Citizenship by operation of law is contingent on both parental right and the status of legitimacy, affecting the child's citizenship claims.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Article 14(1)(b) and Section 1(e) of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution concerning citizenship by operation of law. Facts of the Case: The 2nd appellant, born in Malaysia, is claimed to be the child of the 1st appellant, whose biological mother is a Thai citizen. The case hinges on the citizenship status attributed to the 2nd appellant at birth.

Findings of Court:
The High Court acknowledged non-justiciability regarding citizenship claims under Part III of the Constitution and affirmed the dismissal of the application for judicial review.

Issues: The Court addressed whether the appellants met the criteria for citizenship as delineated in Article 14(1)(b) and the justiciability of the matter under relevant constitutional provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that citizenship based on parental lineage is confounded by the illegitimate status of the 2nd appellant, reinforcing a determination that malaises the legality of the claim.

Result: Consequently, the appellate court confirms the High Court's ruling and dismisses the appeal.

Table of Content
1. summary of the factual background surrounding the citizenship claim. (Para 1)
2. facts about the 2nd appellant's parentage. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. issues raised in the appeal. (Para 8)

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur dated 23 April 2015, which dismissed the appellants' application for judicial review. Leave to apply for judicial review was allowed on 14 July 2014 limited to the following prayers:

(i) A declaration that the 2nd appellant is a citizen of Malaysia by operation of law under s 1(e) of the Second Schedule, Part II, and art 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution , and

(ii) Order of mandamus to be issued to the 1st respondent to issue MyKid or Certificate of Citizenship to recognise the 2nd appellant as a Malaysian citizen by operation of law under art 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution .

Background Facts

[2] The salient facts of this case may be summarised from the learned High Court Judge's grounds of judgment. The 2nd appellant was born on 6 October 2010 in Hospital Tung Shin, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The 2nd appellant's biological mother named Rai-Putta Thippawan ("Rai Putta") is a citizen of Thailand. (Exhibit A of Enclosure 10).

[3] The 1st appellant claims to be the biological father of the 2nd appellant.

[4] The 1st appellant and Rai Putta were never married and/or had not registered their marriage at the 1st respondent's office.

[5] The 1st appellant claimed that the 1st appellant and Rai Putta were separated in April 2011 when Rai Putta returned to Thailand for good. Since then the 2nd appellant had been under the care of the 1st appellant's mother.

[6] On 9 April 2011, the 1st appellant had for the first time applied for the 2nd appellant's citizenship under art 15A of the Federal Constitution . The application was dismissed by the Secretary General on 11 October 2014.

[7] The 1st appellant then filed encl 1 and leave was granted limited to prayer (iii) of encl 1.

The Issues Before the High Court

[8] The issues raised for determination before the High Court are as follows:

1. Whether the appellants have fulfilled the requirements to obtain citizenship by operation of law as stipulated by art 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution ?

2. Whether the issue in this judicial review application is non- justiciable under Part III, Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution ?

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 2624

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYALIM JEN HSIAN & ANOR – AppellantVersusKETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA & ORS – Respondent[Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)391-12-2015]

Citizenship by operation of law is contingent on both parental right and the status of legitimacy, affecting the child's citizenship claims.

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LIM JEN HSIAN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)391-12-2015]