CALILUNG vs.

DATUMANONG
Gr. No. 160869

Facts:
1. On August 29, 2003, President Gloria M. Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9225,
entitled 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.
2. Hector Gumangan Calilung filed a writ of prohibition against the Secretary of Justice Simeon
Datumanong to stop him from implementing RA No. 9225.
3. Calilung averred that Section 2 and 3 of the said republic act, together, allow dual allegiance
and not dual citizenship.
4. Calilung contended that the republic act is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Article IV
of the 1987 Constitution which states, Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national
interest and shall be dealt with by law.
5. The Office of the Solicitor General claimed that Section 2 merely declares a state policy while
Section 3 does not allow allegiance as the oath that will be taken by the former Filipino is a
renunciation and repudiation of his foreign citizenship.

Issue:
Whether or not Republic Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional?
Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual allegiance?

Held:
1. In resolving the case, the court resorted to the deliberations of the congress to determine the
intent of the legislative branch in drafting the assailed law.
2. It was revealed that the intent of the legislature is to do away with the provision in
Commonwealth Act No. 63 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos
who become naturalized citizens of other countries.
3. It showed that the Republic Act allows dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who
have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country.
4. More so, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the
Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship.
5. The act stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of
confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country.
6. On the jurisdiction of the court to pass upon the issue of dual allegiance, it was addressed
that until a law on dual allegiance is enacted by Congress, the Supreme Court is without any
jurisdiction to entertain issues regarding dual allegiance. To begin with, Section 5, Article IV of
the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-executing.
7. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.