Skip to main content

AASJS vs Datumanong

AASJS vs Datumanong

Petitioner prays that a writ of prohibition be issued to stop respondent from implementing Republic Act No. 9225, entitled "An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63, As Amended, and for Other Purposes." Petitioner avers that Rep. Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that states, "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law."

ISSUE: By recognizing & allowing dual allegiance, is RA 9225 unconstitutional?

HELD: No. Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters of what really constitutes dual allegiance.Until this is done, it would be premature for the judicial department, including this Court, to rule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006 FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has abused power by issuing E.O. 464 “Ensuring Observance of the Principles of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and for Other Purposes”. Petitioners pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional. In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines, through its various Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for, inter alia, the attendance of officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those employed in Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP). The Committee of the Senate issued inv
3 comments
Read more

Pimentel vs. COMELEC GR 161658, Nov. 3, 2003

Facts: Congress passed RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and makes it mandatory for candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among other personalities, to undergo a drug test. Hence, Senator Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for the 2004 synchronized elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the said law. Issue: is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office an unconstitutional imposition of additional qualification on candidates for Senator? Held: Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, requiring all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government undergo a mandatory drug test is UNCONSITUTIONAL. Under Sec.3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an aspiring candidate for Senator needs only to meet 5 qualifications: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (
Post a Comment
Read more

oblicon digests

MAGDALENA ESTATE VS. MYRICK 71 PHIL. 346 FACTS: Magdalena Estate, Inc. sold to Louis Myrick lots No. 28 and 29 of Block 1, Parcel 9 of the San Juan Subdivision, San Juan, Rizal. Their contract of sale provides that the Price of P7,953 shall be payable in 120 equal monthly installments of P96.39 each on the second day of every month beginning the date of execution of the agreement. In pursuance of said agreement, the vendee made several payments amounting to P2,596.08, the last being due and unpaid was that of May 2, 1930. By reason of this, the vendor, through its president, notified the vendee that, in view of his inability to comply with the terms of their contract, said agreement had been cancelled, relieving him of any further obligation thereunder, and that all amounts paid by him had been forfeited in favor of the vendor. To this communication, the vendee did not reply, and it appears likewise that the vendor thereafter did not require him to make any further disbursements on acc
1 comment
Read more