TodayisWednesday,August17,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L83882January24,1989
INREPETITIONFORHABEASCORPUSOFWILLIEYU,petitioner,
vs.
MIRIAMDEFENSORSANTIAGO,BIENVENIDOP.ALANO,JR.,MAJORPABALAN,DELEOHERNANDEZ,
BLODDYHERNANDEZ,BENNYREYESandJUNESPIRITUSANTO,respondent.
Pelaez,AdrianoandGregorioandBonifacioA.Alentajanforpetitioner.
Chavez,Hechanova&LimLawOfficescollaboratingcounselforpetitioner.
AugustoJosey.Arrezaforrespondents.

PADILLA,J.:
ThepresentcontroversyoriginatedwithapetitionforhabeascorpusfiledwiththeCourton4July1988seeking
thereleasefromdetentionofhereinpetitioner. 1AftermanifestationandmotionoftheSolicitorGeneralofhisdecision
to refrain from filing a return of the writ on behalf of the CID, respondent Commissioner thru counsel filed the return. 2
Counsel for the parties were heard in oral argument on 20 July 1988. The parties were allowed to submit marked exhibits,
and to file memoranda. 3 An internal resolution of 7 November 1988 referred the case to the Court en banc. In its 10
November 1988 resolution, denying the petition for habeas corpus, the Court disposed of the pending issues of (1)
jurisdiction of the CID over a naturalized Filipino citizen and (2) validity of warrantless arrest and detention of the same
person.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with prayer for restraining order dated 24 November 1988. 4 On 29
November 1988, the Court resolved to deny with finality the aforesaid motion for reconsideration, and further resolved to
denytheurgentmotionforissuanceofarestrainingorderdated28November1988.5

Undaunted,petitionerfiledamotionforclarificationwithprayerforrestrainingorderon5December1988.
Actingonsaidmotion,atemporaryrestrainingorderwasissuedbytheCourton7December1988. 6 Respondent
Commissioner filed a motion to lift TRO on 13 December 1988, the basis of which is a summary judgment of deportation
againstYuissuedbytheCIDBoardofCommissionerson2December1988. 7Petitioneralsofiledamotiontosetcasefor
oralargumenton8December1988.

Inthemeantime,anurgentmotionforreleasefromarbitrarydetention8wasfiledbypetitioneron13December1988.
Amemoranduminfurtheranceofsaidmotionforreleasedated14December1988wasfiledon15December1988together
withavigorousoppositiontotheliftingoftheTRO.

The lifting of the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court on 7 December 1988 is urgently sought by
respondent Commissioner who was ordered to cease and desist from immediately deporting petitioner Yu
pending the conclusion of hearings before the Board of Special Inquiry, CID. To finally dispose of the case, the
Courtwilllikewiseruleonpetitioner'smotionforclarificationwithprayerforrestrainingorderdated5December
1988,9urgentmotionforreleasefromarbitrarydetentiondated13December1988, 10thememoranduminfurtheranceof
saidmotionforreleasedated14December1988,11motiontosetcasefororalargumentdated8December1988.12

Acting on the motion to lift the temporary restraining order (issued on 7 December 1988) dated 9 December
1988, 13 and the vigorous opposition to lift restraining order dated 15 December 1988, 14 the Court resolved to give
petitionerYuanonextendibleperiodofthree(3)daysfromnoticewithinwhichtoexplainandprovewhyheshouldstillbe
consideredacitizenofthePhilippinesdespitehisacquisitionanduseofaPortuguesepassport.15

Petitionerfiledhiscompliancewiththeresolutionof15December1988on20December1988 16 followed by an
earnestrequestfortemporaryreleaseon22December1988.Respondentfiledon2January1989hercommentreiterating
herpreviousmotiontolifttemporaryrestrainingorder.Petitionerfiledareplytheretoon6January1989.

