VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHML #0482/01 0640846
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 050846Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY MANILA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 3413

UNCLAS MANILA 000482 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL CJAN RP
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO DEMARCHE REQUEST: TRAVEL DOCUMENT 
ASSISTANCE FROM GRP FOR DEPORTATIONS 
 
REF: A) Mandac-Burgwinkle e-mail of March 4 Re: DFA 
        Response 
     B) Burgwinkle-Haynes e-mail 02/18/2009 Re: Miraflor 
        and Abad deportation cases 
     C) Burgwinkle-Haynes e-mail 12/06/2008 
        Re: Deportations WG - Philippine Case update 
     D) 08 Manila 02682 
     E) 08 State 56512 
 
¶1. (U) This telegram is to officially record the final 
response by the Government of the Philippines to the 
demarche requested in Ref E concerning the cases of 
Armando Sierda Abad and David Valasote Miraflor. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Abad and Miraflor had renounced their Philippine 
citizenship in an effort to avoid deportation to the 
Philippines.  Philippine consular authorities in the U.S. 
had been reluctant to document Abad and Miraflor against 
their wishes.  Philippine authorities have now determined 
that it is appropriate to document the two, despite their 
objections. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Assistant Secretary Domingo Lucenario of the 
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) informed 
Post February 19 that the Philippine Department of 
Justice (DOJ) finds no legal bar to the issuance by the 
DFA of a travel document to a person who did not apply 
for it, but who is being deported to the Philippines. 
On March 4 Lucenario also shared with post a copy of the 
cover note "for guidance and appropriate action" dated 
January 19 conveying this instruction to the Philippine 
Embassy in Washington. 
 
¶4. (SBU) The DOJ memorandum states: 
 
Quote: 
 
Secretary Alberto Romulo 
Department of Foreign Affairs 
 
    This has reference to your request for opinion as 
to what constitute a valid renunciation of Philippine 
citizenship, and whether a Philippine travel document 
may be issued to a person who has renounced his 
Philippine citizenship and/or who is not applying 
for one. 
 
    Your request relates to a communication, which your 
Department received from the United States Government, 
seeking assistance from the Republic of the Philippines 
in removing two non-U.S. citizens namely, Armando Sierda 
Abad and David Valasote Miraflor, from the U.S. to the 
Philippines. Messrs. Abad and Miraflor entered the U.S. 
as Philippine citizens, but they have been convicted of 
crimes in the U.S. in an obvious effort to avoid 
deportation from the U.S. 
 
    Loss of citizenship may be either voluntary or 
involuntary.  Involuntary loss of citizenship may be 
provided as a punishment for certain crimes, after due 
conviction thereof*, while involuntary loss of 
citizenship takes place by expatriation, which is the 
voluntary abandonment or renunciation of one's 
nationality and allegiance.** 
 
   A Filipino may voluntarily divest himself or herself 
of his or her nationality in accordance with Commonwealth 
Act No. 63, as amended,*** Section 1 of said Act reads in 
pertinent part as follows: 
 
        Section 1. How citizenship may lost. - A 
   Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of 
   the following ways and/or events: 
 
    (1) By naturalization in a foreign country; 
 
    (2) By express renunciation of citizenship; 
 
    (3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to 
    support the constitution or laws of a 
    foreign country upon attaining twenty-one 
    years of age or more; Provided, however, 
    That a Filipino may not divest himself of 
    Philippine citizenship in any manner while 
    the Republic of the Philippines is at war 
    with any country; 
 
    (4) By rendering service to, or accepting 
    commission in, the armed forces of a 
    foreign country; Provided, That the 
    rendering of service to, or the acceptance 
 
    of such commission in, the armed forces of 
    a foreign country, and the taking of an 
    oath of allegiance incident thereto, with 
    the consent of the Republic of the 
    Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of 
    his Philippine citizenship if either of the 
    following circumstances is present: 
 
    Most of the above-quoted grounds for voluntary loss 
of Philippine citizenship are clear; thus they do not 
require further explanation.  However, with regard to the 
ground of "express renunciation", an elaboration on this 
point might be helpful. In the case of Board of 
Immigration Commissioners and Commissioner of Immigration 
vs. Beato Go Callano, et al., G.R. o. L-24530, October 
31, 1968, the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which cited 
this Department's Opinion No. 69, s. 1940, was upheld by 
the Supreme Court, thus: 
 
    Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended 
by Republic Act No. 106, provides that a Filipino 
citizen may lose his citizenship by naturalization 
in a foreign country; express renunciation of 
citizenship; subscribing to an oath of allegiance to 
support the constitution or laws of a foreign 
country; rendering service to, or accepting a 
commission in, the armed forces of a foreign 
country; cancellation of the certificate of 
naturalization; declaration by competent authority 
that he is a deserter of the Philippine armed forces 
in time of war; in the case of a woman by marriage 
to a foreigner if, by virtue of laws in force in her 
husband's country, she acquires his nationality x x 
x About the only mode of losing Philippine 
citizenship which closely bears on the petitioners 
is renunciation.  But even renunciation cannot be 
cited in support of the conclusion tha petitioners 
lost their Philippine citizenship because the law 
requires an express renunciation which means a 
renunciation that is made known distinctly and 
explicitly and not left to inference or implication; 
a renunciation manifested by direct and appropriate 
language, as distinguished from that which is 
inferred from conduct. (Opinion No. 69 of the 
Secretary of Justice, Series of 1940) 
 
    That a renunciation under C.A. No. 63 as amended, 
must be express in order for it to be considered 
effective was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the 
recent case of Valles vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, 
August 9, 2000, wherein the Court did not consider as an 
express renunciation of the Philippine citizenship the 
mere fact of applying for an alien certificate of 
registration and being a holder of a foreign passport. 
 
