G.R. No.

142840      May 7, 2001 Main Issue

ANTONIO BENGSON III, petitioner, The main question here is: Did the House of Representatives Electoral
vs. Tribunal (HRET) commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that, by reason
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and of his repatriation, Congressman Teodoro C. Cruz had reverted to his
TEODORO C. CRUZ, respondents. original status as a natural-born citizen? I respectfully submit that the answer
is "No." In fact, I believe that the HRET was correct in its ruling.
CONCURRING OPINION
1. Repatriation Is Recovery of Original Citizenship
PANGANIBAN, J.:
First,  repatriation is simply the recovery of original  citizenship. Under
I concur in the ponencia of Mr. Justice Santiago M. Kapunan, holding that Section 1 of RA 2630, a person "who ha[s] lost his citizenship" may
the House Electoral Tribunal did not gravely abuse its discretion in ruling that "reacquire" it by " taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Private Respondent Teodoro C. Cruz remains a natural-born Filipino citizen Philippines." Former Senate President Jovito R. Salonga, a noted authority
and is eligible to continue being a member of Congress. Let me just add a on the subject, explains this method more precisely in his treatise, Private
few points. International Law.5 He defines repatriation as "the recovery of
the original nationality upon fulfillment of certain condition."6 Webster
buttresses this definition by describing the ordinary or common usage
The Facts in Brief of repatriate, as "to restore or return to one's country of origin, allegiance, or
citizenship; x x x."7 In relation to our subject matter, repatriation,  then,
It is undisputed that Congressman Cruz was born on April 27, 1960 in San means restoration of citizenship. It is not a grant of a new citizenship, but a
Clemente, Tarlac, to Filipino parents. He was, therefore, a Filipino citizen, recovery of one's former or original citizenship.
pursuant to Section 1 (2),1 Article IV of the Constitution. Furthermore, not
having done any act to acquire or perfect the Philippine citizenship he To "reacquire" simply means "to get back as one's own again." 8 Ergo,  since
obtained from birth, he was a natural-born Filipino citizen, in Cruz, prior to his becoming a US citizen, was a natural-born Filipino citizen,
accordance with Section 22 of the same Article IV. he "reacquired" the same status upon repatriation. To rule otherwise – that
Cruz became a non-natural-born citizen – would not be consistent whit the
It is not disputed either that private respondent rendered military service to legal and ordinary meaning of repatriation. It would be akin to naturalization,
the United States Marine Corps from November 1958 to October 1993. On which is the acquisition of a new citizenship. "New." Because it is not the
June 5, 1990, he was naturalized as an American citizen, in connection with same as the with which he has previously been endowed.
his US military service. Consequently, under Section 1 (4)3 of CA No. 63, he
lost his Philippine citizenship. In any case, "the leaning, in questions of citizenship, should always be in
favor of [its] claimant x x x."9 Accordingly, the same should be construed in
Upon his discharge from the US Marine Corps, private respondent returned favor of private respondent, who claims to be a natural-born citizen.
to the Philippines and decided to regain his Filipino citizenship. Thus, on
March 17, 1994, availing himself of the benefits of Republic Act (RA) No. 2. Not Being Naturalized, Respondent Is Natural Born
2630, entitled "An Act Providing for Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by
Persons Who Lost Such by Rendering Service to, or Accepting Commission
in, the Armed Force of the United States,"4 Cruz took his oath of allegiance Second, under the present Constitution, private respondent should be
to the Republic and registered the same with the Local Civil Registry of deemed natural-born, because was not naturalized. Let me explain.
Mangatarem, Pangasinan. On the same day, he also executed an Affidavit
of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship. There are generally two classes of citizens: (1) natural-born citizens and (2)
naturalized citizens.10 While CA 63 provides that citizenship may also be
acquired by direct act of the Legislature, I believe that those who do become 3. No Grave Abuse of Discretion on the Part of HRET
citizens through such procedure would properly fall under the second
category (naturalized).11 Third,  the HRET did not abuse, much less gravely abuse, its discretion in
holding that Respondent Cruz is a natural-born Filipino citizen who is
Naturalized citizens are former aliens or foreigners who had to undergo a qualified to be a member of Congress. I stress that the Court, in this
rigid procedure, in which they had to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that certiorari proceeding before us, is limited to determining whether the HRET
they possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
provided by law in order to become Filipino citizens. In contrast, as stated in jurisdiction in issuing its assailed Decision. The Court has no power to
the early case Roa v. Collector of Customs,12 a natural-born citizen is a reverse or modify HRET's rulings, simply because it differs in its perception
citizen "who has become such at the moment of his birth." of controversies. It cannot substitute its discretion for that of HRET, an
independent, constitutional body with its own specific mandate.
The assailed HRET Decision, penned by Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza,
explains clearly who are considered natural-born Filipino citizens. He traces The Constitution explicitly states that the respective Electoral Tribunals of
the concept as first defined in Article III of the 1973 Constitution, which the chambers of Congress "shall be the sole judges of all contests relating to
simply provided as follows: the election, returns, and qualifications their respective members."16 In
several cases,17 this Court has held that the power and the jurisdiction of the
"Sec 4. A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Electoral Tribunals are original and exclusive, as if they remained in the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire legislature, a coequal branch of government. Their judgment are beyond
or perfect his Philippine citizenship." judicial interference, unless rendered without or in excess of their jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion.18 In the elegant words of Mr. Justice Hugo
E. Gutierrez Jr.:19
Under the above definition, there are two requisites in order that a Filipino
citizen may be considered "natural-born": (1) one must be a citizen of the
Philippines from birth, and (2) one does not have to do anything to acquire or "The Court does not venture into the perilous area of trying to
perfect one's Philippine citizenship.13 Thus, under the 1973 Constitution, correct perceived errors of independent branches of the
excluded from the class of "natural-born citizens" were (1) those who were Government. It comes in only when it has to vindicate a denial of
naturalized and (2) those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers due process or correct an abuse of discretion so grave or glaring
who, upon reaching the age of majority, elected Philippine citizenship.14 that no less than the Constitution calls for remedial action."

The present Constitution, however, has expanded the scope of natural-born True, there is no settled judicial doctrine on the exact effect of repatriation.
citizens to include "[t]hose who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance But, as earlier explained, the legal and common definition of repatriation is
with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof," meaning those covered under class the reacquisition of the former citizenship. How then can the HRET be
(2) above. Consequently, only naturalized Filipino citizens are not rebuked with grave abuse of discretion? At best, I can concede that the legal
considered natural-born citizens. Premising therefrom, respondent – being definition is not judicially settled or is even doubtful. But
clearly and concededly not naturalized – is, therefore, a natural-born citizen an interpretation made in good faith and grounded o reason one way or the
of the Philippines.15 other cannot be the source of grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The HRET did not violate the Constitution or the law or any
settled judicial doctrine. It was definitely acting within its exclusive domain.
With respect to repatriates, since the Constitution does not classify them
separately, they naturally reacquire their original classification before the
loss of their Philippine citizenship. In the case of Congressman Teodoro C. Be it remembered that our Constitution vests upon the HRET the power to
Cruz, upon his repatriation in1994, he reacquired his lost citizenship. In other be the sole  judge of the qualifications of members of the House of
words, he regained his original status as a natural-born Filipino citizen, Representatives, one of which is citizenship. Absent any clear  showing of a
nothing less. manifest violation of the Constitution or the law or nay judicial decision, this
Court cannot impute grave abuse of discretion to the HRET in the latter's
actions on matters over which full discretionary authority is lodged upon it by to cause elective offices to be filled by those who are the choice of the
our fundamental law.20 Even assuming that we disagree with the conclusion majority. To successfully challenge a winning candidate's qualifications, the
of public respondent, we cannot ipso facto attribute to it "grave abuse of petitioner must clearly demonstrative that the ineligibility is so patently
discretion." Verily, there is a line between perceived error and grave abuse.21 antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles that overriding such
ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the people would
By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic institutions and
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and
discretion is not enough. "It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the promote."28
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion
or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an 5. Current Trend Towards Globalization
evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined
or to act at all in contemplation of law."22 Fifth,  the current trend, economically as well as politically, is towards
globalization.29 Protectionist barriers dismantled. Whereas, in the past,
That the HRET, after careful deliberation and purposeful study, voted 7 to 2 governments frowned upon the opening of their doors to aliens who wanted
to issue its Decision upholding the qualifications of Congressman Cruz could to enjoy the same privileges as their citizens, the current era is adopting a
not in any wise be condemned as gravely abusive. Neither can I find any more liberal perspective. No longer are applicants for citizenship eyed with
"patent or gross" arbitrariness or despotism "by reason of passion or the suspicion that they merely want to exploit local resources for themselves.
hostility" in such exercise. They are now being considered potential sources of developmental skills,
know-how and capital.1âwphi1.nêt
4. In Case of Doubt,  Popular Will Prevails
More so should our government open its doors to former Filipinos, like
Fourth, the court has a solemn duty to uphold the clear and unmistakable Congressman Cruz, who want to rejoin the Filipino community as citizens
mandate of the people. It cannot supplant the sovereign will of the Second again. They are not "aliens" in the true sense of the law. They are actually
District of Pangasinan with fractured legalism. The people of the District Filipino by blood, by origin and by culture, who want to reacquire their former
have clearly spoken. They overwhelmingly and unequivocally voted for citizenship.
private respondent to represent them in the House of Representatives. The
votes that Cruz garnered (80, 119) in the last elections were much more than It cannot be denied that most Filipinos go abroad and apply for naturalization
those of all his opponents combined (66, 182).23 In such instances, all in foreign countries, because of the great economic or social opportunities
possible doubts should be resolved in favor of the winning candidate's there. Hence, we should welcome former Filipino citizens desirous of not
eligibility; to rule otherwise would be to defeat the will of the people.24 simply returning to the country or regaining Philippine citizenship, but of
serving the Filipino people as well. One of these admirable Filipino is private
Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that in case of doubt, respondent who, in only a year after being absent from the Philippines for
political laws must be so constructed as to give life and spirit to the popular about eight (8) years, was already voted municipal mayor of Mangatarem,
mandate freely expressed through the ballot.25 Public interest and the Pangasinan. And after serving as such for just one term, he was
sovereign will should, at all times, be the paramount considerations in overwhelmingly chosen by the people to be their representative in Congress.
election controversies.26 For it would be better to err in favor of the people's
choice than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms.27 I reiterate, the people have spoken. Let not a restrictive and parochial
interpretation of the law bar the sovereign will. Let not grave abuse be
"Indeed, this Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of giving effect to imputed on the legitimate exercise of HRET's prerogatives.
the sovereign will in order to ensure the survival of our democracy. In any
action involving the possibility of a reversal of the popular electoral choice, WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the petition.
this Court must exert utmost effort to resolve the issues in a manner that
would give effect to the will of the majority, for it is merely sound public policy
 8
Footnote  Webster's, ibid., defines reacquire  as "to acquire again",
and acquire  as "to get as one's own."
1
 "Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
9
 Roa v. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil 315, 338 (1912), per
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; Trent, J.;  citing Boyd v. Thaye,  143 US 135.

10
x x x      x x x      x x x"  Ronaldo P. Ledesma, An Outline of Philippine Immigration and
Citizenship Laws,  1999 ed., p. 354. See also  14 CJS S1, 1128; 3A
2
Am Jur 2d aliens and Citizens, s1411.
 "Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens from
birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their 11
Philippine citizenship. x x x."  See  Ledesma, ibid., p. 355.

12
3
 "Section 1. How citizenship may be lost. –  A Filipino citizen may  Supra.
lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events:
13
 Assailed Decision, p. 8.
x x x      x x x      x x x"
14
 Ibid.
(4) By rendering services to, or accepting commission in,
15
the armed forces of a foreign country: x x x ."  Ibid., p. 9.

4 16
 Sec. 1 thereof provides:  Sec.17, Art. IV. (Emphasis ours.)

17
"Sec. 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship  Lazatin v. HRET,  168 SCRA 391, December 8, 1988; Co v.
by rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, 199 SCRA 692,
Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation July 30, 1991; citing Angara v. Electoral Commission,  63 Phil 139
from the Armed Forces of the United States, acquired U.S. (1936).
citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking
an oath allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and 18
 Co v. HRET,  ibid., citing Robles v. HRET, 181 SCRA 780,
registering the same with the Local Civil Registry in the February 5, 1990; and Morrero v Bocar,  66 Phil 429 (1938). See
place where he resides of last resided in the Philippines. also Libanan v. HRET, 283 SCRA 520, December 22, 1997.
The said oath of allegiance shall contain a renunciation of
any other citizenship. 19
 Co. v. HRET,  ibid.
5
 1995 ed. 20
 Santiago v. Guingona Jr.,  298 SCRA 756, November 18, 1998.
6
 Ibid., p. 165; cited in the assailed HRET Decision, p. 13. (Italics 21
ours.)  Ibid.

