The Republic of Fil-America

SHOULD an alien come to visit our blighted land and learn our language without its nuances, he will be puzzled when he starts searching for the Republic of Fil-America. Newspapers report that its citizens, the Fil-Ams, are the most athletic, beautiful and eloquent. Sadly, he will not find that republic in any map because the place is actually a state of mind, maybe nothing more than a national excuse. He can however consult our statute books concerning the legal status of Fil-Ams and find Republic Act 9225 which is the Dual Citizenship Law.

The law’s long title can be shortened to “The Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003.” It allows a former citizen of the Philippines who has been naturalized as a citizen of another country to reacquire his Philippine citizenship upon taking a carefully worded oath of allegiance. He promises to obey all our laws and accept and recognize the supreme authority of the Philippines and maintain true faith and allegiance to it. The oath is short and sweet and does not require the declarant to renounce his current citizenship, be it American, Canadian, Australian, Spanish — all of which makes him or her automatically a “Fil-American” in the eyes of Filipinos.

Only natural-born citizens of the Philippines who switched to another citizenship may avail of the law. 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. Those born of Filipino mothers before Jan. 17, 1973, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority shall likewise be deemed to be natural-born citizens.

The law also bestows derivative Filipino citizenship upon the unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, as long as he is a minor (i.e., below 18 years of age).

The law, subject to certain conditions, extends to the person enjoying dual citizenship the right to vote in Philippine elections, to exercise his profession in the Philippines, and in the case of the practice of law, after applying with the proper authority such as the Supreme Court. However, a person who seeks to be elected to public office in the Philippines must renounce his citizenship of the other country of which he is a citizen. This is the most violated part of the law. It is of public knowledge that there are a number of politicians who manage to stay in office without renouncing their other citizenship.

Also, those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to our country and renounce their oath of allegiance to their other country before they assume public office.

What are the other advantages of being a dual citizen? Of belonging to the Republic of Fil-America?

In the Philippines, they may work as actors and actresses and compete with other natural-born Filipino citizens. They are exempt from applying for a visa. As Filipino citizens, they are entitled to purchase land and engage in business.

All is well in these balmy isles, except for the presence of Section 5 of Article IV in our 1987 Constitution. The constitutional provision states that: “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.” Those engaged in tightrope walking proffer the view that Section 5 does not state that dual citizenship is inimical to our national interest, but rather, what is inimical is “dual allegiance.”

In the case filed by a certain Hector Calilung in the Supreme Court (GR 160869) which questioned the constitutionality of the Dual Citizenship Law, the court steered clear of the question of dual allegiance. Instead, it said that the issue of dual allegiance should be borne by the country where the applicant for dual citizenship is also a citizen. The court also said that there is yet no law on dual allegiance and since the constitutional provision speaks of a law that should deal with the problem, it would be premature for the court to rule on the issue.

Besides, said the court, they cannot arrogate among themselves the duty of setting the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance when the Constitution itself has clearly delegated the duty of determining what acts constitutes dual allegiance for study and legislation by Congress.

Be that as it may, in the sphere of international law, allegiance and citizenship are intricately intertwined. Perhaps, when the world turns into a more hostile place, dual citizens will be made to choose between the conflicting policies or interests of their chosen State and the State of their birth to which they have returned. Only then can the wisdom or folly of the Dual Citizenship Law be tested. Only then will we know if the law is indeed beneficial or inimical to our national interest.