XXIV.12 RAMON L. LABO, JR., v. COMELEC AND LUIS L.

LARDIZABAL,  enumerates the modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Among these
G.R. No. 86564 | August 1, 1989 are: (1) naturalization in a foreign country; (2) express renunciation of citizenship;
FACTS: Ramon Labo, Jr. was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio City. The petition and (3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a
for quo warranto  was filed by the private respondent Luis Lardizabal on January 26, foreign country, all of which are applicable to the petitioner. It is also worth
1988. The petitioner asks the Court to restrain the Commission on Elections from mentioning in this connection that under Article IV, Section 5, of the present
looking into the question of his citizenship as a qualification for his office as Mayor Constitution, "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall
of Baguio City and instead rule on whether or not the public respondent has be dealt with by law."
jurisdiction to conduct any inquiry into this matter, considering that the petition
for quo warranto  against him was not filed on time. Even if it be assumed that, as the petitioner asserts, his naturalization in Australia
was annulled after it was found that his marriage to the Australian citizen was
There are two administrative decisions on the question of the petitioner's bigamous, that circumstance alone did not automatically restore his Philippine
citizenship. The first was rendered by the Commission on Elections on May 12, citizenship. The possibility that he may have been subsequently rejected by
1982, and found the petitioner to be a citizen of the Philippines.  The second was Australia, as he claims, does not mean that he has been automatically reinstated as
rendered by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation on September 13, a citizen of the Philippines.
1988, and held that the petitioner was not a citizen of the Philippines. There was no
direct proof that the herein petitioner had been formally naturalized as a citizen of Under CA No. 63 as amended by PD No. 725, Philippine citizenship may be
Australia. But he had married an Australian citizen, obtained an Australian reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. It does
passport, and registered as an alien with the CID upon his return to this country in not appear in the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that he has reacquired
1980. On the other hand, the decision of the CID took into account the official Philippine citizenship by any of these methods. He does not point to any judicial
statement of the Australian Government dated August 12, 1984, through its Consul decree of naturalization as to any statute directly conferring Philippine citizenship
in the Philippines, that the petitioner was still an Australian citizen as of that date upon him. Neither has he shown that he has complied with PD No. 725, providing
by reason of his naturalization in 1976. that:

The petitioner does not question the authenticity of statement of the Australian ... (2) natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship may reacquire
Government. Neither does he deny that he obtained Australian Passport No. Philippine citizenship through repatriation by applying with the Special Committee
754705, which he used in coming back to the Philippines in 1980, when he declared on Naturalization created by Letter of Instruction No. 270, and, if their applications
before the immigration authorities that he was an alien and registered as such are approved, taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
under Alien Certificate of Registration No. B-323985.  He later asked for the change Philippines, after which they shall be deemed to have reacquired Philippine
of his status from immigrant to a returning former Philippine citizen and was citizenship. The Commission on Immigration and Deportation shall thereupon
granted Immigrant Certificate of Residence No. 223809.  He also categorically cancel their certificate of registration. (Emphasis supplied.)
declared that he was a citizen of Australia in a number of sworn statements The petitioner is not now, nor was he on the day of the local elections on January
voluntarily made by him and. even sought to avoid the jurisdiction of the barangay 18, 1988, a citizen of the Philippines. In fact, he was not even a qualified voter
court on the ground that he was a foreigner.  under the Constitution itself because of his alienage.  He was therefore ineligible as
ISSUE: Whether or not Labo Jr., is a Filipino Citizen? a candidate for mayor of Baguio City, under Section 42 of the Local Government
Code providing in material part as follows:
RULING: No. The Court denied the petition.
Sec. 42. Qualifications. — An elective local official must be a citizen of the
The petitioner now claims that his naturalization in Australia made him at worst Philippines, at least twenty-three years of age on election day, a qualified voter
only a dual national and did not divest him of his Philippine citizenship. Such a registered as such in the barangay, municipality, city or province where he
specious argument cannot stand against the clear provisions of CA No. 63, which proposes to be elected, a resident therein for at least one year at the time of the
filing of his certificate of candidacy, and able to read and write English, Filipino, or formal act of re-dedication to the country he has abjured and he solemnly affirms
any other local language or dialect. once again his total and exclusive loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines. This
may not be accomplished by election to public office.
The petitioner argues that his alleged lack of citizenship is a "futile technicality" that
should not frustrate the will of the electorate of Baguio City, who elected him by a WHEREFORE, petitioner Ramon J. Labo, Jr. is hereby declared NOT a citizen of the
"resonant and thunderous majority." To be accurate, it was not as loud as all that, Philippines and therefore DISQUALIFIED from continuing to serve as Mayor of
for his lead over the second-placer was only about 2,100 votes. In any event, the Baguio City. He is ordered to VACATE his office and surrender the same to the Vice-
people of that locality could not have, even unanimously, changed the Mayor of Baguio City, once this decision becomes final and executory. The
requirements of the Local Government Code and the Constitution. The electorate temporary restraining order dated January 31, 1989, is LIFTED.
had no power to permit a foreigner owing his total allegiance to the Queen of
Australia, or at least a stateless individual owing no allegiance to the Republic of XXIV.13 ANTONIO BENGSON III, v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
the Philippines, to preside over them as mayor of their city. Only citizens of the TRIBUNAL and TEODORO C. CRUZ, 
Philippines have that privilege over their countrymen. G.R. No. 142840 | May 7, 2001

The probability that many of those who voted for the petitioner may have done so
in the belief that he was qualified only strengthens the conclusion that the results FACTS: Respondent Teodoro Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He
of the election cannot nullify the qualifications for the office now held by him. was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27, 1960, of Filipino parents. The
These qualifications are continuing requirements; once any of them is lost during fundamental law then applicable was the 1935 Constitution. However, respondent
incumbency, title to the office itself is deemed forfeited. In the case at bar, the Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and without the consent of the
citizenship and voting requirements were not subsequently lost but were not Republic of the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the United States. As a
possessed at all in the first place on the day of the election. The petitioner was Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for under Commonwealth Act No. 63,
disqualified from running as mayor and, although elected, is not now qualified to section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by, among other, "rendering
serve as such. service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country.”

Finally, there is the question of whether or not the private respondent, who filed In 1994, respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation
the quo warranto petition, can replace the petitioner as mayor. He cannot. The under Republic Act No. 2630. He ran for and was elected as the Representative of
simple reason is that as he obtained only the second highest number of votes in the the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections. He won by a
election, he was obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio city. convincing margin of 26,671 votes over petitioner Antonio Bengson III, who was
then running for reelection.
It remains to stress that the citizen of the Philippines must take pride in his status
as such and cherish this priceless gift that, out of more than a hundred other Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with
nationalities, God has seen fit to grant him. Having been so endowed, he must not respondent House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) claiming that
lightly yield this precious advantage, rejecting it for another land that may offer him respondent Cruz was not qualified to become a member of the House of
material and other attractions that he may not find in his own country. To be sure, Representatives since he is not a natural-born citizen as required under Article VI,
he has the right to renounce the Philippines if he sees fit and transfer his allegiance section 6 of the Constitution. HRET dismissed the petition for quo warranto and
to a state with more allurements for him.  But having done so, he cannot expect to declaring Cruz the duly elected Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan
be welcomed back with open arms once his taste for his adopted country turns in the May 1998 elections.
sour or he is himself disowned by it as an undesirable alien.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an
Philippine citizenship is not a cheap commodity that can be easily recovered after American citizen, can still be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his
its renunciation. It may be restored only after the returning renegade makes a reacquisition of Philippine citizenship?
Petitioner asserts that respondent Cruz may no longer be considered a natural- Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire the same in
born Filipino since he lost his Philippine citizenship when he swore allegiance to the the manner provided by law. Commonwealth Act. No. (C.A. No. 63), enumerates
United States in 1995, and had to reacquire the same by repatriation. He insists the three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a former
that Article citizens are those who are from birth with out having to perform any citizen: (1) by naturalization, (2) by repatriation, and (3) by direct act of Congress.
act to acquire or perfect such citizenship.
Naturalization is mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of Philippine
Respondent on the other hand contends that he reacquired his status as natural- citizenship. As a mode of initially acquiring Philippine citizenship, naturalization is
born citizen when he was repatriated since the phrase "from birth" in Article IV, governed by Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended. On the other hand,
Section 2 refers to the innate, inherent and inborn characteristic of being a natural- naturalization as a mode for reacquiring Philippine citizenship is governed by
born citizen. Commonwealth Act No. 63. Under this law, a former Filipino citizen who wishes to
reacquire Philippine citizenship must possess certain qualifications and none of the
RULING: NO. The petition is without merit. disqualification mentioned in Section 4 of C.A. 473.
The 1987 Constitution enumerates who are Filipino citizens as follow: Repatriation, on the other hand, may be had under various statutes by those who
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this lost their citizenship due to: (1) desertion of the armed forces; 19 services in the
Constitution; armed forces of the allied forces in World War II;20 (3) service in the Armed Forces
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; of the United States at any other time,21 (4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mother, who elect Philippine alien;22 and (5) political economic necessity. Repatriation simply consists of the
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, and taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippine and registering said
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or
There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2) by naturalization. last resided. Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery of the original
These ways of acquiring citizenship correspond to the two kinds of citizens: the nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be
natural-born citizen, and the naturalized citizen. A person who at the time of his restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he
birth is a citizen of a particular country, is a natural-born citizen thereof. 9 was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will
As defined in the same Constitution, natural-born citizens "are those citizens of the be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his In respondent Cruz's case, he lost his Filipino citizenship when he rendered service
Philippine citizenship." in the Armed Forces of the United States. However, he subsequently reacquired
On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 2630, which provides: Section 1. Any person
through naturalization, generally under Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the
Law (Act No. 2927), and by Republic Act No. 530.11 To be naturalized, an applicant Armed Forces of the United States, acquired United States citizenship, may
has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications 12 and none of the reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of
disqualification13 provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision granting the Philippines and registering the same with Local Civil Registry in the place where
Philippine citizenship becomes executory only after two (2) years from its he resides or last resided in the Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall contain
promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the a renunciation of any other citizenship.
applicant has (1) not left the Philippines; (2) has dedicated himself to a lawful Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having
calling or profession; (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of registered the same in the Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan, respondent
Government promulgated rules; or (4) committed any act prejudicial to the interest Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen, a
of the nation or contrary to any Government announced policies.
status which he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father. It bears stressing citizenship and the mode prescribed by the applicable law for the reacquisition
that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his original status thereof. As respondent Cruz was not required by law to go through naturalization
before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Petitioner's contention that respondent proceeding in order to reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce a natural-born
Cruz is no longer a natural-born citizen since he had to perform an act to regain his Filipino. As such, he possessed all the necessary qualifications to be elected as
citizenship is untenable. As correctly explained by the HRET in its decision, the term member of the House of Representatives.
"natural-born citizen" was first defined in Article III, Section 4 of the 1973
Constitution as follows: XXIV.14 AASJS (ADVOCATES AND ADHERENTS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR SCHOOL
TEACHERS AND ALLIED WORKERS) MEMBER - HECTOR GUMANGAN CALILUNG, v.
Sec. 4. A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth THE HONORABLE SIMEON DATUMANONG, as the Secretary of Justice, 
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship. G.R. No. 160869 |  May 11, 2007

Two requisites must concur for a person to be considered as such: (1) a person
must be a Filipino citizen birth and (2) he does not have to perform any act to FACTS: Hector Calilung filed the instant petition against respondent, then Secretary
obtain or perfect his Philippine citizenship. of Justice Simeon Datumanong, the official tasked to implement laws governing
citizenship. Petitioner prays that a writ of prohibition be issued to stop respondent
Under the 1973 Constitution definition, there were two categories of Filipino from implementing Republic Act No. 9225, entitled "An Act Making the Citizenship
citizens which were not considered natural-born: (1) those who were naturalized of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the
and (2) those born before January 17, 1973,38 of Filipino mothers who, upon Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63, As Amended, and for Other Purposes."
reaching the age of majority, elected Philippine citizenship. Those "naturalized Petitioner avers that Rep. Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5,
citizens" were not considered natural-born obviously because they were not Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that states, "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical
Filipino at birth and had to perform an act to acquire Philippine citizenship. Those to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law."
born of Filipino mothers before the effectively of the 1973 Constitution were
likewise not considered natural-born because they also had to perform an act to Rep. Act No. 9225, signed into law by President Gloria M. Arroyo on August 29,
perfect their Philippines citizenship. 2003, reads:

The present Constitution, however, now consider those born of Filipino mothers SECTION 1. Short Title.-This Act shall be known as the "Citizenship Retention and
before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution and who elected Philippine Reacquisition Act of 2003."
citizenship upon reaching the majority age as natural-born. After defining who re
natural-born citizens, Section 2 of Article IV adds a sentence: "Those who elect SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.-It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to
deemed natural-born citizens." Consequently, only naturalized Filipinos are have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
considered not natural-born citizens. It is apparent from the enumeration of who SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.-Any provision of law to the contrary
are citizens under the present Constitution that there are only two classes of notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their
citizens: (1) those who are natural-born and (2) those who are naturalized in Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign
accordance with law. A citizen who is not a naturalized Filipino, i.e., did not have to country are hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking
undergo the process of naturalization to obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
natural-born Filipino. Noteworthy is the absence in said enumeration of a separate
category for persons who, after losing Philippine citizenship, subsequently "I ___________________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
reacquire it. The reason therefor is clear: as to such persons, they would either be and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws
natural-born or naturalized depending on the reasons for the loss of their and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines;
and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the government, and at the same time, owes his allegiance to the Philippine
Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose government, such that there is now a case of dual citizenship and dual allegiance.
this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of
evasion." Rep. Locsin clarified that by swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the
person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Rep. Locsin replied that it is
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, imperative that those who have dual allegiance contrary to national interest should
become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon be dealt with by law. However, he said that the dual allegiance problem is not
taking the aforesaid oath. addressed in the bill. He then cited the Declaration of Policy in the bill which states
that "It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all citizens who become
ISSUES: (1) Whether or not Rep. Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional? (No) citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine
(2) Whether or not the Court have jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual citizenship under the conditions of this Act." He stressed that what the bill does is
allegiance? (None) recognize Philippine citizenship but says nothing about the other citizenship.

Petitioner contends that Rep. Act No. 9225 cheapens Philippine citizenship. He Rep. Locsin further pointed out that the problem of dual allegiance is created
avers that Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, together, allow dual allegiance wherein a natural-born citizen of the Philippines takes an oath of allegiance to
and not dual citizenship. Petitioner maintains that Section 2 allows all Filipinos, another country and in that oath says that he abjures and absolutely renounces all
either natural-born or naturalized, who become foreign citizens, to retain their allegiance to his country of origin and swears allegiance to that foreign country.
Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship. Section 3 permits dual The original Bill had left it at this stage, he explained. In the present measure, he
allegiance because said law allows natural-born citizens of the Philippines to regain clarified, a person is required to take an oath and the last he utters is one of
their Philippine citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance without forfeiting allegiance to the country. He then said that the problem of dual allegiance is no
their foreign allegiance.2 The Constitution, however, is categorical that dual longer the problem of the Philippines but of the other foreign country.
allegiance is inimical to the national interest.
It is clear that the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 is to do
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) claims that Section 2 merely declares as a away with the provision in Commonwealth Act No. 63 which takes away Philippine
state policy that "Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other
be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship." The OSG further claims countries. What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born
that the oath in Section 3 does not allow dual allegiance since the oath taken by the Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their
former Filipino citizen is an effective renunciation and repudiation of his foreign naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual
citizenship. The fact that the applicant taking the oath recognizes and accepts the allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person
supreme authority of the Philippines is an unmistakable and categorical affirmation implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No.
of his undivided loyalty to the Republic. 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of
confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned
RULING: NO. The Court dismissed the petition. foreign country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of
The deliberations of Congress is necessary to determine the intent of the legislative Rep. Act No. 9225.
branch in drafting the assailed law. During the deliberations, the issue of whether Petitioner likewise advances the proposition that although Congress has not yet
Rep. Act No. 9225 would allow dual allegiance had in fact been the subject of passed any law on the matter of dual allegiance, such absence of a law should not
debate. The record of the legislative deliberations reveals the following: be justification why this Court could not rule on the issue. He further contends that
Rep. Dilangalen asked whether in the particular case, the person did not denounce while it is true that there is no enabling law yet on dual allegiance, the Supreme
his foreign citizenship and therefore still owes allegiance to the foreign
Court, through Mercado v. Manzano, already had drawn up the guidelines on how
to distinguish dual allegiance from dual citizenship.

For its part, the OSG counters that pursuant to Section 5, Article IV of the 1987
Constitution, dual allegiance shall be dealt with by law. Thus, until a law on dual
allegiance is enacted by Congress, the Supreme Court is without any jurisdiction to
entertain issues regarding dual allegiance.

To begin with, Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy

and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on
dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers were not
concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens
who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their
naturalization. Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific
parameters of what really constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is done, it would be
premature for the judicial department, including this Court, to rule on issues
pertaining to dual allegiance. Neither can we subscribe to the proposition of
petitioner that a law is not needed since the case of Mercado had already set the
guidelines for determining dual allegiance. Petitioner misreads Mercado.  That case
did not set the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance but merely made a
distinction between dual allegiance and dual citizenship.