22
7
 Webster's Third New International Dictionary: Unabridged, 1993  Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997, per
ed. Panganiban, J.
 23
 "The following were the results of the election: G.R. No. 142840      May 7, 2001

ANTONIO BENGSON III, petitioner,

Teodoro C. Cruz 80,119
vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and
Antonio E. Bengson III 53,448
TEODORO C. CRUZ, respondents.
Alberto B. Zamuco 11,941
DISSENTING OPINION
Manuel R. Castro 622
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Mariano A. Padlan 171"
With due respect, I disagree with the ponencia of Justice Santiago M.
(HRET Decision, pp. 2-3; rollo, pp. 37-38.) Kapunan. I am convinced that private respondent Teodoro C. Cruz is not
natural born citizen and, therefore, must be disqualified as a member of
24
Congress.
 Sinaca v. Mula, 315 SCRA 266, September 27, 1999.

25
Who are natural-born citizens?
 Frivaldo v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727, June 28, 1996; per
Panganiban, J.
The laws on citizenship – its acquisition or loss, and the rights, privileges and
26
immunities of citizens – have given rise to some of the most disputations and
 Olondriz v. Comelec, 313 SCRA 128, August 25, 1999. visceral issues resolved by this Court. The problem is taken up connection
with the sovereign right of voters to choose their representatives in
27
 Frivaldo v. Comelec, supra. Congress.

28
 Ibid In this petition for certiorari, petitioner Antonio Bengson III asks this Court of
Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan because he does not
29
 See  Pacifico A. Agabin, "Globalization and the Judicial Function," posses the constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen of this
Odysey and Legacy: The Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa country. Respondent, on the other hand, insists that he is qualified to be
Centennial Lecture Series, complied and edited by Atty. Antonio M. elected to Congress considering that by repatriation, he re-acquired his
Eliciano, published by the Supreme Court Printing Services, 1998 status as a natural-born Filipino citizen.
ed. See also Artenio V. Panganiban, "Old Doctrines and New
Paradigms," a lecture delivered during the Supreme Court Records show that Teodoro Cruz was born in the Philippines on April 27,
Centenary Lecture Series, on February 13, 2001. 1960 to Filipino parents, spouses Lamberto and Carmelita Cruz. On
November 5, 1985, he enlisted in the United States Armed Forces and
served the United States Marine Corps. While in the service for almost five
years, he applied for naturalization with the US District Court of Northern
District of California and was issued his Certificate of Naturalization No.
14556793 as an American citizen. On October 27, 1993, he was honorably
discharged from the US Marine Corps. He then decided to return to the
EN BANC Philippines.
Cruz availed of repatriation under R.A. No. 2630, an act providing for Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11,
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by persons who lost such citizenship 1998 elections.
by rendering service to or accepting commission in the Armed Forces of the
United States. On March 17, 1994, he took his oath of allegiance to the "As soon as this Decision becomes final and executory, let notices
Republic of the Philippines. The oath was registered with the Local Civil and copies thereof be sent to the President of the Philippines; the
Registry of Mangatarem, Pangasinan. On the same date, he executed an House of Representatives, through the Speaker, and the
Affidavit of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship. Thus, on April 11, 1994, Commission on Audit, through its Chairman, pursuant to Rule 76 of
the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation ordered the cancellation of his the 1998 Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.
Alien Certificate of Residence (ICR No. 286582) and issued him an Costs de oficio."
Identification Certificate.
On March 13, 2000, Bengson filed a motion for reconsideration of the said
The cancellation of his ACR and ICR was affirmed by the Justice Decision but the same was denied by the HRET in Resolution No. 00-48.
Department. On January 18, 1995, the United States Embassy in Manila
issued to him a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States.
Bengson now comes to us via a petition for certiorari assailing the HRET
Decision on grounds that:
In the local election of 1995, Cruz filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor
of Mangatarem, Pangasinan, declaring himself to be a naturalized Filipino
citizen. He won and served as mayor for one term. "1. The HRET committed serious errors and grave abuse of
discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction, when it ruled that
private respondent is a natural-born citizen of the
Thereafter, Cruz filed his certificate of candidacy for a seat in Congress, this Philippines despite the fact that he had ceased being such in view
time declaring himself as a natural-born Filipino. Again, he won with a lead of of the loss and renuciation of such citizenship on his part.
26,671 votes over candidate Antonio Bengson, III.
"2. The HRET committed serious errors and grave abuse of
On September 3, 1998, Cruz was proclaimed winner in the congressional discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction, when it considered
race in the Second District of Pangasinan. private respondent as a citizen of the Philippines despite the fact
that he did not validly acquire his Philippine citizenship.
Bengson then filed a petition for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam  with the House
of Representative Electoral not being a natural-born Filipino citizen when he "3. Assuming that private respondent's acquisition of Philippine
filed his Certificate of Candidacy on March 15, 1998, is not qualified to run as citizenship was invalid, the HRET committed serious errors and
a member of the House of Representatives. That he should be a natural- grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of despite the fact
born citizen is a qualification mandated by Section 6, Article VI of the that such reacquisition could not legally and constitutionally restore
Constitution which provides: "No person shall be a member of the House of his natural-born status."
Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines."
The sole issue raised in this petition is whether or not respondent Cruz was
After oral arguments and the submission by the parties of their respective natural-born citizen of the Philippines at the time of the filing of his Certificate
memoranda and supplemental memoranda, the HRET rendered a decision of Candidacy for a seat in the House of Representatives.
holding that Cruz reacquired his natural-born citizenship upon his
repatriation in 1994 and declaring him duly elected representative of the
Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections, thus: Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution1 provides:

"WHEREFORE, the petition for quo warranto is DISMISSED and "Sec. 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the
Respondent Teodoro C. Cruz is hereby DECLARED duly elected Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire
or perfect their Philippine citizenship. xxx."
Petitioner and respondent present opposing interpretations of the phrase continued to reside in this country are at the moment of their birth ipso
"from birth" contained in the above provisions. facto citizens of the Philippine Islands."

Petitioner contends that the phrase "from birth" indicates that citizenship Under the April 7, 1900 Instructions of President William McKinley to the
must start at a definite point and must be continuous, constant and without Second Philippine Commission, considered as our first colonial charter of
interruption. The Constitution does not extend the privilege of reacquiring a fundamental law, we were referred to as "people of the Islands," or
natural-born citizen status to respondent, who at one time, became an alien. "inhabitants of the Philippine Islands," or "natives of the Islands" and not as
His loss of citizenship carried with it the concomitant loss of all the benefits, citizens, much less natural-born citizens. The first definition of "citizens of the
privileges and attributes of "natural-born" citizenship. When he reacquired Philippine Islands" in our law is found in Section 4 of the Philippine Bill of
his citizenship in 1994, he had to comply with requirements for repatriation, 1902.3
thus effectively taking him out of the constitutional definition of a natural-born
Filipino. For his part, respondent maintains that the phrase "from birth" refers Philippine citizenship, including the status of natural-born, was initially a
to the innate, inherent and inborn characteristic of being a "natural-born". loose or even non-existent qualification. As a requirement for the exercise of
Since he was born to Filipino from birth. His reacquisition of Philippine certain rights and privileges, it became a more strict and difficult status to
citizenship under Republic Act No. 2630 results in his reacquisition of his achieve with the passing of the years.
inherent characteristic of being a natural-born citizen.
Early decisions of the Supreme Court held that Philippine citizenship could
For his part, respondent maintains that the phrase "from birth" refers to the be acquired under either the jus sanguinis or jus soli doctrine.4
innate, inherent and inborn characteristic of being a "natural-born". Since he
was born to Filipino parents, he has been a natural-born Filipino from birth.
His reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 2630 This liberal policy was applied even as the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the
results in his reacquisition of his inherent characteristic of being a natural- Jones Law of the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 appear to have limited
born citizen. "citizens of the Philippine Islands" to resident inhabitants who were Spanish
subjects on April 11, 1899, their children born subsequent thereto, and later,
those naturalized according to law by the Philippine legislature. Only later
The state of being a natural-born citizen has been regarded, not so much in was jus sanguinis firmly applied and jus soli abandoned.
its literal sense, but more in its legal connotation.
Hence, the status of being a natural-born citizen at its incipient is a privilege
The very first natural-born Filipinos did not acquire that status at birth. They conferred by law directly to those who intended, and actually continued, to
were born as Spanish subjects. In Roa vs. Collector of Customs, 2 the belong to the Philippine Island. Even at the time of its conception in the
Supreme Court traces the grant of natural-born status from the Treaty of Philippines, such persons upon whom citizenship was conferred did not have
Paris, and the Acts of Congress of July 1, 1902 and March 23, 1912, which to do anything to acquire full citizenship.5
is a reenactment of Section 4 of the former with a proviso which reads:
Respondent wants us to believe that since he was natural-born Filipino at
"Provided, That the Philippine Legislature is hereby authorized to birth, having been born in the Philippines to Filipino parents, he was
provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by those automatically restored to that status when he subsequently reacquired his
natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come within the citizenship after losing it.
foregoing provisions, the natives of other Insular possessions of the
United States and such other persons residing in the Philippine
Islands who could become citizens of the United State under the Public respondent HRET affirmed respondent's position when it pronounced
laws of the United State, if residing therein." that the definition of natural-born citizen in Section 2, Article IV of the
Constitution refers to the classes of citizens enumerated in Section 1 of the
same Article, to wit:
It was further held therein that under the said provision, "every person born
the 11th of April, of parents who were Spanish subjects on that date and who
 "Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: respondent Cruz had perform certain acts before he could again become a
Filipino citizen. He had to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the Philippines and register his oath with the Local Civil Registry of Mangatarum,
adoption of this Constitution; Pangasinan. He had to renounce his American citizenship and had to
execute an affidavit of reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
Clearly, he did not reacquire his natural-born citizenship. The cardinal rule in
the interpretation and constitution of a constitution is to give effect to the
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who intention of the framers and of the people who adopted it. Words appearing
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and in Constitution are used according to their plain, natural, and usual
significance and import and must be understood in the sense most obvious
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." to the common understanding of the people at the time of its adoption.

<3 Thus , respondent HRET held that under the above enumeration, there The provision on "natural-born citizens of the Philippines" is precise, clear
are only two classes of citizens, i.e., natural-born and naturalized. Since and definite. Indeed, neither HRET nor this Court can construe it other than
respondent Cruz is not a naturalized citizen, then he is a natural-born Filipino what its plain meaning conveys. It is not phrased in general language which
citizen. may call for construction of what the words imply.

