The Citizenship Dilemma: Erwin Tulfo and the Constitutional Roadblock to a Senate Run

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — February 19, 2025

IS Erwin Tulfo truly eligible to run for senator? Or is his candidacy a constitutional time bomb waiting to explode? At stake is more than just one man’s political future—it’s a test of whether Philippine election law still upholds its core principles. The Constitution is clear: only natural-born Filipinos may seek a Senate seat. But Tulfo’s history with U.S. citizenship muddies the waters. After acquiring American nationality in 1988 and later reclaiming Filipino citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), he now finds himself at the center of a legal and political storm. The verdict on his candidacy could set a precedent that echoes for generations.”

Natural-Born vs. Naturalized: A Constitutional Distinction

The 1987 Philippine Constitution is unequivocal in defining who qualifies as a natural-born citizen. Article IV, Section 2 states:

“Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship.”

This definition is crucial. Once a Filipino voluntarily acquires foreign citizenship—thereby renouncing allegiance to the Philippines—natural-born status is forfeited. While reacquiring Filipino citizenship is possible, the process does not reinstate one’s original natural-born classification. Instead, the individual is legally considered a naturalized citizen.

This distinction is not mere semantics; it is the constitutional bedrock upon which eligibility for high office is determined. Article VI, Section 2 stipulates that only natural-born Filipinos may serve as senators, effectively drawing a legal barrier against Tulfo’s candidacy.

The Role of Republic Act No. 9225

RA 9225, also known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003, was designed to allow former Filipinos who became naturalized citizens of another country to reclaim their Filipino nationality. However, while this law restores civil and political rights—including voting and holding public office—it does not grant back one’s original natural-born status. This is a crucial limitation.

The law explicitly states that individuals who regain their Filipino citizenship are regarded as naturalized citizens. This distinction is what creates the constitutional roadblock for Tulfo. Even if he meets all other qualifications for public office, he lacks the natural-born status required to run for senator.

Judicial Precedents and Their Implications

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has consistently reinforced the strict interpretation of natural-born citizenship when it comes to eligibility for public office:

Francisco v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003) – While focused on the impeachment process, this case emphasized the importance of strict adherence to constitutional qualifications for public officials.
Cordora v. Comelec (G.R. No. 176947, February 19, 2009) – The Court affirmed that those who reacquire Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 are considered naturalized citizens and cannot run for positions requiring natural-born status.

These cases illustrate the judiciary’s unwavering stance: once natural-born status is lost, it is irretrievable.

Counterarguments and Constitutional Integrity

Proponents of Tulfo’s eligibility might argue that RA 9225 restores full civil and political rights, including the ability to hold public office. However, while RA 9225 grants these rights, it does not override the Constitution’s clear distinction between natural-born and naturalized citizens. The framers of the Constitution imposed higher barriers for certain positions, particularly those in the Senate, to ensure that those in power maintain an inherent and uninterrupted allegiance to the country.

Allowing Tulfo’s candidacy despite this constitutional requirement would set a dangerous precedent—one that erodes the rule of law and opens the door for further reinterpretations of fundamental democratic safeguards.

The Political Game: Reactions and Implications

The disqualification of Erwin Tulfo from running for senator is likely to provoke varied political reactions. His supporters may frame this as an unjust technicality designed to block a popular candidate, potentially fueling anti-elite sentiments and calls for constitutional amendments. On the other hand, legal and academic circles may cite this as a necessary reinforcement of the rule of law, underscoring the importance of adhering to constitutional requirements regardless of political popularity.

Political parties may exploit the controversy for strategic gain. Opposition figures might use Tulfo’s case to argue for electoral reforms or even propose revisiting the citizenship requirements for public office. Meanwhile, Tulfo’s allies could push for a broader interpretation of RA 9225 or seek alternative legal remedies to challenge the restriction.

Beyond Tulfo himself, this case could influence future discussions on dual citizenship, national allegiance, and eligibility for office, particularly as more Filipinos obtain foreign citizenship and later seek political roles in the Philippines. If the ruling bodies uphold his disqualification, it may set a precedent that dissuades similar candidacies in the future.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Erwin Tulfo’s reacquisition of Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 does not restore his status as a natural-born citizen. Consequently, under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, he is ineligible to run for senator. This case is not just about one individual’s political aspirations; it underscores broader questions about constitutional fidelity and the enforcement of electoral laws.

Recommendations:

Strict Legal Enforcement – The Comelec and the Supreme Court must reaffirm the distinction between natural-born and naturalized citizenship to prevent legal loopholes from undermining electoral integrity.
Legislative Clarifications – Congress should issue a legislative clarification to definitively resolve the ambiguities surrounding RA 9225 and its implications for national office eligibility.
Voter Awareness – The electorate must be educated about constitutional requirements for public office to ensure informed voting decisions and uphold the rule of law.
Balanced Public Discourse – Political leaders, legal experts, and civil society groups must engage in constructive discussions about whether constitutional amendments should be considered or if stricter enforcement remains the best course of action.

This case is more than just Erwin Tulfo’s political ambitions—it is a defining moment for the rule of law in the Philippines. If the Constitution bends for convenience today, what will stop it from breaking tomorrow? The nation stands at a crossroads: uphold the law and preserve democracy, or surrender to political expediency and erode its foundations. The choice is clear—but will the country have the courage to make it?