DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL GONZALEZ, et.

al v MICHAEL ALFIO
PENNISI
G.R. No. 169958
March 5, 2010
Prepared by: Aidyl Pearl U. Perez
Section 1, Article 3, 1973Constitution: (Children of Filipino fathers or mothers)
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
(2) Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of 1935.
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

FACTS:
Respondent Michael Alfio Pennisi was born on March 13 1975 in Queensland, Australia to Alfio
Pennisi (Australian) and Anita Quintos (Filipina). In 1999, Michael filed a petition for recognition as a
Filipino citizen before the Bureau of Immigration (BI). The BI Commissioner Yap issued an order
granting Michaels petition. However, the DOJ Secretary disapproved the order. However, upon
submission by Michael of additional documents, the former granted the order recognizing Michael as a
Filipino citizen pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 1, Article 3 of the 1973 Constitution.
Michael was then drafted to play for the Red Bull, a professional basketball team in the Philippine
Basketball Association (PBA). The Senateenate Committees on Games, Amusement and Sports and on
Constitutional Amendments (Senate Committees) jointly submitted Committee Report No. 256
(Committee Report) recommending, among other things, that the BI conduct summary deportation
proceedings against several Filipino-foreign PBA players, including respondent; and the DOJ Secretary
conduct an immediate review of all orders of recognition.
The reason for the Committee Report pinpointing Michael was that his alleged mother mother and
grandparents mentioned in his application for recognition of Philippine citizenship in the BI are not
known and have never existed in Panabingan, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija. This was reflected by affidavits
executed by the Barangay Captain and Treasurer of the place that no Quintoses or Tomedas that have
lived or have resided in the said barangay, and that those family names are not in their census nor in the
master list of voters. There is also the fact that Anitas certificate of birth in the civil registrar of San
Antonio was issued 10 years after the date of birth.
The DOJ created a special committee with Chief State Counsel Paras to investigate the citizenship of
Filipino-foreign players in the PBA. The DOJ later issued a resolution revoking Michaels certificate of
recognition and directing the BI to begin summary deportation proceedings against him.
Harp, another Filipino-foreign PBA player, filed a a petition for prohibition with an application for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction before the RTC of Pasig City. Michael was
allowed to intervene in that case. Michael and Harp later withdrew their petition before the trial court
without prejudice, which the trial court granted. Michael then filed a petition for review, with an
application for TRO and preliminary injunction, before the CA.
The CA granted Michaels petition primarily because of the fact that both the BI and the DOJ
recognized his citizenship before and it was only after 4 years that they reversed themselves in view of the
finding in the Committee Report. The CA ruled that aside from the barangay officials affidavits no other
evidence was presented to prove that Quintos was not a Filipino citizen or that her birth certificate was
false or fraudulently obtained. The CA believes that the documents presented by Michael have more
probative value than the allegations of the barangay officials. One of the documents presented by Michael
was an authenticated document issued by the Commonwealth of Australia attesting that Quintos
consistently presented herself to be a Filipino citizen and that these kinds of public documents would be
considered valid unless declared as invalid by a competent authority.
Hence this petition.

Prepared by: Aidyl Pearl U. Perez

ISSUES:
W/n the cancellation of Michaels certificate of recognition and the issuance of a deportation order by the
BID were valid?

HELD:
No.
SC held that the issuance of the certificate of recognition to respondent has not attained finality yet.
Pursuant to Go v. Ramos, the Court ruled that citizenship proceedings are a class of its own and can be
threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. Res judicata may be applied in cases of
citizenship only if the following concur: (1) persons citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a
controversy where said person is a party; (2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took
active part in the resolution thereof; and (3) the finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court. Thus, the
decisions by the BI and DOJ are not res judicata.
SC is not precluded from reviewing the findings of the BI. Judicial review is permitted if the courts
believe that there is substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship, so substantial that there are
reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. When the evidence submitted by a deportee is
conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should be recognized and the courts should
promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings.
In this case, the SC sustained the findings of the CA because of the evidence presented before the BI
and the DOJ by Michaels were substantial and have more probative value and must prevail over the
statements of Soliman and Peralta before the Senate Committees. While it is true that the affidavits of
Soliman and Peralta might have cast doubt on the validity of Quintos certificate of live birth, such
certificate remains valid unless declared invalid by competent authority. The rule stands that "documents
consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima
facie evidence of the facts stated therein xxx"
The SC also agreed with the CA when the latter speculated that there could be legitimate reasons why
the Quintoses and Tomedas were not included in the census anymore. As for their absence in the masters
list of voters, they could have failed to register themselves as voters. The late registration of Quintos
certificate of live birth was made 10 years after her birth and not anytime near the filing of respondents
petition for recognition as Filipino citizen. As such, it could not be presumed that the certificates late
filing was meant to use it fraudulently. Finally, the Australian Department of Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs itself attested that Quintos has not been granted Australian citizenship. Michaels
also submitted a certified true copy of Quintos Australian certificate of registration of alien, indicating
her nationality as Filipino. These pieces of evidence should prevail over the affidavits submitted by
Soliman and Peralta to the Senate Committees.

Prepared by: Aidyl Pearl U. Perez