QuestionsQuestions (BI MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. MCL-07-003)
It specified that nationals of India and China (PROC) were not included among those countries with agreements that abolish entry visas or allow visa-free entry under existing laws, rules, and regulations.
The text states that Indian and Chinese (PROC) nationals were considered high-risked/restricted nationals pursuant to DFA Foreign Service Circular issued in 1960.
BI delisted Indian and Chinese (PROC) nationals from the high-risk/restricted category and reclassified them to the visa and/or visa-required category. The legal effect is a change in the immigration visa policy applicable to those nationals.
It cited that over time circumstances changed and it became widely accepted that these nationals were no longer threats to Philippine national security, public health, and public safety; it also noted that they were recognized as reputable businessmen who invested and contributed to the economy.
BI discussed with and solicited inputs from the DOJ, DFA, DOLE, DOT, and NICA. These agencies unanimously agreed to the delisting and reclassification, finding no legal impediment or threat to national security, public health, and public safety.
It expressly states that the consulted agencies agreed there was no legal impediment or threat to national security, public health, and public safety, and that these were key considerations for delisting and reclassification.
BI’s memorandum addressed the BI’s classification for Indian and Chinese (PROC) nationals. While DFA’s later circular (2005) addressed visa-free/visa-abolition agreements, BI’s issuance adjusted the BI’s high-risk/restricted classification and set the nationals to the visa/visa-required category.
It means any prior BI issuances or other inconsistent rules are treated as withdrawn and without effect to the extent of inconsistency, ensuring that the new delisting/reclassification policy governs.
The “WHEREAS” clauses provide factual and legal basis (authority, prior DFA policies, consultation, justification), while the “NOW, THEREFORE” clause is the operative rule that delists and reclassifies the affected nationals. This structure supports validity and clarity of the rule.
BI Commissioner Marcelino C. Libanan signed it, and the DOJ Acting Secretary Agnes Vst Devanadera approved it. It implies that while BI issued the memorandum pursuant to its authority, DOJ approval reflects oversight and inter-agency alignment.
It reflects administrative discretion exercised by BI under its rule-making power to adjust immigration classification based on changing circumstances and inter-agency assessments, while still regulating admission through visa requirements.
It serves as an indication of due consideration and that multiple departments assessed national security and public safety implications. While not necessarily a statutory requirement stated here, it supports rational basis for the policy change.
They would no longer be treated as high-risk/restricted under that specific category, but they would still be subject to visa requirements (and potentially visa application procedures and conditions) rather than visa-free admission.