LAO GI ALIAS FILOMENO CHIA, SR., HIS WIFE, ONG UE, AND HIS CHILDREN FILOMENO, JR., MANUEL, ROSITA VICENTA AND DOMINGA, ALL SURNAMED CHIA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APP…

On September 3, 1958
the Secretary of Justice rendered Opinion No. 191, series of 1958 finding Filomeno Chia, Jr., alias Sia Pieng Hui
to be a Filipino citizen as it appears that his father Filomeno
Chia, Sr. is a Filipino citizen born on November 28, 1899 being the
legitimate son of Inocencio Chia
and Maria Layug of Guagua, Pampanga.  However on
October 3, 1980 the
Minister of Justice rendered Opinion No. 147, series of 1980 cancelling Opinion No. 191, series of 1958 and setting aside the citizenship
of Filomeno Chia, Sr. on
the ground that it was founded on fraud and
misrepresentations.  A motion for reconsideration of said Opinion was denied by the
Minister of Justice on February 13,
1981.

On March 9, 1981
a charge for deportation was filed with the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation (CID) against Lao Gi alias Filomeno Chia, Sr., his wife and
children.

An amended charge was filed with the CID on March 19, 1981 alleging that said respondents
refused to register as aliens having been required to do so and continued to
refuse to register as such.  On August 31, 1981 another amended
charge was filed alleging that Manuel Chia committed
acts of undesirability.

On September 4, 1981
said respondents filed a motion to dismiss the amended charges on the ground
that the CID has no authority to reopen a matter long settled under Opinion No.
191, series of 1958.  The motion to
dismiss was opposed by the private prosecutor. 
The CID special prosecutor also filed an opposition on the ground that
the citizenship may be threshed out as the occasion may demand and that due
process was accorded to respondents.  The
respondents filed a reply thereto.  The motion
to dismiss was denied by the CID and a motion for reconsideration of said
denial was also denied in a resolution dated December 10, 1981.

Said respondents then filed with this Court on February 11, 1982 a petition for certiorari
and prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction and restraining order docketed as G.R. No. 59619.  After requiring a comment thereon, on April 28, 1982 this Court en banc
resolved to dismiss the petition for lack of merit.

Earlier, Manuel Chia was charged with
falsification of public documents in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila
in Criminal Case No. 60172 for alleging that he was a Filipino citizen in the
execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale of certain real property.  He was acquitted by the trial court in an
order dated May 5, 1982 on the ground that Opinion No. 191, series of 1958 of
the Secretary of Justice may be equated as res
judicata and that revocation thereof by
Opinion No. 147, series of 1980 cannot be considered just, fair, and
reasonable.

On June 1, 1982
respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution of
this Court dismissing the petition but this was denied by another resolution of
this Court dated August 17, 1982.  A second motion for reconsideration thereof
was also denied by this Court on September
16, 1982.

On September 23, 1982
the CID set the deportation case against respondents for hearing and Acting
Commissioner Victor G. Nituda gave respondents three
(3) days to move for reconsideration of the order directing them to register as
aliens and to oppose the motion for their arrest.  On September
27, 1982 respondents filed said motion for reconsideration and
opposition but this was denied by Acting Commissioner Nituda
on September 28, 1982.  The latter directed respondents to register
as aliens within two (2) days from notice thereof.  The deportation case was set for hearing on October 5, 1982 but on the same day
respondents filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition with a
prayer for injunctive relief in the Court of First Instance of Manila docketed
as Civil Case No. 82-12935 whereby a writ of preliminary injunction was
issued.  On April 17, 1985 a decision was rendered by the trial
court dismissing the petition for lack
of legal basis and for want of supervisory jurisdiction on the part of the
trial court on the particular subject involved. 
The writ of preliminary injunction previously issued was dissolved.

An appeal therefrom was interposed to the Court of Appeals.  In due course a decision was rendered on August
19, 1987 dismissing
the appeal with costs against petitioners. 
A motion for reconsideration of the decision filed by petitioners
was also denied in a resolution dated January
7, 1988.

Hence, the herein
petition for certiorari filed by petitioners wherein they seek to set
aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and ask that a new one be rendered setting aside the order
of the CID dated September 28,
1982 and directing it to proceed with the reception of the evidence in support
of the charges against the petitioners. 
The issues raised in the petition are as follows:

“1.  The issues raised
in G. R. No. 59619 before the Honorable Supreme Court were different from the
issues raised in Civil Case No. 82-12935-CV.

2.   The minute resolution of
the Honorable Supreme Court in G.R. No. 59619 did not make a categorical ruling
that petitioner entered and remained in the Philippines
by false pretenses.

3.   The issue of whether or
not petitioners’ citizenship was secured by fraud is precisely the subject
matter of the proceedings before the Commission on Immigration and Deportation,
in which no evidence had been presented yet in support of the charge of fraud
in the acquisition of petitioners’ citizenship.

4.   Petitioners are not subject
to immediate deportation.

5.  The order for the arrest
of petitioners in case of failure to register as aliens was premature since
there was no competent determination yet that
their citizenship was indeed procured by fraud.

6.  The Honorable Court of Appeals overstepped
its appellate jurisdiction, when it ruled on matters not covered by the
Decision of the lower court.”

There can be no question
that the CID has the authority and jurisdiction to hear and determine the
deportation case against petitioners and in the process determine also the
question of citizenship raised by the petitioners.  Section 37 (a) (1) of the Immigration Act
provides as follows:

“SEC. 37.  (a) The
following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of
Immigration or of any other officer designated by him for the purpose and
deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Imigration
after a determination by the Board of
Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against
the alien:

(1) Any alien who enters the Philippines
after the effective date of this Act by means of false and misleading
statements or without inspection and admission by the immigration authorities
at a designated port of entry or at any place other than at a designated port
of entry.  (As amended by Sec. 13, Rep. Act No. 503.) x x x.”

From the foregoing
provision it is clear that before any alien may be deported upon a warrant of
the Commissioner of Immigration, there should be a prior determination by the
Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground as charged against the
alien.

In this case it appears
that petitioners are charged with having entered the Philippines by means of false and misleading statements
or without inspection or admission by the immigration authorities at a
designated port of entry.

After appropriate charges are filed in the CID the specific
grounds of which he should be duly informed of, a hearing should be conducted, and
it is only after such a hearing by the CID that the alien may be ordered
deported.  In such a hearing, Opinion No.
191, Series of 1958 of the Secretary of Justice and Opinion No. 147, Series of
1980 of the Minister of Justice will bear much weight in the determination by the CID of the citizenship
of said petitioners.

The petitioners question
the Order of Acting Commissioner Nituda that they
register as aliens as required by the
Immigration Act. While it is not disputed that it is also within the
power and authority of the Commissioner to require an alien to so register,
such a requirement must be predicated on a positive finding that the person who
is so required is an alien.  In this case
where the very citizenship of the petitioners is in issue there should be a
previous determination by the CID that they are aliens before the petitioners
may be directed and required to register as aliens.

The power to deport an alien is an act of the State.  It is an act by or under the authority of the
sovereign power.^[1]
It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the country
is found to be injurious to the public good and domestic tranquility of the
people.^[2]

Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature
of a criminal action, however, considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary
administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the
constitutional right of such person to due process should not be denied.  Thus, the provisions of the Rules of Court of
the Philippines
particularly on criminal procedure are applicable to deportation proceedings.

Under Section 37(c) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 as
amended, it is provided:

“c” No alien shall be deported without being informed of
the specific grounds for deportation nor without being given a hearing under
rules of procedure to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration.”

Hence, the charge against an alien must specify the acts or
omissions complained of which must be stated in ordinary and concise language
to enable a person of common understanding to know on what ground he is
intended to be deported and enable the CID to pronounce a proper judgment.^[3]

Before any charge should be filed in the CID a preliminary
investigation must be conducted to determine if there is a sufficient cause to
charge the respondent for deportation.^[4]
The issuance of warrants of arrest, arrests without warrant and service of
warrants should be in accordance likewise with Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure;^[5]
search warrants issued by the CID shall be governed by Rule 126 of the 1985
Rules of Criminal Procedure;^[6]
and so the matter of bail, motion to quash, and trial,^[7]
among others.  Fealty to the prescribed
rules of procedure in deportation cases shall insure a speedy, fair and just dispensation of justice.

The Court takes note of the fact that a private prosecutor is
assisting in the prosecution of the case by the special prosecutor of the
CID.  The Court sees no reason why a
private prosecutor should be allowed to participate in a deportation case.  Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure,
particularly Section 16, Rule 110 thereof, an offended party may intervene in a
criminal prosecution when there is civil liability arising from the criminal
action claimed by said party.  In such
case he may intervene by
counsel.

In deportation cases, the Court cannot conceive of any justification for a private
party to have any right to intervene. 
Even if such party can establish any damages due him arising from the deportation
charge against the alien, such
relief cannot be afforded him in the deportation proceeding.  His recourse if at all is in the ordinary courts. 
Thus the Court rules that the intervention of a private prosecutor
should not be allowed in deportation cases.  The possibility of oppression, harrassment and persecution cannot be discounted.  The deportation of an alien is the sole
concern of the State.  This is the reason
why there are special prosecutors and fiscals tasked to prosecute such cases.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the
questioned order of the respondent Commission on Immigration and Deportation
dated September 28, 1982 is hereby set aside.  The
respondent Commission on Immigration and Deportation is hereby directed to
continue hearing the deportation case against petitioners and thereafter, based
on the evidence before it, to resolve the issue of citizenship of petitioners,
and if found to be aliens, to determine whether or not the petitioners should
be deported and/or otherwise ordered to register as aliens.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea JJ., concur.

^[1]
In re R. McCulloch Dick, 38 Phil. 41, 211, 224 (1918).

^[2]
Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco
and Crossfield, 16 Phil. 534 (1910).

^[3]
Section 9, Rule 110, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure.

^[4]
Section 15, Preliminary Investigation, Deportation Rules of Procedure; Rule
112, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure.

^[5]
Sections 5 and 6 of the Deportation Rules of Procedure.

^[6]
Section 7, supra.

^[7]
Sections 16, 17 and 21, supra; Rules 114, 117 and 119, 1985 Rules
of Criminal Procedure.