Citation: [2026]4 MLRA 82
Court: Court of Appeal, Putrajaya
Judges: Azizah Nawawi CJSS, Mohd Nazlan Ghazali, and Azhahari Kamal Ramli JJCA
Date of Judgment: 6 March 2026
1. Brief Background Facts
Tan Jun Yan (the plaintiff) was born on 20 October 2000 in Puchong, Selangor. Initially, his adoptive father, GC Tan, falsely declared himself and his wife, KF Wong, as the biological parents, leading to a birth certificate stating the plaintiff was a Malaysian citizen. In 2012, during an identity card application, a National Registration Department (JPN) investigation revealed the deception; the adoptive parents admitted the plaintiff was not their biological child and had been obtained from a temple.
The plaintiff’s birth certificate was amended to “Non-citizen” because the citizenship and marital status of his biological parents were unknown. Although the plaintiff was legally adopted by GC Tan and KF Wong in 2014 under the Adoption Act 1952, JPN maintained his non-citizen status. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was a citizen by operation of law under Article 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution.
The High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim under the “found exposed” presumption (Section 19B) but allowed the claim under the “statelessness” provision (Section 1(e)), declaring him a citizen. Both parties appealed: the defendants against the citizenship declaration, and the plaintiff against the dismissal of the Section 19B claim.
2. Legal Issues
The Court of Appeal considered:
- Presumption of Abandonment (Section 19B): Whether the plaintiff could be presumed a citizen as a newborn “found exposed”.
- Definition of “Parents”: Whether the term “parents” in Section 1(a) of the Second Schedule includes adoptive parents.
- Proof of Statelessness (Section 1(e)): Whether a person born in Malaysia is automatically a citizen if they cannot prove their biological lineage (jus sanguinis).
- Effect of Section 2(3): Whether the failure to acquire foreign citizenship within one year of birth proves statelessness.
3. Court’s Holding and Reasoning
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the defendants’ appeal and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s declaration of citizenship.
A. Failure to Invoke the Section 19B Presumption
The Court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the prerequisite of being “found exposed”. There were significant evidentiary gaps regarding the circumstances between his birth at a clinic and his appearance at a temple. Without clear proof of abandonment at the “place of finding,” the presumption that he was born to a mother permanently resident there could not be invoked.
B. Adoptive Parents and Citizenship
The Court ruled that “parents” under Section 1(a) refers strictly to biological parents at the time of birth. The Adoption Act 1952 is subsidiary legislation and cannot be used to bypass constitutional requirements or confer citizenship rights not expressly provided for in the Federal Constitution.
C. Requirement of Jus Sanguinis (Lineage)
The Court reaffirmed that Article 14(1)(b) embodies dual requirements: jus soli (place of birth) and jus sanguinis(bloodline). To qualify as a citizen under Section 1(e) on the basis of not being born a citizen of any other country, the onus is on the applicant to prove their biological lineage. Statelessness must be established by positive evidence and cannot be inferred through deduction or speculation. Since the plaintiff provided no evidence regarding his biological parents, it was impossible to determine if he was truly stateless.
D. Interpretation of Section 2(3)
The Court clarified that Section 2(3) does not automatically confer citizenship if no foreign citizenship is acquired within a year. Instead, it functions as a timing presumption: if a person does acquire foreign citizenship within a year, it is deemed to have existed at the time of birth.
4. Conclusion
The Court concluded that constitutional citizenship by operation of law must be established at the time of birth. Until the plaintiff can produce evidence of his biological lineage to satisfy the requirement of jus sanguinis, he cannot be recognized as a Malaysian citizen. The High Court’s order was set aside with no order as to costs.
Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified Advocate & Solicitor for your specific legal needs.
