Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    Yu v. Defensor-Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Stradivarium
    Willie Yu filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking his release from detention by the CID. The Court denied the petition and Yu's motion for reconsideration. Yu claimed to be a Filipino citizen, but the Court found that by declaring his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents, he had expressly renounced his Philippine citizenship. The Chief Justice dissented, arguing that Yu was entitled to have his status determined by a judicial tribunal following due process, rather than by the Court's review which could not substitute for a trial.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Yu v. Defensor-Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Stradivarium
    74 views2 pages
    Willie Yu filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking his release from detention by the CID. The Court denied the petition and Yu's motion for reconsideration. Yu claimed to be a Filipino citizen, but the Court found that by declaring his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents, he had expressly renounced his Philippine citizenship. The Chief Justice dissented, arguing that Yu was entitled to have his status determined by a judicial tribunal following due process, rather than by the Court's review which could not substitute for a trial.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Willie Yu filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking his release from detention by the CID. The Court denied the petition and Yu's motion for reconsideration. Yu claimed to be a Filipino citizen, but the Court found that by declaring his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents, he had expressly renounced his Philippine citizenship. The Chief Justice dissented, arguing that Yu was entitled to have his status determined by a judicial tribunal following due process, rather than by the Court's review which could not substitute for a trial.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views2 pages

    Yu v. Defensor-Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Stradivarium
    Willie Yu filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking his release from detention by the CID. The Court denied the petition and Yu's motion for reconsideration. Yu claimed to be a Filipino citizen, but the Court found that by declaring his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents, he had expressly renounced his Philippine citizenship. The Chief Justice dissented, arguing that Yu was entitled to have his status determined by a judicial tribunal following due process, rather than by the Court's review which could not substitute for a trial.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Yu v. Defensor-Santiago Ponente: Padilla, J.

    Facts: Willie Yu filed a petition for habeas corpus on July 4, 1988 seeking his release from detention. After manifestation and motion of the Solicitor General of his decision not to file a return of the writ on behalf of the CID, the Commissioner thru counsel filed the return. Counsels for parties were heard in oral arguments on July 20, 1988. An internal resolution of November 7, 1988 referred the case to the Court en banc. On November 10, 1988, the Court denied the petition for habeas corpus, aside from disposing of the pending issues of (1) jurisdiction of the CID over a naturalized Filipino citizen and (2) validity of warrantless arrest and detention of the same person. On November 24, 1988, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with prayer for a restraining order. The Court denied with finality the petition on November 29, 1988, as well as the urgent motion for issuance of a restraining order dated November 28, 1988. The petitioner filed a motion for clarification with prayer for restraining order on December 5, 1988. The court issued a TRO on December 7, 1988. The Respondent Commissioner filed a motion to lift TRO on December 13, 1988, the basis of which is a summary judgment of deportation against Yu issued by the CID Board of Commissioners on December 2, 1988. Urgent motion for release from arbitrary detention was filed by petitioner on December 13, 1988. A memorandum in furtherance of said motion for release dated December 14, 1988 was filed on December 15, 1988 together with a vigorous opposition to the lifting of the TRO. Willie Yu was issued a Portuguese passport in 1971, valid for five (5) years and renewed for the same period upon presentment before the proper Portuguese consular officer. Despite his naturalization as a Philippine citizen on February 10, 1978, Willie Yu applied for and was issued a Portuguese passport. The Consular Office of the Portuguese certified its expiration on July 20, 1986. While still a citizen of the Philippines, he declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed.

    Issue: WON Willie Yu is a Philippine citizen Held/Ratio: No. The fact that he declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents constitute an express renunciation of petitioners Philippine citizenship acquired through nationalization. In Borad of Immigration Commissioners v. Go Gallano, express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or implication. The petitioner, with full knowledge and legal capacity, after having renounced his Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization as a Philippine citizen, resumed or reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese citizen,

    applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport and represented himself as such in official documents. Dissenting Opinion (Fernan, C.J.): The treatment given by the majority to the petition at bar does not meet the traditional standards of fairness envisioned in the due process clause. Citing the dissenting opinion of Justice Gutierrez, C.J. Fernan submits that the petitioner is entitled to have his status finally determined by a judicial, as distinguished from an executive, tribunal. In other words, a full blown trial under the more rigid rules of evidence prescribed in court proceedings is necessary. The review powers of the Court cannot be a substitute for the demands of due process , particularly in the light of the well-recognized principle that the Court is not a trier of facts. Evidence relied upon by the majority is inadequate to support the conclusion that the petitioner has renounced his Filipino citizenship.

    You might also like