Saracho, Nicole Roque

Research
Realin, Reuel Angelo
Doctor

Legal
1-Juris

From Indio to Filipino: An Examination of

Filipino Citizenship
The Supreme Court has defined citizenship as a badge of
identity that comes with it attendant civil and political rights
accorded by the state to its citizens. It likewise demands the
concomitant duty to maintain allegiance to ones flag and country.
Succinctly, citizenship is a legal status conferred by the State upon
an individual, bestowing upon him civil and political rights as well
as imposing the concurrent duty of maintaining allegiance to the
same.1
Filipino citizenship, its nature and especially the rights and
privileges which come with it, has changed throughout Philippine
history through laws and jurisprudence.

Among others, the

Supreme Court through its decisions has resolved such issues

through the cases of, Maria Jeanette Tecson et al. v. Commission on
Elections et

al.2, Jose Aznar v. Commission on Elections et al. 3,

Republic of the Philippines v Hamilton Tan Keh4, Edison So v.

Republic

of

the

Philippines5,

Teodora

Sobejana-Condon

1 Casan Maquiling v COMELEC et al., GR No. 195649, 16 April 2013.

2 GR No. 161824, 03 March 2004.
3 GR No. 83820, 25 May 1990.
4 GR No. 144742, 11 November 2004.
5 GR No. 170603, 29 January 2007.

Commission on Elections6, Ernesto Mercado v. Eduardo Manzano

and Commission on Elections7, In Re: Florencio Mallare8, In Re:
Petition for Habeas Corpus of Willie Yu v. Miriam DefensorSantiago et al.9, Casan Maquiling v. Commission on Elections 10,
Atty. Romulo Macalintal v. Commission on Elections et al. 11, Loida
Nicolas-Lewis et al. v Commission on Elections 12, Alexander
Krivenko v. Register of Deeds of the City of Manila 13, and Felix Ting
Ho Jr. v Vicente Teng Gui14.

Brief History of Filipino Citizenship

The Court in the case of Tecson15 delved into the historical
underpinnings

of

Filipino

citizenship.

During

the

Spanish

occupation, people residing in the Philippine Islands were referred

to as subjects of Spain and some were identified as indios
(natives),

derogatory

term

employed

6 GR No. 198742, 10 August 2012

7 GR No. 135083, 26 May 1999.
8 A.M. No. 533, 12 September 1974.
9 GR No. L-83882, 24 January 1989.
10 Supra at 1.
11 GR No. 157013, 10 July 2003.
12 GR No. 162759, 04 August 2006.
13 GR No. L-630, 15 November 1947.
14 GR No. 130115, 16 July 2008.
15 Supra at 2.

against

the

islands

inhabitants.16 In 1898, the United States (US) acquired the

Philippine Islands from Spain under the terms of the 1988 Treaty of
Paris. The term citizen of the Philippine Islands first appeared in
the Philippine Bill of 1902 or the Philippine Organic Act of 1902 17
which, for the first time in history, identified who are Filipino
citizens.
The Jones Law or the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 restated
the provisions of the Organic Act of 1902, providing that a nativeborn inhabitant of the Philippines was considered a citizen of the
Philippines as long as he was:
(1) a subject of Spain on 11 April 1899,
(2) residing in the Philippines on the said date, or
(3) that he was not a citizen of another country.18
At this point the Court noted that the term native-born
inhabitant insinuated that citizenship is acquired based on the
place where a person was born or jus soli.19 The adoption of the
1935 Philippine Constitution brought with it the principle of jus
sanguinis20 which provided that a natural-born Filipino is one who
is born of a Filipino father. At the time, a person born of a Filipino
16 Ramon M. Velayo, Philippine Citizenship and Naturalization (Central
Book Supply Incorporated, 1964), 22-23.
17 Full text reads as follows: ".... that all inhabitants of the Philippine
Islands continuing to reside therein, who were Spanish subjects on the
11th day of April, 1891, and then resided in said Islands, and their
children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens
of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the
United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their
allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the
treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris,
December tenth eighteen hundred and ninety eight.", Velayo, Supra.
18 Supra at 2.
19 Supra at 2.
20 Supra at 2.

mother still had to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the

age of majority.

Article IV of the 1987 Constitution provides yet another rule on

Philippine citizenship as follows:
(1)Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of
the adoption of the Constitution;
(2)Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
(3)Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
(4)Those who are naturalized according to law.
Acquisition, Loss and Reacquisition of Filipino Citizenship
Natural-Born Citizens
Under Section 2, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, naturalborn citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from
birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed
natural-born citizens. Paragraph 3, Section 1 provides that those
born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
The Philippine law on citizenship follows the principle of jus
sanguinis. In the said principle, a child follows the nationality or
citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/ her birth.
The principle of jus soli on the other hand provides that the place
where

child

citizenship21.
21 Supra at 2.

is

birth

determines

his/her

nationality

or

The case of Tecson22 exemplifies the principle of jus sanguinis. In

the said case, the petitioners filed a petition before the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify Fernando Poe Jr. (FPJ) and to
deny due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy because
he was not a natural-born citizen, a requirement for presidential
candidacy. Petitioners contended that the alleged illegitimacy of the
respondent prevents him from taking the Filipino citizenship of his
father.
The Supreme Court in resolving the issue examined whether
Allan F. Poe, the father of FPJ, was able to acquire Filipino
citizenship which, in turn, necessitated a look into the citizenship of
Allans father, Lorenzo Poe. The Court found that Lorenzo Poe who
was born in 1870, when the Philippines was under the Spanish
rule, benefited from the en masse Filipinization that the
Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. The citizenship of Lorenzo Poe
would then extend to his son Allan Poe and such extension would
also apply to FPJ. As to the issue that the illegitimacy of FPJ
prevents him from taking the Filipino citizenship of his father, the
Court ruled that the 1935 Constitution confers citizenship to all
persons whose father are Filipino citizens regardless of whether
such children are legitimate or illegitimate. Since FPJ was born
when the 1935 Constitution was in effect, the said provision would
apply to him.
In the case of Morano v Vivo23, the issue is whether or not the
naturalization of the father extend to the stepson. The stepson is
the child of a Chines mother and Chinese father. The Court ruled
that the naturalization couldnt extend to the stepson since they are
not blood relatives.
22 G.R. No. 161434, 03 March 2004
23 G.R. No. L-22196, 30 June 1967.

In the case of Aznar v. Commission on Elections et. al24, the

Court resolved the issue of citizenship assailed by the petitioner
against the private respondent, the latter having won the elective
position of Provincial Governor of Cebu. The Court held that since
the respondent was the son of a Filipino father, the presumption in
favor of Filipino citizenship applies and it is upon the assailing
party to establish otherwise. In this case, the Court further held
that there was no implied renunciation of Filipino Citizenship as it
can only be expressly renunciated.
In addition, the Constitution also provides that persons born
before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority shall also be deemed
as natural-born citizens. In the case of In Re: Vicente Ching25, the
petitioner, a son of a Chinese father and a Filipina mother, was
barred from taking his oath as a member to the bar despite
finishing his Bachelor of Laws and passing the Bar examinations.
The Office of the Solicitor General points out that the petitioner
failed to elect Filipino citizenship as required by the Constitution.
The Court held that a person shall elect their citizenship under
Paragraph 3, Section 1 of Article IV shall be within the period of 3
years after reaching the age of majority, which is a reasonable time
to perform such act. The petitioner was denied of his admission to
the bar.

Naturalization

24 Supra at 3.
25 Bar Matter No. 914, 1 October 1999.

Naturalization is defined as the granting of citizenship to a

foreign-born

person

under

statutory

authority 26.

From

this

definition, it may be said that Filipino citizenship acquired through

naturalization is an act done and perfected by law as compared to
natural-born citizenship which is automatically conferred upon
birth with either or both of the parents are Filipino citizens.27
In Republic of the Philippines v. Hamilton Tan Keh 28, the Court
clarified the procedural requirements of naturalization. The Office
of the Solicitor General argued that the hearing on the petition for
naturalization of the respondent was fatally defective for failing to
comply with the

publication and notice requirements set by

Commonwealth Act No. 47329 as well as the respondents failure to

fulfill the two-year probationary requirement set under Republic
Act 53030.
The Supreme Court held that Commonwealth Act No. 473,
specifically Sections 9 and 10, provided that a hearing for a petition
for naturalization: (1) must not be held within six months from last
publication of notice and (2) such hearing must not be set within
thirty (30) days preceding any election. The purpose of the
publication of notice of hearing is a means of screening aliens who
wish to acquire Filipino citizenship by giving the public a chance to
know and protest the grant of such citizenship in case they possess
information derogatory to the applicant.
26 Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.
27 paragraph (4), Section 1, Article IV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
28 Supra at 7.
29 Revised Naturalization Law (1939).
30 An Act Making Additional Provisions for Naturalization (1950).

