CITIZENSHIP : LAWS AND CASES

1.
Commonwealth Act 63
2.
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED

Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:

Section 1. How citizenship may be lost. A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events:

(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: Provided, That the rendering of service
to, or the acceptance of such 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 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;

(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.1

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 Ibero-American 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.2

Section. 2. How citizenship may be reacquired. Citizenship may be reacquired:

(1) By naturalization: Provided, That the applicant possess none of the disqualification's prescribed in section two of Act Numbered
Twenty-nine hundred and twenty-seven,3

(2) By repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy or Air Corp: 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;4 and

(3) By direct act of the National Assembly.

Section 3. Procedure incident to reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. The procedure prescribed for naturalization under Act
Numbered Twenty-nine hundred and twenty-seven,5 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
section three and four of said Act shall not be required: And provided, further,
1|Page
(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 all faith and allegiance to the foreign
authority, state or sovereignty of which he was a citizen or subject.

Section 4. Repatriation shall be effected by merely taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth6of the Philippines and
registration in the proper civil registry.

Section 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.

Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved, October 21, 1936.

2. Commonwealth Act 473

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION, AND TO REPEAL ACTS
NUMBERED TWENTY-NINE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN AND THIRTY-FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHT.

Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:

Section 1. Title of Act. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Revised Naturalization Law."

Section 2. Qualifications. Subject to section four of this Act, any person having the following qualifications may become a citizen of
the Philippines by naturalization:

First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of the petition;

Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten years;

Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with
the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living.

Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some
known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation;

Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages; and

Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of
Private Education1 of the Philippines, where the Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school
curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for
naturalization as Philippine citizen.

Section 3. Special qualifications. The ten years of continuous residence required under the second condition of the last preceding
section shall be understood as reduced to five years for any petitioner having any of the following qualifications:

Having honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines or under that of any of the provinces, cities, municipalities, or
political subdivisions thereof;

Having established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines;

Being married to a Filipino woman;

2|Page
Having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a public or recognized private school not established for the exclusive
instruction of children of persons of a particular nationality or race, in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of not
less than two years;

Having been born in the Philippines.

Section 4. Who are disqualified. - The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens:

Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines
opposing all organized governments;

Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and
predominance of their ideas;

Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;

Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;

Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;

Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not
evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;

Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States 2and the Philippines are at war, during the period of such war;

Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United States 3whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized
citizens or subjects thereof.

Section 5. Declaration of intention. One year prior to the filing of his petition for admission to Philippine citizenship, the applicant for
Philippine citizenship shall file with the Bureau of Justice4 a declaration under oath that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen
of the Philippines. Such declaration shall set forth name, age, occupation, personal description, place of birth, last foreign residence
and allegiance, the date of arrival, the name of the vessel or aircraft, if any, in which he came to the Philippines, and the place of
residence in the Philippines at the time of making the declaration. No declaration shall be valid until lawful entry for permanent
residence has been established and a certificate showing the date, place, and manner of his arrival has been issued. The declarant
must also state that he has enrolled his minor children, if any, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of
Private Education5 of the Philippines, where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school
curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for
naturalization as Philippine citizen. Each declarant must furnish two photographs of himself.

Section 6. Persons exempt from requirement to make a declaration of intention. Persons born in the Philippines and have received
their primary and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or
nationality, and those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before filing their
application, may be naturalized without having to make a declaration of intention upon complying with the other requirements of this
Act. To such requirements shall be added that which establishes that the applicant has given primary and secondary education to all his
children in the public schools or in private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. The same
shall be understood applicable with respect to the widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his intention to become a
citizen of the Philippines, and dies before he is actually naturalized.6

Section 7. Petition for citizenship. Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent court, a petition in
triplicate, accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner, setting forth his name and surname; his present and former places of
residence; his occupation; the place and date of his birth; whether single or married and the father of children, the name, age, birthplace
and residence of the wife and of each of the children; the approximate date of his or her arrival in the Philippines, the name of the port
of debarkation, and, if he remembers it, the name of the ship on which he came; a declaration that he has the qualifications required by
this Act, specifying the same, and that he is not disqualified for naturalization under the provisions of this Act; that he has complied with
the requirements of section five of this Act; and that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of the
petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship. The petition must be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and
be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the
petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person of good repute and morally
irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is
not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act. The petition shall also set forth the names and post-office addresses of such
3|Page
witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing of the case. The certificate of arrival, and the declaration of intention
must be made part of the petition.

Section 8. Competent court.The Court of First Instance of the province in which the petitioner has resided at least one year
immediately preceding the filing of the petition shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the petition.

Section 9. Notification and appearance.Immediately upon the filing of a petition, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court to publish
the same at petitioner's expense, once a week for three consecutive weeks, in the Official Gazette, and in one of the newspapers of
general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides, and to have copies of said petition and a general notice of the hearing
posted in a public and conspicuous place in his office or in the building where said office is located, setting forth in such notice the
name, birthplace and residence of the petitioner, the date and place of his arrival in the Philippines, the names of the witnesses whom
the petitioner proposes to introduce in support of his petition, and the date of the hearing of the petition, which hearing shall not be held
within ninety days from the date of the last publication of the notice. The clerk shall, as soon as possible, forward copies of the petition,
the sentence, the naturalization certificate, and other pertinent data to the Department of the Interior, 7 the Bureau of Justice,8 the
Provincial Inspector9 of the Philippine Constabulary of the province and the justice of the peace10 of the municipality wherein the
petitioner resides.

Section 10. Hearing of the petition.No petition shall be heard within the thirty days preceding any election. The hearing shall be
public, and the Solicitor-General, either himself or through his delegate or the provincial fiscal concerned, shall appear on behalf of the
Commonwealth11 of the Philippines at all the proceedings and at the hearing. If, after the hearing, the court believes, in view of the
evidence taken, that the petitioner has all the qualifications required by, and none of the disqualifications specified in this Act and has
complied with all requisites herein established, it shall order the proper naturalization certificate to be issued and the registration of the
said naturalization certificate in the proper civil registry as required in section ten of Act Numbered Three thousand seven hundred and
fifty-three.12

Section 11. Appeal.The final sentence may, at the instance of either of the parties, be appealed to the Supreme Court.13

Section 12. Issuance of the Certificate of Naturalization.If, after the lapse of thirty days from and after the date on which the parties
were notified of the Court, no appeal has been filed, or if, upon appeal, the decision of the court has been confirmed by the Supreme
Court,14 and the said decision has become final, the clerk of the court which heard the petition shall issue to the petitioner a
naturalization certificate which shall, among other things, state the following: The file number of the petition, the number of the
naturalization certificate, the signature of the person naturalized affixed in the presence of the clerk of the court, the personal
circumstances of the person naturalized, the dates on which his declaration of intention and petition were filed, the date of the decision
granting the petition, and the name of the judge who rendered the decision. A photograph of the petitioner with the dry seal affixed
thereto of the court which granted the petition, must be affixed to the certificate.

Before the naturalization certificate is issued, the petitioner shall, in open court, take the following oath:

"I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , solemnly swear that I renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any
foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of which at this time I am a subject or
citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and that I will obey the laws, legal orders and decrees
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Commonwealth15 of the Philippines; [and I hereby declare that I recognize and
accept the supreme authority of the United States of America in the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance
thereto;16 and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

"So help me God."

Section 13. Record books.The clerk of the court shall keep two books; one in which the petition and declarations of intention shall be
recorded in chronological order, noting all proceedings thereof from the filing of the petition to the final issuance of the naturalization
certificate; and another, which shall be a record of naturalization certificates each page of which shall have a duplicate which shall be
duly attested by the clerk of the court and delivered to the petitioner.

Section 14. Fees.The clerk of the Court of First Instance shall charge as fees for recording a petition for naturalization and for the
proceedings in connection therewith, including the issuance of the certificate, the sum of thirty pesos.

The Clerk of the Supreme Court17 shall collect for each appeal and for the services rendered by him in connection therewith, the sum
of twenty-four pesos.

Section 15. Effect of the naturalization on wife and children.Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the
Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.
4|Page
Minor children of persons naturalized under this law who have been born in the Philippines shall be considered citizens thereof.

A foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the parent, shall automatically become a
Philippine citizen, and a foreign-born minor child, who is not in the Philippines at the time the parent is naturalized, shall be deemed a
Philippine citizen only during his minority, unless he begins to reside permanently in the Philippines when still a minor, in which case, he
will continue to be a Philippine citizen even after becoming of age.

A child born outside of the Philippines after the naturalization of his parent, shall be considered a Philippine citizen, unless one year
after reaching the age of majority, he fails to register himself as a Philippine citizen at the fault of their parents either by neglecting to
support them or by transferring them to another school or schools. A certified copy of the decree canceling the naturalization certificate
shall be forwarded by the clerk of the Court to the Department of the Interior20 and the Bureau of Justice.21

(e) If it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed himself to be used as a dummy in violation of the Constitutional or legal
provision requiring Philippine citizenship as a requisite for the exercise, use or enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege.

Section 19. Penalties for violation of this Act.Any person who shall fraudulently make, falsify, forge, change, alter, or cause or aid any
person to do the same, or who shall purposely aid and assist in falsely making, forging, falsifying, changing or altering a naturalization
certificate for the purpose of making use thereof, or in order that the same may be used by another person or persons, and any person
who shall purposely aid and assist another in obtaining a naturalization certificate in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than five thousand pesos or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, and in the case that
the person convicted is a naturalized citizen his certificate of naturalization and the registration of the same in the proper civil registry
shall be ordered cancelled.

Section 20. Prescription.No person shall be prosecuted, charged, or punished for an offense implying a violation of the provisions of
this Act, unless the information or complaint is filed within five years from the detection or discovery of the commission of said offense.

Section 21. Regulation and blanks.The Secretary of Justice shall issue the necessary regulations for the proper enforcement of this
Act. Naturalization certificate blanks and other blanks required for carrying out the provisions of this Act shall be prepared and furnished
by the Solicitor-General, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice.

Section 22. Repealing clause.Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred and twenty-seven as amended by Act Numbered Thirty-four
hundred and forty-eight, entitled "The Naturalization Law", is repealed: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect
any prosecution, suit, action, or proceedings brought, or any act, thing, or matter, civil or criminal, done or existing before the taking
effect of this Act, but as to all such prosecutions, suits, actions, proceedings, acts, things, or matters, the laws, or parts of laws repealed
or amended by this Act are continued in force and effect.

Section 23. Date when this Act shall take effect.This Act shall take effect on its approval.

Approved, June 17, 1939.

3. Republic Act 2630

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

5|Page
 4. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 725 June 5, 1975
PROVIDING FOR REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO WOMEN WHO HAD LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE TO
ALIENS AND OF NATURAL BORN FILIPINOS

WHEREAS, there are many Filipino women who had lost their Philippine Citizenship by marriage to aliens;

WHEREAS, while the new constitution allows a Filipino woman who marries an alien to retain her Philippine citizenship unless by her
act or omission, she is deemed under the law to have renounced her Philippine citizenship, such provision of the new Constitution does
not apply to Filipino women who had married aliens before said Constitution took effect;

WHEREAS, the existing law (C.A. Nos. 63, as amended) allows the repatriation of Filipino women who lost their citizenship by reason
of their marriage to aliens only after the death of their husbands or the termination of their marital status; and

WHEREAS, there are natural born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship but now desire to re-acquire Philippine citizenship;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers in me vested by the
Constitution, do hereby decree and order that: 1) Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and (2)
natural born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship may require Philippine citizenship through repatriation by applying with
the Special Committee on Naturalization created by Letter of Instruction No. 270, and, if their applications are approved, taking the
necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, after which they shall be deemed to have reacquired Philippine
citizenship. The Commission on Immigration and Deportation shall thereupon cancel their certificate of registration.

The aforesaid Special Committee is hereby authorized to promulgate rules and regulations and prescribe the appropriate forms and the
required fees for the effective implementation of this Decree.

This Decree shall take effect immediately.

5. Republic Act 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 Section 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 associatEon for the predominance of their
ideas;

(3) Person convictad of crimes involving moral turpitude; or

(4) Person suffering from mental alienation or incurablecontagious 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 or 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.

Signed: October 23, 1995

6|Page
 6. Republic Act 9139 Approved: June 8 2001
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN ALIENS BY ADMINISTRATIVE
NATURALIZATION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as "The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000."

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall control and regulate the admission and integration of aliens into its territory and body
politic including the grant of citizenship to aliens. Towards this end, aliens born and residing in the Philippines may be granted
Philippine citizenship by administrative proceedings subject to certain requirements dictated by national security and interest.

Section 3. Qualifications. - Subject to the provisions of the succeeding section, any person desiring to avail of the benefits of this Act
must meet the following qualifications:

(a) The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth;

(b) The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of age, at the time of filing of his/her petition;

(c) The applicant must be of good moral character and believes in the underlying principles of the Constitution, and must have
conducted himself/herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his/her entire period of residence in the Philippines in his
relation with the duly constituted government as well as with the community in which he/she is living;

(d) The applicant must have received his/her primary and secondary education in any public school or private educational institution
dully recognized by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught and
prescribed as part of the school curriculum and where enrollment is not limited to any race or nationality: Provided, That should he/she
have minor children of school age, he/she must have enrolled them in similar schools;

(e) The applicant must have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation, from which he/she derives income sufficient for
his/her support and if he/she is married and/or has dependents, also that of his/her family: Provided, however, That this shall not apply
to applicants who are college degree holders but are unable to practice their profession because they are disqualified to do so by
reason of their citizenship;

(f) The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of the Philippines; and

(g) The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and
ideals of the Filipino people.

Section 4. Disqualifications, - The following are not qualified to be naturalized as Filipino citizens under this Act:

(a) Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association of group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines
opposing all organized governments;

(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or
predominance of their ideas;

(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;

(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;

(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;

(f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled socially with Filipinos, or who have not evinced a
sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos;

(g) Citizens or subjects with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such war; and

(h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to be naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

7|Page
Section 5. Petition for Citizenship. - (1) Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall file with the Special
Committee on Naturalization created under Section 6 hereof, a petition of five (5) copies legibly typed and signed, thumbmarked and
verified by him/her, with the latter's passport-sized photograph attached to each copy of the petition, and setting forth the following:

(a) The petitioner's name and surname, and any other name he/she has used or by which he/she is known;

(b) The petitioner's present and former places of residence;

(c) The petitioner's place and date of birth, the names and citizenship of his/her parents and their residences;

(d) The petitioner's trade, business, profession or occupation, and if married, also that of his/her spouse;

(e) Whether the petitioner is single or married or his/her marriage is annulled. If married, petitioner shall state the date and place of
his/her marriage, and the name, date of birth, birthplace, citizenship and residence of his/her spouse; and if his marriage is annulled,
the date of decree of annulment of marriage and the court which granted the same;

(f) If the petitioner has children, the name, date and birthplace and residences of his/her children ;

(g) A declaration that the petitioner possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under this Act;

(h) A declaration that the petitioner shall never be a public charge; and

(i) A declaration that it is the petitioner's true and honest intention to acquire Philippine citizenship and to renounce absolutely and
forever any prince, potentate, State or sovereign, and particularly the country of which the applicant is a citizen or subject.

(2) The application shall be accompanied by:

(a) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's birth certificate;

(b) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's alien certificate of registration and native born certificate of residence;

(c) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's marriage certified, if married, or the death certificate of his spouse, if
widowed, or the court decree annulling his marriage, if such was the fact;

(d) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of birth certificates, alien certificate of registration or native born certificate of residence if
any, of petitioner's minor children, wherever applicable;

(e) Affidavit of financial capacity by the petitioner, and sworn statements on the good moral character of the petitioner by at least two (2)
Filipino citizens of good reputation in his/her place of residence stating that they have personally known the petitioner for at least a
period of ten (10) years and that said petitioner has in their own opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the
Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act;

(f) A medical certificate that petitioner is not a user of prohibited drugs or otherwise a drug dependent and that he/she is not afflicted
with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS);

(g) School diploma and transcript of records of the petitioner in the schools he attended in the Philippines. Should the petitioner have
minor children, a certification that his children are enrolled in a school where Philippine history, government and civics are taught and
are part of the curriculum; and

(h) If gainfully employed, the income tax return for the past three (3) years.

Section 6. Special Committee on Naturalization. - There shall be constituted a Special Committee on Naturalization herein referred to
as the "Committee", with the Solicitor General as chairman, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, or his representative, and the National
Security Adviser, as members, with the power to approve, deny or reject applications for naturalization as provided in this Act.

The Committee shall meet, as often as practicable, to consider applications for naturalization. For this purpose, the chairman and
members shall receive an honorarium of Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) and One thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500.00),
respectively, per meeting attended.

Section 7. Powers/Functions of the Special Committee on Naturalization. - An alien who believes that he has all the qualifications, and
none of the disqualifications, may file an application for naturalization with the secretariat of the Special Committee on Naturalization,

8|Page
and a processing fee of Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00). Thereafter, the petition shall be stamped to indicate the date of filing and a
corresponding docket number. Within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the petition, the Committee shall determine whether the
petition is complete in substance and in form. If such petition is complete, the Committee shall immediately publish pertinent portions of
the petition indicating the name, qualifications and other personal circumstances of the applicant, once a week for three (3) consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, and have copies of the petition posted in any public or conspicuous area. The Committee
shall immediately furnish the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), the Bureau of Immigration (BI), the civil registrar of the petitioner's
place of residence and tile National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) copies of the petition and its supporting documents. These agencies
shall have copies of the petition posted in any public or conspicuous area in their buildings, offices and premises, and shall, within thirty
(30) days from the receipt of the petition, submit to the Committee a report stating whether or not petitioner has any derogatory record
on file or any such relevant and material information which might be adverse to petitioner's application for citizenship.

If the petition is found by the Committee to be wanting in substance and form, the petition shall be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 8. Approval or Disapproval of the Petition. - Within sixty (60) days from receipt of the report of the agencies which were
furnished a copy of the petition or the date of the last publication of the petition, whichever comes in later, the Committee shall consider
and review all relevant and material information it has received pertaining to the petition, and may, for the purpose call the petitioner for
interview to ascertain his/her identity, the authenticity of the petition and its annexes, and to determine the truthfulness of the
statements and declarations made in the petition and its annexes.

If the Committee shall have received any information adverse to the petition, the Committee shall allow the petitioner to answer, explain
or refute the information.

Thereafter, if the Committee believes, in view of the facts before it, that the petitioner has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications required for Philippine citizenship under this Act, it shall approve the petition and henceforth, notify the petitioner of the
fact of such approval. Otherwise, the Committee shall disapprove the same.

Section 9. Decree of Naturalization and Naturalization Processing Fee. -Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the notice of the
approval of his/her petition, the applicant shall pay to the Committee a naturalization fee of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
payable as follows: Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) upon the approval of the petition and Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) upon
the taking of the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, forthwith, a certificate of naturalization shall be issued. Within sixty
(60) days from the issuance of the certificate, the petitioner shall take an oath of allegiance in the proper forum upon proof of payment
of the required naturalization processing fee and certificate of naturalization. Should the applicant fail to take the abovementioned oath
of allegiance within said period of time, the approval of the petition shall be deemed abandoned.

Section 10. Duty of the Bureau of Immigration. - Within five (5) days after the applicant has taken his oath of allegiance as required in
the preceding section, the BI shall forward a copy of the petitioner's oath to the proper local civil registrar. Thereafter, the BI shall cancel
the alien certificates of registration of the applicant.

Section 11. Status of Alien Wife and Minor Children. - After the approval of the petition for administrative naturalization in cancellation of
applicant's alien certificate of registration, applicant's alien lawful wife and minor children may file a petition for cancellation of their alien
certificates of registration with the Committee subject to the payment of the filing fee of Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) and
naturalization fee of Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) payable as follows: Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) upon the approval of
the petition and Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) upon the taking of the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

Section 12. Status of Alien Husband and Minor Children. - If the applicant is a married woman, the approval of her petition for
administrative naturalization will not benefit her alien husband but her minor children may file a petition for cancellation of their alien
certificates of registration with the BI subject to the requirements of existing laws.

Section 13. Cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization. - The Special Committee may cancel certificates of naturalization issued
under this Act in the following cases:

(a) If it finds that the naturalized person or his duly authorized representative made any false statement or misrepresentation or
committed any violation of law, rules and regulations in connection with the petition for naturalization, or if he otherwise obtains
Philippine citizenship fraudulently or illegally, the certificate of naturalization shall be cancelled;

(b) If the naturalized person or his wife, or any or his minor children who acquire Filipino citizenship by virtue of his naturalization shall,
within five (5) years next following the grant of Philippine citizenship, establish permanent residence in a foreign country, that
individual's certificate of naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be cancelled or revoked: Provided, That the fact of such person's
remaining for more than one (1) year in his country of origin, or two (2) years in any foreign country, shall be considered prima
facie evidence of intent to permanently reside therein;
9|Page
(c) If the naturalized person or his wife or child with acquired citizenship allows himself or herself to be used as a dummy in violation of
any constitutional or legal provision requiring Philippine citizenship as a condition for the exercise, use or enjoyment of a right, franchise
or privilege, the certificate of naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be cancelled or revoked; and

(d) If the naturalized person or his wife or child with acquired citizenship commits any act inimical to national security, the certificate of
naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be cancelled or revoked.

In case the naturalized person holds any hereditary title, or belong to any order of nobility, he shall make an express renunciation of his
title or membership in this order of nobility before the Special Committee or its duly authorized representative, and such renunciation
shall be included in the records of his application for citizenship.

Section 14. Penalties. - Any person who shall fraudulently make, falsify, forge, change, alter, or cause or aid any person to do the
same, or who shall purposely aid and assist in falsely making, forging, falsifying, changing or altering a naturalization certificate issued
under this proceeding for the purpose of making use thereof, or in order that the same may be used by another person or persons, and
any person who shall purposely aid and assist another in obtaining a naturalization certificate in violation of this Act, shall be punished
by a fine of not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,OOO.OO) and by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years, and in
the case that the person convicted is a naturalized citizen, his certificate of naturalization shall, if not earlier cancelled by the Special
Committee, be ordered cancelled.

Section 15. Any person who failed to register his/her birth with the concerned city or municipal civil registrar may, within two (2) years
from the effectivity of this Act, file a petition for the acquisition of the Philippine citizenship: Provided, That the applicant possesses all
the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under this Act and subject to the requirements of existing laws.

Section 16. Special Disposition of the Filing Fee. - An amount equivalent to twenty five percent (25%) of the filing fee to be paid by the
applicants pursuant to Section 7 hereof shall accrue to the University of the Philippines Law Center and another twenty-five percent
(25%) shall be allotted for the publication of the Journal of the House of Representatives. Said amount shall be treated as receipts
automatically appropriated.

Section 17. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Special Committee on Naturalization is hereby authorized to promulgate such
rules and regulations as may be needed for the proper implementation of the provisions of this Act.

Section 18. Repealing Clause. -All provisions of existing laws, orders, decrees, rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with this
Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 19. Separability CIause. - If any part, section or provision of this Act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the part, section or
provision not affected thereby shall continue to be in force and effect.

Section 20. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of
general circulation.

Approved,

7. Republic Act No. 9225 August 29, 2003

AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP
PERMANENT.AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH ACT. NO. 63, AS AMENDED AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Short Title this act shall be known as the "Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003."

Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.

Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason
of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the
following oath of allegiance to the Republic:

"I _____________________, solemny swear (or affrim) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I

10 | P a g e
recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this
obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their
Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.

Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of
those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizenship of the Philippines.

Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full
civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the
following conditions:

(1) Those intending to exercise their right of surffrage must Meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution,
Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing laws;

(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the qualification 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;

(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its
duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where
they took that oath;

(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage
in such practice; and

(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those
who:

(a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or

(b) are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country which they are naturalized
citizens.

Section 6. Separability Clause - If any section or provision of this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid, any other section or provision
not affected thereby shall remain valid and effective.

Section 7. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 8. Effectivity Clause This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or two (2)
newspaper of general circulation.

8. Reyes vs. Comelec

FACTS:This is a Motion for Reconsideration of the En Banc Resolution of June 25, 2013 which found no grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the Commission on Elections and affirmed the March 27, 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC First Division.Petitioner raised
the issue in the petition which is: Whether or not Respondent COMELEC is without jurisdiction over Petitioner who is duly proclaimed
winner and who has already taken her oath of office for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the lone
congressional district of Marinduque. Petitioner is a duly proclaimed winner and having taken her oath of office as member of the House
of Representatives, all questions regarding her qualifications are outside the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and are within the HRET
exclusive jurisdiction.The averred proclamation is the critical pointer to the correctness of petitioner submission.The crucial question is
whether or not petitioner could be proclaimed on May 18, 2013. Differently stated, was there basis for the proclamation of petitioner on
May 18 , 2013.

The June 25, 2013 resolution held that before May 18, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc had already finally disposed of the issue of
petitioner lack of Filipino citizenship and residency via its resolution dated May 14, 2013, cancelling petitioner certificate of candidacy.
The proclamation which petitioner secured on May 18, 2013 was without any basis. On June 10, 2013, petitioner went to the Supreme
Court questioning the COMELEC First Division ruling and the May 14, 2013 COMELEC En Banc decision, baseless proclamation on 18
May 2013 did not by that fact of promulgation alone become valid and legal.

11 | P a g e
ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner was denied of due process?

HELD: Petitioner was denied of due process. Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it took
cognizance of "newly-discovered evidence" without the same having been testified on and offered and admitted in evidence. She
assails the admission of the blog article of Eli Obligacion as hearsay and the photocopy of the Certification from the Bureau of
Immigration. She likewise contends that there was a violation of her right to due process of law because she was not given the
opportunity to question and present controverting evidence.

It must be emphasized that the COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure in the presentation of
evidence. Under Section 2 of Rule I, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure "shall be liberally construed in order to achieve just,
expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission." In view of
the fact that the proceedings in a petition to deny due course or to cancel certificate of candidacy are summary in nature, then the
"newly discovered evidence" was properly admitted by respondent COMELEC.

Furthermore, there was no denial of due process in the case at bar as petitioner was given every opportunity to argue her case before
the COMELEC. From 10 October 2012 when Tan's petition was filed up to 27 March 2013 when the First Division rendered its
resolution, petitioner had a period of five (5) months to adduce evidence. Unfortunately, she did not avail herself of the opportunity
given her.

In administrative proceedings, procedural due process only requires that the party be given the opportunity or right to be heard. As held
in the case of Sahali v. COMELEC: The petitioners should be reminded that due process does not necessarily mean or require a
hearing, but simply an opportunity or right to be heard. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps
many times more creditably and predictable than oral argument, through pleadings. In administrative proceedings moreover, technical
rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied; administrative process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict
judicial sense. Indeed, deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on
his motion for reconsideration.

In moving for the cancellation of petitioner's COC, respondent submitted records of the Bureau of Immigration showing that petitioner is
a holder of a US passport, and that her status is that of a "balikbayan." At this point, the burden of proof shifted to petitioner, imposing
upon her the duty to prove that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and has not lost the same, or that she has re-acquired such status
in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 9225. Aside from the bare allegation that she is a natural-born citizen, however, petitioner
submitted no proof to support such contention. Neither did she submit any proof as to the inapplicability of R.A. No. 9225 to her.

The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

9. Japzon vs. Comelec

Facts: Both petitioner Manuel B. Japzon (Japzon) and private respondent Jaime S. Ty (Ty) were candidates for the Office of Mayor of
the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, in the local elections held on 14 May 2007. Japzon instituted SPA No. 07-568 by
filing before the COMELEC a Petition[5] to disqualify and/or cancel Ty's Certificate of Candidacy on the ground of material
misrepresentation. Japzon averred in his Petition that Ty was a former natural-born Filipino, having been born on 9 October 1943 in
what was then Pambujan Sur, Hernani Eastern Samar (now the Municipality of General Macarthur, Easter Samar) to spouses Ang
Chim Ty (a Chinese) and Crisanta Aranas Sumiguin (a Filipino).Ty eventually migrated to the United States of America (USA) and
became a citizen thereof. Ty had been residing in the USA for the last 25 years. When Ty filed his Certificate of Candidacy on 28 March
2007, he falsely represented therein that he was a resident of Barangay6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, for one year
before 14 May 2007, and was not a permanent resident or immigrant of any foreign country.While Ty may have applied for the
reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship, he never actually resided in Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, for a
period of one year immediately preceding the date of election as required under Section 39 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known
as the Local Government Code of 1991. Inspite of having reacquisition in his Philippine citizenship, Ty continued to make trips to the
USA, the most recent of which was on 31 October 2006 lasting until 20 January 2007. Ty already took his Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, he continued to comport himself as an American citizen as proven by his travel records. He had also failed
to renounce his foreign citizenship as required by Republic Act No. 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act of 2003, or related laws. Japzon prayed for in his Petition that the COMELEC order the disqualification of Ty from
running for public office and the cancellation of the latter's Certificate of Candidacy.Ty admitted that he was a natural-born Filipino who
went to the USA to work and subsequently became a naturalized American citizen. Ty claimed, however, that prior to filing his
Certificate of Candidacy for the Office of Mayor of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, on 28 March 2007, he already
performed the following acts: (1) with the enactment of Republic Act No. 9225, granting dual citizenship to natural-born Filipinos, Ty
filed with the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles, California, USA, an application for the reacquisition of his Philippine
citizenship; (2) on 2 October 2005, Ty executed an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before Noemi T. Diaz, Vice

12 | P a g e
Consul of the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles, California, USA; (3) Ty applied for a Philippine passport indicating in his
application that his residence in the Philippines was at A. Mabini St., Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar. Ty's
application was approved and he was issued on 26 October 2005 a Philippine passport; (4) on 8 March 2006, Ty personally secured
and signed his Community Tax Certificate (CTC) from the Municipality of General Macarthur, in which he stated that his address was
at Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar; (5) thereafter, on 17 July 2006, Ty was registered as a voter in Precinct
0013A, Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar; (6) Ty secured another CTC dated 4 January 2007 again stating
therein his address as Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar; and (7) finally, Ty executed on 19 March 2007 a
duly notarized Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship. He had reacquired his Philippine citizenship and renounced his American
citizenship, and he had been a resident of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, for more than one year prior to the 14
May 2007 elections. Therefore, Ty sought the dismissal of Japzon's Petition in SPA No. 07-568. Ty acquired the highest number of
votes and was declared Mayor of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, by the Municipal Board of Canvassers on 15
May 2007. The COMELEC First Division found that Ty complied with the requirements of Sections 3 and 5 of Republic Act No. 9225
and reacquired his Philippine citizenship, to wit:

Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding an elective public office, and the purpose of the citizenship
qualification is none other than to ensure that no alien, i.e., no person owing allegiance to another nation, shall govern our people and
our country or a unit of territory thereof. Evidences revealed that Ty executed an Oath of Allegiance before Noemi T. Diaz, Vice Consul
of the Philippine Consulate General, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. on October 2, 2005 and executed a Renunciation of Foreign
Citizenship on March 19, 2007 in compliance with R.A. [No.] 9225. Moreover, neither is Ty a candidate for or occupying public office nor
is in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces in the country of which he was naturalized citizen
Ty did not commit material misrepresentation in stating in his Certificate of Candidacy that he was a resident of Barangay 6, Poblacion,
General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, for at least one year before the elections on 14 May 2007. It reasoned that: Although Ty has lost
his domicile in [the] Philippines when he was naturalized as U.S. citizen in 1969, the reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship and
subsequent acts thereof proved that he has been a resident of Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar for at least
one (1) year before the elections held on 14 May 2007 as he represented in his certificate of candidacy.The petition was denied and
COMELEC was in favor of the defendant failing to obtain a favorable resolution from the COMELEC, Japzon proceeded to file the
instant Petition for Certiorari, that the COMELEC had committed grave abuse of discretion and lack of discretion for dismissing the
petition.Japzon prays for the Court to annul and set aside the Resolutions dated 31 July 2007 and 28 September 2007 of the
COMELEC First Division and en banc, respectively; to issue a new resolution denying due course to or canceling Ty's Certificate of
Candidacy; and to declare Japzon as the duly elected Mayor of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar.Ty sought the
dismissal of the present Petition. According to Ty, the COMELEC already found sufficient evidence to prove that Ty was a resident of
the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, one year prior to the 14 May 2007 local elections. The Court cannot evaluate
again the very same pieces of evidence without violating the well-entrenched rule that findings of fact of the COMELEC are binding on
the Court.The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), meanwhile, is of the position that Ty failed to meet the one-year residency
requirement set by law to qualify him to run as a mayoralty candidate in the 14 May 2007 local elections.The Court finds no merit in the
Petition at bar. On 19 March 2007, he personally executed a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship before a notary public. By the time he
filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the Office of Mayor of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, on 28 March 2007, he
had already effectively renounced his American citizenship, keeping solely his Philippine citizenship. The Court of Appeals set aside the
appealed orders of the COMELEC and the Court of Appeals and annulled the election of the respondent as Municipal Mayor of Bolinao,
Pangasinan on the ground that respondent's immigration to the United States in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his domicile and
residence in the Philippines. Being a green card holder, which was proof that he was a permanent resident or immigrant of the United
States, and in the absence of any waiver of his status as such before he ran for election on January 18, 1988, respondent was held to
be disqualified under 68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881).

ISSUE: Whether or not the defedant has complied with the residency requirement for elective positions.

RULING: Yes, the defendant solely complied the residency requirements for elective position. It bears to point out that Republic Act No.
9225 governs the manner in which a natural-born Filipino may reacquire or retain[17] his Philippine citizenship despite acquiring a
foreign citizenship, and provides for his rights and liabilities under such circumstances. A close scrutiny of said statute would reveal that
it does not at all touch on the matter of residence of the natural-born Filipino taking advantage of its provisions. Republic Act No. 9225
imposes no residency requirement for the reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it mention any effect of such
reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the concerned natural-born Filipino. Clearly, Republic Act
No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of residence. This is only logical and consistent with the general intent of the law to allow for
dual citizenship.There is no basis for this Court to require Ty to stay in and never leave at all the Municipality of General Macarthur,
Eastern Samar, for the full one-year period prior to the 14 May 2007 local elections so that he could be considered a resident thereof.
To the contrary, the Court has previously ruled that absence from residence to pursue studies or practice a profession or registration as
a voter other than in the place where one is elected, does not constitute loss of residence.[24] The Court also notes, that even with his
trips to other countries, Ty was actually present in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, for at least nine of

13 | P a g e
the 12 months preceding the 14 May 2007 local elections. Even if length of actual stay in a place is not necessarily determinative of the
fact of residence therein, it does strongly support and is only consistent with Ty's avowed intent in the instant case to establish
residence/domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar. Japzon repeatedly brings to the attention of this Court that
Ty arrived in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, on 4 May 2006 only to comply with the one-year residency
requirement, so Ty could run as a mayoralty candidate in the 14 May 2007 elections. In Aquino v. COMELEC,[25] the Court did not find
anything wrong in an individual changing residences so he could run for an elective post, for as long as he is able to prove with
reasonable certainty that he has effected a change of residence for election law purposes for the period required by law. As this Court
already found in the present case, Ty has proven by substantial evidence that he had established residence/domicile in the Municipality
of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, by 4 May 2006, a little over a year prior to the 14 May 2007 local elections, in which he ran as a
candidate for the Office of the Mayor and in which he garnered the most number of votes. To successfully challenge Ty's
disqualification, Japzon must clearly demonstrate that Ty's ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles
that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the people would ultimately create greater prejudice to
the very democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and promote. In this case,
Japzon failed to substantiate his claim that Ty is ineligible to be Mayor of the Municipality, the instant Petition for Certiorari is dismiss.

10. Maquiling vs. Comelec April 16, 2013

Facts: Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. However, as a consequence of his subsequent naturalization as a citizen
of USA, he lost his Filipino citizenship. Arnado applied for repatriation under R.A. No. 9225 before the Consulate General of the
Philippines in San Francisco, USA and took the Oath of Allegianceto the RP on 10 July 2008. On the same day an order of approval of
his citizenship retention and re-acquisition was issued in his favour. In 2009, Aarnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to RP and
executed an affidavit of renunciation of his foreign citizenship. On 30 November 2009, Arnado filed his certificate of candidacy for
Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao Del Norte. Respondent Linog Balua, another mayoralty candidate, filed a petition to disqualify Arnado and
presented a record indicating that Arnado has been using his US Passport in entering and departing the Philippines. COMELEC issued
an order requiring the respondent to personally file his answer. After Arnado failed to answer the petition, Balua moved to declare him
in default. In 2010 election, Arnado garnered the highest number of votes and was subsequently proclaimed as the winning candidate
for Mayor. It was only after his proclamation that Arnado filed his answer. COMELEC first division ruled for his disqualification.
Petitioner Maquiling, another candidate for mayor of Kausawagan, and who garnered the second highest number of votes, intervened
in the case and filed before the COMELEC En Banc a motion for reconsideration claiming that the cancellation of Arnados candidacy
and the nullification of his proclamation, him, as the legitimate candidate who obtained the highest lawful votes should be proclaimed as
the winner. COMELEC En Banc held that it shall continue with the trial and hearing. However, it reversed and set aside the ruling of first
division and granted Arnados MR. Maquiling filed the instant petition questioning the propriety of declaring Arnado qualified to run for
public office despite his continued use of a US passport, and praying that he be proclaimed as the winner in the 2010 mayoralty race.

