Solidarity in the time of COVID-19 -- MS Supplement
Advertisement

Understanding dual citizenship

What many Filipinos do not understand is why we take back what we already regurgitated, not with the idea they were re-enlightened of their patriotism but to simply give them the best of both worlds. Would we not feel askance encountering people who worked hard to become citizens, only to know they reapplied for dual citizenship to enjoy more rights and benefits to ordinary citizens denied the opportunity to live abroad?"What a convenient cover."

 

 

What many Filipinos do not understand is why we take back what we already regurgitated, not with the idea they were re-enlightened of their patriotism but to simply give them the best of both worlds. Would we not feel askance encountering people who worked hard to become citizens, only to know they reapplied for dual citizenship to enjoy more rights and benefits to ordinary citizens denied the opportunity to live abroad?

This is asked because the issue is not a matter of reciprocity as our simpleton politicians would think. It goes beyond the giving of greater rights to people who already denounced their loyalty to the Republic. Giving citizenship does not only bestow upon the person his rights and privileges as a member of a political community. It involves loyalty by acts and deeds.

The concept of dual citizenship has been taken advantage of by well-off Filipinos influenced by American culture. They are mostly educated abroad. Many of our middle class that ended up economically dissipated find an easy solution to their predicament by migrating, selling their property, and settling abroad for good. If fortunate to finish a degree, settle there, and forget this country.

Maybe the framers of this treacherous law intended to solve our migration problem of brain drain. But when our legislators conceived the idea of offering citizenship to former citizens, they forgot to offer those citizens who stayed with us through thick and thin. Their idea of dual allegiance is conditioned on the following: 1) The right to regain their old citizenship but retaining their adopted citizenship; 2) If married to an alien, the alien spouse can apply dual citizenship applying the affinity by marriage without him renouncing his citizenship. This is more advantageous and a shorter process of simple naturalization. 3) Any citizen can apply for dual citizenship on the basis of reciprocity if given in the country where they are citizens.

If granted, they enjoy and are entitled to the following rights: 1) The right to travel using Philippine passport; 2) The right to own real property in the Philippines; 3) The right to engage in business and commerce as a Filipino; 4) The right to practice one’s profession, provided that a license or permit is obtained from the Professional Regulation Commission, or the Supreme Court in the case of lawyers; and 5) the right to vote in Philippine national elections (for President, Vice President, Senators and sectoral representatives) in accordance with the provisions of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003.  In short, dual citizen enjoys more rights and privileges than our citizens who stayed here with us.

Here, one could detect that dual citizenship is violative of the Constitution if not discriminatory to our own citizens. These political skunks argue that it is now the practice in many countries like the US. But who cares?

There is nothing wrong in Article IV on Citizenship in our Constitution. It reflects our aspiration to create a single and unified nation with its people called Filipinos. There is no provision that allows us to create a hybrid form of citizenship called “dual citizen.” Some lose their citizenship by reason of marriage to an alien or by their act or omission of renouncing their citizenship. Filipinos can only regain their citizenship by applying for naturalization but with limited rights not similar to those enjoyed by dual citizens.

Nobody really knows where our politicians got the silly idea that dual citizenship is constitutionally permissible. It is inconceivable to have dual allegiance without running afoul of our political, economic and property rights, residency requirements like running for office and voting in an election, laws on taxation, and now of the most sensitive right to own corporations requiring franchise or ownership by Filipino citizens. For the slightest transgression, they could be could be summarily deported or accused of treason, espionage or economic sabotage.

Section 5, Article IV is explicit in prohibiting dual allegiance or citizenship, to quote: “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be deal with by law.” By adopting dual citizenship, our moronic lawmakers in effect abrogated the important provisions in Article XII, or pertaining to the country’s National Economy and Patrimony which defines, limits or prohibits ownership and control of share of stocks in corporations to non-Filipinos, including the prohibition to operate public utilities. In effect, our stupid and treacherous lawmakers short-circuited the laws prohibiting foreigners to own property, operate business exclusive only to our citizens like the abrogated Laurel-Langley Agreement which was looked upon by our people as the remaining vestige of US colonialism.

Politicians, many of whom have allegiance to their foreign broker, pretend to be all-knowing of the law to cover up their demagoguery. They ignore the fact that citizenship does not only involve the status of persons called Filipinos, demand loyalty to this republic, and affirm its sovereignty which all must enlist to prove their patriotism. They forgot that the fad of dual citizenship is colonialism metamorphosing to one called globalization to give more benefits to aliens.

They did not even bother to submit for ratification the law that effectively tampered the Constitution. Cocky as they are, they simply insisted in adopting the phase “dual citizenship” to avoid being questioned for amending the Article IV that would require the ratification by our people they treated as unthinking mob.

Our Supreme Court only “allegorically” ruled on its constitutionality because of a strong lobby from proponents who already acquired vested rights over their property and economic privileges, thus skipping the conventional process of entering into bilateral agreement similar to our hated “Parity” or “Equal Rights Agreement” that disastrously worked to our disadvantage.

Our Constitution has already been liberal in interpreting the provision in favor of Filipinos married to aliens, especially those who were divorced. In fact, the Supreme Court has already allow Filipinos who lost their citizenship to reacquire them and remarry for reason she can no longer use the surname of her husband who is already living with another woman.

This happened because women usually follow the citizenship of their husband but end up in an anomalous situation where the wife retains citizenship of the husband and legally married long after she was divorced.

Before the High Court liberalized our marriage system, it was most anomalous to our citizens married to Chinese who, despite the years of being together, remain a Chinese citizen and their children following the citizenship of their father. We made it hard for them to become citizens but not to women married to westerners.

This is anomalous for while the Church is liberal in annulling marriage of couples coming from the wealthy, the same hypocritical Church vehemently condemns any move to have a divorce in this county which many ordinary Filipinos want to avail themselves of.

Will dual citizenship apply to aliens without them renouncing their original citizenship? This is asked for it seems the connecting link to qualify for dual citizenship is by virtue of marriage. This is asked for often foreigners marry Filipinos with an object beyond marital consideration. Many aliens after marriage would demand the transfer of rights, franchise, hereditary succession, payment for tax liabilities, and all other privileges concomitant to the grant of dual citizenship. Often that comes even before the death to the spouse.

Our citizens are at a disadvantage. They are often exploited and even robbed of their properties, their inheritance, and even made to the pay in whole or in part the taxes for their alien husband. Some even end up deprived of ownership and management of utility corporations requiring franchise which is supposed to be owned exclusively by Filipino citizens. If they happen to marry an alien hustler, the simple love affair could end up with our citizen losing everything. After all, mercenary lawyers are willing to defend this variety of hustler.

Will the rights of an alien franchisee or stockholder remain valid if the marriage is dissolved? This is asked as this is now happening in many of our public utility corporations where aliens managed to penetrate and acquire shares of stocks by virtue of marriage and have not brought in a centavo as their contribution. Marriage now becomes their entry pass to own these corporations.

Some even ask, will dual citizenship suffice to own, and operate corporations that require the participation of this dual citizen-stockholder as against stockholders who are citizens regardless of their share of stocks in the corporation?

I remember, before Marcos issued the mass naturalization decree allowing Filipino-Chinese to become Filipino citizens, many racist Filipinos hated him for that. They accused him of being pro-Chinese with all the bad connotations against the Chinese. Marcos pursuant to the provision of the 1973 Constitution also abolished all foreign operated schools thereby forcing children of Filipino-Chinese to enroll in Philippine colleges and universities. That finally put to end to our segregationist policy.

China never protested. Instead, Marcos opened diplomatic relations with China and our ties improved dramatically with the People’s Republic of China promising not to support a wayward party that calls itself the Communist Party of the Philippines.

After 50 years and the Chinese absorbed as Filipinos, they now realize they are in the Philippines and must accept the reality they are truly Filipinos. Today, Filipino-Chinese simply address themselves Filipinos and this was shown by their enormous financial contribution made in that defining moment in our crisis.

Ironically, President Cory Aquino, who claims to be of Chinese ancestry, allowed the reopening of Chinese schools. Effectively she restored the hated segregationist policy. She wanted to impress us she is a friend of China not knowing that President Deng Xiao Peng already told overseas Chinese during the reopening of China’s economy to love the country that adopted and made them prosperous. It was an indirect message that China can take care of itself.

The same question is asked, how would our countrymen react if Filipino-Chinese applied for dual citizenship with China? Would that decision, assuming China recognizes dual citizenship, not create Sinophobic hatred and even spark a racial riot? Will the US not exploit the situation to destabilize the country as their way to stall the looming possibility of being overtaken by China as the world’s biggest economy?

In effect, the country’s dual citizenship law serves as our contribution to the US for the easy transition of property and economic rights in the shifting of power from East to West. Part of this tectonic shift is our gratuitous granting to Americans the right to own property and operate business in the country.

Dual citizenship is designed to tighten their stranglehold for the fact that 90 percent of those who avail themselves of the law are Americans, Filipinos who became American citizens or Americans by marriage to Filipinos. Their control includes US corporations doing business in the country with many of our local oligarchy adopting dual citizenship as their convenient protection in the event of a shift in the political wind.

[email protected]

Topics: patriotism , Supreme Court , dual citizenship , “Equal Rights Agreement”
COMMENT DISCLAIMER: Reader comments posted on this Web site are not in any way endorsed by Manila Standard. Comments are views by manilastandard.net readers who exercise their right to free expression and they do not necessarily represent or reflect the position or viewpoint of manilastandard.net. While reserving this publication’s right to delete comments that are deemed offensive, indecent or inconsistent with Manila Standard editorial standards, Manila Standard may not be held liable for any false information posted by readers in this comments section.
AdvertisementGMA-Congress Trivia 1
Advertisement