Renunciation

 

A.  Loss of Citizenship

Citizenship grants political rights to those who possess it.  Reciprocally, it imposes the duty of allegiance to such political community.[1]  The core of citizenship is to enjoy certain political rights.  Consequently, the loss of citizenship revokes such rights and privileges granted only to citizens.

            Since the 1899 Malolos Constitution, it has been provided that the condition of being a Filipino is lost in accordance with law.[2]  The subsequent constitutions namely, the 1935 Constitution, 1973 Constitution, and 1987 Constitution retained the same principle with regard to the loss of one’s citizenship.

 

SUBSTANTIVE LAWS ON HOW TO LOSE FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP

 

            There are two laws, which govern the Loss of Philippine citizenship. These are Commonwealth Act. No.63 and Commonwealth Act. No.473. The former applies to both natural-born and naturalized citizens and the latter applies only to naturalized citizens.

            As stated in Commonwealth Act. No. 63,

A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events:

(1)    By naturalization in a foreign country;

(2)    By express renunciation of citizenship;

(3)    By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more: Provided, however, That a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country;

(4)    By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country: Provided, That the rendering of service to, or the acceptance of such commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country, and the taking of an oath of allegiance incident thereto, with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of the following circumstances is present:

a.       The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign country; or

b.       The said foreign country maintains armed forces on Philippine territory with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the Filipino citizen concerned, at the time of rendering said service, or acceptance of said commission, and taking the oath of allegiance incident thereto, states that he does so only in connection with his service to said foreign country: And provided, finally, That any Filipino citizen who is rendering service to, or is commissioned in, the armed forces of a foreign country under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), shall not be permitted to participate nor vote in any election of the Republic of the Philippines during the period of his service to, or commission in, the armed forces of said foreign country. Upon his discharge from the service of the said foreign country, he shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil and political rights as a Filipino citizen;

(5)    By cancellation of the of the certificates of naturalization;

(6)    By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted; and

(7)    In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force in her husband's country, she acquires his nationality.[3]

 

The lost of citizenship through naturalization in a foreign country is an unequivocal term, as well as the other ways of losing citizenship like rendering service in the armed forces, being a deserter of the armed forces, cancellation of certificate of naturalization.  When a person is naturalized in another country, he automatically loses his Filipino citizenship; this is without prejudice with the dual citizenship law.[4]   When a person deserts the armed forces, and cancels his or her certificate of naturalization, he or she also automatically loses his or her citizenship.  There is no controversy in jurisprudence regarding these matters.  

            Aside from expressly renunciating one’s citizenship, it can be deduced in Philippine jurisprudence that citizenship can also be impliedly renounced.  A person is considered to have renounced his Philippine citizenship when with full knowledge he resumed or reacquired his former foreign citizenship after becoming a naturalized Filipino.[5]  A summary proceeding can even be employed to divest a Filipino of his citizenship, even though such is highly contested.[6]  This situation was exemplified in the case of Yu v. Defensor-Santiago.

            Following a later jurisprudence, express renunciation was more strictly construed.  It was stated in Aznar v. Commission on Election[7], that an application for an alien certificate of registration is not tantamount to a loss of citizenship.  Express renunciation should be done through explicit means, which is not left to inference or implication.  In this case, it was held that there can be no renunciation which would result to the loss of Philippine citizenship, when there is no renunciation express or even implied.  The filing of alien certification of registration was neither considered an express nor an implied renunciation.

            Another aspect that is questionable in this regard is the case wherein the oath of allegiance of a foreign country does not state that the applicant is denouncing his allegiance to the Philippines upon naturalization.  In the case of Labo v. Commission on Elections, taking an oath of allegiance to Australia is an explicit way of losing Filipino citizenship.[8]  It can be seen that the Oath of Allegiance of Australia states the phrase “renouncing all other allegiance.”  The swearing itself carries the renunciation of citizenship.  In another case, when Juan Frivaldo had acquired his American citizenship, the court declared that he lost his Filipino citizenship.  The Supreme Court held that his contention that his naturalization as an American citizen is “not impressed with voluntariness” was unmeritorious. 

The second law is Commonwealth Act No. 473. Section 18 of said law provides that:

A naturalization certificate may be cancelled by a competent judge on any of the following grounds:

(1)    If it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally;

(2)    If the person naturalized shall, within five years next following the issuance of said naturalization certificated, return to his native country or to some foreign country and establish his permanent residence there: Provided, That the fact of the person naturalized remaining for more than one year in his native country or the country of his former nationality, or two years in any other foreign country, shall be considered prima facie evidence of his intention of taking up his permanent residence in the same;

(3)    If the petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention

(4)    If it is shown that the minor children of the person naturalized failed to graduate from a public high school recognized by the Office of Private Education[9] of the Philippines, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught as part of the school curriculum, through the fault of their parents either by neglecting to support them or by transferring them to another school or schools.  A certified copy of the decree of naturalization certificate shall be forwarded by the Clerk of Court of the Department of Interior[10] and the Bureau of Justice.[11] 

(5)    If it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed himself to be used as a dummy in violation of the constitutional provisions requiring Philippine citizenship as a requisite for the exercise, use or enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege.[12]

 

In the case of Oh Hek How v. Republic,[13] it was stated that where an oath of allegiance was taken after the trial court had already lost jurisdiction over the case because of the timely appeal by the Government, the certificate of naturalization issued pursuant thereto is null and void. 

A naturalization decree is deemed to be illegally procured when it is acquired fraudulently.  Illegal procurement of naturalization decree is not just limited to irregularity but it also denotes the determination of a competent court.[14]

A naturalized citizen is subject to another law in terms of losing citizenship.  Since citizenship is a mere grant of political privilege, a naturalized citizen has more burden of preserving such acquired citizenship.  If a naturalized citizen perjured his application through positive averment of false facts then his naturalization certificate can be cancelled unilaterally.[15] 

Sometimes the government can still scrutinize the application of a naturalized citizen and look at the authenticity of the facts stated.  If the naturalized citizen fraudulently misstated certain information, such certificate of naturalization may be revoked. Grounds for revocation are lack of good moral character, no lucrative income, violation of Philippine laws prior to grant of citizenship, and violation of Anti-Alias Law.[16]   

Losing ones naturalized citizenship exhibits both positivistic and individualistic characteristic.[17]  It is positivistic in the sense that a final judgment on the admission of naturalized citizenship is not executory and does not render a res judicata.[18]   On the other hand, it is individualistic because the burden of proof of canceling a certificate of naturalization is incumbent upon the State.  Such certificate can only be cancelled through clear, unequivocal, and convincing proof, and not only through preponderance of evidence.[19] 

            The main reason why a decision in a naturalization proceeding is not res judicata is because such is not a judicial adversarial proceeding.[20]  Similarly, estoppel or laches cannot apply to the government in action for the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization, since it is a known principle that the government is never estopped by the mistakes on the part of its agents.[21]

            However, according to the Constitution, marriage to an alien would not automatically divest a person of his citizenship, unless he or she performs certain acts or omission which would result to the loss of his or her citizenship.[22]  This provision, however, is not retroactive; thus, does not repatriate those who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.