0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
851 vizualizări1 pagină
1) The case involved two individuals - Jose Tan Chong who was born in the Philippines to a Chinese father and Filipino mother, and Lam Swee Sang who was also born in the Philippines to a Chinese father and Filipino mother of uncertain marital status.
2) The Supreme Court originally ruled that both individuals were Filipino citizens based on the principle of jus soli (right of soil) and citing a previous case as precedent.
3) Upon motion for reconsideration, the Court overturned its previous ruling and held that jus soli as embodied in the US Constitution does not apply to Philippine jurisdiction, and that based on the law in effect at the time of their births, neither individual qualified as a Filipino
1) The case involved two individuals - Jose Tan Chong who was born in the Philippines to a Chinese father and Filipino mother, and Lam Swee Sang who was also born in the Philippines to a Chinese father and Filipino mother of uncertain marital status.
2) The Supreme Court originally ruled that both individuals were Filipino citizens based on the principle of jus soli (right of soil) and citing a previous case as precedent.
3) Upon motion for reconsideration, the Court overturned its previous ruling and held that jus soli as embodied in the US Constitution does not apply to Philippine jurisdiction, and that based on the law in effect at the time of their births, neither individual qualified as a Filipino
1) The case involved two individuals - Jose Tan Chong who was born in the Philippines to a Chinese father and Filipino mother, and Lam Swee Sang who was also born in the Philippines to a Chinese father and Filipino mother of uncertain marital status.
2) The Supreme Court originally ruled that both individuals were Filipino citizens based on the principle of jus soli (right of soil) and citing a previous case as precedent.
3) Upon motion for reconsideration, the Court overturned its previous ruling and held that jus soli as embodied in the US Constitution does not apply to Philippine jurisdiction, and that based on the law in effect at the time of their births, neither individual qualified as a Filipino
Lam Swee Sang vs The Commonwealth of the Philippines GR No. 47623 79 Phil 249 - September 16, 1947 Facts: The petitioner in the first case, Jose Tan Chong, is born in San Pablo, Laguna, on July 1915. He had a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, lawfully married, and left for China in 1925. He returned to the Philippines on January 25, 1940. The applicant in the second case, Lam Swee Sang, was born in Jolo, Sulu, on May 8, 1900. He had a Chinese father and Filipino mother, whose marital status cannot be ascertained. From the date of his birth up to the date of filing his application for naturalization, and up to the date of hearing, he had been residing in the Philippines. He is married to a Filipino woman and they have three children. He speaks the local dialect and the Spanish and English languages. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CFI and granted the petition of Tan Chong for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he is a native of the Philippines. Swee Sang's petition for naturalization was dismissed as there was no need for such, as the Court recognized him as a Filipino citizen. The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration and contended that although the petitioner in the second case and the applicant in the second were born in the Philippines, they are not citizens of the Philippines under the laws in force at the time of their birth. The OSG prayed that the judgements appealed be reversed. The Court held that the principle of jus soli applied in the Philippines' jurisdiction. It is embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which provided that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The case of Roa vs Collector of Customs, brought up as one of the precedents, held that a person born in the Philippines of a Chinese father and Filipino mother, legally married, is a citizen thereof. Issues: Whether or not the ruling of the precedent should be upheld in the application of the principle of Stare Decisis. Whether or not the principle of the principle of Jus Soli should be applied in the case at bar. Held: No. The Court, held that the principle of Stare Decisis does not mean blind adherence to precedents. The doctrines or rule laid down, which has been followed for years, no matter how sound it may be, if found to be contrary to law, must be abandoned. The principle of Stare Decisis does not and should not apply when there is conflict between the precedent and the law. The duty of this Court is to forsake and abandon any doctrine or rule found to be in violation of the law in force. Considering that the common law principle or law of jus soli as embodied in the fourteenth amendment is to the Constitution of the United States, and has not been intended to the Philippines' jurisdiction; and considering the law in force at the time petitioner's and applicant's birth which is Sec. 4 of the Philippine Bill as amended by Act 23 of March 1912 that provides "Inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April, 1899, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands," the Court opined and so held that the petitioner and the applicant are not Filipino citizens.