JIMMY T. GO a.k.a. JAIME T. GAISANO, Petitioner,
vs.
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION and its COMMISIONERS and LUIS T. RAMOS,

 

Ma.Riffy Cerezo Balingit

JD II

 

Go vs. Bureau of Immigration

GR No. 1911810

 

FACTS: 

This is a case wherein Concerned Employees of Noah’s Arc Group of Companies filed a letter of complaint against Petitioner Go aka Jaime Gaisano. That Go was an undocumented alien who later adopted the Filipino name Carlos Go Sr. His father Carlos obtained some basic education and married a Chinese woman Rosario Tan – who had 10 children, among them was Jimmy. Complaint affidavit for the deportation of Petitioner Go was initiated by Luis Ramos of BOI – alleged that in his records that he is a Chinese citizen born in the Philippines to Chinese parents which violate CA No. 613. Presented birth certificates of Go and his siblings that indicated “F Chinese” – that a pertinent page from his birth certificate that he is Chinese. Go refuted the allegation stating that he was the son of a Chinese father and Filipina mother. He is a registered voter. That his siblings were born when his father’s election of Philippine citizenship. Asserted that his father’s citizenship is Filipino NBI found that, through a Special investigator stated that the election of Philippine citizenship by G Sr. was under the provisions of the 1935 Constitution and that the erasure on the original birth certificate of Petitioner Go could not be attributed to the petitioner – DISMISSED the case. The Board of Commissioner reversed the dismissal, directed the preparation and filing of the appropriate deportation charges against petitioner Go. Hence the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Petitioner Go.

 

 

ISSUE: 

 

W/N Petitioner Go may be deported, 

W/N the Court can rule once more on the issue of citizenship, 

 

 

 

RULING:

 

Yes, there can be no question that the Board has the authority to hear and determine the deportation case against a deportee and in the process determine also the question of citizenship raised by him. However, this Court, following American jurisprudence, laid down the exception to the primary jurisdiction enjoyed by the deportation board in the case of Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board wherein we stressed that judicial determination is permitted in cases when the courts themselves believe that there is substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship so substantial that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. Moreover, when the evidence submitted by a deportee is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to the immediate review should also be recognized and the courts shall promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings. While we are mindful that resort to the courts may be had, the same should be allowed only in the sound discretion of a competent the court in proper proceedings.

 After all, the Board’s jurisdiction is not divested by the mere claim of citizenship. Moreover, a deportee who claims to be a citizen and not therefore subject to deportation has the right to have his citizenship reviewed by the courts, after the deportation proceedings. The decision of the Board on the question is of course, not final but subject to review by the courts. After a careful evaluation of the evidence, the appellate court was not convinced that the same was sufficient to oust the Board of its jurisdiction to continue with the deportation proceedings considering that what we're presented particularly the birth certificated of Jimmy, as well as those of his siblings, Juliet Go and Carlos Go, Jr. indicate that they are Chinese citizens. Furthermore, like the Board, it found the election of Carlos of Philippine citizenship, which was offered as additional proof of his claim, irregular as it was not made on time. We find no cogent reason to overturn the above findings of the appellate tribunal. The question of whether substantial evidence had been presented to allow immediate recourse to the regular court is a question of fact that is beyond this Court’s power of review for it is not a trier of facts. None of the exceptions in which this Court may resolve factual issues has been shown to exist in this case. Even if we evaluate their arguments and the evidence they presented once again, the same conclusion will still be reached. The Bureau of Immigration is the agency that can best determine whether petitioner Go violated certain provisions of C.A. No. 613, as amended. In this jurisdiction, courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies.