HARVEY V DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
JUN 28, 1988 | MELENCIO-HERRERA, J PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS
FACTS
HARVEY (52 years old) and SHERMAN (72 years old) are both American Nationals
residing in Laguna while ELSHOUT (58 years old) is a Dutch citizen also residing in
Laguna
 They were apprehended on FEB 27 1988 from their residences by agents of the
Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) by virtue of Mission Orders
issued by Commissioner Defensor-Santiago of CID [detained at CID Detention
Center]
 They were among 22 suspected alien pedophiles who were apprehended after
3 months of close surveillance by CID agents
 2 days after apprehension, 17 of 22 opted for self-deportation and have left the
country; 1 was released for lack of evidence; 1 was charged not for being a
pedophile but for working without a valid working visa [only PETITIONERS
have chosen to face deportation]
 seized during apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and photos of
suspected child prostitutes shown in salacious poses as well as boys and
girls engaged in the sex act; there were also posters and other literature
advertising the child prostitutes
OPERATION REPORT:
 HARVEY was found with 2 young boys
 SHERMAN was found with 2 naked boys inside the room
 ELSHOUTH was found with 2 children ages 14 & 16 which has been in his care
and has been living-in with him for quite sometime
PROCEEDINGS
 Deportation proceedings were instituted for being undesirable aliens under Sec 69
Revised Admin Code
 Warrants of arrests were issued by RESPONDENT against PETITIONERS for
violation of Sec 37, 45, and 46 Immigration Act and Sec 69 Revised Admin Code;
Board of Special Inquiry III commenced trial against PETITIONERS
 PETITIONERS filed Urgent Petition for Release Under Bond – alleging that their
health was being seriously affected by their continuous detention)
o Upon recommendation of Board of Commissioners for their provisional
release, RESPONDENT ordered CID doctor to examine them [certified they
were healthy]
 PETITIONERS filed a Petition for Bail [DENIED – considered CID physician’s
certification that they were healthy
 To avoid congestion, RESPONDENT ordered PETITIONERS’ transfer to CID
detention cell at Fort Bonifacio [transfer DEFERRED pending trial due to
difficulty of transporting them to and from CID where trial was on-going]
 HARVEY filed Manifestation/Motion – he finally agreed to self-deportation and
prayed that he be provisionally released for at least 15 days and placed under
the custody of ATTY. ASINAS before he voluntarily departs the country
o Board of Special Inquiry ALLOWED provisional release of 5 days only under
certain conditions
o (on the same date manifestation was filed, HARVEY and CO-PETITIONERS
filed present petition for habeas corpus)
 No provision in PH Immigration Act of 1940 nor under Sec 69 of the Revised
Administrative Code which legally clothes the Commissioner with any authority to
arrest and detain petitioners pending determination of the existence of a probable
cause leading to an administrative investigation
 RESPONDENT violated Sec 2 Art III CONSTI prohibiting unreasonable searches
and seizures since CID agents were not clothed with valid warrants of arrests,
search and seizure
 Mere confidential information made to CID agents and suspicion of activities of
PETITIONERS that they were pedophiles coupled with association with suspected
pedophiles are not valid legal grounds for arrest and detention unless they are
caught in the act [alleges that being a pedophile is not punishable by any PH
law]
ISSUE: WON the Commissioner is legal clothed with authority to arrest and detain
PETITIONERS? YES
ON PROBABLE CAUSE AND VALIDITY OF ARREST
RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SERACHES AND SEIZURES – ART III SEC 2
CONSTI (available to all persons including aliens)
 Requirement for a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest is that it must be based
upon probable cause
o PROBABLE CAUSE: Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the
issuance of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious
man to rely on them and act in pursuance thereof
 1985 CRIMPRO: An arrest without a warrant may be effected by a peace officer
or even a private person
(1) When such person has committed, actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense in his presence
(2) When an offense has, in fact, been committed and he has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it (RULE 113
SEC 5)
IN CASE AT BAR, Arrest of PETITIONERS was based on probable cause determined
after close surveillance for 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 [articles were seized as an
incident to a lawful arrest and are admissible in evidence – Sec 12 Rule 126
Rules on CrimPro]
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT ARRESTS WERE NOT VALID AT INCEPTION,
records show that the formal deportation charges have been filed against them, as
undesirable aliens on MAR 4. Warrants of arrest were issued against them on MAR 7
for violation of Sec 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Sec 69 of the
Administrative Code. A hearing is being conducted by a Board of Special Inquiry. The
restraint against their persons has become legal. The writ has served its purpose.
The process of the law is being followed.
Where a person’s detention was later made by virtue of a judicial order in relation to a merely to determine the existence of a probable cause, leading to an
criminal case subsequently filed against the detainee, his petition for habeas corpus administrative investigation
becomes moot and academic  The denial of release on bail was in order because in deportation proceedings, the
 RULE: A writ of habeas corpus will not be granted when the confinement is or has right to bail is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion on the part of the
become legal, although such confinement was illegal at the beginning Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation
 IN CASE, PETITIONERS were not caught in the act does not make their arrest o “may” in Sec 37(e) PH Immigration Act – grant of bail is merely permissive and
illegal – they were found with young boys, others being naked. Under these not mandatory
circumstances, CID agents had reasonable grounds to believe PETITIONERS had
committed pedophilia defines a s psycho-sexual a=perversion involving children; WHEREFORE, PETITION DISMISSED, WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED
Paraphilia (or unusual sexual activity) in which children are the preferred sexual
object
 While not a crime under the Revised Penal Code, it is a behavioral offense to public PROVISIONS
morals and violate the declared policy of the State to promote and protect the Section 37 Philippine Immigration Act
physical, moral, spiritual and social well-being of our youth (Art II Sec 13 CONSTI) (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of
 The filing by PETITIONERS of a petition to be released on bail should be Immigration and Deportation or any other officer designated by him for the purpose and
considered as a waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and estops them deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation after a
from questioning its validity determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for
deportation as charged against the alien;
ON DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS (e) Any alien under arrest in a deportation proceeding may be released under bond or
The deportation charges instituted by Commissioner are in accordance with Sec under such other conditions as may be imposed by the Commissioner of Immigration
37(a) of the PH Immigration Act in relation to Sec 69 of the Revised Administrative
Code Sec 69 Revised Administrative Code
 It should be construed in its entirety in view of the summary and indivisible nature Sec. 69. Deportation of subject of foreign power. A subject of a foreign power residing
of a deportation proceeding, otherwise, the very purpose of deportation in the Philippines shall not be deported, expelled, or excluded from said Islands or
proceedings would be defeated repatriated to his own country by the President of the Philippines except upon prior
 Sec 37(a) is not constitutionally proscribed – the specific constraints in both 1938 investigation, conducted by said Executive or his authorized agent, of the ground upon
and 1987 Consti contemplates prosecutions essentially criminal in nature which such action is contemplated. In such a case the person concerned shall be
 Deportation proceedings are administrative in character. An order of informed of the charge or charges against him and he shall be allowed not less than 3
deportation is never construed as a punishment. It is preventive, not a penal days for the preparation of his defense. He shall also have the right to be heard by
process. It need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court himself or counsel, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to cross-examine the
proceedings. opposing witnesses.
 VIVO VS. MONTESA – the issuance of warrants of arrest by the Commissioner of
Immigration, solely for purposes of investigation and before a final order of
deportation is issued, conflicts with Sec 1 Art III Consti [NOT APPLICABLE IN
CASE]
o IN CASE, RESPONDENT’s warrant of arrest did not order PETITIONERS to
appear and show cause why they should not be deported – they were issued
specifically for violations of the Immigration Act and Revised Administrative
Code. Before that, deportation proceedings had been commenced against
them as undesirable aliens and arrest was a step preliminary to their possible
deportation
o Section 37 of the Immigration Law, which empowers the Commissioner
of Immigration to issue warrants for the arrest of overstaying aliens is
constitutional. The arrest is a step preliminary to the deportation of the
aliens who had violated the condition of their stay in this country.
 Requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a Judge, does not extend to
deportation proceedings.
 QUE CHEE GAN VS. DEPORTATION BOARD – Under the express terms of the
Constitution (1935 CONSTI), it is therefore even doubtful whether the arrest of an
individual may be ordered by any authority other than a judge if the purpose is