Mejoff v. Director of Prisons

8/10/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 90 8/10/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 90
held without any authority of law (U. S. vs.

Nichols, 47 Fed. Sup., 201). The possibility that
he might join or aid disloyal elements if turned
out at large does not justify prolonged
detention, the remedy in that case being to
impose conditions in the order of release and
exact bail in a reasonable amount with
[No. L-4254. September 26, 1951]
sufficient sureties.
BORIS MEJOFF, petitioner vs. THE ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme

DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent. Court. Habeas Corpus.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the
ALIENS; DEPORTATION; HABEAS Court.
CORPUS.—A foreign national, not enemy, Ambrosio T. Dollete for petitioner.
against whom no criminal charges have been First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto
formally made or judicial order issued, may A. Gianzon and Solicitor Florencio
not indefinitely be kept in detention. He also Villamor for respondents.
has the right to life and liberty and
TUASON, J.:
71
This is a second petition for habeas corpus
by Boris Mejoff, the first having been
denied in a decision of this Court of July
VOL. 90, SEPTEMBER 26, 1951 71 30, 1949. The history of the petitioner's
detention was thus briefly set forth in that
Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons decision, written by Mr. Justice Bengzon:
"The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of

all other fundamental rights as applied to
Russian descent who was brought to this
human beings, as proclaimed in the "Universal
country from Shanghai as a secret operative by
Declaration of Human Rights" approved by the
the Japanese forces during the latter's regime
General Assembly of the United Nations, of
in these Islands. Upon liberation he was
which the Philippines is a member. The theory
arrested as a Japanese spy, by U. S. Army
on which the court is given power to act is that
Counter Intelligence Corps. Later he -was
the warrant for his deportation, which was not
handed to the Commonwealth Government for
executed, is functus officio and the alien is being
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b301e62bcdfc1a874000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/24 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b301e62bcdfc1a874000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/24
disposition in accordance with Commonwealth the present time, inasmuch as the

Act No. 682. Thereafter the People's Court Commissioner of Immigration believes it is for
ordered his release. But the Deportation Board the best interests of the country to keep him
taking his case up, found that having 110 travel under detention while arrangements for his
documents Mejoff was illegally in this country, departure are being made."
and consequently referred the matter to the
immigration authorities. After the The Court held the petitioner's detention
corresponding investigation, the Board of temporary and said that "temporary
Commissioners of Immigration on April 5, 1948, detention is a necessary step in the process
declared that Mejoff had entered the of exclusion or expulsion of undersirable
Philippines illegally in 1944, without inspection aliens and that pending arrangements for
and admission by the immigration officials at a his deportation, the Government has the
designation port of entry and, therefore, it right to hold the undersirable alien under
ordered that he be deported on the first confinement for a reasonable length of
available transportation to Russia. The time." It took note of the fact, manifested
petitioner was then under custody, he by the Solicitor General's representative in
the course of the oral argument, that "this
72 Government desires to expel the alien, and
does not relish keeping him at the people's
expense * * * making efforts to carry out
72 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
the decree of exclusion by the highest
Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons officer of the land." No period was fixed
within which the immigration authorities
having been arrested on March 18, 1948. In
should carry out the contemplated
May 1948 he was transferred to the Cebu
deportation beyond the statement that
Provincial Jail together with three other
"The meaning of 'reasonable time' depends
Russians to await the arrival of some Russian
upon the circumstances, specially the
vessels. In July and August of that year two
difficulties of obtaining a passport, the
boats of Russian nationality called at the Cebu
availability of transportation, the
Port. But their masters refused to take
diplomatic arrangements with the
petitioner and his companions alleging lack of
governments concerned and- the efforts
authority to do so. In October 1948 after
displayed to send the deportee away;" but
repeated failures to ship this deportee abroad,
the Court warned that "under established
the authorities removed him to Bilibid Prison at
precedents, too long a detention may
Muntinglupa where he has been confined up to

