Ang Ngo Chiong v. Commissioner of Immigration
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ang Ngo Chiong, a Chinese national, emigrated to the Philippines in 1939 and became a permanent resident. He allegedly married Sze Sook Yuen in China in 1947, with whom he had two children, Ang Un Bon and Ang Cho Sit. Ang Ngo Chiong returned to Manila without his wife and children. Procedural History: Sze Sook Yuen and her children applied for and were admitted into the Philippines as nonimmigrant aliens for a period of thirty days in March 1960, with their stay being repeatedly extended. Meanwhile, Ang Ngo Chiong filed a petition for naturalization. The last extension for Sze Sook Yuen and her children expired on August 8, 1961. The Commissioner of Immigration ordered them to leave the Philippines by that date. On August 4, 1961, the spouses and children filed a special civil action for prohibition to restrain the Commissioner from arresting and deporting them and forfeiting their cash bond. The lower court initially denied a preliminary injunction but later reconsidered and issued the writ. Ang Ngo Chiong's naturalization petition was granted on September 8, 1962, and he took his oath of allegiance on December 5, 1964. A third child, Ester Sy Ang, was born on November 5, 1961. The lower court, in a decision dated May 30, 1963, granted the writ of prohibition, enjoining the Commissioner from arresting and deporting Sze Sook Yuen and her three children, holding that they acquired Philippine citizenship by reason of Ang Ngo Chiong's naturalization. The Petition: The Commissioner of Immigration appealed to the Supreme Court, assailing the lower court's decision on the grounds that it erred in holding that Sze Sook Yuen and her children acquired Philippine citizenship, in declaring Section 37(a) of the Immigration Law unconstitutional, and in declaring the bond form illegal.
Issue(s)
Whether Sze Sook Yuen and her children acquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of Ang Ngo Chiong's naturalization. Whether Section 37(a) of the Immigration Law is unconstitutional. Whether the form used for the bond was illegal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision granting the writ of prohibition, but solely on the ground that Sze Sook Yuen and her children could be regarded as Filipino citizens under Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law. The Court found the lower court's rulings on the constitutionality of Section 37(a) of the Immigration Law and the legality of the bond form to be erroneous.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of citizenship acquisition: The Court held that under Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law, the wife and minor children of a naturalized Filipino citizen automatically acquire Philippine citizenship. The provision states that any woman married to a Filipino citizen, who might herself be lawfully naturalized, is deemed a citizen. Furthermore, minor children born in the Philippines or dwelling therein at the time of the parent's naturalization are considered citizens. The Court reiterated the prevailing rule that an alien woman marrying a Philippine citizen, whether native-born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Philippine citizen, provided she is not disqualified under Section 4 of the same law. Consequently, Sze Sook Yuen became a Filipino citizen when her husband Ang Ngo Chiong took his oath of allegiance on December 5, 1964, assuming she had no disqualifications. Their three children also automatically became Philippine citizens by virtue of Section 15. Since they acquired Philippine citizenship, they could not be deported. On the constitutionality of Section 37(a) of the Immigration Law: The Court found the lower court's declaration of unconstitutionality to be erroneous. It reiterated its previous rulings upholding the constitutionality of Section 37(a), which authorizes the Commissioner of Immigration to order the arrest of aliens subject to deportation. The Court clarified that while judges issue warrants of arrest for probable cause determination, the Commissioner of Immigration can issue a warrant of arrest for the execution of a final deportation order, not solely for investigation purposes before such an order is issued. On the legality of the bond form: The Court also found the lower court's ruling on the bond form to be erroneous. Citing Morano vs. Vivo, the Court stated that the provision in Section 3 of the Immigration Law requiring the Department Head to approve the bond form is merely directory. Given that the form in question had been in use for a long time, it could be assumed to have been approved by the Secretary of Justice. Moreover, the petitioners, who benefited from the bond, were estopped from questioning its validity.
Main Doctrine
The wife and minor children of a Chinese resident, who was naturalized as a Filipino citizen, acquire Philippine citizenship under Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law and consequently cannot be deported.