Nationality and Statelessness

A. Nationality

1. Definition - Membership in a political community with its concomitant rights and

duties

“Concomitant” - something that accompanies or is collaterally connected with

something else : accompaniment.

2. Determination of a person’s nationality - The 1930 Hague Convention on Conflict of

Nationality Laws states.

A. It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This
law shall be recognized by other States insofar as it is consistent with
international conventions, international customs, and the principles of law
generally recognized with regard to nationality.

B. Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular

State shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State.

3. Acquisition of nationality

- The modes of acquiring nationality are

A. Birth (Jus Saguinis, Jus Soli)

B. Naturalization (Marriage, legitimation, option, acquisition of domicile,
appointment of government office, grant on application)
C. Repatriation
D. Subjugation
E. Cession

A. Birth - The two (2) principles on acquisition of nationality by birth are:

1. Jus Sanguinis - By blood; or

2. Jus Soli - By place of birth

(Note: The Philippines follow the principle of Jus Sanguinis, while US follows Jus Sol)
 B. Naturalization

- This mode may be accomplished through

1. marriage,
2. legitimation,
3. option (election),
4. acquisition of domicile,
5. appointment to government office, or
6. grant on application.

In the Philippines, naturalization may be by

1. Judicial process
2. Legislative process
3. Election or
4. Marriage

Moy Ya Lim vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292

Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law provides:

Effect of the naturalization on wife and children. — Any woman who is now or may hereafter be
married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed
a citizen of the Philippines.

Case Digest: G.R. No. L-21289 (October 4, 1971)

Title: Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim and Lau Yuen Yeung, Petitioners-Appellants vs.
The Commissioner of Immigration, Respondent-Appellee

Facts:
- Lau Yuen Yeung, a Chinese national, entered the Philippines on a temporary visitor's visa on March
13, 1961, for a month-long stay.
- Her visa was extended multiple times, ultimately expiring on February 13, 1962.
- On January 25, 1962, Lau Yuen Yeung married Moy Ya Lim Yao, claiming that this marriage
conferred upon her Filipino citizenship under the Revised Naturalization Law.
- The Commissioner of Immigration intended to confiscate her bond and deport her after her
authorized stay expired.
- Petitioners filed for an injunction to prevent deportation and bond confiscation, which the lower
court denied.

Issues:
1. Whether Lau Yuen Yeung automatically acquired Philippine citizenship through marriage to a
Filipino citizen.
2. Whether the Commissioner of Immigration acted within his jurisdiction and without abuse of
discretion in his actions regarding Lau Yuen Yeung’s immigration status.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance. Key points include:

1. Naturalization Qualifications: The Court emphasized that the Revised Naturalization Law states
that an alien woman married to a Filipino citizen can only be deemed a citizen if she meets all
qualifications for naturalization. Lau Yuen Yeung did not demonstrate that she possessed the
necessary qualifications (notably, the requisite length of residence).

2. Intent of Marriage: The timing of the marriage, occurring shortly before the expiration of her visa,
suggested it was a strategy to avoid deportation rather than a genuine marital union. The Court
noted that such actions to manipulate immigration status would not be sanctioned.

3. Immigration Act Compliance: The Court reiterated that an alien admitted as a non-immigrant
cannot stay permanently in the Philippines without first leaving the country, obtaining the proper visa,
and being examined upon re-entry. This legal framework does not change upon marriage unless the
alien meets all qualifications for naturalization.

4. Commissioner’s Discretion: The Court recognized that the Commissioner of Immigration

possesses broad discretionary power in managing immigration matters, and there was no evidence
of abuse of discretion in this case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the petition for injunction,
asserting that Lau Yuen Yeung did not acquire Philippine citizenship through marriage and remained
subject to the terms of her temporary visitor's visa. The Commissioner of Immigration acted lawfully
in his intent to enforce the immigration laws.

Legal Principles:
- Citizenship by marriage requires all qualifications for naturalization to be met.
- Temporary visitors must adhere to visa conditions and cannot switch to permanent resident status
without proper procedure.
- The Commissioner of Immigration has quasi-judicial discretion in immigration matters, which is
respected unless shown to be abused.

