compilation citizenship

8/11/2019 Compilation Citizenship

1/7

Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representative

ANTONIO Y. CO, petitioner, vs. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AND JOSE ONG, JR., respondents.

En Banc

Doctrine:citizenshipDate: July 30, 1991

Ponente: Justice Gutierrez Jr.

Facts: The petitioners come to this Court asking for the setting aside and reversal of a decision of theHouse of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).

The HRET declared that respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born Filipino citizen and a residentof Laoang, Northern Samar for voting purposes.

On May 11, 1987, the congressional election for the second district of Northern Samar was held.

Among the candidates who vied for the position of representative in the second legislative district

of Northern Samar are the petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co and the private respondent, JoseOng, Jr.

Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district ofNorthern Samar.

The petitioners filed election protests against the private respondent premised on the followinggrounds:

1)Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines; and

2)Jose Ong, Jr. is not a resident of the second district of Northern Samar.

The HRET in its decision dated November 6, 1989, found for the private respondent.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners on November 12, 1989. This was,however, denied by the HRET in its resolution dated February 22, 1989.

Hence, these petitions for certiorari.

Issue: WON Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born citizen of the Philippines.

Held: Yes. Petitions are dismissed.

Ratio: The records show that in the year 1895, Ong Te (Jose Ong's grandfather), arrived in thePhilippines from China. Ong Te established his residence in the municipality of Laoang, Samar on landwhich he bought from the fruits of hard work.

As a resident of Laoang, Ong Te was able to obtain a certificate of residence from thethen Spanish colonial administration.

The father of the private respondent, Jose Ong Chuan was born in China in 1905. Hewas brought by Ong Te to Samar in the year 1915. Jose Ong Chuan spent his childhood in the provinceof Samar.

As Jose Ong Chuan grew older in the rural and seaside community of Laoang, heabsorbed Filipino cultural values and practices. He was baptized into Christianity. As the years passed,


2/7

Jose Ong Chuan met a natural born-Filipino, Agripina Lao. The two fell in love and, thereafter, gotmarried in 1932 according to Catholic faith and practice.

The couple bore eight children, one of whom is the Jose Ong who was born in 1948.

Jose Ong Chuan never emigrated from this country. He decided to put up a hardwarestore and shared and survived the vicissitudes of life in Samar.

The business prospered. Expansion became inevitable. As a result, a branch was set-upin Binondo, Manila. In the meantime, Jose Ong Chuan, unsure of his legal status and in an unequivocalaffirmation of where he cast his life and family, filed with the Court of First Instance of Samar anapplication for naturalization on February 15, 1954.

On April 28, 1955, the CFI of Samar, after trial, declared Jose Ong Chuan a Filipinocitizen. On May 15, 1957, the Court of First Instance of Samar issued an order declaring the decision ofApril 28, 1955 as final and executory and that Jose Ong Chuan may already take his Oath of Allegiance.

Pursuant to said order, Jose Ong Chuan took his Oath of Allegiance; correspondingly, acertificate of naturalization was issued to him. During this time, Jose Ong (private respondent) was 9years old, finishing his elementary education in the province of Samar.

There is nothing in the records to differentiate him from other Filipinos insofar as the customs and

practices of the local populace were concerned.

After completing his elementary education, the private respondent, in search for bettereducation, went to Manila in order to acquire his secondary and college education.

Jose Ong graduated from college, and thereafter took and passed the CPA BoardExaminations. Since employment opportunities were better in Manila, the respondent looked for workhere. He found a job in the Central Bank of the Philippines as an examiner. Later, however, he worked inthe hardware business of his family in Manila.

In 1971, his elder brother, Emil, was elected as a delegate to the 1971 ConstitutionalConvention. His status as a natural born citizen was challenged. Parenthetically, the Convention which indrafting the Constitution removed the unequal treatment given to derived citizenship on the basis of themother's citizenship formally and solemnly declared Emil Ong, respondent's full brother, as a natural bornFilipino. The Constitutional Convention had to be aware of the meaning of natural born citizenship since itwas precisely amending the article on this subject.

The pertinent portions of the Constitution found in Article IV read:

SECTION 1, the following are citizens of the Philippines:

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the Constitution;

2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;

3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching

the age of majority; and

4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. SECTION 2, Natural-born Citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippinesfrom birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship. Those who electPhilippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

The Court interprets Section 1, Paragraph 3 above as applying not only to those whoelect Philippine citizenship after February 2, 1987 but also to those who, having been born of Filipino

mothers, elected citizenship before that date.The provision in question was enacted to correct theanomalous situation where one born of a Filipino father and an alien mother was automatically grantedthe status of a natural-born citizen while one born of a Filipino mother and an alien father would still haveto elect Philippine citizenship. If one so elected, he was not, under earlier laws, conferred the status of anatural-born


3/7

Election becomes material because Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution accordsnatural born status to children born of Filipino mothers before January 17, 1973, if they elect citizenshipupon reaching the age of majority.

To expect the respondent to have formally or in writing elected citizenship whenhe came of age is to ask for the unnatural and unnecessary. He was already a citizen. Not only was hismother a natural born citizen but his father had been naturalized when the respondent was only nine (9)

years old. He could not have divined when he came of age that in 1973 and 1987 theConstitution would be amended to require him to have filed a sworn statement in 1969 electing citizenshipinspite of his already having been a citizen since 1957.

In 1969, election through a sworn statement would have been an unusual andunnecessary procedure for one who had been a citizen since he was nine years old

In Re: Florencio Mallare:the Court held that the exercise of the right of suffrage and theparticipation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship

The private respondent did more than merely exercise his right of suffrage. He hasestablished his life here in the Philippines.

Petitioners alleged that Jose Ong Chuan was not validly a naturalized citizen because of hispremature taking of the oath of citizenship.

SC: The Court cannot go into the collateral procedure of stripping respondents father ofhis citizenship after his death. An attack on a persons citizenship may only be done through a directaction for its nullity, therefore, to ask the Court to declare the grant of Philippine citizenship torespondents father as null and void would run against the principle of due process because he hasalready been laid to rest

Djumantan vs. DomingoPost undercase digests,Political LawatTuesday, February 21, 2012Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: Bernard Banez, the husband of Marina Cabael,

went to Indonesia as a contract worker.

On April 3, 1974, he embraced and was converted toIslam. On May 17, 1974, he married petitioner inaccordance with Islamic rites. He returned to thePhilippines in January 1979. On January 13, 1979,petitioner and her two children with Banez, arrived in

Manila as the "guests" of Banez. The latter made it appearthat he was just a friend of the family of petitioner and wasmerely repaying the hospitability extended to him duringhis stay in Indonesia. When petitioner and her two childrenarrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport on
http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/djumantan-vs-domingo.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/djumantan-vs-domingo.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/djumantan-vs-domingo.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/djumantan-vs-domingo.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/djumantan-vs-domingo.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/djumantan-vs-domingo.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/djumantan-vs-domingo.html


4/7

January 13, 1979, Banez, together with Marina Cabael,met them.As "guests," petitioner and her two children livedin the house of Banez. Petitioner and her children were

admitted to the Philippines as temporary visitors underSection 9(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940.

In 1981, Marina Cabael discovered the true relationship ofher husband and petitioner. On March 25, 1982, theimmigration status of petitioner was changed fromtemporary visitor to that of permanent resident underSection 13(a) of the same law. On April 14, 1982,

petitioner was issued an alien certificate of registration.

Not accepting the set-back, Banez' eldest son, Leonardo,filed a letter complaint with the Ombudsman, whosubsequently referred the letter to the CID. On the basis ofthe said letter, petitioner was detained at the CIDdetention cell.

The CID issued an order revoking the status of permanentresident given to petitioner, the Board found the 2ndmarriage irregular and not in accordance with the laws ofthe Phils. There was thus no basis for giving her the statusof permanent residence, since she was an Indonesiancitizen and her marriage with a Filipino Citizen was notvalid.

Thus this petition for certiorari

Issue: Whether or not the courts may review deportationproceedings


5/7

Held : Yes. Section 1 of Article 8 says Judicial Powerincludes 1) settle actual controversies involving rights

which are legally demandable and enforceable 2)determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction onthe part of any branch or instrumentality of thegovernment.

We need not resolve the validity of petitioner's marriage toBanez, if under the law the CID can validly deport

petitioner as an "undesirable alien" regardless of hermarriage to a Filipino citizen. Generally, the right of thePresident to expel or deport aliens whose presence isdeemed inimical to the public interest is as absolute andunqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entryinto the country.

However, under clause 1 of Section 37(a) of theImmigration Act of 1940 an "alien who enters thePhilippines after the effective date of this Act by means offalse and misleading statements or without inspection andadmission by the immigration authorities at a designatedport of entry or at any place other than at a designatedport of entry" is subject to deportation.

The deportation of an alien under said clause of Section37(a) has a prescriptive period and "shall not be effected... unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings ismade within five years after the cause for deportationarises". Tolling the prescriptive period from November 19,


6/7

1980, when Leonardo C. Banez informed the CID of theillegal entry of petitioner into the country, more than fiveyears had elapsed before the issuance of the order of her

deportation on September 27, 1990.

CITIZENSHIP

"No person shall be a Member of the House of Representative unless he is a natural-borncitizen."

ANTONIO BENGSON III, petitioner,vs.HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and TEODORO C. CRUZ,

respondents.

FACTS: Respondent Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in SanClemente, Tarlac, on April 27, 1960, of Filipino parents. On November 5, 1985, respondentCruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and took an oath of allegiance to the UnitedStates. As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship.

On March 17, 1994, respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through

repatriationunder Republic Act No. 2630. He was elected as the Representative of theSecond District of Pangasinan. He won over petitioner Antonio Bengson III, who was then

running for reelection.

Petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelamwith the House of RepresentativesElectoral Tribunal (HRET) claiming that respondent Cruz was not qualified to become amember of the House of Representatives since he is not a natural-born citizen as requiredunder Article VI, section 6 of the Constitution.

On March 2, 2000, the HRET rendered its decision dismissing the petition for quo warrantoand declaring Cruz the duly elected Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan.The HRET likewise denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an Americancitizen, can still be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippinecitizenship.

RULING: The petition is without merit.


7/7

Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire the same in themanner provided by law. Commonwealth Act. No. (C.A. No. 63), enumerates the threemodes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a former citizen: (1) bynaturalization, (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; services in the armed forces of the allied forces in WorldWar 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.

Repatriationresults in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalizedFilipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipinocitizen. If he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, hewill be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.

In respondent Cruz's case, he lost his Filipino citizenship when he rendered service in theArmed Forces of the United States. However, he subsequently reacquired Philippinecitizenship under R.A. No. 2630.

Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered thesame in the Civil Registry respondent Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original statusas a natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father. Itbears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his originalstatus before he lost his Philippine citizenship.

compilation citizenship

Documents