5. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS of a FILIPINO CITIZEN
Right to Vote
Right to Run for Public Office
Right to Exploit Natural Resources
Right to Operate Public Utilities
Right to Administer Educational Institutions
Right to Manage the Mass Media
6. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS of a FILIPINO CITIZEN
Right to Vote
Right to Run for Public Office
Right to Exploit Natural Resources
Right to Operate Public Utilities
Right to Administer Educational Institutions
Right to Manage the Mass Media
7. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS of a FILIPINO CITIZEN
Right to Vote
Right to Run for Public Office
Right to Exploit Natural Resources
Right to Operate Public Utilities
Right to Administer Educational Institutions
Right to Manage the Mass Media
8. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS of a FILIPINO CITIZEN
Right to Vote
Right to Run for Public Office
Right to Exploit Natural Resources
Right to Operate Public Utilities
Right to Administer Educational Institutions
Right to Manage the Mass Media
9. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS of a FILIPINO CITIZEN
Right to Vote
Right to Run for Public Office
Right to Exploit Natural Resources
Right to Operate Public Utilities
Right to Administer Educational Institutions
Right to Manage the Mass Media
10. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS of a FILIPINO CITIZEN
Right to Vote
Right to Run for Public Office
Right to Exploit Natural Resources
Right to Operate Public Utilities
Right to Administer Educational Institutions
Right to Manage the Mass Media
12. The Jus Sanguinis
The Jus Soli
CITIZENSHIP
A person‟s citizenship is by „blood‟, that of the parents.
This rule is followed in most countries of the world.
13. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP COMMON METHODS OF ACQUISITION
the legal principle that an individual's nationality is
determined by that person's place of birth.
The Jus Sanguinis
The Jus Soli
15. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES
1. Citizenship under 1935 Constitution
2. Children of Filipino Parents
3. Election of Philippine Citizenship
4. Naturalization
16. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP CITIZENS OF THE PHILLIPINES
UNDER THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION
Those who/whose:
• are citizens of the Philippines at
the adoption of the constitution
• fathers or mothers are citizens of
the Philippines
• born before January 17, 1973 of
Filipino mothers, who choose
Philippine citizenship upon
attaining the age of majority.
• are naturalized in accordance
with law.
17. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP CITIZENS OF THE PHILLIPINES
Those who/whose:
• are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the
time of the adoption of the
Commonwealth Constitution on
November 15, 1935.
• born in the Philippine Islands of foreign
parents who, prior to the adoption of the
commonwealth Constitution, had been
elected to public office in the Philippine
Islands.
• fathers were citizens of the Philippines
and mothers were citizens of the
Philippines, upon attaining majority age
chose Philippine citizenship
• were naturalized in accordance with law
1. UNDER THE 1935 CONSTITUTION
18. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP CITIZENS OF THE PHILLIPINES
• Children born to Filipino
fathers were granted natural
born citizenship under
Commonwealth Constitution.
• Only exception is, if the
child was born out of lawful
wedlock he will acquire the
citizenship of the only known
parent which is the mother.
• Under new rule, child is
considered natural-born
Filipino citizen provided that
either of his parents is a
Filipino citizen.
2. CHILDREN OF FILIPINO PARENTS
19. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP CITIZENS OF THE PHILLIPINES
• The right of election permitted under
the present Constitution was available
only to those born to Filipino mothers
under the 1935 Constitution who, had
the charter not been changed, would
have been able to elect Philippine
citizenship upon attaining majority age.
• If Filipino mother lost her citizenship
upon marriage to foreigner, the right of
election cannot be claimed by the
offspring born under the new
constitution.
• This right could only be exercised only
within 3 years from attainment of the
majority age of 18, or only up to
January 17, 1994.
3. ELECTION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
20. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP CITIZENS OF THE PHILLIPINES
• is a process by which a foreigner acquires, voluntarily or
by operation of law, the citizenship of another state.
4. NATURALIZATION
22. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP NATURALIZATION
is effected:
1.) by individual
proceedings, usually general
naturalization laws;
2.) by special act of
legislature, often in favor of
distinguished foreigners who
have rendered some notable
service to the local state;
3.) by collective change of
nationality as a result of cession
or subjugation; and
4.) in some cases, by adoption
or orphan minors as nationals of
the state where they are born.
DIRECT NATURALIZATION
23. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP
is conferred/honored:
1.) on the wife of the
naturalized husband;
2.) on the minor children
of the naturalized parent;
and
3.) on the alien woman
upon marriage to a
national.
DERIVATIVE NATURALIZATION
NATURALIZATION
25. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE
1. The applicant shall file with the Office of the Solicitor General
a declaration of his intention to be a citizen of the
Philippines.
2. Filing of petition for naturalization with the regional trial court
of the province or city where the petitioner has resided for at
least one year.
3. Upon the receipt of the petition, the clerk of court shall have
the duty of publishing the same in the Official Gazette and in
one newspaper of general circulation in the province or city
once a week for three consecutive weeks and to post
notices thereof and of the hearing.
4. Six months after the last publication, but in no case within 30
(30) days before any election, the hearing shall begin, at
which the petitioner shall establish all the allegation of his
petition, to be corroborated by at least 2 credible witnesses.
PROCEDURE
26. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE
1. He must not be less than eighteen (18) years of age on the date of the hearing
of the petition.
2. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not les than
ten years.
3. He must be of good moral character and believe in the principles underlying
the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the
Philippines in relation with the constituted government as well as the
community in which he is living;
4. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth no less than five thousand
pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative
trade, profession or lawful occupation.
5. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any of the principal
Philippine language.
6. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public
schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education in the
Philippines, where Philippines history, government and civics are taught or
prescribed as part of the school curriculum during the entire period of the
residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition
for naturalization as required for naturalization as Philippine citizen.
THE PETITIONER IS REQUIRED TO POSSES THESE QUALIFICATIONS
27. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE
1. Having honorably held office under
the Government of the Philippines or
under that of any of the provinces,
cities, municipalities, or political
subdivisions thereof;
2. Having established a new industry or
introduced a useful invention in the
Philippines.
3. Being married to a Filipino woman;
4. Having been engaged as a teacher
in the Philippines in a public or
recognized private school not
established for the exclusive
instruction of children of persons of
particular nationality or race, in any
of the branches of education or
industry for a period of not less than
two years;
5. Having been born in the Philippines
THE TEN (10) YEAR RESIDENCE IS REDUCE TO FIVE IF APPLICANT POSSES
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL QUALIFICATION:
28. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE
1. Person opposed to organized government or affiliated
with any association or group of persons who uphold and
teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
2. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety
of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the
success and predominance of their ideas;
3. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
4. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
5. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable
contagious diseases;
6. Persons who during the period of their residence in the
Philippines, have not mingled socially with Filipinos, or who
have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace
the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
7. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is
at war, during the period of such war;
8. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not
grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or
subject thereof.
THE FOLLOWING ARE DISQUALIFIED FROM NATURALIZATION
29. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE
Within two (2) years of probationary period the petitioner must
establish that:
• He has not left the Philippines
• Has devoted himself to a lawful calling
• Has not been convicted of any violation of law
• Has not committed any act in contravention of any government
announce policy
30. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE
Within two (2) years of probationary period the petitioner must
establish that:
• He has not left the Philippines
• Has devoted himself to a lawful calling
• Has not been convicted of any violation of law
• Has not committed any act in contravention of any government
announce policy
31. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE
Within two (2) years of probationary period the petitioner must
establish that:
• He has not left the Philippines
• Has devoted himself to a lawful calling
• Has not been convicted of any violation of law
• Has not committed any act in contravention of any government
announce policy
32. CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE
Within two (2) years of probationary period the petitioner must
establish that:
• He has not left the Philippines
• Has devoted himself to a lawful calling
• Has not been convicted of any violation of law
• Has not committed any act in contravention of any government
announce policy
33. CITIZENSHIP NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE
The Last Step
Administration of the oath of citizenship, by virtue which the
petitioner shall embrace Philippine citizenship and renounce
allegiance to any foreign State.
CITIZENSHIP
35. CITIZENSHIP EFFECTS
CITIZENSHIP
Naturalized Filipinos have all the
rights of a Philippine citizen except
only those reserved by Constitution
to natural-born citizens of the
Philippines.
Only Natural-Born citizens are
allowed to hold constitutional offices
such as:
1. Office of the President
2. Senators
3. Members of the House of
Representatives
4. Members of the Supreme Court
5. Chairman and Commissioners of
the Constitutional Commissions
(Civil Service Commission, COMELEC
and Commission on Audit)
37. CITIZENSHIP EFFECTS
CITIZENSHIP
A person may be DENATURALIZED
on the petition of the Solicitor
General on the grounds:
• that the certificate of
naturalization was obtained
fraudulently
• that he established his permanent
residence abroad within five (5)
years after naturalization
• that the petition was based on an
invalid declaration of intention
• that his minor children failed to
comply with the educational
requirements through his fault or
neglect
• he allowed himself to be used as a
dummy in violation of our
naturalization laws.
38. CITIZENSHIP EFFECTS
CITIZENSHIP
LOSS AND REAQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP
According to C.A. No. 63 Philippine
citizenship is lost:
1. By naturalization in foreign country
2. By express renunciation of
citizenship
3. By oath of allegiance to other
countries
4. By rendering service to or accepting
commission in the armed forces of a
foreign country.
5. By cancellation of the certificate of
naturalization
6. A deserter of the Philippine Armed
Forces in time of war
7. In case of a woman, upon marriage
acquires her husband‟s nationality
39. CITIZENSHIP EFFECTS
CITIZENSHIP
INSTANCES WHEN A PHILIPPINE CITIZEN MAY POSSESS DUAL CITIZENSHIP
1. Those born of parents whose
country adopts the jus sanguinis
principle in foreign countries which
follows the jus soli principle.
2. Those born in the Philippines of
Filipino mothers and an alien
father, if by laws of their father‟s
country such children are citizens of
that country.
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws
of the latter‟s country, the former
are considered citizens unless, by
their act or omission they are
deemed to have renounced
Philippine citizenship.
41. CITIZENSHIP CASES
CITIZENSHIP
TECSON v. COMMISSION on ELECTIONS (2004)
Facts:
Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner initiated a petition before
the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course
or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the
thesis that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his
certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-
born Filipino citizen when in truth, according to
Fornier, his parents were foreigners; his mother, Bessie
Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan
Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo
Pou, a Spanish subject.
Issue:
Whether or Not FPJ is a natural born Filipino citizen.
Held:
The totality of the evidence may not establish
conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still
would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that
he cannot be held guilty of having made a material
misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in
violation of Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the
Omnibus Election Code.
42. CITIZENSHIP CASES
CITIZENSHIP
CO VS. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
Facts:
The petitioners come to this Court asking
for the setting aside and reversal of a
decision of the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET). The petitioners
filed election protests against the private
respondent premised on the following
grounds:
1)Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born
citizen of the Philippines; and
2)Jose Ong, Jr. is not a resident of
the second district of Northern
Samar.
The HRET in its decision dated November
6, 1989, found for the private respondent.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by
the petitioners on November 12, 1989. This
was, however, denied by the HRET in its
resolution dated February 22, 1989.
Issue:
WON Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born
citizen of the Philippines.
Held: Yes. Petitions are dismissed.
43. CITIZENSHIP CASES
CITIZENSHIP
YU vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
FACTS:
Petitioner Yu was originally issued a Portuguese passport in 1971. On
February 10, 1978, he was naturalized as a Philippine citizen. Despite
his naturalization, he applied for and was issued Portuguese Passport
by the Consular Section of the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo on July
21, 1981. Said Consular Office certifies that his Portuguese passport
expired on 20 July 1986. He also declared his nationality as Portuguese
in commercial documents he signed, specifically, the Companies
registry of Tai Shun Estate Ltd. filed in Hongkong sometime in April 1980.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner‟s acts constitute renunciation of his
Philippine citizenship
HELD:
Express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made
known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or implication.
Petitioner, with full knowledge, and legal capacity, after having
renounced Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization as a Philippine
citizen resumed or reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese citizen,
applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport and represented
himself as such in official documents even after he had become a
naturalized Philippine citizen.
44. CITIZENSHIP CASES
CITIZENSHIP
FRIVALDO vs COMELEC
FACTS:
Private respondent questioned petitioner
governor‟s candidacy and election for being
null and void ab initio due to his alienage.
Petitioner governor contends that his active
participation in the elections had divested him
of American citizenship under the laws of the US,
and restored him of his Philippine citizenship.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the filing of a certificate of
candidacy by a naturalized American
effectively recovers his Philippine citizenship.
HELD:
No, Philippine citizenship previously disowned is
not that cheaply recovered. Citizenship once
lost may be reacquired either by naturalization
or repatriation or by direct grant by law (CA 63)
which was not invoked by the petitioner.
45. CITIZENSHIP CASES
CITIZENSHIP
REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES vs. JUDGE DE LA ROSA
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court
in relation to R.A. No. 5440 and Section 25 of the Interim Rules, filed by
the Republic of the Philippines: (1) to annul the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila, which re-admitted private respondent as
a Filipino citizen under the Revised Naturalization Law (C.A. No. 63 as
amended by C.A. No. 473); and (2) to nullify the oath of allegiance
taken by private respondent on February 27, 1992.
On February 27, respondent Judge rendered the assailed Decision and
held that Petitioner JUAN G. FRIVALDO, is re-admitted as a citizen of
the Republic of the Philippines by naturalization, thereby vesting upon
him, all the rights and privileges of a natural born Filipino citizen.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner was duly re-admitted to his citizenship as
Filipino.
HELD:
No. The supreme court ruled that Private respondent is declared NOT a
citizen of the Philippines and therefore disqualified from continuing to
serve as governor of the Province of Sorsogon. He is ordered to vacate
his office and to surrender the same to the Vice-Governor of the
Province of Sorsogon once this decision becomes final and executory.
46. CITIZENSHIP CASES
CITIZENSHIP
LABO vs COMELEC
Facts: Petitioner Ramon Labo, elected mayor of Baguio
City was questioned on his citizenship. He was married in
the Philippines to an Australian citizen. The marriage was
declared void in the Australian Federal Court in Sydney on
the ground that the marriage had been bigamous.
According to Australian records, Labo is still an Australian
citizen.
Issue: Whether or not Petitioner Labo is a citizen of the
Philippines.
Held: The petitioner‟s contention that his marriage to an
Australian national in 1976 did not automatically divest him
of Philippine citizenship is irrelevant. There is no claim or
finding that he automatically ceased to be a Filipino
because of that marriage. He became a citizen of
Australia because he was naturalized as such through a
formal and positive process, simplified in his case because
he was married to an Australian citizen. As a condition for
such naturalization, he formally took the Oath of
Allegiance and/or made the Affirmation of
Allegiance, renouncing all other allegiance. It does not
appear in the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that
he has reacquired Philippine citizenship.
47. CITIZENSHIP CASES
CITIZENSHIP
AZNER vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
In the case at bar, petitioner challenged
respondent‟s right to hold public office on the
ground that the latter was an alien. Respondent
maintains that he is a son of a Filipino, was a
holder of a valid subsisting passport, a
continuous resident of the Philippines and a
registered voter since 1965. He
was, however, also a holder of an alien
registration certificate.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is an alien.
HELD:
No, because by virtue of his being a son of a
Filipino, it is presumed that he was a Filipino and
remained Filipino until proof could be shown that
he had renounced or lost his Philippine
citizenship. In addition, possession of an alien
registration certificate unaccompanied by proof
of performance of acts whereby Philippine
citizenship had been lost is not adequate proof
48. CITIZENSHIP CASES
CITIZENSHIP
MERCADO vs. MANZANO
Facts: Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Private respondent
Eduardo Manzano are candidates for the position of Vice-
Mayor of Makati City in the May, 1998 elections. Private
respondent was the winner of the said election but the
proclamation was suspended due to the petition of
Ernesto Mamaril regarding the citizenship of private
respondent. Mamaril alleged that the private respondent
is not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States.
Issue: Whether or Not private respondent is qualified to
hold office as Vice-Mayor.
Held:
By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a
Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or
immigrant of another country; that he will defend and
support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true
faith and allegiance. On the other hand, private
respondent‟s oath of allegiance to the Philippine, when
considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and
adulthood, received his education, practiced his
profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in
this country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine
citizenship.
49. CITIZENSHIP CASES
CITIZENSHIP
IN RE: CHING
FACTS:
Vicente D. Ching, the legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ching, a
Chinese citizen, and Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino, was born in
Francia West, Tubao, La Union on 11 April 1964. Since his birth,
Ching has resided in the Philippines.
In their comment, the OSG points out that Ching has not formally
elected Philippine citizenship and, if ever he does, it would already
be beyond the "reasonable time" allowed by present
jurisprudence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not he has elected Philippine citizenship within a
"reasonable time.“
HELD:
Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a commodity that
can be claimed when needed and suppressed when
convenient. One who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship
has only an inchoate right to such citizenship. As such, he should
avail of the right with fervor, enthusiasm and promptitude. Sadly, in
this case, Ching slept on his opportunity to elect Philippine
citizenship and, as a result this golden privilege slipped away from
his grasp. Therefore, the Court Resolves to DENY Vicente D. Ching's
application for admission to the Philippine Bar.
50. CITIZENSHIP CASES
CITIZENSHIP
BENGZON III vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
Facts: Respondent Teodoro Cruz was a natural-born citizen of
the Philippines. He was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, on April
27, 1960, of Filipino parents. The fundamental law then
applicable was the 1935 Constitution. On November 5, 1985,
however, respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States
Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of the
Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the United States.
As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship.
Issue: Whether or Not respondent Cruz is a natural born
citizen of the Philippines in view of the constitutional
requirement that "no person shall be a Member of the House
of Representative unless he is a natural-born citizen.”
Held: Respondent is a natural born citizen of the Philippines.
As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization,
repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippine and registering
said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the
person concerned resides or last resided. This means that a
naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to
his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other
hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost
his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former
status as a natural-born Filipino.
