MORANO VS VIVO

ESTEBAN MORANO, CHAN SAU WAH and FU YAN FUN vs. HON. MARTINIANO VIVO

G.R. No. L-22196             June 30, 1967

Facts:

Chan Sau Wah, a Chinese citizen, together with her minor son in her first marriage, Fuyan Fun arrived in the Philippines to visit her cousin. they are permitted only into the Philippines under a temporary visitor's visa for two months and after they posted a cash bond of 4,000. afterwards, Chan married Esteban Morano, native Filipino citizen. to prolong their stay in the Philippines, chan and Fu obtained several extension. The last extension expired on September 10, 1962.

In a letter, the commissioner of Immigration ordered Chan and Fu to leave the country on or before September 10 with a warning that upon failure so to do, he will issue a warrant for their arrest and will cause the confiscation of their bond.

Instead of leaving the country they petitioned the court of first instance for mandamus to compel the commissioner of immigration to cancel petitioners' alien certificate of registration, prohibition to stop the issuance of warrant of arrest and preliminary injunction to restrain the confiscation of their cash bond.

Issue:
Whether or not the commissioner of immigration can issue warrant of arrest

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that Section 1 (3), Article III [Bill of Rights] of the Constitution, to wit:
(3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They say that the Constitution limits to judges the authority to issue warrants of arrest and that the legislative delegation of such power to the Commissioner of Immigration is thus violative of the Bill of Rights.

Section 1 (3), Article III of the Constitution, we perceive, does not require judicial intervention in the execution of a final order of deportation issued in accordance with law. The constitutional limitation contemplates an order of arrest in the exercise of judicial power4 as a step preliminary or incidental to prosecution or proceedings for a given offense or administrative action, not as a measure indispensable to carry out a valid decision by a competent official, such as a legal order of deportation, issued by the Commissioner of Immigration, in pursuance of a valid legislation.

In consequence, the constitutional guarantee set forth in Section 1 (3), Article III of the Constitution aforesaid, requiring that the issue of probable cause be determined by a judge, does not extend to deportation proceedings



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990

DE PEREZ vs. GARCHITORENA

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG