Sec. 5 Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. (1987 Philippine Constitution)
What is the main concern of Section 5, Article IV, 1987 Constitution, on citizenship?
In including §5 in Article IV on citizenship, the concern of the Constitutional Commission was not with dual citizens per se but with naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization.
What Sec. 5 contemplates is the case of aliens who are naturalized as Filipinos but remain loyal to their country of origin (specifically former Chinese nationals who even ran in the legislative Yuan of China), as well a public officers who, while serving the government, seek citizenship in another country.
Distinguish dual citizenship from dual allegiance.
Dual citizenship is involuntary and arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states.
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to a situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states.While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition. (Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999)
What are some of the instances when a citizen of the Philippines may possess dual citizenship?
Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship:
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli;
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers’ country such children are citizens of that country;
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
Are persons with mere dual citizenship disqualified to run for elective local positions under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code?
No. Dual citizenship is not a ground for disqualification from running for elective position. Recognizing situations in which a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act and as an involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries, be also a citizen of another state, the Court explained in the case of Mercado vs. Manzano that "dual citizenship" as a disqualification must refer to citizens with "dual allegiance". Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under the disqualification. This ruling is reiterated in Valles v. Comelec, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000.
Dual citizenship is involuntary and arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. Thus, like any other natural-born Filipino, it is enough for a person with dual citizenship who seeks public office to file his certificate of candidacy and swear to the oath of allegiance contained therein.
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, is brought about by the individual’s active participation in the naturalization process. A person with dual allegiance who seeks public office must (apart from meeting the qualifications under Philippine law) swear to an Oath of Allegiance and execute a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship pursuant to R.A. 9225. (Cordora vs. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 176947, 19 February 2009)
0
Comments
