Conflict of Laws Rulings

8/10/2019 Conflict of Laws Rulings

1/42

CITIZENSHIP

Co v. Hret

ON THE ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP

The records show that in the year 1895, the private respondent's grandfather, OngTe, arrived in the Philippines from China. Ong Te estalished his residence in them!nicipality of "aoang, #amar on land which he o!ght from the fr!its of hard wor$.

%s a resident of "aoang, Ong Te was ale to otain a certi&cate of residence fromthe then #panish colonial administration.

The father of the private respondent, ose Ong Ch!an was orn in China in 19(5. )ewas ro!ght y Ong Te to #amar in the year 1915.

ose Ong Ch!an spent his childhood in the province of #amar. *n "aoang, he wasale to estalish an end!ring relationship with his neighors, res!lting in his easyassimilation into the comm!nity.

%s ose Ong Ch!an grew older in the r!ral and seaside comm!nity of "aoang, heasored +ilipino c!lt!ral val!es and practices. )e was aptied into Christianity. %sthe years passed, ose Ong Ch!an met a nat!ral orn-+ilipino, %gripina "ao. The twofell in love and, thereafter, got married in 19/ according to Catholic faith andpractice.

The co!ple ore eight children, one of whom is the private respondent who wasorn in 1908.

The private respondent's father never emigrated from this co!ntry. )e decided top!t !p a hardware store and shared and s!rvived the vicissit!des of life in #amar.

The !siness prospered. 2pansion ecame inevitale. %s a res!lt, a ranch was

set-!p in 3inondo, 4anila. *n the meantime, the father of the private respondent,!ns!re of his legal stat!s and in an !ne!ivocal a6rmation of where he cast his lifeand family, &led with the Co!rt of +irst *nstance of #amar an application fornat!raliation on +er!ary 15, 1950.

On %pril /8, 1955, the C+* of #amar, after trial, declared ose Ong Ch!an a +ilipinocitien.

On 4ay 15, 1957, the Co!rt of +irst *nstance of #amar iss!ed an order declaring thedecision of %pril /8, 1955 as &nal and e2ec!tory and that ose Ong Ch!an mayalready ta$e his Oath of %llegiance.

P!rs!ant to said order, ose Ong Ch!an too$ his Oath of %llegiance correspondingly,a certi&cate of nat!raliation was iss!ed to him.

%t the time ose Ong Ch!an too$ his oath, the private respondent then a minor ofnine years was &nishing his elementary ed!cation in the province of #amar. There isnothing in the records to dierentiate him from other +ilipinos insofar as thec!stoms and practices of the local pop!lace were concerned.

+ort!nes changed. The ho!se of the family of the private respondent in "aoang,#amar was !rned to the gro!nd.


2/42

:nda!nted y the catastrophe, the private respondent's family constr!cted anotherone in place of their r!ined ho!se. %gain, there is no showing other than that"aoang was their aode and home.

%fter completing his elementary ed!cation, the private respondent, in search foretter ed!cation, went to 4anila in order to ac!ire his secondary and college

ed!cation.*n the meantime, another misfort!ne was s!ered y the family in 1975 when a &reg!tted their second ho!se in "aoang, #amar. The respondent's family constr!ctedstill another ho!se, this time a 1;-door apartment !ilding, two doors of which werereserved for the family.

The private respondent grad!ated from college, and thereafter too$ and passed theCP% 3oard 2aminations.

#ince employment opport!nities were etter in 4anila, the respondent loo$ed forwor$ here. )e fo!nd a orthern #amar.

4r. Ong was overwhelmingly voted y the people of >orthern #amar as theirrepresentative in Congress. ven if the total votes of the two petitioners arecomined, Ong wo!ld still lead the two y more than 7,((( votes.

The pertinent portions of the Constit!tion fo!nd in %rticle *? read@

#CT*O> 1, the following are citiens of the Philippines@1. Those who are citiens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of theConstit!tion

/. Those whose fathers or mothers are citiens of the Philippines

. Those orn efore an!ary 17, 197, of +ilipino mothers, who elect Philippinecitienship !pon reaching the age of ma


3/42

0. Those who are nat!ralied in accordance with law.

#CT*O> /, >at!ral-orn Citiens are those who are citiens of the Philippines fromirth witho!t having to perform any act to ac!ire or perfect their citienship. Thosewho elect Philippine citienship in accordance with paragraph hereof shall edeemed nat!ral-orn citiens.

The Co!rt interprets #ection 1, Paragraph aove as applying not only to those whoelect Philippine citienship after +er!ary /, 1987 !t also to those who, havingeen orn of +ilipino mothers, elected citienship efore that date.

The provision in Paragraph was intended to correct an !nfair position whichdiscriminates against +ilipino women.

4r. Aodrigo@ The p!rpose of that provision is to remedy an ine!itale sit!ation.3etween 195 and 197 when we were !nder the 195 Constit!tion, those orn of+ilipino fathers !t alien mothers were nat!ral-orn +ilipinos. )owever, those orn of+ilipino mothers !t alien fathers wo!ld have to elect Philippine citienship !ponreaching the age of ma% Constit!tional provision sho!ld e constr!ed so as to give it eective operationand s!ppress the mischief at which it is aimed, hence, it is the spirit of the provision

which sho!ld prevail over the letter thereof. Barrolt v. 4aerly, 1( :.#. 58(

*n the words of the Co!rt in the case ofJ.M.Tuason v.LTAB1 #CA% 01 D197(E@

To that primordial intent, all else is s!ordinated. O!r Constit!tion, any constit!tionis not to e constr!ed narrowly or pedantically for the prescriptions thereincontained, to paraphrase !stice )olmes, are not mathematical form!las havingtheir essence in their form !t are organic living instit!tions, the signi&cance ofwhich is vital not formal. . . . Bp. 0/7

The provision in !estion was enacted to correct the anomalo!s sit!ation where oneorn of a +ilipino father and an alien mother was a!tomatically granted the stat!s ofa nat!ral-orn citien while one orn of a +ilipino mother and an alien father wo!ld

still have to elect Philippine citienship. *f one so elected, he was not, !nder earlierlaws, conferred the stat!s of a nat!ral-orn.

Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Fii!ino f"thers "nd those bornof Fii!ino #others $ith "n "ien f"ther $ere !"%ed on e&u" footin'. Theywere oth considered as nat!ral-orn citiens.

)ence, the estowment of the stat!s of Fnat!ral-ornF cannot e made to dependon the Geeting accident of time or res!lt in two $inds of citiens made !p ofessentially the same similarly sit!ated memers.


4/42

*t is for this reason that the amendments were enacted, that is, in order to remedythis accidental anomaly, and, therefore, treat e!ally all those orn efore the 197Constit!tion and who elected Philippine citienship either efore or after theeectivity of that Constit!tion.

The Constit!tional provision in !estion is, therefore c!rative in nat!re. The

enactment was meant to correct the ine!itale and as!rd sit!ation which thenprevailed, and th!s, render those acts valid which wo!ld have een nil at the timehad it not een for the c!rative provisions. BSee=evelopment 3an$ of thePhilippines v. Co!rt of %ppeals, 9; #CA% 0/ D198(E

There is no dis!ute th"t the res!ondent(s #other $"s " n"tur" bornFii!in" "t the ti#e of her #"rri"'e. Cru%i" to this %"se is the issue of$hether or not the res!ondent ee%ted or %hose to be " Fii!ino %iti)en.

lection ecomes material eca!se #ection / of %rticle *? of the Constit!tionaccords nat!ral orn stat!s to children orn of +ilipino mothers efore an!ary 17,197, if they electcitienship !pon reaching the age of maot only was his mother a nat!ralorn citien !t his father had een nat!ralied when the respondent was only nineB9 years old. He %oud not h"ve divined $hen he %"#e of "'e th"t in 1973"nd 19-7 the Constitution $oud be "#ended to re&uire hi# to h"ve ed" s$orn st"te#ent in 19/9 ee%tin' %iti)enshi! ins!ite of his "re"d+h"vin' been " %iti)en sin%e 1907.*n 19;9, election thro!gh a sworn statementwo!ld have een an !n!s!al and !nnecessary proced!re for one who had een acitien since he was nine years old.

He have

*n the case of In e@ Florencio MallareB59 #CA% 05 D1970E, the Co!rt held that thee2ercise of the right of s!rage and the participation in election e2ercises constit!tea positive act of election of Philippine citienship. *n the e2act prono!ncement of theCo!rt, we held@

Esteban!s e"ercise o# t$e ri%$t o# su&ra%e '$en $e ca(e o# a%e) constitutes apositive act o# election o# P$ilippine citi*ens$ipBp. 5/ emphasis s!pplied

The private respondent did more than merely e2ercise his right of s!rage. )e hasestalished his life here in the Philippines.

+or those in the pec!liar sit!ation of the respondent who cannot e e2pected tohave elected citienship as they were already citiens, we apply the In e

Mallarer!le.

The respondent was orn in an o!tlying r!ral town of #amar where there are noalien enclaves and no racial distinctions. The respondent has lived the life of a+ilipino since irth. )is father applied for nat!raliation when the child was still asmall oy. )e is a Aoman Catholic. )e has wor$ed for a sensitive governmentagency. )is profession re!ires citienship for ta$ing the e2aminations and getting alicense. )e has participated in political e2ercises as a +ilipino and has alwaysconsidered himself a +ilipino citien. There is nothing in the records to show that he


5/42

does not emrace Philippine c!stoms and val!es, nothing to indicate any tinge ofalien-ness no acts to show that this co!ntry is not his nat!ral homeland. The massof voters of >orthern #amar are frilly aware of 4r. Ong's parentage. They sho!ld$now him etter than any memer of this Co!rt will ever $now him. They voted yoverwhelming n!mers to have him represent them in Congress. 3eca!se of hisacts since childhood, they have considered him as a +ilipino.

The &ling of sworn statement or formal declaration is a re!irement for those whostill have to elect citienship.For t$ose alrea+, Filipinoswhen the time to elect came!p, there are acts of delierate choice which cannot e less inding. ntering aprofession open only to +ilipinos, serving in p!lic o6ce where citienship is a!ali&cation, voting d!ring election time, r!nning for p!lic o6ce, and othercategorical acts of similar nat!re are themselves formal manifestations of choice forthese persons.

%n election of Philippine citienship pres!pposes that the person electing is an alien.Or his stat!s is do!tf!l eca!se he is a national of two co!ntries. There is no do!tin this case ao!t 4r. Ong's eing a +ilipino when he t!rned twenty-one B/1.

He repeat that any election of Philippine citienship on the part of the privaterespondent wo!ld not only have een s!perG!o!s !t it wo!ld also have res!lted inan as!rdity. )ow can a +ilipino citien elect Philippine citienshipI

The respondent )AT has an interesting view as to how 4r. Ong elected citienship.*t oserved that Fwhen protestee was only nine years of age, his father, ose OngCh!an ecame a nat!ralied +ilipino. #ection 15 of the Aevised >at!raliation %cts!arely applies its ene&t to him for he was then a minor residing in this co!ntry.Concededly, it 'as t$e la' itsel# t$at $a+ alrea+, electe+ P$ilippine citi*ens$ip #or

protestee b, +eclarin% $i( as suc$.F Bmphasis s!pplied

The petitioners arg!e that the respondent's father was not, validly, a nat!raliedcitien eca!se of his premat!re ta$ing of the oath of citienship.

The Co!rt cannot go into the collateral proced!re of stripping 4r. Ong's father of hiscitienship after his death and at this very late date

The petitioners !estion the citienship of the father thro!gh a collateral approach.This can not e done. *n o!r

eyond where his mortal remains now lie to defend himself were this matter to emade a central iss!e in this case.F

The iss!e efore !s is not the n!lli&cation of the grant of citienship to ose OngCh!an. O!r f!nction is to determine whether or not the )AT committed a!se ofa!thority in the e2ercise of its powers. 4oreover, the respondent traces his nat!ralorn citienship thro!gh his (ot$er, not thro!gh the citienship of his father. Thecitienship of the father is relevant only to determine whether or not the respondentFchoseF to e a +ilipino when he came of age. %t that time and !p to the present,


6/42


7/42

%s concl!ded y the Constit!tional Convention, Ong Te falls within the meaning ofs!-paragraph 0 of %rticle 17 of the Civil Code of #pain.

%ltho!gh Ong Te made rief visits to China, he, nevertheless, always ret!rned to thePhilippines. The fact that he died in China, d!ring one of his visits in said co!ntry,was of no moment. This will not change the fact that he already had his domicile

&2ed in the Philippines and p!rs!ant to the Civil Code of #pain, he had ecome a#panish s!o. 1/, the min!tes of the plenary session of 1971 Constit!tionalConvention held on >ovemer /8, 197/ cannot e fo!nd.

This was a6rmed y %tty. Aicafrente, %ssistant #ecretary of the 1971 Constit!tionalConvention y %tty. >olledo, =elegate to the 1971 Constit!tional Convention andy %tty. %ntonio #antos, Chief "irarian of the :.P "aw Center, in their respectivetestimonies given efore the )AT to the eect that there is no governmentalagency which is the o6cial c!stodian of the records of the 1971 Constit!tionalConvention. BT#>, =ecemer 1/, 1988, pp. (-1 T#>, an!ary 17, 1989, pp. 0-5T#>, +er!ary 1, 1989, p. 00 T#>, +er!ary ;, 1989, pp. /8-/9

The e2ec!tion of the originals was estalished y %tty. Aicafrente, who as the%ssistant #ecretary of the 1971 Constit!tional Convention was the proper party totestify to s!ch e2ec!tion. BT#>, =ecemer 1/, 1989, pp. 11-/0

The inaility to prod!ce the originals efore the )AT was also testi&ed to as

aforestated y %tty. Aicafrente, %tty. >olledo, and %tty. #antos. *n proving theinaility to prod!ce, the law does not re!ire the degree of proof to e of s!6cientcertainty it is eno!gh that it e shown that after a ona &de diligent search, thesame cannot e fo!nd. BseeLovernment of P.*. v. 4artine, 00 Phil. 817 D1918E

#ince the e2ec!tion of the doc!ment and the inaility to prod!ce were ade!atelyestalished, the contents of the !estioned doc!ments can e proven y a copythereof or y the recollection of witnesses.


8/42

4oreover, to erase all do!ts as to the a!thenticity of the doc!mentary evidencecited in the Committee Aeport, the former memer of the 1971 Constit!tionalConvention, %tty. >olledo, when he was presented as a witness in the hearing of theprotest against the private respondent, categorically stated that he saw thedisp!ted doc!ments presented d!ring the hearing of the election protest againstthe rother of the private respondent. BT#>, +er!ary 1, 1989, pp. 8-9

*n his conc!rring opinion, 4r. !stice #armiento, a vice-president of theConstit!tional Convention, states that he was presiding o6cer of the plenarysession which delierated on the report on the election protest against =elegatemil Ong. )e cites a long list of names of delegates present. %mong them are 4r.Chief !stice +ernan, and 4r. !stice =avide, r. The petitioners co!ld have presentedany one of the long list of delegates to ref!te 4r. Ong's having een declared anat!ral-orn citien. They did not do so. >or did they dem!r to the contents of thedoc!ments presented y the private respondent. They merely relied on theproced!ral o


9/42

" forei'n %ountr+6 e*!ress renun%i"tion of %iti)enshi!6 subs%ribin' to "no"th of "e'i"n%e to su!!ort the %onstitution or "$s of " forei'n %ountr+6renderin' servi%e to, or "%%e!tin' " %o##ission in, the "r#ed for%es of "forei'n %ountr+6 %"n%e"tion of the %erti%"te of n"tur"i)"tion6de%"r"tion b+ %o#!etent "uthorit+ th"t he is " deserter of the Phii!!ine"r#ed for%es in ti#e of $"r6 in the %"se of " $o#"n b+ #"rri"'e to "

forei'ner if, b+ virtue of "$s in for%e in her husb"nd(s %ountr+, she"%&uires his n"tion"it+.eco%nition o# t$e petitioners b, t$eir alien #at$er isnot among the ground for losing Philippine citizenship under Philippinelaw,and it cannot e said that the petitioners lost their former stat!s y reason ofs!ch recognition. %o!t the only mode of losing Philippine citienship which closelyears on the petitioners is ren!nciation. 3!t even ren!nciation cannot e cited ins!pport of the concl!sion that petition lost their Philippine citienshipeca!se thelaw requires an express renunciation$hi%h #e"ns "renun%i"tion th"t is #"de no$n distin%t+ "nd e*!i%it+ "nd not eft toinferen%e or i#!i%"tion a ren!nciation manifested y direct and appropriatelang!age, as disting!ished from that which is inferred from cond!ct. BOpinion >o. ;9of the #ecretary of !stice, #eries of 190(. *ndeed, as the #!preme Co!rt heldin U/S/ v/ On% Tianse, /9 Phil. /, a case for deportation, where Ong, a nat!ral child

of a +ilipino mother and a Chinese father, orn in the Philippines, was ro!ght y hisparents to China when he was 0 years old, where he remained for 18 or 19 years,ret!rning to the Philippines at /5 years of age, FThe fact that a minor child in thoseconditions was ta$en to China and remained there for several years is notsu%ient 'round u!on $hi%h to hod th"t he h"s %h"n'ed his n"tion"it+,$hen, "fter re"%hin' his #"8orit+, he did not e*!ress his desire to %hoosethe n"tion"it+ of his f"ther.The i#!ort of the fore'oin' !ronoun%e#entis th"t of itsef " !rotr"%ted st"+ in " forei'n %ountr+ does not "#ount torenun%i"tion. Moreover) $erein petitioners 'ere all (inors '$en t$e, '$erebrou%$t to C$ina in 0112. They were witho!t legal capacity to reno!nce their stat!s.:pon their ret!rn to the Philippines only 3eato Lo Callano had attained the age ofma


10/42

as Fto restore or ret!rn to one's co!ntry of origin, allegiance, or citienship 2 22.F7*n relation to o!r s!


11/42

Pre#isin' therefro#, res!ondent > bein' %e"r+ "nd %on%eded+ notn"tur"i)ed > is, therefore, " n"tur" O+ P)*"*PP*> C*T*K>#)*P

The record shows that private respondent was orn in #an +rancisco, California on#eptemer 0, 1955, of +ilipino parents. #ince the Philippines adheres to the principleofjus sanguinis, while the :nited #tates follows the doctrine of.us soli, the partiesagree that, at irth at least, he was a national oth of the Philippines and of the:nited #tates. )owever, the CO4"C en banc held that, y participating in


12/42

Philippine elections in 199/, 1995, and 1998, private respondent Feectivelyreno!nced his :.#. citienship !nder %merican law,F so that now he is solely aPhilippine national.

Petitioner challenges this r!ling. )e arg!es that merely ta$ing part in Philippineelections is not s!6cient evidence of ren!nciation and that, in any event, as the

alleged ren!nciation was made when private respondent was already 7 years old,it was ineective as it sho!ld have een made when he reached the age of ma


13/42

R when he aandoned and reno!nced his :# citienship !t efore he wasrepatriated to his +ilipino citienship.F

On this point, we !ote from the assailed Aesol!tion dated =ecemer 19, 1995@

3y the laws of the :nited #tates, petitioner +rivaldo lost his %merican citienshipwhen he too$ his oath of allegiance to the Philippine Lovernment when he ran forLovernor in 1988, in 199/, and in 1995. Ever+ %erti%"te of %"ndid"%+ %ont"ins"n o"th of "e'i"n%e to the Phii!!ine 2overn#ent.

These fact!al &ndings that +rivaldo has lost his foreign nationality long efore theelections of 1995 have not een eectively re!tted y "ee. +!rthermore, it is asicthat s!ch &ndings of the Commission are concl!sive !pon this Co!rt, asent anyshowing of capricio!sness or aritrariness or a!se.

There is, therefore, no merit in petitioner's contention that the oath of allegiancecontained in private respondent's certi&cate of candidacy is ins!6cient to constit!teren!nciation that, to e eective, s!ch ren!nciation sho!ld have een made !ponprivate respondent reaching the age of ma


14/42

)is declarations will e ta$en !pon the faith that he will f!l&ll his !nderta$ing made!nder oath. #ho!ld he etray that tr!st, there are eno!gh sanctions for declaringthe loss of his Philippine citienship thro!gh e2patriation in appropriate proceedings.*n 6u v.7e#ensor8Santia%o, 19we s!stained the denial of entry into the co!ntry ofpetitioner on the gro!nd that, after ta$ing his oath as a nat!ralied citien, heapplied for the renewal of his Port!g!ese passport and declared in commercial

doc!ments e2ec!ted aroad that he was a Port!g!ese national. % similar sanctioncan e ta$en against any one who, in electing Philippine citienship, reno!nces hisforeign nationality, !t s!se!ently does some act constit!ting ren!nciation of hisPhilippine citienship.

"%ot v. 4"

This Co!rt &nds that petitioner sho!ld indeed e dis!ali&ed.

Contrary to the assertions made y petitioner, his oath of allegiance to the Aep!licof the Philippines made efore the "os %ngeles PCL and his Certi&cate of Candidacydo not s!stantially comply with the re!irement of a personal and swornren!nciation of foreign citienship eca!se these are distinct re!irements to e

complied with for dierent p!rposes.Se%tion 3 of De!ubi% %t No. 90re!ires that n"tur"o. 9//5 wherein

said +ilipino has d!al citienship y also reac!iring or retaining his Philippinecitienship, despite his foreign citienship.

The afore-!oted oath of allegiance is s!stantially similar to the one contained inthe Certi%"te of C"ndid"%+which m!st e e2ec!ted y "n+ !ersonwhowishes to run for !ubi% o%ein Philippine elections. #!ch an oath reads@

* am eligile for the o6ce * see$ to e elected. * will s!pport and defend theConstit!tion of the Philippines and will maintain tr!e faith and allegiance thereto


15/42

that * will oey the laws, legal orders and decrees prom!lgated y the d!lyconstit!ted a!thorities of the Aep!lic of the Philippines and that * impose thisoligation !pon myself vol!ntarily, witho!t mental reservation or p!rpose ofevasion. * herey certify that the facts stated herein are tr!e and correct of my ownpersonal $nowledge.

>ow, #ection 5B/ of Aep!lic %ct >o. 9//5 speci&cally provides that@#ection 5. Civil and Political Aights and "iailities.MThose who retain or reac!irePhilippine citienship !nder this %ct shall eno. 9//5 Bon the ma$ing of a personal andsworn ren!nciation of any and all foreign citienship re&uires of the Fii!inos"v"iin' the#seves of the benets under the s"id %t to "%%o#!ish "nundert"in' other th"n th"t $hi%h the+ h"ve !resu#"b+ %o#!ied $ithunder Se%tion 3 thereof o"th of "e'i"n%e to the De!ubi% of thePhii!!ines. This is made clear in the disc!ssion of the 3icameral ConferenceCommittee on =isagreeing Provisions of )o!se 3ill >o. 07/( and #enate 3ill >o./1( held on 18 %!g!st /(( Bprec!rsors of Aep!lic %ct >o. 9//5, where the )on.Chairman +ran$lin =rilon and )on. Aepresentative %rth!r =efensor e2plained to)on. Aepresentative 2e!iel avier that the o"th of "e'i"n%e is di@erent fro#the renun%i"tion of forei'n %iti)enshi!

C)%*A4%> =A*"O>. O$ay. #o, >o. /. FThose see$ing elective p!lic o6ce in thePhilippines shall meet the !ali&cations for holding s!ch p!lic o6ce as re!ired ythe Constit!tion and e2isting laws and, at the time of the &ling of the certi&cate ofcandidacy, #"e " !erson" "nd s$orn renun%i"tion of "n+ "nd " forei'n%iti)enshi! before "n+ !ubi% o%er "uthori)ed to "d#inister "n o"th.F *thin$ itUs very good, haI >o prolemI
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_179848_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_179848_2008.html#fnt20


16/42

AP. %?*A. V I thin its "re"d+ %overed b+ the o"th.

C)%*A4%> =A*"O>. Aeno!ncing foreign citienship.

AP. %?*A. hJ but he h"s t"en his o"th "re"d+.

C)%*A4%> =A*"O>. NoJno, renoun%in' forei'n %iti)enshi!.

2 2 2 2

C)%*A4%> =A*"O>. Can * go ac$ to >o. /. HhatUs yo!r prolem, 3oyI Thoseseein' ee%tive o%e in the Phii!!ines.

AP. %?*A. They are trying to ma$e him reno!nce his citienship thin$ing thatanoV

C)%*A4%> =A*"O>. )is %merican citienship.

AP. %?*A. To disco!rage him from r!nningI

C)%*A4%> =A*"O>. >o.AP. %.=. =+>#OA. >o. Ahen he runs he $i on+ h"ve one %iti)enshi!.Ahen he runs for o%e, he $i h"ve on+ one.Bmphasis o!rs.

There is little do!t, therefore, that the intent of the e'is"tors $"s not on+for Fii!inos re"%&uirin' or ret"inin' their Phii!!ine %iti)enshi! underDe!ubi% %t No. 90 to t"e their o"th of "e'i"n%e to the De!ubi% ofthe Phii!!ines, but "so to e*!i%it+ renoun%e their forei'n %iti)enshi! ifthe+ $ish to run for ee%tive !osts in the Phii!!ines.To !alify as acandidate in Philippine elections, +ilipinos m!st only have one citienship, namely,Philippine citienship.

3y the same to$en, the oath of allegiance contained in the Certi&cate of Candidacy,which is s!stantially similar to the one contained in #ection of Aep!lic %ct >o.9//5, does not %onstitute the !erson" "nd s$orn renun%i"tion sou'htunder Se%tion 0G of De!ubi% %t No. 90.It bears to emphasize thatthe said oath of allegiance is a general requirement for all those who wishto run as candidates in Philippine elections; while the renunciation offoreign citizenship is an additional requisite only for those who haveretained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act o! "##$and who see% elective public posts& considering their special circumstanceof having more than one citizenship!

Sobe8en"


17/42

To oviate the fatal conse!ence of her in!tile ren!nciation, the petitioner pleadsthe Co!rt to interpret the Fsworn ren!nciation of any and all foreign citienshipF in#ection 5B/ to e a mere pro forma re!irement in conformity with the intent of the"egislat!re. #he anchors her s!mission on the statement made y Aepresentativeavier d!ring the Goor delierations on ).3. >o. 07/(, the prec!rsor of A.%. >o.9//5.

%t the o!tset, it ears stressing that the Co!rtUs d!ty to interpret the law accordingto its tr!e intent is e2ercised only when the law is amig!o!s or of do!tf!lmeaning. The &rst and f!ndamental d!ty of the Co!rt is to apply the law. s su%h,$hen the "$ is %e"r "nd free fro# "n+ doubt, there is no o%%"sion for%onstru%tion or inter!ret"tion there is on+ roo# for "!!i%"tion.19#ection5B/ of A.%. >o. 9//5 is one s!ch instance.

%mig!ity is a condition of admitting two or more meanings, of eing !nderstood inmore than one way, or of referring to two or more things at the same time. +or astat!te to e considered amig!o!s, it m!st admit of two or more possilemeanings./(

The lang!age of #ection 5B/ is free fro# "n+ "#bi'uit+. *n "ope v.CO4"C,/1we declared its categorical and single meaning@ a +ilipino %merican orany d!al citien cannot r!n for any elective p!lic position in the Philippines unesshe or she !erson"+ s$e"rs to " renun%i"tion of " forei'n %iti)enshi! "tthe ti#e of in' the %erti%"te of %"ndid"%+.He also e2po!nded on the formof the ren!nciation and held that to e valid, the renun%i"tion #ust be%ont"ined in "n "d"vit du+ e*e%uted before "n o%er of the "$ $ho is"uthori)ed to "d#inister "n o"th st"tin' in %e"r "nd une&uivo%" ter#sth"t ""nt is renoun%in' " forei'n %iti)enshi!.

The same meaning was emphasied in acot v. =al,//when we held that +ilipinos re-ac!iring or retaining their Philippine citienship !nder A.%. >o. 9//5 m!ste*!i%it+ renoun%e their forei'n %iti)enshi! if the+ $ish to run for ee%tive

!osts in the Phii!!ines.The Co!rt has admitted certain e2ceptions to the aove r!les and held that thee2istence of a foreign law may also e estalished thro!gh@ B1 a testimony !nderoath of an e2pert witness s!ch as an attorney-at-law in the co!ntry where theforeign law operates wherein he !otes veratim a section of the law and statesthat the same was in force at the time material to the facts at hand and B/li$ewise, in several nat!raliation cases, it was held y the Co!rt that evidence ofthe law of a foreign co!ntry on reciprocity regarding the ac!isition of citienship,altho!gh not meeting the prescried r!le of practice, may e allowed and !sed asasis for favorale action, if, in the light of all the circ!mstances, the Co!rt isFsatis&ed of the a!thenticity of the written proof oered.F Thus, in " nu#ber ofde%isions, #ere "uthenti%"tion of the Chinese N"tur"i)"tion K"$ b+ the

Chinese Consu"te 2ener" of ?"ni" $"s hed to be " %o#!etent !roof ofth"t "$.3L

The petitioner failed to prove the %!stralian Citienship %ct of 1908 thro!gh any ofthe aove methods. %s !niformly oserved y the ATC and CO4"C, the petitionerfailed to show proof of the e2istence of the law d!ring trial. so, the etter issuedb+ the ustr"i"n 'overn#ent sho$in' th"t !etitioner "re"d+ renoun%edher ustr"i"n %iti)enshi! $"s un"uthenti%"tedhence, the co!rts a !o acted

8udi%ious+ in disre'"rdin' the s"#e.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_198742_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_198742_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_198742_2012.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_198742_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_198742_2012.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_198742_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_198742_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_198742_2012.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_198742_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_198742_2012.html#fnt30


18/42

He are o!nd to arrive at a similar concl!sion even if we were to admit ascompetent evidence the said letter in view of the photocopy of a Certi&cate of%!thentication iss!ed y Cons!lar #ection of the Philippine massy in Canerra,%!stralia attached to the petitionerUs motion for reconsideration.

?"&uiin' v. Co#ee%

'he use of foreign passport after renouncing one(s foreign citizenship is apositive and voluntary act of representation as to one(s nationality andcitizenship; it does not divest )ilipino citizenship regained by repatriationbut it recants the *ath of Renunciation required to qualify one to run foran elective position!

#ection 5B/ of The Citienship Aetention and Ae-ac!isition %ct of /(( provides@

Those who retain or re-ac!ire Philippine citienship !nder this %ct shall en%fter reac!iring his Philippine citienship, %rnado reno!nced his %mericancitienship y e2ec!ting an %6davit of Aen!nciation, thus %o#!etin' there&uire#ents for ei'ibiit+ to run for !ubi% o%e.

3y reno!ncing his foreign citienship, he was deemed to e solely a +ilipino citien,regardless of the eect of s!ch ren!nciation !nder the laws of the foreign co!ntry./

Ho$ever, this e'" !resu#!tion does not o!er"te !er#"nent+ "nd iso!en to "tt"% $hen, "fter renoun%in' the forei'n %iti)enshi!, the %iti)en!erfor#s !ositive "%ts sho$in' his %ontinued !ossession of " forei'n%iti)enshi!.33
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#fnt33


19/42

%rnado himself s!ovemer/((9. The pivotal !estion to determine is whether he was solely and e2cl!sively a+ilipino citien at the time he &led his certi&cate of candidacy, therey renderinghim eligile to r!n for p!lic o6ce.

3etween ( %pril /((9, the date he reno!nced his foreign citienship, and (>ovemer /((9, the date he &led his COC, he !sed his :# passport fo!r times,actions that r!n co!nter to the a6davit of ren!nciation he had earlier e2ec!ted. +usin' his forei'n !"ss!ort, rn"do !ositive+ "nd vount"ri+ re!resentedhi#sef "s "n #eri%"n, in e@e%t de%"rin' before i##i'r"tion "uthoritiesof both %ountries th"t he is "n #eri%"n %iti)en, $ith " "ttend"nt ri'hts"nd !rivie'es 'r"nted b+ the United St"tes of #eri%".

The ren!nciation of foreign citienship is not " hoo$ o"th th"t %"n si#!+ be!rofessed "t "n+ ti#e, on+ to be vio"ted the ne*t d"+.It re&uires "n"bsoute "nd !er!etu" renun%i"tion of the forei'n %iti)enshi! "nd " fudivest#ent of " %ivi "nd !oiti%" ri'hts 'r"nted b+ the forei'n %ountr+

$hi%h 'r"nted the %iti)enshi!.

3esides, %rnadoUs s!se!ent !se of his Philippine passport does not correct thefact that after he reno!nced his foreign citienship and prior to &ling his certi&cateof candidacy, he !sed his :# passport. *n the same way that the !se of his foreignpassport does not !ndo his Oath of Aen!nciation, his s!se!ent !se of hisPhilippine passport does not !ndo his earlier !se of his :# passport.

Citienship is not a matter of convenience. *t is a adge of identity that comes withattendant civil and political rights accorded y the state to its citiens. *t li$ewisedemands the concomitant d!ty to maintain allegiance to oneUs Gag and co!ntry.Hhile those who ac!ire d!al citienship y choice are aorded the right ofs!rage, those who see$ election or appointment to p!lic o6ce are re!ired to

reno!nce their foreign citienship to e deserving of the p!lic tr!st. Hodin'!ubi% o%e de#"nds fu "nd undivided "e'i"n%e to the De!ubi% "nd tono other.

He therefore hold that %rnado, b+ usin' his US !"ss!ort "fter renoun%in' his#eri%"n %iti)enshi!, h"s re%"nted the s"#e B"th of Denun%i"tion hetoo.#ection 0(Bd of the "ocal Lovernment Code applies to his sit!ation. He isdis&u"ied not on+ fro# hodin' the !ubi% o%e but even fro#be%o#in' " %"ndid"te in the ?"+ L1L ee%tions.

4B?ICIKE

?"r%os Do#u"de) v. Co#ee%

*n s!pport of its asseveration that petitioner's domicile co!ld not possily e in the+irst =istrict of "eyte, the #econd =ivision of the CO4"C, in its assailed Aesol!tionof %pril /0,1995 maintains that Fe2cept for the time when Bpetitioner st!died andwor$ed for some years after grad!ation in Tacloan City, she contin!o!sly lived in4anila.F The Aesol!tion additionally cites certain facts as indicative of the fact thatpetitioner's domicile o!ght to e any place where she lived in the last few decadese2cept Tacloan, "eyte. +irst, according to the Aesol!tion, petitioner, in 1959,resided in #an !an, 4etro 4anila where she was also registered voter. Then, in19;5, following the election of her h!sand to the Philippine presidency, she lived in


20/42

#an 4ig!el, 4anila where she as a voter. *n 1978 and thereafter, she served as amemer of the 3atasang Pamansa and Lovernor of 4etro 4anila. F#he co!ld not,have served these positions if she had not een a resident of 4etro 4anila,F theCO4"C stressed. )ere is where the conf!sion lies.

He have stated, many times in the past, that an individ!al does not ose his

do#i%ie even if he h"s ived "nd #"int"ined residen%es in di@erent!"%es. Desiden%e, it ears repeating, implies a fact!al relationship to a givenplace for vario!s p!rposes. The "bsen%e fro# e'" residen%e or do#i%ie to!ursue " !rofession, to stud+ or to do other thin's of " te#!or"r+ or se#i

*n or ao!t 198 when respondent was a little over 8 years old, she estalished herdomicile in Tacloan, "eyte BTacloan City. #he st!died in the )oly *nfant %cademyin Tacloan from 198 to 1909 when she grad!ated from high school. #he p!rs!ed

her college st!dies in #t. Pa!l's College, now =ivine Hord :niversity in Tacloan,where she earned her degree in d!cation. Thereafter, she ta!ght in the "eyteChinese #chool, still in Tacloan City. *n 195/ she went to 4anila to wor$ with herco!sin, the late spea$er =aniel K. Aom!alde in his o6ce in the )o!se ofAepresentatives. *n 1950, she married e2-President +erdinand . 4arcos when hewas still a congressman of *locos >orte and registered there as a voter. Hhen herh!sand was elected #enator of the Aep!lic in 1959, she and her h!sand livedtogether in #an !an, Aial where she registered as a voter. *n 19;5, when herh!sand was elected President of the Aep!lic of the Philippines, she lived with himin 4alacanang Palace and registered as a voter in #an 4ig!el, 4anila.

D*En +er!ary 198; Bshe claimed that she and her family were ad!cted and$idnapped to )onol!l!, )awaii. *n >ovemer 1991, she came home to 4anila. *n

199/, respondent ran for election as President of the Philippines and &led herCerti&cate of Candidacy wherein she indicated that she is a resident and registeredvoter of #an !an, 4etro 4anila.

%pplying the principles disc!ssed to the facts fo!nd y CO4"C, what isinescapale is that petitioner held v"rious residen%esfor dierent p!rposesd!ring the last fo!r decades. None of these !ur!oses une&uivo%"+ !oint to"n intention to "b"ndon her do#i%ie of ori'in in T"%ob"n, Ke+te. 4oreover,while petitioner was orn in 4anila, as a minor she nat!rally followed the domicileof her parents. #he grew !p in Tacloan, reached her ad!lthood there and


21/42

event!ally estalished residence in dierent parts of the co!ntry for vario!sreasons. ven d!ring her h!sand's presidency, at the height of the 4arcosAegime's powers, petitioner $ept her close ties to her domicile of origin yestalishing residences in Tacloan, celerating her irthdays and other importantpersonal milestones in her home province, instit!ting well-p!licied pro


22/42

*n the Civil Code, there is an ovio!s dierence etween domicile and residence.3oth terms imply relations etween a person and a place !t in residence, therelation is one of fact while in domicile it is legal or

%rticle 11( is a virt!al restatement of %rticle 58 of the #panish Civil Code of 1889which states@

"a m!# 3TH> ):#3%>= %>= H*+. *mmediatelypreceding %rticle 11( is %rticle 1(9 which oliges the h!sand and wife to live

together, th!s@

%rt. 1(9. R The h!sand and wife are oligated to live together, oserve m!t!alrespect and &delity and render m!t!al help and s!pport.

The d!ty to live together can only e f!l&lled if the h!sand and wife are physicallytogether. This ta$es into acco!nt the sit!ations where the co!ple has manyresidences Bas in the case of the petitioner. *f the h!sand has to stay in or transferto any one of their residences, the wife sho!ld necessarily e with him in order that


23/42

they may Flive together.F )ence, it is illogical to concl!de that %rt. 11( refers toFdomicileF and not to Fresidence.F Otherwise, we shall e faced with a sit!ationwhere the wife is left in the domicile while the h!sand, for professional or otherreasons, stays in one of their Bvario!s residences. %s =r. Tolentino f!rther e2plains@

Aesidence and =omicile R Hhether the word FresidenceF as !sed with reference to

partic!lar matters is synonymo!s with FdomicileF is a !estion of some di6c!lty,and the !ltimate decision m!st e made from a consideration of the p!rpose andintent with which the word is !sed. #ometimes they are !sed synonymo!sly, atother times they are disting!ished from one another.

222 222 222

Aesidence in the civil law is a material fact, referring to the !h+si%" !resen%e of" !erson in " !"%e. % person can have two or more residences, s!ch as a co!ntryresidence and a city residence. Aesidence is ac!ired y living in place on the otherhand, do#i%ie %"n e*ist $ithout "%tu"+ ivin' in the !"%e. The importantthing for domicile is that, once residence has een estalished in one place, theree an intention to stay there permanently, even if residence is also estalished in

some otherplace. =1

*n fact, even the matter of a common residence etween the h!sand and the wifed!ring the marriage is not an iron-clad principle *n cases applying the Civil Code onthe !estion of a common matrimonial residence, o!r ote that the Co!rt allowed the wife either to otain

new residence or to choose a new domicile in s!ch an event. *n instances where thewife act!ally opts, .!nder the Civil Code, to live separately from her h!sand eithery ta$ing new residence or reverting to her domicile of origin, the Co!rt has heldthat the wife co!ld not e compelled to live with her h!sand on pain of contempt.*nArro,o vs. :as-ues +e Arro,o =0the Co!rt held that@

:pon e2amination of the a!thorities, we are convinced that it is not within theprovince of the co!rts of this co!ntry to attempt to compel one of the spo!ses tocohait with, and render con

p!rpose than to compel the spo!ses to live !nder the same roof and he e2perienceof those co!ntries where the co!rts of


24/42

and in ;el+on v.;el+on B9 P.=. 5/, decided in 188, #ir ames )annen, Presidentin the Proate, =ivorce and %dmiralty =ivision of the )igh Co!rt of !stice,e2pressed his regret that the nglish law on the s!the growing sentiment against the practice, the 4atrimonial Ca!ses %ct B1880aolished the remedy of imprisonment tho!gh a decree for the restit!tion ofcon

Parenthetically when Petitioner was married to then Congressman 4arcos, in 1950,petitioner was oliged R y virt!e of %rticle 11( of the Civil Code R to follow herh!sand's act!al place of residence &2ed y him. The prolem here is that at thattime, 4r. 4arcos had several places of residence, among which were #an !an, Aialand 3atac, *locos >orte. There is no showing which of these places 4r. 4arcos did &2as his family's residence. 3!t ass!ming that 4r. 4arcos had &2ed any of theseplaces as the con

On the other hand, the common law concept of Fmatrimonial domicileF appears tohave een incorporated, as a res!lt of o!r ew +amily Code. To !nderscore thedierence etween the intentions of the Civil Code and the +amily Code drafters,the term residence has een s!pplanted y the term domicile in an entirely newprovision B%rt. ;9 distinctly dierent in meaning and spirit from that fo!nd in %rticle11(. The provision recognies revol!tionary changes in the concept of women'srights in the intervening years y ma$ing the choice of domicile a prod!ct of m!t!alagreement etween the spo!ses. =/

Hitho!t as m!ch elaoring the point, the term residence may mean one thing in

civil law Bor !nder the Civil Code and !ite another thing in political law. Hhatstands clear is that insofar as the Civil Code is concerned-aecting the rights andoligations of h!sand and wife R the term residence sho!ld only e interpreted tomean Fact!al residence.F The inescapale concl!sion derived from this!namig!o!s civil law delineation therefore, is that when petitioner married theformer President in 1950, she $ept her domicile of origin and merely gained a newhome, not a +o(iciliu( necessariu(.

ven ass!ming for the sa$e of arg!ment that petitioner gained a new FdomicileFafter her marriage and only ac!ired a right to choose a new one after her h!sanddied, petitioner's acts following her ret!rn to the co!ntry clearly indicate that shenot only impliedly !t e2pressly chose her domicile of origin Bass!ming this was losty operation of law as her domicile. This FchoiceF was !ne!ivocally e2pressed in

her letters to the Chairman of the PCLL when petitioner so!ght the PCLL'spermission to Frehailitate Bo!r ancestral ho!se in Tacloan and +arm in Olot,"eyte. . . to ma$e them livale for the 4arcos family to have a home in o!rhomeland.F =7+!rthermore, petitioner otained her residence certi&cate in 199/ inTacloan, "eyte, while living in her rother's ho!se, an act which s!pports thedomiciliary intention clearly manifested in her letters to the PCLL Chairman. #heco!ld not have gone straight to her home in #an !an, as it was in a state ofdisrepair, having een previo!sly looted y vandals. )er FhomesF and FresidencesFfollowing her arrival in vario!s parts of 4etro 4anila merely !ali&ed as temporary


25/42

or Fact!al residences,F not domicile. 4oreover, and proceeding from o!r disc!ssionpointing o!t speci&c sit!ations where the female spo!se either reverts to herdomicile of origin or chooses a new one d!ring the s!sistence of the marriage, itwo!ld e highly illogical for !s to ass!me that she cannot regain her originaldomicile !pon the death of her h!sand asent a positive act of selecting a new onewhere sit!ations e2ist within the s!sistence of the marriage itself where the wife

gains a domicile dierent from her h!sand.

*n the light of all the principles relating to residence and domicile en!nciated y thisco!rt !p to this point, we are pers!aded that the facts estalished y the partiesweigh heavily in favor of a concl!sion s!pporting petitioner's claim of legalresidence or domicile in the +irst =istrict of "eyte.

C""si v. C"

#ection 18, %rticle W* of the 1987 Constit!tion provides@

#ec. 18. P!lic o6cers and employees owe the #tate and this Constit!tionallegiance at all times, and any p!lic o6cer or employee who see$s to change hiscitienship or ac!ire the stat!s of an immigrant of another co!ntry +urin% $istenure shall e dealt with y law.

*n the same vein, !t not !ite, #ection ;8 of the Omni!s lection Code of thePhilippines B3.P. 3lg. 881 provides@

#C. ;8. 7is-uali9cations... %ny person who is a permanent resident of or animmigrant to a foreign co!ntry sh" not be &u"ied to run for "n+ ee%tiveo%e under this Code, uness s"id !erson h"s $"ived his st"tus "s!er#"nent resident or i##i'r"nt of " forei'n %ountr+in accordance with theresidence re!irement provided for in the election laws. B#ec. /5, 1971, C.

*n view of c!rrent r!mor that a good n!mer of elective and appointive p!lico6cials in the present administration of President Coraon C. %!ino are holders of

green cards in foreign co!ntries, their eect on the holders' right to hold electivep!lic o6ce in the Philippines is a !estion that e2cites m!ch interest in theo!tcome of this case.

*n the case of 4erito 4ig!el, the Co!rt deems it signi&cant that in the F%pplicationforI((i%rant?isa and %lien AegistrationF BOptional +orm >o. /(, =epartment of#tate which 4ig!el &lled !p in his own handwriting and s!mitted to the :#massy in 4anila efore his depart!re for the :nited #tates in 1980, 4ig!el'sanswer to J!estion >o. /1 therein regarding his F"ength of intended stay Bifpermanently, so state,F 4ig!el's answer was,T %"*>. On theac$ of the card, the !pper portion, the following information is printed@

%lien Aegistration Aeceipt Card.

Person identi&ed y this card is entitled to resi+e per(anentl,and wor$ in the:nited #tates.F B%nne2 % pp. 189-19(, Aollo of L.A. >o. 805(8.

=espite his vigoro!s disclaimer, 4ig!el's immigration to the :nited #tates in 1980constit!ted "n "b"ndon#ent of his do#i%ie "nd residen%e in the


26/42

Phii!!ines.+or he did not go to the :nited #tates merely to visit his children or hisdoctor there he entered the limited #tates with the intention to h"ve there!er#"nent+ "s eviden%ed b+ his "!!i%"tion for "n i##i'r"nt(sBnot avisitor's or to!rist's visa. 3ased on that application of his, he was iss!ed y the :.#.Lovernment the re!isite green card or a!thority to reside there permanently.

*mmigration is the removing into one place from another the act of immigrating theentering into a co!ntry with the intention of residing in it.

nimmigrantis " !erson $ho re#oves into " %ountr+ for the !ur!oseofpermanent residence/%s shown infra 80, however, stat!tes sometimes give aroader meaning to the term Fimmigrant.F B C# ;70.

%s a resident alien in the :.#., 4ig!el owes temporary and local allegiance to the:.#., the co!ntry in which he resides B C# 5/7. This is in ret!rn for the protectiongiven to him d!ring the period of his residence therein.

%liens reading in the limited #tates, while they are permitted to remain, are ingeneral entitled to the protection of the laws with regard to their rights of personand property and to their civil and criminal responsiility.

*n general, aliens residing in the :nited #tates, while they are permitted to remainare entitled to the safeg!ards of the constit!tion with regard to their rights ofperson and property and to their civil and criminal responsiility. Th!s resident alienfriends are entitled to the ene&t of the provision of the +o!rteenth %mendment tothe federal constit!tion that no state shall deprive Fany personF of life lierty, orproperty witho!t d!e process of law, or deny to any person the e!al protection ofthe law, and the protection of this amendment e2tends to the right to earn alivelihood y following the ordinary occ!pations of life. #o an alien is entitled to theprotection of the provision of the +ifth %mendment to the federal constit!tion thatno person shall e deprived of life, lierty, or property witho!t d!e process of law. BC# 5/9-5(.

#ection 18, %rticle W* of the 1987 Constit!tion which provides that Fany p!lico6cer or employee who see$s to change his citienship or ac!ire the stat!s of animmigrant of another co!ntry d!ring his ten!re shall e dealt with y lawF is notapplicale to 4erito 4ig!el for he ac!ired the stat!s of an immigrant of the :nited#tatesbe#orehe was elected to p!lic o6ce, not Fd!ring his ten!reF as mayor of3olinao, Pangasinan.

The law applicale to him is #ection ;8 of the Omni!s lection Code B3.P. 3lg. 881,which provides@

222 222 222

n+ !erson $ho is " !er#"nent resident of or "n i##i'r"nt to " forei'n

%ountr+ sh" not be &u"ied to run for "n+ ee%tive o%e under thisCode, uness su%h !erson h"s $"ived his st"tus "s !er#"nent resident ori##i'r"nt of " forei'n %ountr+ in "%%ord"n%e $ith the residen%ere&uire#ent !rovided for in the ee%tion "$s.(

=id 4ig!el, y ret!rning to the Philippines in >ovemer 1987 and presenting himselfas a candidate for mayor of 3olinao in the an!ary 18,1988 local elections, waive hisstat!s as a permanent resident or immigrant of the :nited #tatesI


27/42

To e F!ali&ed to r!n for elective o6ceF in the Philippines, the law re!ires that thecandidate who is a green card holder m!st have Fwaived his stat!s as a permanentresident or immigrant of a foreign co!ntry.F Therefore, his act of &ling a certi&cate ofcandidacy for elective o6ce in the Philippines, did not of itself constit!te a waiver ofhis stat!s as a permanent resident or immigrant of the :nited #tates. The $"iverof his 'reen %"rd shoud be #"nifested b+ so#e "%t or "%ts inde!endent of

"nd done !rior to in' his %"ndid"%+ for ee%tive o%e in this %ountr+.Aithout su%h !rior $"iver, he $"s dis&u"ied to run for "n+ ee%tiveo%e B#ec. ;8, Omni!s lection Code.

Aespondent 4erito 4ig!el admits that he holds a green card, which proves that heis a permanent resident or immigrant it of the :nited #tates, !t the records of thiscase are star$ly are of proof that he had waived his stat!s as s!ch be#orehe ranfor election as m!nicipal mayor of 3olinao on an!ary 18, 1988. Ae, therefore,hod th"t he $"s dis&u"ied to be%o#e " %"ndid"te for th"t o%e.

The reason for #ection ;8 of the Omni!s lection Code is not hard to &nd.Aesidence in the m!nicipality where he intends to r!n for elective o6ce for at leastone B1 year at the time of &ling his certi&cate of candidacy, is one of the

!ali&cations that a candidate for elective p!lic o6ce m!st possess B#ec. 0/,Chap. 1, Title /, "ocal Lovernment Code. ?i'ue did not !ossess th"t&u"i%"tion be%"use he $"s " !er#"nent resident of the United St"tes"nd he resided in oin"o for " !eriod of on+ three 3G #onths not one+e"rG "fter his return to the Phii!!ines in Nove#ber 19-7 "nd before her"n for #"+or of th"t #uni%i!"it+ on "nu"r+ 1-, 19--.

*n anning from elective p!lic o6ce Philippine citiens who are permanentresidents or immigrants of a foreign co!ntry, the Omni!s lection Code has laiddown a clear policy of e2cl!ding from the right to hold elective p!lic o6ce thosePhilippine citiens who possess du" o+"ties "nd "e'i"n%e. The law hasreserved that privilege for its citiens who have cast their lot with o!r co!ntryF$ithout #ent" reserv"tions or !ur!ose of ev"sion.F The ass!mption is that

those who are resident aliens of a foreign co!ntry are in%"!"be of su%h entiredevotion to the interest "nd $ef"re of their ho#e"nd for $ith one e+e ontheir !ubi% duties here, the+ #ust ee! "nother e+e on their duties underthe "$s of the forei'n %ountr+ of their %hoi%e in order to !reserve theirst"tus "s !er#"nent residents thereof.

4ig!el insists that even tho!gh he applied for immigration and permanentresidence in the :nited #tates, he never really intended to live there permanently,for all that he wanted was a green card to enale him to come and go to the :.#.with ease. *n other words, he wo!ld have this Co!rt elieve that he applied forimmigration to the :.#. under f"se !retenses that all this time he only had onefoot in the :nited #tates !t $ept his other foot in the Philippines. Even if th"t$ere true, this Court $i not "o$ itsef to be " !"rt+ to his du!i%it+ b+

!er#ittin' hi# to benet fro# it, "nd 'ivin' hi# the best of both $ordsso to s!e".

4ig!el's application for immigrant stat!s and permanent residence in the :.#. andhis possession of a green card attesting to s!ch stat!s are %on%usive !roof th"the is " !er#"nent resident of the U.S. despite his occasional visits to thePhilippines. The waiver of s!ch immigrant stat!s sho!ld e as ind!itale as hisapplication for it. bsent %e"r eviden%e th"t he #"de "n irrevo%"be $"iverof th"t st"tus or th"t he surrendered his 'reen %"rd to the "!!ro!ri"te


28/42

U.S. "uthorities before he r"n for #"+or of oin"o in the o%" ee%tions on"nu"r+ 1-, 19--, our %on%usion is th"t he $"s dis&u"ied to run for s"id!ubi% o%e, hen%e, his ee%tion thereto $"s nu "nd void.

?"%"int" v. Co#ee%

%ccordingly, #ection 0 of A.%. >o. 9189 provides for the coverage of the asenteevoting process, to wit@

SEC. =. ,overage.M %ll citiens of the Philippines aroad, who are not otherwisedis!ali&ed y law, at least eighteen B18 years of age on the day of elections, mayvote for president, vice-president, senators and party-list representatives.

which does not re!ire physical residency in the Philippines and #ection 5 of theassailed law which en!merates those who are dis!ali&ed, to wit@

SEC. 0. -isquali+cations. M The following shall e dis!ali&ed from voting !nderthis %ct@

a Those who have lost their +ilipino citienship in accordance with Philippine laws

Those who have e2pressly reno!nced their Philippine citienship and who havepledged allegiance to a foreign co!ntry

c Those who have committed and are convicted in a &nal

e %ny citien of the Philippines aroad previo!sly declared insane or incompetenty competent a!thority in the Philippines or aroad, as veri&ed y the Philippineemassies, cons!lates or foreign service estalishments concerned, !nless s!chcompetent a!thority s!se!ently certi&es that s!ch person is no longer insane orincompetent.

%s &nally approved into law, #ection 5Bd of A.%. >o. 9189 speci&cally dis!ali&esan i((i%rant or per(anent resi+entwho is Frecognied as s!ch in the host co!ntryFeca!se immigration or permanent residence in another co!ntry implies


29/42

ren!nciation of oneUs residence in his co!ntry of origin. )owever, same #ectionallows an immigrant and permanent resident aroad to register as voter for as longas heQshe e2ec!tes an a6davit to show that heQshe has not aandoned his domicilein p!rs!ance of the constit!tional intent e2pressed in #ections 1 and / of %rticle ?that Fallcitiens of the Philippines not otherwise dis!ali&ed y lawF m!st eentitled to e2ercise the right of s!rage and, that Congress m!st estalish a system

for asentee voting for otherwise, if act!al, physical residence in the Philippines isre!ired, there is no sense for the framers of the Constit!tion to mandate Congressto estalish a system for asentee voting.

Contrary to the claim of petitioner, the e2ec!tion of the a6davit itself is not theenaling or enfranchising act. The a6davit re!ired in #ection 5Bd is not only proofof the intention of the immigrant or permanent resident to go ac$ and res!meresidency in the Philippines, !t more signi&cantly, it serves as an e2plicite2pression that he had not in fact aandoned his domicile of origin. Th!s, it is notcorrect to say that the e2ec!tion of the a6davit !nder #ection 5Bd violates theConstit!tion that proscries Fprovisional registration or a promise y a voter toperform a condition to e !ali&ed to vote in a political e2ercise.F

To re!e"t, the "d"vit is re&uired of i##i'r"nts "nd !er#"nent residents"bro"d be%"use b+ their st"tus in their host %ountries, the+ "re !resu#edto h"ve rein&uished their intent to return to this %ountr+6 thus, $ithoutthe "d"vit, the !resu#!tion of "b"ndon#ent of Phii!!ine do#i%ie sh"re#"in.

+!rther per!sal of the transcripts of the #enate proceedings discloses anotherreason why the #enate re!ired the e2ec!tion of said a6davit. *t wanted the a6antto e2ercise the option to ret!rn or to e2press his intention to ret!rn to his domicileof origin and not to preempt that choice y legislation. Th!s@

Sen"tor n'"r". The r"tion"e for this, ?r. President, is th"t $e $"nt to bee*!"nsive "nd "


30/42

eca!se the Caasi case did not, for ovio!s reasons, consider the asentee votingrights of +ilipinos who are immigrants and permanent residents in their hostco!ntries.

*n the advent of T$e Overseas Absentee :otin% Act o# 3==> or /A/ ?0@?, they maystill e considered as a F!ali&ed citien of the Philippines aroadF !pon f!l&llment

of the re!irements of registration !nder the new law for the p!rpose of e2ercisingtheir right of s!rage.

*t m!st e emphasied that #ection 5Bd does not only re!ire an a6davit or apromise to Fres!me act!al physical permanent residence in the Philippines not laterthan three years from approval of hisQher registration,F the +ilipinos aroad m!stalso declare that they have not applied for citienship in another co!ntry. Th!s, theym!st ret!rn to the Philippines otherwise, their fail!re to ret!rn Fshall e ca!se forthe removalF of their names Ffrom the >ational Aegistry of %sentee ?oters andhisQher permanent dis!ali&cation to vote in absentia.F

Th!s, Congress crafted a process of registration y which a +ilipino voterpermanently residing aroad who is at least eighteen years old, not otherwise

dis!ali&ed y law, '$o $as not relin-uis$e+ P$ilippine citi*ens$ipand who has notact!ally aandoned hisQher intentions to ret!rn to hisQher domicile of origin, thePhilippines, is allowed to register and vote in the Philippine emassy, cons!late orother foreign service estalishments of the place which has

Th!s, #ection 11 of A.%. >o. 9189 provides@

#C. 11. Proced!re for %pplication to ?ote in %sentia. M

11.1. very !ali&ed citien of the Philippines aroad whose application forregistration has een approved, incl!ding those previo!sly registered !nderAep!lic %ct >o. 8189, shall, in every national election, &le with the o6cer of theemassy, cons!late or other foreign service estalishment a!thoried y theCommission, a sworn written application to vote in a form prescried y theCommission. The a!thoried o6cer of s!ch emassy, cons!late or other foreignservice estalishment shall transmit to the Commission the said application to votewithin &ve B5 days from receipt thereof. The application form shall e accomplishedin triplicate and s!mitted together with the photocopy of hisQher overseasasentee voter certi&cate of registration.

11./. very application to vote in absentiamay e done personally at, or y mail to,the emassy, cons!late or foreign service estalishment, which has

11.. Cons!lar and diplomatic services rendered in connection with the overseasasentee voting processes shall e made availale at no cost to the overseasasentee voter.

Contrary to petitionerUs claim that #ection 5Bd circ!mvents the Constit!tion,Congress enacted the law prescriing a system of overseas asentee voting incompliance with the constit!tional mandate. #!ch mandate e2pressly re!ires thatCongress provide a system of absentee votin%that necessarily pres!pposes that theF!ali&ed citien of the Philippines aroadF is not physically present in the co!ntry.


31/42

The provisions of #ections 5Bd and 11 are components of the system of overseasasentee voting estalished y A.%. >o. 9189. The !ali&ed +ilipino aroad whoe2ec!ted the a6davit is deemed to have retained his domicile in the Philippines. )eis pres!med not to have lost his domicile y his physical asence from this co!ntry.)is having ecome an immigrant or permanent resident of his host co!ntry does notnecessarily imply an aandonment of his intention to ret!rn to his domicile of origin,

the Philippines. Therefore, !nder the law, he m!st e given the opport!nity toe2press that he has not act!ally aandoned his domicile in the Philippines ye2ec!ting the a6davit re!ired y #ections 5Bd and 8Bc of the law.

PetitionerUs spec!lative apprehension that the implementation of #ection 5Bd wo!ldaect the crediility of the elections is insigni&cant as what is important is to ens!rethat all those who possess the !ali&cations to vote on the date of the election aregiven the opport!nity and permitted to freely do so. The CO4"C and the=epartment of +oreign %airs have eno!gh reso!rces and talents to ens!re theintegrity and crediility of any election cond!cted p!rs!ant to A.%. >o. 9189.

%s to the event!ality that the +ilipino aroad wo!ld renege on his !nderta$ing toret!rn to the Philippines, the penalty of perpet!al disenfranchisement provided for

y #ection 5Bd wo!ld s!6ce to serve as deterrence to non-compliance with hisQher!nderta$ing !nder the a6davit.

Petitioner arg!es that sho!ld a siale n!mer of FimmigrantsF renege on theirpromise to ret!rn, the res!lt of the elections wo!ld e aected and co!ld even e agro!nd to contest the proclamation of the winning candidates and ca!se f!rtherconf!sion and do!t on the integrity of the res!lts of the election. *ndeed, theproaility that after an immigrant has e2ercised the right to vote, he shall opt toremain in his host co!ntry eyond the third year from the e2ec!tion of the a6davit,is not farfetched. )owever, it is not for this Co!rt to determine the wisdom of alegislative e2ercise. %s e2pressed in Taa+a vs/ Tuvera,0(the Co!rt is not called!pon to r!le on the wisdom of the law or to repeal it or modify it if we &nd itimpractical.

Congress itself was conscio!s of said proaility and in fact, it has addressed thee2pected prolem. #ection 5Bd itself provides for a deterrence which is that the+ilipino who fails to ret!rn as promised stands to lose his right of s!rage. :nder#ection 9, sho!ld a registered overseas asentee voter fail to vote for twoconsec!tive national elections, his name may e ordered removed from the >ationalAegistry of Overseas %sentee ?oters.

Other serio!s legal !estions that may e raised wo!ld e@ what happens to thevotes cast y the !ali&ed voters aroad who were not ale to ret!rn within threeyears as promisedI Hhat is the eect on the votes cast y the non-ret!rnees infavor of the winning candidatesI The votes cast y !ali&ed +ilipinos aroad whofailed to ret!rn within three years shall not e invalidated eca!se they were

!ali&ed to vote on the date of the elections, !t their fail!re to ret!rn shall eca!se for the removal of the names of the immigrants or permanent residents fromthe >ational Aegistry of %sentee ?oters and their permanent dis!ali&cation tovote in absentia.

*n &ne, considering the !nderlying intent of the Constit!tion, the Co!rt does not &nd#ection 5Bd of A.%. >o. 9189 as constit!tionally defective.

Ni%o"s


32/42

%fter what appears to e a s!ccessf!l application for recognition of Philippinecitienship !nder A.%. 9189, petitioners now invo$e their right to en.o, B politicalri%$ts)speci&cally the right of s!rage, p!rs!ant to #ection 5 thereof.

Opposing the petitionersU id, however, respondent CO4"C invitesattention to the same #ection 5 B1 providing that Xd!alsY can en


33/42

when #enate 3ill >o. /1(0, which ecame A.%. >o. 9189, was delierated !pon onthe #enate Goor, th!s@

Senator Arro,o. 4r. President, this ill sho!ld e loo$ed into in relation to theconstit!tional provisions. * thin$ the sponsor and * wo!ld agree that the Constit!tionis s!preme in any stat!te that we may enact.

"et me read #ection 1, %rticle ?, of the Constit!tion V.

>ow, 4r. President, the Constit!tion says, Xwho shall have resided inthe Philippines.Y They are permanent immigrants. They have changed residence sothey are arred !nder the Constit!tion. This is why * as$ed whether this committeeamendment which in fact does not alter the original te2t of the ill will have anyeect on thisI

Senator An%ara. Lood !estion, 4r. President. %nd this has een as$ed in vario!sfora. This is in compliance with the Constit!tion. One, the interpretation here ofXresidenceY is synonymo!s with Xdomicile.Y

%s the gentleman and * $now, 4r. President, XdomicileY is the intent to ret!rn to

one's home. And the fact that a )ilipino may have been physically absentfrom the Philippines and may be physically a resident of the /nited0tates& for example& but has a clear intent to return to the Philippines& willma%e him quali+ed as a resident of the Philippines under this law .

This is consistent, 4r. President, with the constit!tional mandate that we M thatCongress M m!st provide a franchise to overseas +ilipinos.

If we read the ,onstitution and the su5rage principle literally asdemanding physical presence& then there is no way we can provide foro5shore voting to our o5shore %ababayan, 4r. President.

Senator Arro,o. 4r. President, when the Constit!tion says, in #ection / of %rticle ?,

it reads@ XThe Congress shall provide a system for sec!ring the secrecy and sanctityof the allot as well as a system for asentee voting y !ali&ed +ilipinos aroad.Y

'he %ey to this whole exercise& 2r! President& is 6quali+ed!7 In otherwords& anything that we may do or say in granting our compatriots abroadmust be anchored on the proposition that they are quali+ed! Absent thequali+cation& they cannot vote! And 6residents7 Bsicis a quali+cation.

"oo$ at what the Constit!tion says M X*n the place wherein they propose tovote for at least si2 months immediately preceding the election.Y

4r. President, all of !s here have r!n Bsic for o6ce.

* live in 4a$ati. 4y neighor is Pateros V. He are separated only y a cree$. 3!tone who votes in 4a$ati cannot vote in Pateros !nless he resides in Pateros for si2months. That is how restrictive o!r Constit!tion is. V.

%s * have said, if a voter in 4a$ati wo!ld want to vote in Pateros, yes, he may doso. 3!t he m!st do so, ma$e the transfer si2 months efore the election, otherwise,he is not !ali&ed to vote.

Senator An%ara. *t is a good point to raise, 4r. President. 3!t it is a point alreadywell-deated even in the constit!tional commission of 198;. And the reason


34/42

0ection # of Article 8 was placed immediately after the six.month9one.year residency requirement is to demonstrate unmista%ably that 0ection #which authorizes absentee voting is an exception to the six.month9one.year residency requirement. That is the &rst principle, 4r. President, that onem!st rememer.

The second reason, 4r. President, is that !nder o!r

ut the third #ore !r"%ti%" re"son, J is, if$e foo$ the inter!ret"tion of the 'ente#"n, then it is e'"+ "nd%onstitution"+ i#!ossibe to 'ive " fr"n%hise to vote to overse"s Fii!inos$ho do not !h+si%"+ ive in the %ountr+, $hi%h is &uite ridi%uousbe%"use th"t is e*"%t+ the $hoe !oint of this e*er%ise > to enfr"n%hisethe# "nd e#!o$er the# to vote.D10EBmphasis and words in rac$et addedcitations omitted

"est it e overloo$ed, no less than the CO4"C itself admits that the Citi*ens$ipetention an+ e8Ac-uisition Act e2panded the coverage of overseas asentee

voting. %ccording to the poll ody@1.(5 Hith the passage of A% 9//5 the scope of overseas asentee voting haseen conse!ently e2panded so as to incl!de +ilipinos who are also citiens of otherco!ntries, s!


35/42

to A.%. 9189, e denied the right of s!rage as an overseas asentee voter.Congress co!ld not have pla!sily intended s!ch as!rd sit!ation.

%ccordingly,the Co!rt r!les and so holds that those who retain or re-ac!irePhilippine citienship !nderDe!ubi% %t No. 90, the Citi*ens$ip etention an+e8Ac-uisition Act o# 3==>, may e2ercise the right to vote !nder the system of

asentee voting in De!ubi% %t No. 91-9, the Overseas Absentee :otin% Act o#3==>.

"o vs. C"

The facts in Eusebio were dierent from those in the case at ar. The decedenttherein, %ndres !seio, passed away while in the process of transferring hispersonal elongings to a ho!se in J!eon City. )e was then s!ering from a heartailment and was advised y his doctorQson to p!rchase a J!eon City residence,which was nearer to his doctor. Hhile he was ale to ac!ire a ho!se in J!eonCity, !seio died even efore he co!ld move therein. *n said case, we r!led that!seio retained his domicile --- and hence, residence --- in #an +ernando,Pampanga. *t cannot e said that !seio changed his residence eca!se, strictly

spea$ing, his physical presence in J!eon City was

+!rthermore, the decedentsU respective death certi&cates state that they were othresidents of J!eon City at the time of their demise. #igni&cantly, it was petitionerhimself who &lled !p his late motherUs death certi&cate. To o!r mind, this!n!ali&edly shows that at that time, at least, petitioner recognied his deceasedmotherUs residence to e J!eon City. 4oreover, petitioner failed to contest theentry in *gnacioUs death certi&cate, accomplished a year earlier y respondent.

The recitals in the death certi&cates, which are admissile in evidence, were th!sproperly considered and pres!med to e correct y the co!rt a -uo. He agree withthe appellate co!rtUs oservation that since the death certi&cates wereaccomplished even efore petitioner and respondent !arreled over theirinheritance, they may e relied !pon to reGect the tr!e sit!ation at the time of theirparentsU death.

The death certi&cates th!s prevailed as proofs of the decedentsU residence "t theti#e of de"th,over the n!mero!s doc!mentary evidence presented y petitioner.To e s!re, the doc!ments presented y petitioner pertained not toresiden%e "tthe ti#e of de"th,as re!ired y the A!les of Co!rt, !t to !er#"nentresiden%e or do#i%ie. *n Garcia8Fule v/ Court o# Appeals)1;we held@

222 222 222 the term FresidesF connotes e" vi ter(iniFact!al residenceF asdisting!ished from Flegal residence or domicile.F This term FresidesF, li$e the termsFresidingF and FresidenceF, is elastic and sho!ld e interpreted in the light of theo


36/42

terms are synonymo!s, and convey the same meaning as the term Finhaitant.F *nother words, FresidesF sho!ld e viewed or !nderstood in its pop!lar sense,meaning, the personal, act!al or physical haitation of a person, act!al residence orplace of aode. *t signi&es physical presence in a place and act!al stay thereat. *nthis pop!lar sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal residence,not legal residence or domicile. Aesidence simply re!ires odily presence as an

inhaitant in a given place, while domicile re!ires odily presence in that placeand also an intention to ma$e it oneUs domicile. >o partic!lar length of time ofresidence is re!ired tho!gh however, the residence m!st e more thantemporary.17

3oth the settlement co!rt and the Co!rt of %ppeals fo!nd that the decedents haveeen living with petitioner at the time of their deaths and for some time priorthereto. He &nd this concl!sion to e s!stantiated y the evidence on record. %close per!sal of the challenged decision shows that, contrary to petitionerUsassertion, the co!rt elow considered not only the decedentsU physical presence inJ!eon City, !t also other factors indicating that the decedentsU stay therein wasmore than temporary. *n the asence of any s!stantial showing that the lowerco!rtsU fact!al &ndings stemmed from an erroneo!s apprehension of the evidence

presented, the same m!st e held to e concl!sive and inding !pon this Co!rt.

N"tion"it+ "nd 4o#i%ie of Cor!or"tions

2"#bo" v. Teves :de%ision;

Co(pliance 'it$ t$e re-uire+ Filipino o'ners$ip o# a corporation s$all be+eter(ine+ on t$e basis o# outstan+in% capital stoc5 '$et$er #ull, pai+ or not) butonl, suc$ stoc5s '$ic$ are %enerall, entitle+ to vote are consi+ere+/

For stoc5s to be +ee(e+ o'ne+ an+ $el+ b, P$ilippine citi*ens or P$ilippinenationals) (ere le%al title is not enou%$ to (eet t$e re-uire+ Filipino e-uit,/ Fullbene9cial o'ners$ip o# t$e stoc5s) couple+ 'it$ appropriate votin% ri%$ts isessential/ T$us) stoc5s) t$e votin% ri%$ts o# '$ic$ $ave been assi%ne+ or trans#erre+to aliens cannot be consi+ere+ $el+ b, P$ilippine citi*ens or P$ilippine nationals/

In+ivi+uals or .uri+ical entities not (eetin% t$e a#ore(entione+ -uali9cations areconsi+ere+ as non8P$ilippine nationals/ E(p$asis supplie+

4ere legal title is ins!6cient to meet the ;( percent +ilipino-owned FcapitalFre!ired in the Constit!tion. +!ll ene&cial ownership of ;( percent of theo!tstanding capital stoc$, co!pled with ;( percent of the voting rights, is re!ired.The legal and ene&cial ownership of ;( percent of the o!tstanding capital stoc$m!st rest in the hands of +ilipino nationals in accordance with the constit!tionalmandate. Otherwise, the corporation is Fconsidered as non-Philippine nationalDsE.F

:nder #ection 1(, %rticle W** of the Constit!tion, Congress may Freserve to citiensof the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least si2typer centu(ofwhose capital is owned y s!ch citiens, or s!ch higher percentage as Congressmay prescrie, certain areas of investments.F Th!s, in n!mero!s laws Congress hasreserved certain areas of investments to +ilipino citiens or to corporations at leastsi2ty percent of the F%"!it"F of which is owned y +ilipino citiens. #ome of theselaws are@ B1 Aeg!lation of %ward of Lovernment Contracts or A.%. >o. 518 B/Philippine *nventors *ncentives %ct or A.%. >o. 85( B 4agna Carta for 4icro,


37/42

#mall and 4edi!m nterprises or A.%. >o. ;977 B0 Philippine Overseas #hipping=evelopment %ct or A.%. >o. 7071 B5 =omestic #hipping =evelopment %ct of /((0or A.%. >o. 9/95 B; Philippine Technology Transfer %ct of /((9 or A.%. >o. 1((55and B7 #hip 4ortgage =ecree or P.=. >o. 15/1. )ence, the term F%"!it"F in #ection11, %rticle W** of the Constit!tion is also !sed in the s"#e %onte*tin nu#erous"$sreserving certain areas of investments to +ilipino citiens.

To constr!e roadly the term FcapitalF as the total o!tstanding capital stoc$,incl!ding oth common and non8votin%preferred shares, grossly contravenes theintent and letter of the Constit!tion that the F#tate shall develop a self-reliant andindependent national economy e5ectively controlledy +ilipinos.F % roadde&nition !n

He shall ill!strate the glaring anomaly in giving a road de&nition to the termFcapital.F "et !s ass!me that a corporation has 1(( common shares owned yforeigners and 1,(((,((( non-voting preferred shares owned y +ilipinos, with othclasses of share having a par val!e of one peso BP1.(( per share. :nder the roadde&nition of the term Fcapital,F s!ch corporation wo!ld e considered compliant

with the 0( percent constit!tional limit on foreign e!ity of p!lic !tilities since theoverwhelming ma


38/42

of common shares have voting rights for all p!rposes, while holders of preferredshares have no voting right for any p!rpose whatsoever.

*t m!st e stressed, and res!ondents do not dis!ute, that foreigners hold ama


39/42

constit!ting a minority of the voting stoc$, and th!s do not e2ercise control overP"=T B preferred shares, 99.00[ owned y +ilipinos, have no voting rights B0preferred shares earn only 1Q7( of the dividends that common shares earn;B5preferred shares have twice the par val!e of common shares and B; preferredshares constit!te 77.85[ of the a!thoried capital stoc$ of P"=T and commonshares only //.15[. This $ind of ownership and control of a p!lic !tility is a

moc$ery of the Constit!tion.

*ncidentally, the fact that P"=T common shares with a par val!e of P5.(( have ac!rrent stoc$ mar$et val!e ofP/,/8.(( per share,;0while P"=T preferred shareswith a par val!e of P1(.(( per share have a c!rrent stoc$ mar$et val!e ranging fromonly P1(.9/ to P11.(; per share,;5is a glaring con&rmation y the mar$et thatcontrol and ene&cial ownership of P"=T rest with the common shares, not with thepreferred shares.

*ndisp!taly, constr!ing the term FcapitalF in #ection 11, %rticle W** of theConstit!tion to incl!de oth voting and non-voting shares will res!lt in the a


40/42

ven with the chance granted to the p!lic !tilities to remedy their s!pposedde&ciency, the ne!lo!s time-frame given y the ma

Crisosto#o vs SEC

He &nd no merit in the petition. The &rst allegation that the #C en banc erred inreversing the orders of the hearing o6cer, steves, is the same gro!nd raised ythe petitioner in C%-L.A. >o. #P 1705. The iss!e is frivolo!s for the a!thority of the#C en banc to review, revise, reverse, or a6rm orders of its hearing o6cers is tooelementary to warrant any deate.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_176579_2012.html#fnt166vhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_176579_2012.html#fnt167vhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_176579_2012.html#fnt168vhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_176579_2012.html#fnt169vhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_176579_2012.html#fnt166vhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_176579_2012.html#fnt167vhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_176579_2012.html#fnt168vhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_176579_2012.html#fnt169v


41/42

!ally !nmeritorio!s are the second and third gro!nds of the petition R that theP57 million investment of the apanese gro!p in :=4C violates the constit!tionalprovisions restricting the transfer or conveyance of private lands B%rt. W***, #ec. 7,1987 Constit!tion and the ownership of ed!cational instit!tions B%rt. W?*, #ec.10DaE, 1987 Constit!tion, to citiens of the Philippines or corporations at least ;([of the capital of which is owned y +ilipino citiens. Hhile 8/[ of :=4C's capital

stoc$ is indeed s!scried y the apanese gro!p, only ([ Be!ivalent to 171,7/1shares or P17,17/.(( is owned y the apanese citiens, namely, the amadaspo!ses and Tomotada nats!. 5/[ is owned y dita nats!, who is a +ilipino.%ccordingly, in its application for approvalQregistration of the foreign e!ityinvestments of these investors, :=4C declared that =K o# its capital stoc5 iso'ne+ b, Filipino citi*ens, incl!ding dita nats!. That application was approved ythe Central 3an$ on %!g!st , 1988 Bp. /09, Aollo,.

The investments in :=4C of =octors amada and nats! do not violate theConstit!tional prohiition against foreigners practising a profession in thePhilippines B#ection 10, %rticle W**, 1987 Constit!tion for they do not practice theirprofession Bmedicine in the Philippines, neither have they applied for a license todo so. They only own shares of stoc$ in a corporation that operates a hospital. >o

law limits the sale of hospital shares of stoc$ to doctors only. The ownership of s!chshares does not amo!nt to engaging Billegally, in the practice of medicine, or,n!rsing. *f it were otherwise, the petitioner's stoc$holding in :=4C wo!ld also eillegal.

The #C's orders dated !ne /7, 1989 and !ly /1, 1989 Bdirecting the secretary of:=4C to call a stoc$holders' meeting, etc. are not premat!re, despite thepetitioner's then pending motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Co!rt of%ppeals. The lifting y the Co!rt of %ppeals of its writ of preliminary ino. 1705 cleared the way for the implementation y the #C's enbanc resol!tion in #C 3 Case >o. 191. The #C need not wait for the Co!rt of%ppeals to resolve the petitioner's motion for reconsideration for a

*t o. 771; B1 impairs the oligations ofcontracts, B/ classi&es transactions as covered or e2empt witho!t reasonale asisand B violates the r!le that ta2es sho!ld e !niform and e!itale and thatCongress shall Fevolve a progressive system of ta2ation.F

Hith respect to the &rst contention, it is claimed that the application of the ta2 toe2isting contracts of the sale of real property y installment or on deferred paymentasis wo!ld res!lt in s!stantial increases in the monthly amortiations to e paideca!se of the 1([ ?%T. The additional amo!nt, it is pointed o!t, is something thatthe !yer did not anticipate at the time he entered into the contract.

The short answer to this is the one given y this Co!rt in an early case@ F%!thoritiesfrom n!mero!s so!rces are cited y the plaintis, !t none of them show that alawf!l ta2 on a new s!


42/42

contract or impairs its oligation, within the meaning of the Constit!tion. ventho!gh s!ch ta2ation may aect partic!lar contracts, as it may increase the det ofone person and lessen the sec!rity of another, or may impose additional !rdens!pon one class and release the !rdens of another, still the ta2 m!st e paid !nlessprohiited y the Constit!tion, nor can it e said that it impairs the oligation of anye2isting contract in its tr!e legal sense.F B"a *ns!lar v. 4ach!ca Lo-Ta!co and >!la

Co-#iong, 9 Phil. 5;7, 570 B1919. *ndeed not only e2isting laws !t also Ft$ereservation o# t$e essential attributes o# soverei%nt,, is . . . read into contracts as apost!late of the legal order.F BPhilippine-%merican "ife *ns. Co. v. %!ditor Leneral, //#CA% 15, 107 B19;8 Contracts m!st e !nderstood as having een made inreference to the possile e2ercise of the rightf!l a!thority of the government and nooligation of contract can e2tend to the defeat of that a!thority. B>orman v.3altimore and Ohio A.A., 79 ". d. 885 B195.

*t is ne2t pointed o!t that while 0 of A.%. >o. 771; e2empts s!ch transactions asthe sale of agric!lt!ral prod!cts, food items, petrole!m, and medical and veterinaryservices, it grants no e2emption on the sale of real property which is e!allyessential. The sale of real property for socialied and low-cost ho!sing is e2emptedfrom the ta2, !t CA3% claims that real estate transactions of Fthe less poor,F i.e.,

the middle class, who are e!ally homeless, sho!ld li$ewise e e2empted.

The sale of food items, petrole!m, medical and veterinary services, etc., which areessential goods and services was already e2empt !nder 1(, pars. B Bd B1 of the>*AC efore the enactment of A.%. >o. 771;. Petitioner is in error in claiming thatA.%. >o. 771; granted e2emption to these transactions, while s!agliling$od sa Pamahalaan ngPilipinas, *nc. v. Tan, 1; #CA% 71 B1988.

+inally, it is contended, for the reasons already noted, that A.%. >o. 771; alsoviolates %rt. ?*, /8B1 which provides that FThe r!le of ta2ation shall e !niformand e!itale. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of ta2ation.F

!ality and !niformity of ta2ation means that all ta2ale articles or $inds ofproperty of the same class e ta2ed at the same rate. The ta2ing power has thea!thority to ma$e reasonale and nat!ral classi&cations for p!rposes of ta2ation. Tosatisfy this re!irement it is eno!gh that the stat!te or ordinance applies e!ally to

all persons, forms and corporations placed in similar sit!ation. BCity of 3ag!io v. =e"eon, supra #ison, r. v. %ncheta, supra

Conflict of Laws Rulings

Documents

Transcript of Conflict of Laws Rulings