Go Tek vs. Deportation Board

The President's power to deport an undesirable alien is not limited to the grounds enumerated in section 37 of the Immigration Law and does not require a prior criminal conviction; the Chief Executive has full discretion under section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code to determine whether an alien's continued presence is injurious to the public interest, and the Deportation Board may investigate and recommend deportation on a non-enumerated ground even while a criminal case is pending.

Go Tek, an alien residing in Isabela and Manila, was the subject of a deportation complaint before the Deportation Board, an agency of the President charged with investigating undesirable aliens and reporting and recommending proper action on the basis of its findings. The Board's authority is set against two statutory tracks: section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code, which allows deportation of a subject of a foreign power by the President after prior investigation, and section 37 of the Immigration Law, which allows deportation by the Commissioner of Immigration upon recommendation of the Board of Commissioners for aliens falling within specified classes. Executive Order No. 398 and Executive Order No. 455 further define the Deportation Board's investigative function and composition. The statutory framework did not expressly enumerate the grounds for deportation under section 69, a point that framed the Board's authority in this case.

Go Tek, an alien residing at Ilagan, Isabela and 1208-B, Misericordia Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, became the subject of a deportation complaint filed on March 3, 1964 by the chief prosecutor of the Deportation Board. The complaint alleged that in December 1963 certain agents of the National Bureau of Investigation searched an office at 1439 O'Donnel Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila believed to be the headquarters of a guerrilla unit of the "Emergency Intelligence Section, Army of the United States," and that among those arrested thereat was Go Tek, an alleged sector commander and intelligence and record officer of that guerrilla unit. Fake dollar checks were allegedly found in Go Tek's possession, and he was said to have violated article 168 of the Revised Penal Code and rendered himself an undesirable alien. The prosecutor prayed that after trial the Board recommend to the President Go Tek's immediate deportation as an undesirable alien, his presence being a menace to the peace, welfare, and security of the community. The case was docketed as Case No. R1116.

Go Tek filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint was premature because a case against him for violation of article 168 was pending in the city fiscal's office of Manila (IS 64-7267). He contended that the Board had no jurisdiction to try the case in view of the obiter dictum in Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board, 118 Phil. 868, 875, that aliens may be deported only on the grounds specified in the law.

The Board, composed of Manuel A. Concordia, Arturo A. Alafriz, and Manuel V. Reyes, denied Go Tek's motion in its resolution of April 21, 1964. The Board reasoned that a conviction is not a prerequisite before the State may exercise its right to deport an undesirable alien and that the Board is only a fact-finding body whose function is to make a report and recommendation to the President, in whom the exclusive power to deport an alien is lodged.

In view of the denial of his motion, Go Tek on June 10, 1964 filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a prohibition action against the Board. On July 8, 1964 the court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the Board from hearing Go Tek's case. After hearing, the trial court, with Judge Federico C. Alikpala presiding, in its 1964 decision granted the writ of prohibition and ordered the Board to desist from taking cognizance of Go Tek's case. Citing the obiter dictum in Qua Chee Gan, the court held that mere possession of forged dollar checks is not a ground for deportation under the Immigration Law; that under section 37(3) of the law, before an alien may be deported for having been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year or more for a crime involving moral turpitude, a conviction is required; and that since Go Tek had not been convicted of the offense punished in article 168, the deportation was premature.

The Board appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the decision was contrary to law. The Solicitor General contended that the trial court erred in assuming that the President may deport undesirable aliens only on grounds enumerated by law; in holding that mere possession of forged dollar checks is not a ground for deportation and that a criminal conviction is necessary; and in not finding that the Board has jurisdiction over Go Tek's case. The parties stipulated that the Deportation Board is an agency of the President of the Philippines charged with the investigation of undesirable aliens and to report and recommend proper action on the basis of its findings.

• Prematurity and Pending Criminal Case: Go Tek moved to dismiss the deportation complaint on the ground that it was premature because a case for violation of article 168 of the Revised Penal Code was pending in the city fiscal's office of Manila (IS 64-7267).
• Lack of Jurisdiction and Limited Grounds: He contended that the Deportation Board had no jurisdiction to try the case, invoking the obiter dictum in Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board that aliens may be deported only on the grounds specified in the law.
• Conviction as Prerequisite: He argued that mere possession of forged dollar checks is not a ground for deportation under the Immigration Law and that, under section 37(3), a conviction and sentence for a crime involving moral turpitude are required before deportation.

• Executive Discretion and Non-Enumerated Grounds: The Solicitor General contended that the trial court erred in assuming that the President may deport undesirable aliens only on grounds enumerated by law.
• No Prior Conviction Required: The Board reasoned that a conviction is not a prerequisite before the State may exercise its right to deport an undesirable alien; the Board is only a fact-finding body whose function is to make a report and recommendation to the President, in whom the exclusive power to deport is lodged.
• Board Jurisdiction: The Solicitor General contended that the trial court erred in not finding that the Board has jurisdiction over Go Tek's case and in holding that mere possession of forged dollar checks is not a ground for deportation.

• Jurisdiction Over Non-Enumerated Ground: Whether the Deportation Board may entertain a deportation proceeding based on a ground not specified in section 37 of the Immigration Law.
• Prior Conviction: Whether the Board may proceed although the alien has not yet been convicted of the offense imputed to him.
• Prematurity: Whether the charge against Go Tek before the Board was premature.

• Jurisdiction Over Non-Enumerated Ground: Yes. The President's power to deport undesirable aliens is not limited to the grounds enumerated in section 37 of the Immigration Law; section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code and Executive Order No. 398 do not specify grounds, and the Chief Executive has full discretion.
• Prior Conviction: No. An executive order for deportation is not dependent on a prior judicial conviction; conviction of a crime is not necessary to warrant deportation.
• Prematurity: No. The charge was not premature; the Board has jurisdiction to investigate Go Tek for illegal possession of fake dollar checks and alleged guerrilla activities despite the absence of conviction and notwithstanding that the act is not among the section 37 grounds.

• Jurisdiction Over Non-Enumerated Ground: Deportation of an undesirable alien may be effected (1) by order of the President, after due investigation, pursuant to section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code, and (2) by the Commissioner of Immigration upon recommendation of the Board of Commissioners under section 37 of the Immigration Law. Section 69 and Executive Order No. 398 do not specify the grounds for deportation; paragraph 1(a) of Executive Order No. 398 merely authorizes the Deportation Board, motu proprio or upon complaint of any person, to conduct investigations under section 69 to determine whether a subject of a foreign power is an undesirable alien and thereafter to recommend deportation to the President. The intention of the law is to grant the Chief Executive full discretion to determine whether an alien's residence in the country is so undesirable as to affect or injure the security, welfare, or interest of the State. The adjudication of facts upon which deportation is predicated also devolves on the Chief Executive, whose decision is final and executory; he is the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of facts warranting deportation, and no other tribunal is at liberty to reexamine or controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted. The State has the inherent power to deport undesirable aliens, and the Chief Executive may exercise that power when he deems such action necessary for the peace and domestic tranquility of the nation, even in the absence of express law, if he finds that an alien's continued presence is injurious to the public interest. Thus, the Board may investigate Go Tek for illegal possession of fake dollar checks and alleged guerrilla activities even if that ground is not among those enumerated in section 37.
• Prior Conviction: An executive order for deportation is not dependent on a prior judicial conviction. The fact that an alien has been acquitted in a criminal case does not prevent deportation based on the same charge; such acquittal does not constitute res judicata in the deportation proceedings. Conviction of a crime is not necessary to warrant deportation. The trial court therefore erred in holding that mere possession of forged dollar checks is not a ground for deportation and that a conviction under article 168 of the Revised Penal Code was required before the Board could act.
• Prematurity: The obiter dictum in Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board, invoked by Go Tek and relied upon by the trial court, is not applicable. In Qua Chee Gan the aliens were charged with economic sabotage, which is a ground for deportation under Republic Act No. 503. The ratio decidendi of Qua Chee Gan is that the provision of Executive Order No. 398 of 1951 authorizing the Deportation Board to issue a warrant of arrest upon the filing of formal charges is illegal or unconstitutional because it is contrary to section 1(3), Article III of the 1935 Constitution, which requires warrants to issue upon probable cause to be determined by the judge after examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Under section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, probable cause may be determined by the judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. The charge against Go Tek before the Board was therefore not premature.

• Inherent power of the State to deport undesirable aliens — The State has the inherent power to deport undesirable aliens. The Chief Executive may exercise that power when he deems such action necessary for the peace and domestic tranquility of the nation; if he finds that an alien's continued presence is injurious to the public interest, he may deport the alien even in the absence of express law. The right of a country to expel or deport aliens because their continued presence is detrimental to public welfare is absolute and unqualified. In this case, the President's power under section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code supported the Board's authority to investigate Go Tek.
• Executive discretion and non-enumerated grounds for deportation — Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code and Executive Order No. 398 do not specify the grounds for deportation. The intention of the law is to grant the Chief Executive full discretion to determine whether an alien's residence is so undesirable as to affect or injure the security, welfare, or interest of the State. The adjudication of facts upon which deportation is predicated devolves on the Chief Executive, whose decision is final and executory; he is the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of facts warranting deportation, and no other tribunal may reexamine or controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted. The Board may therefore entertain a deportation proceeding based on a ground not enumerated in section 37 of the Immigration Law.
• Deportation not dependent on prior criminal conviction — An executive order for deportation is not dependent on a prior judicial conviction. Conviction of a crime is not necessary to warrant deportation, and an acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent deportation based on the same charge because such acquittal does not constitute res judicata in the deportation proceedings. Thus, Go Tek's pending criminal case under article 168 of the Revised Penal Code did not bar the Board from investigating him for deportation.
• Qua Chee Gan ratio distinguished from its obiter dictum — The statement in Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board that aliens may be deported only on grounds specified in the law is an obiter dictum and is not controlling. The ratio decidendi of Qua Chee Gan is that the provision of Executive Order No. 398 authorizing the Deportation Board to issue a warrant of arrest upon the filing of formal charges is illegal or unconstitutional under section 1(3), Article III of the 1935 Constitution. In Qua Chee Gan the aliens were charged with economic sabotage, which is a ground for deportation under Republic Act No. 503. The case was therefore inapplicable to Go Tek.
• Deportation Board as fact-finding and recommendatory body — The Deportation Board is an agency of the President charged with investigating undesirable aliens and reporting and recommending proper action on the basis of its findings. Its function is not to render a final deportation order; the Chief Executive has to approve the Board's recommendation. The Board's jurisdiction to investigate is not ousted by the pendency of a criminal case against the alien.

• "We hold that the Board has jurisdiction to investigate Go Tek for illegal possession of fake dollar checks (as well as his alleged "guerilla" activities) in spite of the fact that he has not yet been convicted of illegal possession thereof under article 168 of the Revised Penal Code and notwithstanding that act is not the grounds for the deportation of undesirable aliens as enumerated in section 37 of the Immigration Law. The charge against Go Tek before- the Board was not premature." — This passage states the core holding: the Board may proceed on a non-enumerated ground and without a prior conviction.
• "It is fundamental that an executive order for deportation is not dependent on a prior judicial conviction in a case" — This formulation, cited in the majority opinion, establishes that deportation proceedings are independent of criminal conviction.
• "The Chief Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of facts which warrant the deportation of aliens as disclosed in an investigation conducted in accordance with 69. No other tribunal is at liberty to reexamine or to controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted." — This passage defines the scope of executive discretion and the finality of the Chief Executive's factual determination in deportation matters.

• Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board, 118 Phil. 868, 875 — Cited by Go Tek and relied on by the trial court for the proposition that aliens may be deported only on grounds specified by law; the Supreme Court held that this was an obiter dictum and not applicable, because the ratio decidendi concerned the unconstitutionality of the warrant-of-arrest provision of Executive Order No. 398 under the 1935 Constitution.
• Tan Tong vs. Deportation Board, 96 Phil. 934, 936 — Cited for the rule that the Chief Executive has full discretion to determine whether an alien's residence is undesirable and that the adjudication of facts upon which deportation is predicated devolves on the Chief Executive, whose decision is final and executory; also held that the Deportation Board could take cognizance of a charge of illegal importation as a ground for deportation.
• Ang Bong vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 100 Phil. 801, 803 — Cited for the rule that an executive order for deportation is not dependent on a prior judicial conviction.
• Chuoco Tiaco vs. Forbes, 228 U.S. 549, 57 L. Ed. 960, 40 Phil. 1122, 1125 — Cited for the State's inherent power to deport undesirable aliens.
• Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco and Crossfield, 16 Phil. 534, 568, 569 — Cited for the proposition that the Chief Executive may deport aliens whose continued presence is injurious to the public interest even in the absence of express law.
• In re McCulloch Dick, 38 Phil. 41 — Cited for the rule that every alien forfeits the right to asylum when his conduct or mode of life renders his presence inimical to the public interests, and for the Chief Executive's role as sole judge of the facts.
• Tiu Chun Hai and Go Tam vs. Commissioner of Immigration and the Director of NBI, 104 Phil. 949, 956 — Cited for the rule that the right of a country to expel or deport aliens because their continued presence is detrimental to public welfare is absolute and unqualified.
• Santos vs. Commissioner of Immigration, L-25694, November 29, 1976, 74 SCRA 96 — Cited in noting that under section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution probable cause may be determined by the judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law.
• Po Siok Pin vs. Vivo, L-24792, February 14, 1975, 62 SCRA 363, 368 — Cited for section 37's specification of thirteen classes of aliens who may be deported.
• Martin vs. Mott, 12 Wheat., 19, 31 — Cited in In re McCulloch Dick for the rule that the Chief Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of facts warranting deportation.
• Lewis vs. Frick, 233 U.S. 291, 58 L. Ed. 967; U.S. ex. Mastoras vs. McCandless, 61 F. 2nd 366; Tama Miyake vs. U.S., 257 F. 732 — Cited for the rule that conviction of a crime is not necessary to warrant deportation.

• Section 69, Revised Administrative Code — Provides that a subject of a foreign power residing in the Philippines shall not be deported, expelled, or excluded except upon prior investigation by the Governor-General or his authorized agent; the person concerned must be informed of the charges and allowed not less than three days to prepare his defense, with the right to be heard by himself or counsel, to produce witnesses, and to cross-examine opposing witnesses. Applied to support the President's power to order deportation after due investigation.
• Section 37, Immigration Law — Provides that certain aliens may be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or any other officer designated by him and deported upon the Commissioner's warrant after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation; it specifies thirteen classes of deportable aliens. The Court held that this enumeration does not limit the President's separate power under section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code.
• Section 37(3), Immigration Law — Cited by the trial court as requiring conviction and sentence to imprisonment for a term of one year or more for a crime involving moral turpitude before deportation. The Court held that a conviction is not a prerequisite for deportation of an undesirable alien under the President's power.
• Article 168, Revised Penal Code — Illegal possession of forged dollar checks; the offense imputed to Go Tek and pending before the city fiscal. The Court held that conviction under this article was not required before the Board could investigate.
• Executive Order No. 398 (1951) — Paragraph 1(a) authorizes the Deportation Board, motu proprio or upon complaint of any person, to conduct investigations under section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code to determine whether a subject of a foreign power is an undesirable alien and thereafter to recommend deportation to the President. The order does not specify grounds for deportation; its warrant-of-arrest provision was held unconstitutional in Qua Chee Gan under the 1935 Constitution.
• Executive Order No. 455 dated June 25, 1951, 47 O.G. 28M — Provides the composition of the Deportation Board: the Undersecretary of Justice as chairman, the Solicitor General, and a representative of the Secretary of National Defense. Applied to identify the Board as an executive agency.
• Section 1(3), Article III, 1935 Constitution — Requires warrants to issue upon probable cause to be determined by the judge after examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Cited in Qua Chee Gan as the basis for invalidating the warrant-of-arrest provision of Executive Order No. 398.
• Section 3, Article IV, 1973 Constitution — Provides that probable cause may be determined by the judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. Cited to note the change from the 1935 Constitution.
• Republic Act No. 503 — Economic sabotage as a ground for deportation; in Qua Chee Gan the aliens were charged with economic sabotage, making that case inapplicable to Go Tek.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Concepcion Jr., and Santos, JJ., concurred. Antonio, J., concurred in a separate opinion, emphasizing that the law grants the Chief Executive full discretion to determine whether an alien's residence is so undesirable as to affect or injure the security, welfare, or interest of the State, and that an executive order for deportation is not dependent on a prior judicial conviction in a criminal case.