Title
Re: Vicente D. Ching
Case
B.M. No. 914
Decision Date
Oct 1, 1999
Vicente D. Ching, born to a Filipino mother and Chinese father, failed to elect Philippine citizenship within the required "reasonable time" after reaching majority, delaying 14 years. Despite his professional and public service, the Supreme Court denied his Bar admission due to untimely election.

Case Summary (B.M. No. 914)

Petitioner

Vicente D. Ching, born 11 April 1964 in Francia West, Tubao, La Union; lifelong resident of the Philippines; holder of a Bachelor of Laws degree; certified public accountant; registered voter; former Sangguniang Bayan member (1992–1995); applicant for admission to the 1998 Philippine Bar Examination and subsequent admission to the bar.

Respondent / Interested Party

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a comment contesting the sufficiency and timeliness of Ching’s election of Philippine citizenship under the relevant constitutional and statutory framework. The Supreme Court ultimately resolved the petition for admission to the bar.

Key Dates

  • Birth: 11 April 1964.
  • Application to take Bar Exams: 17 July 1998.
  • Court allowed examination subject to proof of citizenship: September 1998.
  • Submission of initial documentary proof: 18 November 1998 (C.P.A. certification; COMELEC voter certification; certification of elected local official).
  • Release of Bar results: 5 April 1999 (Ching successful).
  • Requirement for further proof of citizenship / OSG comment ordered: 20 April 1999.
  • OSG comment filed: 8 July 1999.
  • Affidavit of Election of Philippine Citizenship and Oath of Allegiance executed: 15 July 1999 (filed with the Court by manifestation dated 27 July 1999).
  • Supreme Court resolution denying admission: October 1, 1999.

Applicable Law (constitutional and statutory basis)

  • 1987 Constitution (as the operative charter for the Court’s decision given the decision date): recognizes that those born before 17 January 1973 of Filipino mothers who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority are citizens (Article IV provisions on citizenship carried forward and recognized).
  • 1935 Constitution (governing law at the time of Ching’s birth): provided that a legitimate child of a Filipino mother and alien father follows the father’s citizenship unless, upon reaching majority, the child elects Philippine citizenship (Article IV, Sec. 1(4) under the 1935 framework).
  • Commonwealth Act No. 625 (C.A. No. 625): statutory procedure implementing the 1935 constitutional provision — requires a sworn statement expressing the election to be filed with the nearest civil registry and accompanied by an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the Philippines. The statute prescribes form and filing but does not set a fixed time limit for making the election.
  • Precedent interpreting “upon reaching the age of majority” as requiring election within a “reasonable time” after reaching majority (historically adopted as approximately three years by Secretary of Justice opinions, but jurisprudence allows exceptions where equitable considerations apply, subject to limits).

Procedural History

Ching was allowed to take the Bar Examinations on condition he prove Philippine citizenship. After he passed, his oath-taking was deferred pending additional proof. The OSG asserted that under the 1935 constitutional regime and C.A. No. 625 Ching had at best an inchoate right to Philippine citizenship which he lost by failing to elect “upon reaching the age of majority,” and that his belated election (14 years after majority) was untimely. The Court required further submissions; Ching executed and filed an affidavit of election and oath on 15 July 1999. The Court then adjudicated whether the election was timely and valid and whether citizenship, if validly elected, would relate back to the time of his bar examination.

Facts Relevant to Citizenship Claim

  • Ching is a legitimate child of a Filipino mother and Chinese father, born in 1964 (under the 1935 Constitution).
  • He has continuously resided in the Philippines, considered himself Filipino, was a registered voter, served in local public office, and practiced as a Certified Public Accountant (a profession legally reserved for Filipino citizens).
  • He did not execute the formal statutory election under C.A. No. 625 until 15 July 1999, which was approximately fourteen years after he reached the age of majority (21 years).

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a legitimate child born under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien father may validly elect Philippine citizenship fourteen years after reaching the age of majority.
  2. If such a belated election could be recognized, whether the election would retroactively vest Philippine citizenship as of the time he took the Bar Examinations (and thus permit admission to the Bar).

Positions of the Parties

  • OSG: Contended that under the 1935 Constitution and C.A. No. 625 the election must be made “upon reaching the age of majority” and, as construed in jurisprudence and administrative opinions, within a “reasonable time” (generally three years), though limited extensions may be allowed in special circumstances; Ching’s election, being 14 years after majority, is untimely and therefore ineffective. The OSG recommended (in light of peculiar circumstances) relaxation of the standing rule to allow election prior to oath-taking, but maintained the legal position that, strictly speaking, no valid election had previously been made.
  • Ching: Asserted long-standing belief and practice of Filipino citizenship, participation in the political process, public office holding, profession reserved for Filipinos, and thereafter executed a formal election and oath of allegiance (Affidavit dated 15 July 1999), asserting that these acts evidence a valid election.

Legal Analysis — Constitutional and Statutory Construction

  • Governing constitutional rule at birth: Under the 1935 Constitution a legitimate child of a Filipino mother and alien father followed the father’s citizenship unless the child elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching majority. That procedural election requirement was implemented by C.A. No. 625. Although Ching was born under the 1935 Constitution, the Court, deciding in 1999, applied the 1987 Constitution’s recognition of those who elect under the 1935 regime but emphasized that the constitutional recognition in later charters does not cure prior irregularities — persons whose citizenship was challengeable under the 1935 Constitution remain subject to challenge.
  • C.A. No. 625 prescribes the formalities of election (sworn statement before authorized officer; filing with civil registry; oath of allegiance), but does not specify a temporal deadline. Because of the statutory silence, jurisprudence and administrative construction have supplied a temporal limitation: “upon reaching the age of majority” has been interpreted to mean within a reasonable period after attaining majority. Administrative practice had used a three-year guideline, but the Court’s jurisprudence treats this as non-inflexible and allows limited extensions where equity and continuous manifestation of Filipino identity justify it.
  • Precedent limits: In Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice the Court held that an election made more than seven years after majority was untimely. The aggregate of jurisprudence establishes that the “reasonable time” rule is flexible but not indefinite; the elector’s conduct and evidence of continuous, positive manifestations of Filipino allegiance can justify extension in specific instances, but extraordinary delay without satisfactory explanation deprives the person of the privilege to elect.
  • Applicability of informal election precedents (Mallare, Co. v. Electoral Tribunal): Those cases recognized that where a person was already a Filipino when the time to elect arose, acts such as voting, entering a profession reserved to citizens, holding public office, and other acts can be deemed an informal election or proof of Filipino citizenship. However, the Court distinguished those authorities: Mallare involved persons born before the 1935 Constitution where the question of formal election did not arise in the same way, and the holding was, at best, obiter where the person was already found to be Filipino. Co. v. Electoral Tribunal applied Mallare to persons who were already Filipinos and thus their acts manifested choice; it does not support treating the acts of a person who was not a Filipino at the material time as a substitute for the formal election required by C.A. No. 625. Ching, unlike the persons in Mallare and Co., was not already a Filipino on reaching majority and thus could not rely on informal acts to supplant the formal statutory election.
  • The Court emphasized that the special circumstances Ching invoked (continuous residence, voter registration, occupation, public office) do not supplant the statutory procedure and timing requirement where the constitutional and statutory framework prescribed elec

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms