Go Tian Chai v.

Commissioner of Immigration
GR No. L-20645, 22 September 1966
Facts
Go Tian Chai (Go) is a Chinese national, admitted as a temporary visitor into
the Philippines on April 23, 1947. Having failed to leave upon expiration of
his visa, notwithstanding the granted extensions, he was arrested March 1,
1950. During the deportation proceedings, he was temporarily released
under bail.
Later, the Board of Commissioners (BoC) unanimously declared him to have
unlawfully overstayed in the Philippines and ordered his deportation on the
first available flight. The Warrant for deportation was issued on March 8,
1951, but the actual arrest and custody by the immigration authorities was
11 years later, on Oct 8, 1962. During his detention and pending his
deportation to Taiwan, Go filed a petition for habeas corpus. In his petition,
he alleged (1) the representations made by his counsel in admission and
repatriation to Taiwan were futile, and (2) it was unlikely that the Phil. Govt
would be able to deport him in the near future. So he prayed for temporary
liberty on bail, with the case of Borovsky v. Commissioner as basis, which
said that A foreign national, not an enemy and no criminal charges were
filed against or judicially issues, was also entitled to protection against
deprivation of liberty without due process of law
The lower court ruled in favor of Go. It took notice of the fact that there
were indeed negotiations between the Chinese and the Philippine
Governments, and recognizes that these take time. However in this case, the
petition of habeas corpus has been filed only less than 2 months from Gos
arrest and detention. And deportation can only be effect when the matters
are final. It cannot be said that the detention was for an unreasonable length
of time. On the other hand, negotiations between the Phil and Taiwanese
governments may drag on for a long time, it would be unjust to detain the
petitioner for that length of time. The Court in the case of Borovsky v.
Commissioner said the 6 months is considered a reasonable length of time
as the limit, after which a writ of habeas may be ordered, and release on bail
in an amount the court may deem proper. Hence the lower court ordered
release under bail, after such lapse of 6 months.
On appeal, Commissioner contends that the lower court erred in the
provided six month limit, applying Borovsky, because (1) it compels the Phil.
Govt to finalize negotiations to 6 months, (2) unlike Borovsky, Go is NOT a
stateless individual, but a national who can be deported to Taiwan and (3)
The court has no authority to interfere.

Issue (s)
(1) W/N Go may be released on bail during the pendency of the
negotiations
(2) W/N the 6 month period may be applied to this case.
(3) W/N Go had an inherent right to bail.
(4) W/N the Courts can interfere with Immigration authority?
Ruling
(1) No. The Court ruled in many previous cases, a Chinese national declared
to be overstaying may be subject to deportation pending negotiations. It has
been ruled that there is nothing unjust in the detention of the overstaying
Chinese nationals, because all is in accordance of Philippine Laws. Also, as in
Tan Seng Pao v. Commissioner, the petitioner is NOT a stateless aliens
hence has a KNOWN country, to which he may be deported to.
If there be any delay, it is not due to the fault or negligence of the
Government or its officers. It may be a result from diplomatic negotiations
which can have variable results, in any case, cannot be taken against the
Government and be a ground for declaring the order of deportation functus
oficio. Otherwise, orders of deportation can easily be rendered ineffective by
aliens frustrating all diplomatic efforts in negotiation.
(2) No. The 6 month period may not be applied since the case of Borovsky is
separate and distinct, Go being an alien with a known state, therefore, the
Supreme Court ruled against the lower courts ruling in Gos favor.
(3) No. Aliens in deportation proceedings, as a rule, have no inherent right
to bail and that any release can only be granted expressly by law (Bengzon
v. Ocampo). In Sec 37 (9) (e) of the Phil Imm Act, it provides that Any
alien...may be released under bond and other such conditions as may be
imposed by the Commissioner. Note that it is only the Commissioner who
had the power and discretion to grant bail. The word may indicates bail is
merely permissive and discretionary upon the Commissioner.
(4) No. The determination of the aliens propriety, is subject to the law and
procedure under the Immigration Act as to bail and release, and falls
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and not the courts of
justice. Simply because courts do not administer immigration laws. (The only
thing the courts can check is the proper administration and execution of
Philippine immigration laws, and EXCLUDES the discretion of the
Commissioners.) Petition for habeas corpus dismissed.
Terry Lyn Magno v. Domingo
GR No. 101148, 5 August 1992

Facts
Background of the case not in the SCRA; Trivia: In 1986, Spouses Gary and
Terry Magno were arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for fraudulent practice of
medicine. After release under bail, they immediately fled back to the
Philippines. In 1991, Philippine immigration officials arrested Terry Lyn
Magno and eventually deported her back to the United States to stand trial
where she faced 17 counts of fraud and one of conspiracy in connection with
the 1986 charges of practicing psychic surgery in Arizona.
Facts in the SCRA: Detained in custody with the Commission of Immigration
and Deportation (CID), Terry Lyn Magno files a petition for habeas corpus.
Her contentions:
1.
Her detention was illegal because there was no warrant,
2.
There was no formal charge against her at that time (yet),
3.
She had a permanent resident status.
4.
She was asking the Supreme Court to:
a. divest the CID of jurisdiction,
b. declare her a citizen by virtue of her marriage to a Filipino
She applied for bail at the CA for two reasons (1) humanitarian reasons
because she was a mother of a 7 and 2 year old and (2) fear of deportation
without due process. She was granted on the first reason only later by the
Supreme Court.
Commissioners Contention:
1.
Under Sec 29 (a)(17), it excludes aliens who are not properly
documented for admission
2.
Under Sec 37 (a) such aliens shall be arrested with proper warrant on
the ground of violation of any limitation or condition which he was
admitted as a non-immigrant
3.
Commissioner has also revoked her permanent resident status
because of representations of US Consul General Beardsley that Magnos
passport has been revoked being a fugitive of justice.
Issue(s)
1.
W/N The arrest was valid
2.
W/N the Supreme Court can determine citizenship for her
Ruling
1.
Yes. The arrest was valid for two reasons.
a. The CA ruled and the SC affirmed the validity of the arrest because it
was cured by the subsequent issuance of the warrant. Based on the

b.
c.

2.
a.
b.

Summary Deportation Order, her detention has become lawful. It was

well within the Commissioners power to issue a Warrant of
Arrest/Deportation (see provisions above)
It is also notable that the filing for bail waives the right to question
the legality of the arrest.
Decisions in a deportation proceeding is separate and distinct from
ordinary cases where arrest is involved. This is because the petitioners
detention is not intended to be prolonged or permanent as a penalty,
but rather as exclusion or departure from this country. This will depend
if the CID will declare her to be an undesirable alien.
No. The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction for two reasons:
The SC is not a trier of facts, and
Factual issues that determine citizenship must be resolved and settled
first in the proper forum. Hence it is well within the jurisdiction of the
BID.

Overall, her petition for habeas corpus is moot and academic because the
arrest was valid (habeas corpus will only prosper if the detention was
illegal).