Qua Chee Gan V Deportation Board Case Digest 71h5n

Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, GR L-10280 September 30, 1983 Ponente: J. Barrera Facts: - May 12, 1952, Special Prosecutor Emilo Galang charged petitioners before the Deportation Board, having purchased US dollars in the sum of $130,000.00, without the necessary license from the Central Bank of the Philippines, which was then secretly remitted to Hong Kong - Petitioners Qua Chee Gan and Chua Lim Pao alias Jose Chua and Basilio King attempted to bribe officers of the PHL and US governments (Antonio Laforteza, Chief of the Intelligence Division of the Central Bank, Capt. A.P. Charak of the OSI, US Air Force) to evade prosecution for the unauthorized purchase. - A warrant of arrest of petitioners was issued by the Deportation Board. They filed a surety bond of P10,000.00 and cash bond for P10,000.00, thereby provisionally setting them at liberty - Petitioners-appellants filed a t motion to dismiss in the Deportation Board for the reason that the same does not constitute legal ground for deportation of aliens, and that the Board has no jurisdiction to entertain such charges. Motion was denied by the Board on Feb. 9, 1953 - Petitioners then filed a petition for habeas corpus and/or prohibition to the Court, but made returnable to the Court of First Instance of Manila. After securing and filing a bond for P5,000.00 each, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the lower court, restraining the DB from hearing deportation charges against petitioners pending termination of the habeas corpus and/or prohibition proceedings. - The DB then filed its answer to the original petition, saying as an authorized agent of the President, it has jurisdiction over the charges filed, and the authority to order their arrest. The Court upheld the validity of the delegation by the president to the Deportation Board of his power to conduct the investigations. It also sustained the power of the DB to issue warrant of arrest and fix bonds for the alien’s temporary release pending investigation, pursuant to Section 69 of the Revised sistrative Code. - Hence this appeal. Issues: 1. WON the President has powers to deport aliens and, consequently, 2. WON the delegation to the DB of the ancillary power to investigate, carries with it the power to order the arrest of the alien complained of Held: 1. Yes. As stated in Sec 69 od Act 2711 of the Revised istrative Code -xSEC. 69 Deportation of subject to foreign power. — A subject of a foreign power residing in the Philippines shall not be deported, expelled, or excluded from said Islands or repatriated to his own country by the President of the Philippines except upon prior investigation, conducted by said Executive or his authorized agent, of the ground upon which Such action is contemplated. In such case the person concerned shall be informed of the charge or charges against him and he shall be allowed not less than these days for the preparation of his defense. He shall also have the right to be heard by himself or counsel, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to cross-examine the opposing witnesses." -x-

While it does not expressly confer on the President the authority to deport these aliens, the fact that such a procedure was provided for before the President is a clear indication of such power. SC stated petitioners committed the act of profiteering¸ which is a ground for deportation. The President may then order their deportation if after investigation they are shown to have committed the act charged. 2. No. President Quirino’s EO 398 authorizes the DB “to issue the warrant for the arrest of the alien complained of and to hold him under detention during the investigation unless he files a bond for his provisional release.” The exercise of the power to order the arrest of an individual demands the exercise of discretion by the one issuing the same. Such conditions are dependent/personal to the one upon whom the authority devolves. It is an implied grant of power that would serve as curtailment on the fundamental right of security to life and liberty, which equally applies to both citizens and foreigners in this country. The guarantees of human rights, then, must not rest on such a shaky foundation.  EO 398, as it empowers the DB to issue warrant of arrest and to fix bond and prescribe the conditions for his temporary release, is therefore declared as illegal.  Order of arrest of DB upon petitioners is declared null and void.