"x x x.
The 1987 Constitution expressly provides that “Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.” Thus, Congress can provide for specific grounds that could result in loss of Philippine citizenship such as those provided under Commonwealth Act No. 63. In said law, acquisition of foreign citizenship is a ground for the loss of Philippine citizenship.
However, this is modified by the enactment of Republic Act (RA) No. 9225, an Act making the citizenship of Philippine citizens who acquire foreign citizenship permanent. This law is also known as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 or, simply, the Dual Citizenship law.
Under RA 9225, the general rule is that citizens of the Philippines who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of the law. The exceptions are: (1) when there is express renunciation of Filipino citizenship; (2) being in the service of the armed forces of a foreign country; and (3) seeking public office in a foreign country.
Even though Philippine citizenship is lost, it may be reacquired according to the provisions of the law by taking an oath of allegiance under RA 9225, naturalization, repatriation, or through direct act of law.
Repatriation is the recovery of original citizenship. Thus, if what was lost was naturalized citizenship that is what will be reacquired. If what was lost was natural-born citizenship, that will be reacquired. Technically, it is merely reverting back what was once your citizenship.
Reacquisition of Philippine citizenship does not take effect automatically. In the case of Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the Supreme Court enunciated that even if Frivaldo lost his naturalized American citizenship, by actively participating in the elections in the Philippines, such forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of automatically restoring his citizenship in the Philippines that he had earlier renounced.
As what the Supreme Court held in the case of Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC: “Philippine citizenship is not a cheap commodity that can be easily recovered after its renunciation. It may be restored only after the returning renegade makes a formal act of re-dedication to the country he has abjured and he solemnly affirms once again his total and exclusive loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.”
Moreover, RA 9225 provides that natural born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country, are hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
Also, natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of the law, become citizens of a foreign country, shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking of the aforesaid oath.
Philippine citizenship will not only be reacquired by the applicant, but will also be acquired by his unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted, who are below eighteen (18) years of age. Those who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under the law shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and certain conditions.
For those who lost their Philippine citizenship and want to run for office, Section 5 (2) of RA No. 9225 compels natural- born Filipinos, who have been naturalized citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of candidacy.
Further, in Jacot v. Dal and COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled that a candidate’s oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and his Certificate of Candidacy do not substantially comply with the requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship.
The Supreme Court pronounced that the intent of the legislators was not only for Filipinos reacquiring or retaining their Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 to take their oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, but also to explicitly renounce their foreign citizenship if they wish to run for elective posts in the Philippines. To qualify as a candidate in Philippine elections, Filipinos must only have one citizenship, namely, Philippine citizenship.
By the same token, the oath of allegiance contained in the Certificate of Candidacy, which is substantially similar to the one contained in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, does not constitute the personal and sworn renunciation sought under Section 5 (2) of Republic Act No. 9225.
It bears to emphasize that the said oath of allegiance is a general requirement for all those who wish to run as candidates in Philippine elections; while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional requisite only for those who have retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and who seek elective public posts, considering their special circumstance of having more than one citizenship.
Additionally, the Supreme Court elucidated in Maquiling v. COMELEC, that the requirement of renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship, when read together with Section 40 (d) of the Local Government Code disqualifying those with dual citizenship from running for any elective local position, indicates a policy that anyone who seeks to run for public office must be solely and exclusively a Filipino citizen. To allow a former Filipino who reacquires Philippine citizenship to continue using a foreign passport -- which indicates the recognition of a foreign state of the individual as its national -- even after the Filipino has renounced his foreign citizenship, is to allow a complete disregard of this policy.
It stressed that what is at stake here is the principle that only those who are exclusively Filipinos are qualified to run for public office.
If we allow dual citizens who wish to run for public office to renounce their foreign citizenship and afterwards continue using their foreign passports, we are creating a special privilege for these dual citizens, thereby effectively junking the prohibition in Section 40 (d) of the Local Government Code.
Felice Suzanne D. Soria is an associate at ACCRALAW Cebu.
x x x."
