A recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) has given hope to three children of a Filipino mother and a Taiwanese father who almost lost their chance to become Filipino citizens when the Bureau of Immigration (BI) ordered their deportation for being undesirable and overstaying aliens some five years ago.

In a decision promulgated last July 26, the High Court ruled that three of the seven children of Taiwanese Felix Ma and Filipina Dolores Cabiling – Balgamelo, Felix Jr. and Valeriano – are still entitled to Filipino citizenship despite their failure to immediately register with the local civil registry.

All born under the aegis of the 1935 Constitution, the three Fil-Taiwanese had executed their affidavits of election of Philippine citizenship and took their oaths of allegiance to the government upon reaching the age of majority.

They, however, failed to file the documents of election with the nearest civil registry, which is a requirement under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625 entitled, “An Act Providing the Manner in which the Option to Elect Philippine Citizenship shall be Declared by a Person whose Mother is a Filipino Citizen.”

Court records revealed that Balgamelo, Felix Jr. and Valeriano were born in the years 1948, 1951 and 1957, respectively. They were all raised in the Philippines and have resided in the country for almost 60 years.

The three studied and received their primary and secondary education in the country. They do not speak nor understand Chinese language and have not been to any country, including Taiwan. They have already raised their respective families in the Philippines.

During their age of minority, they secured from the Bureau of Immigration (BI) their alien certificates of registration (ACR).

Immediately upon reaching the age of 21, they claimed Philippine citizenship in accordance with Section 1(4), Article IV of the 1935 Constitution, which provides that “those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship” are Filipinos.

Having taken their oath of allegiance as Filipino citizens, the three however failed to have the necessary documents registered in the civil registry.

It was only in July 2007 or more than 30 years after they elected Philippine citizenship that Balgamelo and Felix Jr. did so. On the other hand, there is no showing that Valeriano complied with the registration requirement.

In May 2007, the BI declared the three, along with their father and four siblings, as “undocumented and improperly documented aliens” following their alleged failure to prove a valid claim to Philippine citizenship via election proceedings.

The BI then issued a warrant of deportation against the Mas and ordered the inclusion of their names in the Immigration Blacklist.

Aggrieved, the three Ma siblings questioned the BI ruling before the Court of Appeals (CA). On Aug. 29, 2007, the appellate court dismissed their petition after finding that they “failed to comply with the existing standards of the law providing for the procedure and conditions for their continued stay in the Philippines either as aliens or as its nationals.”

But the SC said the three can still comply with the law on election of Philippine citizenship by using the legal remedy of late registration given the fact that they “timely took their oath of allegiance to the Philippines.”

“This was a serious undertaking,” the court said. “It was a commitment and fidelity to the state coupled with a pledge ‘to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance’ to any other state. This was unqualified acceptance of their identity as a Filipino and the complete disavowal of any other nationality.”

“Petitioners (Mas) have passed decades of their lives in the Philippines as Filipinos. Their present status having been formed by their past, petitioners can no longer have any national identity except that which they chose upon reaching the age of reason,” it added.

At the same time, the SC disagreed with the finding of the CA that the petitioners are deemed not properly documented since the ACR they presented are no longer valid on account of the new requirement to present an E-series ACR.

“On the contrary, petitioners should not be expected to secure E-series ACR because it would be inconsistent with the election of citizenship and its constructive registration through their acts made public, among others, their exercise of suffrage, election as public official, and continued and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines since birth,” the High Court said.

In giving the Ma siblings the chance to become full-fledge Filipino nationals, the SC cited the leanings towards recognition of the citizenship of children of Filipino mothers, which have indicated not alone by the jurisprudence that liberalized the requirement on time of election, but more importantly by the recognized positive acts of Philippine citizenship.

“The favor that is given to such children is likewise evident in the evolution of the constitutional provision on Philippine citizenship,” the SC added.

It noted that while the 1935 Constitution requires that children of Filipino mothers elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching their age of majority, upon the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, they automatically become Filipinos and need not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching majority age.