Case Digest: KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION ET AL v ERMITA

KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION ET AL v ERMITA

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a petition to set aside the appointment of Gregory Ong as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Petitioner alleged that Ong is not a natural-born citizen and thus, is disqualified to become a member of the Supreme Court. Respondent Ermita, on the other hand, contended that Ong was appointed from a list of candidates given by the JBC and they have referred the matter back to the latter for the determination of the issue regarding Ong’s citizenship. Respondent Ong contended that he is truly a natural-born citizen, following a series of changes in nationalities and whatnot with respect to his ancestors. He also contended that the petitioner has no standing to file the said petition.

HELD:

First, on the issue of standing, the petitioners have standing as the issue involved is of utmost importance—the citizenship of a person to be appointed as a member of the Supreme Court.
Second, on the principal issue of the case, the Court took judicial notice of Ong’s petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar. In his petition to be admitted to the Philippine bar, respondent alleged that he is qualified to be admitted because among others he is a Filipino citizen, and that he became a citizen because his father became a naturalized Filipino citizen and being a minor then, thus he too became a Filipino citizen. As part of his evidence, he submitted his birth certificate and the naturalization papers of his father.
It was on basis of these allegations under oath and the submitted evidence of no less than Ong that the Court allowed him to take his oath as a lawyer. It is clear therefore, that from the records of this Court, Ong is a naturalized Filipino citizen. The alleged subsequent recognition of his natural-born status by the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ cannot amend the final decision of the trial court stating that Ong and his mother were naturalized along with his father. Furthermore, as the petitioner correctly submitted, no substantial change in an entry in the civil register can be made without a judicial order. Change in the citizenship status is a substantial change. The long string of events that Ong alleged leading to him being a natural-born citizen, all entail factual assertions that need to be threshed out in proper judicial proceedings.
NOTE: In this case, there has been no ouster from an appointment. There may be approval of the appointment but it lacks other acts that will complete the appointment.
The last act in an appointment is the delivery of the commission. It is now up to the appointee—he must accept the appointment, take an oath of office, assume office, etc. It doesn’t end here. The CSC can either reject or approve of the appointment. When the appointee doesn’t pursue all the acts to assume office, the question is whether or not he can be held liable. The law doesn’t provide really that there is a period to accept or reject an appointment.