G.R. No. 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, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a petition for habeas corpus filed by Willie Yu, a naturalized Filipino citizen, seeking his release from the custody of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID). The CID had detained Yu following a warrantless arrest and initiated deportation proceedings against him, alleging he was an undesirable alien. Yu contended the CID had no jurisdiction over him as a Filipino citizen. The Supreme Court initially denied his habeas corpus petition but later issued a temporary restraining order to halt his immediate deportation pending further CID hearings.
Subsequent pleadings revealed critical facts. Despite his naturalization as a Filipino citizen on February 10, 1978, Yu applied for and was issued a Portuguese passport by the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo on July 21, 1981. Furthermore, in April 1980, he declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents filed with the Companies Registry of Tai Shun Estate Ltd. in Hong Kong. The Court required Yu to explain these acts, which he did not dispute.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Willie Yu had lost his Philippine citizenship through express renunciation, thereby subjecting him to the CID’s jurisdiction and validating his detention and the deportation proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court, en banc, ruled that Willie Yu had expressly renounced his Philippine citizenship. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that citizenship is a solemn commitment, not a convenience to be alternately claimed or suppressed. Under Commonwealth Act No. 63 , Philippine citizenship may be lost by, among others, express renunciation.
The Court found Yu’s acts constituted an express renunciation. After naturalizing as a Filipino, which required him to renounce allegiance to any foreign state, he voluntarily and knowingly reacquired and used a Portuguese passport. Simultaneously, he officially represented himself as a Portuguese national in foreign commercial documents. These deliberate actions, taken together, distinctly and explicitly manifested his abandonment of Filipino allegiance. The Court cited Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Gallano, which defines express renunciation as one made known distinctly and explicitly, not left to inference.
Consequently, Yu reverted to being an alien. The CID thus properly exercised jurisdiction over him, and his warrantless arrest and detention for deportation proceedings were valid. The Court lifted the temporary restraining order and denied all of Yu’s pending motions, including his motion for clarification and urgent motion for release. The Court held that further hearings on his citizenship before the CID were rendered unnecessary, as the undisputed material facts established renunciation, and Yu had been given a full opportunity to rebut these facts before the Court itself.