8/31/2015 G.R. No.

142840

TodayisMonday,August31,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.142840May7,2001

ANTONIOBENGSONIII,petitioner,
vs.
HOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVESELECTORALTRIBUNALandTEODOROC.CRUZ,respondents.

CONCURRINGOPINION

DISSENTINGOPINION

KAPUNAN,J.:

ThecitizenshipofrespondentTeodoroC.Cruzisatissueinthiscase,inviewoftheconstitutionalrequirementthat
"nopersonshallbeaMemberoftheHouseofRepresentativeunlessheisanaturalborncitizen."1

RespondentCruzwasanaturalborncitizenofthePhilippines.HewasborninSanClemente,Tarlac,onApril27,
1960,ofFilipinoparents.Thefundamentallawthenapplicablewasthe1935Constitution.2

On November 5, 1985, however, respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and without the
consentoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,tookanoathofallegiancetotheUnitedStates.AsaConsequence,he
lost his Filipino citizenship for under Commonwealth Act No. 63, section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his
citizenship by, among other, "rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign
country."Saidprovisionoflawreads:

SECTION1.Howcitizenshipmaybelost.AFilipinocitizenmaylosehiscitizenshipinanyofthefollowing
waysand/orevents:

xxx

(4)Byrenderingservicesto,oracceptingcommissionin,thearmedofaforeigncountry:Provided,Thatthe
renderingofserviceto,ortheacceptanceofsuchcommissionin,thearmedforcesofaforeigncountry,and
thetakingofanoathofallegianceincidentthereto,withtheconsentoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,shall
notdivestaFilipinoofhisPhilippinecitizenshipifeitherofthefollowingcircumstancesispresent:

(a)TheRepublicofthePhilippineshasadefensiveand/oroffensivepactofalliancewithsaidforeigncountry
or

(b)ThesaidforeigncountrymaintainsarmedforcesonPhilippineterritorywiththeconsentoftheRepublicof
the Philippines: Provided, That the Filipino citizen concerned, at the time of rendering said service, or
acceptanceofsaidcommission,andtakingtheoathofallegianceincidentthereto,statesthathedoessoonly
in connection with his service to said foreign country Andprovided,finally,That any Filipino citizen who is
rendering service to, or is commissioned in, the armed forces of a foreign country under any of the
circumstancesmentionedinparagraph(a)or(b),shallnotbeRepublicofthePhilippinesduringtheperiodof
hisserviceto,orcommissionin,thearmedforcesofsaidcountry.Uponhisdischargefromtheserviceofthe
saidforeigncountry,heshallbeautomaticallyentitledtothefullenjoymentofhiscivilandpoliticallyentitledto
thefullenjoymentofhiscivilpoliticalrightsasaFilipinocitizenxxx.

WhateverdoubtthatremainedregardinghislossofPhilippinecitizenshipwaserasedbyhisnaturalizationasaU.S.
citizenonJune5,1990,inconnectionwithhisserviceintheU.S.MarineCorps.

OnMarch17,1994,respondentCruzreacquiredhisPhilippinecitizenshipthroughrepatriationunderRepublicAct
No.2630.3HeranforandwaselectedastheRepresentativeoftheSecondDistrictofPangasinanintheMay11,
1998elections.Hewonbyaconvincingmarginof26,671votesoverpetitionerAntonioBengsonIII,whowasthen
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 1/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840
runningforreelection. 1wphi1.nt

Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with respondent House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET) claiming that respondent Cruz was not qualified to become a member of the House of
RepresentativessinceheisnotanaturalborncitizenasrequiredunderArticleVI,section6oftheConstitution.4

OnMarch2,2000,theHRETrendereditsdecision5dismissingthepetitionforquowarrantoanddeclaringCruzthe
duly elected Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 1998 elections. The HRET likewise
deniedpetitioner'smotionforreconsiderationofthedecisioninitsresolutiondatedApril27,2000.6

PetitionerthusfiledthepresentpetitionforcertiorariassailingtheHRET'sdecisiononthefollowinggrounds:

1. The HRET committed serious errors and grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction,
whenitruledthatprivaterespondentisanaturalborncitizenofthePhilippinesdespitethefactthathehad
ceasedbeingsuchinviewofthelossandrenunciationofsuchcitizenshiponhispart.

2. The HRET committed serious errors and grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction,
whenitconsideredprivaterespondentasacitizenofthePhilippinesdespitethefacthedidnotvalidlyacquire
hisPhilippinecitizenship.

3.Assumingthatprivaterespondent'sacquisitionofPhilippinecitizenshipwasinvalid,theHRETcommitted
serious errors and grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction, when it dismissed the
petitiondespitethefactthatsuchreacquisitioncouldnotlegallyandconstitutionallyrestorehisnaturalborn
status.7

TheissuenowbeforeusiswhetherrespondentCruz,anaturalbornFilipinowhobecameanAmericancitizen,can
stillbeconsideredanaturalbornFilipinouponhisreacquisitionofPhilippinecitizenship.

Petitioner asserts that respondent Cruz may no longer be considered a naturalborn Filipino since he lost h is
Philippine citizenship when he swore allegiance to the United States in 1995, and had to reacquire the same by
repatriation.HeinsiststhatArticlecitizensarethosewhoarefrombirthwithouthavingtoperformanyacttoacquire
orperfectsuchcitizenship.

Respondent on the other hand contends that he reacquired his status as naturalborn citizen when he was
repatriated since the phrase "from birth" in Article IV, Section 2 refers to the innate, inherent and inborn
characteristicofbeinganaturalborncitizen.

Thepetitioniswithoutmerit.

The1987ConstitutionenumerateswhoareFilipinocitizensasfollow:

(1)ThosewhoarecitizensofthePhilippinesatthetimeoftheadoptionofthisConstitution

(2)ThosewhosefathersormothersarecitizensofthePhilippines

(3)ThosebornbeforeJanuary17,1973ofFilipinomother,whoelectPhilippinecitizenshipuponreachingthe
ageofmajority,and

(4)Thosewhoarenaturalizedinaccordancewithlaw.8

There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2) by naturalization. These ways of acquiring
citizenship correspond to the two kinds of citizens: the naturalborn citizen, and the naturalized citizen. A person
whoatthetimeofhisbirthisacitizenofaparticularcountry,isanaturalborncitizenthereof.9

As defined in the same Constitution, naturalborn citizens "are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without
havingtoperformanyacttoacquireorperfecthisPhilippinecitezenship."10

On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization,
generallyunderCommonwealthActNo.473,otherwiseknownastheRevisedNaturalizationLaw,whichrepealed
theformerNaturalizationLaw(ActNo.2927),andbyRepublicActNo.530.11Tobenaturalized,anapplicanthasto
prove that he possesses all the qualifications12 and none of the disqualification13 provided by law to become a
Filipino citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes executory only after two (2) years from its
promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the applicant has (1) not left the
Philippines(2)hasdedicatedhimselftoalawfulcallingorprofession(3)hasnotbeenconvictedofanyoffenseor
violation of Government promulgated rules or (4) committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or
contrarytoanyGovernmentannouncedpolicies.14
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 2/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire the same in the manner provided by law.
Commonwealth Act. No. (C.A. No. 63), enumerates the three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be
reacquiredbyaformercitizen:(1)bynaturalization,(2)byrepatriation,and(3)bydirectactofCongress.15

