Advertisement

Federal Court allows child of Malaysian father, Filipino mother to continue citizenship bid

Ida Lim
(From left) Pramod Nambiar, Francis Pereira, Datuk Cyrus Das and Sharmini Thiruchelvam are the lawyers who represented the child B in his bid for Malaysian citizenship. — Picture courtesy of Francis Pereira
(From left) Pramod Nambiar, Francis Pereira, Datuk Cyrus Das and Sharmini Thiruchelvam are the lawyers who represented the child B in his bid for Malaysian citizenship. — Picture courtesy of Francis Pereira

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 15 — A nine-year-old boy who was born to a Malaysian father and Filipino mother today secured another chance at the courts to continue his bid for Malaysian citizenship.

Francis Pereira, one of the lawyers who represented the boy identified only as “B”, said the Federal Court allowed the child to appeal against a previous court ruling that rejected his citizenship bid.

With the granting of leave for B to appeal the Court of Appeal’s ruling, this means that the Federal Court will hear questions of law in the child’s citizenship case.

“The Federal Court comprising of Chief Justice YAA Tengku Maimun, YA Dato Zawawi Bin Salleh and YA Tan Sri Idrus bin Harun held that the factors of legitimacy and dual citizenship in the granting of citizenship are factors that ought to be ventilated in a full appeal at the Federal Court,” Pereira told Malay Mail.

The journey to seek citizenship

B was born in 2010 in the Philippines to his parents, who married in Malaysia a few months after his birth. The family had returned to Malaysia shortly after the child’s birth.

Pereira said B has been living in Malaysia and attending school here.

B had in 2011 applied for Malaysian citizenship under Article 15A of the Federal Constitution, but the application was rejected a year and a half later without reasons given.

On November 11, 2016, the child B and his father had filed a lawsuit via an originating summons at the High Court, to seek for a court declaration that B is a Malaysian by operation of law.

The High Court had on August 23, 2017 rejected the child’s citizenship bid, while the Court of Appeal on February 14, 2019 similarly dismissed the citizenship bid.

“Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal previously decided that B was not entitled to Malaysian citizenship by operation of law under Art 14(1)(b) read together with Second Schedule Part II (1)(b) Federal Constitution as he was not legitimate at the time of birth,” Pereira explained, referring to the child’s illegitimate status when he was born as his parents were not married then.

Pereira said that B’s lawyers had today argued that the issue of a person’s legitimacy should not be in contention when it comes to the matter of citizenship by operation of law.

Other than Pereira, B’s lawyers are Datuk Cyrus Das, Sharmini Thiruchelvam and Pramod Nambiar.

The four questions of law

The child’s lawyers had submitted five questions of law for the Federal Court to determine, but had voluntarily dropped one of the questions, Pereira said.

The Federal Court will be hearing the four questions of law that revolve around the constitutional and legal requirements for citizenship, namely:

1. Whether it is proper to import into Part II Section 1(b) of the Second Schedule to the Federal Constitution any other requirements for the citizenship of a child born to a Malaysian father other than those expressly stated in the provision?

2. Whether the words “born outside the Federation” in Part II Section 1(b) of the Second Schedule to the Federal Constitution can properly be read as requiring that the child not hold any other citizenship and/or passport or be stateless to qualify for Malaysian citizenship by operation of law?

3. Whether the fact that the biological parents of the child were not married to each other at the time of the child’s birth but subsequently marry, disqualifies the child from acquiring a Malaysian citizenship by operation of law pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) and Part II Section 1(b) of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution?

4. Whether having met the qualifications for citizenship by operation of law under Article 14(1)(b) read together with Part II Section 1(b) of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution, can the courts arbitrarily impose further qualifications which are not within the said Article?

Related Articles Police tracing ‘TengkuRajaAlamShah’ after ‘200,000 new citizens’ claim Home Ministry denies claim that 200,000 granted Malaysian citizenship 11-year wait for citizenship finally over for Yu Sheng Meng