Scribd
Upload
136 views

25 - AASJS Vs Datumanong

This case discusses the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9225, which allows dual citizenship for natural-born Filipino citizens who lost their Philippine citizenship after becoming citizens of another country. The petitioner argued that RA 9225 violates the Philippine constitution's prohibition against dual allegiance. However, the Supreme Court upheld the law, finding that (1) its intent was to allow dual citizenship, not dual allegiance, and (2) it has not been established what specifically constitutes dual allegiance under Philippine law. The court ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to determine issues of dual allegiance until Congress defines it by statute.

Uploaded by

Patrick Manalo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
136 views

25 - AASJS Vs Datumanong

This case discusses the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9225, which allows dual citizenship for natural-born Filipino citizens who lost their Philippine citizenship after becoming citizens of another country. The petitioner argued that RA 9225 violates the Philippine constitution's prohibition against dual allegiance. However, the Supreme Court upheld the law, finding that (1) its intent was to allow dual citizenship, not dual allegiance, and (2) it has not been established what specifically constitutes dual allegiance under Philippine law. The court ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to determine issues of dual allegiance until Congress defines it by statute.

Uploaded by

Patrick Manalo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Nationality (Lex Patriae)

AASJS vs. Datumanong (2007)

Doctrine: What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not
recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces
his foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225 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. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of Rep. Act No. 9225.

Facts:
Petitioner, Hector Gumangan Calilung (a member of ADVOCATES AND ADHERENTS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR
SCHOOL TEACHERS AND ALLIED WORKERS [AASJS]) filed the instant petition against respondent, then Secretary of
Justice Simeon Datumanong, the official tasked to implement laws governing citizenship.1

Petitioner prays that a writ of prohibition be issued to stop respondent from implementing 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."

Petitioner avers that Rep. Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Article IV of the 1987
Constitution that states, "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by
law." Section 3 of RA 9225 provides:

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

"I ___________________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) 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 recognize and
accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance
thereto; and that I impose 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.

Furthermore, petitioner contends that Rep. Act No. 9225 cheapens Philippine citizenship. He avers that Sections 2
and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, together, allow dual allegiance and not dual citizenship. Petitioner maintains that
Section 2 allows all Filipinos, either natural-born or naturalized, who become foreign citizens, to retain their
Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship. Section 3 permits dual allegiance because said law
allows natural-born citizens of the Philippines to regain their Philippine citizenship by simply taking an oath of
allegiance without forfeiting their foreign allegiance.2 The Constitution, however, is categorical that dual allegiance
is inimical to the national interest.

Procedure:
Original action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure filed directly with the
Supreme Court

Issue/s:
(1) Is Rep. Act No. 9225 unconstitutional?
(2) Does this Court have jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual allegiance?

Held/Ratio:
1) No, after resorting to a review of the deliberations of Congress, the SC quoted some excerpts of the legislative
record and concluded that the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 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.

What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country.

On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the
person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225 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. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of
Rep. Act No. 9225.

2) No, to begin with, Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-
executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No.
9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who
maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. Congress was given a mandate
to draft a law that would set specific parameters of what really constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is done, it
would be premature for the judicial department, including this Court, to rule on issues pertaining to dual
allegiance.

The case of Mercado did not set the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance but merely made a distinction
between dual allegiance and dual citizenship. The Court cannot arrogate unto itself the duty of setting the
parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance when the Constitution itself has clearly delegated the duty of
determining what acts constitute dual allegiance for study and legislation by Congress.

Digested by: Eins (C2014)

You might also like