Scribd
Upload
9 views1 page

Calilung V Datumanong Digest

The case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9225, which allows dual citizenship for natural-born Filipino citizens who acquire foreign citizenship. The court ruled that the act does not recognize dual allegiance and is not unconstitutional, as it allows individuals to retain Philippine citizenship while implicitly renouncing foreign citizenship. The court also stated that it is premature to address issues of dual allegiance until Congress establishes specific parameters regarding it.

Uploaded by

BS
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views1 page

Calilung V Datumanong Digest

The case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9225, which allows dual citizenship for natural-born Filipino citizens who acquire foreign citizenship. The court ruled that the act does not recognize dual allegiance and is not unconstitutional, as it allows individuals to retain Philippine citizenship while implicitly renouncing foreign citizenship. The court also stated that it is premature to address issues of dual allegiance until Congress establishes specific parameters regarding it.

Uploaded by

BS
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

AASJS (ADVOCATES AND ADHERENTS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR SCHOOL TEACHERS AND ALLIED

WORKERS) MEMBER - HECTOR GUMANGAN CALILUNG, Petitioner, - versus - THE HONORABLE


SIMEON DATUMANONG, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Justice, Respondent. G.R. No.
160869, EN BANC, May 11, 2007, QUISUMBING, J.

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.

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a petition and prays that a writ of prohibition be issued to stop respondent from
implementing Republic Act No. 9225, entitled "An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who
Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63, As
Amended, and for Other Purposes" which he avers that Rep. Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates
Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that states, "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by law." R.A. 9225: SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -It is hereby
declared the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall
be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act. SEC. 3. Retention
of Philippine Citizenship. -Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of
the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of
allegiance to the Republic.

ISSUE:

(1) Is Rep. Act No. 9225 unconstitutional? (2) Does this Court have jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of
dual allegiance?

RULING:

No. Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy, and it is not a self-executing
provision. 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. On the other hand, Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would
set specific parameters of what really constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is done, it would be premature
for the judicial department, including this Court, to rule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy