G.R. No. L-4352 - Borovsky vs. Commissioner of Immigration

Victor A. Borovsky claims to be a stateless citizen, born in Shanghai, China, of Russian parentage.
He arrived in the Philippines in 1936 and established residence, with the period of his detention being included in his continuous stay.

On June 24, 1946, the Commissioner of Immigration ordered Borovsky’s arrest for investigation into his past activities.
A deportation warrant was issued by the Deportation Board based on findings that he was an undesirable alien, characterized as a vagrant, habitual drunkard, and purportedly involved in espionage.
The petitioner protested the absence of a pre-arrest hearing and lack of information regarding the specific charges against him, though this procedural issue was considered unimportant in the matter at hand.

In May 1947, Borovsky was embarked on a ship bound for Shanghai. However, upon arrival, he was not admitted because he was not considered a national of China and lacked a requisite entry visa.
Consequently, he was returned to Manila and confined in the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa.
On December 8, 1947, he was granted provisional release by the President through the Secretary of Justice for a six-month period.

Before the expiration of his provisional release, on March 20, 1948, the Commissioner of Immigration rearrested Borovsky, and he continued to be held in confinement.
During his provisional release, immigration officials made concrete efforts to deport him, including an attempt to send him on a Russian vessel when it called at Cebu.

The deportation could not be carried out as the captain of the Russian boat declined to embark him on the grounds that he lacked permission from the Russian government.

Over time, despite such efforts, the government was unable to complete the deportation, and his detention extended well beyond the initially contemplated period.

This case represents the second petition for habeas corpus following a previous decision promulgated on June 30, 1949, which had denied his petition.
Despite the government’s continuous initiatives to enforce the deportation order, logistical, diplomatic, and transportation difficulties prevented the actual removal of the petitioner from the country.

Whether detention of the petitioner pending deportation, when the deportation order has been issued but remains unexecuted due to logistical and diplomatic obstacles, is justified under the law.
Whether prolonging the detention infringes upon the petitioner’s right to due process and protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty, as enshrined in the Constitution and international human rights instruments.

Whether the absence of a period fixed for the execution of the deportation order (i.e., the "reasonable time" standard) renders the detention arbitrary and therefore unlawful.
Whether the government’s practice of detention for undesirable aliens, pending the availability of transportation or diplomatic arrangements, aligns with established legal precedents.

Whether the principles articulated in American cases (e.g., U. S. vs. Nichols and Staniszewski vs. Watkins) and international declarations (e.g., the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) are applicable and determinative in assessing the lawfulness of the petitioner’s detention in the Philippine context.