Kilosbayan v. Executive Sec.

Ermita and Sandiganbayan Justice Ong

2007

I. FACTS
1. Petitioners allege that Sandiganbayan Justice Ong is not a natural-born* Filipino citizen
and thus ineligible to be appointed to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court** because (i)
Ongs birth certificate indicates his Chinese citizenship and his parents were both Chinese
and (ii) his fathers naturalization eleven years after Ongs birth by itself would not make
Ong a natural-born. Thereupon, petitioners pray that a writ of certiorari be issued
annulling the appointment issued to Ong as Associate Justice of this Court.

2. Respondent Ong then argued that he was natural born because (i) his mother was a
Filipino citizen before her marriage to his father, who was a Chinese national, (ii) he was
born before January 17, 1973 of a Filipino mother, (iii) elected Filipino citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority, meeting the requirements under Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 of
the 1987 Constitution, (iv) the birth certificate cannot establish with finality that he is a
Chinese national nor disprove conclusively that he is a natural-born Filipino descended
from indios, (v) it is unnecessary for respondent Ong to resort to judicial action under
Rule 108 for him to claim and enjoy his status as a natural-born Filipino, and (vi) the
Bureau of Immigration has preemptive legal authority or primary administrative
jurisdiction to make a determination as regards citizenship, and upon subsequent
confirmation by the secretary of Justice, issue a declaration recognizing respondent Ong is
a natural-born Filipino.

3. The Supreme Court granted the petition, enjoining respondent Ong from accepting an
appointment to the position of the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court until he
completes all necessary steps to prove he is a natural-born Filipino citizen and corrects the
records of his birth and citizenship.

II. ISSUES
1. Is respondent Ong a natural-born Filipino citizen?
2. Can the recognition of the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ on the natural-born status
of respondent Ong amend the final decision of the trial court stating that respondent Ong
and his mother were naturalized along with his father?

III. RATIONALE
1. The court took judicial notice on respondent Ongs petition to be admitted to the
Philippine bar, wherein he alleged that (i) he was a Filipino citizen, (ii) he was a Filipino
citizen because his father, a Chinese citizen, was naturalized in 1964 when respondent Ong
was a minor of eleven years and thus making him a Filipino citizen as well, submitting both
his birth certificate and the naturalization papers of his father. It is clear from the records
of this Court that respondent Ong is a naturalized Filipino citizen.
2. No, since no substantial change in an entry in a civil registrar can be made without a
judicial order, and, under the law, a change in citizenship status is a substantial change.
Republic Act No. 9048 provides in Section 2 (3) that a summary administrative proceeding
to correct clerical or typographical errors in a birth certificate cannot apply to a change in
nationality. Substantial corrections to the nationality or citizenship of persons recorded in
the civil registry should, therefore, be effected through a petition filed in court under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court.16
3. Finally, respondent Ong must, through proper judicial proceedings so as to correct the
existing records on his birth and citizenship, establish the chain of evidence to show that
his mother was a Filipino citizen, contrary to what appears in the records of this Court.

* Sec. 2 of Art. IV defines "natural-born citizens as those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
Citizenship."1
** Section 7 (1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that "No person shall be
appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines."