VII. CITIZENSHIP Flashcards
VII. CITIZENSHIP (1987 CONST., art. IV)
A. Filipino Citizens (1987 CONST., art. IV, secs. 1-2)
Here’s a summary of the two sections on Philippine citizenship for easy memorization:
How to be a Filipino Citizen:
- Born a Filipino:
A) You were a citizen at the time the 1987 Constitution was adopted (June 11, 1987).
B) You were born before January 17, 1973, to a Filipino mother and choose Philippine citizenship when you turn 18.
C) One of your parents (father or mother) is a Filipino citizen. - Naturalized Filipino:
- You became a Filipino citizen through the legal process of naturalization.
Easy-to-Memorize Trick:
Think of “FMN” for Filipino Mom/Naturalized.
- F: Born before 1973 to a Filipino mother (elects citizenship at 18).
- M: One parent (mother or father) is Filipino.
- N: Naturalized citizen.
VII. CITIZENSHIP (1987 CONST., art. IV)
B. Acquisition and Loss of Citizenship
VII. CITIZENSHIP (1987 CONST., art. IV)
C. Retention and Re-acquisition of Citizenship (R.A. No. 9225)
Retention and Re-acquisition of Filipino Citizenship under RA 9225 (Dual Citizenship Law)
Republic Act 9225, also known as the Dual Citizenship Law, allows Filipinos who acquire foreign citizenship to retain or reacquire their Philippine citizenship under certain conditions. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
- Retention of Filipino Citizenship:
- Applies to natural-born Filipino citizens who become citizens of another country through naturalization.
-
Key Point: These Filipinos are considered to have never lost their Philippine citizenship as long as they take the oath of allegiance upon the law’s effectivity (September 17, 2003) or anytime after.
Example:- Ana, a Filipino nurse, becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States. Under RA 9225, she can retain her Filipino citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance at a Philippine consulate in the US.
- Re-acquisition of Filipino Citizenship:
- Applies to Filipinos who lost their citizenship through means other than naturalization in another country (e.g., by marrying a foreigner under previous laws).
-
Key Point: These Filipinos can re-acquire their Filipino citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance.
Example:- Ben, a Filipino who married a Spanish woman in the 1960s, automatically lost his Philippine citizenship under the laws of that time. RA 9225 allows him to re-acquire his Filipino citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance.
- General Requirements for Both:
* Documentary proof of former Philippine citizenship (birth certificate, passport, etc.).
* No pending obligations to the Philippine government (taxes, military service).
* Oath of allegiance taken before a Philippine consular officer. - Benefits of Retained/Reacquired Citizenship:
* Enjoy full civil, economic, and political rights in the Philippines (e.g., property ownership, voting rights).
* Potentially hold certain government positions (depending on specific requirements).
Remember:
RA 9225 doesn’t automatically grant dual citizenship. Filipinos who wish to retain or reacquire their status must undergo the process outlined in the law.
VII. CITIZENSHIP (1987 CONST., art. IV)
D. Naturalization (C.A. No. 473, secs. 2-4; C.A. No. 63, as amended; A.M. No. 21
07-22)
STATE RULES ON NATURAL BORN CITIZENS
This rule defines natural-born citizens in the Philippines and clarifies the status of those who choose Philippine citizenship under a specific situation. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
- Natural-Born Citizens:
- Automatic Citizenship: People who are automatically considered Filipino citizens from birth without any further action needed fall under this category.
-
Examples:
- A child born in the Philippines to Filipino parents is automatically a natural-born citizen.
- A child born abroad to Filipino parents who were themselves natural-born citizens is also considered a natural-born Filipino citizen.
- Election of Philippine Citizenship:
- Specific Situation: This rule applies to individuals born before January 17, 1973, with only a Filipino mother (the father’s citizenship is irrelevant).
- Choice at Age of Majority: These individuals have the option to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority (usually 18 years old).
- Deemed Natural-Born: If they choose Philippine citizenship, they are considered deemed natural-born citizens. This means they have the same rights and privileges as natural-born citizens who were automatically Filipino from birth.
Example:
- Scenario: A person was born in 1970 to a Filipino mother and a foreign father. At the age of 18, they decide to live and work in the Philippines and formally choose Philippine citizenship.
- Explanation: This person fulfills the conditions of Section 1(3). They were born before 1973 with a Filipino mother and opted for Philippine citizenship at the legal age. Therefore, they are considered a deemed natural-born citizen under Section 2.
Importance of the Distinction:
While both are Filipino citizens, the distinction between natural-born and deemed natural-born citizens used to be relevant for holding certain government positions (e.g., president, vice president). However, a 1991 amendment to the Constitution removed this distinction for most elective positions. The concept of deemed natural-born citizens remains, but it has less practical significance today.
Challenging MCQs on Philippine Citizenship (Bar Prep Style)
Scenario: A child, Maya, was born in the Philippines in 1990 to a Filipino mother and a Vietnamese father. Both parents were undocumented migrants at the time. Maya has always lived in the Philippines and identifies as Filipino. Can Maya claim natural-born citizenship?
Question 1: Automatic Citizenship or Election?
Under Philippine law, does Maya automatically qualify as a natural-born citizen, or does she need to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching adulthood?
A. Maya automatically qualifies as a natural-born citizen due to her birthplace (Philippines).
B. Maya needs to elect Philippine citizenship because her father is not a Filipino citizen.
C. Maya’s situation requires a special ruling from the Bureau of Immigration.
D. More information is needed about her parents’ immigration status to determine citizenship.
Answer: A. Maya automatically qualifies as a natural-born citizen due to her birthplace (Philippines).
Legal Reasoning:
The scenario describes a child born in the Philippines (automatic citizenship) to a Filipino mother (fulfills the parentage requirement). The father’s citizenship is irrelevant in this case. Section 1(1) of the Philippine Constitution defines citizens as those who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted (1987) or those born in the Philippines to Filipino mothers. Since Maya was born in the Philippines after 1987 to a Filipino mother, she qualifies as a natural-born citizen.
- Option B is incorrect. While the father’s citizenship can be relevant in some cases (e.g., children born abroad), here the birthplace (Philippines) and Filipino mother establish automatic citizenship.
- Option C and D might seem tempting due to the parents’ immigration status, but Philippine citizenship is determined by the factors mentioned above, not parents’ legal immigration status.
Current Jurisprudence Connection:
Cases like “Carlos Jr. Sorreta vs. Republic of the Philippines” (2009) highlight that children born in the Philippines to a Filipino mother are natural-born citizens regardless of the father’s citizenship status.
Question 2: Deemed Natural-Born Citizen Scenario
If Maya was born in 1970 (before January 17, 1973) to a Filipino mother and a Vietnamese father, would she be considered a natural-born citizen or a deemed natural-born citizen?
Answer: B. Deemed natural-born citizen, if she elects Philippine citizenship at the age of majority.
Legal Reasoning:
This scenario fits the specific situation outlined in Section 1(3). Maya was born before 1973 with a Filipino mother but needs to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching adulthood (18 years old) to be considered a deemed natural-born citizen (Section 2).
- Option A is incorrect. Automatic citizenship applies to those born in the Philippines after 1987 to a Filipino mother, not before 1973. In this case, election is required.
Current Jurisprudence Connection:
The concept of deemed natural-born citizens arose from cases like “Jure Lau vs. Commission on Elections” (1995) where individuals born before 1973 with a Filipino mother were given the option to choose Philippine citizenship.
Here are two challenging multiple-choice questions on the retention and re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship under RA 9225, based on current jurisprudence and case scenarios:
Question 1:
Maria, a natural-born Filipino citizen, became a naturalized citizen of Canada in 2010. In 2020, she decided to reacquire her Philippine citizenship under RA 9225. However, the Philippine consulate denied her application because she had an outstanding tax obligation to the Philippine government from 2015.
Which of the following is the MOST LIKELY reason for the denial of Maria’s application?
A. Maria did not provide sufficient documentary proof of her former Philippine citizenship.
B. Maria was required to renounce her Canadian citizenship in order to reacquire her Philippine citizenship.
C. Maria had a pending obligation to the Philippine government in the form of unpaid taxes.
D. The Philippine consulate had the discretion to deny Maria’s application even if she met the requirements.
Correct Answer: C. Maria had a pending obligation to the Philippine government in the form of unpaid taxes.
Explanation:
Under RA 9225, one of the general requirements for retaining or reacquiring Philippine citizenship is that the applicant must have “no pending obligations to the Philippine government.” This includes any outstanding tax payments or other financial obligations. The fact that Maria had an unpaid tax liability from 2015 would be a valid ground for the Philippine consulate to deny her application to reacquire citizenship, as she did not meet all the legal requirements.
Question 2:
Juan, a natural-born Filipino, became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 2005. In 2015, he applied to the Philippine consulate to retain his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225. The consulate approved his application, and Juan took the oath of allegiance.
However, in 2022, the Philippine Bureau of Immigration discovered that Juan had been convicted of tax evasion in the US in 2018. Based on this, the Bureau sought to revoke Juan’s retained Philippine citizenship.
Which of the following is the MOST LIKELY outcome of the Bureau’s action?
A. The Bureau cannot revoke Juan’s retained Philippine citizenship, as he had already completed the process under RA 9225.
B. The Bureau can revoke Juan’s retained Philippine citizenship due to his criminal conviction for tax evasion.
C. The Bureau can only revoke Juan’s retained Philippine citizenship if he fails to pay his outstanding tax obligations in the Philippines.
D. The Bureau has no authority to revoke Juan’s retained Philippine citizenship, as that power lies solely with the Philippine consulate.
Correct Answer: B. The Bureau can revoke Juan’s retained Philippine citizenship due to his criminal conviction for tax evasion.
Explanation:
While RA 9225 allows natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries to retain their Philippine citizenship, this is subject to certain conditions. One of these is that the applicant must be of “good moral character.”
A criminal conviction for tax evasion, which is a serious offense involving moral turpitude, would likely be grounds for the Philippine Bureau of Immigration to revoke Juan’s retained Philippine citizenship, even though he had already completed the process under RA 9225. The Bureau has the authority to review and revoke Philippine citizenship in such cases where the applicant is found to have misrepresented or concealed material facts.
