Talk:Philippine nationality law

Philippine nationality law has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 6, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Philippine nationality law appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that foreign nationals wishing to gain Philippine citizenship need to demonstrate proficiency in English or Spanish as well as a Philippine language? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Philippine nationality law.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Tambayan Philippines High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

May I remove the section Treaty of Paris? That section has this quotation:"The Spaniards residing in the territories over which Spain by this treaty cedes or relinquishes her sovereignty shall be subject in matters civil as well as criminal to the jurisdiction of the courts of the country wherein they reside, pursuant to the ordinary laws governing the same; and they shall have the right to appear before such courts, and to pursue the same course as citizens of the country to which the courts belong." I think it only says that Spaniards who reside in the territories reliquished by Spain (that includes the Philippine Islands) will only be covered by any of all the courts in their residence, not necessarily that those Spaniards will be Filipino citizens. -Pika ten10 (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That raises the question of the nationality of the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands prior to the Treaty of Paris. Were all of them except those visiting from other countries "Spaniards", including those who you and I would think of today as Filipinos? If not, what was their nationality? Some traveled internationality -- what country issued their passports?

I don't know the answer to those questions, but my best guess is that prior to the Treaty of Paris, Filipinos were Spanish subjects and were considered as Spanish nationals of some sort. My guess is that when Filipinos traveled outside of the Philippines, they did so on Spanish passports.

That snippet from the TofP doesn't do much to clarify the issue of Filipino citizenship during the period prior to the 1902 passage of the Philippine Organic Act (POA). Rather than have it just deleted, though, it would probably be better to replace it with some explanation of the nationality of inhabitants of the Philippines prior to 1902.

Does anyone have something better to offer on this subject than my guesswork? Incidentally, I note that the POA says "all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in the Philippine Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands ..." This confirms to some extent my guess above that Filipinos were Spanish subjects, but I'm not sure what import that has in terms of nationality. Also, I'm left wondering what sort of passport "citizens of the Philippine Islands" traveled on, and who issued it. -- More questions than answers, I'm afraid. Can anybody clarify this? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no one of us can precisely interpret this passage in the 1898 Treaty of Paris, then we must consult this article to a law expert. -Pika ten10 (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the 2003 law allowed any child of even only one Filipino parent, no matter when born, to be considered a "natural born Filipino" as per http://www.gov.ph/faqs/dualcitizenship.asp item 2 and 3(4)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RWIR (talk • contribs) 08:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the proper forum for asking questions like this, but I'll try to answer. RA9225 (the 2003 law) does not answer that question. A child born on or after October 15, 1986 (the date the 1987 constitution was adopted) whose father or mother was an RP citizen at the time of their birth is a natural-born citizen. A child born before that date and on or after January 17, 1973 (the ratification date of the 1973 constitution) whose father and mother were both RP citizens at the time of their birth is a natural-born citizen. A child born before that date and on or after May 14, 1935 (the ratification date of the 1935 constitution) whose father was an RP citizen at the time of their birth or, alternatively, whose mother was an RP citizen at the time of their birth and who elected RP citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, is a natural-born citizen. At least that's how I (a non-lawyer) read it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, I think you should check the 1973 Constitution published on the website of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. I have already modified the wiki entry and provided the appropriate link. The initial reference that you have provided has a typo in my opinion (the word "and" should have been an "or"). I know this for sure because I am a natural-born Filipino with a Chinese dad and a Filipino mom. I was born in 1977. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caryucla (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the much-delayed response -- I only just saw this.

I'm not a lawyer, but I see that Article III Section 1 of the 1973 constitution says:

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
            (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
            (2) Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
            (3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
            (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Subpara (2) there says "and", not "or".

Subpara (3) there says that those who elect (note: "elect", not "have elected) Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five are also citizens. Article III Section 1 of the 1935 constitution said:

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
            (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
            (2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.
            (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
            (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
            (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

As I read this, subpara (3) of the 1973 constitution allows subpara (4) of the 1935 constitution to have applied while the 1973 constitution was in effect. You, then, having been born in 1977 of a Filipina mother and a Chinese father, would be an RP citizen if you elected RP citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

That's just my reading—and I'm not a lawyer. However, I have modified the Citizenship by birth section of the article to reflect this reading of the 1973 constitution. If I've got this wrong, I ask that someone more knowledgeable than I please correct it. A clarifying footnote and a supporting cite would be helpful if this has been adjudicated and/or clarified in a secondary source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this was not the proper forum, I thought it was important as the article in its present form doesn't seem to allow that a person born to only one Filipino parent in the 1990s or 2000 would be a natural born Filipino and therefore a citizen. (Please see the second bullet after the heading that discusses citizenship by birth). ThanksRWIR (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have seen and reacted to this when it was posted so long ago. Apparently, I missed seeing it. I've edited this section previously and, after seeing this, I took another look, saw problems, and re-edited it. I did not go back and explore the edit history to find out how it came to say what it did prior to my re-edit, but just re-edited it to try to bring the content into line with what I understand the cited supporting sources to say. As I've edited it, it says that a person born on or after January 17, 1973 with one parent who was a Philippine citizen on the birthdate is a Philippine citizen by birth. That is what I understand the cited supporting sources to say. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, I just reverted the insertion of a large block of text in the Citizenship by naturalization section. I had already reverted the addition of this text once today as it is unsupported and seems to be original research. I'm deleting it a second time today because I've masked the reinsertion with a later edit to another section of the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted this edit. The problem with the insertion is that it is being done in the Loss and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship section, and the material discusses neither loss of nor reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. The info in the material is already covered in the Citizenship by naturalization section of the article. This is the latest of several reversion of edits by the reverted anon to insert this material. I have placed several warnings on his talk page, and the latest warning is level-4. In that latest warning, I asked the anon to discuss the insertion of this material here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Visa requirements for Filipino citizens"

Should be "Philippine". 23.81.209.173 (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth required qualification in CA 473 says, "He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages; and". I had previously taken this to require English or (alternatively) Spanish and (in addition to one or both of those) any one of the principal Philippine languages. However, a friend has suggested that this ought to be read as requiring English (alone) or Spanish and (additionally) any one of the principal Philippine languages. My friend says that a he got this understanding from a Philippine lawyer. Contrary to my initial understanding, I see a point here about and binding more tightly than or, but I'm no grammarian and am certainly not qualified to re interpret dodgy-looking grammatical constructions in legislation. Does anyone have a source with further info on this? Perhaps a scholarly article or a Supreme Court decision? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This gets a bit messy here. Sorry.

Having not looked at this article in some time, I just noticed that the language in the article did not mirror the language in CA 473. CA 473 reads "English or Spanish and ...", the article read, "English or Spanish or ..." (emphasis mine). This was explained in a footnote which read, "the language used here is based on a Philippine Bureau of Immigration web page on Philippine citizenship. This language differs from the language in CA473, which reads, 'He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages'." That footnote was supported by a cite of this link-rotted BOI URL. I have WP:BOLDly revised the language in the article which discusses CA 473 to agree with the language in CA 473, and have removed that footnote and its link-rotted supporting cite. This also involved a less substantive change relating to outdated naming offices.

Actually, on second thought, I've replaced most of the tweaked language in the article paraphrasing CA 473 with snippets quoted directly from CA 473. See this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the main entry does not refer to the important impact that case law, especially the Villahermosa case of 1948, have had on the law. In that case the Supreme Court legislated from the bench and changed from jus soli (presumably inherited from America) to jus sanguinis (the then-civil-law-country predominant system). There may have been a racial component to that decision. See http://www.uniset.ca/phil/ (last updated 2005). Maybe that's too much to expect from an editor who is a non-lawyer? Andygx (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racial, nationalistic, and sexist; see [1] and section 1(7) here. However, You appear to be incorrect is saying that prior to that decision the Philippines based citizenship on jus soli. See Article IV of the 1935 Philippine constitution. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that foreign nationals wishing to gain Philippine citizenship need to demonstrate proficiency in English or Spanish as well as a Philippine language? Source: Aguilar, Filomeno V. (January 2017). Report on Citizenship Law: Philippines (Report). European University Institute. hdl:1814/45147. Page 13
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ella Stewart Udall

Improved to Good Article status by Horserice (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Philippine nationality law; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was promoted to Good Article status on March 6, 2023. All good. RV (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]