NaturalizationismodeforbothacquisitionandreacquisitionofPhilippinecitizenship.Asamodeofinitiallyacquiring
Philippinecitizenship,naturalizationisgovernedbyCommonwealthActNo.473,asamended.Ontheotherhand,
naturalizationasamodeforreacquiringPhilippinecitizenshipisgovernedbyCommonwealthActNo.63.16Under
thislaw,aformerFilipinocitizenwhowishestoreacquirePhilippinecitizenshipmustpossesscertainqualifications17
andnoneofthedisqualificationmentionedinSection4ofC.A.473.18

Repatriation,ontheotherhand,maybehadundervariousstatutesbythosewholosttheircitizenshipdueto:(1)
desertionofthearmedforces19servicesinthearmedforcesofthealliedforcesinWorldWarII20(3)serviceinthe
Armed Forces of the United States at any other time,21 (4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien22 and (5)
politicaleconomicnecessity.23

Asdistinguishedfromthelengthyprocessofnaturalization,repatriationsimplyconsistsofthetakingofanoathof
allegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippineandregisteringsaidoathintheLocalCivilRegistryoftheplacewhere
thepersonconcernedresidesorlastresided.

InAngatv.Republic,24weheld:

xxx. Parenthetically, under these statutes [referring to RA Nos. 965 and 2630], the person desiring to
reacquirePhilippinecitizenshipwouldnotevenberequiredtofileapetitionincourt,andallthathehadtodo
was to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to register that fact with the civil
registryintheplaceofhisresidenceorwherehehadlastresidedinthePhilippines.[Italicsintheoriginal.25

Moreover,repatriationresultsintherecoveryoftheoriginalnationality.26ThismeansthatanaturalizedFilipinowho
losthiscitizenshipwillberestoredtohispriorstatusasanaturalizedFilipinocitizen.Ontheotherhand,ifhewas
originallyanaturalborncitizenbeforehelosthisPhilippinecitizenship,hewillberestoredtohisformerstatusasa
naturalbornFilipino.

In respondent Cruz's case, he lost his Filipino citizenship when he rendered service in the Armed Forces of the
UnitedStates.However,hesubsequentlyreacquiredPhilippinecitizenshipunderR.A.No.2630,whichprovides:

Section 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of the
United States, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of
allegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippinesandregisteringthesamewithLocalCivilRegistryintheplace
whereheresidesorlastresidedinthePhilippines.Thesaidoathofallegianceshallcontainarenunciationof
anyothercitizenship.

Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the same in the Civil
Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited provision, respondent Cruz is deemed to
have recovered his original status as a naturalborn citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a
Filipino father.27 It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his original
statusbeforehelosthisPhilippinecitizenship.

Petitioner's contention that respondent Cruz is no longer a naturalborn citizen since he had to perform an act to
regainhiscitizenshipisuntenable.AscorrectlyexplainedbytheHRETinitsdecision,theterm"naturalborncitizen"
wasfirstdefinedinArticleIII,Section4ofthe1973Constitutionasfollows:

Sec.4.AnaturalborncitizenisonewhoisacitizenofthePhilippinesfrombirthwithouthavingtoperform
anyacttoacquireorperfecthisPhilippinecitizenship.

Tworequisitesmustconcurforapersontobeconsideredassuch:(1)apersonmustbeaFilipinocitizenbirthand
(2)hedoesnothavetoperformanyacttoobtainorperfecthisPhilippinecitizenship.

Under the 1973 Constitution definition, there were two categories of Filipino citizens which were not considered
naturalborn:(1)thosewhowerenaturalizedand(2)thosebornbeforeJanuary17,1973,38ofFilipinomotherswho,
uponreachingtheageofmajority,electedPhilippinecitizenship.Those"naturalizedcitizens"werenotconsidered
naturalborn obviously because they were not Filipino at birth and had to perform an act to acquire Philippine
citizenship. Those born of Filipino mothers before the effectively of the 1973 Constitution were likewise not
considerednaturalbornbecausetheyalsohadtoperformanacttoperfecttheirPhilippinescitizenship.

The present Constitution, however, now consider those born of Filipino mothers before the effectivity of the 1973

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 3/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840
Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the majority age as naturalborn. After defining
who re naturalborn citizens, Section 2 of Article IV adds a sentence: "Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed naturalborn citizens." Consequently, only
naturalizedFilipinosareconsiderednotnaturalborncitizens.Itisapparentfromtheenumerationofwhoarecitizens
under the present Constitution that there are only two classes of citizens: (1) those who are naturalborn and (2)
thosewhoarenaturalizedinaccordancewithlaw.AcitizenwhoisnotanaturalizedFilipino,i.e.,didnothaveto
undergotheprocessofnaturalizationtoobtainPhilippinecitizenship,necessarilyisnaturalbornFilipino.Noteworthy
is the absence in said enumeration of a separate category for persons who, after losing Philippine citizenship,
subsequently reacquire it. The reason therefor is clear: as to such persons, they would either be naturalborn or
naturalizeddependingonthereasonsforthelossoftheircitizenshipandthemodeprescribedbytheapplicablelaw
forthereacquisitionthereof.AsrespondentCruzwasnotrequiredbylawtogothroughnaturalizationproceedingin
order to reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce a naturalborn Filipino. As such, he possessed all the necessary
qualificationstobeelectedasmemberoftheHouseofRepresentatives.

Afinalpoint.TheHREThasbeenempoweredbytheConstitutiontobethe"solejudge"ofallcontestsrelatingtothe
election,returns,andqualificationsofthemembersoftheHouse.29TheCourt'sjurisdictionovertheHRETismerely
tocheck"whetherornottherehasbeenagraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction"on
thepartofthelatter.30Intheabsencethereof,thereisnooccasionfortheCourttoexerciseitscorrectivepowerand
annulthedecisionoftheHRETnortosubstitutetheCourt'sjudgementforthatofthelatterforthesimplereason
thatitisnottheofficeofapetitionforcertioraritoinquireintothecorrectnessoftheassaileddecision.31Thereisno
suchshowingofgraveabuseofdiscretioninthiscase.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDISMISSED.

SOORDERED.

Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Bellosillo,Puno,andJJ.,concur.

Melo,Vitug,Mendoza,nopart.

Panganiban,concurringopinion.

Quisumbing,Buena,DeLeon,Jr.,onleave.

SandovalGutierrez,dissentingopinion.

Pardo,GonzagaReyes,concuronthisandtheconcurringopinionofJ.Panganiban

YnaresSantiago,certifymajorityopinionofJ.Kapunan.

Footnote
11987Constitution,ArticleIV,Section6.

2ArticleIV,Section1ofthe1935Constitutionstates:

ThefollowingarecitizensofthePhilippines:

1)ThosewhoarecitizensofthePhilippineIslandsatthetimeoftheadoptionoftheConstitution

2)ThoseborninthePhilippineIslandsofforeignparentswho,beforetheadoptionofthisConstitution
hadbeenelectedtopublicofficeinthePhilippineIslands

3)ThosewhosefathersarecitizensofthePhilippines

4)ThosewhosemothersarecitizensofthePhilippinesand,uponreachingtheageofmajority,elected
Philippinecitizenshipand

5)Thosewhoarenaturalizedinaccordancewithlaw.
3 An Act Providing for Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Persons Who Lost Such Citizenship by
RenderingServiceTo,orAcceptingCommissionIn,theArmedForcesoftheUnitedStates(1960).
4Saidprovisionreads:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 4/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840
NopersonshallbeamemberoftheHouseofRepresentativesunlessheisanaturalborncitizenofthe
Philippinesand,onthedayoftheelection,isatleasttwentyfiveyearsofage,abletoreadandwrite,
andexceptthepartylistrepresentatives,aregisteredvoterinthedistrictinwhichheshallbeelected,
and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the
election.

5Rollo,p.36.

6Id.,at69.

7Id.,at13.

8ArticleIV,Section1.

9TOLENTINO,COMMETARIESANDJURISPRUDENCEONTHECIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES188,
1990Ed.

101987Constitution,ArticleIV,Section2.

11DuringtheperiodunderMartialLawdeclaredbyPresidentFerdinandE.Marcos,thousandsofalienswere
naturalized by Presidential Decree where the screening of the applicants was undertaken by special
committeeunderLetterofInstructionsNo.270,datedApril11,1975,asamended.
12Section2,Act473providesthefollowingqualifications:

(a)Hemustbenotlessthan21yearsofageonthedayofthehearingofthepetition

(b)HemusthaveresidedinthePhilippinesforacontinuousperiodofnotlessthantenyears

(c) He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution,andmusthaveconductedhimselfinaproperandirreproachablemannerduringtheentire
period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government and well as
withthecommunityinwhichheisliving

(d) He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine
currency,ormusthavesomeknownlucrativetrade,profession,orlawfuloccupation

(e)HemustbeabletospeakandwriteEnglishorSpanishandanyoftheprincipallanguagesand

(f) He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools or private
schools recognized by the Bureau of Private Schools of the Philippines where Philippine history,
governmentandcivicaretaughtorprescribedaspartoftheschoolcurriculum,duringtheentireperiod
oftheresidenceinthePhilippinesrequiredofhimpriortothelearningofhispetitionfornaturalization
asPhilippinecitizen.

13Section4,Act473,providesthefollowingdisqualifications:

(a) He must not be opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of
personswhoupholdandteachdoctrinesopposingallorganizedgovernments

(b) He must not be defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or
assassinationforthesuccessandpredominanceoftheirideas

(c)Hemustnotbepolygamistorbelieverinthepracticeofpolygamy

(d)Hemustnothavebeenconvictedofanycrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude

(e)Hemustnotbesufferingfrommentalalienationorincurablecontagiousdiseases

(f) He must have, during the period of his residence in the Philippines (of not less than six months
before filing his application), mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere
desiretolearnandembracethecustoms,traditionsandidealsoftheFilipinos

(g)HemustnotbeacitizenorsubjectofanationwithwhomthePhilippinesisatwar,duringtheperiod
ofsuchwar

(h)HemustnotbecitizenorsubjectofforeigncountrywhoselawsdonotgrantFilipinostherightto
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 5/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840
becomenaturalizedcitizensorsubjectsthereof.

14Section1,R.A.530.

15Section2,C.A.No.63.

16AnActProvidingfortheWaysinWhichPhilippineCitizenshipMayBeLostorReacquired(1936).

171.TheapplicantmusthavelosthisoriginalPhilippinecitizenshipbynaturalizationinaforeigncountryorby
expressrenunciationofhiscitizenship(Sec.1[1]and[2],C.A.No.63)

2.HemustbeatleasttwentyoneyearsofageandshallhaveresidedinthePhilippinesatleastsixmonths
beforeheappliesfornaturalization(Sec.3[1],C.A.No.63)

3. He must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his
residence(ofatleastsixmonthspriortothefilingoftheapplication)inthePhilippines,inhisrelationswiththe
constitutedgovernmentaswellaswiththecommunityinwhichheisliving(Sec.3[2],C.A.No.63)

4. He subscribes to an oath declaring his intention to renounce absolutely and perpetually al faith and
allegiancetotheforeignauthority,stateorsovereigntyofwhichhewasacitizenorsubject(Sec.3[3],C.A.
No.63).
18Seenote13.

19Sec4,C.a.No.63.

20Sec.1,RepublicActNo.965(1953).

21Sec.1,RepublicActNo.2630(1960).

22Sec.1,RepublicActNo.8171(1995).

23Ibid.

24314SCRA438(1999)

25Id.,at450.

26JovitoR.Salonga,PrivateInternationalLaw,p.165(1995)

27SeeArt.IV,Sec.1,1935Constitution.

28Thedateofeffectivityofthe1973Constitution.

29ArticleIV,Section17ofthe1987Constitutionprovidesthus:

Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representative shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respectiveMembers.EachElectoralTribunalshallbecomposedofnineMembersthreeofwhomshall
beJusticesoftheSupremeCourttobedesignatedbytheChiefJustice,andtheremainingsixshallbe
MembersoftheSenateoftheHouseofRepresentatives,asthecasemaybe,whoshallbechosenon
the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations
registeredunderthepartylistsystemrepresentedtherein.TheseniorJusticeintheElectoralTribunal
shallbeitsChairman.
30Garciavs.HouseofRepresentativesElectoralTribunal,312SCRA353,364(1999).

ENBANC

G.R.No.142840May7,2001

ANTONIOBENGSONIII,petitioner,
vs.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 6/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840
HOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVESELECTORALTRIBUNALandTEODOROC.CRUZ,respondents.

CONCURRINGOPINION

PANGANIBAN,J.:

I concur in the ponencia of Mr. Justice Santiago M. Kapunan, holding that the House Electoral Tribunal did not
gravelyabuseitsdiscretioninrulingthatPrivateRespondentTeodoroC.CruzremainsanaturalbornFilipinocitizen
andiseligibletocontinuebeingamemberofCongress.Letmejustaddafewpoints.

TheFactsinBrief

ItisundisputedthatCongressmanCruzwasbornonApril27,1960inSanClemente,Tarlac,toFilipinoparents.He
was,therefore,aFilipinocitizen,pursuanttoSection1(2),1ArticleIVoftheConstitution.Furthermore,nothaving
doneanyacttoacquireorperfectthePhilippinecitizenshipheobtainedfrombirth,hewasanaturalborn
Filipinocitizen,inaccordancewithSection22ofthesameArticleIV.

It is not disputed either that private respondent rendered military service to the United States Marine Corps from
November1958toOctober1993.OnJune5,1990,hewasnaturalizedasanAmericancitizen,inconnectionwith
hisUSmilitaryservice.Consequently,underSection1(4)3ofCANo.63,helosthisPhilippinecitizenship.

UponhisdischargefromtheUSMarineCorps,privaterespondentreturnedtothePhilippinesanddecidedtoregain
his Filipino citizenship. Thus, on March 17, 1994, availing himself of the benefits of Republic Act (RA) No. 2630,
entitled "An Act Providing for Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Persons Who Lost Such by Rendering
Serviceto,orAcceptingCommissionin,theArmedForceoftheUnitedStates,"4Cruztookhisoathofallegianceto
theRepublicandregisteredthesamewiththeLocalCivilRegistryofMangatarem,Pangasinan.Onthesameday,
healsoexecutedanAffidavitofReacquisitionofPhilippineCitizenship.

