Qua Chee Gan v. The Deportatio N Board Case Digest

37. Qua Chee Gan v. The Deportatio n Board, G.R. No.
L-10280, September 30, 1963
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-10280 September 30, 1963
QUA CHEE GAN, JAMES UY, DANIEL DY alias DEE PAC, CHAN TIONG YU, CUA CHU TIAN,
CHUA LIM PAO alias JOSE CHUA and BASILIO KING, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
THE DEPORTATION BOARD, respondent-appellee.
Sabido and Sabido Law Offices and Ramon T. Oben for petitioners-appellants.
Solicitor General for respondent-appellee.
SUMMARY: Aliens were charged with violating the prohibition on purchasing dollars
without proper license from the Central Bank of the Phils. Warrants for their arrest
were issued. They sought to dismiss the charges against them on the grounds that
the Deportation Board did not have jurisdiction to try the case. Lower court ruled that
the Deportation Board had the authority to issue warrants and deport aliens. SC held
that the Deportation Board has authority to deport, but not issue warrants of arrest.
DOCTRINE: Under the express terms of our Constitution, it is doubtful whether the
arrest of an individual may be ordered by any authority other than the judge if the
purpose is merely to determine the existence of a probable cause, leading to an
administrative investigation. The Constitution does not distinguish between warrants
in a criminal case and administrative warrants in administrative proceedings. One
suspected of a violation of an administrative nature is entitled to a determination of
the probable cause against him, by a judge.
FACTS: Special Prosecutor Emilio L. Galang charged Qua Chee Gan, James Uy,
Daniel Dy alias Dee Pac, Chan Tiong Yu, Chua Chu Tian, Chua Lim Pao alias Jose
Chua, and Basilio King before the Deportation Board, with having purchased U.S.
dollars in the total sum of $130,000.00, without the necessary license from the Central
Bank of the Philippines, of remitting them to Hongkong, and attempting to bribe officers
of the Philippine and US Governments to evade prosecution. Following the deportation
charges, a warrant for the arrest of said aliens was issued by the presiding member of
the Deportation Board. Upon filing bond, Chee Gan et al. were provisionally set free.
Chee Gan et al. filed a joint motion to dismiss in the Deportation Board based on
the grounds that the charge does not constitute legal ground for deportation of aliens
from this country, and that the Board has no jurisdiction to entertain such charges. This
was denied and so Chee Gan et al. filed with the court a petition for habeas corpus
and/or prohibition. The court also issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the
Deportation Board from hearing Deportation charges against them until after the petition
of habeas corpus was resolved.
After trial, the court upheld the validity of the delegation by the president to the
Deportation Board of his power to conduct investigations to determine the alien’s
presence in this country would be injurious to the security, welfare and interest of the
State. The court also sustained the power of the deportation Board to issue warrant of
arrest and fix bonds for the alien's temporary release pending investigation of charges
against him, since the power to arrest and fix the amount of the bond of the arrested
alien is essential to and complement the power to deport aliens pursuant to Section 69
of the Revised Administrative Code. Chee Gan et al. appealed.
ISSUES/Ruling
I. WON the charges constitute a ground to deport- YES

The charges constitute an act of profiteering, hoarding or blackmarketing of U.S.
dollars, in violation of the Central Bank regulations — an economic sabotage — which is
a ground for deportation under the provisions of Republic Act 503 amending Section 37
of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. The President may order the deportation of
these petitioners if after investigation they are shown to have committed the act
charged.
II. WON the Deportation Board has the power to deport- YES
Under Commonwealth Act No. 613 (Immigration Act of 1940), the Commissioner
of Immigration was empowered to effect the arrest and expulsion of an alien, after
previous determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of ground or
grounds therefor (Sec- 37). This law, however, did not intend to delimit or concentrate
the exercise of the power to deport on the Immigration Commissioner alone, because in
its Section 52, it provides:.
SEC. 52. This Act is in substitution for and supersedes all previous laws
relating to the entry of aliens into the Philippines, and their exclusion, deportation,
and repatriation therefrom, with the exception of section sixty-nine of Act
Numbered Twenty-seven hundred and eleven which shall continue in force and
effect: ..." (Comm. Act No. 613).
Section 69 of Act No. 2711 (Revised Administrative Code) reads:.
SEC. 69 Deportation of subject to foreign power. — A subject of a foreign

power residing in the Philippines shall not be deported, expelled, or excluded
from said Islands or repatriated to his own country by the President of the
Philippines except upon prior investigation, conducted by said Executive or his
authorized agent, of the ground upon which Such action is contemplated. In such
case the person concerned shall be informed of the charge or charges against
him and he shall be allowed not less than these 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."
While this did not expressly confer on the President the authority to deport
undesirable aliens, unlike the express grant to the Commissioner of Immigration under
Commonwealth Act No. 613, the fact that a procedure was provided for the President’s
deportation of an alien-which was expressly exempted from the repealing effect of the
Immigration Act of 1940-is a clear indication of the legislature’s recognition of the
Executive’s power to deport. Many court decisions sanction this executive power as
well.
The deportation of an undesirable alien may be effected in two ways: by order of

the President, after due investigation, pursuant to Section 69 of the Revised
Administrative Code, and by the Commissioner of Immigration, upon recommendation
by the Board of Commissioners, under Section 37 of Commonwealth Act No. 613.
III. WON the President can delegate this power to the Deportation Board- YES
There is no doubt that the President's power of investigation may be delegated.
Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code provides for a "prior investigation,
conducted by said Executive (the President) or his authorized agent." Executive Order
No. 33 of President Quezon created the Deportation Board to receive complaints
against aliens charged to be undesirable, to conduct investigation, and make the
corresponding recommendation. Since then, the Deportation Board has been
conducting the investigation as the authorized agent of the President.
IV. WON the Deportation Board has authority to issue warrants of arrest- NO
Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code, unlike Commonwealth Act No.
613, does not provide the President with specific power issue warrants of arrest. It must
be why President Roxas for the first time, saw it necessary to issue his Executive Order
No. 69, requiring the filing of a bond to secure appearance of the alien under
investigation. It did not authorize the arrest of the respondent. It was only on when
President Quirino reorganized the Deportation Board by virtue of his Executive Order
No. 398, that the Board was authorized motu proprio or upon the filing of formal charges
by the Special Prosecutor of the Board, to issue the warrant for the arrest of the alien
complained of and to hold him under detention during the investigation.
Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code, upon which the President's

power to deport relies, does not provide for the power to arrest, but the Solicitor General
argues that the law could not have denied to the Chief Executive acts which are
absolutely necessary to carry into effect the power of deportation.
In this connection, it must be remembered that the right of an individual to be

secure in his person is guaranteed by the Constitution. (Sec 1, Art. III, Bill of Rights,
Philippine Constitution). Under the express terms of our Constitution, it is doubtful
whether the arrest of an individual may be ordered by any authority other than the judge
if the purpose is merely to determine the existence of a probable cause, leading to an
administrative investigation. The Constitution does not distinguish between warrants in
a criminal case and administrative warrants in administrative proceedings. One
suspected of a violation of an administrative nature is entitled to a determination of the
probable cause against him, by a judge. The contention of the Solicitor General that the
arrest of a foreigner is necessary to carry into effect the power of deportation is valid
only when there is already an order of deportation.
The fact that the Constitution itself, as well as the statute relied upon, prescribe
the manner by which the warrant may be issued, conveys the intent to make the
issuance of such warrant dependent upon conditions the determination of the existence
of which requires the use of discretion by the person issuing the same. The discretion of
whether a warrant of arrest shall issue or not is personal to the one upon whom the
authority devolves. And authorities are to the effect that while ministerial duties may be
delegated, official functions requiring the exercise of discretion and judgment, may not
be so delegated. Indeed, an implied grant of power that would serve the curtailment or
limitation on the fundamental right of a person, such as his security to life and liberty,
must be viewed with caution.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Executive Order No. 398, series of 1951, insofar as it
empowers the Deportation Board to issue warrant of arrest upon the filing of formal
charges against an alien or aliens and to fix bond and prescribe the conditions for the
temporary release of said aliens, is declared illegal. As a consequence, the order of
arrest issued by the respondent Deportation Board is declared null and void and the
bonds filed pursuant to such order of arrest, decreed cancelled. With the foregoing
modification, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. No costs. So ordered.

Qua Chee Gan v. The Deportatio N Board Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qua Chee Gan v. The Deportatio N Board Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Qua Chee Gan v. The Deportatio N Board Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

37. Qua Chee Gan v. The Deportatio n Board, G.R. No.

L-10280, September 30, 1963

G.R. No. L-10280 September 30, 1963

I. WON the charges constitute a ground to deport- YES

Section 69 of Act No. 2711 (Revised Administrative Code) reads:.

SEC. 69 Deportation of subject to foreign power. — A subject of a foreign

The deportation of an undesirable alien may be effected in two ways: by order of

Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code, upon which the President's

In this connection, it must be remembered that the right of an individual to be

You might also like