Board of Commissioners (CID) v.

Dela Rosa

Facts: On July 12, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of natural mother Mariana Gatchalian. On June 27, 1961, Willian, then twelve years old, arrives in Manila from Hongkong together with a daughter and a son of Santiago. They had with them certificate of registration and identity issued by the Philippine consulate in Hongkong based on a cablegram bearing the signature of the secretary of foreign affairs, Felixberto Serrano, and sought admission as Filipino citizens.

On July 6, 1961, the board of special inquiry admitted the Gatchalians as Filipino citizens and issued an identification certificate to William. The boarf of commissioners waws directed by the Secretary of Justice to Review all cases where entry was allowed on the ground that the entrant was a Filipino citizen such included the case of William. As a result of the decision of the board of special inquiry which recommended for the reversal of the decision of the Board of Commissioners. Acting commissioner issued an order affirming the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry. On August 15, 1990, the Commission on Immigration and Deportatiion ordered the arrest of William and was released upon posting P 200,000 cash bond. Thus on the 29thof the same month, he filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the RTC of Manila. A motion to dismiss was filed but denied.

Issue: Whether or not William Gatchalian is to be declared as a Filipino citizen

Held: William Gatchalian is declared as a Filipino Citizen. Having declared the assailed marriage as valid, respondent William Gatchalian follows the citizenship of his father, a Filipino as legitimate child. Respondent belongs to a class of Filipinos who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the constitution.

Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board Nature: Appeal from the decision of CFI, ManilaFacts:CFI denied petition for writs of habeascorpus and/or prohibition, certiorari, andmandamus for his case.On May 12, 1952, Special ProsecutorEmilio L. Galang charged petitioner before theDeportation Board. The crimes: purchasing $130,000 with license fromCentral Bank and remitted it to Hong Kong attempted bribery of Phil and US officials(Chief of the Intelligence Division of the CBand member of US Air Force) In effect Deportation Board issued a warrant of arrest for petitioner (E.O. No 398, series of 1951). Upon fixing of bonds, petitioner wastemporarily set free. Issues:1.WON President has authority to deportaliens Held: Yes. Section 69 of Act NO. 2711 of RAC:No alien can be deported by prexy EXCEPTupon prior investigation, conducted by saidexecutive or his authorized agent, of theground upon which such action iscontemplated.* In effect, Prexy (Quezon, May 29, 1936)created the Deportation Board to conductinvestigations.2.WON Deportation Board also has authorityto file warrants of arrest Yes but only after investigation has resulted tothe actual order of deportation.Arrest would have been necessary fordeportation to take effect.However, in the case at bar, investigationswere still ongoing and no order for deportationwas yet made.Decision: E.O. No 398, series of 1951:declared illegal Deportation may be effected in 2 ways:1.by order of President, after dueinvestigation, pursuant to Section 69 of the RAC2.by Commissioner of Immigration, uponrecommendation by the Board of Commissioners under Section 37 of Commonwealth Act No. 613Crime was an act profiteering, hoarding or blackmarketing of US dollars

Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago

Facts: This is a petition for Habeas Corpus. Petitioners are the following:
American nationals Andrew Harvey, 52 and Jonh Sherman 72. Dutch Citizen Adriaan Van Den Elshout, 58. All reside at Pagsanjan Laguna respondent Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago issued Mission Orders to the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) to apprehended petitioners at their residences. The Operation Report read that Andrew Harvey was found

together with two young boys. Richard Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his room. While Van Den Elshout in the after Mission Report read that two children of ages 14 and 16 has been under his care and subjects confirmed being live-in for sometime now. Seized during the petitioners apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes shown in scandalous poses as well as boys and girls engaged in sex. Posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes were also found. Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles. They were apprehended 17 February1988 after close surveillance for 3 month of the CID in Pagsanjan, Laguna. 17 of the arrested aliens opted for self-deportation. One released for lack of evidence, another charged not for pedophile but working with NO VISA, the 3 petitioners chose to face deportation proceedings. On 4 March1988, deportation proceedings were instituted against aliens for being undesirable aliens under Sec.69 of Revised Administrative Code. Warrants of Arrest were issued 7March1988 against petitioners for violation of Sec37, 45 and 46 of Immigration Act and sec69 of RevisedAdministrative Code. Trial by the Board of Special Inquiry III commenced the same date. Petition for bail was filed 11March 1988 but was not granted by the Commissioner of Immigration. 4 April1988 Petitioners filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court heard the case on oral argument on 20 April 1988.

Issues:
(1) Whether or Not the Commissioner has the power to arrest and detain petitioners pending determination of existence of probable cause. (2) Whether or Not there was unreasonable searches and seizures by CID agents. (3) Whether or Not the writ of Habeas Corpus may be granted to petitioners.

Held:

While pedophilia is not a crime under the Revised Penal Code, it violates

the declared policy of the state to promote and protect the physical, moral, spiritual and social well being of the youth. The arrest of petitioners was based on the probable cause determined after close surveillance of 3 months. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and seizure of articles linked to the offense. The articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest; therefore the articles are admissible evidences (Rule 126, Section12 of Rules on Criminal Procedure).

The rule that search and seizures must be supported by a validwarrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. There are at least three exceptions to this rule. 1.) Search is incidental to the arrest. 2.) Search in a moving vehicle. 3.) Seizure of evidence in plain view. In view of the foregoing, the search done was incidental to the arrest. The filing of the petitioners for bail is considered as a waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and estops them from questioning its validity. Furthermore, the deportation charges and the hearing presently conducted by the Board of Special Inquiry made their detention legal. It is a fundamental rule that habeas corpus will not be granted when confinement is or has become legal, although such confinement was illegal at the beginning. The deportation charges instituted by the Commissioner of Immigration are in accordance with Sec37 (a) of the PhilippineImmigration Act of 1940 in relation to sec69 of the RevisedAdministrative code. Section 37 (a) provides that aliens shall be arrested and deported upon warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of a ground for deportation against them. Deportation proceedings are administrative in character and never construed as a punishment but a preventive measure. Therefore, it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court proceedings. What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien intended to be arrested and deported. A fair hearing must also be conducted with assistance of a counsel if desired. Lastly, the power to deport aliens is an act of the State and done under the authority of the sovereign power. It a police measure against the undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and tranquility of the people.

Yu v. Defensor-Santiago
FACTS: In the case at bar, herein petitioner, despite his naturalization as a Philippine citizen, applied and renewed his Portuguese passport. Moreover, while still a citizen of the Philippines, petitioner also declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of applying for a foreign passport and declaration of foreign nationality in commercial documents, constitute an express renunciation of ones Philippine citizenship acquired through naturalization.

HELD: Yes, the foregoing acts considered together constitute an express renunciation of petitioners Philippine citizenship acquired through naturalization. In a related jurisprudence, express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or implication.

Labo v. COMELEC
Facts: Petitioner Ramon Labo, elected mayor of Baguio City was questioned on his citizenship. He was married in the Philippines to an Australian citizen. The marriage was declared void in the Australian Federal Court in Sydney on the ground that the marriage had been bigamous. According to Australian records, Labo is still an Australian citizen. Petitioner claims that his naturalization made him only a dual national and did not divest him of his Philippine citizenship. Issue: Whether or not Petitioner Labo is a citizen of the Philippines. Held: Yes, because Commonwealth Act No. 63 clearly stated that Philippine citizenship may be lost through naturalization in a foreign country; express renunciation of citizenship; and by oath of allegiance to a foreign country, all of which are applicable to the petitioner. The petitioners contention that his marriage to an Australian national in 1976 did not automatically divest him of Philippine citizenship is irrelevant. There is no claim or finding that he automatically ceased to be a Filipino because of that marriage. He became a citizen of Australia because he was naturalized as such through a formal and positive process, simplified in his case because he was married to an Australian citizen. As a condition for such naturalization, he formally took the Oath of Allegiance and/or made the Affirmation of Allegiance, renouncing all other allegiance. It does not appear in the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship.

Aznar v. COMELEC

Facts: Aznar filed a petition for certiorari to review COMELEC resolution proclaiming Osmena as the Cebu Governor. He alleged that Osmena is an American thus disqualified to run in the 1988 election. Petitioner challenged respondents right to hold public

office on the ground that the latter was an alien. Respondent maintains that he is a son of a Filipino, was a holder of a valid subsisting passport, a continuous resident of the Philippines and a registered voter since 1965. He was, however, also a holder of an alien registration certificate.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is an alien.

HELD: No, because by virtue of his being a son of a Filipino, it is presumed that he was a Filipino and remained Filipino until proof could be shown that he had renounced or lost his Philippine citizenship. In addition, possession of an alien registration certificate unaccompanied by proof of performance of acts

No substantial & convincing evidence presented to prove Osmena is no longer a Filipino citizen & disqualified from running. Filipino citizenship is lost by naturalization in a foreign country or byexpress renunciation of citizenship or by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support another countrys constitution or laws (CA No. 63).
whereby Philippine citizenship had been lost is not adequate proof of loss of citizenship.

Stonehill v. Diokno
Facts: Respondents issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants against petitioners personally, and/or corporations for which they are officers directing peace officers to search the persons of petitioners and premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences to search for personal properties books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins(cigarettes) as the subject of the

offense for violations of Central Bank Act, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and Revised Penal Code.

Upon effecting the search in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and on the respective residences of the petitioners, there seized documents, papers, money and other records. Petitioners then were subjected to deportation proceedings and were constrained to question the legality of the searches and seizures as well as the admissibility of those seized as evidence against them.

On March 20, 1962, the SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and partially lifted the same on June 29, 1962 with respect to some documents and papers.

Held: Search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution and the Rules, thus, illegal or being general warrants. There is no probable cause and warrant did not particularly specify the things to be seized. The purpose of the requirement is to avoid placing the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers. Document seized from an illegal search warrant is not admissible in court as a fruit of a poisonous tee. However, they could not be returned, except if warranted by the circumstances. Petitioners were not the proper party to question the validity and return of those taken from the corporations for which they acted as officers as they are treated as personality different from that of the corporation.