Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

A. Citizenship & Alienage the Philippine Consulate in Hongkong based on a


cablegram bearing the signature of the then Secretary of
Foreign Affairs, and sought admission as Filipino
Art IV– CITIZENSHIP citizens. Gloria and Francisco are the daughter and son,
Section 1. The following are citizens of the respectively, of Santiago Gatchalian; while William and
Philippines: Johnson are the sons of Francisco.

July 6, 1961: After investigation, the Board of Special


[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at Inquiry No. 1 rendered a decision, admitting William
the time of the adoption of this Constitution; Gatchalian and his companions as Filipino citizens. As
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are a consequence thereof, William Gatchalian was issued
citizens of the Philippines; Identification Certificate No. 16135 by the immigration
authorities.
[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine January 24, 1962: the then Secretary of Justice issued
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; Memorandum No. 9 setting aside all decisions
and purporting to have been rendered by the Board of
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance Commissioners on appeal or on review motu proprio of
decisions of the Board of Special Inquiry. The same
with law. memorandum directed the Board of Commissioners to
review all cases where entry was allowed on the ground
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those that the entrant was a Philippine citizen. Among those
who are citizens of the Philippines from birth cases was that of William and others.
without having to perform any act to acquire On July 6, 1962, the new Board of Commissioners, after
or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those a review motu proprio of the proceedings had in the
who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance Board of Special Inquiry, reversed the decision of the
with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be latter and ordered the exclusion of, among others,
deemed natural-born citizens. respondent Gatchalian. A warrant of exclusion was
issued alleging that "the decision of the Board of
Commissioners dated July 6, 1962 . . . has now become
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost final and executory.”
or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Sometime in 1973: respondent Gatchalian, as well as the
others covered by the July 6, 1962 warrant of exclusion,
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who filed a motion for re-hearing with the Board of Special
marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, Inquiry where the deportion case against them was
unless by their act or omission, they are assigned.
deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
March 14, 1973: the Board of Special Inquiry
recommended to the then Acting Commissioner Victor
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is Nituda the reversal of the July 6, 1962 decision of the
inimical to the national interest and shall be then Board of Commissioners and the recall of the
dealt with by law. warrants of arrest issued therein.

March 15, 1973: Acting Commissioner Nituda issued an


order reaffirming the July 6, 1961 decision of the Board
BOARD of COMMISSIONERS (CID) vs. DELA ROSA of Special Inquiry thereby admitting respondent
Gatchalian as a Filipino citizen and recalled the warrant
FACTS: of arrest issued against him.
July 12 1960: Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of
William Gatchalian, was recognized by the Bureau of June 7, 1990: the National Bureau of Investigation wrote
Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen following the Secretary of Justice recommending that respondent
the citizenship of his natural mother, Marciana Gatchalian along with the other applicants covered by
Gatchalian. Before the Citizenship Evaluation Board, the warrant of exclusion dated July 6, 1962 be charged
Santiago Gatchalian testified that he has 5 children with with violation of Commonwealth Act No. 613, also known
his wife Chu Gim Tee, namely: Jose, Gloria, Francisco, as the Immigration Act of 1940.
Elena and Benjamin.
August 1, 1990: the Secretary of Justice indorsed the
June 27, 1961: William Gatchalian, then a twelve-year recommendation of the NBI to the Commissioner of
old minor, arrived in Manila from Hongkong together Immigration for investigation and immediate action.
with Gloria, Francisco, and Johnson. They had with
them Certificates of Registration and Identity issued by

consti 2 all stars 1


consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

August 15, 1990: petitioner Commissioner Domingo of Petitioners: under Sec. 9 (3) of BP 129, it is the Court of
the Commission of Immigration and Deportation issued Appeals which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
a mission order commanding the arrest of respondent all final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial agencies,
William Gatchalian. The latter appeared before boards or commissions, such as the Board of
Commissioner Domingo on August 20, 1990 and was Commissioners and the Board of Special Inquiry
released on the same day upon posting P200,000.00
cash bond. Respondent: petitioners are not quasi-judicial agencies
and are not in equal rank with Regional Trial Courts.
August 29, 1990: Gatchalian filed a petition for certiorari
and prohibition with injunction before the RTC of Supreme Court: There are quasi-judicial agencies, as
Manila, presided by respondent Judge dela Rosa. the National Labor Relations Commissions, whose
decisions are directly appealable to this Court. It is only
September 4, 1990: petitioners filed a motion to dismiss when a specific law, as Republic Act No. 5434, provides
the case, alleging that respondent judge has no appeal from certain bodies or commissions to the Court
jurisdiction over the Board of Commissioners and/or the of Appeals as the Land Registration Commission (LRC),
Board of Special Inquiry. Nonetheless, respondent judge Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and others,
dela Rosa issued the assailed order dated September 7, that the said commissions or boards may be considered
1990, denying the motion to dismiss. co-equal with the RTCs in terms of rank, stature and are
logically beyond the control of the latter. However, the
September 6, 1990: respondent Gatchalian's wife and Bureau of Immigration (or CID) is not among those
minor children filed before the RTC of Valenzuela, quasi-judicial agencies specified by law whose decisions,
presided by respondent judge Capulong for injunction orders, and resolutions are directly appealable to the
with writ of preliminary injunction. The complaint Court of Appeals. Hence, B.P. Blg. 129 did not intend to
alleged, among others, that petitioners acted without or raise all quasi-judicial bodies to the same level or rank of
in excess of jurisdiction in the institution of deportation the RTC except those specifically provided for under the
proceedings against William. On the same day, law as aforestated. As the Bureau of Immigration is not
respondent Capulong issued the questioned temporary of equal rank as the RTC, its decisions may be
restraining order restraining petitioners from continuing appealable to, and may be reviewed through a special
with the deportation proceedings against William civil action for certiorari by, the RTC.
Gatchalian.
On the Bureau of Immigration’s jurisdiction to hear
Argument of the Petitioners: cases against alleged aliens and determine their
1) respondent judges have no jurisdiction over citizenship
petitioners (Board of Commissioners, et al.,) and the Petitioners: Bureau of Immigration has the exclusive
subject matter of the case, appellate jurisdiction being authority and jurisdiction to try and hear cases against
vested by BP 129 with the Court of Appeals; an alleged alien, and in the process, determine also their
2) assuming respondent judges have jurisdiction, they citizenship. And a mere claim of citizenship cannot
acted with grave abuse of discretion in preempting operate to divest the Board of Commissioners of its
petitioners in the exercise of the authority and jurisdiction in deportation proceedings.
jurisdiction to hear and determine the deportation case
against respondent Gatchalian, and in the process Supreme Court: the Petitioners contention admits of an
determine also his citizenship; exception, at least insofar as deportation proceedings are
3) respondent judge dela Rosa gravely abused his concerned. Judicial intervention, should be granted in
discretion in ruling that the issues raised in the cases where the claim of citizenship is so substantial
deportation proceedings are beyond the competence and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
jurisdiction of petitioners; and claim is correct. In other words, the remedy should be
4) respondent judge Capulong should have dismissed allowed only on sound discretion of a competent court in
the case in Valenzuela for forum-shopping. a proper proceeding. It appearing from the records that
respondent's claim of citizenship is substantial, judicial
Argument of the Respondents: intervention should be allowed. The competent court
1) assuming that the evidence on record is not sufficient which could properly take cognizance of the proceedings
to declare him a Filipino citizen, petitioners have no instituted by respondent Gatchalian would nonetheless
jurisdiction to proceed with the deportation case until be the Regional Trial Court and not the Court of Appeals.
the courts shall have finally resolved the question of his Ordinarily, the case would then be remanded to the
citizenship; Regional Trial Court. But not in the case at bar.
2) petitioners can no longer judiciously and fairly resolve Considering the voluminous pleadings submitted by the
the question of respondent's citizenship in the parties and the evidence presented, We deem it proper to
deportation case because of their bias, pre-judgment and decide the controversy right at this instance.
prejudice against him; and
3) the ground for which he is sought to be deported has On Arrest as Necessary Consequence of Warrant of
already prescribed Exclusion
Petitioners: the arrest of respondent follows as a matter
On Appellate Jurisdiction of consequence based on the warrant of exclusion issued
on July 6, 1962.
consti 2 all stars 2
consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

