Consti II case digest: CALILUNG VS DATUMANONG

Dual citizenship

FACTS:

Petitioner herein prays for the prohibition to stop the respondent from implementing RA 9225 (An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63, As Amended, and for Other Purposes.” Petitioner avers the constitutionality of RA 9225, specifically its Section 3 and 3:

Section 2: Declaration of Policy: It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all Philippine Citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the condition of this Act.

Section 3: Retention of Philippine Citizenship: Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, 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 following oath of allegiance to the Republic.

ISSUE:

Whether sections 2 and 3 of RA 9225, together allow dual allegiance and not dual citizenship.

HELD:

During the deliberation of the Congress, it was clarified that the purpose of these contended sections is to recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and his loyalty to the Republic.

Further, Rep. Locsin averred that doing what section 2 and 3 say, the problem of dual citizenship is transferred from the Philippines to the foreign country because the latest oath that will be taken by the former Filipino is one of the allegiance to the Philippines and to the United States, as the case may be. And by swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship.

Further it was held that the bill recognizes the Philippine citizenship but says nothing about the other citizenship.

Wherefore the petition is denied.