Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Servus Legis
BORJ DISTURA
Constitutional Law I (Prof. Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola)
OUTLINE IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
Prof. Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola
Arellano University School of Law
First Semester, SY 2013-2014
III-A. The State
I. Concept
A. Definition – (CIR v. Campos Rueda)
A State is a politically organized sovereign community, independent of outside control, bound by
ties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, and acting through government
functioning under a regime of law.
A group of people.
Not subject to external control May not be independent from external control
a. Background
(Section 1, Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of this Act
and the name "The Philippines" as used in this Act shall apply to and
include the Philippine Islands ceded to the United States Government by
the treaty of peace concluded between the United States and Spain on the
eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, the boundaries of
which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with those islands
embraced in the treaty between Spain and the United States concluded at
Washington on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred.
(See also Article III of Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain 10 December 1898; 1898 Treaty of
Peace)
Article III.
Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine
Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line:
A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north
latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one
hundred and eighteenth (118th) to the one hundred and twenty-seventh (127th)
degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the one hundred
and twenty seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to
the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45']) north
latitude, thence along the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4
[degree symbol] 45') north latitude to its intersection with the meridian of
longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 [degree
symbol] 35') east of Greenwich, thence along the meridian of longitude one
hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35')
east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes (7
[degree symbol] 40') north, thence along the parallel of latitude of seven degrees
and forty minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north to its intersection with the one
hundred and sixteenth (116th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich,
thence by a direct line to the intersection of the tenth (10th) degree parallel of
north latitude with the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of
longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred and eighteenth
(118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning.
The United States will pay to Spain the sum of twenty million dollars
($20,000,000) within three months after the exchange of the ratifications of the
present treaty.
(Sole Article, Treaty Between Spain and the United States for the Cession of Outlying Islands of the
Philippines 7 November 1900)
SOLE ARTICLE
Spain relinquishes to the United States all title and claim of title; which she may
have had at the time of the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace of Paris, to any and
all islands belonging to the Philippine Archipelago, lying outside the lines
described in Article III of that Treaty and particularly to the islands of Cagayan
Sulu and Sibutu and their dependencies, and agrees that all such islands shall
be comprehended in the cession of the Archipelago as fully as if they had been
expressly included within those lines.
The United States, in consideration of this relinquishment, will pay to Spain the
sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) within six months after the
exchange of the ratifications of the prescut treaty.
The present Treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by ·and
with the advice and consent of the
Senate thereof, and by Her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain, after approval
by the Cortes of the Kingdom, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at
Washington as soon as possible.
In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this Treaty and
have hereunto affixed our seals.
Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, the 7th day of November, in the year
of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred.
(Articles 1 to 4, Convention regarding the Boundary between the Philippine Archipelago and the State of North
Borneo 2 January 1930)
Article 1.
It is hereby agreed and declared that the line separating the islands belonging to
the Philippine Archipelago on the one hand and the islands belonging to the
State of North Borneo which is under British protection on the other hand shall be
and is hereby established as follows:
Article 2.
The line described above has been indicated on Charts Nos. 4707 and 4720,
published by the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, corrected to the 24th
July, 1929, portions of both charts so marked being attached to this treaty and
made a part thereof. It is agreed that if more accurate surveying and mapping of
North Borneo, the Philippine Islands, and intervening islands shall in the future
show that the line described above does not pass between Little Bakkungaan
and Great Bakkungaan Islands, substantially as indicated on Chart No. 4720, the
boundary line shall be understood to be defined in that area as a line passing
between Little Bakkungaan and Great Bakkungaan Islands as indicated on the
chart, said portion of the line being a straight line approximately 307° 40' true
drawn from a point on the parallel of 6° o' north latitude to a point on the meridian
of longitude of 117° 58' east of Greenwich.
It is likewise agreed that if more accurate surveying and mapping shall show that
the line described above does not pass between the Mangsee Islands and
Mangsee Great Reef as indicated on Chart No. 4720, the boundary shall be
understood to be denned in that area as a straight line drawn from the
intersection of the parallel of 7° 24' 45" north latitude and the meridian of
longitude of 117° 25' 30" east of Greenwich, passing through Mangsee Channel
as indicated on attached Chart No. 4720 to a point on the parallel of 7° 40' north
latitude.
