Department of Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez et al. v. Michael Alfio Pennisi, G.R. No. 170720 (2009)
### Facts:
Michael Alfio Pennisi was born on March 13, 1975, in Queensland, Australia, to an Australian father, Alfio Pennisi, and a mother, Anita T. Quintos, who alleged to be a Filipino citizen. In March 1999, Pennisi filed a petition for recognition as a Filipino citizen with the Bureau of Immigration (BI). Several documents were submitted to support his petition, including:
1. Certified photocopy of the birth certificate of Anita T. Quintos, indicating she was born in the Philippines.
2. Certified true copy of his parents’ marriage certificate, indicating Quintos’ Philippine birthplace.
3. Certified true copy of Quintos’ Australian certificate of registration of alien, showing her Filipino nationality.
4. Certified true copy of Pennisi’s birth certificate, confirming his mother’s Filipino birthplace.
5. A letter from the Australian Department of Immigration, asserting Anita T. Quintos had not been granted Australian citizenship as of July 1999.
Initially, the BI granted Pennisi’s petition on February 17, 2000. The Department of Justice (DOJ), however, disapproved the order on February 28, 2000. Upon submission of additional documents, the BI, through Commissioner Rufus B. Rodriguez, reaffirmed Pennisi’s citizenship on March 3, 2000. DOJ affirmed this on March 8, 2000, ensuring Pennisi’s recognition as a Filipino citizen.
Subsequently, Pennisi was included in a Senate Committee report concerning the nationality of several Filipino-foreign as perceived in the presence of suspicious circumstances concerning his mother’s birth documents and lineage. Based on this report, the DOJ issued a resolution on October 18, 2004, revoking Pennisi’s certificate of recognition and directing the BI to commence summary deportation proceedings, finalized on October 26, 2004.
Pennisi sought judicial relief, initially at the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, where his petition and accompanying restraining orders were amicably withdrawn after assurances of fair hearing. He then filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA), which on September 30, 2005, annulled the DOJ’s resolution and the BI’s deportation order.
### Issues:
1. **Timeliness of Petition**: Whether the petition to the CA was filed timely.
2. **Mootness of Petition**: Whether Pennisi’s departure from the Philippines rendered the petition moot.
3. **Validity of DOJ’s and BI’s Actions**: Whether the DOJ had valid grounds to revoke Pennisi’s recognition as a Filipino citizen and whether the BI’s deportation order was lawful.
### Court’s Decision:
1. **Timeliness of Petition**:
– The Court held that a one-day delay in filing did not justify dismissal as no intent to delay justice was evident. Given that Pennisi had to withdraw a concurrent petition from the trial court before filing at the CA, the delay was excused under these circumstances, prioritizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities.
2. **Mootness of Petition**:
– The departure of Pennisi did not render the case moot as argued by the respondents. His departure was contingent on deportation orders which he contested, and his claims to Filipino citizenship involved the rights and status of immediate family members residing in the Philippines.
3. **Validity of DOJ’s and BI’s Actions**:
– The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the CA, stressing that citizenship determination, even non-final, is open for judicial review if substantial evidence supporting citizenship exists. In this case, authenticated public documents provided by Pennisi held more probative value over the affidavits presented by the Senate Committee doubting the existence of his maternal lineage. Official documents should be presumed valid unless nullified by competent authority.
### Doctrine:
– **Prima Facie Validity of Public Documents**: Documents in public records are presumed valid and reliable unless proven otherwise by competent authority.
– **Judicial Review in Citizenship Cases**: The courts are allowed to review administrative decisions on citizenship questions when substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship is presented.
### Class Notes:
– **Citizenship Determinations**:
– Criteria for Res Judicata:
1. Citizenship raised as a material issue.
2. Solicitor General participated actively.
3. Supreme Court’s affirmation.
– **Prima Facie Evidence**: Public documents made by authorized officials as part of their duties.
– **Judicial Review**: Available for reviewing administrative decisions if substantial evidence is presented.
### Historical Background:
– This case occurs within the backdrop of immigration scrutiny and issues of dual citizenship, influenced by the political and social climate about employment and participation in sports leagues by Filipino-foreign players. The DOJ’s actions followed recommendations from legislative bodies, reflecting governmental concerns over the integrity of immigration paperwork and representations in a time of heightened vigilance.
Leave a Reply