It appearing that the Governor-General has power to deport aliens as an act of state; and that he has

followed the procedure marked out for the exercise of that power in section 69 of the Administrative Code;
and that the petitioner in the habeas corpus proceedings referred to in the opinion is a subject of a foreign
power; this court has no power to interfere with or to control the action of the Governor-General in ordering
the deportation of the petitioner.
The discretionary power to deport "undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the Philippine Islands is
a menace to the peace and safety of the community," as an act of state, having been conferred upon the
Governor-General, to be exercised by him upon his own opinion as to whether the facts disclosed by an
investigation had in accord with section 69 of the Administrative Code justify or necessitate deportation in a
particular case, he is the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts, and no other tribunal is at
liberty to reexamine or controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted.
Deportations of aliens by the Governor-General, as an act of state, upon prior investigation conducted in the
manner and form prescribed in section 69 of the Administrative Code may properly be regarded as made
"under the combined powers of the Governor-General and the Philippine Legislature.
Even if the legislative grant to the Governor-General of power to deport aliens upon prior investigation,
conducted in the manner and form prescribed in section 69 of the Administrative Code, should be held to be
ineffective as an unlimited and unrestricted grant of the power of the Philippine Government to deport aliens
as an act of state; it should, at least, be held to; be a sufficient grant of a regulated power to deport aliens,
upon grounds such as those upon which the order to deport petitioner in the instant case is based; that is to
say, when it is found that the "person whose deportation is contemplated" is "an undesirable alien, whose
continued presence in the Philippine Islands is a menace to the safety and peace of the community."
cralaw virtua1aw

Let it be noted that we are not discussing, at this time, the political wisdom of conferring powers to deport
on the Chief Executive. It is not within the province of the courts to pass upon the wisdom or unwisdom of
legislative enactments. The question is not whether Congress and the Philippine Legislature should have
delegated authority of this kind, but whether such authority could be delegated under the laws and the
Constitution of the United States. No reasons, other than those of mere political expediency, have been
suggested for denying the power of the Legislature to confer such authority: and yet as was said by the
Supreme Court of the United States in the Tiaco v. Forbes case (supra), "The very ground of the power in
the necessities of the public welfare shows that it may have to be exercised in a summary way through
executive officers."
cralaw vi rtua 1aw lib rary

The truth is, of course, that the instances in which aliens may be deported as an act of state must be
determined upon recognized principles of international law; and that the Legislature, when it conferred a
regulated power on the Governor-General to deport aliens, upon prior investigation, in all instances in which
the Government of the Philippines may deport aliens as an act of state, did not confer an arbitrary power to
deport any alien upon a mere "whim" as is suggested, but only such aliens as may properly and lawfully be
deported under recognized rules of international law.