Secretary of Justice vs. Koruga

Section 37(a)(4) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, which authorizes deportation of any alien "convicted and sentenced for a violation of the law governing prohibited drugs," applies to convictions under both Philippine and foreign prohibited drugs laws, and the exclusive authority of the Board of Commissioners over deportation proceedings does not preclude judicial review by the Court of Appeals via certiorari for grave abuse of discretion.

Respondent Christopher Koruga is an American national who had been found guilty of Violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in the State of Washington, United States of America, for attempted possession of cocaine sometime in 1983. He subsequently entered the Philippines and resided at the Marbella Condominium II on Roxas Boulevard, Malate, Manila. The Bureau of Immigration (BI), through its Board of Commissioners (BOC), possesses exclusive authority and jurisdiction over deportation proceedings against aliens under the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 (Commonwealth Act No. 613), as amended. At the time of the BOC's judgment in February 2002, the governing Philippine drugs law was Republic Act No. 6425, the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," which was later repealed by Republic Act No. 9165 in June 2002.

Sometime in August 2001, then BI Commissioner Andrea Domingo received an anonymous letter requesting the deportation of respondent Christopher Koruga, an American national, as an undesirable alien for having been found guilty of Violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in the State of Washington, United States of America, for attempted possession of cocaine sometime in 1983. On the basis of a Summary of Information, the Commissioner issued Mission Order No. ADD-01-162 on September 13, 2001, directing Police Superintendent Lino G. Caligasan, Chief of the Intelligence Mission, and any available BI Special Operations Team Member to conduct verification and validation of respondent's admission status and activities and to effect his immediate arrest if found to have violated the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended.

On September 17, 2001, respondent was arrested by intelligence operatives at his residence at the Marbella Condominium II on Roxas Boulevard, Malate, Manila, pursuant to the mission order. He was charged before the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) for violation of Section 37(a)(4) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, the charge sheet alleging that respondent had been convicted and/or sentenced for a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in connection with his being a drug trafficker and/or courier of prohibited drugs in the State of Washington, thus making him an undesirable alien. On September 28, 2001, after filing a Petition for Bail and Supplemental Petition for Bail, respondent was granted bail and provisionally released from BI custody.

Following the submission of respondent's Memorandum and the BI Special Prosecutor's Memorandum, the BOC rendered a Judgment on February 11, 2002 ordering respondent's deportation under Section 37(a)(4) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 26, 2002, but it was denied by the BOC in a Resolution dated March 19, 2002. Unaware that the BOC had already denied his motion, respondent filed on April 2, 2002 a Manifestation and Notice of Appeal Ex Abundanti Cautelam with the Office of the President, which referred the appeal to the DOJ. On April 1, 2003, then DOJ Secretary Simeon A. Datumanong rendered a Resolution dismissing the appeal. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 15, 2003, which he subsequently withdrew on April 23, 2003.

Respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals on April 24, 2003, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 76578, seeking to set aside the DOJ Secretary's Resolution and the BOC's Judgment. The CA rendered its Decision on September 14, 2004, setting aside both the DOJ Resolution and the BOC Judgment and dismissing the deportation case. The CA found no valid ground for deportation, reasoning that the U.S. court had dismissed the case against respondent, that petitioners failed to present documents supporting allegations of a plea bargain or deferred sentence, and that Section 37(a)(4) referred only to Philippine drugs law, not foreign drugs law. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated November 24, 2004.

• Exclusive Authority of the BI: Petitioners contended that the BI has exclusive authority in deportation proceedings and that no other tribunal is at liberty to reexamine or controvert the sufficiency of the evidence presented therein.
• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners argued that there was no grave abuse of discretion when they sought respondent's deportation, since he was convicted by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington for attempted Violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act and underwent probation in lieu of the imposition of sentence.
• Dismissal Was Not an Acquittal: Petitioners maintained that the dismissal of the charge against respondent was only with respect to penalties and liabilities, obtained after fulfilling the conditions for his probation, and was not an acquittal from the criminal case charged against him.
• Admission of Guilt as Basis for Deportation: Petitioners asserted that there was a valid basis to declare respondent's undesirability and effect his deportation since respondent had admitted guilt of his involvement in a drug-related case.

• Persecution: Respondent submitted that the proceedings against him reek of persecution.
• No Error of Law by the CA: Respondent argued that the CA did not commit any error of law and that all arguments raised in the petition were mere rehashes of arguments raised before and ruled upon by the CA.
• No Ground for Deportation: Respondent contended that, even assuming Section 37(a)(4) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 does not apply, there is no reason, whether compelling or slight, to deport him.

• Judicial Review: Whether the exclusive authority of the Board of Commissioners over deportation proceedings bars judicial review by the courts.
• Ground for Deportation: Whether there is a valid and legal ground for the deportation of respondent under Section 37(a)(4) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended.

• Judicial Review: No. The BOC's exclusive authority over deportation proceedings does not bar judicial review; the Court of Appeals may look into whether the BOC acted with grave abuse of discretion pursuant to Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
• Ground for Deportation: Yes. Section 37(a)(4) applies to convictions under all prohibited drugs laws, whether local or foreign, and respondent's guilty plea to attempted possession of cocaine under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act of the State of Washington constituted a conviction under a prohibited drugs law warranting deportation.

• Judicial Review: While the BI has exclusive authority and jurisdiction to hear cases against alleged aliens, and the BOC has jurisdiction over deportation proceedings, Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution vests the power of judicial review in the Supreme Court and lower courts such as the CA. Although courts cannot directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the executive branch, they may examine whether such delegated judgment was made with grave abuse of discretion — when the act is contrary to the Constitution, the law, or jurisprudence, or when executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily. The Court cited Domingo vs. Scheer, where a summary deportation order was set aside for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion in violation of the alien's rights to due process, and House of Sara Lee vs. Rey, which held that the Court will not uphold erroneous conclusions contrary to evidence. When acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency are involved, a petition for certiorari or prohibition may be filed in the CA as provided by law or the Rules of Court. Respondent's filing of a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA to assail the deportation order on the ground of grave abuse of discretion was therefore proper.

• Ground for Deportation: The settled rule is that the entry or stay of aliens in the Philippines is merely a privilege, not a right, and may be revoked; aliens may be deported only on grounds provided by the Constitution, the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, and administrative issuances. Respondent was charged under Section 37(a)(4), which authorizes deportation of "any alien who is convicted and sentenced for a violation of the law governing prohibited drugs." Respondent argued that the definite article "the" preceding "law governing prohibited drugs" limited the provision to Philippine drugs law. The Court rejected this, applying the principle that a literal interpretation should be rejected if it leads to unjust or absurd results. Restricting Section 37(a)(4) to Philippine drugs law would create a double standard whereby aliens convicted of foreign drugs laws could freely enter the country to the detriment of public health and safety, while only those convicted under Philippine drugs law would be deported — an absurd situation not envisioned by the law's framers. The Court applied the maxim Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos: since Section 37(a)(4) makes no distinction between foreign and Philippine prohibited drugs laws, neither should the Court. There was no dispute that respondent was convicted of Violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in the State of Washington for attempted possession of cocaine, as shown by the Order Deferring Imposition of Sentence (Probation). Although he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense and was not imprisoned but underwent a one-year probation, he was nonetheless convicted under a prohibited drugs law. The BOC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering his deportation, as respondent's guilty plea was a clear acknowledgment of involvement in a drug-related offense, and the Philippine government views all drug-related cases with grave concern.

• Judicial Review of Administrative Quasi-Judicial Acts — While administrative agencies such as the BOC have exclusive authority over matters within their jurisdiction, their acts are subject to judicial review for grave abuse of discretion. The Constitution vests judicial power in the courts, including the duty to determine whether any branch or instrumentality of government has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. A petition for certiorari or prohibition may be filed in the CA when acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency are involved, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

• Statutory Construction — Rejection of Literal Interpretation Leading to Absurd Results — A literal interpretation of a statute is to be rejected if it would operate unjustly, lead to absurd results, or contract the evident meaning of the statute taken as a whole. Statutes should receive a sensible construction that gives effect to legislative intention and avoids unjust or absurd conclusions. Courts must construe statutes so as to avoid injustice or absurdity.

• Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos — Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Since Section 37(a)(4) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 makes no distinction between foreign and Philippine prohibited drugs laws, the provision applies to convictions under all prohibited drugs laws, whether local or foreign.

• Entry of Aliens as a Matter of Privilege — The entry or stay of aliens in the Philippines is merely a privilege and a matter of grace, not absolute or permanent, and may be revoked. Aliens may be expelled or deported only on grounds and in the manner provided by the Constitution, the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, and administrative issuances. Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude aliens upon such grounds as it deems proper for self-preservation or public interest. The power to deport is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose continued presence is injurious to the public good and domestic tranquility.

• "Were the Court to follow the letter of Section 37(a)(4) and make it applicable only to convictions under the Philippine prohibited drugs law, the Court will in effect be paving the way to an absurd situation whereby aliens convicted of foreign prohibited drugs laws may be allowed to enter the country to the detriment of the public health and safety of its citizens." — This passage articulates the core ratio decidendi for rejecting a literal interpretation of Section 37(a)(4) and extending its application to foreign drugs law convictions.

• "Moreover, since Section 37(a)(4) makes no distinction between a foreign prohibited drugs law and the Philippine prohibited drugs law, neither should this Court. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos." — This states the canonical formulation of the maxim applied to hold that the deportation provision covers all prohibited drugs laws, local or foreign.

• "While he may have pleaded guilty to a lesser offense, and was not imprisoned but applied for and underwent a one-year probation, still, there is no escaping the fact that he was convicted under a prohibited drugs law, even though it may simply be called a 'misdemeanor drug offense.'" — This establishes that a guilty plea to a lesser offense with probation in lieu of imprisonment still constitutes a conviction under a prohibited drugs law for purposes of deportation.

• Domingo vs. Scheer, 466 Phil. 235 (2004) — Controlling precedent on judicial review of deportation orders. The Court set aside a summary deportation order issued with grave abuse of discretion in violation of the alien's constitutional and statutory rights to due process, establishing that BOC orders are subject to judicial review.

• House of Sara Lee vs. Rey, G.R. No. 149013, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 419 — Followed. Held that while factual findings of administrative agencies are generally not subject to review, the Court will not uphold erroneous conclusions contrary to evidence, as the agency would be guilty of grave abuse of discretion.

• Board of Commissioners (CID) vs. De la Rosa, G.R. Nos. 95122-23, May 31, 1991, 197 SCRA 853 — Cited for the proposition that the BI has exclusive authority and jurisdiction over cases against aliens, and that an alien who has physically gained entry but whose entry is later found unlawful can be excluded anytime.

• In re McCulloch Dick, 38 Phil. 41 (1918) — Cited for the principle that the power to deport aliens is an act of State, done by or under the authority of the sovereign power.

• Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco, 16 Phil. 534 (1910) — Cited for the principle that deportation is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose continued presence is injurious to the public good and domestic tranquility.

• Section 37(a)(4), Commonwealth Act No. 613 (Philippine Immigration Act of 1940), as amended — Authorizes the arrest and deportation of "[a]ny alien who is convicted and sentenced for a violation of the law governing prohibited drugs." The Court construed this provision to apply to convictions under both Philippine and foreign prohibited drugs laws, rejecting a narrow interpretation limited to domestic drugs law. Respondent was charged and ordered deported under this provision.

• Article VIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution — Vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and lower courts, including the duty to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. Applied to uphold the CA's jurisdiction to review the BOC's deportation order via certiorari.

• Rule 65, Section 4, Rules of Court — Provides that when acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency are involved, a petition for certiorari or prohibition may be filed in the CA. Applied to confirm the propriety of respondent's petition before the CA.

• Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) — The Philippine prohibited drugs law in force at the time of the BOC's judgment in February 2002, later repealed by Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) in June 2002. Referenced as the then-current Philippine drugs law, but the Court held Section 37(a)(4) was not limited to it.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, and Diosdado M. Peralta concurred. No separate concurring opinions were written.