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 Go’s birth certificate issued by Office of Civil
Registrar of Iloilo, which indicated that Go’s citizenship as
“FChinese”
• Ramos argued that although it appears from his birth
certificate that Go’s 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 Registrar’s Office
• they might have relied on his Chinese-sounding surname when
making the entry
• it might be that the handwritten part in his father’s 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 Jimmy’s
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
Board’s 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 petitioner’s 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 doesn’t 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, Jimmy’s 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 person’s citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a
controversy where said person is a party
2. the SolGen or his authorized representative took active part in
the resolution thereof
3. 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: Board’s 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
• Board’s 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 wasn’t 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 PETITIONS DENIED.
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 didn’t 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 doesn’t demonstrate such belief,
since it was done after he elected Phil citizenship
• the mere fact that he was able to vote doesn’t validate his
irregular election of Phil citizenship —> only manifests his
desire to exercise a right reserved for Filipinos but doesn’t alter
his real citizenship which in this jurisdiction is determined by
blood (jus sanguinis)

Carlos and Jimmy didn’t show conclusive proof of their citizenship

nor presented substantial proof of the same —> SC has no choice
but to sustain the Board’s jurisdiction over the deportation
proceedings
• SC is not ruling that they aren’t Filipinos, since that wasn’t
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 one’s 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 wasn’t 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 SC’s
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.