I do not agree. I reiterate that Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution defines In J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration,6 this Court held:
natural-born citizens as " those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine "Ascertainment of meaning of provisions of Constitution begins with
citizenship." the language of the document itself. The words used in the
Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning, except where
Pursuant to R.A. No. 2630, quoted as follow: technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus
attached to them prevails. As the Constitution is not primarily a
"Republic Act No. 2630. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR lawyer's document, it being essential for the rule of law to obtain
REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY PERSONS that it should ever be present in the people's consciousness, its
WHO LOST SUCH CITIZENSHIP BY RENDERING SERVICE TO, language as much as possible, should be understood in the sense
OR ACCEPTING COMMISSION IN, THE ARMED FORCES OF they have in common use. What it says according to the text of the
THE UNITED STATES, provides: provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the
power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the
framers and the people mean what they say."
Section 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship be
rendering service to, or accepting commission in the Armed Forces
of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of The definition of a natural-born citizen in the Constitution must be applied to
the United States, acquired United States citizenship, may this petition according to its natural sense.
reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same with the <3 Respondent HRET likewise ruled that the "reacquisition of Philippine
Local Civil Registry in the place where he resides or last resided in citizenship through any of these modes: (naturalization, repatriation and
the Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall contain a legislation under Section 3, C.A. No. 63) results in the restoration of previous
renunciation of any other citizenship." status, either as a natural-born or a naturalized citizen" is a simplistic
approach and tends to be misleading.
If citizenship is gained through naturalization, repatriation or legislation, the categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, vacillation
citizen concerned can not be considered natural-born. Obviously, he has to or equivocation – there is only room for application. The phrase
perform certain acts to become a citizen. 'from birth indicates that there is a starting point of his citizenship
and this citizenship should be continuous, constant and without
As expressed in the Dissent of Justice Jose C. Vitug 7 in the instant case, interruption."
concurred in by Justice A.R. Melo:8
Thus, respondent is not eligible for election to Congress as the Constitution
"Repatriation is the resumption or recovery of the original nationally requires that a member of the House of Representative must be a "natural-
upon the fulfillment of certain conditions. While an applicant need born citizen of the Philippines."
not have to undergo the tedious and time consuming process
required by the Revised Naturalization Law (CA 473, s amended), For sure, the framers of our Constitution intended to provide a more stringent
he, nevertheless, would still have to make an express and citizenship requirement for higher elective offices, including that of the office
unequivocal act of formally rejecting his adopted state and of a Congressman. Otherwise, the Constitution should have simply provided
reaffirming his total and exclusive allegiance and loyalty to the that a candidate for such position can be merely a citizen of the Philippines,
Republic of the Philippines. It bears emphasis that, to be of section as required of local elective officers.
2, Article IV, of the 1987 Constitution, one should not have to
perform any act at all or go through any process, judicial or The spirit of nationalism pervading the 1935 Constitution, the first charter
administrative, to enable him to reacquire his citizenship. willoughby framed and ratified by the Filipino (even as the draft had to be approved by
opines that a natural-born citizen is one who is able to claim President Franklin Delano Roosevelt of the United States) guide and
citizenship without any prior declaration on his part of a desire to governs the interpretation of Philippine citizenship and the more narrow and
obtain such status. Under this view, the term 'natural born' citizens bounden concept of being a natural-born citizen.
could also cover those who have been collectively deemed citizens
by reason of the Treaty of Paris and the Philippine Bill of 1902 and
those who have been accorded by the 1935 Constitution to be Under the 1935 costitution,9 the requirement of natural-born citizenship was
Filipino citizens (those born in the Philippines of alien parents who, applicable to the President and Vice Persident. 10 A person who had been a
before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution had been elected to citizen for only five (5) years could be elected to the National
public office.)" Assembly.11 Only in 1940,12 when the first Constitution was amended did
natural-born citizenship become a requirement for Senators and Members of
the House of Representatives.13 A Filipino naturalized for at least five (5)
The two dissenting Justice correctly stated that the "stringent requirement of years could still be appointed Justice of the Supreme court or a Judge of a
the Constitution is so placed as to insure that only Filipino citizens with an lower court.14
absolute and permanent degree of allegiance and loyalty shall be eligible for
membership in Congress, the branch of the government directly involved
and given the dedicate task of legislation." The history of the Constitution shows that the meaning and application of the
requirement of being natural-born have become more narrow and qualified
over the years.
The dissenting opinion further states:
Under the 1973 Constitution, 15 the President, members of the National
"The term 'natural-born' Filipino citizen, first constitutionally defined Assembly, Prime Minister, Justices of the Supreme Court, Judges of inferior
in the 1973 Charter, later adopted by the 1987 Constitution, courts, the chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commission and the
particularly in Section 2, Article IV thereof, is meant to refer to those majority of members of the cabinet must be natural-born citizens. 16 The 1987
' who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to Constitution added the Ombudsman and his deputies and the members of
perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship,' and to those ' the Commission on Human Rights to those who must be natural-born
who elect Philippine citizenship.' Time and again, the Supreme citizens.17
Court has declared that where the laws speaks in clear and
The questioned Decision of respondent HRET reverses the historical trend
and clear intendment of the Constitution. It shows a more liberal, if not a
cavalier approach to the meaning and import of natural born citizen and
citizenship in general.

It bears stressing that we are tracing and enforcing a doctrine embodied in

no less that the constitution. Indeed, a deviation from the clear and
constitutional definition of a "natural born Filipino citizen" is a matter which
can only be accomplished through a constitutional amendment.  Clearly
respondent HRET gravely abused its discretion.

Respondent Cruz has availed himself of the procedure whereby his

citizenship has been restored. He can run for public office where natural-
born citizenship is not mandated. But he cannot be elected to high offices
which the Constitution has reserved only for natural-born Filipino citizens.

WHEREFORE, I vote to GRANT the petition.1âwphi1.nêt