Here’s the scenario. A person elects Philippine Citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the 1935 Constitution. However, his birth certificate still states that he is Chinese. He wants his birth certificate and all other official records to reflect / show that he is a Filipino Citizen. What should he do?
Our proposed remedy is that he file a Petition for Judicial Declaration of Filipino Citizenship and Correction of Entries in his Birth Certificate and other Official Documents to reflect / show that he is a Filipino Citizen.
The following could be among the possible grounds / legal bases for the Petition--
1. He is already a Filipino Citizen
He is a Filipino by election vis-à-vis Article IV Section 1 [4] of the 1935 Philippine Constitution. Official records show he executed a sworn statement formally electing Philippine citizenship. Under the 1935 Constitution, a child born of a Filipino mother, who was a Filipino citizen at the time of her marriage to a foreigner and by such marriage lost her citizenship, is born an alien and remains an alien during his minority until he elects Philippine citizenship. He is also considered a Filipino by virtue of his having exercised the right of suffrage. In the case of In Re: Florencio Mallare, 59 SCRA 45 [1974], the Court held that the exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship. it would also be good for him to demonstrate that he embraces Philippine customs and values and that the country is his natural homeland.
He is a natural born Filipino by blood relation or jus sanguinis. There is no dispute that his mother was a natural born Filipino at the time of her marriage. Children follow the citizenship of the parents or one of them as provided in the 1973 and the 1987 Philippine Constitutions. Under Section 1 paragraph 3 in relation to Section 2, Article IV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, those who had elected citizenship under the 1935 Constitution are natural born Filipinos. See Hector S. De Leon, Textbook on the New Philippine Constitution, Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc., 1987, p. 186. In the case of Antonio Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives and Jose Ong, Jr., July 30, 1991, G.R. Nos. 92191-92 it was held that the Article IV of the 1987 on Citizenship is “retroactive” and is meant to "treat equally all those born before the 1973 Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship either before or after the effectivity of that Constitution." See also Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 96 SCRA 342 [1980])
In his dissenting opinion in the case of Labo vs. COMELEC and Roberto Ortega, G.R. No. 105111, July 03, 1992, Justice Guttierez said that in cases where there is a “sincere invocation of Philippine citizenship” we should not strip a person of his natural born status but should accord to him every possible interpretation consistent with the exercise of a right that was vested in him from birth.” It should be noted that in construing the law, the Courts are not always to be hedged in by the literal meaning of its language. The spirit and intendment thereof, must prevail over the letter, especially where adherence to the latter would result in absurdity and injustice. See Casela v. Court of Appeals, 35 SCRA 279 [1970]. A Constitutional provision should be construed so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it is aimed, hence, it is the spirit of the provision which should prevail over the letter thereof. See Jarrolt v. Mabberly, 103 U.S. 580. In the words of the Court in the case of J.M. Tuason v. LTA, 31 SCRA 413 [1970]: "To that primordial intent, all else is subordinated. Our Constitution, any constitution is not to be construed narrowly or pedantically, for the prescriptions therein contained, to paraphrase Justice Holmes, are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form but are organic living institutions, the significance of which is vital not formal . . ."
2. Correction of Erroneous Entry of Citizenship in the Birth Certificate is Allowed Under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
In the case of Republic of the Philippines and Local Civil Registrar of Cauayan v. Court of Appeals and Dominador Agcaoili, July 20, 1992, G.R. No. 104678 as well as in Republic v. Valencia, 141 SCRA 462, the Court held that even substantial changes in the civil registry can be made under Rule 108 of the Rules of court as long as they are justified in "appropriate adversarial proceedings." This doctrine was reiterated in Lim v. Zosa, 146 SCRA 366, where the lower court was ordered to hold a trial on the merits of the changes sought, also regarding the petitioner's citizenship, likewise under Rule 108. In other words, there should be a full blown trial with the State duly represented. Provided the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the opposite party's case and where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered, the suit or proceeding is "appropriate." See Republic v. Valencia, supra.
The pertinent sections of Rule 108 provide—
"SEC. 3. Parties. When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.
"SEC. 4. Notice and publication. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
"SEC. 5. Opposition. The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto."
Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are (1) the civil registrar, and (2) all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby. Upon the filing of the petition, it becomes the duty of the court to (1) issue an order fixing the time and place for the hearing of the petition, and (2) cause the order for hearing to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. The following are likewise entitled to oppose the petition: (1) the civil registrar, and (2) any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought.
If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for correction and/or cancellation of entries in the record of birth even if filed and conducted under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court can no longer be described as "summary." There can be no doubt that when an opposition to the petition is filed either by the Civil Registrar or any person having or claiming any interest in the entries sought to be cancelled and/or corrected and the opposition is actively prosecuted, the proceedings thereon become adversary proceedings. See Republic of the Philippines and Local Civil Registrar of Cauayan v. Court of Appeals and Dominador Agcaoili, supra.
