Citizenship cannot be revoked without clear legal basis; the burden of proof lies on the state to demonstrate that a child acquired citizenship of another country within one year of birth.

JUDGMENT

Anselm Charles Fernandis J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiffs is applying for a declaration that LWO (the Child) is a Malaysian citizen by operation of law. Their application by way of Originating Summons is premised on art 14(1)(b) and ss 1(e) and 2(3) Part II Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution (FC).

Brief Facts

[2] The Plaintiffs are Malaysian citizens. They were legally married on 6 September 1992. They were childless for many years. They were given a child soon after the Child's birth. The Plaintiffs took care of the Child as if their own ever since.

[3] In explaining how the Child came to in their care the Plaintiffs narrated that the Child was born at Metro Medical Centre Klang Selangor on 26 October 2009. They stated that the Child was brought to their house about 12 years ago by one "Chu Ah Sik" who was the cousin of the 1st Plaintiff. Earlier Chu Ah Sik had called the 1st Plaintiff as to whether he wanted a male child. Chu Ah Sik had passed away on 17 October 2020 during the Covid-19 epidemic. The child was given to them together with the Birth Certificate (the "1st Birth Certificate").

[4] The birth of the Child was registered on 9 November 2009. The Birth Certificate stated that the Plaintiffs were the father and mother of the Child. It was stated in the Birth Certificate that the place of birth was "Metro Medical Centre Klang Selangor". More pertinent to this case was that status of citizenship of the Child was stated as "WARGANEGARA." See exhibit "LWO-3" Enel. 2 Affidavit in Support (AIS) Plaintiffs.

[5] Sometime in October 2021 when the Child had reached 12 years of age the Plaintiffs brought him to the Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (Registration Department) to apply for his Identity Card. They had filled the "Borang Permohonan Kad mp 4 Pengenalan". See Exhibit "SYA-6" End. 25 Affidavit in Reply (AIR) Defendant.

[6] While there, the officer noticed that the facial features and skin colour of the Plaintiffs was different from that of the Child. Feeling suspicious the officer concerned then postponed the application for the identity card. An investigation was then conducted in respect of the background of the Child.

[7] During the investigation statements were recorded from the Plaintiffs. They admitted that they were not the biological parents of the Child. In their statements they had pleaded with the authorities to help them legally obtain a birth certificate so that they could proceed with obtaining a Identity Card legally. See Exhibit "SYA-8" Enel. 25 AIR Defendant.

[8] The 1st Plaintiff was asked to fill up a "Borang Pembetulan Dalam Daftar" ie application to correct a mistake in the register. The Plaintiffs had also made a "Borang Akuan" or statutory declarations dated 22 August 2022 stating they were not the biological parents of the Child and requesting that the Birth Certificate of the Child be changed as reflected in the 2nd Birth Certificate. See exhibit "SYA-11 " Enel. 25 Defendant's AIR.

[9] As a result of the investigation the 1st Birth Certificate and the "Kad Pengenalan Kanak-Kanak" of the child were seized. A new Birth Certificate was issued ("the 2nd Birth Certificate"). In the 2nd Birth Certificate the details of the Plaintiffs as the father and mother of the child were stated as "Makiumat Tidak Diperolehi" or information not obtained. The status of citizenship of the Child was changed from "WARGANEGARA" to "BUKAN WARGANEGARA" ie from a citizen to a non¬citizen. See Exhibit "LWO-4" Enel. 2 AIS of Plaintiffs.

[10] These changes were done pursuant to s 27(3) Registration of Birth and Death Act 1957 (Act 299). This is clear from the letter dated 26 July 2022 from the Bahagian Siasatan dan Penguatkuasaan Jabatan Pendaftaraan Negeri Melaka to Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara Cawangan Melaka UTC Melaka. See Exhibit "SYA-10" Enel. 25 AIR of Defendant.

[11] The Plaintiffs then decided to legally adopt the child. As part of their adoption application the Plaintiffs placed an advertisement in the Chinese dai