Issue: Whether or not the use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship amount to undoing a renunciation earlier
made.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the use of foreign passport after renouncing ones foreign citizenship is a positive and
voluntary act of representation as to ones nationality and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but it
recants the Oath of Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective position.

Section 5(2) of The Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 provides:

Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant
liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:

xxxx

(2)Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the qualification 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 before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.

x x x31

Rommel Arnado took all the necessary steps to qualify to run for a public office. He took the Oath of Allegiance and renounced his
foreign citizenship. There is no question that after performing these twin requirements required under Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 or
the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, he became eligible to run for public office.

14 | P a g e
By renouncing his foreign citizenship, he was deemed to be solely a Filipino citizen, regardless of the effect of such renunciation under
the laws of the foreign country.

However, this legal presumption does not operate permanently and is open to attack when, after renouncing the foreign citizenship, the
citizen performs positive acts showing his continued possession of a foreign citizenship.33

Arnado himself subjected the issue of his citizenship to attack when, after renouncing his foreign citizenship, he continued to use his US
passport to travel in and out of the country before filing his certificate of candidacy on 30 November 2009. The pivotal ques tion to
determine is whether he was solely and exclusively a Filipino citizen at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy, thereby rendering
him eligible to run for public office.

Between 03 April 2009, the date he renounced his foreign citizenship, and 30 November 2009, the date he filed his COC, he used his
US passport four times, actions that run counter to the affidavit of renunciation he had earlier executed. By using his foreign passport,
Arnado positively and voluntarily represented himself as an American, in effect declaring before immigration authorities of both
countries that he is an American citizen, with all attendant rights and privileges granted by the United States of America.

The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply be professed at any time, only to be violated the next day. It
requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and political rights granted by
the foreign country which granted the citizenship.

While the act of using a foreign passport is not one of the acts enumerated in Commonwealth Act No. 63 constituting renunciation and
loss of Philippine citizenship,35 it is nevertheless an act which repudiates the very oath of renunciation required for a former Filipino
citizen who is also a citizen of another country to be qualified to run for a local elective position.

When Arnado used his US passport on 14 April 2009, or just eleven days after he renounced his American citizenship, he recanted his
Oath of Renunciation36 that he "absolutely and perpetually renounce(s) all allegiance and fidelity to the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA"37 and that he "divest(s) himself of full employment of all civil and political rights and privileges of the United States of
America."38

We agree with the COMELEC En Banc that such act of using a foreign passport does not divest Arnado of his Filipino citizenship,
which he acquired by repatriation. However, by representing himself as an American citizen, Arnado voluntarily and effectively reverted
to his earlier status as a dual citizen. Such reversion was not retroactive; it took place the instant Arnado represented himself as an
American citizen by using his US passport.

This act of using a foreign passport after renouncing ones foreign citizenship is fatal to Arnados bid for public office, as it effectively
imposed on him a disqualification to run for an elective local position.

The citizenship requirement for elective public office is a continuing one. It must be possessed not just at the time of the renunciation of
the foreign citizenship but continuously. Any act which violates the oath of renunciation opens the citizenship issue to attack.

Citizenship is not a matter of convenience. It is a badge of identity that comes with 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. While those who acquire
dual citizenship by choice are afforded the right of suffrage, those who seek election or appointment to public office are required to
renounce their foreign citizenship to be deserving of the public trust. Holding public office demands full and undivided allegiance to the
Republic and to no other.

We therefore hold that Arnado, by using his US passport after renouncing his American citizenship, has recanted the same Oath of
Renunciation he took. Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code applies to his situation. He is disqualified not only from holding the
public office but even from becoming a candidate in the May 2010 elections.

Maquiling is not a second-placer as he obtained the highest number of

votes from among the qualified candidates

We have ruled in the recent cases of Aratea v. COMELEC54 and Jalosjos v. COMELEC55 that a void COC cannot produce any legal
effect.

Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determining the winner of an election.

15 | P a g e
Even when the votes for the ineligible candidate are disregarded, the will of the electorate is still respected, and even more so. The
votes cast in favor of an ineligible candidate do not constitute the sole and total expression of the sovereign voice. The votes cast in
favor of eligible and legitimate candidates form part of that voice and must also be respected.

As in any contest, elections are governed by rules that determine the qualifications and disqualifications of those who are allowed to
participate as players. When there are participants who turn out to be ineligible, their victory is voided and the laurel is awarded to the
next in rank who does not possess any of the disqualifications nor lacks any of the qualifications set in the rules to be eligible as
candidates.

With Arnado being barred from even becoming a candidate, his certificate of candidacy is thus rendered void from the beginning. It
could not have produced any other legal effect except that Arnado rendered it impossible to effect his disqualification prior to the
elections because he filed his answer to the petition when the elections were conducted already and he was already proclaimed the
winner.

Arnado being a non-candidate, the votes cast in his favor should not have been counted. This leaves Maquiling as the qualified
candidate who obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore, the rule on succession under the Local Government Code will not
apply.

11. Bengzon vs. HRET

12.
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;

16 | P a g e
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.

13. Tabasa vs. CA

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. Th 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.

14. Loida Nicholas - Lewis vs. Comelec

Facts: Petitioners, who reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, sought registration and certification as overseas
absentee voters however they were advised by the Philippine Embassy in the US that as per a COMELEC letter to DFA dated
September 23, 2003, they have no right yet to vote in such elections owing to their lack of the one-year residence requirement
prescribed by Sec. 1, Art. IV of the Constitution.When petitioner Nicolas-Lewis clarified on said requirement, the COMELEC replied its
position that the OAVL was not enacted for the petitioners and that they are considered regular voters who have to meet the
requirements of residency under the Constitution. Faced with the prospect of not being able to vote in the May 2004 elections because
of COMELEC's refusal to include them in the National Registry of Absentee Voters, petitioners filed on April 1, 2004 a petition for
certiorari and mandamus.

On April 30, 2004 (a little over a week before Election Day), COMELEC filed a Comment praying for the denial of the petition.
Consequently, petitioners were not able to register let alone vote in said elections.

On May 20, 2004, the OSG filed a Manifestation (in Lieu of Comment) stating thatall qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual citizens
who care to exercise the right of suffrage, may do so, observing, however, that the conclusion of the 2004 elections had rendered the
petition moot and academic.

17 | P a g e
Issue: Must the Supreme Court still resolve said petition considering that under the circumstances the same has already been rendered
moot and academic?

Held: The holding of the 2004 elections had indeed rendered the petition moot and academic, but only insofar as petitioners
participation in such political exercise is concerned. The broader and transcendental issue tendered in the petition is the propriety of
allowing dual citizens to participate and vote as absentee voter in future elections, which however, remains unresolved.

The issues are thus reduced to the question of whether or not petitioners and others who might have meanwhile retained and/or
reacquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. 9225 may vote as absentee voter under R.A. 9189.

[Ruling on the main issue: Considering the unison intent of the Constitution and R.A. 9189 and the expansion of the scope of that law
with the passage of R.A. 9225, the irresistible conclusion is that dual citizens may now exercise the right of suffrage thru the absentee
voting scheme and as overseas absentee voters.

The Court granted the instant petition and held that those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 may
exercise the right to vote under the system of absentee voting in R.A. No. 9189, the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003.]

15. Valles vs. Comelec

Principle of jus sanguinis
How Philippine citizenship is acquired
Effect of filing certificate of candidacy: express renunciation of other citizenship

FACTS:Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. In 1949, at the age
of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle in the Philippines, where she later married a Filipino and has since then participated in
the electoral process not only as a voter but as a candidate, as well. In the May 1998 elections, she ran for governor but Valles filed a
petition for her disqualification as candidate on the ground that she is an Australian.

ISSUE:Whether or not Rosalind is an Australian or a Filipino

HELD:The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or
citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or
citizenship on the basis of place of birth.Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect and at
that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the principal organic acts by which the United States governed the
country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of Aug. 29, 1916, also known as the Jones
Law.Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein
including their children are deemed to be Philippine citizens. Private respondents father, Telesforo Ybasco, was born on Jan. 5, 1879 in
Daet, Camarines Norte.... Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine
citizen. By virtue of the same laws, which were the laws in force at the time of her birth, Telesforos daughter, herein private respondent
Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a citizen of the Philippines.The signing into law of the 1935 Philippine Constitution has established
the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship, xxx

So also, the principle of jus sanguinis, which confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship, was subsequently retained under the
1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Thus, the herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a
Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the
principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual
citizenship.

16. Maria Jeanette Tecson vs. Comelec

Facts: On 31 December 2003, Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ), filed his certificate of candidacy for the
position of President of the Republic of the Philippines under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party, in the 2004 national
elections. In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be
"Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Victorino X. Fornier,
(GR 161824) initiated, on 9 January 2004, a petition (SPA 04-003) before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify FPJ
and to deny due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the thesis that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his
certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen when in truth, according to Fornier, his parents were foreigners;
his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a
Spanish subject. Granting, Fornier asseverated, that Allan F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he could not have transmitted his Filipino
citizenship to FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate child of an alien mother. Fornier based the allegation of the illegitimate birth of FPJ on

18 | P a g e
two assertions: (1) Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and, (2)
even if no such prior marriage had existed, Allan F. Poe, married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of FPJ. On 23 January 2004,
the COMELEC dismissed SPA 04-003 for lack of merit. 3 days later, or on 26 January 2004, Fornier filed his motion for reconsideration.
The motion was denied on 6 February 2004 by the COMELEC en banc. On 10 February 2004, Fornier assailed the decision of the
COMELEC before the Supreme Court conformably with Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The
petition likewise prayed for a temporary restraining order, a writ of preliminary injunction or any other resolution that would stay the
finality and/or execution of the COMELEC resolutions. The other petitions, later consolidated with GR 161824, would include GR
161434 and GR 161634, both challenging the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and asserting that, under Article VII, Section 4, paragraph
7, of the 1987 Constitution, only the Supreme Court had original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the basic issue on the case.

