Deportation Board deportation but may not order arrest
during FACTS: investigation. And no, power may not be · In May 1952 petitioners were charged delegated. before the Deportation Board with having purchased · Sec 69 of the Revised Administrative US Code Dollars in the total sum of $130, 000 SEC. 69 Deportation of subject to foreign without power. — A subject of a foreign power the necessary license from the Central residing in Bank of the Philippines shall not be deported, the Philippines and having remitted the expelled, money or excluded from said Islands or to Hong Kong and to themselves. repatriated to · Warrants were issued but upon filing for his own country by the President of the a Philippines except upon prior surety and cash bond they were released. investigation, · Trial Court upheld the validity of the conducted by said Executive or his delegation authorized by the president to the Deportation Board agent, of the ground upon which Such of his action is power to conduct investigations for the contemplated. In such case the person purpose concerned shall be informed of the charge of determining whether the stay of an or alien in charges against him and he shall be this country would be injurious to the allowed not security, less than these days for the preparation of welfare and interest of the State. his · Power to issue warrants and fix bonds defense. He shall also have the right to be were held heard to be essential to and complement the by himself or counsel, to produce power to witnesses in deport aliens under sec 69 of the revised his own behalf, and to cross-examine the admin opposing witnesses." code · While it did not expressly confer on the ISSUE: President the authority to deport ·Whether or not the President has the undesirable power to deport aliens and merely lays down the aliens and delegate those powers, under procedure, the EO 398 fact that such a procedure was provided of Pres Quirino which authorized the for Deportation Board to issue warrants of before the President can deport an alien is arrest of a aliens during investigation (on the ground clear indication of the recognition, and that inferentially a ratification, by the such power is vested in the legislature and legislature of that the existence of such power in the there must be a legislation authorizing the Executive. same) · Under the present and existing laws, Held/Ratio: therefore, The Pres has the power to carry out deportation of an undesirable alien may order of be effected in two ways: by order of the be searched, and the persons or things to President, be after due investigation, pursuant to seized." (Sec 1, Art. III, Bill of Rights, Section 69 Philippine of the Revised Administrative Code, and Constitution). by the Commissioner of Immigration, upon · Justice Laurel said that this constitutional recommendation by the Board of provision is not among the rights of the Commissioners, under Commonwealth Act accused. Under our No. Constitution, the same is declared a 613. popular SEC. 52. This Act is in substitution right of the people and, of course, for and supersedes all previous laws indisputably it relating to the entry of aliens into the equally applies to both citizens and Philippines, and their exclusion, foreigners in deportation, and repatriation wherefrom, this country. This requirement — "to be with the exception of section sixty-nine of determined by the judge" — do not specify Act Numbered Twenty-seven hundred and who eleven which shall continue in force and will determine the existence of a probable effect: ..." (Comm. Act No. 613). cause. · Re: the extent of the Pres’ power to Hence, under their provisions, any public investigate does it include authority to officer arrest? May it be may be authorized by the Legislature to delegated? Here’s the history… make · Pres Roxas (EO 69) in July 1947 provided such determination, and thereafter issue for the filing of a bond to secure appearance of warrant of arrest. alien under investigation · The contention of the Solicitor General that the · Pres Quirino (EO 398) in January 1951 arrest of a foreigner is necessary to carry reorganized the deportation board to issue into the effect the power of deportation is valid warrant of arrest of the alien complained only of and when, as already stated, there is already to hold him under detention during the an investigation unless he files a bond for his order of deportation. To carry out the provisional release <this is incompatible order of with….> deportation, the President obviously has 3. The right of the People to be secure in the their persons, houses, papers and effects power to order the arrest of the deportee. against But, unreasonable searches and seizures shall certainly, during the investigation. not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but · The extent of the curtailment of liberty upon dependent upon conditions determined by probable cause, to be determined by the the judge discretion of the person issuing a warrant. after examination under oath or In affirmation of other words, the discretion of whether a the complainant and the witnesses he warrant may of arrest shall issue or not is personal to produce, and particularly describing the the one place to upon whom the authority devolves. · It is an implied grant of power, considering that no express authority was granted by the law on the matter under discussion, that would serve the curtailment or limitation on the fundamental right of a person, such as his security to life and liberty, must be viewed with caution.
· The guarantees of human rights and
freedom can not be made to rest precariously on such a shaky foundation.
World Health Organization v. Aquino
FACTS:
• Respondent judge's refuses to
quash a search warrant issued by him at the instance of respondents COSAC officers for the search and seizure of the personal effects of petitioner official of the WHO (World Health Organization) despite his being entitled to diplomatic immunity, as duly recognized by the executive branch of the Philippine Government and to prohibit respondent judge from further proceedings in the matter. • Upon filing of the petition, the Court issued a restraining order enjoining respondents from executing the search warrant in question. • Respondents COSAC officers filed their answer joining issue against petitioners and seeking to justify their act of applying for and securing from respondent judge the warrant for the search and seizure of ten crates consigned to petitioner Verstuyft and stored at the Eternit Corporation warehouse on the ground that they "contain large quantities of highly dutiable goods" beyond the official needs of said petitioner "and the only lawful way to reach these articles and effects for purposes of taxation is order "pending clarification of the through a search warrant. matter from the ASAC." • The Court thereafter called for the • Respondent judge set the Foreign parties' memoranda in lieu of oral Secretary's request for hearing and argument, which were filed by heard the same day but the official respondents and it was thereafter plea of diplomatic immunity deemed submitted for decision. interposed by a duly authorized • Petitioner, Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, representative of the Department who was assigned by the WHO of Foreign Affairs who furnished the from his last station in Taipei to the respondent judge with a list of the Regional Office in Manila as Acting articles brought in by petitioner Assistant Director of Health Verstuyft, respondent judge issued Services, is entitled to diplomatic his order of the same date immunity, pursuant to the Host maintaining the effectivity of the Agreement executed on July 22, search warrant issued by him, 1951 between the Philippine unless restrained by a higher court. Government and the World Health • Petitioner Verstuyft's special Organization. appearance on March 24, 1972 for • When petitioner Verstuyft's the limited purpose of pleading his personal effects contained in diplomatic immunity and motion to twelve (12) crates entered the quash search warrant failed to Philippines as unaccompanied move respondent judge. baggage on January 10, 1972, they • At the hearing thereof the Office of were accordingly allowed free entry the Solicitor General appeared and from duties and taxes. The crates filed an extended comment stating were directly stored at the Eternit the official position of the executive Corporation's warehouse at branch of the Philippine Mandaluyong, Rizal, "pending his Government that petitioner relocation into permanent quarters Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic upon the offer of Mr. Berg, Vice immunity, he did not abuse his President of Eternit who was once a diplomatic immunity, and that patient of Dr. Verstuyft in the court proceedings in the receiving Congo. or host State are not the proper • Respondent judge issued on March remedy in the case of abuse of 3, 1972 upon application on the diplomatic immunity. same date of respondents COSAC officers search warrant No. 72-138 Issue: for alleged violation of Republic Act 4712 amending section 3601 of the Whether or not Petitioner is Tariff and Customs Code 3 directing entitled "to all privileges and the search and seizure of the immunities, exemptions and dutiable items in said crates. facilities accorded to diplomatic • Upon protest of Dr. Francisco Dy, envoys in accordance with WHO Regional Director for the international law" under section 24 Western Pacific with station in of the Host Agreement Manila, Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo, personally wired Held: The executive branch of the on the same date respondent Judge Philippine Government has advising that "Dr. Verstuyft is expressly recognized that entitled to immunity from search in petitioner Verstuyft is entitled to respect of his personal baggage as diplomatic immunity, prusuant to accorded to members of diplomatic the provisions of the Host missions" pursuant to the Host Agreement. The DFA formally Agreement and requesting advised respondent judge of the suspension of the search warrant Philippine Government’s official position. The Solicitor-General, as principal law officer of the Government, likewise expressly affirmed said petitioner’s right to diplomatic immunity and asked for the quashal of the search warrant. It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentlualy a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized by the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the Government, the Solicitor-General in this case, or other officer acting under his discretion. Courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to embarass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations. The Court, therefore, holds that respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search warrant issued by him in disregard of the diplomatic immunity of petitioner Verstuyft.