Calilung vs. Datumanong

Republic Act No. 9225 is constitutional; it permits dual citizenship for natural-born Filipinos but does not recognize or sanction dual allegiance. Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution is not self-executing — it merely declares a policy against dual allegiance and commands Congress to deal with it by law; consequently, the judiciary may not rule on what constitutes dual allegiance until Congress enacts an enabling statute.

On August 29, 2003, President Gloria M. Arroyo signed Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. The law declared that natural-born Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country are deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship, and those who had previously lost it by foreign naturalization are deemed to have reacquired it upon taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic. Respondent Simeon Datumanong, as Secretary of Justice, was the official tasked to implement laws governing citizenship. Petitioner Hector Gumangan Calilung, a member of AASJS, sought to prohibit the Secretary from implementing the law on the ground that it contravened the constitutional mandate that dual allegiance is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.

• Nature: The petitioner brought an original action for prohibition to enjoin the Secretary of Justice from enforcing Republic Act No. 9225, asserting its unconstitutionality for violating the prohibition on dual allegiance under Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution.
• The Challenged Statute: Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003, declares that Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country are deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship; natural-born citizens who lost Philippine citizenship by foreign naturalization are deemed to have reacquired it upon taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic that includes recognition of the “supreme authority” of the Philippines. The law also imposes conditions on the exercise of civil and political rights, including a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship for those seeking elective office.
• Petitioner’s Theory: Petitioner claimed that Sections 2 and 3, read together, allow dual allegiance because a natural-born Filipino who reacquires Philippine citizenship by mere oath does not forfeit foreign allegiance, thereby contravening the constitutional policy that dual allegiance is inimical to the national interest.
• Legislative History: During the deliberations in the House of Representatives, it was acknowledged that the bill did not address the problem of dual allegiance. The proponents explained that by requiring an oath of allegiance recognizing the supreme authority of the Philippines, the law implicitly renounces foreign citizenship and shifts the concern over dual allegiance to the foreign country, thereby keeping the Philippines out of that issue.
• Respondent’s Counter-Argument: The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that Section 2 merely declares a policy that Filipinos becoming foreign citizens are deemed not to have lost Philippine citizenship, and that the oath prescribed in Section 3 is an effective renunciation and repudiation of foreign citizenship, not a recognition of dual allegiance.

• Dual Allegiance vs. Dual Citizenship: Petitioner maintained that Sections 2 and 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, together, permit dual allegiance rather than mere dual citizenship, because natural-born Filipinos can reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath without forfeiting their foreign allegiance, in direct violation of Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution.
• Judicial Cognizance Without Enabling Law: Petitioner argued that despite the absence of an enabling law on dual allegiance, the Supreme Court could rule on the issue, invoking the distinction between dual allegiance and dual citizenship drawn in Mercado v. Manzano as guidelines.

• Dual Citizenship Only: The OSG countered that Republic Act No. 9225 addresses only dual citizenship, not dual allegiance. The oath of allegiance to the Republic — particularly the clause recognizing the supreme authority of the Philippines — constitutes an effective renunciation and repudiation of the individual’s foreign citizenship.
• Lack of Jurisdiction: The OSG asserted that Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution explicitly requires that dual allegiance “shall be dealt with by law.” Until Congress enacts such a law, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain issues regarding dual allegiance.

• Constitutionality of RA 9225: Whether Republic Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional for allowing dual allegiance in contravention of Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution.
• Jurisdiction over Dual Allegiance: Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to rule on the issue of dual allegiance absent an implementing law enacted by Congress.

• Constitutionality of RA 9225: The law was upheld as constitutional. The legislative intent was to remove the loss of Philippine citizenship for natural-born Filipinos who naturalize abroad — a reversal of the policy under Commonwealth Act No. 63. Republic Act No. 9225 permits dual citizenship, not dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the individual implicitly renounces foreign citizenship. The legislative record confirms that the law deliberately avoided addressing dual allegiance and instead shifted the burden of confronting that issue to the concerned foreign country. Thus, no violation of Section 5, Article IV occurred.
• Jurisdiction over Dual Allegiance: The petition failed on jurisdictional grounds as well. Section 5, Article IV is a declaration of policy and is not a self-executing provision; it mandates Congress to enact a law defining and dealing with dual allegiance. The judiciary cannot arrogate the legislative function of setting the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance before such a law is passed. Reliance on Mercado v. Manzano was misplaced, as that case merely distinguished dual citizenship from dual allegiance without prescribing the substantive scope of dual allegiance. Judicial restraint, consistent with the separation of powers, precludes the Court from ruling on the matter in the absence of legislation.

• Non-Self-Executing Constitutional Provision — Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution (“Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law”) is a statement of policy, not a self-executing norm. It delegates to Congress the duty to define and regulate dual allegiance. Courts cannot adjudicate what constitutes dual allegiance until the legislature enacts an enabling law.
• Distinction Between Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance — Dual citizenship arises when a person simultaneously holds two citizenships by operation of law or voluntary act; dual allegiance refers to a simultaneous loyalty to two states. Republic Act No. 9225 addresses dual citizenship, not dual allegiance. The oath of allegiance to the Philippine Republic, which acknowledges its supreme authority, implies renunciation of foreign citizenship and thus prevents dual allegiance in the legal sense.
• Separation of Powers and Judicial Restraint — Courts must presume that the legislature acts within constitutional bounds and with full knowledge of the limits of its plenary powers. In determining the constitutionality of a statute, the judiciary must exercise caution and forbearance and cannot usurp a function expressly assigned by the Constitution to Congress.

• “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.”
• “To begin with, Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. … 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.”

• Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999 — Distinguished dual citizenship from dual allegiance but did not establish the parameters of what acts constitute dual allegiance. Petitioner’s reliance on this case was held to be misplaced.
• Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001 — Applied for the principles of judicial restraint and the presumption that Congress passes laws with full knowledge of constitutional limits; the judiciary must not usurp legislative functions.

• Section 5, Article IV, 1987 Constitution — The provision declares dual allegiance inimical to the national interest and directs that it be dealt with by law. The Court held this to be a non-self-executing policy declaration requiring congressional implementation.
• Republic Act No. 9225, Sections 2 and 3 — Section 2 declares that Philippine citizens who become foreign citizens are deemed not to have lost Philippine citizenship. Section 3 provides that natural-born citizens who lost Philippine citizenship by foreign naturalization are deemed to have reacquired it upon taking an oath of allegiance recognizing the supreme authority of the Philippines. The Court interpreted these provisions as addressing dual citizenship and implicitly renouncing foreign citizenship, not authorizing dual allegiance.
• Commonwealth Act No. 63, Section 1(1) — Previously provided that naturalization in a foreign country was a mode of losing Philippine citizenship. Republic Act No. 9225 effectively reversed this policy for natural-born Filipinos.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Associate Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia, Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura. (Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez on leave.)