Law Dictionary

Question B.20, Political Law, 2019 Bar Exam

Notice: The following suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide as an answer to a bar exam question. Thus, specific citations (i.e., republic acts, articles/sections, jurisprudence, etc.) are not provided because it is not required in the bar exam. For purposes other than answering the bar exam, please be reminded that proper referencing or legal citation is required.

Question B.20, Political Law, 2019 Bar Exam

H, a naturalized American citizen who later became a dual citizen under Republic Act No. 9225 (the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act), decided to run for Congress and thus, filed a certificate of candidacy (CoC). A citizen argued that H is ineligible for the position because of his status as a dual citizen. H responded that his act of filing a CoC amounted to his renunciation of foreign citizenship, rendering him eligible for the position.

(a) Was H’s filing of a CoC sufficient to renounce foreign citizenship? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) Assuming that H is a dual citizen because his parents are Filipino citizens and he was born in California, USA, was filing of a CoC sufficient to renounce his foreign citizenship? Explain. (2.5%)

Suggested Answer:

(a) No. Answer

Under R.A. 9225 and jurisprudence, the law categorically requires persons seeking elective public office, who either retained their Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before a public officer authorized to administer an oath simultaneous with or before the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Rule

In the case at bar, H did not expressly renounce his American citizenship through a person and sown renunciation simultaneous with or before the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Apply

Thus, H’s filing of a CoC was not sufficient to renounce foreign citizenship. Conclusion

(b) Yes. Answer

Under jurisprudence, it is sufficient that dual citizens, upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states. Rule

In the case at bar, if H was a dual citizen by circumstance having Filipino parents and being born in the United Stated, he is not required to make a personal and sworn renunciation simultaneous with or before the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Apply

Thus, his filing a certificate of candidacy is sufficient to renounce his foreign citizenship.. Conclusion

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Suggested Answers

Question IV, Civil Law, 2017 Bar Exam

(a) Distinguish antichresis from usufruct? (3%) (b) Distinguish commodatum from mutuum. (3%) Suggested Answer: (a) By the contract of antichresis the creditor acquires the right

Top Read

Video Lessons

Legal Maxims

pacta sunt servanda

Latin maxim. • “parties to a treaty to keep their agreement therein in good faith” (Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, En Banc, G.R. No. 139465,

verba legis non est recedendum

Latin maxim. • “from the words of a statute there should be no departure” (Chavez v. JBC, En Banc, G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012)

Read more

Annotations

You cannot copy content of this page