Consti II case digest: RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR VICENTE D. CHING, applicant.

In Re Vicente Ching (Who are Filipino Citizens) [B.M. No. 914.  October 1, 1999]

Keywords: ·         Vicente Ching, law graduate from St. Louise U. In Baguio, passed the bar, but was not allowed to take oath. ·         Ching did not formally elected Philippine citizenship (it’s too late) ·         Petition denied

FACTS: Vicente D. Ching, legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ching, a Chinese citizen, and Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino, was born in Francia West, Tubao, La Union on 11 April 1964. Since his birth, Ching has resided in the Philippines.

After having completed a Bachelor of Laws course at the St. Louis University in Baguio City, Ching filed an application to take the 1998 Bar Examinations. In a Resolution of this Court, he was allowed to take the Bar Examinations, subject to the condition that he must submit to the Court proof of his Philippine citizenship. On November 1998, he submitted the important documents in compliance with the said resolution.

During the 1998 Bar Examinations, Ching was one of the successful examinees but he was not allowed to take the oath because of his questionable citizenship status. Pursuant to the resolution of this Court, he was required to submit further proof of his citizenship. In the same resolution, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was required to file a comment on Ching's petition for admission to the bar and on the documents evidencing his Philippine citizenship.

In their comment, the OSG points out that Ching has not formally elected Philippine citizenship and, if ever he does, it would already be beyond the "reasonable time" allowed by present jurisprudence.

Ching then filed a Manifestation, attaching therewith his Affidavit of Election of Philippine Citizenship and his Oath of Allegiance, both dated 15 July 1999.

ISSUE: Whether or not he has elected Philippine citizenship within a "reasonable time."

RULING: The Court holds that Ching failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship. The span of fourteen (14) years that lapsed from the time he reached the age of majority until he finally expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the requirement of electing "upon reaching the age of majority." Moreover, Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his election of Philippine citizenship. The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Ching's unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election cannot be simply glossed over.

Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a commodity that can be claimed when needed and suppressed when convenient. One who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has only an inchoate right to such citizenship. As such, he should avail of the right with fervor, enthusiasm and promptitude. Sadly, in this case, Ching slept on his opportunity to elect Philippine citizenship and, as a result this golden privilege slipped away from his grasp. Therefore, the Court Resolves to DENY Vicente D. Ching's application for admission to the Philippine Bar.