By Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan

 

Part 19: Where Brawner sees War, China sees Diplomacy

When Congressman Benny Abante asked me during the Tricom hearing last June 5 if I was a lawyer, I replied “No, sir. I am not a lawyer.”

Abante asked a follow-up question, “If you are not a lawyer, how would you know a lot (about the subject of the West Philippine Sea)?

I replied, “because I know how to read, your honor!”

I framed my answer that way because I wanted to hit a familiar note with the congressman. After all he is still a pastor and I have gone on Christian missions to so many countries.

As a Baptist man of the Word, he would certainly be familiar with Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

Reading and engaging the Word of God is the primary and essential way to come to know God’s mind and will, revealing His nature, plans, and purposes. If through reading, one can know God, it follows that through reading you can know his creations, one of which is law.

The only excuse for ignorance therefore is laziness.

Not being a lawyer and to be circumspect, however, I work with good lawyers for the past 77 years to understand and discuss legal matters with expertise and relevance.

Case Study

In the issue affecting Secretary Gilbert Teodoro’s dual allegiance, I have consulted Atty. Arnedo S. Valera, an immigration lawyer based in the US for over 32 years who holds a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law from Columbia University and was trained at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

My collaboration with Valera is an offshoot of my seven years working for the Philippine Embassy in Washington DC with two concurrent years also servicing our Permanent Seat in the United Nations, under Ambassador Emmanuel Pelaez.

This puts me in a unique position why I may know more than a mere lawyer in matters pertaining to consular affairs that deal directly with matters of Filipino citizenship, and international law and conventions.

The ongoing debate surrounding Teodoro’s eligibility to serve as Secretary of National Defense—given his former acquisition of Maltese citizenship—highlights the complex legal terrain of dual citizenship and allegiance under Philippine law.

At the heart of this debate lies the interpretation of natural-born citizenship, the process of reacquisition under Republic Act No. 9225, and the constitutional bar against dual allegiance.

This article explores these issues through Philippine jurisprudence, legislative mandates, and comparative international doctrines, especially within democracies similarly situated in constitutional and post-colonial contexts.

Chewing it down

First, let us examine the legal consequences of foreign naturalization on his natural-born citizenship.

Does voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship negate natural-born status?

Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, Section 1(4), a Filipino who voluntarily acquires foreign citizenship loses Philippine citizenship. This statutory rule only prevailed, however,  until the enactment of R.A. No. 9225 in 2003.

As clarified in Aznar v. Comelec, G.R. No. 83819 (1990), the loss of citizenship does not equate to a permanent loss of natural-born status.

The Supreme Court explained: “Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.”

This is echoed in Article IV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

The implication is clear: once born a natural-born Filipino, the status becomes dormant but not extinguished by foreign naturalization.

Does reacquisition under R.A. No. 9225 restore natural-born status?

Yes. Section 2 of R.A. No. 9225 affirms: “Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship.”

In Maquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649 (2013), the Supreme Court categorically held that reacquiring citizenship under R.A. 9225 reinstates natural-born status. Even if an oath is required for reacquisition, the person remains natural-born by virtue of birth.

Crucial distinction

Is reacquisition sufficient for purposes of holding public office?

While reacquisition restores natural-born status, Section 5(2)(3) of R.A. 9225 imposes an added requirement for public office aspirants:

(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath;

(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 their assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath;

In Cordora v. Comelec, G.R. No. 176947 (2009), the Court ruled that failure to file a valid renunciation—under oath and before the proper authority—renders the individual disqualified, regardless of reacquisition.

Hence, the reacquisition of status is necessary, but not sufficient, for eligibility to sensitive public positions.

Is use of a foreign passport a disqualifying act?

Yes, under Philippine jurisprudence. In Jacot v. Dal, G.R. No. 179848 (2010), the Court explained:

 “The continued use of a foreign passport is an act of reaffirmation of foreign allegiance and amounts to a repudiation of Philippine citizenship.” Thus, even if citizenship is formally reacquired, acts such as using a foreign passport signal continuing allegiance to another state and may disqualify a candidate or appointee.

Official records showed Teodoro was issued Malta Passport 1259234 in December 2016, valid until December 2026.

The Man from Malta

This drew concern from Chito Lozada of the Daily Tribune, who cautions that Teodoro may have committed perjury as he swore under oath in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS), a mandatory document for public officials, that he was never an immigrant nor a permanent resident of another country.

Teodoro could have also failed to disclose his dual citizenship, violating rules requiring disclosure of foreign nationality, including how and when this was acquired.

Lozada said a bigger challenge for the defense chief is the Bureau of Immigration document that is all over social media showing that from 2017 to 2021, Teodoro undertook at least 34 international trips using a Philippine passport, even though he had not yet legally reacquired his Filipino citizenship under Republic Act 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act.

The Daily Tribune columnist said Philippine law — specifically RA 8239, the Philippine Passport Act explicitly states that only Filipino citizens may hold and use a Philippine passport. Thus, the use of a Philippine passport during this time, under his dormant Filipino citizenship status, may constitute a criminal offense.

Despite not being expressly a Filipino citizen during the years 2016–2021 when he held the Maltese passport, Lozada said Teodoro continued to affirm Filipino citizenship status in his Bureau of Internal Revenue tax documents.

It was only in August 2021, a full four and a half years after extensively traveling on a Philippine passport, that Teodoro claims he formally applied for reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship, he added.

“He submitted an Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to Malta dated 30 September 2021 as part of his senatorial bid but there was no record of it being recorded by the Community Malta Agency, as required by the Maltese Citizenship Act.”

This is pivotal because without official recognition by Malta, his Filipino renunciation may exist only on paper.

Lozada said “Assuming that he swore in an affidavit renouncing his oath of allegiance to Malta when Teodoro filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Senator in October 2021, he may still have been a dual citizen in violation of the Constitution.”

Conflict of Interest

Teodoro faces more than the crucible of credibility in his position of being the gatekeeper of the nation’s security. He presented himself as a Filipino public servant, while legally still a Maltese citizen – an act that could constitute fraud and misrepresentation.

According to Lozada, a security expert claimed Teodoro bypassed the Board of Generals in appointments and promotions and has politicized key AFP positions, installing officers based on political loyalty rather than merit or service record.

Worse, he has reportedly created “parallel command structures” within the AFP to advance personal or political agendas, an act that undermines civilian supremacy and military professionalism.

The Philippines has engaged in joint patrols and military exercises with several countries, including the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, France, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, India and South Korea, particularly in the South China Sea region.

It has also signed pacts with European countries like France, Germany, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Netherlands and even tiny Lithuania.

Prior to his removal from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Secretary Enrique Manalo announced “the strengthening of Philippines security cooperation with the European Union as a step in the right direction to promote a resilient, rules-based international order that upholds security in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.”

This is sensitive because a Maltese citizenship automatically makes one a citizen of the EU. As a member of the European Union, Malta’s citizenship grants individuals the benefits of EU citizenship

Lozada said the highest civilian superior of the military serving under a cloud of controversy and deceit only serves to add to the weakening of the morale within the ranks.

“With his acts, Teodoro may have violated at least three major Philippine laws, RA 9225, RA 8239, and the Omnibus Election Code, aside from the constitutional prohibition against dual allegiance.”

Surgical specifics

Let us now examine applications to the case of Secretary Teodoro in matters of renunciation, disclosure and Constitutional fitness.

The steps required for valid renunciation under Philippine law are:

Execution of an affidavit of renunciation of foreign citizenship

Filing said affidavit with the Comelec (if elective office) or Presidential Appointments Office (if appointive)

Submission of  proof of renunciation (including supporting foreign documents)

The steps required for valid renunciation under the law of Malta are:

Submission of  a formal declaration to the Registrar of Citizenship

Obtaining acknowledgment or certification of renunciation

Without completing both domestic and foreign procedures, the renunciation is considered legally infirm, both locally and internationally.

Is disclosure to the Commission on Appointments (CA) enough?

No. The CA’s role in confirming Cabinet appointments does not substitute for the legal requirements of R.A. 9225. An appointee’s failure to comply with the legal process for renunciation may lead to:

Disqualification from office

Revocation of appointment

Potential criminal or administrative liability under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for material misrepresentation or concealment.

What is the implication of dual allegiance on public office and are there Constitutional and Jurisprudential barriers

The key rulings showing the Supreme Court’s position on dual citizenship and allegiance, include:

Maquiling v. Comelec (2013) – Reacquisition confers natural-born status

Cordora v. Comelec (2009) – Formal renunciation is mandatory

Jacot v. Dal (2010) – Use of foreign passport evidences foreign allegiance

Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083 (2001) – Dual citizenship is not a ground for disqualification per se, unless it manifests dual allegiance

These precedents underscore that dual allegiance, not dual citizenship per se, is the constitutional infirmity.

Additionally, for positions like Secretary of National Defense, where access to sensitive intelligence and national security decisions is routine, any ambiguity in loyalty is constitutionally intolerable.

The 1987 Constitution provides:

Art. VII, Sec. 3: Appointments to the Cabinet require CA confirmation. Art. XI, Sec. 1: Public office is a public trust. Officials must be accountable at all times.

In Republic v. CA and Molina, G.R. No. 108763 (1997), the Court underscored the need to safeguard national interest in citizenship determinations.

Compliance as Constitutional Duty

In evaluating the case of Secretary Teodoro, therefore, the legal and constitutional requirements are neither perfunctory nor symbolic. They are substantive tests of allegiance. For his appointment to withstand constitutional scrutiny, the following must be affirmatively established:

1. Natural-born status by birth

2. Reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225

3. Formal renunciation of Maltese citizenship under both Philippine and Maltese law

4. Cessation of foreign passport use

5. Truthful and transparent disclosure to the Commission on Appointments

6. Documentary compliance with all relevant laws and regulations

Failure to satisfy any of these renders his appointment constitutionally infirm and open to legal challenge—not as a political issue, but as a matter of constitutional fidelity and public trust.

In matters of national defense, allegiance cannot be divided, nor can constitutional compliance be discretionary.

But so far what has come from the side of the defence secretary, his office and spokesman are press releases alleging regularity. Instead of submitting documents for public scrutiny, Teodoro and defense spokesman Andolong.  Teodoro responses to the exposes have been defensive.

He has even accused detractors of a smear campaign, raising fears of cover-up in lieu of advancing conflict resolution.

The Manila Times in an editorial admonished Teodoro: “Given the sensitive nature of the issue, we suggest some candor and greater transparency should have been shown…we would certainly welcome having the secretary speak with us face-to-face to clear the air. This would be far better than issuing press statements that leave no room for clarification.”

I have laid down the demands for the simple evidentiary road the defense secretary must take.

Failure to satisfy any of these, suggests that he is still a Maltese dog and a European lackey, and that it is Teodoro, not the media, who is feeding the frenzy.

To be continued.

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: