Constitutio nal Law 2: 1 Constitutional G.R. No. 16144
ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP
!a"#$ % 2&&4
!ARIA 'EANETTE C. TECS(N an) *ELI+ ,. ESIERI(% 'R.% /tition/"s% vs. T$/ C(!!ISSI(N (N ELECTI(NS% R(NAL ALLAN 0ELL 0ELL P(E a.3.a. *ERNAN( P(E% 'R. an) VICT(RIN( +. *(RNIER% "/son)/nts. x-----------------------------x
G.R. No. 16164
!a"#$ % 2&&4
Z(IL( ANT(NI( VELEZ% /tition/"% vs. R(NAL ALLAN 0ELLE P(E% a.3.a. *ERNAN( P(E% 'R.% "/son)/nt. x-----------------------------x
G. R. No. 161524
!a"#$ % 2&&4
VICT(RIN( +. *(RNIER% /tition/"% vs. H(N. C(!!ISSI(N (N ELECTI(NS an) R(NAL ALLAN 0ELLE P(E% ALS( 0N(N AS *ERNAN( P(E 'R.% "/son)/nts.
*ACTS: Before the Court are three consolidated cases, all of which raise a single question of profound importance to the nation which is the issue of citizenship, a qualication of an presidential candidate. !he case arose when on "ecem#er $1, %&&$, respondent 'onald (llan )ell *oe, also +nown as ernando *oe, r. hereinafter /*/0, led his certicate of candidac for the position of *resident of the 'epu#lic of the *hilippines under the )oalison ng ag+a+aisang *ilipino )*0 *art, for the %&&2 national elections. 3n his certicate of candidac, *, stated the following information: a. ame 4 5 5ernando ernando r.6 r.6 or 5'ona 5'onald ld (llan6 (llan6 *oe *oe #. Citizenship Citizenship 4 natural-#orn natural-#orn citizen citizen of the the *hilippine *hilippines s c. Birth Birth "ate "ate 4 (ugu (ugust st %&, %&, 17$ 17$7 7 d. Birth Birth *lac *lace e - 8ani 8anila la 3n 9' o. 11;%2, petitioner *( o. &2-&&$ #efore the Commission of ?lection C@8?A?C0 to disqualif 'onald (llan (llan )ell ell *oe *oe for alleged alleged material material misre misrepr prese esentat ntation ion in his certi certicat cate e of candida candidac c # claiming to #e a natural-#orn ilipino citizen when in truth, his parents were foreigners his mother, Bessie )elle *oe, was an (merican, and his father, (llan *oe, was a >panish national, #eing the son of Aorenzo Aorenzo *ou, a >panish su#ect. *etitioner further asseverated, that granting *Ds ather, (llan . *oe was a ilipino citizen, he could not have transmitted his ilipino citizenship to *, the latter #eing an illegitimate child of an alien mother. *etitioner #ased the alleg allegati ation on of the the illeg illegiti itima mate te #irt #irth h of respo respond nden entt on two asser assertio tions ns - rst rst,, (ll (llan an . *oe contracted a prior marriage to a certain *aulita 9omez #efore his marriage to Bessie )elle and, second, even if no such prior marriage had existed, (llan . *oe, married Bessie )ell onl a ear after the #irth of respondent. 3n GR No. 161524 , petitioner ornier assailed the decision of the C@8?A?C and led a petition on e#ruar 1&, %&&2, #efore the >C invo+ing Rul/ 64% in "/lation to Rul/ 67% o8 t$/ R/9is/) Rul/s o8 Ci9il P"o#/)u"/ , and li+ewise request for the temporar restraining order, a writ of preliminar inunction or an other resolution that would sta the nalit andEor execution of the C@8?A?C resolutions. !he other two %0 cases GR No. 16144, entitled /8aria eanette C. !ecson, !ecson, and elix B. "esiderio, r., vs. !he Commission on ?lections, 'onald (llan )elle *oe a.+.a. Fernando *oe, r.D0, r.D0, and upreme Court had original and exclusive urisdiction to resolve the #asic issue on the case.
ISS=E: 1. Hhether Hhether or ot the >upreme >upreme Court Court has the original original and exclu exclusive sive urisdiction urisdiction to the the case at #ar.
% Constitutional Law 2:
ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP
%. Hhether or ot 'onald (llan )ell *oe also +nown as ernando *oe, r.0, the hero of silver screen, and now one of the main contenders for the presidenc, a natural-#orn ilipino.
R=LING: 1. o. >ection 2, paragraph I, of the 17;I Constitution states that, 5!he >upreme Court, sitting en #anc, shall #e the sole udge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualications of the *resident or upreme Court en #anc on 1; (pril 177%. !he rules categoricall spea+ of the urisdiction of the tri#unal over contests relating to the election, returns and qualications of the /*resident/ or /upreme Court, dened # >ection 2, paragraph I, of the 17;I Constitution, would not include cases directl #rought #efore it, questioning the qualications of a candidate for the presidenc or vice-presidenc #efore the elections are held. (ccordingl, the two %0 cases warranting urisdiction under 9. '. o. 112$2, entitled /8aria eanette C. !ecson, et al., vs. Commission on ?lections et al.,/ and 9. '. o. 11$2, entitled /Goilo (ntonio panish rule, and that >an Carlos, *angasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 17L2, in the a#sence of an other evidence, could have well #een his place of residence #efore death, such that Aorenzo *ou would have #eneted from the 5en masse ilipinization6 that the *hilippine Bill had eMected in 17&%. !hat citizenship of Aorenzo *ou0, if acquired, would there# extend to his son, (llan . *oe, father of respondent *. !he 17$L Constitution, during which regime respondent * has seen rst light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are ilipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate. But while the totalit of the evidence ma not esta#lish conclusivel that respondent * is a natural-#orn citizen of the *hilippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot #e held guilt of having made a material misrepresentation in his certicate of candidac in violation of >ection I;, in relation to >ection I2, of the @mni#us ?lection Code. *etitioner has utterl failed to su#stantiate his case #efore the Court, notwithstanding the ample opportunit given to the parties to present their position and evidence, and to prove whether or not there has #een material misrepresentation, which, as so ruled in Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, must not onl #e material, #ut also deli#erate and willful. 9. '. o. 112$2 and 9. '. o. 11$2, dismissed for want of urisdiction. 9. '. o. 11;%2, dismissed for failure to show grave a#use of discretion on the part of respondent Commission on ?lections in dismissing the petition in >*( o. &2-&&$.
$ Constitutional Law 2:
G.R. No. 15;76;
ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP
*/>"ua"? 17% 2&12
THE REP=,LIC (* THE PHILIPPINES% P/tition/"% vs. N(RA *E SAG=N% R/son)/nt.
*ACTS: !he case arose when respondent >agun sought for udicial declaration of her election of *hilippine citizenship and li+ewise #e annotated to her #irth certicate # the Aocal Civil 'egistrar of Baguio Cit after her application for *hilippine *assport was denied in >eptem#er %&&L due to the citizenship of her father and there #eing no annotation on her #irth certicate that she has elected *hilippine citizenship. !racing respondentDs paternal lineage, ora e >agun #eing a legitimate child, #orn on (ugust ;, 17L7 in Baguio Cit, has a Chinese ational father, (l#ert >. Chan and a ilipino Citizen mother, 8arta Borromeo. >agun did not elect *hilippine citizenship upon reaching the age of maorit. Nowever, at the age of $$, after her marriage with (lex >agun, she executed an @ath of (llegiance to the 'epu#lic of the *hilippines which was notarized # (tt. Cristeta Aeung on "ecem#er 1I, 177%, #ut this was not recorded and registered with the Aocal Civil 'egistrar of Baguio Cit. @n (ugust I, %&&I, the @Jce of the >olicitor 9eneral @>90 entered its appearance as counsel for the 'epu#lic of the *hilippines and authorized the Cit *rosecutor of Baguio Cit to appear in the a#ove mentioned case. Nowever, no comment was led # the Cit *rosecutor. !hus, after conducting a hearing, the 'egional !rial Court '!C0, Branch $, of Baguio Cit in >pcl. *ro. Case o. 1I-' dated (pril $, %&&7, granted the petition led # respondent ora e >agun entitled "In re: Judicial Declaration of Election of Filiino Citizens!i #ora Fe $a%un v. &!e Local Civil Re%istrar of 'a%uio Cit(" directing the latter to annotate >agunDs #irth certicate upon pament of the required fees. !his decision was assailed # petitioner through the >olicitor 9eneral in its petition for review on certiorari. *etitioner argues that respondentDs petition #efore the '!C was improper on two counts: for one, law and urisprudence clearl contemplate no udicial action or proceeding for the declaration of *hilippine citizenship and for another, the pleaded registration of the oath of allegiance with the local civil registr and its annotation on respondentDs #irth certicate are the ministerial duties of the registrar hence, the require no court order. 3n repl, respondent avers that notwithstanding her failure to formall elect ilipino citizenship upon reaching the age of maorit, and despite the fact that her /election/ of *hilippine citizenship was delaed and unregistered, she has in fact eMectivel elected ilipino citizenship # her performance of positive acts, among which is the exercise of the right of suMrage having voted and participated in all local and national elections from the time she was of legal age. Ner continuous and uninterrupted sta in the *hilippines, her having #een educated in schools in the countr, and her choice of staing here despite the naturalization of her parents as (merican citizens are circumstances which show that she is a ilipino citizen.
ISS=ES: 1. Hhether or not >C can exercise udicial review. %. Hhether or not respondent is required under the law to ma+e an election of *hilippine citizenship. $. Hhether or not respondent has eMectivel elected *hilippine citizenship in accordance with the procedure prescri#ed # law.
2 Constitutional Law 2:
ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP
2. Hhether or not respondentDs petition for a udicial declaration of election of *hilippine citizenship is sanctioned # the 'ules of Court and urisprudence.
R=LING: 1. Kes. !he requisites for udicial review are attended. ( direct recourse # the >upreme Court from the decisions, nal resolutions and orders of the '!C ma #e ta+en where onl questions of law are raised or involved. !here is a question of law when the dou#t or diMerence arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, which does not call for an examination of the pro#ative value of the evidence presented # the partieslitigants. 3n the case at #ar, petitioner has raised questions of law as the resolution of these issues rest solel on what the law provides given the attendant circumstances. %. Kes. Hhen respondent was #orn on (ugust ;, 17L7, the governing charter was the 17$L Constitution, which declares as citizens of the *hilippines those whose mothers are citizens of the *hilippines and elect *hilippine citizenship upon reaching the age of maorit. Onder (rticle 3<, >ection 120 of the 17$L Constitution, the citizenship of a legitimate child #orn of a ilipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of maorit, the child elected *hilippine citizenship. !he right to elect *hilippine citizenship was recognized in the 17I$ Constitution when it provided that /those who elect *hilippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the 17$L Constitution/ are citizens of the *hilippines. Ai+ewise, this recognition # the 17I$ Constitution was carried over to the 17;I Constitution which states that /those #orn #efore anuar 1I, 17I$ of ilipino mothers, who elect *hilippine citizenship upon reaching the age of maorit/ are *hilippine citizens. 3t should #e noted, however, that the 17I$ and 17;I Constitutional provisions on the election of *hilippine citizenship should not #e understood as having a curative eMect on an irregularit in the acquisition of citizenship for those covered # the 17$L Constitution. 3f the citizenship of a person was su#ect to challenge under the old charter, it remains su#ect to challenge under the new charter even if the udicial challenge had not #een commenced #efore the eMectivit of the new Constitution. 3t is a settled rule that onl legitimate children follow the citizenship of the father and that illegitimate children are under the parental authorit of the mother and follow her nationalit. (n illegitimate child of ilipina need not perform an act to confer upon him all the rights and privileges attached to citizens of the *hilippines he automaticall #ecomes a citizen himself. But in the case of the respondent, #eing a legitimate child, her citizenship followed that of her Chinese father, and for her to #e considered a ilipino citizen, she must have validl elected *hilippine citizenship upon reaching the age of maorit. $. o. 'espondent clearl failed to compl with the procedural requirements for a valid and eMective election of *hilippine citizenship under Commonwealth (ct C.(.0 o. %L, which is enacted pursuant to >ection 120, (rticle 3< of the 17$L Constitution, prescri#ing the procedure that should #e followed in order to ma+e a valid election of *hilippine citizenship, to wit: $ection ). &!e otion to elect *!iliine citizens!i in accordance +it! su,section / $ection ) 0rticle I1 of t!e Constitution s!all ,e e2ressed in a statement to ,e si%ned and s+orn to ,( t!e art( concerned ,efore an( o3cer aut!orized to administer oat!s and s!all ,e 4led +it! t!e nearest civil re%istr(. &!e said art( s!all accoman( t!e aforesaid statement +it! t!e oat! of alle%iance to t!e Constitution and t!e 5overnment of t!e *!iliines. Based on the foregoing, the statutor formalities of electing *hilippine citizenship are: 10 a statement of election under oath %0 an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and 9overnment of the *hilippines and $0 registration of the statement of election and of the oath with the nearest civil registr. urthermore, no election of *hilippine citizenship shall #e accepted for registration under C.(. o. %L unless the part exercising the right of election has complied with the requirements of the (lien 'egistration (ct of 17L&. 'espondent had failed to execute a sworn statement of her election of *hilippine citizenship. !he onl documentar evidence su#mitted # respondent in support of her claim of alleged election was her oath of allegiance, executed 1% ears after she reached the age of maorit, which was unregistered. !hat granting, respondentDs oath of allegiance suJces, its execution was not within a reasona#le time after respondent attained the age of maorit and was not registered with the nearest civil registr as
L Constitutional Law 2:
ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP
required under >ection 1 of C.(. o. %L. !he phrase /reasona#le time/ has #een interpreted to mean that the election should #e made generall within three $0 ears from reaching the age of maorit. 8oreover, there was no satisfactor explanation proMered # respondent for the dela and the failure to register with the nearest local civil registr. 2. o. !here is no specic statutor or procedural rule which authorizes the direct ling of a petition for declaration of election of *hilippine citizenship #efore the courts. !he special proceeding provided under >ection %, 'ule 1&; of the 'ules of Court on Cancellation or Correction of ?ntries in the Civil 'egistr, merel allows an interested part to le an action for cancellation or correction of entr in the civil registr, i.e., election, loss and recover of citizenship, which is not the relief praed for # the respondent. ?ven if the procedural inrmit is set aside, still the trial courtDs conclusion that respondent dul elected *hilippine citizenship is erroneous since the records indisputa#l show that respondent failed to compl with the legal requirements for a valid election under >ection 1 of C.(. o. %L. HN?'?@'?, the petition is 9'(!?". !he "ecision dated (pril $, %&&7 of the 'egional !rial Court, Branch $ of Baguio Cit in >pcl. *ro. Case o. 1I-' is '??" and >?! (>3"?. !he petition for udicial declaration of election of *hilippine citizenship led # respondent ora e >agun is here# "3>83>>?" for lac+ of merit.
G.R. No. 5;1<
'un/ 2% 1<5<
'=AN GALLAN(SA *RIVAL(% /tition/"% vs. C(!!ISSI(N (N ELECTI(NS AN THE LEAG=E (* !=NICIPALITIES% S(RS(G(N CHAPTER% HEREIN REPRESENTE , ITS PRESIENT% SALVA(R NEE EST=E% "/son)/nts. .A. 8isa P (ssociates for petitioner. Aladoc, Nua# P (ssociates for private respondent.
*ACTS: *etitioner uan 9. rivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the *rovince of >orsogon on anuar %%, 17;;, and assumed oJce in due time. Nowever, in his certicate of candidac he led on ovem#er 17, 17;I, rivaldo descri#ed himself as a /natural-#orn/ citizen of the *hilippines, omitting mention of an su#sequent loss of such status. >uch evidence of rivaldoQs naturalization was discovered onl eight months after his proclamation and his title was challenged shortl thereafter. 3t showed that he was naturalized as a citizen of the Onited >tates in 17;$ per certication from the Onited >tates "istrict Court, orthern "istrict of California, as dul authenticated # an rancisco, California, O.>.(. !hus, on @cto#er %I, 177;, the Aeague of 8unicipalities, >orsogon Chapter, represented # its *resident, >alvador ?? ?stue, who was also suing in his personal capacit, led with the C@8?A?C a petition for the annulment of rivaldo election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a ilipino citizen, having #een naturalized in the Onited >tates on anuar %&, 17;$. !his was further supported # the >olicitor 9eneral, contending the petitioner was not a citizen of the *hilippines and had not repatriated himself after his naturalization as (merican citizen. Ne also oined in the private respondentQs argument that >ection %L$ of the @mni#us ?lection Code was not applica#le #ecause what the Aeague and ?stue were see+ing was not onl the annulment of the proclamation and election of rivaldo. Ne agreed that the were also
Constitutional Law 2:
ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP
as+ing for the termination of rivaldoQs incum#enc as governor of >orsogon on the ground that he was not a ilipino. 3n his 'epl, dated 8a %%, 177;, rivaldo insisted that he was a citizen of the *hilippines #ecause his naturalization as an (merican citizen was not /impressed with voluntariness./ Ne admitted that he had sought (merican citizenship onl to protect himself against *resident 8arcos and the he even returned to the *hilippines after the ?">( revolution to help in the restoration of democrac. 3n support he cited the otte#ohm Case, R17LL 3.C.. 2 27 (..3.A. $7 17LL0S where a 9erman nationalQs naturalization in Aiechtenstein was not recognized #ecause it had #een o#tained for reasons of convenience onl. Ne said he could not have repatriated himself #efore the 17;; elections #ecause the >pecial Committee on aturalization created for the purpose # A@3 o. %IC had not et #een organized then. Nis oath in his certicate of candidac that he was a natural-#orn citizen should #e a suJcient act of repatriation. (dditionall, his active participation in the 17;I congressional elections had divested him of (merican citizenship under the laws of the Onited >tates, thus restoring his *hilippine citizenship. Ne ended # reiterating his praer for the reection of the move to disqualif him for #eing time-#arred under >ection %L$ of the @mni#us ?lection Code.
ISS=E: 1. Hhether or not uan 9. rivaldo was a citizen of the *hilippines at the time of his election on anuar 1;, 17;;, as provincial governor of >orsogon. %. Hhether or not uan 9. rivaldo is disqualied to serve as governor of >orsogon. R=LING: 1. o. rivaldo has lost his *hilippine citizenship # his naturalization in a foreign countr. (nd in order for him to reacquire *hilippine citizenship, he should have executed the formalities required under C( o. $ as amended # C( o. 2I$ and *" o. I%L wherein *hilippine citizenship ma #e reacquired # direct act of Congress, # naturalization, or # repatriation. (ll of the assertions of rivaldo lac+ merit. Nis claims that his naturalization was not the result of his own free and voluntar choice and that activel participating in the elections in this countr, do not eMect of automaticall restoring his citizenship in the *hilippines that he had earlier renounced. !he otte#ohm case cited # the petitioner invo+ed the international law principle of eMective nationalit 0rticle 6 of t!e 7a%ue Convention of )89 on t!e Con;ict of #ationalit( La+s/ which is clearl not applica#le to the case at #ar. !hat case is not relevant to the petition #ecause it dealt with a conTict #etween the nationalit laws of two states as decided # a third state. o third state is involved in the case at #ar in fact, even the Onited >tates is not activel claiming rivaldo as its national. otte#ohm was invo+ing his naturalization in Aiechtenstein whereas in the present case rivaldo is reecting his naturalization in the Onited >tates. Hhile rivaldo does not invo+e either of the rst two aforementioned methods, he nevertheless claims he has reacquired *hilippine citizenship # virtue of a valid repatriation. %. Kes. !he provision in (rticle =3, >ection 7, of the Constitution states that all pu#lic oJcials and emploees owe the >tate and the Constitution /allegiance at all times/ and the specic requirement in >ection 2% of the Aocal 9overnment Code states that a candidate for local elective oJce must #e inter alia a citizen of the *hilippines and a qualied voter of the constituenc where he is running. >ection 11I of the @mni#us ?lection Code li+ewise, provides that a qualied voter must #e, among other qualications, a citizen of the *hilippines, this #eing an indispensa#le requirement for suMrage under (rticle <, >ection 1, of the Constitution. !he qualications prescri#ed herein for elective oJce were undenia#l not met # rivaldo. !he fact that he was elected # the people of >orsogon does not excuse this patent violation of the salutar rule limiting pu#lic oJce and emploment onl to the citizens of this countr. !he will of the people as expressed through the #allot cannot cure the vice of ineligi#ilit, especiall if the mista+enl #elieved, as in this case, that the candidate was qualied. @#viousl, this rule requires strict application when the decienc is lac+ of citizenship. 3f a person see+s to serve in the 'epu#lic of the *hilippines, he must owe his total loalt to this countr onl, a#uring and renouncing all fealt and delit to an other state. HN?'?@'?, the petition is "3>83>>?" and petitioner O( 9. '3<(A"@ is here# declared not a citizen of the *hilippines and therefore "3>UO(A33?" from serving as 9overnor of the *rovince of >orsogon. (ccordingl, he is ordered to vacate his oJce and surrender the same to the dul elected
I Constitutional Law 2:
ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP
decision #ecomes nal and executor. !he temporar restraining order dated 8arch 7, 17;7, is A3!?".
9.'. o. 1I72I C@'"@'( <>. C@8?A?C (C!>: Cordora led a complaint aJdavit #efore C@8?A?C law department against !am#unting asserting that 9ustavo !am#unting made false assertion in his certicate of candidac # claiming that he is a atural Born ilipino and resident #efore the election in %&&1and %&&2. Cordora alleged that !am#unting was not eligi#le to run for local pu#lic oJce #ecause !am#unting lac+ed the required citizenship and residenc requirements. Cordora presented a certication from the Bureau of 3mmigration which stated further the following facts: !am#unting claimed that he is an (merican: upon arrival in the *hilippines on 1 "ecem#er %&&& and upon departure from the *hilippines on 1I une %&&1. (ccording to Cordora, these travel dates conrmed that !am#unting acquired (merican citizenship through naturalization in Nonolulu, Nawaii on % "ecem#er %&&&. !am#unting, on the other hand, maintained that he did not ma+e an misrepresentation in his certicates of candidac. !o refute CordoraDs claim that !am#unting is not a natural-#orn ilipino, !am#unting presented a cop of his #irth certicate which showed that he was #orn of
; Constitutional Law 2:
ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP
a ilipino mother and an (merican father. !am#unting further denied that he was naturalized as an (merican citizen. !he certicate of citizenship conferred # the O> government after !am#untingDs father petitioned him through 3> orm 3-1$&*etition for 'elative0 merel conrmed !am#untingDs citizenship which he acquired at #irth. !am#untingDs possession of an (merican passport did not mean that !am#unting is not a ilipino citizen. !am#unting also too+ an oath of allegiance on 1;ovem#er %&&$ pursuant to 'epu#lic (ct o. 7%%L '.(. o. 7%%L0, or the Citizenship 'etention and 'eacquisition (ct of %&&$. !he C@8?A?C law department recommended the dismissal of complaint #ecause it failed to su#stantiate the charges. !he C@8?A?C ?n Banc aJrmed the ndings and the resolution of the C@8?A?C Aaw "epartment. !he C@8?A?C ?n Banc was convinced that Cordora failed to support his accusation against !am#unting # suJcient and convincing evidence. Commissioner >armiento wrote a separate opinion which concurred with the ndings of the ?n Banc 'esolution, Commissioner >armiento further pointed out that !am#unting could #e considered a dual citizen. !am#unting eMectivel renounced his (merican citizenship when he led his certicates of candidac in %&&1 and %&&2 and ran for pu#lic oJce. *etitioner led a 8otion for 'econsideration #ut was denied, hence, this petition. 3>>O?: Hhether or not !am#unting is natural #orn ilipino. N?A": V !am#unting does not den that he is #orn of a ilipino mother and an (merican father. either does he den that he underwent the process involved in 3> orm 3-1$& *etition for 'elative0 #ecause of his fatherDs citizenship. !am#unting claims that #ecause of his parentsD diMering citizenship, he is #oth ilipino and (merican # #irth. Cordora, on the other hand, insists that !am#unting is a naturalized (merican citizen. V He agree with Commissioner >armientoDs o#servation that !am#unting possesses dual citizenship. Because of the circumstances of his #irth, it was no longer necessar for !am#unting to undergo the naturalization process to acquire (merican citizenship. ! he process involved in 3> orm 3-1$& onl served to conrm the (merican citizenship which !am#unting acquired at #irth. !he certication from the Bureau of 3mmigration which Cordora presented contained two trips where !am#unting claimed that he is an (merican. Nowever, the same certication showed nine other trips where !am#unting claimed that he is ilipino. Clearl, !am#unting possessed dual citizenship prior to the ling of his certicate of candidac #efore the %&&1 elections. !he fact that !am#unting had dual citizenship did not disqualif him from running for pu#lic oJce. V "ual citizenship is involuntar and arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the diMerent laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneousl considered a national # the said states. !hus, li+e an other natural-#orn ilipino, it is enough for a person with dual citizenship who see+s pu#lic oJce to le his certicate of candidac and swear to the oath of allegiance contained therein. V "ual allegiance, on the other hand, is #rought a#out # the individualDs active participation in the naturalization process. ((>> states that, under '.(. o. 7%%L, a ilipino who #ecomes a naturalized citizen of another countr is allowed to retain his ilipino citizenship # swearing to the supreme authorit of the 'epu#lic of the *hilippines. !he act of ta+ing an oath of allegiance is an implicit renunciation of a naturalized citizenDs foreign citizenship.
!( A LI! A( VS. C(!!ISSI(NER (* I!!IGRATI(N G.R. No. L-2125<% (#to>/" 4 1<;1% 41 SCRA 2<2 *ACTS: V Aau Kuen Keung applied for a passport visa to enter the *hilippines as a non-immigrant on ; e#ruar 171. 3n the interrogation made in connection with her application for a temporar visitorQs visa to enter the *hilippines, she stated that she was a Chinese residing at )owloon, Nong+ong, and that she desired to ta+e a pleasure trip to the *hilippines to visit her great grand uncle, Aau Ching *ing. >he was permitted to come into the *hilippines on 1$ 8arch 171 for a period of one month.
7 Constitutional Law 2:
ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP
V @n the date of her arrival, (sher K. Cheng led a #ond in the amount of *1,&&&.&& to underta+e, among others, that said Aau Kuen Keung would actuall depart from the *hilippines on or #efore the expiration of her authorized period of sta in this countr or within the period as in his discretion the Commissioner of 3mmigration or his authorized representative might properl allow. V (fter repeated extensions, Aau Kuen Keung was allowed to sta in the *hilippines up to 1$ e#ruar 17%. @n %L anuar 17%, she contracted marriage with 8o Ka Aim Kao alias ?dil#erto (guinaldo Aim an alleged ilipino citizen. Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of 3mmigration to conscate her #ond and order her arrest and immediate deportation, after the expiration of her authorized sta, she #rought an action for inunction. (t the hearing which too+ place one and a half ears after her arrival, it was admitted that Aau Kuen Keung could not write and spea+ either ?nglish or !agalog, except for a few words. >he could not name an ilipino neigh#or, with a ilipino name except one, 'osa. >he did not +now the names of her #rothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law. (s a result, the Court of irst 3nstance of 8anila denied the praer for preliminar inunction. 8oa Aim Kao and Aau Kuen Keung appealed.
ISS=E: Hhether or not Aau Kuen Keung ipso facto #ecame a ilipino citizen upon her marriage to a ilipino citizen. HEL: V Kes. Onder >ection 1L of Commonwealth (ct 2I$, an alien woman marring a ilipino, native #orn or naturalized, #ecomes ipso facto a ilipina provided she is not disqualied to #e a citizen of the *hilippines under >ection 2 of the same law. Ai+ewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is su#sequentl naturalized here follows the *hilippine citizenship of her hus#and the moment he ta+es his oath as ilipino citizen, provided that she does not suMer from an of the disqualications under said >ection 2. Hhether the alien woman requires to undergo the naturalization proceedings, >ection 1L is a parallel provision to >ection 1. !hus, if the widow of an applicant for naturalization as ilipino, who dies during the proceedings, is not required to go through a naturalization proceedings, in order to #e considered as a ilipino citizen hereof, it should follow that the wife of a living ilipino cannot #e denied the same privilege. V !his is plain common sense and there is a#solutel no evidence that the Aegislature intended to treat them diMerentl. (s the laws of our countr, #oth su#stantive and procedural, stand toda, there is no such procedure a su#stitute for naturalization proceeding to ena#le the alien wife of a *hilippine citizen to have the matter of her own citizenship settled and esta#lished so that she ma not have to #e called upon to prove it ever time she has to perform an act or enter into a transaction or #usiness or exercise a right reserved onl to ilipinos0, #ut such is no proof that the citizenship is not vested as of the date of marriage or the hus#andQs acquisition of citizenship, as the case ma #e, for the truth is that the situation o#tains even as to native-#orn ilipinos. ?ver time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensa#le in a udicial or administrative case. Hhatever the corresponding court or administrative authorit decides therein as to such citizenship is generall not considered as res adudicata, hence it has to #e threshed out again and again as the occasion ma demand. Aau Kuen Keung, was declared to have #ecome a ilipino citizen from and # virtue of her marriage to 8o Ka Aim Kao al as ?dil#erto (guinaldo Aim, a ilipino citizen of %L anuar 17%.