Article 3.
All islands to the north and east of the said line and all islands and rocks
traversed by the said line, should there be any such, shall belong to the
Philippine Archipelago and all islands to the south and west of the said line shall
belong to the State of North Borneo.
Article 4.
The provisions of Article 19 of the Treaty4 between the United States of America,
the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan limiting naval armament, signed at
Washington on the 6th February, 1922, shall, so long as that Treaty remains in
force, apply in respect of all islands in the Turtle and Mangsee Groups which are
or may be deemed to be comprised within the territories of the Philippine
Archipelago on the one hand and of the State of North Borneo on the other hand
in consequence of the establishment of the line fixed by the preceding articles of
the present Convention. In the event of either High Contracting Party ceding,
selling, leasing or transferring any of the islands in question to a third party
provision shall be made for the continued application to such island of the
aforementioned Article 19 of the Treaty between the United States of America,
the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan limiting naval armament, signed at
Washington on the 6th February, 1922, provided that Treaty is still in force at the
time of such cession, sale, lease or transfer.
including the sea-bed, sub-soil, continental margin and space shall belong
and be subject to the sovereignty of the Philippines. Such area is hereby
constituted as a distinct and separate municipality of the Province of
Palawan and shall be known as "Kalayaan."
Source: http://itouchmap.com/i/map/pg.gif
Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and
jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article
121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.
Section 3. This Act affirms that the Republic of the Philippines has dominion, sovereignty and jurisdiction over all
portions of the national territory as defined in the Constitution and by provisions of applicable laws including, without
limitation, RA 7160 , otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, as amended.
The Supreme Court upheld RA 9522 which includes the "Regime of Islands" shown
here with the baselines (appearing as blue lines). The black lines show the 1898
Treaty of Paris limits which petitioners Magallona and Roque had insisted should
have been the basis of determining the internal waters of the Philippines. Source:
National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
Source: http://www.klsreview.com/HTML/2009Jan_Jun/20090320_02.jpg
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u157/jibrael_2007/Jibrael%202008/map4_projectedregimes.jpg
2009 Republic Act No. 9522 AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
3046, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5446, TO DEFINE THE ARCHIPELAGIC
BASELINE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 10 December 1982.
1978 Presidential Decree No. 1596: Declaring Certain Area Part of the Philippine Territory and
Providing for their Government and Administration. Philippines. 11 June 1978.
1978 Presidential Decree No. 1599: Establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone and for Other
Purposes. Philippines. 11 June 1978.
1968 Republic Act. No. 5446: An Act to Amend Section One of Republic Act. No. 3046, Entitled
“An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines.” Philippines. 18
September 1968.
1961 Republic Act No. 3046: An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the
Philippines. Philippines. 17 June 1961.
1898 The Treaty of Paris. France. 10 December 1898.
2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well as to
their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.
Addendum
(UNCLOS Art. 46)
(a) "archipelagic State" means a State constituted wholly by one or more
archipelagos and may include other islands;
2. All ships and aircraft enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea
lanes and air routes.
Addendum:
The goal of the EDCA is to “promote peace and security in the region.” While outlining new
defense-cooperation measures, the Agreement also allows for the United States to respond
more quickly to environmental and humanitarian disasters in the region.
Designed to build off of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and the 1999 Visiting
Forces Agreement (VFA), the EDCA reaffirms mutual cooperation between the United
States and the Philippines to develop their individual and collective capacities to resist
armed attack by: improving interoperability of the two country’s armed forces, promoting
long-term modernization, helping maintain and develop maritime security, and expanding
humanitarian assistance in response to natural disasters.
The Agreement allows for U.S. forces and contractors to operate out of “Agreed Locations,”
which are defined as: “facilities and areas that are provided by the Government of the
Philippines through the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and that United States
forces, United States contractors, and others as mutually agreed”. The Agreement hands
over all operational controls of these “Agreed Locations” to the United States, and allows
U.S. forces to preposition and store defense materiel, equipment, and supplies. The
Agreement makes clear that this materiel cannot include nuclear weapons.
