IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANG CHUN TO BE ADMITTED TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP, ANG CHUN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLEE.

Ang Chun versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is Ang Chun against the Republic of the Philippines — a naturalization case. Ang Chun had already won a judgment granting his petition for Philippine citizenship. He then asked the trial court for permission to take his oath of allegiance, and the court refused, finding that he did not have an adequate knowledge of English. The case matters for two reasons. First, it teaches that a naturalization court is not yet finished when it grants the petition — at the oath-taking stage it may still inquire into any question affecting the applicant's qualifications. Second, it shows how strictly the language requirement is measured: a working knowledge of English is demanded, and a deficiency in it defeats not only the motion to take the oath but the petition for naturalization itself.

Procedural History

Ang Chun filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Manila. After due trial, that court rendered judgment granting the petition. Ang Chun later filed a motion that he be permitted to take his oath of allegiance. After due hearing, the same court denied the motion on the ground that he does not have an adequate knowledge of English. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in April 1967.

Facts

Ang Chun filed his petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Manila in March 1960. After trial, the court granted the petition.

In January 1963, Ang Chun filed a motion asking that he be allowed to take his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines. After hearing, the court denied the motion because he did not have an adequate knowledge of English. His motion for reconsideration was also denied.

At the hearing, when Ang Chun was asked to translate into Tagalog the sentence, I intend to spend the rest of my life in this country, he wrote, Ang Filipinas ay parang bayan ko na. The trial court further found that he committed many errors and wrote illegible words when asked to write that same sentence and the sentence, My children are studying in schools in Manila.

Issues

• Whether or not the lower court, at the hearing of the motion to take the oath, could still inquire into any matter affecting the qualifications of the petitioner to become a citizen of the Philippines.
• Whether or not Ang Chun possessed the requisite language qualification.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Republic Act Number 530, the Naturalization Law, provides:

Section 1. Qualifications. — The applicant must be at least twenty-one years of age on the date of the filing of his petition, and must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten years, and must be of good moral character and believe in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living, and must be able to speak and write English or some other principal dialect.

The Court cites this provision in describing the matters a naturalization court may examine at the oath-taking stage, and the language requirement it imposes is the standard against which Ang Chun's knowledge of English was measured.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court answered in the affirmative. A court which initially granted the petition for naturalization is not, at the hearing of the motion to take oath, limited to inquiring into whether the petitioner has not left the Philippines, has dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession, has not been convicted of any offense or violation of government promulgated rules, and has not committed any act prejudicial to the interests of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies. The court may inquire into any question affecting the qualification of the applicant. The Court explained that the Government is not estopped to question the petitioner's status as a citizen even after the hearing on his petition, because a decision or order granting citizenship does not immediately become executory, and a naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, so the decision is not res judicata as to any matter which would support a judgment cancelling the certificate of naturalization.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that Ang Chun was not possessed of the requisite language qualification. It noted his translation of the sentence, I intend to spend the rest of my life in this country, into Ang Filipinas ay parang bayan ko na, and the trial court's finding that he committed many errors and wrote illegible words when asked to write that sentence and the sentence about his children studying in schools in Manila. The Court held that a deficiency in working knowledge of the English language warrants denial of his motion to take the oath as well as his petition for naturalization itself.

Doctrine

Two rules must be retained. First, at the hearing of the motion to take the oath, the naturalization court may inquire into any question affecting the qualification of the applicant; it is not confined to the four matters listed in Section 1 of Republic Act Number 530. The Government is not estopped to question the applicant's status even after the hearing on his petition, because a grant of citizenship does not immediately become executory and is not res judicata on matters that would support cancellation of the certificate. Second, the applicant must be able to speak and write English or some other principal dialect, and a deficiency in working knowledge of the English language warrants denial of the motion to take the oath as well as of the petition for naturalization itself.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order appealed from and denied the petition for naturalization, at the petitioner-appellant's cost.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a decision granting citizenship is not immediately executory and is not res judicata, so at the oath-taking stage the court may still inquire into any question affecting the applicant's qualifications. Examiners use this case to test the scope of the court's inquiry before the oath and the strictness of the working knowledge of English requirement.