really constitutes dual allegiance.

Until this is done, it would be premature for the judicial department,

Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School including this Court, to rule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance.
Teachers and Allied Workers (AASJS) Member vs.
Datumanong Same; Same; Same; The case of Mercado did not set the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance
but merely made a distinction between dual allegiance and dual citizenship.—Neither can we subscribe to
*
the proposition of petitioner that a law is not needed since the case of  Mercado  had already set the
G.R. No. 160869. May 11, 2007. guidelines for determining dual allegiance. Petitioner misreads  [Link] case did not set the
parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance but merely made a distinction between dual allegiance and
dual citizenship.
AASJS (ADVOCATES AND ADHERENTS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR SCHOOL TEACHERS
AND ALLIED WORKERS) MEMBER—HECTOR GUMANGAN CALILUNG, petitioner, vs. THE
Same; Same; Same; Court cannot arrogate the duty of setting the parameters of what constitutes dual
HONORABLE SIMEON DATUMANONG, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Justice, allegiance when the Constitution itself has clearly delegated the duty of determining what acts constitute dual
respondent . allegiance for study and legislation by Congress.—In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001), we
said that the courts must assume that the legislature is ever conscious of the borders and edges of its
plenary powers, and passed laws with full knowledge of the facts and for the purpose of promoting what is
Constitutional Law; Citizenship; Dual Allegiance; What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship
right and advancing the welfare of the majority. Hence, in determining whether the acts of the legislature
to natural-born Filipino citizens who has lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
are in tune with the fundamental law, we must proceed with judicial restraint and act with caution and
citizens of a foreign country; On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance; By swearing to the supreme
forbearance. The doctrine of separation of powers demands no less. We cannot arrogate the duty of setting
authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizen-ship.—From the excerpts of the
the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance when the Constitution itself has clearly delegated the
legislative record, it is clear that the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 is to do away
duty of determining what acts constitute dual allegiance for study and legislation by Congress.
with the provision in Commonwealth Act No. 63 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born
Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries. What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual
citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Prohibition.
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly,      Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao for petitioner.
from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden
110
of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What
happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of Rep. Act No. 9225.
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Same; Same; Same; 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 Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School
including this Court to rule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance.—To begin with, Section 5, Article IV of Teachers and Allied Workers (AASJS) Member vs.
the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has
Datumanong
to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Sec-

_______________
     The Solicitor General for respondent.

* EN BANC. QUISUMBING, J.:

This is an original action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
109 Procedure.
Petitioner filed the instant petition against respondent, then Secretary
1
of Justice Simeon
Datumanong, the official tasked to implement laws governing citizenship.  Petitioner prays that a
writ of prohibition be issued to stop respondent from implementing Republic Act No. 9225,
VOL. 523, MAY 11, 2007 109 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
Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for Purposes.” Petitioner avers that Rep. Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5,
School Teachers and Allied Workers (AASJS) Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that states, “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
Member vs. Datumanong national interest and shall be dealt with by law.”
Rep. Act No. 9225, signed into law by President Gloria M. Arroyo on August 29, 2003, reads:

tions 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with “SECTION 1. Short Title.—This Act shall be known as the “Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of
the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their 2003.”
naturalization. Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters of what
_______________
 1 Executive Order No. 292, also known as the “Administrative Code of 1987,” Book IV, Title III, Chapter 1 (on the
the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any
Department of Justice), states: and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath;
xxxx (3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the
SEC. 3. Powers and Functions.—To accomplish its mandate, the Department shall have the following powers and functions: Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of
xxxx office:  Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that
(6) Provide immigration and naturalization regulatory services and implement the laws governing citizenship and the admission and
stay of aliens; oath;
xxxx (4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority
111
for a license or permit to engage in such practice; and
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot be
exercised by, or extended to, those who:
VOL. 523, MAY 11, 2007 111
(a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized
Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School citizens; and/or
Teachers and Allied Workers (AASJS) Member vs. (b) are in the active service as commissioned or noncommissioned officers in the armed forces of the
Datumanong country which they are naturalized citizens.

SEC. 6. Separability Clause.—If any section or provision of this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid, any
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.—It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who other section or provision not affected thereby shall remain valid and effective.
become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the SEC. 7. Repealing Clause.—All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with the
conditions of this Act. provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.—Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, SEC. 8. Effectivity Clause.—This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in
natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their the Official Gazette or two (2) newspapers of general circulation.”
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship
upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic: In this petition for prohibition, the following issues have been raised: (1) Is Rep. Act No. 9225
“I ___________________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the unconstitutional? (2) Does this Court have jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual allegiance?
Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the We shall discuss these issues jointly.
Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain
true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation 113
or purpose of evasion.”

Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign VOL. 523, MAY 11, 2007 113
country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
SEC. 4. Derivative Citizenship.—The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School
eighteen (18) years of age, of those who reacquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be Teachers and Allied Workers (AASJS) Member vs.
deemed citizens of the Philippines. Datumanong
SEC. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities.—Those who retain or reacquire 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 and the following conditions: Petitioner contends that Rep. Act No. 9225 cheapens Philippine citizenship. He avers that
Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, together, allow dual allegiance and not dual citizenship.
(1) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the requirements under Section 1, Petitioner maintains that Section 2 allows all Filipinos, either natural-born or naturalized, who
Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as “The Overseas Absentee become foreign citizens, to retain their Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign
Voting Act of 2003” and other existing laws;
citizenship. Section 3 permits dual allegiance because said law allows natural-born citizens of the
(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such Philippines to regain their Philippine citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance without
public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at 2
forfeiting their foreign allegiance.  The Constitution, however, is categorical that dual allegiance
112 is inimical to the national interest.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) claims that Section 2 merely declares as a state
policy that “Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED have lost their Philippine citizenship.” The OSG further claims that the oath in Section 3 does not
allow dual allegiance since the oath taken by the former Filipino citizen is an effective
Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School renunciation and repudiation of his foreign citizenship. The fact that the applicant taking the
Teachers and Allied Workers (AASJS) Member vs. oath recognizes and accepts the supreme authority of the Philippines is an unmistakable and
Datumanong
3
categorical affirmation of his undivided loyalty to the Republic.
In resolving the aforecited issues in this case, resort to the deliberations of Congress is
necessary to determine the intent of the legislative branch in drafting the assailed law. During
the deliberations, the issue of whether Rep. Act No. 9225 would allow dual allegiance had in fact Rep. Locsin clarified that by swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person
been the subject of debate. The record of the legislative deliberations reveals the following: implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. However, he said that this is not a matter that he wishes
to address in Congress because he is not a member of a foreign parliament but a Member of the House.

_______________ xxxx
2 Rollo, p. 9.
3 Id., at p. 48.
Rep. Locsin replied that it is imperative that those who have dual allegiance contrary to national interest
should be dealt with by law. However, he said that the dual allegiance problem is not addressed in the bill.
114 He then cited the Declaration of Policy in the bill which states that ‘It is hereby declared the policy of the
State that all citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.’ He stressed that what the bill does is recognize
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Philippine citizenship but says nothing about the other citizenship.

Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Rep. Locsin further pointed out that the problem of dual allegiance is created wherein a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines takes an oath of allegiance to another country and in that oath says that he abjures and
Teachers and Allied Workers (AASJS) Member vs.
absolutely renounces all allegiance to his country of origin and swears allegiance to that foreign country.
Datumanong The original Bill had left it at this stage, he explained. In the present measure, he clarified, a person is
required to take an oath and the last he utters is one of allegiance to the country. He then said
“x x x x that the problem 4of dual allegiance is no longer the problem of the Philippines but of the other
foreign country.”  (Emphasis supplied.)
Pursuing his point, Rep. Dilangalen noted that under the measure, two situations exist—the retention of
foreign citizenship, and the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. In this case, he observed that there are From the above excerpts of the legislative record, it is clear that the intent of the legislature
5
in
two citizenships and therefore, two allegiances. He pointed out that under the Constitution, dual allegiance drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 is to do away with the provision in Commonwealth Act No. 63  which
is inimical to public interest. He thereafter asked whether with the creation of dual allegiance by reason of takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-
retention of foreign citizenship and the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, there will now be a violation
of the Constitution…
_______________
Rep. Locsin underscored that the measure does not seek to address the constitutional injunction on dual 4 11
JOURNAL,HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (August 26, 2003).
allegiance as inimical to public interest. He said that the proposed law aims to facilitate the 5 
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by speedy means. However, he said that in one sense, it REACQUIRED. (Approved on October 21, 1936.)
addresses the problem of dual citizenship by requiring the taking of an oath. He explained that xxxx
the problem of dual citizenship is transferred from the Philippines to the foreign country
because the latest oath that will be taken by the former Filipino is one of allegiance to the 116
Philippines and not to the United States, as the case may be. He added that this is a matter which
the Philippine government will have no concern and competence over.
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rep. Dilangalen asked why this will no longer be the country’s concern, when dual allegiance is involved.
Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School
Rep. Locsin clarified that this was precisely his objection to the original version of the bill, which did not Teachers and Allied Workers (AASJS) Member vs.
require an oath of allegiance. Since the measure now requires this oath, the problem of dual Datumanong
allegiance is transferred from the Philippines to the foreign country concerned, he explained.

xxxx born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries. What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is
Rep. Dilangalen asked whether in the particular case, the person did not denounce his foreign citizenship allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by
and therefore still owes allegiance to the foreign government, and at the same time, owes his allegiance to reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize
the Philippine government, such that there is now a case of dual citizenship and dual allegiance. 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
115 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. What happens to the other citizenship
VOL. 523, MAY 11, 2007 115 was not made a concern of Rep. Act No. 9225.
Petitioner likewise advances the proposition that although Congress has not yet passed any
Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School law on the matter of dual allegiance, such absence of a law should not be justification why this
Teachers and Allied Workers (AASJS) Member vs. Court could not rule on the issue. He further contends that while it is true that there 6
is no
Datumanong enabling law yet on dual allegiance, the Supreme Court, through Mercado v. Manzano,7  already
had drawn up the guidelines on how to distinguish dual allegiance from dual citizenship.
 For its part, the OSG counters that pursuant to Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, 118
dual allegiance shall be dealt with by law. Thus, until a law on dual allegiance is enacted by
Congress, 8the Supreme Court is without any jurisdiction to entertain issues regarding dual
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
allegiance.
To begin with, Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not People vs. Buban
a self-executing provision.
SO ORDERED.
_______________

SECTION 1. How citizenship may be lost.—A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways           Puno  (C.J.),  Ynares-Santiago,  Sandoval-Gutierrez,  Carpio,  Carpio-
and/or events: Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, Velasco, Jr. and Nachura, JJ., concur.
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;      Austria-Martinez and Corona, JJ., On Leave.
xxxx
6 G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999, 307 SCRA 630.
Petition dismissed.
7 Id., at p. 643.
8 Rollo, pp. 55-56.
Note.—The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply
117 only to legitimate children. (Republic vs. Lim, 419 SCRA 123 [2004])

VOL. 523, MAY 11, 2007 117

Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School
Teachers and Allied Workers (AASJS) Member vs.
Datumanong

The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No.
9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship  per se, but with the status of
naturalized citizens
9
who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their
naturalization. Congress was given a mandate 10
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.
Neither can we subscribe to the proposition of petitioner that a law is not needed since the
case of  Mercado  had already set the guidelines for determining dual allegiance. Petitioner
misreads Mercado. That case did not set the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance but
merely made a distinction between dual allegiance
11
and dual citizenship.
Moreover, in  Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,   we said that the courts must assume that the
legislature is ever conscious of the borders and edges of its plenary powers, and passed laws with
full knowledge of the facts and for the purpose of promoting what is right and advancing the
welfare of the majority. Hence, in determining whether the acts of the legislature are in tune
with the fundamental
12
law, we must proceed with judicial restraint and act with caution and
forbearance.  The doctrine of separation of powers demands no less. We cannot arrogate the duty
of setting the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance when the Constitution itself has
clearly delegated the duty of determining what acts constitute dual allegiance for study and
legislation by Congress.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

_______________
9 Supra note 7.
10 RECORDS,CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 365 (July 8, 1986).
11 G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001, 369 SCRA 394.
12 Id., at p. 431.