CASE DIGEST/ MARIETTA RAEL

VIVENNE K. TAN v. VINCENT “BINGBONG” CRISOLOGO

GR NOS. 193993, 2017-11-08 

FACTS:

On 19 January 1993, Tan, born to Filipino parents, became a naturalized citizen of the United States of America (U.S.A.).Tan applied to be registered as a voter in Quezon City. She indicated that she was a Filipino Citizen by birth. Tan took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before a notary public in Makati City. Tan filed her Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for the 2010 National Elections to run as congresswoman for the First District of Quezon City. Respondent Vincent "Bingbong" Crisologo (Crisologo) filed a petition before the MeTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 37-09-1292, seeking the exclusion of Tan from the voter's list because (1) she was not a Filipino citizen when she registered as a voter; and (2) she failed to meet the residency requirement of the law. The MeTC rendered a decision excluding Tan from the voter's list.

In the case at bar, there is no doubt that [Tan] upon registration as voter in the First District of Quezon City was still a naturalized American Citizen. But her questioned citizenship was cured when [Tan] made the following acts:

ISSUE:

The pivotal question in this case is whether Tan can be considered a Philippine citizen at the time she registered as a voter.

RULING:

Tan appealed the  decision to the RTC, where it was reversed but her questioned citizenship was cured when [Tan] made the following acts:

Without any doubt, only Filipino citizens are qualified to vote and may be included in the permanent list of voters.[25] Thus, to be registered a voter in the Philippines, the registrant must be a citizen at the time he or she filed the application.

In the present case, it is undisputed that Tan filed her voter's registration application on 26 October 2009, and that she only took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on 30 November 2009, or more than a month after the ERB approved her application.

Tan argues that (1) her reacquisition of Philippine citizenship through R.A. No. 9225 has a retroactive effect, such that a natural-born Filipino citizen is deemed never to have lost his or her Filipino citizenship,[26] and that (2) the reacquisition cured any and all de... defects, assuming any are existing, attendant during her registration as a voter.[27]

Congress declared as a state policy that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions laid out by the law

In other words, by declaring "deemed to have not lost their Philippine citizenship," does this mean that once Philippine citizenship is reacquired after taking the Oath of Allegiance required in R.A. No. 9225, the effect on the citizenship status retroacts to the period before taking said oath. We rule in the negative.

Serreno, "[t]he renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply be professed at any time, only to be violated the next day. It requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and political rights granted by the foreign country which granted the citizenship.

An interpretation giving R.A. No. 9225 a retroactive effect to those who have lost their Philippine citizenship through naturalization by a foreign country prior to R.A. No. 9225 would cause confusion to what is stated in Section 3: "natural-born citizens by reason of their 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." To go beyond what the law says and interpret it in its ordinary and plain meaning would be tantamount to judicial legislation.

The law must not be read in truncated parts; its provisions must be read in relation to the whole law.

To harmonize, given the distinction between citizens who have "re­acquired" from those who "retained" Philippine citizenship,[41] coupled with the legal effects of renunciation of citizenship, Section 2 of R.A. No. 9225 cannot be used as basis for giving a retroactive application of the law. R.A. No. 9225 contains no provision stating that it may be applied retroactively as regards natural-born citizens who became naturalized citizens of a foreign country prior to the effectivity of the said law. In fact, correlating Sections 2 and 3 of the law would readily reveal that only those falling under the second paragraph of R.A. No. 9225, i.e., natural-born citizens who became naturalized citizens of a foreign country after the effectivity of the said law, shall be considered as not to have lost their Philippine citizenship.

Moreover, to consider that the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship retroacts to the date it was lost would result in an absurd scenario where a Filipino would still be considered a Philippine citizen when in fact he had already renounced his citizenship.

Finally, it is a well-settled rule that statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation, unless the legislature intended to give them a retroactive effect.

All said, absent any legal basis for the retroactive application of R.A. No. 9225, we agree with the CA that Tan was not a Filipino citizen at the time she registered as a voter and her inclusion to the permanent voter's list is highly irregular.