The conversion is virtually ministerial (because Picop has complied with all the requirements) and it has been so ordered by the court. Conversion will enable the paper-making firm based in Surigao del Sur to access the forest concession it has held for decades and continue its operations.
The refusal of Alvarez to approve Picop's IFMA has not only displaced workers, but also deprived the company of P1 billion in sales of its paper products and denied the government P100 million in taxes.
If Alvarez pursues his personal agenda of putting Picop out of business, another 6,000 of its work force will join the ranks of the unemployed in a region where jobs are hard to come by.
In his pronouncements, Alvarez – a self-proclaimed freedom-fighter – said that the presidential warranty enjoyed by Picop was granted through the exercise of the dictatorial powers of the late President Marcos during his martial rule.
But this claim of Alvarez was debunked by Judge Jose Paneda of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court who pointed out that the warranty was issued in 1969, long before martial law was declared in 1972.
In his ruling against the secretary by way of a direct order (mandamus) for him to issue Picop's IFMA, Judge Paneda also established the vested rights of the paper-making firm over its forest concession areas in Mindanao.
He also ruled that contractual obligations entered into by the government with Picop and approved by the President should be respected.
An avenging Alvarez vowed, however, to pursue the case all the way to the Supreme Court. The marathon litigation will drag in its wake 8,000 innocent workers of Picop and thousands more of their dependents.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's campaign to lure foreign investors is sometimes negated by some Cabinet members‚ propensity to show that there is no predictability and not much respect for contracts under her administration.
Moved by the plight of the workers, President Arroyo herself reportedly asked Alvarez to consider allowing Picop to continue with its normal operations. But it seems the secretary is more interested in pressing his personal vendetta against Picop.
The normal desire of government is to encourage enterprise and investment.
It seems unnatural that in the case of Picop, the obsession of one man in the Cabinet seems to be to strangle it without any overwhelming justification.
This places the President in an awkward position. And to think that she has not fully recovered from the embarrassment of seeing Alvarez, her appointee, having to wade through waves of objections to his confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
When several administrations after Marcos did not bother to withdraw said warranty or even just to officially question it these past three decades, they may have been estopped now from suddenly objecting to it.
There is the mistaken notion, fanned by false information peddled by Alvarez, that Picop's corporate life had lapsed and that, therefore, it no longer has legal personality to transact business.
For a time, President Arroyo herself was misled by this official lie. But the Securities and Exchange Commission later clarified that it had granted Picop another 50 years without it missing a day between its two successive lifetimes.
Allowing personal animosity to color the handling of official matters, especially as they involve the sanctity of contracts and the full flowering of legitimate business, does not speak well of a supposedly enlightened administration.
Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended, a Filipino may lose his citizenship upon his naturalization in a foreign country or by express renunciation of his citizenship, among other ways.
For comparison, we asked former ambassador Rodolfo A. Arizala, a lawyer and a 1970 UN/UNITAR fellow in international law at The Hague Academy of International Law, which countries recognize "dual citizenship" as policy.
1. United Kingdom. The British Nationality Act allows a citizen to re-apply for British citizenship if his/her act of renouncing British citizenship was necessary for the retention or acquisition of some other citizenship or nationality.
2. Italy. It allows Italians who possess, acquire or regain a foreign citizenship to retain their citizenship.
3. South Africa. It allows specifically other nationals to acquire South African citizenship without renouncing their original citizenship.
4. Ireland. Irish citizenship law provides in Article 24: "No person shall be deemed ever to have lost Irish citizenship . . . merely by operation of the law of another country whereby citizenship of that country is conferred on that person without any voluntary act on his part."
5. Mexico. It adopted the Mexican Nationality Law of 1998, which made it possible for Mexicans to regain their nationality even if they had acquired another citizenship or nationality.
6. Spain. Filipinos with legal residence in Spain may become Spanish citizens after two years of residence without having to renounce their Filipino citizenship.
7. Portugal. The law makes it optional whether a Portuguese acquiring other citizenship shall renounce his/her Portuguese citizenship.
8. Canada. It allows its citizens to become members of the armed forces of other country without losing their Canadian citizenship. It is only when there is an armed conflict between Canada and that foreign country that Canada strips the citizenship of such Canadians rendering military service in the foreign country.
9. New Zealand. It allows its citizens who have acquired another citizenship the option to renounce their original citizenship through a formal declaration of renunciation. In other words, loss of original citizenship is not automatic.
10. Chile. It recognizes "dual citizenship" by providing in paragraph 1, Article II, Chapter 11 of its 1980 political constitution that Chilean citizenship is lost by naturalization in a foreign country:
". . . except in the case of Chileans covered by clauses 1,2, and 3 of the preceding Article, who should have obtained another nationality without surrendering their Chilean citizenship in accordance with the provisions set forth in clause 4 of the same Article.
"The aforementioned grounds for loss of Chilean nationality shall not apply to Chileans who, by virtue of constitutional, legal or administrative provisions of the State in the territory in which they should reside, may adopt the foreign nationality whenever it should be a condition for remaining in that country or for juridical equality with nationals of the respective country in the exercise of civil rights."