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
vs. THE DEPORTATION BOARD
G.R. No. L-10280, September 30, 1963

FACTS: On May 12, 1952, Petioners were charged before the Deportation Board for having
purchased U.S. dollars in the total sum of $130,000.00, without the necessary license from the
Central Bank of the Philippines, and surreptitiously remitted the same to Hongkong. They were
also charged for attempting to bribe officers of the Philippine and United States Governments in
order to evade prosecution for said unauthorized purchase of U.S. dollars.

A warrant for the arrest was issued, and upon fixing of bonds, petitioner was temporarily set
free. Petitioners-appellants filed a joint motion to dismiss the charges for the reason, among
others, that the same do not constitute legal ground for deportation of aliens from this country,
and that said Board has no jurisdiction to entertain such charges, which was denied by order of
the Board. This prompted petitioners to file a petition for habeas corpus and/or prohibition
before the Supreme Court to which the Court reverted to the Court of First Instance of Manila to
hear.

At the instance of petitioners, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the lower court,
restraining the respondent Deportation Board from hearing Deportation charges against
petitioners, pending final termination of the habeas corpus and/or prohibition proceedings. The
respondent Board filed its answer to the original petition, maintaining that the Deportation
Board, as an agent of the President, has jurisdiction over the charges filed against petitioners
and the authority to order their arrest; and that, while petitioner Qua Chee Gan was acquitted of
the offense of attempted bribery of a public official, he was found in the same decision of the
trial court that he did actually offer money to an officer of the United States Air Force.

The CFI rendered a decision on January 18, 1956, upholding the validity of the delegation by
the president to the Deportation Board of his power to conduct investigations for the purpose of
determining whether the stay of an alien in this country would be injurious to the security,
welfare and interest of the State. The court, likewise, 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, on the theory that 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.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the President has authority to deport aliens. YES

2. Whether or not the Deportation Board also has authority to file warrants of arrest. YES

RATIO:

1. YES, the President's power of investigation may be delegated. This is clear from reading of
Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides:

Section 69 of Act NO. 2711 of the Revised Administrative Code – Deportation of subject to
foreign power. — Asubject 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.”

In effect, the President (Quezon, May 29, 1936) created the Deportation Board to conduct
investigations.
 Unquestionably, the exercise of the power to order the arrest of an individual demands the
exercise of discretion by the one issuing the same, to determine whether under specific
circumstances, the curtailment of the liberty of such person is warranted. Indeed, an implied
grant of power, considering that no express authority was granted by the law on the matter
under discussion, 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, if we are to give
meaning to the guarantee contained in the Constitution. If this is so, then guarantee a
delegation of that implied power, nebulous as it is, must be rejected as inimical to the liberty
of the people. The guarantees of human rights and freedom can not be made to rest
precariously on such a shaky foundation.

2. YES, BUT only after investigation has resulted to the actual order of deportation. Arrest would
have been necessary for deportation to take effect. However, in the case at bar, investigations
were still ongoing and no order for deportation was yet made. Deportation may be effected in 2
ways:

 by order of President, after due investigation, pursuant to Section 69 of the RAC

 by Commissioner of Immigration, upon recommendation by the Board of Commissioners
under Section 37 of Commonwealth Act No. 613

The charges against the herein petitioners constitute in effect 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 therefore order the
deportation of these petitioners if after investigation they are shown to have committed the act
charged.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: 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.