University of the Philippines College of Law

KJRPM D2022
CARLOS T. GO, SR., petitioner, vs. LUIS T. RAMOS, respondent.

JIMMY T. GO, petitioner, vs. LUIS T. RAMOS, respondent.

Case Name
HON. ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ, JR., in his capacity as the Commissioner of the BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION; ATTY. FAISAL HUSSIN and ANSARI M. MACAAYAN, in their capacity as
Intelligence Officers of the BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, petitioners, vs. JIMMY T. GO a.k.a. JAIME
T. GAISANO, respondent.
Topic Jurisdiction
G.R. No. 167569 | September 4, 2009; G.R. No. 167570 | September 4, 2009; G.R. No. 171946 |
Case No. | Date
September 4, 2009
Ponente QUISUMBING, J.
Ramos filed a complaint in the BOI alleging that Go is an illegal and undesirable alien. Aggording
to him, Go’s citizenship is questionable given the records of his birth certificate and that he holds
a PH passport that was obtained through falsified documents.

Case Summary
BOI found that GO was not a PH citizen and thus issued a warrant of deportation.

In the proceedings before the courts, GO questioned the jurisdiction of the Bureau to resolve the
question of his citizenship.
Board has the authority to hear and determine the deportation case against a deportee and in the
process determine also the question of citizenship raised by him.

Doctrine Exception: 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. Moreover, 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.

RELEVANT FACTS
• These petitions stemmed from a complaint for deportation initiated by Ramos before the Bureau of Immigration
and Deportation against Go alleging that the latter is an illegal and undesirable alien.
o Ramos alleged that Go represents himself as a Filipino Citizen. The latter’s personal circumstance and
other records indicate that he is not so.
o Go’s birth certificate indicated citizenship as “FChinese.”
o Luis alleges tat the document seems to be tampered since only Carlos’ (Jimmy’s father) citizenship is
handwritten, the rest are typewritten.
o Go was able to procure a PH passport from DFA through the use of falsified documents and untruthful
declarations.
• Go refuted the allegation in his counter-affidavit.
o The complaint was merely a harassment case designed to oust him of his rightful share in their business
dealings.
o There is no truth to the allegation that he is an alien, and insisted that he is a natural-born Filipino.
o His father elected Philippine citizenship in accordance with the Constitution.
o Go added that he voted in the 1952 and 1955 election.
o He denied that his father arrived as an undocumented alien. There being no record of arrival is precisely
because he was born in the Philippines.
• Re: Erroneous entry in the birth certificate; he maintained that such was not of his own doing, but may be attributed
to the employees of the Local Civil Registrar's Office who might have relied on his Chinese-sounding surname
when making the said entry.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
KJRPM D2022
o As regards the entry in his siblings' certificates of birth, particularly Juliet Go and Carlos Go, Jr., that their
father is Chinese, Jimmy averred that the entry was erroneous because it was made without prior
consultation with his father.
• Resolution; Feb. 14, 2001: Assoc. Comm. Hornilla dismissed the complaint for deportation.
o Hornilla affirmed the findings of the NBI tasked to investigate the case that Go’s father elected PH
citizenship.
o By operation of law, therefore, the citizenship of Carlos was transmitted to Jimmy, making him a Filipino
as well.
• Mar. 8, 2001: The Board of Commissioners (Board) reversed said dismissal, holding that Carlos' election of
Philippine citizenship was made out of time. Hence, the Board directed the preparation and Cling of the
appropriate deportation charges against Go.
• Jimmy and Carlos filed petition for certiorari and prohibition with RTC challenging the jurisdiction of the Board to
continue deportation proceedings. DISMISSED; MR also DENIED.
• In the interim, Board issued Decision ordering the apprehension and deportation of Jimmy.
• Following dismissal of petition, Board issued warrant of deportation which led to apprehension of Jimmy; Jimmy
commenced petition for habeas corpus eventually dismissed because he was provisionally released on bail.
• Jimmy and Carlos each again filed petition for certiorari with the CA. DISMISSED, upheld filing of deportation
charges against Jimmy.
o They argue that the issue of citizenship should proceed before the proper court in an independent action;
neither the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation nor the Board has jurisdiction over individuals born in
the PH and have exercised rights as PH citizens.
o Further, they enjoy presumption of being PH citizens.
• CA rejected such arguments.
o Board has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to try and hear cases against an alleged alien, and in
the process, determine their citizenship.
o Principle of jus soli not extended to the Philippines, cannot be ground for one’s claim of PH citizenship.
o Carlos failed to elect within 3 years upon reaching age of majority; belated submission of affidavit of
election and oath of allegiance. The election is thus defective. The delay was also not satisfactorily
explained.
• Because of CA’s dismissal of the petition, BOI Commissioner Fernandez issued a Warrant of Deportation. This
resulted in the apprehension and detention of Jimmy at the Bureau of Immigration Bicutan Detention Center,
pending his deportation to China.
o On account of his detention, Jimmy once again filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC of Pasig
City, which was subsequently dismissed.
• CA granted the petition for certiorari and prohibition enjoined deportation of Jimmy until issue of citizenship is
settled with finality by the court.

RATIO DECIDENDI
W/N the action of BOI against Carlos and Jimmy has prescribed.
NO.

Cases involving issues on citizenship are sui generis. Once the citizenship
of an individual is put into question, it necessarily has to be threshed out and decided
upon.

In the case of Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, we said that decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of
citizenship cannot govern a person's future status with finality. This is because a person may subsequently
reacquire, or for that matter, lose his citizenship under any of the modes recognized by law for the purpose.

As shown in the Charge Sheet, Jimmy was charged for violation of Section 37 (a) (9), in relation to Section 45 (e) 51
of Com. Act No. 613. From the foregoing provision, his deportation may be effected only if his arrest is made within
5 years from the time the cause for deportation arose. The court a quo is correct when it ruled that the 5-year period
should be counted only from July 18, 2000, the time when Luis filed his complaint for deportation.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
KJRPM D2022
W/N Carlos was an indispensable party
NO.

Carlos clearly is not an indispensable party as he does not stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the
suit. What is sought is the deportation of Jimmy on the ground that he is an alien. Hence, the principal issue that
will be decided on is the propriety of his deportation.

Jimmy claims that he is a Filipino under Section 1 (3), Article IV of the 1935 Constitution because Carlos, his father,
is allegedly a citizen. Since his citizenship hinges on that of his father’s, it becomes necessary to pass upon the
citizenship of the latter. However, whatever will be the findings as to Carlos’ citizenship will in no way prejudice
him.
W/N evidence of Carlos and Jimmy 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
NO.

Board has the authority to hear and determine the deportation case against a deportee and in the process determine
also the question of citizenship raised by him.

Exception: 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. Moreover, 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.

After a careful evaluation of the evidence, the appellate court was not convinced that the same was sufficient to
oust the Board of its jurisdiction to continue with the deportation proceedings.
• The birth certificates of Jimmy, as well as those of his siblings, Juliet Go and Carlos Go, Jr. indicate that
they are Chinese citizens.
• Furthermore, like the Board, it found the election of Carlos of Philippine citizenship, which was offered as
additional proof of his claim, irregular as it was not made on time.

Re: Argument of Jus Soli Application

The doctrine of jus soli was for a time the prevailing rule, but the SC abandoned the principle of jus soli in the case
of Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor . Since then, said doctrine only benefited those who were individually declared
to be citizens of the Philippines by a final court decision on the mistaken application of jus soli.

Neither will the Philippine Bill of 1902 nor the Jones Law of 1916 make Carlos a citizen of the Philippines. His bare
claim that his father, Go Yin An, was a resident of the Philippines at the time of the passage of the said laws, without
any supporting evidence whatsoever will not suffice.

Re: Citizenship of illegitimate children of a Filipina

It is the considered view of the Court that absent any evidence proving that Carlos is indeed an illegitimate son of
a Filipina, the aforestated established rule could not be applied to him.

Re: Election of Filipino Citizenship

The 1935 Constitution and Com. Act No. 625 did not prescribe a time period within which the election of Philippine
citizenship should be made. The 1935 Charter only provides that the election should be made "upon reaching the
age of Majority." The age of majority then commenced upon reaching 21 years.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
KJRPM D2022
The proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the pronouncements of the Department
of State of the United States Government to the effect that the election should be made within a "reasonable time"
after attaining the age of majority. The phrase "reasonable time" has been interpreted to mean that the election
should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority.

In this case, it is our considered view that not a single circumstance was sufficiently shown meriting the extension
of the 3-year period.
• The fact that Carlos exercised his right of suffrage in 1952 and 1955 does not demonstrate such belief,
considering that the acts were done after he elected Philippine citizenship.
• The exercise of the rights and privileges granted only to Filipinos is not conclusive proof of citizenship,
because a person may misrepresent himself to be a Filipino and thus enjoy the rights and privileges of
citizens of this country.

It is incumbent upon one who claims Philippine citizenship to prove to the satisfaction of the court that he is really
a Filipino. No presumption can be indulged in favor of the claimant of Philippine citizenship, and any doubt regarding
citizenship must be resolved in favor of the state.
W/N due process was observed before the Board.
YES.

Deportation proceedings are administrative in character, summary in nature, and need not be conducted strictly in
accordance with the rules of ordinary court proceedings.

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

Although Jimmy was not furnished with a copy of the subject Resolution and Charge Sheet as alleged by him, he
was given ample opportunity to explain his side and present controverting evidence:
• His representative went to the BID to inquire about the Order, and saw the Resolution and Charge Sheet.
• He filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum and as such, was allowed by Ronaldo P.
Ledesma an extension of 10 days to submit his required memorandum.
W/N petition for habeas corpus should be dismissed
MOOT AND ACADEMIC.

Given that Jimmy has been duly charged before the Board, and in fact ordered arrested pending his deportation,
coupled by this Court'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. This being so, we find it
unnecessary to touch on the other arguments advanced by respondents regarding the same subject.

RULING
WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 167569 and 167570 are DENIED. The Decision dated October 25, 2004 and
Resolution dated February 16, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85143 are AFFIRMED. The petition in
G.R. No. 171946 is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated December 8, 2005 and Resolution dated March 13, 2006 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88277 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The December 6, 2004 and December
28, 2004 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 167 are hereby REINSTATED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.