The EDCA is effective for ten years, unless both the United States and the Philippines
formally agree to alter it. Importantly, the United States is not allowed to establish any
permanent military base, and must hand over any and all facilities in the “Agreed Locations”
to the Philippine government upon the termination of the Agreement.
(http://www.gov.ph/2014/04/28/qna-on-the-enhanced-defense-cooperation-agreement/)
(a) Background
1. As inhabitants – all persons who dwell or sojourn in the Philippines, regardless of whether they
aliens or transients.
2. As electors – group of citizens lawfully authorized to exercise the right of suffrage.
Addendum
a. Who can be electors. (Article V, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution)
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the
Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at
least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the
Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein
they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding
the election. No literacy, property, or other
substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of
suffrage.
(2) System for disabled and illiterates (Article VI, Section 2, second
paragraph of the 1987 Constitution)
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the
illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons.
Sec. 4. Coverage. – All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise
disqualified by law, at least eighteen (18) years of age on the day of elections,
may vote for president, vice-president, senators and party-list representatives.
1. Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with Philippine
laws;
2. Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and who
have pledged allegiance to a foreign country;
3. Those who have committed and are convicted in a final judgment by a court or
tribunal of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) year,
including those who have committed and been found guilty of Disloyalty as
defined under Article 137 of the Revised Penal Code, such disability not having
been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty; Provided, however, That any
person disqualified to vote under this subsection shall automatically acquire the
right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; Provided,
further, That the Commission may take cognizance of final judgments issued by
foreign courts or tribunals only on the basis of reciprocity and subject to the
formalities and processes prescribed by the Rules of Court on execution of
judgments;
4. An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host
country, unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the
purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three (3) years from
approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that
he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall
be the cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident
from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent
disqualification to vote in absentia.
Macalintal
SC
Aware of the domiciliary legal tie that links an overseas Filipino to his
residence in this country, the framers of the Constitution considered
the circumstances that impelled them to require Congress to
establish a system for overseas absentee voting. And the registration
of a voter (absentee) in a place other than his residence of origin has
not been deemed sufficient to consider abandonment or loss of such
residence of origin.
Facts:
Petitioners were dual citizens by virtue of RA 9225. Petitioners sought to
avail their right of suffrage under RA 9189 or the Overseas Absentee
Voting Act of 2003. Comelec, however, did not allow petitioners to vote in
the 2004 election, reasoning the petitioners faield to comply with the
requirement of 1-year residency prior the elections as provided for under
Article 5, Sec 1 of the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners may participate in the election sans the
compliance of the 1 year residency.
Ruling:
The Court held that those who retained or reacquired their citizenship
under RA 9225 may exercise their right to vote under the Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003, RA 9189.
The Court held that present day duals may now exercise their right of
suffrage provided they meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V
of the Constitution in relation to R.A. 9189
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their
citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the
law to have renounced it.
(a) Articles 17 to 19 of the Spanish Civil Code; Amendment XIV of the United States
Constitution;
LIBRO PRIMERO. BOOK I
DE LAS PERSONAS On persons
TÍTULO PRIMERO. TITLE ONE
DE LOS ESPAÑOLES Y EXTRANJEROS On Spaniards and foreigners
Artículo 17. Article 17.
1. Son españoles de origen: 1. The following persons are Spaniards by birth:
• Los nacidos de padre o madre españoles. a) Those born of a Spanish mother or father.
Los nacidos en España de padres extranjeros si, al b) Those born in Spain of foreign parents if at least
menos, uno de ellos hubiera nacido también en one of them should also have been born in Spain.
España. Se exceptúan los hijos de funcionario The children of a diplomatic or consular officer
diplomático o consular acreditado en España. credentialed in Spain shall be excepted from this
• Los nacidos en España de padres extranjeros, si rule.
ambos carecieren de nacionalidad o si la c) Those born in Spain of foreign parents if both of
legislación de ninguno de ellos atribuye al hijo una them should be without nationality or if the
nacionalidad. legislation of neither should grant a nationality to
• Los nacidos en España cuya filiación no resulte the child.
determinada. A estos efectos, se presumen d) Those born in Spain of uncertain filiation. For
nacidos en territorio español los menores de edad these purposes, minors whose first known place of
cuyo primer lugar conocido de estancia sea existence is in Spanish territory shall be presumed
territorio español. born within Spanish territory.
2. La filiación o el nacimiento en España, cuya 2. Filiation or birth in Spain determined after the
determinación se produzca después de los person is eighteen shall not by themselves
dieciocho años de edad, no son por sí solos causa constitute grounds
de adquisición de la nacionalidad española. El to acquire Spanish nationality. The interested party
interesado tiene entonces derecho a optar por la shall then be entitled to opt for Spanish nationality
nacionalidad española de origen en el plazo de dos by birth within two years counting from such
años a contar desde aquella determinación. determination.
(b) Article IX, Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain (10 December 1898)
Article IX.
Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain by the
present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may
remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the right to sell
or dispose of such property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on their
industry, commerce and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are
applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may preserve their
allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from
the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to
preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held to have
renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may
reside.
The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby
ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.
C300 In the matter of the petition of J. Garcia Bosque for admission to the
practice of law in the Philippine Islands, GR 666, 14 January 1902, En Banc, Arellano
[CJ] (http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1902/jan1902/gr_666_1902.html)
FACTS:
TREATY OF PARIS ART. 9
This provision accorded those residing in the Philippines, who were not
natives, the right of electing to leave the country, thus freeing themselves
of subjection to the new sovereign, or to continue to reside in the
territory.
An EXPIRATION of the term of eighteen months (18 months) without
their making an express declaration of intention to retain their Spanish
nationality will result in the loss of the latter, such persons thereby
becoming subjects of the new sovereign in the same manner as the
natives of these Islands.
The period of eighteen months began on April 11, 1899, and expired on
October 11, 1900.
The petitioner absented himself from these Islands on May 30, 1899, and
remained absent therefrom during the whole period. It was in January,
1901, that he returned to these Islands.
RULING
From this conduct on the part of the petitioner it is evident that he elected
to preserve his Spanish nationality, which he carried with him on his
departure.
The conditions which gave rise to the presumptive change of nationality
were:
i. residence
ii. and the lapse of eighteen months without express declaration to
the contrary;
these two conditions not being fulfilled there was no change of national
status.
The Government and courts of these Islands should not act with less
circumspection in the matter, and invade the sovereign rights of Spain by
giving the presumptive nationality established by Article IX of the treaty
of Paris an extent not warranted by the conditions upon which it
depends, to wit, residence coupled with failure to make an express
declaration to the contrary.
The new petition presented by him for admission to the bar of these
Islands must therefore be denied, and it is so ordered.
(c) Section 4, Philippine Organic Act of 1902
[1] Citizens at the adoption of the Cooper Act
FACTS
Petitioners (Balgamelo, Felix Jr., Valeriano, Lechi Ann, Arceli, Nicolas
and Isidro are children of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, a Taiwanese, and
Dolores Sillona Cabiling, a Filipina.
They were all raised in the Philippines and have resided in this country
for almost sixty (60) years; they spent their whole lives, studied and
received their primary and secondary education in the country; they do
not speak nor understand the Chinese language, have not set foot in
Taiwan, and do not know any relative of their father; they have not even
traveled abroad; and they have already raised their respective families in
the Philippines.
During their age of minority, they secured from the Bureau of Immigration
their Alien Certificates of Registration (ACRs).
RULING
Yes, they are Filipino citizens. Under the facts peculiar to the petitioners,
the right to elect Philippine citizenship has not been lost and they should
be allowed to complete the statutory requirements for such election.
Their exercise of suffrage, being elected to public office, continuous
and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and other similar acts
showing exercise of Philippine citizenship do not on their own take
the place of election of citizenship.
But where, as here, the election of citizenship has in fact been done and
documented within the constitutional and statutory timeframe,
registration of the documents of election beyond the timeframe
should be allowed if in the meanwhile positive acts of citizenship
have been done publicly, consistently and continuously.
The failure to register the election in the civil registry should not defeat
that election and negate the permanent fact that petitioners have a
Filipino mother. The lacking requirements may still be complied with
subject to the imposition of appropriate administrative penalties, if any.
(2) Principles of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis (Art IV, Sec. 1 par 2 and 3)
C400 Roa v. Insular Collector of Customs, GR L-7011, 30
October 1912, En Banc,
Trent [J] (http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1912/oct1912/gr_l-7011_1912.html)
(Principle of Jus Soli is applied. Important case for succeeding decisions
on issues about citizenship until the cases of Jose Tan Chong v. Secretary
of Labor and Lam Swee Sang vs The Commonwealth Of The Philippines.)
FACTS:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
recommitting the appellant, Tranquilino Roa, to the custody of the Collector of
Customs and declaring the Collector's right to effect appellant's deportation to
China as being a subject of the Chinese Empire and without right to enter and
reside in the Philippine Islands. There is no dispute as to the facts.
Tranquilino Roa, was born in the town of Luculan, Mindanao, Philippine Islands,
on July 6, 1889. His father was Basilio Roa Uy Tiong Co, a native of China, and
his mother was Basilia Rodriguez, a native of this country. His parents were
legally married in the Philippine Islands at the time of his birth.
The father of the appellant went to China about the year 1895, and died there
about 1900. Subsequent to the death of his father, in May, 1901, the appellant
was sent to China by his mother for the sole purpose of studying (and always
with the intention of returning) and returned to the Philippine Islands on the
steamship Kaifong, arriving at the port of Cebu October 1, 1910, from Amoy,
China, and sought admission to the Philippine Islands. At this time the appellant
was a few days under 21 years and 3 months of age.
After hearing the evidence the board of special inquiry found that the appellant
was a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China and not entitled to
land.
In view of the fact that the applicant for admission was born in lawful wedlock
On appeal to the Insular Collector of Customs this decision was affirmed, and the
Court of First Instance of Cebu in these habeas corpus proceedings remanded
the appellant to the Collector of Customs
Under the laws of the Philippine Islands, children, while they remain under
parental authority, have the nationality of their parents. Therefore, the legitimate
children born in the Philippine Islands of a subject of the Emperor of China are
Chinese subjects and the same rule obtained during Spanish sovereignty
RULING
YES, The nationality of the appellant having followed that of his mother, he was
therefore a citizen of the Philippine Islands on July 1, 1902, and never having
expatriated himself, he still remains a citizen of this country.
We therefore conclude that the appellant is a citizen of the Philippine Islands and
entitled to land. The judgment appealed from is reversed and the appellant is
ordered released from custody, with costs de oficio.
C401 Torres v. Tan Chim, GR L-46593, 3 February 1940, En
Banc, Laurel [J]
(http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1940/feb1940/gr_l-46593_1940.html) <
(Principle of Jus Soli is applied to Alejandro Tan Bangco)
FACTS
Tan Chim arrived at the port of Cebu on January 18, 1937, and sought admission
as a minor son of Alejandro Tan Bangco.
After hearing, the Board of Special Inquiry decided to deny him entry on the
ground that the status of his father had not been passed upon by the Secretary of
Labor.
A petition was filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, which ruled that
Alejandro Tan Bangco was a Filipino citizen jus soli, having been born in Manila
on February 27, 1893.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, by decision of February 27, 1893, upheld the
conclusion of the lower court.
The similarities are very close and the dissimilarities are in favor of Alejandro Tan
Bangco.
We hold that the present case is still governed by, and should be decided on the
authority of Roa vs. Collector of Customs, supra, (read: principle of jus soli) for
the following reasons:.
2. We should not overlook the fact that the rule laid down in the Roa case had
been adhered to and accepted for more than 20 years before the adoption of
our Constitution; not only this Court but also inferior courts had consistently and
invariably followed it; the executive and administrative agencies of the
Government had theretofore abided by it; and the general public had acquiesced
in it.
FACTS
The petitioner in the first case was born in San Pablo, Laguna, in
July 1915, of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, lawfully
married, left for China in 1925 (10 years old), and returned to the
Philippines on 25 January1940 (25 years old).
The applicant in the second case was born in Jolo, Sulu, on 8 May
1900, of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother they are
presumed to be lawfully married. From the date of his birth up to
16 November 1938 (38 years old), the date of filing of his
application for naturalization, and up to the date of hearing, he had
been residing in the Philippines (since birth). He is married to a
Filipino woman and has three children by her. He speaks the
local dialect and the Spanish and English languages.
In a long line of decisions, this Court has held that the principle
of jus soli applies in this jurisdiction.
The principle of jus soli was the rule in this jurisdiction until the
30th of September, 1939, when in the case of Chua vs.
Secretary of Labor, this Court abandoned it and held that a
person of Chinese parentage born in the Philippines in 1941
is NOT a citizen thereof, because she followed the citizenship
of her Chinese parents and she is not a citizen of the
Philippines under the provisions of section 2 of the Jones
Law, the Act of Congress of 29 August 1916.
But in the cases of Torres and Gallofin vs. Tan Chim (69 Phil.,
518), decided on 3 February 1940 (69 Phil., 518), and Gallofin vs.
Ordoñez, decided on 27 June 1940 (70 Phil., 287), this Court
reverted to the rule of jus soli laid down in the cases prior to the
decision in the case of Chua vs. Secretary of Labor, supra.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether Rosalind is a Filipino
HELD:
Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born a year before the 1935 Constitution
took into effect and at that time, what served as the Constitution of the
Philippines were the principal organic acts by which the United States
governed the country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and
the Philippine Autonomy Act of Aug. 29, 1916, also known as the Jones
Law.
Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were
Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their
children are deemed to be Philippine citizens. Private respondent’s
father, Telesforo Ybasco, was born on Jan. 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines
Norte.... Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law,
Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the
same laws, which were the laws in force at the time of her birth,
Telesforo’s daughter, herein private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez,
is likewise a citizen of the Philippines.
The signing into law of the 1935 Philippine Constitution has established
the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine
citizenship.
(1) Clearly, it was erroneous for the trial court to make a specific
declaration of respondent’s Filipino citizenship as such
pronouncement was not within the court’s competence.
Under our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for the judicial
declaration of the citizenship of an individual. Courts of justice exist
for settlement of justiciable controversies, which imply a given right,
legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of
said right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law, for said
breach of right. As an incident only of the adjudication of the rights of
the parties to a controversy, the court may pass upon, and make a
pronouncement relative to their status. Otherwise, such a
pronouncement is beyond judicial power.
(2)
When respondent was born on August 8, 1959, the governing charter
was the 1935 Constitution, which declares as citizens of the
Philippines those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Sec. 1,
Art. IV of the 1935 Constitution reads:
Under Article IV, Section 1(4) of the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship
of a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father
followed the citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age
of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship. The right to elect
Philippine citizenship was recognized in the 1973 Constitution when it
provided that "[t]hose who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the
provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five" are
citizens of the Philippines.17 Likewise, this recognition by the 1973
Constitution was carried over to the 1987 Constitution which states
that "[t]hose born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority" are
Philippine citizens.
(4) Naturalization
(a) Judicial (Commonwealth Act 473 [17 June 1939]) – a.k.a REVISED NATURALIZATION LAW
[1] Qualifications (Sections 2 and 3, CA 473)
Section 2. Qualifications. – Subject to Section four of this Act, any person having the
following qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:
First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of the
petition;
Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less
than ten years (10);
Third. He must be of good moral character and believes 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 his relation with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living.
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand
pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or
lawful occupation;
Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal
Philippine languages;
Sixth. 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 of the
Philippines, where the Philippine 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
Philippine citizen.cban robles virtual law library
Section 3. Special qualifications. The ten years of continuous residence required under
the second condition of the last preceding Section shall be understood as reduced to
five years (5) for any petitioner having any of the following qualifications:
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 a 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.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF PAYMENT OF TAX LIABILITY. — Assuming arguendo,
that appellant, as alleged, has fully paid or settled his tax liability under P.D. No. 68 which
granted a tax amnesty, such payment is not a sufficient ground for lifting the order of the lower
court of July 22, 1971 cancelling his certificate of naturalization. The legal effect of payment
under the decree is merely the removal of any civil, criminal or administrative liability on the part
of the taxpayer, only insofar as his tax case is concerned.
