Political and Public International Law › Citizenship

D. Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship (RA 9225)

D. Loss and Re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship

1. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003

> [R.A. No. 9225](/8c7667227e124e9cb5684b828e233f40?pvs=25)

Grounds for Loss of Philippine Citizenship

  • Naturalization in a foreign country [Section 1(1), C.A. 63];
  • Express renunciation or expatriation [Section 1(2), CA 63];
  • Taking an oath of allegiance to another country upon reaching the age of majority;
  • Marriage by a Filipino woman to an alien, if by the laws of her husband’s country, she becomes a citizen thereof. (Now qualified by Section 4, Article IV. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it)
  • Accepting a commission and serving in the armed forces of another country, unless there is an offensive/defensive pact with the country, or it maintains armed forces in RP with RP’s consent;
  • Denaturalization (The court, upon its discretion, may cancel certificate of naturalization subsequent to the requirements provided. This is because naturalization is not a natural right but a political privilege);
  • Being found by final judgment to be a deserter of the AFP.

Reacquisition

Naturalization [C.A. 63 and C.A. 473]

Now an abbreviated process, no need to wait for 3 years (1 year for declaration of intent, and 2 years for the judgment to become executory)

Denaturalization: Cancellation of Certificate of Naturalization

  • If it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally.
  • If the person naturalized shall, within the five years next following the issuance of said naturalization certificate, return to his native country or to some foreign country and establish his permanent residence there: Provided, That the fact of the person naturalized remaining for more than one year in his native country or the country of his former nationality, or two years in any other foreign country, shall be considered as prima facie evidence of his intention of taking up his permanent residence in the same.
  • If the petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention.
  • If it is shown that the minor children of the person naturalized failed to graduate from a public or private high schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of the Philippines, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught as part of the school curriculum, through the fault of their parents either by neglecting to support them or by transferring them to another school or schools. A certified copy of the decree cancelling the naturalization certificate shall be forwarded by the clerk of the Court to the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Justice.
  • If it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed himself to be used as a dummy requiring Philippine citizenship as a requisite for the exercise, use or enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege (C.A. No. 473, § 18)

b. R.A. No. 9139

Repatriation

Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. Therefore, if he is a natural-born citizen before he lost his citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino [Bengson III v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840 (2001)].

Mere filing of certificate of candidacy is not a sufficient act of repatriation. Repatriation requires an express and unequivocal act [Frivaldo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996].

In the absence of any official action or approval by proper authorities, a mere application for repatriation does not, and cannot, amount to an automatic reacquisition of the applicant’s Philippine citizenship [Labo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 86564 (1989)]

Updated: RA 9225 provides an oath-based route to retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship, distinct from a mere application for repatriation (In re Petition to Retain/Reacquire the Privilege to Resume the Practice of Law in the Philippines, 30 January 2024).

Legislative Act

Citizenship can be acquired by an alien thru legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien [So v. Republic, GR No.170603 (2007)].

Citizenship can be reacquired by natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic [Section 3, R.A. 9225].

Denaturalization

Process by which grant of citizenship is revoked.

R.A. No. 9225 (CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND REACQUISITION ACT OF 2003)

Reacquisition

Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic [Section 3, R.A. 9225].

Retention

Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of R.A. 9225, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath [Section 3, R.A. No. 9225].

Derivative Citizenship

Effect of retention or reacquisition: Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines.

Right Condition
Suffrage Meet requirements under Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution, R.A. No. 9189 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003), other existing laws.
Seeking elective public office Meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath
Appointment to public office Subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office: provided, that they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath
Practice profession in the Philippines Apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice

[Section 5, R.A. No. 9225]

The right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who:

  • Are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or

Repatriation under R.A. No. 8171

R.A. No. 8171, which lapsed into law on October 23, 1995, is an act providing for the repatriation (a) of Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and (b) of natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, including their minor children [Angat v. Republic, GR No. 132244 (1999)]. Included in the second group are minor children at the time of repatriation and does not include one who is no longer minor at the time of his repatriation or one who lost his Philippine citizenship by operation of law. The loss of Philippine citizenship must be on account of political or economic necessity and not by operation of law such as derivative naturalization, or for the purpose of avoiding deportation and prosecution in the US [Tabasa v. CA, G.R. No. 125793 (2006)].

Repatriation as a mode of reacquiring Philippine citizenship does not require the filing of a petition in court. All that an applicant had to do is to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and register said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided [Angat, supra]. In addition thereto, registration of the Certificate of Repatriation in the Bureau of Immigration is a prerequisite in effecting the repatriation of a citizen [Altarejos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163256 (2004)]. But in Tabasa, supra, the Supreme Court ruled that a petition for repatriation shall be filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN) which was designated to process petitions for repatriation pursuant to AO 285.

Repatriation under R.A. No. 9225

It allows former natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country to reacquire Filipino citizenship. It also allows Filipino citizens to retain their Filipino citizenship even if they acquire another citizenship in a foreign country. Retention or reacquisition is accomplished by simply taking the oath of allegiance as prescribed by R.A. No. 9225. The required oath of allegiance does not require express renunciation of foreign citizenship; R.A. No. 9225 permits dual citizenship but does not authorize dual allegiance, and the oath implicitly renounces foreign allegiance. Those seeking public elective office must, at the time of filing their certificates of candidacy, personally and under oath renounce any and all foreign citizenship (R.A. No. 9225, Sec. 5(2)). Those appointed to public office must, before assuming office, take the prescribed oath of allegiance to the Philippines and renounce their oath of allegiance to the foreign country (R.A. No. 9225, Sec. 5(3)). Likewise, under the principle of derivative citizenship, the unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 9225, shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines.

R.A. No. 9225 is NOT violative of Section 5 of Article IV of the Constitution prohibiting dual allegiance

Section 5 of Article IV of the Constitution is a mere declaration of policy and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. The framers of Article IV, Section 5 of the Constitution were concerned with dual allegiance, not dual citizenship per se; Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. No. 9225 permit the latter for natural-born Filipinos who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship. Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters as to what really constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is done, it would be premature for the judicial department to rule on the issues pertaining to dual allegiance [AASJS v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, March 3, 2008].

Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino [Bengson III v. HRET, et. al. GR No. 142840 (2001)].

Note: The issue of citizenship may be threshed out as the occasion demands. Res judicata only applies once a finding of citizenship is affirmed by the Court in a proceeding in which: (a) the person whose citizenship is questioned is a party; (b) the person's citizenship is raised as a material issue; and (c) the Solicitor General or an authorized representative is able to take an active part.

When a person has already been declared and recognized as a Philippine Citizen, by the BI and the DOJ, he must be protected from summary deportation proceedings. A citizen is entitled to live in peace, without molestation from any official or authority, and if he is disturbed by a deportation proceeding, he has the unquestionable right to resort to the courts for his protection, either by a writ of habeas corpus or of prohibition on the ground that the BI lacks jurisdiction [Republic v. Harp, G.R. No. 188829 (2016)].

Reacquiring Citizenship

Citizenship may be Reacquired by:

  • Repatriation
  • Naturalization
  • Legislative Act

REPATRIATION

Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. (Bengson v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Teodoro C. Cruz, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001)

Natural-born Filipinos who are deemed to have lost their citizenship may re-acquire the same via repatriation proceedings. This involves taking an oath of allegiance and filing the same with the civil registry. (C.A. No. 63, sec. 4)

Who May be Repatriated:

  • Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens
  • Natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship, including their minor children, on account of political or economic necessity (R.A. No. 8171, § 1)

Updated: RA 9225 provides an oath-based route for natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens, distinct from the RA 8171 categories; a candidate for elective office must also satisfy applicable residency requirements (Caballero v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 209835, 22 September 2015).

How is Repatriation Effected

Under R.A. No. 8171, § 2, repatriation requires:

  • Taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; and
  • Registering in the proper civil registry and with the Bureau of Immigration.

The Bureau of Immigration then cancels the pertinent alien certificate of registration and issues a certificate of identification as a Filipino citizen to the repatriated person (R.A. No. 8171, § 2).

Persons who cannot be repatriated under R.A. No. 8171

  • A person opposed to organized government, or affiliated with a group that upholds and teaches doctrines opposing organized government;
  • A person who defends or teaches the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or association for the predominance of their ideas;
  • A person convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; or
  • A person suffering from mental alienation or an incurable contagious disease (R.A. No. 8171, § 1).

Repatriation under R.A. No. 9225

Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have reacquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance.

This reacquisition works to restore natural-born status without treating the intervening loss of citizenship as though it never occurred.

Reacquisition v. Retention

Natural-born Filipinos who have lost their citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country shall re-acquire their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

Natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the same oath. The taking of oath of allegiance is required for both categories of natural-born Filipino citizens who became citizens of a foreign country. (R.A. 9225, Sec. 3)

Authorities

  • 1987 Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 5
  • 1987 Constitution, Art. V, Sec. 1
  • Aasjs v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, 3 March 2008
  • Altarejos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163256, 10 November 2004
  • Angat v. Republic, G.R. No. 132244, 14 September 1999
  • AO 285
  • Article IV, Sec. 4
  • Bengson v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 142840, 7 May 2001
  • Bengzon v. Hret, G.R. No. 142840
  • C.A. 473
  • C.A. 63
  • C.A. 63, Sec. 1
  • C.A. No. 473, Sec. 18
  • C.A. No. 63, Sec. 4
  • CA 63, Sec. 1
  • David v. Editha A. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, 7 December 2015
  • Frivaldo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, 28 June 1996
  • Labo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 86564, 1 August 1989
  • R.A. 9225
  • R.A. 9225, Sec. 3
  • R.A. No. 8171
  • R.A. No. 8171, Sec. 1
  • R.A. No. 8171, Sec. 2
  • R.A. No. 9139
  • R.A. No. 9189
  • R.A. No. 9225
  • R.A. No. 9225, Sec. 2
  • R.A. No. 9225, Sec. 3
  • R.A. No. 9225, Sec. 5
  • Republic v. Harp, G.R. No. 188829, 13 June 2016
  • So v. Republic, G.R. No. 170603, 29 January 2007
  • Tabasa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125793, 29 August 2006