A Comprehensive Study of the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2000 (SB 2130)

Abstract

Along with the rapidly growing phenomenon of transnational migration is the fast-growing international trend of citizenship policies toward more liberal acceptance by governments of dual citizenship. From only four Latin American countries before 1991, there are now eighty-nine countries worldwide that recognize dual citizenship in one form or another. The Philippines, being a high-immigrant-sending country is not exempt from the list of countries which considers the option of passing law on dual citizenship. The recent legislation of SBN 2130 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act provides for the retention of Philippine citizenship despite the acquisition of another. It is in this regard that this study is conducted. The research aims to look into this recently proposed measure, its provisions and objectives as well as the deemed benefits and entailing problems that surround the bill. Initially, the researcher reviewed the laws that govern Philippine citizenship, notably Commonwealth Act No. 63 of 1936 on the loss of Philippine citizenship, and which, for the purposes of this legislation will have to be amended, and the prevailing Constitutional provisions on acquisition of Philippine citizenship. Aside from the pertinent archival sources from the Senate regarding the Act, the researcher conducted Key-Informant Interviews as primary data. The perceptions and recommendations comprised the substantial data in this study. The researcher made use of A Kil guide and with consent, tape recorder to facilitate a better flow of interview discussion. With the failed attempt to interview the principal author and sponsor of SBN 2130 in the Senate, the author interviewed a government agency, which especially endeavors to promote the interests of overseas Filipinos. Atty. Golda Myra Roma of the Commission on Filipino Overseas as the resource person to represent the pro side and three Representatives from the Lower House, namely Congressman Didagen P. Dilangalen, Congressman Celso L. Lobregat, and Congressman Teddy Boy Locsin, as the oppositionist to the adoption of the bill. The interviews revealed equally argumentative points that support and discourage a policy on dual citizenship. Roma has provided a positively informative discussion on how overseas Filipinos have maintained their allegiance and support to the country in terms of a million worth of donations every year. Passing a law that recognizes former Filipinos as Filipino citizens again entails personal benefits on the part of these Filipino migrants, in the sense that they would be able to maximize their opportunities to progress in their endeavors abroad. In effect, this would redound to the country’s economic benefits in terms of anticipated investments and additional government revenue from tax payments that would ensue from such retained Philippine citizenship. On the other hand, the leftist or the nationalistic groups who are against the adoption of a law on dual citizenship believe that such would be inimical to the national interest primarily because it is violative of the constitution. Restoration of Philippine citizenship, thus of full civil and political rights to former Filipino citizens will not be significantly benefit former Filipinos in the sense that they have already completely abandoned their Philippine citizenship. They criticize the optimistic assumption of the proponents that many Filipinos remain Filipinos in hearts and in mind and that they manifest continued allegiance to the country in terms of their desires of visiting the homeland every possible opportunity and their dreams of retiring here for good. They attest to the fact that many Filipinos who stay abroad are TNTs, green card holders and permanent residents, which altogether proves that the foreign country is their domicile of choice and that they have completely abandoned their being Filipinos. Giving them the right to become Filipino citizens again would undermine the spirit of being citizens of Filipinos in the country. Hence, they call it “judas” law. It is found in this study hat despite the deemed unconstitutionality of a law on dual citizenship, SBN 2130 does not violate any provision on citizenship stipulated in the Constitution. What is prohibited is dual allegiance, a notion different from the concept of dual citizenship. In fact, a closer look into the provisions on citizenship stated in Article IV even allows, although implicitly, dual citizenship of Filipinos. The provision on dual allegiance pertains to the allegiance manifested by naturalized Filipino citizens to their countries of origin, which is the real constitutional prohibition. Furthermore, the enactment into law of SBN 2130 will be consistent to this age of transnational migration. The fact that there is no way to lessen migration flow and the fact that Philippine citizenship laws has no control over citizenship laws of other countries necessitates the need to address the issue of citizenship of Filipinos. Allowing overseas Filipinos to regain the title of being Filipino citizens. An thus granting them the title to exercise full civil an political rights in the country, despite he fact that they have another citizenship, would integrate them socially, politically and economically. By allowing them to retain their citizenship, we reunite or rekindle their allegiance to the country; they would not have any feeling of alienation to their home, which altogether would mean that we give them the chance to become partners in the initiatives of development and nation- building. To conclude, SBN 2130 is a commendable policy Adopting it would cater to the welfare of overseas Filipinos from which the government has benefited much. Their immense and invaluable contribution to the country has been very well acknowledge by our government. SBN 2130 will be a venue for the government to acclaim the benefits it receives from overseas Filipinos in the same manner as former Filipinos would also be encouraged to participate more in the country’s affairs, thus giving back what they owe to their mother country. In such way, they would not be treated aliens to their own homeland. It must be noted that SBN 2130 in this time of rapidly growing migration trends is indispensable, if only on the basis of practicality. While the intent of the bill to address the phenomenon of migrant workers is understandably necessary, the researcher would like to conclude with a recommendation that a person ideally must have only one citizenship.