topic comparison report.docx

Upload: jamaicamaglinte

Post on 04-Jun-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/13/2019 TOPIC COMPARISON REPORT.docx

    1/11

    TOPIC COMPARISON REPORT

    Written by: Jamaica A. Maglinte-Dacutanan

    Date Due: January 6, 2013

    A. Topic # 1

    1. Statement of the Issue:The issue for this proposed note is whether or not Republic Act No. 9225, also

    known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 or simply the

    Dual Citizenship Law, is in conflict with Section 5, Article IV of the 1987

    Constitution.

    2. Principal Cases:a. Mercado v. Manzano (307 SCRA 630)b. Aznar v. Commission on Elections (185 SCRA 703)

    3. Form of Note:This topic lends itself to an issue-focused note considering that R.A. 9225 has not

    yet been decided by the Supreme Court, all arguments raised by proponents and

    critics alike are just mere opinions. The concept between dual citizenship v. dual

    allegiance presents a still novel issue and props several questions that are yet to be

    delved deeper. It may be asked whether they are the same, or what are the

    problems that may arise to a person who has dual citizenship. Or most

    importantly, is dual citizenship, as espoused by R.A. 9225, allowed by our

    Constitution?

    4. Facts of Principal Cases:

  • 8/13/2019 TOPIC COMPARISON REPORT.docx

    2/11

    a. Mercado v. Manzano (307 SCRA 630)As what was stated in the case of Mercado v. Manzano, dual citizenship is

    different from dual allegiance. In this case, Ernesto S. Mercado and Eduardo

    B. Manzano were candidates for vice mayor of the city of Makati in the May

    11, 1998 elections. Manzano garnered majority of the votes casted, but his

    proclamation was suspended due to the case filed by a certain Ernesto

    Mamaril who alleged that Manzano was not a citizen of the Philippines but of

    the United States and such disqualified to run for public office. In his answer,

    Manzano admitted that he is registered as a foreigner with the Bureau of

    Immigration under Alien Certificate of Registration number B-31623 and

    alleged that he is a Filipino citizen because he was born in 1955 of a Filipino

    father and a Filipino mother. He was born in the United States, San Francisco,

    California on September 14, 1955, and is considered an American citizenunder US Laws.

    b. Aznar v. Commission on Elections (185 SCRA 703)In this case, Emilio LitoOsmea filed his certificate of candidacy with

    the COMELEC for the position of provincial Governor of Cebu in the January

    18, 1988 elections. Petitioner, Jose B. Aznar, filed with the COMELEC a

    petition for the disqualification of Osmea on the ground that he is not a

    Filipino citizen since he is a citizen of the United States. COMELEC en bancdecided to suspend the proclamation. Osmea maintained that he is a

    Filipino citizen, alleging that (1) he is the legitimate child of Dr, Emilio D.

    Osmea, a Filipino and son of the late President Sergio Osmea, Sr., (2) that

    he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport, (3) that he was

    continuously residing in the Philippines since birth and has not gone out of

    the country for more than six months, and (4) that he has been a registered

    voter in the Philippines since 1965.

    5. Legal Analysis:The conflict which is the subject of this note arises from the dissenting opinions

    between the framers of the law and some constitutionalists that bank their

    argument from Section 5 Article IV of the 1987 Constitution.

  • 8/13/2019 TOPIC COMPARISON REPORT.docx

    3/11

    Side One: The framers of the law contend that dual citizenship does not

    contravene with the constitution because it prohibits not dual citizenship but dual

    allegiance. It further points out that only dual allegiance is prohibited by law

    because Dual allegiance is inimical to the national interest. Thus, dual

    citizenship is not dual citizenship. This is enshrined in the case of Mercado v.

    Manzano (307 SCRA 630) whereby dual citizenship was distinguished from dual

    allegiance. A review of the debate during the framing of the abovementioned law

    can also be used as a guide in determining the real intent of its provisions.

    Side Two: The critics, on the other hand, pointed out that since the court held that

    Section 5 Article IV of the 1987 Constitution sanctions only dual allegiance and not

    dual citizenship, then dual citizenship may be allowed. However, what the

    framers failed to consider is that based on the same decision what Section 5 Article

    IV of the 1987 Constitution does not sanction is dual citizenship per se. As can be

    inferred from the discussions of the court, dual citizenship per se refers to theinvoluntarily acquired citizenship which is a consequence of the application of

    different citizenship laws of different states or country of which the person itself

    have no control. But the case did not say that dual citizenship that can be acquired

    voluntarily or by some positive act, like that authorized under R.A. 9225, is not

    under the proscription of Section 5 Article IV of the 1987 Constitution. A perusal or

    a ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the famous case of Kawakita v. U.S.

    presents a concrete example of a problem that might arise with regards to a person

    who has a dual or multiple citizenship.

    6. Important Case Law other Than Principal Cases:Cordora v. COMELEC, et.al. (G.R. No. 176947, 19 February 2009)

    In this case, dual citizenship was distinguished from dual allegiance. The Supreme

    Court explained that dual citizenship is involuntary and arises when, as a result of

    the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states/countries, a

    person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states/countries. Dual

    allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person

    simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states/countries.

    While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an

    individuals volition his active participation in the naturalization process.

  • 8/13/2019 TOPIC COMPARISON REPORT.docx

    4/11

    7. Law Review Literature:A. Upon research, one good article that deals with the issue herein presented is

    one of R. Palabrica on Doubts about Dual Citizenship, a commentary

    published on the Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 12, 2002 which tacklesproblems of dual citizenship.

    B. Another is one by Joaquin Bernas entitled Dual Citizenship and DualAllegiance, published on newspaper TODAY, July 2, 2003.

    8. Evaluation of Topic:a. Appropriateness of the case law for an issue-focused note:

    Although the cases cited herein clearly distinguished dual citizenship from

    dual allegiance, it does not mean that there is no conflict that might arise.

    What these cases failed to explain is the matter on what kind of citizenship,

    whether voluntary or involuntary, gives rise, in one way or another, to dual

    allegiance. A careful evaluation of what entails citizenship with regards to

    allegiance is a point that is very much rich in discussion, therefore provides

    an ample material for a note.

    b. Timing:R.A. 9225 was signed into law in the year 2003 and jurisprudence cited herein

    was decided a couple of years ago. However, it does not mean that the subject

    of this proposed note is no longer viable because in reality, questions on

    citizenship and allegiance are always raised during election protests from

    time to time. Furthermore, constitutionality of R.A. 9225 is not yet brought

    upon the attention of the Supreme Court.

    c. Preemption:So far, only short articles regarding the subject matter of this proposed note

    has been published, which in my point of view, are not able to preempt the

    herein topic.

  • 8/13/2019 TOPIC COMPARISON REPORT.docx

    5/11

    d. Interest:Philippine citizenship has always been valued and treasured by our Supreme

    Court that it once described it as not a cheap commodity. Hence, it is not

    only a matter of judicial importance but also of societal significance.

    e. Scope of the legal issue:Because the proposed note revolves around dual citizenship as contemplated

    on R.A. 9225 and Section 5 Article IV of the 1987 Constitution on allegiance, it

    only tackles on a narrow issue of statutory interpretation involving a conflict

    between a statute and the Constitution. What makes it broad is the impact of

    dual citizenship vis--vis dual allegiance in the society.

    9. Weighing the Factors:I believe there is ample material for a note. In addition, there are no problems with

    timing or preemption.

    B. Topic # 2

    1. Statement of the Issue:The issue for this proposed note is whether or not divorce should be legalized in

    the Philippines considering that annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage and

    legal separation has its limitations as remedy for broken marriages in the

    Philippines. Furthermore, it also touches the implication of Filipinos who marries

    aliens and later on avails of divorce in the aliens country where it is legalized.

    2. Principal Case:a. Amor-Catalan vs. Court of Appeals (514 SCRA 607)

  • 8/13/2019 TOPIC COMPARISON REPORT.docx

    6/11

    3. Form of Note:This topic lends itself to a classic casenote because it focuses extensively on the

    probability of legalizing divorce in the Philippines and the implication ofmarriages by and between a Filipino and an alien who later on applies for a

    divorce. As mentioned in Amor-Catalan vs. CA, divorce was defined as the legal

    dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after marriage.

