Future husband

Under Republic Act 9225 signed into law on August 29, 2003, natural born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic and swearing to the supreme authority of the Philippines, its Constitution, laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities.

This law (R.A. 9225) was however questioned as unconstitutional by Gerry, a member of an NGO advocating social justice for school teachers and allied workers (AASJS). He filed a petition for Prohibition before the Supreme Court against the Secretary of Justice, the official tasked to implement laws governing citizenship. He contended that Section 2 of said law allows all Filipinos either natural born or naturalized who become foreign citizens, to retain their Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship whereas section 3 permits dual allegiance because the law allows natural born citizens of the Philippines to regain their Philippine citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic without forfeiting their foreign allegiance. Gerry said that this is unconstitutional because “dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law” (Section 5, Article IV Constitution). Was Gerry correct?

No. First of all Section 2 merely declares as State policy that Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship.

With regards to Section 3, resort to the deliberations of Congress is necessary to determine the intent of the legislative branch in drafting the assailed law. From the deliberations of Congress regarding said law it is clear that the intention of the legislature is to repeal the provision in Commonwealth Act No. 63 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries. R.A. 9225 in effect allows dual citizenship to natural born Filipinos who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. It is plain in Section 3 that R.A. 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What happens to the other citizenship is not the concern of R.A. 9225.

Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution regarding dual allegiance is a declaration of policy and is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact a law on dual allegiance. Until this is done, it would be premature for the judicial department to rule on the issues pertaining to dual allegiance. In section 2 and 3 of R.A. 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual allegiance per se but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after naturalization in other countries (Calilung vs. Datumanong, G.R. 160869, May 11, 2007).

*  *  *

E-mail us at [email protected]