THIRD DIVISION
JOEVANIE
ARELLANO TABASA, G.R. No. 125793
Petitioner,
Present:
- versus - QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
and
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, VELASCO, JR., JJ.
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION
and DEPORTATION and Promulgated:
WILSON SOLUREN,
Respondents. August 29, 2006
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I
O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Citizenship is a priceless
possession. Former U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren fittingly emphasized its
crowning value when he wrote that “it is
man’s basic right for it is nothing less than to have rights.”[1]
When a person loses citizenship, therefore, the State sees to it that its
reacquisition may only be granted if the former citizen fully satisfies all
conditions and complies with the applicable law. Without doubt, repatriation is
not to be granted simply based on the vagaries of the former Filipino citizen.
The Case
The instant petition for review[2]
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure contests the denial by the
Court of Appeals (CA) of the Petition for Habeas Corpus interposed by
petitioner Joevanie Arellano Tabasa from the Order of Summary Deportation
issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) for his return to the
The facts as culled by the CA from
the records show that petitioner Joevanie Arellano Tabasa was a natural-born
citizen of the
Petitioner arrived in the
Petitioner was investigated by
Special Prosecutor Atty. Edy D. Donato at the Law and Investigation Division of
the BID on
1. That on
2. That in a letter dated 16 April 1996, Honorable Kevin Herbert, Consul General of [the] U.S. Embassy, informed the Bureau that respondent’s Passport No. 053854189 issued on June 10, 1994 in San Francisco, California, U.S.A., had been revoked by the U.S. Department of State;
3. Hence, respondent [petitioner Tabasa] is now an undocumented and undesirable alien and may be summarily deported pursuant to Law and Intelligence Instructions No. 53 issued by then Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago to effect his deportation (Exhibit 3).[8]
The
pertinent portion of the Herbert letter is as follows:
The U.S. Department of State has revoked
The BID ordered petitioner’s deportation
to his country of origin, the
Records show that on 16 April 1996, Mr. Kevin F. Herbert, Consul General of the U.S. Embassy in Manila, filed a request with the Bureau to apprehend and deport the abovenamed [sic] respondent [petitioner Tabasa] on the ground that a standing warrant for several federal charges has been issued against him, and that the respondent’s Passport No. 053854189 has been revoked.
By reason thereof, and on the strength of
Mission Order No. LIV-96-72, Intelligence operatives apprehended the respondent
in Aklan on
In Schonemann vs. Commissioner Santiago,
et al., (G.R. No. 81461 [sic, ‘81461’ should be ‘86461’], 30 May 1989), the
Supreme Court ruled that if a foreign embassy cancels the passport of an alien,
or does not reissue a valid passport to him, the alien loses the privilege to
remain in the country. Further, under
Office Memorandum Order No. 34 issued on
It is, thus, apparent that respondent has lost his privilege to remain in the country.[10]
Petitioner filed before the CA a
Petition for Habeas Corpus with Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary
Restraining Order[11] on
At the time Tabasa filed said
petition, he was already 35 years old.[12]
On
However, on June 13, 1996, petitioner
filed a Supplemental Petition alleging that he had acquired Filipino
citizenship by repatriation in accordance with Republic Act No. 8171 (RA 8171),
and that because he is now a Filipino citizen, he cannot be deported or
detained by the respondent Bureau.[15]
The CA, in its August 7, 1996
Decision,[16] denied Tabasa’s petition on the
ground that he had not legally and successfully acquired––by repatriation––his
Filipino citizenship as provided in RA 8171. The court said that although he
became an American citizen by derivative naturalization when his father was
naturalized in 1968, there is no
evidence to show that he lost his Philippine citizenship “on account of
political or economic necessity,” as explicitly provided in Section 1, RA
8171—the law governing the repatriation of natural-born Filipinos who have lost
their citizenship. The affidavit does
not state that political or economic necessity was the compelling reason for
petitioner’s parents to give up their Filipino citizenship in 1968. Moreover,
the court a quo found that petitioner
Tabasa did not dispute the truth of the
The only issue to be resolved is
whether petitioner has validly reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA
8171. If there is no valid repatriation,
then he can be summarily deported for his being an undocumented alien.
The Court finds no merit in this
petition.
RA 8171, “An Act Providing for the
Repatriation of Filipino Women Who Have Lost Their Philippine Citizenship by
Marriage to Aliens and of Natural-Born Filipinos,” was enacted on
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.[17] (Emphasis
supplied.)
