EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 83882, January 24, 1989 ]
IN RE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF WILLIE YU, WILLIE YU, PETITIONER, VS. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, BIENVENIDO P. ALANO, JR., MAJOR PABALAN, DELEO HERNANDEZ, BLODDY HERNANDEZ, BENNY REYES AND JUN ESPIRITU SANTO, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
The present controversy originated with a petition for habeas corpus filed with the Court on 4 July 1988 seeking the release from detention of herein petitioner.[1] After manifestation and motion of the Solicitor General of his
decision 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 deny the urgent motion for issuance of a restraining order dated 28 November 1988.[5]
Undaunted, petitioner filed a motion for clarification with prayer for restraining order on 5 December 1988.
Acting on said motion, a temporary restraining order was issued by the Court on 7 December 1988.[6] Respondent Commissioner filed a motion to lift TRO on 13 December 1988, the basis of which is a summary judgment of deportation against Yu issued by the CID Board of Commissioners on 2 December 1988.[7] Petitioner also filed a motion to set case for oral argument on 8 December 1988.
In the meantime, an urgent motion for release from arbitrary detention[8] was filed by petitioner on 13 December 1988. A memorandum in furtherance of said motion for release dated 14 December 1988 was filed on 15 December 1988 together with a vigorous opposition to the lifting of the TRO.
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 Court will likewise rule on petitioner's motion for clarification with prayer for restraining order dated 5 December 1988[9], urgent motion for release from arbitrary detention dated 13 December 1988[10], the memorandum in furtherance of said motion for release dated 14 December 1988[11], motion to set case for oral argument dated 8 December 1988[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 resolve to give petitioner Yu a non-extendible period of three (3)days from notice within which to explain and prove why he should still be considered a citizen of the Philippines despite his acquisition and use of a Portuguese passport.[15]
Petitioner filed his compliance with the resolution of 15 December 1988 on 20 December 1988[16] followed by an earnest request for temporary release on 22 December 1988. Respondent filed on 2 January 1989 her comment reiterating her previous motion to lift temporary restraining order. Petitioner filed a reply thereto on 6 January1989.
Petitioner's own compliance reveals that he was originally issued a Portuguese passport in 1971,[17] valid for five (5) years and renewed for the same period upon presentment before the proper Portuguese consular officer. Despite his naturalization as a Philippine citizen on 10 February 1978, on 21 July 1981, petitioner applied for and was issued Portuguese Passport No. 35/81 series N. 1517410 by the Consular Section of the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. Said Consular Office certifies that his Portuguese passport expired on 20 July 1986.[18] While still a citizen of the Philippines who had renounced, 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 nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed, specifically, the Companies Registry of Tai Shun Estate Ltd.[20] filed in Hongkong sometime in April 1980.
To the mind of the Court, the foregoing acts considered together constitute an express renunciation of petitioner's Philippine citizenship acquired through naturalization. In Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Gallano[21], express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or implication. Petitioner, with full knowledge, and legal capacity, after having renounced Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization as a Philippine citizen[22] resumed or reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese citizen, applied for a renewal 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 maintenance of Philippine citizenship.
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 has expressly renounced his Philippine citizenship. The material facts are not only established by the pleadings - they are not disputed by petitioner. A rehearing on this point with the CID would be unnecessary and superfluous. Denial, if any, of due process was obviated when petitioner was given by the Court the opportunity to show proof of continued Philippine citizenship, but he has failed.
While normally the question of whether or not a person has renounced his Philippine citizenship should be heard before a trial court of law in adversary proceedings, this has become unnecessary as this Court, no less, upon the insistence of petitioner, had to look into the facts and satisfy itself on whether or not petitioner's claim to continued Philippine citizenship is meritorious.
Philippine citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a commodity or ware to be displayed when required and suppressed when convenient. This then resolves adversely to the petitioner his motion for clarification and other motions mentioned in the second paragraph, page 3 of this Decision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's motion for release from detention is DENIED. Respondent's motion to lift the temporary restraining order is GRANTED. This Decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Fernan, C.J., and Gutierrez, Jr., J., see dissenting opinion.
Narvasa, J., in the result.
Cruz, and Cortes, JJ., see separate opinion.
[1] Petition, Rollo at 2
[2] Rollo at 24 & 29
[3] Resolution of 20 July 1988, Rollo at 47
[4] Rollo at 111
[5] Rollo at 127
[6] Rollo at 136
[7] Rollo at 141
[8] Rollo at 153
[9] Rollo at 136
[10] Rollo at 153
[11] Rollo at 175
[12] Rollo at 166
[13] Rollo at 144
[14] Rollo at 173
[15] Resolution of 15 December 1988, Rollo at 171
[16] Rollo at 187
[17] Compliance, par. 2, p. 5.
[18] Rollo at 151
[19] Petitioner's oath of allegiance as a Philippine citizen, Exh. A., Compliance. Rollo at 200
[20] Rollo at 33
[21] 25 SCRA 890
[22] In Oh Hek How vs. Republic, 29 SCRA 94, L-27429, August 27, 1969, Mr. Chief Justice Concepcion speaking for the Court, said: "Section 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 Provides, however, that before the naturalization certificate is issued, the petitioner shall 'solemnly swear,' inter alia, that he renounces 'absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate' and particularly to the state of which' he is 'a subject or citizen.' The obvious purpose of this requirement is to divest him of his former nationality, before acquiring Philippine Citizenship, because, otherwise, he would have two nationalities and owe allegiance to two (2) distinct sovereignties, which our laws do not permit, except that, pursuant to Republic Act No. 2639,' the acquisition of citizenship by a natural-born Filipino Citizen from one of the Iberian and any friendly democratic Ibero-American countries shall not produce loss or forfeiture of his Philippine citizenship, if the law of that country grants the same privilege to its citizens and such had been agreed upon by treaty between the Philippines and the foreign country from which citizenship is acquired."
[23] A passport is defined as an official document of identity and nationality issued to a person intending to travel or sojourn in foreign countries (Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, 1986 Ed., p. 699). Conformably with the universal concept of a passport, the Philippine Foreign Service Code, Section 136, provides that a Philippine passport is a document certifying to the Philippine citizenship of the holder in use for travel purposes.
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 deny the urgent motion for issuance of a restraining order dated 28 November 1988.[5]
Undaunted, petitioner filed a motion for clarification with prayer for restraining order on 5 December 1988.
Acting on said motion, a temporary restraining order was issued by the Court on 7 December 1988.[6] Respondent Commissioner filed a motion to lift TRO on 13 December 1988, the basis of which is a summary judgment of deportation against Yu issued by the CID Board of Commissioners on 2 December 1988.[7] Petitioner also filed a motion to set case for oral argument on 8 December 1988.
In the meantime, an urgent motion for release from arbitrary detention[8] was filed by petitioner on 13 December 1988. A memorandum in furtherance of said motion for release dated 14 December 1988 was filed on 15 December 1988 together with a vigorous opposition to the lifting of the TRO.
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 Court will likewise rule on petitioner's motion for clarification with prayer for restraining order dated 5 December 1988[9], urgent motion for release from arbitrary detention dated 13 December 1988[10], the memorandum in furtherance of said motion for release dated 14 December 1988[11], motion to set case for oral argument dated 8 December 1988[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 resolve to give petitioner Yu a non-extendible period of three (3)days from notice within which to explain and prove why he should still be considered a citizen of the Philippines despite his acquisition and use of a Portuguese passport.[15]
Petitioner filed his compliance with the resolution of 15 December 1988 on 20 December 1988[16] followed by an earnest request for temporary release on 22 December 1988. Respondent filed on 2 January 1989 her comment reiterating her previous motion to lift temporary restraining order. Petitioner filed a reply thereto on 6 January1989.
Petitioner's own compliance reveals that he was originally issued a Portuguese passport in 1971,[17] valid for five (5) years and renewed for the same period upon presentment before the proper Portuguese consular officer. Despite his naturalization as a Philippine citizen on 10 February 1978, on 21 July 1981, petitioner applied for and was issued Portuguese Passport No. 35/81 series N. 1517410 by the Consular Section of the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. Said Consular Office certifies that his Portuguese passport expired on 20 July 1986.[18] While still a citizen of the Philippines who had renounced, 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 nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed, specifically, the Companies Registry of Tai Shun Estate Ltd.[20] filed in Hongkong sometime in April 1980.
To the mind of the Court, the foregoing acts considered together constitute an express renunciation of petitioner's Philippine citizenship acquired through naturalization. In Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Gallano[21], express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or implication. Petitioner, with full knowledge, and legal capacity, after having renounced Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization as a Philippine citizen[22] resumed or reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese citizen, applied for a renewal 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 maintenance of Philippine citizenship.
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 has expressly renounced his Philippine citizenship. The material facts are not only established by the pleadings - they are not disputed by petitioner. A rehearing on this point with the CID would be unnecessary and superfluous. Denial, if any, of due process was obviated when petitioner was given by the Court the opportunity to show proof of continued Philippine citizenship, but he has failed.
While normally the question of whether or not a person has renounced his Philippine citizenship should be heard before a trial court of law in adversary proceedings, this has become unnecessary as this Court, no less, upon the insistence of petitioner, had to look into the facts and satisfy itself on whether or not petitioner's claim to continued Philippine citizenship is meritorious.
Philippine citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a commodity or ware to be displayed when required and suppressed when convenient. This then resolves adversely to the petitioner his motion for clarification and other motions mentioned in the second paragraph, page 3 of this Decision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's motion for release from detention is DENIED. Respondent's motion to lift the temporary restraining order is GRANTED. This Decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Fernan, C.J., and Gutierrez, Jr., J., see dissenting opinion.
Narvasa, J., in the result.
Cruz, and Cortes, JJ., see separate opinion.
[1] Petition, Rollo at 2
[2] Rollo at 24 & 29
[3] Resolution of 20 July 1988, Rollo at 47
[4] Rollo at 111
[5] Rollo at 127
[6] Rollo at 136
[7] Rollo at 141
[8] Rollo at 153
[9] Rollo at 136
[10] Rollo at 153
[11] Rollo at 175
[12] Rollo at 166
[13] Rollo at 144
[14] Rollo at 173
[15] Resolution of 15 December 1988, Rollo at 171
[16] Rollo at 187
[17] Compliance, par. 2, p. 5.
[18] Rollo at 151
[19] Petitioner's oath of allegiance as a Philippine citizen, Exh. A., Compliance. Rollo at 200
[20] Rollo at 33
[21] 25 SCRA 890
[22] In Oh Hek How vs. Republic, 29 SCRA 94, L-27429, August 27, 1969, Mr. Chief Justice Concepcion speaking for the Court, said: "Section 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 Provides, however, that before the naturalization certificate is issued, the petitioner shall 'solemnly swear,' inter alia, that he renounces 'absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate' and particularly to the state of which' he is 'a subject or citizen.' The obvious purpose of this requirement is to divest him of his former nationality, before acquiring Philippine Citizenship, because, otherwise, he would have two nationalities and owe allegiance to two (2) distinct sovereignties, which our laws do not permit, except that, pursuant to Republic Act No. 2639,' the acquisition of citizenship by a natural-born Filipino Citizen from one of the Iberian and any friendly democratic Ibero-American countries shall not produce loss or forfeiture of his Philippine citizenship, if the law of that country grants the same privilege to its citizens and such had been agreed upon by treaty between the Philippines and the foreign country from which citizenship is acquired."
[23] A passport is defined as an official document of identity and nationality issued to a person intending to travel or sojourn in foreign countries (Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, 1986 Ed., p. 699). Conformably with the universal concept of a passport, the Philippine Foreign Service Code, Section 136, provides that a Philippine passport is a document certifying to the Philippine citizenship of the holder in use for travel purposes.