CHEE NG, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT,

Chee Ng versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Chee Ng versus the Republic of the Philippines, a naturalization proceeding in which a foreign national sought to become a Filipino citizen and the Government opposed him. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, questioned the applicant's moral character, the proof of his secondary schooling, and the credibility of one of his character witnesses. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court weighs objections to a petition for naturalization: it asks whether the objections rest on real defects or on technical and speculative doubts, and it reminds us that the burden of proving every qualification lies on the applicant.

Procedural History

Chee Ng filed a petition for naturalization before the Court of First Instance of Manila. At the trial he presented evidence to show that he possessed all the required qualifications and none of the disqualifications. The Solicitor General raised three objections: first, that the applicant's personal behaviour was not proper and irreproachable; second, that the proof of his graduation from the Albay Provincial High School was insufficient; and third, that one of his character witnesses was not qualified. The trial court overruled all three objections and granted the petition. The Government appealed, and the case reached the Supreme Court on that appeal.

Facts

Chee Ng applied for naturalization and went to trial to prove his qualifications. The records showed that he had once faced a theft charge, but that case was only provisionally dismissed. He had also been prosecuted for interfering with police duties and assault upon a person in authority; that case was dismissed, but because the offense had not yet prescribed, it could still be reopened.

On his education, the applicant relied on an affidavit of the faculty graduating class adviser of the Albay High School to prove that he had completed his secondary education. The Government argued that this was not the best evidence, that the principal or administrative official of the school should have attested to the fact, that the affidavit was secondary evidence admissible only after showing that the school records were destroyed, and that its maker should have been presented in court. The records, however, showed that the school records had been burned and destroyed, and so had the files of the Bureau of Public Schools.

As to character, the Government attacked one witness for not knowing that the applicant had been charged criminally, and for contradicting himself on the number of employees in the applicant's bookstore. The evidence showed that the witness and the applicant were well acquainted: their acquaintance began when the applicant proposed to rent the witness's garage space, and the applicant lived on the first floor of the witness's house. The discrepancy on the number of employees was explained by the fact that the two Chinese employees were the applicant's brothers.

Issues

• Whether or not the criminal charges against the applicant, dismissed or provisionally dismissed, taint his character and disqualify him from naturalization.
• Whether or not the affidavit of the graduating class adviser is sufficient proof that the applicant completed his secondary education, and whether he was therefore exempt from filing a declaration of intention.
• Whether or not the character witness was qualified, given his ignorance of the criminal charges and his contradiction on the number of employees.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory text; it applies the qualifications and disqualifications for naturalization as these were raised and argued by the parties. The governing rule that emerges from the decision is that the applicant must possess all the required qualifications and none of the disqualifications, and that the Government may object to the propriety and irreproachability of his personal behaviour, the sufficiency of his proof of education, and the qualification of his character witnesses.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the criminal charges did not adversely affect the petition. With the admitted dismissal of the criminal charges, there was nothing that could be considered as tainting the applicant's character. A provisionally dismissed theft case and a dismissed assault case that may still be reopened were not, without more, proof of bad moral character.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the Government's objection. The objection to the admissibility of the affidavit was not raised in the court below, and in any event there was evidence that the school records were burned and destroyed, and so were the files of the Bureau of Public Schools. The affidavit was therefore properly received, and the applicant was exempt from filing a declaration of intention.

On the third issue, the Court held the objection untenable because there was ample evidence that the witness was really familiar with the applicant. Their acquaintance began when the applicant proposed to rent the witness's garage space, and the applicant lived on the first floor of the witness's house. The discrepancy as to the number of employees was not so fundamental as to discredit the entire testimony, and it was explained that the two Chinese employees were the applicant's brothers. As to the witness's ignorance of the charges, the Court observed that it is not unnatural for people generally to keep unpleasant matters away from their friends, especially where the latter can be of no help.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the applicant for naturalization must prove that he possesses all the required qualifications and none of the disqualifications. Second, the dismissal of criminal charges leaves nothing that may be considered as tainting the applicant's character; a provisionally dismissed case or a dismissed case that may still be reopened is not by itself a disqualification. Third, when school records have been burned and destroyed, an affidavit of the school's graduating class adviser may serve as proof of completion of secondary education, and the applicant is exempt from filing a declaration of intention. Fourth, a character witness is not disqualified merely because he was unaware of the criminal charges against the applicant, and a minor discrepancy in his testimony does not discredit the whole of it where the acquaintance is shown to be real and close.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting the petition for naturalization, without costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that with the admitted dismissal of the criminal charges, there is nothing that may be considered as tainting the applicant's character. Examiners like to use this case on the sufficiency of evidence of moral character and educational attainment in naturalization proceedings, and on the effect of dismissed criminal cases on a petitioner's fitness for citizenship.