DOJ Opinion No. 231, s. 1939

DOJ OPINION NO. 231 , s. 1939 December 29, 1939 The Honorable The Secretary to the President Manila Sir : This is to comply with your request for opinion on the citizenship of the deceased Manuel Caswell, former Chief Engineer in the Bureau of Customs, who died on August 24, 1939, after having been in the government service for more than thirty years. In view of the doubts entertained as to the citizenship of the deceased, the Government Service Insurance System is withholding the proceeds of his policy from the beneficiaries unless the latter produce additional evidence to substantiate his Philippine citizenship. It appears that the deceased Manuel Caswell was born in Manila on December 31, 1889 of a father who was a native of London, England, and a mother who was a native of Manila. He was therefore at birth a subject of Great Britain. By reason of the place of his birth, however, he had an inchoate right to Spanish nationality which could have been made actual either by a declaration by his father that he chooses the Spanish nationality for his son, or by the latter's expression of choice within one year after attaining his majority (Articles 17, 18 and 19, Civil Code). The first alternative did not occur. The elder Caswell died one year after his son was born. The second alternative became impossible of performance. The deceased Manuel Caswell was only a little over ten years of age when the Philippines was ceded by Spain to the United States by virtue of the Treaty of Paris. By reason of such cession, Articles 17 to 27, inclusive, of the Civil Code, being political laws were abrogated (Roa vs. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil. 330-331). When the deceased Manuel Caswell, therefore, attained majority, he found himself in the peculiar position of being unable to exercise the right granted him by Article 18 of the Civil Code for the simple reason that the Article had already been abrogated and there was no government machinery by means of which it could be enforced. The deceased Manuel Caswell was not a Spanish subject, a native of Spain proper, although he was residing in the Philippine Islands at the time Spain relinquished her sovereignty. neither was he a person born after April 11, 1899. It is clear therefore that he did not come within the provisions of Article IX of the Treaty of Paris or of Section 4 of the Philippine Bill. Hence, the first point to determine is whether Congress intended to exclude from Philippine citizenship the class of persons, to which the deceased Manuel Caswell belonged, who were neither included in Article IX of the Treaty of Paris nor in Section 4 of the Philippine Bill. The Philippine Supreme Court, in the case of Roa vs. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil. 338-341, stated: ". . . This section declares that a certain class of inhabitants shall be citizens of the Philippine Islands. It does not declare that other inhabitants shall not be citizens. Neither does it declare that other inhabitants shall be deemed to be aliens to the Philippine Islands, and especially it does not declare that a person situated as is the appellant shall not be nor shall not elect to be a citizen of the country of his birth . The appellant could, as we have said, elect to become a citizen of the United States had he been born in that country under the same circumstances which now surround him. All the laws and the rulings of the courts on the subject so declare, and this has been the declared policy of the United States. While it has been decided that the Constitution and acts of Congress do not apply ex propio vigore to this country, but that they must be expressly extended by Congress, nevertheless, some of the basic principles upon which the government of the United States rests and the greater part of the Bill of Rights, which protects the citizens of that country, have been extended to the Philippine Islands by the instructions of the President of the First Philippine Commission and the Philippine Bill. . . . Then to hold, after all of this has been done, that Congress intended by section 4 to declare that the appellant is an alien and not entitled, under the circumstances, to reenter the land of his birth and become a citizen thereof, would be a holding contrary to the manifest intent of that body. That Congress did not so intend is irresistibly inferred from these facts ." It follows, therefore, that Congress never intended to exclude from Philippine citizenship the Class of persons to which the deceased Manuel Caswell belonged. That being so, the question arises: What then was the political status of the deceased Manuel Caswell? In the Roa case, supra , principles governing citizenship in the United States were applied to the mother because when the father died, it was after April 11, 1899, when Articles 17 to 27 of the Civil Code governing citizenship were abrogated by virtue of the transfer of sovereignty. There being no Spanish law in force in the Philippines at the time on the subject, the Supreme Court considered analogous principles of citizenship in America as controlling. The same principles may be applied in the instant case. From the time of his birth up to the time of his death Manuel Caswell has resided continuously in the Philippines and had been in the Government service for more than thirty years. He was not registered as a British subject in the British Consulate-General, and when he contracted marriage on April 2, 1914, four years after he attained majority, as well as when he filled out his "Information for Membership Insurance", presumably in 1936, he stated that he was a Philippine citizen. It does not appear that he ever committed any act that may be construed as an acknowledgment on his part of allegiance to the British Empire. On the contrary, having been in the government service for more than thirty years, a Chief Engineer in the Bureau of Customs and not a mere "laborer or emergency employee", it is to be assumed that he must have taken the necessary oath of office wherein "he recognizes and accepts the supreme authority of the United States of America and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto" (Sec. 23, Rev. Adm. Code; see also Sec. 15 of the Act of Congress of Mar. 24, 1934 and Par. (2), sec. 1 of the Ordinance appended to the Phil. Constitution). It follows that although the deceased Manuel Caswell was not a Philippine citizen by the mere fact of birth , he performed more than what was necessary to constitute an over act expressive of his choice of the nationality of the country of his birth. I am therefore of the opinion that the deceased Manuel Caswell was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the Philippine Constitution and hence, was a Philippine citizen thereunder (Sec. 9(1), Art. IV, Phil. Const.). Consequently, the deceased Manuel Caswell made no material misrepresentation in his "Information for Membership Insurance" when he stated that he was a Philippine citizen. Being entitled to automatic insurance in the System and having paid his monthly premiums, it logically follows that the beneficiaries named in his policy are entitled to the proceeds thereof. Very respectfully, JOSE A. SANTOS Secretary of Justice