In RE Habeas Corpus of Harvey, et. al. Harvey vs. Commissioner Defensor Santiago (GR 82544, 28 June 1988)

Facts: Andrew Harvey, John Sherman, (both Americans), and Adriaa Van Den Elshout (Dutch) were apprehended on 27 February 1988 from their respective residences at Pagsanjan, Laguna by agents of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) by virtue of Mission Orders issued by Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago of the CID. They were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles who were apprehended after 3 months of close surveillance by CID agents in Pagsanjan, Laguna. 2 days after apprehension, or on 29 February 1988, 17 of the 22 arrested aliens opted for self-deportation and have left the country. One was released for lack of evidence; another was charged not for being a pedophile but for working without a valid working visa. Thus, of the original 22, only Harvey, et. al. have chosen to face deportation. Seized during their apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and photos of the suspected child prostitutes shown in salacious poses as well as boys and girls engaged in the sex act. There were also posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes. They are presently detained at the CID Detention Center. On 4 March 1988, deportation proceedings were instituted against Harvey, et. al. for being undesirable aliens under Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code (Deportation Case 88-13). On 14 March 1988, Harvey, et. al. filed an Urgent Petition for Release Under Bond alleging that their health was being seriously affected by their continuous detention. Upon recommendation of the Board of Commissioners for their provisional release, the Commissioner ordered the CID doctor to examine Harvey, et. al., who certified that the latter were healthy. On 22 March 1988, Harvey, et. al. filed a Petition for Bail which, however, the COmmissioner denied considering the certification by the CID physician that the accused were healthy. To avoid congestion, the Commissioner ordered Harvey, et. al.'s transfer to the CID detention cell at Fort Bonifacio, but the transfer was deferred pending trial due to the difficulty of transporting then to and from the CID where trial was on-going. On 4 April 1988, Harvey filed a Manifestation/Motion stating that he had "finally agreed to a self-deportation" and praying that he be "provisionally released for at least 15 days and placed under the custody of Atty. Asinas before he voluntarily departs the country." On 7 April 1988, the Board of Special Inquiry III allowed provisional release of 5 days only under certain conditions. However, it appears that on the same date that the Manifestation/Motion was filed, Harvey and his co-petitioners had already filed the present petition for a writ of haeas corpus.

Issue: Whether the Philippine Government has the power to deport foreigners from its territory.

Held: Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem proper for its self-preservation or public interest. The power to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and the domestic tranquility of the people. Particularly so in this case where the State has expressly committed itself to defend the right of children to assistance and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. The Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation, in instituting deportation proceedings against Harvey, et. al., acted in the interests of the State.

MOY YA LIM YAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATIONG.R. No. L-21289, October 4 1971, 41 SCRA 292

FACTS: Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a non-immigrant on 8 February 1961. In the interrogation made in connection with her application for a temporary visitor's visa to enter the Philippines, she stated that she was a Chinese residing at Kowloon, Hongkong, and that she desired to take a pleasure trip to the Philippines to visit her great grand uncle, Lau Ching Ping. She was permitted to come into the Philippines on 13 March 1961 for a period of one month.On the date of her arrival, Asher Y. Cheng filed a bond in the amount of P1,000.00 to undertake, among others, that said Lau Yuen Yeung would actually depart from the Philippines on or before the expiration of her authorized period of stay in this country or within the period as in his discretion the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized representative might properly allow.After repeated extensions, Lau Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in the Philippines up to 13 February 1962. On 25 January 1962, she contracted marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged Filipino citizen. Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest and immediate deportation, after the expiration of her authorized stay, she brought an action for injunction. At the hearing which took place one and a half years after her arrival, it was admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung could not write and speak either English or Tagalog, except for a few words. She could not name any Filipino neighbor, with a Filipino name except one, Rosa. She did not know the names of her brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law. As a result, the Court of First Instance of Manila denied the prayer for preliminary injunction. Moya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed.

ISSUE: Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a Filipino citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen.HELD: Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4. Whether the alien woman requires to undergo the naturalization proceedings, Section 15 is a parallel provision to Section 16. Thus, if the widow of an applicant for naturalization as Filipino, who dies during the proceedings, is not required to go through a naturalization proceedings, in order to be considered as a Filipino citizen hereof, it should follow that the wife of a living Filipino cannot be denied the same privilege.This is plain common sense and there is absolutely no evidence that the Legislature intended to treat them differently. As the laws of our country, both substantive and procedural, stand today, there is no such procedure (a substitute for naturalization proceeding to enable the alien wife of a Philippine citizen to have the matter of her own citizenship settled and established so that she may not have to be called upon to prove it everytime she has to perform an act or enter into a transaction or business or exercise a right reserved only to Filipinos), but such is no proof that the citizenship is not vested as of the date of marriage or the husband's acquisition of citizenship, as the case may be, for the truth is that the situation obtains even as to native-born Filipinos. Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensible in a judicial or administrative case. Whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. Lau Yuen Yeung, was declared to have become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao al as Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino citizen of 25 January 1962.