Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3904)
Facts:
Ko Poco v. H. B. McCoy, G.R. No. 3904, March 20, 1908, the Supreme Court, Johnson, J., writing for the Court; Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur. Petitioner Ko Poco (here petitioner and appellee) sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila on January 10, 1907, alleging unlawful detention aboard the steamship Zafiro by H. B. McCoy (respondent and appellant), Acting Collector of Customs and Acting Commissioner-General of Immigration.The petition alleged that petitioner, a native of China and a long-time resident merchant of Atimonan, Tayabas, left the Philippines April 20, 1906, carrying an immigration endorsement identifying him as a resident Chinese merchant, and returned January 8, 1907, when he was detained and denied landing on the ground that he suffered from trachoma; petitioner further alleged that the detention rested on a circular dated December 16, 1906 (effective January 1, 1907) denying landing to Chinese persons found to have contagious diseases and that such action violated section 36 of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1903 (the Immigration Act).
A writ of habeas corpus issued January 12, 1907, and respondent produced petitioner and answered that (1) petitioner arrived January 8, 1907, seeking admission; (2) Dr. Victor G. Heiser certified that petitioner had trachoma; (3) immigration officers, pursuant to section 2 of the Immigration Act, determined petitioner was an alien afflicted with a dangerous contagious disease and ordered his exclusion and deportation; and (4) petitioner was detained only so far as necessary to effect deportation.
On the record and stipulations, the trial court found that petitioner had been a resident of the Philippine Islands for over twenty-five years, conducted mercantile business for twelve years in Tayabas, possessed property and family in the Islands, and had a resident Chinese merchant certificate when he left in April 1906; it found he had trachoma on return. The trial court concluded that although the Immigration Act applied to Chinese generally, petitioner was not an alien by virtue of his long residence and therefore discharged him.
Respondent appealed to this Court, assigning error to the trial court’s factual findings and its conclusion that petitioner was not an alien and therefore not subject to exclusion under the Immigration Act. The appeal raised whether the Act applied in the Philippine Is...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the lower court err in holding that Ko Poco was not an alien within the meaning of the Immigration Act of March 3, 1903?
- Does the Immigration Act of March 3, 1903, including its exclusion of persons afflicted with contagious diseases, apply to the Philippine Islands?
- Was habeas corpus proper to overturn the administrative exclusion where immigration officers and the board of special inquiry had determined exclusion a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)