De Bisschop v.

Galang [GR 18365, 31 May 1963]

En Banc, Reyes JBL (J): 10 concur, 1 took no part

Facts: George de Bisschop, an American citizen, was allowed to stay in this country for 3 years, expiring 1 August 1959, as a prearranged employee of the Bissmag Production, Inc., of which he is president and general manager. He applied for extension of stay with the Bureau of Immigration, in a letter dated 10 July 1959. In view, however, of confidential and damaging reports of the Immigration Office, Benjamin de Mesa, to the effect that the Bissmag Production, Inc., is more of a gambling front than the enterprise for promotions of local and imported shows that it purports to be, and that de Bisschop is suspected of having evaded payment of his income tax, the Commissioner of Immigration (Emilio L. Galang), in a communication of 10 September 1959, advised him that his application for extension of stay as a prearranged employee has been denied by the Board of Commissioners, and that he should depart within 5 days. Thereafter, counsel of de Bisschop requested for a copy of the adverse decision of said Board, but the legal officer of the Bureau of Immigration replied that, pursuant to immigration practice and procedure and as is usual in such cases where the result is a vote for denial, for reasons of practicability and expediency, no formal decision, order or resolution is promulgated by the Board. Thereafter, Mr. Bisschop was simply advised of said denial as per letter dated 10 September 1959. No request for reinvestigation was made with the Bureau of Immigration. Instead, to forestall his arrest and the filing of the corresponding deportation proceedings, de Bisschop filed the case on 18 September 1959. Pending resolution of the main case for prohibition, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued ex-parte by the Court of First Instance (CFI) Manila (with Judge Antonio Canizares presiding, Civil Case 41477) on the same day ordering the Commissioner of Immigration to desist from arresting and detaining de Bisschop. During the hearing, only documentary evidence were presented. On 27 March 1961, the lower court granted the petition for prohibition and ordered the Commissioner of Immigration to desist and refrain from arresting and expelling de Bisschop from the Philippines unless and until proper and legal proceedings are conducted by the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigrations in connection with the application for extension of stay filed by de Bisschop with said Board. The Commissioner of Immigration appealed. Issue: Whether the right to notice and hearing is essential to due process in administrative proceedings, and whether the Board of Commissioners are required to render written decisions on petitions for extension of stay. Held: The administration of immigration laws is the primary and exclusive responsibility of the Executive branch of the government. Extension of stay of aliens is purely discretionary on the part of immigration authorities. Since CA 613 (Philippines Immigration Act of 1940) is silent as to the procedure to be followed in these cases, the Courts are inclined to uphold the argument that courts have no jurisdiction to review the purely administrative practice of immigration authorities of not granting formal hearings in certain cases as the circumstances may warrant, for reasons of practicability and expediency. This would not violate the due process clause as, in the case at bar, the letter of appellant-commissioner advising de Bisschop to depart in 5 days is a mere formality, a preliminary step, and, therefore, far from final, because, as alleged in paragraph 7 of appellants answer to the complaint, the requirement to leave before the start of the deportation proceedings is only an advice to the party that unless he departs voluntarily, the State will be compelled to take steps for his expulsion. It is already a settled rule in this jurisdiction that a day in court is not a matter of right in administrative proceedings. Further, the immigration laws specifically enumerate when the decisions of the Board of Commissioners shall be in writing, to wit: (1) in cases of appeal from a decision of the Board of Special Inquiry as to matters of admission or exclusion of aliens, as provided in Section 27(c) of the Immigration Act; and (2) the decision of the Board of Commissioners in cases of deportation under Section 37, paragraph (a) and (c). There is nothing in the immigration law which provides that the Board of Commissioners must render written decisions on petitions for extension of stay. Section 8 of the Immigration Act merely refers to the number of votes necessary to constitute the decision of said Board.