1. DOMINGO VS. SCHEER 2. HARVEY VS.

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO

ISSUE: WON respondent’s arrest and detention was ISSUE: WON the Philippine Immigration Act clothed the
premature, unwarranted and arbitrary. Commissioner with any authority to arrest and detain
petitioners pending determination of the existence of a
HELD: probable cause leading to an administrative investigation.
Yes. The Court ruled that BOC committed grave abuse of
discretion in causing the arrest and detention of the HELD:
respondent. Aliens may be deported from the Philippines Yes. There can be no question that the right against
only on grounds and in the proper manner provided by the unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the
Constitution. The United Nations Declaration on Human Constitution is available to all persons, including aliens,
Rights grants every person rights, and that no one shall be whether accused of crime or not. One of the constitutional
subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. requirements of a valid search warrant or warrant of
BOC ordered respondent’s deportation without even arrest is that it must be based upon probable cause.
conducting summary deportation proceedings, but merely
relied on the speculation of the German Embassy and the In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on
Vice Consul that it is improbable that the respondent will probable cause determined after close surveillance for
be issued a new passport, warranting the deportation. The three (3) months during which period their activities were
respondent was not afforded any hearing at all, and not monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the
given the opportunity to put up a defense for himself, thus arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs
violating his right to due process. A deportation and posters without warrant. [The fact that] petitioners
proceeding may not be a criminal action, but since it were not “caught in the act” does not make their arrest
affects the liberty of a person, the right to due process of a illegal.
respondent must be respected.
The deportation charges instituted by respondent
Even six years after the motion for reconsideration of the Commissioner are in accordance with Section 37(a) of the
respondent which was still not attended to, out of nowhere Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, in relation to Section
and arbitrarily the agents were ordered to arrest him. 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. The requirement of
Even after being issued a new passport and even securing probable cause, to be determined by a Judge, does not
clearances from the PNP and NPA, the BOC still proceeded extend to deportation proceedings.” What is essential is
with the deportation. BOC is required to resolve the that there should be a specific charge against the alien
motion of the respondent first, giving him the chance to be intended to be arrested and deported, that a fair hearing
heard and present his evidence. be conducted with the assistance of counsel, if desired, and
that the charge be substantiated by competent evidence.
The petitioner put up the defense that they cannot review
cases decided before the change of members, but since it is The denial by respondent Commissioner of petitioners’
the same government entity, they have the authority to release on bail, also challenged by them, was in order
review past cases. In addition, the court finds the because in deportation proceedings, the right to bail is not
contention of the OSG for the respondent to leave the a matter of right but a matter of discretion on the part of
country then just re-apply again ridiculous when there is the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation. As
no legal impediment for the respondent to continue his deportation proceedings do not partake of the nature of a
stay in the country. criminal action, the constitutional guarantee to bail may
not be invoked by aliens in said proceedings.

Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude

aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem
proper for its self-preservation or public interest. The
power to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done by or
under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a police
measure against undesirable aliens whose continued
presence in the country is found to be injurious to the
public good and the domestic tranquility of the people.
Particularly so in this case where the State has expressly
committed itself to defend the tight of children to
assistance and special protection from all forms of neglect,
abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development (Article XV, Section 3[2]).
Respondent Commissioner of Immigration and
Deportation, in instituting deportation proceedings against
petitioners, acted in the interests of the State.
3. LAO GI VS. CA 4. TAN SIN VS. DEPORTATION BOARD

ISSUE: WON due process was accorded to petitioners. ISSUES:

(a) WON that it is Congress and not the President of the
HELD: Republic that has absolute and inherent power to deport
NO. Section 37 of the Immigration Act provides that arrest aliens;
and deportation of aliens may be done after a (b) WON that the power to deport aliens may be exercised
determination of the Board of Commissioners that a by the President only for reasons provided by law under
ground for deportation exists. After the charges are filed, CA No. 613, as amended by RA Nos. 144 and 503, and after
respondents should be notified of the grounds and a hearing as provided for in sec. 69, RAC
hearing should be conducted and it is only after a hearing
has been conducted may the alien be deported and the HELD:
Opinions rendered will bear weight in the determination (a) The power to deport aliens is lodged in the President
of their citizenship. Nituda can only direct or order of the Republic of the Philippines. As an act of state, it is
respondents to register as aliens once there is a positive vested in the Executive by virtue of his office, subject only
finding that the respondents are aliens. to the regulations prescribed in Sec. 69 of the RAC or to
such future legislation as may be promulgated on the
"The power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is an subject. There is no provision in the Constitution nor act of
act by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a the legislature defining the power, as it is evident that it is
police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence the intention of the law to grant to the Chief Executive full
in the country is found to be injurious to the public good discretion to determine whether an alien's residence in the
and domestic tranquility of the people." country is so undesirable as to affect or injure the security,
welfare or interest of the state. The adjudication of facts
Considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary upon which deportation is predicated also devolves on the
administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and Chief Executive whose decision is final and executory.
liberty of a person, the constitutional right of such person
to due process should not be denied. Rules of Criminal (b) Sec. 37 merely enumerates the grounds for which an
Procedure are to be used. alien may be arrested upon warrant of the Commissioner
of Immigration or of any officer designated by him for the
Before a charge should be filed in the CID, a preliminary purpose; and after determination by the Board of
investigation should be conducted to determine if there is Commissioners of the existence of the ground for
sufficient cause for the respondent to be charged of deportation, an alien may be deported upon warrant
deportation. SC does not find the private prosecutor a issued by the Commissioner of Immigration.
participant with legal standing, should there be
establishment of damages arising from the deportation The fact that the ground upon which the appellant is
charge against the alien, this can only be acted upon in sought to be deported is not among those mentioned in the
ordinary courts. [spell, deportation charges are exclusively law cited by him, does not mean that the power to deport
for CID and those with jurisdiction, between the state and an alien whose stay in the Philippines has become
the alien]. Petition granted and CID is to continue hearing undesirable for causes not mentioned therein, has been
the case and determine if respondents should be deported. withdrawn from the President or abrogated by the
enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended.
Section 52 of the last mentioned Act expressly provides
that section 69 of Act No. 2711) shall continue to remain in
force and effect.

The order of the Deportation Board to hold the Tan Sin in

custody pending determination of the deportation
proceedings instituted against him is legal. Temporary
detention is a necessary step in the process of exclusion or
expulsion of an undesirable alien and pending
arrangements for his deportation, the Government has the
right to hold him under confinement for a reasonable
length of time.
5. GO TEK VS. DEPORTATION BOARD 6. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS. KORUGA

ISSUE: Whether or not the Deportation Board can ISSUE: WON there is a valid and legal ground for the
entertain a deportation proceeding based on a ground deportation of Koruga?
which is not specified in section 37 of the Immigration Law HELD:
and although the aliens has not yet been convicted of the YES. Sec. 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested
offense imputed to him. upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or
of any other officer designated by him for the purpose and
HELD: deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of
Yes, under existing law; the deportation of an undesirable Immigration after a determination by the Board of
alien may be effected (1) by order of the President, after Commissioners of the existence of the ground for
due investigation, pursuant to section 69 of the Revised deportation as charged against the alien.
Administrative Code and (2) by the Commissioner of
Immigration upon recommendation of the Board of
Commissioners under section 37 of the immigration Law. Respondent was charged with violation of Section 37(a)
(4) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended.
The state has the inherent power to deport undesirable
aliens. That power may be exercise by the Chief Executive Respondent contends that the use of the definite
"when he deems such action necessary for the peace and article “the” immediately preceding the phrase “law on
domestic tranquility of the nation Justice Johnson's is that prohibited drugs means that the ONLY law covered is the
there the Chief Executive rinds that there are aliens whose Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. (And not other drug laws,
continued in the country is injurious to the public interest like the Washington law in this case.) Koruga is incorrect.
he may, even in the absence of express law, deport them. If his interpretation of the law is allowed, it would create a
situation where only aliens convicted of
A thorough comprehension of the President's power to Philippine prohibited drugs law would be deported, while
deport aliens may show the baselessness of the instant aliens convicted of foreign prohibited drugs laws would be
prohibition action of Go Tek The President's power to allowed entry in the country.
deport aliens and the investigation of aliens subject to
deportation are provided for in the following provisions of Indubitably, Section 37(a)(4) should be given a
the Revised Administrative Code: reasonable interpretation, not one which defeats the
very purpose for which the law was passed.
SEC. 69. Deportation of subject of foreign power. — A
subject of a foreign power residing in the Philippine Moreover, since Section 37(a)(4) makes no distinction
Islands shall not be deported expelled, or excluded from between a foreign prohibited drugs law and the Philippine
said Islands or repatriated to his own country by the prohibited drugs law, neither should this Court. Ubi lex non
Governor-General except upon prior investigator, distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. Thus, Section
conducted by said Executive or his authorized agent, of the 37(a)(4) should apply to those convicted of all prohibited
ground upon which such action is contemplated. In such drugs laws, whether local or foreign
case the person concerned shall he informed of the charge
or charges against him and he shall be allowed not less [ADDITIONAL] When an alien, such as respondent, has
than three days for the preparation of his defense. He shall already physically gained entry in the country, but such
also have the right to be heard by himself or counsel, to entry is later found unlawful or devoid of legal basis, the
produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to cross-examine alien can be excluded anytime after it is found that he was
the opposing witnesses. not lawfully admissible at the time of his entry.

The BI has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to try

and hear cases against an alleged alien, while the BOC has
jurisdiction over deportation proceedings.

The settled rule is that the entry or stay of aliens in the

Philippines is merely a privilege and a matter of grace;
such privilege is not absolute or permanent and may be
revoked. However, aliens may be expelled or deported
from the Philippines only on grounds and in the manner
provided for by the Constitution, the Philippine
Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, and administrative
issuances pursuant thereto.
7. CO VS. HRET 8. DAVID VS. AGBAY
ISSUE: Whether or not Jose Ong, Jr. is a citizen of the
Philippines. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner may be indicted for
falsification for representing himself as a Filipino in his
HELD: Public Land Application despite his subsequent re-
Yes. In the year 1895, the private respondent’s acquisition of Philippine citizenship under the provisions
grandfather, Ong Te, arrived in the Philippines from China of R.A. 9225
and established his residence in the municipality of
Laoang, Samar. The father of the private respondent, Jose HELD:
Ong Chuan was born in China in 1905 but was brought by R.A. 9225, otherwise known as the “Citizenship Retention
Ong Te to Samar in the year 1915, he filed with the court and Re-acquisition Act of 2003,” was signed into law by
an application for naturalization and was declared a President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on August 29, 2003.
Filipino citizen. Sections 2 and 3 of said law read:

In 1984, the private respondent married a Filipina named SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.–It is hereby declared the policy
Desiree Lim. For the elections of 1984 and 1986, Jose Ong, of the State that all Philippine citizens who become citizens
Jr. registered himself as a voter of Laoang, Samar, and of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their
voted there during those elections. Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.

Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.–Any provision of
and those born of Filipino mothers with an alien father law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens
were placed on equal footing. They were both considered of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship
as natural born citizens. Besides, private respondent did by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign
more than merely exercise his right of suffrage. He has country are hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine
established his life here in the Philippines. citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to
the Republic.nRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On the issue of residence, it is not required that a person
should have a house in order to establish his residence and Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the
domicile. It is enough that he should live in the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country
municipality or in a rented house or in that of a friend or shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
relative. To require him to own property in order to be aforesaid oath. (Emphasis supplied)
eligible to run for Congress would be tantamount to a
property qualification. The Constitution only requires that While Section 2 declares the general policy that Filipinos
the candidate meet the age, citizenship, voting and who have become citizens of another country shall be
residence requirements. deemed “not to have lost their Philippine citizenship,” such
is qualified by the phrase “under the conditions of this
Act.” Section 3 lays down such conditions for two
categories of natural-born Filipinos referred to in the first
and second paragraphs. Under the first paragraph are
those natural-born Filipinos who have lost their
citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country who shall
re-acquire their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. The
second paragraph covers those natural-born Filipinos who
became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, who
shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
same oath. The taking of oath of allegiance is required for
both categories of natural-born Filipino citizens who
became citizens of a foreign country, but the terminology
used is different, “re-acquired” for the first group, and
“retain” for the second group.

The law thus makes a distinction between those natural-

born Filipinos who became foreign citizens before (first
group) and after (second group) the effectivity of R.A.
9225. Although the heading of Section 3 is “Retention of
Philippine Citizenship”, the authors of the law intentionally
employed the terms “re-acquire” and “retain” to describe
the legal effect of taking the oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines. This is also evident from the
title of the law using both re-acquisition and retention.
 9. BENGZON VS. HRET
In fine, for those who were naturalized in a foreign
country, they shall be deemed to have re-acquired their ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Cruz, a natural-born
Philippine citizenship which was lost pursuant to CA 63, Filipino who became an American citizen, can still be
under which naturalization in a foreign country is one of considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition
the ways by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. of Philippine citizenship.

In the case of those who became foreign citizens after R.A. HELD:
9225 took effect, they shall retain Philippine citizenship YES. Repatriation results in the recovery of the original
despite having acquired foreign citizenship provided they nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost
took the oath of allegiance under the new law. his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a
naturalized Filipino citizen.
That the law distinguishes between re-acquisition and
retention of Philippine citizenship was made clear in the In respondent Cruz's case, he lost his Filipino citizenship
discussion of the Bicameral Conference Committee, when he rendered service in the Armed Forces of the
wherein the following was explained: United States. However, he subsequently reacquired
Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 2630. Having thus
“The reacquisition will apply to those who lost their taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and
Philippine citizenship by virtue of Commonwealth Act having registered the same in the Civil Registry of
63…The second aspect is the retention of Philippine Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited
citizenship applying to future instances… eacquired for provision, respondent Cruz is deemed to have recovered
those who previously lost [Filipino citizenship] by virtue of his original status as a natural-born citizen, a status which
Commonwealth Act 63, and retention for those in the he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father.
future.”
It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows
Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian him to recover, or return to, his original status before
citizen prior to the effectivity of R.A. 9225, he belongs to he lost his Philippine citizenship.
the first category of natural-born Filipinos under the first
paragraph of Section 3 who lost Philippine citizenship by As respondent Cruz was not required by law to go through
naturalization in a foreign country. naturalization proceedings in order to reacquire his
citizenship, he is perforce a natural-born Filipino. As such,
Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a he possessed all the necessary qualifications to be elected
public document, that he is a Filipino citizen at the time of as member of the House of Representatives.
the filing of said application, when in fact he was then still
a Canadian citizen. Under CA 63, the governing law at the
time he was naturalized as Canadian citizen, naturalization
in a foreign country was among those ways by which a
natural-born citizen loses his Philippine citizenship. While
he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 six
months later, the falsification was already a consummated
act, the said law having no retroactive effect insofar as his
dual citizenship status is concerned. The MTC therefore
did not err in finding probable cause for falsification of
public document under Article 172, paragraph 1.