In re Jacinto
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Regina Stella P. Jacinto, a member of the Philippine Bar since April 11, 1996, became a citizen of Malta on May 29, 2023. She asserts that Maltese law permits dual citizenship and that under Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, she is deemed not to have lost her Philippine citizenship by virtue of her Maltese naturalization. 2. Procedural History: Following her naturalization as a Maltese citizen, Jacinto filed a Petition for Retention/Re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship with the Bureau of Immigration (BI) on June 29, 2023. The BI granted this petition on July 14, 2023, issuing a Certificate of Re-acquisition/Retention of Philippine Citizenship. Subsequently, on August 7, 2023, she took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Thereafter, she filed the present petition with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to formalize her privilege to practice law. 3. The Petition: Jacinto filed a Petition with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) on September 8, 2023, seeking to formalize her privilege to practice law in the Philippines. She submitted numerous supporting documents, including her Maltese Certificate of Naturalization, BI orders related to her citizenship retention, certifications of good standing from the OBC and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), and other clearances. The OBC recommended that she be allowed to retake the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys, finding compliance with the requirements set forth in In Re: Muneses.
Issue(s)
Whether Jacinto's privilege to practice law in the Philippines should be formalized despite her acquisition of foreign citizenship.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, subject to the condition that Jacinto shall re-take the Lawyer's Oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys, and pay the appropriate fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions and is delicately affected with public interest, necessitating State regulation through the Supreme Court. Under Rule 138, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, Philippine citizenship is a mandatory requirement for admission to the Bar and, as held in In Re: Muneses, it is a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss of Philippine citizenship via naturalization in a foreign country generally results in the termination of the privilege to practice law. While Republic Act (RA) 9225 allows natural-born citizens to retain or re-acquire citizenship, Section 5 of said law explicitly requires professionals to apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to resume their practice. The Court noted that Jacinto 'retained' her citizenship because she became a Maltese citizen after the effectivity of RA 9225, unlike the petitioners in Muneses and Dacanay who 're-acquired' it. However, the Court ruled that RA 9225 makes no distinction between 'retention' and 're-acquisition' regarding the practice of a profession. Therefore, the procedural requirements set forth in In Re: Muneses—specifically the filing of a petition, the retaking of the Lawyer's Oath, and the signing of the Roll of Attorneys—must be strictly followed before the privilege to practice law is formalized.
Main Doctrine
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, most notably the continuing requirement of Philippine citizenship. Under Section 5 of Republic Act (RA) 9225, individuals who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in the practice of a profession. For the legal profession, this 'proper authority' is the Supreme Court. Consequently, even if a lawyer is deemed not to have lost their citizenship under the 'retention' provision of RA 9225, they must still undergo the formal process of retaking the Lawyer's Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys to resume their practice.