GR 125793; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125793 August 29, 2006
JOEVANIE ARELLANO TABASA, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION and WILSON SOLUREN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Joevanie Arellano Tabasa, a natural-born Filipino, derivatively acquired American citizenship in 1968 when his father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen. He arrived in the Philippines in August 1995 as a “balikbayan.” In April 1996, the U.S. Consul General informed the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) that Tabasa’s U.S. passport had been revoked due to an outstanding federal arrest warrant for criminal charges. Consequently, the BID arrested and detained Tabasa in May 1996 and issued a summary deportation order, declaring him an undocumented alien.
Tabasa filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Court of Appeals (CA), contesting his detention and deportation. While the case was pending, he filed a supplemental petition claiming he had reacquired Filipino citizenship through repatriation under Republic Act No. 8171 (RA 8171). He asserted that as a Filipino citizen, the BID had no authority to detain or deport him.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner Joevanie Arellano Tabasa had successfully reacquired Philippine citizenship through repatriation at the time of his arrest and detention, thereby rendering the deportation order void.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the deportation order. The Court ruled that Tabasa had not successfully reacquired Philippine citizenship through repatriation at the time of his arrest. Repatriation under RA 8171 is not automatic; it requires a formal application to the Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN), approval of that application, and the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. The law mandates a specific administrative procedure.
Tabasa failed to prove he had complied with this procedure. His mere filing of an application, without proof of its approval and without having taken the requisite oath, did not constitute repatriation. Citizenship, once lost, can only be reacquired in the manner prescribed by law. Since Tabasa remained an alien at the time of his arrest—his U.S. passport having been revoked—the BID correctly classified him as an undocumented and undesirable alien subject to summary deportation under established jurisprudence. His claim of repatriation was merely an afterthought raised during litigation and did not retroactively validate his status to negate the lawful deportation proceedings initiated against him.