POLIREV – CONSTI II, Art.

III –
LAO GI v. COURT OF APPEALS Procedural Due Process
11
GR No. 81798 December 29, 1989 Gangayci, J. James V.
Petitioners: Respondents:
Lao Gi alias Filomeno Chia, Sr. with his wife and Court of Appeals, Commission on Immigration
children. and Deportation
Recit Ready Summary

[Lao Gi, in 1958, DOJ rendered opinion that he is a filipino citizen; But in 1980, DOJ reversed
this decision, saying that 1958 decision was based on misrepresentation by Lao Gi; so
deportation proceedings was filed against Lao Gi; Lao Gi appealed, saying that there was a
violation of due process; SC – Before deporting, there must be a factual basis to deport first;
Rules on crimpro applies, even if this is an admin proceeding, since liberty of accused is
deprived]

Minister of Justice issued an Opinioncancelling the citizenship of Chia, Sr. and his family as aliens due
to the fact that their citizenship was grounded by fraud and misrepresentation. Commission on
Immigration and Deportation (CID) charged the petitioners who refused to register as aliens.

Due to this, the CID set a deportation case against Chia and his family. Moreover, Acting
Commissioner Nituda ordered the Chia family to register as aliens and moved for a motion for their
arrest. The Chia family questioned these orders before the Supreme Court.

WoN the order issued by Nituda to direct the Chia family to register as aliens is valid. – NO

The power to deport an alien is an act of State. It is an act by or under authority of the sovereign power.
Although a deportation proceeding does not partake the nature of a criminal action, the constitutional
right of the person to due process should not be denied considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary
administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person. Thus, the provisions of the
Rules of Court on criminal procedure are applicable.

Under Section 37(c) of the Philippine Immigration Act, no alien shall be deported without being
informed of the specific grounds for deportation nor without being given a hearing under rules of
procedure to be prescribed by the Commissioner on Immigration. Because the CID issued their orders
without securing necessary evidence and without complying with the proper procedure, the orders
made were set aside.
Facts
1. The Secretary of Justice rendered Opinion No. 191, series of 1958 finding Filomeno Chia, Jr.,
alias Sia Pieng Hui to be a Filipino citizen as it appears that his father Filomeno Chia, Sr. (Lao Gi)
is a Filipino citizen born on November 28, 1899 being the legitimate son of Inocencio Chia and
Maria Layug of Guagua, Pampanga.
2. However, the Minister of Justice rendered Opinion No. 147, series of 1980 cancelling Opinion No.
191 and setting aside the citizenship of Filomeno Chia, Sr. on the ground that it was founded on
fraud and misrepresentation. A MR of said Opinion was denied by the Minister of Justice.
3. A charge for deportation was filed with the Commission on Immigration and Deportation
(CID) against Lao Gi alias Filomeno Chia, Sr., his wife and children. It was ameneded alleging
that they refused to register as aliens having been required to do so and continued to refuse to
register as such. Another amended charge was filed alleging that Manuel Chia committed acts of
undesirability.
4. Lao Gi filed a motion to dismiss the amended charges on the ground that the CID has no authority
to reopen a matter long settled under Opinion No. 191, series of 1958 . The motion to dismiss was
denied by the CID and a MR was also denied.
5. Lao Gi then filed with this Court on a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order. After requiring a comment
thereon, this court en banc resolved to dismiss the petition for lack of merit.

ALS B2021 1
 6. The CID set the deportation case against Lao Gi and his family for hearing and Acting
Commissioner Victor Nituda (AC Nituda) gave Lao Gi three days to move for reconsideration of
the order directing them to register as aliens and to oppose the motion for their arrest.
7. AC Nituda directed Lao Gi and his family to register as aliens.
8. Lao Gi and his family moved for reconsideration and opposition but was denied by AC Nituda.
9. On the day of the hearing for the deportation case, Chia and his family again filed for a petition for
certiorari and prohibition before the CFI but was dismissed for lack of legal basis.
10. An appeal was filed before the CA, but the appeal was dismissed.
11. This petition for certiorari seeks to set aside the order of the CID and directing it to proceed with
the reception of the evidence in support of the charges against the petitioners.
Issues Ruling
1. WoN the order issued by Nituda to direct the Chia family to register as aliens is valid 1. No
2. WoN the assistance of the private prosecutor is valid 2. No
Rationale
1. The order issued by Nituda to direct the Chia family to register as aliens is invalid. (IMPT)

Under Section 37(a)(1) of the Immigration Act, there should be a prior determination by the Board
of Commissioners of the existence of the ground as charged against the alien before said alien
may be deported. The members of the Chia family are charged with having entered the Philippines by
means of false and misleading statements or without inspection or admission by immigration
authorities.

It is within the power of the Commissioner to require an alien to register as such, but this must be
predicated on a positive finding that the person so required is indeed an alien.

The power to deport an alien is an act of State. It is an act by or under authority of the sovereign power.
Although a deportation proceeding does not partake the nature of a criminal action, the
constitutional right of the person to due process should not be denied considering that it is a
harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a
person. Thus, the provisions of the Rules of Court on criminal procedure are applicable.

Under Section 37(c) of the Philippine Immigration Act, no alien shall be deported without being
informed of the specific grounds for deportation nor without being given a hearing under rules
of procedure to be prescribed by the Commissioner on Immigration.

Also, a preliminary investigation must be conducted before any charge should be filed in the CID. The
issuance of warrants of arrest, arrests without warrants, service of warrants, and search warrants of the
CID should be governed by the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

There is nothing in the facts of the case that suggests that there is a preliminary investigation that took
place. The orders of the CID were predicated from the opinion issued by the Minister of Justice.

2. The assistance of the private prosecutor is not valid.

Under the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, an offended party may intervene in a criminal prosecution
when there is civil liability arising from the criminal action claimed by said party. In deportation cases,
there is no justification for any private party to intervene.

Even if a private party can establish any form of damages due to him arising from the deportation
charge, such relief cannot be afforded to him in a deportation proceeding. The Court rules that private
prosecutors should not be allowed in deportation cases. The deportation of an alien is the sole concern
of the State. Such is the reason why special prosecutors and fiscals handle deportation proceedings.
Disposition
SC set aside the order of AC Nituda and directed the CID to continue hearing the deportation cases.

ALS B2021 2