Photo for illustration purposes only.
KOTA KINABALU: The High Court here on Wednesday fixed June 11 for hearing on submissions clarification for judicial review by a businessman against the director of the National Registration Department (NRD) questioning his son’s right under Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution that says that the religion of a person under the age of 18 shall be decided by his parent or guardian as the department allegedly refused to issue the infant’s birth certificate.
Justice Ismail Brahim set the date for the clarification after hearing the judicial review by Ong Seng Teng, who was represented by counsel Marcel Jude Joseph.
In Wednesday’s proceedings, Marcel informed the court that he had re-filed his submission while senior federal counsel Mohd Hafizi Abd Halim requested ample time to reply to the applicant’s submission.
In the applicant’s submission, Marcel pointed out points on the importance of birth registration which led to entitlement of a person to several rights in the country.
Marcel explained that non-registration of birth may cause a child to be denied the rights to education, health, family environment, juvenile justice, entitlement to state benefits and participation in society.
The counsel also explained that a child, whose birth was not registered, may also be denied rights to a name and nationality and also right to be exempted from certain laws.
Marcel stated that every birth in Malaysia must be registered with NRD and the citizenship status is based on the parents’ nationality at birth.
On August 25, 2020 the court allowed the applicant’s ex-parte application and granted the said leave on the applicant to have hearing proper for the judicial review on this matter.
On February 12, 2020 the applicant filed the leave naming director of NRD as sole respondent.
The 36-year-old applicant sought from court:
(a) an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the respondent and/or the officers of the respondent dated November 26, 2019 to allegedly refuse the issuance of a birth certificate pursuant to the provisions of the Births and Deaths Registration Rules 1958 (Rule 16) to the son of the applicant born on November 22, 2019.
(b) an order of mandamus to the respondent and/or his officers to issue a birth certificate pursuant to the provisions of the Births and Deaths Registration Rules 1958 (Rule 16) to the son of the applicant born on the said date.
(c) a declaration that the refusal of the respondent and/or his officers under the provisions of the Births and Deaths Registration Rules 1958 (Rule 16) to the son of the applicant born on the said date 22nd was allegedly unlawful, ultra vires, null and void.
(d) costs and any other remedy deemed fit by this court.
The applicant also stated in his application that pursuant to Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, it states that every person has the right to profess and to practice his or her religion.
Ong, who is a Buddhist, further stated that pursuant to Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, it states that the religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian.
The applicant stated that when he wanted to have the birth certificate for his child after applying for it on November 26, 2019, he claimed that he was unlawfully refused by the respondent and/or his officers whose action was allegedly unlawful, null and void.