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

2012 MarsdenLR 968

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
FOO TOON AIK – Appellant
Versus
KETUA PENDAFTAR KELAHIRAN & KEMATIAN MALAYSIA – Respondent
[Judicial Review No: R2-25-201-2011]



Petitioner Advocates:Goh Siu Lin,Violet Mi Teng ,Respondent Advocate: Najwa Bistamam FC

An adoption does not change the birth status required for citizenship under Article 14 of the Federal Constitution, as the definition of 'parent' refers to lawful parents.

Headnote:(A) Adoption Act 1952 - Sections 9 and 25 - Federal Constitution - Article 14(1)(b) - Judicial review application for certiorari seeking to quash a decision denying citizenship by operation of law to an adopted child - Court held that an adoption does not alter the birth status required for citizenship under Article 14, as the child was not born to lawful parents. (Paras 25, 10, 11, 14)

(B) Citizenship - Definition of 'parent' under Article 14 - Court ruled that the definition of 'parent' refers to lawful parents, thus an illegitimate child cannot derive citizenship from the father. (Paras 10, 22)

(C) Child's welfare in adoption cases - While the welfare of the child is important, immigration policy must also comply with the clear requirements laid out in the Constitution for citizenship. (Paras 24, 25)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to have his adopted child, Foo Shi Wen, recognized as a citizen by operation of law based on an adoption order. The child was born to the applicant out of an unregistered marriage, which rendered the applicant not a lawful parent under the Federal Constitution.

Findings of Court:
The Court found no explicit provision under the Adoption Act to confer citizenship by operation of law to an adopted child. The child's birth status as an illegitimate child rendered him ineligible for citizenship under Article 14.

Issues: The main issues are whether the child qualifies for citizenship by operation of law, the sufficiency of the Adoption Order for citizenship qualification under Article 14, and the issuance of a mandamus against the registration department for issuing citizenship.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that since the adopted child was not born to lawful parents, the adoption order could not redefine his birth status regarding citizenship. The lack of legislative support for altering the status confirmed that the Adoption Order alone cannot grant citizenship.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the adoption and citizenship issue. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments relating to citizenship by operation of law. (Para 5 , 6 , 14)
3. arguments regarding the child's citizenship by adoption. (Para 7)
4. legal requisites for citizenship under article 14. (Para 8 , 17 , 21 , 24)
5. citizenship provisions in the federal constitution. (Para 9)
6. court's interpretation of citizenship requirements. (Para 10 , 11 , 16 , 20 , 25)
7. adoption order's implications on citizenship requirements. (Para 12 , 13 , 15)
8. court's analysis on lawful parent definition and adoption. (Para 18 , 19 , 22)
9. welfare of the child versus strict citizenship criteria. (Para 23)
This is an application for judicial review made under O 53 of the Rules of the High 1980 (RHC), seeking for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the respondent. The application also sought for a declaration that, Foo Shi Wen is a citizen by operation of law following an Adoption Order made by the High Court under the Adoption Act 1952 .

Brief facts

[1] The facts leading to this application are these. The applicant is a Malaysian Citizen. In September 2004, he started a relationship with a Thai lady (Ms Ngamta Thongsom) which cumulated in an unregistered marriage between them in Thailand on 21 July 2005. The marriage was neither registered under the governing laws of Thailand (Civil & Commercial Code of 1935, 1976 and 1990) nor in Malaysia under the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976. Thus, the marriage was not legally recognised under either the laws of both Thailand and Malaysia.

[2] A male child named Foo Shi Wen was born out of that relationship. He was born in Malaysia on 10 March 2006 as seen from his original birth certificate BR 15099 in exh FTA-2. The certificate states him as "Bukan Warganegara". He took the citizenship of his mother. He however was at all times under the care of his biological father, the applicant and his grandmother in Kuala Lumpur.

[3] The relationship between the applicant and Ms Ngamta broke down. She returned to Thailand and voluntarily relinquished her parental rights over Foo Shi Wen to the applicant. The applicant then applied and obtained an Adoption Order of the child pursuant to the Adoption Act 1952 , vide Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No S8-21-1-2009 (as shown in exh FTA-3).

[4] Thereafter, the applicant applied to the National Registration Department for a new birth certificate to be issued to Foo Shi Wen pursuant to s 25 of the Adoption Act 1952 (see exh FTA-4). A new certificate was issued to the child with his citizenship status as "Bukan Warganegara".

[5] The applicant now seeks to quash that decision of the respondent on the ground of error of law on the basis that the respondent failed to issue a birth certificate with his status as citizen by operation of law. The applicant contended that the impugned decision contradicts a pronouncement of the Kuala Lumpur High Court in another judicial review application R1-25-343- 2008. Accordingly the High Court in that application had directed that the adopted child in that case be issued with birth certificate with his citizenship following that of his adoptive parent. Therefore relying on that authority it is the applicant's case that the citizenship of Foo Shi Wen should follow his adoptive father, the applicant.

[6] Further to that, learned counsel for the applicant Cik Goh Siu Lin submitted that the citizenship of Foo Shi Wen should follow the adoptive father because by virtue of the Adoption Order he should be treated as if he was born to the applicant like his natural child. That being so, learned counsel argued that Foo Shi Wen would qualify and can be deemed to be a child born to a parent either one of whom is a citizen on Malaysia, as envisaged by art 14 of the Federal Constitution .

[7] From the facts and the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the applicant the main issues to be deliberated are these:

i. Whether the child

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