The Difference between ‘Natural-Born’ and ‘Naturalized’ Citizens

I. Introduction

This memorandum provides an exhaustive analysis of the distinction between natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens under Philippine political law. The distinction, rooted in the 1987 Constitution, carries profound implications for the exercise of political rights, particularly eligibility for high public office. The core inquiry revolves around the legal definitions, modes of acquisition, and the attendant rights and disabilities of each classification. This research is predicated on constitutional text, pertinent jurisprudence, and statutory law.

II. Constitutional Foundation

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines establishes the fundamental distinction in Article IV (Citizenship). Section 1 enumerates who are considered citizens, while Section 2 explicitly creates the two categories: “Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.” All other citizens, who acquire citizenship through a positive legal act, are naturalized citizens. This classification is not merely descriptive but is imbued with legal consequences, most notably under Article VII, Section 2, which reserves the presidency and vice-presidency exclusively for natural-born citizens.

III. Definition and Modes of Acquiring Natural-Born Citizenship

A natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is instantaneous and automatic by operation of law at the moment of birth. No further action is required to “perfect” this status. The modes of acquisition are jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of soil), as applied under prevailing law at the time of birth.
Jus Sanguinis: This is the primary principle under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. A child is a natural-born citizen if, at birth, either parent is a Philippine citizen. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child is critical: legitimate children follow the father’s citizenship; illegitimate children follow the mother’s citizenship (jus sanguinis* applies to the mother).
Jus Soli: This principle applied during the Spanish period and under the Philippine Bill of 1902 (the “Jones Law”). Those born in the Philippines during those periods who elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching majority were deemed natural-born if they complied with the election requirements. The doctrine of jus soli* is largely historical in the Philippine context.
Crucially, if an individual is a citizen at birth under any of these applicable laws, they are considered a natural-born citizen, even if the specific facts of their birth (e.g., being an illegitimate child following a foreign father) would not confer such status under a later constitution. The status is fixed at birth.

IV. Definition and Process of Naturalization

A naturalized citizen is an alien who acquires Philippine citizenship through a formal, positive act recognized by law. It is a legal process whereby a foreign national is admitted to the body politic of the Philippines. The primary modes are:
Administrative Naturalization*: Under Republic Act No. 9139, the “Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000,” qualified aliens may acquire citizenship through an administrative proceeding before a Special Committee on Naturalization.
Judicial Naturalization*: Under Commonwealth Act No. 473, the “Revised Naturalization Law,” an alien may become a citizen through a judicial decree issued by a competent court.
Legislative Naturalization*: A direct grant of citizenship by an act of Congress, which is rare.
Derivative Naturalization*: The acquisition of citizenship by the wife or minor children as a consequence of the naturalization of the principal applicant, subject to certain conditions.
Naturalization requires the applicant to renounce former allegiance, take an oath of allegiance, and fulfill stringent requirements regarding residence, character, property, and education. It is a privilege granted by the state, not a right.

V. Key Legal Consequences: Eligibility for Public Office

The most significant legal distinction lies in eligibility for certain constitutional offices. Under the 1987 Constitution, the following positions are reserved exclusively for natural-born citizens:
* President (Article VII, Section 2)
* Vice-President (Article VII, Section 2)
* Member of Congress (Senator under Article VI, Section 3; House Member under Article VI, Section 6)
* Member of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts (Article VIII, Section 7)
* Ombudsman and his Deputies (Article XI, Section 8)
A naturalized citizen is disqualified from holding these offices. However, both natural-born and naturalized citizens may hold other appointive or elective positions not specified by the Constitution as requiring natural-born status, such as local elective offices (e.g., Governor, Mayor), provided other qualifications are met.

VI. Key Legal Consequences: Other Rights and Privileges

Beyond office-holding, the distinction has other implications:
Right of Suffrage: Both natural-born and naturalized citizens* who are at least eighteen years of age and have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place they intend to vote for at least six months possess the right to vote.
Professional Practice*: The right to practice a profession is generally open to all citizens who pass the requisite licensure examinations, with no distinction based on the type of citizenship.
Ownership of Land and Resources*: Both classes of citizens enjoy the constitutional right to own private land and to explore, develop, and utilize natural resources, rights generally reserved for Filipino citizens.
Loss of Citizenship: Both may lose citizenship through formal renunciation, subscribing to an oath of allegiance to a foreign state, or serving in the armed forces of a foreign country. However, the path to re-acquisition differs, particularly under the dual citizenship and reacquisition* clauses of Republic Act No. 9225 (the “Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003”).

VII. Comparative Analysis Table

The following table summarizes the core distinctions:

VIII. Jurisprudential Clarifications

The Supreme Court has provided critical interpretations:
In Tecson vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004), the Court emphasized that the determination of natural-born status depends on the law applicable at the time of the person’s birth. It upheld the natural-born* status of a presidential candidate born to a Filipino mother and an American father in 1937, as the 1935 Constitution conferred citizenship on illegitimate children through the mother.
The case of Frivaldo vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996) established that a natural-born* citizen who lost his citizenship may run for an elective office open to citizens, provided he re-acquires it before the deadline for filing the certificate of candidacy, as the disqualification is not perpetual but contingent on the lack of citizenship at the time of filing.
In Mercado vs. Manzano (G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999), the Court clarified that a natural-born citizen who acquires foreign citizenship by naturalization is deemed not to have lost their natural-born status under Philippine law unless they renounce it. Upon reacquisition under R.A. 9225, they are considered to have “re-acquired” their natural-born* status for purposes of running for offices requiring such.

IX. Impact of Republic Act No. 9225

Republic Act No. 9225 significantly affects the distinction. It allows natural-born citizens who lost citizenship through naturalization in a foreign country to re-acquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance. Crucially, Section 3 provides that they “shall be deemed to have re-acquired their natural-born citizenship.” This statutory fiction restores their eligibility for offices requiring natural-born status, provided they meet all other qualifications. This benefit does not extend to those who were originally naturalized citizens of the Philippines; they re-acquire only plain citizenship.

X. Conclusion

The dichotomy between natural-born and naturalized citizens is a constitutional cornerstone of Philippine political law. The distinction originates at the moment citizenship is acquired: automatically at birth versus through a subsequent legal act. While both classes enjoy the fundamental rights of citizenship, the critical disability imposed on naturalized citizens is their constitutional ineligibility for the highest offices of the land. Jurisprudence has refined the application of these concepts, particularly in cases of lost and reacquired citizenship, with R.A. 9225 creating a pivotal mechanism for natural-born Filipinos to reclaim their full political rights. The status, once determined by the applicable law at birth, remains a permanent legal attribute, with enduring consequences for an individual’s political capacity within the Republic.