4/20/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Section 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship be rendering service to, or accepting commission in the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same with the Local Civil Registry in the place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any other citizenship." respondent Cruz had to perform certain acts before he could again become a Filipino citizen. He had to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and register his oath with the Local Civil Registry of Mangatarem, Pangasinan. He had to renounce his American citizenship and had to execute an affidavit of reacquisition of Philipine citizenship. Clearly, he did not reacquire his natural-born citizenship. The cardinal rule in the interpretation and construction of a constitution is to give effect to the intention of the framers and of the people who adopted it. Words appearing in a Constitution are used according to their plain, natural, and usual significance and import and must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding of the people at the time of its adoption. The provision on "natural-born citizens of the Philippines" is precise, clear and definite. Indeed, neither HRET nor this Court can construe it other than what its plain meaning conveys. It is not phrased in general language which may call for construction of what the words imply. In J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration,[6] this Court held: "Ascertainment of meaning of provisions of Constitution begins with the language of the document itself. The words used in the Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning, except where technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus attached to them prevails. As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer's document, it being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever be present in the people's consciousness, its language as much as possible, should be understood in the sense they have in common use. What it says according to the text of the provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say." The definition of a natural-born citizen in the Constitution must be applied to this petition according to its natural sense. Respondent HRET likewise ruled that the "reacquisition of Philippine citizenship through any of these modes: (naturalization, repatriation and legislation under Section 3, C.A. No. 63) results in the restoration of previous status, either as a natural-born or a naturalized citizen" is a simplistic approach and tends to be misleading. If citizenship is gained through naturalization, repatriation or legislation, the citizen concerned can not be considered natural-born. Obviously, he has to perform certain https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58613 21/25