G.R. No. 262938 – WALTER MANUEL F. PRESCOTT, petitioner, vs. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, as represented by HON. ROGELIO D. GEVERO, JR., and the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, respondents.

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

Rule Synopsis

Under jurisprudence, “election” under Article IV, Section 1 (4) of the 1935 Constitution may be done in two ways: first, through formal election pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 625, i.e. in writing, under oath, filed with the civil registry, and accompanied with an oath of allegiance; or second, through informal election, i.e., when it is evident from the positive acts of a child born to a mixed marriage that he or she chose Philippine citizenship. Moreover, the “election” should be done within a “reasonable time,” i.e., three years, subject to extension under certain circumstances such as when the person has always considered himself or herself as a Filipino, but not exceeding seven years. Nonetheless, peculiar and unique circumstances justify an exception from the prescribed timeframe.

Facts

Walter Manuel Prescott (Prescott) was born on April 10, 1950 in the Philippines to an American father and a Filipino mother. Since birth, he never left the Philippines where he pursued his education and career. In 1977, the American Embassy in Manila informed him that he lost his American citizenship for overstaying in the Philippines.

When he married in 1981, he indicated Filipino as his nationality in their marriage contract. He also indicated the same in his first child’s Certificate of Live Birth.

In 1982, he went to the USA to work for the World Bank. In August 2006, he became a naturalized American citizen and was issued an American passport. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, he travelled to the Philippines with a “balikbayan” status.

In November 2008, Prescott applied for the reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act (RA) 9225. The Philippine Embassy to the USA issued an Order in his favor. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) further confirmed Prescott’s application for dual citizenship. Prescott then took his oath of allegiance and was issued an Identification Certificate recognizing him as a Philippine citizen. In September 2009, Prescott applied for and was issued a Philippine passport. In 2010, Prescott retired and immediately returned to the Philippines with his wife, Lourdes, to settle for good. In January 2011, Lourdes went back to the USA.

In June 2012, Lourdes filed with the Bureau of Immigration (Bureau) a complaint against Prescott, alleging that he illegally reacquired his Philippine citizenship. Several notices were allegedly sent to Prescott’s supposed address asking him to appear at the scheduled hearings. Prescott failed to appear. Per the minutes of the hearings, the notices were returned “unserved” or Prescott was “out of the country.”

In October 2013, the Bureau issued a Resolution ordaining that Prescott is an American citizen. The Bureau also recommended to then Secretary of Justice De Lima, the cancellation of Prescott’s re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship. Secretary De Lima approved the recommendation in a Resolution dated November 28, 2013.

In February 2014, Prescott went to the DFA to renew his Philippine passport but was denied. Only then did he learn of the complaint against him and the cancellation of his certificate of re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship. Prescott sought to be furnished with the complete case records. In response, he was told that the Department of Justice (DOJ) Resolution dated November 28, 2013 had become final and executory. Subsequent requests of Prescott were unheeded.

In March 2016, the Bureau issued a deportation order against Prescott. In August 2016, a warrant of his deportation was also issued. In August 2016, Prescott was arrested. He was detained at Camp Bagong Diwa. Prescott sought various reliefs from his arrest to no avail. In October 2018, with the assistance of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), Prescott was granted a medical pass for confinement at the Medical Center Manila for various medical ailments.

In March 2019, Prescott filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief (to be declared as Philippine citizen) with Petition for Habeas Corpus before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC issued a writ of habeas corpus. However, after hearing, it dismissed habeas corpus petition. The RTC also denied Prescott’s Petition for Declaratory Relief. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, and denied Prescott’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Hence, Prescott filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Is the complaint filed by Lourdes and Troutman a collateral attack on Prescott’s citizenship?
2. Are the proceedings before the Bureau and the November 28, 2013 Resolution of the DOJ void for having been rendered without due process?
3. Did Prescott properly avail of the petition for declaratory relief and petition for habeas corpus?
4. Is Prescott, who was born under the 1935 Constitution to an American father and a Filipino mother, a natural-born Filipino, hence, eligible to reacquire Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225?
5. May Prescott be released from detention?

Ruling and Discussion

1. No. Lourdes and Troutman’s complaint is a direct attack on Prescott’s citizenship.
   
   In our jurisdiction, an attack on a person’s citizenship is allowed only through a direct action for its nullity. An attack is direct when the object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, an attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief (e.g. disbarment, quo warranto proceedings, election protests), an attack on the judgment or proceeding is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.
   
   Here, the complaint before the Bureau squarely attacked Prescott’s reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and directly prayed for its revocation. Stated differently, the ambiguity in Prescott’s citizenship was the main issue in the proceeding.
   
   The DOJ is empowered to revoke the re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship after a hearing before the Bureau.
   
   Pursuant to its delegated quasi-legislative power, the Bureau issued Memorandum Circular No. MCL-08-005 or the 2008 Revised Rules Governing Philippine Citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and Administrative Order No. 91, Series of 2004, which recognizes the authority of the DOJ to revoke the order of approval granting an application for re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship upon a finding of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment by the applicant.
   
   Thus, the authority to revoke an improperly granted order of approval for the re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 lies with the DOJ after the appropriate administrative hearing before the Bureau has been conducted.
   
   Nonetheless, the Bureau proceedings against Prescott and the consequent revocation of the decree for re-acquisition of his Philippine citizenship per DOJ November 28, 2013 Resolution are void ab initio for having been conducted and issued, respectively, without due process of law.
2. Yes. The Bureau proceedings and the DOJ Resolution dated November 28, 2013, are void ab initio for having been conducted and issued, respectively, in violation of Prescott’s constitutional right to due process.
   
   Under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” This right is guaranteed not only in judicial proceedings but also in administrative proceedings.
   
   The essence of due process is the right to be heard. Specifically, in administrative proceedings, the respondent has the right to a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his or her side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
   
   Administrative due process does not strictly abide by technical rules of procedure. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are deemed sufficiently complied with. Conversely, a violation of the right to administrative due process occurs when a court or tribunal rules against a party without giving him or her the opportunity to be heard.
   
   The requirements of administrative due process are thoroughly laid out in the seminal case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations [69 Phil. 635 (1940)].¹
   
   Here, the Bureau and DOJ did not dispute that Prescott never received the notices for the scheduled hearings for his fraudulent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship. They even admitted that these notices were “returned with the comment ‘moved out.'”
   
   Further, respondents did not allege nor adduce evidence that Prescott was furnished a copy of the DOJ Resolution dated November 28, 2013, revoking the reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship. They merely fleetingly allege that a copy thereof was “furnished [him] in his last two known addresses.” Prescott only discovered the judgment against him by chance when he applied for renewal of his passport which was subsequently denied.
   
   Prescott was deprived of any opportunity to present his case and submit evidence to counter the allegations of fraud imputed against him. In rendering their respective decisions, the Bureau and the DOJ never considered his defenses, much less, supporting evidence.
   
   The fact that Prescott was able to file several pleadings seeking reconsideration of the DOJ Resolution dated November 28, 2013, is of no moment. The mere filing of a motion for reconsideration cannot cure any due process defect, especially if the same was filed precisely to raise the issue of violation of the right to due process considering that up until that point. In any case, neither the Bureau nor the DOJ passed upon Prescott’s arguments in his motions where he raised violation of his right to due process.
   
   A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally. Where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction.
3. A petition for declaratory relief is not the proper remedy to determine citizenship; the same may, however, be passed upon as an incident to the petition for habeas corpus.
   
   A petition for declaratory relief is an improper remedy to secure a judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship for there is no law or rule providing such remedy. A declaratory relief proceeding is unavailable where the judgment would have to be made only after a judicial investigation of disputed facts. In such proceeding, relief may be sought only to declare rights, and not to determine or try issues.
   
   However, if the citizenship of a person is a threshold issue in an actual controversy, the Court may pass upon the same. Here, Prescott’s citizenship is a threshold issue that must be determined corollary to the habeas corpus petition which in turn, determines the legality of his detention.
   
   Albeit the dismissal of the Petition for Declaratory Relief is in order, Prescott’s citizenship may be settled by treating the Petition for Declaratory Relief as an incident in his Petition for Habeas Corpus.
4. Prescott is a natural-born Philippine citizen.
   