of the BOC of July 6, 1962, which reversed the July 6,


Supreme Court: From a perusal of Sec. 37 (a) of 1961 BSI order, it is an accepted fact that Santiago
Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended, otherwise Gatchalian is a Filipino. In said order it was found that
known as the Immigration Act of 1940, it is clear that in the applicants therein have not satisfactorily proven that
matters of implementing the Immigration Act insofar as they are the children and/or grandchildren of Santiago
deportation of aliens are concerned, the Commissioner of Gatchalian. The status of Santiago Gatchalian as a
Immigration may issue warrants of arrest only after a Filipino was reiterated where advertence is made to the
determination by the Board of Commissioners of the "applicants being the descendants of one Santiago
existence of the ground for deportation as charged Gatchalian, a Filipino.” In the sworn statement of
against the alien. In other words, a warrant of arrest Santiago Gatchalian before the Philippine Consul in
issued by the Commissioner of Immigration, to be valid, Hongkong in 1961, he reiterated his status as a
must be for the sole purpose of executing a final order of Philippine citizen being the illegitimate child of Pablo
deportation. A warrant of arrest issued by the Pacheco and Marciana Gatchalian, the latter being a
Commissioner of Immigration for purposes of Filipino; that he was born in Manila on July 25, 1905;
investigation only, is null and void for being and that he was issued Philippine Passport by the
unconstitutional. It is not indispensable that the alleged Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila. In his affidavit
alien be arrested for purposes of investigation. If the of January 23, Santiago reiterated his claim of Philippine
purpose of the issuance of the warrant of arrest is to citizenship as a consequence of his petition for
determine the existence of probable cause, surely, it cancellation of his alien registry which was granted on
cannot pass the test of constitutionality for only judges February 18, 1960; and that on July 20, 1960, he was
can issue the same. recognized by the Bureau of Immigration as a Filipino
and was issued Certificate No. 1-2123.
Moreover, respondent Gatchalian, along with others
previously covered by the 1962 warrant of exclusion, Furthermore, petitioners' position is not enhanced by the
filed a motion for re-hearing before the Board of Special fact that respondent's arrest came twenty-eight (28)
Inquiry (BSI) sometime in 1973. The Board of Special years after the alleged cause of deportation arose.
Inquiry, after giving due course to the motion for re- Section 37 (b) of the Immigration Act states that
hearing, submitted a memorandum to the then Acting deportation "shall not be effected . . . unless the arrest in
Commissioner recommending the reconsideration of the the deportation proceedings is made within five (5) years
July 6, 1962 decision of the then Board of after the cause of deportation arises." The petitioners'
Commissioners which reversed the July 6, 1961 decision alleged cause of action and deportation against herein
of the then Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 and 2 the respondent arose in 1962. However, the warrant of
lifting of the warrants of arrest issued against arrest of respondent was issued by Commissioner
applicants. The memorandum inferred that the "very Domingo only on August 15, 1990 — 28 long years after.
basis of the Board of Commissioners in reversing the It is clear that petitioners' cause of action has already
decision of the Board of Special Inquiry was due to a prescribed and by their inaction could not now be validly
forged cablegram by the then Secretary of Foreign enforced by petitioners against respondent William
Affairs, . . ., which was dispatched to the Philippine Gatchalian. Furthermore, the warrant of exclusion dated
Consulate in Hong Kong authorizing the registration of July 6, 1962 was already recalled and the Identification
applicants as P.I. citizens." The Board of Special Inquiry certificate of respondent, among others, was revalidated
concluded that "(i)f at all, the cablegram only led to the on March 15, 1973 by the then Acting Commissioner
issuance of their Certificate(s) of Identity which took the Nituda. The Court, therefore, holds that the period of
place of a passport for their authorized travel to the effecting deportation of an alien after entry or a warrant
Philippines. It being so, even if the applicants could have of exclusion based on a final order of the BSI or BOC are
entered illegally, the mere fact that they are citizens of not imprescriptible. The law itself provides for a period of
the Philippines entitles them to remain in the country.” prescription. Prescription of the crime is forfeiture or loss
On March 15, 1973, then Acting Commissioner Nituda of the rights of the State to prosecute the offender after
issued an Order which affirmed the Board of Special the lapse of a certain time, while prescription of the
Inquiry No. 1 decision dated July 6, 1961 admitting penalty is the loss or forfeiture by the government of the
respondent Gatchalian and others as Filipino citizens; right to execute the final sentence after the lapse of a
recalled the July 6, 1962 warrant of arrest and certain time. Thus, in the case at bar, it took petitioners
revalidated their Identification Certificates. The order 28 years since the BOC decision was rendered on July 6,
admitting respondent as a Filipino citizen is the last 1962 before they commenced deportation or exclusion
official act of the government on the basis of which proceedings against respondent William Gatchalian in
respondent William Gatchalian continually exercised the 1990. Undoubtedly, petitioners' cause of action has
rights of a Filipino citizen to the present. Consequently, already prescribed. Neither may an action to revive
the presumption of citizenship lies in favor of respondent and/or enforce the decision dated July 6, 1962 be
William Gatchalian.. instituted after ten (10) years.

On Citizenship of William Gatchalian (procedural) On Citizenship of William Gatchalian (substantive)


Supreme Court: There should be no question that Respondent’s arguments on his citizenship: he has
Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, continuously resided in the Philippines. He married Ting
is a Filipino citizen. As a matter of fact, in the very order Dee Hua on July 1, 1973 with whom he has four (4)

consti 2 all stars 3


consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

minor children. The marriage contract shows that said assailed marriages as valid, respondent William
respondent is a Filipino. He holds passports and earlier Gatchalian follows the citizenship of his father
passports as a Filipino. He is a registered voter of Francisco, a Filipino, as a legitimate child of the latter.
Valenzuela, Metro Manila where he has long resided and Francisco, in turn is likewise a Filipino being the
exercised his right of suffrage. He engaged in business in legitimate child of Santiago Gatchalian who (the latter) is
the Philippines since 1973 and is the director/officer of admittedly a Filipino citizen whose Philippine citizenship
the International Polymer Corp. and Ropeman was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration in an order
International Corp. as a Filipino. He is a taxpayer. dated July 12, 1960.
Respondent claims that the companies he runs and in
which he has a controlling investment provides Moreover, respondent William Gatchalian belongs to the
livelihood to 4,000 employees and approximately 25,000 class of Filipino citizens contemplated under Sec. 1,
dependents. He continuously enjoyed the status of Article IV of the Constitution, which provides: “Those
Filipino citizenship and discharged his responsibility as who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
such until petitioners initiated the deportation adoption of this Constitution…” This forecloses any
proceedings against him. further question about the Philippine citizenship of
respondent William Gatchalian.
Petitioner’s arguments on respondents alienage:
Santiago Gatchalian's marriage with Chu Gim Tee in WHEREFORE, G.R. Nos. 95122-23 is DISMISSED for
China as well as the marriage of Francisco (father of lack of merit; G.R. Nos. 95612-13 is hereby
William) Gatchalian to Ong Chiu Kiok, likewise in China, GRANTED and respondent William Gatchalian is
were not supported by any evidence other than their own declared a Filipino citizen. Petitioners are hereby
self-serving testimony nor was there any showing what permanently enjoined from continuing with the
the laws of China were. It is the postulate advanced by deportation proceedings docketed as DC No. 90-523
petitioners that for the said marriages to be valid in this for lack of jurisdiction over respondent Gatchalian,
country, it should have been shown that they were valid he being a Filipino citizen; Civil Cases No. 90-54214
by the laws of China wherein the same were contracted. and 3431-V-90 pending before respondent judges are
There being none, petitioners conclude that the aforesaid likewise DISMISSED. Without pronouncement as to
marriages cannot be considered valid. Hence, Santiago's costs.
children, including Francisco, followed the citizenship of
their mother, having been born outside of a valid DAVIDE, JR., J., concurring-dissenting:
marriage. Similarly, the validity of the Francisco's
marriage not having been demonstrated, William and On Appellate Jurisdiction
Johnson followed the citizenship of their mother, a I can easily agree with the summary of antecedent facts
Chinese national. in the ponencia of Mr. Justice Bidin and the reiteration
therein of the established doctrine that the Bureau of
Supreme Court: absence of evidence to the contrary, Immigration has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction
foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to be to try and hear cases against alleged aliens, and in the
the same as those of the Philippines. In the case at bar, process, determine also their citizenship, and that "a
there being no proof of Chinese law relating to marriage, mere claim of citizenship cannot operate to divest the
there arises the presumption that it is the same as that Board of Commissioners of its jurisdiction in deportation
of Philippine law. The lack of proof of Chinese law on proceedings." I also agree with the conclusion that the
the matter cannot be blamed on Santiago Gatchalian petitioners in G.R. No. 95122-23, the Board of
much more on respondent William Gatchalian who was Commissioners and Board of Special Inquiry, hereinafter
then a twelve-year old minor. The fact is, as records referred to as the Boards, are quasi-judicial bodies.
indicate, Santiago was not pressed by the Citizenship However, I cannot go along with the view that the case of
Investigation Board to prove the laws of China relating to William Gatchalian should be treated as an exception to
marriage, having been content with the testimony of that doctrine and, above all, to the law which vests upon
Santiago that the Marriage Certificate was lost or the Court of Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
destroyed during the Japanese occupation of China. the Boards. Neither can I have solidarity with his opinion
Neither was Francisco Gatchalian's testimony subjected that this Court should, in this instance, rule on the
to the same scrutiny by the Board of Special Inquiry. citizenship of Mr. Gatchalian instead of remanding the
Nevertheless, the testimonies of Santiago Gatchalian and case to the Regional Trial Court. To grant him these
Francisco Gatchalian before the Philippine consular and benefits would do violence to the law, liberally stretch
immigration authorities regarding their marriages, birth the limits of the exceptions or misapply the exceptionary
and relationship to each other are not self-serving but rule, and to unduly pollute the settled doctrine. No fact
are admissible in evidence as statements or declarations or circumstance exists to justify the application of the
regarding family reputation or tradition in matters of exceptions for the benefit of Mr. Gatchalian. On the
pedigree. Philippine law, following the lex loci contrary, substantial facts exist to render immutable the
celebrationis, adheres to the rule that a marriage unqualified application of the law and the doctrine.
formally valid where celebrated is valid everywhere. (see
Art. 26 of the Family Code). Thus, he who asserts that On Respondent’s forum shopping
the marriage is not valid under our law bears the burden William Gatchalian did not stop in his forum-shopping
of proof to present the foreign law. Having declared the in the regional trial courts. Under the guise of a counter-
petition, he is now before this Court in an active
consti 2 all stars 4
consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

