WITH the rehashed brouhaha about Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr.’s renounced Maltese passport, I look at our reaction (mostly negative from those who don’t have a second passport or golden visa and silence from those who do) and contrast that with some other countries.
First, let me concede the distinction made by Bobi Tiglao in his column from the other week that it is one thing to have dual citizenship because of employment or opportunity, which he implies can be justified and those who merely got it for convenience or insurance. He was fair enough to make that distinction.
I mostly worked in Hong Kong from 1993 to 2022. Prior to the handover in 1997, many at even lower mid-levels were all seeking second passports and residences for safety and insurance. It did not help that in this case, the British acted very dishonorably and racist toward the citizens of their colony versus the honorable way the Portuguese handled it for Macao shortly after in 1999. I bring this up not just to bring up shameful and hypocritical behavior of the British government but because it is relevant to my point later on dual passports.
Even the last Hong Kong governor-general, Chris Pattern, criticized this decision, and I quote an article published by The Independent on Sept. 24, 1995.
“Chris Patten, the governor of Hong Kong, provoked anger among Conservative right-wingers yesterday when he called for Britain to give 3.3m residents of the colony the right to live in Britain... Mr. Patten said Britain should give the right of abode to all those holding British Dependent Territories passports. In 1990, the Cabinet — of which Mr. Patten was then a member — restricted the award of British citizenship to 50,000 heads of households under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act... Yesterday, Mr. Patten denied that the awarding of passports would prompt a flood of immigrants. Speaking on BBC radio, he said: ‘I don’t think the three million, or more than three million, Hong Kong citizens are suddenly going to arrive at Heathrow. Nobody seriously supposes that, and to be blunt, if they did, they certainly wouldn’t be living in a welfare state.’ Later, allies of the governor said he was reflecting the official policy of Government House in Hong Kong, as opposed to that of the British government.”
This was a contrast to the Portuguese who gave the Macanese full citizenship before their handover in 1999, and it has since been clear that as early as 1985, the British government even urged the Portuguese not to do it. (South China Morning Post, July 24, 2018). There has been peace in Macao versus, prior to Covid, protests in Hong Kong. I think part of the reason is the government and the people in Hong Kong know that for most of them there is no place to go. In Macao, if they really do a bad job, the people can leave so both sides are restrained and more patient.
Now add how other countries who are more secure than us treat their leading lights in public and private service who have dual citizenship or work for more than one government. Stanley Fischer, who passed away in 2025, had both American and Israeli citizenship, and held the following positions — after being chief economist of the World Bank, he became governor of the Bank of Israel from 2005–2013. In 2014, President Obama nominated him to be vice chairman of the Federal Reserve from 2014 until he resigned in 2017 after President Trump was elected, and became a senior adviser to BlackRock.
Most celebrated of all is Mark Carney, who is the lauded prime minister of Canada. Prior to that, he was governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008–2013, where he served during the financial crisis with great distinction. So acclaimed that for the first time, the United Kingdom appointed a Commonwealth citizen from outside of the UK as governor of the Bank of England, a position he also held to much acclaim from 2013–2020. He then moved back to Canada and became prime minister in 2025.
So, rather than say they are loyal to Canada, the UK, Israel and the US, these countries were happy to have someone as qualified as Fischer and Carney in critical posts and knew they would not be disloyal and instead the countries would benefit from their qualifications, expertise and high standing.
We possibly from insecurity and insularity in my view, say renounce if you have more Philippine citizenship or permanent residence elsewhere. Let’s analyze what that means. Are we so scared they will be disloyal? Then vet them properly. The appointing authority can ascertain the loyalty of the person. Are we just inggit? Then admit it and move on. What sadly is the reality? It is a pain for a Filipino to travel, especially outside Asean and Hong Kong, on a Philippine passport. Sad but true. Rather than make it a national crisis make it less of a pain with success and over time many will not bother getting another citizenship.
Let’s make the counterargument. What might it say about a person who has dual citizenship and gives that up for what is a temporary position in the Philippine public sector? Wouldn’t one question his judgment or motives? Is it just patriotism or being power hungry or worse? Would someone in government possibly not want to abuse his position, and become a pariah and jeopardize a life whether here or elsewhere after he is a dual citizen? The contrasting results post-handover of Macao and Hong Kong are in my view complementarily instructive as well. Eventually, does our prevailing attitude demand loyalty and patriotism or show insecurity and lead to many qualified self-selecting not to be in public service?
The author is an independent director of the state-run Maharlika Investment Corp.