Philippine Copyright © 2010 by Oscar A. Corpuz, Jr.
All Rights Reserved.
Our proposed remedy is that he file a Petition for Judicial Declaration of Filipino Citizenship and Correction of Entries in his Birth Certificate and other Official Documents to reflect / show that he is a Filipino Citizen.
The following could be among the possible grounds / legal bases for the Petition--
1. He is already a Filipino Citizen
He is a Filipino by election vis-à-vis Article IV Section 1 [4] of the 1935 Philippine Constitution. Official records show he executed a sworn statement formally electing Philippine citizenship. Under the 1935 Constitution, a child born of a Filipino mother, who was a Filipino citizen at the time of her marriage to a foreigner and by such marriage lost her citizenship, is born an alien and remains an alien during his minority until he elects Philippine citizenship. He is also considered a Filipino by virtue of his having exercised the right of suffrage. In the case of In Re: Florencio Mallare, 59 SCRA 45 [1974], the Court held that the exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship. it would also be good for him to demonstrate that he embraces Philippine customs and values and that the country is his natural homeland.
He is a natural born Filipino by blood relation or jus sanguinis. There is no dispute that his mother was a natural born Filipino at the time of her marriage. Children follow the citizenship of the parents or one of them as provided in the 1973 and the 1987 Philippine Constitutions. Under Section 1 paragraph 3 in relation to Section 2, Article IV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, those who had elected citizenship under the 1935 Constitution are natural born Filipinos. See Hector S. De Leon, Textbook on the New Philippine Constitution, Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc., 1987, p. 186. In the case of Antonio Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives and Jose Ong, Jr., July 30, 1991, G.R. Nos. 92191-92 it was held that the Article IV of the 1987 on Citizenship is “retroactive” and is meant to "treat equally all those born before the 1973 Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship either before or after the effectivity of that Constitution." See also Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 96 SCRA 342 [1980])
In his dissenting opinion in the case of Labo vs. COMELEC and Roberto Ortega, G.R. No. 105111, July 03, 1992, Justice Guttierez said that in cases where there is a “sincere invocation of Philippine citizenship” we should not strip a person of his natural born status but should accord to him every possible interpretation consistent with the exercise of a right that was vested in him from birth.” It should be noted that in construing the law, the Courts are not always to be hedged in by the literal meaning of its language. The spirit and intendment thereof, must prevail over the letter, especially where adherence to the latter would result in absurdity and injustice. See Casela v. Court of Appeals, 35 SCRA 279 [1970]. A Constitutional provision should be construed so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it is aimed, hence, it is the spirit of the provision which should prevail over the letter thereof. See Jarrolt v. Mabberly, 103 U.S. 580. In the words of the Court in the case of J.M. Tuason v. LTA, 31 SCRA 413 [1970]: "To that primordial intent, all else is subordinated. Our Constitution, any constitution is not to be construed narrowly or pedantically, for the prescriptions therein contained, to paraphrase Justice Holmes, are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form but are organic living institutions, the significance of which is vital not formal . . ."
2. Correction of Erroneous Entry of Citizenship in the Birth Certificate is Allowed Under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
In the case of Republic of the Philippines and Local Civil Registrar of Cauayan v. Court of Appeals and Dominador Agcaoili, July 20, 1992, G.R. No. 104678 as well as in Republic v. Valencia, 141 SCRA 462, the Court held that even substantial changes in the civil registry can be made under Rule 108 of the Rules of court as long as they are justified in "appropriate adversarial proceedings." This doctrine was reiterated in Lim v. Zosa, 146 SCRA 366, where the lower court was ordered to hold a trial on the merits of the changes sought, also regarding the petitioner's citizenship, likewise under Rule 108. In other words, there should be a full blown trial with the State duly represented. Provided the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the opposite party's case and where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered, the suit or proceeding is "appropriate." See Republic v. Valencia, supra.
The pertinent sections of Rule 108 provide—
"SEC. 3. Parties. When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.
"SEC. 4. Notice and publication. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
"SEC. 5. Opposition. The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto."
Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are (1) the civil registrar, and (2) all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby. Upon the filing of the petition, it becomes the duty of the court to (1) issue an order fixing the time and place for the hearing of the petition, and (2) cause the order for hearing to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. The following are likewise entitled to oppose the petition: (1) the civil registrar, and (2) any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought.
If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for correction and/or cancellation of entries in the record of birth even if filed and conducted under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court can no longer be described as "summary." There can be no doubt that when an opposition to the petition is filed either by the Civil Registrar or any person having or claiming any interest in the entries sought to be cancelled and/or corrected and the opposition is actively prosecuted, the proceedings thereon become adversary proceedings. See Republic of the Philippines and Local Civil Registrar of Cauayan v. Court of Appeals and Dominador Agcaoili, supra.
Philippine Copyright © 2010 by Oscar A. Corpuz, Jr.
All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment