BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (COMMISSION ON

IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION) et al v HON. JOSELITO

DELA ROSA and WILLIAM GATCHALIAN | Bidin | 1991

On the other hand, William argues that the Mission Order or Warrant of
Arrest does not mention that it is issued pursuant to a final order of
deportation or Warrant of Exclusion

FACTS:
On July 1960, Santiago Gatchalian was recognized by the Bureau of
Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen following the citizenship
of his natural mother. He also declared that he has 5 children with his
Chinese wife. And one of them is Francisco, the father of William
Gatchalian
On June 1961, William, then a 12-yr old minor, together with his father,
arrived in Manila from Hongkong. They had with them Certificates of
Registration and Identity issued by the Philippine Consulate in
Hongkong and they sought admission as Filipino citizens
On July 1961, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 rendered a decision
admitting William Gatchalian and his companions as Filipino citizens
On January 1962, the then Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum
No. 9 directing the BOC to review all cases where entry was allowed
on the ground that the entrant was a Philippine citizen. Among those
cases was that of William
On July 6, 1962, the new BOC reversed the decision of the Board of
Special Inquiry No. 1 and ordered the exclusion of William Gatchalian.
A warrant of exclusion also dated July 6, 1962 was issued alleging that
"the decision of the Board of Commissioners dated July 6, 1962 . . . has
now become final and executory
In 1973, a motion for rehearing was filed by William and the Acting
Commissioner issued an order reaffirming the decision of the Board of
Special Inquiry thereby admitting William as a Filipino citizen and
recalled the warrant of arrest issued against him
On June 1990, the acting director of the NBI wrote the Secretary of
Justice recommending that William, who is covered by the warrant of
exclusion dated July 6, 1962, be charged with violation of the
Immigration Act of 1940
On August 1990, the Commission of Immigration and Deportation
issued a mission order commanding the arrest of William
BOC contends that Williams arrest follows as a matter of
"consequence" the Warrant of Exclusion issued on 6 July 1962

ISSUE: WoN the warrant of arrest issued by the BOC/CID was valid
DECISION: NO.
Sec. 37 (a)1 of Commonwealth Act No. 613 means that for a warrant of
arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration to be valid, it must
be for the sole purpose of executing a final order of deportation.
THUS, a warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration
for purposes of investigation only is null and void for being
unconstitutional
In Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board, it was held that "the
constitution does not distinguish warrants between a criminal case and
administrative proceedings. Thus, if the purpose of the issuance of the
warrant of arrest is to determine the existence of probable cause, it
cannot pass the test of constitutionality for only judges can issue the
same
IN THIS CASE, the warrant of arrest2 issued by the Commissioner of
Immigration, clearly indicates that the same was issued only for
purposes of investigation of William Gatchalian
Hence, petitioners' argument that the arrest of respondent was based on
the July 6, 1962 warrant of exclusion has no leg to stand on. The
warrant of arrest made no mention that the same was issued pursuant to
a final order of deportation or warrant of exclusion
1

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 Immigration after a determination by the Board of
Commissioner of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien
2

XXX

1. Make a warrantless arrest under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Sec. 5, for
violation of the Immigration Act, Sec. 37, para. a; Secs. 45 and 46 Administrative Code
XXX
3. Deliver the suspect to the Intelligence Division and immediately conduct custodial
interrogation, after warning the suspect that he has a right to remain silent and a right to
counsel XXX

 Furthermore, BOCs argument that the arrest came 28 years after the
alleged cause of deportation arose cannot be sustained because Section
37 (b) of the Immigration Act states that deportation "shall not be
effected . . . unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made
within five (5) years after the cause of deportation arises. IN THIS
CASE, the alleged cause of action and deportation against William
arose in 1962. However, the warrant of arrest was issued only on
August 15, 1990 28 long years after. It is clear that petitioners' cause
of action has already prescribed
Separate Opinions
J. Davide: Concurring-Dissenting
It cannot be held that the State can no longer enforce the warrant of
exclusion because it is already barred by prescription
If Section 37 (b)3 is read in full, it is clear that the 5-yr period applies
only to clauses other than 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 of paragraph (a) of the
Section. In respect to clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12, the limitation does not
apply
IN THIS CASE, William is covered by clause 24; besides, the warrant
for his exclusion was issued within a period of five years following his
entry (his entry was in 1961 while the warrant was issued in 1962)
J. Feliciano: Dissenting
Although the Warrant of Arrest dated 14 August 1990 is defective in its
language. The surrounding facts, however, make quite clear that an
amended warrant of arrest or mission order, or a new one correctly
worded, may be issued for the purpose of carrying out an existing and
valid Warrant of Exclusion
IN THIS CASE, although the wording of the August 1990 warrant of
arrest suggests that the arrest is sought to be carried out for the purpose
of carrying out a custodial interrogation rather than for the purpose of
enforcing a final order of deportation or warrant of exclusion, a
MOTION WAS FILED ON SEPTEMBER 1990 amending the August
3

(b) Deportation may be effected under clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 paragraph (a) of this section
at any time after entry, but shall not be effected under any other clause unless the arrest in the
deportation proceedings is made within five years after the cause of deportation arises
4

(2) Any alien who enters the Philippines after the effective date of this Act, who was not
lawfully admissible at the time of entry

1990 warrant of arrest to refer explicitly to the mentioned Warrant of

Exclusion (the 6 July 1962 BOC Decision and Warrant of Exclusion)
RE: Issue on prescription, same with J. Davides observation