Problems on the Dual Citizenship Law

The enactment of Republic Act No. 9225 or what is commonly termed

as the Philippine Dual Citizenship Law has brought mixed reactions from
various sectors. While the legislature saw the need to grant dual citizenship
to Filipinos who became naturalized in foreign countries, others looked at it
disapprovingly. The passing of the law left striking points and arguments
unanswered.
One of the arguments against it is that the law has, in effect,
tolerated

dual

allegiance.

In

petition

to

declare R.A.

No.

9225 unconstitutional, Hector Calilung of the party-list group Advocates

and Adherents of Social Justice for Social Teachers and Allied Workers said
that the law indirectly allows dual allegiance which he considers as
diametrically opposed to the constitutional principle that dual allegiance is
inimical to the national interest.[1]
In the case of Mercado v. Manzano[2], the Supreme Court clarified the
mandate of Section 5 Article IV of the Constitution when it held that the
concern of the Constitutional Commission was not with dual citizens per
se but with naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their
countries of origin even after their naturalization. The constitutional
provision is not against dual citizenship but dual loyalty, such as that often
manifested by naturalized Filipinos who, while professing allegiance to their
adoptive land, retain their allegiance to their native land and even involve
themselves in its political affairs.[3]
Dual citizenship due to the universal rule that the child follows the
citizenship of the father is not prohibited as it is unavoidable considering
that it is a condition that arises from the fact that Philippine law cannot
control

international

law

and

the

laws

of

other

countries

on

citizenship.[4] The problem arises when dual citizenship is acquired through

direct positive acts. In a way, it is the kind of dual allegiance or dual loyalty
sought to be prevented by the Constitution as held in the Manzano case.
The issue in R.A. No. 9225 is that it permitted former Filipinos who
have sworn allegiance to acquire another citizenship through naturalization
in a foreign country to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines to reacquire Philippine citizenship. As observed in this light,
the law has, in fact, indirectly allowed dual allegiance or loyalty. To some
extent, the law ignored the Constitutional provision that dual allegiance of
citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.[5]
Another issue related to the enactment of the law is the possibility of
double taxation. However, the answer given to this issue is that bilateral
treaties between the Philippines and other countries will make sure that
Filipinos working in these countries will not pay tax in the Philippines on
income

earned

in

those

countries.[6] The

problem

is

when

the Philippines does not have bilateral treaties in all countries where
Filipinos are found. Then Senate President Franklin Drilon countered the
argument saying that their incomes (in these foreign countries) had always
been tax free and that since liability for taxes on income is based on where
one lives and not on citizenship, dual citizenship does not automatically
translate into double taxation.[7]
There is also the issue of whether reacquiring Filipino citizenship
jeopardizes ones another citizenship. In the United States, it is reported
that it would take more than intent or taking an oath of allegiance to
another country for an American to lose citizenship.[8] Under Section
349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act[9] of the United States
of America a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth

or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing the

acts

provided

by

law

with

the

intention

of

relinquishing United

States nationality. Thus, for aU.S. national to lose his citizenship, there must
be an intentional relinquishment of his U.S. citizenship. However, this is not
the case in all countries. Some experts argue that there are cases wherein a
country will automatically revoke the citizenship of one of its citizens who
acquires another countrys citizenship through naturalization, even if no
explicit renunciation by the person concerned was made.[10]
Another issue is military service. The concept of citizenship usually
carries with it the obligation to render military service. Does a former
Filipino who has obtained another citizenship through naturalization and
who also reacquired Filipino citizenship under R.A. No. 9255 have to render
military service to both countries? In times of war, in what country shall he
serve?
Can there be a more ridiculous concept that someone
swearing absolute, total and exclusive loyalty to two
flags? That is like swearing absolute, total and exclusive
loyalty to two wives. As it is, swearing absolute, total and
exclusive loyalty to two wives is banned as bigamy. Yet
swearing absolute, total and exclusive loyalty to two flags
is embraced as a virtue. What if the two flags get divided
on war? Will you serve in the army of the one as a
conscript while the other opposes it? [11]

R.A. No. 9225 may have its benefits but it also has its concurrent
problems which anyone contemplating of availing dual citizenship under
this law should seriously consider. Thus, it is suggested that the law on dual

citizenship should be complemented by a bilateral or international treaty so

that issues such as those mentioned can be properly addressed.[12]

[1]

Jerome Aning , Supreme Court asked to void citizenship law (Dec. 22, 2003)
<http://www.inq7.net/nat/2003/dec/22/nat_10-1.htm>.
[2]
307 SCRA 630, 643 (1999).
[3]
ISAGANI A. CRUZ, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 387 (2000 ed.)
[4]
JOAQUIN C. BERNAS S.J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY 273 (2003 ed.) citing Convention Sessions of November
25 and 27, 1972.
[5]
PHIL. CONST., Art. IV 5.
[6]
Belinda
A.
Aquino, To
be
a
dual
citizen (Sept.
19,
2003)
<http://www.inq7.net/opi/2003/sep/19/opi-commentary1-1.htm>.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id.
[9]
8 U.S.C. 1481
[10]
Aquino, supra note 6.
[11]
Conrado de Quiros, Irony upon irony (Feb. 24, 2004)
<http://www.inq7.net/opi/2004/feb/24/opi_csdequiros-1.htm>.
[12]
Tito Guingona, On dual citizenship (visited Apr. 14, 2005)
<http://www.dfa.gov.ph/archive/speech/guingona/dualcitizenship.htm >.