offensive role. This is a very clever, albeit subtle, ploy to mention him in his testimony before the Citizenship
bang directly to this Court the issue of his deportation Evaluation Board. At that time William was already
and to divest the Boards of their original jurisdiction eleven years old. It is logical to presume that the
thereon. He could have done this at the first instance; he proceeding initiated by Santiago was principally for the
did not. He and his wife and minor children deliberately benefit of his alleged children and grandchildren. It was,
chose, instead, to separately go to the wrong court, as subsequent events proved, intended to prepare the
evidently to delay the proceedings before the Boards, legal basis for their entry into the country as Filipino
which they accomplished when the two judges separately citizens. Thus, eleven months after he obtained a
issued orders restraining said Boards from commencing favorable decision from the Board, and on two
or continuing with any of the proceedings which would successive dates, his alleged children and grandchildren
lead to the deportation of William Gatchalian (Civil Case entered the country. On 25 June 1961 his alleged
No. 90-54214) and from proceeding with the deportation children Jose, Elena, Benjamin, and his alleged
charges against William Gatchalian. grandchildren Pedro and Juan arrived from Hongkong.
On 27 June 1961, his alleged daughter Gloria and son
On respondent’s citizenship Francisco with his alleged children William and Johnson
The facts before this Court do not constitute, or even also arrived from Hongkong.
show, a conclusive or substantial evidence that William
Gatchalian is a Filipino citizen. On the contrary, very That he has continuously resided in the Philippines
serious doubts surround such a claim from the since 1961; he is married to Ting Dee Hua on July 1,
beginning. His initial entry into the Philippines was 1973, and his marriage contract shows that he is a
made possible through a Certificate of Identity (as Filipino citizen; he holds passports and earlier passports
Filipino) which was issued on the basis of a forged as a Filipino; he is a registered voter of Valenzuela,
cablegram by the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Then Metro Manila where he has long resided and exercised
on 6 July 1962 the then new Board of Commissioners his right of suffrage; he is engaged in business in the
promulgated a written decision in I.C. Cases Nos. 61- Philippines since 1973, and is a director/officer of the
2108-C to 61-2116-C inclusive (Application for International Polymer Corp. and Ropeman International
admission as Philippine citizens of Jose, Elena, Corp. as a Filipino, and that the companies he runs and
Benjamin, Juan, Pedro, Gloria, Francisco, William and in which he has a controlling investment provided a
Johnson, all surnamed Gatchalian) reversing the livelihood to 4,000 employees and approximately 25,000
decision of the Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 of 6 July dependents; he is a taxpayer; and he has continuously
1961 and ordering the exclusion of William Gatchalian enjoyed the status of Filipino citizenship, discharged his
and the others as aliens not properly documented. responsibility as such until petitioning Boards initiated
Accordingly, a warrant of exclusion, also dated 6 July the deportation proceedings against him, are not of any
1962, was issued by the Commissioners commanding help to William Gatchalian. For, they neither confer nor
the deportation officer to exclude William Gatchalian, strengthen his claim of Filipino citizenship since they are
and others, and to cause their removal from the country all rooted on the illegal and void decision of then Acting
on the first available transportation in accordance with Commissioner Victor Nituda of 15 March 1973. A
law to the port of the country of which they were decision which is void and invalid ab initio cannot be a
nationals. source of valid acts. Neither can such substantive
infirmity be cured by salutary acts that tend to confirm
If indeed Santiago's parents, Pablo Pacheco and the status conferred by the void decision.
Marciana Gatchalian, were married, what was his reason
for insisting, through his brother Joaquin, that he, is an On prescription
illegitimate son? The only possible reason is that Pablo I disagree with the view advanced in the ponencia that
Pacheco is a Chinese citizen, in which case Santiago the State can no longer enforce the warrant of exclusion
would follow the citizenship of Marciana, a "filipina." But because it is already barred by prescription considering
to give full faith and credit to the oral insistence of that Section 37 (b) of the Immigration Act states that
illegitimacy is to do violence to the presumptions of deportation "shall not be effected . . . unless the arrest in
validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage the deportation proceedings is made within five (5) years
bonds and the legitimacy of children. (Art. 220, Civil after the cause of deportation arises. Note that the five-
Code). These are among the presumptions which the year period applies only to clauses other than 2, 7, 8, 11
ponencia precisely applied when it rejected the and 12 of paragraph (a) of the Section. Mr. Gatchalian is
petitioners' claim that Santiago failed to establish his covered by clause (2), which reads: “Any alien who enters
claimed marriage to Chu Gim Tee and Francisco's (father the Philippines after the effective date of this Act, who
of William) claimed marriage to Ong Chiu Kiok, both of was not lawfully admissible at the time of entry.”
which were allegedly celebrated abroad. I cannot find Moreover, the warrant for his exclusion was issued
any valid justification why these presumptions should be within a period of five years following his entry.
liberally applied in favor of claimed marriages allegedly
celebrated abroad but denied to purported marriages IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, I vote to GRANT
celebrated in the Philippines. the petition in G.R. Nos. 95122-23, SET ASIDE the
questioned orders of respondents Judge Joselito Dela
Assuming that indeed William is the grandson of Rosa and Judge Teresita Dizon Capulong as having
Santiago, I find it rather strange why Santiago did not been issued beyond their jurisdiction, ORDER the
DISMISSAL of Civil Case Nos. 90-54214 of the
consti 2 all stars 5
consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

