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...

Jao vs Republic

JAO vs. REPUBLIC

G.R. No. L-29397, March 29, 1983

FACTS:

The petitioner filed a petition in the CFI of Davao for repatriation under Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended, alleging therein that although her father was Chinese, she was a citizen of the Philippines because her mother was a Filipina who was not legally married to her Chinese husband; that she lost her Philippine citizenship when she married Go Wan, a Chinese; and that Go Wan died in September 6, 1962. Petitioner further alleged that her illiterate mother erroneously registered her as an alien with the Bureau of Immigration, by virtue of which she was issued Alien Certificate of Registration. The petition contains no prayer for relief.

The petition was not published, but notice thereof was served on the Provincial Fiscal who appeared at the hearing but presented no evidence. After receiving the evidence of the petitioner, the trial court issued an Order declaring the petitioner as "judicially repatriated," and ordering the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration. The Provincial Fiscal, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, took this appeal.

ISSUE:

WON one may be repatriated by judicial proceedings

HELD:

The proceedings taken in the trial court are a complete nullity. There is no law requiring or authorizing that repatriation should be effected by a judicial proceeding. All that is required for a female citizen of the Philippines who lost her citizenship to an alien to reacquire her Philippine citizen, upon the termination of her marital status, "is for her to take necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to register the said oath in the proper civil registry" (Lim vs. Republic, 37 SCRA 783).

Moreover, the petitioner's claim of Philippine citizenship prior to her marriage for being allegedly an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother may not be established in an action where the mother or her heirs are not parties (Tan Pong vs. Republic, 30 Phil. 380). It is the consistent rule in this jurisdiction that Philippine citizenship may not be declared in a non-adversary suit where the persons whose rights are affected by such a declaration are not parties, such as an action for declaratory relief (Tiu Navarro vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 107 Phil. 632) a petition for judicial repatriation (Lim vs. Republic, supra), or an action to cancel registration as an alien (Tan vs. Republic, L-16108, Oct. 31, 1961). As was held in Lim vs. Republic, supra, "there is no proceeding established by law or the rules by which any person claiming to be a citizen may get a declaration in a court of justice to that effect or in regard to his citizenship."

Note: Although Jao’s citizenship prior to her marriage to a Chinese husband needed judicial confirmation, the process of repatriation itself (i.e., of reacquir­ing that citizenship) involves a purely administrative proceeding.

read more...

Angat vs Republic

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.

read more...

Tabasa vs Court of Appeals

TABASA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. NO. 125793, August 29, 2006

FACTS:

Petitioner Tabasa was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. When Petitioner was seven years old his father became a naturalized citizen of U.S.A. By derivative naturalization, petitioner also acquired American Citizenship.

In 1995, Petitioner arrived in the Philippines and was admitted as a "balikbayan" for one year. Thereafter the latter was arrested and detained by an agent of BID. The Consul General of the U.S. Embassy in Manila, filed a request with the Bureau to apprehend and deport the Petitioner on the ground that a standing warrant for several federal charges has been issued against him, and that his passport has been revoked.

Petitioner filed before the CA a Petition for Habeas Corpus with Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order 11 on May 29, 1996. At the time Tabasa filed said petition, he was already 35 years old. While the case was pending, petitioner filed a Supplemental Petition alleging that he had acquired Filipino citizenship by repatriation in accordance with Republic Act No. 8171, and that because he is now a Filipino citizen, he cannot be deported or detained by the respondent Bureau.

ISSUE:

A. Whether petitioner has validly reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 8171.

B.  Whether petitioner because of his repatriation, has reacquired his Philippine citizenship; therefore, is not an undocumented alien subject to deportation.

HELD:

A. Petitioner is not qualified to avail himself of repatriation under RA 8171.

The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following:

a. Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and

b. Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity.

Petitioner theorizes that he could be repatriated under RA 8171 because he is a child of a natural-born Filipino, and that he lost his Philippine citizenship by derivative naturalization when he was still a minor.

Petitioner overlooks the fact that the privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is available only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, and to the minor children of said natural-born Filipinos. This means that if a parent who had renounced his Philippine citizenship due to political or economic reasons later decides to repatriate under RA 8171, his repatriation will also benefit his minor children according to the law. This includes a situation where a former Filipino subsequently had children while he was a naturalized citizen of a foreign country. The repatriation of the former Filipino will allow him to recover his natural-born citizenship and automatically vest Philippine citizenship on his children of jus sanguinis or blood relationship: the children acquire the citizenship of their parent(s) who are natural-born Filipinos. To claim the benefit of RA 8171, however, the children must be of minor age at the time the petition for repatriation is filed by the parent. This is so because a child does not have the legal capacity for all acts of civil life much less the capacity to undertake a political act like the election of citizenship. On their own, the minor children cannot apply for repatriation or naturalization separately from their parents.

In the case at bar, there is no dispute that petitioner was a Filipino at birth. In 1968, while he was still a minor, his father was naturalized as an American citizen; and by derivative naturalization, petitioner acquired U.S. citizenship. Petitioner now wants us to believe that he is entitled to automatic repatriation as a child of natural-born Filipinos who left the country due to political or economic necessity. This is absurd. Petitioner was no longer a minor at the time of his "repatriation" on June 13, 1996. The privilege under RA 8171 belongs to children who are of minor age at the time of the filing of the petition for repatriation.

Neither can petitioner be a natural-born Filipino who left the country due to political or economic necessity. Clearly, he lost his Philippine citizenship by operation of law and not due to political or economic exigencies. It was his father who could have been motivated by economic or political reasons in deciding to apply for naturalization. The decision was his parent’s and not his. The privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is extended directly to the natural-born Filipinos who could prove that they acquired citizenship of a foreign country due to political and economic reasons, and extended indirectly to the minor children at the time of repatriation.

Petitioner failed to follow the procedure for reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship

Even if we concede that petitioner Tabasa can avail of the benefit of RA 8171, still he failed to follow the procedure for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. He has to file his petition for repatriation with the Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN), which was designated to process petitions for repatriation pursuant to Administrative Order No. 285 (A.O. No. 285) dated August 22, 1996.

What petitioner simply did was that he took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; then, executed an affidavit of repatriation, which he registered, together with the certificate of live birth, with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila. The said office subsequently issued him a certificate of such registration. At that time, the SCN was already in place and operational by virtue of the June 8, 1995 Memorandum issued by President Fidel V. Ramos. Although A.O. No. 285 designating the SCN to process petitions filed pursuant to RA 8171 was issued only on August 22, 1996, it is merely a confirmatory issuance according to the Court in Angat v. Republic. Thus, petitioner should have instead filed a petition for repatriation before the SCN.

Petitioner failed to prove that that his parents relinquished their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity as provided for in the law.

Even if petitioner––now of legal age––can still apply for repatriation under RA 8171, he nevertheless failed to prove that his parents relinquished their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity as provided for in the law. Nowhere in his affidavit of repatriation did he mention that his parents lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic reasons. It is notable that under the Amended Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 8171, the SCN requires a petitioner for repatriation to set forth, among others, "the reason/s why petitioner lost his/her Filipino citizenship, whether by marriage in case of Filipino woman, or whether by political or economic necessity in case of [a] natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his/her Filipino citizenship. In case of the latter, such political or economic necessity should be specified."

Assuming petitioner Tabasa is qualified under RA 8171, it is incumbent upon him to prove to the satisfaction of the SCN that the reason for his loss of citizenship was the decision of his parents to forfeit their Philippine citizenship for political or economic exigencies. He failed to undertake this crucial step, and thus, the sought relief is unsuccessful.

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. If the applicant, like petitioner Tabasa, fails to comply with said requirements, the State is justified in rejecting the petition for repatriation.

B. No. As previously explained, petitioner is not entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 for he has not shown that his case falls within the coverage of the law.

Office Memorandum No. 34 dated August 21, 1989 of the BID is enlightening on summary deportation:

2. The Board of Special Inquiry and the Hearing Board IV shall observe summary deportation proceedings in cases where the charge against the alien is overstaying, or the expiration or cancellation by his government of his passport. In cases involving overstaying aliens, BSI and the Hearing Board IV shall merely require the presentation of the alien’s valid passport and shall decide the case on the basis thereof.

3. If a foreign embassy cancels the passport of the alien, or does not reissue a valid passport to him, the alien loses the privilege to remain in the country, under the Immigration Act, Sections 10 and 15 (Schonemann v. Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 81461 [sic, should be ‘86461’], 30 May 1989). The automatic loss of the privilege obviates deportation proceedings. In such instance, the Board of Commissioners may issue summary judgment of deportation which shall be immediately executory. 28

In addition, in the case of Schonemann v. Defensor Santiago, et al., this Court held:

It is elementary that if an alien wants to stay in the Philippines, he must possess the necessary documents. One of these documents is a valid passport. There are, of course, exceptions where in the exercise of its sovereign prerogatives the Philippines may grant refugee status, refuse to extradite an alien, or otherwise allow him or her to stay here even if he [the alien] has no valid passport or Philippine visa. "Boat people" seeking residence elsewhere are examples. However, the grant of the privilege of staying in the Philippines is discretionary on the part of the proper authorities. There is no showing of any grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or whimsicality in the questioned summary judgment. x x x

Petitioner Tabasa, whose passport was cancelled after his admission into the country, became an undocumented alien who can be summarily deported. His subsequent "repatriation" cannot bar such deportation especially considering that he has no legal and valid reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.

read more...