Does petitioner Tabasa qualify as a natural-born Filipino who had lost his Philippine citizenship by reason of political or economic necessity under RA 8171?
He does not.
Persons qualified for repatriation
under RA 8171
To reiterate, the only persons
entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following:
a.
Filipino
women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and
b.
Natural-born
Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship
on account of political or economic necessity.
Petitioner theorizes that he could be repatriated under RA 8171 because he is a child of a natural-born Filipino, and that he lost his Philippine citizenship by derivative naturalization when he was still a minor.
Petitioner
overlooks the fact that the privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is
available only to natural-born
Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic
necessity, and to the minor children of said natural-born
Filipinos. This means that if a parent
who had renounced his Philippine citizenship due to political or economic
reasons later decides to repatriate under RA 8171, his repatriation will also benefit
his minor children according to the law.
This includes a situation where a former Filipino subsequently had
children while he was a naturalized citizen of a foreign country. The repatriation of the former Filipino will
allow him to recover his natural-born citizenship and automatically vest
Philippine citizenship on his children of jus sanguinis or blood
relationship:[18] the
children acquire the citizenship of their parent(s) who are natural-born
Filipinos. To claim the benefit of RA
8171, however, the children must be of minor age at the time the petition for
repatriation is filed by the parent.
This is so because a child does not have the legal capacity for all acts
of civil life much less the capacity to undertake a political act like the
election of citizenship. On their own,
the minor children cannot apply for repatriation or naturalization separately
from their parents.
In the case at bar, there is no dispute that
petitioner was a Filipino at birth. In
1968, while he was still a minor, his father was naturalized as an American
citizen; and by derivative naturalization, petitioner acquired
Neither
can petitioner be a natural-born Filipino who left the country due to political
or economic necessity. Clearly, he lost his Philippine citizenship by operation
of law and not due to political or economic exigencies. It was his father who could have been
motivated by economic or political reasons in deciding to apply for
naturalization. The decision was his parent’s and not his. The privilege of repatriation under RA 8171
is extended directly to the natural-born Filipinos who could prove that they
acquired citizenship of a foreign country due to political and economic
reasons, and extended indirectly to the minor children at the time of repatriation.
In
sum, petitioner is not qualified to avail himself of repatriation under RA 8171. However, he can possibly reacquire Philippine
citizenship by availing of the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of
2003 (Republic Act No. 9225) by simply taking an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the
Where to
file a petition for repatriation pursuant to RA 8171
Even if we concede that petitioner
Tabasa can avail of the benefit of RA 8171, still he failed to follow the
procedure for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. He has to file his petition for repatriation
with the Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN), which was designated to
process petitions for repatriation pursuant to Administrative Order No. 285
(A.O. No. 285) dated
Section 1. Composition.—The composition of the Special Committee on Naturalization, with the Solicitor General as Chairman, the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director-General of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency, as members, shall remain as constituted.
Sec. 2. Procedure.—Any person desirous of repatriating or reacquiring
Filipino citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 8171 shall file a petition with the Special Committee on Naturalization
which shall process the same. If their applications are approved[,] they
shall take the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Sec. 3. Implementing Rules.—The Special Committee is hereby authorized to promulgate rules and regulations and prescribe the appropriate forms and the required fees for the processing of petitions.
Sec. 4. Effectivity.—This
Administrative Order shall take effect immediately.
In the Amended Rules and Regulations
Implementing RA 8171 issued by the SCN on August 5, 1999, applicants for
repatriation are required to submit documents in support of their petition such
as their birth certificate and other evidence proving their claim to Filipino
citizenship.[19] These
requirements were imposed to enable the SCN to verify the qualifications of the
applicant particularly in light of the reasons for the renunciation of
Philippine citizenship.
What petitioner simply did was that
he took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Requirements for repatriation under
RA 8171
Even if petitioner––now of legal
age––can still apply for repatriation under RA 8171, he nevertheless failed to
prove that his parents relinquished their Philippine citizenship on account of
political or economic necessity as provided for in the law. Nowhere in his affidavit of repatriation did
he mention that his parents lost their Philippine citizenship on account of
political or economic reasons. It is
notable that under the Amended Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 8171, the
SCN requires a petitioner for repatriation to set forth, among others, “the
reason/s why petitioner lost his/her Filipino citizenship, whether by marriage
in case of Filipino woman, or whether by political or economic necessity in
case of [a] natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his/her Filipino
citizenship. In case of the latter, such
political or economic necessity should be specified.”[23]
Petitioner Tabasa asserts, however,
that the CA erred in ruling that the applicant for repatriation must prove that
he lost his Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic
necessity. He theorizes that the
reference to ‘political or economic reasons’ is “merely descriptive, not
restrictive, of the widely accepted reasons for naturalization in [a] foreign
country.”[24]
Petitioner’s argument has no leg to
stand on.
A reading of Section 1 of RA 8171
shows the manifest intent of the legislature to limit the benefit of repatriation
only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their Philippine citizenship on account
of political or economic necessity, in addition to Filipino women who lost
their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens. The precursor of RA 8171, Presidential Decree
No. 725 (P.D. 725),[25]
which was enacted on June 5, 1975 amending Commonwealth Act No. 63, also gives
to the same groups of former Filipinos the opportunity to repatriate but
without the limiting phrase, “on account of political or economic necessity” in
relation to natural-born Filipinos. By
adding the said phrase to RA 8171, the lawmakers clearly intended to limit the
application of the law only to political or economic migrants, aside from the
Filipino women who lost their citizenship by marriage to aliens. This intention is more evident in the
following sponsorship speech of Rep. Andrea B. Domingo on House Bill No. 1248,
the origin of RA 8171, to wit:
Ms. Domingo: x x x
From my experience as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, I observed that there are only four types of Filipinos who leave the country.
The first is what we call the “economic refugees” who go abroad to work because there is no work to be found in the country. Then we have the “political refugees” who leave the country for fear of their lives because they are not in consonance with the prevailing policy of government. The third type is those who have committed crimes and would like to escape from the punishment of said crimes. Lastly, we have those Filipinos who feel that they are not Filipinos, thereby seeking other citizenship elsewhere.
Of
these four types of Filipinos, Mr. Speaker, the first two have to leave the
country not of choice, but rather out of sacrifice to look for a better life,
as well as for a safer abode for themselves and their families. It
is for these two types of Filipinos that this measure is being proposed for
approval by this body. (Emphasis supplied.)
x x x x
x x x [I]f the body would recall, I mentioned in my short sponsorship speech the four types of Filipinos who leave their country. And the two types—the economic and political refugees—are the ones being addressed by this proposed law, and they are not really Filipino women who lost their citizenship through marriage. We had a lot of problems with these people who left the country because of political persecution or because of pressing economic reasons, and after feeling that they should come back to the country and get back their citizenship and participate as they should in the affairs of the country, they find that it is extremely difficult to get their citizenship back because they are treated no different from any other class of alien.[26]
From these two sources, namely, P.D.
725 and the sponsorship speech on House Bill No. 1248, it is incontrovertible
that the intent of our legislators in crafting Section 1 of RA 8171, as it is
precisely worded out, is to exclude those Filipinos who have abandoned their
country for reasons other than political or economic necessity.
Petitioner contends it is not
necessary to prove his political or economic reasons since the act of
renouncing allegiance to one’s native country constitutes a “necessary and
unavoidable shifting of his political allegiance,” and his father’s loss of
Philippine citizenship through naturalization “cannot therefore be said to be
for any reason other than political or economic necessity.”[27]
This argument has no merit.
While it is true that renunciation of
allegiance to one’s native country is necessarily a political act, it does not
follow that the act is inevitably politically or economically motivated as
alleged by petitioner. To reiterate,
there are other reasons why Filipinos relinquish their Philippine
citizenship. The sponsorship speech of
former Congresswoman Andrea B. Domingo illustrates that aside from economic and
political refugees, there are Filipinos who leave the country because they have
committed crimes and would like to escape from punishment, and those who really
feel that they are not Filipinos and that they deserve a better nationality,
and therefore seek citizenship elsewhere.
Thus, assuming petitioner Tabasa is
qualified under RA 8171, it is incumbent upon him to prove to the satisfaction
of the SCN that the reason for his loss of citizenship was the decision of his
parents to forfeit their Philippine citizenship for political or economic
exigencies. He failed to undertake this crucial
step, and thus, the sought relief is unsuccessful.
Repatriation is not a matter of right,
but it is a privilege granted by the State. This is mandated by the 1987
Constitution under Section 3, Article IV, which provides that citizenship may
be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. The State has the power to
prescribe by law the qualifications, procedure, and requirements for
repatriation. It has the power to determine if an applicant for repatriation
meets the requirements of the law for it is an inherent power of the State to
choose who will be its citizens, and who can reacquire citizenship once it is
lost. If the applicant, like petitioner Tabasa, fails to comply with said
requirements, the State is justified in rejecting the petition for
repatriation.
