Go Tek vs.
Deportation Board | Aquino
FACTS
 On March 3, 1964 the chief prosecutor of the Deportation Board filed a
complaint against Go Tek, a chinaman, praying that the board
recommend his immediate deportation to the President because he was
an undesirable alien on the basis of these allegations:
o Go Tek was a sector commander and intelligence and record officer
of a guerilla unit of the “Emergency Intelligence Section, Army of the
United States;”
o And he was in possession of fake dollar checks in violation of Art.
168 of the RPC.
 Go Tek filed a motion to dismiss.
o The complaint was premature as he had a pending case in the city
fiscal’s office for violation of Art. 168.
o The board had no jurisdiction over the case because the board may
only deport aliens on the grounds expressly specified by law citing
an obiter in Qua Chee Gan.
 The Board denied the motion ruling that a conviction is not required
before the State may deport an undesirable alien and that the Board is
only a fact finding body whose function is to make a report and
recommendation to the President.
 Go Tek filed an action for prohibition with the CFI.
 The CFI granted the petition by upholding the obiter in the Qua Chee
Gan case. It held that Sec. 37(3) of the Immigration Law requires
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude and, thus, the complaint
was premature since mere possession of forged dollar checks is not a
ground for deportation under the Immigration Law.
 The Board appealed the decision to the SC.
ISSUES/HELD
 Can the Deportation Board entertain a deportation proceeding based on
a ground which is not specified in section 37 of the Immigration Law? –
YES.
 Is prior conviction of the offense imputed to Go Tek necessary to allow
the board to continue its investigation? – NO.
RATIONALE
 Under existing law, the deportation of an undesirable alien may be
effected (1) by order of the President, after due investigation, pursuant
to section 691 of the Revised Administrative Code and (2) by the
1
SEC. 69. Deportation of subject of foreign power. — A subject of a foreign power residing in
Commissioner of Immigration upon recommendation of the Board of
Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation, as
charged against the alien, under Sec. 37 of the Immigration Law.
 When deportation is effected by the President in the exercise of
his powers, it need not be under any ground specified in Sec. 37
of the Immigration Law; such a requirement is relevant only
when the deportation is effect by the Commissioner of
Immigration.
o Sec. 69 of the RAC and E.O. No. 398, creating the Deportation
Board, do not specify the grounds for deportation
o There is no legal nor constitutional provision defining the
power to deport aliens because the intention of the law is to
grant the Chief Executive full discretion to determine
whether an alien's residence in the country is so undesirable
as to affect or injure the security welfare or interest of the
state.
o The Chief Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of the
existence of facts which warrant the deportation of aliens as
disclosed in an investigation conducted in accordance with Sec.
69 of the RAC.
o After all, the inherent right of a country to expel or deport aliens
because their continued presence is rental to public welfare is
absolute and unqualified.
 As the President is granted full discretion as regards deportation, it is
fundamental that an executive order for deportation is not
dependent on a prior judicial conviction in a case.
the Philippine Islands shall not be deported expelled, or excluded from said Islands or
repatriated to his own country by the Governor-General except upon prior investigator,
conducted by said Executive or his authorized agent, of the ground upon which such action is
contemplated. In such case the person concerned shall he informed of the charge or charges
against him and he shall be allowed not less than three 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.
Page 1 of 1