Question B.20, 2019 Labor Law Bar Exam

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Lawyer, Author, Mentor


(Question B.20, Political Law, 2019 Bar Exam)

H, a naturalized American citizen who later became a dual citizen under Republic Act No. 9225 (the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act), decided to run for Congress and thus, filed a certificate of candidacy (CoC). A citizen argued that H is ineligible for the position because of his status as a dual citizen. H responded that his act of filing a CoC amounted to his renunciation of foreign citizenship, rendering him eligible for the position.

(a) Was H’s filing of a CoC sufficient to renounce foreign citizenship? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) Assuming that H is a dual citizen because his parents are Filipino citizens and he was born in California, USA, was filing of a CoC sufficient to renounce his foreign citizenship? Explain. (2.5%)

Suggested Answer:

(a) No. Answer

Under R.A. 9225 and jurisprudence, the law categorically requires persons seeking elective public office, who either retained their Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before a public officer authorized to administer an oath simultaneous with or before the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Rule

In the case at bar, H did not expressly renounce his American citizenship through a person and sown renunciation simultaneous with or before the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Apply

Thus, H’s filing of a CoC was not sufficient to renounce foreign citizenship. Conclusion

(b) Yes. Answer

Under jurisprudence, it is sufficient that dual citizens, upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states. Rule

In the case at bar, if H was a dual citizen by circumstance having Filipino parents and being born in the United Stated, he is not required to make a personal and sworn renunciation simultaneous with or before the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Apply

Thus, his filing a certificate of candidacy is sufficient to renounce his foreign citizenship.. Conclusion


(Notice: The suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide, and thus specific citations are not provided. Notwithstanding, in the reviewers, the bar exam question is answered under the appropriate topic which discusses the concepts and principles, as well as provide for specific citations. Accordingly, please refer to it on the reviewer or in the Library.)



Political Law, Labor Law

Question 9, 2017 Labor Law Bar Exam

IX. (Question IX, Labor Law, 2017 Bar Exam) Section 255 (245) of the Labor Code recognizes three categories of employees, namely: managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file.

A. SSS Law

1. COVERAGE AND EXCLUSIONS a. Compulsory coverage Compulsory coverage; All employees (as defined by R.A. 11199). Coverage in the SSS shall be compulsory upon all

1. Mala in se and mala prohibita

Frequency: ★★★☆☆ Mala in se – refers to acts wrong in themselves. (Dungo v. People, G.R. No. 209464, 01 July 2015) Mala prohibita – refers

N. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

Frequency: ★★★★☆ “Access” – refers to the instruction, communication with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise making use of any resources of a

4. Retroactive effect of penal laws

Frequency: ★★★★☆ Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal,

I. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003

Frequency: ★★★★☆ “Trafficking in Persons” – refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without

error: Content is protected.