Asaali Vs Commissioner (MR)

Asaali vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Resolution of MR)

February 28, 1969
Fernando, J.
FACTS:
SAME FACTS.
In Asaali et al.s motion for reconsideration, dated January 14, 1969, substantially a rehash of the points
previously raised by them, there is an insistence on the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Customs authorities justifying
such seizure on the high seas.
It has been established that the five vessels came from Sandakan, British North Borneo, a foreign port, and
when intercepted, all of them were heading towards Tawi-tawi, a domestic port within the Sulu sea. Laden with foreign
manufactured cigarettes, they did not possess the import license required by Republic Act No. 426, nor did they carry a
permit from the Commissioner of Customs to engage in importation into any port in the Sulu sea. Their course
announced loudly their intention not merely to skirt along the territorial boundary of the Philippines but to come within
our limits and land somewhere in Tawi-tawi towards which their prows were pointed. As a matter of fact, they were
about to cross our aquatic boundary but for the intervention of a customs patrol which, from all appearances, was
more than eager to accomplish its mission.
ISSUES:
1. WON the Bureau of Customs had jurisdiction to institute seizure proceedings and declare forfeiture. YES.
DOCTRINE:
It is unquestioned that all vessels seized are of Philippine registry. The Revised Penal Code leaves
no doubt as to its applicability and enforceability not only within the Philippines, its interior waters and
maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction against those committing offense while on a Philippine
ship. The principle of law that sustains the validity of such a provision equally supplies a firm foundation
for the seizure of the five sailing vessels found thereafter to have violated the applicable provisions of
the Revised Administrative Code.
RATIO:
1.
A state has the right to protect itself and its revenues, a right not limited to its own territory but extending to
the high seas. In the language of Chief Justice Marshall: 'The authority of a nation within its own territory is absolute
and exclusive. The seizure of a vessel within the range of its cannon by a foreign force is an invasion of that territory,
and is a hostile act which it is its duty to repel. But its power to secure itself from injury may certainly be exercised
beyond the limits of its territory. (Church vs. Hubbart)
Section 1141 of the Revised Administrative Code insofar as pertinent provides: "For the due and effective
exercise of the powers conferred by law in the Bureau of Customs, and to the extent requisite therefor, said Bureau
shall have the right of supervision and police authority over all seas within the jurisdiction of the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines and over all coasts, ports, harbors, bays, rivers, and inland waters navigable from the sea.
However, while lending support to Asaalis contention, the section should not be given restrictive significance,
especially if it would negate the power exercised by the Commissioner of Customs in the case of smuggling. If, under
the circumstances disclosed, the government would be rendered powerless and its effort to protect itself from the evils
of smuggling nugatory.
Church vs. Hubbart: The authority of a nation within its own territory is absolute and exclusive. The seizure of a
vessel within the range of its cannon by a foreign force is an invasion of that territory, and is a hostile act which it is its
duty to repel. But its power to secure itself from injury may certainly be exercised beyond the limits of its territory.
These means do not appear to be limited within any certain marked boundaries, which remain the same at all times
and in all situations.
As the CTA stated, it would be irrational to think that Filipino sailers manning 5 Philippine vessels to think that
they were probably not bound for a Philippine port. The vigor of the war against smuggling must not be hampered by a
misreading of international law concepts and a misplaced reliance on a constitutional guaranty that has not in any
wise been infringed.
by: RR.

Asaali Vs Commissioner (MR)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asaali Vs Commissioner (MR)

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

Asaali Vs Commissioner (MR)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asaali vs.

Commissioner of Customs (Resolution of MR)

You might also like