Petitioner: an
undocumented alien subject to summary deportation
Petitioner
claims that because of his repatriation, he has reacquired his Philippine
citizenship; therefore, he is not an undocumented alien subject to deportation.
This theory is incorrect.
As
previously explained, petitioner is not entitled to repatriation under RA 8171
for he has not shown that his case falls within the coverage of the law.
Office
Memorandum No. 34 dated
2. The Board of Special Inquiry and the Hearing Board IV shall
observe summary deportation proceedings in cases where the charge against the
alien is overstaying, or the expiration or cancellation by his government of
his passport. In cases involving
overstaying aliens, BSI and the Hearing Board IV shall merely require the presentation
of the alien’s valid passport and shall decide the case on the basis thereof.
3. If
a foreign embassy cancels the passport of the alien, or does not reissue a
valid passport to him, the alien loses the privilege to remain in the country,
under the Immigration Act, Sections 10 and 15 (Schonemann v. Santiago, et al.,
G.R. No. 81461 [sic, should be ‘86461’], 30 May 1989). The automatic loss of the privilege obviates
deportation proceedings. In such
instance, the Board of Commissioners may issue summary judgment of deportation
which shall be immediately executory.[28]
In addition, in the case of Schonemann v. Defensor Santiago, et al., this Court held:
It is elementary that if an alien wants to stay in the
Petitioner Tabasa, whose passport was cancelled after his admission into the country, became an undocumented alien who can be summarily deported. His subsequent “repatriation” cannot bar such deportation especially considering that he has no legal and valid reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
WHEREFORE, this petition for review is DISMISSED,
and the
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F
I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1]
Joaquin J. Bernas, S.J., The 1987
Constitution of the
[3] Rollo, p. 22. Note: The year 1986 (from the CA Decision) is replaced
with year 1968 based on the petition
filed with the CA (rollo, pp. 27-36,
at 32).
[4] Based on petitioner Tabasa’s Affidavit of Repatriation and Oath of Allegiance, and the Certification of facts of his birth from the Office of the Civil Registrar in Numancia, Aklan (rollo, pp. 37-40), petitioner was born on February 21, 1959, thus making him around 9 years of age at the time he was naturalized as an American citizen. In the pleadings filed before the CA and this Court, however, petitioner alleged that he was naturalized as an American at the age of seven (7). This age is used in this Decision for consistency.
[6] Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (1993), p. 608.
[16]
[18] We quote the opinion of Father Joaquin Bernas in Tecson v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 161434, 161634 & 161824, March 3, 2004, 424 SCRA 277, 385-386 regarding the transmissive essence of citizenship as follows:
4.3
The operation of the core principle of transmissibility
in blood relation finds affirmation and,
more significantly, continuity in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions in
which blood relationship becomes a principal derivation and transmissibility of
citizenship. All Constitutions embody
this transmissive essence of citizenship in blood relationship. In the
determination as to who are citizens of the
x x x x
4.8. The transmissive essence of citizenship here is clearly the core principle of blood relationship or jus sanguinis. On this account, the derivation of citizenship from a person or the transmission of citizenship to his child, springs from a person or the transmission of citizenship to his child, springs from the fact that he is the father. x x x
[19] Pertinent portions of the Amended Rules and
Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 8171 state:
RULE II
1. Said petition shall be in
five (5) copies, legibly typed, and signed, thumbmarked [sic], and verified by
the petitioner, with his/her signed photograph in passport size attached to
each copy of the petition, and setting forth the following:
a. the
petitioner's name and surname and any other name he/she has used or by which
he/she is known;
b. his/her present and former
places of residence;
c. his/her
place and date of birth, the names and citizenship of his/her parents and their
residences (if still living), and the reasons for the Filipino citizenship of
his/her parents, if such is the fact;
d. the basis
for her being a Filipino citizen at the time of her marriage, if the petitioner
is one who lost her Filipino citizenship by marriage, or if the petitioner is a
natural-born Filipino citizen, the basis why he/she was a Filipino citizen at
birth;
e. the reason/s
why petitioner lost his/her Filipino citizenship, whether by marriage in case
of Filipino woman, or whether by political or economic necessity in case of
natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his/her Filipino citizenship. In case of
the latter, such political or economic necessity should be specified;
f. the reason/s why
petitioner is seeking to reacquire Philippine citizenship by repatriation;
g. whether
the petitioner is single, married or divorced, or his/her marriage had been
annulled. If married, petitioner shall state the date and place of his/her
marriage, and the name, date of birth, birthplace, citizenship, and residence
of his/her spouses; if widowed, the date and place of death of his/her spouse;
and if his/her marriage had been annulled or he/she had been divorced, the date
of decree of annulment of marriage or divorce and the court which issued the
same;
h. his/her occupation, as well
as the occupation of his/her spouse, in case the applicant is married;
i. if the
petitioner has children, the name, date and place of birth, and residence of
each of the children;
j. a
declaration: (1) that petitioner is not a person opposed to organized
government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold
and teach doctrines opposing organized government; (2) that petitioner is not a
person defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal
assault, or assassination for the predominance of their ideas; (3) that
petitioner is not a person convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude; or
(4) that petitioner is not a person suffering from mental alienation or
incurable contagious diseases;
k. a
declaration that it is his/her intention to reacquire Philippine citizenship
and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any
foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to the state
or country of which he/she is a citizen or subject.
The petition must be accompanied by:
a. duplicate
original or certified photocopies of petitioner's birth certificate or other
evidences of his/her former Filipino citizenship;
b. duplicate
original or certified photocopies of petitioner's Alien Certificate of
Registration and his/her Native-born Certificate of Residence and Certificate
of Arrival or Re-entry Permit into the
c. duplicate
original or certified photocopies of petitioner's marriage certificate, if
married; or the death certificate of his/her spouse, if widowed; or the decree
granting petitioner a divorce, if she/he is divorced, or annulling his/her
marriage, if such marriage had been annulled;
d. duplicate
original or certified photocopies of the birth certificates, the Alien
Certificates of Registration, and the Immigrant Certificates of Residence or
Native-born Certificates of Residence (if any) of petitioner's minor children,
whenever applicable.
Every page of the petition, as well as all the pages of its annexes and
supporting documents and papers, must be signed by petitioner in addition to
the signatures thereof of the persons executing or issuing the same.
2. The petition shall be given
a docket number and stamped, indicating the date of filing. The Committee shall
record the filing of all such applications in a record book in chronological
order.
RULE III
After receipt of the petition for repatriation, the Committee may call the petitioner for interview, after which the Committee, if it believes in view of the facts before it that petitioner has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications required for repatriation under Republic Act No. 8171 shall approve the petition. Within ninety (90) days after being notified of the approval of his petition, petitioner shall take [an] x x x oath of allegiance x x x
[21] The Memorandum reactivating the Special Committee on Repatriation reads:
MEMORANDUM
TO : The Solicitor General
The Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs
The Director-General, National Intelligence Coordinating Agency
You are hereby directed to immediately convene as the Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN) created under Letter of Instruction No. 270 (11 April 1975), as amended, for the limited purpose of processing applications pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 725 (1975) and related laws; which provide for a simplified procedure for Filipino women, who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens, and natural-born Filipinos; to reacquire Philippine citizenship through an application for repatriation. You are further directed to report, within thirty (30) days from the date hereof and on a monthly basis thereafter, on the actions taken pursuant to this directive.
For strict compliance.
(Signed) Fidel V. Ramos
[23] Special Committee on Naturalization, Amended Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 8171, (1999) Rule II, (e).
[25] The pertinent portions of the law are as follows:
Presidential Decree No. 725 (June 5, 1975)
PROVIDING FOR REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO WOMEN WHO HAD
LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE TO ALIENS AND OF NATURAL BORN
FILIPINOS.
WHEREAS, there are many Filipino women who had lost
their Philippine Citizenship by marriage to aliens;
WHEREAS, while the new constitution allows a Filipino
woman who marries an alien to retain her Philippine citizenship unless by her
act or omission, she is deemed under the law to have renounced her Philippine
citizenship, such provision of the new Constitution does not apply to Filipino
women who had married aliens before said Constitution took effect;
WHEREAS, the existing law (C.A. Nos. 63, as amended)
allows the repatriation of Filipino women who lost their citizenship by reason
of their marriage to aliens only after the death of their husbands or the
termination of their marital status; and
WHEREAS, there are natural born Filipinos who have
lost their Philippine citizenship but now desire to re-acquire Philippine
citizenship;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of
the Philippines, by virtue of the powers in me vested by the Constitution, do
hereby decree and order that: (1) Filipino women who lost their Philippine
citizenship by marriage to aliens; and (2) natural born Filipinos who have lost
their Philippine citizenship may reacquire Philippine citizenship through
repatriation by applying with the Special Committee on Naturalization created
by Letter of Instruction No. 270, and, if their applications are approved,
taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
after which they shall be deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship. The
Commission on Immigration and Deportation shall thereupon cancel their
certificate of registration.
x x x x