Title
Lao Gi vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 81798
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1989
Filomeno Chia, Sr.'s citizenship, declared in 1958, was revoked in 1980 over fraud allegations. Deportation proceedings followed, but courts ruled due process violations, requiring proper citizenship determination before alien registration.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 181571)

Applicable Constitutional and Statutory Framework

The Court’s decision was rendered under the constitutional and statutory framework then applicable to the Philippines, with the Immigration Act and the Deportation Rules governing deportation proceedings. The decision repeatedly cites provisions of the Immigration Act (notably Section 37(a)(1) and Section 37(c)) and various provisions of the deportation rules and the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure as the procedural standards to be observed in deportation matters.

Procedural and Factual History (Chronology)

After Opinion No. 147 (1980) revoked the 1958 citizenship recognition, a deportation charge was filed with the CID (March 1981) and later amended. The CID denied a motion to dismiss and a reconsideration (1981). Petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 59619 (dismissed April 28, 1982). Separately, Manuel Chia faced falsification charges in the CFI and was acquitted (May 5, 1982) on grounds that Opinion No. 191 had res judicata effect. The CID scheduled hearings and Acting Commissioner Nituda ordered petitioners to register as aliens (September 28, 1982). Petitioners sought injunctive relief in the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 82-12935), which issued a preliminary injunction but later dissolved it and dismissed the petition (April 17, 1985). The Court of Appeals dismissed the subsequent appeal (August 19, 1987) and denied reconsideration; petitioners then brought the present petition for certiorari to set aside the CID order of September 28, 1982.

Issues Raised by Petitioners

The petition challenged, among other things: (1) that earlier proceedings (G.R. No. 59619) raised different issues than the CFI case; (2) that the Supreme Court’s minute resolution did not categorically rule petitioners entered and remained by false pretenses; (3) that the question whether petitioners’ citizenship was obtained by fraud was the proper subject of CID proceedings where no evidence had yet been presented; (4) that petitioners were not subject to immediate deportation; (5) that the arrest order and requirement to register as aliens were premature absent a competent determination of fraud in citizenship acquisition; and (6) that the Court of Appeals exceeded its appellate jurisdiction.

CID’s Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Deportation and Citizenship

The Court held that the CID has authority to hear and determine deportation cases and, in the course of such proceedings, to resolve the question of citizenship when that question is integral to the deportation charge. Citing Section 37(a)(1) of the Immigration Act, the Court emphasized that deportation by warrant requires a prior determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the charged ground (e.g., entry by false or misleading statements or without inspection). Thus, the CID is competent to adjudicate whether the petitioners are aliens for purposes of deportation.

Requirements for Filing and Hearing Deportation Charges

The Court reiterated statutory and procedural safeguards: an alien must be informed of the specific grounds for deportation and must be afforded a hearing under rules prescribed by the Commissioner (Section 37(c)). A deportation charge must state the acts or omissions in ordinary and concise language so an ordinary person can understand the basis for deportation and so the CID can render a proper judgment. Opinion No. 191 (1958) and Opinion No. 147 (1980) are relevant evidentiary materials that the CID may weigh in resolving citizenship questions.

Prerequisite to Requiring Registration as an Alien

The Court stressed that the Commissioner’s power to require an individual to register as an alien is lawful only when predicated on a prior positive finding that the person is in fact an alien. Where citizenship itself is the contested issue, the CID must first determine alienage before ordering registration. The Court therefore found that the order requiring petitioners to register as aliens depended on a prior determination that had not yet been lawfully made.

Due Process Protections and Applicability of Procedural Rules

Although deportation is an administrative and not strictly criminal action, the Court recognized it as a harsh, extraordinary measure affecting individual liberty and therefore subject to constitutional due process protections. The Court held that provisions of the Rules of Court, particularly criminal procedure rules, apply to deportation proceedings to safeguard due process. The decision specifies applicable procedural requirements cited in the deportation rules and the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, including the need for preliminary

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms