Artice 3 Section 1 Lao Gi v. CA

SECTION 1 (PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS)
LAO GI V. CA
DOCTRINE
Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal
action, however, considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative
proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional right of
such person to due process should not be denied. Thus, the provisions of the Rules of
Court of the Philippines particularly on criminal procedure are applicable to
deportation proceedings.
FACTS
Secretary of Justice rendered Opinion No. 191 finding Filomeno Chia, Jr., alias Sia
Pieng Hui to be a Filipino citizen as it appears that his father Filomeno Chia, Sr. is a
Filipino citizen. However the Minister of Justice rendered another Opinion-Opinion
No. 147, cancelling Opinion No. 191 and setting aside the citizenship of Filomeno
Chia, Sr. on the ground that it was founded on fraud and misrepresentation.
A charge for deportation was filed with the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation (CID) against Lao Gi alias Filomeno Chia, Sr., his wife and children.
An amended charge was filed with the CID alleging that said respondents refused to
register as aliens having been required to do so and continued to refuse to register as
such. another amended charge was filed alleging that Manuel Chia committed acts of
undesirability.
ISSUE
WON due process was accorded to the petitioners. (NO)
HELD
Before any alien may be deported upon a warrant of the Commissioner of
Immigration, there should be a prior determination by the Board of Commissioners
of the existence of the ground as charged against the alien.
In this case it appears that petitioners are charged with having entered the Philippines
by means of false and misleading statements or without inspection or admission by
the immigration authorities at a designated port of entry.
After appropriate charges are filed in the CID the specific grounds of which he
should be duly informed of, a hearing should be conducted, and it is only after such a
hearing by the CID that the alien may be ordered deported. In such a hearing,
Opinion No. 191 and Opinion No. 147 will bear much weight in the determination
by the CID of the citizenship of said petitioners.
The petitioners question the Order of Acting Commissioner Nituda that they register
as aliens as required by the Immigration Act. While it is not disputed that it is also
within the power and authority of the Commissioner to require an alien to so register,
such a requirement must be predicated on a positive finding that the person who is so
required is an alien. In this case where the very citizenship of the petitioners is in
issue there should be a previous determination by the CID that they are aliens before
the petitioners may be directed and required to register as aliens.
The power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is an act by or under the
authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens
whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and
domestic tranquility of the people.
Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal
action, however, considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative
proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional right of
such person to due process should not be denied. Thus, the provisions of the Rules of
Court of the Philippines particularly on criminal procedure are applicable to
deportation proceedings.
Under Section 37(c) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 as amended, it
provided that the charge against an alien must specify the acts or omissions
complained of which must be stated in ordinary and concise language to enable a
person of common understanding to know on what ground he is intended to be
deported and enable the CID to pronounce a proper judgment.
Before any charge should be filed in the CID a preliminary investigation must be
conducted to determine if there is a sufficient cause to charge the respondent for
deportation. The issuance of warrants of arrest, arrests without warrant and service
of warrants should be in accordance likewise with Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure; search warrants issued by the CID shall be governed by Rule
126 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure; and so the matter of bail, motion to
quash, and trial, among others. Fealty to the prescribed rules of procedure in
deportation cases shall insure a speedy, fair and just dispensation of justice.

Artice 3 Section 1 Lao Gi v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artice 3 Section 1 Lao Gi v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artice 3 Section 1 Lao Gi v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECTION 1 (PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS)

You might also like