CARLOS T. GO, SR vs LUIS T.

RAMOS

G. R. No. 167569            

September 4, 2009

Facts:

This is a case for the deportation of the petitioner for allegedly violating the
Philippine Immigration Act of 1990.

The case was initially decided in favor of Go, but it was later reversed by the
de4ortation board, on the basis that Carlos citizenship was made out of time. A
corresponding charge was made for the violation of the Philippine Immigration Law,
then a decision was rendered ordering their deportation.

They filed a petition in the RTC to seek injuctive relief, an order to enjoin the BI to
deport them it was approved but was later reversed since the petition to litigate the
main issue of citizenship was dismissed. This resulted to their apprehension to which
they filed a petition of habeas corpus which was also denied by reason of his
provisional release on bail.

Their case was appealed, but was dismissed the CA decided on the basis of jus soli
does not apply in our law, and that the BI observed the due process before rendering
its deportation order. They filed their appeal but was dismissed, to which they once
again raised a petition for habeas corpus to the trial court even when a similar
petition is pending, the trial court dismissed the petition for habeas corpus on the
basis that it can no longer be availed since a deportation order had been obtained.
This was appealed and was granted by the CA, on the basis that there was no proof
that he violated any of the bail condition.

Issue:

Whether the CA erred in enjoining the deportation order of the Bureau of

Immigration.

Ruling:

Yes, the CA erred in enjoining the deportation order of the Bureau of Immigration.

The Supreme Court explained that, xxx the cancellation of his bail cannot be assailed
via a petition for habeas corpus. When an alien is detained by the Bureau of
Immigration for deportation pursuant to an order of deportation by the Deportation
Board, the Regional Trial Courts have no power to release such alien on bail even in
habeas corpus proceedings because there is no law authorizing it.”

The petitioners were charged with the violation of the immigration law by the board
of the Bureau of Immigration, it has the sole jurisdiction on the case whom have
issued a deportation order on the basis of evidence presented, as such it has the
power to proceed with the execution of its order which the court can not enjoin.

Wherefore, the petition is denied, the Bureau of Immigration has the power to
proceed with its deportation order.