Clark Vincent Ponla LEGAL RESEARCH AND WRITING - EH 201

JD – WT 1 10/7/19

CASE SYNTHESIS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASES

A. CONCEPTS OF “PEOPLE”
I. The Province of North Cotabato vs GRP. G.R. No. 183591
 In an effort to establish peace in Mindanao, the MOA-AD (Memorandum of Agreement
on the Ancestral Domain) sought by the parties aimed to provide additional autonomy
for the Bangsamoro people. The BJE (Bangsamoro Juridical Identity) aims to have the
status of an associated state or, at any rate, a status closely approximating it.
 Principle: Such concept cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws.
Not only its specific provisions but the very concept underlying them, namely, the
associative relationship envisioned between the GRP and the BJE, are unconstitutional,
for the concept presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the
same is on its way to independence.

B. CITIZENSHIP
II. Lee vs Director of Lands G.R. No. 128195
 In this case, a property was sold to an alien (Chinese) and was later being subject of a
dispute wherein the vendors wanted to recover the said property due to the vendee
being an alien and not allowed to own real estate in the Philippines.
 Principle: Land sold to an alien which was later transferred to a Filipino citizen or where
the alien later becomes a Filipino citizen — can no longer be recovered by the vendor,
because there is no longer any public policy that is being assailed to be violated
involved.
III. Tecson vs COMELEC G.R. No. 161434
 In this case, issue of whether or not FPJ is a natural-born citizen would depend on
whether his father, Allan F. Poe, was himself a Filipino citizen, and if in the affirmative,
whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of FPJ prevents him from taking after the Filipino
citizenship of his putative father.
 Principle: The fact that Lorenzo Pou (father of Allan F. Poe), who died in 1954 at 84 years
old, would have been born sometime in 1870, when the Philippines was under Spanish
rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in
the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before
death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization”
that the Philippine Bill of 1902 effected. That Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou, if
acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe (father of FPJ), The 1935
Constitution, during which regime FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all
persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are
legitimate or illegitimate.
IV. Valles vs COMELEC 337 SCRA 543
 Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father and an
Australian mother. In 1949, at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle in
the Philippines, where she later married a Filipino and has since then participated in the
electoral process not only as a voter but as a candidate, as well. In the May 1998
 elections, she ran for governor but Valles filed a petition for her disqualification as
candidate on the ground that she is an Australian.
 Principle: The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis.
Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the
place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines
nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth. So, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a
Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in
Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship.
V. In Re. Application of Vicente Ching, Bar Matter No. 914
 In this case, Vicente Ching, a legitimate child of a Chinese and a Filipino, should have
elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Ching did elect Filipino
citizenship, but he only did so when he was preparing for the bar in 1998 or 14 years
after reaching the age of majority.
 Principle: The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship should be
respected. Ching’s unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election made him
unable to take the Lawyers’ Oath.
VI. Bengzon III vs HRET G.R. No. 142840
 The citizenship of Teodoro Cruz, a member of the HOR, is being questioned on the
ground that he is not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.He enlisted to the US
Marine Corps and he was naturalized as US citizen in connection therewith, when he
returned to the Philippines, he reacquired Philippine citizenship through repatriation
under RA 2630 and ran for and was elected as a representative.
 Principle: The Supreme Court ruled that the act of repatriation allows the person to
recover, or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship.
VII. Mercado vs Manzano 307 SCRA 630
 A petition for disqualification was filed against Eduardo Manzano when he ran for vice
mayor for Makati on the grounds that he’s both a Filipino and an American citizen.
 Principle: In this case, Respondent, though a dual citizen, his act of filing a certificate of
candidacy tantamount to his election of Phil. citizenship – meaning he forswears
allegiance to the other country and thereby terminating their status as dual. The court
ruled that Dual Citizenship is different from Dual Allegiance. The Court also stressed that
participating in the election is an express renunciation of American citizenship.
VIII. Co vs HRET 199 SCRA 692
 Respondent Jose Ong, Jr. ran and was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the
second district of Northern Samar. Petitioners questioned the citizenship of respondent
Ong since Ong’s father was only a naturalized Filipino citizen and questioned Ong’s
residence qualification since Ong does not own any property in Samar.
 Principle: The Court ruled there is no ground to deny the Filipino citizenship of
respondent Ong. Respondent Ong was also born of a natural-born Filipino mother, thus
the issue of citizenship is immaterial. The domicile of origin of the private respondent,
which was the domicile of his parents, is fixed at Laoang, Samar. Contrary to the
petitioners' imputation, Jose Ong, Jr. never abandoned said domicile; it remained fixed
therein even up to the present. Hence, the residency of respondent Ong has sufficiently
proved.
IX. Moya vs Commissioner of Immigration 41 SCRA 292
  Lau Yuen Yeung, an alien visiting the Philippines, whose authorized stay in the
Philippines was to expire, claims herself to be lawfully naturalized upon her marriage to
a Filipino citizen. Solicitor General opposes the ground that the marriage of the alien to
a Filipino citizen does not automatically confer on the latter Philippine citizenship.
 Principle: An alien woman, upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen, becomes lawfully
naturalized ipso facto, provided that she does not possess all of the disqualifications
enumerated in CA 473. (Sections 15 and 4).
X. Republic vs Dela Rosa G.R. No. 104654
 Juan Frivaldo filed a petition for naturalization. A date was set for the hearing but he
asked to move it to an earlier date since he was running for office.
 Principle: The prescribed procedure for Naturalization should be respected and should
not be subject to personal whims and preferences.
XI. Limkaichong vs COMELEC G.R. No. 17831-32
 The proponents against Limkaichong's qualification stated that she is not a natural-born
citizen because her parents were Chinese citizens at the time of her birth. They went on
to claim that the proceedings for the naturalization of Julio Ong Sy, her father, never
attained finality due to procedural and substantial defects.
 Principle: The ten-day prescriptive period under the 1998 HRET Rules does not apply to
disqualification based on citizenship, because qualifications for public office are
continuing requirements and must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or
election or assumption of office but during the officer's entire tenure.
XII. Coquilla vs COMELEC G.R. No. 151914
 Petitioner made a false representation of a material fact in his certificate of candidacy,
thus rendering such certificate liable to cancellation. The question was whether or not
Coquilla had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar at least on year before the elections
held on May 14, 2001 as what he represented in his COC.
 Principle: The counting of residency starts when a person/candidate takes his oath as a
Filipino citizen.
XIII. Frivaldo vs COMELEC 257 SCRA 731
 Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor of the province of Sorsogon and assumed
office in due time. The League of Municipalities filed with the COMELEC a petition for
the annulment of Frivaldo on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having been
naturalized in the United States. Frivaldo admitted the allegations but pleaded the
special and affirmative defenses that he was naturalized as American citizen only to
protect himself against President Marcos during the Martial Law era.
 Principle: The Court ruled his repatriation was valid and legal and because of the
curative nature of Presidential Decree No. 725, his repatriation retroacted to the date of
the filing of his application to run for governor.
XIV. Tabasa vs Court of Appeals G.R.No. 125793
 Petitioner acquired American citizenship when his father became a naturalized citizen of
the US. He arrived in the Philippines and was subsequently detained and subject to
deportation. Petitioner alleged that he acquired Filipino citizenship by repatriation in
accordance with the RA No. 8171, and that because he is now a Filipino citizen, he
cannot be deported or detained by the BID.
  Principle: Petitioner is not qualified to avail himself of repatriation under RA 8171. The
only person entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 is either a Filipino woman who lost
her Philippine citizenship by marriage to an alien, or a natural-born Filipino, including his
minor children who lost Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic
necessity. Petitioner was already 35 years old when he filed for repatriation. The act
cannot be applied in his case because he is no longer a minor at the time of his
repatriation in 1996.
XV. Angat vs Republic G.R. No. 132244
 Gerardo Angat asked to regain his status as a Philippine Citizen before the RTC of
Marikina. OSG ruled against him contending that the Marikina RTC has no jurisdiction
over repatriation cases.
 Principle: A petition for repatriation should be filed with the Special Committee on
Naturalization and not with the RTC which has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the court's
order was null and void.
XVI. Altarejos vs COMELEC G.R. No. 163256
 Private respondents filed with the COMELEC to disqualify and deny due course or cancel
the certificate of candidacy of Ciceron P. Altarejos, on the ground that he is not a
Filipino citizen and that he made a false representation in his COC that he was not a
permanent resident of the Municipality of San Jacinto, Masbate, the town he's running
for as mayor in the May 10, 2004 elections. Altarejos answered that he was already
issued a Certificate of Repatriation by the Special Committee on Naturalization in
December 17, 1997.
 Principle: Petitioner’s repatriation retroacted to the date he filed his application and
was, therefore, qualified to run for a mayoralty position in the government in the May
10, 2004 elections.
XVII. Nicolas Lewis vs COMELEC G.R. No. 162597
 Petitions for certiorari and mandamus for exercising their rights to suffrage under the
Overseas Absentee Voting Act or RA No. 9189. Petitioners are dual citizens who retained
or reacquired Philippine Citizenship under RA No. 9225, or Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act of 2003. COMELEC denied their petitions on the ground that they fail
to meet the qualification of 1-year residency required by the Section 1, Article V of the
Constitution.
 Principle: By applying the doctrine of necessary implication, Constitutional Commission
provided for an exception to actual residency requirement of Section 1, Article 5 of 1987
Constitution, with respect to qualified Filipinos abroad. Filipino immigrants and
permanent residents in another country may be allowed to vote even though they do
not fulfill the residency requirement of said Sec 1 Art V of the Constitution.
XVIII. Calilung vs Datumanong G.R. No. 160869
 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."
  Principle: 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.
XIX. Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe- Llamanzares vs. COMELEC et. al. G.R. No. 221697
 Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe- Llamanzares’ candidacy was questioned due to her
citizenship and that her status being a foundling cannot be considered as a natural-born
Filipino citizen.
 Principle: The Philippines abide with the international law custom to presume
foundlings as citizens of the country where they’re found.