Practice question
Sofia was a natural-born Filipino who lost Philippine citizenship through naturalization in a foreign country. She validly reacquires Philippine citizenship by taking the required oath under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225. A commentator claims that the oath necessarily makes her an initially naturalized Filipino, so her natural-born classification can never return. Under David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, which response is correct?
- The commentator is correct because every citizenship-related oath has identical consequences.
- The oath supplies natural-born status even to persons who were never Philippine citizens.
- The statute applies to every foreign tourist without distinction.
- Valid reacquisition under the stated statute restores natural-born Philippine citizenship; other conditions for public office remain separate.
- Reacquisition automatically establishes every residency and office qualification.
Legal references
- Republic Act No. 9225, Sections 3 and 5: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2003/ra_9225_2003.html
- David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016, main decision, reacquisition of natural-born citizenship: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/62429
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.