A Servant of Two Masters (Countries)
Although not so prominent, servants can still be seen in our society today. A servant is an individual who is contracted to serve his master; and inclusive of the contract is the loyalty of the servant. A master’s duty is to take care of the social welfare and to protect his servants. While a master may have any number of servants, a servant cannot have more than one master. It would be difficult to imagine a servant having two masters, especially when it comes to a situation when he is needed by both.
The situation above can be directly associated with the current condition in the Philippines. Citizens are like the servant, and the Philippines should be their master. The country, as a master, provides natural resources, protection and social welfare for its citizens. On the other hand, as servants, citizens should serve their country by following the state’s government and most of all, by being loyal. What happens when one citizen has to serve two masters at once?
Filipino citizenship needs to be strengthened in order to prevent the dilemma of serving two masters. Before tackling any other subject, it seems that there is a need to define citizenship. Normally, dictionaries will define citizenship as a status of being a citizen, or the quality of an individual’s response to membership in a community. According to a law review written in UST, citizenship is the state of being vested with the rights, privileges and duties of a citizen who is a native or a naturalized member of a political community. It can also be simplified as the actual relationship between a person and his country, usually where he lives, gets support from and protection from. According to Justice Isagani Cruz, “Philippine citizenship is a gift that must be deserved to be retained . . .” This emphasizes that there are certain measures to consider in order to becomes a citizen of a certain country, and that once it is acquired, the citizen should be able to retain it until proven unworthy.
In 1987 Constitution, Article IV, Section 1 stated a number of qualifications to be a Filipino citizen. Qualifications include those who happen to be citizens in the Philippines at the actual moment of the adaptation of this specific constitution, those people whose father and mother happen to be citizens of the Philippines, those people born prior to the month of January 17, 1973, with Filipino mothers which choose Philippine citizenship on attaining the age of majority, as well as those people who are naturalized with compliance of legislation.
Certain modes of acquiring citizenship are also present in each country; some may be as complicated as can be. This is usually intended for foreigners who wanted to become Filipino citizens, and a least concern for those natural-born Filipinos. The modes include the following: (1) birth, (2) jus soli or the right of soil, (3) jus saguinis or the right of blood and by (4) naturalization which is the judicial act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with the privileges of a native-born citizen. These certain qualifications of other countries may sometimes overlap the Philippines. This overlapping of criteria to become a citizen of a specific country gives rise to “multiple citizenship”.
Multiple citizenship, in its simplest terms, can be described as a state wherein an individual is a citizen of multiple countries. For example, a person with dual citizenship is said to have the rights and nationality of both countries where he is considered a citizen. There are several factors which an individual may acquire dual or multiple citizenship. According to Prof. E. San Juan, Jr. of Washington State University (2011), the ways of acquiring dual citizenship are the jus soli principle (the right of soil wherein those born in countries with this principle are considered a citizen of that country), the jus sanguinis principle (the right of blood which considers the bloodline of a citizen), marriage, naturalization, membership in supranational communities and other reasons. One concrete example is when a person is born in New York even though both his parents are natural-born Filipinos. The child, whether he likes it or not, would have to be a citizen of both countries because of the principle of jus soli present in the U.S. and the principle of jus sanguinis in the Philippines. This is a type of involuntary acquisition of dual citizenship; and that individual should make a choice sometime in his life between the two.
According to Panopio (2005), countries that allow dual citizenship include the United States, Canada, Britain, Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland, Greece, Cyprus, Israel New Zealand and many other countries. The Philippines only recently liberalized their citizenship laws by R.A. 9225. More commonly known as the Dual Citizenship Law, R.A. 9225 claims that all Filipinos who acquire citizenship of another country shall not lose their Filipino citizenship and may still enjoy full civil and political rights of a Philippine citizen.
