Scribd
Upload
128 views2 pages

Case Digests: Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date

Vadim Chriskoff, a foreign national, filed a second petition for habeas corpus after being detained in the Philippines for over two years without being deported or criminally charged. The court granted the petition, finding that indefinite detention of aliens without charges or deportation violates their rights. It ordered Chriskoff's release subject to reasonable surveillance and a bond to ensure his availability for deportation if the government becomes able to deport him. The court cited precedents establishing that a warrant for deportation becomes invalid if deportation cannot be executed, so detention lacks legal authority in such cases.

Uploaded by

michelle zatarain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
128 views2 pages

Case Digests: Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date

Vadim Chriskoff, a foreign national, filed a second petition for habeas corpus after being detained in the Philippines for over two years without being deported or criminally charged. The court granted the petition, finding that indefinite detention of aliens without charges or deportation violates their rights. It ordered Chriskoff's release subject to reasonable surveillance and a bond to ensure his availability for deportation if the government becomes able to deport him. The court cited precedents establishing that a warrant for deportation becomes invalid if deportation cannot be executed, so detention lacks legal authority in such cases.

Uploaded by

michelle zatarain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

2S PIL Case Digests

TOPIC Module 15: Treatment of Alients AUTHOR #4_Carpio


Extradition

CASE TITLE VADIM CHRISKOFF v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION and DIRECTOR OF GR NO L-3802


PRISONS (CHRISKOFF v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION)

TICKLER Sabi ng WARRANT of ARREST: Tumutulong daw sa Hukbalahap DATE October 26, 1951
Pero, sabi ng ORDER OF DEPORTATION: Nag-violate daw ng
Temporary Stay under Philippine Immigration Act. Di naman kinasuhan.
Dapat pakawalan.
DOCTRINE Foreign nationals, NOT enemy, against whom NO criminal charges have been formally made or judicial
order issued, MAY NOT INDEFINATELY BE KEPT IN DETENTION. The theory on which the court is given
power to act is that the Warrant of Deportation, NOT having been able to be executed, is factus officio
and the alien is being held WITHOUT any authority of law. Furthermore, the possibility that petitioners
might join or aid disloyal elements if turned out at large, DOES NOT JUSTIFY prolonged detention – the
remedy in such a case is to impose conditions in the Order of Release and exact bail in reasonable
amount with sufficient sureties.
FACTS This case is a SECOND petition for HABEAS CORPUS by petitioner Vadim Chriskoff. The first was dismissed
by virtue of September 7, 1948 Order of respondent Commissioner of Immigration.

Chriskoff entered the Philippines on June 19, 1946 with a passport duly Visa-ed by the United States Consul in
Sanghai, for the purpose of making repairs on and taking delivery of certain vessels purchased by or in behalf of
Java China Trading Co. Ltd. With the vessels having been repaired and dispatched to Shanghai, Chriskoff
remained behind (in PH) and stayed because according to him, he had suffered an ECONOMIC COLLAPSE and
his return to Shanghai became impracticable. In the meantime, Chriskoff obtained employment in a lumber
concern in Bataan and later, in Floridablanca Pampanga.

While working in Pampanga, he was arrested on March 16, 1948 by Order of respondent Immigration
Commissioner on the charges that he was aiding, helping, and promoting “the final objective of the
HUKBALAHAPS to overthrow the Government.” After his arrest, his deportation to Russia was ordered (by the
Deportation Board) – NOT on the ground stated in his warrant of arrest but on the ground that he violated
condition of the temporary stay given him – by his failure to depart from the Philippines upon its expiration. Thus,
he is subject to deportation under the Section 37(2), Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. No
formal charges for giving aid to Hukbalahaps have ever been filed.

Immigration authorities were unable to carry out the deportation order allegedly because of such inability,
Chriskoff repeatedly expressed his desire to leave the Philippines in his own account but his requests were
unheeded. Chriskoff maintains that he could easily have departed from the Philippines without any expense on
the part of Government (PH) when upon express authority of respondent Immigration Commissioner, he secured
employment in the vessel Swedish S.S. Axel Salem which was to sail from PH in 1948, thus, respondent
Commission had no valid and practical reason when the later withdrew such authority.
ISSUE/S Whether or not the Second Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by Vadim Chriskoff should be granted?

RULING/S YES, the second petition for Habeas Corpus filed by Chriskoff should be granted.

Similar to Chriskoff case are the cases of Borovsky v. Commissior of Immigration and Mejoff v Director of Prisons
wherein both the first applications were denied because arrangements were being made to have the petitioners
deported and as such, both filed a second application for habeas corpus. Both were recently granted for the
reason that since the denial of the first, a period of over 2 years had elapsed WITHOUT the applicants having
been deported and the prospects of removing them were not in sight.

Foreign nationals, NOT enemy, against whom NO criminal charges have been formally made or judicial
order issued, MAY NOT INDEFINATELY BE KEPT IN DETENTION. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations of which the Philippines is a member
has proclaimed the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights of human beings. The theory on
which the court is given power to act is that the Warrant of Deportation, NOT having been able to be
executed, is factus officio and the alien is being held WITHOUT any authority of law. Furthermore, the
possibility that petitioners might join or aid disloyal elements if turned out at large, DOES NOT JUSTIFY

2S [AY 2020-2021]
San Beda University – College of Law
2S PIL Case Digests
prolonged detention – the remedy in such a case is to impose conditions in the Order of Release and
exact bail in reasonable amount with sufficient sureties.

Following rulings in Borovsky and Mejoff, the Writ issue commanding the Immigration Commissioner and/or the
Prisons Director to release the petitioner (detained alien) from custody upon these terms: [What are the
conditions imposed upon the release of an alien upon approval of the petition for Habeas Corpus]
(a) The petitioner shall be placed under the surveillance of the immigration authorities or their
agents in such form and manner as may be deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace and
be available when the Government is ready to deport him.
(b) The surveillance shall be reasonable and the QUESTION OF REASONABLENESS shall be
submitted to the Court or to the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Manila for decision in case
of abuse.
(c) Petitioner shall put up a BOND, in the amount of P5,000 with sufficient surety or sureties, for the
above purpose. (Commissioner of Immigration is authorized to exact bond pursuant to Sec. 40 of CA
613)
factus officio – of no further official authority or legal effect
NOTES
Commonwealth Act No. 613 - The Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 (AN ACT TO CONTROL AND REGULATE THE IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS INTO
THE PHILIPPINES)

DEPORTATION OF ALIENS – SECTION 37.


(a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of any other officer designated by him for the purpose
and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground
for deportation as charged against the alien:
(1) Any alien who enters the Philippines after the effective date of this Act by means of false and misleading statements or with out inspection and
admission by the immigration authorities at a designated port of entry;
(2) Any alien who enters the Philippines after the effective date of this Act, who was not lawfully admissible at the time of entry;
(3) Any alien who, after the effective date of this Act, is convicted in the Philippines and sentenced for a term of one year or more for a crime involving
moral turpitude committed within five years after his entry to the Philippines, or who, at any time after such entry, is so convicted and sentenced more
than once;
(4) Any alien who is convicted and sentenced for a violation of the law governing prohibited drugs;
(5) Any alien who practices prostitution or is an inmate of a house of prostitution or is connected with the management of a house of prostitution, or is a
procurer;
(6) Any alien who becomes a public charge within five years after entry from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen subsequent to entry;
(7) Any alien who remains in the Philippines in violation of any limitation or condition under which he was admitted as a nonimmigrant;
(8) Any alien who believes in, advises, advocates or teaches the overthrow by force and violence of the Government of the Philippines, or of constituted
law and authority, or who disbelieves in or is opposed to organized government or who advises, advocates, or teaches the assault or assassination
of public officials because of their office, or who advises, advocates, or teaches the unlawful destruction of property, or who is a member of or affiliated
with any organization entertaining, advocating or teaching such doctrines, or who in any manner whatsoever lends assistance, financial or otherwise,
to the dissemination of such doctrines.
(b) Deportation may be effected under clauses 2, 7, and 8, of paragraph (a) of this section at any time after entry, but shall not be effected under any other
clause unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made within five years after the cause for deportation arises. Deportation under clauses 3 and 4
shall not be effected if the court, or judge thereof, when sentencing the alien, shall recommend to the Commissioner of Immig ration that the alien be not
deported.
(c) No alien shall be deported without being informed of the specific grounds for deportation nor without being given a hearing under rules of procedure to be
prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration.
(d) In any deportation proceeding involving the entry of an alien the burden of proof shall be upon the alien to show that he entered the Philippine s lawfully,
and the time, place, and manner of such entry, and for this purpose he shall be entitled to a statement of the facts in connection with his arrival as shown
by any record in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration.
(e) Any alien under arrest in a deportation proceeding may be released under bond or under such other conditions as may be impose d by the Commissioner
of Immigration.

BONDS – SECTION 40.


(a) The Commissioner of Immigration shall have the power to exact bonds in such amounts and containing such conditions as he may prescribe:
(1) To control and regulate the admission into, and departure from, the Philippines of aliens applying for temporary admission;
(2) To insure against alien passengers liable to be excluded as likely to become public charges, from becoming public charges;
(3) To insure the appearance of aliens released from custody during the course of deportation proceedings instituted against them.
(b) In lieu of such bond, a deposit in cash may be made with the Collector of Customs in such amount as the Commissioner of Immig ration may require.
(c) When the conditions of the bond or cash deposit are fulfilled, or, in the case of a bond or deposit given to insure against an alien becoming a public charge,
when the Commissioner of Immigration shall decide that the likelihood no longer exists, or in the event of the naturalization as a Philippine citizen or the
death of the alien in whose behalf the bond or deposit is given, the bond shall be canceled or the sum deposited shall be returned to the depositor, or his
legal representative. In case of forfeiture, the proceeds of the bond or the cash deposit, as the case may be, shall be deposited in the Philippine Treasury
by the Collector of Customs.

2S [AY 2020-2021]
San Beda University – College of Law

You might also like