View full case

AASJS MEMBER - HECTOR GUMANGAN CALILUNG v. SIMEON DATUMANONG

FACTS:

This case involves an original action for prohibition filed by the petitioner against the then Secretary of Justice, Simeon Datumanong, who was tasked to implement laws governing citizenship. The petitioner prays for a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent from implementing Republic Act No. 9225, which seeks to make the citizenship of Philippine citizens who acquire foreign citizenship permanent. The petitioner argues that the said law is unconstitutional as it violates the provision in the 1987 Constitution that states that dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest. The respondent, on the other hand, argues that the law does not allow dual allegiance but merely provides for the retention and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. The issue in this case is whether or not Republic Act No. 9225 is constitutional and whether the court has jurisdiction to rule on the issue of dual allegiance.

ISSUES:

  1. Is Rep. Act No. 9225 unconstitutional?

  2. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to address the issue of dual allegiance?

RULING:

  1. Republic Act No. 9225 is not unconstitutional. The intent of the law is to allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization in another country. The Court found that the law, on its face, does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces their foreign citizenship, thus shifting the burden of confronting issues of dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country.

  2. The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual allegiance. Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a policy declaration that is not self-executing, and requires legislation by Congress to establish specific parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance. The Court emphasized judicial restraint and the doctrine of separation of powers, concluding that it would be premature to rule on issues of dual allegiance in the absence of such legislation.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Dual Citizenship vs. Dual Allegiance There is a distinction between dual citizenship and dual allegiance. Republic Act No. 9225 facilitates the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship for natural-born Filipinos who have become naturalized citizens of another country, but it does not directly address dual allegiance.

  • Legislative Intent The intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 was to allow for dual citizenship while implicitly addressing the issue of dual allegiance by requiring an oath to the supreme authority of the Philippines.

  • Separation of Powers The issue of dual allegiance is left to the legislative branch to define and regulate through specific laws. The judiciary must exercise restraint and cannot encroach upon legislative prerogatives.

  • Non-Self-Executing Provision Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution regarding dual allegiance requires enabling legislation to be operational and is not self-executing.

  • Doctrine of Judicial Restraint Courts must proceed with caution and avoid ruling on matters that have been clearly delegated to another branch of government unless necessary and proper legislative measures are enacted.