Calilung vs. Datumanong

Facts:

AASJS (Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Teachers and Allied Workers) Member — Hector Gumangan Calilung v. The Honorable Simeon Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007, Supreme Court En Banc, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The petition is an original action for prohibition under Rule 65 filed by petitioner Hector Gumangan Calilung against respondent Simeon Datumanong in his capacity as Secretary of Justice (the official charged to implement laws governing citizenship under Executive Order No. 292), seeking to enjoin respondent from implementing Republic Act No. 9225 (the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003).

Petitioner alleged that RA 9225 is unconstitutional because it violates Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and “shall be dealt with by law.” He argued that Sections 2 and 3 of RA 9225 permit dual allegiance by allowing Filipinos who become citizens of other countries to retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship without effectively forfeiting their foreign allegiance.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) defended the law, contending that Section 2 is merely a declaratory policy and that the oath required by Section 3 effectuates a renunciation of foreign allegiance; hence RA 9225 recognizes dual citizenship but does not permit dual allegiance. The petition raised two principal issues: (1) whether RA 9225 is unconstitutional, and (2) whether the Court has jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual allegiance.

The Court examined the legislative history of RA 9225, which reflected debates in the House of Representatives where Members—most notably Reps. Dilangalen and Locsin—discussed the distinction between retention/reacquisition of citizenship and the separate constitutional command about dual allegiance. The record showed Congress intended to dispense with the Commonwealth Act No. 63 rule that naturalization abroad automatically caused loss of Philippine citizenship, and instead to allow natural-born Filipinos to reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship subject to taking an oath of allegiance.

Below the Court, there was no prior adjudication on the merits identified in the text; the petition...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to decide questions concerning the constitutional command in Article IV, Section 5 (dual allegiance) absent implementing legislation?
• Is Republic Act No. 9225 unconstitutional for permitting dual allegiance or otherwise violating Article IV, Section 5 of...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)