G.R. No. L-22196
June 30, 1967
Facts
Petitioner Chan Sau Wah left China together with her two children from her first marriage. She then came to the Philippines with her minor son. They were permitted entry under a temporary visitor’s visa for two months after they posted a cash bond of 4,000 pesos. Later on, she married Morano who is a Filipino citizen. Out of their union, a child was born. In order to prolong her stay in the country, she obtained several extensions. Before the last extension, the Commissioner on Immigration ordered petitioner and her son to leave the country with a warning that failure to do so will result to the issuance of warrant of arrest and confiscation of their bond.
However, petitioners did not leave the country but filed a case for mandamus to compel the Commissioner of Immigration to cancel petitioner’s Alien Certificates of Registration; and for prohibition to stop the Commissioner from issuing warrants of arrest pending resolution of this case. The trial court, issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for, upon a P2,000-bond. After trial, the Court of First Instance denied the prayer to declare declare Sec. 37 (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 unconstitutional. Hence, this petition.
Section 37(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act provides that the “[a]ny alien who remains in the Philippines in violation of any limitation or condition under which he was admitted as a non-immigrant shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after determination of the Board of Commissioners for a ground of deportation.”
Petitioner contends that the Act violated the constitutional mandate against unreasonable searches and seizure since the issuance of warrant of arrest are only limited to judges.
Issue
Whether or not Sec. 37 (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 be declared unconstitutional for it permits issuance of warrants that was not issued by a judge?
Held
No. The constitutional mandate on the issuance of warrant of arrest are not limited to judges. The constitutional guarantee set forth in Section 1(3), Article III of the Constitution, requiring that the issue of probable cause be determined by a judge, does not extend to deportation proceedings. The Supreme Court held that said constitutional mandate does not require judicial intervention in the execution of a final order of deportation issued in accordance with law.
This view is also supported by the constitutional convention who provides the power to deport or expel aliens is an attribute of sovereignty to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions. Moreover, it is also said that the stay of aliens under the law as temporary visitor is subject to certain contractual stipulations as contained by the cash bond and in case of breach, the Commissioner may require the recommitment of the person in whose favor the bond was filed.
Hence, the law is constitutional.