HARVEY V.

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
G.R. NO. 82544
JUNE 28, 1988
MELENCIO-HERERRA, J.:
FACTS:
1. Commissioner Miriam Defensor-Santiago issued a Mission Order to apprehend
three (3) of the twenty two (22) suspected pedophiles Andrew Harvey and
John Sherman, both US citizens, and Adriaan Van Elshout, a Dutch citizen.
o They were apprehended at Pagsanjan, Laguna.
o 2 of them were found together with minor boys (some of them naked), and
all of them possessed scandalous literature, photos, and negatives.
2. The three faced deportation charges1 for being undesirable aliens.
o They are detained at the Commission on Immigration and Deportation
(CID) detention center.
3. Petitioners filed an urgent petition for release under bond on the ground of
deteriorating health while under detention. However, the CID doctor certified
them as healthy.
4. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Bail which was however denied once more for
the same reason (i.e. they are healthy).
5. Andrew Harvey then filed a motion that he finally agreed to a self-deportation
and prayed for 15 days provisional release pending voluntary departure. The CID
grants the provision, but only for 5 days and under certain conditions.
6. Petitioners, on the same date that Andrew Harvey filed the motion, filed a petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, questioning the validity of their detention.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners detention is invalid on the ground that their bail
was unjustly denied.
HELD: NO, the detention is valid on the ground that their bail may be rightfully denied.
The denial by respondent Commissioner of petitioners' release on bail, also
challenged by them, was in order because in deportation proceedings, the right to bail is
not a matter of right but a matter of discretion on the part of the Commissioner of
Immigration and Deportation. Thus, Section 37(e) of the Philippine Immigration Act of
1940 provides that "any alien under arrest in a deportation proceeding may be released
under bond or under such other conditions as may be imposed by the Commissioner of
Immigration." The use of the word "may" in said provision indicates that the grant of bail
1 17 opted for self-deportation; 1 was released for lack of evidence; 1 was charged
not for pedophilia but for working without a visa.

is merely permissive and not mandatory on the part of the Commissioner. The exercise
of the power is wholly discretionary (Ong Hee Sang vs. Commissioner of Immigration,
L-9700, February 28,1962, 4 SCRA 442). "Neither the Constitution nor Section 69 of the
Revised Administrative Code guarantees the right of aliens facing deportation to
provisional liberty on bail." (Tiu Chun Hai et al vs. Deportation Board, 104 Phil. 949
[1958]). As deportation proceedings do not partake of the nature of a criminal action, the
constitutional guarantee to bail may not be invoked by aliens in said proceedings (Ong
Hee Sang vs. Commissioner of Immigration, supra).
Note: as to the petitioners question