G.R. No. 167569 , G.R. No. 167570 & G.R. No. 171946. September 4, 2009.
CARLOS T. GO, SR., and JIMMY T. GO, Petitioners, vs. LUIS T. RAMOS, Respondent. HON. ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ, JR., et al., Petitioners, vs. JIMMY T. GO, Respondent.

FACTS

Luis T. Ramos filed a complaint-affidavit with the Bureau of Immigration (BI) seeking the deportation of Jimmy T. Go, alleging he was an illegal alien. Ramos presented Jimmy’s birth certificate indicating his citizenship as “FChinese,” arguing it was tampered and that Jimmy procured a Philippine passport using falsified documents. Jimmy countered that he is a natural-born Filipino, deriving citizenship from his father, Carlos Go, Sr., who validly elected Philippine citizenship under the 1935 Constitution. Jimmy submitted documents showing his father took the Oath of Allegiance and executed an Affidavit of Election in 1950.
The BI Associate Commissioner initially dismissed the complaint, finding Carlos’s election valid and thus Jimmy a Filipino. However, the BI Board of Commissioners reversed this, ruling Carlos’s election was untimely and casting doubt on Jimmy’s citizenship. It directed the filing of deportation charges against Jimmy for misrepresenting himself as a Filipino. Jimmy and his father challenged this before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via certiorari and prohibition. The RTC upheld the BI’s actions, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the BI Board of Commissioners committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the dismissal and initiating deportation proceedings against Jimmy T. Go based on a finding that his father’s election of Philippine citizenship was invalid.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jimmy T. Go, finding grave abuse of discretion by the BI Board. The legal logic centers on the conclusive presumption of validity accorded to a passport as proof of citizenship. The Court emphasized that a Philippine passport is a prima facie, if not conclusive, evidence of Filipino citizenship. By issuing a passport to Jimmy, the Department of Foreign Affairs had already made a prior administrative determination of his citizenship status. The BI Board cannot simply disregard this and unilaterally declare him an alien for deportation purposes based on a conflicting interpretation of his father’s documents.
The Court held that the BI’s power to deport is limited to unquestionable aliens. Where there is substantial evidence supporting a claim to citizenship, as with Jimmy’s passport and his father’s election documents, the claim places him outside the BI’s jurisdiction. The proper remedy for any party contesting his citizenship is a judicial action, such as a petition for cancellation of his certificate of naturalization or a direct judicial declaration of his status, not summary deportation proceedings. The BI Board’s reversal, which ignored the prior administrative finding embodied in the passport, was capricious and whimsical, constituting grave abuse of discretion warranting the grant of the writ of certiorari.