    4. Facts of Principal Case:a. Amor-Catalan vs. Court of Appeals (514 SCRA 607)

    Petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent Orlando on June 4,1950 in Mabini, Pangasinan. Thereafter, they migrated to the United States of

    America and allegedly became naturalized citizens thereof. After 38 years of

    marriage, Felicitas and Orlando divorced in April 1988. On June 16, 1988,

    Orlando married respondent Merope in Calasiao, Pangasinan. Petitioner

    contends that said marriage was bigamous since Merope had a prior

    subsisting marriage with Eusebio Bristol. She filed a petition for declaration

    of nullity of marriage with damages in the RTC of Dagupan City against

    Orlando and Merope.

    5. Legal Analysis:The issue for this proposed note is the pressing need to legalized divorce in the

    Philippines as evidenced by a couple of house bills in Congress that are submitted

    involving the said matter.

    Since this proposed note focuses on the legalization of divorce; it shall only tackle

    one side which will deal in the advantages of having a divorce law in the

    Philippines. At present, under the Family Code, the available procedures for thedissolution of marriage are: (1) declaration of nullity of marriage; (2) annulment;

    and (3) legal separation.

    Declaration of nullity of marriage is a remedy available in void marriages those

    which are not valid from its inception or from the very beginning. This means that

    any of the essential or formal requisites of marriage is absent. Voidable marriages

  • 8/13/2019 TOPIC COMPARISON REPORT.docx

    7/11

    on the other hand are those, which may be dissolved thru annulment under Article

    45 of the family Code.

    Given that the grounds for annulment and declaration of nullity are exclusive,

    battery not being one of them, a battered wife cannot resort to these remedies

    when confronted by violence in the marriage. And while it is true that the

    remedies of a declaration of nullity and annulment allow the parties to remarry, it

    must be noted that the ground claimed must have existed prior to or at the time of

    the celebration of marriage but only became manifest after the celebration thereof.

    Furthermore, legal separation, which essentially deals mostly with the legal effects

    on the property regime of the parties, recognizes grounds that need not have

    historical precedence; that is, the defects need only exist after the celebration of the

    marriage. Importantly, it recognizes battery as one of the grounds for its grant.

    However, the downside of legal separation is that it does not allow the parties tocontract a subsequent marriage.

    The dilemma also of Filipinos marrying aliens from countries who recognizes

    divorce imposes another issue that, although it is already recognized that the

    Filipino spouse shall also be entitled to remarry in case the alien spouse decides to

    file a divorce in his native country and which was subsequently approved, divorce

    in one way or another is already being recognized in our jurisdiction.

    6. Important Case Law other Than Principal Cases:Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas and the Solicitor General (G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010)

    The above case involves a petition for review on certiorari seeking a direct appeal

    from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City. Petitioner Gerbert R.

    Corpus is a naturalized Canadian citizen who married respondent Daisylyn Tirol

    Sto. Tomas but subsequently left for Canada due to work and other professional

    commitments. When he returned to the Philippines, he discovered that Sto. Tomas

    was already romantically involved with another man. This brought about the

    filing of a petition for divorce by Corpuz in Canada which was eventually grantedby the Court Justice of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. A month later, the divorce

    decree took effect. Two years later, Corpuz has fallen in love with another Filipina

    and wished to marry her. He went to Civil Registry Office of Pasig City to register

    the Canadian divorce decree of his marriage certificate with Sto. Tomas. However,

    despite the registration, an official of National Statistics Office informed Corpuz

    that the former marriage still subsists under the Philippine law until there has

  • 8/13/2019 TOPIC COMPARISON REPORT.docx

    8/11

    been a judicial recognition of the Canadian divorce by a competent judicial court

    in view of NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982. Consequently, he filed a petition for

    judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of dissolution of

    marriage with the RTC. However, the RTC denied the petition reasoning out that

    Corpuz cannot institute the action for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce

    decree because he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It was provided further that

    Sto. Tomas was the proper party who can institute an action under the principle of

    Article 26 of the Family Code which capacitates a Filipino citizen to remarry in

    case the alien spouse obtains a foreign divorce decree.

