EXAM 2.4 (ARTICLE IV: Citizenship)

Write a concurring opinion and dissenting opinion for the motion.

REPLACE JUS SANGUINIS WITH JUS SOLI.

Article IV, Section 2.

Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

Jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”) is a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state.
It contrasts with jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”).

Jus soli (Latin for “right of the soil” or, somewhat figuratively, “right of the territory”), or birthright citizenship, is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognised to any individual born in the territory of the related state.

Concurring opinion:

1. State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.
2. Explain why the rationale is flawed.
3. Consider the proposal to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus sanguinis. Justify the proposal.

Dissenting opinion:

1. State the rationale (reason for being) of the the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.
2. Explain why the rationale is correct.
3. Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.

Advertisements

37 Responses

  1. Sir,

    sorry po. Meron po yatang problema sa exam 2.3…

    Hindi ko po Mabuksan

  2. Concurring Opinion:

    Jus sanguinis is replaced by jus soli to help those who are born in the Philippines but not of Filipino parents acquire Filipino Citizenship without having to go through troublesome paperwork.

    It is indeed common for former foreigners to change their citizenship to Filipino and produce offsprings in the Philippines.

    However, some foreigners only visit our country for sightseeing and the baby only happens to be born here. Back in their country having multiple citizenships is not permitted. They would need to stay in the Philippines for a little longer for paperwork to change their child’s citizenship. Furthermore they will have problems with the embassy. This is very uncomforable, and highly inefficient.

    Dissenting Opinion:

    Jus sanguinis is replaced by jus soli to help those who are born in the Philippines but not of Filipino parents acquire Filipino Citizenship without having to go through troublesome paperwork.

    It is indeed common for former foreigners to change their citizenship to Filipino and produce offsprings in the Philippines. This makes it easier for foreigners to come live in the Philippines. These kinds of situations are good for tourism. Our country will also project a welcoming vibe towards those who plan to visit our country.

    Foreigners coming to live here is actually a good sign. It is a representation that the Philippines is comfortable place to live in; otherwise, they would not like their children to be born here. Since there are no serious complications regarding this matter, this law should be retained as it is.

  3. A. Concurring Opinion

    1. the rationale for this is that the jus soli indicate those who are born on the soil of the philippines shall be deemed filipino citizens.

    2. the rationale is flawed because foreigners can become filipino citizens just by being borned into philippine soil.

    3. it should be changed back to just sanguinis so as to preserve our culture and our nations people because it would weird if a filipino govt is full of foreigners that are filipino citizens just because they are borned on philippine soil

    B. Dissenting Opinion

    1. the rationale for this is that the jus soli indicate those who are born on the soil of the philippines shall be deemed filipino citizens.

    2. well its correct because there are some of our fellow filipino who married a foreigner and want their children to be filipino citizens, this would help the a lot.

    3. theres not much problem this let alone any complaints for this particular law so i guess it should be retained.

  4. Concurring opinion:

    The rationale for the doctrine Jus Sanguinis is you become a citizen from what blood your parents came from. Because you inherit the qualities of the race of your parents, it will definitely show that you should be of that nationality also. The rationale is flawed because not all people are of purely Filipino blood. Some has part of other nationality where in some cases, its hard to determine which is dominant. Another is not because your parents are of this nationality that you act like like them. Your acts may not qualify you as a certified Filipino but by blood you are. It may be applicable if determining it by blood is difficult. Another is to help you obtain all available privilages what the country offers to its citizens.

    Dissenting opinion:

    The rationale for the doctrine Jus Sanguinis is you become a citizen from what blood your parents came from. Because you inherit the qualities of the race of your parents, it will definitely show that you should be of that nationality also. The characters or traits you carry defines what your nationality is. The nature of every nationality makes it a criteria in determining ones nationality. Jus Sanguinis should stay because nationality, citizenship and the likes are most likely be taught by the parents to their children making them true citizens.

  5. A. Concurring opinion:
    ==========================================

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.
    > The doctrine of Jus Sanguinis makes a person a natural born Filipino. If it is traced that he or she has ancestors of Filipino blood then, you are truly a Filipino by this doctrine.

    2. Explain why the rationale is flawed.
    > The rationale is flawed for blood or race is not the only factor for determination of citizenship. Other factors maybe considered like, the place of birth and environment you grew up. (Considering Filipinos who migrated and born outside the country)

    3. Consider the proposal to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus Soli Justify the proposal.
    >The proposal of the replacement of Jus Sanguinis with Jus Soli is possible. For having an ancestor which is a Filipino, may not be the only basis to determine your citizenship. The place of birth may be considered for its environment can tell who a person is and what citizenship he/she belongs to. Ancestry may not be considered anymore if he/she knows how to be one with the society around him/her. One may be called a citizen if he/she is used to the ways and actions of the environment he/she is around.

    B. Dissenting opinion:
    ==========================================

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) of the the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.
    > The doctrine of Jus Sanguinis makes a person a natural born Filipino. If it is traced that he or she has ancestors of Filipino blood then, you are truly a Filipino by this doctrine.

    2. Explain why the rationale is correct.
    >The rationale is correct because we inherited the traits of our Filipino ancestors which make us different from others. Thus, making us Filipinos as well.

    3. Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.
    >Citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is citizen of the state for they have traits and attributes that make them as Filipinos. These trademarks are passed unto generations that define their citizenship as Filipinos.

  6. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    REPLACE JUS SANGUINIS WITH JUS SOLI.

    A – Concurring Opinion:

    1 – State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus Sanguinis.
    Jus Sanguinis can make one person a Filipino / a natural born Filipino citizen by means of your ancestors wherein it has been traced that they possess a true blood of being a Filipino.

    2 – Explain why the rationale is flawed.
    The rationale is flawed because more often than not, a person born in another country doesn’t embrace his/her nationality. Besides, how can an individual embrace a nationality which is foreign to him/her? Also, the environment is one of the determinants of a person’s nationality.

    3 – Consider the proposal to replace Jus Sanguinis with Jus soli. Justify the proposal.
    One can be called a citizen if s/he knows the ways and actions of the environment s/he is around. Therefore, a person who is raised in the place knows the place and can truly be a part of it. If a person of other blood is raised in the Philippines for a long time he will know how to be a true Filipino and be able to display traits and actions that is truly a mark of a Filipino. The bottom line is, it does not matter what blood runs through your veins. What matters is how you think, move and what is in your heart.

    B – Dissenting Opinion:

    1 – State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus Sanguinis.
    Jus Sanguinis can make one person a Filipino / a natural born Filipino citizen by means of your ancestors wherein it has been traced that they possess a true blood of being a Filipino.

    2 – Explain why the rationale is correct.
    The rationale is correct because you are carrying the traits of a Filipino. Even if you were born outside of the Motherland, you will still be a Filipino because Filipino blood runs through your veins.

    3 – Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.
    Having our ancestors who are citizen of the Philippines has already their own features and trademarks which made them as a pure Filipinos. Characteristics and attitudes of our ancestors really makes us unique from every person around the globe wherein we can really say that “MGA KABABAYAN KO, BILIB AKO SA KULAY KO, AKO AY PILIPINO”.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  7. Concurring opinion:

    The rationale for the doctrine of Jus Sanguinis is that it is a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state.
    The rationale is flawed because there are some “by blood” Filipinos that don’t really embrace their nationality compare to those “by place” Filipinos that even though they are not biologically Filipino, they have this concern and heart to help us.
    I believe that it is not necessary to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus solis but rather we should consider those deserving foreigners who devote their life just to help the Filipino people. They should be rewarded to be a citizen of the Philippines.

    Dissenting opinion:

    The rationale for the doctrine of Jus Sanguinis is that it is a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state.
    The rationale is correct because it follows Article IV, Section 2 which states that: “Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens”.
    In many cases, citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state, for example in an election, one of the qualifications to be able to run to an office is to be a natural born citizen. I believe that this is necessary because only citizen of this country knows what his/her countrymen needs.

  8. Concurring opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    Jus Sanguinis determines the nationality or citizenship of a person not by the place of birth but by means of his origins which should have been citizen of the state.

    2. Explain why the rationale is flawed.

    There are some Filipinos who refuse to acknowledge themselves as Filipinos. It’s a shame that there are some people who are not naturally Filipino but consider themselves Filipino for they love the Philippines, compared to those turncoats.

    3. Consider the proposal to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus Soli Justify the proposal.

    Replacing Jus Sanguinis with Jus Soli should be considered. How do you think we can reward those people who dedicate their lives for the welfare of the state but not naturally Filipino? There should be a law that will grant them the Filipino citizenship for unconditional support they’ve offered.

    Dissenting opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) of the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    Jus Sanguinis determines the nationality or citizenship of a person not by the place of birth but by means of his origins which should have been citizen of the state.

    2. Explain why the rationale is correct.

    The rationale is correct because citizenship and nationality of a person should only be determined by means of his heritage in order to affirm that he is a true blooded Filipino. Because however we look unto a naturalized Filipino, there is no genetic factor that will relate him to a true blooded Filipino.

    3. Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.

    Citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state in order to sustain the conservative prospect that citizens of the Philippines are Filipinos by blood, and not by land. It is necessary for a true blooded Filipino to preserve his heritage as a social responsibility for the imminent heirs of the Philippines.

  9. Nino, Krista Marie M.

    A. Concurring Opinion

    Jus Sanguinis. This social policy helps maintain culture and national identity. It is assured that the people which are considered as natural born citizens carry the Filipino values and traditions.

    The rationale is flawed. Immigrants that have been living in the state for years might not be recognized as citizens. They are not granted with full rights.

    Replace jus sanguinis with jus soli. This would mean that the actual inhabitants of the state would be given citizenship. Those who were born in the Philippines would be considered as natural born Filipino citizens. Not those whose parents are Filipinos but were born outside the national territory.

    ****************
    B. Dissenting Opinion

    Jus Sanguinis. This social policy helps maintain culture and national identity. It is assured that the people which are considered as natural born citizens carry the Filipino values and traditions.

    The rationale is correct. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines must also be Filipinos. Their blood relation authenticates their citizenship.

    Citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state. Full rights in the country are given to its citizens. It is reasonable to grant the same right to his/her descendants. This policy may also come in handy for traveling Filipinos who happen to give birth abroad.

  10. A. Concurring

    By Jus Saguinis, you determine your nationality by the blood or citizenship of your parents. If they are FIlipinos, then you will carry the Filipino culture and values.

    This rationale is flawed because many Filipinos are working abroad for long years making them not citizens of the country.

    The people should choose their citizenship, not Jus Saguinis nor Jus Soli.

    B. Dissenting

    By Jus Saguinis, you determine your nationality by the blood or citizenship of your parents. If they are FIlipinos, then you will carry the Filipino culture and values.

    This rationale is correct because the citizenship of the parents must be followed by their son/daughter.

    Full rights must be given to the citizens of the state and his/her descendants.

  11. Concurring opinion:

    In accordance with Jus Sanguinis, a individual becomes a citizen from what blood his/her parents came from, for you inately inherit the qualities of the race of your parents, it is entitled for you to be of the same nationality. Though, the rationale is flawed for not all people are of pure Filipino blood. Thus, would prove to be nuisance if an individual possess a gene trait of a cluster of races. It may be applicable if determining it by blood is difficult. Another is to help you obtain all available privilages what the country offers to its citizens.

    Dissenting opinion:

    In accordance with Jus Sanguinis, a individual becomes a citizen from what blood his/her parents came from, for you inately inherit the qualities of the race of your parents, it is entitled for you to be of the same nationality.The characters or traits that you carry defines what your nationality is. The nature and essence of every nationality makes it a standard in determining someone’s nationality. Jus Sanguinis should stay because nationality, citizenship and racial characteristics are handed down through growth in the family.

  12. A. Concurring Opinion
    The rationale of this is maintaining culture and national identity as well as ethnic homogeneity. However, it is flawed because it can lead to generations of people living their whole lives in the state without being citizens of it, and therefore, depriving them of certain civil rights. Thus, it is recommendable to replace jus sanguinis with jus soli.

    B. Dissenting Opinion
    The rationale of this is maintaining culture and national identity as well as ethnic homogeneity. This is a good reason of using jus sanguinis as a norm in determining the nationality of a citizen. Filipinos don’t have blonde hair or white skin. Your blood determines your nationality, your blood is you ancestor’s blood.

  13. Concurring opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    Through Jus Sanguinis you are recognized to be a Filipino by blood. If your parents are truly Filipino then by this concept you are considered to be a Filipino too. It was made for those whose birthplace is not within the Philippines.
    2. Explain why the rationale is flawed.

    It puts the one not born in the Philippines to be a Filipino (if he/she grew abroad) even if she did not get to experience Filipino culture. It makes you an instant Filipino. Also it gives at time some dual citizenship for others.

    3. Consider the proposal to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus solis. Justify the proposal.

    If that would happen, babies that are going to be born here are given a chane to discover true Filipino culture. It would not allow babies born outside our territories to be Filipinos although their parents our Filipinos. I think this is good because you could only say you are a citizen of one country if you have experienced the country truly.
    Dissenting opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) of the the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    Through Jus Sanguinis you are recognized to be a Filipino by blood. If your parents are truly Filipino then by this concept you are considered to be a Filipino too. It was made for those whose birthplace is not within the Philippines.

    2. Explain why the rationale is correct.

    Though they were not given birth here, they still have some kind of right to call themselves Filipinos because of the Filipino blood flowing in them. Their parents can teach them how it is to be in the Philippines and they too can take pride of their Filipino heritage.

    3. Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.

    Because their ancestor is citizen of that state, they are expected to be brought up in the way the ancestor knows which he got from the state he comes from. Although it would not be full, but he can proud of bieng a Filipino also.

  14. Concurring opinion:
    ______________________________________

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    Jus Sanguinis is a social policy wherein an individual is said to be a citizen of a country not because of the place where one is born, instead it is based on where relatives of such person are citizens.

    2. Explain why the rationale is flawed.

    The rationale is flawed because a person who does not grow up in the country wherin he/ she is recognized as a citizen may not be as nationalistic as expected. Even some Filipinos claim that they are citizens of other countries instead of being proud to be Filipinos.

    3. Consider the proposal to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus soli. Justify the proposal.

    The replacement of Jus sanguinis by Jus soli can be considered as an option because it would ensure that a person named citizen of a country really knows his/ her country by heart for it is where he/ he was born and would grow up.

    Dissenting opinion:
    _____________________________________

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) of the the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    Jus Sanguinis is a social policy wherein an individual is said to be a citizen of a country not because of the place where one is born, instead it is based on where relatives of such person are citizens.

    2. Explain why the rationale is correct.

    The rational is correct because it provides a stronger basis as to which country an individual should be named citizen. It somehow seem improper to be a citizen of a coutry where you were just born, a country where non of your relatives were ever citizens.

    3. Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.

    Citizenship is something that should be considered seriously. A child to be considered as a citizen of a country where he/ she is born, without a relative as citizen of such country seem improper. Therefore the place where the ancestors of a person are residents shall serve as basis when considering the residency of a person

  15. Concurring opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    -Jus sanguinis follows that the person in question was raised by parents who carry the values of nation they are a citizen of.

    2. Explain why the rationale is flawed.

    -It is flawed because just because someone is descended from a particular nation, doesn’t mean he/she will be patriotic when it comes to supporting that nation.

    3. Consider the proposal to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus soli. Justify the proposal.

    -The proposal would ensure that the person in question was raised in the environment of the nation he/she is a citizen of, the values passing on to him/her naturally.

    Dissenting opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) of the the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    -Jus sanguinis follows that the person in question was raised by parents who carry the values of nation they are a citizen of.

    2. Explain why the rationale is correct.

    -The rationale is correct because it is usually the person’s parents who raise and pass on the values they have on him/her, even if they are in another country.

    3. Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.

    -This makes it easier to determine citizenship in cases where it was not the intention of the parents for the child to be born in a particular country.

  16. A. Concurring opinion:
    The doctrine of Jus Sanguinis makes a person a natural born Filipino. If it is known that one has Filipino ancestors then he is already declared a Filipino. The rationale is flawed for blood or race is not the only factor for determination of citizenship. Other factors may be considered like the place of birth and environment you grew up. (Considering Filipinos who migrated and born outside the country). The proposal of alteration of Jus Sanguinis with Jus Soli is feasible since having a Filipino predecessor, may not be the only basis to conclude your citizenship. The place of birth may be considered for its milieu can tell who a person is and what nationality he belongs to.

    B. Dissenting opinion:
    The doctrine of Jus Sanguinis makes a person a natural born Filipino. If it is known that one has Filipino ancestors then he is already declared a Filipino. The rationale is correct since we inherited the qualities of our Filipino ancestors, making us different from others and making us true Filipinos. Citizenship should be known by having an ancestor who is citizen of the state for they have qualities which make them as Filipinos. These are passed onto generations that characterize their Filipino citizenship.

  17. A. Concurring Opinion:

    Jus sanguinis is a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state. It means that if one or both of your parents are Filipinos, you are a Filipino.
    The rationale is flawed because if you are unable to determine your parents’ nationality, you won’t be able to determine your nationality.
    In jus soli, the place of birth determines your nationality, like in the United States. It shows the sovereignty of the country over its citizens and therefore, more appropriate than jus sanguinis.

    B. Dissenting Opinion:

    Jus sanguinis is a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state. It means that if one or both of your parents are Filipinos, you are a Filipino.
    The rationale is correct because it preserves the Filipino lineage. It defines that by blood, the Filipino nation is one and united. It shows that its descendants are genuine Filipinos. It is true that by lineage, one can authentically prove his or her nationality.
    The jus sanguinis must be retained because it proves the blood ties of Filipinos are intact. As the saying goes, “Blood is thicker than water”.

  18. Concurring opinion:
    1. State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.
    The rationale for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis is that the nationality of an individual is not determined by the place of his/her birth. Rather, it’s determined by the nationality of his/her ancestor.

    2. Explain why the rationale is flawed.
    There is no such thing as pure Filipino by blood. If this is the case, then most Filipinos would not be considered to be a pure Filipino by blood since many cultures have already influenced our blood line as a Filipino

    3. Consider the proposal to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus sanguinis. Justify the proposal.
    Environment is a huge factor in one’s attitude. Even if your parents have blood of a Filipino, it doesn’t justify that you will act like one until you experience interacting with a Filipino first hand
    Dissenting opinion:
    1. State the rationale (reason for being) of the the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.
    The rationale for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis is that the nationality of an individual is not determined by the place of his/her birth. Rather, it’s determined by the nationality of his/her ancestor

    2. Explain why the rationale is correct.
    The rationale is correct because when a person is born by a Filipino, he/she would then be carrying the traits and characteristics of a Filipino which would separate him/her from other nationality

    3. Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.
    Citizenship should also be determined by jus sanguinis because you have the physical characteristics of a Filipino. You will also learn the ways of a Filipino through your parents. Even if you try to hide your Filipino traits, you will still unconsciously reveal

  19. REPLACE JUS SANGUINIS WITH JUS SOLI.

    Concurring opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    The Jus sanguinis states that the citizen of the Philippines who have a natural blood of a Filipino is considered as a Filipino, no matter where he or she is born. To maintain cultural identity of the human being

    2. Explain why the rationale is flawed.

    The rationale is flawed because people who are under Jus sanguinis but was born in the other country might not have the same civil right like the one who were born in their country.

    3. Consider the proposal to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus sanguinis. Justify the proposal.

    I propose that there should be given time where the one involved can choose whether to choose his citizenship, whether he/she will choose Jus sanguinis or Jus soli.

    Dissenting opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) of the the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    The Jus sanguinis states that the citizen of the Philippines who have a natural blood of a Filipino is considered as a Filipino, no matter where he or she is born. To maintain cultural identity of the human being

    2. Explain why the rationale is correct.

    The rationale is correct because some people tend to use jus soli with immigration. They would be instant citizens if they were born on a certain place without having a single right of blood to that place.

    3. Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.

    Citizens should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state for them to be a natural citizen of the country.

  20. Hernandez, Kristina Dianne A., on March 23rd, 2009 at 2:49 am Said:

    Concurring opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    Jus Sanguinis is a social policy wherein an individual is said to be a citizen of a country not because of the place where one is born, instead it is based on where relatives of such person are citizens.

    2. Explain why the rationale is flawed.

    The rationale is flawed because a person who does not grow up in the country wherin he/ she is recognized as a citizen may not be as nationalistic as expected. Even some Filipinos claim that they are citizens of other countries instead of being proud to be Filipinos.

    3. Consider the proposal to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus soli. Justify the proposal.

    The replacement of Jus sanguinis by Jus soli can be considered as an option because it would ensure that a person named citizen of a country really knows his/ her country by heart for it is where he/ he was born and would grow up.

    Dissenting opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) of the the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    Jus Sanguinis is a social policy wherein an individual is said to be a citizen of a country not because of the place where one is born, instead it is based on where relatives of such person are citizens.

    2. Explain why the rationale is correct.

    The rational is correct because it provides a stronger basis as to which country an individual should be named citizen. It somehow seem improper to be a citizen of a coutry where you were just born, a country where non of your relatives were ever citizens.

    3. Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.

    Citizenship is something that should be considered seriously. A child to be considered as a citizen of a country where he/ she is born, without a relative as citizen of such country seem improper. Therefore the place where the ancestors of a person are residents shall serve as basis when considering the residency of a person

  21. Sir, di ko na kaya .. Ang dami kasi.. -.-

  22. 1. CONCURRING OPINION
    1. The rationale for the doctrine of Jus Sanguinis is that your citizenship is determined by your ancestral roots.
    2. A rather appropriate term for the rationale is ANCESTRY rather than CITIZENSHIP. It is wrong because what you are or who you are now is not defined by your ancestors.
    3.Citizenship is not determined by your ancestral blood but by who you are now. If you are born here in the Philippines it means you are a full blooded Filipino but not judge by your physical features
    Dissenting opinion:
    1. Jus Sanguinis can make one person a filipino / a natural born filipino citizen by means of your ancestors wherein it has been traced that they possess a true blood of being a filipino.
    2. It is correct because ever since we inherited the traits of being Filipino,.
    3. Characteristics and attitudes of our ancestors really makes us unique from every person around the world wherein we can really say that were proud to be pinoy.

  23. Concurring opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    The rationale for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis is that the nationality of an individual is determined by the nationality of his/her ancestor. It is not determined by the place of his/her birth.

    2. Explain why the rationale is flawed.

    The rationale is flawed because a person born in another country doesn’t always embrace his nationality. A Filipino citizen who is born abroad and grows up there doesn’t make him a full blooded Filipino.

    3. Consider the proposal to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus sanguinis. Justify the proposal.

    A person who lived in a country for a very long time and knows the culture of the place then he may consider himself a citizen of that country. Being a Filipino citizen must not be limited to the trace of Filipino blood you have.

    Dissenting opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) of the the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    The rationale for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis is that the nationality of an individual is determined by the nationality of his/her ancestor. It is not determined by the place of his/her birth.

    2. Explain why the rationale is correct.

    The rationale is correct because someone having the roots of a Filipino should always be considered a Filipino regardless of where he is born.

    3. Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.

    There will be some similarities of the parent to the child in their genes. This means that he is descended from this line and proves that he has the traits of that lineage. Citizenship should also be determined by jus sanguinis because you have the physical characteristics of a Filipino.

  24. Concurring opinion:
    1.)Jus Sanguinis states that your traits passed on to you by your parents, including their citizenship. As long as you belong to a bloodline of an actual Filipino, you become a Filipino Citizen.

    2.)The rationale is flawed due to the fact that if one of the parents or both were only converted to being a Filipino, it still makes you a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

    3.)Replacing the jus sanguinis by jus soli can lessen the confusion. If the person is born on the soil of the Philippines, then he is filipino. He does not need any proof of having ancestors that are filipino to be one.

    Dissenting opinion:
    1.)The rationale for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis is that you have the blood of your of parents which already makes you a Filipino in itself. It follows that you have the traits that distinguish a Filipino from other citizens, making you a Filipino.

    2.)The rationale is correct because having the traits of your parents will distinguish you from any other nationality.

    3.)Citizenship should be ancestral because even if you hide it, being a child of a citizen of a certain state will always and forever be part of your being. Attitude and traits shall be taught by the parents who will eventually make them true citizens of that state.

  25. A. Concurring opinion:
    The doctrine of Jus Sanguinis makes a person a natural born Filipino. If it is known that one has Filipino ancestors then he is already declared a Filipino. The rationale is flawed for blood or race is not the only factor for determination of citizenship. Other factors may be considered like the place of birth and environment you grew up. (Considering Filipinos who migrated and born outside the country). The proposal of alteration of Jus Sanguinis with Jus Soli is feasible since having a Filipino predecessor, may not be the only basis to conclude your citizenship. The place of birth may be considered for its milieu can tell who a person is and what nationality he belongs to.

    B. Dissenting opinion:
    The doctrine of Jus Sanguinis makes a person a natural born Filipino. If it is known that one has Filipino ancestors then he is already declared a Filipino. The rationale is correct since we inherited the qualities of our Filipino ancestors, making us different from others and making us true Filipinos. Citizenship should be known by having an ancestor who is citizen of the state for they have qualities which make them as Filipinos. These are passed onto generations that characterize their Filipino citizenship.

  26. Concurring opinion:

    1.The Jus sanguinis states that having an ancestor that is a natural born citizen of the state will grant you the citizenship of the state. The ancestor should have the pure blood of a Filipino. The place of birth is not a factor in Jus sanguinis.

    2. Having parents that are both filipino does not mean that you are really a filippino. A person can be a Jus sanguinis but if you are raised on other country, you might have different traits and beliefs. Having a filipino blood is not enough to be called a filipino because the person might have different characteristics and traits.

    3. Replacing the jus sanguinis by jus soli can lessen the confusion. If the person is born on the soil of the Philippines, then he is filipino. He does not need any proof of having ancestors that are filipino to be one.

    Dissenting opinion:

    1.The Jus sanguinis states that having an ancestor that is a natural born citizen of the state will grant you the citizenship of the state. The ancestor should have the pure blood of a Filipino. The place of birth is not a factor in Jus sanguinis.

    2. Having parents that are filipino makes you a filipino. The person will have the physical characteristics of a filipino. This will make him unique to other races and will make the person recognizable as filipino.

    3.Being raised as a filipino by your parents will give you a personality of a filipino. You will also have physical attributes of a filipino. Thus making you unique to other races.

  27. EXAM 2.4: ARTICLE IV
    __________________________________________________

    A. Concurring Opinion:

    The doctrine of Jus Sanguinis is that the nationality or citizenship of an individual is determined by his/her blood, which is the nationality of his/her ancestor.

    The rationale is flawed because many Filipinos by blood are not proud of being a Filipino. While some foreigners embraced the culture of a Filipinos wholeheartedly.

    It is ideal to replace Jus Sanguinis with Jus Soli so that people who are interested of being a Filipino may become citizens of the Philippines.
    __________________________________________________

    B. Dissenting Opinion:

    The doctrine of Jus Sanguinis is that the nationality or citizenship of an individual is determined by his/her blood, which is the nationality of his/her ancestor.

    The rationale is correct because most people prefer to identify a person by his/her ethnicity. It can also easily be identified because it is dominant on the appearance & complexion.

    Citizenship should be determined by the ancestor of the individual because part of the Filipino culture is to find & identify his/her roots from. Having Filipino blood running through your veins means your heritage is a Filipino.

  28. A. Concurring Opinion

    Having the blood of a Filipino make a person a Filipino. One cannot say he/she is not a Filipino if he/she came from a true Filipino.
    Not knowing how a Filipino lives could not justify someone to say he/she is a Filipino even if he/she has a blood of a Filipino.
    A person who lived in a place for a very long time and knows the ways and values on the place may consider himself/herself a citizen of the place.

    B. Dissenting Opinion
    Having the blood of a Filipino make a person a Filipino. One cannot say he/she is not a Filipino if he/she came from a true Filipino.
    Having a blood of a Filipino will make you a Filipino because you will most likely acquire the traits of a Filipino from your parent who is a Filipino.
    A person with a Filipino blood will surely live with Filipino traits because it is his/her parent that will teach him/her what a Filipino is.

  29. Concurring opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    Jus Sanguinis determines the nationality or citizenship of a person not by the place of birth but by means of his origins which should have been citizen of the state.

    2. Explain why the rationale is flawed.

    The rationale is flawed because people who are under Jus sanguinis but was born in the other country might not have the same civil right like the one who were born in their country.

    3. Consider the proposal to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus Soli Justify the proposal.

    Replacing the jus sanguinis by jus soli can lessen the confusion. If the person is born on the soil of the Philippines, then he is filipino. He does not need any proof of having ancestors that are filipino to be one.

    Dissenting opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) of the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    Jus Sanguinis can make one person a Filipino / a natural born Filipino citizen by means of your ancestors wherein it has been traced that they possess a true blood of being a Filipino.

    2. Explain why the rationale is correct.

    The rationale is correct because citizenship and nationality of a person should only be determined by means of his heritage in order to affirm that he is a true blooded Filipino. Because however we look unto a naturalized Filipino, there is no genetic factor that will relate him to a true blooded Filipino.

    3. Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.

    Citizens should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state for them to be a natural citizen of the country.

  30. whew, one more after this…

    A. Concurring Opinion
    The identity of being a Filipino, and the ways of which one is recognized as a Filipino has rather blurred limitations. We even have a certain attitude of naming some famous people as “half filipinos” even if the concerned person doesn’t even recognize his/her heritage. But anyway, any person who has lived on a certain place will learn of its culture and ways, and that person will more or less follow such traditions and consider having the place’s citizenship.

    B. Dissenting Opinion
    The identity of being a Filipino, and the ways of which one is recognized as a Filipino has rather blurred limitations. We even have a certain attitude of naming some famous people as “half filipinos” even if the concerned person doesn’t even recognize his/her heritage. Although one might be born in a different place, If his/her parents ore just one of them is a filipino, there is a great chance of him/her be raised in the ways of a filipino.

  31. Concurring opinion:

    1-Jus Sanguinis determine citizenship by means of your parents – being a Filipino is determined by blood.

    2-It is flawed because being a Filipino is not measured only by having Filipino blood, but also by culture. To be considered a real Filipino, you must know the culture of Filipinos.

    3-Jus Sanguinis should be replaced with Jus Soli because our citizenship is shown by how much we love our land. There are foreigners (I’ve seen on TV) who consider themselves Filipinos since they have learned to love our land. Also, there are Filipinos born in other countries who are less Filipino than these foreigners. I think culture is much more important than bloodline.

    Dissenting opinion:

    1-Jus Sanguinis determine citizenship by means of your parents – being a Filipino is determined by blood.

    2-The rationale is correct because no matter where we are born, we will still be Filipinos. Citizenship can always be determined through our parents. Their Filipino traits and physical attributes will show.

    3 -Citizenship should be determined by having ancestors of the state because to be a Filipino, we should look like one, we should behave like one. And to look and behave like a Filipino will always come from Filipino ancestors.

  32. QUIZ 2.4 – REPLACE JUS SANGUINIS WITH JUS SOLI

    CONCURRING OPINION:

    The rationale behind the doctrine of Jus sanguinis is that a Filipino is a Filipino by blood. Wherever a person may be born, he is still a Filipino.

    The rationale is flawed. Many Filipino families already left the country and wishes to stay abroad for good. If ever they will bear children abroad, it would mean that it would still be a Filipino citizen. This would not be economical since the Philippines is already over populated, and still, it will claim those who are Filipino by blood but born outside of the country.

    Jus Soli would be a better option that Jus Saguinis. The country will only claim those who are born in the Philippines. In this way, it would be economical because there would be a lessening in the population count of the citizens of the Philippines.

    DISSENTING OPINION:

    The rationale behind the doctrine of Jus sanguinis is that a Filipino is a Filipino by blood. Wherever a person may be born, he is still a Filipino.

    The rationale is correct because blood is crucial in identifying a person’s identity. Wherever a person may go, he will still be identified through his blood.

    Jus sanguinis is important especially for Filipino families who are temporarily staying abroad and wishes to go back to the Philippines when they already have a stable life and wants to go back to in the Philippines. And as mentioned above, around the world, a person is always identified through his blood.

  33. _____________________________________________________________________________________

    EXAM 2.4
    ERWIN R. SANTOS
    3ECEA
    _____________________________________________________________________________________
    Concurring opinion:

    The rationale for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis is that the nationality of an individual is determined by the nationality of his/her ancestor not by the place of his/her birth.

    The rationale is flawed because some of us might have parents who are combined nationality. Also, many Filipinos nowadays migrate to other countries. Filipinos who migrate were then influenced by culture of other countries. What influences a person is a huge factor in determining his/her nationality.

    I believe that considering both the blood of the person and the longevity of his stay in a place would be better. It is because this depends on what the condition is.

    Dissenting opinion:

    The rationale for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis is that the nationality of an individual is determined by the nationality of his/her ancestor not by the place of his/her birth.

    The rationale is correct because when a person is born by a Filipino, he/she would then be carrying the personality and characteristics of a Filipino which would take apart him/her from other nationality.

    One should be given the citizenship considering Jus Sanguinis. Thus, being raised as a Filipino by your parents will provide you traits of a Filipino. You will also have physical qualities of a Filipino. Thus, making you unique to other races.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________

  34. Concurring opinion:

    The rationale for the doctrine Jus Sanguinis is you become a citizen from what blood your parents came from. Because you inherit the qualities of the race of your parents, it will definitely show that you should be of that nationality also. The rationale is flawed because not all people are of purely Filipino blood. Some has part of other nationality where in some cases, its hard to determine which is dominant. Another is not because your parents are of this nationality that you act like like them. Your acts may not qualify you as a certified Filipino but by blood you are. It may be applicable if determining it by blood is difficult. Another is to help you obtain all available privilages what the country offers to its citizens.

    Dissenting opinion:

    The rationale for the doctrine Jus Sanguinis is you become a citizen from what blood your parents came from. Because you inherit the qualities of the race of your parents, it will definitely show that you should be of that nationality also. The characters or traits you carry defines what your nationality is. The nature of every nationality makes it a criteria in determining ones nationality. Jus Sanguinis should stay because nationality, citizenship and the likes are most likely be taught by the parents to their children making them true citizens.

  35. Concurring opinion:
    “Jus sanguinis — blood right — a rule that a child’s citizenship is determined by its parents’ citizenship.” Due to advancements in transportation, there are many immigrants or people living in a country different from where there ancestors originally lived. Thus, it’s important that they acquire citizenship in the place where they are residing permanently in order to secure to themselves some significant rights. A citizenship can also mean being accepted. Naturally, being accepted means being able to work properly. And if people can work properly, the country would be more productive and progressive.

    Dissenting opinion:
    “Jus sanguinis — blood right — a rule that a child’s citizenship is determined by its parents’ citizenship.” It’s important to have the blood right in order to be a citizen because if we’re talking about ancestry, a certain bond exists that can never be severed. Maybe someone can forget where he/she came from but surely it’s not something that can be changed. The bond lives on, and it takes a lot to kill it. Thus, it is assumed that there’d be loyalty to the place of origin.

  36. 3ECEA
    PGC – – Exam 2.4

    REPLACE JUS SANGUINIS with JUS SOLI

    A, Concurring Opinion

    The Philippines, in accordance with Section 1, Art IV, follows the principle of Jus sanguinis as a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state. In the determination of the citizenship of the child, Filipino mothers are placed by the Constitution on equal footing with their husbands. This dignifies the Filipino woman. The rationale is flawed because there are no chances for other people who where born here in our country but they have foreign roots, even if they desire to be natural-born citizens of our country. It may be viable to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus solis for those families which have foreign roots but have already learned to love the life of a true-blood Pinoy. 😀

    B. Dissenting Opinion
    Again, in accordance with Section 1, Art IV, our country follows the principle of Jus sanguinis as a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state. In the determination of the citizenship of the child, Filipino mothers are placed by the Constitution on equal footing with their husbands. This dignifies the Filipino woman. The rationale is correct because it follows Article IV, Section 2 which states that: “Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. The principle of Jus sanguinis should remain so as to maintain and preserve the true Pinoy features and that we may not continue to be colonized mentally.

  37. EXAM 2.4 (ARTICLE IV: Citizenship)
    Concurring opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) for the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    A child born of Filipino parents, or a filipino father or mother after the ratification of 1973 constitution is natural born citizen

    2. Explain why the rationale is flawed.

    Its flaw is that those who are filipino because of blood but did not grew up in the philippines are not as patriotic compared to others. They only claim to be filipino due to the benefits that they will get. Like the fil-am basketball players, as far as I know they would rather stay in the US after the conference rather than stay in the Phil. The explanation is simple this isn’t where their heart is but else where. The naturalized citizen are even more desserving to be called Filipinos rarther than them.

    3. Consider the proposal to replace Jus sanguinis with Jus soli. Justify the proposal.

    May we should just apply both of them. In both cases the child will be treated as natural born untill he/she reaches 18yrs. And then upon reaching this age the child should confirm his citizenship for the condition that he has spent atleast 10yrs here in the Phil.

    Dissenting opinion:

    1. State the rationale (reason for being) of the the doctrine of Jus sanguinis.

    A child born of Filipino parents, or a filipino father or mother after the ratification of 1973 constitution is natural born citizen

    A child born of Filipino parents, or a filipino father or mother after the ratification of 1973 constitution is natural born citizen

    2. Explain why the rationale is correct.

    It is because as a show of respect to the child’s ancestor his son/dauther must be called natural born.

    3. Justify why citizenship should be determined by having an ancestor who is a citizen of the state.

    May we should just apply both of them. In both cases the child will be treated as natural born untill he/she reaches 18yrs. And then upon reaching this age the child should confirm his citizenship for the condition that he has spent atleast 10yrs here in the Phil.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: