View full case

KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA

FACTS:

The petition for certiorari was filed by people's and/or non-governmental organizations seeking to protect the people's rights to self-governance and justice. The respondents in the case are the Executive Secretary and Gregory S. Ong. The petitioners argue that Ong's appointment as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and issued with grave abuse of discretion. They believe Ong is a Chinese citizen based on his birth certificate, which states his nationality as Chinese. The petitioners pray for the annulment of Ong's appointment and have filed an Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent his assumption of office. The Executive Secretary defends the President's appointment and states that it was referred to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for validation of Ong's citizenship. Ong asserts that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen and argues that the issue should be addressed to the JBC. He also contends that the petitioners failed to include the President as an indispensable party to the case. Ong provides a detailed history of his ancestral lineage to establish his Filipino citizenship.

ISSUES:

  1. Do petitioners have standing to file the case?

  2. Is the President an indispensable party in this case?

  3. Is the Court the proper forum to resolve the issue of respondent Ong's qualification for membership in the Supreme Court?

  4. Is respondent Ong a natural-born Filipino citizen?

  5. Whether or not there is a need for a judicial order to effect a change in citizenship status recorded in the civil register;

  6. Whether or not respondent Ong can accept an appointment to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court without proving his natural-born Filipino citizenship.

RULING:

  1. Petitioners have standing to file the suit as people's organizations and taxpayers since the matter involves an issue of utmost and far-reaching Constitutional importance.

  2. The President is not an indispensable party in this case since the suit only seeks to stop the Executive Secretary from releasing the appointment and respondent Ong from accepting it.

  3. The Court is the proper forum to resolve the issue of respondent Ong's qualification for membership in the Supreme Court, given that it involves compliance with a Constitutional mandate. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has initial competence but the Court has the ultimate authority.

  4. The Court takes judicial notice of the records of respondent Ong's petition to be admitted to the Philippine bar. Based on these records, respondent Ong claimed to be a Filipino citizen because his father was naturalized when he was a minor. However, his birth certificate stated that he was a Chinese citizen at birth. The Court did not conclusively determine respondent Ong's citizenship but acknowledged that his birth certificate, unless corrected by a judicial order, is binding and prima facie evidence of his citizenship.

  5. Yes, there is a need for a judicial order to effect a change in citizenship status recorded in the civil register. Substantial corrections to the nationality or citizenship of individuals recorded in the civil registry should be made through a petition filed in court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Changes in citizenship status are considered substantial in character, and therefore cannot be corrected through a summary administrative proceeding to correct clerical or typographical errors in a birth certificate.

  6. No, respondent Ong cannot accept an appointment to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court without proving his natural-born Filipino citizenship. Until respondent Ong successfully completes all necessary steps, through appropriate adversarial proceedings in court, to prove his natural-born Filipino citizenship and correct the records of his birth and citizenship, he cannot assume the position or discharge the functions of the office. Failure to comply with these requirements would be a violation of the Constitution. Thus, respondent Ong can only accept the appointment after successfully proving his natural-born Filipino citizenship.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Standing may be accorded to people's organizations and taxpayers in cases involving constitutional importance.

  • The Executive Secretary, as the alter ego of the President, can be impleaded without the need to implead the President as an indispensable party.

  • The Court is the proper forum for resolving issues of compliance with a constitutional mandate, even if the JBC has initial competence.

  • Birth certificates are binding and prima facie evidence of citizenship, unless corrected by a judicial order.

  • Substantial changes or corrections in an entry in a civil register, such as changes in citizenship status, require a judicial order.

  • Changes in citizenship status recorded in the civil register cannot be corrected through a summary administrative proceeding but should be effected through a petition filed in court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

  • An individual cannot accept an appointment to a public office without proving their natural-born Filipino citizenship, especially when their citizenship status is in question and needs correction.

  • Failure to comply with the necessary steps to prove natural-born Filipino citizenship before accepting a public office would be a violation of the Constitution.