Bengzon v. Ocampo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Bureau of Immigration ordered the deportation of Mariano Chan alias Ong Lian Cho for maintaining a house of prostitution. Pending execution of the deportation order, Chan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of First Instance of Manila. Procedural History: The respondent Judge Ocampo, presiding over the Court of First Instance, granted Chan's motion for provisional release upon posting a P10,000 bond and requiring him to report to the Bureau of Immigration on specified days. The Petition: The Acting Commissioner of Immigration filed the present petition, questioning whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in granting the provisional release on bail.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of the court's jurisdiction in granting the petition of the respondent Mariano Chan for his temporary release on bail during the pendency of the habeas corpus proceeding. Whether the phrase "for the safekeeping of the person imprisoned or restrained" under Section 12, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court can be construed to mean temporary release on bail.
Ruling
The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge acted in excess of the jurisdiction of the court in releasing the respondent Mariano Chan on bail during the pendency of the habeas corpus proceeding. The order complained of was set aside with costs against Mariano Chan.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in granting bail: The Court ruled that the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction. The petition for habeas corpus was filed to question the legality of the detention and the deportation order. While Section 12, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court allows for adjournment of the hearing and orders for the "safekeeping" of the person imprisoned or restrained, this phrase cannot be interpreted to include release on bail. The Court emphasized that a person arrested or detained cannot be released on bail unless expressly granted by law. The right to bail is specifically provided for defendants in criminal cases and for persons whose release has been ordered in a habeas corpus proceeding if an appeal is taken by the detaining officer, as per Section 20 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. These exceptions do not apply to the present case involving a deportation proceeding. On the interpretation of "safekeeping" under Section 12, Rule 102: The Court clarified that the term "safekeeping" means "the act or state of keeping or being kept in safety." Releasing a person on bail is contrary to the concept of safekeeping, as it implies a release from physical custody and a potential lack of safety. Therefore, the respondent judge's order for provisional release on bail was not a valid measure for safekeeping as contemplated by the Rules of Court. The Court found no legal basis for the judge to grant bail in this context, thus constituting an act in excess of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A judge acts in excess of jurisdiction in granting a petition for provisional release on bail during the pendency of a habeas corpus proceeding concerning a deportation order, as the concept of 'safekeeping' under the Rules of Court does not permit release on bail, and the right to bail is expressly granted by law only in specific circumstances not applicable to deportation proceedings.