Y
Republic of the Philippines i$ "Re ix sat ar

House of Representatives

Quezon City

SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILLNo._ 5919

Introduced by REP. RODEL M. BATOCABE, REP. ALFREDO A. GARBIN, Jr.,
REP. CHRISTOPHER S. CO

AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 5, PARAGRAPH 3 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9225
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION
ACT OF 2003"

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Paragraph 1, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9225, otherwise known as “The Citizenship
Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003,’ specifically provide that “[t]hose who retain or
reacquite Philippine Citizenship [or dual citizens} shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be
subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines,”
Although granted full civil and political rights, dual citizens, however, are prejudiced and
disadvantaged in that they cannot seek appointment in public office without renouncing their oath
of allegiance to the country where they took that oath. Many wish to seek appointment in UP and
other State Universities and Colleges, in order to teach or share their knowledge and expertise.

Filipinos abound overseas, and through exposures in advances in education, employment
and working conditions, many of these Filipinos have acquired extensive learning, education, skill,
and expertise in different fields and professions that the Philippin Government could tap and
harness for national development, welfare and progress. Many of these highly educated and trained
Filipino experts have also retained or re-acquired their Philippine Citizenships or have become
dual citizens under the terms provided for in RA 9225,

From experience, there are dual citizens who are, because of patriotic impulses and love
for the Philippines and the Filipino people, willing to leave their lucrative and comfortable lives
abroad and return to the Philippines in order to teach, do research work or share their knowledge
and expertise in UP and other State Universities and Colleges. These dual citizens, however, are
prevented from doing so because of what they believe to be burdensome or impractical
Tequirements imposed on them for appointment in public office, such as that mentioned in Section
5, Paragraph of RA 9225 requiring them to renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where
they took that oath.

It is worthy to note that in this case, professors of foreign citizenship have a distinct
advantage in that they need only to generally, among others, secure an alien employment permit
(AEP) and a working visa from the government in order to be allowed to teach in universities
locally, whether public or private. Dual citizens, however, have to make said required renunciation
of their oath of allegiance in order to be appointed to public office, including those positions
available in UP and other SUCs, Congress believes that these dual citizens are not only prejudiced


in this way, they are also unjustly and unfairly, pre-judged. They are already treated as
inappropriate for appointment to public office simply because they executed an oath of allegiance
as an incident to their acquiring foreign citizenship, when truthfully, they have not committed any
act of disloyalty to the country. In fact, their aspirations motivation and actions continue to show
otherwise — that they love the country and the Filipino people by offering to return home to render
invaluable services. Conversely, the state universities are disadvantaged against neighboring
Higher Educational Institutions found in the ASEAN Region on their internationalization
programs and international rankings with their inability to obtain the services of experts and
doctorate degree holders, including dual citizens with such expertise and qualifications,

Congress is aware of the principle that allegiance is a state of mind, and can only be seen
through overt or positive acts. Based on this principle, therefore, it is unjust and unfair to pre-judge
dual citizens absent the presence of these overt or positive acts. Moreover, Congress understands
that their inability to renounce their oath of allegiance is merely for practical purposes. They or
their families abroad wish to continue to enjoy or take advantage of educational, health, pension,
unhampered travel without visas and other benefits that in fact they have earned. And, these could
be negatively impacted once their foreign citizenships are affected by such renunciation

In order to correct this injustice and unfairness, as well as to equalize the playing field for
dual citizens insofar as appointments to UP and other SUCs are concemed, the necessary
amendment to RA 9225 has to be made.

Ip.view of the foregoing, approval of this bill is earnestly sought.

M. BATOCABE ALFREDO AG: IN, Jr. CHI iRS.cO


wavanauny

nu

3

“4

15

16

v7

18

19

20

a

23

24

25

Republic of the
HOUSE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

‘SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL.No,_ 9919

Introduced by REP. RODEL M. BATOCABE, REP. ALFREDO A. GARBIN, Jr.,
REP. CHRISTOPHER S. CO

AN ACT
AMENDING SECTION 5, PARAGRAPH 3 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9225 OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS “THE CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION ACT OF
2003”

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:

SECTION 1. Sec. 5, Par. 3 of Republic Act 9225, otherwise known as the “Citizenship Retention
and Re-acquisition Act of 2003” is hereby amended to read as follows
“Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who retain
or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and
political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities
under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions
(I) XxXx
Q)XXX
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath
of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted
authorities prior to assumption of office: ?rovided, that they renounce their
ath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath; PROVIDED
FURTHER, THAT APPOINTEES TO THE UNIVERSITY OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND OTHER STATE UNIVERSITIES AND
COLLEGES SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE SUCH

RENUNCIATION AS CONDITION FOR THEIR EMPLOYMENT.”


10

SECTION 2. Separability Clause — Should any provision of this Act be declared unconstitutional,
the remainder thereof not otherwise affected shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 3. Repealing Clause. — All other existing laws, presidential decrees, executive orders,
proclamations or administrative regulations that are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act

are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

SECTION 4. Effectivity ~ This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following the completion of
its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved,