Modes of Reacquiring Citizenship

Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. (Sec. 3., Art. IV, 1987 Constitution)

Modes of Reacquiring Citizenship

Commonwealth Act No. 63 (C.A. No. 63), enumerates the three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a former citizen:

1. by naturalization,

2. by repatriation, and

3. by direct act of Congress.

Naturalization

Naturalization is a mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.  As a mode of initially acquiring Philippine citizenship, naturalization is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended. On the other hand, naturalization as a mode for reacquiring Philippine citizenship is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 63. Under this law, a former Filipino citizen who wishes to reacquire Philippine citizenship must possess certain qualifications and none of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 4 of C.A. 473.

But this is now an abbreviated process, with no need to wait for three years (one year for declaration of intent, and two years for the judgment to become executo­ry). An applicant must only possess the following:

            a. at least 21 years of age;

            b. Resident for at least 6 months;

            c. Good moral character;

            d. No disqualification.

Qualifications for naturalization

1. The applicant must have lost his original Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country or by express renunciation of his citizenship.

2. He must be at least twenty-one years of age and shall have resided in the Philippines at least six months before he applies for naturalization.

3. He must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence (of at least six months prior to the filing of the application) in the Philippines, in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living.

4. He subscribes to an oath declaring his intention to renounce absolutely and perpetually all faith and allegiance to the foreign authority, state or sovereignty of which he was a citizen or subject

Disqualifications for naturalization

Section 4 of Act 473 provides the following disqualifications:

1. He must not be opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;

2. He must not be defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas;

3. He must not be polygamist or believer in the practice of polygamy;

4. He must not have been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;

5. He must not be suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;

6. He must have, during the period of his residence in the Philippines (of not less than six months before filing his application), mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideal s of the Filipinos;

7. He must not be a citizen or subject of a nation with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such war;

8. He must not be citizen or subject of foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

Repatriation

Repatriation, on the other hand, may be had under various statutes by those who lost their citizenship due to: (1) desertion of the armed forces; (2) service in the armed forces of the allied forces in World War 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 and economic necessity.

As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization, repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided. (Bengson III v. House Electoral Tribunal, 07 May 2001)

Repatriation is not a matter of right, but it is a privilege granted by the State. This is mandated by the 1987 Constitution under Section 3, Article IV, which provides that citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. The State has the power to prescribe by law the qualifications, procedure, and requirements for repatriation. It has the power to determine if an applicant for repatriation meets the requirements of the law for it is an inherent power of the State to choose who will be its citizens, and who can reacquire citizenship once it is lost. (see Tabasa  v. Court of Appeals, 29 August 2006)

Effect of repatriation

Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen.  On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. (Bengson v. HRET,  07 May 2001)

Repatriation does not result in the recovery of original/former Philippine domicile

Ty’s reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 had no automatic impact or effect on his residence/domicile.  He could still retain his domicile in the USA, and he did not necessarily regain his domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines.  Ty merely had the option to again establish his domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, said place becoming his new domicile of choice.  The length of his residence therein shall be determined from the time he made it his domicile of choice, and it shall not retroact to the time of his birth.  (Japzon v. Comelec, 19 January 2009)  

  

Applicable Repatriation Laws

1) Republic Act 9225, “Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act”

Available to natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country

2) Republic Act 8171, “An Act Providing for the Repatriation of Filipino Women Who Have Lost Their Philippine Citizenship by Marriage to Aliens and of Natural-Born Filipinos”

Available to Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship, including their minor children, on account of political or economic necessity.

3) Commonwealth Act 63

Available to persons declared by competent authority to be a deserter of the Philippine army, navy or air corps in time of war, unless subsequently granted a plenary pardon or amnesty.

Repatriation shall be effected by merely taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry.

read more...

Dual Citizenship FAQ

What is Republic Act No. 9225?

RA 9225, otherwise known as the “Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003” took effect on September 17, 2003. It is an act declaring that former natural-born Filipino citizens who acquired foreign citizenship through naturalization shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship.

What is the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225?

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. (AASJS v. Datumanong, 11 May 2007)

Who is a natural-born Filipino citizens?

Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.

Those born before 17 January 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority shall likewise be deemed natural-born citizens.

Who may reacquire Philippine citizenship?

Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country (Section 3, RA 9225)

How is citizenship reacquired?

They are 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.”

The Oath of Allegiance is the final act that confers Philippine citizenship.

Who may retain their Philippine citizenship?

Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of RA 9225, become citizens of a foreign country

How is citizenship retained?

They shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath of allegiance to the Republic.

Can the conferment of Philippine citizenship be revoked?

Philippine citizenship retained or re-acquired under RA 9225 may be revoked by competent authority upon a substantive finding of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the applicant.

Can my foreign spouse also become a Filipino citizen under RA 9225?

No, the law does not apply to the foreign spouse. He/she has the following option if he/she wishes to reside permanently in the Philippines: (a) apply for naturalization; (b) apply for a permanent resident visa.

Whom among my dependents can apply for dual citizenship?

According to Section 4 of RA 9225 (Derivative Citizenship), the unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines.

What is the procedure for derivative acquisition of Philippine citizenship?

The Petition of the principal shall include that of the dependent. A form for the dependent shall also be accomplished. He shall submit a copy of his dependent's Birth Certificate and Foreign passport.

I acquired my foreign citizenship through marriage, can I apply for dual citizenship under RA 9225?

Yes, the law applies to former Filipino citizens who acquire their foreign citizenship by marriage.

After I have re-acquired Philippine citizenship, can I apply for a Philippine passport?

Yes, and so can the minor children who are deemed to have acquired Philippine citizenship under RA 9225.

What rights and privileges will dual citizens enjoy?

Those who retain or reacquire their Philippine Citizenship under RA 9225 shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:

(1) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as “The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003” and other existing laws;

(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath;

(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath;

(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice. (Section 5, RA 9225)

Those who reacquire citizenship under RA 9225 but cannot vote or be elected or appointed to public office

The right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who:

(a)   are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or

(b) are in the active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens. (Section 5, RA 9225)

Dual citizens may vote in Philippine elections without actually residing and physically staying in the Philippines

There is no provision in the dual citizenship law - R.A. 9225 - requiring "duals" to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote.  On the contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that “duals” are most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under R.A. 9189. It cannot be overemphasized that R.A. 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote. (see Nicolas-Lewis v. Comelec, 04 August 2006)

"Duals" may now exercise the right of suffrage thru the absentee voting scheme and as overseas absentee voters. (see Nicolas-Lewis v. Comelec, 04 August 2006)

What are the additional requirements to run for public office for those who reacquire citizenship under RA 9225?

Breaking down the afore-quoted provision, for a natural born Filipino, who reacquired or retained his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, to run for public office, he must:

1.  meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws; and

2.  make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before any public officer authorized 

A candidate’s oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and his Certificate of Candidacy do not substantially comply with the requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship.  The law categorically requires persons seeking elective public office, who either retained their Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before a public officer authorized to administer an oath simultaneous with or before the filing of the certificate of candidacy.

Hence, Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos, who have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of candidacy,to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections. (see De Guzman v. Comelec, 19 June 2009; Jacot v. Dal, G.R. No. 179848, November 29, 2008)

Can I now acquire land and other properties or engage in business?

Yes. As provided for under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, a Filipino citizen is entitled to purchase land and other properties and engage in business. There is no limit in terms of area or size of land or real property he/she could acquire/purchase under his/her name.

Can I now reside in the Philippines without having to apply for entry visa?

Former natural born Filipinos who have re-acquired Philippine citizenship may now reside in the Philippines continuously without having to apply for entry visa.

As a dual citizen, how long can I stay in the Philippines?

Having reacquired your citizenship, you can stay in the Philippines for as long as you want without having to pay any immigration fees. You can even choose to retire or permanently settle back in the Philippines. As a Filipino citizen, you are subject to duties and other obligations imposed on other ordinary Filipinos, such as paying the necessary community tax residence and other tax liabilities in accordance with the tax laws of the Philippines.

Will I now be required to pay income tax and other taxes? Am I exempt from paying the travel tax?

In accordance with existing laws, income earned in the Philippines is subject to the payment of tax. Filipinos who re-acquire citizenship and opt to reside and work in the Philippines will pay the income tax due at the end of each fiscal year. They are also subject to other obligations and liabilities, such as the community tax and residence tax.

Countries routinely forge bilateral agreements in order that their respective citizens who earn income overseas do not pay income tax twice.

Filipinos who have re-acquired citizenship, as long as they reside permanently overseas, also enjoy the travel tax exemption extended to Filipino citizens permanently residing in other countries, the OFWs and their dependents.

As a dual citizen, am I allowed to practice my profession in the Philippines (e.g. doctor)?

Yes, provided that those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.

How do I prove that I am a natural-born Filipino?

A former citizen of the Philippines shall enjoy the presumption that he/she is a natural-born Filipino, provided, that proof of Philippine citizenship is submitted. Any one of the following may be submitted:

1. NSO-copy of Birth Certificate;
2. Old Philippine Passport;
3. Voter's Affidavit or voter's identification card;
4. Marriage Contract indicating the Philippine citizenship of the applicant;
5. Such other documents that would show that the applicant is a former citizen of the Philippines as may be acceptable to the evaluating officer.

What is the procedure in applying and what documents are required in order to apply?

If in the Philippines, applicant shall present a copy of his/her Birth Certificate issued or duly-authenticated by the National Statistics Office (NSO) in Manila or if not available, any one of the following:

1.  NSO-copy of Birth Certificate;

2.  Old Philippine Passport;

3.  Voter's Affidavit or voter's identification card;
4.  Marriage Contact indicating the Philippine citizenship of the applicants; or
5. Such other documents that would show that the applicant is a former citizen of the Philippines as may be acceptable to the evaluating officer.

Applicant accomplishes form entitled “Petition for Dual Citizenship and Issuance of Identification Certificate (IC) pursuant to RA 9225” and attaches three (3) 2”x2” photographs with blue background; He shall then take the Oath of Allegiance before the authorized officer of the Bureau. If the applicant is incapacitated to take the Oath before such Officer, he shall submit a written justification as to why such Oath was taken before another Administering Officers; and

If all the documentary requirements are complete, he shall then pay the corresponding fees as follows:

Principal applicant	- Php 2, 500 plus Php 500 express lane
Dependent	- Php 1, 250 plus Php 500 express lane

The application shall then be assigned to an evaluating officer. If approved, an identification Certificate shall be issued.

If abroad, an applicant may submit petition to the Philippine Consulate / Embassy together with the photos, birth certificate and a valid ID.

(Note: applicants who are married and who wish to use their married names must submit a copy of their marriage certificate).

Applicant is given the original copy of his notarized oath of allegiance together with an Order of Approval issued by the Philippine Consulate General. He shall likewise be issued an identification Certificate.

What is the implementing agency of RA 9225?

Administrative Order No. 91, Section 1 designates the Bureau of Immigration (BI), in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the Civil Registrar-General of the National Statistics Office (NSO), as the implementing agency of RA 9225

Where do I apply for re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship if I am in the Philippines?

If in the Philippines, an application shall be filed at the Bureau of Immigration.

Where do I apply for re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship if I am overseas?

A former natural-born citizen who is abroad but is a BI-registered alien shall file a petition under oath to the nearest Philippine Embassy or Consulate for evaluation. Thereafter, the Embassy or Consulate shall forward the entire records to the Commissioner of Immigration for the cancellation of the ACR and issuance of an IC under RA 9225.

A former natural-born citizen who is abroad and is not a BI-registered alien shall file a petition under oath to the nearest Philippine Embassy or Consulate for the issuance of an IC under RA 9225.

read more...

Republic vs Chule Lim

REPUBLIC vs. CHULE Y. LIM

G.R. No. 153883.  January 13, 2004

FACTS:

Chule Y. Lim filed a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte. She claimed that she was born on 29 October 1954 in Buru-an, Iligan City. Her birth was registered in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte but the Municipal Civil Registrar of Kauswagan transferred her record of birth to Iligan City. the Court finding the petition sufficient in form and substance ordered the publication of the hearing of the petition.

During the hearing, Lim testifies that:

1. Her surname "Yu" was misspelled as "Yo". She has been using "Yu" in all her school records and in her marriage certificate.She presented a clearance from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to further show the consistency in her use of the surname "Yu".

2. She claims that her father’s name in her birth record was written as "Yo Diu To (Co Tian)" when it should have been "Yu Dio To (Co Tian).

3. Her nationality was entered as Chinese when it should have been Filipino considering that her father and mother never got married. Only her deceased father was Chinese, while her mother is Filipina. She claims that her being a registered voter attests to the fact that she is a Filipino citizen.

4. It was erroneously indicated in her birth certificate that she was a legitimate child when she should have been described as illegitimate considering that her parents were never married. She also presented a certification attested by officials of the local civil registries of Iligan City and Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte that there is no record of marriage between Placida Anto and Yu Dio To from 1948 to the present.

The RTC granted the petition and directed the civil register of Iligan City to make the following corrections in the birth records of Lim:

1. Her family name from "YO" to "YU";

2. Her father’s name from "YO DIU TO (CO TIAN)" to "YU DIOTO (CO TIAN)";

3. Her status from "legitimate" to "illegitimate" by changing "YES" to "NO" in answer to the question "LEGITIMATE?"; and,

4. Her citizenship from "Chinese" to "Filipino".

Petitioner Republic appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court’s decision. Petitioner claims that Lim never complied with the legal requirement in electing her citizenship. Petitioner also assails the Court of Appeals’ decision in allowing respondent to use her father’s surname despite its finding that she is illegitimate.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Lim complied with the legal requirement in electing her citizenship

2. Whether the CA erred in allowing Lim to to use her father’s surname despite its finding that she is illegitimate.

HELD:

1. The Republic avers that respondent did not comply with the constitutional requirement of electing Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority.  It cites Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, which provides that 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. Likewise, the Republic invokes the provision in Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625, that legitimate children born of Filipino mothers may elect Philippine citizenship by expressing such intention “in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry.  The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines.”

Plainly, the above constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. These do not apply in the case of respondent who was concededly an illegitimate child, considering that her Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married.  As such, she was not required to comply with said constitutional and statutory requirements to become a Filipino citizen.  By being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent automatically became a Filipino upon birth.  Stated differently, she is a Filipino since birth without having to elect Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority.

This notwithstanding, the records show that respondent elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority.  She registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old. The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.

2. The Republic’s submission is misleading.  The Court of Appeals did not allow respondent to use her father’s surname.  What it did allow was the correction of her father’s misspelled surname which she has been using ever since she can remember.  In this regard, respondent does not need a court pronouncement for her to use her father’s surname.

Firstly, Petitioner-appellee is now 47 years old.  To bar her at this time from using her father’s surname which she has used for four decades without any known objection from anybody, would only sow confusion.  Concededly, one of the reasons allowed for changing one’s name or surname is to avoid confusion.

Secondly, under Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142, the law regulating the use of aliases, a person is allowed to use a name “by which he has been known since childhood.”

Thirdly, the Supreme Court has already addressed the same issue.  In Pabellar v. Rep. of the Phils., we held: Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142, which regulates the use of aliases, allows a person to use a name “by which he has been known since childhood” (Lim Hok Albano v. Republic, 104 Phil. 795; People v. Uy Jui Pio, 102 Phil. 679; Republic v. Tañada, infra). Even legitimate children cannot enjoin the illegitimate children of their father from using his surname (De Valencia v. Rodriguez, 84 Phil. 222).

While judicial authority is required for a change of name or surname, there is no such requirement for the continued use of a surname which a person has already been using since childhood.

The doctrine that disallows such change of name as would give the false impression of family relationship remains valid but only to the extent that the proposed change of name would in great probability cause prejudice or future mischief to the family whose surname it is that is involved or to the community in general. In this case, the Republic has not shown that the Yu family in China would probably be prejudiced or be the object of future mischief.  In respondent’s case, the change in the surname that she has been using for 40 years would even avoid confusion to her community in general.

CA decision is affirmed. 

read more...