University of the Philippines College of Law

CPE, 1-D

Topic JURISDICTION
Case No. L-23846 / SEPTEMBER 9, 1977
Case Name GO TEK V. DEPORTATION BOARD
Ponente AQUINO, j.

RELEVANT FACTS

1. On March 3, 1964 the chief prosecutor of the Deportation Board filed a complaint against Go Tek a
Chinaman residing at Ilagan, Isabela and Sta. Cruz Manila.
2. It was alleged in the complaint that:
a. in December, 1963 agents of the NBI searched an office located at 1439 O'Donnel Street, Sta.
Cruz, Manila believed to be the headquarters of a guerilla unit of the "Emergency Intelligence
Section, Army of the United States"
b. that among those arrested thereat was Go Tek an alleged sector commander and intelligence
and record officer of that guerilla unit.
c. that fake dollar checks were found in Go Tek's possession and
d. that, therefore, he had violated article 168 of the RPC and rendered himself an undesirable
alien.
3. The prosecutor prayed that after trial the Board should recommend to the President of the Philippines
the immediate deportation of Go Tek as an undesirable alien, "his presence in this country having been,
and will always be and a menace to the peace, welfare, and security of the community".
4. Go Tek filed a MTD on the ground that the complaint was premature bemuse them was a pending case
against him in the city fiscal's office of Manila for violation of article 168 RPC. He contended that the
board had no jurisdiction to try the case in view of the obiter dictum in Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation
Board, that it may deport aliens only on the grounds specified in the law.
5. The Board,denied Go Teks motion.
Reasoning: a conviction is not a prerequisite before the State may exercise its rights to deport an
undesirable alien and that the Board is only a fact finding body whose function is to make a report and
recommendation to the President in whom is lodged the exclusive power to deport an alien or a
deportation proceeding.
6. Because of the denial, Go Tek filed in the CFI of Manila a prohibition action against the Board.
7. The CFI then issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the board from hearing Go Tek's case.
8. The CFI granted the writ prohibition and the Board to desist from taking cognizance of the Go Tek.
Reasoning: an obiter dictum in the Qua Chee Gan case, held that mere possession of forged dollar
checks is not a ground for deportation under the Immigration Law; that under section 37(3) since a
conviction is necessary for deportation, Go Tek may not be deported because has not been convicted of
the offense punished in article 168, and that the deportation was premature.
9. The Board appealed to the SC on the ground that the decision is contrary to law.
10. The Solicitor General contends that the CFI erred in:
a. assuming that the President may deport undesirable aliens only to grounds enumerated by law;
b. holding that mere possession of forged dollar checks is not a ground for deportation and that a
criminal conviction is necessary, and
c. stating that the Board has no jurisdiction over Go Tek's case.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

11. The parties stipulated that the Deportation Board is an agency of the President of the Philippines
charged with the investigation of undesirable aliens and to report and recommend proper action on the
basis of its findings therein."

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the YES. We hold that the Board has jurisdiction to investigate Go Tek for illegal possession of
Deportation fake dollar checks (as well as his alleged "guerilla" activities) in spite of the fact that he has
Board can not yet been convicted of illegal possession thereof under article 168 of the Revised Penal
entertain a Code and notwithstanding that act is not the grounds for the deportation of undesirable
deportation aliens as enumerated in section 37 of the Immigration Law. The charge against Go Tek
proceeding before- the Board was not premature.
based on a
ground which 1. REBUTTING THE QUA CHEE GAN OBITER ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER
is not specified
in section 37 of The aforementioned obiter dictum the Qua Chee Gan case invoked by Go Tek and relied
the upon by the trial court, is not of this case. In the Qua Chee Gan case the aliens were with
Immigration economic sabotage which is a ground for deportation under Republic Act No. 503.
Law and
although the 2. THE DEPORATION BOARD’S POWER TO DETERMINE CAUSE FOR DEPORTATION AND
aliens has not THE PRESIDENT’S POWER TO DEPORT ALIENS
yet been
convicted of The President's power to deport aliens and the investigation of aliens subject to deportation
the offense are provided for in the following provisions of the Revised Administrative Code:
imputed to
him. SEC. 69. Deportation of subject of foreign power. — A subject of a foreign power
residing in the Philippine Islands shall not be deported expelled, or excluded from said
Islands or repatriated to his own country by the Governor-General except upon prior
investigator, conducted by said Executive or his authorized agent, of the ground upon
which such action is contemplated. In such case the person concerned shall he
informed of the charge or charges against him and he shall be allowed not less than
three days for the preparation of his defense. He shall also have the right to be heard
by himself or counsel, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to cross-examine the
opposing witnesses.

On the other hand, section 37 of the Immigration Law Provides that certain aliens may be
arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of any other officer
designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the Commissioner's warrant - "after
a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for
deportation as charged against the alien." Thirteen classes of aliens who may be deported
by the Commissioner are specified in section 37.

So, under existing law; the deportation of an undesirable alien may be effected
(1) by order of the President, after due investigation, pursuant to section 69 of the Revised
Administrative Code and
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

(2) by the Commissioner of Immigration upon recommendation of the Board of

Commissioners under section 37 of the immigration Law (Qua Chee Gan vs- Deportation
Board, supra).

SECTION 69 and Executive Order No. 398, the Deportation Board, do not specify the
grounds for deportation Paragraph l(a) of Executive Order No. 398 merely provides that:

"the Deportation Board, motu proprio or upon complaint of any person is authorized
to conduct investigations in the manner prescribed in section 69 of the Revised
Administrative Code to determine whether a subject of a foreign power in the
Philippines is an undesirable alien or not, and thereafter to recommend to the
President of the Philippines the deportation of such alien."

As observed by Justice Labrador, there is no legal nor constitutes provision defining the
power to deport aliens because the intention of the law is to grant the Chief Executive "full
discretion to determine whether an alien's residence in the country is so undesirable as to
affect or injure the security welfare or interest of the state. The adjudication of facts upon
which deportation is predicated also devolves on the Chief Executive whose decision is final
and executory."

It has been held that the Chief Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of
facts which warrant the deportation of aliens as disclosed in an investigation conducted. No
other tribunal is at liberty to reexamine or to controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on
which he acted.

"It is fundamental that an executive order for deportation is not dependent on a prior
judicial conviction in a case". Thus, it was held that the fact that an alien has been acquitted
in a of the charge does not prevent the deportation of such alien based on the same charge.
Such acquittal does not constitute res judicata in the deportation proceedings. Conviction of
a crime is not needed to warrant deportation.

And in the Tan Tong case, supra, it was ruled that the Deportation Board could take
cognizance of the charge of illegal importation against an alien as a ground for deportation,
even if he has not been convicted of that offense.

It should be borne in mind that the decision of the Deportation Board is merely
recommendatory. The Chief Executive has to approve the board's recommendatory Abuses
or rents committed by the prosecutor or by the Board should first be brought to his
attention.

Reason for giving the President such power: In the Dick case it was noted "that every alien
forfeits his right to asylum in the country in which he resides, in the absence of treaty
provisions to the contrary when his conduct or his mode of life renders his prance there
inimical to the public interests". "The reasons may be summed up and co in a single word:
the public interest of the State.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

RULING

WHEREFORE, the lower court's decision is reversed and set aside. The writ of preliminary injunction is dissolved.
The case is to the Deportation Board for further proceedings. Costs against the petitioner-appellee.

SO ORDERED.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

Antonio, J., concurs:

The law grants to the Chief Executive full discretion to determine whether an alien's residence in the country is
so undesirable as to affect or injure the security, welfare or interest of the State. It is fundamental that an
executive order for deportation is not dependent on a prior judicial conviction in a criminal (Ang Beng, et al. v.
Com. of Immigration, 100 Phil. 801, 803, citing Tan Tong v. Deportation Board, 96 Phil. (934)

NOTES

The Deportation Board is composed of the (1) Undersecretary of Justice as chairman , (2) the solicitor General,
and (3) a representative of the Secretary of National Defense.