Monday, December 14, 2009

Notes on Nationality

  1. NATIONALITY
    2. A. IMPORTANCE OF PERSONAL LAW
    -an individual's nationality or domicile serves as a permanent connection between the individual and a state
    -personal law would allow courts to exercise jurisdiction or determine the governing choice-of-law rule on a specific situation or transaction involving him
    Personal law
    -follows an individual wherever he is
    -governs transactions which affect the individual most closely
    e.g. marriage
    Divorce
    Legitimacy
    Capacity to contract
    History:
    *Medieval City States of Italy: commercial activities ensued between inhabitants of different cities of different sovereign states = DOMICILE AS BASIS FOR PERSONAL LAW
    *Code of Napoleon (1803) and Austrian Code (1812): LAW OF NATIONALITY
    MERITS AND DEMERITS OF NATIONALITY AS PERSONAL LAW
    Merits:
    *establish requisite link between individual and state because the laws of each state was presumed to be made for an ascertained population (based on that's population's physical and moral qualities)
    *individual's nationality easily verifiable from documents
    Demerits:
    *does not solve problems relating to
    >stateless individuals
    >individuals w/ multiple nationalities
    *does not give decisive solution in states w/ diverse legal systems (US - no single law)
    *person's ties with a nation may be attenuated (national of State A but lives most of his life in State B - see Nottebohm) - no shared identity or belonging with a particular state
    IMPORTANCE F NATIONALITY IN THE PHILIPPINES
    National law theory
    -it is the nationality or citizenship of the individual that regulates his
    *civil status
    *capacity
    *condition
    *family rights and duties
    *laws on succession
    *capacity to succeed
    -Ellis v. Republic: a conflict of laws theory by virtue of which jurisdiction over the particular subject matter affecting a person (such as status of a natural person) is determined by the latter's nationality
    -in RP conflicts of law: nationality = citizenship
    But in Political law, different
    Citizens
    Nationals
    Enjoy full political and civil rights
    Don't enjoy such rights BUT owe allegiance to the state, entitled to the state's protection
    Art15, NCC: Nationality principle in RP
    -laws relating to:
    1. Family rights and duties
    2. Status
    3. Condition
    4. Capacity of persons
    …binding upon Filipino citizens even though living abroad
    -origin of nationality theory: French laws
    -individual's private rights should be determined not by his physical location BUT BY HIS POLITICAL ALLEGIANCE
    -national identity as born in French revolution and Italian struggle for national unity
  2. DETERMINATION OF NATIONALITY
    3. -depends on the municipal laws of each state
    HAGUE CONVENTION ON CONFLICT OF NATIONAL LAWS:
    Art1: "It is for each state to determine who are its nationals. This law shall be recognized by other States insofar as it is consistent with international convention, international customs, and the principles of law generally recognized w/ regard to nationality"
    Art2: Questions as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular state "shall be determined in accordance with the law of that state."
    1987 CONSTI: ARTICLE IV: WHO ARE FILIPINO CITIZENS
  3. Citizens of the Philippines at the time of adoption of the 1987 Consitution (ratification on Feb 2, 1987; effective Feb 11?)
  4. Fathers and mothers are Filipino citizens
  5. Born before January 17, 1973 + Filipino mothers + elect Philippine Citizenship upon reaching age of majority
  6. Naturalized according to law
    7. *note: #s 1-3 are considered NATURAL-BORN Citizens
  7. NATURAL BORN CITIZENS
    8. -those who are citizens of a particular state w/o  having to perform any act to acquire or perfect citizenship
    Jus soli principle
    Jus sanguinis principle
    Looks to the law of the place of one's birth
    Rule of descent or blood
    You're a citizen of the place of your birth
    Your citizenship depends on your parents
    Followed in common law countries
    Followed in the Philippines
    Aznar v. COMELEC (see later parts): presume that an individual is Filipino if he has a Filipino father
    TALAROC V. UY (1952)
    Facts:
    -Alejandro Uy was elected as Municipal Mayor of Manticao, Misamis Oriental on Nov 13, 1951
    -One of the losing candidates (TALAROC) field a petition for quo warranto vs. Uy [allegedly, UY IS A CHINESE CITIZEN]
    TC: granted quo warranto petition: position vacant!
    -UY Appealed:
    (1) father was a subject of China (Uy Piangco) but had a Filipino mother
    (2) born in Iligan, Province of Lanao in 1912 (so at the time this case was filed he was around 40 y.o.)
    (3) never been to China
    (4) voted in previous elections, held offices in the government (inspector of Bureau of Plant Industry, public school teacher, filing clerk, acting municipal treasurer)
    (5) her mother was born a Filipino citizen but was only required to be a Chinese citizen by reason of his father's national laws. Upon the death of Uy's father (in 1917), his mother reacquired her Filipino citizenship
    WON Uy is a Filipino Citizen
    HELD: YES
    (feeling ko eto basis)
  8. He was already a Filipino citizen by reason of his birth - he was born in RP, and jus soli was followed at the time of his birth
  9. Though his father is Chinese, his mother is Filipina. Upon death of his father, his mother reacquired her Filipino citizenship and he thus followed the nationality of his mom.
  10. He already exercised rights of a Filipino citizen
    11. ROA Doctrine
    Tan Chong vs. SOLE and Swee Sang vs. RP
    -upon the death of a foreigner husband, the wife reacquires previous nationality before marriage UNLESS conduct shows she elects otherwise
    -children should follow the citizenship of widow mother (being their guardian) unless they elect otherwise upon reaching age of majority
    -applied jus soli doctrine (principle of nationality by place of birth)
    -not controlling daw…
    -can't hold as an alien a person who has already exercised the privileges of citizenship and the Government had confirmed his citizenship on the faith of legal principles that had force of law
    *note: 1935 Constitution applicable in this case.
    Considered Section 1, 1935 Consti: Citizen of the Philippines…if citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution - AND BEFORE 1935 CONSTITUTION, Jus soli principle applied.
    -the adoption of the jus sanguinis principle in the 1935 Constitution did not intend to exclude individuals who are already considered Filipino citizens at that time
    -the book cited portions of the 1935 Consti deliberations…magulong part ung w/re children with Chinese parents but born in RP: if jus soli ang theory, it would mean that they would be Filipino citizen just by reason of being born here. But sabi ni Roxas, they are not Filipino citizens even before 1935 Consti…
    WHY UY considered FILIPINO CITIZEN:
    *already attained age of majority when 1935 Constitution went into effect
    *was allowed to exercise right of suffrage
    *was able to hold public offices
    *took an oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth Government/RP
    *though the Roa Doctrine was overturned upon the adoption of CA No. 63 (provided a method for regaining Philippine Citizenship - took effect in 1936), the ROA DOCTRINE still applies to Uy's mother as she was widowed in 1917. At the time of the adoption of CA 63, Uy was already 24 years old (and has chosen to be a Filipino citizen)
    X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
     CO V. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (1991)
    Facts:
    -Jose Ong Jr. was proclaimed the winner for representative in the 2nd district of Northern Samar in the 1987 elections. Petitioners filed election protests before HRET, claiming:
    (1)  Ong was a not a natural-born citizen
    (2) not a resident of 2nd district of Northern Samar
    HRET: for Ong, Jr. MR denied so this petition
    Facts as to lineage of Ong, Jr:
    *Grandpa: Ong Te
    -arrived in RP from China in 1895
    -established residence in Samar
    -obtained a certificate of residence
    *Dad: Jose Ong Chuan
    -born in China  but was brought to RP by grandpa in 1915
    -resided in Samar
    -married a Filipina, Agripina Lao
    -April 28, 1955 (though mukhang 1957): was declared a Filipino Citizen (Ong, Jr. was only 9 years old at that time - tama to if 1957)
    *Jose Ong, Jr.
    -born 1948 (1935 Consti already in force)
    -1984: married to Desiree Lim
    -registered voter of Laong, Samar in 1984 and 1986 elections
  11. WON ONG, JR. IS A FILIPINO CITIZEN? YES daw…
    12. -"For those in the peculiar situation of Uy who cannot be expected to have elected citizenship as they were already citizens, we apply the In re Mallare rule" (that participation in election = positive act of election of Philippine Citizenship)
    -Art IV, Sec2 of 1987 Consti: children born of Filipino mothers before January 17, 1973 (yes, pasok!) + ELECT CITIZENSHIP UPON REACHING AGE OF MAJORITY = natural-born Filipino citizens
    WON ELECTION OF CITIZENSHIP IS REQUIRED ON THE PART OF UY? NO
    -Uy was already a citizen:
    *mom a natural-born citizen
    *father naturalized when he was already 9 years old
    *Only 1973 & 1987 Consti required him to have filed a sworn statement in 1969 (when he reached 21 - age of majority then) when he was already a citizen since 1957 (when his father was naturalized as a Filipino citizen)
    -Election as Formal and informal process (In re: Florencio Mallare): exercise of right of suffrage + participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship
    -filing of sworn statement/formal declaration: for those who still have to elect citizenship :: acts of deliberative choice: already Filipinos when the time to elect comes
    -election presupposes that the person electing is an alien: Co was not deemed as such
    WHY CO CONSIDERED A FILIPINO CITIZEN:
    *he lived the life of a Filipino since birth
    *father applied for naturalization when he was still a small boy
    *he is Roman Catholic (okay, as if it follows...)
    *he worked for sensitive government agency
    *his profession requires citizenship for taking the examinations and getting a license
    *Participated in political exercises as a Filipino, always considered himself a Filipino
    *voters (mass of voters who knew of his parentage) voted to have him represented in Congress, and they considered him a Filipino
    *theory of HRET: Section 15 of Revised Naturalization Act benefits a minor residing in the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the alien parent = it was the law itself (Revised Naturalization Act) that had elected Philippine citizenship for Co by declaring him as such.
  12. WON ONG WAS A QUALIFIED RESIDENT AT THE 2ND DISTRICT OF NORTHERN SAMAR? YES
    13. residence = domicile (in all Consti)
    Domicile
    -fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return
    -characterized by animus revertendi
    -Domicile of Co was in Samar, it remained fixed there…
    DISSENT: PADILLA
    *Co was born with Chinese Father, Filipino Mom
    *1935 Consti:
    Filipino dads = Filipino children
    Filipino moms = had to elect citizenship upon reaching age of majority
    \ Co should have elected to be a Filipino citizen to become one
    x-----------------------------------------------------------*-----------------------------------------------------------x
  13. CITIZENS BY NATURALIZATION
    14. Naturalization
    -confers to an alien a nationality
    after birth
    by any of the means provided by law
    -in RP: by judicial method under CA no. 473
    -during Martial Law (LOI No. 276): not applicable anymore
    -removed:
    *filing of Declaration of Intention
    *filing of Income Requirements
    *Language requirement: as long as able to speak and write Filipino/English/Spanish/any principal Filipino language
    QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPLICANTS FOR NATURALIZATION (note: iba pa DISQUALIFICATIONS) (Section 2, CA 473)
  14. AGE: Not less than 21 on date of HEARING the petition (so could file while 20 y.o.)
  15. RESIDENCE: resided in RP + Continuously + not less than 10 years
  16. Good moral character
    17. Believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Consitution
    Must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in RP in his relations w/ the constituted government + community in which he is living
  17. ECON: Own real estate + in RP + worth NOT LESS THAN p5K
    18. + must have some lucrative trade/profession/lawful occupation
  18. LANGUAGE: able to SPEAK & WRITE English/Spanish/any one of the principal Philippine languages
  19. CHILDREN & SCHOOL: enrolled minor children of school age
    20. …in any PUBLIC or PRIVATE SCHOOL recognized by the Bureau of Private Schools
    …where PHILIPPINE HISTORY
    GOVERNMENT\
    And CIVICS are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum
    …during the entire period of the residence required of him (not less than 10 years)
    …PRIOR TO HEARING of his PETITION for naturalization as citizen
    More discussion:
    *On 10 yr-continuous residence requirement
    Ratio: enable government to
    *observe applicant's conduct
    *ensure that applicant has imbibed the principles and spirit of our Consti
    When reduced to 5 years: Applicant… (Section 3, CA 473)
    1. honorably held office under Gov't
    2. Established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in RP
    3. Married to a Filipino woman
    4. Engaged as a teacher (public or private - but not int'l school) for 2 years
    (note however YEE V. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 7 SCRA 832: only Filipino citizens can be public school teachers)
    1. Born in RP
    *On CHARACTER
    -requires:
    +Good Moral character
    +conducted self in a PROPER + IRREPROACHABLE manner
    Proper and Irreproachable conduct
    -higher standard of morality than good moral character
    -moral character of the highest degree, not enough to be a law-abiding citizen (Dy Lam Go vs. Republic)
    -EVIDENCE: testimony of 2 character witnesses
    >well known in the community and enjoy such a high reputation for probity (honesty/integrity), their word may be taken on its face value
    >can't be employees of the petitioner
    >must have known applicant for the period prescribed by law
    >had opportunity to observe him personally
    >can attest to the possession of the applicant of the qualifications - e.g. proper and irreproachable conduct during the entire period of residence
    -on consti requirement: not merely recitation BUT BELIEF!
    *ON ECONOMIC REQUIREMENT
    >REAL ESTATE worth P5k (min)
    >lucrative trade, profession, lawful occupation
    YU KIAN CHIE VS. REPUBLIC (1965)
    Facts
    Yu Kian Chie
    -Chinese citizen
    -complete with all requirement, but the economic requirements were problematic: he alleged that he had an average income (in 1957) of P3k from Republic Hardware.
    OSG opposed: failed to prove lucrative income
    TC: granted Yu's petition
    During appeal:
    -Yu moved to reopen case, present additional documentary proof of his income (claimed that his income increased to P5200 in 1961)
    CFI: affirm TC (for naturalization)
    -appeal by OSG
    WON YU sufficiently proved he had lucrative income? NO.
    -argument of Yu's counsel admits that he only had a uniform living allowance of P150, and whatever additional amount he might received depends on the profit of the company (in form of bonuses).
    x---------------------------------------------------x
    (econ requirement continued)
    Lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation
    -substantial gainful employment or the obtaining of tangible receipts
    -appreciable margin of income over expenses in order to provide for adequate support for himself and his family in the event of sickness, unemployment or disability to work
    -his financial condition must be such as to permit him and the members of his family to live with reasonable comfort, in accordance with the prevailing standard of living, and consistently with the demands of human dignity, at this stage of our civilization
    -regard w/ caution if family business
    Real estate requirement
    -at odds with Article XII, Section 7 of 1987 Consti: "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain"
    GR: Aliens can't own lands
    X:
  20. Intestate succession (Section 2, BP 185, effective 1982): allowed natural-born citizen who had lost his Filipino citizenship to be a transferee of a private land for residential purposes
    21. ...as long as it did not exceed 1,000 m2 (urban)
    1 ha (rural)
    Why intestate: if otherwise, it would allow aliens to circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land
  21. In pari delicto: vendor (who knew that he was selling to an alien) cannot file suit to void sale to an alien (who cannot own land, and must have known it)
  22. Foreigner later naturalized as a Filipino: purpose of prohibition is to prevent the patrimony of our nation for future generations of Filipinos; since vendee already a Filipino, end would not be frustrated
    23. *ON LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS
    -not enough that applicant understands
    *ON MINOR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
    Ratio: for the children to learn and imbibe customs and traditions and ideals of Filipinos to prepare them for a life of responsible and law abiding citizenship
    -should be complied with and proven
    -insufficient finances not an excuse for failing to comply with this requirement
    -initial failure to comply with this requirement is a BAR TO SUBSEQUENT PETITION even if during 2nd petition, child no longer of school age (meaning, nakapag-aral na sa ibang school not under the law)
    -not allowed if predominantly composed of children of a specific race (e.g. Chiang Kai Shek mostly caters Chinese children)
    x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
    DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR NATURALIZATION
    GR: state that has the burden of proving disqualification of applicant for citizenship
    X: if applicant claims that he is Filipino, has burden of proof…weird to actually
    Section 4. Who are disqualified. - The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens:
    1. Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
    2. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas;
    3. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
    4. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
    5. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
    6. Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
    7. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States 2and the Philippines are at war, during the period of such war;
    8. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United States 3whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
    Moral turpitude
    -act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social life in general,
    contrary to the accepted and customary law of right and duty between men
    or conduct contrary to honesty, modesty, or good morals
    Co-mingling requirement
    -can't qualify if kept wife and children in a neighboring country, merely visiting them
    x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
  23. PROCEDURE FOR NATURALIZATION
    1. File declaration of intention to become a citizen (unless exempted)
    2. File petition for naturalization
    3. Publication: in OG or newspaper of general publication
    4. Hear petition
    5. If approved: rehearing after 2 years after promulgation of judgment awarding naturalization
    6. Take oat of allegiance to support and defend Consti + Philippine laws
    Declaration of Intention
    WHEN: 1 year prior to filing of petition
    WHERE: w/ OSG
    CONTENTS: it is his bona fide intention to become a citizen of RP
    Exemptions:
    1. Born in RP + received primary and secondary education in public schools/private schools recognized by Government, not limited to any race or nationality
    2. Resided continuously in RP for min 30 years before filing their petition
    3. Widow and minor children of an applicant for naturalization who died pending petition for naturalization
    -if exempted, still has to file a statement as to his exemption and the reasons therefor to apprise the public, especially those officers charged with notice of the application, of the reasons advanced to support exemption claim, to prepare them to contest it - FAILURE TO DO SO IS FATAL
    WHO HEARS THE PETITION: RTC  of the province in which petitioner has resided for at least 1 year immediately preceding the filing of the petition
    -RTC has exclusive jurisdiction
    EFFECT OF NATURALIZATION ON WIFE AND CHILDREN (SECTION 15, CA 473)
    WIFE:
    -married (before or after naturalization of husband/citizen of Philippines)
    -herself lawfully qualified to be naturalized (issue: WON comply with Qualifications ONLY or both QUALIFICATIONS and DISQUALIFICATIONS)
    MINOR CHILDREN
    1. Born in RP: considered RP Citizen
    2. Born outside RP, in RP at time of naturalization of parent: AUTOMATIC RP citizen
    3. Born outside RP, not in RP at time of naturalization of parent: deemed RP Citizen ONLY during minority
    -considered to continue being such after being of age if he begins to permanently reside in RP while still a minor
    1. Born outside RP, AFTER naturalization of parent: considered RP Citizen IFF
    *w/n 1 year after reaching age of majority…
    *registers as a Philippine Citizen AT THE AMERICAN CONSULATE of the country where he resides
    *takes necessary oath of allegiance
    VIVO V. CLORIBEL
    Facts:
    -Uy Pick Tuy, a Chinese citizen, applied for naturalization before CFI of Manila (subsequently granted)
    -her wife (CHUA Pic Luan) and kids (minors) were admitted to RP as temporary visitors for 3 months
    -Chua and children petitioned for an indefinite extension of their stay
    Sec of FA: authorized change of category to "special non-immigrants" for 2 years
    C Immigration (IC): refused to accept payment of extension fee
    OP: new Secretary of Justice ruled that Sec of FA ruling no longer have force and effect
    -advised to leave country; filed petition for mandamus w/ injunction instead to implement ruling of Sec of FA
    TC: deny
    -refile: due for eventual conversion as Filipino citizens
    IC: refused: Wife not qualified to be lawfully naturalized
    WON CHUA and Children can stay longer, in the guise that they would later be deemed Filipino citizens with the approval of husband/father's naturalization? NO.