The Court also held that Republic Act No. 53031 with respect to
the two-year probation required by law as part of the process of
naturalization.

In

this

respect,

the

Court

held

that

mere

presentation of evidence does not automatically confer citizenship

upon the applicant. A decision in a naturalization case can only
become final after two years from its promulgation and upon
another hearing conducted to determine whether the applicant has
complied with the requirements set by law.
Acquiring Filipino citizenship through naturalization may be
undertaken in three ways; by administrative naturalization under
Republic

Act

No.

913932,

by

judicial

naturalization

under

Commonwealth Act No. 473, or by legislative naturalization in form

of a law enacted by Congress.
In the case of Edison So v. Republic of the Philippines33, the
Court distinguished naturalization under Commonwealth Act No.
473 and Republic Act No. 9139. The former applies to all aliens
who wish to acquire Filipino citizenship while the latter covers
aliens who were born and resided in the Philippines since their
birth. The purpose of the distinction is to liberalize the grant of
citizenship and make the process less tedious for aliens who have
lived in the Philippines all their lives, believing that they were
Filipino citizens. The Court also held that in naturalization cases,
whether under administrative or judicial naturalization, the burden
of proof to show that the qualifications are met and the
31 Supra at 30.
32 An Act Providing for the Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship for
Certain Aliens by Administrative Naturalization and for other purposes
(2000).
33 Supra at 6.

disqualifications are absent is upon the petitioner-applicant. The

evidence showing both must not only prove the fitness of the
applicant but it also must be shown that the witnesses who testified
as to his moral character and standing must also be credible and of
good moral standing. Thus, when the petitioner merely presented
the general statements provided by his two witnesses as to his
standing, the Court found them inadequate and upheld the
dismissal of the naturalization case by the appellate court.
Filipino citizenship can be lost by Filipinos through various ways
as provided by the Commonwealth Act No. 63 34. However, the same
may be reacquired as provided for by Republic Act No. 9225 or the
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003.
In the case of Teodora Sobejana-Condon v Commission on
Elections, et al.35, the petitioner, who was a natural-born Filipino
citizen, lost the same due to her marriage to an Australian citizen.
She later on applied for the re-acquisition of her Filipino citizenship
under RA 9225 which was thereafter approved, the petitioner
subsequently taking her oath of allegiance. However, she failed to
execute a personal and sworn renunciation of her Australian
citizenship. The petitioner subsequently ran for Vice-Mayor and
upon winning, her citizenship was questioned. The Court held that
her failure to execute a sworn renunciation of her Australian
34 Filipino citizenship may be lost, to wit, (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 (4) By rendering services to, or
accepting commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country, (5) By
cancellation of the 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. (amended
by Republic Act 9225

35 Supra at 6.

Citizenship made her a dual-citizen. However in order to run for

public office, it is imperative that she renounce her Australian
citizenship as provided under RA 9225.
Dual Citizenship
Dual citizenship is a privilege granted to a natural-born citizens
of the Philippines who have lost their citizenship by reasons of
naturalization in a foreign country to reacquire or retain their
Philippine citizenship. Republic Act No. 9225 or the Citizenship
Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 which was promulgated on
29 August 2003 is a law that grants to natural born Filipinos who
have lost their Filipino citizenship through naturalization in a
foreign country, the right to retain or reacquire their Filipino
citizenship. This law makes it possible for Filipinos to be a dual
citizen by means other than by birth.
Section 3 of Republic Act 9225 states that
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who have
lost their Philippine Citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are
hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine
citizenship upon taking the following oath of
allegiance to the Republic.
In effect those who are now have deemed to be dual-citizens
shall enjoy full civil and political rights and subject to all attendant
liabilities

and

responsibilities

under

existing

laws

of

the

Philippines36 Those who reacquired their Filipino citizenship can

hold public office in the country as long as they meet the
qualifications as reacquired by the Philippine Constitution and
existing laws, and at the time of the filing of the candidacy, make a
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship
before a public officer authorized to administer an oath.
36 Republic Act 9225, Section 5.

In

De

Guzman

COMELEC37,

herein

petitioner

was

naturalized American however on January 2006, he applied for dual

citizenship under RA 9225. Upon the approval of his application, he
took his oath and allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. In
effect of the said reacquisition of Filipino citizenship, he is entitled
to exercise full civil and political rights. Petitioner wanted to run as
a vice mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija. However. COMELEC wanted
to disqualify him from running as a vice mayor since he failed to
renounce his American citizenship. The court ruled in favor of
COMELEC

stating

that

petitioners

oath

of

allegiance

and

certificate of candidacy were not enough for him to have a right to

run as a vice mayor. Section 5(2) of RA 9225 further requires that
those seeking elective public office in the Philippines to make a
personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship.38
In Maquiling v COMELEC, et al39 , it was ruled that if a person
after taking the oath of allegiance and executing and affidavit of
renunciation under RA 9225 used a foreign passport, is a act of
showing that the person has continued possession and enjoyment
of foreign citizenship. It barred the petitioner in herein case was
disqualified to run for an elective post or to be appointed for a
government position.

37 G.R. No. 180048, 19 January 2009

38 Section 5(2) of R.A. 9225 provides that Those seeking elective public
office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such
public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the
time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an oath.
39 G.R. No. 195649, 16 April 2003

The cases given establishes that while dual citizens enjoy the
same privileges and obligations as that of a Filipino citizen, the law
and the Courts are not lenient in allowing them in holding
government positions and public office.
Rights and Privileges of Filipino Citizens
Filipino citizenship confers upon an individual both civil and
political rights recognized by the Philippine sovereign. Some of
these rights are exclusively enjoyed by Filipinos such as, inter alia,
the right to suffrage, the right to run for certain elected positions,
and the right to own property
Dual Citizens and the Right to Suffrage
The Court, in the case of Romulo Macalintal v. Commission on
Elections40, upheld the validity of the provisions of Republic Act
9189 or the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 which allowed
the

registration

of

Filipino

voters

who

are

immigrants

or

permanent residents in other countries. The petitioner avers that

such provision was against the residency requirement provided in
Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution 41. However, the Court held
that the essence of RA 9189 is to enable overseas qualified
Filipinos the right to vote in accordance with paragraph 1, Section
2 of Article V of the Constitution which states that the Congress
shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the
ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos
40 Supra at 12.
41 Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution provides that Suffrage
may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall
have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place
wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately
preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

abroad. Under election law, an absentee while abroad, remains

attached to his residence in the Philippines with residence
considered synonymous with domicile in this respect.
In connection with the ruling in Macalintal, the Court held in the
case of Loida Nicolas-Lewis et al. v Commission on Elections 42 that
dual citizens residing abroad also have the political right to
suffrage. The Court held that Filipinos who are dual citizens fall
within the exemption of residency as provided for by law and
jurisprudence with regards to suffrage. This right would also
extend to those holding derivative citizenship, or an unmarried
legitimate or illegitimate child below eighteen (18) years of age
who reacquire Philippine citizenship, under RA 9189.
Citizenship and Public Office
In the above-mentioned cases of Tecson, Aznar, Manzano and
Sobejana-Condon, the Court dealt with issues involving the
citizenship requirement to run for an elective position in public
office. Under the 1987 Constitution, only natural-born Filipinos may
hold the position of President, Vice-President, Senator, Member of
the

House

of

Representatives,

Supreme

Court

Justice,

the

Chairman and commissioners of the Civil Service Commission,

Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit, Commission on
Human Rights, members of the Governing Board of the Central
Bank, and the Ombudsman and his deputies, among others43.
In the case of Aznar, the Court established the presumption in
favor of Filipino citizenship and that the burden of proof rests upon
the party assailing it. The Court held in Manzano that the Oath of
42 Supra at 13.
43 Article VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XIII 1987 Constitution

Allegiance which was administered upon his filing of his Certificate

of Candidacy was sufficient to constitute renunciation of American
Citizenship. However, the same doctrine did not apply in SobejanaCondon with the Court ruling that Republic Act 9225 has
superseded its application, providing for the addition of a personal
and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship. Therefore, the
prevailing rule would be the one established by the Court in case of
Sobejana-Condon with the compliance of the above requirement.
Property Rights
The Constitution and Philippine laws provide for how a Filipino
can enjoy their right as citizens to own and enjoy property As a
general rule, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
provides that only Filipino citizens are entitled to acquire land in
the Philippines. As for dual-citizens, pursuant to RA 9225, they
have the same rights and privilege as that of Filipino citizens
insofar as land ownership and acquisition are concerned. However
exceptions to the said general rule were provided by laws wherein
an alien may acquire real estate in the following cases (1)
Acquisition before the 1935 Constitution (2) Acquisition through
hereditary succession if the foreigner is a legal heir 44 (3) Purchase
by a former natural born Filipino citizen subject to limitations
provided by law45 and (4) Filipinos who are married to aliens who

44 Article XIII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution states that Save in

cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural lands will be
transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the
Philippines.
45 Section 10 of Republic Act 8179 which is an Act to Promote Foreign
Investments, Prescribe the Procedures for Registering Enterprises Doing
Business in the Philippines and for Other Purposes states that Save in cases of
hereditary succession, no private agricultural land will be transferred or
assigned except to individuals, corporations or associations qualified to acquire
or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.

retain their Filipino citizenship, unless by their act or omission they

have renounced their Filipino citizenship.

The landmark case of Krivenko v Register of Deeds46 settled the

issue on who are qualified and disqualified to own public and
private lands. The Court held that aliens have no right to acquire
any public or private land or private agricultural, commercial or
residential lands. In addition to that rule, to prevent Filipino
citizens to alienate lands to foreigners, Section 7 of Article XIII of
the 1987 Constitution which provides that Save in cases of
hereditary

succession,

no

private

agricultural

land

will

be

transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations or

associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain
in the Philippines.
In cases regarding the sale of property by a disqualified alien
vendee, the court ruled in the case of United Church Board of
World Ministries v Sebastian47 that when a land or property is
invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a
citizen or transfers it to citizen, the flaw in the original transaction
is considered cured and the title of the transferee is considered
valid. The rationale for the said decision is further discussed in the
case of Vasquez v Li Seng Giap48 wherein it was penned that if the
ban on aliens from acquiring not only agricultural but also urban
lands is to preserve the nations lands for the future generations of
Filipinos, that aim would be achieved by making lawful the
acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by
46 39 Phil 461, 15 November 1947
47 159 SCRA 446, 30 March 1988
48 96 Phil 447, 31 January 1955

naturalization and making the sale of disqualified alien vendee to a

Filipino citizen valid.
In the given cases above, it can be inferred that the law gives
the citizen an exclusive right to enjoy and own lands in the country.
The Constitution makes sure that as citizens of the Philippines they
will be able to utilize the resources of the Philippines. The
Constitution safeguards our national patrimony not only for present
citizen of the Philippines but also for the future generations.

Conclusion
While the right to citizenship or nationality constitutes part of an
individuals fundamental rights, Filipino citizenship is a privilege
given to those individuals by the incident of their birth or through
the consent and approval of the Philippine sovereign. Being Filipino
in its legal sense is, first and foremost, being a citizen of the
Philippines and while some might argue otherwise, it cannot be
gainsaid that a conferment of this privilege is one that is of
tantamount importance to the State.
Attaining the status of a Filipino citizen comes with it the
enjoyment of the privileges provided under the law such as the
right to suffrage, public office, and the right to own real property.
However, such privilege is not without duty. A Filipino citizen is
expected to pledge loyalty and allegiance to not only the Philippine
sovereign but also to his fellow Filipino citizens. His exercise of

rights comes with the proper observance of his duties. As Justice

Vitug wrote in his ponencia, Citizenship is a treasured right
conferred on those whom the state believes are deserving of the
privilege. It is a precious heritage, as well as an inestimable
acquisition, that cannot be taken lightly by anyone - either by those
who enjoy it or by those who dispute it.