Suntay v People of the Philippines (1957) Padilla, J.

FACTS: Petitioner Suntay assails the order of the CFI of Quezon City directing the NBI and the DFA for them to take proper steps in order that Suntay, alleged to be in the USA, be brought back to the Philippines and be dealt with in accordance with law Suntay was accused of seducing a 16-year old girl Alicia Nubla by taking her form St. Pauls College with lewd designs and then taking her somewhere near the UP compound to have carnal knowledge on or about June 21, 1954 Assistant City Attorney recommended the dismissal of the complaint but the counsel for the complainant addressed a letter to the City Attorney and urged that petitioner be charged with seduction On January 10, 1955, Suntay applied for and was granted a passport by the DFA. Ten days later, he left for San Francisco, California where he was enrolled in school On January 31, 1955, Nubla subscribed and swore to a complaint charging the petitioner with seduction filed before the CFI of Quezon City When the CFI issued the assailed order, the Ambassador to the US was notified and ordered to cancel the petitioners passport Petitioner contends that the CFI is without jurisdiction and the cancellation is illegal for lack of a quasi-judicial hearing He also contends that the right to travel or stay abroad is protected by the Constitution and he cannot be deprived of such without due process of law ISSUES + RULING: WoN petitioner was deprived of due process. NO. It is within the jurisdiction of the court to direct the DFA to take proper steps in order that accused may be brought back to the Philippines, so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law Moreover, 25 of EO No, 19, s. of 1946 empowers the Secretary of Foreign Affairs as well as any diplomatic consular officer duly authorized by law, in his discretion to refuse to issue a passport, to restrict a passport for use only in certain countries, to restrict it against use in certain countries, to withdraw or cancel a passport already issued, and to withdraw a passport for the purpose of restricting its validity or use in certain countries. While the law calls for the exercise of discretion, it was already a given fact that petitioner had to answer a criminal charge for seduction Respondent Secretary was convinced that a miscarriage of justice would result by his inaction Petitioners contention that there should be a hearing is bereft of merit. Hearing would have been proper and necessary if the reason for the withdrawal or cancellation of the passport were not clear but doubtful. It was apparent that he left the country to evade the criminal charge. Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing. When discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact, such as the filing of a serious criminal charge against the passport holder, hearing may be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the cancellation of his passport; lack of such hearing does not violate the due process of law clause of the Constitution; and the exercise of the discretion vested in him cannot be deemed whimsical and capricious because of the absence of such hearing. A hearing is not required at all times. If it were the case, then writs issued ex parte would be violative of the due process clause.

DISPOSITION: Petition denied.