Calilung v. Datumanong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner AASJS (Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Teachers and Allied Workers) Member Hector Gumangan Calilung filed an original action for prohibition against respondent, then Secretary of Justice Simeon Datumanong, seeking to stop the implementation of Republic Act No. 9225. Procedural History: The case was filed directly with the Supreme Court as an original action for prohibition. The Petition: Petitioner averred that Republic Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, which states that "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law." Petitioner argued that the Act allows dual allegiance, not just dual citizenship.
Issue(s)
Is Republic Act No. 9225 unconstitutional? Does this Court have jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual allegiance?
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9225: The Court held that Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003, is not unconstitutional. The primary purpose of the Act is to allow natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country to retain or reacquire their Philippine citizenship. The Act does not recognize dual allegiance; rather, it facilitates dual citizenship. By requiring individuals to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, they implicitly renounce their foreign citizenship. On the Court's jurisdiction over dual allegiance: The Court clarified that Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution, which declares dual allegiance inimical to the national interest and mandates that it be dealt with by law, is a declaration of policy and not a self-executing provision. Congress has the duty to enact a law that sets specific parameters for what constitutes dual allegiance. Until such a law is enacted, it is premature for the judiciary to rule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance. The Court distinguished this from the case of Mercado v. Manzano, which merely differentiated dual allegiance from dual citizenship and did not set parameters for dual allegiance. The Court emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers, stating that it cannot arrogate the duty of setting the parameters of dual allegiance when the Constitution has delegated this duty to Congress. Therefore, the petition for prohibition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Main Doctrine
Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003, does not violate Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution which states that dual allegiance is inimical to the national interest. The Act allows for dual citizenship, not dual allegiance, by requiring an oath of allegiance to the Republic, which implicitly renounces foreign citizenship, thereby shifting the concern of dual allegiance to the foreign country.