Dual citizens who reacquired their citizenship through R.A. 9225 have several benefits. According to Brunsveld (2011), they have the right to own real property in the Philippines, a right to engage in business or in a profession, a right to travel with a Philippine passport, a right to extend the benefits to one’s spouse or children, a right to vote and a right to hold public office. As stated in R.A. 9225, dual citizens may also enjoy the country’s natural resources as Filipinos and will not be subjected to the 40-60 shares of the foreigners. Yet another advantage of having permitted dual citizenship in a particular country is that, according to Wales (2009), he or she can draw investments. This is because a lot of Filipinos, even though they may have lost their citizenship, would still like to invest in the country.
Dual citizens, despite of all these advantages, may also encounter some difficulties in certain conditions. Going back to the situation presented at the very beginning wherein an individual or servant has two masters; there may come a time when both countries may require an individual as a citizen. What if the countries which he is both a citizen, are experiencing war at the same time? Or worse, what would happen if they wage war against each other?
One U.S. case stated:
“In time of war, if he supports neither belligerent, both may be aggrieved. If the supports one belligerent, the other may be aggrieved. One state may be suspicious of his loyalty to it and subject him to the disabilities of an enemy alien, including sequestration of his property, while the other holds his conduct treasonable.”
This leaves the dual citizen with no choice but to choose and to sacrifice the other country. This is just but one problem of having a dual citizenship. Furthermore, taxation is another problem. This financial burden imposed to the citizens is used for different infrastructures and government spending of the Philippines. The problem here is that foreigners who reside in the Philippines enjoy the country’s resources without paying taxes.
Dual citizenship is rapidly becoming a reality. Liebich (2010) presented some recommendations in order to further understand and solve the issue altogether. According to him, “The thrust of modern citizenship, indeed what makes it modern, is the notion of equality.” This means that each state should treat its citizens equally and should give those with multiple citizenship equal rights and privileges that they deserve. Especially for those who acquired their dual citizenship involuntarily, this policy is crucial. The way to deal with dual citizens is not to treat them as “partial” citizens, with dual allegiance. Liebich (2010) suggested the suspension of their related citizenship entitlement. And unless a dual citizen has chosen between the two, he or she may enjoy both the country’s benefits.
On the other hand, those who intentionally acquired their citizenship do not know the real meaning of citizenship. Liebich (2010) concludes that they treated citizenship as a commodity. A person’s ancestors become insignificant, as well as their actual identity and social solidarity. He stated that they do not have the real concept of citizenship.
Seeing that dual citizenship is very rampant nowadays, citizens should be able to realize the pros and cons of acquiring dual citizenship. Most Filipinos are blinded by the benefits it may bring, but it should be remembered that the true meaning of citizenship lies in the loyalty and love for one’s country.
Bibliography
(2007). Retrieved 2011, from UST Law Reviews: http://ustlawreview.com/pdf/vol.XLIX/Articles/Philippine_Citizenship.pdf
Brunsveld, R. (2011, October 10). What does it mean to be a dual citizen? Retrieved 2011, from The "Local" Website: http://www.thelocal.se/36646/20111010/
Marie, L. (n.d.). Dual Citizenship Registry. Retrieved October 2011, from Ezine Articles: http://www.dualcitizenshipregistry.com/details.aspx?id=25&orderby=0
Prof. San Juan, E. J. (2011, January 7). Citizenship Overview. Retrieved October 2011, from http://askthepinoy.blogspot.com/2011/01/feature-post-what-are-pros-and-cons-of.html
Wales, R. (2009). Dual Citizenship FAQ: Dual Nationality and United States Law. Chicago.
Liebich, A. (2010, July 16). Dual Citizenship, No Problem? Retrieved October 2011, from EUDO Citizenship Website: http://eudo-citizenship.eu/citizenship-news/322-dual-citizenship-for-transborder-minorities-how-to-respond-to-the-hungarian-slovak-tit-for-tat?start=8 Panopio, J. B. (2005). Philippine Citizenship, Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance. University of Sto. Tomas Faculty of Civil Law.