Go was granted Philippine citizenship by the Court of First Instance of Cebu on November 26, 1941 and on February 11, 1942 he took his oath of allegiance, and naturalization certificate No. 4 was issued to him thereafter.
Petition
On August 15, 1951 the Solicitor General filed a petition for the cancellation of Go's certificate of naturalization on the following grounds:(1) that the same was obtain illegally or contrary to law because Go did not then ha all the necessary qualifications to become a citizen of the Philippines; (2) that at the time he was granted Philippine citizenship, he had not enrolled all his minor children of school age in any public or private school recognized by the Office of Private Education where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribe as part of the school curriculum; (3) that he did not reside continuously in the Philippines for ten years; (4) and finally, that he filed his petition for naturalization on April 18, 1941 in violation of Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law, because at that time one year had not yet elapsed since he filed with the Bureau of Justice a sworn declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines.
Contention
The lower court, despite established proof that Go violated Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law, granted him citizenship and held the view that Go had substantially complied with this requirement because, after all, the hearing of his petition was held more than a year after the filing of his declaration of intention to become a citizen.
StatCon
We (SC) disagree with this view. The language of the law on the matter being express and explicit, it is beyond the province of the courts to take into account questions of expediency, good faith and other similar reason in the construction of its provisions. The ruling of the lower court amounts, in our opinion, to a substantial change in the law, something which courts cannot do, their duty being to apply the law and not tamper with it.
Additional Point
It appears that when Go filed his petition for naturalization in 1941 he had five minor children of school age, four of whom were then living in China, where they were born, and had never been enrolled in any recognized public or private school in the Philippines. It has been held in this connection that the fact that applicant's minor children were born and have lived since infancy in China does not excuse him from complying with this particular requirement of the law.
Lower Court Argument
In denying the petition of the government the lower Court expressed the view that the matter of Go's citizenship was already res judicata and that the Government was in estoppel to question his status as a citizen upon any ground which would have been raised before or during the hearing of the petition for naturalization. This we find to be untenable.
It is settled that the doctrine of estoppel or of laches does not apply against the Government suing in its capacity as Sovereign or asserting governmental rights. It has been held that the Government is never estopped by mistakes or errors on the part of its agents
Ruling
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and another is rendered cancelling Certificate of Naturalization No. 4 heretofore issued to appellee Go Bon Lee, with costs.
Petition
On August 15, 1951 the Solicitor General filed a petition for the cancellation of Go's certificate of naturalization on the following grounds:(1) that the same was obtain illegally or contrary to law because Go did not then ha all the necessary qualifications to become a citizen of the Philippines; (2) that at the time he was granted Philippine citizenship, he had not enrolled all his minor children of school age in any public or private school recognized by the Office of Private Education where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribe as part of the school curriculum; (3) that he did not reside continuously in the Philippines for ten years; (4) and finally, that he filed his petition for naturalization on April 18, 1941 in violation of Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law, because at that time one year had not yet elapsed since he filed with the Bureau of Justice a sworn declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines.
Contention
The lower court, despite established proof that Go violated Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law, granted him citizenship and held the view that Go had substantially complied with this requirement because, after all, the hearing of his petition was held more than a year after the filing of his declaration of intention to become a citizen.
StatCon
We (SC) disagree with this view. The language of the law on the matter being express and explicit, it is beyond the province of the courts to take into account questions of expediency, good faith and other similar reason in the construction of its provisions. The ruling of the lower court amounts, in our opinion, to a substantial change in the law, something which courts cannot do, their duty being to apply the law and not tamper with it.
Additional Point
It appears that when Go filed his petition for naturalization in 1941 he had five minor children of school age, four of whom were then living in China, where they were born, and had never been enrolled in any recognized public or private school in the Philippines. It has been held in this connection that the fact that applicant's minor children were born and have lived since infancy in China does not excuse him from complying with this particular requirement of the law.
Lower Court Argument
In denying the petition of the government the lower Court expressed the view that the matter of Go's citizenship was already res judicata and that the Government was in estoppel to question his status as a citizen upon any ground which would have been raised before or during the hearing of the petition for naturalization. This we find to be untenable.
It is settled that the doctrine of estoppel or of laches does not apply against the Government suing in its capacity as Sovereign or asserting governmental rights. It has been held that the Government is never estopped by mistakes or errors on the part of its agents
Ruling
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and another is rendered cancelling Certificate of Naturalization No. 4 heretofore issued to appellee Go Bon Lee, with costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment