Problems on the Dual Citizenship Law

            The enactment of Republic Act No. 9225 or what is commonly termed as the Philippine Dual Citizenship Law has brought mixed reactions from various sectors. While the legislature saw the need to grant dual citizenship to Filipinos who became naturalized in foreign countries, others looked at it disapprovingly. The passing of the law left striking points and arguments unanswered.

            One of the arguments against it is that the law has, in effect, tolerated dual allegiance. In a petition to declare R.A. No. 9225 unconstitutional, Hector Calilung of the party-list group Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for Social Teachers and Allied Workers said that the law indirectly allows dual allegiance which he considers as “diametrically opposed to the constitutional principle that dual allegiance is inimical to the national interest.”[1]

In the case of Mercado v. Manzano[2], the Supreme Court clarified the mandate of Section 5 Article IV of the Constitution when it held that “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.” The constitutional provision is not against dual citizenship but dual loyalty, “such as that often manifested by naturalized Filipinos who, while professing allegiance to their adoptive land, retain their allegiance to their native land and even involve themselves in its political affairs.”[3]

Dual citizenship due to the universal rule that the child follows the citizenship of the father is not prohibited as it is unavoidable considering that it is a “condition that arises from the fact that Philippine law cannot control international law and the laws of other countries on citizenship.”[4] The problem arises when dual citizenship is acquired through direct positive acts. In a way, it is the kind of dual allegiance or dual loyalty sought to be prevented by the Constitution as held in the Manzano case.

The issue in R.A. No. 9225 is that it permitted former Filipinos who have sworn allegiance to acquire another citizenship through naturalization in a foreign country to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines to reacquire Philippine citizenship. As observed in this light, the law has, in fact, indirectly allowed dual allegiance or loyalty. To some extent, the law ignored the Constitutional provision that “dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.”[5]

Another issue related to the enactment of the law is the possibility of double taxation. However, the answer given to this issue is that bilateral treaties between the Philippines and other countries will make sure that Filipinos working in these countries will not pay tax in the Philippines on income earned in those countries.[6] The problem is when the Philippines does not have bilateral treaties in all countries where Filipinos are found. Then Senate President Franklin Drilon countered the argument saying that “their incomes (in these foreign countries) had always been tax free” and that since liability for taxes on income is based on where one lives and not on citizenship, dual citizenship does not automatically translate into double taxation.[7]

There is also the issue of whether reacquiring Filipino citizenship jeopardizes one’s another citizenship. In the United States, it is reported that “it would take more than intent or taking an oath of allegiance to another country for an American to lose citizenship.”[8] Under Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act[9] of the United States of America a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing the acts provided by law with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality. Thus, for a U.S. national to lose his citizenship, there must be an intentional relinquishment of his U.S. citizenship. However, this is not the case in all countries. Some experts argue that there are cases wherein a country will automatically revoke the citizenship of one of its citizens who acquires another country’s citizenship through naturalization, even if no explicit renunciation by the person concerned was made.[10]

Another issue is military service. The concept of citizenship usually carries with it the obligation to render military service. Does a former Filipino who has obtained another citizenship through naturalization and who also reacquired Filipino citizenship under R.A. No. 9255 have to render military service to both countries? In times of war, in what country shall he serve?

Can there be a more ridiculous concept that someone swearing absolute, total and exclusive loyalty to two flags? That is like swearing absolute, total and exclusive loyalty to two wives. As it is, swearing absolute, total and exclusive loyalty to two wives is banned as bigamy. Yet swearing absolute, total and exclusive loyalty to two flags is embraced as a virtue. What if the two flags get divided on war? Will you serve in the army of the one as a conscript while the other opposes it? [11]

R.A. No. 9225 may have its benefits but it also has its concurrent problems which anyone contemplating of availing dual citizenship under this law should seriously consider. Thus, it is suggested that the law on dual citizenship should be complemented by a bilateral or international treaty so that issues such as those mentioned can be properly addressed.[12]