Gargaritano, Angelo Ibaez

Jose Tan Chong vs Secretary of Labor GR No. 47616

Lam Swee Sang vs The Commonwealth of the Philippines GR No. 47623
79 Phil 249 - September 16, 1947
Facts:
The petitioner in the first case, Jose Tan Chong, is born in San Pablo, Laguna, on July 1915. He
had a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, lawfully married, and left for China in 1925. He
returned to the Philippines on January 25, 1940. The applicant in the second case, Lam Swee
Sang, was born in Jolo, Sulu, on May 8, 1900. He had a Chinese father and Filipino mother,
whose marital status cannot be ascertained. From the date of his birth up to the date of filing
his application for naturalization, and up to the date of hearing, he had been residing in the
Philippines. He is married to a Filipino woman and they have three children. He speaks the local
dialect and the Spanish and English languages.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CFI and granted the petition of Tan Chong for a
writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he is a native of the Philippines. Swee Sang's petition
for naturalization was dismissed as there was no need for such, as the Court recognized him as
a Filipino citizen.
The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration and contended that although the petitioner in the
second case and the applicant in the second were born in the Philippines, they are not citizens
of the Philippines under the laws in force at the time of their birth. The OSG prayed that the
judgements appealed be reversed.
The Court held that the principle of jus soli applied in the Philippines' jurisdiction. It is embodied
in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which provided that "All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
The case of Roa vs Collector of Customs, brought up as one of the precedents, held that a
person born in the Philippines of a Chinese father and Filipino mother, legally married, is a
citizen thereof.
Issues:
Whether or not the ruling of the precedent should be upheld in the application of the principle
of Stare Decisis.
Whether or not the principle of the principle of Jus Soli should be applied in the case at bar.
Held:
No.
The Court, held that the principle of Stare Decisis does not mean blind adherence to
precedents. The doctrines or rule laid down, which has been followed for years, no matter how
sound it may be, if found to be contrary to law, must be abandoned. The principle of Stare
Decisis does not and should not apply when there is conflict between the precedent and the
law. The duty of this Court is to forsake and abandon any doctrine or rule found to be in
violation of the law in force.
Considering that the common law principle or law of jus soli as embodied in the fourteenth
amendment is to the Constitution of the United States, and has not been intended to the
Philippines' jurisdiction; and considering the law in force at the time petitioner's and applicant's
birth which is Sec. 4 of the Philippine Bill as amended by Act 23 of March 1912 that provides
"Inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on
the 11th day of April, 1899, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born
subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands," the
Court opined and so held that the petitioner and the applicant are not Filipino citizens.