Рет қаралды 13,339
Dual citizenship Philippines; Dual citizen; Philippine dual citizenship; Philippine dual citizen; Dual allegiance; 1987 Constitution; 1987 Philippine Constitution; RA 9225; Is RA 9225 unconstitutional; The Constitutionality of Dual Citizenship; Risk of having dual citizenship; Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003; Philippine vlog; Philippines vlog; former Filipinos; former Filipino citizen; Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003; Philippine dual citizenship law; how to retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship; lost Philippine citizenship; becoming a dual Filipino citizen; becoming a dual citizen; advantages and disadvantages of being a dual citizen; privileges of being a Filipino dual citizen; advantages and disadvantages of dual citizenship; importance of dual citizenship; benefits of dual citizenship; benefits of being a dual citizen; importance of dual citizenship; why is dual citizenship important; who can be a Philippine dual citizen; who qualifies as dual citizen under Philippine law; who can be qualified as dual citizen; who can apply for Philippine dual citizenship; who may apply for Filipino dual citizenship; how to become a Filipino dual citizen; steps to become a Filipino dual citizen; road to becoming Philippine dual citizen; pros and cons of being a Filipino dual citizen; pros and cons of Philippine dual citizenship; interesting features of Philippine dual citizenship law; how to retain Philippine citizenship; how to re-acquire Philippine dual citizenship; becoming a foreigner; naturalization; effect of naturalization in a foreign country; effect of getting naturalized in another country.
MERCADO vs. MANZANO(G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999)
Distinction between dual citizenship and dual allegiance:
“To begin with, dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship:
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli;
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their father's' country such children are citizens of that country;
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter's country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
xxxxx - xxxxx
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual's volition.”
AASJS vs. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007)
“From the above excerpts of the legislative record, it is clear that the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 is to do away with the provision in Commonwealth Act No. 635 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries. What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens 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. Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 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 was not made a concern of Rep. Act No. 9225.”
xxxxx - xxxxx
“To begin with, Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization.9 Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters of what really constitutes dual allegiance.10 Until this is done, it would be premature for the judicial department, including this Court, to rule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance.”