Joe Pallugna THE case of Senator Grace Poe may be a bit clarified in this case of Renato David versus EdithaAgbay (G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015), where the Supreme Court defined the differences between re-acquisition and retention of Philippines citizenship. Republic Act 9225, otherwise known as the “Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, was signed into law by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on August 29, 2003. Section 2 of said law provides that “Declaration of Policy. – It is herby declared the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.” Section 3 further provides that “Retention of Philippine Citizenship. – Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are herby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic: (the oath of allegiance supplied…)….Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.” The law thus makes a distinction between those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens before and after the effectivity of R.A. 9225. Although the heading of Section 3 is ‘Retention of Philippine Citizenship’, the authors of the law intentionally employed the terms ‘re-acquire’ and ‘retain’ to describe the legal effect of taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. This is also evident from the title of the law using both re-acquisition and retention. In fine, for those who were naturalized in a foreign country, they shall be deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship which was lost pursuant to CA 63, under which naturalization in a foreign country is one of the ways by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. As its title declares, R.A. 9225 amends CA 63 by doing away with the provision in the old law which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries and allowing dual citizenship, and also provides for the procedure for re-acquiring and retaining Philippine citizenship. In the case of those who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, they shall retain Philippine citizenship despite having acquired foreign citizenship provided they took the oath of allegiance under the new law. So, the reckoning period is August 29, 2003, when R.A. 9225 took effect. It then became very simple to determine. If the Filipino became, for example, an American citizen after Agust 23, 2003, then when that Filipino later takes the oath of allegiance proscribed under R.A 9225, then that Filipino is deemed to have retained his citizenship without any interruption. Conversely, when that Filipino became an American national before August 2003, then he is deemed to have lost his citizenship in the interregnum and is only deemed to have re-acquired his citizenship only at the time that he takes his oath of allegiance under the new law, R.A. 9225. Simply put then, just determine when Senator Grace Poe acquired American citizenship. If she became an American national before 2003, then she lost her Filipino citizenship during the time that she was American and re-acquired only her citizenship after she took a new oath of allegiance to the Philippines after 2003. There is, however, another issue of Senator Poe. That is, if she has taken the new oath and complied with the residency requirements of ten years to run for president. But that is another legal issue that may be tackled later in the proper forum.