topic comparison report.docx
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.