TAN v. CRISOLOGO (Sam) 9.
Petitioner Tan contested that she was a natural-born citizen and that she had
May 23, 2011 | Kennedy, J. | Citizenship – Natural Born Citizens and Public Office effectively renounced her American citizenship as she had been continuously
residing in the Philippines.
PETITIONER: Vivienne K. Tan 10. MeTC decided to exclude Petitioner Tan from the voter’s list as she was not a
RESPONDENT: Vincent “Bingbong” Crisologo Filipino citizen at the time she registered as a voter.
11. On appeal, RTC reversed MeTC’s decision and Respondent Crisologo’s petition
SUMMARY: was dismissed. RTC held that her questioned citizenship was cured when
Petitioner Vivienne Tan was a naturalized US citizen who sought to run for QC petitioner Tan took an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and
1st district representative. However, she only took her Oath of Allegiance to the filed a Petition of Re-acquisition and/or Retention of Philippine Citizenship.
PH, as required by RA 9225, after she had applied to be a registered voter. 12. Respondent Crisologo appealed to CA which found RTC to have committed
Respondent Crisologo challenged her inclusion in the voter’s list, saying she was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in
not a citizen at the time of her registration, and that she failed to meet the reversing MeTC decision.
residency requirement. SC held that she was not a PH citizen at the time she 13. CA granted the petition of respondent Crisologo and reinstated MeTC decision
registered. excluding petitioner Tan from the voter’s list.
MeTC decided to exclude Petitioner Tan from the voters’ list. ISSUE/s:
RTC reversed MeTC decision. WoN Petitioner Tan can be considered a Philippine citizen at the time she registered
CA reinstated MeTC decision. as a voter? – NO
SC affirmed CA decision and granted the petition of respondent Crisologo. WoN petitioner’s acquisition of Philippine Citizenship under RA 9225 has a
retroactive effect? NO (there is no legal basis to this)
DOCTRINE:
Once Philippine citizenship is renounced because of naturalization in a foreign RULING:
country, one cannot be considered a Filipino citizen unless and until his or her SC denied the petition and affirmed CA decision.
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines is reaffirmed.
RATIO:
1. During the time Tan lost her Philippine citizenship, R.A. 9225 was not yet
FACTS:
enacted, and the applicable law was still Commonwealth Act No. 63. Under this
1. 19 Jan 1993: Petitioner Tan became a naturalized citizen of the US.
2. 26 Oct 2009: Petitioner Tan applied to be registered as a voter in QC and law, both the renunciation of Philippine citizenship and the acquisition of a new
indicated she was a Filipino Citizen by birth. citizenship in a foreign country through naturalization are grounds to lose
3. 16 Nov 2009: Her application was approved by the Election Registration Board Philippine citizenship:
(ERB)
4. 30 Nov 2009: Petitioner Tan took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Section 1. How citizenship may be lost. — A Filipino citizen may lose his
Philippines before a notary public in Makati City. citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events:
5. 01 Dec 2009: Petitioner Tan filed before the Bureau of Immigration (BI) for the (1) By naturalization in a foreign country.
reacquisition of her Philippine citizenship. She stated that she lost it when she (2) By express renunciation of citizenship.
became a naturalized American citizen. Since the foregoing law was still effective when Tan became an American
6. Petitioner Tan executed a sworn declaration renouncing her allegiance to the citizen, the loss of her Philippine citizenship is but a necessary consequence.
USA. BI then confirmed her reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
7. Petitioner tan then filed her Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) to run as 2. The loss of Tan’s Philippine citizenship is reinforced by the fact that she
congresswoman for the 1st District of QC. voluntarily renounced her Philippine citizenship as a requirement to
8. 28 Dec 2009: Respondent Crisologo filed a petition before MeTC seeking the acquire U.S. Citizenship.
exclusion of Petitioner Tan from the voter’s list because she was not a Filipino 3.
citizen when she registered as a voter, and she failed to meet the residency 4. To consider that the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship retroacts to the date it
requirement of the law. was lost would result in an absurd scenario where a Filipino would still be
considered a Philippine citizen when in fact, he had already renounced his
citizenship.
5. Renunciation or the relinquishment of one’s citizenship requires a
voluntary act for it to produce any legal effect. This willingness to
disassociate from a political community is manifested by swearing to an oath. If
we were to consider the words in the Oath of Allegiance as meaningless, the
process laid out under the law to effect naturalization would be irrelevant and
useless. Thus, to give effect to the legal implications of taking an Oath of
Allegiance, we must honor the meaning of the words which the person
declaring the oath has sworn to freely, without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion
6. R.A. No. 9225 was enacted to allow natural-born Filipino citizens, who lost their
Philippine citizenship through naturalization in a foreign country, to
expeditiously reacquire Philippine citizenship. Under the procedure currently in
place under R.A. No. 9225, the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship
requires only the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.
