Skip to main content

PHILIPPINE CITIZENS FROM SPANISH REGIME AND TO THE PRESENT

Evolution of Philippine Citizenship from the Spanish Regime to 1935

Defining Philippine Citizenship

The concept of Philippine citizenship has evolved over time, shaped by different constitutional eras—1935, 1973, and 1987—and influenced by significant historical events. Tecson v. Comelec (2004) provides a detailed discussion on its origins, explaining when and how the term was first used.

Citizenship During the Spanish Era

✔️ Spanish Subjects – The term "Philippine citizens" did not exist during Spanish rule. Instead, Filipinos were classified as "subjects of Spain." ✔️ Discriminatory Terminology – In colonial records, natives were referred to as “indios,” reflecting Spain’s low regard for Filipino inhabitants. ✔️ Royal Decrees Governing Citizenship:

  • 1841 Order de la Regencia – Applied to Spanish subjects in the Philippines.

  • 1868 Royal Decree – Defined the status of children born in the Philippines.

  • 1870 Ley Extranjera de Ultramar – Extended Spanish citizenship laws to the Philippines. ✔️ Spanish Civil Code (1889) – Officially outlined who were Spanish citizens:

  • Individuals born in Spanish territory.

  • Children of a Spanish father or mother, even if born abroad.

  • Foreigners who obtained naturalization papers.

  • Domiciled inhabitants of any Spanish town.

📌 The Spanish Constitution of 1876 was never extended to the Philippines, meaning Filipinos did not enjoy the same citizenship rights as those in Spain.

Transition to U.S. Sovereignty (1898–1902)

✔️ Treaty of Paris (1898) – Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States, altering the citizenship status of Filipinos. ✔️ Effect of Sovereignty Change:

  • Filipinos ceased being Spanish subjects.

  • They did not become American citizens.

  • They were recognized as citizens of the Philippine Islands with U.S. protection.

✔️ Philippine Bill of 1902 (Organic Act) – The term "citizens of the Philippine Islands" officially appeared for the first time.

  • Defined Philippine citizens as those who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and their children born after.

  • Granted U.S. protection to Philippine citizens, except those who chose to retain allegiance to Spain.

✔️ Controversy Over Birthright Citizenship (1899–1902) During this period, no citizenship law existed, creating uncertainty about the status of children born in the Philippines. Some legal scholars argued that the jus soli principle (territorial birthright) applied, similar to U.S. and British law.

✔️ Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law, 1916)

  • Reaffirmed citizenship provisions from the Philippine Bill of 1902.

  • Introduced provisions for naturalization and acquisition of Philippine citizenship for those who did not fit prior criteria.

📌 By this point, the concept of “Philippine citizenship” had been solidified, distinguishing Filipinos from Spanish subjects and American nationals.

Philippine Citizenship: Evolution from 1935 to Present

The Shift from Jus Soli to Jus Sanguinis

Prior to the 1935 Constitution, there was uncertainty regarding whether jus soli (citizenship by place of birth) or jus sanguinis (citizenship by bloodline) applied in the Philippines. The 1935 Constitution formally adopted jus sanguinis, establishing blood relationship as the fundamental basis for Filipino citizenship.

Citizenship Under the 1935 Constitution

📌 Section 1, Article III, 1935 Constitution defined Philippine citizens as: 

1️⃣ Those who were citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of adoption. 

2️⃣ Those born in the Philippines to foreign parents who had previously held public office. 

3️⃣ Those whose fathers were Philippine citizens. 

4️⃣ Those whose mothers were Philippine citizens, provided they elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching legal age. 

5️⃣ Those naturalized according to law.

✔️ Discriminatory Impact on Women:

  • Filipino women who married foreigners automatically lost their citizenship.

  • They could not transmit Filipino citizenship to their legitimate children.

  • Illegitimate children of Filipino mothers still had to formally elect Philippine citizenship.

📌 To correct these inequalities, the 1973 Constitution introduced reforms.

Citizenship Under the 1973 Constitution

📌 Section 1, Article III, 1973 Constitution expanded citizenship rights: 

1️⃣ Those who were citizens at the time of adoption. 

2️⃣ Those whose fathers or mothers were Philippine citizens. 

3️⃣ Those who elected Philippine citizenship under the 1935 Constitution. 

4️⃣ Those naturalized according to law.

✔️ Key Reform: Women’s Citizenship Protection 📌 Section 2 of the same article ensured:

  • A Filipino woman who marries a foreigner retains her Philippine citizenship, unless she formally renounces it.

Citizenship Under the 1987 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution generally adopted the principles of the 1973 Constitution, with some refinements:

📌 Section 1, Article IV, 1987 Constitution states: 

1️⃣ Those who were citizens at the time of adoption. 

2️⃣ Those whose fathers or mothers were Philippine citizens. 

3️⃣ Those born before January 17, 1973, to Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching legal age. 

4️⃣ Those naturalized according to law.

✔️ Notable Change:

  • Subsection (3) corrects the irregular provision in the 1935 Constitution, ensuring individuals born to Filipino mothers before 1973 still have the option to claim citizenship.

Conclusion: Philippine Citizenship Today

The evolution of Philippine citizenship has been shaped by historical and legal developments, ensuring Filipino identity is based on lineage rather than birthplace. The 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions progressively refined the definition of citizenship, addressing gender inequalities, parental lineage issues, and naturalization processes.

📌 For full legal references, visit: .

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Mandamus and its Application in Judicial Proceedings

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy compelling a tribunal, corporation, board, or person to perform a duty expressly required by law . It applies when: 1️⃣ An entity unlawfully neglects the performance of a legal duty arising from an office or trust. 2️⃣ An entity unlawfully excludes another from a right or office to which they are entitled. 3️⃣ There is no other adequate or speedy legal remedy available. 📌 Relevant Case: De Leon v. Duterte (G.R. No. 252118, 2020) Essential Elements of a Mandamus Petition 📌 To successfully invoke mandamus, the petitioner must prove: ✔ Legal Right – The petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to compel the action. ✔ Correlative Obligation – The respondent must have a duty to respect that right . ✔ Violation by the Respondent – There must be an act or omission violating the petitioner’s right . ✔ Refusal to Comply – A failure to perform the duty , whether explicit or implied, triggers a cause of action. 📌 Relevant Case: Phi...
Read more

People vs. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331, G.R. No. 202124 April 5, 2016

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an...
Read more

Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 |March 20, 2013

Case Digest: Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 | March 20, 2013 Ponente: 📌 Topic: Applicability of Reserva Troncal – First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth-degree relatives and cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios. Facts The disputed parcel of land was originally owned by Exequiel Mendoza, who inherited it from Placido and Dominga Mendoza through an oral partition. Upon Exequiel’s death, ownership was transferred to his spouse Leonor and their only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor’s passing, Gregoria became the sole owner. Gregoria died intestate, and her aunt Victoria Pantaleon, Leonor’s sister, adjudicated the property to herself as the sole surviving heir. Petitioners (grandchildren of Placido and Dominga) argued that the property should have been reserved for them under Article 891 of the Civil Code on Reserva Troncal. They filed an action for Recovery of Possession, Cancellation of TCT, and Reconveyance, which the RTC granted. However, the Court of A...
Read more