Issue: Whether FPJ was a natural born citizen, so as to be allowed to run for the offcie of the President of the Philippines.

Held: Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution expresses that "No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident
of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election." The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to include
"those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship."
Herein, the date, month and year of birth of FPJ appeared to be 20 August 1939 during the regime of the 1935 Constitution. Through its
history, four modes of acquiring citizenship - naturalization, jus soli, res judicata and jus sanguinis had been in vogue. Only two, i.e.,
jus soli and jus sanguinis, could qualify a person to being a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. Jus soli, per Roa vs. Collector of
Customs (1912), did not last long. With the adoption of the 1935 Constitution and the reversal of Roa in Tan Chong vs. Secretary of
Labor (1947), jus sanguinis or blood relationship would now become the primary basis of citizenship by birth. Considering the
reservations made by the parties on the veracity of some of the entries on the birth certificate of FPJ and the marriage certificate of his
parents, the only conclusions that could be drawn with some degree of certainty from the documents would be that (1) The parents of
FPJ were Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley; (2) FPJ was born to them on 20 August 1939; (3) Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley were
married to each other on 16 September, 1940; (4) The father of Allan F. Poe was Lorenzo Poe; and (5) At the time of his death on 11
September 1954, Lorenzo Poe was 84 years old. The marriage certificate of Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley, the birth certificate of FPJ,
and the death certificate of Lorenzo Pou are documents of public record in the custody of a public officer. The documents have been
submitted in evidence by both contending parties during the proceedings before the COMELEC. But while the totality of the evidence
may not establish conclusively that FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his
favor enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation
of Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus Election Code. Fornier has utterly failed to substantiate his case before the
Court, notwithstanding the ample opportunity given to the parties to present their position and evidence, and to prove whether or not
there has been material misrepresentation, which, as so ruled in Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, must not only be material, but also
deliberate and willful. The petitions were dismissed.

17. Balgamelo Cabiling vs. Fernandez

FACTS:Balgamelo Cabiling Ma (Balgamelo), Felix Cabiling Ma, Jr. (Felix, Jr.), Valeriano Cabiling Ma (Valeriano), Lechi Ann Ma (Lechi
Ann), Arceli Ma (Arceli), Nicolas Ma (Nicolas), and Isidro Ma (Isidro) are the children of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, a Taiwanese, and Dolores
Sillona Cabiling, a Filipina.Records reveal that petitioners Felix, Jr., Balgamelo and Valeriano were all born under aegis of the 1935
Philippine Constitution in the years 1948, 1951, and 1957, respectively.

They were all raised in the Philippines and have resided in this country for almost sixty (60) years; they spent their whole lives, studied
and received their primary and secondary education in the country; they do not speak nor understand the Chinese language, have not
set foot in Taiwan, and do not know any relative of their father; they have not even traveled abroad; and they have already raised their
respective families in the Philippines.

During their age of minority, they secured from the Bureau of Immigration their Alien Certificates of Registration (ACRs).

Having taken their oath of allegiance as Philippine citizens, petitioners, however, failed to have the necessary documents registered in
the civil registry as required under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625 (An Act Providing the Manner in which the Option to Elect
Philippine Citizenship shall be Declared by a Person whose Mother is a Filipino Citizen) .It was only on27 July 2005or more than thirty
(30) years after they elected Philippine citizenship that Balgamelo and Felix, Jr. did so. On the other hand, there is no showing that
Valeriano complied with the registration requirement.

Individual certifications all dated3 January 2005issued by the Office of the City Election Officer, Commission on Elections, SurigaoCity,
show that all of them are registered voters of Barangay Washington, Precinct No. 0015A since June 1997, and that records on previous

19 | P a g e
registrations are no longer available because of the mandatory general registration every ten (10) years.Moreover, aside from
exercising their right of suffrage, Balgamelo is one of the incumbent Barangay Kagawads in Barangay Washington, Surigao City.

On16 February 2004, the Bureau of Immigration received the Complaint-Affidavit of a certain Mat G. Catral (Mr. Catral), alleging that
Felix (Yao Kong) Ma and his seven (7) children are undesirable and overstaying aliens.Mr. Catral, however, did not participate in the
proceedings, and the Ma family could not but believe that the complaint against them was politically motivated because they strongly
supported a candidate in Surigao City in the 2004 National and Local Elections.

On9 November 2004, the Legal Department of the Bureau of Immigration charged them for violation of Sections 37(a)(7) and 45(e) of
Commonwealth Act No. 613, otherwise known as the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended.

After Felix Ma and his seven (7) children were afforded the opportunity to refute the allegations, the Board of Commissioners (Board) of
the Bureau of Immigration (BI), composed of the public respondents, rendered a Judgment dated 2 February 2005 finding that Felix Ma
and his children violated Commonwealth Act No. 613, Sections 37(a)(7) and 45(e) in relation to BI Memorandum Order Nos. ADD-01-
031 and ADD-01-035 dated 6 and22 August 2001, respectively.

In its Resolution of 8 April 2005, public respondents partially reconsidered their Judgment of 2 February 2005.They were convinced that
Arceli is an immigrant under Commonwealth Act No. 613, Section 13(g). However, they denied the Motion for Reconsideration with
respect to Felix Ma and the rest of his children.

On3 May 2005, only Balgamelo, Felix, Jr., and Valeriano filed the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure before the Court of Appeals.

On29 August 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition after finding that the petitioners failed to comply with the exacting
standards of the law providing for the procedure and conditions for their continued stay in the Philippines either as aliens or as its
nationals.

On 29 May 2008, it issued a Resolution denying the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 September 2007.

ISSUE: Whether petitioners herein are Filipino Citizens.

HELD: The 1935 Constitution declares as citizens of the Philippines those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.The mandate states:

Section 1. The following are citizens of thePhilippines:

(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of thePhilippinesand, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.

In 1941, Commonwealth Act No. 625 was enacted.It laid down the manner of electing Philippine citizenship, to wit:

Section 1.The option to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with subsection (4), Section 1, Article IV, of the Constitution shall be
expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall
be filed with the nearest civil registry.The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of allegiance to the
Constitution and the Government of thePhilippines.

The statutory formalities of electing Philippine citizenship are: (1) a statement of election under oath; (2) an oath of allegiance to the
Constitution and Government of thePhilippines; and (3) registration of the statement of election and of the oath with the nearest civil
registry.

In both cases, we ruled against the petitioners because they belatedly complied with all the requirements. The acts of election and their
registration with the nearest civil registry were all done beyond the reasonable period of three years upon reaching the age of majority.

The instant case presents a different factual setting.Petitioners complied with the first and second requirements upon reaching the age
of majority.It was only the registration of the documents of election with the civil registry that was belatedly done.

We rule that under the facts peculiar to the petitioners, the right to elect Philippine citizenship has not been lost and they should be
allowed to complete the statutory requirements for such election.

Such conclusion, contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, is in line with our decisions in In Re: Florencio Mallare, Co v. Electoral
Tribunal of the House of Representatives, and Re:Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching.
20 | P a g e
In Mallare, Estebans exercise of the right of suffrage when he came of age was deemed to be a positive act of election of Philippine
citizenship. The Court of Appeals, however, said that the case cannot support herein petitioners cause, pointing out that, unlike
petitioner, Esteban is a natural child of a Filipina, hence, no other act would be necessary to confer on him the rights and privileges of a
Filipino citizen, and that Esteban was born in 1929 prior to the adoption of the 1935 Constitution and the enactment of Commonwealth
Act No. 625.

In the Co case, Jose Ong, Jr. did more than exercise his right of suffrage, as he established his life here in thePhilippines.Again, such
circumstance, while similar to that of herein petitioners, was not appreciated because it was ruled that any election of Philippine
citizenship on the part of Ong would have resulted in absurdity, because the law itself had already elected Philippine citizenship for him
as, apparently, while he was still a minor, a certificate of naturalization was issued to his father.

In Ching, it may be recalled that we denied his application for admission to the Philippine Bar because, in his case, all the requirements,
to wit: (1) a statement of election under oath; (2) an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the Philippines; and (3)
registration of the statement of election and of the oath with the nearest civil registry were complied with only fourteen (14) years after
he reached the age of majority.Ching offered no reason for the late election of Philippine citizenship.

In all, the Court of Appeals found the petitioners argument of good faith and informal election unacceptable and held:

Their reliance in the ruling contained in Re:Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, [which was decided on1
October 1999], is obviously flawed.It bears emphasis that the Supreme Court, in said case, did not adopt the doctrine laid down in In
Re: Florencio Mallare. On the contrary, the Supreme Court was emphatic in pronouncing that the special circumstances invoked by
Ching, i.e., his continuous and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines and his being a certified public accountant, a registered voter and a
former elected public official, cannot vest in him Philippine citizenship as the law specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition
of Philippine citizenship by election.

