Harvey vs. Santiago

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF: ANDREW HARVEY, JOHN SHERMAN and ADRIAAN VAN DEL ELSHOUT vs. HONORABLE COMMISSIONER MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION

G.R. No. 82544 June 28, 1988

The Immigration Law empowers the Commissioner of Immigration to issue warrants for the arrest of overstaying aliens is constitutional. The arrest is a stop preliminary to the deportation of the aliens who had violated the condition of their stay in this country.

Petitioners Andrew Harvey and John Sherman, are both American, while Adriaan Van Elshout is a Dutch citizen.

Petitioners were among the twenty-two (22) suspected alien pedophiles who were apprehended after three months of close surveillance by CID agents. Two (2) days after apprehension seventeen (17) of the twenty-two (22) arrested aliens opted for self-deportation 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 twenty-two (22), only the three petitioners have chosen to face deportation.

Warrants of Arrest were issued by respondent against petitioners for violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrant of arrest is valid.

HELD: Yes, the warrant of arrest is valid. The Supreme Court decided in the case of Vivo vs. Montesa that "the issuance of warrants of arrest by the Commissioner of Immigration, solely for purposes of investigation and before a final order of deportation is issued, conflicts with paragraph 3, Section I of Article III of the Constitution" (referring to the 1935 Constitution) is not inviolable herein. Respondent Commissioner's Warrant of Arrest issued did not order petitioners to appear and show cause why they should not be deported. They were issued specifically "for violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code." Before that, deportation proceedings had been commenced against them as undesirable aliens and the arrest was a step preliminary to their possible deportation.

Also, the requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a Judge, does not extend to deportation proceedings."  There need be no "truncated" recourse to both judicial and administrative warrants in a single deportation proceeding. The foregoing does not deviate from the ruling in Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board reiterated in Vivo vs. Montesa, that "under the express terms of our Constitution (the 1935 Constitution), it is therefore even doubtful whether the arrest of an individual may be ordered by any authority other than a judge if the purpose is merely to determine the existence of a probable cause, leading to an administrative investigation." For, as heretofore stated, probable cause had already been shown to exist before the warrants of arrest were issued.