Go Tek V.

Deportation Board
79 SCRA 17
Ponente: Justice Aquino
Topic: Foreign Affairs
acts:
Fake dollar checks were found in Go Tek's possession and that, therefore, he had violated
article 168 of the Revised enal !ode and rendered hi"self an undesira#le alien$
The prosecutor pra%ed that after trial the &oard should reco""end to the resident of the
hilippines the $ i""ediate deportation of Go Tek as an undesira#le alien, 'his presence
in this countr% having #een, and will alwa%s #e and a "enace to the peace , welfare, and
securit% of the co""unit%'$ !ase (o$ R1116)$
Go Tek filed a "otion to dis"iss on the ground that the co"pliant was a pending case$
The &oard denied the petitioner*s "otion$ The &oard reasoned out that a conviction is not
a prere+uisite #efore the ,tate "% e-ercise its rights to deport an undesira#le alien and
that the &oard is onl% a fact finding #od% whose function is to "ake a report and
reco""endation to the resident in who" is lodged the e-clusive power to deport an
alien or a deportation proceeding$
Go Tek then filed in the !ourt of First .nstance of /anila a prohi#ition action against the
&oard$ 0n 1ul% 8, 1263 the court issued a writ of preli"inar% in4unction restraining the
#oard fro" hearing Go Tek's case$
After hearing, the trial court 51udge Federico !$ Alikpala presiding) in its decision of 61,
1263 granted the writ prohi#ition and the &oard to desist fro" taking cogni7ance of the
Go Tek$ ,u#se+uentl%, the trial court ruled in favor of Go Tek$
8ence, the &oard appealed to the ,upre"e !ourt on the ground that the decision is
contrar% to law$
.ssue:
9hether or not an alien "a% #e deported although he has not %et #een convicted of the
offense i"puted to hi"
8eld:
:es$ The ,tate has the inherent power to deport undesira#le aliens$ That power "a% #e
e-ercise #% the !hief ;-ecutive 'when he dee"s such action necessar% for the peace and
do"estic tran+uilit% of the nation$
The right of a countr% to e-pel or deport aliens #ecause their continued presence is rental
to pu#lic welfare is a#solute and un+ualified
There is no legal nor constitutes provision defining the power to deport aliens #ecause the
intention of the law is to grant the !hief ;-ecutive 'full discretion to deter"ine whether
an alien's residence in the countr% is so undesira#le as to affect or in4ure the securit%
welfare or interest of the state$ The ad4udication of facts upon which deportation is
predicated also devolves on the !hief ;-ecutive whose decision is final and e-ecutor%$'
.t has #een held that the !hief ;-ecutive is the sole and e-clusive 4udge of the e-istence
of facts which warrant the deportation of aliens as disclosed in an investigation conducted
in accordance with 62$ (o other tri#unal is at li#ert% to ree-a"ine or to controvert the
sufficienc% of the evidence on which he acted$
'.t is funda"ental that an e-ecutive order for deportation is not dependent on a prior
4udicial conviction in a case<$Thus, it was held that the fact that an alien has #een
ac+uitted in a of the charge does not prevent the deportation of such alien #ased on the
sa"e charge$ ,uch ac+uittal does not constitute res 4udicata in the deportation
proceedings$ !onviction of a cri"e is not n to warrant deportation$