Practice question
Celso has been a Philippine citizen and a foreign citizen since birth through concurrent descent and birthplace laws. He never lost Philippine citizenship by foreign naturalization. He files for a local elective post, making the declarations and Philippine allegiance undertaking described in Mercado. No voluntary act supporting continuing foreign allegiance is proved. An opponent invokes only Celso's birth-based dual citizenship and insists that Jacot's RA 9225 renunciation rule automatically controls. Which analysis is best?
- Celso must first reacquire citizenship he never lost
- The opponent's theory improperly treats birth-based dual citizenship as the same statutory situation as citizenship reacquired after foreign naturalization
- Celso is necessarily stateless until the election ends
- Every person born abroad is barred from local office
- The birthplace country alone determines whether Celso may run in the Philippines
Legal references
- Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/37660
- Jacot v. Dal, G.R. No. 179848, November 27, 2008, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/48021
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.