Chan Yick Sam v. Prosecuting Attorney
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose when the prosecuting attorney of Manila, acting as an agent for the Governor-General, initiated an investigation into Chan Yick Sam, a foreigner residing in the Philippine Islands. The investigation was based on Act No. 2113 and concerned charges of inciting actions against the safety, welfare, and peace of the Chinese community and being a person subject to deportation. 2. Procedural History: Chan Yick Sam commenced an original action in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking a writ of prohibition against the prosecuting attorney to halt the investigation. The defendant filed a demurrer, which the Honorable Charles S. Lobingier, judge, sustained, denying the writ and basing his decision on Act No. 2113. The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Supreme Court after a motion for reconsideration was denied. 3. The Petition: The petition sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the prosecuting attorney from conducting an investigation ordered by the Governor-General under Act No. 2113. The plaintiff argued that the investigation and potential deportation were unlawful. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Governor-General had the authority to deport foreigners under Act No. 2113, provided due process, including prior investigation and hearing, was followed, referencing the case of Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in sustaining the demurrer and denying the writ of prohibition to stop the Prosecuting Attorney from conducting a deportation investigation authorized under Act No. 2113.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court sustaining the demurrer and denying the writ of prohibition, with costs. The Court found that the act sought to be enjoined was discretionary and that the petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the writ of prohibition was properly denied because the Prosecuting Attorney was acting within the lawful scope of his authority as the designated agent of the Governor-General under Act No. 2113. The Court observed that the statute expressly provides the Governor-General with the power to deport foreigners following a 'prior investigation' where the respondent is granted a hearing, informed of charges, and given at least three days to prepare a defense. Applying the precedent in W. Cameron Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco, the Court reaffirmed that the Executive holds broad power to exclude or expel aliens whose presence is detrimental to the public good. Since the notice served on Chan Yick Sam clearly outlined these procedural rights—including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense—it complied with the 'due process of law' mandated by the legislature. The Court reasoned that the judiciary cannot restrain an administrative officer from performing a duty that is both authorized by law and discretionary in nature. Consequently, because the petition did not demonstrate that the Prosecuting Attorney was acting without jurisdiction or in excess of his authority, the demurrer was correctly sustained for failure to state a cause of action. The Court concluded that the administrative process must be allowed to proceed as intended by Act No. 2113 without judicial interference at the investigative stage.
Main Doctrine
The Court sustained the demurrer to a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to enjoin the prosecuting attorney from conducting an investigation ordered by the Governor-General, pursuant to Act No. 2113, finding that the act sought to be enjoined was discretionary and that the petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.