You are on page 1of 2

137 LAO GI vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
Date: 29 December 1989 GR Number: 81798 Ponente:
Gancayco, J.
Article 3 Section 1 Your name: Hazel Dee
Petitioners: Respondents: Court of Appeals
Lao Gi alias Filomeno Chia, Sr.
Doctrine:
1. By virtue of Section 37(a) (1) of the Immigration Act, upon the warrant of the Commissioner of
Immigration or any other designated officer for the purpose can deport aliens upon the
determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of a ground for deportation.
Facts:
1.
Secretary of Justice rendered Opinion No. 191, series of 1958 which made petitioner a Filipino
citizen. This was later revoked when Opinion No. 147, series of 1980 by the Minister of Justice
was rendered finding out that such citizenship was grounded on fraud and misrepresentation.
A charge was filed by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) against petitioner,
his wife and children.
This charge was amended as they refuse to register as aliens.
The CID set the hearing for the deportation case against the petitioners and Acting
Commissioner Victor Nictuda gave them 3 days to move for reconsideration of the order
directing them to register as aliens and to oppose the motion for their arrest. But petitioners
prayed for injunctive relief which was denied by the CFI of Manila. An appeal was interposed
to the CA but it was also dismissed.
This petition for certiorari seeks to set aside the order of the CID and directing it to proceed
with the reception of the evidence in support of the charges against the petitioners.
Issue/s: Ruling:
1. W/N the CID have the authority and jurisdiction to hear and determine the 1. Yes
deportation case against petitioner and also the question of their citizenship
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:
2. By virtue of Section 37(a) (1) of the Immigration Act, upon the warrant of the Commissioner of
Immigration or any other designated officer for the purpose can deport aliens upon the
determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of a ground for deportation.
3. After appropriate charges are filed in the CID, the specific grounds of which he should be duly
informed of, a hearing should be conducted, it is only after such a hearing by the CID that the
alien may be ordered deported.
4. The power to deport an alien is an act of the State; a police measure against undesirable aliens
whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and domestic tranquility
of the people.
5. BUT, a person under a deportation proceeding should not be denied of his constitutional right to
due process.
6. Petition GRANTED. CID is directed to continue hearing the deportation case, to resolve their
issue on citizenship.

OTHER NOTE:
Fact that private prosecutor is assisting in the prosecution of the case by the special prosecutor of the
CID. -> Court
sees no reason why a private prosecutor should be allowed to participate in a deportation case. Such
party only has
recourse in the ordinary courts. Deportation of an alien is the sole concern of the State, oppression and
harassment
cannot be discounted when there is such outside intervention.

You might also like