Facts:
These
petitions stemmed from the complaint-affidavit[9] for deportation initiated by
Luis T. Ramos before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (now Bureau of
Immigration) against Jimmy T. Go alleging that the latter is an illegal and
undesirable alien. Luis
alleged that while Jimmy represents himself as a Filipino citizen, Jimmy’s
personal circumstances and other records indicate that he is not so. To prove his contention, Luis
presented the birth certificate of Jimmy, issued by the Office of the Civil
Registrar of Iloilo City, which indicated Jimmy’s citizenship as
“FChinese.” Luis argued
that although it appears from Jimmy’s birth certificate that his parents,
Carlos and Rosario Tan, are Filipinos, the document seems to be tampered,
because only the citizenship of Carlos appears to be handwritten while all the
other entries were typewritten. He
also averred that in September 1989 or thereabout, Jimmy, through stealth,
machination and scheming managed to cover up his true citizenship, and with the
use of falsified documents and untruthful declarations, was able to procure a
Philippine passport from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Jimmy
refuted the allegations in his counter-affidavit,verring that the complaint for
deportation initiated by Luis was merely a harassment case designed to oust him
of his rightful share in their business dealings.
Jimmy
maintained that there is no truth to the allegation that he is an alien, and
insisted that he is a natural-born Filipino. Jimmy alleged that his father Carlos,
who was the son of a Chinese father and Filipina mother, elected Philippine
citizenship in accordance with Commonwealth Act 625.
In
resolution dated Feb. 14 2001, Associate Comm. Linda L. Malinab Hornilla
dismissed the complaint for deportation against Jimmy.
On
March 8 2001, The Board of Commissioner reversed the decision. Their contention
is that Carlos election of citizenship was made out of time.
The
board issued a decision dated April 17 2002 for apprehension and deportation of
Jimmy Go to China.
Petitioner
filed a petition for habeas corpus in RTC but was denied by the said court.
They
questioned the said decision and filed a petition for certiorari in the Court
of appeals. The petition was granted.
Their
motion for reconsideration was denied at Bureu of immigration.
Hence,
this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether
the petition for habeas corpus should be dismissed.
RULING:
A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is a
special proceeding governed by Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court. The
objective of the writ is to determine whether the confinement or detention is
valid or lawful. If it is, the writ cannot be issued. What
is to be inquired into is the legality of a person’s detention as of, at the
earliest, the filing of the application for the writ of habeas corpus, for even
if the detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by reason of some
supervening events, such as the instances mentioned in Section 4[98] of
Rule 102, be no longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application.[99]
Once a person detained is duly charged in court, he may no
longer question his detention through a petition for issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus. His remedy would be to quash the information and/or
the warrant of arrest duly issued. The writ of habeas corpus should
not be allowed after the party sought to be released had been charged before
any court. The term “court” in this context includes quasi-judicial
bodies of governmental agencies authorized to order the person’s confinement,
like the Deportation Board of the Bureau of Immigration.[100] Likewise,
the cancellation of his bail cannot be assailed via a petition for habeas
corpus. When an alien is detained by the Bureau of Immigration for
deportation pursuant to an order of deportation by the Deportation Board, the
Regional Trial Courts have no power to release such alien on bail even in
habeas corpus proceedings because there is no law authorizing it.[101]
Given that Jimmy has been duly charged before the Board, and
in fact ordered arrested pending his deportation, coupled by this Court’s
pronouncement that the Board was not ousted of its jurisdiction to continue
with the deportation proceedings, the petition for habeas corpus is rendered
moot and academic. This being so, we find it unnecessary to touch on
the other arguments advanced by respondents regarding the same subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment