Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco

The power to deport objectionable aliens is an inherent political power of the Philippine Government, vested in the executive department (specifically the Governor-General). The exercise of this power is not subject to judicial review or control, and no action for damages will lie against the executive for acts performed in its exercise.

Chuoco Tiaco, a Chinese national and long-time resident of Manila, was deported to China in August 1909 on the orders of Governor-General Forbes, acting on a request from the Chinese Consul-General and citing public interest. Tiaco later returned and filed a suit in the CFI against Forbes, the Chief of Police, and the Chief of Secret Service, seeking damages and an injunction to prevent a second deportation. The CFI judge (Crossfield) issued a preliminary injunction and overruled the defendants' demurrer. The defendants then filed an original action for prohibition in the SC.

• Filed directly in the Supreme Court as an original action for prohibition.
• Justice Trent issued a preliminary injunction restraining the CFI proceedings.
• The SC heard the case on the merits.

• Chuoco Tiaco, a Chinese subject, was deported from the Philippines on August 19, 1909, by order of Governor-General Forbes, executed by police and secret service chiefs.
• The deportation was done in the public interest and at the request of the Chinese Consul-General.
• Tiaco returned to the Philippines on March 29, 1910.
• On April 1, 1910, Tiaco filed a civil suit in the CFI against Forbes et al., alleging unlawful deportation and seeking P20,000 in damages and an injunction against future deportation.
• The CFI (Judge Crossfield) issued a preliminary injunction and later overruled the defendants' demurrer and motion to dissolve the injunction.
• The defendants (Forbes et al.) then filed a petition for prohibition in the SC.

• The act of deportation was performed by the Governor-General in his official capacity, as an act of the Government itself.
• The power to deport objectionable aliens is an inherent power of the political department of the government.
• The courts have no jurisdiction to review or interfere with the exercise of this political power, nor to award damages for its exercise.

• The deportation was unlawful and violated the due process clause of the Philippine Bill of 1902 (Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, §5).
• The Governor-General acted without legal authority, as there was no statute expressly granting him deportation power.
• The courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of the act and award damages for its wrongful execution.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the Government of the Philippine Islands has the inherent power to deport objectionable aliens.
  2. Whether that power, if it exists, is vested in the executive (Governor-General) as a political function.
  3. Whether the judiciary has jurisdiction to review the exercise of that power or to award damages for its alleged wrongful exercise.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  1. Yes. The Philippine Government possesses the inherent power to deport aliens whose presence is detrimental to the public interest. This power is an attribute of sovereignty and is recognized by international law and the practice of nations.
  2. Yes. The power to deport is a political function belonging to the political department of the government. In the Philippine Islands, it is vested in the Governor-General as the chief executive authority. He may exercise this power based on his official judgment and discretion, even in the absence of express legislative authorization.
  3. No. The judiciary has no jurisdiction to interfere with the executive's exercise of this inherent political power. The power is "political" and not "justiciable." The courts cannot control, review, or question the executive's decision, nor can they entertain a civil action for damages resulting from such an act. To do so would violate the separation of powers and subject the executive department to judicial control.

• Inherent Powers of Government — Every sovereign government possesses inherent powers (e.g., police power, eminent domain, power to deport aliens) necessary for its existence and self-preservation, even in the absence of express constitutional or statutory grants.
• Political Question Doctrine — The courts will not intervene in matters that the constitution or laws assign to the exclusive discretion of the political departments of government (executive or legislative). The decision to deport an alien is a political question committed to the executive.
• Separation of Powers — The executive, legislative, and judicial departments are independent and co-equal. One department may not interfere with or control the other in the exercise of its legitimate powers and duties.

• "Every government having the dignity of a government possesses this power [to expel aliens]."
• "The power to exclude or expel aliens being a power affecting international relations is vested in the political department of the Government."
• "The judicial department will not, in the absence of express legislative authority, intervene for the purpose of controlling such power, nor for the purpose of inquiring whether or not he is liable in damages for the exercise thereof."

• Chae Chan Ping v. United States (130 U.S. 581) — Cited for the principle that the power to exclude aliens is an incident of sovereignty vested in the political department of government.
• Fong Yue Ting v. United States (149 U.S. 698) — Cited for the rule that the right to expel foreigners is as absolute as the right to prohibit their entrance.
• Moyer v. Peabody (212 U.S. 78) — Cited for the principle that what constitutes "due process of law" varies with the subject-matter and necessities of the situation, and that executive decisions for exclusion from the country may be summary.
• In re Patterson (1 Phil. Rep. 93) — Cited for the doctrine that the right of self-preservation is superior to personal liberty and is exercised by the executive without judicial interference.
• Barcelon v. Baker (5 Phil. Rep. 87) — Cited for the principle that one department of government cannot interfere with the acts of another performed within its discretion.

• Philippine Bill of 1902 (Act of Congress of July 1, 1902), §5 — The due process and equal protection clause. The SC held it was inapplicable because the deportation was a political act, not subject to the same "due process" requirements as civil rights.
• Spooner Amendment (Act of Congress of March 2, 1901) — Cited as the source of the Philippine Government's delegated "military, civil, and judicial powers necessary to govern."

• Moreland, J., concurring — Agreed with the result but on different grounds. He argued that the action in the lower court was against the Governor-General personally. He based non-liability on the principle of judicial/official immunity: the Governor-General, like a judge, should be immune from civil liability for acts performed within the scope of his official duties, even if done in excess of jurisdiction, provided the act involved the exercise of judgment and discretion on a question with two arguable sides. He analogized the Governor-General's position to that of a judge exercising judicial functions.

• N/A (The decision was unanimous in result, with a separate concurring opinion).