GO BEE BEE @ SIOK KUAN, LIM TAN TONG @ LIM SUY HIO AND JOSE LIM @ LIM SIONG HING, PETITIONERS-APPELLEES, VS. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

On August 20, 1962, appellees filed in
the court below a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus,
alleging therein that they were being unlawfully detained and deprived of
liberty by the respondents Commissioner of Immigration and Chief of the
Detention Station at Engineer Island, Manila, because the order for their
deportation issued on December 28, 1961 by the President of the Philippines had
been revoked on the 30th of the same month and year.

On August 21, 1962,
the lower court ordered the respondents to bring the persons of appellees before the court and to submit their return.

On August 22 of the same year, the respondents filed an
opposition to the petition, denying that the order of deportation mentioned
above had ever been resolved.

On the same date, acting upon appellees’
petition, the lower court ordered their release – as in fact they were released
– from confinement upon the filing by each of them, and approval by the court,
of a bond in the sum of P8,000.00.

On September 1, 1962,
the Commissioner of Immigration submitted his return to the writ, stating
therein that he was holding appellees under confinement by virtue of an outstanding and
unrevoked deportation order issued by the President
of the Philippines.  He therefore prayed that the petition for habeas
corpus be dismissed; that the bail bonds posted by appellees
for their temporary liberty be cancelled, and that all of them be ordered
re-arrested for immediate deportation.

On October 4, 1962,
a supplemental petition was filed for the purpose of including Po Kim Chun as
co-petitioner because he was also arrested and detained pursuant to the same
allegedly revoked order of deportation. 
Thereupon, the Court issued an order directing appellants to bring the
person of Po Kim Chun before the Court on the following day.  The return filed by the Commissioner of
Immigration in con­nection with the original petition was considered as filed
in connection with the supplemental petition. 
Po Kim Chun was also allowed to be on provisional liberty on a similar
bond, and upon the filing and approval thereof, he was released from custody.

On October 30, 1962, the Commissioner of Immigration filed a
supplemental return and motion for the cancellation of the bonds mentioned
heretofore, claiming that it had been definitely ascertained that there was no
record whatsoever of the alleged order of December 30, 1961 revoking the deportation order against appellees, and
alleging further that the proper public records showed that said deportation
order had become final and executory.  The lower court, however, held in abeyance
its resolution thereon.

The case as against Po Kim Chun was never tried and it appears
that on June 30, 1963 he
voluntarily left the country.

After due trial of the case as regards the other petitioners, appellees herein, the court rendered judgment declaring
that they were unlawfully detained and deprived of their liberty and ordered
their release.  In due time the
respondents appealed.

It is not disputed that appellees were
among several aliens charged and made respondents in Case No. R-478 of the Deportation Board.  After proper investigation by the latter,
they were recommended for deportation due to their communistic or subversive
activities, coupled with the utterance of counterfeit coins, and for prostitution.  Accordingly, on December 28, 1961 the President of the Philippines
declared them to be undesirable aliens and ordered that they be arrested by the
Commissioner of Immigration and thereafter deported by the first available
transportation to mainland China
or Formosa.  In compliance therewith, appellees
were arrested and turned over to the Commissioner of Immigration.  Preparatory to their deportation, they
remained confined at the Detention Station at Engineer
Island, Manila,
until August 22, 1962 when
they were released on bail by order of the lower court.

Subsequently, appellees sought from the
President and the Deportation Board the reconsideration of the order of
deportation, of the denial of the review thereof, and a new trial based on
newly discovered evidence (Exhibit 4, pp. 46-47, Record, paragraph 9,
Supplemental Return, Record p. 43), but this was denied by the President
(paragraph 9-B, Supplemental Return, Record, p. 43; Exhibits 5, 5-A and
6, Record, pp. 105-107).

As raised by appellants the issues involved in this appeal are
the following:

1. Did the President revoke on Dec. 30, 1961, his last day in office, the order of
deportation issued against petitioners
on Dec. 28, 1961?

2. Is the trial court possessed with jurisdiction to release petitioners
from confinement on bail during the pendency of the
proceedings for habeas corpus?

3. Are petitioners entitled to release on habeas corpus or are
they lawfully detained by the Commissioner of Immigration pending deportation
upon order of the President?

The alleged revocation of the presidential order of deportation
is obviously of vital and decisive importance in the resolution of the first
and last issues.  Upon the facts stated heretofore, it is clear that appellees had the burden of proving not only that the
revocation order was issued but also that it is valid.  To discharge this burden, however, all that
they could produce was (a) the alleged original of the order aforesaid claimed
to have been signed not by the President but only by Assistant Executive
Secretary Edilberto B. Gallares
after the words “By the President:”, and (b) a photostatic
copy of an alleged duplicate of the same order signed neither by the President
nor by
Assistant Executive Secretary Gallares.

An examination of both
documents is sufficient to
convince anyone that they are of an extremely suspicious character.  In the first place, why and how the alleged
original of an official document has fallen into the hands of appellees has not been satisfactorily explained.  In the second place, on the face thereof
(Exhibit A, p. 97 of the Record)
the name of the then President of the Philippines, Carlos P. Garcia, does not
appear at all, while it does appear on the face of the alleged photostatic copy of an alleged duplicate.  In the third place, upon the face of said photostatic copy, the following
remarks appear:

“COPY FOR:

The
Sec. of For. Affairs

The Chairman,
Deportation Board

The Commissioner of
Immigration”

The alleged original, however, does not
contain the same remarks.

Add to the above the circumstance that the alleged revocation
order was issued on the 30th day of December
1961, and one can readily reach
the conclusion that, if it was really issued, it was one of the “midnight” orders and appointments that now
belong to history.

Our conclusion, therefore, is that the documents upon which appellees rely are utterly insufficient to prove the
alleged revocation of the order of deportation.

Having arrived at the above conclusion, We
deem it unnecessary, for the purpose of this decision, to consider and resolve
the other issue raised in appellants’ brief.

 WHEREFORE, the
appealed decision is reversed and set aside and the appellees
are hereby ordered re-arrested for deportation in accordance with the
presidential order of deportation mentioned in the body of this decision.  The bail bonds filed for their provisional
liberty shall remain outstanding until after they have been re-arrested, to
answer for any liability contracted under their terms. With
costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.