COMMONWEALTH ACT NO.

63
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR
REACQUIRED.
Section 1. How citizenship may be lost. - A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following
ways and/or
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) By express renunciation of citizenship;
(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country upon
attaining twenty-one years of age or more: Provided, however, That a Filipino may not divest himself of
Philippine citizenship in any manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country.
(4) By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country, and the
taking of an oath of allegiance incident thereto, with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, shall
not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of the following circumstances is present:
(a) The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign
country; or
(b) The said foreign country maintains armed forces on Philippine territory with the consent of the
Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the Filipino citizen concerned, at the time of rendering said
service, or acceptance of said commission, and taking the oath of allegiance incident thereto states that
he does so only in connection with his service to said foreign country: And, Provided, finally, That any
Filipino citizen who is rendering service to, or is commissioned in, the armed forces of a foreign country
under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b). shall not be permitted to participate
nor vote in any election of the Republic of the Philippines during the period of his service suspended to,
or commission in, the armed forces of said foreign country. Upon his discharge from the service of the
said foreign country, he shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil and political
rights as a Filipino citizen; (As amended by R. A. 106, R. A. 2639 and R. A. 3834).
(5) By cancellation of the certificates of naturalization;
(6) By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of
war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted; and
(7) In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force in her
husband's country, she acquires his nationality.
The provisions of this section notwithstanding, the acquisition of citizenship by a natural born Filipino
citizen from one of the Iberian and any friendly democratic countries or from the United Kingdom shall
not produce loss or forfeiture of his Philippine citizenship if the law Of that country grants the same
privilege to its citizens and such had been agreed upon by treaty between the Philippines and the
foreign country from which citizenship is acquired.
Sec. 2. How citizenship may be reacquired. -- Citizenship may be reacquired:
(1) By naturalization: Provided, That the applicant possess none of the disqualifications prescribed in
section two of Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred and twenty-seven.
(2) By repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy or Air Corps: Provided, That a woman who lost her
citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien may be repatriated in accordance with. the provisions
of this Act after the termination of the marital status; and
(3) By direct act of the National Assembly.
Sec. 3. Procedure incident to reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. - The procedure prescribed for
naturalization tinder
Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred and twenty-seven, as amended, shall apply to the reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship by naturalization provided for in the next preceding. section: Provided, That the
qualifications and special qualifications
prescribed in sections three and four of said. Act shall not be required: And, Provided, further:
(1) That the applicant be at least twenty-one years of age and shall have resided in the Philippines at
least six months before he applies for naturalization;
(2) That he shall have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire.
period of his residence in the Philippines, in his relations with. the constituted government as well as
with the community in which he is living; and
(3) That he subscribes to an oath declaring his intention to renounce absolutely and perpetually alt faith
and allegiance to the foreign authority, state or sovereignty of which he was a citizen or subject.
Sec. 4. Repatriation shall be effected by merely taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the
Commonwealth of the
Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry.
Sec. 5. The Secretary of Justice shall issue the necessary regulations for the proper enforcement of this
Act. Naturalization blanks and other blanks required for carrying out the provisions of this Act shall be
prepared and furnished by the Solicitor General subject to approval of the Secretary of Justice.
Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: October 21, 1936.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 965 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY
PERSONS WHO LOST SUCH CITIZENSHIP BY RENDERING SERVICE TO, OR ACCEPTING COMMISSION IN,
THE ARMED FORCES OF AN ALLIED FOREIGN COUNTRY, AND TAKING AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
INCIDENT THERETO
Section 1. Any person who, being a citizen of the Philippines on December eight, nineteen hundred
forty-one, had lost said citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces
of an allied foreign country, and taking an oath of allegiance incident thereto, may reacquire Philippine
citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same
with the Local Civil Registry in the place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines within one
year from the date of the approval of this Act. The said oath of allegiance shall contain, in addition, a
renunciation of any other citizenship.
Sec. 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: June 20, 1953
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 2630 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY
PERSONS WHO LOST SUCH CITIZENSHIP BY RENDERING SERVICE TO, OR ACCEPTING COMMISSION IN,
THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES
Section 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of the
United States, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath
of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same with the Local Civil Registry in
the place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall contain a
renunciation of any other citizenship.
Sec. 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: June 18, 1960
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8171 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO WOMEN WHO
HAVE LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE TO ALIENS AND OF NATURAL-BORN
FILIPINOS
Section 1. Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and natural-
born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship, including their minor children, on account of
political or economic necessity, may reacquire Philippine citizenship through repatriation in the manner
provided in Sec. 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended: provided, that the applicant is not a:
(1) Person opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons
who uphold and teach doctrines opposing organized government;
(2) Person defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or association
for the predominance of their ideas;
(3) Person convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude; or
(4) Person suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases.
Sec. 2. Repatriation shall be effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of Immigration. The Bureau of
Immigration shall thereupon cancel the pertinent alien certificate of registration and issue the certificate
of identification as Filipino citizen to the repatriated citizen.
Sec. 3. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are
hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect thirty (30) days after its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation.
Lapsed into law on October 23, 1995 without the signature of the President, in accordance with Article
VI, Sec. 27 (1) of the Constitution.

CASES
Tabasa vs CA
G.R. No. 125 793, 29 August 2006 [Naturalization; Reacquisition; R.A. No. 8171]

FACTS:
When he was 7 years old, Joevanie A. Tabasa acquired American citizenship when his father became a
naturalized citizen of the US. In 1995, he arrived in the Philippines and was admitted as "balikbayan";
thereafter, he was arrested and detained by the agent of BIR. The Consul General of the US embassy of
Manila filed a request with the BID that his passport has been revoked and that Tabasa had a standing
warrant for several federal charges against him.

Petitioner alleged that he acquired Filipino citizenship by repatriation in accordance with the RA No.
8171, and that because he is now a Filipino citizen, he cannot be deported or detained by the BID.

ISSUE:
Whether or not he has validly reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 8171 and therefore, is not an
undocumented alien subject to deportation.

RULING:
No. Petitioner is not qualified to avail himself of repatriation under RA 8171. The only person entitled to
repatriation under RA 8171 is either a Filipino woman who lost her Philippine citizenship by marriage to
an alien, or a natural-born Filipino, including his minor children who lost Philippine citizenship on
account of political or economic necessity.
Petitioner was already 35 years old when he filed for repatriation. The act cannot be applied in his case
because he is no longer a minor at the time of his repatriation in 1996. The privilege under RA 8171 only
belongs to children who are of minor age at the time of filing of the petition for repatriation.

Frivaldo vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 120295 (June 28, 1996)
Facts:
Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the province of Sorsogon on 22 January 1988, and
assumed office in due time. On 27 October 1988, the league of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter
represented by its President, Salvador Estuye, who was also suing in his personal capacity, filed with the
Comelec a petition for the annulment of Frivaldos election and proclamation on the ground that he was
not a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the United States on 20 January 1983. Frivaldo admitted
that he was naturalized in the United States as alleged but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses
that he had sought American citizenship only to protect himself against President Marcos. His
naturalization, he said, was merely forced upon himself as a means of survival against the unrelenting
persecution by the Martial Law Dictators agents abroad. He also argued that the challenge to his title
should be dismissed, being in reality a quo warrant to petition that should have been filed within 10
days from his proclamation, in accordance with Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Issue:
Whether Juan G. Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of his election on 18 January 1988,
as provincial governor of Sorsogon.
Held:
The Commission on Elections has the primary jurisdiction over the question as the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the Congress and elective
provincial and city officials. However, the decision on Frivaldos citizenship has already been made by
the COMELEC through its counsel, the Solicitor General, who categorically claims that Frivaldo is a
foreigner. The Solicitors stance is assumed to have been taken by him after consultation with COMELEC
and with its approval. It therefore represents the decision of the COMELEC itself that the Supreme Court
may review. In the certificate of candidacy filed on 19 November 1987, Frivaldo described himself as a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, omitting mention of any subsequent loss of such status. The
evidence shows, however, that he was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1983 per the
certification from the United States District Court, Northern District of California, as duly authenticated
by Vice Consul Amado P. Cortez of the Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco, California, U.S.A.
There were many other Filipinos in the United States similarly situated as Frivaldo, and some of them
subject to greater risk than he, who did not find it necessary nor do they claim to have been coerced
to abandon their cherished status as Filipinos. Still, if he really wanted to disavow his American
citizenship and reacquire Philippine citizenship, Frivaldo should have done so in accordance with the
laws of our country. Under CA No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473 and PD No. 725, Philippine citizenship
may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. He failed to take such
categorical acts. The anomaly of a person sitting as provincial governor in this country while owing
exclusive allegiance to another country cannot be permitted. The fact that he was elected by the people
of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent violation of the salutary rule limiting public office and
employment only to the citizens of this country. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot
cannot cure the vice of ineligibility. Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must
be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office but during the
officers entire tenure. Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably
challenged. Frivaldo is disqualified from serving as governor of Sorsogon.

Altarejos vs Comelec
G.R. No. 163256, 10 Nov 2004 [Naturalization; Reacquisition]
FACTS:
Private respondents filed with the COMELEC to disqualify and deny due course or cancel the certificate
of candidacy of Ciceron P. Altarejos, on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen and that he made a
false representation in his COC that he was not a permanent resident of the Municipality of San Jacinto,
Masbate, the town he's running for as mayor in the May 10, 2004 elections. Altarejos answered that he
was already issued a Certificate of Repatriation by the Special Committee on Naturalization in December
17, 1997.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the registration of petitioners repatriation with the proper civil registry and with the
Bureau of Immigration a prerequisite in effecting repatriation.
RULING:
Yes. The registration of certificate of repatriation with the proper local civil registry and with the Bureau
of Immigration is a prerequisite in effecting repatriation. Petitioner completed all the requirements of
repatriation only after he filed his certificate of candidacy for a mayoralty position but before the
elections. Petitioners repatriation retroacted to the date he filed his application and was, therefore,
qualified to run for a mayoralty position in the government in the May 10, 2004 elections.



BENGSON vs. HRET and CRUZ
G.R. No. 142840
FACTS: The citizenship of respondent Cruz is at issue in this case, in view of the constitutional
requirement that no person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-
born citizen.
Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in Tarlac in 1960 of Filipino parents. In
1985, however, Cruz enlisted in the US Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of the
Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the USA. As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for
under CA No. 63 [(An Act Providing for the Ways in Which Philippine Citizenship May Be Lost or
Reacquired (1936)] section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by, among other, rendering
service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country.
Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss of Philippine citizenship was erased by his
naturalization as a U.S. citizen in 1990, in connection with his service in the U.S. Marine Corps.
In 1994, Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under RA 2630 [(An Act Providing
for Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Persons Who Lost Such Citizenship by Rendering Service To,
or Accepting Commission In, the Armed Forces of the United States (1960)]. He ran for and was elected
as the Representative of the 2nd District of Pangasinan in the 1998 elections. He won over petitioner
Bengson who was then running for reelection.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with respondent HRET claiming that
Cruz was not qualified to become a member of the HOR since he is not a natural-born citizen as required
under Article VI, section 6 of the Constitution.
HRET rendered its decision dismissing the petition for quo warranto and declaring Cruz the duly elected
Representative in the said election.

ISSUE: WON Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an American citizen, can still be considered a
natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.

HELD: petition dismissed
YES
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire the same in the manner provided
by law. C.A. No. 63 enumerates the 3 modes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a
former citizen:
1. by naturalization,
2. by repatriation, and
3. by direct act of Congress.
**
Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those who lost their citizenship due to:
1. desertion of the armed forces;
2. services in the armed forces of the allied forces in World War II;
3. service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other time,
4. marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and
5. political economic necessity
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality This means that a naturalized Filipino who
lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand,
if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to
his former status as a natural-born Filipino.
R.A. No. 2630 provides:
Sec 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of the
United States, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath
of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same with Local Civil Registry in the
place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall contain a
renunciation of any other citizenship.
Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the same in the
Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited provision, Cruz is deemed to
have recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the
son of a Filipino father. It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to,
his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9255 February 24 2004
AN ACT ALLOWING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN TO USE THE SURNAME OF THEIR FATHER, AMENDING
FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 176 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "FAMILY
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES"

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Article 176 of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the
Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Article 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of
their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. However, illegitimate
children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father
through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or
private handwritten instrument is made by the father. Provided, the father has the right to institute an
action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of each
illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child."
SECTION 2. Repealing Clause. All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, proclamations, rules and
regulations, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.
SECTION 3. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from its publication in the
Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW of BENJAMIN M. DACANAY
B.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007
Facts:
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until he migrated to
Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. He subsequently applied for
Canadian citizenship to avail of Canadas free medical aid program. His application was approved and he
became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of
2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. On that day, he took his oath of allegiance as a
Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned to
the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice.
Issue: WON petitioner may still resume practice? YES
Held:
Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides an applicant for admission to the bar be a citizen of
the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character and a resident of the
Philippines.5 He must also produce before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character and
that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the
Philippines.
Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership
in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words,
the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The
practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another
country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because all Philippine citizens who
become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under
the conditions of [RA 9225]. Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is
deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225.
Before he can can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the authority to do so,
conditioned on:
o the updating and payment of of IBP membership dues;
o the payment of professional tax;
o the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is specially
significant to refresh the applicant/petitioners knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal
developments and
o the retaking of the lawyers oath.
DECISION: GRANTED.


EFFECT OF MARRIAGE
LABO vs COMELEC
In 1988, Ramon Labo, Jr. was elected as mayor of Baguio City. His rival, Luis Lardizabal filed a
petition for quo warran to against Labo as Lardizabal asserts that Labo is an Australian citizen hence
disqualified; that he was naturalized as an Australian after he married an Australian. Labo avers that
his marriage with an Australian did not make him an Australian; that at best he has dual citizenship,
Australian and Filipino; that even if he indeed became an Australian when he married an Australian
citizen, such citizenship was lost when his marriage with the Australian was later declared void for
being bigamous. Labo further asserts that even if hes considered as an Australian, his lack of
citizenship is just a mere technicality which should not frustrate the will of the electorate of Baguio
who voted for him by a vast majority.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Labo can retain his public office.
2. Whether or not Lardizabal, who obtained the second highest vote in the mayoralty race, can
replace Labo in the event Labo is disqualified.

HELD: 1. No. Labo did not question the authenticity of evidence presented against him. He was
naturalized as an Australian in 1976. It was not his marriage to an Australian that made him an
Australian. It was his act of subsequently swearing by taking an oath of allegiance to the government
of Australia. He did not dispute that he needed an Australian passport to return to the Philippines in
1980; and that he was listed as an immigrant here. It cannot be said also that he is a dual citizen.
Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. He lost
his Filipino citizenship when he swore allegiance to Australia. He cannot also claim that when he lost
his Australian citizenship, he became solely a Filipino. To restore his Filipino citizenship, he must be
naturalized or repatriated or be declared as a Filipino through an act of Congress none of this
happened.

Labo, being a foreigner, cannot serve public office. His claim that his lack of citizenship should not
overcome the will of the electorate is not tenable. The people of Baguio could not have, even
unanimously, changed the requirements of the Local Government Code and the Constitution simply
by electing a foreigner (curiously, would Baguio have voted for Labo had they known he is
Australian). The electorate 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 the
Philippines, to preside over them as mayor of their city. Only citizens of the Philippines have that
privilege over their countrymen.

2. Lardizabal on the other hand cannot assert, through the quo warranto proceeding, that he should
be declared the mayor by reason of Labos disqualification because Lardizabal obtained the second
highest number of vote. It would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally
guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is
proclaimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of which have
positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose him. Sound policy dictates that
public elective offices are filled by those who have received the highest number of votes cast in the
election for that office, and it is a fundamental idea in all republican forms of government that no one
can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority
or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election.

Facts: Bernard Banez, the husband of Marina Cabael, went to Indonesia as a contract worker.
On April 3, 1974, he embraced and was converted to Islam. On May 17, 1974, he married petitioner in
accordance with Islamic rites. He returned to the Philippines in January 1979. On January 13, 1979,
petitioner and her two children with Banez, arrived in Manila as the "guests" of Banez. The latter made
it appear that he was just a friend of the family of petitioner and was merely repaying the hospitability
extended to him during his stay in Indonesia. When petitioner and her two children arrived at the Ninoy
Aquino International Airport on January 13, 1979, Banez, together with Marina Cabael, met them.As
"guests," petitioner and her two children lived in the house of Banez. Petitioner and her children were
admitted to the Philippines as temporary visitors under Section 9(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940.
In 1981, Marina Cabael discovered the true relationship of her husband and petitioner. On March 25,
1982, the immigration status of petitioner was changed from temporary visitor to that of permanent
resident under Section 13(a) of the same law. On April 14, 1982, petitioner was issued an alien
certificate of registration.
Not accepting the set-back, Banez' eldest son, Leonardo, filed a letter complaint with the Ombudsman,
who subsequently referred the letter to the CID. On the basis of the said letter, petitioner was detained
at the CID detention cell.
The CID issued an order revoking the status of permanent resident given to petitioner, the Board found
the 2nd marriage irregular and not in accordance with the laws of the Phils. There was thus no basis for
giving her the status of permanent residence, since she was an Indonesian citizen and her marriage with
a Filipino Citizen was not valid.
Thus this petition for certiorari
Issue: Whether or not the courts may review deportation proceedings
Held : Yes. Section 1 of Article 8 says Judicial Power includes 1) settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable 2) determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.

We need not resolve the validity of petitioner's marriage to Banez, if under the law the CID can validly
deport petitioner as an "undesirable alien" regardless of her marriage to a Filipino citizen. Generally, the
right of the President to expel or deport aliens whose presence is deemed inimical to the public interest
is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entry into the country.
However, under clause 1 of Section 37(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940 an "alien who enters the
Philippines after the effective date of this Act by means of false and misleading statements or without
inspection and admission by the immigration authorities at a designated port of entry or at any place
other than at a designated port of entry" is subject to deportation.
The deportation of an alien under said clause of Section 37(a) has a prescriptive period and "shall not be
effected ... unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made within five years after the cause for
deportation arises". Tolling the prescriptive period from November 19, 1980, when Leonardo C. Banez
informed the CID of the illegal entry of petitioner into the country, more than five years had elapsed
before the issuance of the order of her deportation on September 27, 1990.