Tan Jun Yan v Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara & Ors

Appellant(s):

• Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara
• Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia
• Kerajaan Malaysia

Respondent(s): Tan Jun Yan

• YAA Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji Nawawi
• YA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali
• YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli

• The plaintiff was born in Malaysia and initially issued a birth certificate stating Malaysian citizenship based on a false declaration by the adoptive parents that they were the biological parents.
• Following an investigation during a MyKad application, the adoptive parents admitted the plaintiff was found abandoned at a temple, leading the first defendant to reclassify the plaintiff’s status as a non-citizen.
• The plaintiff, having been legally adopted in 2014, sought a declaration of citizenship by operation of law under Article 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution, relying on the "foundling" presumption and the provision regarding statelessness.

• Whether the plaintiff satisfied the "found exposed" requirement under Section 19B of the Second Schedule to invoke the presumption that the mother was a permanent resident at the time of birth.
• Whether the term "parents" in Section 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule includes adoptive parents by virtue of the Adoption Act 1952 for the purpose of conferring citizenship.
• Whether Section 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule requires an applicant to prove biological lineage (*jus sanguinis*) to establish that they were not born a citizen of any other country.

• The Court held that the Section 19B presumption was inapplicable because the plaintiff failed to provide a coherent chain of evidence proving abandonment, leaving material gaps regarding the circumstances between the birth and the finding at the temple.
• The Court affirmed that "parents" under the Federal Constitution refers strictly to biological parents, and the Adoption Act 1952, as subsidiary legislation, cannot be used to retrospectively qualify a person for citizenship by operation of law.
• The Court allowed the defendants' appeal, ruling that Section 1(e) requires proof of both *jus soli* and *jus sanguinis*; the burden lies on the applicant to prove lineage to establish statelessness, and mere assertion of having no foreign citizenship is insufficient.