RE:APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR. VICENTE D. CHING


RE:APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR. VICENTE D. CHING. BAR MATTER NO. 914 OCT. 1999

FACTS:


Vicente Ching, a legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ching, a Chinese citizen and Prescilla Dulaf, a Filipina, was born in Tubao on April 11, 1964. Since birth, Ching was resided in the Philippines. In 1998, Ching graduated of Bachelor of Laws at St. Luis University in Baguio City and filed an application to take the 1998 bar exam. The Supreme Court allowed him to take the Bar Exams, provided that he can produce proof of his Philippines citizenship. In compliance with the requirements, Ching submitted the 1) Certificate from board of Accountancy that shows he is a public accountant, 2) voter certification from COMELEC, 3) Certification showing that he was elected as member of Sanggunian Bayan of La Union.

I April 1999 CHing was included as one of the successful Bar examinee, but he was barred to take his oath due to questionable citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. In July 19999 Ching elected Philippine citizenship and executed oath of allegiance.

ISSUE:

Whether Ching has elected Philippine citizenship within a “reasonable time”

HELD:

The 1935 Constitution and C.A No. 625 did not prescribe a time period within which the election of Philippine citizenship should be made; the phrase reasonable time has been interpreted to mean that the election should be made within 3 years from reaching the age of majority and this is not an inflexible rule. The 1935 Constitution only provides that the election should be made “upon reaching the age of majority”. The age of majority then commenced upon reaching the age of 21 years. That in these cases prior to the effectivity of the 1035 Constitution, the proper period for electing citizenship based on the pronouncements of the Department of States Government of the United States, is that the election should be made within a “reasonable time” after attaining the age of majority. Ching’s election of citizenship over 14 years after he had reached 21. Ching’s election was clearly beyond the allowable period within which to exercise the privilege.

One who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has only inchoate right to such citizenship as this cannot be treated like a commodity that can be claimed when needed suppressed when convenient.

Popular posts from this blog

GOCHAN vs. YOUNG

ARNOLD HALL vs. PICCIO

PEO-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC AND ELAMPARO