Practice question
Two covered persons have validly reacquired Philippine citizenship. The first is currently a candidate for public office in the country of foreign naturalization. The second merely visits that country as a private tourist and holds no foreign public office or military commission. Both claim that the travel-related connection makes their voting and appointment status identical under Section 5(5). Which analysis is best, assuming all other applicable qualifications?
- Tourism alone necessarily invokes the foreign-public-office restriction.
- The first is within the express foreign-candidacy restriction; the second’s tourism alone is not that listed circumstance.
- Neither can face a restriction because the citizenship oath erases Section 5.
- Both automatically lose Philippine citizenship merely upon travel.
- Only the cost of the travel determines the restriction.
Legal references
- Republic Act No. 9225, Sections 3, 4 and 5: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2003/ra_9225_2003.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.