Case Summary (G.R. No. 160869)
Underlying Constitutional Provision and Jurisdictional Basis
Because the decision was rendered in 2008, the 1987 Constitution applies. Article IV, Section 5 declares dual allegiance inimical to the national interest and mandates that it “shall be dealt with by law.” This provision is non–self-executing, requiring implementing legislation before judicial enforcement.
Nature of the Petition and Relief Sought
Petitioner contends that Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003) violates Article IV, Section 5 by permitting dual allegiance. He asks the Court to prohibit the Secretary from implementing RA 9225’s retention and reacquisition scheme.
Summary of RA 9225 Provisions
– Section 2 declares state policy that Philippine citizens acquiring foreign citizenship “shall be deemed not to have lost” Philippine citizenship.
– Section 3 conditions reacquisition or retention upon taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic.
– Section 4 grants derivative citizenship to minor children of reacquiring citizens.
– Section 5 enumerates civil and political rights and liabilities, including requirements for voting, holding elective or appointive office, and professional practice.
– Sections 6–8 contain separability, repealing, and effectivity clauses.
Petitioner's Constitutional Challenge
Petitioner argues that by allowing retention of foreign citizenship under Section 2 and reacquisition by mere oath under Section 3, RA 9225 institutionalizes dual allegiance contrary to the Constitution’s explicit prohibition.
Solicitor General’s Defense of RA 9225
The Office of the Solicitor General asserts that Section 2 is merely declaratory of policy and does not itself establish dual allegiance. The oath in Section 3 is an “effective renunciation and repudiation” of foreign allegiance, culminating in a categorical affirmation of undivided loyalty to the Philippines.
Legislative History and Debates on Dual Allegiance
Congressional records show robust debate over dual allegiance. Representative Dilangalen warned that retention and reacquisition would yield two allegiances. Representative Locsin explained that requiring a final oath of allegiance transfers any dual allegiance issue to the foreign state, rather than recognizing it domestically.
Court’s Interpretation of Legislative Intent
The Court finds that RA 9225’s framers sought to restore Philippine citizenship to those naturalized abroad, not to endorse dual allegiance. By mandating an oath to Philippine sovereignty, the law implicitly demands renunciation of foreign allegiance, leaving any conflict to foreign jurisdictions.
Jurisdictional Limitations on Dual Allegiance Issues
Because Article IV, Section 5 is non–self-executing, Congress must first enact specific legislation defining and penalizing dual allegiance. Absent s
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 160869)
Procedural Posture
- The petition is an original action for prohibition filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the Secretary of Justice from implementing Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003).
- The petition challenges the constitutionality of RA 9225 under Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution.
Relevant Legal Provisions
- Section 5, Article IV, 1987 Constitution: “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.”
- Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003), Sections 1–8:
• Short title, declaration of policy, retention and reacquisition of citizenship by oath, derivative citizenship, civil and political rights and liabilities, separability, repealing, and effectivity clauses. - Commonwealth Act No. 63 (as amended): Provides that naturalization abroad causes loss of Philippine citizenship.
- Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), Book IV, Title III, Chapter 1: Assigns the Department of Justice power to implement laws on citizenship.
Facts
- RA 9225 was enacted on August 29, 2003, signed by President Arroyo, and took effect after publication.
- Section 2 declares that Filipinos who acquire a foreign citizenship shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship.
- Section 3 allows natural-born Filipinos who lost citizenship by foreign naturalization to reacquire it by taking an oath of allegiance.
- Section 5 prescribes civil and political rights, including voting, candidacy, appointment, and professional practice, subject to qualifications and renunciations.
Issues
- Whether Republic Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional for permitting dual allegiance.
- Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of dual allegiance absent an enabling statute.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- RA 9225 “cheapens