Dual Citizenship: A Question of Allegiance
Mandy M. Dornagon, ESQ
 |
| Issue tied to the 'marriage metaphor' |
Since the passage of the Philippine Dual Citizenship Law, formally known as Republic Act 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003, some of my Filipino clients who are naturalized U.S. citizens have come to embrace this new Philippine law. They have reacquired their Philippine citizenship by the simple act of taking the prescribed oath of allegiance to the Philippine government. And because the prescribed oath doesn’t contain a renunciation of allegiance to the United States, these former Filipinos have reacquired their Philippine citizenship while retaining their United States citizenship; thus, they have become dual citizens. By having dual citizenship, they believe that they now have the best of both worlds.
But unbeknownst to some, dual citizenship presents a complicated and intertwined issue of loyalty and allegiance.
There’s no quibbling that citizenship requires allegiance — and, no doubt, dual citizenship begets dual allegiance. One who is both a Filipino citizen and a U.S. citizen needs to maintain his undivided loyalty and allegiance to the U.S. government and Philippine government — even if the latter’s constitution (Art. IV, Section 5) explicitly declares that “dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest…”
In the present political climate, loyalty and allegiance don’t pose any problem. But — unlikely it might be — what if, say, years from now, there arises a political crisis, or worse a military confrontation between the United States and the Philippines that would force dual citizens to decide where their loyalties and allegiances lie. Such a scenario — again, unlikely it might be — would put to a serious test the loyalties and allegiances of dual citizens.
The U.S. Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Douglas, in a 1952 case of Kawakita v. United States, said: “One who has dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which may at times be competing or conflicting, and that circumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship.”
Similarly, in Tan Cheng v. Secretary of Labor, 79 Phil. 257, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, through Mr. Justice Padilla, said: “Dual nationality is universally described as an undesirable phenomenon. It inevitably results in questionable loyalties and leads to international conflicts. Dual nationality also makes possible the use of citizenship as a badge of convenience than of undivided loyalty. It impairs the singleness of commitment which is the hallmark of citizenship and allegiance. A person should have the right to choose his own nationality and this choice should be honored by all countries. However, he should not be entitled to claim more than one nationality.”
Some critics of dual citizenship say this issue is tied to the “marriage metaphor.” For instance, Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer has asserted that dual nationality dilutes patriotic commitments and “makes citizenship akin to bigamy.” - Atty. Dornagon's Blog