   Prescott was born on August 10, 1950. Any issue regarding his citizenship consequently falls under the aegis of the 1935 Constitution, which considered Philippines citizens “[t]hose whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship” (Art. IV, Sec. 1[4])
   
   Under jurisprudence, “election” under Article IV, Section 1 (4) of the 1935 Constitution may be done in two ways: first, through formal election pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 625, i.e. in writing, under oath, filed with the civil registry, and accompanied with an oath of allegiance; or second, through informal election, i.e., when it is evident from the positive acts of a child born to a mixed marriage that he or she chose Philippine citizenship. Moreover, the “election” should be done within a “reasonable time,” i.e., three years, subject to extension under certain circumstances such as when the person has always considered himself or herself as a Filipino, but not exceeding seven years.
   
   Here, while Prescott never, by formal deed, elected Philippine citizenship within a reasonable time upon reaching 21 years old. The Court finds that the Oath of Allegiance executed by Prescott in 2008 when he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 constitutes substantial compliance with the formal election requirements under Commonwealth Act No. 625. More important, the apprehension of disloyalty which the 1935 Constitution sought to eliminate is non-existent in Prescott’s case. What he had not formally spoken or written in words when he reached the age of 21, and years thereafter, he unequivocally expressed through his consistent and deliberate actions throughout his entire life which evinced his loyalty, love, and fealty to the Philippines.
   
   Further, to the Court, his peculiar and unique circumstances justify an exception from the prescribed timeframe. From the undisputed facts, the Court was convinced that Prescott had always considered himself a Filipino:
   
   (1) He was born and raised in the Philippines. He maintained his residence, was educated, earned his livelihood, and formed his family here. As a result, he lost his American citizenship;
   
   (2) After he lost his American citizenship, he consistently identified himself as Filipino in all his documents, including his Marriage Contract and the Certificate of Live Birth of his first child;
   
   (3) When he was in the USA for his employment, he had to be naturalized to become an American citizen. This is most telling. Only aliens need to be naturalized to be conferred citizenship;
   
   (4) Even when he became a naturalized American citizen, he never really abandoned being a Filipino. He would often travel back to the Philippines, and, significantly, he did so with a “balikbayan” status;
   
   (5) He obtained dual citizenship when he reacquired his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225. The same was duly conferred upon him by the Embassy of the Philippines to the USA and confirmed by the DFA. He was also issued an Identification Certificate, recognizing him as Filipino, and a Philippine passport.
   
   (6) When he retired, he had at his absolute disposal the option to remain in the USA and spend his final years there. Yet, he chose to leave everything he had and return to the Philippines to settle for good even when his wife left him to return to the USA where she remains until now.
5. Prescott may not be legally deported.
   
   The Petition for Habeas Corpus must be granted since Prescott, being a Philippine citizen, is not the proper subject of deportation.
   
   Broadly speaking, a writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his or her liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ is that the individual seeking such relief is illegally deprived of his or her freedom of movement or placed under some form of illegal restraint.
   
   Here, Prescott was arrested and detained under a warrant of deportation following the revocation of his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. As discussed, however, the Bureau and DOJ have no jurisdiction to arrest him or to lawfully hold him in detention for two reasons: first, the Bureau proceedings as well as the DOJ Resolution dated November 28, 2013, are void ab initio for having been issued in patent violation of Prescott’s right to due process; and second, the Bureau has no jurisdiction to deport Prescott since he is not an alien but a natural-born Philippine citizen.
   
   That Prescott remains within the PAO premises is of no moment. To recall, it is the Bureau which agreed to release him to the PAO temporarily given his ailing condition. A Bureau officer is also deployed to watch guard over him. The Bureau continues to have physical and legal custody over Prescott from the time he was arrested under the warrant of deportation.

dispositive

Petition granted. Decision and Resolution of the CA reversed. The Deportation Order against petitioner declared void. Petition for Habeas Corpus granted, and the petitioner is ordered released.

Footnotes

1. (1) [T]he right to a hearing must be respected, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his [or her] own case and submit evidence in support thereof;
   (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his [or her] case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights he [or she] asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
   (3) There must be evidence to support the finding or conclusion of the tribunal;
   (4) Not only must there be evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
   (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
   (6) The tribunal must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision; and
   (7) The decision should be rendered in a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered. ↩︎