Case No.
25
TOPIC: PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE
G.R. Nos. 92191-92 July 30, 1991
ANTONIO Y. CO, petitioner,
vs.
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOSE
ONG, JR., respondents.
G.R. Nos. 92202-03 July 30, 1991
SIXTO T. BALANQUIT, JR., petitioner,
vs.
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOSE
ONG, JR., respondents
FACTS
1. On May 11, 1987, the congressional election for the second district of Northern Samar
was held. Among the candidates who vied for the position of representative in the second
legislative district of Northern Samar are the petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co
and the private respondent, Jose Ong, Jr.
2. Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district of
Northern Samar.
3. Both Antonio Co and Sixto Balangquit filed an election protest raising the issue of
citizenship and residency of Respondent Ong before the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
4. On November 12, 1989, HRET ruled in favor of Respondent Ong
5. On November 12, 1989, Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration but the same
was likewise denied by HRET on February 22, 1989
6. Petitioners filed this Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court – En Banc
ISSUES
W/N Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born citizen of the Philippines
HELD
1. YES. ART. IV, SECTION 1 and 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that,
SECTION 1, the following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
SECTION 2, Natural-born Citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship.
Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3 hereof shall
be deemed natural-born citizens.
Sec 3 above, means that after 17 January 1973, effectivity date of the 1973 Constitution, all those
born of Filipino fathers (with alien spouse) or Filipino mothers (with alien spouse) are natural-
born Filipino citizens. But those born to Filipino mothers prior to 17 January 1973 must still
elect Philippine citizenship upon their reaching the age of majority, in order to be deemed
natural-born Filipino citizens. The election, which is related to the attainment of the age of
majority, may be made before or after 17 January 1973. This interpretation appears to be in
consonance with the fundamental purpose of the Constitution which is to protect and enhance the
people's individual interests, and to foster equality among them.
Since private respondent was born on 19 June 1948 (or before 17 January 1973) to a Filipino
mother (with an alien spouse – Chinese father) and should have elected Philippine citizenship on
19 June 1969 (when he attained the age of majority), or soon thereafter, in order to have the
status of a natural-born Filipino citizen under the 1987 Constitution, the vital question is: did
private respondent really elect Philippine citizenship? The court ruled that in Antonio Ong’s case,
election is no longer necessary.
At the time his Chinese father became naturalized Filipino, Respondent Ong then is a minor of
nine years, therefore election of citizenship is no longer necessary. When his father became
naturalized, Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Act squarely applies its benefit to him for
he was then a minor residing in this country. Concededly, it was the law itself that had already
elected Philippine citizenship for respondent Ong by declaring him as such. There is no doubt
that he naturally became Filipino when he turned 21 years old. Hence, there is no ground to deny
the Filipino citizenship of respondent Ong. Respondent Ong was also born of a natural-born
Filipino mother, thus the issue of citizenship is immaterial.
The purpose of Section 3 is to remedy an inequitable situation. Between 1935 and 1973, when
we were under the 1935 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers but alien mothers were
natural-born Filipinos. However, those born of Filipino mothers but alien fathers would have to
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and if they do elect, they become
Filipino citizens but not natural-born Filipino citizens unfair that the Filipino citizen who was
born a day before January 17, 1973 cannot be a Filipino citizen or a natural-born citizen.
The intent of the framers reveal that to make the provision prospective from February 3, 1987 is
to give a narrow interpretation resulting in an inequitable situation. It must also be retroactive.
THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED AND RESPONDENT ONG IS DECLARED A NATURAL
BORN- FILIPINO CITIZEN.
NOTES:
Justice Padilla issued a dissenting opinion in so far as the ruling of the tribunal that the validity
of Antonio Ong’s father should no longer be discussed. He also raised issues on the citizenship
election requirement as provided for in Sec 3. He believed that and as explained in his lengthy
opinion that because there is a question in the citizenship of Antonio’s father, naturally, it would
to lead question whether – Art IV Sec 3 is applicable to him when his father citizenship might be
invalid.
Justice Paras, Regalado and Narvasa dissent, Justice Sarmiento concur
