TAN VS. CRISOLOGO
November November 8, 2017 | Martires, Martires, J PETITIONER : VIVIENNE TAN RESPONDENT : VINCENT
“BINGBONG” “BINGBONG” CRISOLOGO
SUMMARY: Vivienne Tan was a naturalized US citizen who sought to run for QC 1st district representative. However, she only took her Oath of Allegiance to the PH, as required by RA 9225, after she had applied to be a registered voter. Crisologo challenged her inclusion in the voter’s list, saying she was not a citizen at the time of her registration, and that she failed to meet the residency requirement. SC held that she was not a PH citizen at the time she registered. DOCTRINE
1. RA 9225 makes a distinction between 1) those who lost PH citizenship before RA 9225 and reacquired it under the same and 2) those who lost PH citizenship after RA 9225 and retained citizenship. 2. Tan took her Oath of Allegiance to the US on 19 Jan 2003, before the enactment of RA 9225. If retroactive application is permitted, then then the distinction distinction is RA 9225 is rendered rendered futile. futile. 3. To consider that the reacquisition of the PH citizenship retroacts to the date it was lost = absurd scenario where the person would still be considered a PH citizen when he had renounced his citizenship. FACTS
1. 19 Jan 1993: Vivienne Tan became a naturalized US citizen. 2. 20 August 2003: RA 9225 was enacted. 3. 26 Oct 2009: Tan applied to be a registered voter in Quezon City. She indicated that she was a Filipino by birth. The Election Registration Board approved her application on 16 Nov 2009. 4. 30 Nov 2009: Tan took her Oath of Allegiance to the PH in Makati. 5. 1 Dec 2009: Tan filed a petition before the Bureau of Immigration for the reacquisition of her PH citizenship and executed a declaration renouncing allegiance to the US. The BI confirmed her reacquisition.
6. 1 Dec 2009: Tan filed her Certificate of Candidacy to run as QC 1st District representative. representative. 7. 28 Dec 2009: Bingbong Crisologo filed a petition before the MeTC seeking to exclude Tan from the voter’s list, alleging 1) she was not a PH citizen when she registered as a voter and 2) she failed to meet the residency requirement. 8. MeTC ruled to exclude Tan from the voter’s list, holding that she was not a PH citizen at the time she registered as a voter. 9. Tan appealed to the RTC. RTC reversed the MeTC and dismissed Crisologo’s petition. RTC opined that the question of her citizenship was cured by Tan’s subsequent Oath, Petition for Reacquisition, the BI’s Order granti ng the said petition, and Sworn Declaration re: renouncing her allegiance to the US. 10. The RTC decision became final and executory due to RA 8189. Hence, Crisologo filed for certiorari before the CA. 11. The CA held that the RTC committed GADALEJ in reversing the MeTC decision, hence this Petition. ISSUE/HELD
W/N Tan can be considered a PH citizen at the time she registered as a voter – NO. NO. Basically, no legal basis for the retroactive application of RA 9225. Her inclusion in the voter’s list is highly irregular. W/N when PH citizenship is reacquired after taking the Oath as required by RA 9225, the effect on citizenship status retroacts to period before taking said oath - NO RATIO
1. The reacquisition of PH citizenship under RA 9225 requires only the taking of an oath of allegiance to the PH. 2. RA 9225 makes a distinction between 1) those who lost PH citizenship before RA 9225 and reacquired it under the same and 2) those who lost PH citizenship after RA 9225 and retained citizenship. 3. Tan took her Oath of Allegiance to the US on 19 Jan 2003, before the enactment of RA 9225. If retroactive application is permitted, then the distinction is RA 9225 is rendered rendered futile. futile.
4. An interpretation giving RA 9225 retroactive effect as contemplated by Tan would cause confusion, especially with respect to Sec. 3, RA 9225. Verba legis. 5. The Court also used the holistic approach, citing Mactan-Cebu Intl Airport Authority vs. Urgello. The law must not be read in truncated parts; its provisions must be read in relation to the whole law. 6. RA 9225 contains to provision regarding the retroactivity of its effects as regards natural-born citizens who became naturalized citizens of a foreign country before RA 9225. 7. To consider that the reacquisition of the PH citizenship retroacts to the date it was lost = absurd scenario where the person would still be considered a PH citizen when he had renounced his citizenship. 8. Rule is also that statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation, unless legislature intended to tive them a retroactive effect. 9. Citing Maquiling vs COMELEC ( penned by CJ Sereno): the 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. 10. We cannot consider one a Filipino citizen unless and until his or her allegiance to the Republic of the PH is reaffirmed. NOTES
