You are on page 1of 2

SIMPLER VERSION:

HARVEY VS SANTIAGO
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF: ANDREW HARVEY, JOHN SHERMAN
and ADRIAAN VAN DEL ELSHOUT vs. HONORABLE COMMISSIONER MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO,
COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION
G.R. No. 82544 June 28, 1988

Facts:
Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles who were apprehended after three months
close surveillance by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) agents in Pagsanjan Laguna.
Two days after apprehension 17 opted for self deportation, one released for lack of evidenced, one was charged
by another offense, working without a valid working visa. Thus, three was left to face the deportation
proceedings.
Seized during petitioners apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and photos of the suspected child
prostitute shown in salacious poses as well as boys and girls engaged in the sexual act. There were also posters
and other literatures advertising the child prostitution.
Warrant of arrest was issued by respondent against petitioners for violation of Sec. 37, 45 and 46 of the
Immigration act and sec. 69 of the revised administrative Code.

Issue:
Whether or not the Philippines immigration act clothed the commissioner with any authority to arrest
and detained petitioner pending determination of the existence of a probable cause

Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that there can be no question that the right against unreasonable search and
seizure is available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of a crime or not.
One of the constitutional requirement of a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest is that it must be
based upon probable cause.
The arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause determined after close surveillance for three (3)
months during which period their activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest
and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters without warrant. Those articles were seized as
an incident to a lawful arrest and, are therefore, admissible in evidence.
But even assuming arguendo that the arrest of petitioners was not valid at its inception, the records
show that formal deportation charges have been filed against them, as undesirable aliens.

That petitioners were not "caught in the act" does not make their arrest illegal. Petitioners were found
with young boys in their respective rooms, the ones with John Sherman being naked. Under those
circumstances the CID agents had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners had committed "pedophilia"
defined as "psychosexual perversion involving children"

ABADILLA VS. RAMOS


Col. Abadilla was the head of the group that seized GMA 7 in 1987. A subsequent mutiny was done in Fort
Bonifacio. The act was infamously known as the Black Saturday Revolt. The mutiny failed and Abadilla was
later detained. Ramos, the then Chief of Staff, issued an order dropping the name of Abadilla from roll of
regular officers in the military. Later, Susan, the wife of Abadilla, filed a petition for the issuance of the WoHC
together with their minor children. They questioned the validity of Abadillas detention. It was alleged that
when Col Abadilla was dropped from the rolls of officers effective May 9, 1987, he became a civilian and as
such, the order for his arrest and confinement is null and void because he was no longer subject to military
law. His detention is illegal because he is not charged with any criminal offense, either before a civil court
or a court-martial
ISSUE: Whether or not the detention of Abadila is legal.
HELD: The fact that Colonel Abadilla was dropped from the rolls of officers cannot and should not lead to
the conclusion that he is now beyond the jurisdiction of the military authorities. If such a conclusion were to
prevail, his very own refusal to clear his name and protect his honor before his superior officers in the
manner prescribed for and expected from a ranking military officer would be his shield against prosecution
in the first place. His refusal to report for duty or to surrender when ordered arrested, which led to his name
being dropped from the roll of regular officers of the military, cannot thereby render him beyond the
jurisdiction of the military courts for offenses he committed while still in the military service. Military
jurisdiction had fully attached on Colonel Abadilla inasmuch as proceedings were initiated against him
before the termination of his service in the military. The record of the case discloses that Col Abadilla has
been charged by the military authorities for violation of Article of War (Mutiny or Sedition) which is a serious
offense, and the corresponding charge sheets have been prepared against him. The detention of Col
Abadilla under the circumstances obtaining in this case is not illegal. For this reason, the petition for habeas
corpus should be dismissed for lack of merit.