Photo credit: BI

The recent attempt to grant bail to Chinese detainee Tony Yang has thrust the Bureau of Immigration (BI) into controversy and reopened old questions about Atty. Gilberto Repizo’s record.

Repizo, until recently Chairman of the BI’s Board of Special Inquiry, was the official behind the recommendation to release Yang, reportedly the brother of Michael Yang, a close adviser to former President Rodrigo Duterte.

Commissioner Joel Viado disapproved the recommendation upon returning from official travel abroad, citing national security interest and existing policy. That decision triggered a sequence of events: an anonymous white paper filled with allegations against Viado circulated, followed by a strongly worded letter from Repizo warning Viado not to bring his name to First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos.

The First Lady, by all accounts, has no involvement in BI matters. Her name being dragged into the fray was widely seen as inappropriate and politically suggestive. While the white paper's authorship remains unverified, Repizo’s signed letter gave the media a clear angle, one that many now interpret as an attempt to use perceived connections for leverage.

A Pattern of Conflict

This is not the first time Repizo has been involved in a high-profile immigration controversy. In 2015, he was deputy commissioner during the Wang Bo case, where the BI had issued a final deportation order against the Chinese national for transnational gambling.

Then Commissioner Siegfred Mison insisted on executing the order promptly, consistent with BI procedure. Repizo, however, argued for further authentication of Chinese documents, delaying enforcement.

Lawmakers, including then Representative and now Iloilo Mayor Jerry Treñas, rebuked Repizo for “lawyering” for Wang Bo. Mison, a graduate of West Point, Ateneo Law School, and the University of Southern California, clashed openly with Repizo over what he saw as obstruction and interference.

The parallels to Tony Yang’s case are striking. Both detainees were involved in gambling-linked activities. Both triggered internal tension at the BI. In both cases, Repizo was at the center of controversial recommendations that ran counter to institutional policy.

This raises deeper concerns not only about the cases themselves but about a continuing pattern of undermining lawful orders. Decisions made through proper process should not be revisited or delayed through internal maneuvering. Doing so opens the system to manipulation and damages public trust in government enforcement institutions.

Political Background

Repizo previously served as a city councilor in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, and ran for mayor in 2022 but lost, finishing third. His return to national prominence as head of BI’s special inquiry panel placed him in a sensitive role that requires neutrality and discretion, qualities now in question.

Open Defiance

After the Yang episode, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla issued Department Order No. 435 on June 19, reassigning Repizo to the DOJ main office. Repizo refused and declared he would not comply.

Legal and civil service experts point out that the BI is under the Department of Justice’s supervision. Secretary Remulla, therefore, acted well within his authority. If Repizo wishes to challenge the reassignment, he can do so through proper legal channels, but he must first comply.

The public spectacle of a BI official openly defying a Cabinet Secretary’s lawful directive risks normalizing institutional rebellion. In a rules-based bureaucracy, such defiance sets a dangerous precedent. Public service should never become a personal franchise.

Dragging the First Lady

Repizo’s letter to Viado, which invoked First Lady Liza Marcos, sparked concern among observers. While no direct allegation was made, the implication that Repizo had access to or protection from the First Lady was interpreted as an intimidation tactic.

Critics argue that name-dropping the First Lady in an internal bureaucratic dispute is both unfair and reckless. It politicizes a purely administrative matter and undermines public confidence in the neutrality of the Office of the President’s inner circle.

This maneuver also placed the First Lady in an impossible position. Whether she responded or remained silent, her neutrality would still be questioned. Responsible governance requires public officials to shield the Office of the President from such inappropriate entanglements.

Wang Bo 2015 to Tony Yang 2025: The Similarities

The similarities between the Wang Bo and Tony Yang cases go beyond personalities. Both involved Chinese detainees accused of serious gambling-related offenses that raised national security concerns.

In each case, the Bureau of Immigration had already initiated or finalized deportation or detention processes that were later delayed or challenged internally. These procedural challenges created tension within the agency, particularly between Repizo and his superiors.

The two cases also shared elements of alleged political influence or shielding. Repizo’s actions were seen by critics as aligned with the interests of the detainees, whether through delaying tactics in Wang Bo’s case or through a controversial recommendation for bail in Tony Yang’s case.

Moreover, both controversies spilled beyond the confines of the Bureau. The fallout reached the media, involved lawmakers like then Representative Jerry Treñas, and eventually attracted the attention of key figures in Malacañang.

In both episodes, smear efforts followed. Anonymous white papers, counter-narratives, and internal tension contributed to the perception of a Bureau weakened by factional infighting.

These patterns raise questions about the BI’s capacity to withstand external and internal influence in high-stakes cases. The public expects immigration law to be enforced consistently and with integrity. Allowing personalities or perceived connections to interfere with that process erodes both authority and legitimacy.

The Only Way Forward

Immigration enforcement is a sovereign function. It requires integrity, discipline, and loyalty to the national interest. Internal actors who resist lawful orders, challenge authority through back channels, or use political proximity for cover, risk damaging the entire institution they serve.

Repizo’s record, from Wang Bo to Tony Yang, suggests a troubling pattern of friction with leadership, politicization of process, and refusal to submit to oversight. When officials openly defy chain-of-command structures, institutions suffer. That cannot be allowed to stand.

Public officials are measured not by who they know, but by their commitment to public duty. The Department of Justice and the Bureau of Immigration must reinforce that principle. Compliance is not optional. Accountability is not a political punishment but a professional obligation.

The integrity of the Bureau depends on restoring order, protecting it from political name-dropping, and ensuring that its processes are free from personal agenda.

Only then can public confidence be regained, and the BI truly serve the national interest.

-xxx-

This special report is exclusive to Advocates. It is based on official records, congressional proceedings, government documents, and media reports available as of this writing.