I. However, there is no obligation on the part of the State of his nationality to recognize
a person’s newly acquired nationality. Municipal law may even prohibit the renunciation of
one’s nationality under certain circumstances, as in the application of doctrine of indelible
allegiance. An example is Commonwealth Act No. 63 which provides that one of the modes of
losing Philippine citizenship is by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or
the laws of a foreign country, but a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in
this manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country.
Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance - The doctrine that an individual may be compelled to retain his
original nationality notwithstanding that he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the
2nd state whose nationality he has acquired.

Joyce vs. Director of Public Prosecution (House of Lords), December 18, 1945

Case Digest: House of Lords (1946) - R v Joyce

Court: House of Lords

Judges: Lord Jowitt LC, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright, Lord Porter, Lord Simonds
Dates: 10-13 December 1945; 1 February 1946

Citation: [1946] AC 499

Key Issues:

- Criminal Law - Treason

- Allegiance of an alien holding a British passport
- Jurisdiction of English courts over treason committed abroad

Facts:

The appellant, William Joyce, was convicted of high treason for broadcasting propaganda for
Germany during World War II. He was born a natural-born American citizen and moved to Ireland at
age three before settling in England. In 1933, he applied for a British passport, falsely claiming to be
a British subject by birth. This passport was renewed multiple times, and Joyce continued to identify
as a British subject. He left England around late August 1939 and was later arrested in Germany in
1945, where it was discovered that he had been employed by the German Broadcasting Corporation
since September 1939.

Legal Questions:
1. Did Joyce owe allegiance to the Crown during his absence from the realm?
2. Did the English court have jurisdiction to try an alien for treason committed abroad?
3. Did the renewal of his British passport afford him any protection under the law?

Decision:
The House of Lords affirmed the conviction, with the following findings:

1. Allegiance: Joyce's possession of a British passport extended his duty of allegiance beyond his
departure from England. Despite being an alien, the fact that he had obtained a passport led to the
conclusion that he owed allegiance to the Crown at the time of his treasonous acts, even though he
was outside the realm.

2. Jurisdiction: The court held that it had the jurisdiction to try Joyce for treason committed outside
the realm. The existing legal framework supported the notion that an alien could be guilty of treason
for acts committed abroad if they owed allegiance to the Crown.
3. Passport Protection: The House concluded that the British passport Joyce held provided him with
rights and obligations, binding him to the Crown. Thus, the trial judge did not misdirect the jury
regarding the relevance of the passport to the case.

Dissent:
Lord Porter dissented, arguing that the passport should have afforded Joyce certain protections, and
that the jury might have found that his allegiance had terminated upon leaving the realm.

Legal Significance:
This case significantly expanded the understanding of allegiance under the law, establishing that the
holding of a British passport implies an ongoing allegiance to the Crown, even when the holder is an
alien and is engaged in treasonous activities abroad. The ruling also confirmed the jurisdiction of
English courts over such matters, setting a precedent for future cases involving treason and
allegiance.

Reference: The principles discussed in this case refer back to historical legal frameworks, including
the Treason Act 1351 and earlier judicial resolutions concerning allegiance and protection. Key
cases cited include *R v Casement* and the Resolution of the Judges from 1707.

C. Repatriation

- Recovery of nationality by individuals who were natural-born citizens of a State but who had
lost their nationality.

R.A. No. 8171, which governs repatriation of Filipino women who have lost Filipino citizenship by
reason of marriage to aliens, as well as the repatriation of former natural-born Filipinos who lost
Filipino citizenship.

Republic Act 8171: An Act of Providing for the Repatriation of Filipino Women Who Have Lost
Ther Philippine Citizenship by Marriage to Aliens and of Natural-Born Filipinos

Section 1. Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and
natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship, including their minor children, on
account of political or economic necessity, may reacquire Philippine citizenship
through repatriation in the manner provided in Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended:
Provided, That the applicant
is not a:
 (1) Person opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of
persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing organized government;
(2) Person defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or
associatIon for the predominance of their ideas;
(3) Person convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude; or
(4) Person suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases.

