Comparison of Philippine Citizenship Laws
A. Spanish Laws on Citizenship
Not all
the laws of
According
to Law 3, Book 6, Title II, of Novisima
Recopilacion promulgated
in
All foreigners who obtained the
privilege of naturalization those who were born in these kingdoms; those who, residing therein may be converted to
the holy Catholic faith; those being self-supporting, established their
domicile therein; those who ask for and obtain residence in any town thereof;
those who marry native women of said kingdoms and domiciled therein; and in
case of a foreign woman who marries a native man, she thereby becomes subject
to the same laws and acquires the same domicile as her husband; those who
establish themselves in the country by acquiring real property; those who have
trade or profession and go there to practice the same; also those who practice
some mechanical trade therein or keep a retail store;... those who reside for a
period of ten years in a home of his own; and also foreigners who, in
accordance with the common law, royal orders and other laws of the kingdom, may
have become naturalized or acquired residence therein...
Though it is unclear
whether or not the Philippines would have been within the scope of these laws,
some authors and Supreme Court justices later argued that the Philippines, as a
colony would have been included as one of the “kingdoms” in that law:
Moreover,
the Government of the Spanish Monarchy, in encouraging the multiplication of
her subjects during the period of her glory and in granting citizenship by
birth in “these kingdoms” which were carried forward in the Spanish Civil Code
in 1889, under the same policy of the multiplication of her subjects, can have
no other intention than to apply said law to the inhabitants of its dominions,
colonies and territories under its sovereignties.[2]
Another
law of
Foreigners who desire to gain
Spanish citizenship should apply for it by means of an application filed with
the Governor-General who was empowered in the interest of the nation to grant
or deny the same. Compliance with this Royal Decree has been declared
absolutely essential for the acquisition of citizenship with a view to acquire
the status of a Spanish subject in the Philippine Islands prior to the change
of sovereignty.[3]
The Royal
Decree of 23 August 1868, promulgated specifically for the Philippine Islands,
provided for the political status of children of foreigners born in the
First, the
legitimate and recognized natural children of a father who belongs to another
independent State, and the unrecognized natural, and other illegitimate
children of a mother belonging to another State born outside of the Spanish
dominions; Second- The children specified in the preceding paragraph, born in
the Spanish dominions or on board Spanish vessels on high seas if they do not,
on attaining the age of majority fixed in the laws of the kingdom, elect Spanish
nationality; Third- Those being Spaniards, acquire another nationality, as well
by renouncing the first as be accepting employment from another government
without authority of the sovereign; Fourth- The woman who contracts marriage
with the subject of another state.[4]
Finally,
there was the Law of 4 July 1870 – the “Ley
Extranjera de Ultramar” which was expressly extended to the
Art. 1. These are foreigners: (a)
All persons born of foreign parents outside of the Spanish territory; (b) Those
born outside of the Spanish territory of foreign fathers and Spanish mothers
while they do not claim Spanish nationality; (c) Those born in Spanish
territory of foreign parents, or foreign fathers and Spanish mothers, while
they do not make that claim; (d) Spaniards who may have lost their nationality;
(e) Those born outside of Spanish territory of parents who may have lost their
Spanish nationality; and (f) The Spanish woman married to a foreigner. For
purposes of this article, national vessels are considered a part of Spanish
dominions.
Art. 2. Foreigners who under the
laws obtain naturalization papers or acquire domicile in any town in the
Spanish provinces of the Ultramar are considered Spaniards.
B. Treaty of
To end
the six-month hostilities between
Article IX of the Treaty of Paris defined those who
were the citizens of the
Spanish
subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain
by present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such
territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights
of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its
proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry,
commerce, and professions, being subject thereof to such laws as are applicable
to other foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may preserve
their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record,
within a year from the date of the exchange of ratification of this treaty, a
declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which
they shall be held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of
the territory in which they may reside.
The civil
and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories thereby ceded to the
Under the Treaty, native subjects and Spanish subjects
who did not exercise their option to leave the
In the
case of Bosque v. U.S., 1 Phil.88
(1908) it was held that the absence of a Spanish subject from the Philippines
during the entire period allowed by treaty for making a declaration of his
intention to preserve allegiance to the Crown of Spain prevented the loss of
his Spanish Nationality by his failure to make such a declaration. It was
opined that under the treaty it was necessary that he had a residence de facto in the
A child under
parental authority whose father did not take advantage of the right of
declaration of Spanish citizenship as provided for by the treaty also was
considered a citizen of the
C. The Philippine Bill
The
Philippine Bill was enacted by the Congress of the
Section 4
of the Philippine Bill defines who the citizens of the
That all inhabitants of the
Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on
the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided
in said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed
and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the
protection of the United States, except
as such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of
Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the
united States and Spain signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and
ninety-eight: Provided, That the Philippine legislature is hereby authorized to
provide by law for the acquisition Philippine citizenship by those natives of
the Philippine Islands who do not come within the foregoing provisions, the
natives of other insular possessions of the
United States, and such other persons residing in the Philippine Island who
could become citizens of the United States if residing therein.[9]
All those
that were considered citizens of the
All those
born after 11 April 1899 to parents who were Spanish subjects on that date and
who continued to reside in the
A
woman of foreign nationality who married a citizen of the
Children
born of Chinese fathers and Filipina mothers within the
Children
born in the Philippines of Chinese parents were also considered citizens of the
Citizenship
may be lost by the action of a person, either express or implied. Expatriation
is the voluntary renunciation of one’s nationality and allegiance by becoming a
citizen of another country.[14]
Actual renunciation may not be necessary in order to forfeit citizenship; a
mere absence for a prolonged period, without an intention to return may be
sufficient. The rule of the Department of State of the
D. The Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones’ Law)
The
Philippine Bill was later on superseded by Philippine Autonomy Act. The latter
was superior in various ways to the former. It essentially mirrored a
constitution as it provided for a framework of government, Bill of Rights and
certain positive powers and prohibitions. It, however, retained in toto the same provision on citizenship
as its predecessor. Section 2 of the Act stated:
That all inhabitants of the
Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April,
eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands, and their
children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed citizens of the Philippine
Islands, except as such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to
the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provision of the treaty of peace
between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen
hundred and ninety-eight, and except such others as have since become citizens
of some other country: Provided, That the Philippine legislature, herein
provided for, is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of
Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not
come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possession of
the United States, or who could become citizens of the United States under the
laws of the United States if residing
therein.[16]
As
the above-stated provision is just a re-enactment of Section 4 of the
Philippine Bill, all persons considered as citizens under the former law were also
considered as such under the Philippine Autonomy Act. However, it was only in
the latter that the proviso, also found in the Philippine Bill, providing for
suppletory law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship was given effect
by the enactment of Act No. 2927 by the Philippine Legislature in 1920. The
said law constituted the Naturalization Act of the
a.
natives of the
b. natives of
insular possessions of the
c.
citizens of the
d. foreigners who,
under the laws of the
E. 1935 Constitution
In the 1935
Constitution, Filipino citizenship was defined, classified and regulated by
Article IV, which stated that:
Section 1. The following are
citizens of the
(1)
Those
who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution
(2)
Those
born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of
the Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands
(3)
Those
whose fathers are citizens of the
(4)
Those
whose mothers are citizens of the
(5)
Those
who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section
2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by
law.[18]
Those who
were considered citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution
included those deemed citizens under the Jones Law: “all inhabitants of the
Philippine Islands, who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of
April, 1989, and then residing in the said islands, and their children born and
subsequent thereto...” This was in turn a reproduction of Section 4 of the
Philippine Bill of 1902.[19]
Those who
were naturalized according to the Naturalization Law of Act No. 2927 (March 26,
1920), come under the scope of Section 1(1). Under this Act, the privilege of
naturalization was given to the following persons:
(1) natives of the Philippines who were not citizens of the
Philippines, because they were not living in the Philippines on April 11, 1899,
and were not subjects of Spain on that date, not were they children of Filipino
citizens born after that date; (2) natives of the insular possessions of the
United States, such as natives of Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands; (3) residents of the Philippines who were citizens of the United
States; and (4) residents of the Philippines who could become citizens of the
United States under the American laws if residing there.[20]
As can be
seen from the previous citizenship laws, the principle of jus sanguinis was not applicable prior to the 1935 Constitution.
Before Section 1, which considered citizens those whose fathers were Filipino
citizens, the prevailing doctrine had been jus
soli.[21] By recognizing the principle of jus sanguinis, it was recognized that a
blood relationship would serve “as a better guarantee of loyalty to the country
of one’s parents”[22]
than jus soli.
Section
1(2), at the time the Constitution was framed, was said to be inserted for the
benefit of Delegate Fermin Caram of
Section
1(4) contemplated a situation where only the mother was a Filipino citizen, and
gave the child an opportunity to elect Filipino citizenship only when he
reached the age of majority. Prior to his reaching such an age, he at most has
an inchoate right to Filipino citizenship.[24]
The provision is also applicable to mothers who were Filipinos before acquiring
the nationality of their foreign spouses. To restrict its interpretation in
such a way that the time of election was considered controlling as to the
status when the mother should be a Filipina would have nullified the particular
provision.[25]
For illegitimate children however, this provision would not have been
applicable, since the citizenship of the father would not then be material,
since an illegitimate child as a rule follows the nationality of the mother.[26]
The right
to elect is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 652, which states the requirements
and procedure for election, and must be express:
Option to elect Philippine
citizenship shall be expressed in a statement to be filed and sworn to by the
party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oath and shall be
filed with the nearest civil registrar. The party elected must likewise
accompany the aforementioned statement with the oath of allegiance to the
Constitution and the Government of the
On the
naturalization of non-citizens, Section 1(5) possessed great significance.
Desirable aliens are welcomed, but a balance must be created wherein the law
“bars undesirables without unduly discouraging the worthwhile aliens desirous
of becoming Filipinos.”[28]
Naturalization has been defined as the “legal act of adopting an alien and
clothing him with the rights that belong to a natural born citizen.
Naturalization may be obtained through a general law of naturalization applied
through a judicial process.”[29]
F. 1973 Constitution
Article III, Section 2 enumerates the following as citizens of the
1.
Those
who are citizens of the
2.
Those
whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
3.
Those
who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution
of nineteen hundred and thirty-five
4.
Those
who are naturalized in accordance with law.
The
purpose of the first paragraph of the provision was to protect the continued
enjoyment of Philippine citizenship to those who already possess the right as
of 17 January 1973.
The
Section 2(2) followed the principle of jus
sanguinis. However, unlike the 1935 Constitution, Filipino mothers were
placed by the 1973 Constitution on equal footing with Filipino fathers as far
as the determination of the citizenship of their children was concerned. The
father or mother may be a natural-born Filipino or a Filipino by naturalization
or by election. The only important consideration here was that the mother must
be a Filipino at the time of the birth of the child. It must be reiterated that
this rule applied only to those born of a Filipino mother on or after 17
January 1973.
As the
1973 Constitution followed the doctrine of
jus sanguinis, it disregarded the place of birth of a person. As long as
one was born of Filipino parents, he was considered a Filipino. If he was born
in a country where the rule of jus soli was
the prevailing principle, it would be a case of dual citizenship.
The
Section 2(3) defined the status of individuals who elect Philippine citizenship
under the 1935 Constitution. Under the said Constitution, a child born of a
Filipina mother married to an alien was considered an alien unless he elected
Philippine citizenship within a reasonable period after reaching the age of
majority. However, if his mother reacquired her
Section
2(4) provided for a means by which even individuals, who were not Filipino
citizens by virtue of birth or of Filipino mothers, may become citizens of the
G. 1987 Constitution
The 1987
Constitution builds on the previous Constitutions, but modifies provisions
which cannot be found in the 1973 and 1935 Constitution. Those who were citizens
during the adoption of the new Constitution were considered citizens. However,
this does not rectify any defects in the acquisition of such citizenship under
the 1935 or 1973 Constitution. “If a person’s citizenship was subject to
judicial challenge under the old law, it still remains subject to challenge
under the new – whether or not the judicial challenge had been commenced prior
to the effectivity of the new Constitution.”[30]
The
principle of jus sanguinis still
applies, and in following the lead of the 1973 Constitution, the Filipino woman
is placed on the same footing as Filipino men in matters of citizenship. It is
essential, however, that the mother is a Filipina when the child is born.[31]
The principle of parental authority is still applicable in the new
Constitution, so this article only applies to legitimate children, not to
adopted or illegitimate ones. Mothers have parental authority over illegitimate
children. Adopted children, on the other hand, as they are not related by
blood, do not follow their adoptive parents’ citizenship, despite being under
their parental authority.[32]
As for
those who were born after the adoption of the 1973 Constitution of Filipino
mothers, the 1987 Constitution still provides the transitory provision that was
also in the 1973 Constitution: “Those born before 17 January 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.”[33]
Naturalization
still remains one of the ways by which a person may acquire citizenship.
Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution defines natural born citizens:
Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the
In the
1973 Constitution, the second sentence was not yet included. Furthermore, even
under the 1935 Constitution, it was not settled whether the child of a Filipino
mother who elects Philippine citizenship was a natural-born Filipino or a
naturalized one. A liberal view was adopted by the 1987 Constitution, based on
the argument that the election retroacts to the moment of birth, since it was
such that gives him potential to make the election.[34]
However,
if a person loses his citizenship and subsequently reacquires such citizenship,
that person would no longer be considered a natural-born Filipino but a naturalized
one (whether under the 1973 or the 1987 Constitution). An exception to this
rule is reacquiring one’s citizenship through repatriation, where one regains
one’s former citizenship.[35]
Section 3
states that “Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner
provided by law.”[36]
The loss of citizenship is governed by two laws, Commonwealth Act No. 63 (for
natural-born and naturalized citizenship) and Commonwealth Act No. 473 (for
naturalized citizenship). Under C.A. No. 63, citizenship may be lost: “through naturalization in a foreign country, by
express renunciation of citizenship, by oath of allegiance to a foreign
country, by rendering service in the armed forces of a foreign country, and by
being a deserter of the armed forces.” Under Commonwealth Act No. 473, one’s
certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if “found to have been
fraudulently obtained, by permanent residence in the country of origin within
five years of naturalization, or when petition is found to have been made on an
invalid declaration of intent, or upon failure to comply with the requirements
for the education of minor children, or if the person allows himself to be a
“dummy” for aliens.”[37]
Reacquisition
may happen either through naturalization or repatriation.
Section
4, which states that “citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain
their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they are deemed under the
law, to have renounced it,”[38]
modifies the 1973 Constitution by “making no reference to sex... on the chance
that some country might have a law which divests a foreign husband of his
citizenship.”[39]
In
Section 5, the Constitution “recognizes the problem of dual allegiance, but
leaves concrete ways of dealing with it to Congress.”[40]
The same may be said of dual citizenship, which is not contemplated in the
provision, it being a “seldom intentional and perhaps never
insidious...condition that arises from the fact that Philippine law cannot
control international law, and the laws of other countries on citizenship.”[41]
Dual Citizenship is covered by RA 9225, which provides that natural-born
citizens of the
As can be
seen, though there had been changes from the Spanish Laws to the Philippine
Constitutions, continuity has been maintained. Each Constitution usually
includes a provision to accommodate previous ones. Major changes include the
transition from jus soli to jus sanguinis in the 1935 Constitution,
the equalization of men and women (fathers and mothers) as regards citizenship
in the 1973 Constitution, and the classification of children of Filipino
mothers who needed to elect citizenship as natural-born, the retention of
citizenship upon marriage to foreigners, and the recognition of the problem of
dual allegiance in the 1987 Constitution.
[1] LEON T. GARCIA,
PROBLEMS OF
CITIZENSHIP IN THE
[2]
[3] Sy Joe Lieng, etc. v. Sy Quia, etc., 16 Phil 181
[4] GARCIA, supra
note 1, at 7.
[5][5] treaty of
paris, art. Ix (1900)
[6] In re Arnaiz, 9 Phil 705 (1906)
[7] Rivera v.
Pons, 4
[8] George A.
Malcolm, The Constitutional Law of the Philippine
[9] Philippine
Bill of 1902 § 4 (1902) amended by Act of march 23,
1912
[10] Roa v.
Collector of Customs, 23 Phil. 315 (1912)
[11] Martinez de Hernandez, 2
[12]
[13] Lim Teco v.
Collector of Customs, 24 Phil 84 (1913)
[14] Roa, 23 Phil 323
[15]
[16] the
philippine autonomy act § 2 (1916)
[17] malcolm, supra note at 8, 393
[18] PHIL. CONST. art. IV, §1-2 (1935).
[19] LORENZO M. TAÑADA &
ENRIQUE M.
FERNANDO, CONSTITUTION OF THE
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF
THE REPUBLIC OF THE
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33] PHIL. CONST. art. IV, §1(3) (1987)
[34] BERNAS, supra
note 11, at 620.
[35] Bengson v. Cruz, 357 SCRA 545, (May 7, 2001).
[36] PHIL. CONST. art. IV, §3 (1987)
[37] BERNAS, supra
note 11, at 622.
[38] PHIL. CONST. art. IV, §4 (1987)
[39] BERNAS, supra
note 11, at 627.
[40]
[41]