W. Cameron Forbes v.

Chuoco Tiaco
G.R. No. 6157, JOHNSON, 1910-07-30

Establishing the non-liability of the chief executive for damages resulting from the
performance of official duties. The principle of public policy and judicial
independence.

Facts:
The plaintiffs, W. Cameron Forbes, J. E. Harding, and C.R. Trowbridge, are
residents of Manila, Philippines.
W. Cameron Forbes is the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, while J.E.
Harding and C.R. Trowbridge are the chief of police and chief of the secret service
of the city of Manila, respectively.
The defendant, Chuoco Tiaco (alias Choa Tea), is a Chinese national and subject of
the Chinese Empire.
On April 1, 1910, Chuoco Tiaco filed a lawsuit against the plaintiffs in the Court of
First Instance of Manila.
He alleged that he was deported from the Philippines on August 19, 1909, under
the orders of W. Cameron Forbes, J.E. Harding, and C.R. Trowbridge.
Chuoco Tiaco feared that he would be deported again and requested a preliminary
injunction to prevent his deportation. He also sought an indemnity of P20,000. The
plaintiffs admitted that Chuoco Tiaco was indeed deported by the order of W.
Cameron Forbes, acting in his official capacity as Governor-General, and executed
by J.E. Harding and C.R. Trowbridge.
The deportation was carried out in the public interest and upon the request of the
Chinese consul-general in the Philippines.
The plaintiffs reported the deportation to the Secretary of War. The lower court
held that the allegations in the complaint did not specifically state that the
defendants performed the acts complained of in their official capacity.

Issue/s:
1. Whether the Governor-General has the power to deport obnoxious aliens whose
presence is found to be injurious to the public interest and domestic tranquility.
2. Whether the Governor-General's act of deporting Chuoco Tiaco was within his
authority and should be ratified.
3. Whether the courts can take jurisdiction in any case relating to the exercise of
the inherent power to deport aliens.
4. Whether the Governor-General's act of deporting Chuoco Tiaco was essentially
judicial in nature and therefore protected from civil liability.

Ruling:
1. The government of the United States in the Philippine Islands possesses all the
military, civil, and judicial powers necessary to govern the islands. As such, it has
the power to deport aliens whose presence is found to be injurious to the public
good and domestic tranquility. Deportation is a police measure aimed at purging
the state of obnoxious foreigners.
2. The Governor-General, in his political and executive capacity, is invested with
plenary power (Complete power over a particular area with no limitations) to deport obnoxious
aliens. In the absence of express and prescribed rules on the method of deportation,
the Governor-General may use methods as his official judgment and good
conscience may indicate.
3. In a government with separate and independent departments, one department
should not interfere with the exclusive duties of another. Allowing such
interference would destroy the independence of the separate departments. The
judiciary should not question the manner of exercising the legal and political duties
of the chief executive or control the action of the legislative department.
4. An act done by an agent of the government, even in excess of his authority, is
considered ratified (approved) and adopted by the government. Therefore, the
Governor-General's act of deporting Chuoco Tiaco, even if it exceeded his
authority, is equivalent to previous authority.
5. The fact that a citizen or subject is outside the territory of his country does not
relieve him from the allegiance he owes to his government. Under certain
conditions, a government may request the return of its citizen or subject from
foreign territory. Such a request justifies the authority of the country in which the
citizen or subject resides to deliver him to the proper agent or authority for
repatriation.
6. "Due process of law" refers to the exercise of government powers within the
settled maxims of law and with safeguards for the protection of individual rights.
When a government deals with the political rights of aliens, it is not governed by
the same "due process of law" that applies to civil rights. The circumstances
determine what constitutes due process of law, and it varies with the subject matter
and necessities of the situation.

7. An alien cannot insist on residing in a foreign territory solely based on a

certificate of admission. The certificate is a mere license that can be revoked by the
government at any time. An alien's right to remain in a foreign territory is purely
political and can be terminated at the will of the government.
8. The duties of the chief executive authority of the state are generally defined by a
constitution or law. However, there are inherent powers vested in the chief
executive that are universally denominated political. These powers exist to
preserve the life and integrity of the state and the peace and quietude of its people.
9. The Governor-General cannot be held liable in damages for performing a legal
duty. He had the authority, under the law, to deport or expel the defendants, and
the circumstances justifying the deportation and the method of carrying it out were
left to his discretion. Therefore, he cannot be held liable for exercising such power.
10. The courts do not have jurisdiction in cases relating to the exercise of the
inherent power to deport aliens. The power to deport or expel aliens belongs to the
political department of the government, and the courts should not interfere with the
exclusive duties of the executive and legislative departments.
11. The Governor-General's act of deporting Chuoco Tiaco was essentially judicial
in nature, as it involved the exercise of discretion, judgment, and the interpretation
of the law. Therefore, the Governor-General is protected from civil liability for his
actions.

Ratio:
1. The government of the United States in the Philippine Islands has the power to
deport obnoxious aliens for the public good and domestic tranquility. This power is
derived from the government's inherent authority to preserve itself and the will of
Congress and the President.
2. The Governor-General, as the chief executive, has plenary power to deport
obnoxious aliens and may use methods as his official judgment and good
conscience may indicate. In the absence of express rules on deportation, the
Governor-General has discretion in determining the method of deportation.
3. The judiciary should not interfere with the exclusive duties of the executive and
legislative departments to maintain the independence of the separate branches of
government.
4. Acts done by government agents, even in excess of their authority, are
considered ratified and adopted by the government.
5. The government has the right to recall its citizens or subjects from foreign
territory, and such a request justifies the authority of the country in which the
citizen or subject resides to deliver them for repatriation.
6. Due process of law varies depending on the circumstances and subject matter,
and the government is not bound by the same due process when dealing with
political rights of aliens.
7. An alien's right to remain in a foreign territory is political and can be terminated
at the will of the government, regardless of holding a certificate of admission.
8. The chief executive has inherent powers to preserve the life and integrity of the
state and protect the interests of its people.
9. The Governor-General cannot be held liable for performing a legal duty, and his
exercise of power is protected within the limits of his determination of authority.
10. The courts do not have jurisdiction in cases relating to the exercise of the
inherent power to deport aliens, as this power belongs to the political department
of the government.
11. The Governor-General's act of deporting Chuoco Tiaco was essentially judicial
in nature, as it involved the exercise of discretion, judgment, and the interpretation
of the law. Therefore, the Governor-General is protected from civil liability for his
actions.

The importance of safeguarding the chief executive's authority and discretion in

executing laws and performing official duties, emphasizing the broader impact on
the government's efficiency, public policy, and stability.