FULL TITLE AS IN FULL TEXT: THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS vs.

ANG CHO KIO

FACTS OF THE CASE: Respondent Ang Cho Kio @ Ang Ming Huy had been convicted of various
offenses committed in the Philippines and was sentenced to suffer penalties of life imprisonment
and indemnity. After serving 6-½ years said respondent was granted conditional pardon on July
4, 1959 by the President of the Philippines on condition that he will voluntarily leave the Philippines
upon his release and never to return to this country.

June 26, 1966, Ang Cho Kio returned to the Philippines under the guise of an alias “Ang
Ming Huy” and was arrested after he was discovered trying to extend his stay. On July 5, 1966
the Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, ordered him recommitted to prison to serve
the unexpired portion of the sentence that were imposed on him, for having violated the
conditioned of his pardon.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus which the CFI of Rizal
denied. The CA affirmed the decision but recommended that Ang may be allowed to leave the
country on the first available transportation abroad. The Solicitor General filed a motion for
reconsideration praying for the deletion of the recommendation. The Solicitor General maintains
that the recommendation is not a part of the decision and was uncalled for; that it gives the
decision a political complexion, because courts are not empowered to make such a
recommendation, nor is it inherent or incidental in the exercise of judicial powers. He also
contends that allowing convicted aliens to leave the country is an act of the state exercises solely
in the discretion of the Chief Executive. It is urged that the act of sending an undesirable alien out
of the country is political in character, and the courts should not interfere with, nor attempt to
influence, the political acts of the President.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S: W/N the Courts of Justice may interfere in the exercise by the
President, thru his Executive Secretary, of his administrative power of recommitment.

HOLDING: NO. The only question to be resolved by the Court of Appeals is whether or not the
CFI of Rizal had rightly dismissed the petition of Ang Cho Kio for habeas corpus. The CA was not
called upon to review any sentence on the respondent. The recommitment to prison of Ang Cho
Kio was done in the exercise by the President of the Philippines of his power pursuant to the
provision of Section 64 of the Revised Administrative Code, and the courts should not interfere
with the exercise of that power.

The recommendatory powers of the courts in this jurisdiction are limited to those expressly
provided in the law — and such law is the provision of Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code. The
Court of Appeals was not called upon to review any sentence that was imposed on Ang Cho Kio.
It was simply called upon to determine whether Ang Cho Kio was illegally confined, or not, in the
insular penitentiary under the Director of Prisons.