    Considering all the foregoing, it is this 
Department's opinion that, if all the other grounds under 
C.A. No. 63, as amended, for voluntary loss of Philippine 
citizenship are not applicable to Messrs. Sierda Abad and 
Miraflor, any inference of renunciation of Philippine 
citizenship from their conduct alone is not sufficient in 
order to divest themselves of their citizenship, as the 
law requires that said renunciation must be made known 
distinctly and explicitly, by direct and appropriate 
language.  In this Department's Opinion No. 008, s. 1964, 
we affirm the finding of the Bureau of Immigration that 
the subject therein has effectively renounced his 
Philippine citizenship when he made said renunciation in 
a public document.  Such case may be taken as an example 
of an express renunciation that is considered effective 
under the law. 
 
    However, we note from the facts given that Messrs. 
Sierda-Abad and Miraflor allegedly renounced their 
Philippine citizenship only after they have been 
convicted of crimes in the U.S. in an obvious effort to 
avoid deportation from the U.S.  Suffice it to say that 
an act of illegality can never be construed as an act of 
expatriation or renunciation.  Whatever might be the mode 
of expatriation or renunciation of citizenship, the cause 
thereof must be lawful, otherwise the citizen acts 
contrary to his duty.**** 
 
    As to your query whether a Philippine travel 
document may be issued to a person who was renounced his 
Philippine citizenship, the definition of a travel 
document and the requirements for its issuance must be 
looked into.  As defined by Republic Act No. 8239, a 
travel document means a certification or identifying 
document containing the description and other personal 
circumstances of its bearer, issued for direct travel to 
 
and from the Philippines valid for short periods or a 
particular trip.*****  It is issued only to persons whose 
claim to Philippine nationality is doubtful or who fall 
under the category enumerated in Section 13 of R.A. No. 
8239,****** which reads as follows: 
 
        Sec. 13 Travel Documents. - A travel document, 
    in lieu of a passport, may be issued to: 
 
    (a) A Filipino citizen returning to the Philippines 
        who for one reason or another has lost his/her 
        passport or cannot be issued a regular passport; 
    (b) A Filipino citizen being sent back to the 
        Philippines; 
    (c) An alien spouse of a Filipino and their 
        dependents who have not yet been naturalized as 
        a Filipino and who are traveling to the 
        Philippines or is permanent resident of the 
        Philippines; 
    (d) Aliens permanently residing in the Philippines 
        who are not able to obtain foreign passports and 
        other travel documents; 
    (e) A stateless person who is likewise a permanent 
        resident, or a refugee granted such status or 
        asylum in the Philippines. 
 
    Thus, a travel document may only be issued to 
Filipino citizens and to aliens and stateless 
persons who qualify under the above-quoted provision 
of R.A. No. 8239.  Obviously, any person who has 
already effectively renounced his or her Philippine 
citizenship cannot be issued a travel document, 
unless he or she can be considered an alien or 
stateless person who is qualified to be issued a 
travel document under Section 13 R.A. No. 8239. 
 
    Finally, as to whether a travel document may be 
issued to a person who did not apply for it, suffice 
it to say that one ground for issuance of a travel 
document under Section 13 of R.A. No. 8239 is 
deportation.*******  The power to deport an alien is 
an act of the State.  It is a police power measure 
against undesirable aliens whose presence in the 
country is found to be injurious to the public good 
and domestic tranquility of the people.********  In 
line with the nature of deportation as an act of a 
State and not a voluntary act of a person, this 
Department finds nothing legally invalid to an 
issuance by the DFA of a travel document to a person 
who did not apply for it, but who is being deported 
to the Philippines. 
 
    Please be guided accordingly. 
 
                        Very truly yours, 
 
                        Raul M. Gonzales 
                        Secretary 
 
Footnotes: (* is being used instead of numbers) 
*See Secretary of Justice Opinion No. 096, s. 1945, 
Citing Com. Act No. 63, Sec. 1, par 6: Gotochaus v 
Matheson, 58 Barb 152, 40 How, Pr. 97; 
Constitutional Law, Malcolm and Laurel, p 390 
 
**Roa v. Insular Collector of Customs.  G.R. No. 
7011, October 30, 1912. 
 
***This Act took effect upon its approval on October 
21 1936. 
 
****Secretary of Justice Opinion No. 096, s. 1945 2 
Am. Jur. 558 and Art. 4 of the Old Civil Code (now 
Art. 6 of the New Civil Code, which reads: Rights 
may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, 
public order, public policy, morals, or good customs 
or prejudicial to a third person with a right 
recognized by law). 
 
*****R.A. No. 8239, Section 2. 
 
******R.A. No. 8239, Section 2. 
 
*******See also DFA Department Order No. 19-A-95, 
Section 724, entitled Travel Document for Alien 
Wives of Filipino and for Deported Filipinos, in 
Passport Guidebook, by Germinia V. Aguilar-Usudan 
and Edgar B. Badajos (A Project of the Inter-Agency 
Againts Passport Irregularities), p. 99 
 
********Board of Commissioners (CID), et al., vs 
 
Jose Dela Rosa, et al., G.R. Nos. 95122-23 & 95612- 
13, May 13, 1991. 
 
Unquote 
 
KENNEY