Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 161 views

    DIRECTOR OF PRISONS v. ANG CHO KIO

    Uploaded by

    Alexandrea Cornejo
    The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot interfere with the President's exercise of administrative power to recommit prisoners. Specifically, the Court of Appeals' recommendation that Ang Cho Kio be allowed to leave the country on the first available transportation was beyond its authority and gave the decision a political complexion. Courts' recommendatory powers are limited to those expressly provided by law, such as recommendations under Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code during sentencing. However, the Court of Appeals was not reviewing Ang Cho Kio's sentence in this habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his imprisonment, so it should not have made a recommendation about allowing him to leave the country.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DIRECTOR OF PRISONS v. ANG CHO KIO

    Uploaded by

    Alexandrea Cornejo
    161 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot interfere with the President's exercise of administrative power to recommit prisoners. Specifically, the Court of Appeals' recommendation that Ang Cho Kio be allowed to leave the country on the first available transportation was beyond its authority and gave the decision a political complexion. Courts' recommendatory powers are limited to those expressly provided by law, such as recommendations under Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code during sentencing. However, the Court of Appeals was not reviewing Ang Cho Kio's sentence in this habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his imprisonment, so it should not have made a recommendation about allowing him to leave the country.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot interfere with the President's exercise of administrative power to recommit prisoners. Specifically, the Court of Appeals' recommendation that Ang Cho Kio be allowed to leave the country on the first available transportation was beyond its authority and gave the decision a political complexion. Courts' recommendatory powers are limited to those expressly provided by law, such as recommendations under Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code during sentencing. However, the Court of Appeals was not reviewing Ang Cho Kio's sentence in this habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his imprisonment, so it should not have made a recommendation about allowing him to leave the country.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    161 views1 page

    DIRECTOR OF PRISONS v. ANG CHO KIO

    Uploaded by

    Alexandrea Cornejo
    The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot interfere with the President's exercise of administrative power to recommit prisoners. Specifically, the Court of Appeals' recommendation that Ang Cho Kio be allowed to leave the country on the first available transportation was beyond its authority and gave the decision a political complexion. Courts' recommendatory powers are limited to those expressly provided by law, such as recommendations under Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code during sentencing. However, the Court of Appeals was not reviewing Ang Cho Kio's sentence in this habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his imprisonment, so it should not have made a recommendation about allowing him to leave the country.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    FULL TITLE AS IN FULL TEXT: THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS and THE EXECUTIVE

    SECRETARY, petitioners,
    vs.
    ANG CHO KIO @ ANG MING HUY and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
    G.R. No. L-30001
    DATE: June 23, 1970
    PONENTE: ZALDIVAR, J.
    TOPIC: Sec 5. of RPC - Judicial Recommendation

    FACTS OF THE CASE:


    Respondent Ang Cho Kio @ Ang Ming Huy had been convicted of various offenses
    committed in the Philippines and was sentenced to suffer penalties of life imprisonment and
    indemnity. After serving 6-½ years said respondent was granted conditional pardon on July 4,
    1959 by the President of the Philippines on condition that he will voluntarily leave the Philippines
    upon his release and never to return to this country.

    June 26, 1966, Ang Cho Kio returned to the Philippines under the guise of an alias “Ang
    Ming Huy” and was arrested after he was discovered trying to extend his stay. On July 5, 1966
    the Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, ordered him recommitted to prison to
    serve the unexpired portion of the sentence that were imposed on him, for having violated the
    conditioned of his pardon.

    PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
    Respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus which the CFI of Rizal denied. The CA
    affirmed the decision but made a recommendation that Ang may be allowed to leave the country
    on the first available transportation abroad.

    The Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration praying for the deletion of the
    recommendation. The Solicitor General maintains that the recommendation is not a part of the
    decision and was uncalled for; that it gives the decision a political complexion, because courts
    are not empowered to make such a recommendation, nor is it inherent or incidental in the
    exercise of judicial powers. He also contends that allowing convicted aliens to leave the country
    is an act of the state exercises solely in the discretion of the Chief Executive. It is urged that the
    act of sending an undesirable alien out of the country is political in character, and the courts
    should not interfere with, nor attempt to influence, the political acts of the President.

    STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S: W/N the Courts of Justice may interfere in the exercise by the
    President, thru his Executive Secretary, of his administrative power of recommitment.

    HOLDING: NO. The only question to be resolved by the Court of Appeals is whether or not the
    CFI of Rizal had rightly dismissed the petition of Ang Cho Kio for habeas corpus. The CA was
    not called upon to review any sentence on the respondent. The recommitment to prison of Ang
    Cho Kio was done in the exercise by the President of the Philippines of his power pursuant to
    the provision of Section 64 of the Revised Administrative Code, and the courts should not
    interfere with the exercise of that power.

    The recommendatory powers of the courts in this jurisdiction are limited to those
    expressly provided in the law — and such law is the provision of Section 5 of the Revised Penal
    Code. The Court of Appeals was not called upon to review any sentence that was imposed on
    Ang Cho Kio. It was simply called upon to determine whether Ang Cho Kio was illegally
    confined, or not, in the insular penitentiary under the Director of Prisons.

    You might also like