G.R. No. 160869 ; May 11, 2007
AASJS MEMBER – HECTOR GUMANGAN CALILUNG, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SIMEON DATUMANONG, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Justice, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Hector Calilung filed an original action for prohibition seeking to enjoin the Secretary of Justice from implementing Republic Act No. 9225 , the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. The petitioner averred that the law is unconstitutional for violating Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution , which declares that “dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.” He argued that R.A. 9225, by allowing natural-born Filipinos who acquired foreign citizenship to retain or reacquire their Philippine citizenship upon taking an oath, effectively permits and encourages dual allegiance, which the Constitution deems inimical.
The respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that the law does not sanction dual allegiance. It was argued that the oath of allegiance prescribed under Section 3 of R.A. 9225 constitutes an effective renunciation of foreign allegiance and an affirmation of undivided loyalty to the Philippines. The state policy declared in the law merely deems that such citizens shall not have lost their Philippine citizenship, a mechanism distinct from creating a state of dual allegiance.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Republic Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional for allegedly sanctioning dual allegiance, which is prohibited under the Constitution.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the constitutionality of R.A. 9225. The Court clarified the distinction between dual citizenship and dual allegiance. Dual citizenship arises from the concurrent application of the differing citizenship laws of two states; it is a legal status, often involuntary. Dual allegiance, conversely, refers to a condition where a person simultaneously owes loyalty to two or more states, a political problem which the Constitution commands Congress to “deal with” by law.
The Court ruled that R.A. 9225 addresses dual citizenship, not dual allegiance. By taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic, the applicant swears to “recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines,” which is a positive act of renunciation of foreign allegiance and a commitment of sole loyalty. The law itself, in Section 5(2), requires those seeking elective office to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship, a specific legislative measure to prevent potential conflicts of allegiance. The constitutional provision is not self-executing; it directs Congress to formulate the means to address dual allegiance. By enacting R.A. 9225, including its safeguards, Congress was performing its constitutional mandate. The Court emphasized judicial restraint, stating it cannot arrogate the duty of defining dual allegiance when the Constitution has expressly delegated that task to the legislative branch. The law was a valid exercise of that delegated power.