GO, SR.

VS RAMOS
Sept 4, 2009 | J. Quisumbing | Jurisdiction | Rai

Three petitions that were consolidated.

Petitions stemmed from a complaint-affidavit for deportation initiated by Ramos before

the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (now Bureau of Deportation) against Jimmy
Go
alleged that Go is an illegal and undesirable alien
alleged that while Jimmy says he is a Filipino citizen, his personal circumstances
and other records indicate that he is not
- presented Gos birth certificate issued by Office of Civil Registrar of Iloilo, which
indicated that Gos citizenship as FChinese
Ramos argued that although it appears from his birth certificate that Gos parents
were Filipinos, the document seemed tampered with since only the citizenship of
the father is handwritten while the rest were typewritten
alleged that in Sept 1989, Jimmy Go, through stealth, machination and scheming,
managed to cover up his true citizenship and with the use of falsified documents
and untruthful declarations, was able to get a Philippine passport from the DFA

Jimmy refuted all the allegations in his counter-affidavit

deportment complaint was a harassment case designed to oust Jimmy from his
rightful share in his business dealings with Ramos
insisted that he was a natural-born Filipino
his dad Carlos was the son of a Chinese father and a Filipina mother > elected
Phil citizenship, evidenced by the Oath of Allegiance that he made and his
execution of an Affidavit of Election of Phil Citizenship
the registration of both were late, but it was explained sufficiently in the affidavit
Jimmy said that he even voted in the 1952 and 1955 elections
denied that his father came to the Philippines as an undocumented alien, alleging
that his father has no record of arrival in the Philippines since he was born and
raised here

Re: the erroneous entry of FChinese in his birth certificate

Jimmy said this was the fault of the employees in the local Civil Registrars Office
they might have relied on his Chinese-sounding surname when making the entry
it might be that the handwritten part in his fathers citizenship was the staff
correcting themselves when they found out that his dad already took his oath as
Filipino

Re: his siblings birth certificates, where it said that their father was Chinese
Jimmy said that the entry was wrong since it was made without prior consultation
with his father

Associate Commissioner Malenab-Hornilla dismissed the complaint of deportation

against Jimmy
affirmed the findings of the NBI tasked to investigate the case
his father did elect Filipino citizenship, which by operation of law transmitted
Philippine citizenship to Jimmy as well
Board of Commissioners reversed the dismissal > Carlos election of Philippine
citizenshi was made out of time
Board directed the preparation and filing of appropriate deportation charges
against Jimmy

Charge Sheet was filed against Jimmy

Carlos and Jimmy filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the RTC of Pasig
seeking to annul the resolution of the Board of Commissioners, the Charge Sheet
and the proceedings therein
in essence, they challenged the jurisdiction of the Board to continue with the
deportation proceedings

In interim, Board issued a decision ordering the apprehension and deportation of

Jimmy
Board issued a warrant of deportation which led to Jimmys apprehension

Jimmy commenced a petition for habeas corpus but it was dismissed because he was
provisionally released on bail

Carlos and Jimmy filed a petition for certiorari with CA re: the Boards decision
grave abuse of discretion on the part of TC for passing on their citizenship, saying
that they only asked for the nullification of the Resolution and the charge sheet

CA: dismissed petition

no merit in argument that citizenship issue should proceed only before proper
court in an independent action and that neither Bureau nor Board has jurisdiction
over individuals who were born in the Philippines and have exercised the rights of
Filipino citizens
rejected petitioners claim that they enjoy presumption of being Filipino citizens
CA held that the Board has exclusive authority and jurisdiction to try and hear
cases against an alleged alien and determine their citizenship

Carlos and Jimmy each filed a petition for review on certiorari before the SC

Bureau Immigration Commissioner Fernandez, Jr. issued a Warrant of Deportation

resulted in the apprehension and detention of Jimmy in the Bureau of Immigration
Bicutan, pending his deportation to China

Jimmy again filed a petition for habeas corpus before RTC Pasig
TC dismissed said petition, ruling that the remedy of habeas corpus cannot be
availed of to obtain an order for release once a deportation order has been issued
by the Bureau

Jimmy appealed to CA
CA granted the petition and enjoined the officers of the Bureau from deporting him
until the issue of his citizenship was settled through courts of justice

ISSUES:
1. W/N the cause of action of the Bureau against Carlos and Jimmy had prescribed
2. W/N the deportation proceedings are null and void for failure to implead Carlos as
an indispensable party therein
3. W/N the evidence adduced by Carlos and Jimmy to prove their claim to Philippine
citizenship is substantial and sufficient to oust the Board of its jurisdiction from
continuing with the deportation proceedings in order to give way to a formal
judicial action to pass upon the issue of alienage
4. W/N due process was properly observed in the proceedings before the Board
5. W/N the petition for habeas corpus should be dismissed

Re: Case has not prescribed

SC: No - cases involving issues on citizenship are sui generis. When the citizenship of
an individual is put into question, it has to be threshed out and decided on.
Why? because a person can subsequently reacquire or lose his citizenship under
any of the modes recognized by the law

JIMMY ARG: It already prescribed because the 5 year count should have started when
he did the said illegal act (the getting of passport)

SC: No - it is the legal possibility of bringing the action which determines the starting
point for computation of the period of prescription. Prescription should be counted
from the time Luis Ramos filed the complaint for deportation.

Re: Carlos is not an indispensable party

SC: Carlos is not an indispensable party since he doesnt stand to be benefited or
injured by the judgment of the suit. What is being sought is the deportation of Jimmy
on the ground that he is an alien. The principal issue that will be decided is the
propriety of the deportation.

True, Jimmys citizenship hinges on whether or not his father is a citizen, so it is

necessary that Carlos citizenship will be passed on. But whatever will be the findings
will in no way prejudice Carlos.

As said previously, res judicata does not obtain in citizenship proceedings. It will only
be applied in cases of citizenship if the following concur:
1 a persons citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where
said person is a party
6. the SolGen or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution
thereof
7. the finding of citizenship is affirmed by the SC

In the event that Carlos citizenship is questioned or his deportation sought, the same
will be ascertained again since the decision that will be rendered in this case will have
no preclusive effect on his citizenship. Since no benefit or injury will redound to Carlos,
he cannot be said to be an indispensable party.

Re: Boards jurisdiction

SC: No question that Board has authority to hear and determine the deportation case
against a deportee and in the process determine the question of citizenship raised by
him.

Chua Hiong vs Deportation Board: Court laid down an exception, following American
jurisprudence, on the primary jurisdiction enjoyed by the deportation Board.
Judicial determination is permitted in cases when the courts themselves believe
that there is substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship, so
substantial that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is
correct
 Also, when the evidence submitted by a deportee is conclusive of his citizenship,
the right to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts shall
promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings

Resort to courts only allowed at the sound discretion of a competent court in proper
proceedings
Boards jurisdiction not divested by mere claim of citizenship
Also, deportee who claims to be a citizen and therefore not subject to deportation
has the right to have his citizenship reviewed by the courts after the deportation
proceedings
decision of the Board is not final but subject to review by the courts

No reason to overturn findings of CA that the evidence was not sufficient to oust the
Board of its jurisdiction to continue with deportation proceedings
birth certificates of Jimmy and his siblings were presented
their birth certs indicate that they are Chinese citizens
Also, the election of Carlos of Philippine citizenship was irregular since it wasnt
made on time

P ARG: doctrine of jus soli applicable in Carlos case since his father was a resident of
the Philippines at the time of the passage of the Phil Bill of 1902 and Jones Law of
1916

SC: No - TC and CA are both correct when they ruled that the doctrine of jus soli was
never extended to the Philippines. While the doctrine of jus soli was for a time the
prevailing rule in the acquisition of citizenship, in Tan Chong vs Sec of Labor the SC
abandoned the principle of jus soli.

Re: Carlos election of Phil citizenship conferred on Carlos Phil citizenship

SC: CA correct when it found that it did not. 1935 Consti and Com Act 625 prescribes
procedure that should be followed to make a valid election of Phil citizenship. It didnt
prescribe a time period within which the election of Phil citizenship but phrase
reasonable time after attaining age of majority has been interpreted to mean the
election should be made within 3 years from reaching the age of majority.

True that the SC has said that the 3-year period for electing Phil citizenship may be
extended when the person has always regarded himself as Filipino. But the SC said
that in this case, there was no circumstance sufficiently shown that merits the
extension of the 3-year period.
the fact that Carlos voted doesnt demonstrate such belief, since it was done after
he elected Phil citizenship
the mere fact that he was able to vote doesnt validate his irregular election of Phil
citizenship > only manifests his desire to exercise a right reserved for Filipinos
but doesnt alter his real citizenship which in this jurisdiction is determined by
blood (jus sanguinis)

Carlos and Jimmy didnt show conclusive proof of their citizenship nor presented
substantial proof of the same > SC has no choice but to sustain the Boards
jurisdiction over the deportation proceedings
SC is not ruling that they arent Filipinos, since that wasnt what they were called
to do
they are only passing on the issue of citizenship to determine if the proceedings
should be enjoined to give way to a judicial determination of the same
Re: Due process
SC: The allegation that due process was not followed must fail.

Deportation proceedings are administrative in character, summary in nature and need

not be conducted strictly in accordance with the rules of ordinary court proceedings.
essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied in
administrative proceedings, the opportunity to explain ones side or an
opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of
as long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is
rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met

Jimmy wasnt furnished with a copy of the subject Resolution and Charge Sheet but he
was still given ample opportunity to explain his side and present controverting
evidence = satisfied demands of due process.

Re: Habeas corpus remedy

Since Jimmy was duly charged before the Board and was in fact ordered arrested
pending his deportation, coupled by the SCs pronouncement that the Board was not
ousted of its jurisdiction to continue with the deportation proceedings, the petition for
habeas corpus is rendered moot and academic.

PETITIONS DENIED.