G.R. No. 191810, June 22, 2015.
Jimmy T. Go a.k.a. Jaime T. Gaisano, Petitioner, vs. Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and its Commissioners and Luis T. Ramos, Respondents.

FACTS

In April 2000, respondent Luis T. Ramos filed a deportation complaint before the Bureau of Immigration (BI) against petitioner Jimmy T. Go, alleging Go was a Chinese citizen who misrepresented himself as Filipino. Ramos submitted Go’s birth certificate and registry entry indicating his citizenship as “FChinese” or “Chinese,” and the birth certificates of Go’s siblings Juliet and Carlos Go, Jr., stating they were born to Chinese parents. In defense, Go claimed his father, Carlos Go, Sr., was born in the Philippines to a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, Consolacion Trance, and elected Philippine citizenship on July 11, 1950. Go argued his own birth certificate stated his father’s citizenship as “Filipino.” An NBI investigation report concluded Carlos Go, Sr.’s election was valid and that Go was thus a Filipino citizen. Initially, the BI Associate Commissioner dismissed the complaint on February 14, 2001. However, the BI Board of Commissioners reversed this on March 8, 2001, ruling the election was untimely (filed when Go, Sr. was 26) and procedurally irregular (the oath preceded the affidavit of election). The Board ordered deportation charges. On April 17, 2002, the BI Board issued a Decision ordering Go’s apprehension and deportation to China. Go challenged this via petitions for certiorari in the RTC and CA, which were dismissed. The Office of the President also dismissed his appeal. A separate Supreme Court case (G.R. Nos. 167569 and 167570) involving Go’s father affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The CA subsequently dismissed Go’s petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 88840) challenging the OP’s ruling. The present petition for review assails the CA’s dismissal.

ISSUE

The primary issue, as framed by the dissenting opinion, is whether petitioner Jimmy T. Go should be deported without being afforded a full opportunity to prove his claim of Filipino citizenship, given the circumstances of his birth and lifelong residence in the Philippines, and the conflicting evidence regarding his father’s citizenship and the validity of his father’s election of Philippine citizenship.

RULING

The dissenting opinion of Justice Velasco argues that the majority’s decision to dismiss the petition and allow deportation is erroneous. The dissent contends that the petitioner should not be deported without utmost consideration of documents evidencing his Filipino citizenship or without affording him the right to prove it. The dissent emphasizes that deportation is a harsh measure and that one who has lived all his life in the country deserves a review prior to a possible mistaken deportation. It critiques the BI Board’s reliance on the birth certificates of Go’s siblings (born before their father’s election) as proof of Go’s status, and its finding that Go, Sr.’s election was void due to being out of time and procedurally flawed. The dissent suggests that the technical defect in the election procedure (oath before affidavit) should not nullify the election, and that the NBI report supporting Go’s citizenship was not adequately considered. It further argues that the BI’s jurisdiction is limited to determining alienage for deportation purposes and does not extend to conclusively ruling on citizenship, which is a judicial function. The dissent concludes by voting to partially grant the petition, declare Jimmy T. Go a Filipino citizen, or, alternatively, allow him to prove his citizenship in an appropriate proceeding.