    -in general: should depart first from Islands then re-apply for permit to enter islands for a longer period
    Ratio: would compel our government to spend time, money and effort to examine and verify WON every such alien really has a right to take up permanent residence here…
    AS RE: CHUA (Mother)
    -should first prove that she possesses ALL QUALIFICATIONS, NONE OF DISQUALIFICATIONS for naturalization
    -here: she failed to qualify to be of "good moral character + conducted herself in a proper and irreproachable manner"
    >how: she misrepresented that she was only here for a temporary visit when she intended to stay permanently
    >she delayed court processes to prolong her stay
    -also failed to comply with residence requirements: only legally stayed from 16 October 1960 to 16 June 1962 (8 months); the rest of her stay was illegal
    AS FOR THE MINOR CHILDREN
    -failed to "dwell" in the Philippines at the time of naturalization of father
    -basis: if foreign-born minor children: extended citizenship if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of parent
    Dwelling
    -lawful residence
    …since here, not lawfully residing at the time their father was naturalized
    *no coterminous stay for temporary visitors: authorized stay was only for a definite period (vs. Naturalization proceeding: uncertain, cannot be set at a definite date)
    X---------------------------------------------X
    MOY YA LIM YAO V. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION (1971)
    -Lau Yuen Yeung (Chinese) applied for Philippine visa in 1961 to visit her great grand uncle
    -permitted to stay for 1 month, subsequently extended until February 13, 1962
    -January 25, 1962, Lau marrried Moy Ya Lim Yao (Edilberto Lim), allegedly a Filipino citizen
    -spouses (uuuy…sweet) petition for injunction to restrain deportation of Lau
    CFI: for COI - Lau lacked the required length of residence in RP
    WON Lau already a Filipino Citizen because of marriage to an alleged Filipino citizen? YES
    Section 9(g), Immigration Act: depart first for extension thru re-application
    -The said section DOES NOT APPLY TO ALIENS WHO LEGITIMATELY BECOME FILIPINO CITIZENS pending their temporary stay
    -since they become Filipino Citizens, they have right to stay in RP
    -Under Section 15, CA 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso factor a Filipina PROVIDED  she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines
    -alien marrying aliens later naturalized: follow nationality of husband, provided she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under Section 4…
    x-------------------------------------x
    Moy Ya Lim reversed by Burca v. Republic
    Burca  vs. Republic (1973):
    Facts:
    -Burca petitioned SC for affirmation of TC's judgment declaring her a Filipino citizen.
    Held:
    Our laws do not allow judicial action or proceeding for declaration of the citizenship of an individual.
    1. Alien woman married to a Filipino must first apply by filing a petition for citizenship reciting that she possesses all the qualifications + none of the disqualifications
    2. Said petition must be filed in CFI where alien resided at least 1 year immediately preceding the filing of petition
    3. Any action by any other office….other than the judgment of a competent court of justice…certifying or declaring that an alien wife of a Filipino citizen = filipino citizen is null and void
    (in short, still needs to apply for naturalization; no automatic acquisition of citizenship)
    NO JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
    Not through
    *action of declaratory relief
    *summary procedure under A412, NCC for correction of error in the entry in the Civil Registry
    >>>may be granted provided that an appropriate action is made wherein all the parties who may be affected by the entries are notified and represented
    ...and there is a full blown adversary proceeding.
    TAN YU CHIN V. REPUBLIC (ratio why no judicial declaration): Courts of justice exist for the settlement of judicial controversies, which imply a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of said right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of right.
  24. LOSS OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
    25. CA 63, amended by RA 106: ways through which a Filipino may lose his citizenship:
    1. naturalization in foreign countries
    2. Express renunciation of citizenship
    3. Upon reaching 21 years or more, subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country, subject to exceptions
    4. Rendering service/accepting commission in armed forces of a foreign country
    5. Having declared by competent authority a DESERTER of AFP in time of war, unless plenary pardon or amnesty granted
    6. WOMAN: marriage to a foreigner (if laws of her husband makes her their national)
    7. Cancellation of certificate of naturalization
  25. NATURALIZATION IN FOREIGN COUNTRY
    26. FRIVALDO V. COMELEC (1989)
    Facts:
    -Frivaldo was proclaimed gov-elect of Sorsogon but the League of Municipalities contested the proclamation on the ground that Frivaldo was a naturalized US Citizen in 1983
    -answer:
    (1) just sought US citizenship to protect himself from Marcos
    (2) naturalization was not impressed with voluntariness, merely forced upon himself as a means fo survival against the unrelenting persecution by Marcos' agents abroad
    WON Frivaldo is not a Filipino citizen, thus, not qualified to win his seat? YES
  26. if he really wanted to disavow US Citizenship, he could have RE-ACQUIRED it by:
    27. (1) direct act of Congress
    (2) naturalization
    (3) repatriation
  27. Frivaldo only invoked repatriation,
    28. (a) his active participation in the RP elections automatically forfeited his US Citizenship based on US Laws
    SC: even if he did lose his US Citizenship, such forfeiture didn't resort to automatic restoration of his Philippine Citizenship
    (b) he cannot be repatriated since the Special Committee provided under LOI 270 was not yet constituted
    SC: should have waited! Should re-affirm allegiance to RP by either act of Congress or naturalization; filing his certificate of candidacy is not enough
  28. Not filed late: Qualifications for public office (which includes citizenship) should be possessed not only at the time of election but during the officer's entire tenure
  29. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believe, as in this case, that the candidate was qualified.
    30. *then the matalinhagang phrase…page 186 (matampuhin ang RP Citizenship, di basta-bastang pede itapon…)
    x----------------------------------------------x
    FRIVALDO V. COMELEC (1996 - PART 2)
    FACTS:
    -Frivaldo, again, got the highest number of votes
    -he was 2x declared to be disqualified because he was a US Citizen
    -he now claims to have repatriated BUT HE DID SO AFTER FILING HIS CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY (took oath of allegiance under PD 752 at 2p, June 30, 1995)
    WON FRIVALDO A RP CITIZEN IF HE REPATRIATED AFTER FILING OF COC? YES
    -law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship (vs. residence and age)
    -Frivaldo's repatriation RETROACTED TO THE DATE OF ILING OF HIS APPLICATION ON AUGUST 17, 1994
    -being a former Filipino who has served the people repeatedly, Frivaldo deserves a liberal interpretation of Philippine laws and whatever defects there were in his nationality should not be deemed mooted by his repatriation.
    x----------------------------------------------x
    LABO V. COMELEC
    Facts
    -Labo married an Australian, he was naturalized as an Australian citizen
    -he was elected mayor of Baguio
    -petition for quo warranto filed by Lardizabal on the ground of ineligibility because of citizenship
    COMELEC decision: Labo is a Citizen of RP CID: Labo was not a citizen, Australian Government (through consul) said in official statement that LABO IS AN AUSRALIAN citizen + has Australian passport
    -defense: asked for change of status from immigrant to returning former Philippine Citizen -granted  Immigrant Certificate of Residence
    So acts which would say that he's an Australian Citizen:
    *naturalized as Australian Citizen
    *official statement of Australian Government saying he's an Australian citizen
    *he has an Australian passport
    *he voluntarily made sworn statements where he said he's an Australian citizen
    WON LABO is a FILIPINO CITIZEN, thus, qualified to run for Mayor of Baguio? NO
  30. In accordance w/ CA 63, he has lost his Philippine citizenship:
    1. Naturalization to a foreign country
    2. Express renunciation of citizenship
    3. Subscribing to oat of allegiance to support Consti and laws of a foreign country
  31. The annulment of his marriage (bigamous) to an Australian citizen DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY RESOTRE HIS PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
  32. With the 3 modes of reacquiring Philippine citizenship available, he did not complied with any one of the said modes.
    33. LABO V COMELEC 2: Labo APPLIED FOR REPATRIATION
    H: still no proof f reacquisition of RP Citizenship; mere application does not and cannot amount to an automatic reacquisition of RP Citizenship (in accordance w/ PD 725 and LOI 270, should apply w/ the Special Committee on Naturalization, and then take oath and allegiance)
    x----------------------------------------------x
  33. EXPRESS RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP
    34. AZNAR V. COMELEC (1990)
    Facts:
    -Lito Osmena filed candidacy for Provincial Governor of Cebu in the 1988 local elections.
    -Aznar filed petition for disqualification on the ground that Osmena allegedly is a citizen of US
    Proof: Certificate by Deportation Commissioner certifying that Osmena is an American and a holder of Alien Certificate of Registration
    -defense:
    1. Legitimate child of a Filipino
    2. Holder of a valid and subsisting RP Passport
    3. Continuously residing in RP since birth, not gone out of country for more than 6 months
    4. Registered voter of RP since 1965
    WON Osmena is a Filipino Citizen? YES. No express renunciation of citizenship
  34. No substantial and convincing evidence to rule otherwise (among the grounds for losing citizenship, none was proven to exist)
  35. ON the alleged certification: merely assumed that Osmena is an American because of clearance to enter by CID. Court not concerned here if he is an American based on US laws - US laws does not concern RP courts
  36. Presumption that Filipino: if son of Filipino father, presumed that he is a Filipino; burden of proof on the person assailing citizenship to show that he is not a Filipino.
  37. On Padilla dissent (by obtaining Certificates of Alien Registration in 1958 and 1979, Osmena expressly renounced RP Citizenship): Non sequitur. The Certification that he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities or citizenship. No express renunciation of Philippine Citizenship .
  38. On Art. IV, sec.5 of 1987 Consti (policy against dual citizenship): no retroactive effect on Osmena
  39. ON CANCELLATIONOF CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION (so applies to naturalized RP Citizens)
    40. -SOLGEN files motion for cancellation
    -filed before Judge
    -Judge cancel naturalization certificate
    -can register w/ Civil registry
    -reasons:
    1. Naturalization certificate obtained through fraud/illegally
    2. Naturalized person returns to his native country/some other foreign country w/n 5 years following issuance of naturalization certificate
    Staying 1 year in native country/2 years in other country = prima facie intention of establishing permanent residence there
    1. Invalid declaration of intention
    2. Minor children failed to graduate in a school required by law through fault of parents
    >neglect to support
    >transferring to another school
    1. Naturalized citizen allowed himself to be used as a dummy
    -if granted: clerk of court forward copy of decree of cancellation to:
     *OP
    *OSG
    -No defenses of estoppel or res judicata: mere grant of political privilege. If fraudulent, not res judicata
    REPUBLIC V. LI YAO
    Facts
    -Li Yao was naturalized in 1952
    -he allegedly evaded payment of correct income taxes for 1946-1951 (or before his naturalization certificate was issued)
    -OSG filed petition to cancel Li Yao's naturalization certification on ground that certificate was acquired through fraudulent means (no good conduct, proper and irreproachable conduct)
    -defense: settled tax liabilities through tax amnesty
    -pending proceedings, Li Yao died. Substituted by wife and kids, as status of father/husband determines their status in turn
    WON Cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization is valid? YES
  40. Can cancel certificate of naturalization of defects discovered before and subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of naturalization
  41. No res judicata: a naturalization  proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, the decision rendered therein, not constituting res judicata as to any matter that would support a judgment cancelling a certificate of naturalization on the ground of illegal or fraudulent procurement thereof.
  42. On Tax amnesty: it doesn't obliterate his lack of good moral character and irreproachable conduct DURING HIS REQUIRED STAY
    43. x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
  43. PROBLEMS IN APPLYING NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE
  44. DUAL OR MULTIPLE CITIZENSHIP
    45. Hague Convention on Conflict of National Laws: each state determines who its own nationals are
    -so it is possible that in accordance with the internal laws of 2 states, an individual is considered a citizen of both states
    e.g.
    • application of jus soli and jus sanguinis: country of parents apply jus sanguinis, country where born apply jus soli
    • Filipino citizen marries an alien whose laws provide that the spouse of their citizens also becomes their citizens (but note, as in Aznar's case: if no express renunciation on the part of the Filipino, still considered a Filipino Citizen)
    • Naturalized in another state but no express renunciation of the native state
    Article IV, Section 5: Discourage dual or multiple nationalities: dual allegiance is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt withby law
    "Effective Nationality": test to determine rights of an individual who may claim multiple nationality in a third state
    NOTTEBOHM CASE (LIECHTENSTEIN V. GUATEMALA)
    -Nottebohm is a natural-born German who stayed in Guatemala for more than 30 years (since 1903)before WWII broke out. He never applied to be a citizen of Guatemala
    -as protection during the war, he sought Liechtenstein citizenship (Liechtenstein[
    /líh·ten·shtayn/ ] being a neutral country) in 1939 which was approved under exceptional circumstances (he should have been a resident for 3 years )
    -upon his return to Guatemala in 1943, he was refused entry as a result of war measures. He was arrested, detained, and expelled and refused readmission by the Guatemalan government, and his property in Guatemala were seized.
    -he thus returned to Liechtenstein, and Liechtenstein government offered their protection on Nottebohm, suing Guatemala government
    -Nationality defense of Guatemala:
    (1) Nottebohm not national of Guatemala
    (2) Nottebohm fraudulently acquired Liechtenstein citizenship + w/o any genuine intention to establish a durable link between Liechtenstein and Nottebohm
    Links with Germany:
    *born in Germany
    *always retained his connections w/ family members in Germany
    *had business connection in Germany
    *though he applied for Liechtenstein citizenship, nothing shows he wanted to disassociate from Germany
    Links with Guatemala:
    *residing there since 1903
    *his main seat of interest
    *he returned there even after his naturalization in Liechtenstein
    *members of his family leave there
    Links with Liechtenstein: no actual connections
    *no settled abode
    *no prolonged residence: his application indicates he stayed there to pay a visit - transient
    *requested naturalization proceedings be concluded w/o delay
    *no intention of settling - returned to Guatemala shortly after naturalization
    *only returned to Liechtenstein because he was not readmitted to Guatemala
    *no waiver of residence
    *no allegation of economic interest
    *no manifestation of any intention to transfer all or some of his business activities to Liechtenstein
    Though…
    >he did have short sojourns
    >had a brother in Liechtenstein, but was only a reference for his good conduct
    >he desired to spend his old age in Guatemala
    WON Liechtenstein could protect Nottebohm's interest, he having genuine link with the Principality? NO
    *Naturalization was lacking in genuineness, granted w/o regard to the concept of nationality adopted in international relations
    *merely acquired naturalization to substitute for his status as a national of a belligerent State that of a national of a neutral state w/ sole aim of coming w/n protection of Liechtenstein but not of becoming wedded to its traditions, interests, its way of life or of assuming the obligation - other than fiscal …
    x----------------------------------------------x
    OH HEK HOW V. REPUBLIC (1969)
    Facts:
    -Oh hek filed petition for naturalization, granted
    -later filed a motion alleging that he complied w/ RA 530 and prayed that he be allowed to take his oath of allegiance + issued certificate of naturalization
    CFI: authorized him to take oath + issued cert of naturalization
    -Gov't appealed: oath + cert of naturalization taken EVEN BEFORE THE CFI issued deci granting it
    CFI: granted motion, but allowed Oh Hek to re-take oath and issued another cert of naturalization
    WON OH HEK COULD BE NATURALIZED W/O EXPRESS RENUNCIATION OF HIS CHINESE CITIZENSHIP? NO
  45. ROC provides that a permission be secured from the Minister of Interior of Nationalist China to validly renounce his Chinese Citizenship: though not required by our laws, our laws does not allow dual citizenship except if from one of the Iberian and friendly democratic Ibero-American countries
  46. Articles 15 and 16 of NCC provides that status governed by law of nationality - Chinese laws: Chinese laws require him to do such requirement first so should follow it
  47. Section 12, CA 473: petitioner shall solemnly swear that he renounces absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign…state of which he is a subject or citizen: w/o express renunciation as required by Chinese laws, he is still its citizen, thus, false ung oath nya…
    48. x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
  48. STATELESSNESS
    49. 2 senses:
  49. De jure: individual stripped of his nationality by his own former government w/o having an opportunity to acquire another
  50. De facto: individual possessed a nationality but whose country does not give them protection outside own territory (i.e. refugees)
    51. -escaped from their countries w/o any travel documents, identity papers or any form of identification normally granted by their government
    e.g. Vietnam war: Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laos
    1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees: basic rights of stateless persons
    1954 UN Conference on the Elimination or Reduction of Future Statelessness
    1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness: enumerates conditions under w/c an individual would not lose his nationality upon the risk of becoming stateless:
    *marriage
    *divorce
    *adoption
    *naturalization
    *expatriation
    -prohibits deprivation of identity as punishment or as discriminatory instrument for political, religious or ethnic reasons
    -jus sanguinis country should grant nationality to those born in their countries
    -jus soli country should consider its national stateless persons when one of the latter's parents is a national of their country (i.e. parent born in that country)
    KOOKOORITCHKIN V. SOLGEN (1943)
    FACTS:
    -Ermes Kookooritchkin was born in Russia, grew up as a citizen of the now defunct Imperial Russian Government under the Czars
    -during WW1, he was part of Russia's military service
    -when the 1917 Russian revolution broke out, he joined the White Russian Army, but the latter was overwhelmed by the Bolsheviks. He refused to join the Bolshevik regime so fled to Shanghai and found his way to Manila (arrived under the group of Admiral Stark in 1923)
    -he established permanent residence in Iriga, Camarines Sur since 1925
    -he was a guerilla officer during the war
    -married a Filipino named Concepcion Segovia, and had a son Ronald, who is studying at St. Agnes Academy, a school duly recognized by the Government
    -he is a shop superintendent and receives an annual salary of P13,200
    -can speak and write English and Bicol dialect…
    (basta, he showed he is qualified and has none of the disqualifications)
    -disclaims allegiance to the present Communist Government of Russia
    -he filed 1941 petition for naturalization
    CFI: granted it
    -OSG appealed:
    (1) Russian: he failed to show that he has lost Russian citizenship and that Russia grants to Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens
    (2) failed to establish that he was not disqualified
    WON Kookooritchkin should be granted Cert of Naturalization? YES
  51. Kookooritchkin is Stateless: Empire of Russia ceased to exist and he disclaims allegiance or connection with the Soviet Government now existing in Russia
    52. -It is a "well-known fact that the ruthlessness of modern dictatorships had scattered throughout the world a large number of stateless refugees or displaced persons, w/o country and w/o flag. The tyrannical intolerance of said dictatorships toward all opposition induced them to resort to beastly oppression, concentration camps and blood purges, and it is only natural that the not so fortunate ones who were able to escape to foreign countries should feel the loss of all bonds of attachment to the hells which were formerly their fatherland's."
  52. Don't need to require Kookooritchkin to present evidence that he is stateless and had no allegiance to Russian republic: He was at war with the said rule, plus acts of Kookooritchkin show that he does not feel any bond of attachment to the Soviet dictatorship.
    53. *AS LONG AS STATELESS PERSONS POSSESS ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS, THEY CAN BE NATURALIZED AS PHILIPPINE CITIZENS W/O THE REQUIREMENT OF RECIPROCITY.
Posted by
Labels:

1 comment:

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)