4/20/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Early decisions of the Supreme Court held that Philippine citizenship could be acquired under either the jus sanguinis or jus soli doctrine.[4] This liberal policy was applied even as the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law or the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 appear to have limited "citizens of the Philippine Islands" to resident inhabitants who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, their children born subsequent thereto, and later, those naturalized according to law by the Philippine legislature. Only later was jus sanguinis firmly applied and jus soli abandoned. Hence, the status of being a natural-born citizen at its incipient is a privilege conferred by law directly to those who intended, and actually continued, to belong to the Philippine Islands. Even at the time of its conception in the Philippines, such persons upon whom citizenship was conferred did not have to do anything to acquire full citizenship.[5] Respondent wants us to believe that since he was natural-born Filipino at birth, having been born in the Philippines to Filipino parents, he was automatically restored to that status when he subsequently reacquired his citizenship after losing it. Public respondent HRET affirmed respondent's position when it pronounced that the definition of a natural-born citizen in Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution refers to the classes of citizens enumerated in Section 1 of the same Article, to wit: "Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution; (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; (3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." Thus, respondent HRET held that under the above enumeration, there are only two classes of citizens, i.e., natural-born and naturalized. Since respondent Cruz is not a naturalized citizen, then he is a natural-born Filipino citizen. I do not agree. I reiterate that Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution defines naturalborn citizens as "those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship." Pursuant to R.A. No. 2630, quoted as follows: "Republic Act No. 2630. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY PERSONS WHO LOST SUCH CITIZENSHIP BY RENDERING SERVICE TO, OR ACCEPTING COMMISSION IN, THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, provides: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58613 20/25