You are on page 1of 5

Harvey vs Defensor Santiago

GR L-82544
Petitioners: Andrew Harvey, John Sherman, and Adriaan Van Del Elshout
Respondent: Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Commission on Immigration and Deportation
June 28, 1988
Summary by First Year Leon

Facts
o
o

Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by

Harvey, Sherman, and van del Elshout, old foreigners.


The Arrest

Petitioners were apprehended by agents of the Commission on Immigration


and Deportation (CID)

They are being charged with pedophilia, and are facing deportation

When they were apprehended, rolls of photos an negatives of child


prostitutes engaged in the sexual act were seized. They were also found in
the company of several young boys.
The Warrant

Warrants were issued by respondent Defensor-Santiago (Commissioner of


CID) for violation of the Immigration act, and the Revised Administrative
Code
The Issues : Petitioners questioned the validity on the ff. grounds

Commissioner has no authority under Immigration Act or Admin Code to


arrest and detain petitioners PENDING DETERMINATION of probable cause

Respondent violated Sec 2 of the Bill of Rights, since CID agents had no
valid warrants of arrest, search and seizure

Confidential Information made to CID agents that petitioners were pedos is


not a valid ground for arrest unless they were caught in the act.

They also allege that it is not a crime to be a pedo (not punishable by any
Phil law)
PETITION DENIED, RESPONDENT ACTS UPHELD

Held
Ratio
o Rules of Crim Procedure arrest with warrant may be done

Person has committed/actually committing an offense in his presence

When an offense has in fact been committed and he has personal


knowledge of the facts
o In this case, probable cause was determined after close surveillance for 3 months.
o This probable cause justified the arrest and the [seizure of the evidence without
warrant]

These articles were incident to a lawful arrest (i.e, andun lang sila when the
arrest was made) and thus are admissible as evidence
o Even if we assume that the arrest was invalid (remember, this is a petition for
habeas corpus)

Naging moot and academic na ang habeas corpus, because they were
already charged with violation of a law (immigration act and admin code)

Habeas corpus is not granted when the confinement becomes legal, even if
it was originally illegal
o That the petitioners were not caught in the act does not make their arrest
illegal.

They were caught with young boys in their respective rooms, in one case,
they were naked.

CID agents had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners were


committing pedophilia

Even if not punishable under RPC, it is behavior offensive to public


morals, and violative of the State Policy protecting our youth. (Art
2, Sec 13, Consti)
o Please see Ratio for why the Immigration Act section empowering Miriam as
Commish of the CID to issue warrants leading to arrest and deportation is not
unconstitutional essentially, deportation is not a punishment and the proceedings
are administrative and not criminal.

More complete discussion in ratio.

Main Case Digest by Fourth Year Leon

FACTS
Nature of the Case: Petition for Habeas Corpus
Petitioners in this case are three old foreigners
o Andrew Harvey, American, 52
o John Sherman, American, 72
o Adriaan Van Den Elshout, Dutch, 58.
This case stems from the apprehension of these three from their respective residences at
Pagsanjan, Laguna by agents of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) by
virtue of Mission orders issued by Miriam.
o The Three are currently detained at the CID Detention Center.
There were actually originally 22 pedophiles
o 17 left the country
o One was released for lack of evidence
o Another was charged not for being a pedophile, but for working without a valid
working visa.
o So out of the original 22, only these three have chosen to face deportation.
During the apprehension, the team found rolls of photo negatives, and actual photos of
suspected child prostitutes in provocative poses, as well as photos of boys and girls having
sex.
o There were also posters and other literature advertising these child prostitutes.
According to the Operation Reports, the Three Pedos were found in compromising positions
o Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his room.
o Harvey was found with two young boys.
o Van Den Elshout was found with two children, aged 14 and 16, who had been
living-in with him for quite some time.
On 4 March 1988, Deportation Proceedings were instituted against the three for being
Undesirable Aliens under Sec. 69 of the Revised Administrative Code.
o This office charges the [three pedophiles] as undesirable aliens, in that: they,
being pedophiles, are inimical to public morals, public health[,] and public safety as
provided in Section 69 of the Revised Admin Code.
On 7 March, Warrants of Arrest were issued against the Three Pedos, for violation of the
Immigration Act and Sec. 69 of the Revised Admin Code.
On 14 March, The Three filed an Urgent Petition for Release Under Bond alleging that their
health was being seriously affected by their continuous detention.
o Miriam ordered CID doctor to examine petitioners.
o CID Doctor said they were healthy.
On 22 March, Petitioners filed a Petition for Bail Miriam denied, considering that they were
healthy.
o To avoid congestion, Miriam ordered that the three be transferred to Fort Bonifacio,
but the transfer was deferred pending trial.
On 4 April, Harvey stated that he had finally agreed to a self-deportation, and prayed that
he be provisionally released for at least 15 days and placed under the custody of Atty.
Asinas, before he departed the country.
o The Board of Special Inquiry, on April 7, allowed a provisional release of five days
under certain conditions
However, this case was already filed. Labo.
ISSUES

Anyway, the Pedos question the validity of their detention on the following
grounds:
o There is no Provision in the Phil. Immigration act, nor under Sec. 69 of the RAC,
which clothes Miriam, as Commissioner of the CID, with any authority to arrest and
detain petitioners pending determination of the existence of probable cause
leading to an administrative investigation.
o Miriam violated Sec. 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting
unreasonable searches and seizures, since the CID agents were not
clothed with valid warrants of arrest, search and seizure, as required by
the said provision.
o Mere confidential information made to the CID agents and their suspicion of
Petitioners activities that they were pedophiles, along with their association with
other suspected pedophiles, are not valid legal grounds for their arrest and
detention unless they are caught in the act.

They further allege that being a pedophile is not punishable by any


Philippine law, nor is it a crime to be a pedophile.
RATIO
The SC REJECTED the Pedo Arguments and UPHELD Miriams Official Acts
o Yay!
There can be no question that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures
guaranteed by the Consti is available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of a
crime or not.
One of the constitutional requirements of a valid search/arrest warrant is that it must be
based upon probable cause Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the
issuance of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious
man to rely on them and act in pursuance thereof.
o Rules of Crim Pro provide that an arrest without a warrant may be effected by a
peace officer or even a private person, when

A person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit


an offense in his presence; or

When an offense has, in fact, been committed and he has personal


knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
it.

In this case, the arrest of the Three was based on probable cause.
o Determined after close surveillance for three months, during which period their
activities were monitored.
o This existence of probable cause justified the arrest and seizure of the photos and
other stuff without warrant.

These articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest.

They are admissible in evidence.


Now, even assuming arguendo that the arrest of the pedos was not valid at its inception,
the records show that formal deportation charges have been filed against them as
undesirable aliens.
o Warrants for their arrest were issued (see above).
The restraint against their persons, therefore, has become legal.
o The writ of habeas corpus has served its purpose, the process of the law
is being followed.
o Where a persons detention was later made by virtue of a judicial order in relation
to criminal cases subsequently filed against the detainee, his petition for habeas
corpus becomes moot and academic.
o
It is a fundamental rule that a Writ of HC will not be granted when the
confinement is or has become legal, although such confinement was illegal at
the beginning.
That the Three were not caught in the act does not make their arrest illegal.
o They were found with young boys in their respective rooms. Yung iba nga
nakahubad eh.

Under those circumstances, the CID had reasonable grounds to believe that the
three pedos had actually committed pedophilia psychosexual perversion
inveolving children.

Paraphilia (unusual sexual activity) where children are the preferred sexual
object.

While not a crime under the RPC, it is behavior offensive to public morals
and violative of the declared policy of the State to protect the youth

Art. II, Sec. 13 of the Consti.


At any rate, the filing of the Petition to be Released on Bail was a waiver of any irregularity
attending their arrest and estops them from questioning its validity.
The deportation charges instituted by Miriam are in accordance with Sec. 37(a) the Phil.
Immigration Act in relation to Sec. 69 of the RAC, providing that aliens may be arrested
upon the warrant of the Commissioner of the CID, or any other officer designated by him,
and deported upon the warrant of the Commish of the CID (CCID), after a determination of
the Board of Commissioners of the existence of a deportable ground.
o This section is not constitutionally prohibited.
o The specific constraints in the Constitution contemplate prosecutions which are
essentially criminal in nature.
o Deportation proceedings are administrative in character.

Order of deportation is not a punishment.

It is preventive, not a penal process.

It need not be conduced strictly in accordance with ordinary court


proceedings.
The Ruling in Vivo v. Montesa saying that the issuance of warrants by the CCID solely for
purposes of investigation and before a final order of deportation is issued
conflicts with Art. III, Sec. 2 is not invocable herein.
o Miriams Warrant did not order petitioners to appear and show cause why they
should not be deported they were issued specifically for violations of the
Immigration Act and the RAC.
o Before that, deportation proceedings had already commenced against them as
undesirable aliens, thus the arrest was a step preliminary to their possible
deportation.
o

The requirement of probable cause being determined by a judge does not extend to
deportation proceedings.
o In this case, probable cause had already been shown to exist before the warrants
were issued.
o What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien
intended to be arrested and deported, and that a fair hearing be conducted.
Miriams denial of the release on bail was in order.
o In deportation proceedings, the right to bail is not a matter of right but a matter of
discretion on the part of the CCID.
o Sec. 37(e) of the Immigration Act: Any alien under arrest in a deportation
proceeding may be released under bond orother conditions as may be imposed
by the [CCID].

Use of the word may merely permissive.


o Neither the Consti nor the RAC guarantees aliens facing deportation with the right
to bail.

Again, since its not a criminal proceeding, the constitutional guarantee to


bail does not apply.
Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude aliens from its territory upon
such grounds as it may deem proper for its self-preservation or public interest
o The power to deport is an act of State
o It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the country is
injurious to the public good.
o State may protect itself.
Bobo ni First Year Leon.

You might also like