In Re: Jacinto

A lawyer who retains Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 after acquiring foreign citizenship must still apply with the Supreme Court to formalize the privilege to resume the practice of law, because Section 5 of RA 9225 makes no distinction between persons who have reacquired and those who have retained Philippine citizenship when it comes to the practice of a profession, and the requirements set forth in In Re: Muneses apply to both categories.

Attorney Regina Stella P. Jacinto was admitted to the Philippine Bar on April 11, 1996, bearing Roll of Attorneys No. 40547. On May 29, 2023, she acquired Maltese citizenship, which under the Maltese Citizenship Act permits dual citizenship and does not require renunciation of any other nationality. Because her naturalization occurred after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9225 (the "Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003"), she was deemed not to have lost her Philippine citizenship and instead instituted proceedings before the Bureau of Immigration to formalize the retention of that citizenship.

Attorney Regina Stella P. Jacinto was admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar on April 11, 1996, with Roll of Attorneys No. 40547. On May 29, 2023, she acquired Maltese citizenship. Under the Maltese Citizenship Act, a person may lawfully hold Maltese citizenship simultaneously with citizenship of another country, and no renunciation of Philippine citizenship was required of her. Because her naturalization postdated the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9225, she maintained that she was deemed not to have lost her Philippine citizenship under that law.

On June 29, 2023, Jacinto filed a Petition for Retention/Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship under RA 9225 with the Bureau of Immigration. The BI granted the petition in an Order dated July 14, 2023 and issued a corresponding Certificate of Re-acquisition/Retention of Philippine Citizenship/Identification Certificate on the same date. Thereafter, on August 7, 2023, she took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before a solemnizing officer of the BI in Manila.

Following these proceedings, Jacinto filed the present Petition with the Office of the Bar Confidant to formalize her privilege to practice law in the Philippines. Consistent with the documentary requirements previously enumerated in In Re: Muneses, she submitted fourteen supporting documents, including her Certificate of Naturalization, certified true copies of the BI Order and Certificate of Re-acquisition/Retention, her Oath of Allegiance, Certifications of Good Standing from the OBC and the IBP, a certification of bona fide lifetime membership in the IBP, letters of recommendation and certification from Senator Juan Edgardo Angara and Dean Jose Maria G. Hofileña of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law, an NBI clearance, proof of payment of professional tax, and a Certificate of Compliance from the MCLE Office.

The OBC, in its Report and Recommendation dated October 2, 2023, found that Jacinto had complied with all the requirements set forth in In Re: Muneses and recommended that she be allowed to retake the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys.

• Retention of Philippine Citizenship: Petitioner argued that pursuant to RA 9225, she is deemed not to have lost her Philippine citizenship, considering that she became a Maltese citizen after the effectivity of the law, and that under the Maltese Citizenship Act she was not required to renounce her Philippine citizenship.
• Entitlement to Resume Practice: Petitioner prayed that she be allowed to formalize her privilege to practice law in the Philippines, having complied with all documentary requirements indicated in In Re: Muneses and having obtained the necessary certifications from the BI, OBC, and IBP.

• Formalization of Privilege to Practice Law: Whether Jacinto's privilege to practice law in the Philippines should be formalized, given that she retained—rather than reacquired—her Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 after acquiring Maltese citizenship.

• Formalization of Privilege to Practice Law: Yes. The petition was granted, subject to the condition that Jacinto retake the Lawyer's Oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys, and pay appropriate fees. RA 9225 makes no distinction between reacquired and retained Philippine citizenship for purposes of practicing a profession, so the In Re: Muneses requirements apply equally to both categories.

• Formalization of Privilege to Practice Law: Philippine citizenship is a continuing requirement for membership in the Philippine Bar under Rule 138, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, and its loss results in termination of bar membership and the privilege to practice law. In In Re: Dacanay and In Re: Muneses, the Court established that a Filipino lawyer who loses citizenship by naturalization may reacquire it by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic, but reacquisition does not automatically restore the privilege to practice law; the person must still apply with the proper authority pursuant to Section 5 of RA 9225. Jacinto's situation differs from those cases in that she did not lose her Philippine citizenship—she retained it under Section 3 of RA 9225, which allows a natural-born citizen who becomes a foreign citizen to retain Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance. However, Section 5 of RA 9225 makes no distinction between persons who have reacquired and those who have retained Philippine citizenship when it comes to the practice of a profession; both must "apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice." Accordingly, the Court applied the requirements set forth in In Re: Muneses to Jacinto's petition. Upon the OBC's favorable recommendation and review of the supporting documents, full compliance was found, and the petition was granted.

• Citizenship as a Continuing Requirement for the Practice of Law — Philippine citizenship is not merely a prerequisite for admission to the Bar but a continuing requirement for the privilege of practicing law. Loss of Philippine citizenship terminates bar membership and the privilege to practice law. This principle derives from Rule 138, Section 2 of the Rules of Court and was categorically held in In Re: Muneses.
• Reacquisition or Retention of Citizenship Does Not Automatically Restore the Privilege to Practice Law — Under Section 5(4) of RA 9225, those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit. The law makes no distinction between persons who have reacquired and those who have retained Philippine citizenship. A lawyer who reacquires or retains citizenship must therefore institute proceedings before the Supreme Court to formalize the privilege to resume practice. The requirements established in In Re: Muneses apply to both categories.
• Conditions for the Privilege to Practice Law — The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions: adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, faithful observance of the legal profession, compliance with the MCLE requirement, and payment of IBP membership fees. Any breach renders a lawyer unworthy of continued exercise of the professional privilege.

• "The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is so delicately affected with public interest that it is both the power and duty of the State (through this Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare." — This passage articulates the foundational principle underlying the Court's regulatory authority over the legal profession and is frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on bar discipline and admission.
• "While Jacinto had retained her Philippine citizenship by virtue of RA No. 9225, the law does not make any distinction between persons who have either reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship when it comes to the practice of a profession." — This is the ratio decidendi of the case, establishing that the In Re: Muneses requirements apply equally to lawyers who retain citizenship under RA 9225 as to those who reacquire it.
• "the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship is not an automatic grant to resume the practice of law. Thus, a person who has reacquired one's citizenship still needs to apply with the proper authority for the license or permit to engage in the practice of a profession pursuant to Section 5 of RA No. 9225." — This passage clarifies the interplay between RA 9225 and the separate requirement to secure authority from the Supreme Court before resuming law practice.

• In Re: Muneses, 691 Phil. 583 (2012) — Controlling precedent. The Court En Banc held that Philippine citizenship is a continuing requirement for the practice of law and established the documentary requirements for a lawyer who has reacquired citizenship to formalize the privilege to resume practice. The Court applied these same requirements to Jacinto, who retained rather than reacquired citizenship.
• In Re: Dacanay, 565 Phil. 165 (2007) — Followed. The Court En Banc held that a Filipino who loses citizenship by naturalization may reacquire it by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic, thereby becoming qualified again for Bar membership, subject to applying with the proper authority for the privilege to practice law. In Re: Muneses cited and built upon this case.

• Rule 138, Section 2, Rules of Court — Requires that every applicant for admission to the Philippine Bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, among other qualifications. The Court applied this provision as the textual basis for the rule that Philippine citizenship is a continuing requirement for the practice of law.
• Republic Act No. 9225, Section 3 — Provides that a natural-born Philippine citizen who becomes a citizen of a foreign country shall be allowed to retain Philippine citizenship upon taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic. The Court applied this provision to Jacinto's case, noting that she retained rather than reacquired her citizenship.
• Republic Act No. 9225, Section 5(4) — Provides that those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice. The Court relied on this provision to hold that retention of citizenship, like reacquisition, does not automatically restore the privilege to practice law and that the In Re: Muneses requirements apply to both.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Singh, JJ.