CASE DIGEST
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND THE JAIL WARDEN V. WENLE
G.R. No. 242957,
[February 28, 2023]
EN BANC, GESMUNDO, C.J.
Summary Deportation Order; Due Process in Deportation Proceedings; Powers of Bureau of Immigration over Undersirable Alien
Being legally detained by virtue of the
valid Summary Deportation Order issued by the Board of Commissioners of the
Bureau of Immigration is not an arbitrary arrest and is not illegal. The
alleged lack of notice and hearing before the issuance of the Summary
Deportation Order does not render the Summary Deportation Order and his
confinement void for violation of due process. The essence of due process in
administrative proceedings, such as deportation proceedings, is the opportunity
to be heard.
This case involves an appeal by certiorari seeking to reverse the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Resolution dated October 22, 2018, which declared null and void the Summary Deportation Order (SDO) issued by the Bureau of Immigration's Board of Commissioners. The SDO was issued against Yuan Wenle, a Chinese national, and companion Chinese nationals. The RTC, in a habeas corpus proceeding, ruled that the SDO did not accord due process to aliens.
The background includes a request from the Chinese Embassy for assistance in arresting and deporting the individuals based on cancelled Chinese passports. The Bureau issued a Charge Sheet, a Watchlist Order, and subsequently, the SDO. Respondent Yuan Wenle filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that the SDO was issued without notice and hearing, making his arrest arbitrary and illegal. The RTC granted the petition, declaring the SDO null and void for being issued without due process. The Bureau, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to reverse the RTC's decision.
Whether a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a proper remedy to assail a
decision or final order of the RTC in habeas corpus cases.
NO. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which
explicitly allows petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court,
limited to questions of law. The Court emphasized that the RTC lacked
jurisdiction in entertaining pleas against a Summary Deportation Order (SDO) in
a habeas corpus proceeding, as the power to deport aliens is vested in the
President through the Bureau of Immigration. This is obvious in deportation
proceedings, where the president or the Bureau of Immigration, in order to
complete or execute our immigration policies, is given the power to issue
arrest warrants for purposes of carrying out a final order of deportation. It
is impossible to deport an undesirable alien without first gaining custody of
the alien's person.
All told, the Petition for Habeas
Corpus was moot and academic, respondent Wenle having been detained by virtue
of a legal process. The trial court, therefore, should have denied the Petition.
Therefore, SC nullifies the decision of Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
16 in R-MNL-18-10197-SP for seriously erring in assuming jurisdiction over the
habeas corpus case and in invalidating the July 26, 2018 Summary Deportation
Order.
Whether the Summary Departure Order (SDO)
issued by the Bureau against respondent is void for violating due process.
NO. Section 37(a) of Commonwealth Act No.
613 (CA No. 613), which grants the Commissioner of Immigration the authority to
issue warrants of arrest for the purpose of deportation. The Court recognized
that an SDO essentially functions as a warrant issued by an administrative
body.
In this case, respondent Yuan Wenle was
being legally detained by virtue of the valid Summary Deportation Order issued
by the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration. The alleged lack of
notice and hearing before the issuance of the Summary Deportation Order does
not render the Summary Deportation Order and his confinement void for violation
of due process.
It is undisputed that on July 17, 2018,
respondent Wenle was charged before the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of
Immigration, the body with jurisdiction over deportation cases. Nine days
later, or on July 26, 2018, a Summary Deportation Order was subsequently issued
against respondent Wenle, and only then was he arrested pursuant to the
deportation order. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings,
such as deportation proceedings, is the opportunity to be heard, which was
undisputedly given to respondent Wenle. Wenle was not deprived of his right to
due process. He was amply afforded an opportunity to be heard
during the proceedings in his petition for habeas corpus. Therefore, SDO issued
by the Bureau did not violates the petitioner’s right to due process.
No comments:
Post a Comment