ELECTION OF PHILIPPINES CITIZENSHIP

G.R. No. 187567, February 15, 2012

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_187567_2012.html

https://remediallawnotes.blogspot.com/2016/09/republic-vs-sagun-case-digest.html?m=1

Facts:
Nora Fe Sagun is the legitimate child of Albert S. Chan, a Chinese national, and Marta Borromeo, a
Filipino citizen. She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio City and did not elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority. In 1992, at the age of 33 and after getting married to Alex Sagun, she
executed an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Said document was notarized but was
not recorded and registered with the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City.

In 2005, Sagun applied for a Philippine passport. Her application was denied due to the citizenship of her
father and there being no annotation on her birth certificate that she has elected Philippine citizenship.
Consequently, she sought a judicial declaration of her election of Philippine citizenship averring that she
was raised as a Filipino and she is a registered voter in Baguio City and had voted in local and national
elections as shown in the Voter Certification. She asserted that by virtue of her positive acts, she has
effectively elected Philippine citizenship and such fact should be annotated on her record of birth so as
to entitle her to the issuance of a Philippine passport.

After hearing, the trial court granted the petition and declaring Sagun a Filipino citizen.

Petitioner, through the OSG, directly filed a petition for review on certiorari, pointing out that
while Sagun executed an oath of allegiance before a notary public, there was no affidavit of her election
of Philippine citizenship. Additionally, her oath of allegiance which was not registered with the nearest
local civil registry was executed when she was already 33 years old or 12 years after she reached the age
of majority.

Issues:
1. Is an action or proceeding for judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship procedurally and
jurisdictionally permissible?

2. Has Norma complied with the procedural requirements in the election of Philippine citizenship?

Held:
1. No. There is no proceeding established by law, or the Rules for the judicial declaration of the
citizenship of an individual. There is no specific legislation authorizing the institution of a judicial
proceeding to declare that a given person is part of our citizenry. Clearly, it was erroneous for the trial
court to make a specific declaration of respondents Filipino citizenship as such pronouncement was not
within the courts competence.

2. When respondent was born on August 8, 1959, the governing charter was the 1935 Constitution,
which declares as citizens of the Philippines those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

Sec. 1, Art. IV of the 1935 Constitution reads:

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

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

Under Article IV, Section 1(4) of the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a
Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age
of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship. Being a legitimate child, respondents citizenship
followed that of her father who is Chinese, unless upon reaching the age of majority, she elects
Philippine citizenship. For respondent to be considered a Filipino citizen, she must have validly elected
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

Side explanation:
Petitioner contends that respondent’s petition for judicial declaration of election of Philippine
citizenship is procedurally and jurisdictionally impermissible. Verily, petitioner has raised questions of
law as the resolution of these issues rest solely on what the law provides given the attendant
circumstances.

Based on the foregoing circumstances, respondent clearly failed to comply with the procedural
requirements for a valid and effective election of Philippine citizenship. Respondent cannot assert that
the exercise of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitutes a positive act of election
of Philippine citizenship since the law specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of
citizenship by election.

All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and,
thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Having failed to comply with the foregoing
requirements, respondent’s petition before the trial court must be denied.

Judicial proceedings are legal processes where a judge makes a decision around what should happen.