Po v. Commissioner of Immigration
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rosario Po departed the Philippines in 1940 for Shanghai to pursue studies, carrying a Special Returning Certificate No. 45152. She returned to the Philippines on October 8, 1947, and was admitted as a "temporary visitor." Her stay was extended several times, with the last extension expiring on April 18, 1949. Procedural History: Upon failure to leave the country by April 18, 1949, a warrant of arrest was issued, and deportation proceedings were instituted. The Board of Commissioners ordered her deportation to Hongkong on July 21, 1949. Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the proceedings to allow her to adduce evidence for a change of status from temporary visitor to returning resident, which was denied on July 30, 1949. A warrant of deportation was issued on April 17, 1950. The Petition: On September 11, 1954, the First Deputy Commissioner ordered the correction of Rosario Po's status from temporary visitor to returning resident. However, after a hearing, the Commissioner of Immigration denied the motion to reopen to present further evidence for a change of status, citing the procedure requiring applicants to present themselves at appropriate Consulates abroad for investigation and issuance of visas. The Court of First Instance declared the deportation order null and void, ruling that her admission as a temporary visitor was erroneous given her Special Returning Certificate and that her failure to return in 1946 due to illness did not constitute relinquishment of her intention to return. The Commissioner appealed this decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the admission of petitioner-appellee as a temporary visitor was erroneous. Whether the action of the respondent setting aside the order of the First Deputy Commissioner changing the status of the petitioner from temporary visitor to permanent resident was valid. Whether the preliminary injunction granted to the petitioner should be made permanent.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, declared the order of deportation valid, and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the order of deportation of petitioner-appellee Rosario Po should be affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of erroneous admission as a temporary visitor: The Court held that the admission of petitioner-appellee as a temporary visitor was not erroneous in light of the law and established procedure. Section 9(g) of Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended by Republic Act No. 503, clearly states that an alien admitted as a nonimmigrant cannot remain permanently in the Philippines. To obtain permanent admission, a nonimmigrant alien must depart voluntarily to a foreign country, procure the proper visa from the appropriate Philippine consul, and undergo examination by immigration officers at a Philippine port of entry. The petitioner, having departed in 1940 and returned in 1947, should have followed this procedure, even if she possessed a special returning certificate, as her admission was explicitly as a temporary visitor. The Court emphasized that the proceedings for the admission of a temporary visitor are summary and do not require the rigorous examination and documentation necessary for returning residents. The petitioner's entry, therefore, was without the proper documentation and examination required by law and rules, and such an entry cannot be legalized by judicial action in violation of express legal provisions. The Court reiterated that returning residents are not above the law and their circumvention of legal requirements should not be permitted by courts. On the validity of setting aside the order changing the status: The Court found that the Commissioner of Immigration acted correctly in denying the motion to reopen the case for a change of status. The Board of Commissioners' resolution denying the motion was based on the established procedure that requires applicants to present themselves at appropriate Consulates abroad for investigation and issuance of visas. The First Deputy Commissioner's order changing the status was effectively set aside by the subsequent resolution of the Board, which correctly applied the law and regulations governing immigration. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's attempt to change her status from a temporary visitor to a returning resident after her period of stay had expired and after deportation proceedings had commenced was an attempt to circumvent the law. The Court pointed out that the petitioner's failure to return in 1946 due to illness, while acknowledged, did not automatically grant her the status of a returning resident without adhering to the prescribed immigration procedures upon her actual return in 1947. The Court stressed that judicial action should not validate an illegal entry or an attempt to circumvent legal requirements. On the permanence of the preliminary injunction: Given that the deportation order was found to be valid and the petitioner's admission as a temporary visitor was in accordance with law, the preliminary injunction that prohibited the Commissioner of Immigration from enforcing the deportation order was deemed to have been improvidently granted. The Court concluded that the lower court erred in declaring the deportation order null and void and in making the injunction permanent. The Supreme Court's role as guardians of the law necessitates upholding the integrity of immigration laws and procedures, preventing aliens from illegally circumventing these requirements. Therefore, the injunction was dissolved, and the deportation order was upheld.
Main Doctrine
An alien admitted as a nonimmigrant cannot remain in the Philippines permanently. To obtain permanent admission, a nonimmigrant alien must depart voluntarily to some foreign country and procure from the appropriate Philippine consul the proper visa and thereafter undergo examination by the officers of the Bureau of Immigration at a Philippine port of entry for determination of his admissibility in accordance with law.