Lao Gi Vs CA

Lao Gi vs CA Facts: In 1958, Filomeno Chia Jr.
(Sia Peng Hui) was declared a Filipino citizen when the Secretary of Justice rendered Opinion no. 191, Series of 1958 as it appears that his father, Filomeno Chia Sr. (Lao Gi) is a Filipino citizen. In 1980, Minister of Justice rendered Opinion no. 147, Series of 1980, cancelling and setting aside the citizenship of Chia Sr. on the ground that his citizenship was founded on fraud and misrepresentation. Chia Sr. filed a motion for reconsideration and was denied in 1981. CID charged a case for deportation for Chia Sr., his wife and children which was amended alleging that respondents refused to register as aliens upon entry and continued to register as citizens. Another amended charge/appeal was filed against Manuel Chia for acting undesirably. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that CID has no authority to reopen a matter long decided by Opinion no. 191, series of 1958 which was opposed by private prosecutor and CID's special prosecutor on the ground that citizenship may be threshed out as occasion may demand and that due process was accorded to respondents. CID denied motion to dismoss and the motio for reconsideration. Respondents filed for certiorari in 1982 and SC en banc dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Manuel was charged by falsification of public documents by executing a Deed of Absolute Sale and was acquitted on the ground that Opinion no. 191, Series of 1958, may be equated a res judicata and its revocation through Opinion no. 147, Series of 1980 cannot be considered just, fair and responsible. Another motion for reconsideration was dismissed by SC. Before the hearing of the deportation case, Commissioner Nituda gave respondents 3 days to register as aliens to move for reconsideration and oppose their arrest. Respondents filed for reconsideration and opposition but was denied by Nituda who directed them to register as aliens within 2 days. Hearing for the deportation was set and on the same day, respondents filed for certiorari and prohibition in the CFI, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued. CFI dismissed the petition for lack of merit and want of jurisdiction. Respondents appeal to CA and was dismissed, including their motion for reconsideration. Thus this case. Issue: Whether or not due process was accorded to petitioners. Ruling: Section 37 of the Immigration Act provides that arrest and deportation of aliens may be done after a determination of the Board of Commissioners that a ground for deportation exists. After the charges are filed, respondents should be notified of the grounds and a hearing should be conducted and it is only after a hearing has been conducted may the alien be deported and the Opinions rendered will bear weight in the determination of their citizenship. Nituda can only direct or order respondents to register as aliens once there is a positive finding that the respondents are aliens. "The power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is an act by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is 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." Considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional right of such person to due process should not be denied. Rules of Criminal Procedure are to be used. Before a charge should be filed in the CID, a preliminary investigation should be conducted to determine if there is sufficient cause for the respondent to be charged of deportation. SC does not find the private
prosecutor a participant with legal standing, should there be establishment of damages arising from the deportation charge against the alien, this can only be acted upon in ordinary courts. [spell, deportation charges are exclusively for CID and those with jurisdiction, between the state and the alien]. Petition granted and CID is to continue hearing the case and determine if respondents should be deported.

Lao Gi Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lao Gi Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lao Gi Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lao Gi vs CA Facts: In 1958, Filomeno Chia Jr.

You might also like