4. ID.; ID.; RIGID ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THE APPLICANT. — Taking into account
the fact that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced in favor of the Government and
against the applicant, this Court has repeatedly maintained the view that where the applicant
failed to meet the qualifications required for naturalization, the latter is not entitled to Filipino
citizenship. More specifically, the Court has had occasion to state: "Admission to citizenship is
one of the highest privileges that the Republic of the Philippines can confer upon an alien. It is a
privilege that should not be conferred except upon persons fully qualified for it, and upon strict
compliance with the law." Philippine citizenship is a pearl of great price which should be
cherished and not taken for granted. Once acquired, its sheen must be burnished and not
stained by any wrongdoing which could constitute ample ground for divesting one of said
citizenship. Hence, compliance with all the requirements of the law must be proved to the
satisfaction of the Court.
C601 Republic of the Philippines v. Lao Ong, GR 175430, 18 June 2012, First
Division, Del Castillo [J]
(http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jun2012/gr_175430_2012.html)
FACTS
On November 26, 1996, respondent Ong, then 38 years old, filed a Petition for
Naturalization.
Respondent Ong was born at the Cebu General Hospital in Cebu City to Chinese
citizens Siao Hwa Uy Ong and Flora Ong on March 4, 1958.
He is registered as a resident alien and possesses an alien certificate of
registration and a native-born certificate of residence. He has been continuously
and permanently residing in the Philippines from birth up to the present.
Ong can speak and write in Tagalog, English, Cebuano, and Amoy.
He took his elementary and high school studies at the Sacred Heart School for
Boys in Cebu City, where social studies, Pilipino, religion, and the Philippine
Constitution are taught.
He then obtained a degree in Bachelor of Science in Management from the
Ateneo De Manila University on March 18, 1978.
On February 1, 1981, he married Griselda S. Yap, also a Chinese citizen. They
have four children. The children of school age were enrolled at exclusive
schools.
Ong alleged in his petition that he has been a “businessman/business manager”
since 1989, earning an average annual income of P150,000.00. When he
testified, however, he said that he has been a businessman since he graduated
from college in 1978.
Moreover, Ong did not specify or describe the nature of his business.
Respondent further testified that he socializes with Filipinos; celebrates the
Sinulog, fiestas, birthdays, and Christmas.[44] He is a member of the Alert/
React VII Communications Group and the Masonic organization.
On November 23, 2001, the trial court granted Ong’s petition
On January 31, 2003, the Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed to
the CA. The Republic faulted the trial court for granting Ong’s petition
despite his failure to prove that he possesses a known lucrative trade,
profession or lawful occupation as required under Section 2, fourth
paragraph of the Revised Naturalization Law.
The appellate court dismissed the Republic’s appeal.
The appellate court denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration in its
Resolution dated November 7, 2006.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Ong has proved that he has some known lucrative trade,
profession or lawful occupation in accordance with Section 2, fourth paragraph of
the Revised Naturalization Law.
HELD
Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of
the government and against the applicant. The burden of proof rests upon the
applicant to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of law.
The Court finds the appellate court’s decision erroneous. First, it should not have
included the spouse’s income in its assessment of Ong’s lucrative income.
Second, it failed to consider the following circumstances which have a bearing on
Ong’s expenses vis-à-vis his income: (a) that Ong does not own real property; (b)
that his proven average gross annual income around the time of his application,
which was only P106,000.00, had to provide for the education of his four minor
children; and (c) that Ong’s children were all studying in exclusive private schools
in Cebu City. Third, the CA did not explain how it arrived at the conclusion that
Ong’s income had an appreciable margin over his known expenses.
ISSUE:
Whether Lau Yuen Yeung became ipso facto a Filipino citizen upon her marriage
to a Filipino citizen.
RULING:
Yes. An alien woman, upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen, becomes lawfully
naturalized ipso facto, provided that she does not possess all of the
disqualifications enumerated in CA 473. (Sections 15 and 4)
C603 Ngo Burca v. Republic of the Philippines, GR L-24252, 15 June
1973, En Banc, Antonio [J]
(http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1973/jun1973/gr_24252_1973.html) <
(Modified decision on naturalization ipso facto by marrying a Filipino Citizen – see Moy Ya Lim Yao)
In resume, therefore, since Our opinion in the decision January 30, 1967, requiring an alien woman married to Filipino
who desires to be a citizen of this Country, to submit a judicial proceeding in all respects similar to a
naturalization case, wherein in addition, she has to prove not only that she not laboring under any of the
disqualifications under section but also possesses all the qualifications set forth in section 2 of the Revised
Naturalization Law, conflicts with Our ruling Moy Ya Lim Yao, the decision has to that extent be consider modified. 1
We cannot, however, affirm petitioner's claim Filipino citizenship in these proceedings. That is a matter which in
accordance with Our suggestion in Moy Ya Lim Yao the appropriate governmental agency, such as the
Commissioner on Immigration, shall have to pass upon.
Ruling:
Hence, we sustain the Court of Appeals in accepting the petition for
review although it was filed one-day late.
In this case, we sustain the Court of Appeals that the evidence presented
before the BI and the DOJ, i.e., (1) certified photocopy of the certificate
of birth of Quintos, and a certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar
of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija stating that Quintos was born on 14 August
1949 of Filipino parents, Felipe M. Quintos and Celina G. Tomeda, in
Panabingan, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija; (2) certified true copy of the
certificate of marriage of respondent’s parents dated 9 January 1971,
indicating the Philippines as Quintos’ birthplace; (3) certified true copy of
Quintos’ Australian certificate of registration of alien, indicating her
nationality as Filipino; (4) certified true copy of respondent’s birth
certificate stating that he was born on 13 March 1975 and indicating the
Philippines as his mother’s birthplace; and (5) certified true copy of the
letter dated 14 July 1999 of the Australian Department of Immigration
and Multicultural Affairs, stating that as of 14 July 1999, Quintos has not
been granted Australian citizenship, have more probative value and must
prevail over the statements of Soliman and Peralta before the Senate
Committees. The Committee Report on respondent stated:
We further sustain the Court of Appeals that there could be reasons why
the Quintoses and Tomedas were not included in the census, such
as they could have been mere transients in the place. As for their
absence in the master’s list of voters, they could have failed to
register themselves as voters. The late registration of Quintos’
certificate of live birth was made 10 years after her birth and not
anytime near the filing of respondent’s petition for recognition as Filipino
citizen. As such, it could not be presumed that the certificate’s late
filing was meant to use it fraudulently. Finally, the Australian
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs itself attested that as
of 14 July 1999, Quintos has not been granted Australian citizenship.
Respondent submitted a certified true copy of Quintos’ Australian
certificate of registration of alien, indicating her nationality as Filipino.
These pieces of evidence should prevail over the affidavits submitted by
Soliman and Peralta to the Senate Committees.
[b] Commonwealth Act 535 (amendatory to CA 473)
[c] Republic Act 530 [1950]
[5] Issuance of Certificate, Records and Fees (Sections 12 to 14, CA 473)
[a] Oath
[b] Correction of entries?
C605 Republic v. Lim, GR 153883, 13 January 2004, First Division, Ynares-
Santiago [J] (http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jan2004/gr_153883_2004.html ) <
FACTS
In 1999, Chuley Lim filed a petition for correction of entries in her birth certificate with the regional
trial court of Lanao del Norte. Her maiden name was Chuley Yu and that’s how it appears in all her
official records except that in her birth certificate where it appears as “Chuley Yo”. She said that it
was misspelled. The Republic of the Philippines through the local city prosecutor raised the issue of
citizenship because it appears that Lim’s birth certificate shows that she is a Filipino. The prosecutor
contends that Lim’s father was a Chinese; that she acquired her father’s citizenship pursuant to the
1935 Constitution in place when she was born; that she never elected Filipino citizenship when she
reached the age of majority (she is already 47 years old at that time); that since she is a Chinese,
her birth certificate should be amended to reflect that she is a Chinese citizen. Lim contends that she
is an illegitimate child hence she is a Filipino.
ISSUE: Whether Lim is a Chinese citizen.
HELD: No. The provision which provides the election of Filipino citizenship applies only to legitimate
children. In the case at bar, Lim’s mother was a Filipino. Lim’s mother never married the Chinese
father of Lim hence Lim did not acquire the Chinese citizenship of her father. What she acquired is
the Filipino citizenship of her mother. Therefore, she is a natural born Filipino and she does not need
to perform any act to confer on her all the rights and privileges attached to Philippine citizenship.