This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-05-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioner likewise advances the proposition that although Congress has not yet passed any law on the matter of dual allegiance, such absence of a law should not be justification why this Court could not rule on the issue. He further contends that while it is true that there is no enabling law yet on dual allegiance, the Supreme Court, through Mercado v. Manzano,[6] already had drawn up the guidelines on how to distinguish dual allegiance from dual citizenship.[7] | |||||
|
2000-08-09 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| in the case of Aznar vs. COMELEC[6] and in the more recent case of Mercado vs. Manzano and COMELEC.[7] In the case of Aznar, the Court ruled that the mere fact that respondent Osmena was a holder of a certificate stating that he is an American did not mean that he is no longer a Filipino, and that an application for an alien certificate of registration was not tantamount to | |||||