Regional Trial Court of Manila and 3431-V-90 of the 5. Should the legal results thus reached seem harsh to
Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila and some, I respectfully submit that the remedy lies not with
to DISMISS for lack of merit the COUNTER-PETITION this Court which is charged with the application of the
law as it is in fact written, but with the political
FELICIANO, J., dissenting: branches of the Government. It is those departments of
Government which must consider the desirability and
1. I agree that the Warrant of Arrest dated 14 August wisdom of enacting legislation providing for the
1990 is defective in its language. The surrounding facts, legalization of the entry and stay of aliens who may be in
however, make quite clear that an amended warrant of the same situation as respondent William Gatchalian
arrest or mission order, or a new one correctly worded, and his co-applicants.
may be issued by Immigration Commissioner Domingo
for the purpose of carrying out an existing and valid Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the Petition for
Warrant of Exclusion covering respondent William Certiorari and Prohibition in G.R. Nos. 95122-23,
Gatchalian and his co-applicants for admission. and to SET ASIDE the Resolution/Temporary
Restraining Order dated 7 September 1990 issued by
2. The 6 July 1962 Decision of the Board of respondent Judge Dela Rosa in Civil Case No. 90-
Commissioners ("BOC") and Warrant of Exclusion 5214, as well as the Order of respondent Judge
remain valid and effective and enforceable against Capulong dated 6 September 1990 in Civil Case No.
respondent William Gatchalian, and his co-applicants for 3431-V-90; and to RE-AFFIRM that respondent
that matter. That Decision reversed a 6 July 1961 William Gatchalian is not a Philippine citizen.
decision of the Board of Special Inquiry ("BSI") and held
that respondent William Gatchalian and his co-
applicants failed to subtantiate and prove their claim to
Philippine citizenship in 1961. Respondent William QUA CHEE GAN vs. DEPORTATION BOARD
Gatchalian does not claim Philippine citizenship by any
mode of entitlement subsequent to his application for FACTS:
entry as a citizen of the Philippines in 1961, i.e., by any • In May 1952 petitioners were charged before the
act or circumstance subsequent to his birth and Deportation Board with having purchased US
supposed filiation as a legitimate son of Francisco Dollars in the total sum of $130, 000 without
Gatchalian, also a supposed citizen of the Philippines. the necessary license from the Central Bank of
the Philippines and having remitted the money
3. In its Decision in Arocha vs. Vivo, 1 the Supreme Court to Hong Kong and to themselves.
upheld the validity and legal effect of the 6 July 1962 • Warrants were issued but upon filing for a
Decision of the BOC and the Warrant of Exclusion not surety and cash bond they were released.
only against Pedro Gatchalian, the particular Gatchalian
• Trial Court upheld the validity of the delegation
who was taken into custody by immigration authorities
by the president to the Deportation Board of his
in 1965, but also against Pedro's co-applicants, which
power to conduct investigations for the purpose
include respondent William Gatchalian. The validity of
of determining whether the stay of an alien in
the claim to Philippine citizenship by Pedro Gatchalian,
this country would be injurious to the security,
as a supposed descendant of Santiago Gatchalian,
welfare and interest of the State.
allegedly a natural born citizen of the Philippines, was
• Power to issue warrants and fix bonds were held
directly placed in issue in the 1961-1962 proceedings
before the BSI and the BOC, and by the Solicitor General to be essential to and complement the power to
and Pedro Gatchalian in Arocha vs. Vivo (supra). In deport aliens under sec 69 of the revised admin
upholding the validity and legal effect of the 6 July 1962 code
BOC Decision that the Gatchalian applicants had not
substantiated their claim to Philippine citizenship, this ISSUE (PETITIONERS’ ALLEGATIONS) AND HELD:
Court in effect ruled that the Gatchalian applicants were • WON the President has the power to deport
not Philippine citizens, whatever their true nationality aliens and delegate those powers, under EO 398
might be. of Pres Quirino which authorized the
Deportation Board to issue warrants of arrest of
4. Should this Court now determine to examine once aliens during investigation (on the ground that
more the claim to Philippine citizenship of respondent such power is vested in the legislature and that
William Gatchalian, a detailed examination of the facts, there must be a legislation authorizing the same)
including the supposed status of Santiago Gatchalian as ~> The Pres has the power to carry out order of
a natural born Philippine citizenship, shows that those deportation but may not order arrest during
claims to Philippine citizenship were indeed not proven investigation. And no, power may not be delegated.
by respondent William Gatchalian and his co-applicants.
Since respondent William Gatchalian does not claim to RATIO:
have been naturalized as a Philippine citizen after • Sec 69 of the Revised Administrative Code
rendition of the 6 July 1962 BOC Decision, he must
accordingly be held to be not a Philippine citizen. SEC. 69 Deportation of subject to foreign
power. — A subject of a foreign power residing in

consti 2 all stars 6


consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

the Philippines shall not be deported, expelled, produce, and particularly describing the place to
or excluded from said Islands or repatriated to be searched, and the persons or things to be
his own country by the President of the seized." (Sec 1, Art. III, Bill of Rights, Philippine
Philippines except upon prior investigation, Constitution).
conducted by said Executive or his authorized
agent, of the ground upon which Such action is • Justice Laurel said that this consti provision is
contemplated. In such case the person
not among the rights of the accused. Under our
concerned shall be informed of the charge or
Constitution, the same is declared a popular
charges against him and he shall be allowed not
right of the people and, of course, indisputably it
less than these days for the preparation of his
equally applies to both citizens and foreigners in
defense. He shall also have the right to be heard
this country. This requirement — "to be
by himself or counsel, to produce witnesses in
determined by the judge" — do not specify who
his own behalf, and to cross-examine the
will determine the existence of a probable cause.
opposing witnesses."
Hence, under their provisions, any public officer
may be authorized by the Legislature to make
• While it did not expressly confer on the such determination, and thereafter issue the
President the authority to deport undesirable warrant of arrest.
aliens and merely lays down the procedure, the • The contention of the Solicitor General that the
fact that such a procedure was provided for arrest of a foreigner is necessary to carry into
before the President can deport an alien is a effect the power of deportation is valid only
clear indication of the recognition, and when, as already stated, there is already an
inferentially a ratification, by the legislature of order of deportation. To carry out the order of
the existence of such power in the Executive. deportation, the President obviously has the
• Under the present and existing laws, therefore, power to order the arrest of the deportee. But,
deportation of an undesirable alien may be certainly, during the investigation.
effected in two ways: by order of the President, • The extent of the curtailment of liberty
after due investigation, pursuant to Section 69 dependent upon conditions determined by the
of the Revised Administrative Code, and by the discretion of the person issuing a warrant. In
Commissioner of Immigration, upon other words, the discretion of whether a warrant
recommendation by the Board of of arrest shall issue or not is personal to the one
Commissioners, under Commonwealth Act No. upon whom the authority devolves.
613. • an implied grant of power, considering that no
express authority was granted by the law on the
SEC. 52. This Act is in substitution for and matter under discussion, that would serve the
supersedes all previous laws relating to the entry curtailment or limitation on the fundamental
of aliens into the Philippines, and their right of a person, such as his security to life and
exclusion, deportation, and repatriation liberty, must be viewed with caution.
therefrom, with the exception of section sixty- • The guarantees of human rights and freedom
nine of Act Numbered Twenty-seven hundred can not be made to rest precariously on such a
and eleven which shall continue in force and shaky foundation.
effect: ..." (Comm. Act No. 613).
WHEREFORE: Executive Order No. 398, series of 1951,
• Re: the extent of the Pres’ power to investigate- insofar as it empowers the Deportation Board to issue
does it include authority to arrest? May it be warrant of arrest upon the filing of formal charges
delegated? Here’s the history… against an alien or aliens and to fix bond and prescribe
• Pres Roxas (EO 69) in July 1947 provided for the conditions for the temporary release of said aliens, is
filing of a bond to secure appearance of alien declared illegal. As a consequence, the order of arrest
under investigation issued by the respondent Deportation Board is declared
• Pres Quirino (EO 398) in January 1951 null and void and the bonds filed pursuant to such order
reorganized the deportation board to issue the of arrest, decreed cancelled. With the foregoing
warrant of arrest of the alien complained of and modification, the decision appealed from is hereby
to hold him under detention during the affirmed. No costs. So ordered.
investigation unless he files a bond for his
provisional release <this is incompatible with….>

3. The right of the People to be secure in


HARVEY vs. DEFENSOR - SANTIAGO
their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon FACTS:
probable cause, to be determined by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may
consti 2 all stars 7
consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

• The case stems from the apprehension of deportation is issued, conflicts with paragraph 3, Section
petitioners on 27 February 1988 from their 1 of Article III of the COnstistution” (referring to the
respective residences by agents of the Commission 1935 Constituion) is not invocable herein. Respondent
on Immigration and Deportation (CID) by virtue of Commissioner’s warrant of Arrest is issued on 7 March
Mission Orders issued by respondent 1988 did not order petitioners to appear and show cause
Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago of the why they should not be deported. They were issued
CID. Petiioners are presently detained at the CID specifically “for violation of Section 37, 45 and 46 of the
Dentention Center. Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Revised
• Petitioners were among the twenty-two (22) Administrative Cede.” Before that, deportation
suspected alien pedophiles who were apprehended proceedings had been commenced against them as
after three motnhs of close surveillance by CID undesirable aliens on 4 March 1988 and the arrest was
agents in Pagsanjan, Lahuna. a step preliminary to their possible deportation.
• Two (2) days after apprehension, or on 29 • The denial be respondent Commisioner of
February 1988, seventeen (17) of the twenty-two petitioner’s release on bail, also challenged by
(22) arrested aliens opted for self-deportation and them, was in order because in deportation
have left the country. proceedings, the right to bail is not a matter of
• On March 7 1988, Warrants of Arrest were issued right but a matter of discretion on thepart of the
by respondent against petitioners for violation of Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation.
Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and • The use of the word “may” in said provision
Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. indicates that the grant of bail is merely
• On March 14 1988, petitioners filec an Urgent permissive and not mandatory on the part of the
Petiion for Release Under Bond alleging that their Commissioner. The exercise of the power is wholly
health was being seriously affected by their discretionary
continuous detention. Upon recommendation of
the Board of Commissioners for their provisional • Section 37 (a) is not constitutionally proscribed .
release, respondent ordered the CID doctor to The specific constraints in both the 1935 and
examine petitioners, who certified that petitioners 1987 Constitutions, which are substantially
were healthy. identical, contemplate prosecutions essentially
• On April 4 1988, as heretofore stated, petitioners criminal in nature. Deportation proceedings, on
availes of this Petition for a Writ of Habeas the other hand, are administrative in character.
Corpus. An order of deportation is never construed as a
punishment. It is preventive, not a penal process.
ISSUES: It need not be conducted strictly in accordance
with ordinary Court proceedings.
Petitioners question the validity of their detention on 2. In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on
the following grounds: probable cause determined after close surveillance for
1. There is no provision in the Philippine Immigration three (3) months during which period their activities
Act og 1940 nor under Section 69 of the Revised were monitored. The existence of probable cause justified
Administrative Code, which legally clothes the the arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives,
Commissioner with any authority to arrest and detain photographs and posters without warrant.
petitioners pending determination of the existence of a • Those articles were seized as an incident to a
probable cause leading to an administrative lawful arrest and, are therefore, admissible in
investigation. evidence. (Section 12, Rule 126, 1985 Rules on
2. Repondent violated Sevtion 2, Article III of the 1987 Criminal Procedure).
Constitution prohibiting unreasonable searches and • But even assuming arguendo that the arrest of
seizures since the CID agents were not clothed with valid petitioners was not valid at its inception, the
Warrants of arrest, search and seizure as required by the records show that formal deportation charges have
said provision. been filed against them, as undesirable aliens, on
3. Mere confidential information made to the COD March 4, 1988. Warrants of arrest were issued
agents and their suspicion of the activities of petitioners against them on March 7, 1988 “for violation of
that they are pedophiles, coupled with their association Section 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and
with other suspected pedophiles, are not valid legal Section 69 of the Administrative Code. The
grounds for their arrest and detention unless they are restraint against their persons, therefore, has
caught in the act. They further alleged that being a become legal. The Writ has served its purpose. The
pedophile is not punishable by any Philippines Law nor process of the law is being followed.
is it a crime to be a pedophile. 3. The petitioners were not “caught in the act” does not
make their arrest illegal. Petitioners were found with
young boys in their respective rooms, the ones with John
HELD: Sherman being naked. Under those circumstances the
1. The ruling in Vivo vs. Montesa (G.R> No. 24576, July COID agents had reasonable grounds to believe that
29, 1968, 24 SCRA 155) that “the issuance of warrants petitioners had committed “pedophilia” defines as
of arrest by the Commissioner of Immigration, solely for “psycho-sexual perversion involving children”.
purposes of investigation and before a final order of
consti 2 all stars 8
consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

“Paraphilia (or unusual sexual activity) in which children citizen of the Phils. Such is grossly inconsistent with his
are the preferred sexual object”. maintenance of Phil citizenship.
• While not a crime under the revised Penal Code, it
is behavior offensive to public morals and violative Material facts are not disputed by petitioner. He was
of the declared policy of the State to promote and given an opportunity to show proof of continued Phil
protect the physical, moral, spiritual, and social citizenship and has failed. As such, while normally the ?
well-being of our youth (Article II, Section 13, 1987 of WON a person has renounced his Phil citizenship
Constitution). should be heard before a trial court of law in adversary
• Every sovereign power has the inherent power to proceedings, this has become unnecessary as the SC, no
exclude from its territory upon such grounds as it less, upon insistence of petitioner, looked into the facts
may deem proper for its self-preservation or public and satisfied itself on WON petitioner’s claim to
interest The power to deport aliens is an act of continued Phil citizenship is meritorious.
State, an act done by or under the authority of the
sovereign power. It is a police measureaginst Phil citizenship is not a commodity or were to be
undesirable aliens whose continued presence in displayed when required and suppressed when
the country is found to be injurious to the public convenient.
good and the domestic tranquility of the people.
Fernan and Gutierrez, dissent:
Citizenship shouldn’t be held to have been lost in a
summary proceeding such as this.
YU vs. DEFENSOR - SANTIAGO
Gutierrez and Cortes, dissent:
1989 Evidence was too informal.Mere use of foreign passport
is not ipso facto express renunciation. One may get a
FACTS foreign passport for convenience, employment, avoidance
of discriminatory visa requirements but he remains at
In 1971 Yu was originally issued a Portuguese passport, heart a Filipino. Full day in court must be given to
valid for 5yrs. He renewed it for the same period upon petitioner.
presentment before the proper Portuguese consular
officer. On Feb 19, 1978, he was naturalized as a Phil. Disposition:
Citizen. On July 21, 1981 applied for and was issued a Denied petition. Lifting of TRO on deportation procedure.
Portuguese passport by the Portuguese Embassy in
Tokyo. Sometime in April 1980, he declared his
nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he LABO vs. COMELEC
signed like the Companies Registry in Hongkong.

Commission on Immigration and Deportation are holding August 1, 1989


him and are about to deport him. He petitions for habeas Ponente: Cruz, J:
corpus, seeking release from detention.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
WON he should still be considered a citizen of the Petitioner was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio City on
Philippines despite acquisition and use of a Portuguese January 20, 1988. A petition for quo warranto was filed
passport by the private respondent, Luis Lardizabal, on January
26, 1988 seeking to disqualify the petitioner on the
HELD: ground that he is not a Filipino citizen, but no filing fee
No was paid on that date. This fee was finally paid on
February 10, 1988, or twenty-one days after his
RATIO: proclamation.
The foregoing acts considered together constitute an
express renunciation of petitioner’s Phil citizenship The petitioner says that he allegation that he is a
acquired through naturalization. In Board of foreigner, he says, is not the issue. The issue is whether
Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Gallano, express or not the public respondent has jurisdiction to conduct
renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is any inquiry into this matter, considering that the
made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to petition for quo warranto against him was not filed on
interference or implication. time since the petition itself is only deemed filed upon
payment of the filing fee which was done beyond the ten
Yu, with full knowledge, and legal capacity, after having day reglementary period provided for under Section 253
renounced Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization as of the Omnibus Election Code.
a Phil citizen 1) resumed and reacquired his prior status
as Portuguese citizen, 2) applied for a renewal of his
Private respondent denies that the filing fee was paid out
Portuguese passport and 3) represented himself as such
of time since when he first filed his petition for quo
in official documents after he had become a naturalized
warranto it was treated as a pre-proclamation
consti 2 all stars 9
consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

controversy and it was only on February 8, 1988 decided argument cannot stand against the clear provisions of
to treat his case as solely for quo warranto. The Court CA no. 63 which enumerates the modes by which Phil.
has considered the arguments of the parties and holds Citizenship may be lost: (1) naturalization in a foreign
that the petition for quo warranto was filed on time. country; (2) express renunciation of citizenship; and
(3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
Considering that the sole issue raised by the petitioner is Constitution or laws of a foreign country, all of which
the timeliness of the quo warranto proceedings against are applicable to the petitioner.
him, this matter should normally end here. However, as
his citizenship is the subject of that proceeding, and The claim of petitioner that his naturalization was
considering the necessity for an early resolution of annulled after it was found that his marriage to an
that more important question clearly and urgently Australian was bigamous does not concern us here since
affecting the public interest, we shall address it now that is a matter him and his adopted country. The
in the same action. possibility that he may have been subsequently
rejected by Australia, as he claims, does not mean
There are two administrative decisions on the question of that he has been automatically reinstated as a
the petitioner’s citizenship: citizen of the Philippines.

1. rendered by COMELEC on May 12, 1982 – Under CA No. 63 as amended by PD No. 725, Philippine
petitioner found to be a citizen of the Phils. citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress,
• no direct proof was presented that by naturalization, or by repatriation. It does not appear
in the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that he has
petitioner had been formally naturalized
reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of these
as an Australian citizen.
methods.
• this conjecture, which was eventually
rejected, was merely inferred from the
fact that he had married an Australian The petitioner is not now, nor was he on the day of the
citizen, obtained an Australian passport, local elections on January 18, 1988, a citizen of the
and registered as an alien with the CID Philippines. In fact, he was not even a qualified voter
upon his return to this country in 1980. under the Constitution itself because of his alienage. 21
2. rendered by Commission on Immigration and He was therefore ineligible as a candidate for mayor of
Deportation on Sept. 13, 1988 – petitioner found Baguio City, under Section 42 of the Local Government
to be an Australian citizen. Code providing in material part as follows:
• took into account the official statement
of the Australian Government dated Sec. 42. Qualifications. — An elective
August 12, 1984, through its Consul in local official must be a citizen of the
the Philippines, that the petitioner was Philippines, at least twenty-three years
still an Australian citizen as of that date of age on election day…
by reason of his naturalization on July
28, 1976. The petitioner claims that a mere technicality like
• That prior to 17 July 1986, a citizenship should not be allowed to frustrate the will of
candidate for Australian citizenship the electorate. In any event, even unanimously, the
had to either swear an oath of people of that locality cannot change the requirements of
allegiance or make an affirmation of the Local Government Code and the Constitution.
allegiance which carries a
renunciation of "all other allegiance.
The fact that petitioner has been disqualified does not by
default make private respondent, the person who
The petitioner also categorically declared that he was a obtained the second highest number of votes, the mayor
citizen of Australia in a number of sworn statements of Baguio City. The doctrine in Geronimo vs. Ramos
voluntarily made by him and. even sought to avoid the states that, “…The fact that the candidate who
jurisdiction of the barangay court on the ground that he obtained the highest number of votes is later
was a foreigner. The COMELEC in 1982 said that these declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the
mistakes did not divest the petitioner of his citizenship. office to which he was elected does not necessarily
This is rejected by the Court. He became a citizen of entitle the candidate who obtained the second
Australia because he was naturalized as such through highest number of votes to be declared the winner of
a formal and positive process, simplified in his case the elective office…”
because he was married to an Australian citizen. As a
condition for such naturalization, he formally took the
On the importance of Phil. Citizenship:
Oath of Allegiance and/or made the Affirmation of
Allegiance.
Philippine citizenship is not a cheap commodity that can
be easily recovered after its renunciation. It may be
Petitioner claims that at worst his naturalization as an
restored only after the returning renegade makes a
Australian citizen maed him only a dual national and did
formal act of re-dedication to the country he has abjured
not divest him of his Philippine citizenship. Such an
consti 2 all stars 10
consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

and he solemnly affirms once again his total and Thereafter, on June 11, 1988, COMELEC (First Division)
exclusive loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines. This dismissed the petition for disqualification for not having
may not be accomplished by election to public office. been timely filed and for lack of sufficient proof that
private respondent is not a Filipino citizen.

ISSUE: W/N Osmeña is a US citizen. NO

AZNAR vs. COMELEC


Osmeña filed his certificate of candidacy on Nov. 19,
Ponente: Paras, J: May 25, 1990 1987 and that the petitioner filed for his disqualification
only on Jan. 22, 1988 which was beyond the 25 day
FACTS: period as required under Sec. 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code. However, it is a matter of public interest
to ascertain the respondent's citizenship and
On November 19, 1987, private respondent Emilio "Lito"
qualification to hold the public office to which he has
Osmeña filed his certificate of candidacy with the
been proclaimed elected. There is enough basis for us
COMELEC for the position of Provincial Governor of
(SC) to rule directly on the merits of the case.
Cebu Province in the January 18, 1988 local elections.

• There is lack of substantial and convincing


On January 22, 1988, Aznar as the Chairman of the
Cebu PDP-Laban Provincial Council filed with the evidence to support the assertion that private
COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of private respondent is not a Filipino citizen and therefore
respondent on the ground that he is allegedly not a is disqualified from running.
Filipino citizen, being a citizen of the United States of
America. On January 27, he submitted a Certificate by In the proceedings before the COMELEC, the petitioner
then Immigration Commissioner Defensor-Santiago that failed to present direct proof that private respondent had
Osmeña is a holder of Alien Certificate of Registration lost his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided
(ACR) No. B-21448 and Immigrant Certificate of for under C.A. No. 63. Among others, these are: (1) by
Residence (ICR) No. 133911, issued at Manila on March naturalization in a foreign country; (2) by express
27 and 28, 1958, respectively. renunciation of citizenship; and (3) by subscribing to an
oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of
He asked the Comelec to issue a TRO to enjoin the Cebu a foreign country. From the evidence, it is clear that
Provincial Board of Canvassers from canvassing the private respondent Osmeña did not lose his Philippine
votes. On January 28 however, the Comelec en banc citizenship by any of the three mentioned hereinabove or
ordered the Board to continue the canvass but to by any other mode of losing Philippine citizenship.
suspend the proclamation.
In concluding that private respondent had been
Petitioner’s evidence to show Osmeña is a US naturalized as a citizen of the United States of America,
citizen: Application for Alien Registration Form No. 1 of the petitioner merely relied on the fact that private
the Bureau of Immigration signed by private respondent respondent was issued alien certificate of registration
dated November 21, 1979; Alien Certificate of and was given clearance and permit to re-enter the
Registration No. 015356 in the name of private Philippines by the Commission on Immigration and
respondent dated November 21, 1979; Permit to Re-enter Deportation. Petitioner assumed that because of the
the Philippines dated November 21, 1979; Immigration foregoing, the respondent is an American and "being an
Certificate of Clearance dated January 3, 1980. American", private respondent "must have taken and
sworn to the Oath of Allegiance required by the U.S.
Naturalization Laws."
Osmeña: maintained that he is a Filipino citizen,
alleging: that he is the legitimate child of Dr. Emilio D.
Osmeña, a Filipino and son of the late President Sergio Philippine Courts are only allowed to determine who are
Osmeña, Sr.; that he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Filipino citizens or not. Whether a person is considered
Philippine Passport No. 0855103 issued on March 25, as an American under US laws do not concern us here.
1987; that he has been continuously residing in the
Philippines since birth and has not gone out of the By virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father, the
country for more than six months; and that he has been presumption that private respondent is a Filipino
a registered voter in the Philippines since 1965. remains. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove
that private respondent had lost his Philippine
On March 3, 1988, COMELEC (First Division) directed citizenship.
the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winning
candidates. Having obtained the highest number of Frivaldo and Labo are not applicable here since in both
votes, private respondent was proclaimed the Provincial cases the evidence, as well as by their own admissions,
Governor of Cebu. shows that they were naturalized as US and Australian
citizens respectively and therefre no longer owe any
allegiance to the Philippines.
consti 2 all stars 11
consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

an opinion to the effect that the Organization


In the instant case, private respondent vehemently and others of similar nature are banking
denies having taken the oath of allegiance of the United institutions, falling within the purview of the
States. He is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Central Bank Act.2 Hence, on April 1 and 3,
passport and has continuously participated in the 1963, the Bank caused to be published in the
electoral process in this country since 1963 up to the newspapers the following:
present, both as a voter and as a candidate. Thus,
private respondent remains a Filipino and the loss of his Announcement: xxx operations similar in nature to said
Philippine citizenship cannot be presumed. "associations" HAVE NEVER BEEN AUTHORIZED BY
THE MONETARY BOARD OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF
In the learned dissent of Mr. Justice Teodoro Padilla, he THE PHILIPPINES TO ACCEPT DEPOSIT OF FUNDS
stresses the fact that because Osmeña obtained FROM THE PUBLIC NOR TO ENGAGE IN THE BANKING
Certificates of Alien Registration as an American citizen, BUSINESS NOR TO PERFORM ANY BANKING ACTIVITY
the first in 1958 when he was 24 years old and the OR FUNCTION IN THE PHILIPPINES.
second in 1979, he, Osmeña should be regarded as
having expressly renounced Philippine citizenship. To
Our mind, this is a case of non sequitur (It does not Such institutions violate Section. 2 of the General
follow). Considering the fact that admittedly Osmeña was Banking Act, Republic Act No. 337, should they engage
both a Filipino and an American, the mere fact that he in the "lending of funds obtained from the public
has a Certificate stating he is an American does not through the receipts of deposits or the sale of bonds,
mean that he is not still a Filipino. securities or obligations of any kind" without authority
from the Monetary Board. Their activities and operations
Also the statement in the 1987 Constitution that "dual are not supervised by the Superintendent of Banks and
allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest persons dealing with such institutions do so at their
and shall be dealt with by law"(Art. IV, Sec. 5) has no risk.
retroactive effect. In any case it shall be dealt with by a
future law which has not yet been enacted.
3. April 23, 1962, the Governor of the Bank
B. Juridical Persons directed the coordination of "the investigation
and gathering of evidence on the activities of the
STONEHILL vs. DIOKNO (supra) savings and loan associations which are
operating contrary to law
4. on May 18, 1962, a member of the intelligence
CENTRAL BANK vs. MORFE division of the Bank filed with the Municipal
Court of Manila a verified application for a
search warrant against the Organization
FACTS:
5. Upon the filing of said application, on May 18,
1. the First Mutual Savings and Loan Organization, 1962, Hon. Roman Cancino, as Judge of the
Inc. — hereinafter referred to as the said municipal court, issued the warrant
Organization — is a registered non-stock commanding the search of the aforesaid
corporation, the main purpose of which, premises at No. 2745 Rizal Avenue, Manila, and
according to its Articles of Incorporation, dated the seizure of the foregoing articles, there being
February 14, 1961, is "to encourage . . . and "good and sufficient reasons to believe" upon
implement savings and thrift among its examination, under oath, of a detective of the
members, and to extend financial assistance in Manila Police Department and said intelligence
the form of loans," to them. The Organization officer of the Bank
has three (3) classes of "members,"1 namely: (a) 6. Organization commenced Civil Case No. 50409
founder members — who originally joined the
of the Court of First Instance of Manila, an
organization and have signed the pre-
original action for "certiorari, prohibition, with
incorporation papers — with the exclusive right
writ of preliminary injunction and/or writ of
to vote and be voted for ; (b) participating
preliminary mandatory injunction," against said
members — with "no right to vote or be voted for"
municipal court, the Sheriff of Manila, the
— to which category all other members belong;
Manila Police Department, and the Bank, to
except (c) honorary members, so made by the
annul the aforementioned search warrant, upon
board of trustees, — "at the exclusive discretion"
the ground that, in issuing the same, the
thereof — due to "assistance, honor, prestige or
municipal court had acted "with GADALEJ"
help extended in the propagation" of the
because: (a) "said search warrant is a roving
objectives of the Organization — without any
commission general in its terms . . .;" (b) "the
pecuniary expenses on the part of said honorary
use of the word 'and others' in the search
members.
warrant . . . permits the unreasonable search
2. On February 14, 1962, the legal department of and seizure of documents which have no relation
the Central Bank of the Philippines — whatsoever to any specific criminal act . . .;" and
hereinafter referred to as the Bank — rendered (c) "no court in the Philippines has any

consti 2 all stars 12


consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

jurisdiction to try a criminal case against a the kind contemplated in the contested action of
corporation . . ." the officers of the Bank, must always connote
- pending hearing of the case on the the existence of a "victim." If this term is used to
merits, a writ of preliminary injunction denote a party whose interests have been
be issued ex parte restraining the actually injured, then the assumption is not
aforementioned search and seizure, or, necessarily justified. The law requiring
in the alternative, if the acts complained compliance with certain requirements before
of have been partially performed, that a anybody can engage in banking obviously seeks
writ of preliminary mandatory to protect the public against actual, as well as
injunction be forthwith issued ex parte, potential, injury. Similarly, we are not aware of
ordering the preservation of the status any rule limiting the use of warrants to papers
quo of the parties, as well as the or effects which cannot be secured otherwise.
immediate return to the Organization of
the documents and papers so far seized - The deposition of a member of the Intelligence
under, the search warrant in question. Division of the Central Bank, that after close
After due hearing, Judge Morfe issued. observation and investigation, the office of a
7. Bank moved for a reconsideration thereof, which savings and loan association, illegally engaged in
was denied on August 7, 1962. Accordingly, the banking activities, is being unlawfully used, is
Bank commenced, in the Supreme Court, the sufficient for the issuance of a search warrant.
present action, against Judge Morfe and the The failure of the deponent to mention particular
Organization, alleging that respondent Judge individuals does not necessarily prove that the
had acted with GADALEJ in issuing the order in had no personal knowledge of specific illegal
question. transactions of the savings and loans
association, for the witness might be acquainted
ISSUE: with specific transactions even if the names of
WON Judge Cancino, in issuing the order (was it the individuals are unknown to him.
unreasonable) acted with GADALEJ?

HELD:
- The line of reasoning of respondent Judge might,
No. Preliminary mandatory injunction issued by perhaps, be justified if the acts imputed to the
Judge Morfe annulled. Writ of preliminary injunction Organization consisted of isolated transactions,
issued by the SC made permanent with costs against distinct and different from the type of business
the organization. in which it is generally engaged. In such case, it
may be necessary to specify or identify the
RATIO: parties involved in said isolated transactions, so
- it cannot be gainsaid the Constitutional that the search and seizure be limited to the
injunction against unreasonable searches and records pertinent thereto. Such, however, is not
seizures seeks to forestall, not purely abstract or the situation confronting us. The records
imaginary evils, but specific and concrete ones. suggest clearly that the transactions objected to
Indeed, unreasonableness is, in the very nature by the Bank constitute the general pattern of the
of things, a condition dependent upon the business of the Organization. Indeed, the main
circumstances surrounding each case, in much purpose thereof, according to its By-laws, is "to
the same way as the question whether or not extend financial assistance, in the form of loans,
"probable cause" exists is one which must be to its members," with funds deposited by them.
decided in the light of the conditions obtaining
in given situations. - It is true, that such funds are referred to — in
the Articles of Incorporation and the By-laws —
- Referring particularly to the one at bar, it is not as their "savings." and that the depositors
clear from the order complained of whether thereof are designated as "members," but, even a
respondent Judge opined that the above cursory examination of said documents will
mentioned statement of the deponent — to the readily show that anybody can be a depositor
effect that the Organization was engaged in the and thus be a "participating member." In other
transactions mentioned in his deposition — words, the Organization is, in effect, open to the
deserved of credence or not. Obviously, however, "public" for deposit accounts, and the funds so
a mere disagreement with Judge Cancino, who raised may be lent by the Organization.
issued the warrant, on the credibility of said Moreover, the power to so dispose of said funds
statement, would not justify the conclusion that is placed under the exclusive authority of the
said municipal Judge had committed a grave "founder members," and "participating members"
abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of are expressly denied the right to vote or be voted
jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction. for, their "privileges and benefits," if any, being
limited to those which the board of trustees
- Again, the aforementioned order would seem to may, in its discretion, determine from time to
assume that an illegal banking transaction, of time. As a consequence, the "membership" of the
"participating members" is purely nominal in
consti 2 all stars 13
consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

nature. This situation is fraught, precisely, with leaves. The NBI then took custody of the contents of the
the very dangers or evils which Republic Act No. packages. Appellant could not be contacted, but was
337 seeks to forestall, by exacting compliance later “invited” by the NBI when he was claiming mail at
with the requirements of said Act, before the the Central Post Office. On that same day, a forensic
transactions in question could be undertaken. chemist in the NBI certified the contents of the packages
as being marijuana leaves.
- It is interesting to note, also, that the
Organization does not seriously contest the main ISSUE:
facts, upon which the action of the Bank is
based. The principal issue raised by the WON the opening and seizure of the contents of
Organization is predicated upon the theory that appellant’s packages warranted an unreasonable search
the aforementioned transactions of the and seizure.
Organization do not amount to " banking," as
the term is used in Republic Act No. 337. We are HELD:
satisfied, however, in the light of the
circumstance obtaining in this case, that the No it did not.
Municipal Judge did not commit a grave abuse
of discretion in finding that there was probable RATIO:
cause that the Organization had violated
Sections 2 and 6 of the aforesaid law and in Illegal search and seizure
issuing the warrant in question, and that, Sections 2 and 3 of Art. III provide for the guarantee
accordingly, and in line with Alverez vs. Court of against unreasonable search and seizure. These
First Instance (64 Phil. 33), the search and provisions were taken from the 4th amendment of the US
seizure complained of have not been proven to constitution.
be unreasonable.
In deciding WON the case at bar was an instance of an
unreasonable search and seizure, the Court said that it
was not, for the main reason that it was done by a
C. State Action Requirement (who private individual, namely Job Reyes. What the law
contemplates is a protection against actions of the state
are subject to constitutional against individuals, not those between individuals.
prohibitions)
Cases cited:

Villanueva v. Querubin: “This constitutional right...refers


PEOPLE vs. MARTI
to the immunity...from interference by the government...”
J. Bidin: January 18, 1991
Burdeau v. McDowell: “...its protection applies to
FACTS: governmental action...it was intended as a restraint
upon the activities of sovereign authority...”
Appeal from a conviction under RA 6425, aka the
Dangerous Drugs Act.

Appellant Andre Marti and his common-low wife, Shirley State v. Bryan: A parking attendant searched an
Reyes, went to “Manila Packing and Export Forwarders” automobile and found marijuana without aid of
with 4 giftwrapped packages. Proprietress Anita Reyes authorities. Marijuana was deemed admissible.
attended to them and they presented the packages to be
sent to a friend, Walter Fierz, in Zurich, Switzerland. Walker v. State: “...search and seizure clauses are
When Anita asked if she could examine and inspect the restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon
packages, appellant refused saying that the packages private individuals...”
merely contained books, cigars and gloves. The boxes
were then packaged for shipment. Bernas v. US: “...the amendment only proscribes
governmental action.”
Before delivery of the box to the Bureau of Customs, Job
Reyes, husband of Anita, opened the boxes for final Presence of NBI
inspection (SOP). He smelled a peculiar odor and felt
dried leaves inside one of the packages. He opened one The Court also said that the mere presence of the NBI
of the packages and took several grams of the contents did not make the search and seizure unreasonable. Mere
and sent a letter to the NBI requesting a lab exam of observation is not a search. The search was conducted
what he had found. merely by Job Reyes. The Court cited Gandy v. Watkins:
“where the search was initially made by the owner there
NBI and Job Reyes went to the latter’s office and is no unreasonable search and seizure...”
proceeded to open the packages, finding dry marijuana

consti 2 all stars 14


consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

The Court here again stressed that “the Bill of Rights is


not meant to be invoked against acts of private 4. Wenceslao filed a criminal case for libel against
individuals” and this is seen in the intention of the petitioners Borjal and Soliven (publisher). The
framers as Bernas states that they are a protection Prosecutor handling the case dismissed the
against the State. complaint for insufficiency of evidence. He
instituted against petitioners a civil action for
In this case we see that the search and seizure was done damages based on libel subject of the instant case.
by Job Reyes, a private individual. As such, the The RTC decided in favor of private respondent
Constitutional guarantee cannot be invoked by the Wenceslao and ordered petitioners Borjal and
appellant. Soliven to indemnify private respondent P1M for
actual and compensatory damages, in addition to
Other issues P200K for moral damages, P100K for exemplary
damages, P200K for attorney's fees, and to pay the
1) Informed of rights – Court here said that he was costs of suit.
informed of his constitutional rights by the NBI,
and even availed of their Constitutional right not 5. The CA affirmed the decision but reduced the
to give a written statement. amount of the monetary award. The CA ruled that
2) Not being the owner of the packages – untenable private respondent was sufficiently identifiable,
as he gave his name as the owner. Also although not named, in the questioned articles;
unbelievable that he would send a package for that private respondent was in fact defamed by
someone who he merely met in a bar. Moreover, petitioner Borjal by describing him variously as a
appellant was also convicted of possession of "self-proclaimed hero," "a conference organizer
hashish by the Kleve Court in Germany. associated with shady deals who has a lot of trash
tucked inside his closet," "thick face," and "a
person with dubious ways;" that petitioner's claim
of privilege communication was unavailing since
the privileged character of the articles was lost by
PRUNEYARD vs. SHOPPING CENTER supra their publication in a newspaper of general
circulation.

BORJAL vs. COURT of APPEALS 6. The petitioners brought the action to the SC.

ISSUE:
Justice Bellosillo, 1999 WON the CA was correct in its ruling that Borjal was
guilty of libel. – NO.

FACTS: RATIO:

1. Between May and July 1989, a series of articles 1. In action for libel, the victim shall be identifiable
written by petitioner Borjal was published on although it is not necessary that he be named. The
different dates in his column Jaywalker. The articles questioned articles written by Borjal do not identify
dealt with the alleged anomalous activities of an Wenceslao as the organizer of the conference. There
"organizer of a conference" without naming or were millions of "heroes" of the EDSA Revolution and
identifying private respondent Wenceslao. Neither anyone of them could be "self-proclaimed" or an
did it refer to the First National Conference on Land "organizer of seminars and conferences.
Transportation (FNCLT) as the conference therein
mentioned. 2. Borjal wrote about the so-called First National
Conference on Land Transportation whose principal
2. Wenceslao reacted to the articles. He sent a letter to organizers are not specified. Neither did the FNCLT
letterheads disclose the identity of the conference
The Philippine Star insisting that he was the
organizer since these contained only an enumeration
"organizer" alluded to in petitioner Borjal's columns.
of names where Wenceslao was described as
In a subsequent letter to The Philippine Star, he
Executive Director and Spokesman and not as a
refuted the matters contained in Borjal's columns.
conference organizer.
3. Wenceslao filed a complaint with the National Press
3. It is also not sufficient that the offended party
Club (NPC) Borjal for unethical conduct. He accused
recognized himself as the person attacked or
petitioner Borjal of using his column as a form of
defamed. It must be shown that at least a third
leverage to obtain contracts for his public relations
person could identify him as the object of the
firm. In turn, Borjal published a rejoinder to the
libelous publication. Wenceslao himself entertained
challenge of private respondent not only to protect
doubt that he was the person spoken of in Borjal's
his name and honor but also to refute the claim that
columns. The former even called up columnist Borjal
he was using his column for character
to inquire if he (Wenceslao) was the one referred to
assassination.
consti 2 all stars 15
consti part 13: scope of constitutional protection

in the subject articles. Identification is grossly


inadequate when even the alleged offended party is 9. To be considered malicious, the libelous statements
himself unsure that he was the object of the verbal must be shown to have been written or published
attack. with the knowledge that they are false or in reckless
disregard of whether they are false or not. "Reckless
4. Publications which are privileged for reasons of disregard of what is false or not" means that the
public policy are protected by the constitutional defendant entertains serious doubt as to the truth of
guaranty of freedom of speech. A privileged the publication, or that he possesses a high degree
communication may be either absolutely privileged of awareness of their probable falsity. The articles
or qualifiedly privileged. Absolutely privileged subject of the instant case can hardly be said to
communications are those which are not actionable have been written with knowledge that these are
even if the author has acted in bad faith. Qualifiedly false or in reckless disregard of what is false or not
privileged communications containing defamatory
imputations are not actionable unless found to have 10. SC declares Borjal to have acted in good faith.
been made without good intention justifiable motive. Moved by a sense of civic duty and prodded by his
responsibility as a newspaperman, he proceeded to
5. Borjal's questioned writings are not within the expose and denounce what he perceived to be a
exceptions of Art. 354 of The Revised Penal Code for public deception. Surely, we cannot begrudge him
they are neither private communications nor fair and for that. Every citizen has the right to enjoy a good
true report without any comments or remarks. name and reputation, but we do not consider that
However this does not necessarily mean that they petitioner Borjal has violated that right in this case
are not privileged. The enumeration under Art. 354 nor abused his press freedom.
is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged
communications since fair commentaries on matters 11. Freedom of expression is man's birthright
of public interest are likewise privileged. The rule on -constitutionally protected and guaranteed, and that
privileged communications had its genesis not in the it has become the singular role of the press to act as
nation's penal code but in the Bill of Rights of the its "defensor fidei" in a democratic society such as
Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and of ours. But it is also worth keeping in mind that the
the press. The concept of privileged communications press is the servant, not the master, of the citizenry,
is implicit in the freedom of the press. and its freedom does not carry with it an restricted
hunting license to prey on the ordinary citizen.
6. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are
privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action
for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment
means that while in general every discreditable
imputation publicly made is deemed false, because
every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is
judicially proved, and every false imputation is
deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the
discreditable imputation is directed against a public
person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily
actionable.

7. The SC applied the Sullivan v NY Ties doctrine in


considering the respondent as a public figure. The
FNCLT was an undertaking infused with public
interest. It was promoted as a joint project of the
government and the private sector, and organized by
top government officials and prominent
businessmen. For this reason, it attracted media
mileage and drew public attention not only to the
conference itself but to the personalities behind as
well. As its Executive Director and spokesman,
Wenceslao consequently assumed the status of a
public figure.

8. The guarantees of freedom of speech and press


prohibit a public official or public figure from
recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood
relating to his official conduct unless he proves that
the statement was made with actual malice, i.e.,
with knowledge that it was false or with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not.
consti 2 all stars 16