8/18/2019 EDISON SO vs.republic

1/3

EDISON SO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 170603 January 2! 2007

F"CTS# On February 28, 2002, petitioner Edison So filed before the RTC a Petition for

aturali!ation

"

 under Co##on$ealth %&t 'C.%.( o. )*", other$ise +no$n as the Revisedaturali!ation a$, as a#ended. -e alleed the follo$in in his petition/

-e $as born on February *, 182, in anila3 he is a Chinese &iti!en $ho has lived in o. 428

ave!ares St., 5inondo, anila, sin&e birth3 as an e#ployee, he derives an averae annual

in&o#e of around P00,000.00 $ith free board and lodin and other benefits3 he is sinle, able

to spea+ and $rite Enlish, Chinese and Taalo3 he is e6e#pt fro# the filin of 7e&laration of

ntention to be&o#e a &iti!en of the Philippines pursuant to Se&tion 9 of Co##on$ealth %&t

'C.%.( o. )*", as a#ended, be&ause he $as born in the Philippines, and studied in a s&hool

re&oni!ed by the :overn#ent $here Philippine history, overn#ent and &ulture are tauht3 he

is a person of ood #oral &hara&ter3 he believes in the prin&iples underlyin the Philippine

&onstitution3 he has &ondu&ted hi#self in a proper and irreproa&hable #anner durin the entire

period of his residen&e in the Philippines in his relation $ith the &onstituted overn#ent as $ellas $ith the &o##unity in $hi&h he is livin3 he has #inled so&ially $ith the Filipinos and has

evin&ed a sin&ere desire to learn and e#bra&e the &usto#s, traditions and ideals of the Filipino

people3 he has all the ;ualifi&ations provided under Se&tion 2 and none of the dis;ualifi&ations

under Se&tion ) of C.%. o. )*", as a#ended3 he is not opposed to orani!ed overn#ent or

affiliated $ith any asso&iation or roup of persons $ho uphold and tea&h do&trines opposin all

orani!ed overn#ents3 he is not defendin or tea&hin the ne&essity or propriety of violen&e,

personal assault or assassination for the su&&ess or predo#inan&e of #enurispruden&e and the definition and uidelines set forth in C.%. o. )*".

HELD# The petition is denied for la&+ of #erit.

aturali!ation sinifies the a&t of for#ally adoptin a foreiner into the politi&al body of a

nation by &lothin hi# or her $ith the privilees of a &iti!en.)) Ander &urrent and e6istin la$s,

there are three $ays by $hi&h an alien #ay be&o#e a &iti!en by naturali!ation/ 'a(

ad#inistrative naturali!ation pursuant to R.%. o. 1"13 'b( >udi&ial naturali!ation pursuant to

C.%. o. )*", as a#ended3 and '&( leislative naturali!ation in the for# of a la$ ena&ted by

Conress besto$in Philippine &iti!enship to an alien.)4

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt3

8/18/2019 EDISON SO vs.republic

2/3

Petitionerustify petitionerudi&ial a&t.

First. C.%. o. )*" and R.%. o. 1"1 are separate and distin&t la$s B the for#er &overs all

aliens reardless of &lass $hile the latter &overs native=born aliens $ho lived here in the

Philippines all their lives, $ho never sa$ any other &ountry and all alon thouht that they $ere

Filipinos3 $ho have de#onstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines and affinity to the &usto#sand traditions.42 To reiterate, the intention of the leislature in ena&tin R.%. o. 1"1 $as to

#a+e the pro&ess of a&;uirin Philippine &iti!enship less tedious, less te&hni&al and #ore

en&ourain $hi&h is ad#inistrative rather than >udi&ial in nature. Thus, althouh the

leislature believes that there is a need to liberali!e the naturali!ation la$ of the Philippines,

there is nothin fro# $hi&h it &an be inferred that C.%. o. )*" $as intended to be a#ended or

repealed by R.%. o. 1"1. ?hat the leislature had in #ind $as #erely to pres&ribe another

#ode of a&;uirin Philippine &iti!enship $hi&h #ay be availed of by native born aliens. The

only i#pli&ation is that, a native born alien has the &hoi&e to apply for >udi&ial or ad#inistrative

naturali!ation, sub>e&t to the pres&ribed ;ualifi&ations and dis;ualifi&ations.

n the instant &ase, petitioner applied for naturali!ation by >udi&ial a&t, thouh at the ti#e of thefilin of his petition, ad#inistrative naturali!ation under R.%. o. 1"1 $as already available.

Conse;uently, his appli&ation should be overned by C.%. o. )*".

Se&ond. f the ;ualifi&ations pres&ribed in R.%. o. 1"1 $ould be #ade appli&able even to

 >udi&ial naturali!ation, the &overae of the la$ $ould be broadened sin&e it $ould then apply

even to aliens $ho are not native born. t #ust be stressed that R.%. o. 1"1 applies only to

aliens $ho $ere born in the Philippines and have been residin here.

Third. %pplyin the provisions of R.%. o. 1"1 to >udi&ial naturali!ation is &ontrary to the

intention of the leislature to liberali!e the naturali!ation pro&edure in the &ountry. One of the

;ualifi&ations set forth in R.%. o. 1"1 is that the appli&ant $as born in thePhilippines and  should have been residin herein sin&e birth. Thus, one $ho $as born here but

left the &ountry, thouh resided for #ore than ten '0( years fro# the filin of the appli&ation is

also dis;ualified. On the other hand, if $e #aintain the distin&t ;ualifi&ations under ea&h of the

t$o la$s, an alien $ho is not ;ualified under R.%. o. 1"1 #ay still be naturali!ed under C.%.

o. )*".

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_170603_2007.html#fnt52

8/18/2019 EDISON SO vs.republic

3/3

Thus, absent a spe&ifi& provision e6pressly a#endin C.%. o. )*", the la$ stands and the

;ualifi&ations and dis;ualifi&ations set forth therein are #aintained.