G.R. No. 205260 - Liwanag, Sr. y Salvador vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205260)

Procedural History

Ang Cho Kio, after conditional pardon by the President, returned to the Philippines in 1966 and was arrested by immigration authorities. The Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, issued a supplemental order recommitting him to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence. Ang Cho Kio filed a motion for reconsideration with the Executive Secretary which went unanswered and then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals (special division) affirmed that dismissal but included a recommendation that Ang Cho Kio be allowed to leave the country on the first available transportation. The Solicitor General sought certiorari relief in the Supreme Court, asking deletion of the recommendatory portions of the Court of Appeals decision.

Material Facts

Ang Cho Kio had been convicted of multiple serious offenses and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment with indemnities and damages. After serving approximately six and one-half years, he was granted a conditional pardon on July 4, 1959, conditioned on his voluntary departure from the Philippines and never returning; he accepted and left for Taipei on July 28, 1959. On June 26, 1966, he returned to Manila under the name “Ang Ming Huy,” presented a round-trip ticket with an intended onward journey, surrendered his passport for departure, registered for a short hotel stay, but later sought a 14-day extension of his transient stopover. Immigration identified him as the pardoned and deported person; he was arrested and prevented from boarding his connecting flight. The Executive Secretary, invoking Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code, ordered his recommitment to serve the unexpired sentences and eventual deportation upon expiration. Ang Cho Kio filed for habeas corpus challenging his confinement.

Issues Presented

Whether the Executive Secretary’s order of recommitment, issued by authority of the President under Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code, lawfully subjected Ang Cho Kio to continued imprisonment for violation of the condition of his conditional pardon. 2. Whether the Court of Appeals properly included a recommendation that the petitioner be allowed to leave the country on the first available transportation, and whether a court may make such a recommendation in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding without usurping or advising the Executive.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling

A special division of the Court of Appeals, by majority, affirmed the dismissal of Ang Cho Kio’s habeas corpus petition on the ground that the recommitment was effected under Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code and that the courts may not interfere with the Executive’s determination, made in the exercise of presidential prerogative, that a condition of pardon had been violated. The opinion, however, went further than necessary to dispose of the habeas petition by recommending that Ang Cho Kio be allowed to leave the country on the first available transportation and suggesting expatriation as preferable to long recommitment.

Solicitor General’s Contentions on Appeal

The Solicitor General argued that the Court of Appeals erred in including the recommendatory passage. The recommendation was urged to be extraneous to the judicial function: courts have no authority to direct or advise the Executive to deport or permit the voluntary departure of an undesirable alien lawfully recommitted to custody; deportation and decisions concerning aliens are political acts within the exclusive discretion of the Chief Executive; and the court’s recommendatory powers are limited to what Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code authorizes (reporting acts for possible penal legislation or statements regarding excessive penalties), which does not encompass recommending voluntary expatriation or deportation.

Supreme Court Majority Reasoning and Holding

The Supreme Court majority agreed with the Solicitor General that the Court of Appeals had exceeded its proper judicial role by recommending that the Executive allow the petitioner to leave the country. The Court emphasized the separation of powers: once the President, acting under Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code, determined that a condition of pardon was violated and ordered recommitment, the courts should not second-guess or advise the Executive on political acts such as deportation or voluntary exit of an alien. The only statutory locus for courts to make recommendations is Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, and the Court of Appeals’ recommendation did not fall within that limited remit. Although the majority found the recommendation improper, the Court could not grant the certiorari relief sought for deletion because the number of justices favoring deletion fell one vote short of the majority necessary to grant the petition. Consequently the petition for certiorari was denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals, including the recommendation, remained in force. The Supreme Court ordered no costs.

Concurrence (Justice Fernando)

Justice Fernando concurred fully with the opinion’s reasoning and wrote separately to emphasize the constitutional principle that the judiciary must not act as an adviser to the Executive. He reiterated precedents and authority rejecting judicial participation in advisory or administrative functions, explaining that courts should confine themselves to strictly judicial duties and avoid giving opinions or recommendations that amount to counsel to the Executive. He underscored the risk to judicial prestige, the rule of law, and institutional boundaries if judges assume nonjud

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 205260)

Case Caption, Citation and Procedural Posture

Supreme Court decision reported at 144 Phil. 439, G.R. No. L-30001, dated June 23, 1970.
Appeal by certiorari brought by the Solicitor General on behalf of the Director of Prisons and the Executive Secretary seeking deletion from the Court of Appeals' decision of the recommendation that respondent Ang Cho Kio be allowed to leave the country on the first available transportation abroad.
The relief sought by petition: "to render judgment ordering the striking out from said decision of the portions recommending to the Executive Secretary 'to allow the (petitioner) (respondent Ang Cho Kio @ Ang Ming Huy) to leave this country in the first available transportation abroad but otherwise affirming the dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus, with costs in all instances against respondent Ang Cho Kio @ Ang Ming Huy.'"

Material Facts

Respondent Ang Cho Kio (also known by many aliases including Ang Ming Huy) was charged, tried and convicted in the Philippines of multiple offenses and sentenced to combined penalties including a total of forty-five (45) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of imprisonment, indemnity and moral damages, plus an additional life imprisonment and indemnity for certain counts.
Crimes prosecuted included murder, frustrated murder, frustrated homicide, grave coercion with murder, illegal possession of explosives and ammunitions, grave coercion and illegal possession of firearm.
After serving approximately six and one-half (6½) years, Ang Cho Kio was granted a conditional pardon by the President on July 4, 1959.
Condition of the pardon required that he voluntarily leave the Philippines upon release and never return; refusal to accept the condition would result in continued service of sentence and eventual deportation as an undesirable alien.
Ang Cho Kio accepted the conditional pardon and departed for Taipei, Nationalist China on July 28, 1959.
On June 26, 1966, travelling under the name "Ang Ming Huy," Ang Cho Kio arrived at Manila International Airport from Taipei on a Philippine Air Lines flight, holding a round-trip ticket with an extensive multi-stop itinerary and booked on the earliest connecting flight to Honolulu scheduled for June 29, 1966 (approximately a 72-hour transient stopover in Manila).
Upon arrival he surrendered his passport to immigration, was issued a note scheduling departure for June 29, 1966, left his luggage at the airport (claim tags issued), registered for a three-day stay at the El Presidente Hotel in Parañaque, Rizal, and contacted two friends, Lim Pin and Go Bon Kim, who invited him to stay longer.
On June 28, 1966, at the Bureau of Immigration, Lim Pin signed a letter requesting a fourteen-day extension of stay for Ang Cho Kio; immigration inspector Mariano Cristi identified him as the same Ang Cho Kio deported in 1959.
Following identification, Ang Cho Kio was arrested by immigration authorities; they investigated his presence and did not permit him to continue to Honolulu.

Terms and Nature of the Conditional Pardon

The conditional pardon granted on July 4, 1959, remitted the unexecuted portions of the prison terms upon the express condition that the prisoner "will voluntarily leave the Philippines upon his release and never to return to this country."
The pardon expressly stated that refusal to accept the condition would result in continued service of sentence and eventual deportation as an undesirable alien.
Ang Cho Kio accepted the terms and left the country in 1959; his subsequent return in 1966 was the factual basis for the Executive's determination that the condition had been violated.

Executive Recommitment Order (Supplemental Order)

By authority of the President and pursuant to Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code, the Executive Secretary issued a supplemental order dated July 5, 1966 directing the Director of Prisons (Muntinlupa) to recommit Ang Cho Kio to serve the unexpired portions of his sentences and, upon expiration, to deliver him to the Commissioner of Immigration for immediate deportation as an undesirable alien.
The supplemental order set forth findings that Ang Cho Kio had violated the pardon condition by returning on June 26, 1966 under an assumed name (ANG MING HUY), failing to leave on the first available connecting flight, requesting a fourteen-day extension of a 72-hour transit stopover, and having applied in December 1965 for a temporary visitor's visa to Manila also under the assumed name.

Administrative and Pre-Habeas Proceedings

Ang Cho Kio filed a motion for reconsideration of the supplemental order with the Executive Secretary dated August 29, 1966; the Executive Secretary failed to act on the motion.
On October 5, 1966, Ang Cho Kio filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasay Branch), making as respondents the Director of Prisons and the Executive Secretary.
The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Prisons and the Solicitor General filed returns on October 10 and October 17, 1966 respectively.
After hearing, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision on January 31, 1967 dismissing the habeas petition, holding that the recommitment was validly ordered by the President pursuant to Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code.

Court of Appeals Decision (Special Division)

Ang Cho Kio appealed to a special division of the Court of Appeals (five-justice panel).
The Court of Appeals, in a majority opinion (three justices concurring; two concurring and dissenting), affirmed the Court of First Instance's dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus.
The majority held that Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code remained in force and that the Executive Secretary, acting by authority of the President, had exercised the presidential administrative power of recommitment; hence the courts should not interfere with the Chief Executive's determination whether a conditional pardon had been violated.
The Court of Appeals majority expressly stated settled jurisprudence that "the Chief Executive may determine, alone and by himself, whether the condition attached to a pardon given by him has been violated; and in the exercise of this prerogative, the courts may not interfere, however erroneous the findings may be."
In addition to dismissing the habeas petition, the majority included a recommendatory statement that Ang Cho Kio "be sent out at once from this country and that he be allowed to leave Muntinlupa Prisons under guard only when he has been booked for outward flight at the Manila International Airport so as to avoid the possibility of any further violation of his conditional pardon," and that expatriation would be in the best interest of national security and public peace.
The dispositive prayer of the Court of Appeals read: the petition is dismissed, with costs against the petitioner, and "with a reiteration of the recommendation to allow the petitioner to leave this country in the first available transportat