Willie Yu v. Miriam Defensor-Santiago et al.

G.R. No. L-83882

January 24,1989

Facts:

Petitioner Willie Yu is a Portuguese National who acquired Philippine citizenship by naturalization on February
10,1978. Despite his naturalization, he applied for and was issued a renewed Portuguese Passport by the
Consular Section of the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. Said Consular Office certifies that his Portuguese
passport expired on July 20, 1986. Being a naturalized Filipino, he signed commercial documents stating his
citizenship as Portuguese without the authentication of an appropriate Philippine consul. He was then detained
by the CID for obtaining a foreign passport while having a Filipino citizenship. Yu then filed a petition for
habeas corpus. An internal resolution of 7 November 1988 referred the case to the Court en Banc. The Court en
Banc denied the petition. He then filed a motion for reconsideration with prayer for restraining order but it was
denied. After denial, he filed a motion for clarification with prayer for restraining order. On December 7,1988,
the temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued. The respondent filed a motion to lift the said TRO,
contending that Yu was in full knowledge and Legal capacity when he applied for Philippine citizenship
through naturalization he consequently recognizes, identifies and agrees to the oath taken which states to
renounce “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. Hence,
petitioner then knows the limitations or restrictions once solemnizing said oath and its succeeding consequences
should they be violated.

Issue:

Was the petitioner’s act constituted a renunciation of his Philippine citizenship?

Ruling:

Yes, considering the facts stated, the court ruled that the Petitioner’s acts constitute an express renunciation of
his Philippine citizenship through naturalization. Express naturalization means renunciation made known
distinctly and explicitly, and not that which is implied. After acquiring Philippine citizenship, with full
knowledge, he resumed his prior status as a Portuguese citizen by applying for a renewal of his Portuguese
passport and representing himself as a Portuguese in official and commercial documents. The court found that
such acts are grossly inconsistent with the maintenance of his Philippine citizenship.
G.R. No. L-83882 January 24, 1989

IN RE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF WILLIE YU, petitioner,

vs.
MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, BIENVENIDO P. ALANO, JR., MAJOR PABALAN, DELEO HERNANDEZ, BLODDY
HERNANDEZ, BENNY REYES and JUN ESPIRITU SANTO, respondent.

Pelaez, Adriano and Gregorio and Bonifacio A. Alentajan for petitioner.

Chavez, Hechanova & Lim Law Offices collaborating counsel for petitioner.

Augusto Jose y. Arreza for respondents.

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.   After manifestation and motion of the Solicitor General of his decision to refrain from filing a return of the
1

writ on behalf of the CID, respondent Commissioner thru counsel filed the return.   Counsel for the parties were heard in oral argument
2

on 20 July 1988. The parties were allowed to submit marked exhibits, and to file memoranda.   An internal resolution of 7 November
3

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.   On 29 November 1988, the
4

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.   Respondent Commissioner filed a
6

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.   Petitioner also filed a motion to set case for oral argument on 8 December 1988.
7

In the meantime, an urgent motion for release from arbitrary detention   was filed by petitioner on 13 December 1988. A memorandum
8

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,   urgent motion for release from arbitrary detention dated 13 December
9

1988,   the memorandum in furtherance of said motion for release dated 14 December 1988,   motion to set case for oral argument
10 11

dated 8 December 1988.  12

Acting on the motion to lift the temporary restraining order (issued on 7 December 1988) dated 9 December 1988,   and the vigorous
13

opposition to lift restraining order dated 15 December 1988,   the Court resolved to give petitioner Yu a non-extendible period of three
14

(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   followed by an earnest request for
16

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 January 1989.

Petitioner's own compliance reveals that he was originally issued a Portuguese passport in 1971,   valid for five (5) years and renewed
17

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 serial 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.   While still a citizen of the Philippines who had renounced, upon his naturalization, "absolutely and forever all allegiance and
18

fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty" and pledged to "maintain true faith and allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines,"   he declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed, specifically, the Companies registry of Tai
19

Shun Estate Ltd.   filed in Hongkong sometime in April 1980.

20
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 us, Go Gallano,   express renunciation was held to mean a
21

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   resumed or reacquired his prior
22

status as a Portuguese citizen, applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport   and represented himself as such in official
23

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 were to be displayed when required and suppressed when convenient.
This then resolves adverse 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.