    7. Law Review Literature:A. Upon research, I stumbled upon an article of Gina Mission entitled Breaking

    the Ties that Bind, specifically discussing the advantages of having a divorce

    law in the Philippines.

    B. Another article entitled Divorce in the Philippines: What Man has PutTogether written by Conrado De Quiros was published in the Philippine

    Daily on September 7, 2013 which also talks about the probable

    implementation of divorce in the Philippines.

    8. Evaluation of Topic:a. Appropriateness of the case law for an issue-focused note:

    Although the case law cited herein only defines what divorce is, it is still open

    for a rich discussion if it is tackled in connection with the declaration of

    nullity of marriage, annulment and of legal separation.

    b. Timing:So far, only the Philippines and the Vatican City has no divorce law. Amidst

    the increasing numbers of women that are being abused by their spouses and

    children caught up in a situation of violence and conflict in the family, it calls

    for an urgent answer against the inadequate remedies provided by our

    constitution.

  • 8/13/2019 TOPIC COMPARISON REPORT.docx

    9/11

    c. Preemption:So far, only short articles regarding the subject matter of this proposed note

    has been published, which in my point of view, are not able to preempt the

    herein topic.

    d. Interest:Over the years, the number of cases reported for domestic violence has

    increased dramatically. Violence in marriage negate its ideals as the

    embodiment of love, care and safety and erode the bases upon which a

    marriage is founded. The family, being an inviolable social institution and as

    product of marriage, is everybodys concern.

    e. Scope of the legal issue:Because the proposed note revolves only around the possibility of legalizing

    divorce in the Philippines, it only tackles on a narrow issue. What makes it

    broad is its comparison between declaration of nullity of marriage,

    annulment, and legal separation and the importance of remarry which is of

    great societal implication.

    9. Weighing the Factors:I believe there is ample material for a note. In addition, there are no problems with

    timing or preemption.

    C. Comparison of Topic #1 and Topic #2.In comparing the two topics I will look at the strengths and weaknesses that bothhave in common before examining their differences. Finally, I will explain my own

    personal criteria for choosing my topic.

  • 8/13/2019 TOPIC COMPARISON REPORT.docx

    10/11

    STRENGTHS OF BOTH TOPICS

    1. Both issues are relevant and of great impact to the society. The issue on dualcitizenship vis--vis dual allegiance is a pressing topic because it involves

    every citizens duty to be loyal to its country in exchange of the benefits and

    services it was able to provide. Moreover, the proposal of legalizing divorce

    in the Philippines is also a hot commodity in the present times due to the fact

    that we are one of the only two countries, Vatican City being the other, who

    does not have a divorce law.

    2. Ample materials can be used as references in both topics without, however,preempting the proposed note.

    WEAKNESSES OF BOTH TOPICS

    1. Because both topics are very relevant and of great interest to the public,possible write-ups may be published or write-ups written in the past dealing

    with the same that was not able to come to come to the attention of the

    researcher in the course of writing the proposed note.

    INDIVIDUAL WEAKNESSES

    1. On the issue pertaining to R.A. 9225 dealing with dual citizenship inconnection with the prohibited dual allegiance in Section 5 Article IV of the

    1987 Constitution, a new law can be passed amending or repealing it or it can

    be declared unconstitutional.

    2. On the issue of legalizing divorce in the Philippines, several house bills arealready submitted to the House of Congress dealing with it and there is a

    probability that one of which maybe passed.

    PERSONAL PREFERENCE

    After my research, I decided to choose the topic dealing with Republic Act No.

    9225, also known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 or simply

    the Dual Citizenship Law because for me it is more important to review the

    constitutionality of a statute that has already become part of the law of the land rather

  • 8/13/2019 TOPIC COMPARISON REPORT.docx

    11/11

    than something that is yet to become one. Additionally, it is already effective and

    applicable to everyone, yet there are still unresolved issues about it and believed to

    contravene the highest law of the land, which is our Constitution.

    D. RecommendationI recommend the issue on dual citizenship provided in Republic Act No. 9225,

    also known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 or simply the

    Dual Citizenship Law vis--vis dual allegiance enshrined in Section 5 Article IV of the

    1987 Constitution.