G.R. No. 73722 - Commissioner of Customs vs. K.M.K. Gani

Petitioners: The Director of Prisons and the Executive Secretary of the Philippines
Respondent: Ang Cho Kio @ Ang Ming Huy
The case is a petition for certiorari filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of the petitioners to challenge a specific portion of the Court of Appeals decision that recommended allowing the respondent to leave the Philippines.

Ang Cho Kio was charged, tried, and convicted of multiple serious offenses in the Philippines, including murder, frustrated murder, frustrated homicide, grave coercion with murder, illegal possession of explosives and ammunitions, grave coercion, and illegal possession of a firearm.
He was sentenced to serve a total imprisonment of 45 years, 10 months, and 21 days plus indemnities and moral damages, and also received a life imprisonment sentence with indemnity.
Ang Cho Kio served six and a half years of his sentence before being granted a conditional pardon by the President on July 4, 1959.
The conditional pardon order explicitly required him to leave the Philippines voluntarily upon release and never return; refusal to accept these conditions meant serving the full sentence and eventual deportation as an undesirable alien.
Ang Cho Kio accepted the conditional pardon and left the Philippines for Taipei (Nationalist China) on July 28, 1959.

On June 26, 1966, Ang Cho Kio returned to Manila International Airport under an assumed name ("Ang Ming Huy").
He held a round-trip ticket covering multiple international destinations, with Manila as a transit point, and planned to take the earliest connecting flight to Honolulu on June 29, 1966.
He surrendered his passport and was allowed to stay for three days at a hotel in Paranaque.
With the help of two friends, Ang Cho Kio requested a 14-day extension of stay in the Philippines.
Immigration Inspector Mariano Cristi identified him as the pardoned and deported Ang Cho Kio, leading to his arrest and investigation.
He was not allowed to proceed with his journey and was effectively detained at the airport.

On July 5, 1966, the Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, ordered the recommitment of Ang Cho Kio to prison to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence for violating the condition of his pardon.
The supplemental order stated that Ang Cho Kio violated his conditional pardon by:

The order directed that after serving the sentence, he should be deported immediately as an undesirable alien.

Ang Cho Kio filed a motion for reconsideration dated August 29, 1966, which was not acted upon.
He then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 5, 1966, to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, alleging illegal detention.
The CFI dismissed the habeas corpus petition on January 31, 1967, ruling that the recommitment was valid under the President’s prerogative pursuant to Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code.
Ang Cho Kio appealed to the Court of Appeals. The special division (five justices) affirmed the CFI dismissal, holding that the President’s exercise of his power of recommitment under Section 64(i) was valid and not subject to judicial interference.
However, the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals included a non-binding recommendation that Ang Cho Kio be allowed to leave the country on the first available flight under guard to avoid further violation of his pardon condition and for national security reasons.
Two justices concurred in the dismissal but dissented from the recommendation to allow him to leave.
The Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration to strike out the recommendation, which was denied by the Court of Appeals by a 3-2 vote.

The Solicitor General elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the propriety and legality of the Court of Appeals’ recommendation that Ang Cho Kio be allowed to leave the Philippines.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a recommendation to allow Ang Cho Kio to leave the country despite his lawful recommitment to prison by reason of violation of a conditional pardon.
Whether the judiciary may interfere or suggest modifications in the exercise of the executive’s political powers, specifically the President’s prerogative to recommit a pardoned prisoner who violated the conditions of his pardon.
Whether the recommendation of the Court of Appeals forms part of its binding decision or constitutes harmless and permissible expression of opinion.