Valles v. COMELEC
– Australian citizenship; governor of Davao Oriental - Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of the place of birth; The signing into law of the 1935 Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for acquisition of Philippine citizenship; The mere fact of a person is a holder of an Australian passport and has an ACR are not acts constituting an
effective renunciation of citizenship and don’t militate against her claim of Philippine citizenship; For candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough that they elect Philippine citizenship upon the filing of their
certificate of candidacy to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship; A declaration to support and defend the Constitution is effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.
Mercado v. Manzano
– candidates for vice-mayor of Makati -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. Dual allegiance 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 a result of an individual’s volition;
Under our Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship:
a. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli
b. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers’ country such children are citizens of that country
c. 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 their Philippine citizenship
Calilung v. Datumanong
constitutionality of the Dual Citizenship Law (RA 9225) – What RA 9225 does is dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who has 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
Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita
–appointment of Ong to the SC; naturalborn – the alleged subsequent recognition of a person’s natural-born status by the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ cannot amend the final decision of the trial court stating such individual and his mother were NATURALIZED along with his father; No substantial change or correction in an entry in a civil register can be made without a
judicial order; change of citizenship status is a substantial change
Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC
– citizenship retention; absentee voting – There is no provision in the law requiring “duals” to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote; RA 9225 makes the implicit recognition that “duals” are most likely non-residents; derivative citizenship (Derivative citizenship - unmarried child below 18 years of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of the Act shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines).
Petition for Leave to Resume the Practice of Law of Benjamin Dacanay
– A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225 but although he is also deemed to never have terminated his membership in the Philippine Bar, no automatic right to resume the practice of law accrues; must comply with IBP requirements and take the lawyer’s oath again.