THE ISSUE IS DUAL ALLEGIANCE, NOT DUAL CITIZENSHIP

IAM not a lawyer. That has always been the charge hurled against me to diminish my credentials. But I speak for the many political scientists whose area is political analysis, where one of the tools in our arsenal is discourse analysis, and the analysis of texts. The law and the Constitution are texts that we subject not only to interpretation using hermeneutics, but we deconstruct using political theory and philosophy. What lawyers and justices call the intent of the framers, we simply consider as part of genealogical analysis where we inquire into the origins of a law, to whom it speaks and against which it is articulated.

But this is not about which profession deserves the honor of inquiring into the law. After all, the legislature is composed not just of lawyers but even of actors and boxers. If the august body tasked to frame laws is open to everyone, certainly analysis of law is open to anyone, more so those who have advanced degrees in political science.

And it is here that we should call the attention of Rep. Michael Defensor who is now proposing to ban dual citizens from owning media companies. This is a tacit admission that the belief dual citizens cannot own media companies — for which he harangued Eugenio Lopez 3rd — is a legal fiction because it would require a law to be passed, and not the doctrine of jus sanguinis and the constitutional reality of dual citizenship.

The Supreme Court, in GR 135083, provided a clear distinction when it ruled that “… dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. For instance,

such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. … Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition.”

The high court, in its ruling, cited the proceedings of the commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution. It was clear from the deliberations that the real target of the provision against dual allegiance are not the dual citizens like Lopez who acquired their Filipino and American citizenship at birth. The main object of Article IV, Section 5 were the naturalized Filipino citizens who maintained their allegiance to their countries of origin, considering that this would have serious implications not only on our national patrimony but even our national security. Commission member Blas Ople was even very specific in mentioning former nationals of China and Taiwan during the debates.

Indeed, it is clearly provided in Article XVI, Section 11( 1) of the Constitution that the ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly owned and managed by such citizens. However, it is a fact that dual citizens are by definition “citizens of the Philippines” because they possess the necessary qualifications stipulated in Article IV of the Constitution. Their existence is recognized by the court, particularly in GR 135083. In fact, Republic Act ( RA) 9225 has enabled another kind of dual citizenship different from the involuntary nature brought about by varying citizenship laws of countries referred to in GR 135083. What RA 9225 produced is a dual citizen through a valid act of Congress which provided mechanisms for natural- born Filipinos who have been or will be naturalized citizens of other countries to reacquire or retain their Filipino citizenship.

Dual citizens are also Filipinos. To bar them from owning media companies runs contrary to or is inconsistent with provisions in the 1987 Constitution. Companies partly owned by foreigners not exceeding 39.9 percent can enter into a joint venture agreement to exploit our natural resources, as stipulated in Article XII, Section 2. Also provided for in the same section is the provision that foreign- owned companies can enter into an agreement for the exploration of our mineral resources. A natural- born Filipino citizen who is now a foreign national can be a transferee of a private property, as provided for in Article XII, Section 8. Furthermore, companies partly owned by foreigners not exceeding 39.9 percent can be given a franchise to operate utility companies, as provided for in Article XII, Section 11. Finally, companies partly owned by foreigners not exceeding 29.9 percent can be allowed to engage in the advertising industry as per Article XVI, Section 11( 2).

In order to assail the allegiance of a dual citizen, one must inquire not on the generalized assumptions that dual allegiance is implied just because one is a dual citizen. It becomes a question of fact that needs to be proven by overt acts of betrayal of the national interest. He who alleges dual allegiance must prove the duplicity and the sell-out. Instead of passing a law that prohibits dual citizens from owning mass media, what Defensor must focus on is to have safeguards to ensure that national interests are served even if the media owner may be a dual citizen.

Defensor and people like him must also bear in mind that even non- dual Filipino citizens can have dual allegiances. After all, a genealogical analysis of Article IV, Section 5 has revealed that the framers were not worried about dual citizens but about naturalized Filipinos. In fact, we should be more worried about natural born non- dual Filipino citizens who, with their deeds, end up serving the interests of other countries.