Practical benefits of dual citizenship

There is a law that allows two citizenships to Filipinos.
Republic Act No. 9225 allows the retention and re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship.
This law is applicable to one form of dual citizenship.
The dual citizenship circumstance to which this law applies, covers natural born Filipinos who loose their Philippine citizenship.
Millions of natural-born Filipinos have gone abroad to seek greener pastures.
Along the way, while living and earning abroad, they lost their Filipino citizenship and have, for practical purposes, obtained the citizenship of their adopted country
Upon their retirement and return to the Philippines, they suddenly realize they are foreigners in their own homeland.
They meet the reality of being a “non-Filipino”.
R.A. 9225 fixes this anomaly by allowing “former” Filipinos to re-acquire or retain their Filipino citizenship.
It is easy--- a do-it-yourself affair.
The former Filipino just needs to file a petition for re-acquisition.
This is a form one can obtain easily in the internet, either from the website of the Bureau of Immigration www.immigation.gov.ph or any Philippine consulate or embassy.
The petition is filed with the Bureau of Immigration or any of its offices, or consular offices abroad.
There is a payment of P3,000.00 for this.
Another important requirement is taking an oath of allegiance
There are practical benefits of re-acquiring or retaining Filipino (dual) citizenship.
Foremost of these benefits is that one who re-acquires Filipino citizenship, does not have to loose his previously acquired foreign citizenship.
That is why it is called “dual” citizenship.
Second if one re-acquires Filipino citizenship, he can stay indefinitely in the Philippines and would no longer have to report to the immigration office like foreigners do.
Re-acquiring Philippine citizenship also provides comfort, convenience for the elderly balikbayans.
Those who have obtained citizenship in countries in North America come back to the Philippines during the hardly-bearable winter.
Dual citizenship can be seriously beneficial to those who have arthritis and other weather-induced, weather-prone ailments.
When the summer heat dawns in tropical Philippines, they return to where spring has blossomed.
One who re-acquires his Filipino citizenship can perform acts, and avail of benefits accorded to ordinary Filipino citizens.
Among these practical benefits include being able to obtain senior citizen card and availing its benefits like watching free movies, buying virtually everything at discounts like medicines, food, airfares.
One who has re-acquired Philippine citizenship can buy real property, be an incorporator in corporations that require 100% Filipino ownership (like mass media ownership). He can hold vital positions in certain industries (realty, mining, logging) without running afoul with the anti-dummy law.
One who re-acquires his or her Philippine citizenship can also vote, run for certain elective offices, or be appointed in a government office, if he desires to serve the motherland this way.
Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship should seriously consider availing of the benefits of Republic Act 9225 or the dual citizenship law.The Philippine consulate in Los Angeles is the regular site of former Filipinos who, after having obtained American citizenship, apply to re-acquire Philippine citizenship by taking their oath of allegiance, and become dual citizens.

Family roots and reunion

Last December 31, just before the new year dawned, I attended the annual Tale family reunion in Valencia of which I am a member by affinity.
My wife, Ruby is the great-great grand daughter of Policarpio Tale and Lucia Verduguillo, who lived in Dauin, Negros Oriental generations ago.
Yearly, the Tale family rewinds, replays, and rekindles the story of their ancestors Policarpio and Lucia Tale.
Policarpio Tale was born in sitio Kanghangin now Magsaysay, Dauin.
He was an illegitimate son of Nicolas Alas-as and Gavino Trumata of Poblacion Dauin.
As a young boy he spent an austere life with his mother.
An incident in the life of Policarpio carved a path in his life that spelled his destiny.
One day while cultivating the plants in his mother lot, an unusual chicken pecked Policarpio’s hand.
Immediately after the chicken dropped excreta with a ten centavo coin.
Policarpio through this was a good luck charm.
Apparently it did not turn out to be good charm initially, for the carabao he was then tending, went astray and damaged the neighbor’s crops.
This made his mother very angry.
Policarpio was severely punished.
The following day he decided to run away to Sulodpan-Isugan Bacong, where he found a job in the household of the Solamillo. family as encargador.
Seeing that young Policarpio was trustworthy and a hardworker his master prodded him to marry a young lady named Lucia Verduguillo
In the wedlock, they were blessed with eight children namely,
Valentina, Hilaria, Pedro, Bruno, Bibiana, Geronima, Melchor and Nazario.
My wife Ruby Vendiola traces her roots from Bibiana Tale, who later married Aquilino Vendiola.
Bibiana and Aquilino’s children were:
Francisco ‘Kikong’ T. Vendiola who married Felicisma Marino. Francisco and Felicisima were my wife’s grandparents.
Cesaria Vendiola was married to Jesus Tanada.
Gil T. Vendiola married Olympia Monding.
Perfecta T. Vendiola lived and died single.
Another sibling was the late Padre Galo T. Vendiola of Bacong.
Within the marriage of Francisco Vendiola and Felicisima Marino were born the following:
Epifania Vendiola (who married Arturo Baena), Revocato M. Vendiola (who married Isidra Elnar); Marcos M. Vendiola (who married Josephina Tabada), Concordio M. Vendiola (who married Aurora Sun); Maria Vendiola (married to Saludario A. Sonjaco Sr.); Blesilda Vendiola (married to Esdras Init); Rosario Vendiola (married to Antero Bongbong); Constatino Vendiola (married to Teresita Melo) (Ruby’s parents); Arturo M. Vendiola (married to Teofila Banua); Andres M. Vendiola (married to Julitalyn Feraren)
The scattered descendants of Policarpio and Lucia Tale continue to close ranks and organized a board and officers.
The board of directors of the Tale Family Circle are represented each by the heirs of the children of Policarpio and Lucia Tale.
The board members are: Antonio Wenceslao for the heirs of Valentina Tale; Josephina Teves for the heirs of Hilaria Tale; Adelina C. Alcantara representing the heirs of Pedro Tale; Ade Zamora for the heirs of Bruno Tale; Lyndon B. Vendiola representing the heirs of Bibiana Tale; Reiner Sarno Divina for the heirs of Geronima Tale; Estrella Tale for the Melchor Tale group; and Becky T. Bautista representing the heirs of Nazario Tale.
The present officers of the Tale Family circle are:
Franklin Tale, President ; Earl Tale, executive vice president; Jose Tale vice president for Luzon; Saludario V. Sonjaco Jr. vice president for Visayas; Cathrine T. Tan vice president for Mindanao; Edgar V. Init secretary; Fe Nestoria M. Cena, treasurer; Noemi S. Yuag auditor; Florita T. Ornopia, business manager; Fiel Ornopia, P.R.O.; Larry Gajelomo, Eudoxio V. Init, Sgt. at Arms;
The 46th Tale reunion in 2010 was hosted by the heirs of Bibiana Tale.

Divorce recognition expanded in PH

It is not correct to say there is an absolute ban on divorce in the Philippines.
Truth is, there are instances where divorce is recognized here.
The trend seems to expand divorce recgonition.
This is contained in Article 26 of the Family Code.
“Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law”.
The family code justifies that if the foreigner is able to procure a divorce abroad, and as a consequence of the divorce the foreigner is allowed to re-marry, then it is only fair that the divorced Filipino spouse left behind should also be allowed to re-marry.
Lately, the Supreme Court has expanded and made this law applicable even to former Filipinos who become naturalized in another country and subsequently procures a divorce.
This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Republic versus Cipriano Orbecido (G.R. 154380)
In that case, Cipriano and Lady Myros, both Filipinos were married in Ozamis City.
Later Lady Myros left for the United States.
While in the United States, Lady Myros became a naturalized American.
Thereafter, as an American, lady Myros procured a divorce from her marriage to Cipriano.
In this case, the Supreme Court said the Family Code provision on divorce can be applicable.
The point of reckoning is the citizenship of the divorcing spouse when the divorce was procured, and not the time of marriage.
Thus, the Supreme Court expanded the application of Article 26 of the Family Code, this time covering former Filipinos who are naturalized abroad.
If you look at the letter of the law, it only applies to foreigners who were such at the time of the marriage.
But the Supreme Court examined the spirit, not the letter of the law.
Let’s tweak the facts a little bit.
What if the divorce was obtained by the Filipino spouse abroad, BEFORE the Filipino spouse became naturalized abroad?
The answer to this question, applying simple logic, is that Article 26 will not apply.
Therefore, the Filipino spouse left behind cannot remarry, even if the Filipino spouse abroad obtained a divorce (before being naturalized), and then re-marries there.
The explanation is that since the divorce was obtained while the Filipino spouse was still a Filipino, then the spouse abroad is still subject to Philippine laws, which does not recognize the divorce.
But what if the Filipino spouse abroad, after obtaining a divorce and then re-marrying, subsequently becomes naturalized (becomes a foreigner) ?
Will the naturalization have a retroactive, and curative effect on the previously obtained divorce, such that the Filipino spouse left behind can also re-marry?
There is no case on this yet.
But if the Filipino spouse left behind is not allowed to re-marry, because the divorce procured by the Filipino spouse abroad cannot be recognized in the Philippines---having procured the divorce while still a Filipino---the same unfairness persists.
The Filipino spouse left behind will suffer eternally and cannot re-marry
It can be suggested that if a Filipino spouse abroad obtains a divorce there, such a divorce should be recognized once that Filipino spouse abroad becomes naturalized.
Otherwise, the Filipino spouse left behind cannot remarry and will be in an unfair situation.
Such unfairness is precisely what the Court has tried to remove.

Hubert Webb: Not guilty verdict is not innocence?

I really pity Hubert Webb.
After the Supreme Court acquitted him of the crime of rape with homicide, he is still vilified by the disgruntled.
Some people, legal observers, maintain that a “not guilty” verdict is not tantamount to innocence.
Some say the supreme court merely declared that the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
This does not mean the accused were innocent, they add.
While the statement is generally true, it is not true in all cases.
In acquitting an accused the supreme court looks at the prosecution’s
evidence to see if the evidence proves the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It is not for the accused in a criminal case to prove his innocence.
It is for the prosecution to establish with moral certainty, beyond any reasonable doubt, that indeed, the accused committed the crime.
However, the case of Hubert Webb is far different.
In Hubert Webb’s case, the supreme court not only found reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s evidence.
Not only was the court convinced of the unreliability of the prosecution’s star witness Jessica Alfaro.
Apparently, Jessica Alfaro got tangled in a web of lies (No pun intended).
Hubert Webb was also able to prove his innocence.
The Supreme Court said Hubert's alibi impeached Jesicca Alfaro's testimony.
If one reads the supreme court decision closely, it will readily be seen that the supreme court tackled Hubert Webb’s “documented alibi”.
With unassailed, unrebutted authenticated documents (by no less than two U.S. secretaries of state), Hubert Webb was able to establish that he was 8,000 miles away at the time the Vizconde massacre happened on June 30, 1991.
So for people to say that Hubert Webb’s acquittal does not mean he did not commit the crime, the same people must explain how Hubert Webb could have been in two places at the same time on June 30,1991.
The weakness of the prosecutions case, to my mind, is its failure to rebut the “documented alibi” of Hubert Webb.
And it is too late now to be producing rebuttal witnesses.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
Litigation has to have an end.
The prosecution should have proved, on rebuttal evidence during the trial in the lower court, that the alibi documents of Hubert Webb were false, fake, forged, or fabricated.
Alternatively, the prosecution should have proved, on rebuttal evidence, that it is physically possible for a human being to be in two places at the same time.
What the prosecution successfully did, was to offer conjectures, i.e. that it was possible that Hubert Webb could have sneaked into the Philippines on June 30, 1991, rape and kill three persons, and then sneak out of the country thereafter.
Can this scenario be possible without being tracked by the immigration authorities of two countries?
Yet as to how this could be possible, the prosecution did not offer any proof.
But conjecture is not proof.
Conjecture is nothing but a polluted allegation.
For those who maintain that Hubert Webbs acquittal does not mean he did not commit the crime, it would do well if they can provide a rational and convincing explanation to Hubert Webb’s unrebutted, documented alibi that he was in the United States on June 30, 1991.
Otherwise, Hubert Webb is not merely “not guilty”.
He is also innocent.

Speechwriter legally liable

The controversial speech writer of the President, Maria Carmen Mislang (an assistant secretary), can be held liable for violating Republic Act No. 6713, known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials.

While being part of a presidential delegation to Vietnam recently, the presidential speech writer made unsavory, embarrassing comments on her Twitter account by saying the Vietnam “wine sucks”.
As if the presidential visit was also a mate-hunting spree, the speech writer also publicly commented that there are no good looking men in Vietnam.
Worse, as if the Manila traffic is not as bad, Mislang comment that being in the motorcycle-laden streets of Vietnam is one of the easiest ways to die.
As a Filipino, I am very embarrassed because this was made by an official who was part of a high level delegation representing the entire Filipino nation.
When the president goes abroad on official visit, there is no moment that he or any of his officials are on private time.
This is because it is the taxpayers’ money, our hard-earned money, that is being used to fund their trip.

The law’s policy

The statement of policy of the Republic Act No. 6713 is very clear:
“It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.”
The policy is self-explanatory

Norms of conduct

Public officials are held to observe certain norms while in office.

Commitment to public service

Section 4 (a) requires commitment to public service. It states:
“Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.”
While part of the presidential delegation, did the speechwriter uphold public interest?
Did she use government resources (taxpayers’ money) efficiently, effectively?
If the answers are not “yes” then she is liable under this provision.

Professionalism
Section 4(a) of the law requires, utmost professionalism.
“Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.”
While in Vietnam is the speech writer discharge her duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill?
Did she comport herself with utmost devotion and dedication to duty?
Again, if the answers to these questions are not “yes”, then there is a violation of the law.

Justness, sincerity

Section 4© requires public officials to observe justness and sincerity:
“Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.”
While in Vietnam as part of the presidential delegation, and posting humiliating twitter comments in between, did the speech writer remain true to the people?
As a public official, did she act with justness and sincerity?
Was she not discriminating against the Vietnamese people where she said their “wine sucks”
Was she not discriminating when she publicly degraded the physical attributes of Vietnamese males?
Did she respect the rights of the Vietnamese people with her publicly degrading twitter posts?
Was she doing acts in accordance with ‘good morals’ and ‘good customs’ with her Twitter posts?

I think, if we base her acts with the high standards required of public officials under Republic Act 6713, she should be held liable.

Penalties

Under Section 11 the law provides penalties for violations:
“Any public official or employee, …committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. “