G.R. No. 262938 , December 5, 2023
WALTER MANUEL F. PRESCOTT, PETITIONER, VS. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Walter Manuel F. Prescott, born to a Filipino mother and an American father, was a natural-born Filipino citizen at birth under the 1935 Constitution. He later acquired American citizenship. In 2008, he re-acquired Philippine citizenship by taking an Oath of Allegiance under Republic Act No. 9225 . In 2012, a letter-complaint was filed against him alleging fraud in his re-acquisition. The Bureau of Immigration (BI) initiated proceedings which led to the revocation of his citizenship and a subsequent deportation order.
Prescott was arrested in 2016 and has been detained since. He consistently maintained he was never properly notified of the BI hearings, never received a copy of the order cancelling his citizenship, and was denied access to his case records despite requests. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing his detention was unlawful due to a gross violation of his right to due process during the BI and DOJ proceedings.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the writ of habeas corpus should be granted due to a deprivation of constitutional rights, specifically the right to due process, in the proceedings that led to Prescott’s detention and impending deportation.

RULING

The Concurring Opinion of Justice Caguioa agrees with the ponencia that the petition for habeas corpus must be granted and Prescott immediately released. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental violation of due process, which renders the entire proceedings void. A writ of habeas corpus is a proper remedy to question detention arising from deportation proceedings when there is a deprivation of constitutional freedoms, including due process. Once such a deprivation is shown, the tribunal that rendered the judgment is deemed to have lost jurisdiction, and its proceedings are void ab initio.
Here, Prescott was blatantly denied due process. He was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard, as he did not receive notices for the scheduled hearings on the complaint against him. Crucially, he was never furnished a copy of the DOJ Resolution revoking his citizenship, discovering it only when he attempted to renew his passport. His repeated requests for his case records were ignored. Consequently, the DOJ Resolution and the subsequent Deportation Order are null and void for having been issued in violation of his constitutional right. His continued detention for seven years, based on these void proceedings, is unlawful. Therefore, the writ must issue to secure his immediate release. The Opinion further opines, on the substantive citizenship issue, that Prescott’s Oath of Allegiance under R.A. 9225 is substantially equivalent to the formal election of citizenship required under the old regime, solidifying his status as a natural-born Filipino citizen whose re-acquisition was valid.