G.R. No. 177721; July 3, 2007
KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION AND BANTAY KATARUNGAN FOUNDATION, petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA; SANDIGANBAYAN JUSTICE GREGORY S. ONG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, non-governmental organizations, filed a petition for certiorari and injunction to challenge the appointment of respondent Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory S. Ong as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. They alleged that the appointment, announced by respondent Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita on May 16, 2007, was unconstitutional as Justice Ong was not a natural-born Filipino citizen, a mandatory requirement under Article VIII, Section 7(1) of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioners anchored their claim on Justice Ong’s birth certificate, which indicated his nationality as “Chinese” at birth, being the child of parents both described as Chinese. They argued this document constituted prima facie evidence of his citizenship under the Civil Code.
The Office of the President, through the Executive Secretary, defended the appointment, stating it was made from a list of nominees duly screened by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and that the President acted within her constitutional prerogative. It was also revealed that the appointment had been referred back to the JBC for validation of citizenship issues and had not been formally released. Justice Ong, in his defense, claimed he was a natural-born citizen, citing a 1996 Bureau of Immigration Identification Certificate and a Department of Justice opinion to that effect, and presented an ancestral tree alleging his mother was a Filipino citizen.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Gregory S. Ong is qualified for appointment as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, requiring him to be a natural-born citizen, and whether the Court can enjoin such appointment based on the citizenship challenge.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition as one for injunction. The Court held that the central issue of citizenship is a profound legal question that must be resolved with certainty, as it pertains to a constitutional qualification for a member of the High Court. The legal logic proceeded from the principle that an official record, such as a birth certificate, is prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. Justice Ong’s birth certificate, indicating Chinese nationality, directly contradicted his claim of being a natural-born Filipino. The Court ruled that administrative determinations by the Bureau of Immigration or the Department of Justice could not prevail over or alter this civil registry entry. Corrections to such entries concerning citizenship require an adversarial judicial proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Since Justice Ong had not secured a judicial order correcting his birth certificate, the prima facie evidence of his foreign birth citizenship remained. Consequently, until he successfully proves in a proper judicial proceeding that he is a natural-born citizen, any appointment to the Supreme Court would be constitutionally infirm. The Court, exercising its power to prevent a constitutional violation, enjoined Justice Ong from accepting the appointment or assuming the office. The appointment itself was not annulled, as it had not been formally released, but the injunction served to prevent an unconstitutional assumption of office.