THIRD DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 193993, November 08, 2017
VIVENNE K. TAN, Petitioner, v. VINCENT "BINGBONG" CRISOLOGO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MARTIRES, J.:
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari1 filed by petitioner Vivenne K. Tan (Tan) assailing the 20 April 2010 Decision2 and the 1 October 2010 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 112815. The CA found that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 95, Quezon City (RTC), exercised grave abuse of discretion when it reversed the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 37, Quezon City (MeTC), to exclude Tan from the voter's list of Precinct 0853-A of Barangay Sto. Domingo, Quezon City.
Through her acts and deeds, [Tan] clearly manifested and unequivocally admitted that she was not a Filipino citizen at the time of her application as a registered voter. If indeed she was a Filipino citizen as she claimed and represented, she would not have gone to the extent of re-affirming her Filipino citizenship, by her act of applying for the same. If indeed she was a Filipino citizen on October 26, 2009, the day she registered as a voter, she would not have been allowed to apply for Filipino citizenship as she was already a Filipino citizen. There is the act of [Tan] which would clearly manifest her lack of Philippine citizenship upon her registration. Said act is her taking an Oath of Allegiance on December 1, 2009. A Filipino citizen would not be required to perform an Oath of Allegiance to affirm his or her Filipino citizenship, because affirmation is no longer necessary because the citizenship has always been in her possession.The Ruling of the RTC
When she took her oath of allegiance on December 1, 2009, she renounced any and all allegiance to the Government of the United States of America. This act is again a clear showing that she was an American and not a Filipino citizen at the time she registered as a voter on October 26, 2009.
x x x x
The foregoing manifest that [Tan], through her subsequent acts and deeds, through the authoritative permission given to her by governmental agencies, 'and through her application for, and taking of an Oath of Allegiance for Filipino citizenship, could not be considered as a Filipino citizen at the time that she registered as a Philippine voter.
In view thereof, the petition for her to be excluded as a voter is GRANTED. [Tan] is hereby to be excluded from the voter's list of Precinct 853-A of Barangay Sto. Domingo, Quezon City.15
In the case at bar, there is no doubt that [Tan] upon registration as voter in the First District of Quezon City was still a naturalized American Citizen. But her questioned citizenship was cured when [Tan] made the following acts:Since the RTC decision became final and executory pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8189, otherwise known as the Voter's Registration Act of 1996,17 Crisologo filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.18 He argued that Tan should have been excluded from the list of registered voters for failure to meet the citizenship and residency requirement to be registered as a voter.
1) She took an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on November 30, 2009; 2) She filed a Petition for Reacquisition and/or Retention of Philippine Citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 before the [BI]; 3) On December 1, 2009, the [BI] has issued an Order granting the petition and ordering the issuance of a Certificate of Retention/Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship in favor of [Tan]; and 4) Lastly, [Tan] executed a Sworn Declaration that she make a formal renunciation of her United States nationality; that she absolutely and entirely renounce her United States nationality together with all rights and privileges and all duties and allegiance and fidelity there unto pertaining before a notary public on December 1, 2009.
With these acts of [Tan], she is deemed to have never lost her Filipino citizenship.
x x x x
Clearly, the court a quo erred in concluding that [Tan], through her subsequent acts and deeds, through the authoritative permission given to her by government agencies, and through her application for, and taking an Oath of Allegiance for Filipino citizenship, could not be considered as a Filipino citizen at the time she registered as a Philippine voter. [citation omitted]
[Tan] having re-acquired her Filipino citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, she is deemed not to have lost her Filipino citizenship and is, therefore, a valid registered voter. In short, whatever defects [Tan] had in her nationality when she registered as a voter should now be deemed cured by her re-acquisition of her Filipino citizenship under R.A. No. 9225.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 14, 2010 of the [MeTC] is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is rendered dismissing the Petition For Exclusion Of A Voter From The List for lack ofmerit.16
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed disposition is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The MeTC decision dated January 14, 2010 excluding Vivenne K. Tan from the voter's list of Precinct 0853-A of Barangay Sto. Domingo, uezon City, is REINSTATED. Costs against the Private Respondent.19In coming up with its conclusion, the CA gave the following reasons:
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.21 (emphasis ours)This constitutional provision is reflected in R.A. No. 8189 this way: "[a]ll citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law who are at least eighteen (18) years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months immediately preceding the election, may register as a voter."22 Although the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 does not contain a similar provision like R.A. No. 918923 that disqualifies non-Filipino citizens from voting, it does, however, provide that the ERB shall deactivate the registration and remove the registration records of any person who has lost his or her Filipino citizenship.24
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed hereby to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:Based on this provision alone, it would seem that the law makes a distinction between Filipino citizens who lost their Philippine citizenship prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 9225 and reacquired their citizenship under the same law from those who lost their Philippine citizenship after R.A. No. 9225 was enacted and retained their citizenship.30 On this point, Tan contends that this distinction does not substantially affect her citizenship status because reacquiring or retaining Filipino citizenship has the same effect.31 Moreover, she points out that the framers of the law did not distinguish the difference; hence, using the words "reacquire" and "retain" interchangeably.32
I _____________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath. (emphasis ours)
I, hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which Ihave heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.36 (emphasis and italics ours)Renunciation or the relinquishment of one's citizenship reqmres a voluntary act for it to produce any legal effect. This willingness to disassociate from a political community is manifested by swearing to an oath. If we were to consider the words in the Oath of Allegiance as meaningless, the process laid out under the law to effect naturalization would be irrelevant and useless. Thus, to give effect to the legal implications of taking an Oath of Allegiance, we must honor the meaning of the words which the person declaring the oath has sworn to freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
The law must not be read in truncated parts; its provisions must be read in relation to the whole law. It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that a statute's clauses and phrases must not be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts in order to produce a harmonious whole. Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with other parts of the statute and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.40To harmonize, given the distinction between citizens who have "reacquired" from those who "retained" Philippine citizenship,41 coupled with the legal effects of renunciation of citizenship, Section 2 of R.A. No. 9225 cannot be used as basis for giving a retroactive application of the law. R.A. No. 9225 contains no provision stating that it may be applied retroactively as regards natural-born citizens who became naturalized citizens of a foreign country prior to the effectivity of the said law. In fact, correlating Sections 2 and 3 of the law would readily reveal that only those falling under the second paragraph of R.A. No. 9225, i.e., natural-born citizens who became naturalized citizens of a foreign country after the effectivity of the said law, shall be considered as not to have lost their Philippine citizenship.
Section 1. How citizenship may be lost. - A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events:Since the foregoing law was still effective when Tan became an American citizen, the loss of her Philippine citizenship is but a necessary consequence. As the applicable law at that time, Tan was presumed to know the legal effects of her choice to become a naturalized U.S. citizen. The loss of Tan's Philippine citizenship is reinforced by the fact that she voluntarily renounced her Philippine citizenship as a requirement to acquire U.S. citizenship.(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;x x x x
(2) By express renunciation of citizenship;
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 10-101.
2 Id. at 105-124. Penned by Associate. Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez. Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson wrote his dissenting opinion at 125-152.
3 Id. at 154-160. Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson's dissenting opinion at 161-164.
4 Id. at 634.
5 Id. at 638.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 216.
8 Id. at 180-181.
9 Id. at 218.
10 Id. at 217.
11 Id. at 215.
12 Id. at 219-224.
13 Id. at 237-258.
14 Id. at 260-266. Penned by Judge Augustus C. Diaz.
15 Id. at 264-266.
16 Id. at 271-274. Penned by Judge Henri Jean-Paul B. Inting.
17 Id. at 298.
18 Id. at 275-296.
19 Id. at 123.
20 Otherwise known as the "Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003."
21 CONSTITUTION, Article V, Section 1.
22 R.A. No. 8189, Section 9.
23 Otherwise known as the "Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003," Section 5: Disqualifications. - The following shall be disqualified from voting under this Act: 1. Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with Philippine laws; 2. Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and who have pledged allegiance to another country; [x x x].
24 R.A. No. 8189, Section 27(f).
25 Id., Section 4. Permanent List of Voters. There shall be a permanent list of voters per precinct in each city or municipality consisting of all registered voters residing within the territorial jurisdiction of every precinct indicated by the precinct maps.
26Rollo, p. 47.
27 Id. at 87-88.
28AASJS v. Datumanong, 551 Phil. 110, 116-117 (2007). Excerpts ofde1iberations on R.A. No. 9225.
29 R.A. No. 9225, Section 2.
30Japzon v. Commission on Elections, 596 Phil. 354, 367-368 (2009).
31Rollo, pp. 59-72.
32 Id.
33Maquiling v. Commission on Election, 709 Phil. 408, 436 (2013).
34 Id. at 438.
35 Id. at 438-439. See also Arnado v. Commission on Elections, 767 Phil. 51, 85 (2015).
36 Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, available from <http://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oathallegiance-united-states-america>
37Victoria v. Commission on Elections, 229 Phil. 263 (1994), Osea v. Malaya, 425 Phil. 920, 926 (2002). Soriano v. Lista, 447 Phil. 566, 570 (2003), Abad v. Goldloop Properties, Inc., 549 Phil. 641, 654 (2007).
38Republic v. Lacap, 546 Phil 87, 100 (2007), citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation, 496 Phil. 307, 332-334 (2005); National Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Commission, 383 Phil. 910, 918 (2000).
39 549 Phil. 302-325 (2007).
40 Id. at 322.
41 Supra note 30.
42Chartered Bank of India v. Imperial, 48 Phil. 931, 948 (1921); In re Allen, 2 Phil. 630 (1903); People v. Rivera, 59 Phil. 236 (1933); Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Herridge, 47 Phil. 57 (1924).
43Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. WMC Resources Intl. Pty. Ltd., 537 Phil. 473, 485 (2006).
44Balatbat v. Court of Appeals, 282 Phil. 429, 436 (1992).
45 Id.