Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VS RAMOS
Sept 4, 2009 | J. Quisumbing | Jurisdiction | Rai
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
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
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
Carlos and Jimmy each filed a petition for review on certiorari before the SC
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PETITIONS DENIED.