TO further enlighten the public on who Graham Chua Lim is, and how his presence in the FESSAP as secretary general compromises the organization’s credibility and welfare, the writer presents below various snippets from legal documents dealing with Lim’s case. Read on.
“A decision dated March 3, 2016 from the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals against Graham C. Lim:
Eventually, Graham was ascertained by the Bureau of Immigration (BI) on May 29, 2005 to be a Taiwanese citizen and was ordered expelled from the country:
In view of the foregoing findings, the BOC of this Bureau finds the respondent Graham Chua Lim, Taiwanese, in violation of C.A. No. 613, Sections 45 (e) and 52 and maintains an unlawful presence in the Philippines under Act No. 2711, Section 69 and hereby orders the following:
Subject to the submission of appropriate clearances, deportation of Graham Chua Lim, Taiwanese, under C.A. 613, Sections 45 (e) and 52 in relation to Act. No. 2711, Section 69; Issuance of a warrant for the deportation of Graham Chua Lim under C.A. No. 613, Sections 37 (a) and 38; Inclusion of the name of Graham Chua Lim in the Immigration Blacklist; and Exclusion from re-entry into the Philippines and Graham Chua Lim under C.A. No. 613Section 29 (a) (15).
Graham’s motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied. He then appealed to the Office of the President but it was also denied inclusive of his Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 10, 2005.
Hence, Graham elevated his case to the Court of Appeals by way of Petition for Review docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 92450. On February 01, 2007, the court affirmed the findings of the BI and denied the petition for lack of merit.
Graham elevated his case to the Supreme Court by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 177850, but it was summarily dismissed through a Resolution dated July 25, 2007, and it attained finality per the Resolution dated November 14, 2007.
On December 7, 2009, Graham was arrested by virtue of a warrant for deportation and Commitment Order issued by the BI.
On January 13, 2010, Graham filed a Petition for Release on Bail which invoked statelessness among other grounds there of. He claimed that his deportation had been rendered impossible because no country/aircraft/ship was willing to accept him. Graham cited an alleged communication between Nenita V. Mendoza and Mr. Wang Chia-Chi, Senior Advisor of Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, who allegedly declared that ‘Taiwan is not in a position to accept Mr. Graham Chua Lim on ground that he is not a Taiwanese citizen.’
The BI, through Commissioner Marcelino Libanan, denied the Petition for Bail on February 9, 2010.
Graham later filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus on February 22, 2010 with the RTC Manila. Later, the RTC denied it for lack of jurisdiction to decide whether or not Graham may be released from BI custody.
Subsequently, Graham files a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court but it was later withdrawn,
On May 2010, Graham filed a Second Petition for Release on Bail dated May 18, 2010 upon the supposition that the Bureau might grant his temporary liberty if he would again ‘appeal to its magnanimity and humanitarian heart.’ In what appeared to be legal somersault, Commissioner Marcelino Libanan, who at first denied the first Petition for Bail, granted it in an order dated June 17, 2010 conditioned on these matters: 1) he shall not engage in any gainful activity such as the exercise of any profession, participating in any sport/athletic or business activity, including political or partisan and non-partisan undertakings; 2) posting of bond in the amount of P100,000.00; 3) compliance with the conditions stated in the Deed of Undertaking; 4) for Graham to report to the Intelligence Division every 1st ad 3rd Monday of the month.
On July 12, 2010, Graham filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration from the order issued on June 17, 2010 insofar as the aspect of gainful activity and the prohibition on foreign travel. He maintained that the conditions accompanying his bail were violative of his rights as a stateless person under the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
Graham’s formal plea was acceptable to the BI per the Order of September 22, 2010 which agreed with Graham’s asseveration as a stateless person. Hence, Graham was allowed to travel abroad provided he secured identity papers and/or travel documents from the DFA.
In an effort to determine Graham’s citizenship and to verify whether he is indeed stateless, the DFA inquired with the People’s Republic of China (PROC) and Republic of China (ROC) authorities. As retort, the PROC Embassy reacted via Note Vernal No. (12) PG-139 dated March 23, 2012:
According to the Nationality Law of People’s Republic of China, the People’s Republic of China does not recognize dual nationality for any Chinese national. Any Chinese national who has settled abroad and who has been naturalized as a foreign national of his own free will shall automatically lose Chinese nationality. If Mr. GRAHAM CHUA LIM has legally acquired any foreign nationality, in accordance with the abovementioned articles, he doesn’t have Chinese nationality.
On the other hand, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (TECO) in the Philippines sent R.N.C. No. 101-016 dated April 12, 2012 to Amadeo R. Perez, Jr., Chairman of the Manila Economic and Cultural Office (MECO), stating that upon checking their records they were able to obtain information of Graham: ‘…is a holder of Republic of China (Taiwan) Passport No. 303032552 without a Personal ID number which means he is an R.O.C. national without (a) registered permanent residence.”
(To be continued)