CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

27. QUA CHEE GAN v. THE DEPORTATION BOARD

BY: Titular
TOPIC:

QUICK SUMMARY
Petitioners are aliens who were charged with having purchased US dollars without the necessary license
from the Central Bank. Following the filing of said deportation charges, the Deportation Board issued a
warrant of arrest against petitioners, claiming that as an authorized agent of the President, it has
jurisdiction over the charges filed, and the authority to order their arrest. Petitioners question the power of
the President to deport aliens and, consequently, the delegation to the Deportation Board of the ancillary
power to investigate, on the ground that such power is vested in the Legislature. SC held that the
President has the power to deport aliens; that this includes the power to arrest, but ONLY when there is
already a deportation order; and that this was validly delegated to the Deportation Board. Hence,
Executive Order No. 398, series of 1951, insofar as it empowers the Deportation Board to issue warrant
of arrest upon the filing of formal charges against an alien or aliens and to fix bond and prescribe the
conditions for the temporary release of said aliens, is declared illegal. As a consequence, the order of
arrest issued by the respondent Deportation Board is declared null and void and the bonds filed pursuant
to such order of arrest, decreed cancelled.

FACTS:
 Petitioners Qua Chee Gan, James Uy, Daniel Dy alias Dee Pac, Chan Tiong Yu, Chua Chu Tian,
Chua Lim Pao alias Jose Chua, and Basilio King were charged:
o with having purchased U.S. dollars in the total sum of $130,000.00, without the necessary
license from the Central Bank of the Philippines, and of having clandestinely remitted the
same to Hongkong and
o with having attempted to bribe officers of the Philippine and United States Governments
(Antonio Laforteza, Chief of the Intelligence Division of the Central Bank, and Capt. A. P.
Charak of the OSI, U.S. Air Force) in order to evade prosecution for said unauthorized
purchase of U.S. dollars.
 Following the filing of said deportation charges, a warrant for the arrest of said aliens was issued by
the presiding member of the Deportation Board.
 Upon their filing surety bond for P10,000.00 and cash bond for P10,000.00, herein petitioners were
provisionally set at liberty.
 Petitioners filed a joint motion to dismiss the charges presented against them in the Deportation
Board for the reason, among others, that the same do not constitute legal ground for deportation of
aliens from this country, and that said Board has no jurisdiction to entertain such charges.
 This motion to dismiss having been denied by the Board, petitioners filed in this Court a petition for
habeas corpus and/or prohibition, which petition was given due course, but made returnable to the
Court of First Instance of Manila.
 At the instance of petitioners and upon their filing a bond for P5,000.00 each, a writ of preliminary
injunction was issued by the lower court, restraining the respondent Deportation Board from hearing
Deportation charges No. R-425 against petitioners, pending final termination of the habeas corpus
and/or prohibition proceedings.
 The Deportation Board then filed its answer to the original petition, saying as an authorized agent of
the President, it has jurisdiction over the charges filed, and the authority to order their arrest.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

 Trial Court (denied the petition for habeas corpus and/or prohibition):
o upheld the validity of the delegation by the president to the Deportation Board of his power to
conduct investigations for the purpose of determining whether the stay of an alien in this
country would be injurious to the security, welfare and interest of the State, and
o sustained the power of the deportation Board to issue warrant of arrest and fix bonds for the
alien's temporary release pending investigation of charges against him, on the theory that the
power to arrest and fix the amount of the bond of the arrested alien is essential to and
complement the power to deport aliens pursuant to Section 69 of the Revised Administrative
Code.
 Consequently, the petitioners instituted the present appeal.
 Petitioners-appellants contest the power of the President to deport aliens and, consequently, the
delegation to the Deportation Board of the ancillary power to investigate, on the ground that such
power is vested in the Legislature. In other words, it is claimed, for the power to deport to be
exercised, there must be a legislation authorizing the same.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the President has the power to deport aliens and whether such power is validly
delegated to the Deportation Board. –Yes.
2. Whether or not the authority to deport aliens includes the power to order the arrest of such aliens.
–Yes, but only when there is already an ORDER OF DEPORTATION.

HELD:
1. Yes, the President has the power to deport aliens and such power is validly delegated to the
Deportation Board. Although CA No. 613 expressly grants the Commissioner of Immigration the
power to effect the arrest and expulsion of an alien, after previous determination by the Board of
Commissioners, such power was not intended to be delimited to the Immigration Commissioner. Sec.
69 of the Administrative Code, although not expressly conferring such power, lays down the
procedure for such deportation proceedings for the President.
Therefore, the deportation of an undesirable alien may be effected in 2 ways:
a. By order of the President, after due investigation, pursuant to Section 69 of the Revised
Administrative Code, and
b. By the Commissioner of Immigration, upon recommendation by the Board of
Commissioners, under Section 37 of Commonwealth Act No. 613.

While it may really be contended that the Sec 69 did not expressly confer on the President the
authority to deport undesirable aliens, unlike the express grant to the Commissioner of Immigration
under Commonwealth Act No. 613, but merely lays down the procedure to be observed should there
be deportation proceedings, the fact that such a procedure was provided for before the President can
deport an alien-which provision was expressly declared exempted from the repealing effect of the
Immigration Act of 1940-is a clear indication of the recognition, and inferentially a ratification, by the
legislature of the existence of such power in the Executive. And the exercise of this power by the
chief Executive has been sanctioned by this Court in several decisions.

There seems to be no doubt that the President's power of investigation may be delegated. This is
clear from a reading of Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides for a "prior
investigation, conducted by said Executive (the President) or his authorized agent." By virtue of
Executive Order No. 33, President Quezon created the Deportation Board primarily to receive
complaints against aliens charged to be undesirable, to conduct investigation pursuant to Section 69
of the Revised Administrative Code and the rules and regulations therein provided, and make the
corresponding recommendation. Since then, the Deportation Board has been conducting the
investigation as the authorized agent of the President.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SUNGA

2. Yes, but only when there is already an Order of Deportation. Under EO No. 69, it is required that the
alien charged in deportation proceedings shall file a bond with the Commissioner of Immigration in
order to secure their appearance. However, the same did not authorize the arrest of the alien pending
investigation.

It was in EO No. 398, that the Board was authorized motu proprio or upon the filing of formal charges
by the Special Prosecutor of the Board, to issue the warrant for the arrest of the alien complained of
and to hold him under detention during the investigation unless he files a bond for his provisional
release in such amount and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Chairman of the
Board. However, Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code, upon whose authority the
President's power to deport is predicated, does NOT provide for the exercise of the power to arrest.
Moreover, the right of an individual to be secure in his person is guaranteed by Sec. 1 Art III of the
Constitution: “...no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce...”
Rodriguez, et al. v. Villamiel, et al. expands the requirement — "to be determined by the judge" — to
any public officer who may be authorized by the Legislature to make such determination, and
thereafter issue the warrant of arrest.

Therefore, the arrest of a foreigner, which is necessary to carry into effect the power of deportation is
valid only when there is already an order of deportation. However, during the investigation, it is not
indispensable that the alien be arrested. It is enough that a bond be required to insure the
appearance of the alien during the investigation, as was authorized in EO69. Executive Order No.
398 insofar as it empowers the Deportation Board to issue warrant of arrest upon the filing of
formal charges against an alien or aliens and to fix bond and prescribe the conditions for the
temporary release of said aliens, is declared illegal. The order of arrest issued by the
respondent Deportation Board is declared null and void and the bonds filed pursuant to such
order of arrest, decreed cancelled.