Petitioner'sowncompliancerevealsthathewasoriginallyissuedaPortuguesepassportin1971, 17 valid for five

(5) years and renewed for the same period upon presentment before the proper Portuguese consular officer. Despite his
naturalizationasaPhilippinecitizenon10February1978,on21July1981,petitionerappliedforandwasissuedPortuguese
PassportNo.35/81serialN.1517410bytheConsularSectionofthePortugueseEmbassyinTokyo.SaidConsularOffice
certifiesthathisPortuguesepassportexpiredon20July1986. 18WhilestillacitizenofthePhilippineswhohadrenounced,
upon his naturalization, "absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or
sovereignty" and pledged to "maintain true faith and allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines," 19 he declared his
nationalityasPortugueseincommercialdocumentshesigned,specifically,theCompaniesregistryofTaiShunEstateLtd.
20filedinHongkongsometimeinApril1980.

TothemindoftheCourt,theforegoingactsconsideredtogetherconstituteanexpressrenunciationofpetitioner's
Philippinecitizenshipacquiredthroughnaturalization.InBoardofImmigrationCommissionersus,GoGallano, 21
expressrenunciationwasheldtomeanarenunciationthatismadeknowndistinctlyandexplicitlyandnotlefttoinferenceor
implication. Petitioner, with full knowledge, and legal capacity, after having renounced Portuguese citizenship upon
naturalizationasaPhilippinecitizen22resumedorreacquiredhispriorstatusasaPortuguesecitizen,appliedforarenewal
of his Portuguese passport 23 and represented himself as such in official documents even after he had become a
naturalized Philippine citizen. Such resumption or reacquisition of Portuguese citizenship is grossly inconsistent with his
maintenanceofPhilippinecitizenship.

This Court issued the aforementioned TRO pending hearings with the Board of Special Inquiry, CID. However,
pleadings submitted before this Court after the issuance of said TRO have unequivocally shown that petitioner
hasexpresslyrenouncedhisPhilippinecitizenship.Thematerialfactsarenotonlyestablishedbythepleadings
theyarenotdisputedbypetitioner.ArehearingonthispointwiththeCIDwouldbeunnecessaryandsuperfluous.
Denial,ifany,ofdueprocesswasobviatedwhenpetitionerwasgivenbytheCourttheopportunitytoshowproof
ofcontinuedPhilippinecitizenship,buthehasfailed.
WhilenormallythequestionofwhetherornotapersonhasrenouncedhisPhilippinecitizenshipshouldbeheard
beforeatrialcourtoflawinadversaryproceedings,thishasbecomeunnecessaryasthisCourt,noless,uponthe
insistenceofpetitioner,hadtolookintothefactsandsatisfyitselfonwhetherornotpetitioner'sclaimtocontinued
Philippinecitizenshipismeritorious.
Philippine citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a commodity or were to be displayed when required and
suppressed when convenient. This then resolves adverse to the petitioner his motion for clarification and other
motionsmentionedinthesecondparagraph,page3ofthisDecision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's motion for release from detention is DENIED. Respondent's
motiontoliftthetemporaryrestrainingorderisGRANTED.ThisDecisionisimmediatelyexecutory.
SOORDERED.
MelencioHerrera, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento, GrioAquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ.,
concur.

SeparateOpinions

FERNAN,C.J.,dissenting
I dissent. The treatment given by the majority to the petition at bar does not meet the traditional standards of
fairness envisioned in the due process clause. Petitioner herein is being effectively deprived of his Filipino
citizenship through a summary procedure and upon pieces of documentary evidence that, to my mind, are not
sufficientlysubstantialandprobativeforthepurposeandconclusiontheywereoffered.
The observation of Mr. Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr. in his dissenting opinion that "(c)onsidering the serious
implicationsofdeFilipinization,thecorrectproceduresaccordingtolawmustbeapplied,"isappropriateasithas
been held that "(i)f, however, in a deportation proceeding, the alleged alien claims citizenship and supports the
claim by substantial evidence, he is entitled to have his status finally determined by a judicial, as distinguished
fromanexecutive,tribunal"(3AmJur2d949citingUnitedStatesexrel.Bilokumskyv.Tod,263US149,68Led

221,44SCt54NgFungHov.White,259US276,66Led938,42SCt492).Bythis,itmeansafullblowntrial
under the more rigid rules of evidence prescribed in court proceedings. And certainly, the review powers being
exercisedbythisCourtinthiscasefallshortofthisrequirement.Saidpowersofreviewcannotbeasubstitutefor
thedemandsofdueprocess,particularlyinthelightofthewellrecognizedprinciplethatthisCourtisnotatrierof
facts.
Asadvertedtoearlier,Ifindtheevidenceonrecordrelieduponbythemajoritytobeinadequatetosupportthe
conclusion that petitioner has renounced his Filipino citizenship, Renunciation must be shown by clear and
expressevidenceandnotlefttoinferenceorimplication.
GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.,dissenting
IdisagreewiththesummaryprocedureemployedinthiscasetodivestaFilipinoofhiscitizenship.
Judging from the records available to us, it appears that Mr. Willie Yu is far from being the desirable kind of
Filipino we would encourage to stay with us. But precisely for this reason, I believe that a petition for
denaturalizationshouldhavebeenfiledandprosecutedinthepropertrialcourtinsteadoftheshortcutmethods
we are sustaining in the majority opinion. I must emphasize that the Bill of Rights, its due process clause, and
otherrestrictionsontheuntrammeledexerciseofgovernmentpowerfindtheirfullestexpressionwheninvokedby
nonconforming,rebellious,orundesirablecharacters.
ConsideringtheseriousimplicationsofdeFilipinization,thecorrectproceduresaccordingtolawmustbeapplied.
If Mr. Yu is no longer a Filipino, by all means this Court should not stand in the way of the respondent
Commissioner's efforts to deport him. But where a person pleads with all his might that he has never formally
renouncedhiscitizenshipandthathemightdieifthrownoutofthecountry,hedeservesattheveryleastafull
trialwherethereasonbehindhisactionsmaybeexploredandallthefactsfullyascertained.Thedetermination
thataperson(notnecessarilyMr.Yu)hasceasedtobeaFilipinoissomomentousandfarreachingthatitshould
notbelefttosummaryproceedings.
Ifinditadangerousprecedentifadministrativeofficialonsuchinformalevidenceasthatpresentedinthiscase
areallowedtorulethataFilipinohas"renounced"hiscitizenshipandhas,therefore,becomestatelessoracitizen
ofanothercountry(assumingthatothercountrydoesnotrejecthimbecauseheformallyrenouncedcitizenship
thereinwhenhebecameaFilipino)andtoimmediatelythrowhimoutofthePhilippines.
I am not prepared to rule that the mere use of a foreign passport is ipsofacto express renunciation of Filipino
citizenship. A Filipino may get a foreign passport for convenience, employment, or avoidance of discriminatory
visarequirementsbutheremainsatheartaFilipino.OrhemaydosobecausehewantstogiveuphisPhilippine
citizenship.Whateverthereason,itmustbeascertainedinacourtoflawwhereafulltrialisconductedinsteadof
anadministrativedeterminationofamostsummarynature.
Thereareallegedlyhighgovernmentofficialswhohaveappliedforandbeengivenaliencertificatesofregistration
byourCommissiononImmigrationandDeportationorwhohaveinthepast,performedactsevenmoreindicative
of "express renunciation" than the mere use of a passport or the signing of a commercial document where a
differentcitizenshiphasbeentypedorentered.ArewereadynowtoauthorizetherespondentCommissionerto
deFilipinization them? Can they be immediately deported for lack of lawful documents to stay here as resident
aliens?Canasummaryadministrativedeterminationoverridethevoiceofhundredsofthousandsorevenmillions
ofvoterswhoputtheminpublicoffice?ItislikewisenotthefunctionofthisCourttobeatrieroffactsandtoarrive
atconclusionsinthefirstinstanceincitizenshipcases.
The moral character of Mr. Yu is beside the point. Like any other Filipino being denaturalized or otherwise
deprived of citizenship, he deserves his full day in court. I . therefore, regretfully dissent on grounds of due
process.
CRUZ,J.,concurring
IconcurintheresultbecauseIbelievethepetitionerhasfailedtoovercomethepresumptionthathehasforfeited
hisstatusasanaturalizedFilipinobyhisobtentionofaPortuguesepassport.Passportsaregenerallyissuedbya
stateonlytoitsnationals.Thepetitionerhasnotshownthathecomesundertheexceptionandwasgrantedthe
PortuguesepassportdespitehisPhilippinecitizenship.
Regretfully,IcannotagreewiththefindingthatthepetitionerhasexpresslyrenouncedhisPhilippinecitizenship.
Theevidenceonthispointisinmyviewrathermeager.Expressrenunciationofcitizenshipasamodeoflosing
citizenshipunderCom.ActNo.63isanunequivocalanddeliberateactwithfullawarenessofitssignificanceand
consequences.Idonotthinkthe"commercialdocumentshesigned"suggestsuchcategoricaldisclaimer.
CORTES,J.,dissenting

IagreewiththemajorityintheviewthataclaimofFilipinocitizenshipindeportationproceedingsdoesnot ipso
factodeprivetheCommissiononImmigrationandDeportation(CID)ofjurisdictionoveracase,itsfindingsbeing
subjecttojudicialreview.
However,Iamunabletogoalongwiththeconclusionthatinthiscasethelossofpetitioner'sFilipinocitizenship
has been established. The evidence on record, consisting of the photocopy of a memorandum from the
PortugueseConsularOfficethatpetitionerappliedforandwasissuedaPortuguesepassportin1981andthatit
expiredin1986andphotocopiesofcommercialpapersmanifestingpetitioner'snationalityasPortuguese,without
authenticationbytheappropriatePhilippineConsul,tomymind,donotconstitutesubstantialevidencethatunder
thelawpetitionerhaslosthisFilipinocitizenshipbyexpressrenunciation.
IfindtheCIDsevidenceinadequatetocreateevenaprimafaciecaseofsuchrenunciation.

SeparateOpinions
FERNAN,C.J.,dissenting
Idissent.Thetreatmentgivenbythemajoritytothepetitionatbardoesnotmeetthetraditionalstandardsof
fairnessenvisionedinthedueprocessclause.PetitionerhereinisbeingeffectivelydeprivedofhisFilipino
citizenshipthroughasummaryprocedureanduponpiecesofdocumentaryevidencethat,tomymind,arenot
sufficientlysubstantialandprobativeforthepurposeandconclusiontheywereoffered.
TheobservationofMr.JusticeHugoE.Gutierrez,Jr.inhisdissentingopinionthat"(c)onsideringtheserious
implicationsofdeFilipinization,thecorrectproceduresaccordingtolawmustbeapplied,"isappropriateasithas
beenheldthat"(i)f,however,inadeportationproceeding,theallegedalienclaimscitizenshipandsupportsthe
claimbysubstantialevidence,heisentitledtohavehisstatusfinallydeterminedbyajudicial,asdistinguished
fromanexecutive,tribunal"(3AmJur2d949citingUnitedStatesexrel.Bilokumskyv.Tod,263US149,68Led
221,44SCt54NgFungHov.White,259US276,66Led938,42SCt492).Bythis,itmeansafullblowntrial
underthemorerigidrulesofevidenceprescribedincourtproceedings.Andcertainly,thereviewpowersbeing
exercisedbythisCourtinthiscasefallshortofthisrequirement.Saidpowersofreviewcannotbeasubstitutefor
thedemandsofdueprocess,particularlyinthelightofthewellrecognizedprinciplethatthisCourtisnotatrierof
facts.
Asadvertedtoearlier,Ifindtheevidenceonrecordrelieduponbythemajoritytobeinadequatetosupportthe
conclusionthatpetitionerhasrenouncedhisFilipinocitizenship,Renunciationmustbeshownbyclearand
expressevidenceandnotlefttoinferenceorimplication.
GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.,dissenting
IdisagreewiththesummaryprocedureemployedinthiscasetodivestaFilipinoofhiscitizenship.
Judgingfromtherecordsavailabletous,itappearsthatMr.WillieYuisfarfrombeingthedesirablekindof
Filipinowewouldencouragetostaywithus.Butpreciselyforthisreason,Ibelievethatapetitionfor
denaturalizationshouldhavebeenfiledandprosecutedinthepropertrialcourtinsteadoftheshortcutmethods
wearesustaininginthemajorityopinion.ImustemphasizethattheBillofRights,itsdueprocessclause,and
otherrestrictionsontheuntrammeledexerciseofgovernmentpowerfindtheirfullestexpressionwheninvokedby
nonconforming,rebellious,orundesirablecharacters.
ConsideringtheseriousimplicationsofdeFilipinization,thecorrectproceduresaccordingtolawmustbeapplied.
IfMr.YuisnolongeraFilipino,byallmeansthisCourtshouldnotstandinthewayoftherespondent
Commissioner'seffortstodeporthim.Butwhereapersonpleadswithallhismightthathehasneverformally
renouncedhiscitizenshipandthathemightdieifthrowoutofthecountry,hedeservesattheveryleastafulltrial
wherethereasonbehindhisactionsmaybeexploredandallthefactsfullyascertained.Thedeterminationthata
person(notnecessarilyMr.Yu)hasceasedtobeaFilipinoissomomentousandfarreachingthatitshouldnot
belefttosummaryproceedings.
Ifinditadangerousprecedentifadministrativeofficialonsuchinformalevidenceasthatpresentedinthiscase
areallowedtorulethataFilipinohas"renounced"hiscitizenshipandhas,therefore,becomestatelessoracitizen
ofanothercountry(assumingthatothercountrydoesnotrejecthimbecauseheformallyrenouncedcitizenship
thereinwhenhebecameaFilipino)andtoimmediatelythrowhimoutofthePhilippines.
IamnotpreparedtorulethatthemereuseofaforeignpassportisipsofactoexpressrenunciationofFilipino
citizenship.AFilipinomaygetaforeignpassportforconvenience,employment,oravoidanceofdiscriminatory
visarequirementsbutheremainsatheartaFilipino.OrhemaydosobecausehewantstogiveuphisPhilippine

citizenship.Whateverthereason,itmustbeascertainedinacourtoflawwhereafulltrialisconductedinsteadof
anadministrativedeterminationofamostsummarynature.
Thereareallegedlyhighgovernmentofficialswhohaveappliedforandbeengivenaliencertificatesofregistration
byourCommissiononImmigrationandDeportationorwhohaveinthepast,performedactsevenmoreindicative
of"expressrenunciation"thanthemereuseofapassportorthesigningofacommercialdocumentwherea
differentcitizenshiphasbeentypedorentered.ArewereadynowtoauthorizetherespondentCommissionerto
deFilipinizationthem?Cantheybeimmediatelydeportedforlackoflawfuldocumentstostayhereasresident
aliens?Canasummaryadministrativedeterminationoverridethevoiceofhundredsofthousandsorevenmillions
ofvoterswhoputtheminpublicoffice?ItislikewisenotthefunctionofthisCourttobeatrieroffactsandtoarrive
atconclusionsinthefirstinstanceincitizenshipcases.
ThemoralcharacterofMr.Yuisbesidethepoint.LikeanyotherFilipinobeingdenaturalizedorotherwise
deprivedofcitizenship,hedeserveshisfulldayincourt.I.therefore,regretfullydissentongroundsofdue
process.
CRUZ,J.,concurring
IconcurintheresultbecauseIbelievethepetitionerhasfailedtoovercomethepresumptionthathehasforfeited
hisstatusasanaturalizedFilipinobyhisobtentionofaPortuguesepassport.Passportsaregenerallyissuedbya
stateonlytoitsnationals.Thepetitionerhasnotshownthathecomesundertheexceptionandwasgrantedthe
PortuguesepassportdespitehisPhilippinecitizenship.
Regretfully,IcannotagreewiththefindingthatthepetitionerhasexpresslyrenouncedhisPhilippinecitizenship.
Theevidenceonthispointisinmyviewrathermeager.Expressrenunciationofcitizenshipasamodeoflosing
citizenshipunderCom.ActNo.63isanunequivocalanddeliberateactwithfullawarenessofitssignificanceand
consequences.Idonotthinkthe"commercialdocumentshesigned"suggestsuchcategoricaldisclaimer.
CORTES,J.,dissenting
IagreewiththemajorityintheviewthataclaimofFilipinocitizenshipindeportationproceedingsdoesnotipso
factodeprivetheCommissiononImmigrationandDeportation(CID)ofjurisdictionoveracase,itsfindingsbeing
subjecttojudicialreview.
However,Iamunabletogoalongwiththeconclusionthatinthiscasethelossofpetitioner'sFilipinocitizenship
hasbeenestablished.Theevidenceonrecord,consistingofthephotocopyofamemorandumfromthe
PortugueseConsularOfficethatpetitionerappliedforandwasissuedaPortuguesepassportin1981andthatit
expiredin1986andphotocopiesofcommercialpapersmanifestingpetitioner'snationalityasPortuguese,without
authenticationbytheappropriatePhilippineConsul,tomymind,donotconstitutesubstantialevidencethatunder
thelawpetitionerhaslosthisFilipinocitizenshipbyexpressrenunciation.
IfindtheCIDsevidenceinadequatetocreateevenaprimafaciecaseofsuchrenunciation.
Footnotes
1Petitioner,Rolloat2.
2Rolloat24&29.
3Resolutionof20July1988,Rolloat47.
4Rolloat111.
5Rolloat127.
6Rolloat136.
7Rolloat141.
8Rolloat153.
9Rolloat136.
10Rolloat153.
11Rolloat175.
12Rolloat166.

13Rolloat144.
14Rolloat173.
15Resolutionof15December1988.Rolloat171.
16Rolloat187.
17Compliance,par.2.p.5.
18Rolloat151.
19Petitioner'soathofallegianceasaPhilippinecitizen.Exh.A,Compliance.Rolloat200.
20Rolloat33.
2125SCRA890.
22InOhHekHowvs.Republic,29SCRA94,L27429.August27,1969,Mr.ChiefJustice
ConcepcionspeakingfortheCourt,said:"Section12ofCommonwealthActNo.473provides,
however,thatbeforethenaturalizationcertiorariisissued,thepetitionershall'solemnlyswearinter
alia,thatherenounces'absolutelyandforeverallallegianceandfidelitytoanyforeignprince,
potentate'andparticularlytothestateofwhichheisa'subjectorcitizen.Theobviouspurposeofthis
requirementistodivesthimofhisformernationality,beforeacquiringPhilippinecitizenship,because,
otherwisehewouldhavetwonationalitiesandoweallegiancetotwo(2)distinctsovereignties,which
ourlawsdonotpermit,exceptthatpursuanttoRepublicActNo.2639,theacquisitionofcitizenship
byanaturalbornFilipinocitizenfromoneoftheIberianandanyfriendlydemocraticIberoAmerican
countriesshallnotproducelossorforfeitureofhisPhilippinecitizenshipifthelawofthatcountry
grantsthesameprivilegetoitscitizensandsuchhadbeenagreeduponbytreatybetweenthe
Philippinesandtheforeigncountryfromwhichcitizenshipisacquired."
23Apassportisdefinedasanofficialdocumentofidentityandnationalityissuedtoaperson
intendingtotravelorsojourninforeigncountries(PhilippineLegalEncyclopedia,1986Ed.,p.699).
ConformablywiththeuniversalconceptofapassportthePhilippineForeignServiceCode,Section
136,providesthataPhilippinepassportisadocumentcertifyingtothePhilippinecitizenshipofthe
holderinusefortravelpurposes.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation