G.R. No. 191810 - Go vs. Bureau of Immigration and Deportation

In June 1999, the Concerned Employees of Noah’s Arc Group of Companies filed a letter-complaint against petitioner Jimmy T. Go (a.k.a. Jaime T. Gaisano) and his father, Carlos Go, Sr. (a.k.a. Go Kian Lu), alleging that Go, Sr. was an undocumented alien who had subsequently adopted a Filipino name.
Based on the allegation that Go, Sr. was an undocumented alien, the complaint inferred that petitioner Go, as his child, was likewise an alien.

In April 2000, Luis T. Ramos initiated a complaint‐affidavit before the Bureau of Immigration (BI) seeking the deportation of petitioner Go.
Ramos contended that although petitioner Go represented himself as Filipino, documentary evidence (including his own birth certificate and those of his siblings) indicated his true citizenship as Chinese, in violation of the Philippine Immigration Act (Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended).

Ramos produced copies of birth certificates and pages from the Registry of Births showing that petitioner Go’s citizenship was noted as “FChinese,” and that his siblings’ records reflected Chinese parentage.
In response, petitioner Go submitted a counter‐affidavit alleging that his father, who was the child of a Chinese father and a Filipina mother, had elected Philippine citizenship by taking an Oath of Allegiance on July 11, 1950 and executing an Affidavit of Election of Philippine Citizenship on July 12, 1950.
Petitioner further argued that his siblings were born prior to his father’s election of citizenship and that his birth certificate clearly recorded his father’s citizenship as “Filipino.”

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation and submitted a report, which was later forwarded to the BI. The NBI report, corroborated by its Special Investigator’s findings, upheld that Go, Sr.’s election of Philippine citizenship complied with the 1935 Constitution.
As a result, BI Associate Commissioner Linda L. Malenab-Hornilla issued a Resolution on February 14, 2001 dismissing the deportation complaint against petitioner Go.
However, on March 8, 2001, the BI Board of Commissioners reversed the dismissal, ruling that the election of citizenship was made out of time, and subsequently directed the filing of deportation charges against petitioner Go.

On July 3, 2001, a Charge Sheet was filed against petitioner Go for violating Section 37(a)(9) in relation to Section 45(e) of C.A. No. 613, alleging that he misrepresented his true citizenship by using falsified documents to obtain a Philippine passport and representing himself as Filipino.
In November 2001, petitioner Go and Go, Sr. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City to annul the BI Board’s March 8, 2001 Resolution and the July 3, 2001 Charge Sheet, essentially challenging the Board’s jurisdiction in the deportation proceedings.

While the RTC initially issued a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction enjoining the BI from enforcing the Board’s decision, it later dissolved the injunction and dismissed the petition on January 6, 2004, for lack of merit.
A motion for reconsideration before the RTC was filed but subsequently denied on May 3, 2004.
Petitioner Go and Go, Sr. then sought relief before the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 85143), which was dismissed on October 25, 2004, with a subsequent resolution denying reconsideration on February 16, 2005.
The BI Board issued a warrant of deportation on November 16, 2004, leading to the apprehension and detention of petitioner Go pending his deportation.
Petitioner Go further elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, seeking to nullify the October 28, 2009 Decision and March 22, 2010 Resolution of the CA—which affirmed as final and executory the April 17, 2002 BI decision ordering his deportation.

Whether or not the BI Board’s April 17, 2002 decision ordering petitioner Go’s apprehension and deportation is final and immune from further review.
Whether the evidence of petitioner Go’s claim to Filipino citizenship, particularly the alleged valid election of citizenship by his father, is sufficient to oust the BI’s jurisdiction over the deportation proceedings.
Procedural issues regarding the filing and dismissal of subsequent motions (including the second motion for reconsideration) and allegations of forum shopping by petitioner Go.

Whether the April 17, 2002 BI decision, ordering the apprehension and deportation of petitioner Go, has acquired finality and is therefore unreviewable.
Whether the Supreme Court erred in dismissing petitioner Go’s challenges regarding the alleged irregularities in the BI Board’s proceedings, including the filing of a second motion for reconsideration.
Whether the evidence submitted, including the birth certificates and the documents concerning the election of citizenship by Go, Sr., is sufficient to establish petitioner Go’s claim that he is a Filipino citizen.
Whether the procedural and substantive handling of the deportation case—specifically the adjudication of citizenship issues within an administrative context—is proper and does not warrant judicial intervention.