Monday, February 6, 2012

Lao Gi v CA (1989) 180 SCRA 756

J. Gancayo
Filomeno Chia Jr. was made a Filipino citizen by virtue of Opinion 191 by the Secretary of justice. However, this was revoked when his father’s citizenship was cast aside due to fraud and misrepresentation.
Charges of deportation were filed against the Chias. Charges also alleged that they refused to register as aliens and that they committed acts of undesirability.
The Chias said that the CID has no authority to deport them which was denied by the CID.
They filed a petition with the Supreme Court for a writ of preliminary injunction which was dismissed for lack of merit. Their MFR was also denied.
Earlier, Manuel Chia’s case of falsification of public documents in alleging he was a Filipino citizen. He was alleged to have done this for the sale of real property. The trial court acquitted him by saying that Opinion 191 was res judicata and cant be contravened by Opinion 147.
The CID set the hearing for the deportation case against the Chias and told them to register as aliens. The Chias tooks further action. Their petition for injunctive relief was denied by the CFI of Manila.
They also lost the appeal in the CA. The Chias mfr was denied.
In their SC petition, they seek to set aside the CA decision. They argued that they weren’t subject to immediate deportation, the presence of fraud in the citizenship, the CA’s overstepping of appellate jurisdiction, and the resolution of the SC didn’t make a ruling that the petitioner entered the Philippines by false pretenses.

1. Does the CID have the jurisdiction to determine the deportation?

Held: Yes. Petition granted Hearing must be continued to determine if they are really aliens

Section 37 of the Immigration act states:
SEC. 37. (a)          The following aliens shall 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 warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien:

(1)          Any alien who enters the Philippines after the effective date of this Act by means of false and misleading statements or without inspection and admission by the immigration authorities at a designated port of entry or at any place other than at a designated port of entry. (As amended by Sec. 13, Rep. Act No. 503.) ...
There must be a determination of the existence of the ground charged, particularly illegal entry into the country. Only after the hearing can the alien be deported. Also, there must be appositive finding from the CID that they are aliens before compelling them to register as such. This power is the police power to protect the state from undesirable aliens injurious to the public good.
Since the deportation is a harsh process, due process must be observed. In the same law, it is provided that:
No alien shall be deported without being informed of the specific grounds for deportation nor without being given a hearing under rules of procedure to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration.
The acts or omissions that they are charged of must be in ordinary language for the person to be informed and for the CID to make a proper judgment. Also, the warrants of arrewst must be in accordance with the rules on criminal procedure.
On the information of a private prosecutor in the case: Deportation is the sole concern of the state. There is no justification for a private party to intervene.

No comments:

Post a Comment