In RE Habeas Corpus of Harvey, et. al. Harvey vs.
Commissioner Defensor
Santiago (GR 82544, 28 June 1988)
Facts: Andrew Harvey, John Sherman, (both Americans), and Adriaa Van Den
Elshout (Dutch) were apprehended on 27 February 1988 from their
respective residences at Pagsanjan, Laguna by agents of the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation (CID) by virtue of Mission Orders issued by
Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago of the CID. They were among the 22
suspected alien pedophiles who were apprehended after 3 months of close
surveillance by CID agents in Pagsanjan, Laguna. 2 days after apprehension,
or on 29 February 1988, 17 of the 22 arrested aliens opted for selfdeportation and have left the country. One was released for lack of evidence;
another was charged not for being a pedophile but for working without a
valid working visa. Thus, of the original 22, only Harvey, et. al. have chosen
to face deportation. Seized during their apprehension were rolls of photo
negatives and photos of the suspected child prostitutes shown in salacious
poses as well as boys and girls engaged in the sex act. There were also
posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes. They are
presently detained at the CID Detention Center. On 4 March 1988,
deportation proceedings were instituted against Harvey, et. al. for being
undesirable aliens under Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code
(Deportation Case 88-13). On 14 March 1988, Harvey, et. al. filed an Urgent
Petition for Release Under Bond alleging that their health was being seriously
affected by their continuous detention. Upon recommendation of the Board
of Commissioners for their provisional release, the Commissioner ordered the
CID doctor to examine Harvey, et. al., who certified that the latter were
healthy. On 22 March 1988, Harvey, et. al. filed a Petition for Bail which,
however, the COmmissioner denied considering the certification by the CID
physician that the accused were healthy. To avoid congestion, the
Commissioner ordered Harvey, et. al.'s transfer to the CID detention cell at
Fort Bonifacio, but the transfer was deferred pending trial due to the
difficulty of transporting then to and from the CID where trial was on-going.
On 4 April 1988, Harvey filed a Manifestation/Motion stating that he had
"finally agreed to a self-deportation" and praying that he be "provisionally
released for at least 15 days and placed under the custody of Atty. Asinas
before he voluntarily departs the country." On 7 April 1988, the Board of
Special Inquiry III allowed provisional release of 5 days only under certain
conditions. However, it appears that on the same date that the
Manifestation/Motion was filed, Harvey and his co-petitioners had already
filed the present petition for a writ of haeas corpus.
Issue: Whether the Philippine Government has the power to deport
foreigners from its territory.
Held: Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude aliens from
its territory upon such grounds as it may deem proper for its selfpreservation or public interest. The power to deport aliens is an act of State,
an act done by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a police
measure against undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country
is found to be injurious to the public good and the domestic tranquility of the
people. Particularly so in this case where the State has expressly committed
itself to defend the right of children to assistance and special protection from
all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development. The Commissioner of Immigration and
Deportation, in instituting deportation proceedings against Harvey, et. al.,
acted in the interests of the State.
MOY YA LIM YAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION
G.R. No. L-21289, October 4 1971, 41 SCRA 292
FACTS: Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines
as a non-immigrant on 8 February 1961. In the interrogation made in
connection with her application for a temporary visitor's visa to enter the
Philippines, she stated that she was a Chinese residing at Kowloon,
Hongkong, and that she desired to take a pleasure trip to the Philippines to
visit her great grand uncle, Lau Ching Ping. She was permitted to come into
the Philippines on 13 March 1961 for a period of one month.
On the date of her arrival, Asher Y. Cheng filed a bond in the amount of
P1,000.00 to undertake, among others, that said Lau Yuen Yeung would
actually depart from the Philippines on or before the expiration of her
authorized period of stay in this country or within the period as in his
discretion the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized representative
might properly allow.
After repeated extensions, Lau Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in the
Philippines up to 13 February 1962. On 25 January 1962, she contracted
marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged
Filipino citizen. Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of
Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest and immediate
deportation, after the expiration of her authorized stay, she brought an
action for injunction. At the hearing which took place one and a half years
after her arrival, it was admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung could not write and
speak either English or Tagalog, except for a few words. She could not name
any Filipino neighbor, with a Filipino name except one, Rosa. She did not
know the names of her brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law. As a result, the
Court of First Instance of Manila denied the prayer for preliminary injunction.
Moya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a Filipino citizen
upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen.
HELD: Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman
marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina
provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under
Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who
is subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her
husband the moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she
does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4.
Whether the alien woman requires to undergo the naturalization
proceedings, Section 15 is a parallel provision to Section 16. Thus, if the
widow of an applicant for naturalization as Filipino, who dies during the
proceedings, is not required to go through a naturalization proceedings, in
order to be considered as a Filipino citizen hereof, it should follow that the
wife of a living Filipino cannot be denied the same privilege.
This is plain common sense and there is absolutely no evidence that the
Legislature intended to treat them differently. As the laws of our country,
both substantive and procedural, stand today, there is no such procedure (a
substitute for naturalization proceeding to enable the alien wife of a
Philippine citizen to have the matter of her own citizenship settled and
established so that she may not have to be called upon to prove it everytime
she has to perform an act or enter into a transaction or business or exercise
a right reserved only to Filipinos), but such is no proof that the citizenship is
not vested as of the date of marriage or the husband's acquisition of
citizenship, as the case may be, for the truth is that the situation obtains
even as to native-born Filipinos. Everytime the citizenship of a person is
material or indispensible in a judicial or administrative case. Whatever the
corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such
citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be
threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. Lau Yuen Yeung,
was declared to have become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her
marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao al as Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino citizen of
25 January 1962.