We are not prepared to state that the mere exercise of suffrage, being elected public official, continuous and uninterrupted stay in
thePhilippines, and other similar acts showing exercise of Philippine citizenship can take the place of election of citizenship.What we
now say is that where, as in petitioners case, the election of citizenship has in fact been done and documented within the constitutional
and statutory timeframe, the registration of the documents of election beyond the frame should be allowed if in the meanwhile positive
acts of citizenship have publicly, consistently, and continuously been done.The actual exercise of Philippine citizenship, for over half a
century by the herein petitioners, is actual notice to the Philippine public which is equivalent to formal registration of the election of
Philippine citizenship.

In Pascua v. Court of Appeals, we elucidated the principles of civil law on registration:

To register is to record or annotate.American and Spanish authorities are unanimous on the meaning of the term to register as to enter
in a register; to record formally and distinctly; to enroll; to enter in a list. In general, registration refers to any entry made in the books of
the registry, including both registration in its ordinary and strict sense, and cancellation, annotation, and even the marginal notes.In
strict acceptation, it pertains to the entry made in the registry which records solemnly and permanently the right of ownership and other
real rights. Simply stated, registration is made for the purpose of notification.Actual knowledge may even have the effect of registration
as to the person who has knowledge thereof.Thus, [i]ts purpose is to give notice thereof to all persons (and it) operates as a notice of
the deed, contract, or instrument to others. As pertinent is the holding that registration neither adds to its validity nor converts an invalid
instrument into a valid one between the parties.It lays emphasis on the validity of an unregistered document.

Notably, the petitioners timely took their oath of allegiance to thePhilippines.This was a serious undertaking.It was commitment and
fidelity to the state coupled with a pledge to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance to any other state.This was unqualified
acceptance of their identity as a Filipino and the complete disavowal of any other nationality.

Petitioners have passed decades of their lives in the Philippines as Filipinos.Their present status having been formed by their past,
petitioners can no longer have any national identity except that which they chose upon reaching the age of reason.

Corollary to this fact, we cannot agree with the view of the Court of Appeals that since the ACR presented by the petitioners are no
longer valid on account of the new requirement to present an E-series ACR, they are deemed not properly documented. On the
contrary, petitioners should not be expected to secure E-series ACR because it would be inconsistent with the election of citizenship
and its constructive registration through their acts made public, among others, their exercise of suffrage, election as public official, and
continued and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines since birth.The failure to register as aliens is, obviously, consistent with petitioners
election of Philippine citizenship.

The leanings towards recognition of the citizenship of children of Filipino mothers have been indicated not alone by the jurisprudence

21 | P a g e
that liberalized the requirement on time of election, and recognized positive acts of Philippine citizenship.

The favor that is given to such children is likewise evident in the evolution of the constitutional provision on Philippine citizenship.

Thus, while the 1935 Constitution requires that children of Filipino mothers elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching their age of
majority,upon the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, they automatically become Filipinos and need not elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority.The 1973 provision reads:

Section 1.The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1)xxx.

(2)Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines.

Better than the relaxation of the requirement, the 1987 Constitution now classifies them as natural-born citizens upon election of
Philippine citizenship.Thus, Sec. 2, Article IV thereof provides:

Section 2. Natural-born 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.

We are guided by this evolvement from election of Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority under the 1935 Philippine
Constitution to dispensing with the election requirement under the 1973 Philippine Constitution to express classification of these
children as natural-born citizens under the 1987 Constitution towards the conclusion that the omission of the 1941 statutory requirement
of registration of the documents of election should not result in the obliteration of the right to Philippine citizenship.

Having a Filipino mother is permanent.It is the basis of the right of the petitioners to elect Philippine citizenship.Petitioners elected
Philippine citizenship in form and substance.The failure to register the election in the civil registry should not defeat the election and
resultingly negate the permanent fact that they have a Filipino mother.The lacking requirements may still be complied with subject to
the imposition of appropriate administrative penalties, if any.The documents they submitted supporting their allegations that they have
already registered with the civil registry, although belatedly, should be examined for validation purposes by the appropriate agency, in
this case, the Bureau of Immigration.Other requirements embodied in the administrative orders and other issuances of the Bureau of
Immigration and the Department of Justice shall be complied with within a reasonable time.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 29 August 2007, and the Resolution dated 29 May 2008 of the Court of Appeals inCA-G.R. SP No.
89532 affirming the Judgment dated 2 February 2005, and the Resolution dated 8 April 2005of the Bureau of Immigration in BSI-D.C.
No. AFF-04-574 OC-STF-04-09/23-1416 are hereby SET ASIDE with respect to petitioners Balgamelo Cabiling Ma, Felix Cabiling Ma,
Jr., and Valeriano Cabiling Ma.Petitioners are given ninety (90) days from notice within which to COMPLYwith the requirements of the
Bureau of Immigration embodied in its Judgment of2 February 2005.The Bureau of Immigration shall ENSURE that all requirements,
including the payment of their financial obligations to the state, if any, have been complied with subject to the imposition of appropriate
administrative fines;REVIEW the documents submitted by the petitioners; andACTthereon in accordance with the decision of this Court.

18. People vs. Azucena Saavedra Batuigas

Azucena was born to Chinese parents in Zamboanga in 1941. She had never departed the Philippines since birth. She can speak
several Philippine languages and dialects, and studied in Philippine schools, graduating with a degree in Bachelor of Science in
education. She practiced teaching for five years. In 1968, she married Santiago, a Filipino citizen. They have five children, who studied
in Philippine schools and are now professionals, two working abroad. She then helped her husband in their business of rice milling,
retail business and rice and corn distribution. As proof of income, she submitted their joint income tax return. On December 2, 2002,
Azucena filed a petition for naturalisation before the RTC of Zamboanga del Sur, alleging that she possesses all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications required under CA 473. The Solicitor General filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that she did not posses
the lawful income or occupation required for naturalization. Ruling that the matter is evidentiary, the RTC denied the same. After
compliance with jurisdictional requisites, where no representatives from the OSG or the Provincial Prosecutor appeared, the RTC on
motion of Azucenas counsel, allowed her to present evidence ex-parts before the Clerk of Court. After completion of the testimony, the
RTC granted Azucenas petition and declared her eligible for Filipino citizenship, which the OSG contested, citing as grounds the lack of
a public hearing when the fourt allowed ex-parts presentation of evidence, and the lack of proof of lawful income/occupation by
Azucena. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the RTC, hence, the OSG elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

22 | P a g e
The Supreme Court:

Under existing laws, an alien may acquire Philippine citizenship through either judicial naturalization under CA 473 or administrative
naturalization under Republic Act No. 9139 (the Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000). A third option, called derivative
naturalization, which is available to alien women married to Filipino husbands is found under Section 15 of CA 473, which provides that:

[a]ny woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall
be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.

Under this provision, foreign women who are married to Philippine citizens may be deemed ipso facto Philippine citizens and it is
neither necessary for them to prove that they possess other qualifications for naturalization at the time of their marriage nor do they
have to submit themselves to judicial naturalization. Copying from similar laws in the United States which has since been amended, the
Philippine legislature retained Section 15 of CA 473, which then reflects its intent to confer Filipino citizenship to the alien wife thru
derivative naturalization.

Thus, the Court categorically declared in Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration:

Accordingly, We now hold, all previous decisions of this Court indicating otherwise notwithstanding, that under Section 15 of
Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is
not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is
subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen,
provided that she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4.[39]
As stated in Moy Ya Lim Yao, the procedure for an alien wife to formalize the conferment of Filipino citizenship is as follows:

Regarding the steps that should be taken by an alien woman married to a Filipino citizen in order to acquire Philippine citizenship, the
procedure followed in the Bureau of Immigration is as follows: The alien woman must file a petition for the cancellation of her alien
certificate of registration alleging, among other things, that she is married to a Filipino citizen and that she is not disqualified from
acquiring her husbands citizenship pursuant to Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended. Upon the filing of said petition,
which should be accompanied or supported by the joint affidavit of the petitioner and her Filipino husband to the effect that the
petitioner does not belong to any of the groups disqualified by the cited section from becoming naturalized Filipino citizen x x x, the
Bureau of Immigration conducts an investigation and thereafter promulgates its order or decision granting or denying the petition.

Records however show that in February 1980, Azucena applied before the then Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) for
the cancellation of her Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) No. 030705[41] by reason of her marriage to a Filipino citizen. The CID
granted her application. However, the Ministry of Justice set aside the ruling of the CID as it found no sufficient evidence that Azucenas
husband is a Filipino citizen as only their marriage certificate was presented to establish his citizenship.

Having been denied of the process in the CID, Azucena was constrained to file a Petition for judicial naturalization based on CA 473.
While this would have been unnecessary if the process at the CID was granted in her favor, there is nothing that prevents her from
seeking acquisition of Philippine citizenship through regular naturalization proceedings available to all qualified foreign nationals. The
choice of what option to take in order to acquire Philippine citizenship rests with the applicant. In this case, Azucena has chosen to file a
Petition for judicial naturalization under CA 473. The fact that her application for derivative naturalization under Section 15 of CA 473
was denied should not prevent her from seeking judicial naturalization under the same law. It is to be remembered that her application
at the CID was denied not because she was found to be disqualified, but because her husbands citizenship was not proven. Even if the
denial was based on other grounds, it is proper, in a judicial naturalization proceeding, for the courts to determine whether there are in
fact grounds to deny her of Philippine citizenship based on regular judicial naturalization proceedings.

As the records before this Court show, Santiagos Filipino citizenship has been adequately proven. Under judicial proceeding, Santiago
submitted his birth certificate indicating therein that he and his parents are Filipinos. He also submitted voters registration, land titles,
and business registrations/licenses, all of which are public records. He has always comported himself as a Filipino citizen, an operative
fact that should have enabled Azucena to avail of Section 15 of CA 473. On the submitted evidence, nothing would show that Azucena
suffers from any of the disqualifications under Section 4 of the same Act.

However, the case before us is a Petition for judicial naturalization and is not based on Section 15 of CA 473 which was denied by the
then Ministry of Justice. The lower court which heard the petition and received evidence of her qualifications and absence of
disqualifications to acquire Philippine citizenship, has granted the Petition, which was affirmed by the CA. We will not disturb the
findings of the lower court which had the opportunity to hear and scrutinize the evidence presented during the hearings on the Petition,
as well as determine, based on Azucenas testimony and deportment during the hearings, that she indeed possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications for acquisition of Philippine citizenship.

23 | P a g e
The OSG has filed this instant Petition on the ground that Azucena does not have the qualification required in no. 4 of Section 2 of CA
473 as she does not have any lucrative income, and that the proceeding in the lower court was not in the nature of a public hearing.
The OSG had the opportunity to contest the qualifications of Azucena during the initial hearing scheduled on May 18, 2004. However,
the OSG or the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor failed to appear in said hearing, prompting the lower court to order ex parte
presentation of evidence before the Clerk of Court on November 5, 2004. The OSG was also notified of the ex parte proceeding, but
despite notice, again failed to appear. The OSG had raised this same issue at the CA and was denied for the reasons stated in its
Decision. We find no reason to disturb the findings of the CA on this issue. Neither should this issue further delay the grant of Philippine
citizenship to a woman who was born and lived all her life, in the Philippines, and devoted all her life to the care of her Filipino family.
She has more than demonstrated, under judicial scrutiny, her being a qualified Philippine citizen. On the second issue, we also affirm
the findings of the CA that since the government who has an interest in, and the only one who can contest, the citizenship of a person,
was duly notified through the OSG and the Provincial Prosecutors office, the proceedings have complied with the public hearing
requirement under CA 473.

No. 4, Section 2 of CA 473 provides as qualification to become a Philippine citizen:

4. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have known
lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation.

Azucena is a teacher by profession and has actually exercised her profession before she had to quit her teaching job to assume her
family duties and take on her role as joint provider, together with her husband, in order to support her family. Together, husband and
wife were able to raise all their five children, provided them with education, and have all become professionals and responsible citizens
of this country. Certainly, this is proof enough of both husband and wifes lucrative trade. Azucena herself is a professional and can
resume teaching at any time. Her profession never leaves her, and this is more than sufficient guarantee that she will not be a charge to
the only country she has known since birth.

Moreover, the Court acknowledged that the main objective of extending the citizenship privilege to an alien wife is to maintain a unity of
allegiance among family members, thus:

It is, therefore, not congruent with our cherished traditions of family unity and identity that a husband should be a citizen and the wife an
alien, and that the national treatment of one should be different from that of the other. Thus, it cannot be that the husbands interests in
property and business activities reserved by law to citizens should not form part of the conjugal partnership and be denied to the wife,
nor that she herself cannot, through her own efforts but for the benefit of the partnership, acquire such interests. Only in rare instances
should the identity of husband and wife be refused recognition, and we submit that in respect of our citizenship laws, it should only be in
the instances where the wife suffers from the disqualifications stated in Section 4 of the Revised Naturalization Law.

We are not unmindful of precedents to the effect that there is no proceeding authorized by the law or by the Rules of Court, for the
judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual. Such judicial declaration of citizenship cannot even be decreed pursuant to an
alternative prayer therefor in a naturalization proceeding.

This case however is not a Petition for judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship but rather a Petition for judicial naturalization under
CA 473. In the first, the petitioner believes he is a Filipino citizen and asks a court to declare or confirm his status as a Philippine
citizen. In the second, the petitioner acknowledges he is an alien, and seeks judicial approval to acquire the privilege of becoming a
Philippine citizen based on requirements required under CA 473. Azucena has clearly proven, under strict judicial scrutiny, that she is
qualified for the grant of that privilege, and this Court will not stand in the way of making her a part of a truly Filipino family.

19. Poe vs. Comelec

Facts:In her COC for presidency for the May 2016 elections, Grace Poe declared that she is a natural-born citizen and that her
residence in the Philippines up to the day before 9 May 2016 would be 10 years and 11 months counted from 24 May 2005.

May 24, 2005 was the day she came to the Philippines after deciding to stay in the PH for good. Before that however, and even
afterwards, she has been going to and fro between US and Philippines. She was born in 1968, found as newborn infant in Iloilo, and
was legally adopted. She immigrated to the US in 1991 and was naturalized as American citizen in 2001. On July 18, 2006, the BI
granted her petition declaring that she had reacquired her Filipino citizenship under RA 9225. She registered as a voter and obtained a
new Philippine passport. In 2010, before assuming her post as an appointed chairperson of the MTRCB, she renounced her American
citizenship to satisfy the RA 9225 requirement . From then on, she stopped using her American passport.

Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or cancel her candidacy on the ground particularly, among others, that she cannot be
considered a natural-born Filipino citizen since she cannot prove that her biological parents or either of them were Filipinos. The

24 | P a g e
COMELEC en banc cancelled her candidacy on the ground that she is in want of citizenship and residence requirements, and that she
committed material misrepresentations in her COC.

On certiorari, the SC reversed the ruling and held (9-6 votes) that Poe is qualified as a candidate for Presidency. Three justices,
however, abstained to vote on the natural-born citizenship issue.

Issue 1: W/N the COMELEC has jurisdiction to rule on the issue of qualifications of candidates.

Held:

No. Article IX-C, Sec 2 of the Constitution provides for the powers and functions of the COMELEC, and deciding on the qualifications
or lack thereof of a candidate is not one among them.

In contrast, the Constitution provides that only the SET and HRET tribunals have sole jurisdiction over the election contests, returns,
and qualifications of their respective members, whereas over the President and Vice President, only the SC en banc has sole
jurisdiction. As for the qualifications of candidates for such positions, the Constitution is silent. There is simply no authorized
proceeding in determining the ineligibility of candidates before elections. Such lack of provision cannot be supplied by a mere rule, and
for the COMELEC to assimilate grounds for ineligibility into grounds for disqualification in Rule 25 in its rules of procedures would be
contrary to the intent of the Constitution.

Hence, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it decided on the qualification issue of Grace as a candidate in the
same case for cancellation of her COC.

Issue 2: W/N Grace Poe-Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino citizen

Held:

Yes, Grace Poe might be and is considerably a natural-born Filipino. For that, she satisfies one of the constitutional requirements that
only natural-born Filipinos may run for presidency.

First, there is a high probability that Grace Poes parents are Filipinos. Her physical features are typical of Filipinos. The fact that she
was abandoned as an infant in a municipality where the population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would
be more than 99% chance that a child born in such province is a Filipino is also a circumstantial evidence of her parents nationality.
That probability and the evidence on which it is based are admissible under Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. To
assume otherwise is to accept the absurd, if not the virtually impossible, as the norm.

Second, by votes of 7-5, the SC pronounced that foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens. This is based on the finding that the
deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention show that the framers intended foundlings to be covered by the enumeration. While
the 1935 Constitutions enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language which would definitely exclude foundlings
either. Because of silence and ambiguity in the enumeration with respect to foundlings, the SC felt the need to examine the intent of
the framers.

Third, that foundlings are automatically conferred with natural-born citizenship is supported by treaties and the general principles of
international law. Although the Philippines is not a signatory to some of these treaties, it adheres to the customary rule to presume
foundlings as having born of the country in which the foundling is found.

Issue 3: W/N Grace Poe satisfies the 10-year residency requirement

Held:

Yes. Grace Poe satisfied the requirements of animus manendi coupled with animus revertendi in acquiring a new domicile.

Grace Poes domicile had been timely changed as of May 24, 2005, and not on July 18, 2006 when her application under RA 9225 was
approved by the BI. COMELECs reliance on cases which decree that an aliens stay in the country cannot be counted unless she
acquires a permanent resident visa or reacquires her Filipino citizenship is without merit. Such cases are different from the
circumstances in this case, in which Grace Poe presented an overwhelming evidence of her actual stay and intent to abandon
permanently her domicile in the US. Coupled with her eventual application to reacquire Philippine citizenship and her familys actual
continuous stay in the Philippines over the years, it is clear that when Grace Poe returned on May 24, 2005, it was for good.

Issue 4: W/N the Grace Poes candidacy should be denied or cancelled for committing material misrepresentations in her COC

25 | P a g e
Held:

No. The COMELEC cannot cancel her COC on the ground that she misrepresented facts as to her citizenship and residency because
such facts refer to grounds for ineligibility in which the COMELEC has no jurisdiction to decide upon. Only when there is a prior
authority finding that a candidate is suffering from a disqualification provided by law or the Constitution that the COMELEC may deny
due course or cancel her candidacy on ground of false representations regarding her qualifications.

In this case, by authority of the Supreme Court Grace Poe is now pronounced qualified as a candidate for the presidency. Hence, there
cannot be any false representations in her COC regarding her citizenship and residency.

26 | P a g e