MainIssue

The main question here is: Did the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) commit grave abuse of
discretioninholdingthat,byreasonofhisrepatriation,CongressmanTeodoroC.Cruzhadrevertedtohisoriginal
statusasanaturalborncitizen?Irespectfullysubmitthattheansweris"No."Infact,IbelievethattheHRETwas
correctinitsruling.

1.RepatriationIsRecoveryofOriginalCitizenship

First,repatriationissimplytherecoveryoforiginalcitizenship.UnderSection1ofRA2630,aperson"whoha[s]lost
his citizenship" may "reacquire" it by " taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines." Former
Senate President Jovito R. Salonga, a noted authority on the subject, explains this method more precisely in his
treatise, Private International Law.5 He defines repatriation as "the recovery of the original nationality upon
fulfillmentofcertaincondition."6Websterbuttressesthisdefinitionbydescribingtheordinaryorcommonusageof
repatriate, as "to restore or return to one's country of origin, allegiance, or citizenship x x x."7 In relation to our
subject matter, repatriation, then, means restoration of citizenship. It is not a grant of a new citizenship, but a
recoveryofone'sformerororiginalcitizenship.

To "reacquire" simply means "to get back as one's own again."8 Ergo, since Cruz, prior to his becoming a US
citizen,wasanaturalbornFilipinocitizen,he"reacquired"thesamestatusuponrepatriation.Toruleotherwise
that Cruz became a nonnaturalborn citizen would not be consistent whit the legal and ordinary meaning of
repatriation.Itwouldbeakintonaturalization,whichistheacquisitionofanewcitizenship."New."Becauseitisnot
thesameasthewithwhichhehaspreviouslybeenendowed.

Inanycase,"theleaning,inquestionsofcitizenship,shouldalwaysbeinfavorof[its]claimantxxx."9Accordingly,
thesameshouldbeconstruedinfavorofprivaterespondent,whoclaimstobeanaturalborncitizen.

2.NotBeingNaturalized,RespondentIsNaturalBorn

Second, under the present Constitution, private respondent should be deemed naturalborn, because was not
naturalized.Letmeexplain.

There are generally two classes of citizens: (1) naturalborn citizens and (2) naturalized citizens.10 While CA 63
providesthatcitizenshipmayalsobeacquiredbydirectactoftheLegislature,Ibelievethatthosewhodobecome
citizensthroughsuchprocedurewouldproperlyfallunderthesecondcategory(naturalized).11

Naturalized citizens are former aliens or foreigners who had to undergo a rigid procedure, in which they had to
adduce sufficient evidence to prove that they possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 7/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840
provided by law in order to become Filipino citizens. In contrast, as stated in the early case Roa v. Collector of
Customs,12anaturalborncitizenisacitizen"whohasbecomesuchatthemomentofhisbirth."

The assailed HRET Decision, penned by Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, explains clearly who are considered
naturalborn Filipino citizens. He traces the concept as first defined in Article III of the 1973 Constitution, which
simplyprovidedasfollows:

"Sec4.AnaturalborncitizenisonewhoisacitizenofthePhilippinesfrombirthwithouthavingtoperform
anyacttoacquireorperfecthisPhilippinecitizenship."

Undertheabovedefinition,therearetworequisitesinorderthataFilipinocitizenmaybeconsidered"naturalborn":
(1)onemustbeacitizenofthePhilippinesfrombirth,and(2)onedoesnothavetodoanythingtoacquireorperfect
one'sPhilippinecitizenship.13Thus,underthe1973Constitution,excludedfromtheclassof"naturalborncitizens"
were (1) those who were naturalized and (2) those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers who, upon
reachingtheageofmajority,electedPhilippinecitizenship.14

The present Constitution, however, has expanded the scope of naturalborn citizens to include "[t]hose who elect
Philippinecitizenshipinaccordancewithparagraph(3),Section1hereof,"meaningthosecoveredunderclass(2)
above. Consequently, only naturalized Filipino citizens are not considered naturalborn citizens. Premising
therefrom, respondent being clearly and concededly not naturalized is, therefore, a naturalborn citizen of the
Philippines.15

Withrespecttorepatriates,sincetheConstitutiondoesnotclassifythemseparately,theynaturallyreacquiretheir
originalclassificationbeforethelossoftheirPhilippinecitizenship.InthecaseofCongressmanTeodoroC.Cruz,
uponhisrepatriationin1994,hereacquiredhislostcitizenship.Inotherwords,heregainedhisoriginalstatusasa
naturalbornFilipinocitizen,nothingless.

3.NoGraveAbuseofDiscretiononthePartofHRET

Third,theHRETdidnotabuse,muchlessgravelyabuse,itsdiscretioninholdingthatRespondentCruzisanatural
bornFilipinocitizenwhoisqualifiedtobeamemberofCongress.IstressthattheCourt,inthiscertiorariproceeding
before us, is limited to determining whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excessofjurisdictioninissuingitsassailedDecision.TheCourthasnopowertoreverseormodifyHRET'srulings,
simply because it differs in its perception of controversies. It cannot substitute its discretion for that of HRET, an
independent,constitutionalbodywithitsownspecificmandate.

TheConstitutionexplicitlystatesthattherespectiveElectoralTribunalsofthechambersofCongress"shallbethe
solejudgesofallcontestsrelatingtotheelection,returns,andqualificationstheirrespectivemembers."16Inseveral
cases,17thisCourthasheldthatthepowerandthejurisdictionoftheElectoralTribunalsareoriginalandexclusive,
as if they remained in the legislature, a coequal branch of government. Their judgment are beyond judicial
interference, unless rendered without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.18 In the
elegantwordsofMr.JusticeHugoE.GutierrezJr.:19

"The Court does not venture into the perilous area of trying to correct perceived errors of independent
branchesoftheGovernment.Itcomesinonlywhenithastovindicateadenialofdueprocessorcorrectan
abuseofdiscretionsograveorglaringthatnolessthantheConstitutioncallsforremedialaction."

True,thereisnosettledjudicialdoctrineontheexacteffectofrepatriation.But,asearlierexplained,thelegaland
commondefinitionofrepatriationisthereacquisitionoftheformercitizenship.HowthencantheHRETberebuked
with grave abuse of discretion? At best, I can concede that the legal definition is not judicially settled or is even
doubtful.Butaninterpretationmadeingoodfaithandgroundedoreasononewayortheothercannotbethesource
ofgraveabuseamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.TheHRETdidnotviolatetheConstitutionorthelawor
anysettledjudicialdoctrine.Itwasdefinitelyactingwithinitsexclusivedomain.

BeitrememberedthatourConstitutionvestsupontheHRETthepowertobethesolejudgeofthequalificationsof
members of the House of Representatives, one of which is citizenship. Absent any clear showing of a manifest
violationoftheConstitutionorthelawornayjudicialdecision,thisCourtcannotimputegraveabuseofdiscretionto
the HRET in the latter's actions on matters over which full discretionary authority is lodged upon it by our
fundamentallaw.20Evenassumingthatwedisagreewiththeconclusionofpublicrespondent,wecannotipsofacto
attributetoit"graveabuseofdiscretion."Verily,thereisalinebetweenperceivederrorandgraveabuse.21

Bygraveabuseofdiscretionismeantsuchcapriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentasisequivalenttolackof
jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. "It must be graveabuse of discretion as when the power is
exercisedinanarbitraryordespoticmannerbyreasonofpassionorpersonalhostility,andmustbesopatentand
sogrossastoamounttoanevasionofapositivedutyortoavirtualrefusaltoperformthedutyenjoinedortoactat

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 8/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840

allincontemplationoflaw."22

That the HRET, after careful deliberation and purposeful study, voted 7 to 2 to issue its Decision upholding the
qualificationsofCongressmanCruzcouldnotinanywisebecondemnedasgravelyabusive.NeithercanIfindany
"patentorgross"arbitrarinessordespotism"byreasonofpassionorhostility"insuchexercise.

4.InCaseofDoubt,PopularWillPrevails

Fourth,thecourthasasolemndutytoupholdtheclearandunmistakablemandateofthepeople.Itcannotsupplant
the sovereign will of the Second District of Pangasinan with fractured legalism. The people of the District have
clearlyspoken.TheyoverwhelminglyandunequivocallyvotedforprivaterespondenttorepresentthemintheHouse
ofRepresentatives.ThevotesthatCruzgarnered(80,119)inthelastelectionsweremuchmorethanthoseofall
his opponents combined (66, 182).23 In such instances, all possible doubts should be resolved in favor of the
winningcandidate'seligibilitytoruleotherwisewouldbetodefeatthewillofthepeople.24

Wellentrenchedinourjurisprudenceisthedoctrinethatincaseofdoubt,politicallawsmustbesoconstructedasto
givelifeandspirittothepopularmandatefreelyexpressedthroughtheballot.25Publicinterestandthesovereign
willshould,atalltimes,betheparamountconsiderationsinelectioncontroversies.26Foritwouldbebettertoerrin
favorofthepeople'schoicethantoberightincomplexbutlittleunderstoodlegalisms.27

"Indeed,thisCourthasrepeatedlystressedtheimportanceofgivingeffecttothesovereignwillinordertoensure
thesurvivalofourdemocracy.Inanyactioninvolvingthepossibilityofareversalofthepopularelectoralchoice,this
Courtmustexertutmostefforttoresolvetheissuesinamannerthatwouldgiveeffecttothewillofthemajority,forit
ismerelysoundpublicpolicytocauseelectiveofficestobefilledbythosewhoarethechoiceofthemajority.To
successfully challenge a winning candidate's qualifications, the petitioner must clearly demonstrative that the
ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles that overriding such ineligibility and
thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the people would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very
democraticinstitutionsandjuristictraditionsthatourConstitutionandlawssozealouslyprotectandpromote."28

5.CurrentTrendTowardsGlobalization

Fifth, the current trend, economically as well as politically, is towards globalization.29 Protectionist barriers
dismantled. Whereas, in the past, governments frowned upon the opening of their doors to aliens who wanted to
enjoy the same privileges as their citizens, the current era is adopting a more liberal perspective. No longer are
applicants for citizenship eyed with the suspicion that they merely want to exploit local resources for themselves.
Theyarenowbeingconsideredpotentialsourcesofdevelopmentalskills,knowhowandcapital. 1wphi1.nt

MoresoshouldourgovernmentopenitsdoorstoformerFilipinos,likeCongressmanCruz,whowanttorejointhe
Filipinocommunityascitizensagain.Theyarenot"aliens"inthetruesenseofthelaw.TheyareactuallyFilipinoby
blood,byoriginandbyculture,whowanttoreacquiretheirformercitizenship.

ItcannotbedeniedthatmostFilipinosgoabroadandapplyfornaturalizationinforeigncountries,becauseofthe
great economic or social opportunities there. Hence, we should welcome former Filipino citizens desirous of not
simplyreturningtothecountryorregainingPhilippinecitizenship,butofservingtheFilipinopeopleaswell.Oneof
theseadmirableFilipinoisprivaterespondentwho,inonlyayearafterbeingabsentfromthePhilippinesforabout
eight(8)years,wasalreadyvotedmunicipalmayorofMangatarem,Pangasinan.Andafterservingassuchforjust
oneterm,hewasoverwhelminglychosenbythepeopletobetheirrepresentativeinCongress.

Ireiterate,thepeoplehavespoken.Letnotarestrictiveandparochialinterpretationofthelawbarthesovereignwill.
LetnotgraveabusebeimputedonthelegitimateexerciseofHRET'sprerogatives.

WHEREFORE,IvotetoDISMISSthepetition.

Footnote
1"Section1.ThefollowingarecitizensofthePhilippines:

(2)ThosewhosefathersormothersarecitizensofthePhilippines

xxxxxxxxx"
2"Section2.Naturalborncitizensarethosewhoarecitizensfrombirthwithouthavingtoperformanyactto
acquireorperfecttheirPhilippinecitizenship.xxx."

3"Section1.Howcitizenshipmaybelost.AFilipinocitizenmaylosehiscitizenshipinanyofthefollowing
waysand/orevents:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 9/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840
xxxxxxxxx"

(4)Byrenderingservicesto,oracceptingcommissionin,thearmedforcesofaforeigncountry:xxx."

4Sec.1thereofprovides:

"Sec. 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
commissionin,theArmedForcesoftheUnitedStates,orafterseparationfromtheArmedForcesof
the United States, acquired U.S. citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath
allegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippinesandregisteringthesamewiththeLocalCivilRegistryin
theplacewhereheresidesoflastresidedinthePhilippines.Thesaidoathofallegianceshallcontaina
renunciationofanyothercitizenship.

51995ed.

6Ibid.,p.165citedintheassailedHRETDecision,p.13.(Italicsours.)

7Webster'sThirdNewInternationalDictionary:Unabridged,1993ed.

8Webster's,ibid.,definesreacquireas"toacquireagain",andacquireas"togetasone'sown."

9Roav.CollectorofCustoms,23Phil315,338(1912),perTrent,J.citingBoydv.Thaye,143US135.

10RonaldoP.Ledesma,An Outline of Philippine Immigration and Citizenship Laws, 1999 ed., p. 354. See
also14CJSS1,11283AAmJur2daliensandCitizens,s1411.
11SeeLedesma,ibid.,p.355.

12Supra.

13AssailedDecision,p.8.

14Ibid.

15Ibid.,p.9.

16Sec.17,Art.IV.(Emphasisours.)

17 Lazatin v. HRET, 168 SCRA 391, December 8, 1988 Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of
Representatives,199SCRA692,July30,1991citingAngarav.ElectoralCommission,63Phil139(1936).
18Cov.HRET,ibid.,citingRoblesv.HRET,181SCRA780,February5,1990andMorrerovBocar,66Phil
429(1938).SeealsoLibananv.HRET,283SCRA520,December22,1997.
19Co.v.HRET,ibid.

20Santiagov.GuingonaJr.,298SCRA756,November18,1998.

21Ibid.

22Taadav.Angara,272SCRA18,May2,1997,perPanganiban,J.

23"Thefollowingweretheresultsoftheelection:

TeodoroC.Cruz 80,119

AntonioE.BengsonIII 53,448

AlbertoB.Zamuco 11,941

ManuelR.Castro 622

MarianoA.Padlan 171"

(HRETDecision,pp.23rollo,pp.3738.)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 10/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840

24Sinacav.Mula,315SCRA266,September27,1999.

25Frivaldov.Comelec,257SCRA727,June28,1996perPanganiban,J.

26Olondrizv.Comelec,313SCRA128,August25,1999.

27Frivaldov.Comelec,supra.

