Political law case digest: Republic of the Philippines vs LimFull description
COCOFED vs REPUBLIC
Criminnal ProcedureFull description
CONSTI CASE DIGEST
Go vs. Republic digest Citizenship Constitutional Law Political Law
Case digest
digest
civil procedure
fytfuFull description
Spec.Proc.Full description
Agency
Persons; Bigamous&Polygamous Marriages; Art 41 Digest Only See Full TextFull description
DigestFull description
International Law
Full description
LTDFull description
Angat vs. Republic, 314 SCRA 438Petition: Petitioner:Gerardo Angat Respondent:Republic of the Philippines Ponente: J. Vitug Date:14 September 1999 Facts:Petitioner Gerardo Angat was a natural born citien of the Philippines until he lost his citi citie ens nshi hip p b! naturaliation naturaliat ion in the "nited "nit ed States St ates of America. #11 $ar $arch 19 199% 9% &led before befo re R'( R'( of $ari)ina (it!* (i t!* +ranch ,-,* a petition to regain his Status as a citien of the Philippines under (A %/* RA 9%0 and RA ,%/2 #3 April 1!!" the trial court court issued a notice setting the case for initial hearing hearing on #$% &anuar'1!!% cop! recei3ed b! the 5ce of the Solicitor General 67SG78* #13 &une 1!!" Angat sought to be allowed allowed to ta)e his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to R.A. 1-1 :motion :motion initiall! denied b! the trial ;udge* but Angat ;ust &led &led another motion afterwards* and e3entuall! the court consented. #3 (ctober 1!!" on court order* Angat too) his his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to RA 1-12 #4 (ctober 1!!" * the trial ;udge issued another order stating* among others* <= the petitioner is hereb! repatriated and declared as citien of the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Republic Act >o. 1-1. #1! )arc* 1!!% * SG asserted that the petition itself should ha3e been dismissed b! the court a ?uo for lac) of ;urisdiction because the proper forum for it was the Special (ommittee on >aturaliation pursuant to A( $8+, dated ,, Aug 199% #$$ Septeber 1!!% the trial court found merit in the SG@s assertion aturaliation.I #13 (ctober 1!!% Angat &led motion for reconsideration* ?uestioned the September 199-decision b! the trial court he asserted that his petition was &led on 14 $arch 199%* months before the Special (ommittee on >aturaliation was supposedl! constituted pursuant to A ,02 the trial ;udge denied the motion for recon. on ,9 ec 199-. #P -/ designated the Special (ommittee on >aturaliation as the proper bod! to process there partitions of Filipino women who lost their Philippine citienship b! marriage to aliens* and natural born Filipinos who ha3e lost their Philippine citienship. #etter # etter of Hnstruction >o. ,- 6amended b! H 4918 among others* de&ned de&ned which public o5cers constituted the Special (ommittee. -ssues: 1. At the time the petition to regain his Status as a citien of the Philippines2 was &led* &led* did the R'( ha3e ;urisdiction o3er repatriation cases for natural#born FilipinosK
Ruling: 1. >o. 'he law in eLect at the time the petition was P -/* and according to P -/ t*e Special Coittee on aturali/ation 0as t*e proper venue for such a petition* not the R'(. Ratio 1. 'he important ?uestion is* at the time the petition was &led* on 11 $arch 199%* which of therepatriation laws in eLect wasMwere applicable to the case of the petitioner* $r. AngatK Pursuant to P -/* the Special (ommittee on >aturaliation chaired b! the Solicitor General with the "ndersecretar! of Foreign ALairs and the irector of the >ational Hntelligence (oordinating Agenc! as the other members2 was the proper bod! to recei3e and act on repatriation petitions of natural#born Filipinos* from 0 June 19-0 till ,- $arch 19-* when it was deacti3ated* 7to cease and desist from underta)ing an! and all proceedings . . . under etter of Hnstruction ,-.7* b! 3irtue of a $emorandum issued b! President (oraon A?uino. 'his Special (ommittee was reacti3ated on June 1990 and was still in eLect at the time the petition was &led. S( <'he 5ce of the Solicitor General was right in maintaining that AngatNs petition should ha3e been &led with the (ommittee* aforesaid* and not with the R'( which had no ;urisdiction there o3er. 'he courtNs order of 4 ctober 199% was thereb! null and 3oid* and it did not ac?uire &nalit! nor could be a source of right on the part of petitioner.I n the correctness of the initial basis asserted b! the petitioner for his repatriation o. >#9%#/#$O was one for repatriation* and it was thus incorrect for petitioner to initiall! in3o)e Republic Act >o. 9%0 and R.A. >o. ,%/ since these laws could onl! appl! to persons who had lost their citienship b! rendering ser3ice to* or accepting commission in* the armed forces of an allied foreign countr! or the armed forces of the "nited States of America* a factual matter not alleged in the petition* Parentheticall!* under these statutes* the person desiring to re#ac?uire Philippine citienship would not e3en be re?uired to &le a petition in court* and all that he had to do was to ta)e an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to register that fact with the ci3il registr! in the place of his residence or where he had last resided in the Philippines.I