SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 2094

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ELAINE LEONG EE LING – Appellant
Versus
PENDAFTAR BESAR WARGANEGARA & ORS – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: WA-25-140-05/2023]



Petitioner Advocates:N. Surendran,Shahid Adli Kamaruddin,Khairun Nabila Khairuddin ,Respondent Advocate: Imtiyaz Wizni Aufa Osman

Citizenship by operation of law requires proof of lineage and citizenship status of biological parents; failure to establish this results in denial of citizenship.

Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Article 14(1)(b) - Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 - Section 27(3) - Citizenship status - Applicant sought judicial review of the decision to revoke her citizenship based on amended birth certificate - Court found that the revocation was lawful as the Applicant failed to prove her biological parents' citizenship status - The Registrar-General acted within his powers to amend the birth certificate due to false information provided during registration - The Applicant did not qualify for citizenship by operation of law as she could not establish her lineage. (Paras 24, 36, 46, 78)

(B) Citizenship by operation of law - Requirements for citizenship under Article 14(1)(b) and Section 1 of the Second Schedule - The court emphasized that both jus soli and jus sanguinis must be satisfied for citizenship claims - The Applicant failed to establish that she was not born a citizen of any other country, thus her claim was dismissed. (Paras 68, 74)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant, born in Malaysia, was adopted but her adoptive parents later revealed she was not their biological child. The National Registration Department amended her birth certificate, leading to her citizenship being questioned. (Paras 6-10, 24)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Applicant did not meet the requirements for citizenship by operation of law due to the lack of evidence regarding her biological parents' citizenship status. (Paras 46, 78)

Issues: The main issues included whether the amendment of the birth certificate constituted unlawful revocation of citizenship and whether the Applicant qualified for citizenship by operation of law. (Paras 24, 63)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Registrar-General's actions were lawful and that the Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for citizenship by operation of law, particularly the need to establish her biological parents' citizenship. (Paras 36, 46, 78)

Result: Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J:

Introduction

[1] The Applicant filed an application for judicial review (Enel 7) under O 53 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC).

[2] Leave was granted to the Applicant for application for judicial review against the Respondents to seek the following reliefs:

2.1 Suatu perintah yang bersifat Certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan Responden Pertama yang dimaklumkan melalui surat yang bertarikh 22 Februari 2023;

2.2 Suatu deklarasi yang mengiktirafkan Pemohon sebagai warganegara Malaysia secara kuatkuasa undang-undang ("operation of law") di bawah Jadual Kedua, Bahagian II, s 1(a) dan/atau (e) (Perkara 14(1)(b)) Perlembagaan Persekutuan;

2.3 Secara alternative, suatu deklarasi bahawa pelucutan taraf kewarganegaraan Pemohon sebagai warganegara Malaysia oleh Responden Pertama adalah tidak sah, menyalahi undang-undang dan tidak berpelembagaan;

2.4 Suatu perintah yang bersifat Mandamus yang mengarahkan Responden-Responden untuk mengeluarkan dokumen MyKad yang mengiktirafkan Pemohon sebagai warganegara Malaysia dalam tempoh empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman ini dibenarkan;

[3] In gist, the application concerns the citizenship status of the Applicant under the provisions of the Federal Constitution (FC).

[4] After the hearing, I dismissed the Applicant's application (Enel 7). The reasons for the decision are set down below.

Background Facts

[5] The background facts are as gathered from the parties' submissions and I respectfully adopt them subject to some modifications.

[6] The Applicant was born on 30 November 1996 in a house at No. 48, Kg Baru Gemas Baru, Segamat Johor, Malaysia.

[7] The Applicant's adoptive father Leong Siew Wing (LSW) has married to the Applicant's adoptive mother, Leng Eng Lan (LEL) since 7 March 1987. However, they had no children.

[8] In the year 1996, the Applicant's adoptive parents went to a night market in Johor and they were then informed by an acquaintance (the acquaintance) that the Applicant, who was a baby aged 2 - 3 days at that time, had been born in a house in Segamat, Johor and had been abandoned by her biological parents.

[9] Due to the Applicant's adoptive parents' inability to conceive after nine (9) years of marriage, they decided to adopt the Applicant. They were informed by the said acquaintance that the Applicant's birth mother was very poor and unable to support the Applicant. However, no further information regarding the identity of the Applicant's biological parents could be obtained.

[10] On 9 December 1996, LSW registered the Applicant's birth at Pondok Polis Gemas Bharu, Segamat during which he furnished the following information:

i. that the Applicant was born on 30 November 1996 at No 48, Kg Gemas Bharu, Segamat; and

ii. that LEL and himself are the Applicant's biological parents;

[11] Based on the information given, Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) had issued a birth certificate for the Applicant [Exhibit ZM-1 of AIR 1 (End. 3)];

[12] On 10 December 2008, ie when the Applicant was 12 years old, LSW made an application for the Applicant's first identity card at JPN Shah Alam. This application was approved and on 22 December 2008, JPN issued a MyKad with IC number 961130-01-5992 to the Applicant [Exhibit ZM-2 of AIR 1 (End. 3)];

[13] In 2018, when the Applicant was 22 years old, the Applicant applied for a renewal of her MyKad. This application had been investigated by JPN. During the investigation process, JPN had, among others, interviewed LSW and LEL on 12 March 2018;

[14] During the interview, both LSW and LEL confessed that the Applicant is not their biological daughter, but rather she is a child whom they took into their care and raised as an adopted daughter (but they never registered the adoption or obtained a Court order), [Exhibit ZM-3 of AIR 1 (End. 11)]

[15] During the interview LSW also disclosed the following:

a) initially, he stated that the Applicant is the daughter of the acquaintance, a Chinese lady whom he knew at the night market;

b)


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top