28Ibid

29SeePacificoA.Agabin,"GlobalizationandtheJudicialFunction,"OdyseyandLegacy:TheChiefJustice
AndresR.NarvasaCentennialLectureSeries,compliedandeditedbyAtty.AntonioM.Eliciano,publishedby
the Supreme Court Printing Services, 1998 ed. See also Artenio V. Panganiban, "Old Doctrines and New
Paradigms,"alecturedeliveredduringtheSupremeCourtCentenaryLectureSeries,onFebruary13,2001.

ENBANC

G.R.No.142840May7,2001

ANTONIOBENGSONIII,petitioner,
vs.
HOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVESELECTORALTRIBUNALandTEODOROC.CRUZ,respondents.

DISSENTINGOPINION

SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:

With due respect, I disagree with the ponencia of Justice Santiago M. Kapunan. I am convinced that private
respondent Teodoro C. Cruz is not natural born citizen and, therefore, must be disqualified as a member of
Congress.

Whoarenaturalborncitizens?

Thelawsoncitizenshipitsacquisitionorloss,andtherights,privilegesandimmunitiesofcitizenshavegiven
risetosomeofthemostdisputationsandvisceralissuesresolvedbythisCourt.Theproblemistakenupconnection
withthesovereignrightofvoterstochoosetheirrepresentativesinCongress.

Inthispetitionforcertiorari,petitionerAntonioBengsonIIIasksthisCourtofRepresentativeoftheSecondDistrictof
Pangasinan because he does not posses the constitutional requirement of being a naturalborn citizen of this
country.Respondent,ontheotherhand,insiststhatheisqualifiedtobeelectedtoCongressconsideringthatby
repatriation,hereacquiredhisstatusasanaturalbornFilipinocitizen.

Records show that Teodoro Cruz was born in the Philippines on April 27, 1960 to Filipino parents, spouses
LambertoandCarmelitaCruz.OnNovember5,1985,heenlistedintheUnitedStatesArmedForcesandservedthe
United States Marine Corps. While in the service for almost five years, he applied for naturalization with the US
DistrictCourtofNorthernDistrictofCaliforniaandwasissuedhisCertificateofNaturalizationNo.14556793asan
Americancitizen.OnOctober27,1993,hewashonorablydischargedfromtheUSMarineCorps.Hethendecided
toreturntothePhilippines.

Cruz availed of repatriation under R.A. No. 2630, an act providing for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by
persons who lost such citizenship by rendering service to or accepting commission in the Armed Forces of the
UnitedStates.OnMarch17,1994,hetookhisoathofallegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippines.Theoathwas
registeredwiththeLocalCivilRegistryofMangatarem,Pangasinan.Onthesamedate,heexecutedanAffidavitof
ReacquisitionofPhilippineCitizenship.Thus,onApril11,1994,theBureauofImmigrationandDeportationordered
thecancellationofhisAlienCertificateofResidence(ICRNo.286582)andissuedhimanIdentificationCertificate.

The cancellation of his ACR and ICR was affirmed by the Justice Department. On January 18, 1995, the United
StatesEmbassyinManilaissuedtohimaCertificateofLossofNationalityoftheUnitedStates.

Inthelocalelectionof1995,CruzfiledhiscertificateofcandidacyformayorofMangatarem,Pangasinan,declaring
himselftobeanaturalizedFilipinocitizen.Hewonandservedasmayorforoneterm.

Thereafter,CruzfiledhiscertificateofcandidacyforaseatinCongress,thistimedeclaringhimselfasanaturalborn
Filipino.Again,hewonwithaleadof26,671votesovercandidateAntonioBengson,III.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 11/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840
OnSeptember3,1998,CruzwasproclaimedwinnerinthecongressionalraceintheSecondDistrictofPangasinan.

BengsonthenfiledapetitionforQuoWarrantoAdCautelamwiththeHouseofRepresentativeElectoralnotbeinga
naturalbornFilipinocitizenwhenhefiledhisCertificateofCandidacyonMarch15,1998,isnotqualifiedtorunasa
memberoftheHouseofRepresentatives.Thatheshouldbeanaturalborncitizenisaqualificationmandatedby
Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution which provides: "No person shall be a member of the House of
RepresentativesunlessheisanaturalborncitizenofthePhilippines."

After oral arguments and the submission by the parties of their respective memoranda and supplemental
memoranda, the HRET rendered a decision holding that Cruz reacquired his naturalborn citizenship upon his
repatriationin1994anddeclaringhimdulyelectedrepresentativeoftheSecondDistrictofPangasinanintheMay
11,1998elections,thus:

"WHEREFORE, the petition for quo warranto is DISMISSED and Respondent Teodoro C. Cruz is hereby
DECLAREDdulyelectedRepresentativeoftheSecondDistrictofPangasinanintheMay11,1998elections.

"As soon as this Decision becomes final and executory, let notices and copies thereof be sent to the
President of the Philippines the House of Representatives, through the Speaker, and the Commission on
Audit,throughitsChairman,pursuanttoRule76ofthe1998RulesoftheHouseofRepresentativesElectoral
Tribunal.Costsdeoficio."

OnMarch13,2000,BengsonfiledamotionforreconsiderationofthesaidDecisionbutthesamewasdeniedbythe
HRETinResolutionNo.0048.

BengsonnowcomestousviaapetitionforcertiorariassailingtheHRETDecisionongroundsthat:

"1. The HRET committed serious errors and grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction,
whenitruledthatprivaterespondentisanaturalborncitizenofthePhilippinesdespitethefactthathehad
ceasedbeingsuchinviewofthelossandrenuciationofsuchcitizenshiponhispart.

"2. The HRET committed serious errors and grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction,
whenitconsideredprivaterespondentasacitizenofthePhilippinesdespitethefactthathedidnotvalidly
acquirehisPhilippinecitizenship.

"3.Assumingthatprivaterespondent'sacquisitionofPhilippinecitizenshipwasinvalid,theHRETcommitted
seriouserrorsandgraveabuseofdiscretion,amountingtoexcessofdespitethefactthatsuchreacquisition
couldnotlegallyandconstitutionallyrestorehisnaturalbornstatus."

ThesoleissueraisedinthispetitioniswhetherornotrespondentCruzwasnaturalborncitizenofthePhilippinesat
thetimeofthefilingofhisCertificateofCandidacyforaseatintheHouseofRepresentatives.

Section2,ArticleIVoftheConstitution1provides:

"Sec. 2. Naturalborn citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
performanyacttoacquireorperfecttheirPhilippinecitizenship.xxx."

Petitioner and respondent present opposing interpretations of the phrase "from birth" contained in the above
provisions.

Petitionercontendsthatthephrase"frombirth"indicatesthatcitizenshipmuststartatadefinitepointandmustbe
continuous, constant and without interruption. The Constitution does not extend the privilege of reacquiring a
naturalborncitizenstatustorespondent,whoatonetime,becameanalien.Hislossofcitizenshipcarriedwithitthe
concomitantlossofallthebenefits,privilegesandattributesof"naturalborn"citizenship.Whenhereacquiredhis
citizenship in 1994, he had to comply with requirements for repatriation, thus effectively taking him out of the
constitutional definition of a naturalborn Filipino. For his part, respondent maintains that the phrase "from birth"
referstotheinnate,inherentandinborncharacteristicofbeinga"naturalborn".SincehewasborntoFilipinofrom
birth. His reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 2630 results in his reacquisition of his
inherentcharacteristicofbeinganaturalborncitizen.

Forhispart,respondentmaintainsthatthephrase"frombirth"referstotheinnate,inherentandinborncharacteristic
ofbeinga"naturalborn".SincehewasborntoFilipinoparents,hehasbeenanaturalbornFilipinofrombirth.His
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 2630 results in his reacquisition of his inherent
characteristicofbeinganaturalborncitizen.

Thestateofbeinganaturalborncitizenhasbeenregarded,notsomuchinitsliteralsense,butmoreinitslegal
connotation.

TheveryfirstnaturalbornFilipinosdidnotacquirethatstatusatbirth.TheywerebornasSpanishsubjects.InRoa
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 12/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840

vs.CollectorofCustoms,2theSupremeCourttracesthegrantofnaturalbornstatusfromtheTreatyofParis,and
theActsofCongressofJuly1,1902andMarch23,1912,whichisareenactmentofSection4oftheformerwitha
provisowhichreads:

"Provided, That the Philippine Legislature is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of
Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come within the foregoing
provisions,thenativesofotherInsularpossessionsoftheUnitedStatesandsuchotherpersonsresidingin
the Philippine Islands who could become citizens of the United State under the laws of the United State, if
residingtherein."

Itwasfurtherheldthereinthatunderthesaidprovision,"everypersonbornthe11thofApril,ofparentswhowere
Spanishsubjectsonthatdateandwhocontinuedtoresideinthiscountryareatthemomentoftheirbirthipsofacto
citizensofthePhilippineIslands."

UndertheApril7,1900InstructionsofPresidentWilliamMcKinleytotheSecondPhilippineCommission,considered
asourfirstcolonialcharteroffundamentallaw,wewerereferredtoas"peopleoftheIslands,"or"inhabitantsofthe
PhilippineIslands,"or"nativesoftheIslands"andnotascitizens,muchlessnaturalborncitizens.Thefirstdefinition
of"citizensofthePhilippineIslands"inourlawisfoundinSection4ofthePhilippineBillof1902.3

Philippinecitizenship,includingthestatusofnaturalborn,wasinitiallyalooseorevennonexistentqualification.As
arequirementfortheexerciseofcertainrightsandprivileges,itbecameamorestrictanddifficultstatustoachieve
withthepassingoftheyears.

Early decisions of the Supreme Court held that Philippine citizenship could be acquired under either the jus
sanguinisorjussolidoctrine.4

ThisliberalpolicywasappliedevenasthePhilippineBillof1902andtheJonesLawofthePhilippineAutonomyAct
of1916appeartohavelimited"citizensofthePhilippineIslands"toresidentinhabitantswhowereSpanishsubjects
on April 11, 1899, their children born subsequent thereto, and later, those naturalized according to law by the
Philippinelegislature.Onlylaterwasjussanguinisfirmlyappliedandjussoliabandoned.

Hence,thestatusofbeinganaturalborncitizenatitsincipientisaprivilegeconferredbylawdirectlytothosewho
intended, and actually continued, to belong to the Philippine Island. Even at the time of its conception in the
Philippines, such persons upon whom citizenship was conferred did not have to do anything to acquire full
citizenship.5

RespondentwantsustobelievethatsincehewasnaturalbornFilipinoatbirth,havingbeenborninthePhilippines
to Filipino parents, he was automatically restored to that status when he subsequently reacquired his citizenship
afterlosingit.

PublicrespondentHRETaffirmedrespondent'spositionwhenitpronouncedthatthedefinitionofnaturalborncitizen
in Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution refers to the classes of citizens enumerated in Section 1 of the same
Article,towit:

"Section1.ThefollowingarecitizensofthePhilippines:

(1)ThosewhoarecitizensofthePhilippinesatthetimeoftheadoptionofthisConstitution

(2)ThosewhosefathersormothersarecitizensofthePhilippines

(3)ThosebornbeforeJanuary17,1973,ofFilipinomothers,whoelectPhilippinecitizenshipuponreaching
theageofmajorityand

(4)Thosewhoarenaturalizedinaccordancewithlaw."

Thus,respondentHRETheldthatundertheaboveenumeration,thereareonlytwoclassesofcitizens,i.e.,natural
bornandnaturalized.SincerespondentCruzisnotanaturalizedcitizen,thenheisanaturalbornFilipinocitizen.

Idonotagree.IreiteratethatSection2,ArticleIVoftheConstitutiondefinesnaturalborncitizensas"thosewho
are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship."

PursuanttoR.A.No.2630,quotedasfollow:

"Republic Act No. 2630. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY
PERSONS WHO LOST SUCH CITIZENSHIP BY RENDERING SERVICE TO, OR ACCEPTING
COMMISSIONIN,THEARMEDFORCESOFTHEUNITEDSTATES,provides:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 13/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840
Section 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship be rendering service to, or accepting
commission in the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of the
United States, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of
allegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippinesandregisteringthesamewiththeLocalCivilRegistryintheplace
whereheresidesorlastresidedinthePhilippines.Thesaidoathofallegianceshallcontainarenunciationof
anyothercitizenship."

respondentCruzhadperformcertainactsbeforehecouldagainbecomeaFilipinocitizen.Hehadtotakeanoathof
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and register his oath with the Local Civil Registry of Mangatarum,
Pangasinan. He had to renounce his American citizenship and had to execute an affidavit of reacquisition of
Philippinecitizenship.

Clearly,hedidnotreacquirehisnaturalborncitizenship.Thecardinalruleintheinterpretationandconstitutionofa
constitution is to give effect to the intention of the framers and of the people who adopted it. Words appearing in
Constitutionareusedaccordingtotheirplain,natural,andusualsignificanceandimportandmustbeunderstoodin
thesensemostobvioustothecommonunderstandingofthepeopleatthetimeofitsadoption.

Theprovisionon"naturalborncitizensofthePhilippines"isprecise,clearanddefinite.Indeed,neitherHRETnor
thisCourtcanconstrueitotherthanwhatitsplainmeaningconveys.Itisnotphrasedingenerallanguagewhich
maycallforconstructionofwhatthewordsimply.

InJ.M.Tuason&Co.,Inc.vs.LandTenureAdministration,6thisCourtheld:

"AscertainmentofmeaningofprovisionsofConstitutionbeginswiththelanguageofthedocumentitself.The
words used in the Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning, except where technical terms are
employed,inwhichcasethesignificancethusattachedtothemprevails.AstheConstitutionisnotprimarilya
lawyer'sdocument,itbeingessentialfortheruleoflawtoobtainthatitshouldeverbepresentinthepeople's
consciousness,itslanguageasmuchaspossible,shouldbeunderstoodinthesensetheyhaveincommon
use.Whatitsaysaccordingtothetextoftheprovisiontobeconstruedcompelsacceptanceandnegatesthe
powerofthecourtstoalterit,basedonthepostulatethattheframersandthepeoplemeanwhattheysay."

The definition of a naturalborn citizen in the Constitution must be applied to this petition according to its natural
sense.

Respondent HRET likewise ruled that the "reacquisition of Philippine citizenship through any of these modes:
(naturalization,repatriationandlegislationunderSection3,C.A.No.63)resultsintherestorationofpreviousstatus,
eitherasanaturalbornoranaturalizedcitizen"isasimplisticapproachandtendstobemisleading.

Ifcitizenshipisgainedthroughnaturalization,repatriationorlegislation,thecitizenconcernedcannotbeconsidered
naturalborn.Obviously,hehastoperformcertainactstobecomeacitizen.

AsexpressedintheDissentofJusticeJoseC.Vitug7intheinstantcase,concurredinbyJusticeA.R.Melo:8

"Repatriationistheresumptionorrecoveryoftheoriginalnationallyuponthefulfillmentofcertainconditions.
While an applicant need not have to undergo the tedious and time consuming process required by the
RevisedNaturalizationLaw(CA473,samended),he,nevertheless,wouldstillhavetomakeanexpressand
unequivocalactofformallyrejectinghisadoptedstateandreaffirminghistotalandexclusiveallegianceand
loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines. It bears emphasis that, to be of section 2, Article IV, of the 1987
Constitution, one should not have to perform any act at all or go through any process, judicial or
administrative,toenablehimtoreacquirehiscitizenship.willoughbyopinesthatanaturalborncitizenisone
who is able to claim citizenship without any prior declaration on his part of a desire to obtain such status.
Underthisview,theterm'naturalborn'citizenscouldalsocoverthosewhohavebeencollectivelydeemed
citizensbyreasonoftheTreatyofParisandthePhilippineBillof1902andthosewhohavebeenaccordedby
the 1935 Constitution to be Filipino citizens (those born in the Philippines of alien parents who, before the
adoptionofthe1935Constitutionhadbeenelectedtopublicoffice.)"

The two dissenting Justice correctly stated that the "stringent requirement of the Constitution is so placed as to
insurethatonlyFilipinocitizenswithanabsoluteandpermanentdegreeofallegianceandloyaltyshallbeeligiblefor
membershipinCongress,thebranchofthegovernmentdirectlyinvolvedandgiventhededicatetaskoflegislation."

Thedissentingopinionfurtherstates:

"Theterm'naturalborn'Filipinocitizen,firstconstitutionallydefinedinthe1973Charter,lateradoptedbythe
1987Constitution,particularlyinSection2,ArticleIVthereof,ismeanttorefertothose'whoarecitizensof
the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship,' and to
those'whoelectPhilippinecitizenship.'Timeandagain,theSupremeCourthasdeclaredthatwherethelaws
speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, vacillation or equivocation
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 14/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840
there is only room for application. The phrase 'from birth indicates that there is a starting point of his
citizenshipandthiscitizenshipshouldbecontinuous,constantandwithoutinterruption."

Thus,respondentisnoteligibleforelectiontoCongressastheConstitutionrequiresthatamemberoftheHouseof
Representativemustbea"naturalborncitizenofthePhilippines."

For sure, the framers of our Constitution intended to provide a more stringent citizenship requirement for higher
elective offices, including that of the office of a Congressman. Otherwise, the Constitution should have simply
providedthatacandidateforsuchpositioncanbemerelyacitizenofthePhilippines,asrequiredoflocalelective
officers.

Thespiritofnationalismpervadingthe1935Constitution,thefirstcharterframedandratifiedbytheFilipino(evenas
thedrafthadtobeapprovedbyPresidentFranklinDelanoRooseveltoftheUnitedStates)guideandgovernsthe
interpretationofPhilippinecitizenshipandthemorenarrowandboundenconceptofbeinganaturalborncitizen.

Underthe1935costitution,9 the requirement of naturalborn citizenship was applicable to the President and Vice
Persident.10Apersonwhohadbeenacitizenforonlyfive(5)yearscouldbeelectedtotheNationalAssembly.11
Only in 1940,12 when the first Constitution was amended did naturalborn citizenship become a requirement for
SenatorsandMembersoftheHouseofRepresentatives.13AFilipinonaturalizedforatleastfive(5)yearscouldstill
beappointedJusticeoftheSupremecourtoraJudgeofalowercourt.14

The history of the Constitution shows that the meaning and application of the requirement of being naturalborn
havebecomemorenarrowandqualifiedovertheyears.

Underthe1973Constitution, 15thePresident,membersoftheNationalAssembly,PrimeMinister,Justicesofthe
Supreme Court, Judges of inferior courts, the chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commission and the
majorityofmembersofthecabinetmustbenaturalborncitizens.16The1987ConstitutionaddedtheOmbudsman
and his deputies and the members of the Commission on Human Rights to those who must be naturalborn
citizens.17

ThequestionedDecisionofrespondentHRETreversesthehistoricaltrendandclearintendmentoftheConstitution.
Itshowsamoreliberal,ifnotacavalierapproachtothemeaningandimportofnaturalborncitizenandcitizenshipin
general.

Itbearsstressingthatwearetracingandenforcingadoctrineembodiedinnolessthattheconstitution.Indeed,a
deviationfromtheclearandconstitutionaldefinitionofa"naturalbornFilipinocitizen"isamatterwhichcanonlybe
accomplishedthroughaconstitutionalamendment.ClearlyrespondentHRETgravelyabuseditsdiscretion.

RespondentCruzhasavailedhimselfoftheprocedurewherebyhiscitizenshiphasbeenrestored.Hecan run for

public office where naturalborn citizenship is not mandated. But he cannot be elected to high offices which the
ConstitutionhasreservedonlyfornaturalbornFilipinocitizens.

WHEREFORE,IvotetoGRANTthepetition. 1wphi1.nt

Footnote

11987ConstitutionoftheRepublicofthePhilippines.

223Phil315(1912).

3 Section 4. That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish
subjectsontheeleventhdayofApril,eighteenhundredandninetynineandthenresidedinsaidIslands,and
theirchildrenbornsubsequentthereto,shallbedeemedandheldtobecitizensofthePhilippineIslandsand
as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their
allegiancetotheCrownofSpaininaccordancewiththeprovisionofthetreatyofpeacebetweentheUnited
StatesandSpainsignedatParis,Decembertenth,eighteenhundredandninetyeight.
4Roavs.CollectorofCustoms,supraLimTecovs.Collector,24Phil84(1913)UnitedStatevs.LimBin,36
Phil924(1917).
5Roavs.CollectorofCustoms,ibid.

631SCRA413(1970).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 15/16
8/31/2015 G.R. No. 142840
7MemberoftheHRET.

8Chairman,ibid.

9 This refers to the 1935 Constitution as adopted by the Philippine Constitution Convention on February 8,
1935, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 23, 1935 and ratified by Filipino voters in a
plebisciteheldonMay14,1935.
10Section3,ArticleVIII.1935Constitution.

11Section2,ArticleVI,ibid.

12 The 1935 Constitution was amended by Resolution Numbered Seventythree, adopted by the Second

National Assembly on the 11th day of April 1940, and approved by the President of the United Sates on
December2,940.
13Section4and7,ArticleVI,1935Constitution,asamended.

14Section6and8,ArticleVIII,ibid.

15 This refers to the 1973 Constitution as approved by the Filipino people in a referendum held between
January10,1973andJanuary15,1973andwhichbecameeffectiveonJanuary17,1973.
16 Section 2, Article VII section 4, Article VIII Section 3 and 4, Article IX Section 3 (1) and (2), Article X
Section1(1)ArticleXIIB,Section1(1),ArticleXIIICSection1(1)ArticleXIID,1973Constitution.
17Section8,ArticleXIandSection17(2),ArticleXIII,1987Constitution

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/may2001/gr_142840_2001.html 16/16