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.

PADILLA, J.:

FACTS

The case of Willie Yu vs. Miriam Defensor-Santiago (G.R. No. L-83882) was a petition
for habeas corpus filed with the Supreme Court of the Philippines on July 4, 1988,
seeking the release from detention of Willie Yu¹².

The court denied the petition for habeas corpus in its resolution on November 10,
1988, addressing the issues of jurisdiction of the CID over a naturalized Filipino
citizen and the validity of warrantless arrest and detention of the same person¹².

Willie Yu filed a motion for reconsideration with a prayer for a restraining order on
November 24, 1988¹². However, the court resolved to deny with finality the motion
for reconsideration and the urgent motion for issuance of a restraining order on
November 29, 1988¹².

On December 7, 1988, a temporary restraining order was issued by the court acting
on a motion for clarification with a prayer for a restraining order filed by Willie Yu on
December 5, 1988¹².

Respondent Commissioner filed a motion to lift the temporary restraining order on

December 13, 1988, based on a summary judgment of deportation against Yu issued
by the CID Board of Commissioners¹².

The case of Willie Yu vs. Miriam Defensor-Santiago (G.R. No. L-83882) was a petition
for habeas corpus filed on July 4, 1988, seeking the release of Willie Yu from
detention¹. The main issues in the case were:

1. The jurisdiction of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) over a

naturalized Filipino citizen¹.
2. The validity of the warrantless arrest and detention of the same person¹.

The court denied the petition for habeas corpus in its resolution on November 10,
1988¹. The court resolved 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 passport²³.

Petitioner Yu filed his compliance with the resolution on December 20, 1988,
followed by an earnest request for temporary release on December 22, 1988³. On
January 2, 1989, respondent Defensor-Santiago filed her comment reiterating her
previous motion to lift the temporary restraining order³. On January 6, 1989,
petitioner Yu filed a reply³.

The court denied the petition for habeas corpus in its resolution on November 10,
1988¹. The court resolved 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 passport²³.

Petitioner Yu filed his compliance with the resolution on December 20, 1988,
followed by an earnest request for temporary release on December 22, 1988³. On
January 2, 1989, respondent Defensor-Santiago filed her comment reiterating her
previous motion to lift the temporary restraining order³. On January 6, 1989,
petitioner Yu filed a reply³.

ISSUE

1. The jurisdiction of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) over a

naturalized Filipino citizen¹.

2. The validity of the warrantless arrest and detention of the same person¹.

RULING

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 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 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.

The grounds for detention in the case of Willie Yu vs. Miriam Defensor-Santiago were
related to the jurisdiction of the CID over a naturalized Filipino citizen and the
validity of warrantless arrest and detention of the same person¹². The court denied
the petition for habeas corpus, which sought the release of Willie Yu from
detention¹². The basis for the continued detention was a summary judgment of
deportation against Yu issued by the CID Board of Commissioners¹².

The case of Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago originated with a petition for habeas
corpus filed with the Court on July 4, 1988, seeking the release from detention of
Willie Yu¹². The Court denied the petition for habeas corpus in its resolution on
November 10, 1988, disposing of the pending issues of jurisdiction of the CID over a
naturalized Filipino citizen and the validity of warrantless arrest and detention of the
same person¹².

The Court resolved to give petitioner Yu a non-extendible period of three 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 passport². This was
followed by various motions and filings from both parties¹².

In conclusion, the ruling was based on the issues of jurisdiction, validity of

warrantless arrest and detention, and the question of citizenship in light of the use
of a foreign passport¹².

CONCLUSION

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.

NOTE

A summary judgment of deportation is a procedural device used during civil

litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial³. It is used
when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law³.

In the context of immigration in the Philippines, summary deportation proceedings

apply when the foreigner is overstaying, undocumented, is a fugitive from justice,
has fully served the sentence of his crime which includes deportation as a penalty or a
crime involving moral turpitude or the crime of failing to register with the Bureau of
Immigration¹.

The proceedings for summary deportation are governed by Memorandum Circular

No. SBM-2015-010, otherwise known as the Bureau of Immigration Omnibus Rules
of Procedure of 2015¹. If a foreigner is found to be overstaying or undocumented, a
complaint may be filed with the Office of the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Immigration¹. If found sufficient in form, preliminary investigation shall commence¹.
During preliminary investigation, the foreigner shall be directed to file his Counter-
Affidavit or Memorandum within ten (10) days from receipt¹. Thereafter, the Special
Prosecutor shall resolve the complaint and shall determine if there is sufficient
evidence to issue a Charge Sheet¹. A Charge Sheet is an accusation in writing issued
by the Special Prosecutor and approved by the Chief of the Legal Division, charging a
foreigner with violation of immigration laws¹. The foreigner’s name shall be included
in the Bureau of Immigration derogatory database to prevent him from leaving the
country¹.
Habeas corpus is a legal term that originates from Latin and literally means "you
shall have the body". It is a recourse in law through which a person can report an
unlawful detention or imprisonment and request that the court order the
custodian of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the prisoner to court, to
determine whether the detention is lawful³.

It is a writ issued by a court directing one who holds another in custody to produce
the person before the court for a specified purpose⁴. The most important variety of
the writ is that used to correct violations of personal liberty by directing judicial
inquiry into the legality of a detention⁴.

The literal meaning of habeas corpus is "you should have the body"—that is, the
judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought
forward so that the legality of that person's detention can be assessed².

In United States law, habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (the full name of what habeas
corpus typically refers to) is also called "the Great Writ," and it is not about a
person's guilt or innocence, but about whether custody of that person is lawful
under the U.S. Constitution².

Common grounds for relief under habeas corpus—"relief" in this case being a
release from custody—include a conviction based on illegally obtained evidence; a
denial of effective assistance of counsel; or a conviction by a jury that was
improperly selected and impaneled².

Habeas corpus is available to counter misuse of power in the form of illegal arrest,
imprisonment or detention. Application for it must be made to the competent court.
Application for a habeas corpus order may be made by the person so arrested,
imprisoned or detained, or by any citizen in possession of his political rights³.