
26
citizenship by naturalization under PD No. 1055 and not under 270” but in 270 though it did not repeal nor amend any of
Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 473. the provisions of CA 473, it was a complementary or
They assert THAT they are qualified to claim the benefit of supplementary rule for other kinds of foreign national or
Section 15 of CA No. 473, which provides that minor children whatever that may be granted naturalization for why they
of persons naturalized thereunder who were born in the may be follow the requirements of that particular
Philippines shall likewise be considered citizens thereof. They naturalization law.
contend that although LOI No. 270, under which the It was discussed here yung in pare materia rule because the grant
petitioners’ father was naturalized does not contain a provision of the naturalization of their family was perusal to LOI 270 later
similar to Section 15 of CA No. 473, the latter provision should on amended by PD 1055 and not CA 473. But in LOI 270 and
be deemed incorporated therein. They point out that both laws PD 1055, there was no provision on derivative naturalization.
have the same purpose and objective, i.e., to grant Philippine What was what they were claiming here was that they derived
citizenship to qualified aliens permanently residing in the the naturalization given to their father although it is not found
Philippines.They posit that CA No. 473 and LOI No. 270 should in LOI 270 and yung sa PD 1055. The supreme court interpreted
be harmonized and reconciled since "all statutes relating to the yung in pare materia rule that when statutes are the same or for
same subject, or having the same general purpose, should be the same purpose, they must be construed as one and to give
read in connection with it, and should be construed together as effect of one and the other so that it will be consistent.
they constitute one law.”
While there is no provision on derivative naturalization for LOI
ISSUE: 270 as amended by PD 1055 because of this rule because those
W/N Hubert and Arlene can be granted Filipino Citizenship in laws are both for naturalization, the effect is that whatever the
the fact that their father was naturalized under LOI 270 effect of CA 473 for the wife, widow, or minor children. It will
RULING: also be the effect for the widow, wife, or minor children of those
granted naturalization under LOI 270 as amended by PD 1055.
Petitioners should be granted Filipino Citizenship. So they will derive the Philippine or the naturalization as
LOI No. 270 and CA No. 473 are laws governing the Philippine citizens of their father.
naturalization of qualified aliens residing in the Philippines. The point in in pare materia rule is the same sila na law in the
While they provide for different procedures, CA No. 473 subject matter that they don’t amend or repeal each other so they
governs naturalization by judicial decree while LOI No. 270 must be construed as one to give effect to one and to the other
governs naturalization by presidential decree; both statutes have in the same manner.
the same purpose and objective: to enable aliens permanently
residing in the Philippines, who, having demonstrated and The purpose of naturalization again diba it is a privilege granted
developed love for and loyalty to the Philippines, as well as to those who are qualified so if you follow the rules under a
affinity to the culture, tradition and ideals of the Filipino people, particular law on naturalization whatever benefit is granted to
and contributed to the economic, social and cultural you it may be granted to those who have under similar
development of our country, to be integrated into the national circumstances arrive in a particular naturalization law such as
fabric by being granted Filipino citizenship. Under the LOI, the in this case. In CA 473, there is derivative naturalization and a
procedure for the acquisition of citizenship by naturalization is similar naturalization law it does not provide because they are
more expeditious, less cumbersome and less expensive. The statutes in pare materia. The effect of one law is also given to
sooner qualified aliens are naturalized, the faster they are able the other naturalization law.
to integrate themselves into the national fabric, and are thus able In pare materia in this concept, if you recall 9139 there is a
to contribute to the cultural, social and political well- being of specific provision on the effect of the husband because if it was
the country and its people. not provided not even the husband will have derivative
Clearly, LOI No. 270 and CA No. 473 are, as the petitioners naturalization that’s why a specific provision under 9139 that
correctly posit, statutes in pari materia. Absent any express the husband will not derive the naturalization of a wife who is
repeal of Section 15 of CA No. 473 in LOI No. 270, the said naturalized as a Filipino okay kasi in pare materia parin sila
provision should be read into the latter law as an integral part its the same no its a naturalization process so if hindi siya
thereof, not being inconsistent with its purpose. Thus, Section naprovide it would have beneffited also the husband no pero
15 of CA No. 473, which extends the grant of Philippine ewan ko bat theres a distinction between sa husband and wife
citizenship to the minor children of those naturalized siguro kasi ganti kasi medyo mga laws natin in favor of the
thereunder, should be similarly applied to the minor children of husband so may bias ganun yung legislature nung pinasa yung
those naturalized under LOI No. 270, like the petitioners in this 9139 okay nasan na tayo.
case.
It is not enough that the petitioners adduce in evidence the REPUBLIC V. ONG
certificate of naturalization of their father, Co Boon Peng, and
of his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, to In this case, it was a discussion on the requirement of a lucrative
entitle them to Philippine citizenship. They are likewise trade remember under CA 473 diba she was initially granted,
mandated to prove the following material allegations in their but the OSG appealed because he was not able to prove any
petition: (a) that they are the legitimate children of Co Boon lucrative trade, proffesion, etc. so remember that naturalization
Peng; (b) that they were born in the Philippines; and, (c) is a grant of privilege.
that they were still minors when Co Boon Peng was When you are granted Philippine citizenship, or citizenship per
naturalized as a Filipino citizen. se if you remember the discussion on what citizenship is, it is
the grant of rights and privileges and the concomitant duty na
grant sayo ang Philippines ng rights and privileges no as a
DENATURALIZATION: RA 9139
citizen ano ba pwede mong gawin, you can own property, you
So, LOI 270 was an enactment which is much later than CA can exercise certain kind of business exclusively for Filipino,
473. CA 473 was a law on naturalization. LOI 270 is a you can vote here, you can run for public office, etc. so meron
subsequent law on naturalization which gives certain kinds of ka mga pivileges,
people an opportunity to apply for naturalization, but CA 473
is still existing because it was the general law on Now, if you are granted Philippine citizenship, you should not
be a burden to the Philippines. That’s why there is the
naturalization. There was requirements there “iba din yung
requirement on property or lucrative trade so that the state is
27
sure that you will be able to support yourself otherwise ano ba Whether or not Go’s petition for naturalization should be
yung rule ng government if its people cannot support itself? granted.
Diba it will be the role of the government to help them? Okay RULING:
that’s why there are poverty alleviation measure social services The Supreme court said no, jurisprudents dictates that in
granted to the less fortunate. judicial naturalization. The application must show substantial
If you are applying for naturalization and you are not able to and formal compliance with C.A. 473. In other words, an
support yourself then isa ka sa mga madagdag sa concerns ng applicant must comply with the jurisdictional requirements,
Philippine government to support. K that’s why it’s important establish his or her possession of the qualifications and none of
to prove property lucrative trade and profession. If you the disqualifications enumerated under the law, and present at
remember our 1139 diba mas stringent doon because it’s not least two character witnesses to support his allegations.
only you, you have wife, your family to prove that you can He was not able to establish that his witnesses are credible in
support them. So in this case it was actually extended to CA 473 other words he did not prove that his witnesses has good
like it’s not only your capacity to support yourself, but if you standing in the community known to be honest, upright,
have a family, you have to also show that lucrative trade, trustworthy, and reliable. And that their word may be taken at
profession, etc. would be able to support your family. That if face value as a good warranty of the worthiness of petitioner.
the Philippines would grant you its citizenship, you would not Furthermore, the background checks done on petitioner yielded
be a burden to the Philippines. So, again, because you are the negative results due to the uncooperative behavior of the
one applying for naturalization, you have the burden of members of his household.
proof to prove that you have all the requirements under the
law. In fact, petitioner himself disobliged when asked for an
interview by BOI agents to the court, this is a display of
In this case, he was not able to satisfactorily prove his insincerity to embrace Filipino customes, traditions, and ideals.
lucrative trade that he was able to support himself and his Finally, it is noteworthy that petitioners’ failure to state his
family. K so, because you have the burden of proof, it’s a matter former residence in the petition was fatal to his application for
of evidence depende sa ma show mo na evidence and in this naturalization.
case he was not able to show enough evidence to prove that he
has a lucrative trade or profession to support himself and his Indeed, this omission has deprived the trial of court of
family. So remember part of the requirement in the jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Hence, the petition for
naturalization law are important because it is not a grant of a naturalization is dismissed without prejudice.
right, but because it is a grant of privilege. Kita niyo yung So ang point lang nun is diba kay going back to the discussion
difference kanina nung election of Philippines citizenship of naturalization being grant of privilege, dapat lahat ng
atchaka *inaudible* of naturalization. Sa election kanina, we requirements sundin niyo.
have a case na hindi niya na register, but he was given a leeway If you recall on our discussion under the procedure, there is a
because registration lang naman yung kulang and registration requirement on to witness rule, okay, and the two witnesses
is not a mode of acquiring a right. must be credible. So that’s what happened here, the petitioner
It was just a recognition that you are or a recognition of a fact was not able to prove that his witnesses are credible. So na-deny
that you are or you have already elected Philippine citizenship. yung kanyang petition or na-reverse while it was initially
In this case, because it was a privilege. All of the requirements granted. It was reversed saying that there was actually a failure.
must be sufficiently or satisfactorily met. Failure of the petitioner to prove that his witnesses were
credible.
Aside from your own qualification, you must also prove the
NATURALIZED CITIZENS: RA 9139
qualification of your witnesses. For CA 473, it’s credible
COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 473
witnesses. If you look up RA 9139, iba yung wording ng
witnesses. If you look at section 5, number 2, letter E, two
Filipino citizens of good reputation. So for CA 473, its
GO SR. V REPUBLIC credible, Credible yung kanilang qualifications for the two
FACTS: witnesses. For RA 9139, administrative naturalization, its
two Filipinos of good reputation. So yung yung kailangan i-
The petitioner here is a Chinese national filed a petition for prove ng petitioner.
naturalization under commonwealth act 473. So aside from his
presentation of other requirements he also presented as REPUBLIC V. BATUIGAS
witnessed. Dr. Anlacan, Dr. Tordesillas, Silvino Ong, Teresita
Go, and Juan Go. FACTS:
Dr Anlacan testified that based on the psychiatric examination Azucena saavedra Batuigas filed a petition for naturalization
he conducted on petitioner, he had no psychiatric abnormality before the RTC of Zamboanga Del Sur.
at the time of the test. Dr. Tordesillas, on the other hand, In her petition, she alleged that she was born on sept 8 1941 in
reported that petitioner’s medical examination results were Zamboanga Del Sur, she was a Chinese citizen who has lived
normal. Ong, a friend of petitioner’s family, said that he had in Zamboanga Del Sur since birth and can speak english tagalog
known petitioner since childhood through his association with bisaya and chabacano. Her primary secondary and tertiary
the family in times of celebration. Teresita described him as education were taken in Philippine schools and she graduated
peace-loving person who participated in activities sponsored by with a degree in education in Ateneo de Zamboanga.
his school and the barangay. Lastly, Juan, a businessman by
She married Santiago Batuigas, a natural born Filipino citizen
profession, also claimed that he knew petitioner personally. The
and together they had five children all of whom studied in
RTC rendered a decision granting the petition for naturalization
Philippine public and private schools and are all professionals
ruling that the petitioner possessed the qualifications set forth
and when she graduated in college she started as a teacher and
by law. But the CA reversed and set aside said decision. Hence,
then after getting married she and her husband engaged in a
the petition.
retail of rice and copra and as proof of their income Azucena
ISSUE: submitted their joint annual tax returns and brandished from
2000 to 2002 and from 2001 and 2005.
28
After all their jurisdictional requirements had been complied although it was recognized in that case diba foreigner siya so
with, the OSG filed its motion to dismiss on the ground that this would have been sufficient
Azucena failed to allege that she engaged in a lawful occupation The procedure for derivative naturalization once your husband
or trade. The OSG maintained that Azucena is not allowed to a and you’re a foreigner or if you’re a minor child, you only file
lucrative trade to engage directly or indirectly in the retail trade with the bureau of immigration a petition to cancel your ACR
the OSG likewise disputed Azucenas claim that she owns real then joint affidavit with your husband that you are qualified and
property because the aliens are precluded from owning lands in that you do not have any of the disqualification and then the BI
the country. will investigate okay its a matter of administrative procedure
Therefore, the hearing for the presentation of Azucenas Pero siya nag hago hago pa siya nag file pa ug petition for
evidence was set on the 2004, during the initial hearing neither judicial naturalization yan tuloy dumating pa sa supreme court
the OSG nor the office of the provincial prosecutor appeared in ang case niya pero buti nalang para madiscuss natin ngayon
the hearing hence Azucena’s counsel looked that the evidence
be presented ex parte which the RTC granted accordingly. The What happened there diniscuss din ng court na necessarily if
RTC designated its clerk of court as revisionary to receive it as your husband is able to prove that he’s qualified to be
evidence. During the ex parte hearing the OSG did not appear naturalized as a Filipino because of the nature of our family
despite due notice so after presenting the evidence the RTC code of our ano relationship between husband and wife the
found that Azucena amply supported her petition thus granting property of the husband is the property of the wife and hindi or
her naturalization. benefit the children.
The OSG appealed the ruling of RTC because they contend that So if you question the qualification of the wife though na
Azucena failed to comply with the income requirement under naturalize na yung asawa niya in its parang contrary to the
CA 473 and they further asserted that the ex parte proceeding common conception of a family okay parang iniba mo yung
before the commissioner is now above limit hearing the ex parte wife sa husband or sa family niya but in any case the Supreme
started the chambers without the public in attendance. Court recognized that she is a professional she has a stable job
etc okay so parang tinuruan niya rin yung OSG na wag ka
ISSUE: magpataka para di na tayo magabot sa ganitong situation pero
Whether or not azucena failed to meet the income and public okay diba atleast nadiscuss natin ngayon so minsna yung mga
hearing requirements under CA 473. dumadating sa sc purely lang katangahan atleast we learn from
RULING: their mistakes ganun so under this case you will find the more
complete description of reqs for uhm the administrative process
Azucena fully complied and met with the income and public uhm ano to recognize your derivative naturalization after this
requirements under CA 473 because under the income kung nacancel an yung ACR kailangan mo kasi sa civil registry
requirement Azucena graduated in education and she could ipa annotate or magpagawa ka ng iyong certificate no that you
have provided for her family. Then after her stint as a teacher are a filipino k so ipapagawa ko din yun aside from this process
she and her husband engaged in a retail business and together kasi kailangan nila yun sa census ilan na ba ang filipinos
husband and wife were able to raise all 5 children all graduate 104million ganun .
as professionals, certainly this is proof enough both husband
and wife’s lucrative trade azucena herself is a professional. Her
profession more than gives her sufficient guaranty that she will LOSS AND REACQUISITION
not abandon her only country since birth moreover the court
acknowledged the main objective of extending the citizenship  Naturalized in a foreign country
privilege.  Express renunciation
In connection with the OSGs appeal that aliens cannot own  Subscribing to the oath of allegiance in a foreign
property in the Philippines, the court says: country
 Rendering service or accepting provision in a foreign
“it is therefore not conclude not congruent with our cherished
armed forces
traditions of family unity and identity that the husband should
be a citizen and the wife an alien and that the citizenship of the Under CA 63,may mga qualifications itong armed forces which
other should be different from that of the other thus it cannot be if the government allowed you to served and be commissioned
that the husbands interest in property and business activity provided hat its only for a limited time and there are other
should not require that the conjugal property regime be denied conditions na nafollow then you will not be deemed to have lost
with the wife nor that she herself cannot to her own accords” your citizenship.
For the benefit of the partnership acquired property there in so Cancellation of certificate of naturalization through
for that the court ruled that she has complied with the income denaturalization.
requirement under CA 473. Declared by competent authority a deserter of the
Though under the publication requirement the OSG had the philippine army in time of war except when he is granted a
opportunity to contest the qualifications of Azucena during the pardon
initial hearing scheduled, however, the OSG and the office of Sino nagbibigay ng pardon ang president ng Philippines
the provincial prosecutor failed to appear in said hearing and
There is a seventh one sa 63 but hat has already been repealed
even after due notice the OSG failed to also appear during the
by the 1987 constitution according to CA 63 that if the wife in
ex parte proceeding so the court ruled that they dismissed he
case of a woman upon her marriage to a foreigner if by
appeal by the republic and granted naturalization to Azucena.
virtue of the laws in force in her husband’s country she
___________________ acquires her nationality.
SUMMARY: So this is no longer the case because under the constitution the
She was a foreigner married to a naturalized Filipino husband wife can only lose her Philippine citizenship if she expressly
but she filed for judicial naturalization because she filed for renounces okay or by her acts or omission she is considered to
judicial naturalization she has to prove all over again yung mga have lost her citizenship so yung number 7 hindi na siya
requirements for a petition for judicial naturalization medyo applicable take note of that.
tanga rin to siya kasi meron ng derivative naturalization AASJS V. DATUMANONG (2007)
29
To begin with allow me to cite the provision in our constitution if you read the law it will merely allow you to acquire or to
that is of concern which is the section 5 article 4 of the 1987 retain your Philippine citizenship.
constitution that states dual allegiance of citizens is inimical in If you recall our previous discussions and this will be discussed
the national interest and shall be dealt with accordingly. in so many cases assigned discussing RA 9225 and the
In this case. AASGS represented by Hectore Gumama (?) requirements for elective and appointive uh public officials the
Petitioner avers that the implementation of RA 9225 is status when you take yung oath under RA 9225. Dun siya
unconstitutional. mismo. The law will just allow you to retain or reacquire your
RA 9225 entitled an act making the citizenship of Philippine Filipino citizenship if you become naturalized in a foreign
citizens who acquire foreign citizenship or … and amending country.
CA 63 as amended and for other purposes The concept of dual citizenship is not new in our country and it
In short this is act be known as the Citizenship Retention and has been ruled that due dual citizenship is hindi yun yung
Reacquisition act of 2003. concept na inimical sa atin. Natural sa ating country sa halip is
dual allegiance. Allegiance, meaning that you owe loyalty etc
So the petitioner avers that section 2 and section 3 of RA 9225 to a particular state whereas citizenship again kung ano yung
together allow dual allegiance not dual citizenship he explains mga mga binibigay ng citizenship rights and privileges in the
that section who allows all Filipinos either natural born or duties no in the duty of the citizen to the state.
naturalized who become foreign citizens to retain their
Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship. Whereas citizenship, again, kung ano yung mga binibigay ng
citizenship, rights and privileges and the duty of the xxx
Section 3 allows dual allegiance because said law allows natural (inaudible) duty of the citizen to the state. So yun lang.
born citizens of the Philippines to regain their Philippine
citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance without However, if you want to become a public official, elective or
forfeiting their foreign allegiance. appointed, there will be no dual citizenship to speak of;
pertaining sa Philippines lang, because you will already, take an
The constitution however is categorical that dual allegiance is oath of allegiance to the Philippines. Oath of allegiance na ha,
inimical to the national interest. The office of the SG claims that hindi na oath to reacquire or to retain your Philippine
Section 2 merely declares as a state policy that Philippine citizenship.
citizens who become citizens of another country shall be
deemed to have not lost their Philippine citizenship. So aside from the oath to retain or reacquire your Philippine
citizenship, you should also take an oath of allegiance to the
The office of the SG further claims that the oath in Section 3 Republic of the Philippines and that you renounce all foreign
does not allow dual allegiance since the oath taken by the allegiances or foreign governments. Meaning, sa tingin ng
former Filipino citizen is an effective renunciation of his foreign Philippines, if you’re elective or appointive public official you
citizenship. are holding a Philippine citizen. You are neither dual citizen nor
In resolving the foretasted issues in this case, there is a having any dual allegiances because of the second requirement
deliberation in progress that Representative Gale noted - under of an oath of allegiance.
the constitution, dual allegiance is inimical to public interest - Yung problema ng dual citizenship or allegiance could no
that thereafter the creation of dual allegiance by reason of longer be within the hands of the Philippines, but sa hands nung
retention of foreign citizenship and the reacquisition of kung ano yung foreign citizenship mo because as regards sa
Philippine citizenship, there will be a violation of the Philippines you already complied with renouncing your
constitution. citizenship sa another country, so problema na nila yon.
Representative Locsin replied that the proposed law aims to So, yung sa first na requirement nung iretain or ireacquire yung
facilitate the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by speedy citizenship mo, it only deals with your status as a citizen and
means and he explained that the problem of dual citizenship is not your allegiance to any country. Kasi when you want to
transferred from the Philippines to the foreign country. kunware exercise yung particular office in the Philippines, there
However, representative Dimangalen asked whether the person is another level of requirement or another safeguard, na
did not renounce his foreign citizenship and therefore still owes maensure ng Philippines that you have a single allegiance and
allegiance to the foreign government and at the same time still that is, sa Philippines.
owes his allegiance to the Philippine government. Rep. Locsin So almost all the other cases will deal with, itong mga Lopez
then replied that the person implicitly renounces his foreign (Lopez vs COMELEC, 559 SCRA 698, 2008), Jacot (Jacot vs
citizenship. Today Rep Locsin clarified that person implicitly Dal, 572 SCRA 295, 2008), De Guzman (De Guzman vs
renounces his foreign citizenship and further... having dual COMELEC, 590 SCRA 149, 2009), Sobejana (Sobejana-
allegiance compared to national interest should be dealt with by Condon vs Comelec, 678 SCRA 267, 2012) and Maquiling
la. (Maquiling vs COMELEC, 696 SCRA 420; 700 SCRA 367,
However, he said that dual allegiance is not addressed in the RA 2013), will discuss that concept. Yun yung point nung mga
9225. He stressed that RA 9225 recognized Philippine cases na yan. So different facts, again the same sa election, ito
citizenship but says nothing about other citizenship. That the siya different facts but the same, almost the same ruling.
framers of RA 9225 is not concerned with dual citizenship per When you, for example, I think there is two cases here na diba
se but with the status of naturalized citizens to maintain their merong oath to retain or reacquire, and then there is another
allegiance to the country of their origin even after their oath. If you want, most of these are requirements for elective
naturalization. For now, congress was given a mandate to draft official yung mga cases here, so it’s either hindi sila nag oath of
a law that would set specific parameters of what really allegiance – yung second level dapat kasi yung oath of
constitutes dual allegiance and until this is done it would be allegiance gawin mo siya before or on filing of the Certificate
premature for the moment to include or discuss in the supreme of Candidacy. Meaning nag take ka na ng oath to reaquire and
court the concerns regarding dual allegiance retain your citizenship. If you want to run for public office, you
Here, the constitutionality of RA 9225 was questioned so will sign a certificate of candidacy. Sa COC mo meron
inallege nila that the law allows dual allegiance which nakalagay doon oath but it will not suffice kasi may nakalagay
according to the framers is inimical to the national interest. doon na xxx(inaudible) na parang “you are a filipino citizen,
The Supreme Court was not ready to determine whether RA you will respect...” pero wala doon yung oath of allegiance that
9225 was the law enabling or enacting dual allegiance because is necessary under R.A. 9225. So yung ibang cases yun yung
ruling ng Supreme Court. Hindi sila naka oath of allegiance; it
30
is a separate act aside from the COC dapat on or before ka compelled him to seek political asylum in the United States and
nagfile ng COC you already renounced your foreign eventually he renounced his citizenship, then claims that his
allegiances. petition for naturalization was his only available remedy for his
Next, even if you have done that, nacomply mo na yung R.A. reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. So, he tried to reacquire
9225 but you used your foreign citizenship in any way, for his ph citizenship through repatriation and direct act of
example you used your foreign passport, you represented that congress. So, xxx(inaudible) it was this time because later he
you are a foreign citizen outside or within the Philippines. In was informed that repatriation proceedings were limited to
one case nagpa-renew siya ng passport. Those are considered a army deserters or Filipino women who had lost their citizenship
revocation of your oath of allegiance to the Philippines, by reason of their marriage to foreigners, but as we all know it’s
meaning meron ka ng first – you will retain your citizenship, not the main reason why Frivaldo renounced his citizenship. So,
your status as a Filipino is retained, but you failed to comply it’s his choice due to the atmosphere in the martial law or during
with the second requirement which is the oath of allegiance. So those martial law times. And then his request to congress for
again, important na concept here is that you may retain your sponsorship of a bill allowing him to reacquire his Philippine
Philippine citizenship, but if you want to be in public office, citizenship failed to materialize notwithstanding the
appointive or elective, there is an oath of allegiance. In these indorsement of several members of the house of the
cases, because these are mostly elective na mga cases, what they representatives in favor of Frivaldo. So, after that he also claims
did was either hindi sila naka oath of allegiance or even if they that the rescheduling of the hearing of the petitions that would
took the oath of allegiance, they actually expressly renounced be discussed by my other xxx(inaudible).
yung kanilang allegiance sa Philippines because of using their Itong si Frivaldo, medjo sikat because he attempted three times
foreign citizenship, their passport representing themselves as to reacquire Filipino citizenship. After Marcos ang nangyari he
foreigners and not as Filipinos. Even one time mo lang siyang had applied for and was granted foreign citizenship in the US,
gamitin, is already enough to expressly renounce your xxx nagging US citizen siya. Then he came back. So, previously he
(inaudible) oath of allegiance to the Philippines. Thereby, hindi was a public official in the Philippines but because of yung the
ka na qualified as an elective. Sa appointive kase I think it’s less Marcos era, Martial Law, etc., he was forced to ano, because he
stringent. You read R.A. 9225; it’s not the same as for elective. was not politically aligned sa Marcos. So, he returned, he ran
So nakalagay sa Section 5, if you are intending to exercise the for Representative of Sorsogon. This was not the first time. The
right of suffrage you must comply with the vote overseas (???) first time he went back, he actually won but he was not a
kung overseas absentee voter ka, or if you’re a voter here you Filipino citizen because he failed to, properly reacquire Filipino
must meet the qualification and not the disqualification. Those citizenship.
appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an How will you be able to reacquire?
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Ayun, oath w\We have naturalization. Three, tatlo yon, okay? During his
of allegiance parin pala. Those seeking public elective office time ha because wala pa yung R.A. 9225 we have repatriation.
shall meet the qualification for holding such office as required But instances of repatriations are very specific. If you’re a
by the constitution and existing laws by, upon filing or before foreign woman who lost your Philippine citizenship because
the filing of the Certificate of Candidacy, make a personal and you are married to a foreigner or if nag political asylum ka
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any because of political or economic reasons in the Philippines and
public officer authorized to administer oath. So yun yung you acquired foreign citizenship, you can be repatriated if you
requirement for elective. Renunciation of any and all foreign follow the requirements, or if you serve as an army in sa foreign
citizenship. For public appointive official, subscribe and swear land meron ka ding way to be repatriated. So, these are
an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. So governed by different laws, and you must follow it. But because
express renunciation is also called expatriation. it is limited, kung sino lang yung mga tao na that comes under
NATURALIZATION IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY the terms and conditions of the law, yun lang sila ang ma
repatriate.
GUY V. IGNACIO So trinry to ni Frivaldo once; he failed. So, nag explore siya ng
FACTS: iba: Judicial naturalization, gusto niya mag legislative, hindi
Petitioners were Canadian citizens, there father became a natuloy. But eventually, nagfile siya ng tamang petition tapos
naturalized Filipino. They established businesses in the kinuwestiyon na naman siya. Kasi lagi siyang nananalo; gusto
Philippines while having Canadian passports. They were siya ng taga Sorsogon. So eventually narealize na ng Supreme
questioned by the Bureau of Immigration that they were not a Court na “tangina ilang beses na itong umakyat-akyat dito”
Filipino and they are undesirable and must be deported. gusto niya talagang maging Pilipino balik. So, sinabi ng
ISSUE: Supreme Court na they took judicial notice of their own
Is the owning a Canadian passport a conclusive evidence that decisions. It’s always the same situation. He will try to make a
you are a foreigner? comeback sa Philippine citizenship niya, but it’s the wrong
RULING: remedy. The people want him to serve them as their leader. But,
The SC held that NO, especially in the case because their father because of his citizenship issue, always siyang nau-unseat or
was naturalized, they derived the naturalization of their father hindi nauupo because he is not a natural born Filipino citizen.
making them a Filipino citizen even they have Canadian So out of the question na yung naturalized because if you
Passports. The petitioner, he obtained a Philippine become naturalized Filipino, hindi ka natural born. You cannot
naturalization in 1978. But afterwards, he renewed his passport. be a Senator, you cannot be yung mga required na naturalized.
According to the Supreme Court, the renewal of his passport is
So, the proper way sana is to either repatriate, because
an express renunciation of his Filipino citizenship. Therefore,
repatriation has the effect of the same as retention and
it’s a ground for the cancellation of his naturalization certificate.
reacquisition na if you are a natural born citizen you will come
back to that status, a natural born citizen. So, eventually,
REPUBLIC VS DELA ROSA hanggang napagod na rin ang Supreme Court sinabi nila na
because masyado siyang pursigido, they already allowed even
FACTS: if yung sa last niya na petition there was still a failure in
Juan Frivaldo is actually, originally is a Filipino citizen but then complying with all the procedures, they took note of all his
he renounced his Filipino citizenship during the precarious efforts to reacquire his Filipino citizenship. That’s what
political atmosphere in the country during martial law and
31
happened itong kay Dela Rosa. So, try niyo basahin ito na case,
nandoon na yung history. The proceeding of the trial court was also marred by several
EXPRESS RENUNCIATION OR EXPATRIATION irregularities, particularly:
(1) that the petition was heard without the publication
of the order that sets the hearing ahead of schedule;
(2) that the petition was heard within six months before
REPUBLIC V. DELA ROSA the last publication of the petition;
FACTS: (3) the petitioner was able to take his oath of allegiance
On September 20, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for without the decision becoming final; and
naturalization captioned: "In the Matter of Petition of Juan G. (4) the petitioner was able to take his oath of allegiance
Frivaldo to be Re-admitted as a Citizen of the Philippines under without the two-year waiting period which is required
Commonwealth Act No. 63" before under RA No. 530.
A decision in a petition for the naturalization becomes final only
In an Order dated October 7, 1991 respondent Judge set the after 30 days following its promulgation and insofar as the
petition for hearing on March 16, 1992, and directed the Solicitor General is concerned, that period is counted from the
publication of the said order and petition in the Official Gazette date of his receipt of the copy of the decision.
and a newspaper of general circulation, for three consecutive
weeks, the last publication of which should be at least six Section 1 of R.A. No. 530 provides that no decision granting
months before the said date of hearing. The order further citizenship in naturalization proceedings shall be executory
required the posting of a copy thereof and the petition in a until after two years from its promulgation in order to be able
conspicuous place in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the to observe if:
Regional Trial Court, Manila (1) the applicant has left the country;
(2) the applicant has dedicated himself continuously to
On January 14, 1992, private respondent filed a "Motion to Set a lawful calling or profession;
Hearing Ahead of Schedule," where he manifested his intention (3) the applicant has not been convicted of any offense
to run for public office in the May 1992 elections. He alleged or violation of government promulgated rules; and
that the deadline for filing the certificate of candidacy was (4) the applicant has committed any act prejudicial to
March 15, one day before the scheduled hearing. He asked that the interest of the country or contrary to government
the hearing set on March 16 be cancelled and be moved to announced policies.
January 24 Even discounting the provisions of R.A. No. 530, the courts
cannot implement any decision granting the petition for
The motion was granted in an Order dated January 24, 1992, naturalization before its finality.
wherein the hearing of the petition was moved to February 21,
1992. The said order was not published nor a copy thereof In this case, if you recall our discussion, if you lose your
posted. Philippine citizenship, you can either get a naturalization or a
repatriation. In this particular case, Republic v. Dela Rosa, what
Six days later, on February 27, respondent Judge rendered and he sought was judicial naturalization under CA 473. As we
GRANTED the petition. On the same day, private respondent discuss, there are requirements and time periods to wait. In this
was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before respondent case, he committed violations. There are a lot (of requirements)
Judge. he didn’t follow – the six-month period, one-year period, the
two-year waiting period. Actually, all (requirements). Before
ISSUE: this case, he availed of repatriation. We’ll discuss repatriation.
Won there was proper reacquisition of Philippine citizenship What I think he availed was RA 8171.
RULING: RA 8171, this involves previous Filipino citizens who,