Sec. 2. Repatriation shall be effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau or Immigration. The
Bureau of Immigration shall thereupon cancel the pertinent alien
certificate of registration and issue the certificate of identification as Filipino citizen to the repatriated
citizen.

Sec. 3. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are
hereby repealed or amended accordingly.

Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect thirty (30) days after its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation.

Signed: October 23, 1995

D. Subjugation

- When a State is defeated and its territory is annexed, its nationals become subject to the
winning State.

Stephen Hall. Nationality, Migration Rights, and Citizenship of the Union, P. 74 (1995)

One of the most striking changes contained in the Maastricht Treaty was the establishment of a de
jure `citizenship of the Union'. For the first time since the Roman Empire, peoples of Eastern,
Western, Northern and Southern Europe share a common legal citizenship status. The significance
of this development is potentially profound, yet it is one of the least discussed aspects of the
Maastricht Treaty. In this book Stephen Hall examines the legal implications of establishing a
European citizenship. He shows that Community law has never given unqualified effect to the
Member States' dispositions of their nationalities, and that the Member States have had their
sovereign power to confer and withdraw their nationalities qualified by the Maastricht Treaty. The
book goes on to discuss the implications of Union citizenship on Community migration rights,
demonstrating that the new non-economic migration rights for Union citizens are directly effective but
that they are subject to a range of important limitations and conditions. Among these conditions is a
residual constitutional power, contingently retained by the Member States to derogate from
Community rights on the grounds of national or public security.

E. Cession

- When a State cedes its territory to another State, the people found in the ceded territory
become subjects of the accepting State.

4. Loss of Nationality.

Nationality is lost by any of the following modes:

1. Release, e.g., Germany gives its citizens the right to ask for release from their
nationality;

2. Deprivation, e.g. Philippines, which deprives its citizens of nationality upon entry into
the military service of another State (C.A. No. 63)

3. Renunciation

4. Substitution, such as what happens when the former nationality is lost ipso facto by
naturalization abroad.

C.A. No. 63

SECTION 1. How citizenship may be lost.—A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the
following ways and/or events:
1. By naturalization in a foreign country;
2. By express renunciation of citizenship;
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign
country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more;
4. By accepting commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign country;
5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization;
6. By having been declared, by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine army, navy
or air corps in time of war, unless subsequently a plenary pardon or amnesty has been
granted; and
7. In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the law in force in
her husband's country, she acquires his nationality
B. Multiple Nationality

1. A person may find himself possessed of more than one nationality because of the concurrent
application to him of the municipal laws of two or more States claiming him as their national.
This may arise by the concurrent application of the principles of jus sanguinis and jus soli,
naturalization without renunciation of the original nationality, legitimation, or legislative action.

2. Policy in the Philippines. “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and
shall be dealt with by law” [Sec. 5, Art. IV, Philippine Constitution].

3. Resolution of Conflicts in Multiple Nationality Cases. The 1930 Hague Convention on the
Conflict of Nationality Laws provides the following solution to multiple nationality cases:

A. A person having two or more nationalities may be regarded as its national by each of
the State whose nationality he possesses, and a State may not give diplomatic
protection to one of its nationals against a State whose nationality that person
possesses.

B. If a person has more than one nationality, he shall, within a third State, be treated as
if he had only one; the third State shall recognize exclusively either the nationality of
the State in which he is habitually and principally resident, or the nationality of the
State with which he appears in fact to be most closely connected. This is known as
the principle of effective nationality or genuine link theory.

The court held that for diplomatic protection to be claimed, there must be a genuine link between the
individual and the state granting nationality. The Nottebohm case established the “genuine link”
principle in international law regarding nationality and diplomatic protection.

C. If a person, without any voluntary act of his own, possesses double nationality, he
may renounce one of them with the permission of the State whose nationality he
wishes to surrender and, subject to the laws of the State concerned, such permission
shall not be refused if that person has his habitual residence abroad.

D. If a person is a national of both a claimant State and a third State not involved in the
claim, he shall be deemed a national of the claimant suit for purposes of that claim.

C. Corporate Nationality.

- Corporations are nationals of the State where they are incorporated. Thus, it is the State
where they are incorporated who can bring their claims before an international tribunal,
regardless of the nationality of the stockholders and the percentage of shares they own.
Barcelona Traction Case [1964] ICJ Rep 6

Belgium had ceased pursuing the aforementioned case on account of efforts to negotiate a friendly
settlement. The negotiations broke down, however, and Belgium filed a new Application on 19 June
1962. The following March, Spain filed four preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction, and on
24 July 1964 the Court delivered a Judgment dismissing the first two but joining the others to the
merits. After the filing, within the time-limits requested by the Parties, of the pleadings on the merits
and on the objections joined thereto, hearings were held from 15 April to 22 July 1969. Belgium
sought compensation for the damage claimed to have been caused to its nationals, shareholders in
the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd., as the result of acts contrary to international
law said to have been committed by organs of the Spanish State. Spain, on the other hand,
submitted that the Belgian claim should be declared inadmissible or unfounded. In a Judgment
delivered on 5 February 1970, the Court found that Belgium had no legal standing to exercise
diplomatic protection of shareholders in a Canadian company in respect of measures taken against
that company in Spain. It also pointed out that the adoption of the theory of diplomatic protection of
shareholders as such would open the door to competing claims on the part of different States, which
could create an atmosphere of insecurity in international economic relations. Accordingly, and in so
far as the company’s national State (Canada) was able to act, the Court was not of the opinion that
jus standi was conferred on the Belgian Government by considerations of equity. The Court
accordingly rejected Belgium’s claim.

Jus standi is the right or ability to bring a legal action or to appear before a court of law. 1 II. Jus
standi before international courts and tribunals.

(Note: Where the harm is done directly to the stockholders [i.e., human rights violations], the
State can espouse their claims regardless of the nationality of the corporation since the harm
was done primarily to their national and not to the corporation.)

D. Philippine Laws on Citizenship

1. According to Article 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the following are considered
Filipino Citizens:

a. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution

b. Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines

c. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority

d. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

 2. Effects of Marriage to a Foreigner. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain
their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced
it.

E. Statelessness

- Definition. The status of having no nationality, as a consequence of being born without any
nationality, or as a result of deprivation, or loss of nationality.

Labo Vs. Comelec, 176 SCRA 1.

Case Digest: G.R. No. 86564 (August 1, 1989)

Case Title:
Ramon L. Labo, Jr. vs. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc and Luis L. Lardizabal

Facts:

Ramon L. Labo, Jr. was proclaimed Mayor-elect of Baguio City on January 20, 1988. Luis L.
Lardizabal, a private respondent, filed a petition for quo warranto against Labo on January 26, 1988,
but did not pay the required filing fee of P300.00 until February 10, 1988, which was beyond the
10-day reglementary period set by Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code. Labo argued that the
petition should be dismissed as it was not filed on time due to the delayed payment of the filing fee.

Lardizabal contended that the COMELEC initially treated his petition as a pre-proclamation
controversy, which did not require an immediate filing fee. He maintained that the payment was
made within the ten-day period, as the time was suspended during the pre-proclamation
proceedings.

Issues:

1. Whether the COMELEC had jurisdiction to entertain the quo warranto petition based on the
timeliness of its filing.
2. Whether Labo is a citizen of the Philippines and eligible to hold the office of Mayor.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the private respondent, holding that the quo warranto petition
was filed on time. The Court reasoned that the payment of the filing fee, although delayed, was
made within the context of the proceedings as treated by the COMELEC. The Court acknowledged
that prior jurisprudence required timely payment of fees as essential for jurisdiction, but in this case,
special circumstances allowed for a broader interpretation.
The Court addressed Labo's citizenship directly, as it was central to the public interest and the case's
resolution. It found conflicting evidence regarding Labo's citizenship status: a 1982 COMELEC ruling
had affirmed his citizenship, while a 1988 decision by the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation (CID) suggested he had lost his citizenship due to his naturalization as an Australian
citizen in 1976. The Court emphasized the importance of citizenship as a qualification for public
office, asserting that Labo’s alleged foreign citizenship warranted further examination.

