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.
Citizenship; Repatriation; Republic Act No. 8171; Persons Entitled to Repatriation
Under Republic Act No. 8171. – The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the
following: a. Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b.
Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on
account of political or economic necessity.
Same; Same; Same; The privilege of repatriation under Republic Act No. 8171 is
available only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or
economic necessity, and to the minor children of said natural-born Filipinos – to claim the
benefit of Republic Act No. 8171, the children must be of minor age at the time the petition
for repatriation is filed by the parent. – Petitioner overlooks the fact that the privilege of
repatriation under RA 8171 is available only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship
on account of political or economic necessity, and to the minor children of said natural-born
Filipinos. This means that if a parent who had renounced his Philippine citizenship due to
political or economic reasons later decides to repatriate under RA 8171, his repatriation will
also benefit his minor children according to the law. This includes a situation where a former
Filipino subsequently had children while he was a naturalized citizen of a foreign country. The
repatriation of the former Filipino will allow him to recover his natural-born citizenship and
automatically vest Philippine citizenship on his children of jus sanguinis or blood relationship:
the children acquire the citizenship of their parent(s) who are natural-born Filipinos. To claim
the benefit of RA 8171, however, the children must be of minor age at the time the petition for
repatriation is filed by the parent. This is so because a child does not have the legal capacity for
all acts of civil life much less the capacity to undertake a political act like the election of
citizenship. On their own, the minor children cannot apply for repatriation or naturalization
separately from their parents.
Repatriation; Republic Act No. 8171; The privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is
extended directly to the natural-born Filipinos who could prove that they acquired citizenship
of a foreign country due to political and economic reasons, and extended indirectly to the
minor children at the time of repatriation. – In the case at bar, there is no dispute that
petitioner was a Filipino at birth. In 1968, while he was still a minor, his father was naturalized
as an American citizen; and by derivative naturalization, petitioner acquired U.S. citizenship.
Petitioner now wants us to believe that he is entitled to automatic repatriation as a child of
natural-born Filipinos who left the country due to political or economic necessity. This is
absurd. Petitioner was no longer a minor at the time of his “repatriation” on June 13, 1996. The
privilege under RA 8171 belongs to children who are of minor age at the time of the filing of
the petition for repatriation. Neither can petitioner be a natural-born Filipino who left the
country due to political or economic necessity. Clearly, he lost his Philippine citizenship by
operation of law and not due to political or economic exigencies. It was his father who could
have been motivated by economic or political reasons in deciding to apply for naturalization.
The decision was his parent’s and not his. The privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is
extended directly to the natural-born Filipinos who could prove that they acquired citizenship
of a foreign country due to political and economic reasons, and extended indirectly to the
minor children at the time of repatriation.
Same; Same; One seeking for repatriation pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171 should
file his petition with the Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN). – Even if we concede that
petitioner Tabasa can avail of the benefit of RA 8171, still he failed to follow the procedure for
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. He has to file his petition for repatriation with the Special
Committee on Naturalization (SCN), which was designated to process petitions for repatriation
pursuant to Administrative Order No. 285 (A.O. No. 285) dated August 22, 1996.
Same; Words and Phrases; A reading of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8171 shows the
manifest intent of the legislature to limit the benefits of repatriation only to natural-born
Filipinos who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, in
addition to Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; The
lawmakers, in adding the phrase “on account of political or economic necessity,” clearly
intended to limit the application of the law only to political or economic migrants, aside from
the Filipino women who lost their citizenship by marriage to aliens. – A reading of Section 1 of
RA 8171 shows the manifest intent of the legislature to limit the benefit of repatriation only to
natural-born Filipinos who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic
necessity, in addition to Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to
aliens. The precursor of RA 8171, Presidential Decree No. 725 (P.D. 725), which was enacted on
June 5, 1975 amending Commonwealth Act No. 63, also gives to the same groups of former
Filipinos the opportunity to repatriate but without the limiting phrase, “on account of political
or economic necessity” in relation to natural-born Filipinos. By adding the said phrase to RA
8171, the lawmakers clearly intended to limit the application of the law only to political or
economic migrants, aside from the Filipino women who lost their citizenship by marriage to
aliens.
Citizenship; While it is true that renunciation of allegiance to one’s native country is
necessarily a political act, it does not follow that the act is inevitably politically or
economically motivated. – While it is true that renunciation of allegiance to one’s native
country is necessarily a political act, it does not follow that the act is inevitably politically or
economically motivated as alleged by petitioner. To reiterate, there are other reasons why
Filipinos relinquish their Philippine Citizenship. The sponsorship speech of former
Congresswoman Andrea B. Domingo illustrates that aside from economic and political refugees,
there are Filipinos who leave the country because they have committed crimes and would like
to escape from punishment, and those who really feel that they are not Filipinos and that they
deserve a better nationality, and therefore seek citizenship elsewhere.
Repatriation; Repatriation is not a matter of right, but it is a privilege granted by the
State. – Repatriation in not a matter of right, but it is a privilege granted by the State. This is
mandated by the 1987 Constitution under Section 3, Article IV, which provides that citizenship
may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. The State has the power to prescribe
by law the qualifications, procedure, and requirements for repatriation. It has the power to
determine if an applicant for repatriation meets the requirements if the law for it is an inherent
power of the State to choose who will be its citizens, and who can reacquire citizenship once it
is lost. If the applicant, like petitioner Tabasa, fails to comply with said requirements, the State
is justified in rejecting the petition for repatriation.
Aliens; It is elementary that if an alien wants to stay in the Philippines, he must
possess the necessary documents, one of which is a valid passport. – In the case of
Schonemann v. Defensor Santiago, et al., this Court held: It is elementary that if an alien wants
to stay in the Philippines, he must possess the necessary documents. One of these documents is
a valid passport. There are, of course, exceptions where in the exercise of its sovereign
prerogatives the Philippines may grant refugee status, refuse to extradite an alien, or otherwise
allow him or her to stay here even if he [the alien] has no valid passport or Philippine visa.
“Boat people” seeking residence elsewhere are examples. However, the grant of the privilege
of staying in the Philippines is discretionary on the part of the proper authorities. There is no
showing of any grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or whimsicality in the questioned
summary judgment. x x x
Same; An alien whose passport is cancelled after his admission into the country
becomes an undocumented alien who can be summarily deported. – Petitioner Tabasa, whose
passport was cancelled after his admission into the country, became an undocumented alien
who can be summarily deported. His subsequent “repatriation” cannot bar such deportation
especially considering that he has no legal and valid reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
