Section 37(a) of Commonwealth Act No.

613, or the Philippine Immigration Act of

1940, as amended.

SEC. 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the
Commissioner of Immigration or of any other officer designated by him for the purpose
and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a
determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for
deportation as charged against the alien:

(1) Any alien who enters the Philippines after the effective date of this Act by means of
false and misleading statements or without inspection and admission by the immigration
authorities at a designated port of entry;

(2) Any alien who enters the Philippines after the effective date of this Act, who was not
lawfully admissible at the time of entry;

(3) Any alien who, after the effective date of this Act, is convicted in the Philippines and
sentenced for a term of one year or more for a crime involving moral turpitude
committed within five years after his entry to the Philippines, or who, at any time after
such entry, is so convicted and sentenced more than once;

(4) Any alien who is convicted and sentenced for a violation of the law governing
prohibited drugs;

(5) Any alien who practices prostitution or is an inmate of a house of prostitution or is

connected with the management of a house of prostitution, or is a procurer;

(6) Any alien who becomes a public charge within five years after entry from causes not
affirmatively shown to have arisen subsequent to entry;

(7) Any alien who remains in the Philippines in violation of any limitation or condition
under which he was admitted as a nonimmigrant;

(8) Any alien who believes in, advises, advocates or teaches the overthrow by force and
violence of the Government of the Philippines, or of constituted law and authority, or
who disbelieves in or is opposed to organized government or who advises, advocates,
or teaches the assault or assassination of public officials because of their office, or who
advises, advocates, or teaches the unlawful destruction of property, or who is a member
of or affiliated with any organization entertaining, advocating or teaching such doctrines,
or who in any manner whatsoever lends assistance, financial or otherwise, to the
dissemination of such doctrines.

Rule 2 of the Omnibus Rules of Procedure for 2015

Deporation proceedings are initiated by filing a verified complaint to the Office of the
Commissioner, through the Central Receiving Unit. The required number of copies are
two (2) plus number of Respondents. Deportation is applied to a foreigner whose
presence in the Philippines is found to be injurious to national interest, public health,
public safety and public interest.

Rule 19 of the Omnibus Rules of Procedure for 2015

The approximate legal fees for the filing of a verified complaint for deportation is
PhP5,020.00.

THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,   G.R. No. 166199

THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY    
and THE BOARD OF   Present:
COMMISSIONERS OF THE    
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION v.
CHRISTOPHER KORUGA,   Promulgated:
Respondent.   April 24, 2009

It must be remembered that aliens seeking entry in the Philippines do not acquire the right
to be admitted into the country by the simple passage of time. When an alien, such as
respondent, has already physically gained entry in the country, but such entry is later found
unlawful or devoid of legal basis, the alien can be excluded anytime after it is found that he
was not lawfully admissible at the time of his entry.[42] Every sovereign power has the
inherent power to exclude aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem
proper for its self-preservation or public interest.[43] The power to deport aliens is an act of
State, an act done by or under the authority of the sovereign power.[44] It is a police measure
against undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious
to the public good and the domestic tranquility of the people.[45]

G.R. No. 154745               January 29, 2004

COMMISSIONER ANDREA D. DOMINGO, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Petitioner, 

vs.
HERBERT MARKUS EMIL SCHEER, Respondent.
The power to deport is a police matter against undesirable aliens, whose presence in the country is
found to be injurious to the public good. We believe that the deportation of the respondent late in the
day did not achieve the said purpose. The petitioner admitted that there is no longer a factual and
legal basis to disqualify the respondent from staying in the country. He is not an undesirable alien;
nor is his presence in the country injurious to public good. He is even an entrepreneur and a
productive member of society.

Arrest, detention and deportation orders of aliens should not be enforced blindly and
indiscriminately, without regard to facts and circumstances that will render the same unjust, unfair or
illegal. To direct the respondent to leave the country first before allowing him re-entry is downright
94 

iniquitous. If the respondent does leave the country, he would thereby be accepting the force and
95 

effect of the BOC’s Summary Deportation Order with its attendant infirmities. He will thereby lose his
permanent resident status and admit the efficacy of the cancellation of his permanent resident visa.
Moreover, his entry into the country will be subject to such conditions as the petitioner may impose.

The deportation of an alien is not intended as a punishment or penalty.  But in a real sense, it is. In
1âwphi1

Bridges v. Wixon, Mr. Justice Murphy declared that the impact of deportation upon the life of an
96 

alien is often as great if not greater than the imposition of a criminal sentence. In dealing with
deportation, there is no justifiable reason for disregarding the democratic and human tenets of our
legal system and descending to the practices of despotism. As Justice Brewer opined in Fong Yue
Ting v. United States, deportation is a punishment because it requires first, an arrest, a deprivation
97 

of liberty and second, a removal from home, from family, from business, from property. To be forcibly
taken away from home, family, business and property and sent across the ocean to a distant land is
punishment; and that oftentimes is most severe and cruel. It would be putting salt on the
respondent’s woes occasioned by the BOC’s ineptitude. Considering the peculiar backdrop and the
equities in this case, the respondent’s deportation and the cancellation of his permanent resident
visa as a precondition to his re-entry into this country is severe and cruel; it is a form of punishment.

H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, ROMEL R. BAGARES,

ALLAN JONES F. LARDIZABAL, GILBERT T. ANDRES, IMMACULADA
D. GARCIA, ERLINDA T. MERCADO, FRANCISCO A. ALCUAZ, MA.
AZUCENA P. MACEDA, and ALVIN A. PETERS v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 188456, September 10, 2009

The Anti-Dummy Law[97] pertinently states:

 
Section 1. Penalty. In all cases in which any constitutional or
legal provision requires Philippine or any other specific citizenship
as a requisite for the exercise or enjoyment of a right, franchise or
privilege, any citizen of the Philippines or of any other specific country
who allows his name or citizenship to be used for the purpose of evading
such provision, and any alien or foreigner profiting thereby, shall be
punished by imprisonment xxx and by a fine xxx.
  
SECTION 2. Simulation of minimum capital stock In all cases in
which a constitutional or legal provision requires that a corporation
or association may exercise or enjoy a right, franchise or privilege,
not less than a certain per centum of its capital must be owned
by citizens of the Philippines or any other specific country, it shall be
unlawful to falsely simulate the existence of such minimum stock or
capital as owned by such citizen for the purpose of evading such
provision. xxx
 
SECTION 2-A. Unlawful use, Exploitation or Enjoyment. Any
person, corporation, or association which, having in its name or under its
control, a right, franchise, privilege, property or business, the
exercise or enjoyment of which is expressly reserved by the
Constitution or the laws to citizens of the Philippines or of any other
specific country, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, permits or
allows the use, exploitation or enjoyment thereof by a person,
corporation, or association not possessing the requisites prescribed by
the Constitution or the laws of the Philippines; or leases, or in any other
way, transfers or conveys said right, franchise, privilege, property or
business to a person, corporation or association not otherwise qualified
under the Constitution xxx shall be punished by imprisonment xxx
(Emphasis added.)
 
 
The Anti-Dummy Law has been enacted to limit the enjoyment of certain
economic activities to Filipino citizens or corporations. For liability for violation of
the law to attach, it must be established that there is a law limiting or reserving the
enjoyment or exercise of a right, franchise, privilege, or business to citizens of
the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of the
capital of which is owned by such citizens.

G.R. No. L-14859             March 31, 1962

MACARIO KING, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, 

vs.
PEDRO S. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellants.
Respondents, on the other hand, sustain a different view. They hold that the language of the Anti-
Dummy Law bans aliens' employment in both control and non-control positions. They contend that
the words management, operation, administration and control, followed by and blended with the
words "whether as an officer, employee or laborer therein", signify the legislative intent to cover the
entire scale of personnel activity so that even laborers are excluded from employment, the only
exemption being technical personnel whose employment may be allowed with the previous
authorization of the President. This contention, according to respondents, results from the
application of the rule known in statutory construction as redendo singula singulis. This means that
the antecedents "management, operation, administration and control" and the consequents "officer,
employee, and laborer" should be read distributively to the effect that each word is to be applied to
the subject to which it appears by context most properly relate and to which it is most applicable
(Vol. 2, Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Section 4819).

We agree to this contention of respondents not only because the context of the law seems to be
clear on what its extent and scope seem to prohibit but also because the same is in full accord with
the main objective that permeates both the Retail Trade Law and the Anti-Dummy Law. The one
advocates the complete nationalization of the retail trade by denying its ownership to any alien, while
the other limits its management, operation, administration and control to Filipino citizens. The
prevailing idea is to secure both ownership and management of the retail business in Filipino hands.
It prohibits a person not a Filipino from engaging in retail trade directly or indirectly while it limits the
management, operation, administration and control to Filipino citizens. These words may be
technically synonymous in the sense that they all refer to the exercise of a directing, restraining or
governing influence over an affair or business to which they relate, but it cannot be denied that by
reading them in connection with the positions therein enumerated one cannot draw any other
conclusion than that they cover the entire range of employment regardless of whether they involve
control or non-control activities. When the law says that you cannot employ an alien in any position
pertaining to management, operation, administration and control, "whether as an officer, employee,
or laborer therein", it only means one thing: the employment of a person who is not a Filipino citizen
even in a minor or clerical or non-control position is prohibited. The reason is obvious: to plug any
loophole or close any avenue that an unscrupulous alien may resort to flout the law or defeat its
purpose, for no one can deny that while one may be employed in a non-control position who
apparently is harmless he may later turn out to be a mere tool to further the evil designs of the
employer. It is imperative that the law be interpreted in a manner that would stave off any attempt at
circumvention of this legislative purpose.

In this respect, we agree with the following remark of the Solicitor General: "Summing up, there is no
point in distinguishing employments in positions of control from employments in non-control positions
except to facilitate violations of the Anti-Dummy Law. It does not require ingenuity to realize that the
law is framed up the way we find it so that no difficulties will be encountered in its enforcement. This
is not the first time to use the words of the United States Supreme Court ... that a government wants
to know, without being put to a search, that what it forbids is carried out effectively."