A candidate for the House of Representatives claims to be a natural-born Philippine citizen based on a treaty creating a presumption under international law that he is a natural-born citizen. However, the Philippines is not a party to the treaty. Is the candidate correct? Explain.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Answer: No, the candidate is not correct. Legal Basis: Under international law, the principle of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt (codified in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) dictates that a treaty creates neither rights nor obligations for a non-party State without its consent. In domestic law, Article IV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines
Unlock the full Political Law answers 365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
Quick check
Is the candidate correct in claiming to be a natural-born Philippine citizen based on a treaty to which the Philippines is not a party?
Under Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the principle of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt, a treaty creates neither obligations nor rights for a third State without its consent. Since the Philippines is not a party to the treaty, its provisions cannot bind the State or confer Philippine nationality. Moreover, under Article VI, Section 6 and Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, qualifications for Members of the House of Representatives—including natural-born citizenship—are governed exclusively by domestic constitutional law.