The Supreme Court decided to act on the merits of the case rather than remanding it, highlighting
that public interest required a timely resolution of the citizenship issue. Ultimately, the Court found
sufficient evidence indicating Labo was still an Australian citizen, thus rendering him ineligible for the
position of Mayor of Baguio City.

Conclusion:

The petition for quo warranto was granted, leading to the disqualification of Ramon L. Labo, Jr. from
holding office due to his status as an Australian citizen, thereby underscoring the legal requirement
of citizenship for public office in the Philippines.

2. In 1954, under the auspices of the United Nations, 22 countries (including the Philippines)
concluded a Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, under which the contracting
States agreed to grant Stateless persons within their territories treatment at least as favorable as
that accorded to their nationals with respect to:

A. Freedom to practice their religion and freedom as regards to the religious education of their
children

B. Access to the courts of law

C. Rationing of products in short supply

D. Elementary education

E. Public Relief and assistance

F. Labor legislation and social security

3. In that convention, the contracting States also agreed to accord Stateless persons lawfully staying
in their territory treatment as favorable as possible and, in any event, not less favorable than that
accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances, relative to:

A. Acquisition of movable and immovable property

B. Right of association in non-political and non-profit making associations and trade unions
 C. Gainful employment and practice of liberal professions

D. Housing and public education other that elementary education

E. Freedom of movement

Prohibition on the forced return of a refugee is called nonrefoulement and is one of the most
fundamental principles in international refugee law. This principle is laid out in Article 33 of the
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which says that no state "shall expel or return
('refouler' in French) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life
or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion."

Some countries detain asylum seekers upon arrival, during the asylum process or while waiting for
deportation (refoulement). Asylum seekers may have already suffered imprisonment and Torture in
the country from which they have fled. Therefore, The consequences of detention may be
particularly serious, causing severe emotional and psychological stress. Article 31 of the Refugee
Convention says that refugees should not be penalized for having entered a country illegally if they
have come directly from a place where they were in danger and have made themselves known to
the authorities. Therefore, asylum seekers should not be detained for being in possession of forged
identity papers or for destroying identity or travel documents.

Articles 12 - 30 of the Refugee Convention set out the rights which individuals are entitled to once
they have been recognised as Convention refugees:

● All refugees must be granted identity papers and travel documents that allow them to travel
outside the country
● Refugees must receive the same treatment as nationals of the receiving country with regard
to the following rights:
○ Free exercise of religion and religious education
○ Free access to the courts, including legal assistance
○ Access to elementary education
○ Access to public relief and assistance
○ Protection provided by social security
○ Protection of intellectual property, such as inventions and trade names
○ Protection of literary, artistic and scientific work
○ Equal treatment by taxing authorities
● Refugees must receive the most favourable treatment provided to nationals of a foreign
country with regard to the following rights:
○ The right to belong to trade unions
○ The right to belong to other non-political nonprofit organizations
○ The right to engage in wage-earning employment
● Refugees must receive the most favourable treatment possible, which must be at least as
favourable to that accorded aliens generally in the same circumstances, with regard to the
following rights:
○ The right to own property
 ○ The right to practice a profession
○ The right to self-employment
○ Access to housing
○ Access to higher education
● Refugees must receive the same treatment as that accorded to aliens generally with regard
to the following rights:
○ The right to choose their place of residence
○ The right to move freely within the country
○ Free exercise of religion and religious education
○ Free access to the courts, including legal assistance
○ Access to elementary education
○ Access to public relief and assistance
○ Protection provided by social security
○ Protection of intellectual property,
such as inventions and trade names
○ Protection of literary, artistic and scientific work
○ Equal treatment by taxing authorities