FIRST DIVISION
|
balgamelo cabiling ma, felix cabiling ma, jr., and
valeriano cabiling ma, Petitioners, -versus- COMMISSIONER ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ, JR.,
ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER ARTHEL B. CARONOŃGAN, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER JOSE DL.
CABOCHAN, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER TEODORO B. DELARMENTE AND ASSOCIATE
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN Z. LITTAUA, in their capacities as Chairman and Members
of the Board of Commissioners (Bureau of Immigration), and MAT G. CATRAL, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 183133 Present: Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA,* LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: July 26, 2010 |
|
|
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
Should children born
under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien father, who executed
an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and took their oath of
allegiance to the government upon reaching the age of majority, but who failed
to immediately file the documents of election with the nearest civil registry,
be considered foreign nationals subject to deportation as undocumented aliens
for failure to obtain alien certificates of registration?
Positioned upon the facts
of this case, the question is translated into the inquiry whether or not the
omission negates their rights to Filipino citizenship as children of a Filipino
mother, and erase the years lived and spent as Filipinos.
The resolution of these
questions would significantly mark a difference in the lives of herein
petitioners.
The Facts
Balgamelo Cabiling Ma (Balgamelo),
Felix Cabiling Ma, Jr. (Felix, Jr.), Valeriano Cabiling Ma (Valeriano), Lechi
Ann Ma (Lechi Ann), Arceli Ma (Arceli), Nicolas Ma (Nicolas), and Isidro Ma
(Isidro) are the children of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma,[1] a
Taiwanese, and Dolores Sillona Cabiling, a Filipina.[2]
Records reveal
that petitioners Felix, Jr., Balgamelo and Valeriano were all born under aegis
of the 1935 Philippine Constitution in the years 1948, 1951, and 1957,
respectively.[3]
They were
all raised in the Philippines and have resided in this country for almost sixty
(60) years; they spent their whole lives, studied and received their primary
and secondary education in the country; they do not speak nor understand the
Chinese language, have not set foot in Taiwan, and do not know any relative of
their father; they have not even traveled abroad; and they have already raised
their respective families in the Philippines.[4]
During their
age of minority, they secured from the Bureau of Immigration their Alien
Certificates of Registration (ACRs). [5]
Immediately
upon reaching the age of twenty-one, they claimed Philippine citizenship in
accordance with Section 1(4), Article IV, of the 1935 Constitution, which
provides that “(t)hose whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and,
upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship” are citizens
of the Philippines. Thus, on
Having taken
their oath of allegiance as Philippine citizens, petitioners, however, failed
to have the necessary documents registered in the civil registry as required
under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625 (An
Act Providing the Manner in which the Option to Elect Philippine Citizenship
shall be Declared by a Person whose Mother is a Filipino Citizen). It was only on
Individual
certifications[10] all
dated
Records
further reveal that Lechi Ann and Arceli were born also in
The Complaint
On
On
That
Respondents x x x, all Chinese nationals, failed and continuously failed to
present any valid document to show their respective status in the
That respondents, being aliens, misrepresent themselves as Philippine citizens in order to evade the requirements of the immigration laws.
Ruling of the Board of
Commissioners, Bureau of Immigration
After Felix Ma and his seven (7) children
were afforded the opportunity to refute the allegations, the Board of
Commissioners (Board) of the Bureau of Immigration (BI), composed of the public
respondents, rendered a Judgment dated 2 February 2005 finding that Felix Ma
and his children violated Commonwealth Act No. 613, Sections 37(a)(7) and 45(e)
in relation to BI Memorandum Order Nos. ADD-01-031 and ADD-01-035 dated 6 and
The Board ruled that since they
elected Philippine citizenship after the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 625,
which was approved on
1.
Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625, providing that the
election of Philippine citizenship embodied in a statement sworn before any
officer authorized to administer oaths and the oath of allegiance shall be
filed with the nearest civil registry;[20]
and Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID, now Bureau of Immigration
[BI]) Circular dated 12 April 1954,[21] detailing
the procedural requirements in the registration of the election of Philippine
citizenship.
2.
Memorandum Order dated
3.
Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 182,
As regards the documentation of
aliens in the Philippines, Administrative Order No. 1-93 of the Bureau of
Immigration[24] requires
that ACR, E-series, be issued to foreign nationals who apply for initial
registration, finger printing and issuance of an ACR in accordance with the
Alien Registration Act of 1950.[25] According to public respondents, any foreign
national found in possession of an ACR other than the E-series shall be
considered improperly documented aliens and may be proceeded against in
accordance with the Immigration Act of 1940 or the Alien Registration Act of
1950, as amended.[26]
Supposedly for failure to comply with
the procedure to prove a valid claim to Philippine citizenship via
election proceedings, public respondents concluded that Felix, Jr. Balgamelo,
Arceli, Valeriano and Lechi Ann are undocumented
and/or improperly documented aliens.[27]
Nicolas and Isidro, on
the other hand, did not submit any document to support their claim that they
are Philippine citizens. Neither did
they present any evidence to show that they are properly documented aliens. For
these reasons, public respondents likewise deemed them undocumented and/or improperly documented aliens.[28]
The dispositive portion[29]
of the Judgment of 2 February 2005 reads:
1.
Subject to the submission of appropriate
clearances, summary deportation of Felix
(Yao Kong) Ma, Felix Ma, Jr., Balgamelo Ma, Valeriano Ma, Lechi Ann Ma, Nicolas
Ma, Arceli Ma and Isidro Ma, Taiwanese [Chinese], under C.A. No. 613, Sections
37(a)(7), 45(e) and 38 in relation to BI M.O. Nos. ADD-01-031 and ADD-01-035
dated 6 and 22 August 2001, respectively;
2.
Issuance of a warrant of
deportation
against Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, Felix Ma, Jr., Balgamelo Ma, Valeriano Ma, Lechi
Ann Ma, Nicolas Ma, Arceli Ma and Isidro Ma under C.A. No. 613, Section 37(a);
3.
Inclusion of the names of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma,
Felix Ma, Jr., Balgamelo Ma, Valeriano Ma, Lechi Ann Ma, Nicolas Ma, Arceli Ma
and Isidro Ma in the Immigration
Blacklist; and
4.
Exclusion from the
Philippines
of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, Felix Ma, Jr., Balgamelo Ma, Valeriano Ma, Lechi Ann
Ma, Nicolas Ma, Arceli Ma and Isidro Ma under C.A. No. 613, Section 29(a)(15). (Emphasis supplied.)
In its Resolution[30]
of 8 April 2005, public respondents partially reconsidered their Judgment of 2
February 2005. They were convinced that
Arceli is an immigrant under Commonwealth Act No. 613, Section 13(g).[31] However,
they denied the Motion for Reconsideration with respect to Felix Ma and the
rest of his children.[32]
Ruling of the Court of
Appeals
On
On
On 29 May 2008, it
issued a Resolution[35]
denying the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 September 2007.
To
reiterate, a person’s continued and uninterrupted stay in the
Our Ruling
The 1935 Constitution declares as
citizens of the
Section
1. The following are citizens of the
(1) xxx;
x x x x
(4) Those whose
mothers are citizens of the
In 1941, Commonwealth Act No. 625 was
enacted. It laid down the manner of electing
Philippine citizenship, to wit:
Section
1. The option to elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with subsection (4), Section 1, Article IV, of the
Constitution shall be expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the
party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be
filed with the nearest civil registry.
The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of
allegiance to the Constitution and the
Government of the
The statutory formalities of electing
Philippine citizenship are: (1) a statement of election under oath; (2) an oath
of allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the
In
Re:Application for Admission to the
Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching,[38]
we determined the meaning of the period of election described by phrase “upon
reaching the age of majority.” Our
references were the Civil Code of the
x x x [T]he 1935 Constitution and C.A. No. 625 did not prescribe a time period within which the election of Philippine citizenship should be made. The 1935 Charter only provides that the election should be made “upon reaching the age of majority.” The age of majority then commenced upon reaching twenty-one (21) years.[40] In the opinions of the Secretary of Justice on cases involving the validity of election of Philippine citizenship, this dilemma was resolved by basing the time period on the decisions of this Court prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. In these decisions, the proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the pronouncements of the Department of State of the United States Government to the effect that the election should be made within a reasonable time after attaining the age of majority.[41] The phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean that the elections should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority.[42] However, we held in Cue[n]co vs. Secretary of Justice,[43] that the three (3) year period is not an inflexible rule. We said:
It is true that this clause has been construed to mean a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority, and that the Secretary of Justice has ruled that three (3) years is the reasonable time to elect Philippine citizenship under the constitutional provision adverted to above, which period may be extended under certain circumstances, as when the person concerned has always considered himself a Filipino.
However, we cautioned in Cue[n]co that the extension of the option to elect Philippine citizenship is not indefinite.
Regardless
of the foregoing, petitioner was born on
We reiterated the above ruling in Go, Sr. v. Ramos,[45] a
case in which we adopted the findings of the appellate court that the father of
the petitioner, whose citizenship was in question, failed to elect Philippine
citizenship within the reasonable period of three (3) years upon reaching the
age of majority; and that “the belated submission to the local civil registry
of the affidavit of election and oath of allegiance x x x was defective because
the affidavit of election was executed after the oath of allegiance, and the
delay of several years before their filing with the proper office was not
satisfactorily explained.”[46]
In both cases, we ruled against the
petitioners because they belatedly complied with all the requirements. The acts
of election and their registration with the nearest civil registry were all done
beyond the reasonable period of three years upon reaching the age of majority.
The instant case presents a different
factual setting. Petitioners complied
with the first and second requirements upon reaching the age of majority. It was only the registration of the documents
of election with the civil registry that was belatedly done.
We rule that under the facts peculiar
to the petitioners, the right to elect Philippine citizenship has not been lost
and they should be allowed to complete the statutory requirements for such
election.
Such conclusion, contrary to the
finding of the Court of Appeals, is in line with our decisions in In Re:Florencio Mallare,[47] Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of
Representatives,[48] and
Re:Application for Admission to the
Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching.[49]
In Mallare, Esteban’s exercise of the right of suffrage when he came
of age was deemed to be a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.[50] The Court of Appeals, however, said that the
case cannot support herein petitioners’ cause, pointing out that, unlike
petitioner, Esteban is a natural child of a Filipina, hence, no other act would
be necessary to confer on him the rights and privileges of a Filipino citizen,[51] and
that Esteban was born in 1929[52]
prior to the adoption of the 1935 Constitution and the enactment of
Commonwealth Act No. 625.[53]
In the Co case, Jose Ong, Jr. did more than exercise his right of
suffrage, as he established his life here in the
In Ching, it may be recalled that we denied his application for
admission to the Philippine Bar because, in his case, all the requirements, to
wit: (1) a statement of election under oath; (2) an oath of allegiance to the
Constitution and Government of the Philippines; and (3) registration of the
statement of election and of the oath with the nearest civil registry were complied
with only fourteen (14) years after he reached the age of majority. Ching offered no reason for the late election
of Philippine citizenship.[57]
In all, the Court of Appeals found
the petitioners’ argument of good faith and “informal election” unacceptable and
held:
Their
reliance in the ruling contained in Re:Application
for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, [which was decided
on
We are not prepared to state that the
mere exercise of suffrage, being elected public official, continuous and
uninterrupted stay in the
For what purpose is registration?
In Pascua v. Court of Appeals,[59] we
elucidated the principles of civil law on registration:
To
register is to record or annotate.
American and Spanish authorities are unanimous on the meaning of the
term “to register” as “to enter in a register; to record formally and
distinctly; to enroll; to enter in a list.”[60] In general, registration refers to any entry
made in the books of the registry, including both registration in its ordinary
and strict sense, and cancellation, annotation, and even the marginal
notes. In strict acceptation, it
pertains to the entry made in the registry which records solemnly and
permanently the right of ownership and other real rights.[61] Simply
stated, registration is made for the purpose of notification.[62]
Actual knowledge may even have the
effect of registration as to the person who has knowledge thereof. Thus, “[i]ts purpose is to give notice
thereof to all persons (and it) operates as a notice of the deed, contract, or
instrument to others.”[63] As pertinent is the holding that registration
“neither adds to its validity nor converts an invalid instrument into a valid
one between the parties.”[64] It lays emphasis on the validity of an unregistered
document.
Comparable jurisprudence may be
consulted.
In a contract of partnership, we said
that the purpose of registration is to give notice to third parties; that
failure to register the contract does not affect the liability of the partnership
and of the partners to third persons; and that neither does such failure affect
the partnership’s juridical personality.[65] An
unregistered contract of partnership is valid as among the partners, so long as
it has the essential requisites, because the main purpose of registration is to
give notice to third parties, and it can be assumed that the members themselves
knew of the contents of their contract.[66] The
non-registration of a deed of donation does not also affect its validity. Registration
is not a requirement for the validity of the contract as between the parties,
for the effect of registration serves chiefly to bind third persons.[67]
Likewise relevant is the
pronouncement that registration is not a mode of acquiring a right. In an analogous case involving an unrecorded
deed of sale, we reiterated the settled rule that registration is not a mode of
acquiring ownership.
Registration does not confer ownership. It is not a mode of acquiring dominion, but only a means of confirming the fact of its existence with notice to the world at large.[68]
Registration, then, is the
confirmation of the existence of a fact.
In the instant case, registration is the confirmation of election as
such election. It is not the
registration of the act of election, although a valid requirement under Commonwealth
Act No. 625, that will confer Philippine citizenship on the petitioners. It is only a means of confirming the fact that
citizenship has been claimed.
Indeed, we even allow the late
registration of the fact of birth and of marriage.[69] Thus, has it been admitted through existing
rules that the late registration of the fact of birth of a child does not erase
the fact of birth. Also, the fact of
marriage cannot be declared void solely because of the failure to have the
marriage certificate registered with the designated government agency.
Notably, the petitioners timely took
their oath of allegiance to the
Petitioners have passed decades of
their lives in the
Corollary to this fact, we cannot
agree with the view of the Court of Appeals that since the ACR presented by the
petitioners are no longer valid on account of the new requirement to present an
E-series ACR, they are deemed not properly documented.[70] On the contrary, petitioners should not be
expected to secure E-series ACR because it would be inconsistent with the
election of citizenship and its constructive registration through their acts
made public, among others, their exercise of suffrage, election as public
official, and continued and uninterrupted stay in the
The leanings towards recognition of
the citizenship of children of Filipino mothers have been indicated not alone
by the jurisprudence that liberalized the requirement on time of election, and
recognized positive acts of Philippine citizenship.
The favor that is given to such
children is likewise evident in the evolution of the constitutional provision
on Philippine citizenship.
Thus, while the 1935 Constitution
requires that children of Filipino mothers elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching their age of majority,[71] upon
the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, they automatically become Filipinos[72]
and need not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. The 1973 provision reads:
Section
1. The following are citizens of the
(1) xxx.
(2) Those
whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the
Better than the relaxation of the
requirement, the 1987 Constitution now classifies them as natural-born citizens
upon election of Philippine citizenship.
Thus, Sec. 2, Article IV thereof provides:
Section 2.
Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the
The constitutional bias is reflected
in the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission.
MR. CONCEPCION. x x x.
x x x x
x x x x As regards those born of Filipino mothers,
the 1935 Constitution merely gave them the option to choose Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, even, apparently, if the father
were an alien or unknown. Upon the other
hand, under the 1973 Constitution, children of mixed marriages involving an
alien father and a Filipino mother are Filipino citizens, thus liberalizing the
counterpart provision in the 1935 Constitution by dispensing with the need to
make a declaration of intention upon reaching the age of majority. I understand that the committee would further
liberalize this provision of the 1935 Constitution. The Committee seemingly proposes to further
liberalize the policy of the 1935 Constitution by making those who became
citizens of the
x x x x
xxx Why does the draft resolution adopt the provision of the 1973 Constitution and not that of the 1935? [76]
x x x x
FR. BERNAS. x x x Precisely, the reason behind the modification of the 1935 rule on citizenship was a recognition of the fact that it reflected a certain male chauvinism, and it was for the purpose of remedying that this proposed provision was put in. The idea was that we should not penalize the mother of a child simply because she fell in love with a foreigner. Now, the question on what citizenship the child would prefer arises. We really have no way of guessing the preference of the infant. But if we recognize the right of the child to choose, then let him choose when he reaches the age of majority. I think dual citizenship is just a reality imposed on us because we have no control of the laws on citizenship of other countries. We recognize a child of a Filipino mother. But whether or not she is considered a citizen of another country is something completely beyond our control. But certainly it is within the jurisdiction of the Philippine government to require that [at] a certain point, a child be made to choose. But I do not think we should penalize the child before he is even able to choose. I would, therefore, support the retention of the modification made in 1973 of the male chauvinistic rule of the 1935 Constitution.[77]
x x x x
MR. REGALADO. With respect to a child who became a Filipino citizen by election, which the Committee is now planning to consider a natural-born citizen, he will be so the moment he opts for Philippine citizenship. Did the Committee take into account the fact that at the time of birth, all he had was just an inchoate right to choose Philippine citizenship, and yet, by subsequently choosing Philippine citizenship, it would appear that his choice retroacted to the date of his birth so much so that under the Gentleman’s proposed amendment, he would be a natural-born citizen?[78]
FR. BERNAS. But the difference between him and the natural-born who lost his status is that the natural-born who lost his status, lost it voluntarily; whereas, this individual in the situation contemplated in Section 1, paragraph 3 never had the chance to choose.[79]
x x x x
[on the period within which to elect Philippine citizenship]
MR. RODRIGO. [T]his provision becomes very, very important because his election of Philippine citizenship makes him not only a Filipino citizen but a natural-born Filipino citizen, entitling him to run for Congress, to be a Justice of the Supreme Court x x x.[80]
We are guided by this evolvement from
election of Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority under the 1935 Philippine Constitution to dispensing
with the election requirement under the 1973 Philippine Constitution to express classification of these children as
natural-born citizens under the 1987 Constitution towards the conclusion
that the omission of the 1941 statutory requirement of registration of the documents
of election should not result in the obliteration of the right to Philippine
citizenship.
Having a Filipino mother is permanent. It is the basis of the right of the
petitioners to elect Philippine citizenship.
Petitioners elected Philippine citizenship in form and substance. The failure to register the election in the
civil registry should not defeat the election and resultingly negate the
permanent fact that they have a Filipino mother. The lacking requirements may still be
complied with subject to the imposition of appropriate administrative
penalties, if any. The documents they
submitted supporting their allegations that they have already registered with
the civil registry, although belatedly, should be examined for validation
purposes by the appropriate agency, in this case, the Bureau of
Immigration. Other requirements embodied
in the administrative orders and other issuances of the Bureau of Immigration
and the Department of Justice shall be complied with within a reasonable time.
WHEREFORE, the
Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Per raffle dated
[1] Deceased.
CA rollo, p. 70.
[2] Rollo, p. 18.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 56, 61, and 66.
[4] Rollo, p. 41.
[5] CA rollo, pp. 99-101.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Rollo, pp. 85-86.
[10] CA rollo, pp. 72 and 76.
[11] Rollo, p. 220.
[12]
[13]
[14] CA rollo, back of pp. 37-38.
[15] Rollo, p. 42.
[16] Sec. 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or any other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien:
(1) xxx
x x x x
(7) Any alien who remains in the
[17] Sec. 45. Any individual who:
(a) xxx
x x x x
(e) Being an alien shall, for any fraudulent purpose, represent himself to be a Philippine citizen in order to evade any requirement of the immigration laws.
[18] CA rollo, pp. 39-40.
[19]
[20]
[21] Ronaldo P. Ledesma, An Outline of Philippine Immigration and Citizenship Laws, 1999, Rex Printing Company, Inc., p. 360.
[22] CA rollo, p. 31.
[23]
[24]
[25] The Bureau of Immigration Official Website, www.immigration.gov.ph.
[26] CA rollo, p. 32.
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33] Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga with Associate Justices Mariano C. del Castillo (now a member of this Court) and Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, concurring. Rollo, pp. 10-23.
[34] Id. at 22.
[35]
[36]
[37] Section
1(4), Article IV, 1935 Philippine Constitution.
[38] 374 Phil. 342, 354 (1999).
[39] 115 Phil. 90 (1962).
[40] Re: Application for Admission to
the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, supra note 38 at 350 citing Art. 402,
Civil Code.
[41]
[42] Id.
[43]
[44]
[45] G.R.
No. 167569, 4 September 2009, 598 SCRA 266.
[46] Id.
at 280.
[47] 158 Phil. 50 (1974).
[48] G.R.
Nos. 92191-92,
[49] Supra note 38.
[50] In Re: Florencio Mallare, supra note 47 at 58.
[51]
[52]
[53] Rollo, p. 20.
[54] Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, supra note 48 at 708.
[55]
[56]
[57] Supra
note 38 at 354.
[58] Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[59] 401 Phil. 350, 366-367 (2000).
[60] Id.
citing Po Sun Tun v. Prize and
Provincial Government of
[61] Id.
[62] Id.
citing Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1989 ed., p.
653 citing Bautista v. Dy Bun Chin, 49
Official Gazette 179, 183 (1952).
[63] Id.
[64] Id.
[65] Angeles, v. The Hon. Secretary of Justice,
G.R. No. 142612,
[66] Sunga-Chan v. Chua, 415 Phil. 477, 491 (2001).
[67] Gutierrez v.
Mendoza-Plaza, G.R. No. 185477,
[68] Bollozos
v. Yu Tieng Su, 239 Phil. 475, 485 (1987) citing Bautista v. Dy Bun Chin, supra note 62.
[69] Delayed Registration – Birth, Death,
and Marriage x x x. http://www.census.gov.ph/data/civilreg/delayedreg_primer.html.
[70] Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[71] Section
1(4), Article IV, 1935 Philippine Constitution.
[72] Records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Volume 1, p. 185.
[73] Article
IV, 1973 Constitution of the
[74] Section 1.
The following are citizens of the
(1) xxx;
x x x x
(3) Those
born before
[75] Records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission,
Volume 1,
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80] Records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission,
Volume 1,