ANGAT
vs. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 132244, September 14, 1999
FACTS:
Petitioner
Gerardo Angat was a natural born citizen of the Philippines until he lost his
citizenship by naturalization in the United States of America. On 11 March 1996,
he filed before the RTC of Marikina City, Branch 272, a petition to regain his
Status as a citizen of the Philippines under Commonwealth Act No. 63, Republic
Act No. 965 and Republic Act No. 2630. The case was thereafter set for initial
hearing.
On
13 June 1996, petitioner sought to be allowed to take his oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to R.A. 8171. The motion was initially
denied by the trial judge but after a motion for reconsideration, it was
granted. The petitioner was ordered to take his oath of allegiance pursuant to
R.A. 8171. After taking his oath of allegiance, the trial court issued an order
repatriating petitioner and declaring him as citizen of the Philippines
pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171. The Bureau of Immigration was ordered to
cancel his alien certificate of registration and issue the certificate of
identification as Filipino citizen.
On
19 March 1997, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and
Motion (virtually a motion for reconsideration) asserting that the petition
itself should have been dismissed by the court a quo for lack of jurisdiction
because the proper forum for it was the Special Committee on Naturalization
consistently with Administrative Order No. 285 ("AO 285"), dated 22
August 1996, issued by President Fidel V. Ramos. AO 285 had tasked the Special
Committee on Naturalization to be the implementing agency of R.A 8171. The
trial court granted the motion and dismissed the petition.
Petitioner
appealed contending that the RTC seriously erred in dismissing the petition by
giving retroactive effect to Administrative Order No. 285, absent a provision
on Retroactive Application.
ISSUES:
WON
Court erred in dismissing the petition by giving retroactive effect to AO 285,
absent a provision on Retroactive Application
HELD:
No.
Under Section 1 of Presidential Decree ("P.D.") No. 725, 8 dated 05
June 1975, amending Commonwealth Act No. 63, an application for repatriation
could be filed by Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by
marriage to aliens, as well as by natural born Filipinos who lost their
Philippine citizenship, with the Special Committee on Naturalization.
The committee, chaired by the Solicitor General with the Undersecretary of
Foreign Affairs and the Director of the National Intelligence Coordinating
Agency as the other members, was created pursuant to Letter of Instruction
("LOI") No. 270, dated 11 April 1975, as amended by LOI No. 283 and
LOI No. 491 issued, respectively, on 04 June 1975 and on 29 December 1976. Although
the agency was deactivated by virtue of President Corazon C. Aquino's
Memorandum of 27 March 1987, it was not however, abrogated. In Frivaldo vs.
Commission on Elections, 9 the Court observed that the aforedated memorandum of
President Aquino had merely directed the Special Committee on Naturalization
"to cease and desist from undertaking any and all proceedings . . . under
Letter of Instruction ("LOI") 270." 10 The Court elaborated:
This
memorandum dated March 27, 1987 cannot by any stretch of legal hermeneutics be
construed as a law sanctioning or authorizing a repeal of P.D. No. 725. Laws
are repealed only by subsequent ones and a repeal may be express or implied. It
is obvious that no express repeal was made because then President Aquino in her
memorandum-based on the copy furnished us by Lee-did not categorically and/or
impliedly state that P.D. 725 was being repealed or was being rendered without
any legal effect. In fact, she did not even mention it specifically by its
number or text. On the other hand, it is a basic rule of statutory construction
that repeals by implication are not favored. An implied repeal will not be
allowed "unless it is convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated that the
two laws are clear repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot
co-exist."
Indeed,
the Committee was reactivated on 08 June 1995; hence, when petitioner
filed his petition on 11 March 1996, the Special Committee on Naturalization
constituted pursuant to LOI No. 270 under P.D. No. 725 was in place.
Administrative Order 285, promulgated on 22 August 1996 relative to R.A. No.
8171, in effect, was merely then a confirmatory issuance.
The
Office of the Solicitor General was right in maintaining that Angat's
petition should have been filed with the Committee, aforesaid, and not with
the RTC which had no jurisdiction thereover. The court's order of 04
October 1996 was thereby null and void, and it did not acquire finality nor
could be a source of right on the part of petitioner.
It
should also be noteworthy that the was one for repatriation, and it was thus incorrect
for petitioner to initially invoke Republic Act No. 965 and R.A. No. 2630 since
these laws could only apply to persons who had lost their citizenship by
rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of an allied
foreign country or the armed forces of the United States of America, a factual
matter not alleged in the petition, Parenthetically, under these statutes,
the person desiring to re-acquire Philippine citizenship would not even be
required to file a petition in court, and all that he had to do was to take
an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to register
that fact with the civil registry in the place of his residence or where he
had last resided in the Philippines.
0
Comments
