G.R. No. 125793 - Tabasa vs. Court of Appeals

Joevanie Arellano Tabasa was a natural-born Filipino citizen, born on February 21, 1959.
In 1968, at about seven years old, petitioner’s father, Rodolfo Tabasa, was naturalized as a U.S. citizen, thus granting petitioner American citizenship by derivative naturalization.
Petitioner returned to the Philippines on August 3, 1995, admitted as a “balikbayan” with a one-year stay privilege.

On May 23, 1996, petitioner was arrested by Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) agent Wilson Soluren in Baybay, Malay, Aklan pursuant to BID Mission Order No. LIV-96-72.
The U.S. Embassy, through Consul General Kevin Herbert, informed the BID on April 16, 1996, that petitioner’s U.S. passport had been revoked due to an outstanding federal warrant of arrest in the United States for multiple criminal charges, including unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, felon in possession of a firearm, and sexual battery.
Following this, the BID issued an order for the summary deportation of petitioner to the United States on May 29, 1996, pursuant to Office Memorandum Order No. 34 and related laws.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus before the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 29, 1996, claiming among others:

denial of due process;
he was entitled to stay as a non-quota immigrant due to marriage to a Filipino citizen;
he was still a Filipino citizen prior to derivative naturalization; and
he had reacquired Philippine citizenship by repatriation under Republic Act No. 8171 (RA 8171).

The CA ordered petitioner’s temporary release on bail pending resolution of the petition.

On June 6 and 13, 1996, petitioner executed an affidavit of repatriation and took an oath of allegiance to the Philippines under RA 8171.
The CA, on August 7, 1996, denied the petition, ruling that:

Petitioner was not qualified for repatriation under RA 8171 as he did not lose Philippine citizenship “on account of political or economic necessity,” a requirement under the law;
Petitioner’s repatriation appeared to be a last-minute attempt to avoid deportation and criminal prosecution abroad;
Petitioner’s derivative naturalization and loss of Philippine citizenship was by operation of law, not political or economic necessity;
Petitioner failed to follow the proper procedure for repatriation, which requires filing a petition before the Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN).

Filipino women who lost citizenship by marriage to aliens, and
natural-born Filipinos (including minor children) who lost citizenship due to political or economic necessity,

to reacquire citizenship by repatriation through prescribed procedures.

The SCN was designated to process such petitions, requiring formal documentation and proof of the basis of loss of citizenship.
Petitioner’s petition failed to demonstrate political or economic necessity for loss of citizenship and did not comply with filing requirements.

Whether petitioner Joevanie Arellano Tabasa validly reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 8171.
Whether petitioner, given his citizenship status and the revocation of his U.S. passport, is an undocumented alien subject to summary deportation under applicable laws and regulations.