No, there was no proper reacquisition of Filipino citizenship  Because they were married to a foreigner or a Filipina
because of two main reasons: woman married to a foreign spouse because of the
1. Petition for naturalization lacks several allegations marriage, became a foreign citizen;
required by Sections 2 and 6 of the Revised  Those who served the military of a foreign country;
Naturalization Law. and
2. During Proceeding in the trial court is marred by  Those, because of economic and political necessity,
several irregularities has to flee to other country and obtain naturalization
Petition for naturalization lacks several allegations required by there.
Sections 2 and 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law: Under this Repatriation Act, it is limited as to who can avail
 the petitioner is of good moral character; repatriation under this act. He applied for this repatriation but
 he resided continuously in the Philippines for at least again, he is not included as to those who were described to be
ten years; covered by the Repatriation Law. But eventually Dela Rosa in
 he is able to speak and write English and any one of her 3rd try was able to succeed to substantially re acquire her
the principal dialects; and Philippine citizenship.
 the petitioner will continuously reside in the PH upon
the filing of the petition up until his readmission to the There are many laws regarding repatriation, there is a different
PH citizenship and lastly, the declaration of the treatment with regards with cases. Generally in repatriation, the
intention of the petitioner and if he is excused from only requirement is that you take an oath of allegiance and
said filing, the justification thereof. then you register your oath at civil register and at the
PO YI BI V. REPUBLIC Bureau of Immigration and Commission of Immigration
The Court held there that, lack of absence of allegation is fatal and Deportation.
to the petition. Likewise the petition lacks affidavit of two
credible persons who can vouch for the good moral character of Under RA 8171 for a time in 1996, there was a letter of
the petitioner as well as the certificate of arrival of the petition instruction that was promulgated creating a special
which are both required by Section 7 of the Revised committee on repatriation. Under 8171, you should file a
Naturalization Law. petition. What should alleged is that you part of the people
32
described under RA 8171 and you have done all the Repatriation of Filipino women who lost their
qualification under the law to reacquire Filipino citizenship because of economic and political
citizenship. necessity with the special committee on naturalization
· If you have read the cases, some says that there is no need PD 725 was enacted on 5 June 1975, it was effective from 1975
to file for petition in the court. You just need to take the until 28 March 28 1987, it was deactivated by virtue of late
oath and register. But such process is only correct in terms president Cory Aquino’s Memorandum dated 27 March 1987,
of RA 2630, it’s a different repatriation law. But under RA hence, from 28 March 1987 until 7 June 1995, there was no
8171 a petition is required. However, the requirement for precedent or special committee on naturalization for it was
petition was suspended for a time during 1986 and was suspended by president Aquino. It was then reactivated on 8
later affirmed. June 1995 by former president Fidel Ramos. This time and
onwards we file repatriation with the special committee on
AZNAR V. COMELEC naturalization but during the time interim rule or when the
FACTS: committee did not exist we follow the simple administrative
What happened here was Osmena was a son of Filipino parents rule in repatriation.
but he was born in America. So he had a dual citizenship. By
virtue of jus soli, he is an American citizen. By virtue of our ALTERAJOS V. COMELEC
Philippine laws, jus sangguinis, he is also a Filipino citizen. But In the present case, a disqualification case was filed against
because was born in the USA, he was issued a passport, Alterajos on the ground of his citizenship, as he did not meet
American citizenship documents. When he went back to the the citizenship requirement required by law. Alterjos was able
Philippines, he was issued an alien certificate of registration, the to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
documents pertaining to an alien. So eventually, he established however, he filed the registration of the same late, it was before
his life in Cebu, and he ran for public office. His citizenship was the start of his term but after the filing of his certificate of
questioned. candidacy (COC).
ISSUE:
WON having ACR and alien documents is conclusive that you The Supreme Court (SC) said that the process of Repatriation
are not a Filipino citizen? under Republic Act (RA) 965 and RA 2630 clearly provide that
RULING: repatriation is effective by taking and Oath of Allegiance to
The SC said that because of the operation of law, Osmena … the Republic of the Philippines and register it with the proper
Filipino. So there was no express renunciation. There was no civil registry and Bureau of Immigration.
positive act to acquire foreign citizenship. So if you look at the
list of those possible rules that you can lose a Filipino The concept ruled in this case is that your repatriation retroacts
citizenship, it is not there because of the operation of law that to the date of when you applied for, filed for or took your oath
he was able to obtain that foreign citizenship. of allegiance to be repatriated as a Filipino citizen. The
According to the SC, having dual citizenship is not tantamount completion of the requirements, taking oath of Allegiance and
to the disqualification provided for by the local government registration of the same will retroact, so he became a Filipino
code that if you have dual citizenship you are disqualified, citizen effectively upon application.
because it is not in the list of those who will lose citizenship. He
is a Filipino because his father and mother are Filipinos. Further, the citizenship requirement is required at the start and
during the term of Office. Thus, the determination of whether
VILANDO V. HRET you are qualified or not is your citizenship at the start of your
The important concept that was promulgated here is that when term, if you are Filipino citizen at the start of your term of Office
you are duly repatriated, when you follow the rules on then you are qualified.
repatriation under RA 9652 or 8571, you will return to your
original status as a natural born Filipino much like when you For all public officials, when there is a requirement on
retain or when you acquire Filipino citizenship under RA 9225. citizenship, it is a continuing requirement. That once you lose
The law granting repatriation, or RA 9225, presupposes that your citizenship or the requirement necessary to sit in an office,
you are originally a natural born Filipino citizen. Otherwise, if the government can always question your authority to be in that
you are a naturalized Filipino citizen, and you expressly office. That is why the OSG questioned the Chief Justice, the
renounce your Filipino citizenship, you lose your Filipino Supreme Court ruled there is no prescription in questioning the
citizenship because it is just a privilege. You were not born with citizenship of government officials. In citizenship issues, for
it, so you cannot return back to being a naturalized Filipino example one is a Filipino citizen by virtue of RA 9225 and
citizen because you are not part of the category of those who executed a sworn renunciation his foreign allegiance but in the
can repatriate, reacquire or regain Filipino citizenship. middle of his term he used his foreign passport. On that point,
So only Filipinos who are natural born are under those in the he effectively repealed his sworn renunciation. The government
category which can go back to their original status as a natural can question that person’s citizenship, it being imprescriptible.
born when they get repatriated or when they regain or reacquire
their Filipino citizenship. TABASA vs. CA
FACTS:
ANGAT V. REPUBLIC  Petitioner Joevanie Tabasa was a natural-born citizen
This is the case that discussed RA 8171. This is a 1995 law. of the PH.
Under Section 1, Filipino women who lost their Filipino  In 1968, when Tabasa was 7 yrs. old, his father became
citizenship by marriage to aliens and natural born Filipinos who a naturalized citizen of the US. And by “derivative
have lost their Philippine citizenship, including their minor naturalization” (citizenship derived from that of
children on account of political or economic necessity may another as from a person who holds citizenship by
reacquire Philippine citizenship through repatriation in the virtue of naturalization), he also acquired American
manners provided under except the following: citizenship.
Under Sec. 1 of Presidential Decree 725 (PD 725), amending  In 1995, he arrived at the PH for 1 year as a balikbayan.
Commonwealth Act 63 (CA 63) He was then arrested and detained by agent Soluren of
the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID)
pursuant to a BID Mission Order.
33
 Petitioner was charged with 1 count of felon in subsequently had children while a naturalized citizen of a
possession of firearm and 1 count of sexual battery foreign country.
both of which violates the California Penal Code
 Due to this, the Consul General of the US filed a · The repatriation of the former Filipino will allow him to
request with the BID to apprehend and deport Tabasa recover his natural-born citizenship and automatically vest
due to the standing warrant for several federal charges Philippine citizenship on his children of jus sanguinis or blood
issued to him and Tabasa’s American passport has relationship: the children acquire the citizenship of their
been revoked. parent(s) who are natural-born Filipinos.
 According to the BID, due to that revocation, Tabasa · The privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is extended
is now considered undocumented & undesirable alien directly to the natural-born Filipinos who could prove that they
and may be summarily deported to his country of acquired citizenship of a foreign country due to political and
origin, the US. 7. *Note that when Tabasa filed this economic reasons, and extended indirectly to the minor children
petitioner, he was already 35 years old. at the time of repatriation
The court also noted that: IN THE CASE AT BAR, Tabasa was no longer a minor at the
Aug. 3, 1995- he arrived in the PH time of his alleged repatriation on June 13, 1996. And when
May 29, 1996 - Tabasa was ordered deported by the BID Tabasa lost his Philippine citizenship this was due to operation
June 6, 1996 - he then executed an Affidavit of Repatriation of law and not due to political or economic exigencies.
June 13, 1996 - he took an oath of allegiance to the RP.
The court takes it as a last ditch effort to avoid deportation and · Also, while it is true that renunciation of allegiance to one’s
prosecution in the US. native country is necessarily a political act, it does not follow
that the act is inevitably politically or economically motivated.
Contention of Tabasa:
· He already took an oath of allegiance of the RP, (2) There was no valid repatriation since Tabasa did not comply
executed an affidavit of repatriation which he with the procedure prescribed by law.
registered together with the certificate of live birth
with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila. · Repatriation is not a matter of right, but it is a privilege granted
To which said office issued a certificate of such by the State. This is mandated under Sec 3, Article IV of the
registration. 1987 Constitution, which provides that citizenship may be lost
· With regard the procedure of proving that the or reacquired in the manner provided by the law.
applicant lost his Philippine citizenship on account of
political or economic necessity, Tabasa asserts that the · It is the inherent power of the State to prescribe by law the
reference to political or economic reasons is merely qualifications and requirements for repatriation and has the
descriptive, not restrictive, of the widely accepted power to choose who will be citizens and who can reacquire
reasons for naturalization in a foreign country. citizenship once it is lost.
· He contends that it is not necessary to prove his
political or economic reasons because the act itself of · And the State has the power to reject the petition for
renouncing allegiance to one’s native country repatriation if the applicant failed to comply with the
necessarily means shifting of his political allegiance requirements prescribed by law.
and his father’s loss of Philippine citizenship through
naturalization implies that its reason is due to political Since Tabasa seeks for repatriation under RA 8171, he should
or economic necessity. file a petition with the Special Committee on Naturalization
· He also contends that since he is now a Filipino (SCN). If the application is approved, the applicant will then
citizen, he cannot be deported or detained by the take the oath of allegiance to the RP and after which they shall
Bureau. be deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship.
ISSUE: (1) Did Tabasa validly reacquire his Philippine
citizenship under RA 8171? NO. (2) Was there a valid In this case, he failed to follow the proper procedure for
repatriation? None. reacquisition of Philippine citizenship since he merely executed
HELD: an affidavit of repatriation and registered it in the local civil
(1) No. He is not one of those people qualified for repatriation registry.
under RA 8171.
ALSO, in the case of Schonemann v. Defensor Santiago, et al.,
PERSONS QUALIFIED FOR REPATRIATION UNDER the court held that if an alien wants to stay in the Philippines,
RA 8171 he must possess the necessary documents, one of which is a
valid passport. And an alien whose passport is canceled after
a. Filipino women who lost their Philippine his admission into the country, becomes an undocumented alien
citizenship by marriage to aliens; and who can be summarily deported.
b. Natural-born Filipinos including their minor Since Tabasa’s passport was subsequently cancelled after he
children who lost their Philippine citizenship on entered in the Philippines, he became an undocumented alien
account of political or economic necessity. who can be summarily deported. Ø His subsequent alleged
“repatriation” cannot bar such deportation especially
· The privilege of repatriation is available only to natural-born considering that he has no legal and valid reacquisition of
Filipino who lost their citizenship due to political and economic Philippine citizenship.
necessity AND to MINOR children of said natural-born
Filipinos. CABALLERO V COMELEC
FACTS:
· To claim the benefit of RA 8171, the child must be a MINOR Petitioner and private respondent Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud,
at the time of the petition for repatriation which is filed by the Jr. were both candidates for the mayoralty position of the
parent. This benefit also includes a former Filipino who
34
Municipality of Uyugan, Province of Batanes in the May 13, RA No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of
2013 elections. residence.Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same
time, both Philippine and foreign citizenships, he may establish
Private respondent filed a petition cancellation of petitioner's residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign country of
certificate of candidacy alleging that the latter made a false which he is also a citizen.
representation when he declared in his COC that he was eligible
to run for Mayor... despite being a Canadian... citizen and a However, when a natural-born Filipino with dual citizenship
non-resident thereof. seeks for an elective public office, residency in the Philippines
becomes material.
Petitioner argued that prior to the filing of his COC he took an
Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the Government Code requires that the candidate must be a resident
Philippine Consul General in Toronto, Canada on and became of the place where he seeks to be elected at least one year
a dual Filipino and Canadian citizen pursuant to Republic Act immediately preceding the Election Day.
(RA) No. 9225.
Petitioner was a natural born Filipino who was born and raised
Thereafter, he renounced his Canadian citizenship and executed in Uyugan, Batanes. Thus, it could be said that he had his
an Affidavit of Renunciation before a Notary Public in Batanes domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes. However, he later
on 2012 . worked in Canada and became a Canadian citizen.
On 2013 COMELEC, issued a Resolution finding that Naturalization in a foreign country may result in an
petitioner made a material misrepresentation in his COC when abandonment of domicile in the Philippines. This holds true in
he declared that he is a resident of Barangay Imnajbu within one petitioner's case as permanent resident status in Canada is
year prior to the election. required for the acquisition of Canadian citizenship.
It found that while petitioner complied with the requirements of Hence, petitioner had effectively abandoned his domicile in the
RA No. 9225 since he had taken his Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines and transferred his domicile of choice in Canada.
Philippines and had validly renounced his Canadian citizenship, His frequent visits to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacation from
he failed to comply with the other requirements provided under work in Canada cannot be considered as waiver of such
RA No. 9225 for those seeking elective office, i.e., persons who abandonment.
renounced their foreign citizenship must still comply with the
one year residency requirement provided for under Section 39 [Petitioner's] reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under
of the Local Government Code. Elections were subsequently Republic Act No. 9225 had no automatic impact or effect on his
held and petitioner won over private respondent was proclaimed residence/domicile.
Mayor petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the
COMELEC canceling his COC. Hence, petitioner's retention of his Philippine citizenship under
RA No. 9225 did not automatically make him regain his
Private respondent filed a Petition to Annul Proclamation residence in Uyugan, Batanes. He must still prove that after
COMELEC En Banc denying petitioner's motion for becoming a Philippine citizen on September 13, 2012, he had
reconsideration. Petitioner filed with us the instant petition for reestablished Uyugan, Batanes as his... new domicile of choice
certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining which is reckoned from the time he made it as such.
order. COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. issued a
Writ of Execution. Private respondent took his Oath of Office... Petitioner failed to prove that he was able to reestablish his
claims that he did not abandon his Philippine domicile. residence in Uyugan within a period of one year immediately
preceding the May 13, 2013 elections... the period from
He was born and baptized in Uyugan,... he was a registered September 13, 2012 to May 12, 2013 was even less than the one
voter and had... exercised his right of suffrage and even built his year residency required by law.
house therein. Also contends that he usually comes back to
Uyugan. Petitioner insists that the COMELEC gravely abused We concluded that material representation contemplated by
its discretion in canceling his COC. Section 78 refers to qualifications for elective office, such as the
requisite residency, age, citizenship or any... other legal
ISSUES: qualification necessary to run for a local elective office as
WON petitioner had been a resident of Uyugan, Batanes at least provided for in the Local Government Code.
one (1) year before the elections held on May 13, 2013 as he
represented in his COC and what is the effect of petitioner's Furthermore, aside from the requirement of materiality, the
retention of his Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 on misrepresentation must consist of a deliberate attempt to
his residence or domicile? mislead,... misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise
render a candidate ineligible.
RULING:
We are not persuaded. RA No. 9225, which is known as the We, therefore, find no grave abuse of discretion committed by
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003, declares the COMELEC in canceling petitioner's COC for material
that natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who have lost their misrepresentation.
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country, can re-acquire or retain his Discussion:
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of the law. Now the final argument was because of his reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship, he also reacquired the prior loss of his
The law does not provide for residency requirement for the residency. If you prove your citizenship, you should also prove
reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it your residency. Residency under the law is a technical term. It
mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of means domicile. Your intention to return there, for positive act
Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the concerned showing that you have returned to that locality and also under
natural-born Filipino. the law, the reason for residency requirement is to know that
you really are acquainted with your locality, that you are the
35
best person to serve the locality because you have been with When I speak of double allegiance, therefore, I
them for a period of time. In this case, the requirement to live speak of this unsettled kind of allegiance of
in that place was not met although he argued under RA 9225. Filipinos, of citizens who are already Filipinos
That is not the effect, the effect of RA 9225 is to retain your but who, by their acts, may be said to be bound
Philippine citizenship and if you want to run for public office, by a second allegiance, either to Peking or
you have to renounce any or all foreign citizenship, but it does Taiwan. I also took close note of the concern
not affect your residency. expressed by some Commissioners yesterday,
including Commissioner Villacorta, who were
DUAL ALLEGIANCE concerned about the lack of guarantees of
thorough assimilation, and especially
Commissioner Concepcion who has always been
MERCADO V. MANZANO worried about minority claims on our natural
It is a landmark case, a famous case on dual allegiance and in resources.”
constitutional law. So, the same yung nangyari sa kanya sa
nangyari kay Osmeña. He was born in the United States of These are the concerns on why dual allegiance of citizens is
America of Filipino parents and he went back to the Philippines inimical to the national interest. More so, it is consistent with
and ran for a position of being a Vice Mayor of Makati City. our stands that foreign ownership of land is not allowed.
His citizenship was questioned. Allegedly, he is not a Filipino. Ownership of key industries are only reserved to Filipinos or a
This is an old case, 1999. Wala pa young RA 9225. But in this majority of the control must be Filipinos.
case, let's discuss first the difference between dual citizenship
and dual allegiance. In cases of dual citizens, though acquired foreign citizenship by
operation of laws, there is really no positive act of allegiance on
 Dual allegiance of citizenship is inimical to the another country. Simply, dual citizenship may be had by a
national interest and shall be dealt with by law. By concurrent application of different laws of two states then it is
all means, dual citizenship shall not be dealt with involuntary as mentioned in the example of the case of Osmeña
by law for dual citizenship is not dual allegiance. v Manzano where the country they were born was practicing jus
 Dual citizenship is Citizenship in two different soli and our country is practicing jus sanguinis. Or on foreign
countries. The concept of Dual Citizenship spouses, when it provides that their children shall have their
recognizes that a person may have and excersice citizenship, or on marriages to aliens if by their laws you are
rights of nationality in two countries and be considered also as a citizen of their country. While dual
subject to the responsibilities of both. It is a allegiance in its essence is simultaneous, allegiance to two
generally result of a concurrent application of the independent states by some positive act is voluntary and this is
different laws of two or more states; a person is what is prohibited or is the essence of the disqualification
simultaneously considered as a national by the under the Local Government Code. Dual citizenship per se is
said states. not the disqualification although ito yung nakalagay because it
has a technical significance in this dual allegiance.
That's why the court decided to educate the people of the
difference between dual allegiance and dual citizenship. Since 3rd element: SOVEREIGNTY
he ran for Vice Mayor, under the local government code Section
40, it is stated there that the disqualification is dual citizenship, A state is defined by its people occupying its territory and
the SC says not dual citizenship per se, but dual allegiance. exercising its sovereignty through a government.
The disqualification calls for dual allegiance. Sovereignty implies to:
1. Supreme authority to govern - In our setting,
Dual allegiance rests to two countries wherein there is loyalty sovereignty resides in the people in all government
to one country and another country. Not dual citizenship authority emanates from them.
because of the operation of law and involuntary needs. And 2. Sovereignty also implies to supreme and
again, when you are naturalized outside of the country, you uncontrollable power inherent in the state by which
have other requirements to make you just one citizen like a the state is govern. If there is no sovereignty to speak
citizen of the Philippines only through renunciation, any and all of in a fix territory then it couldn’t be considered a
citizenship. However, in this case, dual citizens are not required state.
based on the operation of law because wala naman silang
ginawa to acquire that citizenship. It is not their fault that they CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY
were born in a foreign country which observes jus soli. Legal Omnipotence - Absolute concept of
sovereignty. Legal omnipotence is not subject to law
With respect to dual allegiance, Article IV, §5 of the for it is honored and source of law. It is above the law,
Constitution provides: "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical unchangeable and illimitable.
to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law."
This provision was included in the 1987 Constitution at the “So yun yung parang common connotation when
instance of Commissioner Blas F. Ople who explained that, sovereignty must first be discussed or point that
sovereignty was supposed to be absolute it cannot be
“dual allegiance is not dual citizenship. Dual change or limited because it is the source of law or
allegiance is larger and more threatening than right by which the government governs or a state
that of mere double citizenship (Double becomes independent from other states. “
citizenship is also called as dual citizenship)
which is seldom intentional and, perhaps, never “However, yung concept nayun is purely for
insidious. That is often a function of the accident discussion purposes because, as of now or as the
of mixed marriages or of birth on foreign soil. concept of sovereignty evolves, sovereignty is not
And so, I do not question double citizenship at entirely absolute or free from any limitation because
all. ,aside from the state having the option to limit itself,
there are also other laws that will limit the exercise of
sovereignty.”
36
LAWS THAT WILL LIMIT SOVEREIGNTY although the powers may be divisible. Having sovereignty is
Example: different from the exercise of sovereignty. Having sovereignty
 International Law or The law of the Nations is indivisible. It will rest in the state, or as manifested in our
 Law of Nature Constitution, it will rest in the Filipino people, collectively.
 Law of God However, it may be divisible in the exercise. If you remember
Example in the Philippines: our discussion in separation of powers, in checks and balances,
 Constitution it is defined: “the exercise of sovereignty”. It’s not sovereignty
 Rule of Law per se, but the exercise of or what emanates from having
 Power of Judicial Review-power of the courts to sovereignty. So it is divided into the executive, legislative,
determine WON the branch of government has judiciary.
exceeded the limit of its power as a contemplated or 6. Inalienability or it is inalienable, because to transfer
defined by the constitution. sovereignty is to destroy sovereignty. If the sovereignty is
changed, then it’s no longer a sovereignty, it will be subsued.
KINDS OF SOVEREIGNTY AS TO ITS ASPECTS Whoever was occupied will no longer be a State. Therefore,
1. Internal Sovereignty - Power to rule within its there was no sovereignty and vice versa. The concept of
territory sovereignty is inalienable as an element of a state because if
2. External Sovereignty (Independence) - Freedom to there is no state, there is no sovereignty, and vice versa. You
carry out its activities without subjection to control or power of cannot really transfer it otherwise, it will no longer exist or it
other states. will be destroyed.
KINDS OF SOVEREIGNTY AS TO ITS NATURE In the Philippines, we have the concept of “POPULAR
1) Legal Sovereignty – Unlimited competence to SOVEREIGNTY” where the people, not the government
promulgate laws binding upon all. functionaries, are repository of sovereignty.
*written on the constitution or as to provide
for by law. There is a certain source of Now, existence of sovereignty is a question of fact. In the later
sovereignty which is exercised. part we’ll find out what government agency is the conclusive
source of the fact whether or not one is a sovereign country.
2) Political Sovereignty – Other sources of
power behind the legal sovereign particularly public SOVEREIGNTY MAY BE SUSPENDED DURING
commission BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION
*Philippines setting- it is the power of the
people to choose who they want to govern When there is an invasion of a foreign power, there is an effort
them. to invade or to occupy. If the law is in the nature of a political
law, it will be suspended during this belligerent occupation.
“If you can remember our discussion in the There will be a change of sovereignty, it is no longer
Provision on Sovereignty residing to the suspension, if a new state has already occupied or invaded
people, it is presumed or inferred that the another state. Political laws are already ipso facto, by the fact
people has the power to revolt. Although the of the invasion will be suspended unless it is adopted or re-
legal way to manifest the displeasure is enacted by the state which has invaded over the previous
suffrage, voice out ka ng iyong hinain in the sovereignty.
streets, freedom of expression, freedom to say
what you want to the government for Aside from the inherent limitations of sovereignty, we also have
grievances or etc. but there is implied or INTERNATIONAL LAWS OR RELATIONS. Countries
inferred power of the people because we are may be dependent economically, in the military, or in the
the source of sovereignty, the power to protection of the people. When they enter into agreements with
change the government extra-constitutionally foreign nations, may it be multilateral or bilateral, we let go of
That’s why we have people power revolution a certain part of a sovereignty in order for us to meet halfway,
kay cory which was eventually recognized by or to have better terms and conditions. It is not common to have
the Supreme Court as a valid means of an agreement with a foreign country without concessions or
changing the government. “ trail-off. Usually, when we enter into this kind of agreements,
we have certain part of our sovereignty which we should let go
ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF for example jurisdiction or certain part of public funds will be
SOVEREIGNTY expended only for a certain purpose. It will be limited when we
1. Absoluteness - cannot be changed or limited. enter into said international agreements.
However, there can be inherent limitations.
2. Exclusiveness- Sovereignty will reside only to one We also have GLOBALIZATION. It is a limitation because it
entity. However, it might be exercised or delegated to certain is a fact that one country cannot survive without having any
individuals or group of individuals. relations to other countries. Globalization will encourage more
3. Comprehensiveness- Political control over the progress. It will encourage freeflow of information, investment
persons, properties/organization within its territory or otherwise in goods and services, for the betterment of the State and its
known as jurisdiction. people.
a. Imperium – synonymous to
sovereignty which is power to govern or to Then we have AUTO-LIMITATION where a state may, by its
fix territory own consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its
b. Dominium – power or right of the state sovereign rights through treaties, exclusive capacity, or legal
to own property self-determination and self-restriction. While there is a
4. Permanence (Imprescriptibility) - sovereignty exists limitation, it is also a manifestation that one is sovereign
as long as the state exists and vice versa. There is no state if because you cannot really give consent when you do not have
there is no sovereignty and vice versa. the right or the power to do so. While it may limit the sovereign
5. Indivisibility - It resides in the state. In the of a country, it also is a manifestation that one country or a state
Philippines, it resides in Filipino people as a single unit, is sovereign because it has a power to limit itself. A state then,
37
if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise Jure Gestionis – private acts; these are commercial acts,
is illimitable competence because of its sovereignty. proprietary acts not related to the functions of a government.
Under the discussion on Sovereignty, what usually comes out THERE IS A TEST FOR RESTRICTIVE THEORY
in the bar is the concept of Sovereign Immunity and Diplomatic 1) Is it a regular conduct of business?
Immunity. This is also called Suability or Royal Prerogative of Conduct of business, meaning, is it what that
Dishonesty. government agency usually do as a matter of course?
For example: coastal services. What do they usually
ROYAL PREROGATIVE OF DISHONESTY do? Mailing, receiving of mail, etc. that is their
function.
This is the 1st time that the concept of sovereign 2) Is it in pursuit of sovereign activity or incident thereof?
immunity came out as to the principle that “The King can do no Is that business a pursuit of sovereign function or
wrong” for he is the source of power and the right of the activity or incident thereof? Is coastal service a
kingdom, whatever he does is right even if it is against the law government or sovereign function?
for he can always change the law. If the answer is it’s a conduct of business, the more important
question is number 2, whether or not it is a sovereign function
Even if sovereign immunity has been enshrined in our or incident thereof. Because if you will answer yes in the second
constitution (Art. 16 sec. 3). The state cannot be sued without question, then most probably it is act jure imperuii, and
its consent. Even if it is not placed in our constitution, it has therefore, the government is immune from being sued. Because
been recognized as a generally accepted principle of there may be times that it is not the usual conduct of the business
International Law that all sovereign are immune from suit. of a particular Department, but it is still a sovereign act or an
incident thereof.
One of the manifestation of Republicanism is the
sovereign immunity from suit. Sovereign people created a So that is the most important element – the nature of the
government through which they had agreed to exercise the business being conducted by the government. So if the
powers and discharges their sovereignty. A suit against the state answer is that it is not a sovereign function, it is merely
is a suit against the rest of the sovereign people, thus the proprietary, then the government is not immune from suit.
sovereign people are considered to have a higher rights and Because of the volume of cases that have reached the Supreme
larger interest represented by the government. When you file Court, there is already a list of when it is a suit against the state.
against an agency or a department, the government or the people
heading them in the discharge or their functions, it is as if you WHEN IS THERE A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE
are filing against the entire Filipino people.
1. When the Republic of the Philippines is impleaded as
BASIS FOR SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY a defendant by name; and
2. When the suit is against an unincorporated agency of
1. Public Policy: Public service would be hindered and public the government.
safety would be endangered from suits. If the government then So what do you mean by unincorporated?
is not immune, what the government will do will always to The concept of incorporation is proper for
protect and defend itself due to its exercise of its function. There private corporations or companies. It is when
is immunity so that the effort, money and time will not be you register your company in the Securities
wasted on protecting the government itself. and Exchange Commission. So it will give a
juridical personality separate and distinct
2. Essence of Sovereignty: Immunity is inherent in all from the one who registered it. Usually it is
sovereign state because there can be no legal right against the the incorporators of that company. When it
authority that makes the law on which the right depends. There is an unincorporated agency of the
can be no actions against the source of such rights for the government, it exists by virtue of the
government is the maker of the laws and promulgate laws. organization of the government itself. It does
not have any distinct personality from the
3. Sovereign equality among states (Par in parem non habet government. For example: The Departments.
imperium): Meaning an “equal has no power over an (I think) most of the Departments enact the
equal”. This is based on the principle of reciprocity committee Administrative Code of the Philippines, but
and independence of equality of states. what the Administrative Code provides is just
an organization of this Department of
The rule on sovereign immunity is that a state, either the Education, Department of Agriculture, etc.
government or other government or states, cannot be sued but there is no separate or distinct personality
without its consent. The absolute theory or the old theory is that because these Departments are not registered
states, government, Republic of the Philippines, or other states in the SEC. It was not given any juridical
are absolutely immune from suit, no exceptions. personality separate from the government
itself or the government structure.
3. A judgment therein would impose financial liability
However, due to the absurdity of that rule, the international
for publication on the government.
community in the Philippines as well has adopted a restrictive
theory of sovereign immunity. Under this theory, immunity of Meaning, even if you will file a case, the Republic of
the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or the Philippines is not impleaded, or the unincorporated
government agency is not impleaded. But the ultimate
act jure imperii, but not with regard to private acts or act jure
liability will rest upon the offers of the government.
gestionis.
Meaning, the government will have to shell out
cash/public funds in order to satisfy the judgment of a
Jure Imperuii - talks about imperium, public acts or acts of the
court, then that will be a suit against the state.
government in pursuit of their functions as a government.
4. A judgment therein would require the state to perform an
affirmative act to satisfy the same or to discharge an
obligation, such as the appropriation of an amount to pay
38
damages. The same explanation with number 3. When when precisely you question a law or act emanating from the
there is an affirmative act that the government has to do in interpretation of the law there is a government functionary or
the ultimate analysis or ultimately it will be the department which is involved and they may be impleaded as a
government who will have to satisfy the judgment, then it nominal party because it is their act or interpretation or it is the
is a suit against the state. However, affirmative acts are not law which will be eventually either be declared unconstitutional
included -- those acts that are required by law to be or constitutional.
performed by the government or by the officers in charge
of that government; or that the officer himself can satisfy It would not make the government or the office under that
without the government having to do any positive act; or department will not be liable for money or damages, it will just
the compensation for any damages that may result from declare his act or the law either unconstitutional or not. So that
suit has already been appropriated or there is already fund there would be no such unconstitutional acts be performed
available for the purpose of paying the damages as thereafter.
provided in the judgment.
REPUBLIC V. VILLASOR
So 4 exceptions in the ultimate analysis it will be the FACTS:
government who will have to answer or will have to perform an The decision that was rendered in favor of respondents P.J.
act is again, (1) when the act which is compelled by the one Kiener Co., Ltd, Gavino Unchuan and International
filing the case is an act which that government agency or the Construction Corporation was declared final and executory by
officer in charge of that agency is required to do by law. Respondent Hon. Guillermo P. Villasor.
Pursuant to the said declaration, the corresponding Alias Writ
For example the Register of Deeds (ROD) in case of of Execution was issued. And for the strength of this writ, the
involuntary registrations when there are certain set of facts, for provincial sheriff served notices of garnishment with several
example there is already final judgment awarding a certain banks, especially on the 'monies due the Armed Forces of the
property to a person or that has already been quieted in the Philippines in the form of deposits; the Philippines Veterans
quieting of the title of the case and the ROD is implead as a Bank received the same notice of garnishment.
party to the case, and in the dispositive part of the final The funds of the AFP on deposit with the banks are public funds
judgment it said the cancellation of the title as it was acquired duly appropriated and allocated for the payment of pensions of
by fraud, etc. and the issuance of a new title in favor of the party retireees, pay and allowances of military and civillian personnel
who won the case, it something that is required by law to be and for maintenance and operations of AFP.
done by law the ROD. Petitioner filed a petition against Villasor for acting in excess
jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the
So while maybe it is a suit against an officer of the government, issuance of a Writ of Execution against the properties of AFP,
it is not a suit against the state which is covered under the hence the notices and garnishments are null and void.
immunity from suit because it is something that is required by ISSUE:
law to be done by these officers or by the government. Whether or not the Writ of Execution issued by respondent
Judge Villasor is valid.
 If the officer himself can do it without the government RULING:
having to do anything or any positive act then it is not NO. What was done by respondent Judge is not in conformity
a suit against the state, although it may come under the with the dictates of the Constitution. It is a fundamental
rule of immunity from suit but there is already an postulate of constitutionalism flowing from the juristic concept
appropriation or money set aside for the purpose of of sovereignty that the state and its government is immune from
paying the damages or monetary liability then it would suit unless it gives its consent. A sovereign is exempt from suit
be an exception to the immunity from suit. not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory but on
the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right
 When it is a suit against a public officer for his official as against the authority that makes the law on which the right
acts, ultimately again it would the state which is liable depends.
although the state may not be impleaded.
MERRIT V GOVERNMENT
The government’s immunity from suit may be raised at any FACTS:
stage of the proceedings because of this immunity the courts The case is an appeal by both parties from a judgment of the
will generally have no jurisdiction to try or to handle the case Court of First Instance of the city of Manila in favor of the
against the government, if there are so many parties, the plaintiff for the sum of P14, 741, together with the costs of the
government should not be included or should be dropped as cause.
party of that case. Further, the Immunity from suit is not Prior to this appeal, Plaintiff E. Meritt, a contractor, had a
applicable to actions questioning the constitutionality of the collision with the General Hospital Ambulance which turned
law. suddenly and unexpectedly without having sounded any whistle
or horn. Merrit was severely injured. His condition had
GAMBOA V. TETES undergone depreciation and his efficiency as a contractor was
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was affected. The plaintiff is seeking a certain amount for permanent
impleaded as a party to the case. The question in this case was injuries and the loss of wages during he was incapacitated from
the interpretation of the ownership and control provision of the pursuing his occupation. In order for Merritt to recover
Constitution as regards to foreign ownership of corporations damages, he sought to sue the government which later
which has to have a certain Filipino ownership and control. An authorized the plaintiff to bring suit against the GPI and
argument was raised that the SEC cannot be impleaded as party authorizing the Attorney- General to appear in said suit.
to the case because it is part of the government, thus, immune On this appeal, Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the trial
from suit. court erred:
 “in limiting the general damages which the plaintiff
However, the Supreme Court (SC) said that the SEC itself, suffered to P5,000, instead of P25,000 as claimed in
intervened or entered into the case. Further, that when the the complaint,” and
question is as to the unconstitutionality of a certain act of a law  “in limiting the time when plaintiff was entirely
the concept of immunity from suit is not applicable because disabled to two months and twenty-one days and
39
fixing the damage accordingly in the sum of P2,666, consent will only be up to the rendering of the judgment. It
instead of P6,000 as claimed by plaintiff in his cannot be enforced through the normal means.
complaint.”
On the other hand, the Attorney-General on behalf of the What the party should do is give to the Commission on Audit
defendant urges that the trial court erred: (COA). Before, under CA 3083, you should forward it to the
 in finding that the collision between the plaintiff’s President. But in the current setup, you forward it to COA, then
motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital the COA will give a recommendation to the President because
was due to the negligence of the chauffeur, who is an he will make the budget and one of the items in the budget is
alleged agent or employee of the Government; the dues payable by the government (debts, liabilities adjudged
 in holding that the Government of the Philippine against the government). The COA will determine if there is
Islands is liable for the damages sustained by the enough budget to pay the liabilities or whether or not there is a
plaintiff as a result of the collision, even if it be true valid claim against the government. If you have a claim arising
that the collision was due to the negligence of the from a contract with the government, you could forward it to
chauffeur; and the COA at the onset. If it cannot be resolved by the COA, then
 in rendering judgment against the defendant for the you file a case given that the government gave its consent under
sum of P14,741. CA 3083, for many claims arising from a contract. When there
ISSUES: is already a determination of liability, you return it to the COA
 Whether or not the Government is legally liable to the to determine whether it is valid or not. If it your claim is based
plaintiff by allowing a lawsuit to commence against it. on a judgment already, there is higher chance to claim.
 Whether or not the ambulance driver is considered as Ultimately, it will be the discretion of the President if it will be
an employee of the government. included in the budget. Again, the consent for being sued is only
DISCUSSION: up to the judgment. Not to the execution. There will be a
The waiver of immunity of the State does not mean concession different process for the execution. Another concept in this case
of its liability. When the State allows itself to be sued, all it does is that public funds cannot be the object of a garnishment
in effect is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it proceeding even if the consent to be sued. Garnishment is a
can, that the State is liable. mode of execution where instead of real or movable property
Art. 1903, Par. 5 of the Civil Code reads that “The state is liable will be executed or to be auctioned for sale to satisfy the money
in this sense when it acts through a special agent, but not when judgment, it will the money in the banks that will be executed.
the damage should have been caused by the official to whom But because of the nature of the funds of the government, it is
properly it pertained to do the act performed, in which case the not subject of garnishment. Grounds why public funds cannot
provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable. The be garnished:
responsibility of the state is limited to that which it contracts
through a special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or 1. Disbursements of public funds are covered by
commission to perform some act or charged with some definite corresponding appropriation as required by law.
purpose which gives rise to the claim. 2. Money in the hands of public officers, although it may
RULINGS: be due government employees, is not liable to the
 By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its creditors of these employees in the process of
immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its garnishment.
liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his 3. Money sought to be garnished, as long as they remain
favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously in the hands of the disbursing officer of the
recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a pre- Government, belong to the Government, although the
existing liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction defendant in garnishment may be entitled to a specific
of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful portion thereof.
defense. 4. Public policy forbids it.
 In the case at bar, the ambulance driver was not a
Again, the way is to COA > President > Passing of General
special agent nor was a government officer acting as a
Appropriations Act.
special agent. Hence, there can be no liability from the
government. As stated by Justice Story of United
States “The Government does not undertake to PROFESSIONAL VIDEO INC. V TESDA
guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or PROVI filed a case against TESDA for money claims. TESDA
agents whom it employs, since that would involve it in raised that it is immune against suit. The Supreme Court
all its operations in endless embarrassments, determined the elements of whether or not a government agency
difficulties and losses, which would be subversive of is immune from suit. If it is determined, the next question is
the public interest.” whether or not the act being challenged is an act of the
Discussion: sovereign. Is entering into a contract i.e., producing ID or
You will see there an example of a special law. It is a law certification an act of the sovereign? The Supreme Court ruled
granting Merrit consent to file a specific case to the specific on the positive. It first determined the job of TESDA to provide
government agency. The special law provides that this skills development outside of the formal educational framework
authorizes Merrit to file a case against the government. The and it gives qualifying examinations and certifications to those
grant of consent to sue is only up to the rendering of judgment who passed all the requirements given therein. Therefore, the
by the court. Meaning, the court, because of the grant of production of certification and plastic IDs is an incident of the
consent, tried the case base on the facts and the laws, will sovereign function. In this case, the Supreme Court mentioned
determine whether or not the government is liable. At the onset, instances when a suit is against the State:
the government should be immune from suit. It is non-suable.
But when it gives its consent, it can be suable. However, the 1. A suit against the Republic by name
determination of liability will still depend on the facts of the 2. A suit against an unincorporated agency
case and the law that is applicable. Giving the consent to sue is 3. A suit against a government agency covered by a
not an admission or not a determination of liability by the charter with respect to the agency’s performance of
government. So for example, there’s already a judgment finding governmental functions.
liability for the government to pay a certain sum of money, the 4. A suit that on its face is against a government officer.
40
The SC said that TESDA, aside from being an unincorporated 2. Second, the building of the railway project is not
government agency, the act questioned by PROVI is also a something that is exclusively a function of the government. In
sovereign act and an incident thereof. So it is covered by state fact, whatever is built for the railway project may have an
immunity. income of its own. It is more of a proprietary function or
business venture. You look at the elements whether or not
HEIRS OF PIDACAN VS AIR TRANSPORTATION CNMEG is immune from suit. The answer is no. It is not a
OFFICE (ATO) government agency which is immune from suit and even it is
There are actually two cases for ATO here. For the first case, a government agency, the act which is involved in the
Heirs of Pidacan, aside from determining the Air Transportation memorandum of understanding is not a sovereign act.
Office, although it's an agency of the government. Is not Therefore, it is not immune from suit.
immune from suit because although it's an agency of the
government, the second question is "What is this?""Ano yung Also, the court discussed in this case, that assuming that
ginagawa niya?" So, this is an air transportation and according CNMEG is a government agency, based on the documents
to the Supreme Court is not exclusively a sovereign function. signed by CNMEG, it has actually waived its immunity. There
More or less it is proprietary. Private individuals can actually are provisions under the memorandum of understanding and
venture into air transportation that is why all air transportations in the lieu agreements, pertinent to the project, waiver of
are privately owned (CebPac, PAL, Air Asia, ZestAir). While immunity. While our rule in immunity, consent can only be
in a government agency, that's not the only test. Again, it should given through a general law or a special law (expressed).
be Jure Imperuii or sovereign acts. So what happened here, However, there are also implied ways which consent can be
ATO used a portion of the land of Pidacan and heirs for a time given and one of which is entering through business contract.
and there was actually a determination that it was an exercise of Since expressed consent in the PH setting, is just really
eminent domain and the question if is it required to pay the heirs making of a law, and in this case there is an international
for the use of the parcel of land which was obtained through element or it is foreign country that we are talking about, they
eminent domain? The SC said that to prevent injustice, it has would give their consent by entering into business
been used by the government for so long, they should be paid contract.
and parang late na naraise ang immunity for suit na ito. and if
any case, it is not applicable to ATO because while itis a Other implied ways to give consent aside from entering into a
government agency, it is not functioning as or doing function business contract or commercial contract, is when it is
which are Jure Imperuii or sovereign acts in nature. inequitable to claim immunity or the claim of immunity
will perpetrate injustice to the citizens.
AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (ATO) VS. Third is when the government initiates the complaint, it is
SPOUSES RAMOS subject counterclaim. When it intervenes into a case, it
So for the, here, they actually just reiterated that ATO is not opens it up for questions or issues against it or it submits itself
immune from suit because of its function. But also, if you look to the jurisdiction of the court or whatever case the party has.
at the latter part of the decision, it says there that the ATO has
already been abolished and the functions of the ATO was Fourth, when there is an express arbitration agreement in
already transferred to or vested with the Civil Aviation a contract entered into by the government, it is an implied
Authority of the Philippines or CAAP. And under the charter of consent to be sued. Meaning, not in a formal setting but a
CAAP or the law making CAAP and abolishing or repealing the form of arbitration. So, arbitration is an alternative mode of a
ATO, it expressly provided there that CAAP may be sued. So dispute resolution which is outside the normal setting. It could
that is a special law granting or giving consent to be sued. RA be that there is only one who will arbitrate you or it could
9497 repeated CAAP which took over the abolished ATO. either be an entire tribunal which will settle your controversy.
CNMEG V SANTA MARIA When your agreement such as in this case, where there is an
Facts: arbitration agreement, they will be mandatory covered by
China National Machinery Integrate Co. entered into a arbitration proceeding when there is an issue in the contract
Memorandum of Understanding with PH government. they entered into.
Different department of the government here were involved,
such as, Department of Finance and department of Summary: Implied consent to be sued are
Transportation. The memorandum of understanding was for the
Feasibility study on making the Northrail project. Eventually, it 1. When the government entered into a business contract
will be the same CNMEG which will build the northrail project. or commercial contract
However, it eventually faltered. When there were already
money spend, the government wanted to annul the contract with 2. When it is inequitable to claim immunity or the claim
CNMEG. CNMEG contended here that they are immune from of immunity will perpetrate injustice to the citizens.
suit because it is a state corporation of china.
Issue: 3. When the government initiates a complaint where it
1. W/N CNMEG is a state corporation or a representation subject itself to a counter claim
of China? Because if that is the case, they are immune from the
suit 4. When there is an express arbitration agreement in a
2. W/N the railway project is a sovereign function? contract entered into by the government.
Held:
1. SC held that, while according the document presented Another way of giving express consent is
by CNMEG, it is a state corporation, it is not china per se or incorporating under the corporation code.
it is not vested with sovereignty that it is supposed to be Incorporating a government owned or controlled
immune from suit. The paper showed by the government corporation. Meaning, while the control or majority stocks
establish that CNMEG is actually a commercial or business is owned by the government, it is registered under the way
corporation, although it is largely own by chines government, na magbuo ka ng private corporation with the SEC
it is not for the function of the government. Instead, it is for (Security exchange Commission). So we will have a
construction which is really not a function of any government. separate and distinct personality from the government. One
41
of the powers of the corporations which is incorporated DEP’T OF AGRICULTURE V NLRC

under the corporation code, is the power to sue and be sued. The DOA engaged or entered into a contract with the security
In a way, it is a general law because if you incorporate agency. The Supreme Court then discussed in this case that
under the corporation code, that is the general law on entering into a contract with a security agency may be the
corporation which grants the corporations registered contract that is contemplated under CA 3083 - a contract where
therein, the power to sue and be sued. However it is a money claims may arise. Express consent may be made through
special group because it is owned by the government or a general law or a special law. In this jurisdiction, the general
majority of the stocks law waiving the immunity of the state from suit is found in Act
No. 3083, where the Philippine government "consents and
DOH V PHIL PHARMA submits to be sued upon any money claims involving liability
Facts: arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as
The way an express consent is given through general law, a basis of civil action between private parties." Implied consent,
special law or through the incorporation of the GOCC. What on the other hand, is conceded when the State itself commences
happened here is that there were administrative orders released litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim or when it enters
by the DOH for certain pharmaceutical products which affects into a contract.
pharmaceutical companies. Eventually, there was a failure to
comply with rules and regulations of DOH which lead the Phil In this case, the security guards asked for back wages which is
Pharma to feel aggrieved. What they did was they did not a money claim. And since it is a contract, it comes with the
comply with the administrative order and all other orders of the consent given under Act No. 3083. While there may be consent
DOH for them to respond to the question. They then raised the to be sued, therefore, the governent is already suable. It was also
issue with the courts to declare the administrative orders as null discussed that the consent given whether express or implied
and void. They argued that the consent of the DOH to be sued ends until the rendition of judgment because execution of the
was given in the memorandum of understanding which they judgment is an altogether different consent or procedure. When
entered into with the DOH. the state gives its consent to be sued, it does thereby necessarily
Issue: consent to unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when
W/N there was an consent was given by the DOH to be sued? the State waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to give the
Held: other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State has
The SC said that you cannot give express consent through a a liability. It does not give the aggrieved party the conclusive
memorandum of agreement. It is because, only the legislature proof that the State is liable or that there is really a violation of
can give consent. The executive branch cannot give its consent. a law instead, it does gives the opportunity for the aggrieved
party to prove that the State is indeed liable. Once it is proven
ARIGO V SWIFT *this will come out in the exam that the State is liable, then the one who would control in the
It is about the damaged Batacan Reef, the petitioner here wanted procedure is the procedure of the provisions of C.A. No. 327 as
to claim for damages. It was a US military ship. The question is amended by P.D. 1445 and the budgetary process.
w/n it is a suit against US military ship and its officers therein.
There is also the discussion of the liability of the warship in case TYSON V SINGSON
it enters into sovereign waters. This case discussed the first procedure on C.A. 327 which you
Take note of the ISSUE: could give or present your claim in the COA and such would
 W/N it is a suit against the US government? decide within 60 days. If not, it can go to Court to claim for
 W/N it is a government entity? damages provided that there is consent either express or
 W/N it is performing a sovereign function? implied.
 W/N it is the government of US which will be Under incorporation of Government Code and Controlled
liable? Corporation - one example is NHA, aside from the law itself
 W/N USA is immune from suit? Its BASIS? provides that it can sue or be sued because it is registered under
the STC - a corporation code also expressly grants that GOCC
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY V ROXAS the power to sue and be sued.
More so, under implied consent, when the government enters
NHA has its own charter. Meaning, it was made because of a
into a business or commercial contract the common concept
law. Under the law that made it, it expressly granted it the power
discussed by the SC in this case is that when the government
to sue and be sued. The mantle of the State's immunity from suit
enters into a commercial or business contracts, it steps down
did not extend to the NHA despite its being a government-
into the level of an individual party such that it already
owned and -controlled corporation. Under Section 6(i) of
dispenses with its sovereign power. It is like it goes down into
Presidential Decree No. 757, which was its charter, the NHA
the level of an ordinary person when it enters into a business or
could sue and be sued. As such, the NHA was not immune from
commercial contract and erases all traits of being a sovereign.
the suit of Roxas. Again, this is a special law granting or giving
Such that, when a case is filed governing that contract, there is
express consent to be sued. Also, under this case it discussed
already an implied consent given just by entering into the same
the process of money claims with the COA.
contract.
VETERANS MANPOWER V CA
Take note that when it is a contract, one should always still
The most important concept that was held in this case - Waiver
determine whether or not the contract is business or commercial
of the State’s immunity from suit, being a derogation of
because at the consent it is seem like for the business or
sovereignty, will not be lightly inferred, but must be construed
commercial purpose but, in the ultimate analysis you would
strictissimi juris (strictness of the law) Republic v. Feliciano,
discover that it is an off show of a governmental function or it
148 SCRA 424. The consent of the State to be sued must
is necessary to that governmental function. Like in the case of
emanate from statutory authority, hence, from a legislative act,
DA, when they entered into the security agency, the Supreme
not from a mere memorandum. Without such consent, the trial
Court actually determined that entering into contract with the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the public respondents. It
security agency is part of its governmental function. It is like a
cannot come from a memorandum understanding by the
necessary incident of its function which is to protect the DA
executive but it must be through a statutory grant or express
building and its officers which there is a need to hire security
consent must be given through a statute.
guards. However, were it not for the provision of the contract
which provides for money claims and that such contract did not
42
provide for a money claim provision then DA would have been items and customs is part of the government and an
immune from suit. But because it came under the provisions of incorporated governmental agency. So if you look at it, customs
CA 3083 then it cannot be immuned from suit since there was is immune from suit because what they did was based on their
already express consent. However, if government enters into a job description and they are part of the government. However,
Court as per the SC, not all contracts enetered into by the since BOC was at fault for not securing those lost items that
government is immediately business or commercial contract were seized, which would have been returned if they safely kept
with again an implied consent. or protected the seized items but they did not do their duty. So
if the government would successfully raise immunity from suit
But because it came from the CA 3083 then he is immune from in this case, it would be unfair for Unimex or the private
suit because there is already expressed consent through CA company because they were not at fault and eventually his stand
3083. The Supreme Court said when the Government enters was upheld that those items for shipment should have not been
into a contract not all are entered are business-related and seized by customs in the first place.
commercial contracts where there is immediately implied
consent. So you should still determine what is the nature of So in that case, the Supreme Court said when raising or
subject being entered into between the Government and the upholding the immunity from suit would be unfair and would
private entity whether or not that is purely business, or be inequitable to the private citizens. So in that case, it is few
proprietary or commercial or it is an incident of governmental and far in between those ruled under cases like this but just take
function or a sovereign act so that is important to remember. note of the circumstances because in both cases, it is really
unfair for the government to raise immunity from suit.
PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY VS Next, when the government files a complaint or intervenes in a
PHILIPPINE GOLF DEVELOPMENT EQUIPT. INC. case. It is easy to understand and you will know it immediately
PDA entered into a contract of developing of a golf course, so because it is the government who filed the case in the first place.
from that you will already know that it is not a governmental So that would be immediately a complied consent so that he will
function and it is not an incident to any governmental function. be suable it is the government … or there is a counterclaim
When did golfing become a governmental function? (Sir against it or certain damages will be claimed against it because
Laughing “utang na loob ha”). In this case, there were two of that suit but take note that while that is the rule, the
decisions from the Supreme Court: PTA is not a governmental government cannot be levied by the cost of suit, meaning even
agency does not perform governmental functions of PTA. Aside though he filed a case, government is not required to pay any
from that, the contract here for the development of the golf fees. Even if the Court decides that the government is liable, the
course is not an incident to a governmental function. So it is Court cannot award any amount to the cost. It is under the Rule
purely commercial for business purpose. The entry of contract of Court, that the Government is not made to pay any cost. So
with the golf course is already an implied consent to be sued if again, while it is implied consent that and it is complained then
there are issues that may arise from that same contract. it may be sued or it can be open to counterclaims when the Court
ultimately decides on its liability. The Court cannot impose any
When is it inequitable to claim immunity? cost, cost to the litigation, okay… so there are claims you can
EPG CONSTRUCTION VS VIGILAR raise like moral damages, exemplary damages, etc. cost of
What happened was there were a lot of contractors where with litigation so there are items in the decisions of the Court. It
DPWH to build low cost housing. Now, while there building cannot be imposed on the Government.
the low cost housing the.. of DPWH verbally instructed them to Failure of the customs to preserve the goods which
change certain spec of the low-cost housing so they follow the were the subject of seizure. Implied Consent when the
instruction of the secretary based on the verbal details only for government initiates the complaint. It is subject to a counter
the turnover they were not paid based on the changing of claim.
instructions on building the houses . so they demanded for the
difference between the contract price and on the adjusted price IMPLIED IMMUNITY
based on the verbal instruction to them. It went up to Supreme Not all contracts that the Government enters into
Court necessarily has an implied consent.
ISSUE: W/N DPWH is immune from suit because it is a non- There must be a determination that the contract is commercial
government agency department of the government and W/N the or business or something proprietary in nature even if the
purpose of the project of the low-cost housing was government entered into these contracts but the purpose or
governmental. subject of the contract are governmental or sovereign functions
It was not for any business purpose to give this low cost housing then it is not considered as implied consent.
to the less fortunate who were qualified under such project. So
at the onset, when you look at it, DPWH has successfully When it is inequitable to plead immunity in court?
defended it based on its immune from suit but the Supreme It is when the doctrine of sovereign immunity is being
Court said that it would be unfair for the contractors to not be an instrument for perpetrating injustice to the citizens.
given their due when all they did was follow the instruction of
the government in good faith. So the Supreme Court said in this FROILAN V. PAN ORIENTAL
case that though the government can raise immunity from suit, When the government intervened in the proceedings there can
they will not grant it because it will be inequitable to the private be a counterclaim. May ship na involved. May rights lahat ng
contractors. It will give injustice rather than promoting justice. parties. . Government intervened in the case. When government
intervened, the other parties claimed damages against the
REPUBLIC VS UNIMEX government. SC allowed or made sure that the claim for
What happened here, the customs were involved so there was a damages was resolved because government intervened in the
shipment and at the onset, the BOC instituted seizure case. Now it is clearer yung Concept of Implied consent when
proceedings of that shipment. The Unimex underwent the the government initiates the complaint in the case of Republic
process of the seizure, etc. and it went up to the Court of Tax v. Sandiganbayan..
Appeal (CTA). While it went there and it won, the customs can
no longer return diseased items because of their failure to secure REPUBLIC V. SANDIGANBAYAN
it. They cannot locate the items. So, Unimex filed for damages Government was the one who initiated the complaint. PCGG
and the recovery of the value of the seized items. Again, seizure got a mandate to recover ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses
of the items when it enters customs, it’s their job to secure the and cronies. One of the ill-gotten wealth recovered which is
43
subject of this case was the Coconut Levy Fund. CLF was only limited to judgment and it cannot be executed in a normal
invested in so many entities and one of them is Negos way of executing a final or executing judgement of the court
Occidental Golf and Country Club. The government filed civil because this is suit against the state where the state consented
case Republic vs Benedicto. the claim which is the judgment of the court must be presented
to the COA and to the President so that it will be included in the
REPUBLIC V. BENEDICTO, ET. AL budget.
A complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
restitution, and damages. What happened was, in Negros COMMISSIONER V. SAN DIEGO
Occidental Golf and Country Club (NOGCCI), Presidential Shows you the effect of RA 3083 and how you should claim if
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) commissioners there is a judgment
were made liquidators or receivers of the shares of the ill-gotten Facts: After the judgement, the court ordered the garnishment
wealth. They were made to sit in the Board of NOGCCI. of funds of the national government.
Held: The SC here reiterated that any judgement against the
As board members, according to the by-laws of NOGCCI, they government cannot be realize to its execution. Part of the
have to pay for fees as board members or as members of the execution is the garnishment. It is upon the legislature to
NOGCCI. Since they have not paid, it is provided in their rules appropriate any national amount necessary to determine a
that it will be sold on auction the amount that they have not paid. judgement against the state. The scope of the consent will be
Because of that, the shares became delinquent and the unpaid only until the judgement, there is a different process for
members’ fees has to be paid. What must be done, under the by- realizing the award under the final judgement of the court
laws, is that the unpaid amount must be auctioned. The amount You’ll encounter many cases that involves Government Owned
that will be realized upon the auction, will be paid for the fees Corporations or Corporations of the government which has its
that were not paid by the seated members. Whoever bought the own charter and such charter incorporates it in the SEC and its
shares will be the owner. own charters expressly says that it can be sue or sued. Such
scope of the consent already includes the execution. Although
Eventually, however, the government filed for reconveyance, the funds of the GOCC are government funds, but because of
reversion, accounting, and restitution because Benedicto bought the nature of their functions usually when the GOCCs are
the shares that were sold during the auction. They argued that required to register is to the SEC or GOCCs by provision that
the sale, even in a compromise which was later on entered they can be sue or be sued, these are government agencies
between the government and Benedicto, was void. The which are exercising propitiatory functions of the government.
government initiated the complaint. Benedicto just answered Therefore, while the funds of these GOCCs are government
the complaint and asked for counterclaims and for damages. funds, they are not exempt from execution. You should
determine whether or not the functions are purely propitiatory
As the case went along, the government raised that Benedicto although they are owned by the government or government with
has no right to claim for any damages, etc. because it is the sovereign function. Take note of the 2 test whether it is part of
government. So the SC said that no, because there is implied the government and if its function is Proprietary commercial
consent for you to be sued. You are liable for any counterclaims function or governmental sovereign. The most important part of
when the government initiated the complaint. the 2 test is the 2nd part which is the determination of the subject
of the controversy whether sovereign functions of proprietary
[Discussion] An agreement to submit the dispute to function of the government.
arbitration. When there is an arbitration agreement, it is an
implied consent that the government has already made its CONCEPT OF ACCURAL FOR GOV’T SALARY
immunity. Although, technically, arbitration agreements or Now, there is this concept of accrual of salary of government
arbitration is not a court proceeding. It is an alternative mode of officers. When the salary of government 5 and 25 was given, it
dispute resolution. Because of the arbitration agreement, the is deposited in their accounts in the Land Bank of the
government impliedly consents to being part of that procedure Philippines. Once deposited, it has accrued to their benefit.
or proceedings. Meaning, it is now theirs. However, because it’s still with the
Land Bank of the Philippines, they did not yet withdraw it, it is
As discussed, the scope of the consent given or the waiver of still not in their effective control, it’s still part of government
immunity from suit, is only until a judgment is rendered by the funds, and it is still not subject to execution or garnishment. But
court. There is a requirement that for execution, there must be once has been withdrawn, it is now with their effective control,
another waiver or consent in the form of presenting the claim or they can now garnish or execute the judgment against those
judgment to COA. funds. So how is this applied?
So in the cases that deals with the issue on the scope of consent, For example, the government officer is sued with his agency
a judgment against the state in a case where it consents to be and the court will render a judgment making that officer
sued simply implies that the legislature will recognize the solidarily liable. Meaning, both he and the government is liable
judgment as final and make provisions for its satisfaction. The to pay the amount of liability adjudged against the state. So
State is at liberty to determine for itself whether to pay the because it is solidary, either one of them can be made liable.
judgment or not.
Now, when there are funds in his bank account, (the general
Under the general law, on the concept of government, Act no. rule: government funds are not subject to execution), now
3083 which pertains to money claims arising out of contract, because it is a suit against the state and the consent is until final
Section 2 provides that the complainant, the one who initiated judgment only, the one which is for the government, it is cleared
the complaint when it reaches court, must show that he has because you cannot execute without a law or appropriations and
presented his claim to COA and that the latter did not decide it underwent COA, etc. Now, the one for the public officer,
within 2 months or within 60 days for the date of its because technically, he is not a government, but he represents
presentation, the government. Now in the case, he is found to be liable as
well. So while it is in the bank, the salary has already bee
Sec. 7 provides that no execution shall issue upon any accrued to him, it is still considered the same with the
judgement rendered by any court against the government of the government. The still need to process in the COA, etc. It is not
Philippine Island. This provision provides that the judgement is yet subject to garnishment. But once it comes to his effective
44
control, meaning he has already withdrawn the money, it can because his act was his job description and such act is
already be taken through execution. And then, his personal a governmental function.
properties, are also subject to execution. There is no need to go
through COA: COA and then the Appropriations Act. But for example, he was going home from work and
met an accident. Even though he is a special agent
SUABILITY V LIABILITY doing governmental function, but the damage was
So under the concept of scope of consent, is the suability vs. done not during the act of doing governmental
liability. function, he will be held liable.
 Suability depends on the consent of the government. Question: If ever the police officer carried out a special act by
The rule is that the government is immune from suit or the order of the state i.e., buy-bust operation, this police officer
non-suable. But once it gives its consent, it is already filed a case against the private respondent. But the respondent
suable. So that is suability. Yung right of an individual was acquitted on the ground that the police did not establish all
or someone who has aim against the government, his the evidence. Then the respondent filed a counter suit against
right to initiate a suit against the state. However, the the police officer. Is it allowed?
consent will only give you the opportunity to prove
that the government is liable. The process in filing a criminal complaint, usually if you are the
 Liability pertains to the applicability of the facts and police officer in the crime scene, you probably are the witness
the law to a particular case. So if after the government or the complainant of the criminal complaint that will be filed
has consented to being sued, the individual needs to in the prosecutor’s office. Such office will determine whether
prove, or anyone who is claiming against the or not there is probable cause. If there is, the prosecutor’s office
government, that his claim, according to the facts of will file the information in court. If not, the prosecutor’s office
the case, makes the government liable. will dismiss it. If the information will be filed, the prosecutor’s
office will file in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines and
Under that topic in the syllabus, we have quasi-delict committed the party aggrieved is the People of the Philippines. The police
by special agent under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, because officer who filed the complaint will be a witness of the state. If
in this case, there is a specific provision making the special the respondent will file a ‘counter suit’, it will be against the
agents of government liable for quasi-delict. state and not the police officer, which is prohibited because the
State is immune from suit. The respondent may file for damages
In the cases cited under this topic, Municipality of San against the police officer if he/she can prove that there is
Fernando, La Union, Municipality of Hagonoy, as malicious prosecution.
discussed, these are municipal corporations meaning that they
are not the national government, they are not the state. DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
Now we also have the concept of diplomatic immunity, while
Based on the Local Government Code (LGC), these municipal in sovereign immunity, foreign governments are included.
Corporations have two (2) functions/powers, as a Body Politic Diplomatic immunity is actually not immunity from suit. But
and as a Body Corporate. immunity from the jurisdiction of a state. Meaning you can file
 Body politic- it is a formed unit of government which a case but it will be dismissed because state doesn’t have
has devolved powers from the national government jurisdiction. Diplomatic immunity is exemption of individuals
(e.g. power of taxation, eminent domain and police from local jurisdiction so it was originally applied to diplomatic
power). ambassadors, ministers or counsellors representing their
 Body Corporate - it exercises the powers of a private countries abroad. Ancient civilizations recognize this concept
corporation, it also has proprietary functions. of diplomatic immunity. The concept of sovereign immunity is
recognized even before but that pertains to the heads of the
The LGC which is the general law on local governments, it state. The ones who have diplomatic immunity are the
specifically provides that municipal corporations which include representatives of the heads of the state. The difference is that,
municipalities, cities, highly-urbanized cities and provinces can the sovereign immunity is for the head of the state like prime
be sued and it can sue. minister, President, king, queen, etc. In diplomatic immunity,
the persons involved are representatives of the state.
Given that a general law provides an express consent that it can
be sued, yet there is a need to prove its liability. According to The current law governing diplomatic immunity is the Vienna
Art. 2180, quasi-delict or torts committed by special agents of I96I. Vienna convention on diplomatic and consular relations.
the government. Before, only the head of the state that has diplomatic immunity.
Now, it has been broadened to diplomatic agents. According to
Special agents - engaged by the government for a specific the Vienna convention, diplomatic agents are the following:
purpose, they have job descriptions, but they are not necessarily head of the delegation and the members of the diplomatic staff.
regular employees of the government, they can be Job Orders
or contractual. What immunity do they enjoy? Number one, immunity from
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. This are the
Special Agents can only be held liable if; diplomatic agents who are part of the diplomatic mission. A
1) He is performing proprietary functions; or diplomatic mission from one state to a receiving state. For
2) He while performing governmental functions (his example, here in Davao, we have Indonesian embassy, and has
job description), however, the facts and circumstances ambassadors and other members of the mission who have
of the damages were not during the time of the immunity from criminal jurisdiction. Whatever they do here in
performance of that governmental functions. the Philippines, though criminal in nature, they won’t be sued
for it because he is a diplomatic agent with diplomatic immunity
Some examples in which special agents are not made liable: under the Vienna Convention.
A dump truck driver, while on the act of
getting sand and gravel for the purpose of roadworks, It also has immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction.
met an accident. That special agent is not liable Meaning, he cannot be sued against a civil or an administrative
case. Example for an administrative case is that you cannot sue
45
him for a violation in the BIR or in the HLURB or in any Take note that in the exception of family members of the
administrative agencies. diplomatic agent, including the head of mission and staffs, they
have the same immunities except if they are nationals. So,
Even after his term you cannot sue him because the receiving process of elimination, of the members of the administrative
state has no jurisdiction. Unlike in sovereign immunity, and technical staff of the nation, they are not part of this
Philippines has jurisdiction but it is not allowed because they diplomatic agent.
are immune unless there is consent. In diplomatic immunity,
there is no jurisdiction but there is an exception when the Their families, are also immune based on the diplomatic
sending State gives consent. In sovereign immunity, they are immunity. Except, when they are nationals of the PH, or if they
really immune from suit while in diplomatic immunity, they are are permanent resident of the PH.
immune because it has no jurisdiction.
Now, if the diplomatic agent, the head or the staff, is a Filipino
They are immune from civil and administrative jurisdiction or if a permanent resident of the PH, he or she would still enjoy
EXCEPT: diplomatic immunity. However, this immunity is applicable
1. A real action relating to private immovable properties with respect to official acts perform in the exercise of functions.
situated in the receiving state.
 A real action involves an action relation to Take note, if he or she is not a Filipino and not a permanent
title or ownership of a real property (land, resident, then he or she would enjoy an absolute immunity or
land improvements, buildings). However, the criminal absolute immunity from the jurisdiction. However if
caveat here is that it should be personal - it Filipino and permanent resident, then, his immunity is not
should not be owned by the government of absolute. It is because the immunity from his jurisdiction,
the sending state.So in the example of the criminal, civil or administrative, only when he can prove, that
Indonesian Embassy, the latter is also the certain is act is in line with his function, or in the exercise
immune from jurisdiction of the Philippines. of his duties and functions. Example: if an administrative and
While it is considered a part of our territory, technical staff of the mission who is not a Filipino and
the land and the building of the Indonesian permanent resident of the PH rape someone, it is clearly not in
Embassy is immune from our jurisdiction. line with his duties and functions, and therefore, he would not
2. An action relating to succession in which the enjoy the diplomatic immunity. He can be criminally charge
diplomatic agent is involved as executor, although he is the head of mission or a diplomatic agent.
administrator, heir or legatee as private person.
 Succesion means when there is somebody When does the immunity begin?
who died, his estate would be settled. If the ARTICLE 39 OF VIENNA CONVENTION
head of the mission is the executor or the Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy
administrator such being the CEO of the them from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving
estate then he can be sued civilly. Actually State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its
you are not filing a case against him but territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified
against the estate he manages. to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as
3. An action relating to any professional or commercial may be agreed.
activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving
state outside of his official functions. Meaning, if he is appointed as a diplomatic agent, when he
 Meaning, if the head of the mission has a business, it enters the PH, his diplomatic immunity begins. Or if he is first
is not part of his official function and it does not sent to the PH and he is not yet appointed, the diplomatic
represent his state. His diplomatic immunity does not immunity only begin upon the notification of the PH that he is
excempt him or be immuned from jurisdiction of his appointed as head of mission, or as part of that diplomatic staff,
sending state. And what the receiving state will he is considered as diplomatic agent.
actually do is to make or declare him a persona non
grata and ask him to leave the country. If persona non The same rules applies to the members of the family of the head
grata, I think, one cannot go back into our jurisdiction of mission and other staff considered diplomatic agents.
unless it would be lifted.
The head of state yun yung absolute. So the same rule applies to the members of the families of the
heads of mission and the other staff considered diplomatic
ARTICLE 37 OF VIENNA CONVENTION agents. Their diplomatic immunity also begins upon arriving in
Members of the family of diplomatic agents forming part of the territory or upon entering the territory or upon notification
his household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving that their spouse or the family member is appointed as the head
state, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in article of mission or staff which is considered as a diplomatic agent.
29 to 36. Also considered is when he is already appointed and he is
considered to be going to the receiving state. For example, he
Meaning, if they are the wife or other family members (DA) is going to the Philippines then he stops over at Hongkong
who are not Filipino. then he killed a protester (joke). So when he is proceeding to
take up his post the diplomatic immunity already vests in
“2.Members of the administrative and technical staff of the diplomatic agents. Now if the diplomatic agent passes through
mission, together with members of their families forming part or is in a territory of a third state which has granted him a
of their respective households, shall, if they are not nationals passport or visa, if it was necessary. While he was proceeding
of or permanently resident in the receiving State, enjoy the to take up his post or to return to his post or returning to his own
privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 35, except country, the third stage of inviolability or any other immunities
that the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of required under the Vienna Convention while he is in transit or
the receiving State specified in paragraph 1 of article 31 shall about to return. So meaning, he is not only immune from suit in
not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties. the receiving state but also to a third country that is as well
They shall also enjoy the privileges specified in article 36, included. They are allowed to claim diplomatic immunity
paragraph 1, in respect of articles imported at the time of first against China or Hongkong, it remains to be determined
installation.” because they are still under protest.
46
So that is Diplomatic Immunity, there are a lot of cases asked

in the Bar about diplomatic immunity whether or not that person
is liable or can file a suit, civil case, etc. There are 2 questions
on Diplomatic Immunity in your exam.
Remember what to recall in Diplomatic Immunity, the part of

the definition of the diplomatic agent and if he is not part then
up to what extent is his immunity under the Vienna Convention
and then the exceptions to the civil and administrative cases
which can be filed against those who has diplomatic
immunities. Okay, any questions? Next week, we will discuss
Government.

Consti1 TSN Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti1 TSN Full

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

Consti1 TSN Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I [DATE]1

IÑIGO 2019-2020 (First Sem)

 1945 saved by Mac Arthur

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF NON-SELF-EXECUTORY division in our constitution. Each department of the

3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at

Article XVI  Basic political creed of the nation

NOTE: 12 nautical lines from baseline we have sovereignty,

CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION OF THE  Burden to prove the Citizenship

5. Occupation - Provided; college degree cannot practice 2. Lawful Profession

college degree 1. Having honorably held office under the government of

1. PRC License as Certified Public Accountant ISSUE:

RULING: RA 8171, this involves previous Filipino citizens who,

of the powers of the corporations which is incorporated DEP’T OF AGRICULTURE V NLRC

So that is Diplomatic Immunity, there are a lot of cases asked

Remember what to recall in Diplomatic Immunity, the part of

You might also like

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