Talk:Philippine nationality law

message: 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)
thread_title:  ''Citizenship by naturalization'' section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misplaced material duplicating material already present in the article 

message: "Visa requirements for Filipino citizens"
Should be "Philippine". 23.81.209.173 (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjective 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Language requirement for naturalization 

message: 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)
replies: text: Racial, nationalistic, and sexist; see  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)
thread_title:  Case law