justify the issuance of a writ of habeas F. ed., 289, 290), even if they are
corpus." "stateless," which the petitioner claims to
Mr. Justice Parás, now Chief Justice, be. It is no less true however, as impliedly
Mr. Justice Feria, Mr. Justice Perfecto, and stated in this Court's decision, supra, that
the writer of this decision dissented. Mr. foreign nationals, not enemy, against
Justice Feria and Mr. Justice Perfecto whom no charge has been made other than
voted for outright discharge of the prisoner that their permission to stay has expired,
from custody. Mr. Justice Parás qualified may not indefinitely be kept in detention.
his dissent by stating that The protection against deprivation of
liberty without due process of law and
73
except for crimes committed against the
laws of the land is not limited to Philippine
VOL. 90, SEPTEMBER 26, 1951 73 citizens but extends to all residents, except
enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.
Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons
Whether an alien who entered the country
in violation of its immigration laws may be
he might agree "to a further detention of detained for as long as the Government is
the herein petitioner, provided that he be unable to deport him, is a point we need
released if after six months, the not decide. The petitioner's entry into the
Government is still unable to deport him." Philippines was not unlawful; he was
This writer joined in the latter dissent but brought by the armed and belligerent
thought that two months constituted forces of a de facto government whose
reasonable time. decrees were law during the occupation.
Over two years having elapsed since the Moreover, by its Constitution (Art. II,
decision aforesaid was promulgated, the Sec. 3) the Philippines "adopts the
Government has not found ways and generally accepted principles of
means of removing the petitioner out of the international law as part of the law of
country, and none are in sight, although, it Nation." And in a resolution entitled
should be said in justice to the deportation "Universal Declaration Of Human Rights"
authorities, it was through no fault of and approved by the General Assembly of
theirs that no ship or country would take the
the petitioner.
Aliens illegally staying in the 74
Philippines have no right of asylum therein
(Soewapadji vs. Wixon, Sept. 18, 1946, 157
74 PHILIPPINE REPORTS the power to act is that the warrant of

ANNOTATED deportation, not having been able to be
Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons executed, is functus officio and the alien is
being held without any authority of law."
The decision cited several cases which, it
United Nations of which the Philippines is
said, settled the matter definitely in that
a member, at its plenary meeting on
jurisdiction, adding that the same result
December 10, 1948, the right to life and
had been reached in innumerable cases
liberty and all other fundamental rights as
elsewhere. The cases referred to were
applied to all human beings were
United States ex rel. Ross vs. Wallis, 2 Cir.
proclaimed. It was there resolved that "All
279 F. 401, 404; Caranica vs. Nagle, 9 Cir.,
human beings are born free and equal in
28 F. 2d 955; Saksagansky vs. Weedin, 9
degree and rights" (Art. 1); that "Everyone
Cir., 53 F. 2d 13, 16 last paragraph; Ex
is entitled to all the rights and freedom set
parte Matthews, D.C.W.D. Wash., 277 F.
forth in this Declaration, without
857; Moraitis vs. Delany, D.C. Md. Aug. 28,
distinction of any kind, such as race,
1942, 46 F. Supp. 425.
colour, sex, language, religion, political or
The most recent case, as far as we have
other opinion, nationality or social origin,
been able to find, was that of Staniszewski
property, birth, or other status" (Art. 2);
vs. Watkins (1948),
that "Every one has the right to an
effective remedy by the competent national 75
tribunals for acts violating the
fundamental rights granted him by the
Constitution or by law" (Art. 8); that "No VOL. 90, SEPTEMBER 26, 1951 75
one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons
detention or exile" (Art. 9) ; etc.
In U. S. vs. Nichols, 47 Fed. Supp., 201, 80 Fed. Supp., 132, which is nearly
it was said that the court "has the power to foursquare with the case at hand. In that
release from custody an alien who has been case a stateless person, formerly a Polish
detained an unreasonably long period of national, resident in the United States
time by the Department of Justice after it since 1911 and many times serving as a
has become apparent that although a seaman on American vessels both in peace
warrant for his deportation has been and in war, was ordered excluded from the
issued, the warrant can not be effectuated;" United States and detained at Ellis Island
that "the theory on which the court is given at the expense of the steamship company,
when he returned from a voyage on which "What is to be done with the petitioner? The
he had shipped from New York for one or government has had him in custody almost
more European ports and return to the seven months and practically admits it has no
United States. The grounds for his place to send him out of this country. The
exclusion were that he had no passport or steamship company, which employed him as
immigration visa, and that in 1937 had one of a group sent to the ship by the Union,
been convicted of perjury because in with proper seaman's papers issued by the
certain documents he represented himself United States Coast Guard, is paying $3 a day
to be an American citizen. Upon his for petitioner's board at Ellis Island. It is no
application for release on habeas corpus, fault of the steamship company that petitioner
the Court released him upon his own is an inadmissible alien as the immigration
recognizance. Judge Leibell, of the United officials describe him * * *.
States District Court for the Southern
76
District of New York, said in part:
"When the return to the writ of habeas corpus

76 PHILIPPINE REPORTS
came before this court, I suggested that all
ANNOTATED
interested parties * * * make an effort to
arrange to have the petitioner ship out of some Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons
country that would receive him as a resident.
He is a native-born Pole but the Polish Consul "I intend to sustain the writ of habeas corpus
has advised him in writing that he is no longer and order the release of the petitioner on his
a Polish subject. This Government does not own recognizance. He will be required to inform
claim that he is a Polish citizen. His attorney the immigration officials at Ellis Island by mail
says he is stateless. The Government is willing on the 15th of each month, stating where he is
that he go back to the ship, but if he were sent employed and where he can be reached by mail.
back aboard ship and sailed to the Port If the government does succeed in arranging for
(Cherbourg, France) from which he last sailed petitioner's deportation to a country that will be
to the United States, he would probably be ready to receive him as a resident, it may then
denied permission to land. There is no other advise the petitioner to that effect and arrange
country that would take him, without proper for his deportation in the manner provided by
documents. law."
"It seems to me that this is a genuine
hardship case and that the petitioner should be Although not binding upon this Court as a
released from custody on proper terms * * *. precedent, the case aforecited affords a
happy solution to the quandary in which detention be to eliminate a danger that is

the parties here find themselves, solution by no means actual, present, or uncon-
which we think is sensible, sound and
77
compatible with law and the Constitution.
For this reason, and since the Philippine
law on immigration was patterned after or VOL. 90, SEPTEMBER 26, 1951 77
copied from the American law and practice,
we choose to follow and adopt the
reasoning and conclusions in the
Staniszewski decision with some trolable. After all, the Government is not
modifications which, it is believed, are in impotent to deal with or prevent any
consonance with the prevailing conditions threat by such measure as that just
of peace and order in the Philippines. outlined. The thought eloquently expressed
It was said or insinuated at the hearing by Mr. Justice Jackson of the United
of the petition at bar, but not alleged in the States Supreme Court in connection with
return, that the petitioner was engaged in the application for bail of ten Communists
subversive activities, and fear was convicted by a lower court of advocacy of
expressed that he might join or aid the violent overthrow of the United States
disloyal elements if allowed to be at large. Government is, in principle, pertinent and
Bearing in mind the Government's may be availed of at this juncture. Said the
allegation in its answer that "the herein learned Jurist:
petitioner was brought to the Philippines "The Government's alternative contention. is
by the Japanese forces," and the fact that that defendants, by misbehavior after
Japan is no longer at war with the United conviction, have forfeited their claim to bail.
States or the Philippines nor identified Grave public .danger is .said to result from
with the countries allied against these what they may be expected to do, in addition to
nations, the possibility of the petitioner's what they have done since their conviction. If I
entertaining or committing hostile acts assume that defendants are' disposed to commit
prejudicial to the interest and security of every opportune disloyal act helpful to
this country seems remote. Communist countries, it is still difficult to
If we grant, for the sake of argument, reconcile with traditional American law the
that such a possibility exists, still the jailing of persons by the courts because of
petitioner's unduly prolonged detention anticipated but as yet uncommitted crimes.
would be unwarranted by law and the Imprisonment to protect society from predicted
Constitution, if the only purpose of the
but unconsummated offenses is so unjustifiably imprisoning persons with

unprecedented in this country and so fraught consequent reproach to our
with danger of excesses and injustice that I am
loath to resort to it, even as a discretionary 78
judicial technique to supplement conviction of

such offenses as those of which defendants 78 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
stand convicted.
* * * * * * *
system of justice. If that is prudent judicial
"But the right of every American to equal practice in the ordinary case, how much more
treatment before the law is wrapped up in the important to avoid every chance of handing to
same constitutional bundle with those of these the Communist world such an ideological
Communists. If in anger or disgust with these weapon as it would have if this country should
defendants we throw out the bundle, we also imprison this handful of Communist leaders on
cast aside protection for the liberties of more a conviction that our own highest Court 'would
worthy critics who may be in opposition to the confess to be illegal. Risks, of course, are
government of some future day. involved in either granting or refusing bail. I
am not naive enough to underestimate the
* * * * * * * troublemaking propensities of the defendants.
But, with the Department of Justice alert to the
"If, however, I were to be wrong on all of
dangers, the worst they can accomplish in the
these abstract or theoretical matters of
short time it will take to end the litigation is
principle, there is a very practical aspect of this
preferable to the possibility of national
application which. must not be overlooked or
embarrassment from a celebrated case of
underestimated—that is the disastrous effect on
unjustified imprisonment of Communist
the reputation of American justice if I should
leaders. Under no circumstances must we
now send these men to jail and the full Court
permit their symbolization of an evil force in the
later decide that their conviction is invalid. All
world to be hallowed and glorified by any
experience with litigation teaches that existence
semblance of martyrdom. The way to avoid that
of a substantial question about a conviction
risk is not to jail these men until it is finally
implies a more than negligible risk of reversal.
decided that they should stay jailed."
Indeed this experience lies back of our rule
permitting and practice of allowing bail where If that case is not comparable with ours on
such questions exist, to avoid the hazard ,of the issues presented, its underlying

principle is of universal application. In Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons

fact, its ratio decidendi applies with
greater force to the present petition, since bond the Commissioner of Immigration is
the right of accused to bail pending appeal authorized to exact by section 40 of
of his case, as in the case of the ten Commonwealth Act No. 613.
Communists, depends upon the discretion No costs will be charged.
of the court, whereas the right to be
enlarged before formal charges are Parás, C. J., Feria, Bengzon, Padilla,
instituted is absolute. As already noted, Reyes, and Jugo, JJ., concur.
not only are there no charges pending
against the petitioner, but the prospects of PABLO, M., disidente:
bringing any against him are slim and
Disiento.
remote.
En decision distada por este Tribunal en
Premises considered, the writ will issue
la primera causa de habeas corpus incoada
commanding the respondents to release the
por el solicitante Boris Mejoff (G. R. No. L-
petitioner from custody upon these terms: *
2855, Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons) , se
The petitioner shall be placed under the
declaró que él había venido a Filipinas
surveillance of the immigration authorities
procedente de Shanghai como espía del
or their agents in such form and manner as
ejército japonés; en la liberación, el ejército
may be deemed adequate to insure that he
americano le arrestó por ser espía,
keep peace and be available when the
habiendo sido más tarde entregado al
Government is ready to deport him. The
Gobierno del Commonwealth para ser
surveillance shall be reasonable and the
tratado de acuerdo con la ley No. 682; pero
question of reasonableness shall be
como bajo el Código Penal Revisado, antes
submitted to this Court or to the Court of
de su enmienda por la Orden Ejecutiva No.
First Instance of Manila for decision in
44, (mayo 31, 1945) no se castiga al
case of abuse. He shall also put up a bond
extranjero que comete traición, Mejoff fué
for the above purpose in the amount of
puesto en libertad. Después de una debida
P5,000 with sufficient surety or sureties,
investigación, la Junta de Deportación
which
encontró que el solicitante no tenía permiso
79 para entrar en Filipinas: fué entregado a la
Junta de Inmigración, la cual ordenó su
deportación a Rusia por el primer
VOL. 90, SEPTEMBER 26, 1951 79 transporte disponible por haber venido
aquí ilegalmente; fué enviado a Cebú para protección, debe acudir al Gobierno
que allí se embarcase, pero los dos barcos Japonés a cuyo ejército él sirvió; el hecho
de nacionalidad rusa que llegaron a dicho de que ya está aquí no le da título para
puerto en julio y agosto de 1948 rehusaron permanecer libre aquí. El que ha venido
admitirle. Por no encontrar transportación como espía del enemigo del Pueblo de
para su deportación, Mejoff fué enviado a Filipinas no tiene derecho a pedir igual
la Prisión de Muntinglupa, donde está trato que aquél que ha entrado de buena
actualmente detenido mientras el Gobierno fe. ¿ Es que Filipinas tiene la obligación de
no encuentra medio de transportarle a acoger a un ciudadano indeseable de
Rusia. Rusia? ¿Desde cuándo tiene que allanarse
La mayoría contiende que "The una nación a ser residencia de un
Petitioner's entry into the Philippines was extranjero que entró como enemigo o, peor
not unlawful; he was brought by the armed aún, como espía? Un Estado tiene
and belligerent forces of a de facto indiscutible derecho a deportar y expulsar
government whose decrees were law de su territorio a todo extranjero
during the occupation." Es tan ilegal la indeseable.
entrada del solicitante como la del ejército El solicitante sostiene que no tiene
al estado. Eso no es razón para que tenga
derecho a permanecer aquí. Puede ser
________________ deportado a Rusia o a Shanghai de donde
vino. Si todos los rusos que, por alguno que
* 84 Phil., 218. otro motivo, o por odio al comunismo,
dejasen su país y emigrasen aquí
80
reclamando igual derecho, no habría
territorio suficiente para ellos. Se puede
80 PHILIPPINE REPORTS decir otro tanto de los chinos que, so
ANNOTATED pretexto de no querer someterse al régimen
Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons comunista, optasen por residir para
siempre aquí. Y si los mismos comunistas
chinos viniesen clandestinamente y
que sirvió como espía. Ninguno tiene
después reclamasen igual protección como
derecho a permanecer aquí. Puesto que fué
la concedida a Mejoff, ¿ tendremos que
vencido el ejército invasor que le trajo, el
darles por el gusto?
solicitante no tiene derecho a permanecer
Se invoca la resolución aprobada por la
aquí ni un minuto más. Si desea
Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas,
titulada "Universal Declaration of Human Journal of International Law, 732) en el

Rights", en la que se establece, entre otras cual el recurrente estuvo detenido ya casi
cosas, que "no one shall be subjected to siete meses cuando se decretó su libertad
arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Yo soy en un recurso de habeas corpus. En
de los que creen firmemente en lo sagrado nuestra opinion, dicho caso no tiene
de esta resolución; no puedo permitir que similitud con la causa presente..
se detenga y se arreste a alguien sin Staniszewski era residente de los Estados
motivo justificado, de una manera Unidos desde 1911; estuvo sirviendo como
arbitraria; pero el solicitante no está marino en barcos mercantes americanos en
detenido de esta manera, lo está de una tiempo de paz y en tiempo de guerra y se
manera provisional. Tan pronto como haya ordenó su detención en Ellis Island cuando
barco disponible para su depor- volvió a America procedente de un viaje a
Europa por no tener papeles de
81
inmigración. Staniszewski no había
entrado en los Estados Unidos como espía,
VOL. 90, SEPTEMBER 26, 1951 81 estuvo residiendo en dicho país por varios
años, era ya habitante de los Estados
Unidos. La ocupación de marino es
honrosa, la del espía mercenario,
tación o tan pronto como pueda embarcarse detestable. El espía es peor que el enemigo.
en algún barco para el extranjero o para Este lucha cara a cara, y el espía, con
cualquier otro punto a donde quiera ir, disímulo y arte engañosa, escucha lo que le
dejará de ser detenido. Conste que no está interesa a su amo para comunicárselo. Es
preso como un criminal condenado por un justo que a Staniszewski se le haya puesto
delito; está tratado como cualquier otro en libertad. Poner en libertad a un espía es
extranjero sujetó a deportación. Si el poner en peligro la seguridad del Estado.
solicitante no hubiera sido espía, si no En cuanto a la duración de la detención
hubiera venido aquí para ayudar a las provisional del recurrente, no hay regla
hordas japonesas en la subyugación del fija; depende de la circunstancia de cada
pueblo filipino, si hubiera venido como caso particular. Es evidente que los medios
visitante, por ejemplo, y, por azares de la de comunicación entre Filipinas y Rusia o
fortuna, no pudo salir, yo sería el primero Shanghai, debido a falta de relaciones
en abogar por su liberación inmediata. diplomáticas, son completamente
Se cita el caso de Staniszewski vs.
Watkins, (1948 A.M.C. 931, 42 American 82
82 PHILIPPINE REPORTS En Moraitis vs. Delany, 46 F. Supp.,

ANNOTATED 425, se dijo:
Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons "What constitutes a reasonable time for the
detention of the petitioner in custody for
anormales. No es culpa del gobierno el que deportation depends' upon the facts and
no encuentre medios de transportación circumstances of particular cases. This court
para él. cannot shut its eyes to the vitally important
La Comisión de Inmigración ha dado interests of this country at this time with
pasos para que la International Refugee respect to the bottleneck of shipping, when
Organization of the United Nations (IRO) every available ship, domestic and foreign, must
se hiciera cargo del recurrente para que be utilized to the utmost without delay
pueda ser repatriado o enviado a otro país consequent upon the lack of available seamen.
extranjero, pero el Jefe de dicha Under these present conditions the court should
organización contestó que no estaba en be liberal indeed in aiding the executive branch
condiciones para aceptar dicha of the government in the strict enforcement of
recomendación. laws so vitally necessary in the common
William Martin Jurgans fué arrestado defense. There is sound authority for this view
en 9 de enero de 1920, en 20 de mayo se in United States ex. rel. Schlimm vs. Howe, D.
decretó su deportación por el Sub C. N. Y. 222 F. 96, 97, where Circuit Judge
Secretario del Trabajo por violación de la Lacombe refused to release an alien who had
Ley de Inmigración; solicitó su libertad come here from Germany and was ordered
bajo el recurso de Habeas Corpus, y en 16 deported in 1915 when, by reason of the then
de febrero de 1927 se denegó su petición; existing war between Germany and England,
no se le pudo deportar porque "the his deportation to Germany was not possible. It
necessary arrangements for his was said:
deportation could obviously not be made." " 'At the present time there is no regular
(District Court of Minnesota, 17 F. 2nd passenger ocean service to German ports, so the
series, 507). Como se verá, la detención authorities are unable to forward
provisional de William Martin Jurgans
duró más de seis años; la de Mejoff no ha 83
sido más que de 31 meses, y no porque el
gobierno no quiere deportarle, sino porque VOL. 90, SEPTEMBER 28, 1951 83
no hay medio disponible para realizarlo.
Tolentino vs. Board of Accountancy, et al.

him, and are holding him until some

opportunity of returning him to Germany may © Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
present itself. His continual detention is
unfortunate, but certainly is not illegal. His
present condition can be alleviated only by the
action of the executive branch of the
government. A federal court would not be
justified in discharging him.' * * *
"If he is not really fit for sea service, it is not
probable that he would be forced into it,
although he may be able to serve his
government in some other capacity. But
however that may be, while this country has no
power under existing legislation to impress him
into sea service against his will; he has no just
cause to be relieved from the strict enforcement
of our deportation laws, and to remain at liberty
in this country as a sanctuary contrary to our
laws."
No es arbitraria la detención de Mejoff.

Está justificada por las circunstancias
anormales.
La proposición de vigilar al recurrente
hasta que el gobierno encuentre transporte
para su deportación, supone un gasto
innecesario.
Petition granted.
___________

Mejoff v. Director of Prisons

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mejoff v. Director of Prisons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/10/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 90 8/10/2021 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 90

held without any authority of law (U. S. vs.

BORIS MEJOFF, petitioner vs. THE ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme

"The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of

disposition in accordance with Commonwealth the present time, inasmuch as the

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b301e62bcdfc1a874000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/24 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b301e62bcdfc1a874000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/24

74 PHILIPPINE REPORTS the power to act is that the warrant of

"When the return to the writ of habeas corpus

happy solution to the quandary in which detention be to eliminate a danger that is

but unconsummated offenses is so unjustifiably imprisoning persons with

judicial technique to supplement conviction of

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b301e62bcdfc1a874000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/24 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b301e62bcdfc1a874000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/24

principle is of universal application. In Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons

titulada "Universal Declaration of Human Journal of International Law, 732) en el

82 PHILIPPINE REPORTS En Moraitis vs. Delany, 46 F. Supp.,

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b301e62bcdfc1a874000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/24 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b301e62bcdfc1a874000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/24

him, and are holding him until some

No es arbitraria la detención de Mejoff.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b301e62bcdfc1a874000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/24 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b301e62bcdfc1a874000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/24

You might also like