Forbes v Chuoco Tiaco and Crossfield Expulsion is a police measure, having for its object the purging of the
object the purging of the state of
J. Johnson | 1910
FACTS:
- In 1909, Chuoco Tiaco, a Chinese man residing in the Philippines, was
seized and carried against his will aboard a steamer Yuensang by
Trowbridge and Harding. The latters’ intent was to deport Tiaco and send
him back to China, as per the instructions of Governor General Forbes.
- Tiaco then returned to the Philippines, and was threatened to be deported
again by Forbes
- In the CFI Manila, Tiaco filed a motion for preliminary injunction against
Forbes, Trowbridge, Harding, and other government officials so as to
restrain them from deporting him again. This was granted by the herein
defendant Judge Crossfield.
- Forbes et al filed a 
 quietude of its people. These inherent powers are intended to give the
1.) demurrer and 
 government adequate power to preserve itself and to protect the highest
2.) a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. They claim that
- the alleged facts were not sufficient for the issuance of an injunction
- the court had no jurisdiction over the issue as Forbes was acting as a
governor general in the public interest of the government.
- Judge Crossfield overruled and did not grant either; Forbes thus files this
petition
ISSUE:
<> W/N Forbes had authority at law, as Governor General of the Philippines,
to deport Tiaco — YES
As the Government of the Philippines has all the necessary powers of a
government, it inherently has all such powers necessary to preserve itself, i.e.
prevent the entrance into or eliminate from its borders all such aliens whose
presence is found to be detrimental or injurious to its public interest, peace,
and domestic tranquility.
obnoxious foreigners. It is a matter of prevention, and not punishment.
The expulsion of foreigners is a political measure. In this regard, the
executive power may expel, without appeal, any person whose presence
tends to disturb the public peace. Its enforcement belongs peculiarly to the
political department of the government.
*The court adds these conclusions are only applicable to cases of aliens such as
Tiaco, but not to cases where vested rights are involved.
<> W/N the lower court had jurisdiction to restrain him from making such
deportation — NO
According to this court, there are certain inherent powers vested in the chief
executive authority of the State which are universally considered political, and
are not defined by the constitution or by the laws. Such powers continue to
exist for the preservation of the life and integrity of the state, and peace and
interests of the people.
Accordingly, this right to self-preservation of the state should be exercised
by the executive power, to which such right is especially entrusted, without
interference on the part of the judicial power.
For the judiciary to interfere would destroy the independence of the
department, and make all departments subject to the ultimate control of the
judicial.
PETITION GRANTED. 

Injunction on Forbes dissolved. Crossfield barred from deciding on the case.
(and Tiaco back to China.)
ERBC