Bar Q and A #30

a.) The reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Onofre did not automatically make his American wife, Salvacion, a Filipino Nowhere does Republic Act no. 9225 provide that the foreign wife of a former Filipino citizen who reacquired his Filipino citizenship will automatically become a Filipino citizen. Robert who is 16 years old, and Marie, who is 14 years old, also became  Filipino citizens. The unmarried children below eighteen years of age, of those who reacquire Philippine citizenship are also deemed citizens of the Philippines (Section 4 of RA 9225)

b.) The lawyer of Congressman Profundo can ask for the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy on the ground that he did not execute an affidavit renouncing his American citizenship as required by Section 5(2) of RA 9225 and he lacked one-year residence in the Philippines as required in by Section 6, Article VI, of the Constitution.

1. According to Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution, Filipino citizens who marry aliens retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.

2. According to Mo Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292, under Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law, a foreign woman who marries a Filipino citizen becomes a Filipino citizen provided she possesses none of the disqualifications for naturalization. A foreign man who marries a Filipino citizen does not acquire Philippine citizenship. However, under Section 3 of the Revised Naturalization Act, in such a case the residence requirement for naturalization will be reduced from ten (10) to five (5) years. Under Section 1(2), Article IV of the Constitution, the children of an alien and a Filipino citizen are citizens of the Philippines.

NO, because Rosebud never lost her status as a natural-born citizen by reason of marriage to a foreigner. In addition to her status as a natural-born citizen, she acquired the citizenship of her husband by operation of law and not by a voluntary act of acquisition thereof and voluntary renunciation of her former citizenship.

In relation to election protest, what is prohibited is dual allegiance. Allegiance to a foreign state is acquired through an express and voluntary act of renouncing once allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and swearing allegiance to a foreign state e.g. enlisting in the military services of another state.

a. NO, the action has not prescribed. As held in Republic vs. Li Yao, 214 SCRA 748, a certificate of naturalization may be cancelled at any time if it was fraudulently obtained by misleading the court regarding the moral character of the petitioner.

b. NO. Enzo cannot ask for the denial of the petition for the cancellation of his certificate of naturalization on the ground that he had availed of the tax amnesty. In accordance with the ruling in Republic vs. Li Yao. 224 SCRA 748, the tax amnesty merely removed all the civil, criminal and administrative liabilities of Enzo. It did not obliterate his lack of good moral character and irreproachable conduct.

c. On the assumption that he left a family, the death of Enzo does not render the petition for the cancellation of his certificate of naturalization moot. As held in Republic vs. Li Yao, 224 SCRA 748, the outcome of the case will affect his wife and children.

a. NO, Lim Tong Biao cannot raise the defense of prescription. As held in Republic vs. Go Bon Lee, 1 SCRA 1166, 1170, a decision granting citizenship is not res judicata and the right of the government to ask for the cancellation of a certificate cancellation is not barred by the lapse of time.

b. The fact that Lim Tong Biong availed of the tax amnesty is not a valid defense to the cancellation of his Filipino citizenship. In Republic vs. Li Yao, 214 SCRA 748, 754, the Supreme Court held: “xxx the tax amnesty does not have the effect of obliterating his lack of good moral character and irreproachable conduct which are grounds for denaturalization."

TRUE. Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by those states and is involuntary. On the other hand, dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes by some positive and voluntary act, loyalty to two or more states (Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 [1999]).

a.) NO, H’s filing of a CoC is not sufficient to renounce foreign citizenship. Section 5(3) of RA 9225 requires that “Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath”.

b.) NO, the filing of his CoC was not sufficient to renounce his foreign citizenship. R.A. No. 9225 categorically demands natural-born Filipinos who re-acquire their citizenship and seek elective office, to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before an authorized public officer prior to or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections. The rule applies to all those who have re-acquired their Filipino citizenship, without regard as to whether they are still dual citizens or not. (Sobejana-Condon v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 198742, August 10, 2012)

Julio Mortal can regain his status as a natural-born citizen by repatriating. Since repatriation involves restoration of a person to citizenship previously lost by expatriation and Julio Mortal was previously a natural-born citizen, in case he repatriates he will be restored to his status as a natural-born citizen. If he reacquired his citizenship by an act of Congress, Julio Hortal will not be a natural-born citizen, since he reacquired his citizenship by legislative naturalization.

Cruz may reacquire Philippine citizenship in the following ways:

1. By naturalization;
2. By repatriation pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171; and
3. By direct act of Congress (Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 63).

a. Warlito is a natural-born Filipino citizen. Repatriation of Filipinos results in the recovery of his original nationality. Since Warlito was a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he was restored to his former status as a natural- born Filipino citizen (Bengson v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 357 SCRA 545; RA 2630).

b. Shirley will not become a Filipino citizen, because under RA 9225, Warlito’s reacquisition of Philippine citizenship did not extend its benefits to Shirley. She should instead file with the Bureau of Immigration a petition for the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration on the ground that in accordance with Section 15 of the Naturalization Law, because of her marriage with Warlito, she should be deemed to have become a Filipino citizen. She must allege and prove that she possessed none of the disqualification to become a naturalized Filipino citizen (Burca v. Republic 51 SCRA 248).

c. Under Section 18 of RA 9225, only the unmarried children who are below eighteen years of age of those who reacquire Philippine citizenship shall be deemed Filipino citizens. Thus, only Luisa, who is seventeen years old, became a Filipino citizen.